Hmm... I see where you're going with this. That said, I think there's multiple reasons to arrest a kiddie porn enthusiast. Obviously, it's a good thing to remove the financial base from the distributors, but it's also good to send a message that this bullshit is NOT to be tolerated. I know parents (and I'm one) who'd want to destroy a person for abusing their kids this way, so in reality, a prison sentence and the associated "rehabilitation" should be preferable. The fact is, enjoying child porn is wrong, period, and it's one of those "wrong" things that isn't just wrong, it's fucked way the hell up, with reasons ranging from the actual exploitation of the children to the financial support of the distributors to the fact that every time the content is viewed is another violation of the kid in the picture.
There are a lot of crimes that I'm pretty ambivalent about; child porn isn't one of them. You wanna smoke weed, snort coke, or shoot heroin? Have at. It's kinda fun, for a bit, just be careful and don't hurt yourself or anyone else. But every time a kid gets looked at through pedophile eyes, in pics or in person, that kid gets their innocence raped again. I applaud the court's decision as it better defines those pedophile eyes.
If you're a savvy enough pedophile to view the image from your browser cache, you're also likely savvy enough to cover your tracks. Viewing from the cache is no more difficult than than moving all incriminating evidence to a disposable thumb drive, and even having it in the cache is a clue to law enforcement, whether or not it's actual admissible evidence. I don't think this law is creating any "exploits" that don't already exist.
Agreed, completely, and the problem is not just the laws, it's also about a lack of complete discretion is potentially life-changing (or ruining). If you act to stop a crime, and the public hears about it, normally you'd be considered a hero. But with the case of child porn, it seems the immediate thought is "well, what were YOU doing looking at it, you creepy creeper!?!?" I think that child porn is such a hot button issue (and rightfully so) that it's not something a normal, rational person would want to ever, ever be involved with, even in an attempt to stop abuses. I think that needs to change in order to stop it. I'm not saying we should all go kiddie porn hunting to crusade for the righteous, but I am saying something needs to be done to shift the public mindset from "he saw it, he's guilty too!" to "man, I'm glad I didn't have to see it but props to that guy for reporting it." Maybe this is the first step.
Personally, it feels pretty easy. My gut tells me that rape is horrible, murder is disgusting, pedophilia is terrifying, and child porn is twisted, all to similar degrees. I should be able to report evidence of any of the 4 without the police or the public looking at me with shifty eyes, but in the public eye, reporting child porn means you SAW child porn, which means you're a pervert, too. Even those cops that DO crawl the internet looking for abuses are smart enough to keep their identities hidden; I sure as hell wouldn't want people knowing I stare at naked kids all day, even if it's for honorable intentions.
The only "child porn" I've ever witnessed was a co-worker showing me cartoons of "The Incredibles" family all banging each other. Pretty graphic, but hey, it's a cartoon. Still gave me a really oogy feeling and I wondered a bit at what the fuck else my co-worker was in to. I don't know if that'd qualify as something legally nefarious or not, but I DID know it was fucked right the hell up. Rather than call him out on it I felt it the wiser course, socially and perhaps legally, was also the cowardly one, and just told him "not interested, buddy." and ignored it. If that same thing happens for something that is clearly child porn, it's a bad thing, as a crime just went unreported.
Oh, and if you ever got tricked by goatse or 2-girls-one-cup, then you could just as easily be tricked by a child porn link, so this judgement is something that was sorely needed.
I had a hell of a time parsing that sentence too (yay for another "whether or not" string of confusion). But he's basically saying "Your intent is factored in when a court makes its decision."
How many of the successful hijackings that you reference crashed into buildings? How many bullet trains have exploded? How many bridges have been bombed? How many terrorists have sunk ocean liners? How many times have they blown up Disney World? Or any of thousands of other places where infidels gather in great crowds?
Even in the aggregate, deaths due to terrorism pale in comparison to just traffic accidents alone. Would taking into account the "success effect" quintuple these deaths? Even if so, it STILL wouldn't come close to heart disease. The point is not that the "honor system" would be perfect; the point is screening for terrorists has horribly diminishing returns and there are far more efficient places to put the resources.
Besides, terrorists aren't after kill ratios; they're after fear. Every person that goes through a scanner proves they've won.
I think it's funny that the GP quoted Star Trek, when Star Trek also states that a man should not sacrifices his personal morals for any reason. How many episodes showed Kirk or Spock (or Picard etc) finding miraculous ways to avoid the easy or immoral way out and still save everybody?
The needs of the many do NOT outweigh the needs of the few, but the needs of the many are just as important as the needs of the few. You stated the proper way, but it's also the hardest way. It's worth the effort.
Absolutely correct. It's really a case of the specifics over-ruling the generals. Every case is going to have its own details to consider; otherwise, we could just use an old Macintosh computer as the judge for the entire justice department.:)
Well, there's two ways to interpret "hearsay" testimony. In general terms, it's "witness overheard suspect say something damaging" which is actually just fine for evidence, though it would probably be more useful in support of physical evidence than as anything truly damning.
The narrower, thrown out of court, version of hearsay is when a third or even fourth party gets involved, such as Johnny being told by Jimmy that Joe said he killed James. It's silly to use Johnny as a witness; there's simply too many people involved. On the other hand, pulling Jimmy in as a witness is much more direct, and should be admissible as evidence.
I think that movies and tv shows etc have bastardized the idea of "hearsay" in general, just like so many other things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay
All my reasoning comes from the above wikipedia entry and the one Snowgirl provided, so I'm really going on gut too, but I've also been close enough to trouble to know that what you say to someone, even in private, can definitely be used against you.
You have to be very careful with dye-sub work. First off, there's two kinds. One is "inkjet" printing that uses gaseous colorants to create the image, and the other is simply printing onto a transfer medium and then using a heat press to imprint the image.
The first is commonly used for things like name badges (we actually have some printers here that do it) or photos, and yes, dental and medical images, but the process is often limited in available classic substrates (canvas, luster photo paper, etc). That little Kodak kiosk thing that may be at your local Wal-Mart can claim it's this kind of "dye-sub", so they're not all created equally. The second type is useful for printing onto dimensional objects, or objects that cannot be fed through an inkjet, but you lose saturation during the transfer process. A shop using "dye-sublimation" can claim either of these, and not be very good at it in any case.
As for as longevity goes; this is ALWAYS a function of the colorant and substrate you use, aggravated by the conditions you store the output in, and has little to do with the original process of getting the color to the substrate (solvent, UV, and Latex applications excluded; by their very natures these inks attach to the substrate more aggressively).
Generally speaking, dye inks (colored solutions) will fade fastest (magenta first, in most cases, and that sucks because dye inks are typically the most vibrant), pigment inks (solutions with wee little colored flakes in them) will fade more slowly, solvent inks (more aggressive pigment inks) more slowly still, with latex and UV inks typically tied for the slowest, depending on substrate. All substrates must be acid-free, too, or you're hosed, as the substrate itself will start to yellow, fade, and break down as UV accelerates the process. There are also ways to protect any existing or brand new print regardless of the ink used; check out the way the Library of Congress does frames and archives their prints and paper items for a good idea on how it's done: http://www.loc.gov/preservation/care/mat.html / http://www.loc.gov/preservation/care/paper.html respectively. It's a pain in the ass, but following true standards always is.
Basically, take what a manufacturer of a printer, paper, or ink says about longevity with a grain of salt; the requirements for Epson, Kodak et. al. to say "will last 75 years!!" are lax to the point of ridiculous. I'm not blasting them; especially Epson, as I have 4 of their printers and they truly ARE absolutely amazing. It's just that there IS no standard for testing print permanence, so anybody can claim anything: "If you leave your prints in a lightless vacuum in extreme deep space, it'll last for a kajillion years!!!" Well, duh.
For instance, this is Epson defending their testing practices against Kodak's, while admitting that their own are not very realistic (and it's an amusing public gripe, to boot): ftp://ftp.epson.com/webfiles/whitepprsum.pdf. A shamelessly cherry-picked quote:
"Currently there is no ISO print permanence standard for digitally
printed photographs, and there is no prediction as to when, or
even if an ISO standard will be established."
Find a local print shop that specializes in fine art archival printing (hint: you can ask around for "giclee" specialists [jick-lay], which literally means "putting droplets of ink on a substrate", but has become a printing industry buzzword for "high-end" artistic printing).
I'm sure they'd love the business, and inkjet output is brilliantly beautiful compared to the grubby old light sensitive paper at your local photo lab, and you have more options for the medium, anyway.
Hell, I could even print them for you and ship them, if you wanted; probably 40% of my business comes from professional photographers, who turn around and triple my pricing for their own clients. Just be prepared to print a bunch; larger shops can charge much less per print if their yields are better. Sounds like you're ready for this, though.
That's not as unusual as you might think. There are entire printer workflows set up for printing directly to fabrics using solvent inks. The color tends to be muted somewhat on fabric mediums, but if you use the right kind of solvent, they'll last for decades. In fact, a great many flags are created this way these days.
Depends who does it the work. The reason I drop photos on canvas is for the texture. It's softer, fits in a high-end frame better, and doesn't dominate a room like a 16x20 on luster would.
It's basically the same reason I put paintings or artistic photographs on canvas and not photo paper. It just looks better and lasts longer
Of course, maybe I don't fit the "chintzy" mold, as I do giclee professionally.
Sigh. I think the fact that you used the word "enemy" 3 times and the word "cooperation" once is sad. I'm not sad with you specifically, I get exactly what you're saying, and agree, at least insofar as I'm informed.
No, what is sad is that politicians have become enemies that rarely cooperate except upon dire need (and often, not even then). They have a need to pre-emptively mitigate the inevitable damage that will be caused by a rare compromise. This, instead of being team-members who cooperate whenever and wherever possible, and only drawing battle lines on items of the utmost importance (war, for one).
Our leaders are like a married couple that ends up burning the household finances instead of making a decision between buying snowmobiles or jetskis. Contemplating the reality of that really does just blow a whole pile of monkey goats.
It doesn't matter anyway. A good idea is a good idea, regardless of who proposes it.
We, of course, should choose our representatives based on who gives us the closest overall representation. When the ones you've chosen do represent you well, applaud them. When they don't, bitch them out. But none of that means you have to ignore the whackjobs just because they're whackjobs, or that you're required to disagree with regular non-whackjob joes just because you didn't vote for them. That type of behavior leads to a polarized government just as fast as only voting along party lines.
It just kills me how people decide their opinions these days; it's almost like they have to ensure their "beliefs" are in line with the one group they're allowed to identify with. Well, in real life, I can like some parts of the boring but non-constipating Rebulic-Os, the sweet and tasty Frosted Mini Socialists, AND the fiber-filled Democratic Mueslix. Cool, huh?
I doubt that there will be a marketing and advertising push for Linux, who would do it? And in the end, who even cares? I use Linux and OSX, but I surely don't give a damn about market share, I only care that I have software to do the work I need to do. And despite the proselytizers, I'm just as happy that Linux doesn't have a big market share. The whole OS wars are just Ford Versus Chevy arguments anyhow.
Agreed completely. I think it's obvious why "The Year of the Linux Desktop" hasn't happened, but I don't really care if it ever does. For all those that do, well, no product will gain wide adoption until it's advertised.
Fair enough. Admittedly my CAD usage these days is limited to 2D etching and printing of 3D objects. In fact, my own CAD is Cadlink, though it comes bundled with my RIP software; and in that setup, I really only use it as a kludged preflight software.
Still, the fact remains that without the ability to seamlessly integrate into existing industry-dominating workflows (whatever they may be) new or fringe software doesn't stand a chance.
Not going to tackle the Unix bit of your post, as someone else already has, but I'll chat with you about the other point you made. Even at $1k per desktop, it wouldn't matter, because it's built into the price of the entire package. When you buy a $4000 Mac, which part is the OS and which is the hardware? If you claim the hardware's cost, only, then the OS costs $2500. If you claim the retail price of the hardware, the OS cost's $250.
Big box Windows machines do the same thing, just at a lower overall price point. If some Dell-ish company decided they wanted to the the Windows man's Mac seller, they could easily do the same thing Mac did; sleek-ify the shit out of every component, drop a flashy sticker on it, and wage an entire marketing war against the public, the cost of the OS wouldn't matter in the slightest, if they do as well as Apple has.
A Linux distributor might be able to do the same. Nobody knows, though, because nobody's tried it yet.
The funny thing is how many people will respond to this with "But OpenOffice! but Gimp! but FreeCAD!" without realizing that even on a Windows or Mac machine, MS Office, Adobe's suite, and AutoCAD absolutely DOMINATE their markets. They have become de facto industry standards, and competing software is only used on the fringe to get access to obscure features, while still interfacing as tightly as possible to the market leaders. Often, people will even use both (as in, Illustrator for most vector work, but Corel Draw for vector work that requires a specific technique to separate spot colors). This is why other software can stay in the game; they offer as much (or nearly so) as the standard software and tack in a few clever features; but they don't try to go heads up against the giant.
Sorry, but even if a software is actually better, if it's competing with an industry standard, it sure as hell has to conform 100% to that standard in addition to being better. David may have won one time, armed with a sling, but he'd have had an easier time of it overall if he was armed with sandal polish, instead. It's just the way it is in a lot of industries, at least until the sandal-shiner is consistently clever enough to rise as the new dominating force.
Also; "free" usually means "ramshackle" to corporate folks, and often even to regular joe end users. Think of it this way; if I offer a free car, and only charge to customize it for you, versus selling you a Lexus, which I can claim comes "pre-customized" (gogo stupid oxymorons) for the normal up front fee, using my own financing company, most people would expect the free car to be a piece of shit and the Lexus to be 100% legitimate.
There's also the fable about the guy who, after purchasing a new couch, put his old couch on the street with a sign that said "Free to good home." It stayed there for 3 weeks. He then put a sign on it that said "$500 or best offer" and it was promptly stolen that evening. People have just learned to distrust "free".
I've said it before and I'll say it again; without some sort of sustained advertising/marketing push, people of all walks just won't trust Linux enough to start using it broadly. There's no need to lie about the features, like so much marketing does these days; but there is a need to present people with valuable truths about Linux as a product in the way that they're used to.
Yeah, he also said the "absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence". Or, put less fancy: "Having no proof of a thing doesn't mean the thing doesn't exist."
Pretty stupid shit when you realize it means I can tell the author of these quotes that I'm a purple goddess with 3 titties that loves watching football and cooking him things, when in reality I'm none of those things. But, he doesn't know there are things he doesn't know, and there's a distinct lack of evidence I'm not what I just said I was, so.... fap away, Mr Rumsfeld, you dipshit.
Nah... more that 12-year-old humor (or, rather, insults) are so prevalent that we've decided it's not worth looking deeper for nested irony. I do like the term "sufficiently nested irony", though. Beauty.
I think your post can be one of two things. Since I'm a charitable sort, I'm going to assume it's very witty and not a simple troll from a 12 year old. Here's why:
A few years ago, I was approached by a customer to create 1500 bumper stickers that said "Gay Guys Suck!". My boss got all squeamish, and was really hesitant to do this, as he didn't want our company to be seen as "anti-gay". I couldn't help but laugh at his discomfort, and went ahead with the job anyway.
The customer that wanted the stickers was a buddy of one of my buddies, and they were intending to hand them out at the gay pride parade in Salt Lake City (which is a surprisingly popular event here). The design was a psychedelic rainbow with black text. Oh, and when I say "buddies" I mean two guys that have been together for 15 years, and attend each and every pride parade, doing something like this each and every year.
The sticker was *designed* to generate a knee-jerk response from people who just don't get it, in a very clever version of "Bwahaha... sometimes you straight folks are so silly when you try not to be awkward..."
Don't always take what people say at seeming face value; sometimes there's a deeper concept you might be missing. The above post could actually be pretty clever, viewed in the right light.
I'm not sure the terrorists' main goal is making us sue each other.
In fact, I'd think the scary terrorists are far more satisfied with things the way they are. Every American that flies is reminded that they are potential targets for terrorism. From moment they arrive at the local airport to the moment they drive away from the destination airport, that fact is pounded home by the TSA and other agencies.
This ultra-broad scale of constant fear is a pretty amazing accomplishment for a group resorting to terror tactics, no? (side note: can anybody out there think of a more literal example of "by definition"?)
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... I see where you're going with this. That said, I think there's multiple reasons to arrest a kiddie porn enthusiast. Obviously, it's a good thing to remove the financial base from the distributors, but it's also good to send a message that this bullshit is NOT to be tolerated. I know parents (and I'm one) who'd want to destroy a person for abusing their kids this way, so in reality, a prison sentence and the associated "rehabilitation" should be preferable. The fact is, enjoying child porn is wrong, period, and it's one of those "wrong" things that isn't just wrong, it's fucked way the hell up, with reasons ranging from the actual exploitation of the children to the financial support of the distributors to the fact that every time the content is viewed is another violation of the kid in the picture.
There are a lot of crimes that I'm pretty ambivalent about; child porn isn't one of them. You wanna smoke weed, snort coke, or shoot heroin? Have at. It's kinda fun, for a bit, just be careful and don't hurt yourself or anyone else. But every time a kid gets looked at through pedophile eyes, in pics or in person, that kid gets their innocence raped again. I applaud the court's decision as it better defines those pedophile eyes.
If you're a savvy enough pedophile to view the image from your browser cache, you're also likely savvy enough to cover your tracks. Viewing from the cache is no more difficult than than moving all incriminating evidence to a disposable thumb drive, and even having it in the cache is a clue to law enforcement, whether or not it's actual admissible evidence. I don't think this law is creating any "exploits" that don't already exist.
Agreed, completely, and the problem is not just the laws, it's also about a lack of complete discretion is potentially life-changing (or ruining). If you act to stop a crime, and the public hears about it, normally you'd be considered a hero. But with the case of child porn, it seems the immediate thought is "well, what were YOU doing looking at it, you creepy creeper!?!?" I think that child porn is such a hot button issue (and rightfully so) that it's not something a normal, rational person would want to ever, ever be involved with, even in an attempt to stop abuses. I think that needs to change in order to stop it. I'm not saying we should all go kiddie porn hunting to crusade for the righteous, but I am saying something needs to be done to shift the public mindset from "he saw it, he's guilty too!" to "man, I'm glad I didn't have to see it but props to that guy for reporting it." Maybe this is the first step.
Personally, it feels pretty easy. My gut tells me that rape is horrible, murder is disgusting, pedophilia is terrifying, and child porn is twisted, all to similar degrees. I should be able to report evidence of any of the 4 without the police or the public looking at me with shifty eyes, but in the public eye, reporting child porn means you SAW child porn, which means you're a pervert, too. Even those cops that DO crawl the internet looking for abuses are smart enough to keep their identities hidden; I sure as hell wouldn't want people knowing I stare at naked kids all day, even if it's for honorable intentions.
The only "child porn" I've ever witnessed was a co-worker showing me cartoons of "The Incredibles" family all banging each other. Pretty graphic, but hey, it's a cartoon. Still gave me a really oogy feeling and I wondered a bit at what the fuck else my co-worker was in to. I don't know if that'd qualify as something legally nefarious or not, but I DID know it was fucked right the hell up. Rather than call him out on it I felt it the wiser course, socially and perhaps legally, was also the cowardly one, and just told him "not interested, buddy." and ignored it. If that same thing happens for something that is clearly child porn, it's a bad thing, as a crime just went unreported.
Oh, and if you ever got tricked by goatse or 2-girls-one-cup, then you could just as easily be tricked by a child porn link, so this judgement is something that was sorely needed.
I had a hell of a time parsing that sentence too (yay for another "whether or not" string of confusion). But he's basically saying "Your intent is factored in when a court makes its decision."
How many of the successful hijackings that you reference crashed into buildings? How many bullet trains have exploded? How many bridges have been bombed? How many terrorists have sunk ocean liners? How many times have they blown up Disney World? Or any of thousands of other places where infidels gather in great crowds?
Even in the aggregate, deaths due to terrorism pale in comparison to just traffic accidents alone. Would taking into account the "success effect" quintuple these deaths? Even if so, it STILL wouldn't come close to heart disease. The point is not that the "honor system" would be perfect; the point is screening for terrorists has horribly diminishing returns and there are far more efficient places to put the resources.
Besides, terrorists aren't after kill ratios; they're after fear. Every person that goes through a scanner proves they've won.
I think it's funny that the GP quoted Star Trek, when Star Trek also states that a man should not sacrifices his personal morals for any reason. How many episodes showed Kirk or Spock (or Picard etc) finding miraculous ways to avoid the easy or immoral way out and still save everybody?
The needs of the many do NOT outweigh the needs of the few, but the needs of the many are just as important as the needs of the few. You stated the proper way, but it's also the hardest way. It's worth the effort.
Absolutely correct. It's really a case of the specifics over-ruling the generals. Every case is going to have its own details to consider; otherwise, we could just use an old Macintosh computer as the judge for the entire justice department. :)
Well, there's two ways to interpret "hearsay" testimony. In general terms, it's "witness overheard suspect say something damaging" which is actually just fine for evidence, though it would probably be more useful in support of physical evidence than as anything truly damning.
The narrower, thrown out of court, version of hearsay is when a third or even fourth party gets involved, such as Johnny being told by Jimmy that Joe said he killed James. It's silly to use Johnny as a witness; there's simply too many people involved. On the other hand, pulling Jimmy in as a witness is much more direct, and should be admissible as evidence.
I think that movies and tv shows etc have bastardized the idea of "hearsay" in general, just like so many other things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay All my reasoning comes from the above wikipedia entry and the one Snowgirl provided, so I'm really going on gut too, but I've also been close enough to trouble to know that what you say to someone, even in private, can definitely be used against you.
You have to be very careful with dye-sub work. First off, there's two kinds. One is "inkjet" printing that uses gaseous colorants to create the image, and the other is simply printing onto a transfer medium and then using a heat press to imprint the image.
The first is commonly used for things like name badges (we actually have some printers here that do it) or photos, and yes, dental and medical images, but the process is often limited in available classic substrates (canvas, luster photo paper, etc). That little Kodak kiosk thing that may be at your local Wal-Mart can claim it's this kind of "dye-sub", so they're not all created equally. The second type is useful for printing onto dimensional objects, or objects that cannot be fed through an inkjet, but you lose saturation during the transfer process. A shop using "dye-sublimation" can claim either of these, and not be very good at it in any case.
As for as longevity goes; this is ALWAYS a function of the colorant and substrate you use, aggravated by the conditions you store the output in, and has little to do with the original process of getting the color to the substrate (solvent, UV, and Latex applications excluded; by their very natures these inks attach to the substrate more aggressively).
Generally speaking, dye inks (colored solutions) will fade fastest (magenta first, in most cases, and that sucks because dye inks are typically the most vibrant), pigment inks (solutions with wee little colored flakes in them) will fade more slowly, solvent inks (more aggressive pigment inks) more slowly still, with latex and UV inks typically tied for the slowest, depending on substrate. All substrates must be acid-free, too, or you're hosed, as the substrate itself will start to yellow, fade, and break down as UV accelerates the process. There are also ways to protect any existing or brand new print regardless of the ink used; check out the way the Library of Congress does frames and archives their prints and paper items for a good idea on how it's done: http://www.loc.gov/preservation/care/mat.html / http://www.loc.gov/preservation/care/paper.html respectively. It's a pain in the ass, but following true standards always is.
Basically, take what a manufacturer of a printer, paper, or ink says about longevity with a grain of salt; the requirements for Epson, Kodak et. al. to say "will last 75 years!!" are lax to the point of ridiculous. I'm not blasting them; especially Epson, as I have 4 of their printers and they truly ARE absolutely amazing. It's just that there IS no standard for testing print permanence, so anybody can claim anything: "If you leave your prints in a lightless vacuum in extreme deep space, it'll last for a kajillion years!!!" Well, duh.
For instance, this is Epson defending their testing practices against Kodak's, while admitting that their own are not very realistic (and it's an amusing public gripe, to boot): ftp://ftp.epson.com/webfiles/whitepprsum.pdf. A shamelessly cherry-picked quote:
"Currently there is no ISO print permanence standard for digitally printed photographs, and there is no prediction as to when, or even if an ISO standard will be established."
Find a local print shop that specializes in fine art archival printing (hint: you can ask around for "giclee" specialists [jick-lay], which literally means "putting droplets of ink on a substrate", but has become a printing industry buzzword for "high-end" artistic printing).
I'm sure they'd love the business, and inkjet output is brilliantly beautiful compared to the grubby old light sensitive paper at your local photo lab, and you have more options for the medium, anyway.
Hell, I could even print them for you and ship them, if you wanted; probably 40% of my business comes from professional photographers, who turn around and triple my pricing for their own clients. Just be prepared to print a bunch; larger shops can charge much less per print if their yields are better. Sounds like you're ready for this, though.
That's not as unusual as you might think. There are entire printer workflows set up for printing directly to fabrics using solvent inks. The color tends to be muted somewhat on fabric mediums, but if you use the right kind of solvent, they'll last for decades. In fact, a great many flags are created this way these days.
Depends who does it the work. The reason I drop photos on canvas is for the texture. It's softer, fits in a high-end frame better, and doesn't dominate a room like a 16x20 on luster would.
It's basically the same reason I put paintings or artistic photographs on canvas and not photo paper. It just looks better and lasts longer
Of course, maybe I don't fit the "chintzy" mold, as I do giclee professionally.
"You can't duel some fool to death because he touched your wife's socks?! Good heavens, man, what heathens!!"
I agree with you on all of your points, but I couldn't resist.
Sigh. I think the fact that you used the word "enemy" 3 times and the word "cooperation" once is sad. I'm not sad with you specifically, I get exactly what you're saying, and agree, at least insofar as I'm informed.
No, what is sad is that politicians have become enemies that rarely cooperate except upon dire need (and often, not even then). They have a need to pre-emptively mitigate the inevitable damage that will be caused by a rare compromise. This, instead of being team-members who cooperate whenever and wherever possible, and only drawing battle lines on items of the utmost importance (war, for one).
Our leaders are like a married couple that ends up burning the household finances instead of making a decision between buying snowmobiles or jetskis. Contemplating the reality of that really does just blow a whole pile of monkey goats.
It doesn't matter anyway. A good idea is a good idea, regardless of who proposes it.
We, of course, should choose our representatives based on who gives us the closest overall representation. When the ones you've chosen do represent you well, applaud them. When they don't, bitch them out. But none of that means you have to ignore the whackjobs just because they're whackjobs, or that you're required to disagree with regular non-whackjob joes just because you didn't vote for them. That type of behavior leads to a polarized government just as fast as only voting along party lines.
It just kills me how people decide their opinions these days; it's almost like they have to ensure their "beliefs" are in line with the one group they're allowed to identify with. Well, in real life, I can like some parts of the boring but non-constipating Rebulic-Os, the sweet and tasty Frosted Mini Socialists, AND the fiber-filled Democratic Mueslix. Cool, huh?
I doubt that there will be a marketing and advertising push for Linux, who would do it? And in the end, who even cares? I use Linux and OSX, but I surely don't give a damn about market share, I only care that I have software to do the work I need to do. And despite the proselytizers, I'm just as happy that Linux doesn't have a big market share. The whole OS wars are just Ford Versus Chevy arguments anyhow.
Agreed completely. I think it's obvious why "The Year of the Linux Desktop" hasn't happened, but I don't really care if it ever does. For all those that do, well, no product will gain wide adoption until it's advertised.
Fair enough. Admittedly my CAD usage these days is limited to 2D etching and printing of 3D objects. In fact, my own CAD is Cadlink, though it comes bundled with my RIP software; and in that setup, I really only use it as a kludged preflight software.
Still, the fact remains that without the ability to seamlessly integrate into existing industry-dominating workflows (whatever they may be) new or fringe software doesn't stand a chance.
Not going to tackle the Unix bit of your post, as someone else already has, but I'll chat with you about the other point you made. Even at $1k per desktop, it wouldn't matter, because it's built into the price of the entire package. When you buy a $4000 Mac, which part is the OS and which is the hardware? If you claim the hardware's cost, only, then the OS costs $2500. If you claim the retail price of the hardware, the OS cost's $250.
Big box Windows machines do the same thing, just at a lower overall price point. If some Dell-ish company decided they wanted to the the Windows man's Mac seller, they could easily do the same thing Mac did; sleek-ify the shit out of every component, drop a flashy sticker on it, and wage an entire marketing war against the public, the cost of the OS wouldn't matter in the slightest, if they do as well as Apple has.
A Linux distributor might be able to do the same. Nobody knows, though, because nobody's tried it yet.
The funny thing is how many people will respond to this with "But OpenOffice! but Gimp! but FreeCAD!" without realizing that even on a Windows or Mac machine, MS Office, Adobe's suite, and AutoCAD absolutely DOMINATE their markets. They have become de facto industry standards, and competing software is only used on the fringe to get access to obscure features, while still interfacing as tightly as possible to the market leaders. Often, people will even use both (as in, Illustrator for most vector work, but Corel Draw for vector work that requires a specific technique to separate spot colors). This is why other software can stay in the game; they offer as much (or nearly so) as the standard software and tack in a few clever features; but they don't try to go heads up against the giant.
Sorry, but even if a software is actually better, if it's competing with an industry standard, it sure as hell has to conform 100% to that standard in addition to being better. David may have won one time, armed with a sling, but he'd have had an easier time of it overall if he was armed with sandal polish, instead. It's just the way it is in a lot of industries, at least until the sandal-shiner is consistently clever enough to rise as the new dominating force.
Also; "free" usually means "ramshackle" to corporate folks, and often even to regular joe end users. Think of it this way; if I offer a free car, and only charge to customize it for you, versus selling you a Lexus, which I can claim comes "pre-customized" (gogo stupid oxymorons) for the normal up front fee, using my own financing company, most people would expect the free car to be a piece of shit and the Lexus to be 100% legitimate.
There's also the fable about the guy who, after purchasing a new couch, put his old couch on the street with a sign that said "Free to good home." It stayed there for 3 weeks. He then put a sign on it that said "$500 or best offer" and it was promptly stolen that evening. People have just learned to distrust "free".
I've said it before and I'll say it again; without some sort of sustained advertising/marketing push, people of all walks just won't trust Linux enough to start using it broadly. There's no need to lie about the features, like so much marketing does these days; but there is a need to present people with valuable truths about Linux as a product in the way that they're used to.
Yeah, he also said the "absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence". Or, put less fancy: "Having no proof of a thing doesn't mean the thing doesn't exist."
Pretty stupid shit when you realize it means I can tell the author of these quotes that I'm a purple goddess with 3 titties that loves watching football and cooking him things, when in reality I'm none of those things. But, he doesn't know there are things he doesn't know, and there's a distinct lack of evidence I'm not what I just said I was, so.... fap away, Mr Rumsfeld, you dipshit.
Nah... more that 12-year-old humor (or, rather, insults) are so prevalent that we've decided it's not worth looking deeper for nested irony. I do like the term "sufficiently nested irony", though. Beauty.
I wonder if the previous story about the 4 year old was actually TSA attempting to "recruit" another drug running mule.
I think your post can be one of two things. Since I'm a charitable sort, I'm going to assume it's very witty and not a simple troll from a 12 year old. Here's why:
A few years ago, I was approached by a customer to create 1500 bumper stickers that said "Gay Guys Suck!". My boss got all squeamish, and was really hesitant to do this, as he didn't want our company to be seen as "anti-gay". I couldn't help but laugh at his discomfort, and went ahead with the job anyway.
The customer that wanted the stickers was a buddy of one of my buddies, and they were intending to hand them out at the gay pride parade in Salt Lake City (which is a surprisingly popular event here). The design was a psychedelic rainbow with black text. Oh, and when I say "buddies" I mean two guys that have been together for 15 years, and attend each and every pride parade, doing something like this each and every year.
The sticker was *designed* to generate a knee-jerk response from people who just don't get it, in a very clever version of "Bwahaha... sometimes you straight folks are so silly when you try not to be awkward..."
Don't always take what people say at seeming face value; sometimes there's a deeper concept you might be missing. The above post could actually be pretty clever, viewed in the right light.
I'm not sure the terrorists' main goal is making us sue each other.
In fact, I'd think the scary terrorists are far more satisfied with things the way they are. Every American that flies is reminded that they are potential targets for terrorism. From moment they arrive at the local airport to the moment they drive away from the destination airport, that fact is pounded home by the TSA and other agencies.
This ultra-broad scale of constant fear is a pretty amazing accomplishment for a group resorting to terror tactics, no? (side note: can anybody out there think of a more literal example of "by definition"?)