>> ^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.

>> ^srd:

And since bees can see ultra-violet (but not red), thats what they see all the time (well, almost). But monochrome flowers have a lot more patterns in UV. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZEoAMfRICM&NR=1 for e.g.


You should submit that.

And since bees can see ultra-violet (but not red), thats what they see all the time (well, almost). But monochrome flowers have a lot more patterns in UV. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZEoAMfRICM&NR=1 for e.g.

Paint em with gentian violet.

>> ^phoenixdth:

>> ^Yogi:
This was her first televised professional match too. The US doesn't have any women reffing our professional mens leagues...the last time it happened I think was almost 10 years ago with Kair Seitz.

i believe violet palmers been reffing the nba for the last decade or so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Palmer


That's awesome...I only know about soccer though.

>> ^Yogi:

This was her first televised professional match too. The US doesn't have any women reffing our professional mens leagues...the last time it happened I think was almost 10 years ago with Kair Seitz.


i believe violet palmers been reffing the nba for the last decade or so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violet_Palmer

Cringe...his comment about time is just plain wrong. He was really onto something when he said "time is not absolute," but then he makes the painful statement that the object moving near the speed of light experiences time more slowly. While it is true that the object experiences time in a frame that he is moving relative to differently, he will always experience time in his own frame in exactly the same way regardless of whether he is moving or not. That's the entire point of an "inertial frame" in special relativity - one result is that time always looks the same in his frame. It is times in other frames that he experiences differently.

Also (1) I agree with jwray - the color of the sky is related to the wavelength^4 term in the re-emission of electromagnetic radiation equations, and (2) don't get me started on the phenomenological lack of specificity in the overly broad comments about how we only see the world via electromagnetic waves/photons.

>> ^jwray:

He's wrong, too. The profile of wavelengths of sunlight that get scattered and transmitted by the atmposphere would be nearly the same regardless of the existence or nonexistence of humans (except for the effect of greenhouse gasses and other pollution). And the longest wavelength of visible light is red, not violet. Then he digresses into some really wrong woo-woo around 4:10. I'll downvote this guy for being ontologically incorrect.

He's wrong, too. The profile of wavelengths of sunlight that get scattered and transmitted by the atmposphere would be nearly the same regardless of the existence or nonexistence of humans (except for the effect of greenhouse gasses and other pollution). And the longest wavelength of visible light is red, not violet. Then he digresses into some really wrong woo-woo around 4:10. I'll downvote this guy for being ontologically incorrect.

Because people have no taste.

You can make your hyperlinks stand out without underlining or making it bright blue or violet. When people have no taste, they cannot do anything elegant - elegance != invisible.

See videosift for an example of good, clean design. Props @lucky760 and @campionidelmondo

These kids should start a Violet Incredible look-a-like gang.

@enoch, here's what I take from your post:

I challenged the assertions made that choggie was great for the sift, by merely asking if that includes an endorsement of his treatment of me.

For this, you believe I owe all the people I named an apology, for merely asking the question in a strident manner (i.e. do you think he's right, and are just too afraid to say what he said yourselves?).

Since it seems important to you, I would point out that I didn't "call you a pussy", unless you really were harboring ill will towards me that you had not expressed up to this point out of fear. I said what I said, feeling awfully confident that that was not actually the case for any of the three people I named, and that if I was wrong, coward was a pretty mild slight by choggie standards.

I'm sorry I've ruffled your feathers with my insinuation that the word "cowardice" belongs anywhere within a million miles of your name, but all I really wanted to hear was "no, of course I don't mean to endorse that" or "yes, actually, you're the scum of the earth, now that you ask".

I assumed it was an easy "no" for all three, especially yourself. Apparently me trying to make you THINK offended you so much you're now in the "scum of the earth" category.

I'm not a shrinking violet, I don't bruise easily, but I kinda have to take offense when someone literally makes it their mission in life to run me off this site, and other people fucking applaud him for it.

I'm not apologizing for being mad about it, and putting people on the spot about it.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'hole, violet' to 'hole, violet, live through this, 90s, 1994' - edited by kronosposeidon

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
The history of MAN is violent...what diluted thought pool have they been drinking from. The man breaking into my house to steal my stuff and perhaps throttle me isn't expounding on rhetoric, but he is still violent. The soldiers that march off to war are most certainly violent, but aren't rhetorical devices. Man has forever suffered to the law of the jungle. To scapegoat political protests as a means to increase violence misses out on the REAL issue...that man, at his core is violent. That violence seeks to express itself when a person feels threatened. The REAL issue isn't rhetoric, but people are really and truly terrified. Chants don't kill people, but people who are afraid of something do.
These guys also throw up so many Red Herring's one wonders if they are bird watchers (HAHAH I made a bad pun). They fail to recognize all the news papers and organizations that blurt out rhetoric all the time that doesn't end in the death of someone. If one lives by the fallacy of the exception being the rule then the moon is cheese and fries really do taste better with ice cream (LIES!).
I would just like to point out that he compares (directly mind you!) people that spout rhetoric (which is pretty much all we do in the comment section here at the sift!) to assassins. My fellow sifters, we all know this isn't true! It is a distraction from real things...and something that MSNBC seems to do more often then not...miss the point entirely.
Talking heads really are talking asses...I don't don't mean the kind for hauling.
Edit: Spelling (violet != violent) except in rare cases of purple.


wow...talk about missing the point.
your entire premise is a red herring.
the man breaking into your house to steal your stuff will only throttle you if:
a.you try to stop him,or engage him.
b.he is a psychopath.
c.should never have been used in your argument.
now your second point,either you didnt think it through or you believe that people just wish and desire to engage in wholesale slaughter.
and if that's the case then ignore the rest of my comment.
how do you think a government gets it's people to go to war?
to get civilians to sign up for possible death?hardship?loss of limb?
R.H.E.T.O.R.I.C
why did that man last year go into a unitarian church and start plugging bullets?
because he believed the R.H.E.T.O.R.I.C
words have meaning and power.they have the ability to give us context and enlighten something that was hidden,but words can also be used to fuel the fire of passion and fan the flames of rage.
how do you disempower someone who uses rhetoric as a tool?
be skeptical of what they are saying.
on which on your last point i wholeheartedly agree.
talking heads=talking asses.
but they wield immense influence and there are people who believe every drop of propaganda from their lips.these people have,and will again,acted because of the rhetoric.
and i shall hold each and every one of them responsible.

The history of MAN is violent...what diluted thought pool have they been drinking from. The man breaking into my house to steal my stuff and perhaps throttle me isn't expounding on rhetoric, but he is still violent. The soldiers that march off to war are most certainly violent, but aren't rhetorical devices. Man has forever suffered to the law of the jungle. To scapegoat political protests as a means to increase violence misses out on the REAL issue...that man, at his core is violent. That violence seeks to express itself when a person feels threatened. The REAL issue isn't rhetoric, but people are really and truly terrified. Chants don't kill people, but people who are afraid of something do.

These guys also throw up so many Red Herring's one wonders if they are bird watchers (HAHAH I made a bad pun). They fail to recognize all the news papers and organizations that blurt out rhetoric all the time that doesn't end in the death of someone. If one lives by the fallacy of the exception being the rule then the moon is cheese and fries really do taste better with ice cream (LIES!).

I would just like to point out that he compares (directly mind you!) people that spout rhetoric (which is pretty much all we do in the comment section here at the sift!) to assassins. My fellow sifters, we all know this isn't true! It is a distraction from real things...and something that MSNBC seems to do more often then not...miss the point entirely.

Talking heads really are talking asses...I don't don't mean the kind for hauling.

Edit: Spelling (violet != violent) except in rare cases of purple.