Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 4]

[popeyewhite]

Flibble said:

It also bypasses the liver's metabolism of drugs. Its not uncommon to lose up to 90% of an orally delivered drug before it has any effect in the liver, so delivering it via suppository can allow for a larger dose more easily.

I already mentioned suppositories bypass the liver, but there are plenty of drugs (steroids for instance) that are designed to pass whole through it without being damaged at all. Protected by an additional methyl group oral steroids pass through the liver virtually whole but damage liver enzymes in the process.

[Fermit and Sexy Sarah]

A quick one from me, I don't think worthy of it's own thread. I'm not particularly IT savvy, so one for any who are.

What's an easy to use, effective, free, photo editing tool for the following. I need to blur (signature) and black out particulars (address) on an invoice. The reason to blur the signature is so it's not legible (it will be in the public domain, data protection) but still be visible that something has been signed.

Anyone able to assist, before I raise a dedicated thread? (Googling didn't enlighten me much!)

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:

A quick one from me, I don't think worthy of it's own thread. I'm not particularly IT savvy, so one for any who are.

What's an easy to use, effective, free, photo editing tool for the following. I need to blur (signature) and black out particulars (address) on an invoice. The reason to blur the signature is so it's not legible (it will be in the public domain, data protection) but still be visible that something has been signed.

Anyone able to assist, before I raise a dedicated thread? (Googling didn't enlighten me much!)

paint.net is very easy to use and has a shallow learning curve for easy stuff like this.

GIMP is excellent but has a much steeper learning curve.

Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Thursday 18th July 10:55

[Fermit and Sexy Sarah]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

paint.net is very easy to use and has a shallow learning curve for easy stuff like this.

GIMP is excellent but has a much steeper learning curve.

Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Thursday 18th July 10:55

Thanks Jo, I needed someone like you answering that one! I'll get it downloaded and have a play.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:

Thanks Jo, I needed someone like you answering that one! I'll get it downloaded and have a play.

[Nimby]

Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:

A quick one from me, I don't think worthy of it's own thread. I'm not particularly IT savvy, so one for any who are.

What's an easy to use, effective, free, photo editing tool for the following. I need to blur (signature) and black out particulars (address) on an invoice. The reason to blur the signature is so it's not legible (it will be in the public domain, data protection) but still be visible that something has been signed.

Anyone able to assist, before I raise a dedicated thread? (Googling didn't enlighten me much!)

If pixelating the signature is OK rather than blur, you can just use MS Paint that comes standard with Windows.

[Fermit and Sexy Sarah]

Nimby said:

If pixelating the signature is OK rather than blur, you can just use MS Paint that comes standard with Windows.

Thank you for the further suggestion, I'll look at this too.

[George Smiley]

How many anniversaries can Hattons invent before all the worlds gold is sold?

[GIYess]

Dr Jekyll said:

vonuber said:

How much of how someone looks is inheritable?

I found a photo of my grab when she was young in the 1930s, and she basically looks like an older version of one of my daughters. But my daughter looks nothing like any of her grandparents.

Do these things skip generations, can be recessive or what?

Related question. How many generations can you go back and still expect to have more genes in common with the ancestor than to the general population?

No professional knowledge of Humans but there are many cases in cows where strange traits come through. I have seen certified Holstein cow and bull (Generally tall, slender and black and white) produce pure black Angus build calves (Generally short, stocky and pure black with larger heads). These pedigree cows are big money and have certifiable history yet many many generations ago, there must have been an Angus parent and some residual genes lurking in there.

[Lily the Pink]

GIYess said:

No professional knowledge of Humans but there are many cases in cows where strange traits come through. I have seen certified Holstein cow and bull (Generally tall, slender and black and white) produce pure black Angus build calves (Generally short, stocky and pure black with larger heads). These pedigree cows are big money and have certifiable history yet many many generations ago, there must have been an Angus parent and some residual genes lurking in there.

Somebody sent the wrong straw ?

[mike74]

Why was the picture quality so poor on American tv broadcasting or recording?

Even programmes from as recent as the 80's and 90's still look far inferior to the standard of UK tv from the time.

The picture quality just has that certain 'look' about it where you can instantly tell it's American.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

mike74 said:

Why was the picture quality so poor on American tv broadcasting or recording?

Even programmes from as recent as the 80's and 90's still look far inferior to the standard of UK tv from the time.

The picture quality just has that certain 'look' about it where you can instantly tell it's American.

American TV used the NTSC standard and we use the PAL standard.

Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Friday 19th July 16:08

[captain_cynic]

mike74 said:

Why was the picture quality so poor on American tv broadcasting or recording?

Even programmes from as recent as the 80's and 90's still look far inferior to the standard of UK tv from the time.

The picture quality just has that certain 'look' about it where you can instantly tell it's American.

Willing to bet its due to NTSC.

The US used the NTSC standard for TV broadcast which had a faster frame rate but lower quality (fewer vertical lines), PAL which was used in Europe had more lines (higher resolution) but a lower frame rate. This was mainly due to the different electrical frequencies, the US ran at 60hz whilst the UK and Europe ran at 50hz. This hasn't been relevant for decades, especially not with the switch to digital TV, but that's the origin story. Today with digital TV it matters less, we use DVB-T and DVB-T2 as the digital standards in the UK.

So shows recorded primarily for the US domestic market were filmed to conform to NTSC standards, shows filmed primarily for the UK or European market were filmed to conform to the PAL standard. Older shows recorded in the NTSC (525 lines) have noticably lower quality than PAL (625 lines) resolutions, even when converted to be transmitted on modern digital standards.

PAL was widely considered the superior standard (smug mode on).

Edit: Damn you CC... Missed it by that much.

Edited by captain_cynic on Friday 19th July 16:12

[Clockwork Cupcake]

captain_cynic said:

Edit: Damn you CC... Missed it by that much.

Your answer was much more complete and informative though.

[Dr Jekyll]

So what do PAL recordings look like when converted to be shown on US TV?

[lazy_b]

Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:

A quick one from me, I don't think worthy of it's own thread. I'm not particularly IT savvy, so one for any who are.

What's an easy to use, effective, free, photo editing tool for the following. I need to blur (signature) and black out particulars (address) on an invoice. The reason to blur the signature is so it's not legible (it will be in the public domain, data protection) but still be visible that something has been signed.

Anyone able to assist, before I raise a dedicated thread? (Googling didn't enlighten me much!)

Go for the low-tech approach?
Print; obscure sensitive stuff with a marker pen; scan.

[Shakermaker]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

captain_cynic said:

Edit: Damn you CC... Missed it by that much.

Your answer was much more complete and informative though.

CC vs CC, the showdown!

[Rostfritt]

Something I have been wondering for a while, why do most three-door hatchbacks have fixed rear windows? It can be pretty claustrophobic in the back and you can't even pop them out on most cars.

My Saab Convertible has ones that go down, but today was the first time I ever went in the back and noticed the only controls for them are on the driver's door. I suspect they only go down because it would look silly with the roof down if they didn't.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Rostfritt said:

Something I have been wondering for a while, why do most three-door hatchbacks have fixed rear windows? It can be pretty claustrophobic in the back and you can't even pop them out on most cars.

Older cars did have pop open windows. The trouble with them is that rear sear passengers pop them open without warning (which used to scare the st out of me as a driver, as the sudden noise made me jump) and then would forget to close them again afterwards, which was a) bloody annoying, b) a security risk, and c) also a problem if it rained.

I guess manufacturers concluded much the same which is why you so rarely see them now.

3-door cars themselves are becoming increasingly rare these days too, sadly. I understand that the Mk8 Golf is going to be 5-door only, for example.

[StevieBee]

captain_cynic said:

mike74 said:

Why was the picture quality so poor on American tv broadcasting or recording?

Even programmes from as recent as the 80's and 90's still look far inferior to the standard of UK tv from the time.

The picture quality just has that certain 'look' about it where you can instantly tell it's American.

Willing to bet its due to NTSC.

The US used the NTSC standard for TV broadcast which had a faster frame rate but lower quality (fewer vertical lines), PAL which was used in Europe had more lines (higher resolution) but a lower frame rate. This was mainly due to the different electrical frequencies, the US ran at 60hz whilst the UK and Europe ran at 50hz. This hasn't been relevant for decades, especially not with the switch to digital TV, but that's the origin story. Today with digital TV it matters less, we use DVB-T and DVB-T2 as the digital standards in the UK.

So shows recorded primarily for the US domestic market were filmed to conform to NTSC standards, shows filmed primarily for the UK or European market were filmed to conform to the PAL standard. Older shows recorded in the NTSC (525 lines) have noticably lower quality than PAL (625 lines) resolutions, even when converted to be transmitted on modern digital standards.

PAL was widely considered the superior standard (smug mode on).

Edit: Damn you CC... Missed it by that much.

Edited by captain_cynic on Friday 19th July 16:12

(IIRC) This is correct although to expand the reasoning, electrical frequency didn't dictate the number of line; they could have run high numbers if they wanted. But the rate at which artificial light flickers in the US (all lights flicker, we just don't register it) conflicted to a degree that it would ruin the image with higher number of lines. Lessening the number dialled this effect out.