Why not use Java? If they used a signed applet, it could have access to your file system, and could probably add quite a bit of functionality this way.
I wasn't sure, which is why I asked. I'm just wondering why the whole process was started with a JPG when it was trying to do a comparison of picture quality. JPG is notoriously bad for picture quality.
If you have a very small image just use + to zoom in and your image appears very large on the screen. Makes it alot easier to select the desired portion of a small image.
1. File, Open, Locate File, Double Click
2. Select tool for Selection (rectangle, ellipse, freehand, etc...)
3. Click and drag to select desired area. (Pressing enter isn't necessary, but I listed it in my previous post)
4. Image, Crop to selection.
Photoshop
1. File - Open - Select File and double click or click open.
2. Select Cropping tool from Palette.
3. Click and drag to select desired area.
4. Double click or hit enter to crop.
So, both have 4 steps, the first 3 of which are exactly the same. While GIMP's 4th step is a little more difficult than a double click, it's a little easier to discover it on your own. Although I'm pretty sure that Photoshop has the option to crop under a menu also.
The best thing about using Ubuntu (or any linux distro) is that you don't have to resize images to put them on your desktop, and not have the aspect ratio all messed up.
I did a little trial with my wife. I said, here's GIMP, it's free. I then gave her a trial version of Photoshop, and said, here's Photoshop, and if you like it that much better than GIMP, we'll buy it. To my surprise, she actually liked GIMP better. It's not that bad of a program, and if you've never had experience with GIMP, you probably won't find too many usability issues. Photoshop is a good tool for professional graphic designers, but I don't think most people need a professional level tool.
File, Open, Locate File, Double Click
Select tool for Selection (rectangle, ellipse, freehand, etc...)
Click and drag to select desired area.
Enter Key to confirm selection
Image, Crop to selection.
I don't see what's so hard about that. How much easier is that process made by photoshop.
So, somebody sees you take out your gun and shoot the wacko, but wasn't aware the the other guy is the wacko, and decides to shoot you. Then somebody shoots him, and then that somebody is also shot. Probably wouldn't go that far, but one you pull out your gun and start shooting, it's easy for others to mistake you for the gun toting wacko. It's also easy for you to miss, and the the bullet hit some innocent bystander. Maybe you are a good shot, but I wouldn't want to be the guy standing on the other side of the shooter.
One thing the iPod did was push the limits of what people expected from an MP3 player. All the other MP3 players at the time only held a very small amount of songs (32 MB), or were extremely large and heavy (from a portable device perspective) device. The iPod, although very expensive, provided the first mp3 device that was actually nice to use. I had an MP3 CDR player, I think even before the iPod came out. It was terrible. It wouldn't read CDRW's unless you rested it on a table (otherwise it would skip), and the battery only lasted about 2-3 hours when playing mp3s.
What's the downside of that though? Say your site gets slashdotted, and now, instead of having your site taken down, you get a huge bill, for all the resources you used. What provisions are in place to ensure you don't get a giant bill at the end of the month that you can't afford to pay, because someone linked to you on slashdot?
The difference is that the record company's favourite customer is the one who buys the most CDs. I ISPs favorite customer is the one who pays for the service, but doesn't use it. Nothing better than a guy paying for a 10 mbit connection, so he can check his email, chat on msn, and read a few news articles everyday. The ISPs don't like people who download 100 GB of stuff every month.
The difference is that a 13 year old, 150 years ago, was prepared to be a parent. Why couldn't they be now? I'm not advocating that it's a good idea, but at least by that age, they should know how to cook, and keep up a house, as well as look after kids. When I went to university, there was a lot of people there who had never done laundry, never cooked, never washed dishes, and didn't know how to look after themselves. Cars are dangerous also, we shouldn't put our six year olds behind the wheel of a full size car, but I see no problem in letting them drive something they can more safely control, like go karts, and those little electric vehicles. The worst drivers are the 16 year olds who never drove any kind of vehicle before they got their learner's permit.
The problem is that guns often end up in the wrong hands. In the right hands, they can be quite a useful tool. In the wrong hands, they can be very destructive. Ensuring they only end up in the right hands, and that the right hands don't become wrong hands later on, is a very difficult problem.
I guess it's kind of like that little windows XP search dog, and clippy. It doesn't really make the product work less well, but it's kind of demeaning to have a little cartoon character pop up and guide you through the process.
This is why I think the US system is so messed up. The guy (or gal) with the most votes takes complete control. Especially with the races being so close in recent elections, you end up with 49% of the electorate getting almost no say in how things are handled, because their party didn't win.
Even if it didn't absorb into your psyche, and you truly weren't racist, why would you continue to attend the church? It would be like not being racist, but attending the KKK meetings because you liked the way you looked in the uniform. I really don't see any reason for attending a church where you don't agree with their philosophies. Attending a church that tells you to hate whitey every week when you actually aren't racist wouldn't be all that enjoyable.
Also, from what I remember hearing (sorry no sources), is that the definition of various formulas in OpenXML are actually incorrect. I seem to recall that MS implemented them correctly, but didn't write them up correctly in the standard. Which shows yet another reason why OpenXML shouldn't be accepted, as MS can't even follow their own standard.
The other question is, could the server serve the request, distribute the problem, and retrieve the results from the client in less work then it would actually take the server to solve the problem itself? If you're going to hand off a problem to the person surfing the website, they'd have to probably solve the problem within 1 or 2 seconds, or you risk them going to a different page and not returning the results. Most distributed computing tasks require jobs longer than a couple seconds.
The problem is that a computer could think 30 moves in the future, provided it was fast enough. I don't think that a person could ever think 30 moves ahead. There comes a point when the computer will just plain be better than the human. They've even got computers that beat just about everybody at poker. Probably won't be long before we have computers that will beat even the best people.
I personally think an CD costs way too much. When a movie with multi-million dollar production costs can be sold for the same amount, that's one big indicator that they are charging too much. I currently buy my music pretty much only on eMusic, because it comes down to about $4 an album, which is what I consider fair. A CD (or download of) really should cost less than $5, in order to bring it into the point where it's an impulse buy, and people just buy them without even considering if they are getting a good deal or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not use Java? If they used a signed applet, it could have access to your file system, and could probably add quite a bit of functionality this way.
I wasn't sure, which is why I asked. I'm just wondering why the whole process was started with a JPG when it was trying to do a comparison of picture quality. JPG is notoriously bad for picture quality.
If you have a very small image just use + to zoom in and your image appears very large on the screen. Makes it alot easier to select the desired portion of a small image.
So, let's compare what we got here.
GIMP
1. File, Open, Locate File, Double Click
2. Select tool for Selection (rectangle, ellipse, freehand, etc...)
3. Click and drag to select desired area. (Pressing enter isn't necessary, but I listed it in my previous post)
4. Image, Crop to selection.
Photoshop
1. File - Open - Select File and double click or click open.
2. Select Cropping tool from Palette.
3. Click and drag to select desired area.
4. Double click or hit enter to crop.
So, both have 4 steps, the first 3 of which are exactly the same. While GIMP's 4th step is a little more difficult than a double click, it's a little easier to discover it on your own. Although I'm pretty sure that Photoshop has the option to crop under a menu also.
The best thing about using Ubuntu (or any linux distro) is that you don't have to resize images to put them on your desktop, and not have the aspect ratio all messed up.
Well at least they didn't use ActiveX.
I did a little trial with my wife. I said, here's GIMP, it's free. I then gave her a trial version of Photoshop, and said, here's Photoshop, and if you like it that much better than GIMP, we'll buy it. To my surprise, she actually liked GIMP better. It's not that bad of a program, and if you've never had experience with GIMP, you probably won't find too many usability issues. Photoshop is a good tool for professional graphic designers, but I don't think most people need a professional level tool.
File, Open, Locate File, Double Click
Select tool for Selection (rectangle, ellipse, freehand, etc...)
Click and drag to select desired area.
Enter Key to confirm selection
Image, Crop to selection.
I don't see what's so hard about that. How much easier is that process made by photoshop.
Maybe it's just me, but could this have anything to do with the fact that the image is a JPG?
I was thinking more about this orange
So, somebody sees you take out your gun and shoot the wacko, but wasn't aware the the other guy is the wacko, and decides to shoot you. Then somebody shoots him, and then that somebody is also shot. Probably wouldn't go that far, but one you pull out your gun and start shooting, it's easy for others to mistake you for the gun toting wacko. It's also easy for you to miss, and the the bullet hit some innocent bystander. Maybe you are a good shot, but I wouldn't want to be the guy standing on the other side of the shooter.
One thing the iPod did was push the limits of what people expected from an MP3 player. All the other MP3 players at the time only held a very small amount of songs (32 MB), or were extremely large and heavy (from a portable device perspective) device. The iPod, although very expensive, provided the first mp3 device that was actually nice to use. I had an MP3 CDR player, I think even before the iPod came out. It was terrible. It wouldn't read CDRW's unless you rested it on a table (otherwise it would skip), and the battery only lasted about 2-3 hours when playing mp3s.
What's the downside of that though? Say your site gets slashdotted, and now, instead of having your site taken down, you get a huge bill, for all the resources you used. What provisions are in place to ensure you don't get a giant bill at the end of the month that you can't afford to pay, because someone linked to you on slashdot?
The difference is that the record company's favourite customer is the one who buys the most CDs. I ISPs favorite customer is the one who pays for the service, but doesn't use it. Nothing better than a guy paying for a 10 mbit connection, so he can check his email, chat on msn, and read a few news articles everyday. The ISPs don't like people who download 100 GB of stuff every month.
Oh well, at least the MacBook was designed in California.
Why not just build a stadium with a roof?
The difference is that a 13 year old, 150 years ago, was prepared to be a parent. Why couldn't they be now? I'm not advocating that it's a good idea, but at least by that age, they should know how to cook, and keep up a house, as well as look after kids. When I went to university, there was a lot of people there who had never done laundry, never cooked, never washed dishes, and didn't know how to look after themselves. Cars are dangerous also, we shouldn't put our six year olds behind the wheel of a full size car, but I see no problem in letting them drive something they can more safely control, like go karts, and those little electric vehicles. The worst drivers are the 16 year olds who never drove any kind of vehicle before they got their learner's permit.
The problem is that guns often end up in the wrong hands. In the right hands, they can be quite a useful tool. In the wrong hands, they can be very destructive. Ensuring they only end up in the right hands, and that the right hands don't become wrong hands later on, is a very difficult problem.
I guess it's kind of like that little windows XP search dog, and clippy. It doesn't really make the product work less well, but it's kind of demeaning to have a little cartoon character pop up and guide you through the process.
This is why I think the US system is so messed up. The guy (or gal) with the most votes takes complete control. Especially with the races being so close in recent elections, you end up with 49% of the electorate getting almost no say in how things are handled, because their party didn't win.
Even if it didn't absorb into your psyche, and you truly weren't racist, why would you continue to attend the church? It would be like not being racist, but attending the KKK meetings because you liked the way you looked in the uniform. I really don't see any reason for attending a church where you don't agree with their philosophies. Attending a church that tells you to hate whitey every week when you actually aren't racist wouldn't be all that enjoyable.
Also, from what I remember hearing (sorry no sources), is that the definition of various formulas in OpenXML are actually incorrect. I seem to recall that MS implemented them correctly, but didn't write them up correctly in the standard. Which shows yet another reason why OpenXML shouldn't be accepted, as MS can't even follow their own standard.
The other question is, could the server serve the request, distribute the problem, and retrieve the results from the client in less work then it would actually take the server to solve the problem itself? If you're going to hand off a problem to the person surfing the website, they'd have to probably solve the problem within 1 or 2 seconds, or you risk them going to a different page and not returning the results. Most distributed computing tasks require jobs longer than a couple seconds.
The problem is that a computer could think 30 moves in the future, provided it was fast enough. I don't think that a person could ever think 30 moves ahead. There comes a point when the computer will just plain be better than the human. They've even got computers that beat just about everybody at poker. Probably won't be long before we have computers that will beat even the best people.
I personally think an CD costs way too much. When a movie with multi-million dollar production costs can be sold for the same amount, that's one big indicator that they are charging too much. I currently buy my music pretty much only on eMusic, because it comes down to about $4 an album, which is what I consider fair. A CD (or download of) really should cost less than $5, in order to bring it into the point where it's an impulse buy, and people just buy them without even considering if they are getting a good deal or not.