Wapsi Square Forum

That creature is magnificent! What kind is it? Is it really that large? I would imagine it's parlour to not be ordinary.

I am not going to link it again for those phobic to it's "charms".

DinkyInky wrote:That creature is magnificent! What kind is it? Is it really that large? I would imagine it's parlour to not be ordinary.

I am not going to link it again for those phobic to it's "charms".

Do a Google on Golden Orb Spiders. They get that big and bigger.

Not through with spiders yet.
I followed a link to the International Space Station's live feed. (Way cool, btw.) And what's on the header but...
"Spiiiders iin Spaaaaace!"

I, for one, welcome our new arachnid overlords...

Found this bit at Yahoo news...
'Mummy Lake' Used for Ancient Rituals, Not Water Storage

H.R. Giger style wedding cake.

I do not even want to THINK about what that cost.

AnotherFairportfan wrote:I do not even want to THINK about what that cost.

Several weeks of very bad dreams and premonitions, for whoever wielded the icing squirt-tube.

Dave wrote:

AnotherFairportfan wrote:I do not even want to THINK about what that cost.

Several weeks of very bad dreams and premonitions, for whoever wielded the icing squirt-tube.

It had to have been worth it, though. Can you imagine the bride walking down the aisle in a power loader?

Personally, i would have rigged the cakebusters to pop up instead of being there on top all along...

Hugh Jackman Nearly Castrated Himself

The Daily Beast wrote: The Wolverine might have big cojones on screen, but actor Hugh Jackman almost lost his while filming. According to the 45-year-old actor, he almost castrated himself with Wolverine’s claws while shooting a nude scene. “There was a very intense first scene and I insisted on a closed set. I ran around the corner and all the female members of the crew were gathered there. I tried to cover myself and cut my inner thigh,” Jackman said on The Graham Norton Show. After that, he said, “The metal claws had to go—you can’t have bits and pieces flying off.”

<full story at New York Daily News>

He's Wolverine. He has a mutant healing factor.

It would have grown back.

AnotherFairportfan wrote:I do not even want to THINK about what that cost.

It's not really a technically difficult cake, nor does it appear to be a very large one, but the amount of time spent figuring out the design and then shaping all of those little fiddly bits. . .

Dave wrote:Several weeks of very bad dreams and premonitions, for whoever wielded the icing squirt-tube.

That's airbrushed fondant, not icing. If somebody had to try to do that with an icing bag, they wouldn't need the Giger design to go insane.

So, this afternoon, i played with my 500mm mirror lens on the Nikon.
 
So, here is a picture of the house across the street, with the zoom at 29mm (roughly a "normal" lens for the format, equivalent to about 44mm for full-frame 35mm) - reduced to (roughly) 17%:
 


So i put on the 500mm and (after some annoying futzing around because the Nikon is a lot more snobbish about working manually with non-CPU lenses than the Olympus was), i got THIS shot (reduced to roughly 15%) - and, if you squint a little, you can see the corresponding portion of the other shot at the same scale, down there at the lower left.



And here - at full resolution - is the segment of the full image that corresponds to the long lens shot:

Something i just posted over at the Misfile forum, in a category titled "Things that re-affirm my low opinion of human nature":

...the thought that this film may actually make money:
 

============

(Incidentally, i started that thread on 8 November 2012, and to date there are 1,741 posts in it.)

Driving a woody takes on a whole new meaning: Handmade Wooden VW Beetle

AnotherFairportfan wrote:Something i just posted over at the Misfile forum, in a category titled "Things that re-affirm my low opinion of human nature":

...the thought that this film may actually make money

It does seem like a rather strained and silly concept for a movie, but as I don't go in for the "romantic comedy" genre and haven't seen it myself I can't really judge whether it's garbage, despicable, a worthy effort, or brilliant. IMDB has precisely one review, which gushes so much I sorta suspect it's a plant... and some "Wow, what a weird idea" forum comments from folks who don't seem to have seen the film.

As to reinforcing a low opinion of human nature... I could see that in some outcomes:

• The film is actually garbage or despicable, but is popular or exploitive enough to make $$$.
• The film is actually good or brilliant, does poorly, but makes money for the producers because they had signed exploitive contracts with all of the actors.

On the other hand, if the movie is terrible, and bombs justifiably, it would tend to speak well of human nature (except perhaps for that of its backers, who might have awful taste and/or judgment, or mght be pulling some sort of "Springtime For Hitler" scam which was intended to lose money).

Hey, that's an idea about how to spend the upcomng six-week Wapsi hiatus! You coud rent the film, watch it a few times, and then write us a detailed report!

Dave wrote:

On the other hand, if the movie is terrible, and bombs justifiably, it would tend to speak well of human nature (except perhaps for that of its backers, who might have awful taste and/or judgment, or mght be pulling some sort of "Springtime For Hitler" scam which was intended to lose money).

This is actually the first thing I think of nowadays when I hear about a manure pile of a new movie; that or The Tax Write-Off Scam. That, or Uwe Bo is off his meds again.....

NOTDilbert wrote:

Dave wrote:

On the other hand, if the movie is terrible, and bombs justifiably, it would tend to speak well of human nature (except perhaps for that of its backers, who might have awful taste and/or judgment, or mght be pulling some sort of "Springtime For Hitler" scam which was intended to lose money).

This is actually the first thing I think of nowadays when I hear about a manure pile of a new movie; that or The Tax Write-Off Scam. That, or Uwe Bo is off his meds again.....

Or it could be all of the above, with different people doing it for different reasons. You can also throw in the "avant-garde artist who intentionally makes a bad movie as a statement on public tastes" scenario, too, while you're at it.

Natalie after a couple hours of running around in the park with the dog we're going to be getting.



I picked this one because it shows off her blue eyes best.

And she's quite properly besmudged and tousled. Looks as if her activity was nice and active... just as running around in a park really should be!