Hey...sounds like a plan to me :)
1320 posts • joined 6 May 2007
Too true, there have been more than enough examples by now of companies getting their patented methods included into standards and then racking up profits through 'interesting' licensing. I know we have FRAND and similar but they tend to be reliant on companies playing nicely which never works 100%.
How about the standards committee does some proper work to value the contribution of each piece of work to the whole standard and then set AND PUBLISH a price per use of that standard with a breakdown of who gets how much from that. Contributors get a guaranteed income and anyone wanting to use it has a clear up-front cost
"points to a limited number of policy areas that require this attention"
That's fair, if there are 200 policies and you do not know which are affected you cannot say that is limited. If there are 200 policies and ALL are affected then it is just one block, containing 100% of the policies.
But that is not the best way to do that. There is a figure defined as 4% of tunrover but that would be for each juristiction so if there is a fine from France and one from Germany and one from Italy and one from Belgium etc etc...27 members of the EU = 108% of turnover...result
One of the tasks I have to do often is taking a sub-set of data from a system and producing a report to show status. One of the identifiers is a Hex string but if Excel sees no letters it converts it to a number with exponent and due to the length of the string it will lose the last 8 digits...forever
From the article this was authenticating against the untouched image of the person so one system could nearly always match a pair. As other people have said though this needs the false matches to have any meaning. Just becauseyou coudl show that Picture A matched Picture A with a mask 99% of the time means nothing if it also matched it to Pictures B, C, D and E with masks to similar proportions.
No no...you don't seem to understand how this works
I will pay $40 per year to opt-out in accordance with conditions (to be attached at some point) which may or not be contradictory and are in multiple languages (which may or may not say the same things) and any breach of these conditions requires Google to pay a 0.01cent per byte per day penalty where a day is any period of time which can be measured by a clock and this may result in more than one charge per calendar day (timezones may change during the calculations). It is also agreed this cannot be challenged in any terrestrial or extra-terrestrial court unless confirmed in writing before the above terms have been read. Any misunderstanding or disagreement will be determined in the way which most penalises Google.
That's how ticksy you have to be to play Google at their own game
I recall a wonderful short story by Isaac Asimov which foresaw this scenario where comparisons were made of brainwave patterns in people with depression compared to happy people. If you subtract a complex waveform from another complex waveform the result is a third complex waveform.
With the cameras, they are now are so much more capable than the human eye/brain combination for storing details that minute changes are seen as completely different images unless you reduce the details down to the point it matches some A list celeb with a cactus. Meanwhile, we see the person we expected to see.
You have to love how often this hits in areas which seemed to be very simple and clear. Clearing a cookie could be illegal because it tracks your usage while that cookie over there is unlawfully tracking your usage and you are encouraged to delete it.
Reminds me of an online banking Catch-22...a certain Spanish bank suggest installing Trusteer to help defeat ungentlemanly attacks such as man in the middle (also know as 'Variations on Verified by Visa') but while you can say no, this pops up every time you log in unless you allow it to set cookies. So you have a choice of trying to be secure or to clear these annoying adverts (no, AdBlock et al do NOT block it and it needs you to say No multiple times before it will set the 'do not ask again' cookie).
I get the feeling that anything produced by Ubisoft over the last couple of years is just a mash-up of a handful of titles in the hope it made the game interesting to people who hadn't tried that series before. While totally hacking off everyone who had been playing the series since Episode 1
Sadly some Manager would probably read them then decide that they need to find out who is being so rude about the company and march into IT demanding they track down people commenting on El Reg...
and not realise that the people they expect to do their bidding are the ones they just sh*t on
Did the court consider even the longer standing options for TLDs? Do Booking.com have any rights over someone using booking.co.uk or booking.org? What if said company does not have any overlap with the booking.com offerings?
This is Pandora's can of rapacious carnivorous worms being opened
I find the following to be the best response to reports of poilitical correctness, as quoted by Billy Connolly...
“Frank Zappa was correct when he said, ‘Political correctness is the language of cowardice. It’s the fear of confronting things. You can say someone is ‘so-and-so challenged’ but it’s an insult to them to assume they’re challenged by it. Tell it like it is. It will set you free.”
And people called me a luddite for buying a decent large-ish screen monitor with built-in speakers rather than a smart-TV. I don't even connect it to a 'smart-box' as I have a Freesat box for the live TV and if it is not available there then I can watch on my laptop. I have yet to hear a good reason to connect my white goods to the internet (or connect my lightbulbs/doorbell/thermostat/toilet)
OK...maybe the toilet was not a real option.....yet
You get all revved up to blast the company for their bad habits then they do something like this which may not fix all their issues but is a positive step
Of course, it could be said that with their challenges to get this working they know just how bad it can be so are ideally placed to be a Subject Matter Expert for the failings in facial recognition.
So, so conflicted about them now
I still remember with great fondness the Compaq Deskpro systems which were built like vaults and came with spare screws to use when adding extra discs/adaptor cards etc. My favourite version could even have the disc storage turned to be desktop or tower.
In the UK, the current Theft Act includes a critical phrase 'for pecuniary advantage'. In essence it means that they are using your property to obtain money which you should have. This came about when people started ransoming back property so they could claim they never intended to keep it or else to show it as security for loans etc before replacing it.
By making digital copies available to all for free of works without permission they are reducing the income the author receives hence theft.
Yes, lands on the Island at Binstead, oddly, which is in the midst of an area of MAMBA so no great loss if anything happens there even though it is then a nightmare by car/bike to St Mary's hospital. On the mainland they seem to be using Lee-on-Solent which gives them lots of flexibility on flight planning.
Quite impressed with the design as it seems to be very much based on the idea of goof capacity/minimal frills with an excellent view from the camera in the tailplane in case someone has to step in and take control.
There was an image on El Reg recently of a number of ladies from the far east all with masks which appeard to be printed with the lower half of someones face. Now that is the best way to beat facial recognition, does it use the lower half of Sam Smith or the upper half of Joe Soap or simply flag you as Joe Smith?
I know I shouldn't rise to this but...
"Most of the driver feels like proof-of-concept garbage that is held together by duck tape"
There is a brand name of Duck Tape but generically it is Duct Tape designed to be used when joining large hoses in ducting which need strength and flexibility at the joints.
While I fully agree with the sentiment there was a very appropriate comment I read from a photographer. He was asked which of the cameras he owned was the best and his response? Whichever one I have with me.
There is the nub of the challenge. As you say, an SLR is not readily luggable but if you are serious about your pictures you will make the effort. If you want snapshots (some of which are likely to be stunning by luck as much as by judgement) then a modern smartphone is actually very good for this and tends to be somewhere about your person at all times
I agree with your last part but since every internet presence will include .com or .org or such then the presence of such a suffix in a trademark begs the question of how widely they could enforce it. If they win the fight to trademark booking.com then would a car-hire company or a theatre be blocked from using booking.org or booking.co.uk?
Surely the cables should have a more meaningful label than just the presumed port number as that would mean the two ends would be unlikely to have matching labels and that way lies madness.
Why I was taught was that cables are labelled with a defined cable number and the purpose/connections for that cable are kept in a table as a known good state.
This wouldn't be the first time that US laws on encryption have left them using a lower grade system than the rest of the world. When they limited the encryption levels that could be sold to non-US customers a number of companies went 'Rest of the world only' and increased bitness well beyond that available in the US. Net result was the US Government caved in so they could catch up
Came in to say much the same...
Had to replace my car recently and the new one has DAB/FM unit (with other cruft) and I have been able to do some direct comparisons since I have a fairly limited driving experience at the moment. Living on the edge of a failry large town and curving round the top to get to a supermarket.
DAB - regular 5-20 seconds gaps as it reminds itself what I was listening to
FM - 2 spots on the route where I get interference passing some electrical distribution stuff but listenable from switch on to switch off
My Father taught me a similar technique when I announce I would follow in his footsteps and become an engineer.
'When it all goes wrong, and it will, get a sheet of A4 paper and explain to it in detail every step you have taken to get to the mess you now have. Before completing the sequence you will realise which step you missed out/messed up.'
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020