True enough. It's quite hard to find them but I found one that apparently came from a site called InfoWars - isn't that some whacko conspiracy theory website?
That's an unusual selection in general - there's comments that don't even describe something that occurred - just someone complaining in general about the TSA policy.
Lots of text there, and you certainly sound confident, but I tried an experiment, and it confirmed the claims of the article.
I used Paint.NET, loaded in an image, copied it to three layers. Adusted each layer to be a single colour channel, then changed each of the layers to 'Additive' mode.
Pixellating the blue layer - I could perceive at most some 'colour blotching', but no real loss of 'sharpness'
Pixellating the green layer - pixellation was easily visible.
Pixellating the red layer - the effect was somewhere in between.
You should give it a try. Here's my test Paint.NET image file with the layers all set up for you:
The additive color model isn't exactly the same as the layer modes you'll see in image editing apps. This "mode" affects how the values of the current layer are applied to the layers below it. The normal mode is to replace the values below. When you switch to additive, the RGB channels from the current layer are "added" to the values of the layer below. This is entirely different than the concept of the additive color model.
There are two broad color model types: additive and subtractive. Additive color models (like RGB) "add" color to arrive at white. Subtractive color models (like CMYK) "subtract" color to arrive at white. In the RGB additive color model, we most frequently refer to the primary colors, RGB, but the secondary colors (cyan, magenta, and yellow) are equally important. The primary colors are the result of raising only one channel to full luminance while all the others are at zero. The secondary colors are produced by raising all channels to the maximum, then dropping one channel to zero. The secondary color for the blue channel is yellow.
The consequence of this is that you can't simply pixelate the blue channel in an additive model RGB image and claim this proves a lack of ability to perceive color in the blue light spectrum, because the alteration of the primary color will inevitably affect the distribution of the secondary color, depending upon the luminance of the other channels in the region.
A better test would display a test pattern in different colors, but matching luminosity. The trouble with testing this on your computer is that your display must be calibrated. On a properly calibrated display, the display of RGB[0,255,0] and RGB[0,0,255] should have identical luminance values. Very few people have calibrated displays, and even if you do, the chances that your display is accurate throughout the color gamut for a given luminance value is even less.
I'm not arguing against for or against that fact. I'm arguing that these "testing" methodologies are flawed. I'm, apparently, doing a very poor job of expressing the distinction.
Let me state in as clearly as I can:
* A good test would ensure that the luminance values for all colors matched exactly throughout the test image.
* Said test would need to be displayed using a device that is calibrated to ensure displayed luminance matches encoded luminance.
* A test that pulls color data from a source image with mixed luminance values in each channel is flawed.
* This statement makes absolutely no claim as to the human ability perceive any of these colors.
Yes, I was about to comment on that and saw you'd spotted this too. Bonus points to you!
So the techno dance track is "PPK - Resurrection". One of my favorites tracks of all time until now.
I'm guessing that what we heard in the film is either a a traditional Russian song or a song from the late 80's -- either way it means that PPK ripped it off and didn't write that catchy hook themselves. I'm very sad to learn that.
The Al-Qaeda that we have any reason to fear aren't idiots. The idiots will be caught whether or not they have Osama bin Laden candy in their carryons.
THe Al-Qaeda that we have any reason to fear are often using idiots to carry out attacks. Most of them screw up and get caught, or blow themselves up, or chicken out. It's a volume game, and it's very hard to fight.
But we shouldn't fight it by suspecting anyone and everyone. That's like suggesting that we should burn down entire villages, just because we can't be sure which of the local is or isn't an insurgent.
>But we shouldn't fight it by suspecting anyone and everyone.
Does people carrying bullets constitute everyone?
If he'd come from North America with a balaclava, copy of the hackers handbook, candy box featuring a picture of David Koresh and a bullet do you think he wouldn’t have been searched and added to a watch-list?
The population of people traveling to countries populated by terrorists and carrying suspicious articles is much smaller than the general population. If we allow the government to conduct any anti-terrorist programs at all, it makes sense to employ such coarse filters to narrow down the number of people they keep an eye on.
Unfortunately there's no way to conduct surveillance only on guilty people.
Coming home from Pakistan with a bullet in your pocket does point to the possibility that while in Pakistan you were dealing with weaponry. The guy doesn't give enough context to understand how the journal entry actually looked.
From your last sentence, I can see you are no stranger to making snap judgements without all the details. ;)
Well, it's possible that you were undergoing weapons training and stupidly forgot you'd left a bullet in your pocket before packing up. And it's also possible that a child gave it to you as a gift. This guy wasn't arrested or jailed - he was treated with not entirely unreasonable suspicion.
