Technical ignorance allows for some funny situations

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jun 8, 2014.

  1. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    Don't make the assumption that sleep apnea is exclusively the product of
    obesity. There are many thin people with sleep apnea.
     
    J. Clarke, Jun 12, 2014
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    The first one was a basil cell. My dermatologist told me it developed
    from being in the sun thirty years ago, and warned me to stay out of the
    sun. I told him I would rather worry about it in thirty years. He had
    no sense of humor about that. At my last exam he didn't find any
    cancers. I commented that he only finds them when he's not very busy. It
    took over ten years, but he now understands my sense of humor.
     
    PeterN, Jun 12, 2014
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    : On 6/9/2014 8:27 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
    : > On Sunday, 8 June 2014 02:59:39 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
    : >> I flipped by a show on TV called, "UFO Files" or some such name. They had film of a triangular shaped "UFO." They intoned how it was never explained by the air force. It was 4 lights, probably on a plane, defocused by a camera lens with a squarish diaphragm. I laughed out loud.
    : >
    : > But not as fun as a program called Ancient Aliens.
    : > On this program they forget the facts that aliens probbly wouldn't need landing strips made for them by early humans, because if they could take off from their own world chances are they'd be able to land too. Would aliens really travel to earth and forget they couldn't land.
    : > And of course they'd help the egyptians build pyramids I mean what else whould they come to earth for.
    : >
    :
    : How do you explain the lack of carbon traces inside the pyramids?

    Accepting your assertion that there is such a lack, I'd guess that it's
    because the builders didn't use steam or diesel power to hoist the blocks into
    place.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 14, 2014
    #83
  4. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    : : I flipped by a show on TV called, "UFO Files" or some such name. They had
    : film of a triangular shaped "UFO." They intoned how it was never explained
    : by the air force. It was 4 lights, probably on a plane, defocused by a
    : camera lens with a squarish diaphragm. I laughed out loud.
    : >
    :
    : So the alien disguise worked. :)

    The really hilarious yarns are the ones where the aliens proceed to conquer
    the Earth (or try to). If you've just arrived at a distant planet, about which
    you're certain to know very little, the last thing you'd want to do is pick a
    fight with the inhabitants.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 14, 2014
    #84
  5. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    : On Sunday, 8 June 2014 02:59:39 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
    : > I flipped by a show on TV called, "UFO Files" or some such name. They had film of a triangular shaped "UFO." They intoned how it was never explained by the air force. It was 4 lights, probably on a plane, defocused by a camera lens with a squarish diaphragm. I laughed out loud.
    :
    : For loons how about this.
    :
    : -----------------------------------------------
    : "Put into laymen's terms, the solar panels capture the sun's energy, but pull on the sun over time, forcing more energy to be released than the sun is actually producing," WIT claims in a scientific white paper published on Wednesday -
    :
    :
    :
    : http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/
    :
    :
    : Scientists at the Wyoming Institute of Technology, a privately-owned think tank located in Cheyenne, Wyoming, discovered that energy radiated from the sun isn't merely captured in solar panels, but that energy is directly physically drawn from the sun by those panels, in a process they refer to as "forced photovoltaic drainage." -
    :
    : WIT is adamant that there's no immediate danger, however. "Currently, solar panels are an energy niche, and do not pose a serious risk to the sun.
    :
    :
    :
    : I wonder if there's anyone on this group will argue that they are correct ;-)

    Well, I suppose the argument would go something like this:

    When photons of light arrive at the earth from the sun, some of them are
    reflected, rather than absorbed. That's why the side of the earth that's
    pointed towards the sun looks bright from a spaceship. Some of those photons
    will inevitably make it back to the sun; and since a photon carries energy,
    those photons will decrease, by a minuscule amount, the net transfer of energy
    from the sun to the earth.

    A solar panel, because it's designed to absorb, not reflect, radiation, should
    reflect fewer photons back to the sun than would an average patch of the
    earth's surface. So the sun gets back less energy because the solar panel is
    there, and the solar panel can be said to have extracted, just by its
    presence, additional energy that the sun would not otherwise have lost.

    So far, so good. But it should be obvious, even to the "scientists" at a
    right-wing think tank, that the amount of energy being discussed is many
    orders of magnitude too small to have any practical effect on the energy
    output of the sun. But what the hell; if someone (the Coach brothers?) is
    crazy enough to pay them to come up with such yarns, I guess they'd be crazy
    not to take the money.

    Or maybe the whole thing was just a joke. Did it come out around April 1? ;^)

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 15, 2014
    #85
  6. RichA

    PeterN Guest


    And they painted the glyphs in the dark. All I am saying is that we
    really don't know, and there are lots of theories,to which we should
    keep an open mind. In 1914 if you said Newton's theory of gravity was
    wrong, you would have bee thought to be a crackpot.
     
    PeterN, Jun 15, 2014
    #86
  7. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 2014-06-14 23:16:14 +0000, Robert Coe <> said:
    :
    : > On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 08:07:45 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave <>
    : > wrote:
    : > : On Sunday, 8 June 2014 02:59:39 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
    : > : > I flipped by a show on TV called, "UFO Files" or some such name.
    : > They had film of a triangular shaped "UFO." They intoned how it was
    : > never explained by the air force. It was 4 lights, probably on a
    : > plane, defocused by a camera lens with a squarish diaphragm. I laughed
    : > out loud.
    : > :
    : > : For loons how about this.
    : > :
    : > : -----------------------------------------------
    : > : "Put into laymen's terms, the solar panels capture the sun's energy,
    : > but pull on the sun over time, forcing more energy to be released than
    : > the sun is actually producing," WIT claims in a scientific white paper
    : > published on Wednesday -
    : > :
    : > :
    : > :
    : > : http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/
    : > :
    : > :
    : > : Scientists at the Wyoming Institute of Technology, a privately-owned
    : > think tank located in Cheyenne, Wyoming, discovered that energy
    : > radiated from the sun isn't merely captured in solar panels, but that
    : > energy is directly physically drawn from the sun by those panels, in a
    : > process they refer to as "forced photovoltaic drainage." -
    : > :
    : > : WIT is adamant that there's no immediate danger, however.
    : > "Currently, solar panels are an energy niche, and do not pose a serious
    : > risk to the sun.
    : > :
    : > :
    : > :
    : > : I wonder if there's anyone on this group will argue that they are correct ;-)
    : >
    : > Well, I suppose the argument would go something like this:
    : >
    : > When photons of light arrive at the earth from the sun, some of them are
    : > reflected, rather than absorbed. That's why the side of the earth that's
    : > pointed towards the sun looks bright from a spaceship. Some of those photons
    : > will inevitably make it back to the sun; and since a photon carries energy,
    : > those photons will decrease, by a minuscule amount, the net transfer of energy
    : > from the sun to the earth.
    : >
    : > A solar panel, because it's designed to absorb, not reflect, radiation, should
    : > reflect fewer photons back to the sun than would an average patch of the
    : > earth's surface. So the sun gets back less energy because the solar panel is
    : > there, and the solar panel can be said to have extracted, just by its
    : > presence, additional energy that the sun would not otherwise have lost.
    : >
    : > So far, so good. But it should be obvious, even to the "scientists" at a
    : > right-wing think tank, that the amount of energy being discussed is many
    : > orders of magnitude too small to have any practical effect on the energy
    : > output of the sun. But what the hell; if someone (the Coach brothers?) is
    : > crazy enough to pay them to come up with such yarns, I guess they'd be crazy
    : > not to take the money.
    : >
    : > Or maybe the whole thing was just a joke. Did it come out around April 1? ;^)
    : >
    : > Bob
    :
    : I guess you missed some of the posts in this thread. It was pure satire
    : from the *National Report*. All of their stories are made
    : tongue-in-cheek, and should be taken with a pinch of salt.
    : < http://nationalreport.net >

    Yeah, I didn't see that until after I wrote my reply. But it was clear that
    something was goofy.

    You have to give the satirist credit, though. He did manage to leave in that
    one whiff of plausibility.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 15, 2014
    #87
  8. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    As I mentioned earlier, the site is a rip-off of The Onion.
     
    Tony Cooper, Jun 15, 2014
    #88
  9. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    :
    : >On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:48:50 -0700, Savageduck
    : >: On 2014-06-14 23:16:14 +0000, Robert Coe <> said:
    : >:
    : >: > On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 08:07:45 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave <>
    : >: > wrote:
    : >: > : On Sunday, 8 June 2014 02:59:39 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
    : >: > : > I flipped by a show on TV called, "UFO Files" or some such name.
    : >: > They had film of a triangular shaped "UFO." They intoned how it was
    : >: > never explained by the air force. It was 4 lights, probably on a
    : >: > plane, defocused by a camera lens with a squarish diaphragm. I laughed
    : >: > out loud.
    : >: > :
    : >: > : For loons how about this.
    : >: > :
    : >: > : -----------------------------------------------
    : >: > : "Put into laymen's terms, the solar panels capture the sun's energy,
    : >: > but pull on the sun over time, forcing more energy to be released than
    : >: > the sun is actually producing," WIT claims in a scientific white paper
    : >: > published on Wednesday -
    : >: > :
    : >: > :
    : >: > :
    : >: > : http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/
    : >: > :
    : >: > :
    : >: > : Scientists at the Wyoming Institute of Technology, a privately-owned
    : >: > think tank located in Cheyenne, Wyoming, discovered that energy
    : >: > radiated from the sun isn't merely captured in solar panels, but that
    : >: > energy is directly physically drawn from the sun by those panels, in a
    : >: > process they refer to as "forced photovoltaic drainage." -
    : >: > :
    : >: > : WIT is adamant that there's no immediate danger, however.
    : >: > "Currently, solar panels are an energy niche, and do not pose a serious
    : >: > risk to the sun.
    : >: > :
    : >: > :
    : >: > :
    : >: > : I wonder if there's anyone on this group will argue that they are correct ;-)
    : >: >
    : >: > Well, I suppose the argument would go something like this:
    : >: >
    : >: > When photons of light arrive at the earth from the sun, some of them are
    : >: > reflected, rather than absorbed. That's why the side of the earth that's
    : >: > pointed towards the sun looks bright from a spaceship. Some of those photons
    : >: > will inevitably make it back to the sun; and since a photon carries energy,
    : >: > those photons will decrease, by a minuscule amount, the net transfer of energy
    : >: > from the sun to the earth.
    : >: >
    : >: > A solar panel, because it's designed to absorb, not reflect, radiation, should
    : >: > reflect fewer photons back to the sun than would an average patch of the
    : >: > earth's surface. So the sun gets back less energy because the solar panel is
    : >: > there, and the solar panel can be said to have extracted, just by its
    : >: > presence, additional energy that the sun would not otherwise have lost.
    : >: >
    : >: > So far, so good. But it should be obvious, even to the "scientists" at a
    : >: > right-wing think tank, that the amount of energy being discussed is many
    : >: > orders of magnitude too small to have any practical effect on the energy
    : >: > output of the sun. But what the hell; if someone (the Coach brothers?) is
    : >: > crazy enough to pay them to come up with such yarns, I guess they'd be crazy
    : >: > not to take the money.
    : >: >
    : >: > Or maybe the whole thing was just a joke. Did it come out around April 1? ;^)
    : >: >
    : >: > Bob
    : >:
    : >: I guess you missed some of the posts in this thread. It was pure satire
    : >: from the *National Report*. All of their stories are made
    : >: tongue-in-cheek, and should be taken with a pinch of salt.
    : >: < http://nationalreport.net >
    : >
    : >Yeah, I didn't see that until after I wrote my reply. But it was clear that
    : >something was goofy.
    : >
    : >You have to give the satirist credit, though. He did manage to leave in that
    : >one whiff of plausibility.
    : >
    : >Bob
    :
    : As I mentioned earlier, the site is a rip-off of The Onion.

    I seldom, if ever, read The Onion. There are only 24 hours in the day.

    Say, do you suppose that The Onion would be willing to embark on the task of
    lobbying Congress for a 28-hour day? That and the 8-day week have long been
    favorite causes of mine.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 15, 2014
    #89
  10. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    The appearance of plausibility makes for good satire.
     
    PeterN, Jun 15, 2014
    #90
  11. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/15/2014 9:07 AM, Robert Coe wrote:

    I once proposed a law banning the use of wall stretchers for offices &
    small stores. The building owners lobbyists paid me for the proposal. It
    was unfair to have tenants who were getting more space than they paid for.
     
    PeterN, Jun 15, 2014
    #91
  12. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 2014-06-15 13:07:04 +0000, Robert Coe <> said:
    :
    : > I seldom, if ever, read The Onion. There are only 24 hours in the day.
    : >
    : > Say, do you suppose that The Onion would be willing to embark on the task
    : > of lobbying Congress for a 28-hour day? That and the 8-day week have long
    : > been favorite causes of mine.
    :
    : Then we would have the 51.429 minute hour.

    I was thinking we might drop minutes altogether and go to centihours (100 Ç =
    1 H).

    But with either notation, the new hour wouldn't be shorter than the old one.
    The idea is to lengthen the day, not to merely rearrange it.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 16, 2014
    #92
  13. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    23 hours 56 mins & 4 seconds to be exact.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 16, 2014
    #93
  14. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    I think he's proposing decoupling the working day from the diurnal
    cycle.
     
    J. Clarke, Jun 16, 2014
    #94
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.