Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Photographs, posting and witchcraft!

    Onward to your questions: 1. Yes, if you store an image on (e.g.) Photobucket, you can display it on this forum, no matter how big it is (there are practical limits of course, but you won't encounter them). 2. Right again. Any capacity limits would be between you and (e.g.) Photobucket, and their smallest plan gives you 2 gigabytes (i.e., 1,000,000 kilobytes). For your purposes, that's infinite. 3. The best image-hosting site? I wish I knew. Right now I'm on Photobucket simply because I put my pictures on there back when it was free, and they finally came down to a reasonable fee. Some hosting sites don't want you to hotlink to them, so be careful about that. You might want to check out a site called TinyPic. It's free and as I recall it's easy to use. I haven't used it much, though, and it's owned by Photobucket (but I seriously doubt that they'd try any dumb stunts again). At least you could play around with it without paying anything. 4. No, you most definitely do not need a PhD in computer science. I have no PhDs whatsoever and no degrees in computer science either, and I manage. Some sites do have their quirks, of course. If you find yourself stumped, just come back here and tell us what you're having trouble with.
  3. Photographs, posting and witchcraft!

    OK, first off, Photobucket etc. are not apps, they're websites that you need to join, just as you joined this forum -- except that some of them charge a monthly or annual fee. Some of these image-hosting sites may want you to download their app if you're on a phone, but you're still dealing with the website. Next, the difference between what you've been doing and what you're now talking about doing is *where* the image is stored. The way you've been doing it (or attempting to do it) is called embedding -- the image is stored on the same website (such as this forum) that it's visible on. With third-party image hosting, the image resides on one website (e.g., Photobucket) but is visible on another (e.g., this forum) via a method called hot linking. The image looks like it's in your post, but it's actually on (e.g.) Photobucket. I'm gonna post this much, and continue below.
  4. Yesterday
  5. Myers-Briggs personality types -- and quiz

    It occurs to me it's a bit odd that BBC Sherlock shows no chacteristics of a middle kid, seeing as how he supposedly was one for several years. Even if he was able to repress all conscious recollection of Eurus, it seems to me that he might nevertheless retain a trace of the middle-kid behavior.
  6. Ok chaps I’ve asked this kind of question before but seeing Photo Bucket being discussed I need the lowdown. i always have problems posting pictures on Forums ‘file too large’ is the usual issue. Is an app like PB the answer to my problems? Questions. 1) If I downloaded one of these apps (are they called ‘image hosting?) would that mean that I could take any image from there and post it on here, for example, without it telling me that the file was too large? 2) Would it also mean that I would be able to post more pictures before being told that I was at my capacity. 3) Which is the best app to go for? 4) Do you need a PhD in Computer Science to use them? I don’t have any real need to post loads of pictures but it would be nice to to do it. I was even thinking of a thread of photographs if I have my annual London break later this year. I was going to call it “Herlock’s London Odyssey 2018.
  7. PhotoBucket news

    When viewed on their website, there's a footnote on the two non-free options: billed annually. So if you want 3rd-party hosting, $2.25/month or $27/year is the cheapest you can get (and 2 gig is *plenty* for me -- dunno how they calculate that to be 400 photos -- I get between 1,300 and 12,000, depending on size). That's not *too* big a price increase over the $19.99 that I'm paying this year, but I am beginning to feel like a lobster being lowered head-first into a pot of boiling water. However my payment receipt says that I will be billed $19.99 again next year. Does that constitute a binding contract?
  8. PhotoBucket news

    They seem to have published their permanent prices o the website.
  9. In addition to the MBTI elements, there is the matter of birth order dynamics and how that impacts the development of a personality. Sherlock is a younger sibling to an exceptional older brother. I'm an oldest myself and I can't help but look at the dynamics of Mycroft and Sherlock from that place. Both the Brothers Holmes are genius INTPs, with differing foci for their very similar minds. Little Brother is much more active in the world, which makes him both less Introverted and more in tune with the physical Sensing as compared to Big Brother. Mycroft's intelligence is almost entirely dealing in analytical theory and various scenarios that 'Might' occur as opposed to 'already have occurred'. He never personally experiences the stimuli of the outside world if he can help it, but he must be polished and urbane with people when he position demands it, as it often must. Sherlock exhibits the tendencies of the younger sibling in his more (relatively speaking) impulsive, emotional, occasionally petulant demeanor. Sherlock is in many ways a Superman . . .but as incredible as his talents are, there was already a Superman in the family who was the First. When the firstborn is exceptional and/or perceived as commanding the lion's share of parental love and resources by virtue of their seniority, this can make later borns feel resentful and/or inferior. These feelings either make a kid apathetic or they spur them on to equal or surpass the elder sibling. Canon Sherlock admires his brother as an example of that perfect ratiocination machine untroubled by inconvenient/disruptive emotions or demands of the outside world. Sherlock would like to be Mycroft, one thinks--but he's too restless, too hyper, too interested in the events beyond his windows to be the nearly Buddha-like figure Mycroft is. Does he feel inferior to his big brother? Possibly, but he has crafted his own path that suits his own individual gifts best. Sherlock's emotionality or impetuousness would seem very mild compared to a 'normal' person with these characteristics, but they stand out in relief against the embodiment of Zen that Mycroft is. One wonders what growing up in the Holmes household was like. The relationship of the BBC pair is a lot more polarized, but then, Conan Doyle hardly gave us any scenes with Mycroft. He only appeared twice. Mark Gatiss's Mycroft is one of the best improvements or should say, amplifications, that the show made--though Sherlock is very much the bratty little brother vs. superior elder sibling in it . .and the brotherly love seems most often to flow only from Mycroft's side. Mycroft's regard for his little brother is almost paternalistic, which is no doubt what BBC Sherlock objects to, but Myc's interference in Sherlock's life really does come from a place of love . . and, despite being the less emotion-prone of the two brothers, he's the only one who actually expresses his love aloud to his brother. BC's Sherl stays pretty much the aggrieved bratty little brother throughout. This is an invention of Mofftiss, because it's just not there in Conan Doyle. Book-Sherl is not that immature nor ungrateful toward his brother.
  10. I agree that both the original Holmes and BBC Sherlock seem to want to be a different person than who they naturally are and spend a considerable amount of time and energy trying to convince other characters of their chosen identity. That does make the character hard to analyze.
  11. Well balanced apart from the drug abuse . . I am enjoying all the comments here. Sherlock is definite an enigma wrapped in a conundrum, tied with a bow of mystery. Carl Jung was a younger contemporary of Conan Doyle's, but I'm pretty sure ACD did not purposely set out to construct his characters from a psychological standpoint. Arthur was a bluff sportsman and man of action not unduly prone to analysis. His two most famous characters were copied from his own life: Sherlock was Dr. Bell of Edinburgh, even down to the clothes, and Dr. Watson was even easier to do, being a stand-in for Conan Doyle himself. Doyle was focusing on crafting adventures, not psychological case studies . . which accounts for his frustrating tendency to give some of his primary characters such short shrift. Moriarty and Mycroft are both potentially fascinating individuals, but Conan Doyle grew bored with them and dropped them both after a couple cursory introductions apiece. Boo. Sherlock Holmes seems like he *should* be easy to deconstruct, but he's got all these warring impulses within himself that defies easy compartmentalization. If we go strictly by what Holmes says about himself--which he repeats often in various forms, almost as if he is adamant to convince Watson of something which is still in dispute--that he is an emotionless machine of deduction--we get one set of letters. Sherlock seems to want to be an ISTJ--an empirical data-collecting, incisive black-and-white opinion giver, a tireless thinking machine. But there are too many anomalies to this template provided by Dr. Watson. Underneath the rigorously cultivated intellect and deductive method and stated abhorrence of emotions or frustration with Watson's propensity for embellishment and 'romanticism' in favor of hard, cold facts . .there are deep waters. Strong feelings are simmering beneath the surface, like the parts of the iceberg we don't see. SH can act like a kid on Christmas morning when presented with a really juicy case . . or be equally childish in petulant mode when he is bored or displeased. For a guy who claims that all emotions are abhorrent to him, he's prone to a lot of them. I think a modern diagnosis would be bipolar disorder, possibly. Sherlock experiences the peaks and the valleys of his life with equal strength. If you accompany him through 60 adventures with Dr. Watson on the page, you meet a mercurial individual who isn't quite the untouchable, immovable Temple of Reason which he claims. He is in fact, a whole lot more human than he wants people to know from his own PR . . or perhaps even than he knows himself. Sherlock's more human side seems to take even himself by surprise. He lives so thoroughly in the moment and really *wants* to be this idealized version of himself that I think he is caught unawares every time the Black Dog descends and he has to hit the cocaine bottle again. If he were, in fact, the pristine Mind Engine he wishes he were, he wouldn't have need of such a base distraction. Can it be true that the man who can see into the motivations of all the other human hearts he comes into contact with has a blind spot a mile wide when it comes to his own? It seems like that at times. In Young Sherlock Holmes, we meet SH as a 16-year-old schoolboy. The nascent detective is already a crack hand at deducing things from his physical environment and the people in it. He is a musical prodigy who taught himself how to play the violin in a matter of days. But the adolescent Sherlock is prone to impulsivity, temper, making emotional attachments . .getting things wrong. He is being mentored in the art of cool dispassion by his fencing tutor--who castigates teenage Sherl for being too much of a hothead and leaping before he's looked. Some of this impulsivity and emotionality are par for the course with the teenage developing brain--but the adult Sherlock we meet some 10 years later in A Study in Scarlet still retains some of these characteristics. To his chagrin, probably. SH started with a prodigious intelligence gifted to him by birth, but a lot of what is the persona of the Great Detective was rigorously cultivated by the application of logic, self-discipline and self-denial. Holmes willingly set himself apart from his fellow man because his chosen profession and ideal vision of himself in it means eschewing much of what 'ordinary people' call normal life. His idealized self is basically a god, but for all his extraordinary gifts. Sherlock is a human being. In seeking to purge the messy, human parts of himself (at which he was never completely successful) SH was essentially at war with his very human foibles. 'The best and wisest man' was far more interesting than a mere calculating machine. Sensing vs. Intuition seem almost equal in him. He always starts from a place of Sensing when collecting data about a case or a person, but oftentimes the breakthrough comes as a result of his equally finely-honed Intuition. Someone who was orientated to a strictly Sensing mode would not be able to make the creative connections Intuition requires, so N edges S, though he probably wouldn't like it. As for the 'P' vs. 'J' debate . again, SH is very strong in both. A strong sense of justice predicates a 'J' . . but look how many times Holmes lets the perpetrator go free, with stern instructions to go and amend their lives. In choosing compassion over legalism, Holmes can be a Christ-like figure--despite not being a church-going man. Also, the very first thing he says, to Dr. Watson and to us is, "You have been in Afghanistan, I perceive." Even if the perception is backed up by deductions, which he proceeds to make, I like the synchronicity. Sherlock Holmes: INTP, with very strong S orientation and less strong, though healthy, J characteristics.
  12. Myers-Briggs personality types -- and quiz

    That sounds exactly like Alex and me! OK, I'm starting to think you're correct about Sherlock -- he does make snap decisions, sometimes (often?) before fully thinking things through.
  13. Introverts, how is your day?

    Well, if your April and May have been anything like ours (snowstorms followed immediately by a never-ending heatwave), I'd blame the weather. But one thing I forgot to mention: hormone cream. When I was in the throes of menopause, I was seriously concerned that my heart palpitations might kill me. Then I discovered bio-identical progesterone cream. What a difference! Unlike the pills most doctors prescribe, it's the same molecule that the human body produces, so there are few if any side effects. It works like a patch, absorbs through the skin. Some (very few) doctors will give you a prescription for such a cream made to order by a compounding pharmacy, but I've had better results with the stuff sold without a prescription at some health-food stores. I still use it.
  14. I see I have to have another look at what the letters are supposed to describe. Hm. One site says that judgers are structured and make decisions early, tend to take control and give specific instructions while perceivers are flexible, like to keep their options open and tend to let others be and do their own thing. With that in mind, I would say Sherlock is still a J with his 13 different scenarios and bossing John around, but on the other hand, he is very good at adapting to unexpected situations and doesn't seem to mind at all when he has to improvise. I guess when it comes to these personality traits, Sherlock is actually a pretty well-balanced individual.
  15. Myers-Briggs personality types -- and quiz

    I'm opinionated even though I'm definitely a P (especially compared to Alex's J!). But even though I'm opinionated I don't generally place a value judgment on my opinions -- I don't say this is wrong, I just observe the way it is and say I prefer it the other way. Even if I really, really prefer it the other way, and will defend my position till convinced otherwise, I don't say the other way is wrong unless it's provably wrong -- and as a former math teacher, I have a very high standard for provability. So I don't think opinionated = J. I think Sherlock is more detached than that. He observes and deduces, but he rarely seems to pass judgment. Moriarty is merely a puzzle to be solved, at least until he blows up that old lady and all her neighbors -- and maybe even then he's merely a different puzzle. He does pass judgment on Magnussen and Smith -- but I kinda agree with him there.
  16. Introverts, how is your day?

    If menopause will make me even more sensitive to heat than I already am then I dread the day it begins. I am already suffering and it's only May. I have a migraine and feel nauseous.
  17. Well, he's opinionated and decisive. I think Mycroft is a P and Sherlock is very J.
  18. Shoot The Wall (A.k.a. The Rant Thread)

    Wouldn't that be great! I used to work with a fellow who could just about do that. One day he was talking about someone in another department but I didn't recognize the name. So he just whisked his pencil over a piece of paper and said You know -- that guy. And I did! I do wonder how my dreams would hold up under scrutiny, though.
  19. The "Hijacked Thread" Thread

    Funny thing -- I never heard the radio show, but adored the book and TV show. Didn't see the movie in the theater because i assumed it was just a remake of the TV show and I think remakes are generally no improvement over the original. But after seeing a couple seasons of Sherlock, I wanted to see what else Martin Freeman had done, so along with some other things I got the Hitchhiker movie. My first reaction wasn't just that it wasn't any better -- I loathed it! Not Freeman's performance, mind you, basically the script. The DVD had a commentary track, so we watched that, and it helped a little. For one thing, I had assumed that the changes had been made after Douglas Adams's death, behind his back as it were, but learned that they had actually been his idea. I still didn't like them too much, but at least I no longer resented them. We watched the movie again, and that time it wasn't too bad. Then I said hey we've never watched the DVD of that wonderful TV show, so we got that out. And you know what? We weren't impressed. I think I had liked the book and TV show because they were so fresh and novel at the time. Then I was comparing the movie to my thirty-year-old recollection of my reaction to them. And of course it came up short because the idea was no longer fresh and new. In fact it was thirty years old. And of course the TV show was no longer fresh and new either. (I have a feeling that I'd still find the book as delightful as ever -- but I'm a little hesitant to test that hypothesis!) After rewatching both versions again later on, I would say that they each have their good and bad points. Of course the TV show suffers from its early-BBC production values. I like both Arthur Dents, though they're very different. (I do wish they hadn't given MF that red hair and dark-green bathrobe, though -- they make him look awful.) I prefer the TV Ford Prefect and the movie -- oh, what's his name? -- Ford's cousin. And of course just love Bill Nighy's Slartybartfast. I would prefer the TV robot suit with Alan Rickman's voice from the movie.
  20. Myers-Briggs personality types -- and quiz

    I took the test yesterday at Hikari’s suggestion. I’m unsure what this says about me though? Introvert (47%) Intuitive (25%) Thinking (16%) Judging (38%) Apparently I’m Moriarty! Introvert (47%) Introvert (47%) Intuitive (25%) Thinking (16%) Judging (38%) (25%) Thinking (16%) Judging (38%)
  21. Myers-Briggs personality types -- and quiz

    Why do you say that? Just curious -- my first inclination would be P, but not sure I could back it up.
  22. The "Hijacked Thread" Thread

    It's a shame it wasn't better. At least we still have the radio and television series'.
  23. This isn’t a “shoot the wall” kind of complaint, but I really wish I had the ability to magically transpose images in my head directly onto film. I have some very cinematic dreams, and I always have all these ideas and imaginary scenarios bobbing around in my head that I would love to put in a tangible form. It would take forever to write them down, and then there’s describing everything efficiently, and figuring out how to word all the nuanced expressions and gestures that an actor could instantly portray. I suppose making a comic or manga would be the next best thing, but I can’t draw worth a darn.
  24. Hmmm, what is Sherlock... Let me see what I think. BBC Sherlock, I mean. I can't decide whether he is an introvert or extrovert. On the one hand, he has an extremely vibrant inner life and retreats into his Mind Palace to solve problems or relax. He also has no time for chit-chat and avoids formal occasions. On the other hand, he doesn't thrive without an audience, so he needs a lot of external validation and he also relies heavily on outside stimulus and doesn't cope at all well with boredom. That actually sounds extroverted to me. I know that I think book Sherlock Holmes is an introvert but Sherlock... N or S? Also not so easy to decide. Theoretically S because of his extreme talent for observation, eye for detail, etc. But his deductions, while he claims they are built on pure logic and evidence, often come across as more intuitive. He also poses as a thinker but the show spent a lot of time exploring how he is actually a very emotional person at heart. So I think he would say T but I say Mrs Hudson is right - F. Definitely more J than P. So my options are INFJ, ISFJ, ENFJ or ESFJ. Hm. I don't think any of the descriptions of those sound much like Sherlock.
  25. Last week
  26. The "Hijacked Thread" Thread

    Didn't care for the movie, but a good idea for some bedtime reading tonite!
  27. Yes to all this and I'm not even an INTJ! INTP though, so close enough. It's so hard to find someone I can have a decent discussion about almost anything, because so few people want to toss ideas around. If you don't agree on something immediately, they get all frosty. Gah, it's crazy making.
  28. Myers-Briggs personality types -- and quiz

    Excellent points. I have only a couple of quibbles: I assume the reason he mentioned his experience with women specifically was that he was in the midst of giving his opinion of a woman, the "refined and sensitive" Miss Morstan. It would hardly make sense to compare her with the men he'd known, especially not in an era when men and women inhabited two different worlds. But it's also clear that the dear doctor is smitten, so I can't quibble very much with you on this point! I think membership in such clubs was considerably less unusual back then. I get the impression that if you were a gentleman (in the social-stratum sense), you joined a club, just as routinely as a man today has a favorite football team. And if you were a professional man, say a doctor, you were apparently also expected to apply to the club that doctors of a certain standing belonged to. The clubs were, in modern terms, at least as much for networking as for socializing. The clubs also served somewhat the same purpose as a man's den did a few decades ago when men had dens. They were basically a place to get away from women, so you could read the newspaper in peace and quiet. At least that's my impression from novels and movies. I have never actually been a Victorian gentleman!
  1. Load more activity
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.