TFA says an "expert user" is required. This expert user inputs coefficients that drive the equations that analyze the picture.
So basically, if you want an image to be doctored, you use one set of values. If you want an image to be genuine, you use another set of values. Maybe somebody else's requirements differ from mine, but this is not the kind of flexibility I want in a tool that is supposed to tell me if an image has been altered or not. Ummm, what? FTA:
Johnson's tool, which requires an expert user, works by modeling the lighting in the image based on clues garnered from various surfaces within the image. (It works best for images that contain surfaces of a fairly uniform color.) The user indicates the surface he wants to consider, and the program returns a set of coefficients to a complex equation that represents the surrounding lighting environment as a whole. That set of numbers can then be compared with results from other surfaces in the image. If the results fall outside a certain variance, the user can flag the image as possibly manipulated. I mean, that's not even close to what you posted - "running the same analysis on different parts of the image and then comparing the results" is not the same as "you pick the results".
Wait, I thought this was "share an anecdote" day:)
Anyway, it's not intended to be a serious measure of uptime, it's just a cheap backup in case of massive fail. That being said, it's a happy coincidence that it's easy to distinguish between home internet failures and server failures. If I get a text message saying the server is not responding, it can't be a failure of the internet connection - if it was, the home machine wouldn't be able to text me in the first place...
I would have settled for only 99% from comcast. The fact that the cable modem was only ~70% reliable is just embarassing, to this day I cringe when I hear that people are relying upon comcast for emergency calls. It would be out for hours every day, and we did ditch them for DSL. YMMV, but I use my residential Comcast connection as a backup monitor for a server I administer. Every 10 minutes my home machine (which is running 24/7) pings the server and waits for a response - it's a cheap way of tracking the server's availiability, although of course it's really checking the availability of both the server and my home internet connection. I just checked the records for all of of February, and it only recorded one failed attempt for the entire month, which translates to a success rate of 99.98%. And that's pretty good for $42.95 per month, I think.
Except that Quirin was overturned when the US signed the Third Geneva convention (due to the Supremecy Clause in the Constitution).
You cannot "overturn" a decision by the Supreme Court via treaty, and the supremacy clause says no such thing. Or perhaps you imagine that, say, Brown v Board can be undone merely because Congress ratifies a treaty that says separate-but-equal is just A-OK.
Apparently continuous, permanent, ever-present surveillance doesn't seem to bother you. How about in order to move from city block to city block you have to stop and present yourself for a full-body search, fingerprint, retinal scan, and DNA sample? My copy of the Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, which pretty well covers your hypothetical. Perhaps you should check your copy to see if it really guarantees you the right to be free from being unreasonably looked at, as you seem to think it does.
We grew up.:) Few of us have the time that we did then. We're married, we have kids, mortgages, etc. Mortgage, kids...fuck, I own a minivan now - how sad is that?;)
No, its not new, but if you think about it, its really quite bad.
Leftists only watch leftist media (to avoid critism/trolling, I make no examples), while rightists only watch rightist media.
The result is that everyone only gets their own opinions reinforced, and not challenged. This pushes them away from the opposite side.
IIRC from the first edition, his notion of a fix was something akin to an equal-time requirement, whereby bloggers et. al. would be required to present opposing viewpoints in the name of fairness and exposure to same. Wonderful idea, on its face, until you start considering the consequences - such a principle can't possibly be applied merely to the folks you disagree with, requiring them to present views you do agree with. It has to apply to everyone, and where on earth does that end? Do we really want to require the NAACP and the SPLC to give equal time to the viewpoints of the Klan and the American Nazi Party? And yet, that's exactly the silliness that Sunstein proposes.
Even if we grant his initial premise that these insular online communities are somehow, y'know, bad, it's pretty clear that his "cure" is infinitely worse.
I am amazed that more lawyers are not here on/. looking for such cases. Maybe that should tell you something about the legal acumen of your average slashdotter.
Or just get all your broadcast channels in HD over the air for free. Or get a satellite. There are definitely options at this stage in the game. I'm on the phone canceling my account with Comcast as we speak. They didn't want to give me an HD DVR unless I was paying for one of their $50+ a month cable plans. Basic broadcast channels are fine for me, and now I'm getting them for free over the air.
Sure I'm paying Tivo, but they're offering me DVR service, and I'd rather Tivo gets my cash than Comcast anyway. Just to let you know, Comcast is very much organized on a regional basis, and some regions are, to put it mildly, dumber than others. Around here, Comcast will happily sell you a DVR to go along with your $14.95/month local-only, limited-basic package. YMMV.
Naturally I demanded a credit and the girl tried to claim that I was paying for the channels only and the video on demand was a free service they gave me out of the kindness of their hearts so there was nothing to credit. I told her that was wonderful, take away all that expensive programming I pay all that money for and just leave me the free stuff. She told me that it only comes free with the paid programming. I told her to make up her mind, either they are giving me the video on demand for free or they require me to pay them money in order to receive it.
Next time there's a store near you having a buy-one-get-one-free sale, go on in and tell them you'd rather not have two of whatever it is, and could they please just give you the free one by itself. See how well that works for you;)
If they are served with a secret warrant, they simply stop updating the warrant canary...
Which, since everyone knows what it means, effectively functions as a way of disclosing that they've been served with a warrant demanding nondisclosure. I hope they're not relying on whatever lawyer told them that this was a good idea to bail them out after the fact, or they may be in for a rather rude surprise.
Every time they issue a patent that's later invalidated, they should pay compensation for issuing the patent.
The problem here, has and always will be the over willingness of the patent office to issue patents when the invention preexists but is not documented publicly, or where it's a minor increment of an existing variation. It's in the law that they have to test for obviousness and prior art, but they so narrowly define those terms as to remove the tests.
The free market will fix it, make them pay for their mistakes just like every other professional body. I don't know what's more disturbing - the fact that you're this amazingly naive, or the fact that at least one other person out there found this tripe anything but naive. The "free market" will dissuade the USPTO from granting bad patents, will it? And how, pray tell, will it do that when the Patent Office has a legal monopoly on the granting of patents? It's not like there's any competition for them to fear, where you can go to some other agency to get a patent when you're unhappy with the way they grant patents.
And then, even better, "we" are supposed to punish "them" when "they" fuck up, by fining them. Except that, as a government agency, the USPTO always has access to the biggest ATM in the universe, the American taxpayer. So what you're really proposing is that *I* pay a fine every time the Patent Office fucks up - "we" get to punish ourselves for bad patents. Which is a proposal where I expect most people's reaction will be "are you out of your fucking mind?"
The only possible solution is to change the laws governing the USPTO if you're unhappy with the way things are currently going. I'm as laissez-faire as the next guy, but there is no "free market" solution to the problem of overbroad or poorly thought-out patents, unless you scrap the whole system. And the odds of that are basically nil, so you're back to changing the laws in order to bring about different outcomes.
No, the dispatcher and/or officer on the scene call an armed response unit, who are highly trained marksmen (due to their rare situation of having a gun on the streets of Britain). You see, because gun crime happens so infrequently in the UK (see above), the armed response units have an incredibly quick response time, quicker, i'd wager, than the normal police response time in the US. Wait, so here's the scenario - a call comes in to report a burglary in progress or whatever, so normally the dispatcher sends a beat officer, who is unarmed. But when he arrives on the scene, the officer notes that the suspect is likely armed. Whereupon he calls the dispatcher again, who now sends out the ARU. And your theory is that this all happens faster than having the initial responding officer be armed in the first place? Do the Met Police have teleporters or some such that they're not letting everyone know about? Because I have to say that I find this hilariously unlikely.:-/
And the Earth based life forms would be unlikely to be able to compete with the native life forms, so a sustainable colony would be a challenge. Seems equally likely that the native lifeforms would be unable to compete with the Earth-based invasive species...
Athalon 2700, gf6800, 720p Quicktimes run at about 10 fps, don't know why. Pretty fresh install of WinXP and I don't use IE, but spyware never seems to outside the realm of suspects. It's QT - I've noticed the same problem on a 2.8Ghz P4. However, I can play 720p WMV encoded HD content just fine on the same machine. Try it yourself:
Some standards are holding up just fine. My 60 year telephone still works in any north american phone outlet. Not at all. Bring it along to my house and plug it in if you like. Just don't expect to call anyone; the digital phone system here doesn't do pulse dialing. Nor does any VoIP provider that I know of, which pretty much renders your 60 year old unit useless in any North American outlet that gets a dial tone from any such service.
Eventually it'll be left behind altogether. It's just a question of when, really.
At least Comcast doesn't have an early termination fee for residental customers. They do, but only for the "Triple Play" bundle (digital voice/digital TV/broadband), which isn't even available in a lot of places yet. And even then, the fee only applies if you sign up for the two-year price guarantee - if you only take the one year deal, there's no penalty at all for bailing out.
I'm not sure that the turds who run those sites should be allowed to skate completely free from responsibility for the repositories of ugliness that their comments sections have become, when they clearly encourage the basest instincts of their most twisted readers.
Since such liability wouldn't likely be limited solely to board operators you happen to dislike, I guess the only question is who gets to the courthouse first - the people suing Free Republic and LGF, or the people suing DKos and Democratic Underground. If we really put our minds to it, we can eliminate interactive message boards altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
So basically, if you want an image to be doctored, you use one set of values. If you want an image to be genuine, you use another set of values. Maybe somebody else's requirements differ from mine, but this is not the kind of flexibility I want in a tool that is supposed to tell me if an image has been altered or not. Ummm, what? FTA: Johnson's tool, which requires an expert user, works by modeling the lighting in the image based on clues garnered from various surfaces within the image. (It works best for images that contain surfaces of a fairly uniform color.) The user indicates the surface he wants to consider, and the program returns a set of coefficients to a complex equation that represents the surrounding lighting environment as a whole. That set of numbers can then be compared with results from other surfaces in the image. If the results fall outside a certain variance, the user can flag the image as possibly manipulated. I mean, that's not even close to what you posted - "running the same analysis on different parts of the image and then comparing the results" is not the same as "you pick the results".
Wait, I thought this was "share an anecdote" day :)
Anyway, it's not intended to be a serious measure of uptime, it's just a cheap backup in case of massive fail. That being said, it's a happy coincidence that it's easy to distinguish between home internet failures and server failures. If I get a text message saying the server is not responding, it can't be a failure of the internet connection - if it was, the home machine wouldn't be able to text me in the first place...
This is why all my offsets are free:
:)
http://www.freecarbonoffsets.com/
All the sin, none of the guilt
You cannot "overturn" a decision by the Supreme Court via treaty, and the supremacy clause says no such thing. Or perhaps you imagine that, say, Brown v Board can be undone merely because Congress ratifies a treaty that says separate-but-equal is just A-OK.
In a word, no.
I agree 120%.
Minivan FTW.
Leftists only watch leftist media (to avoid critism/trolling, I make no examples), while rightists only watch rightist media.
The result is that everyone only gets their own opinions reinforced, and not challenged. This pushes them away from the opposite side.
IIRC from the first edition, his notion of a fix was something akin to an equal-time requirement, whereby bloggers et. al. would be required to present opposing viewpoints in the name of fairness and exposure to same. Wonderful idea, on its face, until you start considering the consequences - such a principle can't possibly be applied merely to the folks you disagree with, requiring them to present views you do agree with. It has to apply to everyone, and where on earth does that end? Do we really want to require the NAACP and the SPLC to give equal time to the viewpoints of the Klan and the American Nazi Party? And yet, that's exactly the silliness that Sunstein proposes. Even if we grant his initial premise that these insular online communities are somehow, y'know, bad, it's pretty clear that his "cure" is infinitely worse.Sure I'm paying Tivo, but they're offering me DVR service, and I'd rather Tivo gets my cash than Comcast anyway. Just to let you know, Comcast is very much organized on a regional basis, and some regions are, to put it mildly, dumber than others. Around here, Comcast will happily sell you a DVR to go along with your $14.95/month local-only, limited-basic package. YMMV.
What makes you think they don't already know?
Next time there's a store near you having a buy-one-get-one-free sale, go on in and tell them you'd rather not have two of whatever it is, and could they please just give you the free one by itself. See how well that works for you
Read this again:
rsync.net warrant canary
If they are served with a secret warrant, they simply stop updating the warrant canary...
Which, since everyone knows what it means, effectively functions as a way of disclosing that they've been served with a warrant demanding nondisclosure. I hope they're not relying on whatever lawyer told them that this was a good idea to bail them out after the fact, or they may be in for a rather rude surprise.The problem here, has and always will be the over willingness of the patent office to issue patents when the invention preexists but is not documented publicly, or where it's a minor increment of an existing variation. It's in the law that they have to test for obviousness and prior art, but they so narrowly define those terms as to remove the tests.
The free market will fix it, make them pay for their mistakes just like every other professional body. I don't know what's more disturbing - the fact that you're this amazingly naive, or the fact that at least one other person out there found this tripe anything but naive. The "free market" will dissuade the USPTO from granting bad patents, will it? And how, pray tell, will it do that when the Patent Office has a legal monopoly on the granting of patents? It's not like there's any competition for them to fear, where you can go to some other agency to get a patent when you're unhappy with the way they grant patents.
And then, even better, "we" are supposed to punish "them" when "they" fuck up, by fining them. Except that, as a government agency, the USPTO always has access to the biggest ATM in the universe, the American taxpayer. So what you're really proposing is that *I* pay a fine every time the Patent Office fucks up - "we" get to punish ourselves for bad patents. Which is a proposal where I expect most people's reaction will be "are you out of your fucking mind?"
The only possible solution is to change the laws governing the USPTO if you're unhappy with the way things are currently going. I'm as laissez-faire as the next guy, but there is no "free market" solution to the problem of overbroad or poorly thought-out patents, unless you scrap the whole system. And the odds of that are basically nil, so you're back to changing the laws in order to bring about different outcomes.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/musi candvideo/hdvideo/contentshowcase.aspx
Eventually it'll be left behind altogether. It's just a question of when, really.
Congress expanded the doctrine in 1991 - I forget the title, but you can probably look it up to get a better idea of how it applies to hiring.