Category: Technology

Apple has got ever so touchy about websites using the term podcast more liberally than its claims to trademark registration would allow. Cease and desist letters have been sent to the likes of Mypodder and Podcastready by the company, according to reports in Wired and The Register.

There are, of course, some bloggers that claim that the term podcast actually has nothing to do with Apple’s brand of mp3 player and that it originates in the phrase “publish-on-demand”-cast. Yeah, right!

Nevertheless, there is no mention of Apple in the dictionary.com definition of podcast: “a Web-based audio broadcast via an RSS feed, accessed by subscription over the Internet” or “to deliver a Web-based audio broadcast via an RSS feed over the Internet to subscribers”. Moreover, despite the term having an obvious etymology in a bastardisation of iPod and broadcast, neither an iPod nor over-the-air broadcasting is need to make or listen to a podcast.

Mark Ramsey of Hear 2.0 reckons it’s time we ditched the term podcast anyway, too few people “get it” he says, and the word should be changed to “audiomag” or something similar. This assertion is made despite the fact that the Ricky Gervais Show is mentioned in the Guiness Book of Records as the most popular podcast, presumably that will change soon with the launch of Sciencebase’s very own Geordie Boffin Podcast. Well, we can all dream, can’t we?

Bizarrely as ever, The Register includes a list of podified words in its report: antipodean, cephalopod, chiropodist, monkeypod, podgy and uropod. They overlooked arthropod, podiatrist, peapod, monopod…some of which point to the fact that pod, the prefix, has its etymology in the Greek word for foot. Maybe it’s time to give it the boot and go with Ramsey’s suggestion, or better still, we could rename them “blogcasts”, no doubt that would open yet another can of bad applies as the trademark owner of that term would more than likely kick up a fuss too.

In an item on The Register about why natural selection takes so long to get results, Dr Stephen Juan, an anthropologist at the University of Sydney makes several statements that seem to me to be at odds with evolutionary theory.

“Most mutations do not help the species survive.”

This is true in one sense, but natural selection doesn’t act on species, all it does is remove individuals from the gene pool that are no longer best adapted for a particular environment. If a mutation in an individual’s DNA mean it is better adapted to a changing environment then it will pass the “new” gene(s) on to its offspring who will then have the trait and the viability in that environment to reproduce and so on.

“A species and an environment exist in balance with each other.”

Do they? Perhaps, but only in the sense that should either one change radically then we will no longer observe a balance. Moreover, several mutations over several generations that allow individuals to cope with a changing environment leads to species diversity.

“Populations simply adapt to their current surroundings and to changes in those surroundings.”

No they don’t. Individuals either survive the new surroundings and pass on their genes to their offspring or they don’t. Usually, only those best adapted to new environmental conditions survive to do so. Populations may display synergetic effects between individuals but this is not the same as a population adapting.

“They do not necessarily become better in any absolute sense over time.”

There is no such thing as “better” or “worse” evolutionarily speaking. An individual either survives and passes on its genes or it does not. If those genes endow the offspring with the ability to survive and pass the genes on again then the genes survive. If they don’t they are lost. Evolution is littered with dead-ends but every single living thing on the planet has ancestors that were capable of reproducing.

First posted 2006-09-06. Updated 2023-01-23

2023 is the 50th anniversary of Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon”. You’ll know it instantly from the cover art which shows a prism splitting a ray of light into a rainbow. I grew up with this album, but I must admit I didn’t remember noticing that the rainbow has just six colours. Don’t we normally think of rainbows as having seven – red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet?

Interestingly, the six-colour rainbow has been a pride symbol for the LGBTQ+ community for many years. I wondered why that it didn’t have all seven colours either…was it something to do with the suspicion that confirmed bachelor Sir Isaac Newton was maybe gay? Probably not.

Anyway, the Floyd recently updated their socila media logo. The logo features the six-colour rainbow motif, just like the original album artwork. It triggered a load of bigoted comments and ignorant trolling [for which read: free publicity]. The trolls hated that their Pink Floyd had gone all “woke”. Well, aside from the fact that being woke is not a bad thing, the Floyd were woke long before anybody used that word to mean tolerant and accepting. Indeed, the whole album is lyrically about as woke as you can get without propping your eyelids up with matchsticks and wrapping yourself in a rainbow flag, and shouting “right on!”

But, trolls will be trolls, the endless antiwoke and bigoted bile spat out about the new artwork and the rants from people saying they will never listen to the band again is just incredible.

Better antifa than antiwoke I say. Shine on!

Original Post

Everyone knows the song…

Red and Yellow and Pink and Green, Orange and Purple, and Blue…

Not exactly the best mnemonic for recalling the rainbow, that purple should be “violet” after all, and then there’s the little problem of “pink”!

Much better is my late mother’s VIBGYOR (violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red) as cited in Newton’s famous prismatic experiments. Although some people prefer Richard of York gave battle in vain.

There is a problem. Where is this indigo? Can anyone really distinguish between violet and blue? To my eye, there certainly isn’t a jeans-coloured slice in the spectrum, and as chemist M. Farooq of the University of Karachi in Pakistan suggests this isn’t due to limitations of the prism. An article in the American Journal of Physics (1972, vol 20, p 526), he points out, drew attention to the fact that indigo does not exist in the spectrum some years ago and that instead was nothing more than one of Newton’s “preconceived notions”.

According to that AJP paper, Newton adapted the colours of the artist’s wheel – red, orange, yellow, green, blue, violet, and purple and then added something from his religiosity and his alchemistical bent. The number 7 after all is more heaven than the 6 of hell. Newton gave us the seven colours of the rainbow not because there are seven but because it fit his view of God’s universe better.

The indigo of our mnemonic is actually violet, and what Newton referred to as violet is probably what we call purple. Of course, purple is not present in sunlight but is a colour of mixed pigments on the artist’s wheel. More to the point though, there aren’t just seven colours. The electromagnetic spectrum is just that a spectrum, a continuous spread of hues in the visible and beyond.

All that said, some people do see seven “main colours” when prompted, some people do see a colour between purple/violet and blue in the rainbow.

Meanwhile, here’s the tech bit from the US National Bureau of Standards showing the range of wavelengths of light corresponding to the colour:

400-465 nm violet
465-482 nm blue
482-487 nm greenish blue
…
…
597-617 nm reddish orange
617-780 nm red

It’s all very well laying down the colourful law like that, but your idea of “reddish” might be slightly different from mine, in fact I might see orangey-red when you perceive reddish-orange (maybe it’s another example of the ambiguity in art I discussed recently in this blog). Moreover, as John Denker points out, there is a “band” between yellow and green that if the word chartreuse is in your vocabulary you might label it as such. “The question is not whether the band is there, but whether the observer chooses to take notice of it,” he says. “This whole colour-naming issue depends relatively more on cultural and behavioural factors, and depends relatively little on physics,” he adds.

On the same discussion group Thomas O’Haver of the University of Maryland asks, “Is there really in value in having students memorize something like this?”

It still doesn’t help much with the words of that song, though, Red and yellow and pink and green…

Here’s a top listing of questions that bring readers to sciencebase from the Ask Jeeves search engine. We cannot promise to answer them all here, but search the site and you may find enlightenment or at the very least some factlets of even more interest.

How old was Einstein when he wrote his papers on relativity?
When were the largest glaciers in history?
Where can I find some wow facts about sodium?
When Mars will look as large as the full Moon to the naked eye?
How much does the Japanese government spend on computers?
What planet is most like Earth?
How many barrels of oil do Americans use every day?
What is the width of a dime?
Why can’t frogs smoke?
How far is Sedna from the sun?
How do humans recognize faces?
What killed Otzi the iceman?
Where is the Earth’s crust thickest?