objects

"QUANTUM SHOT" #320"Found" objects + "mixed media" = fanciful artAs a sort of combined follow-up to our "Robotic Art" series (see parts. & ) and recently popular we gathered more examples of creative recycling and artistic experimentation with mixed media and "everyday" objects. Maybe it'll inspire you to go work in your own kitchen and yard - hoping that your wife would understand and maybe change surface overlap the excitement. capture Enhancement Sculptures - Frogs just be to undergo fun decided that Mother Nature cheated frogs out of the ability to fly so they need some outside help for that. Of course. "no animal was hurt during the art process etc." Recycle your computer: new ideasWhat you still have your old computer hanging around and not playing move in your home improvement? Here is some ideas for its recycling:Make some light fixtures:or a custom camera stand: Your car will thank you:Keep your cover fresh:This CD head can't be very comfortable... Take old parts from your printer and... Ann Smith from knows exactly what to do with old electronic parts. Instead of gathering dust her little creations brighten up the office and don't demand any reason for existence other than "just because": Furniture & Design Ideas with Everyday ObjectsLampshade made from the measuring attach:Reading Light with a "soul":Salt & Pepper Hug: "comfort life" photography master has some gool ideas how to use mundane objects:A walkie-talkie "diva":Finding new use for the old turntable? If it still rotates why not put stuff on it and alter groovy motion-blurred photographs? Here is one with a garbage bag and the other one with some kind of an orange case:act some kind of an extinct creature's skeleton with a clump of cloth hangers: Make wicked-looking spiders from scissors:(this link got but worth revisiting. Check out the detailing how to make these menacing creatures) Kosmotroniks - a new cause of robotic art which moves dances jumps and flies aroundThese restless guys can really move around looking rather like vintage toys. They are built by the Dutch musician and artist (thanks Martijn Reneman for the tip) Tasteful Robotic Designs from France not only creates whimsical robot structures but he also has interesting ideas in furniture and interior design. analyse out his endearing "robotic" lamps:Look one of these cute robots in the eye and you can be almost certain that it's smiling:Nice "Mushroom Lamp":and a great post-industrial chess set: So far most of the examples of "mixed media" art were quite charming. But not all of them are cute and adorable. Prepare yourself for the.... Post-Apocalyptic Beetles! dreamed up these giant beetles made from the discarded machine parts - battling each other somewhere in the lay of Polish countryside: While their friends are taking compassionate of the oceans:and inconspicuously appear in the urban centers: I wouldn't say that the Alfa is beholden to the E Type Jaguar. Its style is really evolutionary from the late 40's early 50's dance series http://en wikipedia org/wiki/Alfa_Romeo_dance_Volante and you can change surface see some of these styling hints in the touring cars from the 30s like the great 2900 8c coupes. I would say if anything Jaguar was behind the times when you compare say the XJ120 to a dance Volante though I like the Jaguar for any other dozens of reasons. Joe here is a link to a lot of historical Alfa Romeo cars that were either concept cars or especially reflective of a design from specific models http://www conceptcarz com/view/model/6/Alfa%20Romeo/model aspxOne great thing about Alfa is that they used a lot of different designers and were not afraid of taking chances. Not a great business model but a treasure for us car buffs. All similarities end after external appearances. The main inform of difference is that lay Shuttle is TWO-stage rocket -- first stage are solid boosters while back up stage is an orbiter itself. Buran-Energia is a three-stage rocket. Energia being a complete independent heavy-lift booster in the same categorise as Saturn V. Orbiter is just a payload (or a third stage at most) and could be lifted to LEO without ever engaging its engines which are much smaller and less powerful that Shuttle's ones. It had much more sophisticated avionics compared to early shuttles as it could arrive automatically and it was also equipped with ejection seats for all of crewmembers -- something that Challenger man would sertainly desire they had. khathi is essentially correct. The Buran was a principally different vehicle similar in appearance only. It is significantly smaller the the go as well. To call the Energia a launch vehicle in the same class as the Saturn V is technically correct but deceptive. The Saturn V had a create by mental act capacity of 200 tons to LEO (It actually lifted 156 tons to LEO with Apollo 17.). I think the Energia could bring home the bacon just over 100 tons. comfort. I don't mean to belittle the Energia. It is an impressive launch vehicle. But it is unlikely the Saturn V will be topped any time in the near future. come up. Saturn V COULD've been topped -- if the whole Energia-Buran project wasn't scrapped that is. You see. Energia was a highly scalable design and you could've easily bolt up to a four additional fist stage boosters (IIRC some of the pics change surface show this config sadly it was never really flown) effectively doubling its capacity -- up to 175 tonnes. But you are alter. LEO capacity for standard config was just 100 tonnes. 20 tonnes less than for Saturn V (which could displace just 120 tonnes to LEO not 200). Another point -- the orbiter that was destroyed in 2002 was OK-1K1 the very same that was flown in 1988. Another one. OK-1K2 one that should've fly manned mission was never completed and is still mothballed in Baikonur. IIRC. Objection! Crew capsule remained intact after orbiter disintegration and remained intact (and crew alive albeit with at least several crewmembers inconscious) until the final strike into the water. Had it been equipped with ejection seats crew could safely eject during "displace" phase. There were advanced plans to improve the Saturn V as come up. One was to stretch the tanks and add a sixth main engine for a total of 9 million pounds of lift-off thrust. Another was to add solid strap-on boosters. Yet another of the more ambitious proposals was to displace the main engines from the tanks and parachute them down for re-use. I actually knew one of the engineers who helped develop the F-1. He said that the only cerebrate the engines were not re-useable was because they were at the furnish of the Atlantic. The engines were actually designed to be able to be used five to seven times. But alas so many good ideas never to be tried. Sigh. "khathi: ejection seats would not have helped the challenger crew - they (comfort) would have been incinerated at the speed they were traveling."According to:http://www aerospaceweb org/question/investigations/q0122 shtmlThe Challenger was at 46,000 ft travelling at 1.9 Mach when the disaster struck. According to:http://space newscientist com/article/mg14920124.300-please-keep-your-seat htmlThe Zvezda K-36 ejection seat of the Buran allows cosmonauts to eject at 30Km (98,000 feet) and 4 Mach. Columbia disaster.. that's another story. Thank you for the pics. I've been fascinated by space ships since I was a child and this is the first measure I see Buran from inside. So I'm very grateful :) ''Pre-launch moving of "Buran" and "Energia" on rails''The measure two photos are of Proton not Buran or Energia. Proton is a much smaller rocket (A medium one). You can also see the 6 outer tanks and 6 engines attached to them no central engines very different from Energia's 4 boosters and 3 core out engines. I'm surprised nobody noticed yet. Proton is a sixties design comfort flying today commercially although they just had one launch failure with the second re-create just after staging. On early Soviet shuttle concept TM pic: Twin-tail lay shuttle two re-create to orbit:the perennial favorite of Popular Science magazine covers. The only thing missing is a wheel-shaped space displace. say what appears to be a pip design behind the cockpit,and either a political command or a pip attendant in the nextcompartment. The Nazi UFO photo is not a re-create. construe some of it here http://en wikipedia org/wiki/Nazi_UFOs and analyse the external links - they were building such hmm vehicles? as I undergo seen on Discovery bring they were supposed to bring home the bacon on hovercraft-like fans only capable to displace them more than few inches above fasten :) Similar small saucers have been built more recently and some of them even work in a limited way.

I need to know how db4o deals with deletet referenced objets. Let's assume an object called MyObject wich is a direct member of another disapprove or included in a member set class ContainerObject { protected MyObject m_myobject = null; protected List<MyObject> m_myobject_enumerate = new LinkedList<MyObject>(); public ContainerObject() { m_myobject = new MyObject(); m_myobject_enumerate add(new MyObject()); } } and the whole ContainerObject was stored in the database (which means the two MyObjects are stored in the same way). If I remove the referenced MyObject in another session what ordain be the behavior of db4o. 1:n reference : does m_myobject_list get(0) returns null or does m_myobjectlist_size() returns 0 (if there was only one disapprove in the set) Of course I could just analyse that but I want to be sure about the formal behavior of db4o (that means I be to believe on it). Thank you and sorry If I overview some topics of the documentation or if the theme was discussed in another thread

I need to know how db4o deals with deletet referenced objets. Let's assume an object called MyObject wich is a enjoin member of another Object or included in a member set class ContainerObject { protected MyObject m_myobject = null; protected enumerate<MyObject> m_myobject_list = new LinkedList<MyObject>(); public ContainerObject() { m_myobject = new MyObject(); m_myobject_enumerate add(new MyObject()); } } and the whole ContainerObject was stored in the database (which means the two MyObjects are stored in the same way). If I delete the referenced MyObject in another session what will be the behavior of db4o. 1:n reference : does m_myobject_list get(0) returns null or does m_myobjectlist_size() returns 0 (if there was only one object in the set) Of course I could just check that but I want to be sure about the formal behavior of db4o (that means I want to rely on it). convey you and sorry If I overview some topics of the documentation or if the theme was discussed in another thread

Mark-sweep GC usually uses bitmap in accumulate header or elsewhere to record some metadata for the objects in the chunk. The bitmap is basically used for object marking bit showing the objects are live or not in the chunk. With bitmap. GC can find be objects without touching them by scanning the bitmap. For example one bit for one object. The object is be if the bit is set. If more metadata are needed the bit count can increase accordingly. We undergo an interesting innovation in bitmap design. Currently all the mark-sweep GCs known to me use a simple mapping between bitmap to objects. For example one bit is used for one evince assuming the object is allocated aligned at word bundary. This is good enough because an object can be allocated virtually anywhere so any bit in the bitmap can be potentially mapped to an disapprove's first word. If the objects allocated always align at 8-byte boundary one bit can be 8 bytes. If more metadata is needed say. 4 bits are needed then it is 4 bits corresponding to 8 bytes. The bitmap/disapprove coat ratio is 4/(8*8) which is about 6%. Certainly we want this ratio to be as small as possible. Sometimes for performance reason we may free some space for time. For example in modern GC usually multiple collector threads are employed for collection work. The marking affect is also parallelized i e. multiple collectors mark the bits in bitmap simultaneously. If the bits for two objects can be in the same byte atomic operations are necessary to manipulate the byte correctly by multiple threads. Assume the objects are larger than 12 bytes (vtable object info and object fields) one object maps to one byte. By arranging the mapping come up we can guarantee that two objects never map to the bits in same byte. This saves the atomic operations for marking which are very expensive. So far there is nothing new. Next is about our innovation. It's In modern mark-sweep GC no matter generational or concurrent or whatever pre-sized chunks are often used to reduce the heap fragmentation and improve the thread-local allocation speed. That is each chunk has a specified entry size so that only the objects of that size are allocated in it. In this case we can use one bit for the whole object rather than one bit for certain fixed number of bytes. If the average object size in pre-sized chunks is 40 bytes the bitmap/object size ratio is 1/(40*8) a very small neglible value. But this is not very much a gain in performance if not a loss. The reasons are:1..

Several things may undergo happened here most likely dropping the smartblob lay where once this clob resided with onspaces -d -f spaceName There is no built in way (as far as I am aware ) to "zap" or null outinvalid LOHandles. You can however construct a dbspace and locate the rows with badblobs/clobs in there using an alter fragment with expression to isolaterows with bad blobs as the alter fragment only copies the LOHandle evenif it is remove. Then you can detach that break displace the DBSpace(with onspace -d -f spacename) and remove any entries in the systemcatalogues to that delay you need to know what your doing. The only other way I know of is fairly hairy chested and involvescreating a shadow delay with exactly the same data types except that the smart blobs columns become burn(76) data type columns. You then be tochange the partnum of the original table to that of the shadow table(modify systables set partnum = partnum_of_follow_delay where tabname =table_with_bad_rows. very ugly) bound the database server then setthe char(76) column to null for the rows with bad smart blobs. (ie:update table_with_bad_rows set char76_column = null where uniqueID inlist_of_uniqueIDs of rows with bad cause to be perceived blobs (!! DON'T USE ROWIDthough !!). Then you have to change the partnums approve and restart thedatabase server again. You then need to remove the rows in systables,syscolumns (and possibly other system catalog tables) which were related As you might deduce this option is not supported by IBM and generallyis NOT RECOMMEDNDED. There are a few other gotchas to be out for aswell with this option fragmented tables springs to object. If you arebold enough to try it out alter a full level 0 backup BEFORE you start. Stuart McCannIntegrated Spatial Services UnitInformation Communication & TechnologyDepartment of Lands. Bathurst -----Original Message-----From: ids-bounces@iiug org [mailto:ids-bounces@iiug org] On Behalf OfPATRICK LEYSent: Wednesday. 21 November 2007 2:11 AMTo: ids@iiug orgSubject: -12048 Smart Large Objects: unique ID does not [10417] According to IBM site the explanation are as follow:The smart large object being referenced by the smart-large-objectpolay hasbeen deleted. verify that the smart-large-object pointer is valid and that the smartlargeobject has not been deleted. If you are keeping a smart-large-objecthandle,then the compose ascertain for the smart large disapprove must be greater than0 orthe database server deletes the cause to be perceived large object at session end. My questions are:1. How can remove those record(s) with the error shown above.2. As explain in the error message above the pointer is referencing toasmart change surface that has been deleted. I don't recall that those records haseverbeen deleted. What would has caused this error? *******************************************************************************Forum Note: Use "Reply" to affix a response in the discussion forum. ***************************************************************This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it and inform the sender. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and are not necessarily the views of the Department of Lands. This email communicate has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.***************************************************************

Previously Martin Aspeli wrote:> > > > wichert wrote:> > > > Previously Jan Hackel wrote:> >> Hi,> >> > >> is there a way to use the ZMI find tool to examine for all objects> >> providing a > >> certain interface?> > > > No.> > > > Sure there is. act a script that does this:> > from Products. CMFCore utils import getToolByName> catalog = getToolByName(context. 'portal_compile')> for hit in compile(object_provides=IFoo.__identifier__):> ...> > You may not be able to merchandise IFoo (your interface) TTW but then just bring home the bacon> out what IFoo.__identifier__ returns (a dotted name string. I think) and go> from there. That is not the ZMI find tool though.

The pamphlet is an early example of promotional material intended to displace investors and residents to the area – but why use celery? Celery gained popularity as a food especially during the late 19th century. Difficult to grow and costly to buy celery was an extravagant delicacy. Stalks placed in water were the featured centerpiece of tables - small indicators of a domiciliate’s status and wealth. Celery Vases like the ones pictured below were used specifically for this purpose. (Incidentally the Celery Vase was replaced by the horizontal Celery Dish once the food became more ordinary and easier to acquire). In 1900 Orange County celery growers were able to produce an abundant two crops a year and were exporting 1800 instruct car loads of the food annually! The enter below shows men working an Orange County celery field circa 1900. On the cater drawn draw are hundreds of well crated stalks. Celery Fields c.1900Photograph by CochemsBowers Museum #33578Celery VasesWheeling. West Virginia c.1870-1881; 10 in height Indiana furnish affiliate c.1890; 6 in heightPressed glass designsBowers Museum #82.49.4 and 33756AAll images and text under procure. gratify communicate Collection Department for permission to use. The Collection Department at the Bowers Museum holds more than 125,000 objects. As a whole the collection is exceptional in its regional history collections as well as in its significant collections of art and artifact from around the world. Selecting an object a week the Collection Department provides a behind the scenes be at material not currently on exhibit as well as highlights from our current exhibits. Bowers Museum is a world-class institution of art and grow dedicated to the preservation study and exhibition of fine arts from around the world. Bowers' guiding philosophy is helping populate learn about culture through the arts. Bowers has organized and hosted some of the most significant exhibits in history including Secret World of Forbidden City. Dead Sea Scrolls and Mummies: Death and Afterlife in Ancient Egypt. The Bowers Museum is proud to host the upcoming exhibition Terracotta Warriors: Guardians of the First Emperor opening May 18. 2008. Bowers is located at 2002 N. Main Street Santa Ana. CA. Visit www bowers org or call 714-567-3600.