No. Photoshop was long ago rewritten into C++. That's not to say that some of the current code might not have some basis on the original code, but it's doubtful it's that much.
To add. Here is the copyright statement in the source files:
{Photoshop version 1.0.1, file: About.r
Computer History Museum, www.computerhistory.org This material is (C)Copyright 1990 Adobe Systems Inc.
It may not be distributed to third parties.
It is licensed for non-commercial use according to
www.computerhistory.org/softwarelicense/photoshop/ }
And from the linked license:
1. Grant of License. Conditioned upon your compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Museum grants you a non-exclusive and non-transferable license for a single user, solely for your individual, personal and non-commercial purposes, (a) to load and install the Software; (b) to compile, modify and create modifications or enhancements of the Software or any of its components (“Derivative Works”); and (c) to run the Software or Derivative Works on simulators or hardware. The Museum and its licensors reserve all rights in the Software not expressly granted to you in this Agreement.
2. Restrictions. Except as expressly specified in this Agreement, you may not: (a) transfer, sublicense, lease, lend, rent or otherwise distribute the Software or Derivative Works to any third party; or (b) make the functionality of the Software or Derivative Works available to multiple users through any means, including, but not limited to, by uploading the Software to a network or file-sharing service or through any hosting, application services provider, service bureau, software-as-a-service (SaaS) or any other type of services. You acknowledge and agree that portions of the Software, including, but not limited to, the source code and the specific design and structure of individual modules or programs, constitute or contain trade secrets of Museum and its licensors.
3. Ownership. The copy of the Software is licensed, not sold. The Museum and its licensors retain ownership of the copy of the Software itself, including all intellectual property rights therein. The Software is protected by United States copyright law and international treaties. You will not delete or in any manner alter the copyright, trademark, confidentiality and other proprietary rights notices or markings or limited or restricted rights legends appearing on the Software as delivered to you.
The only thing you're allowed to do is view and modify it for your own personal use. You cannot distribute the software or derivative works based on it.
Just so you know, the effective tax rate is not the same as the marginal tax rate. Marginal tax rate is what is paid on the highest level of taxable income. Effective tax rate is amount paid divided by income. So you and your linked post didn't really refute anything. Unless that blog post was trying yo refute someone who was confusing the two as well.
The 85% rate quoted for the French in the GGP post is also a marginal rate not the effective rate.
If the size of the sd card slot is larger than the space they have in the device no amount of manufacturing advancements will make it possible to put the two together.
Slashdot has my real contact information. They are acting as the gatekeeper for my identification, should I commit some heinous transgression.
Cop out answer. You state that if you really believe what you say you should "stand up, identify yourself". Saying that "Slashdot has my info" is not standing up and identifying yourself. As I said before, you're nothing but a hypocrite and clearly a troll. Stop posting behind a pseudonym and identify yourself. That you won't identify yourself means that according to your own standard that you're just a coward who is no better than a KKK member.
How can we turn off the pop ups about the new mobile site? I don't really give a shit since the "new" mobile site looks like ass. The constant pop ups at every page load is fucking annoying.
And yet you use a psuedonym to decry the anonymity ofothers. Please post your real name and full info to back up your statement instead of just being a whiny hypocrite.
Youtube's blocking of that video was an effort to save lives. I'm not convinced that the production of the "Innocence of Muslims" wasn't intended to have the effect it had. Perhaps as a people those who are murderously offended by such things need to grow up and get a thicker skin. I'll grant that. But any words, religiously themed or not, which are intended to offend are reprehensible. And I applaud Youtube for taking steps to mitigate the disaster that video initiated.
Yes it is a great day when murderers can get someone censored merely by claiming the speech as the excuse for killing someone. Lets keep appeasing these people since if we all cower in fear they will never kill anyone again. *rolls eyes*
Other than educating them to not be asshats, not much. That doesn't justify censorship just because someone will use someone's speech, movie, song, etc. as an excuse for murdering someone.
This film didn't push them to do anything. The "outrage" over the film wad nothing more than a post hoc excuse to try to deflect that the were murdering people.
No one is helping them do anything. They are making up flinsy, post hoc justifications being murderers. Stop being an idiot thinking that this film gad anything to do with their actions. It didn't. It was merely a red herring.
Again, they didn't kill because of the film. Almost none of the people outraged by it had even seen it. It was used as an excuse for why they were killing people. Nothing more. If the film had not existed something else would have been used as the excuse. You're ether incredibly naive or stupid to think that stifling free speech in some misguided attempt to appease a bunch murderers is the right thing to do.
Slashdot Mirror
No. Photoshop was long ago rewritten into C++. That's not to say that some of the current code might not have some basis on the original code, but it's doubtful it's that much.
I'm pretty sure they were making a joke.
To add. Here is the copyright statement in the source files:
{Photoshop version 1.0.1, file: About.r
Computer History Museum, www.computerhistory.org
This material is (C)Copyright 1990 Adobe Systems Inc.
It may not be distributed to third parties.
It is licensed for non-commercial use according to
www.computerhistory.org/softwarelicense/photoshop/ }
And from the linked license:
1. Grant of License. Conditioned upon your compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Museum grants you a non-exclusive and non-transferable license for a single user, solely for your individual, personal and non-commercial purposes, (a) to load and install the Software; (b) to compile, modify and create modifications or enhancements of the Software or any of its components (“Derivative Works”); and (c) to run the Software or Derivative Works on simulators or hardware. The Museum and its licensors reserve all rights in the Software not expressly granted to you in this Agreement.
2. Restrictions. Except as expressly specified in this Agreement, you may not: (a) transfer, sublicense, lease, lend, rent or otherwise distribute the Software or Derivative Works to any third party; or (b) make the functionality of the Software or Derivative Works available to multiple users through any means, including, but not limited to, by uploading the Software to a network or file-sharing service or through any hosting, application services provider, service bureau, software-as-a-service (SaaS) or any other type of services. You acknowledge and agree that portions of the Software, including, but not limited to, the source code and the specific design and structure of individual modules or programs, constitute or contain trade secrets of Museum and its licensors.
3. Ownership. The copy of the Software is licensed, not sold. The Museum and its licensors retain ownership of the copy of the Software itself, including all intellectual property rights therein. The Software is protected by United States copyright law and international treaties. You will not delete or in any manner alter the copyright, trademark, confidentiality and other proprietary rights notices or markings or limited or restricted rights legends appearing on the Software as delivered to you.
The only thing you're allowed to do is view and modify it for your own personal use. You cannot distribute the software or derivative works based on it.
Of course it doesn't. Adobe has not relinquished their rights to it.
If its either, de-install Visual Studio please.
Non sequitur much?
Just so you know, the effective tax rate is not the same as the marginal tax rate. Marginal tax rate is what is paid on the highest level of taxable income. Effective tax rate is amount paid divided by income. So you and your linked post didn't really refute anything. Unless that blog post was trying yo refute someone who was confusing the two as well.
The 85% rate quoted for the French in the GGP post is also a marginal rate not the effective rate.
It's fake. You aren't that idiotic, right? Right?
After all, if these little boxes can simply stream from powerful servers, how can the stalwarts of gaming keep up?"
By building their own systems utilizing their larger amounts of revenue, infrastructure investments and personnel resources?
Pitty intel didnt implement string functions in the CPU.
They did. Welcome to decades ago.
If the size of the sd card slot is larger than the space they have in the device no amount of manufacturing advancements will make it possible to put the two together.
What do you call a $5 million cluster at a top tier university, then?
A niche customer. Next question?
Yes and far more credibility than you since you still refuse to give out your real name despite all your bleating.
Slashdot has my real contact information. They are acting as the gatekeeper for my identification, should I commit some heinous transgression.
Cop out answer. You state that if you really believe what you say you should "stand up, identify yourself". Saying that "Slashdot has my info" is not standing up and identifying yourself. As I said before, you're nothing but a hypocrite and clearly a troll. Stop posting behind a pseudonym and identify yourself. That you won't identify yourself means that according to your own standard that you're just a coward who is no better than a KKK member.
Yes when browsing on a mobile device.
How can we turn off the pop ups about the new mobile site? I don't really give a shit since the "new" mobile site looks like ass. The constant pop ups at every page load is fucking annoying.
And yet you use a psuedonym to decry the anonymity ofothers. Please post your real name and full info to back up your statement instead of just being a whiny hypocrite.
Why would they be scared of it? Legalization would mean they can monopolize on it. You'll see all sorts of patents on marijuana like with food crops.
Youtube's blocking of that video was an effort to save lives. I'm not convinced that the production of the "Innocence of Muslims" wasn't intended to have the effect it had. Perhaps as a people those who are murderously offended by such things need to grow up and get a thicker skin. I'll grant that. But any words, religiously themed or not, which are intended to offend are reprehensible. And I applaud Youtube for taking steps to mitigate the disaster that video initiated.
Yes it is a great day when murderers can get someone censored merely by claiming the speech as the excuse for killing someone. Lets keep appeasing these people since if we all cower in fear they will never kill anyone again. *rolls eyes*
but they do have the right to tell you get your own soap box if they don't like what you're saying.
Well, yes, that is exactly what I said.
Other than educating them to not be asshats, not much. That doesn't justify censorship just because someone will use someone's speech, movie, song, etc. as an excuse for murdering someone.
This film didn't push them to do anything. The "outrage" over the film wad nothing more than a post hoc excuse to try to deflect that the were murdering people.
No one is helping them do anything. They are making up flinsy, post hoc justifications being murderers. Stop being an idiot thinking that this film gad anything to do with their actions. It didn't. It was merely a red herring.
Because 68k chips are still used for embedded work like the ColdFires mentioned in the summary.
It says right in the summary:
because they were paid to do so in order to make recent Linux run on ColdFire processors again.
Do you have the attention span of a gnat?
Again, they didn't kill because of the film. Almost none of the people outraged by it had even seen it. It was used as an excuse for why they were killing people. Nothing more. If the film had not existed something else would have been used as the excuse. You're ether incredibly naive or stupid to think that stifling free speech in some misguided attempt to appease a bunch murderers is the right thing to do.