It's often said that, in science, one advance is built on another. In technology or inventions, it's also true that one advance depends on one or more prior inventions.
Movies, for example, were built on the previous invention of photography, but with the new addition of the idea that, if you took a series of photographs and showed them in rapid sequence, you could produce the illusion of motion. So the camera (and film) had to exist, and then what was new was the idea of a camera that could take rapid, sequential photos—and a machine (projector) to show the movies. And that of course also needed a light source, and it was not Edison's incandescent light bulb that was used but an arc lamp, which was brighter. (A similar arc lamp was used to light the movie sets.)
Television, of course, drew upon several prior inventions. First there was the concept of creating a "moving picture" by breaking a scene down into a succession of still frames projected and viewed in rapid sequence—as in the movies.
Also there was the idea of wireless transmission, from radio; and the idea of the camera. Plus, the cathode ray tube, which had been invented several decades earlier, and the notion of creating an image on the screen of that tube by building it up with a sequence of lines which in turn were made up of dots.
Plus, again, the camera. But this time the camera had to create an image that was broken down into lines and dots—the reverse of how the TV image was created on the TV receiver's screen.
And now the television set using a cathode ray tube is pretty much obsolete because the TV sets using LCD and plasma displays (which evidently have come to be called "flat-screen" TV sets) are actually cheaper to make.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Of Cheese and Chicken Wings
The word buffalo, in America, refers to a large bovine animal also known as the American bison, scientific name Bison bison--except when it precedes (1) mozzarella or (2) wings.
Some people, if they ever wonder, might assume that "buffalo mozzarella" is made from milk from a buffalo (or bison) cow. It is not, it's made from the milk of what Americans know as a water buffalo.
Now, as to "buffalo wings," a food very popular in America as a snack or entrée: Of course buffalo don't have wings, so that can't be what the name means. "Buffalo wings" are in fact chicken wings, seasoned (as one might say) a la Buffalo—that is, the city of Buffalo, New York.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Some people, if they ever wonder, might assume that "buffalo mozzarella" is made from milk from a buffalo (or bison) cow. It is not, it's made from the milk of what Americans know as a water buffalo.
Now, as to "buffalo wings," a food very popular in America as a snack or entrée: Of course buffalo don't have wings, so that can't be what the name means. "Buffalo wings" are in fact chicken wings, seasoned (as one might say) a la Buffalo—that is, the city of Buffalo, New York.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Two More Wars in the Offing?
It's no secret—or should not be any secret—the Republicans and conservatives like war. Well, maybe that's not a way of phrasing it that they'd agree with. How about, they are more prone to favor the use of military force?
That is why we've been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, with a loss of over 4000 American lives—arguably in both cases for at best a very unclear purpose. Supposedly America is always trying to export "freedom"—meaning, presumably, its brand of democracy—to other countries, whether they want it or not. Iraq is not and is not going to be a democracy after the American model, and heaven only knows what can be accomplished in Afghanistan, where we cannot even free the country from the influence of war lords.
Anyway, those are wars that commenced, and that fact cannot be changed. I must acknowledge that the US has supposedly largely exited from Iraq, thanks to a Democratic president—whether or not we have left the country any better off. (For one thing, I'd like an update on whether the Iraqi people yet have reliable, 24-hour electrical service, or whether they feel secure outside of their homes.)
So really, there is only a point in talking about the future. Currently Republicans and other "hawks" (we don't hear that word much, anymore) want the US to attack Syria and Iran. President Obama evidently is not very keen on doing either one; but if a Republican gets elected president in November, we may indeed find ourselves in the midst of yet another war.
The US has an all-volunteer military services. I don't understand why young American men want to join the military and go and fight. Evidently they feel they are being patriotic and "serving their country"; but when America has not been clearly attacked by these countries; and when the connection between these wars and America's welfare is similarly not clear; I have to think they may be misguided. (Remember, George W. Bush sold us on the Iraq war by falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein was developing "weapons of mass destruction." Many other wars, such as the Vietnam War, were also based on lies.) Those in Iraq who were attacking American troops did not view Americans as their saviors but as foreign invaders.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
That is why we've been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, with a loss of over 4000 American lives—arguably in both cases for at best a very unclear purpose. Supposedly America is always trying to export "freedom"—meaning, presumably, its brand of democracy—to other countries, whether they want it or not. Iraq is not and is not going to be a democracy after the American model, and heaven only knows what can be accomplished in Afghanistan, where we cannot even free the country from the influence of war lords.
Anyway, those are wars that commenced, and that fact cannot be changed. I must acknowledge that the US has supposedly largely exited from Iraq, thanks to a Democratic president—whether or not we have left the country any better off. (For one thing, I'd like an update on whether the Iraqi people yet have reliable, 24-hour electrical service, or whether they feel secure outside of their homes.)
So really, there is only a point in talking about the future. Currently Republicans and other "hawks" (we don't hear that word much, anymore) want the US to attack Syria and Iran. President Obama evidently is not very keen on doing either one; but if a Republican gets elected president in November, we may indeed find ourselves in the midst of yet another war.
The US has an all-volunteer military services. I don't understand why young American men want to join the military and go and fight. Evidently they feel they are being patriotic and "serving their country"; but when America has not been clearly attacked by these countries; and when the connection between these wars and America's welfare is similarly not clear; I have to think they may be misguided. (Remember, George W. Bush sold us on the Iraq war by falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein was developing "weapons of mass destruction." Many other wars, such as the Vietnam War, were also based on lies.) Those in Iraq who were attacking American troops did not view Americans as their saviors but as foreign invaders.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
What's Old Is New
Remember typewriters? It's rather easy to see why word processing pretty much killed the typewriter; but they're supposedly making a comeback. Kids who see one for the first time think it's cool to see the print appear on the page as soon as you press a key.
They haven't ever totally gone away. Some people still have them and use them. Some writers, like Woody Allen, prefer to write on a typewriter. I've seen them in doctor's offices several times.
I actually have one, a very late-generation Panasonic electronic typewriter. (It's got two modes: in one mode, it prints as you strike a key, like any typewriter. The other mode lets you input up to an entire line at a time and you can edit before you print. And it can store documents, too.) I confess I haven't used it in a long time. I would if it were sitting out on a desk, but it's packed away on a closet shelf.
Still, I haven't heard that anyone has resumed making them. And it must be very difficult to find ribbons for them.
The vinyl record has never completely gone away, in the 30 years that we've had the CD, and a number of turntable models are still being made. Maybe typewriters will show their viability, too, and return from being an antique and a curiosity.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
They haven't ever totally gone away. Some people still have them and use them. Some writers, like Woody Allen, prefer to write on a typewriter. I've seen them in doctor's offices several times.
I actually have one, a very late-generation Panasonic electronic typewriter. (It's got two modes: in one mode, it prints as you strike a key, like any typewriter. The other mode lets you input up to an entire line at a time and you can edit before you print. And it can store documents, too.) I confess I haven't used it in a long time. I would if it were sitting out on a desk, but it's packed away on a closet shelf.
Still, I haven't heard that anyone has resumed making them. And it must be very difficult to find ribbons for them.
The vinyl record has never completely gone away, in the 30 years that we've had the CD, and a number of turntable models are still being made. Maybe typewriters will show their viability, too, and return from being an antique and a curiosity.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Monday, March 5, 2012
Tallest in the World
The Great Pyramid of Egypt originally stood 481 feet (146.5 m) tall and was the tallest man-made structure on Earth for nearly 4000 years—basically until the late Middle Ages when the Gothic cathedrals of Europe were being built and were trying to outdo one another in terms of their dimensions.
Interestingly, a couple of these churches held their pre-eminent rank only briefly because their heavenward-reaching spires met some kind of mishap, and thus they yielded their number-one place to a lower structure and the record height goes down three times in the following record.
The Great Pyramid was first surpassed around 1311 AD by Lincoln Cathedral in England, which had a spire believed to have been 524 feet (159.7 m) tall. (It collapsed in a storm in 1549.)
St. Olaf's Church in Talinn, Estonia, built in 1500 (521.6 ft, 159 m), was the tallest building in the world from 1549 to 1625 when its spire was destroyed by lightning.
St. Mary's Church, Stralsund, Germany (495 ft, 151 m), was the tallest building in the world from 1625 to 1647 when its spire was destroyed by lightning.
Strasbourg Cathedral, France (466 ft, 142 m), was the tallest building in the world from 1647 to 1874.
St. Nikolai Church in Hamburg, Germany was the tallest building on earth (483 ft, 147.8 m) from 1874 to 1876.
When the Washington Monument was completed in 1884 it was the tallest structure in the world at 555 feet tall (169 m). The Washington Monument was not the tallest structure on Earth for very long. It was surpassed in 1889 by the Eiffel Tower, which is 1063 feet (324 m) tall. It was the tallest until the age of the great skyscrapers in the US began in the 1930s with such buildings as the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building.
Just for comparison purposes, the great ocean liner Titanic, which sank in 1912, was 882 feet long—longer than The Great Pyramid was tall but shorter than one of the great cathedrals was tall. The huge airship the Hindenburg, which burned in a famous disaster in 1937, was almost as long as the Titanic, with a length of 804 feet.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Interestingly, a couple of these churches held their pre-eminent rank only briefly because their heavenward-reaching spires met some kind of mishap, and thus they yielded their number-one place to a lower structure and the record height goes down three times in the following record.
The Great Pyramid was first surpassed around 1311 AD by Lincoln Cathedral in England, which had a spire believed to have been 524 feet (159.7 m) tall. (It collapsed in a storm in 1549.)
St. Olaf's Church in Talinn, Estonia, built in 1500 (521.6 ft, 159 m), was the tallest building in the world from 1549 to 1625 when its spire was destroyed by lightning.
St. Mary's Church, Stralsund, Germany (495 ft, 151 m), was the tallest building in the world from 1625 to 1647 when its spire was destroyed by lightning.
Strasbourg Cathedral, France (466 ft, 142 m), was the tallest building in the world from 1647 to 1874.
St. Nikolai Church in Hamburg, Germany was the tallest building on earth (483 ft, 147.8 m) from 1874 to 1876.
When the Washington Monument was completed in 1884 it was the tallest structure in the world at 555 feet tall (169 m). The Washington Monument was not the tallest structure on Earth for very long. It was surpassed in 1889 by the Eiffel Tower, which is 1063 feet (324 m) tall. It was the tallest until the age of the great skyscrapers in the US began in the 1930s with such buildings as the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building.
Just for comparison purposes, the great ocean liner Titanic, which sank in 1912, was 882 feet long—longer than The Great Pyramid was tall but shorter than one of the great cathedrals was tall. The huge airship the Hindenburg, which burned in a famous disaster in 1937, was almost as long as the Titanic, with a length of 804 feet.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Monday, February 27, 2012
Where Are the Brands of Yesteryear?
There were several brands of shampoo in my childhood that are long gone: Halo, Drene, Finesse, Luster-Crème (I can still remember the radio jingles for Halo and Luster-Crème).
Of course a lot of consumer products come and go. Presumably they disappear from the market if they were not successful. But sometimes a brand that was big can also disappear: In my childhood there was a toothpaste called Ipana that I am sure was one of the top sellers, and it disappeared, too. It must have finally had a lot of its sales gobbled up by another brand.
Not too many consumer product names last a really long time, like Coca-Cola, which goes back to the nineteenth century, or Tide detergent, which I think goes back to around World War II. (Synthetic detergents were given their original impetus by the war, which made some products like soap scarce—and there's a similar story with margarine as originally a substitute for butter, scarce in wartime. A few of the early margarine brands are still around.)
Some consumer names can still be seen but they're not the original companies. That's true of names like RCA. The original company, Radio Corporation of America, at one point was bought by the French firm Thomson. Today if you see an RCA-branded product it's probably has little to do with the original company; and similarly for a number of other names, particularly those in consumer electronics or appliances, like Crosley—a very old name that made refrigerators, some great, sought-after radios, etc. The rights to a name can be sold and bought so that the modern-day use of the name is by some company not having any direct descent from the original one.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Of course a lot of consumer products come and go. Presumably they disappear from the market if they were not successful. But sometimes a brand that was big can also disappear: In my childhood there was a toothpaste called Ipana that I am sure was one of the top sellers, and it disappeared, too. It must have finally had a lot of its sales gobbled up by another brand.
Not too many consumer product names last a really long time, like Coca-Cola, which goes back to the nineteenth century, or Tide detergent, which I think goes back to around World War II. (Synthetic detergents were given their original impetus by the war, which made some products like soap scarce—and there's a similar story with margarine as originally a substitute for butter, scarce in wartime. A few of the early margarine brands are still around.)
Some consumer names can still be seen but they're not the original companies. That's true of names like RCA. The original company, Radio Corporation of America, at one point was bought by the French firm Thomson. Today if you see an RCA-branded product it's probably has little to do with the original company; and similarly for a number of other names, particularly those in consumer electronics or appliances, like Crosley—a very old name that made refrigerators, some great, sought-after radios, etc. The rights to a name can be sold and bought so that the modern-day use of the name is by some company not having any direct descent from the original one.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Drug Ads on TV
Unless you are very young you can probably remember a time before we had TV commercials for prescription drugs. Personally I wish we could go back to those good old days.
I think these commercials are a bad thing. I'll bet doctors hate them, because lots of patients are coming in to their offices, virtually demanding to be given this or that drug that they saw advertised on TV. Certainly it takes time and, probably, patience on the part of the doctor if s/he does not feel the drug is appropriate for the patient.
Also, it's always the brand-name drugs (as opposed to generics) that are advertised on TV. These sometimes are very expensive. Example: I happen to know that one of the drugs for rheumatoid arthritis that is advertised on TV costs about $1000 per month.
So, these ads, along with their outcome of patients demanding the brand-name drugs, mean more money for the drug companies. More money for the pharmacies. More money for the TV stations. And probably more nuisance for doctors.
The advertising rightly should be directed toward the doctors, and of course it is, with ads in journals that doctors read plus "representatives" (i.e., salesmen) making calls on doctors in their offices. I am sure that, even without patients coming in and requesting them, doctors are already well aware of any drug that means big money for its manufacturer.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
I think these commercials are a bad thing. I'll bet doctors hate them, because lots of patients are coming in to their offices, virtually demanding to be given this or that drug that they saw advertised on TV. Certainly it takes time and, probably, patience on the part of the doctor if s/he does not feel the drug is appropriate for the patient.
Also, it's always the brand-name drugs (as opposed to generics) that are advertised on TV. These sometimes are very expensive. Example: I happen to know that one of the drugs for rheumatoid arthritis that is advertised on TV costs about $1000 per month.
So, these ads, along with their outcome of patients demanding the brand-name drugs, mean more money for the drug companies. More money for the pharmacies. More money for the TV stations. And probably more nuisance for doctors.
The advertising rightly should be directed toward the doctors, and of course it is, with ads in journals that doctors read plus "representatives" (i.e., salesmen) making calls on doctors in their offices. I am sure that, even without patients coming in and requesting them, doctors are already well aware of any drug that means big money for its manufacturer.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
