Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:What?!? (Score 1) 799

FYI... small missed point... this is NOT an "air waitress" or whatever you want to call her. This is a gate attendant "over glorified ticket taker" who over-reached her authority in the first place by violating long-standing airline policy of letting family board with their privileged patron (or better yet the explicit "families with children" who are allowed to board first anyway). She then made matters worse by threatening unjust legal persecution (which she in her position has the ability to thoroughly abuse) because she didn't like what was said about her.

The airline can choose to serve or not serve whomever they choose but honestly this gate attendant should be fired.

Comment: Re:Uncertainty/fear? (Score 4, Interesting) 525

by Matheus (#47524945) Attached to: Laser Eye Surgery, Revisited 10 Years Later

Not sure where you went but my procedure involved nothing of the sort... ?

Full disclosure: I had PRK not LASIK. PRK is the older tech that I was forced to have because of a severe case of GPC. The difference at least in simple terms is as follows: With LASIK they use a laser or a blade to slice a flap off of your eye. They do the correction then the flap is repositioned. This results in extremely quick healing because it resembles a paper cut. With PRK they remove the front covering of your eye. Do (seemed like) the exact same correction procedure but then let the surface of your eye grow back from 'scratch'. Healing is significantly longer in duration and discomfort BUT they can use this method where LASIK isn't good (in my case severe risk of hemorrhage) AND they are able to do a better job at repair as well with less of the side effects (my night vision was completely unhindered).

I was fully conscious and had full eyesight for the entire procedure. It's actually kind of surreal as the whole thing is going on then (with PRK) they place a "band-aid" contact on the eyes while they do their initial healing. 5 days later those come off and you enter the "OCD with 5 different kinds of eyedrops" phase for about a month. After the 5 days tho I was fully functional just my comfort and vision improved as the days passed. Completely normal by about 3 months. Immediately after the procedure I tested 20/10 but settled out to about 20/15 as the healing progressed.

Honestly it's the best money I've ever spent. Yes there is the probability that my vision will slip over time but 6 years in with no complications or slide yet and I'm happy with the investment. Eventually as I get older this doesn't stop the tendency towards presbyopia either but I'll take readers over my old vision any day!

Comment: Re:Who is stopping him? (Score 4, Insightful) 367

by Matheus (#47518047) Attached to: 'Just Let Me Code!'

Sounds more like a cranky dev who graduated looking forward to creating Interesting Things(tm) and found themselves in the wealth of jobs out there creating What People Will Pay You To Do(tm) and is trying to find something grander than his lack of interesting job opportunities to fault it on.

As stated: If you want to create something fun with simple tools THEN FREAKING DO IT! There is nothing in this world holding you back unless all you are willing to work on is what someone is paying you to do.

Comment: Re:They never answered the question... (Score 1) 137

by Matheus (#47274473) Attached to: Google and Microsoft Plan Kill Switches On Smartphones

The whole correlation != causation deal... What else transpired in the period their number represent? For example Android has made huge strides in market share so maybe the 19 % decrease on the i-side and 40% increase on the Android side is just representative of the number of phones available for theft?

Piss poor analysis!

Comment: Re:Facial Recog has a high failure rate (Score 1) 143

by Matheus (#47203405) Attached to: Chicago Robber Caught By Facial Recognition Sentenced To 22 Years

Blanket statement that just isn't true.. nice try tho. With a high quality gallery (which the mugshot gallery is) you can obtain failure rates significantly less than 1%. The big question here is the quality of the sample taken from the CTA's cameras. Angle and Resolution are the biggest issues with CCTV footage but quantity of cameras and availability of low cost/high-rez equipment are rapidly eliminating both.

Having spent years deploying these systems I'm sorry but your claim is just plain false. The most important part of the situation which was clearly spelled out in TFA: The Facial Recognition Match pointed the PO in the right direction. If it was a high quality match (high enough match score) then that result would hold weight in court BUT that's not what convicted him! Most of the time the hardest job for an investigator is *finding the perp. Once they had him from his Facial Match they were able to get corroborating witness testimony and even, it sounds like, confession. Those are what sealed the deal the match just put him in the cross-hairs.

Comment: Re:Um... McVeigh a hero? You lost me pal (Score 2) 449

So you're saying McVeigh was a hero because collateral damage is acceptable and the building in question was a "legitimate target that just happened to have civilians/kids inside".

I was going to write out a well reasoned argument but honestly the best response is "Are you fucking kidding me?!"

Well... a piece of it...
Whether you agree with McVeigh's politics or no at no point was he at war with the US. By his own admissions this was meant to send a message and is by definition a terrorist act. The blast also caused damage to hundreds of buildings that were not federal buildings. Even if the destruction had been limited to just that building this is a *office building bombed during the work day. Federal offices perform number of functions which inherently include civilians of all shapes and sizes (ages). He also stated that he wanted a high casualty count to emphasize his message. These were no accidental collaterals here.

You speak as if the BATF was lining their walls with children as human shields which couldn't be farther from the truth.


Comment: Re:Interesting Implication of Obvious Implication (Score 2) 83

by Matheus (#46843563) Attached to: Identity Dominance: the US Military's Biometric War In Afghanistan

Sad state of the world aside you're missing an important detail... this is *already over here. Do you have a drivers license? You're in a DB. Do you have a Passport? You're in a DB. Have you ever served in any branch of the armed forces? You're in a DB. Have you ever applied for clearance? You're in a DB. Have you ever been arrested for *anything? You're in a DB. As a child did you ever take a field trip to a local police station and get fingerprinted/etc? They kept all that... If you didn't answer yes to any of those questions then go ahead and continue your blissful existence off the grid but else you don't need to be paranoid. It is true. It is not hidden. This is already the way it is.

Comment: Re:Marketing... (Score 1) 68

by Matheus (#46828313) Attached to: Face Recognition Algorithm Finally Outperforms Humans

That's not really the point... this is a *specific set of known hard to match faces that is used as a measuring stick for Facial Recognition algorithms. The test is checking individual 1:1 compares NOT a 1:N search. Converting a 1:1 algo to 1:N work is a whole 'nother topic. Honestly nothing that they describe in the article is new (normalizing on facial features and fixed resolution images and Vectorizing the image) so hard to see where they made their improvements. My former employer had the best Facial algorithms in the biz up to and including the ability to distinguish identical twins given a high quality image and no data set training required BUT would be interesting to see how their algorithms hold up in comparison.

There is never time to do it right, but always time to do it over.