Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Bullshit FTA (Score 1) 90

by Chiralhydra (#22290868) Attached to: Particle Swarm Optimization for Picture Analysis

Unless I am REALLY missing something, it is next to impossible to go from a blurry distorted image to pin-sharp.
Actually it is possible. It has been done to uncover blurred out credit card numbers, for instance. Also, in addition to the methods used in TFA, one can use fractal compression. This matches the 'shapes' in the image to individual fractals, and allows zooming in much further than originally possible without producing pixellation. This is used routinely in the publishing business with low-resolution images, with programs such as this: http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=2.

So, at least in principle, there's no reason why the software can't do that.
Privacy

+ - Should we have the right to breed? 11

Submitted by
An anonymous reader writes "I just finished reading Garret Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons and I'm having a little trouble coming to grips with it. In the essay Hardin argues that in a world with finite resources we must stabilize the population at less than the carrying capacity in order to maintain quality of life. However, "Confronted with appeals to limit breeding, some people will undoubtedly respond to the plea more than others. Those who have more children will produce a larger fraction of the next generation than those with more susceptible consciences. The differences will be accentuated, generation by generation." Hardin therefore suggests that we must legally restrict freedom to breed.

However such restrictions would require a invasion of our privacy to a degree that strikes me as simply intolerable. But I'm curious, what do slashdot readers think? Is Hardin's logic sound? If it is, is controlling the population important enough that we should give up what we have long accepted as some of our most basic rights in order to achieve it?"
Music

DoJ Sides With RIAA On Damages 469

Posted by kdawson
from the banding-together-with-bullies dept.
Alberto G writes "As Jammie Thomas appeals the $222,000 copyright infringement verdict against her, the Department of Justice has weighed in on a central facet of her appeal: whether the $9,250-per-song damages were unconstitutionally excessive and violated the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The DoJ says that there's nothing wrong with the figure the jury arrived at: '[G]iven the findings of copyright infringement in this case, the damages awarded under the Copyright Act's statutory damages provision did not violate the Due Process Clause; they were not "so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense or obviously unreasonable."' The DoJ also appears to buy into the RIAA's argument that making a file available on a P2P network constitutes copyright infringement. 'It's also impossible for the true damages to be calculated, according to the brief, because it's unknown how many other users accessed the files in the KaZaA share in question and committed further acts of copyright infringement.'"

If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law. -- Roy Santoro

Working...