So how is that Subscription Service working out for Adobe?

[kencameron]

I used to moderate one forum (Peter Krogh's DAM Book) where we allowed anonymity only by exception and insisted on posters addressing each other by name. The latter was at Peter's insistence, not mine, but I came to think it worked well. Would it be a bad thing here?

John

Mmmm, maybe not. Oh dear. I find myself in danger of being persuaded, by reasoned argument, to change my mind. That must be what you get by going on the internet this early in the morning. 

[Farmer]

Here's my rule of thumb, developed over the 25 years I've been using public network message boards (BBS for those who remember them) and the 23 years I've been using the internet (before the web).

Just read what someone says.  Don't worry about who they say they are or who they actually are.  If it's worth reading, great, if it's not, that's a shame.  If it's constantly not worth reading, then stop reading them.

In the universe as a whole, compound interest is the most powerful force but in cyberspace /ignore is the most powerful force available to you - it's usually even more powerful than /ban (although that has its place).  The problem is, most of us find it extremely difficult to invoke because the opposing force of /lastword is nearly as strong :-)

[jjj]

I have several people hidden because of their constant stupidity/inability to read posts. But it would be nice if we did not have to do that.

[Farmer]

In real life we tend to avoid certain people, and we interact with relatively few compared to the internet.  It's bound to happen.

"Do not be excessively annoying.  Do not be too easily excessively annoyed".  Fidonet.  eRules to eLive by.

[jjj]

The thing I really like about Facebook [in comparison to forums] is that it's basically a nice place to be, because only people I think are worth befriending get added. Nearly all are people I have met in meat space, plus a very few others who I've interacted with in a positive way via other FB friends. I spent a lot less time on forums with numpties posting nonsense as a result.
I also never understood people's moaning about stupid posts on FB, as they are only a reflection of the people you choose to hang out with.

[LesPalenik]

Sorry for not addressing any of the issues on the last 3 pages.

Just wanted to announce that my friend who had problems with the latest PS CC update, finally got his problem resolved with the assistance of a friendly and knowledgeable Adobe troubleshooter from India. According to this PS CC subscriber, the final troubleshooting session took 3 hours and a radical system surgery. That's not counting over 100 hours of prior attempts to get it going and suffering withdrawal symptoms of living for 3 weeks without PS.

[jjj]

Just wanted to announce that my friend who had problems with the latest PS CC update, finally got his problem resolved with the assistance of a friendly and knowledgeable Adobe troubleshooter from India. According to this PS CC subscriber, the final troubleshooting session took 3 hours and a radical system surgery. That's not counting over 100 hours of prior attempts to get it going and suffering withdrawal symptoms of living for 3 weeks without PS.

Yikes that is not good. Having the problem, not solving it that is.
But did you friend/Adobe determine the actual cause of the problem?

[jjj]

In real life we tend to avoid certain people, and we interact with relatively few compared to the internet.  It's bound to happen.

"Do not be excessively annoying.  Do not be too easily excessively annoyed".  Fidonet.  eRules to eLive by.

To return to this point, sadly of late LuLa seems to have more people than ever who are too lazy to read posts/post gibberish. I hope it doesn't get like other places where the numpties chase everyone else out with their wilful ignorance. 

[LesPalenik]

Yikes that is not good. Having the problem, not solving it that is.
But did you friend/Adobe determine the actual cause of the problem?

I don't know what was the actual rescue trick, and I have a such a feeling that maybe even he doesn't know. It's conceivable that even the Adobe troubleshooter doesn't know which lucky operation solved the problem.
In my previous posts I showed a long list of standard recovery procedures they attempted before without any success.

I suspect that this time, they just kept on deleting programs, drivers, registry entries, and other files until they struck the corrupted file that was missed by the Adobe uninstall program.

[Damon Lynch]

I don't know what was the actual rescue trick, and I have a such a feeling that maybe even he doesn't know.

Upgrading any complex software can lead to problems, whether it be the OS or a huge application like Photoshop and friends. What compounds the problem with the CC model is the need to re-download the installers every time. I wish there was a way to archive the installer locally for use at a later date.

[Doyle Yoder]

Upgrading any complex software can lead to problems, whether it be the OS or a huge application like Photoshop and friends. What compounds the problem with the CC model is the need to re-download the installers every time. I wish there was a way to archive the installer locally for use at a later date.

You can right here.

http://prodesigntools.com/adobe-cc-direct-download-links.html

[tuthill]

You can right here.

http://prodesigntools.com/adobe-cc-direct-download-links.html

Tried it and all it did was open the Creative Cloud app with no option to actually download as Photoshop CC is already installed:-(  Am I missing something?

[Glenn NK]

The problem is, most of us find it extremely difficult to invoke because the opposing force of /lastword is nearly as strong :-)

Point well taken.   It reminds me of a cartoon where the guy's wife says, "honey, come to bed", and he replies, "I can't - someone on the internet is wrong".

Yours anonymously,

Glenn NK

[Doyle Yoder]

Tried it and all it did was open the Creative Cloud app with no option to actually download as Photoshop CC is already installed:-(  Am I missing something?

All Creative Cloud Updates for Windows
http://prodesigntools.com/adobe-cc-updates-direct-links-windows.html

All Creative Cloud Updates for Mac OS
http://prodesigntools.com/adobe-cc-updates-direct-links-mac.html

[tuthill]

All Creative Cloud Updates for Windows
http://prodesigntools.com/adobe-cc-updates-direct-links-windows.html

All Creative Cloud Updates for Mac OS
http://prodesigntools.com/adobe-cc-updates-direct-links-mac.html

Okay, got it figured out.  Thanks for the link Doyle.

[Farmer]

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/03/05/philadelphia-judge-issues-ruling-that-could-give-anonymous-online-commenters-second-thoughts/

Thought that might interest some folks here :-)

[jjj]

Good ruling. People should be willing to take responsibility for what they say or do.

[daws]

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/03/05/philadelphia-judge-issues-ruling-that-could-give-anonymous-online-commenters-second-thoughts/

Thought that might interest some folks here :-)

What's really interesting is how fast that ruling will be overturned. American courts have repeatedly ruled that public opinions published in any medium -- letters-to-the-editor in printed publications, handbills pasted on walls; online blogs, tweets and forum posts -- are the opinions of the writers, and that as opinions they do not fall under the definitions of libel or slander.

From conspiracy theorists to religious zealots, from political wackos to people who proclaim "Justin Beiber is a nose-picking poo-poo," public opinions expressed in public venues is protected speech under the First Amendment (privately owned venues and proscribed hate speech excepted). Attempts to quash, control or in any manner inhibit the free expression of such opinions voiced by anyone, anonymous or famous, have been, and will continue to be, shot down by the courts.

[Farmer]

In some contexts (many) that's true, but since by definition libel would have to be public in some way to cause damage, it's not always the case that such commentary is protected.

[daws]

Libel and slander don't have to be public to cause harm or damage. What they have to be is created with the deliberate intent to cause harm or damage.

Not created with the intent to voice contrary opinions, rant, piss, moan, whine, vent, mock, deride, or call names, but specifically and solely with the intent to cause harm or damage.

The legal bar for proving such intent is very high, precisely for the reason that individuals and institutions historically try to use the law to inhibit criticism of themselves. The more powerful the individuals and institutions, and the more antagonistic those who speak against them, the more varied and subtle the attempts to inhibit the speakers --  as the writers of the First Amendment and framers of libel law knew all too well.

The Philly case is a blatant attempt to inhibit critical speech. Had anonymous writers been praising the panty-bunched peeps, there would have been no demand for them to identify themselves, much less legal action.