Another reason could be that those professionals learned Photoshop in school , with the idea that companies would require this. And , since companies already use Photoshop , they indeed require knowledge of Photoshop.
And , since everyone in the company is using Photoshop , switching to GIMP would costs the company money ( if though GIMP is free , it still costs money for the people to learn it ).
So it's a vicious cycle , which has more to do with decisions taken in the past , then with the product itself.
Offcourse , a new company could very well choose GIMP as it's image editor of choice . But then they would have to teach them how to use it , because i don't think there are schools teaching GIMP.
If schools were teaching GIMP rather than Photoshop , the situation would be reversed.
Problem is that some of these "missing features" could very well by patented , so they can't be implemented in open source projects , even if they would want too.
That begs the question : if the industry isn't interested in it , is there much point in it already. Is there much point in sending probes to Mars already ? Will the results we find there actually do something for us now , or only for much , much later ?
In my opinion , we should first look at our own planet , which has more than enough problems to take care of already . Unless we can find clues on how to do that on Mars , i don't see the point in going there yet.
I suggest that's an engineer-centric point of view. There's also people who (a) use problems as a point of marketing/selling/provocation (without ever fixing them), and (b) invent/mythologize brand new problems for like purpose.
"Even if you feel that you are correct and the opposition is overreacting - sometimes it's in your own best interest to avoid upsetting other people. "
That is how you can turn a democracy into a dictatorship.
It's completely like that here in Europe : if you protest something the EU doesn't like , they will make it very clear you should "avoid upsetting people , aka shut up " . Just look at the EU constitution/Lisbon treaty : people spoke up against them , the EU basically told them to shut up , and they just carried on with implementing it , as if nothing happened.
Granted , it's a bit far fetched for a game , but it's the same idea : EA is reacting out of fear , not because they care so much ( then they wouldn't have put it in there in the first place ) .
Indeed , it is no different , as they should not censor tv shows either . I agree with the GP : you have the power to turn off the TV . You just need to find the remote.
What if i select something in my yard as a password , and then someone decides to move that object ? Google earth won't know the object has moved , it will still expect me to click that location.
And if it would be easy to find by just clicking randomly on my yard , it's not very good security either .
It's not a question of opinion : software patents create monopolies , and monopolies are bad for the public ( and good for corporation having the monopoly , but bad for other corporations ). That is the way it is.
However , if you have stock in the company which has a monopoly , the monopoly is good for you . In every other case , it's not good for you.
Money doesn't just magically appear on the market : if you gain money through your stocks , it's because someone else is losing money.
That would work if everyone was allowed to same amount of stock ( it would be interesting , as the people could then control not only the government , but also the market ) Now , the rich citizens have more stock , and as such , more power.
You can compare it with some people being allowed to vote multiple times , while others only get 1 vote.
. And if you argue that corporations have obligations (obey the lay,pay taxes and incur in expenses for their day to day operations), then they are also entitled of rights. As much as you would like to do so for the sake of building strawmen, you can't divorce obligations from rights.
I agree on principle , however : As long as companies can bend the law ( by lobbying to have laws changed ) , they have the ability to get more rights , while having less obligations.
But this is not the fault of the companies . They just try to get the maximum of out it , like anyone else . The problem is with the government , who allows this to happen.
Which is why Corporations, Rocks, Trees, and other things should all be treated the same - no rights. If you don't have a right to vote in the ballot box, neither should you have any of the other rights.
I disagree : trees have rights too . Just because they can't speak up , doesn't mean everyone should be free to do as they please with them.
This also raises my eyebrows : "political interference which threatens to break it up" .
What do they understand by 'political interference" ?
An internet Treaty , regardless of it's intentions , is in a sense political interference on it's own ( as obviously , they want to enforce something on the internet , if only that everything remains the same ). Don't get me wrong : there may be a need for regulations ( net neutrality ) , but then they should state this more clearly.
Not completely : just because it's open , doesn't mean it's not allowed to impose certain standards. It kind of depends on the definition of open source.
If we talk about GPL than you are allowed to change it in any way you want , regardless of the quality . That's the reason GPL contains a clause that it offers no warranty , unless otherwise specified.
So it all depends on the definition of open . The fact that there are numerous 'open' license variations proves that this is not so clear.
There's no way to know that. Innocent until proven guilty. And since we don't get to see a copy of the text , we can only assume innocence. I hate it when people play the racism card without evidence.
But banning someone for life , for this , is ridiculous. I mean , he is a teenager , reading about conspiracy theories and believing them . In a few years , he would have realized what the real world is about , and would feel silly about sending the mail.
Offcourse , getting threatened by the FBI for sending the email doesn't help in this case . It probably just reinforces the view that something ugly going on. In fact , it even makes me wonder.
- US is one of the most powerful countries , so more people are interested - You are comparing a big country (US) , with smaller countries ( with the exception of Russia and China ) - It's easier to leak information on the US than on China, so there's more to read about.
the Animal Rights movement has basically accomplished nothing
Your comment shows you know nothing about animal rights movements. Their work has been immeasurably valuable , both in actively stopping animal cruelty , and preventing it .
I hope they never read your comment , because we need people like them ( it's not like you are going to do anything about animal cruelty right , better to have someone else do it for you ).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually , You could get in serious trouble by taking pictures of me , or my stuff , without my consent.
Another reason could be that those professionals learned Photoshop in school , with the idea that companies would require this.
And , since companies already use Photoshop , they indeed require knowledge of Photoshop.
And , since everyone in the company is using Photoshop , switching to GIMP would costs the company money ( if though GIMP is free , it still costs money for the people to learn it ).
So it's a vicious cycle , which has more to do with decisions taken in the past , then with the product itself.
Offcourse , a new company could very well choose GIMP as it's image editor of choice . But then they would have to teach them how to use it , because i don't think there are schools teaching GIMP.
If schools were teaching GIMP rather than Photoshop , the situation would be reversed.
Problem is that some of these "missing features" could very well by patented , so they can't be implemented in open source projects , even if they would want too.
That begs the question : if the industry isn't interested in it , is there much point in it already.
Is there much point in sending probes to Mars already ? Will the results we find there actually do something for us now , or only for much , much later ?
In my opinion , we should first look at our own planet , which has more than enough problems to take care of already . Unless we can find clues on how to do that on Mars , i don't see the point in going there yet.
I suggest that's an engineer-centric point of view. There's also people who (a) use problems as a point of marketing/selling/provocation (without ever fixing them), and (b) invent/mythologize brand new problems for like purpose.
That not engineering , that's consulting.
"Even if you feel that you are correct and the opposition is overreacting - sometimes it's in your own best interest to avoid upsetting other people. "
That is how you can turn a democracy into a dictatorship.
It's completely like that here in Europe : if you protest something the EU doesn't like , they will make it very clear you should "avoid upsetting people , aka shut up " .
Just look at the EU constitution/Lisbon treaty : people spoke up against them , the EU basically told them to shut up , and they just carried on with implementing it , as if nothing happened.
Granted , it's a bit far fetched for a game , but it's the same idea : EA is reacting out of fear , not because they care so much ( then they wouldn't have put it in there in the first place ) .
Indeed , it is no different , as they should not censor tv shows either .
I agree with the GP : you have the power to turn off the TV . You just need to find the remote.
I wish i had mod points for you.
yikes , how come there are so many craters there ( first link ) ?
That actually makes me wonder :
What if i select something in my yard as a password , and then someone decides to move that object ?
Google earth won't know the object has moved , it will still expect me to click that location.
And if it would be easy to find by just clicking randomly on my yard , it's not very good security either .
It's not a question of opinion : software patents create monopolies , and monopolies are bad for the public ( and good for corporation having the monopoly , but bad for other corporations ).
That is the way it is.
However , if you have stock in the company which has a monopoly , the monopoly is good for you . In every other case , it's not good for you.
Money doesn't just magically appear on the market : if you gain money through your stocks , it's because someone else is losing money.
That would work if everyone was allowed to same amount of stock ( it would be interesting , as the people could then control not only the government , but also the market )
Now , the rich citizens have more stock , and as such , more power.
You can compare it with some people being allowed to vote multiple times , while others only get 1 vote.
. And if you argue that corporations have obligations (obey the lay ,pay taxes and incur in expenses for their day to day operations), then they are also entitled of rights. As much as you would like to do so for the sake of building strawmen, you can't divorce obligations from rights.
I agree on principle , however :
As long as companies can bend the law ( by lobbying to have laws changed ) , they have the ability to get more rights , while having less obligations.
But this is not the fault of the companies . They just try to get the maximum of out it , like anyone else . The problem is with the government , who allows this to happen.
Which is why Corporations, Rocks, Trees, and other things should all be treated the same - no rights. If you don't have a right to vote in the ballot box, neither should you have any of the other rights.
I disagree : trees have rights too . Just because they can't speak up , doesn't mean everyone should be free to do as they please with them.
Mod parent up.
This also raises my eyebrows : "political interference which threatens to break it up" .
What do they understand by 'political interference" ?
An internet Treaty , regardless of it's intentions , is in a sense political interference on it's own ( as obviously , they want to enforce something on the internet , if only that everything remains the same ).
Don't get me wrong : there may be a need for regulations ( net neutrality ) , but then they should state this more clearly.
Not completely : just because it's open , doesn't mean it's not allowed to impose certain standards.
It kind of depends on the definition of open source.
If we talk about GPL than you are allowed to change it in any way you want , regardless of the quality . That's the reason GPL contains a clause that it offers no warranty , unless otherwise specified.
So it all depends on the definition of open . The fact that there are numerous 'open' license variations proves that this is not so clear.
There's no way to know that.
Innocent until proven guilty. And since we don't get to see a copy of the text , we can only assume innocence.
I hate it when people play the racism card without evidence.
But banning someone for life , for this , is ridiculous.
I mean , he is a teenager , reading about conspiracy theories and believing them . In a few years , he would have realized what the real world is about , and would feel silly about sending the mail.
Offcourse , getting threatened by the FBI for sending the email doesn't help in this case . It probably just reinforces the view that something ugly going on. In fact , it even makes me wonder.
Cops are people . People have different views on society and politics.
Obama is a p***k. /.
Let's see if the FBI watches
Really , i just can't believe they would ban you for saying that. This must be a joke.
"beat up musicians so long as you do it with love in your heart"
I am willing to consider that Bach and those musicians were into SM , but I'm not sure that's historically accurate.
It's disproportionate because :
- US is one of the most powerful countries , so more people are interested
- You are comparing a big country (US) , with smaller countries ( with the exception of Russia and China )
- It's easier to leak information on the US than on China, so there's more to read about.
the Animal Rights movement has basically accomplished nothing
Your comment shows you know nothing about animal rights movements.
Their work has been immeasurably valuable , both in actively stopping animal cruelty , and preventing it .
I hope they never read your comment , because we need people like them ( it's not like you are going to do anything about animal cruelty right , better to have someone else do it for you ).
Yes , and we could call them "The Borg" , but that would be a trademark violation.
True , and i have noticed that myself already.
But then i just explain it in simpler terms.
It depends on your goal : do you want to inform people , or do you just want to scare them away so they don't ask questions.