As in many fields of endeavour, the right tools can make a big difference. I tried my hand valiantly at this winged look in my younger years but the results, as I recall, were variable.This is awesome:
This other video, on the make-up collection, seemed totally overboard when I first viewed it, but who can argue with a positive outcome!!
Saturday, January 30, 2016
Friday, January 29, 2016
Mannequin
Yesterday, Mattel made something of a splash with the presentation of Barbie dolls
that are more realistic: different sizes, shapes, colouring. Many are hailing this as
an advance for women, because young girls will have dolls they can better identify
with, and engage in role-playing games. This is probably true, and good.
The original Barbie dates from 1959, another world. When Barbie made the scene,
the emphasis was not on her but on her clothes. Not that she was a total clothes horse
as current celebrity culture would have it. In those days, people often made their own
clothes; sewing was taught in schools. And a savy woman might have a mannequin
at home of her own bust. Barbie was akin to a store mannequin. And little girls didn't
role-play. They dreamt of the clothes they wanted to make.
Because World War II had deprived urban populations in Europe, the women of
France came out of it thin, very thin. And there had not been material to make clothes
during the war. So there was an emphasis on the opulence of drapings, for example with
Dior. By the 1960s, we were in a full celebration of Couture, and fashion houses.
In 1959, Barbie would have been - Barbara - a pan-European mannequin. Europe had
been rebuilt.
I could wax on about the new crop of Barbies, but I won't. Let's just say some of them
have a lot of personality... Still love you, Barbie!
Dior New Look (1947)
Barbie in a little black dress (2010)
* * *
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Little Comment
I know it is not my place, as a Canadian, to meddle in the U.S. election. But on the Megyn Kelly issue, the Trump team is getting short-changed. She is a lawyer, and going on him in full prosecution mode: "... is this the temperament of someone who we should consider for President?" Trump is correct is seeing this as harassement; he is not on trial for anything. And that line of questioning is inappropriate, and unhelpful.
Loving how this campaign is keeping it real.
Loving how this campaign is keeping it real.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Monday, January 25, 2016
Hoorah
The little below wonder is a scottish pie, suggested for Robert Burns night.
(January 25). I was on the Edge browser when I spotted it, and the recipe was so
outrageous I decided to go for it. Now Edge doesn't allow me to save as the IE did.
I can go to reading mode which will give me a clean version of the recipe, and I am
free to copy it and paste it in Notepad, which I did. Progress, really!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/recipes/9032937/Burns-Night-recipes-Scottish-tart.html
* * *
I was also a little miffed by the description given the Lumia 550 Windows phone in Wikipedia. I do appreciate knowing that someone is comparison shopping on the phone features, but that is a limited view. Indeed, a mobile phone is all about feature tradeoffs and battery management.
Here the battery is easy to manage: the user is free to set the percentage of 'battery left' cutoff at which battery saving will begin for the session. He/she can also - other than calls and texts - decide what the phone will continue to listen for. For example, a full Find my Phone will show a lost phone on a map any number of turns.
The consumer is free to decide on how expensive a phone he needs. It is prudent to remember that phones are very fragile and easily lost, and cost is also cost of replacement. This full-featured Windows phone is a winner for a talk and text person with a long day. And many things that allow for an elaborate app in another phone ecology - for example, backup - is immediately available here. Just send stuff up to OneDrive. Hoorah!
Saturday, January 23, 2016
Friday, January 22, 2016
Them Days
* * *
Paris has a new art project that illuminates a building in continuous evolution. It can be seen by drivers on the periphérique.
Images from Le Monde.
Find
At current prices, a disappearing phone can be quite a distressing affair. The new Windows phone has a wonderful feature which allows one to see on a map where one's wayward phone has gotten to. And for the price of a little more battery power, this map will be refreshed. Here are the settings:
* * *
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Silence
Seven Québecois have died a the hands of djihadists (Ouadagoudou), and some resentment is being expressed about the government's silence on the question.
http://quebec.huffingtonpost.ca/donald-charette/justin-et-le-monde-reel_b_9020196.html
Sunday, January 17, 2016
Brekkie
How do Chilian grapes make it to Canada in the dead of winter. It is a long journey that
can take up to two weeks. First they are taken to port in a refrigerated truck. Then
transferred to a container and loaded on a ship. Then on to Panama. From there, a change
of ship to go to Miami. To then travel to Montreal by land or air. Thus there are two factors
that influence price: cost of fuel, and manpower.
I'm appreciative for my Sunday breakfast moment:
can take up to two weeks. First they are taken to port in a refrigerated truck. Then
transferred to a container and loaded on a ship. Then on to Panama. From there, a change
of ship to go to Miami. To then travel to Montreal by land or air. Thus there are two factors
that influence price: cost of fuel, and manpower.
I'm appreciative for my Sunday breakfast moment:
Friday, January 15, 2016
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Monday, January 11, 2016
Separated
source: Le Monde Blogs, January 11 2016
aurhor: Pierre Barthélémy
translation: doxa-louise
What was the ancestor to Neanderthal and Modern Man like
In conversation with Aurélien Mounier
A paleoanthropologist at Cambridge University (UK) with the Leverhulme Center for Evolutionary Studies, Aurélien Mounier wants to know how homo became sapiens, how individuals from this lineage came to possess the chatacteristics that are theirs today. In a collaborative effort with Marta Mirazon Lahr, director for the 'In Africa' project on the role of East Africa on the evolution of man, he has just published an article in the Journal of Human Evolution, wherein these two researchers describe how, with the aid of a digital model, they have recreated the skull of the ancestor common to Modern Man and his Neanderthal cousin. Aurélien Mounier kindly accepted to answer questions on this 'virtual fossil'.
What do we know about the common ancestor to Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal Man
We know that we a have a common ancestor with the Neanderthals. This ancestor, or rather this ancestral population generally known as Homo heidelbergensis lived during the Middle Pleistocene (a period covering roughly the years 800 000 to 200 000 before ou era), in Africa and probably in Eurasia. Unfortunately, for such a a long timespan and such a large geographic area, we possess but a few dozen (dizaines) fossils. In fact, there is quite a bit of debate about the precise definition of this population: what species? What geographical dispersion? and quite naturally one of the central questions is that of determining when these two lineages, that of modern men and the Neanderthals, separated.
The objective of our study was to build mathematically a virtual skull which would stand for a fossil of this ancestral population. After that, we could take this virtual skull to be a normal one, and compare it to actual fossils to see if it resembled certain known specimens. Finally, to take into account the debate about the moment of separation between the modern and Neanderthal lineages, we have complexified our model to create three virtual ancestors corresponding to three possible dates for separation: 1 million years, 700 000 years and 400 000 years. At the present time, the most probable date of separation, based on estimates form DNA and the molecular clock is closest to 400 000.
How did you achieve this virtual reconstruction
We constructed a simplified tree showing the evolution of the genus Homo. this tree contains three different species, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens, represented by 15 specimens (2 erectus, 5 Neanderthals and 8 modern men) without including fossils from the population we are looking for. We used only 15 specimens because of the poor condition of such fossils which are often quite fragmentary. Because in this study we were looking to reconstruct the entire skull.
These specimens are defined through 797 'benchmark' points describing the whole skull. It is this information, the form created by these points, that will be used by the algorithm and constrained by an evolutionary model based on random chance as causative of evolution, in order to 'go back in time'. From there we are in a position to find a virtual ancestor for each of the nodes in our simplified genealogical tree which represents the history of the genus Homo.
What was this ancestor like and what do we still carry from him
This ancestor has a low brow, prominent eyebrow arches, a prognathous face, and the beginnings of a swollen skull posterior which will become in the Neanderthals the 'occipital bun'.
He is like us mostly by the form the lower face, which offers a small slump which, in modern man is very marked and contributes to the formation of relatively prominent cheekbones. This ancestor resembles more Neanderthal man than he does us because the form of the skull in modern men is farther to that of other species of men who have today disappeared than that of the Neanderthals. Our uniqueness lies in having a face retracted under the cranial arch much higher and rounder than any other cranial arch of other human species from the past.
How to be sure that such a modelization approach can yield significant results. Is this in contradiction or complementary to results obtained during work on ancient DNA.
We have compared our virtual ancestors to over 50 skulls out of Africa or Eurasia and dated between 1.8 million years and today. The three ancestors have a morphology which resembles fossils dated in the middle Pleistocene, that is to say the period in which we know there existed a population ancestor to modern man and the Neanderthals. This tends to show that the estimation works well enough because the model to calculate the ancestors did not include any individuals from this period..Between these three models, the virtual ancestor which most resembles the fossils of the period is number 2 built on the assumption of a split between the Neanderthals and and Modern Man around 700 000 years ago. This is something of a surprise, I expected that the most recent ancestor, 400 000, best correspond to the morphology of fossils from the Middle Pleistocene. That would have matched results from analyses of ancient DNA.
What does this new dating tell us of the evolution of man
The new date is but a hypothesis from a model, it is not necessarily the truth. On the other hand, it is possible that certain genetic analysis, the speed at which genetic mutation occurs is a slight overestimation, which entails an underestimate of the date at which separation occured. I think the truth is somewhere between 700 000 and 400 000 years. We have here studied three dates only and do not know what our model would have shown for a different date, say 500 000 years. If that date were to be confirmed, it would indicate a slower evolution of the Modern and Neanderthal lineages and relative stability during the Middle Pleistocene: given that the eldest ancient Modern men and Neanderthals are at most 200 000 years old, this would give some 500 000 years to this population to diversify.
To what extent could we use such an approach for other species or other key moments in human evolution
This approach is perfectly suited to other species. It permits the reconstruction of a bone or a set of bones for any organism. Of course, the model used here is very simple. It can be made more complex by integrating other factors that play a role in evolution, such as selective pressures due to the environment, climate or geography. Building up virtually the last common ancestor to Tyrannosaurus and Diplodocus is thus a possibility...Of course this is not a priority for me and I am currently using this approach to find the common origins of man and chimpanzees, building the missing link that is most important to the history of the human family.
* * *
aurhor: Pierre Barthélémy
translation: doxa-louise
What was the ancestor to Neanderthal and Modern Man like
In conversation with Aurélien Mounier
A paleoanthropologist at Cambridge University (UK) with the Leverhulme Center for Evolutionary Studies, Aurélien Mounier wants to know how homo became sapiens, how individuals from this lineage came to possess the chatacteristics that are theirs today. In a collaborative effort with Marta Mirazon Lahr, director for the 'In Africa' project on the role of East Africa on the evolution of man, he has just published an article in the Journal of Human Evolution, wherein these two researchers describe how, with the aid of a digital model, they have recreated the skull of the ancestor common to Modern Man and his Neanderthal cousin. Aurélien Mounier kindly accepted to answer questions on this 'virtual fossil'.
What do we know about the common ancestor to Homo Sapiens and Neanderthal Man
We know that we a have a common ancestor with the Neanderthals. This ancestor, or rather this ancestral population generally known as Homo heidelbergensis lived during the Middle Pleistocene (a period covering roughly the years 800 000 to 200 000 before ou era), in Africa and probably in Eurasia. Unfortunately, for such a a long timespan and such a large geographic area, we possess but a few dozen (dizaines) fossils. In fact, there is quite a bit of debate about the precise definition of this population: what species? What geographical dispersion? and quite naturally one of the central questions is that of determining when these two lineages, that of modern men and the Neanderthals, separated.
The objective of our study was to build mathematically a virtual skull which would stand for a fossil of this ancestral population. After that, we could take this virtual skull to be a normal one, and compare it to actual fossils to see if it resembled certain known specimens. Finally, to take into account the debate about the moment of separation between the modern and Neanderthal lineages, we have complexified our model to create three virtual ancestors corresponding to three possible dates for separation: 1 million years, 700 000 years and 400 000 years. At the present time, the most probable date of separation, based on estimates form DNA and the molecular clock is closest to 400 000.
How did you achieve this virtual reconstruction
We constructed a simplified tree showing the evolution of the genus Homo. this tree contains three different species, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens, represented by 15 specimens (2 erectus, 5 Neanderthals and 8 modern men) without including fossils from the population we are looking for. We used only 15 specimens because of the poor condition of such fossils which are often quite fragmentary. Because in this study we were looking to reconstruct the entire skull.
These specimens are defined through 797 'benchmark' points describing the whole skull. It is this information, the form created by these points, that will be used by the algorithm and constrained by an evolutionary model based on random chance as causative of evolution, in order to 'go back in time'. From there we are in a position to find a virtual ancestor for each of the nodes in our simplified genealogical tree which represents the history of the genus Homo.
What was this ancestor like and what do we still carry from him
He is like us mostly by the form the lower face, which offers a small slump which, in modern man is very marked and contributes to the formation of relatively prominent cheekbones. This ancestor resembles more Neanderthal man than he does us because the form of the skull in modern men is farther to that of other species of men who have today disappeared than that of the Neanderthals. Our uniqueness lies in having a face retracted under the cranial arch much higher and rounder than any other cranial arch of other human species from the past.
How to be sure that such a modelization approach can yield significant results. Is this in contradiction or complementary to results obtained during work on ancient DNA.
We have compared our virtual ancestors to over 50 skulls out of Africa or Eurasia and dated between 1.8 million years and today. The three ancestors have a morphology which resembles fossils dated in the middle Pleistocene, that is to say the period in which we know there existed a population ancestor to modern man and the Neanderthals. This tends to show that the estimation works well enough because the model to calculate the ancestors did not include any individuals from this period..Between these three models, the virtual ancestor which most resembles the fossils of the period is number 2 built on the assumption of a split between the Neanderthals and and Modern Man around 700 000 years ago. This is something of a surprise, I expected that the most recent ancestor, 400 000, best correspond to the morphology of fossils from the Middle Pleistocene. That would have matched results from analyses of ancient DNA.
What does this new dating tell us of the evolution of man
The new date is but a hypothesis from a model, it is not necessarily the truth. On the other hand, it is possible that certain genetic analysis, the speed at which genetic mutation occurs is a slight overestimation, which entails an underestimate of the date at which separation occured. I think the truth is somewhere between 700 000 and 400 000 years. We have here studied three dates only and do not know what our model would have shown for a different date, say 500 000 years. If that date were to be confirmed, it would indicate a slower evolution of the Modern and Neanderthal lineages and relative stability during the Middle Pleistocene: given that the eldest ancient Modern men and Neanderthals are at most 200 000 years old, this would give some 500 000 years to this population to diversify.
To what extent could we use such an approach for other species or other key moments in human evolution
This approach is perfectly suited to other species. It permits the reconstruction of a bone or a set of bones for any organism. Of course, the model used here is very simple. It can be made more complex by integrating other factors that play a role in evolution, such as selective pressures due to the environment, climate or geography. Building up virtually the last common ancestor to Tyrannosaurus and Diplodocus is thus a possibility...Of course this is not a priority for me and I am currently using this approach to find the common origins of man and chimpanzees, building the missing link that is most important to the history of the human family.
* * *
Friday, January 8, 2016
Freeing Space
It is possible, for those who have installed Windows 10 over the old windows,
to remove these old files, and save quite a bit of space. This is done by running
Disk Cleanup; but it must be done as an administrator.
to remove these old files, and save quite a bit of space. This is done by running
Disk Cleanup; but it must be done as an administrator.
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
Dot Product
For the description of movement in a 2 dimensional space, the orthonormal frame of reference is the Euclidien space: (0, 0) in the center, and graduated x and y axis.
Herein, any point c an be identified by its (x, y) address.
Indeed, one can specify movement within this space as changes in each of these two components.
Translation involves moving from one point to the other. And the linear journey between the two points i8s a vactor: a line with a length, direction, and orientation.
Defined in this manner, the vector is very useful: it can be reversed, added to or subtracted from, and scaled through multiplication.
* * *
My vector can be described as a (2, 2) vector, or as having a length of 2*(sqrt of 2).
Should I wish to do a multiplication of one vector by another, I would need to find the so-called dot product. ||A||*||B|| *cos(θ). That will give the effect of the new vector on the old, A on B. More simply I can consider the x, and y axis as carriers of i and j unit vectors. In this case, I multiply the i and j values of each vector with those of the other to get my new values.
sqrt8*sqrt5*.9484 = 6
2*2 + 2*1 = 6
The dot product is a value of considerable value in certain situations. Note
that, in the case where the angle is 0 degrees, the cosine value will be 1; and
in the case of 90 degrees, it will be 0. What this means is that the magnitude
of vector A will be a multiplier on B in the first case, and have no effect in the
second. Indeed, A can be anything!!
In a situation where one knows what the dot product is, on can easily find a
missing x or y value. If one has impact values, one can find the angle...etc
Monday, January 4, 2016
Gamer
Been having a fine old time, seeing how the SVG code works to produce these colliding shapes. The second is the same code in a more object-oriented way (all the balls are arena functions, and one can modify everything at once). I really can't see any difference in the speed or performance of the ballsbecause ultimately the mathematics are the same. The shots below are from my hp screen, attached to a Surface tablet.
* * *
Where things are noticeably slower is on my smallish Samsung4 tablet. I am not surprised, since the speed is a function of momentum, and the latter takes the area of the circle as a proxy for mass. Still, the gamer in me...
Sunday, January 3, 2016
Windows 10
Made the upgrade to Windows 10, and it wasn't too painful (Put the 3.7 GB on external memory, after a few fails). Even gained some memory on my C drive in the deal. Now on to test the Edge Browser!
Many Thanks!
Saturday, January 2, 2016
4-wall code
The animation below, from MSoft's intermediate SVG tutorial , is simplicity itself,
once one understands the original ball across the viewport code. What has been added:
a check has to be done at every turn to see if the side of the ball coincides the wall coordinate.
If it does, then the animation continues but either the x or y coordinate needs to go in
reverse while the other stays the same...
* * *
Things get quite a bit more complicated when one tries to deal with collision between balls at the same time, which is what the ne3xt example proposes.
It is useful to keep in mind that everything will get resolved with vectors. Our balls are actually circles in 2-d space, so that their areas are taken as proxies for their mass. When they collide, their radii can be seen to align, but the moment of force need not. And to redirect them, one needs to situate them with respect to the frame of reference.
The tutorial invites us to look at the code from view source code on example4.
http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/samples/svg/svgAnimation/intermediate/04_circlesCollide.html
once one understands the original ball across the viewport code. What has been added:
a check has to be done at every turn to see if the side of the ball coincides the wall coordinate.
If it does, then the animation continues but either the x or y coordinate needs to go in
reverse while the other stays the same...
* * *
Things get quite a bit more complicated when one tries to deal with collision between balls at the same time, which is what the ne3xt example proposes.
It is useful to keep in mind that everything will get resolved with vectors. Our balls are actually circles in 2-d space, so that their areas are taken as proxies for their mass. When they collide, their radii can be seen to align, but the moment of force need not. And to redirect them, one needs to situate them with respect to the frame of reference.
The tutorial invites us to look at the code from view source code on example4.
http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/samples/svg/svgAnimation/intermediate/04_circlesCollide.html
Friday, January 1, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)