Actually one of the articles says they admitted to pasting fake images on several displays... but who cares? The "response room" does exist and changing a few of the projected images isn't misleading, it just makes the picture look better aesthetically. Every magazine and corporate image in the world is done this way.
According to TFA, they determined this was "photoshopped" because zooming in on the full-resolution image you can see that the projection screen "looks edited". This is stupid because any photographer knows that you almost always have to adjust the black/white levels of a projection screen separately from the rest of the frame because it's so much brighter than the rest of the room. Granted they didn't do a great job of it, but they shouldn't be paying big money for a professional anyways. They have other places to be spending their money.
To be fair, online gullibility and hysteria does tend towards a right wing bent. One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, just for this month alone. The left is not immune to the chain-email urban legend phenomenon (e.g. talk of the draft a few years back) but it is the right, especially the religious right, that excels at propogating misinformation.
Conservatives are demographically older and more affluent. Older people are more gullible on the internet. So what? That's no excuse for the level of hatred toward the right we see on/. every single day.
>>>They invite it, though, with [left] wing politicians calling [Bush] a [chimpanzee], a 'secret [Nazi] or [fascist], not [properly elected] in the U.S. because he [bribed the Supreme Court and stole the election]. Talking about death panels in the [secret prison camps] and [Guantanamo Bay], etc. And that's in the [DNC] itself, not just in the [Green] Party.
Fixed that for you. I guess you forgot about that. Or else you endorse it.
POINT = There are idiots in both parties. The way Obama's been treated these past two years is no different than how Bush was treated the previous eight.
He's right. The "right-wing nutjobs" people normally quote are only a small percentage of crazies. The left has their very own small percentage of crazies as well. Everything commodore64_love posted above was said about Bush at one point or another by commentators on the left.
well I _have_ heard of Lockheed Martin. I should've known about Raytheon though... the more I research them the more I realize how big of a name they are (or _should be_ for that matter)
Wow I had never heard of Raytheon until earlier this week and now I've seen them referenced in two different places for two different projects. (this and the "pain gun")
Correct. However my point was that they rate the various components and features of a product based on some appropriate empirical measurement, presenting said measurements to the customer so that the customer can decide what is "best" for him or her.
So they don't directly decide what is "best," however they provide metrics for figuring out what is best for a given individual.
Yeah me too... I'm required to buy a tablet for the university I'll attend next year and it would be nice for prices to go down a little. (it's ridiculous how much a quad-core tablet costs these days)
You can determine my entire political ideology based solely on the fact that I think a particular nonprofit organization is unbiased?
A little bit of a cynicism is one thing, but some people take it to an extremely unhealthy level. There is absolutely no reason to believe Consumer Reports is lying about their policy of not accepting things from corporations.
You don't think that eventually some rogue employee would spill the beans and start speaking out against of the "evil" nonprofit organization that takes bribes from corporations?
The newspaper is filled with corruption because corruption eventually gets out. Eventually...
Are you suggesting that corporations are directly paying Consumer Reports to push out positive reviews and then not disclosing this income to the IRS, et al. (which is ILLEGAL)?
That's a pretty strong statement. (potentially libelous, but I'm not a lawyer)
MoveOn.org is a nonprofit organization as well; there's no reason to assume nonprofit means unbiased.
Yeah but MoveOn deals with politics... Consumer Reports is only interested in figuring out which products are the best. They pay for all products out of pocket and don't accept money or free products.
MoveOn uses donations to run political ads smearing politicians. Consumer Reports uses donations (and subscription fees) to pay engineers (employees) and to buy the products they test.
I'm Conservative and typically oppose MoveOn, however I do think it serves a purpose. But still, that being said, they are hardly the same
To be clear, when I said "don't accept money," I meant paid product placement. Obviously they accept donations from individuals.
Also, from their website:
ConsumerReports.org is published by Consumers Union, which accepts no outside advertising, no free test samples, and has no agenda other than the interests of consumers.
MoveOn.org is a nonprofit organization as well; there's no reason to assume nonprofit means unbiased.
Yeah but MoveOn deals with politics... Consumer Reports is only interested in figuring out which products are the best. They pay for all products out of pocket and don't accept money or free products.
MoveOn uses donations to run political ads smearing politicians. Consumer Reports uses donations (and subscription fees) to pay engineers (employees) and to buy the products they test.
I'm Conservative and typically oppose MoveOn, however I do think it serves a purpose. But still, that being said, they are hardly the same
People will read that as a troll but it's true, really. Bush is much better suited to deal with oil problems than national security. (he owns multiple oil companies)
Actually, unlike most open-source projects, the Gimp (and Blender3d for that matter) are very organized and typically follow through with promises. It just might be a few more years....
GIMP 2.6 is an important release from a development point of view. It features changes to the user interface addressing some often received complaints, and a tentative integration of GEGL, the graph based image processing library that will eventually bring high bit-depth and non-destructive editing to GIMP.
When I said "modifier stack," I was referring to non-destructive editing. Also, GEGL (the new projection library being used with GIMP) is high-bit and supports *some* RAW formats. I imagine it's probably the common ones. (Canon, Nikon, et al.)
Also I think I read somewhere about GIMP planning on moving toward including some non-destructive stuff. (but maybe i'm thinking about something else)
I own Lightroom 2, but you can't do stuff like foreground extraction or object removal (for taking out "exit" signs, poles, etc.). The only real advantage to Lightroom is that everything is done in a modifier stack so you have infinite undos. (can't think of the real terminology, so "modifier stack" will have to do)
Gimp can do everything Lightroom can (except for the "modifier stack" workflow)
GIMP is currently switching projection engines, at which point it will have high-bit level support. I wouldn't dare use it for image creation, however, for photography it handles everything I need. It has layers, a levels dialog, a paint brush and an eraser. For digital darkroom stuff, what else could you possibly need?
For "developing world" read "we're too shit scared to try this in the domestic market so will run a backdoor field trial and hope it gets enough attention to launch back home". It's the same with gutless politicians and academics. They don't have the balls to take on domestic interests or want to get some brownie points for patronising the poor. Take a look at Microsoft's feeble attempts to capture the mobile phone market or the One Laptop Per Child bollocks. They're all risk averse chicken shit unimaginative patronising wankers.
Yeah! How dare they try and help the poor in third world countries!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually one of the articles says they admitted to pasting fake images on several displays... but who cares? The "response room" does exist and changing a few of the projected images isn't misleading, it just makes the picture look better aesthetically. Every magazine and corporate image in the world is done this way.
According to TFA, they determined this was "photoshopped" because zooming in on the full-resolution image you can see that the projection screen "looks edited". This is stupid because any photographer knows that you almost always have to adjust the black/white levels of a projection screen separately from the rest of the frame because it's so much brighter than the rest of the room. Granted they didn't do a great job of it, but they shouldn't be paying big money for a professional anyways. They have other places to be spending their money.
To be fair, online gullibility and hysteria does tend towards a right wing bent.
One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, just for this month alone. The left is not immune to the chain-email urban legend phenomenon (e.g. talk of the draft a few years back) but it is the right, especially the religious right, that excels at propogating misinformation.
Conservatives are demographically older and more affluent. Older people are more gullible on the internet. So what? That's no excuse for the level of hatred toward the right we see on /. every single day.
>>>They invite it, though, with [left] wing politicians calling [Bush] a [chimpanzee], a 'secret [Nazi] or [fascist], not [properly elected] in the U.S. because he [bribed the Supreme Court and stole the election]. Talking about death panels in the [secret prison camps] and [Guantanamo Bay], etc. And that's in the [DNC] itself, not just in the [Green] Party.
Fixed that for you.
I guess you forgot about that.
Or else you endorse it.
POINT = There are idiots in both parties. The way Obama's been treated these past two years is no different than how Bush was treated the previous eight.
He's right. The "right-wing nutjobs" people normally quote are only a small percentage of crazies. The left has their very own small percentage of crazies as well. Everything commodore64_love posted above was said about Bush at one point or another by commentators on the left.
well I _have_ heard of Lockheed Martin. I should've known about Raytheon though... the more I research them the more I realize how big of a name they are (or _should be_ for that matter)
Wow I had never heard of Raytheon until earlier this week and now I've seen them referenced in two different places for two different projects. (this and the "pain gun")
Correct. However my point was that they rate the various components and features of a product based on some appropriate empirical measurement, presenting said measurements to the customer so that the customer can decide what is "best" for him or her.
So they don't directly decide what is "best," however they provide metrics for figuring out what is best for a given individual.
I imagine you would have MUCH better luck taking this route. It certainly wouldn't hurt to give them a call.
Seriously - why is this not +5 Insightful?! (the RIAA comment)
Yeah me too... I'm required to buy a tablet for the university I'll attend next year and it would be nice for prices to go down a little. (it's ridiculous how much a quad-core tablet costs these days)
...then you're probably a libertarian...
You can determine my entire political ideology based solely on the fact that I think a particular nonprofit organization is unbiased?
A little bit of a cynicism is one thing, but some people take it to an extremely unhealthy level. There is absolutely no reason to believe Consumer Reports is lying about their policy of not accepting things from corporations.
You don't think that eventually some rogue employee would spill the beans and start speaking out against of the "evil" nonprofit organization that takes bribes from corporations?
The newspaper is filled with corruption because corruption eventually gets out. Eventually...
Are you suggesting that corporations are directly paying Consumer Reports to push out positive reviews and then not disclosing this income to the IRS, et al. (which is ILLEGAL)?
That's a pretty strong statement. (potentially libelous, but I'm not a lawyer)
MoveOn.org is a nonprofit organization as well; there's no reason to assume nonprofit means unbiased.
Yeah but MoveOn deals with politics... Consumer Reports is only interested in figuring out which products are the best. They pay for all products out of pocket and don't accept money or free products.
MoveOn uses donations to run political ads smearing politicians. Consumer Reports uses donations (and subscription fees) to pay engineers (employees) and to buy the products they test.
I'm Conservative and typically oppose MoveOn, however I do think it serves a purpose. But still, that being said, they are hardly the same
To be clear, when I said "don't accept money," I meant paid product placement. Obviously they accept donations from individuals.
Also, from their website:
ConsumerReports.org is published by Consumers Union, which accepts no outside advertising, no free test samples, and has no agenda other than the interests of consumers.
MoveOn.org is a nonprofit organization as well; there's no reason to assume nonprofit means unbiased.
Yeah but MoveOn deals with politics... Consumer Reports is only interested in figuring out which products are the best. They pay for all products out of pocket and don't accept money or free products.
MoveOn uses donations to run political ads smearing politicians. Consumer Reports uses donations (and subscription fees) to pay engineers (employees) and to buy the products they test.
I'm Conservative and typically oppose MoveOn, however I do think it serves a purpose. But still, that being said, they are hardly the same
Consumer Reports is a nonprofit organization. They don't care about publicity. (not nearly as much as ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION, at least)
Didn't mean to post that A/C
People will read that as a troll but it's true, really. Bush is much better suited to deal with oil problems than national security. (he owns multiple oil companies)
Actually, unlike most open-source projects, the Gimp (and Blender3d for that matter) are very organized and typically follow through with promises. It just might be a few more years....
Yeah here it is:
(from the GIMP website)
When I said "modifier stack," I was referring to non-destructive editing. Also, GEGL (the new projection library being used with GIMP) is high-bit and supports *some* RAW formats. I imagine it's probably the common ones. (Canon, Nikon, et al.)
Also I think I read somewhere about GIMP planning on moving toward including some non-destructive stuff. (but maybe i'm thinking about something else)
I own Lightroom 2, but you can't do stuff like foreground extraction or object removal (for taking out "exit" signs, poles, etc.). The only real advantage to Lightroom is that everything is done in a modifier stack so you have infinite undos. (can't think of the real terminology, so "modifier stack" will have to do)
Gimp can do everything Lightroom can (except for the "modifier stack" workflow)
Commander Keen definitely never had vacuum-powered wall climbing capabilities.
GIMP is currently switching projection engines, at which point it will have high-bit level support. I wouldn't dare use it for image creation, however, for photography it handles everything I need. It has layers, a levels dialog, a paint brush and an eraser. For digital darkroom stuff, what else could you possibly need?
For "developing world" read "we're too shit scared to try this in the domestic market so will run a backdoor field trial and hope it gets enough attention to launch back home". It's the same with gutless politicians and academics. They don't have the balls to take on domestic interests or want to get some brownie points for patronising the poor. Take a look at Microsoft's feeble attempts to capture the mobile phone market or the One Laptop Per Child bollocks. They're all risk averse chicken shit unimaginative patronising wankers.
Yeah! How dare they try and help the poor in third world countries!
spire3661: you can turn in your pedant card at the door
Actually, his proposed budget for NASA involves increasing its budget slower than inflation. Which, technically, makes it "giving NASA less money".
Exactly. You have to look at "Constant Dollars" - He's cutting NASA's budget by X constant dollars, where X is some number greater than zero.