Alan

It has occurred to me that the general capacity for media and government to pass nonsense across to the masses has been achieved by tainting tap water with scopolamine. How would one test tap water for the presence of scopolamine?

I am working with scans of old color comic-book pages. I am hoping that there is some kind of filter which can help me to clean up the scans instantly.

Here is what I would like the filter to do: Scan every pixel and assign the lightest to pure white, the darkest to pure black, the yellowest to pure yellow, etc and then reassign colors based on intensity so that the browns go away and are replaced by a richer range of colors which overcomes the rotten old printing, bad paper, and browning from age. Is there such a utility?

I am looking for an analog-to-digital converter capable of converting analog stereo signals to DSD128. What I am basically hoping for is a unit which accepts stereo analog input, converts it to DSD128 and connects to my computer with software which saves the DSD128 signal as a file an allows minor editing such as cutting the recording into individual tracks. Whenever I do a search, all I can find are digital-to-analog converters (DAC), rather than ADC.

Aerobic respiration seems simple enough. Molecules of O2 are inhaled, and CO2 is exhaled. However, I do not understand where the carbon comes from.

I have an LG 3D TV (HDMI 1.4), a Denon AVR 1910 (HDMI 1.3a), an LG 3D BDP (HDMI 1.4), and an HDMI active splitter (HDMI 1.4).

If I hook up the BDP directly to the AVR and play a 2D Blu-ray, I get HD audio. Because the AVR is HDMI 1.3a, 3D disks will not display properly this way. Using the splitter, I can get the BDP to send 3D video to the TV and audio to the AVR. It works. However, I lose HD audio for all disks. I drop from HD 7.1 to 48Khz 5.1 even for 2D playback. If I remove the cable from the splitter to the TV, I get HD audio from the BDP to the AVR, but replacing that cable results in DVD-quality audio in all cases.

I think the problem is due to the fact that the TV itself is incapable of processing HD 7.1 audio and that in all of the handshaking if one of the cables is directly connected to the TV from the BDP, audio gets bumped down to whatever the lowest link in the chain can handle. The TV is capable of passing the audio to an AVR via HDMI ARC and optical. Of course, the optical cable is limited to 48Khz/5.1. The receiver cannot interpret the HDMI ARC signal because HDMI ARC is an HDMI 1.4 feature not addressed by HDMI 1.3a.

Is there any kind of cheap, easy solution to get HD audio in all cases? I am thinking that perhaps there might be a special HDMI ARC cable that translates an HDMI ARC signal into HDMI 1.3 audio. Perhaps that is wishful thinking. Purchasing an HDMI 1.4 AVR is not an option for me, and no upgrade is available.

Are 25mm hexagons for gaming measured the long way or the short way? I want to do up some gaming materials, but I don't have access to any standard products in my location. If I am designing hex paper for 25mm gaming, should the hexagons be 25mm from corner to corner (the long way) or 25mm from side to side (the short way)?

I'm trying to identify a movie that I am barely remembering from maybe five or six years ago. A man and a woman get caught up in intrigue on the trail of a supposedly destroyed film from a (fictional) famous director of the silent-film era. It is eventually revealed in the movie that what remains of the film is alive, containing the soul of an angel or angels. When the original film was shot, it was a snuff film of the murder of a captured angel.

Is the rotational axis of Uranus ever lined up with Earth?

If so, when were the last few times, and when might it happen next?

I have a Gigabyte Radeon HD 5770 silent cell GPU. When playing movies, sometimes after an hour or so, the frame rate drops to about 15fps. This happens no matter how low the resolution of the source file. Rebooting temporarily fixes the problem. I have tried a plethora of drivers, and the newer the drivers, the worse the problem.

Occasionally when I am using a web browser, the current tab splits into triangles. Google Earth often shows all kinds of screen garbage and rendering errors that look like spike or girders across the screen.

The real problems come when I try to play GPU-intensive games. MWLL barely plays and renders terrain and sky textures as blocks of color making the game unplayable. MechWarrior Online is likewise unplayable. I just tried Hawken, and the terrain and sky graphics render perfectly but strobe flashing frequently to black and then back on again.

I am occasionally getting blocks of blue "snow" on various portions of my screen, particularly when I run web browsers or run SIW (system information for Windows utility).

I am considering trying the baking fix, but I am worried about damaging the card, which works fairly well for most mundane non-gaming apps. The card works perfectly in Linux, including games, but I think those games I have are not sophisticated enough to be trying to make use of the GPUs advanced features.

What can I do?

I'm looking for an English translation of Doctrina Jacobi. Please help. Thanks in advance.

My cousin and I are having a little argument about a snapshot in her family album. I think the snapshot was taken in 1970. On the white border of the picture is a date indicating 1971. She thinks that the date on the pinted photo blows my theory. However, I'm pretty sure the date stamp wouldn't have come from the camera but rather from the photo developer. My guess is that while some photo developers could date stamp if the customer so desired that most customers left that feature blank on the drop-off envelope and the developer would just use the current date for the stamping. In short, my question is: were there any consumer-level cameras available in 1970 that would have put the date directly onto the negative of the film in what would appear as the border of the developed photo? My guess is that the answer is 'no,' and that it's most likely that the developer put the date of development on the picture.

I am an audiophile on a budget. Denon recently announced two consumer-level universal Blu-ray players: the BDP-1611 and the BDP-2011. I am going to buy one of these as soon as they are on the market. The 2011 is twice the price of the 1611. I can afford either but would rather not spend the extra money on the 2011.

Here are my concerns:

1. Several years ago, I purchased a consumer-level Denon universal DVD player, the DVD-1920. Unlike my other Denon components, it was made in China with a cheap chassis. Despite that flaw, it has provided superb performance, though after three years it is getting a little wonky. Here is the real question: will the 1611 have the same solid construction as normal Denon components, or will I have to go with the 2011 for the solid construction?

2. The player will be mated with a Denon ARV 1910. The 2011 has the latest Anchor Bay video processing. However, my AVR 1910 also has Anchor Bay processing, though possibly of an earlier design. I'm watching video on an LG 27" full HD monitor. I don't think I will experience a noticeable difference with the new Anchor Bay processing, but maybe some of you disagree.

3. The AVR 1910 has a (generic) 24/192 DAC. The 2011 has a new Burr-Brown 32/192 DAC. Do you think I will notice a worthwhile difference in audio quality? Also, will I need to use the analog outputs to gain the benefits of that DAC? I really want to do everything through the HDMI. The AVR-1910 only has one set of surround analog inputs, and I already have a complicated switch box set up to share up to three surround sources. I can easily add a third set of analog cables to the switch boxes, but I would much rather eliminate cabling from my system than add more to it. The 1610 has a generic DAC (I think 24/192), and it has NO surround analog outs.

4. How will the 1611 handle SACD playback? The DVD-1910 requires that SACD audio be passed through the analog outs. The 1611 will be able to pass the signal through HDMI, but that means that the player will have to convert the SACD DSD signal into an HDMI signal. Am I likely to get a noticeable reduction in sound quality? If I go with the 2011, will I still need to use the analog outputs to get the best SACD sound?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

I have a 7.1-channel surround-sound amplifier (Denon 1910). It only has one set of 8 RCA inputs for analog audio. Unfortunately, I need two sets. I found a switch box for RCA component video which looks promising.

http://www.amazon.com/Audio-Composite-Se%E2%80%A6

Since component video is based on RCA cables, and these are un-powered switch boxes, I would assume that there is no processing of the signal in the switch box and that there is theoretically no difference between switching component video cables with these boxes and component audio cables.

If this seems feasible, my intention is to purchase three of these and hook them up to my 8-channel analog input. I would then have the capacity to attach a total of three sets of 7.1 surround analog cables to my receiver. Granted, I would have to go through the inconvenience of flipping three switches every time I wanted to change the source, but at least I would have a way of adding more surround to my system. Other solutions I have found like converting the analog inputs to HDMI are ludicrously expensive.

In case you're wondering how I ended up in this quandary, my computer is hooked up to the analog jacks. My sound card is 7.1 but only through the analog outputs which sound a heck of a lot better than the digital SPDIF out which is limited to 6.1 surround. The second set is needed because for some unfathomable reason my "universal" DVD player (Denon 1920) only allows transmission of SACD audio through analog output. I have the SACD feature working in stereo, but I want surround.

Is there any reason I couldn't use switch marketed for component video to switch RCA audio instead?

I have a 7.1-channel surround-sound amplifier (Denon 1910). It only has one set of 8 RCA inputs for analog audio. Unfortunately, I need two sets. I found a switch box for RCA component video which looks promising.

http://www.amazon.com/Audio-Composite-Selector-Swi...

Since component video is based on RCA cables, and these are un-powered switch boxes, I would assume that there is no processing of the signal in the switch box and that there is theoretically no difference between switching component video cables with these boxes and component audio cables.

If this seems feasible, my intention is to purchase three of these and hook them up to my 8-channel analog input. I would then have the capacity to attach a total of three sets of 7.1 surround analog cables to my receiver. Granted, I would have to go through the inconvenience of flipping three switches every time I wanted to change the source, but at least I would have a way of adding more surround to my system. Other solutions I have found like converting the analog inputs to HDMI are ludicrously expensive.

In case you're wondering how I ended up in this quandary, my computer is hooked up to the analog jacks. My sound card is 7.1 but only through the analog outputs which sound a heck of a lot better than the digital SPDIF out which is limited to 6.1 surround. The second set is needed because for some unfathomable reason my "universal" DVD player (Denon 1920) only allows transmission of SACD audio through analog output. I have the SACD feature working in stereo, but I want surround.

Is there any reason I couldn't use switch marketed for component video to switch RCA audio instead?

My DVD player has HDMI which works great, but the SACD play function works through analog connections only. I have SACD working in stereo, but I want surround. The only surround audio component input on my receiver is already in use. What I want to do is one of the following four things:

1. Find a cable or cheap box that will let me connect 6 audio cables and 3 RCA component video cables and convert it to HDMI 1.3. (the best solution since I have three open HDMI inputs)

2. Find a cable or cheap box that will let me connect 6 RCA audio cables and covert it to 5.1 digital optical (SPDIF optical or coaxial). (not a bad solution since I can disconnect one of the optical inputs and use an alternative)

3. Find a switch box that will allow me to connect two sets of eight 7.1 surround RCA cables and switch between them. (an irritating and cumbersome but potentially cheap and easy solution)

4. The DVD player has a SCART connector which is supposedly analog and therefore should conduct the SACD signal. A SCART to HDMI converter would work too, but so far the prices I have found for these are ludicrous. If anyone knows of an inexpensive adapter for this, I would love to know about it.

A fifth possible solution is to insert RCA splitters into the surround RCA input jacks and simply allow two different surround sources to use them simultaneously. However, I am worried that having two line-level inputs sharing the same input jacks might damage the receiver.

Links to appropriate websites would be appreciated.

I have this propensity to contemplate which authors of the twentieth century will in the future be considered the most important and influential of their era. I often get to wondering who among American authors will over time continue to exert influence most strongly over literature and also wonder which American authors have had the most impact on the world in which we now live. Yesterday, this led me to a perplexing question: Which of the two has been more influential, Ernest Hemingway or Ray Bradbury?

In my own readings, Bradbury is the single most powerful influence over most of the authors I admire and respect, but my position is overwhelmingly mitigated by the fact that my favored literary forms are science fiction, horror, and fantasy. In those genres, Bradbury was the one twentieth-century author many other successful authors were trying to emulate, whereas in those same genres Hemingway is never mentioned.

In terms of what is considered genuine literature at least in the ivory tower, however, Hemingway is a giant, and Bradbury is a mouse. My question is meant to move beyond the limits of genre and in-the-box preconceptions about literature.

In you own opinion, which of the two stands the best chance of exerting the strongest long-term influence over future literature, culture, and human development?