Also.. woot! First Flamebait mod!... surely that goes to some manner of slashdot 'achievements' list?;)
That said.. I've never sniped at e-bay.. I bid the maximum amount I'm willing to pay for an item (if it's not a buy-it-now) and that's that. Yes, I run the entirely possible risk that the seller logs into a shadow account and bids in $1.00 increments until he nabs my maximum amount by that $1.00 and either get somebody else to bid even higher, or at worst - at least at e-bay - have to go through some mouseclicks to void the auction and re-list. I can live with that risk, there's almost always other sellers for the exact same items when I suspect a seller is fixing the auction.
Disable current generation of sniping tools, forcing them to hire engineers for at least 30 minutes work to update their clients? Check.
oh boo-hoo, cry me a river.
I know it's a perfectly legitimate bidding strategy, but I'll be damned if I give those making use of sniping tools any sympathy that they would have to rewrite them / have them rewritten - same as 'SEO' people complaining about any search engine (well, Google) changes.
In Photoshop just flick File -> New, OK and then Paste the screenshot...Or Ctrl + N, Enter, Ctrl + V (IIRC)
Doesn't seem that hard to me..
Does it matter whether it is -hard- to do this? Not to mention that, although you are familiar with keyboard shortcuts, a lot of casual users (with pirated copies of Photoshop, no doubt, so I don't have that much sympathy with them) work with the mouse - at which point it does become more of a tede. Note also that you just created a new image with a new layer - the image isn't flattened at this point, so that's another keyboard combo you'll have to look up to complete it.
The simple question is this: Why doesn't Photoshop have an "Edit > Paste as New Image" type option? Picture Publisher, 1994, has this. The GIMP, 2009, has this. What is holding Adobe back from adding a Edit > Paste as New Image? ( I don't have Photoshop in front of me right now so I can't check - but I do believe that the assertion is correct that it doesn't have this option. )
There are many, many such annoyances in Photoshop, such as with printing an image centered to the page. It's a checkbox.. if you want to move the print around visually or numerically, you can't do that without first -unchecking- that checkbox. These are just silly workflow issues.
There's similar problems in any application - The GIMP has its share: - crop tool not snapping to guidelines if you're dragging along an edge, for example, though maybe they fixed that now... - no proper layer alignment tools to speak of... - *still* no unified move/scale/rotate/shear tool. It's 2009 - why am I *still* performing two transforms on a layer (scale + rotate) and incurring the losses from -both- those operations when mathematically there's no problem doing both in one go and retaining a higher quality? Again, this is 2009... Picture Publisher, 1994, has this! (it's got godawful filtering, however, that's its age showing).
And yes - I do still use Picture Publisher.. it starts up much faster and lets me get work done much more easily for many operations; It's so much preferable for these things, that I'll even accept having to reboot once in a while because the 16bit GUI resources have run out (Windows is stupid and doesn't reset the counter to zero. *groan*) and no new UI elements pop up.
But why is Photoshop 'allowed to' have such issues by, arguably, some of the best graphics professionals? Why do they accept having to do "ctrl+n, enter, ctrl+v" when there's no reason there couldn't be a, say, ctrl+shift+v or ctrl+alt+v or ctrl+shift+n to do the operation in a single go?
If you don't want any headgear, then at the moment your only viable option is a display with lenticular lenses.
You can kiss half the horizontal resolution goodbye, any '2D' image is going to look odd, you have to remain in a relatively specific area (your left eye sees the left image, your right eye sees the right image. Now move your head 2.5 inches or so to the left. Hey that's odd, now your left eye sees the right image, and your right eye sees the left image. woo fun!).
So I'm not sure how much multitasking you would actually be able to get done -and- still watch the show properly* In fact, maybe you should just stick to regular ol' 2D TV.. nothing wrong with that, I tend to prefer it - mostly because current '3D' content makes the effect more of a gimmick than just part of the show.
* actually - I never quite got how anybody can multitask while "watching TV"... if it's some show you're only marginally interested in, yeah I guess you can just go by sound alone and peek when you *think* something interesting is about to happen. But the way some families 'watch TV', I swear they can't quit talking right through the thing... and of course they're all doing something -other- than watching the TV. So something happens - heads turn toward the TV.. "what happened!? I missed it!".. yeah, no shit. Yay for the DVR, right? But how anybody could consider that "watching TV" is beyond me.
SONY actually isn't planning on a polarization scheme (which would require either retrofitting existing TVs with polarization masks (column, typically, byebye half of the horizontal resolution, but that may be acceptable), or telling people 'tough luck - buy our new special 3D TV!') at first..
SONY is pushing 3D on BluRay as simply two separate streams and doesn't specify how this ends up being displayed.
SONY themselves, however, are at the moment pushing for shutter systems. I.e. the TV - and this can be 'any TV'* - displays the frame for the left eye, then the right, then the left, etc. and has a set of shutter glasses sync up with that.
* the asterisk for 'any TV' is because you do need a TV capable of handling a reasonable refresh rate. If your TV is currently capable of, say, 100Hz - which seems reasonable - you're left with a 50Hz 'flicker' per eye (flickering between the picture, and near-black).
There's obvious disadvantages to this method (cost of glasses, possibly eye strain from flickering, mostly), but an obvious advantage is that 'any TV' can work with this method without any retrofitting requirements.
I realize that finding where that information is stored, listing it, keeping it up to date (a script could notify you of plan changes on the page, though), etc. is a big initial undertaking, but after that...?
In fact.. presuming this site has all the plans listed accurately... http://www.cellphones.ca/cell-plans/...what's to stop them*, or anybody, from taking that data and making a calculator? Or better, the service mentioned in another comment ( http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1359639&cid=29331273 ) where you can enter your last bill's details (if you get a nice detailed bill) and out pops a recommendation of what provider you should go with.. at least in terms of $$$.
( * theoretically, the providers should stop -them- by no longer supplying the data... if in fact the maintainers of that site get the data from the providers )
How is saying "so browse in full screen" (also available in Chrome) when the parent poster lauds the extra browsing real-estate he gets in Chrome, a troll post? What would I be trolling for? Some scathing reply that full screen browsing is the bastard child of Bill Gates? Yeesh;)/nokarma
136 out of 1176 people in households with internet connections admitted to having used file-sharing software (source: the summary) 18.3 million households in the UK had internet access at time of polling in 2009 (source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=8 )
136/1176 * 18.3M ~= 2.12M
Not sure if "having used file-sharing software" means that they downloaded / distributed at least 1 item - say, a song - via said software and that they had no actual rights to do so (you know, as most people use file-sharing software to distribute Linux distros, or have simply 'used it' but didn't actually download or upload anything... *cough*)...
But let's presume it does.
Then let's take the low price in iTunes UK of GBP 0.79 per song, then the music industry 'lost' ('cos obviously people had no intention of buying that song that they didn't download / distribute because they were downloading a Linux distro instead *cough*) about GBP 1,671,897.96.
Consider the idea of boycotting all of SONY - by which I mean SONY Corporation - because SONY BMG screwed up.
That Bravia TV? Don't buy it. That PS3? Don't buy it. That Blu-Ray player from, say, JVC? Don't buy it - JVC pays SONY That CD - any artist, even if it's you? Don't buy it - every CD and CD-R made at this point nets SONY a tiny amount of dosh. Spiderman movie? Don't buy it. Tom & Jerry on TV? Don't watch it (Tom & Jerry = MGM+Turner. MGM = 20% owned by SONY. Your watching it makes it more attractive for advertisers to put their ads around the show for good sums of money, a slice of which goes to.. voila). That laptop you're buying? Double-check it doesn't use a SONY panel. That digital camera you're buying? Make sure it doesn't use a SONY sensor (e.g. Nikon has SONY sensors in many models)... and so forth and so on.
Let's face it - unless you want to be bordering on paranoia whenever you buy something, there's absolutely no good way to boycott a megacorp like SONY even if the idea that long-term boycotting SONY for the short-term actions of a - all things considered - tiny part of the conglomerate wasn't preposterous to begin with. Let me restate that.. I'm not saying that a boycott should be easy - of course it shouldn't, if we could all be lazy in boycotts then a boycott wouldn't work either. What I am saying is, it is nigh-on impossible to boycott a megacorp 100%. Even if -you- decide to no longer buy any product that has a SONY logo on it - a boycott that -is- quite doable, they'll still be getting money from you through the multitude of other channels they have, and through their main channels from the people who don't go along with your boycott.
SONY's bottom line, and that of any other truly big company (let alone the likes of Unilever, Procter & Gamble and the like), is hardly ever hurt by a (call for a) boycott (see e.g. the Nestlé boycott, going on since the 70's, and check out the financial charts for Nestlé.. could they have made an even bigger profit if it weren't for the boycott? sure. Are they in dire straits because of the boycott? Don't be silly.) They're typically more hurt by their own ineptitude and/or loss of appeal for their products/business in general (e.g. Circuit City, sadly), and bad press in specific.
Perhaps this is just a pessimistic view, but it's based on what I see around me. A small baker had to close shop because people boycotted him for selling factory-created pastries - simply because his two children buggered off and he had no time to do that in addition to the fresh breads, cakes, pies, etc. So now people have to buy factory-created breads at the local supermarket as well. The same supermarket (Albert Heijn) that has been 'boycotted' time and again for a multitude of things.. but is still going strong and opening up new stores left and right.
These days, a 'public outcry' is far more efficient than a boycott; the public outcry and subsequent bad press over the SONY BMG rootkit, from people who were still actively buying SONY products -and- people who had no intention of buying SONY products anyway alike, was enough to have them remove any plans to add it to any new CDs, and even lead to them pulling the existing CDs in some areas, while no formal boycott ever materialized and people are still buying SONY products; just like people are still buying Volgswagens and drool over Bugatti Veyrons.
Andrew and team: just wanted to give you a huge "THANKS!" for starting this up. I realize that the current goal is a camera fit for science projects, but I hope that either it gives a kick under the bum for existing camera makers -or- that at some point (some of) you will split off with a commercial venture to make consumer / prosumer class cameras that have the same flexibility. Maybe we'll see some of the fruits of your labor come Siggraph 2010?
In FireFox, enter fullscreen mode. Boom, 100% - a few pixels at the top, all for rendering the page content. Want to get to the tabs - hover your mouse over those few pixels.. voila, there's the tabs and address bar.
They still do this in NL even with the (diesel/)electric trains. It's steel riding on steel - like it or not, you're going to get sparks.. especially when braking.
Google Translate fails hard at Dutch, so in short: A train caused a series of brush fires alongside the tracks between the cities of Roermond and Eindhoven due to a locked-up brake which threw sparks out onto and beside the track.
Re:It still fails at my simple CSS test.
on
Opera 10.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Re:It still fails at my simple CSS test.
on
Opera 10.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Not sure - the OP reported only Opera and made no statements regarding the other browsers; I just figured I'd test the lot, in case it was actually something that was broken in multiple browsers (e.g. due to ambiguous standards specs. Though after I tried it in FF and peeked at the source with FireBug, I already realized there shouldn't be any reason this would break in -any- browser.
As it is, I'm not sure what on Earth the deal is with Safari's refusal to size down further; but at least it's not completely and utterly borked./nokarma
Well, that works for the specific case; but check out the site he's using similar code on. I don't think he can get away with just specifying the outer area as being a border;)/nokarma
Correct, you're not 'supposed' to use offsetHeight. Oddly enough Mozilla and whatnot thought that was actually a reasonable idea out of MS and implemented it as well, so I guess there's room for -a- function/property like it.
But please note that the linked demo page does not use offsetHeight or any scripting at all. It's pure CSS. ( I'm just guessing a lot of users are not going to read the original post or even check the demo page and simply read "My page doesn't work" and "offsetHeight is nonstandard anyway" and will dismiss the demo page. )
There might be other ways to achieve the same as that page, I'm not a CSS guru (I've got my own problematic page to which I've not seen any answer that didn't involve using javascript; ended up working around it on the server end where I know the size of the content (image). CSS layouts are very, very poor for any actual layout work, even if it's nice for 'fluid' layouts that will work on anything from giant screens to black and white text-only devices)/nokarma
Re:It still fails at my simple CSS test.
on
Opera 10.0 Released
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Seeing as I still have all these at my disposal (see some older thread on browsers..)
IE8: fine
FF3.5.2: fine
Safari 4.0.3: fine; although I can't resize vertically completely. The extent of the lime-colored rectangle is always a minimum size to encompass the red rectangle. Can't check horizontally because the window won't resize small enough there:)
Chrome 2.0.172.43: fine
cat: fine too (*groan*)
Opera 9.64: yup, broken.. slow to redraw, the vertical scrollbar pops into and out of existance, the boxes end up overflowing or not being sized right, etc.
Opera 10.00: also broken.. if I very slowly drag the bottom edge of the window up, the resizing happens in 'pops'. basically any time the top edge of the bottom (status) bar is hitting the bottom edge of the lime-colored rectangle, a resize occurs (vertical scrollbar pops into view, resize occurs, vertical scrollbar pops out of view). If, instead, I do it a little faster.. it just doesn't respond in time at all and I can no longer see the bottom are of the lime rectangle, the vertical scrollbar stays in place, etc. In either case, expanding the window vertically from the window's bottom edge does -not- expand the rectangles again.
Note that this behavior -is- different from 9. 9 -would- smoothly resize as the bottom edge of the window is being dragged... it's just that it resizes incorrectly
A major ISP in NL, Ziggo, has changed their commercials from "download movies" to "download movie trailers". I guess they felt pressure somewhere. Which is a bit silly as there -are- movie 'rental' places online where it would definitely be legal to download movies - even if downloading movies wasn't already legal under current law anyway. (distributing is another matter)
The's the cool part about killing yourself--even if it's illegal it's not like they can prosecute you for it.
No, they can't prosecute you. You're dead. Woo, stick it to the man, man!
But -because- it's illegal, they can tie other things to it. Like freezing your assets. All those things you spelled out in your will? On hold. That money you were going to leave your children? On hold, possibly indefinitely, used to fund the investigations into your death, your autopsy, etc. etc.
How about non-legal matters, like insurance - does your end-of-life insurance (for, say, burial, cremation, etc.) provide coverage when committing suicide? Double-check the smallprint. How about the burial grounds or alcoves you want to be laid to rest... sure, you reserved a spot, but check -their- smallprint.. some, especially religious types, don't put those who committed suicide among the others.
But hey, at least they can't prosecute you, right? In many countries, the legal aspect doesn't even apply (i.e. it's not actually illegal to commit suicide). But in most countries, an attempt at suicide (i.e. failing to actually pull it off) -is- still illegal and is often grounds to have you psychologically evaluated at best or locked up in a ward at worst... after all, you're clearly insane.
Well I don't have to:) My point was that computing is not the only industry where there's some smuggling with numbers.
Doing quick calculations a 6mm X 4.5mm film, which my scanner can scan, is 2.4" X 1.6". My scanner optically scans 6400 dpi so a frame of 645 film would generate a file bigger than 150MB.
You'd be lucky to get that amount of detail out of the film; grain size is going to be an issue, but the optics of the scanner as well. Just for kicks, if you did scan at that DPI, exactly, ( and I do presume you meant cm... 6mm is smaller than my cellphone's sensor;) ) you'd hit, approximately (give or take a row / column of pixels): 15,118 x 11,338 = 171,407,884 pixels, which is indeed well over 150MB even if you only stored it as 8bit greyscale. But then we're back to the "do you really need to store an image at that size?". See the quality concerns up above and in my previous post. Assume you would, some day, actually print this.. let's say you print this at 300DPI... which is fairly high for any commercial print (the dithering pattern can be a higher DPI, I'm referring to the pixel->dot size here). The print would be 128cm wide. It's a completely -absurd- resolution for most sizes printers will offer you. The ones that handle this size are poster printers.. they don't print at 300DPI, they print at 200 at best; most film posters are 75(!) The few places that do print high quality prints will charge you an arm and a leg for that size print, and if you're thinking "I'll invest in an A2-size inkjet myself", you'll wish you'd given up the arm and leg;)
And that's not counting colour depth, my scanner can scan 48 bit colour depths.
Note that this is typically a combined value. E.g. 16bits for red, green, and blue (16+16+16 = 48). 16bits isn't bad, by the way.. 16bits is good.. 16 bits is great! 32bits is even better but not even the film (movie) industry deals with 32bit very often.
Of course by the tyme I'd need space to store those digitized images I should be able to afford multi-terabyte raid storage. However going back to my original reply, just because some people can't imagine needing terabytes of storage doesn't mean it won't be used by anyone.
Well that's the thing though, isn't it... if you're going to be using it in the very near future, then you'd have to find a way to get a bigger drive to begin with.. the losses from TB vs TiB are almost negligible if you think you can fill it up so fast that there's no way you can budget for an expansion down the road. I can certainly imagine people needing TBs of storage.. several of the customers of the company I work for mutter about the needing another quarter PB just to get through some of the shots they work on when the material absolutely -cannot- leave their facility to an offsite storage due to security concerns. But, then, they budget for this.. they'll get 0.5PB knowing that by the time they might have a need that exceeds that 0.5PB, they can afford additional storage. If they think they'll have such a job coming in soon, they'll get 0.75PB instead. If you don't have the budget to do so, then you're stressing your budget by having a desire to store that much information / overbidding for the job.
And if you don't want to lose details you don't compress.
Somebody else already mentioned this (in a somewhat scathing tone), but of course there are such things as lossless compression:) Though, honestly, for final consumables, you could use JPG just fine; if your tool of choice is Photoshop, then setting the quality to highest/100 will do. If you use The GIMP, there's several options there you can use to specify the exact JPEG encoding to have as little loss as possible. If you think you'll be workin
In computing, at some point, somebody was looking for a way to express, say, 5120 bytes without saying "five thousand one hundred and twenty bytes". They then figured that 1024 was awfully close to 1000, and there was already a unit multiplier for that one; Kilo. So, he figured, we'll call it KiloByte. They then started using that, others were pondering "do you mean 1,000 bytes?" and he explained "no, no.. it's all powers of two.. it's 1024 bytes, but kilobyte is easier to say -and- write! Look: KB", and the iT crowd did nod though the science community did shake its head but figured "silly computer people."
Fast forward a few decades and somehow we, in the computing industry, still think that a Kilo can have different meanings the moment you switch to a different field (namely the computing field) and are shocked and appalled when somebody uses the conventional meaning, quite correctly, even if it's for marketing reasons... to the point of conjuring up a multitude of reasons why the computing industry is apparently allowed to have a different definition; from relatively strong ones ("A byte can't be presented as a fractional anyway.. there's no such thing as a centibyte, for example.", which personally I see as a great reason -not- to use kilo, mega, etc. either) to pathetically weak ones ("ehh.. kibi, mebi etc. sound like something out of a gay book series for girls, yuck". I kid you not, it's in one of the comments here.)
This is what it comes down to... is 1KB 1000 bytes, or 1024 bytes, and depending on your personal views on it, you are either going to be "lied to [using a] false counting system", or not.
Let's turn the tables... if somebody in, say, the housing market a long time ago decided that 'a grand' was not $1,000 but rather $1,024 dollars and advertise an apartment as being 300 grand. How pissed would you be that you wouldn't have to pay $300,000, but $307,200 ? Wouldn't you call them absolutely bat shit insane for thinking they can just change the definition of 'a grand' just because they're in their own little housing market club?
Your whole argument is hinging on the (imprinted / gut feeling) idea that 1TB is -not- 1TB, and is every bit as silly as saying "They advertised this car's max speed as 220km/h, but it actually only goes 136.7mph!". The only reason that looks more absurd is because it uses the correct units. Use the correct units in the aforementioned (1TB is -not- 1 TiB) and a "well dur" pops into anybody's mind.
No, I'm just doing things the browser-centric way, which is what the GP's post was about:)
What you mentioned works in Chrome as well - it should work for any browser that is compatible with OpenSearch. But that is search engine-centric, and a different topic (every search engine should offer such a link, for sure, as that would be -the- most intuivite method).
Good for you that you'll never fill up a single TB drive.
I didn't say -never-. I said "not anytime soon". There's a huge difference between the two.
I can very well imagine that I will fill up a PiB of storage in the future... maybe 20 years from now. But why on Earth would that drive me to buy 500 2TB drives for an ungodly amount of dosh -now-? Let's say I have a 1TB drive now (I have two, RAID, blabla - beside the point), and I expect to have that filled up in 3 years. In 3 years, for the same amount as I can buy another 1TB drive now, I can probably buy a 5TB drive. I gain 4TB, which is much more than I would have 'lost' between 2TB and 2TiB.
I lost an entire TB because the drive makers follow marketing jargon instead of the proper method
You never -lost- anything. The drive was advertising as being capable of holding N bytes, in your case 1,000,000,000,000bytes, and that's (presumably) what you got. 'The proper method' is what's being discussed in this Slashdot thread, but as somebody who just invested in 20 1TB drives, I'm sure you were aware of the fact that drives are currently typically sold using the SI definitions (you can call that marketing, but at least the marketing boys are following the definitions..)
we know when we're being screwed
Clearly not, if you still claim to have lost 1TB, when you got what you paid for:o If you 'knew you were being screwed', you would've gotten an extra 2 1TB drives (you lost two to the TB vs TiB. Not sure where you lost the third... filesystem shouldn't be quite -that- much) to make up for the expected 'loss'.
That's where you should have gotten a larger storage. If you honestly -fill- that 1.5TB that you purchased in such a short amount of time that you do not have the budget to purchase another 1TB, 1.5TB, 2TB drive (etc.) at the end of that time, then you need to reconsider either.. - what you store (do you -really- need to save all the pictures you're saving now?) - how you store it (do you -really- need them in RAW/TIFF format?)
Because if you don't, then by the time it -is- full, it would take only 10% of that amount of time in addition to have filled up a 1.5TiB drive; and I hardly think you could blame the harddisk manufacturers for not using the 2^N variety when writing TB. ( Even if they didn't specify on the boxes these days that "N GB = N000000000 bytes". )
the Canon prosumer model EOS 5D Mark II has a 21.1 Megapixel sensor than can put out a 60MB raw file. Process it and edit in Photoshop and the file could be 500MB.
The 5D Mark II 21.1MP is NOT 21,100,000 pixels. It's only 21,026,304. Did you know that?
But the reason I quoted that part was because of this... its output resolution at the highest size setting is 5,616x3,744 pixels. Now let's take that number and crunch it some further. Once processed out of CR2 (I think it's CR2? could be CRW, not that it matters), there's 3 channels left per pixel... red, green, blue. Each of those channels comes out of the ADC, which is 14bit. Photoshop does't offer a 14bit mode, so let's jump up to 16bit in order to keep the fidelity as high as possible. 21,026,304 x 3 channels x 16 bit per channel = 1,009,262,592 bits. There's 8 bits in a byte, so... 1,009,262,592 bits / 8 bits = 126,157,824 bytes. That's the RAW data in bytes. That's nowhere near 500MB. What would you be doing to the poor files, duplicating the entire layer several times and painting in a mask to mask out all but a tiny area that you color correct? That's not even counting compression; where it really doesn't matter whether you choose PSD or TIFF, as TIFF as PackBits, LZW and various other compression modes as well. Perhaps you're saving to OpenEXR with PIZ even. But even if, for whatever reason, you decided to save to a BMP file - you could still ZIP the file up; that adds a little hassle but would save a lot of space.
Here's an article, "Sizing for Alamy", Alamy is a microstock photography website, for photographers that brings up the issue of whether 1MB equals 1024KBs or 1,000,000 bytes.
Honestly, that article brings up a heck of a lot more issues about Alamy than just the MB vs MiB thing; - the fact that they want you to send in files that are, in -filesize-, at least 48MiB, which is completely unrelated to the quality (not a la JPEG quality, but a la "how much of the information in this picture is actually useful information) of the file. - "we recommend that you do not interpolate your files to more than 55MB". What, they actually recommend interpolating at all? "In an image editing program such as Photoshop, upsize the image to a minimum of 48MB." Oh dear lord, they DO. I've never facepalmed, so Alamy gets the premiére: *facepalm*. I hope I don't have to explain to anybody why upsampling is a bad idea. - the author of the article already points out the flaw in the advice given about making the width 5200 pixels, so I'll not get into that. In summary: Alamy would do well to consider a different "minimum size" metric.
P.S. Love that you do film; I like the dynamic range of film much better than digital (for now... come on, sensor makers, increase that bitdepth already), and if you already have the film rolls it doesn't burn money so much anyway (developing still costs, of course).
I am assuming this stuff is all not reusable, which is why it's out there in the first place.
eh?
It's out there because we're a filthy bunch. We throw away plastic willy-nilly wherever we want; and whether that's in a forest or into the street (into gutter into drain out into the sea onward to the ocean) or, heck, off a cruise ship, we're not throwing it away because it's "not reusable".
Most plastic -is- reusable, even if all you do with it is create plastic pellets or plastic film. The rest you can compact, dump somewhere, put soil on top, and voila... a hill. One giant problematic hill, but rather less problematic there than it is out in the oceans where wildlife can actually get to it.
Slashdot Mirror
ah, in that case - point taken :)
Also.. woot! First Flamebait mod! ... surely that goes to some manner of slashdot 'achievements' list? ;)
That said.. I've never sniped at e-bay.. I bid the maximum amount I'm willing to pay for an item (if it's not a buy-it-now) and that's that. Yes, I run the entirely possible risk that the seller logs into a shadow account and bids in $1.00 increments until he nabs my maximum amount by that $1.00 and either get somebody else to bid even higher, or at worst - at least at e-bay - have to go through some mouseclicks to void the auction and re-list. I can live with that risk, there's almost always other sellers for the exact same items when I suspect a seller is fixing the auction.
oh boo-hoo, cry me a river.
I know it's a perfectly legitimate bidding strategy, but I'll be damned if I give those making use of sniping tools any sympathy that they would have to rewrite them / have them rewritten - same as 'SEO' people complaining about any search engine (well, Google) changes.
Does it matter whether it is -hard- to do this? Not to mention that, although you are familiar with keyboard shortcuts, a lot of casual users (with pirated copies of Photoshop, no doubt, so I don't have that much sympathy with them) work with the mouse - at which point it does become more of a tede.
Note also that you just created a new image with a new layer - the image isn't flattened at this point, so that's another keyboard combo you'll have to look up to complete it.
The simple question is this: Why doesn't Photoshop have an "Edit > Paste as New Image" type option?
Picture Publisher, 1994, has this. The GIMP, 2009, has this. What is holding Adobe back from adding a Edit > Paste as New Image?
( I don't have Photoshop in front of me right now so I can't check - but I do believe that the assertion is correct that it doesn't have this option. )
There are many, many such annoyances in Photoshop, such as with printing an image centered to the page. It's a checkbox.. if you want to move the print around visually or numerically, you can't do that without first -unchecking- that checkbox. These are just silly workflow issues.
There's similar problems in any application - The GIMP has its share:
- crop tool not snapping to guidelines if you're dragging along an edge, for example, though maybe they fixed that now...
- no proper layer alignment tools to speak of...
- *still* no unified move/scale/rotate/shear tool. It's 2009 - why am I *still* performing two transforms on a layer (scale + rotate) and incurring the losses from -both- those operations when mathematically there's no problem doing both in one go and retaining a higher quality? Again, this is 2009... Picture Publisher, 1994, has this! (it's got godawful filtering, however, that's its age showing).
And yes - I do still use Picture Publisher.. it starts up much faster and lets me get work done much more easily for many operations; It's so much preferable for these things, that I'll even accept having to reboot once in a while because the 16bit GUI resources have run out (Windows is stupid and doesn't reset the counter to zero. *groan*) and no new UI elements pop up.
But why is Photoshop 'allowed to' have such issues by, arguably, some of the best graphics professionals? Why do they accept having to do "ctrl+n, enter, ctrl+v" when there's no reason there couldn't be a, say, ctrl+shift+v or ctrl+alt+v or ctrl+shift+n to do the operation in a single go?
If you don't want any headgear, then at the moment your only viable option is a display with lenticular lenses.
You can kiss half the horizontal resolution goodbye, any '2D' image is going to look odd, you have to remain in a relatively specific area (your left eye sees the left image, your right eye sees the right image. Now move your head 2.5 inches or so to the left. Hey that's odd, now your left eye sees the right image, and your right eye sees the left image. woo fun!).
So I'm not sure how much multitasking you would actually be able to get done -and- still watch the show properly* In fact, maybe you should just stick to regular ol' 2D TV.. nothing wrong with that, I tend to prefer it - mostly because current '3D' content makes the effect more of a gimmick than just part of the show.
* actually - I never quite got how anybody can multitask while "watching TV"... if it's some show you're only marginally interested in, yeah I guess you can just go by sound alone and peek when you *think* something interesting is about to happen. But the way some families 'watch TV', I swear they can't quit talking right through the thing... and of course they're all doing something -other- than watching the TV. So something happens - heads turn toward the TV.. "what happened!? I missed it!".. yeah, no shit. Yay for the DVR, right? But how anybody could consider that "watching TV" is beyond me.
SONY actually isn't planning on a polarization scheme (which would require either retrofitting existing TVs with polarization masks (column, typically, byebye half of the horizontal resolution, but that may be acceptable), or telling people 'tough luck - buy our new special 3D TV!') at first..
SONY is pushing 3D on BluRay as simply two separate streams and doesn't specify how this ends up being displayed.
SONY themselves, however, are at the moment pushing for shutter systems. I.e. the TV - and this can be 'any TV'* - displays the frame for the left eye, then the right, then the left, etc. and has a set of shutter glasses sync up with that.
* the asterisk for 'any TV' is because you do need a TV capable of handling a reasonable refresh rate. If your TV is currently capable of, say, 100Hz - which seems reasonable - you're left with a 50Hz 'flicker' per eye (flickering between the picture, and near-black).
There's obvious disadvantages to this method (cost of glasses, possibly eye strain from flickering, mostly), but an obvious advantage is that 'any TV' can work with this method without any retrofitting requirements.
Out of curiosity - why is that?
I realize that finding where that information is stored, listing it, keeping it up to date (a script could notify you of plan changes on the page, though), etc. is a big initial undertaking, but after that...?
In fact.. presuming this site has all the plans listed accurately... ...what's to stop them*, or anybody, from taking that data and making a calculator? Or better, the service mentioned in another comment ( http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1359639&cid=29331273 ) where you can enter your last bill's details (if you get a nice detailed bill) and out pops a recommendation of what provider you should go with.. at least in terms of $$$.
http://www.cellphones.ca/cell-plans/
( * theoretically, the providers should stop -them- by no longer supplying the data... if in fact the maintainers of that site get the data from the providers )
Oh shit, +2 Troll - that's a new one.
How is saying "so browse in full screen" (also available in Chrome) when the parent poster lauds the extra browsing real-estate he gets in Chrome, a troll post? What would I be trolling for? Some scathing reply that full screen browsing is the bastard child of Bill Gates? Yeesh ;) /nokarma
136 out of 1176 people in households with internet connections admitted to having used file-sharing software (source: the summary)
18.3 million households in the UK had internet access at time of polling in 2009 (source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=8 )
136/1176 * 18.3M ~= 2.12M
Not sure if "having used file-sharing software" means that they downloaded / distributed at least 1 item - say, a song - via said software and that they had no actual rights to do so (you know, as most people use file-sharing software to distribute Linux distros, or have simply 'used it' but didn't actually download or upload anything... *cough*)...
But let's presume it does.
Then let's take the low price in iTunes UK of GBP 0.79 per song, then the music industry 'lost' ('cos obviously people had no intention of buying that song that they didn't download / distribute because they were downloading a Linux distro instead *cough*) about GBP 1,671,897.96.
Well, that's peanuts, innit.
Consider the idea of boycotting all of SONY - by which I mean SONY Corporation - because SONY BMG screwed up.
That Bravia TV? Don't buy it. .. and so forth and so on.
That PS3? Don't buy it.
That Blu-Ray player from, say, JVC? Don't buy it - JVC pays SONY
That CD - any artist, even if it's you? Don't buy it - every CD and CD-R made at this point nets SONY a tiny amount of dosh.
Spiderman movie? Don't buy it.
Tom & Jerry on TV? Don't watch it (Tom & Jerry = MGM+Turner. MGM = 20% owned by SONY. Your watching it makes it more attractive for advertisers to put their ads around the show for good sums of money, a slice of which goes to.. voila).
That laptop you're buying? Double-check it doesn't use a SONY panel.
That digital camera you're buying? Make sure it doesn't use a SONY sensor (e.g. Nikon has SONY sensors in many models).
Let's face it - unless you want to be bordering on paranoia whenever you buy something, there's absolutely no good way to boycott a megacorp like SONY even if the idea that long-term boycotting SONY for the short-term actions of a - all things considered - tiny part of the conglomerate wasn't preposterous to begin with. Let me restate that.. I'm not saying that a boycott should be easy - of course it shouldn't, if we could all be lazy in boycotts then a boycott wouldn't work either. What I am saying is, it is nigh-on impossible to boycott a megacorp 100%. Even if -you- decide to no longer buy any product that has a SONY logo on it - a boycott that -is- quite doable, they'll still be getting money from you through the multitude of other channels they have, and through their main channels from the people who don't go along with your boycott.
SONY's bottom line, and that of any other truly big company (let alone the likes of Unilever, Procter & Gamble and the like), is hardly ever hurt by a (call for a) boycott (see e.g. the Nestlé boycott, going on since the 70's, and check out the financial charts for Nestlé.. could they have made an even bigger profit if it weren't for the boycott? sure. Are they in dire straits because of the boycott? Don't be silly.) They're typically more hurt by their own ineptitude and/or loss of appeal for their products/business in general (e.g. Circuit City, sadly), and bad press in specific.
Perhaps this is just a pessimistic view, but it's based on what I see around me. A small baker had to close shop because people boycotted him for selling factory-created pastries - simply because his two children buggered off and he had no time to do that in addition to the fresh breads, cakes, pies, etc. So now people have to buy factory-created breads at the local supermarket as well. The same supermarket (Albert Heijn) that has been 'boycotted' time and again for a multitude of things.. but is still going strong and opening up new stores left and right.
These days, a 'public outcry' is far more efficient than a boycott; the public outcry and subsequent bad press over the SONY BMG rootkit, from people who were still actively buying SONY products -and- people who had no intention of buying SONY products anyway alike, was enough to have them remove any plans to add it to any new CDs, and even lead to them pulling the existing CDs in some areas, while no formal boycott ever materialized and people are still buying SONY products; just like people are still buying Volgswagens and drool over Bugatti Veyrons.
Andrew and team: just wanted to give you a huge "THANKS!" for starting this up. I realize that the current goal is a camera fit for science projects, but I hope that either it gives a kick under the bum for existing camera makers -or- that at some point (some of) you will split off with a commercial venture to make consumer / prosumer class cameras that have the same flexibility. Maybe we'll see some of the fruits of your labor come Siggraph 2010?
In FireFox, enter fullscreen mode. Boom, 100% - a few pixels at the top, all for rendering the page content.
Want to get to the tabs - hover your mouse over those few pixels.. voila, there's the tabs and address bar.
They still do this in NL even with the (diesel/)electric trains. It's steel riding on steel - like it or not, you're going to get sparks.. especially when braking.
There are a few spots along the Dutch tracks where it isn't cut back very far, and guess what happens...
http://www.parool.nl/parool/nl/224/BINNENLAND/article/detail/257177/2009/08/05/Trein-veroorzaakt-reeks-bermbranden.dhtml
Google Translate fails hard at Dutch, so in short: A train caused a series of brush fires alongside the tracks between the cities of Roermond and Eindhoven due to a locked-up brake which threw sparks out onto and beside the track.
- latest 'as of today' :D ). See the demo page from the GP post:
- performance is fine, other than the jumpy bits
- slashdot is not the issue ( though slashdot HAS issues. I certainly wouldn't use Slashdot as a field test to check whether browsers display the same
post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1354247&cid=29272487
demo page: http://echo.nextapp.com/content/test/operacss/
Not sure - the OP reported only Opera and made no statements regarding the other browsers; I just figured I'd test the lot, in case it was actually something that was broken in multiple browsers (e.g. due to ambiguous standards specs. Though after I tried it in FF and peeked at the source with FireBug, I already realized there shouldn't be any reason this would break in -any- browser.
As it is, I'm not sure what on Earth the deal is with Safari's refusal to size down further; but at least it's not completely and utterly borked. /nokarma
Well, that works for the specific case; but check out the site he's using similar code on. I don't think he can get away with just specifying the outer area as being a border ;) /nokarma
Correct, you're not 'supposed' to use offsetHeight. Oddly enough Mozilla and whatnot thought that was actually a reasonable idea out of MS and implemented it as well, so I guess there's room for -a- function/property like it.
But please note that the linked demo page does not use offsetHeight or any scripting at all. It's pure CSS.
( I'm just guessing a lot of users are not going to read the original post or even check the demo page and simply read "My page doesn't work" and "offsetHeight is nonstandard anyway" and will dismiss the demo page. )
There might be other ways to achieve the same as that page, I'm not a CSS guru (I've got my own problematic page to which I've not seen any answer that didn't involve using javascript; ended up working around it on the server end where I know the size of the content (image). CSS layouts are very, very poor for any actual layout work, even if it's nice for 'fluid' layouts that will work on anything from giant screens to black and white text-only devices) /nokarma
Seeing as I still have all these at my disposal (see some older thread on browsers..)
IE8: fine
FF3.5.2: fine
Safari 4.0.3: fine; although I can't resize vertically completely. The extent of the lime-colored rectangle is always a minimum size to encompass the red rectangle. Can't check horizontally because the window won't resize small enough there :)
Chrome 2.0.172.43: fine
cat: fine too (*groan*)
Opera 9.64: yup, broken.. slow to redraw, the vertical scrollbar pops into and out of existance, the boxes end up overflowing or not being sized right, etc.
Opera 10.00: also broken.. if I very slowly drag the bottom edge of the window up, the resizing happens in 'pops'. basically any time the top edge of the bottom (status) bar is hitting the bottom edge of the lime-colored rectangle, a resize occurs (vertical scrollbar pops into view, resize occurs, vertical scrollbar pops out of view). If, instead, I do it a little faster.. it just doesn't respond in time at all and I can no longer see the bottom are of the lime rectangle, the vertical scrollbar stays in place, etc. In either case, expanding the window vertically from the window's bottom edge does -not- expand the rectangles again.
Note that this behavior -is- different from 9. 9 -would- smoothly resize as the bottom edge of the window is being dragged... it's just that it resizes incorrectly
Platform: Windows Vista
tangentially related to your post...
A major ISP in NL, Ziggo, has changed their commercials from "download movies" to "download movie trailers". I guess they felt pressure somewhere. Which is a bit silly as there -are- movie 'rental' places online where it would definitely be legal to download movies - even if downloading movies wasn't already legal under current law anyway. (distributing is another matter)
No, they can't prosecute you. You're dead. Woo, stick it to the man, man!
But -because- it's illegal, they can tie other things to it. Like freezing your assets. All those things you spelled out in your will? On hold. That money you were going to leave your children? On hold, possibly indefinitely, used to fund the investigations into your death, your autopsy, etc. etc.
How about non-legal matters, like insurance - does your end-of-life insurance (for, say, burial, cremation, etc.) provide coverage when committing suicide? Double-check the smallprint. How about the burial grounds or alcoves you want to be laid to rest... sure, you reserved a spot, but check -their- smallprint.. some, especially religious types, don't put those who committed suicide among the others.
But hey, at least they can't prosecute you, right? In many countries, the legal aspect doesn't even apply (i.e. it's not actually illegal to commit suicide). But in most countries, an attempt at suicide (i.e. failing to actually pull it off) -is- still illegal and is often grounds to have you psychologically evaluated at best or locked up in a ward at worst... after all, you're clearly insane.
Well I don't have to :) My point was that computing is not the only industry where there's some smuggling with numbers.
You'd be lucky to get that amount of detail out of the film; grain size is going to be an issue, but the optics of the scanner as well. ;) ) you'd hit, approximately (give or take a row / column of pixels): 15,118 x 11,338 = 171,407,884 pixels, which is indeed well over 150MB even if you only stored it as 8bit greyscale. ;)
Just for kicks, if you did scan at that DPI, exactly, ( and I do presume you meant cm... 6mm is smaller than my cellphone's sensor
But then we're back to the "do you really need to store an image at that size?". See the quality concerns up above and in my previous post. Assume you would, some day, actually print this.. let's say you print this at 300DPI... which is fairly high for any commercial print (the dithering pattern can be a higher DPI, I'm referring to the pixel->dot size here). The print would be 128cm wide. It's a completely -absurd- resolution for most sizes printers will offer you. The ones that handle this size are poster printers.. they don't print at 300DPI, they print at 200 at best; most film posters are 75(!) The few places that do print high quality prints will charge you an arm and a leg for that size print, and if you're thinking "I'll invest in an A2-size inkjet myself", you'll wish you'd given up the arm and leg
Note that this is typically a combined value. E.g. 16bits for red, green, and blue (16+16+16 = 48). 16bits isn't bad, by the way.. 16bits is good.. 16 bits is great! 32bits is even better but not even the film (movie) industry deals with 32bit very often.
Well that's the thing though, isn't it... if you're going to be using it in the very near future, then you'd have to find a way to get a bigger drive to begin with.. the losses from TB vs TiB are almost negligible if you think you can fill it up so fast that there's no way you can budget for an expansion down the road.
I can certainly imagine people needing TBs of storage.. several of the customers of the company I work for mutter about the needing another quarter PB just to get through some of the shots they work on when the material absolutely -cannot- leave their facility to an offsite storage due to security concerns.
But, then, they budget for this.. they'll get 0.5PB knowing that by the time they might have a need that exceeds that 0.5PB, they can afford additional storage. If they think they'll have such a job coming in soon, they'll get 0.75PB instead.
If you don't have the budget to do so, then you're stressing your budget by having a desire to store that much information / overbidding for the job.
Somebody else already mentioned this (in a somewhat scathing tone), but of course there are such things as lossless compression :)
Though, honestly, for final consumables, you could use JPG just fine; if your tool of choice is Photoshop, then setting the quality to highest/100 will do. If you use The GIMP, there's several options there you can use to specify the exact JPEG encoding to have as little loss as possible.
If you think you'll be workin
"The point", as far as I can tell, is this...
In computing, at some point, somebody was looking for a way to express, say, 5120 bytes without saying "five thousand one hundred and twenty bytes". They then figured that 1024 was awfully close to 1000, and there was already a unit multiplier for that one; Kilo. So, he figured, we'll call it KiloByte. They then started using that, others were pondering "do you mean 1,000 bytes?" and he explained "no, no.. it's all powers of two.. it's 1024 bytes, but kilobyte is easier to say -and- write! Look: KB", and the iT crowd did nod though the science community did shake its head but figured "silly computer people."
Fast forward a few decades and somehow we, in the computing industry, still think that a Kilo can have different meanings the moment you switch to a different field (namely the computing field) and are shocked and appalled when somebody uses the conventional meaning, quite correctly, even if it's for marketing reasons... to the point of conjuring up a multitude of reasons why the computing industry is apparently allowed to have a different definition; from relatively strong ones ("A byte can't be presented as a fractional anyway.. there's no such thing as a centibyte, for example.", which personally I see as a great reason -not- to use kilo, mega, etc. either) to pathetically weak ones ("ehh.. kibi, mebi etc. sound like something out of a gay book series for girls, yuck". I kid you not, it's in one of the comments here.)
This is what it comes down to... is 1KB 1000 bytes, or 1024 bytes, and depending on your personal views on it, you are either going to be "lied to [using a] false counting system", or not.
Let's turn the tables... if somebody in, say, the housing market a long time ago decided that 'a grand' was not $1,000 but rather $1,024 dollars and advertise an apartment as being 300 grand. How pissed would you be that you wouldn't have to pay $300,000, but $307,200 ? Wouldn't you call them absolutely bat shit insane for thinking they can just change the definition of 'a grand' just because they're in their own little housing market club?
Your whole argument is hinging on the (imprinted / gut feeling) idea that 1TB is -not- 1TB, and is every bit as silly as saying "They advertised this car's max speed as 220km/h, but it actually only goes 136.7mph!". The only reason that looks more absurd is because it uses the correct units. Use the correct units in the aforementioned (1TB is -not- 1 TiB) and a "well dur" pops into anybody's mind.
No, I'm just doing things the browser-centric way, which is what the GP's post was about :)
What you mentioned works in Chrome as well - it should work for any browser that is compatible with OpenSearch. But that is search engine-centric, and a different topic (every search engine should offer such a link, for sure, as that would be -the- most intuivite method).
I didn't say -never-. I said "not anytime soon". There's a huge difference between the two.
I can very well imagine that I will fill up a PiB of storage in the future... maybe 20 years from now. But why on Earth would that drive me to buy 500 2TB drives for an ungodly amount of dosh -now-?
Let's say I have a 1TB drive now (I have two, RAID, blabla - beside the point), and I expect to have that filled up in 3 years. In 3 years, for the same amount as I can buy another 1TB drive now, I can probably buy a 5TB drive. I gain 4TB, which is much more than I would have 'lost' between 2TB and 2TiB.
You never -lost- anything. The drive was advertising as being capable of holding N bytes, in your case 1,000,000,000,000bytes, and that's (presumably) what you got. 'The proper method' is what's being discussed in this Slashdot thread, but as somebody who just invested in 20 1TB drives, I'm sure you were aware of the fact that drives are currently typically sold using the SI definitions (you can call that marketing, but at least the marketing boys are following the definitions..)
Clearly not, if you still claim to have lost 1TB, when you got what you paid for :o If you 'knew you were being screwed', you would've gotten an extra 2 1TB drives (you lost two to the TB vs TiB. Not sure where you lost the third... filesystem shouldn't be quite -that- much) to make up for the expected 'loss'.
That's where you should have gotten a larger storage. If you honestly -fill- that 1.5TB that you purchased in such a short amount of time that you do not have the budget to purchase another 1TB, 1.5TB, 2TB drive (etc.) at the end of that time, then you need to reconsider either..
- what you store (do you -really- need to save all the pictures you're saving now?)
- how you store it (do you -really- need them in RAW/TIFF format?)
Because if you don't, then by the time it -is- full, it would take only 10% of that amount of time in addition to have filled up a 1.5TiB drive; and I hardly think you could blame the harddisk manufacturers for not using the 2^N variety when writing TB. ( Even if they didn't specify on the boxes these days that "N GB = N000000000 bytes". )
The 5D Mark II 21.1MP is NOT 21,100,000 pixels. It's only 21,026,304. Did you know that?
But the reason I quoted that part was because of this... its output resolution at the highest size setting is 5,616x3,744 pixels. Now let's take that number and crunch it some further. Once processed out of CR2 (I think it's CR2? could be CRW, not that it matters), there's 3 channels left per pixel... red, green, blue. Each of those channels comes out of the ADC, which is 14bit. Photoshop does't offer a 14bit mode, so let's jump up to 16bit in order to keep the fidelity as high as possible.
21,026,304 x 3 channels x 16 bit per channel = 1,009,262,592 bits.
There's 8 bits in a byte, so... 1,009,262,592 bits / 8 bits = 126,157,824 bytes. That's the RAW data in bytes. That's nowhere near 500MB. What would you be doing to the poor files, duplicating the entire layer several times and painting in a mask to mask out all but a tiny area that you color correct?
That's not even counting compression; where it really doesn't matter whether you choose PSD or TIFF, as TIFF as PackBits, LZW and various other compression modes as well. Perhaps you're saving to OpenEXR with PIZ even. But even if, for whatever reason, you decided to save to a BMP file - you could still ZIP the file up; that adds a little hassle but would save a lot of space.
Honestly, that article brings up a heck of a lot more issues about Alamy than just the MB vs MiB thing;
- the fact that they want you to send in files that are, in -filesize-, at least 48MiB, which is completely unrelated to the quality (not a la JPEG quality, but a la "how much of the information in this picture is actually useful information) of the file.
- "we recommend that you do not interpolate your files to more than 55MB". What, they actually recommend interpolating at all? "In an image editing program such as Photoshop, upsize the image to a minimum of 48MB." Oh dear lord, they DO. I've never facepalmed, so Alamy gets the premiére: *facepalm*. I hope I don't have to explain to anybody why upsampling is a bad idea.
- the author of the article already points out the flaw in the advice given about making the width 5200 pixels, so I'll not get into that.
In summary: Alamy would do well to consider a different "minimum size" metric.
P.S. Love that you do film; I like the dynamic range of film much better than digital (for now... come on, sensor makers, increase that bitdepth already), and if you already have the film rolls it doesn't burn money so much anyway (developing still costs, of course).
eh?
It's out there because we're a filthy bunch. We throw away plastic willy-nilly wherever we want; and whether that's in a forest or into the street (into gutter into drain out into the sea onward to the ocean) or, heck, off a cruise ship, we're not throwing it away because it's "not reusable".
Most plastic -is- reusable, even if all you do with it is create plastic pellets or plastic film. The rest you can compact, dump somewhere, put soil on top, and voila... a hill. One giant problematic hill, but rather less problematic there than it is out in the oceans where wildlife can actually get to it.