After Dropbox finds a child porn collector, a chess club stops his knife attack

"I failed my mission to kill everyone."

Read the whole story

 

[strykerakamack]

s73v3r[/url]":275h934t]

dermott[/url]":275h934t]

sketchy9[/url]":275h934t]1. Amazing that this vet remembered his training 50 years after the fact.
2. Imagine if this loser had had access to a firearm.

Counter-point: Imagine if the Mr. Vernon (the veteran in question) had had access to a firearm. Could have saved his arm a serious lot of trouble.

Either way, kudos to the gentleman. Not many people are willing to put themselves in the way of a knife for other folk. We need more people with his mindset.

The "good guy with a gun" counterpoint is almost never valid, because it almost never happens. Some of the last few campus shootings happened at schools where guns could be carried on campus, yet that didn't help anyone.

Except when it is ............. and those who choose to believe that it couldn't happen to them rarely
live to see the next day due to their belief that it couldn't happen ........... But it did

 

[JohnnyVic]

Ralf The Dog[/url]":2fbokugz]
The fact that it is a one way hash means, you can not extract the original image.

There is no such thing as a two-way hash, making "one way hash" a nonsensical terminology. Also, you can very likely obtain the original image if you have a large image library (otherwise known as "the internet") and you can compare the hash of the unknown image to hashes of your image library. Hence the proliferation of reverse image searching services.

 

[dermott]

Flaming Sasquatch[/url]":382i4cb1]

John Savard[/url]":382i4cb1]It was just luck that the right man was in the right place at the right time to prevent a horrible tragedy.

This should have been avoided in the simplest, most direct way: the suspect should never have been granted bail in the first place.

pjladyfox[/url]":382i4cb1]Now don't get me wrong here I'm not excusing what this person did at all nor do I have a good answer for what a better solution would be. All I can say is that what we are doing now is not working as well as some here think or we would be seeing less of these instead of more.

I don't think that a rehabilitative approach, rather than a punitive one, would work better.

But I do know something that would work; however, the reasons why we don't do it are obvious as well.

Sterilize everyone, or at least all members of one sex, at birth, in some way that is reversible - or, more specifically, that allows for reproduction with medical assistance.

Those people who are selected, after a careful screening process, to have children will live in special residences; their access to their children, however, will never, for a moment, be unsupervised. No one adult is trusted with a child, the same way no one soldier is trusted with the firing of a nuclear-armed ICBM.

This would also solve the overpopulation problem as well as the problem of harm being done to vulnerable children by predatory adults. But it would facilitate, for example, a totalitarian government ensuring that all children are indoctrinated with its ideology.

Wow. Totalitarian socialist eugenics. This may be a first for Ars. A bad first, but a first nevertheless.

I laughed, because, I mean... that would totally be carried out in an egalitarian fashion, right?
It's not like any government body overseeing this would ever be systematically racist. Or classist. Or sexist. Or... well, crap, I mean systematically biased in any way would be game-over at that point, wouldn't it?

It would make genocide quite, easy, and with plausible deniability.

Probably also start WW III.

 

[F MHilton]

Does anyone realistically believe that any cloud storage site does not scan for illegal images? How about none of them?

Usenet might be dead and on its' last legs (from what I've read) for this stuff, but there will always be those who want to share this filth any way they can-and putting it on the cloud is most insane idea..because we've all heard about those celebrities who have had their personal photos raided.

I'm pretty sure they thought they were immune to being hacked too.

The truth is-you put anything on the internet, on the cloud, and it will get found. Just make sure it's not something you will have to do time for.

 

[Flaming Sasquatch]

simonov[/url]":qgxjmoul]

pjlahaie[/url]":qgxjmoul]

simonov[/url]":qgxjmoul]
Made some minor edits to emphasize a point. A little education is required here. When some criminal misuses an AR-15 the bicoastal media and their credulous consumers are outraged. But no one is outraged when someone misuses a Honda Accord or Ford F150. You kind of expect the most popular cars in America to also be popular with criminals.

Except the Honda Accord or the Ford F150 weren't designed to kill. Guns were created for the sole purpose of injuring/killing. Handguns are designed to injure/kill *people*, so are assault rifles.

Well, hell, I have over 130 firearms and I have never killed anyone or anything with them.

Am I doing it wrong?

Or perhaps one of us has the wrong idea about the purpose of firearms.

Yup. One of you has the wrong idea, and it isn't pjlahaie.

 

[Doddler]

pjlahaie[/url]":279uke7b]

Hinton[/url]":279uke7b]
Removing bail for people accused of non-violent crimes seems kinda extreme. But then again, someone in USA must love the thought of everyone being in jail.

Some of us don't consider child pornopraphy a non-violent crime.

Even with something as as reprehensive and indefensible as child pornography, I'd have to argue that downloading pictures from the internet is nearly the very definition of non violent crime. I understand where you're coming from, but there are other, far more serious crimes for those who create and record those pictures.

 

[Damnicus]

strykerakamack[/url]":24ehnqm3]

sketchy9[/url]":24ehnqm3]1. Amazing that this vet remembered his training 50 years after the fact.
2. Imagine if this loser had had access to a firearm.

A Brave Man who would not have been able to protect himself or those
around him due to the fact that the library was a gun free zone .
A 75 year old who has more balls than all the anti gunners combined
A truly brave man to run towards danger instead of away like most of the nanny state raised today.

While I agree this man has giant balls, I disagree with your assertion that "anti gunners" (as you call them) lack balls.

 

[eaving]

I would simply like to say rock on James Vernon, and I wish you a full and speedy recovery good sir.

 

[AliceWonder]

JohnnyVic[/url]":23rohfnb]

Ralf The Dog[/url]":23rohfnb]
The fact that it is a one way hash means, you can not extract the original image.

There is no such thing as a two-way hash, making "one way hash" a nonsensical terminology. Also, you can very likely obtain the original image if you have a large image library (otherwise known as "the internet") and you can compare the hash of the unknown image to hashes of your image library. Hence the proliferation of reverse image searching services.

I don't think reverse image search service use hashes of the squares. Why would they?

For child porn it is necessary so that you don't have to have something that can be turned back into the image, but for legal images you don't have to worry about that.

 

[dermott]

Flaming Sasquatch[/url]":173af7ur]

simonov[/url]":173af7ur]

pjlahaie[/url]":173af7ur]

simonov[/url]":173af7ur]
Made some minor edits to emphasize a point. A little education is required here. When some criminal misuses an AR-15 the bicoastal media and their credulous consumers are outraged. But no one is outraged when someone misuses a Honda Accord or Ford F150. You kind of expect the most popular cars in America to also be popular with criminals.

Except the Honda Accord or the Ford F150 weren't designed to kill. Guns were created for the sole purpose of injuring/killing. Handguns are designed to injure/kill *people*, so are assault rifles.

Well, hell, I have over 130 firearms and I have never killed anyone or anything with them.

Am I doing it wrong?

Or perhaps one of us has the wrong idea about the purpose of firearms.

Yup. One of you has the wrong idea, and it isn't pjlahaie.

Killing things is certainly a possible purpose of firearms. Some of them are even purpose-built for it. Sure.
Many activities with firearms do, certainly, harken back to their military and hunting roots. It would be silly to deny that.

Now, that having been said, I have guns which were purpose-built for punching paper. I know because I built them for the purpose of punching paper. You can scream that I'm wrong until you're blue in the face.
I built them. I get to define what their purpose is.

I also own firearms whose purpose is to protect my life if I'm attacked. I'll probably never need those. I have some anyway. That's my prerogative, thanks to the Fathers who founded this wonderful country. You can also scream until you're blue in the face about that. I understand it's controversial. I find not being an easy victim empowering.


Is it really that hard to believe that people might own firearms because we like them? Or because shooting is fun, or because we're mechanically minded and enjoy assembling things? Or because we like the challenge of putting holes close together in paper from a long ways away?

I find the fascination folks arguing against common firearms ownership have with killing a bit... macabre, to be honest. Lots of gun owners do. That's why we tend to be a little shocked and defensive about it. Most of us take great care to avoid killing things with our guns.
Those who hunt take great care to avoid killing the wrong things with our guns.
Both of the above statements apply evenly to the defensive shooting community: we do not want to kill things, but if we must, we especially do not wish to kill the wrong ones (people, in that case, sadly).

 

[AliceWonder]

Damnicus[/url]":481h2cxd]

strykerakamack[/url]":481h2cxd]

sketchy9[/url]":481h2cxd]1. Amazing that this vet remembered his training 50 years after the fact.
2. Imagine if this loser had had access to a firearm.

A Brave Man who would not have been able to protect himself or those
around him due to the fact that the library was a gun free zone .
A 75 year old who has more balls than all the anti gunners combined
A truly brave man to run towards danger instead of away like most of the nanny state raised today.

While I agree this man has giant balls, I disagree with your assertion that "anti gunners" (as you call them) lack balls.

Please note I am not anti-gun. I do believe they are too easy to acquire. There's a difference.

 

[cerberusTI]

ayemahnuhrd[/url]":1ml6ita0]So... lessons from the last two weeks. When planning crazy civilian attacks - Having assault rifles = mass casualties, not having them = minimal casualties, able to be stopped by heroic unarmed elderly people.

As a society, this inevitably leads me to support LESS regulations for assault rifles because... just... reasons... I'm sure we'll get this answer soon from the internet and then I'll understand better and life will fit back into its black and white / good/evil / manicheanistic categories where reason isn't so necessary.

An assault rifle would not be the weapon of choice for a single person to cause mass casualties (assuming you could obtain one, that takes some doing in the US). It is far too specific in its target and obvious in its use to be a good tool for this purpose.

Topping the list of much more suitable methods to cause mass casualties would be things like explosives or toxic gasses in poorly ventilated areas. If you wanted to be more creative, a plasma cutter used on a rail line or important structural component of a bridge, decompression and ignition of a natural gas delivery system, or any of like a dozen other things I can think of off the top of my head would be much better at this than a gun.

This was a poorly adjusted teenager raging against the world. The ease with which he was foiled was due more to his lack of serious planning, means, and accomplices than anything else. ISIS is a serious threat because they are organized and have some means.

 

[alj_ars]

Ralf The Dog[/url]":n7xjvzu7]It is sad, these child pornographers are so incompetent in covering their tracks. I think we should help. If you are a child pornographer, the only safe encryption to us is Rot 13. Anything else, the NSA can target.

Note: Rot 13 is only useful in protecting child pornography and terrorists. It should never be used to protect legal content.

Only safe if you double-encrypt

/s

 

[cerberusTI]

AliceWonder[/url]":2iud69v9]

JohnnyVic[/url]":2iud69v9]

Ralf The Dog[/url]":2iud69v9]
The fact that it is a one way hash means, you can not extract the original image.

There is no such thing as a two-way hash, making "one way hash" a nonsensical terminology. Also, you can very likely obtain the original image if you have a large image library (otherwise known as "the internet") and you can compare the hash of the unknown image to hashes of your image library. Hence the proliferation of reverse image searching services.

I don't think reverse image search service use hashes of the squares. Why would they?

For child porn it is necessary so that you don't have to have something that can be turned back into the image, but for legal images you don't have to worry about that.

They probably do use hashes (or at least I would as a programmer if implementing something like this).

This is due to the time cost of a comparison against a lot of images, searching for a matching hash of a few tens of bytes is far faster than searching directly for a possibly several megabyte image. Indexing also works better with smaller and more regular values, so you can use a binary search to find the matching hash with a lot more ease.

What they do not need to use is a one way hash, but even a reversible hash is not going to give you the image back. It just means you could get the image back if it was smaller than your hash size (very unlikely for an image.)

 

[Danellicus]

Boskone[/url]":32xxjayq]Note to dumbasses: don't underestimate old men. They tend to be veterans, and veterans tend to have a more predictable (and less passive) response to threats than run-of-the-mill civilians.

It seems like at least once a week I'm seeing a story about an elderly vet taking down a young man who theoretically held all the cards. I have to wonder how often "This isn't fair!" goes through the kids' minds.

They recognize (unconsciously) step 1 of the OODA loop before the inexperienced. That is: they know there's a fight before the other guy knows that somebody else knows there's a fight.

 

[LrdDimwit]

Rommel102[/url]":1dagwpqt]Great job James Vernon, a 75 year old Vet taking down a 19 year old psychopath.

He's probably not a psychopath. True psychopaths are fairly rare, and being overcome by rage and despair doesn't make you one. He's a garden-variety murderer. Or would-be murderer, anyway.

 

[tj1182]

So everyone is ok with the fact that Dropbox ratted this guy out and won't say how? Unbelievable! I dropped them way back when condy rice was put on the board.

 

[AliceWonder]

cerberusTI[/url]":2ohm383i]

AliceWonder[/url]":2ohm383i]

JohnnyVic[/url]":2ohm383i]

Ralf The Dog[/url]":2ohm383i]
The fact that it is a one way hash means, you can not extract the original image.

There is no such thing as a two-way hash, making "one way hash" a nonsensical terminology. Also, you can very likely obtain the original image if you have a large image library (otherwise known as "the internet") and you can compare the hash of the unknown image to hashes of your image library. Hence the proliferation of reverse image searching services.

I don't think reverse image search service use hashes of the squares. Why would they?

For child porn it is necessary so that you don't have to have something that can be turned back into the image, but for legal images you don't have to worry about that.

They probably do use hashes (or at least I would as a programmer if implementing something like this).

This is due to the time cost of a comparison against a lot of images, searching for a matching hash of a few tens of bytes is far faster than searching directly for a possibly several megabyte image. Indexing also works better with smaller and more regular values, so you can use a binary search to find the matching hash with a lot more ease.

What they do not need to use is a one way hash, but even a reversible hash is not going to give you the image back. It just means you could get the image back if it was smaller than your hash size (very unlikely for an image.)

No - you use a base 256 number - 0 for complete black and 255 for complete white that's all you need, because what you compare is patterns, so that you can find matches when one image has been adjusted with photoshop.

There's no need for the extra data a hash creates if it isn't illegal content.

 

[cerberusTI]

AliceWonder[/url]":3t5tl3qw]

cerberusTI[/url]":3t5tl3qw]

AliceWonder[/url]":3t5tl3qw]

JohnnyVic[/url]":3t5tl3qw]

Ralf The Dog[/url]":3t5tl3qw]
The fact that it is a one way hash means, you can not extract the original image.

There is no such thing as a two-way hash, making "one way hash" a nonsensical terminology. Also, you can very likely obtain the original image if you have a large image library (otherwise known as "the internet") and you can compare the hash of the unknown image to hashes of your image library. Hence the proliferation of reverse image searching services.

I don't think reverse image search service use hashes of the squares. Why would they?

For child porn it is necessary so that you don't have to have something that can be turned back into the image, but for legal images you don't have to worry about that.

They probably do use hashes (or at least I would as a programmer if implementing something like this).

This is due to the time cost of a comparison against a lot of images, searching for a matching hash of a few tens of bytes is far faster than searching directly for a possibly several megabyte image. Indexing also works better with smaller and more regular values, so you can use a binary search to find the matching hash with a lot more ease.

What they do not need to use is a one way hash, but even a reversible hash is not going to give you the image back. It just means you could get the image back if it was smaller than your hash size (very unlikely for an image.)

No - you use a base 256 number - 0 for complete black and 255 for complete white that's all you need, because what you compare is patterns, so that you can find matches when one image has been adjusted with photoshop.

You are describing a greyscale image, which is not related to hashing.

 

[AliceWonder]

cerberusTI[/url]":1no73iv6]

AliceWonder[/url]":1no73iv6]

cerberusTI[/url]":1no73iv6]

AliceWonder[/url]":1no73iv6]

JohnnyVic[/url]":1no73iv6]

Ralf The Dog[/url]":1no73iv6]
The fact that it is a one way hash means, you can not extract the original image.

There is no such thing as a two-way hash, making "one way hash" a nonsensical terminology. Also, you can very likely obtain the original image if you have a large image library (otherwise known as "the internet") and you can compare the hash of the unknown image to hashes of your image library. Hence the proliferation of reverse image searching services.

I don't think reverse image search service use hashes of the squares. Why would they?

For child porn it is necessary so that you don't have to have something that can be turned back into the image, but for legal images you don't have to worry about that.

They probably do use hashes (or at least I would as a programmer if implementing something like this).

This is due to the time cost of a comparison against a lot of images, searching for a matching hash of a few tens of bytes is far faster than searching directly for a possibly several megabyte image. Indexing also works better with smaller and more regular values, so you can use a binary search to find the matching hash with a lot more ease.

What they do not need to use is a one way hash, but even a reversible hash is not going to give you the image back. It just means you could get the image back if it was smaller than your hash size (very unlikely for an image.)

No - you use a base 256 number - 0 for complete black and 255 for complete white that's all you need, because what you compare is patterns, so that you can find matches when one image has been adjusted with photoshop.

You are describing a greyscale image, which is not related to hashing.

Exactly, you don't need to hash each square for reverse image search when the content isn't illicit.

And you don't even need it to be all that precise, just precise enough for there to be pattern matching.

 

[cerberusTI]

AliceWonder[/url]":1zqal1yi]

cerberusTI[/url]":1zqal1yi]
You are describing a greyscale image, which is not related to hashing.

Exactly, you don't need to hash each square for reverse image search when the content isn't illicit.

The color space of the image and how that information is ordered is entirely unrelated to the concept of hashing.

Hashing is usually done for one of two reasons:
1) Verification - Cryptographic hashes are constructed in such a way that you cannot easily make another file result in the same hash, so you can tell if it was altered if you know what the hash should be.

2) Efficiency - Hashes are a smaller representation of data, which makes it easier to search and index data which would otherwise not be feasable to work with (such as images.)

 

[mianosm]

sugarbooger[/url]":d87j5lq9]

MisterAlex[/url]":d87j5lq9]People think I'm joking when I say that "my dad can beat up your dad!" And I totally am. But I'm also telling the truth. "Top" will kick your ass if he needs to.

For anyone unfamiliar, "top" is the First Sergeant of a company in the U.S. Army.

Or a Master Sergeant in the Marine Corps.

 

[Flaming Sasquatch]

Rommel102[/url]":35e6knre]

ayemahnuhrd[/url]":35e6knre]

Meailda[/url]":35e6knre]

assault rifles .... nonsensense, nonsense, nonsense

Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since the NFA in the 1930 and new sales banned since 1980s. Maybe you are thinking about "scary black rifles". Weapons no more dangerous than their non-black counterparts but since they were scary looking a huge amount of political capital was expended to ban them for a decade with absolutely no benefit found (as concluded by the DOJ).

No he is talking about the semi-automatic 22 rifles that everyone is scared of. Apparently because you can kill alligators with them. I think people call them ARs.

That is what I meant, but mainly ones that you can shoot enough bullets out of as fast as you can pull your finger before reloading to take out the average day care classroom or chess club. I'm less concerned about ones you have to load slower or that hold less bullets, since maybe then a brave unarmed vet or vacationing navy-man could jump on you when you are reloading and before you've blown away the entire class. I'm not particularly worried about alligators... I think whether we call them ' assault rifles' or 'super shooty things' is not REALLY my concern, despite the rampant gun-illiteracy problem in america today that has been identified in this thread.

You are describing nearly every modern firearm from pistols to rifles that has been made in the last 120 years.

Unless you pulled a Superman IV and magically collected every gun in the world and destroyed them, you aren't going to be able to eliminate mass shootings whether they are carried out by deranged psychopaths or radical terrorists.

Even if you did, such individuals would find another way to do harm. That could be with a pressure cooker and some household chemicals or simply by driving a Dodge Ram over a bunch of children waiting in line for the bus. The only reason that most choose the gun is because it has a higher rate of success and it is really easy to off yourself at the end.

I do agree that violence is sickening and that we must do something to help curb it, but at least in the USA both the populist media narrative around mass shootings as well as the darker reality of urban gun violence have root causes that aren't "guns". But addressing deep rooted issues such as mental health and poverty take a lot more effort than that simpleton argument.

Yet, since banning almost all guns in 1996, Australia hasn't had a single mass shooting in the last 20 years. Similarly, after heavily regulating firearm possession in 1997, the UK has had only a single gun rampage in 18 years (in 2010). In that instance it took the perp over 6 hours to find and kill about a dozen individuals. (Not exactly the gun-down-the-kids-in-60-seconds problem they'd been having previously).

There is a strong correlation between increased gun control and decreased mass killings.

 

[AliceWonder]

cerberusTI[/url]":109d2klo]

AliceWonder[/url]":109d2klo]

cerberusTI[/url]":109d2klo]
You are describing a greyscale image, which is not related to hashing.

Exactly, you don't need to hash each square for reverse image search when the content isn't illicit.

The color space of the image and how that information is ordered is entirely unrelated to the concept of hashing.

Hashing is usually done for one of two reasons:
1) Verification - Cryptographic hashes are constructed in such a way that you cannot easily make another file result in the same hash, so you can tell if it was altered if you know what the hash should be.

2) Efficiency - Hashes are a smaller representation of data, which makes it easier to search and index data which would otherwise not be feasable to work with (such as images.)

I was responding to the suggestion that hashing was used for reverse image search.

No. It most certainly is not, because it isn't needed and only bloats the data needed for patterns.

In the case of illicit images, it is needed for legal reasons because it obfuscates the actual image and it is illegal to store illicit images.

That's the point I was making.

Hashes of small squares are not more efficient than a base 256 representation of the average grayscale color of the square.

 

[dermott]

Flaming Sasquatch[/url]":4aw6og31]

Rommel102[/url]":4aw6og31]

ayemahnuhrd[/url]":4aw6og31]

Meailda[/url]":4aw6og31]

assault rifles .... nonsensense, nonsense, nonsense

Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since the NFA in the 1930 and new sales banned since 1980s. Maybe you are thinking about "scary black rifles". Weapons no more dangerous than their non-black counterparts but since they were scary looking a huge amount of political capital was expended to ban them for a decade with absolutely no benefit found (as concluded by the DOJ).

No he is talking about the semi-automatic 22 rifles that everyone is scared of. Apparently because you can kill alligators with them. I think people call them ARs.

That is what I meant, but mainly ones that you can shoot enough bullets out of as fast as you can pull your finger before reloading to take out the average day care classroom or chess club. I'm less concerned about ones you have to load slower or that hold less bullets, since maybe then a brave unarmed vet or vacationing navy-man could jump on you when you are reloading and before you've blown away the entire class. I'm not particularly worried about alligators... I think whether we call them ' assault rifles' or 'super shooty things' is not REALLY my concern, despite the rampant gun-illiteracy problem in america today that has been identified in this thread.

You are describing nearly every modern firearm from pistols to rifles that has been made in the last 120 years.

Unless you pulled a Superman IV and magically collected every gun in the world and destroyed them, you aren't going to be able to eliminate mass shootings whether they are carried out by deranged psychopaths or radical terrorists.

Even if you did, such individuals would find another way to do harm. That could be with a pressure cooker and some household chemicals or simply by driving a Dodge Ram over a bunch of children waiting in line for the bus. The only reason that most choose the gun is because it has a higher rate of success and it is really easy to off yourself at the end.

I do agree that violence is sickening and that we must do something to help curb it, but at least in the USA both the populist media narrative around mass shootings as well as the darker reality of urban gun violence have root causes that aren't "guns". But addressing deep rooted issues such as mental health and poverty take a lot more effort than that simpleton argument.

Yet, since banning almost all guns in 1996, Australia hasn't had a single mass shooting in the last 20 years. Similarly, after heavily regulating firearm possession in 1997, the UK has had only a single gun rampage in 18 years (in 2010). In that instance it took the perp over 6 hours to find and kill about a dozen individuals. (Not exactly the gun-down-the-kids-in-60-seconds problem they'd been having previously).

There is a strong correlation between increased gun control and decreased mass killings.

I count 9 massacres in Australia since 1996.
Not counting the 2 in 1996 alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... _Australia

The two in 1996 were shootings. Two of the other nine are shootings (Hunt Family Murders, Hectorville Siege), so your statement (Australia hasn't had a singel mass shooting in the last 20 years) is wrong on its face.


To be fair, I'm of the rare opinion that the weapon used in a murder isn't really the point. I prefer reducing massacres to replacing them with multiple-stabbings, bombings, etc. Counting them apart from each other is a bit myopic.

Anecdotal, the US has a very different response to public beheadings than the UK.
Removing firearm-related violence may not be the end game if you're after massacres in general, and not specifically gun-violence.

 

[cerberusTI]

AliceWonder[/url]":1xgkrl5o]

cerberusTI[/url]":1xgkrl5o]

AliceWonder[/url]":1xgkrl5o]

cerberusTI[/url]":1xgkrl5o]
You are describing a greyscale image, which is not related to hashing.

Exactly, you don't need to hash each square for reverse image search when the content isn't illicit.

The color space of the image and how that information is ordered is entirely unrelated to the concept of hashing.

Hashing is usually done for one of two reasons:
1) Verification - Cryptographic hashes are constructed in such a way that you cannot easily make another file result in the same hash, so you can tell if it was altered if you know what the hash should be.

2) Efficiency - Hashes are a smaller representation of data, which makes it easier to search and index data which would otherwise not be feasable to work with (such as images.)

I was responding to the suggestion that hashing was used for reverse image search.

No. It most certainly is not, because it isn't needed and only bloats the data needed for patterns.

In the case of illicit images, it is needed for legal reasons because it obfuscates the actual image and it is illegal to store illicit images.

That's the point I was making.

Your understanding is nearly the opposite of the correct one here: Outside of a few very contrived situations involving large hashes of small values, hashing reduces the amount of data rather than bloating it.

Any function which takes an image and runs it through an algorithm to detect patterns and generate a small number as output based on this is a hash function.

 

[Flaming Sasquatch]

Rommel102[/url]":2wmqxder]

rick*d[/url]":2wmqxder]

dermott[/url]":2wmqxder]

rick*d[/url]":2wmqxder]

dermott[/url]":2wmqxder]

Ralf The Dog[/url]":2wmqxder]

The bullets fired, large magazine, collapsible stock, bayonet mount, pistol grip.

Okay... so you just described my target shooting rifles. All 4 of them.
How do you define an assault rifle?

ETA: "an", not "and". Edited for spelling.

You have four target shooting rifles with bayonets? The only reason to have a bayonet is close-hand combat after your ammo runs out. What are you practicing for, anyway? Alien invasion? Zombie infestation? ATF coming to get ur guns?

I don't own a bayonet. I should... they'd go nicely in my knife collection. Haven't got around to it.
You, however, specified bayonet mounts, which are a standard part of the front-sight base (FSB), which also serves as the gas block on a standard AR-15 model.

I shoot paper. Can't say I've ever seen a zombie/alient/ATF officer. Wouldn't resort to shooting them out-of-hand if I did. That's silly.

You do not get to specify "bayonet mounts" (a standard component of the front sight) and then move the goalposts to also include mounted "bayonets".

Now, are you going to retract your blatantly fallacious argument, and concede the point, or are you going to double-down on ignorance? This is a tech site. Learn some tech. It's fun.

If you want to argue about guns, cool, but you need to do it in a technically correct fashion, without logical fallacies. Anything less is a disservice to the community, and tends to feed hysteria rather than well-considered policy. Generally speaking, we don't do that here.

Go back up the thread. I'm not the one who specified bayonet mounts as a defining assault rifle feature. And if a target rifle has a bayonet mount as an inherent feature of the sight, then there's something wrong with the entire industry/hobby, if you just come to expect it. That's like putting nitrous oxide tank mounts on minivans because 0.01% of all cars have nitrous oxide, so why not put the tank mounts on every car?

And while this is indeed a tech site I have no intention of learning tech whose sole purpose is to kill. No, thank you. And don't give me your "target practice isn't killing" crap* if your rifle has a bayonet mount and you just accept that as a natural feature of any gun. Rommel102 even said a huge number of shotguns have them, yet my in-laws, who duck hunt, have several shotguns and none of them have bayonet mounts. What the hell would a shotgun be doing with a bayonet mount? You gonna stab that skeet if you miss?

* besides, what are you practicing for other than to kill something? even trap/skeet shooting is practice for killing birds. the Olympic biathlon is a military sport. there is no use for any gun that doesn't have its roots in killing something.

Eh, if you really want to was intellectual on the subject, the wide adoption of gunpowder and the ease of access to early firearms was a social catalyst that democratized violence and had a good part in ending feudalism and serfdom across the world and bringing about the rise of modern democracy. As the popular phrase goes, "God made Men, but Samuel Colt made them all equal."

I'll take today and all it's craziness over the past any day of the week.

Colt's 'equalizer' might have been a good thing back when it was invented in the 1840's, but that was over 170 years ago and the heyday of the Wild West! The rest of the first world has grown up a lot since then and no longer sees any benefit in allowing civilian ownership of handguns or multi-shot long guns. It is sad that the USA continues to be the problem child of the G20.

Feel free to stay in that crazy Wild West 'today' that the US appears to be stuck in; I already live in the future, and it is one where I don't need to live in fear of being gunned down on the street, nor do I worry that my children will be massacred at school.

 

[AliceWonder]

cerberusTI[/url]":dcm37wsh]

AliceWonder[/url]":dcm37wsh]

cerberusTI[/url]":dcm37wsh]

AliceWonder[/url]":dcm37wsh]

cerberusTI[/url]":dcm37wsh]
You are describing a greyscale image, which is not related to hashing.

Exactly, you don't need to hash each square for reverse image search when the content isn't illicit.

The color space of the image and how that information is ordered is entirely unrelated to the concept of hashing.

Hashing is usually done for one of two reasons:
1) Verification - Cryptographic hashes are constructed in such a way that you cannot easily make another file result in the same hash, so you can tell if it was altered if you know what the hash should be.

2) Efficiency - Hashes are a smaller representation of data, which makes it easier to search and index data which would otherwise not be feasable to work with (such as images.)

I was responding to the suggestion that hashing was used for reverse image search.

No. It most certainly is not, because it isn't needed and only bloats the data needed for patterns.

In the case of illicit images, it is needed for legal reasons because it obfuscates the actual image and it is illegal to store illicit images.

That's the point I was making.

Your understanding is nearly the opposite of the correct one here: Outside of a few very contrived situations involving large hashes of small values, hashing reduces the amount of data rather than bloating it.

An function which takes an image and runs it through an algorithm to detect patterns and generate a small number as output based on this is a hash function.

reverse images have to find images that are similar to the image. That's why they look at small squares of the image. And they don't need to hash it, basically just reduce it in size and grayscale it. Then they can look at patterns and find close matches, which often are the same image or from the same photo shoot.

If you are suggesting that grayscaling it is a hash function, well maybe technically it is, but it isn't hash as was being used in the context of this discussion which was one way for the purpose of not being able to recreate the image being compared against.

 

[strykerakamack]

AliceWonder[/url]":18p9dl1c]

Damnicus[/url]":18p9dl1c]

strykerakamack[/url]":18p9dl1c]

sketchy9[/url]":18p9dl1c]1. Amazing that this vet remembered his training 50 years after the fact.
2. Imagine if this loser had had access to a firearm.

A Brave Man who would not have been able to protect himself or those
around him due to the fact that the library was a gun free zone .
A 75 year old who has more balls than all the anti gunners combined
A truly brave man to run towards danger instead of away like most of the nanny state raised today.

While I agree this man has giant balls, I disagree with your assertion that "anti gunners" (as you call them) lack balls.

Please note I am not anti-gun. I do believe they are too easy to acquire. There's a difference.

When I refer to lacking balls I mean That they refuse to to take account of their own protection
and willfully cede their right to self preservation to someone else .
ie ; your sitting at a table and an armed person breaks in and means to kill you
So your choices are
1- die because you don't own a gun and are afraid to own one
2- die while calling 911 because you have no means of defending yourself against a gun
3- die because some one else decided you are not allowed to have a gun
4- Don't die because guns are evil and no one owns one
5- Live by killing the person , by using the firearm which you had on the table

Now when # 4 becomes a Reality , which it never will btw , because only people can be evil ,not objects ,till then,
realize no matter how painful it will be . that

ONLY YOU CAN SAVE YOURSELF WHEN CONFRONTED BY A PERSON WITH A WEAPON
WHO MEANS TO KILL YOU .

As this maniac proved violence can occur at any moment anywhere any time any place
If instead it was a 75 year old women without the means of being allowed to be armed
(It was a gun free zone so for a law abiding citizen it would be illegal to carry a gun anyway)
Who knows how many people would have been slashed ?
So yes living in denial that bad things can happen to good people at any time .
You foster your ideals that your non self preservation should be followed by the rest of society ?
Sorry I refuse to be sheep led to slaughter .........So should you

People who lack a morale compass will never cede their right to hurt you unless forced to
Why would you cede your right to protect yourself ??????????????

 

[AliceWonder]

strykerakamack[/url]":1oddnmii]

AliceWonder[/url]":1oddnmii]

Damnicus[/url]":1oddnmii]

strykerakamack[/url]":1oddnmii]

sketchy9[/url]":1oddnmii]1. Amazing that this vet remembered his training 50 years after the fact.
2. Imagine if this loser had had access to a firearm.

A Brave Man who would not have been able to protect himself or those
around him due to the fact that the library was a gun free zone .
A 75 year old who has more balls than all the anti gunners combined
A truly brave man to run towards danger instead of away like most of the nanny state raised today.

While I agree this man has giant balls, I disagree with your assertion that "anti gunners" (as you call them) lack balls.

Please note I am not anti-gun. I do believe they are too easy to acquire. There's a difference.

When I refer to lacking balls I mean That they refuse to to take account of their own protection
and willfully cede their right to self preservation to someone else .
ie ; your sitting at a table and an armed person breaks in and means to kill you
So your choices are
1- die because you don't own a gun and are afraid to own one
2- die while calling 911 because you have no means of defending yourself against a gun
3- die because some one else decided you are not allowed to have a gun
4- Don't die because guns are evil and no one owns one
5- Live by killing the person , by using the firearm which you had on the table

Now when # 4 becomes a Reality , which it never will btw , because only people can be evil ,not objects ,till then,
realize no matter how painful it will be . that

ONLY YOU CAN SAVE YOURSELF WHEN CONFRONTED BY A PERSON WITH A WEAPON
WHO MEANS TO KILL YOU .

As this maniac proved violence can occur at any moment anywhere any time any place
If instead it was a 75 year old women without the means of being allowed to be armed
(It was a gun free zone so for a law abiding citizen it would be illegal to carry a gun anyway)
Who knows how many people would have been slashed ?
So yes living in denial that bad things can happen to good people at any time .
You foster your ideals that your non self preservation should be followed by the rest of society ?
Sorry I refuse to be sheep led to slaughter .........So should you

People who lack a morale compass will never cede their right to hurt you unless forced to
Why would you cede your right to protect yourself ??????????????

I like to fire a gun.

It's fun to shoot them, and I think people should be allowed to own them.

However it seems guns are far more frequently for suicide then they are used for protection. That's troublesome, and so I do not own one because I sometimes get really depressed and I have a brother who visits who has been hospitalized for depression, due to fear he would kill himself.

It takes far more balls to decide the benefits don't justify the risks.

The reason I want gun control is because it is increasingly clear that too many people want a gun who live in situations where the risks are too great.

Adam Lanza was known to have mental and behavioural problems, yet the guns used to create the massacre he is responsible for were legally obtained and owned by a gun owner he lived with who was too stupid to realize the risk of having those guns with him in the house outweighed the benefits.

And people died as a result.

 

[Cadtag]

SixDegrees[/url]":361u5wkf]

rick*d[/url]":361u5wkf]

SixDegrees[/url]":361u5wkf]

Solar-Powered-Sea-Slug[/url]":361u5wkf]

="I have to wonder how often "This isn't fair!" goes through the kids' minds.

Especially when they meet their Prison Daddy for the Nth time...

Well, I'm not sure, but I've read that this is a myth, at least in the form where child abusers are singled out for retribution by the prison population. I'm pretty sure they get treated pretty much like everyone else, and that their treatment is based on their interactions with the rest of the inmates, rather than the particulars of whatever crime they committed.

"They said, 'Kid, why were you arrested?' and I said, 'Littering' and they all moved away from me. 'And creating a public nuisance' and they all came back and we had a great time filling out the forms and playing with the pencils."

Wow. It's been a REALLY long times since I played that album.

For my sins.... my teenage son heard me play it enough that he memorized it. Both sides....

and xx decades later he can probably still recite it (mostly)

 

[cerberusTI]

AliceWonder[/url]":3p0bxp2e]

cerberusTI[/url]":3p0bxp2e]

AliceWonder[/url]":3p0bxp2e]

cerberusTI[/url]":3p0bxp2e]

AliceWonder[/url]":3p0bxp2e]

cerberusTI[/url]":3p0bxp2e]
You are describing a greyscale image, which is not related to hashing.

Exactly, you don't need to hash each square for reverse image search when the content isn't illicit.

The color space of the image and how that information is ordered is entirely unrelated to the concept of hashing.

Hashing is usually done for one of two reasons:
1) Verification - Cryptographic hashes are constructed in such a way that you cannot easily make another file result in the same hash, so you can tell if it was altered if you know what the hash should be.

2) Efficiency - Hashes are a smaller representation of data, which makes it easier to search and index data which would otherwise not be feasable to work with (such as images.)

I was responding to the suggestion that hashing was used for reverse image search.

No. It most certainly is not, because it isn't needed and only bloats the data needed for patterns.

In the case of illicit images, it is needed for legal reasons because it obfuscates the actual image and it is illegal to store illicit images.

That's the point I was making.

Your understanding is nearly the opposite of the correct one here: Outside of a few very contrived situations involving large hashes of small values, hashing reduces the amount of data rather than bloating it.

An function which takes an image and runs it through an algorithm to detect patterns and generate a small number as output based on this is a hash function.

reverse images have to find images that are similar to the image. That's why they look at small squares of the image. And they don't need to hash it, basically just reduce it in size and grayscale it. Then they can look at patterns and find close matches, which often are the same image or from the same photo shoot.

If you are suggesting that grayscaling it is a hash function, well maybe technically it is, but it isn't hash as was being used in the context of this discussion which was one way for the purpose of not being able to recreate the image being compared against.

I would not consider conversion to greyscale to be hashing, although it technically fits the definition if you also reduce color values in size (8 bit greyscale is probably what you mean by "base 256", although I should note that phrase is meaningless in the context you used it, and computers only use base 2 internally.)

An algorithm which breaks an image into multiple parts and comes up with a fixed size piece of data based on each is absolutely a hash function. This is nearly required in order to index images (which in turn is a requirement for search to be reasonable if you have more than a few images).

If you tried to do this without hashing there would be severe problems with long runs of similar color values in the images being compared. A hashing scheme designed for image comparison is the obvious way to make this work.

Yes, you could search based on the actual images and it would technically work, but on a DB of millions of pictures you are going to be waiting much longer than you care to.

 

[AliceWonder]

cerberusTI[/url]":38cmd7hu]

I would not consider conversion to greyscale to be hashing, although it technically fits the definition if you also reduce color values in size (8 bit greyscale is probably what you mean by "base 256", although I should note that phrase is meaningless in the context you used it, and computers only use base 2 internally.)

An algorithm which breaks an image into multiple parts and comes up with a fixed size piece of data based on each is absolutely a hash function. This is nearly required in order to index images (which in turn is a requirement for search to be reasonable if you have more than a few images).

If you tried to do this without hashing there would be severe problems with long runs of similar color values in the images being compared. A hashing scheme designed for image comparison is the obvious way to make this work.

Yes, you could search based on the actual images and it would technically work, but on a DB of millions of pictures you are going to be waiting much longer than you care to.

Which is why you take a square of pixels, and not each pixel. But you can recreate a thumbnail from that square that is recognizeable, different from what MS does.

 

[feistypenguin]

Good on the veteran for stepping up to intervene. Even a little bit of combat training can give you an edge over an armed person with none. A lot of "fighting" is about mindset- just being able to keep your wits together enough to act on opportunities (or create your own) and gain the upper hand.

Knives are nasty to defend against, too. It's very hard to get over the psychological barrier of: "I will probably get cut, and that doesn't mean I'll lose the fight." Also hard to avoid getting fixated on the weapon, and not the arm holding the weapon. The fact that this guy only had lacerations on his guard hand is very impressive, even more so when you consider he hasn't trained in decades.

I practiced Balintawak for a while (think a close-range boxer's version of Escrima), and the knife defense drills were illuminating. We practiced with a washable marker as the training knife a few times, and it doesn't take long to get covered in ink :-O

 

[jandrese]

A paramedic friend of mine used to say that in a knife fight the loser dies on the street and the winner dies in the ambulance. It's nasty business.

 

[Statistical]

cerberusTI[/url]":qnu7zkam]

I would not consider conversion to greyscale to be hashing, although it technically fits the definition if you also reduce color values in size (8 bit greyscale is probably what you mean by "base 256", although I should note that phrase is meaningless in the context you used it, and computers only use base 2 internally.)

An algorithm which breaks an image into multiple parts and comes up with a fixed size piece of data based on each is absolutely a hash function. This is nearly required in order to index images (which in turn is a requirement for search to be reasonable if you have more than a few images).

If you tried to do this without hashing there would be severe problems with long runs of similar color values in the images being compared. A hashing scheme designed for image comparison is the obvious way to make this work.

Yes, you could search based on the actual images and it would technically work, but on a DB of millions of pictures you are going to be waiting much longer than you care to.

Which is why you take a square of pixels, and not each pixel. But you can recreate a thumbnail from that square that is recognizeable, different from what MS does.

Not sure where you get the idea that reverse image searches don't use hashes. TinyEye for example takes a hash of the reduced compressed pixel block. Hashes are a good way to perform matches. Far easier to take a new image, compress, sub-sample, and hash it and then compared it very rapidly to an index of existing hashes.

 

[cerberusTI]

AliceWonder[/url]":5gt0zmga]

cerberusTI[/url]":5gt0zmga]

I would not consider conversion to greyscale to be hashing, although it technically fits the definition if you also reduce color values in size (8 bit greyscale is probably what you mean by "base 256", although I should note that phrase is meaningless in the context you used it, and computers only use base 2 internally.)

An algorithm which breaks an image into multiple parts and comes up with a fixed size piece of data based on each is absolutely a hash function. This is nearly required in order to index images (which in turn is a requirement for search to be reasonable if you have more than a few images).

If you tried to do this without hashing there would be severe problems with long runs of similar color values in the images being compared. A hashing scheme designed for image comparison is the obvious way to make this work.

Yes, you could search based on the actual images and it would technically work, but on a DB of millions of pictures you are going to be waiting much longer than you care to.

Which is why you take a square of pixels, and not each pixel. But you can recreate a thumbnail from that square that is recognizeable, different from what MS does.

Thumbnail image generation would be a fine example of reversible hashing.

 

[Formerootus]

tj1182[/url]":yf8guoqt]So everyone is ok with the fact that Dropbox ratted this guy out and won't say how? Unbelievable! I dropped them way back when condy rice was put on the board.

The how seems obvious (PhotoDNA at image upload time). Aside from that, what's to be bothered about? You were willing to send your data to a third party, did you think they wouldn't be able to look at it? If you are that concerned, you should be encrypting on your client before you put it in the cloud.

 

[Jurrasic]

Rommel102[/url]":2wohhmnj]Great job James Vernon, a 75 year old Vet taking down a 19 year old psychopath.

I have a very strong suspicion that this attack was not real, but was a cynical ploy to set up an insanity defense.

A scrawny nerd who is not skilled in knife fighting who REALLY wants to kill some kiddies is NOT going to march into the area in question, pull his knives and loudly announce his intentions! He will enter the area, pick his first victim away from any adults, move close to him/her and THEN pull blades and go to work.

I don't buy it at all. It's a either an actual cry for help (unlikely in this case) or a ploy to get a reduced sentence or committal to a mental hospital rather then go into the prison population upon conviction, where he will rapidly learn what it felt like to be the abused kids he jerked off to.

 

[AliceWonder]

Statistical[/url]":n2skd6i0]

cerberusTI[/url]":n2skd6i0]

I would not consider conversion to greyscale to be hashing, although it technically fits the definition if you also reduce color values in size (8 bit greyscale is probably what you mean by "base 256", although I should note that phrase is meaningless in the context you used it, and computers only use base 2 internally.)

An algorithm which breaks an image into multiple parts and comes up with a fixed size piece of data based on each is absolutely a hash function. This is nearly required in order to index images (which in turn is a requirement for search to be reasonable if you have more than a few images).

If you tried to do this without hashing there would be severe problems with long runs of similar color values in the images being compared. A hashing scheme designed for image comparison is the obvious way to make this work.

Yes, you could search based on the actual images and it would technically work, but on a DB of millions of pictures you are going to be waiting much longer than you care to.

Which is why you take a square of pixels, and not each pixel. But you can recreate a thumbnail from that square that is recognizeable, different from what MS does.

Not sure where you get the idea that reverse image searches don't use hashes. TinyEye for example takes a hash of the reduced compressed pixel block. Hashes are a good way to perform matches. Far easier to take a new image, compress, sub-sample, and hash it and then compared it very rapidly to an index of existing hashes.

TinyEye also sucks at finding matches when there has been modifications to the image, even as simple as using photoshop "autocorrect"