I won't argue with your three reasons. Nevertheless, basic economics predicts that if we got rid of the subsidies, prices of the products produced in the country would immediately rise to compensate for the difference. It is *always* more economically efficient to let the market price in effects like this than using the blunt instrument of government intervention.
And finally, we live in a country of dumbasses who vote, and dumbasses who don't vote. Until you can fix them, they'll be voting for "a Bush" every time.
Absolutely, absolutely right. Regardless of the influence on money on our democracy, it is still a democracy- citizens repeatedly vote for those in power. All we have to do is demand better leadership, and we would have it. Would anyone honestly content that George Bush or John Kerry are the best we have to offer? No doubt we have thousands of far more capable leaders who would love to serve the country, but the system (i.e. the voters) does not select these people.
We have to blame ourselves. How often do you talk to your friends and family about serious political issues? People vote with out educating themselves-- what do you expect to hapen?
The parent is somewhat correct. The key IS to start programming, but under guidance. I strongly recommend that the original poster start with Scheme, and work his/her way through the exercises in the Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs by Harold Abelson and Gerald Jay Sussman. If you are interested in the *principles* of programming, this is by an order of magnitude the best book. If you don't find this book fun, you will not like programming. The full text is available for free at: http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z -H-1.html#titlepage
Yes, Scheme is completely useless in terms of employment, but there is almost no syntax to use, meaning one can concentrate on principles.
Applying and getting accepted to CS grad school in the US is an extremely drawn out and painful process, even for US citizens. The method I advise for you is this:
1) Find the US News and World Report rankings of the top 50 programs. (You can ignore the exact rankings, but this is a good list of 50 schools to look at.)
2) For each (yes!) school, go the the faculty, and find those (if any) who have interests in graphics. Read their web pages and papers. Make a list of all faculty that would be interesting to work with. (To a first approximation the shool you go to does not matter. What matters, TREMENDOUSLY, is who your advisor is.)
3) If possible, correspond with the above faculty.
4) Apply to each school (shoot for 10 or more- competition is extremely high these days) who has at least one faculty whose research is interesting. This will cost you, with application fees running around 50-100USD each. (But you are in England- treasure those exchange rates!)
5) (If you get in) Profit!
Also note that to get in, you principally need LETTERS OF RECOMENDATION FROM PROFESSORS WHO CAN VOUCH FOR YOUR ABILITY TO DO RESEARCH. Grades, test scores, etc are somewhat important, but the above trumps all.
Your point about buildings having straight lines and 90 degree angles is definitely valid, but researchers have not been able to use this kind of strategy with much success. (yet)
Your idea about the ground being basically flat, though, won't really help much. An assumption about the ground being flat will only be useful to the extent that you are willing to 'flatten out' the 3d model in your solution. I promise you, the stereo problem will remain *really, really hard*, and we won't be able to get any cool 3d models of new york city or the grand canyon. (Or if they make 3d models, they will be hopelessly wrong.)
What would *really* help solve the correspondence problem is if some very complex pattern was magically painted on the ground. Remember those wierd drawings where you stare at a bunch of dots, and cross your eyes, and 3d eventually pops out? Strange though it may seem, these are the *easiest* types of images to solve automatically. The reason human brains can do stereo so amazingly well is that we *simultaneously* figure out what we are looking at, and what it's 3d model is. This is a deep point. If you look at a chair, do you first figure out if it is a chair, or find the 3d model? The answer is *no* and to make real progress machine vision people need to write programs that will do the same.
Get cool 3D images of Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Everest, Uluru, etc.
Don't get too excited. The process of extracting 3d depth from a pair of 2d pictures is shockingly more difficult than one would initially expect. Given the 2d positions of the same point in both cameras, it is trvial to find the 3d depth, but in practice the problem of finding the corresponding points is extremely difficult. (It is called the 'correspondence problem' and can justifiably be called the holy grail of the field of Computer Vision.) For those who are truly interested, you can actually see how most of the current state of the art stereo algorithms run on a few (easy) stereo pairs here.
I wonder how productive a discussion can be after it has reached the tone in the above article. Nevertheless, your challenge to show research to back up my claims is fair enough.
This may require a license to be viewed- I am accessing this from an institution that provides one, so I'll post the abstract here:
Abstract We address the high variability in sex offender recidivism rates by examining several of the critical methodological differences that underlie this variability. We used a dataset on 251 sex offenders (136 rapists and 115 child molesters) who were discharged over a 25-year period to examine changes in recidivism as a function of changes in dispositional definition of reoffense (e.g., arrest or conviction), changes in the domain of criminal offenses that are considered, and changes in the length of exposure time. The data indicate that: (a) both rapists and child molesters remain at risk to reoffend long after their discharge, in some cases 15-20 years after discharge; (b) there was a marked underestimation of recidivism when calculating a simple proportion (%) consisting of those who were known to have reoffended during the follow-up period, and (c) there was a marked underestimation of recidivism when the criterion was based on conviction or imprisonment. Forensic, clinical and policy implications of this high variability are discussed.
I don't like this save the world through incarceration, tracking, ostracism, marking, tagging, berating, and continuing to punish after the fact. It doesn't make sense. You can't put numbers to it and show success.
I never advocated any of the above. My contention is simply that sex offenders do not reform, and therefore we need to put additional safegaurds in if and when they are released. I don't view this as punishment, per se.
It is interesting that with all your berating of me for not providing evidence, you yourself provide none.
Ignoring item b) (which would seem to justify not punishing anyone for anything, ever. Do you seriously think that courts of law frequently convict people of sex-crimes soley on the basis one person's word, with no additional evidence?) one would think that in the context of the above article it was obvious that I was refering to sexual predators of the type who molest children. Don't distract from the issue by feigning ignorance. Did you read the article? These people do not reform, and releasing them puts the rest of society in danger. These people should be locked up for life, and I don't see how anyone can argue that.
Not really. I have read research that shows that sex offenders almost never actually reform, so I am honestly in favor of locking up convicted sex offenders for life. This isn't punishment- I honestly feel sorry for people who have a psychological need to commit this kind of behavior- but we have to protect society. If using this kind of tracker makes it possible to safely release sex offenders into the public, I am fully in favor of it.
Now, I know many of you worry about the slippery slope that this introduces, and I am sympathetic to that. Regardless, people should understand that sex offenders are almost always psychologically incapable of avoiding this kind of behavior, so we are forced to choose between putting the public in danger, locking sex offenders up for life, or ingenious and somewhat cruel techniques such as trackers, chemical castration, etc.
Just a few cells back from the retina, the visual signals have allready been 'encoded' in a way which would make a straight pixelmap hard to attain. (Each neuron here corresponds to a wierd gaussian thing centered around a given point) Furthermore, the signals aren't sent down a single neural train, they go all over the place all willy-nilly. Theoretically, these things would be overcome but the most serious problem is that our eyes at any given moment only look at a tiny, tiny bit of space. The illusion of a continuous field of vision is created by the brain in an amazing process which is not very well understood.
It's worth noting that though Russia and the US both payed for components of the space station, many of the US components were actually built in Russia.
Sure, it's rediculous that this guy is going into space, just because he's got money, but frankly, that's Russia's problem. If we are to maintain any sort of pretense of this being an "International" space station, we should let Russia make it's own (bad) decisions. If he posed a serious risk the station itself, or to the lives of Americans we would have a right to intervene. But he does not. We'd do better to shut our collective mouth and be glad Russia does the same when we select who we want to send into space.
Slashdot Mirror
I won't argue with your three reasons. Nevertheless, basic economics predicts that if we got rid of the subsidies, prices of the products produced in the country would immediately rise to compensate for the difference. It is *always* more economically efficient to let the market price in effects like this than using the blunt instrument of government intervention.
And finally, we live in a country of dumbasses who vote, and dumbasses who don't vote. Until you can fix them, they'll be voting for "a Bush" every time.
Absolutely, absolutely right. Regardless of the influence on money on our democracy, it is still a democracy- citizens repeatedly vote for those in power. All we have to do is demand better leadership, and we would have it. Would anyone honestly content that George Bush or John Kerry are the best we have to offer? No doubt we have thousands of far more capable leaders who would love to serve the country, but the system (i.e. the voters) does not select these people.
We have to blame ourselves. How often do you talk to your friends and family about serious political issues? People vote with out educating themselves-- what do you expect to hapen?
The parent is somewhat correct. The key IS to start programming, but under guidance. I strongly recommend that the original poster start with Scheme, and work his/her way through the exercises in the Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs by Harold Abelson and Gerald Jay Sussman. If you are interested in the *principles* of programming, this is by an order of magnitude the best book. If you don't find this book fun, you will not like programming. The full text is available for free at: http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z -H-1.html#titlepage
Yes, Scheme is completely useless in terms of employment, but there is almost no syntax to use, meaning one can concentrate on principles.
Applying and getting accepted to CS grad school in the US is an extremely drawn out and painful process, even for US citizens. The method I advise for you is this:
1) Find the US News and World Report rankings of the top 50 programs. (You can ignore the exact rankings, but this is a good list of 50 schools to look at.)
2) For each (yes!) school, go the the faculty, and find those (if any) who have interests in graphics. Read their web pages and papers. Make a list of all faculty that would be interesting to work with. (To a first approximation the shool you go to does not matter. What matters, TREMENDOUSLY, is who your advisor is.)
3) If possible, correspond with the above faculty.
4) Apply to each school (shoot for 10 or more- competition is extremely high these days) who has at least one faculty whose research is interesting. This will cost you, with application fees running around 50-100USD each. (But you are in England- treasure those exchange rates!)
5) (If you get in) Profit!
Also note that to get in, you principally need LETTERS OF RECOMENDATION FROM PROFESSORS WHO CAN VOUCH FOR YOUR ABILITY TO DO RESEARCH. Grades, test scores, etc are somewhat important, but the above trumps all.
Your point about buildings having straight lines and 90 degree angles is definitely valid, but researchers have not been able to use this kind of strategy with much success. (yet)
Your idea about the ground being basically flat, though, won't really help much. An assumption about the ground being flat will only be useful to the extent that you are willing to 'flatten out' the 3d model in your solution. I promise you, the stereo problem will remain *really, really hard*, and we won't be able to get any cool 3d models of new york city or the grand canyon. (Or if they make 3d models, they will be hopelessly wrong.)
What would *really* help solve the correspondence problem is if some very complex pattern was magically painted on the ground. Remember those wierd drawings where you stare at a bunch of dots, and cross your eyes, and 3d eventually pops out? Strange though it may seem, these are the *easiest* types of images to solve automatically. The reason human brains can do stereo so amazingly well is that we *simultaneously* figure out what we are looking at, and what it's 3d model is. This is a deep point. If you look at a chair, do you first figure out if it is a chair, or find the 3d model? The answer is *no* and to make real progress machine vision people need to write programs that will do the same.
Get cool 3D images of Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Everest, Uluru, etc.
Don't get too excited. The process of extracting 3d depth from a pair of 2d pictures is shockingly more difficult than one would initially expect. Given the 2d positions of the same point in both cameras, it is trvial to find the 3d depth, but in practice the problem of finding the corresponding points is extremely difficult. (It is called the 'correspondence problem' and can justifiably be called the holy grail of the field of Computer Vision.) For those who are truly interested, you can actually see how most of the current state of the art stereo algorithms run on a few (easy) stereo pairs here.
The following would certianly back up my claim
Recidivism Rates Among Child Molesters and Rapists: A Methodological Analysis
http://www.springerlink.com/app/home/contribution
This may require a license to be viewed- I am accessing this from an institution that provides one, so I'll post the abstract here:
I don't like this save the world through incarceration, tracking, ostracism, marking, tagging, berating, and continuing to punish after the fact. It doesn't make sense. You can't put numbers to it and show success.
I never advocated any of the above. My contention is simply that sex offenders do not reform, and therefore we need to put additional safegaurds in if and when they are released. I don't view this as punishment, per se.
It is interesting that with all your berating of me for not providing evidence, you yourself provide none.
Ignoring item b) (which would seem to justify not punishing anyone for anything, ever. Do you seriously think that courts of law frequently convict people of sex-crimes soley on the basis one person's word, with no additional evidence?) one would think that in the context of the above article it was obvious that I was refering to sexual predators of the type who molest children. Don't distract from the issue by feigning ignorance. Did you read the article? These people do not reform, and releasing them puts the rest of society in danger. These people should be locked up for life, and I don't see how anyone can argue that.
Not really. I have read research that shows that sex offenders almost never actually reform, so I am honestly in favor of locking up convicted sex offenders for life. This isn't punishment- I honestly feel sorry for people who have a psychological need to commit this kind of behavior- but we have to protect society. If using this kind of tracker makes it possible to safely release sex offenders into the public, I am fully in favor of it.
Now, I know many of you worry about the slippery slope that this introduces, and I am sympathetic to that. Regardless, people should understand that sex offenders are almost always psychologically incapable of avoiding this kind of behavior, so we are forced to choose between putting the public in danger, locking sex offenders up for life, or ingenious and somewhat cruel techniques such as trackers, chemical castration, etc.
Just a few cells back from the retina, the visual signals have allready been 'encoded' in a way which would make a straight pixelmap hard to attain. (Each neuron here corresponds to a wierd gaussian thing centered around a given point) Furthermore, the signals aren't sent down a single neural train, they go all over the place all willy-nilly. Theoretically, these things would be overcome but the most serious problem is that our eyes at any given moment only look at a tiny, tiny bit of space. The illusion of a continuous field of vision is created by the brain in an amazing process which is not very well understood.
google's cache of the main page and google's cache of academics
It's worth noting that though Russia and the US both payed for components of the space station, many of the US components were actually built in Russia. Sure, it's rediculous that this guy is going into space, just because he's got money, but frankly, that's Russia's problem. If we are to maintain any sort of pretense of this being an "International" space station, we should let Russia make it's own (bad) decisions. If he posed a serious risk the station itself, or to the lives of Americans we would have a right to intervene. But he does not. We'd do better to shut our collective mouth and be glad Russia does the same when we select who we want to send into space.