Saturday, February 27, 2010
Just can't seem to do it
I intended to do a lot of procrastination today, but it just seems I don't get around to it.
Richard Hammond's Engineering Connections
A program I can get on TV On Demand in HD is "Richard Hammond's Engineering Connections". I find it very interesting. Richard Hammond goes around the world to look at very big engineering feats, like an aircraft carrier or the Sidney Opera House, and looks at the engineering which makes it possible. What's cool is that he finds the inspiration of the engineering solutions, and looks at the technologies which came before it and gets them demonstrated in entertaining ways so we get the basic principles. For instance the aircraft carrier uses technology connected to a boomerang, gyroscope, reverse osmosis, Tower Bridge, hydraulics accumulaters...
I'm impressed with Hammond's energy, he seems willing to go anywhere and climb anything to make a good program. And the little things too: For example, he pronounced Sidney Opera House's Danish architect Jørn Utzon's name in good Danish, not something many journalists would care to take the effort to learn.
Interview. YouTube videos.
... It's very much a show for the males... every time there is an explosion or something gets destroyed 'in the name of science', they make sure to film it from several angles and to show them all. :-)
I'm impressed with Hammond's energy, he seems willing to go anywhere and climb anything to make a good program. And the little things too: For example, he pronounced Sidney Opera House's Danish architect Jørn Utzon's name in good Danish, not something many journalists would care to take the effort to learn.
Interview. YouTube videos.
... It's very much a show for the males... every time there is an explosion or something gets destroyed 'in the name of science', they make sure to film it from several angles and to show them all. :-)
On Pornography By Roger C
On Pornography
By Roger C
There are many definitions of pornography. So many in fact that I hesitate to add one more. But not having seen this definition before, I will hazard yet another definition and then provide rationale for it's use.
Pornography is the term used to demean the beautiful women and their supporters for the production and distribution of either partially clad, or fully undressed beautiful young women celebrating their beauty in various poses.
Rationale:
1. The use of the term pornography is pejorative. There is not a single instance that I can think of where the term is used to describe beauty, art, or celebration of women in any positive sense. Since this is universally true without regard to those using the term it follows directly that.
2. The only possible reason for pejorative use is to demean the women. Ironic isn't it? They decry the use of pictures of beautiful nude women as demeaning to the women. Huh? Let's run that one by again. They demean the women and the pictures of them and claim that it is the self abasement of the women and their colleges in production and distribution. That is a double standard if one ever existed. It is not a long path of tortuous logic. It is by inspection.
3. The irony extends even further. If Sports Illustrated puts out an issue where the women are clad only in paint that looks like a bikini, that is not porn. No, that is art and the women are acclaimed beautiful models and paid handsomely. I do not begrudge either those who create these ideas, the magazine or the models. I only ask for some level of parity in the standard. If it OK to pose nude, with a bit of paint on, for Sports Illustrated, then what is the difference between that and posing for Domai? It is clear to the most uncritical observer that there is no difference. Perhaps it is the poses they are in, not the state of undress.
4. While it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a professional artist to say that the painted Sports Illustrated nudes are professionally and tastefully presented. May I ask, how did you expect the organization of any capitalist magazine to present the models? Your suggestion of anything else would be met with derision and laughter by the publishers. Now that we have broached the topic of poses, let's examine poses in more detail.
5. Pose is very much a matter of personal taste. As a parallel example, I remember clearly when the miniskirt became popular. Before that, women in general thought it unbecoming to be so UNclad as to present themselves publicly in an abbreviated mini skirt. Today, the only negative comments I have heard about the miniskirt is the appropriateness to display a given pair of legs. If the legs are too heavy or disfigured, then it is considered inappropriate. My, my, how things change. So if clothes and legs are a matter of personal taste, is it possible that the poses assumed by the wearer are also a matter of personal taste?
6. For an older generation among us, the presentation of legs (especially well formed legs) in the crossed position is far preferred. The position of having the legs together and parallel or even slightly spread is to be avoided. I presume that the appearance of an undergarment will cause uncontrollable rage in the observing males? :-7 While it may be presumed, it is like other unvalidated theories. The predicted behavior has not been observed.
7. Since it is not observed to cause untoward reactions, one can legitimately question. What about poses without the miniskirt or the undergarments? Without any question there is no area more in controversy than the poses of nude, beautiful women. The assumption is that some poses are not acceptable. This fallacy of thinking was long promoted by the magazine Playboy, who for years wound not display the pubic hair of a woman on their pages. Getting to the point, some believe that the display of a woman's labia and vulva is vulgar. While I can personally testify that a woman's vulva is attractive, I can accept that some may not hold to that standard. On the other hand, large breasts to me are unattractive and should not be displayed without careful thought. Yet, I venture that most observers find the appearance of large breasts attractive. My personal view is that if large breasts are the standard of beauty, that you and Hugh Heffner both have your taste all in your mouths.
Which brings me to the final point, if we differ on the display of large breasts, is it any surprise that we differ on the display of other parts of the beautiful nude woman? And if we differ legitimately as purely a matter of taste, how is it that one pose gets labeled pornography and the other art? I suggest a truce. I won't call your large breasted women gross if you don't call my women's labia pornography.
Jan said:
Interesting discussion.
To me the question is, does the intention of the producer matter, or the effect on the consumer?
I personally think porn is content produced to sexually arouse (and doesn't have to feature beautiful women or even women at all).
I don't see anything bad or wrong with material that is designed to arouse. Enjoying sexual arousal is key to the survival of species like ours.
But because a lot of people aren't confortable with sexuality, the more porn is explicit, the greater the number of people will be that won't be able to handle it.
Now what is art? I suppose art is what's produced to provide aesthetical pleasure.
But even in art anything that may arouse will freak out prudes. The line between porn and art is thin/grey anyway. Who knows why it has been produced? And God knows artists are often very horny guys/gals. :-)
I like porn. Porn has always been there for me. And art makes the world more beautiful. Doesn't matter to me which is which.
"To me the question is, does the intention of the producer matter, or the effect on the consumer?"
I agree, that is indeed important. To me, the intention of the producer must be paramount. I have seen much porn which is not exciting to me at all, but I know it is intended to be, and so I know it's porn.
A documentary about nudism may not be intended as porn, but for some mere nudity is exciting, pleasantly or unpleasantly, so to them it's like porn.
So in the end, it's majority rule mostly. So in some countries, like Hong Kong I believe, mere nudity is prohibited. But in some countries in Northern Europe, it's not something generally made a big deal out of.
By Roger C
There are many definitions of pornography. So many in fact that I hesitate to add one more. But not having seen this definition before, I will hazard yet another definition and then provide rationale for it's use.
Pornography is the term used to demean the beautiful women and their supporters for the production and distribution of either partially clad, or fully undressed beautiful young women celebrating their beauty in various poses.
Rationale:
1. The use of the term pornography is pejorative. There is not a single instance that I can think of where the term is used to describe beauty, art, or celebration of women in any positive sense. Since this is universally true without regard to those using the term it follows directly that.
2. The only possible reason for pejorative use is to demean the women. Ironic isn't it? They decry the use of pictures of beautiful nude women as demeaning to the women. Huh? Let's run that one by again. They demean the women and the pictures of them and claim that it is the self abasement of the women and their colleges in production and distribution. That is a double standard if one ever existed. It is not a long path of tortuous logic. It is by inspection.
3. The irony extends even further. If Sports Illustrated puts out an issue where the women are clad only in paint that looks like a bikini, that is not porn. No, that is art and the women are acclaimed beautiful models and paid handsomely. I do not begrudge either those who create these ideas, the magazine or the models. I only ask for some level of parity in the standard. If it OK to pose nude, with a bit of paint on, for Sports Illustrated, then what is the difference between that and posing for Domai? It is clear to the most uncritical observer that there is no difference. Perhaps it is the poses they are in, not the state of undress.
4. While it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a professional artist to say that the painted Sports Illustrated nudes are professionally and tastefully presented. May I ask, how did you expect the organization of any capitalist magazine to present the models? Your suggestion of anything else would be met with derision and laughter by the publishers. Now that we have broached the topic of poses, let's examine poses in more detail.
5. Pose is very much a matter of personal taste. As a parallel example, I remember clearly when the miniskirt became popular. Before that, women in general thought it unbecoming to be so UNclad as to present themselves publicly in an abbreviated mini skirt. Today, the only negative comments I have heard about the miniskirt is the appropriateness to display a given pair of legs. If the legs are too heavy or disfigured, then it is considered inappropriate. My, my, how things change. So if clothes and legs are a matter of personal taste, is it possible that the poses assumed by the wearer are also a matter of personal taste?
6. For an older generation among us, the presentation of legs (especially well formed legs) in the crossed position is far preferred. The position of having the legs together and parallel or even slightly spread is to be avoided. I presume that the appearance of an undergarment will cause uncontrollable rage in the observing males? :-7 While it may be presumed, it is like other unvalidated theories. The predicted behavior has not been observed.
7. Since it is not observed to cause untoward reactions, one can legitimately question. What about poses without the miniskirt or the undergarments? Without any question there is no area more in controversy than the poses of nude, beautiful women. The assumption is that some poses are not acceptable. This fallacy of thinking was long promoted by the magazine Playboy, who for years wound not display the pubic hair of a woman on their pages. Getting to the point, some believe that the display of a woman's labia and vulva is vulgar. While I can personally testify that a woman's vulva is attractive, I can accept that some may not hold to that standard. On the other hand, large breasts to me are unattractive and should not be displayed without careful thought. Yet, I venture that most observers find the appearance of large breasts attractive. My personal view is that if large breasts are the standard of beauty, that you and Hugh Heffner both have your taste all in your mouths.
Which brings me to the final point, if we differ on the display of large breasts, is it any surprise that we differ on the display of other parts of the beautiful nude woman? And if we differ legitimately as purely a matter of taste, how is it that one pose gets labeled pornography and the other art? I suggest a truce. I won't call your large breasted women gross if you don't call my women's labia pornography.
-----------
Jan said:
Interesting discussion.
To me the question is, does the intention of the producer matter, or the effect on the consumer?
I personally think porn is content produced to sexually arouse (and doesn't have to feature beautiful women or even women at all).
I don't see anything bad or wrong with material that is designed to arouse. Enjoying sexual arousal is key to the survival of species like ours.
But because a lot of people aren't confortable with sexuality, the more porn is explicit, the greater the number of people will be that won't be able to handle it.
Now what is art? I suppose art is what's produced to provide aesthetical pleasure.
But even in art anything that may arouse will freak out prudes. The line between porn and art is thin/grey anyway. Who knows why it has been produced? And God knows artists are often very horny guys/gals. :-)
I like porn. Porn has always been there for me. And art makes the world more beautiful. Doesn't matter to me which is which.
"To me the question is, does the intention of the producer matter, or the effect on the consumer?"
I agree, that is indeed important. To me, the intention of the producer must be paramount. I have seen much porn which is not exciting to me at all, but I know it is intended to be, and so I know it's porn.
A documentary about nudism may not be intended as porn, but for some mere nudity is exciting, pleasantly or unpleasantly, so to them it's like porn.
So in the end, it's majority rule mostly. So in some countries, like Hong Kong I believe, mere nudity is prohibited. But in some countries in Northern Europe, it's not something generally made a big deal out of.
On Pornography By Roger C
On Pornography
By Roger C
There are many definitions of pornography. So many in fact that I hesitate to add one more. But not having seen this definition before, I will hazard yet another definition and then provide rationale for it's use.
Pornography is the term used to demean the beautiful women and their supporters for the production and distribution of either partially clad, or fully undressed beautiful young women celebrating their beauty in various poses.
Rationale:
1. The use of the term pornography is pejorative. There is not a single instance that I can think of where the term is used to describe beauty, art, or celebration of women in any positive sense. Since this is universally true without regard to those using the term it follows directly that.
2. The only possible reason for pejorative use is to demean the women. Ironic isn't it? They decry the use of pictures of beautiful nude women as demeaning to the women. Huh? Let's run that one by again. They demean the women and the pictures of them and claim that it is the self abasement of the women and their colleges in production and distribution. That is a double standard if one ever existed. It is not a long path of tortuous logic. It is by inspection.
3. The irony extends even further. If Sports Illustrated puts out an issue where the women are clad only in paint that looks like a bikini, that is not porn. No, that is art and the women are acclaimed beautiful models and paid handsomely. I do not begrudge either those who create these ideas, the magazine or the models. I only ask for some level of parity in the standard. If it OK to pose nude, with a bit of paint on, for Sports Illustrated, then what is the difference between that and posing for Domai? It is clear to the most uncritical observer that there is no difference. Perhaps it is the poses they are in, not the state of undress.
4. While it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a professional artist to say that the painted Sports Illustrated nudes are professionally and tastefully presented. May I ask, how did you expect the organization of any capitalist magazine to present the models? Your suggestion of anything else would be met with derision and laughter by the publishers. Now that we have broached the topic of poses, let's examine poses in more detail.
5. Pose is very much a matter of personal taste. As a parallel example, I remember clearly when the miniskirt became popular. Before that, women in general thought it unbecoming to be so UNclad as to present themselves publicly in an abbreviated mini skirt. Today, the only negative comments I have heard about the miniskirt is the appropriateness to display a given pair of legs. If the legs are too heavy or disfigured, then it is considered inappropriate. My, my, how things change. So if clothes and legs are a matter of personal taste, is it possible that the poses assumed by the wearer are also a matter of personal taste?
6. For an older generation among us, the presentation of legs (especially well formed legs) in the crossed position is far preferred. The position of having the legs together and parallel or even slightly spread is to be avoided. I presume that the appearance of an undergarment will cause uncontrollable rage in the observing males? :-7 While it may be presumed, it is like other unvalidated theories. The predicted behavior has not been observed.
7. Since it is not observed to cause untoward reactions, one can legitimately question. What about poses without the miniskirt or the undergarments? Without any question there is no area more in controversy than the poses of nude, beautiful women. The assumption is that some poses are not acceptable. This fallacy of thinking was long promoted by the magazine Playboy, who for years wound not display the pubic hair of a woman on their pages. Getting to the point, some believe that the display of a woman's labia and vulva is vulgar. While I can personally testify that a woman's vulva is attractive, I can accept that some may not hold to that standard. On the other hand, large breasts to me are unattractive and should not be displayed without careful thought. Yet, I venture that most observers find the appearance of large breasts attractive. My personal view is that if large breasts are the standard of beauty, that you and Hugh Heffner both have your taste all in your mouths.
Which brings me to the final point, if we differ on the display of large breasts, is it any surprise that we differ on the display of other parts of the beautiful nude woman? And if we differ legitimately as purely a matter of taste, how is it that one pose gets labeled pornography and the other art? I suggest a truce. I won't call your large breasted women gross if you don't call my women's labia pornography.
By Roger C
There are many definitions of pornography. So many in fact that I hesitate to add one more. But not having seen this definition before, I will hazard yet another definition and then provide rationale for it's use.
Pornography is the term used to demean the beautiful women and their supporters for the production and distribution of either partially clad, or fully undressed beautiful young women celebrating their beauty in various poses.
Rationale:
1. The use of the term pornography is pejorative. There is not a single instance that I can think of where the term is used to describe beauty, art, or celebration of women in any positive sense. Since this is universally true without regard to those using the term it follows directly that.
2. The only possible reason for pejorative use is to demean the women. Ironic isn't it? They decry the use of pictures of beautiful nude women as demeaning to the women. Huh? Let's run that one by again. They demean the women and the pictures of them and claim that it is the self abasement of the women and their colleges in production and distribution. That is a double standard if one ever existed. It is not a long path of tortuous logic. It is by inspection.
3. The irony extends even further. If Sports Illustrated puts out an issue where the women are clad only in paint that looks like a bikini, that is not porn. No, that is art and the women are acclaimed beautiful models and paid handsomely. I do not begrudge either those who create these ideas, the magazine or the models. I only ask for some level of parity in the standard. If it OK to pose nude, with a bit of paint on, for Sports Illustrated, then what is the difference between that and posing for Domai? It is clear to the most uncritical observer that there is no difference. Perhaps it is the poses they are in, not the state of undress.
4. While it doesn't take a rocket scientist or a professional artist to say that the painted Sports Illustrated nudes are professionally and tastefully presented. May I ask, how did you expect the organization of any capitalist magazine to present the models? Your suggestion of anything else would be met with derision and laughter by the publishers. Now that we have broached the topic of poses, let's examine poses in more detail.
5. Pose is very much a matter of personal taste. As a parallel example, I remember clearly when the miniskirt became popular. Before that, women in general thought it unbecoming to be so UNclad as to present themselves publicly in an abbreviated mini skirt. Today, the only negative comments I have heard about the miniskirt is the appropriateness to display a given pair of legs. If the legs are too heavy or disfigured, then it is considered inappropriate. My, my, how things change. So if clothes and legs are a matter of personal taste, is it possible that the poses assumed by the wearer are also a matter of personal taste?
6. For an older generation among us, the presentation of legs (especially well formed legs) in the crossed position is far preferred. The position of having the legs together and parallel or even slightly spread is to be avoided. I presume that the appearance of an undergarment will cause uncontrollable rage in the observing males? :-7 While it may be presumed, it is like other unvalidated theories. The predicted behavior has not been observed.
7. Since it is not observed to cause untoward reactions, one can legitimately question. What about poses without the miniskirt or the undergarments? Without any question there is no area more in controversy than the poses of nude, beautiful women. The assumption is that some poses are not acceptable. This fallacy of thinking was long promoted by the magazine Playboy, who for years wound not display the pubic hair of a woman on their pages. Getting to the point, some believe that the display of a woman's labia and vulva is vulgar. While I can personally testify that a woman's vulva is attractive, I can accept that some may not hold to that standard. On the other hand, large breasts to me are unattractive and should not be displayed without careful thought. Yet, I venture that most observers find the appearance of large breasts attractive. My personal view is that if large breasts are the standard of beauty, that you and Hugh Heffner both have your taste all in your mouths.
Which brings me to the final point, if we differ on the display of large breasts, is it any surprise that we differ on the display of other parts of the beautiful nude woman? And if we differ legitimately as purely a matter of taste, how is it that one pose gets labeled pornography and the other art? I suggest a truce. I won't call your large breasted women gross if you don't call my women's labia pornography.
Duffy - Rain On Your Parade
Just a pop song, and I didn't even know her before, but look at those fake dimples! Ugly. It looks like they have tied fishing line to her cheeks from the inside.
If this trend continues, in 50 years nobody will remember how an actual human face looks. Already I see no comments about it on YouTube, I think very few notice.
If this trend continues, in 50 years nobody will remember how an actual human face looks. Already I see no comments about it on YouTube, I think very few notice.
Miserere joined in:
"The surgical procedure used to create dimples is, in itself, a fairly simple one and is commonly done on an outpatient basis. The procedure involves simulating the natural way a dimple is formed, by forming a connection between the skin and the cheek muscle, such that when the muscle contracts, it pulls the skin inwards to form a dimple."
Friday, February 26, 2010
Watching ads
Hah, Homer Simpson shushed his family because "the commercials are on". They looked at him incredulously, and he said: "well, if we don't watch these, it's like we're stealing TV!"
And it's sort of true, isn't it? The people who have a hard-liner stance on any kind of sharing being "stealing" (I hope they don't borrow any books ever), must surely watch the ads regularly on TV, otherwise how do they justify it?
Me, I'm sorta flexible. I have an evaluation copy of Stuffit Expander which I've been using for years on end, just because I tried to pay, and they'd made it too difficult somehow, I forget exactly how. And I don't feel bad about that. But on the other hand, almost all of the other software I have, I've paid for, gladly. I even paid extra for GraphicConverter once, because for years he did not charge for updates, and I felt it was just too valuable for me. And I've donated to many web sites I found delightful or very useful, or worth supporting.
And it's sort of true, isn't it? The people who have a hard-liner stance on any kind of sharing being "stealing" (I hope they don't borrow any books ever), must surely watch the ads regularly on TV, otherwise how do they justify it?
Me, I'm sorta flexible. I have an evaluation copy of Stuffit Expander which I've been using for years on end, just because I tried to pay, and they'd made it too difficult somehow, I forget exactly how. And I don't feel bad about that. But on the other hand, almost all of the other software I have, I've paid for, gladly. I even paid extra for GraphicConverter once, because for years he did not charge for updates, and I felt it was just too valuable for me. And I've donated to many web sites I found delightful or very useful, or worth supporting.
A nation wakes up
U.S. Economy Grinds To Halt As Nation Realizes Money Just A Symbolic, Mutually Shared Illusion, The Onion article.
As news of the nation's collectively held delusion spread, the economy ground to a halt, with dumbfounded citizens everywhere walking out on their jobs as they contemplated the little green drawings of buildings and dead white men they once used to measure their adequacy and importance as human beings.
Like my ol' friend Irv says: "The Onion, that visionary organ that has often managed to say something more profound than anyone could take seriously, offers this wonderful scenario of how it is going to (someday soon) happen!"
-
As news of the nation's collectively held delusion spread, the economy ground to a halt, with dumbfounded citizens everywhere walking out on their jobs as they contemplated the little green drawings of buildings and dead white men they once used to measure their adequacy and importance as human beings.
Like my ol' friend Irv says: "The Onion, that visionary organ that has often managed to say something more profound than anyone could take seriously, offers this wonderful scenario of how it is going to (someday soon) happen!"
-
What Makes a Great Photograph
What Makes a Great Photograph, satiric article.
A Photograph Taken with a Medium or Large Format Camera
©Ansel Adams
This is a double-whammy, because using a medium/large format camera not only produces Great Photographs, but you also get to call them, and sell them as, Fine Art. Fine Art is just like Standard Art, except the prices paid have 3 or 4 extra zeroes added on. For example, had the above image been made with a P&S, nobody would pay more than $6 for a print; but because that photo was taken with either a 4×5 or 8×10 view camera… the print costs $60,000. Of course, it was also taken by somebody famous, which overlaps with, and brings us to, the next category.
-
A Photograph Taken with a Medium or Large Format Camera
©Ansel Adams
This is a double-whammy, because using a medium/large format camera not only produces Great Photographs, but you also get to call them, and sell them as, Fine Art. Fine Art is just like Standard Art, except the prices paid have 3 or 4 extra zeroes added on. For example, had the above image been made with a P&S, nobody would pay more than $6 for a print; but because that photo was taken with either a 4×5 or 8×10 view camera… the print costs $60,000. Of course, it was also taken by somebody famous, which overlaps with, and brings us to, the next category.-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)