90% of all of that yellow and red is singularly dependant on GEGL... and GEGL support will be fully implemented in the next release.

I'd suspect that even if they didn't limit it to just data and SMS, you wouldn't even notice it any more than you notice other peoples conversations in the cabin unless you were paying particular attention to listen for it.

I expect that if I am able to use my phone on a plane, I will probably not be spending more than 5 minutes on it for an entire flight. I do not want to use a phone on a plane because I want to spend most of the flight talking to somebody who isn't with me, and I highly doubt that's how it would be for most people. Most people these days are content to simply text anyways, so I doubt people talking on their phones would actually ever be a problem on a plane.

I named three.. And I readily admit GIMP is not perfect, nor comparable to certain other image editing software where you really might need such features that it offers. l My point, however, is that GIMP is lacking in this manner not so much in terms of the number of features, but in the overall critical importance of the relatively few features that it admittedly *IS* still lacking... and it's worth noting that there is really only one major thing that is holding almost all of them back, and that particular feature will definitely be fully integrated into the next major release of GIMP (significant work on it was being done even before the current 2.8 release, but owing to the extensiveness of the changes involved, they were postponed for the upcoming release).

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?

You, and others who have responded, have illustrated my point... nobody's named more than two features that Photoshop has which GIMP does not currently, and nearly all of the desired features could be summarized simply as wanting non-destructive editing capabilities, which is something that is already on GIMP's development roadmap, primarily waiting on what amounts to a major feature/design change that will definitely be fully implemented in the next major release of GIMP (actually significant progress was made in this area even before 2.8 came out, but because of the extensiveness of the necessary changes to fully implement it properly, and ensuring that the software was not made unstable by such changes, it was postponed for the next version). Once those changes are finally all in place, expect some truly wondrous and amazing things to happen for GIMP.

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.

Damnit... hit submit instead of preview. The next major release of GIMP is version 2.10, not 3.0. My bad.

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.

They were offering test drives, which is not illlegal. they are not licensed to sell their cars in the state is not relevant because they were not selling their cars, and the allegation that by offering test drives, Tesla is somehow "acting" in the same capacity as if they were a dealer in that state only has a resemblance to reality in that Tesla was actually offering test drives...but there is no law or requirement that only licensed car dealerships may offer test drives, so the allegation that offering test drives makes them somehow equatable to such a dealer is false. Tesla stopped because they had a C&D issued against them, because this person believes that they are breaking the law by doing what they are doing,not because they actually *ARE* breaking the law. Even though that belief is invalid, the C&D is still legitimate, and acting without regard for it before it has been successfully challenged could land them a lot of legal hot water, even if they did not otherwise break any laws which are being alleged by the C&D.

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.

Yes, it has been studied... but the study to which you refer (there's only been one, afaik), shows that conversations on phones where one side is overheard by a third party are more likely to be distracting... it did not indicate that conversations on phones are more likely to be overheard in the first place than regular conversation, and thus would not be any more difficult to ignore unless the volume was elevated.

Until they start selling electric cars for about the same price as you can buy an otheriwise equivalent capability ICE vehicle, instead of having no less than a markup that is large enough to buy a whole other brand new car, there is no chance that they will become as ubiquitous as ICE vehicles.

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.