【MILITARY】Join FEAR to earn 750 Veza every 5 minutes and exclusive content in the future! 【NEWS】Sunset City (Revamp) date to be announced. 【CITIZEN】Become a OFFICIAL Citizen! Play this game with friends and other people you invite.See all your VIP servers in the Servers tab. Thank you for helping beta test Sunset City! This badge will reward you exclusive content on the official release. This game does not sell any virtual items or power-ups.KLUG roared into their summer show season with a return to Uke’s Harley Davidson. This is our second year partnering with Uke’s and we have expanded to two full show days. There was plenty of black and orange on hand not only on the bikes, but on the new KLUG members in attendance. Several new creations were on display from new and old members. The largest of which was a custom minifig scale city layout by new member Duncan. The tall buildings, white street lights, and palm trees gave the display a Miami feel.
The city scene was dominated by the Classic Space Headquarters building. This is the place where minifigs plan their adventure and reach for the stars. Behind the building was a taste of classic space itself with several sets dating back as far as 1979!! Now that is some old LEGO. Another addition to the show was a 1/60th scale Delta IV Heavy Rocket and Shuttle Orbiter complete with booster rockets and solid fuel tank. These join John’s already impressive rocket park which includes the huge 8 foot tall Saturn V rocket and mobile launch pad. You have to see this thing move to believe it. Of course all your favorite KLUG staples were on display. The Harry Potter Experience has upgraded its Quidditch Pitch. Now you can watch Harry and the gang fly, dive, and weave their way around while trying to keep those pesky Slytherin cheaters in place. Stephen was running trains to the delight of fans and included his valley for kid level views. Here the goats had to tread carefully as there were several hungry dragons about.
The Amusement Park has grown thanks to additional involvement from the club and look for this to grow as more members add to it. Also look for Geoffrey’s patented Show In s Box (SIAB) to grow as well. A new module is in the works and should be coming to a KLUG show soon. There were several more creations on hand, but are just too numerous to list here. We would like to thank Uke’s Harley Davidson for hosting us. We would also like to thank them for expanding the show to two days. One day of Lego is fun, but two is always better. Look for KLUG to make a pit stop at Uke’s again in 2017. You can find more pics from this and other shows On Flickrcell array or multidimensional array? Which of the two is more MATLAB-friendly?Cell Array, orMultidimensional ArrayIf cell arrays are better than multidimensional arrays, how should I define the following array in cell array format:Suppose A is:which means A contains the value of some variables VAR1, VAR2, ..., VARN in a 3D space in different times.
No products are associated with this question. Depends on what you are doing with the data downstream. If you are accessing array slices of A a lot, then the cell array approach might be more efficient because it would not involve data copying to access the slices (whereas accessing a slice of an nD array does involve a data copy each time you do it). But if you need to work with the data contiguously downstream then the nD array approach might be more efficient (rather than cat-ing the cell arrays together which would involve a data copy). Obviously it depends: is all of your data numeric, or are the data types mixed? If the data is all numeric, then I'd say stick with a numeric array. If it's mixed, use a cell array.EDIT (more explanation): There are lots of functions designed to manipulate numeric data stored in an array (all of the operators, mathematical functions, etc.). If you store your data in a cell array, you need to convert back to a numeric array every time you need to calculate, say, the mean of your data.
I cannot think of any functions that operate on cell arrays of numeric data that don't also operate on numeric arrays of numeric data. Also, cell arrays introduce lots of opportunity for hard to find typos (like typing myCell(1) instead of myCell{1}).You should use cell arrays only when you really have to. That is when you have data of mixed type or arrays of different sizes. Otherwise, stick with numeric arrays. Cell arrays have significant overhead and they are slower wrt do a double nD array but they can mix datatypes. MATLAB and Simulink resources for Arduino, LEGO, and Raspberry Pi Discover what MATLAB® can do for your career. Opportunities for recent engineering grads. Choose your country to get translated content where available and see local events and offers. Based on your location, we recommend that you select: . You can also select a location from the following list:Just a few weeks before the Paris car crash that killed Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed, the Mirror, a London tabloid, published a picture of the glamorous new couple romancing on a boat, leaning toward one another, apparently about to kiss.
It was all so provocative. In fact, though, that kiss never happened. The picture had been digitally altered; Dodi's head was rotated slightly to make it look as though a smooch was in the works. This article has been reproduced in a new format and may be missing content or contain faulty links. to report an issue.The technical wizardry of this manipulation will impress few Synapse readers. Anyone who has spent five minutes fooling with imaging software knows how simple such tampering can be. Programs such as Photoshop may be the single best emblem of the immense new – and eminently abusable – power conferred on humanity by the digital revolution: With a little will and some patience, virtually anyone can do virtually anything to a photograph. Had the editors so desired, they could have shown Diana painting starbursts on Dodi's chest, with Boris Yeltsin standing right behind them, pinching Diana's butt. But that's not the type of thing most editors do with Photoshop. What they do is far more subtle and insidious.
Take the case of Rebecca Sealfon, winner of this year's United States National Spelling Bee. Naturally, she was elated the moment she won. The Associated Press distributed a photograph of an exuberant teenager screaming for joy and waving her arms in the air. Hanging down in front of her ruffled white blouse was her large entrant placard. New York, New York This meant simply that Sealfon was entrant number 140, and that the New York Daily News was her sponsor for the event. A curious thing happened, though, when the picture appeared the next day in the New York Post, a Daily News competitor. The "140" was a lot bigger on the placard, and the phrase "Daily News" had vanished. This excision is so petty and insubstantial, one might convincingly argue that it belongs in the Who Cares file. But I think it's a significant symbol of what photographs are becoming in the wired world, and of the havoc that high-tech editors are already beginning to wreak on the institution of photojournalism.
Clearly, "photofiction," as some call it, is potentially provocative even as an art form (though there is plenty of room for skepticism here too – turning an ordinary photograph into a hallucinatory gallery of disassociated images does not automatically make it art). As a new journalistic tool, though, it is highly suspect. People look to photographs as quasi-objective representations of firsthand data, as a form of verification or proof. As soon as the essential integrity of a photo is undermined, so is the relationship between the news provider and the news consumer. Obviously, there is no justification for an editor digitally repositioning subjects in order to give the false impression that a kiss or slap or snub is taking place. But I would argue that the manipulation needn't be nearly so flagrant in order to be unethical and damaging. When untidy or unappealing objects are cleaned up or removed, the essence of that photo also quickly disappears. The unspoken contract between the photographer and the viewer is broken.
The photo is no longer a glimpse of the scene. It is now an illustration: an interpretation with selective facts, categorized in a particular way, with some details highlighted, many others simply obliterated. There is no such thing as true objectivity, of course, in photography or any other medium. By its nature, a photograph is an incomplete and therefore slanted picture of reality – a stylized depiction that represents exactly what the photographer wants you to see, and no more. Each photograph is like a story, and we have to remember that behind every story is a storyteller. It's also worth recalling that conventional photo-manipulation has been around as long as the camera. Cropping alone is a powerful tool, and there are plenty of basic darkroom techniques for removing or altering aspects of any photograph. Surrealist art photographers like Jerry Uelsmann have captivated colleagues and collectors for decades by creatively embedding exotic foreign images into natural landscapes.
Thankfully, though, Uelsmann doesn't try to pass his work off as reality. Nor is he under pressure to spike up sales on the newsstands. But in photo editors' hands, this new digital sandbox threatens to cheapen journalism and even further undermine news consumers' confidence in the media. By making dramatic manipulations simple to effect and difficult to detect, photofiction threatens to exacerbate the climate of distrust. Fortunately, there's an easy antidote, in the form of a full-disclosure proposal by former New York Times Magazine photo editor Fred Ritchin. Ritchin has developed a new icon, a tiny crossed-out camera lens, which he would like to see affixed to any published photograph with digital alterations. Whether or not Ritchin's proposal catches on, there is likely to be one beneficial byproduct of the digital poisoning of photojournalism. Sooner or later, the mass consumer audience will catch on to the manipulation, probably through a major celebrity scandal. When they do, consumers will permanently say goodbye to their image-naiveté.