Travis In Austin

Nonsense, that is Grade-AAA professional work.... thank you so much for posting (better late than never). Sure would like to know a reliable seller where that kind of veneer could be purchased. Anyone know? Greg? Luther (wardsweb) knows, especially in rosewood. The grain, pre-ban, iron on, glue on, etc. I seem to recall that he is getting it recently by mail in rolled up in large mailing tubes. I can have him pm if you want.

A lot going on here

A Spirit bear cub.

It most certainly belongs to you, no banking regs have changed this. It you do a number of paypal transactions set up a seperate account for this, just like you should do for IRS 941 deposits.

I have just about all of Johnny Guitar Watson's stuff, I love him. Elmore James, Buddy Guy, Kenny Wayne Shepar, Susan Tedeschi, Bonomassa, Billy Gibbons, Jeff Beck, Derek Trucks, Mike Bloomfield, T-Bone Walker, Robert Cray, etc,

Awesome place, reminds me of a Taverna I was in, in Greece.

https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/81888-parrot-cant-defend-himself/page-2 DOD 5.0 out of 5.0 (explaining why member was banned for life) Style points 9.5 out of 10.0, purely subjective on my part. These have nothing to do with current Admin or Mods, it is about seeing this all before. I think it is good to look at history. As Chad and others have mentioned, this stuff is cyclical, There is nothing really new here in my opinion, it is just the cycle we are in. Chad has a very high scoring one, possibly a 10.0, but I haven't been able to find it yet.

Happy Birthday Men

No religion Isn't that the definition of it??? Roger Cha ching. Nothing gets past you.

Never gonna fall for Modern Love walks beside me Modern Love walks on by Modern Love gets me to the Church on Time Church on Time terrifies me Church on Time makes me party Church on Time puts my trust in God and Man God and Man no confessions God and Man no religion God and Man don't believe in Modern Love

No religion

Was looking back at some old threads about people who had been banned or resigned or left. Ran across some good ones, and saw a few different moderators jumping in. Interesting to see how an engineer does it as compared to someoe from a marketig/PR backgroud does it. Interesting to see who was involved with what. Have to say I was mightly impressed with some of the comments of moderators. I even thiught I would rate a few if them, Degree of Difficulty on a 1 to 5 scale, and Style Points5 on a 1 to 10 scale. I am not giving an explanation why I am giving certain points, that would hust stir up more trouble, they don't give explanations at the Olympics. https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/92200-all-those-who-were-at-the-indiana-field-house/#entry1003245 3.5 DOD 9.0 Style points

It is a trick question right? CO2 in the atmosphere does not stay there, about 1/3 of it is absorbed by the oceans, turning into carbonic acid and lowering the ph level (more acedic) of the ocean, which is probably a greater concern since it is a major source of O2.The oceans have become 30% more acidic since the 1700s. As to who would know the answer, this guy would, he, like his father before him, studies the CO2 levels in the ocean and atmosphere. http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/personnel/ralph_keeling He has published papers that when you factor in carbon absorbtion by the oceans, O2 is being depleted, but not because of displacement if I recall, but because of consumption. To burn one carbon atom, takes on average, three O2 atoms. Well, I dunno any specific answer but methinx it is along these lines too. There are natural CO2 gas sinks and reservoirs and biota that does convert CO2 into other gases. There are deposits of methane in the oceans, etc. Plants thrive in high CO2 environs and commercial growers will feed closed green houses with CO2 to super charge plant growth. But it just dawned on me that the historical measures (ice samples) indicate that we're in this CO2 man made cycle. And I do not know which gas is being changed as CO2 increases nor where it goes. Do we lose it into space? The inert gases do not combine. Is it O2? N2? Is it another gaseous greenhouse gas? Does it matter?? None of the gases escape, and their percentages remain constant all through the atmosphere. Any net increase in percentage of one particular gas will decrease the percentage all the other gases in a proportional amount. The 02 doesnt go anywhere, as the quote below points out, neither does the Nitrogen, Argon and all the other constituents. Methane is a whole different issue as far as the ocean is concerned, it is trapped inder sediment, but leaks out in various ways like at the plates. They factor in photosynthesis when looking at atmospheric O2 and CO2, and include it in their formula.. From Scripps, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/oxygen/modern_records.html "Trends Oxygen concentrations are currently declining at roughly 19 per meg per year, or about 4 ppm per year. One "per meg" indicates one molecule out of 1,000,000 oxygen molecules, or roughly one molecule in 4.8 million molecules of air. Oxygen Depletion We are occasionally reminded that fossil fuel burning is depleting atmospheric oxygen at a rate of almost 1000 tons per second. There are about 32 million seconds in a year, so that somewhere around 30 billion tons of O2 are being converted to CO2 annually. There are about 1,200,000 billion metric tons of O2 in the atmosphere, so we can keep burning fossil fuels at the present rate for 40,000 years before we run out of oxygen. By then, all of the world's fossil fuel supply will have long since been exhausted. For a more complete, but less detailed, discussion of this topic see Et tu 02 by Wallace Broecker."

Here is one effect they no right now, today, the oceans, which are our heat buffer have risen in mean temperature, thus has increased the metabolism of little fish, so they eat more, and the stuff they eat has mercury in it (from coal burning), so their mercury levels are higher, and that multiplies all the way up the food chain. Pregnant women are advised to consome no fish and is generally the reccomendation for small children. Here is the best site I have found on mercury in fish. http://www.seafoodwatch.org/consumers/seafood-and-your-health

It is a trick question right? CO2 in the atmosphere does not stay there, about 1/3 of it is absorbed by the oceans, turning into carbonic acid and lowering the ph level (more acedic) of the ocean, which is probably a greater concern since it is a major source of O2. The oceans have become 30% more acidic since the 1700s. As to who would know the answer, this guy would, he, like his father before him, studies the CO2 levels in the ocean and atmosphere. http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/personnel/ralph_keeling He has published papers that when you factor in carbon absorbtion by the oceans, O2 is being depleted, but not because of displacement if I recall, but because of consumption. To burn one carbon atom, takes on average, three O2 atoms.

Here is an example of mirror anamorphism

Forgot the link http://www.roserushbrooke.com/article-anamorphosis.html

I've always assumed Holbein used a lens to see and then paint that skull distortion. Two logic points: 1. Holbein wasn't doing Ergot (or whatever) like Bosch and this isn't his MO. 2. For it to be reversible by a computer skew algorithm as per Mustang Guy's work it can't be just painted from whim. Could be a sort of third in that stupid lens tricks were all the rage at the time. Dave Here is an article in the history of it, I don't know how accurate it is, but it jives with what we were taught in undergrad, there are some mind blowing contemporary street drawings with chalk. Pieces were done at this time that could only be made out by putting a cylindrical mirror in the center of it to make out what it contained. This was in order to hide the message of the painting from authorities. Bosch was one generation before Holbien, and was from the same hometown as Erasmus. Experts believe that Bosch was influenced by his writings, that I will leave up to the experts. Holbein, when he went to England, had a reccomendation from Erasmus. The Ambassadors by Holbein is filled with symbols that were commentary and satire about the issues of the day.

Awesome photos of that car, thanks.

What the hell is that?

Here is the answer right here, http://www.quora.com/Who-is-the-greatest-blues-guitarist-of-all-time

Yes, it WAS about BB King....Guess what? I started the thread. I created the title, I posted the initial post. As has been the unfortunate recent trend on this forum, a very innocent statement and praise for a great musician has been corrupted by those that apparently have nothing better to do. If you are to form opinions about the performances and merits of those that are at the end of long and illustrious careers, whether it be musicians, athletes, or others, then I guess you are quite sad due to being constantly disappointed. Mark said, pretty clearly, that he wasn't in "my top ten." It us obviously his opinion and he is entitled to his opinion, and he is entitled to express it, subject to 3 simple rules. There wasn't any personal attack on anyone until your response, which is clearly a personal attack. As Dtel so eloquently said, if you post expect people to disagree with you, it doesn't make him right, but we can be civil. I think he also mentioned something about being reminded of his 3 girls when they were little and maybe something about crybabys. There is no rule about giving a negative music review. If people disagree they can say so, and if they want, why. That has kind of been the point the last couple of days, being civil even if you disagree with the other person's opinion. I saw the Who last week, for what I think is the 11th time, and while Roger can still hit a very narrow range and sound steller, he should have hung 'em up long ago. He is 70ish, and I guess they just wanted one more day in the sun. Pete was perfect, voice, guitar and everything else. I saw Sinatra the year before he died, he probably shoukd have hung 'em ip to, but I am glad he didn't, 75% he was better than most in that catagory Travis

BB is No. 3 on this list, people probably have a lot if disagreement with the rest of this list http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-guitarists-of-all-time-19691231/b-b-king-20101202

Yes, it WAS about BB King....Guess what? I started the thread. I created the title, I posted the initial post. As has been the unfortunate recent trend on this forum, a very innocent statement and praise for a great musician has been corrupted by those that apparently have nothing better to do. If you are to form opinions about the performances and merits of those that are at the end of long and illustrious careers, whether it be musicians, athletes, or others, then I guess you are quite sad due to being constantly disappointed. Mark said, pretty clearly, that he wasn't in "my top ten." It us obviously his opinion and he is entitled to his opinion, and he is entitled to express it, subject to 3 simple rules. There wasn't any personal attack on anyone until your response, which is clearly a personal attack. As Dtel so eloquently said, if you post expect people to disagree with you, it doesn't make him right, but we can be civil. I think he also mentioned something about being reminded of his 3 girls when they were little and maybe something about crybabys. There is no rule about giving a negative music review. If people disagree they can say so, and if they want, why. That has kind of been the point the last couple of days, being civil even if you disagree with the other person's opinion. I saw the Who last week, for what I think is the 11th time, and while Roger can still hit a very narrow range and sound steller, he should have hung 'em up long ago. He is 70ish, and I guess they just wanted one more day in the sun. Pete was perfect, voice, guitar and everything else. I saw Sinatra the year before he died, he probably shoukd have hung 'em ip to, but I am glad he didn't, 75% he was better than most in that catagory Travis

Yes it is an anamorphic perspectuve, first done by Galileo, the Eye. You see the skull when looking from above right, or below left. It was intended to be hung on a stairway, thus people descending the stairs with painting on right, or ascending with painting on left would suddenly have skull come into view. Look at detain if the insturments and globe, and other items in that painting like the clothing, the fur. All of those itmes have meaning, especially the lute.