It is "simply" morphing : they define a harmonious layout for the face, presumably by averaging the layout of several "beautiful" faces, then run an algorithm on the face to be corrected in order to find the contours of eyes, eyebrows, mouth, the whole face itself, then morph it into the "beautiful" layout.
The golden ratio is a fraud. You can use 5/3 for all intent or purpose as your personal golden ratio. The golden ratio only has one interesting property : If (a+b)/a = a/b, then a/b is the golden ratio. That is all. No hidden meanings of aesthetics, order of the universe, mystical property, etc... Just that : (a+b)/a = a/b. We are used to this ratio because it is the format of A3, A4, A5, A6... paper sheets. They all have the same ratio and if you cut one in half, you get the smaller size but still at the same ratio. It is the only ratio that allows that. It looks a bit magic if you think about it, but it is just a friggin' mathematical property that has nothing to do with beauty !
Is there something preventing them to do so ? If they do so, is there even a remote chance you could prosecute them for this ?
Don't look like a terrorist or mad scientist as you go through customs and immigration.
How do I do that while carrying a lot of DVDs and a messy computer bag ? When I cross the borders, I try very hard to not look like a drug user, and I do look like a mad scientist. How do one not look like a terrorist with an arabic name ? (fortunately not my case)
To think that I got my toothbruth stealed by security staff and that I could have blown the plan thanks to the overwhelming power of a wireless mouse...
Why all this fancy stuff ? Just put an electrode into the reward and pleasure centers of the brain and see people willfully getting stimulation until the die of thirst or hunger (it was happened to all rats that got this operation)
Just sex fantasy ? you'll get bored and get fewer fewer pleasure. Activate directly your dopamine receptors and there to ecstasy !
The most ironic thing in TFA : "A person using the e-mail address rubico10@yahoo.com posted a message to an online forum about how he used Yahoo Mail's password-recovery tool to obtain Palin's password by entering Palin's birth date, ZIP code and where Palin met her husband."
After having proved that Yahoo's email security is nil, he gets accused because someone used his own Yahoo address. I agree that this appears as a weak defense but still... The campus' hacker probably has a dozen of colleagues' email addresses and passwords to use in case of need...
Also, posting on 4chan as anything else than Anonymous is very fishy from my point of view. The defense of being framed holds water.
That is why I maintain that paper ballot is the superior option. But if you wanted to go with electronic voting, you would have to use cryptography and either learn it or get advices from someone who understands it.
No. Algorithms would be published. Cryptography is not exactly rocket science for anyone who has a little mathematical background.
If you are not willing to check by yourself, there will not be a single mandatory third party but you will be able to chose one you trust. There will be millions of potential whistle blowers that will be able to give mathematical proof of a problem, were there any.
The "S" is for "Space". Agreed, US could use a heavily funded energy program (I don't even understand why there are not a few billions spent on energy research at this point) but this is not the point of NASA. NASA is the luxury that USA bought itself when it was the #1 nation and when it believed that gratuitous R&D was something worthwhile.
There are three problems that must be tackled by voting syst m:
1. Anonymity of vote (nobody can tell who I voted for)
2. No third party of trust (I do not need to trust anyone, especially thos organizing the election)
3. Trust of count (The votes are correctly counted and totalled)
There are surprisingly little literature around cryptographic system designed to solve these three problems. All the electronic voting system that I am aware of rely on the revocation of one of these properties.
The difference is that you trust your bank with your money. You trust they will not steal from you and protect your privacy. You can check that they are not stealing from you.
If you vote on a third party website, you'll trust it with your votes, and its secrecy but, contrary to banks, you will have no way of checking that your vote is correctly accounted for.
Open sourcing the software changes nothing to the fact that it is impossible to check how the votes are tallied. It just takes two bytes change in the binary to reverse the results of an election. In a world where the task of counting votes can be done by a machine small enough to fit into a smart card, you'll never be sure that the code published is the code running if you don't want to trust the officials organizing the vote.
We want hundreds of kilometers of autonomy, more than 100 hundred meters ad maximum altitude, optionally, the ability to transport missiles and human(s). Could Mother Nature give us a few pointers ?
I know this is a common troll, but all this wouldn't have happened with a GPL license. When you chose the BSD over the GPL, you supposedly knew what you did...
Now that's finally someone who gets it. Apparently, Chinese want to take security seriously and finally say out loud that having black boxes managing your network is not the way it should be done.
Slashdot Mirror
I never realized...
That is really why I hate America...
It is "simply" morphing : they define a harmonious layout for the face, presumably by averaging the layout of several "beautiful" faces, then run an algorithm on the face to be corrected in order to find the contours of eyes, eyebrows, mouth, the whole face itself, then morph it into the "beautiful" layout.
/a = a/b. We are used to this ratio because it is the format of A3, A4, A5, A6... paper sheets. They all have the same ratio and if you cut one in half, you get the smaller size but still at the same ratio. It is the only ratio that allows that. It looks a bit magic if you think about it, but it is just a friggin' mathematical property that has nothing to do with beauty !
The golden ratio is a fraud. You can use 5/3 for all intent or purpose as your personal golden ratio. The golden ratio only has one interesting property : If (a+b)/a = a/b, then a/b is the golden ratio. That is all. No hidden meanings of aesthetics, order of the universe, mystical property, etc... Just that : (a+b)
Would they steal it? Put it up on a flickr site?
Is there something preventing them to do so ? If they do so, is there even a remote chance you could prosecute them for this ?
Don't look like a terrorist or mad scientist as you go through customs and immigration.
How do I do that while carrying a lot of DVDs and a messy computer bag ? When I cross the borders, I try very hard to not look like a drug user, and I do look like a mad scientist. How do one not look like a terrorist with an arabic name ? (fortunately not my case)
To think that I got my toothbruth stealed by security staff and that I could have blown the plan thanks to the overwhelming power of a wireless mouse...
I don't jest, I really think this is one of the most plausible way that could lead to humanity's end.
If not, then there's a serious problem with the judicial system.
Finally! Some fresh news on Slashdot !
Why all this fancy stuff ? Just put an electrode into the reward and pleasure centers of the brain and see people willfully getting stimulation until the die of thirst or hunger (it was happened to all rats that got this operation)
Just sex fantasy ? you'll get bored and get fewer fewer pleasure. Activate directly your dopamine receptors and there to ecstasy !
You don't get it. This is for dating simulations
Now it is official. Now they call it terrorism. Now they have passed laws to basically say terrorists don't have any right. That is a fscking change !
Do we get extra point by proving you that you are faking thought ?
The most ironic thing in TFA : "A person using the e-mail address rubico10@yahoo.com posted a message to an online forum about how he used Yahoo Mail's password-recovery tool to obtain Palin's password by entering Palin's birth date, ZIP code and where Palin met her husband."
After having proved that Yahoo's email security is nil, he gets accused because someone used his own Yahoo address. I agree that this appears as a weak defense but still... The campus' hacker probably has a dozen of colleagues' email addresses and passwords to use in case of need...
Also, posting on 4chan as anything else than Anonymous is very fishy from my point of view. The defense of being framed holds water.
That is why I maintain that paper ballot is the superior option. But if you wanted to go with electronic voting, you would have to use cryptography and either learn it or get advices from someone who understands it.
No. Algorithms would be published. Cryptography is not exactly rocket science for anyone who has a little mathematical background.
If you are not willing to check by yourself, there will not be a single mandatory third party but you will be able to chose one you trust. There will be millions of potential whistle blowers that will be able to give mathematical proof of a problem, were there any.
The "S" is for "Space". Agreed, US could use a heavily funded energy program (I don't even understand why there are not a few billions spent on energy research at this point) but this is not the point of NASA. NASA is the luxury that USA bought itself when it was the #1 nation and when it believed that gratuitous R&D was something worthwhile.
Now China does that.
They wouldn't do that if there weren't people ready to vote for them...
There are three problems that must be tackled by voting syst m :
1. Anonymity of vote (nobody can tell who I voted for)
2. No third party of trust (I do not need to trust anyone, especially thos organizing the election)
3. Trust of count (The votes are correctly counted and totalled)
There are surprisingly little literature around cryptographic system designed to solve these three problems. All the electronic voting system that I am aware of rely on the revocation of one of these properties.
The difference is that you trust your bank with your money. You trust they will not steal from you and protect your privacy. You can check that they are not stealing from you.
If you vote on a third party website, you'll trust it with your votes, and its secrecy but, contrary to banks, you will have no way of checking that your vote is correctly accounted for.
Open sourcing the software changes nothing to the fact that it is impossible to check how the votes are tallied. It just takes two bytes change in the binary to reverse the results of an election. In a world where the task of counting votes can be done by a machine small enough to fit into a smart card, you'll never be sure that the code published is the code running if you don't want to trust the officials organizing the vote.
This is a step back from paper ballots.
We want hundreds of kilometers of autonomy, more than 100 hundred meters ad maximum altitude, optionally, the ability to transport missiles and human(s). Could Mother Nature give us a few pointers ?
Buffer overflows are not the only security errors out there, you know. Yet it is the only one that the languages you quote prevent.
Fuel explodes !
A car analogy would have been better : you could have made a link with terrorism !
Maybe Google should change their motto to "Do less evil", because that is what they do. Be objective, in their position they could be far far worse.
I wish I will be this user...
I know this is a common troll, but all this wouldn't have happened with a GPL license. When you chose the BSD over the GPL, you supposedly knew what you did...
Now that's finally someone who gets it. Apparently, Chinese want to take security seriously and finally say out loud that having black boxes managing your network is not the way it should be done.