If you had a part-time job you'd still owe 7.65%, so the self-employment bite is only 7.65%. It's the employer's half of SS and Medicare. You have to pay the employee half even if you are serving french fries.
where was the contradiction with what the border officer guy said?
Here's what the border officer guy said:
It is not true that Canada will turn someone away for a single minor offence 30 years ago. Only serious offences will make someone inadmissible to Canada.... If the crime you committed is equivalent to an indictable Canadian offence (ie not a misdemeanor), then you're inadmissable
Here's what the Consulate site says:
Members of Inadmissible Classes include those who have been convicted of MINOR OFFENCES (including shoplifting, theft, assault, dangerous driving, unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of illegal substances, etc.), or of INDICTABLE CRIMINAL OFFENCES
I believe it has (almost from the start) been possible for independents to release music through iTunes. This is not the same as Apple signing them as a record company would, as it does not involve promotion or production, and does not result in a cherry-picking kind of screening, but it's still a way to get around the 69 cents thing. I believe Apple splits the difference with independents.
Those are tool tutorials you looked for. Look for topic tutorials. How to accomplish a particular effect. Better yet, go to a site where topics are discussed. Lets say, 3d game textures. People have figured out how to achieve particular effects and documented the process. How to make a rock texture, or hair, or rusted metal, or fabric. Look up the tutorials for creating clothing in Second Life or IMVU. Find a discussion on creating stained glass, or mosaics, or dirty windows. Try to follow their instructions with GIMP.
When you find a cool tutorial but can't follow the instructions with GIMP, the Open Source solution is to hunt for another turorial. Maybe, by chance, someone has achieved the same effect and documented it as effectively using GIMP. Sometimes you get lucky. Usually, though, you have to fidget with each step. And if there aren't pictures of intermediate states it's hopeless. Or, you figure out how they are achieving the effect and try to reproduce, from scratch, in GIMP. This takes time. And some things can't be done. Like, say, motion blur longer than 256 pixels. WTF?
I used GIMP daily for three months. Got pretty good with it, but was spending more time than was necessary. I'm as frugal as anyone and a fan of the open source effort, but it was still worth the money to buy Photoshop. My time is worth something.
Three effects that are used all the frickin time:
clouds
noise
motion blur
If gimp would just have most of the same options available with the same parameter scaling and the same parameter ranges as PS for these three effects it'd be so much more useful for following these turorials.
But pre-press is such a tiny piece of the PS pie. In my experience, a majority of the people who think they "need" PS would do fine with GIMP.
Pick any task you can accomplish in both and google for a tutorial. A topical turotial, involving multiple tools and techniques, not just a menu-function description. That is, look for a non-trivial example. How do you accomplish a task, not just how do you operate a tool. You will find solutions for Photoshop and not for GIMP.
Go to Borders or Barnes & Noble and look for a book on GIMP. You will find one, if they happen to have it in stock. It's in the Photoshop section. That's section, not shelf.
Of course it's unreasonable to expect otherwise, but anyone claiming GIMP is suitable for "a majority of people" has probably only used either for cropping and resizing.
Can someone please tell me why GIMP doesn't name things, locate things, scale things, and provide the same ranges of values as Photoshop, for the subset of Photoshop functionality that it does provide, so that all that Photoshop material could be helpful to GIMP users?
You don't understand what's being discussed. As a "domainer" you didn't buy the lot to later sell it to McDonalds, you bought the lot so McDonalds can't. You put billboards up, instead. That's even less useful than McDonalds.
The trouble with linux isn't linux, it's the lack of big-name applications. The FOSS solution has been to create free alternatives, and that's fine if your market is yourself, but normal people don't want programmerware.
I recently wrote about why GIMP and other great applications aren't useful to normal people. The short of it is that when you google for a way to accomplish a graphic design or photo editing task you find tutorials that work with Photoshop and don't work with GIMP. If you want a book you'll find only Photoshop books at Borders. No matter how good GIMP is it's inaccessible to normal people.
[She says, sitting down to learn Illustrator with a Borders-purchased book.]
I'm a hobbyist, BTW. You typically wouldn't get both Kontakt and Gigastudio, and you'd pay less than list. But you'd also pay a lot for sound libraries and other virtual instruments, like the Vienna stuff (though that's high-end, and you wouldn't buy all of it, either, unless you were making money at it). It's not a cheap hobby.
For the hobbyist on a budget, or for electronic music, there are a lot of free VST instruments, and there are ways to get some of them to run with Wine. Typically, though, even a Linux fan would have a Windows partition (or a Mac) and an inexpensive sequencer. I've wanted to create an entirely Linux-based setup to demo at an OSS/Sci-fi convention called penguicon, but haven't spent the time to figure that out.
Not blaming anyone, or shorting the wonder that is Linux, but without the applications that people want on the desktop Linux isn't ready for the desktop.
I've used GIMP daily for three months. Gotten pretty proficient with it. Wanted very much to avoid having to buy another copy of Photoshop, but had to do so, anyway.
What OSS developers need to do if they want to make their software successful as well as capable is to make it sale-able. Think like a commercial software house. What do you need to do to get people to use GIMP rather than Photoshop? Artists, not programmers.
Here's a start, for GIMP. Go to Borders or Barnes & Noble and buy a couple of those snazzy Photoshop books. Try to reproduce the exercises in GIMP. Better yet, sit a Photoshop person down with those books and a copy of GIMP. Give them as much help as they need, and note the things they couldn't reproduce even with your help.
Those things are what the GIMP team needs to work on.
Repeat for every application that is touted as a replacement for the Win/Mac versions.
Why the books? Because that's how normal people learn Photoshop. If you can't fill the shelves at Borders with GIMP books you're gonna have to make GIMP work more like Photoshop.
You might also try google. Pick any special graphic design task your Photoshop expert likes. Google a solution to the problem. Chances are someone has done it in Photoshop and documented the process. Try to reproduce it in GIMP.
Computer music composition has moved far beyond sequencers and hardware instruments. To be a serious contender Linux would have to run this or this, and also this. There are some clever ways to get some VST instruments to work under Linux, but that's far beyond what most composers will tolerate, and none of the above programs will work in any way on Linux. They're kinda like the composer's Photoshop. There are many more programs that also have no equal on Linux, but almost all the sound libraries rely on the first two, as does all the serious competition for the third.
How easy is it to install Photoshop on Linux? MS Office? iTunes? Logic? Vienna Symphonic Instruments?
Okay, so if I don't want to use the most popular online music store, never google for a tutorial on how to accomplish ___ with my graphics tools, don't like books, and don't need to exchange files with people who work for a living, there's always GIMP, OO and some programmerware media app I could use, and why would I want to compose music for orchestra on my computer?
None of that makes any sense for the game Second Life. There is no market for $50 outfits (or houses or furniture or cars or...). Designers have zero market for their efforts if they can not sell things for $1. Find 50 people who all want the same thing? Perhaps you have a lot more time on your hands than I do.
I think you seriously over-estimate the value of SL items, both in terms of money and effort. A marketplace is possible only because things can be sold cheaply.
Seems like there would be a market, over time, for custom-made stuff; where you knew that you were the only person in the game to have this particular item, and have complete control over it (to give, copy, destroy it).
There can be no such market in a world where your custom-made object can be recreated by anyone who wants a copy.
what's the point of in-game money if not to buy in-game stuff from in-game shops?
One hopes Linden Labs is thinking about this with great diligence today, because without the need for in-game money the game needs to be paid for in some way that doesn't yet exist.
Just a couple weeks ago Linden Labs increased the price of new land in the game by 50%. If you want a place to build something beautiful you have to buy an island (because on the mainland you will find yourself next to Penis Palace and a casino), and those used to cost $1250 to acquire and $200 per month to run. Many of these exist because owners can recover some of the cost by selling things or renting space (to people who want to sell things). Then they raised prices 50% ($1675 to acquire, $300 per month). Then this copy thing happened. A lot of these places are probably wondering how they will pay for their island.
Islands equal useful content. As in, places people have built that are interesting to visit. Places that make the game more than an IM client. They cost a lot of money, and now they are likely going to be harder to pay for.
On Second Thought, there isn't even glory in it, anymore. Since the bot puts its own name on the copied object the creator doesn't even get credit for making the thing. As in-game others have pointed out, the creator may even be accused of re-selling freebies (it happens in the game).
Okay, so I've just paid to have some unique content created for me and someone comes along with a copy tool and duplicates it and gives it to all their friends, and puts it in a freebie store for everyone to share. I've paid for something that exists elsewhere, same as before, but I've paid (say) $50 instead of $1. This is progress?
People who are not creative undervalue creativity. This is not surprising.
I've created content for Second Life. Despite the trivializing that comes from the "information wants to be free" crowd I will say with firsthand experience that it's a lot of work. Linden Labs' business model explicitly (as in, from the horse's mouth, in writing, in its mission statement) relies on the hard work of people creating content for them. They've now changed the terms of how this work will be compensated. It's now for glory only, and that will draw a different crowd. Certainly nothing wrong with that motivation or that crowd, but frankly, as evidenced by the quality of freebies available compared to for-pay items, the game will suffer.
Slashdot Mirror
If you had a part-time job you'd still owe 7.65%, so the self-employment bite is only 7.65%. It's the employer's half of SS and Medicare. You have to pay the employee half even if you are serving french fries.
Yes, it does, thank you.
where was the contradiction with what the border officer guy said?
Here's what the border officer guy said:
It is not true that Canada will turn someone away for a single minor offence 30 years ago. Only serious offences will make someone inadmissible to Canada. ... If the crime you committed is equivalent to an indictable Canadian offence (ie not a misdemeanor), then you're inadmissable
Here's what the Consulate site says:
Members of Inadmissible Classes include those who have been convicted of MINOR OFFENCES (including shoplifting, theft, assault, dangerous driving, unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of illegal substances, etc.), or of INDICTABLE CRIMINAL OFFENCES
Emphasis not mine.
It's a Canadian government web page.
The Consulate General Seattle webpage disagrees with you.
Maybe apoxying something over top of the ad would help even more?
2) blah blah I'm smarter than wal*mart blah blah
3) blah blah wal*mart sucks blah blah
4) blah blah the link is wrong blah blah
You're welcome.
http://www.apple.com/itunes/musicmarketing/faq.htm l
I believe it has (almost from the start) been possible for independents to release music through iTunes. This is not the same as Apple signing them as a record company would, as it does not involve promotion or production, and does not result in a cherry-picking kind of screening, but it's still a way to get around the 69 cents thing. I believe Apple splits the difference with independents.
When you find a cool tutorial but can't follow the instructions with GIMP, the Open Source solution is to hunt for another turorial. Maybe, by chance, someone has achieved the same effect and documented it as effectively using GIMP. Sometimes you get lucky. Usually, though, you have to fidget with each step. And if there aren't pictures of intermediate states it's hopeless. Or, you figure out how they are achieving the effect and try to reproduce, from scratch, in GIMP. This takes time. And some things can't be done. Like, say, motion blur longer than 256 pixels. WTF?
I used GIMP daily for three months. Got pretty good with it, but was spending more time than was necessary. I'm as frugal as anyone and a fan of the open source effort, but it was still worth the money to buy Photoshop. My time is worth something.
Three effects that are used all the frickin time:
clouds
noise
motion blur
If gimp would just have most of the same options available with the same parameter scaling and the same parameter ranges as PS for these three effects it'd be so much more useful for following these turorials.
Pick any task you can accomplish in both and google for a tutorial. A topical turotial, involving multiple tools and techniques, not just a menu-function description. That is, look for a non-trivial example. How do you accomplish a task, not just how do you operate a tool. You will find solutions for Photoshop and not for GIMP.
Go to Borders or Barnes & Noble and look for a book on GIMP. You will find one, if they happen to have it in stock. It's in the Photoshop section. That's section, not shelf.
Of course it's unreasonable to expect otherwise, but anyone claiming GIMP is suitable for "a majority of people" has probably only used either for cropping and resizing.
Can someone please tell me why GIMP doesn't name things, locate things, scale things, and provide the same ranges of values as Photoshop, for the subset of Photoshop functionality that it does provide, so that all that Photoshop material could be helpful to GIMP users?
You don't understand what's being discussed. As a "domainer" you didn't buy the lot to later sell it to McDonalds, you bought the lot so McDonalds can't. You put billboards up, instead. That's even less useful than McDonalds.
The trouble with linux isn't linux, it's the lack of big-name applications. The FOSS solution has been to create free alternatives, and that's fine if your market is yourself, but normal people don't want programmerware.
I recently wrote about why GIMP and other great applications aren't useful to normal people. The short of it is that when you google for a way to accomplish a graphic design or photo editing task you find tutorials that work with Photoshop and don't work with GIMP. If you want a book you'll find only Photoshop books at Borders. No matter how good GIMP is it's inaccessible to normal people.
[She says, sitting down to learn Illustrator with a Borders-purchased book.]
It's worse than that. You are sharing that server with three other islands.
For the hobbyist on a budget, or for electronic music, there are a lot of free VST instruments, and there are ways to get some of them to run with Wine. Typically, though, even a Linux fan would have a Windows partition (or a Mac) and an inexpensive sequencer. I've wanted to create an entirely Linux-based setup to demo at an OSS/Sci-fi convention called penguicon, but haven't spent the time to figure that out.
I've used GIMP daily for three months. Gotten pretty proficient with it. Wanted very much to avoid having to buy another copy of Photoshop, but had to do so, anyway.
What OSS developers need to do if they want to make their software successful as well as capable is to make it sale-able. Think like a commercial software house. What do you need to do to get people to use GIMP rather than Photoshop? Artists, not programmers.
Here's a start, for GIMP. Go to Borders or Barnes & Noble and buy a couple of those snazzy Photoshop books. Try to reproduce the exercises in GIMP. Better yet, sit a Photoshop person down with those books and a copy of GIMP. Give them as much help as they need, and note the things they couldn't reproduce even with your help.
Those things are what the GIMP team needs to work on.
Repeat for every application that is touted as a replacement for the Win/Mac versions.
Why the books? Because that's how normal people learn Photoshop. If you can't fill the shelves at Borders with GIMP books you're gonna have to make GIMP work more like Photoshop.
You might also try google. Pick any special graphic design task your Photoshop expert likes. Google a solution to the problem. Chances are someone has done it in Photoshop and documented the process. Try to reproduce it in GIMP.
Amy
Computer music composition has moved far beyond sequencers and hardware instruments. To be a serious contender Linux would have to run this or this, and also this. There are some clever ways to get some VST instruments to work under Linux, but that's far beyond what most composers will tolerate, and none of the above programs will work in any way on Linux. They're kinda like the composer's Photoshop. There are many more programs that also have no equal on Linux, but almost all the sound libraries rely on the first two, as does all the serious competition for the third.
How easy is it to install Photoshop on Linux? MS Office? iTunes? Logic? Vienna Symphonic Instruments?
Okay, so if I don't want to use the most popular online music store, never google for a tutorial on how to accomplish ___ with my graphics tools, don't like books, and don't need to exchange files with people who work for a living, there's always GIMP, OO and some programmerware media app I could use, and why would I want to compose music for orchestra on my computer?
So a brand new grid beat out a 20 year old mainframe. At a computationally-intensive task. I'm shocked.
The "people will pay for new content" is the argument I was responding to, not the argument I was making.
I think you seriously over-estimate the value of SL items, both in terms of money and effort. A marketplace is possible only because things can be sold cheaply.
There can be no such market in a world where your custom-made object can be recreated by anyone who wants a copy.
One hopes Linden Labs is thinking about this with great diligence today, because without the need for in-game money the game needs to be paid for in some way that doesn't yet exist.
Just a couple weeks ago Linden Labs increased the price of new land in the game by 50%. If you want a place to build something beautiful you have to buy an island (because on the mainland you will find yourself next to Penis Palace and a casino), and those used to cost $1250 to acquire and $200 per month to run. Many of these exist because owners can recover some of the cost by selling things or renting space (to people who want to sell things). Then they raised prices 50% ($1675 to acquire, $300 per month). Then this copy thing happened. A lot of these places are probably wondering how they will pay for their island.
Islands equal useful content. As in, places people have built that are interesting to visit. Places that make the game more than an IM client. They cost a lot of money, and now they are likely going to be harder to pay for.
On Second Thought, there isn't even glory in it, anymore. Since the bot puts its own name on the copied object the creator doesn't even get credit for making the thing. As in-game others have pointed out, the creator may even be accused of re-selling freebies (it happens in the game).
People who are not creative undervalue creativity. This is not surprising.
I've created content for Second Life. Despite the trivializing that comes from the "information wants to be free" crowd I will say with firsthand experience that it's a lot of work. Linden Labs' business model explicitly (as in, from the horse's mouth, in writing, in its mission statement) relies on the hard work of people creating content for them. They've now changed the terms of how this work will be compensated. It's now for glory only, and that will draw a different crowd. Certainly nothing wrong with that motivation or that crowd, but frankly, as evidenced by the quality of freebies available compared to for-pay items, the game will suffer.