Perhaps there are no objective criteria. They cannot even seem to agree on the number of minutae that should match.
Well, yes, but if FP evidence is to be considered useful, I think there needs to be a demonstration that the different styles of analysis yield the same results in the end.
But hey, what do I know. You got me curious, though. Maybe a lack of imagination on my part, but how would a test like the one you're proposing be able to verify the methods used by FPE's?
I was thinking of something along the lines of the tests that skeptics give to people claiming paranormal powers. For example, do different FPEs find that the same impression matches the same person's prints; can the same FPE correctly identify different impressions from the same person as actually being from the same person, etc. A high rate of error would suggest that either there are many incompetent FPEs, or that their methods simply aren't reliable.
Kaplan was referring to the DCMA, not the lawsuit of which he was the judge. Judges help decide whether someone has broken a law. It is not their place to decide if a law is a good or bad one. That was his point.
What the article questions is the science behind the method used by FPE's.
Exactly. That's why a test is needed.
According to the article, what happens is that FPE's get a (partial, smudged) fingerprint impression and rely on their experience and intuition to determine whether or not the amount of similarities found is sufficient for identification. When the FBI tells them what to look for, suddenly their judgment sways in the other direction.
No, the article simply gave a couple of anecdotal stories about FPE's being swayed by suggestion. If in general, that's how FPEs work, then it is obvious that they are no more useful than the Psychic Friends Network. However, perhaps those particular FPEs were simply incompetent, and good FPEs make their decisions in a more objective fashion. A test would let us see whether FPEs can really do what they say they can, or simply give the answer the cops want to hear.
This has very little to do with the extent to which known fingerprint impressions match each other.
It has everything to do with it if the FPEs are the ones making the decisions.
But low resolution data are exactly the data the tests should be run on, and at least from the article it sounds like such a test has never been done. The 50K vs. 50K test used high resolution prints (unlikely to be found at a crime scene), and was therefore flawed (as the article says).
The software is available (in every police station), the data is available (also in the police stations) -- let's just see what the percentage of cases where the programs claim that the figureprints of two different people are the same.
What's the difference between "inventing" and "discovering"? It's just philosophical. Perhaps all ideas are "out there" and all inventions are really just discoveries. Perhaps no ideas are "out there" and all discoveries are just inventions.
Hell, I *remember* analog video disks! RCA had a system in the late '70s early '80s that was actually fairly popular until the VCR killed it.
It played video disks with a needle, not too different from that of a turntable.
Math is *not* the basis of science (experimentation is) -- however, math is, of course, a very useful tool for analysing scientific data, and for creating models and simulations, as well as being interesting as a subject in its own right.
It is obvious that a scientific theory can't be proved because tomorrow, a new experiment could be performed that would disprove the theory. This happens all the time in science -- old theories are thrown out almost daily; what was thought to be true is now thought to be false. In math, however, once a theorem is proved it is true forever. The two fields can't be more different.
Well, the O and S are intellectual property of Microsoft, so Apple can't release those (they are only using them under license). Granted, there are some people who claim that those letters were used before Microsoft came into existence, but they are the same crazies who deny that Microsoft invented the graphical user interface and the web browser.
The XT was hardly the ideal gaming platform (or computing platform in general) in the '80s -- but don't confuse that with home computer gaming.
The Apple ][ (particularly with the double hi-res of the//e and//c, and the ][gs of course), the Commodore 64, Atari 400/800, not to mention the early Amigas and Atari STs, all had better graphics than CGA or the NES. And when you consider that a C64 could be had for only around $250, the price really wasn't that much of an issue.
Piracy is illegal, and pirates should know that they are commiting a crime, but the crime in question is not theft. Theft is the act of *taking* something away from its owner. At worst, pirates simply don't *give* something to the owner -- the owner doesn't lose anything that they had already. It is simply Orwellian Newspeak to call piracy theft.
Actually, I did like text adventures, and in addition I was a fan of strategy games like "King's Bounty" and "Reach for the Stars" -- the forerunners of games like "Heroes of Might and Magic" and "Master of Orion" -- all of which weren't available for the NES.
In addition, programming (even on 8-bit machines with pitiful amounts of memory and bad implementations of BASIC) was a blast.
A GPA is a "grade point average". In the US, this generally is a number between 1 and 4, with 4 being perfect. A half point is what it sounds like: 0.5
While not trying to start a flamewar, why exactly did so many of you ask your parents for an NES? A home computer, while being somewhat more expensive, would have been so much more useful, as well as being able to play more sophisticated games...
This should be obvious by now, from what I've covered above, but I'll say it again. It's not yours. You didn't pay for it, you didn't install it, you don't maintain it. The computer belongs to the company, and the company can do with it whatever it wants. How is it you don't understand this?
In some cases this is the case, in others not. For example, in universities, the machines that researchers use are in fact purchased with the researcher's grant money -- not university money. And the people using the computers -- the professors, postdocs, and grad students, generally know far more about computers than the typical community college graduate IT drone. If these researchers want to use Linux, they have probably have a damn good reason for it. The IT people, like the secretaries and the janitors, are only there to support the researchers, but for some reason IT people tend to forget their place in the scheme of things.
Monty Python is a really bad example for your point. "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" depends completely on references to the King Arthur legend, as "Life of Brian" depends on the Gospel. Come to think about it, all humor is a reference to something else.
Hen Domen is a castle near Montgomery, Wales, so I assume domend would mean constructed in a manner similar to this castle. Because it was more or less replaced in the 13th century by the more famous Montgomery Castle, I assume domend technology will not last long either.
Well, Kolmogorov published in 1965, Chaitin in 1969. Some have even pointed out that a 1960 technical report by Solomonoff contains a version of algorithmic information, but the report was reasonably obscure, unlike Kolmogorov's work. Basically, Chaitin gets credit in the West because he wasn't a Soviet. But things are moving it the right direction -- algorithmic information used to be called Chaitin complexity, then Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity, and now quite often just Kolmogorov complexity.
Well, you mean Kolmogorov's work on algorithmic information theory that Chaitin likes to claim credit for, despite publishing essentially identical work to Kolmogorov *years* after him?
So, for guidance, you want to look to big business. Big business never pays a nickel in taxes, according to Ralph Nader, who represents a big consumer organization that never pays a nickel in taxes...
If species X is extinct, there is a reason for it.
There are only reasons in the sense that there are reasons which led to the event, not in the sense that the event had a higher purpose.
Bringing back that species might in the end harm the environment.
But there is no objective definition of the term "harming the environment". Sure, bringing back a species may have consequences, but whether these consequences are good or bad is entirely dependent on one's point of view.
I don't like using this example, but would you support bringing back the dinosaurs because the dumb population finds it a good idea?
Sounds like you aren't a big fan of the democratic process
Do you know what that would do to our planet and or society?
No, but the effects of not bringing them back are equally as unknown.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps there are no objective criteria. They cannot even seem to agree on the number of minutae that should match.
Well, yes, but if FP evidence is to be considered useful, I think there needs to be a demonstration that the different styles of analysis yield the same results in the end.
But hey, what do I know. You got me curious, though. Maybe a lack of imagination on my part, but how would a test like the one you're proposing be able to verify the methods used by FPE's?
I was thinking of something along the lines of the tests that skeptics give to people claiming paranormal powers. For example, do different FPEs find that the same impression matches the same person's prints; can the same FPE correctly identify different impressions from the same person as actually being from the same person, etc. A high rate of error would suggest that either there are many incompetent FPEs, or that their methods simply aren't reliable.
Kaplan was referring to the DCMA, not the lawsuit of which he was the judge. Judges help decide whether someone has broken a law. It is not their place to decide if a law is a good or bad one. That was his point.
What the article questions is the science behind the method used by FPE's.
Exactly. That's why a test is needed.
According to the article, what happens is that FPE's get a (partial, smudged) fingerprint impression and rely on their experience and intuition to determine whether or not the amount of similarities found is sufficient for identification. When the FBI tells them what to look for, suddenly their judgment sways in the other direction.
No, the article simply gave a couple of anecdotal stories about FPE's being swayed by suggestion. If in general, that's how FPEs work, then it is obvious that they are no more useful than the Psychic Friends Network. However, perhaps those particular FPEs were simply incompetent, and good FPEs make their decisions in a more objective fashion. A test would let us see whether FPEs can really do what they say they can, or simply give the answer the cops want to hear.
This has very little to do with the extent to which known fingerprint impressions match each other.
It has everything to do with it if the FPEs are the ones making the decisions.
But low resolution data are exactly the data the tests should be run on, and at least from the article it sounds like such a test has never been done. The 50K vs. 50K test used high resolution prints (unlikely to be found at a crime scene), and was therefore flawed (as the article says).
The software is available (in every police station), the data is available (also in the police stations) -- let's just see what the percentage of cases where the programs claim that the figureprints of two different people are the same.
Well, it is well known that aliens own most Tim Hortons franchises, so abducting Canadians just wouldn't make economic sense.
What's the difference between "inventing" and "discovering"? It's just philosophical. Perhaps all ideas are "out there" and all inventions are really just discoveries. Perhaps no ideas are "out there" and all discoveries are just inventions.
Hell, I *remember* analog video disks! RCA had a system in the late '70s early '80s that was actually fairly popular until the VCR killed it.
It played video disks with a needle, not too different from that of a turntable.
The point is, in Latin, "nebula" means "cloud", as in cloud in the sky. Astronomers simply took the Latin word to refer to the astronomical object.
Math is *not* the basis of science (experimentation is) -- however, math is, of course, a very useful tool for analysing scientific data, and for creating models and simulations, as well as being interesting as a subject in its own right.
It is obvious that a scientific theory can't be proved because tomorrow, a new experiment could be performed that would disprove the theory. This happens all the time in science -- old theories are thrown out almost daily; what was thought to be true is now thought to be false. In math, however, once a theorem is proved it is true forever. The two fields can't be more different.
Well, the O and S are intellectual property of Microsoft, so Apple can't release those (they are only using them under license). Granted, there are some people who claim that those letters were used before Microsoft came into existence, but they are the same crazies who deny that Microsoft invented the graphical user interface and the web browser.
The XT was hardly the ideal gaming platform (or computing platform in general) in the '80s -- but don't confuse that with home computer gaming.
//e and //c, and the ][gs of course), the Commodore 64, Atari 400/800, not to mention the early Amigas and Atari STs, all had better graphics than CGA or the NES. And when you consider that a C64 could be had for only around $250, the price really wasn't that much of an issue.
The Apple ][ (particularly with the double hi-res of the
Piracy is illegal, and pirates should know that they are commiting a crime, but the crime in question is not theft. Theft is the act of *taking* something away from its owner. At worst, pirates simply don't *give* something to the owner -- the owner doesn't lose anything that they had already. It is simply Orwellian Newspeak to call piracy theft.
Actually, I did like text adventures, and in addition I was a fan of strategy games like "King's Bounty" and "Reach for the Stars" -- the forerunners of games like "Heroes of Might and Magic" and "Master of Orion" -- all of which weren't available for the NES.
In addition, programming (even on 8-bit machines with pitiful amounts of memory and bad implementations of BASIC) was a blast.
A GPA is a "grade point average". In the US, this generally is a number between 1 and 4, with 4 being perfect. A half point is what it sounds like: 0.5
While not trying to start a flamewar, why exactly did so many of you ask your parents for an NES? A home computer, while being somewhat more expensive, would have been so much more useful, as well as being able to play more sophisticated games...
This should be obvious by now, from what I've covered above, but I'll say it again. It's not yours. You didn't pay for it, you didn't install it, you don't maintain it. The computer belongs to the company, and the company can do with it whatever it wants. How is it you don't understand this?
In some cases this is the case, in others not. For example, in universities, the machines that researchers use are in fact purchased with the researcher's grant money -- not university money. And the people using the computers -- the professors, postdocs, and grad students, generally know far more about computers than the typical community college graduate IT drone. If these researchers want to use Linux, they have probably have a damn good reason for it. The IT people, like the secretaries and the janitors, are only there to support the researchers, but for some reason IT people tend to forget their place in the scheme of things.
Monty Python is a really bad example for your point. "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" depends completely on references to the King Arthur legend, as "Life of Brian" depends on the Gospel. Come to think about it, all humor is a reference to something else.
I was reading this article and I was saying "hey, this sounds like Erik's work". And it was. Neat.
:-)
Erik is also very intelligent, and has a professional reputation considerbly higher than most 19 year olds I know
Here's Erik's homepage
Of course any reasonable biometric system wouldn't work with a dead thumb or eyeball, making this whole argument pointless.
Hen Domen is a castle near Montgomery, Wales, so I assume domend would mean constructed in a manner similar to this castle. Because it was more or less replaced in the 13th century by the more famous Montgomery Castle, I assume domend technology will not last long either.
Well, Kolmogorov published in 1965, Chaitin in 1969. Some have even pointed out that a 1960 technical report by Solomonoff contains a version of algorithmic information, but the report was reasonably obscure, unlike Kolmogorov's work. Basically, Chaitin gets credit in the West because he wasn't a Soviet. But things are moving it the right direction -- algorithmic information used to be called Chaitin complexity, then Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity, and now quite often just Kolmogorov complexity.
Well, you mean Kolmogorov's work on algorithmic information theory that Chaitin likes to claim credit for, despite publishing essentially identical work to Kolmogorov *years* after him?
So, for guidance, you want to look to big business. Big business never pays a nickel in taxes, according to Ralph Nader, who represents a big consumer organization that never pays a nickel in taxes...
-- Dave Barry, "Sweating Out Taxes"
If species X is extinct, there is a reason for it.
There are only reasons in the sense that there are reasons which led to the event, not in the sense that the event had a higher purpose.
Bringing back that species might in the end harm the environment.
But there is no objective definition of the term "harming the environment". Sure, bringing back a species may have consequences, but whether these consequences are good or bad is entirely dependent on one's point of view.
I don't like using this example, but would you support bringing back the dinosaurs because the dumb population finds it a good idea?
Sounds like you aren't a big fan of the democratic process
Do you know what that would do to our planet and or society?
No, but the effects of not bringing them back are equally as unknown.