The tool doesn't tell you if a photo is faked, it just analyzes whether there are light sources in the image that are not affecting different objects in the image the same way. From what I can tell it tries to tell if the way the light hits different objects in the picture "agree" with one another based on the position of the object, color, and probably other attributes not detailed in the article.
If the photographer is controlling the light at all, using off-camera flash, focusing their light on some parts and blocking it from others, etc, then there would be components of the image that deliberately don't match when it comes to the lighting. People do that all the time, both deliberately and accidentally, when lighting a photo.
Because the photographer has deliberately put a light on the subject that isn't hitting other elements, background, objects, the same way as it's hitting the subject.
So it seems like the analysis would work great for cases where the light is ambient, and should affect all objects in the frame relatively the same. Otherwise it'd have a bad day.
You didn't take the extreme far enough - I should really snuff myself out rather than just living a natural existence if I really gave a damn about conservation.
Ok that's fair enough MP4 wasn't the iPod specific part of the change. But the point that MP4 was part of the package required to support the iPhone still stands. If you're transcoding your content to a format supported by the iPhone, and opening a loophole specific to the iPhone, it's pretty blatant that you're doing work to support that particular device.
Being the only handheld device the BBC supported would be a pretty nice perk for the iPod in the market. Something Jobs would be willing to pay for I'd imagine.
Again, I didn't say we shouldn't improve production. Saying we should use another method of production is not saying we don't need to improve production. I said we should both improve production from renewables, AND limit consumption. Did you read the post that The End Of Days (1243248) was replying to?
The emphasis on nuclear creates a different set of problems than an emphasis on other renewables. Neither are magical solutions to the problem of increased demand for energy as populations expand and have access to increasingly energy hungry consumer goods.
To quote from the linked article:
"The Bush administration has ear-marked $20 million in its 2009 budget toward the US Department of Energy's efforts to design nuclear power plants in the 250-to-500 megawatt range as part of its Global Nuclear Energy Program (GNEP)."
If nuclear is a reality right now, why does the government need to invest money in it? Clearly this is R&D for an improved or more focused nuclear technology, right? So why not use the R&D money to improve another technology?
And if the argument is that because something is a current technology it therefore trumps an emerging technology, then let's just keep using coal.
Conservation is a pay me now or pay me later scenario. Unfortunately it takes a relatively educated populace who feel ties to a community and therefore don't have an incentive to screw their neighbors to actually take action. None of which requires a stick/gun motivator by the way. Unless you go around being a complete prick to your friends and shitting in their houses, the concepts are already there for you. It just takes the massive conceptual leap of extending this beyond your immediate circle to society as a whole. I know, not cool, and no one will ever buy into it. Perhaps someone who doesn't live in the US could chime in with examples of a functional society where people deliberately make personal sacrifices to benefit the greater whole, without someone sticking a gun in their back to do so? Anyone?
So the implication there is that nuclear is practical and wind and solar are not? And neither of the things I said in my original post were fantasies. They just take different strategies for realization than throwing a bunch of nuclear reactors at the problem.
Awesome assumption. Every light in my house uses a CFL. I've replaced all the windows in my house with efficient ones just this past year and am in the process of improving the insulation in the roof and walls. After that I'll be replacing the furnace with a more efficient one, or going with solar heat. I still have to figure out the cost/benefit on that one.
I participate in my local power company's alternative energy program, where I pay a premium to that a percentage of my power is purchased from "clean" generation sources. I ride the train to work about 3 days a week in the winter, and ride my bike in the summer, rather than driving a car. I still drive it when it's "necessary" but I try not to.
On the whole the short term costs to me for all of the above will take decades to recover. So on the whole I have cut my consumption. I could cut it more. But I also never specified HOW people should reduce their consumption. I said more efficient devices. So you still use your stuff the same time you do now, it just uses less energy.
Actually neither the silly nor the unsilly part of me is assuming that reducing consumption should be a priority over improving generation. Re-read my post. First thing I said was we should improve generation facilities. I just specified two forms of generation that aren't nuclear. Improving efficiency and reducing consumption was the second point in my previous post.
I'm not making some environmentalist, or hippie anti-materialist argument. Consumption is going to increase as population increases, and because people, in the US anyway, want more stuff. But that doesn't mean you can't dump research money into improving energy generation forms like solar and wind. The improving efficiency curve for generation on either of those hasn't hit the plateau yet, and we should keep pushing it.
Or we could just focus on improving the efficiency of solar and wind power generation. And lowering the power consumption of the everyday devices we use. Oh but I forgot, reducing the amount of power we use doesn't make anyone money. So silly of me.
You'd have to guess that Apple cut a deal with the BBC to corner the market right? If the BBC are actually converting to MP4 there's some pretty explicit support for Quicktime and Apple visible there, so I would imagine some cash or other considerations changed hands.
That the implementation opened a door for all Linux users is pretty funny though, I can't expect that will last.
So they can run an advertisement that I don't see that has my name on it?
When ads are outlawed, only outlaws will have ads. It's madness I tell you. Madness.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Fahrenheit may not be insane, but it's a pain in the arse to work with. Any decimal system is just easier for the average person to work with.
That this is a result of a cultural bias towards base 10 for mathematics is pretty much irrelevant. If there were a cultural bias toward another base, then that would be the "easiest" base for the average person to understand, as it is now, base 10 wins. Within Western cultures at least, where base 10 is dominant for nontechnical applications like counting.
Same goes for measurement in cm vs inches - ask the average person "Which is bigger, 11/16ths or 43/64ths?" and you'll be met with blank stares. Ask the same person whether.688 or.672 (the rounded equivalents of the previous fractions) is larger, and they will answer instantly. And sure you can render inches in decimals, but they don't break up nicely up the scale from inches to feet to miles the same way mm to cm to m to km do.
Is training software to recognize objects, or using them for AI verification, to improve AI for robots.
Have a simple validation method, button or voice prompt, tied to the recognition that lets it learn, wear them around for a few months and watch your AI system grow exponentially "smarter." Or at least better trained. Once you have a system that agrees with the average human's perception of their environment, your robot's got it made.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, the original article is from the UK Sun, which is pretty much equivalent to the Weekly World News or any other made up tabloid. Gizmodo linked to it and has since retracted their reporting because the article is false. http://gizmodo.com/5637203/drunk-email-to-obama-gets-british-teen-banned-from-america-for-life Way to believe everything you read on the internet.
Title on previous post should have read "Faked vs. non-uniformly lit"
The tool doesn't tell you if a photo is faked, it just analyzes whether there are light sources in the image that are not affecting different objects in the image the same way. From what I can tell it tries to tell if the way the light hits different objects in the picture "agree" with one another based on the position of the object, color, and probably other attributes not detailed in the article. If the photographer is controlling the light at all, using off-camera flash, focusing their light on some parts and blocking it from others, etc, then there would be components of the image that deliberately don't match when it comes to the lighting. People do that all the time, both deliberately and accidentally, when lighting a photo. Because the photographer has deliberately put a light on the subject that isn't hitting other elements, background, objects, the same way as it's hitting the subject. So it seems like the analysis would work great for cases where the light is ambient, and should affect all objects in the frame relatively the same. Otherwise it'd have a bad day.
My "distress finger" always seems to provoke an angry response though...
You didn't take the extreme far enough - I should really snuff myself out rather than just living a natural existence if I really gave a damn about conservation.
Ok that's fair enough MP4 wasn't the iPod specific part of the change. But the point that MP4 was part of the package required to support the iPhone still stands. If you're transcoding your content to a format supported by the iPhone, and opening a loophole specific to the iPhone, it's pretty blatant that you're doing work to support that particular device. Being the only handheld device the BBC supported would be a pretty nice perk for the iPod in the market. Something Jobs would be willing to pay for I'd imagine.
Again, I didn't say we shouldn't improve production. Saying we should use another method of production is not saying we don't need to improve production. I said we should both improve production from renewables, AND limit consumption. Did you read the post that The End Of Days (1243248) was replying to?
The emphasis on nuclear creates a different set of problems than an emphasis on other renewables. Neither are magical solutions to the problem of increased demand for energy as populations expand and have access to increasingly energy hungry consumer goods.
To quote from the linked article: "The Bush administration has ear-marked $20 million in its 2009 budget toward the US Department of Energy's efforts to design nuclear power plants in the 250-to-500 megawatt range as part of its Global Nuclear Energy Program (GNEP)."
If nuclear is a reality right now, why does the government need to invest money in it? Clearly this is R&D for an improved or more focused nuclear technology, right? So why not use the R&D money to improve another technology?
And if the argument is that because something is a current technology it therefore trumps an emerging technology, then let's just keep using coal.
Conservation is a pay me now or pay me later scenario. Unfortunately it takes a relatively educated populace who feel ties to a community and therefore don't have an incentive to screw their neighbors to actually take action. None of which requires a stick/gun motivator by the way. Unless you go around being a complete prick to your friends and shitting in their houses, the concepts are already there for you. It just takes the massive conceptual leap of extending this beyond your immediate circle to society as a whole. I know, not cool, and no one will ever buy into it. Perhaps someone who doesn't live in the US could chime in with examples of a functional society where people deliberately make personal sacrifices to benefit the greater whole, without someone sticking a gun in their back to do so? Anyone?
So the implication there is that nuclear is practical and wind and solar are not? And neither of the things I said in my original post were fantasies. They just take different strategies for realization than throwing a bunch of nuclear reactors at the problem.
Awesome assumption. Every light in my house uses a CFL. I've replaced all the windows in my house with efficient ones just this past year and am in the process of improving the insulation in the roof and walls. After that I'll be replacing the furnace with a more efficient one, or going with solar heat. I still have to figure out the cost/benefit on that one. I participate in my local power company's alternative energy program, where I pay a premium to that a percentage of my power is purchased from "clean" generation sources. I ride the train to work about 3 days a week in the winter, and ride my bike in the summer, rather than driving a car. I still drive it when it's "necessary" but I try not to. On the whole the short term costs to me for all of the above will take decades to recover. So on the whole I have cut my consumption. I could cut it more. But I also never specified HOW people should reduce their consumption. I said more efficient devices. So you still use your stuff the same time you do now, it just uses less energy.
Actually neither the silly nor the unsilly part of me is assuming that reducing consumption should be a priority over improving generation. Re-read my post. First thing I said was we should improve generation facilities. I just specified two forms of generation that aren't nuclear. Improving efficiency and reducing consumption was the second point in my previous post. I'm not making some environmentalist, or hippie anti-materialist argument. Consumption is going to increase as population increases, and because people, in the US anyway, want more stuff. But that doesn't mean you can't dump research money into improving energy generation forms like solar and wind. The improving efficiency curve for generation on either of those hasn't hit the plateau yet, and we should keep pushing it.
Or we could just focus on improving the efficiency of solar and wind power generation. And lowering the power consumption of the everyday devices we use. Oh but I forgot, reducing the amount of power we use doesn't make anyone money. So silly of me.
You'd have to guess that Apple cut a deal with the BBC to corner the market right? If the BBC are actually converting to MP4 there's some pretty explicit support for Quicktime and Apple visible there, so I would imagine some cash or other considerations changed hands. That the implementation opened a door for all Linux users is pretty funny though, I can't expect that will last.
So they can run an advertisement that I don't see that has my name on it? When ads are outlawed, only outlaws will have ads. It's madness I tell you. Madness.
Agreed. Sadly, Apple has a really sweet UI.
Or more likely just a joke in the bucket?
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Fahrenheit may not be insane, but it's a pain in the arse to work with. Any decimal system is just easier for the average person to work with. That this is a result of a cultural bias towards base 10 for mathematics is pretty much irrelevant. If there were a cultural bias toward another base, then that would be the "easiest" base for the average person to understand, as it is now, base 10 wins. Within Western cultures at least, where base 10 is dominant for nontechnical applications like counting. Same goes for measurement in cm vs inches - ask the average person "Which is bigger, 11/16ths or 43/64ths?" and you'll be met with blank stares. Ask the same person whether .688 or .672 (the rounded equivalents of the previous fractions) is larger, and they will answer instantly. And sure you can render inches in decimals, but they don't break up nicely up the scale from inches to feet to miles the same way mm to cm to m to km do.
Is training software to recognize objects, or using them for AI verification, to improve AI for robots. Have a simple validation method, button or voice prompt, tied to the recognition that lets it learn, wear them around for a few months and watch your AI system grow exponentially "smarter." Or at least better trained. Once you have a system that agrees with the average human's perception of their environment, your robot's got it made.