HelixDab2

None of what I said is restricted to any specific form of multiamorous relationship, or any sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. Most of the people trying to engage in polyerotic relationships--by which I mean the overwhelming majority--are people that have signed up for an ultramarathon before they can successfully complete a 5k fun run.

It was completed in 1937, not the 70s.

They mostly don't. Poly people think they do, but you see far, far more relationship volatility in polyerotic relationships than you do in monogamous.

Edit: I see that I'm getting downvoted by the people that are in non-monogamous relationships. Fact is that when you talk to sex-positive sex and relationship counselors, they will almost universally say that functional polyerotic relationships are the equivalent of post-doctoral work, while most people have relationship abilities equivalent to a barely-literate middle school level. It's not that multiamorous relationships are bad or wrong, or that the people that engage in them are wretched examples of humans (...although there are certainly more than a few of those) or anything like that, but to be functional that type of relationship requires a far greater level of self-awareness and honesty than most people are capable of. Hence the reason that they tend to be so volatile; more moving parts, more chances to fuck up.

In my personal experience I have found that most multiamorous relationships are more casual and less emotionally intimate (e.g., more shallow) than monogamous relationships. The people I have personally observed, including my own partners, have had less time to spend with any single person, and were more likely to jettison relationships rather than putting in the hard work to fix problems.

Ha. Very true. The people that were clued in knew you couldn't trust the gov't, but the lack of easy information meant most people had no idea.

Oriental shorthair. They sound very unusual too.

Right, but that's not the reason it won't print if you're out of a color. Especially since you can still print in B&W only mode. Or you certainly used to be able to, but I'm still using the same color laser from >10 years ago for home use, and an old Brother photo printer for things that need to be higher resolution.

If you use a Brother printer with ecotank cartridges, you can get an empty yellow cartridge and fill it with water if you're worried about tracking dots. You'll want to run a few cleaning cycles first to ensure that all the residual yellow is gone from the yellow print head.

...Or you can buy a typewriter at a pawn shop with cash, and dump it once you've written the ransom note/bomb threat. If you're counterfeiting stuff, you should probably consider the printer to be a consumable item that gets discarded and replaced after every batch.

Also, not every printer made since the mid-90s does that. See here

To be honest, i don't know specifically, but that's very much in his prairie school of architecture.

If you ever get a chance, try walking around in Oak Park (a nice suburb of Chicago on the far west side); a lot of Wright's earlier architectural work is there. One of his earliest buildings is there, from before he developed his prairie school, and it's... A real change of pace.

That is NOT the reason. FFS. If that was the case, you couldn't switch to B&W only printing when you're out of one of the cartridges, and, shocker!, you almost always can (assuming that you don't have the absolutely worst printer driver in existence).

I work in commercial printing, and I print in CMYK every single day. Almost nothing is absolutely pure cyan, magenta, yellow, or black. Printing pure black ends up looking like a very washed out charcoal grey. If you want 'rich black'--which is what most people think of as black, you need to us C,M, and Y. If you had a spectrophotometer and were creating color profiles for your printer, you'd be able to very, very quickly see that. (You'd also be able to see that the colors used in most inks and toners isn't strictly linear, and that you can start getting weird 'hooking' in colors once you exceed a certain ink volume. Some inks are much worse than others in that respect.) Depending on the RIP software that you're using, and how you create the color profile for the printer, you can specify exactly where greys switch from being monochromatic (K only) to using the full gamut.

It used to be really apparent with our old Roland printers, where you could easily see the individual pixels with a magnifying glass. Now we're using printers that are higher resolution--I think 600ppi natively, but I see enough dot gain in what we're printing on that anything past 150ppi is irrelevant--you can't see them.

There's a collection of images that I have to print regularly from one of our corporate clients. This collection of images is always sent as greyscale .tif files. When you look at them on-screen, they look fine. When you print them, they're washed out. The issue is that the RIP software sees the images in greyscale, and defaults to using K only. If I convert the images to RGB (which, yes, I know, it's weird that I print in RGB when the printer is CMYK, but trust me, it improves color slightly), then the printed image looks like the image on screen.

God of War.

I dunno, being Nicholas Cage just seems kind of cool.

Well of course they live there; that's one of Frank Lloyd Wright's worst designs. They're not going to live in one of his masterpieces, are they?

Were you around in the heyday of bmezine when Shannon was still alive? And didn't i hear something a while back about Luna Cobra currently living somewhere in Australia?

I've known a few people that have also implanted RFID chips that they can then reprogram transdermally. They can do things like set them to have the same permissions as a security badge, for instance. Cool shit.

Too big.