Jess♥

you could look at flying squirrels? let's face it, any animal that is adapted to be good at one thing, is gonna have to sacrifice something else. when you throw out rules of economy you go into hte realms of fantasy. I can thik of ways that a rat could evolve to be good at both running and flying. things such as small muscle structures in hte wings... these could pull hte membrane to lock it tight to hte limbs while moving on hte ground. almost like how our mouth is controlled. the problem here is that any muscles that have to be a certain size in order to both run and then fly, you are gonna have to find a way to also reduce the mass and i don't know if this is at all viable. energy expenditure would be a real issue methinks.

nice one dude! looks like you got teh hang of it, those who are afraid of this tool are missing out on a lot!

oh, wow! that's a pretty damn good wig! wow, that must have been hot then...

we don't get anything korean over here, so I really appreciate that video

wow, that's pretty awesome!!! that painting is so cool, and your cosplay is pretty special as well oh, and long hair really suits you, last pic we saw, you had short hair.

that's pretty cool! I look forward to see how it turns out.

mirbilis, I'll explain what zeo is trying to say. oe one hand in terms of evidence that supports evolution, you have a couple of different exhibits. these exhibits are teh evidence. the two photo's represent evidence also. so if we use two photos as the only evidence available, the one shows the man with hte gun, the other shows the other man dead. what is missing in terms of evidence is teh critical piece that shows teh gun firing the bullet. this illustrates that the evidence that exists shows a strong probability of what happened, but ther eis teh missing vital piece, the missing link. one would normally assume what was there. we would assume that the gun fired. but any number of unlikely things could have happened. what this suggests in way of analogy, is that the two different pieces of evidence in support of evolution have a bit missing that would really show cocrete proof. we have enough to make teh same assumption as with hte photos. but we just have a missing link. does this make sense now?

ha ha ha, that one is quite sly! It took me a couple of seconds to get it. but it's a nice one!

wooh! den-o fiighting sasword?? also.. wooh, kuuga is making a new appearance this is a good thing. I ws wondering when yuusuke was gonna get some action again.

ha ha, I like what you're saying here mike! very nice. I think we need more discussion like this

that's really nice work. perhaps the presentation of the news article could have been changed?

nicely worded zeo. I think what we can say is that there is evidence that strongly suggests evolutiion. this evidence is not evidence 'of' evolution because this statement is worded such that evolution is a fact and that the evidence was found because it is true, whereas if we simply provide teh evidence and say that most people conclude that evolutioon works in such a way because of how teh evidence looks, I think this makes sense? I think what mirabilis is getting at here is the fact that this evidence supports evolution, but it doesn't prove it. it's not evidence of evolution, it's evidence of different creature types over time that are very similar and seem to change following certain patterns. but then, saying that... viruses and other microorganisms do offer startlingly strong support for evolution. I think though.. the aguments for and against creationism... and intelligent design etc. it is not really somethig you can argue over since it just relies on your perspective. after all, there is also the argument as to wether or not WE have free will. some people may say that our choice is simply an illusion and that we are all simply following an elaborate pattern. that our choices are simple cause and effect? how exactly would you prove otherwise. it's not really something you can say for definite.

I don't think i'm making things especially awkward. I'm not being especially picky about things, I mean, I adjust some of my photos in order to get what i saw, I lighten some areas and darken other areas etc. those two images you posted are most certainly photography in my view. there is no reason to say they aren't. also, using infrared filme etc is certainly photography. even in the film industry you see the definition used. the person who controls teh camera and lighting is called the director of photography. anything done afterwards is referred to as compositing and effects. this following image for example, is not an example of photography in my view the artist may have taken hte original images, but the resultant product is not a photograph. it is a manipulated image. it is a fabrication. you got to draw teh line somewhere and this image has gone way past that line. even if the line was quite vague, this is clearly past that line.

do you think the budget has decresed? or has it merely been displaced? I mean, let's look at the elements in earlier kamen rider series. monsters in costumes, rider system with transformation and the special effects of teh attacks. then we get to den-o and we have fully CG elements being featured regularly. denliner and the other train, the giant monsters they had him fighting... this seems to be a feature that has taken a stronghold. giant monsters. it is true that we had this kind of thing in ryuki and we had transforming motorcycles in faizu, but they did not seem so prominent..

that's a good idea. like a magnet.

yes. most certainly. there was something about den-o that has stuck with kamen rider. it's hard to describe exactly what this is, but i will give it some thought and write more tomorow.

well let me say this, anyone can take a photo of an installation that has been set up. if i go to an art show, and take a picture from front, does that make me the creator of the art piece? what if i take somebodies photo and manipulate with other photos, who is teh artist then? what are we looking at here, the photo or the manipulation? what is left of teh original photo that we might appreciate the work that went into hte use of the camera and the light? the comparison of the sculptor. if both artists are sculpting teh material and present the fiished piece, then they are both indeed sculptors. however, if one of teh artists paints a still life that happens to have a bust in it that they sculpted, then is the resultant piece to be considered a painting or a sculpture? but i can bottom line it if we're still not clear... if i want to look at a photograph on deviant art , i go into hte photography gallery and i get exactly what i consider to be photography. if i want to look at what i am describing as photo manipulation (not photography) i go into hte photo manipulation gallery, and so on.

thanks for posting though

I'm glad you said 'close to'. IMO close to in tune is not good enough and hurts my ears. this is what i prefer -

we definately need pics!!!!

that guy playing megaman really needs to tune his guitar. that's painful.

i consider anyone a photographer if they want to be, no matter what their skill level is, but the question is about photography as an art from. the focus on hte camera and taking the photo. retouching is a technique to bring thephoto to what you originally saw. not the same as manipulation. i never saw manipulation of any kind to be pure photography. it's manipulation. once it has been manipulated, you cannot appreciate the original shot. so it ceases being photography. to call somebody a phtotographer, I think that you ought to be considering how they can capture an image. what perspective they used, combined with how they reproduced that image with their equipment. if they aren't reproducing what they saw, how can you judge their perspective and reproduction technique? how can you judge their photographic skill? instead, the emphasis is on the arrangement of the installation, or how they can collage.

I'm a bit dismayed with hte so-called photographer list... I don't consider image compositing to be a form of photography. photography is the art of capturing an image that you see with your eyes. it's about framing, and colour balance tone etc. compositing is not photography. it's digital art of another type. called photo manipulation. and i hate those ones where they set up a scene. this also is not what i consider photography. this is installation making. yes it is taken with a camera, but a lot of the work has gone into hte set up of the scene. you would not be able to go out and see this.

just watching ep 8... now these poses after they transform outside the house.. this is familiar! is this a parody of something? it makes me think of onimusha.

i'm glad these episodes are coming out subtitled. I have decided not to watch shinkenger without subs because the character development is very important in this series. from what i have seen, I know that if you are not 100% clear what they are saying, you can miss the entire point. it's very different from decade in that respect. the characters have got a LOT of depth up til now. far more than the cardboard cutouts in gekiranger.