On Non-Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Strong Liberal (5)
On Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Strong Liberal (5)

Wonder where I missed those 5 point at?

All of a audden about two months ago I remembered this song. I remember traveling down ill-lit roads, staring at the desert night sky. Dad's at the wheel, mom's humming next to him, and my brother and I stare out the window. But all the while, we're listening, we're steppin out. We're dreaming...

::DOWNLOAD MEDIA::

Now -
The mist across the window hides the lines
But nothing hides the colour of the lights that shine
Electricity so fine
Look and dry your eyes

We -
So tired of all the darkness in our lives
With no more angry words to say
Can come alive
Get into a car and drive
To the other side

Me babe - steppin out
Into the night
Into the light
You babe - steppin out
Into the night
Into the light

We -
Are young but getting old before our time
We'll leave the T.V. and the radio behind
Don't you wonder what we'll find
Steppin out tonight

You -
Can dress in pink and blue just like a child
And in a yellow taxi turn to me and smile
We'll be there in just a while
If you follow me

Me babe - steppin out
Into the night
Into the light
You babe - steppin out
Into the night
Into the light

Let's pray he can do it!

something like 24 fps?

Well that's the begininng of my thought last night, as I watched some movie or other with (e:matthew). The films we use nowadays show 24 images within every second (used to be much less, that's why old films seem to flicker). So I asked myself what kind of boundary was this. Logic tells us that every second can be broken down into an infinite amount of intervals, thus an infinite amount of scenes or frames. Our photoresistors (the cones and rods in our eyes) are only able (programmed?) to recognize a certain number of images in every second. But, I thought there are other animals that would have to recognize more. Think of a humminbird or dragonfly whose wings are beating hundreds to thousands of times per second. Our eyes can barely catch one in full tilt, yet they glide effortlessly, avoiding obstacles and visiting barely visible nectar goblets.They must see faster, right? (e:Matthew) and I couldn't agree on the answer, so I looked it up.

If you look up Frame Rate Wikipedia presents you with the very scientific-sounding term Flicker fusion frequency and its related link, Flicker fusion threshold both physiological concepts, as opposed to purely physical concepts. The flicker fusion threshold or flicker fusion rate determines the rate at which humans (and supposedly animals/aliens) percieve light. "Light that is pulsating below this rate is perceived by humans as flickering; light that is pulsating above this rate is perceived by humans as being continuous." Humans tend to have a flicker fusion frequency threshold of between 50-75 hertz (which means light pulsing between 50-75 times per second will be seen as continuous). Since this rate would require Disney to hire three times the number of animators it now employs, camera shutters are arranged to interrupt the flow of light 2 to 3 times per second which projects those 24 frames at 48-72 light blips per second. Wow!

Apparently pigeons have been shown to have a higher threshold than humans (don't ask me which tests were used to determine this), and other mammals possess more rods and cones in their eyes than humans. All of which means it's entirely possible that the hummingbird is seeing much faster than we are.

Is seeing twice as fast like living twice as long? Think of all the stuff flying by right now that you're not even bothering to perceive. Your computer could have de- and re-materialized 97 times in the last second and you wouldn't have even noticed!

(e:southernYankee)? [inlink]southernyankee,177[/inlink]

Not to sure myself but if it was, then I have a whole CD of them. I stoled it from (e:Hodown) as she chillaxed at our new pad.