or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

That's the problem - this thread contains very little on the actual lost functionality.  In terms of improvements, it has more detailed adjustments, such as independent level controls on the color channels, more advanced options for white balance, more options for sharpening, more color adjustments. Plus it is much faster. So - again - what are you missing from iPhotos?
As far as I can tell, rating has been merged with keywords which it was always, technically, a subset of anyway. It's trivial to continue to use any number of stars that you want, and assign a single key shortcut to assigning them. Batch change does seem to have gone - I hadn't noticed because I never used iPhoto for that kind of work. The video issue is a real one - it is strange that video import is not as seamless as photos. I use Dropbox to transfer, but that is...
Strange response. A long diatribe asserting that I don't know the software (Photos) and then just ranting about Pages and feeling abandoned. Not a single mention of any actual issues with the Photos app. Have you even used it? This, and other threads, are full of non-specific complaints about the app, with little elaboration of the problem. Or, in your case, none at all.
What, exactly, is missing from Photos? As far as I can see it has mostly the same or, in some cases, increased functionality over iPhoto.
Interesting patent, but the connection with the LinX technology is not obvious, since LinX does not use light field techniques.
Except that resolution has never been an areal density in any optical or display usage - it has always referred to the ability to distinguish detail in a linear dimension. Going back to the original optical and photographic uses, it was typically measured as the ability to distinguish line pairs, and was quoted in line pairs per mm. What is the mathematical argument that you allude to for it being an areal, rather than linear, density?
I think that was the idea, but a poor one. In any case, banning affirmative action does not equate to condoning discrimination, or to disapproving of other, more defensible, anti-discrimination measures.
That ruling upholds a ban on affirmative action - it doesn't permit discrimination. Where were you going with that?
That's a terribly cynical point of view. I'm sure that there have been uncorrupted leaders in human history, as well as many for whom the corruption was relatively insignificant.
Fox News has no beneficial effect on roses that I'm aware of.
New Posts  All Forums: