And that's the least of what they steal; they feel perfectly free to use our public domain cultural resources - like Disney's use of fairy tales. Then they turn round and claim that it's unfair for their stuff to eventually become public domain in turn. Greedy little turds, they make me sick.
I'm no expert and this stuff is cutting edge but I'll try my best to address some of your comments.
Assumming the only variance is the watermark and the tracks are sample for sample nearly the same... it would make it rather not-difficult to remove the water mark
It's not as simple as this comment seems to imply, spread frequency watermarks use transforms (obviously DFT was one of the first to be used) so you can't simply average two files and expect to remove the watermarks.
the file hash will be different. So would that cause every variation to show up on a p2p network . . . assumming most P2P apps use a simple md5 sum or some such
Identifying copies of the same file with different watermarks would definitely be a problem - you'd probably have to rely on uploaders entering accurate metadata of some kind - not ideal.
such a setup might suffer from generational loss
I don't see how this would be relevant you're not making imperfect copies of previous imperfect copies of previous imperfect copies . . . ad nauseum
Artifacts are bound to slip in at some point in the mass sharing frenzy of an ant farm.
It works the other way around - the more versions you have to compare the fewer artifacts will crop up, you get closer and closer to the original un-Watermarked version instead.
you run the risk of generating too much data. In turn it could cause issues scaling
I hadn't thought about this but you're right reversing a DFT is going to be computationally expensive.
Spread frequency watermarks are only effective with individual files (effective means that altering the file enough to guarantee removing the watermark causes an unacceptable loss in quality). If you've got lots of files with different data in the watermark (like the name of the buyer) you can remove the watermark from any file without significant loss in quality. There is (to the best of my knowledge) currently no watermarking system robust to this attack.
You could therefore set up a system where the more people share a file the better quality file can be downloaded - and still guarantee removal of all watermarks specific to any one purchaser.
It's theoretically possible at least but whether a workable system could be set up in practice I don't know.
Less sophisticated watermarking systems (like least significant bit) are trivial to defeat and I assume no competent company is using them.
You might also note that a significant percentage of UK "gun crimes" involve shotguns and are not the "mudered by a stranger with a sidearm" stereotype.
I guess you're saying you'd rather not dignify the killing of civilians by calling it warfare
Exactly so, blowing up buses and nightclubs doesn't seem to me deserving of the description "warfare", collateral damage is different though, as with many other things it's the intent that matters.
Unfortunately it often seems that any criticism of the Palestinians is taken as support for Israel - that's not necessarily the case. In fact I sympathise with the situation of the Palestinians (although the rights and wrongs of all this are not as straight forward as some people would like us to believe) but quite frankly my sympathy is starting to wear a bit thin, I really feel the Palestinians need to raise their ethical standards - have the balls to go after military targets and treat prisoners as per the Geneva Convention.
he is still regarded as being an honest politician
And that in itself is an indication that there's something not normal about him. I have little doubt that he believes what he says, the problem is, what he believes is insane.
For those non-Brits who don't know who Tony Benn is:
He is a raving nutter and extreme leftie who was a minister under one of the most left wing government this country ever had and is best known for his support of Sinn Feinn, a mouthpiece organisation for Irish Republican terrorists and organised crime.
Tony Benn carries no weight with any political organisation or individual of any consequence, although he occasionally manages to get himself on television because producers can rely on him to say something provocative and/or stupid.
He may be old but he is certainly not wise and if he said "good morning" to me I'd check my watch. The man is widely regarded as an object of ridicule in the UK.
Everybody here admits that MSWord is probably the most capable and powerful program
Err . . . ASSUMPTION WARNING!! No everybody here does not admit that MSWord is probably the most capable and powerful program. Most bloated with unnecessary features, yes; roughly as good as most alternatives, yes; most capable and powerful, no not really.
I work with cops quite a lot and even they take a slightly dim view of traffic cops - in the words of one (who I thought summed it up quite nicely) - "you have to have a certain mentality to be a traffic officer". I tend to think of traffic cops as a breed apart - don't tar them all with the same brush.
In most countries there are quite a few pleas besides guilty and not guilty, in the UK for example you can plead: jurisdiction, law and autrepois among others.
The lawyers must have known that SCO had no evidence to support their accusations and therefore could not win. Persuing an action knowing that it was a hopeless case with no justification is unethical even for lawyers (yes they do have rules they are supposed to follow). Lawyers who break these rules in order to abuse the legal system the way these ones have deserve to be held accountable - that their clients paid them to do it is no excuse at all.
I just hope IBM aren't satisfied with just grinding SCO into fine powder.
I hope they go after the company directors (I want to see them do some jail time), I want IBM to press a complaint with the bar against SCO's lawyers (I hope they never practice law again). I hope SCO's expert witnesses get prosecuted for perjury. I hope IBM turns on Baystar and forces some answers out of them (I'd love to see Baystar go down too).
Even the more peripheral individuals and companies around this case deserve a good kicking. I hope forums like this won't let anybody forget which companies supported SCO or bought "Linux Licences" and which journalists backed their case (in particular - let's make sure every time DiDio makes some pronouncement everybody remembers what she said about how solid SCO's case was).
It's time make sure everybody who assisted SCO suffers. It's time to make some examples. It's time to get vindictive.
In fact even Antiword can't read *all" word documents - and that's about as comprehensive as you can get. Having said that, in practice I've never come across a.doc that OO couldn't open myself (even if the formatting can be a bit off sometimes).
I assure you tax revenue has nothing to do with it - brown envelopes stuffed with cash, "campaign donations", month long "fact finding trips" to tropical islands, etc - that's what motivates governments.
Your post is simplistic in the extreme. Trillions of dollars don't just represent bits of paper, we're talking about major parts of the world GDP. That much money represents significant quality of life issues: jobs, social welfare, health care, even the capacity to provide food and shelter to very large numbers of people. Losing those trillions of dollars will impact a huge number of lives (and not just human lives either) and to spend that money uselessly against an imaginary threat would be criminal.
Now, I don't know if anthropogenic global warming is real or not (and I don't believe you do either) or if it is real, what threat level it represents. However I'm prepared to accept that some expenditure on risk management basis may be reasonable depending on cost/benefit. What I don't want is a bunch of hysterical environmentalists railroading major goverments into unconsidered and hugely expensive measures on little more than computer models which have been proven unreliable.
These "experts" can't tell me if it's going to rain tomorrow afternoon and I'm supposed to just accept a shortened (average) lifespan because of what they say will happen in 50 years? You've got to be kidding!
Slashdot Mirror
And that's the least of what they steal; they feel perfectly free to use our public domain cultural resources - like Disney's use of fairy tales. Then they turn round and claim that it's unfair for their stuff to eventually become public domain in turn. Greedy little turds, they make me sick.
I'm no expert and this stuff is cutting edge but I'll try my best to address some of your comments.
Assumming the only variance is the watermark and the tracks are sample for sample nearly the same... it would make it rather not-difficult to remove the water mark
It's not as simple as this comment seems to imply, spread frequency watermarks use transforms (obviously DFT was one of the first to be used) so you can't simply average two files and expect to remove the watermarks.
the file hash will be different. So would that cause every variation to show up on a p2p network . . . assumming most P2P apps use a simple md5 sum or some such
Identifying copies of the same file with different watermarks would definitely be a problem - you'd probably have to rely on uploaders entering accurate metadata of some kind - not ideal.
such a setup might suffer from generational loss
I don't see how this would be relevant you're not making imperfect copies of previous imperfect copies of previous imperfect copies . . . ad nauseum
Artifacts are bound to slip in at some point in the mass sharing frenzy of an ant farm.
It works the other way around - the more versions you have to compare the fewer artifacts will crop up, you get closer and closer to the original un-Watermarked version instead.
you run the risk of generating too much data. In turn it could cause issues scaling
I hadn't thought about this but you're right reversing a DFT is going to be computationally expensive.
Spread frequency watermarks are only effective with individual files (effective means that altering the file enough to guarantee removing the watermark causes an unacceptable loss in quality). If you've got lots of files with different data in the watermark (like the name of the buyer) you can remove the watermark from any file without significant loss in quality. There is (to the best of my knowledge) currently no watermarking system robust to this attack.
You could therefore set up a system where the more people share a file the better quality file can be downloaded - and still guarantee removal of all watermarks specific to any one purchaser.
It's theoretically possible at least but whether a workable system could be set up in practice I don't know.
Less sophisticated watermarking systems (like least significant bit) are trivial to defeat and I assume no competent company is using them.
You might also note that a significant percentage of UK "gun crimes" involve shotguns and are not the "mudered by a stranger with a sidearm" stereotype.
I guess you're saying you'd rather not dignify the killing of civilians by calling it warfare
Exactly so, blowing up buses and nightclubs doesn't seem to me deserving of the description "warfare", collateral damage is different though, as with many other things it's the intent that matters.
Unfortunately it often seems that any criticism of the Palestinians is taken as support for Israel - that's not necessarily the case. In fact I sympathise with the situation of the Palestinians (although the rights and wrongs of all this are not as straight forward as some people would like us to believe) but quite frankly my sympathy is starting to wear a bit thin, I really feel the Palestinians need to raise their ethical standards - have the balls to go after military targets and treat prisoners as per the Geneva Convention.
I worked out that: "He did it first" isn't much of a justification when I was about five. Come talk to me when you reach the same level of maturity.
Attacks aimed at civilians are not asymmetric warfare.
Crab traps are known as "pots" - it's a technical term, and yes, mostly they're made of metal.
Depends what you mean by a constitution, if you mean something in writing then - no.
Not that it has any relevance but as it happens neither, and this attempt at stereotyping says more about you than me.
he is still regarded as being an honest politician
And that in itself is an indication that there's something not normal about him. I have little doubt that he believes what he says, the problem is, what he believes is insane.
He's a good linguist though - gotta respect that.
For those non-Brits who don't know who Tony Benn is:
He is a raving nutter and extreme leftie who was a minister under one of the most left wing government this country ever had and is best known for his support of Sinn Feinn, a mouthpiece organisation for Irish Republican terrorists and organised crime.
Tony Benn carries no weight with any political organisation or individual of any consequence, although he occasionally manages to get himself on television because producers can rely on him to say something provocative and/or stupid.
He may be old but he is certainly not wise and if he said "good morning" to me I'd check my watch. The man is widely regarded as an object of ridicule in the UK.
Everybody here admits that MSWord is probably the most capable and powerful program
Err . . . ASSUMPTION WARNING!! No everybody here does not admit that MSWord is probably the most capable and powerful program. Most bloated with unnecessary features, yes; roughly as good as most alternatives, yes; most capable and powerful, no not really.
I think what you need is an edge detection algorithm of some kind. Try FILTERS.
I work with cops quite a lot and even they take a slightly dim view of traffic cops - in the words of one (who I thought summed it up quite nicely) - "you have to have a certain mentality to be a traffic officer". I tend to think of traffic cops as a breed apart - don't tar them all with the same brush.
In most countries there are quite a few pleas besides guilty and not guilty, in the UK for example you can plead: jurisdiction, law and autrepois among others.
The lawyers must have known that SCO had no evidence to support their accusations and therefore could not win. Persuing an action knowing that it was a hopeless case with no justification is unethical even for lawyers (yes they do have rules they are supposed to follow). Lawyers who break these rules in order to abuse the legal system the way these ones have deserve to be held accountable - that their clients paid them to do it is no excuse at all.
I just hope IBM aren't satisfied with just grinding SCO into fine powder.
I hope they go after the company directors (I want to see them do some jail time), I want IBM to press a complaint with the bar against SCO's lawyers (I hope they never practice law again). I hope SCO's expert witnesses get prosecuted for perjury. I hope IBM turns on Baystar and forces some answers out of them (I'd love to see Baystar go down too).
Even the more peripheral individuals and companies around this case deserve a good kicking. I hope forums like this won't let anybody forget which companies supported SCO or bought "Linux Licences" and which journalists backed their case (in particular - let's make sure every time DiDio makes some pronouncement everybody remembers what she said about how solid SCO's case was).
It's time make sure everybody who assisted SCO suffers. It's time to make some examples. It's time to get vindictive.
without freedom, the United States is just another English Colony, a possession of Her Majesty
In a way the United States is just another English Colony - a colony which happens to be currently in a state of revolt.
Just kidding . . . in fact the UK granted the US independence years ago.
About $180.00 then.
In fact even Antiword can't read *all" word documents - and that's about as comprehensive as you can get. Having said that, in practice I've never come across a .doc that OO couldn't open myself (even if the formatting can be a bit off sometimes).
receiving a substantial amount of tax revenue
I assure you tax revenue has nothing to do with it - brown envelopes stuffed with cash, "campaign donations", month long "fact finding trips" to tropical islands, etc - that's what motivates governments.
Your post is simplistic in the extreme. Trillions of dollars don't just represent bits of paper, we're talking about major parts of the world GDP. That much money represents significant quality of life issues: jobs, social welfare, health care, even the capacity to provide food and shelter to very large numbers of people. Losing those trillions of dollars will impact a huge number of lives (and not just human lives either) and to spend that money uselessly against an imaginary threat would be criminal.
Now, I don't know if anthropogenic global warming is real or not (and I don't believe you do either) or if it is real, what threat level it represents. However I'm prepared to accept that some expenditure on risk management basis may be reasonable depending on cost/benefit. What I don't want is a bunch of hysterical environmentalists railroading major goverments into unconsidered and hugely expensive measures on little more than computer models which have been proven unreliable.
These "experts" can't tell me if it's going to rain tomorrow afternoon and I'm supposed to just accept a shortened (average) lifespan because of what they say will happen in 50 years? You've got to be kidding!
It's not just the small end of the scale that gives problems either:
Jupiter is almost a star, and some of the extrasolar "planets" which have been discovered are even more star like, virtually brown dwarves in effect.