From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #207 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, June 11 2003 Volume 12 : Number 207 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Apple Thanks! ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: Safari, so good [Ken Weingold ] Re: Somewhere, Lionel Richie is crying [Ken Weingold ] I want *this* future ["Gene Hopstetter, Jr." ] And if there's a closeup on the dog door, watch out ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: Safari, so good ["Glen Uber" ] Re: Safari, so good [Tom Clark ] Re: Safari, so good [Christopher Gross ] Re: Safari, so good [Steve Talkowski ] trying to respond to several digests at once... ["Natalie Jane" ] Re: Safari, so good ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: Safari, so good [Ken Weingold ] Old mail, new address ["Marc Holden" ] Re: Safari, so good [Eb ] Re: Safari, so good [Ken Weingold ] Re: Safari, so good [Ken Weingold ] Re: Safari, so good [Ken Weingold ] Squidelicious! and the pinhole eyes of the nautilus ["Stewart C. Russell"] Re: Squidelicious! and the pinhole eyes of the nautilus [Tom Clark ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 07:14:23 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Apple Thanks! Ken wrote: > > filesystem consistency check. -y is to have it automatically repair what it would > ask for by default. and you want that. Memories of hitting Y for a good 45 minutes bringing up a flaky Solaris/x86 box ... Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:04:50 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Safari, so good On Wed, Jun 11, 2003, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote: > wrote: > >I know that it's silly for OmniGroup to charge for OmniWeb, but it > >WILL work for free with occasional minor annoyances. OmniWeb is > >fantastic, the OmniGroup is quite cool and knows the OS really well, > >as they developed for NeXT before. OmniWeb as you may know was a NeXT > >browser. And now that they are using WebCore (?) it will be great > >again. Once it has tabs. :) > > Just to voice dissent: I disagree that companies shouldn't sell software > when there is free competition. I've paid for OmniWeb *and* iCab, and I > still prefer iCab over Safari (for the most part). Likewise, I've paid for > Mulberry because it's the only GUI mailer that knows how to handle IMAP > properly. > > Don't make a dogma out of this, use the software that's best suited for the > job, be it free or commercial. I agree with you to a point, Sebastian. I was thinking strictly web browsers in this case. When there are plenty out there that free that are better in some ways than the commercial competition, it doesn't make sense to pay for it. But I can totally understand you wanting to support OmniGroup and their browser, and I appreciate it. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:06:16 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Somewhere, Lionel Richie is crying On Wed, Jun 11, 2003, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > or planning on putting a cap in someone's ass. Either way, > .... > > http://www-personal.si.umich.edu/~rmb/Funnies/mylove.wmv Oh... my.... god...... - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 09:24:07 -0500 From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: I want *this* future I know they say "the future ain't what it used to be" and I agree. I want *this* future: the one with Space Babes with purple hair and skin-tight silver Lurex controlling banks of analog electronics, blinking lights, and whirring machines. Who's with me? Let's write a letter to someone who can make this happen! And I think there's a caption contest just waiting to happen with this picture... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 10:27:50 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: And if there's a closeup on the dog door, watch out Jeff: >>I wonder if the rule re bad sheriffs is in the TV Rules of Order in the same >>paragraph as "in any shot set in a police station, a prostitute must walk >>across the shot in the background"? My friend calls this whole category of convention "Glass Delivery", based on the idea that if the scene starts and you see guys delivering planes of glass-- which is kind of an odd thing to see, really-- someone's driving a motorcycle through them within five minutes. Hmmm. That sounds like yet another plug for Glass Flesh, which it wasn't, although I did just order mine. Damn, there was a fsckload of fegtech on that last digest... - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:52:50 -0400 From: UglyNoraGrrl@aol.com Subject: the personality rock/affliction Rex wrote: > Good one. I've heard it posited that women are more likely > to factor in artist personality with enjoyment of the work > than men are. I'm not sure I agree, but I've seem that > arguement a few times, including once in a round-robin > discussion amongst the "Women of Lilith Fair", the year Liz Hmmm hadn't really considered gender as a factor. But i feel i should clarify that personality is never a sticking point in weather i like someone's music but rather a factor in something being music i really enjoy and listen to alot and music i become obsessed with. And it does just mean assholes are a turn off. For instance I love Belle & Sebastian's music to death but as people they don't interest me a bit, they seem like nice people but rather boring and all but intrigiung or cool people like Robyn or Robert Pollard are the ones get tend to be the ones i obsesses over. Paul Schrader really has been on good streak of lateeAlso Affliction is far bleaker than the Ice Storm. At least the Ice Storm had some momment of humor. Just imagine the bleak tone you get at the end of the Ice Storm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:07:07 -0400 From: UglyNoraGrrl@aol.com Subject: Re: Safari, so good > On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote: > > Don't make a dogma out of this, use the software that's > > best suited for the job, be it free or commercial. > > And I tell people the opposite all the time. > > Use the free software over the commercial, regardless of > which is better suited for the job. > > There's no task more important than creating a world of > abundance and freedom. So whatever you're trying to do > with your software should take a backseat to those > principles. > > The way you do things matters at least as much as what you > do. Wow! That has to be the most annoying, pompous thing that I have read in a long long long time. So in order to save freedom i should use buggy shitty free software? Rather than buys some software that actually workls? Oh but I forgot paying for software is evil! Man, what an asshole. Does this sneering smuggness carry over into your real life or is this just an online pose? Also all this talk of OSX bugginess has made me very glad i trade in my old iMac for a tricked out for a tricked out Window XP machine that has yet to crash on me once in the year that I have had it. Later, Nora ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:13:44 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Safari, so good Ugly Nora writes, > Also all this talk of OSX bugginess has made me very glad i trade in my old > iMac for a tricked out for a tricked out Window XP machine that has yet to > crash on me once in the year that I have had it. OSX has been remarkably non-buggy. Safari is what we are talking about, largely, and it is in Beta phase. So it may be forgiven some bugs. - --The Great "Macs or Death!" Quail PS: Regarding Jeme's comments: Given some aesthetic parameters, I use what works best to do a job best, whether that's a freeware item or something from Microsoft. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:21:45 -0700 From: "Glen Uber" Subject: Re: Safari, so good UglyNoraGrrl@aol.com earnestly scribbled: >Wow! That has to be the most annoying, pompous thing that I have read in >a long long long time. > >So in order to save freedom i should use buggy shitty free software? >Rather than buys some software that actually workls? Oh but I forgot >paying for software is evil! Man, what an asshole. Does this sneering >smuggness carry over into your real life or is this just an online pose? Dude! I want front row seats for this Battle Royale. >Also all this talk of OSX bugginess has made me very glad i trade in my >old iMac for a tricked out for a tricked out Window XP machine that has >yet to crash on me once in the year that I have had it. Not a lot of bugginess in OS X since I've stopped running Classic. I'm OS X only and I'm lovin' life. The few experiences I've had with Win XP have been positive, however. My organization is still mainly Win98, but we do have a couple newer machines with XP and haven't had a lick of trouble with them. - -- Cheers! - -g- "The flowers of intolerance and hatred are blooming kind of early this year, someone's been watering them." --Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:23:19 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Safari, so good on 6/11/03 11:07 AM, UglyNoraGrrl@aol.com at UglyNoraGrrl@aol.com wrote: > Wow! That has to be the most annoying, pompous thing that I have read in a > long long long time. > > So in order to save freedom i should use buggy shitty free software? Rather > than buys some software that actually workls? Oh but I forgot paying for > software is evil! Man, what an asshole. Does this sneering smuggness carry > over into your real life or is this just an online pose? Uh oh... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:25:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Safari, so good On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, The Great Quail wrote: > > Also all this talk of OSX bugginess has made me very glad i trade in my old > > iMac for a tricked out for a tricked out Window XP machine that has yet to > > crash on me once in the year that I have had it. > > OSX has been remarkably non-buggy. Safari is what we are talking about, > largely, and it is in Beta phase. So it may be forgiven some bugs. And I've seen my friend's XP machine (a 10-month-old Compaq which came with XP pre-installed) crash or otherwise flake out on numerous occasions. The most common problem, oddly enough, seems to be freezing up while the screensaver is running or when waking from energy-saver mode. Fie on XP. - --Chris "I will rule you all with an iron fist! You! Obey the fist!" --Invader Zim ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:37:38 -0400 From: Steve Talkowski Subject: Re: Safari, so good On Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at 03:41 AM, Capuchin wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote: >> Don't make a dogma out of this, use the software that's best suited >> for >> the job, be it free or commercial. > > And I tell people the opposite all the time. > > Use the free software over the commercial, regardless of which is > better > suited for the job. ha. heh. haha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Man, you must be smoking some good shit to make such an asinine comment as that. Sorry, but I'll take Photoshop over GIMP any day. > There's no task more important than creating a world of abundance and > freedom. So whatever you're trying to do with your software should > take a > backseat to those principles. Just another way of saying that software is another tool in ones toolkit. I've no problem with that and have never let software dictate the end result. However, some of us require features only present in high-end software (that comes from companies that can afford to R&D and release updates, fix bugs, etc.) in order to do the work, especially in the 3d computer animation realm. > The way you do things matters at least as much as what you do. uhm, yeah - that should be somewhat obvious. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:40:47 -0700 From: "Natalie Jane" Subject: trying to respond to several digests at once... >I finally say that Wilco documentary and i really enjoyed. it actually >really >warmed me to tweedy's personality and thus made me warm to music more. It was the line about, "Do you know who *I* saw in the hotel? BOB from SESAME STREET!" that won me over. >I find that my feelings about an artist's music often vary depending on my >feelings for the artists personality. Does anyone else ever do that? I >dont >know if its a good thing or just annoying personality quirk. It kinda depends on the artist. I mean, knowing that Jay Farrar and Stephin Merritt are assholes is disappointing - I'd like to think that every artist I like is someone I'd want to meet - but I love their music so much that it really doesn't matter to me ultimately. Knowing that an artist is a cool person, however, does tend to make their music more enjoyable to me. Like, Wayne Coyne just seems like a nice guy, you know? And I liked the Lips already, but that knowledge is just icing on the cake. >I find that about 99% of my feelings about an artist's music depend on my >ears, with the remaining 1% split between critical buzz, reverse buzz, what >Eb said about them, whether the lead singer was a dick to my friend who's >an Amoeba employee when he was helping set up a Berkeley in-store, etc. In >other words, if I like the sounds on the record, that pretty much trumps >everything else. > >I also seem to be immune from the oft-discussed (here and on other mailing >lists) "first record you owned by an artist is your favorite" syndrome. >I'll do some quick examples of some of my all-time favorite artists: > >July 8 - Pernice Brothers (their new album is really growing on me, >despite > >the lack of the lush sounds that attracted me to their previous one... > >I was warned off their previous one because of said lush sounds (see my >numerous complaints about "overorchestration" and the pernicious influence >of "soft rock" on the last twelve or so years of music), so is this the >Pernice Brothers album for me? :-) _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:43:05 -0700 From: "Natalie Jane" Subject: oopss... sent unfinished message... now, the stunning conclusion > >July 8 - Pernice Brothers (their new album is really growing on me, >despite > >the lack of the lush sounds that attracted me to their previous one... > >I was warned off their previous one because of said lush sounds (see my >numerous complaints about "overorchestration" and the pernicious influence >of "soft rock" on the last twelve or so years of music), so is this the >Pernice Brothers album for me? :-) Yeah, probably. What I liked about the previous record was the contrast of the lush sounds and amazingly depressing lyrics... the contrast is gone with this one, it's much more guitar-based. I still like it, though. And it's still depressing. :) n. _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:49:37 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: V At 09:43 PM 6/10/2003 -0500, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >Quoting stevetalkowski@mac.com: > >> Hopefully, this will be cooler than the sequel and lame TV-series that >> followed: >> >> http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/06/09/television.visitors.reut/ > >WHen it first came out, I was hoping it was a filming of Thomas Pynchon's >first novel...no such luck. But did the Pynchon book feature aliens swallowing live rodents whole? And not just rats or mice, but groundhog-sized rodents? Given that it's Pynchon, I guess it's more of a possibility than with most authors... The scene where the aliens commence to chowin' down was the climax of the whole thing. Everything else -- the rest of the TV movie, the subsequent series, etc. -- was just lame. Pretty typical of Hollywood to offer us a recycled bad idea instead of a new idea or even a recycled good idea. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:46:43 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Safari, so good Christopher Gross wrote: > > Fie on XP. We measure the uptimes on our Sun boxes in years. The last version of Windows I used had a 3 in it. Recent Macs are okay, shame about the cost of software and the terrible Java support. Stewart (who uses free software wherever possible, and only owns one piece of commercial software -- the incomparable VueScan. Go Ed Hamrick!) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:17:43 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Safari, so good On Wed, Jun 11, 2003, UglyNoraGrrl@aol.com wrote: > Also all this talk of OSX bugginess has made me very glad i trade in > my old iMac for a tricked out for a tricked out Window XP machine > that has yet to crash on me once in the year that I have had it. No rewards for lack of patience then. First of all, OS X is infinitely more powerful and stable than OS 9 or earlier, and shares bascially none of the code. Second, XP is NT. Been around for a long time. OS X, though it's been around for a long time as NeXT, is really a new OS in a lot of respects. From where it was on its initial release, I think it has made much more progress than NT. I use XP at work and though it's better than 2000, I don't enjoy it at all. Very irritating to work with in general. Have fun. Windows is gonna get a lot more fun in Longhorn or whatever they call the next version when every license will come with someone to stand behind you and watch every little thing you do. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:13:02 -0700 From: "Marc Holden" Subject: Old mail, new address Hey there-- I'm going to retire my old "666" e-mail address in the next week or so. I had been getting too much spam (not Spam )), and the numbers were triggering some spam filters, so not all of my posts seemed to get delivered. The new address is marc.h@earthlink.net I'll have the old one for just a little longer, until I get all my on-line groups and accounts updated, but please update your address books and start using the new address now. Talk to you later, Marc Children need encouragement. So if a kid gets an answer right, tell him it was a lucky guess. That way, he develops a good, lucky feeling. Jack Handey As promised in the header, here's some old mail--one of my favorites: Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to telephone callers. Recently, she said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned in any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr.Laura penned by a US resident and also posted on the Internet:- Dear Dr. Laura Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them. a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is,how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence. d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations.. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die? i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?(Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Your devoted disciple and adoring fan. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 12:45:21 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Safari, so good >Nora wrote: >Wow! That has to be the most annoying, pompous thing that I have >read in a long long long time. > >So in order to save freedom i should use buggy shitty free software? >Rather than buys some software that actually workls? Oh but I >forgot paying for software is evil! Man, what an asshole. Does >this sneering smuggness carry over into your real life or is this >just an online pose? I swear -- I did NOT hire Nora to join the list. I swear! >Also all this talk of OSX bugginess has made me very glad i trade in my >old iMac for a tricked out for a tricked out Window XP machine that has >yet to crash on me once in the year that I have had it. See? I'm generally quite happy with OSX, though I haven't landed a copy of Jaguar yet. No more system freezes...yay! Random quibbles, off the top of my head: 1) Sherlock often says files are "invisible" when they're not. 2) I wonder why OSX did away with label colors? I miss those. 3) I hate TextEdit, as opposed to good ol' SimpleText. Hate the blurry characters, hate the larger file sizes, hate the automatic HTML interpretation which ya seemingly can't turn off (which is also why I'm still using ancient MS Word 5.1, rather than a newer version). 4) I don't get why sometimes you can't dump the Trash, because it's "in use." And if you simply take out those files and "re-dump" them, then everything is fine. Seems like a bug. 5) As the single user of my computer, I find all the administrative-permissions stuff kind of a hassle at times. Haven't tried Safari as yet, only because it does require Jaguar. Ditto for Acquisition, which someone keeps telling me is miles better than LimeWire. I had jury duty, yesterday. Phooey. That always really shakes me up. Missed by the slimmest hair getting picked for a three-day trial involving someone impersonating a police officer, and using that feigned power to confiscate/steal something from someone else (gang members seemed to be involved). Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 16:07:48 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Safari, so good On Wed, Jun 11, 2003, Eb wrote: > 2) I wonder why OSX did away with label colors? I miss those. Unsanity rocks. > 3) I hate TextEdit, as opposed to good ol' SimpleText. Hate > the blurry characters, hate the larger file sizes, hate the automatic > HTML interpretation which ya seemingly can't turn off (which is also > why I'm still using ancient MS Word 5.1, rather than a newer > version). I think TextEdit is great. And yes, you can make it not parse HTML and show the text itself. It's in the prefs. But if you DO want SimpleText, it comes with the Developer Tools. If you don't have them, you can download it for free from Apple. 10.2 comes with the Dev Tools CD. > 4) I don't get why sometimes you can't dump the Trash, > because it's "in use." And if you simply take out those files and > "re-dump" them, then everything is fine. Seems like a bug. Usally the reason is because something related to that file is still open. It does sometimes happen even if you had something open in something like TextEdit and you had closed the file but the app is still open. I guess that's a bug. Quitting TextEdit, for example, would allow you then to empty the trash. > Haven't tried Safari as yet, only because it does require Jaguar. > Ditto for Acquisition, which someone keeps telling me is miles better > than LimeWire. Interface is, but the software itself kind of blows. Functionally, I hate to say it, but Limewire is better. Interface sucks ass though. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 16:07:48 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Safari, so good On Wed, Jun 11, 2003, Eb wrote: > 2) I wonder why OSX did away with label colors? I miss those. Unsanity rocks. > 3) I hate TextEdit, as opposed to good ol' SimpleText. Hate > the blurry characters, hate the larger file sizes, hate the automatic > HTML interpretation which ya seemingly can't turn off (which is also > why I'm still using ancient MS Word 5.1, rather than a newer > version). I think TextEdit is great. And yes, you can make it not parse HTML and show the text itself. It's in the prefs. But if you DO want SimpleText, it comes with the Developer Tools. If you don't have them, you can download it for free from Apple. 10.2 comes with the Dev Tools CD. > 4) I don't get why sometimes you can't dump the Trash, > because it's "in use." And if you simply take out those files and > "re-dump" them, then everything is fine. Seems like a bug. Usally the reason is because something related to that file is still open. It does sometimes happen even if you had something open in something like TextEdit and you had closed the file but the app is still open. I guess that's a bug. Quitting TextEdit, for example, would allow you then to empty the trash. > Haven't tried Safari as yet, only because it does require Jaguar. > Ditto for Acquisition, which someone keeps telling me is miles better > than LimeWire. Interface is, but the software itself kind of blows. Functionally, I hate to say it, but Limewire is better. Interface sucks ass though. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 16:31:28 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Safari, so good > On Wed, Jun 11, 2003, Eb wrote: > 2) I wonder why OSX did away with label colors? I miss those. Oh, here's something you have to understand about OS X. It is not Mac OS, or at least what you used to know as Mac OS. It started out as NeXTSTEP. See . Look familiar? Everything you see from OS 9 was put in, as opposed to what you don't see from OS 9 having been taken out. 10.1 didn't have spring-loaded folders. 10.2 does because everyone complained about them. I don't think they work correctly, but that's besides the point. I hope this makes things more clear. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 17:32:46 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Squidelicious! and the pinhole eyes of the nautilus So says the headline in the Star's Life section today: And I betcha didn't know that the chambered nautilus has simple contractable pinholes for eyes: no lenses, and the optical humour is the sea water it swims in. Hope it's got faster imaging apparatus than I had for this: (mailing carton, 8x10" photo paper, f/90 pinhole, 24'45" exposure during a thunderstorm). Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:37:35 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Squidelicious! and the pinhole eyes of the nautilus on 6/11/03 2:32 PM, Stewart C. Russell at scruss@sympatico.ca wrote: > And I betcha didn't know that the chambered nautilus has simple contractable > pinholes for eyes: no lenses, and the optical humour is the sea water it swims > in. Hope it's got faster imaging apparatus than I had for this: > > (mailing carton, 8x10" photo paper, f/90 pinhole, 24'45" exposure during a > thunderstorm). Excellent! As a kid I did this, but with a cylindrical oatmeal container. Creates a nice fisheye effect. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:53:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Safari, so good On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 UglyNoraGrrl@aol.com wrote: > > The way you do things matters at least as much as what you do. > > Wow! That has to be the most annoying, pompous thing that I have read > in a long long long time. That's nothing. You should read some of my posts in the archives. > So in order to save freedom i should use buggy shitty free software? Well, it just so happens that Free Software is usually relatively bug-free and you're rarely stuck with a single option (and when you are, it's almost never shitty). The idea is, of course, that if it's shitty, you can fix it (or talk to folks who can in a meaningful way). You just don't have that option with proprietary software. > Oh but I forgot paying for software is evil! No, paying for software is just a sad seemingly unavoidable fact of some people's lives. Selling software is evil (as is selling anything that you could copy and distribute for almost nothing). > Man, what an asshole. Does this sneering smuggness carry over into your > real life or is this just an online pose? I can't say that I'm sneering, but I've been called smug. I get along really well with some pretty great people, though. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #207 ********************************