Yes, the flourencent tube lights do date well before the sixties, but unless I'm mistraken, the use of the UV discharge from the neon & xenon to excite the rgb phosphor was from the sixties.
hmm... I seem to remember something about superheating a substance until it is too hot for an atom to maintain the atomic bond between the nuclei and the electrons, resulting in a highly electrified soup of free electons and still bonded nuclei surrounded by neutrons and protrons.
I am gazing suspiciously at my plasma tv, not running as hot as the sun and not a hot as a fusion reactor. I think it is a plasma(tm) tv. Probably not too many free electrons:)
A Plasma tv has two plates of glass that sandwich panels of cells (the pixels) that house 3 sub-pixels corresponding to the colours blue red and green.
The TV's control circuit can address any of the sub-pixels through the rear glass substrate mounted circuit and pass an electrical charge through neon and xenon gas and as a result, the gas state changes to plasma and ultraviolet light is emitted.
This UV light is absorbed by the blue, red and green phosphors in the cell, and re-radiate the energy in the visible spectrum.
It's fairly old technology, dating back to the '60s.
It is interesting that this thread sparked a discussion of the morality of manipulating the genes of these mice to cause deliberate malformations that are not in the best interest of the mice.
Why would we suddenly have attitudes towards mice that are any different from other animals in our charge? We selectively breed pigs specifically for desired ratios of fat to flesh; breed chickens using hormones that result in an "adult" chicken in a fraction of the conventional time; inject bovine with hormones to stimulate lactation and production; all in an effort that is not in the best interest of the animals, but in the best [immediate] interest of the purveyor.
Looking to the human world, and we turn a blind eye (I apologize for that really mixed up metaphor) from rampant genocide (genocide: a friendly name for killing everyone of a particular genus) in The Sudan because it's in the best interest of Chevron, we never did hold Union Carbide/Dow Chemical to task and provide meaningfully relief to the citizens of Bhopal, but let Texas jail Dianne Wilson for hanging a f*cking protest banner all the while..
we don't even raise a whisper about the human genetic mutilation caused by chemical contaminations in Vietnam, Halabja, Toulouse, Venice, Midland - MI, New Plymouth - New Zealand, etc..
Since we clearly do not care about our fellow man and child, but are content to let the corporations dictate the new morality, why the hell should we give a rat's ass about the welfare of a mouse ?
If we accept the theory that we may take liberties with the members of the Mus genus, since we are the superior beings and our benefit outweighs the detriment inflicted, then it is an easy step to rationalize the ill treatment of the third world, and anyone living in Michigan, as justifiable if it in any way benefits the upper middle classes, and that is exactly what we have done.
How we treat our animals today is how we will treat each other tomorrow.
I suppose that they (the airport searches) are constitutional in so much as you agree to be searched as a condition of boarding the aircraft.
If you desire you may refuse to be searched, and denied entry to the "secure" side of the airport.
What I believe is unconstitutional is the requirement to display government issued identification when travelling within the borders of The United States and the new "exit checks" at U.S. borders.
Further, the requirement to display identification when travelling from the U.S. to other countries should be limited to displaying the identification only to representatives of the receiving country in accordance with their entry rules.
The United States is NOT the land of the free. The U.S. now monitors the travel habits of its citizens, and carefully screens persons wishing to exit the country.
I have had the opportunity to travel within the U.S., and to and from the U.S., by trains, planes, and automobiles.
This may come as a surprise to the uninitiated, when leaving the U.S by train, the train stops one mile from the border crossing, and jackboot wearing INS officers complete with automatic weapons and dogs board the train.
These INS (btw. the I stands for immigration, not emigration) officers inspect the documents of those wishing to leave the country.
"By what authority are these checks being performed", I was once so bold to ask, and was summarily told to sit down and mind my own business, it did not concern me. I did not bother to point out the obvious errors in the officer's statement since the arrest (albeit temporary) of the train and persons therein without due process and authority of law no doubt violated my right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but was intimidated into silence by the right hand on the pistol grip, and the icy stare of a dog.
You are correct, the problem is the structure of the system. The electorate cannot vote for professors, because the prof cannot afford the campaign process, and in all likelihood has not the desire for political power.
So.. who can the electorate vote for? Those that already have economic power, and seek political power. And unfortunately, those that seek power and gain it through an election, will spend the office term ensuring that they can maintain and increase such power.
This bill is part of that process, to maintain and increase power. By limiting political and social comment to those individuals that are willing to reveal their identities.
This effectively limits comment to those that agree with the status quo, and therefore are at small personal risk.
Just call me Winston Smith, pass the Victory Gin, and repeat "Oceania is at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia".
Of course the feds are interested in the movement of money over x. And I see that there are plenty of readers eager to justify the monitoring of citizens all in the name of security.
It is interesting that the justifications that existed when the level of x was thousands of dollars are now quoted when x is hundreds, when in theory, the effects of inflation should cause x to increase.
In a few years, as technology, and data storage, and indexing allows, all transactions will be reported, catalogued, and analyzed, all in the name of security, and there will be plenty of readers that will be happy to step up to the plate and explain the justifications.
The real reasons of course are about control of the masses, and to maintain authority by reminding all citizens that they are being watched and can be brought in to explain their actions and transactions at any time should their activity, be it financial or political opinion, raise an eyebrow in Washington, or the local town hall.
While this particular example of credit card activity may or may not have occurred, the interesting point is that the assumption is that if someone's financial activity appears to change to a third party, the first party must explain their behaviour, as if there is a presumption of wrong doing.
This is in opposition to the principals set forth in the Bill of Rights and the forth amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Since there is no probable cause to believe that a person with $600 or some other arbitrary amount has acquired the funds through illicit mechanisms, requiring the person to provide documentary evidence is clearly an illegal search and seizure.
This also may be a violation of the tenth amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
Since the ability to keep tabs and monitor the general population is not expressly granted to the federal government by the constitution, such activity must be the domain of the states. This is why the feds now claim that this is part of the "war against terrorism" to create a federal interest in monitoring of ordinary citizens, just like the illegal wiretapping of ordinary citizens phoning back to the old country.
The future is bleak, and the trends before us further demonstrate that these United States have continually moved from a democratic republic for the people, by the people, to a fascist state that operates in the interest of the new aristocracy, let's not forget that the most interesting of all financial transactions are the least scrutinized.
Has any else noticed the huge transfer of wealth from public coffers to private hands..? (hint: it was more than 600 bucks).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the flourencent tube lights do date well before the sixties, but unless I'm mistraken, the use of the UV discharge from the neon & xenon to excite the rgb phosphor was from the sixties.
hmm... I seem to remember something about superheating a substance until it is too hot for an atom to maintain the atomic bond between the nuclei and the electrons, resulting in a highly electrified soup of free electons and still bonded nuclei surrounded by neutrons and protrons.
:)
I am gazing suspiciously at my plasma tv, not running as hot as the sun and not a hot as a fusion reactor. I think it is a plasma(tm) tv. Probably not too many free electrons
Plasma TV methodogy basics.
A Plasma tv has two plates of glass that sandwich panels of cells (the pixels) that house 3 sub-pixels corresponding to the colours blue red and green.
The TV's control circuit can address any of the sub-pixels through the rear glass substrate mounted circuit and pass an electrical charge through neon and xenon gas and as a result, the gas state changes to plasma and ultraviolet light is emitted.
This UV light is absorbed by the blue, red and green phosphors in the cell, and re-radiate the energy in the visible spectrum.
It's fairly old technology, dating back to the '60s.
Isn't science fun?
It is interesting that this thread sparked a discussion of the morality of manipulating the genes of these mice to cause deliberate malformations that are not in the best interest of the mice.
..
Why would we suddenly have attitudes towards mice that are any different from other animals in our charge? We selectively breed pigs specifically for desired ratios of fat to flesh; breed chickens using hormones that result in an "adult" chicken in a fraction of the conventional time; inject bovine with hormones to stimulate lactation and production; all in an effort that is not in the best interest of the animals, but in the best [immediate] interest of the purveyor.
Looking to the human world, and we turn a blind eye (I apologize for that really mixed up metaphor) from rampant genocide (genocide: a friendly name for killing everyone of a particular genus) in The Sudan because it's in the best interest of Chevron, we never did hold Union Carbide/Dow Chemical to task and provide meaningfully relief to the citizens of Bhopal, but let Texas jail Dianne Wilson for hanging a f*cking protest banner all the while
we don't even raise a whisper about the human genetic mutilation caused by chemical contaminations in Vietnam, Halabja, Toulouse, Venice, Midland - MI, New Plymouth - New Zealand, etc..
Since we clearly do not care about our fellow man and child, but are content to let the corporations dictate the new morality, why the hell should we give a rat's ass about the welfare of a mouse ?
If we accept the theory that we may take liberties with the members of the Mus genus, since we are the superior beings and our benefit outweighs the detriment inflicted, then it is an easy step to rationalize the ill treatment of the third world, and anyone living in Michigan, as justifiable if it in any way benefits the upper middle classes, and that is exactly what we have done.
How we treat our animals today is how we will treat each other tomorrow.
I suppose that they (the airport searches) are constitutional in so much as you agree to be searched as a condition of boarding the aircraft.
If you desire you may refuse to be searched, and denied entry to the "secure" side of the airport.
What I believe is unconstitutional is the requirement to display government issued identification when travelling within the borders of The United States and the new "exit checks" at U.S. borders.
Further, the requirement to display identification when travelling from the U.S. to other countries should be limited to displaying the identification only to representatives of the receiving country in accordance with their entry rules.
The United States is NOT the land of the free. The U.S. now monitors the travel habits of its citizens, and carefully screens persons wishing to exit the country.
I have had the opportunity to travel within the U.S., and to and from the U.S., by trains, planes, and automobiles.
This may come as a surprise to the uninitiated, when leaving the U.S by train, the train stops one mile from the border crossing, and jackboot wearing INS officers complete with automatic weapons and dogs board the train.
These INS (btw. the I stands for immigration, not emigration) officers inspect the documents of those wishing to leave the country.
"By what authority are these checks being performed", I was once so bold to ask, and was summarily told to sit down and mind my own business, it did not concern me. I did not bother to point out the obvious errors in the officer's statement since the arrest (albeit temporary) of the train and persons therein without due process and authority of law no doubt violated my right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but was intimidated into silence by the right hand on the pistol grip, and the icy stare of a dog.
Welcome to the new millennia.
You are correct, the problem is the structure of the system. The electorate cannot vote for professors, because the prof cannot afford the campaign process, and in all likelihood has not the desire for political power.
So.. who can the electorate vote for? Those that already have economic power, and seek political power. And unfortunately, those that seek power and gain it through an election, will spend the office term ensuring that they can maintain and increase such power.
This bill is part of that process, to maintain and increase power. By limiting political and social comment to those individuals that are willing to reveal their identities.
This effectively limits comment to those that agree with the status quo, and therefore are at small personal risk.
Just call me Winston Smith, pass the Victory Gin, and repeat "Oceania is at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia".
Of course the feds are interested in the movement of money over x. And I see that there are plenty of readers eager to justify the monitoring of citizens all in the name of security.
It is interesting that the justifications that existed when the level of x was thousands of dollars are now quoted when x is hundreds, when in theory, the effects of inflation should cause x to increase.
In a few years, as technology, and data storage, and indexing allows, all transactions will be reported, catalogued, and analyzed, all in the name of security, and there will be plenty of readers that will be happy to step up to the plate and explain the justifications.
The real reasons of course are about control of the masses, and to maintain authority by reminding all citizens that they are being watched and can be brought in to explain their actions and transactions at any time should their activity, be it financial or political opinion, raise an eyebrow in Washington, or the local town hall.
While this particular example of credit card activity may or may not have occurred, the interesting point is that the assumption is that if someone's financial activity appears to change to a third party, the first party must explain their behaviour, as if there is a presumption of wrong doing.
This is in opposition to the principals set forth in the Bill of Rights and the forth amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Since there is no probable cause to believe that a person with $600 or some other arbitrary amount has acquired the funds through illicit mechanisms, requiring the person to provide documentary evidence is clearly an illegal search and seizure.
This also may be a violation of the tenth amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
Since the ability to keep tabs and monitor the general population is not expressly granted to the federal government by the constitution, such activity must be the domain of the states. This is why the feds now claim that this is part of the "war against terrorism" to create a federal interest in monitoring of ordinary citizens, just like the illegal wiretapping of ordinary citizens phoning back to the old country.
The future is bleak, and the trends before us further demonstrate that these United States have continually moved from a democratic republic for the people, by the people, to a fascist state that operates in the interest of the new aristocracy, let's not forget that the most interesting of all financial transactions are the least scrutinized.
Has any else noticed the huge transfer of wealth from public coffers to private hands..? (hint: it was more than 600 bucks).