I've given up playing new games, my playstation lies unused, I play no computer games bar the odd sim type game. Modern games seem to be all style and no substance.
Old games though, aaaahhh, do you remember Elite? Simple graphics, complex open-ended gameplay. Wher'as reviews of new games always seem to say, one way or another, 'Better graphics' or 'More eyecandy'
In fact, modern games are so crap I've started playing interactive fiction again, exercising your mind for a change, and not just your trigger finger.
Still, I suppose it takes all types of games and people, maybe I'm just getting old.
Guns kill people...so do knives. So do any host of other things.
Guns also make it really easy to kill people. You can kill way more people with a gun than a knife. Odd how you forget to point that out..
How would you propose that we not only get rid of guns, but stop people from making them on the black market? (we know how well things like drug prohibition work...its just IMPOSSIBLE to buy
Methamphetimine now thats its illegal right
Small, hard to detect, easy to make drugs are not comparable with large, metallic, detectable, precision-engineered-in-a-large-factory guns.
Is it ALWAYS wrong to kill people? If a man
attacks me with a knife or gun, is it wrong of me to kill, or otherwise wound, him? Perhaps I should just stand there and allow him to attack me? Perhaps I am suposed to run and hope I can run faster than this person?
No, you're not expected to just stand and die, that would be silly. But your argument is basically 'some one else might have one, so i need one' and thats just daft.
I can see face recognition as a cool area of study. It has some cool applications-- sitting down in front of a computer and having it recognize" you would be cool.
Integrating face recognition software into this system will allow the police and their "friends" to automatically monitor your
movements in public, who you hang around with, what shops you use ect etc.
It would, if it worked that well. Reality though, is different from media hype. One day it may well be possible to monitor everybody on the street, but consider what you need to do this. Cameras need to be everywhere, they need to be all coneected up to a very very very powerfull computer capable of searching through everyones image to see if it matches. This computer must also be capable of extracting all the faces from all the video stream and continuosly tracking them. All this in the few seconds that you're actually in the frame. Oh and did I mention the picture quality these systems need is quite high, and cr+ppy pictures from CCTV are rarely good enough? Or that they don't work well in uncontrolled lighting? Or that you need up to data pictures of people to search against? Or that the systems tell you who looks like the image, but can't say that they are the same person....
Computers capable of all this just don't exist at the moment, and when they do, they'll be well out the price range of your local police
The success of the local council's trial in the UK is mainly due to puplicity driving the criminals away, rather than the technology. The computer output won't even be admissable in court.
Slashdot Mirror
I've given up playing new games, my playstation lies unused, I play no computer games bar the odd sim type game. Modern games seem to be all style and no substance.
Old games though, aaaahhh, do you remember Elite? Simple graphics, complex open-ended gameplay. Wher'as reviews of new games always seem to say, one way or another, 'Better graphics' or 'More eyecandy'
In fact, modern games are so crap I've started playing interactive fiction again, exercising your mind for a change, and not just your trigger finger.
Still, I suppose it takes all types of games and people, maybe I'm just getting old.
Iain
Removing the A from NASA you would get ...
... It seems NSA would benefit from having publicly funded competition,
Many people who know much about NSA distrust it as well
So hey, lets set up a rival to the NSA, publicly funded of course! That'll make us feel sooo much safer!
Err, no. Lets not. 2 sets of spooks would be so much worse.
Guns also make it really easy to kill people. You can kill way more people with a gun than a knife. Odd how you forget to point that out..
Small, hard to detect, easy to make drugs are not comparable with large, metallic, detectable, precision-engineered-in-a-large-factory guns.
No, you're not expected to just stand and die, that would be silly. But your argument is basically 'some one else might have one, so i need one' and thats just daft.
Visionics ( http://www.visionics.com ) is one the 'big' facial recognition companies...
imh
Try http://www.visionics.com/Faceit/Products/NT.htm
imh
It would, if it worked that well. Reality though, is different from media hype. One day it may well be possible to monitor everybody on the street, but consider what you need to do this. Cameras need to be everywhere, they need to be all coneected up to a very very very powerfull computer capable of searching through everyones image to see if it matches. This computer must also be capable of extracting all the faces from all the video stream and continuosly tracking them. All this in the few seconds that you're actually in the frame. Oh and did I mention the picture quality these systems need is quite high, and cr+ppy pictures from CCTV are rarely good enough? Or that they don't work well in uncontrolled lighting? Or that you need up to data pictures of people to search against? Or that the systems tell you who looks like the image, but can't say that they are the same person....
Computers capable of all this just don't exist at the moment, and when they do, they'll be well out the price range of your local police
The success of the local council's trial in the UK is mainly due to puplicity driving the criminals away, rather than the technology. The computer output won't even be admissable in court.
I'm not worried....... imh