Severe Storm Visualization and Dr. Richardson's Lecture

Though the severe storm visualization may have been adequate for its time, looking at it now, it is evident that there are problems with the visualization. One major problem was that there was no indication that the storm had been stretched vertically so that the viewer would be able to see the details easier. Had the visualization explained this somehow, it would be much clearer. Another problem was that the narrator often referred to directions; however, the compass was only present for the first few frames of the visualization. Instead, the compass should always be visible. Additionally, the contrast between the plane and the lines (that created a grid) was too great and made the visualization slightly distracting. Further, there was also a problem with the color map that showed where the water density of a cross section of the storm was the greatest. The use of the archaic rainbow color map took away from the information the map attempted to convey. By using other color schemes on the map, the color map could be greatly improved. A major reason for all these problems is that when the visualization was created, the computing ability was much weaker than it is now. Computers were slower, and creating these types of visualizations required frame by frame creation that took a long time. Likewise, early visualizations of molecules were not perfect either. In the early 2D models of molecules, it was difficult to get a sense of depth, which was important in perceiving molecular interactions. In addition, though the earlier 3D models of molecules showed some type of depth, it was difficult to translate the models onto scientific journals and other print.
These types of early visualizations were, of course, very helpful to their respective fields in that they provided additional information that would be lacking otherwise. Since the 1980's, since our computing power has increased by a lot, we are able to create more sophisticated visualizations in much less time; back then, people were forced to draw each frame to create a visualization. Dr. Richardson's visualizations of molecules were different than the visualization fo the storm. For example, Dr. Richardson's visualizations changed due to molecular interactions, whereas the storm visualization was constant and was not altered for any other reason.

Images related to Livingston's Lecture

The first image I found is a rather popular optical illusion. This illusion is much like Livingston's example of the homogenous gray disc that appears to be shaded from light to dark because of the shaded background. According to Livingston, the center-surround cells can't tell the difference between "increasing light to the center or decreasing light to the surround." This manipulation of luminence creates the perception that A and B (labeled in the optical illusion) are two different shades of gray. I chose this particular example because unlike Livingston's example, where the shades seemingly barely differ, this illusion makes it seem like the two shades of gray are on the far sides of the spectrum. Block A looks much, much darker than block B. However, because of the manipulation of luminence, (and I verified this on MS paint) A and B are in fact the same shade.
The second image I found is related to the mosaic images that Livingston refers to. Much like the Babe Ruth mosaic image, this image illustrates how central vision and peripheral vision differ. The central vision sees the small, individual images of Simpson's characters, whereas the peripheral vision sees the overall image of Homer Simpson. These contrasting perceptions create a dual effect.

Response to Sherryl Broverman's Lecture

In my opinion, Sherryl Broverman's lecture was one of the more interesting lecture this semester. In the beginning, she referred to website called Ushahidi.com, which allows users to call in, text, or email information about a certain area. She illustrated that this is especially useful in African countries that are marked with conflict and violence. With technology such as Ushahidi.com, people can find out which parts of the country are dangerous and which parts they should not travel towards. Another website that Broverman referred to was Kiva.org, which allows people to make loans to people in Africa. I thought this was an interesting concept because usually most organizations are looking for donations rather than loans. This technology allows people to help Africans out without directly donating.
The way Broverman explained her project in Kenya seemed to be multi-faceted in that there are many projects going on at the same time. I thought it was interesting there already existed some "internet cafes" in the slums of Kibera. Broverman explained that she and her team were trying to setup a school for women that would also make use of computers. The greater the availability of information at the hands of the people, the easier it is for them to escape their life of poverty. I was surprised when she explained that an educated population of women has so many beneficial effects onthe country, including the economy.
Another aspect of the project I found interesting was that Broverman said her team was attempting to map out specific information of Muhuru Bay and incorporate on a map of the area. In fact, her team is also trying to rent a satellite to take ultra-high resolution pictures of the area so that they can distinguish the relatively wealthy and impoverished areas of the region. The team is also trying to map out a typical day in the life of a young girl in Muhuru Bay in order to figure out where they spend most of their time and how the team can help out and make everything more efficient. In the end, I think that Broverman's project was interesting in that it combined many pertinent fields, such as politics and economics with virtual reality (for example, the mapping may be done on google earth).

Mark Olson's Lecture

Mark Olson's lecture on the advancement of technology in surgery was especially interesting because he introduced a new surgical system I had never heard of before - the Da Vinci Surgical System. According to Olson, there are numerous benefits that come with this system. It seems that this system is like an upgrade of laparoscopy because it still involves looking at a screen to conduct surgery. From the videos of the system I have seen, it seems that the system improves surgery; the arms of the machine move in ways the human wrist cannot; further, the system uses binocular vision to imitate or simulate the vision of humans (this makes the surgery more "intuitive" - this vision is unavailable for laparoscopy). However, unlike laparoscopy, in the DVSS, there is no direct surgeon-patient contact; instead, all the incisions are made through the machine. Furthermore, the DVSS has many safety features that reduces the risk of the procedure as compared to traditional open surgery or even laparoscopy. However, there is some concern that by using this system, the skill of surgery may vanish. For example, surgeons no longer would have to memorize complete procedures because the system could guide the surgeon through the procedure. It also may be that there is a loss of the need for intense congnitive ability. Though this may remove some of the skills associated with surgery, in a way, it requires a different set of skills, in my mind. Also, the use of this system may lead to a new field of surgery and medicine since it is not necessary for the surgeon to actually be near the patient. What if this leads to global surgeries, where a patient can be in Nigeria and the surgeon in New York? This may open up great possibilities. Something else I found interesting was the images of surgery that compared an experienced and novice surgeon. The experienced surgeon's incisions were more compact and seemed more like a machine. This may indicate that using machines for surgery may be a better option. I think that this system has the potential to revolutionize the field of surgery; whether if it will change it for the better or the worse is highly debatle.

Thoughts on Patrick Herron and the Virtual Peace Projecy

I found Patrick Herron's lecture on simulations and his virtual peace project to be quite interesting. When Herron started talking about how "experience is simulation" and related it mirror neurons, I was drawn in because I have always been very interested in neuroscience as well of some of Ramachandran's work. After drawing this relationship ("experience is simulation"), Herron connected it to the idea the "simulation is reality." Though simulations often are less complex than reality, as Herron mentioned, I believe that simulations are close subsitutes of reality. Some examples Herron discussed inlcude: the army using mechanical horses to simulate riding horses; pilots in training often use flight simulators to practice flying (if you have used a flight simulator, you know that it isn't merely a game...it is far, far more complex); first person shooters (FPS) can be used to train military personnel (and, unfortunately, FPS trained the Kentucky school shooter, who without ever having used a gun, used the weapon with extreme precision). Herron noted that "we learn faster" through simulations rather than learning by other means.
From this point, he transitioned over the Virtual Peace Project. This seems like a very interesting idea because it allows people to practice negotiating and handling a real policy issue in a believable context. When I first heard about virtual peace, I really liked the idea because it combined the idea of virtual worlds with the idea of simulating actual problems (it is easier to see how virtual peace is relevant in our world, as compared to Second Life, where people often walk around aimlessly). The only problem I have with virtual peace is that there is no way that the moticons are proper substitutes for actual emotions and gestures. Anyone learning even the most basic negotiation skills knows that body movement and emotions are as important as the actual dialogue. However, I understand that this project was completed by a small staff with a relatively small budget; and, what they have accomplisheed is quite impressive. In any case, I look forward to using virtual peace in class.