Recent Comments by bremnet subscribe to this feed

Algorithm Removes Water From Underwater Pictures

bremnet says...

Not sure that I'd call it trivial, but from what one can gather, using the panel of known colors as a calibrant for correction during processing does seem like an obvious approach. I'm assuming that the newsworthiness of this is in the trick or complexity of the post-processing - removing scatter, haze, correcting the full color spectrum with multiple calibration points - it won't be a simple linear correction. I ain't no expert, but have spent oodles of time trying to color correct videos and stills from our scuba trips, and the *automatic* color correction in current software is still pretty poor IMO, relying often on a single color as the calibrant (so, a "pure" white region in the photo, a "pure" black region in the photo etc.). Manual adjustment of the photo color balance for UW vids and photos is on my list of "What Hell must be like".

kir_mokum said:

i'm sure i'm missing something but this seems like a trivial thing to do.

Conservation of The Assassination of Archimedes

bremnet says...

Great sift - I'm by no means an art buff or anything close, but this process and the explanation is very fascinating and educational. What dedication on the part of the craftsman as well - an art in itself. Kudos.

Sulfur Mound Fire

bremnet says...

The usual recourse is water fog (vs water stream that just tends to raise more dust and spread more fire). If it's a large mound of extracted sulphur from e.g. sour gas fields, we used to just push more sulphur on top if the fire and that'd snuff it out.

CrushBug said:

Wow. What do you even do? Pour sand on it?

NVIDIA Research - AI Reconstructs Photos

bremnet says...

As hamsteralliance says, ContentAware uses proximity matching and relative area matching. If you tried to fill in the white space with ContentAware, it'd be full of everything except eyes. They nVidia folks used thousands of images to train the neural net (ie generate the model using training data) which has more discrete sequential or spatial relationships between features (ie. eyes go to either side of the nose, below the eyebrows, level, interpupilary distance etc etc). The neural approach ALWAYS needs training data sets - it doesn't appear to (from reading the paper) any adaptive or learning algorithm outside of the neural framework (so, it's not AI in the sense that it learns from any environmental stimulus and alters its response... that I can see anyway. The paper doesn't get into the minutiae). But I'd still date her, if only she'd have me.

hamsteralliance said:

I think one of the key things is that it was filling in the eyes with eyes. It was using completely different color eyes even and it knew where they needed to go. Content Aware only uses what's in the image, so it would just fill in that area with flesh and random bits of hair and mouth. This seems to pull from a neural network database thingymajigger.

Is Glass a Liquid?

bremnet says...

Glass is a fluid and a liquid (liquids are a subset of fluids). All window glasses will, given enough time, flow. The rate dependent deformation of the glass is described by its viscoelastic properties. Many stained glasses and all lead based glasses behave more viscously than elastically when compared to their modern counterparts, and thus appear to flow more, when the reality is that they just flow faster.

And lava is in fact a type of soap.

Nuclear energy is terrible

bremnet says...

Sorry to jump the thread here; not sure if dubious is the word either, but pretty amateur and more fear mongering with no supporting data.

First, the suggestion that no more reactors should be built because people use them to aid in production of nuclear weapons. Well kids, that ship has already sailed: In June 2014, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reported that nine nations (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea) possessed approx. 16,300 nuclear weapons in total. So someone builds one or 10 more? Yeah, that will matter. Someone needs to read up on the concept of deterrence.

When talking about waste: "Germany has literally tons of the stuff just laying around" - well, that's just horseshit.

Regarding accidents and number of deaths due to nuclear reactors: "devastating disasters every 30 years" - devastating? Come on, people died, but compared to other sources of energy, according to the WHO, it is by far the safest. Consider:

Energy Source Mortality Rates; Deaths/yr/TWh

Coal - world average, 161
Coal - China, 278
Coal - USA, 15
Oil - 36
Natural Gas - 4
Biofuel/Biomass - 12
Peat - 12
Solar/rooftop - 0.44-0.83
Wind - 0.15
Hydro - world, 0.10
Hydro - world*, 1.4
Nuclear - 0.04

* Includes the 170,000 deaths from the failure of the Banquao Reservoir Dam in China in 1975

So, if not dubious, certainly cheap and pedantic.

ChaosEngine said:

Can you provide a bit more detail than that?

What is dubious? Why is it dubious? Do you have any evidence to back up what you're saying?

Fairbs (Member Profile)

bremnet says...

Howdy - sorry for the delay, was traveling on business. The issue you are referring to below with regards to reusable water bottles is I believe related to the type of liner (thin coating of polymer based material that is coated on the inside of some but not all of these bottles). In most cases when polymers come in contact with food (incl. water) the concerns are usually not in the polymer itself, but in some of the additives (processing aids, plasticizers, anti-oxidants, UV stabilizers, pigments etc) that in some cases have negative impacts on some human metabolic processes. I would emphasize 'some'. The recent outrage over BPA is not supported unequivocally by scientific evidence, but there is enough uncertainty to move away from it as a plasticizer in PET bottles. If one was to use a food grade polyethylene or polypropylene water bottle, requiring no liner, and totally suitable as a water bottle, then there is no concern at all with the long term use of this material in water bottles. Next time you go through the grocery store, have a look at all the packaging - films on processed meets, stretch wrap on fresh meat cuts, all of your cold dairy products - the vast majority of these are made from one of either polyethylene or polypropylene, with a smattering of polystyrene and polyvinylidene chloride thrown in. All perfectly safe.

As for how the balls are made - these are blow molded. If you have a look at the plastic baseballs made for kids that come with a big fat plastic bat (or really any hard plastic ball that you might find at Wal Mart or Toys'R'Us, you'll see the small ridge that runs equatorially around the circumference of the ball (that's the parting line where the two mold halves come together) and somewhere on that line there will be either a little tiny hole or a small protruding knob that used to be the parison where the air was injected into the small plastic glob forcing it to the walls of the mold like an expanding balloon. This is the same type of molding that makes your liquid dishwashing detergent bottle, plastic ketchup and mustard containers, and plastic milk jugs. Hope this helps a bit. cheers

Fairbs said:

I admit this is something I know little about so I have a couple of questions if you don't mind... There seems to be a concern about what reusable water bottles are made of. So you're supposed to use a certain type or the plastic (and this may be the wrong term) leeches into your water and then I don't know exactly what, but you probably die some horrible death maybe like in the toxic avenger. So one question is... Is that true (or maybe a less exaggerated version)? The second one I think you may have answered is... Are these injection molded? I can't comprehend how these would be made. I think I need a How it's Made to wrap my mind around this. Thanks.

Why are there dangerous ingredients in vaccines?

bremnet says...

Great post - thanks for taking the time to do this.

Between anti-vaxxers and homeopaths, I don't know which are worse at providing "facts" concocted from anecdote or imagination.

Mordhaus said:

Yes, I was wondering when you would trot out Hooker's paper and the 'CDC whistleblower" bit. You see, in the lack of clear scientific fact, conspiracy theorists tend to grab whatever they can to prove that they are right. I'll dissect your attempt right now.

First, Hooker's paper was covering the data involving African-American children with supposed predilection towards autism. The sample size was small, the math was ludicrous, and he incorrectly analyzed a cohort study. Because of the NUMEROUS failures to appropriately conduct a true scientific study, his paper was retracted. So, when exposed to the light, his theory was decidedly lacking in content and was canned.

http://retractionwatch.com/2014/08/27/journal-takes-down-autism-vaccine-paper-pending-investigation/

This incompetent study was the result, allegedly, of discussions between Hooker and a senior psychologist at the CDC named William Thompson. Hooker then teamed up with Andrew Wakefield to cherry pick bits to make it sound as though Thompson were confessing to some horrible crime of data manipulation to hide this “bombshell” result reported by Wakefield. Thus was born the “CDC whistleblower".

In February 2010, the General Medical Council in the U.K. recommended that Wakefield be stripped of his license to practice medicine in the U.K. because of scientific misconduct related to his infamous 1998 case series published in The Lancet, even going so far as to refer to him as irresponsible and dishonest, and in May 2010 he was. He is a now doing everything he can to prove his theories, like possibly illegal recording of conversations, so that he can regain some credibility. The guy is a hack.

Thompson has admitted to being prone to anxiety disorders, being delusional, and has shown that he is more scared of being 'the bad guy' then doing his job. His career is pretty much finished at the CDC, because he has shown that he will waffle if confronted by angry people who can't understand science. I feel sorry for him, but he has issues.

So, now we can address your link. A congressman, not a scientist, has received information from people who have been laughed out of the scientific community for multiple reasons. He sees buzzwords and decides to get ahead of the bandwagon, calling for further investigation and research. I can, of course, show you knee-jerk reactions by multiple members of congress similar to this, like Ted Cruz calling for immediate investigation into Planned Parenthood over the recent videos. You know, the ones that were chopped and spliced together to make it sound like PP was selling aborted babies? Do you see a pattern with the chop and splice for sensationalism? I hope you do.

In other words, you don't have any scientific facts. Like all anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists, you rely on a few items that seem to tie together to form a true fact, but they don't. When confronted with this, you will say that it's all big pharma and money trails, etc. Do you not see the fallacy in that logic? It's like saying that the the earth was created 9000 years ago...because RELIGION!

Btw, if you want to place your trust in politicians trying to be scientists, I leave you with this gem from former congressman Paul Broun.

"You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."

You Probably Don't Need to Be on that Gluten-free Diet

bremnet says...

Yes, did. As noted in other replies, if it makes one feel better (or makes one think they feel better) they're going to do it, and the gluten thing is a relatively minor contributor compared to other wonky ideas. Consider - homeopathic medicine, in 2007 the CDC says $2.9 billion was paid out of pocket by adults > 18 years of age. This is one that to me is absolutely ludicrous even before the patient puts the 6C dilution to their lips, but hey it makes some people feel better, so damned if they're going to be influenced by logic. I guess making the effort is justifiable enough for motivation for the presenter, I'm just not that optimistic.

ChaosEngine said:

Did you watch the whole video? People are wasting money on a diet that won't cure their symptoms and in some cases, is actually worse than a "regular" gluten diet.

Plus gluten is awesome. Any kind of really good pizza or bread dough relies on it. So do most beers. Why make yourself miserable if you don't have to?

You Probably Don't Need to Be on that Gluten-free Diet

bremnet says...

Couldn't agree more. But (there's always a 'but')... if a person convinces themself that they feel better without gluten, then the most passionate and data filled argument presented to tell them that what they feel is not justifiable scientifically, they're still going to be silly and tell the informed individual to screw off. The point is, some people have a reason that is good enough for them, and nobody is going to convince them otherwise. Are we really that dialed in to what's healthy and what nutrients we need for a healthy lifestyle? (whatever that means...). By example, consider the history of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome - in the early 90's, people were feeling shitty and weak, in pain and suffering. They were labeled as fakers or diagnosed as having a psychological disorder, but certainly not a verifiable medical condition related to any consistent physiological disorder. Thousands then and now millions of people have been diagnosed with the disease that is finally recognized as a true medical ailment. The point: we know a lot but we don't know it all when it comes to physiology, nutrition and "sensitivities", and there is no one size fits all solution to guarantee we will be healthy. It's understandable that some are dismissive of this gluten thing as completely irrational based on current science, but parallel that with the irrational and mocked CFS sufferers from 30 years ago who now carry a disease that is has a clear diagnostic methodology and is to varying degrees treatable. Sometimes we don't even know what we don't even know, and for some if it makes them feel better, they're going to do it. Harmful? To each their own.

Sycraft said:

Because restricting your diet unnecessarily is silly, and can make eating healthy a more difficult proposition. For most people without food allergies or sensitivities, it does not make sense to restrict something like gluten for no reason. Rather it is better to choose what you eat based off of what is healthy, provides the nutrients you need, and doesn't have an excessive amount of calories.

You Probably Don't Need to Be on that Gluten-free Diet

bremnet says...

Yeah, that's true, I'm sure the burden of glutenophobics on our medical system and taxpayer dollars is right up there with hangnails and "it hurts when I do this". Tempest in a teacup. If I'm going to get pissed about something chewing up taxpayer dollars that's related to healthcare for stupid people doing stupid things, it sure isn't going to be gluten. How about, oh, I don't know, smoking. For the years 2009–2012, economic cost due to smoking is estimated to be more than $289 billion a year. This cost includes at least $133 billion in direct medical care for adults and more than $156 billion for lost productivity from premature death estimated from 2005 through 2009**.

Any stats out on the gluten hysteria and burden on health care? I think that cumulative is going to take a long time to show up on the graph, and the fad will likely have died before the next leap year.

(**US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2014)

charliem said:

These people are admitting themselves to doctors and hospitals because they are causing more harm than good.

Thats your taxpayer dollars hard at work.

Who cares? The taxpayers should care....a healthy society is a healthy economy.......econ 101 baby.

You Probably Don't Need to Be on that Gluten-free Diet

bremnet says...

Don't hate the video, but what's the motivation? Who cares whether people choose or demand gluten free products or whether they actually need them? It's there choice, and the determination of whether it's right or wrong is theirs alone to make for whatever reason. Why does GM offer 57 different models of cars?... because the consumer demands it. Econ 101 baby.

What You Need to Know About Ebola

bremnet says...

I'm pretty sure I didn't need to know all that. So I skipped to the end. Seems we're all gonna' die, just as eric3579 predicted. Enjoy your final days everyone.

Why Do Joints Pop And Crack?

bremnet says...

Great post. Brings closure to a 19 year long argument with my wife on knuckle cracking. Does anyone have a video that proves pubic hair doesn't defy gravity and jump up onto the kitchen counter when walking around the house in the nude?

  • 1


Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon