Slashdot Mirror

I second that. If you are visualizing graphs be sure to get the igraph package which can be used with R, Python, C, or Ruby.
http://cneurocvs.rmki.kfki.hu/igraph/
Processing is another package that is geared towards data visualization which java developers might find easier use
http://www.processing.org/

Labar published an article describing the work in a scholarly, refereed journal and then distributed the code(he chose an executable) with a request for citation.

You could also look at the EMAN2 project
http://blake.bcm.tmc.edu/eman/eman2/

EMAN2 is distributed as open source. The authors also published the work in a scholarly, refereed journal.

Rather backward of me, wouldn't you say? You might be right, but I do have very good reasons.

Art is necessarily symbolic and can only be properly be judged subjectively. Those properties bring immense power and danger to art.

If the artist paints a picture of a bird, is it only a picture of a bird? Could it be a symbol of any particular religious or political movement? Could the artist be coding any messages or meanings in the painting?

When deciding how or if we should pay the artist, how do we judge the matter? do we pick the artists that can paint a bird picture that looks most like a bird? That would probably be my choice but it would leave out the cubist freaks and just about any other "school." Shall we have a nationwide moderation system with meta-moderation by a self-selected group of expert critics? How about a huge lottery where artists get 20 year positions regardless of what they do or do not do?

I'm not fundamentally against publicly funded art, but I don't see any way to preserve artistic freedom and have some kind of control and order over the whole affair. I don't think it can be done. Some of the most beautiful and technically excellent art was done for similiar reasons as some of the most offensive stuff out there. Both pieces make a religious point.

I can't say one is technically better than the other, in part because I haven't studied the two and don't care to do so. I then have only my preferences in art and social viewpoint to fall back on. That will never be completely rational and the process will be corrupt the artist eventually.

I certainly will not willingly fund art that offends my religious background like some art always will. It is also important to my religious ideals not to dictate tell the artist what they can and can't do on their own time.

Therefore the only solution I see is for people to buy the art that they like. The goodness/appropriateness/interest factors take care of themselves.

Science, on the other hand, can be objectively measured. Pons & Fleischmann were wrong. We could justifiably cut them off if they we dangling from the public teat. The guys that interpret the Hubble images do interesting but practically useless stuff, and we still gladly pay them.

The point is we can measure science objectively and THEN assign value. There is a small but rational hook we can use to make tax money spending choices. It is the opposite way with art. I know I'd get violent if I was assigned to support some idiot performance artist from New York every April 14, but do not care if you want to buy a ticket.

In reality we will always indirectly fund art, but we should at least try to make it look like arts spending is a private matter.

Clickable link:

http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/l/leonardo/12engine /4device3.html

You can click on the drawing and get a toolbar that lets you resize it, even past 100%. It's convenient.

Straight to the drawing:

http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/art/l/leonardo/12engine/ 4device3.jpg

No toolbar, but if you click the drawing you zoom it to 100% size.

steveha

Clickable link:

http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/l/leonardo/12engine /4device3.html

You can click on the drawing and get a toolbar that lets you resize it, even past 100%. It's convenient.

Straight to the drawing:

http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/art/l/leonardo/12engine/ 4device3.jpg

No toolbar, but if you click the drawing you zoom it to 100% size.

steveha

For a hires version, try here

Then again, I may well have become cynical ...

Actually, I would guess that any new communications technology will be quickly adapted for pornography. It started with the Gutenberg press and movable type, things have continued that way to this day. One of the first authors to use the press was Pietro Aretino, who in 1534 published the first editions of his Ragionamenti--dialogues about "brothel affairs". Ahem. See also Lynn Hunt's The Invention of Pornography, 1500-1800.

New technology will--if at all possible--be first used for pornography and sex, followed by gambling, then crime. Hint: it is always possible. There will then be media condemnations, cynically moralizing editorials, government overreaction attempting to regulate the technology, and finally public adoption.

Maybe, but one of the reasons P2P hasn't been used for more legitimate purposes is because the networks are spammed with the RIAA's crap. Much of it is stupid people putting up the real music, but the RIAA flooding makes it worse.

Say you want to find a picture of the madonna. Even if you type "virgin madonna"--guess what will pop up? A thousand entries for "Madonna-Like a Virgin.mp3". Yeah, maybe you can add jpg to the search, but you'll lose the pngs, gifs, etc. If you want to find a audio discussion, forget it.

This well known painting hangs in a London museum. Just look at those nude minors, some exgaged in sexually explicit acts! Where do you draw the line?

Someone else has already mentioned KFKI. This group was based out of Hungary. Their TPA series consisted of PDP-8, PDP-11, and VAX clones. Some of the systems were reverse engineered. Others were made up of smuggled parts. There's a decent Hungarian website covering some history of the TPA line. The site is maintained by Akos Vargo, who himself has a respectable collection of these old TPA machines.