Do you even have a degree? Leave science to OFFICIAL REAL scientists.
<Sarcasm>
Oh, so that's how it works! Science is like the army, where the one with the higher rank is right.
"Sorry I proved your theory wrong, sir, I didn't know you were the Major High Grand Master Arch-Bishop of General Scientificness. Of course, I will retact my proof immediately and issue an apology for having offended one of my betters..."
</Sarcasm>
The whole point about science is to be scientific about it, not to adobt it as an authorative religion!!
Empirical data can disprove a theory, but never, never, NEVER prove a theory!
To accept theories as gospel is wrong.
To think less of it, beacuse it is "just a theory" is to miss the point completely - being a theory means it's still not disproved, and no amount of empirical backing will elevate it beyond being a theory
I don't mind that people think this theory is right and this is wrong, but it should be based on their own evaluation and reflection, and be able to have an open-minded debate about it, not just adobt whatever theory is in fashion at the moment and argue that everyone that thinks otherwise is morons. Of course, if you refuse do do actual thinking about theories, namecalling is the only argument available to you. And then no amount of elevated titles will save you, only an idiot would be convinced by being called a moron.
Dr. Beltrami and his colleagues from the University of Michigan found that more than half of the land's heat gain over the past 500 years came during the 20th century, and 30% since 1950
So what? The 500 years before that, the heat lost was more that the heat gained the following 500 years. So what if half the gain last 500 years came last century? Doesn't mean it wouldn't still have happened even if the industrial revolution didn't occur. To jump at the conclusion that it must be man-made makes me belive you think rather to much of the industial might og humans, and to little of the self-regulatory processes in nature.
[SeriousMode: Off]
Maybe if we did our worst and started directing astroids to intercept earth (Nukes? Mere toys compared to a wellplaced astroid) we might be able to trigger a good iceage and kill off most multi-cellular species, but when the skies clears off, life would still be here just waiting for a new shot at evolution.
If there was an intelligent species of dinosaurs that did this, what's the chance we would find any traces whatsoever?
Acupuncture - taking voodoo to the next level
Re:But smart people won't ignore the topic...
on
Deep Algorithms?
·
· Score: 1
but real progress is NEVER made when you disregard what came before you
Never is a strong word. Fresnel tried, and succeded, in formulating a correct theory of diffraction precisely because he didn't know all that had been done before him.
As it was, Fresnel provided conclusive proof that Newtons view of light as particles was incorrect, and that diffraction was a direct result of the wavelike properties of light. Huygens, a contemporary of Newton, held a similar view, but was considered a quack by most since his theory went against Newtons. Fresnel proved Huygens had the right idea all along, but he didn't know that when he did his experiments and formulated his theory. If he had, he wouldn't have "wasted" all that time making his own experiments and theories.
Maybe he still would have cracked the problem, but most probably he wouldn't. Many had tried to stand on the shoulders of Newton and Huygens, but that didn't help them solve the problem.
To a smaller size, that is...
"Sir, this 2 bit IBM hardisk is out latest model. The new inbuilt compression algortihm allows it to store unlimited number of files. It even has an extra bit for backup!"
I've been using Unix-based mailers for well over a decade. I've been mailed countless illegible attachments from Windows users over the past ten years. It's immature of me, I know, but to some degree turnabout is fair play.
I disagree. Presuming your talking about real-time strategy games, most of those seems to generate a path when asked to go somewhere, and stick to it, even if that path should become blocked. This is a natural consequence of using the A* or similar pathfinding algorithms.
The pheronome approach is a much superior approach, as it allows traversal of unknown territory, something the A* doesn't really handle, since it assumes perfect knowledge of the world, and allows for intelligent handling of changing landscapes and crowded areas, something almost all RTS games handles in a suboptimal fashion, to say the least.
I could give references, but don't have time right now.
Hope you can find time to post the references. I love reading about this kind of stuff.
When I first looked at the brainscan images, my first thought was that this must either be a joke or a hoax. All the horizontal stripes makes it quite obvious that no vertical interpolation is done whatsoever, and all the filled-in pixels seems to be just copies of their closest horizontal (valid) neighbour. Surely you would get a better interpolation by using vertical data as well, or even do an average of the other valid datapoints weighted by, say, the inverse cube of the distance or something.
But lets think a bit harder. What if the algorith only handles one-dimensional data? That would explain why there are only horizontal stripes, but why the constant intensity in the stripes?
It does give a human viewer the ability to "see" the reconstructed pixels, while at the same time doing a reasonable job of reconstructing a close resemblance to the original image. Sounds OK, but that's not mentioned in the article, and seems to be at odds with the claim in the headline.
But back to the closest horizontal neighbour algorithm. If this is the case, where does the line in the middle of the eye come from? There are no datapoints of those intensities there?
My best bet would be that the images we see are scaled-down images of the ones the algorithm was processing, and that the two pixels that seems to have generated that line was lost in the downscaling. Seeing as there is no intensity-smoothing on the lines sticking out, I'd say it was scaled purely by picking every n'th pixel, which fits my argument well.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you even have a degree? Leave science to OFFICIAL REAL scientists.
<Sarcasm>
Oh, so that's how it works! Science is like the army, where the one with the higher rank is right. "Sorry I proved your theory wrong, sir, I didn't know you were the Major High Grand Master Arch-Bishop of General Scientificness. Of course, I will retact my proof immediately and issue an apology for having offended one of my betters..."
</Sarcasm>
The whole point about science is to be scientific about it, not to adobt it as an authorative religion!!
Empirical data can disprove a theory, but never, never, NEVER prove a theory!
To accept theories as gospel is wrong.
To think less of it, beacuse it is "just a theory" is to miss the point completely - being a theory means it's still not disproved, and no amount of empirical backing will elevate it beyond being a theory
I don't mind that people think this theory is right and this is wrong, but it should be based on their own evaluation and reflection, and be able to have an open-minded debate about it, not just adobt whatever theory is in fashion at the moment and argue that everyone that thinks otherwise is morons. Of course, if you refuse do do actual thinking about theories, namecalling is the only argument available to you. And then no amount of elevated titles will save you, only an idiot would be convinced by being called a moron.
Dr. Beltrami and his colleagues from the University of Michigan found that more than half of the land's heat gain over the past 500 years came during the 20th century, and 30% since 1950
So what? The 500 years before that, the heat lost was more that the heat gained the following 500 years. So what if half the gain last 500 years came last century? Doesn't mean it wouldn't still have happened even if the industrial revolution didn't occur. To jump at the conclusion that it must be man-made makes me belive you think rather to much of the industial might og humans, and to little of the self-regulatory processes in nature.
[SeriousMode: Off]
Maybe if we did our worst and started directing astroids to intercept earth (Nukes? Mere toys compared to a wellplaced astroid) we might be able to trigger a good iceage and kill off most multi-cellular species, but when the skies clears off, life would still be here just waiting for a new shot at evolution.
If there was an intelligent species of dinosaurs that did this, what's the chance we would find any traces whatsoever?
Acupuncture - taking voodoo to the next level
but real progress is NEVER made when you disregard what came before you
Never is a strong word. Fresnel tried, and succeded, in formulating a correct theory of diffraction precisely because he didn't know all that had been done before him.
As it was, Fresnel provided conclusive proof that Newtons view of light as particles was incorrect, and that diffraction was a direct result of the wavelike properties of light. Huygens, a contemporary of Newton, held a similar view, but was considered a quack by most since his theory went against Newtons. Fresnel proved Huygens had the right idea all along, but he didn't know that when he did his experiments and formulated his theory. If he had, he wouldn't have "wasted" all that time making his own experiments and theories. Maybe he still would have cracked the problem, but most probably he wouldn't. Many had tried to stand on the shoulders of Newton and Huygens, but that didn't help them solve the problem.
To a smaller size, that is... "Sir, this 2 bit IBM hardisk is out latest model. The new inbuilt compression algortihm allows it to store unlimited number of files. It even has an extra bit for backup!"
From the article:
I've been using Unix-based mailers for well over a decade. I've been mailed countless illegible attachments from Windows users over the past ten years. It's immature of me, I know, but to some degree turnabout is fair play.
This is fairly standard technology for "game AI".
I disagree. Presuming your talking about real-time strategy games, most of those seems to generate a path when asked to go somewhere, and stick to it, even if that path should become blocked. This is a natural consequence of using the A* or similar pathfinding algorithms. The pheronome approach is a much superior approach, as it allows traversal of unknown territory, something the A* doesn't really handle, since it assumes perfect knowledge of the world, and allows for intelligent handling of changing landscapes and crowded areas, something almost all RTS games handles in a suboptimal fashion, to say the least.
I could give references, but don't have time right now.
Hope you can find time to post the references. I love reading about this kind of stuff.
When I first looked at the brainscan images, my first thought was that this must either be a joke or a hoax. All the horizontal stripes makes it quite obvious that no vertical interpolation is done whatsoever, and all the filled-in pixels seems to be just copies of their closest horizontal (valid) neighbour. Surely you would get a better interpolation by using vertical data as well, or even do an average of the other valid datapoints weighted by, say, the inverse cube of the distance or something.
But lets think a bit harder. What if the algorith only handles one-dimensional data? That would explain why there are only horizontal stripes, but why the constant intensity in the stripes? It does give a human viewer the ability to "see" the reconstructed pixels, while at the same time doing a reasonable job of reconstructing a close resemblance to the original image. Sounds OK, but that's not mentioned in the article, and seems to be at odds with the claim in the headline. But back to the closest horizontal neighbour algorithm. If this is the case, where does the line in the middle of the eye come from? There are no datapoints of those intensities there? My best bet would be that the images we see are scaled-down images of the ones the algorithm was processing, and that the two pixels that seems to have generated that line was lost in the downscaling. Seeing as there is no intensity-smoothing on the lines sticking out, I'd say it was scaled purely by picking every n'th pixel, which fits my argument well.
So, is this for real or what?