I almost posted my own comment, but "Stupendous Man" expressed well most of what I was going to say. So, I'll just add my two cents here. FYI, Stupendous got off easy on the publication charges, my last paper was ca. $5,000. The one before that was $4,000.
The problem of cliques in scientific publishing is severe. Oceanography in academia, for example, lags other sciences (to the point of being laughable) because little clubs of tired, nasty, old men control at least one major American journal. Anything new is beaten down if it doesn't fit in the dogma of the 1960s.
But, you must balance control by cliques against crack-pot (and dishonest) science, of which there is plenty (www.quackwatch.com catalogs fad, quack medicine, for example).
As one who has published a variety of scientific papers, I'm forever in the debt of the nice, astute reviewers who catch logical flaws, misstatements, and other screw ups before the world sees the paper.
So, what paradigm protects against quackery and fraud, while breaking the cliques, and catches embarassing goofs? I like the idea of a "dynamic" paper that the authors change (or not) as comments come in (the./ paradigm). But, when do you cut it off and what is the final version for citations? And, in ten years, how do you retrive it?
Slashdot is one of only two sites I monitor daily. The other is Mac OS Rumors (macosrumors.com). So, it was especially gratifying that a fellow mac user made the score!
The problem is that the short pulse needs a large amount of power (peak power) to radiate. It's a problem for the antenna, which can only absorb so much power before it fries. The TDSI system is, however, practical for short-range, tactical communications. And, because of filter response in existing receivers, the TDSI signal does appear as a small rise in the noise floor -- not enough to detect.
Radio waves propagate through concrete very nicely. The short pulse then gives you the resolution you need to see objects, fuzzily, of course. But, the system works as billed.
Fullerton's claim is for the notion of using extremely short pulses. You can certainly use the scheme for CDMA, but it's much more fundamental, as anyone who has designed communications systems can tell you. The impediment is that because the pulse is short, you need a very high peak power to get any kind of effective radiated power (ERP). Then, you have to stuff it through an antenna. That is the basis of his patent -- how you do that.
The smart OS developer will use some flavor of unix and simply place the user interface on top of that. Make it feel like a Mac, BeOS, NeXT, or make it smell like Windoesnt. And, of course, Steve Jobs and Apple are leading the pack. Linux is nice, and we use it here for the low end PCs (vice the Suns and SGIs), but it has a long way to go before it's ready for prime time. We need to be up and running and crunching numbers (we do chaos), not searching for SCSI and video drivers.
We've occassionally used the making of foie gras as an example for this topic. You stuff alot in and hope that the little bit that comes out is edible.
This not a case of lossless compression, however. The result is vastly different from the input. But, you're sure willing to live with it!
It lets the innovative slip in under the "radar" of the entrenched constituencies. By the time the "old boys" figure it out, they're history (or we at least have enough of their market to make us happy).
Besides, a friend of mine, one of those euphamistic "high government officials" (in the sense of high grade, not in the Bill Clinton sense of not inhaling Monica) once noted that "if you have no enemies, you haven't done your job."
So, lets have more NIH from all the back room boys! Meanwhile, we'll be demonstrating working systems to your customers.
I guess I can buy a multifractal view of wavelets.
But, as I've noted in my comments elsewhere, there are many interesting classes of images where one might use (ugh) fractals as some sort of descriptor, but wavelet based compression doesn't work.
LZW (which I think is the heart of the UNIX compress command -- pls don't flame me if I'm wrong) would give lossless compression, if it compressed. But, the "compressed" file is as large as the input file in this case.
All this is sort of an informal way of saying that the degrees of freedom needed by the compression algorithms is equal to the number of pixels in the image. Hence, no compression.
yup, it's all in the model. And, that's the hard part. Wavelets, et al., are too generalized for many classes of interesting images. They may work well on some classes, as you note.
is what it won't work on. There are many types of images where the pixel-to-pixel statistics decorrelate so rapidly that the images are essentially random-like (that is, they have high entropy with respect to the feature of interest). Compressing these types of images with methods like wavelets causes major losses in the ability to retain the faint features that drive the detection statistics. For the technical minded, the ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) curve is damaged. That is, the probability of correctly identifying (or even observing) features declines.
is fine with me. We run Suns, SGIs, PC/Windows, PC/Linuxs, and Macs. Sorry, but Linux isn't ready for prime time. Hard to load, configure, and maintain, relative to Solaris and Irix. In the proper context, however, Bill's second rate Windoesn't is the worst. For desktop applications, the Mac is tops. In fact, we replaced one Linux box with an iMac after we spent more on consultants than the cost of the PC.
So, we'll stick with Steve's vision, it hasn't failed us yet.
Despite the ignorant tone of most of the comments here in dorkland, there is important research being done on the application of chaos theory to real problems:
Institute for Nonlinear Science (UCSD) http://www.zweb.com/apnonlin/
I have an excuse for cruising slashdot, I'm a classically trained engineer. But, what's a real physicist of repute doing on a propellor head site like slashdot? Since you've departed your Eiffel phase, I thought you might be cured.
So, if these computer wiennies are such experts, how come not one of them was in sunny, warm, dry LaJolla earlier this week? Always a pleasure to hear Lou. But, that cryto guy -- is the hostile she a diffeomorphism? That is, is he implying all hostiles are shes or that all shes are hostiles. It wasn't clear.
Since I never use usenet, I can't be who you think. In fact, I'm so inept at computer wienner stuff that I have trouble with the slashdot login and must often post as anon. coward.
I am, however, familiar with chaos theory and have published a several papers on it's application to real problems. I'm a big fan of Prof. Roy's (& Ditto), the INLS at UCSD, Lou Pecora at NRL, and Harry Swinney at UT. I've seen alot of dumb stuff on chaos go by (Yuri Kratsov for one), but the Ga. Tech research is real, useful, and will come to fruition.
Slashdot Mirror
An overpriced, mediocre product. No wonder the USG rushed to settle -- they're soul mates.
who cares? Shoddy, second rate, over priced products. A constant reminder of why my firm runs IRIX, Solaris, and Mac OS9.
I almost posted my own comment, but "Stupendous Man" expressed well most of what I was going to say. So, I'll just add my two cents here. FYI, Stupendous got off easy on the publication charges, my last paper was ca. $5,000. The one before that was $4,000.
./ paradigm). But, when do you cut it off and what is the final version for citations? And, in ten years, how do you retrive it?
The problem of cliques in scientific publishing is severe. Oceanography in academia, for example, lags other sciences (to the point of being laughable) because little clubs of tired, nasty, old men control at least one major American journal. Anything new is beaten down if it doesn't fit in the dogma of the 1960s.
But, you must balance control by cliques against crack-pot (and dishonest) science, of which there is plenty (www.quackwatch.com catalogs fad, quack medicine, for example).
As one who has published a variety of scientific papers, I'm forever in the debt of the nice, astute reviewers who catch logical flaws, misstatements, and other screw ups before the world sees the paper.
So, what paradigm protects against quackery and fraud, while breaking the cliques, and catches embarassing goofs? I like the idea of a "dynamic" paper that the authors change (or not) as comments come in (the
Slashdot is one of only two sites I monitor daily. The other is Mac OS Rumors (macosrumors.com). So, it was especially gratifying that a fellow mac user made the score!
Keep up the good work.
The problem is that the short pulse needs a large amount of power (peak power) to radiate. It's a problem for the antenna, which can only absorb so much power before it fries. The TDSI system is, however, practical for short-range, tactical communications. And, because of filter response in existing receivers, the TDSI signal does appear as a small rise in the noise floor -- not enough to detect.
Radio waves propagate through concrete very nicely. The short pulse then gives you the resolution you need to see objects, fuzzily, of course. But, the system works as billed.
Fullerton's claim is for the notion of using extremely short pulses. You can certainly use the scheme for CDMA, but it's much more fundamental, as anyone who has designed communications systems can tell you. The impediment is that because the pulse is short, you need a very high peak power to get any kind of effective radiated power (ERP). Then, you have to stuff it through an antenna. That is the basis of his patent -- how you do that.
The smart OS developer will use some flavor of unix and simply place the user interface on top of that. Make it feel like a Mac, BeOS, NeXT, or make it smell like Windoesnt. And, of course, Steve Jobs and Apple are leading the pack. Linux is nice, and we use it here for the low end PCs (vice the Suns and SGIs), but it has a long way to go before it's ready for prime time. We need to be up and running and crunching numbers (we do chaos), not searching for SCSI and video drivers.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
We've occassionally used the making of foie gras as an example for this topic. You stuff alot in and hope that the little bit that comes out is edible.
This not a case of lossless compression, however. The result is vastly different from the input. But, you're sure willing to live with it!
It lets the innovative slip in under the "radar" of the entrenched constituencies. By the time the "old boys" figure it out, they're history (or we at least have enough of their market to make us happy).
Besides, a friend of mine, one of those euphamistic "high government officials" (in the sense of high grade, not in the Bill Clinton sense of not inhaling Monica) once noted that "if you have no enemies, you haven't done your job."
So, lets have more NIH from all the back room boys! Meanwhile, we'll be demonstrating working systems to your customers.
I guess I can buy a multifractal view of wavelets.
But, as I've noted in my comments elsewhere, there are many interesting classes of images where one might use (ugh) fractals as some sort of descriptor, but wavelet based compression doesn't work.
oops, bye-bye features.
LZW (which I think is the heart of the UNIX compress command -- pls don't flame me if I'm wrong) would give lossless compression, if it compressed. But, the "compressed" file is as large as the input file in this case.
All this is sort of an informal way of saying that the degrees of freedom needed by the compression algorithms is equal to the number of pixels in the image. Hence, no compression.
No compression algorithm will work on all images. And, for any given method, there are many types of important images that can't be compressed.
Make an image of random numbers. Put a faint line in it.
Now, compress that image with JPEG, LZW, or wavelets.
Upon decompression -- the line is either gone or you get a negative compression ratio.
Sound far fetched? The image described above is a good proxy for things like radar images of the ocean.
yup, it's all in the model. And, that's the hard part. Wavelets, et al., are too generalized for many classes of interesting images. They may work well on some classes, as you note.
is what it won't work on. There are many types of images where the pixel-to-pixel statistics decorrelate so rapidly that the images are essentially random-like (that is, they have high entropy with respect to the feature of interest). Compressing these types of images with methods like wavelets causes major losses in the ability to retain the faint features that drive the detection statistics. For the technical minded, the ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) curve is damaged. That is, the probability of correctly identifying (or even observing) features declines.
So, prepare to be disappointed.
is fine with me. We run Suns, SGIs, PC/Windows, PC/Linuxs, and Macs. Sorry, but Linux isn't ready for prime time. Hard to load, configure, and maintain, relative to Solaris and Irix. In the proper context, however, Bill's second rate Windoesn't is the worst. For desktop applications, the Mac is tops. In fact, we replaced one Linux box with an iMac after we spent more on consultants than the cost of the PC.
So, we'll stick with Steve's vision, it hasn't failed us yet.
Despite the ignorant tone of most of the comments here in dorkland, there is important research being done on the application of chaos theory to real problems:
Institute for Nonlinear Science (UCSD)
http://www.zweb.com/apnonlin/
NRL
http://code6343.nrl.navy.mil/
http://chaos-mac.nrl.navy.mil/
and the Ga. Tech sites
http://www.physics.gatech.edu/
http://www.physics.gatech.edu/chaos/
At high power levels lasers are not coherent. In fact, the failure mode is a classic descent into chaos.
Were you a student of mine, you'd flunk. For all the research you did to check this out, have you considered a career in hamburger flipping?
I have an excuse for cruising slashdot, I'm a classically trained engineer. But, what's a real physicist of repute doing on a propellor head site like slashdot? Since you've departed your Eiffel phase, I thought you might be cured.
So, if these computer wiennies are such experts, how come not one of them was in sunny, warm, dry LaJolla earlier this week? Always a pleasure to hear Lou. But, that cryto guy -- is the hostile she a diffeomorphism? That is, is he implying all hostiles are shes or that all shes are hostiles. It wasn't clear.
Since I never use usenet, I can't be who you think. In fact, I'm so inept at computer wienner stuff that I have trouble with the slashdot login and must often post as anon. coward.
I am, however, familiar with chaos theory and have published a several papers on it's application to real problems. I'm a big fan of Prof. Roy's (& Ditto), the INLS at UCSD, Lou Pecora at NRL, and Harry Swinney at UT. I've seen alot of dumb stuff on chaos go by (Yuri Kratsov for one), but the Ga. Tech research is real, useful, and will come to fruition.