This seems an awfully expensive and unreliable means of authenticating the owner. Sure, 5G phones may come equipped with cameras as standard but then you still have the unreliability element. Unless the recognition is nothing less than spot on then it will be useless - too leniant and it'll be easy to get in, too strict and it'll lock out real users - not great!
If this is a supposed method of helping to prevent theft it seems a bit of a waste of time. The software could have the most advanced facial recognition in the world but the weaklink is usually the chipable phone hardware.
Thieves have passwords and such to contend with at the moment and this seems to do nothing to hamper theft - they're using fancy gadgets and chips to get around passwords, it'll be no different for user photos.
Most popular encryption systems are based on some irreversible algorithm that produces a hash of any sensitive data.
I'm not to up on the math but the basic idea is that when you look at the encryped string, you don't have enough information to reconstruct the original. The encoded data may or may not have a one to one relation with the original values but this isn't usually a problem (think billions of possibilities).
But available bandwidth doesn't usually mean it's 'unmetered' in terms of cost within the amount available.
Re:Was there ever an engine that used reg. express
on
Overture Buys Fast Search
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Technically, entering a simple search term in a search engine is a regular expression in itself, albeit a simple one.
Anything more would be pretty taxing on the server (especially with a monster like Google) and would no doubt only be used by very few people (regular expressions aren't exactly your average joe-public's idea of fun).
Would be interesting to see this implemented, though.
The impression I get is that this is effectively PayPal. The user loads, say, $10 into their account via a credit card. Pepper coin then pay the transaction fee (maybe $.25 or something).
Then basically Pepercoin, I assume, keeps a tally of how many items a given site sells. On every N-th transaction, they hand over $N to the retailer. This way the retailer only effectively needs to pay the $.25 (+ Pepercoin's markup of course) per 20 transactions of whatever.
So, to sum up, this seems basically like Paypal but reworded. You still can't use your credit card to make micropayments and you still need to have an account with Pepercoin, and for the retailer to accept Pepercoin, before you can make a transaction.
Unless I'm missing something this seems pretty useless. I thought the major factor with services with Paypal etc. was that users don't want to have to sign up with a 3rd party - it's just too much hassel.
While this research may well give us some miscellaneous bonus research regarding asteroids and such, it seems slightly fruitless.
Yes, there is a chance an asteroid will hit us. There's also a chance black hole will spring up next to us and suck us in. There's even a tiny chance that the sun will extinguish itself leaving us with the task of trying to reignite it.
Why waste money on such research which will, inevitably, be pretty useless when (and if) an asteroid the size of Britain comes along our way.
I think these guys have finally got around to renting Armaggedon and got a little paranoid.
But overall I think the original poster made a valid point.
Your example is rather contrived - yes there is the possibility that you'll *gasp* miss a television show despite probable repeats. But to be honest, I think this sacrifice is worth it, especially as it'll give the powers that be less ammo to attack the TiVo with.
And let's face it, you'll miss a lot more TV without it!
Of course, the problem is, debugging tools will only help you track down bugs that you are looking for - and hence bugs that you know exist.
It is not the case that software companies and the like intentionally release software with no known bugs (cue: microsoft puns) it is they do not know they exist. No amount of debugging tools will help you find these bugs.
The general methodology for many programmers (from amateur to supposedly professional) is to write some code and do a few quick tests. Perhaps throwing in a few -1's and out of range values to check for error checking. The caveat here of course is that these checks don't always apply to a real world bug which the programmer hasn't even contemplated. It is poor planning and bad design that inevitably leads to the bugs - as the author of this post suggests, maybe we should all spend more time with our graph paper and pencils before writing the code.
A debugging tool is there to help fix bugs that you know exist - unfortunately it is often the userbase that has the job of finding them.
But that's the point. They can (supposedly anyway) be 95% accurate due to such a "large" range.
I don't reckon it's a bad estimate though - while the range seems a LOT, when you're talking about the universe and measuring things in terms of billions, these figures are pretty accurate considering their claimed 95% confidence level.
Re:Let's hope this means the end of veal
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 1
Bull (excuse the pun). What they're trying to promote is irrelevant. The fact is, both organsiations have their own agendas and they will only present facts and evidence that supports their cause.
Looking at it in another light, the meat industry is telling you to eat meat, while organsiations such as PETA are prmoting a vegetatian diet.
Whether they're promoting for or against isn't the issue. The previous poster's point is valid.
If they're anything like this then I'm in full support...
Re:We already can convert raw material into turkey
on
Christmas in 2050
·
· Score: 1
"I challenge you to name one successful athlete who is a vegetarian..."
Well, how's about this list of, well, famous veggie athletes. Not all of them are what I'd call celebrities mind but still, please don't continue to spread this ignorance.
Now that is definitely one of those easier said than done scenarios... While not a failsafe method, this seems a pretty good idea. Those with precompiled binaries would find it the most useful tho I guess.
Shooting starts April 2003? Not soon enough! But seriously, I loved the original stories and for all Will Smith is annoying, I think he could pull of the detective roll pretty well.
The inevitable chart song, however, seems a different story...
Slashdot Mirror
It's driven by market research - these huge conglomerates don't just develop a product because its "leet"!
I would wager there is a huge market for this stuff - probably late teenage and the 'professional' young adult.
I agree it all seems a bit over the top but hey, where there's a market there's a product.
This seems an awfully expensive and unreliable means of authenticating the owner. Sure, 5G phones may come equipped with cameras as standard but then you still have the unreliability element. Unless the recognition is nothing less than spot on then it will be useless - too leniant and it'll be easy to get in, too strict and it'll lock out real users - not great!
If this is a supposed method of helping to prevent theft it seems a bit of a waste of time. The software could have the most advanced facial recognition in the world but the weaklink is usually the chipable phone hardware.
Thieves have passwords and such to contend with at the moment and this seems to do nothing to hamper theft - they're using fancy gadgets and chips to get around passwords, it'll be no different for user photos.
Most popular encryption systems are based on some irreversible algorithm that produces a hash of any sensitive data.
I'm not to up on the math but the basic idea is that when you look at the encryped string, you don't have enough information to reconstruct the original. The encoded data may or may not have a one to one relation with the original values but this isn't usually a problem (think billions of possibilities).
But available bandwidth doesn't usually mean it's 'unmetered' in terms of cost within the amount available.
Technically, entering a simple search term in a search engine is a regular expression in itself, albeit a simple one.
Anything more would be pretty taxing on the server (especially with a monster like Google) and would no doubt only be used by very few people (regular expressions aren't exactly your average joe-public's idea of fun).
Would be interesting to see this implemented, though.
Yeah, it's *@aol.com
The impression I get is that this is effectively PayPal. The user loads, say, $10 into their account via a credit card. Pepper coin then pay the transaction fee (maybe $.25 or something).
Then basically Pepercoin, I assume, keeps a tally of how many items a given site sells. On every N-th transaction, they hand over $N to the retailer. This way the retailer only effectively needs to pay the $.25 (+ Pepercoin's markup of course) per 20 transactions of whatever.
So, to sum up, this seems basically like Paypal but reworded. You still can't use your credit card to make micropayments and you still need to have an account with Pepercoin, and for the retailer to accept Pepercoin, before you can make a transaction.
Unless I'm missing something this seems pretty useless. I thought the major factor with services with Paypal etc. was that users don't want to have to sign up with a 3rd party - it's just too much hassel.
While this research may well give us some miscellaneous bonus research regarding asteroids and such, it seems slightly fruitless.
Yes, there is a chance an asteroid will hit us. There's also a chance black hole will spring up next to us and suck us in. There's even a tiny chance that the sun will extinguish itself leaving us with the task of trying to reignite it.
Why waste money on such research which will, inevitably, be pretty useless when (and if) an asteroid the size of Britain comes along our way.
I think these guys have finally got around to renting Armaggedon and got a little paranoid.
That's actually a really interesting question. Although I seem to recall that Kevin served his time in a relatively low-security prison?
Regardless, I hope this question goes through.
You raise a valid point :)
That's because the images are href'd to his site!
But overall I think the original poster made a valid point.
Your example is rather contrived - yes there is the possibility that you'll *gasp* miss a television show despite probable repeats. But to be honest, I think this sacrifice is worth it, especially as it'll give the powers that be less ammo to attack the TiVo with.
And let's face it, you'll miss a lot more TV without it!
Of course, the problem is, debugging tools will only help you track down bugs that you are looking for - and hence bugs that you know exist.
It is not the case that software companies and the like intentionally release software with no known bugs (cue: microsoft puns) it is they do not know they exist. No amount of debugging tools will help you find these bugs.
The general methodology for many programmers (from amateur to supposedly professional) is to write some code and do a few quick tests. Perhaps throwing in a few -1's and out of range values to check for error checking. The caveat here of course is that these checks don't always apply to a real world bug which the programmer hasn't even contemplated. It is poor planning and bad design that inevitably leads to the bugs - as the author of this post suggests, maybe we should all spend more time with our graph paper and pencils before writing the code.
A debugging tool is there to help fix bugs that you know exist - unfortunately it is often the userbase that has the job of finding them.
But that's the point. They can (supposedly anyway) be 95% accurate due to such a "large" range.
I don't reckon it's a bad estimate though - while the range seems a LOT, when you're talking about the universe and measuring things in terms of billions, these figures are pretty accurate considering their claimed 95% confidence level.
Bull (excuse the pun). What they're trying to promote is irrelevant. The fact is, both organsiations have their own agendas and they will only present facts and evidence that supports their cause. Looking at it in another light, the meat industry is telling you to eat meat, while organsiations such as PETA are prmoting a vegetatian diet. Whether they're promoting for or against isn't the issue. The previous poster's point is valid.
If they're anything like this then I'm in full support...
Now that is dedication to the karma!
Now that is definitely one of those easier said than done scenarios... While not a failsafe method, this seems a pretty good idea. Those with precompiled binaries would find it the most useful tho I guess.
Shooting starts April 2003? Not soon enough! But seriously, I loved the original stories and for all Will Smith is annoying, I think he could pull of the detective roll pretty well.
The inevitable chart song, however, seems a different story...
Damn editors... this is a NEW story. Can't even post dupes consistantly! Oh wait...
... yes, and after point release 6, the shuttles probably won't crash as much.
But hell, at least the explosions would look cool when they do.
Exactly... you can't get worse performance than that!