No markers in the system whose algorithms I developed.
If you want to impress you need to do something more than just reproduce a performance from one viewpoint. When my stuff was published we at least rendered animated turntables so you could view all round.
I'm not saying the method on the video isn't good, it's the video that's the problem. I saw videos 10 years ago that blew me away, but nothing came of them as they were dead-end techniques that didn't allow much in the way of creative variation - the whole point of motion capture in the first place.
Motion capture a face and rerender it from the same viewpoint as a camera used to capture the texture and you'll trivially get something almost indistinguishable from the original. It's only a valid test if you change something significant: move the camera, change the lighting, change the facial features or change the performance.
Oh no, I wasn't trying to extrapolate based on a trend. I was trying to predict the trend before it even happens using basic knowledge of quantum computing.
> why is FTL communication equate to backwards in time?
1. People in different frames of reference measure different speeds. Suppose I'm at rest and a car drives by at 100km/h (as measure by my own radar gun). Suppose a cop car is tailing this car at 105 km/h pointing a radar gun at the first one. They don't measure 100km/h but instead measure the relative speed, -5km/h. So we can take this as a given: different people using different reference frames measure different velocities for the same traveling object.
2. What Einstein showed was even more dramatic: if in some intertial frame an object is moving faster than light, then there is another inertial frame in which it is moving backwards in time.
3. What Einstein also showed is that the laws of physics are independent of what reference frame you measure them in. In other words, if you have a device that can propel you faster than light then you must also be able to propel yourself back in time.
Paragraph 3 is the tricky one. Speaking very vaguely: Einstein unified space and time so that space and time may be rotated into each other. An FTL path that points into the future can be rotated into a vector that points into the path. For more details I suggest reading up on the Lorentz transformation and noting that a Lorentz transformation allows any non-null spacelike vector to be transformed into any other so that a future-pointing non-null spacelike vector can be turned into a past-pointing non-null spacelike vector.
Illumination from everything else isn't a big deal though. This is a subtle point. Basically, because of Helmholtz reciprocity, this camera is equivalent to one where the photocell is replaced by a diffuse light source and the laser is replaced by a 'inverse laser', ie. a sensor that views only along the path of the laser. Such a camera would react to its environment little differently from a regular camera. Reflections from the environment behave no differently from secondary lighting in a normal photograph.
Check out my own single pixel camera
on
A Single Pixel Camera
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
here. It can grab an image using a single photocell. Note that the photocell (1) doesn't move and (2) collects light over a wide angle and yet I can still produce a picture. Yeah, yeah. It's not as good as your camera. But I don't have a multi-million dollar corporation funding me, just $100.
Actually, Incredible Machine is probably the prototypical example of a 'construction game'. This is basically the genre of game where the player is given a kit of parts and they're free to build stuff with it - often with some goal in mind. Lego might fit this category if it were a video game. I wish there were more examples of this genre, there are only a handful.
It is done whenever there is a 1 in 10,000 chance of an object hitting the station
Does this mean that every time they see an object that might hit they're prepared to gamble the entire ISS with 10,000 to 1 odds. So if they see 100 distinct objects with a less than 1 in 10,000 chance of hitting, over the ISS lifetime, there's a roughly 1% chance of one of them hitting? Are these reasonable odds when we're talking about something that cost of the order of $100,000,000,000 to build and carries people.
In the UK they speak the same language as in the US, they watch the same stuff on TV, they have lots of identical place names, they trace their legal systems back to the Magna Carta, and whatever country the US President chooses to invade, the UK Prime Minister is sure to follow. In what way isn't the UK a province of the US?
I don't work over a terminal. I don't use a machine with no GUI facilities. I'm not an old hippie hacker from the seventies. But I still think vim is a better editor than any other out there. And the attraction is simple to explain: it takes fewer keystrokes to get stuff done in vi than with any other editor I know. When you edit you are typically either inserting text, or performing some kind of higher order operation like search or cut-and-paste. So it makes perfect sense to have a modal editor rather than one where you need to signal a higher order operation with some funky key combination.
Incidentally I was an emacs user 10 years ago. But emacs, out of the box, is unusable. Even after a couple of years of maintaining my own.emacs file there were still useful commands that were many keystrokes away and which required me to write yet another key-binding for. I tried using vi-emulation mode in emacs but that was pretty awful.
So I'm stuck with vi, with all of its ugly quirks and inconsistencies. As Winston Chrurchill's geeky nephew said, vi is the worst editor ever written, except all the others.
OK, so you choose to define "right" that way. I think you'll find (1) that it doesn't correspond to everyone's usage and (2) people who say this are usually trying to push a particular view of rights, often a fringe one such as libertarianism.
Copyright law was invented to encourage the dissemination of arts, not to allow artists to suppress them. Unfortunately it's hard to design copyright law in such a way that it doesn't rule out the possibility of the latter. I'm glad Lucas has seen the light and is now doing the right thing.
When you start driving cars, shit goes boom too. Most drivers don't have the necessary knowledge to weild [sic] this kind of power either. From time to time drivers lose limbs and they are more likely to do so by driving than by playing with neutron guns. So quit your whining.
The article is about someone who studied some aspects of intelligence that pertain to scientific and technical applications. I don't think anyone involved in the research made any claim that this is the only kind of intelligence worth measuring.
If nothing else, the lack of present role models for women in scientific fields gives them the message that women can't go into those fields.
Here is a list of all the role models I can remember looking up to growing up as a young kid enthusiastic about mathematics:
...er...
I couldn't name a single mathematician as a kid. I had no role models. I didn't need to see TV programs about mathematicians to tell me that I enjoyed mathematics. I didn't know a single mathematician or scientist. Nobody in my family did science as a profession. Scientists were people in movies who wore lab coats and were the first to die when the experiment went out of control. They weren't someone I wanted to be. I liked mathematics because it was a fascinating subject and I could do it. I didn't do it because I wanted to be like someone else. I did it in spite of the fact that there was incredible peer pressure on me not to do because kids who like mathematics tend not to be the popular kids (until eventually you realise not being stingy with doing other kids' homework gave you a popularity of sorts).
So tell me please, what do role models have to do with anything? If you need a role model to tell you that science or mathematics or computing is interesting then I think you probably ought to consider getting a job in acting so you can try to be like them all day long.
Slashdot Mirror
No markers in the system whose algorithms I developed.
If you want to impress you need to do something more than just reproduce a performance from one viewpoint. When my stuff was published we at least rendered animated turntables so you could view all round.
I'm not saying the method on the video isn't good, it's the video that's the problem. I saw videos 10 years ago that blew me away, but nothing came of them as they were dead-end techniques that didn't allow much in the way of creative variation - the whole point of motion capture in the first place.
> If it's so bloody trivial, where's the version of the software you wrote?
I can't show you the software but the output has been used successfully in a couple of movies.
Motion capture a face and rerender it from the same viewpoint as a camera used to capture the texture and you'll trivially get something almost indistinguishable from the original. It's only a valid test if you change something significant: move the camera, change the lighting, change the facial features or change the performance.
Oh no, I wasn't trying to extrapolate based on a trend. I was trying to predict the trend before it even happens using basic knowledge of quantum computing.
...the rate of increase of power of quantum computers isn't faster than Moore's law. I've written more on this here.
> why is FTL communication equate to backwards in time?
1. People in different frames of reference measure different speeds. Suppose I'm at rest and a car drives by at 100km/h (as measure by my own radar gun). Suppose a cop car is tailing this car at 105 km/h pointing a radar gun at the first one. They don't measure 100km/h but instead measure the relative speed, -5km/h. So we can take this as a given: different people using different reference frames measure different velocities for the same traveling object.
2. What Einstein showed was even more dramatic: if in some intertial frame an object is moving faster than light, then there is another inertial frame in which it is moving backwards in time.
3. What Einstein also showed is that the laws of physics are independent of what reference frame you measure them in. In other words, if you have a device that can propel you faster than light then you must also be able to propel yourself back in time.
Paragraph 3 is the tricky one. Speaking very vaguely: Einstein unified space and time so that space and time may be rotated into each other. An FTL path that points into the future can be rotated into a vector that points into the path. For more details I suggest reading up on the Lorentz transformation and noting that a Lorentz transformation allows any non-null spacelike vector to be transformed into any other so that a future-pointing non-null spacelike vector can be turned into a past-pointing non-null spacelike vector.
Illumination from everything else isn't a big deal though. This is a subtle point. Basically, because of Helmholtz reciprocity, this camera is equivalent to one where the photocell is replaced by a diffuse light source and the laser is replaced by a 'inverse laser', ie. a sensor that views only along the path of the laser. Such a camera would react to its environment little differently from a regular camera. Reflections from the environment behave no differently from secondary lighting in a normal photograph.
here. It can grab an image using a single photocell. Note that the photocell (1) doesn't move and (2) collects light over a wide angle and yet I can still produce a picture. Yeah, yeah. It's not as good as your camera. But I don't have a multi-million dollar corporation funding me, just $100.
But of course if you can get more hits for advertising on
Actually, Incredible Machine is probably the prototypical example of a 'construction game'. This is basically the genre of game where the player is given a kit of parts and they're free to build stuff with it - often with some goal in mind. Lego might fit this category if it were a video game. I wish there were more examples of this genre, there are only a handful.
So the sun rises every time I walk out of a dark building into daylight?
Between a probability and a frequency? I understand 1 in 10,000 to mean something that happens, on average, at a frequency of one time in 10,000.
What do you think the difference is?
Woah! I can't wait to hook up with you at Vegas. I hope you have lots of money to burn.
It is done whenever there is a 1 in 10,000 chance of an object hitting the station
Does this mean that every time they see an object that might hit they're prepared to gamble the entire ISS with 10,000 to 1 odds. So if they see 100 distinct objects with a less than 1 in 10,000 chance of hitting, over the ISS lifetime, there's a roughly 1% chance of one of them hitting? Are these reasonable odds when we're talking about something that cost of the order of $100,000,000,000 to build and carries people.
In the UK they speak the same language as in the US, they watch the same stuff on TV, they have lots of identical place names, they trace their legal systems back to the Magna Carta, and whatever country the US President chooses to invade, the UK Prime Minister is sure to follow. In what way isn't the UK a province of the US?
I don't work over a terminal. I don't use a machine with no GUI facilities. I'm not an old hippie hacker from the seventies. But I still think vim is a better editor than any other out there. And the attraction is simple to explain: it takes fewer keystrokes to get stuff done in vi than with any other editor I know. When you edit you are typically either inserting text, or performing some kind of higher order operation like search or cut-and-paste. So it makes perfect sense to have a modal editor rather than one where you need to signal a higher order operation with some funky key combination.
.emacs file there were still useful commands that were many keystrokes away and which required me to write yet another key-binding for. I tried using vi-emulation mode in emacs but that was pretty awful.
Incidentally I was an emacs user 10 years ago. But emacs, out of the box, is unusable. Even after a couple of years of maintaining my own
So I'm stuck with vi, with all of its ugly quirks and inconsistencies. As Winston Chrurchill's geeky nephew said, vi is the worst editor ever written, except all the others.
...I've heard from my inside sources that Apple makes money from every Mac sold and that's the real reason why they had that 'Switch' campaign.
'Pen' is just another word for 'mouse' and I think 'paper' refers to any surface on the screen that can be directly modified by use of the mouse.
OK, so you choose to define "right" that way. I think you'll find (1) that it doesn't correspond to everyone's usage and (2) people who say this are usually trying to push a particular view of rights, often a fringe one such as libertarianism.
Copyright law was invented to encourage the dissemination of arts, not to allow artists to suppress them. Unfortunately it's hard to design copyright law in such a way that it doesn't rule out the possibility of the latter. I'm glad Lucas has seen the light and is now doing the right thing.
When you start driving cars, shit goes boom too. Most drivers don't have the necessary knowledge to weild [sic] this kind of power either. From time to time drivers lose limbs and they are more likely to do so by driving than by playing with neutron guns. So quit your whining.
would you have responded any differently?
The article is about someone who studied some aspects of intelligence that pertain to scientific and technical applications. I don't think anyone involved in the research made any claim that this is the only kind of intelligence worth measuring.
Here is a list of all the role models I can remember looking up to growing up as a young kid enthusiastic about mathematics:
I couldn't name a single mathematician as a kid. I had no role models. I didn't need to see TV programs about mathematicians to tell me that I enjoyed mathematics. I didn't know a single mathematician or scientist. Nobody in my family did science as a profession. Scientists were people in movies who wore lab coats and were the first to die when the experiment went out of control. They weren't someone I wanted to be. I liked mathematics because it was a fascinating subject and I could do it. I didn't do it because I wanted to be like someone else. I did it in spite of the fact that there was incredible peer pressure on me not to do because kids who like mathematics tend not to be the popular kids (until eventually you realise not being stingy with doing other kids' homework gave you a popularity of sorts).
So tell me please, what do role models have to do with anything? If you need a role model to tell you that science or mathematics or computing is interesting then I think you probably ought to consider getting a job in acting so you can try to be like them all day long.