Granted, but the analogy only works if we assume that he found drugs/a bank in his bedroom.
To make money dealing drugs/breaking into banks, one has to go out and buy drugs/break into banks. In this case, Reginaldo Silva (why his name isn't mentioned anywhere in the summary, or indeed the comments, I don't know) found the weakness, and was only then faced with the choice.
Ultimately of course you're right. Doubtless one can often make more money by breaking the law. Nothing new there. Still though, there's an argument that it would make good sense for Facebook to up the reward money.
I'd be less cynical in this particular case: it looks like a genuinely innovative bit of middle-man work, which could serve its target audience better than the current solutions. (If it doesn't, it will of course fail.)
PayPal was an innovation at the time it was new, and served its users better than anything else out there. T-Mobile's new idea looks similar: it aims to serve customers in a way banks are for some reason reluctant or unable to do.
There is a place in the world for these 'middle-men' roles.
No, all its knowledge about what constitutes a face is learned.
There's a 'training' process, where the algorithm is fed a set of images of faces and another set of non-face images, and from there the algorithm determines what features it should be looking for to determine face from non-face.
AdaBoost does face detection (is this a face?), not recognition (whose face is this?), however, so it's not quite as impressive as the algorithm in TFA, which is able to recognise lots of different types of objects.
notable in that it decides for itself what features of an object are significant for identifying the object and is able to learn new objects without human intervention
For Christ's sake. The AdaBoost face-detection algorithm - the one that everyone uses today - does precisely this, and was developed in the the 90's.
What on Earth are you talking about? If you unfairly bias your hiring choices toward hiring women, that means it's unfairly harder for a man to get the job, i.e. it puts men at a disadvantage.
I suppose a don't-hire-any-black-people policy wouldn't disadvantage anyone, either?
Because when the article was written in August 2008
I think that was mwvdlee's point. It's hard to take them seriously if they make no mention of GitHub, but do single out other rivals including Google Code.
It's their responsibility to stay up to date with this stuff. Failing to keep your web-site relevant isn't a good sign.
True but irrelevant. The purpose of the GPS trackers...
I don't see your point here.
They could do that in the 1880s by the simple expedient of asking the driver
For an individual, they could find out where you'd been that day, sure. The difference is the scale on which the tracking can be done. Tracking everyone, all the time, most certainly is new.
Well, no, you shouldn't, but companies certainly can.
Which means they set up shop (only on paper, not in real life) in a very tax-friendly country but get their revenue from the rest of the world.
Indeed. Amazon's headquarters in Europe is in Luxembourg City, which has the additional advantage of being nicely out of reach of most European consumers' lawyers. This stuff is a damn joke.
A publicly-shared company is duty-bound to blindly chase profits and, therefore, to disregard what is right. This is not a world of B-corporations.
Ideally the tax laws would actually work when it comes to international corporations, but either that's too hard, or the people coming up with the laws don't want that to be the case (or some combination of the two).
I don't doubt that credit-card companies would shaft their customers in the name of profits, but I think at least in Europe, they really do absorb the cost of fraud.
I believe in some countries in Europe, the banks (I don't know about CC companies) do security pretty well.
Slashdot Mirror
the black market might put a hit on him
If he sold it without taking proper steps to hide his identity, sure. The man's a security expert, though, so...
Granted, but the analogy only works if we assume that he found drugs/a bank in his bedroom.
To make money dealing drugs/breaking into banks, one has to go out and buy drugs/break into banks. In this case, Reginaldo Silva (why his name isn't mentioned anywhere in the summary, or indeed the comments, I don't know) found the weakness, and was only then faced with the choice.
Ultimately of course you're right. Doubtless one can often make more money by breaking the law. Nothing new there. Still though, there's an argument that it would make good sense for Facebook to up the reward money.
Good question. This oversight board clearly wasn't subject to the proper oversight.
I'd be less cynical in this particular case: it looks like a genuinely innovative bit of middle-man work, which could serve its target audience better than the current solutions. (If it doesn't, it will of course fail.)
PayPal was an innovation at the time it was new, and served its users better than anything else out there. T-Mobile's new idea looks similar: it aims to serve customers in a way banks are for some reason reluctant or unable to do.
There is a place in the world for these 'middle-men' roles.
will already have the right governance in place to assure they're not misbehaving
You mean The boss trusts them, I'm sure.
Indeed. My issue was with the poor reporting, not with the actual research.
No, all its knowledge about what constitutes a face is learned.
There's a 'training' process, where the algorithm is fed a set of images of faces and another set of non-face images, and from there the algorithm determines what features it should be looking for to determine face from non-face.
AdaBoost does face detection (is this a face?), not recognition (whose face is this?), however, so it's not quite as impressive as the algorithm in TFA, which is able to recognise lots of different types of objects.
...that's right, the the 90's...
notable in that it decides for itself what features of an object are significant for identifying the object and is able to learn new objects without human intervention
For Christ's sake. The AdaBoost face-detection algorithm - the one that everyone uses today - does precisely this, and was developed in the the 90's.
Don't bother trotting out your totally unrealistic Fibonacci sequence micro benchmarks
Indeed, it's difficult to demonstrate real-world performance advantages. From where, then, are you getting your numbers?
What on Earth are you talking about? If you unfairly bias your hiring choices toward hiring women, that means it's unfairly harder for a man to get the job, i.e. it puts men at a disadvantage.
I suppose a don't-hire-any-black-people policy wouldn't disadvantage anyone, either?
Christ, do I really have to spell it out?
Oops, forgot to sign in. Also, s/broad/vague/
You could well be right, but I don't see that any of that is relevant to my comment.
I'm no fan of PETA.
My issue is with Anything that is bad for them, I'm in favour of, which is just stupid.
Entitlement? I'm not saying they owe me anything, I'm saying they have awful marketing.
I know they're driven by philosophy not money, but still, they really ought to maintain their why-you-should-use-us page.
Great job normalising and trivialising government failure. If only everyone embraced it like you.
All he did was confirm what everyone already knew
Err, no. Hence the whole ordeal.
Because when the article was written in August 2008
I think that was mwvdlee's point. It's hard to take them seriously if they make no mention of GitHub, but do single out other rivals including Google Code.
It's their responsibility to stay up to date with this stuff. Failing to keep your web-site relevant isn't a good sign.
True but irrelevant. The purpose of the GPS trackers...
I don't see your point here.
They could do that in the 1880s by the simple expedient of asking the driver
For an individual, they could find out where you'd been that day, sure. The difference is the scale on which the tracking can be done. Tracking everyone, all the time, most certainly is new.
Also the way they put down huge numbers of animals, which on its own might be defensible, but then kinda-sorta argue that there's a moral equivalence between humans and animals.
You're in favour of "free" speech that nobody listens to
Free speech is only worth defending if there's a big audience, then?
Reminder: there is no need to defend inoffensive, non-controversial speech.
destroying things with guns
Fair point, but it's not exactly a very nasty case of it.
and lawsuits
Well, rule of law. We're not talking about suing local authorities because you tripped over a curb.
Anything that is bad for them, I'm in favour of.
How idiotic. Way to stand a well-reasoned stand, AC.
But you can't have the best of both worlds.
Well, no, you shouldn't, but companies certainly can.
Which means they set up shop (only on paper, not in real life) in a very tax-friendly country but get their revenue from the rest of the world.
Indeed. Amazon's headquarters in Europe is in Luxembourg City, which has the additional advantage of being nicely out of reach of most European consumers' lawyers. This stuff is a damn joke.
A publicly-shared company is duty-bound to blindly chase profits and, therefore, to disregard what is right. This is not a world of B-corporations.
Ideally the tax laws would actually work when it comes to international corporations, but either that's too hard, or the people coming up with the laws don't want that to be the case (or some combination of the two).
Wow AC, I bet Google never thought of that.
Their team of world-class tax-avoidance-lawyers will be kicking themselves.
I don't doubt that credit-card companies would shaft their customers in the name of profits, but I think at least in Europe, they really do absorb the cost of fraud.
I believe in some countries in Europe, the banks (I don't know about CC companies) do security pretty well.