Let's say you have a printed photo and then you set it on fire and burn it until it's ashes. Can you "do it backwards" and somehow get your picture back? It's no different. Yes it is. Burning the photo is actually destroying the image, because it's making it all one colour (black). Blurring an image in on computer, the way it is usually implemented, is actually a reversible operation. You can't get *all* the information back, because some information is lost due to limited colour resolution, but much of the information is still in the picture, it's just spread out. That's why on TV, when they obscure someone's face, they mash it to a 8x8 image, instead of blurring like they used to. Screen grab the blurred image and you can recover a pretty good image.
It does seem, in this case, that the image was only a twist effect, and that there wasn't any separate blur added, though. Seems pretty retarded to post such an easy-to-unmunge image of yourself fsking a kid though.
Actually I was employing the 'I Did Something That Looked Similar In A Java Applet, And It Worked Like This' approach to Discussing Things On Slashdot. Mine applied a blur (actually a square convolution kernel with side length max(image_width - distance(cur_pixel, center_pixel), 0), followed by a spiral effect that rotated by t * max(image_width/2 - distance(cur_pixel, center_pixel), 0) / image_width radians, if you want jargon). It was meant for links, to look like the swirly thing that the books in Myst do when you click on them. It worked quite well.:)
Of course that was back in the heady days of "the more things that move or sparkle, the better" web design.:P I'll dig up the applet in question when I get home.
Well, I'd guess the twirl is a convolution filter followed by a twist. If you can separate it out then you can reverse the twist, and then deconvolve the resulting blurred image, you get the original image. I'd guess. But it's been a while since I did computer vision, and it's probably more complex.:P
You haven't been playing WoW long, have you?:P If you had you'd know that they'd be back within 3 months anyway. Most of my friends quit WoW for Guild Wars... yep, back in a couple of months. I quit WoW for Vanguard (and again for RL) - I'm still playing. "They'll come crawling back" is the catchphrase here. Make sure ya give 'em shit about it too!:P
"I think that quality was a true innovation on Blizzard's part. Nobody had done that before at that level of play. Because they did that, their game stood out night and day above everybody else's games. What's the biggest mistake? What everybody did without exception -- shoving it out the door. This quote just restored my faith in WAR. Finally someone gets it. Finally someone in charge of a game company actually understands what makes Blizzard games different. Sure, you can't polish a turd, but that doesn't mean don't polish. You have to start with a diamond, and then you'd better polish it to within an inch of its life, or that magic first impression won't be there.
Drugging people to pay taxes? Reading comprehension please. As for tobacco and alcohol - exactly.
Look at tobacco and alcohol. People get plastered and run over children, and smokers can hardly pay rent while they poison everyone around them. ...and ravers drop an E, and stare in wonder at some shiny things while they give you a big hug or a back rub. Obviously this dangerous substance should be banned.
Wikipedia is a terrible source for information about drugs, as it's written by the masses, who have warped concepts on the drug issue. Luckily, the peer-reviewed studies that Wikipedia references are as good a source as you will find. It seems to be you that has warped concepts on the issue - more research, less knee jerk, please.
I haven't used amphetamines personally, nor have I spent time around users, so I'll defer to your knowledge on that. I may have been thinking of dexies - regardless, agreed that methamphetamines are generally bad.
The statement regarding MDMA, on the other hand, I can back up. It's only addictive in the same way that a hug from your lover is addictive - there's enjoyment but not dependence. I took it at a variety of raves over about a year and a half, probably half a dozen times in total. At the time I was depressed and it helped me with that - I haven't touched it in a year and a half, and since I met my fiancee and got some naturally produced serotonin flowing, I haven't been remotely tempted. It's a place I'd go back to visit, maybe, someday, but there's no urgency about it. It's right about par with 'find a Sonic cartridge for my Sega Genesis' on my priority list.;)
(Or maybe from that you'll just take the stance that Sonic the Hedgehog should be a class A controlled substance...:P )
Omnipotent/omniscient is possible, but only if you're willing to sacrifice free will. Regardless, I can't see how any sufficiently advanced being could possibly be distracted by... OOH SHINY!!
"Well, because we found it! They, like, 'feel' it. God is X! Kewl, eh? Ipso Facto, we are teh shit!" Because this argument is so much less convincing than any that religions use.
You have to worship God, because it says so in the book. And the book is the word of God, so the book can't be wrong. What? Yes, it says it right here... in the book.
Hey, no less crazy than your original hypothesis. That the omnipotent, omnescient being that created the universe can (a) be summoned with some magnets set up in a particular way, and (b) that if you shift those magnets so that they're not pointing at the right part of the volunteer's brain, then He gets bored and leaves again?
Not knocking your 'just throwing this out there' idea, just thinking that the next step is to summon up some demonic souls for our new robotic overlords.
Actually, no, 'nataS' is 'Satan' spelled backwards. What a 'nata' is, or why it's evil (or is it good since it's backwards?) is a whole different question.
Drugs are bad, because they cause physiological (chemical) dependence No. Physiologically addictive drugs are bad because they cause physical dependence. Most drugs are not physiologically addictive, and of those that are, often substantial exposure is required. Also, legal drugs are among the most physically addictive (nicotine, caffeine) and harmful (alcohol, nicotine again) of drugs. Obviously I'm not condoning opiates, crystal meth, cocaine etc. which are very physically addictive and physically harmful. I'm just pointing out that the amount of disinformation around is staggering, and that many banned substances are banned due to puritanical administrative agendas rather than real medical or societal concerns.
Most designer or party drugs (speed, MDMA), and so called 'smart drugs' (see 'smart shops' or 'head shops'), are non-addictive. They are usually banned on a pretext of anecdotal evidence or a few cases of death or illness following use, which generally could have been avoided with proper precautions and quality control. For instance, Psilocybin mushrooms (as the GGP mentions) have been shown to produce religious experiences.
As for designer drugs, from the wiki page on effects of MDMA:
Comparison of the number of ecstasy pills estimated to be consumed in England and Wales per year compared to the number of deaths resulting from ecstasy use, suggests that the risk of death from taking ecstasy is around 1 death per 100,000 users per year. This is approximately the same risk of death as is associated with adverse drug reactions to estrogen-containing (combined) forms of hormonal contraception. You're about as likely to die from a weekend party pill as you are from your contraceptive pill.
There's even broach the subject of "curing" religion. Well, you must admit that it has the hallmarks of mental illness. Then again, so does being in love.
But 'magic mushrooms' are drugs and are therefore bad, and should never be used by anyone. And you're bad too for talking about them.
(Disclosure: I've used magic mushrooms several times (in places where doing so is legal), and found that they can be powerful tools of introspection, as well as delivering some amazing experiences. I think it's sad that closed-minded puritans have managed to block general access to so many such things.)
Reminds me of one time in Harvey Norman, I bumped into an acquaintance who was looking at a CD player with built in burner. It cost like $800, he asked me whether I thought it was worth it, and I just said "nah, spend $50 on a CD burner (as they cost in those days), stick it in your computer and you're set". Some schmooze with a nametag runs up and says "oh but the audio quality will be much better with this unit". Bleh.
She was fine (if shaken), the rental car was totaled, and that's three vehicles (including one innocent bystander's) that she completely destroyed in 4 hours. It definitely wasn't mean to take her license, as my mum and my aunt had both been trying to have it revoked for years. At that stage Nanna had advanced Alzheimer's, and had trouble doing things like 'braking for corners' and 'staying on the correct side of the road' let alone little niceties such as stopping for red lights. It's a miracle she didn't kill someone.
If I ever get to the point where I'm unfit to operate heavy machinery then I'll stop doing so, I won't just smile, nod and put everyone else's lives in jeopardy.
Slashdot Mirror
It does seem, in this case, that the image was only a twist effect, and that there wasn't any separate blur added, though. Seems pretty retarded to post such an easy-to-unmunge image of yourself fsking a kid though.
Actually I was employing the 'I Did Something That Looked Similar In A Java Applet, And It Worked Like This' approach to Discussing Things On Slashdot. Mine applied a blur (actually a square convolution kernel with side length max(image_width - distance(cur_pixel, center_pixel), 0), followed by a spiral effect that rotated by t * max(image_width/2 - distance(cur_pixel, center_pixel), 0) / image_width radians, if you want jargon). It was meant for links, to look like the swirly thing that the books in Myst do when you click on them. It worked quite well. :)
:P I'll dig up the applet in question when I get home.
Of course that was back in the heady days of "the more things that move or sparkle, the better" web design.
Well, I'd guess the twirl is a convolution filter followed by a twist. If you can separate it out then you can reverse the twist, and then deconvolve the resulting blurred image, you get the original image. I'd guess. But it's been a while since I did computer vision, and it's probably more complex. :P
The Dark Side of Ur Anu... wait, no, too easy. *resumes lurking*
You haven't been playing WoW long, have you? :P If you had you'd know that they'd be back within 3 months anyway. Most of my friends quit WoW for Guild Wars... yep, back in a couple of months. I quit WoW for Vanguard (and again for RL) - I'm still playing. "They'll come crawling back" is the catchphrase here. Make sure ya give 'em shit about it too! :P
I haven't used amphetamines personally, nor have I spent time around users, so I'll defer to your knowledge on that. I may have been thinking of dexies - regardless, agreed that methamphetamines are generally bad.
;)
:P )
The statement regarding MDMA, on the other hand, I can back up. It's only addictive in the same way that a hug from your lover is addictive - there's enjoyment but not dependence. I took it at a variety of raves over about a year and a half, probably half a dozen times in total. At the time I was depressed and it helped me with that - I haven't touched it in a year and a half, and since I met my fiancee and got some naturally produced serotonin flowing, I haven't been remotely tempted. It's a place I'd go back to visit, maybe, someday, but there's no urgency about it. It's right about par with 'find a Sonic cartridge for my Sega Genesis' on my priority list.
(Or maybe from that you'll just take the stance that Sonic the Hedgehog should be a class A controlled substance...
Omnipotent/omniscient is possible, but only if you're willing to sacrifice free will. Regardless, I can't see how any sufficiently advanced being could possibly be distracted by... OOH SHINY!!
;)
*runs off to chase after the shiny thing!*
A gold star to you, sir. You win the thread.
Care to, uh, enlighten me?
And the snozzberries taste like snozzberries.
Nothing. They're just saying they think they know which screw is loose now.
Not knocking your 'just throwing this out there' idea, just thinking that the next step is to summon up some demonic souls for our new robotic overlords.
Actually, no, 'nataS' is 'Satan' spelled backwards. What a 'nata' is, or why it's evil (or is it good since it's backwards?) is a whole different question.
Most designer or party drugs (speed, MDMA), and so called 'smart drugs' (see 'smart shops' or 'head shops'), are non-addictive. They are usually banned on a pretext of anecdotal evidence or a few cases of death or illness following use, which generally could have been avoided with proper precautions and quality control. For instance, Psilocybin mushrooms (as the GGP mentions) have been shown to produce religious experiences.
As for designer drugs, from the wiki page on effects of MDMA: Comparison of the number of ecstasy pills estimated to be consumed in England and Wales per year compared to the number of deaths resulting from ecstasy use, suggests that the risk of death from taking ecstasy is around 1 death per 100,000 users per year. This is approximately the same risk of death as is associated with adverse drug reactions to estrogen-containing (combined) forms of hormonal contraception. You're about as likely to die from a weekend party pill as you are from your contraceptive pill.
But 'magic mushrooms' are drugs and are therefore bad, and should never be used by anyone. And you're bad too for talking about them.
(Disclosure: I've used magic mushrooms several times (in places where doing so is legal), and found that they can be powerful tools of introspection, as well as delivering some amazing experiences. I think it's sad that closed-minded puritans have managed to block general access to so many such things.)
"In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary... come again?!" - Brick Top
Reminds me of one time in Harvey Norman, I bumped into an acquaintance who was looking at a CD player with built in burner. It cost like $800, he asked me whether I thought it was worth it, and I just said "nah, spend $50 on a CD burner (as they cost in those days), stick it in your computer and you're set". Some schmooze with a nametag runs up and says "oh but the audio quality will be much better with this unit". Bleh.
Your excessive use of bold text offends me. Please, be more considerate.
You could always burn the place down...
She was fine (if shaken), the rental car was totaled, and that's three vehicles (including one innocent bystander's) that she completely destroyed in 4 hours. It definitely wasn't mean to take her license, as my mum and my aunt had both been trying to have it revoked for years. At that stage Nanna had advanced Alzheimer's, and had trouble doing things like 'braking for corners' and 'staying on the correct side of the road' let alone little niceties such as stopping for red lights. It's a miracle she didn't kill someone.
If I ever get to the point where I'm unfit to operate heavy machinery then I'll stop doing so, I won't just smile, nod and put everyone else's lives in jeopardy.