I always got upset with people...go like "you cannot say that organism wanted to lose its teeth". Well, this is obvious! And yet (IMHO) it's a perfect valid way to state a fact...
It's what Daniel Dennett calls the "intentional stance." I agree with Dijkstra, that anthropomorphizing code is frequently problematic, but the intentional stance can be quite useful in general. Most of the systems we build and encounter in our daily lives are "intentional systems", designed to achieve specific purposes in an external physical reality, and the intentional stance is really parsimonious for these cases.
I wanted to try full correction, but the doctor was so sure there would be blurring issues he wouldn't do it. Next time the opportunity arises, maybe I will just go for it.
Toric lenses are thicker at the bottom so they are self-orienting. The thicker part is visible though, so the parent's wife probably just feels weird putting them in at any odd angle and seeing the brief re-orientation distortion. That distortion is the limiting factor for toric lenses - they cause motion blur at high levels of correction.
I tried them, but high-axis toric lenses cause motion blur. We tried under-correcting the astigmatism in my bad eye, but it was too frustrating and I eventually stopped using them. That was years ago though - do you know if there are motion blur issues today?
It would have been in some theaters, but not the two largest chains. The movie industry has a number of rules / conventions (some contractual) pertaining to theatrical releases, so Sony decided to try again later instead of just release in some theaters.
They easily could have released already via another distribution channel (such as their own streaming service, Crackle), but they are probably still hoping for a high-gross opening weekend in theaters, which they will no doubt get after all the publicity the film's received.
Anyway, I do wonder if the hackers just meant that the movie is so terrible, theater goers will want to blow themselves up.
Really, it's Regal Cinemas that's spineless. Sony didn't have much choice once so many theaters pulled out - but they're still whack for hoping no one remembers they own Crackle
The quote I used comes at the conclusion of a mathematical demonstration - here's the link. I've now had the time to read the new paper (TFA), and they actually credit Feynman right at the start for having the general insight. Feynman's discussion is for a single uncertainty relation (position and momentum for a "particle" composed of a finite wave train), while TFA is broadly general and cached in terms of the modern entropy-based approached to uncertainty. So I think you're right, in that Feynman's treatment can't really be called a "framework" - it only deals with a single problem.
Really the only problem here is gross overstatement in TFS...but what else is new.
Maybe you're thinking of The Feynman Lectures (which is college-level)? In Volume 3, Section 2-2 of his lectures, Feynman shows the deep relationship between the uncertainty principle and wave-particle duality. Feynman sez:
Now this property of waves, that the length of the wave train times the uncertainty of the wave number associated with it is at least 2, is a property that is known to everyone who studies them.
Like the one shown in Volume 3, Section 2-2 of the Feynman Lectures of Physics, published 1964?
Now this property of waves, that the length of the wave train times the uncertainty of the wave number associated with it is at least 2, is a property that is known to everyone who studies them. It has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. It is simply that if we have a finite train, we cannot count the waves in it very precisely.
There's a big difference to a general attack on women because of their sex and criticisms towards specific women for their actions, which the anti-gamergate side refuses to acknowledge. The former may or may not be misogyny (depends on the motive for the generalization)
The "former" applies directly to the phrase "a general attack on women because of their sex" (emphasis mine). The elided part of the sentence has no bearing on this fact.
Criticizing someone who happens to be female for things that have nothing to do with her being a female could be misogyny, but is not guaranteed to be misogyny.
The parent specifically refers to a "attack on women because of their sex," which explicitly has to do with their being female. The parent doesn't say "criticizing...for things that have nothing to do with being female," it says "attacks...because of their [female] sex." Hope that clears things up for you.
I guess the price goes a long way towards showing how much more impressive the computer vision approach would be, if it worked. A (stereoscopic) camera produces much less information than LIDAR, and visual tasks are always deceptively complex.
My bad, I thought you wrote "inverse-square" the second time. The irradiance depends on the latitude and declination as well as the distance from the sun - I found this site with detailed formulae. Basically in addition to the inverse-square factor is a sinusodial factor for the angle and a logarithmic factor for the atmospheric absorption, but it turns out the inverse-square part really is dominant for the average values at the top of the atmosphere, just like your intution. These data also support that.
They might not be referring to top-of-atmosphere values, though, so there's no way to tell if they're actually mistaken without knowing what atmospheric heights they're comparing. The atmospheric effect is surprisingly large even on Mars, where the attenuation is at least 1.2-fold and as high as 150-fold during a storm (from the Viking data from the first link).
Slashdot Mirror
I always got upset with people...go like "you cannot say that organism wanted to lose its teeth". Well, this is obvious! And yet (IMHO) it's a perfect valid way to state a fact...
It's what Daniel Dennett calls the "intentional stance." I agree with Dijkstra, that anthropomorphizing code is frequently problematic, but the intentional stance can be quite useful in general. Most of the systems we build and encounter in our daily lives are "intentional systems", designed to achieve specific purposes in an external physical reality, and the intentional stance is really parsimonious for these cases.
I wanted to try full correction, but the doctor was so sure there would be blurring issues he wouldn't do it. Next time the opportunity arises, maybe I will just go for it.
Toric lenses are thicker at the bottom so they are self-orienting. The thicker part is visible though, so the parent's wife probably just feels weird putting them in at any odd angle and seeing the brief re-orientation distortion. That distortion is the limiting factor for toric lenses - they cause motion blur at high levels of correction.
toric astigmatism lenses
I tried them, but high-axis toric lenses cause motion blur. We tried under-correcting the astigmatism in my bad eye, but it was too frustrating and I eventually stopped using them. That was years ago though - do you know if there are motion blur issues today?
They used iPads, so this paper isn't really about e-readers in general, just tablets.
Yeah, it's easy to forget how fragile internet protocols really are - and from what I've read NK doesn't have that much bandwidth.
The US asked China to interfere with NK's ability to conduct cyber attacks. Maybe they agreed.
It would have been in some theaters, but not the two largest chains. The movie industry has a number of rules / conventions (some contractual) pertaining to theatrical releases, so Sony decided to try again later instead of just release in some theaters.
They easily could have released already via another distribution channel (such as their own streaming service, Crackle), but they are probably still hoping for a high-gross opening weekend in theaters, which they will no doubt get after all the publicity the film's received.
Anyway, I do wonder if the hackers just meant that the movie is so terrible, theater goers will want to blow themselves up.
And now Sony is know for having no spine.
Really, it's Regal Cinemas that's spineless. Sony didn't have much choice once so many theaters pulled out - but they're still whack for hoping no one remembers they own Crackle
No worries, I had to read it a few times too - the claim is so outlandish.
The quote I used comes at the conclusion of a mathematical demonstration - here's the link. I've now had the time to read the new paper (TFA), and they actually credit Feynman right at the start for having the general insight. Feynman's discussion is for a single uncertainty relation (position and momentum for a "particle" composed of a finite wave train), while TFA is broadly general and cached in terms of the modern entropy-based approached to uncertainty. So I think you're right, in that Feynman's treatment can't really be called a "framework" - it only deals with a single problem.
Really the only problem here is gross overstatement in TFS...but what else is new.
I don't know about the parent, but Feynman explained this one to me years ago. (See Feynman Lectures, Volume 3, Section 2-2).
Maybe you're thinking of The Feynman Lectures (which is college-level)? In Volume 3, Section 2-2 of his lectures, Feynman shows the deep relationship between the uncertainty principle and wave-particle duality. Feynman sez:
Now this property of waves, that the length of the wave train times the uncertainty of the wave number associated with it is at least 2, is a property that is known to everyone who studies them.
the rigorous mathematical framework
Like the one shown in Volume 3, Section 2-2 of the Feynman Lectures of Physics, published 1964?
Now this property of waves, that the length of the wave train times the uncertainty of the wave number associated with it is at least 2, is a property that is known to everyone who studies them. It has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. It is simply that if we have a finite train, we cannot count the waves in it very precisely.
Parent wrote:
There's a big difference to a general attack on women because of their sex and criticisms towards specific women for their actions, which the anti-gamergate side refuses to acknowledge. The former may or may not be misogyny (depends on the motive for the generalization)
The "former" applies directly to the phrase "a general attack on women because of their sex" (emphasis mine). The elided part of the sentence has no bearing on this fact.
Criticizing someone who happens to be female for things that have nothing to do with her being a female could be misogyny, but is not guaranteed to be misogyny.
The parent specifically refers to a "attack on women because of their sex," which explicitly has to do with their being female. The parent doesn't say "criticizing...for things that have nothing to do with being female," it says "attacks...because of their [female] sex." Hope that clears things up for you.
a general attack on women because of their sex...may or may not be misogyny
Actually, that is pretty much the definition of misogyny.
It is probably just a viral marketing campaign by Sony.
The sad thing is, it would actually be better that way.
All modern systems are capable of storing different strings for filenames in different cases
Including Windows (with NTFS) - but the API used to access the filesystem normalizes everything. It leads to a lot of weird behavior...
One pet peeve of mine is people creating file names like: "this is a book of my whole life and everything i know.doc'" drives me crazy :)
You can definitely blame Microsoft for that one (default Word filename is first line of document).
I think it's technically a misfeature - or maybe a wart. It was intentional...
I guess the price goes a long way towards showing how much more impressive the computer vision approach would be, if it worked. A (stereoscopic) camera produces much less information than LIDAR, and visual tasks are always deceptively complex.
That link didn't work for me, but this one does.
My bad, I thought you wrote "inverse-square" the second time. The irradiance depends on the latitude and declination as well as the distance from the sun - I found this site with detailed formulae. Basically in addition to the inverse-square factor is a sinusodial factor for the angle and a logarithmic factor for the atmospheric absorption, but it turns out the inverse-square part really is dominant for the average values at the top of the atmosphere, just like your intution. These data also support that.
They might not be referring to top-of-atmosphere values, though, so there's no way to tell if they're actually mistaken without knowing what atmospheric heights they're comparing. The atmospheric effect is surprisingly large even on Mars, where the attenuation is at least 1.2-fold and as high as 150-fold during a storm (from the Viking data from the first link).
So you admit you have no arguments, but only trivial reversals of any proposition, which you then regard as authoritative.
Exactly.