[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends View]
Below are the most recent 25 friends' journal entries.
| Saturday, November 7th, 2009 | ||
|
atalantapendrag |
5:40a | So bad it's hysterical Still holding off on the concert report until I get the pics from ![[info]](http://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} doombuggie, but this is the opening act.Yes, this song was performed. There was a cover of "Beth" by Kiss as well. Current Mood:  amusedCurrent Music: Voltaire - Almost Human |
|
scans_daily [ kusonaga ] |
11:32a | When Matt met Luke: Marvel Knights #11 So, last time I was here I posted some pages from the 2000 series Marvel Knights, a fun little exercise into street level team-building, featuring Daredevil assembling a team to take down the Punisher and for about fifteen issues, taking on various threats of a superpowered kind. The team was originally just Daredevil, Black Widow, Shang-Chi and Dagger (from Cloak and Dagger), but the group got an expansion in issue #5 with the inclusion of Moon Knight. The latter thought the team needed some organising (y'know, some actual being a team) and in issue #11, he brought in Luke Cage for some reinforcements. This is a response to starwolf oakley's recent post, featuring Cage's interaction with DD in the pages of Bendis' Daredevil. Scans not mine. Written by Chuck Dixon, drawn by Ed Barreto. 7/22.  |
|
dglenn |
5:26a | QotD "My wardrobe is threefold: Things I wear during sex, Things I wear to have more sex and most importantly, 'I don't give a shit.'" -- Twitter user VaginaDrum, 2009-10-26 |
| Friday, November 6th, 2009 | ||
|
scans_daily [ thanekos ] |
10:55a | The Opening Defense In The Human Game so, the Human Defence Corps. Currently the unit General Sam "Wade Eiling 1.1" Lane's in command of, they were created under the Luthor administration to be the one armed gov't group gunning after non-baseline threats that was actually public. ( And they know what they're doing, surprisingly. ) Current Music: King Gainer Over! - Yoshiki Fukuyama |
|
scans_daily [ arbre_rieur ] |
10:02p | |
|
scans_daily [ cyberghostface ] |
10:46p | |
|
fayanora |
6:59p | Autopilot vs. conscious mind I've been meaning to post about something really annoying since I first noticed it, and only got around to it now. Of course, the day I decide to post about it is the day I figured out why it was happening. What is annoying is that sometimes when I walk, my legs hurt within a few minutes, and other times they don't. More than that, it seemed to have no rhyme or reason. It wasn't my pace, either. Sure, my legs would hurt when I was walking fast, but not every time I would walk fast. On several occasions I was walking three or four times faster than the times my legs would hurt, and it wouldn't hurt at all. The other day, I walked 6 miles without any problems, but this morning my legs started hurting after just a few minutes. So it took me weeks to figure out what was going on. Well, I finally figured it out today. Apparently, sometimes - especially when I'm in a hurry to get somewhere at a specific time - my conscious mind attempts to control the act of walking. This is bad because usually the part of my mind I call The Autopilot (others call it the zombie or the subconscious mind) is the one that does the walking. When the Autopilot is doing the walking, walking is efficient and rhythmic, like a pendulum. When the conscious mind is attempting to do the Autopilot's job, it doesn't do it very well. The pace goes back and forth, the legs don't move like pendulums, and there's a tension in my calves as well. So no wonder they get in pain when that happens. So in other words, it doesn't matter how fast or slow I'm walking when the conscious mind is micromanaging the legs, it's painful to walk that way. Now, I can tell the difference. One of the major differences is that when the Autopilot is working properly, I feel like my legs have their own pilot and I'm kind of disconnected from them. I can feel them, but they're doing their own thing. When the conscious mind is interfering with the process, I feel like my legs are more a part of me. Plus there's that calf tension. So now hopefully I can stop my conscious mind from interfering with my walking. |
|
scans_daily [ volksjager ] |
9:29p | |
|
atalantapendrag |
8:12p | oh damn Can't seem to wake up. Concert account will come when I get pix from doombuggie.I sleep more. Current Mood:  sleepyCurrent Music: Voltaire - Almost Human |
| Saturday, November 7th, 2009 | ||
|
scans_daily [ icon_uk ] |
1:30a | Granny Goodness wants YOU - For the Female Fury Cadets.... The Karl and Barbara Kesel run on Hawk and Dove was one of my favourite titles back in the 1990's. They oversaw the introduction of Dawn Granger as the second Dove (Who was, to be honest, FAR more interesting than Don Hall had ever been) and created as good a superhero comic as one might hope to find as well.  The Kesels are amongst the few people who seems to "get" Jack Kirby characters and concept, Karl in particular used them a lot in things like this title (and Superboy), and in a way that was usually respectful, but expanded on them in ways that Kirby never did, usually because he was already moving on to his NEXT idea. Take the Female Furies, Granny Goodness' elite warriors; Lashina, Stompa, Bernadeth and the marvellously named Mad Harriet. In some way these ladies are a lynchpin of the DCU, an equivalent perhaps to the MU's Wrecking Crew. They're powerful, versatile, each has an awesome visual design, and together form a team which is a good, but not unbeatable, challenge for a new hero team (or single hero if they're powerful enough) to test their mettle and resourcefulness. They also have the advantage of not needing much explanatory motivation "A mission from Darkseid/Granny Goodness" covers a multitude of plot points. And at the same time, they had a static membership for a LOOOONG time. Prior to this story they had only ever added ONE member to the team when John Ostrander introduced the archer Artemiz and her cyber-pack (Technologically enhanced Apokaliptian wolves, NOT exactly cuddly puppies). And then we had this story, from Hawk and Dove 21, with guest art from Steve Erwin, which presents us with a... ( Girls' Night Out ) |
| Friday, November 6th, 2009 | ||
|
lady_ganesh |
8:22p | I write stuff! Perhaps too much stuff. I signed up as one of the Cleverly Hidden Authors at ![[info]](http://www.insanejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small} yaoi_challenge! Go leave prompts for people you find interesting.Also, I put Nagi inna dress for springkink, and Charley and Johnny in hot springs at the same community. (Vassalord is such crack people. Such. Crack.)Because I am starting to lose track of my life, I have a to-do list under the cut. Click only if you're curious or want to share my masochism. ( To do ) Current Mood:  cheerful |
|
elfwreck |
4:53p | Another truth about marriage I was looking for statistics* about same-sex marriage opposition when I ran across this precious article posted back in June. (Warning for extreme sexism and various other acts of privilege.) The author--Sam Schulman--goes on at length about what he objects to about same sex marriage, and what he thinks marriage really is. Bolded sections are emphasis added. The relationship between a same-sex couple, though it involves the enviable joy of living forever with one's soulmate, loyalty, fidelity, warmth, a happy home, shopping, and parenting, is not the same as marriage between a man and a woman, though they enjoy exactly the same cozy virtues. These qualities are awfully nice, but they are emphatically not what marriage fosters, and, even when they do exist, are only a small part of why marriage evolved and what it does.Got that? It's important. He's tackling the key issue of what is marriage, which is absolutely crucial to any non-religious discussion of and why same-sex couples can't have it. Brace yourself... 'cos he hits the same conclusion about "traditional marriage" that I got, only he thinks it's a good thing. Marriage, whatever its particular manifestation in a particular culture or epoch, is essentially about who may and who may not have sexual access to a woman when she becomes an adult, and is also about how her adulthood--and sexual accessibility--is defined.Marriage is not about raising children, or living together and sharing resources, or being a unit in the community. Marriage is about female sexuality--and the control thereof. In case that wasn't obvious from his earlier quotes, he makes sure you understand: This most profound aspect of marriage--protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex--is its only true reason for being, and it has no equivalent in same-sex marriage.He also points out that "A same-sex marriage fails utterly to create forbidden relationships." He seems to think they are important--nay, mandatory, because, "without social disapproval of unmarried sex--what kind of madman would seek marriage?" He then goes on to talk about the "kinship" that marriage creates: Even in modern romantic marriages, a groom becomes the hunting or business partner of his father-in-law and a member of his clubs; a bride becomes an ally of her mother-in-law in controlling her husband. There can, of course, be warm relations between families and their children's same-sex partners, but these come about because of liking, sympathy, and the inherent kindness of many people. A wedding between same-sex lovers does not create the fact (or even the feeling) of kinship between a man and his husband's family; a woman and her wife's kin.This kinship is important to him--he says In a world without kinship, women will lose their hard-earned status as sexual beings with personal autonomy and physical security. Children will lose their status as nonsexual beings.That latter seems like a bit of a red herring, and he doesn't explain it well. But it does tie into some of his other points, about marriage and illicit sexuality and the importance of at least giving lip service to the idea of virginity. Marriage, to him, is all about men getting access to women's sexuality, and since same-sex marriage turns that concept on its head, it is wrong.And he doesn't even spend much time grumbling about the "wrongness"--he's bitching about how the inevitible failure of same-sex marriage (because marriage can't survive without illicit sexuality and forced kinship) will destroy the last vestiges of men-owning-women marriage. Umm. Yay? * Stats: Specifically, I was trying to find out if the opposition splits equally along gender lines, or if more men oppose same-sex marriage than women. Any relevant research info would be welcome. This entry is crossposted at http://elf.dreamwidth.org/280002.html. |
|
scans_daily [ jarodrussell ] |
7:03p | Birds of Prey #111 I wrote a script this evening that would let anyone, not just admins, backup Scans Daily. After asking myself, "What would Oracle do?" I've decided not to share it with anyone. After all, I wouldn't want to share the ability to backup the SD community until everyone has the ability to back up the SD community. Here's a scan to make this post legal. ( Babs has a boyfriend! ) Peace out, y'all! |
|
scans_daily [ dr_hermes ] |
7:13p | Looks kinda like one of them Rube Goldberg contraptions Rube Goldberg did not invent the corned beef and Swiss cheese sandwich. (Although many would praise him if he had.) Nope, he was a lifelong cartoonists who created a number of strips (he seems to have come with the "wiseguy answers to stupid questions" before WW I, long before Al Jaffee)and many political commentary panels. But he will be remembered for his infernal contraptions which perform a simple mundane task in a remarkably roundabout and inefficient way. You still see this done in movies, TV and cartoons (PEE-WEE'S BIG ADVENTURE had a number of these gags), but they owe their inspiration to Rube Goldberg.  Click for larger size. |
|
scans_daily [ dizmo ] |
3:46p | A smorgasbord of Superdictionary silliness. Yeah, have a handful of Superdictionary entries! Always appreciated, I know. I went back through the IJcomm, and I'm pretty sure none of these have been seen on it up to this point, so yes. ( Under the cut are fourteen entries. That is as many as one ten plus four. ) |
|
scans_daily [ xdoop ] |
6:46p | |
|
scans_daily [ icon_uk ] |
10:55p | An SD1.0 repost and a genuine "Grail Piece" acqusition!! :) Chances are that if you owned ANY DC licensed merchandise in the late 70's or early 80's it either featured art by, or based on, work done by Jose-Luis Garcia-Lopez and Dick Giordano, two stalwarts of the organisation, who produced acres of top notch, lovely licensing art. The art would be used from notepads to action figures, from t-shirts to underoos, and so had to be both simple and stylish, easily reproduced and instantly recognisable. They could hardly have asked for better! The attached pics are scanned as best I can, and hopefully might bring a little happiness to your desktop should you wish to tweak them that way. ( Sexiness ABOUNDS ) |
|
scans_daily [ starwolf_oakley ] |
3:30p | DAREDEVIL #43: Luke Cage is kind of a jerk. I've been hot and cold about Brian Michael Bendis' work. But I've decided to take a look at his DAREDEVIL run with Alex Maleev. Matt Murdock has found out two things: the Owl is trying to take over the Kingpin's territory with Mutant Growth Hormone *and* the NYPD are trying to get him on tape as Daredevil. So if Daredevil can't do it...  According to Wikipedia, this takes place after Jessica and Luke had their one night stand but before Jessica realized she was pregnant in ALIAS. ( I'm starting to doubt the man-crush theory. ) |
|
dglenn |
4:26p | What's Up With Me, and User Interface Opinion Questions Uh, did somebody just buy me a gift subscription to Science News? A copy of the current issue just arrived in today's mail ... and I did recently mentioned (and a little less recently) mention having been a reader of it in the past. If so, thank you. A lot. I've missed it. It's a bit thicker now than I remember. I could probably get all the same news from the web nowadays, but someties it's just easier -- feels more relaxed and recreational -- to read stuff like that on paper. And by just turning pages instead of scrolling up and down and then deciding which links to click next. (I love the web, but I'm glad we still have dead-trees publications as well.) [Note: primary copy of this poll is at Dreamwidth -- that's where the copies of this entry on sites where I can't post polls will link to.] Poll #4558 Command-Line InterfacesOpen to: All, results viewable to: All For folks who use command-line tools: if a command has both a "display version number" option and a "more verbose output" option, which of these is more intuitive (and/or less likely to be annoying)?
View Answers -v = version; -V = verbose -V = version; -v = verbose Doesn't matter; either is good Ew, both suck; use getopt_long() and spell it out Er, what? Ooh, clicky! People still bother with command-line interfaces?
(warning: I may mock you if you click this) If some combinations of command-line arguments might produce not-completely-obvious results, but those combinations are potentially useful so they should merely be warned about rather than disallowed, which of these seems more useful?
View Answers -w to turn on warnings for the least obvious dangers;
-W to add warnings just for folks not yet acclimated
to the joys of Unixy deliciousness -w to turn on wanrnings of all possibly confusing
combinations detected; -W to warn only about severe
gotchas All warnings on by default, with "did you really mean
that?" prompts, unless the user turns them off
with an "I know what I'm doing" option Only warn about data-destroying potential-gaffes,
and treat mere potential-inconveniences as "they
probably meant to do that I'm not sure ... but ooh, clicky! Let's say you have a bunch of files in a directory (say, "arbeau.abc", "machaut.abc", and "frtrad.abc" in a directory named "french") and some or all are hard-links to (not copies of) entries in another directory (perhaps "french/arbeau.abc" also appears as "dance/arbeau.abc" and "french/machaut.abc" is the same file as "songs/machaut.abc") ... and you decide to modify all the files in that directory ("french") in a batch, using a tool that replaces files with edited versions and optionally saves backups (named *.bak or *~). Which of these sounds like the most correct behaviour (most likely to be desired, least likely to induce cursing)?
View Answers
Copy each file to its backup-name, then
overwrite the original with the edited
version (so dance/arbeau.abc is still linked to
french/arbeau.abc and thus reflects the changes).
This is what links are for. Heck, not only that, but it should try to ensure
that symbolic links behave as much like hard
links as possible in cases like this. Rename each file to its backup-name, then create a new file with the original name for the edited version (dance/arbeau.abc is now linked to french/arbeau.bak, and french.abc is a completely new file with no other links to it). Make it yet another command-line option, to choose between copy/overwrite and rename/create, and/or prompt the user to choose. It doesn't matter, because the only users likely to be using links that way in the first place are going to try it out with a couple of dummy files first to find out which way you're doing it. Wait, what's a "hard link"? Is that like an alias?[*] [*] Not really, but it's related. A symbolic link is like an alias. A hard link is where a single file on disk has two names -- an occasionally useful error in an MS-DOS filesystem, an established, intentional feature in Unix -- and neither filename is any more or less "real" than the other. I don't know whether recent versions of Windows have added this feature or not, but in older versions you could force it to happen, at the risk of CHKDSK "repairing" it later. I'm not sure whether I'll get back to the project that sparked the questions in that poll (see below), but the responses will pertain to some future project too, I'm sure. Despite the welcome arrival of a copy of Science News, it's been a discouraging week. The Mac won't boot, and it died just as I was fine-tuning the interface for a program that was nearly ready to share, beautifully comment, with a man-page and everything ... that I had not yet copied elsewhere to try compiling on a different OS, or to post yet. There was a lot else not backed up, but most of that will merely annoy and inconvenience me; this bit is the "somebody kicked over my masterpiece sand castle just before I finished it" kick in the gut. (Hmm. Much of what was backed up was backed up to DVD. I'm not sure yet whether any of my other computers can handle that. Experiments to put on my to-do list.) Couple that with the main Linux workstation -- the bedroom machine -- which I hadn't been using much since I was given the Mac, no longer talking to its monitor, and I've been getting by with an itty-bitty Windows XP machine with a tiny screen and a so-so X server on it for the past few days, and it's been really putting a dent in my enthusiasm. So, in the immortal word of Charlie Brown: AAAUUUUUUGH! (The bedroom Linux machine shows the POST messages on the monitor -- which is itself having major problems, but I have an even larger monitor to use ifwhen I ever feel capable of getting it up the stairs -- but at some point the screen goes blank and nothing I do to the keyboard or mouse will light it up again. I can SSH to it, and throw X apps to the itty bitty XP screen (a VAIO that only works when plugged into the wall), but I don't get the benefit of the decent-sized screen or the larger keyboard.) The small screen is fine for web surfing and email; not so good for editing source in one window, editing docs in another, looking stuff up in a third, and viewing output in a fourth, or comparing two PS/PDF pages side by side. Or maybe I'm just spoiled from having a Mac to use for the past several months. I haven't had the heart to start reconstructing a week of coding from scratch (get a filter working: a couple hours; add enough comments that I won't be embarrassed if anybody else sees it, usefully robust command-line arguments and options, and somewhat reasonable user documentation: a week) -- and I'm still clinging to the faint hope that the files can be recovered -- so I tried to dive back into composing and arranging, and am finding the tiny screen even more annoying for that than for programming. Or maybe I'm just too acutely frustrated and discouraged to cope with even small inconveniences right now. Maybe I'll feel differently about this in a month. But right now, it sucks. The plan is to head down to Virginia to see whether
I want my code back. I want my files back. I want my tools back. This business of knowing I need more backup media and a big disk for a live backup, but not being able to afford either ... well it's starting to wear me down. |
|
scans_daily [ sherkahn ] |
10:58a | Deadpool #17 preview On today's show, we will be baking a gigantic disaster souffle. First, take one genuine hero leader, put him in a situation he/she doesn't understand. Next, add one Deadpool... #17 flavor. Add plenty of munitions and knife sharpeners (can never have too much). Presto! Let explode and bring about raw carnage until done. Make sure you bring plenty of electric fans to cool things off, because the action is hot and the sh*t tends to hit them! CBR has the full preview. |
|
scans_daily [ lipsofpoison ] |
4:35p | Jason in 'Tec Comics I've saved a lot of random bits of Jason adventures in 'Tec Comics over the last couple of years and upon reviewing them, there are some interesting points and foreshadowing, so after #571 was put up, I thought I'd put these up as well. Some of them are on the crisis cusp (just before, just after) so be aware of that. Let's start with what Jason's cape was used most often for:  ( About 30 scans of varying sizes from varied issues under the cut. ) |
|
scans_daily [ pyrotwilight ] |
11:26a | Yet Another Few Siege Teasers: Norman's Secret Weapon and Look, up in the Sky! |
|
scans_daily [ mysteryfan ] |
9:52a | |
|
scans_daily [ kingrockwell ] |
9:57a | What really happened to Ambuh Bug: Year None #6? ( Read more... ) |
|
scans_daily [ manofbats ] |
9:57a | S.W.O.R.D. Preview Page ( WTF? ) |
0 (0.0%)![[info]](http://stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
