Art is in the eye of the beholder... I take great pleasure in pretty pictures, whether they be gif, png or painted by a famous dead guy. I see no difference to be honest with you.
Anyone who says "it's on a computer it's not art" is basically, not worth listening to (IMHO)
on a side note, is there any site where we can take a nosey (look) at any of your pictures? I'd be interested in seeing them.
This all sounds horribly familiar, was watching TV about the hanging gardens of babylon, or to be more precise a possible version of the hanging gardens.
now the historical chaps and the engineers worked out that the upper terraces required some 300 tons of water a day, and thus started playing with different ways of getting the water to the top of the gardens.
after a lot of messing around they concluded that the only way they could see this working was to use a screw, passages written by the bloke who built it all could be interpreted to support this and so all was dandy.
but NO! archimedes invented the screw 400 years later, so therefore this argument was wrong! Now I don't wish to sound pompous, but WHAT? why can't two people in history be credited with stumbling across the same idea?
patents thats why, what if I were to sit in my bath (having never heard the word "eureeka") and notice displacement. because someone else noticed this it would appear that, were it to be patented I'm not allowed to think of it.
for a world in which personal freedom is paramount, we seem to be intent on restricting our right to think
I have little or no intention of using it and take great comfort in knowing that the likelyhood of having one used aginst me is reasonably small.
it is sad but true that as soon as the people protect themselves with guns teh stakes are raised and then "everybody" has them, including the criminals. The main problem being of course that a criminal has less of a problem shooting someone if he has a gun. Guns might not kill people, but they help. It is easier to shoot someone than insert the bullets manually.
as for this "it protects freedom" rubbish, how? surely if you have "the greatest democracy in the world" then there is no need for an armed populace as the government is subject to the will of the people anyhow, freedoms and all?
personally I'm happy that the UK government has done something right, oooh hang on, if I agree does that mean that I don't know how to think for myself? I'd better hold a ballet and find out
Slashdot Mirror
Art is in the eye of the beholder... I take great pleasure in pretty pictures, whether they be gif, png or painted by a famous dead guy. I see no difference to be honest with you.
Anyone who says "it's on a computer it's not art" is basically, not worth listening to (IMHO)
on a side note, is there any site where we can take a nosey (look) at any of your pictures? I'd be interested in seeing them.
Datalas
This all sounds horribly familiar, was watching TV about the hanging gardens of babylon, or to be more precise a possible version of the hanging gardens.
now the historical chaps and the engineers worked out that the upper terraces required some 300 tons of water a day, and thus started playing with different ways of getting the water to the top of the gardens.
after a lot of messing around they concluded that the only way they could see this working was to use a screw, passages written by the bloke who built it all could be interpreted to support this and so all was dandy.
but NO! archimedes invented the screw 400 years later, so therefore this argument was wrong! Now I don't wish to sound pompous, but WHAT? why can't two people in history be credited with stumbling across the same idea?
patents thats why, what if I were to sit in my bath (having never heard the word "eureeka") and notice displacement. because someone else noticed this it would appear that, were it to be patented I'm not allowed to think of it.
for a world in which personal freedom is paramount, we seem to be intent on restricting our right to think
Datalas
But I don't want to own a gun.
I have little or no intention of using it and take great comfort in knowing that the likelyhood of having one used aginst me is reasonably small.
it is sad but true that as soon as the people protect themselves with guns teh stakes are raised and then "everybody" has them, including the criminals. The main problem being of course that a criminal has less of a problem shooting someone if he has a gun. Guns might not kill people, but they help. It is easier to shoot someone than insert the bullets manually.
as for this "it protects freedom" rubbish, how? surely if you have "the greatest democracy in the world" then there is no need for an armed populace as the government is subject to the will of the people anyhow, freedoms and all?
personally I'm happy that the UK government has done something right, oooh hang on, if I agree does that mean that I don't know how to think for myself? I'd better hold a ballet and find out
Datalas *who ducks the incoming fireballs*