Hi, thank you for taking the time to reply, and sorry I didn't write back straight away. Obviously you're right in that they clearly don't mean to say that everything beyond the visible is pink, because that's self-evidently not true, and they know it, because they're not stupid. So yeah, it's all bit "well, obviously", if you see what I mean. Again, thanks for the considered reply

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
I watched it again, and they're not saying that radio waves are pink, they're saying that you can't see them... but that pink fills the spot on the colour wheel that would otherwise be filled by the invisible radiation.

They could've made it clearer, but they didn't say what you thought. What they did say isn't exactly wrong just not clear.

Fair enough that it's hardly worth counting UV vision in certain lens enhanced people, I just thought it was cool.
In reply to this comment by FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^oritteropo:

I think they mean that if you try to wrap the visible spectrum around a colour wheel, then it works for the red,green,blue,violet part and then stops working when you get to the magenta/pink/negative green part.
To quibble a little with your claim that anything out of the visisble spectrum is invisible, people who have had cataract surgery can see potentially light slightly outside the normal visible range (all right, not gamma rays, but still)... http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/605905
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
The claim made in the video that we see all the non-visible wavelengths of light/EM radiation as pink is patently false. We know this because gamma rays aren't pink, they're invisible.


That's not what they're saying though. They are quite clearly saying that the vast area outside the tiny wavelengths we can see are perceived by human eyes as pink. If that were true, there would be so much light bouncing around that that we percieved as pink that we wouldn't be able to make anything else out.

And I quibble with your quibble: anything outside of the visible spectrum is invisible by definition, isn't it? The slight increase in the visible spectrum in a minority of the people who've ever had cataract surgery is hardly worth counting in this regard as it's not considered normal vision.

I watched it again, and they're not saying that radio waves are pink, they're saying that you can't see them... but that pink fills the spot on the colour wheel that would otherwise be filled by the invisible radiation.

They could've made it clearer, but they didn't say what you thought. What they did say isn't exactly wrong just not clear.

Fair enough that it's hardly worth counting UV vision in certain lens enhanced people, I just thought it was cool.
In reply to this comment by FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^oritteropo:

I think they mean that if you try to wrap the visible spectrum around a colour wheel, then it works for the red,green,blue,violet part and then stops working when you get to the magenta/pink/negative green part.
To quibble a little with your claim that anything out of the visisble spectrum is invisible, people who have had cataract surgery can see potentially light slightly outside the normal visible range (all right, not gamma rays, but still)... http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/605905
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
The claim made in the video that we see all the non-visible wavelengths of light/EM radiation as pink is patently false. We know this because gamma rays aren't pink, they're invisible.


That's not what they're saying though. They are quite clearly saying that the vast area outside the tiny wavelengths we can see are perceived by human eyes as pink. If that were true, there would be so much light bouncing around that that we percieved as pink that we wouldn't be able to make anything else out.

And I quibble with your quibble: anything outside of the visible spectrum is invisible by definition, isn't it? The slight increase in the visible spectrum in a minority of the people who've ever had cataract surgery is hardly worth counting in this regard as it's not considered normal vision.

>> ^oritteropo:

I think they mean that if you try to wrap the visible spectrum around a colour wheel, then it works for the red,green,blue,violet part and then stops working when you get to the magenta/pink/negative green part.
To quibble a little with your claim that anything out of the visisble spectrum is invisible, people who have had cataract surgery can see potentially light slightly outside the normal visible range (all right, not gamma rays, but still)... http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/605905
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
The claim made in the video that we see all the non-visible wavelengths of light/EM radiation as pink is patently false. We know this because gamma rays aren't pink, they're invisible.


That's not what they're saying though. They are quite clearly saying that the vast area outside the tiny wavelengths we can see are perceived by human eyes as pink. If that were true, there would be so much light bouncing around that that we percieved as pink that we wouldn't be able to make anything else out.

And I quibble with your quibble: anything outside of the visible spectrum is invisible by definition, isn't it? The slight increase in the visible spectrum in a minority of the people who've ever had cataract surgery is hardly worth counting in this regard as it's not considered normal vision.

I think they mean that if you try to wrap the visible spectrum around a colour wheel, then it works for the red,green,blue,violet part and then stops working when you get to the magenta/pink/negative green part.

To quibble a little with your claim that anything out of the visisble spectrum is invisible, people who have had cataract surgery can see potentially light slightly outside the normal visible range (all right, not gamma rays, but still)... http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/605905
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

The claim made in the video that we see all the non-visible wavelengths of light/EM radiation as pink is patently false. We know this because gamma rays aren't pink, they're invisible.

Apart with all the embarrassment and humility this caused. She knows she made a goof. She's embarrassed and feels foolish. So what.

Now, the video is a whole different issue. I'm not a lawyer nor will I pretend to be but this has got to raise a few eyebrows. This video turns a silly mistake into a gigantic problem.

It's the whole "Smile, you're on public camera" issue. It's a Big Brother thing.
What do the invisible people behind all these cameras do with the footage of you (a private citizen) as you go to the mall, walk in the park, fill up with gas and generally go on with your day to day activities. Why do they have the right to film everything you do? We all assume the video is logged in some sort of system and deleted down the road when not used for any reason (ie: a robbery didn't take place).

If it is deleted, we all say, "whatever, that footage wasn't used" and we move on. If it does get used to expose a crime, we say, "great, I'm glad they caught the guy - hey look there's me in the background."

But what about all the footage being misused? Posting it to youtube and being publicly humiliated on a large scale is just part of it. What about using it to stalk, invasion of privacy and many other things people can think of? Now we have to be afraid to scratch our nose in public for fear of being recorded and posted to Youtube with a caption reading "Man picks nose in public". (Ewe gross!).

The point is, regardless of the humility this woman received and then was elevated to, these companies need to take a professional outlook on this information and be held accountable.

It's like going to the Emergency ward because you got shot in the but (keeping it Disney here), and then they video tape you coming in and them removing the bullet (as part of their procedure). OK, you leave, no problem. then one day you find out the video is on Youtube. Ya, you feel dumb, and embarrassed for shooting yourself in the rump, but you sue because of the gross violation of personal medical information.

There has got to be some accountability here, if there is no policy in place, she should be able to sue the Mall. If there is a policy in place, the individual should loose his job and be found liable. If they can't find out who did it, then the Mall is responsible for not having proper security measures in place to track who had access to security information.

Thinking government can ever work well is "crazy", but believing that invisible people are judging you from the sky is "completely normal".

I love this country.

I believe in magical invisible people in the sky.

MAGICAL INVISIBLE PEOPLE IN THE SKY ARE REAL! RED HORNED EVIL DUDES WITH CLOVEN HOOFS LIVING UNDERGROUND IN LAVA LAND ARE REAL!

Nope, it's just the invisible people that rate the movies that are uptight.
No one even gets to know who they are - nobody!