For at least the last two version, yes. The new version is supposed to add support for more complicated high-fidelity color file formats, like the new standard OpenEXR format.
The article is incredibly badly written. The sentence you quoted clearly makes no sense, and neither does the one about how Photoshop will have "updated support for raw, or uncompressed, images." Raw and uncompressed do not mean the same thing.
Usually the better deal is to upgrade the whole suite at once. The retail version of all the products together is $1,000, but you can get the upgrade for $550. That's a hell of a bargain for three world-class apps. (Acrobat is fine too, I suppose, but it's hardly in the same class.)
Why? I never understood that whole idea. Why make your customers choose from among half a dozen really ugly appearances when you could instead just take the time to create one good one?
If your Mac is crashing monthly, you have a hardware problem. It's almost certainly bad RAM. Bad RAM leads to kernel panics. You should get that fixed.
I know you guys have to frame everything in terms of "LINUX WINS!" but you know what? It's not a race. Nobody was sitting around a table going, "I wanna be the first to make a feature with 4:4:4 dual-link RGB!" In fact, just the opposite: Everybody was sitting around going, "Let somebody else try 4:4:4 HD video. I don't want to take a chance on it with millions of dollars of somebody else's money."
Besides that, this whole thing is completely wrong. We've been using 4:4:4 for years in film production with a device called a "datacine." Go out and shoot 35mm film, which by the way has more color sensitivity than any video camera on the market, then run it through a device that scans each frame at high bit depth and high resolution in (you guessed it) 4:4:4 RGB.
Seriously, these machines have been around for more than a decade. RGB production is nothing new. You guys are making it sound like it's revolutionary, or worse, like it COULDN'T BE DONE WITHOUT LINUX. Inferno has done 4:4:4 since the mid-90s, and that runs on SGI gear.
Precisely what aspect of the cellphone market in Europe is a 'planned economy'?
The Europeans passed laws making it illegal to deploy anything other than GSM.
GSM is based on TDMA, which is fundamentally flawed and which couldn't keep up with demand. That's why you have GSM for voice and GPRS for data; one system can't do both.
Meanwhile, in the USA, Qualcomm developed CDMA, which is far superior to TDMA (and, by extension, to GSM). US-based carriers are already deploying CDMA all over the place and giving customers better service at a lower price (more calls per tower equals fewer towers for the same level of service quality) while Europe is struggling with how to make TDMA last until they can do a massive "flag day" change-over, turning on CDMA and turning off GSM.
How did Europe get into this mess? By legislating mobile phone standards. How did the USA avoid it? By letting the free market run itself.
(I agree with Leo, however. You probably are a troll. I just don't mind feeding the trolls once in a while.)
Bored now. You've revealed yourself to be a partisan hack who doesn't give a damn about fairness or truth. You've also revealed yourself to be so bafflingly ignorant of how journalism works that you don't even understand the expression "pen name."
If you want the last word, you can have it. I have given you the rope and you have hanged yourself. All you're doing now is twitching at the end of the rope.
Heh. That's one I haven't heard in a while. "All the voices in the echo chamber agree with me, so clearly I'm objectively right and you're objectively wrong."
Hey, moron...a pen name is the name that everyone knows you write under. No one knew who Gannon was.
What do you mean, "no one knew." Everybody who needed to know knew. The FBI knew. Dan Bartlett knew. Scott McClellan and his staff knew. Gannon's employers knew. No, your problem is that you didn't know. Which fits in perfectly with your "freedom for me but not for thee" mindset.
He managed to get into the press corps and lobbied softball questions, some of them without any factual basis.
Do you read The National Review? You should. There's a great article in today's issue that takes a little trip back in time. During the Clinton administration, the President -- not just his staff, but he personally --regularly got questions so soft they'd make Gannon's look like the Spanish Inquisition.
Drop the smoke screen about "softball" questions. The bottom line here is that you're pissed off because Gannon was openly supportive of George W. Bush, and that's just something you can't tolerate.
he knew the contents of the memo that was leaked before almost anyone else knew them
That's a lie. Gannon didn't say word one about the memo until two days after it was described in detail in the Washington Post. If you compare the way Gannon described it to the Post article, you can clearly see similarities that lend credence to the idea that Gannon got his information from the same place everybody else got theirs: the morning newspaper.
it certainly make him a legitmate target for investigation
Bullshit. Drop the pretense, please. He was "a target for investigation" for one reason and one reason only: He was openly supportive of George W. Bush. There are some folks out there --you chief among them, apparently --who think that only liberals should be allowed to report the news. Or maybe you believe that only members of party Y should be allowed to report the news when party X is in power...oh, wait. No. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I can't do that. Because if that were the case, you would have gone apeshit on March 19, 1999, when Ken Walsh asked Bill Clinton, in an open press conference, whether Clinton would be mad at the people who called for his impeachment in 10 or 20 years when it all had blown over. If everything you're saying about yourself is true, then you would have absolutely blown your stack at a question like that coming from an open supporter of the President in the press room. But you didn't, did you? No, you only decided to start flinging poop when you found somebody who was just as partisan as every other member of the press corps, only on the side opposite your own.
You could at least try to relate your smears to the topic at hand.
If you read the whole thing instead of quoting out of context you would see that that's exactly what I did. I tried to point out every instance of a Goebbels-like rhetorical fallacy of propaganda technique. I caught several, but I may have missed a few. The commenter seems quite expert at their use.
We've been over this and over this. Again: the use of pen names among reporters is extremely common. At least three members of the White House press corps use pen names when they publish. Most married female reporters choose to write under their maiden names because that's the name under which they first established themselves. A pen name is not a "fake name," and it's not a disqualification.
It is, however, a damned convenient excuse for you to dismiss somebody you don't like.
And, as far as I can tell, al-Jazeera is not in the briefing room.
You are wrong.
But, hey, it's not my job to answer why the White House is apparently opening the door to everyone carrying a notebook.
Actually it kind of is. Because you're the one saying that they shouldn't. See, I don't know about you, but I believe in a free press. I think that anybody with a notebook should be allowed to sit in on the briefings. Now, the room is only so big, there are only so many hours in the day, there are practical concerns and so on. But keeping somebody from reporting the news for ideological reasons is, as I've said, Nazi propaganda shit.
Please stop your Nazi propaganda shit.
People were looking up 'Gannon's address by searching the whois records, and suddenly went 'What the hell are these domain names doing here?'.
They were dumpster diving. They were trying to dig up dirt to get him shut down. Don't even try to pretend you're not perfectly aware of this.
Who looked up Eason Jordan's home address, after all? Who went dumpster diving on him? Nobody, because the conservatives who wanted him to answer for his accusations weren't interested in smearing the man. They were only interested in the truth.
You're trying to defend the indefensible. Why?
I'm not even going to respond to this topic anymore until you can tell me the name of the person who first posted the list of domains.
Heh. You go right ahead and take your ball and go home. I think the record of this conversation stands perfectly well on its own.
Or is it suddenly off limits to even wonder who people in the briefing room are?
Straw man argument. More Nazi propaganda shit.
Especially when they've been named in connection to the Plame CIA leak?
Guilt by association. More Nazi propaganda shit.
No non-English speaking country defined 'marriage' as anything, as that is an English word.
Semantic games. More Nazi propaganda shit.
Do you have anything to say, or are you just going to reach back into your bag of logical and rhetorical fallacies again?
Slashdot Mirror
For at least the last two version, yes. The new version is supposed to add support for more complicated high-fidelity color file formats, like the new standard OpenEXR format.
If you call up SGI and ask to buy a copy of IRIX, I think it costs about $200, if I remember right.
If you call up Discreet and ask to buy a copy of Inferno, it'll cost you $650,000.
It is entirely appropriate for the application to cost more than the OS. The application does more.
The article is incredibly badly written. The sentence you quoted clearly makes no sense, and neither does the one about how Photoshop will have "updated support for raw, or uncompressed, images." Raw and uncompressed do not mean the same thing.
Usually the better deal is to upgrade the whole suite at once. The retail version of all the products together is $1,000, but you can get the upgrade for $550. That's a hell of a bargain for three world-class apps. (Acrobat is fine too, I suppose, but it's hardly in the same class.)
Y'CbCr, also known as YUV, is the color space used by film editing equipment.
YUV is not used by film-editing equipment. Film is strictly an RGB thing. Video gear uses the YUV color space.
Why? I never understood that whole idea. Why make your customers choose from among half a dozen really ugly appearances when you could instead just take the time to create one good one?
If your Mac is crashing monthly, you have a hardware problem. It's almost certainly bad RAM. Bad RAM leads to kernel panics. You should get that fixed.
I dunno, maybe it's a matter of personal taste, but it looks awfully blue to me.
So far, zero.
I'm pretty sure they ignored you because you used non-words like "boxen." The whole "no niche markets" thing was just their way of being polite.
I know you guys have to frame everything in terms of "LINUX WINS!" but you know what? It's not a race. Nobody was sitting around a table going, "I wanna be the first to make a feature with 4:4:4 dual-link RGB!" In fact, just the opposite: Everybody was sitting around going, "Let somebody else try 4:4:4 HD video. I don't want to take a chance on it with millions of dollars of somebody else's money."
Besides that, this whole thing is completely wrong. We've been using 4:4:4 for years in film production with a device called a "datacine." Go out and shoot 35mm film, which by the way has more color sensitivity than any video camera on the market, then run it through a device that scans each frame at high bit depth and high resolution in (you guessed it) 4:4:4 RGB.
Seriously, these machines have been around for more than a decade. RGB production is nothing new. You guys are making it sound like it's revolutionary, or worse, like it COULDN'T BE DONE WITHOUT LINUX. Inferno has done 4:4:4 since the mid-90s, and that runs on SGI gear.
First off, it's "80's", not "80s".
AP says otherwise.
Secondly, the first sentence in your fourth paragraph is wrong; it's a run-on sentence.
Commas can be used to join a series of independent clauses. It's not something you see very often, but it's not wrong.
I suppose your post would've been much funnier if you weren't being so hypocritical.
I wonder if you know what "hypocritical" means?
The Europeans passed laws making it illegal to deploy anything other than GSM.
GSM is based on TDMA, which is fundamentally flawed and which couldn't keep up with demand. That's why you have GSM for voice and GPRS for data; one system can't do both.
Meanwhile, in the USA, Qualcomm developed CDMA, which is far superior to TDMA (and, by extension, to GSM). US-based carriers are already deploying CDMA all over the place and giving customers better service at a lower price (more calls per tower equals fewer towers for the same level of service quality) while Europe is struggling with how to make TDMA last until they can do a massive "flag day" change-over, turning on CDMA and turning off GSM.
How did Europe get into this mess? By legislating mobile phone standards. How did the USA avoid it? By letting the free market run itself.
(I agree with Leo, however. You probably are a troll. I just don't mind feeding the trolls once in a while.)
Bored now. You've revealed yourself to be a partisan hack who doesn't give a damn about fairness or truth. You've also revealed yourself to be so bafflingly ignorant of how journalism works that you don't even understand the expression "pen name."
If you want the last word, you can have it. I have given you the rope and you have hanged yourself. All you're doing now is twitching at the end of the rope.
Step one: Log in. It's not hard. Use your name, for Christ's sake.
Step two: Ponder the difference between elementary education and higher education.
Step three: Slink away in shame.
Said the "Anonymous Coward."
Heh. That's one I haven't heard in a while. "All the voices in the echo chamber agree with me, so clearly I'm objectively right and you're objectively wrong."
You need to get out more, I think.
Hey, moron...a pen name is the name that everyone knows you write under. No one knew who Gannon was.
...oh, wait. No. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I can't do that. Because if that were the case, you would have gone apeshit on March 19, 1999, when Ken Walsh asked Bill Clinton, in an open press conference, whether Clinton would be mad at the people who called for his impeachment in 10 or 20 years when it all had blown over. If everything you're saying about yourself is true, then you would have absolutely blown your stack at a question like that coming from an open supporter of the President in the press room. But you didn't, did you? No, you only decided to start flinging poop when you found somebody who was just as partisan as every other member of the press corps, only on the side opposite your own.
What do you mean, "no one knew." Everybody who needed to know knew. The FBI knew. Dan Bartlett knew. Scott McClellan and his staff knew. Gannon's employers knew. No, your problem is that you didn't know. Which fits in perfectly with your "freedom for me but not for thee" mindset.
He managed to get into the press corps and lobbied softball questions, some of them without any factual basis.
Do you read The National Review? You should. There's a great article in today's issue that takes a little trip back in time. During the Clinton administration, the President -- not just his staff, but he personally --regularly got questions so soft they'd make Gannon's look like the Spanish Inquisition.
Drop the smoke screen about "softball" questions. The bottom line here is that you're pissed off because Gannon was openly supportive of George W. Bush, and that's just something you can't tolerate.
he knew the contents of the memo that was leaked before almost anyone else knew them
That's a lie. Gannon didn't say word one about the memo until two days after it was described in detail in the Washington Post. If you compare the way Gannon described it to the Post article, you can clearly see similarities that lend credence to the idea that Gannon got his information from the same place everybody else got theirs: the morning newspaper.
it certainly make him a legitmate target for investigation
Bullshit. Drop the pretense, please. He was "a target for investigation" for one reason and one reason only: He was openly supportive of George W. Bush. There are some folks out there --you chief among them, apparently --who think that only liberals should be allowed to report the news. Or maybe you believe that only members of party Y should be allowed to report the news when party X is in power
You are a fucking hypocrite.
Not satisfied with ad hominems, you felt it necessary to dive right into full-on insults, eh? That seems pretty pathetic.
What else is there to say? It was brilliant. It had me rolling in the aisle. A satirical tour de force. Two thumbs way up.
your views about the roll of education
Your post was funny. This made it hilarious.
You could at least try to relate your smears to the topic at hand.
If you read the whole thing instead of quoting out of context you would see that that's exactly what I did. I tried to point out every instance of a Goebbels-like rhetorical fallacy of propaganda technique. I caught several, but I may have missed a few. The commenter seems quite expert at their use.
Fake names
We've been over this and over this. Again: the use of pen names among reporters is extremely common. At least three members of the White House press corps use pen names when they publish. Most married female reporters choose to write under their maiden names because that's the name under which they first established themselves. A pen name is not a "fake name," and it's not a disqualification.
It is, however, a damned convenient excuse for you to dismiss somebody you don't like.
And, as far as I can tell, al-Jazeera is not in the briefing room.
You are wrong.
But, hey, it's not my job to answer why the White House is apparently opening the door to everyone carrying a notebook.
Actually it kind of is. Because you're the one saying that they shouldn't. See, I don't know about you, but I believe in a free press. I think that anybody with a notebook should be allowed to sit in on the briefings. Now, the room is only so big, there are only so many hours in the day, there are practical concerns and so on. But keeping somebody from reporting the news for ideological reasons is, as I've said, Nazi propaganda shit.
Please stop your Nazi propaganda shit.
People were looking up 'Gannon's address by searching the whois records, and suddenly went 'What the hell are these domain names doing here?'.
They were dumpster diving. They were trying to dig up dirt to get him shut down. Don't even try to pretend you're not perfectly aware of this.
Who looked up Eason Jordan's home address, after all? Who went dumpster diving on him? Nobody, because the conservatives who wanted him to answer for his accusations weren't interested in smearing the man. They were only interested in the truth.
You're trying to defend the indefensible. Why?
I'm not even going to respond to this topic anymore until you can tell me the name of the person who first posted the list of domains.
Heh. You go right ahead and take your ball and go home. I think the record of this conversation stands perfectly well on its own.
Or is it suddenly off limits to even wonder who people in the briefing room are?
Straw man argument. More Nazi propaganda shit.
Especially when they've been named in connection to the Plame CIA leak?
Guilt by association. More Nazi propaganda shit.
No non-English speaking country defined 'marriage' as anything, as that is an English word.
Semantic games. More Nazi propaganda shit.
Do you have anything to say, or are you just going to reach back into your bag of logical and rhetorical fallacies again?
Your statement was stupid. I called you on it. Why all the fuss?
I'm pretty sure his multimedia rendering solution pap was just cut-and-paste from a Microsoft press release boilerplate.