Let me explain a little bit better. Not to be argumentative...just an explanation of what the thoughts are.
First off, I did not say "Google's strategy was cooler". I said they were "putting it into the 'cool' technologies..." with cool being in quotes. Not because I thought it was cool, but what the mainstream thinks is cool. "Wow, Google is putting money into this 'new' or 'cool' technology". Not my thoughts...just the general public's.
Your points about set top boxes are valid to a sense. It depends who you talk to. Some will say Microsoft is trying to dominate everything in the computing world. Others will say they are innovating. In terms of innovating...where has MS really innovated? Windows? Office? IE? Once MS got a lock on the market, improvements pretty much came to a standstill.
You're right in the sense that Google didn't invent all those. But wait, I didn't say they did. I also didn't say Google's strategy was better, altruistic, and cooler. My point was that the strategies of the two companies was different. Microsoft is concerned about protecting their dominance in Windows and Office. Google is not. Microsoft sees threats and they go for the jugular to take out these threats. Some may say that's wrong, others may say that's good business practice. Google didn't invent Gmail but it made webmail a hell of a lot more fun to use. Google is dumping loads of money into (as far as we know) this web TV thing and the WiFi thing. Did they invent either? No. But perhaps having the Google name will bring these to more public prominance. Just like the Apple iPod...put the word "iPod" on something and it sells like hotcakes. Granted, putting "Microsoft" on something and many will cry foul.
The two strategies ARE different. Microsoft's main concern seems to be to protect its market dominance and take a more conservative approach to where it spends its money. Google seems to be more concerned with developing new ways to do things (everything they're doing with AJAX, Google Maps, WiFi, etc) and pushing the envelope a bit and bringing it mainstream. Pushing the envelope doesn't always mean inventing new things...but sometimes can simply involve extending the capabilities of a current idea.
An Interesting MSoft/Google Comparison
on
GoogleTV Coming Soon?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Here's an interesting thought. Both Microsoft and Google have made loads of money doing their thing. However, each company has decided to go about their lives in completely different ways as they amass their fortures.
Microsoft got loaded after they achieved their market dominance. What did they do with their money? They put some into R&D. They bought some companies out.
Google came along and made their loads of money too. And they too have bought a few companies. But here's where the differences are. Microsoft simply wanted to protect their monopoly. They bought companies they they saw as threats or companies that they thought would help them maintain their monopoly. Google on the other hand seems to have been exploring with their money, putting it into the "cool" technologies that are still just outside the threshold of everyday consumers. It's as if Google is trying to pull it into the mainstream. It's these fringe technologies that Google is going after and preparing to assert their mark.
For years and years, Mac users have been saying "Macs are more secure" and Windows users have been saying "that's because Windows owns the market so nobody writes viruses for Macs". Maybe that's the case, maybe it isn't. The quote "Some day, somebody will say 'I am going to create a headline and write a virus for Mac" has been heard for years too. Why hasn't there been that person who wants to be in headlines yet? He's had years to do it. He could be a Windows user who gets so tired of hearing "Macs are more secure" and he wants to say "F-you Apple!" and prove them wrong. Yet he hasn't. Maybe they're just a malicious person (like the other virus authors). Maybe they want fame. Yet...it hasn't been done yet. Why? Nobody wants the fame? Or maybe...just maybe...it really is a more secure platform.
I simply find it hard to believe that "Apple only has 3% of the market" is the reason there hasn't been a nasty Mac virus yet. I'm sure there will be one some day, but until then, people will have to come to terms that perhaps it is a more secure platform. It still baffles me though that there hasn't been that person who wants that "claim to fame" of writing the first nasty Mac virus. What gives?
Holyfreakinshit...what a load of crap. So if I buy my Dasani water at the store and they print "for single use only" on those too, will I be nailed for patent infringement when I drink my water and fill it up again at the water fountain? This is really getting out of hand.
Oh this is like Geek Heaven. Free stuff! Will I ever use it? Who knows. Do I ever use all that free swag I get at trade shows? Not really. I do have my Snap.com slinky proudly displayed on the mantle however. I will admit I was too lazy to try to win a t-shirt. It's not "free" if I have to work for it.
No worries...it gave me a chance to ramble on and enlighten some people that may not have known what I was talking about initially (since I didn't go into detail) or if they didn't get your sarcasm. In the end, everybody wins!
I guess I'm not an economics major. I thought the VCs got pissy because they dumped a lot of money into these companies (that had no real viable balance sheets) that had such nice promises to make the world a better place went belly up (surprise surprise) and couldn't pay back the VCs...thus the VCs lost turdloads of money.
""Google is doing more damage to innovation in the Valley right now than Microsoft ever did," said Reid Hoffman..."
I hardly think there's any damage to innovation going on here. Just look at the products that have come out of Google's furnace. Google Maps alone was pretty damn spiffy. Then they opened up their APIs for that and I've seen A LOT of cool hybrid map-type things coming out from people and organizations that are NOT Google. Not only that, but the bar has been raised and people are forced to be more creative and more innovative rather than resting on their laurels and hoping to make money simply from forging crafty business deals. Nah...I'd say we've seen more innovation in the past few years BECAUSE of Google...
My girlfriend (I know...a Slashdot reader with a gf. What's the world coming to?) is a high school math teacher who just started teaching in a new district in CA. She likes to call the district technology dude a "technology nazi" because evidently his stance is "you will not get any technology in your classrooms until you can prove that the kids need it". This has already caused me to go on raving debates left and right...
One coworker says his girlfriend's father (I think that's how it went) did a study on kids and multi-media and showed that kids actually did BETTER using old-school methods of using paper and such rather than watching multi-media programs. I rebutted that I wasn't talking about multi-media per se but technology in general. Used wisely, technology (and "technology" is a VERY broad term) is just another tool to help kids (or anyone for that matter) learn. Especially these days with the MTV generation, attention spans shortened, multi-tasking quite prevalent, etc...a computer can be much more engaging than other tasks not using technology.
I find it a bit concerning that administrations can take this stance. How do they expect to prepare our kids for the outside world when they aren't exposed to "outside world" tools? If that particular teacher doesn't use technology effectively, it'll show in their student's grades. If they do, it'll be reflected. But to make such a blanket statement that technology is useless to kids is pretty damn scary if you ask me.
And now the RIAA is going after their next target. Instead of changing their own business methods and adapting to the times, they'd rather stick with their stone-age methodology and try to gouge the hell out of everyone (artists, music fans, and everyone between). First, they tried P2P. Now they'll probably have lists of people who buy blank CDs from Best Buy and start suing them (I wish I was being sarcastic...). Next, they'll probably figure out that computers are doing this and they'll just do a carpet bombing run and sue every registered computer owner. Seems like it would be much easier and cheaper to just change their ways...
I actually read the article (talk about good reading in bed...) and actually found it a bit interesting and useful. Not only did the have a section for each application of OSS, but there was a list at the end. That way we didn't have to go through the whole article and find the applications again. Hey, time is precious. I ended up tearing out that last page and some day I'll get down to checking them all out.
I don't know if it's the coffee in me buzzing me up beyond belief or if this has worlds of potential. Slashdot is great for listening to people comment about things from all around the world. The social networking sites (LinkedIn, MySpace, etc) are good for meeting people both personally and professionally. And now you have this, which could be many things to many people. Some could use it as their ranting platform. Others use it to discover talent (talent in writing, talent in gathering interesting video and compling it, talent in editing, etc). I can't wait to get home and download it (you Mac users out there please hold off and don't slashdot the page so I can get it).
All very good points. It is much easier to get all that info if it's housed in one central database and that's what scares me. That's why I don't want ALL my info in one card stored on ONE database.
I'm not really sure I get your car/murder example though. Anyone can steal a car as it is. The authorities would have to prove that I was driving it when someone killed someone else. Also, like I stated in my original post, if they (read: government agencies) are going to collect all this info and have it be easier to one-stop-shop for my identity, THEY better be responsible for proving without a doubt that it's me that committed the crime or whatever other mess that was created when someone stole my identity from their database. I do realize however that this is a fanciful dream and that the responsibility to clear one's name ultimately falls on us, the other victim in the mess.
People will be clamoring over the fact "the Man is invading my privacy!" and then beg for more security and question how "we let so many terrorists get by". For security, you need security provisions. If you don't want guns at a concert, you're going to have to be searched. It's just how it is.
The fun arises when you think about the different levels of security, the personal information gathered, how the information is used, where it is kept, etc. I have no problem having my auto information on an RFID tag somewhere on the car. Hell, my credit cards have more personal information than these little tags. In the idea of more security, I'd be fine with having my passport contain an RFID tag. Driver's licenses already hold so much info, why not a passport that lets people into the country? I'm not sure I want ALL my info on these things though. And who I want to hold the info. Identity theft could get REAL hairy depending on what info is gathered. Track my car, I don't care. Let my license have my vital info (age, sex, height, weight...maybe even blood type and other medical things for an emergency situation) if you need but be damn sure that you keep that info safe and if not, YOU are responsible for fixing the mess, not ME.
That's what I did. Copy all the text in Word, paste it in a text editor (which kills all the formatting assuming you're not using RTF), copy that and paste it in your HTML editor (usually the same editor to code your HTML) or you can paste into Dreamweaver or similar and go that route. Quick and easy.
I'm guessing you are busy and didn't have time to digest what I said. Nowhere was it said that "having different standards is innovating". What was said was that companies try to find better ways to do things. Maybe they don't conform to the current standards. According to your logic, we should have stuck with the first internal combustion engine ever developed. What is this "fuel injector" thing? I can't stick that on my small block 350. Where will I put the carburator? Or perhaps we never should have developed the jet engine. That CERTAINLY didn't fit the current set of standards used in flying. AM radio rocks. Who needs FM? Wait...why deliver cable TV to send television signals if you can just get them through an antenna? My point being, innovations are good. They may shake up the industry and force people to think of new ways to do things. Just because "it's been done like this for the past 50 years" doesn't mean it's always the best way.
I agree with you that business is about making money. Innovation can lead to that goal even faster. The whole mess of business ethics, monopolistic practices, deals, etc is topic for another time.
"Does the world really need another player when the future is still so unclear?"
Of course we do! Did we only need one car manufacturer when the automobile was introduced? Or maybe we should have just stuck with one operating system (hmmm...Microsoft perhaps) with no competition. I mean, c'mon...the future of computing was pretty unclear. Did we need new storage devices for computers (Bernouli drives, Syquest, Zip, Jazz, CDs, tape, DVD...) The future seems pretty unclear there too.
The point is, to sit there and NOT innovate is just plain dumb. If there are already players in the market, that means there is obviously a need. Let's find the best way to fill that need. Eventually the strong will survive and we'll have the best (in theory at least).
...Doesn't mean that Amazon can't succeed. Netflix did good and Blockbuster was scared so they jumped in. As a few readers pointed out however, they like their instant gratification and to be able to walk into the store and get what they want when they want it. Consider Blockbuster a bricks and mortar store that happens to have an online component.
The real point here however is that just because Netflix and Blockbuster online exist doesn't mean Amazon can't come along and emerge as the winner. There were how many mp3 player manufacturers back in '01 with Rio (if my memory is working correctly this morning) being the big player along with all the others. Along comes Apple and they crushed the competition. If Amazon does it right, and I'm sure they've done their homework, they could easily rise to the top.
Great...now you've got me racking my brain to try and remember what I've said/heard while playing soccer. Have we said "off-sides"? Aye...I won't be getting much work done today.
You do bring up a good point however. In a joking matter, you may hear "I likes the womens at Club BlahBlah". I can't think of many other specific examples offhand (my brain is still in work-mode...perhaps because I'm at work) but I'd like to see a list of other unnecessary pluralizations.
The title seemed a bit misleading to me. The article didn't really seem to say "we can read thoughts", but more "we can tell what image you are looking at". Hasn't this already been done?
Someone pointed out how it was similar to a polygraph. That was one examply that came to mind. As far as the images, I can see how one image would create one specific set of physiological responses while a different image would do the same. The fact they used very similar images (stripes...just different color stripes) mostly put that question to rest for me.
It did however raise a new question for me. Blue and red are at almost opposite ends of the color spectrum, having different wavelengths. Given the composition of the eye (rods and cones on the most rudimentary level) and how it works in conjunction with the brain, wouldn't a different wavelength trigger different mechanisms in the eye, thus sending different signals?
I'd like to see another test, but with more than just two images to choose from. I'd also like to see the same colors present in all the pictures. Anyway...can anyone answer some of my questions?
Slashdot Mirror
Let me explain a little bit better. Not to be argumentative...just an explanation of what the thoughts are.
First off, I did not say "Google's strategy was cooler". I said they were "putting it into the 'cool' technologies..." with cool being in quotes. Not because I thought it was cool, but what the mainstream thinks is cool. "Wow, Google is putting money into this 'new' or 'cool' technology". Not my thoughts...just the general public's.
Your points about set top boxes are valid to a sense. It depends who you talk to. Some will say Microsoft is trying to dominate everything in the computing world. Others will say they are innovating. In terms of innovating...where has MS really innovated? Windows? Office? IE? Once MS got a lock on the market, improvements pretty much came to a standstill.
You're right in the sense that Google didn't invent all those. But wait, I didn't say they did. I also didn't say Google's strategy was better, altruistic, and cooler. My point was that the strategies of the two companies was different. Microsoft is concerned about protecting their dominance in Windows and Office. Google is not. Microsoft sees threats and they go for the jugular to take out these threats. Some may say that's wrong, others may say that's good business practice. Google didn't invent Gmail but it made webmail a hell of a lot more fun to use. Google is dumping loads of money into (as far as we know) this web TV thing and the WiFi thing. Did they invent either? No. But perhaps having the Google name will bring these to more public prominance. Just like the Apple iPod...put the word "iPod" on something and it sells like hotcakes. Granted, putting "Microsoft" on something and many will cry foul.
The two strategies ARE different. Microsoft's main concern seems to be to protect its market dominance and take a more conservative approach to where it spends its money. Google seems to be more concerned with developing new ways to do things (everything they're doing with AJAX, Google Maps, WiFi, etc) and pushing the envelope a bit and bringing it mainstream. Pushing the envelope doesn't always mean inventing new things...but sometimes can simply involve extending the capabilities of a current idea.
Here's an interesting thought. Both Microsoft and Google have made loads of money doing their thing. However, each company has decided to go about their lives in completely different ways as they amass their fortures.
Microsoft got loaded after they achieved their market dominance. What did they do with their money? They put some into R&D. They bought some companies out.
Google came along and made their loads of money too. And they too have bought a few companies. But here's where the differences are. Microsoft simply wanted to protect their monopoly. They bought companies they they saw as threats or companies that they thought would help them maintain their monopoly. Google on the other hand seems to have been exploring with their money, putting it into the "cool" technologies that are still just outside the threshold of everyday consumers. It's as if Google is trying to pull it into the mainstream. It's these fringe technologies that Google is going after and preparing to assert their mark.
Thoughts? Comments?
For years and years, Mac users have been saying "Macs are more secure" and Windows users have been saying "that's because Windows owns the market so nobody writes viruses for Macs". Maybe that's the case, maybe it isn't. The quote "Some day, somebody will say 'I am going to create a headline and write a virus for Mac" has been heard for years too. Why hasn't there been that person who wants to be in headlines yet? He's had years to do it. He could be a Windows user who gets so tired of hearing "Macs are more secure" and he wants to say "F-you Apple!" and prove them wrong. Yet he hasn't. Maybe they're just a malicious person (like the other virus authors). Maybe they want fame. Yet...it hasn't been done yet. Why? Nobody wants the fame? Or maybe...just maybe...it really is a more secure platform.
I simply find it hard to believe that "Apple only has 3% of the market" is the reason there hasn't been a nasty Mac virus yet. I'm sure there will be one some day, but until then, people will have to come to terms that perhaps it is a more secure platform. It still baffles me though that there hasn't been that person who wants that "claim to fame" of writing the first nasty Mac virus. What gives?
Holyfreakinshit...what a load of crap. So if I buy my Dasani water at the store and they print "for single use only" on those too, will I be nailed for patent infringement when I drink my water and fill it up again at the water fountain? This is really getting out of hand.
Well I admit it's a fairly well balanced article, it is glaringly pro-microsoft.
.asp suffix...
What gave it away? The fact the site is named "Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows"?
I actually had my questions about the unbiasedness of the site while I waited for the page to load and noticed the
Oh this is like Geek Heaven. Free stuff! Will I ever use it? Who knows. Do I ever use all that free swag I get at trade shows? Not really. I do have my Snap.com slinky proudly displayed on the mantle however. I will admit I was too lazy to try to win a t-shirt. It's not "free" if I have to work for it.
No worries...it gave me a chance to ramble on and enlighten some people that may not have known what I was talking about initially (since I didn't go into detail) or if they didn't get your sarcasm. In the end, everybody wins!
I guess I'm not an economics major. I thought the VCs got pissy because they dumped a lot of money into these companies (that had no real viable balance sheets) that had such nice promises to make the world a better place went belly up (surprise surprise) and couldn't pay back the VCs...thus the VCs lost turdloads of money.
"Google is also making it more difficult for some start-ups to raise funds."
Gee...and I thought the dotcom bust had something to do with VCs a bit wary of throwing money out to new startups.
""Google is doing more damage to innovation in the Valley right now than Microsoft ever did," said Reid Hoffman..."
I hardly think there's any damage to innovation going on here. Just look at the products that have come out of Google's furnace. Google Maps alone was pretty damn spiffy. Then they opened up their APIs for that and I've seen A LOT of cool hybrid map-type things coming out from people and organizations that are NOT Google. Not only that, but the bar has been raised and people are forced to be more creative and more innovative rather than resting on their laurels and hoping to make money simply from forging crafty business deals. Nah...I'd say we've seen more innovation in the past few years BECAUSE of Google...
My girlfriend (I know...a Slashdot reader with a gf. What's the world coming to?) is a high school math teacher who just started teaching in a new district in CA. She likes to call the district technology dude a "technology nazi" because evidently his stance is "you will not get any technology in your classrooms until you can prove that the kids need it". This has already caused me to go on raving debates left and right...
One coworker says his girlfriend's father (I think that's how it went) did a study on kids and multi-media and showed that kids actually did BETTER using old-school methods of using paper and such rather than watching multi-media programs. I rebutted that I wasn't talking about multi-media per se but technology in general. Used wisely, technology (and "technology" is a VERY broad term) is just another tool to help kids (or anyone for that matter) learn. Especially these days with the MTV generation, attention spans shortened, multi-tasking quite prevalent, etc...a computer can be much more engaging than other tasks not using technology.
I find it a bit concerning that administrations can take this stance. How do they expect to prepare our kids for the outside world when they aren't exposed to "outside world" tools? If that particular teacher doesn't use technology effectively, it'll show in their student's grades. If they do, it'll be reflected. But to make such a blanket statement that technology is useless to kids is pretty damn scary if you ask me.
And now the RIAA is going after their next target. Instead of changing their own business methods and adapting to the times, they'd rather stick with their stone-age methodology and try to gouge the hell out of everyone (artists, music fans, and everyone between). First, they tried P2P. Now they'll probably have lists of people who buy blank CDs from Best Buy and start suing them (I wish I was being sarcastic...). Next, they'll probably figure out that computers are doing this and they'll just do a carpet bombing run and sue every registered computer owner. Seems like it would be much easier and cheaper to just change their ways...
I actually read the article (talk about good reading in bed...) and actually found it a bit interesting and useful. Not only did the have a section for each application of OSS, but there was a list at the end. That way we didn't have to go through the whole article and find the applications again. Hey, time is precious. I ended up tearing out that last page and some day I'll get down to checking them all out.
I'm good. You can proceed now. ;) Thanks for waiting.
Oh sweet mother...
I don't know if it's the coffee in me buzzing me up beyond belief or if this has worlds of potential. Slashdot is great for listening to people comment about things from all around the world. The social networking sites (LinkedIn, MySpace, etc) are good for meeting people both personally and professionally. And now you have this, which could be many things to many people. Some could use it as their ranting platform. Others use it to discover talent (talent in writing, talent in gathering interesting video and compling it, talent in editing, etc). I can't wait to get home and download it (you Mac users out there please hold off and don't slashdot the page so I can get it).
All very good points. It is much easier to get all that info if it's housed in one central database and that's what scares me. That's why I don't want ALL my info in one card stored on ONE database.
I'm not really sure I get your car/murder example though. Anyone can steal a car as it is. The authorities would have to prove that I was driving it when someone killed someone else. Also, like I stated in my original post, if they (read: government agencies) are going to collect all this info and have it be easier to one-stop-shop for my identity, THEY better be responsible for proving without a doubt that it's me that committed the crime or whatever other mess that was created when someone stole my identity from their database. I do realize however that this is a fanciful dream and that the responsibility to clear one's name ultimately falls on us, the other victim in the mess.
People will be clamoring over the fact "the Man is invading my privacy!" and then beg for more security and question how "we let so many terrorists get by". For security, you need security provisions. If you don't want guns at a concert, you're going to have to be searched. It's just how it is.
The fun arises when you think about the different levels of security, the personal information gathered, how the information is used, where it is kept, etc. I have no problem having my auto information on an RFID tag somewhere on the car. Hell, my credit cards have more personal information than these little tags. In the idea of more security, I'd be fine with having my passport contain an RFID tag. Driver's licenses already hold so much info, why not a passport that lets people into the country? I'm not sure I want ALL my info on these things though. And who I want to hold the info. Identity theft could get REAL hairy depending on what info is gathered. Track my car, I don't care. Let my license have my vital info (age, sex, height, weight...maybe even blood type and other medical things for an emergency situation) if you need but be damn sure that you keep that info safe and if not, YOU are responsible for fixing the mess, not ME.
That's what I did. Copy all the text in Word, paste it in a text editor (which kills all the formatting assuming you're not using RTF), copy that and paste it in your HTML editor (usually the same editor to code your HTML) or you can paste into Dreamweaver or similar and go that route. Quick and easy.
I'm guessing you are busy and didn't have time to digest what I said. Nowhere was it said that "having different standards is innovating". What was said was that companies try to find better ways to do things. Maybe they don't conform to the current standards. According to your logic, we should have stuck with the first internal combustion engine ever developed. What is this "fuel injector" thing? I can't stick that on my small block 350. Where will I put the carburator? Or perhaps we never should have developed the jet engine. That CERTAINLY didn't fit the current set of standards used in flying. AM radio rocks. Who needs FM? Wait...why deliver cable TV to send television signals if you can just get them through an antenna? My point being, innovations are good. They may shake up the industry and force people to think of new ways to do things. Just because "it's been done like this for the past 50 years" doesn't mean it's always the best way.
I agree with you that business is about making money. Innovation can lead to that goal even faster. The whole mess of business ethics, monopolistic practices, deals, etc is topic for another time.
"Does the world really need another player when the future is still so unclear?"
Of course we do! Did we only need one car manufacturer when the automobile was introduced? Or maybe we should have just stuck with one operating system (hmmm...Microsoft perhaps) with no competition. I mean, c'mon...the future of computing was pretty unclear. Did we need new storage devices for computers (Bernouli drives, Syquest, Zip, Jazz, CDs, tape, DVD...) The future seems pretty unclear there too.
The point is, to sit there and NOT innovate is just plain dumb. If there are already players in the market, that means there is obviously a need. Let's find the best way to fill that need. Eventually the strong will survive and we'll have the best (in theory at least).
...Doesn't mean that Amazon can't succeed. Netflix did good and Blockbuster was scared so they jumped in. As a few readers pointed out however, they like their instant gratification and to be able to walk into the store and get what they want when they want it. Consider Blockbuster a bricks and mortar store that happens to have an online component.
The real point here however is that just because Netflix and Blockbuster online exist doesn't mean Amazon can't come along and emerge as the winner. There were how many mp3 player manufacturers back in '01 with Rio (if my memory is working correctly this morning) being the big player along with all the others. Along comes Apple and they crushed the competition. If Amazon does it right, and I'm sure they've done their homework, they could easily rise to the top.
"...or being off-sides in football (soccer)."
Great...now you've got me racking my brain to try and remember what I've said/heard while playing soccer. Have we said "off-sides"? Aye...I won't be getting much work done today.
You do bring up a good point however. In a joking matter, you may hear "I likes the womens at Club BlahBlah". I can't think of many other specific examples offhand (my brain is still in work-mode...perhaps because I'm at work) but I'd like to see a list of other unnecessary pluralizations.
The title seemed a bit misleading to me. The article didn't really seem to say "we can read thoughts", but more "we can tell what image you are looking at". Hasn't this already been done?
Someone pointed out how it was similar to a polygraph. That was one examply that came to mind. As far as the images, I can see how one image would create one specific set of physiological responses while a different image would do the same. The fact they used very similar images (stripes...just different color stripes) mostly put that question to rest for me.
It did however raise a new question for me. Blue and red are at almost opposite ends of the color spectrum, having different wavelengths. Given the composition of the eye (rods and cones on the most rudimentary level) and how it works in conjunction with the brain, wouldn't a different wavelength trigger different mechanisms in the eye, thus sending different signals?
I'd like to see another test, but with more than just two images to choose from. I'd also like to see the same colors present in all the pictures. Anyway...can anyone answer some of my questions?
Just to clarify, it's "daylight saving" time...No "s".