I followed the link and looked at the photos. I could see how it would make that mistake.
1. The Color balance was off: What we call black people are actually just a richer brown. the color balance gave their color more of a real Black/Gray color, the natural color of a Gorilla.

2. The Angle of the shot. The tilted Angle makes it appeared that they are not upright but slouching in.

3. They were making unnatural facial features for humans. They were making funny faces at the camera.

4. The dark hue of the gentleman who was behind shirt, combined with the ladies hair style, makes it seem the body with much broader shoulder.

I expect the combination of a lot of factors created the wrong choice. But computer decision making, while getting good, isn't perfect, but it is often better then not having it because then it wouldn't be possible to catalog the millions of images. We need to accept that computers make mistakes and there should be a way to fix them when they are found.

Many of our derogatory comments come from the fact that we find similarities with something else, so it come to reason that a computer may make an actual mistake that will reinforce such derogatory meaning.

...NO IT ISN'T, YOU ASSFACE!

Let's see, we'll do this completely-innocent thing, which is hard, but helps society. Suddenly, hard thing does some harmless,amusing, not-entirely-predicted thing, and people whine about it. OMG, LET'S LEGITIMIZE THEIR STUPIDITY AS A VALID OPINION!

No, you're admitting fault here for something that is NOT YOUR FAULT. You're admitting bad behavior and bad decisions for something that was good behavior and good decision-making, but produced a bad outcome.

THIS IS WHY WE HAVE SHIT SCHOOL SYSTEMS!!! If we have 60% success rate and improve the school system by broad, visible measures to give a better education and improve to an 85% success rate, 15% OF PEOPLE WILL CRY THAT OUR NEW EDUCATION SYSTEM FUCKED OVER THEIR KIDS! Someone will point to all the failures, create a collage, and claim we're totally incompetent!

The appropriate response to bitchwhining about this non-issue is to tell people to stop fucking whining.

And here's somebody who doesn't think solipsism is utterly pointless and nihilistic philosophy, and actually thinks researchers should adopt it.

You are implying that ones political stance is an indicator of their intelligence?

There is a huge group of people who's opinion is based on what the party says, I am a loyal Democrat/Republican so my stance will match what they say. There is no attention of the detail of the message nor any attempt to challenge the notion brought up. So the Democrats say Global Warming is a problem, people will blindly follow. If the Democrats say GMO foods are bad, they will blindly follow. Intelligence isn't the issue, it is just the current polarized nature of the two party system which will normally make one side right and the other wrong (assuming one side is right)

Now the Democrats vs Government view on funding. Democrats prefer more of a blanket funding in scientists, So Scientists who are funded via the Democrats policies have invested interests in that party, so they are making a living off of researching climate science due to Democrats funding, so they will be friendly to that party, and in turn that party will listen to their studies. The Republicans will more likely fund Military or Energy science. Where there is less science and more engineering. Thus you will find a lot more Right winged engineers. As their main means of living is due to Republican policy. So the Republicans will more likely push ideas of a new Military Technology or Energy Extraction technology.

It is interesting on how your political views change depending on where you are living and who is controlling your purse strings.
Now they are crazies on both sides. You got the Leftist hippie type who wants to change everything to match their utopian vision where everyone is all happy because they follow one idea of a perfect life. Then you got the Far Right densest who thinks we should go back to the "Leave it to Beaver" life style, that he fondly remembers as a child (too young to realize the pressures of the world). These guys can often get into the House or Representatives thus get enough media attention to direct "The I have to do what the party says" people.

In corner A:

In corner B:

What's sad is that UOP really could have done it! If they offered actual counseling guidance, and curricula that didn't just suck, and made sure that their clients passed classes with rigor, they could have *easily* made a profitable college with good reviews and earned trust.

Instead, they violated that trust, and probably deserve to be shut down.

If she's thinking about it, why are you the one asking about it?

Sounds more like she's thinking about not trying very hard to get back into it ... You ever consider that she doesn't actually want to? Maybe you want her too? Maybe she's only trying to put forth enough effort to appease you but not actually enough to get a job?

Something is wrong if you're asking for her.

Ah kids these days. This years fad is not a huge wave.

Although I agree with your sentiment, Slashdot is dying. It was painfully clear in the thread about James Horner. However I did want to ask: When did Ask Slashdot EVER produce no criticism? I remember ten years ago when the big complaint was that people would ask any question at all when there was the magic Google around.

False.

When you have a hard-on, why don't you sleep with a gay dude? What pushes you away when you have that emotional feeling of "I need to bone"? Something is embedded deep in your brain to reject that thought right out.

Inside the brain, all rational thought goes through the prefrontal cortex. This is where you reason. Actions flow through areas such as the basal ganglia, which associates memory together--smells, sounds, visual images, facts. Encountering facts conflicting with other facts shuts the PFC down and causes the Amygdala to power up, because the basal ganglia finds a conflict and attempts to avoid reconciliation (energy-demanding).

It's a lot more complex than just that; the short of it is that the brain employs many automatic reasoning centers. One such center is the reasoning of trained consequence: if you do X, some consequence Y will occur. Without thinking about it, you have a fear for your life if you commit a certain crime, because you will have this secret that threatens to tear away freedom or even life. This subconscious impulse overrides your other subconscious impulses until they become demanding enough to, in turn, override it.

This is why people are sharply against killing other people, yet will murder the fuck out of you if you try to kill their child, and then have a psychotic episode as they come to terms (poorly) with having killed someone. The immediate need overrides the other, more established feelings. A trained fear of state execution--created merely by its presence with a sharp lack of other ways you might die today--will intrude on emotional impulses to kill at all levels, right up until the impulse to kill carries such a powerful driver as to smash those other impulses flat.

Deterrent doesn't mean a 100% cure.

"The Market" is the magical part. Price is absolutely not less than cost--you can't stay in business spending $1000 to build computers that you sell for $10, although strategic undercutting happens (10 million volume manufacturer sells at a loss to put 10 thousand volume manufacturer out of business), as well as loss-leader strategies (sell the coffee maker cheap; overcharge on the coffee).

Which means if you have the means to produce at a lower cost than any competitor, competition will not lower prices; indeed, you can undercut competition below their costs, driving them out of business.

That means competitive markets are strange beasts, especially with rising costs: if the producers charge $1000 for a product that costs $300, $500, and $700 to produce, rising costs can push you up to $350, $580, $820, and yet the price can stay around $1000 because Mr. $350 doesn't see a need to raise prices yet, and Mr. $820 is trying to cut his costs back by any means necessary. Soon Mr. $820 will have costs over $1000, and will sell his business to a competitor--Mr. $350 will have the most spare capital, and be able to make the best bid.

Let the $820 guy find out how to make shit for $500, and he might undercut the market in a bid to get more market share and attempt a hostile take-over of the $580 business. Maybe not. In any case, a fourth player can make the product for $1100, but market price is $1000, so he can't enter the market.