What is Digg?57 Comments
- freezerburn666, on 05/27/2008, -3/+29*robot voice* "are you sure you want to wear THAT to the meeting?"
- thall, on 05/27/2008, -2/+27The digg count doesn't show you the total pressure applied, just the total number of diggs. I, and several others it seems, have clicked this "digg" button very hard.
- andregriffin, on 05/27/2008, -2/+25Aww, look at it, it thinks it's people...
- chanop, on 05/27/2008, -6/+25I am thoroughly satisfied with the amount of diggs for this to make front page
- mcsnolte, on 05/27/2008, -1/+13I love how one of the related stories is "Computer Vision May Not Be As Good As Thought"
- BitKid, on 05/27/2008, -1/+10I for one welcome our new advanced pornography filter overlords.
- sudsandsoda, on 05/27/2008, -0/+7"probably", "roughly", "likely"... thats science kids!
- inactive, on 05/27/2008, -0/+5Zoom, enhance. Zoom, enhance. Zoom, enhance.
- lukeduke, on 05/27/2008, -3/+8Looks like you grabbed the KY jelly, let me direct you to the appropriate website.
- McHoffa, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4good, maybe sites will stop using captcha
- Slackdragon, on 05/27/2008, -2/+6FTA "...You always need to be able to understand [something new] from one example."
...so the computer says, "I'm the pervert?! You're the one that keeps showing me dirty pictures!" - andregriffin, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4no you're not
- Reaper2806, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4That's a vaild point in some respects, but I *think* this works better with shapes and shades rather than letters and words specifically. It could possibly identify something as being text, but not read it.
As I understand it, it's similar to how and why people recognise and jump at spiders, before they make the concious recognition what they've jumped at. Our brains store outlines of certain objects along with a repeated emotional and physical response, which is tapped into the next time we see that object. - moletimer, on 05/27/2008, -0/+4'Please wait while the filter removes all images that appear to contain breasts and/or vaginas from your search.'
Ah, *****. - thcobbs, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3That's when you turn your 40 day old computer assistant in for 2 20-day old assistants that have twice the headlights and they are up where they are supposed to be.
- DasCrackbaby, on 05/27/2008, -1/+4Computers will figure out how to enter word verification and spam us more efficiently.
- Myztry, on 05/27/2008, -0/+3Jasc (now Corel) Paint Shop Pro was great for identifying duplicate images. With the adjustable sensitivity it was interesting how on low sensitivity it commonly mistook pictures of the same subject as being duplicates. On medium it could match a photo to one with a logo appended and of different resolution and Gamma.
"could lead to", "provide a basis for" doesn't really mean a lot unless you're hyping up the share price. "Has been successful" would be something to get excited about. But this isn't that case. - homercles337, on 05/27/2008, -2/+5This is really just a lot of speculation for the popular press. I was working on something similar during my first and second postdocs (i actually know Yair Weiss personally) and there are already plenty of algorithms to identify common objects (cars, people, trees, etc). The only thing novel here is that they use small amounts of information to classify. I presented a poster and a talk a couple years ago that already showed this result at the 32x32 scale for natural image statistics. Vindication is nice. :)
- BitKid, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2And robotic buttholes.
- Jams, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2Check out Intels OpenCV Library: http://sourceforge.net/projects/opencv/
- zantos420, on 05/27/2008, -2/+4"he discovery could lead to great advances in the automated identification of online images"
or some great OCR software - tilo84, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2And so it begins......
- inactive, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2>> At present, the only ways to search for images are based on text captions that people have entered by hand for each picture...
False. Image recognition software was maturing when I was in school back in 2003. How do you think the facial recognition biometric software that we've been using the last decade works... black magic? - inactive, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2Is it bad that I thought OCR was some kind of malformed OGC?
- damndj, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2*****, we're screwed now!
- duckstreet, on 05/27/2008, -1/+3Not new technology, innacurate.
- HellDonut, on 05/27/2008, -0/+2The technology and findings proposed are new, but the title makes it sound like it's about simple image recognition software. You're right, image recognition software isn't new, but this new contextual-sensitive research is.
- linuxpenguin, on 05/27/2008, -1/+2Soylent Green *is* people.
- slartibartphast, on 05/27/2008, -1/+2How do you fit a bicycle in a grave?
- thcobbs, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Well, if his time machine is already there, what could a bicycle hurt?
- justice7, on 05/27/2008, -3/+4I could just imagine what will be tagged automatically on the average facebook pic
- luckyguy2000, on 05/27/2008, -1/+2image recognition is the holy grail. i dont think a computer can do what a human can do in our lifetime. computers cant "guess" and put into "context" very well yet.
- madwaxer, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1or they might just use it to really fing terrorists before the get into the country. don't casinos already have really crazy recognition security for cheats?
And i know the brits have an amazing system for identifying banned-trouble fans trying to get into some stadiums.
Use it with google earth pro to go geo-tagging objects all over the world from a data base of pictures?
All i care is they put it to some real good use or just get rid of it now. - zantos420, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1touche
- lfotweaker, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Does this mean more BSOD if...you're ugly?
- HonoredMule, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Well, it's what facebook would provide in the greatest quantities for the algorithm's "pattern" recognition.
...next to beer bottles, that is. - scruffles, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1Wow. Really?
I didn't actually dig your comment down. It was just a joke. Lighten up. - lonniebiz, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Where's the on-line identifier at? I would like to upload pictures to a website that runs this identifier software as a webservice, and see if it can identify pictures of my ____.
- lukeduke, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1I've got +5, and you've got 0, so eat it!
- iiiears, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Is the least number of digits needed to recognize a familiar item patentable now? Only in America? wait, wait, the DMCA will protect that sequence? GREAT!!!
Dear USPTO...
just wondering. - OmegaWolf, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1This technology could someday lead to artificial eyes for the blind that would capture images and then send them to the brain.
- HonoredMule, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1Ironically, the following was linked right next to this article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/08012 ...
"Computer Vision May not be as Good as Thought" - mccake, on 05/27/2008, -0/+1I bet computers will keep browsing porn in the future.
- ravidor, on 05/28/2008, -0/+0Don't think robots. Think CCTV, think surveillance, think face recognition, think privacy.
- CalmHorizons, on 05/29/2008, -0/+0This is silly; people can identify those objects based on context. There's no way a computer can be made to recognize image context without a ridiculous amount of information and AI and decision-making code.
- nashruddin, on 06/15/2008, -0/+0I can add this to my eyetracking app.
-
Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is