Layer effects is actually a specific category of non-destructive editing.
And I'm not saying that everyone should use GIMP now if it doesn't meet your needs... I'm only saying that people who've been suggesting that GIMP is, in terms of the actual number of features, sorely lacking compared to photoshop are mistaken. The problem is not quantity, it is that the few features which *ARE* missing are critical to some people,
And that's okay.... I'm just pointing out that GIMP is getting there.
But hey.... if you want to continue to shell out hundreds of dollars every few years for an upgraded version of photoshop indefinitly, who am I to argue that you should keep your money?
If you are genuinely interested knowing what is in the pipe for the future of GIMP, you may be interested in taking a look at this for a summary of features that are slated for the next or upcoming versions of GIMP. You may notice that many tasks are dependant on completion of GEGL implementation (something that is definitely slated for being in the next release). Once GEGL support is fully in, significant features such as user-defined color spaces, non-destructive editing, and smart objects will become feasible, and are already planned for a future version of GIMP
As for things that GIMP will do which Photoshop doesn't, I can refer you to obvious fanboyish pages such as 10 reasons that GIMP is better than photoshop, but of course, if GIMP doesn't do what you actually need, then I can appreciate how any or even all of those points can be far from convincing. Ultimately, the only reason to use GIMP over Photoshop depends entirely on whether GIMP can do what you actually need. If it can, then the difference in price alone can easily be a determining factor. If it can't, well... then it can't. But that doesn't mean it never will. And you should use what you need, for now. I'd encourage anyone to keep an open mind for the future, however.
GIMP simply doesn't come close to Photoshop for professional photographic work
Care to run off a list of ways that "GIMP doesn't come close"? If it's really so bad, it shouldn't be that difficult to name at least a dozen or so...
I won't refute that GIMP still needs some work, both in terms of overall usability, and to be at least on feature-parity with commercial grade software like photoshop, but I expect when actually you try and explicitly list the alleged many shortcomings of GIMP, you might find that it's a lot closer to being fairly comparable to Photoshop than you first thought.
In actuality, I expect that enumerating the shortcomings of GIMP will not be in quantity, but in terms of a relatively small number of particularly desirable features that many may perceive as critically important in such software. And I'd be willing to bet that of these features, many may already be in the pipe, and slated for GIMP 3.0 (although there is no ETA on that... and it might still be a while yet)
Except that rebuttal is only what Steier *SAID*, and part of what he was saying isn't even actually true (it's true that he said it, of course, but what he was alleging is untrue) so the rebuttal is not logically valid.
It is true that Tesla was offering test drives. This is not illegal.
It is true that State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and that Tesla does not have a license to be a dealer in Iowa.
What is *NOT* true is that by offering test drives, Tesla was acting like a dealer, because no provision in Iowa requires that one *BE* a dealer to offer test drives.
You keep quoting what Steier said, except that what he was alleging about Tesla "acting like a dealer" is not valid because no provision requires that one be a dealer to offer test drives. Repeatedly quoting somebody who has been clearly shown to be factually incorrect about this point does not make it any more true.
Incorrect. You keep quoting part of the article, but are missing two extremely important words.
State law requires auto dealers to be licensed, and by offering test drives, Tesla was acting as a dealer, Steier said.
Steier saying something does not make it illegal. Breaking the law does. I'll break it down for you,. since you seem to have difficulty understanding.
State law requires auto dealers to be licensed.
State law does not say anything along the lines that someone who offers a test drive is behaving like an auto dealer, therefore the allegation that "by offering test drives,Tesla was acting like a dealer" has no legal merit. It's not that they weren't offering test drives. They were... but doing so without a dealership license does not mean they were trying to behave like a dealer in that state, so no law was actually being broken. Steier's allegation that they were behaving like a dealer is false, and without any brand new law being passed in Iowa which forbids anyone but auto dealers offering test drives, this C&D could be easily fought and won by Tesla.
And even if Tesla does not get a license to sell cars in Iowa, they will still end up being able to successfully challenge this C&D unless a new law is added to Iowa's books that states that only licensed dealers may publicly offer test drives of vehicles. It's worth nothing that there is currently no such law, however... so what Tesla was doing was still most definitely not illegal.
Ignoring isn't an entirely controllable thing. Would that it were. One person may be ignoring something, whilst another is driven to distraction. This isn't because the one being annoyed chose to be annoyed.
Good point... so why should something that doesn't bother one person be banned just because it happens to bother another? We are talking about normal speaking volumes here... and if you think that the problem is too many people talking at once, what makes you think that significantly more people will suddenly be using their cell phones when it becomes legal than might simply talking to the person next to them? On a bus you don't see that many people chatting on cell phones, why do you think it would be different on a plane? You might see a lot of people texting or playing games oh their phones, however.
For what it's worth, most people are capable of picking out a single voice speaking at a normal volume to listen to even in what is otherwise quite a noisy environment, such as a crowded bus or train station. if one was not capable of ignoring noise around them, they would not be able to do that. Obviously there's still a threshold of noise above which that genuinely does become impossible, but it's going to be at levels that are significantly louder than a few people around you engaging in conversation. There are no regulations prohibiting talking on planes, however, nor should there be in ordinary circumstances, so noise levels should not be cited as a reason to prohibit cell phone conversations except during periods of a flight specifically designated as quiet (to allow passengers to sleep during an extended flight, for example), and during which ordinary conversation that is too loud would be equally prohibited.
Memory fault - where am I?