English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room

He was screwing around on his wife.

Not for long before he split with her though.

well, not really a 'strategy'

1:19 AM

They had a crappy relationship and should never have gotten married in the first place.

@z7sgѪ It's a joke. Like Dubya's Iraq exit strategery.

In other words, he didn't really have one and kind of effed it all up.

hmmm for me i can understand the first act of unfaithfulness (well yeah i did it) but after that surely to have sex with your partner again you'd have to be immoral or totally ack self-respect

@z7sgѪ Hmm. I suppose.

You must really feel like you screwed up badly.

what are your reservations???

I am impressed by your remorse.

it's just that her pet rabbit died and it was valentines day so it seemed a particularly harsh blow

she really loved that bunny

1:23 AM

So you were consoling her?

i was supposed to be consoling but i felt had to end the relationship

So your girlfriend's bunny died and you dumped her on V-Day?

Because you cheated on her?

yes

Did you cheat on her because you didn't want to be in the relationship, or because you screwed up?

Because it sounds like you really regret doing it.

no i mean i regret how it happened, and i didn't mean it to happen but i didn't regret it

1:26 AM

Hmm.

You were an asshole, you feel like an asshole, you admit to being an asshole, you feel remorse for being an asshole. Sounds like you've learned your lesson.

absolves @z7sg

i know if i'm in a relationship i really want to be in, i wouldn't cheat. buit yeah i have learned

@KitFox thanks so much :)

@z7sgѪ Well, that's not necessarily true, but the probably is much lower.

well ok you're probably right

thanks for the chat though, i think i'm going to go to bed now

:)

Good night! Don't forget to drink a pint of water before you go to sleep.

okay. g'night!

simchona

1:38 AM

Wow.

2:05 AM

Special Edition:

2:20 AM

@Robusto just the person I wanted to see.

@KitFox You wanted to see Francis Cabrel?

No, you.

Moi? Pourquoi?

I wanted to ask your opinion.

OK

2:24 AM

I am scanning some negatives, but they are curled from being exposed to a heat source.

OK

I have tried a few ways of flattening them while scanning, and I don't see any real quality differences. I thought your better-trained eye might.

You want my opinion on flattening them or on whether there is a difference in the result?

Whether there is a difference.

Unless you have an opinion on flattening them.

I would try to put them between two thin panes of lucite if possible.

2:27 AM

Or not, if you are not knowledgeable. I thought you were.

@Robusto Yes, that's what I was going for.

What kind of scanner do you have?

Except I have just the one pane at the moment.

It's a CanoScan 4400F.

Are you talking about 35mm slides or larger transparencies?

google.com/products/…

@Robusto 126 film.

It's similar to 35mm, but square frames.

Hmm, also smaller than 35mm, IIRC.

2:29 AM

I also have 110s I'd like to scan.

@Robusto Actually slightly bigger.

Ah, OK, just negs then. Somehow I was thinking transparencies.

Oh, you mean the overall film size. Yes, a little smaller.

And your scanner doesn't flatten them?

IIRC the 126 format was 28x28mm

The holder is for 35mm, so it doesn't fit quite properly.

I can take the holder out and scan the negs, but then I need something to use as a guide.

Do you have any 35mm film?

2:32 AM

I can mark a guide on the plexiglass, but I don't know if that's a mistake.

@Robusto Uh, probably somewhere.

No, don't make any marks.

But see if you can take some blank 35mm that's clear and then use that as a backing. If you can. It would have to be completely clear, though.

Oh, I see. I don't think I can do that, but what about cutting a transparency to fit?

You could try that. It would have to be very precise.

Oh wait, but the top of the image would be masked.

That's why I took it out of the holder.

The 126 film is a strip, and so is the 35mm. If you can affix them at the ends you might be able to feed them through your scanner.

2:37 AM

It's a flatbed scanner.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Well, how well does it do negs then anyway?

Not bad.

I mean, good enough for my purposes.

Hmm. Because flatbeds are a reflective process instead of a transparency process.

That's why the special scanner.

It has a light bar in the cover.

I was going to mark a guide on the plexi so I could line it up correctly.

Ah, I see.

Here's what I would do in that case. Don't mark the guide on the glass. Instead, tape some transparent plastic and use that as your guide. Tape it at the ends so it doesn't get adhesive on the "live" area.

2:42 AM

This was a quick one I did while I was testing last week.

That's the real size?

@Robusto I meant on the removable plexi part btw. Not on the scanbed. I'm not crazy.

@Robusto I shrank the hell out of it.

It was also done with the holder, so it's rectangular instead of square.

Well, I can't see enough detail. It looks OK at that size, but I can't get a sense of the grain, etc.

Damn. The others are too big to upload.

Well, they are taking forever anyway.

The pictures themselves aren't superhigh res or anything anyway.

You know, it's probably OK the way you're doing it now.

2:45 AM

It's more the distortion from curled edges and the color quality that I am wondering about.

126 isn't a high-res format.

@KitFox Well, you'd probably crop in on them anyway, right?

Hahaha. Yeah, you're right. I hadn't thought of that.

My excuse is that I am burning home movies on to DVDs at the same time.

So obviously I can't think clearly.

I have about 40 hours of raw digital video on a 2TB drive, just waiting for me to get to editing it into something I can put on a DVD.

I was going to edit, then realized that I just needed to archive for the time being.

Otherwise, it will never get done.

The difficulty with these slides is that I have no idea what order they are in or how to organize them.

Argh.

Just remind yourself that people get a lot of money for doing this work in real life. So it is tedious and takes lots of time and skill.

2:53 AM

It's the skill part I worry about.

I'm just an amateur.

I want to save money, sure. That's why I am doing it myself. But I also want to do a good job.

At least a good basic job.

It doesn't have to be fancy. I just want my baby pictures to be safe.

Well, the good news is, this isn't a destructive process. So you can learn from your mistakes.

Jump in, start doing, and you will start improving. You may find at the end of the process that you want to go back and do the beginning over, but that's OK too.

That's my older brother. One is under plexiglass, the other isn't.

I think the color quality is a little funny, but that can probably be tweaked in the editor anyway?

Do you have Photoshop?

No.

I have Gimp and ArcSoft.

Any editor?

Gimp would do some of the things you need. For one thing, you need to adjust the levels.

3:01 AM

Take some yellow out?

That's less slide-y.

Oh, look at the time. Gotta run.

Thanks, @Robusto!

@KitFox I was thinking something more like this.

I don't know how to do that.

What did you adjust?

Well, you have to adjust the tone, for starters.

Tone...lemme see.

Photoshop has a great HDR toning tool.

Plus I used the magic healing brush to get rid of the scratches in the sky.

3:09 AM

Well, naturally.

And I goosed the contrast a little.

I could've smudged them too, eh?

I also used the brush on his face a little.

But I don't know about adjusting tone.

See, the problem with old film is that it darkens over time. Also, your scanner probably doesn't really have enough light to pump through an old negative like that.

I also adjusted the shadows and the midranges and the highlights. I probably overshot on the brightness and the saturation, but you could find the point where it looks best. I would also take some yellow out of the grass if I were doing this, unless it's a winter scene.

3:11 AM

Looks like fall.

I never seem to be able to figure out how to get the colors to do what I want.

This is probably a little more natural.

OK, thanks.

Good night!

CU

7:52 AM

Morning!

user19161

@Cerberus Morning!

Hi! Wow you're quick.

Hey, what is the fine for dropping a candy wrapper on the street?

user19161

I am not here to argue with anyone, but I want to say that logically, if we define creationism to be the belief that a supernatural being created life and the universe, it can be compatible with science.

user19161

For example, if you believe in the Big Bang or evolution, it is possible that these were created by the supernatural being.

user19161

@Cerberus Hmm, it has changed over the years, I am not sure now, but better avoid it!

7:55 AM

@JasperLoy I suppose it can; but things change if the creationist theory posits any observable facts.

Because those can clash with science.

@JasperLoy Any idea? In what range?

user19161

And I do know what science is. I just do not think about things simplistically.

user19161

I may have studied more science and religion and thought about things much more than others may think.

user19161

@Cerberus Better not make a wild guess, but it could be community service instead.

What? So there is no fine?

user19161

@Cerberus Depends on nature of offence and circumstances I think, but if you want a definite answer you should check the law book which I am not going to.

7:59 AM

No, I just want any kind of estimate, because I have no idea.

Would it typically be, for an average person, between 10 and 1000 dollars?

Or more?

user19161

@Cerberus I think it is definitely in that range.

Okay.

Do you think it could be less than 50?

user19161

@Cerberus Probably 50 to 500 as a second guess.

Ah OK.

You can't get it any narrower?

user19161

@Cerberus I will have to check which I refuse.

8:04 AM

@JasperLoy OK I was just asking, no need for you to look it up.

user19161

@Cerberus That is a different story altogether from littering on the streets.

user19161

@Cerberus You seem to be thinking of coming for a holiday.

user19161

But I don't bother about these fines because I simply do not litter or spit.

user19161

Yes, there is a fine for spitting too.

If we're talking about Singapore, I think it's a few hundred dollars for littering or spitting. like maybe $300 or $500.

8:11 AM

> ... there are strict laws against littering of any kind. First-time offenders face a fine of up to S$1,000. For repeat offenders--it's a fine of up to S$2,000 and a Corrective Work Order (CWO).

@Robusto I never knew photoshop had a goose tool.

@JasperLoy Oh! How much? Any idea?

> Smoking is not allowed in public buses, taxis, lifts, theatres, cinemas, government offices, and in air-conditioned restaurants and shopping centres. First-time offenders face a maximum fine of S$1,000.

user19161

@Cerberus Nope, you may look it up! I am not in touch with the current affairs of the world! I have more important things to bother about.

S$ 1 = € 0.60.

So why is there no fine for durians?

user19161

@Cerberus It is just to avoid the smell. They are not dangerous per se, so a fine would seem overkill.

8:14 AM

And eating or drinking is dangerous?

> Spitting Spitting in public places is an offense subject to a fine of S$1000 for first-time offenders and S$2000 for repeat offenders.

user19161

@DavidWallace Er, I think that just dirties the place which durians do not.

But the smell is horrible.

Unless you drop an elephant on them.

Most Chinese shops in my street stink like hell because of their durians.

user19161

8:16 AM

@DavidWallace Er, I don't think an elephant wants to be dropped onto a durian.

Does it have a choice?

user19161

@Cerberus I actually don't understand why Caucasians do not like durians. OK, the look and smell may put you off, but trust me, just taste it with an open mind and I think you will like it.

I tasted one; it was OK, but I don't see what the fuss was about.

user19161

On the other hand I hate things like liver.

But isn't the smell enough? I won't be able to eat cheese when there is a bowl of poop standing next to it.

8:18 AM

Actually, if I recall, it tasted OK in the mouth, but had a slightly unpleasant aftertaste which lasted for some time. A bit like onions.

user19161

@DavidWallace Just like any other fruit I would say.

My friend who ate it said she disliked it. And she definitely has a very open mind: she likes anything weird.

user19161

@Cerberus If you like the taste maybe you can reconcile the smell with the taste and it will be fine.

Food is mostly about smell.

user19161

@Cerberus I hate liver.

8:19 AM

Yeah I don't like liver either.

user19161

@Cerberus It is mostly about taste. Liver does not stink.

Liver does stink. And, no, food is mostly about smell.

@JasperLoy Yeah, actually, it kind of does.

user19161

Firstly I think it would be cruel to drop an elephant onto a durian. It would get hurt.

Try tasting something while pinching your nose.

8:20 AM

The durian or the elephant?

user19161

@DavidWallace Elephant.

Let's say it would be an unpleasant business for both.

user19161

And I think we should outlaw the cruel killing of animals for food or leather etc.

user19161

For example, they should not be boiled alive or skinned alive.

Agreed.

Is that allowed in Singapore?

8:21 AM

I don't think the spikes of a durian would have much of an effect on an elephant, due to its thick hard skin. But being an elephant and landing hard on the ground would be unpleasant, with or without the durian.

user19161

@Cerberus No idea.

Skinning animals alive is certainly not allowed here. Boiling, maybe for lobsters, I'm not sure.

user19161

Man can be very kind but can also be very evil. I have seen much already.

@JasperLoy So humane killing is OK?

user19161

@DavidWallace I am not a saint so currently I am not vegetarian.

8:24 AM

I don't believe in the value of animal life, other than its utility value. So I have no issue with leather. I think people should eat less meat, because it's an inefficient use of the earth's resources. But I guess it's still good to avoid cruelty.

user19161

@DavidWallace Hmm, I don't know anything about elephant skin though, but it still feels painful to me.

user19161

@DavidWallace Value aside, animals do feel pain, yeah.

user19161

@Cerberus Basically I see such things only on television.

Of course, but should humans be concerned about the pain of animals? Lions aren't concerned about the pain of antelopes; so what makes humans different?

</devilsadvocate>

user19161

@DavidWallace I think we should. And I am not sure what lions think, and nobody can tell either.

8:30 AM

@DavidWallace But why bother with meat in particular, when 90 % of what we do is an inefficient use of the earth's resources?

But how much benefit to humans makes animal pain worthwhile? I imagine that an ethical lion would probably consider his own need to be fed to be worth more than absence of antelope pain. So if I value eating lobster highly, is it OK to boil one?

user19161

Wait, my trigonometric sentence was starred? No wonder 2012 is the end of the world!

I think I'd seen the tan/sin/cos sentence before somewhere too.

@Cerberus Meat was just one example. I am concerned about every way in which I use the earth's resources. I choose to use public transport, because it's more efficient resource-wise than driving my car. I try to avoid things like double-wrapped products. I recycle and compost. There may be things I could do more efficiently than I currently manage to, but I don't single out meat as something to focus on.

Ah OK.

And have you verified that these things you are doing, like taking the train and not buying double-wrapped things, actually benefit these goals that you have defined for yourself?

For example, I believe a car with two people in it is about a energy-efficient as the average train here.

If you take total distance travelled per person divided by total energy consumption.

8:48 AM

Our electric trains here are mostly powered by a mixture of hydroelectric and wind energy. They couldn't possibly be as wasteful as people in cars.

Double wrapping, it's hard to say.

Composting is a no-brainer.

@DavidWallace Why not? Have you checked?

I guess I take for granted that the recycling programs here in NZ are actually having a positive effect.

Perhaps you should first formulate what the desired effect is.

Some people just see a green mist hanging around certain things and will think they are good, without considering what they are good for.

Not saying that's you.

But I like to be critical.

I understand what you mean. But I don't understand how using sunlight and wind could be wasteful, compared to digging oil out of the ground, refining it and burning it.

It could be.

8:51 AM

And I agree that green politics can sometimes be so wrong.

For example, I get annoyed by sheep-eating NZers telling Japanese that they're not allowed to enjoy their traditional whale-meat dinners.

For starters, wind only blows at certain times. I read that in certain circumstances wind energy does not contribute anything at all, because gas-powered power plants need to be permanently on in case there is a lull, or power would suddenly go out.

@DavidWallace Hmm but isn't the argument that whales are rare animals, threatened with extinction?

Yeah, try getting half the greenies around here to word that quite so coherently.

What exactly?

Greenies are just as dumb as anyone else.

The endangeredness of whales.

Oh.

I saw a funny documentary about organically degradable wrapping, or whatever it is called; the idea is that certain kinds of plastic will dissolve naturally if you add them to compost.

8:56 AM

Umm, your point about gas-powered power plants probably doesn't apply here in NZ. Almost all our power is hydroelectric, wind, and geothermal. Very little comes from burning stuff.

And people see little Greenpeace yachts going up against big Japanese whaling boats, and assume that the little guys must be in the right.