I think it's time we make math more interesting and switch to base 23. Then it will be equally as complex as the US's Imperial ("Standard" or "English" or whatever) system of measurements- which might actually make more sense in base 23.. who knows. At least it will reduce the fixation on 9's and keep mathematicians busy for a few years while re-writing all their text books.

The reason they are not as sharp is because the reference image IS the JPEG version. They are using wikipedia images for examples, and they are working off the JPEG image to produce their WebP version.

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.

did anyone consider ahead of time how many calculations would be necessary before they invested all that money?

I'm pretty sure they took a clear photo, and blurred it with their custom software to look like an unsteady hand, and then, knowing how it was blurred, their un-blurring algorithm worked great... show me some real-world examples of photos you didn't take.

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.

That's amazing. I have 3 checkboxes... the last one being "Display the list of people I'm following and people following me." I created my profile this last year when google wave went preview so it could have something to do with the age of your profile. Wish I could have been more help.

Use this url:
http://www.google.com/profiles/me/editprofile?edit=t#about
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 had a similar situation, actually 2...

1. 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.
2. 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.

telecommuting is not for everyone though, this can be for everyone who does not or cannot telecommute.

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.

Great, now I'll be allergic to my electronics too. Nature I can escape, but mold in my computer??

That was my very first thought. I thought it was a no-brainer. Either that or it has a perfect orbit and will never decay? is that possible?

Exactly what I thought when I read the article. Only the third test is remotely close to multi-tasking, except it is task switching (like a computer multi-tasks) not multitasking as in you can actually understand 2 conversations (or other streams of media) simultaneously.

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?

From what I read of the paper, the research is not about a universal set of game play styles that can be applied to other games, but rather a method of automatically grouping players into different styles of game play given a particular game. They choose Tomb Raider as an example, not the data set to base all other games on. Yes it requires game play to be analyzed before hand, and yes, people have to name the groups, and yes, this is done per game.

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).

Just because they collected data on 1365 players using XBox live doesn't mean they collect data from everyone playing the game. They very well might, but for all you know those 1365 could have opted in after seeing very clear terms.

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"?

Thank you for clearing that up. It makes more sense to me now. I still stand by my opinion, though, but it apparently doesn't apply to Tesla.