wongaBlog
17Apr/080

Lost in Shibboleth

University finished early a couple of weeks ago, so I headed over to the Tate Modern for the Man Ray/Duchamp/Picabia exhibition. I'd forgotten about Shibboleth, the infamous crack in the floor, and it resonated with me far more than anything by the modernist masters. It's surprisingly impressive, although the grandeur of the surrounding turbine hall probably helps, and I wandered around for quite a while, just taking in the atmosphere and people-watching. There've been accidents, so signs and attendants conspicuously warned against falling in. I took a few pictures, mainly because it was a good chance to test out Photoshop's panorama features:

Shibboleth Panorama

I didn't do a particularly good job with this one - too much vertical movement - but while merging it this evening I spotted something:

Fallen down the crack

The ghost of a soul lost down the crack? Or a bizarre artefact of Photoshop's auto-blending? You decide.

29Jun/072

Creating a panorama of Derwent Water

While on top of Walla Crag last week I took eight hand-held shots in a panorama. I hadn't played with panorama software for years, and didn't have fond memories of getting any working properly. It turns out things have improved dramatically, and much of it is free. Top of the search results was Autostitch, a free, fully-automatic photo stitcher. I wasn't expecting great results, in less than a minute it produced this:

Derwent Water Panorama (360 degrees, 8 images)

Which is pretty impressive! You can barely spot the photo blends, and the wavy orientation is to be expected without a tripod. Autostitch offers very few options, however, and I wanted to change the photo order so the lake was more prominent. After downloading three separate programs - Autopano SIFT 2.3, hugin and enblend - and spending an hour trying to get them working properly, this was the final result:

Alternative Derwent Water Panorama (360 degrees, 8 images)

It's a little straighter, and the blending is of a slightly higher quality. But the programs failed miserably when the photos were placed in a different order, even when I used a tutorial. This was probably due my lack of understanding rather than a bug, but I couldn't get it to make sense. I'm sure it's worth persevering with the complex software, but for quick, high-quality results, I can't fault Autostitch. All good fun. I'll have to try more of these.

22May/074

Panorama on Wi-fi

Written 'live', so not particularly coherent:

-----

Is anyone else watching Panorama? They're scaremongering over wifi radiation. The notorious Powerwatch just got a plug, and various permutations of 'electromagnetic smog' are turning up every couple of minutes, along with calling routers 'mini-masts'. It's pretty strong stuff - some guy just claimed it could cause chromosome damage, cancer etc. - but it's pretty appalling journalism, imho.

They're talking to many 'world-renowned experts' who are for some reason only available via the internet. They keep throwing out phrases like 'its safety is not yet proven'. Now they're talking to electrohypersensitives! This is mixing implausible but vaguely plausible health worries with very fringe ideas. There was just an odd look at a study into whether 'hypersensitives' can detect radiation gave 'inconclusive' results, which were skipped over in favour of the test subject's own personal feelings on the matter (she's installed silver foil all around her bedroom). I have sympathy with 'electrohypersensitives' in that they're clearly suffering, but from what I've read the symptoms - headaches, trouble sleeping etc.. - are generic problems that can be caused by many many things. And radiation exposure has been studied a lot. As has electrosensitivity, as people have had exactly the same fears since TV started broadcasting.

We've now got (made up) figures indicating over two million UK electrohypersensitives that - profound tone of voice - the government is ignoring. And now we're slagging off the World Health Organisation in favour of one UK investigator.

They have at least interviewed one of the (apparently) head scientists in charge of setting health limits, but poisoned the well by claiming he's a controversial figure as he testified on behalf of mobile phone companies who want to place masts in controversial areas. But the danger of such radiation is the very issue being discussed! He claims that the weight of scientific evidence is very much in favour of there being no danger, but the programme is heavily hinting that this is not to be believed. Why aren't they paying attention to the huge number of studies which show no problem? I thought this was meant to be a serious programme?

-----

I'm glad to see it's not me being sensitive: the Bad Science forums and now the front page are talking about it. They both want to know why the background of the head scientist was queried, but the Powerwatch guy was given a free ride. There's also a sensible rebuttal in today's Guardian.

14May/071

Scientology on tomorrow night’s Panorama

Panorama are tomorrow night broadcasting an investigation into the 'church' of Scientology. The 'church''s response has been to post a youtube clip of the show's reporter, John Sweeney, 'losing it' during an interview. It's not pleasant to watch. He shouts at a clearly hostile representative of the 'church' in a rather undignified way. If anybody were to get the impression from this that the reporter is biased and his investigation flawed, it's a shame. I actually don't think the clip reflects all that badly upon the reporter: it's unprofessional, but he only lost his temper and shouted. That's it. He wasn't abusive or violent, and as breaches of reporter's conduct go, it's fairly minor.

Publishing such a clip is a pretty pathetic way to rebut claims you're a brainwashing cult, if you ask me. I'm hoping this week's papers will be full of articles detailing the problems surrounding Scientology, but you don't need much more than this: imagine the concept of a religion that grants knowledge on the basis of money received. It's like Christianity refusing to tell you of the resurrection until you'd paid hundreds of thousands of pounds. Most people would immediately agree that this is clearly a con. It's obvious, and was brilliantly mocked by South Park a couple of years ago. When eventually you do reach the upper tiers, you get this:

[...]75 million years ago, an evil galactic warlord named Xenu controlled seventy-six planets in this corner of the galaxy, each of which was severely overpopulated. To solve this problem, Xenu rounded up 13.5 trillion beings and then flew them to Earth, where they were dumped into volcanoes around the globe and vaporized with bombs. This scattered their radioactive souls, or thetans, until they were caught in electronic traps set up around the atmosphere and "implanted" with a number of false ideas -- including the concepts of God, Christ and organized religion. Scientologists later learn that many of these entities attached themselves to human beings, where they remain to this day, creating not just the root of all of our emotional and physical problems but the root of all problems of the modern world.

Levels higher than this apparently allow the acquisition of superpowers. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad. This is all from L. Ron Hubbard, a man who once said "[t]he way to make a million dollars is to start a religion".

If the interview clip encourages more people to watch the show, it's definitely worth it. Scientology is revolting, and spreading the word can only help. Having read up on the 'religion', I find it an utterly repulsive organisation. I can completely understand how a decent person could be so upset by an investigation into Scientology that they would lose perspective in this way. Rolling Stone's 2006 article on Scientology is the best piece I've read on the subject. Scientology-lies.com goes much further, appearing to back up its disturbing claims with links to court records. It is difficult to get any impression other than that Scientology is a cult engaged in despicable practices that border on abuse.

Scientology isn't violent, nor is it an imminent threat to society. But it's a sinister, creeping organisation who've cowed the US media via litigation. It turns people against their families, and treats those who would leave as the worst kind of scum. Its pseudoscientific teachings say psychiatry is evil, and it uses massive movie stars to dupe the young. There was a Scientology tent at the Cavalcade festival of 2006, and genuinely interested people were being given 'stress tests' and flogged copies of Dianetics. I don't blame John Sweeney for losing it, especially when you hear of the kind of harassment he and his family suffered after he began his investigation. The further the word is spread the better.