Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
Speaking as a photography nerd, Incandescent, Fluorescent, and even direct sunlight all kind of suck color-wise. Indirect sunlight produces the most vivid colors. Well, good-quality, large-scale LED might be okay; I haven't actually seen it used much, so I can't say.
Incandescence means "glowing due to heat".
And like I said, the reason fluorescents look less warm and more sterile is because they're only emitting very narrow bands of light.
This is because when you generate light by exciting gas atoms, you're only going to get photons of energy corresponding to changes in electron shell levels and none of the in-between ones.
An incandescent bulb produces a full spectrum due to blackbody radiation, which takes advantage of the more continuous spectra of energy levels.
A typical incandescent bulb heats to about 3000 K, the lowest curve on that chart and well below the melting point of tungsten. While it peaks deep into infrared, it produces enough spillover visible light to work.
Some people are allergic to vitamin D pills and other supplements.
Also, they do make more yellowish, warmer-colored fluorescent bulbs these days.
Yes.
^ So would LEDs work better than either?
Incandescent still has the most full color, but the LED isn't too bad depending on the make.
Texas has made it illegal for state troopers to go around shooting people from helicopters.
On another forum I go to, a reaction to this was "why was this previously legal in the first place?"
Anyone noticed that some political/ideological affiliations are like sports team fandoms -- rooted in often irrelevant factors, strongly held, and irrationally defended?
The only difference is that sports teams don't have policy implications.
Well aside from debates if a city should build/pay for a new stadium for the team in hopes they will create more tourism for the city.
^^ I guess that is one of the downsides of the two-party system and political polarization.
Which part of it?
While I cannot really speak to political parties, my impression was that people's favorite sports teams were usually based off of where they lived/grew up or what teams their family liked. I guess those could be considered irrational reasons to be a fan of a team, but if so, are there any reasonable reasons for choosing a favorite team? I mean, it seems like fair-weather and bandwagon fandom is pretty frowned upon, so I doubt picking favorites based on which team has the best players would fly with most people.
That being said, I totally agree that arguments about sports team can get pretty silly in their homerism and trash-talking, and all of that. Heated rivalries can get out of hand too. What ClockworkUniverse is alluding to sounds like it might be an example of that.
Still, I would like to believe that sports talk is usually a little more tongue-in-cheek than political conflicts are, since, at the end of the day, a Packer fan and a Bear fan are not that much different from each other. That might just be wishful thinking though.
In my home town, the high school football coach had more political influence than the mayor. He's retired now and he still has more political influence than the mayor.
Our football team isn't even any good either. He frontloaded seniors almost all the time and so nobody else had field experience.
In my home town, the high school football coach is the mayor.
> I guess those could be considered irrational reasons to be a fan of a team, but if so, are there any reasonable reasons for choosing a favorite team?
Reasons for choosing a team are irrelevant to how well the team does, not irrational. They make complete sense when you note they're rooted in geographical sensibilities.
They're irrationally defended, in the sense of people sticking to their favorite team and badmouthing their rival team even when their favorite team sucks or their rival team beat them fair and square. Rioting in the streets occasionally happens.
I've also heard far too many anecdotes (granted, they're anecdotes, but still) of sports team affiliations being deal-breakers in things like business dealings. You'd think that sort of seriousness would be reserved to political affiliations.
Basically, Tuscaloosa as a city only exists for the purpose of supporting the University of Alabama football team.
glennmagusharvey,
Oh, okay, it sounds like I kind of completely misunderstood you there, sorry about that. I am with you on sports allegiances sometimes being irrationally defended and while I think it usually makes sense for people to stick with their favorite team through thick and thin, I am not really a fan of the whole yelling racial epithets and/or rioting hooliganism sometimes associated with that either.
Balancing being passionate about something and being civil can be hard I guess. I imagine that people who are super politically active could tell you that too, actually, especially since the stakes are arguably a lot higher in that area.
Sports team affiliations being deal-breakers in business dealings sounds awfully silly to me. I actually have never heard of that happening, but if it is as common as you make it sound, that is pretty worrisome. Honestly, it seems like people being fans of the same sport would actually help business dealings, so the anecdotes you mention are surprising to me.
I usually hear about them as being fans of rival teams. Such as a fan wearing a Yankees cap when meeting with someone who's a Red Sox fan.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/03/06/arkansas_passes_most_restrictive_abortion_law_in_us.html
Isn't Roe v. Wade supposed to prevent crap like this? Really. I hope that they get their arses handed to them.
"They know that regardless of what goes to SCOTUS they have a damn good chance of getting the decision they want because SCOTUS is completely corrupt."
Regardless of the political nature and how much the aides to the judges influence their decisions, I don't see this being vetted by the Supreme Court, providing it doesn't get knocked down and die in one of the circuit courts.
This is a thing that just happened I guess.
The abruptness makes it come across as disingenuous and it is only because his son came out as gay. I will wait and see if it changes any other Republican minds but I doubt it.
Gay unions always make me think of flamboyant worker's rights organizations.
^^^ As always, the Onion put it best:
It's great that he's had a change of heart, but we're never going to get anything done if an issue has to affect them personally before they'll do anything about it.
Tea Partiers think Fox News is not conservative enough due to the lack of Benghazi conspiracy segments, and Birther stuff.
Also, Godwin's Law there:
Not much else needs to be said, I think.
Hmm. If Fox turns right, will it be facing the center, or the left?
If Fox turns further right it will be like the network equivalent of Junji Ito's Spiral.
If you keep turning right don't you start spiraling anyway?
How big is the Tea Party demographic? I'm curious what to expect of Fox, I guess it isn't big enough to make Fox bow down.