Australia is about to get its first woman PM

[Elok]

Example: the very first topic covered in my optics class was the mechanism of of the eye.

Detection and perception are two entirely different things. Perception is all in the brain. No, maybe I should say mostly in the brain. I don't know exactly where they draw the line. In any case, I think optics, I think of a CD-ROM or maybe the Hubble Space telescope, not some weenie spin doctor.

[KrazyHorse]

I didn't say you had knowledge. Quite the contrary. You were a loon who thought you did.

I intimated that you consider yourself quite a clever bunny, and until relatively recently your opinions about politics and economics were several watts short of lighting the bulb.

I'll posit that you are still a loon, but like many other self-considered reformed loons you've swung from one extreme to another.

You are in no position to throw rocks at other people.

I'm beginning to think that you're too stupid to understand the difference between knowledge and opinion.

[Kuciwalker]

Detection and perception are two entirely different things. Perception is all in the brain. No, maybe I should say mostly in the brain. I don't know exactly where they draw the line. In any case, I think optics, I think of a CD-ROM or maybe the Hubble Space telescope, not some weenie spin doctor.

The second topic covered was how the brain processed optical information

[Kuciwalker]

Do you also object to the term "smoke and mirrors"?

[KrazyHorse]

Stimulus starts rolling into households: March 2009

1st interest rate rise: December 2009

Quite an IMMEDIATE RESPONSE there, no?

Also note that interest rates are currently below the average of the last 10 years. Would you call this a move by an authority who thinks that the economy has too much money availability in it?

Are you so retarded as to think that you can derive the counterfactual from a single timeseries?

[Elok]

The second topic covered was how the brain processed optical information

Why, for God's sake? Deep background? I can understand studying the eye, it's a kind of camera...

[Kuciwalker]

Because, contrary to your belief, the science of optics is intimately associated with human perception of images. Until relatively recently that was its [i]only[i] purpose.

[Elok]

How on earth does the same discipline cover the properties of photons and their perception? That's like ballistics studying the effects of a gunshot on a human torso.

[KrazyHorse]

Because it wasn't clear exactly where the dividing line went when the discipline was first developed.

[Elok]

Huh. Then why didn't they jettison the extraneous matter, seeing as perception is already studied in depth by psychology, neurology, probably a number of biophysicists...of course, I'm sure physicists in general do plenty with photons, but there's not as much overlap.

In any case, a revision is in order. "Optics" is only retarded because PR is not a science and, God willing, never will be. There we go.

[Kuciwalker]

Huh. Then why didn't they jettison the extraneous matter, seeing as perception is already studied in depth by psychology, neurology, probably a number of biophysicists...of course, I'm sure physicists in general do plenty with photons, but there's not as much overlap.

Because a vast portion of the practical applications of optics still relate to human vision.

[Kuciwalker]

And it's a perfectly appropriate metaphor

[KrazyHorse]

It's a perfectly acceptable metaphor. The only problem is that is sounds utterly retarded and there are English words already in common use for this: "appearance" or "public perception"...

[Elok]

Somebody agrees with me that it sounds retarded! Now all I have to do is raise kids and get a novel published, and I can die in peace...

[trev]

It seems like we are going to have an election here with an announcement possibly within a few days for an early August election. Apparently they think a fresh female face is all they need to guarantee an election win, no significant policy changes, no new faces in cabinet or ministry, no significant changes of portfolios.
With the Labour party here, all that is important is winning, disloyalty, lies, disinformation, even electing a female PM from the party's left is all acceptable if it results in a win. Nothing else matters. They have justified the leadership change by the statement that 'Labour must win the election' because they fear the changes Tony Abbot may make to Australia. So anything and everything that helps them win is justified by their mantra, which means we cannot trust a thing they say until after the election. Of course what's new.