We have a big shredder that turns hard drives, RAM, and PDA's into fancy, super sharp splinters. They sell the scrap at auction. No idea what someone does with this stuff.
As the sibling post said w=wikipedia, d=dictionary.com, etc.,...
But I do use Google sometimes. If I use Konq (which occasionally I need too, but only very occasionally) then ctrl-enter doesn't work to fill in the http://www.domain.com/ around the typed in $domain. It's therefore less clicks+presses to do "gg://$domain" and click the [what is usually the] first listing. YMMV.
If you're a keyboard user then aren't the search and address bars only one tab apart. That would account for a lot of misfires too.
Yes, sometimes they slow page loads, yes, sometimes they're annoying, but they keep sites free.
Perhaps I have ADD but I can't read webpages with constantly moving graphics on them. If I'm into a website I'll give it a pass through adblock - however any moving graphics get that pass revoked. Any more-than-normally-misleading advertising will do the same: "you have already won...", "your system has a virus...", that kind of thing.
I don't feel that it's too bad viewing content that people have displayed willingly and cutting out the deliberately misleading stuff and the stuff that prevents me from viewing the content.
That's my compromise, I don't think it's that unreasonable.
If you could get 92% matches allowing for smiles or 99% if no-one smiled in the sample images, wouldn't you request no-one smiled? Presumably people are not smiling when they're stopped in customs or detained by police. Why make the recognition more complex/computationally harder when you have the ability to simplify it?
Beards are a great point. In my license picture I have no facial hair, now I have a full beard.
I've been bearded since I was 16 (except for a brief charity shave). My perception is that my appearance changes a lot with my changing facial hair - others barely notice because they are looking at different things.
I'm pretty sure that a full beard will reduce the effectiveness of matches but not by a lot - I'd imagine eye position and spacing, nose and brow alignment, ear position and size, head width and height would provide pretty good identifying factors. Sure, obscuring mouth and chin position isn't going to help them get a match but this is just providing a rough sift anyway.
I wouldn't be surprised if all us pogonomists were given a closer look anyway.
I don't really understand how translating from speech into text is equal to translating from speech to text in a different language.
It's not, but textual translation (at least on a slightly better than per word basis) is already possible. So if you can speech->text and then text->alt language you've got a [one-way] translator (of sorts).
As a kid I used to try to get a peek in National Geographic.
Which means you were using NG as pornography, does it not? Or was your arousal a by-product of your anthropology.
Sports illustrated, from what I've heard on teh internetz, _is_ porn - or at least it's used as porn by a large proportion of young North American males.
NB I made no value judgement about porn, only an attempt to categorise it.
...which by the way, you can find quite easily if you just make a search on google.
I'm pretty sure a Google search can lead to umpteen pages that when viewed cause the observer to break UK laws (and that probably holds true for most developed nations).
Such an observation has no bearing on the legality of anything, nor should it.
And by the way, I disagree that this should be classified as child porn.
If somebody, anybody, finds it sexually stimulating then it can be pornography. You may not find penthouse centrefolds to be stimulating but that doesn't stop them from being pornography.
I'd say the primary test is the intention of the creator - is it intended to stimulate. A secondary test, as I've intimated, is if a viewer finds it sexually stimulating. This image is likely to pass on both tests and does show a child.
Yes this means an underwear magazine could be called pornographic.
If they'd only cast the image in marble I'm sure it would have been fine...
I guess, narrowly, it's this: that not letting your kid use a computer because it's possible to lever keys off some keyboards (I've never managed, but have never used a tool) is over-protective. That there are plenty of dangers that you can't eliminate that an imaginative child can find - I read some hold their breath til they pass out as an attention seeking mechanism, they could run into the wall, fall of the bookshelf, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
My tendency is towards avoiding all risks because I'm paranoid. But a life free of all risks is a poor life devoid of much enriching experience IMO.
Since when did effective communication preclude accuracy of information?
PC has a quite well defined meaning which should be assumed to be narrow when addressing issues in the field of IT. If an IT journalist can't communicate the difference between a genericised computer hardware arrangement and a specific companies operating system then they should seek alternative employ, IMO.
I guess I simply made the mistake of thinking ComputerWorld.com address issues in computing. They must be a capacitor wholesalers, 'coz, y'know, you get them in computers.
"They chose six candidates: Camino (for Mac), Maxthon (PC), OmniWeb (for Mac), Opera (both Mac and PC versions) and Shiira (for Mac). Which is the best? It all depends on what you need from a browser."
That version is shorter and it doesn't call for the ban of a term that's been in use for 10 or so years.
I don't understand what you mean by "call[ing] for the ban of a term that's been in use for 10 or so years"? I'm not asking anyone to stop using the term PC (Personal Computer) but I would expect an IT journalist to use it correctly.
I didn't realise brevity was the problem:
"6 options. For Mac: Camino, Omniweb, Opera or Shiira. For Windows: Maxthon or Opera. The best? It depends."
That's about half the length and uses the correct terminology. Those extra few bits must really have been burning up the bandwidth.
Please don't use the term "PC" when you mean to say "Windows."
It is a commonly accepted term and frankly it's way too late to change it now. Basically all you're going to do is confuse people for the benefit of... wee... being literal to the acronymn.
Nonsense, you think it would have confused people if it said:
"They chose six candidates: Camino (for Mac), Maxthon (for Windows), OmniWeb (for Mac), Opera (both Mac and Windows versions) and Shiira (for Mac). Which is the best? It all depends on what you need from a browser."
???
Note I changed it from "the Mac" as Mac is the operating system primarily used on Apple computers and so "the Mac" sounds the lame to me.
You don't seem to understand the difference between bad eyesight, and unfit for work eyesight.
No I simply didn't make a definition for what I consider bad eyesight - I was thinking unable to see to carve wood, chip stone, etc., for tools; unable to see clearly enough to spear fish; unable to see clearly enough to differentiate edible and inedible berries. That sort of thing. That is, unfit.
Everyone who had bad eyesight back in the day, could still cook/clean/farm/make tools/clothes
Those are the people with good eyesight, IMO. The eagle-eye tailor has near-perfect vision.
I try to give my kid access to dangerous stuff while I'm there so he knows how to handle things. How to carry an axe, how to use a sharp knife, how not to smash your thumb with a hammer, how to light a candle without burning the house down, not to lick electrical devices, that sort of thing.
You can never cater for every eventuality unless you have particularly unimaginative kids.
Do you not let them play outside because they could choke on a stone, etc.?
Slashdot Mirror
We have a big shredder that turns hard drives, RAM, and PDA's into fancy, super sharp splinters. They sell the scrap at auction. No idea what someone does with this stuff.
Jigsaws.
Perhaps so they could sell the figures?
As the sibling post said w=wikipedia, d=dictionary.com, etc., ...
But I do use Google sometimes. If I use Konq (which occasionally I need too, but only very occasionally) then ctrl-enter doesn't work to fill in the http://www.domain.com/ around the typed in $domain. It's therefore less clicks+presses to do "gg://$domain" and click the [what is usually the] first listing. YMMV.
If you're a keyboard user then aren't the search and address bars only one tab apart. That would account for a lot of misfires too.
Yes, sometimes they slow page loads, yes, sometimes they're annoying, but they keep sites free.
Perhaps I have ADD but I can't read webpages with constantly moving graphics on them. If I'm into a website I'll give it a pass through adblock - however any moving graphics get that pass revoked. Any more-than-normally-misleading advertising will do the same: "you have already won ...", "your system has a virus ...", that kind of thing.
I don't feel that it's too bad viewing content that people have displayed willingly and cutting out the deliberately misleading stuff and the stuff that prevents me from viewing the content.
That's my compromise, I don't think it's that unreasonable.
If you could get 92% matches allowing for smiles or 99% if no-one smiled in the sample images, wouldn't you request no-one smiled? Presumably people are not smiling when they're stopped in customs or detained by police. Why make the recognition more complex/computationally harder when you have the ability to simplify it?
No, I don't know the relevant stats.
Who'd have thought that chickswithleukaemia.com would be so popular it has typo squatters ....
[no I didn't check if it exists]
Beards are a great point. In my license picture I have no facial hair, now I have a full beard.
I've been bearded since I was 16 (except for a brief charity shave). My perception is that my appearance changes a lot with my changing facial hair - others barely notice because they are looking at different things.
I'm pretty sure that a full beard will reduce the effectiveness of matches but not by a lot - I'd imagine eye position and spacing, nose and brow alignment, ear position and size, head width and height would provide pretty good identifying factors. Sure, obscuring mouth and chin position isn't going to help them get a match but this is just providing a rough sift anyway.
I wouldn't be surprised if all us pogonomists were given a closer look anyway.
I don't really understand how translating from speech into text is equal to translating from speech to text in a different language.
It's not, but textual translation (at least on a slightly better than per word basis) is already possible. So if you can speech->text and then text->alt language you've got a [one-way] translator (of sorts).
So, "machine learning" can now translate any speech in any language to text. Where's my universal translator then?
As a kid I used to try to get a peek in National Geographic.
Which means you were using NG as pornography, does it not? Or was your arousal a by-product of your anthropology.
Sports illustrated, from what I've heard on teh internetz, _is_ porn - or at least it's used as porn by a large proportion of young North American males.
NB I made no value judgement about porn, only an attempt to categorise it.
I find your logic flawed.
If those who are apathetic on any movement are eliminated it still leaves two sides and is likely to have zero effect on either side.
Like everyone else here [...] I object on principle to censorship.
I'm not that bothered.
Just saying.
...which by the way, you can find quite easily if you just make a search on google.
I'm pretty sure a Google search can lead to umpteen pages that when viewed cause the observer to break UK laws (and that probably holds true for most developed nations).
Such an observation has no bearing on the legality of anything, nor should it.
And by the way, I disagree that this should be classified as child porn.
If somebody, anybody, finds it sexually stimulating then it can be pornography. You may not find penthouse centrefolds to be stimulating but that doesn't stop them from being pornography.
I'd say the primary test is the intention of the creator - is it intended to stimulate. A secondary test, as I've intimated, is if a viewer finds it sexually stimulating. This image is likely to pass on both tests and does show a child.
Yes this means an underwear magazine could be called pornographic.
If they'd only cast the image in marble I'm sure it would have been fine ...
After all, you wouldn't ask Slashdotters about excising intramedullary spinal cord tumors, ...
Don't use a chainsaw.
You said from experience, "slashdot is the perfect place to get misinformation on legal matters".
Please detail your experience. What information did you come to slashdot for, and what advice did you get, and how did it burn you?
No, clearly he was misinforming us ...
How about we pretend to be rational instead?
How about we pretend to be rockets. Being rational sounds a bit too close to what he said.
lolz
I guess, narrowly, it's this: that not letting your kid use a computer because it's possible to lever keys off some keyboards (I've never managed, but have never used a tool) is over-protective. That there are plenty of dangers that you can't eliminate that an imaginative child can find - I read some hold their breath til they pass out as an attention seeking mechanism, they could run into the wall, fall of the bookshelf, etc., etc., ad infinitum.
My tendency is towards avoiding all risks because I'm paranoid. But a life free of all risks is a poor life devoid of much enriching experience IMO.
Since when did effective communication preclude accuracy of information?
PC has a quite well defined meaning which should be assumed to be narrow when addressing issues in the field of IT. If an IT journalist can't communicate the difference between a genericised computer hardware arrangement and a specific companies operating system then they should seek alternative employ, IMO.
I guess I simply made the mistake of thinking ComputerWorld.com address issues in computing. They must be a capacitor wholesalers, 'coz, y'know, you get them in computers.
I suppose you think Ubuntu === Linux too?
It's so good - you'll notice straight away that your webpages look different!
"They chose six candidates: Camino (for Mac), Maxthon (PC), OmniWeb (for Mac), Opera (both Mac and PC versions) and Shiira (for Mac). Which is the best? It all depends on what you need from a browser."
That version is shorter and it doesn't call for the ban of a term that's been in use for 10 or so years.
I don't understand what you mean by "call[ing] for the ban of a term that's been in use for 10 or so years"? I'm not asking anyone to stop using the term PC (Personal Computer) but I would expect an IT journalist to use it correctly.
I didn't realise brevity was the problem:
"6 options. For Mac: Camino, Omniweb, Opera or Shiira. For Windows: Maxthon or Opera. The best? It depends."
That's about half the length and uses the correct terminology. Those extra few bits must really have been burning up the bandwidth.
Please don't use the term "PC" when you mean to say "Windows."
It is a commonly accepted term and frankly it's way too late to change it now. Basically all you're going to do is confuse people for the benefit of... wee... being literal to the acronymn.
Nonsense, you think it would have confused people if it said:
"They chose six candidates: Camino (for Mac), Maxthon (for Windows), OmniWeb (for Mac), Opera (both Mac and Windows versions) and Shiira (for Mac). Which is the best? It all depends on what you need from a browser."
???
Note I changed it from "the Mac" as Mac is the operating system primarily used on Apple computers and so "the Mac" sounds the lame to me.
You don't seem to understand the difference between bad eyesight, and unfit for work eyesight.
No I simply didn't make a definition for what I consider bad eyesight - I was thinking unable to see to carve wood, chip stone, etc., for tools; unable to see clearly enough to spear fish; unable to see clearly enough to differentiate edible and inedible berries. That sort of thing. That is, unfit.
Everyone who had bad eyesight back in the day, could still cook/clean/farm/make tools/clothes
Those are the people with good eyesight, IMO. The eagle-eye tailor has near-perfect vision.
I try to give my kid access to dangerous stuff while I'm there so he knows how to handle things. How to carry an axe, how to use a sharp knife, how not to smash your thumb with a hammer, how to light a candle without burning the house down, not to lick electrical devices, that sort of thing.
You can never cater for every eventuality unless you have particularly unimaginative kids.
Do you not let them play outside because they could choke on a stone, etc.?