d- Congrats on the new home!!
Chatty: "Do you KNOW how many calories are in that?!?"
Tep: "No, but I know exactly how many fat cells are between your ears: Three billion two hundred and seventy eight."
Huh, I was thinking: "No, but I know exactly how many fat cells are between your ears: All of them."
I just walked into a large pane of glass. The doorway was a few inches to the right, it seems.
Did it get on tape anywhere? Damn it man, that can be entertaining! (are you ok?)
Man, real FBI badges are so much more boring than the ones you see on TV.
Was the glass a protected witness or something?
and "Is there anything about her that could be used to blackmail her?" I guess if you want to work for the government, you need to know fifteen people who can answer "No" to that question.
Sooooo, we shouldn't list any Buffistas as references then, huh? Especially after F2F (from what I'm told).
ION, big boss got a American Flag. It has some story to it. Can't find it. Doesn't want it. So now I have a flag. Woot!
Tonight, I'm going to the Yankees @ Texas game!
Good luck blackmailing me. I've done a lot of crazy shit but nothing I'm ashamed of. Not that the FBI would consider hiring me for a millisecond.
smonster, that handbag would totally rock as a "go, you, for quitting smoking" reward.
Also, I found a link to instructions on making a baby/cat pouch: [link] complete with diagrams. Or if you would like, I could make one for you.
d, congratulations on the house! I envy you the wisteria.
P-C, I'm glad you came by your real-life knowledge of FBI badges honestly. nudge nudge, wink wink
It's late and I'm tired, so someone please tell me if that was a joke or not, so I'll know if to respond it seriously with cool explanations.
It was a joke but we still want to hear the cool explanation.
It was a joke but we still want to hear the cool explanation.
This should be the tagline for our entire site.
I'm good, thanks, smonster, though bummed that now several of my favorite people aren't going to be at the F2F. Pouty face.
eta I think I might buy it as a 'go me for quitting smoking' thing.
yes! And every time you feel the urge to backslide, just look at your awesome new purse!
smonster. I love the bag. You should get it!
I guess if you want to work for the government, you need to know fifteen people who can answer "No" to that question.
And those people have to come up with a couple new and different people each.
And gods help you if you give an apartment number, because that's how you get your mail, and the inspector finds out you don't live in an apartment building, but in a "converted house."
Oh, and my favorite, as a college student renting a room in Eagle Rock, Los Angeles: "I checked with your neighbors, and they don't know you."
One of my cow-irkers has this "cute" habit of making up nicknames for people and then calling them by that instead of their real name (these are ones that, sometimes, play off their real names but sometimes she just makes them up). Most of the time, people are OK with it, but I heard one person repeatedly ask her not to use the made-up name ... and have it used repeatedly. She left and I'm wondering if that was at least part of the reason ....
It was a joke but we still want to hear the cool explanation.
Yay!
So. In a nutshell. Our understanding of photography lies on several axises. The big ones are art, science, mechanics and education. It goes without saying that this is an analytical observation, and that most photography uses, even without knowing, those axis. Example for pictures that were taken with only scientific purposes is mostly medical photography. Tons of the first photographs were nature photographs, for purely scientific purpose. I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks they hold artistic value: they were experiments.
Art/Science are the big axises to understand how we understand photography directly, but not the only ones. The non-direct ways are important too. Mechanics is the "child" of the science axis, but its focus is on the camera, not the subject of the photograph. Using photography for educational purposes requires a lot, mostly trust that the machine and the artist/mechanist knows how to use one and their goals are "pure". It lays against all of those axises.
Now, let's say there's one truth everyone is after, like Victorian science thought (just a reminder: that's before theory of relativity). There are still few ways to look at it, and this is the value aspect. Science axis lays on the notion that there is One True Truth. Art, the same, but the tactic is using the artist's values to get to that truth. In some discourses, what I'm referring to as value is the representation.
So unless wanting a very specific medical photography, we expect a lot from it: showing reality (truth) in a pretty way (value). This really isn't the case, and you can rarely wrap all of your expectations to one single photograph.
That's it, basically. But one of the cool parts of my paper will be about ghosts: x-rays were discovered with the progression of photography, and for about 40 years, people were trying to photograph ghosts. Photography had to find a way to distinguish between ghosts and mortals, this world and the next and answering some epistemological questions about the nature of proof, identity and knowledge during this time.
I'm very tired; I hope that was coherent enough.
