That is the crux of the matter right there. I get the feeling that you have a problem with consumerism and markets. Instead of just saying so (which would undoubtedly be off-topic) you attack one of the symbols of consumerism. The iPod is just a proxy. I am defending a product I might or might not have bought, envisioned, designed, built or created because I don't agree with your arguments. There are quite a few ways you might have got your point across with more credibility. You chose hostility and deceit--tactics that have been know to be employed by the marketers you so dearly despise. It seems that you are trying to fight the good fight but unfortunately your weapons are rather blunt and crude. What a shame.
Companies are not automatically evil. They certainly exist to increase shareholder value and make money, but there are quite a few roads that lead to that particular goal. They might represent something that you believe in and thus become some sort of (perceived) ally. So when someone comes around attacking that company (or writer, musician, athlete,...) they seem to be attacking you. Some people launch such attacks for kicks, to annoy others, to provoke strong reactions because they think that this is fun. Others launch such attacks because they honestly want to challenge beliefs different from their own.
What is it? You say that Jobs had done good to keep Apple alive, but done poorly with everything else. You also say that he did so by issueing the "Everything must be clad in the most god-awful plastic" directive. Your beef with apple is that they've lost the vision. What did they do when they started? What are they doing now? Try to make computers that people can use? Has this changed? You say that it used to be about the technology. Aren't there enough technology-centric corporations out there? Do you need every last one of them to think like that? Enlighten me, please.
If your Slashdot settings are the way you described them then I apologise for accusing of viciously seeking out the Apple sub-section. I still accuse you of starting a, so far, pointless argument devoid of facts and full of accusations. Had I been wiser I would have stayed out of it, but wise is the last thing anyone would ever accuse me of being.
I'm not flamebaiting, contrary to the effect your claim had on the moderators.
Do you expect me to feel sorry for you now? This is the Apple section of Slashdot. The story was not on the front page. You actually had to go to a subsection of the site to find it. Then, in a discussion about a reported logo-facelift, you basically go on to say that this is a stupid marketing move by a company that, in you opinion, does nothing but stupid marketing. And you don't say that anywhere, but to the face of the very people who are infatuated with said company. People who are known to defend that company with a lot of holy righteousness and little common sense. Flame-bait? Never!
If I'm reading that right, it sounds like you're saying that it doesn't matter who came first or who did what when, just how the marketers went and revised history in their favor.
If you have to ask, whether or not you are reading something correctly then the answer is "no" in most cases. You did not read it correctly, you read it how you wanted to. I am saying that it doesn't matter who came first. It does matter who came at the right moment. Who achieved the perfect combination of factors. The marketers don't revise history. They just help anything to get out of the gates. How it is perceived and remembered depends on a lot more than just marketing. Building a good product is no guarantee for success. Neither is good marketing. Usability. portability, battery life will not help you succeed. What you need is a combination of all those factors.
I get the feeling that for you marketing is incredibly evil. Marketing is about telling people what they need and where to get it. Dishonest marketing may be condemned. But when was Apple dishonest when promoting the iPod? You might criticise them for their G5 campaign, but must then also praise them for disclosing all the facts.
Which gets back to what I've been trying to assert: The iPod's success isn't about being innovative, it's about marketing better.
I am perfectly aware of what you have been trying to assert. The problem is that you are still wrong. Even worse: If you are not baiting for flames then you must be an idiot. The iPod succeeded because Apple saw a need, fulfilled it, and then let people know about it. They innovated by building a mp3 player unlike any other available at the time. One that was better in the sense that it more closely conformed to the needs of potential customers. For a successful product innovation and marketing ideally go hand in hand. You might dream of a place where only the product counts but it has never been that way and never will be. If you think that it is wrong to sell a product that is better than anything else and has better marketing than anything else, then you seem to not have problems with Apple in particular but rather with the capitalistic world in general. A commendable attitude, but not one I would want to discuss just this very moment.
And you fell for it.
This remark goes a long way to establish your position as a misunderstood idealist rather than a troll. Well done. I guess you thought you'd shut me right up with that one.
Doesn't really change the fact that Apple had neither the first small mp3 player, the first portable hard disk mp3 player, nor the first small AND hard disk mp3 player.
See, I know that you are flame-baiting and doing a reasonably good job at it, but that statement simply is not true. The iPod was the first (and still might be the only--I don't follow the market) hard disk mp3 player you could comfortably fit in the front pockets of your pants. The same place where I used to carry my Walkman (I always used to buy the smallest ones I could find for that very reason). Sure, others come with belt-clips or you can put them in your rucksack, but belt-clips are just as stupid now as they where at the height of the Walkman era and putting a player out of immediate reach is something you wouldn't do unless you have to. Taking existing concepts and combining them to something new is innovation. You cannot argue against that. And this is exactly the form of innovation Apple excels at.
Their wireless initiative consisted mainly of putting antennas into every machine they built and build. And they made sure that the operating system would support it. And--at the time it was introduced--they made it really cheap and easy. Any company might have been able to do it but Apple did. This reminds me of Douglas Adams' "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency." Two of the main characters debate about the merits of the cat-flap. One of them says that it is not a big deal. Anyone could have thought of that. The other one says that one person thought of it first and only afterwards it became obvious. I feel the same thing about Apple. They inspire "I wish I had thought of that." The iPod has become the synonym for mp3 player in exactly the same way the Walkman became the synonym for portable cassette players. The original Walkman might have had the added bonus of truly being the first product of it's kind, but that in itself does not matter. In a couple of years the average person will think that the iPod was the first.
If you just want to make a general statement against consumerism, then just do so. Criticising the mere existence of luxury items is not something that makes a lot of sense to me. Just because something isn't worth anything to you, doesn't mean that it isn't worth anything at all. I wouldn't pay that kind of money for a superman costume, even if I could afford it, but that isn't true for everything. Of course for me $400 are a lot, but it's all a question of perspective. Paying twice the average American's annual salary stops being an issue, when your salary is far, far above the average.
There are people starving in parts of the world and thousands are dieing because they can't afford common medicines
Which is the fault of the pharmaceutical industry, because they refuse to let other produce generic versions of their drugs. So if some executive from Novartis or Pfizer is buying the Superman costume you might have a point. You probably don't get that rich without exploiting some people in the process, but I still think that you should be able to spend your money in whatever way you want. Some people might spend it on cocaine, some might give it to charity and some might want movie memorabilia. A lot of people may have more dollars than sense, but apart from taxing that money nobody has the right to tell them what to do with it. And I really don't see a problem with this.
$40000, why would anyone spend that much money on something like that? You'd have to have something wrong with you to spend that amount of money...
You will find, that the most expensive item starts at more than twice that. The original George Reeves Superman costume starts at $90,000.00
Is it worth that much? Not to me, but somebody might be prepared to spend that. Why is that wrong? If you can afford it and want to own a piece of film history.
From reading the press release I did not get the impression that all existing source-, rule- and other books are suddenly going spontaneously self-destruct, once the "Time of Judgement" comes around. I really liked playing Vampire, because it was completely different than any RPG I had encountered before. The way we played it the average session required about five die rolls all in all, but explicitly rewarded good role-playing.
I find White Wolf's decision commendable. Naturally they are trying to sell as many books related to "The End" as possible, but following through with all the hints and promises of the last years still is a gutsy thing to do. They are trying to pull an "Enter the Matrix" in the process, though. The next Vampire game by Activision is supposed to offer an unique view at the impending apocalypse and gamers who want to get the whole picture are strongly encouraged to get the game.
A new world of Darkness, based in 2004, rather than 1992 might be exciting--you never know. I just have a hunch that the rules concerning computers are going to be a lot more detailed, than they were in the old books I know. I don't know if that is a good thing.
I knew someone would mention Jackass. That's not what I meant by "people doing seemingly foolish things". I meant that entertainment itself is foolish, when you think about it, yet it is a highly valued skill in almost every society.
I agree, that the skill to entertain is justifiably highly valued. I do, however, not agree, that entertainment in itself is foolish. The ability to be entertained is one of the things that make life worth living.
Context matters. Context and intention. Normal people who have the guts to live out their normal lives and be themselves while letting everyone watch make great entertainers. Letting and watch are the keywords in that sentence. Had the guy released the video himself that would be a completely different matter. Re-enacting scenes with friends is a lot of fun. You laugh, they laugh, everyone is happy. Taping yourself doing stupid things can be fun. You laugh at yourself, which definitely is a healthy thing to do. And if you want to share that, that is fine, but the decision should be yours and yours alone. The video was always presented along the lines of "look at that dork," thus I never watched.
You were not supposed to reflect upon yourself, admire his guts or his natural showmanship. You were supposed to laugh at the pathetic kid. Schadenfreude pure and simple. It's cynical and cold-hearted humour and that is something that I don't like (I am aware, that I might be in the minority with this opinion, but that doesn't make it any less valid from where I am sitting). Sure--he got his fifteen minutes, but not everybody wants fame or a place in the spotlight.
I am not denying the fact, that the video might be comedic gold. I am lamenting the fact, that Ghyslain was forced into a position he might not have wanted to occupy. Maybe it isn't stupid. Maybe it isn't embarrassing, it might even be normal. It definitely is not something I would want to happen to me. I choose my audience, when making a fool of myself and that is the way I would like to keep it.
I'll admit, it's the funniest thing I've seen in a long time, but that shouldn't make it embarrassing for him.
The funniest thing I have seen in a long time was Steve Ballmer's demented dance act. I have no problem laughing at people who set themselves up for it, but when events are forced into the public my problems start. Jackass can be really funny, hidden camera style humour can't. There is a line that many people don't seem to respect--the border between public and private. Ultimately the kid should have been the one to decide, whether or not the video was to be seen by an audience. The four others took that decision out of his hands. This might not be a crime, but it should be. I don't know if the Canadian legal system recognises the right of ones own image, but if it does then Ghyslain Raza would have enough grounds for litigation even without resorting to psychiatry.
If he didn't intend for anybody else to see it, then how did 4 students that didn't like him get a copy of it to post to the net?
Let me quote TFA: They say the four stole the video from a school filing cabinet where Ghyslain had stored a video camera he was using for a student project.
Even if this is not true and he just left the tape lying around, or even forgot it in the camera, common decency (who am I kidding? There is no such thing anymore) should have led to any other course of action than posting the clip on the internet.
Second, the kid in the Star Wars video needs to get over it. We all have videos floating around of stupid things we have done, although some of us are at least lucky enough to have the excuse of being drunk.
Are you talking about the kind of videos that were made by other people in your presence while you were drunk? With the video camera someone held and pointed at you? Or do you usually film yourself when pissed?
Sure the kids who stole the tape should get in a bit of trouble, but suing for $250,000 apiece won't make things any different for Star Wars Kid. All it will do is financially crippled the parents of the other children.
Financially crippling parents that should have taught their kids to respect others. That should have taught them that other people have feelings and that hurting those feelings is not a nice thing to do? That should have taught them some sense of perspective? If the message is: "Don't raise arseholes, or you might have to pay" then I'm all for it.
I can feel for that Star Wars kid. Being an outsider in school is hard enough when you are only mocked by those that you see every day. But suddenly being laughed at by a global audience must be hell. I haven't seen the video, so I can't comment on how stupid he looks on it, but that is beside the point. He clearly did not intend it to be seen by anyone. High school bullying is good fun, until one of the victims decides to shoot some classmates. Then it is newsworthy. When they drop out, or even kill themselves then nobody cares. This case can send the right message if you ask me (which you really shouldn't)
Would you be so kind and write out words the way they are supposed to be written in the future? Poorly obfuscated profanities always give me such a nasty headache.
Except that "300DPI" by itself does not communicate any information about the physical size of the image - it is only half of the required information. Is that 300DPI at 3" by 3" or 8" by 8" or what?
It does not communicate the final size, it does however communicate the desire for a large enough(tm), like not the logo on the web-page large, image.
It is like walking into a paint store and telling them you need three gallons. You'll get three gallons allright, fuschia, aluminum and candy-apple red.
Nice analogy, but exactly backwards. What it really is like is walking into a paint store and telling them you need enough candy-apple red paint to paint a room. You don't know how big the room is exactly, so you request enough for a medium sized room.
I'm sorry, but you simply do not know what you are talking about. Maybe you didn't know that you can specify the output resolution of images embedded in PDF files. Granted, the default is at a measly 72 DPI (or, as it is called "screen"). But you can crank it as high as you want it (or, more sensibly, as high as the resolution of your source material).
I am willing to allow for cultural differences on the various continents, but the printers I had to work with had no problems making films or plates from adequately prepared PDF files. If you want to use more than four colours things get a bit more complicated but by no means impossible.
PDF is fine for making formatted brochures (or whatever) for download
That is true, because you can export the exact same document you intend to send to the printer at a lower resolution to allow for web friendly file sizes.
but no designer in their right mind would ever submit a real job to a printer in it
I was starting to suspect that I was crazy. Thanks for the clarification, Dr. akahige.
she send him a picture "at least 300 DPI"[...] DPI IS NOT AN PROPERTY OF A PICTURE. OK? CLEAR? Yes?
Uhm, no? DPI is very much a property of a picture. You can scream all you like, but that doesn't make it true. You see, while it doesn't really make a difference to a computer screen, it is incredibly important when you have plans to transfer a picture from that screen to a more tangible medium. The computer will faithfully draw one pixel next to the other and display as many of them simultaneously as possible. The printer, however, will look at the specified height and width of the picture and make sure that it will have these dimensions.
In order to get a decent quality print you have to make sure that there are enough pixels (only at this point they naturally become dots) to fill these desired dimensions. Certainly, the 'idiot" your "nice and intelligent girl" had to deal with, could have specified that he needed an image at least, say, 1500 by 1200 pixels in size. Or he could have used the description that has been a standard for years and translates to "an image that doesn't look like shit when printing," namely the phrase "300 DPI."
So should we continue to use language that people have been accustomed to ever since computers started being used in publishing, or should we change the whole system to arbitrarily large numbers, just so you can make some girl at work feel good? Maybe you should have explained what someone wants when requesting a picture at a certain resolution. This way she would have been prepared the next time she has to process such an request. That would have been better than implanting the belief that people making such requests are idiots who don't know what they talk about.
After reading your first paragraph I wanted to reply with a hearty triple bullshit and be done with it. Turns out that your second paragraph contained a lot of truths.
But what actually is the biggest truth is that Quark rules because of their document format and their document format alone. But they are their own worst enemy. Unpredictability combined with the closeness of the aforementioned document format and open hostility towards users has not made them many friends in the last years.
Maybe the American market is radically different, but European publishers don't really only accept jobs in Photoshop or Illustrator. If it is a pixel graphic then send a TIFF, if it is a vector graphic, or a combination of the two then send an EPS. But for multi-page complex layouts there was no relatively generic format to rival what XPress coud do. But now we have PDF and the number of places unwilling to accept this format is dwindling.
The publishing industry is starting to learn its lesson. The, as you so charmingly called them, ersatz programs are no longer non grata, but rather valid alternatives.
The largest Austrian weekly does only accept advertisements in PDF format. If you request it, they will send you a nice and detailed multi-page guide on how to export your XPress files to the format. As an appendix there also is a single page explaining the same process for InDesign. Scribus seems to claim having a functional PDF export, which should be enough to get your designs to the printer.
Now if you expect newcomers to replace XPress on the creation side of things then this is a different story. The places that have always used XPress might continue to always use XPress. But if a hot new agency can convince its designers to work on something different, they will be just as competitive. Maybe even more so. Because we are returning to the point where only creativity (and respect for budgets) matter. The choice of tools becomes irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
That is the crux of the matter right there. I get the feeling that you have a problem with consumerism and markets. Instead of just saying so (which would undoubtedly be off-topic) you attack one of the symbols of consumerism. The iPod is just a proxy. I am defending a product I might or might not have bought, envisioned, designed, built or created because I don't agree with your arguments. There are quite a few ways you might have got your point across with more credibility. You chose hostility and deceit--tactics that have been know to be employed by the marketers you so dearly despise. It seems that you are trying to fight the good fight but unfortunately your weapons are rather blunt and crude. What a shame.
Companies are not automatically evil. They certainly exist to increase shareholder value and make money, but there are quite a few roads that lead to that particular goal. They might represent something that you believe in and thus become some sort of (perceived) ally. So when someone comes around attacking that company (or writer, musician, athlete, ...) they seem to be attacking you. Some people launch such attacks for kicks, to annoy others, to provoke strong reactions because they think that this is fun. Others launch such attacks because they honestly want to challenge beliefs different from their own.
What is it? You say that Jobs had done good to keep Apple alive, but done poorly with everything else. You also say that he did so by issueing the "Everything must be clad in the most god-awful plastic" directive. Your beef with apple is that they've lost the vision. What did they do when they started? What are they doing now? Try to make computers that people can use? Has this changed? You say that it used to be about the technology. Aren't there enough technology-centric corporations out there? Do you need every last one of them to think like that? Enlighten me, please.
If your Slashdot settings are the way you described them then I apologise for accusing of viciously seeking out the Apple sub-section. I still accuse you of starting a, so far, pointless argument devoid of facts and full of accusations. Had I been wiser I would have stayed out of it, but wise is the last thing anyone would ever accuse me of being.
Do you expect me to feel sorry for you now? This is the Apple section of Slashdot. The story was not on the front page. You actually had to go to a subsection of the site to find it. Then, in a discussion about a reported logo-facelift, you basically go on to say that this is a stupid marketing move by a company that, in you opinion, does nothing but stupid marketing. And you don't say that anywhere, but to the face of the very people who are infatuated with said company. People who are known to defend that company with a lot of holy righteousness and little common sense. Flame-bait? Never!
If you have to ask, whether or not you are reading something correctly then the answer is "no" in most cases. You did not read it correctly, you read it how you wanted to. I am saying that it doesn't matter who came first. It does matter who came at the right moment. Who achieved the perfect combination of factors. The marketers don't revise history. They just help anything to get out of the gates. How it is perceived and remembered depends on a lot more than just marketing. Building a good product is no guarantee for success. Neither is good marketing. Usability. portability, battery life will not help you succeed. What you need is a combination of all those factors.
I get the feeling that for you marketing is incredibly evil. Marketing is about telling people what they need and where to get it. Dishonest marketing may be condemned. But when was Apple dishonest when promoting the iPod? You might criticise them for their G5 campaign, but must then also praise them for disclosing all the facts.
I am perfectly aware of what you have been trying to assert. The problem is that you are still wrong. Even worse: If you are not baiting for flames then you must be an idiot. The iPod succeeded because Apple saw a need, fulfilled it, and then let people know about it. They innovated by building a mp3 player unlike any other available at the time. One that was better in the sense that it more closely conformed to the needs of potential customers. For a successful product innovation and marketing ideally go hand in hand. You might dream of a place where only the product counts but it has never been that way and never will be. If you think that it is wrong to sell a product that is better than anything else and has better marketing than anything else, then you seem to not have problems with Apple in particular but rather with the capitalistic world in general. A commendable attitude, but not one I would want to discuss just this very moment.
This remark goes a long way to establish your position as a misunderstood idealist rather than a troll. Well done. I guess you thought you'd shut me right up with that one.
See, I know that you are flame-baiting and doing a reasonably good job at it, but that statement simply is not true. The iPod was the first (and still might be the only--I don't follow the market) hard disk mp3 player you could comfortably fit in the front pockets of your pants. The same place where I used to carry my Walkman (I always used to buy the smallest ones I could find for that very reason). Sure, others come with belt-clips or you can put them in your rucksack, but belt-clips are just as stupid now as they where at the height of the Walkman era and putting a player out of immediate reach is something you wouldn't do unless you have to. Taking existing concepts and combining them to something new is innovation. You cannot argue against that. And this is exactly the form of innovation Apple excels at.
Their wireless initiative consisted mainly of putting antennas into every machine they built and build. And they made sure that the operating system would support it. And--at the time it was introduced--they made it really cheap and easy. Any company might have been able to do it but Apple did. This reminds me of Douglas Adams' "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency." Two of the main characters debate about the merits of the cat-flap. One of them says that it is not a big deal. Anyone could have thought of that. The other one says that one person thought of it first and only afterwards it became obvious. I feel the same thing about Apple. They inspire "I wish I had thought of that." The iPod has become the synonym for mp3 player in exactly the same way the Walkman became the synonym for portable cassette players. The original Walkman might have had the added bonus of truly being the first product of it's kind, but that in itself does not matter. In a couple of years the average person will think that the iPod was the first.
We don't drink colors. Colours maybe--you just need the extra helping of u to get it down.
...I'd pay a visit to Acclaim Headquarters as soon as possible. Vandalism would be the logical next step in their marketing strategy.
I don't know if any of you remember the slashdot article where some guy modified his scanner to be an (odd) digital camera.
Link
Says "KGB" in large yellow and red letters (sickle and hammer make up the 'G'), and in smaller letters below "Still Watching You!?"
How could I resist buying a shirt like that?
With a little thing we like to call taste.
If you just want to make a general statement against consumerism, then just do so. Criticising the mere existence of luxury items is not something that makes a lot of sense to me. Just because something isn't worth anything to you, doesn't mean that it isn't worth anything at all. I wouldn't pay that kind of money for a superman costume, even if I could afford it, but that isn't true for everything. Of course for me $400 are a lot, but it's all a question of perspective. Paying twice the average American's annual salary stops being an issue, when your salary is far, far above the average.
Come on--it's a Sci-Fi auction, for Bob's sake.
There are people starving in parts of the world and thousands are dieing because they can't afford common medicines
Which is the fault of the pharmaceutical industry, because they refuse to let other produce generic versions of their drugs. So if some executive from Novartis or Pfizer is buying the Superman costume you might have a point. You probably don't get that rich without exploiting some people in the process, but I still think that you should be able to spend your money in whatever way you want. Some people might spend it on cocaine, some might give it to charity and some might want movie memorabilia. A lot of people may have more dollars than sense, but apart from taxing that money nobody has the right to tell them what to do with it. And I really don't see a problem with this.
$40000, why would anyone spend that much money on something like that? You'd have to have something wrong with you to spend that amount of money...
You will find, that the most expensive item starts at more than twice that. The original George Reeves Superman costume starts at $90,000.00
Is it worth that much? Not to me, but somebody might be prepared to spend that. Why is that wrong? If you can afford it and want to own a piece of film history.
And this is insightful?!
Are the mods smoking even cheaper crack than usual today
They must be. Now the big question is where can I get some.
7.1 audio on a handheld? With headphones like that, you'll look like a cyborg.
True, but less because of what you wear on your head and more because of the sub-woofer you have to stuff down your underpants.
From reading the press release I did not get the impression that all existing source-, rule- and other books are suddenly going spontaneously self-destruct, once the "Time of Judgement" comes around. I really liked playing Vampire, because it was completely different than any RPG I had encountered before. The way we played it the average session required about five die rolls all in all, but explicitly rewarded good role-playing.
I find White Wolf's decision commendable. Naturally they are trying to sell as many books related to "The End" as possible, but following through with all the hints and promises of the last years still is a gutsy thing to do. They are trying to pull an "Enter the Matrix" in the process, though. The next Vampire game by Activision is supposed to offer an unique view at the impending apocalypse and gamers who want to get the whole picture are strongly encouraged to get the game.
A new world of Darkness, based in 2004, rather than 1992 might be exciting--you never know. I just have a hunch that the rules concerning computers are going to be a lot more detailed, than they were in the old books I know. I don't know if that is a good thing.
I knew someone would mention Jackass. That's not what I meant by "people doing seemingly foolish things". I meant that entertainment itself is foolish, when you think about it, yet it is a highly valued skill in almost every society.
I agree, that the skill to entertain is justifiably highly valued. I do, however, not agree, that entertainment in itself is foolish. The ability to be entertained is one of the things that make life worth living.
Context matters. Context and intention. Normal people who have the guts to live out their normal lives and be themselves while letting everyone watch make great entertainers. Letting and watch are the keywords in that sentence. Had the guy released the video himself that would be a completely different matter. Re-enacting scenes with friends is a lot of fun. You laugh, they laugh, everyone is happy. Taping yourself doing stupid things can be fun. You laugh at yourself, which definitely is a healthy thing to do. And if you want to share that, that is fine, but the decision should be yours and yours alone. The video was always presented along the lines of "look at that dork," thus I never watched.
You were not supposed to reflect upon yourself, admire his guts or his natural showmanship. You were supposed to laugh at the pathetic kid. Schadenfreude pure and simple. It's cynical and cold-hearted humour and that is something that I don't like (I am aware, that I might be in the minority with this opinion, but that doesn't make it any less valid from where I am sitting). Sure--he got his fifteen minutes, but not everybody wants fame or a place in the spotlight.
I am not denying the fact, that the video might be comedic gold. I am lamenting the fact, that Ghyslain was forced into a position he might not have wanted to occupy. Maybe it isn't stupid. Maybe it isn't embarrassing, it might even be normal. It definitely is not something I would want to happen to me. I choose my audience, when making a fool of myself and that is the way I would like to keep it.
I'll admit, it's the funniest thing I've seen in a long time, but that shouldn't make it embarrassing for him.
The funniest thing I have seen in a long time was Steve Ballmer's demented dance act. I have no problem laughing at people who set themselves up for it, but when events are forced into the public my problems start. Jackass can be really funny, hidden camera style humour can't. There is a line that many people don't seem to respect--the border between public and private. Ultimately the kid should have been the one to decide, whether or not the video was to be seen by an audience. The four others took that decision out of his hands. This might not be a crime, but it should be. I don't know if the Canadian legal system recognises the right of ones own image, but if it does then Ghyslain Raza would have enough grounds for litigation even without resorting to psychiatry.
If he didn't intend for anybody else to see it, then how did 4 students that didn't like him get a copy of it to post to the net?
Let me quote TFA:
They say the four stole the video from a school filing cabinet where Ghyslain had stored a video camera he was using for a student project.
Even if this is not true and he just left the tape lying around, or even forgot it in the camera, common decency (who am I kidding? There is no such thing anymore) should have led to any other course of action than posting the clip on the internet.
Second, the kid in the Star Wars video needs to get over it. We all have videos floating around of stupid things we have done, although some of us are at least lucky enough to have the excuse of being drunk.
Are you talking about the kind of videos that were made by other people in your presence while you were drunk? With the video camera someone held and pointed at you? Or do you usually film yourself when pissed?
Sure the kids who stole the tape should get in a bit of trouble, but suing for $250,000 apiece won't make things any different for Star Wars Kid. All it will do is financially crippled the parents of the other children.
Financially crippling parents that should have taught their kids to respect others. That should have taught them that other people have feelings and that hurting those feelings is not a nice thing to do? That should have taught them some sense of perspective? If the message is: "Don't raise arseholes, or you might have to pay" then I'm all for it.
I can feel for that Star Wars kid. Being an outsider in school is hard enough when you are only mocked by those that you see every day. But suddenly being laughed at by a global audience must be hell. I haven't seen the video, so I can't comment on how stupid he looks on it, but that is beside the point. He clearly did not intend it to be seen by anyone. High school bullying is good fun, until one of the victims decides to shoot some classmates. Then it is newsworthy. When they drop out, or even kill themselves then nobody cares. This case can send the right message if you ask me (which you really shouldn't)
Not sure if this is very practical, or even if it would be cheaper than buying a changer, but it sure looks cool.
Nothing spells chick-magnet like a wooden contraption designed to require less movement.
Would you be so kind and write out words the way they are supposed to be written in the future? Poorly obfuscated profanities always give me such a nasty headache.
Quark 6 has native PDF export.
I didn't know that. Does that mean that people will stop using XPress 3.3.2 now?
Except that "300DPI" by itself does not communicate any information about the physical size of the image - it is only half of the required information. Is that 300DPI at 3" by 3" or 8" by 8" or what?
It does not communicate the final size, it does however communicate the desire for a large enough(tm), like not the logo on the web-page large, image.
It is like walking into a paint store and telling them you need three gallons. You'll get three gallons allright, fuschia, aluminum and candy-apple red.
Nice analogy, but exactly backwards. What it really is like is walking into a paint store and telling them you need enough candy-apple red paint to paint a room. You don't know how big the room is exactly, so you request enough for a medium sized room.
PDF is completely unsuitable for a large job
I'm sorry, but you simply do not know what you are talking about. Maybe you didn't know that you can specify the output resolution of images embedded in PDF files. Granted, the default is at a measly 72 DPI (or, as it is called "screen"). But you can crank it as high as you want it (or, more sensibly, as high as the resolution of your source material).
I am willing to allow for cultural differences on the various continents, but the printers I had to work with had no problems making films or plates from adequately prepared PDF files. If you want to use more than four colours things get a bit more complicated but by no means impossible.
PDF is fine for making formatted brochures (or whatever) for download
That is true, because you can export the exact same document you intend to send to the printer at a lower resolution to allow for web friendly file sizes.
but no designer in their right mind would ever submit a real job to a printer in it
I was starting to suspect that I was crazy. Thanks for the clarification, Dr. akahige.
she send him a picture "at least 300 DPI"[...]
DPI IS NOT AN PROPERTY OF A PICTURE. OK? CLEAR? Yes?
Uhm, no? DPI is very much a property of a picture. You can scream all you like, but that doesn't make it true. You see, while it doesn't really make a difference to a computer screen, it is incredibly important when you have plans to transfer a picture from that screen to a more tangible medium. The computer will faithfully draw one pixel next to the other and display as many of them simultaneously as possible. The printer, however, will look at the specified height and width of the picture and make sure that it will have these dimensions.
In order to get a decent quality print you have to make sure that there are enough pixels (only at this point they naturally become dots) to fill these desired dimensions. Certainly, the 'idiot" your "nice and intelligent girl" had to deal with, could have specified that he needed an image at least, say, 1500 by 1200 pixels in size. Or he could have used the description that has been a standard for years and translates to "an image that doesn't look like shit when printing," namely the phrase "300 DPI."
So should we continue to use language that people have been accustomed to ever since computers started being used in publishing, or should we change the whole system to arbitrarily large numbers, just so you can make some girl at work feel good? Maybe you should have explained what someone wants when requesting a picture at a certain resolution. This way she would have been prepared the next time she has to process such an request. That would have been better than implanting the belief that people making such requests are idiots who don't know what they talk about.
After reading your first paragraph I wanted to reply with a hearty triple bullshit and be done with it. Turns out that your second paragraph contained a lot of truths.
But what actually is the biggest truth is that Quark rules because of their document format and their document format alone. But they are their own worst enemy. Unpredictability combined with the closeness of the aforementioned document format and open hostility towards users has not made them many friends in the last years.
Maybe the American market is radically different, but European publishers don't really only accept jobs in Photoshop or Illustrator. If it is a pixel graphic then send a TIFF, if it is a vector graphic, or a combination of the two then send an EPS. But for multi-page complex layouts there was no relatively generic format to rival what XPress coud do. But now we have PDF and the number of places unwilling to accept this format is dwindling.
The publishing industry is starting to learn its lesson. The, as you so charmingly called them, ersatz programs are no longer non grata, but rather valid alternatives.
The largest Austrian weekly does only accept advertisements in PDF format. If you request it, they will send you a nice and detailed multi-page guide on how to export your XPress files to the format. As an appendix there also is a single page explaining the same process for InDesign. Scribus seems to claim having a functional PDF export, which should be enough to get your designs to the printer.
Now if you expect newcomers to replace XPress on the creation side of things then this is a different story. The places that have always used XPress might continue to always use XPress. But if a hot new agency can convince its designers to work on something different, they will be just as competitive. Maybe even more so. Because we are returning to the point where only creativity (and respect for budgets) matter. The choice of tools becomes irrelevant.