Just like other have said, the original film is actually much higher quality than what we consider HD. Think of the actual original film roll as the master print, the highest visual quality rendition of the movie that exists anywhere.

Now its only when we try to copy this master print that the quality decreases because of technology limits. At first we copied it to VHS, then to DVD (yes I know I'm missing some stuff like laser disk but bear with me) and now we are putting it on a blu-ray disk and player. Its like taking a picture of the Sistine chapel with your old cell phone camera, then later coming back and taking a picture of it with our brand spanking new Canon DLSR camera. The quality is much better, but still not as good as seeing it in person.

As our disk and player tech continue to improve, we will continue to approach the level of resolution of the original master print. That's why for now we are at 1080, but in the future will have even higher resolutions!

The way we've defined HD today is 1080p (720 as well but let's pretend it's only 1080 for now). This means that we have a pixel grid with a vertical height of 1080. Following the hd aspect ratio standards we need to have our width follow the ratio of 16:9.

So we have now defined our tv screens to follow this standard. Imagine 2,073,600 tiny dots, arranged in a grid (1920x1080) each with a color. When we zoom out we can see a very detailed and clear image. To keep up with standards and to be "on the cutting edge", many companies switched their cameras to digital sensors. Since we can define how many pixels will e in a sensor, companies used the bare minimum to pass those standard and call them "HD" (which is not a bad thing).

Lets step back a bit. Before, we were recording movies with film. What you need to know is that film works off of emulsion. Essentially light hits the film in a certain way and devours parts of the film. These are how images are formed.

Now we are not recording how many dots there are in a grid, but how many atoms in a grid. That number is much higher than 2 million. If we were to project the same image that was taken by one film camera and one digital camera, all variables being the same, the film camera would look better.

So when they restore old movies, they scan in all of the film, do some digital touch-up work, and in fact, shrink it down to 1080p. So the process is actually trivial and does not require the entire film to be redone.

Part of this is that when you downsize the image to standard "HD" quality it looks much better when you start with a huge image. The other part is future proofing. The fewer times you need to re-scan the same film for better resolutions the lower the cost of switching to new formats.

It's like taking a huge picture from a really good digital camera and then viewing it on the tiny little LCD that they have. It can look amazing on that 3" screen, but when you look at it on a higher resolution and larger screen it looks terrible.


When I was a kid I loved the idea of a huge snow. Then you grow up and think, dear Lord, what happened?

Then you resolve yourself to going out and taking care of it.

The joys of shoveling snow.

I really agree with as my friend Vivian seems to find the mater humorous. When she explains why it is more enjoyable to watch people go about the most illogical ways of handling the confrontation with snow, you will see a lot.

For reference this morning: my next door neighbor tried to shovel a foot and a half of snow in a mini (it was above the knee) skirt and highheel boots this morning.

That is my next door neighbor, she is generally alright, but ditsy. And what made it worse was that she was wearing a skirt that came up above the knee. When I went out she hadn't gotten far. I put on my snowmobile suit, boots, thick gloves, and a hat. When I was done I was sweating, but I had anticipated that. I would rather have that than loose a toe to hypothermia.

When I finished our sidewalk and drive I went and helped her. She actually thought I was my husband. Which I got a kick out of since my suite is a very feminine color that my husband would never be caught dead in.

My kids were happy though. Snow days still hold their magic for them.


I received an invitation to a baby sprinkle. Thankfully it is just a sprinkle because I am a little low on funds right now. The card was cute, I would show it but I don't want to give away people's personal information. The rhyme, I would call it a rhyme, was so cute. It went like this:

Baby smiles and giggles galore
_____ and _____ are having one more
Big Sister _____ has plenty to share
This is only a <em>sprinkle</em> to show that we care
Please join us to celebrate before Baby is due
They’ve got lots of pink, so think plenty of blue

I thought, wow, I never knew they were so creative. That was pretty cute. They were able to tell me that they needed something for little boys. I really don't get into those guess games at all. So this was nice. Just like the text, it reads nicer with the actual names. But it is personal, sweet, and gives you all of the information.

The more I thought about it the less I thought that it was from the hostess. She just isn't that type of person.

And before you get worried that she will read this, she doesn't know that I have a site. And thinks that facebook in the Internet. You can read it like this quote from Quartz: “It seemed that in their minds, the Internet did not exist; only Facebook.” And while they talk about people outside of the US, I can tell you, if the person wasn't really tech savvy, they think the same thing here.

Well, anyway, when I called to confirm that I would be dropping bye the party I dug a little bit around.

She insisted that she had written it. But in that sort of way that means, I know you know.

So I got busy and did a little digging. The closest I found the text was for a girl named Ashley's baby sprinkle. I don't generally dislike the woman but she does have a history of stealing credit. Which is why my interest was peaked. She also told me how trying the whole baby shower, this is a sprinkle mind you, is. I know for a fact that she has two other women helping her so it can't be that bad!

When I did the shower for my sister's first, I did it alone and more than 50 people showed up. That is five-zero!

That was the first and only time I ever volunteered to help.


Let's start with a simple explanation of the goal of an SVM, and a simple explanation of each of those terms. In the end they will give you an idea of of what a vector machine does. Here is a very good 45 second video that shows how a linear hyperplane in a higher dimensional space can be curvy in a lower dimensional space.

Imagine you plot a bunch of points on a graph. Some of the point's are labeled X and some are labeled O. An SVM wants to draw a line to separate the X's and O's. Then when you get a new point on the plot, you can see which side of the line it's on and decide if it should be an X or an O. The line that separates them can be straight or curvy. If it's curvy, then you need to use a kernel.

Now lets go over those terms:

space: this refers to the group of axes (plural of axis) you are using. So for example, if you have just X,Y axes for your plot, this is a 2-dimensional space. You can be in a 3-dimensional space if you have X,Y,Z axes.

Kernel: This is how you map your data into higher dimensional spaces. Why do we want to do this? Remember the straight and curvy lines I mentioned before. If our data can't be separated by a straight line we might need to use a curvy line. Here's the secret: a straight line in a higher dimensional space can be a curvy line when projected onto a lower dimensional space. So what we are really doing is using the kernel to put our data into a high dimensional space, then finding a hyperplane ("straight line". not exactly, but I'll explain it next) to separate the data in that high dimensional space. This straight line looks like a curvy line when we bring it down to the lower dimensional space that our data lives in. EXAMPLE TIME! Let's suppose our labeled data ("X and O's") live in a two dimensional space (think X-axis and Y-axis plot). We need to separate the data with a curvy line, but since the SVM can only use straight lines, we need to use a kernel to bring the data into a higher dimensional space and separate it with a straight line, which looks like a curvy line in the low dimensional space.

hyperplane: this is how we generalize the concept of a straight line in two dimensional space, because we don't always use two dimensional spaces. A hyperplane just means something straight that splits the space into two parts. Imagine our X,Y space again. A straight line would split the space into two parts, so it is a hyperplane! Now imagine X,Y,Z space (3-dimensional). A flat piece of paper (a plane) would split the space into two parts, so it is a hyperplane! Now you can imagine even higher dimensional spaces, there is something that will split the space into two parts. That thing is a hyperplane!

To summarize: an SVM uses hyperplanes (straight things) to separate our two differently labeled points (X's and O's). Sometimes our points can't be separated by straight things, so we need to map them to a higher dimensional space (using kernels!) where they can be split by straight things (hyperplanes!).

This looks like a curvy line on our original space, even though it is really a straight thing in a much higher dimensional space!


I did something different. I made tea with cold water. The results?

I learned that tea does not need hot water. However, different varieties of tea need to be steeped for different amount of times at different water temperatures in order to get optimal flavor. Steeping for too long at too high or low a temperature will make the tea bitter.

But basically compounds in the tea leaves get released and mixed in with the water. Hotter water makes this happen faster.

Hot water has more energy at the molecular level than cold. This causes its molecules to more efficiently penetrate and soak into stuff it touches, and as a result it's better at dissolving things and pulls the molecules responsible for flavors and colors out of those dried tea leaves faster. So immersing your teabag or leaves in hot water extracts the flavor more completely and more quickly.

Further, warm temperature liquids taste different, often stronger, and smell different and stronger too. As tea a usually a mild drink, a warm tea will have a stronger flavor and a stronger scent than a cold one.

Tea can be brewed in cold water, it just takes a lot longer and results in a cold beverage with a different taste.

It's very similar to food. Certain foods need to be eaten hot because the aroma is half the taste.


There are a lot of misconceptions about all of this, especially the mechanism by which psychostimulants alleviate the symptoms of ADHD.

There was a video posted awhile ago about an explanation of Adderall might work: by keeping dopamine in the synapse longer . I showed it to my dad and he immediately said "that idea was dismissed in the 70's. This isn't true or even all that modern."

The main question should be "why would a stimulant help a person with ADHD slow down and focus? How does that make sense?" And on the surface, it doesn't. But what if, and give me some time to explain this, the medications didn't act as stimulants? What if they acted as something else? As some background, out of all the stimulants we have at our disposal, there are only two that have any effectiveness in treating ADHD: amphetmamines and methylphenidate (and methamphetamine, but that is usually a last option treatment for obvious reasons). These molecules have a property called chirality, which means that even though they're connected the same way, they are oriented differently in space, like mirror images. The most common analogy is the human hand: they are exactly the same but mirror images (a right hand won't fit in a left glove). Anyway, only 3 of these forms have shown benefit for those with ADHD: both R- and S-amphetamine, and R-threo-methylphenidate. So, amongst all the stimulants we know, only two have shown any benefit for ADHD treatment and, of those two, only three of the six isomers show any efficacy. So we're talking a very narrow range here.

Now, if these drugs worked by central nervous system stimulation, theoretically any stimulant should work right? But they don't. Case in point: caffeine. Anyone with ADHD will tell you caffeine doesn't help. So what else could be happening? The theory my father subscribes to is one of a so-called "replacement model," where people with ADHD are deficient in a naturally occurring molecule and the medication will mimic that molecule as a replacement. For instance, there is a testing program called TOVA which is used to test a person's attention. Patients with ADHD will usually score very low when compared to the general populace. However, if you give the patient 5 mg of an ADHD medication, their scores jump. Give them 10 mg, it will jump even more. Give them 15 mg, even more. Remarkably, these jumps are linear in fashion. This is where it gets interesting: it only happens up to a certain point. After a certain dosage, the scores begin to drop off dramatically. If a person's optimal dose is 20mg, by the time they're taking 40mg, they're actually doing worse than they were doing without any medication at all. If they worked by a stimulation mechanism, then the more you gave somebody the better they would do. But this isn't the case. This is similar to a person with diabetes who doesn't produce enough insulin. If you don't give them enough, it won't be effective. Give them too much, there will be health hazards. Give them just the right amount and they will function normally. And this is what ADHD medications do: allow the patient to function like a person with a typical nervous system. Pills don't give skills. They are a means by which to even the playing field.

So, if we assume that they act as a replacement/supplement for a naturally occurring molecule, where does it act? A lot of people think it is the prefrontal cortex which is associated with attention and so this would be the place that ADHD medications operate. But this may not be true either. It a very interesting experiment performed in the early 1990s (I'm a little iffy on the time period, I can find the paper if people are interested), a doctor was interested in where the main area of action was for methylphenidate. To determine this, she "radiolabeled" methylphenidate, meaning that one atom in the molecule was replaced by a radioactive isotope and when it decayed, it could be detected measured. After creating this special version of methylphenidate, she injected it directly into the carotid artery of volunteers. What she found was that it accumulated almost exclusively in a part of the brain called the corpus striatum. According to Wikipedia, the corpus striatum is associated with "multiple aspects of cognition, including motor and action planning,decision-making, motivation, reinforcement, and reward perception."

All of these things play a role in ADHD.

So if the ADHD brain is deficient in a molecule that acts upon the corpus striatum, it's activity will decrease and all of the above aspects will be impaired.

This is a very basic version of this.