begin.

Also I share all Kat's thought w/r/t Alias. So good. So wrong.

Thank you, bon bon. I feel like I'm on the right side of the law when I have your approval.

I just ate my cupcake for the day. All seems right with the world.

I don't generally ask for vibes, but I'm headed to the nurse practitioner for a minor, not at all life threatening, procedure. I have all my wishes that it will turn out well and if you want to send good vibes, 11:00 AM is the time.

All the best, Kat, and a heaping helping of calm to you, too.

When Joanie Laurer left wrestling, she had to leave her nom-de-fake-fighting behind. But The Rock gets to keep his.

I saw the Daily Show with him on it, and he's a great interview personality. He's warm and generous (and breathtaking beautiful), and I still haven't seen the evidence for the charges of arrogance.

So I thought about depth of field on my way into work. Will someone talk to me about it?

It's pretty much a lens thing, isn't it? Or a captured image thing. But in that, it's a convention in film and photograph to vary depth of field as part of an image's composition. And the sophisticated computer animations are doing the same thing.

Now, I understand that our internal lens has depth of field issues. But since, as the viewer, we're our own focus puller, we don't actually spend much time looking at things that aren't in focus. It's hard. But in film and photos we can, and it contributes to the impact of the piece.

How about in paintings and drawings? In my head, they all have infinite depth of field. But "my head" ain't that big. Still, it's hardly uncommon. Are there people or schools that mimic limited depth of field? Did this precede photography?

Suddenly, I need to know.

Completely separately from my bugaboo -- best of medical visits to you, Kat. Let all the stars align.

Good luck, Kat.

I swear, their current rounds of being on every single talk show on the air this week is making me love both The Rock and Vin Diesel EVEN MORE THAN EVER. Although I think we're getting more Mark Vincent and less Dwayne Johnson. If you see what I'm saying.

For the first time, I am watching Survivor.

I have to know what you think!

Me! Crazy Bobby Jon's love-on for Tom during tribal council last night was hysterical. Not that he's wrong. Love Tom, and Ian is such a cool tough geek-boy.

Love Tom! Tom & Ian: the new Troy & Kwame. Not sure what to think of Bobby Jon-- he was an ass last week and was made to look ok this week.

Thank you, bon bon. I feel like I'm on the right side of the law when I have your approval.

!!!! Hysterical.

Health~ma to Kat.

ita, Impressionist artists painters tended to have blurred background effects that mimicked the limited focus of photography, though I doubt that they specifically had that rationale for employing it. I've seen dates starting in 1860 for the style, which would have been after the invention of daguerrotype photography but before it became commonplace among the masses.

I think we're getting more Mark Vincent and less Dwayne Johnson. If you see what I'm saying.

I kind of agree. I think Mr. Vincent needs to push his "real guy" image to get away from the meathead issue. Dwayne, OTOH, is at the time where crafting another persona useful. He only has to be realer than The Rock to win. And that ain't hard.

before it became commonplace among the masses

Do you think it would be something that the artists were exposed to, if not their audience?