Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment (Most) Humans Are Easily Fooled by Digital Images (Score 4, Interesting) 61

From my experience, professional photographers, photo lab technicians, and their ilk, who spend lots of time looking photos and their technical aspects (sharpness, lighting, colour, pixelation, etc, etc, etc), would easily spot the, to me, obviously edited photos. Case in point: the top photo in the The Stack article - clinton-fake-photo-832x333.jpg - is so obviously faked that I'm surprised that anyone would be fooled by it.

First dead giveaway: Clinton's head is illuminated from the right-read as is Mandela's(?) head. De Angelis's head? From the top-front. (I can't believe that De Angelis's victims didn't spot that fakery.)
Second less-dead giveaway: the pixelation isn't quite the same. The imposter's pixels are larger, not by much, than Clinton's - at least in the sample from the article.

Comment Re:How? (Score 1) 112

I'm sooo getting tired of top-level, highly-paid executives who give out these kinds of general directions, meanwhile they have absolutely no idea where to start, no inkling of how it might work, nor whether it's even mathematically possible. I'm looking of at you, Mr. Director of the FBI, whose main qualifications seems to be to ignore science..

Grrrr! My consumer-/tax-dollars at work.

Comment Re:Can't be true (Score 5, Informative) 174

I had the same reaction as epine: "Margaret Wente, really? People still pay attention to her"?

If you did go to the Stats Can link that Wente provided, you should have noticed that the link only shows stats for the years 2010 to 2014, a very short period of time. Now, Statistics Canada is a very good, reputable government agency, so I didn't dismiss their stats out of hand, but still... What was going on?

Do as I did and as iONiUM should have done before posting this article here: Click on the Add/Remove Data tab, right next to the default-selected Data Table tab. You can change the range of years reported. At Step 3 - select the time frame I selected a range from 1984 to 2014. Lo and behold!: the bee population nowadays is less than half of what it was in the mid--eighties - from 20,810 in 1984 to 8,777 in 2014, the year of Wente's purported rebound...

Frackin' info-cherry-picking Margaret Wente! She's one of the reasons I stopped reading the Globe and Mail.

If you're not careful, you're going to catch something.