Since we're talking about heuristics, given enough programs you could train it/program to be pretty close. But then you'd end up with a ton of false positives so its not very worth it. Plus the idea of force-exiting an infinite loop is a bad either anyway, so I'm not sure its worth it in any case.
No it means that no Computer Program can work out whether a program is in an infinite loop or not (Halting Problem), so he'll have to use heuristics to work it out. You can't get a 100% , because if you did you would have violated something which is mathematically proven.
Wouldn't you be expected to at least cite the source where you got it? Or at least mention where it came from?
The way he suggested that he just magically found it on the internet doesn't really give weight to that. Unless of course he wrote a proper citation and developed amnesia. Looking at the album, none of the images appear to have that.
Yes he copied the image. However he lost the link, didn't keep a copy of it himself except online and its not in his history - all we know is that it was "On the Internet".
So I'm sure he gave the authors of the image full recognition and all that. Not even a "Source: xxxxxx". Fair use or not.
Now I'm pretty sure he 'lost' the image in this manner because if you actually found the image you'd side with Google, but meh, its a poor excuse.
"... found out why. A Google bot that automatically scans Picasa for illegal images flagged something Marcheschi had posted as child pornography......
It turns out that the image he posted, though admittedly disturbing, was not technically porn. In fact, he says his reason for posting the image – to a collection he curated called “The Evolution of Sex” -- was to make a point about how you can post images of minors being sexualized without breaking any laws. (Marcheschi says Google deleted the image, he has no other copy, and doesn’t remember where he found it on the InterWebs, so there’s no way to judge for yourself.)"
While I don't like the idea that google can delete your account, this is suspicious as anything to me. The fact that he also broke all traces of the image now kinda makes it suspicious to me. (Not to mention that its prolly copyright infringement too, but that's unrelated).
Well, is Oracle making any money off Java? Far as I know they're not making a cent from it. All versions of java are open to use.
If they get a few billion (which they had hoped for) from Google it'll really pay its rent. That said, I do see Oracle killing off this language due to being bad money hungry people indeed, and I hope someone will fork it because , well, it was a clever idea.
Ah but here lies the difference between patents and copyright.
To use a car analogy (since they're pretty popular around here) - if I patent a car, I am locking down all ideas which are similar to it. So even if you get a person in the jungle whose never seen a car in his life, and he thinks up "Hey... car", and designs one from scratch - it'll still be bad since he is 'copying' the idea. Clean room or not clean room.
Now copyright on the other hand, yes. If you do the same idea in a different manner, that's fine!
Instead of the buttons and the thingy, they should have a system of 6 or 12 'strings' , whenever you press at the top in a particular combination a new sound comes out, and.. here's the kicker, you can play whichever song you like on it, without even needing a screen.
I'm tired of these stupid arguments that our kiddies need to be overly protected.
If a kid learns that falling off a high place hurts, he'll be less likely to do so in the future. Its how people learn. Sure I'm not saying let kids play in a forest alone or something, but playing in a proper environment is how they learn skills (+social skills), and most importantly how they can become healthy instead of spending the day on the sofa in safety playing CoD or whatever.
Instead of removing the problem, lets spend time (and money?) to add a 'feature' to lessen the problem instead of just shoving those stupid devices off a cliff.
Slashdot Mirror
Because management thinks that they're cool.
Since we're talking about heuristics, given enough programs you could train it/program to be pretty close. But then you'd end up with a ton of false positives so its not very worth it. Plus the idea of force-exiting an infinite loop is a bad either anyway, so I'm not sure its worth it in any case.
No it means that no Computer Program can work out whether a program is in an infinite loop or not (Halting Problem), so he'll have to use heuristics to work it out. You can't get a 100% , because if you did you would have violated something which is mathematically proven.
"A mysterious circle on a grainy scan, this is what scientists are claiming is finally evidence that Earth has been visited by aliens."
Anyone who makes such wild accusations on such little evidence can hardly be called a scientist.
I think more on the lines of protecting your system and not protecting your sanity
I read that the same way. I was wondering why damaging your hardware deserved an article.
If its still as modifiable as the previous versions of FF, I won't complain.
I like the extra space for my tiny screen, but I can afford the additional pixels on my large one. Looks familiar though...
I find this article title to be silly.
What they do is use facial recognition to match people to their Facebook profile, then use the details stored there to obtain the SSN.
Up next:
- How names and surnames can Uncover SSN
- How giving people your email address can Uncover SSN.
- How running a facebook search can Uncover SSN
Put them near the backyard of the CEO/Owners of the Power Station.
If Nuclear Energy is safe and all that, they won't mind having glow-in-the-dark flowers.
Most important question is
"How much money can we get from that percentage?"
And I'm sure the patent has expired which is why the drug companies are suffering to sell these products.
Oh wait. Guess you don't need a patent to sell stuff after all.
Nope, haven't the foggiest idea why that would be considered child pornography in any jurisdiction.
Sure got me there.
Wouldn't you be expected to at least cite the source where you got it? Or at least mention where it came from?
The way he suggested that he just magically found it on the internet doesn't really give weight to that. Unless of course he wrote a proper citation and developed amnesia. Looking at the album, none of the images appear to have that.
Yes he copied the image. However he lost the link, didn't keep a copy of it himself except online and its not in his history - all we know is that it was "On the Internet".
So I'm sure he gave the authors of the image full recognition and all that. Not even a "Source: xxxxxx". Fair use or not.
Now I'm pretty sure he 'lost' the image in this manner because if you actually found the image you'd side with Google, but meh, its a poor excuse.
From the article
"... found out why. A Google bot that automatically scans Picasa for illegal images flagged something Marcheschi had posted as child pornography. .....
It turns out that the image he posted, though admittedly disturbing, was not technically porn. In fact, he says his reason for posting the image – to a collection he curated called “The Evolution of Sex” -- was to make a point about how you can post images of minors being sexualized without breaking any laws. (Marcheschi says Google deleted the image, he has no other copy, and doesn’t remember where he found it on the InterWebs, so there’s no way to judge for yourself.)"
While I don't like the idea that google can delete your account, this is suspicious as anything to me. The fact that he also broke all traces of the image now kinda makes it suspicious to me. (Not to mention that its prolly copyright infringement too, but that's unrelated).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hjh13hxehl4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtyO4tmpPdk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQOvyGbBtY
Well, is Oracle making any money off Java? Far as I know they're not making a cent from it. All versions of java are open to use.
If they get a few billion (which they had hoped for) from Google it'll really pay its rent. That said, I do see Oracle killing off this language due to being bad money hungry people indeed, and I hope someone will fork it because , well, it was a clever idea.
Ah but here lies the difference between patents and copyright.
To use a car analogy (since they're pretty popular around here) - if I patent a car, I am locking down all ideas which are similar to it. So even if you get a person in the jungle whose never seen a car in his life, and he thinks up "Hey ... car", and designs one from scratch - it'll still be bad since he is 'copying' the idea. Clean room or not clean room.
Now copyright on the other hand, yes. If you do the same idea in a different manner, that's fine!
I actually find the under wine it worked faster than native. I still have no idea why.
Don't forget the conductor. But that'll probably need kinetic support or something.
I know what they should do.
Instead of the buttons and the thingy, they should have a system of 6 or 12 'strings' , whenever you press at the top in a particular combination a new sound comes out, and .. here's the kicker, you can play whichever song you like on it, without even needing a screen.
We could call it uh.. Electric Guitar (Hero)
I'm tired of these stupid arguments that our kiddies need to be overly protected.
If a kid learns that falling off a high place hurts, he'll be less likely to do so in the future. Its how people learn. Sure I'm not saying let kids play in a forest alone or something, but playing in a proper environment is how they learn skills (+social skills), and most importantly how they can become healthy instead of spending the day on the sofa in safety playing CoD or whatever.
Instead of removing the problem, lets spend time (and money?) to add a 'feature' to lessen the problem instead of just shoving those stupid devices off a cliff.