Actually Chez Bob hasn't been leaking money the past few years; it's actually been slowly accumulating capital. The losses stopped when more effective means were undertaken to prevent unauthorized persons (read: undergraduate students) from entering.
Chez Bob is as trusting as ever, and inventory is still as untracked and unreliable as ever.;)
Daugman's analysis assumes each biometric test produces a single bit of information: pass or fail. That assumption makes it possible for him to reason in the abstract about combining tests, and moreover, to treat exhaustively the 2 possible ways of doing so (logical and, logical or). Even so, his result has 2 qualifications: "If the two biometric tests differ significantly in their power, and each operates at its own cross-over point, then combining them gives significantly worse performance than relying solely on the stronger biometric."
However, a biometric identification method might just as well yield a confidence measure, and such probabilities could be combined in more complex ways than Boolean values. Furthermore, it might be possible to integrate biometric methods even more tightly to produce a single algorithm operating on the total raw input from various sensors.
P.S. My post is not motivated by the fact I'm a UCSD grad student!;)
In your Note from the Band at artistdirect.com, you make the following statement:
``Metallica have the resources to fight for what's right on behalf of many artists who may not be in a similar position to fight a company like Napster, or any other corporation who are trying to undermine their art and their well-being.''
But it seems to me that the artists who don't have the resources to fight Napster are the artists who wouldn't want to fight them anyway. I know several people in independent bands who love it when their music is traded on Napster. To them, it's free publicity; it's more people coming to their live performances, it's more people telling their friends how much they love the band's music.
I contend that the only artists who would conceivably benefit from stopping bootlegging are well-known artists with major label contracts whose music is distributed widely in retail stores--in short, artists with the resources to fight legal battles--and I'm not convinced it's even in their best interests. Word of mouth is a powerful advertising medium for popular artists too.
As far as I can see, the entities who stand the most to gain from stopping piracy are the record companies, not the artists. As a band who sued your own record company, how do you feel about that?
The military has already tried to collect the DNA of its employees into a database, ostensibly for the purpose of identifying casualties of war. Two marines, however, refused to provide samples and were courtmartialed for disobeying direct orders. They're still in the midst of a lawsuit.
For further reading, here are some links I've found relating to the case:
Slashdot Mirror
Actually Chez Bob hasn't been leaking money the past few years; it's actually been slowly accumulating capital. The losses stopped when more effective means were undertaken to prevent unauthorized persons (read: undergraduate students) from entering.
;)
Chez Bob is as trusting as ever, and inventory is still as untracked and unreliable as ever.
That two-stage process was required in an earlier version, but now the purchase price is deducted from your account when the can is dispensed.
;)
Fortunately for would-be grifters, however, it's still possible to increase the balance in one's account without depositing money.
Daugman's analysis assumes each biometric test produces a single bit of information: pass or fail. That assumption makes it possible for him to reason in the abstract about combining tests, and moreover, to treat exhaustively the 2 possible ways of doing so (logical and, logical or). Even so, his result has 2 qualifications: "If the two biometric tests differ significantly in their power, and each operates at its own cross-over point, then combining them gives significantly worse performance than relying solely on the stronger biometric."
;)
However, a biometric identification method might just as well yield a confidence measure, and such probabilities could be combined in more complex ways than Boolean values. Furthermore, it might be possible to integrate biometric methods even more tightly to produce a single algorithm operating on the total raw input from various sensors.
P.S. My post is not motivated by the fact I'm a UCSD grad student!
Duh, everyone knows the sequel is XI-Men.
In your Note from the Band at artistdirect.com, you make the following statement:
But it seems to me that the artists who don't have the resources to fight Napster are the artists who wouldn't want to fight them anyway. I know several people in independent bands who love it when their music is traded on Napster. To them, it's free publicity; it's more people coming to their live performances, it's more people telling their friends how much they love the band's music.
I contend that the only artists who would conceivably benefit from stopping bootlegging are well-known artists with major label contracts whose music is distributed widely in retail stores--in short, artists with the resources to fight legal battles--and I'm not convinced it's even in their best interests. Word of mouth is a powerful advertising medium for popular artists too.
As far as I can see, the entities who stand the most to gain from stopping piracy are the record companies, not the artists. As a band who sued your own record company, how do you feel about that?
The military has already tried to collect the DNA of its employees into a database, ostensibly for the purpose of identifying casualties of war. Two marines, however, refused to provide samples and were courtmartialed for disobeying direct orders. They're still in the midst of a lawsuit.
For further reading, here are some links I've found relating to the case:
- Marines refuse to give DNA
- Marines' DNA defense: The order was illegal
- Marine court-martial called landmark case
Dana Dahlstrom