Offtopic, but what's the deal with all this "Ruby is the latest fad" business? When a language has been around for over a decade, doesn't it qualify as something slightly more than a craze? It came out about the same time as the initial public release of PHP - 2 years before development on PHP 3 even started. PHP is one of the most widely-known web scripting technologies. It came out a year before ASP was released and 7 years before ASP.NET. And Python came out 5 years before Ruby, it's older than Java or Visual Basic.
Or are all these fads, too? Is nothing real except Scheme, Smalltalk, and Tcl for scripting, and C for everything else?
Re:Comments from people who actually create Creati
on
Beginning GIMP
·
· Score: 1
I guess it's technically true to say that general blending is a type of layer effect (insofar as it's an effect that can be applied to layers!), but unfortunately it doesn't cover all of the layer effects I use. Blending options aside (of which the 'general blending' that GIMP lists under 'mode' is only part), Photoshop has 10 dynamic layer effects built into it (stroke, bevel, etc.) There are no filter files or other external files to support these effects, they are part of the application. I just double checked in Windows.
Rather than using destructive filters, I always turn to layer effects because they're dynamically rendered (change with layer changes), non-destructive, and can easily be tweaked. The closest GIMP plugin I found, which is missing the essential dynamic rendering, was this: http://registry.gimp.org/plugin?id=6988
PSPI says it is for 3rd party filters. Photoshop's layer effects are built right into the app. They aren't the same as filters (which are destructive and most of which GIMP already supports). "Styles" (grouped layer effects) can be saved to downloadable files, but unless GIMP supports the underlying layer effect enging, the style files will be useless.
I tried using GIMP with Inkscape for a while, but gave up out of frustration when I realized how much it was disturbing my workflow because of this one missing feature! When I was asked to "make this box a little smaller and shift its drop shadow to the left", I had to delete several layers generated by the above plugin, select the remaining effect layers and the one containing the box, move and resize them all, then reapply the plugin with a different angle on the drop shadow. All I had to do in Photoshop was move and resize the box and change the drop-shadow angle - dynamic rendering took care of the rest for me.
It's a fantastic feature, and I'm sure GIMP's developers will adopt it when they get around to it. When they do, I'll give serious thought to switching my main development environment to Linux.
I'm normally opposed to so-called "grammar Nazism" on/., but since your unjustified piece of flamebait breaks some of the most elementary standards of usage, you'll forgive me for not godding my stupid.
Of course, I knew what you intended to say. Just be cautioned not to call down idiot when you are in danger or being perceived as such yourself. Or, to regurgitate the classic adage: "Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house."
I'm curious what it is you claim to have read in the article that could have prevented my little joke. Admittedly, I didn't read the full study (linked PDF at the foot of the article), but I just glanced through it and didn't see anything along the lines of "People who make jokes about CEO salaries obviously haven't read this and obviously need to god their stupids."
Considering the adult (as well as illegal) content openly displayed on such sites, this isn't an unreasonable metaphor.
Don't get your knickers in a twist
on
Beginning GIMP
·
· Score: 1
Again, when did you decide this? To elaborate: that's interesting, my dictionary doesn't list that definition, which dictionary do you use, where can I read more about this definition of "gimp"?
It's acceptable to decide things, by the way. In fact, it's quite preferable to defending things you haven't decided. I'm not sure what definition of "decide" you think I'm using that would cause you to get your knickers so twisted.
Validators and especially specs are the only reason for anyone, anywhere, ever to visit w3.org. Without published specs, w3.org and the W3C itself would be very useless. XHTML and CSS are the most popular specs, but you'll probably start using others as you start developing more involved projects.
Nope, Internet Explorer would explain why you're spending too much time fiddling around with a CSS file.
Re:Comments from people who actually create Creati
on
Beginning GIMP
·
· Score: 1
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "mode" just control transparency modes? By "layer effects", I meant effects like stroke, emboss, bevel, drop shadow, glow, texture, etc. that can be applied and altered dynamically to objects and layers in Photoshop and Fireworks. Not filters, either; rather than being applied permanently to an image like GIMP filters, they are rendered without altering the original bitmap so they can easily be removed or tweaked. For that reason they're sometimes called "non-destructive filters" or "non-destructive effects". Hopefully that's a better explanation of what I'm looking for. I use them a lot for web design and would hate to work in an app that only supported permanent/destructive filters.
Thanks all the same for your response. And thanks for the PSPI tip, too!
Re:Comments from people who actually create Creati
on
Beginning GIMP
·
· Score: 1
I mentioned this in a comment elsewhere in this thread, but I wonder if you might have a solution: one of the things holding me back from switching from Photoshop/Fireworks to GIMP is the latter's lack of layer effects. I found a GIMP plugin that emulates Photoshop-style layer effects, but they aren't very good, aren't dynamic, can't be easily tweaked, and there's no preview.
Does GIMP actually have identical functionality hidden somewhere?
Re:Comments from people who actually create Creati
on
Beginning GIMP
·
· Score: 1
When did you decide this?
Re:Comments from people who actually create Creati
on
Beginning GIMP
·
· Score: 1
Someone made a start on a "Cocoa GIMP". They called it "Seashore".
I would love to be able to say I did this or that design using only GIMP and Inkscape, but the truth is I rely too much on Photoshop and Fireworks features that are still missing in GIMP. Especially dynamic object and layer effects. I found a GIMP plugin that applies layer effects emulating Photoshop's, but it has no preview and isn't dynamic - more of a macro than a layer effect. (By "dynamic", I mean that after applying the "stroke" layer effect to a bitmap in Photoshop, my modifications of that layer will affect the shape of that "stroke"). It may sound piffling, but when I had to delete several layers and reapply the macro because a client wanted a couple of effects tweaked, I found myself reaching for Fireworks again.
Having said that, thanks to UFRaw GIMP has better support for my digital camera than Photoshop CS (I'm waiting for a Universal release before upgrading). Since my digital camera is the Fujifilm S5200, by "better support", I mean "support period".
Having their reputation damaged by a human-chopping robot could drive its manufacturer out of business as well as the lumberyard. That would harm many shareholders, company employees, their families...
From a recent interview with NASA Discovery team maintenance staff member:
"Yep, them there space trucker fellers been flyin' Ol' Betty since way back when, yessir. Now she may not have all them new silly-cone chips or them there onboard DVD players folks always talkin' 'bout, but you take her for a spin, I dare say she'll surprise you. Got some bite under the bonnet yet, that's what ol' Mark Kelly said when he first flew her. Jerry Morgan, he chimes in, he says, 'Yep, that's from when we picked up them snakes infestation back in Florida!' He ain't too impressed with Ol' Betty. Says flying a shuttle on a Commodore 64 is just plum wrong. Heh, o' course the gang always up to their li'l tricks. They put a bumber sticker on back says: 'My Other Shuttle's The Enterprise!' Had a big ol' laugh about it 'til ol' Mikey Griffin comes along. 'Boys,' he says, 'You better take that sticker awf.' Well, Lisa, she got quite the outspoken way of putting things. She say, 'Boss, we better not do that. That right there is a load-bearing bumper sticker!' Yessir. I daresay pretty soon we'll all be gettin' replaced by them new-fangled unmanned probes the Reds been cookin' up. I don't much care for that. Nossir, I don't..."
All the Linux DEs I've seen could use rethinking and refining, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them unusable. Especially not in comparison to Windows. In GNOME, I may have to run through the System menu a couple of times to find the right the right setting (especially if its a networking tool, all of which are named rather ambiguously), but at least I know the setting is in that menu and not stashed away in some "Administrative Tools" or "System Tools" or other submenu!
My brother in law sat down at my Ubuntu desktop the other day. First time he'd used GNOME. He didn't express the least bit of unfamiliarity with the dekstop he was presented with. When an update flashed up, he knew exactly what to do and what was happening. My brother in law is a smart guy, and I'm not saying he or I represent most computer users, but I find it hard to believe that GNOME or KDE would be seen as inaccessible.
The same error? It would be especially alarming as we're talking about the effects of a vandal.
But an error? Any error? That's a given.
I'm not saying that the difference in reliability between Britannica and Wikipedia is as small as one study has shown, just that there is a big difference between "reliable" and "error free". Quoting either the Britannica or Wikipedia in book or paper is a sin of lazy researchers. They're encyclopedias. Their purpose is to offer a general overview of many subjects. Everything is a lot of stuff: too much to always be right.
Because every good Wikipedia article cites its references. Good references will have an ISBN or hyperlink attached. Those references can then be studied and judged on their own merit.
Suddenly, a lot more of your research paper has been done for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Not if Torvalds has anything to do with it.
And he does.
It runs Linux/GNU...
Offtopic, but what's the deal with all this "Ruby is the latest fad" business? When a language has been around for over a decade, doesn't it qualify as something slightly more than a craze? It came out about the same time as the initial public release of PHP - 2 years before development on PHP 3 even started. PHP is one of the most widely-known web scripting technologies. It came out a year before ASP was released and 7 years before ASP.NET. And Python came out 5 years before Ruby, it's older than Java or Visual Basic.
Or are all these fads, too? Is nothing real except Scheme, Smalltalk, and Tcl for scripting, and C for everything else?
I guess it's technically true to say that general blending is a type of layer effect (insofar as it's an effect that can be applied to layers!), but unfortunately it doesn't cover all of the layer effects I use. Blending options aside (of which the 'general blending' that GIMP lists under 'mode' is only part), Photoshop has 10 dynamic layer effects built into it (stroke, bevel, etc.) There are no filter files or other external files to support these effects, they are part of the application. I just double checked in Windows.
Rather than using destructive filters, I always turn to layer effects because they're dynamically rendered (change with layer changes), non-destructive, and can easily be tweaked. The closest GIMP plugin I found, which is missing the essential dynamic rendering, was this: http://registry.gimp.org/plugin?id=6988
PSPI says it is for 3rd party filters. Photoshop's layer effects are built right into the app. They aren't the same as filters (which are destructive and most of which GIMP already supports). "Styles" (grouped layer effects) can be saved to downloadable files, but unless GIMP supports the underlying layer effect enging, the style files will be useless.
I tried using GIMP with Inkscape for a while, but gave up out of frustration when I realized how much it was disturbing my workflow because of this one missing feature! When I was asked to "make this box a little smaller and shift its drop shadow to the left", I had to delete several layers generated by the above plugin, select the remaining effect layers and the one containing the box, move and resize them all, then reapply the plugin with a different angle on the drop shadow. All I had to do in Photoshop was move and resize the box and change the drop-shadow angle - dynamic rendering took care of the rest for me.
It's a fantastic feature, and I'm sure GIMP's developers will adopt it when they get around to it. When they do, I'll give serious thought to switching my main development environment to Linux.
I'm normally opposed to so-called "grammar Nazism" on /., but since your unjustified piece of flamebait breaks some of the most elementary standards of usage, you'll forgive me for not godding my stupid.
Of course, I knew what you intended to say. Just be cautioned not to call down idiot when you are in danger or being perceived as such yourself. Or, to regurgitate the classic adage: "Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house."
I'm curious what it is you claim to have read in the article that could have prevented my little joke. Admittedly, I didn't read the full study (linked PDF at the foot of the article), but I just glanced through it and didn't see anything along the lines of "People who make jokes about CEO salaries obviously haven't read this and obviously need to god their stupids."
Darn, you saw right through my alias. How do you always do that, Bill?
BTW, Laurene wants to know if you guys are still up for lunch on Sunday? Pick you up from your place about 12?
If correlation==cause, does that mean Steve Jobs (current salary: $1) would head a list of the world's best CEOs?
Considering the adult (as well as illegal) content openly displayed on such sites, this isn't an unreasonable metaphor.
Again, when did you decide this? To elaborate: that's interesting, my dictionary doesn't list that definition, which dictionary do you use, where can I read more about this definition of "gimp"?
It's acceptable to decide things, by the way. In fact, it's quite preferable to defending things you haven't decided. I'm not sure what definition of "decide" you think I'm using that would cause you to get your knickers so twisted.
Validators and especially specs are the only reason for anyone, anywhere, ever to visit w3.org. Without published specs, w3.org and the W3C itself would be very useless. XHTML and CSS are the most popular specs, but you'll probably start using others as you start developing more involved projects.
Nope, Internet Explorer would explain why you're spending too much time fiddling around with a CSS file.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "mode" just control transparency modes? By "layer effects", I meant effects like stroke, emboss, bevel, drop shadow, glow, texture, etc. that can be applied and altered dynamically to objects and layers in Photoshop and Fireworks. Not filters, either; rather than being applied permanently to an image like GIMP filters, they are rendered without altering the original bitmap so they can easily be removed or tweaked. For that reason they're sometimes called "non-destructive filters" or "non-destructive effects". Hopefully that's a better explanation of what I'm looking for. I use them a lot for web design and would hate to work in an app that only supported permanent/destructive filters.
Thanks all the same for your response. And thanks for the PSPI tip, too!
I mentioned this in a comment elsewhere in this thread, but I wonder if you might have a solution: one of the things holding me back from switching from Photoshop/Fireworks to GIMP is the latter's lack of layer effects. I found a GIMP plugin that emulates Photoshop-style layer effects, but they aren't very good, aren't dynamic, can't be easily tweaked, and there's no preview.
Does GIMP actually have identical functionality hidden somewhere?
When did you decide this?
Someone made a start on a "Cocoa GIMP". They called it "Seashore".
http://seashore.sourceforge.net/
Doesn't really have enough of GIMP's features to make it a viable alternative, though.
I would love to be able to say I did this or that design using only GIMP and Inkscape, but the truth is I rely too much on Photoshop and Fireworks features that are still missing in GIMP. Especially dynamic object and layer effects. I found a GIMP plugin that applies layer effects emulating Photoshop's, but it has no preview and isn't dynamic - more of a macro than a layer effect. (By "dynamic", I mean that after applying the "stroke" layer effect to a bitmap in Photoshop, my modifications of that layer will affect the shape of that "stroke"). It may sound piffling, but when I had to delete several layers and reapply the macro because a client wanted a couple of effects tweaked, I found myself reaching for Fireworks again.
Having said that, thanks to UFRaw GIMP has better support for my digital camera than Photoshop CS (I'm waiting for a Universal release before upgrading). Since my digital camera is the Fujifilm S5200, by "better support", I mean "support period".
And this has what to do with science?
Having their reputation damaged by a human-chopping robot could drive its manufacturer out of business as well as the lumberyard. That would harm many shareholders, company employees, their families...
From a recent interview with NASA Discovery team maintenance staff member:
"Yep, them there space trucker fellers been flyin' Ol' Betty since way back when, yessir. Now she may not have all them new silly-cone chips or them there onboard DVD players folks always talkin' 'bout, but you take her for a spin, I dare say she'll surprise you. Got some bite under the bonnet yet, that's what ol' Mark Kelly said when he first flew her. Jerry Morgan, he chimes in, he says, 'Yep, that's from when we picked up them snakes infestation back in Florida!' He ain't too impressed with Ol' Betty. Says flying a shuttle on a Commodore 64 is just plum wrong. Heh, o' course the gang always up to their li'l tricks. They put a bumber sticker on back says: 'My Other Shuttle's The Enterprise!' Had a big ol' laugh about it 'til ol' Mikey Griffin comes along. 'Boys,' he says, 'You better take that sticker awf.' Well, Lisa, she got quite the outspoken way of putting things. She say, 'Boss, we better not do that. That right there is a load-bearing bumper sticker!' Yessir. I daresay pretty soon we'll all be gettin' replaced by them new-fangled unmanned probes the Reds been cookin' up. I don't much care for that. Nossir, I don't..."
"When we do screw up this planet for good, there's only one way to go and that's up."
Apparently, Earth is at the bottom of the universe.
Wikipedia? Pish posh! Unless I see it in Britannica, it probably didn't happen!
Thanks for the info.
Most users are unable to use Linux? As in Ubuntu?
All the Linux DEs I've seen could use rethinking and refining, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them unusable. Especially not in comparison to Windows. In GNOME, I may have to run through the System menu a couple of times to find the right the right setting (especially if its a networking tool, all of which are named rather ambiguously), but at least I know the setting is in that menu and not stashed away in some "Administrative Tools" or "System Tools" or other submenu!
My brother in law sat down at my Ubuntu desktop the other day. First time he'd used GNOME. He didn't express the least bit of unfamiliarity with the dekstop he was presented with. When an update flashed up, he knew exactly what to do and what was happening. My brother in law is a smart guy, and I'm not saying he or I represent most computer users, but I find it hard to believe that GNOME or KDE would be seen as inaccessible.
The same error? It would be especially alarming as we're talking about the effects of a vandal.
But an error? Any error? That's a given.
I'm not saying that the difference in reliability between Britannica and Wikipedia is as small as one study has shown, just that there is a big difference between "reliable" and "error free". Quoting either the Britannica or Wikipedia in book or paper is a sin of lazy researchers. They're encyclopedias. Their purpose is to offer a general overview of many subjects. Everything is a lot of stuff: too much to always be right.
Because every good Wikipedia article cites its references. Good references will have an ISBN or hyperlink attached. Those references can then be studied and judged on their own merit.
Suddenly, a lot more of your research paper has been done for you.
Totally! Why don't all newspapers use hyperlinks?
Only if you use a striped array.