I should have said it doesnt animate correctly. in that the "B" square does not appear to remain a consistent tone in the file as produced with Adohe Flash.
the same image layers do animate properly in the file I output from Photoshop. Why flash interpreted them as it did I do not know.(http://westworldwide.businesscatalyst.com/Interesting/abcomp_from_PS.gif)
I'm not sure what point you are making here. The A and B squares actually are the same tone, that is, they actually do have the same RGB values. They just appear to be different because of their surroundings. A light square surrounded by darker squares will appear lighter than it actually is, and the same light square surrounded by even lighter squares will appear darker than it actually is.
I'm surprised there has not been more discussion on the subject of this article by Charles Johnson.Maybe one reason for the silence is that any comment risks provoking one or two of LuLa's ever alert four-figure gatekeepers to magisterially remind the rest of us that anything worth saying on the subject has already been said, by their good selves, on multiple earlier threads.
Perhaps it's because there's nothing one can really contest. The issue that reality is an illusion has long been the subject of philosophical debate.
Reality is captured, and a moment is captured.
Surely the point of the article is that reality is never captured, because reality is an illusion.Absolutely, and the arguments are all sound enough, as I think I implied in my post. What I am saying, though, it that it is a very potent illusion which we always, to some extent, believe in, despite the arguments. And taking it down to photographs, the idea of directly capturing a moment of reality is another very potent illusion, which is always in our minds when we look at anything we think of as a photograph, even though we know very well that, in another sense, the camera always lies.
As a dazed four-figurer
I failed to see or understand the point being made. Was that the point? That you can state anything you like and for another not to accept it and go along with it reveals just how stupid he/she might be?
I see light grey and darker grey blocks; a cylinder of several shades of greenish-tinge.
If the greys were identical, they would make a single block of grey with no sharp, straight-line toning to differentiate them as squares. The only difference I'd see is that caused gently by the uneven 'lighting' gradation as well as the shadow of the cylinder... But as I said, I don't understand the challenge.
Ray, where did you read that "95%" of the stuff of the Universe is "invisible and undetectable"??? That is truly throw-away Science at best.
...the more we know, the more we realise how little we know...That is certainly something with which I can agree.
... And, I am very familiar with "Dark Matter". The issue being addressed there was the "95%" part. Your citation also suggests "80%" which is as high an estimate as I've ever seen, and prior to your post had never seen the 95% figure. Now it might seem that "80-95%, what's the difference?" but actually for the theory to work, 95% would result in a very different type of Universe than we appear to see.
It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe. Come to think of it, maybe it shouldn't be called "normal" matter at all, since it is such a small fraction of the Universe.
Perhaps it's because there's nothing one can really contest. The issue that reality is an illusion has long been the subject of philosophical debate. That there is 'stuff' out there is something we must assume to be true in the interests of common sense. But how that stuff is seen, detected and interpreted must vary from person to person, from culture to culture, from species to species, from camera to camera, and from one scientific instrument to another.