Adobe have shown off this sort of photo manipulation technology in the past. I've no reason to doubt it's authenticity.

Besides the person narrating, Bryan Hughes, has been at Adobe for years.

Youtube info:

Name:Adobe Photoshop
Channel Views:28,532
Total Upload Views:0
Age:20 <-- suspicious.
Joined:March 17, 2010 <-- suspicious.
Website:http://www.adobe.com/photoshop

But well made, if it's fake.

^ KnivesOut
Comic Sans was designed to help people with dyslexia. It doesn't have any horizontally-mirrored elements.
So, even though it looks childish, it has a purpose.

I've made a font once (for a friends band). It is laborious, but doesn't really justify the ridiculously large licensing fees some fonts have. Just another reason to hate Adobe. [oh, and my font was iso-8859-1 (western), I would not dare to make a Unicode font that includes all traditional chinese characters as well...]

Also, in Arial's defense - it was designed for the screen, NOT FOR PRINT (like Helvetica). Considering the best screen resolution at the time of Windows 1.0 release - CGA mono 640*200 - the default font had to be something where every character was easily readable at such low DPI.

And I guess this guy hasn't used MS Office for quite some time, since the default font is now Calibri.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Here's Maddow's gleeful take on the event:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Let's not forget the "Get the Facts" campaign against Linux. But then again, when you have ~90% of the market the shareholders would like to see it stay that way.

The problem is that the alternatives suck for a business. This is where the bread and butter of Microsoft lies, even with all the crap that is part of Office today. Practically everyone else uses it so you had better damn well use it if you want shit to get done. i.e. if you had a computer here at the college minus Office 2003/2007 or minus Adobe Reader or minus Outlook you would be almost dead in the water. Nobody wants to change because buying Macs is too expensive (hardware wise) and Linux is completely out of the question despite being free... and then there is the question of all those in house written applications. No VP wants to sign off on a move to spend the money to switch over when the stuff you have for the most part works.

I won't lie though, if I didn't get 3 licenses of Windows 7 for free from work it is very unlikely I would have paid for it. The price of the OS is still way too damn high vs. the alternatives and one of the major problems still with the company in general. They get away with it because your new PC from the store effectively has that $200 copy of Windows for $10 or so. Manufacturers who tried the "Windows free" or "No OS" versions of PCs (after fighting Microsoft no less) wound up not getting much interest because its a small fraction of the market who wanted this stuff.

It sucks, but if you really want to see things change the competition has to have killer apps that kick the shit out of Office or Outlook so bad that it gives a reason to make the change. Microsoft also has something most other companies lack, extreme patience. We all laughed at the original XBox but now Microsoft laughs all the way to the bank after building up a market from absolute zero and having a healthy chunk of the console market.

Like campionidelmondo said, it wont matter who is on top anyways since it goes back to my first statement. Shareholders in the end only care about the bottom line, not about what is right or wrong. Common sense to you and me is thrown out the window if it makes their portfolio a bit fatter.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

This is sort of Adobe's response to all the furor- but it seems like a load of company propaganda.

I desperately, desperately want Flash to die. I want it to go away. I never want to have to install it again. I never want to see its icon. I don't want an Adobe program to even be within three hops of my computer.

It is ridiculous that playing a video online can eat up 100% of my CPU and still stutter, whereas if I save the flv and play it in VLC or MPC it uses 2%.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Are there not other ways to do motion graphics without Flash's model of frames and tweens?

IMO the only way Flash will survive is to open the FLA and make it a web standard. While the SWF runtime is open and lots of programs can make one (eg. Swift3D) - Adobe nee Macromedia has always maintained tight control over the FLA source.

To be honest, even that probably won't save Flash. the wind is blowing towards search-engine readable HTML - and plug-ins feel like old technology.

>> ^rougy:
I need to look into that, but I don't think Flash is going anywhere.
Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any frames or tweens yet.
I personally think Flash would do well to release "low caliber" versions of Flash editors for free so that people can get in there and play with the basics.
I'm a huge Flash enthusiast, but the main thing that prohibits its popularity is, in large part, the price of the editor.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Hmm, I thought MSNBC was on the approve list as an NBC variant- I've forwarded this to Lucky- as I'm not exactly sure.

In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
Hey dag, I've been trying to post some videos from msnbc.com with no luck - it says that the embed codes are invalid. I'm guessing it's because it's not approved and I'm not privileged enough... Would that be right? Is there any way I can get 'em posted? Here's an example of an embed code:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Hey dag, I've been trying to post some videos from msnbc.com with no luck - it says that the embed codes are invalid. I'm guessing it's because it's not approved and I'm not privileged enough... Would that be right? Is there any way I can get 'em posted? Here's an example of an embed code:

<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc3a9dd3"><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a rel="nofollow" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news, and <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy

Adobe FTW

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^Croccydile:
I don't pretend to have any sense of entitlement as well, I know its wrong and I simply don't care.
I'd say you've pretty well disqualified yourself from any discussion of the ethics involved then...or even ethics in general. I know -I- have no particular use for the opinions of a self-professed sociopath...


I'm sorry you feel that way, but I find it difficult to believe otherwise when the opposite party does not care about the consumer in return. I can't be naughty on a professional level on the job but at the same time I can see why places, say, choose to use copied software when even if your 100% legit companies like Adobe/Autodesk still give you crap. I find it appalling that after spending tens of thousands in licenses a year a vendor can come around and say "Despite your loyalty for years were going to change what kind of deal and license you can buy from us. Oh, by the way, weve made all your current installs illegal. Uninstall them before we send the wrath of the BSA upon you." (This has actually happend to me) Yeah, no surprise there is copying.

Hmm, I hadn't thought about the copy/paste thing. On the Droid you can hold down the Shift key and drag your finger over any text you want to copy. It even copies automatically, so no menus are needed. I'm surprised he didn't even mention the built in navigation or voice-to-text features.

Eye Candy: Mostly pointless, but it's important to some people. The animations don't really get in the way, but they can be turned off if desired.

Pinch Zoom: Probably useful, but I mostly operate my phone with one thumb anyway, and the controls are intuitive enough. I don't think it is specifically a patent issue though. Other US phones have it, as does the European version of Droid. There are free apps that use it, and it can be enabled in the map with a little work.

Apps: The store could be better, but you can search it easily enough. I am curious what functionality he is missing from the iPhone apps though.

App Switcher: I could be wrong, but I think it shows the six most recently opened apps. I would like it to show more than six, but there are plenty of free apps that show more if needed.


I never owned an iPhone so I can't really comment on the differences. I hear that Apple isn't playing well with Adobe, so no Flash support for the iPhone. It should be available on just about everything else some time in 2010 (according to Adobe). On the upside, the iPhone does appear to have the most accurate finger tracking of the three phones.

The Nexus does have the fastest cpu so far (that I know of) at ~1Ghz. I wouldn't give up my keyboard for it though. Maybe they can put it to some good use with more support for voice commands and language translation (Droid and Nexus already have some translation... speak to it in english and it will audibly translate to other languages, but it is limited currently). Otherwise it's only good for animations and flash games.

I look forward to the current batch of phones being obsolete by the end of the year. Competition is always a good thing. =)


Notes: Google Goggles is great, and Verizon's network does let you use the 3G internet while talking on the phone, despite what AT&T's commercials state.