RottenBrains

… brains …

Archive for May, 2005

Interstate Wine Shipments: States Can’t Discriminate

Tuesday, May 17th, 2005

This news article reports on a recent Supreme Court ruling that requires states to be nondiscriminatory in their laws about direct shipment of wine to consumers: if they ban it, they must ban both interstate and intrastate shipments.

While a fifth circuit court of appeals ruling in 2003 allowed Texas residents to have wine shipped to them from out-of-state, many potential customers of Texas wineries remained off-limits due to various states’ direct-shipment laws. So this Supreme Court ruling will help level the playing ground, presumably to the benefit of Texas wineries (especially smaller ones that don’t tend to have distribution channels in other states).

Immortality within 25 years?

Saturday, May 14th, 2005

RjS and I were chatting about cancer and various other biologic ailments and that brought to mind a gentleman I read about a while back by the name of Aubrey de Grey.

As the articles say, he is a Computer Scientist that hasn’t taken a biology class since he was 15 years old. Never-the-less, he decided he wanted to put an end to aging, for himself and others. As part of the process, he now holds a doctorate in biology (from Cambridge, still without taking any biology classes), and has become one of the most renouned and respcted gerontology and senescence scientists around.

As part of his attempt to “cure” aging, he has identified 7 different factors which, if solutions are found, might allow indefinite life-spans.

“I think it’s reasonable to suppose that one could oscillate between being biologically 20 and biologically 25 indefinitely.”
– Aubrey de Grey

Weird and interesting stuff, for one of the multiple articles on him, see: The Prophet of Immortality

Clever Worm

Friday, May 13th, 2005

I got another interesting virus, with an amusing little twist.

You have just received a virtual postcard from a family member!

You can pick up your postcard at the following web address:

http://www2.postcards.org/?a91-valets-cloud-31337

The link actually goes somewhere completely different (a file on http://www.post.card.go.ro/ with a “.gif.exe” extension). Anyway, I found the choice of displayed URL — with “31337″ dropped in as a kind of “in joke” — to be vaguely amusing.

Truth is, I have family members who send me this kind of crap from time to time. This one came really close to catching me. Yikes.

Raised by Dogs?

Thursday, May 12th, 2005

Just wow.

You Think You Like Spicy Food?

Monday, May 9th, 2005

How about a bottle of pure capsaicin? 16 million Scoville units, anyone?

(Courtesy of Robert)

Update: Fischer Scientific has 100 mL bottles available for purchase. Note the asking price.

International Federation of… What the…?

Sunday, May 8th, 2005

Competitive Eating Records. Notable acheivements include almost 18 pounds of cow brains in 15 minutes; 5.25 pounds of baked beans in 1 minute, 52 seconds; and a gallon of mayonnaise in 8 minutes.

Violet is not Purple: Is digital imaging broken?

Sunday, May 1st, 2005

Last night, as I was trying to get to sleep, I had a series of thoughts that brought me to a troublesome gap in my understanding of human vision1. My problem? I couldn’t figure out how we see purple.

See, growing up, we were always taught that the spectral colors, starting from the longest wavelength, were red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. If you ever asked the teacher what violet was, they’d say “it’s just another name for purple.” Indigo? “It’s kind of a puplish-blue. It’s named after a type of flower.” Thus, we are taught that the rainbow, and therefore the spectrum of colored light visible to humans, looks like this:


~400 nm                                                  ~650 nm
This Is Wrong

There is plenty of confusion to go around here, so let’s start with the basics.

Average human eyes have four types of receptors — rods and three kinds of cones.

The rods operate well in low-light, are far denser than cones, respond more slowly than cones, and help distinguish contrast and detail.

The cones require strong light, pick up colors, and help process motion more quickly. These cones each have a broad range of sensitivity. The short-wave ones, s-cones (often erroneously called “blue cones”) are most receptive around 420 nm. The medium-wave ones, m-cones (“green cones”), 534 nm; Long-wave cones, l-cones (“red cones” ), 564 nm. In reality, 420 nm appears violet to humans, while 564 nm is really more of a yellowish-green (and not anything like red at all).


Approximate Cone and Rod Responsiveness by Wavelength (normalized)

The responsivness of the l-cones is insignificant below 450 nm and above 700 nm; m-cones range from about 440 nm to 675 nm, and s-cones, from somewhere shorter than 400 nm to about 520 nm.

All that is sent to your brain (in terms of distinguing colors) is relative values from these three cones. So, consider a single, pure light wave with a wavelength of 570 nm. People with normal eyes will perceive this as yellow (because it stimulates both the m-cones and l-cones in the right ratio). Two simultaneous waves of light at, say, 510 nm (green) and 590 nm (red) in the right ratio will produce the same reaction from the cones — meaning it will appear to be the identical shade of yellow.

So, here’s where I got caught up: if purple (which at the time I thought was the same as violet) can be simulated as a mix of red and blue, how does violet — at the low end of the spectrum — stimulate the l-cones?

The answer is that apparently, it doesn’t. And the key to that answer is this: purple and violet are very different colors. Physiologically, violet results from stimulation of the s-cones without stimulating the m-cones. (Perceiving blue requires stimulation of the m-cones to some degree). Purple requires at least two wavelengths, so that the s-cones and l-cones are both stimulated without having too much stimulation of the m-cones. I’m going to have to grab a prism and play around with a few things to be fully comfortable with my understanding, but I think I have a functioning model again.

But here’s where things get odd.

The lowest wavelength that your screen can display is this:


      
 
 
 
Here is Blue

Exactly how that blue is produced (and its exact color) depends on whether you’re using a CRT or an LCD screen, and a wide variety of other factors. It’ll probably be around 460 nm, though. That’s right around what people like to call “blue.” Anyway, the fact is that your screen simply mixes Red, Green, and Blue together to make the colors that it can produce. And the blue that we see above is still stimulating your m-cones, or it would appear violet to you.

So, as far as I can tell, modern televisions, computer monitors, scanners — even digital cameras — simply ignore indigo and violet. There’s no way to record them, and no way to display them. Taking a digital picture of a violet flower or a bird with violet markings will produce an image that substitutes blue — probably dark blue — for violet.

A key example of this shortcoming is shown by any attempt to electronically render Yves Klein’s trademark “International Klein Blue,” which contains a lot of indigo and/or violet in it. In person, Klein’s art making use of this patented color is absolutely breathtaking, even if it’s just something simple like a sea sponge dipped in paint. Stunning. Unforgettable. Seeing a work like this in person is absolutely shocking:


You don’t understand how pretty this is

On your computer screen, it’s pretty unremarkable, isn’t it? To understand what you’re missing — and what’s wrong with stopping the spectrum at blue — make it a point to seek out some of Klein’s work the next time you’re near a modern art museum.

So, this raises an interesting question: why do all consumer electronics use only red, green, and blue? Consider that, if cameras and monitors instead used a red/green/violet color scale, we would be able to have the same range of color reproduction that we do currently, plus the visible colors from 400 nm to 460 nm. In practice, most people just don’t take much note of violet, and simply don’t miss it. But wouldn’t it still make more sense to be able to reproduce it when it is present?

I mean, doesn’t your monitor suddenly feel strangely defective now that you realize that there are colors you can see but which it completely lacks the ability to render?


1 The thoughts themselves started off with wondering whether a very low intensity LED (or similar light source) with a peak output around 496 nm — the peak sensitivity of the rods in human eyes — would be useful for assiting with seeing in low-light conditions without reducing night vision for objects not illuminated by the LED. In the final equasion, it seems that the use of red light works at least as well. But that’s the sort of random thought that goes through my mind when I’m drifting off.