Final Post *sniff*

Well, this is it. That moment when we all must depart and go our separate ways. I just want to say that this class has been completely awesome. I think everyone would agree to that as well. Thanks for a fun and educational Centreterm!

Ok, here's my last entry. This is one of the pieces I had in my portfolio presentation. I took this image, made a copy, and made the copy grayscale. Then I used the separateColor() filter on the original image. I then blended each of those colors into the grayscale image and saved the resulting picture. My next step was to get them all on the same canvas. So I created a canvas that would fit all the images if I were to set them side-by-side. Then, I simply placeInCanvas() those images in their proper place and, BLAM! What you "SEE" is what you get.

I really like this picture. Especially the green one because it reminds me of the Hulk.

Fear the Yoda...

Santa gets animated

Ok, I've  been working a lot with makeCanvas and placeInCanvas today because I will be using a lot of it in my final project. Here is what I did, I knew that each santa picture had dimensions of 400x400, and my idea was to place them all one after the other in a single canvas. So I created a canvas that had dimensions of 1600x400. This made since because my y values weren't going to change, only my x values. So the first picture I placed at (o,o), the second picture I placed at (400,0), the third at (800,0), and the last (1200,0). I used threeColor to create the wild looking Santas in this picture, by the way. The resulting photo came out just as expected...I think I'm getting the hang of this thing.

I would attempt making a mosaic with different pictures for each tile using this method, but I don't think I have that kind of time. That would be really cool though.

SOPA

So, I think most of us have heard about this SOPA thing by the fact that Wikipedia was blocked all of today. As stated in the second link, the true reason behind SOPA "...is the ability of intellectual property owners (read: movie studios and record labels) to effectively pull the plug on foreign sites against whom they have a copyright claim." What are your guys opinions on this? I think it might be something interesting to talk about in class tomorrow.

I don't agree with it. I believe it is the government's way of funneling us toward giving in to their power-hungry ways. Yes, we can survive without illigellay downloaded movies and music, but what's next? If the government can just start selecting the things that we view, wouldn't they sway them toward their political bias? This has too much room for abuse.

This has a similar ring to the discussion we had on the Carr article: The fact that digital text could so easily be manipulated presents a problem. That problem falls on the fact that there are always going to be people that will abuse the system and "change" things to support their bias. The same thing is happening here, the government is manipulating and filtering the websights we visit. The intent might seem legitimate on its surface, but the fact that those with the most power are trying to delete foreign sights that only "seem" illegal presents an incredible danger that cannot be tampered with if we are to keep our freedom that this nation was so proudly founded upon. (this is the part where the background fades behind me and is replaced with a flowing American flag)

Please comment! Let me know what you think

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP2ba2a4048b36493e895aff47184b8bd4.html"

http://gizmodo.com/5877000/what-is-sopa"

Some Progress on Final Project

 Here's some crazy stuff. I did succeed in getting the background to all these images removed and replaced with another. Yay! Tomorrow I will work on placing the pictures on the same background.
I am not sure I like the electric shock though...we'll see if I end up using it.
Also, I just realized that I will probably have to rotate Vader 180 degrees because his body will cut off most of the electricity.
So far so good though, my initial idea seems like it's possible.

Fun With Mosiacs

I took the Johnny Depp photo and mad it into my tiles. I realize that this is probably not the best mosaic, but I know how to fix it. My aspect ratios were not exactly matched up. If i fixed that, then I think my result would be a clearer picture.

Colour(less) bits

The author points out that bits do not actually have colour, they can only represent colour. This is the main concept that most humans struggle with because most human beings are not colour-blind like the computer science people are trained to be. This is why their is some hostility between computer science people and lawyers. Lawyers cannot comprehend that bits do not have colour at the fundamental level, and the computer people can. The author gave an example about a websight that shows when the sun rises and sets. The catch is that the websight has a disclaimer that says that the information is not suitable for court. I was completely baffled when I read this, why would that be? The author answers this by saying that in order to actually know when the sun rose or set, one would need an expert witness to prove it, because the bits mean nothing and can be infected to give faulty information. What you need are those bits, coloured with the colour that allows them to be usable in court. This is what the witness does - he provides the reliable source to those bits. This makes whole concept of where the bits came from is just as important as the bits themselves, if not more.

Also, this article made me question what my definition of random is as well. I previously believed that random meant anything that didn't have an expected result. However, since it is important to know where the bits came from (and in this example, the numbers), then when I say a random number, what makes it truly random? I now understand that what makes that number random is not the number itself, but the way the number was generated - the colour of the number.

I disagree with the author when he says that the distinction of colour should be considered when child pornography is the topic. I think that it is dangerous by its very existence - the danger is in the bits, not the colour. My reasons for thinking this have to do with my moral values, which might be a missing key element when most people consider a topic such as this.

Patent Problems For SIlvers

Robert Silver had an idea. He used his knowledge of computers and algorithms to transform that "idea" into a functional code. This code simply takes multiple images, reduces their dimensions, and combines them in a way that, when viewed from a distance, creates a larger, target image. This code was made so that it could take any slew of images and combine them to create any given target image. Now, observing Silver's "idea" in hindsight seems painstakingly obvious to us - of course you can create an image out of smaller pictures. After all, isn't that how a puzzle works? Each piece has an individual image on it that, when combined in the right order, creates a larger, target image. All Silvers did was create the code that puts the pieces in the correct order.

The question is, was Silvers' work non-obvious enough to merit a patent? At first, I would have said no because the idea of combining a bunch of pictures to create an even larger picture seems blatantly obvious - that's what we do with puzzles, but I find myself now believing that they are patent-worthy because the code for photomosaics are now the norm, but they were not when SIlvers was creating it. Just like the blinking of the text cursor, or the drop-down file menu, those are genius inventions that seem bluntly obvious to us now, but that is only because we have been submerged into using them for so long that it seems like that is the way things should work. The point is, what may seem obvious now may not have been obvious at the time of its inventing. Something isn't obvious until it is a common occurrence, and until Silvers' endeavor with photomosaics, they were not a common occurance and thus were non-obvious enough to merit a patent.

I continued thinking about this topic and asked myself, should a code even be allowed to have a patent? My original answer was no, a code (or a method) cannot be patented. I believed that a patent needs to be assigned to something tangible, but then I got to thinking, what distinguishes a Dell from a Macbook? Given, there are some physical differences in the exterior of the laptops, but why do some people favor Dells over MacBooks? (I cringe that someone could prefer a PC over a Mac, but that's beside the point). Those who are completely incompetent on the subject of computers might favor Dell because it comes in their favorite color, but the majority favors one over the other because of the way it functions, and those functions are nothing but codes. Ultimately, the only way Apple and Dell make money is through these codes, and I guarantee that both companies have their codes secured through multiple patents. If they weren't able to patent these codes, what would happen? There would be millions of people figuring out their codes and applying it in their own devices, resulting in Apple, Dell, and all computer companies going out of business. So in my mind, a patent on a code is a completely reasonable and acceptable idea. If Apple and Dell can get patents on the codes they use for their computers, then why couldn't Robert Silvers?
This is just me thinking out loud, feel free to comment.

On a random side-note, I googled "stupid patents" and found some crazy stuff on freepatentsonline.com. Believe it or not, many of them had to do with methods (i.e. method of exercising a cat with a laser-pointer, method of swinging on a swing, method and apparatus for making a drink hop along a bar counter...the list goes on). Just thought this was interesting.