. . . you will be disappointed unless you're into blocky mosaic overlays over the naughty pink parts. Of course, there are black-market places to get the real deal (notably, Akihabara the famous electronic city, which is also jammed full of tiny porn shops) but the "good" sections are usually marked "Japanese Only" or "No Gaijin (Foreigners)".
Sure you can download from overseas sites, but the Nihonjin take their porn laws pretty seriously, and you can find yourself in a heapload of trouble for even posessing a (poorly) hand-drawn pic of a chitsu (the best naughty pink part).
Of course, mainstream bookstores carry scat, snuff (real? I dunno, hope not), pedophilia, and the most bizarro stuff you've never seen (tentacle anima is nothing in comparison), just as long as you don't show the chitsu . . .
It's truly a strange place. And the gubmint is rather deeply involved in everything, which leads me to believe that this cheap cable is getting some gubmint subsidy. I mean, compare with their phone system, which can run $700-800 (one-time, non-transferable) to get hooked up (which is why so many Japanese use mobiles as their only phone), and you can see that population density doesn't always provide cheap wired services.
Cheaply produced chicken for instance, pumped with water to increase weight, moved half way across the globe packed with conservatives is one downside for instance.
Wow, as a conservative myself (economically speaking), I have to agree that being packed into a chicken would definitely be a downside to anything. Although having water pumped in would be nice, I mean, if I have to be packed into a chicken, at least it should have running water available, right?:)
Loyalty to long-time skilled employees? Not anymore. Companies are only loyal to their short-term bottom line.
I'm sorry to hear about your plight and all, but please spare us the BS longing for the gool ol days. There never has been (on a large scale) nor should there ever be any loyalty to employees just for the sake of loyalty. And, short- or long-term, the bottom line is what determines how many employees can be paid. Without attention to it, more people will end up in shoes very similar to the ones you're currently not happy about being in.
Get the pity-party over and done with, stop wasting time longing for a fantastic view of a past that never was, and re-tool yourself to be more valuable. It can be done.
More importantly, it just doesn't work. My favorite part of the paper:
No proposed technical protection measures are strong enough to sustain a determined attack. Only in combination with models where the incentives to circumvent are limited, can technical solutions succeed.
So, I read that to say that if you don't allow for reasonable legal alternatives (like, say, charging less than $20 for one decent song amidst some filler and/or providing some handy online distribution system), nothing you can do technically to prevent copying will work in the long run. Of course, that leaves legal recourse (as we've seen from the RIAA lately), but the fine article also addresses the (in)feasibility of that option.
Of course, I'm guessing the *AA will read it more along the lines of: we've gotta use the opposite approach by providing an incentive to NOT circumvent: (1) try to convince everyone that file sharing is the moral equivalent of eating the baby you just molested, (2) utilize ridiculous and broken copy protection schemes that hassle the honest-end users, thereby creating a peer-pressure factor, and (3) emit a constant barrage of shotgun-style lawsuits to maintain a nice atmosphere of fear.
I dunno why these nice smart folks bothered to make this fine paper. For some of us they are preaching to the choir, for others their words fall on deaf ears.
Regardless, the machines are heavy. They compress the soil that the wheels drive over. Roots grow less quickly in compacted soil. Driving anywhere each year (or whatever the crop change period is) will eventually compact large chunks of field which will have to be tilled/aerated before re-planting. Driving on the same tracks (more or less) every time minimized this.
so he can drive over the same tracks in his wheat field every year (I'm not kidding, read the fine article) and compress as little of his soil as possible
I've heard about open your mind, but I haven't seen it, and I want to. I couldn't get google to show me what I want (though I found some fun related stuff), and I don't see your email. Please post a link later, or email to randola at hotmail dot com. Thanks.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he quotes a good source - given that it's Warren Buffett's writing he linked.
Er, thanks for the limbsmanship there, but it really isn't necessary or relevant. See, no one questioned the authority or credibility of the source. And everything you said was, well, pretty much said by reference in the reply to the OP.
Bringing this back OT: \
Great-grandparent said:
That sounds more like insurance for the artists than an investment. - You buy insurance from me in ase your tour makes less than $80M. Now who do you think insurance policies REALLY benefit in the long run?
Grandparent said:
Acutally, most insurance companies pay out more in claims than they take in in premiums. The data is publically available via the A. M. Best Company.
Parent said:
True, but misleading . . . [that's] ignoring investment income on the premiums, so it's as if they just kept your premium payments in a 0%-earning account to do nothing until it is paid out years later, which is not at all the case
And now you, for some reason think you're going "out on a limb" in asserting that Warren Buffett is a credible source for info.
It seems that/. has degenerated to the point that people not only fail to RTFA, but also don't bother to read posts to which they are replying. Sigh.
Acutally, most insurance companies pay out more in claims than they take in in premiums.
True, but misleading. From your source:
The combined ratio represents total insurance costs (losses incurred plus expenses) compared to revenue from premiums: A ratio below 100 indicates an underwriting profit, and one above 100 indicates a loss.
I assume you made your statement because all of the figures in the table referenced are between 104.6 and 118, with the average at 109.89. However, if you keep reading, you will learn that the breakeven = 100 table is ignoring investment income on the premiums, so it's as if they just kept your premium payments in a 0%-earning account to do nothing until it is paid out years later, which is not at all the case. To wit:
When the investment income that an insurer earns from holding policyholders' funds ("the float") is taken into account, a combined ratio in the 107 - 111 range typically produces an overall breakeven result, exclusive of earnings on the funds provided by shareholders.
So, the OP's assertion that insuring is generally a profitable thing for the insurer rather than the insuree is in no way harmed by your interesting citation.
Think you have seen the whole nerd life? Take a look at redune.cc [redune.cc] It'll change you.
Yeah, it changed me -- from curious, to bored, and then to angry that someone would put such a hype-filled tag on a link to such a weak website. It's mostly placeholders, where no doubt you'll add lots of life-changing content soon, and a few short articles suitable for any junior college speech class. Yawn.
It's a base-64 encoded proof-of-concept font and loader program. Base-64 is sort of like uuencode -- it's just a reversible way to represent a binary file as ascii code. The line "begin-base64 644 dayX.tgz" is the header that includes the encoded filename (dayX.tgz). Ask google about it for more info. Google knows all.
By your descriptions, you're looking for StumbleUpon, a toolbar which adds all sorts of intelligent website locating tools.
Not really. It seems to be more of a website recommendation system:
StumbleUpon is the first personalized web surfing community. Our Toolbar lets you 'stumble upon' cool websites that have been highly recommended (rated Great!) by friends and community members with interests similar to your own.
So, like community bookmarks. Interesting, but not what I'm looking for.
I do program, but mostly tools to help me do hardware design or do clever things for the part of the company intranet I run, and increasingly perl rather than C. I make ugly, unfriendly tools that only I could use safely. I don't have the patience or organizational skills to do a major software project. OOP bothers me in several non-specific ways.
That said, while typing up those ideas I did stop to consider that I was possibly letting loose Yet Another Great Idea (YAGI, which conveniently means "goat" in Japanese, hence: letting the goat escape, hereby coined).
But, knowing that I have neither the wherewithall nor desire to do it myself (I'm married to a big company by virtue of my grossly overpaid position that's actually pretty fun still), I'd rather toss the idea out here on./ (rather than other less OSS-friendly places, or worse -- nowhere) and possibly someday get to benefit from someone's actual implementation of the ideas. For free. As in beer, or liberty, or herpes, or something like that:)
In short: have at it! It's yours if you can do anything with it.
. . . because word processing, assuming the same input device (keyboard) and continued unfulfilled promises from the voice recognition industry, is solved. Done. Finis. Optimized and ready to roll.
I mean, there's only so much you can do to enhance one's letter-writing experience (and clippy is excellent evidence that word processing has indeed been taken Too Far. Over-optimized, if you will.)
Browsing is a different story (even fundamentally speakingn: you're consuming info rather than creating it). There is a lot of room for improvement here, see my previous long post listing several useful things that I think are fairly obvious and missing from all browsers ever. I'm too tired to go it again:)
Grandparent is missing the point -- it's not that browsers should not have forward back and bookmark, somehow replacing these with "better" functional metaphors. It's that they shouldn't have only forward, back and bookmark as navigation and information storage paradigms.
Parent, on the other hand, is on to it -- keep going! How can browsers make it easier to remember what we saw, where we saw it, and why we cared when we saw it? These are the questions that don't seem to be influencing modern browsers (or any browsers, ever, see below).
Gestures are cool, but they are functional improvements (immediate, operational efficiency enhancements) -- where are the higher-level, conceptual, long-term efficiency enhancers? Why can't my browser warn me if there is a reputable opionion on an arguable topic I've been researching that I have not yet read? Google knows, or very nearly does. It's a challenging but possible leap to make a browser be able to understand sets of info (refer to Google sets, google for it if you don't know, it will blow you away. It basically takes a few items from you, figures out what is in common between them, and fills in the other things like them. All from web context clues.) Why doesn't my browser note that I'm checking out info on items A and B, look up the fact that these are both items in set z, and then gently suggest that I also check out the other items C, D, and E since it knows these are also in set z? Maybe they're all in set y too, offering yet another angle -- the browser should know. My point is that the info should be there, making it available inobtrusively is a trivial detail for interface designers to ponder.
I can do more with perl and wget (or LWP) in less time than any browser that exists, and I do occasionally resort to that when searching a tricky topic. This should not be a true statement.
Why can't my browser (at least pretend to) understand some of the info I see every day, categorize it, and make sure I can find it (and extract summaries from it) later, easily? The technologies exist (data mining, xml, bayesian filters, crude ai) but they have not been integrated into browsers. Tivo lets you thumb up/down any content and thus vote your preference to see more of the same. Why don't browsers have something like this? (To be fair, I have seen attempts at this, but they all tend to degenerate into advertising-ruined information dead-ends.) And why can't it learn (or ask) why I did/didn't like a site, and extract from that aggregate info what sites I might like or not (maybe even including some % of what my friends like.) Then from this form bayesian-like filters (more intereactive than those used for emails these days) to help prioritize (not filter, really) data. I'm thinking of a meta-google appliance that applies your own categories of interest and weighting preferences to google pagerank results, re-ordering the results for your preferences (i.e., I am a member of the European Demolition Association, so searches for 'EDA' should show me demolition-related hits before Electronic Design Automation hits, which would otherwise dominate the first-listed google results.)
Let me steer you a bit more another way -- it's what we have seen that's important. Google is doing a great job of letting me find new stuff. No problems there, but what happens when you need to go back later and find that really cool site on that topic that just happened to come up again a few days later and ooh, it was so relevant and full of meaty info and if I could just rememeber the keywords I used to find it . . .
So, css, gestures, etc. aside (they are innovations, but minor, and not involving any major architectural change), we haven't see much change or innovation since the very first browsers created. Other than speed, some standards changes, and aesthetics, you can use Mosaic 1.0 to find info on the www pretty much as easily as IE or any of it's modern competitors.
I guess this is a meta-meta-RTFA, but you seem to have missed a key point in the article (though you clearly read at least some of it -- kudos for that).
The exploit requires both the template and (repeated) access to score results (i.e., the evaluation / matching algorithm). The template itself is insufficient as the exploit depends on iterative image manupulations and "hotter, warmer, cooler" feeback from the evaluation algorithm to work.
So, although you seem to get this in your final paragraphs (though your "also" seems to imply that this is an additional, separate thing, while I read the FA to say the scores are an inherent need). In any case, your earlier statements don't seem to take this into account. Such as your UNIX password analogy, which would only be applicable if failed password entries gave you some quantitative feedback like "you're about 50% on that one", "nope, worse this time -- only 45% of a real password", etc. instead of a simple "sorry." or "invalid login".
This isn't a problem because most people have extras of the body parts used for most biometric schemes.
It's not a problem at all. On the contrary, it is a really good discovery IMHO. The most important conclusion from this is (from the talk slides):
Biometric software systems should provide
yes/no only, with no match score values.
My question is: why would the software systems ever need to give a match score value, instead of a yes/no answer in the first place? It's not like the algorithm developer is there operating the machine and can thus use the score result to help decide what to do with "near" matches. Most of the people using these machines, I would surmise, are pretty clueless about how they work (except in a very general sense, of course), so providing a score result would only be confusing and a potential source of misidentification:
"Hmm, that John Doe matched with a score of 95, and it turned out not to be the guy, so this 94 score can't possibly really be Osama Bin Laden -- go ahead and let him on the plane with his antique ceremonial religious knives."
Either the system thinks it knows the person's face, or it doesn't. That's all it needs to say. Saying just that and nothing more will protect privacy (in that you can't reconstruct the face without the template and quantitative match score results), and it will prevent operator confusion and some types of misapplication.
Have you ever considered the possibility that non-native writers/speakers who post here would benefit from some grammar and spelling correction (a benefit that many such people actually pay for, offered here for FREE)? I know you, for one, have made the same mistake many times and perhaps a reminder or two, especially a funny or easy-to-remember one, would help you avoid the error in the future. Of course, just because someone happens to misspell a word doesn't mean that they are complete idiots, but presentation affects assimilation and interpretation, so you might benefit in many ways from improving your grammar and spelling. Knowing how to spell is important, and making fun of someone's spelling mistakes may, if they have the right attitude and sense of humor, help them improve. Of course, correcting someone doesn't make you smarter, nor does it convey that you have any manners, but it could help someone look like less of a moron and thereby more effectively convey a message.
Glad you liked it, but stop trying to flirt with me. I already told you that I'm not interested. Dragging your romantic failure out on./ is not going to convince me otherwise. Give up already.
So now, "being all that you can be" includes being frustrated and riddled with crashes? Oh, wait, that's the old slogan. Won't someone please think of our TROOPS???!?!
ABS is invoked when I decide to put my foot on the brake,
Radar braking is invoked when you decide not to put your foot on the brake but should be.
[ABS] is designed to automatically do what I was taught to do manually before ABS existed--pump the brakes
Radar-braking is designed to automatically do what you were (hopefully) taught to do manually before ABS existed -- not run into things.
Just because it can pump the brakes faster than I can myself doesn't change that basic fact.
No, but that's the point -- it does it faster. Radar baking avoids collisions (reacts) faster than you can. You still want to avoid collisions, right?
A radar system, on the other hand, presumes to be better able to detect an impending collision, in 2 dimensions or so, better than I can in 3.
How is radar 2-D? It knows speed, distance, and location just like you, in all 3 dimensions, just much more accurately than your vision.
That sounds like some sort of intelligence to me.
Is an AND gate intelligent? It produces a defined, predictable output for a given set of inputs. So does this radar brake system -- if (collision iminent) then (apply brakes). I don't see how this is intelligence in any sense.
If it were so simple, we'd have had radar tracking cars long ago.
Oh, come on now, this is a weak one. Perhaps the hardest part of the implementation is convincing people like you that it's a good thing.:)
No it isn't, ABS will not ever come into play unless the driver decides to stop the car.
And that's when ABS says, "shit, stop stopping the car", you're not doing it (pumping the brakes) right, takes over, and UN-DOES your braking effort, but produces better results (stops the car faster).
It is more of an assistance to something the driver actually wants.
Um, if you're about to slam into something, wouldn't something applying the brakes be providing assistance to something you want?
Slashdot Mirror
If I move to Japan and try to get my porn..
. . . you will be disappointed unless you're into blocky mosaic overlays over the naughty pink parts. Of course, there are black-market places to get the real deal (notably, Akihabara the famous electronic city, which is also jammed full of tiny porn shops) but the "good" sections are usually marked "Japanese Only" or "No Gaijin (Foreigners)".
Sure you can download from overseas sites, but the Nihonjin take their porn laws pretty seriously, and you can find yourself in a heapload of trouble for even posessing a (poorly) hand-drawn pic of a chitsu (the best naughty pink part).
Of course, mainstream bookstores carry scat, snuff (real? I dunno, hope not), pedophilia, and the most bizarro stuff you've never seen (tentacle anima is nothing in comparison), just as long as you don't show the chitsu . . .
It's truly a strange place. And the gubmint is rather deeply involved in everything, which leads me to believe that this cheap cable is getting some gubmint subsidy. I mean, compare with their phone system, which can run $700-800 (one-time, non-transferable) to get hooked up (which is why so many Japanese use mobiles as their only phone), and you can see that population density doesn't always provide cheap wired services.
Cheaply produced chicken for instance, pumped with water to increase weight, moved half way across the globe packed with conservatives is one downside for instance.
:)
Wow, as a conservative myself (economically speaking), I have to agree that being packed into a chicken would definitely be a downside to anything. Although having water pumped in would be nice, I mean, if I have to be packed into a chicken, at least it should have running water available, right?
Loyalty to long-time skilled employees? Not anymore. Companies are only loyal to their short-term bottom line.
I'm sorry to hear about your plight and all, but please spare us the BS longing for the gool ol days. There never has been (on a large scale) nor should there ever be any loyalty to employees just for the sake of loyalty. And, short- or long-term, the bottom line is what determines how many employees can be paid. Without attention to it, more people will end up in shoes very similar to the ones you're currently not happy about being in.
Get the pity-party over and done with, stop wasting time longing for a fantastic view of a past that never was, and re-tool yourself to be more valuable. It can be done.
More importantly, it just doesn't work. My favorite part of the paper:
No proposed technical protection measures are strong enough to sustain a determined attack. Only in combination with models where the incentives to circumvent are limited, can technical solutions succeed.
So, I read that to say that if you don't allow for reasonable legal alternatives (like, say, charging less than $20 for one decent song amidst some filler and/or providing some handy online distribution system), nothing you can do technically to prevent copying will work in the long run. Of course, that leaves legal recourse (as we've seen from the RIAA lately), but the fine article also addresses the (in)feasibility of that option.
Of course, I'm guessing the *AA will read it more along the lines of: we've gotta use the opposite approach by providing an incentive to NOT circumvent: (1) try to convince everyone that file sharing is the moral equivalent of eating the baby you just molested, (2) utilize ridiculous and broken copy protection schemes that hassle the honest-end users, thereby creating a peer-pressure factor, and (3) emit a constant barrage of shotgun-style lawsuits to maintain a nice atmosphere of fear.
I dunno why these nice smart folks bothered to make this fine paper. For some of us they are preaching to the choir, for others their words fall on deaf ears.
any luck? still no email, and no luck with google. I found several references to the flick, but no download links.
Regardless, the machines are heavy. They compress the soil that the wheels drive over. Roots grow less quickly in compacted soil. Driving anywhere each year (or whatever the crop change period is) will eventually compact large chunks of field which will have to be tilled/aerated before re-planting. Driving on the same tracks (more or less) every time minimized this.
Hope that helps.
so he can drive over the same tracks in his wheat field every year (I'm not kidding, read the fine article) and compress as little of his soil as possible
I've heard about open your mind, but I haven't seen it, and I want to. I couldn't get google to show me what I want (though I found some fun related stuff), and I don't see your email. Please post a link later, or email to randola at hotmail dot com. Thanks.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he quotes a good source - given that it's Warren Buffett's writing he linked.
/. has degenerated to the point that people not only fail to RTFA, but also don't bother to read posts to which they are replying. Sigh.
Er, thanks for the limbsmanship there, but it really isn't necessary or relevant. See, no one questioned the authority or credibility of the source. And everything you said was, well, pretty much said by reference in the reply to the OP.
Bringing this back OT: \
Great-grandparent said:
That sounds more like insurance for the artists than an investment. - You buy insurance from me in ase your tour makes less than $80M. Now who do you think insurance policies REALLY benefit in the long run?
Grandparent said:
Acutally, most insurance companies pay out more in claims than they take in in premiums. The data is publically available via the A. M. Best Company.
Parent said:
True, but misleading . . . [that's] ignoring investment income on the premiums, so it's as if they just kept your premium payments in a 0%-earning account to do nothing until it is paid out years later, which is not at all the case
And now you, for some reason think you're going "out on a limb" in asserting that Warren Buffett is a credible source for info.
It seems that
Acutally, most insurance companies pay out more in claims than they take in in premiums.
True, but misleading. From your source:
The combined ratio represents total insurance costs (losses incurred plus expenses) compared to revenue from premiums: A ratio below 100 indicates an underwriting profit, and one above 100 indicates a loss.
I assume you made your statement because all of the figures in the table referenced are between 104.6 and 118, with the average at 109.89. However, if you keep reading, you will learn that the breakeven = 100 table is ignoring investment income on the premiums, so it's as if they just kept your premium payments in a 0%-earning account to do nothing until it is paid out years later, which is not at all the case. To wit:
When the investment income that an insurer earns from holding policyholders' funds ("the float") is taken into account, a combined ratio in the 107 - 111 range typically produces an overall breakeven result, exclusive of earnings on the funds provided by shareholders.
So, the OP's assertion that insuring is generally a profitable thing for the insurer rather than the insuree is in no way harmed by your interesting citation.
Think you have seen the whole nerd life? Take a look at redune.cc [redune.cc] It'll change you.
Yeah, it changed me -- from curious, to bored, and then to angry that someone would put such a hype-filled tag on a link to such a weak website. It's mostly placeholders, where no doubt you'll add lots of life-changing content soon, and a few short articles suitable for any junior college speech class. Yawn.
It's a base-64 encoded proof-of-concept font and loader program. Base-64 is sort of like uuencode -- it's just a reversible way to represent a binary file as ascii code. The line "begin-base64 644 dayX.tgz" is the header that includes the encoded filename (dayX.tgz). Ask google about it for more info. Google knows all.
By your descriptions, you're looking for StumbleUpon, a toolbar which adds all sorts of intelligent website locating tools.
Not really. It seems to be more of a website recommendation system:
StumbleUpon is the first personalized web surfing community. Our Toolbar lets you 'stumble upon' cool websites that have been highly recommended (rated Great!) by friends and community members with interests similar to your own.
So, like community bookmarks. Interesting, but not what I'm looking for.
I do program, but mostly tools to help me do hardware design or do clever things for the part of the company intranet I run, and increasingly perl rather than C. I make ugly, unfriendly tools that only I could use safely. I don't have the patience or organizational skills to do a major software project. OOP bothers me in several non-specific ways.
./ (rather than other less OSS-friendly places, or worse -- nowhere) and possibly someday get to benefit from someone's actual implementation of the ideas. For free. As in beer, or liberty, or herpes, or something like that :)
That said, while typing up those ideas I did stop to consider that I was possibly letting loose Yet Another Great Idea (YAGI, which conveniently means "goat" in Japanese, hence: letting the goat escape, hereby coined).
But, knowing that I have neither the wherewithall nor desire to do it myself (I'm married to a big company by virtue of my grossly overpaid position that's actually pretty fun still), I'd rather toss the idea out here on
In short: have at it! It's yours if you can do anything with it.
google
. . . because word processing, assuming the same input device (keyboard) and continued unfulfilled promises from the voice recognition industry, is solved. Done. Finis. Optimized and ready to roll.
:)
I mean, there's only so much you can do to enhance one's letter-writing experience (and clippy is excellent evidence that word processing has indeed been taken Too Far. Over-optimized, if you will.)
Browsing is a different story (even fundamentally speakingn: you're consuming info rather than creating it). There is a lot of room for improvement here, see my previous long post listing several useful things that I think are fairly obvious and missing from all browsers ever. I'm too tired to go it again
Grandparent is missing the point -- it's not that browsers should not have forward back and bookmark, somehow replacing these with "better" functional metaphors. It's that they shouldn't have only forward, back and bookmark as navigation and information storage paradigms.
Parent, on the other hand, is on to it -- keep going! How can browsers make it easier to remember what we saw, where we saw it, and why we cared when we saw it? These are the questions that don't seem to be influencing modern browsers (or any browsers, ever, see below).
Gestures are cool, but they are functional improvements (immediate, operational efficiency enhancements) -- where are the higher-level, conceptual, long-term efficiency enhancers? Why can't my browser warn me if there is a reputable opionion on an arguable topic I've been researching that I have not yet read? Google knows, or very nearly does. It's a challenging but possible leap to make a browser be able to understand sets of info (refer to Google sets, google for it if you don't know, it will blow you away. It basically takes a few items from you, figures out what is in common between them, and fills in the other things like them. All from web context clues.) Why doesn't my browser note that I'm checking out info on items A and B, look up the fact that these are both items in set z, and then gently suggest that I also check out the other items C, D, and E since it knows these are also in set z? Maybe they're all in set y too, offering yet another angle -- the browser should know. My point is that the info should be there, making it available inobtrusively is a trivial detail for interface designers to ponder.
I can do more with perl and wget (or LWP) in less time than any browser that exists, and I do occasionally resort to that when searching a tricky topic. This should not be a true statement.
Why can't my browser (at least pretend to) understand some of the info I see every day, categorize it, and make sure I can find it (and extract summaries from it) later, easily? The technologies exist (data mining, xml, bayesian filters, crude ai) but they have not been integrated into browsers. Tivo lets you thumb up/down any content and thus vote your preference to see more of the same. Why don't browsers have something like this? (To be fair, I have seen attempts at this, but they all tend to degenerate into advertising-ruined information dead-ends.) And why can't it learn (or ask) why I did/didn't like a site, and extract from that aggregate info what sites I might like or not (maybe even including some % of what my friends like.) Then from this form bayesian-like filters (more intereactive than those used for emails these days) to help prioritize (not filter, really) data. I'm thinking of a meta-google appliance that applies your own categories of interest and weighting preferences to google pagerank results, re-ordering the results for your preferences (i.e., I am a member of the European Demolition Association, so searches for 'EDA' should show me demolition-related hits before Electronic Design Automation hits, which would otherwise dominate the first-listed google results.)
Let me steer you a bit more another way -- it's what we have seen that's important. Google is doing a great job of letting me find new stuff. No problems there, but what happens when you need to go back later and find that really cool site on that topic that just happened to come up again a few days later and ooh, it was so relevant and full of meaty info and if I could just rememeber the keywords I used to find it . . .
So, css, gestures, etc. aside (they are innovations, but minor, and not involving any major architectural change), we haven't see much change or innovation since the very first browsers created. Other than speed, some standards changes, and aesthetics, you can use Mosaic 1.0 to find info on the www pretty much as easily as IE or any of it's modern competitors.
And that's the point he should have made.
Double baloney. You made that up. Liar.
I guess this is a meta-meta-RTFA, but you seem to have missed a key point in the article (though you clearly read at least some of it -- kudos for that).
The exploit requires both the template and (repeated) access to score results (i.e., the evaluation / matching algorithm). The template itself is insufficient as the exploit depends on iterative image manupulations and "hotter, warmer, cooler" feeback from the evaluation algorithm to work.
So, although you seem to get this in your final paragraphs (though your "also" seems to imply that this is an additional, separate thing, while I read the FA to say the scores are an inherent need). In any case, your earlier statements don't seem to take this into account. Such as your UNIX password analogy, which would only be applicable if failed password entries gave you some quantitative feedback like "you're about 50% on that one", "nope, worse this time -- only 45% of a real password", etc. instead of a simple "sorry." or "invalid login".
This isn't a problem because most people have extras of the body parts used for most biometric schemes.
It's not a problem at all. On the contrary, it is a really good discovery IMHO. The most important conclusion from this is (from the talk slides):
Biometric software systems should provide yes/no only, with no match score values.
My question is: why would the software systems ever need to give a match score value, instead of a yes/no answer in the first place? It's not like the algorithm developer is there operating the machine and can thus use the score result to help decide what to do with "near" matches. Most of the people using these machines, I would surmise, are pretty clueless about how they work (except in a very general sense, of course), so providing a score result would only be confusing and a potential source of misidentification:
"Hmm, that John Doe matched with a score of 95, and it turned out not to be the guy, so this 94 score can't possibly really be Osama Bin Laden -- go ahead and let him on the plane with his antique ceremonial religious knives."
Either the system thinks it knows the person's face, or it doesn't. That's all it needs to say. Saying just that and nothing more will protect privacy (in that you can't reconstruct the face without the template and quantitative match score results), and it will prevent operator confusion and some types of misapplication.
Have you ever considered the possibility that non-native writers/speakers who post here would benefit from some grammar and spelling correction (a benefit that many such people actually pay for, offered here for FREE)? I know you, for one, have made the same mistake many times and perhaps a reminder or two, especially a funny or easy-to-remember one, would help you avoid the error in the future. Of course, just because someone happens to misspell a word doesn't mean that they are complete idiots, but presentation affects assimilation and interpretation, so you might benefit in many ways from improving your grammar and spelling. Knowing how to spell is important, and making fun of someone's spelling mistakes may, if they have the right attitude and sense of humor, help them improve. Of course, correcting someone doesn't make you smarter, nor does it convey that you have any manners, but it could help someone look like less of a moron and thereby more effectively convey a message.
Glad you liked it, but stop trying to flirt with me. I already told you that I'm not interested. Dragging your romantic failure out on ./ is not going to convince me otherwise. Give up already.
So now, "being all that you can be" includes being frustrated and riddled with crashes? Oh, wait, that's the old slogan. Won't someone please think of our TROOPS???!?!
ABS is invoked when I decide to put my foot on the brake,
:)
Radar braking is invoked when you decide not to put your foot on the brake but should be.
[ABS] is designed to automatically do what I was taught to do manually before ABS existed--pump the brakes
Radar-braking is designed to automatically do what you were (hopefully) taught to do manually before ABS existed -- not run into things.
Just because it can pump the brakes faster than I can myself doesn't change that basic fact.
No, but that's the point -- it does it faster. Radar baking avoids collisions (reacts) faster than you can. You still want to avoid collisions, right?
A radar system, on the other hand, presumes to be better able to detect an impending collision, in 2 dimensions or so, better than I can in 3.
How is radar 2-D? It knows speed, distance, and location just like you, in all 3 dimensions, just much more accurately than your vision.
That sounds like some sort of intelligence to me.
Is an AND gate intelligent? It produces a defined, predictable output for a given set of inputs. So does this radar brake system -- if (collision iminent) then (apply brakes). I don't see how this is intelligence in any sense.
If it were so simple, we'd have had radar tracking cars long ago.
Oh, come on now, this is a weak one. Perhaps the hardest part of the implementation is convincing people like you that it's a good thing.
No it isn't, ABS will not ever come into play unless the driver decides to stop the car.
And that's when ABS says, "shit, stop stopping the car", you're not doing it (pumping the brakes) right, takes over, and UN-DOES your braking effort, but produces better results (stops the car faster).
It is more of an assistance to something the driver actually wants.
Um, if you're about to slam into something, wouldn't something applying the brakes be providing assistance to something you want?