Slashdot Mirror

I don't think that the way in which you meet a person matter nearly as much as how the two people choose to behave towards each other. It's a long series of compromises on one side or the other or ideally on both sides.

A lot of people hunger to meet that "perfect" mate, but that mindset is a little silly, how could anyone personify such a fantasy? The "perfect" mate is a caricature, not a person, because real people have flaws. Good relationships can work on problems or work around problems, but if the people involved are holding out for perfection they don't work as hard at it.

I completely agree that differences aren't necessarily a bad thing, differences between people can add additional perspective to the relationship. If they learn to appreciate each other's differences, the couple can gain as a whole.

Yes.

Until relatively recently, 3 large wireless companies completely dominated the market. there are 3rd party offerings in urban areas that have largely been crippled by regulation favouring the large incumbents. Mobilicity (now telus), Wind, and Public Mobile recently Withdrew from their own lobbying organization claiming they were also in the pocket of the big 3.

“It has been evident for quite some time that, rather than being a true industry association which represents the views of all players regardless of size, the CWTA has instead largely been an advocate for Rogers, TELUS and Bell, and often directly contrary to the interests of new entrant wireless carriers” said Bob Boron, General Counsel and Senior Vice-President, Legal & Regulatory Affairs for Public Mobile.

The CEOs of the big 3 mobile companies tell their shareholders proudly that they consistently have the highest revenue per customer in the world. This is not in dispute. However, when pressed to justify such high priced plans, they use the same hackneyed mantras of: sparse geographic distribution, threat of netflix and streaming services, and supposed customer satisfaction, which are largely corporate marketing spin repeated year after year until it's true.

Recently, all 3 new entrants in the urban wireless market became up for sale, and Telus is intending to buy Mobilicity, and Rogers is attempting to purchase the spectrum originally allocated by the CRTC to new entrants to increase market competition.

Canadian wireless service has less choice, higher prices, offering fewer services and typically lower bandwidth caps, thanks to collusion from the large telcos. It's a caricature of the US market.

Ignoring the fact that this is an Apple advertisement, and awesomely stupid; If the idea is to get good photos...then choose the phone with the best camera. Personally I love the fact that suddenly journalists who I never liked, over reporters who I do, can no longer spew whatever propaganda they have been paid for that I am forced to digest...they are suddenly no more relevant than a blogger(or whatever term is popular today), who are on mass decidedly more honest. Now if only TV news was as easy to end.

Personally though I love the idea of spiderman on the dole queue and superman taking iPhone lessons because holy mother of mary I could not sit though another reboot of lets face it a raped caricature of their former self, and maybe....just maybe I can have a squeal to Dredd 3D.

My Prius uses Pirelli P4's sized P195/65 R15, so they aren't that skinny...they wouldn't look out of place in any other car of its size. They are a decent all around tire, and not the hard "eco" tire that you caricature.

Hopefully they make lots of noise and spend a lot of money taking HuffPo to court, PETA has become a caricature of itself. I can't believe they are still around.

When liberals quote science they use one word, "STAPH".

As in the bacteria? I'm sorry but huh??

Many environmentalist believe man went wrong when he discovered fire. They will not be satisfied until humans are back to living in trees and not burning anything. Mankind is unarguably bad for the natural environment because we are, wait for it, UN-natural. Unless some powerful outside force comes along and constrains us mans rule and destruction of the Earth will continue until some apocalypse destroys us all.

Have a nice day.

I'm not a huge fan of a lot of self-described environmentalists, but you're describing a complete caricature. And the environmental policies that were the actual topic of discussion not only made a big difference for the environment, but also long term economic impacts.

Star Trek was never as good as you remember. It was never about "ideas," it was never "sci fi" in the narrow definition presented above, it was never NOT a caricature, and the reason it was never "cool" is because it was a plodding, meandering mess with shitty dialogue and poor production values.

True. False, true, true, true.

It really was about ideas, about building a better future, learning to put aside childish things, all that jazz. But you're also correct that it was never put together very well. This persisted into TNG, and didn't really change until DS9. That show had problems other than production value, though.

News flash: Star Trek was never as good as you remember. It was never about "ideas," it was never "sci fi" in the narrow definition presented above, it was never NOT a caricature, and the reason it was never "cool" is because it was a plodding, meandering mess with shitty dialogue and poor production values.

Not that I disagree with you, but since there is a very widespread ideal notion of what Star Trek was, it seems like someone would have the vision to try to make that ideal real.

But no, let's just take some generic Hollywood pablum, stick some names from a popular franchise on it so it will sell, and leave the thinking for someone else.

-- science fiction is defined so narrowly that pretty much the only thing that qualifies is technical documentation;
-- old guys whine about the "perversion" of Star Trek into some sort of "jocky action film"
-- People miss the fucking point by 3 country miles.

News flash: Star Trek was never as good as you remember. It was never about "ideas," it was never "sci fi" in the narrow definition presented above, it was never NOT a caricature, and the reason it was never "cool" is because it was a plodding, meandering mess with shitty dialogue and poor production values.

If you don't like the new movies, that's fine, but stop pretending like the old Star Trek was some sort of masterpiece. It wasn't. The fact that geeks like it is more a testament to its imaginative world building than to its rigorous scientific accuracy, devotion to ideas, or fair & balanced treatment of characters. Maybe the reason you liked the boring old series so much and can derive no joy from a departure from the original formula is because you're boring, too.

And full disclosure: I watched the original & tng, and have seen most of the movies. I'm quite familiar with Star Trek, and I always enjoyed it - but I never reached the level of zealous worship apparently required to be a "fan." Christ, people. Get a grip. It was fine entertainment, but it was far from perfect, and wasn't as good as you like to remember it - that's nostalgia at work.

It's caricature, not satire.

Have you ever tried to have a conversation about environmental topics with a non-scientifically-literate Green? It's a religion for a lot of them. Sure, they'll say they just believe the science, but they don't even know what it says, and they mostly get a pass because they agree with the basic thrust of the scientific consensus. The problem is that those are the people who actually go out and make people not believe in global warming - because they're fanatics who go into a shrieking rage when anyone disagrees with them or even questions them on minor points, which rather makes the whole thing sound like poorly-defended bullshit regardless of how good the actual scientific evidence is.

A simple example, though on a slightly different topic. Go ask the average "environmentally conscious" person why Styrofoam is supposed to be a bad thing. They'll probably tell you that it takes up too much space in landfills. The US has plenty of landfill space, and Styrofoam is as close to inert as we can come up with. I'd happily live on top of a former Styrofoam dump. No, the reason that Styrofoam was originally considered bad - the reason we were supposed to stop using it - was that it was blown into foam with CFC's. That hasn't been the case for ages, but you still see places that think it's green to use paper instead of Styrofoam cups, even though Styrofoam is a better insulator and requires much less energy to make and transport.

The patent isn't on automatic generation of the caricatures, it's on their particular algorithm for doing so.

-jcr

To find out that the mo-cap I've done with standard web cams to create game sprites and do digital lip-syncing since the mid 90s isn't infringing just because I can use a Kinect for an input will cost millions...

My apologies - I am not well versed with the US patent process but I thought that the detailed description saying:

"Described herein are systems and methods for cartoon face generation. In one implementation, an exemplary system generates a cartoon face from an original image, such as a photo that portrays a user's face. The style of cartoon face resembles the likeness of the person portrayed in the original photo more than cartoons generated by conventional vector-based cartooning techniques. The cartoon faces thus achieved render an attractive facial appearance and thus have wide applicability in art, gaming, and messaging applications in which a cartoon, avatar, or action figure is desired that captures the user's appearance with a pleasing degree of realism but without exaggerated comedy or caricature. For example, a user can insert a cartoon or graphic of the user's own face into a game or an instant messaging forum. The exemplary system achieves pleasing cartoon faces by applying pixel-based methods separately to some parts of the cartooning process. "

pretty much described a method of generating a cartoon image from a picture - hence the suggestion of prior art.

So instead of drawing a cartoon face yourself, which is something everyone can do...

Not everyone can draw a plausible caricature of themselves. Try it sometime.

Long time back, Microsoft Research China released an IM client for low bandwidth video chat at dial-up speeds. (less than a 15K modem)

It's just like the horror that is Microsoft Song Smith, where Microsoft wanted to automate the "tedious chore of composing music" by letting a computer generate tunes instead.

Not stupid at all.

The most obvious practical application would be in video games, where synching art, animation, music, audio and visual effects to the player's actions without odd incongruities and obvious repetition is a major problem and expense.

Songsmith is just a cheap ($30) little program obviously aimed at the casual or party game market to allow people to experience what it is like to be a singer with a backing group. It is not intended for serious use or to replace real musicians. If that had been the intention then they would have priced it much higher to compete with Band-in-a-box.

Similarly, this cartoon drawing system is not part of some plot to put real artists out of work. It is designed to incorporate stylised caricatures within games or for generating avatars.

The patent isn't on automatic generation of the caricatures, it's on their particular algorithm for doing so.

-jcr

I am sure I have seen those "photographic" type booths in service stations that do cartoony caricatures of people - are these not prior art? and what about avatars for forums - does Microsoft now own the patent on these? What about services like befunky? http://www.befunky.com are they now going to have to pay MS a license fee for continuing to provide services?
 

You do realize that the clerk was a caricature of the ridiculous idea that she was somehow oppressing the innocent budget conscious consumers there, right? Taking the side of the "wholesale non-cents" guy in this case just weakens your argument, because that argument is being presented AS A JOKE, because that argument is STUPID.

So, to explain it slowly so that you might understand -- the whole point of that cartoon is that it is the douchebags with the pockets full of pennies that are wrong, and that the clerk is actually reasonable, and that the douchebags are so unaware of their douchebaggery and so blind to their self-centered entitlement that they think the clerk is being unreasonable.

It's like when Homer Simpson does something obviously and extremely ridiculous -- you're not supposed to sympathize with him. Or, let me guess... You think Colbert is actually a right-wing television pundit? Are you one of those?

What should I do, o speaker for the "other people having a say in [my] choices"?

Well, first you should reflect on why you felt the need to take my argument to a ridiculous extreme and then attack that caricature. Are you simply unable to counter my actual words, yet feel the need to oppose them due to a vested interest or emotional attachments? Was it a semi-conscious reflexive action on your part, rather than considered one? Do you consider this a form of tribal conflict, where positions on various issues mean little besides serving as identifying banners?

After you've determined the reasons your resorted to a (very clumsy) strawman argument, you can decide how to deal with the matter - perhaps you need to stop deceiving yourself, or perhaps you need to study rethoric. I can't say which, since I don't know you, but I can say that right now you come across as a moron - either for thinking you're making a valid point (you're not) or thinking you're fooling anyone (you're not).

You cannot call this 'sedition' and still claim to follow the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. The Second Amendment is specifically designed for exactly the purpose the NRA are stating - this is patriotism, not sedition. As far as the US Constitution is concerned 'sedition' is essentially that activity the current US Administration is undertaking whereby it is bypassing the legislature to enact 'Executive Orders' that achieve anti-Constitutional goals. Of course many in the US don't see or notice this because they mainstream media appears to supporting the bypassing of the Constitution when it doesn't align with their goals (which are socialist in nature - they talk about 'individual freedom' but are actually all for the Government dictating what is 'politically correct' for you to do; this is the anti-thesis of liberty for the smallest minority of all, the *individual*).

I used to be a believer in gun control except the NRA pointed out how anti-Constitutional this is (and I strongly support the US Constitution, despite not being a US citizen). Then we have more practical matters, such as the fact that of the gun deaths each year 2/3 are self-inflicted suicides (if guns were not available then these people would still find a way, perhaps even more messy). Of the remaining ten thousand or so tragic deaths it is pretty safe to say there are *none* committed by NRA members. In fact, most of the deaths are caused by handguns (not by AR-15 and the like) and by criminals who have no license for the weapon (so adding more laws simply won't change that figure). What is really amazing and not reported in the media, is that good people with firearms prevent over *one hundred thousand* instances of crime because they present a firearm in their own defense (with around 2% of these weapons actually needing to be discharged). You must ask yourself, why are the media not reporting the true statistics? why is the Obama Administration not reporting these true statistics, that in a cost-benefit analysis the Second Amendment saves more lives than are taken by criminals with unlicensed weapons? why isn't it emphasized that murderous rampages are only stopped when someone, usually citizens, shoots the madman dead? why should police have a monopoly in defending citizens who are keen to defend themselves (and would rather the police arrive to interview the surviving gun owner than merely investigate the bodies left by armed criminals)? why are the statistics not used for sensible and well-informed debate?

The answer comes back to this, the current Administration is exploiting tragedies to further its agenda in disarming the populace. Once the populace is disarmed they cannot resist the will of the Government. Instead of the citizens being the masters and the Government implementing the will of the people (or their representatives) the situation will be reversed (the citizens serve the Government). The NRA are probably much more aware of history than you are. When Hitler, Stalin etc got into power one of the first things they do was disarm the population. Socialists always do that, because it means the populace has no effective means of resisting the socialist Government. The NRA are correct in this debate and have history and the US Constitution on their side. Can you bring yourself to admit that perhaps some rednecks know more history than you do and perhaps understand the implications of the Obama Administration's "think of the children" agenda to dismember the Constitution? Amazing isn't it? So, if you care about preserving the current liberties in the US (you know, what Conservatives like to do, despite the caricatures the leftist media present to you) then perhaps you could at least listen to the arguments the NRA is making, before dismissing them as ignorant rednecks.

Here's an article by the genius economist Thomas Sowell who goes over the cost-benefit analysis of personal firearms in US society:

I am a technologist. You are an idiot. I serve no master save myself; you serve any master that will have you.

There's something mentally amiss with a large swath of the population here. They call others "fanbois" (with the extra-gay 'i' for good measure), but all they do is spew hatred for the things they don't like.

We're all supposed to be nerds here. Android is awesome, Linux is awesome. But so is Windows and Macs and iPads and all that. And if you happen to simply like something that is not sanctioned by the holy order of a minority here on Slashdot, you're the "fanboy"!

Nerd/geek is supposed to be all about being excited about tech (or other things, but quite commonly tech). I don't understand why all the negativity. I get that there's going to be rivalries to some extent, but here (and a few other places, like Engadget and Google+), the Linux/Android fans are like absurdly exaggerated caricatures of the supposed Apple "fanbois" they are always complaining about!

This even goes to the extreme of Linux enthusiasts hating Ubuntu, or Android fans calling the Raspberry Pi useless. What the hell guys?!