Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive 01	50		2002/06/25, 10:48 am
	Archive 02	50		2002/06/25, 08:44 pm
	Archive 03	50		2002/06/28, 08:42 am

I find the Economist to be much too objective about world affairs and the role of the USA. They have the nerve to actually criticize that great thinker and patriot George W.Bush.

I prefer the more pro USA bias of "The Wall Street Journal".

Yeah, that damn objectivity can be a problem, when you are trying to find evidence to support a blindly nationalistic outlook.

Fortunately, humans are very good at filtering out all evidence that is contrary to the conclusions they would like to reach.

Es verdad

Kendricks: I commend you on being a true revolutionary. In fact, everything you say is revolting. I am concerned that the radioactive isotopes you are storing to build your bomb are leaking into your mutating brain. As your stocks tumble to worthlessness and the supply of Spam in your basement runs out, you will have to deal with reality, gain employment, and think rationally. Please note that I said SPAM, not SAM. I do not pretend to know about all the weird shit you are storing/eating/jerky-ing in your basement.

No wonder life seems unspeakably pointless to you. If you continue to see the color issue in black and white terms, and if you continue to make off-color remarks, you will never be “enlightened” on this topic. Speaking of speeding, if you ever manage to put the brakes on all your racing, disordered, malevolent thoughts, you’ll realize I am not YOUR bitch.

Ben(d) over; I’ll drive. (It sounds like Ben is trying to help. Where there’s a will, there’s a way)

Now lets deal with the “fallout” from your latest utterly misguided post.

1. First off, WHAT THE HELL is an “unadulterated” environment? Is that where you wipe all the spew off your computer screen and take your thumb out of your ass? Is that where you send home (or disinfect) all the midgets, gerbils, inflatable dolls, shrunken heads and crack whores you play with in your basement?

2. I’ll tell you where constant color comes from. Yes, it is INFERRED from the light impinging on the retina. But that inference is made despite HUGE variability in illuminants. Imagine you are standing outside, looking at your dick. The sunlight will bounce off your dick, sending a spectrum of light into your eye. If it becomes overcast, or smoggy, the wavelength composition of the illumination will change dramatically. If you go inside and use a candle, or the flashlight you stole from Westfargo, or the light of your TV to examine your dick, the spectrum of illumination will change even more dramatically,and so will the spectrum of light bouncing off your dick into your eye. But as we know, the key point is that your dick will look the same in all the highly variable illumination environments. In all cases, it will look moldy-greenish-gray with black and blue marks (bruises and vacuum cleaner marks). We are not talking here about some simple adjustment for “ambient interference.” We are talking about a complex attempt to infer the spectral reflectance properties of the OBJECT (in this case your weak and worthless Johnson). In the case of your anemic green dick, the spectral reflectance composition reaching your eyes may or may not contain wavelengths that you continue to think of as “Green.” But your visual system, using all sorts of retinal and neural circuits, will be able to figure out the invariant color of your dick anyway. It is not the light that gets assigned an invariant color label by your brain/mind. It is the inferred distal object that gets assigned a color. For this assignation to occur, wavelength must be DECORRELLATED from color.

3. Invest in THIS. Ben, my sources in the FBI inform me that Kendricks is lying again. In actuality he is reading “Personal Finance for Dummies.”

4. I gotcher 6 servers right here, pal.

5. Kendricks, don’t forget that I taught you everything you know about Jefferson and Chomsky.

6. If you refuse to allow your illusions to be shattered, you’ll never be a decent Buddhist and you’ll never find God. Kendricks I pray for your eternal soul… Bitch.

7. Q: What do women and rocks have in common? A: If they are flat, you can skip 'em.

make that 7 servers

Milky,

I prefer ficha bars and would have prefered to have stayed at LA Tropa. But my buddy had a burning desire to see a certain girl at AB, so I accompanied him.

The truth is, I prefer normal bars. Even though I am old and fat, I have never had a problem picking up chics in Mexico. But I like going to ficha bars for the sleaze factor. And as I get older, I find it takes more effort in the normal bars, so whore bars become more attractive.

And as twisted as this sounds, my relationship with my chilanga is safer if I am in a whore bar or a ficha bar than in a regular bar. In a regular bar I might meet some normal girl who just happens to know someone who knows someone who knows my chilanga. Ficha girls and Putas usually know to keep things on the QT.

So how ws La Mesa?

Umm...Dogster could you now explain wimmen to me?

Tax rant - The rich usually accrue their wealth from doing business in America. The needs of doing business include transportation systems, trained workers, healthy workers, a legal system that protects property rights and an army to defend said property. Various taxes, including an income tax, provide for all of this. So I think the rich have more to gain and to lose.

Since even taking all of the middle class and lower's money isn't sufficient to pay for all of this, the rich do need to pay taxes, even at a higher basic rate.

The biggest lie of the last election involved the tax cut. You always heard about how so few people were paying so many dollars in taxes. So what, you are comparing a population of people to a population of dollars. If you compare the ratio's of the number of dollars in value the top 10% holds to the number of dollars they pay in taxes, you will find that the middle class is paying far more proportionally. The middle class needed tax relief, the rich and corportations didn't.

People need to realize that taking an extra $1000 from some people SEVERELY impacts the quality of thier life (meals, clothing, ect.), where to other's it is merely whether they get the stereo upgrade on their new Beemer.

If it is required to move to a flat tax, then that might work as long as there was a flat exemption of the first $35,000 of Income.

Enjoy the rewards of your hard work. Being rich isn't an evil thing. Abusing the power that comes with wealth at the expense of others is an evil thing.


If you want to understand what is going on you have to look past income and understand wealth (assets, capital, ect.). Then you will see how those with the big money are rigging the game.

In Europe the rich have inherited the concept that with wealth/power came responsibility to the masses. Over here we dismiss that idea.

Corporate tax rant - They have the corporate tax hearings on CSPAN2 right now. These fuckers are trying to do everything to funnel any and all money to a minority of managers and major shareholders. They are moving off shore to avoid tax liability, yet if any shit goes down over there you know we will be sending in the military that they won't help pay for to "protect American business interests."

Corporations are perfectly reasonable and effective constructs. But in America, we have become obsessed with Quarterly Earnings
Reports and short term profits and dividend payouts. As a result we have gutted the blue coller class's wages, moved manufacturing off shore (unemploying the people that were destined to be the customer), sucked dry cash reserves,
liquidated assets, and now just plain cooked the books. And they want us to deregulate everything, because business and the free market will operate in the interest of society. LOL Look to England in the last half of the 1800's to see problems that beset an unregulated market.

European Corporations are doing many of the things that American corporations say can't be done in terms of distribution of profits and worker compensation. And with the consolidation of the Euro, they are going to be changing the world dynamic.

At the end of the 1800's the rail system built to move troops allowed interstate commerce. This was new and current laws only covered intrastate business. The excesses of the Robber Baron's ensued until Interstate Commerce laws were passed. We were lucky, because Teddy Roosevelt came in to office and reigned business in.
Now we have International Commmerce occurring, again with few laws regulating it. People like Rupert Murdoch and Ken Lay are gaming the situation. And I don't see any Teddy Roosevelt around.

Int'l rant - are you guys watching what is going on in Argentina outside of the disco's. This is the end result of privatizing everything and deregulating everything and allowing (at the insistance of the World Bank) the foriegn ownership of all the industries. And Enron is in the middle of this one too.

Oh yeah , Fucking fuck all you fucking fuck fuckers.

I used to subscribe to the Economist, but let my subscription lapse several years ago. Shhh. Don't tell anyone. Anyway, that's when I realized that this publication tells about 75% of the corporate world how to think. Of course, your dimestore variety exec also scavenges ideas from the WSJ. If you enjoy vomiting, listen to corporate dudes have "intelligent" conversations about issues. It gets kinda boring when you realize that most people don't have an original idea -- they just spout out tapes in their heads that parrot what that they read or heard somewhere.

I'm thinking I might have to check out Maxim more regularly. This magazine is kinda fun. Hilarious. It features lots of scantily clad chicas (including Shakira), and offers plenty of strategies for pissing away my hard-earned $. This month's includes Maxim's Kama Sutra on humping outside the home - a sex stunt survival guide.

Headinsouth: Where the FUCK have you been? Another person to add to my Club Hombre hate list. (I've been trying all week on this thread to get someone to accuse me of being Ahora, or at least Senor Pañocha, but I have failed miserably).

As a matter of fact, I've already explained women enough times on this site!!! Don't make me do it again just for you. Jeez. On the Mexico Chat and on various threads, I've presented Dogster's Tripartite Theory of Women (and chicas in particular). If you do a WordSearch for "tripartite", you can probably find it in one form or another.

One of my other tools for understanding chicas is based on understanding paradoxes. I've also written about this somewhere on this site. There's a cool book called "Erotic Mind" (Jack Morin, Ph.D., Society for the Scientific Study of Sex).

If you don't feel like scavenging the Club Hombre Archives for this, then always follow the Golden Rule for dealing with wimmin. DON'T BE A WIMP.

Of course, there is a parallel between understanding color and understanding women. If you rely on physical or physiological explanations, yer screwed.

There, there. More info than you expected, si?

HAH!

=Dogster= the omniscient.

HS:

...and, Forbes' flat tax is a great idea, IMHO. (as opposed to some other really lame flat tax plans). Amazingly, this plan would put limits on the current welfare state for the very rich.

And while we're at it, isn't it high time that we drove a spike through the heart of the Social Security System? It sucks. Now that the old farts from the 50s, 60s, and 70's have squandered their generation's social security savings and run up a huge deficit, they expect us younger folks to pay for their retirement. To make matters worse, there are too many geriatric, arterially sclerosing baby boomers reaching old age, and not enough of us able-bodied wage earners. So our future is screwed if we keep paying greedy old-fart life support. Cut 'em off before it is too late. Kill 'em if we have to. Save OUR financial future.

Love,
=Dogster=

Gotta stop dissertating here and get back to work.

Yours in whoring,
Dogster

Dogster, you fucking simp, here is where your whole house of cards falls apart:

1. If perceived colors are not associated with specific frequencies, how do you explain the Doppler Effect? Why will a light source moving away from an observer always result in a red shift, while a light source moving toward an observer always result in a blue shift?

2. Where the fuck do you think the invariant color of an object come from in the first place?

You need to get back to basics, 'cause the advanced physics books you are attempting to read are only confusing your silly little bitch ass.

In other words, you are either a fucking retard, or playing games. Either way, I suggest you take your whiny bitch ass on the road, you fucking simpleminded fuckstick.

Maxim Magazine is a bunch of sophomiric drivel that doesn't even show cunt or nipple in its photographs. I might have found it interesting when I was fucking 13 years old, but only if I couldn't get my hands on some real porn, or something that was truly intelligent or amusing to read.

Headinsouth: very good anaysis. I'm very pleased to see that someone other than me has finally contributed something worth reading to this thread.

Gee Dogster, sorry to hear you are omni-impotent. Don't worry it happens to lots of guys. (NOT ME of course.)

Tripartite, paradoxical, non-physiological analysis sounds a lot more complicated than "Cinquinta dollars. Si?"
BTW - Read most of it, got to get over my programming that wimmen REALLY do want a nice guy.

Re SSI, Yeah we could always get rid of SSI and replace it with Soylent Green. Having elderly shopping cart people is too much of a nuisance.

SSI wouldn't be in trouble if they had left the money alone and collecting interest instead of using it in exchange for IOU's. With Corporate America liquidating 401k plans and the stock market returning to real, sustainable levels, it is even more necessary to have some protected savings program. Some guy wrote into the UT, during the privatize SSI and put the money in the "ever booming" stock market hyperbole, and pointed out that over his 40 year working time SSI outperformed the stock market in it's return on investment. IF properly managaged, SSI can provide a basic safety net to keep people off the street. I don't see what the alternative would be.

Thanks, Kendrick's for the support, and I didn't even have to suggest blowing anyone up. Can a Libertarian support some basic social programs, if they improve overall quality of life?

Here's another all-inclusive "Fucking Fuck you Fucking Fuck Fuckers." shout out to my boys.

You guys gotta watch The Daily Show on the Comedy Channel at 11pm tonight.

All right. I finally find something from Kendricks that I agree with. Maxim is not only a seriously lame attempt at humor and sexual attraction but its appeal shows how little men have really progressed. It almost makes me happy when I see one of these college jocks arrested for date rape.

It's embarassing to look at its one paragraph "articles" that prove MTV and political consultants are right when they say that the typical person has the attention span of a gnat. And its sexual content has the same depth as the thickness of the paper it is printed on. The magazine is People Magazine for the 18-24 male who thinks with his dick and hasn't a clue as to what life is actually about.

And for Dogster's comments about Social Security, would you believe that I got my mailing today from SS which tells me how much I will get a month if I retire at 62. Enough for 3 local escorts or 6 chicas from AB including room. I've been burned!!!!! That is not what I have "contributed" for.

And the flat tax idea is about as viable as a flat earth. It only works in theory. Taxes NEVER go down, they are NEVER just, and the money is ALWAYS misused or outright stolen.

I would love to take sides in the color issue but I only got through High School science by coping the answers during lunch break. However, I like Dogster's idea that much of what we perceive as color is really just our mind standardizing some ideal regardless of how it changes under diffeerent circumstances or how someone else might view it. If I close my eyes my dick does not go away or look any different. It is still mammothly hard and poised for adventure.

What is the sound of one hand clapping? If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there does it make a sound? If you post something from your heart and soul and no one reads it does it still exist? If a rock tossed in the middle of a pond creates ripples that last for eternity, then what happens to the sperm that you shoot into a chica's pussy.

Ahora,
I know EXACTLY what you do for a living. It took me about 2 minutes to find out. Why don't you give me permission to post it and I will. I DARE YOU.

Go ahead you big prick. I dare you to tell anyone what I do for a living.

Ahora

Aww, cripes. How frustrating. Hombre, I think we need to boot Kendricks for threatening the laws of physics.

Kendricks, I doubt that you and I are gonna duel to the death over the explanation of Doppler shifts, despite your generally oppositional/defiant/dangerous/unstable nature. In simplistic terms, if the object (which can either emit or reflect light) is racing toward you, the light reaching you is shifted toward shorter wavelengths. If it is racing away from you, the light is shifted toward longer wavelengths. The faster the object moves, the larger the shift. The explanation is a bit simplistic, but since EVERYBODY understands Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, I’m not gonna go there just for your sorry ass.

Bottom line: Who cares? The wavelengths DESERVED to be shifted.

Anyway, objects generally look bluer when moving toward (wavelengths are shortened), and generally look redder when moving away (wavelengths are lengthened). Of course, a single wavelength/frequency will not necessarily look redder or bluer. Its hue can be any color of the rainbow (depending on the speed toward or away). Even if we split hairs over the explanation, we probably agree that changes in the physical spectrum are responsible for the perceptual shift.

So what? The Doppler effect does not indicate that specific wavelengths are always perceived as a specific color. If viewing conditions change (e.g., you overdose on your cheap generic Viagra tablets, causing everything to look REALLY blue), the color you see when stimulated with that single wavelength will change. Ditto if the light is flashing temporally. Ditto if it is surrounded by a different wavelength (which may make the light appear redder, greener, yellower, or bluer, etc).. Ditto if the light is perceived as being a characteristic of an illuminant (e.g., the sun) shining on the object as opposed being a characteristic a distal object that reflects sunlight. And on and on and on. Wavelength is not color. Those Who Know break free from this conceptual trap.

The invariant color of an object (e.g, a table, a painting, your dick) is related the its spectral absorbtance/reflectance. The invariant color is essentially the visual system’s surface-reflectance estimation. There are some very strong difficulties when trying to estimate surface reflectance from wavelengths hitting the retina (or from cone absorptions for that matter). Notice that the color signal depends on two spectral functions that are continuous functions of wavelength: the spectral power distribution of the ambient illumination, and the surface reflectance function. The light incident at the eye is the product of these two functions; so any illuminant and surface combination that produces the same light will be indistinguishable. The attempt to decouple these two functions by the visual system is a big part of what determines color. Fucking simple.

I didn’t learn this from physics books per se. They usually screw these things up. Urban terrorists must know this shit, you fucking wanna-be.

The visual system do many neat tricks to convert the raw signal inputs into stable images (these mechanisms are the sources of all sorts of "illusions"). I never disputed with that. For that matter, it is certainly true that a color is not a wavelength. Heck, people see dreams in color in sleep.

BUT, within the context of "why does the sky look blue?", a wavelength is a color (i.e., Raleigh scattering occurs in a wavelength-specific manner. And a certain wavelength that scatters to all directions looks blue, to ALL people.)

As for calling the opsins red, green, and blue, I did it so that Ben could follow me. The fact that these opsins have multiple alleles don't change a thing (you see, this is one of your totally irrelavant comments).

And, what is this pathetic rebuttal of yours "the neural color signals from these photopigments, their cones, etc. are not anything resembling red, green and blue"? Nobody should think, even for a second, that biochemical signals mediating the activation of opsins (which are, cis-trans conversions of retinal) or the down-stream neuronal signals (through the activation of G protein and cyclic-nucleotide gated ion channels expressed in cones) have colors!!! If *you* find the use of red, green and blue for labeling opsins confusing, then that's because you are DUMB.

And what is your fucking problem with "that the existence of color blindness supports the points I am making"? Excuse me. The existence of (certain) color blindness supports the points I am making, not you. The people with green-red color blindness carry the chimeric opsins whose activation spectrum is somewhere between red and green opsins', and their tune of the color perception correlate with the wavelength at which their chimeric opsins are activated. This is a direct proof that the wavelength specificty of the opsin/cone is an essential part of color perceptions.

As for your repeated references of physical vs metaphysical entities, sugar (physical) is sweet (metaphysical). So what?

Oh, by the way, I was not sure before, but I am now convinced that you are not only impotent but also a psychologist.

Psychologists don't understand that the key to solve problems is to simplify matters. They are the only people in scientific fields (if I generously include psychology to this realm) who try to make the problems more complicated than they actually are.

Dogster is a moron. It's pointless to argue with him, because he will never admit he's wrong, he's a know-it-all, he always has to have the last word, and he makes up additional usernames to support his opinions. On top of all that, he's incredibly long-winded because he's not intelligent enough to get his points across in a concise manner. There might be hope for the guy, because he has finally stopped chiming in on every single topic on the board like he used to ...

If anything, feel sorry for him, because he obviously has no friends outside of the anonymous world of the internet.

I am, of course, very interested to find out if Dogster is a force greater than Superman. Despite repeated invitations to find this out, he always refuses ...

-Superman-

Oh, come on. Dogster is not as moronic as you are, superdud.

He'd understand one run difference in ERA is huge.

What's this thread about agian?(LOL)

Battle Royal.

Byron, you are just bitter because the Yanks took over first place last night. LOL.

Actually, you and Dogster are very similar. You both take your sports teams too seriously and get all hostile because of it.

-Superman-

Yes, Dogster has proven himself to be a fucking fool. As Byron pointed out, he is simply trying to confuse the issue, in order to prevent understanding. As Superman pointed out, he is a fucking moron. As Tight Fit pointed out, Dogster's favorite magazine, Maxim, is shallow juvenile crap.

Here's a fucking clue for you, dogster. The reason science has been able to determine which stars are moving away from us, and which are moving toward us, is because differing frequencies of visible light are associated with various colors. As the freqency decreases, it shifts toward the red. As the frequency increases, it shifts to violet. If red and green light are mixed, yellow is created. These are facts.

Byron also astutely pointed out that wavelength specificity is an essential part of color perceptions. This is why an object will always appear to be the same color under constant conditions, unless the object itself, the ambient lighting, or the physical state of the observer, etc. is changed. But, under neutral lighting and constant conditions, an orange fucking soda can will still be orange tomorrow. It will not suddenly be perceived as pink, or green, or blue, unless the relevant conditions under which the can is observed have changed.

The only thing you have proven, Dogster, is that discussions with idiots and assholes are pointless. Since others have already proven that earlier in this very thread, you are now just fucking wasting everyone's fucking time.

Just got back from a fun (albeit juvenile) evening. Saw "Minority Report." Kinda fun in a juvenile sort of way. Maybe I'll watch a porn DVD later to catch up with y'all.

Uh oh. Superman is here. I'm powerless against everyone's favorite superhero. Dude can leap tall buildings, etc.

Superman: Fucking relax. Stop taking everything so literally. I don't think anybody here is actually bubbling over and seething with anger. (though maybe ditto to Ben vs. Ahora, I dunno). Maybe everybody here belongs in a psycho ward, but I doubt it.

The utter absurdity of arguing tooth and nail about esoteric color issues (or whatever) on a site devoted to sex travel and hedonism, on an off-topic thread that has gone totally off, seems fucking hilarious, at least to me. The underlying reason for this "debate" was to spoof REAL flame wars.

Gotta sleep...

To clarify:
If any of y'all think I was REALLY flaming you on this thread, I sincerely apologize. I picked a "fight" with one of my favorite posters (Kendricks) over something utterly inconsequential, at least to this board. Although I was making points that I believe are correct, any personal "attacks" on my part were not sincere. Wasn't it clear that this was a joke? A spoof of REAL flame wars? Please oh please oh please tell me that this was obvious. If it wasn't obvious, and this turned into a real flame war, I'm truly sorry.

The best you can do is "just kidding?" LOL! Kendricks by TKO ...

-Superman-

You mean, I mean, Oh my GOD!!

This wasn't serious?

Benwhoistiredofinsults

even the "fuck you's"--i was hoping for a real heart felt "fuck you".

All right, all of you are fuckers. Thanks to this thread I have bust out laughing about 20 times. It would be OK, if I were not supposed to be working. I finally had to get my ass out of my chair and close the office door.

Ben, I am still waiting for you to reveal your secret for beeing able to see anything in the pitch black darkness of the Unicornio. Does it have something to do with the perception of light that Kendricks, Dogster, and Byron are talking about?

And to Sampson I send a very heart felt " Fuck You"

What? You guys weren't being serious??? FUCK!!!!

Hombre just informed me that he will be sending each one of you a bill for 50 fucks so he can upgrade more memory to his server , Don't you fuckin losers have a life?
Or do you take after me ?

Milky aka Sam aka Dogster aka coolhandluke aka Lamalavida aka Farsider aka Billfromreading aka Superman aka Westfargo

Sorry for getting all serious and shit. Superman is legitimately whacked IMHO; he projects his own problems onto everyone else. Dude is on a different wavelength.

Fuckers:

Please note that Kendricks went totally ballistic off the deep end when I mentioned Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. For that I am truly happy… err… sorry.

Headinsouth, you FUCKING moron. Don’t you fucking know ANYTHING about nutrition? Soylent Green is processed shit. It is much healthier to eat their carcasses raw.

Batster, you fuck. Yer supposed to bring a flashlight to Unicorno. Glad to hear that Ben’s rod(s) can navigate dark places.

Ben: Fuck you for getting to Maria Magdelena (AB) first. I know EXACTLY what she does for a living. Go ahead. Say it. I DARE you.

Tight_fit: The flat tax works beautifully if you pick a reasonable, constant, low tax RATE for all income groups. If the tax rate is too high, people will have a greater incentive to evade taxation. But if you can get the rich to pay a even a low percentage of their income (as opposed to the 0% they pay now), yer government is gonna have lots of dinero to play with. Yes, of course, history shows that they’ll steal or squander all of it, including social security stuff. Anyway, fuck off.

Alright, Kendricks and Byron, I’m bringing in the big guns to dispense with you. It is almost July 4, so enjoy the fireworks display.

If you won’t listen to me, maybe you’ll listen to Brian Wandell, neuroscientist at Stanford:

“A naïve theory of color might attempt to predict the color appearance of a light from the spectral power distribution of the light. Many color appearance phenonomena, including simultaneous color contrast effects and effects of observer adaptation, falsify this type of theory. In addition to the spectral power distribution of the light, a theory of color appearance must incorporate information about the context in which the test light is seen.”

Or perhaps you will listen to Semir Zeki, physiologist at Harvard:

“Why did colour constancy play such a subsidiary role in enquiries on colour vision? Almost certainly because, until only very recently it has been treated as a departure from a general rule, although it is in fact the central problem of color vision. That general rule supposes that there is a precise and simple relationship between the wavelength composition of light reaching the eye from every point on a surface and the colour of that point.”

Or perhaps you will listen to David Hubel, physiologist at Harvard and Nobel Laureate:

“Color, like so much of vision, is an inference. Mainly, color is a perceptual representation of surface reflectance of an object (as originally proposed by Helmholtz). There are two powerful obstacles that make it difficult to infer surface reflectance from the light incident at the eye. First, the reflected light confounds information about the surface and the illuminant. Second, the human eye has only three types of cones to encode a spectral signal consisting of many different wavelengths… For color to be a useful code for object surface properties, the visual system must actively adjust to variation in the illumination to stabilize object color appearance. It is an erroneous, common belief that cone signals originating in the retina are sufficient to solve this problem by themselves. But color is an estimation problem, with the solution emerging far downstream in the brain.”

So basically, we have a Nobel Prize winner (Hubel), a great physicist (Helmholtz), three other eminent color experts, and God's Gift to Mongering (Dogster) on one side. On the other, we have a buncha Neanderthals who oversimplify simple stuff like this.

It's sad that you went and looked up all that info in a vain attempt to try and legitimize your point. Or maybe it's just pathetic. I, for one, am really impressed. Or not.

-Superman-

12 servers and counting.
I would like to be your hosting company Hombre !!


Milky

Dogster, you silly fuck, it is only in your imagination that these quotes refute my original point. Yes, the human perception of light is incredibly complex.

This does not refute the original premise that there is a *correlation* between the frequency of light waves and color perceived.

CORRELATION, you fuck. Look it up if you don't know what it means. After you have had someone explain the definition to you, you simpleminded quote regurgitating fuck, explain this:

If there were no correlation between frequency and color, how are celestial movements predicted buy use of the Doppler Effect?

Explain it. In your own words. I dare you. I fucking double dare you.

This is all pointless now, anyway, since Superman has already declared me victorious by TKO.

And as for you, dairy product, if you have nothing of substance to contribute, quit fucking wasting bandwidth.

I just read this entire thread from beginning to end and my head is spinning. It's like the TV show from the '80s (I forget which one) where the last episode reveals that the entire multi-year run of the show never actually happened... it was dreamed up by an autistic child.

Dogster wrote:

"So basically, we have a Nobel Prize winner (Hubel), a great physicist (Helmholtz), three other eminent color experts, and God's Gift to Mongering (Dogster) on one side. On the other, we have a buncha Neanderthals who oversimplify simple stuff like this."

But which side are you really on, Dogster? According to another great physicist, Heisenberg, there is a finite probability that you may actually be on the OTHER side.

Or not?

Me Neanderthal. Acka, wacka, oom.

Superman is AUTISTIC?

Kendricks:
I could say that wavelength and color are not correlated and would only be fefuted by assholes like you that get a kick on bashing people that are trying to make your lives better.

It is obvious that you are retreating. Last week, you began by unwittingly equating wavelength and color. So, I GRACIOUSLY acknowledged your conclusion that the sky is not blue and the correctness of your physical analysis, but I also corrected your egregious conceptual error of equating wavelength (physical) and color (perceptual).

Despite your simplistic protestations regarding my initial post, you began your retreat by acknowledging that wavelength and color are not the same thing, thus conceding my original point regarding why the wavelength composition of the sky is not “blue.” You could’ve stopped there and returned to writing Yasir Arafat fan mail. But at that point you continued to cling to the pathetic notion that “Each fucking color is characteristic of a distinct motherfucking wavelength.” In other words, you were arguing for a PERFECT correspondence (correlation) between (motherfucking) wavelength and (fucking) color.

I then GENEROUSLY explained to you how the relationship between color and specific wavelength is not fixed (i.e., not anywhere near perfectly correlated), but all I got back is some crap you mindlessly copied from a retarded physics teacher’s website and some irrelevant shit about Doppler shifts (which I’ll dispense with shortly). So you started to use the eunuch-like term “correlation,” indicating a further retreat on your part. You were beginning to retreat from your ridiculously rigid “perfect correlation” stance, but trivialized the deviations from perfect correspondence as simple “exceptions to the rule” based on simple adjustments for “ambient interference.” And you sicked your lap-dog bitch Superman on me. Small dog warning!!!

I PATIENTLY continued to emphasize the importance of the visual system’s ability to achieve color constancy. Such constancy requires that the system infer the invariant spectral reflectance of distant objects. To do so requires that the system DE-CORRELATE wavelength and color. When you didn’t get it, I quoted experts who emphasized the same points. I did this so the Unabomber could understand, and so that Superman would stop frantically humping your lower leg. Where is the gratitude?

You now acknowledge that color perception is complex (a further retreat), but cling to your increasingly watered-down “correlation” argument. (Just how imperfect IS the correlation?)

Now about this trivial Doppler shift… (You naively think that I don’t know about using Doppler shifts to infer movement of stars, etc.). Obviously, there are shifts in the spectrum that are responsible for “red shifts” and “blue shifts.” All other things being equal, when astronomers jack off repeatedly and observe at the night sky, shorter wavelength (broadband) lights are gonna appear bluer, and longer wavelength lights are gonna appear redder, as we discussed before. I never said that there aren’t changes in perception related to changes wavelength. I said that wavelength of light does not EQUAL color; it doesn’t correlate perfectly, or even at all well, with color. I said that using a color perception name (e.g. “Blue” or “Red”) to label physical entities (e.g., the sky, or wavelength shifts) is confusing apples and oranges. You can point out weak correlations between wavelength and color appearance under specific conditions, but you are still at the end of the road.

And, Superman (who has no clue what we're talking about), by making a premature call, has once again proved that he’s incompetent to call any sporting event. Nyah, nyah, nyah.

Sorry, Milky. 39 servers? At this rate there won’t be enough multiple servers left over for Drewwho. I guess he’ll have to retire.

Yours in whoring.
=Dogster=

Dogster, you simply talking portions of my argument out of context in order to refute them, and mislabelling my clarifications as "slipping" or retractions.

I never said that wavelength equals color, merely that there is a correlation. All of your rhetoric aside, it is clear that you actually agree with this point, since YOU YOURSELF just wrote:

"shorter wavelength (broadband) lights are gonna appear bluer, and longer wavelength lights are gonna appear redder."

Checkfuckingmate, you fucking mutt.

I think this thread has run the entire gauntlet of fallacies. You are all guilty and deserve to be bitch-slapped with a limp dick.

If light shines on a tree in a forest and no one can see it, what color is it?

There is no such thing as checkmate in Battle Royale.

By the way, I recently returned from Brazil and Argentina. Brazil is my new favorite destination. (Sorry to go off-topic)

d'Art - shut the f*** up and mind your own damn business. Where do you think you are, ClubHombre??

Geez - what is it about the summer months that seems to elicit more BS like these off-topic threads, while the conversations about PUSSY slow to a crawl? Are your sperm counts dropping or something, guys??

Sheesh!!

What is the evidence that the visual system is "discorrelating" wavelength from color?

There are certainly more to the color than wavelengths. However, as Wandell put it, color consistency is likely achieved by some unknown mechanisms, in addition to "the spectral power distribution of the light". NOT in spite of or regardless of.

The mechanisms of color consistency likely use various forms of feedbacks and filterings. None of these is the system's attempt to "discorrelate" wavelength from color. Rather, the goal of the system is to "smoothen out" the signals.

The last sentence should read, "Rather, the goal of the system is to sommothen out the CORRELATIONS."

... by incorporating the information about the context in which the test light is seen.”

Dogster
If Superman is on a different wavelength which color would that wavelength be perceived as?

MrBill: You want to talk about PUSSY??? OK, fine. We got Schoedinger’s cat in a box over there. What about it?

Farsider: Heisenberg?! What the FUCK do you know? You are mistaken. It was James Morrison who wrote about breaking on through to the other side.

d’artagnan-come-lately (if at all): Without an observer, there is no color, as discussed previously. Go practice fallacyio elsewhere.

Taxibob: We are dealing with a dim bulb. So it is too dark to say.

Kendricks: You FUCKING weasel. That is different than what you said before (i.e., “Each fucking color is characteristic of a distinct motherfucking wavelength”). If you are now saying that the correlation between color appearance and wavelength is not perfect, then you are also saying that each color is not caracteristic of a DISTINCT wavelength. Now since you are running AWAY, are you causing a red or a blue shift? Check your own fucking mate. I think her name is Rosie.

Byron. It is likely that you know a few things about biology and chemistry. Congratulations to you. But you don't know much about information processing science, i.e., the intricacies of how complex information is processed at various complex levels by complex living systems... such as your girlfriend. HAH! Anyway, as I keep saying, the goal of color vision is to make inferences about the spectral reflectance properties of distal objects, not to identify the spectral composition of light incident at the eye. To further understand “decorrelation” and the empirical support for it, perhaps take a look at Wandell’s (1995) Foundations of Vision, especially the chapter on color. It is a simple introductory undergraduate text that even molecular biologists can sometimes understand on their good days.

OK, enough of this shit for one lifetime.

Yours in whoring. =Dogster=

You fucking mutt, each color is absolutely characteristic of a distinct motherfucking wavelength in an unadulterated environment. Perception is more complicated, yet there is still a correlation. I have explained this to you multiple times. If you are too fucking stupid to understand it, go to AB and hire a fucking tutor.

From the movie "Being There" (Peter Sellers) in the closing shots; a pyramidal tomb with a placard saying "Life is a state of mind".

In short, Science is objective, but LIFE (That's me and most of you) is SUBJECTIVE.

Likewise thought & feeling. When I'm looking at color (and especially when I'm looking at chicas) I AIN"T THINKING, I'M FEELING (OK, usually like a fool...)

The enjoyment of life is in the feelings !
Save thinking for making up lies for the old lady.

Pauncho