Who's Been Walking on My Porch?

By -
I'm having trouble identifying these tracks:



Does anyone recognize them? (The boards are 2-by-8s, and the prints are about 10 inches apart.)

Comments

  1. Anonymous8:58 PM

    Racoon would be my guess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah9:35 PM

      Yeah, I've got an Audubon nature guide with a bunch of images of footprints in it, and raccoon was pretty much the closest fit. The problem is that the guide shows raccoons as having pairs of feet distinctly different in size, but the many pairs of prints on my porch don't show any difference in size at all. So I am puzzled.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous9:46 PM

      Cats have similar size rear/front paws and often have varying patterns of walk depending upon the situation. It's certainly a clawed or long-nailed animal.

      Delete
    3. gcallah10:40 PM

      I looked at bobcat as well as a serious contender, but my guide doesn't show their feet as hopping along evenly in that fashion. What about my porch would have caused a cat to hop so?

      Delete
  2. Anonymous1:05 AM

    Cats claws do not leave marks, as they are "retractable" and do not touch the ground in normal walking.

    Cat's tracks will have only four visible toes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous3:36 PM

      Yes, I understand that. I cannot see any claw marks in the picture, I made that statement based on the shape of the paws. The paws have a hand-like shape to them, which is why I thought it was a raccoon at first. I ruled out cat when I took a closer look and saw that there are 5 toes. Coyote, rabbit, and fox can also be ruled out.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Machine Learning"

By -
 The name is a misnomer. And a harmful one, because it interferes with understanding the process that is really occuring. What is really occurring is a search of a constrained program space. Let's say you want to be able to identify images of hot dogs . You begin with a plausible program for doing so, that is able to also search the space of nearby programs that might get better results on the problem. You then (in "supervised learning") provide scores that indicate how well one of these possible programs has done on solving the problem. After doing this for some time you settle upon a program that solves the problem "well enough." This is a great technique that can produce truly impressive results on a wide class of problems, such as identifying images of hot dogs. But notice that, except for the phrase in scare quotes, there is no "learning" in the description. Calling this "learning" is importing ideological baggage that just obscures what
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more