With the full-scale rollout of Japan’s cigarette vending machine age-verification system just around the corner, a Sankei Sports news reporter has confirmed the existence of a minor flaw: magazine photos can be used to fool the age-verification cameras on some machines.

When the reporter went to check out the new age-verifying machines after they were introduced in the Osaka area in June, he soon discovered that the machines equipped with face-recognition cameras would let him buy cigarettes when he held up a 15-centimeter (6-in) wide magazine photo of a man who looked to be in his 50s.

The reporter also went to Kobe, where different face recognition hardware is being used. There, he bought cigarettes using an 8-centimeter (3-in) wide magazine photo of a female celebrity in her 30s. He also reportedly tried to use a 3-centimeter (1-in) wide photo, but the machines rejected it.

Taspo card — As part of the age-verification system, most of Japan’s 570,000 cigarette vending machines are being outfitted with RFID readers that check the purchaser’s Taspo age-verification card. Smokers without a Taspo card can now either buy their cigarettes in person over the counter or use one of 4,000 special machines equipped with face-recognition systems (these machines do not require Taspo cards). More face-recognition machines are on the way, according to vending machine manufacturer Fujitaka, who developed the face-recognition hardware.

The face-recognition machines rely on cameras that scan the purchaser’s face for wrinkles, sagging skin and other signs of age. Facial characteristics are compared with a database of more than 100,000 people, and if the purchaser is thought to be well over 20 years old (the legal age), the sale is approved. If the purchaser looks too young, they are asked to prove their age by inserting a driver’s license. According to Fujitaka, the machines are 90% accurate.

Fujitaka admits that people may, on occasion, be able to fool the age-verification cameras with photographs — but only for the time being. The company is now working on a more advanced system that will make sure each face belongs to a real human, but they are unable to say when these new machines will be put into place.

ShareThis

Watch how this *news professional* handles himself without the aid of a teleprompter.
How does he react to dropped calls or someone cutting him off in traffic?
Watch out for this Buttwhack!!!

ShareThis

Devo are suing McDonald’s after the hamburger giant used the band’s likeness in a Happy Meal toy without permission. Last April, McDonald’s released a bunch of American Idol-themed toys that had little plastic figures dressed up to represent different musical genres. There was Disco Dave, Rockin’ Riley and, the basis of Devo’s lawsuit, New Wave Nigel. Anyone who’s seen Devo’s “Whip It” video will automatically recognize those odd red caps, dubbed “energy domes” by the band, as the same hat that adorns New Wave Nigel’s head. Little did McDonald’s know, however, that the “energy dome” is “copyrighted and trademarked,” according to Devo bassist and creator of the “energy dome” Gerald Casale. According to Casale, “We’re in the midst of suing them… they didn’t ask us anything. Plus, we don’t like McDonald’s, and we don’t like American Idol, so we’re doubly offended.” Making matter worse, New Wave Nigel also dons an orange jumpsuit and sunglasses strikingly similar to the band’s wardrobe at the time, and the plastic figure even has a song that the band claims sounds Devo-esque.

ShareThis

ShareThis

Get this. A guy in Santa Fe, New Mexico lost his court appeal last week, preventing him from changing his name from “Variable” to “Fuck Censorship”. Buttwhack, right? Here’s the worst part - before he was named “Variable”, his legal name was “Snaphappy Fishsuit Mokiligon”!!! In my opinion, the greatest name ever! Better even than Nascar driver Dick Trickle or former Fort Wayne, Indiana Mayor the Honorable Harry Baals. Looks like he’s stuck with “Variable” until he comes up with something better - maybe “Frick Censorship”.

ShareThis

Before you purchase domain names or hosting from them, check out NoDaddy.com, which explains the way GoDaddy.com operates.

Via Slashdot :

When a GoDaddy customer forgets or otherwise fails to renew a domain, GoDaddy sells it off to the highest bidder through their TDNAM subsidiary. Some registrars–even Network Solutions–give the domain owner a percentage of the proceeds of such auctions. But GoDaddy keeps all the spoils to themselves. Anyway, it was recently discovered that the Vice President of TDNAM has been bidding on (and sometimes winning) TDNAM’s own auctions. This drives up the prices for normal customers and also leads to conflict of interest issues since normal bidders need to trust TDNAM to keep various information secret, such as their proxy bids, bidding history, the domains on their watch list. Also, GoDaddy doesn’t tell you when your bid price was inflated due to TDNAM executives bidding against you. They are one of the few auction services which don’t even give you the nicknames of competing bidders.

DomainNameWire contacted other domain auction services, and none allow unrestricted employee bidding on their own auctions like GoDaddy does. Enom (a patner in NameJet) notes that “We definitely do NOT let employees compete in auctions. Even if controlled, that practice has bad news written all over it.” Yet GoDaddy seems to think it is fine for executives to inflate their auction prices by bidding against customers. They responded to DomainNameWire that they allow this. There is a big risk that these employees have access to private information of the normal bidders, that they get special discounts, or that they may sometimes shill bid to increase prices without trying to actually win.

ShareThis

It may take a village to raise a child but it takes a place like NYC to raise a waterfall.

Olafur Eliasson’s four “New York City Waterfalls,” a $15.5 million public art project, opened in the New York Harbor after two years of planning.

The installations opened on Thursday morning with a ceremony at South Street Seaport and a publicity blitz by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who criss-crossed four morning television programs to tout the installation.

The mayor said the project, which remains on view through Oct. 13, had gotten 30 permits from government agencies.

The waterfalls were billed as the city’s grandest public art commission since Christo and Jeanne-Claude flooded Central Park with saffron-colored fabric panels for “The Gates” in 2005.

ShareThis

ShareThis

“This,” as the judge’s order memorably put it, “is the case of the Naked Cowboy versus the Blue M&M.” Hard to beat that in the federal courts on a boring afternoon.

Earlier this year, Robert Burck, the tighty-whitied plaintiff in the case, sued Mars Incorporated, claiming that the candy maker had purloined his persona by outfitting a dark blue M&M with boots, hat, underpants and a six-string guitar in an animated cartoon it ran on two video billboards in Times Square. Mr. Burck (“doing business as the Naked Cowboy,” as his suit contends) not only argued that Mars had trampled on his trademark rights, but also falsely suggested that he actually endorsed the offending M&M.

On Monday afternoon, Judge Denny Chin of United States District Court in Manhattan ruled that Mr. Burke’s trademark rights had not in fact been stepped on [pdf] since the law protects the “name, portrait or picture of a living person” but not a character created by a person — no matter how famous (or naked) he might be.

But a partial victory goes to the cowboy: Judge Chin also ruled that the suit could proceed since Mr. Burck “plausibly alleges that consumers seeing the defendants’ advertisements would conclude — incorrectly — that he had endorsed M&M.”

Mr. Burck had left his “office” — on Seventh Avenue and 43rd Street — in mid-afternoon and was not available for comment. A message left on the media line at the Mars North America hub site, in northwestern New Jersey, was not immediately returned.

In making his decision, Judge Chin drew upon a surprisingly rich case law, which included such disputes as Allen v. National Video Inc. wherein Allen (as in Woody) unsuccessfully sued the company for using a look-alike in an ad. He also cited White v. Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc. where Vanna White (of “Wheel of Fortune” fame) tried to stop the TV maker from running ads of its own with a robot that resembled her, complete with wig and gown.

Look forward to highly complex arguments when both sides return to court for a pre-trial conference on July 11 at noon.

ShareThis

Mointte Benitez, 33, who was strolling in City Hall Park yesterday with her 4-year-old daughter, said they’re something she “definitely would” buy a baby “for the sake of fashion.”

The shoes - in sizes 0 to six months - are not meant for walking and will “collapse” if little ones put weight on them, says the designers’ Web site, heelarious.com.

Creators Britta Bacon and Hayden Porter say on the Web site that “her first high heels” are “extremely funny, completely soft, fully functional high-heel crib shoes for babies.”

The novelty pumps that let infants channel their inner Carrie Bradshaw come in six colors - leopard satin print, hot pink patent, black satin, zebra satin, black patent, and hot pink satin.

ShareThis