Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: Restrictions (Score 1) 92

by mark-t (#48031221) Attached to: Mobile Phone Use Soon To Be Allowed On European Flights
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.

Comment: Re:How important is that at this point? (Score 1) 150

by mark-t (#48030919) Attached to: Adobe Photoshop Is Coming To Linux, Through Chromebooks
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).

Comment: Re:How important is that at this point? (Score 1) 150

by mark-t (#48030837) Attached to: Adobe Photoshop Is Coming To Linux, Through Chromebooks

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?

Comment: Re:How important is that at this point? (Score 2) 150

by mark-t (#48030147) Attached to: Adobe Photoshop Is Coming To Linux, Through Chromebooks
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.

Comment: Re:How important is that at this point? (Score 2) 150

by mark-t (#48029795) Attached to: Adobe Photoshop Is Coming To Linux, Through Chromebooks

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.

Comment: Re:Fox News? (Score 1) 438

by Obfuscant (#48029117) Attached to: Scientists Seen As Competent But Not Trusted By Americans

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.

Comment: Re:How important is that at this point? (Score 3, Interesting) 150

by mark-t (#48028673) Attached to: Adobe Photoshop Is Coming To Linux, Through Chromebooks

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)

Comment: Re:How important is that at this point? (Score 1) 150

by Lumpy (#48027897) Attached to: Adobe Photoshop Is Coming To Linux, Through Chromebooks

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.

Comment: Re:Read it and weep ... (Score 1) 331

by mark-t (#48027825) Attached to: State of Iowa Tells Tesla To Cancel Its Scheduled Test Drives

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.

Comment: Re:CloudFlare is a nightmare for anonymity (Score 1) 66

by IamTheRealMike (#48027061) Attached to: CloudFlare Announces Free SSL Support For All Customers

Occams Razor says ...... networks like Tor which are incapable of handling abuse by design ...... get a lot of abuse! So not surprisingly networks that have advanced anti-abuse controls in place throttle it a lot. Otherwise you're just asking to get crawled by SQL injector searchers and so on. This is not CloudFlare's problem, it's inherent in how Tor works and what it's trying to achieve. Solving it means finding a way to trade off anonymity against accountability using user reputation systems or the like, but the Tor project has shown little interest in implementing such a thing, so all Tor users get treated as a whole.

Comment: No sensible person ever though it was impossible (Score 2, Informative) 144

by daveschroeder (#48027003) Attached to: Apple Fixes Shellshock In OS X

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?

...both of which would be required for this exploit. The answer? Vanishingly small to be almost zero.

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).

Comment: Re:Read it and weep ... (Score 1) 331

by mark-t (#48026771) Attached to: State of Iowa Tells Tesla To Cancel Its Scheduled Test Drives

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.

The only difference between a car salesman and a computer salesman is that the car salesman knows he's lying.