Other Directory Sites: SeekWonder | Directory Owners Forum
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Sat Apr 10 1999 - 01:15:21
mgraffam@idsi.net
Tue, 13 Oct 1998 12:43:57 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> Doesn't this amount to saying that it is easier to remember a set
> of pictures than a set of characters or words?
Not really. A character is a picture, essentially.
If you introduce me to 15 people, and then we all go into a party with
200 other guests, I may not remember those 15 people's names too well,
but I'll recognize their faces.
Further, lets suppose that words are easier to remember than pictures.
Pictures still have an advantage .. namely, we can increase the set of
them a lot more easily than we can extend the set of characters used
in English. So even if are limited to only remembering 10 pictures,
we can get those 10 pictures out of a set of 1024; rather than say,
a 30 character phrase out of an alphabet of 26.
> I wonder why one has to restrict oneself to faces. The pictures could
> just as well be those of any (easily recognizable familiar) objects.
Sounds like it would work.. I've been considering alternative systems to
faces after realizing patent problems with id-arts, and IBM.
Michael J. Graffam (mgraffam@idsi.net)
http://www.mhv.net/~mgraffam -- Philosophy, Religion, Computers, Crypto, etc
I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not
desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.
Henry David Thoreau "Civil Disobedience"
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Sat Apr 10 1999 - 01:15:21