Search results for "C_THR86_2305 Latest Study Guide š Reliable C_THR86_2305 Test Sample ā C_THR86_2305 Braindumps š„ Open [ www.pdfvce.com ] and search for [ C_THR86_2305 ] to download exam materials for free š¤²Test C_THR86_2305 Lab Questions"
| Results 231 - 240 of 1053
|
Page 24 of 106
|
|
Sorted by: Relevance | Sort by: Date
|
Results per-page: 10 | 20 | 50 | All
|
[ā¦]using a calculation of inverse document frequency (idf), a comparative measurement of term [t] frequency [f] within the double page (local corpus) vis-a-vis frequency in our āglobalā NLTK corpus (a combination of Project Gutenberg, Carnegie Mellon Univeristy (CMU) and Brown University corpora), to find words that are peculiar to this text (Pedrone). The most salient words instantiate the ākeepā subset. An inverse document frequency can be illustrated as such (Huang): The algorithm proceeds to randomly select a single (or pair) of highly salient words to feature in the poem. A series of potential 5/7/5 syllable combination of words, as they [ā¦]
[ā¦]Lewallen likens to the miniatures of Ćdouard Manet ā one of Brainardās favorite painters [31]), flowers and floral patterns (roses, daffodils, and ā most characteristically ā pansies), and landscapes (rural Vermont). Despite that rich variety, one can certainly single out the signature, Brainardesque, elements which recur throughout his career: Virgin Maries, Nancies, pansies, and cigarettes. The latter serve as the focus of Brainardās largest oil painting ā Cinzano (1974), which is composed of sixteen near-identical miniature still lifes of cigarette butts in a triangular ashtray, and as the background of several of his assemblages. Besides those recurrent images, another constant [ā¦]
[ā¦]its essence rebellious against determinacyā (Castoriadis āMerleauā 2), liberating humans [and, now, literature] from any determinant logics of production or value creation. In Richard Floridaās infamous The Rise of the Creative Class (2002), for instance, creativity is presented as indivisible from profitability and marketability, leading the way to an empty rhetorical understanding of the term. As Shannon Jackson, Gregory Sholette, Sarah Brouillette or Lionel Pilkington have pointed out in one way or another, āwhen creativity is used rhetorically as a banner term it functions not just to disguise inequality, but also actively to promote itā (Pilkington), by using the expressive [ā¦]
[ā¦]by the intersection of the two fields. The contributions in āElectronic Literature Frame[works] for the Creative Digital Humanities,ā both by electronic literature pioneers who helped to establish the field (Coover, Kozak, Marino, Memmott, Rettberg, Pressman, Tabbi, Wardrip-Fruin, and Walker Rettberg) and by mid and early career researchers who are blazing new trails (Ackermans, Anderson, Berner, Douglass, Ikeda, Karhio, Muzzall, Saum, SeiƧa, Von Vacano, and Zamora), demonstrate how specific digital humanities methods and practices establish platforms upon which new research communities, research methods, and pedagogies can be built. While all the researchers involved work with electronic literature, they are based in [ā¦]
[ā¦]or even what counts as such.ā Thereās yet more at stake here. If, as Nacher asserts, ā[g]ardening e-literature is not about policing, monitoring and banishing organisms which might come to our plot motivated by their own interests and decisions, but inspiring [us] instead to open up the space,ā then we should also acknowledge that āpolicing, monitoring and banishingā are actions that produce a scholarly āfield.ā Some people win grants; others do not. Some work is selected for collection, presentation or exhibition; some is not. Members of a coterie exchange work amongst themselves for pleasure and reputation. A āfield,ā in Bordieuās [ā¦]
[ā¦]corporate entities. Companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon have more access to and control over repositories of human language, personal data, and contemporary cultural memory than any government has ever had. In comparison, even the Stasi during cold war East Germany had less control of human communications. Digital literacy further demands new models of ācritical making.ā In their introduction to their anthology DIY Citizenship: Critical Making and Social Media Matt Ratto and Megan Boler articulate DIY citizenship as āa twenty-first century amalgamation of politics, cultures, arts and technology that in turn constitutes identities rooted in diverse making practicesā [ā¦]
[ā¦]research collections. The majority of the metadata is not entered in plain text fields but in autocomplete fields which search for the node of the entity entered in the relevant field (for example author, publisher, creative or critical works referenced) from those that have already been entered in the database. If the field cannot autocomplete, the person editing the record will need to create a new record for the entity that is missing. This results in a great deal of incomplete information in the database ā if a contributor is to create a record for a creative work that was [ā¦]
[ā¦]screen can be separated into two dominant groups over time, establishing a founding ādialectic [for] many of the debates over āscreenā technology and theorizationā (n. pag.). In the first group, the screen is āopaqueā and āobscure[s] and conceal[s]ā (n. pag.) something lying behind it. In the second, ālight may pass through the screen, sometimes maintaining [its] integrity, sometimes [being] violated or mediatedā (n. pag.). To screen an image can mean both to show and hide simultaneously. Freudās āScreen Memoriesā and The Interpretation of Dreams harness this linguistic ambivalence of the screen as metaphor, outlining multiple possible relations a visual representationāwhether [ā¦]
[ā¦]More circumspect critics include Daniel Punday, who argues that new media literature āremain[s] bound to the limits of writingā and, particularly, the novel (155). Jessica Pressman contends that second-generation digital literature offers a āsurprise counterstanceā to the obsessions with novelty that often characterize digital culture, exhibiting instead a ācommitment to literariness and a literary pastā (2). Similarly, Daniel Morris argues that a ācuspā generation of writers ā those who came of age before the digital era and subsequently adapted to it ā employ an āart of the in-between,ā working in an ambiguous space āthat is a lyrical expression of an [ā¦]
[ā¦]they too become unwieldly and hard to summarizeā (Dewdney 12). In another, Etter asserts that ā[a]ctually, we think of Racter as an artificial lunaticā (Miller). Warner Software The Policemanās Beard was published in part by Warner Software, a short-lived division of the Warner Communications conglomerate founded in 1983. Warner Software was responsible for appealing to those with personal or professional interests in computing by releasing relevant software and literature. Drawing from extant book publishing models, Warner Software President Albert Litewka viewed his company as a pioneer in āa whole new world of publishing. [ā¦] There are elements of software publishing [ā¦]