And even at that, your knowledge is full of holes, half-truths and outdated knowledge from C++ 98 back when compilers sucked across all platforms.
Computers did not "suck across all platforms" in 1998. You just happen to use one platform that always sucked, sucks, and will suck forever.
C++ is four languages in one (C preprocessor, C, C++ objects, C++ templates) -- each unrelated to each other, except some manipulating the entities used by others. Only the templates changed in any meaningful way, and mostly by being implemented, and a template-using library being bundled with the language.
Just because templates were inconsistently implemented and poorly used at some point, and now they are widely used, does not mean that they fundamentally changed the nature of the language. I used templates in 1996 (actual templates, not stuffing STL everywhere) where it was appropriate, and it had absolutely nothing to do with OO "ideology" that is being spouted in modern crash courses.
A person who prefers manual resource management is in 99.9% of cases a moron.
All resource management is "manual" -- someone had to write it at some point. Just because you don't notice it, does not mean it's not there.
An idiot like you would make some idiotic assumption that only works for objects allocated on stack that would be destroyed after your function returns (tied to a scope), only to discover that the data model requires them to be persistent. Then, being an idiot, he will have no idea how to manage their lifetime, end up stuffing them into some stupid container inside a singleton and will be proud of "not managing them manually".
And then the program has horrendous memory leaks because there is no mechanism to determine when things have to be deleted, because initial assumptions about scope are invalid, and data structure is too primitive to allow making decisions about the objects' lifetime. But everything is object-oriented and buzzword-compliant -- good job!
This isn't AI. It's actually fairly simple image processing.
Oh yes, it is! Once you introduced contours detection or image partitioning, you are have decision-making embedded in the process -- that's out of filtering and into AI territory.
If it was about finding the motions, there would be no attempts to produce a human-viewable video, it would just detect the motions and produce structured response -- "this looks like breathing", "swing set is wobbling", etc. The video output is clearly intended for human post-processing, but while it may be useful for research -- to check if movement detection indeed detected the right kind of movement -- it's unusable for human post-processing.
It's like removing a security camera, placing an artist in its place, ask him to make a pencil sketch of the area every minute, and send those sketches to the people who are supposed to monitor the camera. Except, artist is five years old and has no understanding how perspective works, or what is the shape of the objects he sees.
All other techniques have DIFFERENT SEMANTICS of the input and output -- at the input the raw video feed that contains only what was seen by the camera, at the output there are two clearly separate layers -- video and highlited/marked up/colored/schematically displayed/... areas where movement (any, or of some particular kind) was detected. Human sees schematically marked up areas and positions, and tries to determine what exactly is happening by looking into the details of the original video in and around them.
What this thing does, is simulating THE SAME real-life video -- detected movements are used to produce completely fake "drawings" of moving objects that are cleverly disguised as parts of the "real" image. Then human is supposed to process the output as if it is the original video, and "see" the detected movement, however the only details that human will be able to see are those recognized by this algorithm -- everything else will be distorted or, more likely, covered up by the edges of mis-detected "objects".
It's great for tricks and movie effects, things where amplified bias toward something spectacular is the goal, however in all stated applications the goal is to find all relevant things that are hidden in the input, not produce a spectacular view of the most prominent thing at the expense of everything else.
could find applications in safety, medicine, surveillance, and other areas.
So instead of highlighting areas where something worth looking at is detected, this thing produces a highly distorted, exaggerated version of the motion, adding its own bias based on naive attribution of moving areas to distinct objects? Then a human won't see important details behind things that software deemed worthy of emphasizing -- you can just as well remove the humans from the process completely.
I see. In Russia it's the opposite, US-style education (memorization in elementary to high school, disjoint mini-courses and schmoozing in universities) is seen as bane and cancer.
Actually I am not, and I have spent two decades doing software development to achieve my understanding of software development practices, and their consequences for projects where they are applied. I DO have a right to call people morons and tell them to kill themselves. You don't.
What is really stupid, most likely Stuxnet was created by some idiot from Israel, who overstepped the boundaries of a simple sabotage operation by making his software capable of spreading itself. Now both US and Israel are trying to take credit for something they did not consider to be acceptable, and incorporate this idiocy into their plans.
What the Internet has done is make "printing presses" really cheap, cheap enough that a 9 year old blogger can have one and use it to criticise school lunches.
But he can't attract audience that would be sufficient to affect anything in reality. Media companies can.
A person who can't pay to distribute his speech to the public still has the right to do so and that right is still fully protected.
No. The rights are unconditional, they can not be denied to people who aren't rich enough to "buy" them. "Opportunity" and "possibility" are not rights. If society really protected the right to public speech, it would have to provide a way to exercise it that would be accessible to every member of society. What is, of course, impossible in the current American society centered around for-profit entertainment and advertisement.
Actually in overwhelming majority of situations software written in C++ should use "manual resource management". Just because primitive examples given to students look simple and nice, it does not mean that complex data structures can be all shoehorned into STL and allocated on stack.
All things you have mentioned are core knowledge for any programming job -- if you don't know them already you have to be able to pick them up within a month or two.
The reality is, communism was harsh, nasty, and ultimately unsustainable in its Soviet form, and could never exist in a society not comprised entirely of mildly autistic individuals (who don't really care about things like wealth or power, as long as they're left alone and have enough resources to pursue self-actualization).
It's really sad that American anti-Communist propaganda managed to denigrate a natural, common, and the only productive state of a human mind to the extent of being pathological and impossible to achieve as a norm.
This is what is destroying your society -- and ironically it's the direct result of your politicians' attempt to fight Communism.
Looked through Fedora wiki page he referenced. It's an experimental feature that may end up not even being used, applicable to a very small subset of packages, to make sure that updater itself won't get broken or confused halfway through the update process. What may say a lot about the expected quality of the package manager/updater, but with no real effect on anything.
To be fair, Gentoo occasionally suffered from the very kind of breakage they are trying to prevent, but Gentoo has an excuse of package manager using a full-blown development environment.
gets way less protection than say political speech.
SHOULD get way less protection (like, say, none, or, in many cases being prohibited). In reality, they all are on exactly the same level, thanks to your great First Amendment.
Guess why do you all think, broad "free speech" protection is so important? It's because media that forms your opinions, depends on it. Media does not care about whistleblowers, does not care about limiting propaganda, does not care about public's right not to be lied to, this is why no one talks about that. But free speech, the right of Comcast to shove Viagra ad in your face? That's important!!!
Slashdot Mirror
civilized nation that doesn't kill people for difference of political opinion
lol
So any computer program that has an if-statement in it, is artificial intelligence. Ok, glad we got that cleared up.
In a signal processing algorithm (what this thing presented as) -- yes.
HDMI in is verboten on consumer recording equipment.
Why would a psychopath or narcissist care about someone who will have his power when he is dead?
And even at that, your knowledge is full of holes, half-truths and outdated knowledge from C++ 98 back when compilers sucked across all platforms.
Computers did not "suck across all platforms" in 1998. You just happen to use one platform that always sucked, sucks, and will suck forever.
C++ is four languages in one (C preprocessor, C, C++ objects, C++ templates) -- each unrelated to each other, except some manipulating the entities used by others. Only the templates changed in any meaningful way, and mostly by being implemented, and a template-using library being bundled with the language.
Just because templates were inconsistently implemented and poorly used at some point, and now they are widely used, does not mean that they fundamentally changed the nature of the language. I used templates in 1996 (actual templates, not stuffing STL everywhere) where it was appropriate, and it had absolutely nothing to do with OO "ideology" that is being spouted in modern crash courses.
A person who prefers manual resource management is in 99.9% of cases a moron.
All resource management is "manual" -- someone had to write it at some point. Just because you don't notice it, does not mean it's not there.
An idiot like you would make some idiotic assumption that only works for objects allocated on stack that would be destroyed after your function returns (tied to a scope), only to discover that the data model requires them to be persistent. Then, being an idiot, he will have no idea how to manage their lifetime, end up stuffing them into some stupid container inside a singleton and will be proud of "not managing them manually".
And then the program has horrendous memory leaks because there is no mechanism to determine when things have to be deleted, because initial assumptions about scope are invalid, and data structure is too primitive to allow making decisions about the objects' lifetime. But everything is object-oriented and buzzword-compliant -- good job!
you are have decision-making embedded in the process
s/are //
(incomplete editing on my part)
This isn't AI. It's actually fairly simple image processing.
Oh yes, it is! Once you introduced contours detection or image partitioning, you are have decision-making embedded in the process -- that's out of filtering and into AI territory.
If the concerns you raise had any impact on a particular scenario, the operator can just use their own eyes or switch off the processing.
How would he know to do that? There is no indication what is exaggerated/emphasized and what is not.
If it was about finding the motions, there would be no attempts to produce a human-viewable video, it would just detect the motions and produce structured response -- "this looks like breathing", "swing set is wobbling", etc. The video output is clearly intended for human post-processing, but while it may be useful for research -- to check if movement detection indeed detected the right kind of movement -- it's unusable for human post-processing.
It's like removing a security camera, placing an artist in its place, ask him to make a pencil sketch of the area every minute, and send those sketches to the people who are supposed to monitor the camera. Except, artist is five years old and has no understanding how perspective works, or what is the shape of the objects he sees.
No.
All other techniques have DIFFERENT SEMANTICS of the input and output -- at the input the raw video feed that contains only what was seen by the camera, at the output there are two clearly separate layers -- video and highlited/marked up/colored/schematically displayed/... areas where movement (any, or of some particular kind) was detected. Human sees schematically marked up areas and positions, and tries to determine what exactly is happening by looking into the details of the original video in and around them.
What this thing does, is simulating THE SAME real-life video -- detected movements are used to produce completely fake "drawings" of moving objects that are cleverly disguised as parts of the "real" image. Then human is supposed to process the output as if it is the original video, and "see" the detected movement, however the only details that human will be able to see are those recognized by this algorithm -- everything else will be distorted or, more likely, covered up by the edges of mis-detected "objects".
It's great for tricks and movie effects, things where amplified bias toward something spectacular is the goal, however in all stated applications the goal is to find all relevant things that are hidden in the input, not produce a spectacular view of the most prominent thing at the expense of everything else.
Dolby Labs is full of furries? Or furrie haters?
could find applications in safety, medicine, surveillance, and other areas.
So instead of highlighting areas where something worth looking at is detected, this thing produces a highly distorted, exaggerated version of the motion, adding its own bias based on naive attribution of moving areas to distinct objects? Then a human won't see important details behind things that software deemed worthy of emphasizing -- you can just as well remove the humans from the process completely.
I see. In Russia it's the opposite, US-style education (memorization in elementary to high school, disjoint mini-courses and schmoozing in universities) is seen as bane and cancer.
education abroad was much more holistic and comprehensive, focusing on knowledge rather than climbing up the exam placement roll sheets.
"Abroad" or "in US"?
Actually I am not, and I have spent two decades doing software development to achieve my understanding of software development practices, and their consequences for projects where they are applied. I DO have a right to call people morons and tell them to kill themselves. You don't.
What is really stupid, most likely Stuxnet was created by some idiot from Israel, who overstepped the boundaries of a simple sabotage operation by making his software capable of spreading itself. Now both US and Israel are trying to take credit for something they did not consider to be acceptable, and incorporate this idiocy into their plans.
What the Internet has done is make "printing presses" really cheap, cheap enough that a 9 year old blogger can have one and use it to criticise school lunches.
But he can't attract audience that would be sufficient to affect anything in reality. Media companies can.
A person who can't pay to distribute his speech to the public still has the right to do so and that right is still fully protected.
No. The rights are unconditional, they can not be denied to people who aren't rich enough to "buy" them. "Opportunity" and "possibility" are not rights. If society really protected the right to public speech, it would have to provide a way to exercise it that would be accessible to every member of society. What is, of course, impossible in the current American society centered around for-profit entertainment and advertisement.
Actually in overwhelming majority of situations software written in C++ should use "manual resource management". Just because primitive examples given to students look simple and nice, it does not mean that complex data structures can be all shoehorned into STL and allocated on stack.
But why have a whole department that does nothing but parroting them?
All things you have mentioned are core knowledge for any programming job -- if you don't know them already you have to be able to pick them up within a month or two.
The reality is, communism was harsh, nasty, and ultimately unsustainable in its Soviet form, and could never exist in a society not comprised entirely of mildly autistic individuals (who don't really care about things like wealth or power, as long as they're left alone and have enough resources to pursue self-actualization).
It's really sad that American anti-Communist propaganda managed to denigrate a natural, common, and the only productive state of a human mind to the extent of being pathological and impossible to achieve as a norm.
This is what is destroying your society -- and ironically it's the direct result of your politicians' attempt to fight Communism.
Looked through Fedora wiki page he referenced. It's an experimental feature that may end up not even being used, applicable to a very small subset of packages, to make sure that updater itself won't get broken or confused halfway through the update process. What may say a lot about the expected quality of the package manager/updater, but with no real effect on anything.
To be fair, Gentoo occasionally suffered from the very kind of breakage they are trying to prevent, but Gentoo has an excuse of package manager using a full-blown development environment.
gets way less protection than say political speech.
SHOULD get way less protection (like, say, none, or, in many cases being prohibited).
In reality, they all are on exactly the same level, thanks to your great First Amendment.
Guess why do you all think, broad "free speech" protection is so important? It's because media that forms your opinions, depends on it. Media does not care about whistleblowers, does not care about limiting propaganda, does not care about public's right not to be lied to, this is why no one talks about that. But free speech, the right of Comcast to shove Viagra ad in your face? That's important!!!
[citation needed], and Brian Proffitt does not qualify.