OK, sorry if I took it the wrong way.

Still, sometimes you need to be politically uncorrect, for purely practical reasons.

Any thread that starts with "my monitor" or "color shift" etc, etc, is

always some OP who doesn't calibrate and doesn't know the difference

between device dependent and device independent color spaces. Then an

enormous thread develops trying to wise them up. I'm sick of it. It's

perfectly ok to beat on your system until produces what you want and

need, I do that, but at least I know why. I just don't try stupid color

tricks as if I was on Letterman. If you do dumb things you get results

that can't be repurposed.

Ah! A stupid Letterman color trick. Damn, I wish I had thought of that!

You can't tweak if you aren't seeing the image as it actually is. You

have to calibrate. For your purposes, and if you have a good eye, you

could get SuperCal for 25 bucks.

Thanks,  2nd link on google was this post.  To: ssprengel thanks, the warning is gone. 

My needs: Just a hobby web programmer with a profile that kept giving me the error. 

Future: Few more years untill I am done with my current job.  Picked up CS5.5 and an 800 Dollar entry Nikon camera (kit).  Next I will grab an entry level monitor and calibrator... for now just happy to have the error gone.

To the above debate/anger... many of us just want a fix for an issue... I (and I aussume others) learn from the posts and adapt as best as possible.

Thanks for the knowledge.

Morspreng, you are in the wrong thread.

Lundberg02, you misspelled Morstreng's username, besides being wrong.  Considering you misspelled 1 of 7 words, that's a 114 percent failure rate! 

-Noel

Yes, I misspelled a fictitious name. Oh shame, shame. 1 in 7 is 14 percent rounded off. I'd hate to see your tax returns.

Math isn't his strong suit!

• You made a 1 in 7 spelling error transcribing a name from a few inches away on the screen.  14.2857 (repeating digits) percent failure.
   
• When that word is corrected in the obvious way, you got the entire concept of your post wrong (near as I can see, Morstreng DID respond to the proper thread - his comments are perfectly reasonable and welcome here).  ANOTHER 100 percent failure.

I don't believe I did the math wrong.  14% or even 100% is "fail".  114% is "epic fail".

Another math problem that might be interesting to work through is to calculate the overall helpfulness of Lundberg02's posts using his post count and accumulated points. 

-Noel

Hey you two! Get a room!

The actual error rate is 2.56% rounded up, or one in 39. The apriori probability that any post by anyone is wrong is 50%. Therefore the apriori probability that my post would be wrong AND that I would make a 1 in 39 symbol error is 1.28%, since the probabilitries are independent (uncorrelated). The set "I am wrong", and the set, "I make a symbol error" are disjoint.

I think I can make the statement that a 114% failure rate has no meaning, without loss of generality.

For the record, I thought at first glance Morfsplungenfahrt was talking about the  "file has been changed" thread, and the whole thing was so unimportant that I didn't proof my response.

For all you newbies (Noel), I have been in the Photoshop forums since 1996.

Would that be a ''chat room'', Lawrence? 

Iceberg02, it's interesting that you didn't consider the ''whole thing'' so unimportant as not to reply with a meaningless post that wasted everyone's time.  Besides, I forgot to subtract another 200% for using the wrong kind of computer. 

Oh, so now it's who's a ''who's got the bigger experience'' competition?  Watch out, you might not want to go there - I'm Italian. 

-Noel

"Would that be a ''chat room'', Lawrence?"

No, a brat room. There you can both feast on bratworst!

If we fools can't spar verbally on this day of days, when can we spar?

-Noel

Spar(e) me the agony!