h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

'Let's put it this way. If i put my mind to it, i could use the information in the backlog to bring this site to its knees before midnight. Is that clear enough?'

Clear enough? No it isn't. It's not even believeable.

Tango, you say you don't know what we've done. But surely you felt you knew enough to justify Atled hacking into the CAs? Tell us what you know.

Or at least, tell us what you've been told. Because if you don't know what we've done you must be getting information from someone who does know what we've done. Has it occurred to you that you're being set up? At best you'll end up looking a fool, at worst you could pay a higher price.

You don't believe me? That doesn't bother me. You believe whatever you like. I have no intention of bringing the site to its knees anyway, so it doesn't make a lot of difference.

You will have to wait for the article to find out what i've been told, but to summerise it has to do with people thinking they know more than they do, and not believing those that know more than them... strange how history repeats, isn't it?

Tango

So then this is an issue of bruised egos?

I'm done.

"Let's put it this way. If i put my mind to it, i could use the information in the backlog to bring this site to its knees before midnight. Is that clear enough?"

You forgot to say "MWHAHAHAHAHA!"

To answer your question from way back, Amy, no I did not notice anything at all about the artwork that would lead me to suspect a thing. I did however think that some artist's work seemed to appear more on certain types of pages - edited entries versus talking points, for instance, which I assumed was an editorial decision about certain styles being more or less formal. But now based on the explanaitions of the process it sounds like some people may just like doing the community-based stuff more.

This system is good the way it is. Artwork is not like an edited entry. It is a personal expression of an idea, and even if the idea is someone else's the personal expression is not. To put that personal expression up to review from the entire h2g2 community would cause some people to break down into nervous shivers and nail biting (everyone knows how emotional artists can be ). Edited guides on the other hand are usually meant to be factual, and benefit from a wider review so that the accuracy can be more easily determined. Putting art work up to open review would be akin to putting journal entries up for review.

Tango, based on your deceit with the Atled account, I can't help but suspect that the "offsite backlog" that you are going through is something you gained access through by similar means. Is the threat really to h2g2, or to you being banned for breaking house rules?

*sits on the front porch, rocking in her rocking chair and whittling a new server*

And, just for the record, all artwork requests made by <./>ThePost</.> are also put forward to the whole group through our liaison officer in exactly the same way as the rest.

shazz

*Sits and admires Lil's handicraft skills*

shazz

If there is something in the backlog that could 'bring the site to its knees by midnight' you have a duty to yikes it.

I see the phrase 'what i've been told' makes an appearance in your post again.

'not believing those who know more than them' Let's piece this together. I've just said that I don't believe you can bring this site to its knees by midnight.' So you think you know more than me - which is undoubtedly true. You know more than me about some things. i know more than you about others.

History repeats itself. So this is about another occasion where someone thought they knew more than me and I wouldn't believe them?

I see where this is leading now. I once had a long discussion with SEF on Yahoo about the transparency of GIFs. Were you expecting to find in the CA archive some proof that I don't understand transparency in GIFs as well as SEF and hence save the universe by...

I don't know how to finish that sentence.

SEF knows a great deal about the technical aspects of computer graphics.

I know a great deal about the technical aspects of computer graphics too. I also know a lot about the various graphics packages that the CAs use and I know quite a bit about what can be achieved in a pragmatic sense in a team of artists spread over three continents producing work in different styles using different packages.

If the Italics want us to stop antialiasing the outside of the borders on the goo graphics, I'm happy to go along with that. The argument against it is that while it's possible, and arguably theoretically more 'pure', most of the graphics packages we use don't allow us to do that automatically. We'd have to take the antialiasing pixels out by hand. We can set up circle templates for the front page but we can't do that for irregular graphics like the goo version of <./>B4131176white</.>. The argument *for* doing this is so that the goo versions can be used on a wide variety of dark backgrounds in tables. This has nothing to do with the editorial rôle of the graphics but helps people who want to use tables on their Spaces. It also means that h2g2 personal spaces viewed in the skins of other dna sites that happen to have dark backgrounds look slightly better. The Italics have decided that non-editorial considerations and cross-site issues are not their priority. SEF put her case but her idea was not adopted. Note that the reason for this is NOT a technical argument but one of pragmatic team management.

It could also be argued that the 'corners' of the front page circular graphics - which people may not be aware of because they blend into the background - should not be transparent. I'd go along with this too. The only reason for making them transparent is that some older monitors show a banding effect when GIFs with dark backgrounds are placed on a background of the same colour. So this only affects goo-users with very old monitors. The need for the rule will disappear with time. To summarise, we have transparent corners to accommodate a diminishing number of users who have old equipment.

If we decide the corners will no longer be transparent then obviously they must be set properly to true goo or to white or they will show. But if we start from the point where the corners *are* transparent then logically it doesn't matter what colour the corners are because they can't be seen. They could be bright pink for example, or, more commonly, grey.

If the Italics would like me to set the corners of my circular graphics to grey (or any other colour) before making them transparent I'm happy to do so. It would make it easier to spot the circles that have not been set to transparent when they're in the Yahoo folder. However, there is no guarantee that the file displayed on Yahoo will be the one the artist uploads by ftp to the server. Since graphics are rarely checked in between arriving on the server and being taken for blobbing, it would sometimes happen that a grey-cornered blob would appear on the front page. This would be fixed pretty hastily but not instantaneously. Currently, if a circle doesn't have the transparency set - or if the transparency fails during blobbing as might occasionally happen - it doesn't affect the majority of users. They see no difference. It only affects that small number of goo users with old monitors mentioned above and it just makes the edges of the circular graphics a bit stripy. It doesn't ruin the h2g2 experience.

The introduction of grey corners would create another management issue. Although the corners would be grey, the antialiasing would still have to be to goo or white. Or at least to white and no antialiasing at all to return to my first point. This is an opportunity for people to get things wrong. Some of the circles would be accidentally antialiased to grey. This would show as plae dots around the outside of goo circles and a jaggied effect around the white circles.

To get around this we could all be forced to use templates. One template would consist of a black circular border antialiased to white on the outside with the corners set to grey. The other border would be antialiased to goo - or left jaggied (see my first point) and it's corners would also be set to grey. The centres of the circles would be made transparent - that's where the picture goes. Looking at the two templates from a distance, they'd appear identical - circles with grey conrers. Therefore the chances of getting them muddled up are quite high. Once again, this would all be spotted at the Yahoo stage but then there is the chance of an artist uploading a different set of files to the server.

So the way we do things at the moment with coloured corners set to transparent and antialiasing all round may not be technically pure but provides some 'belt and braces' type insurance against human error and blobbing problems and it works. The maxim 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' applies here. The only reason for changing it would be to accommodate the secondary use of the graphics by people who want to use dark table backgrounds on their spaces.

I see where this is leading now. I once had a long discussion with SEF on Yahoo about the transparency of GIFs. Were you expecting to find in the CA archive some proof that I don't understand transparency in GIFs as well as SEF and hence save the universe by...

I don't know how to finish that sentence.

SEF knows a great deal about the technical aspects of computer graphics.

I know a great deal about the technical aspects of computer graphics too. I also know a lot about the various graphics packages that the CAs use and I know quite a bit about what can be achieved in a pragmatic sense in a team of artists spread over three continents producing work in different styles using different packages.

If the Italics want us to stop antialiasing the outside of the borders on the goo graphics, I'm happy to go along with that. The argument against it is that while it's possible, and arguably theoretically more 'pure', most of the graphics packages we use don't allow us to do that automatically. We'd have to take the antialiasing pixels out by hand. We can set up circle templates for the front page but we can't do that for irregular graphics like the goo version of <./>B4131176white</.>. The argument *for* doing this is so that the goo versions can be used on a wide variety of dark backgrounds in tables. This has nothing to do with the editorial rôle of the graphics but helps people who want to use tables on their Spaces. It also means that h2g2 personal spaces viewed in the skins of other dna sites that happen to have dark backgrounds look slightly better. The Italics have decided that non-editorial considerations and cross-site issues are not their priority. SEF put her case but her idea was not adopted. Note that the reason for this is NOT a technical argument but one of pragmatic team management.

It could also be argued that the 'corners' of the front page circular graphics - which people may not be aware of because they blend into the background - should not be transparent. I'd go along with this too. The only reason for making them transparent is that some older monitors show a banding effect when GIFs with dark backgrounds are placed on a background of the same colour. So this only affects goo-users with very old monitors. The need for the rule will disappear with time. To summarise, we have transparent corners to accommodate a diminishing number of users who have old equipment.

If we decide the corners will no longer be transparent then obviously they must be set properly to true goo or to white or they will show. But if we start from the point where the corners *are* transparent then logically it doesn't matter what colour the corners are because they can't be seen. They could be bright pink for example, or, more commonly, grey.

If the Italics would like me to set the corners of my circular graphics to grey (or any other colour) before making them transparent I'm happy to do so. It would make it easier to spot the circles that have not been set to transparent when they're in the Yahoo folder. However, there is no guarantee that the file displayed on Yahoo will be the one the artist uploads by ftp to the server. Since graphics are rarely checked in between arriving on the server and being taken for blobbing, it would sometimes happen that a grey-cornered blob would appear on the front page. This would be fixed pretty hastily but not instantaneously. Currently, if a circle doesn't have the transparency set - or if the transparency fails during blobbing as might occasionally happen - it doesn't affect the majority of users. They see no difference. It only affects that small number of goo users with old monitors mentioned above and it just makes the edges of the circular graphics a bit stripy. It doesn't ruin the h2g2 experience.

The introduction of grey corners would create another management issue. Although the corners would be grey, the antialiasing would still have to be to goo or white. Or at least to white and no antialiasing at all to return to my first point. This is an opportunity for people to get things wrong. Some of the circles would be accidentally antialiased to grey. This would show as plae dots around the outside of goo circles and a jaggied effect around the white circles.

To get around this we could all be forced to use templates. One template would consist of a black circular border antialiased to white on the outside with the corners set to grey. The other border would be antialiased to goo - or left jaggied (see my first point) and it's corners would also be set to grey. The centres of the circles would be made transparent - that's where the picture goes. Looking at the two templates from a distance, they'd appear identical - circles with grey conrers. Therefore the chances of getting them muddled up are quite high. Once again, this would all be spotted at the Yahoo stage but then there is the chance of an artist uploading a different set of files to the server.

So the way we do things at the moment with coloured corners set to transparent and antialiasing all round may not be technically pure but provides some 'belt and braces' type insurance against human error and blobbing problems and it works. The maxim 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' applies here. The only reason for changing it would be to accommodate the secondary use of the graphics by people who want to use dark table backgrounds on their spaces.

Is that what this is about? Choosing not to have jaggied goo circles with grey corners is threatening the future of DNA?

Something weird happened there . How strange. Well, I made my points - twice .

Lemme guess - copied it from a word processor and pasted twice?

Ah well, better than a double post

I'm getting weird stuff, too, Amy. I think the servers are rebelling again.

And just to ask one of those luddite questions, what, in non-technical terms, is/does antialiasing?

That, minus the inadvertent use of cut and paste (no fair simulposting with yourself, Amy) is a typical nugget of CA list-talk, when abstract matters are being discussed.

And you'll notice that there is nothing actually about art in the discussion of transparency. That's why I make the distinction between the two kinds of critique, artistic and technical.


*inspects her whittling* I've used pine, so I can't make this a RAID 5 server. Dang.

Good question MR. Here's an extract from an email I sent to Tango at the beginning of this month.

'Do you have a graphics program better than M$ Paint to hand? When you draw a vector shape - perhaps using a 'circle tool' in the program - the shape is anti-aliased to the background. That is, the edges of the line are blurred so that from a distance the circle appears smooth and not jagged. Indeed the opposite of 'anti-aliased' is 'jaggied'. The computer achieves this effect by mathematically calculating some intermediate colours and inserting them to either side of the line. So, for example, a one pixel black line at 45 degrees to the horizontal on a white background wouldn't just be a black pixel but would be three, or even five, pixels wide on each row: grey black grey.

'Back in the 1980s we used to do this by hand but several more complex algorithms have been developed since then. Each graphics application uses its own proprietary algorithm and the details of these are closely guarded. Because the CAs use a variety of programs, each of our circles have slightly different anti-aliasing. These differences can only be seen close up. Only someone looking for the differences would see them. The vast majority of the visitors to the front page don't notice. There are several ways in which we could make all the circles identical but we'd be doing so for purist reasons only and we choose not too. We want the circles to look the same but that doesn't mean they have to be perfectly the same. We can allow some leeway, so we do.'

If you have a few moments, you could put up some examples.

Yes, that would be helpful. I'll do that tomorrow. It's getting on towards midnight here. Nice whittling!

Thank you. It's a present for Jim Lynn. Good night!
*goe sin to feed the cats*

that makes sense, sort of. It has something to do with blurring/smoothing around the edges, then?

Lil, that is a lovely piece of whittling. My grandfather and I used to whittle Ivory soap for Xmas presents...now that I think about it, that would be a great idea for my daughter to do for her presents this year...Costco has a 12 pack of Ivory...

oooh, thanks for the idea!

All this fuss about fuzzy circles .

I still want to now why the future of DNA is threatened by the Italics choosing not to have jaggied goo circles with grey corners.

This is about anti-aliasing?!



Well I've got a Photoshop, and I've got Corel Graphics, so maybe I could do some simple examples while you sleep, Amy. Not that I have much artistic talent to speak of, but I can anti-alias like the best of them.

Here you go. Now can I be a CA too?

http://teachx.rutgers.edu/~delaphant/alias.html