Re:Keyboard shortcuts are better than scroll wheel
on
20 Years of Photoshop
·
· Score: 1
Out of curiosity, why would you use the scroll wheel to change a value? Most values like transparency or opacity can be quickly changed by hitting numbers on the keyboard. I'd much rather hit 5 to set the opacity of my brush to 50% rather than scroll half way through the spinner. To each their own but if you're using Photoshop all day, using a scroll wheel to change values seems terribly inefficient.
Lots of people say the problem with the Mac is that it has no applications. The truth is that the mac and Apple is often is one of the first to get truly revolutionary enabling applications. Think Visicalc. Think Photoshop. Think MacWrite. Think Excel. The iPhone is the same thing.
This is not to say that the PC does not have a greater number of applications, but when one thinks of what is able to be cheaply done on a computer, one thinks of a Visicalc, PhotoShop, page layout, etc.
I think for the same money, I could buy a just about as fast PC, with an extra monitor and a photoshop license. Oh wait, I think I did.
Not being a graphics designer, I never liked Photoshop which was too slow, bloated and complicated (and expensive) for my simple uses. In my Windows days, I first found Paint Shop Pro (of which I still have some prehistoric version somewhere), and finally ended up mostly using IrfanView and XnView, + occasionally PhotoFiltre.
While I'm sure Photoshop is a fantastic program for professionals, let's try a list of things normal users (like myself) mainly need in a graphics program:
- Rotate (losslessly for Jpeg)
- Resize
- Crop
- Print
- Convert to another format (Save as)
- Adjust brightness, contrast, white balance
Then maybe
- Edit metadata (Jpeg comments, Exif description, maybe IPTC tags)
- rarely convert a color scan to black and white.
- and maybe once or twice a year add something on a picture like text or a circle etc.
Obviously, Photoshop is really too much for this.
For Windows users, I know what to recommend (usually XnView; + PhotoFiltre if needed)
But I still don't know what to use on my Ubuntu desktop which has been my main machine for over 6 months. The Gimp feels just like Photoshop: too heavy and complicated (though the price is fine), and all the others I tried too limited (gThumb and the like). Is there a gem I missed somewhere?
Photoshop Lightroom sounds like a good fit for you, with Gimp used only for the above mentioned text or circle adding duties. Used copies abound, and older versions should drop in price when 3 comes out in a few months (guessing based on expiration of public beta)
Through observation of the universe, scientists have seen design in the way things work
[citation needed]
Your assertion that they have a religious belief is not science (because it is a belief that is beyond what natural evidence provides, hence "super-natural", hence a religious "faith" belief, as opposed to testable assertion).
Show ANY test that can prove it. ANY. ONE. TEST.
Stupid fundies.
I love how hung up you are on tests, how about we examine the fossil record. Is that enough test for you? Why did all the animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. Isn't evolution supposed to take a long time? Or do you subscribe to some other belief? Will you try to dodge the question again, or will you answer? Or will you simply insult me again?
No they don't. There is zero evidence that "things were set into specific roles." Any such evidence would be major news.
Like the fact that scientists believe the universe was designed.
"Believe" == no proof, just a belief.
In other words, even by your own statement, scientists have zero proof that the universe was designed.
Proof:
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
I believe I made this point before. Through observation of the universe, scientists have seen design in the way things work. It's proof to them, your refusal to accept it doesn't make it less valid. Cherry-Picking. What is it you believe anyhow? What is it based on?
We still discover Shipwrecks and sunken cruisers from earlier eras in the same intact position as they sunk - I have no reason to doubt a mine could last that long. You need Oxygen to rust, and while there is obviously a lot of it inside an H20 ocean, it doesn't have the C02 that usually helps pump out fast oxidizing.
Your car sitting outside with the wind and the rain and polution will rust much faster than a ship at the bottom of the ocean.
Still, either one would come to a stop faster then a prius...
Your inability to understand does not make it less rational.
You use that word, but you don't understand what it means.
Look up the meaning of rational.
Here's the first definition I found: "having reason or understanding". If it is beyond reason or understanding, it is by definition NOT rational.
The whole creation + adam and eve + original sin + god condemns us + jesus saves (s, which team is he the goalie for) is irrational.
Hey look, I can pull dictionary too.
1: Having or exercising the ability to reason. 2: Consistent with or based on reason; logical
Irrational is refusing to see the design inherent in the universe. Scientists themselves observe the earth, solar system, weather patterns, and etcetera. They see how things were set into specific roles with specific laws, and they themselves see design, and not big bang or evolution. Irrational is cherry-picking only what you want to hear, and suppressing all other viewpoints to suite your own purposes. Thus you take the *reasoning* out of it.
Try looking up "reason" as well, I particularly find this definition well suited:
An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence.
Like the fact that scientists believe the universe was designed.
Yeah, the same with coal becoming a diamond, or a molecule that can exists in three states, or making a transparent window out of sand. It's magic because I don't understand it.
I'm sorry, my sarcasm detector is seems to be on the fritz today, but did you just admit to being a complete moron in a public forum? The problems with your examples is that there are many, many people who not only do understand how they work, but can reproduce the results at will - over and over and over again.
And yet there was a time when they didn't understand the processes involved, and would have made the same argument. Your inability to understand does not make it less rational. Also, the glass made from sand, is actually made from high amounts of silica in the sand. Just because the Bible didn't include all the details that wouldn't have made sense to man back then, (and possibly even now), it gets disregarded outright?
Have you created a sentient/self-aware being from scratch? Do you know how it's done? If not, who are you say it's wrong? In fact, who are you? You refuse to post under your name.
Creationism means that people descend from a dude missing a rib who was sculpted from mud. It's not only incompatible with evolution, it's incompatible with rational thought.
Yeah, the same with coal becoming a diamond, or a molecule that can exists in three states, or making a transparent window out of sand. It's magic because I don't understand it. Why don't you go hunt for a witch?
If we could get that one on to the Texas high school science curriculum, or into their high school
libraries, it might go a long way in putting this debate in the proper perspective for
confused Texan students.
This is a great idea, because anyone who disagrees with you is confused.
Some people believe that the world is flat, too. The 'some people' rubric flatly flies in the face of the fact that faith-based (Genesis-based) creationism doesn't agree at all with evidence that science has found.
As usual, a science sided fellow makes a blanket statement without any reference whatsoever. Either you don't know and are blindly believing what other people tell you, or it's a flimsy argument that you don't want people picking apart in front of your eyes.
(to be fair, some creationist/intel design fellows do the same)
Scanned the drive in another machine and it detected atapi.sys as having a trojan. I restored it from/i386 and it came right up. I never thought it was connectd with the xp problems. Microsoft didn't do a evil thing who would have knew.
You mean Microsoft didn't have evil intentions in this area of the patch. Bad idea to make a blanket statement based on one area of patch.
I thought the solution was,
1:boot to cmd prompt
2: type format c:
3: press "y" when prompted
4: insert ubuntu live CD
5: follow on screen prompts for installation
6:...
7: Profit!
Me thinks you confuse "techie" with "Guru". Techies can fix alot of random problems, but "Gurus" tend to have a broad and deep understanding in their area. I myself am a half Guru. I have the broad understanding, but I still have to research for the deep things.
Keep an eye out for open bedroom windows in the evening hours, you might catch a glimpse of some heavenly bodies. There's also the chance of some not so heavenly bodies, some as damaging to your eyes as the sun. So viewer beware!
Aha! Interesting - thanks for that. There are always some sneaky people out there. I would have never thought of doing that (not only am I not sneaky enough, I'm not evil enough either).
Hi! I'm from Google! I noticed the last part of your comment, and I would like to offer you employment!
Slashdot Mirror
Out of curiosity, why would you use the scroll wheel to change a value? Most values like transparency or opacity can be quickly changed by hitting numbers on the keyboard. I'd much rather hit 5 to set the opacity of my brush to 50% rather than scroll half way through the spinner. To each their own but if you're using Photoshop all day, using a scroll wheel to change values seems terribly inefficient.
I use an Intuos you insensitive clod!
Lots of people say the problem with the Mac is that it has no applications. The truth is that the mac and Apple is often is one of the first to get truly revolutionary enabling applications. Think Visicalc. Think Photoshop. Think MacWrite. Think Excel. The iPhone is the same thing.
This is not to say that the PC does not have a greater number of applications, but when one thinks of what is able to be cheaply done on a computer, one thinks of a Visicalc, PhotoShop, page layout, etc.
I think for the same money, I could buy a just about as fast PC, with an extra monitor and a photoshop license. Oh wait, I think I did.
Not being a graphics designer, I never liked Photoshop which was too slow, bloated and complicated (and expensive) for my simple uses. In my Windows days, I first found Paint Shop Pro (of which I still have some prehistoric version somewhere), and finally ended up mostly using IrfanView and XnView, + occasionally PhotoFiltre.
While I'm sure Photoshop is a fantastic program for professionals, let's try a list of things normal users (like myself) mainly need in a graphics program:
- Rotate (losslessly for Jpeg) - Resize - Crop - Print - Convert to another format (Save as) - Adjust brightness, contrast, white balance
Then maybe - Edit metadata (Jpeg comments, Exif description, maybe IPTC tags) - rarely convert a color scan to black and white. - and maybe once or twice a year add something on a picture like text or a circle etc.
Obviously, Photoshop is really too much for this.
For Windows users, I know what to recommend (usually XnView; + PhotoFiltre if needed)
But I still don't know what to use on my Ubuntu desktop which has been my main machine for over 6 months. The Gimp feels just like Photoshop: too heavy and complicated (though the price is fine), and all the others I tried too limited (gThumb and the like). Is there a gem I missed somewhere?
Photoshop Lightroom sounds like a good fit for you, with Gimp used only for the above mentioned text or circle adding duties. Used copies abound, and older versions should drop in price when 3 comes out in a few months (guessing based on expiration of public beta)
Can anyone post system requirements for those of us unable to reach particular sites?
I for one welcome our zerg..."You need more Overlords".
[citation needed]
Your assertion that they have a religious belief is not science (because it is a belief that is beyond what natural evidence provides, hence "super-natural", hence a religious "faith" belief, as opposed to testable assertion).
Show ANY test that can prove it. ANY. ONE. TEST.
Stupid fundies.
I love how hung up you are on tests, how about we examine the fossil record. Is that enough test for you? Why did all the animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. Isn't evolution supposed to take a long time? Or do you subscribe to some other belief? Will you try to dodge the question again, or will you answer? Or will you simply insult me again?
there was a time when they didn't understand the processes involved, and would have made the same argument.
So when you do understand, come back and let us know. Until you do, guess what? Not science.
The more relevant issue at hand is not whether creationism is true, the issue is whether or not it is science, and it's clearly not.
Wow. Just wow. You don't care about truth, just science. That's just profound.
No they don't. There is zero evidence that "things were set into specific roles." Any such evidence would be major news.
"Believe" == no proof, just a belief.
In other words, even by your own statement, scientists have zero proof that the universe was designed.
Proof:
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
I believe I made this point before. Through observation of the universe, scientists have seen design in the way things work. It's proof to them, your refusal to accept it doesn't make it less valid. Cherry-Picking. What is it you believe anyhow? What is it based on?
If only it was so profitable to remove landmines and stop them from performing their gruesome task.
Yes, but all attempts to get the landmine unions to strike have failed explosively.
We still discover Shipwrecks and sunken cruisers from earlier eras in the same intact position as they sunk - I have no reason to doubt a mine could last that long. You need Oxygen to rust, and while there is obviously a lot of it inside an H20 ocean, it doesn't have the C02 that usually helps pump out fast oxidizing.
Your car sitting outside with the wind and the rain and polution will rust much faster than a ship at the bottom of the ocean.
Still, either one would come to a stop faster then a prius...
You use that word, but you don't understand what it means.
Look up the meaning of rational.
Here's the first definition I found: "having reason or understanding". If it is beyond reason or understanding, it is by definition NOT rational.
The whole creation + adam and eve + original sin + god condemns us + jesus saves (s, which team is he the goalie for) is irrational.
Hey look, I can pull dictionary too.
1: Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2: Consistent with or based on reason; logical
Irrational is refusing to see the design inherent in the universe. Scientists themselves observe the earth, solar system, weather patterns, and etcetera. They see how things were set into specific roles with specific laws, and they themselves see design, and not big bang or evolution. Irrational is cherry-picking only what you want to hear, and suppressing all other viewpoints to suite your own purposes. Thus you take the *reasoning* out of it.
Try looking up "reason" as well, I particularly find this definition well suited:
An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence.
Like the fact that scientists believe the universe was designed.
Yeah, the same with coal becoming a diamond, or a molecule that can exists in three states, or making a transparent window out of sand. It's magic because I don't understand it.
I'm sorry, my sarcasm detector is seems to be on the fritz today, but did you just admit to being a complete moron in a public forum? The problems with your examples is that there are many, many people who not only do understand how they work, but can reproduce the results at will - over and over and over again.
And yet there was a time when they didn't understand the processes involved, and would have made the same argument. Your inability to understand does not make it less rational. Also, the glass made from sand, is actually made from high amounts of silica in the sand. Just because the Bible didn't include all the details that wouldn't have made sense to man back then, (and possibly even now), it gets disregarded outright?
Have you created a sentient/self-aware being from scratch? Do you know how it's done? If not, who are you say it's wrong? In fact, who are you? You refuse to post under your name.
Creationism means that people descend from a dude missing a rib who was sculpted from mud. It's not only incompatible with evolution, it's incompatible with rational thought.
Yeah, the same with coal becoming a diamond, or a molecule that can exists in three states, or making a transparent window out of sand. It's magic because I don't understand it. Why don't you go hunt for a witch?
If we could get that one on to the Texas high school science curriculum, or into their high school libraries, it might go a long way in putting this debate in the proper perspective for confused Texan students.
This is a great idea, because anyone who disagrees with you is confused.
Some people believe that the world is flat, too. The 'some people' rubric flatly flies in the face of the fact that faith-based (Genesis-based) creationism doesn't agree at all with evidence that science has found.
As usual, a science sided fellow makes a blanket statement without any reference whatsoever. Either you don't know and are blindly believing what other people tell you, or it's a flimsy argument that you don't want people picking apart in front of your eyes.
(to be fair, some creationist/intel design fellows do the same)
Scanned the drive in another machine and it detected atapi.sys as having a trojan. I restored it from /i386 and it came right up. I never thought it was connectd with the xp problems. Microsoft didn't do a evil thing who would have knew.
You mean Microsoft didn't have evil intentions in this area of the patch. Bad idea to make a blanket statement based on one area of patch.
I thought the solution was, 1:boot to cmd prompt 2: type format c: 3: press "y" when prompted 4: insert ubuntu live CD 5: follow on screen prompts for installation 6:... 7: Profit!
Me thinks you confuse "techie" with "Guru". Techies can fix alot of random problems, but "Gurus" tend to have a broad and deep understanding in their area. I myself am a half Guru. I have the broad understanding, but I still have to research for the deep things.
Which is why instead of upgrading my trail version of Windows 7 I'm switching to Ubuntu 9.10.
From everything I read on Slashdot, Ubuntu IS the windows 7 upgrade.
Found my own answer, if vgchartz.com is correct.
Starcraft 1 sales 12million. Diablo2 sales 5million.
Guess I'm just going to have to wait.
That, and they're still negotiating a new contract with the Devil.
But for the most case the need for LAN parties isn't really that big anymore.
I have NEEDS you insensitive clod!
Keep an eye out for open bedroom windows in the evening hours, you might catch a glimpse of some heavenly bodies. There's also the chance of some not so heavenly bodies, some as damaging to your eyes as the sun. So viewer beware!
They know ctrl+alt+del and unplugging and plugging it back in.
Half the techies I work with can't remember unplugging and plugging it back in. You really think the general user remembers that much?
Aha! Interesting - thanks for that. There are always some sneaky people out there. I would have never thought of doing that (not only am I not sneaky enough, I'm not evil enough either).
Hi! I'm from Google! I noticed the last part of your comment, and I would like to offer you employment!
So, um, situation normal, then?
Not Quite, they've solved the problem of "unexpected shutdowns" by removing the "unexpected". They just scheduled them so you know what to expect.