Here's something to consider, coming from Trey Ratcliff. https://plus.google.com/105237212888595777019/posts/fbCZzoFEAz1#105237212888595777019/posts/fbCZzoFEAz1 In a nutshell, in 5-10 years, DSLR's will be looked on the same way we look at VHS. It was a great technology for it's time, but it had to go. Theoretically, the only real difference between a DSLR and a MILC (or whatever you want to call them) is that a DSLR has a mirror box and the MILC doesn't. You might say that the viewfinder is different, but in reality, there is no difference. Live view on a DSLR looks like crap compared to the electronic viewfinder of, say the Olympus EP-3. True, today there are no full frame MILC (unless you count the Leica M9, which will set you back $7k), but I doubt the OP would want to spend the money on a full frame DSLR either. The Olympus EP-3 is getting absolutely rave reviews throughout the photography community. Scott Bourne, for instance has pretty much switched from DSLR's to the EP-3 and only uses his D3 and/or 5dmkii for action and wildlife photography. It's tough to think about this kind of huge paradigm change within photography, especially those who've spent tens of thousands on camera bodies and lenses, but in 5-10 years, those who are still shooting a huge clunky DSLR will be looked on like those who today are still shooting film...as very quaint. I for one will not be buying anymore lenses or accessories for my DSLR. I plan to gradually make the switch to something similar to the EP-3 over the next few years.

I've looked and looked at Apple's information about iCloud, and no where have I seen any of these features mentioned. iCloud is simply a personal, lightweight backup/sync solution for users. It's not meant to be an enterprise level doc sharing interface. Considering that there were very few solutions available that do what iCloud does before it was introduced, I'd call it a pretty amazing product. There are plenty of enterprise level backup solutions that have the features mentioned in the article. Why would Apple even bother messing with that? What they did makes perfect sense, and it's the perfect product for what it's intended for. Let's also not forget that it's brand new. Features can ALWAYS be added.

I'd mod this up if I could. A single bad decision can make or break a company. If Jobs didn't really have any contributions, then how come his return to Apple coincided with their comimg back from the brink of bankruptcy? Regardless of what you think of the man, without him, the state of our technology wouldn't be where it is today. That's the contributions of a single man.

...hire someone who actually knows the job you've been hired for. The fact that you have to ask these questions tells me you are the wrong person for the job.

I wouldn't call matte painting, especially by hand, an easy or quick technique. Even people who are good at the technique would likely rather use these content aware tools, I would imagine.

If you've ever used photoshop, you would understand what it takes just to get to that part. Ever try removing a tree from an image in PS? Then have the sky look natural? That's almost impossible for the average user, and probably at least an hour (or more) of work from someone who knows what they are doing. Fixing the mistakes at that point is easy. This is could possibly be one of the most revolutionary tools in photoshop since the clone stamp.

"Why is iPod better than Zune?"

Go ahead, you know you want to try...