HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.image.processing
Subject: DISPLAY of Large Images
From: jhh@itd.dsto.gov.au (John Hildebrandt)
Date: 20 Nov 92 10:33:32 CST
Reply-To: jhh@itd.dsto.gov.au
Distribution: world

I am interested in software or techniques for displaying large images
say 20 to 100M.

What methods are available to enable this to be done quickly on workstation
type systems.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Hildebrandt				jhh@itd.dsto.gov.au
Information Technology Division			Phone:	(06) 253 2029
Electonics Research Laboratory	DSTO		(Int.)	+616 253 2029
PO Box 783
Jaminson					Fax:	(06) 253 1919
ACT  2614 AUSTRALIA				(Int.)	+616 253 1919
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       UNIX, C, and X  --  the ultimate computer viruses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lee@bribie.sna.dec.com (Local Brian Lee)
Subject: Question: Converting a Negative to a Positive
Reply-To: lee@aussie.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital CSS Sydney Australia
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:22:35 GMT


--
hello people,

I'm not too sure if this is the right place to ask this but if it's
not I'm sure s/one will set me straight.

This is probably a simple question for all you graphics/imaging gurus
out there so I'm expecting a flood of responses:

OK:
If I have a 35mm negative and I grab that slide onto my PC with some
sort of frame grabber then what's involved in turning that image
into a positive ?

Is it a simple matter of subtracting every pixel from its max value ?

e.g. say I have a 24 plane image (i.e. no colour map) to get a positive
of a pixel with a value of say 0x123456 is it as simple as doing:

0xffffff - 0x123456 = positive value ?

Any comments please ...Thanks...Brian
hello people,

I'm not too sure if this is the right place to ask this but if it's
not I'm sure s/one will set me straight.

This is probably a simple question for all you graphics/imaging gurus
out there so I'm expecting a flood of responses:

OK:
If I have a 35mm negative and I grab that slide onto my PC with some
sort of frame grabber then what's involved in turning that image
into a positive ?

Is it a simple matter of subtracting every pixel from its max value ?

e.g. say I have a 24 plane image (i.e. no colour map) to get a positive
of a pixel with a value of say 0x123456 is it as simple as doing:

0xffffff - 0x123456 = positive value ?

Any comments please ...Thanks...Brian
==============================================================================
This is my signature file.

This file tells people that I don't know anything and that I don't
mean to say anything. And that Anything that sounds like I might
have said really is just a figment of the readers imagination.
=============================================================================
From: thomsen@spf.trw.com (Mark Thomsen)
Newsgroups: sci.image.processing
Subject: Re: best bands for geol. mapping
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:48:35 GMT
Organization: TRW Inc., Redondo Beach, CA

<NOVAK@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes
> I would be happy to receive comments about the best LANDSAT bands
> and their RBG assignments for geologic interpretation of LANDSAT
> images.

	Band	Channel
	 2	 blue
	 4	 green
	 5	 red

For Landsat TM. You may wish up band 2 by 10% (or knock down the others by  
10%). Works well for me (most vegetation is green; most dirt is brown, red, and  
gray; water is pretty blue).

Mark R. Thomsen
Newsgroups: sci.image.processing
From: y1@wilbur.psu.edu (Zhaohui Yang)
Subject: Wanted: 3d plot program for 8-bit image (msdos)
Organization: Penn State University, Center for Academic Computing
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 10:49:04 GMT

Hi, netters,


Thanks for all of you would kindly reply for my request on 8-bit image
viewer.  And here I got another problem.

I want to be able to got a 3d plot for 8-bit image on PC.  I check major
PC ftp site but cannot find one proper program.  And I am not familiar
with the alogirim on how to write one my own.  So if anyone of you 
know any clue on this issue,  I will be very appreciated if you can
share it with me.

Thanks in advance.

Yang
-- 
Zhaohui Yang			<>	 P e n n .  S t a t e
Dept. of Eletrical Engineering	<>
Pennsylvania State Univsity	<>	Tel.# : (814)863-7056
University Park, PA 16802	<>	E-mail: y1@wilbur.psu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.image.processing
From: ggerard@alex (Greg Gerard)
Subject: Point Spread Deconvolution sources? Anybody have em?
Organization: Trinity University, San Antonio TX, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 03:43:26 GMT

subject says it all.  c sources are preferred but i'll take what i can get.

thanks

greg
ggerard@alex.engr.trinity.edu
From: ed@astro.umd.edu (Ed Schmahl)
Newsgroups: sci.image.processing
Subject: Re: Point Spread Deconvolution sources? Anybody have em?
Date: 23 Nov 92 21:52:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U. of Maryland @ College Park, Astronomy

I'm also interested in source for deconvolution--Fortran preferred for
compatibility with Fortran-based image processing.

Ed Schmahl
Astronomy Department
University of Maryland
 
-- 
Edward J. Schmahl        |  Internet: ed@astro.umd.edu  (128.8.251.56)       
Lab for Astr & Solar Phys|  Gateway:  eschmahl@solar.stanford.edu    
Goddard Space Flt. Ctr.  |  SPAN:     CHAMP::SCHMAHL  (128.183.10.108)
Greenbelt, MD 20771      |  Voice:    (301) 286-5114
From: g.landini@uk.ac.bham (Gabriel Landini)
Newsgroups: sci.image.processing
Subject: Re: Wanted: 8-bit raw image viewer for PC
Date: 18 Nov 92 09:40:08 GMT
Organization: The University of Birmingham, United Kingdom

>Hi, netter,
>
>I will be very appreciate you help on this.  I have a lot of image data
>captured by CCD camera in 8-bit raw format, that is, 1 pixel 1 byte 256
>greyscale.  Instead of using image board to display them, I am wondering
>if there are any program available on the net that can display it on IBMPC's
>VGA screen.  I don't want any fancy function like thresholding or someting,
>just want a raw data viewer.  The data size ususally 256*256 or 128*128.
>
>We hav DOS, Window, and OS/2 in my lab so the platform should be
>no problem.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>
>--
>Zhaohui Yang			<>	 P e n n .  S t a t e
>Dept. of Eletrical Engineering	<>
>Pennsylvania State Univsity	<>	Tel.# : (814)863-7056
>University Park, PA 16802	<>	E-mail: y1@wilbur.psu.edu
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Piclab would load on raw format and even you can save in GIF afterwards.
It runs on MS-DOS.
Gabriel
From: rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley)
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: Re: Theories of meaning
Date: 23 Nov 92 11:51:40 GMT
Organization: Human Communication Research Center
In-reply-to: pautler@ils.nwu.edu's message of 20 Nov 92 16:38:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.163832.28976@ils.nwu.edu>, David Pautler (dp) writes:

dp> I agree with the sentiment as a statement of extremes, but argument by
dp> analogy is not usually considered valid.

That isn't an analogy, it's an equivalence. A linguistic phrase is, or
for any platonists present is embodied in, a physical configuration.
An act of interpretation is an event.

But, you're right, I was putting an extreme argument as a way of
pointing out that just airily talking about a `contextual theory of
meaning' is begging the question. Saying that if we had one we could
talk about synonymy is like a computer scientist claiming his new
alogorithm can be proved tractable assuming that P=NP.

Trimming down the relavent context from the whole of 4-space to
something usable in a definition of synonymy is, well, not something
for net.handwaving. And I see no reason to believe that it must be
possible. Nice if it was, but so would P=NP and a way of squaring the
circle.

--
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk				_O_
						 |<
Xref: sparky sci.cognitive:713 sci.philosophy.tech:4194 sci.lang:8121 sci.philosophy.meta:2656
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.lang,sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Folk Theories of Meaning
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 20 Nov 92 09:32:11 EST
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Nov19.211450.9582@news.Hawaii.Edu> 
lee@Hawaii.Edu (Greg Lee) writes:

>Michael Zeleny (zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu) wrote:

GL:
>>>...  Having shown that two sentences imply each other
>>>in some logical syntax, what is gained except confusion by proceeding
>>>to associate some esoteric meaning-thing with them both?

MZ:
>>Invariance under selection of specific syntax. Explanation of
>>syntactical rules.  That, and bivalence.  In short, truth. ...

GL:
>Justifying a semantic account of paraphrase by appeal to some need
>felt need to give an account of truth is circular.

Only if you feel that there is no need for a theoretical account of truth.

GL:
>						    "Explanation of
>syntactical rules" sounds nice, except that no syntactical rule of any
>natural language has ever been explained semantically, and there is no
>reason to think one ever will.

Ah so.  May I suggest that you get off your throne, go to the nearest
library, and look up the subjects of relational and functional grammar?
While you are at it, you might check out an elementary introduction to
the semantic explanation of syntax, _Grammar and Meaning_ by Howard
Jackson.

GL:
>(I'm reading this in sci.lang, but I'm beginning to suspect you do
>not intend what you are saying to have any relevance to natural
>language.  If not, think about editing your newgroups line.)

I have thought about editing my newsgroup line at some length, consequently
abstaining from cross-posting to sci.lang.dogmatic.transformational-grammar.
Perhaps you ought to confine your activities to that group, which is more
likely to preserve intact your peculiar intuitions of natural language.

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."


Newsgroups: sci.cognitive,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.lang
From: jmu@wam.umd.edu (James Marshall Unger)
Subject: Re: Theories of meaning without formal logic
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:45:20 GMT

In article <peeters.721781814@tasman> peeters@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (bert peeters) writes:
>jmu@wam.umd.edu (James Marshall Unger) writes:
>
>>I highly recommend Talbot J. Taylor, Mutual Misunderstanding (Durham:  Duke
>>University Press, 1991). 
>
>Could anyone provide an abstract? The title sounds fascinating...

	Taylor examines how philosophers, linguists, logicians, and others
from Locke onward have (or, rather, have not) come to grips with the sceptical
view that we only think we communicate when we speak to one another and that
in fact (strong version) we do not or, in any case (weak version), we cannot
be sure that we do.  As a linguist who has always regarded the diagram
in Saussure showing the passage of thoughts via language between talking
heads with suspicion, it seems to me Taylor has pinpointed the right
question to ask:  why do we believe that language "works" all, or even most,
of the time?  
	Taylor does not come up with another theory of meaning, but rather a
completely new way of approaching the whole problem of how language works, a
way of looking at the situation that makes it possible to rule out both the
strong and weak sceptical views.  Needless to say, Chomsky and the formalists
get left in the dust in the early pages--what emerges is probably the closest
thing to what the writer of the note that began this string is looking for.


Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
From: snit@nevada.edu (S. Nev. Institute of Tech.)
Subject: Reasons why AI not able to fully model mind
Originator: snit@redrock.nevada.edu
Organization: Southern Nevada Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:57:32 GMT

Thanxs,
Snit
             \/              
            ()()          
            /()\          
          _|    |_        
Xref: sparky sci.cognitive:637 sci.philosophy.tech:4111 sci.lang:8043
From: pautler@ils.nwu.edu (David Pautler)
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: Re: hierarchies
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:00:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: ils.1992Nov19.160031.17428
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Nov17.150028.9905@coe.montana.edu>, wombat@cs.montana.edu (Izurieta) writes:
> 
> 	I have been reading a few papers in segmentation of environments
> into regions.  Apparently, this is done by humans to create cognitive
> maps of some areas.  These regions in turn, form part of a hierarchy.
> 
> 	Here is my question,  What are the advantages of using a hierarchy
> to subdivide an environment?  Are there any computational advantages?

(I posted in order to prevent tens of messages being sent to Izurieta).

There's certainly a search-time advantage relative to searching a list.
If the tree has N leaves and the list N elements, a branching factor of
2 would get you from the root to a leaf in log-base-2-of N steps, while
it may take you a full N steps for an unsorted list.

But depending on whether you interpret the nonterminal nodes in the tree
as representing something essential or not, binary trees require more
space (2N - 1) than lists (N).

You might want to look at Aho, Hopcroft, and Ullman, _Data Structures
and Algorithms_.

	-dp-
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
From: pkoikkal@abo.fi (Pasi Koikkalainen INF)
Subject: Re: hierarchies
Organization: Abo Akademi University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 08:44:06 GMT

wombat@cs.montana.edu (Izurieta) writes:


>	I have been reading a few papers in segmentation of environments
>into regions.  Apparently, this is done by humans to create cognitive
>maps of some areas.  These regions in turn, form part of a hierarchy.

>	Here is my question,  What are the advantages of using a hierarchy
>to subdivide an environment?  Are there any computational advantages?

I am most interested about this topic, but from other perspective.
In 1989 I developed such an algorithm to train Self-Organizing
Feature Maps in logaritmic time (O(N) is reduced to O(log N), where
N is the number of units (neurons)). At that time the only advantage
was speed, but I believe that there should be other (representitional)
advantages as well. So I would appreciate if you can point out
the references  you were talking about (I have already Hinton's
article in Scientific American).

The only (currently available) reference to my work was in Neural Net
conference 1990 (San Diego), available also via ftp from:

lut.fi (157.24.10.8)
account: ftp
password: --see instructions
directory: reports/neural-nets
file: selfhier.ps.Z

Since then we have used this net a lot in our research, and 
future papers will show very similar results that mentioned
in Hintons article. (Our work is mainly in computer vision and
artificial intelligence, using neural networks).

>				Clem
>				(wombat@cs.montana.edu)

Pasi Koikkalainen                    (permanent address)
 ]bo Akademi ( - 22.Sept.93)         Lappeenranta Univ. of Tech.
 Inst. Informationsbehandling        P.O.BOX 20, 53851-LPR
 20520 Turku, Finland                Finland
 email: pkoikkal@ra.abo.fi           email: pako@lut.fi


Xref: sparky sci.cognitive:640 sci.philosophy.tech:4117 sci.lang:8047
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Theories of meaning
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:26:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Nov16.212621.20707
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <peeters.721793198@tasman> peeters@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (bert peeters) writes:

...

>People who propose theories have reasons to do so - at least one would
>expect that to be the case. 

To be sure. The question remains: are these good reasons?

>One of the reasons why there should be
>theories of meaning is that people who talk about meaning (don't we all?)
>want to make sure they get their point across. They want to make sure that
>others know how they use the word. That requires a theory.

You seem to be saying that in order to understand what is said whenever the
word "meaning" comes up, one must have a "theory of meaning". I'm not clear
about this. Is "meaning" a very special word, or are theories required to
understand every word? Do I, for example, have to have a theory of
elephants before I can understand talk in which "elephant" comes up?

Moreover, if understanding talk about "meaning" requires the adoption of
some theory of meaning, then it would follow that philosophers can seldom
understand each other when they talk about this subject, since there have
been many and various theories of meaning. Thus, philosophers who hold
different theories must be talking about different things when they discuss
"meaning"; they only think they are talking to each other about the same
thing. 

I had thought that theories of meaning are not constructed so much to help
philosophers understand each other's talk about "meaning", but because
philosophers have a deep conviction that, one the one hand, there is
"meaning" and one the other, there is "language". The theory explicates the
precise relation of the two; its function is not to define words, or to lay
a foundation for discourse about meaning.

>I did NOT insist that there are reasons to formulate theories of meaning - I
>took that for granted. ...

I thought it might be interesting to ask you _why_ you take this for
granted. Is there some innate joy in formulating theories? Are they perhaps
aesthetic objects that we admire for their beauty? Or does this theory have
some _use_? If the answer is, "well, if you have to ask, then you can't
understand", then I will, of course, have to desist from my questioning.
Formulating theories of meaning is, perhaps, a natural urge that some
people have and that can't be explained further. Those who don't get the
urge can't expect to participate. 

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky sci.cognitive:716 sci.philosophy.tech:4196 sci.lang:8126
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Theories of meaning not relying solely on sym
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 20 Nov 92 11:11:21 EST
Followup-To: alt.true-crime
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <RJC.92Nov19162241@daiches.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:

>In article <1992Nov17.221542.17555@husc3.harvard.edu>, 
>Michael Zeleny writes:

MZ:
>>Even granting your alleged ability [to find contexts to separate
>>synonyms], it is obvious that it does nothing to exclude the
>>context-dependent theories of meaning.  

RC:
>The problem here is that the phenomenon becomes purely theoretical.
>You _can't_ put two phrases or whatever into the same contex for the
>same reason you can't put two physical objects into the same 4-space
>location, not enough room.

I see no reason to suppose that the salient contextual features are
unique and irreproducible, in the sense you seem to suggest.

MZ:
>>The best NL examples are furnished by good translations.

RC:
>Give me one example. Even phrases in languages I know nothing of are
>not interchangable unless they are phonetically _very_ similar, which
>is a bit of a degenerate case for synonymy. If I understand, even
>vaguely, one of the languages, then all kinds of contextual effects
>are going to ruin any equivalence you wish to set up.

I have no interest in playing your game.  Feel free to select any
number of phrases from the first chapter of an arbitrary foreign
language textbook.  If you wish to maintain semantic uniqueness
against all evidence to the contrary, you will be able to do so, no
matter what sort of examples I adduce.  Aggordingly, this exchange is
quite pointless.

MZ:
>>Following Montague, I believe that deicticaly disambiguated natural
>>languages *are* formal languages.

RC:
>This is either empty or patently false, either way it doesn't reflect
>the Montague as I have seen. I think you need a different verb in that
>opaquely embedded phrase :-).

Mea culpa, -- I should have said that my reference was to Richard
Montague's writing, specifically to the famous paper "English as a
Formal Language" (Bruno Visentini et al., editors, _Linguaggi nella
Societ\`a e nella Technica_, Milano, 1970), rather than to any other
aspect of his person.  Depending on when you have seen him last, the
LAPD might be very interested in talking to you.  Followups to
alt.true-crime.

>--
>rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk				_O_
>						 |<

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
From: pautler@ils.nwu.edu (David Pautler)
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive
Subject: Re: Theories of meaning
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:38:32 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <RJC.92Nov19162241@daiches.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, rjc@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:

> The problem here is that the phenomenon becomes purely theoretical.
> You _can't_ put two phrases or whatever into the same contex for the
> same reason you can't put two physical objects into the same 4-space
> location, not enough room.

I agree with the sentiment as a statement of extremes, but argument by
analogy is not usually considered valid.

	-dp-
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.lang,sci.philosophy.meta
From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: Commitment to logic; was ...
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:08:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.042158.17562@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.214321.18500@psych.toronto.edu>
>christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>
>>>Indeed.  Logical reasoning tells me that if I walk out in front of a bus,
>>>I'll get run over.  Does he mean that in the Far East this doesn't hold?
>
>CG:
>>LOGIC tells you this?!?!? Astounding! I'd love to see that logic. I've
>>always thought this was contingent; true, but contingent. The things
>>you learn on the net...
>
>Some people are vitalists; some are physicalists; a few gentle souls
>are semanticalists.  Michael is a logicist, -- theirs is an ancient
>and venerable breed, and I fail to see any egregious fault with the
>views they espouse.  Read more Spinoza, Chris.
>
The issue to which I was alluding was not whether natural language could
ultimately be reduced to *some* logic. In fact I hope it can because, under
at least one interpretation ofthe problem, the question amounts to whether
there can be a theory of language at all. The problem is that the question
of whether one gets run over if one steps in from of a bus, cannot be
answered a priori, and therefore is not a logical truth (at least it can't
be derived out of any of our present logics). Tally-ho!


-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.lang