So, maybe losing all your content visibility on Google was worse than them publishing a small article headline?

So, maybe, just maybe, Google's exposure was actually to your advantage?

So maybe you've been biting the hand that feeds you?

If the threat of Google doing EXACTLY what you ask for (taking your content off their site) is enough to make you back down, maybe your original intention was something other than was stated?

Maybe you just wanted a free payment?

And maybe Google weren't being so evil in the first place?

That sounds suspiciously like an ad-hominem argument. "Most average" Ob/Gyn? What does that even mean, other than to convey dark undertones?

Shouldn't we be debating the things he says? Shouldn't we be considering the merits of his argument, rather than his background?

Obama's Ebola czar (Ron Klain) is a lawyer and former chief-of-staff. Do you think *he's* qualified to tell us what we're doing wrong?

What the heck are you getting at? What's your purpose in posting this? Is there some way in which you gain by posting such drivel?

You're right about being modded down - your post does nothing to inform the discussion.

So tell me, am I an asshole for not caring about "Gamergate"?

This year, Islamic State has killed over 5000 Iraqis, probably closer to 10000 people total.
This year, ebola has killed about 5000 people, with another 10000 or so infected (most of who will also die).
This year, hundreds of people died by slipping and falling in their bathtubs.

And you want me to shed tears over video game players being mean to each other? Are you serious? Perhaps you're right and there's some ominous conspiracy trying to keep "Gamergate" coverage out of the media spotlight. Or perhaps you're wrong and it's been featured on Google News' main page regularly. Based on my personal observations, I'd guess the latter. Of course, feel free to continue protesting "the universal media blackout" that's keeping this epic tragedy under wraps.

Also, fuck all of you that fall into this *gate bullshit. I would've called it Gategate but apparently that's a thing already.

Erm... how do you think the traffic apps work on your satnav?

They ask you to "anonymously" contribute statistics, they talk home over 3G to service centres, who spot traffic moving slowly (given speed and position is easy on a satnav), mark those roads with appropriate average speeds and then transmit that out to everyone with traffic services.

Sure, they use roadside monitors and other things as well but the "HD" traffic you might get from any large satnav provider uses exactly the same technology.

The question is not whether this is worrying data to collect, but exactly what portion of the collected data needs to be collected? If they are hashing the MAC's really quickly and then discarding the original MAC data, and only keeping MAC-hash and position data, then there's nothing to worry about.

Or, you know, you could write an inflammatory article about a technology that every satnav, every shopping mall, and even festival organisers have been using for years.

Is it just me that wasn't even aware that telnet had an encrypted mode (let alone a horribly-broken one)?

Not been an issue as I always switch it off unless the device is entirely in-house (and, there, someone sniffing the packets is much more of a problem than the fact they might end up with a device password by doing so).

Honestly, we just need to kill this "protocol".

I'm not scared by the maths. That is working back from a series of 2D images to reconstruct a 3D model, with appropriate error. It's horribly complex, but it's not anything more than a time-saving calculation. It isn't a new realm of science (mathematical or otherwise).

And, again, even the example images in the introduction of the book belie the actual capabilities. The mathematics of 3D geometry are complex, yes, but well-known. Reversing them is difficult, yes, but again well-known - with appropriate error.

Taking enough photographs to be able to identify points (edge-detection, heuristics, manual placement...) in several of those photographs and thus form a correlation between the images to allow you to form a volumetric object is DAMN HARD. I have no doubt.

But it cannot extrapolate the window frame hidden behind another object in a 2D painting, as that book's introductory images suggest. Computer vision is notorious in this area for making undeliverable promises. The point-clouds that result have to be cleansed and interpreted, and information not given to the computer cannot be inferred (of course... why would it? But that's the credibility of the claims at stake).

Taking one example from the book, where a 2D painting is converted to a 3D scene: Sure, the window-frame that's obscured by a foreground object probably DOES extend symmetrically and with the same colour but you cannot know that - and hence the error creeps back in again unaccounted for by having humans "fix" things that the computer can't.

Yes, it saves time if you want to get a 3D sculpture into your computer, or recreate a crime-scene from evidence, but it requires tweaking and a lot of human work - it's back into the realms of the time-saving tool, rather than a whole new paradigm of (as the article is originally about) machine learning and automated extrapolation. The acid-test is how admissible this stuff would be in court, and though a lot of it would be provable, the error margins would need to be stated and then it's not as clear-cut as first impressions might give.

CV is a horribly complex task that performs all kinds of useful functions. But it isn't, and can't yet be, anything beyond a tool that speeds up human calculations. I guarantee that even an average artist would be able to recreate that scene in 3D to a greater degree of accuracy than a computer could (I actually have a personal like for those "we've layered a 2D image over a sidewalk/car to make it look like a black-hole, or that the car isn't there" etc. images).

And, again, it's the usefulness that's limited in scope, and the automation that's only doing the legwork for a human-led interpretation.

CV is maths. That's the end of it (don't be insulted... similarly, quantum physics is "just maths"). Horribly complex maths, with associated error. It gives us useful answers when we apply it. But, as the article is wont to point out, we need to apply it. Or design something that will apply it in a particular circumstance.

This is vastly different from the claims that the CV industry makes, and from those illustrations they choose to adorn their books. Hence why CV comes up in the topic of machine learning. The machine isn't learning, it isn't thinking, it isn't extrapolating, it isn't guessing, it's doing lots of maths very fast that we could do if we had the time. Thus the usefulness extends only so far as a human is willing to work out how to apply it.

And, at the end of the day, when you want to scan in a 3D structure, chances are that some laser distance-based measurement is more accurate and less easily "misinterpreted" by the computer than anything it might get from someone running a camera around it. That's why most of those 3D reconstruction projects make the point-cloud with a laser measuring device first, not rely on the interpretation of a 2D image to infer it.

The problem with computer vision is not that it's not useful, but that it's sold as a complete solution comparable to a human.

In reality, it's only used where it doesn't really matter.

OCR - mistakes are corrected by spellcheckers or humans afterwards.

Mail systems - sure, there are postcode errors, but they result in a slight delay, not a catastrophe of the system.

Structure from motion - fair enough, but it's not "accurate" and most of that kind of work isn't to do with CV as much as actual laser measurements etc.

Photo stitching - I'd be hard pushed to see this as more of a toy. It's like a photoshop filter. Sure, it's useful, but we could live without it or do it manually. Probably biggest use in mapping, where it's a time-saver and not much else. It doesn't work miracles.

Number plate recognition - well-defined formats on tuned cameras aimed at the right point, and I guarantee there are still errors. The systems I've been sold in the past claim 95% accuracy at best. Like OCR, if the number plate is read slightly wrongly, there are fallbacks before you issue a fine to someone based on the image.

Face detection is a joke in terms of accuracy. If we're talking about biometric logon, it's still a joke. If we're talking about working out if there's a face in-shot, still a joke. And, again, not put to serious use.

QR scanners - that I'll give you. But it's more to do with old barcode technology that we had 20 years ago, and a very well defined (and very error-correcting) format.

Pick-and-place rarely relies on vision only. There's much better ways of making sure something is aligned that don't come down to CV (and, again, usually involve actually measuring rather than just looking).

I'll give you medical imaging - things like MRI and microscopy are greatly enhanced with CV, and the only industry I know where a friend with a CV doctorate has been hired. Counting luminescent genes / cells is a task easily done by CV. Because, again, accuracy is not key. I can also refer you to my girlfriend who works in this field (not CV) and will show you how many times the most expensive CV-using machine in the hospital can get it catastrophically wrong and hence there's a human to double-check.

CV is, hence, a tool. Used properly, you can save a human time. That's the extent of it. Used improperly, or relied upon to do the work all by itself, it's actually not so good.

I'm sorry to attack your field of study, it's a difficult and complex area as I know myself being a mathematician that adores coding theory (i.e. I can tell you how/why a QR code works even if large portions of the image are broken, or how Voyager is able to keep communicating, despite interference on an unbelievable magnitude).

The problem is that, like AI, practical applications run into tool-time (saving a human having to do a laborious repetitive task, helping that task along, but not able to replace the human in the long run or operate entirely unsupervised). Meanwhile, the headlines are telling us that we've invented "yet-another-human-brain", which are so vastly untrue as to be truly laughable.

What you have is an expertise in image manipulation. That's all CV is. You can manipulate the image to be easier read by a computer which can extract some of the information it's after. How the machine deals with that, or how your manipulations cope with different scenarios, requires either a constrained environment (QR codes, number plates), or constant human manipulation to deal with.

Yet it's sold as something that "thinks" or "sees" (and thus interprets the image) like we do. It's not.

The CV expert I know has code in an ATM-like machine in one of the southern American counties. It recognises dollar bills, and things like that. Useful? Yes. Perfect? No. Intelligent? Far from it. From what I tell, most of the system is things like edge detection (i.e. image manipulation via a matrix, not unlike every Photoshop-compatible filter going back 20 years), derived heuristics and error-margins.

Hence, "computer vision" is really a misnomer, where "Photoshopping an image to make it easier to read" is probably closer.

So... no ceramics, no ablatives... How does it stay intact during reentry?

Who is "we"? Are you saying British Leyland assembles and sells cars made of Nissan parts? Or that Nissan came to the UK? Because those are two very different things, and only one of them makes any sense.

It's official. Doublespeak is now codified in law.

So I wonder how that works out in the context of:

Is "all you can eat", from a legal point of view, considered an "exaggerated or puffing representation", i.e. one "that the ordinary consumers do not take seriously"? Or would Homer's complaint be taken up by the FTC?

Source

In other words, caveat emptor.

Of course, you're ignoring that a) the first stage has most of the engines (and consequently most of cost savings) and b) SpaceX has been planning to fly the second stage back to the pad also

Baseless assumption; you're looking exclusively at reintegration times when other factors could easily be dominant in this equation. How easy is it to clear Skylon's heat shield for another launch?

Ignoring the drawbacks of a lifting body design for a minute, why would SpaceX want to abandon their competitive edge to simply mimick a competitor? Your argument is as absurd as the suggestion that GM should stop making GM cars and instead start buying and assembling Honda parts. Even if you feel Hondas are better than GMs, how the fuck do you expect that business plan to work out?

You forgot SolarCity, the largest residential installer of photovoltaic panels, also a Musk company.

How much did they pay this Microshill to spread this FUD?
Microsoft's Windows Vista (released January 2007) and later have ASLR enabled for only those executables and dynamic link libraries specifically linked to be ASLR-enabled
for linux, read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
NX is a CPU feature(quoting wikipedia):
The support for this feature in the 64-bit mode on x86-64 CPUs was added in 2004 by Andi Kleen, and later the same year, Ingo Molnar added support for it in 32-bit mode on 64-bit CPUs. These features have been in the stable Linux kernel since release 2.6.8 in August 2004.
The microsoft version is a tad bit more complicated(no protection in some circumstances): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
Windows Defender and Windows Resource Protection: I honestly don't think they're worth anyones time.
Debian uses the "_" character to separate package name and version, they use "-" to separate different words in package name.
And FTR that UAC shit is what we've called su for decades.just to know how much more secure linux is in this context read about the "sudoers file"

Er... windows 3.11 had the same minimum spec as Windows 3.1... 2Mb RAM. And a 15Mb hard disk. So the point still stands.

And I have personally contributed to a project that brought Linux networking and TONS of extra features that we'd have died for in the 3.11 era to a single, bootable, 1.44Mb floppy disk.

Sure, Windows 95 upped the ante, but in terms of what you were given was it really that much of an advance? That's where things started to go downhill if anything... networking stack, yes. Firewalling of any kind? No.

And Windows 95: "To achieve optimal performance, Microsoft recommends an Intel 80486 or compatible microprocessor with at least 8 MB of RAM.".

I think you're forgetting how much you could get done in 2Mb of RAM. Hell, Windows 95 can't even boot if you have 512Mb, it was never designed to have that much RAM EVER. I'm just not sure there was ever a feature worth quite that amount of system resources - at this moment in time, my Bluetooth tray icon takes more RAM than Windows 3.1 needed to load everything. I can't see the justification for that at all.

CPU speed, yes, devices nowadays shove data through them a LOT faster than they ever used to so you need to be able to keep up. Disk space, possibly. But RAM usage? Why should a Bluetooth icon take more RAM than an entire former OS?