A couple of months ago my dad was in town for a quick visit. As it so happened this coincided with my supply of ibuprofen running out. So we made a quick trip to the pharmacy.
For years I've been buying my pain killers from Costco. They have at least 3 versions of ibuprofen that I am aware of. Kirkland Signature branded, Advil and Motrin IB. For a long time we were buying the house brand because it is less expensive and you get loads of it. In fact the last time we bought this hulk of a bottle we had to throw away a significant portion of it because it expired.
After that incident my wife and I decided that we should try the Advil branded version. Mostly because it was large while not being overly large. We were fairly confident at the very least that we wouldn't be paying for so much that it would end up in the trash.
The first thing that we noticed with the Advil brand is that it effected our headaches faster. It also lasted longer. It cost more for sure but we were able to finish our first bottle before it expired. So we had a positive experience all around despite the added cost.
It ran out about the time my dad was in town. In a rush we needed some more and so we went to the pharmacy. I reached out for the Advil and my dad stopped me. He pointed out that the pharmacy brand was less expensive and you got a heckuvalot more. At this point I was not yet totally convinced of the efficacy of Advil. I figured it could have been in my head. So I conceded. I bought this outrageously large bottle of generic ibuprofen.
Over the following weeks my wife was taking a lot of pain killers. Basically she hurt her tailbone pretty bad giving birth to our son. She was very sore for a long time. She first brought to my attention that she was taking more drugs. She said that she was concerned that she was getting used to ibuprofen because she found that she was taking more of it much more often. Essentially she was taking 4 pills every 2-3 hours instead of her previous 2 pills every 4-6. She was getting really concerned.
I occasionally get headaches. Mostly they are related to occasionally drinking caffeine. So I took some one night. It was right around bed time. I was starting to feel a pretty massive headache coming on. I took 4 pills and waited it out. Nothing happened. When I say nothing I mean that 2 hours later the headache was hitting me full power and I had to take 4 more pills when I went to bed. I woke up with a headache. It was around that time my wife told me to throw that stuff away and go get some Advil.
Ever since I've been thinking about why those and other generic drugs don't seem to work as well as name brand products. I think it has to do with reputation. Think of it like the Tylenol company. They are a company named after a single product. If the quality of that product became bad they would lose a lot of reputation and a lot of money along side it. Because of this I am willing to bet these manufacturers go to great lengths to ensure their product is of the highest quality standards.
Conversely generic manufacturers have no reputation to uphold. The label that will ultimately end up on the outside of the bottle doesn't have their name on it. It has the name of the store they are making the product for. So there really isn't any reason to go to any great length to ensure quality of product. Cutting corners increases revenue.
I don't want to throw a blanket over all drugs and say the generics are never as good. I would say that for the most part they are not as good though. I don't use a lot of drugs but those that I do I prefer the name brand.
This past weekend I had a cold. I found in our drug cabinet 2 Sudofed generics. They were both said to be 12 hour pills. Neither of them lasted more than 6 and their level of effectiveness was definitely in question. Late in the evening I asked the wife to get me some real Sudofed. She bought a pack of the 24 hours stuff. I took it 13 hours ago and am still feeling fine.
The lesson here is somewhat anecdotal I'll admit. However I'll be sticking to the name brand stuff for drugs.
May 7, 2012
March 22, 2012
HDR Photography: High Dynamic Ruin
So, as you may know from my new blog, I am beginning photography as a hobby. As a beginner I do a lot of reading about my hobby and a lot of viewing other photographer's work. One major theme has become quite apparent to me lately, everyone thinks HDR photography is amazing. I'm going to explain why it is somewhat fascinating and yet terribly ruinous at the same time.
HDR stands for High Dynamic Range. The basic technique is that of taking 3 or more pictures in a row, from a tripod so as not to change any particulars, using different exposure settings. The idea is that you can then later smash them all together in Photoshop to create a picture where every single element is exposed perfectly. Here is an example. Open this picture in a new window and we'll discuss it a bit as we go along.
Before I discuss the particulars of this I just want to explain a few limitations of this technology. First nothing can be moving. This means that if you see a person in the photo then it is probably not using HDR. This goes for animals as well. Second the photographer cannot move either. If anything moves the final product will contain ghosts.
Now let's get back to that photograph. Take a good long look at it. Do you see now how nearly every object and space is filled with light? There are wisps of shadow here and there but for the most part these are wiped clean and clear for everyone to see. Even where the shadow lies the object underneath is still easily visible.
You have looked and seen everything this picture has to offer. If you need more examples just search the internet for HDR photos. They are everywhere these days. Sadly a lot of people who call themselves professional photographers are now using this technique everywhere. I think it is suppose to testify to their customers that they own the expensive equipment deemed necessary to take these kind of shots. You will probably see on your next camera purchase that there is a built in HDR function. It will soon be a major selling point for any camera.
Let me tell you why I hate it. Mainly it creates a false portrait. It creates something unreal. What you see in this photo is hyper realistic. It's cartoonish. The colors are false and the textures are false. It's an absurd representation of the actual cathedral.
This is about where people I talk to start to disagree with me. Let me explain in a different way. When is the last time you looked at a Rembrandt? I included a link so you will look at it before reading further. This is a masterfully painted scene. It's dynamic. It's moving. It's still yet in motion. Why is this painting so amazing? Really think about it and I'll get back to why I think it is in a moment.
I just want to interject for a second and say that photography isn't painting but does rely on the same principles. The main principle of both is lighting.
Now when a child paints a scene or colors one in crayon without knowing the first principle of art they do something interesting. A child will almost always paint or draw a picture with no shadows. Everything is seen. Every object is in full clarity. Even kids I grew up with that were very good at drawing things that were easily identifiable drew things that didn't have shadow.
So why is this an issue? It's because of how our minds perceive the world around us. Did you know that humans only see in 2 dimensions? I bet you thought it would be 3. Nope. We only see in 2. Our brains have these little tricks that are employed to interpret things in 3 dimensions. Some of those tricks include interpretation of perspective, focus and contrast. I know this is more links than normal for my articles.
Up until now I have been trying to lean this conversation towards contrast. Go back to the Rembrandt painting for a moment. Do you notice where the light is coming from? Do you see how the shadow over the right half of the boat increases the idea of peril?
Let's look at one more painting. This time one from J.M.W. Turner. In this painting you can see the light source very clearly. What I find incredible about this painting is that the light draws your gaze onto a single ship. That source of light frames the subject. It tells our eye what to look at. Keep looking at this for a moment.
I want to point out another interesting thing. There are ships in this painting in the background that are out of focus. You know they are ships because they are reasonably in focus to show their sails but there is no detail. This tells your mind, without you even knowing, that this is 3 dimensional. Check back on the cathedral. Everything is in focus. If you look at it again it will start to feel flat. It's missing at least 2 of the main elements that the brain uses to interpret dimensions. It still retains perspective thankfully. Without perspective this photograph would probably cause headaches.
Okay, so I hope by now you can understand why I hate HDR photography. My challenge to my couple of readers is to look at photos you really like and paintings you really like and see if they aren't full of contrast and focal planes. We may have to live with high tech children's photos but we don't have to like them.
Once again, if you want to look at my photos check out the link to my other blog on the right hand side. See if I have any idea how to follow my own criticism.
HDR stands for High Dynamic Range. The basic technique is that of taking 3 or more pictures in a row, from a tripod so as not to change any particulars, using different exposure settings. The idea is that you can then later smash them all together in Photoshop to create a picture where every single element is exposed perfectly. Here is an example. Open this picture in a new window and we'll discuss it a bit as we go along.
Before I discuss the particulars of this I just want to explain a few limitations of this technology. First nothing can be moving. This means that if you see a person in the photo then it is probably not using HDR. This goes for animals as well. Second the photographer cannot move either. If anything moves the final product will contain ghosts.
Now let's get back to that photograph. Take a good long look at it. Do you see now how nearly every object and space is filled with light? There are wisps of shadow here and there but for the most part these are wiped clean and clear for everyone to see. Even where the shadow lies the object underneath is still easily visible.
You have looked and seen everything this picture has to offer. If you need more examples just search the internet for HDR photos. They are everywhere these days. Sadly a lot of people who call themselves professional photographers are now using this technique everywhere. I think it is suppose to testify to their customers that they own the expensive equipment deemed necessary to take these kind of shots. You will probably see on your next camera purchase that there is a built in HDR function. It will soon be a major selling point for any camera.
Let me tell you why I hate it. Mainly it creates a false portrait. It creates something unreal. What you see in this photo is hyper realistic. It's cartoonish. The colors are false and the textures are false. It's an absurd representation of the actual cathedral.
This is about where people I talk to start to disagree with me. Let me explain in a different way. When is the last time you looked at a Rembrandt? I included a link so you will look at it before reading further. This is a masterfully painted scene. It's dynamic. It's moving. It's still yet in motion. Why is this painting so amazing? Really think about it and I'll get back to why I think it is in a moment.
I just want to interject for a second and say that photography isn't painting but does rely on the same principles. The main principle of both is lighting.
Now when a child paints a scene or colors one in crayon without knowing the first principle of art they do something interesting. A child will almost always paint or draw a picture with no shadows. Everything is seen. Every object is in full clarity. Even kids I grew up with that were very good at drawing things that were easily identifiable drew things that didn't have shadow.
So why is this an issue? It's because of how our minds perceive the world around us. Did you know that humans only see in 2 dimensions? I bet you thought it would be 3. Nope. We only see in 2. Our brains have these little tricks that are employed to interpret things in 3 dimensions. Some of those tricks include interpretation of perspective, focus and contrast. I know this is more links than normal for my articles.
Up until now I have been trying to lean this conversation towards contrast. Go back to the Rembrandt painting for a moment. Do you notice where the light is coming from? Do you see how the shadow over the right half of the boat increases the idea of peril?
Let's look at one more painting. This time one from J.M.W. Turner. In this painting you can see the light source very clearly. What I find incredible about this painting is that the light draws your gaze onto a single ship. That source of light frames the subject. It tells our eye what to look at. Keep looking at this for a moment.
I want to point out another interesting thing. There are ships in this painting in the background that are out of focus. You know they are ships because they are reasonably in focus to show their sails but there is no detail. This tells your mind, without you even knowing, that this is 3 dimensional. Check back on the cathedral. Everything is in focus. If you look at it again it will start to feel flat. It's missing at least 2 of the main elements that the brain uses to interpret dimensions. It still retains perspective thankfully. Without perspective this photograph would probably cause headaches.
Okay, so I hope by now you can understand why I hate HDR photography. My challenge to my couple of readers is to look at photos you really like and paintings you really like and see if they aren't full of contrast and focal planes. We may have to live with high tech children's photos but we don't have to like them.
Once again, if you want to look at my photos check out the link to my other blog on the right hand side. See if I have any idea how to follow my own criticism.
February 8, 2012
Teleportation
So this might be a strange entry. I want to talk about teleporters and their impact on the world.
Let me start by eliminating some of your preconceptions. First I am not talking about magical teleportation as in Nightcrawler from X-Men. I'm also not talking about beaming as seen in Star Trek or Stargate SG-1. Though what I want to talk about relates to the latter.
So the other day as I was driving home from work I was thinking about how great it would be if I could teleport home and skip all the time wasted. Then I started to mind drift into Star Trek and thought about how someone's body is essentially torn apart and put back together. A similar thing takes place in Stargate at one point but it is achieved through the use of a small platform that can transport a person or persons to any other platform on the planet. For a short time my mind drifted into slidewalks and such before returning to an idea.
My thought went kind of like this: Star Trek had it wrong in that you can't just rip a person apart and send them through the air or subspace and put them back together. It would hurt. Actually it would kill you and the person that arrived on the other side wouldn't be you. It would be a copy of you.
So I started to think about how teleportation could really be done. I came to one conclusion, it can only be done using a quantum tunnel. The truth is I don't know if such a thing exists or could exist. However, I can describe to you exactly what it would do and what it would feel like using it. I can also tell you some of what it would do to you and your life.
Let me describe this thing for you. It would be a platform of sorts. Think of it as something like a dock. It would probably be a round pad with concentric circles. The largest circle would be something like 6 feet across. Each circle would be somewhat smaller until the inner circle, which would be about the size of 1 person standing. The entire thing would have a door to enclose it, probably see through material like poly-carbonate.
The way it works is you stand on the platform and dial in another machine kind of like a telephone. The door closes as it dials. When a connection is made to the platform on the other end it would detect which circles were in use and adjust accordingly. When the other machine was ready and the connection was set you would suddenly be there.
That sounds pretty magical to me. But the way my brain thinks is a bit more detailed. The first thing I thought after this idea hit me was, "What would it feel like?" I was curious if someone using it would actually heave their lunch. I decided that the way it would feel is actually not unlike blinking and moving your head while your eyes are briefly closed. Occasionally it can make one dizzy but the brain mostly takes care of it. The reason it wouldn't be sickening is simply because the quantum tunnel is so short as to be indetectably small. You see, the quantum tunnel, if it exists or can be made, isn't really a tunnel. It works by placing you somewhere else. There is no travelling. You jump outside of space and time and suddenly are there.
It's really hard to explain without explaining quantum entanglement. And to be completely honest I'm not really a physicist and I am probably not qualified to explain it. I just think this is possible.
Okay, let's all just overlook the seemingly impossible parts and think about impact.
What would this technology do to you? I think I know part of what it would do to you and do to us as a species.
On a personal level you would probably spend a lot less time in a car. This means more family time. It means more personal time, if you want it. Which ultimately probably means more TV. It would mean a lot less radio time.
On a larger scale it wouldn't really be like Star Trek. At least not like the movies we see. It would mean the end to some very large car manufacturers. People all over would buy less vehicles. How many vehicles do you own? I own 2. If I suddenly bought one of these I would probably sell one of my cars to help buy it. As more and more homes bought these and more and more businesses and stores did I would likely consider sell both of my cars. I kind of think the perfect place for this is in the garage.
You know how the Internet has made the world smaller? I personally keep in touch with friends all over the country. One friend of mine and I often jokingly talk about sharing a meal at any given time even though I live in LA and he lives in San Francisco. This thing would make that joke a reality. I could live anywhere and see my friends every day if I wanted.
That got me thinking about work. Living in the Los Angeles area I make better money than I would living in Iowa or Utah or Idaho or Nevada. But most of the extra money I earn is wasted on the much higher cost of living (not to mention the highest in the country car insurance and nearly highest gas prices). With this device I could live in Iowa and my commute would still be non existent. So what I realized after that is people would begin to pour out of the large cities. Not everyone of course but a lot of people would realize they can live anywhere within a timezone maybe two of their employer and be just fine.
The next thing I realized is that international borders would be seriously threatened. The scariest part was the idea that a bomb could easily be transported from anywhere to anywhere. That made me a little crazy. I spent the next 10 or 20 minutes thinking about security measures this device would have to have. I'll skip that part here.
This post is kind of an insight to how I think. I realize this product isn't real. I believe it could be but not being a physicist I couldn't really postulate a real description of why I think it could be real. But hey, wouldn't it be really cool?!
Let me start by eliminating some of your preconceptions. First I am not talking about magical teleportation as in Nightcrawler from X-Men. I'm also not talking about beaming as seen in Star Trek or Stargate SG-1. Though what I want to talk about relates to the latter.
So the other day as I was driving home from work I was thinking about how great it would be if I could teleport home and skip all the time wasted. Then I started to mind drift into Star Trek and thought about how someone's body is essentially torn apart and put back together. A similar thing takes place in Stargate at one point but it is achieved through the use of a small platform that can transport a person or persons to any other platform on the planet. For a short time my mind drifted into slidewalks and such before returning to an idea.
My thought went kind of like this: Star Trek had it wrong in that you can't just rip a person apart and send them through the air or subspace and put them back together. It would hurt. Actually it would kill you and the person that arrived on the other side wouldn't be you. It would be a copy of you.
So I started to think about how teleportation could really be done. I came to one conclusion, it can only be done using a quantum tunnel. The truth is I don't know if such a thing exists or could exist. However, I can describe to you exactly what it would do and what it would feel like using it. I can also tell you some of what it would do to you and your life.
Let me describe this thing for you. It would be a platform of sorts. Think of it as something like a dock. It would probably be a round pad with concentric circles. The largest circle would be something like 6 feet across. Each circle would be somewhat smaller until the inner circle, which would be about the size of 1 person standing. The entire thing would have a door to enclose it, probably see through material like poly-carbonate.
The way it works is you stand on the platform and dial in another machine kind of like a telephone. The door closes as it dials. When a connection is made to the platform on the other end it would detect which circles were in use and adjust accordingly. When the other machine was ready and the connection was set you would suddenly be there.
That sounds pretty magical to me. But the way my brain thinks is a bit more detailed. The first thing I thought after this idea hit me was, "What would it feel like?" I was curious if someone using it would actually heave their lunch. I decided that the way it would feel is actually not unlike blinking and moving your head while your eyes are briefly closed. Occasionally it can make one dizzy but the brain mostly takes care of it. The reason it wouldn't be sickening is simply because the quantum tunnel is so short as to be indetectably small. You see, the quantum tunnel, if it exists or can be made, isn't really a tunnel. It works by placing you somewhere else. There is no travelling. You jump outside of space and time and suddenly are there.
It's really hard to explain without explaining quantum entanglement. And to be completely honest I'm not really a physicist and I am probably not qualified to explain it. I just think this is possible.
Okay, let's all just overlook the seemingly impossible parts and think about impact.
What would this technology do to you? I think I know part of what it would do to you and do to us as a species.
On a personal level you would probably spend a lot less time in a car. This means more family time. It means more personal time, if you want it. Which ultimately probably means more TV. It would mean a lot less radio time.
On a larger scale it wouldn't really be like Star Trek. At least not like the movies we see. It would mean the end to some very large car manufacturers. People all over would buy less vehicles. How many vehicles do you own? I own 2. If I suddenly bought one of these I would probably sell one of my cars to help buy it. As more and more homes bought these and more and more businesses and stores did I would likely consider sell both of my cars. I kind of think the perfect place for this is in the garage.
You know how the Internet has made the world smaller? I personally keep in touch with friends all over the country. One friend of mine and I often jokingly talk about sharing a meal at any given time even though I live in LA and he lives in San Francisco. This thing would make that joke a reality. I could live anywhere and see my friends every day if I wanted.
That got me thinking about work. Living in the Los Angeles area I make better money than I would living in Iowa or Utah or Idaho or Nevada. But most of the extra money I earn is wasted on the much higher cost of living (not to mention the highest in the country car insurance and nearly highest gas prices). With this device I could live in Iowa and my commute would still be non existent. So what I realized after that is people would begin to pour out of the large cities. Not everyone of course but a lot of people would realize they can live anywhere within a timezone maybe two of their employer and be just fine.
The next thing I realized is that international borders would be seriously threatened. The scariest part was the idea that a bomb could easily be transported from anywhere to anywhere. That made me a little crazy. I spent the next 10 or 20 minutes thinking about security measures this device would have to have. I'll skip that part here.
This post is kind of an insight to how I think. I realize this product isn't real. I believe it could be but not being a physicist I couldn't really postulate a real description of why I think it could be real. But hey, wouldn't it be really cool?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)