Thursday, November 27, 2014

bbc stock photo - reflections


The discussion about the so-called "right to be forgotten" fascinates me, but I really want to know why this person is staring at a mirror-image version of a Google screen.  Has it really reached a point where the news sources can't use a picture of a natural reflection because nobody would understand what was going on?  This is what math teachers are up against, folks.

I have a similar frustration with the way driver's side mirrors on cars say "OBJECTS IN MIRROR ARE CLOSER THAN THEY APPEAR".  This is a false statement whether or not you know how reflective surfaces work.  If you understand how to perceive the image, then the objects are right where the optics suggest*.  If you don't know how that works, then the objects are farther away than they appear, since they appear to be two feet in front of you, stuck inside the magical object welded to your car door.  They could just say "MIRROR IS SLIGHTLY CONVEX", which would be useless (but at least true), and trust that anyone deemed intelligent enough for a driver's license could be relied upon to sort out the mirror part.

*I suppose that Physicists would object to this, but it probably is a fine assumption when the concerned objects are significantly slower than the speed of light.  Okay, that disclaimer felt nerdy, so I'm quitting this reflection.  It got longer than I thought it would be. 

UPDATE:  They did it again:

Here is another from an ad:

No comments:

Post a Comment