Here's an old pic of me drinking it. (and eating a turkey leg).
Godspeed, Crystal Pepsi fan. May we all meet again in the glorious, clear syrup'ed Elysium of the afterlife.
And I'm amazed that people are amazed by photo quality from two decades ago. The resolution of standard 35-mm film was fairly hard to achieve in consumer digital cameras until recently (or maybe it still is, but I guess DSLRs have gone consumer enough by now).
When I got my first digital camera, I went nuts with it on my trip that I bought it for, looking back at the photos I took years after, it was kind of obnoxious now that I think about it how often I pulled it out. Many times to the point of missing just experiencing the place/situation I was in rather then wanting to get a picture of the experience. Thankfully, the novelty wore off, but now I have to remind myself, "Hey, you have a camera, you should get a picture of this." or find myself realizing it a little too late.
I was expecting something much different here. Something to do with the lack of a requirement for someone at the photography lab to view the photos while developing the prints. I know I found that liberating, ifyouknowwhatImean.
Which is basically, in terms of relative convenience, the equivalent of developing your own film in the 1990s...
Anything that wouldn't be accessible to historians in the same sense that photographic stuff is basically.
Black and white from the late Victorian era can be stunning as lenses have got no sharper (in fact less sharp in the centre of field just more even and better for smaller film) while wet plate and albumen were a very well matched combination.
I think historians will be able to figure this one out. Especially when people are aware of it at the time it's happening.
I think this is the point: the poster was seemingly unaware that digital camera quality has been worse than analog until recently.
Historians have broader perspective than you give them credit for.
It's partly because the media (especially TV news) deliberately blurs and desaturates pictures to indicate what decade they are from. Which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the film technology of the time. But it is easy to forget that they are doing this and assume that the original photos are really like this. Why would 70s and 80s photos be desaturated more than 60s photos for example.
Even for digital media (e.g. youtube) tools like this are popular: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChY8IIc_fv4
This was done recently for the first few season of Star Trek: TNG and the difference is amazing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZQetJVRu0I
Furthermore, these sources are often cropped/zoomed/stretched from 4:3 to 16:9, which lowers quality even more.
And then there's the difficulty of producing good pictures. I remember, when I was younger, my father gave me his old 35-mm. No auto focus, manual settings for everything. Even buying the right film required some knowledge of what you were going to be doing. I can see why people would find good pictures from that long ago surprising, it was harder to do - you had to invest time to get good at it. Even if you knew what you were doing from a technical perspective - You could shoot a roll of film and get three or four good pictures.
Heh. What I find surprising is how good the really old pictures are. Boer war/Victorian kinda things. Considering what they had to work with at the time.... There's some damn nice stuff out there. If you can get yourself a tour of a photographic archive from a newspaper or something, it's well worth doing ^_^ There's stuff there that's never been digitised just because there's so much of it and high resolution scans on something like a drum scanner are so expensive to do.
> The resolution of standard 35-mm film was fairly hard to achieve in consumer digital cameras until recently
To be fair, the obsession some people have with resolution, without regard to like noise (goes up hugely when you cram more pixels - so to speak - into a small frame sensor) and colour balance has probably done significant harm to the evolution of digital cameras.
Not that I'm saying you are one of those people, but thought I'd mention it for random readers ^^;
I'd say resolution/sharpness in consumer digital cams has surpassed film, but digital (personal opinion) lacks the tones, depth, highlight-details, and overall 'magic' look of film :)
If I was unaware of the quality of film, my first instinct wouldn't have been to ask if the photo was a scan of one.
All you need is an old/used Brita filter and a beverage carbonator (or if you're like me, you have some sort of multigas siphon).
1. Pour Coke into Brita jug (with filter in place)
2. Retrieve colourless solution, and then recarbonate.
It tastes like Coke but is colourless. I had also messed with other variants that require fancier filtration (special carbon filters for example) and centrifuging, but the Brita filter has pretty good results.
When I tried it about a year ago, I had completely different results. I got something that looked exactly like Coca Cola without the carbon (so it didn't lose color), but it tasted very bitter and wasn't sweet at all (so it lost taste).
(Note: Coca Cola in here uses sugar, not high-fructose syrup like in US, so that might be it.)
They use clay beads, which are an aluminium mesh with H and OH groups weakly bonded to it (a weak ionic bond like this is called a "Ligand bond").
Firstly, it filters out bacteria and "bits" because of the porosity of the mesh (works like pushing current through a complicated network).
However, additionally it filters out non-H-or-OH ions from the water, which have a stronger Ligand bond with the Al mesh. (Obviously you eventually run out of H and OH ions in the network, as they're all replaced, which is when you need to change your filter.)
As such, we used clay-filtered tap water as 'distilled' water in all our experiments, because the worst it contains is bacteria and dissolved salts. I can't speak for the Coca Cola though, that's weird. I'm sure organic molecules would be small enough to get between the beads but too heavy/not ionic enough to bond to the mesh, or something.
Because adsorption is a consequence of surface energy and weak bonding, I believe it's considered to be a chemical process, not a mechanical one.
Adsorption is due to weak bonds that form between molecules of a surface and a fluid. AFAIK this bond is not a 'new' chemical bond since it does not break / replace existing chemical bonds in both the adsorbed molecule and surface molecules.
Rather, in the case of carbon at least, the 'bonds' are the van der Waals forces.
That is, sugars that underwent Caramelization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caramelization
Try with both cheap and expensive red wine, post results.
If it's old, your liquid will be slightly less dark red (tried with a SA Shiraz). Tastes terrible still.
I personally wouldn't filter wine. It just tastes ... off.
I've always found this total, absolute hatred of referral links to be pretty absurd. I KNOW YOU JUST RACKED UP THAT 30k KARMA TO EARN $$$ OFF OF HN ZOMG.
_Especially_ on a site like this. Other posters here will freak out about how you're recommending something based on a financial incentive, but don't care about the myriad of other advertising they're bombarded with on a regular basis.
It's simply about context. If most of your posts were spammy, and had affiliate links, I could understand it more. But this sub-thread is ridiculous.
On the forums that do allow it, typical etiquette is to notify the reader of a posted referral link, and also give them the choice of a non-affiliate link - and then let them decide.
If someone is spamming this site with referral links, they should be dealt with harshly and kicked out. Otherwise, if you don't like a book recommendation you can downvote. I don't post books I don't think are interesting, and only where appropriate - a few cents are not worth it to me to appear coming across as a shill. But I do enjoy receiving a bit of money to reinvest in more books.
You're conflating a bunch of disparate ideas with this sentence. HN is not a forum for making you money. That is not its purpose. You are being asked to not use it for that purpose. Taking offense at such a request is, in my opinion, a fairly black mark against your sincerity.
I'm providing something that some people find useful, and since in this particular instance, there happens to be a way to make a tiny bit off it to reinvest in more books, I'm not ashamed to do so.
Making money is obviously - very, very obviously - not my primary use of this site.
You know another thing people do here? We promote our own stuff that we worked hard to build. Other communities intensely dislike that, but we don't, as long as it's kept within reason.
When TezzellEnt posted a new version of the link, he/she did so because that little referral token is a sort of egg on your shirt in precisely the same way; it's unexpected. It's not necessarily an "idea that making money is bad." Nobody has said anything like that (except you, to refute it, of course). Heck, part of why it's unclean has to do with domain separation: if the egg is on your fork, it is 'clean', but if it falls on your shirt then it magically becomes 'dirt'. The egg of course is chemically identical, but one of them appears in a domain where you don't expect it -- an otherwise blank shirt. Similarly rmrfrmrf's first complaint ("issues arise when the content you produce for this site is influenced by your desire to make money") is not a referendum on your contributions as a whole but a statement that "you're crossing two domains here, and if those domains cross too much then this site will not be a place which we enjoy frequenting."
Because I haven't actually engaged the ideological side yet I might as well do that too. You're not just "getting money from Amazon" but also being co-opted into "advertising for Amazon" -- and, as you say, you were bought in this way for only a few cents. What you think of as a strength -- that you only make a tiny amount off of it -- is in some sense actually a weakness. acjohnson55 put this above as being "thought of as a shill."
I think for a lot of people, it's a fairly reflexive dislike of referral links, rather than something they think through deeply. But at heart lies this idea that "OMG, he made some money off it! Impure! Impure!", when it's pretty easy to judge, on a case by case basis, whether a person is contributing or spamming that on a site like this.
Also: any links I put probably would have been to Amazon anyway, out of convenience, although sometimes when Wikipedia has a good summary, I just link to that. So my behavior does not really change other than attaching the referral code.
This is a typo, right?
Would read again. A+++ =)
So? People advertise their startups and even hire employees here all the time.
HN hides long urls, thus it's possible for the referral part to be hidden, meaning people might not be aware of the referral link.
Asking people to declare a referral link doesn't seem to be that onerous.
I'm surprised that someone who has been online for as long as you have is not aware of the antipathy there is towards referral links. Some people really don't like them.
Online, some people really don't like a lot of things! Pretty much anything out there has its detractors. I know they don't like referral links, but I think in the context of a community like this one where it's easy to check on the activity of others, it's a silly attitude, and I won't hesitate to say so.
Near as I'm aware, davidw's Amazon affiliate links are not part of a YC-incubated startup.
It's also ridiculous for you to complain when someone provides an alternative to your product -- that's what capitalism is all about!
It isn't. I could see it being a problem for some people, hypothetically. If that problem arises, we can deal with it.
> It's also ridiculous for you to complain when someone provides an alternative to your product -- that's what capitalism is all about!
The "alternative" link means that Jeff Bezos pockets the few cents I would have made. To the actual end user, it makes no difference at all. There is no way I'd post those links if they actually ended up costing people here money.
This problem has arised in nearly all the sites that I know that have ever tolerated it. Eventually, someone learns that it's allowed and exploits that. Actually, you're that person because that link sounded to me like a sales pitch, but I can't prove that this was your intention.
In all cases, I'd rather prevent it from happening by disapproving it than "dealing with it" after the deed is done.
>To the actual end user, it makes no difference at all.
Bullshiiiiit. It makes the difference that this shit gets spammed all over the Internet eventually. Boo.
(as a side note, you can't prove they'd have gone to Bezos rather than contribute to an Amazon commission decrease if no one used these referrals)
Some off-site META discussion place would be useful. It needn't be just for HN, it could be for all online communities. Sort of like Meatball wiki was, but for everything. And not a wiki.
People have all sorts of ideas about moderation and karma and banning and etc.
Did you read my past comments and actually judge how much "spamming" I'm doing prior to making accusatory statements like that?
Let me make it easy for you: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=davidw
> this shit
In this case, "this shit" was a book I happened to read and enjoy and was highly relevant to the discussion at hand and decided to share with people here. They seem to have appreciated the link. I know I'm always on the lookout for good books to read myself, and have found more than a few via this site.
It's interesting and easy to read. Recommended.
Looks like he's done a few similar books on historical topics. I'm off to spend some money!
The daughter of the Coke CEO visits, falls in love with, and marries a young "true believer" East German communist. When the CEO comes for a visit, they have to turn the communist into a proper American capitalist in 2 days.
One of Churchill's side projects was corresponding under the nickname "Former Naval Person."
My hat is tipped to annapowellsmith and of course all Wikipedians.
Personally I'd rather have the choice to buy HFCS free soft drinks rather than carmel-4 free soft drinks. Completely sweetener free, both natural and artificial, would be a unique experience, probably taste much like tea.
I do have some friends who will stockpile it for a year so that they don't have o drink the 'swill' that the rest of us enjoy.
Perhaps numbing your tongue would work? A dentist could do that, but you'd only want to numb the surface. Is white coke (the illegal kind) a topical anesthetic?
There are "miracle berries" that make sour foods taste sweet.
It'd be fascinating to try something that took the sweet out of sodas. Someone posted a link to the OpenCola project in this thread. It's probably possible to make a batch with no, or much less, sugar than regular coke.
Maybe you should take a leaf out of your own book and revise what socialism actually is, and how the USSR wasn't that.
Edison: "I have not failed 1,000 times. I have
successfully discovered 1,000 ways to NOT make a light bulb."
Also, let me just say that I never expected to read a post like yours or type a post like mine into an HN comment box, kudos.
For anyone interested who doesn't understand the spectrum of socialist organization, read almost any book by Ludwig von Mises (start with "Socialism", where he catalogs the socialist orers of the early 1920s) and work your way forward.
Like North Korea uses Democratic?
Judging whether something is "truly" socialistic is arguably harder, since while the goal of democracy is a system by which the public expresses its favor or disfavor for laws and policies; socialism's goals (each according to its need) may not be achievable at all (at least if we look at the long term track record (1)).
If that is so, all we are left is what a socialist regime intends, and whether it organizes itself (at least formally) as a socialist order.
(1) From a long term track record, there "problem" of the perfect social organization hasn't been "solved" by anything. We can, however, see that some things are "less wrong"...
What socialism is is public ownership/control of the means of production.
What Socialism doesn't quite get is that production planning in the capitalist order is driven by the calculable profit and investment for any enterprise (even more so in large interdependent, yet independent, concerns); and that is only possible when private ownership (of everything involved, including capital) allows private risk and reward. Capitalism has never "solved production", nor will it ever. It maximizes for profit, not production.
Since I know socialism isn't capable of being put into practice, all I am left with is the intention of the bannerists who fly the Socialist standard. If they want to claim a socialist state has been established, I take them at their face. They have created a state that follows the reason for the social-control of production (needs fulfillment) even if they are doomed.
Its not really an ideological belief. That the public control of the means of production is possible is simple, demonstrable, tested fact. That it is desirable is (or depends on) an ideological position, but that's a different issue.
> It (Socialism/Marx) expected that once the "problem of production" was solved (by the capitalist order), the means to produce could be seized.
I don't think you really understand the Marxist view here. Its not that there was something that capitalism produced which socialism needed to seize. The idea that capitalism "solved" production was that that the displacement of the feudal system of property ownership by the systems of ownership which enabled capitalism removed the barriers that the feudal systems of ownership placed in the way of production. The "problem of production" that was "solved" by capitalism was the problem created by the barriers imposed by feudal property structures.
It wasn't about production planning in the capitalist order.
Socialism views capitalism's property structures as producing similar barriers to the desirable distribution of the outputs of production to the barriers that feudal property structures put in the way of production in the first place, which is the essence of the "problem of distribution".
> Since I know socialism isn't capable of being put into practice
Pretty much all the change in the nature of the economic systems of the West since the early 20th century has been due to socialism being put into practice. Modern mixed economies are pretty much entirely about changing the nature of (both subject and scope) of property rights from what they were in the system for which socialists like Marx coined the term "capitalism" to describe in ways which increase public control of the means production and exchange.
If something happens, it is, ipso facto, not impossible.
Stalinists would consider the Soviet Union to be socialist. Marxists (what I'm assuming you mean by a 'Real Communist') would disagree.
Beyond that, there has been less agreement, but many have held the view that the USSR either was not socialism (sometimes referring to it as specifically as "state capitalism") or that it was an approach to socialism, but one which was fatally flawed by (and this is, in some respects, my synthesis of their criticisms, rather than one that was articulated by any one interlocutor) the adaptations to apply socialism without first having institutionalized the bourgeois revolution which precedes the socialist revolution which resulted in property-like (if not formally "property") personal social authority structures which shared features with both the property structures of feudalism which are at the roots of the problems addressed by the bourgeois revolution, and the those of the capitalism that are at the roots of the problems addressed by the socialist revolution, which mostly resulted in the net effect of the implementation of Leninism (and its variations applied elsewhere) being to spread a distorted form of socialist ideology in a society in which elements of both the bourgeois revolution and the socialist revolution were present but where the revolutions as such still needed to occur in the normal order but were arrested (in some cases, less than completely--certainly, even in the mid-1990s, most who held some form of this view seemed to think that at least China was very definitely progressing through the bourgeois revolution) by the identification of the status quo order with the socialist revolution.
Large scale socialism by force tends to be a bit dystopian, though. They don't build walls to keep people out of socialist states.
Second, he says "scarce resources," you say 'no, it doesn't deal with that," but then say that it deals with "distribution of 'goods and services.'"
Isn't that the same thing, from a practical standpoint?
Even if they aren't scarce in the sense that the society has enough to go around, their scarcity relative to the average citizen still depends on the efficiency of that distribution process.
Maybe the system or theory of socialism technically 'doesn't concern itself with scarce resources', but I don't see why it makes his point less valid.
>>Socialism/capitalism primarily deals with the question of how to distribute scarce resources - which, by definition, is irrelevant in a post-scarcity society.
If (by his point) you mean his assertion that socialism and capitalism are irrelevant in a "post-scarcity society", do not forget he is asserting that there is no scarcity. Either goods and services are abundant and meeting "market" aggregate needs (post-scarcity), or they are not.
Socialism assumes that the problems of production (and presumably service delivery) have been solved, so it is quite happy in a "post-scarcity" world, since it only has to distribute according to need, or to everyone, or something like that. Socialism is only concerned with distribution and doesn't care whether the resources (goods/services, or what-not) are scarce or not. It assumes distribution is irrelevant to production or availability of anything.
Practically speaking, capitalism doesn't categorically solve scarcity or distribution , and only gets involved if there is a measurable expectation of return to be made in a market.
Meeting market demand with products or services is one of the means that capital uses, but is not the purpose of capitalism.
Insofar as that is true of socialist theory (its an element of Marxist historical perspective), it is not a general "problem of production", but the specific factors inhibiting realization of production possibilities presented by the structure of feudal property structures that socialism views capitalism (or, perhaps more specifically, the change to the structure of property rights which enabled capitalism) as having removed.
> whereas capitalism is the legal framework of risk/return on investment designed to allow the owner of capital to maximize profit (or grow capital).
Enabling capital owners to maximize profit is a very specific preference in how production and distribution in the presence of scarce resources should be prioritized. Yes, its what capitalism is about, to be sure, but it is simply not true to say that this somehow supports the point that capitalism is not about production.
Perhaps the original poster meant that the "conflict" between (currently-emerging) socialism and (obstructionist) capitalism will not be necessary in the future, since socialist pre-conditions will have been met. Marx touted the same thing; I'm not disagreeing with that.
I'm going to assume (for argument sake) that this "post-scarcity" world is one were labor is unnecessary for the continued production of existing products at existing output scales (ignoring for a moment changing demographics and perhaps the "need" for R&D to solve new problems).
That still leaves land, resource and capital in the production equation. Land: because production (including food production) has to occur somewhere, resource: because the raw materials are not uniformly located in the same locales as the production or the consumption domains (and indeed most are not infinitely collectible even where they are currently located), and capital: to manage the risk and rewards on the uncertainty of the success of any venture to change the status quo (which will alter itself anyway due to resource exhaustion and geolocated "demand/need" changes).
So...what I am saying is that the "problem" of production isn't solvable, any more than entropy (resource exhaustion) can be reversed. There is always natural variability in location and resource (spatially and temporally), that are managed through the risks and rewards of capital investment; risks quantified as loss, rewards quantified as profit.
Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities (anarchism is a form of socialism)
(Also, actual Marxists do consider the USSR as Real Socialism (tm))
Here's a list of worker owned companies that have a Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_employee-owned_companie...
Or that it pays for big corp to rub with the ones in power.
Yeah, because producing 50 cases of a special brew for one general in a totalitarian state is a well-known strategy to get rich...
Well from the OP:
"A practical consequence of White Coke was circumvention of the red tape imposed by the Soviet occupation authorities. While cargo shipments transiting the Soviet occupation zone in Austria normally took weeks to clear with the authorities, Coca-Cola supplies passing through the zone on their way back and forth between the Lambach plant and the Vienna warehouse were never stopped."
Would not say, that it didn't make sense economically to produce these 50 cases...
[Edit] Are you expecting Zhukov, the top Russian commander, to drink vodka where it is not appropriate?
I couldn't stop be amused at how much Westerners' image of the world is distorted.
Did you mean to point out that "drinking vodka in public is always appropriate" or that "anytime the top soviet commander drank vodka it was a public event"? Or something else entirely?
Zhukov couldn't drink Coke when others drink vodka. For one thing, vodka is not consumed from individual bottles; the same bottle is shared. Second, it is considered impolite to drink and do not offer it to the guest.
Zhukov may have had an idea of introducing Coke as a popular drink, but Stalin wouldn't allow it. Stalin knew that colour is not important; essence (and origin) is.
Thats the only reason why i brought ip up..okay the Wikipedia entry might be inaccurate, but am i to judge that ?
The idea it should look like vodka is just ridiculous.
In the conditions when it is OK to drink vodka, Russians drink vodka, not Coke.
In the conditions when it is NOT OK to drink vodka, Russians (generally) do not drink vodka.
"Zarubica found a chemist who could remove the coloring from the beverage, thereby granting Marshal Zhukov's wish."
(Disclaimer: I speak zero Spanish so I have no idea what that article says. I just like the photo.)
It was just called "cola drink", you could translate it as "cola tonic". I guess it makes sense that it wasn't particularly branded.
And again, perhaps it's my memory playing tricks on me.
In other news, McDonald's is setting up shop in Vietnam. Now we can REALLY declare victory and go home.
(I've only ever seen the drink on TV, so I really don't know.)
You've never seen vodka in person?
I'm a little bothered by this use of the word "white" for something colour-less. If you tell me that a liquid is "white", I'm going to think it would look like a glass of milk before I think of a glass of water.
I read "White coke" and I thought of a carbonated milky looking drink.
Besides, a little chemistry to break into a new market isn't a bad expenditure.
I saw it happen once. My friend ordered a white russian (vodka and milk) for our other friend and a black russian (vodka with coke) for himself - the bartender was pretty drunk and he mixed the two together, forming a greyish foaming abomination of a drink. My mate left it in the middle of the pub and noone even touched it.
The barman doesn't know what the fuck they are doing and I used to work amongst functionally drunk barmen. A black russian is vodka, coffee liquor (like Kahlua) and milk (optional). Even if he wasn't drunk what he gave your friend was shit.
¹As the members of our marxist-leninist-maoist party called it ;)