RTFA. J&J tried to work out an agreement. They tried to go to mediation. The ARC shot them down both times. This "dumbest" way of defending their trademark is the only one they had left.
I did RTFA, YFP. And giving the Red Cross a free license to do whatever they want would have been a better idea than the PR disaster they have coming. There are always options, they just chose not to use them.
What are the "semantics" here?
Is this like google images, where the nearby HTML text determines the classification of the image [i.e ASCII-text as meta-data for images]?
No. The matches are done in a purely data-driven manner, meaning by analyzing lots of images and guessing matches. Meta-data appears not to have been used.
Or is this a great big neural net of wavelet data which classifies the images mathematically?
Probably a lot closer to the truth.
Another paragraph gives a clue to how they're using the term (which could have been better chosen, I agree):
When our algorithm is successsful, the completion is semantically valid, although there might be slight low-level artifacts such as resolution mismatch, blurring from Poisson blending, or fine-scale texture differences between the image and the inserted patch.
As I read that, what they're saying is that they are pretty good at finding a piece that makes sense to fill in the hole (ie, semantically valid). However, he's conceding the fact that the low-level image statistics would still give away the fact that the patch was made - probably in reference to techniques such as the guy at BlackHat who discovered that Al Quaeda doctors their images/videos, using such low-level image statistics to prove it. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/researche rs-ana.html
I wonder if this is part of the beginning of a new, computationally-driven problem-solving paradigm. As more and more data is stored, and if search algorithms become more and more clever, the cost of "looking up" (computationally speaking) the answer to a problem might be lower than the cost of "remembering" (using local storage) or "figuring out" (using local CPU power) the answer.
No, it's part of an existing, computationally-driven problem solving field that has existed for decades.
And don't refer to anything as a paradigm, it will make people want to throw things at you.
Take the emotions out of the discussion, this is purely business. No, it is not big pharma beating on a poor charity, it is a trademark licensee abusing a license agreement in such a way the owner of the trademark is negatively impacted. Until J & J officially turns the trademark over to the ARC, they own and they must defend it.
There are different ways of defending it - this is the dumbest. Quietly amending the licensing agreement would have been smarter. Like it or not, J&J sells its products to people who just *might* be a little put off by them suing the Red Cross. This is a PR disaster. And yes, it is making the mainstream news. I guarantee you the average Mom who buys J&J products won't grasp the subtleties of the case - but I'd count on some serious J&J boycotts over this.
This story reads so badly, if I had gotten it in an email I'd head straight for Snopes. This is worse than the 'Target won't raise money for the armed forces!' urban legend that got so much mileage, and this one's real.
That said, I feel bad for J&J. The Red Cross is basically sublicensing their trademark to other companies. The Red Cross is using the threat of obvious bad PR to try to get away with some egregious behavior. And they may yet, because I can't believe J&J would go through with a very public trial that would put them somewhere between Michael Vick and Jeffrey Dahmer in terms of public appeal.
If you are reporting on a neat visual thingy,... SHOW ME THE THINGY. Even a picture of the machine would be a plus, even if it looks exactly like an MRI or some other machine. I don't care if the picture may mean nothing to me. Put a little caption trying to explain it. It doesn't matter, show me SOMETHING.
So you're the guy who is comforted by meaningless stock photos and flow charts. Send me your resume, you have a future in our marketing department.;)
I remember this game from Sesame Street. They showed 4 things - 3 were different and one was the same. Same as... uh..
I have young kids, so I watch that show like 3 times a day. I am a Jedi freaking *master* at 'One of these things is not like the other'. You cannot defeat me.
Seriously, I think merely being outed is probably the best that this guy could have hoped for. Woulda rocked if they'd fucked around with him instead.
They should have subjected him to, shall we say, a rather intrusive port scan. With a broomstick. Firewall's not gonna help you pal, just bite the pillow...
Have you read the agreement yourself? Sounds like either you have not read the agreement, or.... (moron?) I'm hoping and praying, in the name of intellectual discussion, that it's the first. It's probably clear by the end of very first sentence, which reads:
Simply because they say it does not make it legally binding. Also, as I said, that contract is between you and Ebay, not you and the buyer.
Sounds like you've never been exposed to basic contract law or common sense, or.... (moron?)
I'd guess that your thermostat is miscalibrated, Dr. Maxwell.
That or he's living in some alternate reality where everything has a greater degree of internal energy, requiring less heat to cook. Has he finally harnessed that mysterious zero-point energy they had in The Incredibles? It's the only logical conclusion.
It would take a moron to read eBay's seller agreement as otherwise. If you list an item on eBay, you'd better be ready to sell it under the terms of the agreement.
True. But the question is, what is the remedy? That's an agreement between you and eBay, presubambly, not you and the bidders. I'm not a lawyer, but this decision seems a bit muddled.
What most people here don't seem to have understood is the concept of a Keynesian recession or contraction. If people have no money to spend because every cent is going to pay the mortgage (because interest rates are sky high, because the dollar is collapsing) they've got no money to spend on anything, whether it's bought over the net or bricks & mortar.
It's more than just that, too - it also floods through the construction industry, raw materials markets, etc, as you see fewer housing starts. Also, there's the fact that the Fed used incredibly low interest rates to artificially inflate the housing market, which carried us through the 2000-2003 recession. We saw, what, 25% annual appreciation in some markets? Any fool could have seen this coming. So now we see a rash of mortgage defaults that come as a result of those balloon ARMs exploding, which hurts the capital markets in various ways, and this is supposed to be a shock? And that doesn't even address all the morons who skated by for 4 years using home equity loans to pay off their consumer debt and getting used to the free money their house gave them.
Another thing you have to bear in mind is the psychology of the market. Dvorak's right about one thing -- there IS a growing consensus that we're overdue a significant correction.
I've never been big on following the herd - if you have the risk tolerance, I think you can make a lot of money by jumping into equities when the nervous bail. Besides, that conventional wisdom is wrong about as often as it's right. I'm of the opinion that, outside of insane extremes, trying to predict the market doesn't work so well (however, the late 90s dot-bomb was an easy one to see coming).
If you haven't heard that yet, you're talking to the wrong people and this would be a good time to get out of equities and into T-bonds and commodities.
Nah. I've got 30 years to retirement, I'll let dollar-cost averaging and risk diversification take care of me. If the market hits the skids, my monthly investment money will buy more shares. Market's never lost money over a 10-year span, so as long as the entire world doesn't fall apart, I'll be OK. If it does, I'll have bigger problems.
A lot of people are hanging on for the last possible minute, banking that they'll somehow manage to cash out juuusssstttt before the market tanks. There's a word for people like this: deadmeat!
I think the larger issue there is that trying to time the market doesn't work so well.
The other interesting aspect is China. China's been growing at an average rate of about 10% a year for the last 20 years or so. They have no cultural memory of a recession or depression.
Don't know about that...talk to their parents and let them tell you about the famine of the early 50s that resulted from poor central planning. Few million people died in that one. But you're right, the Chinese market is waaaaaaay overspeculated.
In 1999, how many companies were there that were publicly traded, had market capitalizations in the billions, and had never made a dime? How many Supwer Bowl ads were there in 1999 for massively unprofitable companies?
Contrast that with the current situation. There is probably some degree of overspeculation, particularly in the housing market, and this will take some time to correct. But to see a massive crash of companies built up by VC pump-n-dump...no. That's not to say there can't be a crash, but it won't be for the same reason as 1999.
For example, if you force people to remove their shoes (and I always refused to do that, when it was still optional -- until a year or so ago), do keep the floor sparkling clean in the area -- and make sure, TSA employees are bare-feet too as a reassurance. Thousands of people cross those spots daily -- it is not only undignifying, but also unsanitary to be walking there without footware.
I would recommend socks. Solves the problem quite easily.
I'm a loyal customer who has used "linksys" as his nationwide wireless ISP for years. You'd think they would have sent out a letter to me or something.
I certainly expect a press release on what they plan to use for the default WAP name, just to eliminate the guessing.
Re:They did not go up in price, the dollar went do
on
$60 Games Are Here To Stay
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Man, enough already. You've been posting this gold-standard bullshit for years, and it's never made any sense. You have no credible sources for any of this. Give it up.
You've also posted a lot of mystical pseudoscience babble about gold. It's just a metal. Inasmuch as it has little to no innate utility to anyone, it's a substitute for actual goods of value in the same way that paper money is, or any other currency standard.
more dollars means that the dollars out there are worth less, especially versus foreign currencies.
Except for the obvious logical fallacy that foreign currencies have also abandoned the gold standard?
prices go up because your government decides every day to ruin the value of your money.
That was the only interesting thing you mentioned. Yes, money you hoard devalues at a long term average of about 4% per year. And that's a good thing - it's better for the economy to have money actively invested rather than sitting in a mattress. You'll note that time periods with low or negative inflation were times of currency crisis - because the wealthy hoarded their money and little was left in circulation to sustain the economy.
I play *with* my friends in a casino... big difference, if we're at the same table. Not necessarily colluding, but staying out of each other's way taking the fish's money.
The thing is, you don't have to intentionally collude. If you've been playing home games with your frields for months, you should all know each other's tells, habits, betting strategy, risk tolerance, etc - as I'm sure you do. You can't just forget that at a casino. So it's a huge advantage when a group of friends play together at a table with strangers.
Noone would be convicted of "breaching the GPL". The GPL is not an EULA. If you violate the terms of the GPL, you are (re)distributing without a license permitting you to do so (since the GPL, which you violated, is the only thing that gives you permission to do so), which is a copyright violation, not a GPL violation. I wish articles would get the specifics right.
You win today's "Pedant of the day award." Look for your certificate in the mail.
Regarding fields of pure science (like Wagner), Feynman in quantum physics, Linus Pauling and Mullikan in Chemistry, a variety of others (I only named a few with Caltech connections).
In the end, it doesn't matter where they're from - America has always been a 'mutt' country, and as long as they come here with intent to stay, they're Americans. So all those researchers who have tenure-track positions in American universities who were born elsewhere? All those folks working at National Labs and high-profile industry research centers like Watson and PARC? They're Americans as far as I'm concerned - as were Einstein and von Braun.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it means that a cloner does not copy the original software that came with the iPhone.
It took me a few reads, but that was my conclusion as well. But he certainly used a rather verbose way of saying it. PopSci must pay by the word.
RTFA. J&J tried to work out an agreement. They tried to go to mediation. The ARC shot them down both times. This "dumbest" way of defending their trademark is the only one they had left.
I did RTFA, YFP. And giving the Red Cross a free license to do whatever they want would have been a better idea than the PR disaster they have coming. There are always options, they just chose not to use them.
What are the "semantics" here? Is this like google images, where the nearby HTML text determines the classification of the image [i.e ASCII-text as meta-data for images]?
No. The matches are done in a purely data-driven manner, meaning by analyzing lots of images and guessing matches. Meta-data appears not to have been used.
Or is this a great big neural net of wavelet data which classifies the images mathematically?
Probably a lot closer to the truth.
Another paragraph gives a clue to how they're using the term (which could have been better chosen, I agree):
As I read that, what they're saying is that they are pretty good at finding a piece that makes sense to fill in the hole (ie, semantically valid). However, he's conceding the fact that the low-level image statistics would still give away the fact that the patch was made - probably in reference to techniques such as the guy at BlackHat who discovered that Al Quaeda doctors their images/videos, using such low-level image statistics to prove it. http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/researche rs-ana.html
I wonder if this is part of the beginning of a new, computationally-driven problem-solving paradigm. As more and more data is stored, and if search algorithms become more and more clever, the cost of "looking up" (computationally speaking) the answer to a problem might be lower than the cost of "remembering" (using local storage) or "figuring out" (using local CPU power) the answer.
No, it's part of an existing, computationally-driven problem solving field that has existed for decades.
And don't refer to anything as a paradigm, it will make people want to throw things at you.
Take the emotions out of the discussion, this is purely business. No, it is not big pharma beating on a poor charity, it is a trademark licensee abusing a license agreement in such a way the owner of the trademark is negatively impacted. Until J & J officially turns the trademark over to the ARC, they own and they must defend it.
There are different ways of defending it - this is the dumbest. Quietly amending the licensing agreement would have been smarter. Like it or not, J&J sells its products to people who just *might* be a little put off by them suing the Red Cross. This is a PR disaster. And yes, it is making the mainstream news. I guarantee you the average Mom who buys J&J products won't grasp the subtleties of the case - but I'd count on some serious J&J boycotts over this.
This story reads so badly, if I had gotten it in an email I'd head straight for Snopes. This is worse than the 'Target won't raise money for the armed forces!' urban legend that got so much mileage, and this one's real.
That said, I feel bad for J&J. The Red Cross is basically sublicensing their trademark to other companies. The Red Cross is using the threat of obvious bad PR to try to get away with some egregious behavior. And they may yet, because I can't believe J&J would go through with a very public trial that would put them somewhere between Michael Vick and Jeffrey Dahmer in terms of public appeal.
If you are reporting on a neat visual thingy,... SHOW ME THE THINGY. Even a picture of the machine would be a plus, even if it looks exactly like an MRI or some other machine. I don't care if the picture may mean nothing to me. Put a little caption trying to explain it. It doesn't matter, show me SOMETHING.
So you're the guy who is comforted by meaningless stock photos and flow charts. Send me your resume, you have a future in our marketing department. ;)
ow about "Does the Star Trek transporter use lossy or lossless compression? Why?"
So *that*'s why the show kept gradually getting shittier over time. ;)
I remember this game from Sesame Street. They showed 4 things - 3 were different and one was the same. Same as... uh..
I have young kids, so I watch that show like 3 times a day. I am a Jedi freaking *master* at 'One of these things is not like the other'. You cannot defeat me.
Seriously, I think merely being outed is probably the best that this guy could have hoped for. Woulda rocked if they'd fucked around with him instead.
They should have subjected him to, shall we say, a rather intrusive port scan. With a broomstick. Firewall's not gonna help you pal, just bite the pillow...
Interesting. Link?
Come on. Your UID is way too low to expect corroborating evidence on slashdot.
Have you read the agreement yourself? Sounds like either you have not read the agreement, or.... (moron?) I'm hoping and praying, in the name of intellectual discussion, that it's the first. It's probably clear by the end of very first sentence, which reads:
Simply because they say it does not make it legally binding. Also, as I said, that contract is between you and Ebay, not you and the buyer.
Sounds like you've never been exposed to basic contract law or common sense, or.... (moron?)
I'd guess that your thermostat is miscalibrated, Dr. Maxwell.
That or he's living in some alternate reality where everything has a greater degree of internal energy, requiring less heat to cook. Has he finally harnessed that mysterious zero-point energy they had in The Incredibles? It's the only logical conclusion.
It would take a moron to read eBay's seller agreement as otherwise. If you list an item on eBay, you'd better be ready to sell it under the terms of the agreement.
True. But the question is, what is the remedy? That's an agreement between you and eBay, presubambly, not you and the bidders. I'm not a lawyer, but this decision seems a bit muddled.
There are 150,000 projects on sourceforge. How many really made it big? 100? 0.0006% to make it doesn't sound too encouraging...
If you're doing it to 'make it big', you're doing it for the wrong reason.
What most people here don't seem to have understood is the concept of a Keynesian recession or contraction. If people have no money to spend because every cent is going to pay the mortgage (because interest rates are sky high, because the dollar is collapsing) they've got no money to spend on anything, whether it's bought over the net or bricks & mortar.
It's more than just that, too - it also floods through the construction industry, raw materials markets, etc, as you see fewer housing starts. Also, there's the fact that the Fed used incredibly low interest rates to artificially inflate the housing market, which carried us through the 2000-2003 recession. We saw, what, 25% annual appreciation in some markets? Any fool could have seen this coming. So now we see a rash of mortgage defaults that come as a result of those balloon ARMs exploding, which hurts the capital markets in various ways, and this is supposed to be a shock? And that doesn't even address all the morons who skated by for 4 years using home equity loans to pay off their consumer debt and getting used to the free money their house gave them.
Another thing you have to bear in mind is the psychology of the market. Dvorak's right about one thing -- there IS a growing consensus that we're overdue a significant correction.
I've never been big on following the herd - if you have the risk tolerance, I think you can make a lot of money by jumping into equities when the nervous bail. Besides, that conventional wisdom is wrong about as often as it's right. I'm of the opinion that, outside of insane extremes, trying to predict the market doesn't work so well (however, the late 90s dot-bomb was an easy one to see coming).
If you haven't heard that yet, you're talking to the wrong people and this would be a good time to get out of equities and into T-bonds and commodities.
Nah. I've got 30 years to retirement, I'll let dollar-cost averaging and risk diversification take care of me. If the market hits the skids, my monthly investment money will buy more shares. Market's never lost money over a 10-year span, so as long as the entire world doesn't fall apart, I'll be OK. If it does, I'll have bigger problems.
A lot of people are hanging on for the last possible minute, banking that they'll somehow manage to cash out juuusssstttt before the market tanks. There's a word for people like this: deadmeat!
I think the larger issue there is that trying to time the market doesn't work so well.
The other interesting aspect is China. China's been growing at an average rate of about 10% a year for the last 20 years or so. They have no cultural memory of a recession or depression.
Don't know about that...talk to their parents and let them tell you about the famine of the early 50s that resulted from poor central planning. Few million people died in that one. But you're right, the Chinese market is waaaaaaay overspeculated.
In 1999, how many companies were there that were publicly traded, had market capitalizations in the billions, and had never made a dime? How many Supwer Bowl ads were there in 1999 for massively unprofitable companies?
Contrast that with the current situation. There is probably some degree of overspeculation, particularly in the housing market, and this will take some time to correct. But to see a massive crash of companies built up by VC pump-n-dump...no. That's not to say there can't be a crash, but it won't be for the same reason as 1999.
Well, then I must have been ultrasmart... :(
Or extremely stupid. ;)
For example, if you force people to remove their shoes (and I always refused to do that, when it was still optional -- until a year or so ago), do keep the floor sparkling clean in the area -- and make sure, TSA employees are bare-feet too as a reassurance. Thousands of people cross those spots daily -- it is not only undignifying, but also unsanitary to be walking there without footware.
I would recommend socks. Solves the problem quite easily.
I'm a loyal customer who has used "linksys" as his nationwide wireless ISP for years. You'd think they would have sent out a letter to me or something.
I certainly expect a press release on what they plan to use for the default WAP name, just to eliminate the guessing.
Man, enough already. You've been posting this gold-standard bullshit for years, and it's never made any sense. You have no credible sources for any of this. Give it up.
You've also posted a lot of mystical pseudoscience babble about gold. It's just a metal. Inasmuch as it has little to no innate utility to anyone, it's a substitute for actual goods of value in the same way that paper money is, or any other currency standard.
more dollars means that the dollars out there are worth less, especially versus foreign currencies.
Except for the obvious logical fallacy that foreign currencies have also abandoned the gold standard?
prices go up because your government decides every day to ruin the value of your money.
That was the only interesting thing you mentioned. Yes, money you hoard devalues at a long term average of about 4% per year. And that's a good thing - it's better for the economy to have money actively invested rather than sitting in a mattress. You'll note that time periods with low or negative inflation were times of currency crisis - because the wealthy hoarded their money and little was left in circulation to sustain the economy.
I play *with* my friends in a casino... big difference, if we're at the same table. Not necessarily colluding, but staying out of each other's way taking the fish's money.
The thing is, you don't have to intentionally collude. If you've been playing home games with your frields for months, you should all know each other's tells, habits, betting strategy, risk tolerance, etc - as I'm sure you do. You can't just forget that at a casino. So it's a huge advantage when a group of friends play together at a table with strangers.
Surely that should be '"Pedant of the Day" award'.
You get runner-up. And don't call me Shirley.
Noone would be convicted of "breaching the GPL". The GPL is not an EULA. If you violate the terms of the GPL, you are (re)distributing without a license permitting you to do so (since the GPL, which you violated, is the only thing that gives you permission to do so), which is a copyright violation, not a GPL violation. I wish articles would get the specifics right.
You win today's "Pedant of the day award." Look for your certificate in the mail.
Which proves...what...that the desktop is far older?
Can anyone think of a real, world-beating innovation by an American, born here, whose parents were also born here Americans?
I'm not into inventor genealogy, but Edison? Bell?
Shockley, inventor of the transistor? (Oddly enough, this article http://www.pbs.org/transistor/album1/shockley/inde x.html does go into his family history, and apparently it includes the Mayflower).
Regarding fields of pure science (like Wagner), Feynman in quantum physics, Linus Pauling and Mullikan in Chemistry, a variety of others (I only named a few with Caltech connections).
In the end, it doesn't matter where they're from - America has always been a 'mutt' country, and as long as they come here with intent to stay, they're Americans. So all those researchers who have tenure-track positions in American universities who were born elsewhere? All those folks working at National Labs and high-profile industry research centers like Watson and PARC? They're Americans as far as I'm concerned - as were Einstein and von Braun.