Keep in mind this "child" was 6'3" and 17 years old. Not the 12 year old boy the media is showing
I can't say I've seen any media presenting him as a 12 year old. Which leads me to theconclusion you're the one distorting.
(Hmmm portray Martin as a young boy and Zimmerman as a racist (via doctored 911 call audio), and tried REALLY hard to portray Zimmerman as white, when he is Hispanic... Why would they do that?)
Zimmerman's race is irrelevant. But the fact that he treated people as suspicious or not depending if they were black or not seems to be a matter of track record in his time acting as neighbourhood watch in the community.
Considering my local Craigslist is filled with brand new $100 netbooks, and even new netbooks at the local Wally world is just $200...why would I care? I can get two or three easily for the cost of a single iPad!
You wouldn't care, because you have no experience of what tablets can do for you, and the amazing range of cheap or free apps.
To me this smells more than a little bit like Cult of Mac evangelism
And you've pretty clearly declared there that your position is based on a dislike of Apple.
As for the tablet i don't see anything the tablet could do that a cheap netbook or desktop could do
There's a thousand and one things.
To take a random example: Sketching. There's an app called "Draw Something", where you partner up with a friend, and play a game something like Pictionary. You're given a random word, then you have to sketch the word without using words, such that your partner can guess it. It's turn based, so you and your partner don't have to be available and wanting to play at the same time. And you can match up with as many or as few partners as you want.
It encourages both children and adults to sketch more than they otherwise would. Improves sketching skills. Expands the brain. Builds vocabulary for the kids.
It won't work with a mouse or a trackpad. And would be clunky with a digitizer pad. It needs a touchscreen.
That's just one example of what tablets can do that PCs can't.
I'm sure your 7 year old is wonderful in many ways. But note that an anecdote is not data. Especially when it comes from a parent.
TV doesn't "rot the brain" or mean reduced vocabulary. Though lack of conversation with adults will do. And of course there's probably an inverse correlation of TV hours and conversation hours...
But a parent watching children's TV with a child, and joining in with the games, and talking about it. That seems like something that would be good for vocabulary. They'll see things on TV that they don't ordinarily see in real life and talk about them. And that improves vocabulary.
a straight up marketing plant by Kids Industries for Apple http://www.kidsindustries.com/clients/ , just look at that list if ugly clients, mega corporations focused on manipulating as much children's pocket money into the hands of the greediest adult sacks of shite.
I might have gone blind through too much masturbating or not eating enough carrots, but I can't see Apple on that list of clients you're pointing to.
On the other hand I do see the BBC, which isn't usually categorised as an evil corporation.
Reading? You mean a Republican president before Obama was using an teleprompter, with a speech written by someone else, rather than having memorized it or making it up on the hoof?
Exactly. Slashdot has held your interest for 12 years or so with very pedestrian technology.
and slashdot isn't being valued at 100mils+.
Slashdot belongs to Geeknet, so wo can give it an actual valuation rather then have analysts guessing. Geeknet is worth 92.41 million. Less then Instagram, but in the same ball park.
I mean, if instagram did surface analysis and sampled higher quality parts to pictures based on that or something similar, yeah I'd agree them to be worth 100mil+
LOL! Companies aren't valued on how impressive their technology is. With free services, the value comes in how big the audience is and how susceptible they are to advertising.
The software challenge to identify "online predators". The bounds are what is written in the chat stream. It's not to predict peoples behaviour off the internet.
What if I am just trying to get laid? Seriously, how does one determine from chat text whether a person is a 'sexual predator' vs. someone who is just looking for a casual hookup? Wouldn't the approach be similar if not identical? I smell a FAIL.
1) If you identify the object of the advances is a minor, that would make it a predator. (Possibly an unaware one, if he doesn't know the age of the object. - but either way the conversation needs to be stopped.)
2) If the object of the advances is rejecting the advances, again that would make a predator. Sure, she MIGHT be playing hard to get. But the one making the advances shouldn't assume that. And in any case a really good algorithm might be able to tell the difference between a flirtations "no", and a "FUCK OFF: NO!".
But do please try and differentiate between an interesting computer science problem, and an actual government putting such an algorithm into use.
Well in the US it might be classed as a motorcycle. In the UK a three wheeler with a reverse gear is classed as a car. This machine comes from the Netherlands, who knows what it's classed as there.
But as you sit inside it and drive it on the road, it might as well be a car either way. What does the number of road-wheels matter?
Prices are set at price points. 179, 199, 299 that sort of thing. The few pennies extra a two year rather than one year warranty will cost will not tend to change the retail price at all.
The primary use is neither here nor there, The fact that it's street legal and licensable is what makes it a car. The fact that it flies makes it a flying car.
(I don't know whether this vehicle yet qualifies or if it's only a concept.)
Slashdot Mirror
You remember wrongly. There's have been a lot of people who've confused those two names, accidentally or deliberately. Biden isn't one of them.
Keep in mind this "child" was 6'3" and 17 years old. Not the 12 year old boy the media is showing
I can't say I've seen any media presenting him as a 12 year old. Which leads me to theconclusion you're the one distorting.
(Hmmm portray Martin as a young boy and Zimmerman as a racist (via doctored 911 call audio), and tried REALLY hard to portray Zimmerman as white, when he is Hispanic... Why would they do that?)
Zimmerman's race is irrelevant. But the fact that he treated people as suspicious or not depending if they were black or not seems to be a matter of track record in his time acting as neighbourhood watch in the community.
Considering my local Craigslist is filled with brand new $100 netbooks, and even new netbooks at the local Wally world is just $200...why would I care? I can get two or three easily for the cost of a single iPad!
You wouldn't care, because you have no experience of what tablets can do for you, and the amazing range of cheap or free apps.
To me this smells more than a little bit like Cult of Mac evangelism
And you've pretty clearly declared there that your position is based on a dislike of Apple.
As for the tablet i don't see anything the tablet could do that a cheap netbook or desktop could do
There's a thousand and one things.
To take a random example: Sketching. There's an app called "Draw Something", where you partner up with a friend, and play a game something like Pictionary. You're given a random word, then you have to sketch the word without using words, such that your partner can guess it. It's turn based, so you and your partner don't have to be available and wanting to play at the same time. And you can match up with as many or as few partners as you want.
It encourages both children and adults to sketch more than they otherwise would. Improves sketching skills. Expands the brain. Builds vocabulary for the kids.
It won't work with a mouse or a trackpad. And would be clunky with a digitizer pad. It needs a touchscreen.
That's just one example of what tablets can do that PCs can't.
I'm sure your 7 year old is wonderful in many ways. But note that an anecdote is not data. Especially when it comes from a parent.
TV doesn't "rot the brain" or mean reduced vocabulary. Though lack of conversation with adults will do. And of course there's probably an inverse correlation of TV hours and conversation hours...
But a parent watching children's TV with a child, and joining in with the games, and talking about it. That seems like something that would be good for vocabulary. They'll see things on TV that they don't ordinarily see in real life and talk about them. And that improves vocabulary.
a straight up marketing plant by Kids Industries for Apple http://www.kidsindustries.com/clients/ , just look at that list if ugly clients, mega corporations focused on manipulating as much children's pocket money into the hands of the greediest adult sacks of shite.
I might have gone blind through too much masturbating or not eating enough carrots, but I can't see Apple on that list of clients you're pointing to.
On the other hand I do see the BBC, which isn't usually categorised as an evil corporation.
Reading? You mean a Republican president before Obama was using an teleprompter, with a speech written by someone else, rather than having memorized it or making it up on the hoof?
Oh the hypocrisy!
longer than you, it seems.
Exactly. Slashdot has held your interest for 12 years or so with very pedestrian technology.
and slashdot isn't being valued at 100mils+.
Slashdot belongs to Geeknet, so wo can give it an actual valuation rather then have analysts guessing. Geeknet is worth 92.41 million. Less then Instagram, but in the same ball park.
I mean, if instagram did surface analysis and sampled higher quality parts to pictures based on that or something similar, yeah I'd agree them to be worth 100mil+
LOL! Companies aren't valued on how impressive their technology is. With free services, the value comes in how big the audience is and how susceptible they are to advertising.
I treasure them. I wouldn't dream of cashing them out. They give me a bit off a swag when I walk I can tell you. They are the very bread of life.
The software challenge to identify "online predators". The bounds are what is written in the chat stream. It's not to predict peoples behaviour off the internet.
If you're mostly getting stuff from celebrities, it's the social apps way of telling you you have no real friends.
It's kind of funny that it's played-out just as Android gets it.
It's kind of like a genre of music or a fashion losing it's cool when parents start to like it.
Do you wear jeans and a t-shirt?
Slashdot is just a blog with a comment section. How long have you been here?
Do try to be a little less naive.
By definition, someone who can differentiate between two different things is LESS naive than someone who can't.
Just scroll down a few stories here on Slashdot and find a UK proposal to scan ALL internet communications in real time.
So scanning algorithms should never have been worked on? They should have been a taboo topic in computer science?
So when two high school students are chatting about sex, then what?
Good grief. Do you actually think it's impressive to have thought of another classification group?
This is more complicated than, "Is a minor involved."
You're a fucking genius.
Except that it is practically guaranteed to be put to use by law enforcement, assuming it works at all.
Trousers are used by law enforcement.
What if I am just trying to get laid? Seriously, how does one determine from chat text whether a person is a 'sexual predator' vs. someone who is just looking for a casual hookup? Wouldn't the approach be similar if not identical? I smell a FAIL.
1) If you identify the object of the advances is a minor, that would make it a predator. (Possibly an unaware one, if he doesn't know the age of the object. - but either way the conversation needs to be stopped.)
2) If the object of the advances is rejecting the advances, again that would make a predator. Sure, she MIGHT be playing hard to get. But the one making the advances shouldn't assume that. And in any case a really good algorithm might be able to tell the difference between a flirtations "no", and a "FUCK OFF: NO!".
But do please try and differentiate between an interesting computer science problem, and an actual government putting such an algorithm into use.
These are both things that make it an interesting problem to work on.
BTW, they call it a competition, but I can't see a prize...
Do try to differentiate between a computer science exercise and a government policy.
Well in the US it might be classed as a motorcycle. In the UK a three wheeler with a reverse gear is classed as a car. This machine comes from the Netherlands, who knows what it's classed as there.
But as you sit inside it and drive it on the road, it might as well be a car either way. What does the number of road-wheels matter?
Prices are set at price points. 179, 199, 299 that sort of thing. The few pennies extra a two year rather than one year warranty will cost will not tend to change the retail price at all.
http://www.theswansanctuary.org.uk/faq.php
The primary use is neither here nor there, The fact that it's street legal and licensable is what makes it a car. The fact that it flies makes it a flying car.
(I don't know whether this vehicle yet qualifies or if it's only a concept.)
You could do with dropping a few pounds if you;re going to run around naked, Daniel Phillips.
http://pearleegates.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/college-group-plans-naked-5k-run-to.html
Count me with the brainwashed.
I will. Indeed you are exactly the kind of person I'm talking about.