Sorry bud, it's still not a lie. You can reword it, you can change the context, and you can spin it like it's a story about Microsoft, but it's still not a lie. They said "likely", and there's no confusing that for "it's a known fact". Sorry.
I just wanted you to know that I read and appreciated your insightful post. I don't have any real response to offer you as I just need to sit and ponder it. Felt you'd like to know.
"That would be the spammers who only used the DDOS attack on SCO as a distraction to cover up the backdoor they were installing."
DDOS'ing spammers? They're sending out mass mailings to people who've lost their connection? Heh. Okay. I'll run with it.
So... these spammers are attacking SCO. They chose SCO because it would be a 'distraction', to throw the scent off them. For this to work, that would mean that the overly zealous Open Source Community would have to be the #1 suspect in an attack against SCO, correct? Okay, so tell me again why the BBC cannot report that, keeping in mind that they used the word 'likely' very strongly?
Also, who here really really thinks the community was framed? Take a good hard look at the attitudes around here and tell me that you don't think it was some regular Slashdotter that wanted to be 'cool' for a day. If you can't, then how come you guys aren't more open minded in general? How come you're extremely perceptive to the idea that it wasn't a Linux or Open Source zealot that attacked SCO, but a lot of you are very adamant that there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? (Sorry for invoking a variant of Godwin's law there, so I'll bring up a couple of more points.) Why is Episode III a bad movie even though it's still in the making? Why is any move that Microsoft makes, and I do mean any move automatically some part of a more sinister plot to rule the world? Now if you're hitting the reply button, just stop right there. You have your reasons. You've come to that conclusion, and even though you have no facts to back it up, you have still reached that conclusion. You still feel, that in all likelihood, you believe that there are no WMD/Episode III will be a bad movie/Microsoft is trying to rule the world. BBC reported this just like they reported that the Columbia disaster was caused by a piece of foam insulation striking the wing of the shuttle long before the investigation was over.
So spare me the bs that the BBC was in the wrong. They were not. The right thing to do was to take a more objective and professional attitude towards SCO. The wrong thing to do was to have a story published that referred to SCO as litigious bastards. Why is it the wrong thing? I appreciate that you want to express your views. I encourage that. But the cost of that is it looks like you're blindly defending one of your own. It doesn't help your case, and it closes doors on anybody who is listening to you.
I'm done with this topic. You can read what I said and try to take away something useful from it, or you can reply with some half-baked argument to try to prove me wrong. Consider the value of the first option, and the time you'd waste with the second.
"I worry about arguments like yours because it implies I am guilty of the crime *by default*, which is not the case here."
I never said you were guilty. I said motive, and it's fair to report that. You guys did a good job of earning that reputation, don't whine to me about it.
"BBC linking Linux users and coders to MyDoom trojan without looking at any other points of view, now that is some 'fair' news delivery."
They very clearly said "It seems likely...". So no, they did not report that as fact. Secondly, who has any real motive besides the Linux users that stand to lose the most? BBC did nothing wrong by pointing the spotlight at the people most likely to have done it.
I don't remember anybody around here using this argument in Michael Jackson's defense with the latest round of accusations.
"If anyone's anger has no measure, it is the wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all (open source). So, it seems likely that the perpetrators of the MyDoom virus and its variants are internet vandals with a specific grudge."
If you guys don't like having the finger pointed at you, then don't say things like that to attract attention to yourselves.
What kind of ping times can you get to the moon? Just curious if these guys had to program the rover in a language kind of like logo, or if they just fired up the old Joystick?
They're sitting around my house. Sometimes I donate them to charity. Burning them is not high on my list, though. Good for destroying data, bad for disposal.
If you had written code that made a popular touch-up tool harder to detect, and you were accused of falsifying an image, then yes it would mean a lot. Secondly, even 'deleted' files can be recorvered. Third, simply adding noise to the clone tool will not be enough to make it undetectable.
Even if the clone tool were made 'undetectable' (by the very nature of it that cannot really happen, but I'm willing to entertain the idea for the sake of discussion) there's still the matter of having somebody at the controls that can do what all would be needed. Then, just as importantly, there's the matter of law enforcement having the people with the right set of skills that'll find it. Sorry, I just don't see the day where somebody escapes charges this way happening any time soon.
"but knowing this, expert like me, using a custom sw (eg patched gimp distribution) can make things very hardly detectable. why not use clone tool which adds random noise?"
Then they'll find the patched software on your computer.
"It's not hard for experts to detect Photoshop fakery, even if amateurs can be fooled. If you move objects around in the picture, you'll never be able to get every cast shadow right, or get the lighting of the removed objects right."
Sadly, 'experts' proved that the moon landing was faked, too. Shadows cannot be easily disproven because of things that are happening off-camera.
The best you can do is detect use of a filter algorithm. Gaussian blur, for example, should be easy to detect. Clone tool? You betcha. It could take a bit, but images are inherently noisy. If the noise in the image has repeatable patterns, then use of the clone tool can be detected. Most digital images are sharpened by the camera. Changes that aren't sharpened can be detected.
I could probably think of more ways to detect digital fraud, but I think I've satisfactorally made my point. The fact of the matter is that we are not close enough to making changes undetectable. Just because the tools to make the changes get fancier does not mean that the tools to detect that fanciness just sit there and don't evolve.
"make digital evidence inadmissable. Photoshopping/gimping/email fraud/video editing is becoming too easy and too difficult to trace."
The tools used to modify digital images can also be used to modify film as well. Don't believe me? Go watch any movie. Harder? Yes. Impossible? No. Your solution is like curing the common cold with cough syrup.
"Showing celebrations elsewhere? Yeesh, people. THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO CELEBRATIONS ELSEWHERE."
A.) this was a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.
B.) Just shut up. Seriously. It's hard enough admitting to being a fan of the original trilogy without people ranting about frivilous, yet easy to debate, topics.
Slashdot Mirror
" Can't have a thread without conspiracy, can we? "
Here on Slashdot? No. I think you agree to something like that when you register.
Sorry bud, it's still not a lie. You can reword it, you can change the context, and you can spin it like it's a story about Microsoft, but it's still not a lie. They said "likely", and there's no confusing that for "it's a known fact". Sorry.
I just wanted you to know that I read and appreciated your insightful post. I don't have any real response to offer you as I just need to sit and ponder it. Felt you'd like to know.
"That would be the spammers who only used the DDOS attack on SCO as a distraction to cover up the backdoor they were installing."
... these spammers are attacking SCO. They chose SCO because it would be a 'distraction', to throw the scent off them. For this to work, that would mean that the overly zealous Open Source Community would have to be the #1 suspect in an attack against SCO, correct? Okay, so tell me again why the BBC cannot report that, keeping in mind that they used the word 'likely' very strongly?
DDOS'ing spammers? They're sending out mass mailings to people who've lost their connection? Heh. Okay. I'll run with it.
So
Also, who here really really thinks the community was framed? Take a good hard look at the attitudes around here and tell me that you don't think it was some regular Slashdotter that wanted to be 'cool' for a day. If you can't, then how come you guys aren't more open minded in general? How come you're extremely perceptive to the idea that it wasn't a Linux or Open Source zealot that attacked SCO, but a lot of you are very adamant that there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? (Sorry for invoking a variant of Godwin's law there, so I'll bring up a couple of more points.) Why is Episode III a bad movie even though it's still in the making? Why is any move that Microsoft makes, and I do mean any move automatically some part of a more sinister plot to rule the world? Now if you're hitting the reply button, just stop right there. You have your reasons. You've come to that conclusion, and even though you have no facts to back it up, you have still reached that conclusion. You still feel, that in all likelihood, you believe that there are no WMD/Episode III will be a bad movie/Microsoft is trying to rule the world. BBC reported this just like they reported that the Columbia disaster was caused by a piece of foam insulation striking the wing of the shuttle long before the investigation was over.
So spare me the bs that the BBC was in the wrong. They were not. The right thing to do was to take a more objective and professional attitude towards SCO. The wrong thing to do was to have a story published that referred to SCO as litigious bastards. Why is it the wrong thing? I appreciate that you want to express your views. I encourage that. But the cost of that is it looks like you're blindly defending one of your own. It doesn't help your case, and it closes doors on anybody who is listening to you.
I'm done with this topic. You can read what I said and try to take away something useful from it, or you can reply with some half-baked argument to try to prove me wrong. Consider the value of the first option, and the time you'd waste with the second.
"I worry about arguments like yours because it implies I am guilty of the crime *by default*, which is not the case here."
I never said you were guilty. I said motive, and it's fair to report that. You guys did a good job of earning that reputation, don't whine to me about it.
"BBC linking Linux users and coders to MyDoom trojan without looking at any other points of view, now that is some 'fair' news delivery."
They very clearly said "It seems likely...". So no, they did not report that as fact. Secondly, who has any real motive besides the Linux users that stand to lose the most? BBC did nothing wrong by pointing the spotlight at the people most likely to have done it.
I don't remember anybody around here using this argument in Michael Jackson's defense with the latest round of accusations.
"Novell has released their latest correspondance with the litigous bastards..."
And some of you accused the BBC of making an unfounded claim when they said this:
"If anyone's anger has no measure, it is the wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all (open source). So, it seems likely that the perpetrators of the MyDoom virus and its variants are internet vandals with a specific grudge."
If you guys don't like having the finger pointed at you, then don't say things like that to attract attention to yourselves.
Hmm... I dunno if I'd like a 2 second delay while driving...
"I wonder what else american public schools forgot to teach me..."
How to find this all out on your own?
What kind of ping times can you get to the moon? Just curious if these guys had to program the rover in a language kind of like logo, or if they just fired up the old Joystick?
They're sitting around my house. Sometimes I donate them to charity. Burning them is not high on my list, though. Good for destroying data, bad for disposal.
Send your resume to them on a burnt floppy.
"He toasted his hard drive." Yeah there's something you want to hear in a court case against you. Heh.
If you had written code that made a popular touch-up tool harder to detect, and you were accused of falsifying an image, then yes it would mean a lot. Secondly, even 'deleted' files can be recorvered. Third, simply adding noise to the clone tool will not be enough to make it undetectable.
Even if the clone tool were made 'undetectable' (by the very nature of it that cannot really happen, but I'm willing to entertain the idea for the sake of discussion) there's still the matter of having somebody at the controls that can do what all would be needed. Then, just as importantly, there's the matter of law enforcement having the people with the right set of skills that'll find it. Sorry, I just don't see the day where somebody escapes charges this way happening any time soon.
"but knowing this, expert like me, using a custom sw (eg patched gimp distribution) can make things very hardly detectable. why not use clone tool which adds random noise?"
Then they'll find the patched software on your computer.
"If only the Beagle 2 people had seen this article beforehand."
Well I haven't RTFA, but I'm pretty sure they didn't mention crater proofing it.
"NEVER! BUT NEVER! Install Windows unless you want openly relayed spam from space!"
They're using our own satellites against us!
Suddenly, Nixon's head attacking Fry crosses the line from mildly amusing to holy shit that could really happen!
"It's not hard for experts to detect Photoshop fakery, even if amateurs can be fooled. If you move objects around in the picture, you'll never be able to get every cast shadow right, or get the lighting of the removed objects right."
Sadly, 'experts' proved that the moon landing was faked, too. Shadows cannot be easily disproven because of things that are happening off-camera.
The best you can do is detect use of a filter algorithm. Gaussian blur, for example, should be easy to detect. Clone tool? You betcha. It could take a bit, but images are inherently noisy. If the noise in the image has repeatable patterns, then use of the clone tool can be detected. Most digital images are sharpened by the camera. Changes that aren't sharpened can be detected.
I could probably think of more ways to detect digital fraud, but I think I've satisfactorally made my point. The fact of the matter is that we are not close enough to making changes undetectable. Just because the tools to make the changes get fancier does not mean that the tools to detect that fanciness just sit there and don't evolve.
"Its a tricorder!"
I'll wait for Apple to relase one. Those come in with a mother ship hacking utility.
"make digital evidence inadmissable. Photoshopping/gimping/email fraud/video editing is becoming too easy and too difficult to trace."
The tools used to modify digital images can also be used to modify film as well. Don't believe me? Go watch any movie. Harder? Yes. Impossible? No. Your solution is like curing the common cold with cough syrup.
"Thomas John Watson began his life at age 40"
In a log cabin that he built with his own hands?
"Showing celebrations elsewhere? Yeesh, people. THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO CELEBRATIONS ELSEWHERE."
A.) this was a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.
B.) Just shut up. Seriously. It's hard enough admitting to being a fan of the original trilogy without people ranting about frivilous, yet easy to debate, topics.
"Its creator, David Hanson has implemented it in a robot called Hertz"
Hmm Hertz makes for a good last name, but what about a first name? It should be something celestial.. timeless... Oh, I know, how about Uranus?
"This could be tested easily by taking a pidgeon to France and seeing if it can find it's way home..."
I really wish people would stop presenting me with such juicy opportunities to make non-PC jokes.