Grounded Russian Nuclear Sub Photographed With Sonar 143
Lanxon sends in an intriguing piece from Wired: "This eerie wreck image is not computer-generated. It's the sonar image of Russian nuclear submarine B-159 (called K-159 before decommissioning), which has been lying 248m down in the Barents Sea, between Norway and Russia, since 2003. The Russian Federation hired Adus, a Scottish company that specializes in high-resolution sonar surveying, to evaluate if it would be possible to recover the wreck. 'The operation was complicated as the submarine was very deep, so we had to use the sonar equipment mounted on a remotely operated vehicle' [also pictured in the article], says Martin Dean, the managing director of Adus and a forensic-wreck archaeologist. 'We also had a problem with the surveying due to the density of North Atlantic cod attracted to the sound of the sonar and the light of the cameras.'"
Pardon my pedanticism... (Score:5, Insightful)
This eerie wreck image is not computer generated.
You don't have to use 3d studio max to generate an image with a computer. I would suggest that this image is in fact generated by a computer. It's just generated from sonar data instead of an artists interpretation.
Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Also, the term "computer-generated" doesn't apply to the image itself, but the content. By your definition, even your digital camera takes computer-generated pictures.
Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, that's kind of a canonical example of a computer generated image. They had a bunch of sonar data which was put through an algorithm which resulted in a picture. People don't really seem to care what words mean anymore. It's a shame. Or, maybe it's a pancake. Doesn't make any difference to most people.
The image *is* computer generated (Score:3, Insightful)
The image is obviously computer generated; it's just computer generated from a real dataset. (Although the dataset has been coloured to separate the sub from the sea floor and a model of the sub fitted to the data so that when rendered the sub will obscure the sea floor behind the sub)
Re:The image *is* computer generated (Score:2, Insightful)
It's also obvious that the image was rendered with a point of view different from the sonar sensor. "image is not computer generated" makes no sense at all.
Re:Fishies! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't understand your logic. Hot lightbulbs are bad for moths but they're still attracted to them.
Re:Fishies! (Score:2, Insightful)
Cod are not mammals. They are stupid, don't care about sound (no echolocation gift from mother nature) and are attracted to light and disturbed ocean floor.
Re:Must have been built well (Score:3, Insightful)
wow, didnt know about s80, thanks for the pointer
i dont really see a reason for lifting the s80 though, it might have caried two nuclear warheards (it was able to cary two ssn-3 cruise missiles, some variants of which had a nuclear tip), but since s80 already has been raised once (for the investigation of the sinking), i would think the soviets would have removed the missiles at that time. So nothing really dangerous (perhaps a few tonnes of diesel fuel) remains in the s80, best let it be.
K-159 is a different story though, but wikipedia reports that the kursk has been raised and dismantled already.
Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:JUST FUCKING GOOGLE IT GOD DAMMIT! (Score:1, Insightful)
Cause clearly Google's entire existence mandates that components of a conversation that are query-like in nature all be discarded. Have you ever engaged in a normal conversation with another human? I think probably not. Normal conversations are rife with stated questions, some of which don't really need an answer.
Stop acting like such a nerd.
Re:Fishies! (Score:1, Insightful)
The good news of the TFS is that the North Atlantic cod may be coming back!
Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree. The image is computer interpreted. To imply that it's computer generated is to imply that there is no physical analog of the object the image represents.
I disagree some more. I would argue that a computer generated image is one made by a computer from non-visual data. This fits that description perfectly. CG involves images invented from geometry and textures. Sonar images obviously processed by computer, as these are, are generated from sonar data. Either way there's no image that the image is based upon.
Re:People never cared, really (Score:1, Insightful)
I present as reference "Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail". Just listen to how the French soldier pronounces it.
Re:People never cared, really (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a difference between making up new words and pronouncing old ones in a different way, and making up new words because your vocabulary sucks (anybody who says "defensed", I'm looking at you). One is evolution, the other is ignorance. Yes, both will always occur, but that doesn't mean we have to embrace both.
There's value in having a consistent way of referring to things: people will actually be able to understand each other. This discussion is a nice example of how diverging meanings can hurt understanding.
As for your example of the proper pronunciation of knight, do you mean to imply that we all should speak German? ;)