Like you'd need to set the game in the future to have a hoverboard chase. They'd just introduce some hidden mad scientist character you'd steal the board from, like an easter egg.
Look, people like you complain that MDI is bad, inferior, and counterproductive.
Yet, everybody hates GIMP's interface and likes MDI. You're probably browsing using Mozilla in a tabbed interface as we speak (er, type). So, because you yourself have decided MDI is inferior and that you can't work with it, suddenly nobody else is more productive with it than the alternative? Maybe everyone else really does prefer MDI and aren't just deluded souls.
Photoshop has been doing quite fine with its MDI interface all these years--even across multiple monitors. Accept it and deal.
Do chapters in a book or articles in a newspaper all have seperate printings on seperate sheets in seperate wrappings? It's called organizational clarity.
Right, let's squash the 90% of the population that hates the GIMP interface (someone claims MDI sucks, yet everyone wants it...perhaps the problem is that person?) so the minority of people with multiple monitors can feel happy that they have a brush toolbar on screen 3.
This despite the fact Photoshop handles multiple windows quite well anyway. You honestly think GIMP couldn't be MDI and multiple-monitor friendly? Welcome to the reason OSS has yet to succeed in the desktop market. Elitism and closed-mindedness. "I know what's best for you! Don't complain!" So everyone uses something else, and then people bitch when OSS isn't widely-adopted.
Honestly, I can't get Photoshop CS to warn me like that other story said it's supposed to. I've scanned and worked with a $5 and a $20 now with no problems. I'm beginning to suspect the validity of the story.
So, I have Adobe Creative Suite installed. I read this story at work and decide to try it out.
I bring out a $5 bill in my wallet and stick it in our HP Scanjet 3570c and get a nice, high-resolution TIFF file. I save it, open it up in Photoshop CS--nothing. It opens just fine.
I save a copy of it to another file--nothing happens. It saves it and opens the other file.
I'm resizing to normal dollar bill size, rotating, and trying all these other things, but I can't get Photoshop CS to warn me and prevent me from doing any of it.
Has anyone else OTHER than this guy being quoted on a web forum actually tried this and had it happen to them? It's not happening for me. A non-story being blown out of proportion?
I know we're all sure this will never be extended to stop you modifying photos of celebrity faces, or spoof images of his Billness, and it will never get as far as preventing you publishing any essay which the software recognises to be critical of x (for various values of x)
Your knee-jerk scenarios would never happen, because people would just switch to software that would let them.
Meanwhile, copying money is illegal, and most printers, scanners, and other devices already prevent it. It's difficult enough to scan them correctly due to light frequencies. I fail to see where the "Big Brother" issue is here that you are bound and determined to bring to light.
We're starting to see more and more software that won't allow you to do "X" because someone thinks it's naughty. We stand at the beginning of a new age as products become "smarter".
Oh, for crying out loud. Get off your revolutionary soapbox. Photoshop CS doesn't like if you scan money. Big deal.
The political thinking and attitudes that we develop now about products that are "good guys" preventing us from committing crimes will be with us for some time. Would you like automobiles that do not allow you to speed? How about a hammer that refuses to break windows?
As usual, Slashbots try to ascribe everything to some sort of "trend." It's always, "What next? What next?!" Get your head out of your cloud of anti-corporate paranoia and recognize that--horror of horrors--Photoshop CS, just like most scanners, copiers, and printers, won't let you illegally scan money.
I guarantee we won't see hammers that won't break windows or automobiles that refuse to speed. And this thing wasn't even an issue until Slashdot posted about it today. Suddenly, it's some big problem. Yeah, real big problem if nobody even noticed or cared beforehand. This story will pass off the front page and be forgotten, as usual, when everyone latches onto the next Microsoft article and bitches about that instead.
Really, this is simply setting yet another precedent of invasion of one's privacy when ever "security" or "crime" is involved.
Actually, it's called following the law. Try it some time. Leave it to knee-jerk Slashdotters (who didn't even care about this before Slashdot reported it) to leap in arms and decry it as some bizarre "invasion of privacy." In a few hours, the story will pass off the front page and never be mentioned again anyway.
I think they just created some nice counter-incentive.
Yeah, right. Nobody even cared about this until Slashdot breathlessly reported it as a big deal, when it's just Adobe following the law. Wow. I can't scan the $20 in my wallet. Big deal. This story will pass off the front page in a few hours, and nobody will care as usual.
Photoshop CS (unlike 7) is a huge improvement over previous versions of the software, so there's a reason to switch.
According to Microsoft, the password protection feature on Word is not intended to be secure, but should be regarded as a means to protect documents against accidental modification.
That isn't exactly news. The DRM in Office 2003 is what they've been pushing as the professionally secure method to keep documents from prying eyes. This Word Forms standard password-protection is just that, standard password-protection.
I don't know anyone who was relying on these document passwords for their security, and Microsoft did not advertise this as a great feature of Word. In fact, the bug itself is limited in scope to protecting Word FORMS from being modified.
None of that matters, because Slashdot loves to post any minute "security flaw" of anything even remotely affiliated with Microsoft. It doesn't matter that there's a better technology that they've been advertising as actually secure (if someone uses standard password-protected forms in Word as a full-proof security measure, you know where the security fault lies), or that this only affects Word Form, or anything else. It still becomes big headline news because this is Slashdot.
Because people here are always complaining about how "bad" Windows is, yet cheer when one of its features is ripped off. It makes the Linux GUI projects look like mere attempts to provide free versions of Windows-alikes rather than their own unique innovations on the desktop paradigm.
What it looks like is Windows XP. Actually, 2000 had it as well, and I believe Office 98 introduced it (having the shortcuts on the left like Desktop, My Documents, and so forth). But I guess because it's "M$" nobody will fess to that.
That's why Linux is failing and will continue to fail on the GUI in its current mindset.
Extremely basic GUI things like a file selector dialog are considered to be just an "oddity in GTK+ that just got put off way longer than it should have."
Things getting put off is not good.
Then you mention accessing remote servers transparently through a file dialog, which both Windows and MacOS could already do.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, that should be your character--a completely evil and corrupt cop. You do whatever the hell you want.
Like you'd need to set the game in the future to have a hoverboard chase. They'd just introduce some hidden mad scientist character you'd steal the board from, like an easter egg.
GTA, GTA2, GTA3, GTA: Vice City, this new GTA, GTA for Gameboy Advance.
It's a hugely popular series.
Look, people like you complain that MDI is bad, inferior, and counterproductive.
Yet, everybody hates GIMP's interface and likes MDI. You're probably browsing using Mozilla in a tabbed interface as we speak (er, type). So, because you yourself have decided MDI is inferior and that you can't work with it, suddenly nobody else is more productive with it than the alternative? Maybe everyone else really does prefer MDI and aren't just deluded souls.
Photoshop has been doing quite fine with its MDI interface all these years--even across multiple monitors. Accept it and deal.
Do chapters in a book or articles in a newspaper all have seperate printings on seperate sheets in seperate wrappings? It's called organizational clarity.
Right, let's squash the 90% of the population that hates the GIMP interface (someone claims MDI sucks, yet everyone wants it...perhaps the problem is that person?) so the minority of people with multiple monitors can feel happy that they have a brush toolbar on screen 3.
This despite the fact Photoshop handles multiple windows quite well anyway. You honestly think GIMP couldn't be MDI and multiple-monitor friendly? Welcome to the reason OSS has yet to succeed in the desktop market. Elitism and closed-mindedness. "I know what's best for you! Don't complain!" So everyone uses something else, and then people bitch when OSS isn't widely-adopted.
MDI sucks.
Coming from a poster who probably used Mozilla to type it.
Honestly, I can't get Photoshop CS to warn me like that other story said it's supposed to. I've scanned and worked with a $5 and a $20 now with no problems. I'm beginning to suspect the validity of the story.
So, I have Adobe Creative Suite installed. I read this story at work and decide to try it out.
I bring out a $5 bill in my wallet and stick it in our HP Scanjet 3570c and get a nice, high-resolution TIFF file. I save it, open it up in Photoshop CS--nothing. It opens just fine.
I save a copy of it to another file--nothing happens. It saves it and opens the other file.
I'm resizing to normal dollar bill size, rotating, and trying all these other things, but I can't get Photoshop CS to warn me and prevent me from doing any of it.
Has anyone else OTHER than this guy being quoted on a web forum actually tried this and had it happen to them? It's not happening for me. A non-story being blown out of proportion?
So let's base an entire Slashdot headline and subsequent knee-jerk on the basis of the wording of some unknown person in a Google newsgroup.
Has anyone else OTHER than this guy actually tried the dollar bill thing in Photoshop CS?
BS. Most of the time, you'll get big black rectangles if you try to copy or scan dollar bills. Try it yourself and see.
I know we're all sure this will never be extended to stop you modifying photos of celebrity faces, or spoof images of his Billness, and it will never get as far as preventing you publishing any essay which the software recognises to be critical of x (for various values of x)
Your knee-jerk scenarios would never happen, because people would just switch to software that would let them.
Meanwhile, copying money is illegal, and most printers, scanners, and other devices already prevent it. It's difficult enough to scan them correctly due to light frequencies. I fail to see where the "Big Brother" issue is here that you are bound and determined to bring to light.
We're starting to see more and more software that won't allow you to do "X" because someone thinks it's naughty. We stand at the beginning of a new age as products become "smarter".
Oh, for crying out loud. Get off your revolutionary soapbox. Photoshop CS doesn't like if you scan money. Big deal.
The political thinking and attitudes that we develop now about products that are "good guys" preventing us from committing crimes will be with us for some time. Would you like automobiles that do not allow you to speed? How about a hammer that refuses to break windows?
As usual, Slashbots try to ascribe everything to some sort of "trend." It's always, "What next? What next?!" Get your head out of your cloud of anti-corporate paranoia and recognize that--horror of horrors--Photoshop CS, just like most scanners, copiers, and printers, won't let you illegally scan money.
I guarantee we won't see hammers that won't break windows or automobiles that refuse to speed. And this thing wasn't even an issue until Slashdot posted about it today. Suddenly, it's some big problem. Yeah, real big problem if nobody even noticed or cared beforehand. This story will pass off the front page and be forgotten, as usual, when everyone latches onto the next Microsoft article and bitches about that instead.
Really, this is simply setting yet another precedent of invasion of one's privacy when ever "security" or "crime" is involved.
Actually, it's called following the law. Try it some time. Leave it to knee-jerk Slashdotters (who didn't even care about this before Slashdot reported it) to leap in arms and decry it as some bizarre "invasion of privacy." In a few hours, the story will pass off the front page and never be mentioned again anyway.
I think they just created some nice counter-incentive.
Yeah, right. Nobody even cared about this until Slashdot breathlessly reported it as a big deal, when it's just Adobe following the law. Wow. I can't scan the $20 in my wallet. Big deal. This story will pass off the front page in a few hours, and nobody will care as usual.
Photoshop CS (unlike 7) is a huge improvement over previous versions of the software, so there's a reason to switch.
Why was this modded up as "Interesting?"
Leave it to Slashbots to start doing the predictable kneejerk reactions. "What's next, porn blocking??!!1"
Meanwhile, Adobe put this in to obey the law. Relax. What is the issue here?
Who has the right to decide what kind of image I view/edit?
Nobody, but Adobe has the right to decide what kind of image you view/edit with Photoshop CS. It's their product.
How you decided your "right" to do something was being challenged, I have no idea. This is a commercial product they own, not a Bill of Rights.
OS X is the UNIX desktop Linux has been trying to be for 10+ years now. If OS X came out for x86, would the drive for desktop Linux effectively die?
Welcome to the status of the desktop on Linux. It's "evolving" while we're waiting to get work done.
According to Microsoft, the password protection feature on Word is not intended to be secure, but should be regarded as a means to protect documents against accidental modification.
That isn't exactly news. The DRM in Office 2003 is what they've been pushing as the professionally secure method to keep documents from prying eyes. This Word Forms standard password-protection is just that, standard password-protection.
I don't know anyone who was relying on these document passwords for their security, and Microsoft did not advertise this as a great feature of Word. In fact, the bug itself is limited in scope to protecting Word FORMS from being modified.
None of that matters, because Slashdot loves to post any minute "security flaw" of anything even remotely affiliated with Microsoft. It doesn't matter that there's a better technology that they've been advertising as actually secure (if someone uses standard password-protected forms in Word as a full-proof security measure, you know where the security fault lies), or that this only affects Word Form, or anything else. It still becomes big headline news because this is Slashdot.
Now listen. The change that's happenning in the new file selector is primarily that they're creating a new API. Got it?
But the article summary is about the very mock-ups you talk about. We know there are API changes. Relax.
Why not use some of the good ideas?
Because people here are always complaining about how "bad" Windows is, yet cheer when one of its features is ripped off. It makes the Linux GUI projects look like mere attempts to provide free versions of Windows-alikes rather than their own unique innovations on the desktop paradigm.
What it looks like is Windows XP. Actually, 2000 had it as well, and I believe Office 98 introduced it (having the shortcuts on the left like Desktop, My Documents, and so forth). But I guess because it's "M$" nobody will fess to that.
That's why Linux is failing and will continue to fail on the GUI in its current mindset.
Extremely basic GUI things like a file selector dialog are considered to be just an "oddity in GTK+ that just got put off way longer than it should have."
Things getting put off is not good.
Then you mention accessing remote servers transparently through a file dialog, which both Windows and MacOS could already do.