It all depends on which pro. Sure all advertising professionals will prefer Photoshop to Gimp, but what if you're an experimental artist working with computerised visualisations? Then you'll probably appreciate Gimp's superior scriptability. Or more likely, you'd use something like Pure Data, which is about as far as you can come from Adobe's CS suite in usability and slickness. Some professionals use power tools, and know their tools well. Power tools are crude.
And for everything else, there's the Dyne:bolic distro. It's not slick or anything, but has lots of powerful multi-media tools that you can use without wasting resources on drop shadows and anti-aliased text. It's designed to run on an Xbox (64 MB RAM, etc.).
Yeah, yeah, whatever. Most people don't know how to use Microsoft Office properly. It's an app that encourages bad usage, like using a plethora of different fonts and font sizes instead of simple and reconfigurable styles. OpenOffice.org is slightly, but not much, better in that respect.
He's right in a sense, though. When you want to upgrade the software on your Mac, you'll often need the latest version of OS X as well. That goes for even relatively simple utilities like WriteRoom and Quicksilver. And, when you want to upgrade OS X, Apple will make sure you can't run it if your computer is considered too old. Then you have to go with XPostFacto, and an OS install that may break when you get a new security patch (happens rarely). There's no good reason for this -- Panther is faster than Jaguar on any computer that can run the latter -- other than that Apple want you to buy a new computer.
Microsoft? Well, they force you to buy to Vista if you want DX10, which demands a fairly hefty computer to begin with. Office users need to use the same version for perfect interoperability. When it comes to forced upgrades, Apple's hardware-software integration is much, much more expensive, and much more prevalent than with Windows.
I imagine he's thinking of "repair permissions" in the disk utility. If you read Mac forums, you'll see it's considered as the first thing to try whenever someone asks for help with a strange problem. And no, it doesn't always help.
But the eyes aren't standardised. Life has diversity, not standards. That's also how things get to evolve in the ecosystem: When a disease kills everyone with blue eyes, the brown or green-eyed can still live and pass on their genes. Widely adopted "standards", like IE and OE, are also far more likely to be infected with viruses. What you want standardised is file formats and protocols, not applications and libraries. That's where you want competition, which is vital for evolution to continue.
Also, it's non sequitur, which means "does not follow". Learn to spell, then learn some basic logic.
I'm sure it makes more sense to you if you look at it as a fight against DRM and closed formats instead of a fight against Microsoft. If it harms the corporations, then that's just collateral damage, not unlike consumer rights have been under the corporations' war against copyright infringement.
Applefanboys have been destroying Slashdot since even before OS X became usable with the Panther release. The only thing you can do about it is cringe.
And that's how humans became the only animals on the planet. Perhaps teaching "Intelligent Design" isn't so harmful after all, if your kind of reasoning is what evolves (bad pun intended) from American science education.
The sunspot theory is well known and accounted for by all climate researchers. Solar activity is the major contributor to the earth's climate (duh!). It's also quite predictable. But believing that the sun is the only contributor to global warming is absurd. The atmosphere is extremely important, as the difference between the earth's and the moon's climates proves quite clearly.
Your portrayal of "GW believers" (is that climate researchers of Greenpeace activists? I've never seen the claim you pretend to refer to) is flawed by a similar one dimensional reasoning, as if there were a one-to-one relation between CO2 and water level. There isn't: The sea water expands because of higher temperatures, and increases because of melting land ice. But since melting ice takes quite a bit of time (another factor you've conveniently forgotten), even the worst predictions say the sea level will rise 30 cm not before 2050. We should see a 20% increase in atmospheric CO2 by then, by the way.
Then again, refusing to play straight mp3 songs is a recipe for failure in the mp3 player business. I was going to point out that none of Apples competitors did this either, but then I had a vague memory of Sony trying something like it a few years ago, when they still pushed ATRAC. I guess Ars Technica forgot about Sony since everything they touch turns to shit these days. Apple is the most successful backer of DRM, not the worst. I imagine that also makes them the biggest, but that doesn't make them the most loathsome.
That's what you asked for, wasn't it? Or did you expect me to argue against him on the assumption that his data is correct? I do assume that it is, but I have no idea about the method he uses for collecting it, i.e. how he chooses sites, which sites he chooses, etc. AFAICT, he doesn't say, which means his data isn't reproducible, and therefore has zero scientific validity.
But could his data be so flawed that even a child would have to question it? It is, and I showed you why: It doesn't even take the southern hemisphere into consideration. Or if it did, the southern hemisphere would be very much colder than the northern. It's not. This isn't "facts of one side are impugned by the other and visa versa"; the other side is a blatant fraud.
I don't know whether you're trolling or just a complete fucking retard.
It's not an argument of corporations/republicans bad, it's not even an ad hominem. This person is paid to write what he writes, by the oil industry and the tobacco industry. There's a huge amount of data out there, and easy to find something to support your claims if you cherry-pick. Which "thousand less-urbanized sites" did he collect his data from? It's almost certainly not averaging to a complete picture, because these variations in global temperature don't look like they are from a spherical planet. Only the hemispheres have summer and winter, you know, not the whole planet. It's not only incorrect as a presentation of "global temperatures", it's also insultingly stupid.
Yeah, everyone who debunks "junk science" has to be right. The owner of the site is a corporate shill: This is the guy, someone who will side with Big Business no matter where the facts lie, and think evolution vs creationism is a matter of opinion. Christ, this idiot will even criticise corporations for voluntarily adopting high environmental standards. He's a free market zealot.
Slashdot Mirror
It all depends on which pro. Sure all advertising professionals will prefer Photoshop to Gimp, but what if you're an experimental artist working with computerised visualisations? Then you'll probably appreciate Gimp's superior scriptability. Or more likely, you'd use something like Pure Data, which is about as far as you can come from Adobe's CS suite in usability and slickness. Some professionals use power tools, and know their tools well. Power tools are crude.
Also, fresh from the Firehose, is a link to Ubuntustudio. It's not out yet, but seems like a more desktop user-friendly sort.
And for everything else, there's the Dyne:bolic distro. It's not slick or anything, but has lots of powerful multi-media tools that you can use without wasting resources on drop shadows and anti-aliased text. It's designed to run on an Xbox (64 MB RAM, etc.).
And of course, you base all of this on absolutely nothing. How ... interesting.
Yeah, yeah, whatever. Most people don't know how to use Microsoft Office properly. It's an app that encourages bad usage, like using a plethora of different fonts and font sizes instead of simple and reconfigurable styles. OpenOffice.org is slightly, but not much, better in that respect.
He's right in a sense, though. When you want to upgrade the software on your Mac, you'll often need the latest version of OS X as well. That goes for even relatively simple utilities like WriteRoom and Quicksilver. And, when you want to upgrade OS X, Apple will make sure you can't run it if your computer is considered too old. Then you have to go with XPostFacto, and an OS install that may break when you get a new security patch (happens rarely). There's no good reason for this -- Panther is faster than Jaguar on any computer that can run the latter -- other than that Apple want you to buy a new computer.
Microsoft? Well, they force you to buy to Vista if you want DX10, which demands a fairly hefty computer to begin with. Office users need to use the same version for perfect interoperability. When it comes to forced upgrades, Apple's hardware-software integration is much, much more expensive, and much more prevalent than with Windows.
I imagine he's thinking of "repair permissions" in the disk utility. If you read Mac forums, you'll see it's considered as the first thing to try whenever someone asks for help with a strange problem. And no, it doesn't always help.
But they did show some evidence to Laura Didio. Or so she claimed.
Does it work with Youtube and Google video now? That's been my main reason for using Adobe's official Flash (that, and probably some games as well).
You can use nspluginwrapper to use the 32 bit Flash plug-in on AMD64 and compatibles. It works quite well.
Exactly. One should never limit another person's right to become tyrant.
I guess you're right. Then again, I do like flaming people.
Only CS3 was faster for Intel, for all but one test.
But the eyes aren't standardised. Life has diversity, not standards. That's also how things get to evolve in the ecosystem: When a disease kills everyone with blue eyes, the brown or green-eyed can still live and pass on their genes. Widely adopted "standards", like IE and OE, are also far more likely to be infected with viruses. What you want standardised is file formats and protocols, not applications and libraries. That's where you want competition, which is vital for evolution to continue.
Also, it's non sequitur, which means "does not follow". Learn to spell, then learn some basic logic.
I'm sure it makes more sense to you if you look at it as a fight against DRM and closed formats instead of a fight against Microsoft. If it harms the corporations, then that's just collateral damage, not unlike consumer rights have been under the corporations' war against copyright infringement.
That's the CS3 Beta, you idiot. It's not running under emulation on Intel, it's native code, universal binary. It's also not out yet.
Applefanboys have been destroying Slashdot since even before OS X became usable with the Panther release. The only thing you can do about it is cringe.
And that's how humans became the only animals on the planet. Perhaps teaching "Intelligent Design" isn't so harmful after all, if your kind of reasoning is what evolves (bad pun intended) from American science education.
The sunspot theory is well known and accounted for by all climate researchers. Solar activity is the major contributor to the earth's climate (duh!). It's also quite predictable. But believing that the sun is the only contributor to global warming is absurd. The atmosphere is extremely important, as the difference between the earth's and the moon's climates proves quite clearly.
Your portrayal of "GW believers" (is that climate researchers of Greenpeace activists? I've never seen the claim you pretend to refer to) is flawed by a similar one dimensional reasoning, as if there were a one-to-one relation between CO2 and water level. There isn't: The sea water expands because of higher temperatures, and increases because of melting land ice. But since melting ice takes quite a bit of time (another factor you've conveniently forgotten), even the worst predictions say the sea level will rise 30 cm not before 2050. We should see a 20% increase in atmospheric CO2 by then, by the way.
Then again, refusing to play straight mp3 songs is a recipe for failure in the mp3 player business. I was going to point out that none of Apples competitors did this either, but then I had a vague memory of Sony trying something like it a few years ago, when they still pushed ATRAC. I guess Ars Technica forgot about Sony since everything they touch turns to shit these days. Apple is the most successful backer of DRM, not the worst. I imagine that also makes them the biggest, but that doesn't make them the most loathsome.
That's what you asked for, wasn't it? Or did you expect me to argue against him on the assumption that his data is correct? I do assume that it is, but I have no idea about the method he uses for collecting it, i.e. how he chooses sites, which sites he chooses, etc. AFAICT, he doesn't say, which means his data isn't reproducible, and therefore has zero scientific validity.
But could his data be so flawed that even a child would have to question it? It is, and I showed you why: It doesn't even take the southern hemisphere into consideration. Or if it did, the southern hemisphere would be very much colder than the northern. It's not. This isn't "facts of one side are impugned by the other and visa versa"; the other side is a blatant fraud.
I don't know whether you're trolling or just a complete fucking retard.
Just in case you actually believe that: Link. Greenland's ice cap is up to more than 100,000 years old. There were no farms back then.
It's not an argument of corporations/republicans bad, it's not even an ad hominem. This person is paid to write what he writes, by the oil industry and the tobacco industry. There's a huge amount of data out there, and easy to find something to support your claims if you cherry-pick. Which "thousand less-urbanized sites" did he collect his data from? It's almost certainly not averaging to a complete picture, because these variations in global temperature don't look like they are from a spherical planet. Only the hemispheres have summer and winter, you know, not the whole planet. It's not only incorrect as a presentation of "global temperatures", it's also insultingly stupid.
Of course there's nothing wrong with free markets. They don't exist.
Yeah, everyone who debunks "junk science" has to be right. The owner of the site is a corporate shill: This is the guy, someone who will side with Big Business no matter where the facts lie, and think evolution vs creationism is a matter of opinion. Christ, this idiot will even criticise corporations for voluntarily adopting high environmental standards. He's a free market zealot.