Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Status Quo Of Computer Vision

Hemos posted more than 10 years ago | from the piercing-the-future dept.

Science 69

prostoalex writes "The Industrial Physicist sums up the recent advances and developments in the world of computer vision. They mention an application for human-computer interfacing using a Webcam, Philips Research Lab Seeing with Sound product, which augments vision for visually impaired, as well as various frontal face detection applications."

cancel ×

69 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Computers' Vision? (4, Funny)

Metallic Matty (579124) | more than 10 years ago | (#5579813)

I'd have to say computers generally have very good vision - I am yet to see one wearing a pair of glasses.

Re:Computers' Vision? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5579828)

ha, first post!

You suck Matty!

American Censorship (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5580031)

The extent of American censorship is Slashdot moderators rating a troll as flamebait. Get a life, you l00zers who think American media is censored!

Re:American Censorship (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5580092)

The extent of American censorship is Slashdot moderators rating a troll as flamebait. Get a life, you l00zers who think American media is censored!

What? That wasn't my reply, what the fuck is going on here, it's like America is good, America is great. The Bush administration is doing a good job, a goooood job.

WITH OUR BLOOD AND SOULS O SADDAM WE WILL SAVE YOU (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5580091)

But, now that I think about it, I guess I'd rather see HUGE, BOUNCING, JIGGLING TITTIES instead!

Re:Computers' Vision? (1)

Simon Field (563434) | more than 11 years ago | (#5584182)


My computer must need glasses.
It cannot tell which window I am looking at when I type. I have to tell it which window to use by clicking with the mouse.

With better computer vision, the computer would know which window I was looking at when I started typing. With highly acute vision, it could even know which button I was looking at when I hit the return key.

I will know that computer vision is a reality when I no longer need to use a mouse. Likewise, I will know that speech recognition is a reality when I no longer need to use a keyboard (although I am not certain I want to trade carpal tunnel for a sore throat, or let the rest of the office hear everything I would otherwise be typing).

A Nouse might be good enough to indicate which window I wish to use (if the windows are large enough). But I think I'll wait for the software that can actually track my eyes.

Re:Computers' Vision? (1)

MooseGuy529 (578473) | more than 11 years ago | (#5593763)

That's actually a pretty good idea for using computer vision. The one problem I've always had with a GUI is the overhead in switching windows and such.

I think having your current window in front, with others as small pictures at the top, getting smaller as unused longer (with a limit of course) would be great--you could just look at a window and it would pop up.

Re:Computers' Vision? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 11 years ago | (#5591433)

Of course not, they haven't got ears.

neuromancer (-1, Offtopic)

my_name_is_steve (455393) | more than 10 years ago | (#5579814)

That's would *like* totally 0wnxx3r in half/life

Don't forget the DARPA Contest (3, Informative)

Blaine Hilton (626259) | more than 10 years ago | (#5579821)

Another big advance I think will come with the prodding of the DARPA's $1million contest. A lot of disccusion has been going on their message boards about computer vision systems.

Re:Don't forget the DARPA Contest (4, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 10 years ago | (#5579886)

That's not doing much for computer vision. Most of the action in computer vision right now involves "homeland security" applications, real or imagined. The killer app for computer vision seems to be Big Brother.

Re:Don't forget the DARPA Contest (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5580828)

Wrong. Far and away, most CV research money is in medical imaging. Haven't you read PAMI or CVPR lately? Nice try with the oh-so-timely propaganda though.

Medical Imaging is where it's at. (2, Informative)

Steve Mitchell (3457) | more than 11 years ago | (#5581284)

Most of my research involves adapting the `what's in' in facial recognition and applying it to disease diagnosis and segmentation of heart MRIs. These days' people at developing statistical shape and appearance models of faces via PCA for matching and segmentation. It gets a bit scary what they can do in facial recognition if you start reading up, but it's also slightly disconcerting how much money is being tossed in medical imaging.

Choose your words carefully... (4, Funny)

Kozz (7764) | more than 10 years ago | (#5579835)

At first, the phrase "frontal face detection applications" sounded rather cumbersome. But then a shorter phrase of "facial detection applications" might have been grossly misunderstood. ;)

Re:Choose your words carefully... (0, Funny)

Metallic Matty (579124) | more than 10 years ago | (#5579859)

grossly misunderstood

No pun intended. =)

who da fp bitch? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5579839)

Yeah baby!

YOU FAIL IT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5579847)

you silly cunt-faced bitch! haha!! fuck you motherbitch!

NO WAY! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5579874)

no fp, bitchtits!! you fuckin lame ass no-post-countin piece of shit!! Suck my rectum!!!

p00p! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5579871)

that's what I like to do!

Microsoft webcam assistant (5, Funny)

Powercntrl (458442) | more than 10 years ago | (#5579882)

It looks like you're trying to masturbate! Would you like me to load:

* Your porn collection
* An AIM conversation with a guy pretending to be female
* Recommended self pleasuring techniques database
* Featured lubricant merchants

Re:Microsoft webcam assistant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5580181)

*DOUBLECLICK* -> * Recommended self pleasuring techniques database

Wow! I never knew that a new technique could make burping my worm feel 10 times better!

I was spanking my monkey all wrong before! Thank you, Clippy!

Re:Microsoft webcam assistant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5581196)

> * Recommended self pleasuring techniques database

Any links? Come-on man, share!

haha dead imperialists! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5579888)

Here, your pathetic McNews won't show you this:

A Dead Imperialist [reuters.com]

More Dead Imperialists [reuters.com]

McNews? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5579951)

Is that where we get a large order of freedom fries?

And by the way, you're a fucker. Those pics are available for us to see. They are not "censored" from our view.

Status Quo in the army now (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5579891)

A vacation in the foreign land
Uncle Sam does the best he can
You're in the army now
Oh oh you're in the army now
Now you remember what the draft man said
Nothing to do all day but stay in bed
You're in the army now
Oh oh you're in the army now
You'll be a hero of the neighbourhood
Nobody knows that you left for good
You're in the army now
Oh oh you're in the army now
Smiling faces as you wait to land
But once you get there no one gives a damn
You're in the army now
Oh oh you're in the army now

Hand grenades flying over your head

Missiles flyin' over your head
If you wanna survive get out of bed
You're in the army now
Oh oh you're in the army now
Shots ring out in the dead of night
The sergeant calls: "Stand up and fight!"
You're in the army now
Oh oh you're in the army now
You've got your orders there to shoot on sight
Your finger's on the trigger but it don't seem right
You're in the army now
Oh oh you're in the army now
You're in the army now
Oh oh you're in the army now

Night is falling and you just can't see
Is this illusion or reality
You're in the army now
Oh oh you're in the army, in the army now
You're in the army now
Oh oh you're in the army now

Oh oh you're in the army, in the army now
(REPEAT TO FADE)

Ugh (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5579892)

Yo guys! I tagged my first black girl last night! Man, did she stink! Are they all like that?

Which hole stank? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5580020)

Not all of them are growing fungi and have bacteria colonies in their hole. Find another black chick.

YANKEES GO HOME (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5579899)

SOUTHERN IRAQ (Reuters) - Charred Iraqi corpses smolder in burned-out trucks. Black smoke hangs over bombed cities where U.S. troops battle Iraqi soldiers. Youths greet British tanks with smiles, then sneer when they have passed.

Reuters correspondents in southern Iraq -- some with U.S.-led forces, some operating independently -- watched the war to topple Saddam Hussein unfold on Sunday as U.S. convoys advanced on Baghdad and battles raged for control of key cities. In the desert near the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf, just 100 miles south of Baghdad, correspondent Luke Baker traveled through a plain littered with Iraqi bodies and gutted vehicles after U.S. forces fought a seven-hour battle against militiamen desperately trying to halt their advance.

Some vehicles were still smoldering, and charred ribs were the only recognizable part of three melted bodies in a destroyed car lying in the roadside dust.

"It wasn't even a fair fight. I don't know why they don't just surrender," said Colonel Mark Hildenbrand, commander of the 937th Engineer Group. "When you're playing soccer at home, 3-2 is a fair score, but here it's more like 119-0."

U.S. troops showed reporters a hideout said to have been used by an Iraqi militiaman. The soldier who had used the hideout had only a filthy blanket to protect him from the cold desert nights, and just a plastic bag of raw meat for food.

When he fled, he left behind a picture of his two children.

Southeast of Najaf, Reuters correspondent Sean Maguire saw explosions and huge plumes of smoke over Nassiriya, a strategic city on the Euphrates river where U.S. forces have been fighting to secure bridges to allow them to advance toward Baghdad.

"It looks like artillery, or possibly air strikes," said Maguire, traveling with the U.S. 1st Marine Division.

BLACK SMOKE, WHITE FLAGS

In the southeastern city of Umm Qasr, Iraq's only deep-water port, U.S. and British forces used planes and tanks in a battle to dislodge at least 120 Iraqi Republican Guards.

Reuters correspondent Adrian Croft said British Harrier jets had dropped 500-pound bombs on the city, sending columns of black smoke curling into the air. When the bombing ended, some Iraqis could be seen waving white flags and surrendering.

As night fell U.S. soldiers were still using machinegun, artillery and mortar fire in an attempt to flush out another group of Iraqi fighters from a hideout.

Civilians streamed out of Umm Qasr and the city of Basra. Reuters correspondent Rosalind Russell, south of Basra, watched dozens of trucks and battered cars pass, crammed full with household belongings.

Machinegun and artillery fire echoed behind them.

"There is fighting in the center, on the streets. It is terrible," said Hussein, a 24-year-old engineer who works for the state-run southern oil company in Basra.

"We don't want Americans here. This is Iraq."

One group of Iraqi boys on the side of the road smiled and waved as a convoy of British tanks and trucks rolled by.

But once it had passed, leaving a trail of dust and grit in its wake, their smiles turned to scowls.

"We don't want them here," said 17-year-old Fouad, looking angrily up at the plumes of gray smoke rising from Basra.

He pulled a piece of paper from the waistband of his trousers. Unfolding it, he held up a picture of Saddam, showing the Iraqi leader sitting on a throne with a benign smile.

"Saddam is our leader," he said defiantly. "Saddam is good."

Don't believe me? go read it for yourself [reuters.com]

Re:YANKEES GO HOME (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5579990)

Point by Point, Lie by Lie
Stephen Zunes, March 18, 2003 (Editor's Note: Below is a transcript of President George W. Bush's address to the nation on Monday, March 17, announcing his readiness to order a U.S. invasion of Iraq followed by an analysis highlighting some of the lies and misleading statements in the speech. Such an overview is necessary since the Democratic Party leadership in Congress, which has pledged to support the president in the event of war, declined to take their traditional opportunity to offer a formal response. The Green Party, which opposes the war, was not given the opportunity by the networks to respond.)

"My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war."

This is patently false. In 1998, President Bill Clinton successfully pressured UNSCOM director Richard Butler to withdraw inspectors without authorization from the Secretary General or the Security Council--before their mission was complete--in order to engage in a four-day heavy bombing campaign against Iraq. As predicted at the time, this illegal use of military force--combined with revelations that the United States had abused the inspections process for espionage purposes--resulted in the Iraqi government barring the inspectors' return until a reorganized inspections commission known as UNMOVIC commenced inspections last year. UNMOVIC chairman Hans Blix and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan explicitly called upon the United States and the international community to give the inspectors more time to do their job, noting that it would take a number of months before their mission could be completed.

"That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991."

Iraq was presented with this demand as part of UN Security Council Resolution 687, which mandated Iraqi disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction and related delivery systems. This was a unilateral decree from the Security Council which--while nominally part of the ceasefire agreement--was void of any explicit threat to continue prosecuting the war if Iraq did not agree to the disarmament provisions. It is noteworthy that the demand for Iraqi disarmament in the resolution was put forward within the context of a call for regional disarmament. The United States has refused to encourage any regional disarmament initiative, however, and remains a strong supporter of the Israeli and Pakistani governments, which have advanced nuclear arsenals among other weapons of mass destruction.
"Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned. The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament."

Iraq's cooperation has indeed been less than total, but most independent reports--even during UNSCOM's inspections regime between 1991 and 1998--conclude that cooperation was close to 90%. According to UNMOVIC, Iraq's cooperation since inspections resumed last year has been far better.

"Over the years, UN weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived."

This was not an uncommon practice during the UNSCOM era, but there have been no reports from UNMOVIC of such harassment subsequently.

"Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again--because we are not dealing with peaceful men."

Peaceful efforts at disarming Iraq have succeeded in eliminating somewhere between 95% and 100% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related materiel and delivery systems as a result of UN Security Council resolution 687 and subsequent resolutions. The determination to go to war despite such success raises serious questions as to whether the United States is governed by peaceful men.

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

If the United States really has evidence that the Iraqi government continues to possess and conceal weapons of mass destruction, why has the Bush administration refused to make such evidence public or pass such intelligence on to United Nations inspectors, who have the authority to destroy them?

"This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people."

Iraq did use chemical weapons against Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians back in the 1980s when Saddam Hussein's regime was being supported by the United States. The Reagan administration covered up for the Halabja massacre and similar attacks against Kurdish civilians by falsely claiming that it was the Iranians--then the preferred enemy--who were responsible. In addition, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency provided Iraq with U.S. satellite data to help Saddam Hussein's forces locate Iranian troop concentrations in the full knowledge that they were using chemical weapons. Many of the key components of Iraq's chemical weapons program came from the United States, ostensibly for pesticides as part of taxpayer-funded agricultural subsidies, despite evidence that these U.S.-manufactured chemicals were probably being diverted for use in illegal chemical weapons.

"The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East."

This is true, though Iraq's invasion of Iran in 1980 was quietly supported by the U.S. government and ambivalent signals by the U.S. ambassador to Iraq immediately prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait may have emboldened Saddam Hussein to conquer the sheikdom in 1990. Now, with Iraq's offensive military capability just a fraction of what is was during that period and an unambiguous resolve by the international community to thwart such future aggression, there is little chance of Iraq invading another country again.

"It has a deep hatred of America and our friends."

Iraq willingly accepted U.S. support during the 1980s. The more belligerent posture of recent years is largely a result of the U.S. destruction of much of the country's military and civilian infrastructure in the 1991 Gulf War, which was supported by a number of other Middle Eastern states with which Iraq had also once collaborated and been on friendly terms. Subsequent U.S.-led sanctions, periodic bombing raids, and invasion threats have resulted in widespread suffering of the population that has intensified anti-American sentiment. Had the United States adopted a more enlightened policy, such deep hatred would likely have not developed.

"And it has aided, trained, and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda."

Every independent investigation of every Bush administration claim of a connection between the secular Iraqi government and the Islamist al Qaeda network has found no evidence of any Iraqi aid, training, or harboring of al Qaeda terrorists. According to both published U.S. government reports and independent analyses, Iraq's support for international terrorism--which has always been restricted to secular nationalists like the radical Palestinian Abu Nidal faction--peaked in the 1980s.

"The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other. The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed."

The Bush administration has failed to present any evidence that Iraq has the intention to pass on weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, an act that would inevitably lead to a U.S.-led invasion, only in this case with the support of the international community. This is the essence of deterrence, which protected the United States and its allies from Josef Stalin, Mao Zedung, and other leaders as tyrannical and far more powerful militarily than Saddam Hussein. And no country has the right to invade another on some far-fetched scenario that they might do something someday. Ironically, as the CIA has noted in a report released this past October, Saddam Hussein would not likely use WMDs as a first strike, but in the case of a U.S. invasion--with nothing to lose and the logic of deterrence no longer in effect--would be far more likely to use whatever WMDs he may possess. In other words, a U.S. invasion, rather than preventing the use of weapons of mass destruction, would be the most likely--and the only realistic--scenario that such horrible weapons would be utilized.

"The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep."

The oath of office also demands that the president uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, which forbids such an illegal use of force. Virtually no international legal authority recognizes such an invasion as an act of assuring legitimate national security interests.

"Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq."

The U.S. Congress--with the support of both the Republican and Democratic leadership--did authorize the use of force against Iraq. However, the resolution violates Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which does not allow Congress to grant such open-ended warmaking authority to the president for an offensive military action. Only a formal declaration of war in such a situation can be considered legitimate. Furthermore, Article VI of the Constitution declares that international treaties to which the United States is a party are to be treated as supreme law, thereby proscribing Congress from passing any resolution that violates the UN Charter, such as supporting an invasion of a sovereign nation. As a result, this resolution is unconstitutional and thereby invalid.

"America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations."

Then why is the United States violating the UN Charter, which forbids the use of military force unless a country finds itself under armed attack or it is explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council? The mission of the United Nations is to preserve international peace and security, not to approve the invasion of one country by another.

"One reason the UN was founded after the Second World War was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace."

The United States refused to confront Saddam Hussein active and early when he was committing acts of aggression against Iranians and Kurds and opposed decisive action by the United Nations. Iraq's ability to attack the innocent and destroy the peace has already been reduced dramatically through a series of actions by the United Nations, including authorizing the use of force to remove Iraqi occupation forces from Kuwait, placing strict military sanctions against the dictatorship, and overseeing the most aggressive unilateral disarmament effort and inspections regime in history. "In the case of Iraq, the Security Council did act, in the early 1990s. Under Resolutions 678 and 687--both still in effect--the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will."

The assertion that resolutions 678 and 687 give the United States the right to invade Iraq is patently false. Resolution 678 authorized the use of force to enforce prior UN Security Council resolutions demanding that Iraq remove its occupation forces from Kuwait. Once that was accomplished in late February 1991, the resolution became moot. Resolution 687 called for Iraqi disarmament of weapons of mass destruction and related delivery systems, but--even though it was the most detailed resolution in the history of the United Nations--no enforcement mechanism was specified. According to United Nations Charter, such resolutions can be enforced militarily only if the Security Council as a whole recognizes that a country is in material breach, determines that all non-military means have been exhausted, and specifically authorizes the use of force. The Security Council has not done so subsequent to the passage of resolution 678 in late November 1990.

"Last September, I went to the UN General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm."

True, but it did not authorize the use of force. Article 14 of that resolution specifically noted that the Security Council would "remain seized of the matter," reiterating that only the Security Council as a whole--not any one member state--has the power to determine whether military force can be legitimately utilized to enforce its resolution.

"Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed."

There actually are some nations that believe that Iraq has disarmed under the resolutions. Though this is not likely the case, the Bush administration has been unable to present clear evidence to the contrary.

"And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power."

This is sheer speculation. As a dictator who has proven his desire to ruthlessly hold on to power at all costs, he very well could disarm to save his regime. However, the Bush administration has made clear its intention to invade anyway, thereby providing little incentive for Saddam Hussein to do so.

"For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it."

Actually, most Security Council members do not believe that Iraq is the imminent threat that the United States claims it to be, though, if convincing evidence were presented that Iraq indeed posed a threat to international peace and security, a clear majority of the Security Council--including France--have indicated their willingness to authorize the use of force. A veto of the proposed U.S.-sponsored resolution by France, Russia, and China would probably not have been necessary since the United States was unable--despite enormous pressure, including promises of increased foreign aid, trade preferences, and other incentives--to convince a simple majority of nations on the Council that it was necessary to take the unprecedented step of authorizing the United States to invade Iraq, overthrow the government, and replace it with one more to its liking.

"Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world."

There is nothing close to the broad coalition such as that which joined the United States in ridding Iraqi occupation forces from Kuwait in 1991, when Iraq clearly did constitute a threat to peace. As of this writing, only one major power (Great Britain) and two minor powers (Spain and Australia) have offered to send troops. All three of these governments are doing so contrary to the sentiments of the vast majority of their population and their combined participation still leaves the United States contributing at least 85% of combat forces. As columnist Maureen Dowd noted, since the Bush administration has driven virtually everyone from the schoolyard, it now has to rely on imaginary friends.

"The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours."

In reality, the United Nations Security Council has gone to extraordinary efforts to minimize any threat to peace from Iraq, including authorizing the use of force in 1990 to enforce resolutions requiring an Iraqi withdrawal from occupied Kuwait, the imposition of strict sanctions against Iraq, and the creation of an inspections regime that has been largely--if not 100%--effective. By contrast, it is not the responsibility of the United States or any country to invade a sovereign nation when it feels like it.

"In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals--including journalists and inspectors--should leave Iraq immediately."

President Bush has no authorization to demand that United Nations inspectors or foreign nationals leave Iraq. Nor does he have the right to demand that Saddam Hussein and his sons leave their country. No Security Council resolutions require that Saddam Hussein resign or that he and any other member of his family go into exile. And neither the United States nor any other country has the right to commence an invasion of another country at the time of its choosing.

"Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you."
It is highly likely that a major U.S. military campaign--particularly one with such a heavy reliance on air power and the determination to seize by force a capital city of over five million people--will result in the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.
"As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need."

In large part as a result of the U.S.-led sanctions, there are already severe shortages of food and medicines in Iraq. Strict and mostly equitable rationing have left few Iraqi families with more than a couple of days' worth of food in storage. It is unlikely that the United States will be able to supply most Iraqis with the food and medicine they need in any timely manner.

"We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms."

The fact that the United States has supported scores of regimes--including a number in the Middle East--that have tortured, raped, and murdered dissidents raises serious questions as to whether the Bush administration really supports a free Iraq. The Bush administration's ongoing support of Moroccan occupation forces in Western Sahara, Turkish occupation forces in northern Cyprus, and Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights raises serious questions as to whether the United States is actually bothered by countries that commit acts of aggression against neighbors. The United States also supports a number of Middle Eastern countries that are believed to have developed chemical weapons, similarly raising questions as to whether the Bush administration is really worried about "poison factories."

"The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."

Most Iraqis would certainly welcome the end of Saddam Hussein's regime. But it is highly questionable whether a Western nation that has already wrought enormous suffering for the Iraqi people, invades the country, and installs one of its own generals as a provisional military governor will be seen as an act of liberation or a foreign occupation.

"It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction."

First, it is hard to imagine any national army--even under the most ruthless of dictators--that would not resist a foreign invasion. Second, if the United States knows where these alleged weapons of mass destruction are located, why haven't U.S. government officials informed UNMOVIC inspectors, who have the authority to destroy them?

"Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life. And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, 'I was just following orders'."
The United States has actively undermined and refused to participate in the International Criminal Court, which was designed to try and punish war criminals like Saddam Hussein. As a result, any such trials will likely be under the tutelage of an occupying American army, which will be seen by the vast majority of the international community as illegitimate. For a foreign occupation army to try and punish leaders of an internationally recognized government--however reprehensible they may be--is in itself a war crime and would make these thugs martyrs in the eyes of much of the world.

"Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it."

Refusing an illegitimate order by a foreign government to surrender power is not choosing confrontation. And, clearly, the Bush administration has not taken "every measure to avoid war."

"Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice. Yet, the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power, he will remain a deadly foe until the end. In desperation, he and terrorists groups might try to conduct terrorist operations against the American people and our friends. These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible."

Then why prosecute and unnecessary and illegal war?

"And this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail. The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."

According to the CIA and other estimates, Iraq has not engaged in any anti-American terrorism since the alleged 1993 assassination attempt against former President George Bush and has already dramatically reduced his support for international terrorism since the 1980s, when the United States was supporting his government. By contrast, most intelligence analyses predict an increase in the terrorist threat to America and its allies should the United States invade Iraq.

"Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland. In recent days, American authorities have expelled from the country certain individuals with ties to Iraqi intelligence services. Among other measures, I have directed additional security of our airports, and increased Coast Guard patrols of major seaports. The Department of Homeland Security is working closely with the nation's governors to increase armed security at critical facilities across America. Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people--yet we're not a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers. If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them, will face fearful consequences."

The chances of the United States being attacked will be greatly increased if the U.S. attacks first. Indeed, if there was any logic behind the madness of 9/11, it was Osama bin Laden's hope that the United States would react in such a way that would only increase the popularity of anti-American extremists. History has shown that the more the United States has militarized the Middle East, the less secure we have become.

"We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities."

Iraq has never threatened to attack the United States nor does it have the ability to attack the United States. That country became a formidable military threat back in the 1980s as a result of support from industrialized nations like the U.S., Great Britain, France, Germany, and Russia. With a strict military embargo imposed upon the country since 1990, it will be extremely difficult for Iraq to become a military threat to the United States or any other country.

"The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth."

The analogy with Hitler's Germany and other Axis powers is spurious. Germany was the most powerful industrialized country in the world in the 1930s. Iraq, by contrast, is a poor, third-world country that has had most of its military infrastructure destroyed and has been under the strictest military and economic sanctions in world history. The current UN policy of inspections, sanctions, and the threat of UN-sanctioned war if Iraq again threatens its neighbors can hardly be considered "appeasement." None of the Axis powers of the 1930s were ever subjected to such international pressure until they had invaded and occupied dozens of nations in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Iraq has not invaded and occupied any countries since its six-month occupation of Kuwait in 1990-91.

"Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations--and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now."

Essentially, President Bush is saying that a country has the right to invade and occupy another country without any evidence that the targeted country has the intention, willingness, or ability to strike first. This would give virtually any country the right to invade any other. Most of Iraq's neighbors do not consider Iraq to be a threat, either now or in the perceivable future.

"As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country."

Violating the U.S. Constitution and international legal covenants to which the U.S. government is legally bound is, in reality, a dishonor to the deepest commitments of the United States.

"Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation."

If the United States really believes the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty, then why did the U.S. support Saddam Hussein during the height of his terror? And why are the leading candidates the United States hopes to install in Baghdad to replace the current dictatorship lacking anything remotely resembling democratic credentials?

"The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region."

Then why does the United States support dictatorships in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and other autocratic regimes? And why does the United States support Moroccan, Israeli, and Turkish occupation forces? Such policies belie any claim of support for liberty and peace.

"Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace."

To unleash bombs and missiles on cities, to engage in war-mongering, and to lie to the American people and the world in order to rationalize such an invasion is itself a form of hatred and violence.

"That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility. Good night, and may God continue to bless America."

And may God forgive President Bush and the congressional leaders of both parties who are responsible for unleashing such horrific violence against the people of Iraq.

Algorithmic Progresses (5, Informative)

Neuronerd (594981) | more than 10 years ago | (#5579902)

While it is clearly true that only the recent advances in computer speed allowed the Computer Vision Systems we are seeing now there are also other important influences.

In particular there are really also better algorithms than a number of years ago. Many if not most successful computer vision systems use statistical Methods. In the case of faces for example they often build a probabilistic model of what a face is. Such models know that a face should usually has eyes but not always. That some people have beards etc. And these models train themselves up from a database of stimuli, for example real faces.

A number of recent advances makes such probabilistic models fast enough to work well on real world data. In a sense is the problem of computer vision very similar to the problem of understanding a voice or extracting the highest possible bitrate from a stream of data transmitted via a telephone line. And indeed the resulting algorithms are often surprisingly similar

Philips Research... (0)

jeroenb (125404) | more than 10 years ago | (#5579911)

Daredevil actually premiered in The Netherlands this week, so I was kind of expecting them to suddenly come up with some kind of "Seeing with Sound"-tool. These guys are so predictable.

See the pictures of dead American soldiers (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5579937)

Face detection for Windows (3, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 10 years ago | (#5579950)

it work well since years ago. Computers running Windows often show me their blue face when I show them mine, even if their owners says that Windows is very stable and they never saw a blue screen before. Surely Windows can recognize people and do this specifically to me.

Linux, too! (2, Funny)

spanky1 (635767) | more than 10 years ago | (#5580059)

When I panic, the Linux kernel detects that and also panics. Wow, computers have had facial recognition for a long time!

Artificial intelligence in under 20 years (5, Interesting)

CrazyJim0 (324487) | more than 10 years ago | (#5579952)

All you need is it to understand english, and imagine in a 3d space.

Type a sentence like Zork, and it makes the scene for you.

Give it a book, and it could turn it into a movie for you.

Vision recognition has a great many uses already, but when vision recognition matures, you'll be able to take a scene and reduce it into 3d reality space. You take the 3d reality space, and give the computer some goals, and its trying to accomplish something in the world.

Thing is, it won't stop at plain vision, you'll get infared, sonar, ultraviolet, radar, all that crap to get the best 3d image possible.

So since vision is progressing, the gap towards AI is shrinking. Also as video games become more realistic, the AI gap is shrinking. I could be bold and say 15 years from now we should have basic AI.

Re:Artificial intelligence in under 20 years (2, Insightful)

tpearson (621275) | more than 10 years ago | (#5580256)

We already have basic AI - we have UAVs that can plan their own route and complete their mission completely autonomously. Most commercial robots that are being released have enough AI to determine where they are, what their goal is, and how to perform that goal. In my opinion, that is definitely "basic" AI.

Re:Artificial intelligence in under 20 years (2, Interesting)

burns210 (572621) | more than 11 years ago | (#5580643)

15 years? HA! Try 50, at best. And that is with MAJOR corporations trying like hell to put the product to market. Have you ever talked to an ALICE bot? That is suppose to be a fairly advanced bot/AI program, and you can stump it like mad, without even trying! Now try and feed it the text of a book and have it understand what the hell is going on?! Reading a classic novel, where inferences have to be made and many MAJOR actions are implied, but not directly talked about, the computer would have to have an AI text/parser several generations more advanced than the (still very impressive) likes of ALICe or Zork.

Not to mention the realtime 3d mapping... the processor load(think of pixar's server farm) would be crazy... even with Moore's Law, this is atleast 10+ years before anything remotely like this can be made decent quality on the normal desktop.

I think the idea is awesome, and the level of AI amazing. But keep things realistic, your realtime book->movie program won't be around in 20 years, I just don't see it happening.

Re:Artificial intelligence in under 20 years (1)

oblom (105) | more than 11 years ago | (#5581258)

All you need is it to understand english, and imagine in a 3d space. Type a sentence like Zork, and it makes the scene for you.

The mapping is probably not direct. It's likely, that there is no straight conversion of words-to-pictures even in our heads. We like to visualize, as it simplifies understanding and memorization. However, there are a lot of words (mostly concepts) that don't evoke any pictures when pronounces. We never encountered them in physical worlds to give us visual representation. Yet, we manage to juggle them somehow.

It's more likely that we have an internal language , that we express our thoughts in, which gets converted into English. In the same way, we may have internal structures that represent objects which are associated with visuals.

Re:Artificial intelligence in under 20 years (2, Insightful)

deblau (68023) | more than 11 years ago | (#5583882)

Sorry, I have to disagree. I think you have some very good ideas about what could possibly be automated, but the devil is in the details. One of the biggest pitfalls is assuming that a computer would somehow be 'smarter' than a human, just because it can perform fast calculations. For instance, you claim that an AI could turn a book into a movie. Great idea, but I know I can't do that myself, and I like to think I'm pretty sharp. I'm also pretty sure that most of the people developing AI can't either, or they would have been screenwriters for a living. Who exactly will train this AI to write movies, and what kind of skills will they require to do so? These questions have pretty vague answers, and computers don't tolerate ambiguity very well.

I also think that your claim of progress toward hard AI because of vision advancements is a little misleading. A true AI will gather perceptual input from a variety of sources in order to get the most accurate representation of concepts. For instance, a rose isn't really a rose if you've never smelled one; instead, it has the same emotional impact as a strawberry, a pile of vomit, and a face -- it's just another hard, lifeless image. Of course, if you can build me a machine that generates a good, emotional screenplay from some words on a page, I'll buy it from you for $100,000,000 and consider it a good deal. Heck, I'll turn out blockbuster movie remakes of classic literature by the thousands and make that figure 100 times over.

Game advancements don't really help out AI either. What they do help is expert systems, which is a related field, and one which many people confuse for hard AI. The basic difference is that the input model for an expert system is generally limited to a single topic, whereas a general AI trains on any input it can perceive. There are many "AI" projects out there which train to recognize faces, and similar tasks. These projects are really expert systems, since they'll never be good for anything beyond face recognition, or for whatever limited task they train. You wouldn't ask a face rec program why good-looking people succeed in politics, now would you? But you would ask your Marketing major buddy.

To wrap up, I think expert systems is a thriving field, and that for many problems an expert system will be good enough. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a real AI, though.

AI already here (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 11 years ago | (#5585490)

Just look at the various slashdot posters around :).

Re:Artificial intelligence in under 20 years (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 11 years ago | (#5591513)

For instance, you claim that an AI could turn a book into a movie.
I think it could produce some pretty good comedies, as long as it wasn't trying to.

Related article (4, Informative)

Toasty16 (586358) | more than 10 years ago | (#5579956)

Wired had an article late last year entitled Vision Quest [wired.com] about a similar topic. The doctor couldn't perform most of his techniques in the U.S. due to ethical laws, giving the article a real "Frankenstein" flair. Good read.

Computer Vision! (2)

blitzoid (618964) | more than 10 years ago | (#5579998)

I live for the day that we can have a computer installed in our bodies have have a HUD in our eyes. How cool would it be to browse the net or play games while doing other, more boring things in the outside world?

We could be talking about a revolution in isolationism here! I can't wait!

Computer Science (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5580014)

GOD - I love seeing dead Mudslums (muslims).

When are we going to wise up and rid the earth of these
subhuman motherfuckers?

Re:Computer Science (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#5580068)

You're a fucking Nazi, no one is a better human than anyone else. Everyone deserves the right to live.

Re:Computer Science (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5582361)

"Everyone deserves the right to live."

And the mudslums deserve the right to die.

What is your point again? OH that is right. You are trying not to be a racist. But ha. The truth is out there. The white race is the supreme race. All the rest are polluted worth-nothings.

So get that through your meagre mind.

It's a pity though.. (0, Troll)

scratchor (31393) | more than 10 years ago | (#5580057)

...that in times like this, people always have to resort to this [cmu.edu] kind of submissions and waste otherwise better served research money...

could a machine eye read mozilla's itallics? (2, Funny)

Miguel de Icaza (660439) | more than 10 years ago | (#5580058)

All this fantastic technology - and yet here i am using mozilla with linux all fully apt-get upgaded to testing, everything uber-optomised and configured , all is good, smooth and aliased...

BUT my itallic fonts when on slashdot still look fucking shit by default!

And don't try and tell me how to set my desktop up properly - check me out:
I AM THE 'KIN DESKTOP (all your desktops are belong to me now) :^)

Re:could a machine eye read mozilla's itallics? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5580657)

Watt proplem wit italics?

Nouse-ing (4, Informative)

cybermace5 (446439) | more than 10 years ago | (#5580269)

I downloaded the Nouse, and the Bubble Frenzy demo. My webcam was already on top of my monitor, so all I had to do was run the program.

All you do is calibrate it by centering your nose in the image and clicking. The program draws a green box around your nose and follows it...it's pretty hilarious. Good oblique lighting seems to work best, too dark or too light and the box will want to follow your chin or ear. Overall, pretty reliable and lots of fun.

I loaded up the Bubble Frenzy game, which at first looks like a DOS-era Frozen Bubble. The Nouse worked fine...added a bit of challenge, levels I'd laugh at in Frozen Bubble were suddenly difficult. It's hard to keep track of the pointer when your head is moving. It was pretty fun, someone walked in and saw me playing, apparently just hitting the space bar while tilting my head from side to side.

I had a neck injury a while back in a car accident though, and all this motion started to bring on a little soreness. I had to quit after about 20 minutes of Nouse-ing, about the same effect as an hour of driving.

Re:Nouse-ing (2, Funny)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 11 years ago | (#5582092)

Wow, Nouse is the coolest thing I've seen on slashdot in ages. Mod parent up please.

Nothing like playing games with your nose. Now I'm tempted to borrow a USB2 card for nose to nose pong!

in soviet russia (-1, Offtopic)

revividus (643168) | more than 11 years ago | (#5580286)

... oh, never mind.

Some of the posts on here are getting a bit vapor (4, Insightful)

sielwolf (246764) | more than 11 years ago | (#5580344)

Maybe it's some sort of technophilia but some of the posts on here are just pure vapor. Sure, there have been some great advances in computer vision and pattern recognition... but have some of these posters on here ever done any research in the area? Hell, most face recognition goes back to Fischer's 1936 iris data set and primary component analysis... not quite Wintermute stuff.

Too often vision projects find speedups by sacrificing one or another components. For instance, you can get some great face recognition with PCA... as long as the person's face is immobile. Tilt your head slightly or rotate too much and the system has no clue.

I'll admit, there is some killer work out there. But not of the full-blown "20 years and we will all have robotic man servants" thing. Keep the hype to a minimum.

Re:Some of the posts on here are getting a bit vap (2, Insightful)

t (8386) | more than 11 years ago | (#5580603)

No kidding. I'm personally quite disappointed with state of the art speech to text, computer vision, etc... Much of it has gone largely unchanged for years, optimizations here and there is about it.

I think at some point we went down a path which will never lead to the solutions we expected to have by this time. And the reason we can't get off the current path is because of the way the tech culture is, you always have to publish an extension to previous work with copious references.

And its not even the big stuff, look at spell checkers and grammar checkers. Are there any that can tell correctly spelled but misused words? Affect/effect? There/their? How about something easy like made and maid?

Re:Some of the posts on here are getting a bit vap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5580904)

Yes, PCA is old and doesn't work very well. That is an easy starwman to set up. You claim to work in the field, yet conveniently forget ICA techniques and the tensorfaces paper in ECCV last year. I have to suspect that you either A) don't work in the field, B) don't read the current journals, or C) don't understand the state-of-the-art in this field. I'm sure you impressed someone though. Keep up the good work you trolling jackass.

Re:Some of the posts on here are getting a bit vap (1)

DietHacker (661193) | more than 11 years ago | (#5581454)

Yes perhaps. But it is an exciting field. Vision is THE sense I wouldn't want to lose and it is sad seeing older people disengage from the world as it gets lost. Given my (generation's) connection to computers and visual stimuli just to get by (buy stuff, learn, communicate, et cetera), this technology is sure to be boon to humanity.

Re:Some of the posts on here are getting a bit vap (3, Interesting)

Steve Mitchell (3457) | more than 11 years ago | (#5581494)

What totally drives me nuts is most people in that field are totally hooked on the whole fisher-face, eigen-face, ICA, thing. Basically they naively project a two-dimensional affine/brightness normalized face onto a basis function and then do a nearer neighbor on the coefficients to determine identity using some magical distance metric like Mahalanobis or Euclidian. They totally fail when the intensity or pose changes, and then blame it on the distance function or basis function.

Shape models and combined models take this into account and are really popular in medical imaging, yet the facial people seem to shoot down. (Well it's antidotal on my part).

Sorry, I guess I'm geeking out, but I love this stuff.

Nice Demo (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5580461)

People might want to check out these cool pictures and videos from Cambridge University [cam.ac.uk]

Re:Nice Demo (and the Evil Empire...) (1)

roman_maroni (536857) | more than 11 years ago | (#5584169)

When looking around the Cambridge Machine Vision URL noted above, I came upon this [cam.ac.uk] little site which looks like an interesting project in Hidden Markov Models; so, take a look at current 'owner' of site and related software license.

Now idn't that funny?

Researcher's Perspective On "Big Brother" (4, Interesting)

chameleon1z (661172) | more than 11 years ago | (#5580721)

As someone who has been doing research in areas of computer vision, and specifically identification and a member of a Computer Vision Research Laboratory, I just thought I would make a few comments here. Some area's of computer vision, in relation to big brother, have been around for a while and actually work quite well already. These areas include but are not limited to fingerprint, iris, and hand just to name a few. Those mentioned above are already in commercial applications around the country used for everything from secure entry into the country at immigration stations, to secure entry into rooms/labs/whatever, and to confirm identification for logins to computer and other systems. They work well (always some room for improvement), but require a completely willing subject and carry a certain 'stigma' of big brother and criminals with them that makes them less viable. The view mentioned here that researchers want to work towards is having a standard camera (like a security camera) able to identify people. However, despite some claims so far (most recent interesting claim out of Isreal), so far no one has proved to have ANYTHING that would be viable in a real world application. Best systems thus far have never even been tested with a database of over 500 people, most significantly less than that, and tend to not work well over time. Usually, they work fairly well the same day and then exponentially decrease in their effectiveness until around 6 months when you may as well be randomly guessing because you'd do about as well as most algorithms. Overall, I don't think you have anything to fear from big brother here anytime soon.

Re:Researcher's Perspective On "Big Brother" (1)

rtl (513237) | more than 11 years ago | (#5583490)

While your broad claim that face recognition is really not ready for a large-scale real-world application is basically correct, your specific claims are anything but. The FERET evaluation of 2000, for instance, used close to 4000 images, not 500, and the 2002 follow-up evaluation made use of far more images than that. Also, the fall off in performance due to the passage of time is not nearly as extreme as you imply. Comparing the 2000 results to the newer study should make it clear that substantial progress has been made in 2 years, and there's no reason to believe that rapid progress won't continue. See the FVRT [frvt.org] page for more information.

Re:Researcher's Perspective On "Big Brother" (1)

chameleon1z (661172) | more than 11 years ago | (#5583922)

Sorry I wasnt specific in what I was saying. I was trying to dumb it down a little. My claim of 500 was meant towards the number of individuals involved in the studies, not the number of images. I believe the number of individuals is MUCH more important in determining the effectiveness in a real world border crossing type situation than the number of images involved.

While your correct the feret database had more than that (1200 individuals in 2000 I even double checked it witht the feret website) they're acuracy was around 95% far lower than most of the modern claims today (Yes there has been considerable advancements) with a false alarm rate so high there would be tens of thousands of false alarms in airports like Ohare or LAX. So, I didnt include the feret study in what I mentioned. Sorry I was trying to dummy it down. It was my fault.

Personally, I think the problem with 2D face recognition is simply that there isnt enough data in the standard 2D image to differentiate amongst millions of people. Further, in all of the FERET studies or any of the studies involving large groups these are willing subjects. The subjects arent attempting to disguise their identies through beards, or glasses. Two things which will kill completely most modern techniques. While some smaller studies have been done on this issue they have shown not very promising results at least with current software and methods. Therefore, I still believe that despite some promising stuff going on right now we're quite far away from the security camera having any chance of being to identify who you are.

Don't forget the movies (4, Informative)

Boss Sauce (655550) | more than 11 years ago | (#5581924)

Gollum was brought to you by vision technology. It takes a lot of specialized cameras like these [vicon.com] to track a lot of dots in 3D. Also, cameras are tracked after the fact by analyzing photography with tools like this [realviz.com] and this [oscars.org] (search for MARS).

To lump all computer vision together and say "it's not there yet" is phooey! There are lots of problems in vision, and they do get solved, but those problems are all specific-- you can't use a red-light-runner system to do facial tracking...

high speed high res cameras (3, Insightful)

hyperventilate (661218) | more than 11 years ago | (#5582068)

I was stunned by how OCR went from "impossible" to "Trvial" and all that changed was moores law making high res scans available in memory in a typical PC. Expect many vision problems to fall by the wayside with new 240 Frames per second 3 megapixel cameras [fast-vision.com] . (Don't save THOSE movies uncompressed!) See the Sensor Spec [fast-vision.com] .

Eye Tracking (4, Interesting)

nycsubway (79012) | more than 11 years ago | (#5582776)

This is very similar to a project I worked on in college. We were working on getting a webcam to track eye-gaze and to allow a user to control the mouse with their eye. I have always wanted to continue development of the gaze tracker, but never had the time after graduating. The website is here: http://www.gbook.org/projects/index.html [gbook.org]

"Face blindness" in autistics is the key (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 11 years ago | (#5583316)

If researchers really want to understand the mechanism of human face recognition, they should be looking at the cases where it *doesn't* work: autistic people with face blindness.

Re:"Face blindness" in autistics is the key (1)

C21 (643569) | more than 11 years ago | (#5587942)

as knowing quite a few autistic people quite personally I would have to chime in and say a test that tried to pinpoint something as specific as this in a severely autistic person would be hard at best, and impossible at worst. The abstractness of this idea is what, in my opinion, would elude an autistic person.

Other people helping vision with computers... (1)

Randolpho (628485) | more than 11 years ago | (#5583405)

N2 Reading [n2reading.com]

They use computer techniques to help people with Intermittent Central Suppression read. They're fighting the good fight too!

A similar microsoft research project (1)

Sabalon (1684) | more than 11 years ago | (#5583974)

This project [microsoft.com] at MS research not only does the face detection, but recognition.

I can't get the videos to play right now, but when I saw them before, as people walked on and off camera, it would find their face, put a square around it and label their name on it.

Pretty neat.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>