Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Be glad we got to see it... (Score 1) 133

by colmmcsky (#34208718) Attached to: Lizard Previously Unknown To Science Found On Vietnam Menu
Doing a google search for "what have we ever eaten into extinction?" turned this up as the first result:

"A monkey species was eaten into extinction last year - the gorilla could be next"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/feb/24/highereducation.biologicalscience

The monkey species is the "Miss Waldron's Red Colobus". Wikipedia corroborates that it may have been eaten to extinction recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Waldron's_Red_Colobus

Comment: Re:Dangerous (Score 1) 104

by sexconker (#32240588) Attached to: Scientists Propose Guaranteed Hypervisor Security

There are an infinite number of strings containing a specific pattern. A computer can't know all strings that contain that pattern, but it can analyze any pattern to see whether it contains that string.

And yes, a computer CAN evaluate code without executing it. It could just execute it in a VM, simulating itself. Derp!

It is not impossible to build a secure system. You define secure behavior, and you build a system that implements it. Many digital and real-world systems are secure.

They are limited in what they do because of your definition of secure, but those limitations are desired. Saying the systems are then useless is simply retarded.

There will always be a method of attack that the computer cannot detect simply based on the fact that it's looking for malicious code (What if the authorized user is malicious. How is the computer supposed to distinguish that?).

So. Fucking. Retarded. You're asking the computer to be omniscient. A computer is a machine. You build authorization and security into it because you don't trust the user, not because you don't trust the machine. It will carry out it's security analysis and either do something or not do something based on the result of that analysis. This behavior is defined by the user, and is by definition desired. A user puts the security checks in place to protect himself from himself. The user is the grand authority on whether or not the system should do something.

Either you make the computer so weak that it cannot possibly run something malicious (and thereby making it all but useless), or you encumber the UI to the point that it requires the user to confirm everything (it's typically a combination of them).

Way to present a false choice.
Man, you're retarded, and the people who wrote that drivel that you've bought into are equally retarded.

Comment: I love when they don't put the stats in the story (Score 1) 168

by sortadan (#32240406) Attached to: Software Recognizes Sarcastic Tweets
They got about 80% accuracy. Looks like things in CAPS and other... types! of punctuation ;-) and metadata (star rating given for review) are used fairly heavily in addition to sentence structure. Would have be good to know what the breakdown of false positive vs. missed sarcasm is, but i didn't see it.

From TFA:
"We experimented with a large data set of 66000 reviews for various books and products. Evaluating pattern acquisition efciency, we achieved 81% in a 5-fold cross validation on the annotated seed, proving the consistency of the pattern acquisition phase. [...] each sentence was annotated by three human readers. We found some strong features that recognize sarcastic utterances, however, a combination of more subtle features served best in recognizing the various facets of sarcasm."

Comment: Re:3d movies do nothing for me. (Score 1) 495

by gyrogeerloose (#31824016) Attached to: Do You Have a Secret Immunity To 3D Movies?

I say this as someone who _hasn't_ paid for any 3D movies yet

I say this as someone who has paid for several 3D movies over the last year and while I wouldn't go so far as to say 3D is completely worthless, I have yet to see a movie that was improved by the process either.

I'm a huge fan of the movies and I want to see good ones. If it's good and in 3D, that's fine. I saw Coroline in 3D and while I had no complaints about the movie itself, I don't think seeing it in 3D made it any better. Since I paid a premium (at my wife's behest), though, I felt a bit ripped off.

Perhaps some genius of a director will come along who will show what can be done with 3D beyond the gee-whiz aspects of seeing things jump out of the screen at you; that could change my mind. So far, however, it appears to me as nothing more than a gimmick used purely for novelty's sake.

The meat is rotten, but the booze is holding out. Computer translation of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Working...