The assignment of a category to the story is Slashdot's problem -- none of the posters here had any control over it. Also, among all the news categories on Slashdot, which one would have been more appropriate? I agree that you don't really have "rights" when it comes to your interactions with private companies or individuals, but really -- what would YOU suggest?
'm going right now to start a model using my Rational Rose, which I'll feed with a lot of to-the-point data from Google, taking advantage of the synergies only my shiny Longhorn OS can give, so no valid idea is lost through the Windows.
I didn't say that names must necessarily be meaningful. But is a little elegance too much to ask? There's a huge aesthetic gap between "Rational Rose" and "Hardy Heron."
Completely to the contrary -- it speaks volumes that these folks are unable to come up with a legitimate, descriptive name. It makes one wonder if their code is also full of stupid variables names, pointless, unfunny "joke" comments, or any of the other stuff you typically see in code written by adolescents.
Names are IMPORTANT. They aren't just arbitrary tags. Choosing goofy names makes the entire Ubuntu team appear... goofy. Who the hell wants software written by a bunch of goofs?
Maybe you should consider that a country can be fucked up even if it isn't the worst on Earth. Sure, we might be doing better than China based on some criteria, but that doesn't mean there aren't quite a few things seriously wrong. "If you don't like it, leave." No thanks. If I don't like it I'll do what I can to fix it. Pointing out what's wrong is the first step.
As a parent, if you're so unsure of whether the game is appropriate, here's a simple fucking solution: DON'T BUY IT.
Or, DO buy it, and... shocking insight coming up next... PLAY IT YOURSELF FOR A WHILE to see what it's like. If it turns out to be a poor choice, don't let little Johnny play it.
"Oh, but now I'm out $60," you whine. Shove a sock in it and suck it up, loser. This is the way it goes: different people have different tastes. There is a rating system which tries to codify this. It ain't going to be perfect for everyone. You might buy a "teen" game and find out it's too risque for your tastes. Tough shit. Try to return it. Company won't take it back? Cry me a river why don't you.
There's a simple solution to all your suffering. Take the game machine and chuck it out the window until little Johnny turns 18. Then kindly place a tennis ball in your mouth and shut the fuck up.
It has nothing to do with edge detection. The algorithm simply detects paths of minimal gradient which lead from one side of the image to the opposite side. This can be used to produce a "pretty picture" which shows the edges -- but this is merely fallout.
They showed what I thought were several realistic photos with complex backgrounds, and the algorithm did well overall, except on structures where people are closely attuned to exact detail -- such as human faces. If we weren't innately wired to process faces in incredible detail, we wouldn't even notice the distortion.
So it's not perfect. Can you show me something in this world that is? And I don't think there has been any mention of "prime time" application, whatever that means.
Also the paper doesn't go into
too much details about the dynamic programming approach they used to find the path of least
energy, I guess that aspect of it is patentable.
Not so much patentable, as "Easy enough for the reader to implement that it deserves little mention."
There are probably a few situations where the 'unimportant' bits of an image are still as relevant as the rest. Sports photos for instance - especially those played on grass - would not give you a true picture (literally) of what's going on in the scene.
Sorry -- "true picture?" That assumes such a thing can exist in the first place. Take a color-blind viewer for instance. Can he (and I say he because statistically, most color-blind people are male) look at ANY image and say that he is seeing the "true image?" How is his experience any more or less true than the experience YOU have when you look at the image?
Any scaling of an image, by definition, must remove (or insert, if up-scaling) information in an image. Usual scaling techniques insert or remove a constant information density across the image. This means that areas with low information lose just as much fidelity as regions with high information. A better method would have removed more information from the area that is already low in information to begin with, leaving more information in the area where it matters. This is exactly what this new algorithm does.
So it is fairly obvious that this method is superior, from a purely information-theoretic standpoint, to typical scaling algorithms. Are there images where its application might be inappropriate? Yes. Compressing an image of an abstract piece of art might do unforgivable damage to it. There is a simple solution -- do not use this algorithm on such images.
I'd never understod this hate-your-ex-thing? The person where part of your life for some time but you have decided to hate it and want to erase it from it?
Better never get a partner then at all if you are going to hate the person once it doesn't work longer.
Sometimes the reason it doesn't work any longer is because you've grown to hate the person.
I don't think any reasonably adjusted person would culture hatred for a past parter just because the relationship didn't work out. People who do otherwise are just being childish.
I really like the way where the people are erased and you can hardly notice it. But the when it comes to the faces, the algorithm seems to need more work.
The authors have already demonstrated how automated face recognition could be applied to protect face-like areas on the images. I'm not sure what else you want.
If a person refuses to use a given technology, how can he meaningfully criticize that same technology? Give me a guy who's been using CVS for a decade and wants to vent, and I'll listen.
I sympathise with your problem and wish your grandmother well. But try to get her to blink rather than nod her head. It is used quite frequently in cases such as this. I'm not trying to be rude, nor to sidetrack your question, but while you are doing your research it will enable limited 2 way conversation.
Unless his poor nanna is going to be in this condition for QUITE some time, I'd hestitate to spend any real money on a technological solution. Hold her hand. One squeeze for no, two for yes. (People often come up with systems using one for yes, two for no, but it turns out, people need to say "no" far more often than they need to say "yes," so it's better to make the one-squeeze mean "no.")
Now that's a pretty damn sour attitude. I was a gifted kid too -- a standout even among the other gifted kids. I was chronically bored in school. By my senior year of high school, I was probably skipping class 60% of the time. Would I describe all the "normal" people I was surrounded by all those years as "violent stupid monkeys?" Not in a million years.
The most important thing I learned in public school is how to interact with so-called "normal" people on the level of an equal, not a brainiac who comes to intellectually lord over them. You know, stuff like "respect," and "politeness," and the concept of giving everybody a fair shot to prove their abilities.
If you really look at the world and think, "What a bunch of complete turd brains!" You are going to have a very sad life.
Since the speed of light is finite, the algorithm still takes O(2^N) i.e. exponential time to complete.
Yes, but at least in theory the paths can be made almost infinitely short. At some point the energy density of the photons will overwhelm spacetime and form a black hole, however:-)
If you smoke, heck yea, you should be charged more than those who don't...
Except that the highest courts in the land have already ruled that tobacco use is not an entirely voluntary act, and have even awarded damages to the tune of billions of dollars to those who have been affected by it. Let's not be simplistic here.
Even now, evidence suggests that tobacco companies are continuing to aggressively market their products to minors. Are you seriously going to sit back and defend these practices? Do you think these people should just DIE because when they were young and impressionable, they made the mistake of smoking "just one cigarette?"
People who live in flood plains pay more for home insurance. Why shouldn't people at higher risk of health problems pay more for health insurance?
At least in my state, that's not true. Standard homeowner's insurance does NOT cover flood damage. To get coverage you have to buy a separate flood policy. So you're not paying more for standard coverage, but you do have to purchase an additional policy.
To translate that to the healh insurance sphere, it would be like purchasing "smoker's insurance" specifically to cover smoking-related illnesses, while maintaining standard health coverage as a separate policy.
The problem is, you can never truly know if you're going to get lung cancer -- you could be perfectly healthy, a non-smoker, and get it anyway. With flood insurance it's different. Depending where you live, you can know with almost 100% certainty that you don't need it. A person living on a ridge top obviously wouldn't need it.
BTW the BMI is subtly skewed against tall people. Ditto the "waist under 40 inches" rule.
Very, very true. A few years ago I computed mine for laughs. It placed me solidly in the "obese" category. I laughed, since at the time you could see my ribs. And yeah, I'm tall.
Accidental injuries incurred by non-dangerous activities (driving, swimming, non-extreme sports)
If an activity has the potential to seriously injure you, it's dangerous by definition.
I don't want to be insured for: 2) Cancer due to smoking
That's great, until you come down with it anyway from exposure to secondhand smoke. I wonder how you'll feel then, when you realize you've signed away your coverage, and now you're going to die.
You might as well yell at people in the emergency ward for daring to read a magazine or a book while they're waiting for status on a loved one. How dare they occupy their mind while they wait!
I didn't say you shouldn't do things to occupy yourself. But proceeding about business as usual seems rather cold. And I wasn't "yelling" at anybody.
Re:Mobile communications and PDAs
on
Smartphone Shootout
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Recently, I was in a situation where I had to be in hospital for around a month to attend to my father, and let me tell you, the laptops don't really last much without a power outlet and Wifi isn't ubiquitous. Its anoter thing in normal life to drive to starbucks and check news and mail while sipping coffee, and its another thing to attend to client calls and mails while sitting at place you don't want yourself and your family to be in!
Then DON'T. Don't take the calls. Don't make the emails. Can't you put your damn job on hold long enough to properly attend to an ailing family member?
Having a laptop around to help alleviate the boredom and stress is one thing. Shooting off work emails and tappity-tapping away for clients while a family member lies ill or dying? Totally sick. Just my opinion though.
Slashdot Mirror
I feel strongly that your mind is the most important part of your body. Its truly what makes you unique,.
Umm... No crap? Without a mind, you'd be a piece of meat. That's hardly interesting, is it?
?The assignment of a category to the story is Slashdot's problem -- none of the posters here had any control over it. Also, among all the news categories on Slashdot, which one would have been more appropriate? I agree that you don't really have "rights" when it comes to your interactions with private companies or individuals, but really -- what would YOU suggest?
'm going right now to start a model using my Rational Rose, which I'll feed with a lot of to-the-point data from Google, taking advantage of the synergies only my shiny Longhorn OS can give, so no valid idea is lost through the Windows.
I didn't say that names must necessarily be meaningful. But is a little elegance too much to ask? There's a huge aesthetic gap between "Rational Rose" and "Hardy Heron."
Completely to the contrary -- it speaks volumes that these folks are unable to come up with a legitimate, descriptive name. It makes one wonder if their code is also full of stupid variables names, pointless, unfunny "joke" comments, or any of the other stuff you typically see in code written by adolescents.
Names are IMPORTANT. They aren't just arbitrary tags. Choosing goofy names makes the entire Ubuntu team appear... goofy. Who the hell wants software written by a bunch of goofs?
Yes. Because nothing makes more sense to structure a technical community around, than sexual orientation. My eyes are rolling...
What the fuck do "the children" have to do with anything?
Maybe you should consider that a country can be fucked up even if it isn't the worst on Earth. Sure, we might be doing better than China based on some criteria, but that doesn't mean there aren't quite a few things seriously wrong. "If you don't like it, leave." No thanks. If I don't like it I'll do what I can to fix it. Pointing out what's wrong is the first step.
As a parent, if you're so unsure of whether the game is appropriate, here's a simple fucking solution: DON'T BUY IT.
Or, DO buy it, and... shocking insight coming up next... PLAY IT YOURSELF FOR A WHILE to see what it's like. If it turns out to be a poor choice, don't let little Johnny play it.
"Oh, but now I'm out $60," you whine. Shove a sock in it and suck it up, loser. This is the way it goes: different people have different tastes. There is a rating system which tries to codify this. It ain't going to be perfect for everyone. You might buy a "teen" game and find out it's too risque for your tastes. Tough shit. Try to return it. Company won't take it back? Cry me a river why don't you.
There's a simple solution to all your suffering. Take the game machine and chuck it out the window until little Johnny turns 18. Then kindly place a tennis ball in your mouth and shut the fuck up.
It has nothing to do with edge detection. The algorithm simply detects paths of minimal gradient which lead from one side of the image to the opposite side. This can be used to produce a "pretty picture" which shows the edges -- but this is merely fallout.
They showed what I thought were several realistic photos with complex backgrounds, and the algorithm did well overall, except on structures where people are closely attuned to exact detail -- such as human faces. If we weren't innately wired to process faces in incredible detail, we wouldn't even notice the distortion.
So it's not perfect. Can you show me something in this world that is? And I don't think there has been any mention of "prime time" application, whatever that means.
Also the paper doesn't go into too much details about the dynamic programming approach they used to find the path of least energy, I guess that aspect of it is patentable.
Not so much patentable, as "Easy enough for the reader to implement that it deserves little mention."
There are probably a few situations where the 'unimportant' bits of an image are still as relevant as the rest. Sports photos for instance - especially those played on grass - would not give you a true picture (literally) of what's going on in the scene.
Sorry -- "true picture?" That assumes such a thing can exist in the first place. Take a color-blind viewer for instance. Can he (and I say he because statistically, most color-blind people are male) look at ANY image and say that he is seeing the "true image?" How is his experience any more or less true than the experience YOU have when you look at the image?
Any scaling of an image, by definition, must remove (or insert, if up-scaling) information in an image. Usual scaling techniques insert or remove a constant information density across the image. This means that areas with low information lose just as much fidelity as regions with high information. A better method would have removed more information from the area that is already low in information to begin with, leaving more information in the area where it matters. This is exactly what this new algorithm does.
So it is fairly obvious that this method is superior, from a purely information-theoretic standpoint, to typical scaling algorithms. Are there images where its application might be inappropriate? Yes. Compressing an image of an abstract piece of art might do unforgivable damage to it. There is a simple solution -- do not use this algorithm on such images.
I'd never understod this hate-your-ex-thing? The person where part of your life for some time but you have decided to hate it and want to erase it from it? Better never get a partner then at all if you are going to hate the person once it doesn't work longer.
Sometimes the reason it doesn't work any longer is because you've grown to hate the person.
I don't think any reasonably adjusted person would culture hatred for a past parter just because the relationship didn't work out. People who do otherwise are just being childish.
I really like the way where the people are erased and you can hardly notice it. But the when it comes to the faces, the algorithm seems to need more work.
The authors have already demonstrated how automated face recognition could be applied to protect face-like areas on the images. I'm not sure what else you want.How can it not be normal if it occurs in nature?
That's a pretty weird definition of normal. "Humans with 12 toes occur in nature: therefore, having 12 toes is normal."
We can only define "normal" relative to our typical experiences. I have no idea what other idea of "normal" you are attempting to invoke here.
I worry that an advisory 'board' or 'panel' would be the death by a thousand cuts that could really mess up kernel development for linux.
Fork it, institute a new dictatorship, proceed as usual. Problem solved.
But here's an honest question.
If a person refuses to use a given technology, how can he meaningfully criticize that same technology? Give me a guy who's been using CVS for a decade and wants to vent, and I'll listen.
I sympathise with your problem and wish your grandmother well. But try to get her to blink rather than nod her head. It is used quite frequently in cases such as this. I'm not trying to be rude, nor to sidetrack your question, but while you are doing your research it will enable limited 2 way conversation.
Unless his poor nanna is going to be in this condition for QUITE some time, I'd hestitate to spend any real money on a technological solution. Hold her hand. One squeeze for no, two for yes. (People often come up with systems using one for yes, two for no, but it turns out, people need to say "no" far more often than they need to say "yes," so it's better to make the one-squeeze mean "no.")
Now that's a pretty damn sour attitude. I was a gifted kid too -- a standout even among the other gifted kids. I was chronically bored in school. By my senior year of high school, I was probably skipping class 60% of the time. Would I describe all the "normal" people I was surrounded by all those years as "violent stupid monkeys?" Not in a million years.
The most important thing I learned in public school is how to interact with so-called "normal" people on the level of an equal, not a brainiac who comes to intellectually lord over them. You know, stuff like "respect," and "politeness," and the concept of giving everybody a fair shot to prove their abilities.
If you really look at the world and think, "What a bunch of complete turd brains!" You are going to have a very sad life.
Since the speed of light is finite, the algorithm still takes O(2^N) i.e. exponential time to complete.
Yes, but at least in theory the paths can be made almost infinitely short. At some point the energy density of the photons will overwhelm spacetime and form a black hole, however :-)
If you smoke, heck yea, you should be charged more than those who don't...
Except that the highest courts in the land have already ruled that tobacco use is not an entirely voluntary act, and have even awarded damages to the tune of billions of dollars to those who have been affected by it. Let's not be simplistic here.
Even now, evidence suggests that tobacco companies are continuing to aggressively market their products to minors. Are you seriously going to sit back and defend these practices? Do you think these people should just DIE because when they were young and impressionable, they made the mistake of smoking "just one cigarette?"
People who live in flood plains pay more for home insurance. Why shouldn't people at higher risk of health problems pay more for health insurance?
At least in my state, that's not true. Standard homeowner's insurance does NOT cover flood damage. To get coverage you have to buy a separate flood policy. So you're not paying more for standard coverage, but you do have to purchase an additional policy.
To translate that to the healh insurance sphere, it would be like purchasing "smoker's insurance" specifically to cover smoking-related illnesses, while maintaining standard health coverage as a separate policy.
The problem is, you can never truly know if you're going to get lung cancer -- you could be perfectly healthy, a non-smoker, and get it anyway. With flood insurance it's different. Depending where you live, you can know with almost 100% certainty that you don't need it. A person living on a ridge top obviously wouldn't need it.
BTW the BMI is subtly skewed against tall people. Ditto the "waist under 40 inches" rule.
Very, very true. A few years ago I computed mine for laughs. It placed me solidly in the "obese" category. I laughed, since at the time you could see my ribs. And yeah, I'm tall.
Accidental injuries incurred by non-dangerous activities (driving, swimming, non-extreme sports)
If an activity has the potential to seriously injure you, it's dangerous by definition.
I don't want to be insured for: 2) Cancer due to smoking
That's great, until you come down with it anyway from exposure to secondhand smoke. I wonder how you'll feel then, when you realize you've signed away your coverage, and now you're going to die.
You might as well yell at people in the emergency ward for daring to read a magazine or a book while they're waiting for status on a loved one. How dare they occupy their mind while they wait!
I didn't say you shouldn't do things to occupy yourself. But proceeding about business as usual seems rather cold. And I wasn't "yelling" at anybody.
Recently, I was in a situation where I had to be in hospital for around a month to attend to my father, and let me tell you, the laptops don't really last much without a power outlet and Wifi isn't ubiquitous. Its anoter thing in normal life to drive to starbucks and check news and mail while sipping coffee, and its another thing to attend to client calls and mails while sitting at place you don't want yourself and your family to be in!
Then DON'T. Don't take the calls. Don't make the emails. Can't you put your damn job on hold long enough to properly attend to an ailing family member?
Having a laptop around to help alleviate the boredom and stress is one thing. Shooting off work emails and tappity-tapping away for clients while a family member lies ill or dying? Totally sick. Just my opinion though.