Downloading a song off the internet is, at its worst, making an unauthorized copy.
These semantic arguments are silly and boring. Downloading music without paying for it is stealing. If you want to call it "making an unauthorized copy," that's fine with me. It doesn't change the fact that it's stealing.
Hillbillies want to be called "sons of the soil," too, but it ain't gonna happen.
shoplifting = depriving the store of selling that ITEM to someone else
No, shoplifting = taking without paying. The argument that copying isn't stealing just doesn't hold water. You're taking something without paying for it. You're stealing.
Dude, there's a big difference between business practices that cross the line into price fixing and simply walking out of the store with a CD you didn't pay for. When you download a song off of the Internet, you're shoplifting, plain and simple.
Now, looking a little deeper, some music companies had to pay a fine for their misbehavior. Would you, SirSlud, submit to an audit of your computers, so you can be fined for all the illegally obtained MP3s you own? Seems like that would be pretty fair to me.
The "use 'fewer' for counting, 'less' for measurements" rule is really pretty obscure and useless. Only the truly pedantic care about that rule.
Actually, anybody who cares about not looking like a drooling idiot cares about that rule. Saying "fewer CDs" makes you sound like you're talking about CDs. Saying "less CDs" makes you sound like you're about 14 years old, and flunking English.
An omitted apostrophe can easily be excused as a typo. But it's hard to typo "fewer" as "less" or vice versa.
Dude, I simply don't know how to say it more clearly. You're fucking wrong.
A computer monitor is an emissive source; it emits light straight into your eye. The printed page is a reflective medium that reflects light. This means a computer monitor is an additive source-- it adds different color components together in various combinations to make specific colors-- while paper is a subtractive source-- it removes wavelengths from the ambient light to reflect specific colors. These are two completely different sources of color.
The results are myriad, and they range from the subtle to the gross. At the gross end, computer monitors and the printed page have different color spectra, which can reproduce different color gamuts. A monitor combines red, green, and blue to produce the RGB color gamut. A printer or printing press subtracts red, green, and blue through the use of cyan (the opposite of red), magenta (the opposite of green), and yellow (the opposite of blue). This results in a completely different color gamut.
At the more subtle end, the amount of light coming off of a computer monitor affects the eye's perception of color. This has to do with the physiology of the eye itself. The cells that are sensitive to color light (the cones) are located almost entirely within the fovea centralis, which is a tiny dimple in the retina that's directly behind the pupil. Most of the light from a computer monitor is emitted perpendicular to the screen, meaning it comes splashing into your eyes to land entirely within the fovea centralis. Because that's where all your cones are, colors on a TV or computer screen appear much more rich and vivid than colors on paper can. Light reflected from paper is scattered in all directions, so less of it lands on the fovea centralis, meaning less of it is absorbed by the cones of the eye. Reflective colors appear less saturated and less vivid than emissive colors, particularly in the low-middle part of the luminance spectrum.
I don't care how close you think your computer monitor is to the printed page. It's not the same. A trained eye can see this. Hell, an untrained eye can see this, if one only looks.
The thing about the British quoting style, though, is that they use single quotes for regular quotation, and double quotes for nested quotation. If you want to use the British quoting style, complete with proper punctuation marks, be my guest. But until you do, you're just getting it wrong.
remember that Slashdot as a whole is not a medium known for their great grammar or spelling
Many people who call in for help have a concern that the ISP cannot address.
The one thing that a customer must never hear from a technical support person is, "I can't help you with that." This is practically the textbook definition of customer service.
I'd kind of like to know how you managed to 'fire' them, though.
See, AT&T worked (at that time) for me. I was paying them every month to provide me with a service. No euphemisms are necessary here; I didn't "cancel my service," I didn't "opt out of my contract." I fucking fired them, right there on the spot. I told them, in essence, to clean out their office (i.e., to get their CPE out of my wiring closet) and get out.
This, also, is a fundamental tenet of customer service: the vendor (them) is employed by and works for the customer (me). The customer is the boss, and the vendor-- and all the vendor's staff, including and especially front-line customer support-- are employees of the customer. When they forget this, and say things like "I can't help you with that," I fire them and hire somebody else.
In most contexts I agree with you; the old saying goes something like, "The nipple is intuitive. Everything else must be learned."
But "intuitive" can also mean "simple enough to be obvious." My girlfriend uses iPhoto to download photos from her digital camera, color-correct them, crop them, post them to the web, and order prints of the ones she really likes. She has never been taught how to do these things. She's not a computer expert. She just sat down, clicked the iPhoto icon in the dock, and figured it out. That is how I define intuitive.
Intuitive is over rated way to much, how functional something is normally is a direct relation to how "easy to pick up" it is.
Sometimes. But it doesn't have to be. Not by a long shot.
I'm as big a critic of Linux usability as anybody, but in all fairness, have you ever tried recompiling your kernel under Windows XP? If it were even possible, it would be about as complex.
The problem with Linux isn't that recompiling your kernel is a hard and complex process. It's that recompiling your kernel is sometimes necessary. That's what they have to fix before Linux can be popular with Mr. Average.
I have dozens of theories about why this is, but the only one I can come up with is mac users simply don't invest the time needed to really understand their own computers, or at least the time needed to properly opperate a PC, but instead just want everything to work right. When it doesn't it's the fault of whoever is on the other end of the phone.
I don't agree with your language here. You say Mac users don't "invest" the time "necessary." I think a more accurate way of saying it is that Mac users don't have to waste time learning about the internal workings of their computers. Macs, for the most part, just take care of themselves.
And, speaking as a moderately well educated and informed Mac user, when it doesn't work it is absolutely the fault of the person on the other end of the phone. I moved into my current home this summer, and decided to try AT&T's cable modem service. The required that I install some software on my computer-- an iBook, at that time-- before I could use my cable modem. I installed it, and it proceeded to send my computer into absolute shitfits. For some reason, it created a new logical network device with its own IP settings, and royally hosed my routing table. Evidently (as I discovered after literally tens of hours on the phone) they had never tested the software on a computer with more than one active network interface. When I installed it on my computer, which had both Ethernet and AirPort active, everything went to hell.
This was absolutely the fault of the vendor. They provided me with software that had not been adequately tested. Hell the default configuration of a Mac with an AirPort card is to have both ports active in the "Automatic" configuration. To think that AT&T would ship software without testing it on a machine with AirPort astounds me. Running it once under OS 9 on the Power Mac 7600 in the back room does not qualify as quality control, guys.
Naturally, I let the various people on the other end of the phone have it, then demanded a full refund, and fired them. They're lucky I'm not trying to bill them for the time I wasted on that fool's errand.
Anyway, back to the point: it absolutely was AT&T's fault. If it doesn't work under circumstances in which a reasonable person should expect it to work, it's the vendor's fault, and they should take responsibility for fixing it.
Do yourself a favor. Pick up a modern copy of the Chicago Manual of Style sometime (19th ed or later) - it's also called technical quoting.
All Chicago says is that this style of quoting has been seen in certain contexts. That doesn't make it acceptable. In fact, it is quite unacceptable.Associated Press agrees on this point.
Now go away, and let the adults here continue their conversation.
Hah. If the average age of the people reading this is above 18, I'll eat my shoe.
Or, as I believe, everyone else is wrong. There is no reason for the period to go inside the quotes if it is not a complete thought.
Again, nobody asked your opinion on this subject. I'm sorry, but you don't get to make up the rules of language as you go along. There's a right way and a wrong way, and if you're not doing it the right way, then you're wrong.
Trailing punctuation goes inside closing quotation marks because that's how the written English language works. That should be reason enough for you.
Just as if I make a function call, foo("blah blah", &bar);
You are obviously confused. Programming languages are not written English, nor is written English a programming language. The rules for written English are different from the rules for programming languages.
But if that's the only way I'm going to get through to you, then so be it. Just as your C compiler would throw an error if you left the trailing semicolon off of a statement, so too does the notional written English parser throw an error when you mistakenly place a terminal punctuation mark outside a closing quotation mark. It's wrong, and it's a mistake on your part.
Unless I'm being graded or writing a formal letter, I do not adhere to the rules.
Guess what, pyite? You are being graded. Every time you communicate with another person, that person makes judgments about you based not only on the content of your communication, but also on its form, structure, and presentation. If you can't get simple rules of written English right, then that sends a message to your audience about your qualifications. In other words, pyite, it makes you look like a fucking idiot.
Their defense: putting punctuation inside of the quotation marks obfuscates things
So ignorance was their defense? Misunderstanding in this situation can only occur when the reader doesn't understand the rules of written English, as you clearly do not. The fact that you, pyite, or the average reader of 2600 magazine has not successfully mastered the written form of his native language does not mean that the language itself is at fault. It only means that you are ignorant.
Ignorance is no crime, pyite, but that doesn't mean you should wallow in it.
I don't use Preview to view or edit images; I prefer to choose the tools I use with images.
Then for christsakes, just save yourself all the trouble and use command-control-shift-3 and command-control-shift-4. These keystrokes load the screenshot directly onto the clipboard. If you're using "the tools you use with images" anyway, you can then simply paste the screenshot directly into whatever application you like.
As I said before, you are only complaining about this because you are uninformed about how the screen shot facility is supposed to work.
Just what would PDF be suitable for besides basic viewing?
How about anything. You can email PDFs, or print them, or post them on the web... anything you can do with a TIFF, you can do just as easily with a PDF.
Many computer professionals just color on a monitor.
As I said, this separates the pros from the wanna-bes. It is physically impossible for a computer monitor to accurately reproduce the color output of a printing press. Can't be done. So all the time and trouble you spend trying to get your monitor to look just right is wasted. Pros know this, so they don't bother. Heck, I did a significant amount of my color work in greyscale mode, one color channel at a time. Viewing all four channels at once on a color display was meaningless, so I didn't even bother.
And as for that remark about dark rooms, that's the worst way to judge color. Unless, of course, you're trying to produce something that will be viewed only in dark rooms. Since my work was almost exclusively sheet-fed, I judged color proofs under a 5,500 degree lamp array. If I'd been doing flexographic work for packaging, I probably would have used a bluer light source to more closely match the ambient light found in stores. But in a dark room? Never.
"The European style?" That's a load of crap. The only acceptable usage of punctuation marks adjacent to quotation marks in the English language is to place terminal punctuation inside closing quotation marks. This is well documented; pick up any English-language reference book, from any country at all, to see it in writing.
And I don't recall asking you if it makes sense. I couldn't care less whether you approve or not. These are the rules. You either follow them, or you're wrong.
Under your rationale, it would be impossible to color correct something by "feel" in Photoshop, and that's patently false.
If you successfully color-correct something "by feel," then you simply got lucky. It is not possible for a computer monitor to render color in any way that's comparable to the output of a printing press. Calibration is a fool's errand. "Color and pulsing widgets in the interface" are irrelevant.
I am well aware of how to export from Preview, but that is not a solution, just a workaround. The real problem still exists.
So... the problem is not that you can't get screenshots in the format of your choice. The problem is that you can't get screenshots in the format of your choice with one keystroke?
Let me be the first to say that that's a stupid fucking thing to complain about. Mac OS X 10.2 and later writes screen shots in PDF format. Mac OS X 10.0 - 10.1.5 wrote screen shots in TIFF format. Mac OS X 9 and earlier wrote screen shots in PICT format. We've been living with these facts for years. Your complaint is totally without merit, and should be ignored.
Um, then why not let the user CHOOSE the destination format?
You aren't getting it. You can "CHOOSE" any format you want, by converting the image to a different format with Preview.app. This is a completely workable solution to the problem. It probably takes the same amount of time, give or take two seconds, as popping up a dialog box and asking you for your format of choice.
What are you trying to do, exactly, that PDF isn't suitable for? Are you sure you aren't just doing it wrong in the first place?
Well, since you asked - Apple's DVI implementation is non-standard.
No, it isn't. The connector is unusual, but it's documented, and adapters that break out the USB and power signals are available. This is no different from when some vendors use four-pin FireWire cables instead of six-pin cables. You simply need an adapter cable.
They do support the standard physical and electrical connections, but that doesn't mean you can take just any generic PCI or AGP card meant for a PC, and use it in a Mac.
Sounds to me like some vendors' PCI cards are non-standard. This says nothing about Apple's PCI implementation.
Apple has come a long, long way since the "skinny Mac," in which every single component was proprietary, right down to the nonstandard screws used to fasten the top to the chassis.
Okay, I'm starting to understand your point of view now. When you say "non-standard," you really mean, "I've never heard of it." Torx T-10 and T-15 screws are very much standards; they're just different standards from the ones you're familiar with.
Can't tweak the interface? What a joke. For Pete's sake, we have the hooks to put rootless XFree86 on top of Aqua and run every Window manager under the sun.
You don't have to do that. You can type ">console" at the login prompt, in place of a user name, to get a terminal login to the machine. From there, you can "startx" if you want.
Another reason is that it's damned hard to judge color if your desktop, menu and palettes look like Rainbow Brite's bedroom.
No creative professional-- artist or otherwise-- would ever judge color on a computer monitor. This is the line that clearly separates the pros from the wanna-bes.
If I don't like having my screenshots come out as PDFs in 10.2 (TinkerTool could change this in 10.1), what are my options (besides going back to 10.1)?
Opening the PDFs with Preview.app, and using the Export... menu item to save them as whatever format you like.
People often deride the absence of some feature or function of the Mac because they haven't looked for a way to do it. Screen shots have to be written out in some lingua franca format. PDF is easier. If the shots got written out as TIFFs, what compression would you use? None? LZW? ZIP? You'd just have to end up converting the files to some other format anyway, inevitably.
Especially funny was the part where they described the Mac as having "open architecture".
You misplaced your punctuation mark. The period goes inside the quotation mark.
That aside, though, what part of the Mac architecture is not open? All the interfaces are industry-standard, inside and out. PCI and AGP, ATA, USB, FireWire, DVI... what part of that is proprietary?
she even installed Red Hat GNU/Linux on it at one time
It's not "Red Hat GNU/Linux." The name of the product is "Red Hat Linux." Refer to this page for more information. The relevant passage is as follows:
Red Hat® Linux® is a collection of many different software programs, developed both by Red Hat and other members of the open source community, which we gather and build to create "Red Hat® Linux®." All software programs included in Red Hat® Linux® are PGP or GPG signed, or otherwise authenticated, by Red Hat to indicate that Red Hat built them. We make Red Hat® Linux® available via software products on CD-ROM as well as free download on the Internet through our ftp site and other authorized electronic download sites. We give each new release a version number, which is usually expressed in the format "Red Hat® Linux® X.X." As of October 2001, the most recent version number is Red Hat® Linux® 7.2.
Furthermore, "Linux" is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. You don't have the right to change the trademark. (Incidentally, neither does Richard Stallman.) The name of the operating system is "Linux," and the name of Red Hat's version of the operating system is "Red Hat Linux."
Incidentally, you can use Apple's HD Cinema Display on any computer via either a DVI-I signal (good) or a VGA signal (bad). Seems like the stupidity here is coming from someplace other than Apple.
No, the tool should be COST effective, versatile, and reliable, in THAT order.
Wrong. The tools pay for themselves. If they don't, then you aren't using them right.
In other words, if you don't need a Mac to get the job done, don't use one. This says nothing about Macs; it does, however, say something about your own needs, talents, and abilities.
Slashdot Mirror
Downloading a song off the internet is, at its worst, making an unauthorized copy.
These semantic arguments are silly and boring. Downloading music without paying for it is stealing. If you want to call it "making an unauthorized copy," that's fine with me. It doesn't change the fact that it's stealing.
Hillbillies want to be called "sons of the soil," too, but it ain't gonna happen.
shoplifting = depriving the store of selling that ITEM to someone else
No, shoplifting = taking without paying. The argument that copying isn't stealing just doesn't hold water. You're taking something without paying for it. You're stealing.
Dude, there's a big difference between business practices that cross the line into price fixing and simply walking out of the store with a CD you didn't pay for. When you download a song off of the Internet, you're shoplifting, plain and simple.
Now, looking a little deeper, some music companies had to pay a fine for their misbehavior. Would you, SirSlud, submit to an audit of your computers, so you can be fined for all the illegally obtained MP3s you own? Seems like that would be pretty fair to me.
Why in God's name did they accept the settlement they did? What were they thinking?
They were thinking that it would be better to take the settlement that was offered than to start selling blood to pay their lawyers.
The "use 'fewer' for counting, 'less' for measurements" rule is really pretty obscure and useless. Only the truly pedantic care about that rule.
Actually, anybody who cares about not looking like a drooling idiot cares about that rule. Saying "fewer CDs" makes you sound like you're talking about CDs. Saying "less CDs" makes you sound like you're about 14 years old, and flunking English.
An omitted apostrophe can easily be excused as a typo. But it's hard to typo "fewer" as "less" or vice versa.
Dude, I simply don't know how to say it more clearly. You're fucking wrong.
A computer monitor is an emissive source; it emits light straight into your eye. The printed page is a reflective medium that reflects light. This means a computer monitor is an additive source-- it adds different color components together in various combinations to make specific colors-- while paper is a subtractive source-- it removes wavelengths from the ambient light to reflect specific colors. These are two completely different sources of color.
The results are myriad, and they range from the subtle to the gross. At the gross end, computer monitors and the printed page have different color spectra, which can reproduce different color gamuts. A monitor combines red, green, and blue to produce the RGB color gamut. A printer or printing press subtracts red, green, and blue through the use of cyan (the opposite of red), magenta (the opposite of green), and yellow (the opposite of blue). This results in a completely different color gamut.
At the more subtle end, the amount of light coming off of a computer monitor affects the eye's perception of color. This has to do with the physiology of the eye itself. The cells that are sensitive to color light (the cones) are located almost entirely within the fovea centralis, which is a tiny dimple in the retina that's directly behind the pupil. Most of the light from a computer monitor is emitted perpendicular to the screen, meaning it comes splashing into your eyes to land entirely within the fovea centralis. Because that's where all your cones are, colors on a TV or computer screen appear much more rich and vivid than colors on paper can. Light reflected from paper is scattered in all directions, so less of it lands on the fovea centralis, meaning less of it is absorbed by the cones of the eye. Reflective colors appear less saturated and less vivid than emissive colors, particularly in the low-middle part of the luminance spectrum.
I don't care how close you think your computer monitor is to the printed page. It's not the same. A trained eye can see this. Hell, an untrained eye can see this, if one only looks.
The thing about the British quoting style, though, is that they use single quotes for regular quotation, and double quotes for nested quotation. If you want to use the British quoting style, complete with proper punctuation marks, be my guest. But until you do, you're just getting it wrong.
remember that Slashdot as a whole is not a medium known for their great grammar or spelling
Yeah, gotta fix that.
Many people who call in for help have a concern that the ISP cannot address.
The one thing that a customer must never hear from a technical support person is, "I can't help you with that." This is practically the textbook definition of customer service.
I'd kind of like to know how you managed to 'fire' them, though.
See, AT&T worked (at that time) for me. I was paying them every month to provide me with a service. No euphemisms are necessary here; I didn't "cancel my service," I didn't "opt out of my contract." I fucking fired them, right there on the spot. I told them, in essence, to clean out their office (i.e., to get their CPE out of my wiring closet) and get out.
This, also, is a fundamental tenet of customer service: the vendor (them) is employed by and works for the customer (me). The customer is the boss, and the vendor-- and all the vendor's staff, including and especially front-line customer support-- are employees of the customer. When they forget this, and say things like "I can't help you with that," I fire them and hire somebody else.
In most contexts I agree with you; the old saying goes something like, "The nipple is intuitive. Everything else must be learned."
But "intuitive" can also mean "simple enough to be obvious." My girlfriend uses iPhoto to download photos from her digital camera, color-correct them, crop them, post them to the web, and order prints of the ones she really likes. She has never been taught how to do these things. She's not a computer expert. She just sat down, clicked the iPhoto icon in the dock, and figured it out. That is how I define intuitive.
Intuitive is over rated way to much, how functional something is normally is a direct relation to how "easy to pick up" it is.
Sometimes. But it doesn't have to be. Not by a long shot.
I'm as big a critic of Linux usability as anybody, but in all fairness, have you ever tried recompiling your kernel under Windows XP? If it were even possible, it would be about as complex.
The problem with Linux isn't that recompiling your kernel is a hard and complex process. It's that recompiling your kernel is sometimes necessary. That's what they have to fix before Linux can be popular with Mr. Average.
I have dozens of theories about why this is, but the only one I can come up with is mac users simply don't invest the time needed to really understand their own computers, or at least the time needed to properly opperate a PC, but instead just want everything to work right. When it doesn't it's the fault of whoever is on the other end of the phone.
I don't agree with your language here. You say Mac users don't "invest" the time "necessary." I think a more accurate way of saying it is that Mac users don't have to waste time learning about the internal workings of their computers. Macs, for the most part, just take care of themselves.
And, speaking as a moderately well educated and informed Mac user, when it doesn't work it is absolutely the fault of the person on the other end of the phone. I moved into my current home this summer, and decided to try AT&T's cable modem service. The required that I install some software on my computer-- an iBook, at that time-- before I could use my cable modem. I installed it, and it proceeded to send my computer into absolute shitfits. For some reason, it created a new logical network device with its own IP settings, and royally hosed my routing table. Evidently (as I discovered after literally tens of hours on the phone) they had never tested the software on a computer with more than one active network interface. When I installed it on my computer, which had both Ethernet and AirPort active, everything went to hell.
This was absolutely the fault of the vendor. They provided me with software that had not been adequately tested. Hell the default configuration of a Mac with an AirPort card is to have both ports active in the "Automatic" configuration. To think that AT&T would ship software without testing it on a machine with AirPort astounds me. Running it once under OS 9 on the Power Mac 7600 in the back room does not qualify as quality control, guys.
Naturally, I let the various people on the other end of the phone have it, then demanded a full refund, and fired them. They're lucky I'm not trying to bill them for the time I wasted on that fool's errand.
Anyway, back to the point: it absolutely was AT&T's fault. If it doesn't work under circumstances in which a reasonable person should expect it to work, it's the vendor's fault, and they should take responsibility for fixing it.
Do yourself a favor. Pick up a modern copy of the Chicago Manual of Style sometime (19th ed or later) - it's also called technical quoting.
All Chicago says is that this style of quoting has been seen in certain contexts. That doesn't make it acceptable. In fact, it is quite unacceptable. Associated Press agrees on this point.
Now go away, and let the adults here continue their conversation.
Hah. If the average age of the people reading this is above 18, I'll eat my shoe.
Or, as I believe, everyone else is wrong. There is no reason for the period to go inside the quotes if it is not a complete thought.
Again, nobody asked your opinion on this subject. I'm sorry, but you don't get to make up the rules of language as you go along. There's a right way and a wrong way, and if you're not doing it the right way, then you're wrong.
Trailing punctuation goes inside closing quotation marks because that's how the written English language works. That should be reason enough for you.
Just as if I make a function call, foo("blah blah", &bar);
You are obviously confused. Programming languages are not written English, nor is written English a programming language. The rules for written English are different from the rules for programming languages.
But if that's the only way I'm going to get through to you, then so be it. Just as your C compiler would throw an error if you left the trailing semicolon off of a statement, so too does the notional written English parser throw an error when you mistakenly place a terminal punctuation mark outside a closing quotation mark. It's wrong, and it's a mistake on your part.
Unless I'm being graded or writing a formal letter, I do not adhere to the rules.
Guess what, pyite? You are being graded. Every time you communicate with another person, that person makes judgments about you based not only on the content of your communication, but also on its form, structure, and presentation. If you can't get simple rules of written English right, then that sends a message to your audience about your qualifications. In other words, pyite, it makes you look like a fucking idiot.
Their defense: putting punctuation inside of the quotation marks obfuscates things
So ignorance was their defense? Misunderstanding in this situation can only occur when the reader doesn't understand the rules of written English, as you clearly do not. The fact that you, pyite, or the average reader of 2600 magazine has not successfully mastered the written form of his native language does not mean that the language itself is at fault. It only means that you are ignorant.
Ignorance is no crime, pyite, but that doesn't mean you should wallow in it.
I don't use Preview to view or edit images; I prefer to choose the tools I use with images.
Then for christsakes, just save yourself all the trouble and use command-control-shift-3 and command-control-shift-4. These keystrokes load the screenshot directly onto the clipboard. If you're using "the tools you use with images" anyway, you can then simply paste the screenshot directly into whatever application you like.
As I said before, you are only complaining about this because you are uninformed about how the screen shot facility is supposed to work.
Just what would PDF be suitable for besides basic viewing?
How about anything. You can email PDFs, or print them, or post them on the web... anything you can do with a TIFF, you can do just as easily with a PDF.
Many computer professionals just color on a monitor.
As I said, this separates the pros from the wanna-bes. It is physically impossible for a computer monitor to accurately reproduce the color output of a printing press. Can't be done. So all the time and trouble you spend trying to get your monitor to look just right is wasted. Pros know this, so they don't bother. Heck, I did a significant amount of my color work in greyscale mode, one color channel at a time. Viewing all four channels at once on a color display was meaningless, so I didn't even bother.
And as for that remark about dark rooms, that's the worst way to judge color. Unless, of course, you're trying to produce something that will be viewed only in dark rooms. Since my work was almost exclusively sheet-fed, I judged color proofs under a 5,500 degree lamp array. If I'd been doing flexographic work for packaging, I probably would have used a bluer light source to more closely match the ambient light found in stores. But in a dark room? Never.
"The European style?" That's a load of crap. The only acceptable usage of punctuation marks adjacent to quotation marks in the English language is to place terminal punctuation inside closing quotation marks. This is well documented; pick up any English-language reference book, from any country at all, to see it in writing.
And I don't recall asking you if it makes sense. I couldn't care less whether you approve or not. These are the rules. You either follow them, or you're wrong.
Under your rationale, it would be impossible to color correct something by "feel" in Photoshop, and that's patently false.
If you successfully color-correct something "by feel," then you simply got lucky. It is not possible for a computer monitor to render color in any way that's comparable to the output of a printing press. Calibration is a fool's errand. "Color and pulsing widgets in the interface" are irrelevant.
I am well aware of how to export from Preview, but that is not a solution, just a workaround. The real problem still exists.
So... the problem is not that you can't get screenshots in the format of your choice. The problem is that you can't get screenshots in the format of your choice with one keystroke?
Let me be the first to say that that's a stupid fucking thing to complain about. Mac OS X 10.2 and later writes screen shots in PDF format. Mac OS X 10.0 - 10.1.5 wrote screen shots in TIFF format. Mac OS X 9 and earlier wrote screen shots in PICT format. We've been living with these facts for years. Your complaint is totally without merit, and should be ignored.
Um, then why not let the user CHOOSE the destination format?
You aren't getting it. You can "CHOOSE" any format you want, by converting the image to a different format with Preview.app. This is a completely workable solution to the problem. It probably takes the same amount of time, give or take two seconds, as popping up a dialog box and asking you for your format of choice.
What are you trying to do, exactly, that PDF isn't suitable for? Are you sure you aren't just doing it wrong in the first place?
Well, since you asked - Apple's DVI implementation is non-standard.
No, it isn't. The connector is unusual, but it's documented, and adapters that break out the USB and power signals are available. This is no different from when some vendors use four-pin FireWire cables instead of six-pin cables. You simply need an adapter cable.
They do support the standard physical and electrical connections, but that doesn't mean you can take just any generic PCI or AGP card meant for a PC, and use it in a Mac.
Sounds to me like some vendors' PCI cards are non-standard. This says nothing about Apple's PCI implementation.
Apple has come a long, long way since the "skinny Mac," in which every single component was proprietary, right down to the nonstandard screws used to fasten the top to the chassis.
Okay, I'm starting to understand your point of view now. When you say "non-standard," you really mean, "I've never heard of it." Torx T-10 and T-15 screws are very much standards; they're just different standards from the ones you're familiar with.
Can't tweak the interface? What a joke. For Pete's sake, we have the hooks to put rootless XFree86 on top of Aqua and run every Window manager under the sun.
You don't have to do that. You can type ">console" at the login prompt, in place of a user name, to get a terminal login to the machine. From there, you can "startx" if you want.
Another reason is that it's damned hard to judge color if your desktop, menu and palettes look like Rainbow Brite's bedroom.
No creative professional-- artist or otherwise-- would ever judge color on a computer monitor. This is the line that clearly separates the pros from the wanna-bes.
If I don't like having my screenshots come out as PDFs in 10.2 (TinkerTool could change this in 10.1), what are my options (besides going back to 10.1)?
Opening the PDFs with Preview.app, and using the Export... menu item to save them as whatever format you like.
People often deride the absence of some feature or function of the Mac because they haven't looked for a way to do it. Screen shots have to be written out in some lingua franca format. PDF is easier. If the shots got written out as TIFFs, what compression would you use? None? LZW? ZIP? You'd just have to end up converting the files to some other format anyway, inevitably.
Especially funny was the part where they described the Mac as having "open architecture".
You misplaced your punctuation mark. The period goes inside the quotation mark.
That aside, though, what part of the Mac architecture is not open? All the interfaces are industry-standard, inside and out. PCI and AGP, ATA, USB, FireWire, DVI... what part of that is proprietary?
It's not "Red Hat GNU/Linux." The name of the product is "Red Hat Linux." Refer to this page for more information. The relevant passage is as follows:Furthermore, "Linux" is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. You don't have the right to change the trademark. (Incidentally, neither does Richard Stallman.) The name of the operating system is "Linux," and the name of Red Hat's version of the operating system is "Red Hat Linux."
Incidentally, you can use Apple's HD Cinema Display on any computer via either a DVI-I signal (good) or a VGA signal (bad). Seems like the stupidity here is coming from someplace other than Apple.
No, the tool should be COST effective, versatile, and reliable, in THAT order.
Wrong. The tools pay for themselves. If they don't, then you aren't using them right.
In other words, if you don't need a Mac to get the job done, don't use one. This says nothing about Macs; it does, however, say something about your own needs, talents, and abilities.