Connect with us

Research

How photoshop became a verb

Published

on

If you need to alter a photo, there’s a good chance you’ll photoshop it. But even though people have been photoshopping images for 30 years as of today, it wasn’t until the last decade that it became widely accepted that you can use “photoshop” as a verb. Before then, you were more likely to “edit an image with Photoshop” than you were to “photoshop an image.”

The rise of photoshop — the verb — tracks with our cultural concerns around image manipulation. While the term was adopted among internet commenters just years after the software’s release on February 19th, 1990, it didn’t become widespread until stories about edited propaganda and touched-up celebrities began to regularly fill our news feeds almost two decades later.THERE WERE PLENTY OF CHEAPER EDITING APPS — PHOTOSHOP DIDN’T HAVE TO BECOME THE GO-TO WORD

It wasn’t inevitable that photoshop would become the go-to term for image manipulation. Photographers had been manipulating photos for more than a century before Photoshop was created, and it wasn’t the only piece of image editing software around in the early days of computers. On top of that, Photoshop was largely inaccessible professional software: hard to use and really expensive. It originally sold for $895, and it never got much cheaper.

It was very much in spite of these hurdles that photoshop became the known term for image editing. In part, that’s because it quickly became the industry standard for designers. But it also quickly became picked up as the tool used for goofier creations and online jokes, too, leading to many of its first informal uses.

Blogs and tech publications were among the first to start referring to Photoshop more colloquially. Wired wrote that someone had “Photoshopped set designs” in an article from October 1999. Something Awful appears to have first used “Photoshopping” in November 2001 while writing about covering its founder’s face with digital pimples. Over the next few years, Boing Boing mentioned “Photoshopping” twisted versions of children’s books, and Engadget referenced having “Photoshopped” an image to display on the PlayStation Portable.PIRACY SPIKED, AND SO DID CONCERNS AROUND PHOTOSHOPPED IMAGES

Early uses of the term among mainstream publications were a bit more awkward. In 2006, The New York Times wrote about a model whose body was “apparently Adobe Photoshopped,” while The Wall Street Journal used the term metaphorically (“he has Photoshopped it in his mind”) to refer to a person who had reconsidered his view of a photo.

It was also around this time that Photoshop became much more widely accessible — though not by Adobe’s choice. Peer-to-peer piracy services like Napster had been around since the turn of the century, but it was in the mid-2000s that software piracy became far more widespread. Adoption of broadband internet spiked early in the decade, and, combined with BitTorrent, it became much easier to download and distribute pirated copies of large apps and games. While details on the widespread piracy of Photoshop are largely anecdotal, a 2009 report from a group of software makers, including Adobe, estimated that more than 40 percent of PC software was pirated.

Use of the term really began to grow as concerns around photoshopped images became mainstream. In 2007, Gawker started writing about celebrity images that had been photoshopped, such as a supposed lewd image of Paris Hilton. In 2008, TMZ reported on a L’Oréal image featuring a “severely Photoshopped Beyonce.” That same year, The New York Times wrote about how Iran’s state media appeared to have photoshopped an image of a missile test to add a fourth missile when only three had been launched, and The Telegraph covered a controversy around whether a Dove ad campaign meant to feature “real beauty” rather than retouched models had, in fact, been retouched.“THE VERB IS JUST TOO EFFICIENT A WAY TO REFER TO THE ACTION.”

The big turn came during those years when large publications started using photoshop unadorned — as in, “I’m going to photoshop this image.” TMZ called on readers to “Photoshop some scandalous threesome photos” of a few celebrities in March 2007. The term appeared in The New York Times a month later and on Gawker a year after that.

Seeing usage rise in those years, Merriam-Webster decided to add “photoshop” to its dictionary in 2008. “As it gained increased use, it was just clear that it was not going anywhere,” Emily Brewster, a Merriam-Webster senior editor, told The Verge. “The verb is just too efficient a way to refer to the action.”

Brewster says that kind of linguistic efficiency — e.g., “I photoshopped it” versus “I altered the image using digital software” — is often the reason a noun will morph into a verb. “Especially when a noun refers to a process or a way of doing something, it really lends itself to the transformation into a verb,” Brewster said.

These examples from news websites were not the altogether earliest uses of photoshop as a verb. Merriam-Webster’s earliest cataloged use of photoshop is from a Usenet newsgroup in 1992. And if you look through old forums and the archives of news websites, you’ll find instances of photoshop, photoshopped, and photoshopping peppering the comments sections far earlier than you’ll find them in actual articles.AS KENDRICK SAYS ON HIS PULITZER-WINNING ALBUM, “I’M SO FUCKIN’ SICK AND TIRED OF THE PHOTOSHOP.”

Part of the reason is that traditional publications are typically hesitant to use colloquial language until it’s generally understood among readers. That generally means that, once a word like photoshop is printed by a major publication, it’s attained some degree of widespread usage — enough that editors believe it’ll be clear to most readers.

This is also the kind of formally approved usage that Merriam-Webster looks for when determining whether to add a new word. “That tells us it’s reached this level of usage that means native speakers are likely to come across the word in print, and the word is likely to stick around,” Brewster said. And that means if readers don’t know its meaning, it’ll be in the dictionary for them to look up.

In a lovely coincidence, The Verge’s copy desk made a number of updates to our site’s style guide yesterday. Among them was the guidance that we may now “lowercase proper nouns as verbs,” which means that, after nine years on the internet, writers at The Verge can finally tell you to go google something or to photoshop an image.

I think that the users of a language — the people — should be guiding standards, not brands or companies,” Kara Verlaney, The Verge’s senior copy editor, told me. Continuing to capitalize photoshop “just stopped making sense” when these words are already used so colloquially, she said. “I didn’t decide to [change it]. It was already happening.”ADOBE ISN’T THRILLED ABOUT ANY OF THIS

In recent years, the word photoshop has also had its meaning divorced from the application itself, become shorthand for lying in general. On “Humble,” Kendrick Lamar raps “I’m so fuckin’ sick and tired of the Photoshop” and pleads to see something natural. Jay-Z discusses perceptions of his marriage on a song from Everything is Love with the line “No photoshop, just real life.” The photo editing isn’t the point; it’s about the overall manipulation of reality.

As this sort of transformation happens, the companies behind these proper nouns are usually resistant to them becoming used colloquially and generically like this. If a word becomes too much of a generic term, companies risk losing their trademark — as happened for Escalator, which was originally a name brand of escalators. (The term became so generic, it even morphed into the word “escalate,” according to Merriam-Webster.)

Photoshop is a trademarked term, too, and Adobe has been hesitant to embrace the word’s success over concerns about losing the rights to it. Today, the company seems to avoid telling people not to use it, even if it won’t endorse the verb itself. In an email to The Verge, Adobe said, “We’re very proud of the Photoshop brand, its place in culture, and the role it continues to play in fostering Creativity for All.”

But in the past, Adobe has been more direct about telling people not to use the app’s name as a verb. As early as 2004, the company issued a memo that people should instead say, “The image was modified using Adobe® Photoshop® software.”

Unfortunately, that’s just not as catchy as saying a picture was ‘shopped.

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/19/21143794/photoshop-30th-anniversary-adobe-verb-origin-story

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Research

How Worried Should You Be About the Health Risks of 5G?

Published

on

By

5G, the next generation of cellular technology for the next generation of smartphones, is imminent. And with it, there’s concern about the health risk of this new, more powerful network. How worried should you be about the coming 5G healthpocalypse?

By now, you may have seen articles on Facebook or alternative health websites. The gist: 5G is a dangerous escalation of traditional cellular technology, one packed with higher energy radiation that delivers potential damaging effects on human beings. Some 5G conspiracy theorists contend that the new network generates radiofrequency radiation that can damage DNA and lead to cancer; cause oxidative damage that can cause premature aging; disrupt cell metabolism; and potentially lead to other diseases through the generation of stress proteins. Some articles cite research studies and opinions by reputable organizations like the World Health Organization.

It sounds worrisome, but let’s take a look at the actual science.

What Is 5G?

5G has been hyped for a few years, but this is the year that carriers begin the process of rolling out the new wireless standard. AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint have all started to deploy their networks in the first half of the year, though widespread availability is still a year or more away. 5G will get a foothold in little more than a handful of cities this year.

Update: With the onset of the Coronavirus pandemic, a number of viral social media conspiracy theories have speculated that 5G is the cause of the world’s current problems. Simply put, these claims are factually false. 5G does not cause Coronavirus.

That isn’t keeping device manufacturers and service providers from jumping onto the 5G bandwagon. Samsung’s new Galaxy S10 and Galaxy Fold (the phone that unfurls into a tablet), for example, are both 5G-ready, along with models from LG, Huawei, Motorola, ZTE, and more.

LG V50 ThinQ 5G
LG V50 ThinQ 5G’s is one of the first 5G phones available. LG

5G offers at least a tenfold improvement in network performance. The last major network upgrade was 4G, which debuted in 2009 (the year of the Colorado balloon boy hoax), with a peak speed of about 10 Mbps. In comparison, 5G is poised to deliver peak speeds between 10 and 20 Gbps. And network latency will drop from 30ms to about 1ms, ideal for video game streaming, online video, and the Internet of Things, which is anticipating 5G to connect sensors, computers, and other devices with ultra-low latency.

An Evolution of Concerns

Before we address 5G, it’s worth pointing out that the latest health fears about radiation aren’t happening in a vacuum (there’s some physics joke in there, no doubt). Concerns about 5G are the latest iteration of decades of headlines about the dangers of electromagnetic radiation. We’ve seen controversies about everything from the health risks of Wi-Fi to smart meters.

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, for example, is a hypothetical disease in which certain people experience debilitating symptoms in the presence of radiation like cell phones and Wi-Fi—so yes, Michael McKean’s bizarre behavior on “Better Call Saul” is a real thing. But despite people claiming such sensitivities for at least 30 years, systematic scientific reviews have found that “blinded” victims can’t tell when they’re in the presence of an electromagnetic field, and the World Health Organization now recommends psychological evaluation for people so afflicted.

Likewise, decades of studies have found no link between cell phones and cancers like brain tumors, though that hasn’t kept municipalities like San Francisco from passing laws requiring stores to display the radiation emitted by handsets—which implies, in the minds of consumers, risk.

How Dangerous Is Radiofrequency Radiation?

5G cellular base station

At the root of all concerns about cell phone networks is radiofrequency radiation (RFR). RFR is anything emitted in the electromagnetic spectrum, from microwaves to x-rays to radio waves to light from your monitor or light from the sun. Clearly, RFR isn’t inherently dangerous, so the problem becomes discovering under what circumstances it might be.

Scientists say that the most important criterion about whether any particular RFR is dangerous is whether it falls into the category of ionizing or non-ionizing radiation. Simply put, any radiation that’s non-ionizing is too weak to break chemical bonds. That includes ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, and everything with a lower frequency, like radio waves. Everyday technologies like power lines, FM radio, and Wi-Fi also fall into this range. (Microwaves are the lone exception: non-ionizing but able to damage tissue, they’re precisely and intentionally tuned to resonate with water molecules.) Frequencies above UV, like x-rays and gamma rays, are ionizing.

Dr. Steve Novella, an assistant professor of neurology at Yale and the editor of Science-Based Medicine, understands that people generally get concerned about radiation. “Using the term radiation is misleading because people think of nuclear weapons—they think of ionizing radiation that absolutely can cause damage. It can kill cells. It can cause DNA mutations.” But since non-ionizing radiation doesn’t cause DNA damage or tissue damage, Novella says that most concern about cell phone RFR is misplaced. “There’s no known mechanism for most forms of non-ionizing radiation to even have a biological effect,” he says.

Or, in the less refined but more visceral words of author C. Stuart Hardwick, “radiation isn’t magic death cooties.”

Studies Aren’t Clearcut

Of course, just because there’s no known mechanism for non-ionizing radiation to have a biological effect, that doesn’t’ mean it’s safe or that no effect exists. Indeed, researchers continue to conduct studies. One recent study was released by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), an agency run by the Department of Health and Human Services. In this widely quoted study about cell phone radio frequency radiation, scientists found that high exposure to 3G RFR led to some cases of cancerous heart tumors, brain tumors, and tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats.

The study is a good object lesson in how hard it is to do science like this. As RealClearScience points out, the number of tumors detected were so small that they statistically could have occurred by chance (which may be more likely since they were only detected in male subjects). Moreover, the level and duration of the RFR exposure were well in excess of what any actual human would ever be exposed to, and in fact, the irradiated test rats lived longer than the unexposed control rats. Says Dr. Novella, “Experienced researchers look at a study like that and say that doesn’t really tell us anything.”

Sizing Up 5G’s Risks

Ongoing studies aside, 5G is coming, and as mentioned, there are concerns about this new technology.

A common complaint about 5G is that, due to the lower power of 5G transmitters, there will be more of them. The Environmental Health Trust contends that “5G will require the buildout of literally hundreds of thousands of new wireless antennas in neighborhoods, cities, and towns. A cellular small cell or another transmitter will be placed every two to ten homes according to estimates.”

Says Dr. Novella, “What they’re really saying is the dose is going to be higher. Theoretically, this is a reasonable question to ask.” But skeptics caution you shouldn’t conflate asking the question with merely asserting that there’s a risk. As Novella points out, “We’re still talking about power and frequency less than light. You go out in the sun, and you’re bathed in electromagnetic radiation that’s far greater than these 5G cell towers.”

It’s easy to find claims online that the greater frequency of 5G alone constitutes a risk. RadiationHealthRisks.com observes that “1G, 2G, 3G and 4G use between 1 to 5 gigahertz frequency. 5G uses between 24 to 90 gigahertz frequency,” and then asserts that “Within the RF Radiation portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, the higher the frequency, the more dangerous it is to living organisms.”

But asserting that the higher frequency is more dangerous is just that—an assertion, and there’s little real science to stand behind it. 5G remains non-ionizing in nature.

Devices emitting electromagnetic fields in the home

The FCC—responsible for licensing the spectrum for public use—weighs in as well. Says Neil Derek Grace, a communications officer at the FCC, “For 5G equipment, the signals from commercial wireless transmitters are typically far below the RF exposure limits at any location that is accessible to the public.” The FCC defers to the FDA for actual health risk assessments, which takes a direct, but low-key approach to addressing the risks: “The weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems.”

In 2011, the World Health Organization weighed in, classifying RF Radiation as a Group 2B agent, which is defined as “Possibly carcinogenic to humans.” This, too, is nuanced. Says Novella, “you have to look at all the other things they classify as a possible carcinogen. They put it in the same class as things like caffeine. That is such a weak standard that it basically means nothing. It’s like saying ‘everything causes cancer.’”

Part of the problem with the WHO declaration is that it’s focused on hazard, not risk—a subtle distinction often lost on non-scientists, not unlike the rigorous distinction between “precision” and “accuracy.” (Precision refers to how tightly clustered your data is; accuracy refers to how close that data is to the real value. You might have a dozen miscalibrated thermometers that all tell you the wrong temperature with a very high degree of precision.) When the WHO classifies coffee or nickel or pickles as a possible carcinogen, it’s asserting hazard without regard for real-world risk. Explains Novella, “A loaded pistol is a hazard because theoretically, it can cause damage. But if you lock it in a safe, the risk is negligible.”

Scientists will continue to test new networks as technology evolves, to make sure the technology we use every day remains safe. As recently as February, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal critiqued the FCC and FDA for insufficient research into the potential risks of 5G. As the NTP study shows, research into radiation risks is difficult and often inconclusive, meaning it can take a long time to make real progress.

But for now, everything we know about 5G networks tells us that there’s no reason to be alarmed. After all, there are many technologies we use every day with a substantially higher measurable risk. And as Dr. Novella says, “With 5G the hazard is low—but non-zero—and the actual risk appears to be zero. We’ve picked up no signal in the real world.”

Source: https://www.howtogeek.com/423720/how-worried-should-you-be-about-the-health-risks-of-5g/

Continue Reading

Research

Researchers take another step closer to mind-reading computer

Published

on

By

A team of researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, has taken another step toward the development of a computer able to decipher speech in the human mind. In their paper published in the journal Nature Neuroscience, the group describes their approach to using AI systems to read and translate human thoughts. Gregory Cogan with Duke University has published a News & Views piece outlining the work by the team in California in the same journal issue.

Over the past century, people have wondered if it might be possible to create a machine that could read the human mind. Such ideas have most often been expressed in movies where scientists try to read the mind of a spy or terrorist. Recently, such systems have come to be seen as a possible way for people with speech disability to communicate. The advent of artificial intelligence, and more specifically neural networks, has brought the possibility ever closer, with machines able to read brain waves and translate some of them into words. In this new effort, the research team has taken the idea a step forward by developing a system able to decipher whole sentences.

The work by the team involved developing a more advanced AI system and recruiting the assistance of four women with epilepsy—each of whom had been fitted with brain-implanted electrodes to monitor their condition. The researchers used readings from the electrodes to capture brain signals in different parts of their brain as the women read sentences out loud. The data from the electrodes was sent to a neural network that processed the information linked certain brain signals to words as they were being processed and spoken by the volunteer. Each of the sentences was spoken twice by each of the volunteers, but only the first was used for training the neural network—the second was used for testing purposes. After processing the brain signal data, the first neural network sent the results to a second neural network that tried to form sentences from them.

The researchers found that their system had a best-case scenario error rate of just 3%. But they note that it was also working with a very limited vocabulary of just 250 words—far fewer than the hundreds of thousands that most humans are able to recognize. But they suggest it might be enough for someone who cannot speak any words at all.

Source: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-03-closer-mind-reading.html

Continue Reading

Research

How will the iPhone 9 features and price be?

Published

on

By

Responding to the expectation of users with a small screen smartphone with iPhone SE in March 2016, Apple had a short time to introduce the iPhone SE 2 or the iPhone 9 model, which is not used by many people. It will not be similar to the SE series, with iPhone 9 features delayed due to the Corona virus. In addition, with the price of iPhone 9, users will be able to establish a throne in their hearts.

If we start with the name clutter: Apple’s new phone with a small screen and affordable price was expected as the iPhone SE 2 in the first place. However, it is said that the device will be called iPhone 9 in all leaks recently.

iPhone 9 features
Even though users want a small screen phone, Apple used the iPhone 8 size as it does not make sense to turn to a size that is no longer preferred today like 4 inches. So the iPhone 9 will have a 4.7-inch screen.

While this screen is expected to be produced by LG, users will not feel any deficiency in performance. Because this affordable Apple model will be powered by the Apple A13 Bionic processor, which powers the iPhone 11 series.

Produced with a 7 nm + fabrication process, this six-core processor’s operating frequency can reach 2.65 GHz and includes a 4-core graphics unit. With this phone, which has 3 GB of RAM, Apple will return to the fingerprint reader after a long time. Because it will have almost the same design as the iPhone 8, Touch ID will be replaced by Face ID again.

Apple will come across with a single camera on the back to implement the affordable phone strategy. While this is expected to be the same as the camera we encounter on iPhone 8, we will say goodbye to the 3D Touch feature on the screen side.

While two storage options are expected, 64 GB and 128 GB, three different color options will appear. The dimensions of the device will be 138.55 mm x 67.4 mm x 7.8 mm. In this context, it will be 0.5 mm thick compared to iPhone 8.

How much will the iPhone 9 price be?
Expectations for the iPhone 9 price are $ 399. This means a very affordable price tag and very high sales figures in the US market compared to the iPhone 11 series. If we consider the taxes and the arrival price in our country, it seems inevitable to encounter a price tag of 4500 – 5000 TL.

In summary: For iPhone SE users, we are no longer able to see a 4-inch iPhone in the same design. When iPhone 9 launches shortly after, iPhone 6, 6s and 7 will retain almost the same design and dimensions, enabling users to switch to much more powerful hardware.

Source: https://www.somagnews.com/will-iphone-9-features-price/

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2020 Inventrium Magazine

%d bloggers like this: