Considering that Jewish and Islamic comunities are NOT the ones you would want to piss off - Google's got some balls. Like the ones for world cups 2004 and 2004. And we all know how finicky those Muslims are about their cartoons. Google better shape up... . . . Wait... just a moment... I am just informed that this whole talk is about a doodle on a google logo. Those little, one-day cartoons that most people don't even get to see since they are using their google-bars and whatnots... .
. OUUKAAY... moving on to something that might be a story... oh look... Up above... on the top of the slashdot page... a new story...
Is it by any chance something like being escorted by security if you say that you are going to work at A, and working out your two weeks if you go to B?
As for an off chance that I am to meet someone I used to work with... well... there are several options.
a) Deny its me - "No mate, I'm his twin brother. Fuckin' tragic what happened there." b) Claim miracle cure - "Like... I was out... and I suddenly got better. Praise the Jebus!" c) Beat them to the punch - "Hey there! Were you forced to do the Ebola just to get out of there too?" Then before they reply continue to talk to everyone around you about how bad it was when you left. So much, that you had to lie just so you could clean up your desk in peace.
Also... when you play the new music backwards, it says who is the final Cylon, explains everything in "Lost" and who shot J.R... This last bit is kind of a anticlimax.
As for RAM? Again, are you kidding? We are not running Mac System 9 where RAM is preallocated to an application. Windows and OS X can easily handle applications that 'want' and 'use' a lot of RAM, and even if you are running low on physical RAM, that is why modern OSes virtualize RAM - even if Photoshop tries to take control of more than it needs, the OS regulates this. Also realize most people that can afford Photoshop, can probably afford to have 2 or more GB of RAM... (Some of us use to run Photoshop on computers with 16mb of RAM and less.) You know... people like you make Mac users think that they are superior beings.
Try this simple exercise...
I am guessing here that you are using Windows. If not, substitute Task Manager with Activity Monitor.
Open Task Manager and go to performance. Watch the Available Physical Memory marker.
Start your Photoshop. Hit Ctrl+K. Under Memory + Image Cache change setting to something like 95%. Hit OK, and then close Photoshop. Start Photoshop again. Watch the Available memory being sucked away. Once again, hit Ctrl+K and set memory usage to something like 30%. Any difference? For extra credit - try loading up images. See what happens when you use up available memory.
Now... Do the same thing (only different) with PhotoPaint. Here we use Ctrl+J to call up Customisation, and change Memory usage. Only thing is... No matter what you do, it stays the same. Take it down to 30%, crank it up to 90% - almost no change. Why? Because it is not really reserving any memory - it still lets OS take care of it. Now... as you load up images, you should see memory being used up just like with Photoshop. Only thing is... and this is funny... PhotoPaint can't handle more then 100 images. (Well... at least Corel 12 version can't, maybe the have fixed it in 13?) Last time I've seen that on Photoshop.. I think it was with version 5. You could only open up to 32 images - regardless of memory. And even then - only on PC. Adobe bastards left unlimited opened files a Mac only feature.
I guess that it should be obvious why it is useful for Photoshop to stake out memory only for itself, so no other program can use it, right?
It scares me that multi-application instance productivity is still seen as such a foreign concept. During my years in UI research, this was the biggest area of difference between Windows and Mac users, Windows users usually worked with several applications running all the time, where Mac users would go in and out of applications one at a time, even on OS X. It scares me that there is a term for what you are doing. And that is in some perverse way associated with productivity.
Also... for the Mac users. I think the reason for one app at a time lies somewhere around the fact that on Mac you mostly drag your files to the program icon. You don't click the program's icon and then open the files from the program.
Drag and drop versus double-click and click on Windows.
Oh and yeah... Some of us used to run Photoshop on computers when 16MB of RAM was a lot of memory.
Imagine that they HAVE paid them 640k instead of 400, and that it was enough... wouldn't that make that old 640k saying finally correct... but since we would not hear about it then we would never know...
Kind of a like tree falling in a forest without anyone there to hear it.
Yeah.. well... thing is once upon a time you just couldn't do that.
Back in the days of SCSI drum-scanners, and later SCSI flatbeds. One of those babies cost couple of tens of thousands of dollars. And while they do suck in transfer and speed compared to today's 100$ scanners they still kick ass in the optic department. Not to mention that you don't throw away something you took out a credit to pay for.
Now... on the off chance that those dinosaurs do work on your brand new Photoshop station with their ancient drivers would you rather have them work, or just sit there on the desk? Because... even if Adobe did want to allow users to scan (into Photoshop) and edit at the same time - who says all those drivers and interfaces could take it?
So... Adobe can either leave it as it is (its working... why fix it?) or change it so users can scan AND edit at the same time. Only thing is... besides the idiots who would call in to complain how they can't edit the image WHILE they are scanning it (and how slow their new silver with daisies Mac got), they would get calls from people DEMANDING that Adobe fix their scanners because - they have tried that new Edit&ScanTM thing and all their images got scanned full of scan-lines or not at all.
And since Adobe does not provide drivers for every scanner in the universe (and might even get into a legal trouble if they tried to do that) they would suddenly be in a whole bunch of problems that they can't fix since it is not their problem to fix. But tell that to someone who paid 50000$ for a SCREEN.
The majority of scanners I have used scan to JPEG to keep the colour at the slight loss of quality, which might not always be acceptable. They scan that way because someone set them up that way. You can always switch to a lossless or LZW (still lossless) TIFF - which is what you SHOULD be doing if you are going for the quality.
BTW - scanning to JPEG means that it is the software that saves the file - not a direct stream from the scanner. To save a JPEG, image first has to be complete in the memory - then saved with lossy compression.
TIFF allows (on professional scanners) for image to be streamed to the disk as it is scanned - one line at a time.
As for scanning directly into Photoshop... What the GP said was "scanning slides". Plural.
On some higher quality (now even some cheap new ones) scanners you can set up multiple scans, each with their own size modifications, resolutions, sharpening, on-scanner color correction (very important when scanning slides done on different films) - and just hit "SCAN ALL". You don't get one image scanned - you get up to 40 images, one after the other.
Now... being those are slides you are scanning you are probably blowing them up (not resizing in Photoshop... that is just adding pixels... talking higher resolutions here) to poster sizes. It is never wise to scan couple of GB of images into a application.
Not to mention cases like "UPS! Your computer just crashed. What? You didn't save all those images? Tough luck."
An artist does not want to have to keep shifting windows around. But he/she might.
Like... I have this huge image opened, it has tons of layers that interact with each other, and I am trying to achieve a certain effect. Or I am presenting multiple versions of the same design to a customer.
So I open the file, blow it up full screen, zoom on the details I want to present and then... I start turning layers on and off. Now... If I could not move the palettes around, I would have to move the image around constantly. And if that image is a couple of hundred MBs, and couple of dozen layers... that might take some time to show on screen properly. Palette is much easier to move (and redraw on screen) right or left.
Not to mention all those people that like their tools on the right, or their palettes on the left, or what ever.
Another thing that 'kills' me is that Photoshop won't allow itself to run multiple copies at a time. Photoshop takes up A LOT of memory. It does not just take it - it reserves it for its own personal use. Where are you going to get that other 95% of physical memory for your next instance of Photoshop?
Running multiple Photoshops for multiple images... that is insane. Or running multiple PhotoPaints. Those are not Word or Notepad. Those are heavy-duty graphic editing programs.
You do know that you can open and work on more then one file at a time?
5-6 copies of PhotoPaint at once? Fuck... I have to print this - nobody will fucking believe me.
You CAN do that if you set your scanning application to scan your slides directly into files on the disk, and work in Photoshop while that runs in the background. Which is the way you should be doing in the first place - scan to disk, not scan to Photoshop.
Now... when this might not work?
If your scanner does not support something like this - like if you have an old flatbed SCSI or parallel relic. Get a new USB/Firewire scanner.
Or if you are blowing up slides to insane (a perfectly normal thing) proportions like from a 35mm slide to a B2 poster size. Then you might have problems with your computer - working on large files might be hard because of all of those megabytes streaming through your USB port.
Which is why it is not wise to do that in the first place - not because it might slow you down while working in Photoshop. Hell... you can always just stop for a second when that happens. Its because your Photoshop work might overburden your computer and it might take a second or two to "think it over". The scanner does not have those two seconds - it keeps goin' over the images with constant speed.
Now... do you really need to risk half or all your images coming out messed up just so you could save some idle work cycles?
But... there is a solution. Get a cheap machine and a half decent monitor and set them up as a scanning/file server. Dump images there, and copy them to your Photoshop station over the network.
DoD: You see - we are putting this network of satellites which will be watching you 24/7 so that we can see if there is a mosquito and rodents creeping up on you. Joe Average: You can spot a mosquito? Cool! But wait... won't that be invasion of privacy? DoD: LOL! No. See... we can't spot a mosquito - we can only see larger things like "environment" and then try to guess where they will go. Joe Average: But you can are still monitoring the world 24/7? DoD: Well... yeah. But its for your own good. Joe Average: But... how does any of that help with idiots? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/05/30/international/i072359D10.DTL DoD: Oh, that is the next step. We have these cool personal disease detectors we are making... Bend over, let me show you.
Re:Foie Gras is some nasty shit...
on
Chefs As Chemists
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Do we really need to torture animals before killing & eating them? Only the endangered ones.
Mmmm... panda-burgers...
I mean... come on people.
Humans have always been eating other animals. You know... being the top of the food chain has its responsibilities as well.
If we stuck to what fell of the tree... well... lets just say that Marky Mark and Charlton Heston would not call this place their home.
Instead, human ancestors ate meat. Whenever they could get their greedy little hands on it. And that tasty protein made them stronger, bigger, smarter hunters. After a while, they became so smart they realised - "Why the fuck should I run after these animals whenever I need food? Lets capture some of them, put them in some kind of a fence and keep them there for later eating."
Tortured? Dude, we used to bash their heads with rocks and sticks. And we didn't even bother to feed them and take care of them for years before that. We would just sneak up on them, and then 10-20 of us would start throwing rocks at it. Many times we would just hurt it a lot, and it would run away to die from the wounds while we went for other, slower pray.
Get the ancestors of today's cows and ask them if they would rather have it the old way, or would they have it like their relatives today? I already know what they would say.
I mean... I had SOME doubts that this list was made by someone on drugs based on the amount of money they were paid for advertising products.
BUT BEOWULF?!!!
ITS A FUCKING MOVIE! With not so great 3D animation.
If there ever was a reason WHY general public should buy 500$ graphic cards and PS3s - this is the case. So they can be used to educate themselves about current 3D animation and rendering standards.
3 years ago, or even 2 years ago Beowulf MIGHT have been something special. Now? They look like a bunch of puppets or plastic mannequins.
Oh... and its in 3D if there is a IMAX next to you. Supposed to be better then sex with twins according to the Time's list of "inventions".
Such examples of idiocy make me to want RIAA's and MPAA's claims to be true. So I could download the movie (not once, but many times) when it comes out and ruin it financially.
I mean.. If I for some reason had enough money to buy brand new Apple hardware, I'd rather use that money to purchase the no name equivalent + some extras. Like more and faster memory and hard drives. Or extra monitors, a tablet, bigger+better scanner and printer... etc.
If it is by Apple - not necessarily. I can see 2500$ as a very low price for such a device - coming from Apple of course. They've sold a 3.5" screen device for 600$.
Something the size of a Cintiq would go for at least 3600$ if we compared screen sizes only, but more like 5000$ as it would be an iTablet.
Not the supposed "very real" Apple tablet on the photo and illos in TFA.
And those are not "tablet" tablets. Those are overpriced laptops with tablet functions. If I can treat it as a laptop for all purposes but it can be "twisted around" and used like a tablet - that is a laptop. It has a touchscreen as a input device, but that is a laptop.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.google.com/holidaylogos.html
Considering that Jewish and Islamic comunities are NOT the ones you would want to piss off - Google's got some balls. Like the ones for world cups 2004 and 2004.
And we all know how finicky those Muslims are about their cartoons. Google better shape up...
.
.
.
Wait... just a moment... I am just informed that this whole talk is about a doodle on a google logo.
Those little, one-day cartoons that most people don't even get to see since they are using their google-bars and whatnots...
.
.
OUUKAAY... moving on to something that might be a story... oh look... Up above... on the top of the slashdot page... a new story...
Is it by any chance something like being escorted by security if you say that you are going to work at A, and working out your two weeks if you go to B?
As for an off chance that I am to meet someone I used to work with... well... there are several options.
a) Deny its me - "No mate, I'm his twin brother. Fuckin' tragic what happened there."
b) Claim miracle cure - "Like... I was out... and I suddenly got better. Praise the Jebus!"
c) Beat them to the punch - "Hey there! Were you forced to do the Ebola just to get out of there too?"
Then before they reply continue to talk to everyone around you about how bad it was when you left. So much, that you had to lie just so you could clean up your desk in peace.
There... much better is it not?
Oh.. and say that tomorrow someone somewhere digs up three unique bar stools made by Jesus in his carpenter days. With his mark on them and all.
Only three bar stools in the universe made by Jesus.
But two of them are kinda greenish in color, while the third one is kinda reddish.
Guess which ones would be called "common".
See... even rare things can be common or rareierer.
Why don't you just lie?
Like... you know... when they ask you... you tell them that you are going to work for McDonald's, or that you are dieing from AIDS or something.
My favourite would be a rare form of Ebola virus. Make sure to cough from time to time.
and the democrat stands up after him and says 'AND I CAN MAKE IT SHITTIER!!
And superimpose it with an image of Mona Lisa.
And then, trace an image of the egg over that new image.
You can clearly see the following words:
Scanctum Peter Cottium
Deus in re unium
hippitus hoppitus reus Domine
In suus via torreum
Lepus en re sanctum
hippitus hoppitus Deus Domine
Wow! Who would have thougt that Parker and Stone were right (again).
http://www.southparkx.net/news/1105-fantastic-easter-special-just-aired-on-comedy-central
Also... when you play the new music backwards, it says who is the final Cylon, explains everything in "Lost" and who shot J.R...
This last bit is kind of a anticlimax.
Particularly since "the joke" I am referring to WAS moderated as Funny.
As well as someone's reply to it that had the title of this post's GP as its punchline.
Their Messiah might have gotten the True message.
First Commandment: Make cookies.
Second Commandment: Share cookies.
Third Commandment Eat cookies.
Fourth Commandment: See First Commandment.
Can you imagine what would happen to their belief system when they find out that we have milk?
Try this simple exercise...
I am guessing here that you are using Windows. If not, substitute Task Manager with Activity Monitor.
Open Task Manager and go to performance. Watch the Available Physical Memory marker.
Start your Photoshop.
Hit Ctrl+K.
Under Memory + Image Cache change setting to something like 95%. Hit OK, and then close Photoshop.
Start Photoshop again. Watch the Available memory being sucked away.
Once again, hit Ctrl+K and set memory usage to something like 30%. Any difference?
For extra credit - try loading up images. See what happens when you use up available memory.
Now... Do the same thing (only different) with PhotoPaint. Here we use Ctrl+J to call up Customisation, and change Memory usage.
Only thing is... No matter what you do, it stays the same. Take it down to 30%, crank it up to 90% - almost no change.
Why? Because it is not really reserving any memory - it still lets OS take care of it.
Now... as you load up images, you should see memory being used up just like with Photoshop.
Only thing is... and this is funny... PhotoPaint can't handle more then 100 images. (Well... at least Corel 12 version can't, maybe the have fixed it in 13?)
Last time I've seen that on Photoshop.. I think it was with version 5. You could only open up to 32 images - regardless of memory. And even then - only on PC.
Adobe bastards left unlimited opened files a Mac only feature.
I guess that it should be obvious why it is useful for Photoshop to stake out memory only for itself, so no other program can use it, right? It scares me that multi-application instance productivity is still seen as such a foreign concept. During my years in UI research, this was the biggest area of difference between Windows and Mac users, Windows users usually worked with several applications running all the time, where Mac users would go in and out of applications one at a time, even on OS X. It scares me that there is a term for what you are doing. And that is in some perverse way associated with productivity.
Also... for the Mac users.
I think the reason for one app at a time lies somewhere around the fact that on Mac you mostly drag your files to the program icon.
You don't click the program's icon and then open the files from the program.
Drag and drop versus double-click and click on Windows.
Oh and yeah... Some of us used to run Photoshop on computers when 16MB of RAM was a lot of memory.
Thank you, anonymous moderator...
I was aiming at funny, with light chances of insightful, but you just read the title and marked it as offtopic.
Thank you, you humourless git.
I hate to contradict my own jokes but...
Imagine that they HAVE paid them 640k instead of 400, and that it was enough... wouldn't that make that old 640k saying finally correct... but since we would not hear about it then we would never know...
Kind of a like tree falling in a forest without anyone there to hear it.
Mind-boggling.
Nah...
They just didn't bribe the RIGHT people with ENOUGH money.
Well.. at least they didn't bribe them with 640k.
Who could stand all those 640k jokes - AGAIN.
Yeah.. well... thing is once upon a time you just couldn't do that.
Back in the days of SCSI drum-scanners, and later SCSI flatbeds. One of those babies cost couple of tens of thousands of dollars.
And while they do suck in transfer and speed compared to today's 100$ scanners they still kick ass in the optic department. Not to mention that you don't throw away something you took out a credit to pay for.
Now... on the off chance that those dinosaurs do work on your brand new Photoshop station with their ancient drivers would you rather have them work, or just sit there on the desk?
Because... even if Adobe did want to allow users to scan (into Photoshop) and edit at the same time - who says all those drivers and interfaces could take it?
So... Adobe can either leave it as it is (its working... why fix it?) or change it so users can scan AND edit at the same time.
Only thing is... besides the idiots who would call in to complain how they can't edit the image WHILE they are scanning it (and how slow their new silver with daisies Mac got), they would get calls from people DEMANDING that Adobe fix their scanners because - they have tried that new Edit&ScanTM thing and all their images got scanned full of scan-lines or not at all.
And since Adobe does not provide drivers for every scanner in the universe (and might even get into a legal trouble if they tried to do that) they would suddenly be in a whole bunch of problems that they can't fix since it is not their problem to fix.
But tell that to someone who paid 50000$ for a SCREEN.
Kids these days...
In my time, we were lucky if we had any apples, let alone two.
Two apples? Only for a birthday. If you have been good the whole year. Maybe.
Throwing away perfectly good apple core? Vandalism!
You can always switch to a lossless or LZW (still lossless) TIFF - which is what you SHOULD be doing if you are going for the quality.
BTW - scanning to JPEG means that it is the software that saves the file - not a direct stream from the scanner.
To save a JPEG, image first has to be complete in the memory - then saved with lossy compression.
TIFF allows (on professional scanners) for image to be streamed to the disk as it is scanned - one line at a time.
As for scanning directly into Photoshop...
What the GP said was "scanning slides". Plural.
On some higher quality (now even some cheap new ones) scanners you can set up multiple scans, each with their own size modifications, resolutions, sharpening, on-scanner color correction (very important when scanning slides done on different films) - and just hit "SCAN ALL".
You don't get one image scanned - you get up to 40 images, one after the other.
Now... being those are slides you are scanning you are probably blowing them up (not resizing in Photoshop... that is just adding pixels... talking higher resolutions here) to poster sizes.
It is never wise to scan couple of GB of images into a application.
Not to mention cases like "UPS! Your computer just crashed. What? You didn't save all those images? Tough luck."
Like... I have this huge image opened, it has tons of layers that interact with each other, and I am trying to achieve a certain effect.
Or I am presenting multiple versions of the same design to a customer.
So I open the file, blow it up full screen, zoom on the details I want to present and then... I start turning layers on and off.
Now... If I could not move the palettes around, I would have to move the image around constantly. And if that image is a couple of hundred MBs, and couple of dozen layers... that might take some time to show on screen properly. Palette is much easier to move (and redraw on screen) right or left.
Not to mention all those people that like their tools on the right, or their palettes on the left, or what ever.
Where are you going to get that other 95% of physical memory for your next instance of Photoshop?
Running multiple Photoshops for multiple images... that is insane. Or running multiple PhotoPaints. Those are not Word or Notepad.
Those are heavy-duty graphic editing programs.
You do know that you can open and work on more then one file at a time?
5-6 copies of PhotoPaint at once?
Fuck... I have to print this - nobody will fucking believe me.
You CAN do that if you set your scanning application to scan your slides directly into files on the disk, and work in Photoshop while that runs in the background.
Which is the way you should be doing in the first place - scan to disk, not scan to Photoshop.
Now... when this might not work?
If your scanner does not support something like this - like if you have an old flatbed SCSI or parallel relic.
Get a new USB/Firewire scanner.
Or if you are blowing up slides to insane (a perfectly normal thing) proportions like from a 35mm slide to a B2 poster size.
Then you might have problems with your computer - working on large files might be hard because of all of those megabytes streaming through your USB port.
Which is why it is not wise to do that in the first place - not because it might slow you down while working in Photoshop.
Hell... you can always just stop for a second when that happens.
Its because your Photoshop work might overburden your computer and it might take a second or two to "think it over".
The scanner does not have those two seconds - it keeps goin' over the images with constant speed.
Now... do you really need to risk half or all your images coming out messed up just so you could save some idle work cycles?
But... there is a solution.
Get a cheap machine and a half decent monitor and set them up as a scanning/file server.
Dump images there, and copy them to your Photoshop station over the network.
DoD: You see - we are putting this network of satellites which will be watching you 24/7 so that we can see if there is a mosquito and rodents creeping up on you.
Joe Average: You can spot a mosquito? Cool! But wait... won't that be invasion of privacy?
DoD: LOL! No. See... we can't spot a mosquito - we can only see larger things like "environment" and then try to guess where they will go.
Joe Average: But you can are still monitoring the world 24/7?
DoD: Well... yeah. But its for your own good.
Joe Average: But... how does any of that help with idiots? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/05/30/international/i072359D10.DTL
DoD: Oh, that is the next step. We have these cool personal disease detectors we are making... Bend over, let me show you.
Mmmm... panda-burgers...
I mean... come on people.
Humans have always been eating other animals.
You know... being the top of the food chain has its responsibilities as well.
If we stuck to what fell of the tree... well... lets just say that Marky Mark and Charlton Heston would not call this place their home.
Instead, human ancestors ate meat.
Whenever they could get their greedy little hands on it. And that tasty protein made them stronger, bigger, smarter hunters.
After a while, they became so smart they realised - "Why the fuck should I run after these animals whenever I need food? Lets capture some of them, put them in some kind of a fence and keep them there for later eating."
Tortured? Dude, we used to bash their heads with rocks and sticks.
And we didn't even bother to feed them and take care of them for years before that.
We would just sneak up on them, and then 10-20 of us would start throwing rocks at it.
Many times we would just hurt it a lot, and it would run away to die from the wounds while we went for other, slower pray.
Get the ancestors of today's cows and ask them if they would rather have it the old way, or would they have it like their relatives today?
I already know what they would say.
They would say: MOOOO!!!
I mean... I had SOME doubts that this list was made by someone on drugs based on the amount of money they were paid for advertising products.
BUT BEOWULF?!!!
ITS A FUCKING MOVIE! With not so great 3D animation.
If there ever was a reason WHY general public should buy 500$ graphic cards and PS3s - this is the case.
So they can be used to educate themselves about current 3D animation and rendering standards.
3 years ago, or even 2 years ago Beowulf MIGHT have been something special.
Now? They look like a bunch of puppets or plastic mannequins.
Oh... and its in 3D if there is a IMAX next to you. Supposed to be better then sex with twins according to the Time's list of "inventions".
Such examples of idiocy make me to want RIAA's and MPAA's claims to be true.
So I could download the movie (not once, but many times) when it comes out and ruin it financially.
Quite!
I mean.. If I for some reason had enough money to buy brand new Apple hardware, I'd rather use that money to purchase the no name equivalent + some extras.
Like more and faster memory and hard drives. Or extra monitors, a tablet, bigger+better scanner and printer... etc.
Let me guess...
So that they can program it to display and animate a bigger-than-life sized picture of male genitals, which would waggle back and forth on their lap?
Wouldn't it do 'em more good to take an extra training session instead? Rose the Nose wasn't much of a general...
If it is by Apple - not necessarily. I can see 2500$ as a very low price for such a device - coming from Apple of course.
They've sold a 3.5" screen device for 600$.
Something the size of a Cintiq would go for at least 3600$ if we compared screen sizes only, but more like 5000$ as it would be an iTablet.
Tablet PCs on the market at the moment.
Not the supposed "very real" Apple tablet on the photo and illos in TFA.
And those are not "tablet" tablets. Those are overpriced laptops with tablet functions.
If I can treat it as a laptop for all purposes but it can be "twisted around" and used like a tablet - that is a laptop.
It has a touchscreen as a input device, but that is a laptop.