What bothers me about this is not that it got moderated upward--it certainly deserves that, but what moron moderated it INSIGHTFUL?
Funny, yes, although sarcastic is more accurate (and not the same as funny in all cases).
Frankly, I think it is sad that so many people think that really smart people are lacking in common sense. Truth is that there is a strong correlation between the most classically accepted types of intelligence as defined by those that study such things. The correlation isn't that high, but it is there. In no case is there a negative correlation between the different types of intelligence.
Other than the hassle of having to deal with 40 copies and sales more, you are losing $1000 when you do that.
(50 * 100 = 5000; 10 * 400 = 4000).
Now if you could sell 20 at $400, that would be different (20 * 300 = 6000). What if you sell 30 @ $300 (30 * 200 = 600).
Obviously the trick is to set the price so as to sell the most copies at the highest price before the drop occurs. If you sell 50 at $200, would they buy it at $250? Or could you sell 40 at $300? (50 * 150 = 7500; 40 * 200 = 8000). That would be what you need to know. What if you set the price at $500 and only 1 person buys, but if you had set it at $400, then 5 would have bought?
What does it matter what your cost is? I am assuming cost per sale, which isn't the case in software. The equation does change when 100 is your total cost for development, marketing and sales (which, upon a re-read, is what I think you are really saying). In that case, 10 * 500 = 5,000; 5000 - 100 = 4900; whereas 200 * 50 = 10,000; 10,000 - 100 = 9,900.
In this scenario, you are taking a $5,000 dollar loss for selling it so much higher price and to so few people.
Think about it like this--you have to now sell it to 20 people (@500) to make the same amount as if you sold it to 50 (@200). Which is the more likely sale?
It's all about volume and profit per peice. An interesting thing about this is that if your sales are low, it costs you more to make one sale than it would if your sales are high (time is money). You will not sell anything that is more expensive as quickly as you would if it were slightly cheaper.
Think about it. What Adobe does is this: We spent $300,000 is development, and another $200,000 in marketing for this new version of Photoshop (I am guessing, and probably low--I have no Idea how much it really costs). So lets sell each copy for $700. At this rate we need to sell ~715 copies to break even. We can easily sell that many (in the first day).
Lets suppose they sell 30,000 copies (not unreasonable, all things considered) at an average price of $500. That means that they have made 14,500,000, minus whatever operating costs. That's not a bad amount of profit, which is what I am assuming.
Now, I am sure that someone will tear me apart saying that it isn't this simple, and you know what? They are absolutely right. But my point doesn't change--they have a good idea of where the sweet spot for sales v. price is. I would guess that they are pricing at that point, but it doesn't make it any easier on those of us who aren't currently making a ton of cash.
What your are missing is that $.05 may not be a reasonable price for him to sell the beer to you. Think about it. If it costs him $.10 to make the beer, then he _can't_ sell it to you for $.05--if he does it will eventually destroy his business.
This is true of software makers. I don't have a problem with them charging enough to make backt their money and a reasonable profit (say 50%, even).
What I DO have a problem with is charging $500 for an office suite when they could make a reasonable profit on $200 or $50 (especially when the do sell it for that to certain buyers).
Adobe, and Microsoft, certainly have a decent idea of how many copies of the software they will sell. They have enough licensees that renew every year, and they know about how many copies the different OEMs will sell, and how many copies retail stores will sell (based on previous sales data it isn't tough to predict the future of sales--any economist SHOULD be able to do this without much trouble).
Given that, it should be easy to say that they can only plan on x% profit (based on Y sales and z devleopment + q marketing costs).
This isn't what they do, obviously. Instead, they start, unequivocally, that the cost of their product is P, and that you WILL pay that, whether you purchase that product in year 0 or year 3 (no depreciation, no market decline).
The accountants for those firms must love the marketing & sales departments! It would be like selling 2003 Ford Mustangs for the same price as the 2006 model that will be released soon. At the same lot. And then saying that you can only buy the car if you promise not to sell to someone else at any point.
Am I bitter? Absolutely. There is no other market that behaves this way (to my knowledge), and it is high time they grew up!
No, and that isn't necessary if you use MAC filtering. Think about it--if they can't get work money for spending on something to use at work, then they are much less likely to run to best buy. If they also can't hook it up to the company network, then they are even less likely.
the place where I work has gone to a simple policy: ALL computer-related purchases MUST go through the IT department then the accounting department. If one doesn't squash it the other usually does.
It makes gettting random things like a wireless AP a pain in the but for the users, but for those of us in IT (who work in the same small building as accounting), it is great.
In your case, MAC filtering and requiring all IT related purchases to be approved through your department would make life much easier.
if viewed as a measure of latitude or longitude (3degrees 14 minutes), this is actually a measure distance, in which case there is also something quite wrong with the phrase. I guess it doesn't matter how you look at it, the phrase is still odd.
according to the BLOG someone mentioned earlier, IE 7 will have full alpha support for PNGs (except when dealing with MSTime, which I am not familiar with--anybody help me out here?). This is a major step in my mind, much more so than tabs.
Tabs are great, don't get me wrong, but they are a fairly minor issue compared to full PNG support and full CSS (1, 2, or 2.1) support. If three things from css get fixed only, I want to see position: fixed; right: x px; and bottom: x px; working properly. These alone would make my life much simpler.
I think that sound you are hearing is the joke flying past you at mach 2.
Please look up the History of Australia and come back. The joke had nothing to do with current population and everything to do with how the country started.
There is another problem with statistics that most people don't think about.
In MOST, not all, statistical procedures, the determination of p is highly susceptible to sample size, although there is a diminishing return for adding 20 people to a study (add 20 to 20, and you gain much more than adding 20 to 20,000).
This is the case in studies that employ 50,000 people, such as those that show that aspirin can reduce the risk of cardiac arrest. The problem is this: there is a significant effect, but the effect is SMALL (I can't remember the exact effect size, but it isn't anything breathtaking). Essentially it only reduces your individual risk by about 1% or so. Effect size calculation are more robust, and thus sample size is not an issue when dealing with that way of interpreting results.
I urge caution when looking at the warnings in drugs, or when deciding if a drug is really effective--get as much information as you can, since it really may not make that much of a difference. Remember, when you give 100,000 people a new drug SOME of them are going to get better, regardless of what you give them. The question to ask is one of procedural issues with the experiment--are double-blind procedures in place? If not, then the drug is suspect.
I'm starting to ramble, so the point is this: be wary of drugs that are not well understood and be aware that any experimental drug that you take could have extremely undesirable side-effects.
Statistically speaking, biodata has a validity coefficient of about.35, which isn't bad in for predicting job success (I'm getting this from Cascio 's "Applied Psychology in Human Resource Management" text), but I can't find any information right quick on years experience v. education for technology workers (it varies from field to field).
Simply put, the value of education v. the value of experience (time in the workplace) is not a constant, and is heavily influenced by a number of factors. There are some positions, even in technology, that are going to be best served by someone with a PhD, while there are others that a high-school graduate with eight (or more) years of experience will be more appropriate for. This is just the way it works, and any HR person who tells you otherwise is being far too simplistic.
Back to the validity coefficient for biodata, however. Other variables can account for as much variance in performance (or retention), but sometimes performance relates negatively with retention, so retention isn't always the best way to measure a good employee. Fact is, the utility of a good employee can only be determined in a specific job in a specific company (or sometimes only a specific division of a company). This means that HR folks need to do a lot of work before they can make the best decisions. Unfortunately, not all HR managers have come up knowing how to do research. Generally that is left to us (the Industrial Psychologists).
Although I only say that after 2 months prep and 18 months immersion in the country (with daily study of the language while there).
It has been some years since I learned the language and used it regularly (7 to be precise), but I still read it quite fluently, and can speak and write with only a minimum of difficulty.
I would recommend it to anyone who wants to learn a foreign language, but doesn't want to learn French or Spanish. It will enable non-Spanish speakers to understand most written Spanish, and has the advantage of wider usage than French (I believe, although it may be close).
Traditionally (AFAIK), Turkish Delight comes with both red and green shapes (frequently just squares). I kinda like it, but it's an older candy froma a time when not everything had corn syrup in it.
Now? Perhaps not. But with Macrodobia (my favorite possibility) in the works, I suspect that they might dance differently. The truth of the matter is that if enough developers said they wanted it, it would get ported.
As near as I can tell, having considered this myself, there are essentially two major reasons not to make an x86 version of OSX (OSx86?).
First is that of hardware support. OSX supports a fairly narrow array of hardware--most of it designed for OSX specifically. Driver translation, although not impossible, would take some effort and money. This problem, although not a show stopper (since Apple could, if they wanted to, make it happen), is a significant hurdle. It isn't that there aren't lots of drivers for OSX, but that those drivers would need to be rewritten for a new OS on a new platform. Costly and annoying. Also confusing for those who are purchasing a new bit of hardware.
The second reason is more important, and probably is the show stopper. From what I can tell (and I'm sure others will chime in), Apple makes a good portion of their money from hardware sales--not software. Arguably (though not necessarily) selling OSx86 (I like the nomenclature) would reduce sales of their hardware beyond the point of increased revenue from selling the software (remember that there would be increased development costs). The question is two-fold: would there be a significant reduction in sales of hardware? and, how many peices of software need to be sold in order to make up for one lost sale of a new iMac? If you can answer those questions, then you know whether or not this is a show-stopper. I would guess that it is. The folks at Apple are not stupid (regardless of what some folks will tell you). I am sure that more than one bean counter has run the figures and KNOWS what the costs would be. What they don't know, and probably can't know, is how many people who would NEVER buy a Mac (hardware) would LOVE to have OSx86 (or OSx86-64). I suspect that it would offset sales, but they obviously don't agree.
There is a third reason--Steve Jobs may not want to position themselves to compete directly with MS. It isn't exactly the most healthy way to do business.
A fourth reason also has to do with Jobs--he may just not like the idea, and frankly, that would be enough.
I think that just about covers the argument. That said, I would buy OSx86-64, if only to confuse people!
As someone who is definitely NOT atheist, I have a problem with both theories (ID & evolution). One (ID) uses poor science, bad logic, and more to try to discredit the other, while the other (evolution) discounts the possibility that there are other ways to reach the current situation.
Evolution is a great theory, and it explains a lot. It is not perfect, and ignores the very simple concept that IF there is a God (which I beleive there is--I don't want to turn this into a flame fest regarding the supposed virtues of believing one way or another regarding God, however, and so let's just leave that to the side), he certainly COULD have done things a certain way.
The very simple truth is that an evolved system and a designed system wouldn't look that different from the inside. The only way to absolutely certain would be to go outside the system and see it in it's entirety. We, however, can't do that. It may even be impossible to do so (that is, the system may, in fact, be infinite). What's worse, even if we think we are outside the system, we may not be.
Here's where some good research would be helpful--create an evolving system (simulation), and design a system to do the same thing, and see if there is much difference. Now do it blind (that is, two teams work independently, so that those designing don't see the evolved system, and the evolving system can't see the designed system), and then compare them. I suspect that they wouldn't be that different. It would be interesting to see.
The whole question is all really very silly, however. If you are atheist, what does it matter if someone wants to believe that the earth was created in 7 days? If you are Christian, what do you care if some choose to believe that it took billions of years? Now, I think that it is good that evolution is being taught in schools. I think that the ideas of change over time are important enough that everyone, even those who reject an evolutionary beginning to life, should be familiar with this--even if they don't like it.
Personally, I believe one way, and I think that my particular (peculiar) take on the whole question is sufficient to encompass both God and the scientifically observable facts. I don't have time to post it all to/., however.
This reminds me of my aunt, who lives in Israel. She states that if you rush into an Israeli woman's home to rescue her from a fire, she will insist that you first sit down for a bite to eat.
Or maybe it isn't related after all. I don't know.
Is LiveMotion worth remembering? Probably not, but it is still there. As I recall, it was easier to do certain things in LiveMotion than in Flash, but overall it sucked.
NOT that Flash is a panacea. In fact, it sucks too. Truth be told, I haven't seen an animation program that was anything close to intuitive.
Seriously, if Verizon, or any other phone company would just start offering service EVERYWHERE, instead of JUST in localized areas, so that we had truly competitive phone lines, then I would be happy.
I hate that I can't get DSL without phone service--I too am a vonage user, so that's why I hate it. Unfortunately, my cable company sucks, and I have a period every other day or so when my line goes down mysteriously, and I have to reset my vonage box or my cable modem (or both).
These are not competing products--though I used to think so. Fireworks is a very different beast than Photoshop, and is primarily positioned for web/graphic distribution, with strong tie in for dreamweaver and flash.
Photoshop is more angled for print, and leaves much to be desired in terms of digital media.
Slashdot Mirror
What bothers me about this is not that it got moderated upward--it certainly deserves that, but what moron moderated it INSIGHTFUL?
Funny, yes, although sarcastic is more accurate (and not the same as funny in all cases).
Frankly, I think it is sad that so many people think that really smart people are lacking in common sense. Truth is that there is a strong correlation between the most classically accepted types of intelligence as defined by those that study such things. The correlation isn't that high, but it is there. In no case is there a negative correlation between the different types of intelligence.
Oh well.
Why?
Other than the hassle of having to deal with 40 copies and sales more, you are losing $1000 when you do that.
(50 * 100 = 5000; 10 * 400 = 4000).
Now if you could sell 20 at $400, that would be different (20 * 300 = 6000). What if you sell 30 @ $300 (30 * 200 = 600).
Obviously the trick is to set the price so as to sell the most copies at the highest price before the drop occurs. If you sell 50 at $200, would they buy it at $250? Or could you sell 40 at $300? (50 * 150 = 7500; 40 * 200 = 8000). That would be what you need to know. What if you set the price at $500 and only 1 person buys, but if you had set it at $400, then 5 would have bought?
What does it matter what your cost is? I am assuming cost per sale, which isn't the case in software. The equation does change when 100 is your total cost for development, marketing and sales (which, upon a re-read, is what I think you are really saying). In that case, 10 * 500 = 5,000; 5000 - 100 = 4900; whereas 200 * 50 = 10,000; 10,000 - 100 = 9,900.
In this scenario, you are taking a $5,000 dollar loss for selling it so much higher price and to so few people.
Think about it like this--you have to now sell it to 20 people (@500) to make the same amount as if you sold it to 50 (@200). Which is the more likely sale?
It's all about volume and profit per peice. An interesting thing about this is that if your sales are low, it costs you more to make one sale than it would if your sales are high (time is money). You will not sell anything that is more expensive as quickly as you would if it were slightly cheaper.
Think about it. What Adobe does is this: We spent $300,000 is development, and another $200,000 in marketing for this new version of Photoshop (I am guessing, and probably low--I have no Idea how much it really costs). So lets sell each copy for $700. At this rate we need to sell ~715 copies to break even. We can easily sell that many (in the first day).
Lets suppose they sell 30,000 copies (not unreasonable, all things considered) at an average price of $500. That means that they have made 14,500,000, minus whatever operating costs. That's not a bad amount of profit, which is what I am assuming.
Now, I am sure that someone will tear me apart saying that it isn't this simple, and you know what? They are absolutely right. But my point doesn't change--they have a good idea of where the sweet spot for sales v. price is. I would guess that they are pricing at that point, but it doesn't make it any easier on those of us who aren't currently making a ton of cash.
What your are missing is that $.05 may not be a reasonable price for him to sell the beer to you. Think about it. If it costs him $.10 to make the beer, then he _can't_ sell it to you for $.05--if he does it will eventually destroy his business.
This is true of software makers. I don't have a problem with them charging enough to make backt their money and a reasonable profit (say 50%, even).
What I DO have a problem with is charging $500 for an office suite when they could make a reasonable profit on $200 or $50 (especially when the do sell it for that to certain buyers).
Adobe, and Microsoft, certainly have a decent idea of how many copies of the software they will sell. They have enough licensees that renew every year, and they know about how many copies the different OEMs will sell, and how many copies retail stores will sell (based on previous sales data it isn't tough to predict the future of sales--any economist SHOULD be able to do this without much trouble).
Given that, it should be easy to say that they can only plan on x% profit (based on Y sales and z devleopment + q marketing costs).
This isn't what they do, obviously. Instead, they start, unequivocally, that the cost of their product is P, and that you WILL pay that, whether you purchase that product in year 0 or year 3 (no depreciation, no market decline).
The accountants for those firms must love the marketing & sales departments! It would be like selling 2003 Ford Mustangs for the same price as the 2006 model that will be released soon. At the same lot. And then saying that you can only buy the car if you promise not to sell to someone else at any point.
Am I bitter? Absolutely. There is no other market that behaves this way (to my knowledge), and it is high time they grew up!
No, and that isn't necessary if you use MAC filtering. Think about it--if they can't get work money for spending on something to use at work, then they are much less likely to run to best buy. If they also can't hook it up to the company network, then they are even less likely.
So no, we haven't, but that isn't necessary.
hate to be you.
the place where I work has gone to a simple policy: ALL computer-related purchases MUST go through the IT department then the accounting department. If one doesn't squash it the other usually does.
It makes gettting random things like a wireless AP a pain in the but for the users, but for those of us in IT (who work in the same small building as accounting), it is great.
In your case, MAC filtering and requiring all IT related purchases to be approved through your department would make life much easier.
BB&T. It works, but only with a nag screen. Jerks.
I bank with BB&T because I don't know any better.
if viewed as a measure of latitude or longitude (3degrees 14 minutes), this is actually a measure distance, in which case there is also something quite wrong with the phrase. I guess it doesn't matter how you look at it, the phrase is still odd.
Which still has nothing to do with the joke.
Bayes Theorem is rarely understood and most doctors fail that simple litmus test.
Ask your doctor--if you get a blank look, then don't trust them to interpret any statistic related to significance testing.
according to the BLOG someone mentioned earlier, IE 7 will have full alpha support for PNGs (except when dealing with MSTime, which I am not familiar with--anybody help me out here?). This is a major step in my mind, much more so than tabs.
Tabs are great, don't get me wrong, but they are a fairly minor issue compared to full PNG support and full CSS (1, 2, or 2.1) support. If three things from css get fixed only, I want to see position: fixed; right: x px; and bottom: x px; working properly. These alone would make my life much simpler.
I can only hope.
Oh, and that blog is here.
Enjoy.
I think that sound you are hearing is the joke flying past you at mach 2.
Please look up the History of Australia and come back. The joke had nothing to do with current population and everything to do with how the country started.
There is another problem with statistics that most people don't think about.
In MOST, not all, statistical procedures, the determination of p is highly susceptible to sample size, although there is a diminishing return for adding 20 people to a study (add 20 to 20, and you gain much more than adding 20 to 20,000).
This is the case in studies that employ 50,000 people, such as those that show that aspirin can reduce the risk of cardiac arrest. The problem is this: there is a significant effect, but the effect is SMALL (I can't remember the exact effect size, but it isn't anything breathtaking). Essentially it only reduces your individual risk by about 1% or so. Effect size calculation are more robust, and thus sample size is not an issue when dealing with that way of interpreting results.
I urge caution when looking at the warnings in drugs, or when deciding if a drug is really effective--get as much information as you can, since it really may not make that much of a difference. Remember, when you give 100,000 people a new drug SOME of them are going to get better, regardless of what you give them. The question to ask is one of procedural issues with the experiment--are double-blind procedures in place? If not, then the drug is suspect.
I'm starting to ramble, so the point is this: be wary of drugs that are not well understood and be aware that any experimental drug that you take could have extremely undesirable side-effects.
Statistically speaking, biodata has a validity coefficient of about .35, which isn't bad in for predicting job success (I'm getting this from Cascio
's "Applied Psychology in Human Resource Management" text), but I can't find any information right quick on years experience v. education for technology workers (it varies from field to field).
Simply put, the value of education v. the value of experience (time in the workplace) is not a constant, and is heavily influenced by a number of factors. There are some positions, even in technology, that are going to be best served by someone with a PhD, while there are others that a high-school graduate with eight (or more) years of experience will be more appropriate for. This is just the way it works, and any HR person who tells you otherwise is being far too simplistic.
Back to the validity coefficient for biodata, however. Other variables can account for as much variance in performance (or retention), but sometimes performance relates negatively with retention, so retention isn't always the best way to measure a good employee. Fact is, the utility of a good employee can only be determined in a specific job in a specific company (or sometimes only a specific division of a company). This means that HR folks need to do a lot of work before they can make the best decisions. Unfortunately, not all HR managers have come up knowing how to do research. Generally that is left to us (the Industrial Psychologists).
Oh well, job security for me!
like I stated, it has been 7 years. That and I didn't feel like adding the accentuation.
nao e muito deficil apprender portuguese!
Although I only say that after 2 months prep and 18 months immersion in the country (with daily study of the language while there).
It has been some years since I learned the language and used it regularly (7 to be precise), but I still read it quite fluently, and can speak and write with only a minimum of difficulty.
I would recommend it to anyone who wants to learn a foreign language, but doesn't want to learn French or Spanish. It will enable non-Spanish speakers to understand most written Spanish, and has the advantage of wider usage than French (I believe, although it may be close).
Enjoy.
Traditionally (AFAIK), Turkish Delight comes with both red and green shapes (frequently just squares). I kinda like it, but it's an older candy froma a time when not everything had corn syrup in it.
I don't know if they can do it sanely, but that would be awesome!
A few years ago, yes.
Now? Perhaps not. But with Macrodobia (my favorite possibility) in the works, I suspect that they might dance differently. The truth of the matter is that if enough developers said they wanted it, it would get ported.
As near as I can tell, having considered this myself, there are essentially two major reasons not to make an x86 version of OSX (OSx86?).
First is that of hardware support. OSX supports a fairly narrow array of hardware--most of it designed for OSX specifically. Driver translation, although not impossible, would take some effort and money. This problem, although not a show stopper (since Apple could, if they wanted to, make it happen), is a significant hurdle. It isn't that there aren't lots of drivers for OSX, but that those drivers would need to be rewritten for a new OS on a new platform. Costly and annoying. Also confusing for those who are purchasing a new bit of hardware.
The second reason is more important, and probably is the show stopper. From what I can tell (and I'm sure others will chime in), Apple makes a good portion of their money from hardware sales--not software. Arguably (though not necessarily) selling OSx86 (I like the nomenclature) would reduce sales of their hardware beyond the point of increased revenue from selling the software (remember that there would be increased development costs). The question is two-fold: would there be a significant reduction in sales of hardware? and, how many peices of software need to be sold in order to make up for one lost sale of a new iMac? If you can answer those questions, then you know whether or not this is a show-stopper. I would guess that it is. The folks at Apple are not stupid (regardless of what some folks will tell you). I am sure that more than one bean counter has run the figures and KNOWS what the costs would be. What they don't know, and probably can't know, is how many people who would NEVER buy a Mac (hardware) would LOVE to have OSx86 (or OSx86-64). I suspect that it would offset sales, but they obviously don't agree.
There is a third reason--Steve Jobs may not want to position themselves to compete directly with MS. It isn't exactly the most healthy way to do business.
A fourth reason also has to do with Jobs--he may just not like the idea, and frankly, that would be enough.
I think that just about covers the argument. That said, I would buy OSx86-64, if only to confuse people!
As someone who is definitely NOT atheist, I have a problem with both theories (ID & evolution). One (ID) uses poor science, bad logic, and more to try to discredit the other, while the other (evolution) discounts the possibility that there are other ways to reach the current situation.
/., however.
Evolution is a great theory, and it explains a lot. It is not perfect, and ignores the very simple concept that IF there is a God (which I beleive there is--I don't want to turn this into a flame fest regarding the supposed virtues of believing one way or another regarding God, however, and so let's just leave that to the side), he certainly COULD have done things a certain way.
The very simple truth is that an evolved system and a designed system wouldn't look that different from the inside. The only way to absolutely certain would be to go outside the system and see it in it's entirety. We, however, can't do that. It may even be impossible to do so (that is, the system may, in fact, be infinite). What's worse, even if we think we are outside the system, we may not be.
Here's where some good research would be helpful--create an evolving system (simulation), and design a system to do the same thing, and see if there is much difference. Now do it blind (that is, two teams work independently, so that those designing don't see the evolved system, and the evolving system can't see the designed system), and then compare them. I suspect that they wouldn't be that different. It would be interesting to see.
The whole question is all really very silly, however. If you are atheist, what does it matter if someone wants to believe that the earth was created in 7 days? If you are Christian, what do you care if some choose to believe that it took billions of years? Now, I think that it is good that evolution is being taught in schools. I think that the ideas of change over time are important enough that everyone, even those who reject an evolutionary beginning to life, should be familiar with this--even if they don't like it.
Personally, I believe one way, and I think that my particular (peculiar) take on the whole question is sufficient to encompass both God and the scientifically observable facts. I don't have time to post it all to
Oh well.
This reminds me of my aunt, who lives in Israel. She states that if you rush into an Israeli woman's home to rescue her from a fire, she will insist that you first sit down for a bite to eat.
Or maybe it isn't related after all. I don't know.
only Zuul.
Stupid Lameness filter....I don't think this is lame.
Is LiveMotion worth remembering? Probably not, but it is still there. As I recall, it was easier to do certain things in LiveMotion than in Flash, but overall it sucked.
NOT that Flash is a panacea. In fact, it sucks too. Truth be told, I haven't seen an animation program that was anything close to intuitive.
Seriously, if Verizon, or any other phone company would just start offering service EVERYWHERE, instead of JUST in localized areas, so that we had truly competitive phone lines, then I would be happy.
I hate that I can't get DSL without phone service--I too am a vonage user, so that's why I hate it. Unfortunately, my cable company sucks, and I have a period every other day or so when my line goes down mysteriously, and I have to reset my vonage box or my cable modem (or both).
Fireworks and Photoshop? Not bloody likely.
These are not competing products--though I used to think so. Fireworks is a very different beast than Photoshop, and is primarily positioned for web/graphic distribution, with strong tie in for dreamweaver and flash.
Photoshop is more angled for print, and leaves much to be desired in terms of digital media.