Posting to undo bad moderation. My apologies.
Posting to undo bad moderation. My apologies.
For me, the major shortcoming is adjustment layers. In Photoshop, you can apply a non-destructive layer/filter over your image to modify parameters such as brightness, contrast, colour levels, etc. You can then directly edit your image "below" this filter, e.g. cropping it. You can then modify the adjustment layer later.
In GIMP, once you modify brightness or contrast, that's it. You can't come back and remove/change these setting later. This has been a requested feature for at least 14 years.
I wanted to quote this, not just for agreement, but to point out that
I think that the common mindset might be that once you've made a change, you're done, there's very little journey for you after that. That's true in many cases, such as simple photo editing etc. The value in having what amounts to variables in your stack of layers may not seem high enough to warrant Adobe's price.
When you consider that professional work being done means there's an economic advantage to getting done faster, then the idea of being able to create non-destructive templates in Photoshop means $$$ becomes a little clearer. Some time I invest in creating image 1 could mean I spend half the time creating image 2. It also means that if an image is kicked back to me for revision I can really quickly make that adjustment as opposed to re-tracing a number of steps. Again, time is money.
If I were asked to come up with a programming metaphor I'd give you this really shitty one: Imagine people urging you to switch to a clone of Python that doesn't let you create your own modules. Many of them don't need or want to create their own modules, but for plenty of people who have dug deep into it they feel they'd need them from day one, suffering greatly from the lack of that feature.
I've mentioned before that GIMP may be free, but that it wouldn't actually save me money over Photoshop, this is precisely why.
I doubt that his mom gave him over a million dollars to build a Star Trek themed theater in the basement of her house, but if that actually happened I'd look up to him with envy instead of scoffing. Even that scenario is far more likely to get moist panties thrown at him than anonymously making fun of him on Slashdot.
It was playable, even on slow machines. Unfortunately I was nitpicky enough to see that it was operating at about half the frame rate of NES games. I never did know if that was because they put a limiter in there or if there really was some sort of bottleneck that kept it from running at 60fps.
You could sort of do it in EGA mode if you used the PCopy command. My memory is fuzzy on the exact implementation of it but you could draw pictures into one of 8 'pages' of memory and use pcopy to dump that data into an invisible page, then make that page visible... double-buffering I think it was called.
I did a few experiments where some scrolling and even a bit of sprite animation could be done. It didn't have the performance to be mistaken for an NES, but it could have been in the ballpark of Commander Keen.
I apologize for not being able to get into grittier detail, but I did quite a bit of graphic experimentation with QBasic and was surprised about how far I got with it.
Perhaps it's a ruse designed to make DB Cooper feel more inclined to make mistakes?
That's a distinct possibility. We still have a few months before the next season of Twin Peaks comes out...
How's about we name and shame (with evidence in the form of links) media outlets doing this? If they're getting a kickback, there's no way I'm trusting their review on anything.
First in line with a pitchfork!!
Oh.. wait... it's not a review, it's just a list of offers complete with several easily-visible disclaimers that read "Gawker Media may get a commission"... And... well it was Gawker that even showed me the offer so I have no particular reason to not want them to get a commission.. erm... I need to put my torch out.
Just wanted to thank you for the time you took to write this.
These are PARENTING issues, not GOVERNMENT censorship issues.
The government is not doing this. Sky is a private company.
Off-topic rant coming up:
This is exactly why I have a pet peeve about everyone throwing the word 'censorship' like they do. The usage of the term may technically be correct, but the incorrect picture is being painted by many who read it. Of course this is intentional, but as you can see, it's cheapening the metaphor.
Oh and just for clarification, this is really directed at those morons that are trying to equate moderation with censorship. If not for them I would not have brought this up in this thread. As a US citizen I'm actually surprised this is a story about a private company for once. That's why I'm calling my post off-topic.
I use a wrist rest, and I use my fingers to reach the keys, and moving my wrist is only when using numbers or symbols.
It's just a big game of deduction. The watch can distinguish between the five elevations your hand has to turn to determine which row you're on just from its tilt. The microphone on it could probably distinguish which finger is striking the key just by volume. Heck, just the mere fact that some of the sound of the keys directly under your hand will be slightly muffled is enough to categorize them.
To me the bigger issue isn't in working out a process to do this, rather it's the calibration process. Can you get your victim to wear a watch while he or she types something predictable for a while?
I can't wait until my phone has a captcha. "To make this phone ring, please type in the answer to this question: Which Star Trek movie is the best?"
What is the IQ and EQ of an average policeman ?
On average mostly base and no treble.
I'm not gonna name names here, but someone has already donated his humerus.
Heh. Yeah I'd love to see someone successfully get one of the PHBs that use these sorts of tools to do so on a Linux machine.
I'm not sure why this is news, here. Organ donation has been part of the Apple Store for years now. Wake me when they ask for more than just arms and legs!
Pascal is not a high-level language. -- Steven Feiner