meh, took me 4 hours to get vista running properly after a clean install on my first go. this included turning off all the heavy services, installing all drivers and programs i use both frequently and infrequently. I don't bother with antispyware/antivirus cause i don't install random programs off the net etc and hence don't get them, however there are plenty of free options that don't weigh down your system too much.
I wouldn't recommend it to someone who doesn't know computers but it does alright for a microsoft os.
My point was that names are mostly irrelevant, not that gimp was a good name. I used to *work* in a small marketing firm, and i can tell you that the graphic designers there didn't even blink when i showed them gimp and told them what it was called, but they had a lot of concerns about the interface and cmyk. Management couldn't really give a crap as long as there were no problems when they sent it to the printhouse. Ubuntu has arguably the dumbest name/naming scheme of all linux distro's and has managed to become the most popular. photoshop is a pretty crappy name when you get down to it as it implies all you can do with it is touch up photos, hasn't really slowed it down much.
Also, in my defense, i made that nick when i was an angsty teenager and i don't want to loose my karma:)
meh, i think if it did the same stuff as photoshop and was free it could be called "shit stained grunt and punt image manipulation" and people would still use it. photoshop's not cheap you know.
Microsoft's past and the fact that they have no reason to produce a browser that doesn't suck, don't be surprised when people treat a new release of IE with scorn. Supposedly the ie8 team are actually working on standards compliance. i know, freaked me out too. All that's left now is to see how they are going to turn this around to a nasty kick in the balls to web devs.
Myself i'd guess it'd go the other way and the introduction of these low cost pcs/lappys will turn them into mobile phone style things that you don't give a fuck about - hence you treat them like shit (after a short period of being ultra careful with them ofc) and replace them in 2 years when they break with a newer/shinier one.
meh, i'd like those features and i'm an end user, who are you to tell me what i want is wrong? it doesn't matter that lo-fi end users won't use them, a lot would, bugs would be found, who loses?
with foxmarks the in browser bookmarks work pretty well, i have them everywhere i go. i'm sure delicious works fine now if you have some stuff set up to quickly add/rem bookmarks but when i used it originally it was horrifically slow, and now my setup is so damned easy i havn't bothered trying delicious again. also, is there some way to make sure you're not storing your passwords in the urls on that thing? foxmarks is a little more private
Let me phrase it in terms you may understand.
Computers can generate food, food in most cases does not, it simply feeds today and makes the production of food pointless, economically speaking. However you are not actually seeing the real truth here, these computers are not sent as a replacement for food; they are sent in addition to any other aid that is sent. The only way you can rightfully say that they are wrong to send these laptops over there is if you can either prove that it's decreasing other types of aid or you have a better way of stimulating their economy (the main goal of this laptop project) that you can prove is more efficient.
what? past experience doesn't count as logic? google haven't done anything bad yet that i've cared about and provided a bunch of useful services for free, microsoft have done so much stuff i hate that i've sworn they'll never get another $1 from me.
i think he's whining that because the data between warden and blizz is encrypted, there's actually no way of telling if warden actually is doing something naughty. i can understand this paranoia, and if it was any other company but blizzard i'd probably be worried too.
no, it did not lose your cherished and essentially useless "tearable" menus, nor did it lose the "on-the-fly" shortcut reassignments. nor did it add the ability for me to paste something into an image without having to curse. what exactly are you arguing against here? the features you mention do not go far enough to satisfy most people (even if that is because they learned photoshop first) and all that i would like is some kind of separation between the core code from the interface code, so that some benevolent coder could feasibly make it a lot easier on newbies to learn, without hacking the fuck out of the codebase as in the instance of the gimpshop guy. I'm not even that married to having it look like photoshop, couldn't really give a fuck. to be honest i'd be happier if it looked more like dpaint IV, however the current codebase makes this impossible unless someone devotes their life to the cause, and i think that is something that can be improved. but yeah, tearable menus, they rock.
heh, i'm a little drunk and i was trying to say something along those lines. very nicely put, i'm glad i invoked my 3 rewrites and it's not worth posting rule.
sorry, i was going for a quick checkmate. scott had to trawl through a lot of source code to get gimpshop to the stage it is now, and from what he's said it was not as easy as you suggest, the relevant portion of his origional gimpshop post is included here:
What made this project especially difficult is that there isn't one file that holds all of Gimp's tool names and menu structure. I've modified hundreds of files and combed thousands of lines of code to make this version of Gimp a reality. This work pales in comparison to real coding, but for a hack like me, it required a lot of learning and work. Personally i've never really tried modding gimp, as it took me long enough to get my photoshop skills to a useful level and i have no motivation to start from scratch either with changing the gimp or learning it as is (aside from being able to wipe my windows partition) but i don't really have any reason to doubt the veracity of his statement.
let me ask you a question then, do you think a capacitor or a transformer is going to be more efficient in this situation? they're talking about some pissant little solar cell keeping the thing charged for a week. it takes bugger all power to bring something out of standby the reason they draw so much is that it's horribly inefficient to draw a.1 of an watt or whatever through a transformer. what did you think, they were going to have something the size of a fucking ups bolted to the back of your monitor?
sure, but 8% of all electricity going on keeping stuff on standby when a simple measure like this can almost completely remove the draw is still pretty low hanging fruit. Also i don't really see how pointing fingers at bigger offenders when people are actually thinking of doing something useful is helpful at all, it's like pulling the entire police force off of all other crimes until every single murder is solved. it's important, but not to the exclusion of all else.
The main thrust of the technology is to both distribute the battery weight around and harvest some energy to charge them, looks like possibly up and down movement of a walking/running person. since they have to lift the battery anyway (stated as weighing several kilos in the article) as long as the charging mechanism does not weigh too much it would be quite useful. just off the top of my head the cells up and down movement in the jacket could pull directly on a cable hooked up to a geared flywheel to drive a small generator. obviously that example would not work in real life but i'm sure you could see from that how it could actually work with a couple of smarter brains than mine.
Slashdot Mirror
when do they tell us that verizon now owns it?
meh, took me 4 hours to get vista running properly after a clean install on my first go. this included turning off all the heavy services, installing all drivers and programs i use both frequently and infrequently. I don't bother with antispyware/antivirus cause i don't install random programs off the net etc and hence don't get them, however there are plenty of free options that don't weigh down your system too much.
I wouldn't recommend it to someone who doesn't know computers but it does alright for a microsoft os.
My point was that names are mostly irrelevant, not that gimp was a good name. I used to *work* in a small marketing firm, and i can tell you that the graphic designers there didn't even blink when i showed them gimp and told them what it was called, but they had a lot of concerns about the interface and cmyk. Management couldn't really give a crap as long as there were no problems when they sent it to the printhouse. Ubuntu has arguably the dumbest name/naming scheme of all linux distro's and has managed to become the most popular. photoshop is a pretty crappy name when you get down to it as it implies all you can do with it is touch up photos, hasn't really slowed it down much.
:)
Also, in my defense, i made that nick when i was an angsty teenager and i don't want to loose my karma
meh, i think if it did the same stuff as photoshop and was free it could be called "shit stained grunt and punt image manipulation" and people would still use it. photoshop's not cheap you know.
DMCA doesn't work here so it would be pretty pointless and probably confusing to forward them to their customers.
no more than it did previously.
except for the 7% ish of internet users who are on an earlier version of windows than xp
Only by the rules of mathematics, by the rules of english he was merely being emphatic
Myself i'd guess it'd go the other way and the introduction of these low cost pcs/lappys will turn them into mobile phone style things that you don't give a fuck about - hence you treat them like shit (after a short period of being ultra careful with them ofc) and replace them in 2 years when they break with a newer/shinier one.
Just go back to firefox 1.5, it works quite well on my old 466
meh, i'd like those features and i'm an end user, who are you to tell me what i want is wrong? it doesn't matter that lo-fi end users won't use them, a lot would, bugs would be found, who loses?
with foxmarks the in browser bookmarks work pretty well, i have them everywhere i go. i'm sure delicious works fine now if you have some stuff set up to quickly add/rem bookmarks but when i used it originally it was horrifically slow, and now my setup is so damned easy i havn't bothered trying delicious again. also, is there some way to make sure you're not storing your passwords in the urls on that thing? foxmarks is a little more private
dude, if you want to troll you should try and be more aggravating, rather than just absurd.
Let me phrase it in terms you may understand. Computers can generate food, food in most cases does not, it simply feeds today and makes the production of food pointless, economically speaking. However you are not actually seeing the real truth here, these computers are not sent as a replacement for food; they are sent in addition to any other aid that is sent. The only way you can rightfully say that they are wrong to send these laptops over there is if you can either prove that it's decreasing other types of aid or you have a better way of stimulating their economy (the main goal of this laptop project) that you can prove is more efficient.
what? past experience doesn't count as logic? google haven't done anything bad yet that i've cared about and provided a bunch of useful services for free, microsoft have done so much stuff i hate that i've sworn they'll never get another $1 from me.
i think he's whining that because the data between warden and blizz is encrypted, there's actually no way of telling if warden actually is doing something naughty. i can understand this paranoia, and if it was any other company but blizzard i'd probably be worried too.
no, it did not lose your cherished and essentially useless "tearable" menus, nor did it lose the "on-the-fly" shortcut reassignments. nor did it add the ability for me to paste something into an image without having to curse. what exactly are you arguing against here? the features you mention do not go far enough to satisfy most people (even if that is because they learned photoshop first) and all that i would like is some kind of separation between the core code from the interface code, so that some benevolent coder could feasibly make it a lot easier on newbies to learn, without hacking the fuck out of the codebase as in the instance of the gimpshop guy. I'm not even that married to having it look like photoshop, couldn't really give a fuck. to be honest i'd be happier if it looked more like dpaint IV, however the current codebase makes this impossible unless someone devotes their life to the cause, and i think that is something that can be improved. but yeah, tearable menus, they rock.
heh, i'm a little drunk and i was trying to say something along those lines. very nicely put, i'm glad i invoked my 3 rewrites and it's not worth posting rule.
What made this project especially difficult is that there isn't one file that holds all of Gimp's tool names and menu structure. I've modified hundreds of files and combed thousands of lines of code to make this version of Gimp a reality. This work pales in comparison to real coding, but for a hack like me, it required a lot of learning and work. Personally i've never really tried modding gimp, as it took me long enough to get my photoshop skills to a useful level and i have no motivation to start from scratch either with changing the gimp or learning it as is (aside from being able to wipe my windows partition) but i don't really have any reason to doubt the veracity of his statement.
then why is gimpshop still nothing like photoshop?
gimp doesn't need a redesign, it just needs a more moddable interface, that way everyone can be happy.
let me ask you a question then, do you think a capacitor or a transformer is going to be more efficient in this situation? they're talking about some pissant little solar cell keeping the thing charged for a week. it takes bugger all power to bring something out of standby the reason they draw so much is that it's horribly inefficient to draw a .1 of an watt or whatever through a transformer. what did you think, they were going to have something the size of a fucking ups bolted to the back of your monitor?
sure, but 8% of all electricity going on keeping stuff on standby when a simple measure like this can almost completely remove the draw is still pretty low hanging fruit. Also i don't really see how pointing fingers at bigger offenders when people are actually thinking of doing something useful is helpful at all, it's like pulling the entire police force off of all other crimes until every single murder is solved. it's important, but not to the exclusion of all else.
The main thrust of the technology is to both distribute the battery weight around and harvest some energy to charge them, looks like possibly up and down movement of a walking/running person. since they have to lift the battery anyway (stated as weighing several kilos in the article) as long as the charging mechanism does not weigh too much it would be quite useful. just off the top of my head the cells up and down movement in the jacket could pull directly on a cable hooked up to a geared flywheel to drive a small generator. obviously that example would not work in real life but i'm sure you could see from that how it could actually work with a couple of smarter brains than mine.