Subby should have gone the boobie shape to over all body shape for gauging fitness route. More fun per cubic centimeter.

How much will a season of "Lie to Me" cost?

2wolves: Subby should have gone the boobie shape to over all body shape for gauging fitness route. More fun per cubic centimeter.



Totally.

Nowadays, that wouldn't even be a lot of money if it had 3 more zeroes.

Look at the look on his face. It indicates to me that he knows he has just scammed the DoD.

So what does this face mean, Matsumoto?

Just let me know when the software to detect unhappy, angry faces will be completed, so we can round up all these people and put them in federal Happiness Camps, for the good of society.

I'm doing it wrong, that guy figured out a way to get $1.9 million for no reason.

What does this mean?

:(

Yep, let's study how to capture and waterboard anyone who's just had a fight with their old lady. Terrorist!

Bob Ondeeznuts: I'm doing it wrong, that guy figured out a way to get $1.9 million for no reason.

What does this mean?

:(

We should put together a proposal to study the link between various O-faces and the intensity of the orgasms they accompany.

Dear lord, there is nothing more funny than a press release turned into an article turned into a misrepresentation. But that won't stop people from baaing with the stupid farking journalist who wouldn't understand science if it bit her in the ass. We hate dealing with journalists; when they call about our research we usually make shiat up to mess with them.

OniNeko: So what does this face mean, Matsumoto?

Oh. Ichihgo! I didn't know you're Bankai was sooo big! Will you show me what it can do?

Uchiha_Cycliste: OniNeko: So what does this face mean, Matsumoto?

Oh. Ichihgo! I didn't know you're Bankai was sooo big! Will you show me what it can do?

But his Shikai is so much bigger. His Bankai is faster. Is faster really what you want?

I'm glad someone got the reference so quickly. I guess Bleach has gotten popular enough for that, though. Didn't expect it to be obscure by any means.

This is actually pretty cheap for the research they are doing. Of course, it's unknown right now if anything good will come from it (that's the problem with research, isn't it?)

Of course, the cool thing is that if they are able to accurately peg this down, then it's possible to build identifying algorithms into facial recognition software which would be a great way to reinforce security at certain places: You could have a camera system panning across a crowd at a check point for instance scanning for people who literally just look "pissed off".

People already do this king of vetting naturally, with a great degree of success, but obviously a computerized system has the potential to be far more efficient and cost effective than having 30 people watching monitors someplace.

tonesskin: Dear lord, there is nothing more funny than a press release turned into an article turned into a misrepresentation. But that won't stop people from baaing with the stupid farking journalist who wouldn't understand science if it bit her in the ass. We hate dealing with journalists; when they call about our research we usually make shiat up to mess with them.

Sounds like your company needs this guy:

Citizens welcome to the era of thought-crime and pre-crime.
1984 is here, now.

\OniNeko Ichigo and Kon and Matsumoto?

Bob Ondeeznuts: I'm doing it wrong, that guy figured out a way to get $1.9 million for no reason.

Yeah, fark science--it is so useless and has never done any good for anyone!

OniNeko: But his Shikai is so much bigger. His Bankai is faster. Is faster really what you want?

I know, but bankai sounds so much dirtier. And he doesn't really have a shikai, his zanpakto is always in its released form. Besides, only you and I know that what I said is technically untrue. (let's keep it a secret ;) )

tonesskin: Yeah, fark science--it is so useless and has never done any good for anyone!

You need a beer, calm down sally. I'm just jealous of the guy. I can't even get $1 these days.

TwistedFark: You could have a camera system panning across a crowd at a check point for instance scanning for people who literally just look "pissed off".

But what's the point, exactly? If these things are at checkpoints - especially airport checpoints - you can bet there are going to be a shiat ton of people looking pissed off. What is the benefit in profiling angry looking people?

Does the government really expect terrorists to walk around fuming all the time? I'd say one of the major successess of the 9/11 hijackers were the fact they practices being cool and collected to a T.

OniNeko:
I'm glad someone got the reference so quickly. I guess Bleach has gotten popular enough for that, though. Didn't expect it to be obscure by any means.

Also, my username...

No pictures of Tim Roth?

Bob Ondeeznuts: tonesskin: Yeah, fark science--it is so useless and has never done any good for anyone!

You need a beer, calm down sally. I'm just jealous of the guy. I can't even get $1 these days.

You should strip. Mom says it pays the bills.

For the record, he doesn't get the money. The school steals most of it for their general fund, then the college, then the department. He can't use what is left as extra salary, so it probably means he will buy out a class (i.e., won't have to teach while he is doing the research). But he probably won't see a penny of it. And $1.9 million is pretty puny compared to what many people get in grant funding.

Plus, the guy is an AMAZING psychologist and a farking judo master and would kill us all.

yes, there really is a mister yoshida...

Uchiha_Cycliste: Citizens welcome to the era of thought-crime and pre-crime.
1984 is here, now.

\OniNeko Ichigo and Kon and Matsumoto?

Ichigo, Kon and Mastumoto? What the hell have you been looking at?

I know it's full-time released, but it's still Shikai. ;-)

Alright, I'm done derailing. This is some scary stuff. I wonder what kind of subtleties there are in facial expressions... can they, as previously mentioned, tell the difference between a person w/ murderous intent and someone that's just pissed at his wife? Somehow, I doubt it.

tonesskin: You should strip. Mom says it pays the bills.

Yeah, I don't think I could even pay for a postage stamp if I tried that.

Wow, seriously, its like some guy watched Psych, The Mentalist, and Lie to Me and figured "Hey, I've got this great idea!"

Anyone who can't see the direct security application of this is not even trying.

Personally, I would rather have software picking seemingly agitated out of the airport lines (for a thorough bag check) rather than some fat retard just picking people based on skin colour and beard size.

Incidently - each time I fly out of Brisbane, I get pulled out of line for the full monty. I attribute it to a combination of size and passive aggressive body language which I know is there but don't know how to turn off.

It is inconvenient at times, but at another level as a Skip it reassures me they aren't just choosing people who look "terroristy", but are actually on the lookout for valid cues.

Last time I killed someone, I was giggling like an idiot, so I don't see much use to this...

Research is expensive. Believe me, the researchers aren't going into it to make themselves rich.

I've worked on projects with multi-year, multi-million dollar budgets. My bosses weren't rolling in dough. Hardware, software, lab space, assistants, (generally) paying subjects for their time, it all adds up in a hurry.

The irony is that a lot of researchers got into their careers to design and run experiments. The higher you go up the chain, though, the more of your time is taken up by grant proposals and general administration.

voran: Wow, seriously, its like some guy watched Psych, The Mentalist, and Lie to Me and figured "Hey, I've got this great idea!"

WAHAHAHAHA, yeah, that's exactly it. He hasn't been doing facial research forever or anything. This guy wrote the book on facial expressions (no, really).

tonesskin: Dear lord, there is nothing more funny than a press release turned into an article turned into a misrepresentation. But that won't stop people from baaing with the stupid farking journalist who wouldn't understand science if it bit her in the ass. We hate dealing with journalists; when they call about our research we usually make shiat up to mess with them.

Agreed. This particular type of research is in fact valuable. Being able to reliably identify the emotions of people in an unobtrusive way could help with security in large areas where there is not enough human personnel. It can help identify people who are most likely to need monitoring. Is there a group of people that have suddenly become angry, nervous, or scared? Better check on that; someone could be threatening others or trying to start a riot. Is there a guy who's been hanging out at the food court all day acting and looking nervous? It could just be that he has something stressful to take care of later, but it could also be that he is planning to do something harmful. Maybe he should be watched a little more closely. From a statistical standpoint, emotions are an important variable in determining whether or not someone is a possible hazard.

I'm not sure why the journalist classifies this as "soft science." The results output by such a system are quantifiable and reproducible. The only subjectivity is in the labeling of the expressions as "happy," "sad," "angry," "tired," etc, but that doesn't make it a soft science. It's clearly computational science or artificial intelligence, and it's hardly a new problem.

As for the ethics of putting such a system in place, that's a different discussion entirely.

zzrhardy: Anyone who can't see the direct security application of this is not even trying.

Personally, I would rather have software picking seemingly agitated out of the airport lines (for a thorough bag check) rather than some fat retard just picking people based on skin colour and beard size.

Yeah, a program to pick out agitated people at the airport. It would break down from overload within the first five minutes of operation.

Lemina: tonesskin: Dear lord, there is nothing more funny than a press release turned into an article turned into a misrepresentation. But that won't stop people from baaing with the stupid farking journalist who wouldn't understand science if it bit her in the ass. We hate dealing with journalists; when they call about our research we usually make shiat up to mess with them.

Agreed. This particular type of research is in fact valuable. Being able to reliably identify the emotions of people in an unobtrusive way could help with security in large areas where there is not enough human personnel. It can help identify people who are most likely to need monitoring. Is there a group of people that have suddenly become angry, nervous, or scared? Better check on that; someone could be threatening others or trying to start a riot. Is there a guy who's been hanging out at the food court all day acting and looking nervous? It could just be that he has something stressful to take care of later, but it could also be that he is planning to do something harmful. Maybe he should be watched a little more closely. From a statistical standpoint, emotions are an important variable in determining whether or not someone is a possible hazard.

I'm not sure why the journalist classifies this as "soft science." The results output by such a system are quantifiable and reproducible. The only subjectivity is in the labeling of the expressions as "happy," "sad," "angry," "tired," etc, but that doesn't make it a soft science. It's clearly computational science or artificial intelligence, and it's hardly a new problem.

As for the ethics of putting such a system in place, that's a different discussion entirely.

Or, you and everyone else could stop being such a pussy.

Have we really come to this? We need robots to help us pick out angry people in a crowd?

The terrorists have won, ladies and gents.

A lip curled up in contempt, eyebrows furrowed in anger and a face contorted in disgust are dangerous signs to David Matsumoto.

Billy Idol may never be allowed to fly again.

Karma Chameleon: Or, you and everyone else could stop being such a pussy.

Have we really come to this? We need robots to help us pick out angry people in a crowd?

The terrorists have won, ladies and gents.

HAHAHAHA, that is where the journalist was talking about the potential applications of the research. This guy is doing farking basic research that is EXTREMELY awesome. So if the goal of the terrorists was to destroy all intellectualism in the country, then perhaps they have won.

Anyone who can't see the direct security application of this is not even trying.

Franklin said it best:

Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.

Anyone that knows anything about security knows that there is no method more ineffective than specific-targeting. If you don't believe that, read some Bruce Schneier blogs and get back to me.

And to anyone that's remotely afraid of this technology, the accuracy of any real world application will be laughingly bad, at least for a couple decade's. Even a good program still won't be able to overcome "Othello's Dilemma." In courts, they'll hold as much weight as a polygraph. Like others have said, there are alot've reasons someone can be disgusted, angry, and contemptuous all at the same time; namely, whenever they have to deal with some TSA bullsh*t and start thinkin "not this sh*t again."

And, this face? I just can't post this in a form...you'll see why
Probably SFW, but lunch, not so much (new window)

These are the same douchebags who believe eye contact means honesty.

hovis: Franklin said it best:

Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.

Uh. Yeah, that certainly applies here. Dear lord.

/that isn't what he said

NYZooMan: These are the same douchebags who believe eye contact means honesty.

Which publication was that? I just looked at his vita. Maybe I missed it.

Karma Chameleon: Lemina: tonesskin: Dear lord, there is nothing more funny than a press release turned into an article turned into a misrepresentation. But that won't stop people from baaing with the stupid farking journalist who wouldn't understand science if it bit her in the ass. We hate dealing with journalists; when they call about our research we usually make shiat up to mess with them.

Agreed. This particular type of research is in fact valuable. Being able to reliably identify the emotions of people in an unobtrusive way could help with security in large areas where there is not enough human personnel. It can help identify people who are most likely to need monitoring. Is there a group of people that have suddenly become angry, nervous, or scared? Better check on that; someone could be threatening others or trying to start a riot. Is there a guy who's been hanging out at the food court all day acting and looking nervous? It could just be that he has something stressful to take care of later, but it could also be that he is planning to do something harmful. Maybe he should be watched a little more closely. From a statistical standpoint, emotions are an important variable in determining whether or not someone is a possible hazard.

I'm not sure why the journalist classifies this as "soft science." The results output by such a system are quantifiable and reproducible. The only subjectivity is in the labeling of the expressions as "happy," "sad," "angry," "tired," etc, but that doesn't make it a soft science. It's clearly computational science or artificial intelligence, and it's hardly a new problem.

As for the ethics of putting such a system in place, that's a different discussion entirely.

Or, you and everyone else could stop being such a pussy.

Have we really come to this? We need robots to help us pick out angry people in a crowd?

The terrorists have won, ladies and gents.

If it works, it would be cheaper and faster than the equivalent manpower...you'd need less human personnel in larger areas. Unless you are suggesting that we get rid of security in places like airports altogether.

It's not just for security, though. Advances in the area of emotional recognition could be applied to other human/robot interfaces as well -- virtual reality, remote control of automatons, natural language understanding, etc.

/that isn't what he said

Actually, as far as I know, the exact wording of the quote varies depending on the source carrying it. Next time I'll make sure I do a full analysis of the credibility of each source and use the exact quote. I'm so sorry that it might be a little off, and I apologize 1000 times to you.

Actually, this research is friggin amazing. It essentially is about lie-detecting--figuring out why some people have a phenomonal ability to read faces and tell (with stunning accuracy) when someone is lying, or has other hidden motivations.

This is elaborating on Paul Ekman's work in microexpressions. The cool thing is, the skill is learnable, it's just more innate in some people than others. Our faces involuntarily give away our inner thoughts, but these facial hints flash by so quickly, the average person never notices them. You have to train yourself to see them.

While I agree with the person in the article who seemed mystified why the DoD would be interested in this, rather than the FBI, CIA, State Dept, Secret Service, etc. I still think it's good it's getting funding.

Actually, this research is friggin amazing. It essentially is about lie-detecting--figuring out why some people have a phenomonal ability to read faces and tell (with stunning accuracy) when someone is lying, or has other hidden motivations.

This is elaborating on Paul Ekman's work in microexpressions. The cool thing is, the skill is learnable, it's just more innate in some people than others. Our faces involuntarily give away our inner thoughts, but these facial hints flash by so quickly, the average person never notices them. You have to train yourself to see them.

While I agree with the person in the article who seemed mystified why the DoD would be interested in this, rather than the FBI, CIA, State Dept, Secret Service, etc. I still think it's good it's getting funding.

Yea, it's a great investigation tool; but shouldn't be used for crime prevention.

Corn_Fed:
While I agree with the person in the article who seemed mystified why the DoD would be interested in this, rather than the FBI, CIA, State Dept, Secret Service, etc. I still think it's good it's getting funding.

It has military applications, like monitoring checkpoints. I could be wrong, but I think a lot of DoD info ends up going to other organizations, too. They're a huge research organization.

Conspiracy theory or not, you tell me? Have you ever noticed the person sitting near the loading gate at the airport using their laptop? They could be running a webcam and AFRS (Advanced Facial Recognition Software) They might be transmitting data back to 'big brother' about you and everyone else in the area...either that or it's just a guy playing solitaire...who can tell???

/NOT Trolling...just wondering
//Have a nice day!

I wonder if I can get a retroactive grant for all the TnA studies I have done in the past...

theotherdave: I wonder if I can get a retroactive grant for all the TnA studies I have done in the past...

No, you usually need a sample size larger than your mom.