This agreement was written by the U.S. entertainment industry.
No it was originally written by the entertainment industries of both the US and Japan and then the Canadian and EU entertainment industries joined in. I know it's popular to blame all such things entirely on the US but there is just as much complicity from other countries in these treaties than these one-dimensional criticisms would lead you to believe.
Both sides are bought and paid for by Big IP and Wall Street. This is why you saw virtually 0 votes against the DMCA (unanimous consent in the Senate and virtually no opposition in the House) and why many of the sponsors and co-sponsors of these Pro-IP bills are Republicans (lest you forget the originator of the DMCA in the House was Republican Howard Cobel, SOPA was introduced to the House by Republican Lamar Smith, etc). And also the RIAA CEO and Chairman from 2003 to 2011 was a long time staffer to various Republicans for 26 years before taking the RIAA CEO position.
If schools can't discipline kids for what they say on social media, etc., then how are they meant to respond to cyber bullying such as that has led to however many teen suicides? What about defamation of teachers/students (I'm not talking about the usual Mr. So-and-so is a poopoohead, but what about calling him a pedo or something)? What about cyber-stalking or threats of physical violence against teachers/students?
None of that is within the power of the schools. Cyber-stalking and threats of violence, etc are all police matters.
Does that mean Nvidia gonna open source the driver for the graphic cards using Nvidia chips?
Nope. The reason for this is that both ATI and NVIDIA license a lot of code that is in their drivers.
Does that mean that the Linux commodities finally got tweak the Nvidia drivers to the point that they can get to squeeze the last drop of performance out of Nvidia graphic chips?
Yes, and you would be making an extremely stupid move as you would get slapped down so fast by the courts for doing so. Motorola and Samsung were both already struck down for trying to play games with FRAND patents.
They don't even bother to modify the images as they move. Moving will give a more static object, more so by it moving frame by frame. If it was those blurry, pixelized texts flowing over a background, it'd be considerably harder to pick out information, even better if they actually noise up the background as well. It'd be great if they skewed, stretched and warped the image to certain extents as it moves.
A lot of that would be easy to defeat with basic video filtering techniques like noise removal, motion compensation, etc.
Yes, we should all stop giving these snake oil salesmen money. If you honestly think captchas have been anything but a minor annoyance at best to spammers then you truly are gullible.
This just in: company claims that broken system isn't really broken! Film at 11.
Even if they have patched that vulnerability it will be broken again as is always the case with captchas. The only way to make these things unbreakable is to make them completely impossible for even a human to solve them. Anyone who believes otherwise is an idiot or someone trying to scam you out of money.
Science doesn't work by pushing conclusions based on correlations from a study that has huge sampling bias and no effect size statistics to prove that the conclusion is even practically significant. If what the submitter was doing is what you consider science then... wow... we are more doomed then I thought.
It just shows that people who use Firefox or Chrome tend to be smarter.
No, it doesn't show that at all. It provides no effect size statistics to back up such a claim.
This conclusion is an obvious one if you think about it.
No, it's not. The conclusion is only obvious because your a fanboi and nothing more. This is also why you idiots were fooled by the hoax study. The conclusion seemed correct only because it fed into your bias.
No, he's quite right. This study is chock full of errors and despite the claims of "statistical significance" he doesn't provide any effect size statistics to even show that his result is practically significant. It's just fanboi fueled nonsense.
The problem is that even if his results were statistically significant it doesn't necessarily mean he has found a meaningful result for the population at large. You can get statistically significant results which have no practical importance. The fact that there is no mention of the sampling error rate or any other meaningful data in which one can use to derive the practical significance of his data is quite telling on how this is a poorly-done study.
No, the problem is your entire premise and conclusion are faulty. That's not even getting into your sampling bias and other issues. Getting a statistically significant result is meaningless with poor sampling. You also provide no figures on your sampling error so your claims are even less meaningful. So sorry, but this whole "study" is total bunk just like the hoax study was despite your attempt at "HURR HURR IE users are teh dumb!" conclusion you are attempting to claim.
Slashdot Mirror
Because this is idle and samzenpus posts pretty much anything here?
Constitutional requirement that the Senate must approve all trade agreements?
Protip: That's not what the Constitution actually says.
This agreement was written by the U.S. entertainment industry.
No it was originally written by the entertainment industries of both the US and Japan and then the Canadian and EU entertainment industries joined in. I know it's popular to blame all such things entirely on the US but there is just as much complicity from other countries in these treaties than these one-dimensional criticisms would lead you to believe.
Both sides are bought and paid for by Big IP and Wall Street. This is why you saw virtually 0 votes against the DMCA (unanimous consent in the Senate and virtually no opposition in the House) and why many of the sponsors and co-sponsors of these Pro-IP bills are Republicans (lest you forget the originator of the DMCA in the House was Republican Howard Cobel, SOPA was introduced to the House by Republican Lamar Smith, etc). And also the RIAA CEO and Chairman from 2003 to 2011 was a long time staffer to various Republicans for 26 years before taking the RIAA CEO position.
If schools can't discipline kids for what they say on social media, etc., then how are they meant to respond to cyber bullying such as that has led to however many teen suicides? What about defamation of teachers/students (I'm not talking about the usual Mr. So-and-so is a poopoohead, but what about calling him a pedo or something)? What about cyber-stalking or threats of physical violence against teachers/students?
None of that is within the power of the schools. Cyber-stalking and threats of violence, etc are all police matters.
Does that mean Nvidia gonna open source the driver for the graphic cards using Nvidia chips?
Nope. The reason for this is that both ATI and NVIDIA license a lot of code that is in their drivers.
Does that mean that the Linux commodities finally got tweak the Nvidia drivers to the point that they can get to squeeze the last drop of performance out of Nvidia graphic chips?
This is a joke, right?
A random quote? It's their own press release.
Yes, and you would be making an extremely stupid move as you would get slapped down so fast by the courts for doing so. Motorola and Samsung were both already struck down for trying to play games with FRAND patents.
You do realize that these TLDs predate the world wide web by like 5 years, right?
Because those are the terms of the DMCA.
They don't even bother to modify the images as they move.
Moving will give a more static object, more so by it moving frame by frame.
If it was those blurry, pixelized texts flowing over a background, it'd be considerably harder to pick out information, even better if they actually noise up the background as well.
It'd be great if they skewed, stretched and warped the image to certain extents as it moves.
A lot of that would be easy to defeat with basic video filtering techniques like noise removal, motion compensation, etc.
Yes, a video that is nothing but pure marketing for the company.
Yes, we should all stop giving these snake oil salesmen money. If you honestly think captchas have been anything but a minor annoyance at best to spammers then you truly are gullible.
This just in: company claims that broken system isn't really broken! Film at 11.
Even if they have patched that vulnerability it will be broken again as is always the case with captchas. The only way to make these things unbreakable is to make them completely impossible for even a human to solve them. Anyone who believes otherwise is an idiot or someone trying to scam you out of money.
It's not that Timothy really doesn't know that, the issue is that he has selective memory loss due to the Slashvertisement money.
That would be a plurality not majority. A majority by its very definition is a subset of more than half of the group. 46% is not more than half.
Science doesn't work by pushing conclusions based on correlations from a study that has huge sampling bias and no effect size statistics to prove that the conclusion is even practically significant. If what the submitter was doing is what you consider science then... wow... we are more doomed then I thought.
It just shows that people who use Firefox or Chrome tend to be smarter.
No, it doesn't show that at all. It provides no effect size statistics to back up such a claim.
This conclusion is an obvious one if you think about it.
No, it's not. The conclusion is only obvious because your a fanboi and nothing more. This is also why you idiots were fooled by the hoax study. The conclusion seemed correct only because it fed into your bias.
No, he's quite right. This study is chock full of errors and despite the claims of "statistical significance" he doesn't provide any effect size statistics to even show that his result is practically significant. It's just fanboi fueled nonsense.
And include Windows and Mac OS X, etc. Otherwise you're still biasing your sampling.
And your stats to back this up are where? Oh right, you're pulling things out of your ass just like the guy who did this "study".
Yeah.... no. Nice fail, though.
The problem is that even if his results were statistically significant it doesn't necessarily mean he has found a meaningful result for the population at large. You can get statistically significant results which have no practical importance. The fact that there is no mention of the sampling error rate or any other meaningful data in which one can use to derive the practical significance of his data is quite telling on how this is a poorly-done study.
No, the problem is your entire premise and conclusion are faulty. That's not even getting into your sampling bias and other issues. Getting a statistically significant result is meaningless with poor sampling. You also provide no figures on your sampling error so your claims are even less meaningful. So sorry, but this whole "study" is total bunk just like the hoax study was despite your attempt at "HURR HURR IE users are teh dumb!" conclusion you are attempting to claim.
Yes, yes it is. It's a clear sampling bias. It's like getting stats on Obama's approval numbers by calling only registered Republicans.