Slashdot Mirror
Encrypt Information In Images Without Distortion
Nomikos writes "C|Net reports: Researchers have created a new way to encrypt information in a digital image and extract it later without any distortion or loss of information.
A team of scientists from Xerox and the University of Rochester said that the technique, called reversible data hiding, could be used in situations that require proof that an image has not been altered."
Well, that's incredible. I have a good example of what this can do at Image example.
When, oh when, will Slashdot dump myaql for a higher quality replacement?
With a recent NY Times article saying that OSDN is (barely) profitable, isn't it nearly time to reinvest some of those gains in self-improvement?
Isn't it time to abandon the low-quality opensource mysql, and replace it with a commercial solution? Failing that, how about postgresql?
Imagine a beowulf cluster of these! Proud to be Geek (TM)
one time i started thrusting my pelvis at an old lady and yelling "someone take a picture of this and encrypt it!" but then some big guy came and punched me really hard and i woke up in a dumpster without any trousers on.
bash: unmou: command not found
bash: nt: command not found
bash: unmount: command not found
Where is slashdot hiding the stories about verisignoff?
Let's see how long this post lasts before it gets scrubbed.
great, now all the pervs in the world can have super high def porn. Forensic science is great but we all know what this tech's real use is going to be.
Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
The space in my sig is space in my sig is part of anti-page-widening post screens. I have no control over it.
Also ive heard this same thing a million times. These are not bash shell commands. Not all shells use "umount" to unmount a volume.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
Oh, and mod parent up insightful.
shells control the umount command?
the hell you say?
new to unix, aren't you?
microsoft ads on the front page?
it doesnt prove anything. it's just fucking hilarious.
Rochester said that the technique, called reversible data hiding, could be used in situations that require proof that an image has not been altered.
I've had that technique for years. It's called a checksum.
It isn't meant to prove anything. I actually LIKE microsoft, I just find it funny that the mass of readership here pretends to hate them for some undefined reason, as do the editors, yet the editors still run their ads in prominent locations.
If the editors/owners of this site had any moral fiber, they'd stand by their comments and not run Microsoft ads at all. It'd be a completely stupid business decision, but that would be the way true "Open source advocates" would handle the situation.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
Anybody know why mozzila 1.2 beta can't block the advertisement image on the cnet link?
When I right click on it, it says it is already blocked--but I'm seeing it?
nohup rm -rf ~/. >& zen &
everyone knows they have no moral fibre. that isnt new at all.
Weren't two kids doing this in "Along Came a Spider" in order to pass notes in class?
So you're saying the next time I'm caught looking at porn on my iPaq on the subway that it's government business?
don't you have a job to do? GET BACK TO WORK FUCKER
Your sig doesn't compile, man.
Considering that 'umount' is not a shell command, but instead a program, I fail to see how using bash effects anything. $ which umount /bin/umount