First gather up the list of stolen cars and the like and then search for those plates. If your checking all the plates one at a time...
You're an idiot.
GP proposed exactly what you're suggesting; compiling a list, then, when the camera scans a plate, it is checked against that list. If no match, then discard.
How else are you going to search for a stolen plate except by checking plates one at a time?
If they want to go poking around in your garage, sure. If the car's out on the street, not so much.
Nothing is reasonable about scanning every single license plate you see.
That, by itself, sounds pretty reasonable to me. Storing the data - especially that pertaining to not-immediately-flagged vehicles - is where it starts to get murkier, and yet there it's also still just an automation of what a cop could do - albeit to a far lesser extent - with a pen and paper.
There is no center to the universe, just as there's no "center" to the surface of a globe. The visible universe has an (abstract) boundary, but the universe doesn't.
If you've got a shortlist of 10 people, plus DNA evidence, you don't need to guess what he looks like.
You do if you have no DNA for comparison. Maybe none of the suspects won't give a sample. Maybe you can't get a court order forcing them to provide. Maybe you don't even know who the suspects are - maybe all you have is evidence of their presence near the scene (CCTV, for example). With a rough idea of what the culprit looks like, you can concentrate any subsequent CCTV trawl on the most likelies.
On the other hand, if you have a shortlist of 10 or 100 people and NO other evidence, you have no DNA to fake up a picture.
It's not for crime-solving. It's for crime-investigating.
it's just about guaranteed to have a false- positive rate about 100x the true positive rate
Based on the numbers pulled out of whose behind?
If you've got a shortlist of 10, or even 100, suspects and no other evidence - yet - don't you think even a rough idea of what that person probably looks like might be helpful?
Maybe that's because it wasn't, and is actually just the latest development in the continuing advancement of the study of genetics, and would have happened regardless of the existence of a 17-year-old science fiction film.
And last time I checked, New Scientist hadn't yet had to stoop to opening most articles with "It sounds like something out of [insert vaguely relevant pop culture reference here], but scientists now say..."
On the same device
* Needs a powerful GPU that can render 2x amount of work across 2 different monitors.
Are you talking about something else when you say "split screen"? To me, that term means one screen, split. Not gameplay split across multiple screens.
One of the first things you should consider when choosing a name for your project these days is: how relevant will search results be when people Google for it?
Slashdot Mirror
Energy in > Energy+poop out => You gain weight
FTFY.
It really does help to give someone a sugar pill and tell them it is a pain killer.
Haven't some studies also shown that it helps even when you give someone a sugar pill and tell them it's just a sugar pill?
It seems like the happy medium would be...
...raking in wads of cash from gullible suckers.
First gather up the list of stolen cars and the like and then search for those plates. If your checking all the plates one at a time...
You're an idiot.
GP proposed exactly what you're suggesting; compiling a list, then, when the camera scans a plate, it is checked against that list. If no match, then discard.
How else are you going to search for a stolen plate except by checking plates one at a time?
Reasonable suspicion or probable cause first?
If they want to go poking around in your garage, sure. If the car's out on the street, not so much.
Nothing is reasonable about scanning every single license plate you see.
That, by itself, sounds pretty reasonable to me. Storing the data - especially that pertaining to not-immediately-flagged vehicles - is where it starts to get murkier, and yet there it's also still just an automation of what a cop could do - albeit to a far lesser extent - with a pen and paper.
Twitter turns 8; seeks free advertising
French, Chinese...
For the sake of three characters? It's not like you're paying for the ink.
Greasemonkey to the rescue!
http://userscripts.org/scripts...
There is no center to the universe, just as there's no "center" to the surface of a globe. The visible universe has an (abstract) boundary, but the universe doesn't.
*facepalm*
I meant a situation where you have DNA from the crime scene, but don't have and/or can't get DNA from a suspect.
If you've got a shortlist of 10 people, plus DNA evidence, you don't need to guess what he looks like.
You do if you have no DNA for comparison. Maybe none of the suspects won't give a sample. Maybe you can't get a court order forcing them to provide. Maybe you don't even know who the suspects are - maybe all you have is evidence of their presence near the scene (CCTV, for example). With a rough idea of what the culprit looks like, you can concentrate any subsequent CCTV trawl on the most likelies.
On the other hand, if you have a shortlist of 10 or 100 people and NO other evidence, you have no DNA to fake up a picture.
Err, yes. Obviously. So?
The Earth *is* at the centre of the universe from our point of view.
GP said centre of the solar system, which we evidently are not.
And you're wrong anyway. The Earth is at the centre of the visible universe, but only by tautology.
but so far as crime-solving goes
It's not for crime-solving. It's for crime-investigating.
it's just about guaranteed to have a false- positive rate about 100x the true positive rate
Based on the numbers pulled out of whose behind?
If you've got a shortlist of 10, or even 100, suspects and no other evidence - yet - don't you think even a rough idea of what that person probably looks like might be helpful?
Didn't you play Guess Who? as a child?
If you have the DNA sample, that is far more definitive than the approximated face.
But what if you don't have the DNA sample from a suspect? Or even any suspects?
Maybe that's because it wasn't, and is actually just the latest development in the continuing advancement of the study of genetics, and would have happened regardless of the existence of a 17-year-old science fiction film.
And last time I checked, New Scientist hadn't yet had to stoop to opening most articles with "It sounds like something out of [insert vaguely relevant pop culture reference here], but scientists now say..."
based on that same train of thought, we should stop procuding any kind of digitally recorded sound with frequencies higher than 22khz
When did we start producing digital recordings with frequencies higher than 22khz (or thereabouts)?
That is false.
What's false? GP's statement was that "for most average human adults, the sound range is 20hz to 22khz."
Is that false?
There are a few problems with split screen:
On the same device
* Needs a powerful GPU that can render 2x amount of work across 2 different monitors.
Are you talking about something else when you say "split screen"? To me, that term means one screen, split. Not gameplay split across multiple screens.
What about this?
http://www.w3schools.com/css/c...
One of the first things you should consider when choosing a name for your project these days is: how relevant will search results be when people Google for it?
Intel Announced 8-Core CPUs And Iris Pro Graphics for Desktop Chips
Okay, I know that strictly speaking it did happen in the past, but that's not how headlines are usually written.
And what are you doing in my house?
Yeah, I know, I'm being a bit picky here, but... dodged?
The CME barely missed; Earth didn't do anything, the lazy git.
Am I the only the person a little disturbed that we've got scholars focused on the future of punishment coming up with shit like this?
Judging by the responses so far, thankfully, no.
So could whipping, removal of body parts and branding.