Interesting. I did find a few papers on the subject, but also ran across this:
Additional analog-signal-processing circuitry located in the periphery of the array permits suppression of both temporal and fixed-pattern noise. While fixed-pattern noise was an issue with early CMOS active-pixel image sensors, recent sensors have no discernible fixed-pattern noise induced by circuitry and are instead limited by dark current in the pixels. Dark currents of less than 1,000 electrons/second per pixel at room temperature are routinely achieved.
I'm hardly an expert, but perhaps advancements in CMOS cameras might render foresnic sensor noise pattern analysis redundant.
Using a program he wrote (and provided on the conference CD-ROM) Krawetz could print out the quantization tables in a JPEG file (that indicate how the image was compressed) and determine the last tool that created the image -- that is, the make and model of the camera if the image is original or the version of Photoshop that was used to alter and re-save the image.
Comparing that data to the metadata embedded in the image he could determine if the photo was original or had been re-saved or altered. Then, using error level analysis of an image he could determine what were the last parts of an image that were added or modified.
So if it's comparing the compression used to the Exif data, couldn't one use a tool to wipe out the Exif data, thus obscuring the manipulation? Error level analysis seems more art than science, at least from the corrections in TFA.
The biggest issue I have is stuff that you'll NEVER BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY BUY OR SEE AGAIN being taken down. My favorite example is prince performing at half time for the superbowl.
Isn't not being able to see Prince perform a feature?;)
Ok, I was going to moderate but felt I had to post instead.
Didn't you know? There are no classes in the US./sarcasm
You've got an interesting point there. Issues of class in the US seem bound up with issues of race. When some people talk of a "just society", they seem to do so in economic terms ( i.e. "disadvantaged" == "poor" ), yet reliefs some propose seem to center around race like in this story.
The US has a history of racism ( perhaps not unique ) but also has a history ( since the late 60's at least ) of strong social penalties for being a racist ( see reaction to something like a KKK march... public condemnation, describing the participants as scum, et. al. ).
Class of course is bound up in all that.
Racism seem to propose class distinctions are based on skin tone, so if a health care provider is race-neutral they might consider themselves class neutral as well. Something like the statement: "I'll treat anyone, provided they can pay the bill".
Which of course would ignore economic class differences, where those differences do not correlate to a perceived racial disparity.
Very true. The term "less lethal" seems more apropos.
Good call on the Simunition. IIRC, they do require modifications to some weapons ( semi-automatic pistols require weaker recoil springs to handle the lower pressure rounds and still cycle ) so it seems less likely that overpenetration ( i.e. internal organ damage / broken bones ) would be a problem.
Perhaps a similar paintball formula might be useful. Instead of paint, something mixed with dimethyl sulfoxide ( like GHB, Rohypnol, et. al. ) might make an effective riot control agent.
Of course, some people would find other uses for a gun that shot roofies. Giggity.
An individual who does not possess a federal firearms license may not sell a firearm to a resident of another state without first transferring the firearm to a dealer in the purchaser's state.
A resident of DC is plain out of luck then, since it's illegal for a FFL to sell a hangdun to a DC resident.
A follow-up study by Wright and Rossi of serious felons in American prisons provided further evidence that gun control would not impede determined criminals. [5] It also indicated that civilian gun ownership does deter some crime. Three-fifths of the prisoners studied said that a criminal would not attack a potential victim who was known to be armed. Two-fifths of them had decided not to commit a crime because they thought the victim might have a gun. Criminals in states with higher civilian gun ownership rates worried the most about armed victims.
So, instead of politicians calling for restrictions on legal firearms ownership as a way to reduce crime rates, which doesn't seem to work, I'd like to see efforts focused on reducing the number of criminals. Increased funding for mental health and substance abuse treatment, job training... things which might have a chance of reducing the number of people willing to commit crimes in the first place, but not at the expense of the personal safety of law abiding people.
Note that Washington DC leads the nation in per-capita violent crime, even though they have very restrictive firearms ownership laws ( until recently, private ownership of handguns was illegal ).
Number 49 on the list, Vermont, permits it's citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit.
So, to those who think more restrictive firearms laws somehow equal a safer society... would you care to explain that?
I don't give a shit if you want to hunt, target shoot, whatever, go nuts. But if your motives are purely such, how can you possibly argue against doing so with proper legal controls in place? Why must you insist on being able to buy a concealable handgun with no other merits other than to kill?
Well, the CCW crowd tends to look at firearms as tools of personal protection. Cops can't be everywhere, so there will be times when an individual will have to defend themselves.
Since this case talked about the expectation of privacy, they likely mean a common person's expectation.
However, if someone knew about the open nature of the SMTP / POP3 / IMAP protocols and didn't use encryption, I wonder if the courts would find that the smarter user did not have an expectation of privacy.
Looking at this, I note the following countries have a higher per-captia crime rate than the US.
#1 Dominica: 113.822 per 1,000 people #2 New Zealand: 105.881 per 1,000 people #3 Finland: 101.526 per 1,000 people #4 Denmark: 92.8277 per 1,000 people #5 Chile: 88.226 per 1,000 people #6 United Kingdom: 85.5517 per 1,000 people #7 Montserrat: 80.3982 per 1,000 people
I'll note of those countries with higher per-capita crime rates some have more restrictive gun laws than the US. NZ and the UK stand out especially.
Now, lets set asside the "banning guns creates more victims" argument [1]. Given that more restrictive firearms laws do not correlate to lower per-captia crime rates ( see above ).. what's the point of banning firearms?
Three-fifths of the prisoners studied said that a criminal would not attack a potential victim who was known to be armed. Two-fifths of them had decided not to commit a crime because they thought the victim might have a gun. Criminals in states with higher civilian gun ownership rates worried the most about armed victims.
Which proves the point that an armed citizenry can deter crime. By extention, a disarmed citizenry can be seen as encouraging crime.
Wow. A graph showing murder rates per capita. I am overwhelmed.
How about instead of posting random links, you make an attempt to think beyond your own fears? Just because you're afraid of guns doesn't mean that fear is what's behind different murder rates.
Heck, without having the methodologies available it's not even clear those stats are comparable. Even presuming, for the sake of argument, they are you can see nations with much more restrictive gun laws have higher per-capita murder rates than the US.
Perhaps it's not the guns, but the other social factors ( like poverty, availability of mental health care )? And if it's not the guns... why focus on banning them, when that will do nothing to solve the problem? Unless you're just afraid of them, of course.
But if it's further reading you want, how about something from the university of chicago?
Bad people will do bad things, regardless of law. I'd like to think we can shrink the pool of bad people by enhancing mental health services and reducing or eliminating poverty.
I don't want to see good people suffer while doing so. If a bad person tries to kill a good person, then I'd support that good person killing that bad person as quickly as possible.
I realize that "bad" and "good" seem like value judgements. They are. If members of a society attack others, then those being attacked must have the means to defend themselves. The best means, so far, is personally owned firearms.
So you're opposed to trying to minimize it? Do you also oppose seatbelts, because the fundamental problem is one of bad drivers?
Prove to me banning firearms wouldn't just create a pool of focibly disarmed victims.
I see no benefit to banning firearms. The bans don't affect criminals ( by definition. See: UK and Washington DC ) and would seem to, instead, do much more harm to the general population through increasing crime rates.
Instead, we'd be better served by focusing on mental health treatment and a social safety net which reduces poverty ( as another poster in this thread pointed out, it's the crazy and despirate who seem to commit most of the violent crimes).
Banning Firearms just seems security theater, and theater with very adverse unintended consequences at that.
The point, from my view, is that banning firearms doesn't really solve the problem.
Focusing on mental health issues as a way to prevent such crimes would seem to be more effective, given the same effort.
I really don't care if a spree killer uses a gun, a car, a knife, a hammer, or whatever. The problem is there's an individual intent on killing others.
That's the problem, and just changing the tools used doesn't seem to be of much help.
Slashdot Mirror
o.O
BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Sure. Make me want to make one even more.
I'm hardly an expert, but perhaps advancements in CMOS cameras might render foresnic sensor noise pattern analysis redundant.
So if it's comparing the compression used to the Exif data, couldn't one use a tool to wipe out the Exif data, thus obscuring the manipulation? Error level analysis seems more art than science, at least from the corrections in TFA.
So, you've met my ex then?
Isn't not being able to see Prince perform a feature?
So, does that mean greenpeace will be protesting sunny days?
You've got an interesting point there. Issues of class in the US seem bound up with issues of race. When some people talk of a "just society", they seem to do so in economic terms ( i.e. "disadvantaged" == "poor" ), yet reliefs some propose seem to center around race like in this story.
The US has a history of racism ( perhaps not unique ) but also has a history ( since the late 60's at least ) of strong social penalties for being a racist ( see reaction to something like a KKK march... public condemnation, describing the participants as scum, et. al. ).
Class of course is bound up in all that.
Racism seem to propose class distinctions are based on skin tone, so if a health care provider is race-neutral they might consider themselves class neutral as well. Something like the statement: "I'll treat anyone, provided they can pay the bill".
Which of course would ignore economic class differences, where those differences do not correlate to a perceived racial disparity.
Which is why Stink Bomb Bullets 2.0 will be filled with soap and water.
Very true. The term "less lethal" seems more apropos.
Good call on the Simunition. IIRC, they do require modifications to some weapons ( semi-automatic pistols require weaker recoil springs to handle the lower pressure rounds and still cycle ) so it seems less likely that overpenetration ( i.e. internal organ damage / broken bones ) would be a problem.
Perhaps a similar paintball formula might be useful. Instead of paint, something mixed with dimethyl sulfoxide ( like GHB, Rohypnol, et. al. ) might make an effective riot control agent.
Of course, some people would find other uses for a gun that shot roofies. Giggity.
To whomever moderated the above post of mine as a troll, exactly how is explaining a legitimate use for handguns by citizens trolling?
Unless one believes self defense isn't a legitimate use, of course.
My captcha is "retracts" which is what I would do with a comment like the one you wrote...
On the plus side, I'm sure his lawn is child-free...
Well, I'll point out that can't be done legally in the US without going through a Federal Firearms dealer.
See Here
A resident of DC is plain out of luck then, since it's illegal for a FFL to sell a hangdun to a DC resident.
See, that's what I'm getting at. Not population density per say, but that there seem to be much deeper issues than "guns are bad, m'kay?".
The statistics don't support the idea that banning personal ownership of firearms reduces crime rates. Some studies, in fact, support an armed citizenry as a means of reducing overall crime rates:
So, instead of politicians calling for restrictions on legal firearms ownership as a way to reduce crime rates, which doesn't seem to work, I'd like to see efforts focused on reducing the number of criminals. Increased funding for mental health and substance abuse treatment, job training... things which might have a chance of reducing the number of people willing to commit crimes in the first place, but not at the expense of the personal safety of law abiding people.
Ahh... thanks for that. I think I see what you mean, and having the Supreme Court rule would likely be beneficial.
From another view, there's this.
Note that Washington DC leads the nation in per-capita violent crime, even though they have very restrictive firearms ownership laws ( until recently, private ownership of handguns was illegal ).
Number 49 on the list, Vermont, permits it's citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit.
So, to those who think more restrictive firearms laws somehow equal a safer society... would you care to explain that?
Well, the CCW crowd tends to look at firearms as tools of personal protection. Cops can't be everywhere, so there will be times when an individual will have to defend themselves.
Even worse, if you're a member of a group which most police scoff at ( gays, lesbians, wrong color ), you might have to go a step further to ensure your safety.
Seems a good use for a pistol.
Since this case talked about the expectation of privacy, they likely mean a common person's expectation.
However, if someone knew about the open nature of the SMTP / POP3 / IMAP protocols and didn't use encryption, I wonder if the courts would find that the smarter user did not have an expectation of privacy.
Now, lets set asside the "banning guns creates more victims" argument [1]. Given that more restrictive firearms laws do not correlate to lower per-captia crime rates ( see above ).. what's the point of banning firearms?
[1] see here though, since it contains this gem:
Which proves the point that an armed citizenry can deter crime. By extention, a disarmed citizenry can be seen as encouraging crime.
Wow. A graph showing murder rates per capita. I am overwhelmed.
How about instead of posting random links, you make an attempt to think beyond your own fears? Just because you're afraid of guns doesn't mean that fear is what's behind different murder rates.
Heck, without having the methodologies available it's not even clear those stats are comparable. Even presuming, for the sake of argument, they are you can see nations with much more restrictive gun laws have higher per-capita murder rates than the US.
Perhaps it's not the guns, but the other social factors ( like poverty, availability of mental health care )? And if it's not the guns... why focus on banning them, when that will do nothing to solve the problem? Unless you're just afraid of them, of course.
But if it's further reading you want, how about something from the university of chicago?
When I lived in Japan, I knew two people who were murdered.
One was stabbed in a fight over a girl, the other was a wife killed by her friend ( also female ) over jewlery.
Of course, things like this will still happen.
Bad people will do bad things, regardless of law. I'd like to think we can shrink the pool of bad people by enhancing mental health services and reducing or eliminating poverty.
I don't want to see good people suffer while doing so. If a bad person tries to kill a good person, then I'd support that good person killing that bad person as quickly as possible.
I realize that "bad" and "good" seem like value judgements. They are. If members of a society attack others, then those being attacked must have the means to defend themselves. The best means, so far, is personally owned firearms.
Prove to me banning firearms wouldn't just create a pool of focibly disarmed victims.
I see no benefit to banning firearms. The bans don't affect criminals ( by definition. See: UK and Washington DC ) and would seem to, instead, do much more harm to the general population through increasing crime rates.
Instead, we'd be better served by focusing on mental health treatment and a social safety net which reduces poverty ( as another poster in this thread pointed out, it's the crazy and despirate who seem to commit most of the violent crimes).
Banning Firearms just seems security theater, and theater with very adverse unintended consequences at that.
I completely agree.
The point, from my view, is that banning firearms doesn't really solve the problem.
Focusing on mental health issues as a way to prevent such crimes would seem to be more effective, given the same effort.
I really don't care if a spree killer uses a gun, a car, a knife, a hammer, or whatever. The problem is there's an individual intent on killing others.
That's the problem, and just changing the tools used doesn't seem to be of much help.
So, if you're that victim... guess it just sucks to be you, eh?
Personally, I'd rather have some tools to defend myself.