I'm using the definition that Lytro has on their website, which I quoted in my first comment. Again:
The light field fully defines how a scene appears. It is the amount of light traveling in every direction through every point in space - it's all the light rays in a scene. Conventional cameras cannot record the light field.
I think the missing phrase here is "in the camera". The camera catches the light field in the camera, not the light field of the entire scene. Not that the website makes that clear.
Isn't it closer to the prisoners dilemma? But I suppose the two are extremely close, essentially just different formulations of the same underlying phenomenon.
And yes, a bootstrap is needed, and it is hard to see where it should come from.
From what I understand (but feel free to correct me), a lot of the unrest is fuelled by the presence of expensive minerals. I remember a report concluding that in an average African state without mineral wealth, the chance of a civil war breaking out in the next few decades was 1%. For the countries with mineral wealth, the chance was 25%.
Of course, unrest below the limit of civil war can still make production impossible, and the case might be that the unrest is there, but only worsens to civil war if minerals are present to sell for weapons.
A "" would be more correct. GPP never claimed no civilians were ever killed, but that at least a certain amount of care was taken to limit civilian casualties.
And that somehow makes it OK for them to ridicule for asking questions? Man, the morale in your working place must suck. Either that, or you took the shakiest excuse you could find to rant against Linux users and yell "and get off my lawn". Oh, you forgot to write "and get off my lawn".
What breed of banana are you talking about? I thought the Gros Michel was the old school banana, and it is still being cultivated (both facts according to wikipedia).
Because it is not profitable to run farms as they are run today? What, you didn't farmers actually did that whole "saving the seeds" thing anymore, did you*? Seeds are bought each year, and the entire harvest is sold. That way, we can roll out new, superior plants faster, and we can choose the best seed to plant.
* I'm sure some do, but it has not been the norm for many years, to the degree where local variants die out.
You're right, they are not the same. We have some control over the result with GMO, selective breeding combined with mutagenesis (or just waiting for mutations) are stabs in the dark where we have no idea what other traits are being introduced.
[...]it might be a sad day for scientific research, but it's a good day for the freedom of eating natural veggies.
Ahh, yes, the natural vegetable, unadulterated by man. Except for a few millennia of aggressive breeding, making them nothing like anything nature would dream up in her worst nightmares. But don't let that distract you from branding anything you don't like as artificial.
It's that by making it a sterile plant, they're trying to corner the market on farming. The way it's always been done is this - farmer plants the field. Harvests. Keeps a portion of the seed, sells the rest. Next season, he plants (or if you prefer, "reinvests") the seed he kept to plant the next crop.
Not for at least the last 50 years, probably a lot longer. It is much more efficient to breed a superior wheat once (most often, superior=resistant to a particular disease), and sell that to everyone. That leads to one of the problems of farming today, monocultures, huge areas of land all susceptible to the same diseases.
God has had millions of years to work on this stuff, but we've been at it for only a few years and already a significant amount of commercially available food is GMO.
God doesn't even enter the equation, every modern crop and farm animal is bred to such extremes that they are in effect man made. It is a process over which we have had no control, GM is a tool for the same end with a little more control. Sure, it might have unintended consequences, and we need to take steps to discover and avoid them*, but the risk of bad consequences cropping up is much less than that risk in traditional breeding.
*And preferably this testing will be done by someone not linked to the companies.
I agree that there's a lot of inappropriate FUD surrounding GM products, but there are also very good reasons for people to be concerned. GM products tend to be genetically homogenous, and that is very weak from an evolutionary context. It suggests that a new fungus, virus, insect, or other form of danger may arise which can destroy the entire plant line. Over-dependence on GM plants is a monumental leap backwards in terms of survivability to new threats.
This isn't really different from the rest of modern agriculture, which also really likes monocultures. It is a huge problem, but not one unique to GM.
Also GM companies have a pretty shady history and a lot of very dark actions in their past, and I don't trust them to make decisions which are good for anyone in the world other than their stockholders. For example, selling the third world seeds which will grow only sterile plants (removing their ability to be self sufficient).
They started doing that because of concern for the genes spreading, which would be worse.
Suing farmers whose plants end up being fertilized with GM products from a neighboring field, and so forth.
OK, you got me there, that was just a dick move.
I trust GM companies to be honest about GM plants and livestock about as much as I trust tobacco companies to be honest about cigarettes in the late 80's and early 90's.[...] I think there's a lot of value to GM products, but I think there's a lot of potential danger too, and I don't trust any private entity to honestly tell me about the dangers along with the benefits.
I agree with that, we shouldn't take what they say for granted, and a lot of the testing should be done by people not directly linked to the companies (how to get them to pay without that being a link is another matter)
Do you remember the PATRIOT ACT, DMCA and being fondled in the airport? What about innocents being tasered to death, or warrantless wire-taps? I think my take on the last 30 years is about equal disgust over government and industry, but they are really hard to compare, as their respective evils are so different.
It's not really a question of trusting, but of consequences. Ideally, if you don't like the way a company treats you, you can choose not to do business with them, that is much harder with the government. That means that the government can get away with things that would drive a company to bankruptcy. Of course, monopolies (which comes both from to little regulation (Exxon and MPAA) and to much regulation (MPAA and, as far as I understand, local ISPs)), collusion and regulatory capture means that this ideal is far from the world we live in.
A few times more, a hundred times more, to-MAY-toe, to-MAH-toe. Fly ash is probably easier controllable, being solid, but the sheer amount makes it a problem.
So the answer to you the question GGPP is "they kind off do", which you already knew before writing it, but still formulated as a rhetorical question with the wrong implied answer? Well, hello, there, mister troll.
Oh, I had forgotten that particular piece of stupid by ICP.
Neutrinos were suggested in 1930 and confirmed experimentally in 1956. I wouldn't call 26 years quickly. Inflation was suggested in 1980, so it's not that far behind neutrinos. But, of course, that isn't the important thing. Come up with a theory that better explains the data, and inflation will fall. Until that day, inflation is the best we have. The cosmological constant doesn't pose as anything but a kludge, but until we get better data or better theories, what are we to do?
One upside of the sensor idea is that you can vary the tax over the day and week, to make it more expensive to drive during congestion. That would encourage people to plan their driving to make the roads more efficient.
I can encode any information as a rather large decimal (base 10) number, numbers can't be patented or copyrighted. In fact, I've even written a program that encodes and decodes in such a way (arbitrary bit-length & radix integer math) -- It's terribly inefficient in decimal mode; in Hexadecimal (base 16) it's blazingly fast, but it doubles the output size... You can avoid the size bloat by encoding & decoding your NUMBERS in base 2 --- Oh, wait binary numbers are what's claimed as infringing copyright. (How is this not a 1st amendment issue?)
If I understand copyright law correctly (yeah, fat chance), numbers can be copyrighted if sufficient creativity* has been necessary to produce it. If you need, say, a book in order to produce the number, all of the creativity used in producing that book is needed to produce your number, so yes, it can be covered by copyright. I think http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 covers the points of your post pretty decently.
*Probably not the right word, but I don't know the English equivalent of the Danish "værkshøjde".
No, magnets can be explained one step further by saying "photons" (possibly even virtual photons). Electrons started out as a kludge for "it seems that the charge/mass ratio of the negative emissions is identical, regardless of what emits them", just as evasive as inflation is today. Inflation might end up being superseded by a theory better able to explain the observations, or it might over time be more and more solid, but until we can make that distinction, the best we can do is to keep talking about it as inflation, and keep in mind that it is just a model with some evidence, like everything else in physics.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm using the definition that Lytro has on their website, which I quoted in my first comment. Again:
I think the missing phrase here is "in the camera". The camera catches the light field in the camera, not the light field of the entire scene. Not that the website makes that clear.
Arg, posting to undo modification.
I didn't say anything about it being OK, I pointed out that the PP countered a point the GPP never made.
Isn't it closer to the prisoners dilemma? But I suppose the two are extremely close, essentially just different formulations of the same underlying phenomenon.
And yes, a bootstrap is needed, and it is hard to see where it should come from.
From what I understand (but feel free to correct me), a lot of the unrest is fuelled by the presence of expensive minerals. I remember a report concluding that in an average African state without mineral wealth, the chance of a civil war breaking out in the next few decades was 1%. For the countries with mineral wealth, the chance was 25%.
Of course, unrest below the limit of civil war can still make production impossible, and the case might be that the unrest is there, but only worsens to civil war if minerals are present to sell for weapons.
A "" would be more correct. GPP never claimed no civilians were ever killed, but that at least a certain amount of care was taken to limit civilian casualties.
And that somehow makes it OK for them to ridicule for asking questions? Man, the morale in your working place must suck. Either that, or you took the shakiest excuse you could find to rant against Linux users and yell "and get off my lawn". Oh, you forgot to write "and get off my lawn".
What breed of banana are you talking about? I thought the Gros Michel was the old school banana, and it is still being cultivated (both facts according to wikipedia).
Because it is not profitable to run farms as they are run today? What, you didn't farmers actually did that whole "saving the seeds" thing anymore, did you*? Seeds are bought each year, and the entire harvest is sold. That way, we can roll out new, superior plants faster, and we can choose the best seed to plant.
* I'm sure some do, but it has not been the norm for many years, to the degree where local variants die out.
You're right, they are not the same. We have some control over the result with GMO, selective breeding combined with mutagenesis (or just waiting for mutations) are stabs in the dark where we have no idea what other traits are being introduced.
[...]it might be a sad day for scientific research, but it's a good day for the freedom of eating natural veggies.
Ahh, yes, the natural vegetable, unadulterated by man. Except for a few millennia of aggressive breeding, making them nothing like anything nature would dream up in her worst nightmares. But don't let that distract you from branding anything you don't like as artificial.
How is it that the goalpost-moving PP gets +5, while the GPP gets +3?
It's that by making it a sterile plant, they're trying to corner the market on farming. The way it's always been done is this - farmer plants the field. Harvests. Keeps a portion of the seed, sells the rest. Next season, he plants (or if you prefer, "reinvests") the seed he kept to plant the next crop.
Not for at least the last 50 years, probably a lot longer. It is much more efficient to breed a superior wheat once (most often, superior=resistant to a particular disease), and sell that to everyone. That leads to one of the problems of farming today, monocultures, huge areas of land all susceptible to the same diseases.
God has had millions of years to work on this stuff, but we've been at it for only a few years and already a significant amount of commercially available food is GMO.
God doesn't even enter the equation, every modern crop and farm animal is bred to such extremes that they are in effect man made. It is a process over which we have had no control, GM is a tool for the same end with a little more control. Sure, it might have unintended consequences, and we need to take steps to discover and avoid them*, but the risk of bad consequences cropping up is much less than that risk in traditional breeding.
*And preferably this testing will be done by someone not linked to the companies.
I agree that there's a lot of inappropriate FUD surrounding GM products, but there are also very good reasons for people to be concerned. GM products tend to be genetically homogenous, and that is very weak from an evolutionary context. It suggests that a new fungus, virus, insect, or other form of danger may arise which can destroy the entire plant line. Over-dependence on GM plants is a monumental leap backwards in terms of survivability to new threats.
This isn't really different from the rest of modern agriculture, which also really likes monocultures. It is a huge problem, but not one unique to GM.
Also GM companies have a pretty shady history and a lot of very dark actions in their past, and I don't trust them to make decisions which are good for anyone in the world other than their stockholders. For example, selling the third world seeds which will grow only sterile plants (removing their ability to be self sufficient).
They started doing that because of concern for the genes spreading, which would be worse.
Suing farmers whose plants end up being fertilized with GM products from a neighboring field, and so forth.
OK, you got me there, that was just a dick move.
I trust GM companies to be honest about GM plants and livestock about as much as I trust tobacco companies to be honest about cigarettes in the late 80's and early 90's.[...] I think there's a lot of value to GM products, but I think there's a lot of potential danger too, and I don't trust any private entity to honestly tell me about the dangers along with the benefits.
I agree with that, we shouldn't take what they say for granted, and a lot of the testing should be done by people not directly linked to the companies (how to get them to pay without that being a link is another matter)
Do you remember the PATRIOT ACT, DMCA and being fondled in the airport? What about innocents being tasered to death, or warrantless wire-taps? I think my take on the last 30 years is about equal disgust over government and industry, but they are really hard to compare, as their respective evils are so different.
It's not really a question of trusting, but of consequences. Ideally, if you don't like the way a company treats you, you can choose not to do business with them, that is much harder with the government. That means that the government can get away with things that would drive a company to bankruptcy. Of course, monopolies (which comes both from to little regulation (Exxon and MPAA) and to much regulation (MPAA and, as far as I understand, local ISPs)), collusion and regulatory capture means that this ideal is far from the world we live in.
A few times more, a hundred times more, to-MAY-toe, to-MAH-toe. Fly ash is probably easier controllable, being solid, but the sheer amount makes it a problem.
So the answer to you the question GGPP is "they kind off do", which you already knew before writing it, but still formulated as a rhetorical question with the wrong implied answer? Well, hello, there, mister troll.
That's funny, I thought it came from decades of Greenpeace and their ilk scaremongering, deliberately confusing nuclear weapons with nuclear power.
To be fair, I suppose both phenomena have contributed, and I am probably to biased to tell which has been more important.
Oh, I had forgotten that particular piece of stupid by ICP.
Neutrinos were suggested in 1930 and confirmed experimentally in 1956. I wouldn't call 26 years quickly. Inflation was suggested in 1980, so it's not that far behind neutrinos. But, of course, that isn't the important thing. Come up with a theory that better explains the data, and inflation will fall. Until that day, inflation is the best we have. The cosmological constant doesn't pose as anything but a kludge, but until we get better data or better theories, what are we to do?
One upside of the sensor idea is that you can vary the tax over the day and week, to make it more expensive to drive during congestion. That would encourage people to plan their driving to make the roads more efficient.
Seconded, that is a great book. I was going to suggest it here, but as KeithIrwin has already been done that, I will just say "go read that book".
I can encode any information as a rather large decimal (base 10) number, numbers can't be patented or copyrighted. In fact, I've even written a program that encodes and decodes in such a way (arbitrary bit-length & radix integer math) -- It's terribly inefficient in decimal mode; in Hexadecimal (base 16) it's blazingly fast, but it doubles the output size... You can avoid the size bloat by encoding & decoding your NUMBERS in base 2 --- Oh, wait binary numbers are what's claimed as infringing copyright. (How is this not a 1st amendment issue?)
If I understand copyright law correctly (yeah, fat chance), numbers can be copyrighted if sufficient creativity* has been necessary to produce it. If you need, say, a book in order to produce the number, all of the creativity used in producing that book is needed to produce your number, so yes, it can be covered by copyright. I think http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 covers the points of your post pretty decently.
*Probably not the right word, but I don't know the English equivalent of the Danish "værkshøjde".
No, magnets can be explained one step further by saying "photons" (possibly even virtual photons). Electrons started out as a kludge for "it seems that the charge/mass ratio of the negative emissions is identical, regardless of what emits them", just as evasive as inflation is today. Inflation might end up being superseded by a theory better able to explain the observations, or it might over time be more and more solid, but until we can make that distinction, the best we can do is to keep talking about it as inflation, and keep in mind that it is just a model with some evidence, like everything else in physics.