Re:Until I upgrade my eyes, why should I care?
on
RGB to become RGBCMY
·
· Score: 1
For a roleplaying game, I wonce wrote up an alien race that had the ability to see the spectrum of colors as a continuous dimension of information, much like the x and y dimensions of the physical image, so essentially their brain got a 3-d signal isntead of four seperate discrete samples of 2-d information. The idea was that they could see the *exact* color of a thing. Advantages of this were that their race had a very advanced level of chemistry. After all, if even their primitive cavemen could see spectrums, then they are going to be able to differentiate different kinds of materials easily, just from what "color" they are. The disadvantage was that they lived in a world dominated by humans, and had to get by using human technology often, and human visual interfaces tended to be hard for them to understand. When they see an RGB-rendered red apple, to them it doesn't look anything remotely like an apple. For them, interpreteing human-designed images was a matter of painstaking effort and skill. Even paintings don't look right. (When they see red paint mixed with yellow paint, it doesn't look anything like orange, for example, so all the great works of human art look utterly awful to them, and it takes effort to even discern the shape being attempted.)
The point isn't that the system wouldn't work with saltwater. It would. The point is that part of what makes the system not have any environmental impact is that is that the water is uses is water that would have been used anyway for drinking water. If the water it uses is saltwater, that isn't true anymore.
I know someone who is allergic to just about every type of food. The list of bad foods includes all nuts, and fruits in which the seeds touch the 'flesh' if the fruit - like strawberries, watermelons, and banannas. (Fruits where the seeds are contained within by a thick hull or core are okay), Several beans are also bad, including Cocao, so chocolate is out. And on top of all that, he's lactose intolerant. And no, it's not a power trip, nor a case of hypochondria. Unless, that is, you believe he is so good at unconsiously controlling his body that he can cause his windpipe to swell and cut off his breathing, requiring a speeding trip to the hospital (in which adrenneline was used to kill the swelling (not sure how that works) so he could breathe again, and then the emergency room doctor advised him to never again go out and eat in public restaurants, and only eat food he'd cooked himself so he knows every ingredient that goes into it.)
I've seen it happen. It's really not pretty.
The problem is that the existence of people like this (real deadly multiple-allergy sufferers) gives ammunition to the whiny hypochondriacs. Because some people like that exist, Hypochondriacs think they might be one of them.
Given how allergies work, it makes perfect sense why someone with one allergy tends to have other ones too. An allergy is caused by your immune system having corrupt data on its threat-identification lookup table, so to speak, so it ends up labelling things as major threats when they really aren't. If the identification is badly off enough, it can even raise the threat level of the "intruder" to the point where the immune system "thinks" it's a deadly poison, and so it "thinks" it is authorized to react with everything it's got, even measures which could themselves kill you. And the thing is, this "lookup table" is something that gets edited over the course of your life. Your immune system starts with genetic presets from your parents, but then learns as it goes. If something makes you sick, your immune system learns to fight that something in the future. The nasty thing about some allergies is that they snowball. The allergy itself makes you feel sick, and so the immune system raises the threat rating of that substance and fights harder against it next time, making you even more sick, so it raises the threat rating even more, and starts getting really overzealous about anything that even looks remotely like the allergen - so what starts as an allergy to just walnuts ends up becoming an allergy to all nuts - anything which has a similar enough recognizable chemical pattern in it gets flagged as a problem.
Essentially, the immune system has a cascading snowballing effect that makes it so that more exposure to the allergen makes the allergy worse in the future. So that's why there do exist some people who really *are* that allergic to things - if their immune system is confused to begin with, it tends to cause itself to get even more confused.
the waters around san francisco/oakland are quite cold even at the end of july.
They also have this thing called "salt" in them - which makes them not so nice for use as drinking water. (Remember, the reason the Toronto system is a good idea is that it is already part of the drinking water system to to draw that water from the lake.)
It surely would be something to look at especially for coastal cities.
Only if the coastal cities are next to fresh water. Ocean water would make the plan not so efficient anymore, since you wouldn't use saltwater for tapwater, and thus this wouldn't just be a step inserted into the city's drinking water cycle.
I used to live near Milwuakee, and they have a mixed water supply - If you live near to the lake, your tapwater comes from the lake. If you live farther from the lake, it comes from groundwater wells. (The surrounding counties are sitting on top of a *LOT* of well-layered limestone, and that tends to collect a lot of groundwater pockets.)
Yes, but that water is eventually returned. So the complaint is that previously you had this cycle:
cold water removed from lake - used as tapwater - treated as sewage - returned to lake
And now you have this cycle:
cold water removed from lake - heated in an air conditioner - warmer water used as tapwater - treated as sewage - returned to lake
And the theory is that that extra heating is causing the water to be returned warmer than it used to. Now, of course, the flaw in this complaint is that it doesn't take into account the fact that the water gets heated *already* as part of the process of making it into tapwater - the assumption is that if it's too cold it is unpleasant to drink. I don't agree, but the fact is that heating the water already does happen. This new plan just lets that heating do something useful as it happens.
I have to wonder about volume. What volume of water per hour is needed to run AC as opposed to feeding the thirsty citizenry? Unless its a 1:1 ratio between the two, I don't see how this system could work without any wastage as promised. As long as one or the other needs is greater, there will be some wastage.
I agree that the depth around Chicago is very shallow, but how can the deepest part be north of Green Bay. North of Green Bay (the city) is, well, Green Bay (the body of water). I doubt strongly that Green Bay is the depest part of the lake. They have to dredge it to get barges through.
The margin of error in the system used was larger than the difference of votes. It would have been inconclusive no matter who "won". But the laws of statistics don't matter to elections - the rules state that a winner has to be decieed even when the data to determine it isn't good enough to do the job. It would have been just as suspect if Gore had "won".
Ever wonder why elitists are almost always Democrats too? Ever wonder why the media elitists hate humble people (i.e. George Bush, Ronald Reagan) and make fun of them as idiots because they don't understand complexities (that's code for relativism)?
Nah. I don't wonder about things that occur in other people's fantasy worlds. Here in the real world none of those assertions are true.
GPUs don't matter. The original use that was mentioned in the article was for movies - a wholly 2-D application. And besides, the slowdown I am referring to is not in computing the mappings of millions of triangles a second from pretend 3-d space into 2-d space - that's all floating point anyway. I'm referring to the difference between moving chunks of video memory around. The framebuffers have to be bigger for the same size image, and that impacts everything, including graphics formats (like Jpeg, PNG, etc), and bitblts, and, yes, movie files.
For another way this would impact things, going from 8 bits per color to 24-bits per color, or in other words from 24 bits per pixel to 72 bits per pixel, would mean movies don't fit on DVD's anymore.
Nice of you to deceptively ignore Afghanistan. One doesn't have to support the Iraq action (I don't) to support the Afghanistan action (I do - my only complaint is that we left without properly cleaning up after ourselves.)
I would imagine that getting a fake ID to go get drinks at a bar as a minor is considerably easier than this would require. These ID's would have to be inserted in several computer records to check out as okay.
and so we did them one final service by checking their ID.
And they did us one final service by letting us know who was responsible.
Basically trim tabs are miniature flaps that do the same thing as the large flap-like surfaces, i.e. the rudder, ailerons, and elevator - but to a much lesser extent, and instead of being controlled by moving the main controls they are adjusted by a somewhat more permanent means, like turning a dial to a setting, or moving a slider (on a more modern plane of course the control is digital). Their purpose is to calibrate the controls so they "center" where you want them, and account for minor variations, like having the weight being off balance.
Not all planes have trims for all the controls. The one that pretty much every plane will have, even the littlest Cessna, is the elevator trim. (Because changing your airspeed changes your lift, and requires you to also change the position of the elevator to keep from rising or falling, this is the most needed trim tab - otherwise you'd have to constantly be applying a small amount of force to the control yoke in order to cruise on a straight level path, and that gets tiring (like driving a car that pulls to the left, down a straight highway for hours.)
The next time you're in a passenger jet, get a window seat and look at the wing. You should be able to see the aeleron trim tabs - they'll be smaller little flaps that are inside the area of the bigger aeleron flaps, that consist of something like 1/10th the surface area of the big flap, and are hinged independantly of it.
I wasn't the one making the assertion that all airlines have assigned seating. I was explaining why it would be reasonable if they did, to a person who had already made that assumption.
Re:Until I upgrade my eyes, why should I care?
on
RGB to become RGBCMY
·
· Score: 1
Okay, This post made more sense. Let me try to re-phrase what you said to see if I am understanding you.
Point 1: The three samples of the spectrum taken by humans' receptors have a lot of variance from one human to the next. While my red receptors might get the strongest response at 590 nm, maybe yours gets the strongest respones at 580 nm, and maybe someone else's gets the strongest response at 600nm. Thus there is no single "correct" color for the red phosphor that works optimally for everybody. So instead we have to pick something that we think is the average for the human race.
(Is that correct?)
Point 2: This average value, once arrived at, might still not be possible to create physically since we might not be able to make a monitor physcially capable of glowing that exact color - we are limited by the types of phosphor materials available.
(Is that correct?)
And finally, if I am understanding you right: Point 3: The fact that we aren't just plugging a wire right into our optical nerves means we cannot isolate the three signals from each other. When we show a light like: RGB:1,0,0 - the brain ends up receiving something more like 1, 0.4, 0.01 since the red light ends up tickling a responose out of the other phosphors too. Thus there is no physical means to communicate an exact RGB signal from the monitor into the observer's brain. The "bleed" of the receptor's range makes it impossible to pick and choose which receptor gets which intensity, without getting interference from the other ones.
Points 1 and 2 convince me. But point 3 seems like it should be possible to get around by making calculations to account for it. The only kinds of color that point 3 would make impossible to recreate are the kinds the eye doesn't naturally encode that way anyway (a real-world spike of pure red and nothing else is going to get sent to the brain as RGB:1,0.4,0.1 too, just like it would from the computer screen.)
It would be very interesting to see, if it was possible to send signals to the optic nerve directly, how the brain would perceive a signal consisting of a single spike on just one color. It would be something that the brain has never experienced before, and the learned perception process might get really confused by it.
And yes, I am very aware of how color works in the eye, including the fact that the red receptor gets a harmonic "bump" in the violet range and thus ends up perceiving violet as a combo of red and blue even though it's not even remotely close to red on the spectrum.
I think it's more a case of you not posting what you meant to say,
No. It's a case of you misreading between the lines. I never said what you said I said, not once, not ever. I communicate very straightly and honestly, which ironically leads to all sorts of miscommunications because everyone else expects me to communicate with inuendos.
Fine, so long as you understand that the price is a lower standard of living
I am under no obligation to share the same delusions you do.
Re:Until I upgrade my eyes, why should I care?
on
RGB to become RGBCMY
·
· Score: 1
People keep bringing this up and it never makes any sense. If my brain only gets three wavelength signals normally, then how come a system that simulates the color by JUST doing those three signals and nothing else is something I could notice is off? I only ever *get* those three signals. That's it. So when you show me 500nm light, I get a certain pattern on those three receptors. Okay, fine, so just send THAT same pattern instead of the 500nm light and I'll see the same thing gain.
If, for example, a natural light results in a small tickle of 'red signal' and a larger pulse of 'green signal' and a small tickle of 'blue signal' reaching my brain, then just send that exact ratio of RGB to the monitor so I see the same thing.
How can it ever be different? Yes, it's just an approximation, but it's the *same* approximation my brain normally recieves anyway.
Now, if the goal was to make a monitor for non-humans, then it would make sense to get a better approximation to the spectrum than humans can do.
why not make it 12 or 16 bit and be absolutely sure that no-one can tell the difference?
Because once it reaches the point where you can't tell the difference, then speed is more important, and increasing the memory needed to store an image automatically makes it take more computing power to keep up with all the memory moving. The test I did was very rigged to make things easy - large blocks of color - right next to each other. On the other hand, I cannot believe that you could tell, or care, that a leaf was colored 002900 or 002A00 in a movie image of a tree, or something real-world like that.
(For example, a movie at 640x480 resolution with 30 FPS looks a lot smoother than one at 1280x1024 with 20 FPS. The fast frame rate ends up making the pixels 'fuzzy' in your vision anyway, so the speed makes the image more clear than the better resolution does. I think the same thing would happen with going to 16 bits per color. The slowdown would make it not worth it.)
I mean I placed the color blocks adjacent to each other. When you do that you can see a line where the change occurs. Put them apart from each other and I doubt you could have seen which was which.
By the way, you keep using this word "Banding" without explaining it.
Which is why you have to present ID to rent a truck.
So I suppose the fact that the rental company wants you to sign a contract in which you promise to bring the truck back and pay for the use of it has nothing to do with needing your ID whatsoever???
You also don't need to show ID to enter a small one-person Cessna that you own, and for the exact same reason. Who would you show it to? You do, as the above poster mentioned, have to have your license on you if you are the pilot/driver, but your passengers don't need any ID unless you want them to - just like with a car - *exactly* like with a car.
More than likely the requirement for ID is not coming from government, but from private insurance requirements. They want the info.
Slashdot Mirror
For a roleplaying game, I wonce wrote up an alien race that had the ability to see the spectrum of colors as a continuous dimension of information, much like the x and y dimensions of the physical image, so essentially their brain got a 3-d signal isntead of four seperate discrete samples of 2-d information. The idea was that they could see the *exact* color of a thing. Advantages of this were that their race had a very advanced level of chemistry. After all, if even their primitive cavemen could see spectrums, then they are going to be able to differentiate different kinds of materials easily, just from what "color" they are. The disadvantage was that they lived in a world dominated by humans, and had to get by using human technology often, and human visual interfaces tended to be hard for them to understand. When they see an RGB-rendered red apple, to them it doesn't look anything remotely like an apple. For them, interpreteing human-designed images was a matter of painstaking effort and skill. Even paintings don't look right. (When they see red paint mixed with yellow paint, it doesn't look anything like orange, for example, so all the great works of human art look utterly awful to them, and it takes effort to even discern the shape being attempted.)
Identity theft online does not require that you look like the photo of the person. Getting on an airplane does.
The point isn't that the system wouldn't work with saltwater. It would. The point is that part of what makes the system not have any environmental impact is that is that the water is uses is water that would have been used anyway for drinking water. If the water it uses is saltwater, that isn't true anymore.
I know someone who is allergic to just about every type of food. The list of bad foods includes all nuts, and fruits in which the seeds touch the 'flesh' if the fruit - like strawberries, watermelons, and banannas. (Fruits where the seeds are contained within by a thick hull or core are okay), Several beans are also bad, including Cocao, so chocolate is out. And on top of all that, he's lactose intolerant. And no, it's not a power trip, nor a case of hypochondria. Unless, that is, you believe he is so good at unconsiously controlling his body that he can cause his windpipe to swell and cut off his breathing, requiring a speeding trip to the hospital (in which adrenneline was used to kill the swelling (not sure how that works) so he could breathe again, and then the emergency room doctor advised him to never again go out and eat in public restaurants, and only eat food he'd cooked himself so he knows every ingredient that goes into it.)
I've seen it happen. It's really not pretty.
The problem is that the existence of people like this (real deadly multiple-allergy sufferers) gives ammunition to the whiny hypochondriacs. Because some people like that exist, Hypochondriacs think they might be one of them.
Given how allergies work, it makes perfect sense why someone with one allergy tends to have other ones too. An allergy is caused by your immune system having corrupt data on its threat-identification lookup table, so to speak, so it ends up labelling things as major threats when they really aren't. If the identification is badly off enough, it can even raise the threat level of the "intruder" to the point where the immune system "thinks" it's a deadly poison, and so it "thinks" it is authorized to react with everything it's got, even measures which could themselves kill you. And the thing is, this "lookup table" is something that gets edited over the course of your life. Your immune system starts with genetic presets from your parents, but then learns as it goes. If something makes you sick, your immune system learns to fight that something in the future. The nasty thing about some allergies is that they snowball. The allergy itself makes you feel sick, and so the immune system raises the threat rating of that substance and fights harder against it next time, making you even more sick, so it raises the threat rating even more, and starts getting really overzealous about anything that even looks remotely like the allergen - so what starts as an allergy to just walnuts ends up becoming an allergy to all nuts - anything which has a similar enough recognizable chemical pattern in it gets flagged as a problem.
Essentially, the immune system has a cascading snowballing effect that makes it so that more exposure to the allergen makes the allergy worse in the future. So that's why there do exist some people who really *are* that allergic to things - if their immune system is confused to begin with, it tends to cause itself to get even more confused.
Normal plumbing doesn't require that the tapwater remain frigid as it is delivered to every building in the system.
the waters around san francisco/oakland are quite cold even at the end of july.
They also have this thing called "salt" in them - which makes them not so nice for use as drinking water. (Remember, the reason the Toronto system is a good idea is that it is already part of the drinking water system to to draw that water from the lake.)
It surely would be something to look at especially for coastal cities.
Only if the coastal cities are next to fresh water. Ocean water would make the plan not so efficient anymore, since you wouldn't use saltwater for tapwater, and thus this wouldn't just be a step inserted into the city's drinking water cycle.
I used to live near Milwuakee, and they have a mixed water supply - If you live near to the lake, your tapwater comes from the lake. If you live farther from the lake, it comes from groundwater wells. (The surrounding counties are sitting on top of a *LOT* of well-layered limestone, and that tends to collect a lot of groundwater pockets.)
Yes, but that water is eventually returned. So the complaint is that previously you had this cycle:
cold water removed from lake - used as tapwater - treated as sewage - returned to lake
And now you have this cycle:
cold water removed from lake - heated in an air conditioner - warmer water used as tapwater - treated as sewage - returned to lake
And the theory is that that extra heating is causing the water to be returned warmer than it used to. Now, of course, the flaw in this complaint is that it doesn't take into account the fact that the water gets heated *already* as part of the process of making it into tapwater - the assumption is that if it's too cold it is unpleasant to drink. I don't agree, but the fact is that heating the water already does happen. This new plan just lets that heating do something useful as it happens.
I have to wonder about volume. What volume of water per hour is needed to run AC as opposed to feeding the thirsty citizenry? Unless its a 1:1 ratio between the two, I don't see how this system could work without any wastage as promised. As long as one or the other needs is greater, there will be some wastage.
I agree that the depth around Chicago is very shallow, but how can the deepest part be north of Green Bay. North of Green Bay (the city) is, well, Green Bay (the body of water). I doubt strongly that Green Bay is the depest part of the lake. They have to dredge it to get barges through.
The margin of error in the system used was larger than the difference of votes. It would have been inconclusive no matter who "won". But the laws of statistics don't matter to elections - the rules state that a winner has to be decieed even when the data to determine it isn't good enough to do the job. It would have been just as suspect if Gore had "won".
suspect the DNC actually approves of such tactics.
I suspect the DNC isn't even aware of these activites - just like most politicians aren't ever aware of stuff they consider "obscure tech news".
Ever wonder why elitists are almost always Democrats too? Ever wonder why the media elitists hate humble people (i.e. George Bush, Ronald Reagan) and make fun of them as idiots because they don't understand complexities (that's code for relativism)?
Nah. I don't wonder about things that occur in other people's fantasy worlds. Here in the real world none of those assertions are true.
GPUs don't matter. The original use that was mentioned in the article was for movies - a wholly 2-D application. And besides, the slowdown I am referring to is not in computing the mappings of millions of triangles a second from pretend 3-d space into 2-d space - that's all floating point anyway. I'm referring to the difference between moving chunks of video memory around. The framebuffers have to be bigger for the same size image, and that impacts everything, including graphics formats (like Jpeg, PNG, etc), and bitblts, and, yes, movie files.
For another way this would impact things, going from 8 bits per color to 24-bits per color, or in other words from 24 bits per pixel to 72 bits per pixel, would mean movies don't fit on DVD's anymore.
Nice of you to deceptively ignore Afghanistan. One doesn't have to support the Iraq action (I don't) to support the Afghanistan action (I do - my only complaint is that we left without properly cleaning up after ourselves.)
I would imagine that getting a fake ID to go get drinks at a bar as a minor is considerably easier than this would require. These ID's would have to be inserted in several computer records to check out as okay.
and so we did them one final service by checking their ID.
And they did us one final service by letting us know who was responsible.
Basically trim tabs are miniature flaps that do the same thing as the large flap-like surfaces, i.e. the rudder, ailerons, and elevator - but to a much lesser extent, and instead of being controlled by moving the main controls they are adjusted by a somewhat more permanent means, like turning a dial to a setting, or moving a slider (on a more modern plane of course the control is digital). Their purpose is to calibrate the controls so they "center" where you want them, and account for minor variations, like having the weight being off balance.
Not all planes have trims for all the controls. The one that pretty much every plane will have, even the littlest Cessna, is the elevator trim. (Because changing your airspeed changes your lift, and requires you to also change the position of the elevator to keep from rising or falling, this is the most needed trim tab - otherwise you'd have to constantly be applying a small amount of force to the control yoke in order to cruise on a straight level path, and that gets tiring (like driving a car that pulls to the left, down a straight highway for hours.)
The next time you're in a passenger jet, get a window seat and look at the wing. You should be able to see the aeleron trim tabs - they'll be smaller little flaps that are inside the area of the bigger aeleron flaps, that consist of something like 1/10th the surface area of the big flap, and are hinged independantly of it.
I wasn't the one making the assertion that all airlines have assigned seating. I was explaining why it would be reasonable if they did, to a person who had already made that assumption.
Okay, This post made more sense. Let me try to re-phrase what you said to see if I am understanding you.
Point 1: The three samples of the spectrum taken by humans' receptors have a lot of variance from one human to the next. While my red receptors might get the strongest response at 590 nm, maybe yours gets the strongest respones at 580 nm, and maybe someone else's gets the strongest response at 600nm. Thus there is no single "correct" color for the red phosphor that works optimally for everybody. So instead we have to pick something that we think is the average for the human race.
(Is that correct?)
Point 2: This average value, once arrived at, might still not be possible to create physically since we might not be able to make a monitor physcially capable of glowing that exact color - we are limited by the types of phosphor materials available.
(Is that correct?)
And finally, if I am understanding you right:
Point 3: The fact that we aren't just plugging a wire right into our optical nerves means we cannot isolate the three signals from each other. When we show a light like: RGB:1,0,0 - the brain ends up receiving something more like 1, 0.4, 0.01 since the red light ends up tickling a responose out of the other phosphors too. Thus there is no physical means to communicate an exact RGB signal from the monitor into the observer's brain. The "bleed" of the receptor's range makes it impossible to pick and choose which receptor gets which intensity, without getting interference from the other ones.
Points 1 and 2 convince me. But point 3 seems like it should be possible to get around by making calculations to account for it. The only kinds of color that point 3 would make impossible to recreate are the kinds the eye doesn't naturally encode that way anyway (a real-world spike of pure red and nothing else is going to get sent to the brain as RGB:1,0.4,0.1 too, just like it would from the computer screen.)
It would be very interesting to see, if it was possible to send signals to the optic nerve directly, how the brain would perceive a signal consisting of a single spike on just one color. It would be something that the brain has never experienced before, and the learned perception process might get really confused by it.
And yes, I am very aware of how color works in the eye, including the fact that the red receptor gets a harmonic "bump" in the violet range and thus ends up perceiving violet as a combo of red and blue even though it's not even remotely close to red on the spectrum.
I think it's more a case of you not posting what you meant to say,
No. It's a case of you misreading between the lines. I never said what you said I said, not once, not ever. I communicate very straightly and honestly, which ironically leads to all sorts of miscommunications because everyone else expects me to communicate with inuendos.
Fine, so long as you understand that the price is a lower standard of living
I am under no obligation to share the same delusions you do.
People keep bringing this up and it never makes any sense. If my brain only gets three wavelength signals normally, then how come a system that simulates the color by JUST doing those three signals and nothing else is something I could notice is off? I only ever *get* those three signals. That's it. So when you show me 500nm light, I get a certain pattern on those three receptors. Okay, fine, so just send THAT same pattern instead of the 500nm light and I'll see the same thing gain.
If, for example, a natural light results in a small tickle of 'red signal' and a larger pulse of 'green signal' and a small tickle of 'blue signal' reaching my brain, then just send that exact ratio of RGB to the monitor so I see the same thing.
How can it ever be different? Yes, it's just an approximation, but it's the *same* approximation my brain normally recieves anyway.
Now, if the goal was to make a monitor for non-humans, then it would make sense to get a better approximation to the spectrum than humans can do.
why not make it 12 or 16 bit and be absolutely sure that no-one can tell the difference?
Because once it reaches the point where you can't tell the difference, then speed is more important, and increasing the memory needed to store an image automatically makes it take more computing power to keep up with all the memory moving. The test I did was very rigged to make things easy - large blocks of color - right next to each other. On the other hand, I cannot believe that you could tell, or care, that a leaf was colored 002900 or 002A00 in a movie image of a tree, or something real-world like that.
(For example, a movie at 640x480 resolution with 30 FPS looks a lot smoother than one at 1280x1024 with 20 FPS. The fast frame rate ends up making the pixels 'fuzzy' in your vision anyway, so the speed makes the image more clear than the better resolution does. I think the same thing would happen with going to 16 bits per color. The slowdown would make it not worth it.)
What do you mean, rigged test?
I mean I placed the color blocks adjacent to each other. When you do that you can see a line where the change occurs. Put them apart from each other and I doubt you could have seen which was which.
By the way, you keep using this word "Banding" without explaining it.
Which is why you have to present ID to rent a truck.
So I suppose the fact that the rental company wants you to sign a contract in which you promise to bring the truck back and pay for the use of it has nothing to do with needing your ID whatsoever???
You can't enter into a contract anonymously.
You also don't need to show ID to enter a small one-person Cessna that you own, and for the exact same reason. Who would you show it to? You do, as the above poster mentioned, have to have your license on you if you are the pilot/driver, but your passengers don't need any ID unless you want them to - just like with a car - *exactly* like with a car.
More than likely the requirement for ID is not coming from government, but from private insurance requirements. They want the info.