Of course it's a cool optical trick, even when you *DO* know how it works, but my point is that it is categorically *NOT* a hologram.
A hologram isn't a 2d image that appears to be projected onto something that is otherwise invisible such as glass. It is literally a 3-dimensional image that you will perceive as 3D even when you are right in front of it.
Looking at a holographic plate with an image in it is like looking through a window at something which is beyond it, where the size of the holographic plate is the size of the window. You get all the parallax effects with a hologram just as you would with real 3-dimensional objects.
That technique is over a century old and is referred to as "Pepper's Ghost". It is well established technique used in illusion and other entertainment.
A hologram is a *THREE* dimensional image, not a two-dimensional one projected onto glass.
As you move relative to the position of a hologram, your perspective of it changes just as it would if you were to move around an actual 3-dimensional object, and even the differences between what your left eye sees and right eye sees will be different enough at close distances that your brain will tell you you are looking at something with actual depth.
I have teenage grandchildren, so I'm objectively not young, and I never would have thought of myself as lucky, while I have had no particular reason to think my situation is unusual. I do not procrastinate on financial matters, I have disciplined myself to be cognizant of and responsible for the transactions that I enter into, and I make sure to read the fine print of any agreements I enter into with institutions such as banks. I know that if I failed to do even one these things, there are many times in my life I would certainly have been screwed over, with no affordable recourse, just as you suggested might happen to me someday.
you find out that the number they told you wasn't the number that came out
THAT is fraud.
Or they didn't tell you the number they took out until the statement arrives
I don't authorize payments when I don't know the amounts ahead of time.
now we're back at your specific banking arrangements and how smart you are
Because, funnily enough, I though that my own experiences with being poor and having no problems dealing with a bank just might qualify me to have an opinion about the subject
This is EXACTLY that I said and EXACTLY what you are arguing with me about. Please stop. You've just made my point.
My point was that there is no real incentive for any one to do this *deliberately*.
I have dealt with being poor, but I have never been so miserly and distrustful of what might happen as a result of a mistake that I was unwilling to forgive it and to wait until it was fixed because in my experience, it always has been.
But oops.... I guess that's my own experience, and I'm not really allowed to talk about that because it's apparently different from your expectation about reality.
I made the assumption only that my situation was nothing particularly special, and that I am not particularly unique, and given that, I see no reason why others could not have similar benign interactions with a bank, even while living with very low income.
I'll bet if you completely exclude specific criteria from being a factor for consideration because of some undesired bias that might occur around such information, the resulting decisions may still show bias.
First of all, I don't generally waste my time even trying to have a discussion on the matter with people who aren't interested in real science. The objection that we hadn't previously had any photographs of a black hole, even though it is an argument from ignorance, was nonetheless still built on a factual premise. That isn't the case anymore.
And to that end, I'd like to point out that most of the people who have presented the argument of being skeptical about the existence of black holes are not doing so because they are obstinate idiots who refuse to believe in something despite evidence... they are in my experience relatively open-minded individuals who simply don't understand the physics well enough to accept the existence of black holes as a given, and in such cases, a photograph is going to feel more real to these people than something that has only ever previously been presented as an artists rendition based on a theory that they don't actually understand.
It's much simpler to stay on budget when you only have so much cash on hand to spend.
You have the same amount of money either way... what difference does it make if it's physically in your pocket or not?
Use a card, only the pleasure part of the brain lights up
Speaking for myself, I've noticed that usually when I use a debit card, as soon as I press "OK" to confirm and complete the transaction, I have the distinct sense of the money I've just made getting sucked away. There is definitely some "disgust" going on there, so I'm not so sure that your conclusion about only experiencing pleasure with a card is valid.
Oh my God. You actually think an incorrect charge would be reason to close down a business. How naive.
No, I think fraud would be a reason to press charges. If they claim to have charged me X, and the receipt shows X, but bank statement says that they charged me Y, I can show the receipt to the bank as evidence of deliberate fraud. In this case, it would amount to forging the receipt and tampering with the equipment that communicates with the bank to show something different than what is actually charged. Yes, it's after it happened, but the consequences to them are severe enough that it's unlikely to occur.
If I had every reason to expect that the charge will be X before the transaction, but the receipt actually says Y, I will be pointing that out right away just the same as if you handed the cashier a $50, but they hand you change as if you handed them $20. That's after you've made payment too.... what are you going to do? It's your word against theirs at that point, isn't it?
You don't know how much your payment actually turned out to be until you see the statement that tells you how much was taken out of your account. It has nothing to do with the ability to "do math". You can't do math on numbers you don't know.
I can do math on the numbers I am told I will have taken from my account... and I'm not going to authorize someone to take money from my account unless they do tell me in advance how much they are going to take. With the form of direct payment that I most often use, the machine I put my card into indicates the amount they will charge me before the transaction goes through. If it's different than what they said, I note the discrepancy before I've even paid. This happens sometimes, and I will typically assume it is a keyboarding error and give them the opportunity to correct it before trying the transaction again
With forms of direct payment that don't include a machine, I will not authorize it in the first place unless I know before the charge happens how much they are going to take. If they end up taking more, yes, I won't know about it until after it happens, but I would still have just cause to dispute the charge with the bank. The company would face a chargeback for the difference, and it's probably not in their best interests to do this often enough to be profitable. This has only ever happened to me once in my life, and apparently it was the result of a keyboarding error on their end. I was refunded the money within the same day I saw the discrepancy on my statement.
And you might not have noticed that I wasn't talking about your specific banking arrangements
That's funny... I thought we were talking about people on low income and its impact on the ability to use banking.
As I have definitely gone through a very long period of being low income, and this did not adversely affect my ability to use a bank, I figured that my experiences in the matter might be relevant. I watched how I spent my money, and I made sure to deal with insitutions that were favorable to my situation.
My bad for making the assumption that my experience might qualify me to express any opinion, I guess.
I did *NOT* say that any of that other stuff annoys me, because nobody in my experience has ever tried to present such any of those other arguments.
People who have noted that the "pictures" that we had of them were faked are, in fact, telling the truth.. because previously we only had artists renditions, and nobody with any scientific integrity was trying to push those pictures off as the real thing anyways.
The only thing we previously had to prove that they really existed was the theory which predicted that they would, and the indirect evidence of their existence through gravitational lensing.
But of course, this doesn't make much sense to most laypersons... while a photograph does, which is why the argument against their existence stating that we haven't taken any pictures of them can be put to rest.
But hey.... you can go on and try and keep it alive, if you really want to... but at that point, it's just a simple contradiction, not an argument.
You might not have noticed that I specifically said that I have an account that does *NOT* charge any usage fees per transaction... so there are no "hidden" charges.
No... I know how much money I have because I can do math.
As for being billed the wrong amount... first of all, the machine expects me to acknowledge the amount I'm paying before I do anything. If the vendor passes me the machine after bypassing this verification, I will hand it back to them and tell them to punch it in again, because I want to verify the amount I am paying myself.
If I do not bother to ensure that they are billing me what I expect, how is that any different than not making sure that a cashier is giving you back the right amount of change?
If the vendor is somehow forging all of this information, including the receipt the debit machine prints, then I can show the receipt to my bank when I discover the discrepancy, and they will reimburse me and go after the vendor. It's not worth their time to bother to try because all it takes is one person to complain and their business is over.
If you don't have much money and you have a bank account, pretty soon you will have no money.
Only if you are not very good at paying attention to exactly how your money is being spent.
A funny thing about being poor is that you end up learning how to really make every dollar stretch as absolutely far as it will go... and whether currency might be purely electronic with direct payment does not have to impede that.
I know exactly how much I paid with direct payment as well... as I said, my bank account has no hidden fees per transaction, with the benefit that I don't have to carry cash around everywhere. Direct payment is accepted virtually everywhere locally for me, as well as most of the other places I have occasion to travel to. The only time I find direct payment to be less convenient is is when I travel to another country, and only then do I either need to carry either currency local to where I am travelling, or else use a credit card.
Also, I expect that the government and bank have more important things to do than monitor my pathetic spending habits anyways.
You don't have to have much money to have a bank account.... hell, I was on the verge of becoming homeless some 25 or so years ago and I still had a bank account. Granted, not much money was in it most of the time, but it was still there... and when I got paid, the money went in, and I'd pay everything electronically up until the money ran out... wash, rinse, repeat, every pay cycle. I lived like this for years.
I might carry cash maybe only one or two times a year today... but even back then I still hardly ever handled cash. It was simply easier to pay for everything through e-transfer or direct payment... I also made sure to get an account with no extra fees for each such usage, so I wasn't getting dinged with unexpected user fees.
To follow up, further... nobody who I know who has refuted that black holes exist has tried to hold a claim that the scientists who came up with this idea were merely guessing... they accept that the theories predicted they exist, but they simply doubt that they exist because we've never seen photographs of them.
I'm not talking about obstinate flat-earth type people here who are stubbornly clinging to an unscientific view that has already been disproved by a preponderance of real evidence, I'm talking about perfectly ordinary and open-minded, but not necessarily scientifically literate people whose sole stated reason for doubting that black holes actually do exist in the real world is simply based on the fact that we hadn't actually seen one yet.
I didn't move the goalposts at all. the argument I've always hated is that they didn't believe that black holes existed because we hadn't ever taken any pictures of one.
Now we have. Whether they believe in the veracity of the photo is irrelevant... they cannot use that argument anymore.
If they want to persist in the delusion, they will have to now argue that there is a conspiracy or a coverup or that this evidence was artificially manufactured.
But they can't say that we haven't taken any pictures of one.
Obviously they can doubt the veracity of the photographs, but they can't actually say that we haven't claimed to have actually seen photographs of them.
*THAT* is the argument from ignorance that I've repeatedly heard from absolutely anyone I've ever met who has taken the stance of not believing in the existence of black holes.
Now we have photographs... or at least are claiming to... whether those idiots believe that they are actual photos of real black holes is irrelevant, they can't say that nobody's claimed to have ever seen one anymore.
I never said that... it's just that this argument is one that I've seen used a lot by people who doubted the existence of black holes, and now, at least, they can't use that argument anymore.
I'm sure it won't stop them from coming up with some other reason to doubt it, but this is one I've heard *repeatedly*, from literally every single person I've ever met who didn't think they existed.
I think you completely missed my point.... When the subject comes up, I have maintained for at least the past two decades that black holes really do exist. I have gotten into rather heated discussions on this subject with many people, and *BY FAR*, the most frequent objection I have heard from others to their existence is that we supposedly can't know they exist because we can't see them. This is an argument from ignorance, and is one that I absolutely loathe.
Obviously other no less ignorant arguments might exist, but hopefully this particular one can finally be put to bed.
Not exactly... the ring is actually "colored" in the X-ray region... I'm unaware of any detectable EM radiation emitted by the otherwise invisible portions of the inauguration crowd.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Kirk says "Scotty, Beam me up" in ST4, and in one episode of TOS he just said "Beam me up".
A hologram isn't a 2d image that appears to be projected onto something that is otherwise invisible such as glass. It is literally a 3-dimensional image that you will perceive as 3D even when you are right in front of it.
Looking at a holographic plate with an image in it is like looking through a window at something which is beyond it, where the size of the holographic plate is the size of the window. You get all the parallax effects with a hologram just as you would with real 3-dimensional objects.
That technique is over a century old and is referred to as "Pepper's Ghost". It is well established technique used in illusion and other entertainment.
A hologram is a *THREE* dimensional image, not a two-dimensional one projected onto glass.
As you move relative to the position of a hologram, your perspective of it changes just as it would if you were to move around an actual 3-dimensional object, and even the differences between what your left eye sees and right eye sees will be different enough at close distances that your brain will tell you you are looking at something with actual depth.
No so-called "hologram" of Tupac ever did that.
I have teenage grandchildren, so I'm objectively not young, and I never would have thought of myself as lucky, while I have had no particular reason to think my situation is unusual. I do not procrastinate on financial matters, I have disciplined myself to be cognizant of and responsible for the transactions that I enter into, and I make sure to read the fine print of any agreements I enter into with institutions such as banks. I know that if I failed to do even one these things, there are many times in my life I would certainly have been screwed over, with no affordable recourse, just as you suggested might happen to me someday.
No...
THAT is fraud.
I don't authorize payments when I don't know the amounts ahead of time.
Because, funnily enough, I though that my own experiences with being poor and having no problems dealing with a bank just might qualify me to have an opinion about the subject
My point was that there is no real incentive for any one to do this *deliberately*.
I have dealt with being poor, but I have never been so miserly and distrustful of what might happen as a result of a mistake that I was unwilling to forgive it and to wait until it was fixed because in my experience, it always has been.
But oops.... I guess that's my own experience, and I'm not really allowed to talk about that because it's apparently different from your expectation about reality.
I made the assumption only that my situation was nothing particularly special, and that I am not particularly unique, and given that, I see no reason why others could not have similar benign interactions with a bank, even while living with very low income.
Urban legend, I'm afraid.
I'll bet if you completely exclude specific criteria from being a factor for consideration because of some undesired bias that might occur around such information, the resulting decisions may still show bias.
First of all, I don't generally waste my time even trying to have a discussion on the matter with people who aren't interested in real science. The objection that we hadn't previously had any photographs of a black hole, even though it is an argument from ignorance, was nonetheless still built on a factual premise. That isn't the case anymore.
And to that end, I'd like to point out that most of the people who have presented the argument of being skeptical about the existence of black holes are not doing so because they are obstinate idiots who refuse to believe in something despite evidence... they are in my experience relatively open-minded individuals who simply don't understand the physics well enough to accept the existence of black holes as a given, and in such cases, a photograph is going to feel more real to these people than something that has only ever previously been presented as an artists rendition based on a theory that they don't actually understand.
You have the same amount of money either way... what difference does it make if it's physically in your pocket or not?
Speaking for myself, I've noticed that usually when I use a debit card, as soon as I press "OK" to confirm and complete the transaction, I have the distinct sense of the money I've just made getting sucked away. There is definitely some "disgust" going on there, so I'm not so sure that your conclusion about only experiencing pleasure with a card is valid.
No, I think fraud would be a reason to press charges. If they claim to have charged me X, and the receipt shows X, but bank statement says that they charged me Y, I can show the receipt to the bank as evidence of deliberate fraud. In this case, it would amount to forging the receipt and tampering with the equipment that communicates with the bank to show something different than what is actually charged. Yes, it's after it happened, but the consequences to them are severe enough that it's unlikely to occur.
If I had every reason to expect that the charge will be X before the transaction, but the receipt actually says Y, I will be pointing that out right away just the same as if you handed the cashier a $50, but they hand you change as if you handed them $20. That's after you've made payment too.... what are you going to do? It's your word against theirs at that point, isn't it?
I can do math on the numbers I am told I will have taken from my account... and I'm not going to authorize someone to take money from my account unless they do tell me in advance how much they are going to take. With the form of direct payment that I most often use, the machine I put my card into indicates the amount they will charge me before the transaction goes through. If it's different than what they said, I note the discrepancy before I've even paid. This happens sometimes, and I will typically assume it is a keyboarding error and give them the opportunity to correct it before trying the transaction again
With forms of direct payment that don't include a machine, I will not authorize it in the first place unless I know before the charge happens how much they are going to take. If they end up taking more, yes, I won't know about it until after it happens, but I would still have just cause to dispute the charge with the bank. The company would face a chargeback for the difference, and it's probably not in their best interests to do this often enough to be profitable. This has only ever happened to me once in my life, and apparently it was the result of a keyboarding error on their end. I was refunded the money within the same day I saw the discrepancy on my statement.
That's funny... I thought we were talking about people on low income and its impact on the ability to use banking.
As I have definitely gone through a very long period of being low income, and this did not adversely affect my ability to use a bank, I figured that my experiences in the matter might be relevant. I watched how I spent my money, and I made sure to deal with insitutions that were favorable to my situation.
My bad for making the assumption that my experience might qualify me to express any opinion, I guess.
Speaking of fallacies, strawman much?
I did *NOT* say that any of that other stuff annoys me, because nobody in my experience has ever tried to present such any of those other arguments.
People who have noted that the "pictures" that we had of them were faked are, in fact, telling the truth.. because previously we only had artists renditions, and nobody with any scientific integrity was trying to push those pictures off as the real thing anyways.
The only thing we previously had to prove that they really existed was the theory which predicted that they would, and the indirect evidence of their existence through gravitational lensing.
But of course, this doesn't make much sense to most laypersons... while a photograph does, which is why the argument against their existence stating that we haven't taken any pictures of them can be put to rest.
But hey.... you can go on and try and keep it alive, if you really want to... but at that point, it's just a simple contradiction, not an argument.
You might not have noticed that I specifically said that I have an account that does *NOT* charge any usage fees per transaction... so there are no "hidden" charges.
No... I know how much money I have because I can do math.
As for being billed the wrong amount... first of all, the machine expects me to acknowledge the amount I'm paying before I do anything. If the vendor passes me the machine after bypassing this verification, I will hand it back to them and tell them to punch it in again, because I want to verify the amount I am paying myself.
If I do not bother to ensure that they are billing me what I expect, how is that any different than not making sure that a cashier is giving you back the right amount of change?
If the vendor is somehow forging all of this information, including the receipt the debit machine prints, then I can show the receipt to my bank when I discover the discrepancy, and they will reimburse me and go after the vendor. It's not worth their time to bother to try because all it takes is one person to complain and their business is over.
Only if you are not very good at paying attention to exactly how your money is being spent.
A funny thing about being poor is that you end up learning how to really make every dollar stretch as absolutely far as it will go... and whether currency might be purely electronic with direct payment does not have to impede that.
I know exactly how much I paid with direct payment as well... as I said, my bank account has no hidden fees per transaction, with the benefit that I don't have to carry cash around everywhere. Direct payment is accepted virtually everywhere locally for me, as well as most of the other places I have occasion to travel to. The only time I find direct payment to be less convenient is is when I travel to another country, and only then do I either need to carry either currency local to where I am travelling, or else use a credit card.
Also, I expect that the government and bank have more important things to do than monitor my pathetic spending habits anyways.
You don't have to have much money to have a bank account.... hell, I was on the verge of becoming homeless some 25 or so years ago and I still had a bank account. Granted, not much money was in it most of the time, but it was still there... and when I got paid, the money went in, and I'd pay everything electronically up until the money ran out... wash, rinse, repeat, every pay cycle. I lived like this for years.
I might carry cash maybe only one or two times a year today... but even back then I still hardly ever handled cash. It was simply easier to pay for everything through e-transfer or direct payment... I also made sure to get an account with no extra fees for each such usage, so I wasn't getting dinged with unexpected user fees.
To follow up, further... nobody who I know who has refuted that black holes exist has tried to hold a claim that the scientists who came up with this idea were merely guessing... they accept that the theories predicted they exist, but they simply doubt that they exist because we've never seen photographs of them.
I'm not talking about obstinate flat-earth type people here who are stubbornly clinging to an unscientific view that has already been disproved by a preponderance of real evidence, I'm talking about perfectly ordinary and open-minded, but not necessarily scientifically literate people whose sole stated reason for doubting that black holes actually do exist in the real world is simply based on the fact that we hadn't actually seen one yet.
Now we have. Whether they believe in the veracity of the photo is irrelevant... they cannot use that argument anymore.
If they want to persist in the delusion, they will have to now argue that there is a conspiracy or a coverup or that this evidence was artificially manufactured.
But they can't say that we haven't taken any pictures of one.
Obviously they can doubt the veracity of the photographs, but they can't actually say that we haven't claimed to have actually seen photographs of them.
*THAT* is the argument from ignorance that I've repeatedly heard from absolutely anyone I've ever met who has taken the stance of not believing in the existence of black holes.
Now we have photographs... or at least are claiming to... whether those idiots believe that they are actual photos of real black holes is irrelevant, they can't say that nobody's claimed to have ever seen one anymore.
I never said that... it's just that this argument is one that I've seen used a lot by people who doubted the existence of black holes, and now, at least, they can't use that argument anymore.
I'm sure it won't stop them from coming up with some other reason to doubt it, but this is one I've heard *repeatedly*, from literally every single person I've ever met who didn't think they existed.
I think you completely missed my point.... When the subject comes up, I have maintained for at least the past two decades that black holes really do exist. I have gotten into rather heated discussions on this subject with many people, and *BY FAR*, the most frequent objection I have heard from others to their existence is that we supposedly can't know they exist because we can't see them. This is an argument from ignorance, and is one that I absolutely loathe.
Obviously other no less ignorant arguments might exist, but hopefully this particular one can finally be put to bed.
Not exactly... the ring is actually "colored" in the X-ray region... I'm unaware of any detectable EM radiation emitted by the otherwise invisible portions of the inauguration crowd.
It is artificially colored. The actual "color" of the disk is not in the visible spectrum
Thank you, science... hopefully I seen the last of this argument from ignorance.