Exactly. Open / Close brackets. I can interpret and understand 'parenthesis' but I say 'brackets' and everyone in the UK understands me.
See also: - Square Brackets - Curly Brackets - Braces
Consult the hacker dictionary for further terms and international inconsistencies. And no, I can't believe I'm having to actually state that on Slashdot.
Using UK law from a layman's perspective, accessing the secured area of Adobe's site using someone else's credentials technically contravenes the Computer Misuse Act.
Downloading software which includes an EULA granting a licence from the author's publically accessible site does not. It's legal and repudiation of that licence may or may not be possible.
Adobe views the typical small-time private user as (more or less) a loss
A loss-leader perhaps. Or just free advertising/training.
that's why they have Photoshop Elements as a whole separate product
That's a good business decision to make it easy for those that can't afford Photoshop to assuage their conscience while gaining access to some of the key features.
If it makes you feel any better, it took me over a decade of fulltime employment before I could just throw away £104 on a piece of software to support one of my hobbies.
Compared to the £40/year for photo hosting and the £2k in camera equipment that I walk around with, it's not exactly extortionate. But if you're short on funds, the camera should take priority, of course:)
It looks like the crop/rotate/gamma use of Photofiltre is a tiny subset of the tool's capabilities.
Interestingly the rest of them are more comparable to achieving specific photoshopable effects rather than the type of post-processing work that Lightroom makes straightforward.
Reading the website, it's not advertising the capabilities that make Lightroom my tool of choice. And that's coming from someone that hates, loathes and detests Adobe's PDF tools.
They do provide upgrade prices for Lightroom, although they've only bumped major version once since I started using it.
The changes were worth the (relatively minor) fee.
Lightroom is the only software other than the OS and games that I buy. I make contributions to authors of some of the free software I use, but there are free options for everything else I do. There just isn't a free Lightroom equivalent.
(even the commercial alternatives don't work as well for me, although that is likely to include a degree of tool familiarity)
The problem with GIMP is that it lacks features that are absolutely vital to professional graphic designers and professional photographers.
Which is why many professional photographers use Adobe Lightroom. It's better than Photoshop for most photo post-processing activities, including the stuff you do to 90% of your photos as a matter of course.
I have GIMP and Paint.NET and I've used Photoshop and there's only a couple of things that I can't do in Lightroom that I'd want to do. Contrast masking was one, but Lightroom v4.x removed the need for that (with its excellent highlight/shadow sliders) and the other is HDR - which you can acquire far cheaper software than Photoshop to do for you, or use the layers and transparency masks within any of the three products to achieve manually.
I almost never need HDR though, and even when I do I rarely have a tripod available so it's just not worth paying money for.
A lot of professional photographers do have and use Photoshop, but a wedding photographer just wont have the time to go through 2000 images in Photoshop. It's not designed for that sort of workload.
Photoshop basically adds some very nice tools to do photo patching (which is a more manual and less seamless task in Lightroom) and proper image manipulation - rather than merely post-processing.
A professional will benefit from the ability to do things like take out power lines, remove acne, maybe even recompose a shot, but cropping, correcting lens aberration, adjusting the colour balance, saturation and brightness, changing the effective exposure (and the contrast curve), applying colour filters as part of converting to black and white.. these are things I do in Lightroom.
So what's to stop them minting ten $100m platinum coins? What's to stop them minting a trillion dollar titanium coin? Why isn't the issue at hand quantitative easing and not the physical representation of the currency involved?
Frankly what the fuck is with stupid politicians getting all antsy about something fucking irrelevant and ignoring the underlying issue?
I didn't leave home, I just stopped coming back. Five years later I bought my own house (albeit with a fucking big mortgage), and two of those five were at university completing my degree.
Relying on my parents was never something I even considered. If I lose everything I have tomorrow then I'll start again, but I still wont move in with my parents.
I do like them, I just don't want to live with them, and I especially don't want them to have to support me. Shit, I keep telling them to spend all their money before they die.
Gambling is only gambling when the odds are equal for everyone, else it is a scam and those whom the odds favour are lying, cheating and stealing, that's the truth forget the bullshit.
If I put $20 on a roulette table, knowing that a 0 or 00 loses my stake and gives the house its cut, then by your definition I'm being scammed.
By my definition I'm paying a 1/37th or 1/19th (depending where the table is) overhead for a source of entertainment. It's also very clear upfront, so there's no lying, no cheating and no stealing. I will indeed forget the bullshit - please stop writing it here on Slashdot.
Gambling is fun. The fun has value. That value must be included in any financial assessment.
I know I'm going to lose when I put money into slot machines. They have sparkly lights, make interesting noises and give me a momentary sense of anticipation. That's worth a couple of quid. Winning is merely a bonus.
Even the most precision engineered, blackened steel, fully automatic magnified nightsighted silenced sniper rifle doesn't feel as good to the touch as a supremely crafted yew self-bow, or give the tactile feedback when shot.
Incidentally, a woman who carries a firearm is 310 times more likely to successfully fend off a rapist than a woman who does not.
The article you referenced does not mention a 310 times multiplier, sorry.
Further, it says this:
Intoxication is probably the greatest risk factor, apart from simply being female.
[...]
The choice to be armed also functionally precludes getting drunk since trying to decide whether a given situation allows and requires resort to deadly force is a dicey affair when one's judgment is clouded. But as noted above, a woman who is serious about rape prevention will not get drunk except in the safest circumstances anyway, so this reality does not bring significant further restrictions on one's activities.
So it's immediately negated its own argument.
It also disregards the number of women shot with their own gun, the number of people killed accidentally with the gun, the number of people violently resisting without use a firearm and the number of innocent men killed by paranoid women.
People who want to ban guns in America fit into one of the following categories: would-be tyrants, rapists, murderers, muggers, or the useful idiots who allow the previous groups to be successful.
I don't disclose that information to you, because I don't want it distributed. My card company can and does use the information it holds about me. The stores I buy from can and do use the information they hold about me. I'd stop using any of them that share that information with people I haven't authorised.
I do disclose this Slashdot comment to you, and fully expect it to be distributed.
then would you start to believe in private property? ??
I do believe in private property. Creative works released to the public are no longer private. If you make personal recordings of yourself playing a guiter, then I'm happy that someone hacking into your PC to make copies should be prosecuted for that. If you put a video of you playing your guitar onto Youtube then it's out there, and my query is why you expect the rest of the world to pretend it doesn't exist unless they give you money.
It does exist. Why do you think you have the right to deny that existence?
I guess I should've done a class in philosophy at some point:)
Interesting read. The opening section and "The Underlying Reality" actually make the same point that I do, albeit I wasn't quite so eloquent. Leaving aside the political views on regulation, it's a well reasoned and intelligent assessment of currency in multiple forms.
However,
Finally, fractional reserve banking allows the holders and loaners of money to actually create money from nothing. Fractional reserve banking and interest are the most common and insidious means of manipulating money.
I don't think that I agree with this. They don't create money from nothing. They recycle the money that exists, making it possible to use it multiple times concurrently. There is still only a fixed amount of base money in existence.
However, that's merely an aside in amongst an otherwise very good article. Thanks for sharing.
Money is nothing more then an exchange of energy (be it time, knowledge, services, or items). The token that is used to represent those things are irrelevant.
..which is why I get confused when people demand that the token is gold:)
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Open / Close brackets. I can interpret and understand 'parenthesis' but I say 'brackets' and everyone in the UK understands me.
See also:
- Square Brackets
- Curly Brackets
- Braces
Consult the hacker dictionary for further terms and international inconsistencies. And no, I can't believe I'm having to actually state that on Slashdot.
Using UK law from a layman's perspective, accessing the secured area of Adobe's site using someone else's credentials technically contravenes the Computer Misuse Act.
Downloading software which includes an EULA granting a licence from the author's publically accessible site does not. It's legal and repudiation of that licence may or may not be possible.
Adobe views the typical small-time private user as (more or less) a loss
A loss-leader perhaps. Or just free advertising/training.
that's why they have Photoshop Elements as a whole separate product
That's a good business decision to make it easy for those that can't afford Photoshop to assuage their conscience while gaining access to some of the key features.
If it makes you feel any better, it took me over a decade of fulltime employment before I could just throw away £104 on a piece of software to support one of my hobbies.
(price taken from http://www.adobe.com/uk/products/photoshop-lightroom/buying-guide-version-comparison.html so you may get it cheaper elsewhere)
Compared to the £40/year for photo hosting and the £2k in camera equipment that I walk around with, it's not exactly extortionate. But if you're short on funds, the camera should take priority, of course :)
It looks like the crop/rotate/gamma use of Photofiltre is a tiny subset of the tool's capabilities.
Interestingly the rest of them are more comparable to achieving specific photoshopable effects rather than the type of post-processing work that Lightroom makes straightforward.
Reading the website, it's not advertising the capabilities that make Lightroom my tool of choice. And that's coming from someone that hates, loathes and detests Adobe's PDF tools.
They do provide upgrade prices for Lightroom, although they've only bumped major version once since I started using it.
The changes were worth the (relatively minor) fee.
Lightroom is the only software other than the OS and games that I buy. I make contributions to authors of some of the free software I use, but there are free options for everything else I do. There just isn't a free Lightroom equivalent.
(even the commercial alternatives don't work as well for me, although that is likely to include a degree of tool familiarity)
The problem with GIMP is that it lacks features that are absolutely vital to professional graphic designers and professional photographers.
Which is why many professional photographers use Adobe Lightroom. It's better than Photoshop for most photo post-processing activities, including the stuff you do to 90% of your photos as a matter of course.
I have GIMP and Paint.NET and I've used Photoshop and there's only a couple of things that I can't do in Lightroom that I'd want to do. Contrast masking was one, but Lightroom v4.x removed the need for that (with its excellent highlight/shadow sliders) and the other is HDR - which you can acquire far cheaper software than Photoshop to do for you, or use the layers and transparency masks within any of the three products to achieve manually.
I almost never need HDR though, and even when I do I rarely have a tripod available so it's just not worth paying money for.
A lot of professional photographers do have and use Photoshop, but a wedding photographer just wont have the time to go through 2000 images in Photoshop. It's not designed for that sort of workload.
Photoshop basically adds some very nice tools to do photo patching (which is a more manual and less seamless task in Lightroom) and proper image manipulation - rather than merely post-processing.
A professional will benefit from the ability to do things like take out power lines, remove acne, maybe even recompose a shot, but cropping, correcting lens aberration, adjusting the colour balance, saturation and brightness, changing the effective exposure (and the contrast curve), applying colour filters as part of converting to black and white.. these are things I do in Lightroom.
My understanding is that the CS2 release was to allow previous CS2 owners to continue using it after the activation servers have been disabled.
It's a reasonable thing for Adobe to do, it just went a little bit wrong on this occasion.
So what's to stop them minting ten $100m platinum coins? What's to stop them minting a trillion dollar titanium coin? Why isn't the issue at hand quantitative easing and not the physical representation of the currency involved?
Frankly what the fuck is with stupid politicians getting all antsy about something fucking irrelevant and ignoring the underlying issue?
He's almost certainly breaking the law.
Fraud, harassment, causing a public nuisance, loitering, tax evasion..
Ironically if he was any good at the games he'd already have top-end gear and wouldn't need to buy it.
Of course, he could still die in-game with a multi-opponent ambush, but those are more expensive.
I didn't leave home, I just stopped coming back. Five years later I bought my own house (albeit with a fucking big mortgage), and two of those five were at university completing my degree.
Relying on my parents was never something I even considered. If I lose everything I have tomorrow then I'll start again, but I still wont move in with my parents.
I do like them, I just don't want to live with them, and I especially don't want them to have to support me. Shit, I keep telling them to spend all their money before they die.
In the UK beggars have dogs because they get increased money from the government to help feed them.
Also many beggars aren't poor at all. An example from India:
http://www.boldsky.com/insync/life/2010/rich-beggars-india-mumbai-211010.html
It's been reported in the UK too, but I can't be arsed finding links.
bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity
It is indeed. Drop enough bombs and everybody's dead. Instant peace.
When people fuck, the outcome on a population scale is a supply of virgins.
And we *A-L-L* want to live in peace!
I don't. Wars cause great photography.
Gambling is only gambling when the odds are equal for everyone, else it is a scam and those whom the odds favour are lying, cheating and stealing, that's the truth forget the bullshit.
If I put $20 on a roulette table, knowing that a 0 or 00 loses my stake and gives the house its cut, then by your definition I'm being scammed.
By my definition I'm paying a 1/37th or 1/19th (depending where the table is) overhead for a source of entertainment. It's also very clear upfront, so there's no lying, no cheating and no stealing. I will indeed forget the bullshit - please stop writing it here on Slashdot.
Gambling is fun. The fun has value. That value must be included in any financial assessment.
I know I'm going to lose when I put money into slot machines. They have sparkly lights, make interesting noises and give me a momentary sense of anticipation. That's worth a couple of quid. Winning is merely a bonus.
But you could reduce spending on, e.g. driver wages, or you could increase fares to build up the funds to increase your fleet.
When your cost of investment is less than1% of your revenue and you run a nonprofit...
Even the most precision engineered, blackened steel, fully automatic magnified nightsighted silenced sniper rifle doesn't feel as good to the touch as a supremely crafted yew self-bow, or give the tactile feedback when shot.
I guess I should either shoot everyone -- that way I get the bad guys, even if I hit some good guys too
..and the evidence is that even if you only shoot at the bad guys, good guys will get hit.
Few people are 100% accurate in combat situations.
Incidentally, a woman who carries a firearm is 310 times more likely to successfully fend off a rapist than a woman who does not.
The article you referenced does not mention a 310 times multiplier, sorry.
Further, it says this:
Intoxication is probably the greatest risk factor, apart from simply being female.
[...]
The choice to be armed also functionally precludes getting drunk since trying to decide whether a given situation allows and requires resort to deadly force is a dicey affair when one's judgment is clouded. But as noted above, a woman who is serious about rape prevention will not get drunk except in the safest circumstances anyway, so this reality does not bring significant further restrictions on one's activities.
So it's immediately negated its own argument.
It also disregards the number of women shot with their own gun, the number of people killed accidentally with the gun, the number of people violently resisting without use a firearm and the number of innocent men killed by paranoid women.
People who want to ban guns in America fit into one of the following categories: would-be tyrants, rapists, murderers, muggers, or the useful idiots who allow the previous groups to be successful.
Please, don't be so fucking stupid.
Crossbows are indeed easy to acquire, but I think they're clumsy, heavy, unwieldy and ugly. Given me a longbow or compound bow any time.
Unless it's this:
http://www.talismancrossbows.co.uk/crossbows_beast.html
I want that crossbow. I WANT that crossbow. :(
by selling less than 300EUR worth of advertising to go alongside each link it provides.
Not least because I haven't read their terms and conditions, and can link to their site without doing so.
If they don't want it linked, they shouldn't respond to HTTP requests.
I don't disclose that information to you, because I don't want it distributed. My card company can and does use the information it holds about me. The stores I buy from can and do use the information they hold about me. I'd stop using any of them that share that information with people I haven't authorised.
I do disclose this Slashdot comment to you, and fully expect it to be distributed.
then would you start to believe in private property? ??
I do believe in private property. Creative works released to the public are no longer private. If you make personal recordings of yourself playing a guiter, then I'm happy that someone hacking into your PC to make copies should be prosecuted for that. If you put a video of you playing your guitar onto Youtube then it's out there, and my query is why you expect the rest of the world to pretend it doesn't exist unless they give you money.
It does exist. Why do you think you have the right to deny that existence?
I guess I should've done a class in philosophy at some point :)
Interesting read. The opening section and "The Underlying Reality" actually make the same point that I do, albeit I wasn't quite so eloquent. Leaving aside the political views on regulation, it's a well reasoned and intelligent assessment of currency in multiple forms.
However,
Finally, fractional reserve banking allows the holders and loaners of money to actually create money from nothing. Fractional reserve banking and interest are the most common and insidious means of manipulating money.
I don't think that I agree with this. They don't create money from nothing. They recycle the money that exists, making it possible to use it multiple times concurrently. There is still only a fixed amount of base money in existence.
However, that's merely an aside in amongst an otherwise very good article. Thanks for sharing.
Money is nothing more then an exchange of energy (be it time, knowledge, services, or items). The token that is used to represent those things are irrelevant.
..which is why I get confused when people demand that the token is gold :)