Yes, it's blatently illegal even in the USA. Still, it's for a very small town with a population of like 50, which is all about as white as you can get in the midwest. It's also old. It's not on anybody's priority list, not even mine. I knew it was a non-enforceable law, but wanted to get rid of it to prevent it from being abused by some joker. Such abuse being unlikely unless things massively change there.
This is why I like the idea of having ALL laws auto-sunset every 10 years(or so). 1. Keep legislatures busy re-approving old laws rather than passing new 2. Get a review of the old laws going.
As the AC mentioned, it's a specificality thing. When all you have to go on is 'Indians aren't allowed to buy alcohol', is it refering to Natives(further explanation in the rules would make that obvious) or those from India, the country?
When I was a kid, Indian = Native American. Now that I've traveled the world a bit, I use Indian to specify people from India enough that I have to use NA.
I was basically told that they were no longer enforcing it. It was just in the book I got when I moved in along with some $10 fee for running a dance hall, rules on dog registration, etc...
I'm not sure anybody fron India has actually been within 10 miles of the town, or that the guy running the single bar cares.
If I was in that town I'd be pushing for it's repeal. Just like I pushed for getting rid of the ban on selling alcohol to indians in my old town. Yes, the law called them Indians.
It may not be the 'coding graphics' so much as 'extensive work on a computer'. I'm one of the ones who went nuts about CRTs set to 60hz refresh. I 'needed' at least 70. Otherwise I could see it, which would give me a headache and eye strain if I had to work on the system longer than it took to set the refresh higher(in windows based systems, for monitors that supported the higher refresh).
Sounds like we have much the same problem. Like in my original post; maybe it's something else, such as some trick with the polarization glasses, but I can't tell without more extensive testing, and 'low effective refresh/blink/frame rate' is as good of a theory as any, and this one promises to be testable.
Indeed, DragonWriter's post shows the real reason for a director/producer to want to push for new equipment in theaters: To make their movie look better/be more presentable to a wider array of audiences.
48 hz, assuming it's per frame, is simply giving 'good old' 24 hz to each eye as opposed to the current effective 12 hz, which is trending into perceptability for those of us with quick eyes. Just like how with the necessary polarization for 3D, you really have to ramp up the brightness of the bulb to get a film that's acceptably bright.
Of course, with all the above slap on a 'good enough is good enough' disclaimer with that most people don't really care all that much. I'm certainly not silver-eared or golden-eyed, though I DO experience flicker faster than most(make up for it with otherwise bad vision). Give me a 3D that doesn't give me headaches and I'll see a lot more 3D films.
Now, I'm not an expert, this is all personal experience. That said, I'm one of the unlucky ones to be sensitive to flicker. I can/could see the flicker of refresh for the old CRTs when they were set to 60 hz. 70-72 generally fixed that, so I wouldn't rate myself as 'extreme', but I'm definitely in the minority. I also require a strong prescription to reach 20/20, including astigmatisms. When it comes to 3d movies, I start experiencing eye fatigue by 30 minutes in, and actual pain for longer movies. That being said, sure, I'd love to see a movie in 3d, but the question becomes 'is it worth the headache'? Especially if the ticket price is 50% more? We're looking at straws here. Our local theater tried showing films only in 3d, but found that they lost business that way. Cheapskates, headaches
This push for higher frame rates indicates to me that it MIGHT be due to frame rate; going 3d cuts the effective frame rate in half. So the traditional 24fps becomes 12 fps for 3d presentations(though there are tricks). I figure that back in the old days 24fps was chosen because it was the level at which 99.9% of the population was good with it. Cutting that in half just isn't going to work well. Going to a 48fps rate would simply restore the 24 fps(per eye) that has been acceptable with 2d presentations for decades.
If you figure that people like me are something like 20% of the population and that we're evenly distributed, your typical 'family of four' only has a ~40% chance of all members being okay with 3d and not whining to see the 2d version. Which isn't good when you're looking to charge a premium and get higher profits for the 3d version. People messing with the 3d glasses to restore 2d images is very much in the minority, and if it's the 12 fps that's causing issues, they'd get that with custom glasses as well.
What I'm seeing here is a disagreement on the time frames involved. I liked one of the posters who mentioned 'acute emergency'. A wildfire miles away, with the area being declared a 'pre-evacuation' zone indicates that there is not only no exceptional danger yet, but that there's an emergency alert system in place to tell you BEFORE it becomes acute.
In which case acting to protect property is still on the cards. Choices include 'shelter in place' and 'evacuate'. For a fire, the answer is generally evacuate for people, but the equipment can still shelter.
The ideal time to be planning for an emergency is always NOW. Plan for fire even if there's no wildfires in the state, no fire in the building, but if it's too late for that, you can still improve your situation by doing the planning. A bit more expensive, results aren't going to be quite as good, but it can still be done.
Long term(fire not expected other than general threat), if you're in an area where wildfires are a possibility, involves turning your building into a shelter. Don't put vinyl siding up, put up aluminum or even steel, backed by the appropriate fire-resistant insulation. Install fireproof shutters. I've seen vinyl siding melt with just radiant heat; once it's gone the wood behind it can catch. Clear an area around the building, short grass or better yet fire resistant plants such as Sage or Yarrow for within 30 feet of the building. Remember, keep the plants trimmed, and water when fire is expected!
Medium term(fire is expected within days) - too late to change what's planted, your roof/siding, etc... You still have time, depending on your available resources, to remove dead vegetation, trees too close to the building, mow the lawn short(and the only time I'd bag and remove the cuttings). After that, wet everything down to protect against cinders.
Short term(hours) - remove what dead vegetation and trees that you can, set up what water you can, leave early so that you're not fighting with the other last minute evacuees.
Acute - leave already! Forget everything except maybe the backup tapes. Which should have been in an appropriate firesafe/cabinet already. Remember: A firesafe rated for paper is NOT rated for magnetic tape for the same temperatures/times. The average 'fireproof' safe or filing cabinet is only rated for paper. You can get removable type drive bays that are rated for fire/water. But at 15 minutes of protection, they're unlikely to work against a wildfire sparked building fire.
He still makes a good point. I've read about fire prevention tactics. Turns out that we CAN build stuff that survives the worst wildfires possible, to the point that firefighters have sheltered in them in emergencies. Heck, in my time with the department they were getting tents that could protect a single fighter through a grass fire(nasty fast) that can be deployed in less than 30 seconds by said fighter.
The sprinklers aren't to stop a fire right alongside the building, the sprinklers are to keep blown cinders, possibly from miles away, from igniting the building. The water keeps the roof wet, making it harder to ignite, and the continued flow helps put out any cinders that land. Heck, washing them to the gutters wouldn't hurt(there's more water in them anyways).
On buildings - Brick and metal siding, metal/shale roof. Surround with fire resistant plants out to an appropriate distance, keep the grass well mowed. It's a bit like planning for a siege(by fire). Deny fuel close to the building so you don't get a raging fire right next to the building, have fire resistant barriers that prevent ignition via blown cinders that you simply can't have a cleared field big enough to prevent.
The fact remains that a storm shutter easily equivalent to said 3/4" plywood should be readily available and probably actually be cheaper once you consider the time needed to put the plywood up vs closing the storm shutters, not putting screw holes in your frame, and the fact that hurricanes in many areas are an annual occurance. So if the shutters last 20 years and you need to replace the plywood every 5...
Source on this? To my knowledge we interned some Japanese in camps that most came out of alive, engaged in some rather shady medical studies on blacks, etc...
But they're still a couple OOM under the death tolls of Soviet Russia, much less Red China.
Then again, technically speaking everybody dies eventually. But I consider the government that lets the most people live a reasonably long, reasonably happy lives.
Well, despite being a self-described libertarian I've always felt that anarchists were loony. This 'Libertarian Socialism' reads, to me, like plain old Communism, which is also loony, and trying to combine it with libertarian ideals squares the loonacy. To be fair I'll admit to calling my own party looney, and that I probably haven't read far enough in spot any subtle differences, but like I said, the wiki article made my head hurt. I'd actually be tempted to go in and delete it, as the whole 'libertarian' tie seems to be mostly from half a dozen articles published under the title in the 1970's that got the publishers kicked out of their own organization.
Who the heck wrote that? I'm used to certain anarchists attempting to label themselves as libertarians. Sometimes it's them seeing anarchy as a poisoned term, sometimes they're just confused, but what the heck is up with this 'libertarian socialism'?
Reading the site, it seems to have as much in common as the Roman Church does with Buddhism. Heck, just my 15 minute review made my brain hurt, and that doesn't happen often.
My response to such would be to burn down that forest while publicly announcing that we're clear-cutting this section of old grown forest(the spiked ones were likely farm trees) as replacement.
I'd say 'rounds to zero', but not actually zero. There ARE a few ways to get HIV other than sex; the blood supply SHOULD be clean(but vanishingly rare accidents do happen, there's yea old 'sharing needles', and the occasional cracked person (such as that dentist) trying to spread the infection.
There's a few other diseases that are 'mostly' spread sexually, but not always, as well.
1. Bad management decisions made during the first generation of nuclear plant building; My entire argument is basically 'We've learned!'
2. A single meltdown is too much? By what standard of measurement? Coal power kills millions. Nuclear power kills hundreds. Natural gas might poison people(see fracking and burning tap water).
Nuclear simply is not compatible with the human race.
The human race isn't compatible with the human race. Given that we're far better off with power than without it, the question becomes 'What are our best choices'. Nuclear is actually pretty good from a safety and expense standpoint. I wouldn't go 100% nuclear, but 40% wouldn't be bad. BTW, this is ~double the current percentage.
Note the context of my construction - we start building nuclear plants, shutting down the dirtiest coal plants first; this saves us LOTS of pollution and the resulting doctors visits, medicines, sick days, and even cases of fatal lung cancer. Then we shut down the worst/oldest nuclear plants with ones designed to be even more safe than the old ones.
Strawman? It happened. Lots of coal plants were built even as protests happened at nuclear plant construction sites. You get more BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) types going after coal today, but there's still more opposition to nuclear.
I forgot to specify distance though - the figure I remember from the study is 'half the increased risk that a smoker has to get lung cancer within 5 miles of the plant'. Still, Coal costs a LOT of lives and medical expenses for things like Asthma.
I don't think I'm a crazy nuke supporter, my 'plan' is pretty simple. For a carbon neutral electric grid(leaving carbon production to other industries and transportation, which is still pretty hefty), my mix is 40% nuclear(2X today, a bit less than the 44% that is produced by coal today), 20% solar(~100X current), 20% wind(~10X), and 20% other. Other consists of Hydro 6%(pretty much maxed), Biomass, Geothermal, Tidal, etc... It could as easily be 40% nuclear, 40% wind, 10% solar, 10% other though.
In doing this, you shut down the coal plants first, then the older(less safe) nuclear plants, then start drawing back on things like natural gas. Save coal for making Iron/Steel, and NG for chemical production, heating homes, and fueling vehicles.
What I think is funny are the people who worry about getting cancer from the minuscule, barely measurable radiation drifting in weather patterns and then sit down to a breakfast of bacon and eggs.
Not to mention set up such a racket about running a nuclear plant while ignoring the coal plant down the road that's giving everybody a chance at lung cancer halfway towards being a smoker.
One thing I've noticed about metric vs imperial is that metric is more useful for scientific measures and simplicity. Imperial is more useful for actually doing things without a calculator when 'close enough' is good enough.
Once you're used to the system, doubling, halving, or even tripling or thirding a recipie is easy with imperial. It's a bit more of a pain to do it with metric. When building a house, I've seen people use the base 12 system to do all sorts of useful ratio stuff quickly and easily.
There's nothing all that special about base-10. One can argue that base-12 is more useful in a lot of ways.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it's blatently illegal even in the USA. Still, it's for a very small town with a population of like 50, which is all about as white as you can get in the midwest. It's also old. It's not on anybody's priority list, not even mine. I knew it was a non-enforceable law, but wanted to get rid of it to prevent it from being abused by some joker. Such abuse being unlikely unless things massively change there.
Without sticking 'American' in there, how do I tell the difference from an Indian from India?
This is why I like the idea of having ALL laws auto-sunset every 10 years(or so).
1. Keep legislatures busy re-approving old laws rather than passing new
2. Get a review of the old laws going.
As the AC mentioned, it's a specificality thing. When all you have to go on is 'Indians aren't allowed to buy alcohol', is it refering to Natives(further explanation in the rules would make that obvious) or those from India, the country?
When I was a kid, Indian = Native American. Now that I've traveled the world a bit, I use Indian to specify people from India enough that I have to use NA.
You might object to the phrasing of that rule/law though. Too bad I no longer have the books.
Paraphrasing a bit: 'No alcohol will be sold to those under 16, habitual drunks, or indians.'
I was basically told that they were no longer enforcing it. It was just in the book I got when I moved in along with some $10 fee for running a dance hall, rules on dog registration, etc...
I'm not sure anybody fron India has actually been within 10 miles of the town, or that the guy running the single bar cares.
Not to mention -and has been since at least 1983.
If I was in that town I'd be pushing for it's repeal. Just like I pushed for getting rid of the ban on selling alcohol to indians in my old town. Yes, the law called them Indians.
It may not be the 'coding graphics' so much as 'extensive work on a computer'. I'm one of the ones who went nuts about CRTs set to 60hz refresh. I 'needed' at least 70. Otherwise I could see it, which would give me a headache and eye strain if I had to work on the system longer than it took to set the refresh higher(in windows based systems, for monitors that supported the higher refresh).
Sounds like we have much the same problem. Like in my original post; maybe it's something else, such as some trick with the polarization glasses, but I can't tell without more extensive testing, and 'low effective refresh/blink/frame rate' is as good of a theory as any, and this one promises to be testable.
Indeed, DragonWriter's post shows the real reason for a director/producer to want to push for new equipment in theaters: To make their movie look better/be more presentable to a wider array of audiences.
48 hz, assuming it's per frame, is simply giving 'good old' 24 hz to each eye as opposed to the current effective 12 hz, which is trending into perceptability for those of us with quick eyes. Just like how with the necessary polarization for 3D, you really have to ramp up the brightness of the bulb to get a film that's acceptably bright.
Of course, with all the above slap on a 'good enough is good enough' disclaimer with that most people don't really care all that much. I'm certainly not silver-eared or golden-eyed, though I DO experience flicker faster than most(make up for it with otherwise bad vision). Give me a 3D that doesn't give me headaches and I'll see a lot more 3D films.
Now, I'm not an expert, this is all personal experience. That said, I'm one of the unlucky ones to be sensitive to flicker. I can/could see the flicker of refresh for the old CRTs when they were set to 60 hz. 70-72 generally fixed that, so I wouldn't rate myself as 'extreme', but I'm definitely in the minority. I also require a strong prescription to reach 20/20, including astigmatisms. When it comes to 3d movies, I start experiencing eye fatigue by 30 minutes in, and actual pain for longer movies. That being said, sure, I'd love to see a movie in 3d, but the question becomes 'is it worth the headache'? Especially if the ticket price is 50% more? We're looking at straws here. Our local theater tried showing films only in 3d, but found that they lost business that way. Cheapskates, headaches
This push for higher frame rates indicates to me that it MIGHT be due to frame rate; going 3d cuts the effective frame rate in half. So the traditional 24fps becomes 12 fps for 3d presentations(though there are tricks). I figure that back in the old days 24fps was chosen because it was the level at which 99.9% of the population was good with it. Cutting that in half just isn't going to work well. Going to a 48fps rate would simply restore the 24 fps(per eye) that has been acceptable with 2d presentations for decades.
If you figure that people like me are something like 20% of the population and that we're evenly distributed, your typical 'family of four' only has a ~40% chance of all members being okay with 3d and not whining to see the 2d version. Which isn't good when you're looking to charge a premium and get higher profits for the 3d version. People messing with the 3d glasses to restore 2d images is very much in the minority, and if it's the 12 fps that's causing issues, they'd get that with custom glasses as well.
What I'm seeing here is a disagreement on the time frames involved. I liked one of the posters who mentioned 'acute emergency'. A wildfire miles away, with the area being declared a 'pre-evacuation' zone indicates that there is not only no exceptional danger yet, but that there's an emergency alert system in place to tell you BEFORE it becomes acute.
In which case acting to protect property is still on the cards. Choices include 'shelter in place' and 'evacuate'. For a fire, the answer is generally evacuate for people, but the equipment can still shelter.
The ideal time to be planning for an emergency is always NOW. Plan for fire even if there's no wildfires in the state, no fire in the building, but if it's too late for that, you can still improve your situation by doing the planning. A bit more expensive, results aren't going to be quite as good, but it can still be done.
Long term(fire not expected other than general threat), if you're in an area where wildfires are a possibility, involves turning your building into a shelter. Don't put vinyl siding up, put up aluminum or even steel, backed by the appropriate fire-resistant insulation. Install fireproof shutters. I've seen vinyl siding melt with just radiant heat; once it's gone the wood behind it can catch. Clear an area around the building, short grass or better yet fire resistant plants such as Sage or Yarrow for within 30 feet of the building. Remember, keep the plants trimmed, and water when fire is expected!
Medium term(fire is expected within days) - too late to change what's planted, your roof/siding, etc... You still have time, depending on your available resources, to remove dead vegetation, trees too close to the building, mow the lawn short(and the only time I'd bag and remove the cuttings). After that, wet everything down to protect against cinders.
Short term(hours) - remove what dead vegetation and trees that you can, set up what water you can, leave early so that you're not fighting with the other last minute evacuees.
Acute - leave already! Forget everything except maybe the backup tapes. Which should have been in an appropriate firesafe/cabinet already. Remember: A firesafe rated for paper is NOT rated for magnetic tape for the same temperatures/times. The average 'fireproof' safe or filing cabinet is only rated for paper. You can get removable type drive bays that are rated for fire/water. But at 15 minutes of protection, they're unlikely to work against a wildfire sparked building fire.
He still makes a good point. I've read about fire prevention tactics. Turns out that we CAN build stuff that survives the worst wildfires possible, to the point that firefighters have sheltered in them in emergencies. Heck, in my time with the department they were getting tents that could protect a single fighter through a grass fire(nasty fast) that can be deployed in less than 30 seconds by said fighter.
The sprinklers aren't to stop a fire right alongside the building, the sprinklers are to keep blown cinders, possibly from miles away, from igniting the building. The water keeps the roof wet, making it harder to ignite, and the continued flow helps put out any cinders that land. Heck, washing them to the gutters wouldn't hurt(there's more water in them anyways).
On buildings - Brick and metal siding, metal/shale roof. Surround with fire resistant plants out to an appropriate distance, keep the grass well mowed. It's a bit like planning for a siege(by fire). Deny fuel close to the building so you don't get a raging fire right next to the building, have fire resistant barriers that prevent ignition via blown cinders that you simply can't have a cleared field big enough to prevent.
The fact remains that a storm shutter easily equivalent to said 3/4" plywood should be readily available and probably actually be cheaper once you consider the time needed to put the plywood up vs closing the storm shutters, not putting screw holes in your frame, and the fact that hurricanes in many areas are an annual occurance. So if the shutters last 20 years and you need to replace the plywood every 5...
Source on this? To my knowledge we interned some Japanese in camps that most came out of alive, engaged in some rather shady medical studies on blacks, etc...
But they're still a couple OOM under the death tolls of Soviet Russia, much less Red China.
Then again, technically speaking everybody dies eventually. But I consider the government that lets the most people live a reasonably long, reasonably happy lives.
Both regimes killed how many scores of people doing it? Also, both ended up being more oligarchies than communist utopias.
Well, despite being a self-described libertarian I've always felt that anarchists were loony. This 'Libertarian Socialism' reads, to me, like plain old Communism, which is also loony, and trying to combine it with libertarian ideals squares the loonacy. To be fair I'll admit to calling my own party looney, and that I probably haven't read far enough in spot any subtle differences, but like I said, the wiki article made my head hurt. I'd actually be tempted to go in and delete it, as the whole 'libertarian' tie seems to be mostly from half a dozen articles published under the title in the 1970's that got the publishers kicked out of their own organization.
Who the heck wrote that? I'm used to certain anarchists attempting to label themselves as libertarians. Sometimes it's them seeing anarchy as a poisoned term, sometimes they're just confused, but what the heck is up with this 'libertarian socialism'?
Reading the site, it seems to have as much in common as the Roman Church does with Buddhism. Heck, just my 15 minute review made my brain hurt, and that doesn't happen often.
My response to such would be to burn down that forest while publicly announcing that we're clear-cutting this section of old grown forest(the spiked ones were likely farm trees) as replacement.
But then, I tend to be vengefully petty.
I'd say 'rounds to zero', but not actually zero. There ARE a few ways to get HIV other than sex; the blood supply SHOULD be clean(but vanishingly rare accidents do happen, there's yea old 'sharing needles', and the occasional cracked person (such as that dentist) trying to spread the infection.
There's a few other diseases that are 'mostly' spread sexually, but not always, as well.
1. Bad management decisions made during the first generation of nuclear plant building; My entire argument is basically 'We've learned!'
2. A single meltdown is too much? By what standard of measurement? Coal power kills millions. Nuclear power kills hundreds. Natural gas might poison people(see fracking and burning tap water).
Nuclear simply is not compatible with the human race.
The human race isn't compatible with the human race. Given that we're far better off with power than without it, the question becomes 'What are our best choices'. Nuclear is actually pretty good from a safety and expense standpoint. I wouldn't go 100% nuclear, but 40% wouldn't be bad. BTW, this is ~double the current percentage.
Note the context of my construction - we start building nuclear plants, shutting down the dirtiest coal plants first; this saves us LOTS of pollution and the resulting doctors visits, medicines, sick days, and even cases of fatal lung cancer. Then we shut down the worst/oldest nuclear plants with ones designed to be even more safe than the old ones.
Except they do exist; heck, they used to bus them in to protest at construction projects.
Strawman? It happened. Lots of coal plants were built even as protests happened at nuclear plant construction sites. You get more BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) types going after coal today, but there's still more opposition to nuclear.
I forgot to specify distance though - the figure I remember from the study is 'half the increased risk that a smoker has to get lung cancer within 5 miles of the plant'. Still, Coal costs a LOT of lives and medical expenses for things like Asthma.
I don't think I'm a crazy nuke supporter, my 'plan' is pretty simple. For a carbon neutral electric grid(leaving carbon production to other industries and transportation, which is still pretty hefty), my mix is 40% nuclear(2X today, a bit less than the 44% that is produced by coal today), 20% solar(~100X current), 20% wind(~10X), and 20% other. Other consists of Hydro 6%(pretty much maxed), Biomass, Geothermal, Tidal, etc... It could as easily be 40% nuclear, 40% wind, 10% solar, 10% other though.
In doing this, you shut down the coal plants first, then the older(less safe) nuclear plants, then start drawing back on things like natural gas. Save coal for making Iron/Steel, and NG for chemical production, heating homes, and fueling vehicles.
And that protects against insurgents digging chips out of themselves and swapping in chips pulled from dead bodies how?
What I think is funny are the people who worry about getting cancer from the minuscule, barely measurable radiation drifting in weather patterns and then sit down to a breakfast of bacon and eggs.
Not to mention set up such a racket about running a nuclear plant while ignoring the coal plant down the road that's giving everybody a chance at lung cancer halfway towards being a smoker.
It is when all your maps are marked up in acres.
One thing I've noticed about metric vs imperial is that metric is more useful for scientific measures and simplicity. Imperial is more useful for actually doing things without a calculator when 'close enough' is good enough.
Once you're used to the system, doubling, halving, or even tripling or thirding a recipie is easy with imperial. It's a bit more of a pain to do it with metric. When building a house, I've seen people use the base 12 system to do all sorts of useful ratio stuff quickly and easily.
There's nothing all that special about base-10. One can argue that base-12 is more useful in a lot of ways.