They wouldn't leave that out unless the evidence was "inconclusive."
Are you sure about that? Like I said, it's a news site. It wouldn't be the first time a news provider left out one or two details to sex up a story. If the shotgun evidence was inconclusive, why didn't they mention it?
Not that I'm suggesting we infer the paper's guilt from their silence on the matter, of course.
...and I might add that the shotgun shell evidence was not mentioned as direct evidence of guilt in this case.
Not mentioned by whom? TFA, whose job it is to draw in readers with a controversial story?
Has anyone read the transcripts? What exactly was said in court about this guy's refusal to answer the question? What evidence is there that this was directly used by the jury as (partial) evidence of guilt?
Isn't it? It's a string made up of only four characters. Very simple. I thought it was also quite well understood which codons encode to which amino acids.
Given that there's always someone ready to dump on any announcement of scientific advancement, I'm going to take ADNAS's word for it until an actual scientist turns up.
I liked it. Henry Cavill is from my tiny little island and was awesome enough to bring Russell Crowe and Amy Adams over to our one-and-only 10-screen cinema for a red carpet premiere, which is two more Oscar winners than we'd normally see (although apparently Hans Zimmer likes to take his holidays here).
They have a record of all people calling.
They get a phone call that says A called B and A is linked to terror.
They plugin A into their record and get back B.
They give B to the FBI.
The way I read it, the bit in bold isn't known. They get some intelligence that A is linked to terror. They search the database for A and get B, C, D, E and F - the numbers A has called - back. These are their new leads
Understanding the meaning of something has to do with the mind and physiologically has to do with the body, they're pretty much opposites aren't they?
There's the physiology of the rewired post-pubescent brain to consider. Perhaps I should have included "neurologically."
But anyway if anything, lack of understanding means exposure to porn shouldn't have any influence on children.
It may not have a sexual influence, but that doesn't mean it won't have any influence at all. It also doesn't mean that early exposure to porn won't have implications (could be positive in some cases, who knows? I don't think anyone would get far asking for funding for that study) for their sexual development once it begins.
It won't be, and no-one's expecting it to be. From the article it may be something as simple as storing hashes for specific files rather than specific images, which would hardly warrant the "new technology" status that the article has decided to give it. Even if it's more generic that, and is a hash for an image - allowing an image to be identified at different scales, exposures, or rotations - it's still not really new technology, nor is it particularly groundbreaking. It'll just be a handy tool which will take some of the repetitive workload off the shoulders (and minds) of humans - the same thing computers have been doing for the last 60 years.
wouldn't that drive demand for brand new images to be created that don't trip the filters?
I'd hazard a guess at "unlikely." Your hardened CP hunter near the top of the chain won't be Googling for this shit - he'll be getting it through his network of content-producing contacts.
What does that mean? Did you not read it? Disagree with it by all means, but if you don't even care that other people may have opinions contrary to your own, why involve yourself in a discussion?
it doesn't matter what they're capable of understanding, they should be taught, introduced, and told what it's about without hiding shit.
Well, actually, it is a bit, until you've passed puberty - certainly when it comes to the purpose it evolved for. Before that one could argue that you're physiologically incapable of understanding sex.
and it's their lack of exposure which keeps them juvenile on the matter.
Actually in the case of pre-pubescent kids it's their juvenility that keeps them juvenile on the matter. A child is physiologically incapable of understanding what sex means to an adult, even if they are quite capable of grasping (metaphorically) the mechanics of it.
alcohol and tobacco are regulated because they have ill effects on health.. unlike porn.
Porn can (but doesn't always, or possibly even often) have a deleterious effect on health and relationships in all kinds of different ways - it's just a lot easier to quantify the damage from alcohol and tobacco.
Don't just ask questions like that in lieu of making a point. It's not constructive. If you think (as your question implies) that noh8rz10 is wrong, explain why.
As a society we recognize that due to human chemistry some things are too powerful and should be limited.
Was it was a waste to change the "Ethnicity" field from boolean (0 = white, 1 = non-white) to a string-based representation?
It depends. In which database? For which purpose? Insofaras you can make the distinction in the first place, white/non-white covers everyone. If that's all you need to know, it's all you need to put in your database.
So we should continue to spend time and money indefinitely until every single possible outlier case in every system of categorisation can be accounted for rigorously and completely?
Indeed, and the article says nothing about Wi-Fi - the submitter added that in presumably because he thinks it means "any wireless data connection." TFA also isn't clear on how it's done, but one of the videos does mention specialised ground antennas.
Slashdot Mirror
They wouldn't leave that out unless the evidence was "inconclusive."
Are you sure about that? Like I said, it's a news site. It wouldn't be the first time a news provider left out one or two details to sex up a story. If the shotgun evidence was inconclusive, why didn't they mention it?
Not that I'm suggesting we infer the paper's guilt from their silence on the matter, of course.
Singular they.
I'm not shitting on science, I'm questioning how a for-profit business is using science.
You're not questioning. You're sarcastically implying (with no evidence given) that they don't know what they're talking about.
Oh yeah? Wade over here and say that!
...and I might add that the shotgun shell evidence was not mentioned as direct evidence of guilt in this case.
Not mentioned by whom? TFA, whose job it is to draw in readers with a controversial story?
Has anyone read the transcripts? What exactly was said in court about this guy's refusal to answer the question? What evidence is there that this was directly used by the jury as (partial) evidence of guilt?
Is that gone too?
Yes, if you haven't been arrested and are answering questions voluntarily (or not).
No image of the 3D reconstruction to look at?
UK internet providers reject default porn filters
Isn't it? It's a string made up of only four characters. Very simple. I thought it was also quite well understood which codons encode to which amino acids.
Given that there's always someone ready to dump on any announcement of scientific advancement, I'm going to take ADNAS's word for it until an actual scientist turns up.
DNA is inert outside of a cell anyway, isn't it?
I liked it. Henry Cavill is from my tiny little island and was awesome enough to bring Russell Crowe and Amy Adams over to our one-and-only 10-screen cinema for a red carpet premiere, which is two more Oscar winners than we'd normally see (although apparently Hans Zimmer likes to take his holidays here).
Thanks Henry!
So it's just a general "laws that seem a bit unfair" blog, now?
They have a record of all people calling.
They get a phone call that says A called B and A is linked to terror.
They plugin A into their record and get back B.
They give B to the FBI.
The way I read it, the bit in bold isn't known. They get some intelligence that A is linked to terror. They search the database for A and get B, C, D, E and F - the numbers A has called - back. These are their new leads
Understanding the meaning of something has to do with the mind and physiologically has to do with the body, they're pretty much opposites aren't they?
There's the physiology of the rewired post-pubescent brain to consider. Perhaps I should have included "neurologically."
But anyway if anything, lack of understanding means exposure to porn shouldn't have any influence on children.
It may not have a sexual influence, but that doesn't mean it won't have any influence at all. It also doesn't mean that early exposure to porn won't have implications (could be positive in some cases, who knows? I don't think anyone would get far asking for funding for that study) for their sexual development once it begins.
If this system were 100% effective
It won't be, and no-one's expecting it to be. From the article it may be something as simple as storing hashes for specific files rather than specific images, which would hardly warrant the "new technology" status that the article has decided to give it. Even if it's more generic that, and is a hash for an image - allowing an image to be identified at different scales, exposures, or rotations - it's still not really new technology, nor is it particularly groundbreaking. It'll just be a handy tool which will take some of the repetitive workload off the shoulders (and minds) of humans - the same thing computers have been doing for the last 60 years.
wouldn't that drive demand for brand new images to be created that don't trip the filters?
I'd hazard a guess at "unlikely." Your hardened CP hunter near the top of the chain won't be Googling for this shit - he'll be getting it through his network of content-producing contacts.
I don't even care to read your argument.
What does that mean? Did you not read it? Disagree with it by all means, but if you don't even care that other people may have opinions contrary to your own, why involve yourself in a discussion?
it doesn't matter what they're capable of understanding, they should be taught, introduced, and told what it's about without hiding shit.
Did I say they shouldn't be taught about sex?
Because everybody loves outsourcing!
Well, actually, it is a bit, until you've passed puberty - certainly when it comes to the purpose it evolved for. Before that one could argue that you're physiologically incapable of understanding sex.
kids are sexual beings too
Worst. Defence case. Ever.
and it's their lack of exposure which keeps them juvenile on the matter.
Actually in the case of pre-pubescent kids it's their juvenility that keeps them juvenile on the matter. A child is physiologically incapable of understanding what sex means to an adult, even if they are quite capable of grasping (metaphorically) the mechanics of it.
alcohol and tobacco are regulated because they have ill effects on health.. unlike porn.
Porn can (but doesn't always, or possibly even often) have a deleterious effect on health and relationships in all kinds of different ways - it's just a lot easier to quantify the damage from alcohol and tobacco.
As a society we recognize that due to human chemistry some things are too powerful and should be limited.
Seems reasonable to me.
When I no longer need it, it gets donated or goes in the trash. It makes for a simple, neat, productive, and satisfying life.
And since everyone in the world is exactly the same as you, we should all follow this amazing advice and all be so much happier!
Oh wait, part of that is wrong. Can you guess which bit?
Was it was a waste to change the "Ethnicity" field from boolean (0 = white, 1 = non-white) to a string-based representation?
It depends. In which database? For which purpose? Insofaras you can make the distinction in the first place, white/non-white covers everyone. If that's all you need to know, it's all you need to put in your database.
So we should continue to spend time and money indefinitely until every single possible outlier case in every system of categorisation can be accounted for rigorously and completely?
Indeed, and the article says nothing about Wi-Fi - the submitter added that in presumably because he thinks it means "any wireless data connection." TFA also isn't clear on how it's done, but one of the videos does mention specialised ground antennas.
Can normal 802.11 b/g/ac devices talk to a base station 20,000 meters away?
TFA says nothing about 802.11 (aka Wi-Fi) - it seems that was an invention of the submitter.
From the video:
The balloons communicate with specialised internet antennas on the ground.