OK, good point. I am bothered by how much web web sites designed that way tend to be over designed, and cluttered with all kinds of clever crap. But that's not a Photoshop issue, in and of itself.
Photoshop has been a part of every web designer's life since they picked up their first mouse.
Say what? Why does a web designer even need a high-end graphics editor? Unless, of course, he's running an art web site. Or he's one of those really inept designers who doesn't understand the difference between print design and web design.
That's interesting — I actually find Gimp's user interface pretty hard to use, and that seems to be the most common reason for not switching to it. I wonder if GIMP isn't designed by and for advanced users who've outgrown Photoshop!
But very confusing. Anti-nuke people tend to be liberals who casually assume that Obama's on their side on everything. Pro-nuke people tend to be conservatives who casually assume that Obama's against everything they hold dear. This is yet another case of Obama doing exactly the opposite of what people expect him to do. I think he does it on purpose!
Uh, you did say that an old unexploded mine "clearly isn't an explosive anymore". If you didn't mean that old bombs aren't dangerous, what did you mean?
Somewhere along the line, Slashdot got taken over by people who have no trouble making authoritative statements about subjects on which they are totally ignorant. Very tragic.
As explosives age, they become less stable, and thus more likely to explode. Especially if they're not properly stored. Unexploded ordinance from WW II is still a big problem in many places.
I agree with the Lincoln bit. But my granny is as dead as any Johnny Reb.
And there is an element of doublethink here. Lots of homegrown nastiness gets a pass just because it's homegrown. Part of this whole "tea party" thing is a resurgence of the militia movement, which advocates "armed resistance" to what they view as unconstitutional government. And many militia people believe that states have a constitutional right to secede, just like the southern states tried to.
This tolerant attitude even extends to actual violence. I've had arguments on Slashdot with people who deny that Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. Never mind that he murdered a large number of people (including children) for political purposes. He believed in what he was doing, so he was a "freedom fighter", not a terrorist. This contrasts with Osama bin Laden, who "obviously" has more cynical goals.
Too cute. And you know, it represents a kind of doublethink. It's OK to support a rebellion that would have destroyed the nation and maintained the enslavement of a huge population. After all, it was just a bunch of good old boys.
Now if I had to get a security clearance, I suppose I'd have to mention that my grandmother was a Ukrainian anarchist. I never met the lady, and I doubt if I share any of her political views, but somehow I suspect it would be more of an issue than this CSA guy.
I didn't RTFA either. For all I know, his employment situation has nothing to do with his criminal record. (Though I find your claim that "There are plenty of jobs out there where a smart can get ahead" kind of at odds with recent news. Hello? Credit Crisis? "Great Recession"? Double-digit unemployment?) I wasn't making any claims at all about this particular case. I was merely arguing with the suggestion that a criminal who gets out of jail and can't find work has only himself to blame, and is nobody else's problem. Recidivists are everybody's problem, since we're all paying for cost of the crimes and subsequent re-incarceration.
I suppose I would have a problem. That's not the point. This isn't about whether employers should ignore an applicant's criminal records. This is about what we do to try to re-integrate people who've left prison. And right now we don't do shit.
Take your embezzling bookkeeper. It's safe to say that once he's been convicted, he's going to have to find a new way to make a living. So it makes sense to retrain him to do something else while he's incarcerated. Otherwise, all the good will in the world won't help him find a new job. There's a good chance he'll end up homeless, which costs us both financially and morally. Or else he'll get some retraining from his fellow prisoners...
The big problem is that prisons no longer try to retrain their inmates. Spending any money to "coddle criminals" is politically impossible. Never mind that we'd save money in the long run. (And even the short run — teachers are a more cost-effective form of behavior control than guards.) We're too busy being angry and self-righteous to think things through.
That's fine if you're qualified to work in construction. I think it's safe to bet that somebody convicted of computer crimes isn't. And I can't think of a lot of other jobs where the hiring process is that informal.
Tax evasion may not be as bad as what Capone should have gone to jail for, but it's still pretty serious. I can't think of any serious penalty for disloyally signing a loyalty oath, beyond losing your job. I doubt that it's even against the law.
The University I mentioned also still requires an oath. But it's not the same oath — the anti-Commie language I quoted is gone. I'd be surprised if yours did either.
You're right, it was the Renquist Court. I got my times wrong. But I think you'll agree that the court under Renquist wasn't a lot more liberal than it is now.
On point 1, there's nothing theoretical about it. A few years ago, I was watching one of those MTV reality shows. One of the characters was a gay college-aged guy from Massachusetts — yes, the first state to issue same-sex marriage licenses. When he was in high school, he'd asked another guy to the prom. When his date's parents found out, they tried to bring criminal charges against him. They were able to get a hearing, because he was past the age of consent (16 in that state) and his 15-year-old date wasn't.
In the end, of course, their case foundered on the little fact that this was nothing but an innocent social thing. But obviously if he'd asked out a 15-year-old girl, the idea of legal action wouldn't have occurred to anybody.
Depends on what you mean by "available". If you just want to dump your video files on a web site, then yes, anybody can make their videos available — if "available" doesn't include people actually seeing it. And a video dumped on an ordinary web site, won't be — even if people can find it, they mostly won't have the patience to download or buffer it.
Successful online videos are the ones that go viral. For that to happen, there has to be some kind of search and web 2.0 functionality to help people find it. There also (and this is the hard part) has to be heavy-duty network infrastructure that allows the video to start streaming seconds after the user clicks on it,. That's a much more useful version of "available".
Slashdot Mirror
OK, good point. I am bothered by how much web web sites designed that way tend to be over designed, and cluttered with all kinds of clever crap. But that's not a Photoshop issue, in and of itself.
I promised myself I'd ignore you, but I have to say that that's a nicely written post. I hope positive feedback from me doesn't confuse you!
Thanks for a thought-provoking post. I think you just summarized the basic relationship between the open source and closed source communities!
Photoshop has been a part of every web designer's life since they picked up their first mouse.
Say what? Why does a web designer even need a high-end graphics editor? Unless, of course, he's running an art web site. Or he's one of those really inept designers who doesn't understand the difference between print design and web design.
That's interesting — I actually find Gimp's user interface pretty hard to use, and that seems to be the most common reason for not switching to it. I wonder if GIMP isn't designed by and for advanced users who've outgrown Photoshop!
But very confusing. Anti-nuke people tend to be liberals who casually assume that Obama's on their side on everything. Pro-nuke people tend to be conservatives who casually assume that Obama's against everything they hold dear. This is yet another case of Obama doing exactly the opposite of what people expect him to do. I think he does it on purpose!
I did read it. Or rather mis-read it. My bad.
Thanks for that interesting item. But note that the Civil War ended in 1865. That's further back than 1918, but not much further back.
Uh, you did say that an old unexploded mine "clearly isn't an explosive anymore". If you didn't mean that old bombs aren't dangerous, what did you mean?
Somewhere along the line, Slashdot got taken over by people who have no trouble making authoritative statements about subjects on which they are totally ignorant. Very tragic.
Why not? It's an elegant solution. You liberals are always trying to complicate things.
As explosives age, they become less stable, and thus more likely to explode. Especially if they're not properly stored. Unexploded ordinance from WW II is still a big problem in many places.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,584091,00.html
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-05/04/content_439409.htm
The French still have problems with unexploded ordinance from World War I, which was mostly fought on their territory.
I agree with the Lincoln bit. But my granny is as dead as any Johnny Reb.
And there is an element of doublethink here. Lots of homegrown nastiness gets a pass just because it's homegrown. Part of this whole "tea party" thing is a resurgence of the militia movement, which advocates "armed resistance" to what they view as unconstitutional government. And many militia people believe that states have a constitutional right to secede, just like the southern states tried to.
This tolerant attitude even extends to actual violence. I've had arguments on Slashdot with people who deny that Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. Never mind that he murdered a large number of people (including children) for political purposes. He believed in what he was doing, so he was a "freedom fighter", not a terrorist. This contrasts with Osama bin Laden, who "obviously" has more cynical goals.
OK, I thought you were expressing a general opinion about people who can't get jobs because they've committed crimes. My bad.
Still, the "would you hire" counter argument ignores the point of my argument.
Too cute. And you know, it represents a kind of doublethink. It's OK to support a rebellion that would have destroyed the nation and maintained the enslavement of a huge population. After all, it was just a bunch of good old boys.
Now if I had to get a security clearance, I suppose I'd have to mention that my grandmother was a Ukrainian anarchist. I never met the lady, and I doubt if I share any of her political views, but somehow I suspect it would be more of an issue than this CSA guy.
I didn't RTFA either. For all I know, his employment situation has nothing to do with his criminal record. (Though I find your claim that "There are plenty of jobs out there where a smart can get ahead" kind of at odds with recent news. Hello? Credit Crisis? "Great Recession"? Double-digit unemployment?) I wasn't making any claims at all about this particular case. I was merely arguing with the suggestion that a criminal who gets out of jail and can't find work has only himself to blame, and is nobody else's problem. Recidivists are everybody's problem, since we're all paying for cost of the crimes and subsequent re-incarceration.
I suppose I would have a problem. That's not the point. This isn't about whether employers should ignore an applicant's criminal records. This is about what we do to try to re-integrate people who've left prison. And right now we don't do shit.
Take your embezzling bookkeeper. It's safe to say that once he's been convicted, he's going to have to find a new way to make a living. So it makes sense to retrain him to do something else while he's incarcerated. Otherwise, all the good will in the world won't help him find a new job. There's a good chance he'll end up homeless, which costs us both financially and morally. Or else he'll get some retraining from his fellow prisoners...
The big problem is that prisons no longer try to retrain their inmates. Spending any money to "coddle criminals" is politically impossible. Never mind that we'd save money in the long run. (And even the short run — teachers are a more cost-effective form of behavior control than guards.) We're too busy being angry and self-righteous to think things through.
That's fine if you're qualified to work in construction. I think it's safe to bet that somebody convicted of computer crimes isn't. And I can't think of a lot of other jobs where the hiring process is that informal.
They did. He's called the Governator.
Tax evasion may not be as bad as what Capone should have gone to jail for, but it's still pretty serious. I can't think of any serious penalty for disloyally signing a loyalty oath, beyond losing your job. I doubt that it's even against the law.
The University I mentioned also still requires an oath. But it's not the same oath — the anti-Commie language I quoted is gone. I'd be surprised if yours did either.
You're right, it was the Renquist Court. I got my times wrong. But I think you'll agree that the court under Renquist wasn't a lot more liberal than it is now.
I think he's arguing that he has a constitutional obligation to overthrow a government he considers unconstitutional. I'm guessing he's a birther...
On point 1, there's nothing theoretical about it. A few years ago, I was watching one of those MTV reality shows. One of the characters was a gay college-aged guy from Massachusetts — yes, the first state to issue same-sex marriage licenses. When he was in high school, he'd asked another guy to the prom. When his date's parents found out, they tried to bring criminal charges against him. They were able to get a hearing, because he was past the age of consent (16 in that state) and his 15-year-old date wasn't.
In the end, of course, their case foundered on the little fact that this was nothing but an innocent social thing. But obviously if he'd asked out a 15-year-old girl, the idea of legal action wouldn't have occurred to anybody.
Depends on what you mean by "available". If you just want to dump your video files on a web site, then yes, anybody can make their videos available — if "available" doesn't include people actually seeing it. And a video dumped on an ordinary web site, won't be — even if people can find it, they mostly won't have the patience to download or buffer it.
Successful online videos are the ones that go viral. For that to happen, there has to be some kind of search and web 2.0 functionality to help people find it. There also (and this is the hard part) has to be heavy-duty network infrastructure that allows the video to start streaming seconds after the user clicks on it,. That's a much more useful version of "available".