I'll let other people have at it--until they make it possible to not have a giant wing oscillate so close to my nuts. That stupid thing is a castration catastrophe waiting to happen. No thanks.
Hah! Japanese companies were commercially copying American cars soon after WWII, if not during. Look at the Land Cruiser. In it's earliest stages it was a reverse engineered copy of the Willys jeep, which was itself a hastily designed vehicle for the upcoming start of WWII. Seeing the successes of the Jeep in the war, the Japanese government commissioned Toyota with the job, but Nissan later produced the military versions. Toyota even later produced copies of the Jeep for the US government for use in the Korean War; an act which more or less legitimatized the operation, but it would have made no difference anyway. Toyota went on to improve and refine the vehicle, basically copied Range Rover's name in the processes, and there you have it. Arguably, pretty much all internationally successful Japanese light trucks have common ancestry from the Jeep, and it would be silly to argue that many of the internationally successful cars from Japan, of the 60's, 70's and 80's, didn't share in those developments.
I still want a laser powerful enough to deface bumper stickers and write insults into the paint on cars...
Huh, so I'm not the only one with that dream! I've been thinking about that one for quite a while now. I even have this pulsed CO2 laser that I gutted from an old medical unit, I think it could produce enough power to vaporize, or at least bubble paint from a few feet away--or be modified to do so. Still need to mount it to some kind of gimbal and hack a controller together to interactively scale and draw SVG based designs.
I'm not entirely sure how dangerous the reflection of such high powered infrared light would be to the eyes of other motorists, even if they are several feet away, and that's kinda put a damper on my destructive hobby. I don't really want to blind random people. Now, if I could outfit everyone else with infrared blocking goggles... I'd be all over it.
Still, it's too bad that air dissipates electron beams so well. It would be far more practical to have a smallish electron gun shooting some fast moving electrons and a few coils to focus and steer the beam. X-Rays be damned.
We need people without this "experience" thing, because the only experience they have is most often derived from participating in the standard circle-jerk contests like the rest of the yahoos.
That's why we need to stop electing the fucking lawyers. When was the last time a lawyer did something constructive? Why the heck don't we have engineers, doctors, historians, architects, accountants, dentists, teachers, scientists, etc.? Yeah, that's right, they're too busy doing things other than trying to be on the receiving end of a good reach around. The founding fathers were pretty much all multi-disciplined people; but then they had to be to survive. That's the kind of person we need.
1) The gloves are big and clunky because the suit is a positive pressure environment, they poof out (and apply resistance) to a degree proportional to the inside pressure. 2) While space isn't a cold or hot place (like other posters have said, you can't measure the temperature of nothing), there is an awful lot radiation in this part of our solar system--if you're not directly in the shadow of some object. So, space suit gloves, like the rest of the suit must have a shitload of insulation to keep the heat out. With the advent of better insulation, and skin tight suits that resist the pressure differential by mechanical means, suits will eventually become thinner, lighter and less clunky. Obviously, however, the hands present certain difficulties to space suit design, for many reasons.
Pedophilia is no where near the national problem that Alcoholism is in terms of total damage to lives and property, but alcoholics aren't required to be on a national list, or live a certain distance from schools (or bars), and are rarely run out of town or refused housing.
I would argue the opposite position. I'm sure there are many alcoholics and drug addicts that become these things principally, if not at least in significant part, because of prior sexual abuse. Hell, I know a full family that was destroyed by pedophilia. The uncle came over and messed around with the girls. One of 'em killed herself in her teens, and the other one is taking a slower route: she's middle aged and is whoring herself out for meth money, and her 17 year old daughter is going down the same path while grandma chain smokes and takes care of her year old son! I mean, some abuse is affecting a kid two generations down. He'll probably be fucked up too.
There's a root to everything in this world. I have no doubt in my mind that pedophilia is responsible for a large part of the evil we endure daily. They're absolutely right to hunt it down, and attack it where sleeps; as far as I'm concerned there is moral and ethic imperative to do so.
To Hell with that. I want the friggin' law to be enacted, and I want a whole slew of people to get arrested with criminal charges.
It'd be the only viable way to get a bunch of people angry enough to gather their torches and garden implements, so we can give the real criminals what they deserve: being "stoned" to death with compact discs.
And yeah, to most performance minded people in the US, most V6 engines are seen as smallish--mostly because horsepower to the cubic inch figures from the Big Three have been historically, well, miserable, and the cars the engines are expected to haul around have historically been heavier than they need to be. Secondly, v8 motors are both plentiful, generally easy to find parts for, and they're cheap.
That mindset is changing due to increased fuel prices, and the kinds of speed that ricers get with their little two liters--and a new generation of auto geeks is taking over. Also, for what it's worth, some American built V6 engines have become pretty large. The GM 3800 (3.8 liters) was mentioned earlier in the thread, and is becoming a semi reputable engine in the budget performance corwd, it comes from the factory with a supercharger these days. With a little modification it can pump out over 400 horses, with a little more, 5-600 horses aren't out of reach. It's a shame that it's still a cast iron block with pushrods, and that all of the cars it comes in are stupidly big, and have no manual tranny option.
GM could have a winner if they put the Ecotec parts on it, changed to aluminum, and set it in something like a Pontiac Solstice (built on the same platform as the Opel GT, to you euro guys). It would grab a lot of attention. Then again, it would probably come close to a standard Corvette, performance wise--and that's what killed the Fiero. Nobody in GM is allowed to build something faster and more economical than a Corvette, afterall. But now I'm ranting.
Right you are. I was working on some other stuff at the time of writing that, and it didn't come out right. You're right about turning point of the car not being center in the frame, but it seems to me just doing a little mind simulation, that would point be a little forward of the rear axle. Maybe not. I'll have to think about that.
Anyway, I think it's also an important feature in the handling of a road going sports car to have low moment of inertia in the pitch axis, as well. It helps the suspension more quickly react to angular acceleration due to heavy acceleration and braking, and bumpy road conditions, which means the tires get more traction to the road. Also, it would help a vehicle sensitive to bump steer more quickly recover, but hopefully that feature is nearly engineered out in a sports car in the first place. It probably wouldn't be that big of a deal for race cars on pavement where the suspension only has to work in the span of a few centimeters or less... It's a consideration.
I like to throw that word in every now and then, makes me sound presidential like.
I agree, though: I'm a car geek, and I take 'mid engine' to mean behind the passenger compartment, but in front of the rear wheels. As you see, other geeks like to think otherwise, but I think they're full of it.
I would argue that the term mid engine, besides determining the location of the engine, describes a car with a layout that provides the lowest possible yaw angular moment, given the car's components. Having a lower angular moment makes the car quicker to turn, irregardless of the car's center of mass. Also, having a heavy engine some feet in front of the passenger, and making a car have the magical 50/50 weight ratio means that you have to put some heavy stuff at the ass end of the car, which pumps up the yaw angular moment value, and that's rather counterproductive.
Ideally, you want to put the heavy stuff in the center of the car, and cram as much of it in there as possible, and then you can put all the light stuff on the corners. This is why an equally massed Ferrari will turn faster than an equally massed Corvette, even if the Corvette's engine happens to be behind the front wheels, and that of course makes it faster...
It seems that it's easier and far more comfortable to attach an engine to the bulkhead thats an inch from your ass, than it is to amputate your legs and put that engine an inch away from your nuts--but that's just my perspective. YMMV.
The Geneva Convention applies only to regular, uniformed soldiers, in a regular, organized military, following the "laws and customs of war" as defined in the conventions, and the conventions apply only to states which have become bound to them. What are the chances that this 'weapon' will be used on someone in that classification? Zippo, nada, one in a hundred million. This will be used against the same kind of people that we have locked up in gitmo--and hasn't the military already proven that they can do whatever the fuck they want to 'em? They're outside the protections of the conventions, and they're outside the laws of any country, including our own.
Furthermore, our own special forces routinely deviate from the rest of the military for covert operations, and whatnot. They dawn civilian cloths (or enemy uniforms), wear beards, carry non-US Govt. issued arms, and all sorts of stuff that regular troops are not allowed to do. Were we in a conflict with a state bound by the Geneva Convention, these special forces soldiers would not be protected by the convention if they were to be spotted in such a condition.
In other words, he didn't merely do what every farmer for the past 10,000 years has done, liar.
You're wrong. He did the exact same thing as usual, other than the fact that Monsanto came into the neighborhood and knocked his plants up with their rotten genes. That action was obviously outside of his, or anyone else's control. After the fact, he had two options: plant the seeds he collected and go on like normal, or destroy the seed and pay up for new seed. And if you're willing to argue around that fact, you'll continue to use faulty generalizations, poor logic and reasoning, and prove that you're really a bad, terribly unskilled troll. If nothing else, I was expecting a better fight.
As an aside: personally, if I were him, I would have counter sued Monsanto for the cost of the seed, tilling, planting, all labor involved in maintaining the plants to their adult state, plus lawyer fees spent defending myself, plus damages, plus emotional pain and distress for their raping of my rapeseed.
No, the Supreme court of Canada, on the Percy Schmeiser case, said that Schmeiser had recognized the cross-contamination, knowingly collected and replanted the seeds from the cross-contaminated crop. How they arrived at this determination, I can't speculate. I don't know how you say "oh by golly, these seeds here look like they have a Monsanto patented gene, I better not plant 'em, else them big corporations are gonna mow me down!" It's good for him that the court awarded no damages to Monsanto, though.
Secondly, he's freaking Canadian, and doesn't receive the kinds of subsidies you think he does. Thirdly, he was growing canola, which does not receive kind of government protection that corn in the United States does. Fourthly, at the time of this battle he was ~70 years old. I guess he'd be better off ditching that farming crap, being a greeter at Wal-Mart is much more profitable and spiritually rewarding, anyway.
Look here sonny. Monsanto didn't develop a crop that is resistant to pests. They developed a crop that is resistant to Roundup--Monsanto's systemic, broad spectrum herbicide, that pretty much kills every plant that it touches, excepting of course, Monsanto plants, and the weeds that are becoming resistant to its use.
In other words: Monsanto Roundup Ready crops enable easy weed control through the spraying of a herbicide that would otherwise kill a normal crop. Therefore, said crop is absolu-freaking useless if you do not use Roundup to control weeds.
The farmer in question saved seeds from his crop, just like other every farmer in the ~10,000 year history of agriculture has done. The bulk of the NEXT generation of his plants, from the seed he saved, were contaminated with Monsanto's gene. Furthermore, he didn't even use Roundup, which made his contaminated crop no more productive for him than his previous crop, therefore he gained nothing, and had nothing to gain, therefore his crop was not the least bit "better" for Monsanto's bullshit genes.
This all assumes that Microsoft gives a flying fuck. They clearly do not--or they do not have the resources to fix their holes in a timely manner. How many vulnerabilities have they actively known about that went unpatched for months on end? I can think of a few, and those are the ones that made it public.
Furthermore, if MS were to do this, it would validate the exploit market more than it would help create bug free Windows. That's like, if President Lincoln said "we've got all the money in the world so we're going to free the slaves by buying them all up from the slavers, and then we're gonna bring 'em up north and let 'em go", the problem is that such an action creates demand. The prices would go up, and the slavers would start enslaving more people from Africa to fill the hole in the market. In the end, all you do is create a feedback loop of stupidity.
You don't buy Photoshop because it'll cost you more to learn GIMP. You buy Photoshop because Photoshop works with every other applicable Adobe application, in an intuitive and time efficient manner, and because just about every other professional in the world uses it. The only people who need only full blown Photoshop are likely to be photographers. Almost everyone else who deals with Photoshop professionally will need one or more of the other products to do their job, and they almost certainly have to collaborate with other people who need the same apps.
This is where Adobe has everyone else beat. Personally, I don't think it's bad that GIMP doesn't compete in this market. GIMP is probably better off for it. What it does need is some level of intuitiveness that lets it bridge the gap between professionals and hobbyists. As much as I love GIMP, and don't get me wrong, I really do appreciate it, I hate fucking around with the menus, and sub menus, and sub-sub menus, just to apply something like levels. It's nuts that one has to go through three and sometimes four levels of sub menus to get things done.
I'd rather have one giganto menu that's grouped into a half bazillion first tier options than what the current state of GIMP has. I don't care about what other Photoshop professionals think about GIMP, but I'd really like to see GIMP as the preferred tool for hobbyists and not-quite-professionals, and if it grows from there, super.
If editors now closely compared traditional printed scores with Beethoven's own sketches and created a score that they believed would be more accurate than what is usually passed down, then the result can be copyright.
From my understanding of the law, that's not entirely true. For one, to be copyrightable, the new transcription would have to be significantly different than any of the prior works. If the new, "more accurate" work were vastly different from anything that's out there, it might qualify. I somehow doubt this would be the case.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll let other people have at it--until they make it possible to not have a giant wing oscillate so close to my nuts. That stupid thing is a castration catastrophe waiting to happen. No thanks.
Hah! Japanese companies were commercially copying American cars soon after WWII, if not during. Look at the Land Cruiser. In it's earliest stages it was a reverse engineered copy of the Willys jeep, which was itself a hastily designed vehicle for the upcoming start of WWII. Seeing the successes of the Jeep in the war, the Japanese government commissioned Toyota with the job, but Nissan later produced the military versions. Toyota even later produced copies of the Jeep for the US government for use in the Korean War; an act which more or less legitimatized the operation, but it would have made no difference anyway. Toyota went on to improve and refine the vehicle, basically copied Range Rover's name in the processes, and there you have it. Arguably, pretty much all internationally successful Japanese light trucks have common ancestry from the Jeep, and it would be silly to argue that many of the internationally successful cars from Japan, of the 60's, 70's and 80's, didn't share in those developments.
I still want a laser powerful enough to deface bumper stickers and write insults into the paint on cars...
Huh, so I'm not the only one with that dream! I've been thinking about that one for quite a while now. I even have this pulsed CO2 laser that I gutted from an old medical unit, I think it could produce enough power to vaporize, or at least bubble paint from a few feet away--or be modified to do so. Still need to mount it to some kind of gimbal and hack a controller together to interactively scale and draw SVG based designs.
I'm not entirely sure how dangerous the reflection of such high powered infrared light would be to the eyes of other motorists, even if they are several feet away, and that's kinda put a damper on my destructive hobby. I don't really want to blind random people. Now, if I could outfit everyone else with infrared blocking goggles... I'd be all over it.
Still, it's too bad that air dissipates electron beams so well. It would be far more practical to have a smallish electron gun shooting some fast moving electrons and a few coils to focus and steer the beam. X-Rays be damned.
Obama has no experience
We need people without this "experience" thing, because the only experience they have is most often derived from participating in the standard circle-jerk contests like the rest of the yahoos.
That's why we need to stop electing the fucking lawyers. When was the last time a lawyer did something constructive? Why the heck don't we have engineers, doctors, historians, architects, accountants, dentists, teachers, scientists, etc.? Yeah, that's right, they're too busy doing things other than trying to be on the receiving end of a good reach around. The founding fathers were pretty much all multi-disciplined people; but then they had to be to survive. That's the kind of person we need.
1) The gloves are big and clunky because the suit is a positive pressure environment, they poof out (and apply resistance) to a degree proportional to the inside pressure. 2) While space isn't a cold or hot place (like other posters have said, you can't measure the temperature of nothing), there is an awful lot radiation in this part of our solar system--if you're not directly in the shadow of some object. So, space suit gloves, like the rest of the suit must have a shitload of insulation to keep the heat out. With the advent of better insulation, and skin tight suits that resist the pressure differential by mechanical means, suits will eventually become thinner, lighter and less clunky. Obviously, however, the hands present certain difficulties to space suit design, for many reasons.
Wow, that's more than a little fucked up. I'm sorry to hear this, I've always kind of admired Datsun/Nissan for some reason.
Not that I ever thought to look for such things, but hey, that's pretty cool, thanks for the link.
Pedophilia is no where near the national problem that Alcoholism is in terms of total damage to lives and property, but alcoholics aren't required to be on a national list, or live a certain distance from schools (or bars), and are rarely run out of town or refused housing.
I would argue the opposite position. I'm sure there are many alcoholics and drug addicts that become these things principally, if not at least in significant part, because of prior sexual abuse. Hell, I know a full family that was destroyed by pedophilia. The uncle came over and messed around with the girls. One of 'em killed herself in her teens, and the other one is taking a slower route: she's middle aged and is whoring herself out for meth money, and her 17 year old daughter is going down the same path while grandma chain smokes and takes care of her year old son! I mean, some abuse is affecting a kid two generations down. He'll probably be fucked up too.
There's a root to everything in this world. I have no doubt in my mind that pedophilia is responsible for a large part of the evil we endure daily. They're absolutely right to hunt it down, and attack it where sleeps; as far as I'm concerned there is moral and ethic imperative to do so.
To Hell with that. I want the friggin' law to be enacted, and I want a whole slew of people to get arrested with criminal charges.
It'd be the only viable way to get a bunch of people angry enough to gather their torches and garden implements, so we can give the real criminals what they deserve: being "stoned" to death with compact discs.
Since you're British, you likely miss out our sad little joke.
And yeah, to most performance minded people in the US, most V6 engines are seen as smallish--mostly because horsepower to the cubic inch figures from the Big Three have been historically, well, miserable, and the cars the engines are expected to haul around have historically been heavier than they need to be. Secondly, v8 motors are both plentiful, generally easy to find parts for, and they're cheap.
That mindset is changing due to increased fuel prices, and the kinds of speed that ricers get with their little two liters--and a new generation of auto geeks is taking over. Also, for what it's worth, some American built V6 engines have become pretty large. The GM 3800 (3.8 liters) was mentioned earlier in the thread, and is becoming a semi reputable engine in the budget performance corwd, it comes from the factory with a supercharger these days. With a little modification it can pump out over 400 horses, with a little more, 5-600 horses aren't out of reach. It's a shame that it's still a cast iron block with pushrods, and that all of the cars it comes in are stupidly big, and have no manual tranny option.
GM could have a winner if they put the Ecotec parts on it, changed to aluminum, and set it in something like a Pontiac Solstice (built on the same platform as the Opel GT, to you euro guys). It would grab a lot of attention. Then again, it would probably come close to a standard Corvette, performance wise--and that's what killed the Fiero. Nobody in GM is allowed to build something faster and more economical than a Corvette, afterall. But now I'm ranting.
Right you are. I was working on some other stuff at the time of writing that, and it didn't come out right. You're right about turning point of the car not being center in the frame, but it seems to me just doing a little mind simulation, that would point be a little forward of the rear axle. Maybe not. I'll have to think about that.
Anyway, I think it's also an important feature in the handling of a road going sports car to have low moment of inertia in the pitch axis, as well. It helps the suspension more quickly react to angular acceleration due to heavy acceleration and braking, and bumpy road conditions, which means the tires get more traction to the road. Also, it would help a vehicle sensitive to bump steer more quickly recover, but hopefully that feature is nearly engineered out in a sports car in the first place. It probably wouldn't be that big of a deal for race cars on pavement where the suspension only has to work in the span of a few centimeters or less... It's a consideration.
I like to throw that word in every now and then, makes me sound presidential like.
I agree, though: I'm a car geek, and I take 'mid engine' to mean behind the passenger compartment, but in front of the rear wheels. As you see, other geeks like to think otherwise, but I think they're full of it.
Most euro-sporty cars of the era (even more expensive ones) had ugly dashes, I think.
I would argue that the term mid engine, besides determining the location of the engine, describes a car with a layout that provides the lowest possible yaw angular moment, given the car's components. Having a lower angular moment makes the car quicker to turn, irregardless of the car's center of mass. Also, having a heavy engine some feet in front of the passenger, and making a car have the magical 50/50 weight ratio means that you have to put some heavy stuff at the ass end of the car, which pumps up the yaw angular moment value, and that's rather counterproductive.
Ideally, you want to put the heavy stuff in the center of the car, and cram as much of it in there as possible, and then you can put all the light stuff on the corners. This is why an equally massed Ferrari will turn faster than an equally massed Corvette, even if the Corvette's engine happens to be behind the front wheels, and that of course makes it faster...
It seems that it's easier and far more comfortable to attach an engine to the bulkhead thats an inch from your ass, than it is to amputate your legs and put that engine an inch away from your nuts--but that's just my perspective. YMMV.
So, you're saying it's a Good Thing some Penguins love to climb up very steep, snowy hills.
But then our dreams of an intergalactic bikini space elevator-wash will be forever ruined!
The Geneva Convention applies only to regular, uniformed soldiers, in a regular, organized military, following the "laws and customs of war" as defined in the conventions, and the conventions apply only to states which have become bound to them. What are the chances that this 'weapon' will be used on someone in that classification? Zippo, nada, one in a hundred million. This will be used against the same kind of people that we have locked up in gitmo--and hasn't the military already proven that they can do whatever the fuck they want to 'em? They're outside the protections of the conventions, and they're outside the laws of any country, including our own.
Furthermore, our own special forces routinely deviate from the rest of the military for covert operations, and whatnot. They dawn civilian cloths (or enemy uniforms), wear beards, carry non-US Govt. issued arms, and all sorts of stuff that regular troops are not allowed to do. Were we in a conflict with a state bound by the Geneva Convention, these special forces soldiers would not be protected by the convention if they were to be spotted in such a condition.
Same thing applies to the militants.
In other words, he didn't merely do what every farmer for the past 10,000 years has done, liar.
You're wrong. He did the exact same thing as usual, other than the fact that Monsanto came into the neighborhood and knocked his plants up with their rotten genes. That action was obviously outside of his, or anyone else's control. After the fact, he had two options: plant the seeds he collected and go on like normal, or destroy the seed and pay up for new seed. And if you're willing to argue around that fact, you'll continue to use faulty generalizations, poor logic and reasoning, and prove that you're really a bad, terribly unskilled troll. If nothing else, I was expecting a better fight.
As an aside: personally, if I were him, I would have counter sued Monsanto for the cost of the seed, tilling, planting, all labor involved in maintaining the plants to their adult state, plus lawyer fees spent defending myself, plus damages, plus emotional pain and distress for their raping of my rapeseed.
No, the Supreme court of Canada, on the Percy Schmeiser case, said that Schmeiser had recognized the cross-contamination, knowingly collected and replanted the seeds from the cross-contaminated crop. How they arrived at this determination, I can't speculate. I don't know how you say "oh by golly, these seeds here look like they have a Monsanto patented gene, I better not plant 'em, else them big corporations are gonna mow me down!" It's good for him that the court awarded no damages to Monsanto, though.
Secondly, he's freaking Canadian, and doesn't receive the kinds of subsidies you think he does. Thirdly, he was growing canola, which does not receive kind of government protection that corn in the United States does. Fourthly, at the time of this battle he was ~70 years old. I guess he'd be better off ditching that farming crap, being a greeter at Wal-Mart is much more profitable and spiritually rewarding, anyway.
Look here sonny. Monsanto didn't develop a crop that is resistant to pests. They developed a crop that is resistant to Roundup--Monsanto's systemic, broad spectrum herbicide, that pretty much kills every plant that it touches, excepting of course, Monsanto plants, and the weeds that are becoming resistant to its use.
In other words: Monsanto Roundup Ready crops enable easy weed control through the spraying of a herbicide that would otherwise kill a normal crop. Therefore, said crop is absolu-freaking useless if you do not use Roundup to control weeds.
The farmer in question saved seeds from his crop, just like other every farmer in the ~10,000 year history of agriculture has done. The bulk of the NEXT generation of his plants, from the seed he saved, were contaminated with Monsanto's gene. Furthermore, he didn't even use Roundup, which made his contaminated crop no more productive for him than his previous crop, therefore he gained nothing, and had nothing to gain, therefore his crop was not the least bit "better" for Monsanto's bullshit genes.
THX has become a marketing angle, but it really does and is nothing.
Oh, come on, at least give them some credit. They do make nifty surround sound demo tracks.
This all assumes that Microsoft gives a flying fuck. They clearly do not--or they do not have the resources to fix their holes in a timely manner. How many vulnerabilities have they actively known about that went unpatched for months on end? I can think of a few, and those are the ones that made it public.
Furthermore, if MS were to do this, it would validate the exploit market more than it would help create bug free Windows. That's like, if President Lincoln said "we've got all the money in the world so we're going to free the slaves by buying them all up from the slavers, and then we're gonna bring 'em up north and let 'em go", the problem is that such an action creates demand. The prices would go up, and the slavers would start enslaving more people from Africa to fill the hole in the market. In the end, all you do is create a feedback loop of stupidity.
You don't buy Photoshop because it'll cost you more to learn GIMP. You buy Photoshop because Photoshop works with every other applicable Adobe application, in an intuitive and time efficient manner, and because just about every other professional in the world uses it. The only people who need only full blown Photoshop are likely to be photographers. Almost everyone else who deals with Photoshop professionally will need one or more of the other products to do their job, and they almost certainly have to collaborate with other people who need the same apps.
This is where Adobe has everyone else beat. Personally, I don't think it's bad that GIMP doesn't compete in this market. GIMP is probably better off for it. What it does need is some level of intuitiveness that lets it bridge the gap between professionals and hobbyists. As much as I love GIMP, and don't get me wrong, I really do appreciate it, I hate fucking around with the menus, and sub menus, and sub-sub menus, just to apply something like levels. It's nuts that one has to go through three and sometimes four levels of sub menus to get things done.
I'd rather have one giganto menu that's grouped into a half bazillion first tier options than what the current state of GIMP has. I don't care about what other Photoshop professionals think about GIMP, but I'd really like to see GIMP as the preferred tool for hobbyists and not-quite-professionals, and if it grows from there, super.
Great way to win the hearts of some Iraqi geeks.
Or at least free their hearts from their oppressive thoracic cavities.
Hearts wants to be free!
If editors now closely compared traditional printed scores with Beethoven's own sketches and created a score that they believed would be more accurate than what is usually passed down, then the result can be copyright.
From my understanding of the law, that's not entirely true. For one, to be copyrightable, the new transcription would have to be significantly different than any of the prior works. If the new, "more accurate" work were vastly different from anything that's out there, it might qualify. I somehow doubt this would be the case.