Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forums

The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe => Podcast Episodes => Topic started by: Steven Novella on January 12, 2019, 11:41:56 AM

Title: Episode 705
Post by: Steven Novella on January 12, 2019, 11:41:56 AM
Forgotten Superheroes of Science: Nancy Grace Roman; News Items: Face Scanning for Disease, Cancer Stats and Crowdfunding Quackery, Cleaning Up Ocean Trash, Butterfly Decline, When Galaxies Collide; Who’s That Noisy; Your Questions and E-mails: Alpha Go Correction, CIA Follow Up; Science or Fiction
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: 2397 on January 12, 2019, 01:52:18 PM
Sometimes it sucks to have the same name as more well-known people.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 12, 2019, 06:06:14 PM
I have nothing but admiration for a person who managed to reach early adult life without knowing about ‘Spider-Man.’  I think it’s a sign of good use of time.  I saw the 2002 film.  I wish I hadn’t.  I hated it.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: Friendly Angel on January 12, 2019, 08:11:09 PM
Steve said there have been fewer colon cancers because of more colonoscopies.  Was this a slip?  Or do colonoscopies prevent cancer?  By removal of precancerous polyps or something.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 12, 2019, 08:25:23 PM
Steve said there have been fewer colon cancers because of more colonoscopies.  Was this a slip?  Or do colonoscopies prevent cancer?  By removal of precancerous polyps or something.

Yes, by removing precancerous and even cancerous polyps.  I used to be an anatomical pathologist before I retired.  It wasn’t unusual to see an early invasive cancer at the tip of submitted polyps just invading the submucosa (which is the earliest time at which there’s the possibility of metastasis (spread) elsewhere (cancer confined to the mucosa without invasion doesn’t spread).  Many endoscopists diathermy small polyps without submitting them for histology, so it’s possible that they may also be treating early cancers without knowing it.

The earlier you can treat a cancer, the less chance that it will spread and kill, which should improve life expectancy.  Unless the treatment has significant morbidity and mortality.  Colonoscopy for polyps and very early cancers is generally a benign procedure (you might have second thoughts in a very elderly frail person).  Prostatectomy for early cancers ‘detected’ by PSA ‘screening’ is another matter.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: Friendly Angel on January 12, 2019, 08:41:15 PM
Steve said there have been fewer colon cancers because of more colonoscopies.  Was this a slip?  Or do colonoscopies prevent cancer?  By removal of precancerous polyps or something.

Yes, by removing precancerous and even cancerous polyps.  I used to be an anatomical pathologist before I retired.  It wasn’t unusual to see an early invasive cancer at the tip of submitted polyps just invading the submucosa (which is the earliest time at which there’s the possibility of metastasis (spread) elsewhere (cancer confined to the mucosa without invasion doesn’t spread).  Many endoscopists diathermy small polyps without submitting them for histology, so it’s possible that they may also be treating early cancers without knowing it.

The earlier you can treat a cancer, the less chance that it will spread and kill, which should improve life expectancy.  Unless the treatment has significant morbidity and mortality.  Colonoscopy for polyps and very early cancers is generally a benign procedure (you might have second thoughts in a very elderly frail person).  Prostatectomy for early cancers ‘detected’ by PSA ‘screening’ is another matter.


OK, but the statement was not about morbidity or life expectancy, it was about preventing cancer, which I took to mean fewer diagnoses of cancer (fewer lung cancers from less smoking, fewer colon cancers from more colonoscopies).   If they remove a cancerous polyp, the person had cancer and it wasn't prevented, even if it was completely cured or prevented from metastasizing.  Unless you're saying that a cancerous polyp in the submucosa is not sufficient for a diagnosis of cancer.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: stands2reason on January 12, 2019, 09:02:05 PM
Welcome to L.A., where you can see the whole city burning 'cause the podcasters got Uzis and the alt-meds keep serving.

https://youtu.be/sMQEI3MdYMA
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 12, 2019, 09:21:03 PM
If I owned, I would plant a butterfly garden.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 12, 2019, 09:23:20 PM
Steve said there have been fewer colon cancers because of more colonoscopies.  Was this a slip?  Or do colonoscopies prevent cancer?  By removal of precancerous polyps or something.

Yes, by removing precancerous and even cancerous polyps.  I used to be an anatomical pathologist before I retired.  It wasn’t unusual to see an early invasive cancer at the tip of submitted polyps just invading the submucosa (which is the earliest time at which there’s the possibility of metastasis (spread) elsewhere (cancer confined to the mucosa without invasion doesn’t spread).  Many endoscopists diathermy small polyps without submitting them for histology, so it’s possible that they may also be treating early cancers without knowing it.

The earlier you can treat a cancer, the less chance that it will spread and kill, which should improve life expectancy.  Unless the treatment has significant morbidity and mortality.  Colonoscopy for polyps and very early cancers is generally a benign procedure (you might have second thoughts in a very elderly frail person).  Prostatectomy for early cancers ‘detected’ by PSA ‘screening’ is another matter.


OK, but the statement was not about morbidity or life expectancy, it was about preventing cancer, which I took to mean fewer diagnoses of cancer (fewer lung cancers from less smoking, fewer colon cancers from more colonoscopies).   If they remove a cancerous polyp, the person had cancer and it wasn't prevented, even if it was completely cured or prevented from metastasizing.  Unless you're saying that a cancerous polyp in the submucosa is not sufficient for a diagnosis of cancer.

Polyps (actually adenomatous polyps) are precancerous, so if you remove the precancerous polyps, you’re reducing the later incidence of cancer.  And some early cancers are inadvertently removed without realising it, even if they’re examined histologically.  A small 5 millimetre polyp would require 1000 sections to examine the entire polyp.  It’s always possible that in small polyps there might already be early invasive cancer present which was missed (not a bad result, since early invasive cancers have a good outlook).
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 12, 2019, 09:33:50 PM
If I owned, I would plant a butterfly garden.

You’d be in good company.  I recently read Andrew Roberts’ biography of Winston Churchill ‘Walking with Destiny.’  Churchill was a keen butterfly cultivator.  It’s reported that in the region surrounding Chartwell, his country home, there was an unusual increase in butterflies.  Churchill loved butterflies (and painting.  And bricklaying.  And writing.  He was a pretty incredible character).

One of the amusing comments in the book was the result of a survey of 15 year old British school children carried out recently, which showed that 20% thought that Winston Churchill was a fictional character.  And around 50% thought Sherlock Holmes and Eleanor Rigby were historical characters.  Sigh...
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: Soldier of FORTRAN on January 12, 2019, 09:37:34 PM
Just got to the CIA commentary.  Intelligence Analysis is its own thing.  The rhetorical focus should be on analysis. 

The CIA has a complicated reputation and a long, storied history of unfortunate, bizarre chicanery.  Not sure how much overemphasizing their brand would help 'Analysis Chat'

One of the amusing comments in the book was the result of a survey of 15 year old British school children carried out recently, which showed that 20% thought that Winston Churchill was a fictional character.  And around 50% thought Sherlock Holmes and Eleanor Rigby were historical characters.

Ha, I'll forgive them this bit of wishful thinking
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: brilligtove on January 12, 2019, 11:31:16 PM
The patreon version has the ad in it.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: fuzzyMarmot on January 13, 2019, 12:59:28 AM

One of the amusing comments in the book was the result of a survey of 15 year old British school children carried out recently, which showed that 20% thought that Winston Churchill was a fictional character.  And around 50% thought Sherlock Holmes and Eleanor Rigby were historical characters.  Sigh...

Given the level of hagiography surrounding Churchill, those 20% might have a point.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 13, 2019, 03:00:27 AM

One of the amusing comments in the book was the result of a survey of 15 year old British school children carried out recently, which showed that 20% thought that Winston Churchill was a fictional character.  And around 50% thought Sherlock Holmes and Eleanor Rigby were historical characters.  Sigh...

Given the level of hagiography surrounding Churchill, those 20% might have a point.

Winston Churchill was wrong many times.  He was right once when he recognised that Hitler was truly evil in the mid ‘30s, and that one correct judgement outweighed all the mistakes he made.  It’s also been said that all politicians make mistakes many times.  Successful politicians make each mistake just once.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: 2397 on January 13, 2019, 03:57:59 AM
Maybe it outweighed his mistakes, but Churchill's deliberate actions and sanctioning of crimes against humanity don't become acceptable because someone else was doing worse.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 13, 2019, 04:50:39 AM
Maybe it outweighed his mistakes, but Churchill's deliberate actions and sanctioning of crimes against humanity don't become acceptable because someone else was doing worse.

What crimes against humanity?  Be specific.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: DevoutCatalyst on January 13, 2019, 07:37:53 AM
Regarding face scanning, what diagnosis would you guess for this gentleman?

(https://jamanetwork.com/data/journals/neur/7530/nob70028f1.png)

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: The Latinist on January 13, 2019, 11:03:33 AM
Perhaps if they had pronounced claxon correctly Cara would have recognized the word. That O is a schwa. The word rhymes with Jackson, not with “Wax on.”
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on January 13, 2019, 02:00:40 PM
Sometimes it sucks to have the same name as more well-known people.

Nancy Grace Roman?
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: CarbShark on January 13, 2019, 06:25:20 PM
Steve said there have been fewer colon cancers because of more colonoscopies.  Was this a slip?  Or do colonoscopies prevent cancer?  By removal of precancerous polyps or something.
Yes   That’s exactly it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: CarbShark on January 13, 2019, 06:27:19 PM
If I owned, I would plant a butterfly garden.
Yes. We have milkweed growing and get Monarchs 10 months a year


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: 2397 on January 13, 2019, 06:38:50 PM
Maybe it outweighed his mistakes, but Churchill's deliberate actions and sanctioning of crimes against humanity don't become acceptable because someone else was doing worse.

What crimes against humanity?  Be specific.

I have to say I'm not finding sources that I can be entirely confident in. Here is an opinion piece by Shashi Tharoor:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/10/in-winston-churchill-hollywood-rewards-a-mass-murderer/

Here is a response by Soren Geiger:

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-racist-war-criminal-tharoor/

An article by The Independent, which again is connected to a book, and additionally mentions concentration camps in South Africa:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

A somewhat more neutral article by the BBC, in that it brings up some of the issues and then tries to rein them back:

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767

I'm not sure how to go about getting a detailed and accurate picture of what Churchill did. Obviously most of the content about Churchill has to do with fighting the Nazis.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 13, 2019, 08:02:14 PM
Maybe it outweighed his mistakes, but Churchill's deliberate actions and sanctioning of crimes against humanity don't become acceptable because someone else was doing worse.

What crimes against humanity?  Be specific.

I have to say I'm not finding sources that I can be entirely confident in. Here is an opinion piece by Shashi Tharoor:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/10/in-winston-churchill-hollywood-rewards-a-mass-murderer/

Here is a response by Soren Geiger:

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-racist-war-criminal-tharoor/

An article by The Independent, which again is connected to a book, and additionally mentions concentration camps in South Africa:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

A somewhat more neutral article by the BBC, in that it brings up some of the issues and then tries to rein them back:

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767

I'm not sure how to go about getting a detailed and accurate picture of what Churchill did. Obviously most of the content about Churchill has to do with fighting the Nazis.

I suggest you read Andrew Roberts’ ‘Walking with Destiny.’  He answers all these arguments, noting that the Internet has facilitated all these baseless accusations.

Even if there’s a scintilla of truth in any of them, his role in continuing the fight against Hitler in 1940 outweighs them all.  The other alternative for prime minister after Neville Chamberlain resigned, Lord Halifax, would have negotiated a peace deal, giving Hitler free hand against the Soviets (whether Stalin would have been so trusting and gullible after the threat of a two front war was removed from Hitler is another matter).

America would have been left isolated with a Hitler dominated Europe and a resurgent Japan.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: 2397 on January 14, 2019, 05:02:04 AM
I'm not arguing against whether he did good, or whether it was better that he existed than not, but I'm saying there are things that can't be explained away as mistakes or as being of your time.

Hitler was of his time, if Hitler never existed, the world wouldn't have been that much better. Maybe worse, had someone else succeeded where he failed.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: daniel1948 on January 14, 2019, 10:26:56 AM
Sometimes it sucks to have the same name as more well-known people.

And sometimes it’s pretty nice. If you google my real name you’ll get pages and pages of hits for a person who is not me. I am happy that I don’t turn up anywhere near the top of a google search.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: daniel1948 on January 14, 2019, 10:28:45 AM
Maybe it outweighed his mistakes, but Churchill's deliberate actions and sanctioning of crimes against humanity don't become acceptable because someone else was doing worse.

What crimes against humanity?  Be specific.

I have to say I'm not finding sources that I can be entirely confident in. Here is an opinion piece by Shashi Tharoor:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/10/in-winston-churchill-hollywood-rewards-a-mass-murderer/

Here is a response by Soren Geiger:

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-racist-war-criminal-tharoor/

An article by The Independent, which again is connected to a book, and additionally mentions concentration camps in South Africa:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

A somewhat more neutral article by the BBC, in that it brings up some of the issues and then tries to rein them back:

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767

I'm not sure how to go about getting a detailed and accurate picture of what Churchill did. Obviously most of the content about Churchill has to do with fighting the Nazis.

I’m too lazy to read all those links. Could you summarize in a short sentence or paragraph?
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: 2397 on January 14, 2019, 01:17:30 PM
And sometimes it’s pretty nice. If you google my real name you’ll get pages and pages of hits for a person who is not me. I am happy that I don’t turn up anywhere near the top of a google search.

I agree, sometimes I wish that I had a more common name so that I could be nominatively anonymous.

I’m too lazy to read all those links. Could you summarize in a short sentence or paragraph?

That's the problem, I wasn't finding something that I feel can stand on its own. Also I don't feel like delving much further into it myself. My point isn't specifically about him, but that some actions are unacceptable regardless of what else you do with your life.

Shashi Tharoor's main concern is what Churchill and the British Empire did to India. That's in the title of his book "Inglorious Empire: What the British Did to India". I don't think it's controversial to say that the British Empire is responsible for many atrocities. But Tharoor puts Churchill in a category with Hitler and Stalin, and seems to have more of an agenda to vilify him than to accurately portray what he did.

On the other hand, The Churchill Project if anything seems to have a bias in his favor. And they present this as a defense against Tharoor's quote mining, "May 1919":

“I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.”

Soren Geiger says this about the quote:

"Churchill was arguing for what he believed with good reason to be a more humane ammunition than high explosive shells or highly lethal gas canisters. The “poison gas” he was in favor of using was tear gas, not phosgene or chlorine. He was advocating the very same practice currently employed by police forces around the globe."

I don't think the full quote helps put Churchill in a positive light, only a little less negative light by pointing out the specific type of gas. It's still Churchill speaking in favor of using terror to subjugate people whose land the British Empire are occupying.

Aside of the issue of gassing, the British Empire and Churchill as "war secretary" did bomb Mesopotamia/Iraq.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29441383

Quote
An uprising in Iraq in May 1920 united Sunni and Shia briefly against the British. It was put down, but required the deployment of more than 100,000 British and Indian troops. Thousands of Arabs were killed. Hundreds of British and Indian soldiers died. The military campaign cost Britain tens of millions of pounds - money it could not afford after the Great War.

A new way of controlling Iraq was needed, and the man who needed it most was Winston Churchill. As war secretary in Lloyd George's coalition government, Churchill had to square huge military budget cuts with British determination to maintain a grip on its mandate in Iraq.

The result became known as "aerial policing". It was a policy Churchill had first mused on in the House of Commons in March 1920, before the Iraqi uprising had even begun.

"It may be possible to effect economies during the course of the present year by holding Mesopotamia through the agency of the Air Force rather than by a military force. It has been pointed out that by your Air Force you have not to hold long lines of communications because the distance would only be one or one-and-a-half hours' flight by aeroplane. It is essential in dealing with Mesopotamia to get the military expenditure down as soon as the present critical state of affairs passes away."

The defeat of the Iraqi uprising was credited in part to the deployment of RAF bombers. The embryonic RAF - attempting to carve out a permanent role for itself and avoid being consumed by the other armed services - took on command of all future military operations in Iraq.

When troubled flared again, villages held by rebellious tribes were attacked from the air.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 14, 2019, 01:28:27 PM
Maybe it outweighed his mistakes, but Churchill's deliberate actions and sanctioning of crimes against humanity don't become acceptable because someone else was doing worse.

What crimes against humanity?  Be specific.

I have to say I'm not finding sources that I can be entirely confident in. Here is an opinion piece by Shashi Tharoor:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/10/in-winston-churchill-hollywood-rewards-a-mass-murderer/

Here is a response by Soren Geiger:

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-racist-war-criminal-tharoor/

An article by The Independent, which again is connected to a book, and additionally mentions concentration camps in South Africa:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

A somewhat more neutral article by the BBC, in that it brings up some of the issues and then tries to rein them back:

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767

I'm not sure how to go about getting a detailed and accurate picture of what Churchill did. Obviously most of the content about Churchill has to do with fighting the Nazis.

I’m too lazy to read all those links. Could you summarize in a short sentence or paragraph?

Overall, Churchill did many more things that were good than were bad.  Revisionists, by cherry picking and selective quoting from what Churchill wrote (and he wrote an incredible amount over his lifetime), can find whatever they want to justify their view of Churchill.  It’s made easier for them in the Internet era since they can publish anything they want.

Churchill can be criticised for many things.  Giving in to Stalin over postwar Eastern Europe.  And allowing the blanket bombing of German cities to proceed too long.  But then, there wasn’t much he could do otherwise.  And the firebombingc of Dresden on February 13-14, 1945 had apparently been requested by the Soviets (which also had the incidental benefit of saving Victor Klemperer from deportation, he was able to disappear in the post bombing confusion - his diaries provide a good account of what it was like for a Jew to live and suffer under Hitler).
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: Tassie Dave on January 14, 2019, 02:06:17 PM
Although not a war crime. Churchill was responsible for sending thousands of allied soldiers to their deaths in a hopeless campaign.

The tragedy that was Gallipoli can be entirely blamed on Churchill.

https://www.history.com/news/winston-churchills-world-war-disaster
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 14, 2019, 03:30:05 PM
Although not a war crime. Churchill was responsible for sending thousands of allied soldiers to their deaths in a hopeless campaign.

The tragedy that was Gallipoli can be entirely blamed on Churchill.

https://www.history.com/news/winston-churchills-world-war-disaster

Ian Hamilton?  Lord Kitchener?  The idea of taking the Ottoman Empire out of the war was a sort of good idea, but the military planning was bad.  Lord Kitchener procrastinated, delaying sending the 29th division.  The supply ships were poorly arranged, so they had to return to Alexandria to have their stores unloaded and reloaded.  The delays added weeks, perhaps months to the time of the invasion, which the Ottomans and Germans were able to use to prepare defences, and it was obvious that the Gallipoli Peninsula was going to be the target.

The strategic value was doubtful though.  One of the aims was to take pressure off the Russians with the Ottoman invasion of the Caucasus, which had already been defeated by the time of the invasion.  And to send supplies to the Russians, which weren’t available in 1915 anyway.

At least it provided a lesson in what not to do in a seaborne invasion of a defended coast for Normandy.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: Harry Black on January 14, 2019, 05:16:06 PM
The bengal famine? The deployment of the black and tans to Ireland? The use of chemical weapons on the kurds and his statement that it was ok to do so on lower tribes?

Fuck Churchill.

Complete 180 to where I was 10 years ago.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 14, 2019, 05:40:34 PM
The bengal famine? The deployment of the black and tans to Ireland? The use of chemical weapons on the kurds and his statement that it was ok to do so on lower tribes?

Fuck Churchill.

Complete 180 to where I was 10 years ago.

You haven’t read the counter arguments.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: Harry Black on January 14, 2019, 06:06:54 PM
The bengal famine? The deployment of the black and tans to Ireland? The use of chemical weapons on the kurds and his statement that it was ok to do so on lower tribes?

Fuck Churchill.

Complete 180 to where I was 10 years ago.

You have read the counter arguments.
I was raised with the counter arguments and rejected them as overly emotional. Then I started to look at the reasons the world is the way it is.
He was piss poor though. Just competent enough to do well in the war and thus hard for imperialists to criticise.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 14, 2019, 06:49:52 PM
The bengal famine? The deployment of the black and tans to Ireland? The use of chemical weapons on the kurds and his statement that it was ok to do so on lower tribes?
H
Fuck Churchill.

Complete 180 to where I was 10 years ago.

You have read the counter arguments.
I was raised with the counter arguments and rejected them as overly emotional. Then I started to look at the reasons the world is the way it is.
He was piss poor though. Just competent enough to do well in the war and thus hard for imperialists to criticise.

The world is the way it is because of the Great War, which was the defining disaster of the 20th century.  The Great War can’t be blamed on Churchill.  He was just reacting to events.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: daniel1948 on January 14, 2019, 07:10:56 PM
I don’t really know anything about Churchill, but I start with the assumption that politicians are self-centered, power-hungry, greedy assholes. Sounds like Churchill was just another politician, but one who got famous by being PM during a really rough time for England in a very big war.

Didn’t Churchill and Truman give France permission to re-invade its former colonies after the war? That big horrible war, in which France suffered so much, and they weren’t tired of war yet, and still believed they had the right to do to Algeria and Vietnam what Germany had tried to do to them. So France wanted to wage war against their old colonies to take them back, and Churchill and Truman said, “Yeah, great, go right ahead!” Sure, it wasn’t that simple, but that was the bottom line of it.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 14, 2019, 07:34:14 PM
I don’t really know anything about Churchill, but I start with the assumption that politicians are self-centered, power-hungry, greedy assholes. Sounds like Churchill was just another politician, but one who got famous by being PM during a really rough time for England in a very big war.

Didn’t Churchill and Truman give France permission to re-invade its former colonies after the war? That big horrible war, in which France suffered so much, and they weren’t tired of war yet, and still believed they had the right to do to Algeria and Vietnam what Germany had tried to do to them. So France wanted to wage war against their old colonies to take them back, and Churchill and Truman said, “Yeah, great, go right ahead!” Sure, it wasn’t that simple, but that was the bottom line of it.

Well, Churchill wasn’t in power when the war in the Pacific finished.  He lost the election in July, 1945, so if there’s any blame it would have to go to Clement Attlee and mainly Harry Truman.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: daniel1948 on January 14, 2019, 09:51:41 PM
I don’t really know anything about Churchill, but I start with the assumption that politicians are self-centered, power-hungry, greedy assholes. Sounds like Churchill was just another politician, but one who got famous by being PM during a really rough time for England in a very big war.

Didn’t Churchill and Truman give France permission to re-invade its former colonies after the war? That big horrible war, in which France suffered so much, and they weren’t tired of war yet, and still believed they had the right to do to Algeria and Vietnam what Germany had tried to do to them. So France wanted to wage war against their old colonies to take them back, and Churchill and Truman said, “Yeah, great, go right ahead!” Sure, it wasn’t that simple, but that was the bottom line of it.

Well, Churchill wasn’t in power when the war in the Pacific finished.  He lost the election in July, 1945, so if there’s any blame it would have to go to Clement Attlee and mainly Harry Truman.

Thank you. I stand corrected on that point. He still sounds like the typical politician to me.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 14, 2019, 10:15:54 PM
I don’t really know anything about Churchill, but I start with the assumption that politicians are self-centered, power-hungry, greedy assholes. Sounds like Churchill was just another politician, but one who got famous by being PM during a really rough time for England in a very big war.

Didn’t Churchill and Truman give France permission to re-invade its former colonies after the war? That big horrible war, in which France suffered so much, and they weren’t tired of war yet, and still believed they had the right to do to Algeria and Vietnam what Germany had tried to do to them. So France wanted to wage war against their old colonies to take them back, and Churchill and Truman said, “Yeah, great, go right ahead!” Sure, it wasn’t that simple, but that was the bottom line of it.

Well, Churchill wasn’t in power when the war in the Pacific finished.  He lost the election in July, 1945, so if there’s any blame it would have to go to Clement Attlee and mainly Harry Truman.

Thank you. I stand corrected on that point. He still sounds like the typical politician to me.

Perhaps he was better than the current lot we’ve got, both in Australia and America?  Both liberal and conservative?
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: Ah.hell on January 15, 2019, 11:54:00 AM
I don’t really know anything about Churchill, but I start with the assumption that politicians are self-centered, power-hungry, greedy assholes. Sounds like Churchill was just another politician, but one who got famous by being PM during a really rough time for England in a very big war.

Didn’t Churchill and Truman give France permission to re-invade its former colonies after the war? That big horrible war, in which France suffered so much, and they weren’t tired of war yet, and still believed they had the right to do to Algeria and Vietnam what Germany had tried to do to them. So France wanted to wage war against their old colonies to take them back, and Churchill and Truman said, “Yeah, great, go right ahead!” Sure, it wasn’t that simple, but that was the bottom line of it.

Well, Churchill wasn’t in power when the war in the Pacific finished.  He lost the election in July, 1945, so if there’s any blame it would have to go to Clement Attlee and mainly Harry Truman.

Thank you. I stand corrected on that point. He still sounds like the typical politician to me.

Perhaps he was better than the current lot we’ve got, both in Australia and America?  Both liberal and conservative?
My understanding is that that deal had already been agreed to by Churchill and Rosevelt, I good well be wrong but I thought at least Truman felt he was more or less forced into it. 
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 15, 2019, 03:28:58 PM
I don’t really know anything about Churchill, but I start with the assumption that politicians are self-centered, power-hungry, greedy assholes. Sounds like Churchill was just another politician, but one who got famous by being PM during a really rough time for England in a very big war.

Didn’t Churchill and Truman give France permission to re-invade its former colonies after the war? That big horrible war, in which France suffered so much, and they weren’t tired of war yet, and still believed they had the right to do to Algeria and Vietnam what Germany had tried to do to them. So France wanted to wage war against their old colonies to take them back, and Churchill and Truman said, “Yeah, great, go right ahead!” Sure, it wasn’t that simple, but that was the bottom line of it.

Well, Churchill wasn’t in power when the war in the Pacific finished.  He lost the election in July, 1945, so if there’s any blame it would have to go to Clement Attlee and mainly Harry Truman.

Thank you. I stand corrected on that point. He still sounds like the typical politician to me.

Perhaps he was better than the current lot we’ve got, both in Australia and America?  Both liberal and conservative?
My understanding is that that deal had already been agreed to by Churchill and Rosevelt, I good well be wrong but I thought at least Truman felt he was more or less forced into it.

My understanding is that de Gaulle had decided in March, 1945 that he wanted France to retain French Indochina (there was some disagreement amongst the Free French about whether it should be retained or not), but the relationship between de Gaulle, and Churchill and Roosevelt were poisonous, with them hardly talking.  De Gaulle had a giant ego. 

After the Japanese capitulation, there had to be allied occupation of occupied colonies, for security reasons.  The British reoccupied Malaya and  Singapore and prepared them for independence, which happened quickly, along with India and Pakistan.  British and Indian troops also occupied Vietnam in October, 1945 and released the imprisoned Vichy French, who had been detained by the Japanese in 1944.  The French had never prepared the Vietnamese for self rule.  The British had been working along this process, including granting some degree of autonomy to India in the ‘30s (it’s one of the reasons why Churchill was out of favour in the ‘30s - the Wilderness Years - because he opposed home rule for India, and was an imperialist.

Clement Atlee and the Labour Party government decided to quickly dismantle the empire.  If Churchill had won the 1945 election, he undoubtedly would have attempted to retain the empire with its colonies.   But he wasn’t in power then for months. 

I think you’re not giving Truman credit (or blame) for the decisions made.  The Western allies quickly lost faith in their erstwhile Soviet allies.  The Vietminh under Ho Chi Minh were the obvious alternate government of Vietnam, and undoubtedly Truman wouldn’t have wanted a further country to fall to the communists.  Including unfortunately supporting the French in their war against the Vietminh for some 8 or so years.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: daniel1948 on January 15, 2019, 07:44:59 PM
I don’t really know anything about Churchill, but I start with the assumption that politicians are self-centered, power-hungry, greedy assholes. Sounds like Churchill was just another politician, but one who got famous by being PM during a really rough time for England in a very big war.

Didn’t Churchill and Truman give France permission to re-invade its former colonies after the war? That big horrible war, in which France suffered so much, and they weren’t tired of war yet, and still believed they had the right to do to Algeria and Vietnam what Germany had tried to do to them. So France wanted to wage war against their old colonies to take them back, and Churchill and Truman said, “Yeah, great, go right ahead!” Sure, it wasn’t that simple, but that was the bottom line of it.

Well, Churchill wasn’t in power when the war in the Pacific finished.  He lost the election in July, 1945, so if there’s any blame it would have to go to Clement Attlee and mainly Harry Truman.

Thank you. I stand corrected on that point. He still sounds like the typical politician to me.

Perhaps he was better than the current lot we’ve got, both in Australia and America?  Both liberal and conservative?

Everything just gets worse and worse. When Nixon was President I couldn’t imagine anything worse. Then Reagan waged a terrorist proxy war against the people of Nicaragua which included the cold-blooded murder of doctors and the rape and murder of nurses as a way to undermine the public health system; and he sold weapons to Iran (because they agreed to hold the hostages until his inauguration); and he apparently believed an all-out nuclear war was survivable if everybody just crawled into a hole in the ground. And then Bush Jr. made Reagan look good. And now we have a racist, rapist, baboon.

So, yes, Churchill was a saint compared to the filth we have now.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: Harry Black on January 16, 2019, 06:12:00 AM
I don’t really know anything about Churchill, but I start with the assumption that politicians are self-centered, power-hungry, greedy assholes. Sounds like Churchill was just another politician, but one who got famous by being PM during a really rough time for England in a very big war.

Didn’t Churchill and Truman give France permission to re-invade its former colonies after the war? That big horrible war, in which France suffered so much, and they weren’t tired of war yet, and still believed they had the right to do to Algeria and Vietnam what Germany had tried to do to them. So France wanted to wage war against their old colonies to take them back, and Churchill and Truman said, “Yeah, great, go right ahead!” Sure, it wasn’t that simple, but that was the bottom line of it.

Well, Churchill wasn’t in power when the war in the Pacific finished.  He lost the election in July, 1945, so if there’s any blame it would have to go to Clement Attlee and mainly Harry Truman.

Thank you. I stand corrected on that point. He still sounds like the typical politician to me.

Perhaps he was better than the current lot we’ve got, both in Australia and America?  Both liberal and conservative?

Everything just gets worse and worse. When Nixon was President I couldn’t imagine anything worse. Then Reagan waged a terrorist proxy war against the people of Nicaragua which included the cold-blooded murder of doctors and the rape and murder of nurses as a way to undermine the public health system; and he sold weapons to Iran (because they agreed to hold the hostages until his inauguration); and he apparently believed an all-out nuclear war was survivable if everybody just crawled into a hole in the ground. And then Bush Jr. made Reagan look good. And now we have a racist, rapist, baboon.

So, yes, Churchill was a saint compared to the filth we have now.
No. He wasn't.
He was an open bigot and warhawk who either through malice or incompetence was a major part of the reason the Bengal famine claimed so many lives and why so many Irish people suffered such horrific brutalisation from the black and tans which fed directly into the bitterness that fueled the Troubles and all the lives lost and destroyed there.
We do still have many of those types of politicians(and many who model themselves on Churchill because-cigars and pithy quotes) but we have many more who are not even half that bad.
Bush and Blair would be comparable I suppose.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: werecow on January 16, 2019, 08:52:51 AM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: Billzbub on January 16, 2019, 01:42:03 PM
(click to show/hide)

I had this thought as well.  It could be that getting a few pixels from a lot of directions is easier to process than millions of pixels from a wide-angle camera because you know the exact direction each pixel is coming from.  I also wonder if the compound eyes the want to put on vehicles are for visible light or are lidar or radar.  I don't see how a visible light compound eye would serve any purpose, but a compound radar eye would be awesome.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 16, 2019, 01:43:32 PM
I don’t really know anything about Churchill, but I start with the assumption that politicians are self-centered, power-hungry, greedy assholes. Sounds like Churchill was just another politician, but one who got famous by being PM during a really rough time for England in a very big war.

Didn’t Churchill and Truman give France permission to re-invade its former colonies after the war? That big horrible war, in which France suffered so much, and they weren’t tired of war yet, and still believed they had the right to do to Algeria and Vietnam what Germany had tried to do to them. So France wanted to wage war against their old colonies to take them back, and Churchill and Truman said, “Yeah, great, go right ahead!” Sure, it wasn’t that simple, but that was the bottom line of it.

Well, Churchill wasn’t in power when the war in the Pacific finished.  He lost the election in July, 1945, so if there’s any blame it would have to go to Clement Attlee and mainly Harry Truman.

Thank you. I stand corrected on that point. He still sounds like the typical politician to me.

Perhaps he was better than the current lot we’ve got, both in Australia and America?  Both liberal and conservative?

Everything just gets worse and worse. When Nixon was President I couldn’t imagine anything worse. Then Reagan waged a terrorist proxy war against the people of Nicaragua which included the cold-blooded murder of doctors and the rape and murder of nurses as a way to undermine the public health system; and he sold weapons to Iran (because they agreed to hold the hostages until his inauguration); and he apparently believed an all-out nuclear war was survivable if everybody just crawled into a hole in the ground. And then Bush Jr. made Reagan look good. And now we have a racist, rapist, baboon.

So, yes, Churchill was a saint compared to the filth we have now.
No. He wasn't.
He was an open bigot and warhawk who either through malice or incompetence was a major part of the reason the Bengal famine claimed so many lives and why so many Irish people suffered such horrific brutalisation from the black and tans which fed directly into the bitterness that fueled the Troubles and all the lives lost and destroyed there.
We do still have many of those types of politicians(and many who model themselves on Churchill because-cigars and pithy quotes) but we have many more who are not even half that bad.
Bush and Blair would be comparable I suppose.

Well, no.  Churchill didn’t have absolute power.  Even when he was prime minister, he was only ‘first amongst equals,’ not an absolute ruler, as Hitler was.  Many people had their fingers in the Bengal famine and the post-war troubles in Ireland.  The Asquith government wanted to grant home rule Ireland, but there was a lot of opposition to it, and the Great War derailed the process.  And then there was the Easter uprising in 1916, so there was a lot of distrust on both sides.

India had some degree of autonomy since the ‘30s.  The Bengali government was slow to recognise the famine and seek help from the Indian government.  There was food in India but it wasn’t made available, and it was difficult to get the food to where it was needed owing to flooding.  The Bengal wasn’t self sufficient in food, importing a lot from Burma, a British possession until it was occupied by Japan.  Getting food from elsewhere was difficult, owing to shortage of ships and the threat of Japanese attack, and even if food reached the ports, the problem of getting it into the hinterland remained.

When Churchill became aware of the seriousness of the famine, he ordered food to be shipped there, so he actually saved lives.

Churchill wrote a lot, providing plenty of material for his detractors to mine and cherry pick.  He was a child of his times, with the attitudes and prejudices common to his era.  You can’t judge him by current standards.

I’m a little bemused that this argument had started just because someone noted that he’s trying to propagate monarch butterflies, and I noted that he’s in good company, with Churchill being a keen butterfly cultivator.

I’m still very grateful that Churchill did live.  He did much more good than bad.  The world would be a terrible place if not for him.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: Ah.hell on January 16, 2019, 02:12:01 PM
Nevermind. 
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: werecow on January 16, 2019, 06:55:09 PM
(click to show/hide)

I had this thought as well.  It could be that getting a few pixels from a lot of directions is easier to process than millions of pixels from a wide-angle camera because you know the exact direction each pixel is coming from.  I also wonder if the compound eyes the want to put on vehicles are for visible light or are lidar or radar.  I don't see how a visible light compound eye would serve any purpose, but a compound radar eye would be awesome.

But lidar and radar are different from vision in that they require one to actively send out and not just passively receive information, so how would that work? And as to processing a few pixels being easier than millions, one can always subsample in any number of ways. And I don't think compound eyes only pick up on photons coming in from a specific angle. So I don't see the advantage there either. Unfortunately the study is behind a paywall. I wish all science journals were open access.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: DamoET on January 17, 2019, 05:24:29 AM
Good episode guys, I have been trying to attach some pics of the Magellanic clouds, but no joy.



Damien
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: daniel1948 on January 17, 2019, 09:18:35 AM
(click to show/hide)

I had this thought as well.  It could be that getting a few pixels from a lot of directions is easier to process than millions of pixels from a wide-angle camera because you know the exact direction each pixel is coming from.  I also wonder if the compound eyes the want to put on vehicles are for visible light or are lidar or radar.  I don't see how a visible light compound eye would serve any purpose, but a compound radar eye would be awesome.

But lidar and radar are different from vision in that they require one to actively send out and not just passively receive information, so how would that work? And as to processing a few pixels being easier than millions, one can always subsample in any number of ways. And I don't think compound eyes only pick up on photons coming in from a specific angle. So I don't see the advantage there either. Unfortunately the study is behind a paywall. I wish all science journals were open access.

I thought that each segment in insect eyes had an extremely narrow field of view, making it easy to detect motion, as objects moved rapidly from one segment to the next. The large number of segments, distributed over a hemisphere, gives an overall field of view of half a sphere in each eye, so with two eyes the insect would be able to see in all directions at once.

This was my impression, anyway.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: werecow on January 17, 2019, 11:30:40 AM
(click to show/hide)

I had this thought as well.  It could be that getting a few pixels from a lot of directions is easier to process than millions of pixels from a wide-angle camera because you know the exact direction each pixel is coming from.  I also wonder if the compound eyes the want to put on vehicles are for visible light or are lidar or radar.  I don't see how a visible light compound eye would serve any purpose, but a compound radar eye would be awesome.

But lidar and radar are different from vision in that they require one to actively send out and not just passively receive information, so how would that work? And as to processing a few pixels being easier than millions, one can always subsample in any number of ways. And I don't think compound eyes only pick up on photons coming in from a specific angle. So I don't see the advantage there either. Unfortunately the study is behind a paywall. I wish all science journals were open access.

I thought that each segment in insect eyes had an extremely narrow field of view, making it easy to detect motion, as objects moved rapidly from one segment to the next. The large number of segments, distributed over a hemisphere, gives an overall field of view of half a sphere in each eye, so with two eyes the insect would be able to see in all directions at once.

This was my impression, anyway.

What's the difference between that and detecting motion across pixels across a camera with a wide FOV?
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: brilligtove on January 17, 2019, 12:47:03 PM
Good question. Any entimologists in the house?
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: Billzbub on January 17, 2019, 01:56:25 PM
(click to show/hide)

I had this thought as well.  It could be that getting a few pixels from a lot of directions is easier to process than millions of pixels from a wide-angle camera because you know the exact direction each pixel is coming from.  I also wonder if the compound eyes the want to put on vehicles are for visible light or are lidar or radar.  I don't see how a visible light compound eye would serve any purpose, but a compound radar eye would be awesome.

But lidar and radar are different from vision in that they require one to actively send out and not just passively receive information, so how would that work? And as to processing a few pixels being easier than millions, one can always subsample in any number of ways. And I don't think compound eyes only pick up on photons coming in from a specific angle. So I don't see the advantage there either. Unfortunately the study is behind a paywall. I wish all science journals were open access.

Yeah, I see your point.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: arthwollipot on January 17, 2019, 05:30:22 PM
Fun science fact: The compound eyes of trilobites were made out of silica crystal.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: The Latinist on January 17, 2019, 06:45:44 PM
Fun science fact: The compound eyes of trilobites were made out of silica crystal.

This didn’t make much sense to me given what I know about biological systems, so I looked it up.  Turns out that it was calcite, which makes a lot more sense given the biological systems we have for creating various carbonates.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: arthwollipot on January 17, 2019, 06:58:45 PM
Fun science fact: The compound eyes of trilobites were made out of silica crystal.

This didn’t make much sense to me given what I know about biological systems, so I looked it up.  Turns out that it was calcite, which makes a lot more sense given the biological systems we have for creating various carbonates.

What an embarrassing mistake! Yes, it was calcite. Sorry. It's been a while since I've read the book (https://www.booktopia.com.au/trilobite-richard-fortey/prod9780375706219.html).
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: daniel1948 on January 17, 2019, 06:59:59 PM
(click to show/hide)

I had this thought as well.  It could be that getting a few pixels from a lot of directions is easier to process than millions of pixels from a wide-angle camera because you know the exact direction each pixel is coming from.  I also wonder if the compound eyes the want to put on vehicles are for visible light or are lidar or radar.  I don't see how a visible light compound eye would serve any purpose, but a compound radar eye would be awesome.

But lidar and radar are different from vision in that they require one to actively send out and not just passively receive information, so how would that work? And as to processing a few pixels being easier than millions, one can always subsample in any number of ways. And I don't think compound eyes only pick up on photons coming in from a specific angle. So I don't see the advantage there either. Unfortunately the study is behind a paywall. I wish all science journals were open access.

I thought that each segment in insect eyes had an extremely narrow field of view, making it easy to detect motion, as objects moved rapidly from one segment to the next. The large number of segments, distributed over a hemisphere, gives an overall field of view of half a sphere in each eye, so with two eyes the insect would be able to see in all directions at once.

This was my impression, anyway.

What's the difference between that and detecting motion across pixels across a camera with a wide FOV?

Just a guess here: with about seven brain cells total, bugs don’t have the processing power. But I think what you’re getting at is why would this system be better for computers? And if you find out and tell me then we’ll both know, because I don’t have a clue.

The whole bug-eye camera thing sounds fishy (buggy?) to me because a camera just exposes pixels on a ccd. What’s the advantage of multiple cameras? Which I think is what you’ve been saying.

I think I understand why it works better for bugs. I cannot imagine it being an I provement for cameras and computers.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: CarbShark on January 17, 2019, 07:11:09 PM
 
Just a guess here: with about seven brain cells total, bugs don’t have the processing power. But I think what you’re getting at is why would this system be better for computers? And if you find out and tell me then we’ll both know, because I don’t have a clue.

The whole bug-eye camera thing sounds fishy (buggy?) to me because a camera just exposes pixels on a ccd. What’s the advantage of multiple cameras? Which I think is what you’ve been saying.

I think I understand why it works better for bugs. I cannot imagine it being an I provement for cameras and computers.

I think the advantage comes from the simple geometry of the lens and receptors. Having a slight difference in the angle that the light hits the receptors may make subtle differences between images, which in itself would make movement easier to detect.  From a single vantage point an object may seem stationary, or it's speed and direction may not be clear, but from multiple angles, even though the parallax factor would be minimal, subtle differences would be more apparent.

That's my guess.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: CarbShark on January 17, 2019, 07:12:27 PM
Fun science fact: The compound eyes of trilobites were made out of silica crystal.

Don't they become something like silica crystal after a few million years in the Lyme Regis cliffs?
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: arthwollipot on January 17, 2019, 07:32:07 PM
Fun science fact: The compound eyes of trilobites were made out of silica crystal.

Don't they become something like silica crystal after a few million years in the Lyme Regis cliffs?

No, that's the amazing thing. Given the mistake I made and that they're calcite crystal rather than silica. But the living animals themselves had these calcite eyes. There's a LOT more detail in that wonderful book I linked to in my last post if you're interested.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 17, 2019, 08:33:54 PM
Just a guess here: with about seven brain cells total, bugs don’t have the processing power. But I think what you’re getting at is why would this system be better for computers? And if you find out and tell me then we’ll both know, because I don’t have a clue.

The whole bug-eye camera thing sounds fishy (buggy?) to me because a camera just exposes pixels on a ccd. What’s the advantage of multiple cameras? Which I think is what you’ve been saying.

I think I understand why it works better for bugs. I cannot imagine it being an I provement for cameras and computers.

I think the advantage comes from the simple geometry of the lens and receptors. Having a slight difference in the angle that the light hits the receptors may make subtle differences between images, which in itself would make movement easier to detect.  From a single vantage point an object may seem stationary, or it's speed and direction may not be clear, but from multiple angles, even though the parallax factor would be minimal, subtle differences would be more apparent.

That's my guess.

I think that in the discussion of compound eyes on the show the idea that each lens is providing a complete image of the external world was dismissed as not being true.  Each lens, with its photoreceptor, provides a pixel in the eventual image, in the same way that fibreoptic endoscopes work - the fibreoptic endoscope consists of bundles of very fine glass filaments each providing a very small part of the image.

An object moving through the visual field of a compound eye would stimulate new photoreceptors as it stops stimulating others, so the motion would be detected.  At one moment, photoreceptors ABC might be firing, then BCD, followed by CDE.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: Billzbub on January 18, 2019, 02:37:15 PM
Just a guess here: with about seven brain cells total, bugs don’t have the processing power. But I think what you’re getting at is why would this system be better for computers? And if you find out and tell me then we’ll both know, because I don’t have a clue.

The whole bug-eye camera thing sounds fishy (buggy?) to me because a camera just exposes pixels on a ccd. What’s the advantage of multiple cameras? Which I think is what you’ve been saying.

I think I understand why it works better for bugs. I cannot imagine it being an I provement for cameras and computers.

I think the advantage comes from the simple geometry of the lens and receptors. Having a slight difference in the angle that the light hits the receptors may make subtle differences between images, which in itself would make movement easier to detect.  From a single vantage point an object may seem stationary, or it's speed and direction may not be clear, but from multiple angles, even though the parallax factor would be minimal, subtle differences would be more apparent.

That's my guess.

I think that in the discussion of compound eyes on the show the idea that each lens is providing a complete image of the external world was dismissed as not being true.  Each lens, with its photoreceptor, provides a pixel in the eventual image, in the same way that fibreoptic endoscopes work - the fibreoptic endoscope consists of bundles of very fine glass filaments each providing a very small part of the image.

An object moving through the visual field of a compound eye would stimulate new photoreceptors as it stops stimulating others, so the motion would be detected.  At one moment, photoreceptors ABC might be firing, then BCD, followed by CDE.

Yes.  The question is how that is better than when pixels ABC are activated followed by BCD, and then CDE.  What is the difference between pixels in a wide field camera that all represent light coming in from a slightly different direction, and the same thing from a compound eye-based contraption?  Either way, it is light coming in from a slightly different direction.  It seems way more complicated to design lots and lots of little cameras rather than one big one.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 18, 2019, 03:34:17 PM
Just a guess here: with about seven brain cells total, bugs don’t have the processing power. But I think what you’re getting at is why would this system be better for computers? And if you find out and tell me then we’ll both know, because I don’t have a clue.

The whole bug-eye camera thing sounds fishy (buggy?) to me because a camera just exposes pixels on a ccd. What’s the advantage of multiple cameras? Which I think is what you’ve been saying.

I think I understand why it works better for bugs. I cannot imagine it being an I provement for cameras and computers.

I think the advantage comes from the simple geometry of the lens and receptors. Having a slight difference in the angle that the light hits the receptors may make subtle differences between images, which in itself would make movement easier to detect.  From a single vantage point an object may seem stationary, or it's speed and direction may not be clear, but from multiple angles, even though the parallax factor would be minimal, subtle differences would be more apparent.

That's my guess.

I think that in the discussion of compound eyes on the show the idea that each lens is providing a complete image of the external world was dismissed as not being true.  Each lens, with its photoreceptor, provides a pixel in the eventual image, in the same way that fibreoptic endoscopes work - the fibreoptic endoscope consists of bundles of very fine glass filaments each providing a very small part of the image.

An object moving through the visual field of a compound eye would stimulate new photoreceptors as it stops stimulating others, so the motion would be detected.  At one moment, photoreceptors ABC might be firing, then BCD, followed by CDE.

Yes.  The question is how that is better than when pixels ABC are activated followed by BCD, and then CDE.  What is the difference between pixels in a wide field camera that all represent light coming in from a slightly different direction, and the same thing from a compound eye-based contraption?  Either way, it is light coming in from a slightly different direction.  It seems way more complicated to design lots and lots of little cameras rather than one big one.

All motion is relative.  Without knowing your velocity relative to the external world, it may not be possible to know whether you’re approaching an object, and you’re in motion, or whether the object is approaching you, and you’re stationary.  Or whether an apparently small object is actually small, and very close, or large and far away.

The computer controlling a car would ‘know’ its speed, so it would be able to remove its motion from the apparent motion of external objects, and any added apparent motion would be a real movement towards or away from the car.  If an object at one moment is detected in photoreceptor M, then photoreceptors LMN, then KLMNO, then it’s approaching the car (either because the car is moving towards it or the object is approaching the car), and the computer ‘needs’ to do something to avoid hitting it.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: CarbShark on January 18, 2019, 03:50:16 PM
I think that in the discussion of compound eyes on the show the idea that each lens is providing a complete image of the external world was dismissed as not being true.  Each lens, with its photoreceptor, provides a pixel in the eventual image, in the same way that fibreoptic endoscopes work - the fibreoptic endoscope consists of bundles of very fine glass filaments each providing a very small part of the image.

That's not how optics and lenses work.

If you make a pin-hole camera, you see the entire image inverted on the receptor.  Lenses work the same way as pin-hole cameras. They show the entire image, not simply a pixel.  Fiberoptic scopes are not at all the same.

So take a basketball, cut it in half, poke dozens of holes in it and point it at the sun. Hold a sheet of white paper behind it, at the parabolic distance.

What will you see?
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 18, 2019, 04:56:22 PM
I think that in the discussion of compound eyes on the show the idea that each lens is providing a complete image of the external world was dismissed as not being true.  Each lens, with its photoreceptor, provides a pixel in the eventual image, in the same way that fibreoptic endoscopes work - the fibreoptic endoscope consists of bundles of very fine glass filaments each providing a very small part of the image.

That's not how optics and lenses work.

If you make a pin-hole camera, you see the entire image inverted on the receptor.  Lenses work the same way as pin-hole cameras. They show the entire image, not simply a pixel.  Fiberoptic scopes are not at all the same.

So take a basketball, cut it in half, poke dozens of holes in it and point it at the sun. Hold a sheet of white paper behind it, at the parabolic distance.

What will you see?

A compound eye isn’t a pinhole camera.  A photoreceptor in a compound eye isn’t a screen, it’s a tiny cell at the end of the ommatidium, the tube-like structure forming part of the compound eye.

There are pinhole camera-like eyes in nature, but they’re not compound eyes.

Fibreoptic endoscopes aren’t pinhole cameras.  They’re like compound eyes, with the fibres being analogous to the ommatidia.

Eyes function by restricting the light falling on photoreceptors coming from external objects by focussing the light on a particular photoreceptor from part of the object and blocking the light coming from other parts of the object.  I once read a science fiction novel, I think it was called ‘To End All Telescopes,’ in which a scientist invented a lens which only allowed parallel rays of light through the lens, which were then amplified enormously, blocking  all other rays of light, which allowed the scientist to examine far distant structures, including exoplanets, at their real size, not their apparent size.  That’s the way compound eyes function.

Stop demonstrating your ignorance and digging yourself into a deeper hole.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: stlc8tr on January 18, 2019, 04:58:07 PM
CIA Follow Up

I was disappointed in the Rogue's response to the objections raised about their gushing segment about the CIA.

Given this wasn't about some pop culture item, I was surprised that they behaved like fanboys (and fangirls) about something as controversial as the CIA.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: CarbShark on January 18, 2019, 05:19:55 PM
I think that in the discussion of compound eyes on the show the idea that each lens is providing a complete image of the external world was dismissed as not being true.  Each lens, with its photoreceptor, provides a pixel in the eventual image, in the same way that fibreoptic endoscopes work - the fibreoptic endoscope consists of bundles of very fine glass filaments each providing a very small part of the image.

That's not how optics and lenses work.

If you make a pin-hole camera, you see the entire image inverted on the receptor.  Lenses work the same way as pin-hole cameras. They show the entire image, not simply a pixel.  Fiberoptic scopes are not at all the same.

So take a basketball, cut it in half, poke dozens of holes in it and point it at the sun. Hold a sheet of white paper behind it, at the parabolic distance.

What will you see?

A compound eye isn’t a pinhole camera.  A photoreceptor in a compound eye isn’t a screen, it’s a tiny cell at the end of the ommatidium, the tube-like structure forming part of the compound eye.

There are pinhole camera-like eyes in nature, but they’re not compound eyes.

Fibreoptic endoscopes aren’t pinhole cameras.  They’re like compound eyes, with the fibres being analogous to the ommatidia.

Eyes function by restricting the light falling on photoreceptors coming from external objects by focussing the light on a particular photoreceptor from part of the object and blocking the light coming from other parts of the object.  I once read a science fiction novel, I think it was called ‘To End All Telescopes,’ in which a scientist invented a lens which only allowed parallel rays of light through the lens, which were then amplified enormously, blocking  all other rays of light, which allowed the scientist to examine far distant structures, including exoplanets, at their real size, not their apparent size.  That’s the way compound eyes function.

The pinhole effect is pretty much the basic for optic and images and using lenses is an extension of that same effect, using refraction.

That effect is present in human eyes and insect compound eyes.

But the way compound eyes function is not nearly as simple as you are making up here.

https://books.google.com/books?id=uXSK6hDKFC0C&q=ommatidium#v=onepage&q&f=false

Start at chapter seven.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 18, 2019, 06:42:49 PM
I think that in the discussion of compound eyes on the show the idea that each lens is providing a complete image of the external world was dismissed as not being true.  Each lens, with its photoreceptor, provides a pixel in the eventual image, in the same way that fibreoptic endoscopes work - the fibreoptic endoscope consists of bundles of very fine glass filaments each providing a very small part of the image.

That's not how optics and lenses work.

If you make a pin-hole camera, you see the entire image inverted on the receptor.  Lenses work the same way as pin-hole cameras. They show the entire image, not simply a pixel.  Fiberoptic scopes are not at all the same.

So take a basketball, cut it in half, poke dozens of holes in it and point it at the sun. Hold a sheet of white paper behind it, at the parabolic distance.

What will you see?

A compound eye isn’t a pinhole camera.  A photoreceptor in a compound eye isn’t a screen, it’s a tiny cell at the end of the ommatidium, the tube-like structure forming part of the compound eye.

There are pinhole camera-like eyes in nature, but they’re not compound eyes.

Fibreoptic endoscopes aren’t pinhole cameras.  They’re like compound eyes, with the fibres being analogous to the ommatidia.

Eyes function by restricting the light falling on photoreceptors coming from external objects by focussing the light on a particular photoreceptor from part of the object and blocking the light coming from other parts of the object.  I once read a science fiction novel, I think it was called ‘To End All Telescopes,’ in which a scientist invented a lens which only allowed parallel rays of light through the lens, which were then amplified enormously, blocking  all other rays of light, which allowed the scientist to examine far distant structures, including exoplanets, at their real size, not their apparent size.  That’s the way compound eyes function.

The pinhole effect is pretty much the basic for optic and images and using lenses is an extension of that same effect, using refraction.

That effect is present in human eyes and insect compound eyes.

But the way compound eyes function is not nearly as simple as you are making up here.

https://books.google.com/books?id=uXSK6hDKFC0C&q=ommatidium#v=onepage&q&f=false

Start at chapter seven.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. 

A photoreceptor is not the same as an entire screen in a pinhole camera.  The pinhole effect does occur to a minor extent with compound and lensed eyes. 

If the pupils in a lensed eye are very constricted, then refractive errors in the lens becomes less significant and the resulting image becomes more focused, but at the cost of becoming dimmer. 

The ommatidia in a compound eye block the non-parallel light rays, allowing through only the parallel light rays.  The only light rays that get through to the photoreceptors at the end of the ommatidium are the ones coming from the object it’s pointing towards.  Light rays coming from other objects strike the front of the ommatidium obliquely, and are blocked, and don’t reach the light receptor at the other end.

Stop digging yourself into a hole.  A compound eye isn’t a pinhole camera.  (I’ve portrayed the ommatidium as a gross oversimplification.  Its structure is much more complicated.  The Wikipedia has a good description.  The important point is that each ommatidium provides a ‘picture element’ or pixel of an object, not the entire object, which has to be resolved by all the ommatidia working together in the compound eye.  Compound eyes are very good at distinguishing very close objects, but not very good at distinguishing distant objects.  Lensed eyes can be very good at any distance.)
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: werecow on January 18, 2019, 09:49:50 PM
(click to show/hide)

I had this thought as well.  It could be that getting a few pixels from a lot of directions is easier to process than millions of pixels from a wide-angle camera because you know the exact direction each pixel is coming from.  I also wonder if the compound eyes the want to put on vehicles are for visible light or are lidar or radar.  I don't see how a visible light compound eye would serve any purpose, but a compound radar eye would be awesome.

But lidar and radar are different from vision in that they require one to actively send out and not just passively receive information, so how would that work? And as to processing a few pixels being easier than millions, one can always subsample in any number of ways. And I don't think compound eyes only pick up on photons coming in from a specific angle. So I don't see the advantage there either. Unfortunately the study is behind a paywall. I wish all science journals were open access.

I thought that each segment in insect eyes had an extremely narrow field of view, making it easy to detect motion, as objects moved rapidly from one segment to the next. The large number of segments, distributed over a hemisphere, gives an overall field of view of half a sphere in each eye, so with two eyes the insect would be able to see in all directions at once.

This was my impression, anyway.

What's the difference between that and detecting motion across pixels across a camera with a wide FOV?

Just a guess here: with about seven brain cells total, bugs don’t have the processing power. But I think what you’re getting at is why would this system be better for computers? And if you find out and tell me then we’ll both know, because I don’t have a clue.

The whole bug-eye camera thing sounds fishy (buggy?) to me because a camera just exposes pixels on a ccd. What’s the advantage of multiple cameras? Which I think is what you’ve been saying.

I think I understand why it works better for bugs. I cannot imagine it being an I provement for cameras and computers.

Yeah, I think we're in agreement. What I'm getting at is that, whether you have a compound eye or a regular camera, if the image is digital it is going to be made up of distinct units. I don't understand what the difference is between something that we call a pixel, and something we call one segment of a compound eye1. In either case you will have light moving across it in any number of ways and you have to infer motion (or lack thereof) from it. In either case you can pre-process the image in any number of ways, whether you are a silicone computer or a carbon based one. I imagine that it is not an insane idea that one could just create a filter that would simulate a compound eye effect either, but let's say we couldn't. What is it that compound eye "pixels", the images they amount to and their aspects, or the lenses through which they are recorded can do or be that regular camera pixels, their result, or their lenses and simple preprocessing filters can not? Other than CarbShark's suggestion that there is something (undefined) about the geometry of the lenses and how they bend the light that would make motion detection easier (which sounds like speculation), I've still not heard or read anything that even distinguishes the two - other than that one is hexagonal and other tends to be square by default.

1To be completely honest I forget the term they mentioned on the podcast, and, as this is Friday and I just came home from organizing a bar meetup, am too2 drunk to be bothered look it up.

2But not too drunk to correct a misuse of "to" when I meant "too". Although in fairness, I wrote that as "tooo" at first. And I wrote "tooo" as "toooo". Maybe I should go to bed.

since I've read the book (https://www.booktopia.com.au/trilobite-richard-fortey/prod9780375706219.html).

Fortey writes like a poet. }|<o)
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: CarbShark on January 18, 2019, 11:29:42 PM
CarbShark's suggestion that there is something (undefined) about the geometry of the lenses and how they bend the light that would make motion detection easier (which sounds like speculation), I've still not heard or read anything that even distinguishes the two - other than that one is hexagonal and other tends to be square by default.

That’s not it. Each element of a compound eye is pointed at a slightly different direction. So each is collecting light from a unique segment of the visible field with overlap

If an object is moving it’s movement is going to be apparent in varying degrees by the different receptors.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 19, 2019, 02:33:48 AM
CarbShark's suggestion that there is something (undefined) about the geometry of the lenses and how they bend the light that would make motion detection easier (which sounds like speculation), I've still not heard or read anything that even distinguishes the two - other than that one is hexagonal and other tends to be square by default.

That’s not it. Each element of a compound eye is pointed at a slightly different direction. So each is collecting light from a unique segment of the visible field with overlap

If an object is moving it’s movement is going to be apparent in varying degrees by the different receptors.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You were claiming that each ommatidium of a compound eye acts as a pinpoint camera, each providing a complete image of an object, which is what your analogy of taking half a basketball, putting multiple pinholes in it and holding it up to screen and letting the light from the sun pass through it onto the screen.  You’d get multiple images of the sun on the screen.

But that’s not how the ommatidia of a compound eye work.  Each produces a pixel of an object which are stitched together to produce the image of an object, if the animal has conscious awareness (doubtful with bearers of compound eyes).
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: werecow on January 19, 2019, 08:38:28 AM
CarbShark's suggestion that there is something (undefined) about the geometry of the lenses and how they bend the light that would make motion detection easier (which sounds like speculation), I've still not heard or read anything that even distinguishes the two - other than that one is hexagonal and other tends to be square by default.

That’s not it. Each element of a compound eye is pointed at a slightly different direction. So each is collecting light from a unique segment of the visible field with overlap

If an object is moving it’s movement is going to be apparent in varying degrees by the different receptors.
OK, how is that different from the pixels in, say, this (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.06132.pdf):

(https://zhpcui.github.io/ZhaopengCui_files/18arxiv_densemapping.png)

(on the left; images on the right are depth mappings they reconstruct from the left image)

Admittedly, there may be some distortion at the edges there (although it's a little hard to tell). Maybe that's what they were talking about on the show. And in this paper they talk about the lower resolution (though I don't see how an even lower resolution compound eye would help matters):

Quote
Due  to  the  large  field  of  view, fisheye cameras have shown better performance than pinhole cameras for multiple tasks including visual-inertial odometry [19] and localization [10]. Hence, we adopt a multi-fisheye-camera  stereo  setup  for  dense  mapping  with  a  self-driving vehicle.  However,  fisheye  cameras  have  a  drawback:  the central region of a fisheye image has relatively low resolution compared  to  a  pinhole  image  which  subtends  a  smaller angle  per  pixel.  This  lower  resolution  degrades  the  depth estimation of far-away objects in front of vehicles, and this degradation  is  made  more  severe  with  downsampling  of fisheye images for real-time processing


But that’s not how the ommatidia of a compound eye work.  Each produces a pixel of an object which are stitched together to produce the image of an object, if the animal has conscious awareness (doubtful with bearers of compound eyes).
I don't think something needs to be consciously aware in order for that to be a requirement for image processing. Cameras do the same thing with pixels.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: CarbShark on January 19, 2019, 09:35:15 AM
CarbShark's suggestion that there is something (undefined) about the geometry of the lenses and how they bend the light that would make motion detection easier (which sounds like speculation), I've still not heard or read anything that even distinguishes the two - other than that one is hexagonal and other tends to be square by default.

That’s not it. Each element of a compound eye is pointed at a slightly different direction. So each is collecting light from a unique segment of the visible field with overlap

If an object is moving it’s movement is going to be apparent in varying degrees by the different receptors.



You were claiming that each ommatidium of a compound eye acts as a pinpoint camera, each providing a complete image of an object, which is what your analogy of taking half a basketball, putting multiple pinholes in it and holding it up to screen and letting the light from the sun pass through it onto the screen.  You’d get multiple images of the sun on the screen.

But that’s not how the ommatidia of a compound eye work.  Each produces a pixel of an object which are stitched together to produce the image of an object, if the animal has conscious awareness (doubtful with bearers of compound eyes).

Well, I did a little research and modified my view. You should try that sometime.

And, no, each facet of a compound eye does not produce a pixel. Each produces a partial image




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: daniel1948 on January 19, 2019, 10:29:24 AM
Quote
What is it that compound eye "pixels", the images they amount to and their aspects, or the lenses through which they are recorded can do or be that regular camera pixels, their result, or their lenses and simple preprocessing filters can not?

Maybe there’s no inherent advantage to compound eyes at all. Maybe it’s just a different solution to the same problem, and by pure chance it’s the one that arthropods evolved. Though my prior understanding was always that compound eyes are better at detecting movement while vertebrate eyes are better at detecting shapes. But that’s probably wrong too, because most vertebrates are better at seeing movement than shape, and we are an exception to that rule. And maybe compound-eye cameras are just better than fish-eye cameras because they reduce or eliminate distortion. You could have a few fish-eye cameras with wide fields of view, or a whole lot of cameras with very narrow fields of view. Maybe the latter has less distortion. Or maybe somebody invented this new camera just because it was a way to sell a new and expensive gadget to the companies working on self-driving cars. Maybe the claim that they are better was just the claim of the inventor or maker.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 19, 2019, 03:09:10 PM
CarbShark's suggestion that there is something (undefined) about the geometry of the lenses and how they bend the light that would make motion detection easier (which sounds like speculation), I've still not heard or read anything that even distinguishes the two - other than that one is hexagonal and other tends to be square by default.

That’s not it. Each element of a compound eye is pointed at a slightly different direction. So each is collecting light from a unique segment of the visible field with overlap

If an object is moving it’s movement is going to be apparent in varying degrees by the different receptors.



You were claiming that each ommatidium of a compound eye acts as a pinpoint camera, each providing a complete image of an object, which is what your analogy of taking half a basketball, putting multiple pinholes in it and holding it up to screen and letting the light from the sun pass through it onto the screen.  You’d get multiple images of the sun on the screen.

But that’s not how the ommatidia of a compound eye work.  Each produces a pixel of an object which are stitched together to produce the image of an object, if the animal has conscious awareness (doubtful with bearers of compound eyes).

Well, I did a little research and modified my view. You should try that sometime.

And, no, each facet of a compound eye does not produce a pixel. Each produces a partial image




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I modify my views all the time.  But when I do, I admit I was wrong, as you didn’t do when you changed your view that compound eyes are pinhole eyes, each ommatidium producing an image of an object.  And yes, an ommatidium doesn’t produce a pixel, if you define a pixel as being the smallest part of an image of the same colour and brightness.  But it does produce a picture element, which the Wikipedia also calls a pixel in its discussion of compound eyes.  Pixel is easier to type.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: CarbShark on January 19, 2019, 04:52:49 PM
Link? Which wiki page? Or is it easier not to provide any citations?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel

What  you described as a pixel is not how compound eyes work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 19, 2019, 06:48:34 PM
Link? Which wiki page? Or is it easier not to provide any citations?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel

What  you described as a pixel is not how compound eyes work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s on the page ‘ommatidium.’  Each ommatidium produces a ‘picture element.’  ‘Pixel’ is the abbreviation of picture element.  A picture element is the smallest thing that compound eyes can produce.

You can look up Wikipedia for yourself.  I don’t need to do your work for you.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: CarbShark on January 19, 2019, 08:06:13 PM
Link? Which wiki page? Or is it easier not to provide any citations?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel

What  you described as a pixel is not how compound eyes work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s on the page ‘ommatidium.’  Each ommatidium produces a ‘picture element.’  ‘Pixel’ is the abbreviation of picture element.  A picture element is the smallest thing that compound eyes can produce.

You can look up Wikipedia for yourself.  I don’t need to do your work for you.


Nor your own work, apparently.  Your own source specifies that they produce a multi-pixel image.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 19, 2019, 10:17:56 PM
Link? Which wiki page? Or is it easier not to provide any citations?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel

What  you described as a pixel is not how compound eyes work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s on the page ‘ommatidium.’  Each ommatidium produces a ‘picture element.’  ‘Pixel’ is the abbreviation of picture element.  A picture element is the smallest thing that compound eyes can produce.

You can look up Wikipedia for yourself.  I don’t need to do your work for you.


Nor your own work, apparently.  Your own source specifies that they produce a multi-pixel image.

But a picture element is the smallest thing an ommatidium produces.  Not a complete image as you’d previously claimed, thinking that it’s a pinhole eye.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: CarbShark on January 20, 2019, 10:36:41 AM
Link? Which wiki page? Or is it easier not to provide any citations?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel

What  you described as a pixel is not how compound eyes work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s on the page ‘ommatidium.’  Each ommatidium produces a ‘picture element.’  ‘Pixel’ is the abbreviation of picture element.  A picture element is the smallest thing that compound eyes can produce.

You can look up Wikipedia for yourself.  I don’t need to do your work for you.


Nor your own work, apparently.  Your own source specifies that they produce a multi-pixel image.

But a picture element is the smallest thing an ommatidium produces.  Not a complete image as you’d previously claimed, thinking that it’s a pinhole eye.

OK, I think the confusion here is that there are two versions of compound eyes.

This was described in the chapter of the book I linked to and in the wiki page:

Compound eye - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_eye)
Quote
Types

Compound eyes are typically classified as either apposition eyes, which form multiple inverted images, or superposition eyes, which form a single erect image.


You're referring to the superposition eyes exclusively.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: The Latinist on January 20, 2019, 12:30:19 PM
I advise you not to expect CarbShark ever to admit he is/was wrong even if he is forced to entirely reverse his position in the face of evidence.  You will be very disappointed.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: CarbShark on January 20, 2019, 07:37:03 PM
I advise you not to expect CarbShark ever to admit he is/was wrong even if he is forced to entirely reverse his position in the face of evidence.  You will be very disappointed.

There have been plenty of times when I was wrong and I have corrected myself, acknowledged others' corrections, and said "I was wrong" or something similar, but apparently that's not enough for you. Anything short of "I was wrong and you were right and I should never doubt your authority on anything ever again, oh wise one" falls into the category of "refuses to admit he is/was wrong."
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 20, 2019, 10:00:30 PM
Link? Which wiki page? Or is it easier not to provide any citations?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel

What  you described as a pixel is not how compound eyes work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s on the page ‘ommatidium.’  Each ommatidium produces a ‘picture element.’  ‘Pixel’ is the abbreviation of picture element.  A picture element is the smallest thing that compound eyes can produce.

You can look up Wikipedia for yourself.  I don’t need to do your work for you.


Nor your own work, apparently.  Your own source specifies that they produce a multi-pixel image.

But a picture element is the smallest thing an ommatidium produces.  Not a complete image as you’d previously claimed, thinking that it’s a pinhole eye.

OK, I think the confusion here is that there are two versions of compound eyes.

This was described in the chapter of the book I linked to and in the wiki page:

Compound eye - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_eye)
Quote
Types

Compound eyes are typically classified as either apposition eyes, which form multiple inverted images, or superposition eyes, which form a single erect image.


You're referring to the superposition eyes exclusively.

Apposition compound eyes produce multiple inverted images, which are a very small part of the image perceived by the brain, not multiple inverted versions of the same image, as you’re claiming.  They’re not pinhole eyes producing multiple versions of the same image.  There are no animals which see with eyes containing multiple pinholes allowing multiple versions of the same image to be formed on the photoreceptors of the eye.

You’re still wrong.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: CarbShark on January 20, 2019, 11:25:07 PM
Link? Which wiki page? Or is it easier not to provide any citations?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel

What  you described as a pixel is not how compound eyes work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s on the page ‘ommatidium.’  Each ommatidium produces a ‘picture element.’  ‘Pixel’ is the abbreviation of picture element.  A picture element is the smallest thing that compound eyes can produce.

You can look up Wikipedia for yourself.  I don’t need to do your work for you.


Nor your own work, apparently.  Your own source specifies that they produce a multi-pixel image.

But a picture element is the smallest thing an ommatidium produces.  Not a complete image as you’d previously claimed, thinking that it’s a pinhole eye.

OK, I think the confusion here is that there are two versions of compound eyes.

This was described in the chapter of the book I linked to and in the wiki page:

Compound eye - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_eye)
Quote
Types

Compound eyes are typically classified as either apposition eyes, which form multiple inverted images, or superposition eyes, which form a single erect image.


You're referring to the superposition eyes exclusively.

Apposition compound eyes produce multiple inverted images, which are a very small part of the image perceived by the brain, not multiple inverted versions of the same image, as you’re claiming.  They’re not pinhole eyes producing multiple versions of the same image.  There are no animals which see with eyes containing multiple pinholes allowing multiple versions of the same image to be formed on the photoreceptors of the eye.

You’re still wrong.

that was not my claim. The pinhole effect (which results in the inverted image on a plain behind the pinhole) is a basic principle of optics. I did not claim that compound eyes were pinholes. Adding a lens to an opening is an extension of the pinhole effect, and that's what happening in some compound eyes.

I was not entirely wrong, but was not entirely correct in my initial post which, at the time, I said  a guess.

You are incorrect if you persist in claiming that each element of a compound eye produces a pixel. Your own source disputes that. As do the book I linked and the wiki link I provided.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: CarbShark on January 20, 2019, 11:33:37 PM
I advise you not to expect CarbShark ever to admit he is/was wrong even if he is forced to entirely reverse his position in the face of evidence.  You will be very disappointed.

And, you are either never wrong, or just never admit when you're wrong. (I know which one I think is more likely.)
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 21, 2019, 03:30:46 AM
Link? Which wiki page? Or is it easier not to provide any citations?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel

What  you described as a pixel is not how compound eyes work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s on the page ‘ommatidium.’  Each ommatidium produces a ‘picture element.’  ‘Pixel’ is the abbreviation of picture element.  A picture element is the smallest thing that compound eyes can produce.

You can look up Wikipedia for yourself.  I don’t need to do your work for you.


Nor your own work, apparently.  Your own source specifies that they produce a multi-pixel image.

But a picture element is the smallest thing an ommatidium produces.  Not a complete image as you’d previously claimed, thinking that it’s a pinhole eye.

OK, I think the confusion here is that there are two versions of compound eyes.

This was described in the chapter of the book I linked to and in the wiki page:

Compound eye - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_eye)
Quote
Types

Compound eyes are typically classified as either apposition eyes, which form multiple inverted images, or superposition eyes, which form a single erect image.


You're referring to the superposition eyes exclusively.

Apposition compound eyes produce multiple inverted images, which are a very small part of the image perceived by the brain, not multiple inverted versions of the same image, as you’re claiming.  They’re not pinhole eyes producing multiple versions of the same image.  There are no animals which see with eyes containing multiple pinholes allowing multiple versions of the same image to be formed on the photoreceptors of the eye.

You’re still wrong.

that was not my claim. The pinhole effect (which results in the inverted image on a plain behind the pinhole) is a basic principle of optics. I did not claim that compound eyes were pinholes. Adding a lens to an opening is an extension of the pinhole effect, and that's what happening in some compound eyes.

I was not entirely wrong, but was not entirely correct in my initial post which, at the time, I said  a guess.

You are incorrect if you persist in claiming that each element of a compound eye produces a pixel. Your own source disputes that. As do the book I linked and the wiki link I provided.

Each ommatidium of a compound eye produces a picture element of a complete picture (pixel is the abbreviation of picture element).  That was pointed out in the item on the SGU episode concerning compound eyes.  The ‘Far Side’ cartoon ‘showiing’ the last thing an insect sees (multiple identical images of a fat woman with a fly swat) - which you believed was what compound eyes produces - is just wrong.

You’re wrong when you ‘guess.’  The trouble is - you’re also often wrong when you’re not guessing.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: CarbShark on January 21, 2019, 12:01:29 PM
So now we have reached the point in this conversation where Bachfiend simply repeats what he’s posted, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: brilligtove on January 21, 2019, 12:35:12 PM
...only now?
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: CarbShark on January 21, 2019, 12:56:43 PM
...only now?

Maybe I was a little slow on that. I held out hop, but obviously I was wrong.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 21, 2019, 02:42:44 PM
So now we have reached the point in this conversation where Bachfiend simply repeats what he’s posted, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What evidence to the contrary?  You post ‘guesses,’ unreadable book extracts from Google books, internet pages you don’t understand, and irrelevant journal articles, which are answering one question (such as ketogenic diets produce slightly greater weight loss in the short term), and you choose as though they’re answering another question (such as ketogenic diets are healthier in the long run).
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: CarbShark on January 21, 2019, 05:01:39 PM
So now we have reached the point in this conversation where Bachfiend simply repeats what he’s posted, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What evidence to the contrary?  You post ‘guesses,’ unreadable book extracts from Google books, internet pages you don’t understand, and irrelevant journal articles, which are answering one question (such as ketogenic diets produce slightly greater weight loss in the short term), and you choose as though they’re answering another question (such as ketogenic diets are healthier in the long run).

Watch your spillover.

If that was "unreadable" that's on you.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 21, 2019, 06:19:51 PM
So now we have reached the point in this conversation where Bachfiend simply repeats what he’s posted, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
l

What evidence to the contrary?  You post ‘guesses,’ unreadable book extracts from Google books, internet pages you don’t understand, and irrelevant journal articles, which are answering one question (such as ketogenic diets produce slightly greater weight loss in the short term), and you choose as though they’re answering another question (such as ketogenic diets are healthier in the long run).

Watch your spillover.

If that was "unreadable" that's on you.

Well, with your ‘signature’ you have ‘spillover’ with every comment.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: CarbShark on January 21, 2019, 06:42:10 PM

Just a guess here: with about seven brain cells total, bugs don’t have the processing power.  ...

More than seven.

Exploration into the Adaptive Design of the Arthropod “Microbrain” (https://bioone.org/journals/zoological-science/volume-16/issue-5/zsj.16.703/Exploration-into-the-Adaptive-Design-of-the-Arthropod-Microbrain/10.2108/zsj.16.703.full)
Quote
The diverse behavior of arthropods is all generated and controlled by their very small brains. The number of neurons contained in the arthropod brain is only 105−106 (Strausfeld, 1976), that is several orders of magnitude smaller than those of the mammalian brain (1010 in humans, Kandel et al., 1991). Therefore, the information-processing capacity of the arthropod brain is much more limited than that of the mammalian brain and, consequently, arthropod behavior is more stereotyped and less flexible than that of mammals (Hoyle, 1976). Nevertheless, the arthropod brain is, no doubt, one of the most successful information-processing devices to have evolved on Earth.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 21, 2019, 08:17:18 PM

Just a guess here: with about seven brain cells total, bugs don’t have the processing power.  ...

More than seven.

Exploration into the Adaptive Design of the Arthropod “Microbrain” (https://bioone.org/journals/zoological-science/volume-16/issue-5/zsj.16.703/Exploration-into-the-Adaptive-Design-of-the-Arthropod-Microbrain/10.2108/zsj.16.703.full)
Quote
The diverse behavior of arthropods is all generated and controlled by their very small brains. The number of neurons contained in the arthropod brain is only 105−106 (Strausfeld, 1976), that is several orders of magnitude smaller than those of the mammalian brain (1010 in humans, Kandel et al., 1991). Therefore, the information-processing capacity of the arthropod brain is much more limited than that of the mammalian brain and, consequently, arthropod behavior is more stereotyped and less flexible than that of mammals (Hoyle, 1976). Nevertheless, the arthropod brain is, no doubt, one of the most successful information-processing devices to have evolved on Earth.

It’s an obvious error quoting only ‘105-106’ neurons in the arthropod brain ( let alone 1010 neurons in the human brain, Donald Trump excluded). It should be of the order of 106 neurons.  Or don’t you know how to type powers?
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: CarbShark on January 21, 2019, 08:37:29 PM

Just a guess here: with about seven brain cells total, bugs don’t have the processing power.  ...

More than seven.

Exploration into the Adaptive Design of the Arthropod “Microbrain” (https://bioone.org/journals/zoological-science/volume-16/issue-5/zsj.16.703/Exploration-into-the-Adaptive-Design-of-the-Arthropod-Microbrain/10.2108/zsj.16.703.full)
Quote
The diverse behavior of arthropods is all generated and controlled by their very small brains. The number of neurons contained in the arthropod brain is only 105106 (Strausfeld, 1976), that is several orders of magnitude smaller than those of the mammalian brain (1010 in humans, Kandel et al., 1991). Therefore, the information-processing capacity of the arthropod brain is much more limited than that of the mammalian brain and, consequently, arthropod behavior is more stereotyped and less flexible than that of mammals (Hoyle, 1976). Nevertheless, the arthropod brain is, no doubt, one of the most successful information-processing devices to have evolved on Earth.

It’s an obvious error quoting only ‘105-106’ neurons in the arthropod brain ( let alone 1010 neurons in the human brain, Donald Trump excluded). It should be of the order of 106 neurons.  Or don’t you know how to type powers?
Obviously the powers didn't come through in the quoted text.  Luckily I included a link to the source that anyone could follow.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 21, 2019, 09:15:53 PM

Just a guess here: with about seven brain cells total, bugs don’t have the processing power.  ...

More than seven.

Exploration into the Adaptive Design of the Arthropod “Microbrain” (https://bioone.org/journals/zoological-science/volume-16/issue-5/zsj.16.703/Exploration-into-the-Adaptive-Design-of-the-Arthropod-Microbrain/10.2108/zsj.16.703.full)
Quote
The diverse behavior of arthropods is all generated and controlled by their very small brains. The number of neurons contained in the arthropod brain is only 105106 (Strausfeld, 1976), that is several orders of magnitude smaller than those of the mammalian brain (1010 in humans, Kandel et al., 1991). Therefore, the information-processing capacity of the arthropod brain is much more limited than that of the mammalian brain and, consequently, arthropod behavior is more stereotyped and less flexible than that of mammals (Hoyle, 1976). Nevertheless, the arthropod brain is, no doubt, one of the most successful information-processing devices to have evolved on Earth.

It’s an obvious error quoting only ‘105-106’ neurons in the arthropod brain ( let alone 1010 neurons in the human brain, Donald Trump excluded). It should be of the order of 106 neurons.  Or don’t you know how to type powers?
Obviously the powers didn't come through in the quoted text.  Luckily I included a link to the source that anyone could follow.

I didn’t need to look at your ‘reference.’  I’m used to powers not being rendered correctly in texts.  Kindle books often fail in this regard, including giving ‘1080’ order of magnitude as the number of atoms in the universe.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: daniel1948 on January 21, 2019, 09:28:33 PM

Just a guess here: with about seven brain cells total, bugs don’t have the processing power.  ...

More than seven.

Ever heard of hyperbole?
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 21, 2019, 09:58:15 PM

Just a guess here: with about seven brain cells total, bugs don’t have the processing power.  ...

More than seven.

Ever heard of hyperbole?

Possibly not.  The first time I heard ‘hyperbole,’ I didn’t know what it was.  It was a word I knew how to spell but not pronounce.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: The Latinist on January 21, 2019, 10:05:04 PM

Just a guess here: with about seven brain cells total, bugs don’t have the processing power.  ...

More than seven.

Exploration into the Adaptive Design of the Arthropod “Microbrain” (https://bioone.org/journals/zoological-science/volume-16/issue-5/zsj.16.703/Exploration-into-the-Adaptive-Design-of-the-Arthropod-Microbrain/10.2108/zsj.16.703.full)
Quote
The diverse behavior of arthropods is all generated and controlled by their very small brains. The number of neurons contained in the arthropod brain is only 105−106 (Strausfeld, 1976), that is several orders of magnitude smaller than those of the mammalian brain (1010 in humans, Kandel et al., 1991). Therefore, the information-processing capacity of the arthropod brain is much more limited than that of the mammalian brain and, consequently, arthropod behavior is more stereotyped and less flexible than that of mammals (Hoyle, 1976). Nevertheless, the arthropod brain is, no doubt, one of the most successful information-processing devices to have evolved on Earth.

It’s an obvious error quoting only ‘105-106’ neurons in the arthropod brain ( let alone 1010 neurons in the human brain, Donald Trump excluded). It should be of the order of 106 neurons.  Or don’t you know how to type powers?

Dude, a little charity, please. You admittedly understood exactly what was meant, and it was obviously just a formatting mistake. You don’t help your argument with such pettiness.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 21, 2019, 10:15:33 PM

Just a guess here: with about seven brain cells total, bugs don’t have the processing power.  ...

More than seven.

Exploration into the Adaptive Design of the Arthropod “Microbrain” (https://bioone.org/journals/zoological-science/volume-16/issue-5/zsj.16.703/Exploration-into-the-Adaptive-Design-of-the-Arthropod-Microbrain/10.2108/zsj.16.703.full)
Quote
The diverse behavior of arthropods is all generated and controlled by their very small brains. The number of neurons contained in the arthropod brain is only 105−106 (Strausfeld, 1976), that is several orders of magnitude smaller than those of the mammalian brain (1010 in humans, Kandel et al., 1991). Therefore, the information-processing capacity of the arthropod brain is much more limited than that of the mammalian brain and, consequently, arthropod behavior is more stereotyped and less flexible than that of mammals (Hoyle, 1976). Nevertheless, the arthropod brain is, no doubt, one of the most successful information-processing devices to have evolved on Earth.

It’s an obvious error quoting only ‘105-106’ neurons in the arthropod brain ( let alone 1010 neurons in the human brain, Donald Trump excluded). It should be of the order of 106 neurons.  Or don’t you know how to type powers?

Dude, a little charity, please. You admittedly understood exactly what was meant, and it was obviously just a formatting mistake. You don’t help your argument with such pettiness.

I don’t believe extending charity to CarbShark since he doesn’t extend charity to me.  ‘Failure to extend charity’ as being one of the fallacies in reasoning is one of his failings.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: CarbShark on January 21, 2019, 10:52:27 PM

Just a guess here: with about seven brain cells total, bugs don’t have the processing power.  ...

More than seven.

Exploration into the Adaptive Design of the Arthropod “Microbrain” (https://bioone.org/journals/zoological-science/volume-16/issue-5/zsj.16.703/Exploration-into-the-Adaptive-Design-of-the-Arthropod-Microbrain/10.2108/zsj.16.703.full)
Quote
The diverse behavior of arthropods is all generated and controlled by their very small brains. The number of neurons contained in the arthropod brain is only 105−106 (Strausfeld, 1976), that is several orders of magnitude smaller than those of the mammalian brain (1010 in humans, Kandel et al., 1991). Therefore, the information-processing capacity of the arthropod brain is much more limited than that of the mammalian brain and, consequently, arthropod behavior is more stereotyped and less flexible than that of mammals (Hoyle, 1976). Nevertheless, the arthropod brain is, no doubt, one of the most successful information-processing devices to have evolved on Earth.

It’s an obvious error quoting only ‘105-106’ neurons in the arthropod brain ( let alone 1010 neurons in the human brain, Donald Trump excluded). It should be of the order of 106 neurons.  Or don’t you know how to type powers?

Dude, a little charity, please. You admittedly understood exactly what was meant, and it was obviously just a formatting mistake. You don’t help your argument with such pettiness.

Thanks, but I goofed, plain and simple. I should have paid more attention. I ask for and deserve no charity.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: Harry Black on January 22, 2019, 04:37:08 AM
This is not about charity, its about common courtesy.
Pointing out a mistake is a normal thing to do in a detailed argument.
Using an obvious mistake to try and shine a light on what you perceive to be a defect in intelligence or education is just being an asshole.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 22, 2019, 05:47:17 AM
This is not about charity, its about common courtesy.
Pointing out a mistake is a normal thing to do in a detailed argument.
Using an obvious mistake to try and shine a light on what you perceive to be a defect in intelligence or education is just being an asshole.

What makes you think that I perceive CarbShark to have a ‘defect in intelligence or education?’  I take pleasure pointing out his errors (as he probably does to me too). 
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: Earl Grey on January 25, 2019, 06:31:13 AM
This is not about charity, its about common courtesy.
Pointing out a mistake is a normal thing to do in a detailed argument.
Using an obvious mistake to try and shine a light on what you perceive to be a defect in intelligence or education is just being an asshole.

What makes you think that I perceive CarbShark to have a ‘defect in intelligence or education?’  I take pleasure pointing out his errors (as he probably does to me too).

Specifically your suggestion that he can't type properly and more generally your terrible bellendery.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: bachfiend on January 25, 2019, 02:25:39 PM
This is not about charity, its about common courtesy.
Pointing out a mistake is a normal thing to do in a detailed argument.
Using an obvious mistake to try and shine a light on what you perceive to be a defect in intelligence or education is just being an asshole.

What makes you think that I perceive CarbShark to have a ‘defect in intelligence or education?’  I take pleasure pointing out his errors (as he probably does to me too).

Specifically your suggestion that he can't type properly and more generally your terrible bellendery.

CarbShark’s ‘105’ or ‘106’ neurons in the insect brain was a correction of Daniel1948’s obvious hyperbole of there being only about 7 neurons in insect brains.  I didn’t bother commenting about that, because it’s an obvious joke.  But also largely true - insects just don’t have enough neurons to process multiple separate copies of the same visual information that CarbShark originally believed compound eyes provide.  Each ommatidium of the compound eye (and each has thousands of them) providing similar images of the whole.

You haven’t criticised CarbShark for his continual carping that I used ‘pixel’ instead of ‘picture element’ to designate what each ommatidium actually supplies as part of an insect’s view of the outside world (and ‘pixel’ is an abbreviation of ‘picture element’).  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.  I might be guilty of hypercorrecting him for his not proofreading what he wrote in not checking the formatting, but he’s guilty of hypercorrecting me regarding whether it’s pixel or picture element.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: Fast Eddie B on February 05, 2019, 11:16:04 AM
Not been all the way through this thread, but Karen noted and I agreed that in the segment on the decline in Monarch butterfly populations, it seemed the rogues went out of their way not to mention the word “pesticides”, maybe couching it in overall “farming practices”. While I agree that we should not automatically jump to pesticides as the cause of the decline, it seems reasonable to put it fairly high on the list of possible causes. Does it not?
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: brilligtove on February 05, 2019, 11:39:02 AM
Not been all the way through this thread, but Karen noted and I agreed that in the segment on the decline in Monarch butterfly populations, it seemed the rogues went out of their way not to mention the word “pesticides”, maybe couching it in overall “farming practices”. While I agree that we should not automatically jump to pesticides as the cause of the decline, it seems reasonable to put it fairly high on the list of possible causes. Does it not?

My understanding is that pesticides are not as much of an issue as the herbicides that have killed off so many milkweed plants. It would not surprise me if an insecticide effected them as well though.
Title: Re: Episode 705
Post by: CarbShark on February 05, 2019, 12:54:26 PM
Not been all the way through this thread, but Karen noted and I agreed that in the segment on the decline in Monarch butterfly populations, it seemed the rogues went out of their way not to mention the word “pesticides”, maybe couching it in overall “farming practices”. While I agree that we should not automatically jump to pesticides as the cause of the decline, it seems reasonable to put it fairly high on the list of possible causes. Does it not?

My understanding is that pesticides are not as much of an issue as the herbicides that have killed off so many milkweed plants. It would not surprise me if an insecticide effected them as well though.

It's probably both. And drought.

The issue with milkweed is that in order to migrate they must have a route where there is enough milkweed across a sufficiently wide corridor that they can always find some. For a weed milkweed is fairly fragile, and really doesn't interfere with crops the way other weeds do.  The problem is that the pesticides are carried by wind and pollinators to milkweed stands and they get wiped out.