This is why you should ad-block Roland Piquepaille's journal, as detailed in my journal. I guess "detailed" is too generous. Synopsis: add a regex for Roland's blog to your ad-blocker and you'll never click on a spam-link by mistake again.
Your argument is based on the assumption that the Republican and Democrat party lines are drawn at their current locations based on the opinions of the electorate. This is not the case. Instead the parties share the same fundamental pro-corporation viewpoint, as corporations and wealthy individuals at the helm of corporations are their funding source.
Evidence for this is that the issues that the candidates do diverge on are relatively non-critical: abortion, gay marriage, things that would be nice to have resolved but are not critical to the function of the nation. Many real issues are left totally untouched by either party, such as how to achieve universal health care coverage, whether we should be in Iraq at all (not over whether troop increases are necessary), whether our current relationship with Israel is parasitic or symbiotic...
I don't believe that it would be useful on telescopes, as they are focused at essentially infinity. Thus one would not be able to capture the required image focused slightly past infinity with any precision. I'd love to be proven wrong -- if someone knows of an application of QPM at infinity focus please post it.
There is the possibility, yes. TV generally features items in a single plane of focus (enhanced by depth of field) and the raster sweep is in this plane. The problem in applying this technology to cars, for example, lies in that the "sweep" is of the plane itself. Of course it's possible in theory, but it's a different problem than what has already been worked out so throughly in television.
You've basically said what I wrote elsewhere in this article's comments. We both agree that it would have limited utility for real life applications (as in not in fields where confocal microscopy gets people hot and bothered) in as many words.
Incidentally the IATIA link itself held the answer to my above musings, about what the transport equation actually is. I still don't understand it, but it can be viewed by one and all at the bottom of this page: http://www.iatia.com.au/technology/insideQpi.asp
This system does not rely on resolution. You might be imagining it as taking two (or more) pictures shifted horizontally, perhaps, and somehow subtracting the intervening particle's optical effects, leaving only the subject matter. This is not how the system works, however: instead, as the summary briefly but correctly stated it relies on three images being taken, one focused in the plane being studied and the other two focused before and after that plane. Quantitative Phase Microscopy is the process of extracting additional data about the subject in the plane from the data in all three images. Why it doesn't rely on the resolution of the sensor is because the addition information is derived from the optical properties of the light passing through/reflected off the surface, not from sensor trickery.
I guess this could be used on cars given enough processor speed, but it's really not applicable in this case, as it yields additional information about something in a plane (parallel to the sensor of the imaging device -- imagine a brick wall ahead of you when driving). When driving, the plane, say, 50m ahead of the car is moving just as fast as you are, and seeing ultra-crisp images of that plane for the instant that it is 50m ahead would be of dubious utility imo.
The Stanford work is actually entirely different. They utilize parallax -- in other words, their cameras are in physically distinct locations and see the scene with different perspectives. The IATIA work utilizes a single point of view, with images captured with the focal plane at the desired location and then slightly fore and aft. Read more here, at a Columbia site.
Quantitative phase microscopy is a relatively new technique that can generate phase images and phase-amplitude images. In practice, to obtain a quantitative phase image one collects an in-focus image and very slightly positively and negatively defocused images, and uses these data to estimate the differential with respect to the defocus of the image. These images (a through-focal series) can be easily obtained in our system with our z-motion nano-positioner. The resulting data can be solved to yield the phase distribution by Fourier-transform methods. Results are obtained by essentially solving an optical transport equation. Significantly, the phase that is obtained does not have to be unwrapped, as is required for interferometry.
I'd be lying if I told you I completely understand the quoted paragraph, specifically what "essentially solving an optical transport equation" refers to, but I'm sure some cursory googling will lead the curious to specifics, certainly more than googling on terms in the article summary would yield.
Again this is another great point. Standard IQ tests have very little discrimination at the top of their ranges. This is why there's a cottage industry of people like Hoeflin who push their own tests, which naturally have score ranges well up into the stratosphere (where the authors are by their own definition, of course:-/).
You are correct, of course. The few organizations I cited do accept SAT scores, however. The problem comes up that the SAT measures both aptitude and basic knowledge: I took the SAT 4 times, at age 10, 11, 15, 16 and my scores went up each time, which shouldn't have happened had the SAT been purely measuring aptitude. (Incidentally why I took it so many times and at a young age is because other groups such as EPGY and SET, more purely academic, do still use the SAT to screen youth for their programs).
For those wishing to find organizations more stringent in their requirements than Mensa (pages all from:
TOPS (99th percentile, which apparently equates to a 1360 on the SAT, which is surprisingly low) One in a thousand society (99.9th, ~1520 on the SAT), all the way to the Giga society which demands with a straight face an IQ of 196 or higher to join.
Ok, I'm tired of providing links. Look a few pagefuls down on this page http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/hoeflin.html and you'll see that such societies are both in abundance and have widely varying selection criteria. I qualify for most - but certainly not all! - of those societies purely on academic test scores (haven't been IQ tested since I was a youth) but don't see the point of them and don't feel like going through the trouble of specialized "entrance exams". I can stroke my ego myself, thank you very much, and defining any of my life strictly on "how smart I am" vs. "what I have accomplished" or "what am I in the process of accomplishing" would be counterproductive imo.
Kryptonite response: Rebate or replacement
on
Steel Bolt Hacking
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Kryptonite has responded to all this recent brouhaha (I'd hate to work there this week!) with a replacement program for locks 2 years old and newer and a rebate program for locks older than that. Details can be found at their slow and ugly http://www.kryptonitelock.com/ site or via the businesswire mirror of the press release.
Relevant paragraphs for the lazy:
Consumers who have purchased an Evolution lock, KryptoLok lock, New York Chain, New York Noose, Evolution Disc Lock, KryptoDisco or DFS Disc Lock in the last two years are eligible for a product upgrade free of charge from Kryptonite. Customers will need to have either registered their key number, registered for the Kryptonite anti-theft protection offer or have proof of purchase to qualify.
Specifically, Kryptonite will provide for free cross bars featuring the company's new disc-style cylinder lock technology to consumers who have purchased Evolution and KryptoLok series products. In addition the company will replace for free recently purchased Evolution Disc Locks on New York Chain and New York Noose with its "Molly Lock", a heavy duty solid steel padlock. Kryptonite also will upgrade recently purchased disc locks.
Consumers who have had one of the Kryptonite locks mentioned with a tubular cylinder for longer than two years will be eligible for a sizeable rebate on the upgraded products. This program will be administered through Kryptonite dealers and distributors.
Maybe it's just because i've never seen a story so shortly after it was posted, but I was getting "Nothing to see here, move along" errors just a second ago...
"Whatever happened to doing one thing and doing it well?"
If you look at the phone reviews over at http://www.howardchui.com/ then you'll notice that many of the phones that have "excess" bells and whistles also have excellent RF reception. My Nokia 3650, for instance, both synced without issue via Bluetooth with iSync on my Mac OS X box, but also performed admirably as a phone. Imagine that.
Are you in med school? What do you mean by CME in "Radical Vegan Socialists for Peace with a CME"? Continuing Medical Education? If so then the sentence from which I quoted is nonsensical.
The same could, and should, be asked of college athletics programs. They are arguably more peripheral to the university's (ideal, at least in my conception) goal of furthering knowledge and passing this knowledge and method of learning down to students.
Unfortunately, both The Inquirer's terse and sloppy writeup and the poster's cut 'n paste job have the newspaper in question's name misspelled: it's the Nihon Keizai Shinbun (shinbun/shimbun are alternate romanizations of the same Japanese), not Kaizai. Keizai means "economics; business; finance; economy" as per the excellent and free Jeffrey's Japanese/English Dictionary. (Kaizai, on the other hand, translates to "interposition; intervention".) The mistake changes the reading from "Japan Economic newspaper" to "Japan interposition newspaper", quite the difference...
As I posted earlier on/., block the following regex in your ad-blocker of choice (adblock in Firefox, PithHelmet in Safari) and be gone with your troubles: radio\.weblogs\.com\/0105910.
In fact it does. In health care circles there is much hoopla over privacy, especially with Hipaa regulations and the like. For this kind of data, at least, the metric is that it's permissible to release such data (for research studies, perhaps) without authorization if the personally identifiable information has been removed. Since the technology mentioned in the CNN article does not track individuals -- indeed it doesn't seem to be much more than a motion sensor and voice prompts that respond to movement -- it thus falls in a completely different category from one that does, a la "Minority Report."
Slashdot Mirror
Where did you read this, about the tubes' tolerances?
This is why you should ad-block Roland Piquepaille's journal, as detailed in my journal. I guess "detailed" is too generous. Synopsis: add a regex for Roland's blog to your ad-blocker and you'll never click on a spam-link by mistake again.
Your argument is based on the assumption that the Republican and Democrat party lines are drawn at their current locations based on the opinions of the electorate. This is not the case. Instead the parties share the same fundamental pro-corporation viewpoint, as corporations and wealthy individuals at the helm of corporations are their funding source.
Evidence for this is that the issues that the candidates do diverge on are relatively non-critical: abortion, gay marriage, things that would be nice to have resolved but are not critical to the function of the nation. Many real issues are left totally untouched by either party, such as how to achieve universal health care coverage, whether we should be in Iraq at all (not over whether troop increases are necessary), whether our current relationship with Israel is parasitic or symbiotic...
I don't believe that it would be useful on telescopes, as they are focused at essentially infinity. Thus one would not be able to capture the required image focused slightly past infinity with any precision. I'd love to be proven wrong -- if someone knows of an application of QPM at infinity focus please post it.
There is the possibility, yes. TV generally features items in a single plane of focus (enhanced by depth of field) and the raster sweep is in this plane. The problem in applying this technology to cars, for example, lies in that the "sweep" is of the plane itself. Of course it's possible in theory, but it's a different problem than what has already been worked out so throughly in television.
You've basically said what I wrote elsewhere in this article's comments. We both agree that it would have limited utility for real life applications (as in not in fields where confocal microscopy gets people hot and bothered) in as many words.
Incidentally the IATIA link itself held the answer to my above musings, about what the transport equation actually is. I still don't understand it, but it can be viewed by one and all at the bottom of this page: http://www.iatia.com.au/technology/insideQpi.asp
This system does not rely on resolution. You might be imagining it as taking two (or more) pictures shifted horizontally, perhaps, and somehow subtracting the intervening particle's optical effects, leaving only the subject matter. This is not how the system works, however: instead, as the summary briefly but correctly stated it relies on three images being taken, one focused in the plane being studied and the other two focused before and after that plane. Quantitative Phase Microscopy is the process of extracting additional data about the subject in the plane from the data in all three images. Why it doesn't rely on the resolution of the sensor is because the addition information is derived from the optical properties of the light passing through/reflected off the surface, not from sensor trickery.
I guess this could be used on cars given enough processor speed, but it's really not applicable in this case, as it yields additional information about something in a plane (parallel to the sensor of the imaging device -- imagine a brick wall ahead of you when driving). When driving, the plane, say, 50m ahead of the car is moving just as fast as you are, and seeing ultra-crisp images of that plane for the instant that it is 50m ahead would be of dubious utility imo.
I'd be lying if I told you I completely understand the quoted paragraph, specifically what "essentially solving an optical transport equation" refers to, but I'm sure some cursory googling will lead the curious to specifics, certainly more than googling on terms in the article summary would yield.
Again this is another great point. Standard IQ tests have very little discrimination at the top of their ranges. This is why there's a cottage industry of people like Hoeflin who push their own tests, which naturally have score ranges well up into the stratosphere (where the authors are by their own definition, of course :-/).
You are correct, of course. The few organizations I cited do accept SAT scores, however. The problem comes up that the SAT measures both aptitude and basic knowledge: I took the SAT 4 times, at age 10, 11, 15, 16 and my scores went up each time, which shouldn't have happened had the SAT been purely measuring aptitude. (Incidentally why I took it so many times and at a young age is because other groups such as EPGY and SET, more purely academic, do still use the SAT to screen youth for their programs).
I agree that the concept of sending dues to a random PO Box is shady, but the 1520 mark is not too far removed from the 99th percentile reality in the eyes of the College Board, at least for 2003: http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/n ews_info/cbsenior/yr2003/pdf/table_3b.pdf.
Apparently even with my self-professed superlative scores ;-) I can't format or proofread a post correctly. Please ignore "(pages all from".
For those wishing to find organizations more stringent in their requirements than Mensa (pages all from :
TOPS (99th percentile, which apparently equates to a 1360 on the SAT, which is surprisingly low)
One in a thousand society (99.9th, ~1520 on the SAT), all the way to the Giga society which demands with a straight face an IQ of 196 or higher to join.
Ok, I'm tired of providing links. Look a few pagefuls down on this page http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/hoeflin.html and you'll see that such societies are both in abundance and have widely varying selection criteria. I qualify for most - but certainly not all! - of those societies purely on academic test scores (haven't been IQ tested since I was a youth) but don't see the point of them and don't feel like going through the trouble of specialized "entrance exams". I can stroke my ego myself, thank you very much, and defining any of my life strictly on "how smart I am" vs. "what I have accomplished" or "what am I in the process of accomplishing" would be counterproductive imo.
Relevant paragraphs for the lazy:
Maybe it's just because i've never seen a story so shortly after it was posted, but I was getting "Nothing to see here, move along" errors just a second ago...
"Whatever happened to doing one thing and doing it well?"
If you look at the phone reviews over at http://www.howardchui.com/ then you'll notice that many of the phones that have "excess" bells and whistles also have excellent RF reception. My Nokia 3650, for instance, both synced without issue via Bluetooth with iSync on my Mac OS X box, but also performed admirably as a phone. Imagine that.
Hey, just because you're statistically more likely to be a freak (as a home-schooled kid) doesn't mean that you as an individual actually are... ;-)
The accepted spelling is apparently la Cicciolina for the porn star-turned-politician to whom the parent post makes reference.
Are you in med school? What do you mean by CME in "Radical Vegan Socialists for Peace with a CME"? Continuing Medical Education? If so then the sentence from which I quoted is nonsensical.
The same could, and should, be asked of college athletics programs. They are arguably more peripheral to the university's (ideal, at least in my conception) goal of furthering knowledge and passing this knowledge and method of learning down to students.
The purported proof of the Riemann conjecture was reported and discussed in June 2004 here on slashdot. Incidentally the comments contain what I feel is the funniest math-related lines I've ever heard: Riemann-chu, I prove you! (credit to foidulus).
Unfortunately, both The Inquirer's terse and sloppy writeup and the poster's cut 'n paste job have the newspaper in question's name misspelled: it's the Nihon Keizai Shinbun (shinbun/shimbun are alternate romanizations of the same Japanese), not Kaizai. Keizai means "economics; business; finance; economy" as per the excellent and free Jeffrey's Japanese/English Dictionary. (Kaizai, on the other hand, translates to "interposition; intervention".) The mistake changes the reading from "Japan Economic newspaper" to "Japan interposition newspaper", quite the difference...
As I posted earlier on /., block the following regex in your ad-blocker of choice (adblock in Firefox, PithHelmet in Safari) and be gone with your troubles: radio\.weblogs\.com\/0105910.
w w.triangletechjournal.com/news/article.html%3Fitem _id%3D666+&hl=en&start=1
Also, the Triangle TechJournal article is not spam, but merely slashdotted. Here is google's cache: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:uVKexn1-BtYJ:w
In fact it does. In health care circles there is much hoopla over privacy, especially with Hipaa regulations and the like. For this kind of data, at least, the metric is that it's permissible to release such data (for research studies, perhaps) without authorization if the personally identifiable information has been removed. Since the technology mentioned in the CNN article does not track individuals -- indeed it doesn't seem to be much more than a motion sensor and voice prompts that respond to movement -- it thus falls in a completely different category from one that does, a la "Minority Report."
Hmm, I didn't know that. Thanks. I still think my particular tracker site classifies Safari's user-agent string as Netscape 7, however.