I've run into that before... it means you're doing something wrong, regarding form or technique, or you need to switch up your routine, or you're overtraining.
Pretty damn sure it wasn't overtraining. It didn't feel like it, and my programme was such that there was at least two days between training a given muscle group.
Whether or not the burn was meant to be present, I wasn't getting the results. And it didn't *feel* like my muscles were being 'pushed'; it felt like they just ran out of steam.
I suspect my problem was 2/3 motivation; I was working on my own, and it's easy to get into a rut of not pushing yourself.
it's no wonder, considering that the first episode was the highest rated show in its timeslot, and third highest rated in the week.
I'm fed up of hearing what the ratings for the first episode were. Lots of shows (which have had lots of hype) get large ratings for the first episode, which often drop quite alarmingly as time goes on. Not that I'm suggesting that this is the case, but let's look at the figures for episode 3 onwards as a more accurate barometer.
They advertise the show non-stop, set up tie-in websites here and here, and even show a documentary series which ties in to the most recent episode of the show.
Anyone notice the not-entirely-subtle plugging of the BBC's other services, such as "BBC News 24", and even when Billie.. er, Rose mentioned something she'd seen on "Newsround Extra". I mean, Newsround is intended for *children* dammit!
You're meant to be 19, not 9...
That having been said, I had a flatmate of similar age who got more news from watching "Newsround" than anything else. And it bloody showed, too.
Same thing with weightlifting-- delayed onset muscle soreness is a bitch and you literally won't be able to move a couple days after you first start with weights.
I wish to God I could get that far; my problem with weightlifting was that I could either push a weight or not; eventually I'd run out of strength, but I never got the feeling that my muscles were being pushed.
(The one case where I *was* getting the feeling of burn- gluts and upper legs- was where I seemed to be getting better results)
Eventually I got pissed off at the amount of time I was wasting (weightlifting) in the gym for minimal return, and stopped going.
Yes, it's normally spelt 'Tao' in the Western Alphabet, and technically, the movie is called 'Tao...,' but at least in Mandarin the word begins with a sort of sharp 'D' sound so the GP is fair in what he says.
a la "Osama" vs. "Usama", "Gadaffi" vs. "Qadaffi", I guess.
Guess this is not dissimilar to the Japanese use of the (supposed) 'r' sound, which is meant to be more like a cross between a western 'l' and western 'r'. In a reversal of the mistake many English-speaking Japanese make (mixing up ls and rs), a (supposed) stereotypical 'gaijin' mistake in Japanese is making the 'r' sound too hard (see here and here).
Personally, I liked retro, but I actually ended up throwing some old computer games out; they didn't sell on eBay (well, actually they did, but the person never paid). Problem was, they were Atari games that I bought in the early-mid 90s; I realised later on that the only games that meant that much to me were the ones I'd bought early on, and enjoyed. The later ones just seemed like dated computer games, and I didn't intend carrying them around for the rest of my life. Even a lot of the stuff I do have, if I lost it in a fire, I probably wouldn't re-buy it at present.
I have very old-fashioned tastes in computer games (don't play games much, so have no time for modern games with thick manuals); I actually find that something like Pong is fun to play because it *doesn't* require brain-power. It gives your brain permission to "tune out" and almost meditate.
But a lot of old games are just that; as for "retro" stuff that didn't affect me personally, well, I'd rather concentrate on the future.
Main problem is that I don't have much space (long story) and I've come to realise that I'm not sure I *want* a lot of possessions. What I do want is a few possessions that I like, and appreciate, a lot, not a load of bulky stuff that is dead weight for most of the time.
I'm pretty sure the first half of "Licensed to Ill" sounds about the same on a Rio as it does on my iPod.
A bunch of geeky-sounding white boys pretending to be black? You don't even need an iPod for that; you just need to visit the local shopping mall.
Damn, even that obscure geek-rapper that no-one had heard of when Slashdot interviewed him would have trouble sounding geeky next to The Beastie Boys.
I might have missed it skimming through the comments, but it seems odd that no-one's come to the rather obvious conclusion that this isn't about nostalgia- at least, not for most of the people buying them at present.
Put simply, it's about investment. These people have seen the boom in interest in "retro" computing and electronics, reckon that they'll be worth something in the future, so they're snapping them up now, and driving the prices up.
Of course, whether the resultant increase in prices, and people keeping/selling their old players instead of binning them means it is now worth it is debatable. Personally, I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed.
At one stage a few years ago (96-97) I was convinced that 8-bit computers would grow in value as a result of a "retro" nostalgia boom. Well, that was half true, but the simple fact is that, except for the rarer machines (e.g. Sinclair ZX80 in good condition can easily fetch UKP 200.00), most old computers were so widely-produced that they'll never be worth that much. I've seen Sinclair ZX Spectrums in a games-shop window for UKP 100.00, but that's with high-street chain retail mark-up (for lazy nostalgics who can't be arsed getting them on eBay for 30.00). Unless you have one of the rarer models (e.g. short-lived Timex-Sinclair bastardised Spectrum), you're not going to make tons of money without some effort. Ditto the C64.
Back to the subject; is anyone *seriously* getting nostalgic for those silly little 32MB devices that were the first widely-available MP3 players 5 or 6 years back?
Even then, I thought they were rubbish. You'd have been lucky if you could get a whole album at 128Mbps on them, which you had to transfer manually via the (typically?) parallel connection. I was still listening to cassettes back then, and all things considered, they (or portable CD players) were a better bet at the time. The MP3 players were for geeks and "boys toys" gadget freaks.
I thought he used Lorem Ipsum because the "target audience" (W.) wouldn't read the big wordy part anyway...
GWB isn't the only person who doesn't read the big wordy part. This is a common problem in all people.
Even on websites targeted towards the intelligent, people post replies to news items without bothering to read the article. Additionally, users won't read replies past the second paragraph; anything after that may as well be lorem ipsum.
Furthermore, fermentum wisi. Aenean nisl libero, rhoncus ut, aliquam nec, posuere nec, nunc. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Donec vel nibh. Integer enim. Donec posuere imperdiet est. Nam et odio id eros congue imperdiet. Sed vel mauris. Vivamus commodo ipsum nec wisi.
Fusce consequat, sapien non porta tincidunt, wisi lectus malesuada leo, vitae tincidunt risus libero ac metus. Sed lorem erat, dictum eget, commodo id, auctor volutpat, nibh. Ut sapien neque, tincidunt ut, convallis id, ultricies id, nibh.
Duis varius. Mauris libero orci, sodales sed, tempor ac, bibendum vitae, urna. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
Why did you hire PR to do market research anyway?
on
Paul Graham on PR
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
My favorite quote from our ex PR firm: "That is what they said, now I am going to tell you what they meant."
This was in response to a focus group clearly stating they did not like something and the PR people were trying to spin it to positive. I never listened to them again.
You had the 1-way mirror the wrong way round. The shiny side was meant to be facing outwards so that your market saw themselves looking good instead of the machinations of your company, while you got a good look at *them*.
What you got was the PR company trying to make *you* look good to yourselves by reversing the glass, obscuring the fact that your potential customers were actually scowling at you through the glass, able to see how crap you were.
Okay, not a great analogy.
But, having said that, why would a PR company be doing market research for you? Surely the two are different things altogether...
Know Your Enemy *is* 'stuff that matters'
on
Paul Graham on PR
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
In the ever-present attempt to mirror Paul Graham's web site, the submitter forgot to check if this essay even has anything to do with technology, which it does not!
That as may be, there's probably more useful thought in the first 18 (unfiltered) replies to this story than there is in the 100-200 '+2 or above filtered' replies to the typical iPod, "Dell are definitely going for AMD this time!", or just slow news day story.
Anything that gives more insight into how people are influenced and *why* PHBs believe the crap they do must be useful to the average geek, right?
When I were a kid, we sold ourselves into slavery, paid one of our own kidneys every year for four years, it were uphill both ways and we were glad of it.
"This is a battle between good and evil" Bush said.
I'm not sure which side is which anymore.
Or what about "This is a battle between evil and evil". This is the case much of the time.
I figure one way of knowing you're growing up is knowing that (a) Sometimes 'you' (whoever 'you' are) are on the wrong side, (b) Sometimes neither side is good (Stalin was fighting Hitler; which one was 'good'?), (c) Sometimes there is good and evil on both sides.
Still, I'm 23 now and wouldn't consider having sex with a 17 year old. That would be *sick*.
Depends on the 17-year old, surely?
There are a large proportion of 17-year olds who are still kids (I was at that age), and some who aren't.
Reminds me of when I was at university; I was a mature student (26 at the time) and looking for a flat share. One ad I looked at turned out to be a girl going into her second year, so she would have been 19, possibly 18.
It just felt *wrong*; she seemed pretty shy, basically still a kid, and her damn *parents* were showing me round the house. If I'd been them, I'd have been very dubious about this older guy sharing a house with my daughter, but they seemed quite keen to show me round.
She was 19 (I'm guessing, logically), but seemed less grown-up than some 17-year olds. That was one reason I didn't go for the room; the others being that the place was *miles* from the university and being a final-year student, I didn't fancy sharing with a houseful of second-year 18-year olds.
Really, though you can't cut this stuff as being black-and-white. For example:-
If I had two photos, one of a girl under the age of consent, but looking much older (and sexually attractive) and another slightly above the age of consent, but looking distinctly child-like, and you didn't know their ages....
Which one is it acceptable to want to sleep with?
Careful, Americans get particularly rabid regarding anything remotely related to sex with minors (repression, anyone?). The last thing you want is some international age-of-consent law forced down the EU/UN's throats, set firmly at 21 "just in case".
Nah, I'm not having any of that bullshit.
You honestly expect people in the EU to not say stuff like that just in case people in the US start pushing for stuff like that? Fuck it.
You might get away with pushing it on small second-world tourist destinations (who, let's face it, probably don't want to be prostituting 13-year olds either, if the alternative is some lucrative trade agreement), but telling people in the EU or other first-world countries their age of consent isn't going to wash.
Even if it were a risk, by modifying your behaviour like that, the US has already won. I'm sick of certain segments of US society trying to force *their* values on the rest of the world and thinking they can intimidate the rest of the world into obeying. More so that they think it applies in all cases.
It might be unwise to behave like that if you want to live in- or visit- the US, but for the former, most people (outside the US) don't, and for the latter... yeah, lots of people would like to take a holiday in the US, but they wouldn't run their lives differently because of it.
Anyway, can you spell hypocrisy? Didn't Jerry Lee Lewis marry his 14-year old cousin in the 1950s?
Maybe I shouldn't mention that I find some black girls attractive either, because some people in the US don't like the idea of anything interracial. Tough.
So ask for your money back. What's that? It's free?
BT Broadband for free? BT *any* Internet connection for free?
Please tell me where I can get that.
And here's a hint; I don't count "free" when it's part of a package. It's arguable that the common use of "free" is misleading; it's not "free" of obligation if you have to buy something else (e.g. breakfast cereal toy). But something like "free" broadband or "free" mobile phones definitely twist this misuse of the word way beyond breaking point. You wouldn't go for XYZ package if it didn't include the "free" broadband/phone, so it's not really free, it's included in the cost.
Anyway, to paraphrase Homer Simpson, "It's not +5:Funny because it's not true"
subfolder "The guy who created this has made a few dollars for himself at the expense of some morons who buy anything new and shiny without really thinking about a real use for said shiny object"
Hmm. Expect to see it on sale at ThinkGeek sometime soon, then.
IF cyan stimulates the red cones (it will, fractionally, as I doubt the red-sensitivity-curve will have hit 0 when it reaches cyan; the only question is by how much (*)), then even "genuine" cyan will be "impure".
Of course, this is rather misleading; if it's genuine single-wavelength cyan, then it can't be considered "impure". That's just the way the eye perceives pure cyan.
Assuming all this is true, what *you* are doing is something quite unusual; YOU ARE MAKING A "COLOUR" THAT COULD NOT EXIST IN REAL LIFE! No real colour would stimulate green and blue to that extent without stimulating the red sensors also (under normal circumstances), and this brings up some very interesting philosophical questions.
That having said, to be honest, the cyan I got from your simulation was vivid, certainly, but it didn't appear "artificially" bright. It may have been more vivid than fake 'green+blue' cyan for the reasons described above, but it didn't appear "more cyan than real cyan". Perhaps you *really* have to zap those red receptors, or perhaps (as I originally assumed), the red-receptor output is so negligible at cyan frequencies that reducing/omitting it makes no notable difference.
Still, all good stuff, and it could point the way to some very interesting experiments with synthetic colours.
Oh, and on a semi-related topic, check out these links, and search the text for "martian colors":- One, Two.
Essentially, colour-blind subjects with synesthaesia who cannot perceive certain colours optically can still "experience" them as a result of their synesthaesia. In short, they can experience colours that they couldn't possibly see.
(*) Note that I say "to all intents and purposes" in my original post. I assume that the red receptors will still be minutely stimulated by (e.g.) blue light, but at an extremely low level which is insignificant.
For a taste of true cyan (which like you imply, one probably can't see in real life, let alone on your monitor), try the Eclipse of Mars optical illusion on my site.
That's pretty good; but are you sure there's nowhere we can see genuine cyan in real life?
As a consumer you just think: This is crap anyway, so I'll go for the cheapest crap...
Spot on. I'd be quite happy to buy a more reputable brand if I knew that company's name counted for something. Unfortunately, nowadays, when you pay for high-end goods, you are paying for their *past* repuation, or their advertising- the goods are just as shoddy.
I lost interest in Sony when I realised that their CD recorders were just rebadged Lite-On manufactured models.
BTW, if that expensive Denon is an older model that didn't claim to play DVD-R/+R or MP3s, then that doesn't mean it's crap. Features != Quality; if it does what it *claims* to do well, and lasts, then what's the problem?
If the spec doesn't cover what he wants, then why did he buy it in the first place?
Some interesting points and good questions to be asked (my post was long enough without asking them; one thing I omitted was that many goods may be being produced at (effectively) below cost). However, no offense intended, but your presentation sucks.
Slashdot Mirror
I've run into that before... it means you're doing something wrong, regarding form or technique, or you need to switch up your routine, or you're overtraining.
Pretty damn sure it wasn't overtraining. It didn't feel like it, and my programme was such that there was at least two days between training a given muscle group.
Whether or not the burn was meant to be present, I wasn't getting the results. And it didn't *feel* like my muscles were being 'pushed'; it felt like they just ran out of steam.
I suspect my problem was 2/3 motivation; I was working on my own, and it's easy to get into a rut of not pushing yourself.
it's no wonder, considering that the first episode was the highest rated show in its timeslot, and third highest rated in the week.
I'm fed up of hearing what the ratings for the first episode were. Lots of shows (which have had lots of hype) get large ratings for the first episode, which often drop quite alarmingly as time goes on. Not that I'm suggesting that this is the case, but let's look at the figures for episode 3 onwards as a more accurate barometer.
They advertise the show non-stop, set up tie-in websites here and here, and even show a documentary series which ties in to the most recent episode of the show.
Anyone notice the not-entirely-subtle plugging of the BBC's other services, such as "BBC News 24", and even when Billie.. er, Rose mentioned something she'd seen on "Newsround Extra". I mean, Newsround is intended for *children* dammit!
You're meant to be 19, not 9...
That having been said, I had a flatmate of similar age who got more news from watching "Newsround" than anything else. And it bloody showed, too.
> > Its trademark 'sink plunger' attachment also reveals a
> > terrifying new function.
> Is it just me or does that sound terrifyingly sexual?
"White wee-wee!"
"Exsperminate!"
Bring back the Gay Daleks!. Hmm...
Same thing with weightlifting-- delayed onset muscle soreness is a bitch and you literally won't be able to move a couple days after you first start with weights.
I wish to God I could get that far; my problem with weightlifting was that I could either push a weight or not; eventually I'd run out of strength, but I never got the feeling that my muscles were being pushed.
(The one case where I *was* getting the feeling of burn- gluts and upper legs- was where I seemed to be getting better results)
Eventually I got pissed off at the amount of time I was wasting (weightlifting) in the gym for minimal return, and stopped going.
Yes, it's normally spelt 'Tao' in the Western Alphabet, and technically, the movie is called 'Tao... ,' but at least in Mandarin the word begins with a sort of sharp 'D' sound so the GP is fair in what he says.
a la "Osama" vs. "Usama", "Gadaffi" vs. "Qadaffi", I guess.
Guess this is not dissimilar to the Japanese use of the (supposed) 'r' sound, which is meant to be more like a cross between a western 'l' and western 'r'. In a reversal of the mistake many English-speaking Japanese make (mixing up ls and rs), a (supposed) stereotypical 'gaijin' mistake in Japanese is making the 'r' sound too hard (see here and here).
Personally, I liked retro, but I actually ended up throwing some old computer games out; they didn't sell on eBay (well, actually they did, but the person never paid). Problem was, they were Atari games that I bought in the early-mid 90s; I realised later on that the only games that meant that much to me were the ones I'd bought early on, and enjoyed. The later ones just seemed like dated computer games, and I didn't intend carrying them around for the rest of my life. Even a lot of the stuff I do have, if I lost it in a fire, I probably wouldn't re-buy it at present.
I have very old-fashioned tastes in computer games (don't play games much, so have no time for modern games with thick manuals); I actually find that something like Pong is fun to play because it *doesn't* require brain-power. It gives your brain permission to "tune out" and almost meditate.
But a lot of old games are just that; as for "retro" stuff that didn't affect me personally, well, I'd rather concentrate on the future.
Main problem is that I don't have much space (long story) and I've come to realise that I'm not sure I *want* a lot of possessions. What I do want is a few possessions that I like, and appreciate, a lot, not a load of bulky stuff that is dead weight for most of the time.
I'm pretty sure the first half of "Licensed to Ill" sounds about the same on a Rio as it does on my iPod.
A bunch of geeky-sounding white boys pretending to be black? You don't even need an iPod for that; you just need to visit the local shopping mall.
Damn, even that obscure geek-rapper that no-one had heard of when Slashdot interviewed him would have trouble sounding geeky next to The Beastie Boys.
I might have missed it skimming through the comments, but it seems odd that no-one's come to the rather obvious conclusion that this isn't about nostalgia- at least, not for most of the people buying them at present.
Put simply, it's about investment. These people have seen the boom in interest in "retro" computing and electronics, reckon that they'll be worth something in the future, so they're snapping them up now, and driving the prices up.
Of course, whether the resultant increase in prices, and people keeping/selling their old players instead of binning them means it is now worth it is debatable. Personally, I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed.
At one stage a few years ago (96-97) I was convinced that 8-bit computers would grow in value as a result of a "retro" nostalgia boom. Well, that was half true, but the simple fact is that, except for the rarer machines (e.g. Sinclair ZX80 in good condition can easily fetch UKP 200.00), most old computers were so widely-produced that they'll never be worth that much. I've seen Sinclair ZX Spectrums in a games-shop window for UKP 100.00, but that's with high-street chain retail mark-up (for lazy nostalgics who can't be arsed getting them on eBay for 30.00). Unless you have one of the rarer models (e.g. short-lived Timex-Sinclair bastardised Spectrum), you're not going to make tons of money without some effort. Ditto the C64.
Back to the subject; is anyone *seriously* getting nostalgic for those silly little 32MB devices that were the first widely-available MP3 players 5 or 6 years back?
Even then, I thought they were rubbish. You'd have been lucky if you could get a whole album at 128Mbps on them, which you had to transfer manually via the (typically?) parallel connection. I was still listening to cassettes back then, and all things considered, they (or portable CD players) were a better bet at the time. The MP3 players were for geeks and "boys toys" gadget freaks.
This is about digital music file players, not just MP3 players. The article even mentions that the first item, the Sony, would not play MP3's.
Nothing much changed there, then.
I thought he used Lorem Ipsum because the "target audience" (W.) wouldn't read the big wordy part anyway...
GWB isn't the only person who doesn't read the big wordy part. This is a common problem in all people.
Even on websites targeted towards the intelligent, people post replies to news items without bothering to read the article. Additionally, users won't read replies past the second paragraph; anything after that may as well be lorem ipsum.
Furthermore, fermentum wisi. Aenean nisl libero, rhoncus ut, aliquam nec, posuere nec, nunc. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Donec vel nibh. Integer enim. Donec posuere imperdiet est. Nam et odio id eros congue imperdiet. Sed vel mauris. Vivamus commodo ipsum nec wisi.
Fusce consequat, sapien non porta tincidunt, wisi lectus malesuada leo, vitae tincidunt risus libero ac metus. Sed lorem erat, dictum eget, commodo id, auctor volutpat, nibh. Ut sapien neque, tincidunt ut, convallis id, ultricies id, nibh.
Duis varius. Mauris libero orci, sodales sed, tempor ac, bibendum vitae, urna. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit.
My favorite quote from our ex PR firm: "That is what they said, now I am going to tell you what they meant." This was in response to a focus group clearly stating they did not like something and the PR people were trying to spin it to positive. I never listened to them again.
You had the 1-way mirror the wrong way round. The shiny side was meant to be facing outwards so that your market saw themselves looking good instead of the machinations of your company, while you got a good look at *them*.
What you got was the PR company trying to make *you* look good to yourselves by reversing the glass, obscuring the fact that your potential customers were actually scowling at you through the glass, able to see how crap you were.
Okay, not a great analogy.
But, having said that, why would a PR company be doing market research for you? Surely the two are different things altogether...
In the ever-present attempt to mirror Paul Graham's web site, the submitter forgot to check if this essay even has anything to do with technology, which it does not!
That as may be, there's probably more useful thought in the first 18 (unfiltered) replies to this story than there is in the 100-200 '+2 or above filtered' replies to the typical iPod, "Dell are definitely going for AMD this time!", or just slow news day story.
Anything that gives more insight into how people are influenced and *why* PHBs believe the crap they do must be useful to the average geek, right?
$40,000 a year? That's nothing!
When I were a kid, we sold ourselves into slavery, paid one of our own kidneys every year for four years, it were uphill both ways and we were glad of it.
Kids today, don't know they're born...
"This is a battle between good and evil" Bush said.
I'm not sure which side is which anymore.
Or what about "This is a battle between evil and evil". This is the case much of the time.
I figure one way of knowing you're growing up is knowing that (a) Sometimes 'you' (whoever 'you' are) are on the wrong side, (b) Sometimes neither side is good (Stalin was fighting Hitler; which one was 'good'?), (c) Sometimes there is good and evil on both sides.
I didn't see that, and if it's even half as "funny" as the rest of Comic Relief, I don't think I'll bother.
On the other hand, it can't be worse than "Dimensions in Time". Eeurgh, that was *foul*.
For all you angry UK posters, BT was meant as "Bit Torrent" not "British Telecom", "Bottle Toke" or even "British Troll".
Ack!... No excuses, I have to hold up my hands and admit to being wrong (and stupid) there.
Addendum: Although I should point out that you have to be 18 to do porn in the UK (*), so the title isn't really appropriate. :-/
(*) Probably quite sensible; pornography is around a long time, and the porn business is as sick as ****.
Still, I'm 23 now and wouldn't consider having sex with a 17 year old. That would be *sick*.
Depends on the 17-year old, surely?
There are a large proportion of 17-year olds who are still kids (I was at that age), and some who aren't.
Reminds me of when I was at university; I was a mature student (26 at the time) and looking for a flat share. One ad I looked at turned out to be a girl going into her second year, so she would have been 19, possibly 18.
It just felt *wrong*; she seemed pretty shy, basically still a kid, and her damn *parents* were showing me round the house. If I'd been them, I'd have been very dubious about this older guy sharing a house with my daughter, but they seemed quite keen to show me round.
She was 19 (I'm guessing, logically), but seemed less grown-up than some 17-year olds. That was one reason I didn't go for the room; the others being that the place was *miles* from the university and being a final-year student, I didn't fancy sharing with a houseful of second-year 18-year olds.
Really, though you can't cut this stuff as being black-and-white. For example:-
If I had two photos, one of a girl under the age of consent, but looking much older (and sexually attractive) and another slightly above the age of consent, but looking distinctly child-like, and you didn't know their ages....
Which one is it acceptable to want to sleep with?
Careful, Americans get particularly rabid regarding anything remotely related to sex with minors (repression, anyone?). The last thing you want is some international age-of-consent law forced down the EU/UN's throats, set firmly at 21 "just in case".
Nah, I'm not having any of that bullshit.
You honestly expect people in the EU to not say stuff like that just in case people in the US start pushing for stuff like that? Fuck it.
You might get away with pushing it on small second-world tourist destinations (who, let's face it, probably don't want to be prostituting 13-year olds either, if the alternative is some lucrative trade agreement), but telling people in the EU or other first-world countries their age of consent isn't going to wash.
Even if it were a risk, by modifying your behaviour like that, the US has already won. I'm sick of certain segments of US society trying to force *their* values on the rest of the world and thinking they can intimidate the rest of the world into obeying. More so that they think it applies in all cases.
It might be unwise to behave like that if you want to live in- or visit- the US, but for the former, most people (outside the US) don't, and for the latter... yeah, lots of people would like to take a holiday in the US, but they wouldn't run their lives differently because of it.
Anyway, can you spell hypocrisy? Didn't Jerry Lee Lewis marry his 14-year old cousin in the 1950s?
Maybe I shouldn't mention that I find some black girls attractive either, because some people in the US don't like the idea of anything interracial. Tough.
Cute black 17-year old girls. Mmmm..... (^_^)
It's called WiFi.
I think you're missing the point; which is that someone implied that BT were somehow giving away free broadband (or any form of) connections.
Which was patently wrong.
So ask for your money back. What's that? It's free?
BT Broadband for free? BT *any* Internet connection for free?
Please tell me where I can get that.
And here's a hint; I don't count "free" when it's part of a package. It's arguable that the common use of "free" is misleading; it's not "free" of obligation if you have to buy something else (e.g. breakfast cereal toy). But something like "free" broadband or "free" mobile phones definitely twist this misuse of the word way beyond breaking point. You wouldn't go for XYZ package if it didn't include the "free" broadband/phone, so it's not really free, it's included in the cost.
Anyway, to paraphrase Homer Simpson, "It's not +5:Funny because it's not true"
subfolder "The guy who created this has made a few dollars for himself at the expense of some morons who buy anything new and shiny without really thinking about a real use for said shiny object"
Hmm. Expect to see it on sale at ThinkGeek sometime soon, then.
Ah, I see what you're getting at now.
IF cyan stimulates the red cones (it will, fractionally, as I doubt the red-sensitivity-curve will have hit 0 when it reaches cyan; the only question is by how much (*)), then even "genuine" cyan will be "impure".
Of course, this is rather misleading; if it's genuine single-wavelength cyan, then it can't be considered "impure". That's just the way the eye perceives pure cyan.
Assuming all this is true, what *you* are doing is something quite unusual; YOU ARE MAKING A "COLOUR" THAT COULD NOT EXIST IN REAL LIFE! No real colour would stimulate green and blue to that extent without stimulating the red sensors also (under normal circumstances), and this brings up some very interesting philosophical questions.
That having said, to be honest, the cyan I got from your simulation was vivid, certainly, but it didn't appear "artificially" bright. It may have been more vivid than fake 'green+blue' cyan for the reasons described above, but it didn't appear "more cyan than real cyan". Perhaps you *really* have to zap those red receptors, or perhaps (as I originally assumed), the red-receptor output is so negligible at cyan frequencies that reducing/omitting it makes no notable difference.
Still, all good stuff, and it could point the way to some very interesting experiments with synthetic colours.
Oh, and on a semi-related topic, check out these links, and search the text for "martian colors":-
One, Two.
Essentially, colour-blind subjects with synesthaesia who cannot perceive certain colours optically can still "experience" them as a result of their synesthaesia. In short, they can experience colours that they couldn't possibly see.
(*) Note that I say "to all intents and purposes" in my original post. I assume that the red receptors will still be minutely stimulated by (e.g.) blue light, but at an extremely low level which is insignificant.
For a taste of true cyan (which like you imply, one probably can't see in real life, let alone on your monitor), try the Eclipse of Mars optical illusion on my site.
That's pretty good; but are you sure there's nowhere we can see genuine cyan in real life?
As a consumer you just think: This is crap anyway, so I'll go for the cheapest crap...
Spot on. I'd be quite happy to buy a more reputable brand if I knew that company's name counted for something. Unfortunately, nowadays, when you pay for high-end goods, you are paying for their *past* repuation, or their advertising- the goods are just as shoddy.
I lost interest in Sony when I realised that their CD recorders were just rebadged Lite-On manufactured models.
BTW, if that expensive Denon is an older model that didn't claim to play DVD-R/+R or MP3s, then that doesn't mean it's crap. Features != Quality; if it does what it *claims* to do well, and lasts, then what's the problem?
If the spec doesn't cover what he wants, then why did he buy it in the first place?
Some interesting points and good questions to be asked (my post was long enough without asking them; one thing I omitted was that many goods may be being produced at (effectively) below cost). However, no offense intended, but your presentation sucks.