Thieving Junkies, Chronic Immaturity and Rogue Terrorists.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

You ( Hugh Huntzinger ) wrote:
> There is an "old" undertone to [ black and white ]
> because of the accident of photographic history (and costs),
> but look also at how it can also deliberately convey messages 
> on its own through contrast.
> 
> The Wizard of Oz was one cinematic example, but its use in 
> "Pleasantville" (1998) was IMO actually quite stunning.

I just watched it ( "Pleasantville" 1998 ).

It was an argument against 1958, when Amarica was "great".
Supposedly, everyone was racist back then, 
complete with NaziEsque book burning.

Supposedly, "free sex, free love and feminism ( in that order )"
transformed society into the better world we enjoy today.

> The use of the lack of light is a related technique as well, 
> as is also expressing something by deliberately not showing it
> (obliquely).
> 
> Coding can similarly follow life in that what may be 
> the most important part is not what is, but instead, what is not.

True, the movie didn't mention today's darker side:

  Thieving Junkies, Chronic Immaturity and Rogue Terrorists.

We have to choose the LeaseWorst options, of course;
today, that means Trump, apparently,
because he'd weed them out, somehow.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Generally, I _like black and white photos/films;
in low light, everything is black and white.
Male color blindness is there for a reason: seeing in the dark.

" Free Sex, Free Love and Feminism " have dubious value, I think;
especially when it means:

  Thieving Junkies ( including _agressive begging ),
  Chronic Immaturity and Rogue Terrorists.

GhostBusters 2016 is likely to be a $70 million loss.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostbusters_%282016_film%29#Box_office

Women who _bitch about not being paid like men don't impress me.
Don't _beg for applause ( and money ), earn it.

[Michael Moroney]

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

>Generally, I _like black and white photos/films;
>in low light, everything is black and white.
>Male color blindness is there for a reason: seeing in the dark.

No, Jeff. Low light vision is from what are called rods. They are
separate from the cones. Unlike cones, there is only one type of rod
so there is no color vision in low light.

In low light, the cone system (color) does not work, not enough light
to activate them. In bright light, the rod system is overloaded and
does not work.

Red-green color blindness is a defect in the cone system (so is irrelevant
in low light) where either the red or green cones are missing or have a
poor light response curve. The genes for the red and green cones are
very similar to each other and on the X chromosome. Males have only 1 X
while females have two, so females are more likely to have a correctly
functioning red-green cone system (you only need one good gene for each).

<snip random rambling>

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

You ( MichaelMoroney ) replied ( to me ):

> > Male color blindness is there for a reason: seeing in the dark.
>
> No, Jeff. Low light vision is from what are called rods.
> They are separate from the cones.

ColorBlindness is far too common to be 100% useless.
My ColorBlind friend ( now dead ) was good at spotting stuff
that no one else could see. I should've written:

Outlines, rather than colors, are responsible for
pattern recognition. In the military,
ColorBlind snipers and spotters are highly valued for these reasons.

http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/44140/what-is-the-evolutionary-advantage-of-red-green-color-blindness

Red, Yellow and Green traffic lights should have different shapes;
maybe triangle, square and round.

[Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 12:05:15 -0800 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:


>Red, Yellow and Green traffic lights should have different shapes;
>maybe triangle, square and round.

No, color blind people shouldn't be allowed to drive.

What's next? Perhaps roadways should have raised walls
which totally blind people can feel with their fingers
as they drive along?

Defective humans who can pass along their defective
genes should all be sterilized to rid the gene pool
once and for all of these defects.

Humans are the only species that embraces unnatural
de selection.

--

"In my erudition, I say a man not mince words in order
to spare the sensibilities of the thin-skinned and the
ignorant." --Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.

[Michael Moroney]

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

>You ( MichaelMoroney ) replied ( to me ):
>> > Male color blindness is there for a reason: seeing in the dark.
>>
>> No, Jeff. Low light vision is from what are called rods.
>> They are separate from the cones.

>ColorBlindness is far too common to be 100% useless.
>My ColorBlind friend ( now dead ) was good at spotting stuff
>that no one else could see.

Many "colorblind" people have a long wavelength or medium wavelength cone
color sensor gene that responds to a different frequency, one that is
between the normal long wavelength and medium wavelength responses.
This means they have two cones with similar (but not identical)
frequency responses and it interferes with distinguishing between reds and
greens. On the other hand, they often can see large differences in colors
between the two response peaks. The military values these people for
their ability not to be fooled by common camouflage colors/patterns.

The red-green cones are believed to be recent, evolutionarily speaking.
The two color genes are nearly identical and adjacent to each other on
the X chromosome. It may be that a single gene was cloned so there was
two copies of it and one copy mutated into what we have now. It may
be that forms of red-green color deficiency are from people with
duplicates that have not mutated or mutated differently, it may be
incomplete evolution.

>Red, Yellow and Green traffic lights should have different shapes;
>maybe triangle, square and round.

Never been to Quebec, I take it.
In the US the red light is tinged toward orange and the green tinged
toward blue to help colorblind people.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

Desert dwellers are more likey to be ColorBlind
because it allows them to see more shades of sand/rock.
Also, they're better as seeing shapes; color hides shapes.

[Michael Moroney]

And your evidence of this is.... ? Oh yeah, you made it up just now.

I vaguely remember reading that the red/green colorblind gene variants are
largely European-specific and are rarer in other ethnicities.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

You ( Michael Moroney ) replied ( to me ):

> > Desert dwellers are more likey to be ColorBlind
> > because it allows them to see more shades of sand/rock.
>

> And your evidence of this is.... ?

The ColorBlind see khaki ( wood/sand/rock ) better.

10% of Arabs ( Druzes ) are Red-Green color blind;
more than any other group:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness#Red.E2.80.93green_color_blindness_2

Quoting:
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/mar/colorblind-kakhi-brown-cambridge/

Red-green color-blind people may miss out on the
subtle tones of a forest or a bouquet of roses, but
they do get compensation. Biologists at Cambridge
University and the University of Newcastle upon Tyne
in England find that color-blind men are
extraordinary connoisseurs of khaki.

Red-green color blindness is caused by an unusual
form of a light receptor in the eye, which is
sensitive to a different range of colors than normal.

This variant type of receptor makes it harder to
distinguish among red, orange, yellow, and green.

The resulting shift in color perception bestows extra
sensitivity to other hues, however, as the
researchers demonstrated by asking subjects to rate
the similarity of 15 circles painted in tones of khaki.

People with regular vision struggled with the
test, while color-blind men aced it. The findings
lend credence to the theory that people with
red-green color blindness make good hunters or
soldiers because they are not easily fooled by camouflage.

The researchers hypothesize that the
variant form of receptor could be an evolutionary
relic from the time when early humans needed to spot
predators or food hidden in branches and leaves.

[Michael Moroney]

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

>You ( Michael Moroney ) replied ( to me ):
>> > Desert dwellers are more likey to be ColorBlind
>> > because it allows them to see more shades of sand/rock.
>>
>> And your evidence of this is.... ?

>The ColorBlind see khaki ( wood/sand/rock ) better.

>10% of Arabs ( Druzes ) are Red-Green color blind;
>more than any other group:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness#Red.E2.80.93green_color_blindness_2

Interesting. But note that many Europeans are quite high (Russians at
9.2%), the Druze sample is relatively small, and Iranians (another
desert people) are at just 6.6%.

Also depends on whether the "color-blindness" is a -opia type or either
protanomaly or deuteranomaly (color peak shift). But deuteranomaly is
the most common type.

>Quoting:
>http://discovermagazine.com/2006/mar/colorblind-kakhi-brown-cambridge/

> Red-green color-blind people may miss out on the
> subtle tones of a forest or a bouquet of roses, but
> they do get compensation. Biologists at Cambridge
> University and the University of Newcastle upon Tyne
> in England find that color-blind men are
> extraordinary connoisseurs of khaki.

Pretty much what I said, the protanomaly and deuteranomaly
types have shifted color sensitivity peaks and are used by the
military to detect camouflage.

Another interesting thing that a woman whose father is color-
blind (protanomaly or deuteranomaly) and/or whose mother is a
carrier of protanomaly or deuteranomaly may have four types of
cones (tetrachromacy) and may be much _more_ sensitive to colors
in the red-green range than normal people.

[thugst...@gmail.com]

aside from rhodopsin, there are no pigments in the eye, and
the cones and rods are log-spiral antennae;
being able to see two colors is just like seeing three colors,
owing to a simple property of the apparent trichromacy of vision
(E.Land), which is just alike the trlateral inequality:
it has to hold for all three cyclic permutation, but
you only need two, to show if the third makes a trilateral