ok...the article in time magazine got it right. only one i've seen so far. off to do something else now...

Kancho
I think you are right. I looked at only a portion of a picture and it's still the same color -- gold and white-ish.

deathtokoalas
you're missing the point. what you're seeing on the screen doesn't have anything to do with your "perception", or even what colour the dress actually is - it has to do with your computer reconstructing the image differently than mine does, through a variety of hardware and software differences, and that projection on a screen interacting in the room that you're in. to put it differently, the conditions we each observe the differently constructed image (which is not real) in are not controlled. so, you're not actually looking at the same thing i'm looking at. we're looking at different imperfect copies of the same ideal form.

this is half right. the part about the lighting is accurate. but the key point is the computer screen - the confusion is an artifact of the technology, not some pothead philosophy about perception. i can tilt it from blue to white by moving my laptop screen back and forth. if the dress was in front of me, there would be no such artifact and no resulting confusion.

you can also see it as light blue and brown if you get the right tilt.

...and the truth is you can get similar results from just about any picture. google "trippy pictures", pull out anything and move your screen back and forth. blues become greens. yellows become whites. etc.

the reason this photo came out a little weird would have to do with the way it was captured by the camera.

i've read a dozen "explanations" and none of them are built around the fact that an image projected from a screen is not a physical object, and doesn't have the same properties. they all get the right kind of idea, but miss the important point.

professional photographers put huge amounts of effort into lighting and calibration to prevent this kind of thing. that's who you want to ask for clarification here in writing a better article.

ok, no. i need to maximize my opportunity. she's had a month minus a few days. i don't see any use in leaving it there an extra day.

so, i'll go on monday to see if it's done. if it is, great - maybe she wanted the weekend. if it's not, i'll have to take the forms and bring them with me on tuesday. and that'll be the stunt day.

i mean, at that point i'll have ruled out two of three possibilities, and the third will be remote.

so, it will really be an out-of-options decision.

the one thing i'll have to play by ear is if i go in there on tuesday and he decides he wants to set an appointment within a few days. but that seems unlikely. he's either going to fill the forms out or he isn't, at that point.

he might want to set an appointment for april, but that's too late.

you have to keep in mind that these people get paid by the half hour, right. so, it's like....even if they're not going to fill it out, it's worth their while to string me along.

which is basically what i think is really happening.

now, i guess if i go in on monday and she says something like "it will be done for sure by wednesday", i'll be kind of stuck. in that scenario, i guess i'll want to walk up to the odsp office and see if i can get a second set of forms.

actually, maybe i should do that anyways.

yeah.

ok. so, i'll go there first, and if i can get a second set of forms then i'll take that to the doctor on tuesday. you know, if i can get it filled out twice i can maybe take the best of the two, even.

but i can't wait longer than tuesday if neither comes back. regardless of what she says.

rip leonard nimoy

again: an important generation is entering it's twilight. spock was an awesome character, and he did it well. somehow, i don't quite think spock will ever truly die.