As the owner of a brand spanking new Canon SD1000, I unpackaged the included software and found a nifty tool called PhotoStitch. The camera itself only provides a special function which assists you in providing overlap between successive images of a panorama. The magic of the stitchery is in the desktop software.
PhotoStitch does a descent job, given its design parameters: it is intended to do the stitching largely unaided. Hugin, an open source tool for creating panoramas, requires that you specify the alignment control points. Although seemingly daunting, the task is actually extremely easy.
As one majoring in computer vision, I should understand the algorithms a little better – to be able to compare the two on an algorithmic level. What is clear, subjectively, is that Hugin is just more powerful. If it makes a mistake, i can go back and add a couple more control points and out pops a better alignment. Here below is a sample of output from PhotoStitch (software from Canon) and Hugin (open source software).
As someone who grew up mainly in the 90s, many of the societal norms I learned can be attributed to one of two main sources: Cool (e.g., Saved by the Bell and The Fresh Prince) and Uncool (e.g., Full House) TV shows. Although many positive social changes have been introduced over the last half century, as taught by mother TV, I think there are some supposed proscriptions that attempt to redefine what the dictionary already defines clearly.
For example, one might conclude that it is sexist to use the word “he” to refer to an individual of unknown gender. I have had english teachers attempt to codify a style rule for this situation, so that you use “they” to refer to such an individual; others have suggested using the more prolix “an individual” or “the person.” The problem with using “they” is that “they” is plural, where “he” is attempting to address something in the singular. The other suggestions violate the law of syllabic conservation.
“He” or “she” can certainly be used as anaphora. Why not as a generic reference? The truth is, you don’t have to reason about it: Webster already defines “he” as “used to refer to a person of unspecified sex.” By the way, “she” also includes the same definition allowing for gender-neutral references.
PS, I got the definition while reading DeGroot “Probability and Statistics”, 2nd ed.