The article explains X-inactivation, and it doesn't play the role you think here: both copies are broadly equally expressed among retinal cells. Also even if all cells in a retina used the same X-chromosome copy it doesn't predict color-blindness, since we would still have a trichromatic system.
The answer to the question posed by the title is simply that all mutant fourth cone types are not created equal. Most have a spectral response curve similar enough to an existing type not to make a real difference; a few have peak responses more squarely in-between those of the usual trichromat photopigments, allowing more finely graded color perception. (The article takes its time getting round to explaining this, but it's all there.)
Hopefully one thing this work will lead to is more physically accurate iridescence shaders for 3D render engines. The ones I've seen so far only attempt to fake iridescence at an approximate level, and the results are not very convincing.
There's a whole world of fine and unusual teas to discover and enjoy. When I fast, I want a tea that provides more meaty aromas and a more complex taste experience – a food substitute that also gives a 'cleansing' sensation. (It's hard to be precise about what I mean by 'cleansing', but something like the opposite of the typical cloying English breakfast black tea). A fine kabusecha or gyokuro with their intense umami flavors can provide that. At the moment I have some Japanese 'bancha goishicha', a wildly different style from the green teas made from the same plants, a strange and strangely delicious double-fermented tea with tangy seaweed and mushroomy notes that is like a meal in itself.
Perhaps it's to do with the fact that these particular bamboo species are monocarpic, i.e. in one life-cycle they set seed just once and then die. So the timing of this event is more crucial for their reproductive success than for typical trees (which are polycarpic and not grasses).
Apart from the Romanesque cauliflower, these images mostly just show examples of phyllotactic spirals, which are not really fractals.
Fractal models can generate patterns reminiscent of some organic structures, particularly branching structures, but their importance in doing so is often overstated. Generally speaking, they don't capture the underlying biological processes giving rise to the structures; models that do (reaction-diffusion, optimal transport networks, models of specific genetic developmental programmes...) achieve more realism.
"The problem with a field such as fractal theory, which can be visually dramatic and practised without much background and sophistication, is that uninformed proselytising and inappropriate use can raise unrealistic expectations as to its relevance and applicability. ...Although chaos and fractal theory have been proposed by some as biological panaceas fortunately there are enough realists to counter this view and generally keep them in perspective."
–– JD Murray, Mathematical Biology
How do they make it appear as if the actual sun is off in the distance in 3D?
Did they invent the world's first 3D display that works at all angles without special glasses?
Are they lighting up a standard hologram in a novel way?
Are they using a special lens to magnify an incredibly tiny and incredibly bright light source?
Are they using a microarray lens sheet, similar to how lenticular products such as the Nintendo 3DS achieve 3D, except that it would work perfectly from all viewing angles?
Whatever the case, I don't care about the price; I don't care about the marketing fluff; I just want to know how it actually works. It's frustrating that we aren't allowed to know.
It still seems like a problem to me, if your subject (and potentially background) are moving around a lot. I shoot a lot of macro shots of bugs that are always about to jump off plants that are swaying in the wind... Not to say this tech isn't impressive and useful, but it doesn't solve DoF problems for tiny cameras in every situation.
You lack imagination about all the different things that can be done with uniformly black, straight, fine hair. Length is not the only variable, and there is still a huge range of hairstyles that people could choose from if they were free to do so.
Also, if I was subject to an edict requiring me to trim my fingernails, that would be a pretty big deal to me. A big, intolerable deal. You imply that from their perspective it wouldn't be, but are you so much of a cultural relativist that you think such a perspective isn't seriously unhealthy?
Simplistic. There's not enough land/resources on the planet to sustain everyone living a first world lifestyle at our current rates of energy consumption and waste production.
The answer to the question posed by the title is simply that all mutant fourth cone types are not created equal. Most have a spectral response curve similar enough to an existing type not to make a real difference; a few have peak responses more squarely in-between those of the usual trichromat photopigments, allowing more finely graded color perception. (The article takes its time getting round to explaining this, but it's all there.)