?

Log in

Confused [userpic]

June 30th, 2008 (06:46 pm)

Anyone who enjoys reading the New Scientist feed might be interested to know that there are some interesting newsfeeds from Nature. The articles are written accessibly, but given Nature is a peer reviewed journal (one of the holy trinity of high-impact journals, the others being Cell and Science) I would trust it not to make some of the mistakes that New Scientist or the Beeb sometimes make.

I can't seem to find an LJ syndication of any of the feeds (doesn't mean they don't exist). I bring this up because I've been playing with GoogleReader (as well as GoogleDocuments, but that's another story), and am pretty impressed. I think accounts are open now, but if I'm wrong and you still need an invite, I have about a million. Okay, ninety.

Sadly, this is probably pulling most of my reading away from livejournal (which is at least half made up of syndicated blogs and comic feeds; now shifted to Google), so my already occaisional reading will probably be depleted further. I was mortified to find, for instance, that I have missed a bunch of xkcd/bunny comics because I read so infrequently. If I ever upgrade my account though, I may add my flist to an RSS feed. Alternatively, I will not catch on to checking RSS's and will stick with LJ. WHO KNOWS!?!1.

Comments

Posted by: Epic Dude (morecake)
Posted at: June 30th, 2008 06:29 pm (UTC)
phonetic

Plus, of course, LJ is a bit wonky with RSS feeds sometimes. Sometimes I miss loads of entries, then get the last 6 weeks worth one after another.

Posted by: Confused (confuseddave)
Posted at: July 1st, 2008 08:32 am (UTC)
Ceiling Cat

You read language log, right? :P

Posted by: El (tropicel)
Posted at: July 1st, 2008 10:39 pm (UTC)

Look at for Nature's Daniel Cressey - I used to work with him on Pulse magazine!

Posted by: Ed Chivers (longhairedhippy)
Posted at: July 2nd, 2008 03:06 pm (UTC)

Did you get anything working with that fractal code?

It's a sad state of affairs that I'm now living my geekiness vicariously...

Posted by: Confused (confuseddave)
Posted at: July 2nd, 2008 07:17 pm (UTC)

I did. Unfortunately, manipulating the variables directly in the code is giving me headaches. I spent a long time pulling my hair out to sort out the viewer control (letting me input specific Real/Imaginary/width values), because I had hardcoded it to see the outline of the set, but eventually got it - only to find that because I'd used an integer instead of a float somewhere, I was horribly pixellated. Now that's sorted (and just to be on the safe side I converted all my floats to doubles - not sure that'll do anything except eat up memory, but might give me a little leeway when dealing with the decimal equivalent of rational numbers).

Last thing I did was to seek out this part of the set, and found that it was too bright (possibly because I was using a log10 of the escape function for looking at the outline of the set, which was a little too dark), but even correcting, the outline of the set was a big splodge (not the miniature replica shown on the wikipedia site). Most of my subsequent tinkering will be with the lookup table (currently it's set to 256 steps between black and white, my next trick will be 512 steps from black to, say, green to white, and possibly play a bit more with some non-linear functions). Unfortunately, this means more or less dismantling the last half of my code, so I'll need to make sure I have a working backup in case I want to roll back to a former system. :)

When I get home I'll upload a handful of the images (with histograms from photoshop) so you can see what I mean.

Posted by: Confused (confuseddave)
Posted at: July 2nd, 2008 07:25 pm (UTC)

I meant to mention, I'm going to try and tweak the LUT so that it picks out the definition of the fractal I linked to - even if I turn the 255th colour black, it gives me a flat outline at about the level of the light blue halo around that fractal - this will probably mean swapping that logarithmic function for a quadratic or even exponential one.

Posted by: ((Anonymous))
Posted at: January 18th, 2011 09:50 am (UTC)
provides access

Aw, this was a really quality post. In theory I’d like to write like this also – taking time and real effort to make a good article… but what can I say… I procrastinate alot and never seem to get anything done… Regards…

7 Read Comments