Slashdot Mirror
DoJ Following Porn Blocker Advances?
GreedyCapitalist writes "A new filter called iShield is able to recognize porn images based on the content of the image (other filters look at URLs and text) and according to PC Magazine, it is very effective. The next generation will probably be even better -- which highlights the retarding effect regulation has on technological progress - if we relied solely on government to ban 'inappropriate' content from the web, we'd never know what solutions the market might come up with. Will the DOJ (which argues that porn filters don't work) take note of filtering innovation or continue its quest for censorship?"
Since it is so good identifing pr0n I can't wait to get my first pornbot with that function to find me some more.
I see nothing in this article that the DOJ is about to do anything. This is just a review of a a product that can block some images that would be useful for some families.
I don't understand why this summary has to bring the government into this or speculate that they might do something. There's no evidence of impending censorship, no political issues at work here. It's just a review of a product. Why does Zonk continually try to troll politics on slashdot? He's turning into worse than Michael ever did.
There is no mention of the DOJ anywhere in the articles you posted.
But according to the article, it works well and doesn't filter out health-related websites. It also doesn't work for black and white images, but the majority of online porn isn't b&w. Or so I've heard.
So does it filter out Rubens
Would Michelangelo's David be filtered out
How about anatomy/autopsy pictures ?
I would RTFA but it is 404, perhaps my ISP filters out stories about filtering.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Does it work on everyone's favorite image, hello.jpg?
This guy's the limit!
which highlights the retarding effect regulation has on technological progress
In other news, today I successfully opened a can of Diet Coke -- which highlights the retarding effect regulation has on quenching thirst. Man, if I'd waited for the government to open that can for me, I'd still be thirsty now!
If only there were a more effective way to highlight the retarding effect that obsessing over the complete works of Ayn Rand has on independant thought...
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
First we shout the Govt. to get Off our backs on this issue, and when they actually fail to come up with any solutions (because we told them NOT to), we wham them for not guiding us/providing us with any solution.
What a load of cr*p !
On one hand we shout at the ineffectiveness of Govt's first real action in decades to counteract this problem (by yahoo, msn and google searches), and then we shout at them for NOT providing a solution at all.
You tie both my hands behind my back, then you blame me for not shooting at the thief !
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
...without any proof of concept.
And also, would it be possible for it to filter out everything but porn? Would make my surfing alot more pleasant.
Can I run it backwards and filter out everything that isn't porn? I'd find that more .. useful.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
I am disgusted by both the type of company that would come up with such a disturbing piece of software and by the people who desire to wield such tools.
You have to be seriously fucked in the head to want to use or force others to use something like this. There should be an automatic disqualification of the legal right to be a parent if you use this garbage.
so, kids using other operating systems don't need protection.
This thing will be ruined with false positives. Swimsuit photos, maybe pictures of animals (similar color tones), etc.
This won't go anywhere for a long time, until image recognition technology catches up.
why would anyone wanna block pr0n ?
I wonder how many hours the poor programers worked in order to test this thing :)
Looking for porn that the filter cant handle...
What those meetings must have looked like.
FTA: And we found that some oddly innocent images--in particular, "head shots" of pumpkins from last Halloween--were blocked. But overall, of blocking the images you'd want blocked.
This thing won't be deployed en masse with problems like that.. it quickly becomes uneconomical for admins to be whitelisting pictures of pumpkins.
The DOJ is going to go crazy when they learn about encryption!
So what they are really doing is trying to teach an AI morality? Does anybody know how they do this. What is the difference between a nipple and a cherry (the fruit) to a computer. In some point in the future will are goverment be able to make computeres see thier motrality and then tell them to go enforce it?
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
From 2001:
1 1126.html
http://www.isp-planet.com/news/2001/messagelabs_0
"SkyScan AP uses Image Composition Software (ICA), which decomposes an image," White explained. "It runs 22,000 algorithms and in addition to skin tone textures, it can decipher porn through other features such as facial expressions.""
In practice these tools are simply filtering by URL, then by colour gamut analysis.
Nobody seems to be caring bout the 10^5 monkeys that check every image thus making the filter work... Poor perverted animals...
My 0.02 cents
I simply don't get it.
... and you fell for it.
First we shout the Govt. to get Off our backs on this issue, and when they actually fail to come up with any solutions (because we told them NOT to), we wham them for not guiding us/providing us with any solution.
You are failing to realize that the same person is not talking in both cases. Also, while Slashdot as a whole leans to the left, the same issue can have articles written by, and about people on, both sides. The only thing that is happening here is that someone thought a discussion about a software for image identification and its future impact on us would be a good thread, and here we are.
You tie both my hands behind my back, then you blame me for not shooting at the thief!
The fallacy lies in missing that the ties hands speaker is not the same speaker as the one doing the blaming.
Make more sense now?
~Rebecca
I remember Clearswift (or whatever they were called in the day, or are now...), had a PornSweeper product years ago, which judged images based on skin-tones. Probably things have gotten a bit more sophisticated nowadays, but the principle remains the same. And there will still be a lot of false positives. Plus, people will quickly find a way to overcome these kind of filters.
All in all however, I'd rather see these kinds of initiatives than a governmental crusade against online porn, which would not only be doomed from the start, but also give a government too much control over the Internet, or the idea that they (should) have that kind of control.
Is this cameltoe porn or is it only porn if you get exited watching it?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Manager: "All right team, looks like Joe has finally come up with a fast and fairly accurate algorithim to spot those dirty old pornographic images. We will need to test it a bit first, to see what the signal to noise ratio is. We will need some test groups, though."
"Yeah, sure bob, you can run the 'barely legal college girls' tests. Janet and Simone, you check the 'hot lesbian' batches. What? Sure Ramone, you can check the 'young gay studs' test. Now, who is going to run the 'goatse.cx' tests?"
"Guys....? Anyone?"
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Does it work on everyone's favorite image, hello.jpg?
A goatse reference that is helpful and useful? Inconceivable!
I would buy this software if it could filter me from seeing that ever again.(I jest, but only slightly)
~Rebecca
*chortle*
if (percent_pink_pixels(image) >= 70%)
...
flag_as_porn(image);
endif
Step1: use silly algorithm
Step2:
Step3: PROFIT!
Zapman
One, I would hope that children viewing pornography issues is more of a state issue, not a federal government issue. I don't believe it fits in with the general welfare clause. However, they can legislate all they want for the 10 mile federal district.
I don't want the federal government getting involved with this. This is just censorship towards minors. Minors should be able to view what they please, but parents should be the ones responsible for stopping them from viewing things they don't wish for their young ones to view.
The only thing the federal government should be helping with in regards with pornography is giving grants to state governments to help stop child pornography, and by that I mean pornography that actually has real life minors in it.
Moderate me down if you wish, I just had to voice my opinion.
I don't know what the problem was with the .xxx domain idea. .xxx!
if you want to, search google with site:.xxx and if you don't, then block
simple and effective
For there to be a solution, there has to be a problem. I don't see a problem except moral panic and one groups willingness to impose their sense of morality on everybody else.
So if I build a website for close-up shots of orchids, will it get banned?
meh
I've developed a simple algorithm for checking web pages for pornographic content. It is roughly 98% accurate when fed a random page from the 'net. Here's the code so far:
bool check_porn_content(const char *url)
{
(void)url;
return true;
}
Any suggestions for further development, or licensing queries, please let me know.
I don't know how many, if any popular browsers at all, have this option, but what if there was a way to disable all image content? If all image content was disabled, wouldn't that solve all the problems of visual pornography?
Being paid to surf pr0n at work... oh, wait.
First of all, I am under the belief that it is NOT the governments job to tell us what we can and cannot see. I do not care what it is, the government should take no part in forcing its citizens to look at one topic vs another. Secondly, us as adults and responsible human beings need to start taking responsibility for things and not wait for father government to step in and tell us how to think. It is YOUR responsibility has an adult to view what you want to and if you come across something offensive how hard is it to hit your 'back button' on your browser? If you have children, it is still YOUR responsbility to censor what you find offensive so your children do not run into it.
Ugh, the more and more we fall into this mentality of relying on our government the more and more we let our freedoms and rights slip through our fingers. Please people start thinking for yourselves, and be not afraid of public opinion or the governments opinion.
It's pretty dumb. Every previous claim of this functionality has turned out to be skintone detection.
Machine vision can't even begin to start on this until you actually know what porn is, from an ontological point of view (a problem I've mostly nailed). Even then, the recognition algorithms for such won't be written for many years, and won't run on reasonable hardware for years after that. It's pretty dumb if you ask me.
...know about what happened to Bryce Coad of Zombie Linux, almost 4 years ago. Wheteher his explanation was in fact true, I don't know. But obviously, some people have thought about this long time ago.
Your 6-year-old may mistype his favorite cartoon's URL and wind up at a porn site; a 16-year-old may reach the same site deliberately
Why should the sixteen year old be stopped from looking at porn? He's over the age of consent, what's wrong with letting him look at some naked women? He's probably thinking about sex all the time anyway, that's just what teenagers do.
How will this bot be able to distinguish between images that show women how to examine their breats for possibly cancerous lumps and images that show boob? I can't see how this bot could ever be used on library/public computers if such valuable (and potentially life-saving) content is censored.
Funny how they make very effective filters for pr0n, but violence is AOK.
You can bomb, shoot, maim every night on the nightly news, but God forbid you show a naked breast...people might be harmed!
There are hypocritical cultural 'norms' in the USA.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
A year or so ago, somebody claimed to be using artificial neural networks to do the same thing. As I recall, it turned out that all they were doing was running against the URLs. Having RTFA'd on this one, I see nothing there that would indicate this bunch is doing anything other than a slightly more sophisticated categorization by URL and then scanning the uncertain ones for skin tones. If you can live with a high false positive rate, this might be acceptable -- you might like it at home, but it probably couldn't be used by a library.
I'm pattenting the following plug-in, take a photo, cut it in little pieces, change the skin tones to vivid green, make some simple random transformations, add a button: "remove fig-leaf".
:-))
If you see this, the user has just to hit the remove fig-leaf button, each element of the photo is unscrambled locally (with java or maybe javascript), and the various vignettes are shown ordered and side-by side for the enjoyment of people at work and other people that could potentially be minors in their juridiction, but clicked on the link that say that they swear (a lot, hum no i mean) that they are "of age".
I'm also patenting the process that enables an operator to distribute unlock codes for this "humanity progress generating" technology through an informal high school network, in exchange of msn tags and e-mail addresses that the operator can use later for absolutelly legal uses (at least legal in transdniestrian, the sovreign republic of turcish Cyprus and some interesting parts of laos.
Unfortunatelly I'm against business methods and software patents, so I guess I'll have to find another way to become rich beyond all dreams of avarice.
(excluding savings of course, that wouldn't be in the fun category
[ps]
--------------
This sig is a temporary place holder in case I ever decide that I need one.
Filtering out anything that isn't porn on the net is like trying to filter your Mailbox for anything that isn't spam.
:)
In other words, something you could easily do by hand. Unless that hand is busy because of the porn, of course.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
on the same Internet where a picture of slightly distorted text can defeat a script, like with a captcha?
The machine has learned to watch pOrn, when will they learn to laugh at adult joke?
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
Here's a great review of a previous generation of this kind of thing.
http://dansdata.com/pornsweeper.htm
/* FUCK - The F-word is here so that you can grep for it */
Offtopic .. but related to software that can recognize content .. oh yeah I'll tie into law enforcement too..
.. maybe it can do facial recognition too. Or, even scenery recognition (beach, house in background, night versus day .. etc.) Maybe it can learn or be taught which house is who's etc. so even that can be automagically gotten. Scenery recognition AI is very hard though, so maybe it'll just be facial reognition.
Supposedly the next version of Mac OS will have at minimum OCR built in. Meaning it will scan images for words and put them in a searchable index. Now, eventually (or maybe the next release)
Expect someday to be able to load the "top ten most wanted criminals" into your computer and see if they are in pictures taken on your last vacation (to implement image recognition would have to be able to detect objects as faces and store intermediary data about the face in some searchable index format otherwise searching would take too long if you have a mad number of files). Google image or a p2p app woud work with this well. Seems like a nice idea until all the false positives i suppose. I sure as hell wouldnt want to be harassed or arrested "for the public good" cause i look like someone.
"When there are too many porn images on a page, even the Google logo is blocked!"
= 26690&a=171720&po=6,00.asp
That's a feature?
http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,1205,l=&s
The article mentioned that shape-recognition technology is being employed. This is especially interesting because the abstract mathematics that underlie shape recognition are the same as the abstract mathematics that underlie another computational problem: decompilation.
.....} The question "To what shape do these points belong?" resembles mathematically "What high-level-language control structure does this set of machine-language instructions represent?"
Machine-language instructions are vertices. High-level-language loops, functions and similar structures are more or less complex primitive shapes {squares, triangles, circles
If someone has got it together to manage shape recognition that can detect the human form, then it cannot be long before someone else independently gets it together to recognise the "shapes" of structures within compiled object code. That will have some very profound implications indeed.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
...and lets see if those porn filters can cope with the prevalence of the colour green rather than pink.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
"In some point in the future will are goverment be able to make computeres see thier motrality and then tell them to go enforce it?"
I hate to repeat myself, but I feel it's worth mentioning here anyway (and I will add to it) - the filter is set up to filter based on the wishes of the person who installs/manages it, not legislature. It's not interpreting anything but the image, and it's not enforcing anything other than the wishes of the person who ownes the computer. This is not a big-brother issue! Sure it may be installed by government bodies in some cases, such as schools, but schools don't provide computers+bandwidth for the purpose of viewing porn, they should be allowed to automate the process of blocking it.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
My church uses Family Shield to block porn on the church computers. It also blocks the images on the Family Shield demo page :) which are supposed to be before and after shots http://family-shield.net/screenshots.html . I thought they should store those dirty dirty images in a hardware security module. Hmmm they didn't find that funny.
What I need is a classifier to organize my porn. It would be super cool if it could date them and recognize a wide selection of porn stars.
But I guarentee you this porn filter doesn't work so well on the leather/latex fetish images.
I mean, I don't want fat chicks or gay porn or anything with animals, but I do want midgets, bungee-cords and lesbians!
I welcome this new technology!
Blar.
Great. Googling "breast self examination" is going to become the modern-day equivalent of stealing a copy of dad's National Geographic to see your first photo of a boobie.
I tried this a while ago and tried in on some pictures.
There was porn (not my gf) that went unfiltered, but there were pictures where my gf was fully clothed (mostly her face uncovered, or a shirt showing some skin) which got filtered out.
It's a good idea though, but it doesn't work yet to my experience and I wouldn't trust on it at all.
This word, 'hypocritical'. You keep using it, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
You identified the very problem with such domains: they allow them to be fenced off easily. While doing so may be the "solution" to your "problem", it does indeed limit free expression.
The best solution to your problem of good sites being blocked is to not use such filters, regardless of how much the parents bitch and moan about what their children may see on the Internet while at school. School is a place for learning, and that includes learning about what some people might deem offensive.
That's all the program has to look for, it's the exact pink color we've all come to know and love.
THe story is that in 1998,Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act, which was the son of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
COPA requires web sites to take positive, reliable measures to prevent minors from accessing any "material harmful to minors", a fairly low standard (would include topless images). Measures to prevent access by minors has been taken to mean credit card verification -- i.e., unless you are requiring a credit card for access, no topless pictures or erotic stories on your web site.
Until now, the courts have prevented enforcement, saying that the govt has to prove that no less onerous option is available. In particular, the govt must prove that filtering isn't good neough, and a trial is set to start this year in Pennsylania where the govt hopes to prove exactly that. It was for that suit that they wanted all that search data from Google.
So, this does have a govt angle. The feds want to enforce COPA, and the worse they can make filtering technology appear, the better for their case.
Of course as this filtering technique becomes more widespread, the percentage of sites featuring People of Orionian Descent should go up.
-- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
Instead of trying to design a system to filter porn images based on the image, create a .xxx TLD, or trying to keep a (impossible to keep updated) list of all porn sites that need to be filtered, why don't they ask that adult content be listed in the robots.txt file: eg. "Dissalow: /" and "Adult: /" in the same file? The solution could really be just that simple.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
If you like any art that even vaguely resembles porn, this tool probably won't be installed on your computer.
I am still very skeptical that this thing actually works. I mean, does it just look for "skin tone"? Because rumour has it that black people make porn too.
Freedom: "I won't!"
My pr0n involves ch1x0r wearing spandex or rubber. The less skin visible, the better.
I guess it's not very effective, then...
Well, in this case, I look forward to our bleak-faced, magenta-skinned anime dominatrix mistresses.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
Nope, not according to the article so I guess we're ok.
This word, 'hypocritical'. You keep using it, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
What do you think it means? What word would you use then?
I meant it in the sense that Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, virtues and feelings that one does not truly possess.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Why block porn? Why would it hurt a 16-year-old to see porn if he wants to?
Le français vous intéresse?
If you happen to be someone in the porn industry, and want to get past this -- couldn't you just slice up the image (e.g. make a 4x4 grid of the image, and have it appear together on a given page) ? I bet that would stop this in it's tracks.
MODS!, how does "I'm stunned that a bit of software can both read and understand the law and interpret it exactly as a real judge would. Why isn't this amazing AI advance being reported?" even make sense?
the guy doesnt understand what the software actually does(which is very good filtering),but "interpret it as a real judge ?",IT CANT!
A real judge would decide which is porn and which is not based upon the context and human values, this thing merely filters out stuff based upon some algorithm(which i admit is good)
BUT IT DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE LAW!!!.If it truly could understand and interpret all the legal language, this thing would be more advanced in terms of AI technology than a terminator.
really, the junk being moderated up nowadays never ceases to amaze me.
I'd like to know how the filter works to filter out the porn based on the image. That's cool.
[%] Cingular Ringtones
Oh come one...This is NOT the first.
I wrote a program in 1996 to help the guys at fed.gov snoop out kiddie porn.
I simply mapped every image to see what percentage of the pixles were what colors, and them compared that to common skin tones. My apporach mostly only worked for white people (think about it - the reasons should be obvious) but it found porn images regardless of the title or contents of the page around them.
Then, to find out which images were kiddie porn, I searched the pages for references to children. (Acutally, the easier text-search came first for efficiency.)
Voilla! Instant results, but the FBI boys didn't care. I think they would rather keep their jobs surfing the web looking for illegal porn than to have a PC do that while they file forms.
Andy Out@
thats pretty much my best post ever. I spent like 3 hours typing it.
I think I can relate, except it's usually more like 10 minutes typing, and 2:50 of "Invalid formkeys" and reposting.
If we've got a program that can recognize porn based on content, can we have a program that will help geeks find good porn, instead of blocking it? Seems feasible...
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
Problems with a .xxx domain: .xxx (and what happens if someone disaggrees)
.xxx.uk would be perfectly acceptable, filters can be used for .xxx.??
.xxx domain. If your porn site doesn't generate enough revenue to get a domain, you must be doing something wrong.
.xxx accross national borders?
.xxx? (could happen, especially if the people running things are in the same camp as the "all TV must be edited before it goes on air to make sure no "wardrobe malfunctions" can happen" people)
.xxx domain for example)
.xxx domains should have the same price as .com domains. Do you have an idea how many subdomains a porn website can have? My cousin told me the other day that he found about 10 pages of google with different search terms, all pointing to the same website. I did a check and they all had the same IP. Those websites had domains like term1-term2-term3-etc-something.com. So obviously they had money to register all those domains.
.xxx domain will make it even easier for payment services like paypal and others to block adult sites (which is bad if you run an adult site operator that needs to do paymeny processing)
.xxx domain makes it easier for the anti-porn crusaders of this world to go after porn sites.
.xxx domain? Or those who just want effective blocking tools to protect their children?
.kids domain should be created specifically for sites that are kid-friendly. For example, LEGO could have www.lego.kids. Barbie could have www.barbie.kids.
.kids domain. Dude, you're treating 16 or 17-yo's like preschool children. When I was 16 I liked to learn high tech stuff, and while I accept that there are lots of underage /.'ers who love porn, there are those who don't - and sometimes teenagers need access to adult-themed information (like information on cults or war), just not porn. Or tell me, how about having slashdot.kids? Eew.
1.Who decides what is required to go under
I think the best case here would be a commitee deciding when a site is ALLOWED to have a non-xxx domain. Use xxx by default.
2.What do you do with a site like, hypothetically, www.hotgirls.co.uk (made up name)? Do you create www.hotgirls.xxx.uk and force them to move? Or do you move it to www.hotgirls.xxx? (and then what about www.hotgirls.com? where does that go?)
3.How do you deal with people having to find the sites once they move?
Header("Location: newsite.xxx");
4.How do you deal with something like (again made up) hotgirls.vhost.net or www.someisp.net/~hotgirls/?
I can bet that there would be new www.someisp.xxx domains from your ISP. If not, get a
5.Who polices the internet looking for sites that are breaking the rules (and who pays for that)
Anyone who can file a complaint via e-mail to the ICANN. They're the ones dealing with the domains, aren't they?
6.How do you enforce
The same way the US has been pushing unilateral commerce laws. Should be easy. Penalize countries with some fine whatever if they don't follow the laws. They've been doing that with copyrights and piracy stuff.
7.What do you do when decides to block
When *who*? Please rephrase.
8.Who is going to pay for all this? (the costs for everyone to get a
The website owner, who else? he's the one making money!
9.Having a
Complain to paypal and others. They're the ones blocking.
10.Having a
You mean those anti-porn crusaders who are AGAINST the
10.B. I think that a
Thank you, but I doubt sites like the IEEE or the ACM would like to open a
My point is, why the F*** are you wanting to make the NON-PORN-OWNERS (including non-profit organizations) pay for an extra-domain because something the porn-owners do? Porn is a VERY SPECIFIC commercial business, representative eno
What might work is providing sites with an exemption from some laws if they are only accessible via a .xxx TLD. For example, you could enshrine in law that a person is declaring that they're old enough to view porn in their locality if they access the site (whether the appropriate age is 16,18,21 or 185), or that content on .xxx is exempt from obscenity laws, as it's labelled as potentially obscene. By giving porn sites exemption from potentially problematic laws in return for moving to .xxx, you encourage them over.
If the goal really is to protect children and people who don't want to see porn, this sort of relaxation of regulations (possibly combined with stricter enforcement of the regulations that have been relaxed for .xxx) meets their requirements. It will move porn to the .xxx domain, simply because that lowers their running costs.
I appear to have a blog. Odd.
I'm not too familiar with more recent work, but there's a well-cited paper by Fleck, Forsyth & Bregler (1996) on using image analysis to determine whether or not there were naked people in an image. My inner juvenile always found the title kind of amusing, "Finding Naked People". Fleck also has a web page with some descriptions.
I'm not so sure about its applications, but it's certainly an interesting vision problem.
... er, arms?
.xxx domain. It would be interesting to see who and what kind of ICANN-like process would be used to vet membership, in the case of, say, two sites called "savemejesus.xxx": One could be a bonafide religious site, trying to save sinners from pr0n, the other a bonafide pr0n site. Which would be fair use?
Good points, all, in the parent.
But as I understand it the "industry" actively campaigned for the
It would make it easy for parents and ISPs to block the whole domain, and have the advantage that it would actually be harder for govenments to block, since top level domain name resolution would be impossible to quash completely. You could even distribute specialized browsers with some kind of undernet-like protocol built in to bypass regular DNS resolution.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
... my pornbot knows it when it sees it. (apologies to Potter Stewart)
there is only the door, the door, the door.
Won't this just pick up baby photos like the last five dozen attempts at recognising porn based on the image?
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
'gay porn' == homosexual porn in the USA.
Probably everywhere else.
Oh, and HACKERS BREAK INTO SYSTEMS!
hehe.
Blar.
Typing tooooo fast.
Blar.
Would someone please test it on these pictures:
s .source.jpg
Turkish bath
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/ingres/ingre
Man and Woman
or this (somewhat pretentious) Self portrait
I wonder what that new filter thinks of these.
while Slashdot as a whole leans to the left
This is a rediculous notion as the left-right scale only applies to whatever country you live in. While Slashdot is US-centric, it has a large international following. "Left" for you might mean social liberal (individualists who believe in positive freedom), while "left" for me is democratic socialist (get elected and practice marxism-leninism) -- two completely seperate ideologies which hardly are similar.
By the way, Slashdot is by far neoliberal/liberterian dominated. Rights to privacy and property-stories are wildly popular, whereas many comments that critique the government effectiveness in everything frequently get positively moderated. This says something.
We all know that calling right-wing liberalism as "left wing" is ludacris since usually it's the economic principles which dictate the left/right position, so I believe I can safely state to you that your premise is quite false.
What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
You just gave a bored hacker pedophile something to slap together next Saturday night...
Just imagine the number of images you would have to pore over to make sure that this program works correctly.
I'll bet the people who worked on this project actually wanted to be at work...
"Oh great, another one of the "Shooting to protect your life is AOK, but not property... that's different" morons. So, I guess you think no bank or art museum guard should ever carry a gun, because of course there would be no reason to use it."
... well, that takes a liberal."
:)
Where I live, (a country founded by theives), we don't have armed gaurds in banks or art museum's, amongst the few exceptions are cops and armoured car gaurds who are permitted to have them for defensive and/or deterent purposes. According to the laws of this country of theives, "self-defense" and/or "property-protection" is (by law) not considered a valid reason for owning a gun. I guess that makes pretty much the whole country morons, but we don't really care since the likelyhood of getting shot by a theif over here is very close to zero.
Before I continue to dismantle your inspired political drivel, please note that right-wing politicians were responsible for introducing sensible and strict guns controls into Australia law. Gun politics in Australia.
"Taking property is taking the portion of the victims life needed to obtain it. Taking life is taking the portion of the victim's life that hasn't happened yet. Distinguishing those
I'm sure even in the US you have something called property insurance to bring back the missing "portion of the victims life", unfortunately life insurance cannot bring back a life or knit a spinal cord back together. Now, since insurance companies can obviously distinguish between life and property, does this mean insurance companies are a liberal? Do the people who run Loyds of London know this startling fact or is the term "liberal" something you habitually label people with because you cannot mentally cope with anything other than left and right?
Whatever your politics, distinguishing between theft, murder and assult is a moral and legal question, the manner in wich it is answered goes a long way toward distingushing "the rule of law" from anarchy. You do have the right to your opinion, and you can also vote to regress your culture back to the tribal anarchy of the "wild west", but somehow, I think many "conservatives" would rather have you locked up.
"Thieves just want *stuff*, right?"
No, no, no, their prime motivation is to rape and murder your family because that's what theives do.... Occam's razors says it's more likely you are nothing but a scared little man hiding behind his gun. That my friend, is far more dangerous to the general public than a theif.
Some annoying stats to back up the merits of Aussie gun control, Australian Bureau of Statistics figures - gun deaths
Note: My original post had a question mark at the end, it was deliberately phrased as a question to signify a lack of pre-judgement. If you would like to drop the "ad-homs" and continue with a civil OT debate, I'm all ears.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Exactly. So saying "everyone should watch lots of porn" and then filtering porn out of other people's internet would be hypocritical, whereas "everyone should watch lots of violence" coupled with the same action would be "unrelated".
I was just pointing out that there was no actual hypocrisy in the cited example.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~