Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.alt.net From: "James Wilkinson Sword" 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: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 15:18:01 +0100 Organization: ~ Lines: 53 Message-ID: References: <20170329162351.F2967120396@fleegle.mixmin.net> <4shFA.103845$zc7.78511@fx09.iad> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:406583 comp.sys.mac.system:103582 alt.comp.os.windows-10:38141 alt.cellular-phone-tech:425 On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 03:10:06 +0100, 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-with-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/colourPerception.html > > Colour is what you think you see. Or in the case of the famous dress (not in your links, but I thought that's what you were referring to) the settings on the camera, particularly white balance. -- Runtime Error 6D at 417A:32CF: Incompetent User.