The question wasn't where to start, but where to end. This guy isn't the big fish in the chain, but he's not innocent. The bigger problem IMHO is that what he did doesn't deserve a year in jail.
What would be more entertaining would be if someone took this algorithm, then rewrote it (or wrote a parallel successive approximation algorithm to feed into it) so that it generates photos that, although heavily doctored, pass this test. Put another way, this sort of methodology is only effective if the details are kept secret....
Yeah, basically my first thought on the process was that this is also an algorithm to tell you how to make better looking fakes.
First, it's easier to sympathize with the Thai guy because I think that law is ridiculous. I understand that's an emotional reaction and not a basis for a rational argument, but I figured I'd put it out there instead of trying to pretend there's no bias in my thinking.
Second, and much more important for this argument, I'd be fairly surprised if what he did was legal at home. It's not like he traveled to the US and was suddenly surprised by the uniquely American distaste for extortion. His behavior was criminal in just about any place I'd care to travel to. He's being prosecuted by the US because he did it to a US company (and came onto US soil).
There's a popular thing, called X. The people who produce and market X allow one view of it to their fan base, but deny them another, potentially more interesting and informative view.
If you can't shoehorn that into some kind of 'evil megacorps are destroying our freedoms', you're not trying hard enough.
More seriously, the nerdiest guy I know (and that's saying a lot, I'm a developer and I've worked with a TON of nerds) once considered getting into football for the sheer joy of statistical analysis on all the data produced by it. The additional information from a wider view and how it can be used to interpret what you've already got would be fascinating.
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean no one else does. Just because something isn't traditionally the province of geekdom doesn't mean there are no geeky aspects to it.
'You can say someone is an alcoholic if they drink more than three bottles (of liquor) a day, but you can't call them alcoholic because they drink after midnight. It's the same with gaming,'
But you can be pretty sure something is up if they drink before 10 AM.
Or, as I've heard it put, you can't drink all day if you don't start in the morning.
MS and Apple are nothing but patent trolls, no matter how the apologists want to spin it.
Microsoft and Apple both produce actual products, while the standard definition of a patent troll is usually a corporation whose entire business is licensing and/or suing others while producing no products of their own.
MS and Apple are trying to use their patents to make competing products prohibitively expensive. Also reprehensible, but a distinct activity from patent trolling.
You make it look so simple. However, we are talking about violent sociopaths. If you cut off their main source of income, they will not just raise their hands and quit.
They will simply expand their other illicit businesses, like extortion and kidnapping.
If those activities were more profitable, they'd be doing them now. Eliminating their major cash cow reduces their funds and as a result reduces their overall power. The problem doesn't vanish overnight but it does move towards being manageable. Even if it takes a generation to clean up, that's significantly better than never, which is what we've got now.
Alright folks, listen up: This is not an appropriate time for a shark joke. This is very clearly an opportunity for an Alan Parsens or Preperation H reference.
So... you're tired of these motherfrickin' lasers on these motherfrickin' sharks?
Right. I wasn't implying that you could just drive 200MPH down any road you felt like, but rather on most roads with a posted limit of 55MPH, the accident rates for cars traveling at 55MPH and 65MPH are not different. Citing from memory here, but that's what I recall.
Whether or not states required individuals to have weapons (or if anyone owned cannons) has just about nothing to do with whether or not the 2nd amendment has been interpreted to protect individual gun owner rights. The OP may be somewhat correct in a backwards kind of way, in that gun control legislation hadn't required much of an interpretation of the 2nd until mid/late 20th century in the US. They used the 14th amendment to eliminate reconstruction era gun control that targeted blacks.
According to the summary, it's asking you to determine "which members have the same attitude toward telling the truth", which is similar but not exactly the same as determining whether a given person is telling the truth or not. I would assume the following:
You have to do this in a purely reactive way, meaning you're not allowed to ask questions, you can only look at what others have asked and how people have responded. You do not have enough knowledge about the topic being discussed to determine truth/falsehood based on the accuracy of their answers.
So the problem boils down to recognizing what questions are identical, or at least similar enough to be useful (i.e "How many cows are in farmer Brown's herd?" vs "How many cows does farmer Brown have?" vs "Does farmer Brown own more than 50 cows?")
And then looking for answers that match up (matching the questions above, "about 40", "37", "no").
You may also have to contend with the possibility the honest and accuracy are not the same thing, and that a perfectly honest person can still be wrong.
I was thinking that. The interstate commerce clause gets abused and twisted to cover all sorts of things, but this seems like a situation that it was actually intended for.
Slashdot Mirror
The question wasn't where to start, but where to end. This guy isn't the big fish in the chain, but he's not innocent. The bigger problem IMHO is that what he did doesn't deserve a year in jail.
I've always found that I could hit stop and then menu and effectively skip the previews.
What would be more entertaining would be if someone took this algorithm, then rewrote it (or wrote a parallel successive approximation algorithm to feed into it) so that it generates photos that, although heavily doctored, pass this test. Put another way, this sort of methodology is only effective if the details are kept secret....
Yeah, basically my first thought on the process was that this is also an algorithm to tell you how to make better looking fakes.
The cases aren't identical.
First, it's easier to sympathize with the Thai guy because I think that law is ridiculous. I understand that's an emotional reaction and not a basis for a rational argument, but I figured I'd put it out there instead of trying to pretend there's no bias in my thinking.
Second, and much more important for this argument, I'd be fairly surprised if what he did was legal at home. It's not like he traveled to the US and was suddenly surprised by the uniquely American distaste for extortion. His behavior was criminal in just about any place I'd care to travel to. He's being prosecuted by the US because he did it to a US company (and came onto US soil).
There's a popular thing, called X. The people who produce and market X allow one view of it to their fan base, but deny them another, potentially more interesting and informative view.
If you can't shoehorn that into some kind of 'evil megacorps are destroying our freedoms', you're not trying hard enough.
More seriously, the nerdiest guy I know (and that's saying a lot, I'm a developer and I've worked with a TON of nerds) once considered getting into football for the sheer joy of statistical analysis on all the data produced by it. The additional information from a wider view and how it can be used to interpret what you've already got would be fascinating.
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean no one else does. Just because something isn't traditionally the province of geekdom doesn't mean there are no geeky aspects to it.
For some people. On the other hand, my brother-in-law uses the word 'fucking' the same way most people use the word 'um'.
'You can say someone is an alcoholic if they drink more than three bottles (of liquor) a day, but you can't call them alcoholic because they drink after midnight. It's the same with gaming,'
But you can be pretty sure something is up if they drink before 10 AM.
Or, as I've heard it put, you can't drink all day if you don't start in the morning.
MS and Apple are nothing but patent trolls, no matter how the apologists want to spin it.
Microsoft and Apple both produce actual products, while the standard definition of a patent troll is usually a corporation whose entire business is licensing and/or suing others while producing no products of their own.
MS and Apple are trying to use their patents to make competing products prohibitively expensive. Also reprehensible, but a distinct activity from patent trolling.
YOU'RE FUCKING WRONG.
Are you saying "You're REALLY REALLY wrong." ?
or are you saying "When you fuck, you are not doing it correctly." ?
You make it look so simple. However, we are talking about violent sociopaths. If you cut off their main source of income, they will not just raise their hands and quit.
They will simply expand their other illicit businesses, like extortion and kidnapping.
If those activities were more profitable, they'd be doing them now. Eliminating their major cash cow reduces their funds and as a result reduces their overall power. The problem doesn't vanish overnight but it does move towards being manageable. Even if it takes a generation to clean up, that's significantly better than never, which is what we've got now.
Fingerprints have been used to confirm or determine peoples' identities for over one hundred years now
I suppose that's technically accurate, but a better phrasing would probably have been "throughout recorded history".
They always find a compromise that combines the least desirable elements of each.
Hell if I know, but it was the first one that came up when I googled "black superman".
That's not super black. This is super black.
I hired two guys this year. After weeding through an enormous pile of crappy applicants. Jobs are out there. They always are.
Alright folks, listen up: This is not an appropriate time for a shark joke. This is very clearly an opportunity for an Alan Parsens or Preperation H reference.
So... you're tired of these motherfrickin' lasers on these motherfrickin' sharks?
But to me, the existence of a god doesn't actually answer any meaningful questions
I refer to this as "Apatheism". I just don't care about the answer and don't see how it changes my life.
Right. I wasn't implying that you could just drive 200MPH down any road you felt like, but rather on most roads with a posted limit of 55MPH, the accident rates for cars traveling at 55MPH and 65MPH are not different. Citing from memory here, but that's what I recall.
IIRC, speed does not increase the likelihood of an accident, but it does increase the severity when they occur.
Make separate commits. Pretty it up, commit. Make your logical changes, commit.
Whether or not states required individuals to have weapons (or if anyone owned cannons) has just about nothing to do with whether or not the 2nd amendment has been interpreted to protect individual gun owner rights. The OP may be somewhat correct in a backwards kind of way, in that gun control legislation hadn't required much of an interpretation of the 2nd until mid/late 20th century in the US. They used the 14th amendment to eliminate reconstruction era gun control that targeted blacks.
This kind of problem reminds me of advanced placement java in highschool :)
Youngin. Java didn't exist when I took AP comp sci. :)
As to your other post, we already know it's not real world applicable, given that very few people are either unfailingly honest or compulsive liars.
According to the summary, it's asking you to determine "which members have the same attitude toward telling the truth", which is similar but not exactly the same as determining whether a given person is telling the truth or not. I would assume the following:
You have to do this in a purely reactive way, meaning you're not allowed to ask questions, you can only look at what others have asked and how people have responded.
You do not have enough knowledge about the topic being discussed to determine truth/falsehood based on the accuracy of their answers.
So the problem boils down to recognizing what questions are identical, or at least similar enough to be useful (i.e "How many cows are in farmer Brown's herd?" vs "How many cows does farmer Brown have?" vs "Does farmer Brown own more than 50 cows?")
And then looking for answers that match up (matching the questions above, "about 40", "37", "no").
You may also have to contend with the possibility the honest and accuracy are not the same thing, and that a perfectly honest person can still be wrong.
I was thinking that. The interstate commerce clause gets abused and twisted to cover all sorts of things, but this seems like a situation that it was actually intended for.
To be misunderstood and outcast, such is my destiny.