That would make some sense, except that wouldn't it matter *more* on a sparsely filled flight, not less? Each individual's movement is a larger relative difference in where the center of mass is when there's less mass overall.
But, at any rate, ever heard of trim tabs? It's this nice little invention they came up with over 80 years ago - and with them you don't need to be so precise about where people sit - you can compensate by trimming the controls to match the weight distribution.
Identifying the dead is only a very small fraction of what is done in a crash investigation. The really important part is figuring out the cause of the crash, and the nature of the crash. Cataloging he arrangement of debris is a big part of that. If a scrap of metal known to be part of the tail is found *here* and a scrap of tire known to be part of the left landing gear is found *there*, that's all very relevant information to record. Now, the thing is, bits of metal and plastic are sometimes very hard to identify what they are. But bits of people are identifyable by DNA. It's some of the most easy to identify debris out there. So, with assigned seating, you know more than just "Bob Smith's left foot was found at this spot" - you know "this left foot was originally part of the passenger sitting in seat 27B, and therefore is a piece of debris from this particular part of the passenger cabin." Yeah, it's really greusome, but it's all valuable information.
In the alternate reality where nobody is insane, nobody is suicidal, and everybody thinks through the consequenses of their actions very carefully before doing something that would get themselves killed, your proposal would be a good one. But here in the real world where the rest of us live, it's not. The "everybody be nice because we're all armed" policy will break down because only 99% of the poeple on the plane would be smart and sane and thinking things through, and a typical flight has more than 100 people on it.
You don't need to show ID to drive a car for exactly the same reason you don't need to show ID to get on a small plane that *YOU* own and fly it somewhere yourself. The plane itself has to be registered, just like a car, and you need to be a licensed pilot, just like a car drive needs to be a licensed driver, but you do not have to file a flight plan (it's usually a good idea to do so, so rescuers know where to search for you if you crash, but it isn't mandatory.) Comparing a large commercial passenger service form of transport to a single-occupancy owned-vehicle form of transport is making for a terrible analogy.
Apparently you don't remember that the use of the IDs is how they were identified afterward. And yes, that did do us a lot of good, thanks for admitting it.
We don't have to answer the question of *why*, since they *did* in fact use their real ID's. Why they didn't use fakes isn't important. The fact is that they didn't.
That depends on if you mean a physical ticket in your hand or an e-ticket. Yes, you should be able to transfer a physical ticket to another person if you want. But with an e-ticket, I *want* that ID system in place because otherwise anyone who knew I was going to be on that flight could just walk up to the counter and say, "Yeah, I'm him. No really, I am. Give me the seat on the plane.." There needs to be a way to match up my purchase online of the e-ticket to my physical presence at the airport or someone else can defraud me.
Do you really believe that, in the absence of power
Stop right there. The "absence of power" is not a condition worth thinking about, since it cannot last long enough to matter. Any anarchy will be gone the moment the first bully comes along. Either the bully becomes the new power, or the band of people that gang up to fight the bully become the new power.
Anarchy sounds nice on paper, but I prefer to work with systems that are actually possible to exist in reality.
Travel papers are documents allowing you to take a specific journey. Want to take a different journey later on - then you need a new set of papers for that trip. So they essentially require approval for each and every trip you take, on a case by case basis. Requiring to show ID, on the other hand, is nothing like that, since whether you are allowed to fly with that ID has nothing to do with where in the country you are trying to go, and you don't need approval for each and every trip.
Anonymity is overrated. Sure, it allows people to circumvent bad laws, but it also allows them to circumvent good ones, like the law against spreading false slander about someone - do it anonymously and you can get away with it scott free.
If there is a bad law for which anonymity is the only way to get around it, then the law is what should change, not the ability to be anonymous.
If only the jukebox at the local bar had this anti-phish technology, then I wouldn't have to put up with some putz playing "Bounce around the Room" three times back to back all the time.
My monitor is as bright as I can tolerate - which is usually *lower* than the reccomended gamma level. I can't tolerate 2.2. It hurts to look at a white screen that's that bright. But I did perform the test on multiple montiors, with multiple people. None of them could see the difference you claim to be able to see. Given your results, I'd say your differentiation is not average. I also know people who claim to be able to hear the difference between CD audio and MP3 audio, and the result is much the same - MOST people cannot detect the difference, but a few can.
I don't see the value in making the color resolution any better than 255 units per color. I doubt anyone will be able to tell the difference. Even in a rigged test where the setting is deliberately set up to make it as easy as possible, it is still barely possible for you to see the difference between adjacent numbers, and for others its actually altogether impossible.
Note - slashdot sometimes munges up the view of that code, even inside an ECODE section like it is - but you should be able to work out what I did, and fix up all the "&g t;" things in there.
Either you are making claims without checking them, or else my eyes and those of the other people around me are not as good as yours. I did the following test. It shows a block of 255,41,0 and a block of 255,42,0 in HTML. People can't figure out which one is darker. Most thought I was doing a psychology trick about how people would react to a test where the colors are the same and I claimed they differed.
I even made sure the colors are adjacent so I can see the line between them if they differ slightly - except that I *can't*.
Here's the test - cut and paste it into a file and check it in a browser (make sure you are using 24-bit color on your screen, of course, to be fair. The difference would round off in 16-bit color)
<html> <head> </head> <body>
Which of these two examples is darker? example1 or example2?
<br>
<table border=0 cellpadding=40 cellspacing=0>
<tr> <td bgcolor='#FF2900'> <h3>example1</h3> </td> </tr>
<tr> <td bgcolor='#FF2A00'> <h3>example2</h3> </td> </tr>
</table> </body> </html>
I kept making the second color slightly brighter and brighter until I could see the line between them. I didn't notice the line until it was at FF2900 versus FF2F00 - a full 6 units apart, and even then I really had to look hard for it.
(I suspected the result would be different if it was just the dark green by itself, without the dominating red color in there, so I changed it to 002900 versus 002A00, and I still couldn't see the difference. (although it only had to get 4 units apart to tell the difference (002C00) that way instead of 6 - I still couldn't see the difference at just one unit apart.
And keep in mind these tests were with the colors RIGHT NEXT TO each other so the line between them could be seen. Separate them out into non-adjacent blocks (Add a cellspacing=00 to the table) and it gets hard again and you need more units of difference than just 6 (or 4) to make it work.
What do you mean by "faster response time"? Are you saying the photoreceptors "calm down" from their stimulation faster, thus afterimages don't last as long?
High and low tones are not directly percieved, but they do end up causing harmonic effects that alter sounds within the range you *can* hear. Something similar happens with IR and UV light. Your red receoptor gets tickled by violet light even though it's up at the "wrong end" of the spectrum, because it is a harmonic doubling from the red frequencies. This is why red and blue make violet - frequencies above blue give "false positives" on the red receptor, and so our brains have been trained to interpret a spike of red and a spike of blue as being "above blue" - or violet. So, having UV in the signal could make a difference - it makes the red receptor tickle a little bit - not enough to notice it if that's the only light that's there, but perhaps enough to alter the hue of a spectrum of colors that contains it.
Until I upgrade my eyes, why should I care?
on
RGB to become RGBCMY
·
· Score: 1
My eyes take three samples from the spectrum (well, four techincally, but the forth one covers a wide band that gets stimulated by all the visible colors, so it doesn't help determine hue.)
Until my biology changes, why should I care that the film I'm watching has, in addition to those three colors, three other colors in-between them? I'll see the same color whether it's a glowing magenta phosphor on the screen or it's a pair of a glowing red and glowing blue phosphors.
The only way I could see this being helpful is if different individual human eyes have different properties for their cones. Perhaps my red receptor gets peak stimulation at a frequency that's a bit off from where yours does, and therefore it isn't possible to construct a video monitor that correctly stimulates both my eyes' red receptors and yours. If that sort of thing is really common, then any technology that simulates the whole spectrum better would help (because the RGB system is dependant on everyone's eyes working the same way, with the same exact hot spots.) But if that's the reason for this, then there's nothing special about picking CMY other than those mark the halfway points betwen R,G, and B (the fact that they are the subtractive primary colors doesn't matter), and thus you have 6 samples instead of three. But again, if that's the case, then there is nothing special about adding exactly three more colors for a total of 6. Having 7, or 8, or 10, or 40 colors would be helpful too - the more colors the better the chance that it would work on anyone's eyes even if they are off from other people's.
Do you actually think you can see the difference between, say 255,41,0 and 255,42,0 ??? If your human brain can't percieve that slight a difference, then what difference does it make that the device can do so? (It could be useful in situations where the intended "viewer" is not a human being - like for pattern recognition by computer, but that's about it.)
The problem with this is that the story of the red shirts was not about ability to distinguish color, but the ability to talk about color. It was a vocabulary problem, not a perception problem. To give an example from/usr/lib/X11/rgb.txt, If given two brownish shades to look at, I would have a hard time identifying which color is "chocolate" and "brown", but an easy time telling which is "210 105 30" and which is "165 42 42" - just different words for the same thing.
There may be a sex difference in how color is percieved. This story was not an example of it, however.
the idea of Wal Mart's monopolistic control of the German retail market is, thus far, wholly imaginary.
And the laws that you are scoffing at are precisely the reason for this. If you think I've been arguing that Walmart is a monopoly in Germany, you haven't been paying attention. I'm arguing that preventing that from happening is precisely the goal of these laws that are getting in the way of Walmart acting the way it does in the US.
I think a far simpler explanation is this: A helicopter rotor is, in essence, a big fan - granted it's a fan with floppy blades, but it's still a fan. It's main purpose is to push the air in a direction. Downward. Push agaisnt it hard enough and the blade (and attached helicopter) will be pulled up in simple Newtonian reaction to pushing the air down. So in essence, when the lower rotor was working correctly, it created a localized downdraft. The upper rotor simply was stuck in that downdraft and thus was pulled downward - just like a piece of paper you fling at a fan can up getting blown agaisnt the backside of the fan's cage and stuck there.
The fact that they *did* move those ground units in means it is inaccurate to say it was won "solely" on air power. What made that statement incredulous was the word "solely".
No war has ever been won 'solely' on air power simply because you need to have people there on the ground in order to claim the territory as captured, regardless of whether they have to do any hard fighting to do so.
The problem with this test is that it has two different effects that both cause you to tire out, while a real-world test only has one of them. The extra 'tired' effect this plywood test has is that you are not allowing the blade to be lifted upward. You are trying to hold it down with your arms and wrists so it doesn't fly up, when that force would normally be performed by the materials the rotor is made from (and not by the "engine" itself.) So in addition to getting tired because of the drag, you (unlike the human-powered engine of the helicopter) are also getting tired trying to hold the 'propellor blade' down.
If by "we" you mean the world in general, that is true. If by "we" you mean the United States, that is false. The biggest customers of Iraqi Oil were in Europe.
As for WMDs, the millions of Iraqi dead during Husseins reign as 'president' of Iraq don't bother you?
Let's call set A the set of all legitimate reasons that existed to unseat Hussein from power. This is not an empty set. There were plenty of good reasons. Now let's call set B the set of all the reasons Bush had for unseating Hussein from power. This is also not an empty set.
The problem is that sets A and B do not intersect in the slightest.
Monopolistic practices, such as the ones Walmart tries using that are thwarted by German laws, do lead to a LOCAL maximum efficiency in the economy - but at the expense of leading away from larger maximums elsewhere. In the short run, monopolies lead to efficiency. In the long run they stagnate in comparasin to markets where the competition is more flatly equal.
Slashdot Mirror
That would make some sense, except that wouldn't it matter *more* on a sparsely filled flight, not less? Each individual's movement is a larger relative difference in where the center of mass is when there's less mass overall.
But, at any rate, ever heard of trim tabs? It's this nice little invention they came up with over 80 years ago - and with them you don't need to be so precise about where people sit - you can compensate by trimming the controls to match the weight distribution.
Identifying the dead is only a very small fraction of what is done in a crash investigation. The really important part is figuring out the cause of the crash, and the nature of the crash. Cataloging he arrangement of debris is a big part of that. If a scrap of metal known to be part of the tail is found *here* and a scrap of tire known to be part of the left landing gear is found *there*, that's all very relevant information to record. Now, the thing is, bits of metal and plastic are sometimes very hard to identify what they are. But bits of people are identifyable by DNA. It's some of the most easy to identify debris out there. So, with assigned seating, you know more than just "Bob Smith's left foot was found at this spot" - you know "this left foot was originally part of the passenger sitting in seat 27B, and therefore is a piece of debris from this particular part of the passenger cabin." Yeah, it's really greusome, but it's all valuable information.
In the alternate reality where nobody is insane, nobody is suicidal, and everybody thinks through the consequenses of their actions very carefully before doing something that would get themselves killed, your proposal would be a good one. But here in the real world where the rest of us live, it's not. The "everybody be nice because we're all armed" policy will break down because only 99% of the poeple on the plane would be smart and sane and thinking things through, and a typical flight has more than 100 people on it.
You don't need to show ID to drive a car for exactly the same reason you don't need to show ID to get on a small plane that *YOU* own and fly it somewhere yourself. The plane itself has to be registered, just like a car, and you need to be a licensed pilot, just like a car drive needs to be a licensed driver, but you do not have to file a flight plan (it's usually a good idea to do so, so rescuers know where to search for you if you crash, but it isn't mandatory.) Comparing a large commercial passenger service form of transport to a single-occupancy owned-vehicle form of transport is making for a terrible analogy.
Apparently you don't remember that the use of the IDs is how they were identified afterward. And yes, that did do us a lot of good, thanks for admitting it.
We don't have to answer the question of *why*, since they *did* in fact use their real ID's. Why they didn't use fakes isn't important. The fact is that they didn't.
That depends on if you mean a physical ticket in your hand or an e-ticket. Yes, you should be able to transfer a physical ticket to another person if you want. But with an e-ticket, I *want* that ID system in place because otherwise anyone who knew I was going to be on that flight could just walk up to the counter and say, "Yeah, I'm him. No really, I am. Give me the seat on the plane.." There needs to be a way to match up my purchase online of the e-ticket to my physical presence at the airport or someone else can defraud me.
Do you really believe that, in the absence of power
Stop right there. The "absence of power" is not a condition worth thinking about, since it cannot last long enough to matter. Any anarchy will be gone the moment the first bully comes along. Either the bully becomes the new power, or the band of people that gang up to fight the bully become the new power.
Anarchy sounds nice on paper, but I prefer to work with systems that are actually possible to exist in reality.
Travel papers are documents allowing you to take a specific journey. Want to take a different journey later on - then you need a new set of papers for that trip. So they essentially require approval for each and every trip you take, on a case by case basis. Requiring to show ID, on the other hand, is nothing like that, since whether you are allowed to fly with that ID has nothing to do with where in the country you are trying to go, and you don't need approval for each and every trip.
Anonymity is overrated. Sure, it allows people to circumvent bad laws, but it also allows them to circumvent good ones, like the law against spreading false slander about someone - do it anonymously and you can get away with it scott free.
If there is a bad law for which anonymity is the only way to get around it, then the law is what should change, not the ability to be anonymous.
If only the jukebox at the local bar had this anti-phish technology, then I wouldn't have to put up with some putz playing "Bounce around the Room" three times back to back all the time.
My monitor is as bright as I can tolerate - which is usually *lower* than the reccomended gamma level. I can't tolerate 2.2. It hurts to look at a white screen that's that bright. But I did perform the test on multiple montiors, with multiple people. None of them could see the difference you claim to be able to see. Given your results, I'd say your differentiation is not average. I also know people who claim to be able to hear the difference between CD audio and MP3 audio, and the result is much the same - MOST people cannot detect the difference, but a few can.
I don't see the value in making the color resolution any better than 255 units per color. I doubt anyone will be able to tell the difference. Even in a rigged test where the setting is deliberately set up to make it as easy as possible, it is still barely possible for you to see the difference between adjacent numbers, and for others its actually altogether impossible.
(Add a cellspacing=00 to the table)
oops: 'cellspacing=00' was supposed to be "cellspacing=10' there.
Note - slashdot sometimes munges up the view of that code, even inside an ECODE section like it is - but you should be able to work out what I did, and fix up all the "&g t;" things in there.
I even made sure the colors are adjacent so I can see the line between them if they differ slightly - except that I *can't*.
Here's the test - cut and paste it into a file and check it in a browser (make sure you are using 24-bit color on your screen, of course, to be fair. The difference would round off in 16-bit color)I kept making the second color slightly brighter and brighter until I could see the line between them. I didn't notice the line until it was at FF2900 versus FF2F00 - a full 6 units apart, and even then I really had to look hard for it.
(I suspected the result would be different if it was just the dark green by itself, without the dominating red color in there, so I changed it to 002900 versus 002A00, and I still couldn't see the difference. (although it only had to get 4 units apart to tell the difference (002C00) that way instead of 6 - I still couldn't see the difference at just one unit apart.
And keep in mind these tests were with the colors RIGHT NEXT TO each other so the line between them could be seen. Separate them out into non-adjacent blocks (Add a cellspacing=00 to the table) and it gets hard again and you need more units of difference than just 6 (or 4) to make it work.
What do you mean by "faster response time"? Are you saying the photoreceptors "calm down" from their stimulation faster, thus afterimages don't last as long?
High and low tones are not directly percieved, but they do end up causing harmonic effects that alter sounds within the range you *can* hear. Something similar happens with IR and UV light. Your red receoptor gets tickled by violet light even though it's up at the "wrong end" of the spectrum, because it is a harmonic doubling from the red frequencies. This is why red and blue make violet - frequencies above blue give "false positives" on the red receptor, and so our brains have been trained to interpret a spike of red and a spike of blue as being "above blue" - or violet. So, having UV in the signal could make a difference - it makes the red receptor tickle a little bit - not enough to notice it if that's the only light that's there, but perhaps enough to alter the hue of a spectrum of colors that contains it.
My eyes take three samples from the spectrum (well, four techincally, but the forth one covers a wide band that gets stimulated by all the visible colors, so it doesn't help determine hue.)
Until my biology changes, why should I care that the film I'm watching has, in addition to those three colors, three other colors in-between them? I'll see the same color whether it's a glowing magenta phosphor on the screen or it's a pair of a glowing red and glowing blue phosphors.
The only way I could see this being helpful is if different individual human eyes have different properties for their cones. Perhaps my red receptor gets peak stimulation at a frequency that's a bit off from where yours does, and therefore it isn't possible to construct a video monitor that correctly stimulates both my eyes' red receptors and yours. If that sort of thing is really common, then any technology that simulates the whole spectrum better would help (because the RGB system is dependant on everyone's eyes working the same way, with the same exact hot spots.) But if that's the reason for this, then there's nothing special about picking CMY other than those mark the halfway points betwen R,G, and B (the fact that they are the subtractive primary colors doesn't matter), and thus you have 6 samples instead of three. But again, if that's the case, then there is nothing special about adding exactly three more colors for a total of 6. Having 7, or 8, or 10, or 40 colors would be helpful too - the more colors the better the chance that it would work on anyone's eyes even if they are off from other people's.
Do you actually think you can see the difference between, say 255,41,0 and 255,42,0 ??? If your human brain can't percieve that slight a difference, then what difference does it make that the device can do so? (It could be useful in situations where the intended "viewer" is not a human being - like for pattern recognition by computer, but that's about it.)
The problem with this is that the story of the red shirts was not about ability to distinguish color, but the ability to talk about color. It was a vocabulary problem, not a perception problem. To give an example from /usr/lib/X11/rgb.txt, If given two brownish shades to look at, I would have a hard time identifying which color is "chocolate" and "brown", but an easy time telling which is "210 105 30" and which is "165 42 42" - just different words for the same thing.
There may be a sex difference in how color is percieved. This story was not an example of it, however.
the idea of Wal Mart's monopolistic control of the German retail market is, thus far, wholly imaginary.
And the laws that you are scoffing at are precisely the reason for this. If you think I've been arguing that Walmart is a monopoly in Germany, you haven't been paying attention. I'm arguing that preventing that from happening is precisely the goal of these laws that are getting in the way of Walmart acting the way it does in the US.
I think a far simpler explanation is this: A helicopter rotor is, in essence, a big fan - granted it's a fan with floppy blades, but it's still a fan. It's main purpose is to push the air in a direction. Downward. Push agaisnt it hard enough and the blade (and attached helicopter) will be pulled up in simple Newtonian reaction to pushing the air down. So in essence, when the lower rotor was working correctly, it created a localized downdraft. The upper rotor simply was stuck in that downdraft and thus was pulled downward - just like a piece of paper you fling at a fan can up getting blown agaisnt the backside of the fan's cage and stuck there.
before ever moving a single ground unit in.
The fact that they *did* move those ground units in means it is inaccurate to say it was won "solely" on air power. What made that statement incredulous was the word "solely".
No war has ever been won 'solely' on air power simply because you need to have people there on the ground in order to claim the territory as captured, regardless of whether they have to do any hard fighting to do so.
The problem with this test is that it has two different effects that both cause you to tire out, while a real-world test only has one of them. The extra 'tired' effect this plywood test has is that you are not allowing the blade to be lifted upward. You are trying to hold it down with your arms and wrists so it doesn't fly up, when that force would normally be performed by the materials the rotor is made from (and not by the "engine" itself.) So in addition to getting tired because of the drag, you (unlike the human-powered engine of the helicopter) are also getting tired trying to hold the 'propellor blade' down.
We were big customers of Iraq before the war
If by "we" you mean the world in general, that is true. If by "we" you mean the United States, that is false. The biggest customers of Iraqi Oil were in Europe.
As for WMDs, the millions of Iraqi dead during Husseins reign as 'president' of Iraq don't bother you?
Let's call set A the set of all legitimate reasons that existed to unseat Hussein from power. This is not an empty set. There were plenty of good reasons. Now let's call set B the set of all the reasons Bush had for unseating Hussein from power. This is also not an empty set.
The problem is that sets A and B do not intersect in the slightest.
Monopolistic practices, such as the ones Walmart tries using that are thwarted by German laws, do lead to a LOCAL maximum efficiency in the economy - but at the expense of leading away from larger maximums elsewhere. In the short run, monopolies lead to efficiency. In the long run they stagnate in comparasin to markets where the competition is more flatly equal.