I don't think I'd do that myself. In the past few months Google has twice warned me of a fraudulent site posing as legit and directed me back to a safe page before any damage could be done. There's such a thing as cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I'm reluctant in turning it off myself as well. Do wonder how this technique works; going read up on it.
I'm reluctant in turning it off myself as well. Do wonder how this technique works; going read up on it.
I assume it just checks against a database that Safari downloads locally. If so, it would mean Google isn't seeing what URLs you're wanting to go to, but they would be able to see what IP address you've used to download the database.
I'm reluctant in turning it off myself as well. Do wonder how this technique works; going read up on it.
Wouldn’t any problem in this regard just be solved by navigating directly to the URL in question by typing it in?
The API is there for webdevs to safeguard their visitors, so I don't see this as something people would type in a URL as opposed to the ease of use by clicking a link.
These are different: ************ 9to5m?c.com
The first’s one’s real. We know that because you can’t see it. The second one has a cyrillic a. But you’re not going to TYPE that last one yourself.
I assume it just checks against a database. Google isn't seeing what URLs you're wanting to go to, but they would be able to see what IP address you've used to look at the database.
I'll look into this setting and see if it indeed is checking against a DB updated by Google. Would be interesting to see if there are alternatives, though I assume a DB from Google would be the most up-to-date.
I'll look into this setting and see if it indeed is checking against a DB updated by Google. Would be interesting to see if there are alternatives, though I assume a DB from Google would be the most up-to-date.
This falls inline with how I would assume the service is setup.
I'll look into this setting and see if it indeed is checking against a DB updated by Google. Would be interesting to see if there are alternatives, though I assume a DB from Google would be the most up-to-date.
When Apple finally buys Adobe and shuts down everything but Photoshop and Illustrator.
“What about Light…”
Integrated into Photos.
“What about Prem…”
Integrated into Final Cut.
“What about After…”
Integrated into Motion.
“What about Audi…”
Integrated into Logic.
“What about Dream…”
It’s terrible. Use Coda.
“What about InDes…”
Integrated into Pages. Imagine how great Pages would be with professional layout tools!
I don't know why you even suggest this when it wouldn't be good for either company. Apple's successes have involved making things more accessible. They typically buy smaller companies, presumably because they're easier to integrate. Beyond that have you considered the task of folding those codebases into some of these other apps? You're talking about millions of lines of code here, which is an enormous risk. The bolded portion is the only part where I agree with you, but none of it warrants such a big purchase. If they were interested in a paint and edit program like photoshop or a vectorized one like illustrator, they could make something much more modern in terms of both color handling and cursor path interpolation. Both of those programs are ridden with older design elements and algorithms simply because they have been around so long.
I don't know why you even suggest this when it wouldn't be good for either company.
What, Apple and Adobe or Apple and Panic?
Beyond that have you considered the task of folding those codebases into some of these other apps?
I mean to suggest in no way to fold any of their bloat into Apple’s applications. I mean to own Adobe to own the rights to their techniques and implementations, rewriting them from scratch where desired in Apple’s applications.
Both of those programs are ridden with older design elements and algorithms simply because they have been around so long.
Exactly. There are multiple references to “Macromedia” throughout Adobe’s suite.
I was referring to Apple and Adobe. I don't think they make a good match. It reminds me of when HP bought out Compaq.
Quote:
I mean to suggest in no way to fold any of their bloat into Apple’s applications. I mean to own Adobe to own the rights to their techniques and implementations, rewriting them from scratch where desired in Apple’s applications.
Adobe has very specific things going for them. They have industry standard applications that everyone knows. They support specific features in terms of both color management and extra channels. Because of this you have many businesses with pipelines built around the use of those software packages. I don't see much of an intersection with Apple there. They aren't so much about familiarity for long time professional users as they are about intuitiveness and creating applications that appeal to a broader base. They use that to market hardware. I don't think writing these features into Apple's applications would be the way to go, as much of that is an appeal to familiarity. Further I doubt Apple would want all of the functionality present in some of these applications, in spite of it being invaluable to a portion of Adobe's users.
Quote:
Exactly. There are multiple references to “Macromedia” throughout Adobe’s suite.
That's part of the problem with enormous code bases. A complete rewrite presents an enormous risk. I suppose rewriting application software is less of a risk for Apple, given that they derive more of their profit from hardware sales. It was probably infeasible for Adobe with most of the Macromedia stuff. I was more pointing out that there has been a lot of advancement in color management and programmable hardware pipelines that hasn't made it into Adobe's applications in a meaningful way. Part of that is due to aging code. Part is simply the sheer range of hardware that they have to support. I do keep up to date on this stuff, and if you look at some of the more recent OpenGL specifications or ICC v4 standards, there are a lot of areas where you could implement better color pickers and painting tools. You can find some on Linux, but the interfaces aren't always that friendly. There are actually a lot of areas that could use improvement. With the updates in ICC specifications, you could implement transparent raw processing that does little more than assign white balance and dump the linear file data at its native gamma into an editing window. GPUs have enough power to implement just in time conversion to screen profiles, and you would have a much intuitive editing experience when doing things like brightness adjustments. You could apply the same logic to vector based programs and gradients or blends, and they could a lot of work with the way splines are mapped in vector based programs.
That's part of the problem with enormous code bases. A complete rewrite presents an enormous risk. I suppose rewriting application software is less of a risk for Apple, given that they derive more of their profit from hardware sales. It was probably infeasible for Adobe with most of the Macromedia stuff. I was more pointing out that there has been a lot of advancement in color management and programmable hardware pipelines that hasn't made it into Adobe's applications in a meaningful way. Part of that is due to aging code.
That's actually one of the reasons the newer houses, such as the Pixelmator guys, might end up with decent contenders. Of course, there is a tremendous amount of tools to be created and code to be written, but ageing code turns to code rot, and maintaining that costs even more than rewriting a separate version.
I wish there was a decent competitor to Adobe, because CC is the worst thing ever...
That's actually one of the reasons the newer houses, such as the Pixelmator guys, might end up with decent contenders. Of course, there is a tremendous amount of tools to be created and code to be written, but ageing code turns to code rot, and maintaining that costs even more than rewriting a separate version.
I wish there was a decent competitor to Adobe, because CC is the worst thing ever...
I think another part of the issue is the sheer amount of branching. Their applications run on an extremely wide range of hardware. Pixelmator doesn't have that level of redundancy, and they drop support for older OS revisions fairly quickly. It's also pretty much OS dependent, as they rely heavily on apis present in OSX for more than just the interface, where Adobe has to make for a fairly consistent experience between OSX and Windows. At least they don't use QT to build their ui *shudder*. As for Pixelmator, I doubt many firms will switch to that. They could pick up a lot of smaller clientelle such as people who shoot portraits and weddings as long as they can build up a usable workflow around it. Quite a bit of research exists in academia that I haven't seen show up in any similar applications, so I know there are interesting things they could do. There are a couple applications that have gone for a slightly more modern take on this on iOS. If I buy an iPad at any point I will probably purchase procreate, as it's much more interesting than photoshop touch. I don't really expect to see a lot of competitors in OSX due to the maturity of that market.
I think another part of the issue is the sheer amount of branching. Their applications run on an extremely wide range of hardware. Pixelmator doesn't have that level of redundancy, and they drop support for older OS revisions fairly quickly. It's also pretty much OS dependent, as they rely heavily on apis present in OSX for more than just the interface, where Adobe has to make for a fairly consistent experience between OSX and Windows. At least they don't use QT to build their ui *shudder*. As for Pixelmator, I doubt many firms will switch to that. They could pick up a lot of smaller clientelle such as people who shoot portraits and weddings as long as they can build up a usable workflow around it. Quite a bit of research exists in academia that I haven't seen show up in any similar applications, so I know there are interesting things they could do. There are a couple applications that have gone for a slightly more modern take on this on iOS. If I buy an iPad at any point I will probably purchase procreate, as it's much more interesting than photoshop touch. I don't really expect to see a lot of competitors in OSX due to the maturity of that market.
I do too. I had a few ideas of my own, but anything involving graphics is immensely time consuming. The frameworks are complex. I had some exposure to linear algebra in college, but I had to pick up a more advanced text recently to get to the level required. My course in it was a long time ago, and it glossed over things like mappings due to being only a sophomore level course. I'm still going through several books on color science, including some more abstract ones. Beyond that there aren't many good reference texts. There are a couple that are aimed as graduate level textbooks, but they are terrible and severely out of data on things like spatial filtering, color mappings, and edge finding. You can find much better references by visiting academic libraries and pulling up Siggraph course notes from the past 10 years, which is what I've been doing (because I'm really really really nerdy).
That doesn't even include the OpenGL learning curve.
You can find much better references by visiting academic libraries, which is what I've been doing (because I'm really really really nerdy).
That kind of nerdy is arguably so out-of-date it's even trendy.
Put on a trendy beard and carry your iPad Air in a leather manly handbag, wear black-lined glasses (or turtled), and maybe a nice shirt from some underground designer, I'd say.
Also, from my experience, academic libraries are filled with hot chicks who can actually understand either math or greek, which is way more interesting than hot chicks that can tell you who won Voice of America this year. Well, I'd expect they know anyway, but that's not the point. Hah. Off to the library now...
Put on a trendy beard and carry your iPad Air in a leather manly handbag, wear black-lined glasses (or turtled), and maybe a nice shirt from some underground designer, I'd say.
I find it extremely amusing that this conversation spun off from a thread on flash. It seems no one cares about Adobe anymore.
Anyway no man should ever carry a handbag, and the glasses are machined screwless ones that snap together, not exactly the type you described. There's that and I got rid of the beard a few years ago. You weren't that far off, which is extremely funny.
Comments
I'm reluctant in turning it off myself as well. Do wonder how this technique works; going read up on it.
Wouldn’t any problem in this regard just be solved by navigating directly to the URL in question by typing it in?
These are different: ************ 9to5m?c.com
The first’s one’s real. We know that because you can’t see it. The second one has a cyrillic a. But you’re not going to TYPE that last one yourself.
I assume it just checks against a database that Safari downloads locally. If so, it would mean Google isn't seeing what URLs you're wanting to go to, but they would be able to see what IP address you've used to download the database.
The API is there for webdevs to safeguard their visitors, so I don't see this as something people would type in a URL as opposed to the ease of use by clicking a link.
Cyrillic, always fun.
I'll look into this setting and see if it indeed is checking against a DB updated by Google. Would be interesting to see if there are alternatives, though I assume a DB from Google would be the most up-to-date.
This falls inline with how I would assume the service is setup.
Hope this helps.
For your girlfriends' sake, you better not be that fast with everything.
Thanks!
First paragraphs tell me this is a good article; thanks for the link.
Soli and me got's yer back. 8-)
I didn't think it would check with Google to verify a URL is unsafe if it matches the local hash value in the database.
When Apple finally buys Adobe and shuts down everything but Photoshop and Illustrator.
“What about Light…”
Integrated into Photos.
“What about Prem…”
Integrated into Final Cut.
“What about After…”
Integrated into Motion.
“What about Audi…”
Integrated into Logic.
“What about Dream…”
It’s terrible. Use Coda.
“What about InDes…”
Integrated into Pages. Imagine how great Pages would be with professional layout tools!
I don't know why you even suggest this when it wouldn't be good for either company. Apple's successes have involved making things more accessible. They typically buy smaller companies, presumably because they're easier to integrate. Beyond that have you considered the task of folding those codebases into some of these other apps? You're talking about millions of lines of code here, which is an enormous risk. The bolded portion is the only part where I agree with you, but none of it warrants such a big purchase. If they were interested in a paint and edit program like photoshop or a vectorized one like illustrator, they could make something much more modern in terms of both color handling and cursor path interpolation. Both of those programs are ridden with older design elements and algorithms simply because they have been around so long.
What, Apple and Adobe or Apple and Panic?
I mean to suggest in no way to fold any of their bloat into Apple’s applications. I mean to own Adobe to own the rights to their techniques and implementations, rewriting them from scratch where desired in Apple’s applications.
Exactly. There are multiple references to “Macromedia” throughout Adobe’s suite.
What, Apple and Adobe or Apple and Panic?
I was referring to Apple and Adobe. I don't think they make a good match. It reminds me of when HP bought out Compaq.
Adobe has very specific things going for them. They have industry standard applications that everyone knows. They support specific features in terms of both color management and extra channels. Because of this you have many businesses with pipelines built around the use of those software packages. I don't see much of an intersection with Apple there. They aren't so much about familiarity for long time professional users as they are about intuitiveness and creating applications that appeal to a broader base. They use that to market hardware. I don't think writing these features into Apple's applications would be the way to go, as much of that is an appeal to familiarity. Further I doubt Apple would want all of the functionality present in some of these applications, in spite of it being invaluable to a portion of Adobe's users.
Quote:
That's part of the problem with enormous code bases. A complete rewrite presents an enormous risk. I suppose rewriting application software is less of a risk for Apple, given that they derive more of their profit from hardware sales. It was probably infeasible for Adobe with most of the Macromedia stuff. I was more pointing out that there has been a lot of advancement in color management and programmable hardware pipelines that hasn't made it into Adobe's applications in a meaningful way. Part of that is due to aging code. Part is simply the sheer range of hardware that they have to support. I do keep up to date on this stuff, and if you look at some of the more recent OpenGL specifications or ICC v4 standards, there are a lot of areas where you could implement better color pickers and painting tools. You can find some on Linux, but the interfaces aren't always that friendly. There are actually a lot of areas that could use improvement. With the updates in ICC specifications, you could implement transparent raw processing that does little more than assign white balance and dump the linear file data at its native gamma into an editing window. GPUs have enough power to implement just in time conversion to screen profiles, and you would have a much intuitive editing experience when doing things like brightness adjustments. You could apply the same logic to vector based programs and gradients or blends, and they could a lot of work with the way splines are mapped in vector based programs.
That's part of the problem with enormous code bases. A complete rewrite presents an enormous risk. I suppose rewriting application software is less of a risk for Apple, given that they derive more of their profit from hardware sales. It was probably infeasible for Adobe with most of the Macromedia stuff. I was more pointing out that there has been a lot of advancement in color management and programmable hardware pipelines that hasn't made it into Adobe's applications in a meaningful way. Part of that is due to aging code.
That's actually one of the reasons the newer houses, such as the Pixelmator guys, might end up with decent contenders. Of course, there is a tremendous amount of tools to be created and code to be written, but ageing code turns to code rot, and maintaining that costs even more than rewriting a separate version.
I wish there was a decent competitor to Adobe, because CC is the worst thing ever...
That's actually one of the reasons the newer houses, such as the Pixelmator guys, might end up with decent contenders. Of course, there is a tremendous amount of tools to be created and code to be written, but ageing code turns to code rot, and maintaining that costs even more than rewriting a separate version.
I wish there was a decent competitor to Adobe, because CC is the worst thing ever...
I think another part of the issue is the sheer amount of branching. Their applications run on an extremely wide range of hardware. Pixelmator doesn't have that level of redundancy, and they drop support for older OS revisions fairly quickly. It's also pretty much OS dependent, as they rely heavily on apis present in OSX for more than just the interface, where Adobe has to make for a fairly consistent experience between OSX and Windows. At least they don't use QT to build their ui *shudder*. As for Pixelmator, I doubt many firms will switch to that. They could pick up a lot of smaller clientelle such as people who shoot portraits and weddings as long as they can build up a usable workflow around it. Quite a bit of research exists in academia that I haven't seen show up in any similar applications, so I know there are interesting things they could do. There are a couple applications that have gone for a slightly more modern take on this on iOS. If I buy an iPad at any point I will probably purchase procreate, as it's much more interesting than photoshop touch. I don't really expect to see a lot of competitors in OSX due to the maturity of that market.
I think another part of the issue is the sheer amount of branching. Their applications run on an extremely wide range of hardware. Pixelmator doesn't have that level of redundancy, and they drop support for older OS revisions fairly quickly. It's also pretty much OS dependent, as they rely heavily on apis present in OSX for more than just the interface, where Adobe has to make for a fairly consistent experience between OSX and Windows. At least they don't use QT to build their ui *shudder*. As for Pixelmator, I doubt many firms will switch to that. They could pick up a lot of smaller clientelle such as people who shoot portraits and weddings as long as they can build up a usable workflow around it. Quite a bit of research exists in academia that I haven't seen show up in any similar applications, so I know there are interesting things they could do. There are a couple applications that have gone for a slightly more modern take on this on iOS. If I buy an iPad at any point I will probably purchase procreate, as it's much more interesting than photoshop touch. I don't really expect to see a lot of competitors in OSX due to the maturity of that market.
I think that Procreate is pretty amazing, fwiw.
I think that Procreate is pretty amazing, fwiw.
I do too. I had a few ideas of my own, but anything involving graphics is immensely time consuming. The frameworks are complex. I had some exposure to linear algebra in college, but I had to pick up a more advanced text recently to get to the level required. My course in it was a long time ago, and it glossed over things like mappings due to being only a sophomore level course. I'm still going through several books on color science, including some more abstract ones. Beyond that there aren't many good reference texts. There are a couple that are aimed as graduate level textbooks, but they are terrible and severely out of data on things like spatial filtering, color mappings, and edge finding. You can find much better references by visiting academic libraries and pulling up Siggraph course notes from the past 10 years, which is what I've been doing (because I'm really really really nerdy).
That doesn't even include the OpenGL learning curve.
You can find much better references by visiting academic libraries, which is what I've been doing (because I'm really really really nerdy).
That kind of nerdy is arguably so out-of-date it's even trendy.
Put on a trendy beard and carry your iPad Air in a leather manly handbag, wear black-lined glasses (or turtled), and maybe a nice shirt from some underground designer, I'd say.
Also, from my experience, academic libraries are filled with hot chicks who can actually understand either math or greek, which is way more interesting than hot chicks that can tell you who won Voice of America this year. Well, I'd expect they know anyway, but that's not the point. Hah. Off to the library now...
Put on a trendy beard and carry your iPad Air in a leather manly handbag, wear black-lined glasses (or turtled), and maybe a nice shirt from some underground designer, I'd say.
I find it extremely amusing that this conversation spun off from a thread on flash. It seems no one cares about Adobe anymore.
Anyway no man should ever carry a handbag, and the glasses are machined screwless ones that snap together, not exactly the type you described. There's that and I got rid of the beard a few years ago. You weren't that far off, which is extremely funny.