The Official Good Ideas Thread™
-
Ice is a terrible thing to do to a good single malt…
Though one presumes a vending machine would use refrigeration on the container, not actually mix the ice in with the alcohol.
-
Though one presumes a vending machine would use refrigeration on the container, not actually mix the ice in with the alcohol.
Yeah, but even so, I prefer my whisky to be gently warmed by the heat of my hands as I sit in a comfortable chair and sip it slowly. An open fire and a quietly ticking clock are optional, but recommended.
Gotta get through this week first.
-
Yeah, but even so, I prefer my whisky to be gently warmed by the heat of my hands as I sit in a comfortable chair and sip it slowly
No doubt. For a good whiskey, you lose a lot of flavor when it gets too cold. For the typical rotgut that I buy and mix with soda, not a problem.
-
-
Jones yanked the social media and television ads and said he doesn’t
want innuendo to pull focus for the main message of saving lives on the
road.Uh, huh...
-
http: //www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/beenleigh-man-banned-from-queensland-trains-for-life-after-gross-projectile-vomit-video/story-fnn8dlfs-1227151026518
Good idea: helpful URL slugs which can even make navigation unnecessary.
-
That's what I unironically had initially. Besides your browser should hover the link anyway. Perhaps I'm still @CodingHorrorBot
-
@JazzyJosh Is Doing It Wrong™
-
@Jazzy Josh said:
http: //www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/beenleigh-man-banned-from-queensland-trains-for-life-after-gross-projectile-vomit-video/story-fnn8dlfs-1227151026518
Good idea: helpful URL slugs which can even make navigation unnecessary.This part of the URL...
http: //www.couriermail.com.au...tells you that navigation is unneccesary
-
I was trying to link to the non-blogspam source I thought :(
-
I was trying to link to the non-blogspam source I thought
The Courier Mail is viewed as a reliable source of news by some, and a propaganda filled rag by right-thinking people such as myself
-
What is this? Spaceballs 3: The Search for Spaceballs 2?
-
This post ended up in the wrong thread O_O
-
Posts can be moved if you want - just flag your post or just ask @abarker, @boomzilla or me.
-
:effort:
-
:effort: is a bad idea.
-
Fucking around with the most annoying teens:
-
-
Which way to the First World Problem thread again?
-
They blacklisted it this morning. I guess this is trending and whoever owns it, wants to make some money. Replaced.
-
I guess this is trending and whoever owns it, wants to make some money.
more likely copyright trolls want to make money off of something they don't own because they can.
Youtube's content ID system is messed up.
-
-
Is it a link to golang.org?
-
intercal was designed to be a terrible language. it doesn't count. the worst languages are ones that try not to be terrible and are terrible anyway!
-
-
So I've not tried to look at the youtube link in this article about something the CCC pulled off in faking fingerprints from photos rather than from an object.
Interesting bit:
known as "Starbug," said he was able to recreate the thumbprint of the German Minister of Defense Ursula von der Leyen, from several news photos.
The hack isn't terribly complicated, but it's also not something most people would have the patience or ability to pull off. Starbug printed the fingerprint from the photos onto tracing paper, copied it onto a plastic board, covered it in graphite and made a dummy print by coating the plastic in wood glue.
Or if you prefer a BBC thing about it:
-
fingerprints from photos
The video was in German, and there's lots of stuff on there. The stories talk about "close up photos." Sounds like a non-story. Or Zoom, Enhance! technology.
-
Or Zoom, Enhance! technology.
It's sometimes scary how close we are to that already.
-
It's sometimes scary how close we are to that already.
...huh? You can't pull more information out of the photo by "enhancing" that are already there.
Filed under: ye cannae change the laws o' physics
-
You can't pull more information out of the photo by "enhancing" that are already there.
They did it in [i]Blade Runner[/i].
-
Photos contain a lot of redundant data. For example:
You know exactly what this is a picture of.
-
But I doubt I can zoom-enhance that without cross-referencing with your avatar.
EDIT:Although, I suppose it's large enough that you - with the enough time in your hands that you possess - could have encoded your avatar in the LSBs or some such.
-
-
...huh? You can't pull more information out of the photo by "enhancing" that are already there.
But can't you enhance the information that is already there or create a viable {inter,extra}polation so it is made more visible by humans?It's not necessarily the correct information, but it's a good guess.
-
Photos contain a lot of redundant data. For example:
<img src="/uploads/default/12202/cd583523e7abf4f5.jpg" width="500" height="500">
You know exactly what this is a picture of.
It's a pony! Thank you! I always wanted one!
-
You can't pull more information out of the photo by "enhancing" that are already there.
True, but cameras have shockingly high resolutions already; a good DSLR is around 24Mpixels now without spending too much and would usually come with a decent zoom lens. What's more, you can take several pictures of the same subject and combine them to get much higher effective resolution, using the facts that you know they're of the same subject and that you won't get two photos of a politician's hand in exactly the same spot (relative to the pixel grid) anyway.
IOW, I can totally believe the hack being possible. Biometrics suck.
-
-
Wow! It's a schooner!
-
-
Marilyn Einstein?
-
Looks like Albert Monroe to me.
-
Randall Einstein?
Good idea: caching
-
But can't you enhance the information that is already there or create a viable {inter,extra}polation so it is made more visible by humans?
<img src="/uploads/default/12209/fd558fd10f5fd0d7.png" width="335" height="30">
It's not necessarily the correct information, but it's a good guess.
One of the few things I remember from my Stochastic Processes class from decades ago is that it is, in theory, possible to combine multiple low-res images of an object to create a high-res image. The basic idea is that details smaller than a pixel affect adjacent pixels differently in each image, and this information can be inferred from the differences. It is an inference, and not necessarily correct; the detail in the high-res image would, if converted back to low-res in the proper way, reproduce the original low-res images, but there might be other detailed images that would also produce the same low-res images.
Sadly, I don't remember (if I ever knew) how to actually do this in any useful way.
Edit: And reading further in the topic, I see that @dkf already said much the same thing. And why does Discourse think I posted this 8 discominutes ago, when I just submitted it?
-
Edit: And reading further in the topic, I see that @dkf already said much the same thing.
I always think of that when looking at video of something or someone. If you look at a single frame, it's often very difficult to see who it is, yet if you look at the whole sequence, you can see very clearly what's going on and can easily distinguish identities. It's all based on the fact that the human visual system (particularly the part of the brain that does the processing) already does all this stochastic analysis stuff. Which is awesome.
I think the basic idea is that you use the intuition that there is a common model that is being sampled, and then you use some sort of convolution (it's
never lupusalways convolution) with the basic model (“it's a smooth human thumb of average size”) with the picture to get the perturbations from the model. Do that with lots of different samplings (photos, video frames, etc.) and you get what the real model ought to be, i.e., what model you should use to minimise the errors when fitting all those samplings. Which is clever math stuff.Doing it from high-resolution photographs, I could totally believe. Doing it from ordinary video (probably quite a long clip) would be really impressive.
tl;dr: biometrics suck
-
-
I'll happily admit it took me a while to remember it. I started out writing that paragraph with “Fourier analysis” even though I knew that was not what I meant.
-
My code is finally fast enough to not cause lag!
Here, have a way-too-big screenshot:
-
Flagged: DF is off-topic in the Good Ideas thread.
-
-
Flagged: DF is off-topic in the Good Ideas thread.
flagged for flagging DF as off toipic. DF is always on topic.
:-P
dwarfs are tasty after all.