I know people here are obsessed with intelligence and seem to think of themselves as part of an intellectual elite (something about making themselves feel better about not fitting in with most of the rest of the population), but it's not about intelligence to begin with.
We're talking about people good at something precise such as coding. You can have an IQ of 173 and a special gift for statistics, that won't prevent you from writing shitty network code. Like me, I'm a great coder, but I went to school to become a sysadmin. Because of this, I'm a very mediocre sysadmin (and eventually abandoned the possibility of pursuing a career there), despite being an arguably bright individual and having certain technical skills.
IQs are one measure. Most people are average on that measure. But we're talking about professional skills, and for all you know most people may be excellent at what they're best, thus not just being "average". And again that has nothing to do with 'intelligence', I knew people excellent at driving vehicles or building houses who otherwise were utter all-around morons.
What? You mean that going to the extremes of doing the idological opposite that our former nemesis used to follow isn't a good way to run things? I say, capitalism = American, therefore we can't get too much of it! Like apple pie. Or corndogs. Mmmh, corndogs!
Good ideas, although I suppose you could combine the two ideas. Recompress both images using the same high quality settings, and if you'll assume that the JPEG algorithm will have an easier time compressing what's already been damaged (after all why not, doesn't it work by discarding spectral components? Therefore if more are already discarded from the start it should compress it better) and compare the file sizes.
I think it should work for most cases, and the nice thing is you can make it work with a mere bash script and ImageMagick's convert command.
Why is yours modded up higher I wonder. The OP wants to "compare two visually similar JPEG images and select the one with the fewest JPEG artifacts". That means they're the same image. That means file size will help you there, unless they're not the same resolution, although it should do regardless.
If I take a picture with a bunch of noise (eg. poor lighting) in it then it will not compress as well. If I take the same picture with perfect lighting it might be higher quality but smaller file size.
That's if you compensate for the poor lighting so it appears as bright though. But yeah, at that point that makes it completely different images, so why talk about lighting or noise, why not talk about the smoothness of features photographed or whatever else.
Which reminds me, am I the only one who can tell from looking at the various file sizes in a folder containing a set of photographs (let's say, porn) which is a close up or not?
The majority of people in the world are average, by definition.
Excuse the pedantry, but you're making a big assumption when you're considering that the majority are in the average. For all you know half of people could be extremely bad and the other half extremely bright, leaving no one anywhere near the average.
We would have some buildings on the Moon, a much less unmanned space exploration history, a few more advances in the relevant technology, and even bigger a debt.
As interesting as going to the Moon can be, going there ourselves for 40 years continuously would serve little scientific purpose (cue the responses that we are meant to live in space like in all the cool scifi novels and that it should be our #1 priority regardless of reality), waste a lot of money (more than it'd be worth, scientifically) and divert resources from higher ROI science, like huge space telescopes and such.
So yeah, it was cool while it lasted, but I won't cry over what could have been, because it's not like there could possibly have been any drive to do more after over a decade of space racing.
Actually I found that. The earliest comment is from "Jan 09 1998" and reads: "Well, I just tested this modified patch on my NT 4.0sp3 machine. It's still standing."
I don't get it, appending anything to a JPG is only useful if a) the recipient is aware of that and b) wants to open the rar for what's inside. I fail to see how that's a virus infection risk otherwise.
So, tell me, what is this insurmountable barrier that prevents us from building a piece of hardware that does what brains do? We don't know how to do it now
The fact that we don't know how to do it now (and by this I mean, we don't even remotely have any clue). Arguing that something we don't even remotely how it could be done is possible is pretty much arguing that anything is possible.
Re:Users can't tell the difference
on
R.I.P. FTP
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I hate to point out the obvious, but it might have to do with the fact that FTP stands for File Transfer Protocol;-).
1. Apple releases a new kind of product
2. IT journalists, bloggers, pundits of all kinds and Slashdot go "What were they thinking?"
3. New product and its variants turn out to be a success of Homeric proportions
4. IT journalists, bloggers, pundits of all kinds and Slashdot go "What were we thinking?"
It's substantiated by the fact that Apple has a deal on 10" touchscreens, by the claims made by Apple concerning netbooks and the fact Apple had a job offer for a handwriting recognition expert.
When you put all of these together it seems reasonable to expect a 10" touchscreen tablet appear. May I go out on a limb and ask you if you've RTFA?
Slashdot Mirror
The population is way large enough to assume with BIGNUMBER% certainty that it follows a normal distribution.
Yes, because everyone knows that distributions in large populations are ALWAYS normal.
I'm being sarcastic. Maybe you should have went beyond Statistics 101.
I for one welcome the first alternative that would pay me to use my storage.
I know people here are obsessed with intelligence and seem to think of themselves as part of an intellectual elite (something about making themselves feel better about not fitting in with most of the rest of the population), but it's not about intelligence to begin with.
We're talking about people good at something precise such as coding. You can have an IQ of 173 and a special gift for statistics, that won't prevent you from writing shitty network code. Like me, I'm a great coder, but I went to school to become a sysadmin. Because of this, I'm a very mediocre sysadmin (and eventually abandoned the possibility of pursuing a career there), despite being an arguably bright individual and having certain technical skills.
IQs are one measure. Most people are average on that measure. But we're talking about professional skills, and for all you know most people may be excellent at what they're best, thus not just being "average". And again that has nothing to do with 'intelligence', I knew people excellent at driving vehicles or building houses who otherwise were utter all-around morons.
What? You mean that going to the extremes of doing the idological opposite that our former nemesis used to follow isn't a good way to run things? I say, capitalism = American, therefore we can't get too much of it! Like apple pie. Or corndogs. Mmmh, corndogs!
It's not about intelligence to begin with.
Even faster is look at the DCT coefficients in the file itself.
Yeah, if you're familiar with the way these are encoded in the JPEG format. But you're right though.
Good ideas, although I suppose you could combine the two ideas. Recompress both images using the same high quality settings, and if you'll assume that the JPEG algorithm will have an easier time compressing what's already been damaged (after all why not, doesn't it work by discarding spectral components? Therefore if more are already discarded from the start it should compress it better) and compare the file sizes.
I think it should work for most cases, and the nice thing is you can make it work with a mere bash script and ImageMagick's convert command.
Why is yours modded up higher I wonder. The OP wants to "compare two visually similar JPEG images and select the one with the fewest JPEG artifacts". That means they're the same image. That means file size will help you there, unless they're not the same resolution, although it should do regardless.
If I take a picture with a bunch of noise (eg. poor lighting) in it then it will not compress as well. If I take the same picture with perfect lighting it might be higher quality but smaller file size.
That's if you compensate for the poor lighting so it appears as bright though. But yeah, at that point that makes it completely different images, so why talk about lighting or noise, why not talk about the smoothness of features photographed or whatever else.
Which reminds me, am I the only one who can tell from looking at the various file sizes in a folder containing a set of photographs (let's say, porn) which is a close up or not?
I heard the same one except with tanks.
Yeah, I figured.. thanks for that?
The majority of people in the world are average, by definition.
Excuse the pedantry, but you're making a big assumption when you're considering that the majority are in the average. For all you know half of people could be extremely bad and the other half extremely bright, leaving no one anywhere near the average.
Thanks but in case you missed it I'm French, I know what that is.
it is from French. A cute word in French
Indeed, I couldn't help but lol when I first saw the name.
We would have some buildings on the Moon, a much less unmanned space exploration history, a few more advances in the relevant technology, and even bigger a debt.
As interesting as going to the Moon can be, going there ourselves for 40 years continuously would serve little scientific purpose (cue the responses that we are meant to live in space like in all the cool scifi novels and that it should be our #1 priority regardless of reality), waste a lot of money (more than it'd be worth, scientifically) and divert resources from higher ROI science, like huge space telescopes and such.
So yeah, it was cool while it lasted, but I won't cry over what could have been, because it's not like there could possibly have been any drive to do more after over a decade of space racing.
Actually I found that. The earliest comment is from "Jan 09 1998" and reads: "Well, I just tested this modified patch on my NT 4.0sp3 machine. It's still standing."
What do I win?
The Wayback Machine could probably of some help there, if only it wasn't suffering from "Data Retrieval Failure".
Let's all jump on the Michael Jackson web traffic bandwagon while it's still time!
Am I the only one who can't determine whether you're trying to be funny or if you're just being confused?
I don't get it, appending anything to a JPG is only useful if a) the recipient is aware of that and b) wants to open the rar for what's inside. I fail to see how that's a virus infection risk otherwise.
So, tell me, what is this insurmountable barrier that prevents us from building a piece of hardware that does what brains do? We don't know how to do it now
The fact that we don't know how to do it now (and by this I mean, we don't even remotely have any clue). Arguing that something we don't even remotely how it could be done is possible is pretty much arguing that anything is possible.
I hate to point out the obvious, but it might have to do with the fact that FTP stands for File Transfer Protocol ;-).
As the saying goes, there's no smoke without fire. Just look at the rumours about the Google OS.
Besides, the Apple tablet in question is rumoured to have taken an unusual time to develop.
Here's how it works :
1. Apple releases a new kind of product
2. IT journalists, bloggers, pundits of all kinds and Slashdot go "What were they thinking?"
3. New product and its variants turn out to be a success of Homeric proportions
4. IT journalists, bloggers, pundits of all kinds and Slashdot go "What were we thinking?"
Rinse, repeat.
It's substantiated by the fact that Apple has a deal on 10" touchscreens, by the claims made by Apple concerning netbooks and the fact Apple had a job offer for a handwriting recognition expert.
When you put all of these together it seems reasonable to expect a 10" touchscreen tablet appear. May I go out on a limb and ask you if you've RTFA?
OK, that's pretty off topic though.