Reply to comment
Yes, we know!
September 4, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 9 weeks ago
Comment id: 31791
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
Pattern recognition program is only as good as your test data set. Good data sets are hard to come by, that is why there is always errors in computer recognition. It is also why a small sample size can not describe the entire population. These professors are just stating the obvious. Anyone that is in the pattern recognition field knows better methods for recognition like multiple Gaussian or a combination of methods. To say that the entire methodology is worthless is a bold statement. As each method is tailored to a specific task. Prof. Gustafsson's issue is with the data set(s), there is nothing wrong with the methods. Can i have my 5 minutes back now.