<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bio-Image Informatics Workshop, Santa Barbara, Jan 17-18.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://inperc.com/blog2/index.php/2008/01/21/bio-image-informatics-workshop-santa-barbara-jan-17-18/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://inperc.com/blog2/2008/01/21/bio-image-informatics-workshop-santa-barbara-jan-17-18/</link>
	<description>Computer vision, image analysis, and related mathematics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2011 13:25:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mario Vigliar</title>
		<link>http://inperc.com/blog2/2008/01/21/bio-image-informatics-workshop-santa-barbara-jan-17-18/comment-page-1/#comment-65</link>
		<dc:creator>Mario Vigliar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:38:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inperc.com/blog2/2008/01/21/bio-image-informatics-workshop-santa-barbara-jan-17-18/#comment-65</guid>
		<description>I think you&#039;re right in making such a consideration. But the hope for generality is a common sense in every science that could be someway related to human being: just imagine AI, for a simple example, where we can identify a bunch of simple and singular difficult problems (taxonomy, elastic matching, contextualizing and de-contextualizing, language deformation and so on...) but AI researchers are still working to *global conscience* or *digital conscience* projects...

I&#039;m involved in Computer Vision research (mostly for industrial quality control) and also I teach Robotics/CV @ University, and the first thing I say when I start the first lesson to the class is: &quot;PLEASE, forget to be human! When you think about your eyes, your mind and your capability to solve a problem, PLEASE, just take examples, not rules. Human capabilities to go deep in a problem and subdivide it in simpler task is a thing we haven&#039;t still realized in silicon, so PLEASE, keep it simple and stupid!&quot;.

I wish someone had listened to my words...at least once!

Compliments for your blog and other activities, I&#039;ll follow your news more often. Bye.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you&#8217;re right in making such a consideration. But the hope for generality is a common sense in every science that could be someway related to human being: just imagine AI, for a simple example, where we can identify a bunch of simple and singular difficult problems (taxonomy, elastic matching, contextualizing and de-contextualizing, language deformation and so on&#8230;) but AI researchers are still working to *global conscience* or *digital conscience* projects&#8230;</p>
<p>I&#8217;m involved in Computer Vision research (mostly for industrial quality control) and also I teach Robotics/CV @ University, and the first thing I say when I start the first lesson to the class is: &#8220;PLEASE, forget to be human! When you think about your eyes, your mind and your capability to solve a problem, PLEASE, just take examples, not rules. Human capabilities to go deep in a problem and subdivide it in simpler task is a thing we haven&#8217;t still realized in silicon, so PLEASE, keep it simple and stupid!&#8221;.</p>
<p>I wish someone had listened to my words&#8230;at least once!</p>
<p>Compliments for your blog and other activities, I&#8217;ll follow your news more often. Bye.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

