- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,219 comments
- 1,749,932 views
- 40,808
I guess it is better than if you did it in the Great Lakes.
killerjimbag
(Banned)
- 4,018
- The Great White North
- abetterplaya
Are you serious,run around?
You won't see it?
So if you won't see it,then why do you want an answer.
I pretty much summed up with "Face recognition"?
If I have a picture of your face and as you state criminals don't care,well they do.
Because if your a criminal,it means you probably have a record.
Which means you have a picture and fingerprints that can be easily accessed.
Stored in a data bank.
If you don't have a record.
They have those little CCTV cameras that take pictures of certain areas of city blocks
Have you not watched CSI or something like that?
Tornado
I guess it is better than if you did it in the Great Lakes.
Wow,is that the best you can come up with
Like come on,up the game a bit,be a little creative.
Be inspiring to others,maybe you can add the St.Lawrence
Last edited:
killerjimbag
(Banned)
- 4,018
- The Great White North
- abetterplaya
Joey D
Premium
- 47,426
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Then you'd know facial recognition works the best when it is a straight on shot of someone's face, it has a difficult if the head is turned slightly, and if it's a profile shot it's near impossible to get a match. It's not like on TV where you can enhance a million times. Facial recognition is also racial bias and has a hard time with certain facial features. It's good software for sure, but it is limited.
Also most footage from crimes spawning from protests comes from grainy CCTV cams or journalist who have a big telephoto lens. Even without masks getting a straight on shot of their face is going to be difficult.
- 87,105
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
@killerjimbag Could you please try to format your posts so they are a little more clear? They're just about impenetrable, with colossal run-on sentences, commas thrown in seemingly at random and every now and then you quote someone else's post but paste it entirely in line with your own so it's impossible to know who you're responding to - or even if you're actually responding to anyone.
I've found it nightmarishly difficult to follow this discussion simply because your posts are so hard to read that it's not worth the time of even trying.
I've found it nightmarishly difficult to follow this discussion simply because your posts are so hard to read that it's not worth the time of even trying.
killerjimbag
(Banned)
- 4,018
- The Great White North
- abetterplaya
- 87,105
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Yeah, now you see, that barely makes any sense... Let's walk through it.
When you say 'your end', what do you mean? Do you mean I'm just not seeing what you're posting correctly? Are you talking about my phone? Why would my phone be the problem? Or do you mean GTPlanet (which isn't me, and the coding is absolutely nothing to do with me) and are you suggesting that your phone has a problem with it? If it's the latter, what's the problem? Your sentence fragment gives no clues...
Suddenly a new sentence appears! Okay so it looks like you're suggesting that your phone is having trouble copying and inserting quotes 'for some reason'.
Leaving aside what that reason may be, you're actually doing things the hard way by highlighting the text you want to reply to, then copying it, then pasting it. There's no need to do any of that on GTPlanet... Highlight the text you want to reply to, then click on the Reply button that pops up. This inserts it directly into the Reply box, correctly quoted and trimmed so it's just the text you want. Then everyone knows what you're replying to and the person you quoted gets a notification.
This works on any device. GTPlanet is a responsive website and thus looks and behaves identically on any device, adjusting its layout to suit, dynamically. I've typed this reply on my phone...
For some reason you've then ended this line with a line break, but no punctuation...
... although you've capitalised the start of the next word as if it is a new sentence. But then this is another sentence fragment (we'll ignore the space before the comma). You've posted this as if it's a complete sentence when clearly it isn't... I can't derive any meaning from this at first glance.
There's no need for these things to be on separate lines unless you're posting song lyrics.
This is not easy to read, and I'm not sure how your phone is responsible for any of that. It's like you're trying really hard to make your posts as inaccessible as possible - to muck up a 45 word post so comprehensively that it just becomes the literary equivalent of mashed potatoes takes some effort.
Remember, GTPlanet is an international site with many thousands of members who do not have the privilege of having English as a first language. That's why we have this as our first two rules, to make life as easy as possible for them while they're here:
If, 'for some reason', the device you use for posting to the site is causing you to not adhere to these basic requirements, please reconsider whether you should be using it to post at all - and remember that we have a post preview function that allows you to see and review a post before it goes live so that if your phone is mucking about with what you're posting you can ensure it's not unreadable mush before anyone else notices.
killerjimbag
(Banned)
- 4,018
- The Great White North
- abetterplaya
- 13,882
- Adelaide
- Neomone
ROFL.
That's so cute. He thinks CSI is real. I'm stuck in a traffic jam and i needed a good laugh.
killerjimbag
(Banned)
- 4,018
- The Great White North
- abetterplaya
Actually if you read what I said. I said facial recognition. Yes it is real! They use it. Perhaps that's why they cover their faces? Be care full texting and driving it's against the law. Big brother is watching!
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/11/...have-a-nationwide-facial-recognition-service/
https://storify.com/kavehwaddell/facial-recognition-report
http://nypost.com/2016/10/19/half-of-us-adults-captured-on-facial-recognition-databases/
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...automated-face-recognition-to-catch-criminals
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Yeah masked people are usually intent on not causing trouble.
Yes they are evidently,how many more pics do you want of masked protesters,being non violent?I guess they carry around hammers to do carpentry later,and bats to play baseball in the dark?
I guess perhaps drinks later at your house?Sure, lets go back to Starbucks and grab some more coffee!
Those are not protesters, they're rioters. How about we arrest everyone participating in a riot, masks or no. Sound good?
killerjimbag
(Banned)
- 4,018
- The Great White North
- abetterplaya
Well I guess they use the term protesters,to mean rioters?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...nce-direct-action-demonstration-a7540071.html
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Yes, that is the first time, in the history of the media, that they have inappropriately used a term to downplay wrongdoing by a favored group.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Do they? There was a crowd of around 2,500... all rioting?
The Independent
Well, they do still say protesters. I wonder if they were all rioters?
The Independent
Ah - I think I see - it looks as though "protestors" is a pluralised-noun for people who gathered with a presumptive purpose. Then some of them rioted which comes under the pluralised-noun "rioters". It also looks as though The Independent used the English language to express that. Very cunning of them.
What's your argument, exactly?
killerjimbag
(Banned)
- 4,018
- The Great White North
- abetterplaya
Well he seems unmasked in the picture. So is he a protester,or rioter? Want to bet what they charged him with? Was he part of this group,read the tweet.
You can also read this, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...opped-three-journalists-inauguration-protests .I guess journalists covering the protests were charged with rioting,some got off others didn't.
Also just to add to face recognition,interesting how it works at airports and border crossings. Do you not think they pass it along to the FBI for access by other law enforcement agencies?
https://blog.littlesis.org/2016/02/...land-securitys-expanding-biometrics-division/
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
The news is of course held to strict standards about what they're allowed to call someone when they're accused of a crime. That's why they say "alleged rioters". I'd prefer that they didn't conflate protesting and rioting. Yes it's true that protesters can riot, and rioters can be protesting... but "alleged rioters" is probably most appropriate. The news could also factually refer to them as "humans" instead of rioters or protesters, but it would be a biased decision. We don't actually know that everyone in the crowd of 2500 was protesting either. Some of them may have been supporters. Some of them may have been tagging on with a more popular protest with signs about the upcoming apocalypse (that does happen).
If I'm writing that headline it says: "Riot during Anti-Trump protest results in 230 arrests". Categorizing them as protesters or demonstrators downplays their actions and plays up the arrests.
I'm actually not sure what your point is anymore. Masked or unmasked does not make someone a protester or rioter.
Last edited:
killerjimbag
(Banned)
- 4,018
- The Great White North
- abetterplaya
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
I have no idea how that changes anything.
killerjimbag
(Banned)
- 4,018
- The Great White North
- abetterplaya
What,supposedly there were 2500 protesters according to journalists.Well according to this individuals tweet,there was 2500 militants on an unpermitted march. Here you can define militant for yourself. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/militant. You have no idea how it changes anything? I didn't call the 2.5 k protesters militant,they did. I'm all for civilized protests,but when someone calls 2.5k marchers/protesters militant,the credibility goes out the window.
- 87,105
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
What does this have to do with making mask-wearing a crime?
killerjimbag
(Banned)
- 4,018
- The Great White North
- abetterplaya
Let's think about this?Do you think these militants/protesters were all unmasked? “By putting on our masks we reveal our unity; and by raising our voices in the street together, we speak our anger at the facelessness of power,” reads a popular anarchist credo that was printed on the inside of masks distributed at a violent anti-capitalist protest in London in 1999.http://news.nationalpost.com/news/w...-protest-group-has-resurged-for-the-trump-age
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Because one person calls them militants does not make it so. But regardless, the answer to your question is no... and I'm, still not sure how this changes anything.
- 27,387
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
Since you're on a run here with copy-pasting whatever supports... whatever it is your point is, it's worth taking the time from rapid-firing anything you come across and read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.
killerjimbag
(Banned)
- 4,018
- The Great White North
- abetterplaya
Ok so we will use DC as an example,as this is were it happened.Again I will point to the law in DC.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (Washington, D.C.)
§ 22-3312.03. Wearing hoods or masks.
(a) No person or persons over 16 years of age, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, shall:
(1) Enter upon, be, or appear upon any lane, walk, alley, street, road highway, or other public way in the District of Columbia;
(2) Enter upon, be, or appear upon or within the public property of the District of Columbia; or
(3) Hold any manner of meeting or demonstration.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section apply only if the person was wearing the hood, mask, or other device:
(1) With the intent to deprive any person or class of persons of equal protection of the law or of equal privileges and immunities under the law, or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of the United States or the District of Columbia from giving or securing for all persons within the District of Columbia equal protection of the law;
(2) With the intent, by force or threat of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person because of his or her exercise of any right secured by federal or District of Columbia laws, or to intimidate any person or any class of persons from exercising any right secured by federal or District of Columbia laws;
(3) With the intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person;
(4) With the intent to cause another person to fear for his or her personal safety, or, where it is probable that reasonable persons will be put in fear for their personal safety by the defendant's actions, with reckless disregard for that probability; or
(5) While engaged in conduct prohibited by civil or criminal law, with the intent of avoiding identification.
