You could run into a star, or an asteroid, and that'd ruin a perfectly good day!
Kind of makes you wonder why our ancestors bothered coming down from the trees...or, more critically, going up the trees in the first place. Or crawling out of the nice, safe promordial ooze, for that matter.
Personally, I lost a parent when I was 8 through a work related incident.
You were working at the age of 8? That is mature...or illegal, I forget which.
(Belated condolences, by the way, my aim is to ridicule English grammar, not your personal tradgedy. No offence intended; I spent my teens caring for my brother while he was dying of a brain tumor, so I'm inclined to agree with you about emotional maturity. Though it doesn't always last, obviously.)
Don't worry, it will catch up with them in the end;)
Mind you, I've had arthritis since I was 15, which has lead to my philosophy on aging: you're never too young to be a geriatric, and never too old to have a happy childhood. Though the walking frame makes skateboarding a bit of a bugger...
The contextual menu is there in Photoshop, either as a right click or from the widget on the palette (granted, it is easy to miss).
I agree that the menus in both programs are overcrowded, though I don't have any problem scanning long lists; maybe I'm just too used to Apple's Human Interface Guidelines*, and the principle that any command available through a contextual menu should appear in another menu available to a single button mouse.
Perhaps a GIMP-lite (KiddieGIMP?) interface option that hides the more complex or technical features might be a good way of introducing it to people without the Photoshop baggage (though that would spark a new debate over which are the critical basic features...).
Truth be told, the similarities between the two programs are greater than the differences; that might be part of the problem (they're deceptively close in some ways, but different enough to be annoying). And what it really boils down to is you're using the tool that suits you with the features you want, so there's really no point in disputing which is "better", we're really just beating each other with opinions that are equally valid. In my case, I actually need 16 bit colour, CMYK and Pantone, so that rules out GIMP as anything but an experiment.
*Admitting I like Photoshop and use Macintoshes...I'm going to earn some foes tonight.
I was pointing out the absurdity of the GPP not being able to find the command in Photoshop; its even more absurd, since its in exactly the same place in GIMP. Thanks for mentioning that...I like a good laugh.
Spot colors like PANTONE are a very small subset of the domain of color management.
While spot colours may be a small part of the technical side of colour management, the ability to shave several hundred dollars off the cost of a print run by using a two or three tone Pantone process rather than full CMYK is far from trivial if you want to stay in the print business. And that's before you even think about special finishes (like metallic), which can't be specified in CMYK or RGB at all.
I've forgotten what it is in photoshop again, but I definitely seem to recall it was more mouse-clicks to do.
Hide any unwanted layers, go to the "Layer" menu, select "Merge Visible"; so by my count, as few as one click-hold-select-release. It may take two more clicks, depending on whether you have layers you don't want merged, but it's a more powerful function since it can be applied to arbitrary rather than sequential layers (that is, you don't need to drag layers into the correct order to save a click somewhere else in the process).
Plus, since the command is in the clearly labelled Layers menu (which would be the first place most rational people would look for layering functions), you aren't required to guess whether right-clicking on a particular window might bring up the option you want.
Oh, really? I still own a 1997 PowerMac 6500, which was the first commercial desktop (Sparcs excluded) to hit 300MHz. http://www.mac-pro.com/s.nl/sc.2/category.64/it.A/ id.106/.f. My PC-owning friends were constantly amazed that Windows95 (Virtual PC) ran as fast as on their Intels, and I was still using that machine for professional CD mastering up until 2001 (were you mastering commercial CDs in 1997?).
That machine replaced a 1995 LC630 DOS compatible, which had both a 68040/33MHz and a 486DX2/66MHz processor (each with independant RAM), and guess what? The 68040 benchmarked faster that the 486, despite running at half the clock speed and lacking a co-processor (by a margin of around 8% across the range of processor-based tests; I won't bother mentioning disk or video performance, since these were shared). It felt faster, too, even with the steaming pile that was Macintosh System 7.5.
The dual G5 gets absolutely trounced by a dual Xeon or Opteron of the same price at any real world task.
These days I do compositing work using Shake and CGI with Cinema4D, and render using a cluster; is that heavy duty enough for you? "Absolutely trounced"? Hardly. My experience is "marginally slower, but with a much lower level of maintenance" (a machine/cluster that isn't working is not faster at all, regardless of price). Besides, I'm unaware of any commercially available and supported Xeon or Opteron desktops that are in the same price range as as the G5 iMac (and don't talk about white boxes if you aren't prepared to add the cost of time to build and maintenence); links?
And anyway, dual-core does not mean twice as fast. It means that it can do two separate tasks at (almost) the same speed as a single-core system can do one.
Thank you; that hair was in desperate need of splitting. Since the vast majority of applications are multi-threaded nowdays, which processor performs any given task is largely irrelevant, so to the user the distinction hardly matters. All that matters is whether there is an overall performance improvement; twice as fast is hyperbole to those obsessed with numbers, but close enough for the average boob (just try explaining the difference to someone who doesn't care without eliciting a huge yawn; boring people shitless with minute details is the opposite of marketing, in case you hadn't noticed).
But don't let details such as "reality" or "facts" get in the way of Apple's marketing
You mean unlike the old Wintel marketing line that the Pentium III makes "surfing the net faster"? I'll be blunt: anyone who buys based solely on marketing hype, rather than looking at the trade-off between benchmarked speeds, real use speeds, reliability, price, and suitability for a given use is an idiot, regardless of which platform they choose.
But my point still stands: a dual core x86 that runs significantly faster (if not exactly twice as fast, happy now?) than a single core PPC is not an indication that the x86 architecture is inherently superior.
NOBODY in government is above the law, nor do they have arbitrary or absolute powers.
To qualify the grandparent post: anything a judge does in court is fine, as long as it isn't in itself illegal, and it isn't overruled by a higher court on appeal (this is true in both the US and UK; the US does not have a monopoly on judicial oversight). No other investigating body becomes involved if there is no evidence of impropriety.
So, yes, putting his fingers in his ears and going "nah nah nah nah" would be perfectly legal, but it would also be grounds for appeal and so rather unwise if he wanted his verdict to stand (besides, most judges would simply declare the evidence inadmissable and charge anyone trying to present it with contempt rather than wasting everyone's time).
...what they are really saying is the old Macs ran at half the speed of a PC.
No, what they are really saying is the old Macs ran at half the speed of a PC with a dual core processor. But let's not get little details get in the way of a good self-congratulatory rant...
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody else had an Osborne 1? Ah, the days when 24lbs was considered portable...
...it lasted about 2 years before it died.
Odd. Mine's still working fine, though I can't seem to buy 5.25 inch floppies anywhere...
When they get to, say, 160 cores...
Core Centasindeca?
Hey, the advertising said Apple were doing great things with the Core.
Don't tell me advertising lied!?!
And emulators would be softcore?
Dogs seem to find cat feces an irresistable treat
Finally, an explanation of what exactly "Scooby Snacks" are. But...Shaggy and Scooby-Do are afraid of everything...now I'm confused...
You could run into a star, or an asteroid, and that'd ruin a perfectly good day!
Kind of makes you wonder why our ancestors bothered coming down from the trees...or, more critically, going up the trees in the first place. Or crawling out of the nice, safe promordial ooze, for that matter.
not worthy of an article here?
Yes, that's what Fark is for.
From the link:
t udent2003/epl8/Blank%20Page%202_files/image020.jpg
Until finally they ceased to resemble cats at all
That last picture looked just like a cat...after playing on a freeway.
http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/nbb421/s
Only if you choose to stand too close to Barbra Streisand when she has a cold.
Just imagine all the hippies endulging in cat feces...
Hey man, this is good shit.
Personally, I lost a parent when I was 8 through a work related incident.
You were working at the age of 8? That is mature...or illegal, I forget which.
(Belated condolences, by the way, my aim is to ridicule English grammar, not your personal tradgedy. No offence intended; I spent my teens caring for my brother while he was dying of a brain tumor, so I'm inclined to agree with you about emotional maturity. Though it doesn't always last, obviously.)
Don't worry, it will catch up with them in the end ;)
Mind you, I've had arthritis since I was 15, which has lead to my philosophy on aging: you're never too young to be a geriatric, and never too old to have a happy childhood. Though the walking frame makes skateboarding a bit of a bugger...
Thanks. That made me feel better in an evil kind of way.
That's because you don't really appreciate being 18 until you're 35.
Ouch, my arthritis!
For ordinary people or those of us on Slashdot?
The contextual menu is there in Photoshop, either as a right click or from the widget on the palette (granted, it is easy to miss).
I agree that the menus in both programs are overcrowded, though I don't have any problem scanning long lists; maybe I'm just too used to Apple's Human Interface Guidelines*, and the principle that any command available through a contextual menu should appear in another menu available to a single button mouse.
Perhaps a GIMP-lite (KiddieGIMP?) interface option that hides the more complex or technical features might be a good way of introducing it to people without the Photoshop baggage (though that would spark a new debate over which are the critical basic features...).
Truth be told, the similarities between the two programs are greater than the differences; that might be part of the problem (they're deceptively close in some ways, but different enough to be annoying). And what it really boils down to is you're using the tool that suits you with the features you want, so there's really no point in disputing which is "better", we're really just beating each other with opinions that are equally valid. In my case, I actually need 16 bit colour, CMYK and Pantone, so that rules out GIMP as anything but an experiment.
*Admitting I like Photoshop and use Macintoshes...I'm going to earn some foes tonight.
I was pointing out the absurdity of the GPP not being able to find the command in Photoshop; its even more absurd, since its in exactly the same place in GIMP. Thanks for mentioning that...I like a good laugh.
Spot colors like PANTONE are a very small subset of the domain of color management.
While spot colours may be a small part of the technical side of colour management, the ability to shave several hundred dollars off the cost of a print run by using a two or three tone Pantone process rather than full CMYK is far from trivial if you want to stay in the print business. And that's before you even think about special finishes (like metallic), which can't be specified in CMYK or RGB at all.
I've forgotten what it is in photoshop again, but I definitely seem to recall it was more mouse-clicks to do.
Hide any unwanted layers, go to the "Layer" menu, select "Merge Visible"; so by my count, as few as one click-hold-select-release. It may take two more clicks, depending on whether you have layers you don't want merged, but it's a more powerful function since it can be applied to arbitrary rather than sequential layers (that is, you don't need to drag layers into the correct order to save a click somewhere else in the process).
Plus, since the command is in the clearly labelled Layers menu (which would be the first place most rational people would look for layering functions), you aren't required to guess whether right-clicking on a particular window might bring up the option you want.
And that stopped being true somewhere around 1992
/ id.106/.f. My PC-owning friends were constantly amazed that Windows95 (Virtual PC) ran as fast as on their Intels, and I was still using that machine for professional CD mastering up until 2001 (were you mastering commercial CDs in 1997?).
Oh, really? I still own a 1997 PowerMac 6500, which was the first commercial desktop (Sparcs excluded) to hit 300MHz. http://www.mac-pro.com/s.nl/sc.2/category.64/it.A
That machine replaced a 1995 LC630 DOS compatible, which had both a 68040/33MHz and a 486DX2/66MHz processor (each with independant RAM), and guess what? The 68040 benchmarked faster that the 486, despite running at half the clock speed and lacking a co-processor (by a margin of around 8% across the range of processor-based tests; I won't bother mentioning disk or video performance, since these were shared). It felt faster, too, even with the steaming pile that was Macintosh System 7.5.
The dual G5 gets absolutely trounced by a dual Xeon or Opteron of the same price at any real world task.
These days I do compositing work using Shake and CGI with Cinema4D, and render using a cluster; is that heavy duty enough for you? "Absolutely trounced"? Hardly. My experience is "marginally slower, but with a much lower level of maintenance" (a machine/cluster that isn't working is not faster at all, regardless of price). Besides, I'm unaware of any commercially available and supported Xeon or Opteron desktops that are in the same price range as as the G5 iMac (and don't talk about white boxes if you aren't prepared to add the cost of time to build and maintenence); links?
And anyway, dual-core does not mean twice as fast. It means that it can do two separate tasks at (almost) the same speed as a single-core system can do one.
Thank you; that hair was in desperate need of splitting. Since the vast majority of applications are multi-threaded nowdays, which processor performs any given task is largely irrelevant, so to the user the distinction hardly matters. All that matters is whether there is an overall performance improvement; twice as fast is hyperbole to those obsessed with numbers, but close enough for the average boob (just try explaining the difference to someone who doesn't care without eliciting a huge yawn; boring people shitless with minute details is the opposite of marketing, in case you hadn't noticed).
But don't let details such as "reality" or "facts" get in the way of Apple's marketing
You mean unlike the old Wintel marketing line that the Pentium III makes "surfing the net faster"? I'll be blunt: anyone who buys based solely on marketing hype, rather than looking at the trade-off between benchmarked speeds, real use speeds, reliability, price, and suitability for a given use is an idiot, regardless of which platform they choose.
But my point still stands: a dual core x86 that runs significantly faster (if not exactly twice as fast, happy now?) than a single core PPC is not an indication that the x86 architecture is inherently superior.
NOBODY in government is above the law, nor do they have arbitrary or absolute powers.
To qualify the grandparent post: anything a judge does in court is fine, as long as it isn't in itself illegal, and it isn't overruled by a higher court on appeal (this is true in both the US and UK; the US does not have a monopoly on judicial oversight). No other investigating body becomes involved if there is no evidence of impropriety.
So, yes, putting his fingers in his ears and going "nah nah nah nah" would be perfectly legal, but it would also be grounds for appeal and so rather unwise if he wanted his verdict to stand (besides, most judges would simply declare the evidence inadmissable and charge anyone trying to present it with contempt rather than wasting everyone's time).
...what they are really saying is the old Macs ran at half the speed of a PC.
No, what they are really saying is the old Macs ran at half the speed of a PC with a dual core processor. But let's not get little details get in the way of a good self-congratulatory rant...
I'm still trying to finish Space Invaders...
Where have you been for the last 20 years?
http://www.ysrnry.co.uk/articles/samfox.htm