MauricioC - Slashdot User

Take-Two Faces $20 Million Settlement For "Hot Coffee" Scandal 124

Posted by Soulskill on Friday September 04, 2009 @04:02AM from the expensive-cup-of-joe dept.

eldavojohn writes "Take-Two has settled with shareholders to the tune of $20 million dollars over the 'Hot Coffee' debacle. Ars brings the details on how a badly-handled situation resulted in shareholders suing Take-Two. '[The scandal] led to a media panic because it was assumed the sexual content was easy for children to get to (it wasn't) or that sex themes were becoming common in games (they aren't). Still, the lawsuit shows how badly the company bungled the situation, and it's easy to see how Take-Two's management directly caused shareholders to lose money. ... The suit alleged far more than a single misstep with Hot Coffee, however. "Take-Two's management was not cooperating or assisting with the Company's audit committee and was failing to keep the Board of Directors informed of important issues or failing to do so in a timely fashion," the complaint stated. Inventory was misstated, as was software development costs."

Scientists Create Easier Way To Embed Objects Into Video 236

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Friday November 14, 2008 @03:48PM from the advertising-agency-wet-dream dept.

Ashutosh Saxena writes "Stanford artificial intelligence researchers have developed software that makes it easy to reach inside an existing video and place a photo on the wall so realistically that it looks like it was there from the beginning. The photo is not pasted on top of the existing video, but embedded in it. It works for videos as well — you can play a video on a wall inside your video. The technology can cheaply do some of the tricks normally performed by expensive commercial editing systems. The researchers suggest that anyone with a video camera might earn some spending money by agreeing to have unobtrusive corporate logos placed inside their videos before they are posted online."

Comment Re:pi (Score 1) 442

by MauricioC on Tuesday July 10, 2007 @07:10PM (#19819619) Attached to: Text Compressor 1% Away From AI Threshold

The probability of a finite sequence not appearing in pi would be zero if the digits were random (This is a consequence of the Borel-Cantelli lemma... if you are not familiar with it, think of the finite sequence as Shakespeare's works and the randomness of the sequence coming from monkeys typing on a typing machine... it's the same thing), but zero probability does *not* mean it can't occur. For example, suppose we have a lottery where any real number may be chosen. What is the probability that I will win, given that I chose one number? What's the probability that I will win, given that I chose *all* rational numbers? (They're both zero, but it doesn't mean I can't win!)

Slashdot Top Deals