Yeah because that's nothing like the new smart layers in CS3 and adjustment layers which have been in photoshop for the last 10 years.
I agree I want pure through and through smartly cached node/layer based compositing in photoshop. But considering how long a 4k image takes to update in Nuke or Combustion, I'm not certain we're ready for it yet.
Really? Back hills creationism is the type of creationism I've encountered more than any other.
A Landover Baptist article once got passed around my highschool and generated a great deal of outrage for over a month much to my amusement. (Editor's Note: Landover Baptist is a parody much like the onion only for religious issues.)
" Before the ark we were experimenting with genetics in our super high tech cities. The ancient egyptians were super advanced. The devil planted fossils to trick us. " etc etc.
Anything that sounded good and authorative was often immediately snapped up and dispersed with a great sense of urgency without any fact checking. To expect them to apply a scientific level of scrutiny to creationism is unfortunately just asking too much.
Back Hills Creationism has in my experience been the dominant form of creationism for the religious layman.
Back Hills Evolution is also unfortunately the dominant form of biology understood by and propagated by the layman.
Sadly it's the uninformed who are often the most self-assured and beligerant propaters of all theories.
Just to add a bit of reinforcement to this post I would note that modern digital image sensors also are more sensitive in green and red than blue due to the physical properties of filtration. It's not a case of just the biological sensor having trouble with blue it's an inherent 'design' challenge.
Let's just skip spreadsheets and go where we all want to go: nodes.
One of these days the programmers of the world will discover what we artists found a long time ago. The only thing better than a bunch of columns on a spreadsheet for presenting ridiculous amounts of data is a tree of nodes.
I wish all programming and scripting languages were node based.
>>There are hundreds of very similar organizations around the country that could get together and commission a world-class, free-software product to fulfill their needs.
Isn't that what commercial software is? A group of people coming together to finance a development team to make the software they need by sharing the cost amongst themselves.
The only difference is your idea implies that they have to knowingly work as a team. (Which takes resources to organize). Purchasing existing software and sharing the development costs is precisely what you just suggested.
What about my retirement fund? I'm 21 and I'm willing to accept some moderate risk at this point in the game. Retirement funds aren't all started when you're 40. I would hope that the firefighters and police officers who are just coming out of the academy would be doing the same since like you said this would only be a minor hiccup.
Here's an easy solution and you don't even have to teach your kid to not kill atheists in their spare time.
Every time you see a magazine: tell your kid how stupid those magazine are. By the time they can read the word sex they'll have gotten impressed into their impressionable young mind that those magazine are stupid and to be disregarded. If they don't trust your assessment then you're screwed either way and no headline is ever going to do more damage than that setback. Don't say the magazine are "bad". Just belittle them and immature and stupid.
While they're young they'll believe you because you're like a God to them. When they're old they'll believe you because you've told them every day of their lives that they're for "desperate old ugly housewives who have nothing to do with their time and live sad pathetic lives". Nothing enticing. Just something the 'uncool' mom would read. Something you wouldn't be caught dead by your friends reading or even looking at.
So... you think the boss doesn't have it in the budget to bring someone in that can design a page in a few hours, but buying 3 books, spending a week reading about color theory, learning the principles of design and trying to distill practical pragmatic steps to then slowly sludge through the process of the design is more cost effective?
The reason why I recommend Graphic designers is because of cost. I can program. I do program as part of my job. But the only reason I am do any programming as part of my job is because what I'm doing requires an intimate understanding of the art behind what I'm doing, something that would take a great deal of time to catch a programmer up on the nuances of. That being said, for big projects where a design doc can be written or the direction is clear I will always strongly recommend the hiring of a real true to life masters in computer science hardcore programmer. Why? Because it would take me a week to do what he takes a day to do. It might take me a day to learn how to write a complicated function that a programmer has written a thousand times and knows by heart.
Unless the OP is really cheap or free. A designer will save you a ton of money.
Disclaimer: Writer is not a web designer. In no way profits from web design. But is an artist and therefore might be biased.
Women are more addicted to games that they can play well and are unoffended by.
Men have spent years getting desensitized to blowing someone's head off. (Or I should say are more likely). They're also more likely to have spent a great amount of time mastering the control schemes. A huge hurtle to overcome.
My Mom was addicted to a game called "birds" for about a year. All the game was was a territorial game. You fly around drawing a line and sealing off "territory" until the birds are trapped in small little provinces of freedom. It was exciting. (Check for good game). It was challenging and therefore rewarding. (Check for good game). The player could instill his will upon his avatar through good controls (Check for good game). And there was the alure of progressing and advancing. (Check for good game).
People often make the jump immediately that women somehow desire different things from their games than men when if you break down all popular and mainstream games the components that make them rewarding for the player are identical across gender lines.
I have it's called the guy who runs the sound board normally during the services with a small personal TV to see when the game is back on and a remote control.
THE AMAZING POWERS of THE INPUT BUTTON!
I think what you mean to say was: "I've NEVER seen a church that NEEDS a piece of gear to do that for the ONE event they have a year."
Because aquiring 'stock' models is infinitely less expensive unless you need thousands of them and don't need a great deal of control (ala Universal Man).
All of these tools are built off of fractals (terrain/trees) or else fast ways to tweak existing models. Either way if you want to create something that doesn't involve someone wearing stock clothes with a stock body and a stock face... you know something new and unique. You still have to have artist create it.
It's like saying "Why doesn't Gimp add a feature that creates a great photo for me?"
Well what's even more absurd is that this is such a niche industry as it is. It's a very wealthy, very profitable industry but where a film *requires* hundreds to thousands of people to create to the quality we consumers demand-- a very high quality album can be produced by less than a dozen individuals for $40k.
Artists should be payed for their work. No question. But how many artists were actually financially staying afloat before MP3s? How many artist ever GOT 1.5 million dollars in revenue before MP3s? Maybe the top 100. We're talking about a world of consumers who listen to American music. Billions of people consume American media and yet someone who rips a CD (who probably used to share tapes, and before that probably used to listen to the radio and whose shopping habits probably haven't changed) has come to be criminalized and fined with outrageous amounts all so that the 100 people at the top can hit their platinum album to put on the wall.
Fine let's take the official line at face value. "Piracy hurts artists and they'll stop producing music." Ok... go! Stop making music if Piracy is hurting you financially so much. 100 people will lose their jobs and have to find another career path.
We're spending millions of dollars on enforcement. Arresting, harassing and bankrupting otherwise contributing members of society in order to ensure a super minority continues to enjoy a posh lifestyle.
Piracy hurts the big bands far worse than it hurts the indies. The indies already had to tour and perform and market themselves. If they were popular enough to be on Napster they were popular enough to see a healthy revenue stream from CDs and Tour bookings.
The people who are going to lose their jobs because of piracy will be the leaches. The ones who know regardless if someone pays for a song when it's served by a computer their job is gone. Those are the ones fighting to the death. Because in an Amazon economy if your job is useless you can bet there'll be a computer who can do it 100 times better and a 1000 times cheaper.
There is a fundamental disconnect between what the consumer is demanding: Tens of Thousands of songs and the current market rate of a song. But that runs contrary to what the top echelon of musicians wants. If someone is going to buy 5 albums a year, they want one of those albums to be theirs. If songs were 11 cents each or less people would purchase a huge diversity of music with almost no regard as to whether it turned out good or not. "Whatever 10 cents I'll buy a few and see if it's any good." Which if there wasn't a monopoly on talent in the universe would be fine... their sales would increase and the 10 cents would balance out... but that's not a case. Music has become so embedded into our society we can't conceive of not listening to it. The top 100 artists are going to be purchased by a significant majority of the *potential* customer base. If you cut prices by even 40% you won't see a 40% increase in volume...
The top artist know they've maximized their volume and they're going to milk it for all its worth.
If we look at this from a societal standpoint we would recognize that we could reward and employ tens of thousands of artists and technicians simply by dropping the cost of a song. The indie needs volume. The indie needs someone to take a risk, which is a hard sell at $15. A greater majority of society would be rewarded by lower cost, higher volume market.
I'm just afraid with all of this demonization of piracy and the backlash from citizens that the entire system is going to be consumed in an riotous orgy of anarchism and take decades to be put back together into a rational, artist friendly, consumer oriented structure where piracy seems absurd when so much good music can be had for so little.
When I was getting an online quote for new car insurance I wasn't sure what to classify a moving violation I had from 2 years ago so I just started seeing which would be the cheapest per month to classify it as.
I made an interesting discovery:
Failing to signal while changing lanes is more expensive per month than: Vehicular Homicide or a DUI.
Fuck it. If they say I'm stealing it I'm just going to start "ripping" music from Walmart. The fines are cheaper and less signficant on a criminal record.
Steamworks is now freely available for developers and publishers wishing to sell games online via Valve's Steam service.
"Developers and publishers are spending more and more time and money cobbling together all the tools and backend systems needed to build and launch a successful title in today's market," said Gabe Newell, president of Valve. "Steamworks puts all those tools and systems together in one free package, liberating publishers and developers to concentrate on the game instead of the plumbing."
>>If someone could just come up with a quicker method of creating new meshes/maps/art I think the mod comminuty would >>obviously be in a better state. Lets face it, the time it takes to create new assets has gotten crazy. It isn't >>something for a 15 year-old kid with 5 hours to burn and a copy of Milkshape anymore.
>>Blender devs are you listening?
Yeah Blender devs! Make me a program that reads my mind, improves on my ideas to make them actually good and creates a 3D mesh of exactly what I need fully textured and realized.
But when you're firing a Mach 10+ round... line of sight isn't much of an issue. You can fire beyond the horizon. Certainly not on par with a cruise missile, but still some serious range up to 300 miles.
Not to mention maintaining a missile is one thing, maintaining a graphite stick quite another all together.
Of course the technology isn't there yet but if it could manage to fire 30 rounds in an engagement at 300 miles with the same impact energy as the warhead of a conventional anti-ship missile you've got a real challenger.
Other advantages in the future: As laser weapons become feasible shooting down missiles will become simpler and simpler. With no warhead to ignite and no need to be 'airworthy' I would speculate that a railgun round would be dramatically more difficult to knock out of the sky than a cruise missile travelling at relatively low speeds.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah because that's nothing like the new smart layers in CS3 and adjustment layers which have been in photoshop for the last 10 years.
I agree I want pure through and through smartly cached node/layer based compositing in photoshop. But considering how long a 4k image takes to update in Nuke or Combustion, I'm not certain we're ready for it yet.
Planet is ~520 light years away. Pretty easy to do the math from there.
So the answer to your question is: No it's not older.
Really? Back hills creationism is the type of creationism I've encountered more than any other.
A Landover Baptist article once got passed around my highschool and generated a great deal of outrage for over a month much to my amusement. (Editor's Note: Landover Baptist is a parody much like the onion only for religious issues.)
"
Before the ark we were experimenting with genetics in our super high tech cities.
The ancient egyptians were super advanced.
The devil planted fossils to trick us.
"
etc etc.
Anything that sounded good and authorative was often immediately snapped up and dispersed with a great sense of urgency without any fact checking. To expect them to apply a scientific level of scrutiny to creationism is unfortunately just asking too much.
Back Hills Creationism has in my experience been the dominant form of creationism for the religious layman.
Back Hills Evolution is also unfortunately the dominant form of biology understood by and propagated by the layman.
Sadly it's the uninformed who are often the most self-assured and beligerant propaters of all theories.
Just to add a bit of reinforcement to this post I would note that modern digital image sensors also are more sensitive in green and red than blue due to the physical properties of filtration. It's not a case of just the biological sensor having trouble with blue it's an inherent 'design' challenge.
Let's just skip spreadsheets and go where we all want to go: nodes.
One of these days the programmers of the world will discover what we artists found a long time ago. The only thing better than a bunch of columns on a spreadsheet for presenting ridiculous amounts of data is a tree of nodes.
I wish all programming and scripting languages were node based.
>>There are hundreds of very similar organizations around the country that could get together and commission a world-class, free-software product to fulfill their needs.
Isn't that what commercial software is? A group of people coming together to finance a development team to make the software they need by sharing the cost amongst themselves.
The only difference is your idea implies that they have to knowingly work as a team. (Which takes resources to organize). Purchasing existing software and sharing the development costs is precisely what you just suggested.
I've had XP SP2 systems sit on a DMZ for weeks without a single nibble.
I've only gotten one virus in my life and that was attached to a file I opened that I thought was safe. (Damn you ICQ!)
This "45 seconds till apocolypse" bullshit is in my experience completely unfounded.
What about my retirement fund? I'm 21 and I'm willing to accept some moderate risk at this point in the game. Retirement funds aren't all started when you're 40. I would hope that the firefighters and police officers who are just coming out of the academy would be doing the same since like you said this would only be a minor hiccup.
Hydroelectric:
C02 Neutral: Check
Green Electricity: Sort-of-Check. (Close enough)
Doesn't Kill Salmon: Wait... that wasn't one of Google's requirements...
So where does this conflict with Google's goals?
50 years ago the Columbia river gorge was filled by the aluminum industry looking for cheap electricity to run their furnaces.
I guess Internet servers are the new fires of industry.
Here's an easy solution and you don't even have to teach your kid to not kill atheists in their spare time.
Every time you see a magazine: tell your kid how stupid those magazine are. By the time they can read the word sex they'll have gotten impressed into their impressionable young mind that those magazine are stupid and to be disregarded. If they don't trust your assessment then you're screwed either way and no headline is ever going to do more damage than that setback. Don't say the magazine are "bad". Just belittle them and immature and stupid.
While they're young they'll believe you because you're like a God to them. When they're old they'll believe you because you've told them every day of their lives that they're for "desperate old ugly housewives who have nothing to do with their time and live sad pathetic lives". Nothing enticing. Just something the 'uncool' mom would read. Something you wouldn't be caught dead by your friends reading or even looking at.
Why not just add a meta tag for porn. Or something more specific like: Adult-Only. That should be easy for Google to detect and flag in its database.
So... you think the boss doesn't have it in the budget to bring someone in that can design a page in a few hours, but buying 3 books, spending a week reading about color theory, learning the principles of design and trying to distill practical pragmatic steps to then slowly sludge through the process of the design is more cost effective?
The reason why I recommend Graphic designers is because of cost. I can program. I do program as part of my job. But the only reason I am do any programming as part of my job is because what I'm doing requires an intimate understanding of the art behind what I'm doing, something that would take a great deal of time to catch a programmer up on the nuances of. That being said, for big projects where a design doc can be written or the direction is clear I will always strongly recommend the hiring of a real true to life masters in computer science hardcore programmer. Why? Because it would take me a week to do what he takes a day to do. It might take me a day to learn how to write a complicated function that a programmer has written a thousand times and knows by heart.
Unless the OP is really cheap or free. A designer will save you a ton of money.
Disclaimer: Writer is not a web designer. In no way profits from web design. But is an artist and therefore might be biased.
I'll let you in on a little secret. That's where most graphic designers start too.
Scour the page for a few sites you like. Revisit old sites you've made. Open a bunch of books of design you enjoy and find some inspiration.
Starting from a white canvase is always more difficult than at least finding a pallete that inspires you.
Women are more addicted to games that they can play well and are unoffended by.
Men have spent years getting desensitized to blowing someone's head off. (Or I should say are more likely). They're also more likely to have spent a great amount of time mastering the control schemes. A huge hurtle to overcome.
My Mom was addicted to a game called "birds" for about a year. All the game was was a territorial game. You fly around drawing a line and sealing off "territory" until the birds are trapped in small little provinces of freedom. It was exciting. (Check for good game). It was challenging and therefore rewarding. (Check for good game). The player could instill his will upon his avatar through good controls (Check for good game). And there was the alure of progressing and advancing. (Check for good game).
People often make the jump immediately that women somehow desire different things from their games than men when if you break down all popular and mainstream games the components that make them rewarding for the player are identical across gender lines.
I have it's called the guy who runs the sound board normally during the services with a small personal TV to see when the game is back on and a remote control.
THE AMAZING POWERS of THE INPUT BUTTON!
I think what you mean to say was:
"I've NEVER seen a church that NEEDS a piece of gear to do that for the ONE event they have a year."
Because aquiring 'stock' models is infinitely less expensive unless you need thousands of them and don't need a great deal of control (ala Universal Man).
All of these tools are built off of fractals (terrain/trees) or else fast ways to tweak existing models. Either way if you want to create something that doesn't involve someone wearing stock clothes with a stock body and a stock face... you know something new and unique. You still have to have artist create it.
It's like saying "Why doesn't Gimp add a feature that creates a great photo for me?"
Well what's even more absurd is that this is such a niche industry as it is. It's a very wealthy, very profitable industry but where a film *requires* hundreds to thousands of people to create to the quality we consumers demand-- a very high quality album can be produced by less than a dozen individuals for $40k.
Artists should be payed for their work. No question. But how many artists were actually financially staying afloat before MP3s? How many artist ever GOT 1.5 million dollars in revenue before MP3s? Maybe the top 100. We're talking about a world of consumers who listen to American music. Billions of people consume American media and yet someone who rips a CD (who probably used to share tapes, and before that probably used to listen to the radio and whose shopping habits probably haven't changed) has come to be criminalized and fined with outrageous amounts all so that the 100 people at the top can hit their platinum album to put on the wall.
Fine let's take the official line at face value. "Piracy hurts artists and they'll stop producing music." Ok... go! Stop making music if Piracy is hurting you financially so much. 100 people will lose their jobs and have to find another career path.
We're spending millions of dollars on enforcement. Arresting, harassing and bankrupting otherwise contributing members of society in order to ensure a super minority continues to enjoy a posh lifestyle.
Piracy hurts the big bands far worse than it hurts the indies. The indies already had to tour and perform and market themselves. If they were popular enough to be on Napster they were popular enough to see a healthy revenue stream from CDs and Tour bookings.
The people who are going to lose their jobs because of piracy will be the leaches. The ones who know regardless if someone pays for a song when it's served by a computer their job is gone. Those are the ones fighting to the death. Because in an Amazon economy if your job is useless you can bet there'll be a computer who can do it 100 times better and a 1000 times cheaper.
There is a fundamental disconnect between what the consumer is demanding: Tens of Thousands of songs and the current market rate of a song. But that runs contrary to what the top echelon of musicians wants. If someone is going to buy 5 albums a year, they want one of those albums to be theirs. If songs were 11 cents each or less people would purchase a huge diversity of music with almost no regard as to whether it turned out good or not. "Whatever 10 cents I'll buy a few and see if it's any good." Which if there wasn't a monopoly on talent in the universe would be fine... their sales would increase and the 10 cents would balance out... but that's not a case. Music has become so embedded into our society we can't conceive of not listening to it. The top 100 artists are going to be purchased by a significant majority of the *potential* customer base. If you cut prices by even 40% you won't see a 40% increase in volume...
The top artist know they've maximized their volume and they're going to milk it for all its worth.
If we look at this from a societal standpoint we would recognize that we could reward and employ tens of thousands of artists and technicians simply by dropping the cost of a song. The indie needs volume. The indie needs someone to take a risk, which is a hard sell at $15. A greater majority of society would be rewarded by lower cost, higher volume market.
I'm just afraid with all of this demonization of piracy and the backlash from citizens that the entire system is going to be consumed in an riotous orgy of anarchism and take decades to be put back together into a rational, artist friendly, consumer oriented structure where piracy seems absurd when so much good music can be had for so little.
When I was getting an online quote for new car insurance I wasn't sure what to classify a moving violation I had from 2 years ago so I just started seeing which would be the cheapest per month to classify it as.
I made an interesting discovery:
Failing to signal while changing lanes is more expensive per month than:
Vehicular Homicide or a DUI.
!?
Fuck it. If they say I'm stealing it I'm just going to start "ripping" music from Walmart. The fines are cheaper and less signficant on a criminal record.
From Valve Press Release Circa today January 29:
Steamworks is now freely available for developers and publishers wishing to sell games online via Valve's Steam service.
"Developers and publishers are spending more and more time and money cobbling together all the tools and backend systems needed to build and launch a successful title in today's market," said Gabe Newell, president of Valve. "Steamworks puts all those tools and systems together in one free package, liberating publishers and developers to concentrate on the game instead of the plumbing."
They're such indie posers they even used another licensed technology for distribution: the CD. GASP.
>>If someone could just come up with a quicker method of creating new meshes/maps/art I think the mod comminuty would
>>obviously be in a better state. Lets face it, the time it takes to create new assets has gotten crazy. It isn't
>>something for a 15 year-old kid with 5 hours to burn and a copy of Milkshape anymore.
>>Blender devs are you listening?
Yeah Blender devs! Make me a program that reads my mind, improves on my ideas to make them actually good and creates a 3D mesh of exactly what I need fully textured and realized.
Any Blender devs listening? Didn't think so.
>>How can carriers continue to justify the high cost of their apparent super-premium data transmission?
Simple. Teenage girls who don't ever see the cell phone bill.
But when you're firing a Mach 10+ round... line of sight isn't much of an issue. You can fire beyond the horizon. Certainly not on par with a cruise missile, but still some serious range up to 300 miles.
Not to mention maintaining a missile is one thing, maintaining a graphite stick quite another all together.
Of course the technology isn't there yet but if it could manage to fire 30 rounds in an engagement at 300 miles with the same impact energy as the warhead of a conventional anti-ship missile you've got a real challenger.
Other advantages in the future: As laser weapons become feasible shooting down missiles will become simpler and simpler. With no warhead to ignite and no need to be 'airworthy' I would speculate that a railgun round would be dramatically more difficult to knock out of the sky than a cruise missile travelling at relatively low speeds.