Isn't there some sort of quarantine in effect or are we just letting people fly back and forth between Ebola outbreak areas all willy-nilly?
That would probably violate their human rights. Or something.
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.
Okay, how many "good ones" dismiss anything said by the "bad scientists" because of who they work for?
Do you really think I keep a running count of the number of different people, much less the number of times, I hear the statement "don't pay any attention to that scientist, he works for a big oil/coal/etc company..."? Really? It was the kind of statement that I replied to in this discussion, and nobody seems to have thought it was unusual for anyone to say such a thing. That's how common and commonly accepted it is.
Everybody is free to submit papers with the evidence they can scrape up,
"Submit" is not "publish". Your use of the perjorative phrase "scrape up" demonstrates a bias.
and it's essentially impossible to keep a good paper from being published at all.
You're right. I get spam almost every day now from some new "journal" looking for my submissions, none of which have any publishing history or any weight in any community. Yeah, publish in scam journals is easy. Publish in a journal where the reviewers have a dog in the fight, not so much.
Thing is, the evidence is pretty convincing if you look at it skeptically and intelligently.
You know, none of what I wrote has anything to do with who is right and who is wrong. If you want to argue that the intelligent people believe one thing (with the obvious implications) then do it with someone else. I'm pointing out that by painting part of a group as dishonest you splatter a lot of paint on yourself. That has nothing to do with whose science will wind up proven correct in the long run. It has everything to do with calling someone else's ethics into question (because they're being PAID to do that research, OMG!) and then being surprised when others doubt yours.
Science, as a discipline, works with egotistic and sometimes petty individuals who are as fallible as anybody else. It works pretty well.
Science, as a discipline, doesn't care who works for what, but science as practiced today often does. Science worked pretty well for the geocentrists in their day, too, at least in their humble opinion. When your argument for a position comes down to "if you look at it intelligently", you're not practicing science as it ought to be.
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)
If you just want to run a single touchscreen app on a cheap tablet, why would you want Windows?
none really. The only photoshop holdouts need CMYK or are unable to learn a new interface.
I only use photoshop because of all the free plugins that do what I want without having any skill at all. Butt hen I also think that my horribly out of date CS3 is just fine.
IF there were a lot more free plugins for GIMP that made it easier for us poseurs without any skill look good, it would surpass photoshop quickly.
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.
Occams Razor says
But even here, again, when you look at a typical OS X desktop system, now many people:
1. Have apache enabled AND exposed to the public internet (i.e., not behind a NAT router, firewall, etc)?
2. Even have apache or any other services enabled at all?
So, in the context of OS X, it's yet another theoretical exploit; "theoretical" in the sense that it effects essentially zero conventional OS X desktop users. Could there have been a worm or other attack vector which then exploited the bash vulnerability on OS X? Sure, I suppose. But there wasn't, and it's a moot point since a patch is now available within days of the disclosure.
And people running OS X as web servers exposed to the public internet, with the demise of the standalone Mac OS X Server products as of 10.6, is almost a thing of yesteryear itself.
Nothing has changed since that era: all OSes have always been vulnerable to attacks, both via local and remote by various means, and there have been any number of vulnerabilities that have only impacted UN*X systems, Linux and OS X included, and not Windows, over very many years. So yeah, nothing has changed, and OS X (and iOS) is still a very secure OS, by any definition or viewpoint of the definition of "secure", when viewed alongside Windows (and Android).
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.