Mattias Adolfsson’s work reminds me a lot of the Richard Scary books I used to pour over as a child: many of the drawings were complete dioramas, worlds at a glance, that rewarded your lingering:
He has a book out, and I think I will buy it as a gift for my daughter, but I think I would also like to sit down with her with the biggest piece of paper we can find and draw something like this.
Here’s a [direct link to Adolfsson’s site](http://mattiasinks.tumblr.com).
[The Quixote lives on.](http://xkcd.com/556/) Thank you XKCD for being so smart.
I will leave my complaints about how badly Adobe handles updates for another time. There would be too many off-color words in anything I wrote. For now, it’s nice to have access to [this tutorial on perspective drawing tools in AI][ai].
Bjango has an amazing roundup of all the ways you can create roundrects, rectangles with rounded corners, in PhotoShop. That’s on the lefthand column. Check out the righthand column for even more tips and tricks.
I found this useful bit of advice during a search for something else:
> … you can create a template that will load when you open SU that deals with the scale issue you mentioned. Open a new drawing. Draw a square in the center that’s about average size for the things you draw. Zoom into give an acceptable view. While you’re at it set display settings. I like to start in perspective view, Hidden line, profile lines turned off, shadows off, white background.
> Next delete the square so you have a blank drawing space. Save As My Template or whatever you want to call it. Save it in the Templates folder under SketchUp. Find the Preferences dialog under Window in SU. Set the Drawing Template to whatever you just named that drawing you saved. That’s all there is to that one.
My thanks to Dave Richards of Rochester, Minnesota who contributed that to a discussion on the Sawmilll Creek forums — Sawmill Creek is an online community for woodworkers.
Yes, I work at an university, and so you would think that I’m some variety of liberal and that all my colleagues are liberals. At least that’s what some of the commentators on Fox News or on various radio shows would have you believe. The truth is that university faculty and staff come in about as wide a range of political persuasions as everyone else. It’s also the truth that university faculty and staff tend to lean toward what is considered the left in American politics. But that makes sense doesn’t it? Like teachers and nurses and police officers and firefighters they have decided that serving the public good is more important than making a lot of money. They have a different version of *richness* and *rewards*. That should be allowable, no?
At the same time that I don’t see the point in conservatives hectoring liberals, I also don’t see the point in liberals hectoring conservatives needlessly — in fact my chief concern with political discourse in our era is that it seems to be about winning and not governing.
Myself, I am a moderate with liberal leanings on social issues and conservative leanings on fiscal issues. After all, I don’t make that much money; I’d like to keep what little I have. (And, for the record, I think businesses, which are oriented toward a private good, should be regulated in view of the public good. That’s just plain old fashioned common sense.)
I am also more prone to patience and to objectivity than a lot of my friends on either side of contemporary politics, mostly because politics in our time is just that: in our time. What the future holds is sometimes beyond the reach of politics, political discourse, and politicians. This illustration from [Contexts.org](http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/11/05/support-for-same-sex-marriage-by-age-and-state/) makes that case awfully well. What it reveals is that acceptance of gay marriage, even in the very historically conservative south, is inevitable in many ways. As older voters who are more troubled by it decline in terms of voting strength — which is a polite way of saying *die* — the younger voters will increasingly move to the so-called “left” on this particular issue, because, well, because they already are on the left on this issue according to the data on which this illustration is based.