Some of the photographs I post are not my own, and they are copyrighted by their respective photographers. I will cite and source every photograph I find that isn't mine. This isn't a commercial/profit blog, I do not make any money from this blog. I post photographs I like and am inspired by to show to my followers, in the hopes that they like them and are inspired by them as well. I do not wish to profit or gain from posting others' works.
A while back, I posted this [had to link to cache, my domain is being funny], detailing some of the ways many archives and universities are opening their collections to the public. Most of them were doing an absolutely terrible job of it, mainly out of fear of photo stealing.
All of the images on the site are horrendously low-resolution, some to the point of near uselessness. I understand that you’re worried about people taking the photos, but for gods sake, at least make them viewable.
How I imagine the conversation about the gallery went down:
"Hey, I have an idea! How about we put 800,000 images from our collections online! That way, the public can view them, so they aren’t just sitting in boxes collecting dust! We could maybe even make some money off of them!"
"I like it, I like it. But how about this. How about we post the photos, but make them absolutely useless and unviewable to the user. Make them so blurry and low-resolution that there’s no point even trying to decypher what you’re looking at."
Sometimes I really don’t know why I even bother opening Rdio..
Music sucks. Christ. Is it just me, or is A) Everyone a ‘musician’ now? and B) Are these people in it because they really love music, or are they in it because they want to be ‘famous’ - whatever that word even means now.
This is what happens after listening to older music and reading about old historic recording studios, only to come back to reality in 2012 and realize that this music is 45 years old, and grand recording studios have since been shut down or demolished, and everyone now adays is a laptop recording artist.
How not to offend. Which on the internet is near bloody impossible.
So, you’ve managed to offend someone. Congratulations! Welcome to the World Wide Web, home of people who don’t know you personally but now hate your guts. Don’t fret, it’s happened to everyone. Sooner or later, something you say will offend someone, and bam you’re in Angry Town. Population: you, and everyone who has an immediate reaction to things they see on the internet that they don’t agree with.
So, how do you keep yourself out of Angry Town you ask? Well, it’s simple really. All you have to do is not say anything. That’s it. Don’t say anything. Ever. Just keep your mouth shut and don’t talk. Hell, don’t even breathe if you can because, hey, you might offend the fishes with all your fancy breathing. Also, don’t voice your opinions, or call out someone else’s opinions, oh and don’t say anything someone could misinterpret (which, on the internet, is a lot). Just cover your eyes and go stand in the corner over there. Everything will be ok.
Or so it would seem at least, for you see, if everyone followed this rule, we wouldn’t have any discussion or debate, people wouldn’t become more knowledgeable, problems wouldn’t get solved, opinions themselves wouldn’t be formed. And that’s not good, right? Everyone would just be sitting, silently twiddling their thumbs for fear that someone will be offended. If thumb-twiddling was deemed offensive by someone, then we would really be screwed.
Someone said something ignorant? Better not say anything, they might get offended. You found something stupid? Want to vent about this? Want to call that opinion illogical? Well, better keep it to yourself. Someone could be offended! Wouldn’t want that now would we? Imagine, someone being offended. I can’t think of a worse thing really. I honestly can’t. I’m trying really hard here. … Nope, nothing. Yay, happy times!
So there, now you know how to not offend anyone. I told you it was simple. Yes, I know, it might feel strange at first, not saying anything that’s on your mind, but it’s ok. No more feeling the wrath of complete strangers on the internet for you! No more wanting to just crawl into bed and tell everyone to go to hell! No more month-long bouts of depression! And you know why? Because no one is offended by something you said. And the fun thing is, they never will be, because before you know it, you will have become an empty, opinionless, silent, shell.
"Restore the sanctity of marriage!" "We shouldn’t redefine marriage!"
Screw off with your nonsensical ideas of marriage and the sanctity of it.
In the Old Testamant, ‘marriage’ was basically just purchasing a woman from her father, because back then, women were looked upon as property.
Christianity frowns upon divorce and remarrying [ditto with Roman Catholicism], but you don’t see any religious folk getting all worked up about that.
A gallup poll conducted in 1958 showed that 96% of white Americans disapproved of interracial marriage. In the US, in 1960, it was illegal for a black person to marry a white person in 22 states. If we hadn’t “redefined marriage”, some states would still make it illegal for blacks to marry whites.
Making it legal for same-sex couples to marry won’t do anything other than let same-sex couples marry each other. The world won’t fall apart, God won’t come from the heavens and smite the sinners, etc. etc. The world will keep on turning, and everyone will just go on with their lives. Another day in America. The only difference now, is that the people who are against letting same-sex couples marry will be viewed as the bigoted assholes they are. The sad thing is that many of them will justify their homophobia with their religious texts, as if they were incapable of harbouring any opinions that weren’t planted there by said religious texts.
Marriage has had a long, disappointing, and shameful past, and the idea that we should “restore the sanctity” of it is amusing, because it never really had any to begin with.
I would like to complain about the abysmal internet you offer to your visitors. It is truly some of the worst internet I have ever used. When you have 70 or so people scattered throughout the library on laptops, all using the same internet connection, things tend to get bogged down — and that is why I’m writing this open letter to you. Once you get a few people on the network at the same time, it’s like using dial-up. Just loading Google itself takes 2 minutes.
And to that you may say, “well the internet is free, its open for anyone to use — where do you have the right to complain about it, you aren’t paying for it.” True, very true. But at the same time, why offer this service if it’s completely inept at working, let alone functioning at all. Faster internet isn’t that expensive, or hard to implement.
Look at Fanshawe for example. Hundreds of students all over campus, on laptops, and iPods, and other internet devices, all using one giant campus-wide network. It’s always consistently quick (albeit the odd time.) You can’t offer that to the small number of people who are using the internet to read the news and check emails? (Or Tumblr?)
I said nothing when they made a Garfield movie. I said nothing when they made, not one, but two Alvin movies. I said nothing when they made a Yogi Bear movie. (Actually, I think I said something, but I can’t remember.)
But a Smurfs 3D movie?
I didn’t think movie studios were that out of ideas, but apparently the executives at Sony Pictures turned to each other and said “you know what we need? Another cruddy CGI 3D movie that will get kids to drag their parents to the theatre so they can spend tons of money on overpriced tickets.”
It’s gotten to the point where every week, there is another movie coming out, with a big 3D tacked onto the end of it.
And it’s gotten to the point where, someone, somewhere, for whatever reason, thought turning another old cartoon series into a modernized, urbanized, CGI movie was a decent idea. (But c’mon — we all know this is just for profit.)
And no matter how many negative reviews you throw at these piles of cinema vomit, they keep coming out with them. And for whatever reason, the writers/producers/director/studio find it funny, and “hip” to urbanize the characters of these old cartoons, just to appeal to the next stupid tween generation. Be it with celebrity cameos from the latest hack, making the characters talk in ‘gangsta’ slang, or having them do a full out cover of a recent pop/urban song. (See Alvin)
Or to make the humour really really really stupid (Yogi).
And for whatever reason, people still pay money to see them.
We’re talking about what should be considered “art” in one of our classes today, and basically what everyone concludes to (for fear of being branded a narrow minded, art-square) is that everything is art, from a masterful portrait painting, to someone throwing paint randomly at a brick wall without any meaning; art, even when unoriginal, should still be considered just as much art as its original inspiration; that everything is art, and that when someone says that what they have made is “art”, that is indisputable, because art is subjective.
So then what the hell is ‘art’ anyway, other than just ‘life’?
Does calling something “art” really mean anything? Is it anything more than just some vague conceptual idea with an ever changing definition?
Oh you funny Americans. Amidst all the hullaballo over loud Sun Chips bags, you forgot there were things called bowls! Well, no matter now, they don’t have the eco-friendly bags in the US anymore. You complained that they were “too loud” and that made you angry! On the bright side, now you won’t have to worry about missing a word of Sarah Palin’s Alaksa because of a loud chip bag. USA! USA! USA!
Not representative of every American, obviously. Just the ones that complained about something so fucking stupid.
I’m sick of all these people getting signed to record labels after posting 1 video of themselves on YouTube
Guess there is no struggles/failures/schlepping through small gigs to work your way up to the top anymore. It’s “Post Lady Gaga Cover > Get Lots of Views > Get Signed.”
There are people who post more than one video and get signed, but it just seems that if you are 10 years old, and can sing a Lady Gaga cover pretty well, it’s only a matter of time before you have 6 billion views, and are being covered in the news.
Such is internet fame.
[And you know the reason you got signed so fast is because they’re trying to cash in on your hype — nothing more.]
This probably doesn’t make much sense. I just woke up.
It’s always a good laugh when people complain that the warning graphics on cigarette boxes are “too graphic.”
… You’re fucking kidding, right?
They’re supposed to be graphic, that’s the whole point. It’s trying to show you what will happen to you if you continue to smoke. The black lung, the bloody stool, everything. If you don’t like seeing it, then quit smoking. Addiction is a hard thing to quit, but you have to start somewhere, and why not start with the things that are killing you.
Also, of all things, you’re complaining about the graphics on the side of a cigarette box? I swear. If these are grown adults complaining, that’s ridiculous.
(Isn’t that weird, companies are selling us things that kill us. Corporate-aided suicide.)
I wonder if Lady Gaga’s fans (and I mean the hardcore ones) will ever fully realize that she basically uses them as free marketing. Every time she tweets “make this hashtag a tranding topic” or “retweet these lyrics of mine” or something similar — her “little monsters” (although I like to call them her “drones” because they would do anything for her if asked) jump on it and do as she wishes.
This is what is called “getting free publicity” — and it works!
So well in fact, her fannest of fans seemingly have no idea that they are just pawns in her game — a game in which her objective is to make more money.
Aww, sorry “little monsters” — the Gaga was using you to get richer.
(Then again, isn’t this the music industry in general now adays?)