It would be close but not exact. The way you would get close is to set the 8x8 quantization matrix to all 1's. In JPEG compression, the image is divided into 8x8 blocks, discrete cosine transformed, elementwise divided by an 8x8 quantization matrix, rounded to the nearest integer, and then (usually) Huffman encoded. The primary problem with being perfectly lossless is that the DCT produces a fractional result. So even if you set the quantization matrix to all 1's, the rounding step would lose information.

It's not easy to do in most image editors; even the highest (12) quality setting in Photoshop has quantization. You can do it in ImageMagick, however.

Raw formats are indeed compressed; they're just losslessly compressed.

Finally, there is a true lossless JPEG format, though it is distinct from the usual JPEGs.

It's actually worse than that: they aren't merely saying, "Don't send us raw files" (Note no caps -- "raw" isn't an abbreviation); they're saying "Don't send us anything that was even *processed* from raw files." It's as if the raw processing algorithms in the camera are somehow sacrosanct, but the equivalent algorithms run in Lightroom is suspect.

I'm not sure what you're talking about by "imperfection reference map" -- do you mean dust delete data? That isn't built-in; you need to take a reference photo of something white in order to generate that. Some software processors also have hot/dead pixel detection.

Otherwise, there is definitely nothing in serious cameras (I assuming that the Canons and Nikons that the vast majority of photojournalists journalists use are "serious") that has any sort of built-in calibration for random imperfections in the sensor. While I have no doubt that, given enough samples and enough time, you might be able to find a way to "fingerprint" a camera, in most cases, sensor noise (whether photon-shot noise, readout noise, or others) is going to significantly overpower any sort of unique characteristics.

No, you need to expose them. You need to let them spew whatever drivel they want out in public, and then publicly refute them. If you make their words illegal, then you drive them underground to persuade others in private, giving them an excuse never to expose their lies to the sunlight of public refutation.

And people certainly do like banned things; it makes them feel that they're learning some secret information that the powers that be have ulterior motives for concealing.

My apologies for my overly combative response. Thank you for your kind clarification.

I'd love to know if such thing exists (in an open source form, ideally). As far as I'm aware, no such thing exists. (Boar is getting close, however, so I'm hopeful).

No you're not; you're being patronizing. I am a photographer. I take lots of photos. The negatives are over 30 MB each. A single day's shooting can be dozens of GB. And while I expect to delete many of them, I don't know which of those will be deleted until I've gone through and worked with them. But I want them in an archive immediately, so I can have them tracked, versioned (the XMP sidecars/DNG headers are plaintext), backed-up, remotely accessible, etc.

The funny thing is, despite pretentious boosters of one modern VCS after another arguing that their lack of a feature is a feature in and of itself, and that I'm stupid for having different needs than them, ancient CVS does *exactly* what I need it to do. (Proprietary Perforce is even better, though I'd prefer something open source). So until its competitors catch up with its state-of-the-art 1990's technology, I'm going to keep using CVS.

My particular needs are to (1) check out only a subset of files, because those files are binary and very large, and (2) permanently delete those files that I know I will no longer need. Unfortunately, neither SVN nor Git meets those needs, but CVS does. (And as much as I like SVN, rebuilding the entire repository doesn't count for (2)).

Nope.

Why the hell has the parent post been modded (1, Redundant)? This is the most insightful post I've seen on /. all day. Shame on the mods.

The burns were extremely severe. And they were her fault.

That lawsuit was premised on hot coffee being a "defective product," such that the McDonald's would be strictly liable. But most of us are aware -- and expect -- that coffee is routinely made with boiling water. Moreover she shouldn't have put it in her lap. When she did, and it spilled, her insurance should have been on the hook for the damages, not McD's.

I'm quite sorry for her -- I've stupidly spilled coffee in my lap, and it hurt like hell. But that was my fault, and no one else's.

Seriously, your stuffed-full-of-mail strawman is still a strawman, and a rather absurd one at that. Do you think that the NYSE has a little mailslot out in the front door, so that if you send a letter, the postman just tosses it in, and if 9,999,999 others send a letter, they keep piling them in the little slot until they're piling up so much in the hallway that no one can push the front door open with all the mail? Is that really the image that you have in your head?

The basis of the criminal law is intent: they presumably intended to cause damage to Paypal, and had no legitimate reason for their action. Note that I say *presumably* -- their intent must still be proven to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt. This bears no relation to sending a letter of complaint. And their intent -- and taking actions upon that intent -- is all that matters for the criminal law. For most crimes (homicide generally excepted) the attempt or conspiracy to commit a crime is subject to the same penalties as the completed offense.

There is a common myth that the high cost of health care is due to uncompensated obligatory emergency room care. Like many myths, it provides comfort to the general public, who are always looking for easy explanations for the complex problems of the world. But like all myths, it has the downside of being false.

In particular, the percentage of a hospital's expenses spent on uncompensated care is about 6% (in 2011, 5.9%)
http://www.aha.org/content/13/1-2013-uncompensated-care-fs.pdf

The mandate to provide emergency care to all those that show up in the ER was part of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

Turning back to the first link: what was the percentage of uncompensated care in 1985, before the Act? 5.8% So as a result of the treatment mandate, the percentage of hospital's uncompensated care went up all of 0.1%. (From then to today; there was a spike up to 6.4% the year after the Act was passed).

Undoubtedly, uncompensated care is a problem. It's just a rather small problem. Far bigger is the lack of market forces that removes any incentives to inefficiency.

As a side matter; I'm very sorry to hear that about your wife -- there is definitely a significant need for improvement in the system for helping people with pre-existing conditions.

True, but that doesn't mean that (certain) food isn't more expensive than it otherwise would be, but for so much corn going to ethanol production. For example, as to corn itself, while the commodity price has dropped dramatically over the last year, it's still twice as high as it was in the early 2000's.

http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=corn&months=240

Moreover, the cost of corn is the primary cattle feed in the U.S. As a result, the price of beef largely tracks that of corn, and has likewise more than doubled since 2000.

http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=beef&months=240

Here you go. :-)

The difference was that Zimmerman's statements were recorded. Federal Rule of Evidence 106 provides that: "If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part — or any other writing or recorded statement — that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time." (I don't know the Florida rule, but most states' rules of evidence are similar to the FRE).

Generally, any statements made outside of court are inadmissible as hearsay when introduced for the purpose of proving the truth of the statement, unless a hearsay exception applies. Fed. R. Evid. 801 & 802. The largest exception is "statements of a party opponent," 801(d)(1)(2), by which a party can introduce any statements of the opposing side. Thus, Zimmerman's out-of-court statements, while hearsay, were nonetheless admissible pursuant to this exception. And because they were recorded, Fed. R. Evid. 106 allowed Zimmerman to demand the rest be introduced (presumably, I haven't actually seen what the basis for this was, or even if it was argued).

But on the other hand, whatever Zimmerman said unrecorded to officers at the scene would not be admissible if offered by himself, because no hearsay exception would apply.