Someone definitely needs to make an entire gallery of famous works in this style.

That way, I could finally enjoy boring old art.

love the idea. this guy is trying to mass produce his invention (it's just this prototype at the moment) and asks for small donations. as a thank you he offers donators access to his online photo gallery (he's a photographer since 10 years). not much but i like the concept of giving something back right now even if the project itself will take months to finish.

Strange, I wonder why I literally never heard or saw any of this when I was a kid. I had no idea back then that there were penmanship awards!

Anyway, when I looked it up it looked like it happened from grenade 1-8, at least in the United States. As to the girl in the video she is amazing; there are some Google images of her with what she wrote, but all the ones I found were so blurry you couldn't make anything out (or I would've posted/linked it). It also looked like at least one other kid (a boy) without hands had won before too!

I was, and I still am extremely good at penmanship. It makes me wonder why I never was involved in it. I'm actually a fairly good artist and I won awards as a kid, it's literally my artistry that gives me my great penmanship, as they walk hand-in-hand!

Although, I'll be the first to admit that I can't do Caligraphy or Spencerian types of writing at all--perhaps Caligraphy if I spent time on it, but that won't happen. My manuscript has literally been compared to, "...a printed copy!", so I was proud of my artistry when I used it the most. I could easily draw a realistic human hand, for an example. Enough of my glory hogging!

That girl is amazing, I REALLY wanted to see the range of expression she was able to commit to paper without two hands. She won so it must look amazing for a girl of her age, which makes me want to see it EVEN more! Damn them! How can you not show THAT are you an idiot journalist!?

If someone finds a gallery link or another video make sure to throw it up in here. I'm going to see if I can find a gallery, if I do I'll edit and tag it on to the end...

Edit-As you can see it was far more than one page for the first grader it was a packet, this is as close up basically as you can get to that image, so here it is (oh well, you can't see the thumb, but it goes to the picture correctly--I did flip the picture so you could read it far easier, plus a few other picture tricks, like making it bigger, sharper,etc...):


<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/kceaton2/th_annieclark-nohand-penmanship.jpg" border="0" alt="Annie Clark - Penmenship Award (First Grader; with/no hands), Annie Clark, with no hands, has won the hearts and minds of people as she won her Penmanship Award!" >

>> ^NetRunner:

The left's position isn't "off with Zimmerman's head!" it's "we demand a real criminal investigation!"

I think it's embarrassing that there is a "left" and "right" in a potential murder trial and it reinforces my feeling that, in the 21st century, people still can't break away from their primitive tribal mindset. Many people have simply sworn loyalty to a team.

I don't have a problem with demanding an investigation and I do think something smells rotten when said investigation even needs to be demanded. It should have been automatic.

But there has been plenty of noise from both teams on this case that is downright despicable. Never mind for a moment that Spike Lee gave out the wrong address; Was he encouraging mobs of people to show up at Zimmerman's house and demand an investigation? If he was that's incredibly naive, at best. Even if he, somehow, had the best of intentions, there have been plenty of people out there calling for Zimmerman's head and publicizing his address only puts him in danger and complicates the investigation.

The other team is no less irresponsible. What I've been seeing a lot of in the last couple days is references to the attacks on Allen Coon. "Why isn't the left up in arms about this?" and "Why hasn't Obama given a speech about him?" are the major themes. They're trying to portray the Martin outrage as anti-white racism. And in a few cases they're right.

Both teams are immature and insane, they're both making proper justice that much harder to attain, and they both think they're the fucking heroes in this story rather than the enraged peanut gallery they really are.

The investigation is under way. Everyone needs to shut up and wait for the outcome. There will be riots no matter which way it goes if the public outrage machine keeps going like this.

I dunno if it's just my hearing & eyesight...... but does this kid look & sound like a 2 year old Bjork to anybody else?

lifetime service award

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZE250vHIH9c/TOSxl2T9o8I/AAAAAAAABi8/tMXjaoGscnM/s1600/10q_jane_goodall_01.jpg

http://img.wonderhowto.com/images/gfx/gallery/634205389970511401.jpg

How about this one:

http://motherboard.vice.com/2012/3/8/ants-can-learn-to-navigate-with-chill-magnetic-vibes--2



In reply to this comment by ant:
Yeah, I saw that gallery before. Thanks. :

In reply to this comment by critical_d:
http://en.www.lensart.ru/album-uid-210a-aid-456b-sh-1.htm?ps=18

@NetRunner

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.

Some criticism of "Black Liberation Theology"


I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.

>>> Well, aren't you claiming Dr. Paul is a racist? The man is not a fool, and knows that the libmedia is against him. Yet he continues to run for office and suffer what is assuredly unfair scrutiny.

>>> What's truly in Obama's heart no one knows. I see either a closet racist--more concerned with accruing power than skin color--or a crafty politician--more concerned with accruing power than anything else.

As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.

>>> You may very well be making a fair statement about a majority of "self-identified American white supremacists", to which I reply, "So what?" Don't those people have a right to vote for whomever they wish? It's obvious they are not a large or serious base. Those people wear shoes, right? If they favor Keds, is everyone who wears Keds a racist?

Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.

>>> Rather far-fetched. I can't seriously believe you're worried about this. You think the only thing holding the system together--guiding the economic, religious and moral decisions of 300 million people--are a few recent laws on the books?

So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.

Ooops.

It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.

It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.

IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.

>>> The Civil War was far more complex than "slavery". For at least the first 18 months of the war, slavery was not THE issue, and the South had every right to secede.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement.

Lincoln on the floor of Congress, 13 January 1848
Congressional Globe, Appendix
1st Session 30th Congress, page 94

>>> Lincoln made the war primarily about slavery, but slavery was already on the way out before the War even began. Slavery had been abolished in most of Europe. Only wealthy Southerners owned slaves, and industrialization made plantations less and less able to compete with the North.

>>> I have to take this moment to remind that it was Republicans who ended slavery, and Democrats who donned the white sheets.

>>> The alternative to a proper balance of power between States' Rights and the feds is what we have now: an all-powerful federal mafia, ruling without the rule of law, made all the more dangerous when Democrats are in power due to their mainstream media media lackeys.

>>> There's plenty of valid criticism of Dr. Paul out there without the non-issue of some 20-year-old newsletters. Because our time and interests are finite, I assume this charge of racism is just an easy way for the left to refute the libertarian message, though it be simple, neat and wrong.


>> ^NetRunner:

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.
I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.
As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.
Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.
So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.
Ooops.
It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.
It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.
IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.
>> ^quantumushroom:


@NetRunner and others, I question your collective "concern" over this non-issue, which is comical considering Dr. Paul has no chance of wining the nomination (or does he)?
I don't know if you voted for Chicago Jesus, but if the facts that he spent 20 years in the Church of Hate Whitey under the tutelage of the deranged Jeremiah Wright, got married in said church and also gave it 20Gs doesn't bother you, then your problem with Dr. Paul isn't "racism", it's libertarianism.

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.

I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.

As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.

Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.

So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.

Ooops.

It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.

It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.

IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.

>> ^quantumushroom:

@NetRunner and others, I question your collective "concern" over this non-issue, which is comical considering Dr. Paul has no chance of wining the nomination (or does he)?
I don't know if you voted for Chicago Jesus, but if the facts that he spent 20 years in the Church of Hate Whitey under the tutelage of the deranged Jeremiah Wright, got married in said church and also gave it 20Gs doesn't bother you, then your problem with Dr. Paul isn't "racism", it's libertarianism.

Original video with original soundtrack

"Goldfish Salvation" Riusuke Fukahori from ICN gallery on Vimeo.

Can he pop the muscle band?

Here's my pumpkin for Halloween 2011. I had't carved a pumpkin in years and when I used to, it was always just a quick, scary pumpkin face. This is the first time I've put any real effort into more of a detailed pumpkin carving, and I'm kind of happy how it turned out:



Took over three hours. I sketched my outline based on this image.

(If you're wondering, I didn't include a VideoSift note in the photo because I'm not eligible for the contest. )

coincidence?

I Think Not.

>> ^NetRunner:

Fun fact, the actress they've cast as Monica Lewinsky is the same one who played Sarah Palin in Nailin' Palin.

thank you!

I agree, the pictures with boyfriends hiding behind their girlfriends are pretty awesome

In reply to this comment by firefly:
This is some *quality stuff, no doubt. :

My favorites are the guys hiding behind their gals such as this one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nightmaresfearfactory/6083869736/
or this one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nightmaresfearfactory/6140975841/
or this one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nightmaresfearfactory/6141529254/

My heroes.

>> ^visionep:

Is there a way to make the video start at the 10 second mark?


You should look into the Wadsworth Constant.

Here is the greasemonkey script.