"Some people seem to be mystified as to why some others find obnoxious cellphone users so annoying."
I find the ringers to be the main problem, in situations where silence is valuable. I heard one go off during the final act of La Boheme. And I can't remember the last student recital that didn't feature a cell phone ringer, or even, someone TAKING THE CALL.
I'm not too worried about the airplane. I always wear -30dB earplugs anyway, and I have my noise-cancelling headphones.
Why does it go straight from "diplomatic difficuties" to nuclear war?
It does not follow. If I were elected, one of my first EO's would be to recognize Taiwan, Tibet, and several other nations, and to censure China on the basis of their forced sterilization program being unacceptable (because it deprives children of aunts, uncles, and cousins.)
> "Might makes right"? If that's how you feel, then > okay.
I don't feel that way -- it's the US foreign policy.
The US dipped its toe in the water -- it called a shot, said it would invade a sovreign nation without being provoked, fight a ground war, replace its government, etc.
Nobody raised the slightest opposition or even suggested coming to that country's defense.
No nation with a military opposed this action.
In real terms, that means the US has the power, with the consent of every nation in the world, to invade anywhere and replace any government of its choosing.
Perhaps the line will be drawn somewhere, but the question was called, and the world stood by and allowed it to happen. Oh sure, there was dissent here and there, but it was feeble. Nothing on the order of actually DEFENDING a country against the US.
"What I said was that if we were to attack China, we'd be the prime candidates for nuclear retaliation and no nation in the world would disagree with them for responding in such a way. We'd be behaving just like the... you guessed right!... the Nazis!"
I don't think nuclear attacks would be the end of the war, and I don't think they would be as bad as hollywood and washington want us to believe. Oh, sure, some cities might become uninhabitable and millions might die. But not end-of-the-world stuff, not even end-of-the war.
The discussion turned immediately to war, as if breaking off trade with China or merely ramping it down, will obviously lead immediately to war.
I don't buy it.
Sorry, I was taking a point of view that I don't necessarily believe in. I'm not nearly as misinformed or ignorant as I come across. My information about China comes directly from Chinese people I know, quite a few actually, including some who survived the first days of the communist party (and went to Switzerland and eventually America), many others, including a research assistant who has been in the US for about 7 years, having lived in a University town all her life, and her parents, who were professors there, and their grandparents who were also professors there.) I realize I don't know any uneducated or poor Chinese, just engineers, chemical engineers, professors, and doctors. But I've nonetheless come to understand a bit about Chinese culture, and I know what Chinese *food* really is (and it's not exactly what you get in Chinese restaurants in the US), but of course, I've never been there myself either.
I have tremendous respect for anyone who gets through college in China. If you miss a beat, you go back to the farm or whatever, and you DON'T get a second chance. It's a common lament among people who come to the US to study -- a year abroad, and you can't go back, because you won't be able to catch up, and you won't be accepted, in both a social and academic sense. Part of this is because the focus in Europe and America is "critical thinking" and inquiry and independent research and so forth, and that's not at all how education works in China. What makes a good student in the West, is a pariah in China. Weird, but I know this is accurate.
Another thing that strikes me squarely in the cultural nerve -- Chinese folks don't usually have very many cousins, VERY often they have NONE. We are seeing the first generation of adults who have lived under mandatory sterilization! THEY DON'T HAVE COUSINS! If they have an uncle, they probably don't have an aunt! If they have one sibling, that's ALL! And it is a direct result of a GOVERNMENT policy!
"Ahh, but they are licensed to use CSS, they aren't some backyard group of people, they are smart people with lawyers and a valid license which they paid for with valid money and who will probably win."
Big enough to take on the MPAA and win? More power to 'em!
All I see is yet another attitude that music is something to be consumed, and not produced.
I wish for a very low cost digital format (like sony minidisc) but without consumer drm crap that serves to lock ME out of my own music that I create.
If I use a Sony portable MD to record music that I wrote and performed, and the MD does not permit me to extract my recording fully in the digital domain, my rights have been abridged, because Sony has leveraged copy control over my creative works.
I'm sure the argument ends with the fact that I *chose* to use the crippled medium, (so I choose not to) but I still wish for such a format. A buck or two per hunderd minutes of audio that can be extracted without the noise and aberrations of an extra DAC. Compression like ATRAC doesn't really bother me, but an extra set of conversions certainly does.
Yeah, I know that some nonportable MD *decks* don't have this problem (but they won't let you extract from MD's recorded on portables!), and I know that the new Hi-MD portables sort-of let you extract in the digital domain, but require you to use horrible software to do it, and it's still not a fully unencumbered solution.
Nomad and I-River both have solid-state solutions, but it doesn't solve the problem of cheap interchangeable media like MD would, if only it did.
"Have I exercised fair use? Definitely. Have I broken some laws? Probably."
What you have not done, presumably, is gone into a commercial enterprise where you sell your contraption, which is the difference between you and the Kaleidoscape folks, which is the difference between some individual with a modded xbox and the guys in DC in the earlier article, which is the difference between a guy with a personal stash and the guy who gets busted selling dope to federal agents.
So basically, the status quo of world politics is based on the doctrine of Might Makes Right. All your reasons boil down to that, with varied emphasis on the "might" of the US or the "might" of China overriding absolutely any other concern.
We are too weak (and not strong enough to persuade every nation on the planet to make a unified front against China).
American corporate interests supersede the imperative for peace, freedom, democracy, and human rights.
China is getting better on their own. Let them do it at their pace.
It would be necessary to totally "destroy" China in order to engender substantial change.
China might "nuke us" if we tryied to force them in any way.
So basically, there is no hope for humanity, if the oppressor happens to be one of the larger nations. If Germany had been bigger, we should have allowed the Nazis to take over the world.
Triple standard: Some of the states were founded on the idea that they could tell their sovreign government to go pound sand, or DIE. And proceeded to kill those who had a quarrel with the idea.
The United States recognizes Taiwan. Why does China continue to engage in trade with the United States? They don't believe in this sincerely enough, do they? They ignore the issue where it doesn't suit them.
Easter Eggs were (arguably) cool when they were things that it seemed would be extremely unlikely for anyone to ever find.
For some of those things, I still wonder about the people who found them. For instance, who would, on his own, discover #pragma curious_george in Borland C++?
How about the "16th About Box Credits While Holding Ctrl-Alt-Shift" on the Amiga? Who the hell found that, and why?
No. They are compelled to meet. "The electors shall meet in their respective states..." and they shall transmit them to the President of the Senate.
It is not optional, but the Constitution is silent on what happens if a state does not fulfill its duty. It might be ignored, or it might be treated as treasonous for the Governor and Legislators.
Faithless electors, failure to appear for an individual elector, or the death of an Elector before casting the ballot, are all separate issues that have been written about in depth, and dealt with (since there have been 156 cases of electors changing their votes, and/or abstaining.) I believe this is left to the laws of the respective states as to how it can be dealt with.
Remember when the Washington State elector cast a vote for Ronald Reagan instead of Ford?
Once, in '88, an elector switched the pres and vp. How funny would that be if enough of then did it?
Then there was a Democrat in 2000 who didn't vote for Gore (didn't vote at all).
Strange outcomes are possible. But the most likely one is scary: What if the GWBush victory really does reflect the overall will of the American People? Judging by the peaceful streets, I suspect it does.
In The Queen's English, "presently" means "soon" or "in a little while", and it has never meant "currently." It is a more modern synonym for "anon."
In American English, perhaps as a result of misuse, it means "now." But to say "presently" when you mean "now" is a bit pompous, in my opinion.
I am not sure about the etymology, but I believe the understanding of "present" to refer to the present tense, is a later artifact than what gave us the word "presently."
Strunk and White says the word may be used either way, "in a while", or "currently", but that is a concession to modern American usage (and indicated as such in S&W).
But if we can have the 15th Century usage of "presently" to mean "now" (which it seems to have meant, then), we should be able to say "gay" for pretty or happy, "nice" for "silly", and we ought to be allowed to say "niggardly" when we mean "frugal" without causing a riot.
"Presently" is an obnoxiously polite way of saying "when I get around to it", and an overly pretentious way of saying "now".
"However, I've eased off on the grammar nazi thing as I've gotten older."
I doubt I will ever be able to "ease off" on this.
For quite a few years, my job consisted of fact- and grammar- checking correspondence from the General Counsel at a large petroleum exploration company. The output from theses lawyers was high quality to begin with, and my job was to make it ready for the press, government agencies, foreign businessmen, and even Heads of State.
After being in that environment, I cannot bear to let anything cross my desk without an urgent need to edit it for quality and content.
Normally this comes out as "you know, Ben, this would be better if you said 'from the inception' instead of 'from the gitgo'", but sometimes I am considerably more aggressive with my advice.
For certain classes of errors, I assume that the writer intentionally introduced errors. I cannot bear the idea that someone might be working with me as a peer, or even a superior, who truly does not know the difference between 'there' and 'there', or who does not understand that 'presently' means 'sometime in the future'.
Whatever process the states use to send the electors to Congress on December 13, is outside the control of the Federal Government. If a state legislature decided its election had been invalid, the lawmakers could, depending on how their authority is vested under the laws of their state or the state constitution, choose other electors. But whatever panel of electors are sent by a given state, their vote is counted on January 6, 2005. On that date, Congress selects the president-elect. Congress could vote to change that date. But Congress has no authority to declare the electors sent by the states to be invalid, under any circumstances.
Since President Bush has already taken the Oath of Office, the swearing in will be merely ceremonial, as he is already bound to the oath of office from the searing in of the first term.
So, if the election was the result of fraud, error, or other problem, it is up to the legislatures of the states to correct matters -- once they send their electors, regardless of whether they were fraudulently chosen, chosen at random by throwing darts, or elected at-large, the decision stands, and once the vote is counted by Congress, it cannot be taken back, EVEN IF it is proven that there was some fraud. The clock on that possibility runs out on December 13, and that's the bottom line.
"Mostly because it's not the most popular system out there."
There is a strong possibility that the reason may actually be that the design of the system is inherently more secure. I believe this to be true of some of the Unix-likes, and that category includes MacOS.
I don't believe at all that less popularity is responsible for the relative safety of the platform.
"People touting the GIMP as if it is just as good and sometimes better than Photoshop."
This is where my argument begins, though. I see no evidence of people 'touting' this, especially not the GIMP developers.
At the most, I suspect people are recommending GIMP as an alternative to spending a thousand bucks or whatever, just to rotate and crop and blend colors and put titles on images and so forth.
And judging by the professional photographers I've known, that kind of money isn't often seen all at one time:-)
"The biggest problem is when you tell them you are going to give them the GIMP they look at you pretty funny."
BOSS: Smith, you're going to be using a photo editing program called GIMP.
SMITH: I would rather use Photoshop
BOSS: Perhaps you will at your next job. Which you may begin looking for this afternoon, if you like.
"That doesn't address the basic question of what someone would do with the GIMP when they have Photoshop IF they are not a developer wishing to get involved with an open source project."
Well, I live in an audio world, not graphics. But I find all kinds of niches for software other than Cubase, and I have a strong interest in contributing to certain OSS audio projects. If they have no interest, they aren't party to this argument. So they shouldn't come out as if they are actually *opposed* to it. That seemed to be the attitude of a great-grandparent of this thread, and a recurring theme whenever the topic comes up.
It's as if someone somewhere represented GIMP as being a PS killer, charged them $1500 for it and now they are upset. And I know that's not the case.
"As for the mustard vs. ketchup. They don't perform the same function."
Exactly. I'm not convinced Gimp is actually trying to live in the same space as PS either. It may be a nice other condiment.
Like I said, I live in a world of music, not visual stuff. And I see a tremendous value in having 400 different ways to output a saw wave, or to have 16 different types of reverb. And if there are free tools available, you can bet your last buck they will be evaluated by me.
I think it surprises me that anyone would let a freebie pass them by just because they don't think it will help them. Each his own, I guess.
I don't even necessarily perceive Adobe Photoshop as "high end, professional" stuff. I mean, it's the highest level of consumer stuff I know about, but is that because I live in a consumer world, and don't actually see what the high-end PROFESSIONAL world uses? In Audio, it's kind of messed up. Pro studios typically use a software suite that really has some features that are needed in certain kinds of production environment, which is almost never needed outside that kind of environment, and consequently, the software that MUST be used, kind-of sucks. And engineers quite typically use all kinds of things behind the scenes, even though they represent to their clients that everything is being done in this one particular set of tools.
Slashdot Mirror
"Some people seem to be mystified as to why some others find obnoxious cellphone users so annoying."
I find the ringers to be the main problem, in situations where silence is valuable. I heard one go off during the final act of La Boheme. And I can't remember the last student recital that didn't feature a cell phone ringer, or even, someone TAKING THE CALL.
I'm not too worried about the airplane. I always wear -30dB earplugs anyway, and I have my noise-cancelling headphones.
Why does it go straight from "diplomatic difficuties" to nuclear war?
It does not follow. If I were elected, one of my first EO's would be to recognize Taiwan, Tibet, and several other nations, and to censure China on the basis of their forced sterilization program being unacceptable (because it deprives children of aunts, uncles, and cousins.)
> "Might makes right"? If that's how you feel, then
... you guessed right! ... the Nazis!"
> okay.
I don't feel that way -- it's the US foreign policy.
The US dipped its toe in the water -- it called a shot, said it would invade a sovreign nation without being provoked, fight a ground war, replace its government, etc.
Nobody raised the slightest opposition or even suggested coming to that country's defense.
No nation with a military opposed this action.
In real terms, that means the US has the power, with the consent of every nation in the world, to invade anywhere and replace any government of its choosing.
Perhaps the line will be drawn somewhere, but the question was called, and the world stood by and allowed it to happen. Oh sure, there was dissent here and there, but it was feeble. Nothing on the order of actually DEFENDING a country against the US.
"What I said was that if we were to attack China, we'd be the prime candidates for nuclear retaliation and no nation in the world would disagree with them for responding in such a way. We'd be behaving just like the
I don't think nuclear attacks would be the end of the war, and I don't think they would be as bad as hollywood and washington want us to believe. Oh, sure, some cities might become uninhabitable and millions might die. But not end-of-the-world stuff, not even end-of-the war.
The discussion turned immediately to war, as if breaking off trade with China or merely ramping it down, will obviously lead immediately to war.
I don't buy it.
Sorry, I was taking a point of view that I don't necessarily believe in. I'm not nearly as misinformed or ignorant as I come across. My information about China comes directly from Chinese people I know, quite a few actually, including some who survived the first days of the communist party (and went to Switzerland and eventually America), many others, including a research assistant who has been in the US for about 7 years, having lived in a University town all her life, and her parents, who were professors there, and their grandparents who were also professors there.) I realize I don't know any uneducated or poor Chinese, just engineers, chemical engineers, professors, and doctors. But I've nonetheless come to understand a bit about Chinese culture, and I know what Chinese *food* really is (and it's not exactly what you get in Chinese restaurants in the US), but of course, I've never been there myself either.
I have tremendous respect for anyone who gets through college in China. If you miss a beat, you go back to the farm or whatever, and you DON'T get a second chance. It's a common lament among people who come to the US to study -- a year abroad, and you can't go back, because you won't be able to catch up, and you won't be accepted, in both a social and academic sense. Part of this is because the focus in Europe and America is "critical thinking" and inquiry and independent research and so forth, and that's not at all how education works in China. What makes a good student in the West, is a pariah in China. Weird, but I know this is accurate.
Another thing that strikes me squarely in the cultural nerve -- Chinese folks don't usually have very many cousins, VERY often they have NONE. We are seeing the first generation of adults who have lived under mandatory sterilization! THEY DON'T HAVE COUSINS! If they have an uncle, they probably don't have an aunt! If they have one sibling, that's ALL! And it is a direct result of a GOVERNMENT policy!
"Ahh, but they are licensed to use CSS, they aren't some backyard group of people, they are smart people with lawyers and a valid license which they paid for with valid money and who will probably win."
Big enough to take on the MPAA and win? More power to 'em!
>The law.
The law doesn't *prevent* anything.
The law exists in order that there will be consequences for people's actions which are hamful to society.
"Here's a partial list of famous (and rich) college dropouts."
You left out Karl Rove, who is basically ruling the world right now as the puppeteer of the most powerful government in history.
> Article seemed near sighted.
All I see is yet another attitude that music is something to be consumed, and not produced.
I wish for a very low cost digital format (like sony minidisc) but without consumer drm crap that serves to lock ME out of my own music that I create.
If I use a Sony portable MD to record music that I wrote and performed, and the MD does not permit me to extract my recording fully in the digital domain, my rights have been abridged, because Sony has leveraged copy control over my creative works.
I'm sure the argument ends with the fact that I *chose* to use the crippled medium, (so I choose not to) but I still wish for such a format. A buck or two per hunderd minutes of audio that can be extracted without the noise and aberrations of an extra DAC. Compression like ATRAC doesn't really bother me, but an extra set of conversions certainly does.
Yeah, I know that some nonportable MD *decks* don't have this problem (but they won't let you extract from MD's recorded on portables!), and I know that the new Hi-MD portables sort-of let you extract in the digital domain, but require you to use horrible software to do it, and it's still not a fully unencumbered solution.
Nomad and I-River both have solid-state solutions, but it doesn't solve the problem of cheap interchangeable media like MD would, if only it did.
"Have I exercised fair use? Definitely. Have I broken some laws? Probably."
What you have not done, presumably, is gone into a commercial enterprise where you sell your contraption, which is the difference between you and the Kaleidoscape folks, which is the difference between some individual with a modded xbox and the guys in DC in the earlier article, which is the difference between a guy with a personal stash and the guy who gets busted selling dope to federal agents.
>Who makes this crap up? Honestly...
That is worded in the precise language needed to make the charge under the DMCA. Any other language would probably be too weak to prosecute.
So basically, the status quo of world politics is based on the doctrine of Might Makes Right. All your reasons boil down to that, with varied emphasis on the "might" of the US or the "might" of China overriding absolutely any other concern.
We are too weak (and not strong enough to persuade every nation on the planet to make a unified front against China).
American corporate interests supersede the imperative for peace, freedom, democracy, and human rights.
China is getting better on their own. Let them do it at their pace.
It would be necessary to totally "destroy" China in order to engender substantial change.
China might "nuke us" if we tryied to force them in any way.
So basically, there is no hope for humanity, if the oppressor happens to be one of the larger nations. If Germany had been bigger, we should have allowed the Nazis to take over the world.
Triple standard: Some of the states were founded on the idea that they could tell their sovreign government to go pound sand, or DIE. And proceeded to kill those who had a quarrel with the idea.
So, anyone who supports the US, is to some degree,
pro-communist.
The United States recognizes Taiwan. Why does China continue to engage in trade with the United States? They don't believe in this sincerely enough, do they? They ignore the issue where it doesn't suit them.
Easter Eggs were (arguably) cool when they were things that it seemed would be extremely unlikely for anyone to ever find.
For some of those things, I still wonder about the people who found them. For instance, who would, on his own, discover #pragma curious_george in Borland C++?
How about the "16th About Box Credits While Holding Ctrl-Alt-Shift" on the Amiga? Who the hell found that, and why?
> First, what you want. Second, who you are and why
> you want it. Third, appreciation.
> Take out 50% of what you have written.
After taking out the Appreciation part, should I also take out a bit of "why I want it?"
"Seriously, these people worked for a company that is HATED by IT professionals all over the world."
Perhaps, but it may be more important that they worked for a company that every HR Manager in the world has heard of.
>Presently, when not being used as (as you put it) a
> pretentious way of saying "now" actually most
>closely means 'next'.
I'll buy that. Thanks.
>It isn't always true.
And that, thanks again. You just pinpointed the reason why we have a duty to preserve the language.
> Could a state choose not to send electors?
No. They are compelled to meet. "The electors shall meet in their respective states..." and they shall transmit them to the President of the Senate.
It is not optional, but the Constitution is silent on what happens if a state does not fulfill its duty. It might be ignored, or it might be treated as treasonous for the Governor and Legislators.
Faithless electors, failure to appear for an individual elector, or the death of an Elector before casting the ballot, are all separate issues that have been written about in depth, and dealt with (since there have been 156 cases of electors changing their votes, and/or abstaining.) I believe this is left to the laws of the respective states as to how it can be dealt with.
Remember when the Washington State elector cast a vote for Ronald Reagan instead of Ford?
Once, in '88, an elector switched the pres and vp.
How funny would that be if enough of then did it?
Then there was a Democrat in 2000 who didn't vote for Gore (didn't vote at all).
Strange outcomes are possible. But the most likely one is scary: What if the GWBush victory really does reflect the overall will of the American People? Judging by the peaceful streets, I suspect it does.
In The Queen's English, "presently" means "soon" or "in a little while", and it has never meant "currently." It is a more modern synonym for "anon."
In American English, perhaps as a result of misuse, it means "now." But to say "presently" when you mean "now" is a bit pompous, in my opinion.
I am not sure about the etymology, but I believe the understanding of "present" to refer to the present tense, is a later artifact than what gave us the word "presently."
Strunk and White says the word may be used either way, "in a while", or "currently", but that is a concession to modern American usage (and indicated as such in S&W).
But if we can have the 15th Century usage of "presently" to mean "now" (which it seems to have meant, then), we should be able to say "gay" for pretty or happy, "nice" for "silly", and we ought to be allowed to say "niggardly" when we mean "frugal" without causing a riot.
"Presently" is an obnoxiously polite way of saying "when I get around to it", and an overly pretentious way of saying "now".
Oh hell. I knew if I made a post that was at all pedantic, I'd fuck it up.
Is there a Law in Natural Philosophy to guarantee this?
"However, I've eased off on the grammar nazi thing as I've gotten older."
I doubt I will ever be able to "ease off" on this.
For quite a few years, my job consisted of fact- and grammar- checking correspondence from the General Counsel at a large petroleum exploration company. The output from theses lawyers was high quality to begin with, and my job was to make it ready for the press, government agencies, foreign businessmen, and even Heads of State.
After being in that environment, I cannot bear to let anything cross my desk without an urgent need to edit it for quality and content.
Normally this comes out as "you know, Ben, this would be better if you said 'from the inception' instead of 'from the gitgo'", but sometimes I am considerably more aggressive with my advice.
For certain classes of errors, I assume that the writer intentionally introduced errors. I cannot bear the idea that someone might be working with me as a peer, or even a superior, who truly does not know the difference between 'there' and 'there', or who does not understand that 'presently' means 'sometime in the future'.
Whatever process the states use to send the electors to Congress on December 13, is outside the control of the Federal Government. If a state legislature decided its election had been invalid, the lawmakers could, depending on how their authority is vested under the laws of their state or the state constitution, choose other electors. But whatever panel of electors are sent by a given state, their vote is counted on January 6, 2005. On that date, Congress selects the president-elect. Congress could vote to change that date. But Congress has no authority to declare the electors sent by the states to be invalid, under any circumstances.
Since President Bush has already taken the Oath of Office, the swearing in will be merely ceremonial, as he is already bound to the oath of office from the searing in of the first term.
So, if the election was the result of fraud, error, or other problem, it is up to the legislatures of the states to correct matters -- once they send their electors, regardless of whether they were fraudulently chosen, chosen at random by throwing darts, or elected at-large, the decision stands, and once the vote is counted by Congress, it cannot be taken back, EVEN IF it is proven that there was some fraud. The clock on that possibility runs out on December 13, and that's the bottom line.
"Mostly because it's not the most popular system out there."
There is a strong possibility that the reason may actually be that the design of the system is inherently more secure. I believe this to be true of some of the Unix-likes, and that category includes MacOS.
I don't believe at all that less popularity is responsible for the relative safety of the platform.
"People touting the GIMP as if it is just as good and sometimes better than Photoshop."
:-)
This is where my argument begins, though. I see no evidence of people 'touting' this, especially not the GIMP developers.
At the most, I suspect people are recommending GIMP as an alternative to spending a thousand bucks or whatever, just to rotate and crop and blend colors and put titles on images and so forth.
And judging by the professional photographers I've known, that kind of money isn't often seen all at one time
"The biggest problem is when you tell them you are going to give them the GIMP they look at you pretty funny."
BOSS: Smith, you're going to be using a photo editing program called GIMP.
SMITH: I would rather use Photoshop
BOSS: Perhaps you will at your next job. Which you may begin looking for this afternoon, if you like.
"That doesn't address the basic question of what someone would do with the GIMP when they have Photoshop IF they are not a developer wishing to get involved with an open source project."
Well, I live in an audio world, not graphics. But I find all kinds of niches for software other than Cubase, and I have a strong interest in contributing to certain OSS audio projects. If they have no interest, they aren't party to this argument. So they shouldn't come out as if they are actually *opposed* to it. That seemed to be the attitude of a great-grandparent of this thread, and a recurring theme whenever the topic comes up.
It's as if someone somewhere represented GIMP as being a PS killer, charged them $1500 for it and now they are upset. And I know that's not the case.
"As for the mustard vs. ketchup. They don't perform the same function."
Exactly. I'm not convinced Gimp is actually trying to live in the same space as PS either. It may be a nice other condiment.
Like I said, I live in a world of music, not visual stuff. And I see a tremendous value in having 400 different ways to output a saw wave, or to have 16 different types of reverb. And if there are free tools available, you can bet your last buck they will be evaluated by me.
I think it surprises me that anyone would let a freebie pass them by just because they don't think it will help them. Each his own, I guess.
I don't even necessarily perceive Adobe Photoshop as "high end, professional" stuff. I mean, it's the highest level of consumer stuff I know about, but is that because I live in a consumer world, and don't actually see what the high-end PROFESSIONAL world uses? In Audio, it's kind of messed up. Pro studios typically use a software suite that really has some features that are needed in certain kinds of production environment, which is almost never needed outside that kind of environment, and consequently, the software that MUST be used, kind-of sucks. And engineers quite typically use all kinds of things behind the scenes, even though they represent to their clients that everything is being done in this one particular set of tools.
I wonder if it's like that in photo.