They don't even know what quality the JPEG images were saved with, how many times they were resaved, or which JPEG algorithm was used.
I suspected the file sizes of the "original" JPEGs didn't match up with their quality. To verify, I took the second sample image, opened the "original" in photoshop, saved for web at 50% JPEG quality, and the file size was 139KB and the image was visually sharper and more detailed than the WebP version at 161KB. However, the WebP version was pixel per pixel, closer to the "original" and did not have the same JPEG artifacts you see in the new JPEG version. But I can't be sure this would be the case if a RAW image were used as the original.
Yeah, I'm thinking either they haven't considered a lot of things in this experiment, or they're keeping all the data to themselves until they can prove their speculations. I also hope they tested this with different elasticity coefficients and weights to be thorough.
To be honest, the results they are describing just make sense to me given what we already know about elasticity.. imagine the rubber band was made up of tiny links (like a the tread on a tank) and they were connected with the appropriate elasticity coefficient (that changes with the application of heat). I'm pretty sure if you model that you'll see that it's not so complicated after all.
Use this url:
The preference is a checkbox on the right side. It says "Display the list of people I'm following and people following me."
It took me a while to figure out how to get to that page. And if you started using buzz with the public option, you may want to have a look at the bottom of the page where you can use a long string of numbers for your user ID instead of your email address- mine defaulted to my email address when I allowed my profile to be public.
- I bought a smartphone online with a 1 year contract. The website promised I could use the pay as you go data plan. I selected that plan. I got an email and paper receipt with that plan listed for $0/month. When I activated my phone, Verizon automatically began billing for the unlimited data plan. Customer service reluctantly switched me back to the pay as you go data plan (which is $15.36 per MB for a smartphone, BTW, or $1.99 per MB for a standard phone. Figure that one out!). Anyway, to make a long story even longer, I went online to block VCast and other crap I didn't want on the new Smartphone only to discover that I cannot change my plan features without selecting a $30/mo data plan. Had to call customer service AGAIN so they could block what I wanted without changing my data plan.
- I blocked all data usage I could from their website, including VCast stuff, etc. I later added a phone to my plan (the smartphone from #1). A couple months later I accidentally hit the one-key get it now button. I hit end immediately and rapidly until it quit. They charged me $1.99 for 1MB of usage. I went online and looked at my features only to find they had re-enabled all the data usage on all my lines. Didn't bother with customer service, I knew they wouldn't admit to anything or refund my $1.99.
And just because I want to rant a little more... Verizon tells me I can get 2 new free phones. They send me emails and letters saying to go get my new phones right now. I go to the Verizon store. Verizon employee says I can get a $50 discount on ONE phone. I said I was told I could get 2 free phones? He said they only had one phone that would be free after a mail in rebate, and I'd have to pay for the second. I really needed 2 new phones, so $120 later, I have 2 "Free" phones.
I have no intentions of ever extending my Verizon contract again. Ever.
I think it's a brilliant application. I'm not so sure the fuel consumption, travel time, and congestion are the greatest benefits. But imagine telecommuting from your car, getting in an extra hour or more of work every day instead of spending it driving. you could go home earlier, or just get more done in one work day. It would even allow people to commute greater distances without feeling like half their day was wasted. Or you could catch up on some sleep... as long as it's not illegal.
My biggest problem with this example of bad research is that they took people who claim to multitask with media, especially language, and tested their ability to focus and solve logic problems. Many people who are strong with language are NOT strong with logic to begin with; It is not a result of multitasking. Also many people who "multitask" do so because they cannot focus well on one thing at a time.
Sorry I don't have the research to back those statements up, but the fact is, these researchers should have tested (or even developed a test for) actual real-world multitasking before they came to any type of conclusion. Once again, science concludes what the biased scientist wanted to assume. What happened to actual science?
When applied to enough games however, you may find similar groupings in every game with similar and dissimilar game play, but not necessarily, and I didn't read anything about this kind of assumption in the paper (I could have skimmed over it if it was there).
Also, why is everyone so afraid of having their game play analyzed by a machine? Is there a particular reason besides/in addition to the words "privacy" and "monitored"?