Yes. It's what I do for a living (just not for science). At one extreme I consider doing a simple mapping of the color space to ensure fidelity of colors on our screens to be harmless. At the other extreme I consider a 3d rerendering described as "These images, taken by the High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC) on board ESA's Mars Express spacecraft" to be a lie. The fact that some kinds of processing are acceptable doesn't mean that all forms of processing should be acceptable.
I recently file a patent for some software work. (Yeah, yeah, before you have a go at me I'd like to point out I was under considerable contractual obligatation at the time...)
Anyway, when the final patent was written up I didn't really understand it. It was my algorithm, and solely mine, but much of the patent text made little sense to me. A big chunk was merely what I had written with legalese inserted. But other chunks were beyond me. In the claim section was a list of claims and each claim just looked like a paraphrase of the previous one. The patent office responded recently saying that they rejected a bunch of claims and accepted the rest. I checked out the claims: they were just paraphrases of all the other claims. There is no way they could have been singled out in a meaningful way as being different from the others - certainly not so different that they needed rejection instead of acceptance. It was bizarre.
Anyway, after my experience with the patent office I'm inclined to think the process is basically fake. Lawyers write a bunch of gobbledygook for high fees. Patent exmainers pretend they understand it for a low salary (but it's better than unemployment, right?). And then they roll dice to decide what to do with it.
You don't need to use a camera that can "do only visible light" to take photos that require visible light.
Do CG as much as you like. But make it absoluetly clear what you are doing. I can't tell what is real in those pictures. For all I know the lake is the same color as the surrounding ground and the blue is false color. I have no way of telling from the 'popular' accounts. I'd like to know.
What's CG, what's real?
on
Ice Lake on Mars
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
They look like CG renders to me. One of the pictures has a comment pointing out that the depth has been exaggerated by a factor of 3 (not the anaglyph). So clearly at least one image is a fake. It's getting annoying just how processed images are these days without a suitable warning. Nowadays it seems acceptable, not just to apply filters or color transforms, but also use image based rendering to render from a new viewpoint.
They mean an absolute magnitude of 17. So dimmer than a 2km asteroid? But of course this must be a different "absolute magnitude" to the one used for stars. No wonder these figures make no sense.
Yes, I know that. But 25% further than Pluto means that it receives (1/1.25)^2 of the light energy from the sun per unit area and the light we receive from it is diminished by (1/1.25)^2 compared to the diminishing from Pluto. These aren't enough factors to account for difference between an apparent magnitude of 14 for Pluto and 17 for this new object. I assume 17 is the apparent magnitude of this new body. Anyway, everyone who's replied to my post is telling me the obvious which is kinda frustrating. Of course I know that light diminishes with distance - doh!
The published magnitude of Pluto is around 13-14. This thing is 25% further from the Sun (and Earth too) away but several times 'brighter' due to being more reflective and larger. That means it ought to appear brighter in the sky than Pluto. But it's reported as magnitude 17, which is quite a bit dimmer.
If you place the stylus in the top left corner and then, while pressing down the A key, swipe to the lower right corner - wait 3 seconds, and then press X and Y while rubbing the stylus in circles around the middle of the touchscreen while humming approximately a middle C into the microphone, you'll get the Hot Milk cheat. Kirby will appear naked and then by blowing on the microphone...well...you'll just have to try it for yourself and see...
Garmin GPS - firmware updates available to fix bugs (does shoddy filtering count as a bug?)
Calculators - most new ones bugs of one sort or another. Some have firmware updates.
Palm. Is that en embedded system? It's buggy as hell.
Game consoles - definitely have bugs but this time game developers find workarounds. Of course the games ship with bugs.
Steering control on 1st gen Priuses - buggy at low speeds. Fixable with firmware upgrade.
Climate control in my Saab 93 - a disaster of engineering - I thought PID controllers were textbook material. Probably fixable with firmware upgrade, I haven't asked.
My 2nd gen iPod. Ironically, battery charging control completely f**ked. Firmware upgrades f**k it more.
Oven. Aha! An embedded system that seems 100% reliable.
Maybe when you're writing code that's 512 bytes long you can keep the bug count down.
...book back out again. It's a great language with a nice structure and no grammatical tables to learn. The script is a pleasure to write although it's a pity I have little clue how to pronounce it. Seems like it might be a useful skill to have in years to come.
Why have you made a wholesale post of the OED rules for the inclusion of new words? I can't see the relevance at all. Read the five times rule. I've seen "its" written as "it's" more than five times in numerous places and yet the incorrect version isn't in the OED. We're not talking about new words here.
How could you? You've shattered my faith! Now I no longer have evidence of Hell there's nothing to stop me from becoming evil. I'll probably become a serial killer or something. And it'll be all your fault.
quite possibly the apostrophe in the possessive "it's" will be the norm in a few years time
It won't. A certain percentage of people have been making this mistake for at least all of my lifetime and probably for many decades longer, but the standard has remained unchanged. It takes a quite a bit of hubris to claim that the mistakes you make due to ignorance or incompetence are going to become a standard.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway, when the final patent was written up I didn't really understand it. It was my algorithm, and solely mine, but much of the patent text made little sense to me. A big chunk was merely what I had written with legalese inserted. But other chunks were beyond me. In the claim section was a list of claims and each claim just looked like a paraphrase of the previous one. The patent office responded recently saying that they rejected a bunch of claims and accepted the rest. I checked out the claims: they were just paraphrases of all the other claims. There is no way they could have been singled out in a meaningful way as being different from the others - certainly not so different that they needed rejection instead of acceptance. It was bizarre.
Anyway, after my experience with the patent office I'm inclined to think the process is basically fake. Lawyers write a bunch of gobbledygook for high fees. Patent exmainers pretend they understand it for a low salary (but it's better than unemployment, right?). And then they roll dice to decide what to do with it.
They look like CG renders to me. One of the pictures has a comment pointing out that the depth has been exaggerated by a factor of 3 (not the anaglyph). So clearly at least one image is a fake. It's getting annoying just how processed images are these days without a suitable warning. Nowadays it seems acceptable, not just to apply filters or color transforms, but also use image based rendering to render from a new viewpoint.
...because they have a unit for measuring the flow of charge (and hence electrons). Obviously if electrons don't flow they no longer need it.
They mean an absolute magnitude of 17. So dimmer than a 2km asteroid? But of course this must be a different "absolute magnitude" to the one used for stars. No wonder these figures make no sense.
Here is some discussion of the definition of life. Tell me, how are all of these properties implied by the existence of water?
Yes, I know that. But 25% further than Pluto means that it receives (1/1.25)^2 of the light energy from the sun per unit area and the light we receive from it is diminished by (1/1.25)^2 compared to the diminishing from Pluto. These aren't enough factors to account for difference between an apparent magnitude of 14 for Pluto and 17 for this new object. I assume 17 is the apparent magnitude of this new body. Anyway, everyone who's replied to my post is telling me the obvious which is kinda frustrating. Of course I know that light diminishes with distance - doh!
You tell me I'm thinking of absolute brightness. Your sibling says that they mean absolute brightness. Really, you people need to make up your mind :-)
The published magnitude of Pluto is around 13-14. This thing is 25% further from the Sun (and Earth too) away but several times 'brighter' due to being more reflective and larger. That means it ought to appear brighter in the sky than Pluto. But it's reported as magnitude 17, which is quite a bit dimmer.
I'd help you if I could.
And why would I want him on my iPod anyway?
If you place the stylus in the top left corner and then, while pressing down the A key, swipe to the lower right corner - wait 3 seconds, and then press X and Y while rubbing the stylus in circles around the middle of the touchscreen while humming approximately a middle C into the microphone, you'll get the Hot Milk cheat. Kirby will appear naked and then by blowing on the microphone...well...you'll just have to try it for yourself and see...
...inserted into?
Ghosting also comes from reflections of incoming radio waves though I'm not sure people watch 'wireless' TV any more.
- Linksys network storage device - firmware updates downloadable to fix bugs
- Garmin GPS - firmware updates available to fix bugs (does shoddy filtering count as a bug?)
- Calculators - most new ones bugs of one sort or another. Some have firmware updates.
- Palm. Is that en embedded system? It's buggy as hell.
- Game consoles - definitely have bugs but this time game developers find workarounds. Of course the games ship with bugs.
- Steering control on 1st gen Priuses - buggy at low speeds. Fixable with firmware upgrade.
- Climate control in my Saab 93 - a disaster of engineering - I thought PID controllers were textbook material. Probably fixable with firmware upgrade, I haven't asked.
- My 2nd gen iPod. Ironically, battery charging control completely f**ked. Firmware upgrades f**k it more.
- Oven. Aha! An embedded system that seems 100% reliable.
Maybe when you're writing code that's 512 bytes long you can keep the bug count down....to code. Imagine a company actually waited until no more bugs could be found before shipping a product. We'd never see applications on sale.
...could you use your crystal ball to tell me what stock I should buy?
...book back out again. It's a great language with a nice structure and no grammatical tables to learn. The script is a pleasure to write although it's a pity I have little clue how to pronounce it. Seems like it might be a useful skill to have in years to come.
Why have you made a wholesale post of the OED rules for the inclusion of new words? I can't see the relevance at all. Read the five times rule. I've seen "its" written as "it's" more than five times in numerous places and yet the incorrect version isn't in the OED. We're not talking about new words here.
How could you? You've shattered my faith! Now I no longer have evidence of Hell there's nothing to stop me from becoming evil. I'll probably become a serial killer or something. And it'll be all your fault.
It's on so many web pages it must be true.
In case you didn't know, Hell is beneath our feet, and you can listen to a real audio sample of it here.
For our next /. story we'll be demonstrating how to install debian on a PC running in a country where the only available electrical power is at 230V.