>> Advanced. So, like, it's as expensive as a high-end tablet *and* a 
>> high-end monitor? Must cost a fortune! o_O
> 
> About 2500-3500 $.

*whimpers quietly*

At least this time I can tell myself that I wouldn't know what to do 
with one anyway...

> This is really impressive tech.

No kidding.

>> Yes. [Although obviously I've never seen it, only heard that it exists. It 
>> seems more like a legend than a real commercial product...]
> 
> Like Mike said, just download the trial version. If you've never seen a 
> killer app (apart Excel) that's the one.

Heh. I might like it too much. ;-)

> Also, if you can convince your 
> bosses to buy you a license, Adobe allows you to have a second installation 
> on your own computer.

Ooo, cool. Cos our lab could really do with a high-end image editor... 
uh... hmm... maybe I could make it more enterprisy?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:55:04 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:

> Never challenge anybody to anything. You end up loosing. And then you
> look very stupid.

Nonsense.  I used to play chess competitively (ie, I played tournament 
chess).  I wasn't very good, and I lost a lot.  Didn't make me look 
stupid in the least, just less skilled than other people.

Hint:  There's always someone who knows more.  Anyone who says they know 
it all is either lying or stupid - or frequently both.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

47c875a8$1@news.povray.org...

> Ooo, cool. Cos our lab could really do with a high-end image editor... 
> uh... hmm... maybe I could make it more enterprisy?

That's more or less what I did. There was some small budget allocated for 
software and I was stuck using either Micrografx Publisher (completely 
outdated) or the Gimp (the horror, the horror) anytime I had to edit images 
at work. So I asked for Photoshop...

G.


-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer art
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>>> Advanced. So, like, it's as expensive as a high-end tablet *and* a 
>>> high-end monitor? Must cost a fortune! o_O
>>
>> About 2500-3500 $.
> 
> *whimpers quietly*
> 
> At least this time I can tell myself that I wouldn't know what to do 
> with one anyway...

That's for the high-end one.  Myself, I want one of THESE puppies:

http://www.tabletpc2.com/Major_WOW_Factor-Fujitsu_Lifebook_T2010_Tablet_PC-Article700230807.html

Current list price around $1600.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

>> Never challenge anybody to anything. You end up loosing. And then you
>> look very stupid.
> 
> Nonsense.  I used to play chess competitively (ie, I played tournament 
> chess).  I wasn't very good, and I lost a lot.  Didn't make me look 
> stupid in the least, just less skilled than other people.

Question: Have you ever, at any time, won a chess match?

I haven't. Even against a computer. I'm that bad at it.

And you know what? One time somebody "challenged" me about the chemical 
symbol for Tin. Well *obviously* that can't even change. How could I 
*possibly* loose? But loose I did. (Sb isn't Tin. It's the one right 
next to it. Only 1 letter and one proton different. Damn it!)

> Hint:  There's always someone who knows more.  Anyone who says they know 
> it all is either lying or stupid - or frequently both.

Like So Greats said, "The greatest knowledge is in knowing that you know 
nothing."

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:37:31 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:

>>> Never challenge anybody to anything. You end up loosing. And then you
>>> look very stupid.
>> 
>> Nonsense.  I used to play chess competitively (ie, I played tournament
>> chess).  I wasn't very good, and I lost a lot.  Didn't make me look
>> stupid in the least, just less skilled than other people.
> 
> Question: Have you ever, at any time, won a chess match?

Yes, but that's not the point.

> I haven't. Even against a computer. I'm that bad at it.
> 
> And you know what? One time somebody "challenged" me about the chemical
> symbol for Tin. Well *obviously* that can't even change. How could I
> *possibly* loose? But loose I did. (Sb isn't Tin. It's the one right
> next to it. Only 1 letter and one proton different. Damn it!)

<shrug>  Start talking about object instantiation in Haskell, and you're 
over my head.  Different people know different things.

>> Hint:  There's always someone who knows more.  Anyone who says they
>> know it all is either lying or stupid - or frequently both.
> 
> Like So Greats said, "The greatest knowledge is in knowing that you know
> nothing."

Yep.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Having got over just how amazing his hardware and software is, several 
> other facts strike me:
> 
> 1. This is speeded up 600 times? And it still takes, like, 20 minutes 
> for him to draw the whole thing? Wow, that's a long time! (And the 
> finished image looks so easy...)
600% so two hours in total

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 escribió:
> Like So Greats said, "The greatest knowledge is in knowing that you know 
> nothing."
> 

"Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own 
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

(long, but great read)

Post a reply to this message

> "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own 
> Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"
> 
> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
> 
> (long, but great read)

Yeah, I've seen it.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>>> 1. This is speeded up 600 times? And it still takes, like, 20 minutes 
>>> for him to draw the whole thing? Wow, that's a long time! (And the 
>>> finished image looks so easy...)
>>
>> 200 hours? That doesn't seem right. 60x speed-up would be 20 hours 
>> worth...
> 
> Yeah, I think you might be right. 600x would be a freakin' BLUR... I 
> must be mis-remembering this stuff. ;-)
> 
I think it was 6x

Post a reply to this message