Coca-Cola used to contain coca, a plant that can be refined into cocaine. Bolivians are now putting it back into cola and calling it "Coca-Colla":
Link via Fast Company | Photo: Dado Galdieri/AP
The drink, made from the coca leaf and named after the indigenous Colla people from Bolivia's highlands, went on sale this week across the South American country.
It is black, sweet and comes in a bottle with a red label – but similarities to Coca-Cola end there. One is a symbol of US-led globalisation and corporate might; the other could be considered a socialist-tinged affront to western imperialism. [...]
It is made from the coca leaf, a mild stimulant that wards off fatigue and hunger, and has been used in the Andes for thousands of years in cooking, medicine and religious rites. [...]
Bolivia tried to wipe out the leaf at Washington's behest. But that was before Evo Morales, an Aymara Indian and coca grower, was elected president, championing coca as a crop with legitimate uses.
Link via Fast Company | Photo: Dado Galdieri/AP
Comments (10)
http://www.cafepress.com/ccolla
On an unrelated note, anyone know how to distill Jolt cola?
If you freebased raw, concentrated caffeine, the effects would be the same.
I doubt it, but you know that people will try. You may have to look for indirect sources.
Total Fail...I was onboard for the yellow/blue not being able to occur together (yellow is all red & green, no blue), but red and green are fundamental components of vision (your recepters are for red, green, and blue). Red plus green is yellow!
http://imgur.com/9OsLm
In this little picture I made the square on the left is blue & yellow pixels which looks kind of grey-ish and the right is red & green pixels only, which looks yellow!
Process architecture of the visual system
http://helen.pion.ac.uk/outreach/images/how/Figure-1.png Van Essen and Felleman (1991)
Kind of. The receptors are for short, medium, and long wavelengths.
Their ranges overlap a bit. Wavelengths that trigger the short receptors are translated as blue. The medium green, and short blue (at least as far as I can tell, depending on how you read the various descriptions), but as the receptors respond to the same light, the relative strengths of the signal (I think) are translated into the varying intermediate colors. Long (red) and medium (green) receptors firing at the same time are interpreted as yellow, for example. We can't "see" a reddish green, because red+green (long + medium) is already perceived as yellow. We *already* have a color that describes that combination.
We perceive colors that can be produced by the full range of physically possible overlapping wavelengths within the visible light spectrum. Take Magenta: there's no single wavelength that can trigger both the long and short receptors while NOT stimulating the middle receptors. But since they can be simultaneously stimulated by *separate* wavelengths, we have the "extraspectral" color Magenta - which you will not find in a rainbow, or in an illustration of the visible light spectrum. Wrapping a spectrum diagram around in a circle so the long red end overlaps with the short blue end is how we get a diagram - the color wheel - that shows all the colors we can see: all the possible combinations of length/receptor overlap that can be triggered by actual light sources.
Take a cup of hot water and mix it with cold, you get warm. We have a sensation mapped onto that combination of degrees of heat. Somehow these experiments are stimulating some kind of response where the brain isn't perceiving warm, its like the subjects are their hands in hot and cold at the same time. It doesn't make any sense physically, but the receptors are being stimulated that way nonetheless, and perceiving something new and completely imaginary, that is not mapped directly to anything in the real world. Or, I could be full of it.
"(your recepters are for red, green, and blue)"
Kind of. The receptors are for short, medium, and long wavelengths.
Their ranges overlap a bit. Wavelengths that trigger the short receptors are translated as blue. The medium green, and short blue (at least as far as I can tell, depending on how you read the various descriptions), but as the receptors respond to the same light, the relative strengths of the signal (I think) are translated into the varying intermediate colors. Long (red) and medium (green) receptors firing at the same time are interpreted as yellow, for example. We can't "see" a reddish green, because red+green (long + medium) is already perceived as yellow. We *already* have a color that describes that combination.
We perceive colors that can be produced by the full range of physically possible overlapping wavelengths within the visible light spectrum. Take Magenta: there's no single wavelength that can trigger both the long and short receptors while NOT stimulating the middle receptors. But since they can be simultaneously stimulated by *separate* wavelengths, we have the "extraspectral" color Magenta - which you will not find in a rainbow, or in an illustration of the visible light spectrum. Wrapping a spectrum diagram around in a circle so the long red end overlaps with the short blue end is how we get a diagram - the color wheel - that shows all the colors we can see: all the possible combinations of length/receptor overlap that can be triggered by actual light sources.
Take a cup of hot water and mix it with cold, you get warm. We have a sensation mapped onto that combination of degrees of heat. Somehow these experiments are stimulating some kind of response where the brain isn't perceiving warm, its like the subjects are their hands in hot and cold at the same time. It doesn't make any sense physically, but the receptors are being stimulated that way nonetheless, and perceiving something new and completely imaginary, that is not mapped directly to anything in the real world. Or, I could be full of it.