mechanically spinning (Nipkov) disks with different coulered gelatines.
Which brings me to the CBS color system, alluded to in the article as a experimental system. (It used two spinning color disks. When you switched back to a black and white program, you flipped a toggle to turn the spinning disks off. It was less than 400 horizontal lines, so I imagine it sucked too.)
It was not meant to be experimental, CBS fully intended it to be the color standard. It *was* the chosen standard by the FCC.
But RCA fought back, and fought hard, delaying implementation. The FCC chose the CBS system again in the 1953, but then NBC started broadcasting in RCA color in 1954.
The RCA (NTSC) system was backwards/forwards compatible, a show shown in NTSC color would be picked up by a black and white TV. This was not the case with the CBS system. By 1953, too many people had black and white TV's, which would have needed replacement if the CBS system really won the day.
NBC broadcast color, CBS got cheesed off and wouldn't touch color until the mid/late 60's, and ABC saw no reason to make color programs to encourage NBC/RCA sales. By the mid 60s, ABC saw the potential in color, and CBS had no choice but to follow.
I wouldn't go so far as to call NTSC "elegent", though it is clever especially with regards to how it implemented colour.
NTSC's big claim over PAL and SECAM, in addition to being out there 12 years earlier, is that it was backwards compatible with the B/W system already in use. This was not the case with PAL...people all over Europe had to deal with a switch on their color TV's to go back and forth between older B/W broadcasts and PAL broadcasts.
As a defense of National City (which is not my favorite bank...but still) a friend of mine works in high level IT for the bank--it's all good stuff on the back end, all mainframes.
At least he gives me the feeling that it's a good operation.
With a small amount of research I'm sure you can pull up stupid laws and occurences for just about every state in the union.
Yes, but you can pull up a lot more stupid laws for California.
What's worse is that the consequences for such laws are often uncommonly severe. The Dead Kennedy's song "California uber alles" is a reference to California politicians and their like for making up lots of laws (I like the term "hippie fascism.")
California legislates so much that some legal scholars have suggested that it no longer is a common law jurisdiction, and has become a quasi-civil law jurisidction (the former being the british system of law which relies a lot on judicial precedence, the latter relying more on laws codified by the legislature, eliminating judicial discretion.)
The California political culture is to create lots of laws (and to an extent, this is the case in NJ, NY and IL.) It's hell getting bad laws repealed.
As for California, I personally disliked Los Angeles. I'm told that California (in particular Southern California) is an acquired taste.
My favorite law is that California doesn't allow people to own gerbils. That's right, they'll send you to jail for owning a gerbil.
I was introduced to the Dead Jennedy's song "California uber alles" which talks about California politicians (specifically Jerry Brown, but it could apply to many of them) as hippie fascists. (Meditation is now law, those who do not meditate will be arrested.)
Maybe it would help if a few extra eyes checked over that legislation before it gets released?
On a serious note, state legislatures usually have a professional, civil-service organization that make sure that legislation is clear, constitutional and perhaps most importantly, does not contradict other laws already enacted (in my Ohio it's the Legislative Services Commission that does all this.) They usually do good work, and are much better than legislators coming up with the legal code all by themselves.
Cities often don't have the resources for such a body.
melatonin (extracted from bovine pineal gland commonly, prion diseases anyone?)
Search for "non-bovine melatonin" in google. One large supplement company also makes a melatonin that says its suitable for vegetarians, an indication to me that its derived from non-animal sources.
ephedra (cardiac arrest anyone?)
Ephedra was incidentally discovered by the Chinese, its indicated for colds and flu in Traditional Chinese Medicine, and is obviously meant for short term use. TCM doctors are actually horrified by the idea of using Ephedra (ma huang) for weightloss.
Aristolochia fangchi (kidney damage or cancer anyone?)
According to this article AF was put into weightloss pills by mistake, due to the fact that the chinese name is similar to another herb. It is not indicated for anything.
shark cartilage (simply a lighter wallet anyone?) Shark cartilage has indeed been rejected as a possible treatment for cancer.
these sorts of public proclamations are troublesome... any other unproven (not a troll, I am a scientist folks, so I want proof)
Though not juxtaposed, the lines above are odd next to each other, after all, this was not a random proclamation, this was indeed a scientific study, and I'm sure more will follow. You had some good examples, but they could be fairly easily explained (you missed one or two which are much uglier.:-)
But even then, I think that the modern record on supplements/herbs is very good. The injuries caused by supplements pales in comparison to those caused by derived pharmaceuticals, which are pretty strictly regulated.
Careful, Ephedra works exactly the way it's supposed too
True, though interestingly enough, Ephedra, discovered by the Chinese, is not used by them for weightloss. Ephedra (ma huang)can be indicated in Traditional Chinese Medicine for dealing with cold and flu issues, but it's obviously intended for very short term use.
Honestly, TCM doctors are horrified by people using Ephedra for weightloss.
However my stepmom couldn't stand that being a social giant. I was to relate to everyone and anyone.
Amazingly enough, Fark had an article just yesterday discussing this very topic.
The idea is that extroverts are energized by the presence of people, whereas introverts are fatigued by people (but that does not necessarily mean that they are shy, its just that they are fatigued by people.) So extroverts, being energized by people like food, don't really get how introverts would wanna be hiding from people all the time.
On a side note, I always wondered if someone would be able to mimic photo ID cards with LCD technology, so that with a simple update, your counterfeit document can then allow you to pretend to be someone entirely different.
I'm baffled by the practise of having voters register which party they prefer in a government database...Why is this done?
I didn't see any comments answering the true reason for this.
Ohio has a semi-open primary. You can take any party ballot you want on election day, though you may only take one.
If the purpose was to just keep people from only voting one party ballot, then there would be no need to make the primary ballot choice (in other staes registration choice) public.
The reason it is public is because the information is so damn useful for candidates (and therefore politicians. )
A candidate for office can get a list of registered voters with a history of their party primary selection/party registration and when they voted.
If I were a candidate for city office here in Ohio, I would only be interested in sending literature/calling voters who vote in the odd year elections; clearly those voters who vote only in the presidential election have a low chance of showing up so there's no point in me wasting my time or money.
If I were a candidate in a Republican primary, I would only be interested in getting literature to people who have had a history of voting in the Republican primary.
Indeed, I was a pollworker yesterday, and there were several people who didn't want to take a democrat or republican ballot simply because they didn't want to receive all the crap in the mail that follows when you do that.
Candidates hate open primaries not necessarily because it means that people with low allegiances to the party are voting in that primary--candidates know that you can influence anyone regardless of allegiance. The reason they hate it is because it makes it hard to predict who will be voting in the party primary, and therefore whom they need to be calling/sending out literature to.
Indeed, scantron is the best of both worlds, and has worked extremely well in all sorts of elections; in addition to having one huge benefit:
It's really, really cheap. Unlike $4000 machines that are used less than 24 hours a year, scantron forms are cheap to print in any number of languages and formatting, and only one scantron counter is needed per precinct.
Electric blankets are a bit more diffult to dismiss, since they do create an EM field covering a person's body, and at 60 Hz.
Interestingly enough (and I kid you not) my father claims that he always gets the runs when he is subjected to an electric blanket, or the heated seats in my car. (Which have no discernible effect on me or any of the other passengers I've ever carried.)
It makes me wonder just a little bit, though he could also be a freak.
and I would submit to good old picture ID, of course. Seems to have worked for a very long time.
Err...I'll respectfully disagree. Photo ID cards are amazing social engeineering tools. You can leverage a photo ID card for all sorts of cool crimes that you wouldn't be able to otherwise.
I also point out that the US experience has been gradually increasing driver's licensing fraud after each state added the photo to the license. Prior to that, non-photo license fraud was largely non-existant.
Additionally, and perhaps morbidly so, they had built technology to help identify if the eye was live or not, so not only could you not just hold up a picture of an eye, but you couldn't take someone else's eye
Which I guess is as good of a thought as any, but it seems to me that there will still be people who will try this once or twice.
Regrettably, in order to prevent eye theft, this requires the rather absurd notice at any iris scanning station saying:
"Original, attached eyes only." or "This scanner detects stolen eyes." or "Carcass eyes automatically rejected."
The problem is these IDs are based on a non-biometric data source. (ie. birth certificate).
And here's where things get interesting.
You could possibly extract DNA from the baby at birth, sequence it, and print that sequence onto the birth certificate itself. With a quick hair sample or a pink prick, the document is associated with the correct person.
Hypothetically. The main issue is, you would need such a large number of people to run such a setup that you would inevitably be bringing in new opportunities for fraud.
But the reason the status quo exists is because we the people, on the whole, are adamantly, actively, in support of it. Pretty much any dissent at all is on the fringe, and is conspicuous by its absence.
Yes...in the document I wrote on the subject, I more or less alluded to this: http://64.72.132.150/~jimbobjoe/driving.pdf
There's a gray area between rights and privileges.
Interesting that you should say that. Most dictionaries and thesauruses consider the words to be synonymous. Even legal dictionaries don't seem to draw much distinction between either word.
But "privilege" has become corrupted as a power word. People in authority will use the word to imply that there there is some ability that has been granted that can be revoked for any reason at any time. Whether this is true or not is a different story.
A great example of this is driver licensing. In Ohio, they were invented in 1935. The idea that driving was a "right" was obvious--after all, prior to 1935, you just put your butt in a car and drove.
Even in 1935, the word "privilege" appeared nowhere in the driver's licensing code.
By the 1960's, Ohio code had the word littered in all sorts of places. My hypothesis is that road safety campaigners made people think of driving as a non-right, so that they could lobby for their agenda.
Namely, they love their own authority, and they love to wield it. Anything you do that questions their authority provokes a canned response: time to harass you, arrest you, or otherwise ensure you know they're the one with the power.
Add to that one more issue with police: they are happy to shoot the messenger.
No doubt you can find examples of people who call up the police asking for help, and then find themselves in trouble for one thing or another.
As I like to say, you could be being beaten in your own car, and sure, the police will stop that from happening, but at the same time, they will write you a ticket for having expired plates.
If anyone pulls off a roadway and parks their car, they have to be aware that at some point there will be law enforcement who cruise by and will see them.
On an incidental note, you can get a DUI in many states simply for being drunk and sitting in the driver's seat with your keys near you.
Often, someone who is drunk starts driving, realizes they are drunk, and figured out that they shouldn't be driving, so they do everyone a favor and pull off the side of the road. Then they get a DUI. (My Ohio changed this law, and such a situation here will not result in a DUI, it will result in some greatly lessened ticket.)
A little bit ago I came back home to my parents house (college student) and I set off the alarm system (was accidentally set to automatically go off when front door was opened, whereas my rents always entered through garage door.) I told the alarm company the special code, so they were happy, but police had already been called, and were not told that there was no issue.
Cop shows up, I'm watching TV, I see him through patio door. He asks me what's going on, I told him the story. Then he asks to see my driver's license.
I think where I got insulted here was that I was being asked for my driver's license *in my own house.* The one that I had lived in 6 years prior, and which my own car, parked in my driveway, is registered to, et cetera.
I refused. He then asked for my SSN number. I gave him that because I was a pussy.
Later I called the police department and complained. I asked the sheriff "before there were photos and licenses, and before the state collected SSN's for licenses, what would you have asked for?"
I've got relatives in Costa Rica, which has a Cedula as well. It does take me a bit of time to explain my concerns to them.
Most posts on slashdot deal with the usual guilt before innocence issue, or the fact that a cheap plastic card can be so powerful (its lack thereof or the information on it.)
On the other hand, this is all I point out to them: Cedula fraud is extraordinary. Every Costa Rican knows where and how to get a fake Cedula (usually bribery.) Yeah they are trying to crack down bullshit bullshit bullshit, but as long as the card becomes more useful, the more fraud that you will have.
And then I ask, so what's the point in the police asking for the card in the first place? Why be hauled into jail for not having a card that any moron can get with $200 and a face?
Slashdot Mirror
mechanically spinning (Nipkov) disks with different coulered gelatines.
Which brings me to the CBS color system, alluded to in the article as a experimental system. (It used two spinning color disks. When you switched back to a black and white program, you flipped a toggle to turn the spinning disks off. It was less than 400 horizontal lines, so I imagine it sucked too.)
It was not meant to be experimental, CBS fully intended it to be the color standard. It *was* the chosen standard by the FCC.
But RCA fought back, and fought hard, delaying implementation. The FCC chose the CBS system again in the 1953, but then NBC started broadcasting in RCA color in 1954.
The RCA (NTSC) system was backwards/forwards compatible, a show shown in NTSC color would be picked up by a black and white TV. This was not the case with the CBS system. By 1953, too many people had black and white TV's, which would have needed replacement if the CBS system really won the day.
NBC broadcast color, CBS got cheesed off and wouldn't touch color until the mid/late 60's, and ABC saw no reason to make color programs to encourage NBC/RCA sales. By the mid 60s, ABC saw the potential in color, and CBS had no choice but to follow.
I wouldn't go so far as to call NTSC "elegent", though it is clever especially with regards to how it implemented colour.
NTSC's big claim over PAL and SECAM, in addition to being out there 12 years earlier, is that it was backwards compatible with the B/W system already in use. This was not the case with PAL...people all over Europe had to deal with a switch on their color TV's to go back and forth between older B/W broadcasts and PAL broadcasts.
which had the unfortunate side effect of causing overweight viewers to explode.
I'll take this over the flying car any day.
As a defense of National City (which is not my favorite bank...but still) a friend of mine works in high level IT for the bank--it's all good stuff on the back end, all mainframes.
At least he gives me the feeling that it's a good operation.
The show is set in a high-end L.A. law firm, circa 2030.
Already the show is exceedingly unrealistic. No reasonable person would expect Southern California to be around in 2030.
With a small amount of research I'm sure you can pull up stupid laws and occurences for just about every state in the union.
Yes, but you can pull up a lot more stupid laws for California.
What's worse is that the consequences for such laws are often uncommonly severe. The Dead Kennedy's song "California uber alles" is a reference to California politicians and their like for making up lots of laws (I like the term "hippie fascism.")
California legislates so much that some legal scholars have suggested that it no longer is a common law jurisdiction, and has become a quasi-civil law jurisidction (the former being the british system of law which relies a lot on judicial precedence, the latter relying more on laws codified by the legislature, eliminating judicial discretion.)
The California political culture is to create lots of laws (and to an extent, this is the case in NJ, NY and IL.) It's hell getting bad laws repealed.
As for California, I personally disliked Los Angeles. I'm told that California (in particular Southern California) is an acquired taste.
My favorite law is that California doesn't allow people to own gerbils. That's right, they'll send you to jail for owning a gerbil.
I was introduced to the Dead Jennedy's song "California uber alles" which talks about California politicians (specifically Jerry Brown, but it could apply to many of them) as hippie fascists. (Meditation is now law, those who do not meditate will be arrested.)
Maybe it would help if a few extra eyes checked over that legislation before it gets released?
On a serious note, state legislatures usually have a professional, civil-service organization that make sure that legislation is clear, constitutional and perhaps most importantly, does not contradict other laws already enacted (in my Ohio it's the Legislative Services Commission that does all this.) They usually do good work, and are much better than legislators coming up with the legal code all by themselves.
Cities often don't have the resources for such a body.
melatonin (extracted from bovine pineal gland commonly, prion diseases anyone?)
:-)
Search for "non-bovine melatonin" in google. One large supplement company also makes a melatonin that says its suitable for vegetarians, an indication to me that its derived from non-animal sources.
ephedra (cardiac arrest anyone?)
Ephedra was incidentally discovered by the Chinese, its indicated for colds and flu in Traditional Chinese Medicine, and is obviously meant for short term use. TCM doctors are actually horrified by the idea of using Ephedra (ma huang) for weightloss.
Aristolochia fangchi (kidney damage or cancer anyone?)
According to this article AF was put into weightloss pills by mistake, due to the fact that the chinese name is similar to another herb. It is not indicated for anything.
shark cartilage (simply a lighter wallet anyone?)
Shark cartilage has indeed been rejected as a possible treatment for cancer.
these sorts of public proclamations are troublesome... any other unproven (not a troll, I am a scientist folks, so I want proof)
Though not juxtaposed, the lines above are odd next to each other, after all, this was not a random proclamation, this was indeed a scientific study, and I'm sure more will follow. You had some good examples, but they could be fairly easily explained (you missed one or two which are much uglier.
But even then, I think that the modern record on supplements/herbs is very good. The injuries caused by supplements pales in comparison to those caused by derived pharmaceuticals, which are pretty strictly regulated.
Careful, Ephedra works exactly the way it's supposed too
True, though interestingly enough, Ephedra, discovered by the Chinese, is not used by them for weightloss. Ephedra (ma huang)can be indicated in Traditional Chinese Medicine for dealing with cold and flu issues, but it's obviously intended for very short term use.
Honestly, TCM doctors are horrified by people using Ephedra for weightloss.
Actually, if you wanted a good example of a very complex system with a fairly fast lookup, think of the AOL IM farms.
However my stepmom couldn't stand that being a social giant. I was to relate to everyone and anyone.
Amazingly enough, Fark had an article just yesterday discussing this very topic.
The idea is that extroverts are energized by the presence of people, whereas introverts are fatigued by people (but that does not necessarily mean that they are shy, its just that they are fatigued by people.) So extroverts, being energized by people like food, don't really get how introverts would wanna be hiding from people all the time.
On a side note, I always wondered if someone would be able to mimic photo ID cards with LCD technology, so that with a simple update, your counterfeit document can then allow you to pretend to be someone entirely different.
I'm baffled by the practise of having voters register which party they prefer in a government database...Why is this done?
I didn't see any comments answering the true reason for this.
Ohio has a semi-open primary. You can take any party ballot you want on election day, though you may only take one.
If the purpose was to just keep people from only voting one party ballot, then there would be no need to make the primary ballot choice (in other staes registration choice) public.
The reason it is public is because the information is so damn useful for candidates (and therefore politicians. )
A candidate for office can get a list of registered voters with a history of their party primary selection/party registration and when they voted.
If I were a candidate for city office here in Ohio, I would only be interested in sending literature/calling voters who vote in the odd year elections; clearly those voters who vote only in the presidential election have a low chance of showing up so there's no point in me wasting my time or money.
If I were a candidate in a Republican primary, I would only be interested in getting literature to people who have had a history of voting in the Republican primary.
Indeed, I was a pollworker yesterday, and there were several people who didn't want to take a democrat or republican ballot simply because they didn't want to receive all the crap in the mail that follows when you do that.
Candidates hate open primaries not necessarily because it means that people with low allegiances to the party are voting in that primary--candidates know that you can influence anyone regardless of allegiance. The reason they hate it is because it makes it hard to predict who will be voting in the party primary, and therefore whom they need to be calling/sending out literature to.
Indeed, scantron is the best of both worlds, and has worked extremely well in all sorts of elections; in addition to having one huge benefit:
It's really, really cheap. Unlike $4000 machines that are used less than 24 hours a year, scantron forms are cheap to print in any number of languages and formatting, and only one scantron counter is needed per precinct.
Electric blankets are a bit more diffult to dismiss, since they do create an EM field covering a person's body, and at 60 Hz.
Interestingly enough (and I kid you not) my father claims that he always gets the runs when he is subjected to an electric blanket, or the heated seats in my car. (Which have no discernible effect on me or any of the other passengers I've ever carried.)
It makes me wonder just a little bit, though he could also be a freak.
and I would submit to good old picture ID, of course. Seems to have worked for a very long time.
Err...I'll respectfully disagree. Photo ID cards are amazing social engeineering tools. You can leverage a photo ID card for all sorts of cool crimes that you wouldn't be able to otherwise.
I also point out that the US experience has been gradually increasing driver's licensing fraud after each state added the photo to the license. Prior to that, non-photo license fraud was largely non-existant.
(More info at ths site in my sig.)
Additionally, and perhaps morbidly so, they had built technology to help identify if the eye was live or not, so not only could you not just hold up a picture of an eye, but you couldn't take someone else's eye
Which I guess is as good of a thought as any, but it seems to me that there will still be people who will try this once or twice.
Regrettably, in order to prevent eye theft, this requires the rather absurd notice at any iris scanning station saying:
"Original, attached eyes only."
or
"This scanner detects stolen eyes."
or
"Carcass eyes automatically rejected."
et cetera.
The problem is these IDs are based on a non-biometric data source. (ie. birth certificate).
And here's where things get interesting.
You could possibly extract DNA from the baby at birth, sequence it, and print that sequence onto the birth certificate itself. With a quick hair sample or a pink prick, the document is associated with the correct person.
Hypothetically. The main issue is, you would need such a large number of people to run such a setup that you would inevitably be bringing in new opportunities for fraud.
But the reason the status quo exists is because we the people, on the whole, are adamantly, actively, in support of it. Pretty much any dissent at all is on the fringe, and is conspicuous by its absence.
f
Yes...in the document I wrote on the subject, I more or less alluded to this:
http://64.72.132.150/~jimbobjoe/driving.pd
There's a gray area between rights and privileges.
Interesting that you should say that. Most dictionaries and thesauruses consider the words to be synonymous. Even legal dictionaries don't seem to draw much distinction between either word.
But "privilege" has become corrupted as a power word. People in authority will use the word to imply that there there is some ability that has been granted that can be revoked for any reason at any time. Whether this is true or not is a different story.
A great example of this is driver licensing. In Ohio, they were invented in 1935. The idea that driving was a "right" was obvious--after all, prior to 1935, you just put your butt in a car and drove.
Even in 1935, the word "privilege" appeared nowhere in the driver's licensing code.
By the 1960's, Ohio code had the word littered in all sorts of places. My hypothesis is that road safety campaigners made people think of driving as a non-right, so that they could lobby for their agenda.
Namely, they love their own authority, and they love to wield it. Anything you do that questions their authority provokes a canned response: time to harass you, arrest you, or otherwise ensure you know they're the one with the power.
Add to that one more issue with police: they are happy to shoot the messenger.
No doubt you can find examples of people who call up the police asking for help, and then find themselves in trouble for one thing or another.
As I like to say, you could be being beaten in your own car, and sure, the police will stop that from happening, but at the same time, they will write you a ticket for having expired plates.
I'm always hesistant to call them.
If anyone pulls off a roadway and parks their car, they have to be aware that at some point there will be law enforcement who cruise by and will see them.
On an incidental note, you can get a DUI in many states simply for being drunk and sitting in the driver's seat with your keys near you.
Often, someone who is drunk starts driving, realizes they are drunk, and figured out that they shouldn't be driving, so they do everyone a favor and pull off the side of the road. Then they get a DUI. (My Ohio changed this law, and such a situation here will not result in a DUI, it will result in some greatly lessened ticket.)
A little bit ago I came back home to my parents house (college student) and I set off the alarm system (was accidentally set to automatically go off when front door was opened, whereas my rents always entered through garage door.) I told the alarm company the special code, so they were happy, but police had already been called, and were not told that there was no issue.
Cop shows up, I'm watching TV, I see him through patio door. He asks me what's going on, I told him the story. Then he asks to see my driver's license.
I think where I got insulted here was that I was being asked for my driver's license *in my own house.* The one that I had lived in 6 years prior, and which my own car, parked in my driveway, is registered to, et cetera.
I refused. He then asked for my SSN number. I gave him that because I was a pussy.
Later I called the police department and complained. I asked the sheriff "before there were photos and licenses, and before the state collected SSN's for licenses, what would you have asked for?"
He replied "ohh...your name."
I've got relatives in Costa Rica, which has a Cedula as well. It does take me a bit of time to explain my concerns to them.
Most posts on slashdot deal with the usual guilt before innocence issue, or the fact that a cheap plastic card can be so powerful (its lack thereof or the information on it.)
On the other hand, this is all I point out to them: Cedula fraud is extraordinary. Every Costa Rican knows where and how to get a fake Cedula (usually bribery.) Yeah they are trying to crack down bullshit bullshit bullshit, but as long as the card becomes more useful, the more fraud that you will have.
And then I ask, so what's the point in the police asking for the card in the first place? Why be hauled into jail for not having a card that any moron can get with $200 and a face?