I am not a professional, but I've toyed with PS and work fairly extensively with The GIMP. What are some of the features that PS has, besides CMYK output, that makes PS worth $649 more ?
More basically, what is it feature-wise that puts PS so far ahead of the very solid product that is The GIMP (even the Windows version doesn't suck...)
So the appropriate approach in a democratic society is not to go to your government directly, but instead to attack the capitalistic infrastructure to cause a ripple effect? Hurting US workers (because you know the execs aren't taking a fall for any downturn in sales) is the way to effect change in federal politics?
Bizarre.
And even if this process would work in a theoretically democratic/capitalist society, how does one extrapolate that similar outcomes would be had in an oppressive/communist regime?
Truly bizarre.
Not giving $200 or so (that's what will actually get to China), on which taxes will be extrapolated (what, $20??), is going to topple CPC?
Don't forget, it isn't the/. crowd that needs winning over; it is the "attention Department Store shoppers" crowd...and there are orders-of-myriad more of them.
Swish-E's configuration is pretty flexible even when it comes to relevancy ranking, though it is also quite non-intuitive for lots of different aspects of the configuration.
Buying Lenovo would be giving every single dollar of the purchase to a Chinese
And how exactly is it that Lenovo gets the billions of dollars in sales each year out of the U.S. ? Do they go to a bank and ask to deposit the monies into their $CZ account?
And then there are the Lenovo employees who work in the US, that help get that laptop into the customers' hands. Or does Lenovo ship Chinese workers into the US in order to complete the transactions?
"Voting with your wallet" works on a local scale, but not on an international scale. And attacking a successful "chinese company" because you do not agree with the policies of the (oppressive) government of China is racist (though I can see why it might not feel that way). Do you think that people should stop buying from Coke, Microsoft, Apple, GM, Ford, yada-yada-yada because they aren't happy with the occupation in Iraq??
To effect change in China, you need to get your government to push for that change. The reality is that no US government has ever truly set out to do that.
If the system for example could recognize signs of someone being followed, it might be enough to dispatch a police car to drive past
The one thing I constantly keep hearing about is all those police officers who show up to work day after day with nothing to actually do. This system will help those cops fill up the massive gaps in their daily schedules...
Because Unix is a specification that many different operating systems may choose to implement. MS-Windows could, should they decide, which they won't, to implement the spec and call their OS a "Unix", but they won't (just so that we're clear on that).
LOL, I went from Trillian to Miranda to Gaim (note the lack of capitalization) which has now become Pidgin (http://pidgin.im/), though I cannot speak for how "light weight" any of them are for IM. Certainly better than the "native" IMs.
Ah, then kudos to you. You did state that morality is absolute, but I took from your pointed questions that you meant "in the human experience" (or whatever).
No, I cannot help improve on your understanding. I would strongly question anyone who can.
Islam demands believers to be completely submissive to an Islamic, theocratic form of government
I find it amusing that you state outright what a religion is without giving any form of reference or authority. Nothing in the Qu'ran tells Muslims to be subserviant to governments; in fact it explicitly says that as an individual you are to be only subserviant to god.
To take individual phrases out of the Qu'ran and hold them up as proof of anything is simply ignorance and/or deceit. This can be done from any text, old or new (testament).
Please don't spread the crap that drips out of the Annals of The Internet. Actually sit down and read the text from which you bleed this FUD and understand the true spirit of what it says. The Qu'ran actually challenges all muslims to challenge their own beliefs, not to rely on the words of men, and most certainly not to worship idols (as many of the "extremists" that CNN likes to harp on about do...those people are to Islam what the Peoples Temple and the Branch Dividians are to Christianity).
Evolution does not produce morals. What morals do bears have? What morals do fish have? What morals do plants have?
I agree to your questioning the idea that evolution produces morals, I dispute your claim that it cannot based on your examples. Which of those examples proves that morals don't exist? (i.e. prove that bears/fish/plants don't have morals).
Islam as a religion which I might add has some rather seriously violent aspects, racism and marginalisation of women
Please don't confuse religion with culture and/or practice. Religion is about philosophy and theocracy. Culture/practice is a (mis)interpretation, (mis)application and (mis)teaching of a philosophy.
It could be argued that there is no way for me to know that it is less than 1% of my bandwidth...and that is true. But, as stated, there is no way for me to actually distinguish between real users and good 'bots, so actual bots hitting my site is anywhere from less than 1% up to and including 100%. I know that "badly-written bots" usage is less than 1%...and I believe that most bots are badly written.
As a webmaster I can tell you that it is common practice for many web sites to block bots.
As a webmaster I can tell you that there was a time that blocking bots was a reasonable practice. But today for my sites the bandwidth taken up by bots is absolutely insignificant.
As a robot author I can tell you that blocking "ripping bots" is something that you cannot do, at least not any ripping bots worth their mustard. My ripping bots are indistinguishable from regular end-user traffic: user-agent string masking, distributed network, idle-times and all.
I just have too many other things to do in a day than worry about something that I truly cannot technically defeat (without affecting actual users) and something that is simply less than 1% of my monthly bandwidth. [It could be argued that there is no way for me to know that it is less than 1% of my ba
BSD uses economics to protect freedom. GPL tries to use the force of law.
I agree that the GPL leverages the law, but I completely disagree with the economics argument of BSD. It is specifically economics that can completely kill a BSD project.
The problem with BSD is that I can take a fork of a project today, throw a whack of talented resources at it and make a better product. Launch that into the wild and have everyone take my (non-BSD'ed) fork as the dominant project. Give it some time, and everyone has forgotten about FreeWhateverItWas and is now using PinkPanther_v5. Everyone is drinking from the PP-koolaid...then I start re$tricting acce$$.
Oh, sure, they're'd be folks who'd try to keep FreeWhateverItWas alive. There might be others that try to revive it. But I've thrown enough resources and enhancements into it, and its output is radically incompatible with pre-fork that it simply is in noone's economic interest to stop upgrading from the PP-fork.
PinkPanther has stolen a BSD project. PinkPanther wins.
[OpenBSD people] just disagree with the GPL people about how that is best defined
It isn't so much a disagreement about how "free" is defined; it is more about who the target of "free" is. The BSD-style folks focus on programmers; the GPL-style folks future end-users. Both want the code to be "free" (can do whatever they desire with the code) to their target.
However, the culture attempts to make each employee feel like they can make a difference. The place at the time (early 90's) was full of stories where a "janitor" would see something on a screen and say "wouldn't it be better if..." and that became a cornerstone of MS-blah-blah-blah.
Recruiters always told me that working for them I could "make a real difference, be a voice for the customers/end-users, unlike anywhere else". I saw that my managers, many of whom had put in 8+ years already, were just getting to a point where they were consulted during initial requirements gathering phases.
At Microsoft, they all feel like they are finally important, like they are finally part of something bigger than themselves.
I am so-o-o-o relieved to see how you ended that post. I was about to rip you a new one before that.
Having been part of the machine for a bit, the reason I turned them down for long-term employment is specifically because the culture makes you feel like you are finally important, but reality is that real decisions are made in corner offices and scripture is passed down the the rank-and-file for implementation-without-further-input-nor-interpret ation.
And exactly how is it that I am modifying this "copyrighted" material?
As stated in my original post, NOTHING in the HTTP protocol ensures that a client (i.e. user-agent) will download subsequent objects within an HTML page. NOTHING. The use of a particular user-agent (e.g. Internet Explorer) is not guaranteed, and even if it is there is nothing saying that something might block embedded content, whether that be on the client machine, the client's network, the client's ISP, or anywhere else.
HTTP defines the role of a user-agent. IE, Firefox, Opera, wget, Perl, telnet, googlebot, slurpbot, and hundreds if not thousands of other applications are all extremely valid user agents. And using them, in accordance with the HTTP protocol, DOES NOT VIOLATE anyone's copyright. Anyone thinking that it does, either does not understand copyright, does not understand the WWW, and/or is an incompetent fool.
Software that blocks all advertisement is an infringement of the rights of web site owners and developers.
I'm really not sure what "rights" they are talking about...
By the same reasoning, they should be blocking Googlebot and all other user-agents that don't slurp down ads.
There is NOTHING in the HTTP protocol that states that user agents must pull down all embedded objects in a document. Heck, Netscape used to default to not downloading images (or mabye that was the way I used to always set NS...we had two 28kbd modems supporting an office of 50 people...).
Just for the record, it is not just "tracking" that stores sensitive "hidden" information. There is lots of stuff in a.doc that is in there without the user's knowledge. Undo information is one, File >> Properties... info is another, and there are more. The problem is...there's nowhere you can go to get a definitive definition of what is in there, why, and how to rid it.
Moving to the right pixel is only part of the problem. Remaining on that location when, for example, clicking a mouse button is where I find that mouses fail miserably.
Re:You don't need MS Office to create .doc files
on
Does ODF Have a Future?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Because the.doc file may contain inadvertent materials. They often contain information that has been "deleted"; simply turn on tracking mode and you can see previous edits. Getting rid of these artifacts is non-obvious and often involves downloading a tool that is not a core part of MS-Office.
This becomes a MAJOR problem in an environment where templates have not been created and/or maintained properly and efficiently. Often employees will take an existing document, ctrl-A, DEL, File-> Save As..., then start typing to create a "new" document simply to get the "corporate headers". If that initial document contained sensitive information, would you want this "new".doc being emailed about?
Slashdot Mirror
I am not a professional, but I've toyed with PS and work fairly extensively with The GIMP. What are some of the features that PS has, besides CMYK output, that makes PS worth $649 more ?
More basically, what is it feature-wise that puts PS so far ahead of the very solid product that is The GIMP (even the Windows version doesn't suck...)
Bizarre.
And even if this process would work in a theoretically democratic/capitalist society, how does one extrapolate that similar outcomes would be had in an oppressive/communist regime?
Truly bizarre.
Not giving $200 or so (that's what will actually get to China), on which taxes will be extrapolated (what, $20??), is going to topple CPC?
Don't forget, it isn't the /. crowd that needs winning over; it is the "attention Department Store shoppers" crowd...and there are orders-of-myriad more of them.
And yes, it does not support UTF-8/Unicode/anything-non-ASCII-8.
But the developer list is quite active and responses are usually accurate (though they also can be terse and sometimes overly-authoritative).
And how exactly is it that Lenovo gets the billions of dollars in sales each year out of the U.S. ? Do they go to a bank and ask to deposit the monies into their $CZ account?
And then there are the Lenovo employees who work in the US, that help get that laptop into the customers' hands. Or does Lenovo ship Chinese workers into the US in order to complete the transactions?
"Voting with your wallet" works on a local scale, but not on an international scale. And attacking a successful "chinese company" because you do not agree with the policies of the (oppressive) government of China is racist (though I can see why it might not feel that way). Do you think that people should stop buying from Coke, Microsoft, Apple, GM, Ford, yada-yada-yada because they aren't happy with the occupation in Iraq??
To effect change in China, you need to get your government to push for that change. The reality is that no US government has ever truly set out to do that.
Bah! No way...computers aren't racist.
The one thing I constantly keep hearing about is all those police officers who show up to work day after day with nothing to actually do. This system will help those cops fill up the massive gaps in their daily schedules...
Because Unix is a specification that many different operating systems may choose to implement. MS-Windows could, should they decide, which they won't, to implement the spec and call their OS a "Unix", but they won't (just so that we're clear on that).
I sure hope not, or that'll be three years of my life wasted in the lab....
LOL, I went from Trillian to Miranda to Gaim (note the lack of capitalization) which has now become Pidgin (http://pidgin.im/), though I cannot speak for how "light weight" any of them are for IM. Certainly better than the "native" IMs.
No, I cannot help improve on your understanding. I would strongly question anyone who can.
And logic makes them forget stuff; forget lots of stuff.
I find it amusing that you state outright what a religion is without giving any form of reference or authority. Nothing in the Qu'ran tells Muslims to be subserviant to governments; in fact it explicitly says that as an individual you are to be only subserviant to god.
To take individual phrases out of the Qu'ran and hold them up as proof of anything is simply ignorance and/or deceit. This can be done from any text, old or new (testament).
Please don't spread the crap that drips out of the Annals of The Internet. Actually sit down and read the text from which you bleed this FUD and understand the true spirit of what it says. The Qu'ran actually challenges all muslims to challenge their own beliefs, not to rely on the words of men, and most certainly not to worship idols (as many of the "extremists" that CNN likes to harp on about do...those people are to Islam what the Peoples Temple and the Branch Dividians are to Christianity).
I agree to your questioning the idea that evolution produces morals, I dispute your claim that it cannot based on your examples. Which of those examples proves that morals don't exist? (i.e. prove that bears/fish/plants don't have morals).
Please don't confuse religion with culture and/or practice. Religion is about philosophy and theocracy. Culture/practice is a (mis)interpretation, (mis)application and (mis)teaching of a philosophy.
It could be argued that there is no way for me to know that it is less than 1% of my bandwidth...and that is true. But, as stated, there is no way for me to actually distinguish between real users and good 'bots, so actual bots hitting my site is anywhere from less than 1% up to and including 100%. I know that "badly-written bots" usage is less than 1%...and I believe that most bots are badly written.
As a webmaster I can tell you that there was a time that blocking bots was a reasonable practice. But today for my sites the bandwidth taken up by bots is absolutely insignificant.
As a robot author I can tell you that blocking "ripping bots" is something that you cannot do, at least not any ripping bots worth their mustard. My ripping bots are indistinguishable from regular end-user traffic: user-agent string masking, distributed network, idle-times and all.
I just have too many other things to do in a day than worry about something that I truly cannot technically defeat (without affecting actual users) and something that is simply less than 1% of my monthly bandwidth. [It could be argued that there is no way for me to know that it is less than 1% of my ba
I agree that the GPL leverages the law, but I completely disagree with the economics argument of BSD. It is specifically economics that can completely kill a BSD project.
The problem with BSD is that I can take a fork of a project today, throw a whack of talented resources at it and make a better product. Launch that into the wild and have everyone take my (non-BSD'ed) fork as the dominant project. Give it some time, and everyone has forgotten about FreeWhateverItWas and is now using PinkPanther_v5. Everyone is drinking from the PP-koolaid...then I start re$tricting acce$$.
Oh, sure, they're'd be folks who'd try to keep FreeWhateverItWas alive. There might be others that try to revive it. But I've thrown enough resources and enhancements into it, and its output is radically incompatible with pre-fork that it simply is in noone's economic interest to stop upgrading from the PP-fork.
PinkPanther has stolen a BSD project. PinkPanther wins.
It isn't so much a disagreement about how "free" is defined; it is more about who the target of "free" is. The BSD-style folks focus on programmers; the GPL-style folks future end-users. Both want the code to be "free" (can do whatever they desire with the code) to their target.
Recruiters always told me that working for them I could "make a real difference, be a voice for the customers/end-users, unlike anywhere else". I saw that my managers, many of whom had put in 8+ years already, were just getting to a point where they were consulted during initial requirements gathering phases.
I am so-o-o-o relieved to see how you ended that post. I was about to rip you a new one before that.
Having been part of the machine for a bit, the reason I turned them down for long-term employment is specifically because the culture makes you feel like you are finally important, but reality is that real decisions are made in corner offices and scripture is passed down the the rank-and-file for implementation-without-further-input-nor-interpret ation.
And exactly how is it that I am modifying this "copyrighted" material?
As stated in my original post, NOTHING in the HTTP protocol ensures that a client (i.e. user-agent) will download subsequent objects within an HTML page. NOTHING. The use of a particular user-agent (e.g. Internet Explorer) is not guaranteed, and even if it is there is nothing saying that something might block embedded content, whether that be on the client machine, the client's network, the client's ISP, or anywhere else.
HTTP defines the role of a user-agent. IE, Firefox, Opera, wget, Perl, telnet, googlebot, slurpbot, and hundreds if not thousands of other applications are all extremely valid user agents. And using them, in accordance with the HTTP protocol, DOES NOT VIOLATE anyone's copyright. Anyone thinking that it does, either does not understand copyright, does not understand the WWW, and/or is an incompetent fool.
I'm really not sure what "rights" they are talking about...
By the same reasoning, they should be blocking Googlebot and all other user-agents that don't slurp down ads.
There is NOTHING in the HTTP protocol that states that user agents must pull down all embedded objects in a document. Heck, Netscape used to default to not downloading images (or mabye that was the way I used to always set NS...we had two 28kbd modems supporting an office of 50 people...).
Just for the record, it is not just "tracking" that stores sensitive "hidden" information. There is lots of stuff in a .doc that is in there without the user's knowledge. Undo information is one, File >> Properties... info is another, and there are more. The problem is...there's nowhere you can go to get a definitive definition of what is in there, why, and how to rid it.
Moving to the right pixel is only part of the problem. Remaining on that location when, for example, clicking a mouse button is where I find that mouses fail miserably.
This becomes a MAJOR problem in an environment where templates have not been created and/or maintained properly and efficiently. Often employees will take an existing document, ctrl-A, DEL, File-> Save As..., then start typing to create a "new" document simply to get the "corporate headers". If that initial document contained sensitive information, would you want this "new" .doc being emailed about?
This has been a problem in the past.
The fact that a /. reader doesn't see the problem with employees sending .doc files via email is all the more reason to worry....or to simply submit...