Of course, we do now have computer programs that can uncrop an image. Who knows if what’s there is the same as it was before the crop, but it looks right.
At the MIT Media Lab they did have a project to use ray tracing of light and shadow to effectively “see around corners”. It gave you a really blobby, indistinct image, but I’m still pretty amazed that it worked at all.
Of course, it was far too indistinct to use for any sort of identification or crime solving. The best it could give you was “there’s something behind that wall.”
Was that the one based on sub-nanosecond light pulses, and the time for the “light echo” to arrive?
That’s hilarious because best practice in announcing failed login attempts is to not mention whether it’s the user name or the password that is wrong, or possibly both – i.e.- give the suspected attacker as little information as possible, and then lock the account after about three failed attempts but don’t announce that, either.
Yeah. And best practice is also to not display the characters you’ve just typed, either
Whatever happened to getting locked out if you fail to type the password a certain number of time? “My program/machine goes through thousands of possible combinations a second!” does no good if you are locked out after a few tries. And would a program futz up royally if you tried to enter that many combinations that fast?
It depends on the attack vector. If you’re loading the same login screen as everyone else and going through that, then yes, you’re probably going to run into a maximum-number-of-attempts timeout. But if, say, you’ve gotten ahold of the computer’s master password file, then you can take your time cracking it on your own computer. If the security is good and you’re using a good password, you’ll still be secure even then, but the attacker can still get all of those idiots with insecure passwords.
It’s also possible that you’ve discovered some security hole that lets you attempt to log into the computer through more-or-less normal channels, but avoiding the timeouts, through some API or something. Shouldn’t work, but sometimes might.
Got an image enhancer that can bitmap?
No, although that was fascinating, too.
It was this, I think:
and this
“Zoom & enhance” is older than TV, and older than high-speed computers.
AFAIK, the first use was a 1948 James Stewart film Call Northside 777.
Tried to explain the plot RE: zoom & enhance with a spoiler, but apparently the set up is different now.
A photojournalist’s shot of a man being taken into a police station in custody, is blown up some 200 times (maybe more) to read the date on a newspaper held by a newsboy across the street. By proving that it was a certain date, and not a day later, a reporter is able to prove that a key witness, who is clearly a bystander, saw the man in custody that day, and not for the first time (ostensibly since the crime) when she was on record of identifying him in a police line-up. This gets the case dismissed and the man freed from a life sentence.
Nevermind got it. Just a fleshwound.
If you mean where the devil did they hide the Spoiler button, you have to scroll to the bottom of the additional features drop down box.
Actually, no-- I used to type spoilers in-- but if there’s a button, I’ll use it. What dropdown box?
Nevermind. Found it. But what it put in was exactly what I had typed. Why didn’t it put up a spoiler?
Bottom of the (+) menu:
ninja’d
Call Northside 777 may be the source of the ‘zoom and enhance’ meme, but Michelangelo Antonioni’s Blow-Up takes it to his post-modernist conclusion that if you look at anything too closely, nothing is real.
Stranger
I always hate that, I can’t tell when I’ve mistyped and have locked myself out of my own accounts more than once without even knowing what I did wrong.
Why? Unless someone is watching me on CCTV with a really good zoom and enhance feature, nobody will see what I’m typing.
In many apps it’s possible to turn off that feature so you can see what you’re typing. Just click on the eye icon. I always do.
Oh, yeah! I’ve seen that-- didn’t think of it with this thread, though. But great film.