Maybe they'll explain to TV producers that facial recognition software doesn't work by showing each face it's checking
It doesn't, and it shouldn't but it could do something along those lines by way of feedback.
I've written a number of systems that have lengthy batch processes that flashes up record information as the system moves through; it doesn't show every record it passes as the screen updates would slow down the system enormously, but it updates a couple times a second and shows for example, every 10000th or so giving them real feedback that something is actually happening without slowing it down at all.
The progress bars that are time 'calibrated' and do not bear any reflection to actual progress are the bane of my existence; where the process hangs at 50% at stops dead, but the time calibrated progress bar just drifts along to 99% and then eventually reports that an error happened.
Those updates that actual data is being processed are good user feedback that its actually doing something.
Of course I don't think facial recogntion is done with a cursor search from the start of a database to finish, the way a system batch processing transactions would be. Instead I imagine they work more like traditional databases, breaking the images down to collections of indexable information and searching the indices; so a record-by-record walk wouldn't be necessary, or perhaps would only be necessary as the final pass through a returned set to further score and sort the results.
In any case, the trouble with TV facial recognition portrayals is less the software itself (because I can handle a dramatization of a computer search like that), I'm more offended by the portrayol of the results. There are no false positives (finding the wrong people) and false negatives, (failing to find people who ARE in the system), or multiple results. No its always either... face goes in and perp comes out... or face goes in and computer declares the person doesn't exist.
Well, actually, there's another option, which Samsung opted for - infringe the patents and then drag the issue out in court and wage a PR war of misinformation. Most companies, however, either agree to license the patents or, if they can't reach an agreeable rate with the patent holder, design around the patents instead
Bias much?
I guess the bias the other way is roughtly that Samsung rightfully determined that the patents were obvious non-innovations that should never have been issued a patent in the first place and infringed on them knowing that the courts would see the patents fall once someone actually challenged them.
The truth is somewhere in the middle I expect.
Apple's patents that they are enforcing aren't FRAND. They are under no obligation to license them to anyone.
And if they never should have been issued patents for them in the first place? What then? Apparently to the courts we must go.
Now, feel free to mod me down since I'm clearly an Apple fanboy despite speaking the truth and I've dared to impugn the honour of Samsung...
Oh the hell with that, I doubt Samsung has much honour to impugn but... swipe to unlock et al shouldn't even be patents.
I am not up to date on US broadband prices but wouldn't it be much cheaper to get a MiFi access point instead?
Cheaper? Maybe, but probably not. (see below)
More versatile? Definitely. It wouldn't be stuck to your car so you could use elsewhere.
Less convenient to use, probably. You'd have to figure out how to pair your car to it, remember to bring it with you, and the car antenna installation is probably better than anything that fits in your pocket inside the car, so reception of the mifi won't likely be as good.
But I guess if I had the money for a new Audi, I wouldn't care about 99$ a month for a overpriced broadband service.
99$ for six months. so $16.50 per month. That's not Audi money, that's Honda Civic money.:p
Basically he says that he told his supervisors that, in his opinion, a spy agency shouldn't be spying.
So if a general decides to annex kansas and a soldier objects you are going to post that he "basically told his supervisors that in his opinion a military organization shouldn't be conducting military operations." and his opinion should be ignored.
Yeah, good grasp of the situation. The NSA is a spy agency, with specific objectives. Their activities were so far removed from those objects that they are completely unjustifiable, and a collossal waste of effort and money.
And you illustrate the exact problem I was talking about: in most situations like the one under discussion, there is simply no way to show intent, one way or another.
Really? Simply no way? You've never seen someone do something and had a strong conviction one way or the other whether they did it by accident or on purpose? I know I have.
So I'm pretty sure witnesses, character witnesses, what the person posted on their facebook page that day, or texted their friends about the incident, that individual persons history, etc, etc, etc all could add up to a pretty convincing picture.
If you simply acknowledge that public photography is legal, all these problems and ambiguities go away.
So what is 'public photography'? Is infrared camera ok? Can I in the not to distant future install a camera on an electronic ant, and then walk it up the insides of girls pant legs at the park?
What about photography taken from public spaces into 'private ones'? Is that ok too? Can I hover about your home with drones looking for angles to see in? Or use various imaging techniques to 'see' through the walls of your house? If I get an accomplice to throw the curtains open at a mall changing room, can I photo the women inside with impunity? I'm in a public place, right?
Don't try to regulate other peoples' behavior -- much less try to make it criminal -- based on your personal preferences at any given moment.
I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. We all do. There is nothing unreasonable whatsoever about protecting that.
If you simply acknowledge that public photography is legal,
If you simply acknowledge that taking photographs where a person or persons are the primary subject requires disclosure and consent solves the problem no less neatly.
She could have done it intentionally just to get him in trouble with the law.
The law has endless cases where the difference between 2 crimes, or a crime and not-a-crime boil down to "intent", and what a judge/jury feel the intentions were.
If she did it 'intentionally to get him in trouble' and there is any evidence of that then it will count heavily against her case.
When you make laws such that nobody knows where the line is, people will step over it. Always. They do.
That is all laws all the time, ever. From the 10 commandments on down to modern meat processing regulations.
According to this, a woman in a miniskirt with no underwear is not 'partially nude'. Now, don't try to tell me "But... but... it says 'covering these parts'" because if it is covering those parts adequately then they can't be photographed anyway.
Unless all your clothes make an air tight seal around all the openings for your limbs, there will be angles and circumstances where we'll be able to see what's inside.
That possibility doesn't constitute permission to manufacture those circumstances and then exploit them.
"But... but... it says 'covering these parts'" because if it is covering those parts adequately then they can't be photographed anyway.
And then on top of that there is 'infrared' cams and other clothing penetrating photography? So now unless all your clothes are made of thick wool with airtight seals then any creep can put closeups of your genitals online? Hardly. Its pretty clear to any reasonable person that the infrared or upskirt photographer is effectively stripping them of (some of) their clothing for the purposes of the photo, rendering them 'partially nude' even if they don't actually take anything off.
Frankly I'm actually surprised the the judges didn't see it this way. There was quite an uproar about the TSA 'nudie scanners' after all; but apparently those security (theatre!) photos weren't (partial?) nudes after all, so what was everyone whining about?
rational people DO draw lines
Right, but they draw them where they want them to be, not where its most convenient to interpret them. Your argued that the only place we should draw lines are such that they be easy to rule on instead of reflecting what people actually want.
Wherever you try to draw that line, somebody is going to get in trouble over something they didn't intend to do.
Meh, the courts are for those edge cases.They make a judgment based on the unique individual circumstances whether the law was violated or not.
In this case the guy was clearly trying to take pictures up her skirt so its simple. He's a creep. Guilty. Big fine + community service or whatever.
If some chick is wearing a shirt that's too loose the wind catches it, and you happen to catch a nip slip or something you clearly, no big deal, judge tells you to delete the picture. If you aren't a giant douchebag you probably offered to delete it as soon as you'd been made aware that you'd inadvertently caught that image, and it never went to court at all.
On the flipside, if you fight it, and it comes out that you run a website of all the nip slips you've taken and there's other evidence that you deliberately go around trying to find circumstances to take advantage of to get such shots, and this is the 5th woman to have sued you for taking such pictures then you get upped the creep-meter and your in good company with the blatant upskirt guy.
This is part of what judges are FOR.
The only rational place you can draw a line is to say: if you don't want it seen, don't hang it out where it can be seen.
Rational people don't draw a line. Rational people allow that the edges of what we want and don't want as a society are blurry and leave it to judges to resolve any disputes case by case.
One of the items I have to certify when using open-source in a corporate environment is that there is no foreign content.
That's pretty idiotic. Most projects involve foreign content. All it takes is one stealthy Canadian and you can't use it? What about Canadians living in the United States? Is that still foreign? Just how xenophobic are you?
Do you vet each commericial package as well to make sure they don't have a single line of code produced in India?
No one is going to go through the source code from something like OpenOffice and look for malicious code, and show that it does not exist, if it has off-shore content, it will not be used, period.
Enjoy going back to pen and paper then, you won't find much software anywhere that you can demonstrate has no "off-shore" content.
Apple knows they're not allowing the Dancing Pigs into the iOS spectrum and with that comes restrictions which will frustrate some people. They don't advertise anything different from that. So far, they've made 800 million iOS customers really happy at the expense of maybe 100,000 code monkeys.
The point remains that Apple could have allow the option of leaving the walled garden, and 800 million people would still be just as safe as long as they didn't leave, and they wouldn't leave.
Android allows you to leave the walled garden, and the VAST MAJORITY stay inside by choice, or if they step outside its just to add a 2nd trustworthy walled garden. (e.g. humblebundle, the official samsung app store, etc)
My bigger problem with Android is who the mother ship is; Google, which has turned into a spy agency in their own right. They've brilliantly created a portable vehicle to map and catalog your every move and view. Their business model is to destroy your privacy and sell what they learn about you to marketers, the scum of the earth, without restraint or remorse. Apple, on the other hand, is well known to frustrate efforts by marketers to gain access to your private data.
But is no less becoming a spy agency in its own right. The fact that they don't sell the info to marketers as directly is beside the point. Although "in-app-advertising" is rapidly becoming a 'big deal' for them too. They control the browser (with very poor security privacy features, they control the maps, they control the store, they aren't much 'better' then google.
These days I think Microsoft is the least evil of the group, and that's saying something, and perhaps that's only because they don't have the marketshare in mobile to leverage the evil.
Since I have to use them, I'm going to use something I like a lot and not have to worry about too much.
And that's fine. But choosing a samsung and the official store is as safe as using an iphone.
If apple was only concerned about security Apple instead of profit lockin they could even officially sanction 3rd party stores like Steam, the HumbleBundle, FSF repos, Amazon, whatever, etc.
In the real world, we have a choice of stores to shop at, and we can leave the security of shopping at stores and buy on ebay and craigslist or from a guy on a blanket on the side of the road.
If you don't want to get ripped off deal with a reputable store. People by and large understand that, and that model works on the internet too.
We don't NEED to be forced to all shop at X and only X to ensure we don't get ripped off.
You're confused about bucket sorting and radix sorting.
I doubt it, but you might be. Why do think I am?
You may also want to look at probabilistic and randomized algorithms.
And doing that by hand sounds a treat. Roll a fair dice between each action?
and always beat ad hoc methods devised by the uneducated
I contend for small sets, where the content of the set is known in advance by the sorter, and is largely already in order, that ad hoc human methods can beat formal classical methods.
Why? Because several of the assumptions that the formal methods rely on for their 'proof of superiority' do not hold, thus the proofs do not hold under these conditions.
, there's no excuse for not using the proper algorithm.
For small enough sets, by the time you determine the 'proper algorithm', and come up with a system for implementing it properly manually, I'll be done sorting.
I can tell you it's more like being in Club Med with hot cocktail waitresses and sunny days with the chain link fence holding back hordes of lepers.
I have a macbook pro, and my previous phone was an iphone. I know exactly what its like. OSX isn't bad at all, ios *is* a cage; and its all fun and games until you run into something apple doesn't want you to have. Then it gets ugly.
The GnuTLS Library bug tells me it's all been BS
It should tell you the process works.
To that end, why should I trust any random developer's software, certificate or not? Isn't everyone in the open source community supposed to be looking at the code? Actually looking at it? You just can't trust anything these days
Now you are conflating a bug with malware.Know of any malware in a mainstream repo? Didn't think so. Can you find a bug in a mainstream repo... of course you can. Some of them are even serious... no different from any other proprietary code. Like Apples or anyone elses.
At least with OSS when a security bug is found by the community, its documented and fixed. You might or might not get that from anyone else. So call it 'BS' but you seem to suggest 'ignorance' would be more blissful.
which isn't relevant here since vegetarians don't want to eat meat.
combines with
somewhere between 20 and 50% of the entire world eat a vegetarian diet.
to make a disingenuous statement. Most of the world that doesn't eat meat does so because they can't afford it, and thus they absolutely are 'missing out'.
Its only a tiny fraction that choose not to eat meat, and are well off enough to eat the highly varied and exotic imported vegetarian diet that allows them to remain healthy.
Agreed, but 'missing out' is not the correct way to describe it.
I don't know. I think 'missing out' is right. Its a relative norm.
Most people DON'T eat cat, so describing not eating cat as 'missing out' is probably not really 'correct' even if strictly speaking is accurate.
Most people DO eat meat, so describing not eating meat as missing out seems fair to me.
If most people do something and enjoy it and you don't, then you are 'missing out'; especially if you haven't tried it and therefore can't know you don't enjoy it, given most people do enjoy it, on the balance of probabilities, so would you, if you tried it.
My dog is an omnivore who engages in corprophagia. I assure you that your diet is a strict subset of his. He's not picky.
Dogs aren't usually much on vegetables, and a number of human foods are pretty toxic to dogs. So our diets overlap, but neither is a strict subset of the other.
3D is a little like the jump from 720p to 1080p. You notice it, sure, but soon merges into the background.
I disagree. The 3DTV difference is huge because
a) you have to wear a pair of glasses to see it. So suddenly its an extra step to be able to watch anything. You can't switch from 2D to 3D content without getting an accessory and putting it on. This is very similar to VR.
b) its irritating for anyone in the room without a set of glasses on, or casually interacting with it because all they can see is a blurry image. Again, VR play is similarly inaccessible to others in the room.
c) wearing the glasses is only for 3DTV, they tend to be relatively uncomfortable/impractical etc as a permanent fixture on your head.
. VR headsets are pitched at games because in a game you're interacting with a virtual world. Up until now, your window into that world is a fixed screen that you control with your fingers. With a VR headset you're stepping into that world. Many beta testers have reported that the experience is quite startling.
Meh. I played Duke Nukem 3D in a VR system years ago at an exhibition. Cost like 10 bucks for 2 minutes or something ridiculous. You had to stand in a little thing, and could move around by leaning on the hand rails, jumping by jumping, and full head tracking... was very neat... but not something I'd set up to play games for hours on end. And that's where OR with a treadmill is headed... in my opinion.
I've also played around with some of wii hacks that gave you some head tracking, and looked at FreeTrack and TrackIR etc and I think there is more value for the average person there. Its less immersive than full VR... but also doesn't need to put on an accessory to use, and shut out the rest of the world.
I agree with you. I rarely have a use for this technology. It would be neat to try it, and if it worked well it would be fun. But in reality, it makes me think of 3DTV... rarely, if ever, used.
Hmm but I have seen a lot of comic book stores ( no personal interest, but...), model train stores (again, not much interest myself), and used book stores are all over the place.
Exactly. The business model can work. But you don't see these stores in malls, and they aren't usually chains or large corporations either because they aren't usually profitable enough to sustain a tier of executive management.
And some of the used book stores are clearly not a small mom and pop type operation either.
I don't deny that exists, but that is not the norm. I know of about 5 used books stores, 2 comic book shops, and 1 model train store within 30 minutes of where I live. None of them are in the mall or other high rent location, and all of them are small businesses with between 1 and 4 employees.
A hobbiest's dream electronics store could survive on the same principles.
hen you buy a humblebundle that has iOS (or if you buy... from pretty much anyone something on iOS outside the app store) you are sent a redemption key. Nothing evil or different has changed.
This is factually incorrect. Apple does not allow you to sell a product for the apple store outside of the apple store, and then provide a redemption key.
The humblebundle does not do this, and would not be allowed to do this.
As for FSF/GPL. That's a political organization akin to NSA/GunRights.
You can't legitimately claim a noncoprophagic diet can be as varied as a coprophagic diet can be.
Lol, well done. I had to look up coprophage.
Your diet is a strict subset of a coprophage's diet. Full stop.
Not true.
A dung beetle's diet is exclusively coprophagic and is therefore a distinct set from my diet. It eats nothing that I eat, and I don't eat shit.
You can also have organisms that eat only vegetables and the feces of a particular animal. In which case my diet and its diet may contain some overlap, but neither is a subset of the other.
As a meat eater, you miss out on most veggie dishes because you aren't looking for them
That's an assumption, and its wrong. I absolutely do try new things all the time. Lately I've been eating a lot of authentic Thai and Indian dishes, many of which are vegetarian. Some time ago I tried crickets in an indian fusion restaurant... not sure if that's vegetarian friendly or not. My neighbor just brought over some Moose he brought back from a hunting trip - I expect you wouldn't eat it. I had sushi on the weekend - again no idea whether your particular brand of vegetarian will have eaten some of the dishes or not. I like a lot of mexican bean based dishes too - I'm sure you've probably tried some. But I prefer chicken thighs to breasts for the flavor but I guess you wouldn't know much about that.
Don't presume to even imagine your diet is more varied than mine.
Again, I am missing nothing but the health problems.
Being "vegetarian" doesn't automatically make you healthier. Bad diets are bad, and there is nothing unhealthy about having some meat in our diets.
Isn't the entire selling point of android that you can install software from wherever you like though?
Well, one of several selling points.
This study simply validates apples decision to more strictly control what software is allowed on their devices.
97% of all murders happen in societies that don't put all their citizens in cages. Does that validate the idea that everyone should live in a cage?
For those users who do need to install anything they like, they can still do it without compromising the security of their device by getting a developer certificate.
What about 3rd party software that Apple doesn't allow on its app store from trusted parties? Like... most anything GPL? Should I really need a developer certificate to use a fully vetted repo maintained by the FSF or whatever?
What about, something like the humblebundle, where I can buy a license to a game for any platform its available on... except ios, even its available for ios because: Apple.
Or if steam wanted to include mobile games? Again: Not allowed on apple.
There's a lot of good things out there that Apple's lock in prevents. And no, a developer certificate, and an annual fee for the privilege of not using the apple store all the time is not a solution.
If you don't want to compromise the security of your device, don't do your app shopping in the equivalent of back alleys and asian night markets. And guess what, most android users don't. Nearly all north american android users stick to the default app store(s). And of those that don't, the vast majority of them are still fine -- they are using the humblebundle app in addition to google play for example to load their humble purchases.
Android malware really just affects that group of people who are trying to get pirate copies of paid apps and such on asian app stores... i mean how many warning bells should that set off?!!
And even on android its a small problem... if you have a million iphones and a million androids, and of them 3 iphones have malware, and 97 androids have malware, that's still 97% of malware is on android -- but its still a very minor problem, that only affects people who do REALLY stupid things.
Well aside from all kinds of delicious things you can do with meats.
You can't legitimately claim a vegetarian diet can be as varied as an omnivorous one can be. Your vegetarian diet is a strict subset of mine. Full stop.
Sure beet carpaccio is delicious, but its not beef carpaccio. You'll try one, I'll try both. And yes, you are missing out.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they'll explain to TV producers that facial recognition software doesn't work by showing each face it's checking
It doesn't, and it shouldn't but it could do something along those lines by way of feedback.
I've written a number of systems that have lengthy batch processes that flashes up record information as the system moves through; it doesn't show every record it passes as the screen updates would slow down the system enormously, but it updates a couple times a second and shows for example, every 10000th or so giving them real feedback that something is actually happening without slowing it down at all.
The progress bars that are time 'calibrated' and do not bear any reflection to actual progress are the bane of my existence; where the process hangs at 50% at stops dead, but the time calibrated progress bar just drifts along to 99% and then eventually reports that an error happened.
Those updates that actual data is being processed are good user feedback that its actually doing something.
Of course I don't think facial recogntion is done with a cursor search from the start of a database to finish, the way a system batch processing transactions would be. Instead I imagine they work more like traditional databases, breaking the images down to collections of indexable information and searching the indices; so a record-by-record walk wouldn't be necessary, or perhaps would only be necessary as the final pass through a returned set to further score and sort the results.
In any case, the trouble with TV facial recognition portrayals is less the software itself (because I can handle a dramatization of a computer search like that), I'm more offended by the portrayol of the results. There are no false positives (finding the wrong people) and false negatives, (failing to find people who ARE in the system), or multiple results. No its always either... face goes in and perp comes out... or face goes in and computer declares the person doesn't exist.
Well, actually, there's another option, which Samsung opted for - infringe the patents and then drag the issue out in court and wage a PR war of misinformation. Most companies, however, either agree to license the patents or, if they can't reach an agreeable rate with the patent holder, design around the patents instead
Bias much?
I guess the bias the other way is roughtly that Samsung rightfully determined that the patents were obvious non-innovations that should never have been issued a patent in the first place and infringed on them knowing that the courts would see the patents fall once someone actually challenged them.
The truth is somewhere in the middle I expect.
Apple's patents that they are enforcing aren't FRAND. They are under no obligation to license them to anyone.
And if they never should have been issued patents for them in the first place? What then? Apparently to the courts we must go.
Now, feel free to mod me down since I'm clearly an Apple fanboy despite speaking the truth and I've dared to impugn the honour of Samsung...
Oh the hell with that, I doubt Samsung has much honour to impugn but... swipe to unlock et al shouldn't even be patents.
I am not up to date on US broadband prices but wouldn't it be much cheaper to get a MiFi access point instead?
Cheaper? Maybe, but probably not. (see below)
More versatile? Definitely. It wouldn't be stuck to your car so you could use elsewhere.
Less convenient to use, probably. You'd have to figure out how to pair your car to it, remember to bring it with you, and the car antenna installation is probably better than anything that fits in your pocket inside the car, so reception of the mifi won't likely be as good.
But I guess if I had the money for a new Audi, I wouldn't care about 99$ a month for a overpriced broadband service.
99$ for six months. so $16.50 per month. That's not Audi money, that's Honda Civic money. :p
Basically he says that he told his supervisors that, in his opinion, a spy agency shouldn't be spying.
So if a general decides to annex kansas and a soldier objects you are going to post that he "basically told his supervisors that in his opinion a military organization shouldn't be conducting military operations." and his opinion should be ignored.
Yeah, good grasp of the situation. The NSA is a spy agency, with specific objectives. Their activities were so far removed from those objects that they are completely unjustifiable, and a collossal waste of effort and money.
And you illustrate the exact problem I was talking about: in most situations like the one under discussion, there is simply no way to show intent, one way or another.
Really? Simply no way? You've never seen someone do something and had a strong conviction one way or the other whether they did it by accident or on purpose? I know I have.
So I'm pretty sure witnesses, character witnesses, what the person posted on their facebook page that day, or texted their friends about the incident, that individual persons history, etc, etc, etc all could add up to a pretty convincing picture.
If you simply acknowledge that public photography is legal, all these problems and ambiguities go away.
So what is 'public photography'? Is infrared camera ok? Can I in the not to distant future install a camera on an electronic ant, and then walk it up the insides of girls pant legs at the park?
What about photography taken from public spaces into 'private ones'? Is that ok too? Can I hover about your home with drones looking for angles to see in? Or use various imaging techniques to 'see' through the walls of your house? If I get an accomplice to throw the curtains open at a mall changing room, can I photo the women inside with impunity? I'm in a public place, right?
Don't try to regulate other peoples' behavior -- much less try to make it criminal -- based on your personal preferences at any given moment.
I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. We all do. There is nothing unreasonable whatsoever about protecting that.
If you simply acknowledge that public photography is legal,
If you simply acknowledge that taking photographs where a person or persons are the primary subject requires disclosure and consent solves the problem no less neatly.
She could have done it intentionally just to get him in trouble with the law.
The law has endless cases where the difference between 2 crimes, or a crime and not-a-crime boil down to "intent", and what a judge/jury feel the intentions were.
If she did it 'intentionally to get him in trouble' and there is any evidence of that then it will count heavily against her case.
When you make laws such that nobody knows where the line is, people will step over it. Always. They do.
That is all laws all the time, ever. From the 10 commandments on down to modern meat processing regulations.
According to this, a woman in a miniskirt with no underwear is not 'partially nude'. Now, don't try to tell me "But... but... it says 'covering these parts'" because if it is covering those parts adequately then they can't be photographed anyway.
Unless all your clothes make an air tight seal around all the openings for your limbs, there will be angles and circumstances where we'll be able to see what's inside.
That possibility doesn't constitute permission to manufacture those circumstances and then exploit them.
"But... but... it says 'covering these parts'" because if it is covering those parts adequately then they can't be photographed anyway.
And then on top of that there is 'infrared' cams and other clothing penetrating photography? So now unless all your clothes are made of thick wool with airtight seals then any creep can put closeups of your genitals online? Hardly. Its pretty clear to any reasonable person that the infrared or upskirt photographer is effectively stripping them of (some of) their clothing for the purposes of the photo, rendering them 'partially nude' even if they don't actually take anything off.
Frankly I'm actually surprised the the judges didn't see it this way. There was quite an uproar about the TSA 'nudie scanners' after all; but apparently those security (theatre!) photos weren't (partial?) nudes after all, so what was everyone whining about?
rational people DO draw lines
Right, but they draw them where they want them to be, not where its most convenient to interpret them. Your argued that the only place we should draw lines are such that they be easy to rule on instead of reflecting what people actually want.
Wherever you try to draw that line, somebody is going to get in trouble over something they didn't intend to do.
Meh, the courts are for those edge cases.They make a judgment based on the unique individual circumstances whether the law was violated or not.
In this case the guy was clearly trying to take pictures up her skirt so its simple. He's a creep. Guilty. Big fine + community service or whatever.
If some chick is wearing a shirt that's too loose the wind catches it, and you happen to catch a nip slip or something you clearly, no big deal, judge tells you to delete the picture. If you aren't a giant douchebag you probably offered to delete it as soon as you'd been made aware that you'd inadvertently caught that image, and it never went to court at all.
On the flipside, if you fight it, and it comes out that you run a website of all the nip slips you've taken and there's other evidence that you deliberately go around trying to find circumstances to take advantage of to get such shots, and this is the 5th woman to have sued you for taking such pictures then you get upped the creep-meter and your in good company with the blatant upskirt guy.
This is part of what judges are FOR.
The only rational place you can draw a line is to say: if you don't want it seen, don't hang it out where it can be seen.
Rational people don't draw a line. Rational people allow that the edges of what we want and don't want as a society are blurry and leave it to judges to resolve any disputes case by case.
One of the items I have to certify when using open-source in a corporate environment is that there is no foreign content.
That's pretty idiotic. Most projects involve foreign content. All it takes is one stealthy Canadian and you can't use it? What about Canadians living in the United States? Is that still foreign? Just how xenophobic are you?
Do you vet each commericial package as well to make sure they don't have a single line of code produced in India?
No one is going to go through the source code from something like OpenOffice and look for malicious code, and show that it does not exist, if it has off-shore content, it will not be used, period.
Enjoy going back to pen and paper then, you won't find much software anywhere that you can demonstrate has no "off-shore" content.
Apple knows they're not allowing the Dancing Pigs into the iOS spectrum and with that comes restrictions which will frustrate some people. They don't advertise anything different from that. So far, they've made 800 million iOS customers really happy at the expense of maybe 100,000 code monkeys.
The point remains that Apple could have allow the option of leaving the walled garden, and 800 million people would still be just as safe as long as they didn't leave, and they wouldn't leave.
Android allows you to leave the walled garden, and the VAST MAJORITY stay inside by choice, or if they step outside its just to add a 2nd trustworthy walled garden. (e.g. humblebundle, the official samsung app store, etc)
My bigger problem with Android is who the mother ship is; Google, which has turned into a spy agency in their own right. They've brilliantly created a portable vehicle to map and catalog your every move and view. Their business model is to destroy your privacy and sell what they learn about you to marketers, the scum of the earth, without restraint or remorse. Apple, on the other hand, is well known to frustrate efforts by marketers to gain access to your private data.
But is no less becoming a spy agency in its own right. The fact that they don't sell the info to marketers as directly is beside the point. Although "in-app-advertising" is rapidly becoming a 'big deal' for them too. They control the browser (with very poor security privacy features, they control the maps, they control the store, they aren't much 'better' then google.
These days I think Microsoft is the least evil of the group, and that's saying something, and perhaps that's only because they don't have the marketshare in mobile to leverage the evil.
Since I have to use them, I'm going to use something I like a lot and not have to worry about too much.
And that's fine. But choosing a samsung and the official store is as safe as using an iphone.
If apple was only concerned about security Apple instead of profit lockin they could even officially sanction 3rd party stores like Steam, the HumbleBundle, FSF repos, Amazon, whatever, etc.
In the real world, we have a choice of stores to shop at, and we can leave the security of shopping at stores and buy on ebay and craigslist or from a guy on a blanket on the side of the road.
If you don't want to get ripped off deal with a reputable store. People by and large understand that, and that model works on the internet too.
We don't NEED to be forced to all shop at X and only X to ensure we don't get ripped off.
You're confused about bucket sorting and radix sorting.
I doubt it, but you might be. Why do think I am?
You may also want to look at probabilistic and randomized algorithms.
And doing that by hand sounds a treat. Roll a fair dice between each action?
and always beat ad hoc methods devised by the uneducated
I contend for small sets, where the content of the set is known in advance by the sorter, and is largely already in order, that ad hoc human methods can beat formal classical methods.
Why? Because several of the assumptions that the formal methods rely on for their 'proof of superiority' do not hold, thus the proofs do not hold under these conditions.
, there's no excuse for not using the proper algorithm.
For small enough sets, by the time you determine the 'proper algorithm', and come up with a system for implementing it properly manually, I'll be done sorting.
I can tell you it's more like being in Club Med with hot cocktail waitresses and sunny days with the chain link fence holding back hordes of lepers.
I have a macbook pro, and my previous phone was an iphone. I know exactly what its like. OSX isn't bad at all, ios *is* a cage; and its all fun and games until you run into something apple doesn't want you to have. Then it gets ugly.
The GnuTLS Library bug tells me it's all been BS
It should tell you the process works.
To that end, why should I trust any random developer's software, certificate or not? Isn't everyone in the open source community supposed to be looking at the code? Actually looking at it? You just can't trust anything these days
Now you are conflating a bug with malware.Know of any malware in a mainstream repo? Didn't think so. Can you find a bug in a mainstream repo... of course you can. Some of them are even serious... no different from any other proprietary code. Like Apples or anyone elses.
At least with OSS when a security bug is found by the community, its documented and fixed. You might or might not get that from anyone else. So call it 'BS' but you seem to suggest 'ignorance' would be more blissful.
which isn't relevant here since vegetarians don't want to eat meat.
combines with
somewhere between 20 and 50% of the entire world eat a vegetarian diet.
to make a disingenuous statement. Most of the world that doesn't eat meat does so because they can't afford it, and thus they absolutely are 'missing out'.
Its only a tiny fraction that choose not to eat meat, and are well off enough to eat the highly varied and exotic imported vegetarian diet that allows them to remain healthy.
Agreed, but 'missing out' is not the correct way to describe it.
I don't know. I think 'missing out' is right. Its a relative norm.
Most people DON'T eat cat, so describing not eating cat as 'missing out' is probably not really 'correct' even if strictly speaking is accurate.
Most people DO eat meat, so describing not eating meat as missing out seems fair to me.
If most people do something and enjoy it and you don't, then you are 'missing out'; especially if you haven't tried it and therefore can't know you don't enjoy it, given most people do enjoy it, on the balance of probabilities, so would you, if you tried it.
My dog is an omnivore who engages in corprophagia. I assure you that your diet is a strict subset of his. He's not picky.
Dogs aren't usually much on vegetables, and a number of human foods are pretty toxic to dogs. So our diets overlap, but neither is a strict subset of the other.
3D is a little like the jump from 720p to 1080p. You notice it, sure, but soon merges into the background.
I disagree. The 3DTV difference is huge because
a) you have to wear a pair of glasses to see it. So suddenly its an extra step to be able to watch anything. You can't switch from 2D to 3D content without getting an accessory and putting it on. This is very similar to VR.
b) its irritating for anyone in the room without a set of glasses on, or casually interacting with it because all they can see is a blurry image. Again, VR play is similarly inaccessible to others in the room.
c) wearing the glasses is only for 3DTV, they tend to be relatively uncomfortable/impractical etc as a permanent fixture on your head.
. VR headsets are pitched at games because in a game you're interacting with a virtual world. Up until now, your window into that world is a fixed screen that you control with your fingers. With a VR headset you're stepping into that world. Many beta testers have reported that the experience is quite startling.
Meh. I played Duke Nukem 3D in a VR system years ago at an exhibition. Cost like 10 bucks for 2 minutes or something ridiculous. You had to stand in a little thing, and could move around by leaning on the hand rails, jumping by jumping, and full head tracking... was very neat... but not something I'd set up to play games for hours on end. And that's where OR with a treadmill is headed... in my opinion.
I've also played around with some of wii hacks that gave you some head tracking, and looked at FreeTrack and TrackIR etc and I think there is more value for the average person there. Its less immersive than full VR... but also doesn't need to put on an accessory to use, and shut out the rest of the world.
I agree with you. I rarely have a use for this technology. It would be neat to try it, and if it worked well it would be fun. But in reality, it makes me think of 3DTV ... rarely, if ever, used.
Hmm but I have seen a lot of comic book stores ( no personal interest, but...), model train stores (again, not much interest myself), and used book stores are all over the place.
Exactly. The business model can work. But you don't see these stores in malls, and they aren't usually chains or large corporations either because they aren't usually profitable enough to sustain a tier of executive management.
And some of the used book stores are clearly not a small mom and pop type operation either.
I don't deny that exists, but that is not the norm. I know of about 5 used books stores, 2 comic book shops, and 1 model train store within 30 minutes of where I live. None of them are in the mall or other high rent location, and all of them are small businesses with between 1 and 4 employees.
A hobbiest's dream electronics store could survive on the same principles.
hen you buy a humblebundle that has iOS (or if you buy... from pretty much anyone something on iOS outside the app store) you are sent a redemption key. Nothing evil or different has changed.
This is factually incorrect. Apple does not allow you to sell a product for the apple store outside of the apple store, and then provide a redemption key.
The humblebundle does not do this, and would not be allowed to do this.
As for FSF/GPL. That's a political organization akin to NSA/GunRights.
Nutter.
You can't legitimately claim a noncoprophagic diet can be as varied as a coprophagic diet can be.
Lol, well done. I had to look up coprophage.
Your diet is a strict subset of a coprophage's diet. Full stop.
Not true.
A dung beetle's diet is exclusively coprophagic and is therefore a distinct set from my diet. It eats nothing that I eat, and I don't eat shit.
You can also have organisms that eat only vegetables and the feces of a particular animal. In which case my diet and its diet may contain some overlap, but neither is a subset of the other.
As a meat eater, you miss out on most veggie dishes because you aren't looking for them
That's an assumption, and its wrong. I absolutely do try new things all the time. Lately I've been eating a lot of authentic Thai and Indian dishes, many of which are vegetarian. Some time ago I tried crickets in an indian fusion restaurant... not sure if that's vegetarian friendly or not. My neighbor just brought over some Moose he brought back from a hunting trip - I expect you wouldn't eat it. I had sushi on the weekend - again no idea whether your particular brand of vegetarian will have eaten some of the dishes or not. I like a lot of mexican bean based dishes too - I'm sure you've probably tried some. But I prefer chicken thighs to breasts for the flavor but I guess you wouldn't know much about that.
Don't presume to even imagine your diet is more varied than mine.
Again, I am missing nothing but the health problems.
Being "vegetarian" doesn't automatically make you healthier. Bad diets are bad, and there is nothing unhealthy about having some meat in our diets.
Semantics. All you've done is argue that you can't subjectively miss out on something if you haven't tried it.
You've still objectively missed out.
Actually, the corn-fed meat that the average American is eating doesn't have much flavor on its own.
So what? Most store bought vegetables don't have much flavor either.
Meat or vegetables you have to go looking for flavor. But its out there, for anyone who cares to look.
Isn't the entire selling point of android that you can install software from wherever you like though?
Well, one of several selling points.
This study simply validates apples decision to more strictly control what software is allowed on their devices.
97% of all murders happen in societies that don't put all their citizens in cages. Does that validate the idea that everyone should live in a cage?
For those users who do need to install anything they like, they can still do it without compromising the security of their device by getting a developer certificate.
What about 3rd party software that Apple doesn't allow on its app store from trusted parties? Like... most anything GPL? Should I really need a developer certificate to use a fully vetted repo maintained by the FSF or whatever?
What about, something like the humblebundle, where I can buy a license to a game for any platform its available on... except ios, even its available for ios because: Apple.
Or if steam wanted to include mobile games? Again: Not allowed on apple.
There's a lot of good things out there that Apple's lock in prevents. And no, a developer certificate, and an annual fee for the privilege of not using the apple store all the time is not a solution.
If you don't want to compromise the security of your device, don't do your app shopping in the equivalent of back alleys and asian night markets. And guess what, most android users don't. Nearly all north american android users stick to the default app store(s). And of those that don't, the vast majority of them are still fine -- they are using the humblebundle app in addition to google play for example to load their humble purchases.
Android malware really just affects that group of people who are trying to get pirate copies of paid apps and such on asian app stores... i mean how many warning bells should that set off?!!
And even on android its a small problem... if you have a million iphones and a million androids, and of them 3 iphones have malware, and 97 androids have malware, that's still 97% of malware is on android -- but its still a very minor problem, that only affects people who do REALLY stupid things.
I'm not missing out on anything
Well aside from all kinds of delicious things you can do with meats.
You can't legitimately claim a vegetarian diet can be as varied as an omnivorous one can be. Your vegetarian diet is a strict subset of mine. Full stop.
Sure beet carpaccio is delicious, but its not beef carpaccio. You'll try one, I'll try both. And yes, you are missing out.