I think the reason no one mentioned anything is because the article mentions a "two-fingered vertical stroking motion," which is an embarrassingly tiny grasp. On the, uh, trackpad.
"Because you purposefully chose an extremely restrictive license that puts ideology ahead of pragmatism."
In the long run ideology IS pragmatic. If your goal was merely to berate someone publicly, good job. If your goal was to get some points across about the BSD-style licensing you failed.
"The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away. "
Maybe, but I say it's been really interesting and fun to read the posts with all the math explaining why it can't be done. It reminds me of the old days when people here argued about tech stuff rather than making personal attacks.
That would be nice if we were talking about tadpoles. I'm talking about the web, of which I have noticed no real transformation (which is what going from a tadpole to a frog is), even considering the javascript request object. A request is still being made a and packets are still being received.
So, I'm going to suggest that we call Web 2.0 Web 3.0 and backdate Web 2.0 to when the blink tag was introduced.
I'm not sure what your comment means. I was responding to a comment about IBM's QBIC technology as well as a comment about classification. Keywords may be a part of the original story but they weren't pertinent to what I was responding to.
I think I've had it with Slashdot. Too many people like you.
Yep, it is called QBIC--query by image content. The web site points to another web site or two that use QBIC for retrieving images from a collection.
Facial recognition is one thing, but if you just want to try to categorize your current collection you might try imgSeek, which is a pretty cool program. Keep in mind that no one has really yet hit upon a great general purpose algorithm for finding matches to images or query by content. There is a large subjective component in categorizing images. If an image is mostly monochromatic blue and it's a picture of a boat, does it get classified as a boat or does it get lumped in with other predominantly blue images? How do you decide whether something is more blue than it is a boat? I suppose at that point a human has to step in to say "I'm really interested in the shape of the object more than I am the color right now."
My apologies. My point was that common sense never stopped a government from trying to win by brute force. Whoever wins in the end is pretty much immaterial to the thousands of tortured and murdered.
That, and your social skills are completely bereft.
I'm not sure how your original comment got modded up so high, unless I'm completely missing something. No, Stalin didn't bomb his own cities, he just had people killed right and left. Did you miss the news about Rwanda? How about Sudan? The Turkish genocide against the Armenians? And on and on. It seems like you're trying to apply logic where nothing more than raw human greed really applies. You don't have to be bombing to be killing indiscriminately.
I don't usually do these kinds of posts, but the readers are missing some key points here if they overlook the parent post. The grandparent post is a bit disingenuous.
Perhaps it should be stated--once again--that Apple is essentially a hardware company. As many others have pointed out, when they control the hardware AND the software they have much better control over the entire experience. Once they let OS X be run on beige boxes people will start having bad experiences and Apple's reputation would suffer.
Not to mention that a hardware business model is inherently more defendable than a software one since you can't make quick digital copies of hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the reason no one mentioned anything is because the article mentions a "two-fingered vertical stroking motion," which is an embarrassingly tiny grasp. On the, uh, trackpad.
"the number it's pushing are rather impressive"
Not nearly as impressive as being modded +5 Interesting and then being modded +4 Interesting for a reply to your own post that basically negates it.
Bingo! Except that you forgot to add that it will probably still be very effective against any defendant not capable of hiring the Dream Team.
Still hiding away in his cave. Working on his audio format.
"Because you purposefully chose an extremely restrictive license that puts ideology ahead of pragmatism."
In the long run ideology IS pragmatic. If your goal was merely to berate someone publicly, good job. If your goal was to get some points across about the BSD-style licensing you failed.
"This tech is dead simple, it's scalable, and it taps a power source that won't exhaust itself for 5 billion years or so."
See? That's what kills me about people. Such short range thinkers.
Well, don't think you'd be moving to the US. Here's a map of the places you could consider. It's a shrinking selection.
2007 International Privacy Rankings
That's criminal. You should at least get them Rolling Rock.
Not really sure what your point is here. I recently re-intalled RealPlayer to watch something and it still stinks.
No kidding. And darn few of the really good viruses will even run on a Mac.
Yes, it's the same one they apply to the comments.
Not me. I immediately thought "well of course iPods are entrenched if you're finding them in dugouts."
"The Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away. "
Maybe, but I say it's been really interesting and fun to read the posts with all the math explaining why it can't be done. It reminds me of the old days when people here argued about tech stuff rather than making personal attacks.
So, I'm going to suggest that we call Web 2.0 Web 3.0 and backdate Web 2.0 to when the blink tag was introduced.
Maybe. In the meantime don't give up your PR job in the state department.
We barely need Web 2.0!
We have one?
Seriously, I never even noticed this supposed Web 2.0. Who decides these arbitrary numbers for a continuous process?
I'm not sure what your comment means. I was responding to a comment about IBM's QBIC technology as well as a comment about classification. Keywords may be a part of the original story but they weren't pertinent to what I was responding to.
I think I've had it with Slashdot. Too many people like you.
Yep, it is called QBIC--query by image content. The web site points to another web site or two that use QBIC for retrieving images from a collection.
Facial recognition is one thing, but if you just want to try to categorize your current collection you might try imgSeek, which is a pretty cool program. Keep in mind that no one has really yet hit upon a great general purpose algorithm for finding matches to images or query by content. There is a large subjective component in categorizing images. If an image is mostly monochromatic blue and it's a picture of a boat, does it get classified as a boat or does it get lumped in with other predominantly blue images? How do you decide whether something is more blue than it is a boat? I suppose at that point a human has to step in to say "I'm really interested in the shape of the object more than I am the color right now."
My apologies. My point was that common sense never stopped a government from trying to win by brute force. Whoever wins in the end is pretty much immaterial to the thousands of tortured and murdered.
That, and your social skills are completely bereft.
I'm not sure how your original comment got modded up so high, unless I'm completely missing something. No, Stalin didn't bomb his own cities, he just had people killed right and left. Did you miss the news about Rwanda? How about Sudan? The Turkish genocide against the Armenians? And on and on. It seems like you're trying to apply logic where nothing more than raw human greed really applies. You don't have to be bombing to be killing indiscriminately.
I don't usually do these kinds of posts, but the readers are missing some key points here if they overlook the parent post. The grandparent post is a bit disingenuous.
Perhaps it should be stated--once again--that Apple is essentially a hardware company. As many others have pointed out, when they control the hardware AND the software they have much better control over the entire experience. Once they let OS X be run on beige boxes people will start having bad experiences and Apple's reputation would suffer.
Not to mention that a hardware business model is inherently more defendable than a software one since you can't make quick digital copies of hardware.
They can't launch a model rocket because they did something stupid in collage?
I didn't know mistakes in art class could be so far reaching.
What error?
What error?