Let me rephrase "statistical analysis". Oh, and I'm now assuming a watermark is an image overlaid on one or more frames (this is what I get from what you wrote). The watermark is of specific shape so as to identify the specific theater that a certain video was given to. Now, consider this: I take videos from 2 theaters, and compare them with one another - say, subtract the values of each pixel in one frame from another; I should get all black frames. Anything other than identical (black frame) is a watermark. I can either drop the frame, or, given a third video source, choose the two frames from the two sources that are identical. Granted, carefully combining watermarks so as to fool up to N sources is possible. But if you have a sufficient amount of video sources, you just pick, for each frame, those that match. Got any link explaining the methods they employ in watermark design? I've been thinking about similar ways of protecting lossy data myself, so I wonder what the state-of-art is.
Wouldn't some statistical analysis of video records from N theaters (to reduce/weed out the differences), combined with some added random noise (for those more obscure, note CAMing does this) yield a video that has no discernible hidden info?
Obama at Notre Dame: You can certainly think abortion is murder, but rather than doing anything about it, let's have a discussion. Don't complain now, agree to disagree: You can speak your mind on an occasional talk show while we crush another baby's head.
Problem solved. Big smile. Confident wave. Applause and approval.
Hilarious, isn't it, player Disfnord? Well that's the theater of absurd for you.
Multimedia isn't simply video. But consider "just" video, and client-side scripting gives you: Better control in the form of chapters for example, interactivity with annotations (though their untasteful use can be annoying), subtitles, better buffering to save bandiwdth, filters - to attach CSS to events at least. There's really a whole range of things if you think about it. Granted, you can always build a desktop client to do this, but we're talking web. Cramming the above-said features into the markup language itself is just unnatural. Eventually, it'll become so complex you'd wish you've just had your scripting language (or you'll end up with and XML-based scripting language *frowns*). Having a real programming language pre-enables you to implement whatever new concept might appear in the future as well. For example, see this: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/june/classx-video-processing-062811.html
Leave the web for documents. Run applications natively. Why is this so hard?
Viewing multimedia on the web without [a client-side programming language|JavaScript] would be an [unenjoyable|frustrating|non-interactive] experience. My honest opinion is that you should deal with the fact that web is another (domain-specific) software platform, and I'll tell you why in a second. Really, to oppose the idea is somewhat irrational; even if you don't use the extra power - why remove it? Granted, unsolicited use of / dependence on JS is a bad practice and security are problems to address, but I'd like to think they aren't ultimately insurmountable.
I wanted to suggest that you try differentiating sites with articles (blogs,news, etc sites) and those that require interaction, but on the second thought, that's really not the right thing to do. You'd probably call the latter "apps" but a lot of the "social" stuff today needs asynchronous loading, or could use local storage, etc because the web is and should be R/W aka "Web 2.0". That is to say, there are useful things that require a real programming(scripting) language. And not only on the server side - alleviating load from server to clients is generally a good idea: The server-client model is not economic. Your PC sits unused, while your computing is being done somewhere else. I hope I'm not making a spin here - that's not my intention. Eg. I would very much like a facility for p2p - browser-to-browser communication (UDP WebSockets? Browser-integrated servers?)
Not that I don't see where you're coming from. Certainly you may prefer to do your computing disassociated from the web. But it (the web) will still remain a convenient way to develop cross-platform networking software as far as the world is concerned (including me too, I'm a realist, perhaps because I'm familiar with it). Finally, getting back to the topic: I would appreciate a cleaner client-side language, one more convenient for the web than JavaScript. In fact, problems with compiled code aside, I would appreciate browsers integrating compatible language-agnostic VMs.
This will create psychotics, rather than doing *any* (perceived) good. I guarantee that. If it gets big in the pervo circles that is. Hopefully it'll die in obscurity.
This is exactly what I was about to say. TM, which, surprisingly*, the poster mentioned takes care of the branding problem. Surprisingly because he/she still thinks that's Google's motivation.
They obviously wanted to replicate the Windows look, but went a bit too far. Also some wooden transportation vehicle shaped like a horse comes to mind. Don't know why...
You all seem so single minded, and about such a controversial issue; There's something wrong here, you can't all think that it is ethical to end another human's life just because a person is in such a psychological state that he/she desires it. Your beloved Hawkins is in a wheel chair. If he gets depressed or suicidal, are you going to do the "right thing" and load the gun and assemble the trigger for him? That's a rhetorical question you quasi-intellectual lacking in morality.
God is not dead. You've just replaced Him with the void in your lives. And now that is all you can give to your "fellow" man. There's no peace for angels of death.
Slashdot Mirror
Natural *selection*. Learn it.
You sir, just crapped a load.
Where exactly is that, *Anonymous coward*? Yeah, I thought so.
If the difference is no more distinct than the noise, the noise itself destroys the info.
Let me rephrase "statistical analysis". Oh, and I'm now assuming a watermark is an image overlaid on one or more frames (this is what I get from what you wrote). The watermark is of specific shape so as to identify the specific theater that a certain video was given to. Now, consider this: I take videos from 2 theaters, and compare them with one another - say, subtract the values of each pixel in one frame from another; I should get all black frames. Anything other than identical (black frame) is a watermark. I can either drop the frame, or, given a third video source, choose the two frames from the two sources that are identical. Granted, carefully combining watermarks so as to fool up to N sources is possible. But if you have a sufficient amount of video sources, you just pick, for each frame, those that match.
Got any link explaining the methods they employ in watermark design? I've been thinking about similar ways of protecting lossy data myself, so I wonder what the state-of-art is.
Wouldn't some statistical analysis of video records from N theaters (to reduce/weed out the differences), combined with some added random noise (for those more obscure, note CAMing does this) yield a video that has no discernible hidden info?
Rewarding *good* behavior? Now there's an interesting concept.
P.S. Good that you didn't play GTA at the time, huh?
Ouch, that's why I'd never take a job that'd take my Sundays. Hope you find your way home. Jesus bless.
Nice info. Going to my microblog, thanks.
Peace be with you.
TL;DR version of j-stroy's post: "pfft. scientists."
Early poster is early. See you in a week.
Your Roman Catholic upbringing is lacking. Or your understanding/remembrance of it.
Obama at Notre Dame: You can certainly think abortion is murder, but rather than doing anything about it, let's have a discussion. Don't complain now, agree to disagree: You can speak your mind on an occasional talk show while we crush another baby's head.
Problem solved. Big smile. Confident wave. Applause and approval.
Hilarious, isn't it, player Disfnord? Well that's the theater of absurd for you.
Because he's such a cool guy so that whatever the output of his intervention is, noone will complain?
The change you can believe in all you want.
Multimedia isn't simply video. But consider "just" video, and client-side scripting gives you: Better control in the form of chapters for example, interactivity with annotations (though their untasteful use can be annoying), subtitles, better buffering to save bandiwdth, filters - to attach CSS to events at least. There's really a whole range of things if you think about it.
Granted, you can always build a desktop client to do this, but we're talking web. Cramming the above-said features into the markup language itself is just unnatural. Eventually, it'll become so complex you'd wish you've just had your scripting language (or you'll end up with and XML-based scripting language *frowns*).
Having a real programming language pre-enables you to implement whatever new concept might appear in the future as well. For example, see this: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/june/classx-video-processing-062811.html
Leave the web for documents. Run applications natively. Why is this so hard?
Viewing multimedia on the web without [a client-side programming language|JavaScript] would be an [unenjoyable|frustrating|non-interactive] experience. My honest opinion is that you should deal with the fact that web is another (domain-specific) software platform, and I'll tell you why in a second. Really, to oppose the idea is somewhat irrational; even if you don't use the extra power - why remove it? Granted, unsolicited use of / dependence on JS is a bad practice and security are problems to address, but I'd like to think they aren't ultimately insurmountable.
I wanted to suggest that you try differentiating sites with articles (blogs,news, etc sites) and those that require interaction, but on the second thought, that's really not the right thing to do. You'd probably call the latter "apps" but a lot of the "social" stuff today needs asynchronous loading, or could use local storage, etc because the web is and should be R/W aka "Web 2.0".
That is to say, there are useful things that require a real programming(scripting) language. And not only on the server side - alleviating load from server to clients is generally a good idea: The server-client model is not economic. Your PC sits unused, while your computing is being done somewhere else. I hope I'm not making a spin here - that's not my intention. Eg. I would very much like a facility for p2p - browser-to-browser communication (UDP WebSockets? Browser-integrated servers?)
Not that I don't see where you're coming from. Certainly you may prefer to do your computing disassociated from the web. But it (the web) will still remain a convenient way to develop cross-platform networking software as far as the world is concerned (including me too, I'm a realist, perhaps because I'm familiar with it).
Finally, getting back to the topic: I would appreciate a cleaner client-side language, one more convenient for the web than JavaScript. In fact, problems with compiled code aside, I would appreciate browsers integrating compatible language-agnostic VMs.
This will create psychotics, rather than doing *any* (perceived) good. I guarantee that.
If it gets big in the pervo circles that is. Hopefully it'll die in obscurity.
This is exactly what I was about to say. TM, which, surprisingly*, the poster mentioned takes care of the branding problem.
Surprisingly because he/she still thinks that's Google's motivation.
obvious troll is obvious.
There are Scheme implementations in JavaScript. Not sure what your point is.
They obviously wanted to replicate the Windows look, but went a bit too far.
Also some wooden transportation vehicle shaped like a horse comes to mind. Don't know why...
Probably just the former. You are onto something though.
Or if you want to preserve the data, distribute it. I'm thinking torrents.
You all seem so single minded, and about such a controversial issue; There's something wrong here, you can't all think that it is ethical to end another human's life just because a person is in such a psychological state that he/she desires it. Your beloved Hawkins is in a wheel chair. If he gets depressed or suicidal, are you going to do the "right thing" and load the gun and assemble the trigger for him? That's a rhetorical question you quasi-intellectual lacking in morality.
God is not dead. You've just replaced Him with the void in your lives. And now that is all you can give to your "fellow" man.
There's no peace for angels of death.
Peter was the first pope. James was not a pope. He's "just" a martyr. To be clear.