Re: [Fractint] just a reply. . . .
Do not despair Jim, there will always be a welcome here in England for people like you, where thinking for oneself is still highly regarded, despite the best efforts of our poodle Blair. Paddy Duncan ----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Muth To: fractint@mailman.xmission.com Sent: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:38:50 -0500 Subject: Re: [Fractint] just a reply. . . . On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 at 16:35:15 David Lowenstein wrote:
So Look who's talking, Muth?
I am fimiliar with the article found at: http://cryptome.org/fda102099.htm And I'm not talking. I'm now shaking my head in sympathy.
No one talks on a cell phone for 22 hours straight!
This is unlikely, but what about those who live and work near cellular antennas? They are exposed to the RF radiation 24 hours a day. And there is a school near where I live that has an array of cellular antennas on its roof, only 15 feet above the students in the classroom below.
According to the FDA, there is no evidence saying cell phones cause cancer.
The article also gives no assurance that cell phones are safe, and recommends certain safety precautions such as keeping antennas away from the head and holding mobile phone use to a minimum. As for the results of experiments on test animals being applied to human beings, we do this all the time. This is why questionable substances are tested on animals instead of people. I have nothing against mobile telephones, which are indisputably very convenient. The object of my screed was the blatant media manipulation that we almost seem to enjoy. I mentioned the radiation from cell phones because it *might* be harmful, and no one appears concerned because the media, not wanting to place their advertising revenues in jeopardy, basically ignores the risk. Also, because of the extensive advertising by the mobile phone industry, these phones are becoming entertainment devices and status symbols, especially among children, who often use them as toys. I also doubt that the telephone companies, with their bottom lines at stake, are the best choice to investigate the possible dangers. How many years did the tobacco companies assure us that cigarettes are safe to smoke? Cell telephones are not going away, but their safety is in question, and they therefore should bear a warning such as that now found on cigarette packages. . . before it is too late. Finally, are you associated with a mobile phone company? :-) Now back to the fractals . . . Jim M. _______________________________________________ Fractint mailing list Fractint@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fractint
And I have a co-worker who would tell you that "thinking for oneself is still highly-regarded" in England AS LONG AS YOUR THINKING IS THAT NOXIOUS FORM OF NON-THINKING CALLED "Politically correct" ... ;-) He refuses to go back to England for that reason. (But he's really an Aussie at heart!) Hmm, to get a bit more on topic here, we've had fractal art contests seeking the best fractals, and we have Jim's FOTD demonstrating good or great fractals every day ... how about a contest for the WORST fractal? How would you define "worst" in the first place? -- David gnome@hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community padski@padski.com wrote:
Do not despair Jim, there will always be a welcome here in England for people like you, where thinking for oneself is still highly regarded, despite the best efforts of our poodle Blair. Paddy Duncan
----- Original Message ----- From: Jim Muth To: fractint@mailman.xmission.com Sent: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:38:50 -0500 Subject: Re: [Fractint] just a reply. . . .
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 at 16:35:15 David Lowenstein wrote:
So Look who's talking, Muth?
I am fimiliar with the article found at:
http://cryptome.org/fda102099.htm
And I'm not talking. I'm now shaking my head in sympathy.
No one talks on a cell phone for 22 hours straight!
This is unlikely, but what about those who live and work near cellular antennas? They are exposed to the RF radiation 24 hours a day. And there is a school near where I live that has an array of cellular antennas on its roof, only 15 feet above the students in the classroom below.
According to the FDA, there is no evidence saying cell phones cause cancer.
The article also gives no assurance that cell phones are safe, and recommends certain safety precautions such as keeping antennas away from the head and holding mobile phone use to a minimum. As for the results of experiments on test animals being applied to human beings, we do this all the time. This is why questionable substances are tested on animals instead of people.
I have nothing against mobile telephones, which are indisputably very convenient. The object of my screed was the blatant media manipulation that we almost seem to enjoy. I mentioned the radiation from cell phones because it *might* be harmful, and no one appears concerned because the media, not wanting to place their advertising revenues in jeopardy, basically ignores the risk. Also, because of the extensive advertising by the mobile phone industry, these phones are becoming entertainment devices and status symbols, especially among children, who often use them as toys.
I also doubt that the telephone companies, with their bottom lines at stake, are the best choice to investigate the possible dangers. How many years did the tobacco companies assure us that cigarettes are safe to smoke?
Cell telephones are not going away, but their safety is in question, and they therefore should bear a warning such as that now found on cigarette packages. . . before it is too late.
Finally, are you associated with a mobile phone company? :-)
Now back to the fractals . . .
Jim M.
On Mar 26, 2005, at 1:39 PM, david wrote:
Hmm, to get a bit more on topic here, we've had fractal art contests seeking the best fractals, and we have Jim's FOTD demonstrating good or great fractals every day ... how about a contest for the WORST fractal? How would you define "worst" in the first place?
--
That would be a fractal that gives no inspiration - one that looks like a graphical representation of a iterated formula. The true delight of fractals is that they so often inspire emotions, or thoughts natural or philosophical.
Martin Krikorian wrote:
On Mar 26, 2005, at 1:39 PM, david wrote:
Hmm, to get a bit more on topic here, we've had fractal art contests seeking the best fractals, and we have Jim's FOTD demonstrating good or great fractals every day ... how about a contest for the WORST fractal? How would you define "worst" in the first place?
That would be a fractal that gives no inspiration - one that looks like a graphical representation of a iterated formula. The true delight of fractals is that they so often inspire emotions, or thoughts natural or philosophical.
Hmm, I've seen fractals that were just that (graphical representations of iterated formula), but were still beautiful to look at. -- David gnome@hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community
Well, EVERY fractal that comes from fractint meets that description. The question is, what else do they look like? I look at my creations/discoveries and have given them names that had meaning - because the pictures inspired me. Many of them still exist with the generic fractint filename, because they have not inspired me. As I sift through the fractal plane, looking for interesting things to render, I toss aside many images, glancing at them for a moment and going on, as they hold no interest. For a fools errand, one could look through seahorse valley and try and find the most boring scene, I suppose. As soon as you put a title on it and called it 'Boring', though, you would know that it inspired you in at least one way. ; ) On Mar 27, 2005, at 12:47 AM, david wrote:
Hmm, I've seen fractals that were just that (graphical representations of iterated formula), but were still beautiful to look at.
Martin Krikorian wrote:
Well, EVERY fractal that comes from fractint meets that description. The question is, what else do they look like? I look at my creations/discoveries and have given them names that had meaning - because the pictures inspired me. Many of them still exist with the generic fractint filename, because they have not inspired me.
Yet for me their simple beauty might be enough. Does something need to have meaning to be beautiful? My art major daughter would agree on one hand, and disagree on the other. To her, art without meaning is fine, but art that doesn't communicate is (as she describes it) a "spot on the wall" She has a very low opinion of many pieces of "modern" art for that reason, including some famous ones hanging in some big art museums in Paris like the Pompidou Centre.
As I sift through the fractal plane, looking for interesting things to render, I toss aside many images, glancing at them for a moment and going on, as they hold no interest. For a fools errand, one could look through seahorse valley and try and find the most boring scene, I suppose. As soon as you put a title on it and called it 'Boring', though, you would know that it inspired you in at least one way. ; )
And you're communicating something of yourself, how you view things, and at least hinting at what you consider non-boring. I sometimes wonder what a psychiatrist who interprets Rohrschach tests might make of some Fractinters' choices for titles! ;-) david authenticity, honesty, community gnome@hawaii.rr.com
On Mar 27, 2005, at 12:47 AM, david wrote:
Hmm, I've seen fractals that were just that (graphical representations of iterated formula), but were still beautiful to look at.
Hi Fractinters, At 23:39 26/03/2005 -0800, you wrote:
On Mar 26, 2005, at 1:39 PM, david wrote:
Hmm, to get a bit more on topic here, we've had fractal art contests seeking the best fractals, and we have Jim's FOTD demonstrating good or great fractals every day ... how about a contest for the WORST fractal?
here is one.. an easter-egg ;-))) ee-1200 { ; time= 0:00:01.86--SF7 on a P4 3.00GHz ; Version 2002 Patchlevel 3 reset=2004 type=mandel passes=d center-mag=-1.74084980649139200/+0.02558162971055981/1.744564e+009/1.183\ /65.0000086173258182/1.92672047370778809e-006 params=0/0 float=y maxiter=1200 inside=atan proximity=1e-005 outside=fmod logmap=66 periodicity=0 colors=000000<57>taJubJvbK<2>ydLzeLydL<55>642531421<2>100000001<56>Q_tQ`\ uR`v<2>SbyTczSby<61>000 }
How would you define "worst" in the first place?
--
That would be a fractal that gives no inspiration - one that looks like a graphical representation of a iterated formula. The true delight of fractals is that they so often inspire emotions, or thoughts natural or philosophical.
cheers, Guy
participants (4)
-
david -
Guy Marson -
Martin Krikorian -
padski＠padski.com