That's what this woman was talking about, I think. Thanks, Todd!
No. You're missing the point. The design of the thing is functional. The plan is not to shoot you. The plan is to get the girl. If there's no girl, then the plan, well, is like the room.
Early ,'Objects In Space'
Natter 69: Practically names itself.
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
Amy - Oct 20, 2011 11:29:13 am PDT #2460 of 30001
Because books.
sumi - Oct 20, 2011 11:29:15 am PDT #2461 of 30001
Art Crawl!!!
§ ita § - Oct 20, 2011 11:30:03 am PDT #2462 of 30001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Kathy A - Oct 20, 2011 11:35:14 am PDT #2463 of 30001
We're very stretchy. - Connie Neil
I just bought four more sweaters, and a sales-priced sweatshirt for wearing around my apartment. I need more warm stuff this year!! After having no actual sweaters for a few years, I now own ten.
Connie Neil - Oct 20, 2011 11:36:13 am PDT #2464 of 30001
brillig
I am moderately disappointed that the Khan Academy is not a Star Trek reference. The nerd tag never closes.
Connie Neil - Oct 20, 2011 11:39:01 am PDT #2465 of 30001
brillig
ham and cheese
It's fascinating going over the videos for the very basic stuff, addition, subtraction, et al. It's getting the theory for the stuff that was impressed on the primordial ooze of my brain, that stuck without real understanding. (The bit on borrowing in subtraction, where he said, "We don't know how to get numbers less than zero yet, don't worry" was funny)
It's been a long time since I've felt my brain giggling in the delight of intellectual endeavor.
Consuela - Oct 20, 2011 11:39:42 am PDT #2466 of 30001
We are Buffistas. This isn't our first apocalypse. -- Pix
Someone brought in teacakes today.
Oh my god, that cupcake was the best I've ever eaten. Tiramisu explosion in my mouth! NOM.
I love the penguins in sweaters! So cute!
And my coworker in Cleveland never replied. I will bet a beer that she won't. She doesn't track this stuff.
Steph L. - Oct 20, 2011 11:48:16 am PDT #2467 of 30001
I look more rad than Lutheranism
I am trying -- and failing -- to come up with a way to explain, in VERY simple, non-technical terms that a photo/image that one grabs off the internet is NOT going to be high enough resolution to print.
And when I say "VERY simple, non-technical terms," I mean people who don't understand "resolution" as it pertains to image quality.
I don't mean to be snarky; we have authors with multiple PhDs and PharmDs, and I can't claim to understand more than a fraction of what they know. So, in turn, I don't expect them to be on intimate terms with image resolution, dpi, print specs, etc.
But the rapidly increasing problem is that people grab an image from the internet or from PowerPoint (I hate PowerPoint for that very reason alone), and it's acceptable resolution for screen viewing but not remotely close to acceptable for printing.
And our authors reply with "But it looks fine on my screen!"
So we need a simple, non-technical way to explain that print publications need more pixels than web graphics. It's driving me mad.
Jesse - Oct 20, 2011 11:49:52 am PDT #2468 of 30001
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
Something that looks fine on the screen could look like crap when you print it out.
Tom Scola - Oct 20, 2011 11:50:23 am PDT #2469 of 30001
Remember that the frontier of the Rebellion is everywhere. And even the smallest act of insurrection pushes our lines forward.
"It may look good on the screen, but the picture will be too fuzzy when printed on paper."