Okay, okay. I guess they "broke even" because -$600,000 divided between millions of shares is less than a penny loss per share. That I can _kind of_ see.
But what I want to know is how, exactly, do they figures for Fourth Quarter 2001 in March? Maybe I just don't know enough about finance, but that sounds strange to me.
In the end, though, the creators of the Internet will have final say over what standards to use and which protocols receive special treatment.
If you mean the initial creators, I disagree. The internet seems to incorporate new technologies as they become useful/popular to the majority of users, regardless of what the standards boards want.
if you download a full album and don't buy the cd, you are costing the artists and the record company some real money.
Only if you were going to buy the cd anyway. If you had not planned on buying the cd, you aren't costing them anything. However, I don't support downloading and not rewarding the artists... Too bad the record companies don't seem too keen on partnering with Napster. I for one, would a pay a subscription for a legal Napster.
That's very interesting. I don't really have a problem with THAT aspect of it, except that it seems like it may cut the "mop and pop" video stores out of the equation.
They could easily beat that by simply not letting the games work on the same PS2 for more than, say 10 days without being "re-whatevered" on another PS2.
This is assuming, of course, that the games will still require a validation of some kind. They could even make the games stop working once they are due.
So do I, but I care if they plan to make me hook my console up to an outside line to validate my games. This had better be only for those online-only games, or else they will suffer a rude awakening. And what's up with the locking the game so you can't take it to a friends house, or sell it to a used game shop... Hey, this also means that these games CAN'T BE RENTED.
I don't think there would be a way to do the printing stuff on the plug in level, because it has to do with the way the software interacts with the postscript printer. I think it would have to be written into the software itself.
This could happen, but will probably not soon, since most people who use Gimp probbaly do not use it for printing a newspaper or magazine, so may not have the specific knowledge of that industry ( example: you probably have the skill to write some medical-related program, but do you know enough about the medical industry to write one that works well and is intuitive to medical professionals, using their workflow and tailored to their needs?).
I doubt there's much impetous to write these features into Gimp (since it is great now for most uses-just not certain specific ones), though I'm sure they will eventually appear.
Another factor that makes me doubt Gimp will replace photoshop is that most people who do do print design use macs and are happy with their Mac-based graphic design software. I really doubt any *NIX will make a significant dent in the graphic design world in the next decade for these and other reasons (some labeled below). Most designers love their Macs, indeed, they were the only ones waving the Apple flag in those cold dark years before the G3s and the iMacs. To them the Mac is a way of life that they will defend to the death (and before you mention Linux PPC, its MacOS they love, mostly). And don't make the mistake that all Mac Zealots are geeks. The ones I know generally are not. They like macs because they don't have to fool with it to much. Everything is simple and streamlined. Everything generally just works.
It's possible that unix software that can run on OS X may make some headway, but before it does, they'd have to have: a) a photoshop killer with full print capabilities, b) a Quark XPress killer, also with full print capabilities AND c) a Freehand/Illustrator type vector graphic illustration program. These applications would have to work together very tightly.
Even then, adoption will be very slow. Many shops find what works and stick with it, especially in publications that are published regularly. Changes mean problems with workflow. Also MacOS suppossedly has better color handling than any other OS... I don't know if that is true or not, however. Most shops also automatically upgrade to the newest versions of Quark and Photoshop, so Gimp will always be playing catch-up to their feature set if they want to woo designers away.
All in all, I'm not saying that a version of Gimp couldn't be developed that is as good as Photoshop for print, just that it's unlikely to happen and even if it does, less likely to get designers to switch. In summary: Gimp is a great piece of software. But Photoshop is definitely here to stay, at least in MY industry.
PS - there is a world of difference between PS 4.0 and 6.0. Check out a copy of 6.0 is you can, you'll be amazed at how many more features are in it than before. There are also lots of useful little touches, like when you do a select, it greys out the area around your selection. Not a big thing, but there are dozens of little things like that I've noticed... It blows away 4.0, which was kind of a dog.
I agree that Photoshop is not very good at 3D. But then, that's not what I was talking about, nor is that what Photoshop is designed for. It's PHOTOshop, not 3Dshop. Photoshop is the best and most professional piece of software for editing Photographs and other graphics for publication in a print media.
I have worked as the photo editor of a magazine, as well as backshop at a local weekly. In both these positions Photoshop was essential. Photoshop allows you create CMYK files, files you have to have to have your magazine printed on an offset press. It also allows you to tweak each of the CMYK layers as well as adjust you image for the specific paper type and even type of offset press you will be printing your images on. It also allows you to adjust all these variables so you can do a preview of your issue on a regular laser, but still end up with the same tones as the final edition even though you are using a completely different printing process, inks and paper.
I really doubt the Gimp offers this, I didn't last time I used it. Not to mention that the fact that there is no Pantone support for Gimp makes it virtually useless to a print publisher or designer. Also, to my knowledge, GIMP is unavailable for the Mac, which the majority of design houses I have been to use.
As I stated, the Gimp is great for web graphics or other electronic media graphics. Photoshop is great for print graphics. You pretty much have to have it, if you are a print designer or publisher. If you are a 3D designer, use softIMAGE or Maya (both of which I have used before, though not beyond the "just fooling around" stage). It's like anything else, use the right tool for the job.
Yes, but I'd be willing to bet you are not involved with professional graphic design or publication layout.
the Gimp is great for doing web graphics. Not anywhere near as good for doing print graphics, where you have to have exact color matching as well as pantone support.
I don't know why I'm responding to an obvious troll, but I think he was actually complaining about the fact that the store bought solutions he saw were 20 lbs and required attaching a trailer to his bike. This seems like an obvious problem since he's going to be on a long distance bike ride.
Also, price doesn't seem like too much of a problem for the poster, since his request for advice mentions he wants as small of a webcam as possible, as well as a small computer that can connect to a webcam and a pda AND a cellular modem. None of these items are free, or even cheap. It seems the reason he wants to develop his own solution to his problem is that the current solutions are not good enough.
You decry this person attempting to create their own solution, rather than throwing money away by purchasing a solution that is not up to their needs. Whatever happened to good ol' fashioned ingenuity? The Do It Yourself ethic? What in the world is wrong with him finding a way to do something on his own? Do you also think it's crazy to work on your own car, rather than overpay a mechanic to work on it for you?
I don't understand your position. What in the world is wrong with figuring something out for yourself and implementing it, as opposed to paying someone to do it for you? What is wrong with him asking for advice on how to solve his problem?
I think you are just using this topic as an inappropriate excuse to sound off about one of your pet peeves. It is inappropriate since this post has little to do with Open Source. He has a hardware problem and is trying to solve it in the best way he can. His solution seems to involve quite a bit of non-Open Source hardware (pda's, cell phones, webcams). If his question was "I need to hook two of my computers together, how do I do it?" would you tell him how to plug the cables in, or use that as another excuse to vent?
Why the slant, slashdot? Is it so wrong for artists to make a profit?
The artists won't be making a profit, with the possible exception of huge stars like Madonna (who has her own record label). The labels will be receiving any and all money from this proposed settlement, which is a main reason why they wont execept it... The figure they can start their own service and recieve all the money.
I think the reason why so many people are anti-RIAA is because they are taking the position that they want to stop Napster to protect the artists, when the artists really need protection from the RIAA. I know I was anti-RIAA before Napster ever existed.
Their contracts are so complex that the artists don't even realize how much they are signing away. I heard an interview with Rob Zombie once where he remarked that the latest White Zombie album had sold more than 5 million copies... Yet they recieved far less that 5 million dollars. That's LESS than $1 a cd.
Here is an excellent essay by Steve Albini (famous indie rocker and producer... He produced at least one Nirvana album, among many other projects) entitled "Some of your friends are already this fucked" that details at what lengths the labels will go to screw you. Great reading and may go a ways to answer your question.
Actually, Napster did recently claim they could allow users to download songs that couldn't be copied or burned onto cd. So the above poster isn't a troll. Though I don't know how Napster plans to accomplish that.
They could also supplement it with "click here to buy this cd on amazon.com" type affiliate money. Or even sell the cds themselves. If 50 million people use Napster, I could easily see it surpassing the other online cd stores.
Of course _I_ could not fight the US Army. However, if the government was corrupt enough to cause thousands, or millions of citizens to rise up, then we MOST definitely could fend off the army. See Vietnam, where a massively under-armed and under-funded guerrilla force kicked the shit out of the American military machine.
A revolution in America wouldn't involve solitary citizens facing off Apache gunships in the streets... It would be citizens, who would be indistinguishable from the average man or woman on the street, performing more covert, revolutionary tasks... And, come on, a nuclear missle? The moment the US detonates a nuke on native soil, against Americans, would be the moment that 80% of the country and the Army would join the side of the revolutionaries.
Slashdot Mirror
Making mix cds of your favorite tracks off CDs you own has always been considered fair use. Making MP3s of CDs you own is also considered fair use.
Josh Sisk
isn't $26 million in ten days pretty darn good?
It's definitely good for a Steven Seagal movie. Not so good for a movie with a real star, but okay.
Josh Sisk
Thanks, it all makes sense now!.
Josh Sisk
Okay, okay. I guess they "broke even" because -$600,000 divided between millions of shares is less than a penny loss per share. That I can _kind of_ see.
But what I want to know is how, exactly, do they figures for Fourth Quarter 2001 in March? Maybe I just don't know enough about finance, but that sounds strange to me.
Josh Sisk
In the end, though, the creators of the Internet will have final say over what standards to use and which protocols receive special treatment.
If you mean the initial creators, I disagree. The internet seems to incorporate new technologies as they become useful/popular to the majority of users, regardless of what the standards boards want.
Josh Sisk
if you download a full album and don't buy the cd, you are costing the artists and the record company some real money.
Only if you were going to buy the cd anyway. If you had not planned on buying the cd, you aren't costing them anything. However, I don't support downloading and not rewarding the artists... Too bad the record companies don't seem too keen on partnering with Napster. I for one, would a pay a subscription for a legal Napster.
Josh Sisk
That's very interesting. I don't really have a problem with THAT aspect of it, except that it seems like it may cut the "mop and pop" video stores out of the equation.
Josh Sisk
They could easily beat that by simply not letting the games work on the same PS2 for more than, say 10 days without being "re-whatevered" on another PS2.
This is assuming, of course, that the games will still require a validation of some kind. They could even make the games stop working once they are due.
Josh Sisk
I don't care anyway, I pay for my games.
So do I, but I care if they plan to make me hook my console up to an outside line to validate my games. This had better be only for those online-only games, or else they will suffer a rude awakening. And what's up with the locking the game so you can't take it to a friends house, or sell it to a used game shop... Hey, this also means that these games CAN'T BE RENTED.
Josh Sisk
So people who do not have the desire/money to get their PS2 online, or get the hard drive, will not be able to play the new games?
Sounds like a brilliant business strategy.
Josh Sisk
I don't think there would be a way to do the printing stuff on the plug in level, because it has to do with the way the software interacts with the postscript printer. I think it would have to be written into the software itself.
This could happen, but will probably not soon, since most people who use Gimp probbaly do not use it for printing a newspaper or magazine, so may not have the specific knowledge of that industry ( example: you probably have the skill to write some medical-related program, but do you know enough about the medical industry to write one that works well and is intuitive to medical professionals, using their workflow and tailored to their needs?).
I doubt there's much impetous to write these features into Gimp (since it is great now for most uses-just not certain specific ones), though I'm sure they will eventually appear.
Another factor that makes me doubt Gimp will replace photoshop is that most people who do do print design use macs and are happy with their Mac-based graphic design software. I really doubt any *NIX will make a significant dent in the graphic design world in the next decade for these and other reasons (some labeled below). Most designers love their Macs, indeed, they were the only ones waving the Apple flag in those cold dark years before the G3s and the iMacs. To them the Mac is a way of life that they will defend to the death (and before you mention Linux PPC, its MacOS they love, mostly). And don't make the mistake that all Mac Zealots are geeks. The ones I know generally are not. They like macs because they don't have to fool with it to much. Everything is simple and streamlined. Everything generally just works.
It's possible that unix software that can run on OS X may make some headway, but before it does, they'd have to have: a) a photoshop killer with full print capabilities, b) a Quark XPress killer, also with full print capabilities AND c) a Freehand/Illustrator type vector graphic illustration program. These applications would have to work together very tightly.
Even then, adoption will be very slow. Many shops find what works and stick with it, especially in publications that are published regularly. Changes mean problems with workflow. Also MacOS suppossedly has better color handling than any other OS... I don't know if that is true or not, however. Most shops also automatically upgrade to the newest versions of Quark and Photoshop, so Gimp will always be playing catch-up to their feature set if they want to woo designers away.
All in all, I'm not saying that a version of Gimp couldn't be developed that is as good as Photoshop for print, just that it's unlikely to happen and even if it does, less likely to get designers to switch. In summary: Gimp is a great piece of software. But Photoshop is definitely here to stay, at least in MY industry.
PS - there is a world of difference between PS 4.0 and 6.0. Check out a copy of 6.0 is you can, you'll be amazed at how many more features are in it than before. There are also lots of useful little touches, like when you do a select, it greys out the area around your selection. Not a big thing, but there are dozens of little things like that I've noticed... It blows away 4.0, which was kind of a dog.
Josh Sisk
I agree that Photoshop is not very good at 3D. But then, that's not what I was talking about, nor is that what Photoshop is designed for. It's PHOTOshop, not 3Dshop. Photoshop is the best and most professional piece of software for editing Photographs and other graphics for publication in a print media.
I have worked as the photo editor of a magazine, as well as backshop at a local weekly. In both these positions Photoshop was essential. Photoshop allows you create CMYK files, files you have to have to have your magazine printed on an offset press. It also allows you to tweak each of the CMYK layers as well as adjust you image for the specific paper type and even type of offset press you will be printing your images on. It also allows you to adjust all these variables so you can do a preview of your issue on a regular laser, but still end up with the same tones as the final edition even though you are using a completely different printing process, inks and paper.
I really doubt the Gimp offers this, I didn't last time I used it. Not to mention that the fact that there is no Pantone support for Gimp makes it virtually useless to a print publisher or designer. Also, to my knowledge, GIMP is unavailable for the Mac, which the majority of design houses I have been to use.
As I stated, the Gimp is great for web graphics or other electronic media graphics. Photoshop is great for print graphics. You pretty much have to have it, if you are a print designer or publisher. If you are a 3D designer, use softIMAGE or Maya (both of which I have used before, though not beyond the "just fooling around" stage). It's like anything else, use the right tool for the job.
Josh Sisk
Yes, but I'd be willing to bet you are not involved with professional graphic design or publication layout.
the Gimp is great for doing web graphics. Not anywhere near as good for doing print graphics, where you have to have exact color matching as well as pantone support.
Josh Sisk
Access is, or at least was, based on Sybase. That's what he was referring to. Though, I believe MS has removed much of their Sybase roots.
I don't know why I'm responding to an obvious troll, but I think he was actually complaining about the fact that the store bought solutions he saw were 20 lbs and required attaching a trailer to his bike. This seems like an obvious problem since he's going to be on a long distance bike ride.
Also, price doesn't seem like too much of a problem for the poster, since his request for advice mentions he wants as small of a webcam as possible, as well as a small computer that can connect to a webcam and a pda AND a cellular modem. None of these items are free, or even cheap. It seems the reason he wants to develop his own solution to his problem is that the current solutions are not good enough.
You decry this person attempting to create their own solution, rather than throwing money away by purchasing a solution that is not up to their needs. Whatever happened to good ol' fashioned ingenuity? The Do It Yourself ethic? What in the world is wrong with him finding a way to do something on his own? Do you also think it's crazy to work on your own car, rather than overpay a mechanic to work on it for you?
I don't understand your position. What in the world is wrong with figuring something out for yourself and implementing it, as opposed to paying someone to do it for you? What is wrong with him asking for advice on how to solve his problem?
I think you are just using this topic as an inappropriate excuse to sound off about one of your pet peeves. It is inappropriate since this post has little to do with Open Source. He has a hardware problem and is trying to solve it in the best way he can. His solution seems to involve quite a bit of non-Open Source hardware (pda's, cell phones, webcams). If his question was "I need to hook two of my computers together, how do I do it?" would you tell him how to plug the cables in, or use that as another excuse to vent?
Josh Sisk
Not to mention, how truly portable is this thing if you also have to lug around a monitor!
So what about all the works people made while it was expired? Could they make sequels or even continue to distribute what they had already made?
That's weird.
Well then, my G4 is portable. I can carry at around just fine. It's got handles and everything.
Josh Sisk
Why the slant, slashdot? Is it so wrong for artists to make a profit?
The artists won't be making a profit, with the possible exception of huge stars like Madonna (who has her own record label). The labels will be receiving any and all money from this proposed settlement, which is a main reason why they wont execept it... The figure they can start their own service and recieve all the money.
I think the reason why so many people are anti-RIAA is because they are taking the position that they want to stop Napster to protect the artists, when the artists really need protection from the RIAA. I know I was anti-RIAA before Napster ever existed.
Their contracts are so complex that the artists don't even realize how much they are signing away. I heard an interview with Rob Zombie once where he remarked that the latest White Zombie album had sold more than 5 million copies... Yet they recieved far less that 5 million dollars. That's LESS than $1 a cd.
Here is an excellent essay by Steve Albini (famous indie rocker and producer... He produced at least one Nirvana album, among many other projects) entitled "Some of your friends are already this fucked" that details at what lengths the labels will go to screw you. Great reading and may go a ways to answer your question.
Josh Sisk
A battery.
What's the point of a "portable" PC that you still have to plug into the wall?
Josh Sisk
Actually, Napster did recently claim they could allow users to download songs that couldn't be copied or burned onto cd. So the above poster isn't a troll. Though I don't know how Napster plans to accomplish that.
Did you even real the story? They are going to charge monthly fees.
They could also supplement it with "click here to buy this cd on amazon.com" type affiliate money. Or even sell the cds themselves. If 50 million people use Napster, I could easily see it surpassing the other online cd stores.
Josh Sisk
I, as well as many of my friends (all college age kids), would definitely pay $5 or even $10 for napster, especially if it was 100% legal.
Josh Sisk
Of course _I_ could not fight the US Army. However, if the government was corrupt enough to cause thousands, or millions of citizens to rise up, then we MOST definitely could fend off the army. See Vietnam, where a massively under-armed and under-funded guerrilla force kicked the shit out of the American military machine.
A revolution in America wouldn't involve solitary citizens facing off Apache gunships in the streets... It would be citizens, who would be indistinguishable from the average man or woman on the street, performing more covert, revolutionary tasks... And, come on, a nuclear missle? The moment the US detonates a nuke on native soil, against Americans, would be the moment that 80% of the country and the Army would join the side of the revolutionaries.
Josh Sisk