Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Sounds like bad methology (Score 1) 78

The only reason that the codec would influence the outcome is if it would generate artifacts that are somehow informative of the direction of time. In practice, codecs aim to keep as much information as possible while reducing the required space by finding regularities in the video. If the quality is sufficiently high, there would be next to no artifacts. Only in cases where the quality is extremely low there are tell-tale signs of the direction of time. Everyone has seen damaged Xvid movies I assume.

Comment: Re:Time isn't moving at all (Score 1) 78

You're imposing an arbitrary abstraction on a complicated natural phenomenon.
Space *is* not doing anything. We observe things in the real world and we construct useful models that contain notions such as "time" and "space".

In this particular case, time is analogous to the frame index of the video. If that index is increasing, time is moving forward. If it is decreasing, time is moving backwards in this video. Everybody understands what it means so stop being pedantic.

Comment: Re:Downgraded much? (Score 1) 49

by TheCreeep (#42964477) Attached to: Microsoft Kinect 2.0 Specifications Leak, Includes Support For USB 3.0
In it's defense, the whole segment about open or closed palm might be just journalistic interpretation of some "leaked" data.

I'm very confident they will have full hand pose estimation with joint rotation tracking. I'm currently doing my thesis on this topic and I can easily envision MSRC achieving this goal with their man power, computing power and the new Kinect 2 sensor (the old one is extremely noisy).

Comment: Really good summary (Score 1) 521

by TheCreeep (#37057738) Attached to: Cancer Cured By HIV
Don't you just love how much stuff the guy got wrong in the summary?

It reminds me about a joke I hear once in a while:
In Soviet Russia, one day the radio announces "Today, the president won a car."
The next day, they say "Some facts may have been erroneous yesterday. It was not the president who won the car, but a teenager from Sankt Petersburg. And it wasn't a car but a bike. And he didn't win it, it was stolen from him."

So the summary basically said:
"Cancer cured by injecting patients with HIV".
Only it isn't normal HIV, it's modified, harmless HIV.
And it didn't actually cure cancer, but 70% of the tissue.
And it wasn't injected in the patients, but into some of their blood cells.

Comment: 72 year old? (Score 4, Interesting) 242

by TheCreeep (#36298470) Attached to: Senior Citizens Lining Up to Tackle Fukushima

"I am 72 and on average I probably have 13 to 15 years left to live. Even if I were exposed to radiation, cancer could take 20 or 30 years or longer to develop. Therefore us older ones have less chance of getting cancer."

Isn't the "time to cancer" a function of both exposure AND age? It would seem sensible that the senior citizens' cells are already damaged by old age, so exposure to radiation would have a head start as opposed to a 20 year old.
IANARH (I am not anything relevant here) so I'm really curious about this question.

It's a poor workman who blames his tools.