>People can't criticise the Bush administration for >repeated mistakes in Iraq? Yes
There certainly is open discussion of this, and people aren't disappearing in the dark of night, at least not in my neighborhood. And I know some rather vocal critics of the administration.
Opponents may be dedicated, but not dedicated enough to move to rural parts of the country in the tens of millions. And that seems to be the bottom line.
> People can't call policians to the table for > spending our kids future away? Hell Yes
We had a chance to do this, and when they came to the table we served them pork.
I've never seen that, but okay. What gets me is the air of outright *hostility* that I perceive to be against GIMP.
As if some harm is being done by its very existence. This goes beyond snobbery -- look at the subject of this thread.
Successful professionals shouldn't *need* a free alternative. On the other hand, if they see a shortcoming in a piece of FOSS software that could scratch their itch, they should be more inclined to contribute to the project than to speak in hostile terms against it!
That goes for any industry. DBAs shouldn't complain about the missing features in MySQL, they should fix it. Sysadmins should not bitch about what they don't like in the Linux TCP/IP stack, they should join the project team. And so on.
"Well, if you are using Photoshop - what exactly would the benefit of installing GIMP be?"
We're talking across purposes!
The benefit is not to YOU, but to the GIMP!
You install it, try to use it, and communicate your opinions to the people who will develop it further.
If pro photographers aren't using (or trying to use) the product, how can it ever be expected to develop in such a way as to meet their needs?
And is it beyond conception that there could be a photographer out there who also studied comp sci, optics, etc., who could see that GIMP could scratch an itch, and contribute to the project?
The whole point of a project like GIMP is that anyone, anywhere, without exception, is free to help make it whatever they want it to be.
And they are also free to ignore it.
Just because I have a $9.00 jar of mustard in my refrigerator doesn't mean I won't get a 60 cent bottle of ketchup!
"And if you were to make copy of an anlog photo, would you prefer to make a copy from an exising print, or reprint a new one from a negative."
See, I'd damned sure want to print from a negative, and I'd want to use subtractive filters, R-3 process, and I don't even know if this stuff *exists* anymore.
I'm old-school. WAY old-school. If it *matters*, in the fine-art sense, then I want to make my prints in the darkroom the old fashioned way.
If it's not fine-art, then most of the argument goes out the window for me -- good enough means DONE.
I don't believe the notion of "professional photographer" has been defined well enough. Sports, news, wedding, and fine art photographers all have different needs.
I do understand the need for clarifying imperfect images in various domains. I'm more of an audio pro (semi-pro musician), and I got out of photography in the late 1970s. I'm quite sure if I got back into photography, I would use strictly high-contrast black&white film, so maybe I should stay out of discussions like this.
Artists appreciate the workflow of Photoshop and that is no accident.
More money has no doubt gone into this one "detail" than all the people involved in the GIMP project, together, have ever seen in their lives.
I think it's important to keep this stuff in perspective. I also get tired of the way people *attack* the GIMP, as if it has done them some sort of harm, simply by existing. (You didn't contribute to that sentiment, but it's all over the place, and rears its head every time the topic comes up.)
"color manageent sucks in the GIMP or something like that."
Well, that's pretty much the crux of it.
It's a big deal, since you cannot convert from one colorspace to another without some standard for mapping the colors (because they are sort-of arbitrary.)
The problem lies in the fact that, no matter how motivated or capable the GIMP folks are to fix these areas, they cannot, due to patent encumbrances. Basically, GIMP would need permission from Adobe to step onto their playing field, and that'll happen, sure.
There's more, and much of it has to do with the fact that PS does a hell of a lot more, and does it in harmony with the way artists tend to think, and that's not my opinion, but a professional artist's, who set me straight on this long ago. He had made an honest evaluation of GIMP, and because he only worked in RGB for web graphics in this case, the colorspace issues weren't important. Workflow and usability were. All subjective measures of course.
But the main argument that's been raised on this discussion is that photographers need to be able to take the large image files from their professional cameras (NOT the RGB jpg that you get from the consumer cameras), and work with them directly, without converting the image from one format to another, or from one colorspace to another.
I can respect the magnitude of the problem (and my understanding might not be very good, apologies.)
Remember, we are just now getting to the point that high-end digital is a good enough substitute for the continuity of contrast and color that is the domain of high-end film. We're only there, for production work, not quite yet for fine art photography. Or maybe we are, but I'd still want to work in Tri-X Pan on a Nikon F, for art photography purposes. And I'm not sure I can tell the difference between the jpgs that come out of my $150 Sony, versus what I'd get from a nice Canon or Nikon (ask me again, I might have one of those soon), and I'm pretty sure "professional" photographers are using cameras way past the Nikon D70 I'm looking at.
I'm sure true professionals are still using the Hasselblads and the Leicas they've used for decades, and think of things like Photoshop as interesting toys, but no substitute for darkroom technique.
Can the human eye distinguish betwen 24-bit and 16-bit color depth? For audio and the human ear version of this argument, I take the "yes" argument (depending on numerous factors, especially the high frequency quality of the source material), but I'd like to hear the argument for photo.
The way I understand the "RAW" argument is that it requires a conversion step -- which requires converting colors from one colorspace into another. There is nothing "missing" from the pallette on either side of the conversion, but the parameters involved in the conversion itself are open to interpretation, and the standardized process for converting happens to be encumbered by one or more patents, making this the sole domain of Adobe.
Now, if you want to talk "workflow", I'm sure you will find people who choose PS because that's where their experience lies, you will also find people who choose PS because it has a higher quality user interface. Again, for audio production, this can be a matter of opinion -- I prefer the workflow aspects of Magix to Cubase, for example, and the fact that one is a $100 program and the other is a $900 program doesn't enter into this evaluation. I don't doubt there are people who prefer working with GIMP. On the other hand, a co-worker whose specialty was graphic art, and who worked in a serious production environment, set me straight about just how many of the features of PS he actually used -- things that are supposed to be in that 'esoteric' featureset that 'nobody' uses more than a subset of? WRONG.
Then, I understood this from my years as a legal secretary -- the argument that people don't really use all the features of their wordprocessor, what a load of crap. There are folks out there who do indeed use pretty much every feature it's got.
Anyway, where was I? Oh, right, the argument between PS and everything else -- how much is based on technical arguments and how much is just hype? Which parts are due to intellectual property encumbrances, and which are due to the lack of participation in the development effort?
"Since the topic is Professional Photographers Using Linux?"
Photographers who lack the inclination or the clout to persuade Adobe to publish Photoshop for the Linux platform, but care enough to take a hostile attitude when GIMP is mentioned as a potentially useful tool.
This kind of thing happens over in Audio as well -- there is no Cubase or ProTools for Linux, but that doesn't mean there's no niche for a Linux box in the operation, and it doesn't make Rosegarden or LADSPA subject to summary dismissal.
I'm trying to figure out why you shouldn't install GIMP as just another tool, even if you have PS or some vertical market software I haven't heard of.
Easier to just beat it away from you with a stick, than allow it to peacefully exist, I suppose.
"Ummm... 8 bit colour? I think you are confusing the colour capabilities of your X Server with those of the GIMP."
I thought this as well, but no. He did a poor job of communicating the problem: Converting from a standard digital colorspace which uses more than 8-bits per channel, to a colorspace that can work within GIMP, which is only capable of 8-bits per channel.
And this is at the heart of the problem -- GIMP can never satisfy in this department as long as patents prevail over the processes involved in converting colorspaces.
Most of the limitations of GIMP originate in this very domain. It's not GIMP's fault, and you might notice how few other competitors there are to Photoshop, not just in the Free Software department.
Last time I looked, the Macs didn't come bundled with the specialized hardware needed to make accurate scans of photo slides either. I know you mean well ("Adobe software on a Macintosh host is a good investment").
"What kind of professional uses a scanner made for home user to do professional work."
The kind who is struggling to get work done, despite having a shoe string budget. Might be a more common situation in an artistic field than in your line of work, so you may not recognize the phenomenon.
What's he supposed to do, just give up because he doesn't have the budget you'd like him to have?
For some applications where the next option is Photoshop, GIMP is a lifesaver. Some types of graphics and editing would not get done if the barrier happened to be a thousand dollars for some software.
I'm not convinced that the usability/featureset needs to end with Photoshop, myself.
>I can't use anything except Windows or Mac OS X >for the time being. Even with digital >photography, TheGimp just lacks a lot of things, >and some other things that it does have, they are >implemented BADLY.
You're complaining about something you got absolutely free - you realize that don't you?
For amateur photographers, GIMP saves the day. Don't diss it for doing what it does -- well.
I don't think your quarrel is with the GIMP folks, but with every other software company out there for leaving the whole playing field to Adobe, instead of coming up with something better by now.
Just becase PS is better than anything else you've got your hands on, doesn't mean it's the end of all for photo software.
I agree that GIMP isn't the tool for a professional photographer (and I'd argue that a Beseler and a Swiss 4x5 are the main tools, still), but my understanding is that GIMP has been 24-bit in RGB and 32-bit in RGBA for quite some time, and that the coming version will be 48-bit Float in RGB, and 128-bit Float in RGBA.
I'm not one to try to compare GIMP with Photoshop, but I'm also open to the idea that Photoshop *also* sucks.
"Of course, the people in Podunk, North Dakota still wouldn't have phone service without government regulation."
However it might have been interesting to see them get wireless phones before ever getting landlines (and to get broadband internet without ever using dialup as an evolutionary step!)
>It was the worst industrial accident to date. >>Is that true?
Worst in India, anyway. Two years before Chernobyl. Chernobyl totally eclipsed Bhopal as "the worst industrial accident in history", no matter what you measure, unless you believe the Soviet's official story of a death toll of 31 people. Yah right.
Seveso had had the potential to be much more deadly, but prevailing winds helped.
I doubt the total death and disabilty rate in Bhopal is anywhere near the methyl mercury poisoning in Minimata Bay, which is still killing people and causing severe birth defects 3 and 4 generations later. I note that kids in Bhopal seem to generally have arms and legs. That wasn't the case for the kids born near Minimata after 1956, you know.
"They now make all those wonderful chemicals in Charleston, WV."
They did in 1984 also. The smoking gun of the UCC case was the company's own documentation that showed without a doubt, that the highest levels of authority in the company knew that different safety standards were established for the plant in WV, than for the plant in India.
"Holy shit, your tv is as big as a grand fucking piano?"
The space taken up by an entertainment center, the line of sight between a sofa, and the sofa itself, certainly is sufficient for a 6' piano. My synthesizers and recording stuff (the gear that stays setup all the time) takes up 350 square feet of space. More if I setup my stage rig also. Even more if people are here with drums, guitars, etc.
For some people this would be a tough thing to do, but for me it's natural -- I've been playing piano since 1968, my college degrees are in music, etc., so there's really nothing odd about me making room for instruments or treating rooms to make them sound better, and so forth. Plus, getting rid of TV eliminates a major time sink that distracts from things like playing and/or composing music.
If I *really* got serious, I'd need two pianos for teaching, wedged into each others' curves, for playing 2-piano 4-hands works.
For some people, I guess a piano is a piece of furniture, or just one of the many things they have. For me, it's the thing that keeps me alive, and the purpose of my day job is to ensure that I live indoors in order to have a place for a piano.
TV, on the other hand, is a noisy box that lies to me and occasionally makes me laugh, but nothing I can't live without...
"A simple solution to this problem is just quit watching the brain rotting device known as TeleVision."
Yep, I concur. I did not have a television for years, and got one to watch CNN coverage of the first Gulf War. I got rid of it around the time of the OJ Simpson Cavalcade, largely *Because* of the OJ Simpson Cavalcade. I got back into television when SouthPark came out, and also to watch DVDs and so on. I still have one, because right now my broadband provider is an accessory to TV cable, so I might as well have it.
Probably, the TV will go, to make room for a grand piano. I already know I won't miss it. But some people don't understand the very *concept* of not having a television.
What I'm getting at, is that the porn filter example would probably be viewed as some kind of major crime, complete with federal prosecution as an organized crime scandal under RICO. The spyware should be just as outrageous, but since it doesn't "hurt the children" it won't get that kind of attention.
I don't think any of the product vendors actually make *promises*, or even *guarantees*. For that matter, I'm quite certain that any representations at all are nullified in whatever license agreement the user never reads.
Now, if they don't promise or guarantee anything, they certainly do create certain expectations.
And, the only anti-spyware software that matters, Spybot S&D and AdAware, both exceed *my* expectations, even though neither has actually *promised* anything.
If a software company actually *promised* you something (which means, you do have a statement in writing, of course!), and they have not delivered what they promised, you can be assured of a summary judgement in your favor... Which is why nobody is going to *promise*, or *guarantee* anything, unless there is substantial consideration in advance.
Neither here nor there, though. You should be using Spybot S&D and AdAware. If you're in a commercial setting, you should do the right thing and contribute to Spybot S&D, and you "must" do the *legal* thing and buy the pro version of AdAware.
But don't expect to be taken seriously if you claim that any software vendor has ever literally made a promise to you regarding the serviceability of their product. On the contrary, I'm sure you will find that the bare minimum of representations has been made, as little as possible to be legal to license the product to you in your state.
"And in doing so, you violate it's liscense agreement for using it for commercial purposes."
Adaware SE PRO is the commercial version, expressly licensed for commercial purposes.
Your heart may be in the right place, but your really shouldn't bash someone who is spending $40 on software that if he *wanted*, he *could* do free by abusing licensing terms.
"Commerical anti-spyware vendors on the other hand are in in for the $$$ and that means they are susseptable to temptation"
Interesting. So, if a porn filter company were susceptible to the same sort of "temptation" should there be any consequences at all? Why or why not should the same consequences be applied to a "spyware" filter intentionally allowing certain things through? What's the difference?
Hey, I might be getting married next year too! Good luck raising money.
Know what we'll be doing?
Tucson to Las Vegas: $60/person round trip Nevada Marriage License: $60 Nevada JP Ceremony: $0
I think we will be able to manage this without going into debt or asking anyone else for money.
Somewhere between what we have in mind, and what you're planning, you might find a middle ground.
Every penny not spent on your *ceremony* can go toward equity in your home, or toward the pleasantry of your honeymoon. Guess it depends on what's important to you.
Slashdot Mirror
>People can't criticise the Bush administration for
>repeated mistakes in Iraq? Yes
There certainly is open discussion of this, and people aren't disappearing in the dark of night, at least not in my neighborhood. And I know some rather vocal critics of the administration.
Opponents may be dedicated, but not dedicated enough to move to rural parts of the country in the tens of millions. And that seems to be the bottom line.
> People can't call policians to the table for
> spending our kids future away? Hell Yes
We had a chance to do this, and when they came to the table we served them pork.
>Plenty of people certainly have.
I've never seen that, but okay. What gets me is the air of outright *hostility* that I perceive to be against GIMP.
As if some harm is being done by its very existence. This goes beyond snobbery -- look at the subject of this thread.
Successful professionals shouldn't *need* a free alternative. On the other hand, if they see a shortcoming in a piece of FOSS software that could scratch their itch, they should be more inclined to contribute to the project than to speak in hostile terms against it!
That goes for any industry. DBAs shouldn't complain about the missing features in MySQL, they should fix it. Sysadmins should not bitch about what they don't like in the Linux TCP/IP stack, they should join the project team. And so on.
"Well, if you are using Photoshop - what exactly would the benefit of installing GIMP be?"
We're talking across purposes!
The benefit is not to YOU, but to the GIMP!
You install it, try to use it, and communicate your opinions to the people who will develop it further.
If pro photographers aren't using (or trying to use) the product, how can it ever be expected to develop in such a way as to meet their needs?
And is it beyond conception that there could be a photographer out there who also studied comp sci, optics, etc., who could see that GIMP could scratch an itch, and contribute to the project?
The whole point of a project like GIMP is that anyone, anywhere, without exception, is free to help make it whatever they want it to be.
And they are also free to ignore it.
Just because I have a $9.00 jar of mustard in my refrigerator doesn't mean I won't get a 60 cent bottle of ketchup!
"And if you were to make copy of an anlog photo, would you prefer to make a copy from an exising print, or reprint a new one from a negative."
See, I'd damned sure want to print from a negative, and I'd want to use subtractive filters, R-3 process, and I don't even know if this stuff *exists* anymore.
I'm old-school. WAY old-school. If it *matters*, in the fine-art sense, then I want to make my prints in the darkroom the old fashioned way.
If it's not fine-art, then most of the argument goes out the window for me -- good enough means DONE.
I don't believe the notion of "professional photographer" has been defined well enough. Sports, news, wedding, and fine art photographers all have different needs.
I do understand the need for clarifying imperfect images in various domains. I'm more of an audio pro (semi-pro musician), and I got out of photography in the late 1970s. I'm quite sure if I got back into photography, I would use strictly high-contrast black&white film, so maybe I should stay out of discussions like this.
>IMHO Photoshop is much more intuitive to use.
Lots of money has gone into making that so.
Artists appreciate the workflow of Photoshop and that is no accident.
More money has no doubt gone into this one "detail" than all the people involved in the GIMP project, together, have ever seen in their lives.
I think it's important to keep this stuff in perspective. I also get tired of the way people *attack* the GIMP, as if it has done them some sort of harm, simply by existing. (You didn't contribute to that sentiment, but it's all over the place, and rears its head every time the topic comes up.)
"color manageent sucks in the GIMP or something like that."
Well, that's pretty much the crux of it.
It's a big deal, since you cannot convert from one colorspace to another without some standard for mapping the colors (because they are sort-of arbitrary.)
The problem lies in the fact that, no matter how motivated or capable the GIMP folks are to fix these areas, they cannot, due to patent encumbrances. Basically, GIMP would need permission from Adobe to step onto their playing field, and that'll happen, sure.
There's more, and much of it has to do with the fact that PS does a hell of a lot more, and does it in harmony with the way artists tend to think, and that's not my opinion, but a professional artist's, who set me straight on this long ago. He had made an honest evaluation of GIMP, and because he only worked in RGB for web graphics in this case, the colorspace issues weren't important. Workflow and usability were. All subjective measures of course.
But the main argument that's been raised on this discussion is that photographers need to be able to take the large image files from their professional cameras (NOT the RGB jpg that you get from the consumer cameras), and work with them directly, without converting the image from one format to another, or from one colorspace to another.
I can respect the magnitude of the problem (and my understanding might not be very good, apologies.)
Remember, we are just now getting to the point that high-end digital is a good enough substitute for the continuity of contrast and color that is the domain of high-end film. We're only there, for production work, not quite yet for fine art photography. Or maybe we are, but I'd still want to work in Tri-X Pan on a Nikon F, for art photography purposes. And I'm not sure I can tell the difference between the jpgs that come out of my $150 Sony, versus what I'd get from a nice Canon or Nikon (ask me again, I might have one of those soon), and I'm pretty sure "professional" photographers are using cameras way past the Nikon D70 I'm looking at.
I'm sure true professionals are still using the Hasselblads and the Leicas they've used for decades, and think of things like Photoshop as interesting toys, but no substitute for darkroom technique.
Can the human eye distinguish betwen 24-bit and 16-bit color depth? For audio and the human ear version of this argument, I take the "yes" argument (depending on numerous factors, especially the high frequency quality of the source material), but I'd like to hear the argument for photo.
The way I understand the "RAW" argument is that it requires a conversion step -- which requires converting colors from one colorspace into another. There is nothing "missing" from the pallette on either side of the conversion, but the parameters involved in the conversion itself are open to interpretation, and the standardized process for converting happens to be encumbered by one or more patents, making this the sole domain of Adobe.
Now, if you want to talk "workflow", I'm sure you will find people who choose PS because that's where their experience lies, you will also find people who choose PS because it has a higher quality user interface. Again, for audio production, this can be a matter of opinion -- I prefer the workflow aspects of Magix to Cubase, for example, and the fact that one is a $100 program and the other is a $900 program doesn't enter into this evaluation. I don't doubt there are people who prefer working with GIMP. On the other hand, a co-worker whose specialty was graphic art, and who worked in a serious production environment, set me straight about just how many of the features of PS he actually used -- things that are supposed to be in that 'esoteric' featureset that 'nobody' uses more than a subset of? WRONG.
Then, I understood this from my years as a legal secretary -- the argument that people don't really use all the features of their wordprocessor, what a load of crap. There are folks out there who do indeed use pretty much every feature it's got.
Anyway, where was I? Oh, right, the argument between PS and everything else -- how much is based on technical arguments and how much is just hype? Which parts are due to intellectual property encumbrances, and which are due to the lack of participation in the development effort?
"Since the topic is Professional Photographers Using Linux?"
Photographers who lack the inclination or the clout to persuade Adobe to publish Photoshop for the Linux platform, but care enough to take a hostile attitude when GIMP is mentioned as a potentially useful tool.
This kind of thing happens over in Audio as well -- there is no Cubase or ProTools for Linux, but that doesn't mean there's no niche for a Linux box in the operation, and it doesn't make Rosegarden or LADSPA subject to summary dismissal.
I'm trying to figure out why you shouldn't install GIMP as just another tool, even if you have PS or some vertical market software I haven't heard of.
Easier to just beat it away from you with a stick, than allow it to peacefully exist, I suppose.
"Ummm... 8 bit colour? I think you are confusing the colour capabilities of your X Server with those of the GIMP."
I thought this as well, but no. He did a poor job of communicating the problem: Converting from a standard digital colorspace which uses more than 8-bits per channel, to a colorspace that can work within GIMP, which is only capable of 8-bits per channel.
And this is at the heart of the problem -- GIMP can never satisfy in this department as long as patents prevail over the processes involved in converting colorspaces.
Most of the limitations of GIMP originate in this very domain. It's not GIMP's fault, and you might notice how few other competitors there are to Photoshop, not just in the Free Software department.
> It's called Macintosh
Last time I looked, the Macs didn't come bundled with the specialized hardware needed to make accurate scans of photo slides either. I know you mean well ("Adobe software on a Macintosh host is a good investment").
"What kind of professional uses a scanner made for home user to do professional work."
The kind who is struggling to get work done, despite having a shoe string budget. Might be a more common situation in an artistic field than in your line of work, so you may not recognize the phenomenon.
What's he supposed to do, just give up because he doesn't have the budget you'd like him to have?
Ok, good explanation.
But I missed the part where anyone, ever, asserted that GIMP was created as a tool for professional photographers to use.
It bothers me that people use a hostile tone *against* GIMP, as if it has done them some sort of harm.
Doesn't surprise me though, since similar things happen in the audio production world as well.
>The Gimp is NOT as good as Photoshop.
Has anyone ever made this claim?
For some applications where the next option is Photoshop, GIMP is a lifesaver. Some types of graphics and editing would not get done if the barrier happened to be a thousand dollars for some software.
I'm not convinced that the usability/featureset needs to end with Photoshop, myself.
>I can't use anything except Windows or Mac OS X
>for the time being. Even with digital
>photography, TheGimp just lacks a lot of things,
>and some other things that it does have, they are
>implemented BADLY.
You're complaining about something you got absolutely free - you realize that don't you?
For amateur photographers, GIMP saves the day. Don't diss it for doing what it does -- well.
I don't think your quarrel is with the GIMP folks, but with every other software company out there for leaving the whole playing field to Adobe, instead of coming up with something better by now.
Just becase PS is better than anything else you've got your hands on, doesn't mean it's the end of all for photo software.
> Currently the gimp is only 8 bit color.
I agree that GIMP isn't the tool for a professional photographer (and I'd argue that a Beseler and a Swiss 4x5 are the main tools, still), but my understanding is that GIMP has been 24-bit in RGB and 32-bit in RGBA for quite some time, and that the coming version will be 48-bit Float in RGB, and 128-bit Float in RGBA.
I'm not one to try to compare GIMP with Photoshop, but I'm also open to the idea that Photoshop *also* sucks.
"Of course, the people in Podunk, North Dakota still wouldn't have phone service without government regulation."
However it might have been interesting to see them get wireless phones before ever getting landlines (and to get broadband internet without ever using dialup as an evolutionary step!)
"those who are not secure"
You do understand that the determination of who is, and is not, "Secure" will be made according to political criteria, don't you?
"Secure" will come to mean nothing more than "not threatening to the ruling party."
>It was the worst industrial accident to date.
>>Is that true?
Worst in India, anyway. Two years before Chernobyl. Chernobyl totally eclipsed Bhopal as "the worst industrial accident in history", no matter what you measure, unless you believe the Soviet's official story of a death toll of 31 people. Yah right.
Seveso had had the potential to be much more deadly, but prevailing winds helped.
I doubt the total death and disabilty rate in Bhopal is anywhere near the methyl mercury poisoning in Minimata Bay, which is still killing people and causing severe birth defects 3 and 4 generations later. I note that kids in Bhopal seem to generally have arms and legs. That wasn't the case for the kids born near Minimata after 1956, you know.
"They now make all those wonderful chemicals in Charleston, WV."
They did in 1984 also. The smoking gun of the UCC case was the company's own documentation that showed without a doubt, that the highest levels of authority in the company knew that different safety standards were established for the plant in WV, than for the plant in India.
"Holy shit, your tv is as big as a grand fucking piano?"
The space taken up by an entertainment center, the line of sight between a sofa, and the sofa itself, certainly is sufficient for a 6' piano. My synthesizers and recording stuff (the gear that stays setup all the time) takes up 350 square feet of space. More if I setup my stage rig also. Even more if people are here with drums, guitars, etc.
For some people this would be a tough thing to do, but for me it's natural -- I've been playing piano since 1968, my college degrees are in music, etc., so there's really nothing odd about me making room for instruments or treating rooms to make them sound better, and so forth. Plus, getting rid of TV eliminates a major time sink that distracts from things like playing and/or composing music.
If I *really* got serious, I'd need two pianos for teaching, wedged into each others' curves, for playing 2-piano 4-hands works.
For some people, I guess a piano is a piece of furniture, or just one of the many things they have. For me, it's the thing that keeps me alive, and the purpose of my day job is to ensure that I live indoors in order to have a place for a piano.
TV, on the other hand, is a noisy box that lies to me and occasionally makes me laugh, but nothing I can't live without...
"A simple solution to this problem is just quit watching the brain rotting device known as TeleVision."
Yep, I concur. I did not have a television for years, and got one to watch CNN coverage of the first Gulf War. I got rid of it around the time of the OJ Simpson Cavalcade, largely *Because* of the OJ Simpson Cavalcade. I got back into television when SouthPark came out, and also to watch DVDs and so on. I still have one, because right now my broadband provider is an accessory to TV cable, so I might as well have it.
Probably, the TV will go, to make room for a grand piano. I already know I won't miss it. But some people don't understand the very *concept* of not having a television.
What I'm getting at, is that the porn filter example would probably be viewed as some kind of major crime, complete with federal prosecution as an organized crime scandal under RICO. The spyware should be just as outrageous, but since it doesn't "hurt the children" it won't get that kind of attention.
I don't think any of the product vendors actually make *promises*, or even *guarantees*. For that matter, I'm quite certain that any representations at all are nullified in whatever license agreement the user never reads.
Now, if they don't promise or guarantee anything, they certainly do create certain expectations.
And, the only anti-spyware software that matters,
Spybot S&D and AdAware, both exceed *my* expectations, even though neither has actually *promised* anything.
If a software company actually *promised* you something (which means, you do have a statement in writing, of course!), and they have not delivered what they promised, you can be assured of a summary judgement in your favor... Which is why nobody is going to *promise*, or *guarantee* anything, unless there is substantial consideration in advance.
Neither here nor there, though. You should be using Spybot S&D and AdAware. If you're in a commercial setting, you should do the right thing and contribute to Spybot S&D, and you "must" do the *legal* thing and buy the pro version of AdAware.
But don't expect to be taken seriously if you claim that any software vendor has ever literally made a promise to you regarding the serviceability of their product. On the contrary, I'm sure you will find that the bare minimum of representations has been made, as little as possible to be legal to license the product to you in your state.
"And in doing so, you violate it's liscense agreement for using it for commercial purposes."
Adaware SE PRO is the commercial version, expressly licensed for commercial purposes.
Your heart may be in the right place, but your really shouldn't bash someone who is spending $40 on software that if he *wanted*, he *could* do free by abusing licensing terms.
"Commerical anti-spyware vendors on the other hand are in in for the $$$ and that means they are susseptable to temptation"
Interesting. So, if a porn filter company were susceptible to the same sort of "temptation" should there be any consequences at all? Why or why not should the same consequences be applied to a "spyware" filter intentionally allowing certain things through? What's the difference?
Thanks for the tip!
Hey, I might be getting married next year too! Good luck raising money.
Know what we'll be doing?
Tucson to Las Vegas: $60/person round trip
Nevada Marriage License: $60
Nevada JP Ceremony: $0
I think we will be able to manage this without going into debt or asking anyone else for money.
Somewhere between what we have in mind, and what you're planning, you might find a middle ground.
Every penny not spent on your *ceremony* can go toward equity in your home, or toward the pleasantry of your honeymoon. Guess it depends on what's important to you.