If you can't afford Photoshop Elements there are still other options. Saying that using a pirate copy of Photoshop isn't theft because 'they werent going to make money off of me anyway' is a ridiculous rationalization. Could I say the same thing and get away with it if I took a CD from a store? Well damn...I wasn't gonna buy it anyhow. Might as well just take it. Theft is theft.
Apparently you prefer open source. Your preference doesn't make Java poorly designed nor does it make Flash poorly designed.
Care to expand on the following statements: "Now, a poorly designed server-side technology (Java) meets a poorly designed client GUI technology (Flash)."
and
"For "rich internet applications", PHP and DHTML-based toolkits are a better choice right now: easier to train developers, faster development times, better user interfaces. "
Please start quoting proper sources because otherwise the two statements above are non-falsifiable nonsense.
And whatever you do... if you're in web design, never use Paint Shop Pro or Fireworks. Paint Shop Pro will never give you the power to create the graphics you need, and Fireworks renders things so completely wrong that it's jarring and detracts from your site.
This is absolute crap. I can't speak to Paint Shop Pro but I can speak to Fireworks and you're full of crap. Fireworks is designed for creating web graphics and it excels in that respect.
And don't even consider Photoshop Elements for design work. If this is the program I think it is, it is intended for end-user digital photo manipulation (rotate, crop, add borders, colour adjustment, red-eye removal) and is horribly limited in terms of what you can actually achieve with it.
As you say bollocks. Photoshop Elements has many of the features found in Photoshop and would be very useable for graphics work. They have added even more in version 3 which was just released and its far from just an "end-user photo manipulation" application. Here is a review.
The truth is that we've been doing genetic manipulation on our crops for hundreds, probably thousands, of years; a cow, tomato, or watermellon that we consume today is about the most unnatural thing i could think of to eat. Unless one goes out and kills his/her own food from the great outdoors (not much of an option for those of us living in a city (unless we kill people, which i don't view as natural either)) he/she's is probably consuming solely frankenfoods already.
The big difference of course is that in the breeding method of genetic manipulation Nature still has control. When you are inserting fish genes into plants you are on a whole other level. Read The Botany of Desire by Michael Pollan. Good book on these issues.
Actually I stated 'I suspect'. Unsubstantiated yes. Parent poster made no such claims. They were expressed as facts.
That being said I shouldn't have talked about new technologies/industries in regards to reducing emissions. Far too narrow and I was thinking one thing and typing something else.
I also never stated that it was clear that a reduction in emissions would have a significant positive effect on global warming. I hardly need to prove that when I never made the statement. The parent poster stated it as fact. It is up to the parent to prove that, not me.
I am not making the assumption that humans have caused recent global warming. Were you reading another posting perhaps?
There are scientists who are sure we are screwing up the climate and not just stating that we've experienced global warming over the past 18 years Apparently you're not reading the same materials I am. The point of the Kyoto protocol is lost if nobody believes we are the ones responsible (even partially) for global warming.
I don't buy your whole bit of 'reductions in emissions are costly'. There are lots of ways, right now, to cut emissions with minimal added cost to anyone. There are others that would be costly but worthwhile (nuclear power) if people would stop thinking Three Mile Island and look at the research that's been done into newer, cleaner reactor designs.
My argument holds water if you actually were reading it. Apparently you were reading someone else's posting, replying to mine, and putting words in my mouth.
So many assumptions in your posting but then again it's on slashdot so that isn't suprising.
I'll avoid the moronic statement that emissions reduction goals would have no meaningful impact on the environment. There are so many different ways to impact the environment that its just a plain-old-stupid comment to make.
Now, would you please give evidence, as I'm sure you've thoroughly researched the situation, to provide support for the statement "To really "stop polluting" you would drive the economy to a screeching halt."? I'm curious to see your evidence.
How about this statement?
In either case that means lost jobs.
You mean like the current loss of jobs we've already seen? I suspect that research/development/production of new technologies to help reduce emissions would actually create new jobs. I still don't get why it would cost jobs when there are new opportunities available. This is always the argument I hear against doing anything about our impact on the environment and its a bogus argument.
So please understand there is no we might as well argument to be made here, its more of a we should'nt unless type of situation.
Actually its not. There is absolutely no good reason not to start doing something now.
Unless we are reasonbly sure we are damaging ocean currents and screwing up the climate it makes no sense to certainly RUIN many people well being over it.
. Many scientists are sure we are screwing up the climate and I'd bet their credentials to say so are far more extensive than yours.
What is called for is some money and time to conduct real unbiased studies and learn what we can, and to get all the people spewing forth the "bad science" on both sides of this issue to sit down shutup and move over for legitimate study.
So in your infinite wisdom and knowledge you know that all such studies up to this point are biased and illegitimate. You've read them all?
I read an article quite awhile back that was, iirc, from one of the engineers who was involved in the production of that Cher CD and said it was AutoTune. I don't remember enough about it though to come up with proof;)
Frankly, this thing just really needs a good plug-in format, like TDM or VST and it will be a gold-mine- not unlike those god-awful pitch-correction plugins that were reputed to give Cher that plastic effect to her voice (like she doesn't have enough plastic as it is).
Just a nit but that "god-awful pitch-correction plugin" is called AutoTune and it works brilliantly. The "Cher effect" is, from my understanding, AutoTune used as an effect and not as a pitch-corrector per-se. I loved that effect. Sounds very cool.
I wouldnt disagree that there are a decent number of tools available. In my experience though it's just not as well supported as Python. Don't get me wrong...I love Ruby too. I just choose Python because there is better support for it.
You're getting modded as flamebait because you're not sharing your opinion. You're apparently trying to talk for the rest of us. People usually infer that when you start off sentences with 'we'.
You might come here purely for technical-only book reviews. Many others don't. Its even worse when the book is clearly tech-related.
We finally get a real review on here instead of some two paragraph blurb and you're moaning about it. If you don't like it don't read it.
You have a misguided and completely erroneous point but a point nonetheless. "Professional" development needs none of the things you listed. Some might benefit from that list...others may be hindered.
Oh..and you forgot to add Python to your list. Probably a better candidate than Ruby at the moment because of the availability of tools.
Umm...I know for a fact that Oracle uses Apache 1.3x for their java app server. I believe IBM does as well. I don't know of any Java servlet container that doent include an apache plugin. What was your point about Apache and Java again?
Certainly, there are enough people who CAN bear a $700 price tag, to keep Adobe in business. But not everyone can bear a $700 price tag. The price tag determines the size of the market (minus piracy).
And not everyone needs Photoshop. Most of what is in Photoshop is complete overkill for what most people want to do. I suggest Paintshop Pro or Photoshop Elements...both are very capable programs and very inexpensive.
Thats what educational pricing is for. If you're in school or connected to a school the price is significantly less. Or...buy an older version on ebay. Lots of options out there. You don't need the latest and greatest to learn Photoshop. The essentials that you *do* need to know have been around since v4 (maybe even 3...dont remember which version had layers first).
Photoshop upgrade is $169. I don't see how that is so damned expensive. On top of that there is no requirement to upgrade every single release. Skip one or two then upgrade.
I'm getting really tired of hearing this comment. First off SWT isn't anywhere near Swing in the functionality department. Not even close. Is it faster? Yes in *some* cases. In the cases where there isn't a native OS widget then it emulates the widget and you're then in the same area as Swing yet with a crappy API to boot. No thanks. Secondly, Swing is not slow if programming properly. I suggest looking at the interfaces of IntelliJ IDEA, the tools from JGoodies (http://www.jgoodies.com), or JEdit to see what is possible with a Swing UI that is programmed properly.
By calling Swing a crappy library you show that you really haven't used it all that much if at all and are just puking tired, second-hand information.
Fox News? They dare to be balanced and accurate. Those who think that the media should only be left-wing (a la CNN) just can't stand this. You just don't get it.
I really hope you're kidding. Fox News is about as 'balanced and accurate' as CNN...ie: they're not either. Major US media can't afford to be balanced and accurate because they'd lose their reader/viewership.
Concerns involving the purity of drinking water should be addressed to your water department. But even then, the standards they have to meet are not very strict, and they will probably tell you the same thing.
In the US that is pure and unadulterated bullshit. There are strict federal water standards that have to be met by all municipal water departments (Safe Drinking Water Act). In fact I get a report every year from the local water department of the water quality and testing results.
I also "purify" my water via a water filter but its a taste matter. I prefer filtered tap water for cooking and coffee but I'm not concerned about the quality of the tap water.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can't afford Photoshop Elements there are still other options. Saying that using a pirate copy of Photoshop isn't theft because 'they werent going to make money off of me anyway' is a ridiculous rationalization. Could I say the same thing and get away with it if I took a CD from a store? Well damn...I wasn't gonna buy it anyhow. Might as well just take it. Theft is theft.
Apparently you prefer open source. Your preference doesn't make Java poorly designed nor does it make Flash poorly designed.
Care to expand on the following statements:
"Now, a poorly designed server-side technology (Java) meets a poorly designed client GUI technology (Flash)."
and
"For "rich internet applications", PHP and DHTML-based toolkits are a better choice right now: easier to train developers, faster development times, better user interfaces. "
Please start quoting proper sources because otherwise the two statements above are non-falsifiable nonsense.
This is absolute crap. I can't speak to Paint Shop Pro but I can speak to Fireworks and you're full of crap. Fireworks is designed for creating web graphics and it excels in that respect.
As you say bollocks. Photoshop Elements has many of the features found in Photoshop and would be very useable for graphics work. They have added even more in version 3 which was just released and its far from just an "end-user photo manipulation" application. Here is a review.
The big difference of course is that in the breeding method of genetic manipulation Nature still has control. When you are inserting fish genes into plants you are on a whole other level. Read The Botany of Desire by Michael Pollan. Good book on these issues.
I don't recall Kerry saying he was a war criminal. Care to provide a link to a credible source?
Starbucks doesn't charge $4 for a cup of regular coffee. They don't charge $4 for the tall size of most of their 'sissfied crap' either.
Actually I stated 'I suspect'. Unsubstantiated yes. Parent poster made no such claims. They were expressed as facts.
That being said I shouldn't have talked about new technologies/industries in regards to reducing emissions. Far too narrow and I was thinking one thing and typing something else.
I also never stated that it was clear that a reduction in emissions would have a significant positive effect on global warming. I hardly need to prove that when I never made the statement. The parent poster stated it as fact. It is up to the parent to prove that, not me.
I am not making the assumption that humans have caused recent global warming. Were you reading another posting perhaps?
There are scientists who are sure we are screwing up the climate and not just stating that we've experienced global warming over the past 18 years Apparently you're not reading the same materials I am. The point of the Kyoto protocol is lost if nobody believes we are the ones responsible (even partially) for global warming.
I don't buy your whole bit of 'reductions in emissions are costly'. There are lots of ways, right now, to cut emissions with minimal added cost to anyone. There are others that would be costly but worthwhile (nuclear power) if people would stop thinking Three Mile Island and look at the research that's been done into newer, cleaner reactor designs.
My argument holds water if you actually were reading it. Apparently you were reading someone else's posting, replying to mine, and putting words in my mouth.
Nice try but it didn't work.
I'll avoid the moronic statement that emissions reduction goals would have no meaningful impact on the environment. There are so many different ways to impact the environment that its just a plain-old-stupid comment to make.
Now, would you please give evidence, as I'm sure you've thoroughly researched the situation, to provide support for the statement "To really "stop polluting" you would drive the economy to a screeching halt."? I'm curious to see your evidence.
How about this statement?
In either case that means lost jobs.
You mean like the current loss of jobs we've already seen? I suspect that research/development/production of new technologies to help reduce emissions would actually create new jobs. I still don't get why it would cost jobs when there are new opportunities available. This is always the argument I hear against doing anything about our impact on the environment and its a bogus argument.
So please understand there is no we might as well argument to be made here, its more of a we should'nt unless type of situation.
Actually its not. There is absolutely no good reason not to start doing something now.
Unless we are reasonbly sure we are damaging ocean currents and screwing up the climate it makes no sense to certainly RUIN many people well being over it.
. Many scientists are sure we are screwing up the climate and I'd bet their credentials to say so are far more extensive than yours.
What is called for is some money and time to conduct real unbiased studies and learn what we can, and to get all the people spewing forth the "bad science" on both sides of this issue to sit down shutup and move over for legitimate study.
So in your infinite wisdom and knowledge you know that all such studies up to this point are biased and illegitimate. You've read them all?
FYI - Windows doesn't ship with the Microsoft VM anymore. New machines from Dell, and others ship with the Sun JRE.
Yes. The point is what should count but here in the real world it doesn't quite work that way. It's only taken me 33 years to figure that out.
I read an article quite awhile back that was, iirc, from one of the engineers who was involved in the production of that Cher CD and said it was AutoTune. I don't remember enough about it though to come up with proof ;)
Just a nit but that "god-awful pitch-correction plugin" is called AutoTune and it works brilliantly. The "Cher effect" is, from my understanding, AutoTune used as an effect and not as a pitch-corrector per-se. I loved that effect. Sounds very cool.
Why exactly is it 'such a waste'?
I wouldnt disagree that there are a decent number of tools available. In my experience though it's just not as well supported as Python. Don't get me wrong...I love Ruby too. I just choose Python because there is better support for it.
You're getting modded as flamebait because you're not sharing your opinion. You're apparently trying to talk for the rest of us. People usually infer that when you start off sentences with 'we'.
You might come here purely for technical-only book reviews. Many others don't. Its even worse when the book is clearly tech-related.
We finally get a real review on here instead of some two paragraph blurb and you're moaning about it. If you don't like it don't read it.
You have a misguided and completely erroneous point but a point nonetheless. "Professional" development needs none of the things you listed. Some might benefit from that list...others may be hindered.
Oh..and you forgot to add Python to your list. Probably a better candidate than Ruby at the moment because of the availability of tools.
Umm...I know for a fact that Oracle uses Apache 1.3x for their java app server. I believe IBM does as well. I don't know of any Java servlet container that doent include an apache plugin. What was your point about Apache and Java again?
And not everyone needs Photoshop. Most of what is in Photoshop is complete overkill for what most people want to do. I suggest Paintshop Pro or Photoshop Elements...both are very capable programs and very inexpensive.
Thats what educational pricing is for. If you're in school or connected to a school the price is significantly less. Or...buy an older version on ebay. Lots of options out there. You don't need the latest and greatest to learn Photoshop. The essentials that you *do* need to know have been around since v4 (maybe even 3...dont remember which version had layers first).
Photoshop upgrade is $169. I don't see how that is so damned expensive. On top of that there is no requirement to upgrade every single release. Skip one or two then upgrade.
I'm getting really tired of hearing this comment. First off SWT isn't anywhere near Swing in the functionality department. Not even close. Is it faster? Yes in *some* cases. In the cases where there isn't a native OS widget then it emulates the widget and you're then in the same area as Swing yet with a crappy API to boot. No thanks. Secondly, Swing is not slow if programming properly. I suggest looking at the interfaces of IntelliJ IDEA, the tools from JGoodies (http://www.jgoodies.com), or JEdit to see what is possible with a Swing UI that is programmed properly.
By calling Swing a crappy library you show that you really haven't used it all that much if at all and are just puking tired, second-hand information.
I really hope you're kidding. Fox News is about as 'balanced and accurate' as CNN...ie: they're not either. Major US media can't afford to be balanced and accurate because they'd lose their reader/viewership.
It doesnt vary. Its a federal requirement. There are standards that have to be met.
In the US that is pure and unadulterated bullshit. There are strict federal water standards that have to be met by all municipal water departments (Safe Drinking Water Act). In fact I get a report every year from the local water department of the water quality and testing results.
I also "purify" my water via a water filter but its a taste matter. I prefer filtered tap water for cooking and coffee but I'm not concerned about the quality of the tap water.