Corporatism doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Advertisers on Facebook like to use translation services too, with similar unintentionally hilarious results.

(Well, there are many but..)

Metroid, without a doubt. It's gone from being an atmospheric space adventure that places you alone in an unfamiliar environment, with a focus on exploration and survival in the face of a hostile local ecosystem, to yet another exposition-heavy FPS.

Too bad it still isn't funny.

With rising costs of fossil fuels (and by extension, manufacture and transport, and by extension, materials), the costs are likely to rise even further before it's completed. Which is why it would be so essential to get ITER done on time -- we're lucky to get even one shot at developing fusion power, before industrial civilization beings to creak at the seams because of a shortage of cheap energy.

It's worth noting that the 920AV mentioned are not stereoscopic -- they're just displays that attach to your head. Using HMDs for 3D modelling doesn't sound like an idea of that much use, to be honest, and especially so if it doesn't enhance the 3D perception in any way.

I've been looking into HMDs out of an interest in using VR for various art projects, and the Vuzix VR920 model, with stereoscopy and head tracking, seem far more interesting. The main problem seems to be that as far as I can tell, they rely on nvidia supplying drivers, which they are pretty lazy in maintaining.

Same. I set up Ctrl-Z/Ctrl-Shift-Z to step backwards and forwards through the history on basically every machine I use Photoshop on. This doesn't work in some special cases, like during a free transform, though.

I did say the History system was better. It's so much better I think it should be the only form of undo.

One thing I like about Gimp that Photoshop does in a confusing way is the way it presents alpha channels to you. In both apps you have a Channels palette. In Photoshop it contains R, G and B channels for the whole image, plus whatever extra channels, active masks etc you might be working with at the moment. If you want to save an image as partially transparent, Photoshop will in some cases, like when saving a .png, understand that transparent areas of the canvas should be given an alpha value of zero. In other cases, such as when saving a .tga, you need to select all the opaque areas manually and paste the selection as an alpha mask in the channels palette. What Gimp does is that it continuosly keeps an alpha channel in the channels palette, in addition to red, green and blue. This corresponds to the transparency of the entire image with all layers, just like the other channels correspond to the combined values of the entire thing. No confusion arises.

I also like the fact that Gimp has a sensible, single undo system instead of the undo/redo-history state duality in Photoshop. Granted, the history does offer some stuff like multiple states, history brush etc that afaik isn't in Gimp.

I'd probably find Gimp too limiting to go back to, now that I'm used to Photoshop, especially since X11 seems kind of iffy under OSX. If I didn't have Photoshop I'd probably use Pixelmator, but that's Mac only, so probably not an option for most.

As an extremely casual follower of the gimp-dev mailing list, I also feel a certain amount of antipathy towards the developers, who a lot of the time seem to make things different from Photoshop just because they can. Like it or not, Photoshop is the de facto standard for image editing, and what many of your potential users will be familiar with. If someone complains that say, the controls for the unsharp mask filter are hard to use compared to what he's used to, the correct response should be to help him out, and maybe think about how you can make them easier, not flame him.

On the other hand, people like the Pixelmator devs, the core Blender developers (who admittedly do get a lot of, in my opinion misguided, flak for the user interface of their program..) and yes, Adobe too, all seem to understand that if their apps are to function as tools for artists, then they should see themselves first and foremost as servants to the artists.

That's pretty good, though it should probably be pointed out that this case will go through all three levels of the Swedish courts, and it's likely to take years for the final decision to come about.
A guilty verdict would require proof of intent, which isn't impossible. The amounts they are suing for are likely irrelevant, however, as Swedish law only allows to sue for actual damages. The lawsuit lists specific albums, movies, games and so on, and it's unlikely (to say the least) that the prosecution will be able to produce proof that their losses from those add up to the amount they're suing for.

Anyone interested in Swedish law as relating to this case should check out this, btw: the former Swedish minister of justice is believed to have ordered the raid on TPB under pressure from the US/media industry. This would be, under Swedish law, highly unconstitutional.