Light Pollution.
-
@timpster said:
LOL......... no. I'll take it you've not been on a plane at nigh (neither have I), but yeah, as stupid as it seems, this is NOT an optical illusion. Look up sky glow, how do you think that's possible?
Yes, it's crazy, but some of the light goes up -- it literally goes in ALL directions, (not JUST up if that's what your implying).
Sky glow? I would explain that from just the general light pollution from all the lights from things like bright signs, city lights, malls, 24/7 stores, etc. etc. etc. The street lights we have here don't put light upward. The top of the light is solid because the interior is a reflective dome in order to concentrate the light down at the street and sidewalk.
-
@TwoCables said:
@timpster said:
LOL......... no. I'll take it you've not been on a plane at nigh (neither have I), but yeah, as stupid as it seems, this is NOT an optical illusion. Look up sky glow, how do you think that's possible?
Yes, it's crazy, but some of the light goes up -- it literally goes in ALL directions, (not JUST up if that's what your implying).
Sky glow? I would explain that from just the general light pollution from all the lights from things like bright signs, city lights, malls, 24/7 stores, etc. etc. etc. The street lights we have here don't put light upward. The top of the light is solid because the interior is a reflective dome in order to concentrate the light down at the street and sidewalk.
Anyway, just for the record, yeah light pollution is depressing in my opinion. It's no wonder most people think that we're alone in this universe, that we are the only sentient beings that exist, that there's no other life anywhere else, etc.
-
Well, the light may not look like it's going up, but it goes slightly upward with an angle -- if you're in a city at night, and you can get on a higher road above street lights, you'll see the light go upward at an angle, maybe not straight up, but that's where it's headed.
-
@timpster said:
Well, the light may not look like it's going up, but it goes slightly upward with an angle -- if you're in a city at night, and you can get on a higher road above street lights, you'll see the light go upward at an angle, maybe not straight up, but that's where it's headed.
Oh, that's what you mean. I had a feeling I was misunderstanding.
-
That's O.K., but yeah, they need much more of a shield, and the Internation Dark Sky Association has approved certain fixtures that don't have the problem, so if you are even to the side of the light, you still won't see it.
You can even find them on Amazon!!
-
@timpster said:
That's O.K., but yeah, they need much more of a shield, and the Internation Dark Sky Association has approved certain fixtures that don't have the problem, so if you are even to the side of the light, you still won't see it.
You can even find them on Amazon!!
lol I should tell my city to go shopping for new lights on Amazon.com. hahaha
All kidding aside though, yeah.. when I learned about light pollution a year or two ago, I became a little bit angry at this world because damn... we are being seriously deprived of one hell of a beautiful sky that I've never seen in person. There's one tiny little area here in Minnesota way up north that's VERY deep inside of a forest (very hard to get to) where there's absolutely no light pollution, according to a light pollution map. It's a tiny black spot, just like the desert way out west.
-
I was gonna ask if you'd ever seen it, so thanks for answering that. There was an earth quake in 1994 and it took out ALL power in an L.A. area, and people called in asking if the strange silver thing in the sky was the cause of it. You can guess what that was -- they'd never seen it before (those lucky people) and I still haven't seen it in person.
The following wonderful webpage has more info (it also has a "hidden" picture, be sure to take a good look at it before the mouse gets too close!) http://physics.fau.edu/observatory/lightpol-astro.html
Also, please try Firefox's new "reader" function, near the refresh page while reading the link, also you will have to increase text size, use the Aa button, and crank it up until the the section that's very narrow gets wider. It will make that section much easier to read, then you can put it back down.
-
@timpster said:
I was gonna ask if you'd ever seen it, so thanks for answering that. There was an earth quake in 1994 and it took out ALL power in an L.A. area, and people called in asking if the strange silver thing in the sky was the cause of it. You can guess what that was -- they'd never seen it before (those lucky people) and I still haven't seen it in person.
The following wonderful webpage has more info (it also has a "hidden" picture, be sure to take a good look at it before the mouse gets too close!) http://physics.fau.edu/observatory/lightpol-astro.html
Whoa that's a long page. I"m a little tired at the moment, so maybe after I get some good sleep. :)
Anyway, the fact that they had to ask what that strange silver thing in the sky is just breaks my heart. Big time.
I tried Firefox 39 today (I use and prefer 31.7.0 because I dislike all newer versions), and I tried the new reader feature, but I didn't like it. I don't like switching back and forth just so I can go from a page that has both the text and the buttons (like Reply and Quote and whatnot) to a text-only page. It seems unnecessary for my style and more time-consuming than just sitting here and reading. I really didn't care for it at all.
Usually, if I try a new feature of some software and it's something that I will be unable to live without so to speak, I know it right away. This Reader feature struck me as a silly unnecessary gimmick, at least for me.
-
.... Did you try on the forum? Why the hell would you do that?!
I'm sure you also did the following though, try it on the link I gave you, but anyway, as you said you don't really need it, but what I like it for is getting rid of all the other links etc on a webpage, and just having the text.
Readability does a better job but since it's default that makes it very easy to use on a machine with Firefox.
-
@timpster said:
.... Did you try on the forum? Why the hell would you do that?!
I'm sure you also did the following though, try it on the link I gave you, but anyway, as you said you don't really need it, but what I like it for is getting rid of all the other links etc on a webpage, and just having the text.
Readability does a better job but since it's default that makes it very easy to use on a machine with Firefox.
Because that's the first thing I saw when I opened up Firefox 39?
Anyway, I don't want to look at a web page like that if it's just text. I want to see it as the creator/author intended it to be seen.I want to experience it in the way that they intended it to be experienced. Besides, I hate all versions newer than 31.7.0., including 39. So, it doesn't matter anyway. The reason why requires a very long explanation.
-
This post is deleted! -
How did you try the reader function on the forum -- I don't have the button available -- and there is this "deleted post" the forum refreshed just in time for me to miss it.
-
@timpster said:
How did you try the reader function on the forum -- I don't have the button available -- and there is this "deleted post" the forum refreshed just in time for me to miss it.
To be honest, this is a waste of our time because I don't want Firefox 39 because they haven't fixed what I hate about all versions past 31.7.0.
-
Might you like Pale Moon
I couldn't get firefox to display FULL BLACK in youtube -- 16-235 I guess, maybe much brighter. Anyway, I didn't like the interface much either, and Palemoon looks great!
Give it a go!
-
@timpster said:
Might you like Pale Moon
I couldn't get firefox to display FULL BLACK in youtube -- 16-235 I guess, maybe much brighter. Anyway, I didn't like the interface much either, and Palemoon looks great!
Give it a go!
I tried Pale Moon recently, but I had rendering problems on pages that I need to look at every day. I've tried them all. I used to prefer Pale Moon, but I faded away from it for some reason and today I'm glad that happened because I would have gone back to Firefox out of frustration anyway due to these rendering issues.
So, thank you, but I'm all set.
