« March 14, 2010 | Main | March 16, 2010 »

March 15, 2010

Welcome to Elgin Park, population 1 (Michael Paul Smith, its creator)

34029637

Time stopped there in 1964,

34029625

yet it's had about 20 million views

34029628

and some days approaches 750,000 page views on Flickr.

34029631

Jim Koscs' New York Times story tells you all about it.

34029619

Or just browse the Times' slide show.

34029643

"Smith [below]

14SCALE-span-articleLarge

describes his photos

34029634

[above and below]

34029622

as stories."

March 15, 2010 at 04:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Necklace inspired by Matisse

TmagSF

Created by New-York-based artist Emily Miranda, based on Matisse's paper cutouts "Oceania, the sea" and "Oceania, the sky."

Brass ($800) or 14K gold ($3,200).

Matisse_necklace

Apply within.

[via Sandra Ballentine and the New York Times]

March 15, 2010 at 03:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Яндекс

Screen shot 2010giiuyo-03-14 at 9.00.50 PM

I don't know what it is but I like it, like it, yes I do.

March 15, 2010 at 02:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Chromatherapy Bottle — 'Tip and base flash with 7 different colors'

43404

As we used to say on Neurosurgery, "I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy."

£26.99.

[via 7gadgets]


March 15, 2010 at 01:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Young me, now me

Dzfxgchvjbnkm

Res ipsa loquitur.

Cvbmnm,

No se habla Latin?

Jhgiip

Too bad.

[via Milena]

March 15, 2010 at 12:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Urban Help — Device Jewel

1_thumb

Anxiolytic jewel for external use only. Instructional video here.

3_thumb

Created by Ana Cardim.

March 15, 2010 at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Why you might not want to store your photos on Facebook

Alfred 8vbngjh

Writing in yesterday's Washington Post, Caitlin McDevitt of "The Big Money" pointed out a few good reasons why Facebook isn't the best place to keep your pictures.

Excerpts from her article follow.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Facebook doesn't have the capacity to store all the world's photos without shrinking them first. Facebook just announced that it will increase its maximum photo size by 20%. But even with the upgrade, the photo quality on Facebook isn't useful for more than onscreen viewing.

Chris Chute, a digital imaging research analyst at IDC, said that "720 pixels will provide for a richer photo experience online, but to create a 4x6 print would still require additional data."

It's also troubling that most users aren't aware that uploading a picture to Facebook — and then deleting it from your camera — means you've lost the original image for good.

... fewer than a third of people surveyed knew that photos on social-networking sites are stored at a decreased resolution. This is probably because Facebook photos look just fine on a computer screen. But when they are printed, the images cannot be cropped or enlarged without looking blurry.

Want to frame a 5x7 of the great group shot from the family vacation? Better not store it on Facebook. Looking forward to viewing your Facebook pictures on a high-definition television? Don't get too excited.

March 15, 2010 at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Sudoku Loo Roll

11111

Perfect mashup.

22222

"A toilet roll with 9x9 Sudoku puzzles imprinted. Each puzzle is different."

33333

Suitable for ages 8+ (years).

£4.99.

March 15, 2010 at 09:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

« March 14, 2010 | Main | March 16, 2010 »