I absolutely adore the world of film, but holy fuck do I hate Hollywood.
And, just think. These are the greedy bastards that are writing the copyright laws that have been enacted into the DMCA and ACTA.
They've got the deck stacked in their favor, and they've managed to convince lawmakers to at least pretend to accept their math on how much money they lost. So, now the graft that is the Hollywood financing system has been entrenched into law and international treaties.
We are pretty much all beholden to the music and movie industries, and law has enshrined their profits -- but, since they can never make profits, they'll just squeeze harder.
That guy here on Slashdot with the sig about the boxes in democracy? I think it's time to move onto the ammo box, the first ones have failed.
No, this is also reality. You have only augmented your vision, but the reality was always there for the beholder to behold. If humans couldn't perceive it, that does not change that "reality".
You sir, are correct.
"Reality" is unchanged by seeing more of it, merely one's perception of it.:-P
No, the OP is right, this is augmented reality, because the magnetic field information is superimposed over the vision of the bird's right eye. If it closes it's eyes, no magnetic information is perceived.
But you're missing the fact that, from the bird's perspective, it's simply reality. It's not augmented, it's part of it.
If you and I strap on a device which gives us the same vision as a bird that can see magnetic fields, that is augmented reality. If the bird closes its right eye and then re-opens is, that is not augmented reality, that's blinking. That is the natural vision of the bird.
Augmented reality means enhanced with technology, not just better than yours. The bird has a reality which sees more than we do, but it is not, strictly speaking, augmented. Cooler maybe, but not augmented. For the same reason that relative to a color blind person, I don't have augmented vision -- I have perfectly 'standard' vision, mine just happens to see more than his.
Now, show me a bird wearing night-vision goggles, and I'll cede the point of it being augmented reality. In the mean time, you're arguing a semantic difference that isn't valid.
Why is it that whenever DNA analysis turns up in something other than a homicide case, it seems that most people automatically thinks privacy?
Because every piece of information you voluntarily give away will inevitably end up in places you couldn't foresee, that's why.
You innocently give it to your school, and it ends up in a corporate database, or being used by the government in ways you didn't think of. The standard scenario is being denied insurance because you're predisposed to a certain illness and are therefore going to cost them money.
It's no different from all of the kids on Facebook who don't fully understand that if you broadcast everything, there can be unexpected backlashes. If you just freely hand over this kind of stuff, you have no idea of what could happen in the future.
Perhaps the most important thing is to start applying some critical reasoning to the information we give out every day, and ponder what might happen in the future. What happens when your DNA becomes mandatory?? It starts seeming like the dystopian future we've all been hoping wouldn't happen.
This kind of stuff never stays as only the reason you were told it was going to be used. So, some of us have a default position of "explain, exactly, to me why you want this, and what you're going to do with it". Would you give your saliva to Wal Mart to qualify for a discount?
I know I sound like a representative of the Tin Foil Hat Brigade, but just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean someone isn't out there trying to get you.
Let's say I want to know what Stephen Hawking is tweeting about and I want to know 24/7. Now if you have to make more than one call, something is wrong. That one call should be a notification to Twitter who I am, where you can contact me and what I want to keep tabs on--be it a keyword or user. So all I should ever have to do is tell Twitter I want to know everything from Stephen Hawking and everything with #stephenhawking or whatever and from that point on, it will try to submit that message to me via any number of technologies.
But, it's putting the onus onto Twitter to push data to you. They're throttling people's pulls because they can't keep up with the volume. I seriously doubt their system would scale to having to push to you on any possible device you might have -- if each user has multiple devices, that gets big fast.
Having written a fair bit of software, every time someone says to me "well, it would be so much easier for me if you would just implement it on your side", I cringe. Because they're basically saying "please solve my problem for me so I have a nice elegant interface that gets to assume miracles occur".
It would take work and resources for them to do it.
Heck, I've seen people write software against some libraries that have been provided, blatantly ignore when someone (me) said "don't even think about doing this because it's not supported" -- and then whining that their oh-so-pretty-and-elegant code is being broken because the underlying library doesn't do what they were told it couldn't be made to do. Which, of course, leads to someone saying "well, fix your library" -- and someone else (me) saying "don't write code against my library that assumes unicorns and then bitch at me because there aren't any". In this particular case, taking something which wasn't thread safe, and implemented a very specific (and limited) type of locking -- and coding something which was multi-threaded, and assumed perfect rollback across thousands of operations. You can see how that goes downhill fast.
I call it lazy programming by implicitly trying to force someone else to solve your problem.
In this case, I just can't see it making any sense to push the onus for providing an observer pattern into Twitter when there's so damned many clients and ways to get it that it's not funny. The observer pattern seems good with proximity, and a comparatively limited number of listeners. By the time you get to something like Twitter, it seems to fall down somewhat. How big can your Ruby example scale before it falls to shit?
He took a higher resolution image and made two SMALLER images
Actually, if I understand it, he made a higher resolution image by turning "the chunky, clunky squares of a digital image into a smoother picture made of variably shaped pixels", if I understand correctly, twice a many pixels.
Kirsch’s method assesses a square-pixel picture with masks that are 6 by 6 pixels each and looks for the best way to divide this larger pixel cleanly into two areas of the greatest contrast
I think, he has actually upscaled the images and used his technique to actually do the mythical CSI image enhancement.
Kirsch has also used the program to clean up an MRI scan of his head. The program may find a home in the medical community, he says, where it’s standard to feed images such as X-rays into a computer.
I don't get the impression at all that he's making smaller images. I get the impression that he's actually pulling detail out of the image with the jaggies, and getting a clearer image. The end result is actually more pixels, not less.
However, that's just my best interpretation -- I'm entirely willing to concede that I'm wrong. I'm actually trying to figure it out.:-P
It is entirely possible that he is ending up with the same number of variable pixels which gives more apparent detail, just with better alignment.
In 1880~1900, black/white photographs could be sent to Germany (the China of the time) to be hand colorized. Of course, they didn't always get the colors right due to cultural differences.
Yeah, but that was hand tinting, which was (mostly) more like painting.
The Russian guy actually did it with light filters and three separate images. Way ahead of his time.
Hard to say. I'm not aware of any particular colours I can't see, and under normal circumstances I think I can see a fairly normal spectrum and contrast.
In the case of the red flower, it was several hundred feet away. Without the glasses, it was a small red speck in a large field that I barely noticed. With them, it was a fairly glaring thing that leapt out at me. It's not like up close I can't see red against green.
I've actually seen signs that are blue and red lights -- depending on the shade, and how dark out it is, I can't directly see the blue if the red is there, I can only see it peripherally. I've just always assumed it's because they're on the opposite end of the spectrum, and your eye can't do both at the same time.
In the case of my orange glasses, I think it just reduces the overall amount of blue I see, and lets the reds come to the fore. Again, always assumed it was how much the eye has to dilate (or not) to see blue/red -- sort of like red-light to keep your night vision.
*laugh* I guess if you had only one eye transplanted, you could end up with a mismatched set. That would mess you up.
Ummm... the guy created the first digital image, on the "only programmable computer" in the US at the time. I would say yes, that's an invention.
From what TFA says, he might be well on his way to improving digital imaging by a fair bit too, because he's being a little smarter about how he builds the images and breaks it down into sections.
One challenge they faced was ensuring the right mice won the right fights. They got around this by borrowing a trick from seedy boxing promoters the world over, pairing the favored mouse with a weaker, less sexually experienced opponent who could not hope to spring an upset.
So, these mice basically got a false sense of confidence that might have gotten themselves a boost, and managed to avoid better fighters in the process.
But, if the fights hadn't been fixed, they would have lost handily to the, er, undermouse.
Definitely sounds like real boxing to me.:-P Wake me up when one mouse wins by tap-out.
I actually find it rather odd that they choose that picture. I know pretty much instantly that if I get a friend request of a girl in a bikini - unless I know her instantly I know it's just spam and ignore it.
Dude, TFS says he's a friggin' Army Ranger.
With that much testosterone, those guys aren't going to immediately assume it's spam. They're just going to assume they don't remember her. These guys walk with swagger because they know they're carrying an Army issued Big Pair (TM), which likely clouds their judgement sometimes.
I'd say more about TFA, but Firefox is telling me that the URL is redirecting in a way that can never resolve, so I have no idea of what it actually says.:-P
Infrared burn, more like -- in bright hot Calif sun it actually feels like my eyes are being cooked.
Yeah, I was in Cuba a few times, and everything felt like it was getting cooked.:-P
but I do notice it screwing up colour vision (but I'm also one of those four-colour vision freaks)
Wow, the mythical four-colour vision. That must be different -- I understand that to be quite rare.
I'm aware of the colour shift from the orange lenses, but when I first realized that a red flower in a sea of green 'popped' with the lenses, and was almost invisible without, I decided that the colour shift was actually more advantageous. I actually see 'more' in that the shift highlights some things that might almost be invisible otherwise, and doesn't really affect the rest very much. (OK, blue cars look slightly more purple, but I've mentally adjusted my expectation.)
I find the gray lenses distort the colour in a way that makes things less visible to me, and in even slightly lower light makes it too dark. Never could get used to yellow, that was too much of a colour shift for me.
Ah well, human vision is a wacky thing I suppose.:-P
Slashdot Mirror
And, just think. These are the greedy bastards that are writing the copyright laws that have been enacted into the DMCA and ACTA.
They've got the deck stacked in their favor, and they've managed to convince lawmakers to at least pretend to accept their math on how much money they lost. So, now the graft that is the Hollywood financing system has been entrenched into law and international treaties.
We are pretty much all beholden to the music and movie industries, and law has enshrined their profits -- but, since they can never make profits, they'll just squeeze harder.
That guy here on Slashdot with the sig about the boxes in democracy? I think it's time to move onto the ammo box, the first ones have failed.
You sir, are correct.
"Reality" is unchanged by seeing more of it, merely one's perception of it. :-P
What I described would be ... augmented senses?
You articulated that better than I would have been able to.
I don't see the either/or between science and philosophy. They can very much be complementary.
See, now that is funny. :-P
Ah, but ask yourself, is she the one who is truly lacking?
Or do you have maybe a second geek-humor chromosome? I've encountered that one before. :-P
And, in rare instances, even before.
But you're missing the fact that, from the bird's perspective, it's simply reality. It's not augmented, it's part of it.
If you and I strap on a device which gives us the same vision as a bird that can see magnetic fields, that is augmented reality. If the bird closes its right eye and then re-opens is, that is not augmented reality, that's blinking. That is the natural vision of the bird.
Augmented reality means enhanced with technology, not just better than yours. The bird has a reality which sees more than we do, but it is not, strictly speaking, augmented. Cooler maybe, but not augmented. For the same reason that relative to a color blind person, I don't have augmented vision -- I have perfectly 'standard' vision, mine just happens to see more than his.
Now, show me a bird wearing night-vision goggles, and I'll cede the point of it being augmented reality. In the mean time, you're arguing a semantic difference that isn't valid.
What else would you whore yourself out for, cheese??
However, I agree, quitting your job to sell t-shirts of your kid seems short-sighted.
Because every piece of information you voluntarily give away will inevitably end up in places you couldn't foresee, that's why.
You innocently give it to your school, and it ends up in a corporate database, or being used by the government in ways you didn't think of. The standard scenario is being denied insurance because you're predisposed to a certain illness and are therefore going to cost them money.
It's no different from all of the kids on Facebook who don't fully understand that if you broadcast everything, there can be unexpected backlashes. If you just freely hand over this kind of stuff, you have no idea of what could happen in the future.
Perhaps the most important thing is to start applying some critical reasoning to the information we give out every day, and ponder what might happen in the future. What happens when your DNA becomes mandatory?? It starts seeming like the dystopian future we've all been hoping wouldn't happen.
This kind of stuff never stays as only the reason you were told it was going to be used. So, some of us have a default position of "explain, exactly, to me why you want this, and what you're going to do with it". Would you give your saliva to Wal Mart to qualify for a discount?
I know I sound like a representative of the Tin Foil Hat Brigade, but just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean someone isn't out there trying to get you.
But, it's putting the onus onto Twitter to push data to you. They're throttling people's pulls because they can't keep up with the volume. I seriously doubt their system would scale to having to push to you on any possible device you might have -- if each user has multiple devices, that gets big fast.
Having written a fair bit of software, every time someone says to me "well, it would be so much easier for me if you would just implement it on your side", I cringe. Because they're basically saying "please solve my problem for me so I have a nice elegant interface that gets to assume miracles occur".
It would take work and resources for them to do it.
Heck, I've seen people write software against some libraries that have been provided, blatantly ignore when someone (me) said "don't even think about doing this because it's not supported" -- and then whining that their oh-so-pretty-and-elegant code is being broken because the underlying library doesn't do what they were told it couldn't be made to do. Which, of course, leads to someone saying "well, fix your library" -- and someone else (me) saying "don't write code against my library that assumes unicorns and then bitch at me because there aren't any". In this particular case, taking something which wasn't thread safe, and implemented a very specific (and limited) type of locking -- and coding something which was multi-threaded, and assumed perfect rollback across thousands of operations. You can see how that goes downhill fast.
I call it lazy programming by implicitly trying to force someone else to solve your problem.
In this case, I just can't see it making any sense to push the onus for providing an observer pattern into Twitter when there's so damned many clients and ways to get it that it's not funny. The observer pattern seems good with proximity, and a comparatively limited number of listeners. By the time you get to something like Twitter, it seems to fall down somewhat. How big can your Ruby example scale before it falls to shit?
Must ... not ... click ... poop ... link ...
Most informative 'whoosh' ever. :-P
He never mentioned the tiling problem which you've so kindly schooled me in. I just pointed out that pentagons came after squares and before hexagons.
There, I've run rings around you. :-P
*laugh* No worries, I knew you were joking, and acknowledged it in my reply.
But some of the kids on the lawn might not have known that. ;-)
In fact, I did.
Actually, if I understand it, he made a higher resolution image by turning "the chunky, clunky squares of a digital image into a smoother picture made of variably shaped pixels", if I understand correctly, twice a many pixels.
I think, he has actually upscaled the images and used his technique to actually do the mythical CSI image enhancement.
I don't get the impression at all that he's making smaller images. I get the impression that he's actually pulling detail out of the image with the jaggies, and getting a clearer image. The end result is actually more pixels, not less.
However, that's just my best interpretation -- I'm entirely willing to concede that I'm wrong. I'm actually trying to figure it out. :-P
It is entirely possible that he is ending up with the same number of variable pixels which gives more apparent detail, just with better alignment.
Yeah, but that was hand tinting, which was (mostly) more like painting.
The Russian guy actually did it with light filters and three separate images. Way ahead of his time.
Hard to say. I'm not aware of any particular colours I can't see, and under normal circumstances I think I can see a fairly normal spectrum and contrast.
In the case of the red flower, it was several hundred feet away. Without the glasses, it was a small red speck in a large field that I barely noticed. With them, it was a fairly glaring thing that leapt out at me. It's not like up close I can't see red against green.
I've actually seen signs that are blue and red lights -- depending on the shade, and how dark out it is, I can't directly see the blue if the red is there, I can only see it peripherally. I've just always assumed it's because they're on the opposite end of the spectrum, and your eye can't do both at the same time.
In the case of my orange glasses, I think it just reduces the overall amount of blue I see, and lets the reds come to the fore. Again, always assumed it was how much the eye has to dilate (or not) to see blue/red -- sort of like red-light to keep your night vision.
*laugh* I guess if you had only one eye transplanted, you could end up with a mismatched set. That would mess you up.
Cheers
Rigid, or frigid? :-P
Technically, pentagons are the next step after squares. Hexagons come after that. :-P
Actually, I think he's making it real. If TFA is any indication, he can smooth an existing image and produce rather spectacular enhancements.
Actually, you jest, but I remember the first time I saw footage from WWII that was in colour and being stunned, because it was so vivid.
And, then there was the Russian guy who created colour photos in 1909 using techniques he created himself.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Ummm ... the guy created the first digital image, on the "only programmable computer" in the US at the time. I would say yes, that's an invention.
From what TFA says, he might be well on his way to improving digital imaging by a fair bit too, because he's being a little smarter about how he builds the images and breaks it down into sections.
In effect, he's building a better pixel.
Jeebus!! Invented the pixel. I'll be damned. :-P
So, these mice basically got a false sense of confidence that might have gotten themselves a boost, and managed to avoid better fighters in the process.
But, if the fights hadn't been fixed, they would have lost handily to the, er, undermouse.
Definitely sounds like real boxing to me. :-P Wake me up when one mouse wins by tap-out.
Dude, TFS says he's a friggin' Army Ranger.
With that much testosterone, those guys aren't going to immediately assume it's spam. They're just going to assume they don't remember her. These guys walk with swagger because they know they're carrying an Army issued Big Pair (TM), which likely clouds their judgement sometimes.
I'd say more about TFA, but Firefox is telling me that the URL is redirecting in a way that can never resolve, so I have no idea of what it actually says. :-P
Yeah, I was in Cuba a few times, and everything felt like it was getting cooked. :-P
Wow, the mythical four-colour vision. That must be different -- I understand that to be quite rare.
I'm aware of the colour shift from the orange lenses, but when I first realized that a red flower in a sea of green 'popped' with the lenses, and was almost invisible without, I decided that the colour shift was actually more advantageous. I actually see 'more' in that the shift highlights some things that might almost be invisible otherwise, and doesn't really affect the rest very much. (OK, blue cars look slightly more purple, but I've mentally adjusted my expectation.)
I find the gray lenses distort the colour in a way that makes things less visible to me, and in even slightly lower light makes it too dark. Never could get used to yellow, that was too much of a colour shift for me.
Ah well, human vision is a wacky thing I suppose. :-P
Cheers