Charlie seems like a nice guy but if he can do that kind of reporting, why is he just doing fluff on the morning show...
Dunno. Maybe he has children that want to be fed, or some such inane reason.
News is demand driven. People like the fluff. They hate the stuff that requires them to think. And I don't think this is limited to just the "stupid" people. So if Charlie were to do serious news and hard-hitting questions, he would suddenly, very rapidly, find himself without viewers, and as a result without a job.
If the point is that Britney/Paris/Nicole aren't "real" news compared to actual events in Iraq/Afghanistan/RonPaul then why is Kurt Cobain somehow so important to deserve mention in the headline?
Probably because Cobain was an icon for an entire generation. Why does the Times run obituaries? Because through them you learn something of how times have changed, and how these people played a role in that.
Perhaps Spears and Paris and so on are similarly important for their generation, but that doesn't mean they have to be reported on every day. The problem with the "serious" news show was not that it failed to report daily on the antics of mr. Cobain, but that it failed to report on him at all.
NASA developed the retinex filter for post-processing lunar images. In the GIMP you can find this filter under Filters/Colors/Retinex. In combination with GIMP's barrel distortion filter and its corrective perspective tool I found it very useful for correcting imperfectly lit photos of black and white magazine pages, and a lot faster than using a flatbed scanner.
What would be good Hubble data sets to begin with?
Oh, but there are also always a dozen people like you who whine that not everybody complies with your strawman Slashdot groupthink. Except of course you guys never admit that it is some commenters who fail to uphold your strawman; in your deranged little world it's always all of us.
Anyway, more than five hours before you had your little bitchfest, somebody had already pointed out that theft is not the same as infringement. I guess you conveniently chose to ignore that. What a surprise.
I like the idea of ebooks on physical "epaper". I like the idea of not having to pay ten to fifty dollars for a fucking paperback book, because I'll now be able to buy it in digital form, without the expense of manufacturing and distributing.
What makes you think the majority cost of publishing is in distribution and printing?
Indeed, it is well documented that 50% of the cost of publishing is in distribution and printing.
And if you damage the digital copy, do you believe your entitled to perpetual replacements?
Of course he is. You buy the book, remember? That is the language employed by resellers. Contract law doesn't somehow become moot just because you're dealing with the copyright mafia.
I know that the behavior of my fellow men will make all of that difficult. Just like the same means that I can never have an unlocked outer door. Maybe I should blame the lock industry?
Wrong analogy. The lock on my house is to keep my fellow men away from my property. The lock on my e-book is to keep me away from my e-book.
"When I can buy a cheap laptop for $399.00 that does more then an e-reader, why in hell would I spend the money for an e-reader?"
Because until the Asus EEE came along, no laptop in the world could do what an e-reader does: wheigh less than a pound. This is important.
That's not to say the price of e-readers couldn't and shouldn't be lower. I've always felt 50 USD was the sweet spot. You can get an e-reader for about 110 USD (shipping not counted), and Sony had a deal until two weeks ago where you could get their Reader for the price of 50 USD plus your soul. (The soul bit entailed applying for their credit card.)
The poster writes: "Almost as an afterthought, the space craft has recreated one of the most memorable photos in the history of spaceflight -- an Earth-rise from lunar orbit."
This seems to suggest that the spacecraft makes author-like decisions. But either the camera and/or craft are remote controlled, in which case the photo is not an afterthought but a deliberate attempt to make that photo, or the camera operates completely automatic, in which case the "afterthought" comment is an anthropomorphism.
Not that the poster can be blamed much; JAXA has printed a copyright statement on the photo, which means that either they claim the photo has a (necessarily human) author, or that they are committing copyfraud.
Not that it matters anyway, as you were stressing the fact that there was a crime involved, not that an arrest had occurred. Are arrests in the US always connected to crimes and vice versa?
If so have you ever let Vice President Dick Cheney into the country? *coughs* I'm just saying.
I am not sure what you're just saying. Dick Cheney would probably have diplomatic immunity, which goes a lot further than just allowing you into a country.
Also, Dick Cheney is perhaps not the best example; he shot a guy in the face, making him exactly the kind of person a country would wish to bar. But since he was never convicted for that crime, the Canadians cannot officially refuse him entrance for it, if I understand their current rules correctly.
Unrelated but relevant: as a student I was once a volunteer for the Seven Hills Run in Nijmegen, The Netherlands. This is a ten mile run that is very popular among the world's best runners and well-meaning amateurs alike. It typically takes several minutes for all the participants to start after the starting signal has been given. In that day, the starting time of runners was not yet measured, but was assumed to be the time of the starting signal. Since it was important to the fast runners that their official time was as exact as possible, they were allowed to start nearest the starting line.
This principle was extended to all runners, by setting four giant cages along the street. Each participant had a ticket allowing them into only one starting cage. I guarded the entrance to the third cage. In the hour before the start, I would typically get about 50 people angrily complaining that they had incorrectly gotten the ticket for the fourth cage, sometimes even threatening with or resorting to violence if I wouldn't let them in. I had only one runner who was allowed to start from the (faster) second cage.
It is no wonder that the ChampionChip, which records the exact starting and finishing times for each runner, was originally invented specifically for this event.
If people who know that they're not great athletes are trying to 'improve' their officially recorded time in a event that they participate in for fun, what are the chances that criminals will lie about their crimes? Can you imagine that one of your kids is dying in a Canadian hospital and you're not allowed to be there in their final moments just because of something stupid you did when you were much younger? I'd lie my ass off in such a case!
If it is a ticket for jaywalking that got them on the list that would be crazy, but these are arrests for real crimes, so why shouldn't they wind up in a criminal database.
You answered your own question. The target audience for the GIMP is not inclined to work on the GIMP. They're graphics folks. If the GIMP doesn't fill their needs they'll ignore and/or deride it and use other software. The problem most people see is that the GIMP is held up as some sort of shining example of how OSS works and is filling needs for people.
It is? I have heard the argument before, but not often, and not here, today. And even if people say that the GIMP is a shining beacon of the Free Software movement, that still doesn't explain the vehemence with which every mention of the GIMP at Slashdot, a site notoriously unfriendly to non-programming graphics folk, is attacked.
The point still stands; you conclude from one mistake that the person making the mistake is not fit to participate in the discussion. That means you either have amazing powers of deduction, or you are a retard. I'm lazy; guess which of these two possible conclusions I drew?
Oh no, not at all. I seem to remember though that you wanted to tackle the text tool yourself. But I may have misremembered, in which case I apologize.
4,500,919 Schreiber, # 4,941,038 Walowit and # 5,343,311 Araz.
It's the GIMP developers' stubbornness, inability to accept work they didn't write, and lack of desire to listen to users that keeps GIMP from achieving parity with even something as basic as Paint.NET or Paintshop Pro.
That's a bit simplistic. Everytime somebody post something about the GIMP at Slashdot, we get a lot of frothing at the mouth about the same old, same old. The people that complain obviously have a problem they want resolved, or they would not complain so loudly. However, they never take steps themselves to solve the problem.
Why should the GIMP's developers change their program just to suit you? How is that going to better their own lives?
And why don't the complainers fork the GIMP, or start a new program from scratch, or buy Photoshop? I am guessing they have equally valid reasons to not do anything as they have to complain. It would be interesting to find out what these reasons are. (It would be too simple to just assume everybody who compains is a jerk.)
GTK, the graphical toolkit that the GIMP uses to draw its windows, sliders, buttons and so on, supports skinning. That part of GTK never worked under MS Windows though. I don't know if the GTK porter has fixed this; I've stopped looking for it when GIMP 2.0 was launched.
What can Gimp do that Photoshop can't, OR, what can GIMP do better/faster so I can get more done in a day?
I've been a professional client-side web delevoper for 7 years now, and I've been using GIMP during the entire period. Sometimes customers ask me to come and work on location, which is when I have the opportunity to work with the Photoshop version of the day. Usually I decline that opportunity, not so much because the GIMP is better, but because Photoshop has had problems that are real deal breakers for me.
For instance, until recently (CS 2 got it right, I believe), Photoshop would save the wrong gamma information whenever you saved a PNG. And something that scared me even more, though that was before I started looking for a tool to use professionally, was when Photoshop would crash every time you tried to save as GIF.
I also like the GIMP's support for animation slightly better.
Another reason that I use GIMP is because it only supports one colour space. I know that sounds stupid, but it makes it harder for me to make mistakes. With Photoshop you need to keep reminding yourself to check that the program doesn't do weird things to your colours. Anything that saves me work is better for my customers, because they get the same quality at a lower price.
When I first saw Save for web/Imageready I thought that was the way forward, but I notice that whenever I have to use Photoshop, I use the special features of Imageready less and less, and the presets don't seem to make much sense.
Quite frankly I believe that the Adobe competitor to the GIMP for web people is not so much Photoshop, but Fireworks.
Lol, try again, the GP was talking about 16bpp when he obviously meant 48bpp or 16bpc, the guy isn't going to be making sensible use of 16bpc editing anytime soon, he may even struggle to make effective use of a knife and fork, those of us with at least half a brain cell know the difference and the potential uses, i don't know what you're getting upset about.
You seem to be thinking that making a typo somehow disqualifies you as an intelligent member of the human race. By the way, "LOL" is spelled all-caps in the English language, as is the personal pronoun "I". According to your own metric, you are a retard squared. Please, please, for the love of God and all that is holy, and assuming the minuscule risk that you'll ever get the opportunity: do not breed!
Re:But is GEGL like Spore? Or more like DNF?
on
GIMP 2.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
Here's my citation for the 2.0 assertion. At the 2000 GIMP Developers Conference, the target for integrating GEGL was apparently 2.0.
I was going from my memory of conversations on the gimp-dev list but I just went back and reviewed the archives and you are correct. Or were correct, for a while. Early in the 2.0 development process, GEGL was intended to be in 2.0, but that notion didn't last long as it became clear that GEGL wasn't ready.
Actually, you're both correct. What is now called 2.0 was in the days of the 2000 devcon coing to be called 1.4. Sven and other developers however felt that they had put so much work in 1.3, that it deserved a larger version number change.
Slashdot Mirror
Dunno. Maybe he has children that want to be fed, or some such inane reason.
News is demand driven. People like the fluff. They hate the stuff that requires them to think. And I don't think this is limited to just the "stupid" people. So if Charlie were to do serious news and hard-hitting questions, he would suddenly, very rapidly, find himself without viewers, and as a result without a job.
Probably because Cobain was an icon for an entire generation. Why does the Times run obituaries? Because through them you learn something of how times have changed, and how these people played a role in that.
Perhaps Spears and Paris and so on are similarly important for their generation, but that doesn't mean they have to be reported on every day. The problem with the "serious" news show was not that it failed to report daily on the antics of mr. Cobain, but that it failed to report on him at all.
NASA developed the retinex filter for post-processing lunar images. In the GIMP you can find this filter under Filters/Colors/Retinex. In combination with GIMP's barrel distortion filter and its corrective perspective tool I found it very useful for correcting imperfectly lit photos of black and white magazine pages, and a lot faster than using a flatbed scanner.
What would be good Hubble data sets to begin with?
Copyright doesn't protect works, but it regularly destroys them. The only thing that copyright protects is the financial interests of publishers.
"Virginian residents caught speeding can be fine $350 for three years (or something to that effect)."
How is that even remotely comparable to paying millions of dollars a day?
Oh, but there are also always a dozen people like you who whine that not everybody complies with your strawman Slashdot groupthink. Except of course you guys never admit that it is some commenters who fail to uphold your strawman; in your deranged little world it's always all of us.
Anyway, more than five hours before you had your little bitchfest, somebody had already pointed out that theft is not the same as infringement. I guess you conveniently chose to ignore that. What a surprise.
"When I can buy a cheap laptop for $399.00 that does more then an e-reader, why in hell would I spend the money for an e-reader?"
Because until the Asus EEE came along, no laptop in the world could do what an e-reader does: wheigh less than a pound. This is important.
That's not to say the price of e-readers couldn't and shouldn't be lower. I've always felt 50 USD was the sweet spot. You can get an e-reader for about 110 USD (shipping not counted), and Sony had a deal until two weeks ago where you could get their Reader for the price of 50 USD plus your soul. (The soul bit entailed applying for their credit card.)
The writable E Ink-based e-book device already exists in the form of the Irex Iliad.
The poster writes: "Almost as an afterthought, the space craft has recreated one of the most memorable photos in the history of spaceflight -- an Earth-rise from lunar orbit."
This seems to suggest that the spacecraft makes author-like decisions. But either the camera and/or craft are remote controlled, in which case the photo is not an afterthought but a deliberate attempt to make that photo, or the camera operates completely automatic, in which case the "afterthought" comment is an anthropomorphism.
Not that the poster can be blamed much; JAXA has printed a copyright statement on the photo, which means that either they claim the photo has a (necessarily human) author, or that they are committing copyfraud.
Not that it matters anyway, as you were stressing the fact that there was a crime involved, not that an arrest had occurred. Are arrests in the US always connected to crimes and vice versa?
Google "arrested for jaywalking," and you'll find out that Georgia is apparently one of those places.
I am not sure what you're just saying. Dick Cheney would probably have diplomatic immunity, which goes a lot further than just allowing you into a country.
Also, Dick Cheney is perhaps not the best example; he shot a guy in the face, making him exactly the kind of person a country would wish to bar. But since he was never convicted for that crime, the Canadians cannot officially refuse him entrance for it, if I understand their current rules correctly.
Unrelated but relevant: as a student I was once a volunteer for the Seven Hills Run in Nijmegen, The Netherlands. This is a ten mile run that is very popular among the world's best runners and well-meaning amateurs alike. It typically takes several minutes for all the participants to start after the starting signal has been given. In that day, the starting time of runners was not yet measured, but was assumed to be the time of the starting signal. Since it was important to the fast runners that their official time was as exact as possible, they were allowed to start nearest the starting line.
This principle was extended to all runners, by setting four giant cages along the street. Each participant had a ticket allowing them into only one starting cage. I guarded the entrance to the third cage. In the hour before the start, I would typically get about 50 people angrily complaining that they had incorrectly gotten the ticket for the fourth cage, sometimes even threatening with or resorting to violence if I wouldn't let them in. I had only one runner who was allowed to start from the (faster) second cage.
It is no wonder that the ChampionChip, which records the exact starting and finishing times for each runner, was originally invented specifically for this event.
If people who know that they're not great athletes are trying to 'improve' their officially recorded time in a event that they participate in for fun, what are the chances that criminals will lie about their crimes? Can you imagine that one of your kids is dying in a Canadian hospital and you're not allowed to be there in their final moments just because of something stupid you did when you were much younger? I'd lie my ass off in such a case!
In some US states, jaywalking is a real crime.
It is? I have heard the argument before, but not often, and not here, today. And even if people say that the GIMP is a shining beacon of the Free Software movement, that still doesn't explain the vehemence with which every mention of the GIMP at Slashdot, a site notoriously unfriendly to non-programming graphics folk, is attacked.
The point still stands; you conclude from one mistake that the person making the mistake is not fit to participate in the discussion. That means you either have amazing powers of deduction, or you are a retard. I'm lazy; guess which of these two possible conclusions I drew?
Oh no, not at all. I seem to remember though that you wanted to tackle the text tool yourself. But I may have misremembered, in which case I apologize.
4,500,919 Schreiber, # 4,941,038 Walowit and # 5,343,311 Araz.
That's a bit simplistic. Everytime somebody post something about the GIMP at Slashdot, we get a lot of frothing at the mouth about the same old, same old. The people that complain obviously have a problem they want resolved, or they would not complain so loudly. However, they never take steps themselves to solve the problem.
Why should the GIMP's developers change their program just to suit you? How is that going to better their own lives?
And why don't the complainers fork the GIMP, or start a new program from scratch, or buy Photoshop? I am guessing they have equally valid reasons to not do anything as they have to complain. It would be interesting to find out what these reasons are. (It would be too simple to just assume everybody who compains is a jerk.)
Because between the time this magical library was conceived and the time it will have been implemented, a decade will have passed?
Hm, let's see, train to become a gourmet chef so I can eat proper food in five years, or eat now and not starve to death?
Under circumstances, an adequate solution IS a proper solution. For instance, when your only choices are between adequate and bad.
GTK, the graphical toolkit that the GIMP uses to draw its windows, sliders, buttons and so on, supports skinning. That part of GTK never worked under MS Windows though. I don't know if the GTK porter has fixed this; I've stopped looking for it when GIMP 2.0 was launched.
I've been a professional client-side web delevoper for 7 years now, and I've been using GIMP during the entire period. Sometimes customers ask me to come and work on location, which is when I have the opportunity to work with the Photoshop version of the day. Usually I decline that opportunity, not so much because the GIMP is better, but because Photoshop has had problems that are real deal breakers for me.
For instance, until recently (CS 2 got it right, I believe), Photoshop would save the wrong gamma information whenever you saved a PNG. And something that scared me even more, though that was before I started looking for a tool to use professionally, was when Photoshop would crash every time you tried to save as GIF.
I also like the GIMP's support for animation slightly better.
Another reason that I use GIMP is because it only supports one colour space. I know that sounds stupid, but it makes it harder for me to make mistakes. With Photoshop you need to keep reminding yourself to check that the program doesn't do weird things to your colours. Anything that saves me work is better for my customers, because they get the same quality at a lower price.
When I first saw Save for web/Imageready I thought that was the way forward, but I notice that whenever I have to use Photoshop, I use the special features of Imageready less and less, and the presets don't seem to make much sense.
Quite frankly I believe that the Adobe competitor to the GIMP for web people is not so much Photoshop, but Fireworks.
You seem to be thinking that making a typo somehow disqualifies you as an intelligent member of the human race. By the way, "LOL" is spelled all-caps in the English language, as is the personal pronoun "I". According to your own metric, you are a retard squared. Please, please, for the love of God and all that is holy, and assuming the minuscule risk that you'll ever get the opportunity: do not breed!
Actually, you're both correct. What is now called 2.0 was in the days of the 2000 devcon coing to be called 1.4. Sven and other developers however felt that they had put so much work in 1.3, that it deserved a larger version number change.
I the parent is using Photoshop professionally, replacing it with a cheaper program is not necessarily going to save him money.