I think you are overestimating Microsoft. Yes, they have crushed technologies like Netscape, but you forget all the failed ventures they have had, without any intervention - Passport, Palladium, etc.
The difference between Google and true portals is that with Google you still CAN "just search" and not be bothered with anything else. At Yahoo and other sites there are still hundreds of useless links on the front page.
Just like Microsoft has became associated with "ease of use" (regardless of whether it's true), Google iw now associated with "accurate searches" in the mainstream media. It will be nearly impossible for Microsoft to over take them unless they have a truly revolutionary product - MSN only has such a high market share because it is IE's default homepage.
Low position? For a language that's not suppose to be a full-blown low-level language like C/C++, perl is pretty damn well represented - over 1/3 the number of projects compared to C isn't that bad. If you have just one file, something like sourceforge usually isn't needed.
Note that this does not mean that they are replacing IE with FireFox.
Awww damn, and here I thought that Microsoft would include one of its strongest competing products instead of it's own that millions of dollars were funneled in to. Maybe I'm just too naive...
It appears to me as if we have reached the point where supercomputers aren't really as practical as they were before. Fewer and fewer industries need and prefer supercomputers to a cluster of cheap PCs, and the market is simply heading in that direction - nothing really unique happening here other than capitalism.
Of course people are going to cry that companies like Cray are falling by the wayside, but the truth is that their services simply aren't as needed as they were in years past.
Yes, but for whatever reason AMD decided to phase out Duron (the name wasn't "sexy" enough, they needed a new brand name to spark popularity, it's anybody's guess) and put the Sempron in its place. The new Semprons also significantly outperform the last Durons, which were meant to go up against Intel's previous P4-based Celeron. When the D's came out, only the AthlonXP could compete with it, and the name "AthlonXP" still isn't associated with "budget" in the eyes of the consumer.
For Doctored Photos, a New Flavor of Digital Truth Serum
By NOAH SHACHTMAN
Published: July 22, 2004
From the material found on his hard drive, Bryan Sparks of Springfield Township, Ohio, seemed guilty when he was arrested in 2002. The sexually explicit pictures of minors appeared to put him on the wrong side of child pornography laws. But at his trial this spring, Mr. Sparks was acquitted because no one could tell for sure whether the images were authentic or just clever digital forgeries.
Mr. Sparks was eventually convicted on a separate charge of rape and sentenced to life in prison. But the uncertainties that surrounded his case, and others like it, are driving researchers to develop software that can automatically figure out which digital pictures are real and which ones are fake.
"It used to be that you had a photograph, and that was the end of it - that was truth," said Hany Farid, an associate professor of computer science at Dartmouth College who is a leader in the field. "We're trying to bring some of that back. To put some measure of guarantee back in photography."
At stake is more than the fate of possible child pornographers. The United States military has become increasingly reliant on digital images from drones and satellites to give soldiers a sense of the battlefield. Law enforcement officers routinely use digital cameras to photograph crime scenes. Newspapers and magazines are now dependent on digital photographs that can be easily doctored.
Over the last three years, Professor Farid and his students have become experts at forgery, making hundreds of images that look authentic but have in fact been digitally tweaked. License plate numbers are changed. A single stool standing on a checkerboard floor is suddenly a pair of stools. Dents on a car are wiped away with a few mouse clicks.
The skillful tampering disturbed the images in ways that the human eye could not detect. But Professor Farid says his algorithms can spot them and sound the alarm.
For example, when two images are spliced together - like the picture of a shark attacking a helicopter that has circulated around the Internet in the past few years - one or both of the original pictures usually has to be shrunk, enlarged or rotated to make the pieces fit together. And those changes, no matter how artful, leave clues behind.
Take a picture that is 10 pixels by 10 pixels, for a total of 100. Stretch it to 10 by 20 pixels, and image-editing software like Adobe Photoshop will assign the picture's original pixels to every other slot in the new picture. That leaves 100 pixels "blank," or without values. Image-editing software fills in the gaps by examining what their neighbors look like, and then applying an average. To oversimplify, if pixel A is blue, and pixel C is red, the blank pixel B will become purple.
This kind of averaging becomes "pretty obvious" after some analysis of the image, Professor Farid said.
In tests on several hundred doctored photos, this technique for detecting changes proved to be virtually foolproof if the picture quality was high enough. Uncompressed TIFF image files, which contain enormous amounts of data, were like an open book to Professor Farid's team.
But Professor Farid said that for now the technique does not work as well with files created in JPEG, the compressed picture format most commonly used online. As the size of a JPEG file shrinks, the correlations between pixels become much less obvious. "At 90 percent quality, it falls apart very quickly," Professor Farid noted.
Jessica Fridrich, a research professor in electrical and computer engineering at the State University of New York at Binghamton, is approaching the fraud problem from the other side. She is trying to figure out who took the digital picture in the first place.
Just like the rifling in a gun barrel leaves a distinctive pattern on the bullets it fires, a digital camera has a signature of sorts. Today's digit
That no matter how much you disagree with the US and its policies, our military is still one of the main reasons behind many technological innovations (and they damn well should be considering the budget).
I had mine done about 10 years ago, (First lasik Doc in Canada, blah, blah)
That's probably part of your problem right there - you were one of the first guinea pigs. LASIK technology has obviously made some advancements since you had it done ten years ago, as well as expertise of the doctors.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not really regime change if you believe in the Republicrat party, but it's better than Bush I suppose...
Che would be proud of all us guerilla drive-in commandos.
My tesla coil has a range of blowing up every light bulb within 5 miles MINIMUM...
If it can magically make 503 errors go away - yes if it does anything else - no
Why? Because happy books don't sell as well.
I think you are overestimating Microsoft. Yes, they have crushed technologies like Netscape, but you forget all the failed ventures they have had, without any intervention - Passport, Palladium, etc.
The difference between Google and true portals is that with Google you still CAN "just search" and not be bothered with anything else. At Yahoo and other sites there are still hundreds of useless links on the front page.
Just like Microsoft has became associated with "ease of use" (regardless of whether it's true), Google iw now associated with "accurate searches" in the mainstream media. It will be nearly impossible for Microsoft to over take them unless they have a truly revolutionary product - MSN only has such a high market share because it is IE's default homepage.
Low position? For a language that's not suppose to be a full-blown low-level language like C/C++, perl is pretty damn well represented - over 1/3 the number of projects compared to C isn't that bad. If you have just one file, something like sourceforge usually isn't needed.
1. Turn mice into gigantic mad cows 2. ??? 3. Profit!!
It could have something to do with the fact that Slashdot doesn't exactly use standards-friendly HTML...
Awww damn, and here I thought that Microsoft would include one of its strongest competing products instead of it's own that millions of dollars were funneled in to. Maybe I'm just too naive...
Of course people are going to cry that companies like Cray are falling by the wayside, but the truth is that their services simply aren't as needed as they were in years past.
Nuke Florida.
Yes, but for whatever reason AMD decided to phase out Duron (the name wasn't "sexy" enough, they needed a new brand name to spark popularity, it's anybody's guess) and put the Sempron in its place. The new Semprons also significantly outperform the last Durons, which were meant to go up against Intel's previous P4-based Celeron. When the D's came out, only the AthlonXP could compete with it, and the name "AthlonXP" still isn't associated with "budget" in the eyes of the consumer.
For us homely normal talkers, ergo ipso facto means "therefore by this fact", or "Latin makes arguements sound smarter".
For Doctored Photos, a New Flavor of Digital Truth Serum By NOAH SHACHTMAN
Published: July 22, 2004
From the material found on his hard drive, Bryan Sparks of Springfield Township, Ohio, seemed guilty when he was arrested in 2002. The sexually explicit pictures of minors appeared to put him on the wrong side of child pornography laws. But at his trial this spring, Mr. Sparks was acquitted because no one could tell for sure whether the images were authentic or just clever digital forgeries.
Mr. Sparks was eventually convicted on a separate charge of rape and sentenced to life in prison. But the uncertainties that surrounded his case, and others like it, are driving researchers to develop software that can automatically figure out which digital pictures are real and which ones are fake.
"It used to be that you had a photograph, and that was the end of it - that was truth," said Hany Farid, an associate professor of computer science at Dartmouth College who is a leader in the field. "We're trying to bring some of that back. To put some measure of guarantee back in photography."
At stake is more than the fate of possible child pornographers. The United States military has become increasingly reliant on digital images from drones and satellites to give soldiers a sense of the battlefield. Law enforcement officers routinely use digital cameras to photograph crime scenes. Newspapers and magazines are now dependent on digital photographs that can be easily doctored.
Over the last three years, Professor Farid and his students have become experts at forgery, making hundreds of images that look authentic but have in fact been digitally tweaked. License plate numbers are changed. A single stool standing on a checkerboard floor is suddenly a pair of stools. Dents on a car are wiped away with a few mouse clicks.
The skillful tampering disturbed the images in ways that the human eye could not detect. But Professor Farid says his algorithms can spot them and sound the alarm.
For example, when two images are spliced together - like the picture of a shark attacking a helicopter that has circulated around the Internet in the past few years - one or both of the original pictures usually has to be shrunk, enlarged or rotated to make the pieces fit together. And those changes, no matter how artful, leave clues behind.
Take a picture that is 10 pixels by 10 pixels, for a total of 100. Stretch it to 10 by 20 pixels, and image-editing software like Adobe Photoshop will assign the picture's original pixels to every other slot in the new picture. That leaves 100 pixels "blank," or without values. Image-editing software fills in the gaps by examining what their neighbors look like, and then applying an average. To oversimplify, if pixel A is blue, and pixel C is red, the blank pixel B will become purple.
This kind of averaging becomes "pretty obvious" after some analysis of the image, Professor Farid said.
In tests on several hundred doctored photos, this technique for detecting changes proved to be virtually foolproof if the picture quality was high enough. Uncompressed TIFF image files, which contain enormous amounts of data, were like an open book to Professor Farid's team.
But Professor Farid said that for now the technique does not work as well with files created in JPEG, the compressed picture format most commonly used online. As the size of a JPEG file shrinks, the correlations between pixels become much less obvious. "At 90 percent quality, it falls apart very quickly," Professor Farid noted.
Jessica Fridrich, a research professor in electrical and computer engineering at the State University of New York at Binghamton, is approaching the fraud problem from the other side. She is trying to figure out who took the digital picture in the first place.
Just like the rifling in a gun barrel leaves a distinctive pattern on the bullets it fires, a digital camera has a signature of sorts. Today's digit
Some kind of new 21st century discrimination? I have to be in IT to be annoying? huh? HUH? HUH?
That no matter how much you disagree with the US and its policies, our military is still one of the main reasons behind many technological innovations (and they damn well should be considering the budget).
500? That sure is alot of close friends
I had mine done about 10 years ago, (First lasik Doc in Canada, blah, blah) That's probably part of your problem right there - you were one of the first guinea pigs. LASIK technology has obviously made some advancements since you had it done ten years ago, as well as expertise of the doctors.
Wait, so if he gets kicked in the head 100 times how can he keep track of all those lost contacts or broken glasses? Does he wear goggles?
Not to mention XML already has XSL instead of CSS to format and describe its data...
This proves there was, as FOX predicted (and FOX is never wrong), no moon landing.
Yeah, and we all know that it the cost of distribution for each set of code is going to be $699...