So that would be a chart with light lines/text on a fairly dark background with 3 pixel high text?
Squint, until you can barely see anything.
What you san still see it where the majority of the information is. I can see where the lines and the text are, but not the axes, which are too faint. However I can see the existance of a scale at the side to the lines aren't so important. The red lines are pretty dire, but there aren't many of those. On the whole I don't think the colours are as bad as they were made out to be.
However, it _is_ a fairly unreadable graph from any distance, or with a poor contrast monitor or with unfavourable ambiant conditions nonetheless.
So where do _you_ think the problem is? I'd say it's the 3 pixel high text myself.
GIMP is more of an engine. I know people who've "drawn" designs without even running up X, they simply gave GIMP instructions on what to do.
Photoshop is far closer to the older "painting/drawing/compositing by hand" paradigm, but with inhuman precision and accuracy.
Both are better at what they do best than the other is.
FatPhil
(I do use both, but I'm crap at design, so everything I produce is crap! now what we need is intelligent packages with a sense of style and flair...)
I saw no tables with white text on very bright backgrounds. I read all 5 pages.
As a red-green anomalous dichromat (that's colour-blind to you), who has a background in user-interface design (including presentation technologies) I can assure you that in general the easiest to read presentations come from the colour-blind. This is due to a heavier reliance on using luminance to acheive contrast rather than chrominance. (To me chrominance doesn't provide much contrast, so it's obvious I would use luminance instead...).
Careful what insults you throw around, 13% of the male population have some form of colour deficiency (and 13% of females are carriers...).
So are RedHat better or worse for admitting their product was poop?
I can post verbatim quotes from the redhat alphalinux mailing list from some of the movers and shakers in RedHat's Alpha group if you don't believe me. Be warned, they use stronger language than I do.
Doing to Linux what MS did to QDOS.
Not all of which is bad, far from it.
I have an Alpha, I run Redhat 6.0 on it. It's shit. They know that. They've told me to upgrade.
(Which is precisely the attitude which people criticise MS for "just apply service pathc 79...".) 7.0 is already announced for Alpha. I don't know if I can trust them. They've sold me poop before...
I said:
...and they would have been accessible to 50+m Brits rather than just the few hundred thousand that live a short bus ride away from Euston. (Yeah, I'm gonna pay #4.80 to travel on the underground to go read a book, right).
You said :
I said you were lazy for walking from Euston to the BM and not from 20km away. It's only a couple of minutes.
Do I say it's a bus ride from Euston to the BL? I, not being a central Londoner, thought that the reading room _was_ in Euston. When I walk from Euston/Euston Square to Kings Cross, I pass it, and deemed it closer to Euston than KX.
I claimed that it was only accessible to those a bus ride away (from the Library/Euston). I still claim that. 99% of the country do not fall into this category. Many/most "Londoners", such as my parents in Harrow, would have to fork out something like #4.80 for a return ticket to get there.
They communicated with him when they provided the AUP in the first place. It explicitly said "no MP3s", and he was in breach of that. Sorry to be so cold, but he loses, full stop. He chose the wrong ISP. That's not their fault.
Their AUP is wishy-washy meaningless shite apart from the last sentence. That's all they needed to say.
It's "so different from _anything_ we've seen before", yet he calls it a "bacterium" not a "virus", or a "protozoa" or a "single celled self-reproducing thing" or a "non-cellular self replicating protein" or a...
It's a fucking bacterium. We have seen them before here on this planet. Unfortunately this _non_-scientist comes from a different planet entirely...
FatPhil
I post as non-AC because I'm not ashamed of my opinions.
What did the stooopid UK government decide to waste hundreds of millions of pounds on a couple of years back? A new reading room for the British Library. Waste of money. They could have converted hundreds of thousands of books into electronic form for that amount of money, and they would have been accessible to 50+m Brits rather than just the few hundred thousand that live a short bus ride away from Euston. (Yeah, I'm gonna pay #4.80 to travel on the underground to go read a book, right).
You've tried to be correct, but I think you've slipped up on a couple of things.
1) If _any_ point on the backdrop will pull ip a list of your open apps, then you don't even need to go to the well known corder, just go anywhere on the screen. Having one place to go for a menu like this is belittling to anyone who has either some coordination or a memory.
2) The MS start button isn't in the corner, it's _1_ pixel away from it. That is the most _pants_ UI decision in the universe. Yup it's trivial to reach the corner, but if you've done that you've gone too far. MacOS doesn't have that problem, they did some UI research before building their UI.
FatPhil
(who still finds it hard to beat out-of-the-box TWM...)
Last thing I heard (a year ago?) IS had completely given up on fractals.
I worked for a DSP company, which was based next to an engineering (and sport) oriented university.
The number of Ph. D. students who used to come in and muck around with their fractal image code using our DSP boards was amazing. And the results? Garbage. In order to get any decent results the CPU input for compresion was prohibitively high. Not impossible, just impractical.
Barnsley was too tight arsed, serves him right that it flopped.
It appears that they've simply filtered the documents into 2 layers.
One for bilevel compression, say using CCITT group 4 compression (Faxes use group 3, group 4 is better ratio, but bigger disaster if you drop a bit), or maybe JBIG (IBM have a patent on the statistical model of the Q boxes, not on the actual compression algorithm, so all you need are your own Q boxes). Both of the above compare the current line with the previous line, and barf horribly when given dithered bilevel images, such as newspaper photos, or noisy scans.
The second layer is the full colour one, and can be implimented as a JPEG.
Tiff 6 supports all of the above.
The 3GB Tiff document they talk about on their site was probably 3GB using the "uncompressed" setting. Apples and Oranges, as they say.
The world doesn't need any new de-facto "standards" when there are perfectly good present non-proprietory standards which can do the same.
Slashdot Mirror
"
How come you survived for such long time with this totally fucked-up 6.0?
"
- RH/Alpha mover/shaker (anonymity preserved)
That is from a private e-mail, hence the anonymity of the sender. Please believe me, it was a big name in the field.
FatPhil
So that would be a chart with light lines/text on a fairly dark background with 3 pixel high text?
Squint, until you can barely see anything.
What you san still see it where the majority of the information is. I can see where the lines and the text are, but not the axes, which are too faint. However I can see the existance of a scale at the side to the lines aren't so important. The red lines are pretty dire, but there aren't many of those. On the whole I don't think the colours are as bad as they were made out to be.
However, it _is_ a fairly unreadable graph from any distance, or with a poor contrast monitor or with unfavourable ambiant conditions nonetheless.
So where do _you_ think the problem is? I'd say it's the 3 pixel high text myself.
FP
Yeah but...
GIMP is more of an engine. I know people who've "drawn" designs without even running up X, they simply gave GIMP instructions on what to do.
Photoshop is far closer to the older "painting/drawing/compositing by hand" paradigm, but with inhuman precision and accuracy.
Both are better at what they do best than the other is.
FatPhil
(I do use both, but I'm crap at design, so everything I produce is crap! now what we need is intelligent packages with a sense of style and flair...)
"Anti-aliasing" in the _OS_?
Jeez, do you know what an OS is?
Don't get confused by the display server, which is a _user space_ application.
Surely it's better to say "we can't make this commercially viable" here, have the source of version N-1, have fun."
FP.
I saw no tables with white text on very bright backgrounds. I read all 5 pages.
As a red-green anomalous dichromat (that's colour-blind to you), who has a background in user-interface design (including presentation technologies) I can assure you that in general the easiest to read presentations come from the colour-blind. This is due to a heavier reliance on using luminance to acheive contrast rather than chrominance. (To me chrominance doesn't provide much contrast, so it's obvious I would use luminance instead...).
Careful what insults you throw around, 13% of the male population have some form of colour deficiency (and 13% of females are carriers...).
FatPhil
So are RedHat better or worse for admitting their product was poop?
I can post verbatim quotes from the redhat alphalinux mailing list from some of the movers and shakers in RedHat's Alpha group if you don't believe me. Be warned, they use stronger language than I do.
FatPhil
Doing to Linux what MS did to QDOS.
Not all of which is bad, far from it.
I have an Alpha, I run Redhat 6.0 on it. It's shit. They know that. They've told me to upgrade.
(Which is precisely the attitude which people criticise MS for "just apply service pathc 79...".) 7.0 is already announced for Alpha. I don't know if I can trust them. They've sold me poop before...
Lesson - Avoid N.0 like the plague?
FP.
They'd be not allowed to de-obfuscate any of the entries! ( http://www.ioccc.org/ )
FatPhil
I said:
...and they would have been accessible to 50+m Brits rather than just the few hundred thousand that live a short bus ride away from Euston. (Yeah, I'm gonna pay #4.80 to travel on the underground to go read a book, right).
You said :
I said you were lazy for walking from Euston to the BM and not from 20km away. It's only a couple of minutes.
Do I say it's a bus ride from Euston to the BL? I, not being a central Londoner, thought that the reading room _was_ in Euston. When I walk from Euston/Euston Square to Kings Cross, I pass it, and deemed it closer to Euston than KX.
I claimed that it was only accessible to those a bus ride away (from the Library/Euston). I still claim that. 99% of the country do not fall into this category. Many/most "Londoners", such as my parents in Harrow, would have to fork out something like #4.80 for a return ticket to get there.
FP.
They obviously optimised _some_ instructions. Do you think that they wanted the "PhotoShop" benchmark crown back off Apple/PPC?
FP.
Jesus Christ, that has got tears welling up in my eyes. I'll chose to remember him as the genius inventor that he was.
FatPhil
What is unpleasant about fucking?
You are doing it wrong, obviously.
FP.
My three current favourite naughty words...
Kn*ckers
Kn*ckers
Kn*ckers
Semprini?
FP.
Late eighties. Yeah, I remember then. I remember going through the PAD> prompts to get to NASA's online news services.
The technology has been right for digitising books since exactly the time the technology has been right for digitising porn.
I can't prove the first porn image was scanned in the 70s, but it certainly wouldn't be the late eighties.
FP.
Because I'm 2000km away.
Even when I lived in "London", It was a good 20km away. would you walk that distance to just read a book?
FP.
... unlike anything previously seen on earth.
Or is that a different story?
Yes, I'm going for the great "funny"/"troll" divide.
FatPhil
They communicated with him when they provided the AUP in the first place. It explicitly said "no MP3s", and he was in breach of that. Sorry to be so cold, but he loses, full stop. He chose the wrong ISP. That's not their fault.
Their AUP is wishy-washy meaningless shite apart from the last sentence. That's all they needed to say.
FP.
It's "so different from _anything_ we've seen before", yet he calls it a "bacterium" not a "virus", or a "protozoa" or a "single celled self-reproducing thing" or a "non-cellular self replicating protein" or a ...
It's a fucking bacterium. We have seen them before here on this planet. Unfortunately this _non_-scientist comes from a different planet entirely...
FatPhil
I post as non-AC because I'm not ashamed of my opinions.
What did the stooopid UK government decide to waste hundreds of millions of pounds on a couple of years back? A new reading room for the British Library. Waste of money. They could have converted hundreds of thousands of books into electronic form for that amount of money, and they would have been accessible to 50+m Brits rather than just the few hundred thousand that live a short bus ride away from Euston. (Yeah, I'm gonna pay #4.80 to travel on the underground to go read a book, right).
At last someone's seen some sense.
1 book, it's a start...
FatPhil
You've tried to be correct, but I think you've slipped up on a couple of things.
1) If _any_ point on the backdrop will pull ip a list of your open apps, then you don't even need to go to the well known corder, just go anywhere on the screen. Having one place to go for a menu like this is belittling to anyone who has either some coordination or a memory.
2) The MS start button isn't in the corner, it's _1_ pixel away from it. That is the most _pants_ UI decision in the universe. Yup it's trivial to reach the corner, but if you've done that you've gone too far. MacOS doesn't have that problem, they did some UI research before building their UI.
FatPhil
(who still finds it hard to beat out-of-the-box TWM...)
Last thing I heard (a year ago?) IS had completely given up on fractals.
I worked for a DSP company, which was based next to an engineering (and sport) oriented university.
The number of Ph. D. students who used to come in and muck around with their fractal image code using our DSP boards was amazing. And the results? Garbage. In order to get any decent results the CPU input for compresion was prohibitively high. Not impossible, just impractical.
Barnsley was too tight arsed, serves him right that it flopped.
FP
It appears that they've simply filtered the documents into 2 layers.
One for bilevel compression, say using CCITT group 4 compression (Faxes use group 3, group 4 is better ratio, but bigger disaster if you drop a bit), or maybe JBIG (IBM have a patent on the statistical model of the Q boxes, not on the actual compression algorithm, so all you need are your own Q boxes). Both of the above compare the current line with the previous line, and barf horribly when given dithered bilevel images, such as newspaper photos, or noisy scans.
The second layer is the full colour one, and can be implimented as a JPEG.
Tiff 6 supports all of the above.
The 3GB Tiff document they talk about on their site was probably 3GB using the "uncompressed" setting. Apples and Oranges, as they say.
The world doesn't need any new de-facto "standards" when there are perfectly good present non-proprietory standards which can do the same.
FP
I should know, I submitted this story days ago...
FP.
Or the tréma?
Well given that the images come from cnn.com, they'll be blocked.
/subdir/somewhereelse don't work.
The links that lead to http://something.cnn.com/something will be blocked.
The links that lead to
It needs some work, but it's good in principle...