Some of van Gogh's art was less than stellar, but much of it was brilliant. He seemed to have some trouble with man-made objects ("Van Gogh's Bedroom", "Van Gogh's Chair", "The Church at Auvers"), but most of his landscapes ("Starry Night over the Rhône", "The Starry Night", "Two Poplars on an Hill", "Olive Trees", "A Path through a Ravine", "Road with Cypresses") and many of his still-lifes ("Sunflowers" (several versions), "Irisis") were just stunning. In addition, many of his portraitures, while technically inaccurate, are very evocative ("The Potato Eaters", "Portrait of Doctor Paul Gachet"). Finally, his treatment of color was, at the time, revolutionary, both in its choice (e.g., blues and greens for skin color) and its application (e.g., broad strokes with a palette knife).
Well, I can't compare it to the machine-generated stuff (because I have all of that Flash crap disabled), but a lot of that Abstract "Art" looks like finger-painting (e.g., Thomas C. Fedro). Other stuff looks kind of like procedural textures (e.g., Kelly A Keigwin) or pattern-drawing programs with bugs in them (e.g., Rhonda Leigh Brewer). There is some wheat (e.g., Virginia Kilpatrick), but most it is chaff IMO.
Even better would be weighted public moderation, similar to Slashdot's friend/foe setup, but finer-grained, and for moderators/reviewers as well as posters. That way, readers can decide which moderators' views are very important (to them), and which aren't important at all. So, for example, if I don't respect Larry's views at all, but highly respect Curley's reviews, I can set Larry's weight at 0 and Curley's at 1. Then a paper that Larry rates highly, but Curley rates poorly, appears less-highly rated to me than a paper that Larry rates poorly, but Curley rates highly.
I doubt it took that long to develop nylon, rayon, or any of the other wonder fibers into products for sale.
I don't use nylon RAM any more. I kept getting runs in it.
Re: Differences among political groups
on
Hackers & Painters
·
· Score: 1
Could someone explain a little bit please what the differences between all of these groups actually are?
The main difference between most political groups is which of your freedoms they want to suppress. For example, Democrats and left-wingers generally want to suppress your freedoms use your property however you see fit, while Republicans and right-wingers generally want to suppress your freedoms to use your body however you see fit. Only Libertarians and similar groups wish to provide individuals with the most kinds of freedoms possible, as long as those freedoms doesn't impinge on others' freedoms. Note that the labels "conservative" and "liberal" don't mean what they used to; for example, GWB is a "conservative", but his recent actions have done anything but "conserve" the staus quo.
Also, many people don't fit any of these labels. (For example, I am mostly libertarian in my philosophy, but would I extend rights to the unborn and non-human animals, which most libertarians would not.)
It's like all the crazies who go ballistic at people when people don't pronounce a hard "G" at the beginning of "Gnome". Why the fuck should they? It's pronounced differently in every other word beginning with "G-N".
That's just gnot true. For example, "GNU" is prognougnced "guh-NEW", Gnumeric is prognougnced "guh-new-MARE-ick", etc. So why shouldgn't we correct people who mis-prognougnce "gnome"? It doesgn't meagn that we're grammer gnazis or agnythigng. What are you, some kignd of gnut?
Don't ever get your wisdom teeth pulled! Where will you keep your wisdom? I found that I lost much of my wisdom when I got my wisdom teeth pulled (all four at once, local anesthetic only, then my mother slid off the icy road into a ditch when she was driving me back home, so I had to walk in a freezeing wind down the road half a mile to the nearest house with a phone, calling a tow truck in an Elmer Fudd voice because the anesthetic hadn't yet worn off, but it did while we were waiting for the truck, and no one had any aspirin or other pain reliever, what a fun time that was (true story)).
Say something happened to the Apache team. Whole team was on a bus tour of Utah, and got hit by a whale. It could happen.
This is why there is a provision in the Apache developers' employment contracts that states that they can't go on bus tours in Utah during whaling season (at least, not all at once). Do any Microsoft developers have such a provision in their employment contracts? No? Then why would anyone prefer IIS over Apache?
I've just been playing with Windows-M and Windows-D, and there is a difference: Windows-M minimizes only those windows that have a minimize button, but Windows-D minimizes all windows. Also, Windows-M is one-way, whereas Windows-D acts like a toggle. Also, Windows-D can undo Windows-M. (All of this tested under MS-Windows 95 OSRB.)
it's a matter of how you _format_ your text, not how you _enter_ it.
So why don't you _format_ your text to change all of your _words_ to <i>words</i>? I know that you know how to use <i>, because you used it when you quoted the GP's text.
Underscores surrounding a word are used to indicate italics (and asterisks are used to indicate bold) on systems like USENET, which doesn't support <i> and <b>. This forum, however, does, so you should be using <i>, rather than _. Reading _ in a setting where <i> is available is annoying.
I would call Linux (as an OS) a variant of GNU, much as SunOS is a variant of BSD.
Not the same thing. The code in the SunOS was based on the code in BSD. The code in Linux was not based on anything in the GNU project.
BTW, Stallman isn't "insisting" that a distribution including GNU and Linux code be named "Gnu/Linux", he is merely asking that it be named so. While I think that his time would be better spent on other, more important things, I do think that his view on the subject is frequently mischaracterized.
I don't get it. What did Iraq's TLD used to be, "PS" (Persia)? I believe that the ISO CC for Iraq is "iq", and, therefore, "iq" should already be Iraq's TLD, because ICANNT uses the ISO CCs to determine countries' TLDs. What am I missing?
Your hobby, unless it's birdwatching, may be next.
I would advise you not to go bird-watching around nuclear power plants or other "sensitive" installations. Hanging around such places with binoculars, cameras, shotgun mics, and recording equipment may land you in some serious doo-doo. Bird-watching is already "next" in some locations.
Why in the hell couldn't Gore have been that eloquent in the months leading up to the November, 2000 election?
Duh, maybe because at that time Bush hadn't done, and wasn't advocating, the things that he eventually did once he became president? If Gore had made these statements prior to the election, Bush would have denied that those actions were in his agenda, and Gore would have come off looking even more foolish than he did. It's important to understand that campaign promises mean nothing, and that Democratic and Republican presidents will do nearly identical things when in office. Does anybody really think that Gore would have acted much differently than Bush did?
Yes, yes, there are small things on the fringes, like stem-cell research, where Gore may have acted differently, but both sides work hard at suppressing more and more American (and other) citizens' freedoms. Don't forget that Congress, which overwhemingly passed USAPATRIOT and other unpatriotic legislation, is nearly half Democratic.
There is little real difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. This is something that voters can't seem to get through their heads.
My advice: Vote third party. Anybody but Bush or Kerry.
It sounds similar to a computer which to speed it up a wire had to be cut.
You may be thinking about a Pentium or Athlon that came out several years ago that had some traces on the top of the chip. IIRC, by cutting some uncut traces and connecting some cut traces, you could disable some clock-locking mechanism, allowing you to overclock the chip more aggressively.
I think that I read this at Tom's Hardware, but I can't be sure.
You forget product marketing rule #1: when choosing or changing a product name, make sure it has as many "x"s or "e-"s or "i-"s in the name as possible to promote a trendy, latest-high-tech image.
This is why web sites with "XXX" in their names are so popular.
So say you had a hypothetical universe containing only two bodies - lets say a large moon with no atmosphere, and a spaceship. The moon is spinning, and the spaceship is in geostationary orbit around it.
What's to say that the spaceship is actually in geostationary orbit and not just STATIONARY if there is nothing else to measure their motion against? These two things are all that exist in this hypothetical universe and they are stationary relative to each other, so why aren't they 'absolutely' stationary, causing the spaceship just to fall? How do you know the moon is really even spinning?
IANAP, but my understanding is that the motion is relative to everything else in the universe. So in a universe with only two objects in it, there is no way to tell whether the spaceship is orbiting a spinning planet, or if they are just sitting there next to each other. Therefore, the spaceship will fall.
In our universe, a geostationary satellite is stationary relative to the Earth, but is moving relative to everything else in the universe. (Actually, for the most part, pretty much everything in our universe is moving relative to everything else.) Now, if, somehow, the Earth did not rotate, but everything else in the universe orbited the Earth once every 24 hours, the satellite would hang there in the sky in the exact same way (due to forces exerted by the movement of everything else in the universe), even though it would not be orbiting the Earth.
At least, that's my understanding of the thing. It's all pretty weird.
I can't think of a successful fantasy/fairy tale live-action movie off the top of my head.
You've obviously never watched "Show White and the Three Stooges" (especially the two-hour long ice-skating scene (well, it seemed like two hours)).
Especially ones with talking animals.
Well, there was that movie where the entire cast was a bunch of chimpanzees dressed in Medieval garb with a voice track dubbed over it. Although, to be honest, there wasn't much fantasy about it (except for that fact that they were talking chimpanzees dressed in Medieval garb).
In fact, the record labels are the ones getting the short end of the stick, since they own the sound-recording copyrights, but don't get paid when their copyrights are used by other businesses (such as radio stations and bars).
I don't see what stick they got the short end of. They sold the record/CD. They got their money. Why should they have a right to a cut every time the music is played?
So do I, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to get paid doing what I love.
It doesn't matter what you prefer; it matters what people are willing to pay. If a person is willing to pay you for doing what you love, that's fine. Otherwise, you will have to do something that you don't love to bring home the money, and then do what you love in your spare time.
Do major clothing manufacturers have an obligation to sell clothing at higher prices so that people who love to make clothes by hand can make a decent living doing so? No. Do I have an obligation to sell my software so that some other programmer can make a decent living doing so? No.
I fail to see how programmers can make money by giving their wares away for free
Well, some might do so as a way of advertising their capabilities. A prospective employer can see the quality of software that person can produce, before hiring him/her. Another way to make money is to create an Open Source application/library that becomes popular, then write a book about it. Still another way is to write the application/library under a dual license, where a company can license the app/lib in its closed-source product for a fee. Or get hired by the company to make changes in the product that will more suit the company's requirements.
There are many ways to make money in an Open Source (or semi-Open Source) world.
Slashdot Mirror
They usually have one of those ball lighting thingees on the ceiling.
Some of van Gogh's art was less than stellar, but much of it was brilliant.
He seemed to have some trouble with man-made objects ("Van Gogh's Bedroom", "Van Gogh's Chair", "The Church at Auvers"), but most of his landscapes ("Starry Night over the Rhône", "The Starry Night", "Two Poplars on an Hill", "Olive Trees", "A Path through a Ravine", "Road with Cypresses") and many of his still-lifes ("Sunflowers" (several versions), "Irisis") were just stunning.
In addition, many of his portraitures, while technically inaccurate, are very evocative ("The Potato Eaters", "Portrait of Doctor Paul Gachet").
Finally, his treatment of color was, at the time, revolutionary, both in its choice (e.g., blues and greens for skin color) and its application (e.g., broad strokes with a palette knife).
Other stuff looks kind of like procedural textures (e.g., Kelly A Keigwin) or pattern-drawing programs with bugs in them (e.g., Rhonda Leigh Brewer).
There is some wheat (e.g., Virginia Kilpatrick), but most it is chaff IMO.
Even better would be weighted public moderation, similar to Slashdot's friend/foe setup, but finer-grained, and for moderators/reviewers as well as posters.
That way, readers can decide which moderators' views are very important (to them), and which aren't important at all.
So, for example, if I don't respect Larry's views at all, but highly respect Curley's reviews, I can set Larry's weight at 0 and Curley's at 1.
Then a paper that Larry rates highly, but Curley rates poorly, appears less-highly rated to me than a paper that Larry rates poorly, but Curley rates highly.
I kept getting runs in it.
For example, Democrats and left-wingers generally want to suppress your freedoms use your property however you see fit, while Republicans and right-wingers generally want to suppress your freedoms to use your body however you see fit.
Only Libertarians and similar groups wish to provide individuals with the most kinds of freedoms possible, as long as those freedoms doesn't impinge on others' freedoms.
Note that the labels "conservative" and "liberal" don't mean what they used to; for example, GWB is a "conservative", but his recent actions have done anything but "conserve" the staus quo.
Also, many people don't fit any of these labels.
(For example, I am mostly libertarian in my philosophy, but would I extend rights to the unborn and non-human animals, which most libertarians would not.)
For example, "GNU" is prognougnced "guh-NEW", Gnumeric is prognougnced "guh-new-MARE-ick", etc.
So why shouldgn't we correct people who mis-prognougnce "gnome"?
It doesgn't meagn that we're grammer gnazis or agnythigng.
What are you, some kignd of gnut?
Don't ever get your wisdom teeth pulled!
Where will you keep your wisdom?
I found that I lost much of my wisdom when I got my wisdom teeth pulled (all four at once, local anesthetic only, then my mother slid off the icy road into a ditch when she was driving me back home, so I had to walk in a freezeing wind down the road half a mile to the nearest house with a phone, calling a tow truck in an Elmer Fudd voice because the anesthetic hadn't yet worn off, but it did while we were waiting for the truck, and no one had any aspirin or other pain reliever, what a fun time that was (true story)).
Do any Microsoft developers have such a provision in their employment contracts?
No?
Then why would anyone prefer IIS over Apache?
I've just been playing with Windows-M and Windows-D, and there is a difference: Windows-M minimizes only those windows that have a minimize button, but Windows-D minimizes all windows.
Also, Windows-M is one-way, whereas Windows-D acts like a toggle.
Also, Windows-D can undo Windows-M.
(All of this tested under MS-Windows 95 OSRB.)
I've never heard of Windows-M.
Is there any place where all of this stuff is documented?
I know that you know how to use <i>, because you used it when you quoted the GP's text.
Underscores surrounding a word are used to indicate italics (and asterisks are used to indicate bold) on systems like USENET, which doesn't support <i> and <b>.
This forum, however, does, so you should be using <i>, rather than _.
Reading _ in a setting where <i> is available is annoying.
The code in the SunOS was based on the code in BSD.
The code in Linux was not based on anything in the GNU project.
BTW, Stallman isn't "insisting" that a distribution including GNU and Linux code be named "Gnu/Linux", he is merely asking that it be named so.
While I think that his time would be better spent on other, more important things, I do think that his view on the subject is frequently mischaracterized.
I don't get it.
What did Iraq's TLD used to be, "PS" (Persia)?
I believe that the ISO CC for Iraq is "iq", and, therefore, "iq" should already be Iraq's TLD, because ICANNT uses the ISO CCs to determine countries' TLDs.
What am I missing?
Hanging around such places with binoculars, cameras, shotgun mics, and recording equipment may land you in some serious doo-doo.
Bird-watching is already "next" in some locations.
If Gore had made these statements prior to the election, Bush would have denied that those actions were in his agenda, and Gore would have come off looking even more foolish than he did.
It's important to understand that campaign promises mean nothing, and that Democratic and Republican presidents will do nearly identical things when in office.
Does anybody really think that Gore would have acted much differently than Bush did?
Yes, yes, there are small things on the fringes, like stem-cell research, where Gore may have acted differently, but both sides work hard at suppressing more and more American (and other) citizens' freedoms.
Don't forget that Congress, which overwhemingly passed USAPATRIOT and other unpatriotic legislation, is nearly half Democratic.
There is little real difference between the Republican and Democratic parties.
This is something that voters can't seem to get through their heads.
My advice: Vote third party.
Anybody but Bush or Kerry.
IIRC, by cutting some uncut traces and connecting some cut traces, you could disable some clock-locking mechanism, allowing you to overclock the chip more aggressively.
I think that I read this at Tom's Hardware, but I can't be sure.
So in a universe with only two objects in it, there is no way to tell whether the spaceship is orbiting a spinning planet, or if they are just sitting there next to each other.
Therefore, the spaceship will fall.
In our universe, a geostationary satellite is stationary relative to the Earth, but is moving relative to everything else in the universe.
(Actually, for the most part, pretty much everything in our universe is moving relative to everything else.)
Now, if, somehow, the Earth did not rotate, but everything else in the universe orbited the Earth once every 24 hours, the satellite would hang there in the sky in the exact same way (due to forces exerted by the movement of everything else in the universe), even though it would not be orbiting the Earth.
At least, that's my understanding of the thing.
It's all pretty weird.
Although, to be honest, there wasn't much fantasy about it (except for that fact that they were talking chimpanzees dressed in Medieval garb).
They sold the record/CD.
They got their money.
Why should they have a right to a cut every time the music is played?
The thing that surprised me most about his arguments is that he was making pro-capitalist, anti-communist statements in China.
It doesn't matter what you prefer; it matters what people are willing to pay.
If a person is willing to pay you for doing what you love, that's fine.
Otherwise, you will have to do something that you don't love to bring home the money, and then do what you love in your spare time.
Do major clothing manufacturers have an obligation to sell clothing at higher prices so that people who love to make clothes by hand can make a decent living doing so?
No.
Do I have an obligation to sell my software so that some other programmer can make a decent living doing so?
No.Well, some might do so as a way of advertising their capabilities.
A prospective employer can see the quality of software that person can produce, before hiring him/her.
Another way to make money is to create an Open Source application/library that becomes popular, then write a book about it.
Still another way is to write the application/library under a dual license, where a company can license the app/lib in its closed-source product for a fee.
Or get hired by the company to make changes in the product that will more suit the company's requirements.
There are many ways to make money in an Open Source (or semi-Open Source) world.
Also, Ford's nasally voice-overs didn't really help.
And re your comment on LOTR: the books were 'way better, and the big CG fight scene with the giant elephants went on far too long.