Cobol - OT: Colour blindness [Was: Re: "Shared" procedure division code]

Author

OT: Colour blindness [Was: Re: "Shared" procedure division code]

Oliver Wong

2005-08-10, 4:59 pm

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3lu3t5F14com8U1@individual.net...
> I find that fascinating. I always understood that people with this type of
> colour blindness saw grey instead of red or green. You are saying it is
> literally invisible to you? How do you deal with that? Do you know the
> traffic light is red because the other lights are not lit? What other
> impacts has it had on your life? (Sorry... my interest is causing me to
> forget my manners... it may be a sensitive/personal thing; don't respond
> unless you are OK with it.)

I'm not colour blind (as far as I know), but my understanding of
red/green colour-blindness is that it results from the red light and green
light receptors in one's eyes being indistinguishable to their brain.

That is to say, typically a person's eyes has three kinds of receptors,
one for measuring brightness of red, green and blue light respectively.
Also, typically the brain can tell which signal is coming from which type of
receptor, and is able to use this information to build a 3 channeled (RGB)
image in their mind.

If the brain can't differentiate between the red receptor and the green
receptor, then I'd imagine it'd be like taking an RGB image and, for every
pixel, replacing the values of R and G with the average of those two values.
So if a pixel had the value (2,4,6), for example, it would be perceived as
(3,3,6).

With this information a red/green colour blind person could distinguish
between (what a non-colour blind person would see as) grey and red in that
grey (128,128,128) would map to (128,128,128) for a colour blind person,
while red (255,0,0) would map to (128,128,0) for a colour blind person.

There also exist people who are completely colour blind, in that they
can't distinguish between information sent from all three of their
receptors. To simulate this, you could just average out all three channels;
so as in the example earlier, (2,4,6) would map to (4,4,4), which is indeed
a shade of grey for us. It might be misleading to call what they see "grey"
though. If you use the HSL colour space (Hue Saturation Lightness) instead
of RGB (Red Green Blue), basically these people can perceive Lightness
normally, but have no Hue or Saturation information. To say that they see
grey implies that they always see saturation as being zero.

As for traffic lights, I think if I were colour blind (either red/green
or all 3), I'd mainly infer the colour of the light from the position of the
light (in the vertical traffic lights, top is always red and bottom is
always green; in the horizontal one, the outer ones are red, but I forget
which is yellow and which is green - though in the horizontal ones they also
use shapes, and round is green).

I also heard that most traffic lights now colour the "green" light as
being blue-green. So a red/green colour blind person would be able to detect
that the "green" light is one by the presence of blue, but perhaps wouldn't
be able to differentiate between yellow and red.

- Oliver

Alistair

2005-08-11, 9:59 pm

Oliver Wong wrote:

> I'm not colour blind (as far as I know), but my understanding of
> red/green colour-blindness is that it results from the red light and green
> light receptors in one's eyes being indistinguishable to their brain.
>
> That is to say, typically a person's eyes has three kinds of receptors,
> one for measuring brightness of red, green and blue light respectively.
> Also, typically the brain can tell which signal is coming from which type of
> receptor, and is able to use this information to build a 3 channeled (RGB)
> image in their mind.
>
> If the brain can't differentiate between the red receptor and the green
> receptor, then I'd imagine it'd be like taking an RGB image and, for every
> pixel, replacing the values of R and G with the average of those two values.
> So if a pixel had the value (2,4,6), for example, it would be perceived as
> (3,3,6).
>
> With this information a red/green colour blind person could distinguish
> between (what a non-colour blind person would see as) grey and red in that
> grey (128,128,128) would map to (128,128,128) for a colour blind person,
> while red (255,0,0) would map to (128,128,0) for a colour blind person.
>
> There also exist people who are completely colour blind, in that they
> can't distinguish between information sent from all three of their
> receptors. To simulate this, you could just average out all three channels;
> so as in the example earlier, (2,4,6) would map to (4,4,4), which is indeed
> a shade of grey for us. It might be misleading to call what they see "grey"
> though. If you use the HSL colour space (Hue Saturation Lightness) instead
> of RGB (Red Green Blue), basically these people can perceive Lightness
> normally, but have no Hue or Saturation information. To say that they see
> grey implies that they always see saturation as being zero.
>
> As for traffic lights, I think if I were colour blind (either red/green
> or all 3), I'd mainly infer the colour of the light from the position of the
> light (in the vertical traffic lights, top is always red and bottom is
> always green; in the horizontal one, the outer ones are red, but I forget
> which is yellow and which is green - though in the horizontal ones they also
> use shapes, and round is green).
>
> I also heard that most traffic lights now colour the "green" light as
> being blue-green. So a red/green colour blind person would be able to detect
> that the "green" light is one by the presence of blue, but perhaps wouldn't
> be able to differentiate between yellow and red.
>

I understand that there are about 6 different forms of colour blindness
and the info I place here is relevant to the one that I suffer from
(red/green I think).

As fas as I know it is not a failure of the brain to distinguish
between the signals coming from the colour receptors (rods or cones but
which I can not remember) but a failure of the specific cells to
distinguish between the wavelengths of light. In my case I am capable
of distinguishing between red and green colours where the colour is
strong (eg when viewing traffic lights or flashing lights on vehicles
from close range) but am less able to differentiate where the colours
are subtle (olive drab as opposed to olive green) or at some
considerable distance (flashing vehicle lights at 400 yards (metres to
DD)). I do not see grey instead of the red or green.

As to lettering, I am amazed at the number of publishers (web and
printed material) who choose colour combos such as lime green and pink
for backgrounds and lettering. I have certainly encountered unreadable
text on packages and leaflets (I could see the text, tell the colour of
it and knew that it was lettering but was unable to read the letter
edges and could not define the letters).

I have a friend who is more disabled wrt colour blindness than myself.
Britannia Music use him to proof read their brochures.

Pete Dashwood

2005-08-12, 3:59 am

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1123802211.132493.44710@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<snip>>
> I understand that there are about 6 different forms of colour blindness
> and the info I place here is relevant to the one that I suffer from
> (red/green I think).
>
> As fas as I know it is not a failure of the brain to distinguish
> between the signals coming from the colour receptors (rods or cones but
> which I can not remember) but a failure of the specific cells to
> distinguish between the wavelengths of light.

When you consider the TINY difference in frequency between red and green, I
think it is a miracle that any of us can see them...

> In my case I am capable
> of distinguishing between red and green colours where the colour is
> strong (eg when viewing traffic lights or flashing lights on vehicles
> from close range) but am less able to differentiate where the colours
> are subtle (olive drab as opposed to olive green) or at some
> considerable distance (flashing vehicle lights at 400 yards (metres to
> DD)). I do not see grey instead of the red or green.
>

So what exactly do you see? Is it just all red or all green? If you were
looking at a coloured bar with alternating red and green blocks on it, how
would it appear? Presumably, you still see the bar itself?

> As to lettering, I am amazed at the number of publishers (web and
> printed material) who choose colour combos such as lime green and pink
> for backgrounds and lettering. I have certainly encountered unreadable
> text on packages and leaflets (I could see the text, tell the colour of
> it and knew that it was lettering but was unable to read the letter
> edges and could not define the letters).

Ah, so it appears as a blur to you? But not a grey blur?
>
> I have a friend who is more disabled wrt colour blindness than myself.
> Britannia Music use him to proof read their brochures.
>

Thanks very much for this insight, Alistair. It is fascinating. I've often
wondered about what colour blind people actually 'see' but until now never
had the opportunity to ask.

Pete.

Howard Brazee

2005-08-12, 8:59 am

On 11-Aug-2005, "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> As to lettering, I am amazed at the number of publishers (web and
> printed material) who choose colour combos such as lime green and pink
> for backgrounds and lettering.

That could work as long as they also vary the greyness of the pigments.

Oliver Wong

2005-08-12, 4:59 pm

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3m2j97F150rseU1@individual.net...
>
> So what exactly do you see? Is it just all red or all green?

Assuming a person who's completely red/green colour blind (Alistair
seems to be saying he can sometimes distinguish between the two depending on
the subtlety of the change), they wouldn't be able to differentiate between
red and green, and so the question "Do you see red or do you see green?" is
kind of meaningless to them.

It's probably a very difficult question to answer in that one does not
know if the colour one sees is the same as the colour that you call "red".

> Ah, so it appears as a blur to you? But not a grey blur?

While in an eye-doctor's office (optometrist?) I saw a pamphlet that was
to help one self-diagnose if they were colour blind. The test was
surprisingly hard (I checked if my mother found it hard as well; she did,
which implies either I'm not colour blind, or we're both coloru blind). It
mainly consisted of very faint yellow text on very faint orange background.
With (0,0,0) being black and (255,255,255) being white, something like text
of colour (255,243,204) on background colour (255,230,204). It wasn't that
the text was blurry (which would imply that I need stronger glasses), but
that the lighting condition and the angle of viewing had to be just right to
be able to see the boundaries where the colour-change was occuring.

- Oliver

Pete Dashwood

2005-08-12, 9:59 pm

"Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote in message
news:5d7Le.131042$wr.90036@clgrps12...
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:3m2j97F150rseU1@individual.net...
>
> Assuming a person who's completely red/green colour blind (Alistair
> seems to be saying he can sometimes distinguish between the two depending
> on the subtlety of the change), they wouldn't be able to differentiate
> between red and green, and so the question "Do you see red or do you see
> green?" is kind of meaningless to them.

Well it's just as well it wasn't addressed to you then, isn't it?

There is no need to assume anything. Alistair already said he can see
red/green when the colours are strong.

I am not wasting his time with meaningless questions, I am trying to
understand how his perception differs from mine.

>
> It's probably a very difficult question to answer in that one does not
> know if the colour one sees is the same as the colour that you call "red".
>
That is not what we are discussing here and has been covered elsewhere.

Pete.

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-08-12, 9:59 pm

In article <3m4nr0F15l7peU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>I am not wasting his time with meaningless questions, I am trying to
>understand how his perception differs from mine.

How his perceptions differ from yours, Mr Dashwood, might just possibly
not be the same as what he tells you his perceptions are... what his
perceptions 'are' just might not be the same as what he tells you he
believes them to be.

DD

Michael Wojcik

2005-08-15, 4:59 pm

In article <O6rKe.173554$9A2.118337@edtnps89>, "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> writes:
>
> That is to say, typically a person's eyes has three kinds of receptors,
> one for measuring brightness of red, green and blue light respectively.
> Also, typically the brain can tell which signal is coming from which type of
> receptor, and is able to use this information to build a 3 channeled (RGB)
> image in their mind.

It's my understanding that this theory has largely fallen out of
favor, due to the lack of physiological evidence to support it. Of
course there are many ways to encode a color signal; three-channel
RGB has precedents in some technologies, but there's no reason to
believe that's how the human eye works.

There are *two* distinct structures in the retina, "rods" and
"cones". They have different sensitivity functions to light by
frequency. The difference in response between the rods and the
cones is sufficient information to derive the frequency, so it's
quite plausible that that's how human color vision works.

Since cones are overall less sensitive than rods (they have a higher
excitation threshold), in low light color vision is diminished - the
brain doesn't get enough of a signal from the cones to find the
delta, and hence the frequency.

People with diminished color vision in well-lit environments seem to
have a cone response curve that's insufficiently different from the
rod response curve for certain frequencies. That problem is
aggravated by color input that's not highly saturated, because
there's less of a frequency-specific component to create the
different response levels.

Thus the typical "color-bind" individual actually has a specific
condition such as "reduced green response", where the regions of
the two receptor types' response curves for greens and some
neighboring red hues are mostly parallel - so there is little
information for the brain to distinguish among frequencies in that
region.

There are also rare cases of complete color blindness, usually caused
by brain damage. Oliver Sacks documents one; the patient could see
no color at all, following an automobile accident (which may have
been caused by a small stroke). Everything appears to be some shade
of grey. In this case I suspect that the area of the visual cortex
which processes the difference between the rod and cone signals was
itself damaged.

--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com

Viewers are bugs for famous brands.
-- unknown subtitler, Jackie Chan's _Thunderbolt_

Oliver Wong

2005-08-15, 4:59 pm

"Michael Wojcik" <mwojcik@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ddqdqb0b1l@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> In article <O6rKe.173554$9A2.118337@edtnps89>, "Oliver Wong"
> <owong@castortech.com> writes:
>
> It's my understanding that this theory has largely fallen out of
> favor, due to the lack of physiological evidence to support it.

I thought "3 kinds of receptors" (I didn't know the technical terms when
I made that first post) was the current most popular theory. From Wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision):

Perception of color is achieved in mammals through color receptors
containing pigments with different spectral sensitivities. In most Old World
primates there are three types of color receptors, known as cone cells, that
are maximally receptive to short, medium, and long wavelengths of light
(known as S-, M-, and L-cones and roughly corresponding to blue, green, and
yellow), allowing for trichromatic color vision.

Of course, Wikipedia may be wrong and/or out of date, but I had heard from
another source (I think it was around 3 or 4 years ago from a university
professor doing research in robot/AI vision) that this was the currently how
human vision is understood to work.

> Of
> course there are many ways to encode a color signal; three-channel
> RGB has precedents in some technologies, but there's no reason to
> believe that's how the human eye works.

I don't know the timelines, but if human vision was "understood" before
cathode ray tubes were develop, one could imagine how CRTs might have been
designed to use RGB specifically to establish a compatible interface with
the human eye.

But if CRTs were develop before human vision was understood, then I
don't know. =)

- Oliver

Richard

2005-08-15, 4:59 pm

> but if human vision was "understood" before cathode ray tubes were develop,

Why does this need to be CRTs ? RGB may be based on observations with
'Magic Lantens' or even coloured glass windows.

Michael Wojcik

2005-08-17, 4:59 pm

In article <qF5Me.179168$9A2.83625@edtnps89>, "Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> writes:
> "Michael Wojcik" <mwojcik@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:ddqdqb0b1l@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> I thought "3 kinds of receptors" (I didn't know the technical terms when
> I made that first post) was the current most popular theory.

Hmm. Maybe the article I read wasn't as mainstream as I thought.
I'll have to track it down and take another look.

--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com

"Well, we're not getting a girl," said Marilla, as if poisoning wells were
a purely feminine accomplishment and not to be dreaded in the case of a boy.
-- L. M. Montgomery, _Anne of Green Gables_

Alistair

2005-08-25, 6:55 pm

Sorry about leaving this thread for so long.

My difficulty with colours means that I see neither green or red as
being distinct and identifiably green or red unless I have the other
colour close by as well. I definitely don't see in greys or black and
white just in not very distinguishable colours (when there is a
contrasting colour then the problem resolves itself).

I do use the test for traffick lights (is the light at the top or the
bottom of the lamp) to help at a distance. Unfortunately, in France
this doesn't work as they use such weak lights that I can not see them
until about five feet away. I also have a tendency for slowing for tow
trucks in the mistaken belief that the police are up ahead/behind me.

Alistair

2005-08-25, 6:55 pm

As an aside, I remember reading a book (Biggles or Gimlet) in which a
colour blind Japanese sniper was allowed, by the hero, to run through
the jungle using a red handkerchief instead of a white surrender flag.
With the result that he was shot by his own side. Dashed unsporting.

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-08-25, 6:55 pm

In article <1124988242.853921.324230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>As an aside, I remember reading a book (Biggles or Gimlet) in which a
>colour blind Japanese sniper was allowed, by the hero, to run through
>the jungle using a red handkerchief instead of a white surrender flag.
>With the result that he was shot by his own side. Dashed unsporting.

His run might have been a dash, certainly... but 'unsporting'? Wasn't
there an Auld Blighter who coined a phrase about what is fair in love and
war?

(Stratford-upon-Avon Rules of Engagement: First, all challenges must be
issued in iambic pentameter...)

DD

Howard Brazee

2005-08-25, 6:55 pm

On 25-Aug-2005, "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> I do use the test for traffick lights (is the light at the top or the
> bottom of the lamp) to help at a distance

In New Mexico, traffic lights are often horizontal.

Pete Dashwood

2005-08-25, 6:55 pm

Thanks very much for that insight, Alistair.

Pete.

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1124988042.723860.318560@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Sorry about leaving this thread for so long.
>
> My difficulty with colours means that I see neither green or red as
> being distinct and identifiably green or red unless I have the other
> colour close by as well. I definitely don't see in greys or black and
> white just in not very distinguishable colours (when there is a
> contrasting colour then the problem resolves itself).
>
> I do use the test for traffick lights (is the light at the top or the
> bottom of the lamp) to help at a distance. Unfortunately, in France
> this doesn't work as they use such weak lights that I can not see them
> until about five feet away. I also have a tendency for slowing for tow
> trucks in the mistaken belief that the police are up ahead/behind me.
>
>

Pete Dashwood

2005-08-25, 6:55 pm

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:dekt4s$883$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
>
> On 25-Aug-2005, "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> In New Mexico, traffic lights are often horizontal.
>
I'm stunned. Given that this isn't a joke, can you offer any suggestion as
to why that would be so?

Pete.

Arnold Trembley

2005-08-26, 3:55 am

Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
>
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:dekt4s$883$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
>
> I'm stunned. Given that this isn't a joke, can you offer any suggestion as
> to why that would be so?
>
> Pete.

The only place I have ever seen horizontal traffic signals was at the
intersection of Lingbergh boulevard and Missouri Bottom Road. It may
not have been a coincidence that this was at the west end of of the
main runways of Lambert Saint Louis International Airport (STL).
There was a viewing area on the northwest corner of this intersection
and planes on landing approach usually passed over at altitudes of
less than 500 feet.

You may remember that we colonials drive on the righthand side of the
road. If I remember correctly, the red light was leftmost, amber in
the middle, and green was on the right.

Sadly, or perhaps fortunately, the intersection no longer exists. A
couple of years ago Lingbergh was re-routed for an airport expansion,
and it now in a tunnel underneath the new runways being built.

On the other hand, I have never seen a traffic circle or roundabout,
so perhaps I should count my blessings.

I also have some red/green weakness. There are some test charts that
just look like a blob of randomly colored dots to me, with no number
in the center. But I have never noticed a problem distinguishing
between red lights and green lights. Sometimes I have been unsure of
flashing amber lights versus flashing red lights.

Of course I have had the experience of shopping with my GF/SO and
saying, "That's a pretty blue dress in the window", and she might say,
"You idiot, that's Periwinkle!" (or Aqua, or Turquoise). Whatever it
is, my perceptions are obviously not sufficiently discriminating.

With kindest regards,

--
http://arnold.trembley.home.att.net/

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-08-26, 7:55 am

In article <iyvPe.674979$cg1.49606@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Arnold Trembley <arnold.trembley@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

[snip]

>Of course I have had the experience of shopping with my GF/SO and
>saying, "That's a pretty blue dress in the window", and she might say,
>"You idiot, that's Periwinkle!" (or Aqua, or Turquoise). Whatever it
>is, my perceptions are obviously not sufficiently discriminating.

Not to worry, Mr Trembley... with diligence and practise one might, some
day, learn to differentiate between beige and taupe.

DD

Pete Dashwood

2005-08-26, 7:55 am

Thanks Arnold. Interesting.

This whole idea of "what do you see, and is it the same as what I see?" is
really fascinating and it is no surprise it has kept, not just medical
practitioners occupied for centuries, but also philosophers and scientists.

Maybe someday we'll be able to connect ourselves directly to each other
(like Spock's Vulcan mind probe :-)) and truly 'see' what others perceive.

Hey, imagine a 'human LAN' with people sharing each other's sensory organs
(lust like a LAN shares printers or hard drives) and being able to transfer
their thoughts instantly to anyone on the network...

I wonder... :-)

Pete.

"Arnold Trembley" <arnold.trembley@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:iyvPe.674979$cg1.49606@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> The only place I have ever seen horizontal traffic signals was at the
> intersection of Lingbergh boulevard and Missouri Bottom Road. It may not
> have been a coincidence that this was at the west end of of the main
> runways of Lambert Saint Louis International Airport (STL). There was a
> viewing area on the northwest corner of this intersection and planes on
> landing approach usually passed over at altitudes of less than 500 feet.
>
> You may remember that we colonials drive on the righthand side of the
> road. If I remember correctly, the red light was leftmost, amber in the
> middle, and green was on the right.
>
> Sadly, or perhaps fortunately, the intersection no longer exists. A
> couple of years ago Lingbergh was re-routed for an airport expansion, and
> it now in a tunnel underneath the new runways being built.
>
> On the other hand, I have never seen a traffic circle or roundabout, so
> perhaps I should count my blessings.
>
> I also have some red/green weakness. There are some test charts that just
> look like a blob of randomly colored dots to me, with no number in the
> center. But I have never noticed a problem distinguishing between red
> lights and green lights. Sometimes I have been unsure of flashing amber
> lights versus flashing red lights.
>
> Of course I have had the experience of shopping with my GF/SO and saying,
> "That's a pretty blue dress in the window", and she might say,
> "You idiot, that's Periwinkle!" (or Aqua, or Turquoise). Whatever it is,
> my perceptions are obviously not sufficiently discriminating.
>
> With kindest regards,
>
>
> --
> http://arnold.trembley.home.att.net/
>
>

Michael Wojcik

2005-08-26, 7:55 am

In article <3n6virF6henU1@individual.net>, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> writes:
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:dekt4s$883$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
> I'm stunned. Given that this isn't a joke, can you offer any suggestion as
> to why that would be so?

They're mostly horizontal in various other places, too, such as
Lincoln, Nebraska. (Yet Another reason to avoid Lincoln, Nebraska.)
And one color-blind acquaintance had the unpleasant experience of
driving through a small city somewhere in Mississippi that had
vertical traffic lights with red at the bottom.

Traffic lights aren't standardized in the US. They're left to the
whims of local traffic engineers and transportation bureaucrats.

--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com

Today's Carnivore bait: Distracted by the Anthrax song, I let my bin,
laden with goods, crash into a bush.

Michael Wojcik

2005-08-26, 7:55 am

In article <iyvPe.674979$cg1.49606@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Arnold Trembley <arnold.trembley@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> On the other hand, I have never seen a traffic circle or roundabout,
> so perhaps I should count my blessings.

They're really not that bad. Once the locals learn how to use them,
they usually offer somewhat better throughput and much lower latency
than light-controlled intersections, and less potential for confusion
than all-way stops.

A few have gone in around here (the East Lansing area) in the past
few years, and after some initial suspicion local drivers have found
they prefer them, and now the preferred routes take the circles and
avoid the lights.

I learned to drive in Massachusetts, which has some of the worst
traffic circles ("rotaries" in local parlance) in the nation: ones
with light controls at some entrances and a parking lot in the middle
(Salem, now replaced with light-controlled intersections); ones with
multiple conjoined circles (East Longmeadow); ones with lights and
obscured visibility and roads cutting through the center of the
circle (Revere). (Yes, I know about Swindon's Magic Roundabout,[1]
and I don't think it's in the running here. In fact, I think it's a
fairly good idea.)

All of those, while bad, were usable. In Salem's case (Washington
Square), I've been able to compare the traffic circle approach with
the light-controlled intersection approach, since they changed it.
The latter may be less confusing for out-of-town drivers (we towed
many a visitor's car from there back in the traffic circle days), but
it's not any better at getting traffic through, as far as I can tell.

1. http://www.swindonweb.com/life/lifemagi0.htm

--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com

Pocket #16: A Ventriloquist's "Helper" -- Recordings for Divers Occasions,
especially cries to put in the mouths of enemies -- "God Bless Captain
Vere!" "Les jeux sont faits!" &c. -- Joe Green

Howard Brazee

2005-08-26, 6:55 pm

On 25-Aug-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

> I'm stunned. Given that this isn't a joke, can you offer any suggestion as
> to why that would be so?

Not where I've seen it. I could see it in hurricane country, but (giving room
for an obvious joke), why in Roswell?

Howard Brazee

2005-08-26, 6:55 pm

On 26-Aug-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> Not to worry, Mr Trembley... with diligence and practise one might, some
> day, learn to differentiate between beige and taupe.

The other day, I mentioned to a female co-worker that guys often (and myself in
specific) don't know what color "taupe" is. The first thing she did was
mention how well I illustrated my statement - I did not pronounce the word
correctly.

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-08-26, 6:55 pm

In article <den6ef$i50$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 26-Aug-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>The other day, I mentioned to a female co-worker that guys often (and myself in
>specific) don't know what color "taupe" is. The first thing she did was
>mention how well I illustrated my statement - I did not pronounce the word
>correctly.

This brings to mind an interesting possibility... categorising not by
color-name but by light-wavelength, in the usual 400 - 700nm range.

DD

Donald Tees

2005-08-26, 6:55 pm

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 25-Aug-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Not where I've seen it. I could see it in hurricane country, but (giving room
> for an obvious joke), why in Roswell?

Obviously a joke that fell flat.

Donald

Alistair

2005-08-26, 6:55 pm

I do not expect childhood heroes to behave in such an underhand
fashion. I was not at that stage aware of being colourblind but I took
the action as being tantamount to murder.

We haven't used Iambic Pentameter since Bill Wagglestaffs' days.

Alistair

2005-08-26, 6:55 pm

Another part of the US that I won't be visiting.

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-08-26, 6:55 pm

In article <1125070229.530132.144090@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I do not expect childhood heroes to behave in such an underhand
>fashion.

Blessed is one who has few expectations; disappointments might be less
frequent. Feats of glory and honor might be accomplished by those who
have feets of clay.

>I was not at that stage aware of being colourblind but I took
>the action as being tantamount to murder.

Oh, come now... one murders, usually, people; didn't everyone in those
days accept it as fact that Enemies of a Differing Race just weren't human
beings?

>
>We haven't used Iambic Pentameter since Bill Wagglestaffs' days.

And look what's happened since... ahhhhhh, for the Oldene Dayse, when an
iamb could be pentametered such as *ten* iambs cannot, today!

DD

Howard Brazee

2005-08-26, 6:55 pm

On 26-Aug-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

> This whole idea of "what do you see, and is it the same as what I see?" is
> really fascinating and it is no surprise it has kept, not just medical
> practitioners occupied for centuries, but also philosophers and scientists.

As a kid I was amused by that concept. But as an adult I realized that it only
mattered if it mattered. That is if to someone pink wasn't a whitish red.
Might as well say that there's no guarantee that we both see the same thing when
we look at a building or when we feel a heavy weight or when we smell sulfur.

Howard Brazee

2005-08-26, 6:55 pm

On 26-Aug-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

> This brings to mind an interesting possibility... categorising not by
> color-name but by light-wavelength, in the usual 400 - 700nm range.

That works for "pure" colors. Where is brown in the rainbow?

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-08-26, 6:55 pm

In article <denfek$mvp$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 26-Aug-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>That works for "pure" colors. Where is brown in the rainbow?

At the feet of it, where it hits the mud.

DD

Howard Brazee

2005-08-26, 6:55 pm

On 26-Aug-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>
> At the feet of it, where it hits the mud.

That Leprechaun lied to me!

Michael Wojcik

2005-08-26, 6:55 pm

In article <den7fs$lt7$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com writes:
> In article <den6ef$i50$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> This brings to mind an interesting possibility... categorising not by
> color-name but by light-wavelength, in the usual 400 - 700nm range.

That's not sufficient information. Color is composed of three
attributes (in the standard models): hue, saturation, and
reflectivity. Hue describes the dominant wavelength of reflected
(or transmitted) light; saturation the "purity" of that hue (ie
the signal/noise ratio of the color, or what fraction of the total
reflected light is actually of that frequency); and reflectivity
(or transmissivity, or emissivity, depending on where the light is
coming from) is how much of the incident light is reflected (or
transmitted or emitted).

All color models have to accomodate this information in some fashion.
Some, like HLS (hue/lightness/saturation) capture it directly, with
three real-valued numbers between 0 and 1. Others, like RGB or CMYK
(which is the complement of RGB, and is typically used for reflected
colors where RGB is generally used for transmitted ones), do so
indirectly; the hue, saturation, and reflectivity are functions of
the color components. (If all of R, G, and B are 0, then
reflectivity is 0; if they're all 1, then saturation is 0; and so
forth.) Still others, like Pantone, basically just label a whole
bunch of reference colors; the reference colors themselves embody
the hue/saturation/reflectivity information.

One common-sense description of the three: if you have a paint that's
has only one pigment which reflects a single wavelength, then that's
your hue, and saturation and reflectivity are both 1 (maximum). Add
white paint to it and you reduce saturation; add black paint and you
reduce reflectivity.

Taupe is defined by one online dictionary I checked as "an orange of
low and brightness and saturation", for example. Orange is the hue
(that is, the hue falls somewhere in the part of the spectrum that's
traditionally called "orange" by people who speak English and are
interested in defining such things), the "low brightness" means it's
not particularly light, and the "low saturation" means it's more of
a pastel or even grey color.

--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com

The Utahraptor's been having a bad time here, and I'm to credit! I
wonder how long he'll stay? (I can't wait till he finds out I replaced
his toothpaste with A COMPETING BRAND OF TOOTHPASTE!) -- Ryan North

Michael Wojcik

2005-08-26, 6:55 pm

In article <1125070471.094290.166980@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Another part of the US that I won't be visiting.

What is? You didn't quote any antecedent.

--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-08-26, 6:55 pm

In article <denjsm$pe8$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 26-Aug-2005, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>That Leprechaun lied to me!

He probably thought you were after his Lucky Charms.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-08-26, 6:55 pm

In article <denlhu01oqe@news2.newsguy.com>,
Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>In article <den7fs$lt7$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com writes:
>
>That's not sufficient information.

By ignorance my suggestion might be... colored.

DD

Alistair

2005-08-26, 6:55 pm

It seems that my missive has been separated from the item to which it
referred. I think it might have referred to the Mississippi but then
most of the US is of no interest for me (I do like the idea of visiting
the French Quarter of New Orleans, though).

Alistair

2005-08-26, 6:55 pm

I thought it was five iambs not ten to a Penatemeter, unless bloody
Europe has gone and decimalised Iambic Pentameter too!

Alistair

2005-08-26, 6:55 pm

Greyness does not enter into it. I see greens and reds but just not so
emphatically.

jce

2005-08-27, 3:55 am

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:deo0b2$6r7$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <denjsm$pe8$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
> Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> He probably thought you were after his Lucky Charms.
>
> DD

Well they're Magically Delicious.

JCE

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-08-27, 3:55 am

In article <1PTPe.86300$dJ5.29213@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:deo0b2$6r7$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
>Well they're Magically Delicious.

They might be... but there's only one Breakfast of Champions.

(no, not the cereal... an unfiltered Camel cigarette and a cup of black
coffee with a healthy jolt o' Scotch in it... ahhhhhh, for the Oldene
Dayse!)

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-08-27, 3:55 am

In article <1125093133.044861.206160@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Alistair <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I thought it was five iambs not ten to a Penatemeter, unless bloody
>Europe has gone and decimalised Iambic Pentameter too!

That might be why *an* iamb could be pentametered such as *ten* cannot,
today... or maybe it was something in the water.

DD

Michael Wojcik

2005-08-28, 6:55 pm

In article <1125092970.092558.104830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> writes:
> It seems that my missive has been separated from the item to which it
> referred.

Usenet is a nondeterministic medium. Some readers may see your
article before the one you respond to; some may never see the one you
respond to. Some may see yours after their server has already
expired the one you're responding to, so even if they have read it,
they'll no longer have it for reference.

Also, not everyone uses threading readers. (I don't, because I don't
think the advantages of a threaded view are worth the additional
overhead of downloading the References headers for all the messages
and sorting them before presenting the message list for a group, and
because I don't particularly care for the visual presentation of
threads in any of the readers I've used.)

In short, if you want all of your readers to know what you're
referring to, you need to quote the relevant part of the original
message. I see you're using Google Groups, which unfortunately has
many misfeatures and a brain-dead interface. (Google's self-
promotion notwithstanding, they have some really poor software
development practices, and their "motto" is a load of marketing
hooey.) Several people like to cite Keith Thompson's advice for
Google users, originally posted to comp.lang.c:

If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers.

--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com

Not the author (with K.Ravichandran and T.Rick Fletcher) of "Mode specific
chemistry of HS + N{_2}O(n,1,0) using stimulated Raman excitation".

Michael Wojcik

2005-08-29, 6:55 pm

In article <dep7hf$mma$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com writes:
> They might be... but there's only one Breakfast of Champions.
>
> (no, not the cereal... an unfiltered Camel cigarette and a cup of black
> coffee with a healthy jolt o' Scotch in it... ahhhhhh, for the Oldene
> Dayse!)

"Talking, drinking, and smoking go better together than any three
other pleasant things on this earth." -- Arthur Ransome, _Bohemia
in London_, 1907.

--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-08-29, 6:55 pm

In article <dev7jk01uql@news2.newsguy.com>,
Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>In article <dep7hf$mma$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com writes:
>
>"Talking, drinking, and smoking go better together than any three
>other pleasant things on this earth." -- Arthur Ransome, _Bohemia
>in London_, 1907.

Hmmmmm... obviously he didn't encounter the time when I was with those two
college-lasses who were interested in some... experiments in human
engineering, as it were...

.... oh... he said '*three* pleasant things', the two lasses plus me
wouldn't total that... as you were, gentlemen and others...

DD

Michael Wojcik

2005-08-30, 6:55 pm

In article <devan8$sf2$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com writes:
> In article <dev7jk01uql@news2.newsguy.com>,
> Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> Hmmmmm... obviously he didn't encounter the time when I was with those two
> college-lasses who were interested in some... experiments in human
> engineering, as it were...

At the time, poor Arthur's romantic adventures had not turned out
well, on the whole. Indeed, it wasn't until he slipped into post-
revolution Russia and smuggled out Evgenia Petrovna, Trotsky's
personal secretary, that he found lasting happiness in female
companionship. They didn't become acquainted until some ten years
after he wrote _Bohemia_. But then as he notes in the final
chapter of that book, Bohemia is but a stage in a man's life, and
perhaps talking, drinking, and smoking may in later days sometimes
take a back seat.

--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com

"Well, we're not getting a girl," said Marilla, as if poisoning wells were
a purely feminine accomplishment and not to be dreaded in the case of a boy.
-- L. M. Montgomery, _Anne of Green Gables_

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-08-31, 7:55 am

In article <df27iv0669@news3.newsguy.com>,
Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>In article <devan8$sf2$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com writes:
>
>At the time, poor Arthur's romantic adventures had not turned out
>well, on the whole. Indeed, it wasn't until he slipped into post-
>revolution Russia and smuggled out Evgenia Petrovna, Trotsky's
>personal secretary, that he found lasting happiness in female
>companionship. They didn't become acquainted until some ten years
>after he wrote _Bohemia_. But then as he notes in the final
>chapter of that book, Bohemia is but a stage in a man's life, and
>perhaps talking, drinking, and smoking may in later days sometimes
>take a back seat.

There's always hope for change, aye... one can get tired even of
butter-cookies.

DD

Alistair

2005-09-09, 6:55 pm

Michael Wojcik wrote:
> In article <1125092970.092558.104830@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
> the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
> "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
> "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers.
>
> --
> Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com
>
> Not the author (with K.Ravichandran and T.Rick Fletcher) of "Mode specific
> chemistry of HS + N{_2}O(n,1,0) using stimulated Raman excitation".

Google is definitely a pain. I used to use a package from Demon which
was brilliant but in upgrading to broadband that got junked. Hence the
infrequent use of Google.

Sponsored Links