Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Snit Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.system,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.cellular-phone-tech Subject: Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 19:21:05 -0700 Lines: 67 Message-ID: References: <0FQBA.80253$zc7.24703@fx09.iad> <20170329162351.F2967120396@fleegle.mixmin.net> <4shFA.103845$zc7.78511@fx09.iad> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net 5+UWAu1bas2J4ts36S184gQWpSbiaI1wPHeijaWqJZzGoaCpxc Cancel-Lock: sha1:XDld3MSDK/RoK/ciVEloWIIjzLI= User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.36.0.130206 Thread-Topic: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution Thread-Index: AdKufHF3HRhku3BKC0e+Q3S5660b8Q== Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:406468 comp.sys.mac.system:103568 alt.comp.os.windows-10:38112 alt.cellular-phone-tech:419 On 4/5/17, 7:10 PM, in article 4shFA.103845$zc7.78511@fx09.iad, "Wolf K" wrote: > On 2017-04-05 13:27, Mark Lloyd wrote: >> On 04/05/2017 09:15 AM, Wolf K wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>> "Invisible" is ambiguous: a)"not visible because of available light"; or >>> b) "not visible because imaginary or hallucinatory". Your example >>> conflates those two meanings, which it nonsensical. >>> >> >> Something that is invisible isn't reflecting light. >> >> In your case "a" the thing isn't reflecting light because its in darkness. >> >> In your case "b" the thing isn't reflecting light because it isn't there >> physically. >> >> You have added some reasons WHY something may not reflect light. It >> still isn't reflecting light, which is what I said. WHY does not change >> the fact that its invisible. > > It does, in a way that makes your claim below incorrect. > >> A unicorn that is invisible can not be pink. "pink" refers to the light >> coming from it, which doesn't exist for something that's invisible (and >> the cause of that invisibility is irrelevant to that). > > It sure can. Just imagine a pink unicorn. :-) > > Actually, colour as a perception is one thing, colour as a property of > an electromagnetic wave (or mix of waves) is another. The former is the > result of the brain's processing of the data sent from the retina. The > latter is usually measured in degrees Kelvin. The same patch of > reflected light can be (usually will be) perceived as different colours > depending on what surrounds it, and/or on the ambient light. > > Here are three of many sites that show you why you can't trust your eyes > when it comes to the colour of a unicorn, real or imagined: > > http://nerdist.com/5-optical-illusions-that-show-you-why-your-brain-messes-wit > h-the-dress/ > > https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/27/12-fascinating-optical- > illusions-show-how-color-can-trick-the-eye/?utm_term=.d6fad26f204a > > https://www.echalk.co.uk/amusements/OpticalIllusions/colourPerception/colourPe > rception.html > > Colour is what you think you see. This still does not tell me if the dress is white and gold OR if it is black and blue. Hmmm, maybe it is an invisible dress? -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.