How does the spammer know the source of your image.
Fine if the image is labelled as being from flickr and has the same filename, but you're obviously going to choose a random image from maybe the top 100,000 - crop, distort, thumbnail and rename on the fly.
That image against 5 others [dog, gorilla, lion,...], which is the kitten?
So you think the spammer is going to take my thumbnailed, distorted images and match to an original image from flickr and then derive the keyword from it? They'll need local access to a flickr mirror to do that and some hefty species recognition software (never heard of such a thing existing).
Remember they don't know the type of image they'll be asked to select, nor the source of the images, nor the distortion algorithm... I can't see how this can be so easily cracked?
If this is possible then why do we have to tag our own images, you're saying that even a distorted subject can be recognised algorithmically.
How about which is a mask and which a face; which is a vegetable and which a fruit...
If you're using a human to brute force all possible captcha presentations (!) how does blurring help? If it's blurred bad enough that one can't see the image then noone can get in.
Also the half-a-million images on flickr of kittens* might take a while for a human to page through and catalogue (thumbnails would be fair use I'd think). I think you might get your IP blocked after you'd clicked refresh about a thousand times too?
--- Search for kittens, there really are half a million plus! Then hit up google images, deviantart, etc.. Then do spot the puppy, then babies,...
The only defense against this sort of attack would be to be constantly adding new images and removing old ones, but that would take more time than most people are willing to spend. Steady on there cowboy, the only defence?
If you're talking [original and best!] character based "captcha" then they're generated on the fly using some randomised distortion algorithm, like with ImageMagick's mogrify or some such.
If you're talking images of kittens then try doing a search on flickr for kitten, half a million images!! Use the API to select only CC images or just use a thumbnail. Match with top hits for non-kitten keywords... need I go on?
97% of all electronic failure is the result of low or inconsitent power. That's funny that's the same percentage as that of statistics made up in slashdot posts...
That's their problem, not mine. If I see "0.46" in front of something, I think "buggy POS with no features." (1.0 also makes me think "buggy POS" with the difference that at least 1.0 has all the features implemented.) The version number system is quite well-established, if the Inkscape coders don't want to use it, then they can do that-- but they also can't complain when normal people like myself look at the version number and think "buggy POS." You're right it's well established 1.0 means that the app is feature complete and all show-stopper bugs have been fixed. Presumably not all planned features are yet implemented to make this a complete product. FWIW it's complete enough to be useful.
If I can't thumb a lift to your house it's still useful if a generous person gives me a ride to your town.
Yes, Inkscape doesn't give crap about my bug and simply deletes it. I think it's plain from reading the launchpad bug reports that the people working on inkscape and providing their "product" to you for free are doing a great job. If you can't file your bug report in the right place, with the GTK team, how do you expect them to fix it? Or are all open source devs supposed to be your personal slaves.
You may be a great person but you come across as a complete idiot.
Fair enough but with other apps, particularly Inkscape for me, there's a debian repo of nightly builds. I track that and submit bug reports on problems that persist over a couple of weeks in the builds. Seems to help.
Yes I can do SVN, but why link to an FTP page for recent snapshots when there aren't any? It just seems perverse to me that they state on their site they don't want people to make binaries of dev versions available.
>>> "Distribution of binary packages of the development version is discouraged..."
Don't get me wrong I'm more that thankful for the work done by devs on the GIMP (except the one that named it, she should be shot;0).
So Gimp-2.5.0 requires GEGL and the GEGL FTP folder only contains a README (ftp://ftp.gimp.org/pub/gegl/). So how can I build and test it?
The Gimp folk say they don't like binaries being distributed... wtf? So I have a double-owie. They don't want people to test the unstable release? I don't do SVN except for projects I actually want to contribute to with code, users shouldn't need to go to those lengths to test the apps.
Oh and all you rich kids out there don't forget to donate to the LGM (http://pledgie.com/campaigns/613)... I want my MTV, er Inkscape...
Import your raster image, add a new layer, do your vector drawing over the top. If you still need it rasterised, export and use gimp (or Krita [which does 16bpp and ICC profiles, etc.] or whatever).
>>> Emma Howard Boyd, Head of SRI at Jupiter, comments: "We believe that green investing has moved on. While green investing is still a specialist area of the market, it is now starting to be seriously considered by investors as part of a balanced portfolio. It is no longer just about principles but also profit and the long-term drivers of growth in this market are clear and appear unstoppable."
So yes the rise in "ethical" investing is due to investors seeing greater profits in that field. If there were more profits in whale hunting then you can be sure the money would go there. Was that your point?
You can take my free will but you cannot take my unity!
>>> "'I' is a concept of our mind"
If you mean that perception of self is a process of mind, granted. If you mean "I" don't exist except in my mind, then what's this body thing attached to me, it seems pretty distinct from other items.
Now doubting other minds, that's cool, welcome to skeptics-ville, doubting your own mind seems pretty contradictory. Or is someone else doubting your mind for you?
Predictability and randomness (perhaps you meant chaos)?
I suspect most here don't believe in free will as they have a "scientific" determinism that requires that the _local_ state of the universe once known be computably determined by a ToE.
But I don't know what the hell I'm on about either.
He didn't ask for a new POS though... oh wait this is the internet and we have to ignore the question and just try and sound intelligent.
How am I doing?
If he'd said which cash register they have and what budget that might have helped, but I guess that those questions don't get in because they aren't controversial or open-ended enough to spin enough page-views / ad-dollars.
... not go after ExampleOnline's customers. That's unethical and possibly illegal. Yeah 'cause stock owners care more about obeying the law and being ethical than they do about screwing every last penny out of everyone else, their customer, competitors, own business employees, small children at sweet shops...
According to the UK government my family live well below the poverty line (about two-thirds of a poverty level income), so I feel I can offer some insight!
>>> Can they save any for a rainy day, or would that make them no longer poor and ineligible for the next payout to the poor from Robin Hood?
If you're a medieval peasant (probably a serf) given enough money to buy a sack of flour you won't go hungry for a few weeks. You'll still be in need, with more money you could buy vegetables, more still you could have meat, more than that land that you could use to feed yourselves from (assuming you're not debarred from owning land by not being a part of a noble family).
>>> If poor people constantly spend every cent they receive, whether from assistance or earned to remain poor, is that moral behavior?
We spend every penny we earn on housing, food, utilities, clothing (if we're lucky, though mostly we get clothes as gifts). We work and are raising a child (both consider moral goods for the community by most). I can't see how it's immoral to spend all you earn - with more money we could afford to eat a little more healthily and maintain our property better which in turn would reduce economic strains in the long-term. We have a national health service and someone will have to conduct repairs in the future which wouldn't have been necessary could we afford to maintain our property.
I'd love to hear how you think this could be immoral living?
To some extent it's the system - capitalism is a predatory system in which those who have money make more by exploiting those who don't. And to some extent it's personal choice: we believe our business is a worthwhile part of the community even if as a whole the community don't value it as much as we do.
>>> Robin Hood would steal from the rich to give to the poor. Was this a moral act?
In his circumstances (assuming the tales to be true) then I think it is moral to steal from those with excess to prevent those with nothing from dying of starvation. It's not capitalist morality but it works for me! Moreover Robin Hood probably does the landowners a service by stopping them (the landowners) from killing off the people who are growing their food and keeping them in their luxury.
Really what is the difference between a corporation investing in a film and an artist giving a helping hand up to the next generation of artists? Not much, in practice. I'm afraid you're probably being a bit naive there.
Artists helping the next generation are doing so because they love their art. They don't gain except karma / a heightened sense of altruism.
On the other hand a publicly owned corporation is a slave to the desires of the shareholders to make money at all/any other cost. A corporation will choose (or rewrite) a film to enable product placements or to make it the right length in commercial terms, to add in a popular character that will put bums-on-seats, etc., whilst an artist will consider the "integrity" of the film, the depth of the story, the proper flow and the like.
Corporations will tend to eschew higher risk ventures whilst artist will tend to push the boundaries to create more interesting work, which may not have quite the same mass appeal (or equally well could be the next big thing).
No I don't have any citations, now get off my kibbutz.
Look, I've never met George Lucas, he may well be a lawsuit-crazy bastard.
But do you really think he gets involved in any of this? He just swims in his pool of money and hires honeys to wipe his butt for him. It's his lawyers that do the suing.
He checks that the lawyers are paying their way I'm sure, or rather his accounting team do...
Yeah, I know he hires them, but what with the swimming and the butt wiping, etc., I'v sure he doesn't have time to check they're maintaining a reasonable level of ethics.
I'm no lawyer either, but I did work in IP for a time.
The relevant international "law" would be the Berne Convention and the WTO's TRIPS.
AFAIK copyright infringement is a tort, I'm not sure what you mean by "traditional torte" (sacher maybe?).
There is nothing legal to bind a UK court to any agreement of a US court (though an international court in session in the US would be different). Indeed I'd imagine that the UK court was obligated to ignore a US interpretation of international law and assess according to the standards and practice of law in the UK (and where relevant the EU).
>>> Any web developer worth employing knows about browser deficiencies, and will effortlessly code around them
Ha-ha-ha.. yeah right.
IE5/IE6 support added about 50% (sometimes more!) to projects I did in the past. Maybe I'm not worth employing but IE6 doesn't generally get a look in now (too much cost to bother with, just basic support, no gloss) - most of the sites I work on however are community groups / charities.
I can't imagine any web designer / developer saying that coding round IE6 was effortless!
Slashdot Mirror
How does the spammer know the source of your image.
...], which is the kitten?
... I can't see how this can be so easily cracked?
...
Fine if the image is labelled as being from flickr and has the same filename, but you're obviously going to choose a random image from maybe the top 100,000 - crop, distort, thumbnail and rename on the fly.
That image against 5 others [dog, gorilla, lion,
So you think the spammer is going to take my thumbnailed, distorted images and match to an original image from flickr and then derive the keyword from it? They'll need local access to a flickr mirror to do that and some hefty species recognition software (never heard of such a thing existing).
Remember they don't know the type of image they'll be asked to select, nor the source of the images, nor the distortion algorithm
If this is possible then why do we have to tag our own images, you're saying that even a distorted subject can be recognised algorithmically.
How about which is a mask and which a face; which is a vegetable and which a fruit
If you're using a human to brute force all possible captcha presentations (!) how does blurring help? If it's blurred bad enough that one can't see the image then noone can get in.
...
Also the half-a-million images on flickr of kittens* might take a while for a human to page through and catalogue (thumbnails would be fair use I'd think). I think you might get your IP blocked after you'd clicked refresh about a thousand times too?
---
Search for kittens, there really are half a million plus! Then hit up google images, deviantart, etc.. Then do spot the puppy, then babies,
Which of these pictures of cutesy-wutey kittens is lolcat and which is just a cat?
If you're talking [original and best!] character based "captcha" then they're generated on the fly using some randomised distortion algorithm, like with ImageMagick's mogrify or some such.
If you're talking images of kittens then try doing a search on flickr for kitten, half a million images!! Use the API to select only CC images or just use a thumbnail. Match with top hits for non-kitten keywords
Flame on MacDuff
If I can't thumb a lift to your house it's still useful if a generous person gives me a ride to your town. Yes, Inkscape doesn't give crap about my bug and simply deletes it. I think it's plain from reading the launchpad bug reports that the people working on inkscape and providing their "product" to you for free are doing a great job. If you can't file your bug report in the right place, with the GTK team, how do you expect them to fix it? Or are all open source devs supposed to be your personal slaves.
You may be a great person but you come across as a complete idiot.
Fair enough but with other apps, particularly Inkscape for me, there's a debian repo of nightly builds. I track that and submit bug reports on problems that persist over a couple of weeks in the builds. Seems to help.
..."
;0).
Yes I can do SVN, but why link to an FTP page for recent snapshots when there aren't any? It just seems perverse to me that they state on their site they don't want people to make binaries of dev versions available.
>>> "Distribution of binary packages of the development version is discouraged
Don't get me wrong I'm more that thankful for the work done by devs on the GIMP (except the one that named it, she should be shot
So Gimp-2.5.0 requires GEGL and the GEGL FTP folder only contains a README (ftp://ftp.gimp.org/pub/gegl/). So how can I build and test it?
... wtf? So I have a double-owie. They don't want people to test the unstable release? I don't do SVN except for projects I actually want to contribute to with code, users shouldn't need to go to those lengths to test the apps.
... I want my MTV, er Inkscape ...
The Gimp folk say they don't like binaries being distributed
Oh and all you rich kids out there don't forget to donate to the LGM (http://pledgie.com/campaigns/613)
No. Wrong tool.
...
Use inkscape (my preference), sk1, XaraLX,
Import your raster image, add a new layer, do your vector drawing over the top. If you still need it rasterised, export and use gimp (or Krita [which does 16bpp and ICC profiles, etc.] or whatever).
From the link:
>>> Emma Howard Boyd, Head of SRI at Jupiter, comments: "We believe that green investing has moved on. While green investing is still a specialist area of the market, it is now starting to be seriously considered by investors as part of a balanced portfolio. It is no longer just about principles but also profit and the long-term drivers of growth in this market are clear and appear unstoppable."
So yes the rise in "ethical" investing is due to investors seeing greater profits in that field. If there were more profits in whale hunting then you can be sure the money would go there. Was that your point?
You can take my free will but you cannot take my unity!
>>> "'I' is a concept of our mind"
If you mean that perception of self is a process of mind, granted. If you mean "I" don't exist except in my mind, then what's this body thing attached to me, it seems pretty distinct from other items.
Now doubting other minds, that's cool, welcome to skeptics-ville, doubting your own mind seems pretty contradictory. Or is someone else doubting your mind for you?
Neither side of your dichotomy is "free will".
Predictability and randomness (perhaps you meant chaos)?
I suspect most here don't believe in free will as they have a "scientific" determinism that requires that the _local_ state of the universe once known be computably determined by a ToE.
But I don't know what the hell I'm on about either.
it's definitely in the Bible Code!
He didn't ask for a new POS though ... oh wait this is the internet and we have to ignore the question and just try and sound intelligent.
How am I doing?
If he'd said which cash register they have and what budget that might have helped, but I guess that those questions don't get in because they aren't controversial or open-ended enough to spin enough page-views / ad-dollars.
Cynical? Maybe a touch.
Nice try at AC flaming, but I don't even think you're an asshole and I'm definitely not going to say you are one.
... not go after ExampleOnline's customers. That's unethical and possibly illegal. Yeah 'cause stock owners care more about obeying the law and being ethical than they do about screwing every last penny out of everyone else, their customer, competitors, own business employees, small children at sweet shopsAccording to the UK government my family live well below the poverty line (about two-thirds of a poverty level income), so I feel I can offer some insight!
>>> Can they save any for a rainy day, or would that make them no longer poor and ineligible for the next payout to the poor from Robin Hood?
If you're a medieval peasant (probably a serf) given enough money to buy a sack of flour you won't go hungry for a few weeks. You'll still be in need, with more money you could buy vegetables, more still you could have meat, more than that land that you could use to feed yourselves from (assuming you're not debarred from owning land by not being a part of a noble family).
>>> If poor people constantly spend every cent they receive, whether from assistance or earned to remain poor, is that moral behavior?
We spend every penny we earn on housing, food, utilities, clothing (if we're lucky, though mostly we get clothes as gifts). We work and are raising a child (both consider moral goods for the community by most). I can't see how it's immoral to spend all you earn - with more money we could afford to eat a little more healthily and maintain our property better which in turn would reduce economic strains in the long-term. We have a national health service and someone will have to conduct repairs in the future which wouldn't have been necessary could we afford to maintain our property.
I'd love to hear how you think this could be immoral living?
To some extent it's the system - capitalism is a predatory system in which those who have money make more by exploiting those who don't. And to some extent it's personal choice: we believe our business is a worthwhile part of the community even if as a whole the community don't value it as much as we do.
>>> Robin Hood would steal from the rich to give to the poor. Was this a moral act?
In his circumstances (assuming the tales to be true) then I think it is moral to steal from those with excess to prevent those with nothing from dying of starvation. It's not capitalist morality but it works for me! Moreover Robin Hood probably does the landowners a service by stopping them (the landowners) from killing off the people who are growing their food and keeping them in their luxury.
Artists helping the next generation are doing so because they love their art. They don't gain except karma / a heightened sense of altruism.
On the other hand a publicly owned corporation is a slave to the desires of the shareholders to make money at all/any other cost. A corporation will choose (or rewrite) a film to enable product placements or to make it the right length in commercial terms, to add in a popular character that will put bums-on-seats, etc., whilst an artist will consider the "integrity" of the film, the depth of the story, the proper flow and the like.
Corporations will tend to eschew higher risk ventures whilst artist will tend to push the boundaries to create more interesting work, which may not have quite the same mass appeal (or equally well could be the next big thing).
No I don't have any citations, now get off my kibbutz.
>>> you can take pictures on private property
You're just not allowed to go on it? Or don't they have trespass laws in the USA?
Look, I've never met George Lucas, he may well be a lawsuit-crazy bastard.
...
But do you really think he gets involved in any of this? He just swims in his pool of money and hires honeys to wipe his butt for him. It's his lawyers that do the suing.
He checks that the lawyers are paying their way I'm sure, or rather his accounting team do
Yeah, I know he hires them, but what with the swimming and the butt wiping, etc., I'v sure he doesn't have time to check they're maintaining a reasonable level of ethics.
I'm no lawyer either, but I did work in IP for a time.
The relevant international "law" would be the Berne Convention and the WTO's TRIPS.
AFAIK copyright infringement is a tort, I'm not sure what you mean by "traditional torte" (sacher maybe?).
There is nothing legal to bind a UK court to any agreement of a US court (though an international court in session in the US would be different). Indeed I'd imagine that the UK court was obligated to ignore a US interpretation of international law and assess according to the standards and practice of law in the UK (and where relevant the EU).
>>> Any web developer worth employing knows about browser deficiencies, and will effortlessly code around them
.. yeah right.
Ha-ha-ha
IE5/IE6 support added about 50% (sometimes more!) to projects I did in the past. Maybe I'm not worth employing but IE6 doesn't generally get a look in now (too much cost to bother with, just basic support, no gloss) - most of the sites I work on however are community groups / charities.
I can't imagine any web designer / developer saying that coding round IE6 was effortless!