A citation is clearly not needed for what is clearly an opinion....
My attitude is that when dealing with psychological problems, you have to take a holistic view. Start with counseling to figure out whether the problems actually have a valid cause. If they do, no amount of medication will help; they'll just make you weird. If it is clear that counseling isn't going to solve the problem, then you have to determine whether anything else changed---diet, exercise, changing shifts at work, et cetera---and correct those problems if needed. Only after you have ruled out everything else should you go with medication. Otherwise, you're probably just wasting the patient's money, and the patient would probably be better off taking a placebo....
Actually, when it comes to psychiatric drugs, they often do. In many cases, it's all in your head, so to speak. If you can convince yourself that a medication is working for such things, you will get better, and if you convince yourself that it isn't working, you will stay the same or get worse, whether you're taking a drug that tries to fix the underlying chemical imbalance or not. Why? Because ultimately your brain is controlling the regulation of those neurotransmitters. It can compensate for any "fix" the drugs make, and can similarly correct its own regulation if you convince it that the levels should be improving. Indeed, in the field of psychiatric drugs, it would actually be surprising if such a strong placebo effect did not occur, assuming that people generally believe that psychiatric drugs are effective.
Unfortunately, too many doctors, including psychiatrists, are too eager to prescribe a pill rather than taking the time to get to the root of the problem and fix what's really wrong. The good news is that prescribing a placebo may be just as effective for many of their less serious patients, but without the harmful side effects....:-)
Normally, I'd disagree, but given how different the 64-bit version of Safari is, in this case, that's a good point. The 64-bit Safari introduces out-of-process plug-ins, which is a pretty huge feature that isn't in the 32-bit Safari 4.
There are dozens of contradictory studies out there. One will show correlation, the next one won't, and some even suggest possible causation of the release of radon, a known cancer-causing agent. Here are a couple:
It's too early to say that there's a causal relationship between power lines and cancer, but it's disingenuous to suggest that there's no possibility ELF has an effect on the human body.
Not at all. It's completely possible to induce an electrical current in anything conductive. The fact that this person's terminology was bizarrely trendy and nontechnical doesn't mean it is impossible. Implausible, perhaps, given the wavelengths in question....
The more serious problem with AM and FM radio is that some transmitters have massive low frequency leakage that doesn't get filtered out adequately before or after amplification, resulting in massive electromagnetic interference in low frequencies (tens of Hz) that can and do affect the human body and pretty much everything else nearby---interference that has been associated with a number of serious health problems, including cancer. This is more a matter of the transmitter being an ancient piece of crap than a problem with broadcasting in general, however. Ironically, the frequencies in question share an acronym with the organization that tore down this tower (ELF = extremely low frequency).
I'm not saying that these people are right for doing what they do, of course. The right thing to do if you detect such ELF leakage is to contact the FCC and get the station fined daily until they fix the problem or shut down.
Yes, PNG has a few advantages over TIFF, but most of those advantages are largely esoteric and fall way outside of the 99.9% case where PNG and GIF images are used (specifically, web graphics and UI button icons). Having also worked with PNG, TIFF, JPEG, and GIF files, I find both PNG and TIFF to be equally programmer-friendly because that's what libraries are for. Write once, reuse often.:-)
Regarding the question of multiple frames in a TIFF versus a PNG, there's no reason someone couldn't have created a new animated TIFF format that wraps multiple consecutive TIFF files in a trivial wrapper. Doing so would have been a heck of a lot easier than creating a whole new file format, that's for sure. Regarding the 4GB limit, outside of very specialized medical imaging, 4GB images are a long way off for most people even today. (AFAIK, the largest camera RAW files on high end still cameras are still in the tens of megs.) And we're talking about whether the format really needed to be created more than a decade ago.... I just don't buy the 32-bit offset argument.
The point was not that TIFF is technically superior to PNG. It's something of a mess, really. The point was that the PNG format was in all ways unnecessary, and that we really haven't gained much as far as I can see from its existence other than to be able to thumb our noses at Compuserve, which is something we can't enjoy anymore anyway given that they disappeared years ago. It was a colossal effort that bifurcated web standards for the better part of a decade and made cross-platform compatibility of websites an absolute disaster for that entire period all because of a stupid software patent.
Software patents make interoperability a nightmare. That problem alone should be sufficient to convince people that they are fundamentally a bad idea.
And the quality of food in this country has dropped quite significantly in the past few decades, leading to a massive obesity epidemic, largely due to government subsidies of corn and tariffs on sugar imports. The government interfering usually makes things worse unless it does so by creating nonprofit corporations and turning them loose. Commodities, by definition, rapidly approach being unprofitable. When a service that lives depend on is commoditized, you end up with the least qualified people practicing medicine because it doesn't make money. We're already seeing a great deal of this because of high malpractice insurance costs and the high cost of getting a medical degree relative to the payout. In many parts of this country, a sizable percentage of new doctors are imported from certain countries where educational standards are, IMHO, lower, precisely because of the commoditization of health care.
I partially disagree with you. A notarized copy of a description of the invention that predates a patent by a significant period of time should be ample proof that you were first to invent, which should make any subsequent patents by another patent holder automatically invalid, at least in the U.S. Of course, you would still need enough money to go to court. The whole signing an envelope thing, as you said, probably would not be sufficient. That's far too easy to fake. And neither a signed envelope nor a notarized description of the invention would provide any protection of the invention itself, of course. (In other words, you can't use it to sue for damages because it isn't a patent.)
The mere fact that health care is treated as a commodity that can be bought and sold for a given price rather than as a necessary service is a rather fundamental part of the problem with our health care system. The insurance companies shouldn't get special deals. They should have to pay what I would pay walking in off the street, or more to the point, hospitals should be required by law to give everyone the same deal as the lowest price they give to any insurance provider. That one tiny change would solve a big part of what's wrong with health care today---no preferential pricing for anyone, including other insurance providers. With that change, smaller insurers would be on equal footing with the giants, and immediately we'd start to see some real competition in health insurance.
The thing is, health care isn't at all like buying goods in bulk. I can't go in and say, "I'd like to have five appendectomies, please---one for now, and the other four for when I need them." Well, I could, but they'd look at me like I was nuts. It's no less nuts for the insurance companies to ask for bulk discounts, but for some reason, they get them anyway. It's not like people generally choose a hospital based on which network it is in, and if they do, they shouldn't. At best, that might affect a choice of clinics or personal physicians. When you're sick enough to need a hospital, you should always choose medical care based on getting the best care, and any system put in place that pushes people towards choosing a hospital based on cost is by design a race to the bottom (in quality, anyway). Such conditions never benefit the consumer in the long run, and our health care system will only continue to deteriorate as long as insurance companies are allowed to get special bulk buying power from hospitals.
Exactly. Patents only encourage innovation in free/open source software if you believe that open source developers wouldn't have bothered to improve and develop better alternatives without patents. Given a mountain of evidence to the contrary, such an argument is absurd. Such "innovation", a.k.a. reinventing the wheel, is a waste of energy that could have been spent inventing something more useful.
Talking about PNG replacing GIF is the wrong angle. You should be talking about PNG and TIFF. AFAIK, the TIFF format can do everything PNG can do (and then some), but was also encumbered by the LZW patent in a significant way at the time. PNG has no real reason to exist, and was a colossal waste of developer effort to create yet another image file format, all because of software patents.
I meant for things like networks, in which the steady state is "working", as opposed to things like ticking time bombs, in which the steady state is "about to nuke a city". Clearly, if you knowingly leave something in an unstable state, that's negligent and foolish.
Computers don't generally get into trouble, don't drive off cliffs, don't require food, and don't generate enough heat to catch fire. If they are doing any of these things, worry.
All you have to do to not break something, generally speaking, is to not touch it. By a similar standard, I haven't shocked myself on the flyback transformer on a CRT in almost two decades. The fact that I haven't cracked open a CRT in nearly that long might have something to do with that.
His duty to help them by giving them passwords and other confidential information ALSO ended when his employment contract ended. That's what the law says. In fact, legally, he should have destroyed all confidential information in his possession, and as such, suing because he wouldn't turn over confidential passwords that he was not obligated or even allowed to retain is a new level of absurd.
When this is over, $5 million is likely to seem like peanuts compared with the settlement that San Francisco will end up paying out.
Oh, TCP/IP is actually pretty easy. You don't need to handle the entire payload of an ethernet frames (1500 bytes). Just set the MTU to something tiny and let the TCP stack segment it for you. I was thinking pretty much the same thought as you. I hereby dub the concept IPoT (IP over Twitter). The minimum MTU allowed for TCP/IP is 88 bytes. Assuming you have to encode them in something 7-bit-clean (say base64), this means that you would need 118 bytes. 160 is a piece of cake. You'd get an MTU of 120 bytes, which while absurdly small, is a perfectly legal MTU.
I could probably write a daemon that uses tuntap and hack together something in under a day.:-D Hmm. I just got an evil idea. Do you suppose that violates the terms of service?
The funny part of this is that while Apple was busy changing the OS over to the decimal scheme, the major hard drive manufacturers were moving in the opposite direction. The last drives I've bought have all been labeled as something like "500 GB plus a bonus 7% for free"... in other words, 500 GiB.
I'd love to see it tested in court, merely because AFAIK financial liability for unreasonable detention is largely an untested area of law. The cases I'm aware of that (fail to) set the bar for reasonable border searches are all cases in which there was at least some degree of probable cause for conducting such a search (e.g. something illegal in plain sight) and in which the searches turned up something illegal as expected. Basically, they were all the sorts of cases in which it would have been surprising for the courts to not find in favor of the government.
It would be very interesting to see a case in which the government was on the defensive instead of the offensive, having detained someone without reasonable cause for an unreasonable amount of time, resulting in financial harm. Those sorts of cases, if they ever made it to court, are the sorts of cases that would stand a chance of setting actual standards of reasonableness.
Some cases are clearly doomed to fall one way or the other. The cases in the middle are the ones that set precedents.
I'm certain it would not go unpunished, just as I'm certain that eventually the courts will recognize that the notion of our borders being unprotected by the constitution is absurd.
It's a replacement for cable TV. It is not a full replacement for everything cable provides these days. Want Internet service? Hope you like 500ms latency.
I think if that happened to me on an outbound flight, I would be inclined to sue for several million dollars in lost revenue to encourage DHS to use some common sense.
By that argument, if a gang of thugs flew into the United States, never left the international arrivals area, and committed heinous crimes while there---plotting assassinations, designing nuclear weapons, calling for hits on their enemies, execution-style murders, gang rape, etc.---they would not be in the U.S. and thus could not be prosecuted under U.S. law. For that matter, any sort of crime---mugging, graffiti, public urination, public drunkenness, public nudity, arson, etc.---would be completely legal as long as you don't leave the international arrivals area. Does arson only become a crime when the fire spreads outside the international arrivals area? This also means that terrorists could legally set up training camps in the international arrivals area of a major airport. Why does the DHS want to harbor terrorists within our borders?
Another scary thought: it may not happen today or tomorrow, but statistically speaking, before the heat death of the universe, some psychopath will likely murder a child in the international arrivals area, get off because he wasn't on U.S. soil, then kill again. Then we'll have another law on the books named after some dead child, all because the government feels such a desperate need to violate its own citizens' right to privacy. The very thought of such a thing happening should give every DHS agent chills. It gives a particularly ironic twist to using the words "think of the children" while executing illegal searches for child porn....
Alternatively, if Cuba or North Korea flew a firing squad into some U.S. airport, lined up its soldiers along the walls, and shot everyone who came through, that, too, would win an award for irony, watching as a not-free country helped a "free" country to be more free.
Or the U.S..government might simply seal off all the borders. clamp their hands over their ears, and shout LALALALALALALALA! Sounds more like our government to me. After all, nothing could be more important than the government's right to catch stupid criminals who aren't smart enough to ship their pirated DVDs concealed in children's toys, upload their homemade videos of sex with underage girls in Thailand to a server in the U.S. instead of carrying the unencrypted files on their desktop, or download their Al Qaeda propaganda through somebody else's open Wi-Fi access point after they get home. I mean, do they seriously catch any significant number of criminals this way? And if they do, aren't they at least as likely to be able to catch such morons in a million other ways without burning our Constitution in the process?
If CS4 actually worked, it might be worth it. As long as CS4 won't even install on my machine, not supporting Snow Leopard in CS3 just means my money will go towards supporting one of their competitors like Pixelmator. Adobe, I'll install when the new version of the app is worth installing, which means A. 64-bit, and B. case-sensitive-safe.
Slashdot Mirror
A citation is clearly not needed for what is clearly an opinion....
My attitude is that when dealing with psychological problems, you have to take a holistic view. Start with counseling to figure out whether the problems actually have a valid cause. If they do, no amount of medication will help; they'll just make you weird. If it is clear that counseling isn't going to solve the problem, then you have to determine whether anything else changed---diet, exercise, changing shifts at work, et cetera---and correct those problems if needed. Only after you have ruled out everything else should you go with medication. Otherwise, you're probably just wasting the patient's money, and the patient would probably be better off taking a placebo....
Actually, when it comes to psychiatric drugs, they often do. In many cases, it's all in your head, so to speak. If you can convince yourself that a medication is working for such things, you will get better, and if you convince yourself that it isn't working, you will stay the same or get worse, whether you're taking a drug that tries to fix the underlying chemical imbalance or not. Why? Because ultimately your brain is controlling the regulation of those neurotransmitters. It can compensate for any "fix" the drugs make, and can similarly correct its own regulation if you convince it that the levels should be improving. Indeed, in the field of psychiatric drugs, it would actually be surprising if such a strong placebo effect did not occur, assuming that people generally believe that psychiatric drugs are effective.
Unfortunately, too many doctors, including psychiatrists, are too eager to prescribe a pill rather than taking the time to get to the root of the problem and fix what's really wrong. The good news is that prescribing a placebo may be just as effective for many of their less serious patients, but without the harmful side effects.... :-)
Normally, I'd disagree, but given how different the 64-bit version of Safari is, in this case, that's a good point. The 64-bit Safari introduces out-of-process plug-ins, which is a pretty huge feature that isn't in the 32-bit Safari 4.
There are dozens of contradictory studies out there. One will show correlation, the next one won't, and some even suggest possible causation of the release of radon, a known cancer-causing agent. Here are a couple:
http://www.midtod.com/9603/voltage.phtml
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7460-large-study-links-power-lines-to-childhood-cancer.html
It's too early to say that there's a causal relationship between power lines and cancer, but it's disingenuous to suggest that there's no possibility ELF has an effect on the human body.
Intensity.
Not at all. It's completely possible to induce an electrical current in anything conductive. The fact that this person's terminology was bizarrely trendy and nontechnical doesn't mean it is impossible. Implausible, perhaps, given the wavelengths in question....
The more serious problem with AM and FM radio is that some transmitters have massive low frequency leakage that doesn't get filtered out adequately before or after amplification, resulting in massive electromagnetic interference in low frequencies (tens of Hz) that can and do affect the human body and pretty much everything else nearby---interference that has been associated with a number of serious health problems, including cancer. This is more a matter of the transmitter being an ancient piece of crap than a problem with broadcasting in general, however. Ironically, the frequencies in question share an acronym with the organization that tore down this tower (ELF = extremely low frequency).
I'm not saying that these people are right for doing what they do, of course. The right thing to do if you detect such ELF leakage is to contact the FCC and get the station fined daily until they fix the problem or shut down.
Or a South Park story.
Yes, PNG has a few advantages over TIFF, but most of those advantages are largely esoteric and fall way outside of the 99.9% case where PNG and GIF images are used (specifically, web graphics and UI button icons). Having also worked with PNG, TIFF, JPEG, and GIF files, I find both PNG and TIFF to be equally programmer-friendly because that's what libraries are for. Write once, reuse often. :-)
Regarding the question of multiple frames in a TIFF versus a PNG, there's no reason someone couldn't have created a new animated TIFF format that wraps multiple consecutive TIFF files in a trivial wrapper. Doing so would have been a heck of a lot easier than creating a whole new file format, that's for sure. Regarding the 4GB limit, outside of very specialized medical imaging, 4GB images are a long way off for most people even today. (AFAIK, the largest camera RAW files on high end still cameras are still in the tens of megs.) And we're talking about whether the format really needed to be created more than a decade ago.... I just don't buy the 32-bit offset argument.
The point was not that TIFF is technically superior to PNG. It's something of a mess, really. The point was that the PNG format was in all ways unnecessary, and that we really haven't gained much as far as I can see from its existence other than to be able to thumb our noses at Compuserve, which is something we can't enjoy anymore anyway given that they disappeared years ago. It was a colossal effort that bifurcated web standards for the better part of a decade and made cross-platform compatibility of websites an absolute disaster for that entire period all because of a stupid software patent.
Software patents make interoperability a nightmare. That problem alone should be sufficient to convince people that they are fundamentally a bad idea.
And the quality of food in this country has dropped quite significantly in the past few decades, leading to a massive obesity epidemic, largely due to government subsidies of corn and tariffs on sugar imports. The government interfering usually makes things worse unless it does so by creating nonprofit corporations and turning them loose. Commodities, by definition, rapidly approach being unprofitable. When a service that lives depend on is commoditized, you end up with the least qualified people practicing medicine because it doesn't make money. We're already seeing a great deal of this because of high malpractice insurance costs and the high cost of getting a medical degree relative to the payout. In many parts of this country, a sizable percentage of new doctors are imported from certain countries where educational standards are, IMHO, lower, precisely because of the commoditization of health care.
I partially disagree with you. A notarized copy of a description of the invention that predates a patent by a significant period of time should be ample proof that you were first to invent, which should make any subsequent patents by another patent holder automatically invalid, at least in the U.S. Of course, you would still need enough money to go to court. The whole signing an envelope thing, as you said, probably would not be sufficient. That's far too easy to fake. And neither a signed envelope nor a notarized description of the invention would provide any protection of the invention itself, of course. (In other words, you can't use it to sue for damages because it isn't a patent.)
The mere fact that health care is treated as a commodity that can be bought and sold for a given price rather than as a necessary service is a rather fundamental part of the problem with our health care system. The insurance companies shouldn't get special deals. They should have to pay what I would pay walking in off the street, or more to the point, hospitals should be required by law to give everyone the same deal as the lowest price they give to any insurance provider. That one tiny change would solve a big part of what's wrong with health care today---no preferential pricing for anyone, including other insurance providers. With that change, smaller insurers would be on equal footing with the giants, and immediately we'd start to see some real competition in health insurance.
The thing is, health care isn't at all like buying goods in bulk. I can't go in and say, "I'd like to have five appendectomies, please---one for now, and the other four for when I need them." Well, I could, but they'd look at me like I was nuts. It's no less nuts for the insurance companies to ask for bulk discounts, but for some reason, they get them anyway. It's not like people generally choose a hospital based on which network it is in, and if they do, they shouldn't. At best, that might affect a choice of clinics or personal physicians. When you're sick enough to need a hospital, you should always choose medical care based on getting the best care, and any system put in place that pushes people towards choosing a hospital based on cost is by design a race to the bottom (in quality, anyway). Such conditions never benefit the consumer in the long run, and our health care system will only continue to deteriorate as long as insurance companies are allowed to get special bulk buying power from hospitals.
Exactly. Patents only encourage innovation in free/open source software if you believe that open source developers wouldn't have bothered to improve and develop better alternatives without patents. Given a mountain of evidence to the contrary, such an argument is absurd. Such "innovation", a.k.a. reinventing the wheel, is a waste of energy that could have been spent inventing something more useful.
Talking about PNG replacing GIF is the wrong angle. You should be talking about PNG and TIFF. AFAIK, the TIFF format can do everything PNG can do (and then some), but was also encumbered by the LZW patent in a significant way at the time. PNG has no real reason to exist, and was a colossal waste of developer effort to create yet another image file format, all because of software patents.
I meant for things like networks, in which the steady state is "working", as opposed to things like ticking time bombs, in which the steady state is "about to nuke a city". Clearly, if you knowingly leave something in an unstable state, that's negligent and foolish.
Computers don't generally get into trouble, don't drive off cliffs, don't require food, and don't generate enough heat to catch fire. If they are doing any of these things, worry.
All you have to do to not break something, generally speaking, is to not touch it. By a similar standard, I haven't shocked myself on the flyback transformer on a CRT in almost two decades. The fact that I haven't cracked open a CRT in nearly that long might have something to do with that.
His duty to help them by giving them passwords and other confidential information ALSO ended when his employment contract ended. That's what the law says. In fact, legally, he should have destroyed all confidential information in his possession, and as such, suing because he wouldn't turn over confidential passwords that he was not obligated or even allowed to retain is a new level of absurd.
When this is over, $5 million is likely to seem like peanuts compared with the settlement that San Francisco will end up paying out.
i think her boss was e.e. cummings.
FTFY.
Oh, TCP/IP is actually pretty easy. You don't need to handle the entire payload of an ethernet frames (1500 bytes). Just set the MTU to something tiny and let the TCP stack segment it for you. I was thinking pretty much the same thought as you. I hereby dub the concept IPoT (IP over Twitter). The minimum MTU allowed for TCP/IP is 88 bytes. Assuming you have to encode them in something 7-bit-clean (say base64), this means that you would need 118 bytes. 160 is a piece of cake. You'd get an MTU of 120 bytes, which while absurdly small, is a perfectly legal MTU.
I could probably write a daemon that uses tuntap and hack together something in under a day. :-D Hmm. I just got an evil idea. Do you suppose that violates the terms of service?
The funny part of this is that while Apple was busy changing the OS over to the decimal scheme, the major hard drive manufacturers were moving in the opposite direction. The last drives I've bought have all been labeled as something like "500 GB plus a bonus 7% for free"... in other words, 500 GiB.
I'd love to see it tested in court, merely because AFAIK financial liability for unreasonable detention is largely an untested area of law. The cases I'm aware of that (fail to) set the bar for reasonable border searches are all cases in which there was at least some degree of probable cause for conducting such a search (e.g. something illegal in plain sight) and in which the searches turned up something illegal as expected. Basically, they were all the sorts of cases in which it would have been surprising for the courts to not find in favor of the government.
It would be very interesting to see a case in which the government was on the defensive instead of the offensive, having detained someone without reasonable cause for an unreasonable amount of time, resulting in financial harm. Those sorts of cases, if they ever made it to court, are the sorts of cases that would stand a chance of setting actual standards of reasonableness.
Some cases are clearly doomed to fall one way or the other. The cases in the middle are the ones that set precedents.
I'm certain it would not go unpunished, just as I'm certain that eventually the courts will recognize that the notion of our borders being unprotected by the constitution is absurd.
It's a replacement for cable TV. It is not a full replacement for everything cable provides these days. Want Internet service? Hope you like 500ms latency.
I think if that happened to me on an outbound flight, I would be inclined to sue for several million dollars in lost revenue to encourage DHS to use some common sense.
By that argument, if a gang of thugs flew into the United States, never left the international arrivals area, and committed heinous crimes while there---plotting assassinations, designing nuclear weapons, calling for hits on their enemies, execution-style murders, gang rape, etc.---they would not be in the U.S. and thus could not be prosecuted under U.S. law. For that matter, any sort of crime---mugging, graffiti, public urination, public drunkenness, public nudity, arson, etc.---would be completely legal as long as you don't leave the international arrivals area. Does arson only become a crime when the fire spreads outside the international arrivals area? This also means that terrorists could legally set up training camps in the international arrivals area of a major airport. Why does the DHS want to harbor terrorists within our borders?
Another scary thought: it may not happen today or tomorrow, but statistically speaking, before the heat death of the universe, some psychopath will likely murder a child in the international arrivals area, get off because he wasn't on U.S. soil, then kill again. Then we'll have another law on the books named after some dead child, all because the government feels such a desperate need to violate its own citizens' right to privacy. The very thought of such a thing happening should give every DHS agent chills. It gives a particularly ironic twist to using the words "think of the children" while executing illegal searches for child porn....
Alternatively, if Cuba or North Korea flew a firing squad into some U.S. airport, lined up its soldiers along the walls, and shot everyone who came through, that, too, would win an award for irony, watching as a not-free country helped a "free" country to be more free.
Or the U.S. .government might simply seal off all the borders. clamp their hands over their ears, and shout LALALALALALALALA! Sounds more like our government to me. After all, nothing could be more important than the government's right to catch stupid criminals who aren't smart enough to ship their pirated DVDs concealed in children's toys, upload their homemade videos of sex with underage girls in Thailand to a server in the U.S. instead of carrying the unencrypted files on their desktop, or download their Al Qaeda propaganda through somebody else's open Wi-Fi access point after they get home. I mean, do they seriously catch any significant number of criminals this way? And if they do, aren't they at least as likely to be able to catch such morons in a million other ways without burning our Constitution in the process?
Just my $0.0137 (adjusted for inflation).
If CS4 actually worked, it might be worth it. As long as CS4 won't even install on my machine, not supporting Snow Leopard in CS3 just means my money will go towards supporting one of their competitors like Pixelmator. Adobe, I'll install when the new version of the app is worth installing, which means A. 64-bit, and B. case-sensitive-safe.
I see what you did there. Instead of picking a highly credible news source, you picked one that was only slightly more credible than Fox....