On Feb 4, 10:50 am, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:> On Feb 3, 1:37 pm, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 3, 10:07 am, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 2, 7:35 pm, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > I assume this is the same as the flash animation on You Tube. These > > > > > are also small images. Furthermore, this shows slimy advertising > > > > > expertise rather than technical writing skill. > > > > > The authors have provided a larger video version of the Fig 11.b that > > > > you cited. You seem to rant about 'slimy advertising' without even > > > > looking. > > > > 1. That is a 46 minute download for me. > > > 2. I downloaded it over a month ago. > > > 3. I am missing codecs to view it. > > > 4. Instead of telling me the version is "larger," why don't you just > > > tell me the dimensions of the version of fig. 11. b contained in that > > > video? > > > You made the claims and threw out the labels. Do your homework. > > How did the authors respond when you asked them for the images? > > On 1/9/08 I emailed a...@idc.ac.il with one simple technical > question. He did not respond therefore I deemed him uncooperative. I > am not going to nag uncooperative authors for anything including > images. > > > > > > All science and engineering papers should be > > > > > written in sufficient detail so that others can duplicate and verify > > > > > their results. > > > > > I'd like to see this too. Do you know any publishers that support > > > > this? > > > > I already told you no and why. > > > If you remember that publishers don't allow this, why are authors evil > > for not achieving it? > > You have already used up your fair quota of stupid questions. > > > > > > > > ... > > > You often use debating tactics typical of lawyers and politicians > > > that are unsuitable for any technical arena, including this forum. > > > That also indicates that you are morally corrupt. > > > I consider consistency and reasonable backup for bold claims to be > > expectations "suitable for any technical arena, including this forum" > > whether they have been used by lawyers and politicians or not. They > > are methods that are used to separate discussions from flames and > > trolls. This is a Usenet group. You get to participate however you > > choose, but if do, don't be surprised if people notice and talk. > > That's what Usenet is about. > > > Dale B. Dalrymple- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Your bold claim, that my bold claims lack "consistency and reasonable > backup," lacks consistency and reasonable backup, therefore you are a > hypocrite. Now, I, with consistency and reasonable backup, have > boldly claimed you to be a liar and a hypocrite.You seem to consistently mistake 'having backup' with 'having your back up'. If you had begun by stating your attempt to contact the authors and explained the inadequacy of your internet connection someone might have helped you. If you approached the authors with the same polite manner you show here, nobody would expect you to get a reply. On Usenet we can rant and we can reason and we demonstrate our choices with our posts. Dale B. Dalrymple
medical imaging is the vanguard of signal processing in 21st
Started by ●January 30, 2008
Reply by ●February 4, 20082008-02-04
Reply by ●February 4, 20082008-02-04
On Feb 4, 2:57�pm, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote:> On Feb 4, 10:50 am, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 3, 1:37 pm, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > > On Feb 3, 10:07 am, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 2, 7:35 pm, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > > I assume this is the same as the flash animation on You Tube. �These > > > > > > are also small images. �Furthermore, this shows slimy advertising > > > > > > expertise rather than technical writing skill. > > > > > > The authors have provided a larger video version of the Fig 11.b that > > > > > you cited. You seem to rant about 'slimy advertising' �without even > > > > > looking. > > > > > 1. That is a 46 minute download for me. > > > > 2. I downloaded it over a month ago. > > > > 3. I am missing codecs to view it. > > > > 4. Instead of telling me the version is "larger," why don't you just > > > > tell me the dimensions of the version of fig. 11. b contained in that > > > > video? > > > > You made the claims and threw out the labels. Do your homework. > > > How did the authors respond when you asked them for the images? > > > On 1/9/08 I emailed a...@idc.ac.il with one simple technical > > question. �He did not respond therefore I deemed him uncooperative. �I > > am not going to nag uncooperative authors for anything including > > images. > > > > > > > All science and engineering papers should be > > > > > > written in sufficient detail so that others can duplicate and verify > > > > > > their results. > > > > > > I'd like to see this too. Do you know any publishers that support > > > > > this? > > > > > I already told you no and why. > > > > If you remember that publishers don't allow this, why are authors evil > > > for not achieving it? > > > You have already used up your fair quota of stupid questions. > > > > > ... > > > > You often use debating tactics typical of lawyers and politicians > > > > that are unsuitable for any technical arena, including this forum. > > > > That also indicates that you are morally corrupt. > > > > I consider consistency and reasonable backup for bold claims to be > > > expectations "suitable for any technical arena, including this forum" > > > whether they have been used by lawyers and politicians or not. They > > > are methods that are used to separate discussions from flames and > > > trolls. This is a Usenet group. You get to participate however you > > > choose, but if do, don't be surprised if people notice and talk. > > > That's what Usenet is about. > > > > Dale B. Dalrymple- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Your bold claim, that my bold claims lack "consistency and reasonable > > backup," lacks consistency and reasonable backup, therefore you are a > > hypocrite. �Now, I, with consistency and reasonable backup, have > > boldly claimed you to be a liar and a hypocrite. > > You seem to consistently mistake 'having backup' with 'having your > back up'. >Your last statement is an immoral attempt at non-logical persuasion.> > If you had begun by stating your attempt to contact the authors and > explained the inadequacy of your internet connection someone might > have helped you. >I never implied that my internet connection was a serious problem and, otherwise, your statement makes no sense.> > If you approached the authors with the same polite manner you show > here, nobody would expect you to get a reply. >1. Do your homework, you big hypocrite. What did the author say to you when you asked him how polite I was? 2. My impoliteness is much better than your lying and hypocrisy. I am morally obliged to expose liars and hypocrites and politeness hampers efficiency. If I didn't attack you, my conscience would bother me. Unlike you, I have a conscience and it feels very good for having exposed you as a source of chaos in society.> > On Usenet we can rant and we can reason and we demonstrate our choices > with our posts.My choice was to be impolite and your choice was to be immoral.> > Dale B. Dalrymple- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
Reply by ●February 4, 20082008-02-04
On Feb 4, 2:43 pm, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:> On Feb 4, 2:57 pm, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 4, 10:50 am, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 3, 1:37 pm, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 3, 10:07 am, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 2, 7:35 pm, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > I assume this is the same as the flash animation on You Tube. These > > > > > > > are also small images. Furthermore, this shows slimy advertising > > > > > > > expertise rather than technical writing skill. > > > > > > > The authors have provided a larger video version of the Fig 11.b that > > > > > > you cited. You seem to rant about 'slimy advertising' without even > > > > > > looking. > > > > > > 1. That is a 46 minute download for me. > > > > > 2. I downloaded it over a month ago. > > > > > 3. I am missing codecs to view it. > > > > > 4. Instead of telling me the version is "larger," why don't you just > > > > > tell me the dimensions of the version of fig. 11. b contained in that > > > > > video? > > > > > You made the claims and threw out the labels. Do your homework. > > > > How did the authors respond when you asked them for the images? > > > > On 1/9/08 I emailed a...@idc.ac.il with one simple technical > > > question. He did not respond therefore I deemed him uncooperative. I > > > am not going to nag uncooperative authors for anything including > > > images. > > > > > > > > All science and engineering papers should be > > > > > > > written in sufficient detail so that others can duplicate and verify > > > > > > > their results. > > > > > > > I'd like to see this too. Do you know any publishers that support > > > > > > this? > > > > > > I already told you no and why. > > > > > If you remember that publishers don't allow this, why are authors evil > > > > for not achieving it? > > > > You have already used up your fair quota of stupid questions. > > > > > > ... > > > > > You often use debating tactics typical of lawyers and politicians > > > > > that are unsuitable for any technical arena, including this forum. > > > > > That also indicates that you are morally corrupt. > > > > > I consider consistency and reasonable backup for bold claims to be > > > > expectations "suitable for any technical arena, including this forum" > > > > whether they have been used by lawyers and politicians or not. They > > > > are methods that are used to separate discussions from flames and > > > > trolls. This is a Usenet group. You get to participate however you > > > > choose, but if do, don't be surprised if people notice and talk. > > > > That's what Usenet is about. > > > > > Dale B. Dalrymple- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Your bold claim, that my bold claims lack "consistency and reasonable > > > backup," lacks consistency and reasonable backup, therefore you are a > > > hypocrite. Now, I, with consistency and reasonable backup, have > > > boldly claimed you to be a liar and a hypocrite. > > > You seem to consistently mistake 'having backup' with 'having your > > back up'. > > Your last statement is an immoral attempt at non-logical persuasion. > > > > > If you had begun by stating your attempt to contact the authors and > > explained the inadequacy of your internet connection someone might > > have helped you. > > I never implied that my internet connection was a serious problem and, > otherwise, your statement makes no sense. > > > > > If you approached the authors with the same polite manner you show > > here, nobody would expect you to get a reply. > > 1. Do your homework, you big hypocrite. What did the author say to > you when you asked him how polite I was? > > 2. My impoliteness is much better than your lying and hypocrisy. I am > morally obliged to expose liars and hypocrites and politeness hampers > efficiency. If I didn't attack you, my conscience would bother me. > Unlike you, I have a conscience and it feels very good for having > exposed you as a source of chaos in society. > > > > > On Usenet we can rant and we can reason and we demonstrate our choices > > with our posts. > > My choice was to be impolite and your choice was to be immoral. > > > > > Dale B. Dalrymple- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -I don't think I have to be impolite to be able to trust the readers of this discussion to evaluate it. Dale B. Dalrymple
Reply by ●February 4, 20082008-02-04
On Feb 1, 8:39�pm, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote:> ... > The authors also provide a video about the technique, without > requirement by the publisher of their paper. This seems like another > case where your example disagrees with your conclusion.http://www.faculty.idc.ac.il/arik/IMRet-All.mov > ...At too much inconvenience, I obtained the needed codec and viewed the MOV version of Fig. 11. The displayed ~ 400x480 dimensions of the "before" image seem to be the same as those for the test image. I know because I approximately duplicated the author's results using a screen capture of this MOV image. The MOV's final ~ 240x480 result is fairly representative of seam carving for that image. However, this and most other examples are in motion and freezing the frames (an inconvience) is necessary for proper inspection. My previous conclusion that the figures in the paper are too small was correct because the video reveals many defects that are not visible in the paper. Also, I forgot to mention that Fig. 7 (butterfly) compares four variations of seam removal. I see no difference and the authors give no conclusions for these examples. In my experience, no visible difference is a frequent fault of small images in image processing journals.
Reply by ●February 5, 20082008-02-05
On Feb 1, 6:20�pm, Rune Allnor <all...@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:> On 1 Feb, 19:04, aruzinsky <aruzin...@general-cathexis.com> wrote:> Many years ago I attended a DSP conference where a presentation > was given on EKG, heart-beat recordings. I don't remember theFunny that you choose EKG as an example. The application of independent component analysis techniques to EKG has been widely published (note: not for compression). This is helpful in separating out mother and foetal heartbeat. A few years ago I was working with some folks, who were using the technology for both medical and military signal projects. Other examples of non-linear and non-gaussian signal processing can also be seen in medical and military applications. This tends to suggest that perhaps it is radio-comms that is lagging behind in the signal processing field. Part of this is the nature of the channels, and also power/processing constraints. There is a lot of cross-over between signal processing and control fields, and it is in the lower data rate control applications that much progress is being made in state-space and Bayesian methods. That said, I can't imagine someone utilising particle filtering for commercial radio-comms for a few years yet! Andrew
Reply by ●February 5, 20082008-02-05
On 5 Feb, 11:07, Andrew Burnside <andrew.burns...@sli-institute.ac.uk> wrote:> Other examples of non-linear and non-gaussian signal processing can > also be seen in medical and military applications. > > This tends to suggest that perhaps it is radio-comms that is lagging > behind in the signal processing field. > Part of this is the nature of the channels, and also power/processing > constraints.Well, communications is an area where physics quickly becomes the limiting factor. Few usable acoustic underwater comms systems exist, mainly due to the huge degrading impact caused by multipath propagation effects. I don't know what the situation is with radio comms systems, but I get the impression that multipath effects has started making an impact as a limting factor there, as well. Once you hit the physics wall, technology can't help you.> There is a lot of cross-over between signal processing and control > fields, and it is in the lower data rate control applications that > much progress is being made in state-space and Bayesian methods.I read the introduction chapter in Friedlander's (sp?) book from 1986 or so, on state space systems. It was very interesting to see his interpretation of engineering as governed by tradition and culture. The difference between the western approach and the (then) Soviet approach to control systems was rather profound. Rune
Reply by ●February 5, 20082008-02-05
Rune Allnor wrote:> I read the introduction chapter in Friedlander's (sp?) book from 1986 > or > so, on state space systems. It was very interesting to see his > interpretation > of engineering as governed by tradition and culture. The difference > between > the western approach and the (then) Soviet approach to control > systems was rather profound.???? I am curious to know what is the difference. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
Reply by ●February 5, 20082008-02-05
On 5 Feb, 16:49, Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com> wrote:> Rune Allnor wrote: > > I read the introduction chapter in Friedlander's (sp?) book from 1986 > > or > > so, on state space systems. It was very interesting to see his > > interpretation > > of engineering as governed by tradition and culture. The difference > > between > > the western approach and the (then) Soviet approach to control > > systems was rather profound. > > ???? > > I am curious to know what is the difference.Citing Friedlander off the top of my head, the soviets focused on state space methods as a matter of course where westerners mess about with rational transfer methods. Where the westerners use pole locations (inside/outside the unit circle), the soviets discussed some other stuff I can't remember the name of; possibly including a name similar to 'Lyapunov' -- again, don't take these vague memories too literally; you should read it yourself. If you read the chapter I would be very interested in hearing your opinions on it. Rune
Reply by ●February 5, 20082008-02-05
Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:> > > Rune Allnor wrote: > >> I read the introduction chapter in Friedlander's (sp?) book from 1986 >> or >> so, on state space systems. It was very interesting to see his >> interpretation >> of engineering as governed by tradition and culture. The difference >> between >> the western approach and the (then) Soviet approach to control >> systems was rather profound. > > ???? > > I am curious to know what is the difference.I am too. One example that purports to show the differing influences of authoritarian and somewhat democratic societies on engineering is the parallel development of poultry incubators in France (an absolute monarchy) and Great Britain (a parliamentary monarchy). In both countries, incubators were heated by fires whose intensity was controlled by dampers which needed adjusting as the wood burnt down. In both countries, the incubators were regulated by hand at first, then attempts were made to automate the regulation. In France, clockwork was used, moving the dampers according to a prearranged schedule. The British quickly abandoned that approach, instead using bimetal strips to control the dampers as required. The author asserted that it was no accident that the flyball governor was a British invention. Sorry: I don't remember the source. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●February 5, 20082008-02-05
Rune Allnor wrote:> On 5 Feb, 16:49, Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bo...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >>Rune Allnor wrote: >> >>>I read the introduction chapter in Friedlander's (sp?) book from 1986 >>>or >>>so, on state space systems. It was very interesting to see his >>>interpretation >>>of engineering as governed by tradition and culture. The difference >>>between >>>the western approach and the (then) Soviet approach to control >>>systems was rather profound. >> >>???? >> >>I am curious to know what is the difference. > > Citing Friedlander off the top of my head, the soviets focused on > state space methods as a matter of course where westerners > mess about with rational transfer methods. Where the westerners > use pole locations (inside/outside the unit circle), the soviets > discussed some other stuff I can't remember the name of; > possibly including a name similar to 'Lyapunov' -- again, don't > take these vague memories too literally; you should read it yourself. > > If you read the chapter I would be very interested in hearing your > opinions on it.I haven't read Friedlander's book but I strongly disagree with it :) At school, the control stuff was considered as the systems of the differential equations. Many semesters were allocated to that. The person that you mentioned is probably Pontryagin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Semenovich_Pontryagin Poles and zeroes were taught too, and the textbooks on that were mainly the translations and compilations of the classic courses. At that time I had no clue about how this stuff works and why do I have to know it. Many years later it started to make sense, and I wish I could return back to the university to review the courses. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.com
