Pangloss

Also, wouldn't interpolation be of use here? This occurs to me because of something IMM mentioned earlier, which is that when you shrink a file you throw data away, which of course is certainly the case. But when I read that the first thing that leaped into my mind is that Photoshop has a handy, built-in interpolative function that allows you to make an image larger. And in many cases, the resulting image looks just fine, because either the image data was complimentary to the interpolative formula, or because the amount of data added was insufficient to trigger a human-noticable difference in the image. Of course a simple interpolative approach won't reconstruct missing information when there is no hint of what the missing information might have been. It's great for doubling known pixel values, but no good at all for creating complex data of previously unknown values. But what I'm actually suggesting here is that there would be known (or assumed) values -- information known to the analyst but not available in the picture, such as an eyewitness statement about hair or eye color, or the time of day, or the make/model/year of an automobile. What I'm pondering here are tools to plug that kind of information into an interpolative/extrapolative technique and produce a result that a human being might be able to analyze in a new and informative way.

I appreciate the feedback. The blur table you made is great, IMM, thank you. I'll bet that was fun to do. There's one aspect of this that I probably haven't explained very well. I'm not actually looking for an exact, 1:1 reversal of the effects. What I'm pondering here is the possibility that a heavy amount of processing and a lot of assumptions and situational data might allow us to bash the image around enough that a human eye might recognize a sufficient amount of the original image to make a guess about what it used to contain. Investigators sometimes clean up digital imagery, say from an ATM camera, and use it to try to inform the public about criminals on the prowl. Similarly, kidnapped children's photos are sometimes "age enhanced" to show what they might look like today. What I'm looking for is more along those lines. Might it be possible to shake and bake the data enough that a clue about the original data might be gleaned that might otherwise have been missed? I wonder if maybe I need a tangential exploration. Something like facial reconstruction, which is an interesting subject in itself, or perhaps diving into how hackers prosecute encrypted data attacks, might be of some use here (but hackers are looking for exact 1:1 matches so that may be of limited use to me).

Just to explore this a bit further, you can often guess what kind of filter or mask was applied to an image just by looking at it. This can lead you in certain directions. For example a smear or smudge filter will only use the colors already in existence in the image at that time -- no other colors need to be applied in any reversing attempts. (Every filter has known parameters and values, but of course some filters would be more predictable in their outcomes than others, and one could, of course, be mistaken in guessing which filter was applied.) Smudges and smears might be really good testbed examples for research along these lines, because their parameters are so few and the effects are so simple and obvious. The original data is still there, it's just been moved according to a known algorithm, with known parameters but slightly random results. But maybe this example is way too simplistic for any kind of real-world application.

That's a good description of the basic problem set. But I can't help but wonder if there may be some factors here that have gone more or less ignored because the problem seems insurmountable. It may be just a situational kind of thing, but it seems to me that repairs might be possible given the right set of data and the right conditions. Just to give a brief (and highly hypothetical) example of this, let's say you had a document made under known operating conditions, say with X typewriter and Y paper. You might even have a dictionary of words known to be used in that document, and could construct a database of those words along with a set of data points describing those words mathematically (ala fingerprint "points" or DNA "markers"). It seems to me that under those conditions, one might apply an algorithm to the data, take a look at the results, and compare them with databased value sets. Some Bayesian reasoning might be particularly applicable here. Thoughts? Am I just completely reaching here, or is there a nugget of potential? And if there's a nugget, is it *only* situational? Thanks for any feedback! Always fun to bounce ideas of intelligent folks.

I wasn't sure where to put this, but with all the smart people we have here I thought someone might be able to send me in the right direction. What I'm looking for is information in broad terms but also about something specific. I have an extensive background in desktop publishing and basic image manipulation, and a Master's degree in Computer Information Systems, so I can probably comprehend most of the technical/mathematical issues, so I'm looking for advanced/academic-level information. Specifically, one of the things I'm wondering is whether or not distortive filters can be applied in reverse in order to attempt to undo damage that was intentionally done to an image in order to mask information. To use a couple of mundane examples, perhaps someone "mustaching" his or her former spouse, or a prospective underwear model covering an inconvenient tatoo. (grin) A lot of these filters one sees in programs like Photoshop don't "erase" information per se, but rather cover it up with other information (another color), applied in either a random or a non-random pattern. What I'm looking for here is whether or not that pattern can be mathematically reversed, if you will, in order to have an inkling of what the old information used to be. Since the algorithm for applying that blockage is known, it occurs to me that, given a sufficiently large data sample (a lot of pixels), you might be able to glean the original information, assuming that each pixel is reverse-engineered independently from the rest (i.e. not a cumulative thing). Am I way off base here in thinking this? Any suggestions of literature or papers on the subject would be appreciated, as well as any other kind of feedback. Thanks!

Just as a side comment, I have to say that economic negativity and fear-mongering really turns me off. I agree that there are problems with the current economy (speaking of the US for the moment), but I can't think of a single time in the last 50 years when there haven't been any problems of some kind, and there's really no legitimate, objective assessment of our present economy that uses words like "shambles" or "disaster". A quick glance at the Fortune 500 reveals that for every struggling auto manufacturer or airline, there are plenty of Googles and ExxonMobils making money hand over fist. And just to toss out one more side comment, there's a conundrum here for the far left is actually kind of sad and amusing. They hate corporations and want to convince us that they're evil and should be stopped, yet at the same time they want us to believe that the economy is bad because corporations are failing. The contradiction here is obvious: If they're failing, why do they need to be stopped? "Generalizations (this one included) are almost always a bad thing." -- Pangloss

IMM's posts above, by the way, are, in my view, a perfect example of middle-ground reasoning. The great political success of western civilization in the last 50 years has been the realization that ideological extremes don't work. Just as pure capitalism doesn't work, neither does pure socialism. The same can be said of virtually any other modern political movement, from anarchy to objectivism, from the purest pacifism to hawkiest (sorry) war-mongering. But we've also learned that a little bit of each of those extremes can teach us something valuable. It's almost as if we pull a little piece from here and a little bit from there and eventually, maybe, with a little more work, we'll come up with something that works perfectly and makes everyone happy. It doesn't sell many books or radio spots, but then that's not the point, is it? ;-)

Well said.

This is turning into quite an interesting thread in a number of ways, from the politics of congressional elections to the politics of Islamic sectarianism.

Well, there may be a bit of ideological shifting, but I think it's really more due to the President's low numbers and his lack of a clear successor, which means that Republican candidates have no choice but to distance themselves from the administration.

It's interesting that Democrats have slid in recent polls in terms of popularity, even while the Republicans in general, and the President in particular, are hardly doing well themselves. The obvious conclusion from this is that people have a very low level of confidence in government right now. But I think there's also an underlying subtext of anger over partisanship and the way it has come to cloud reality and common sense. At any rate, contradictions like the above are definitely a speed bump on the Democratic party's road to success in November. I don't share your view in the second paragraph -- I think Democrats could easily "take power", exactly as the Republicans did in 1994. They just aren't willing to take the necessary steps yet. This is a perfect example -- they're still focused on Making Bush Wrong, rather than telling us what their "better way" is. It's actually kinda mind-boggling, given that neither the President nor the Vice President is running in 2008. Why focus on Bush at all anymore? It hasn't been working, and there's even more reason to stop now. Yet on they plod....

How's that for a subject line? Made it up myself! Bill Frist won a straw poll amongst Republican activists on Saturday which is considered to be a kind of bell weather for the presidential race. One interesting twist was that McCain was campaigning for voters to write in President Bush, ostensibly as a show of support. I can't help but wonder if maybe that was an anti-Frist move, though. Perhaps McCain's presidential hopes are closer to the surface than he would like for us to think? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11782578/ Another interesting tidbit in the above article is that Frist is apparently taking credit for ending the Democratic filibuster over Alito. Wow. I sure didn't get that impression at the time. It's possible there's behind-the-scenes stuff that we weren't aware of, but I think it more likely that Democrats made that decision all on their own. It's interesting that Frist is taking public credit for that. Could be a risky move for him. (Regardless, I'm not a Fristian, nor am I likely to become one. I'd rather vote for just about any Democratic candidate, to be blunt.)

Judicial oversight would be at the case-by-case level. Congressional oversight would look at the larger picture.

Not to get too far off the subject, but I agree with you there. I was disappointed in Lieberman's clearly partisan vote on Justice Alito. But generally speaking, he's better than most as being non-partisan when the need arises.

Already under discussion here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=19123 Complete with similar epithet. (chuckle)

The president's willingness to push issues in spite of difficulties is one of his better qualities.

My posting on this has obviously been OBE'd (overtaken by events), but I'll go ahead and make a couple of points anyway. My feeling was (and this may still be relevent at some point; I'm not sure this issue is actually closed yet) that attaching that kind of rider was a risky and debatable tactic' date=' and could backfire. Well you're not bad for having an opinion, of course. But I generally try to discourage people from confusing objective political observations with their personal desires and preferences. That's clearly the case in the above quote. (grin) No offense, but you thought it was brilliant because you liked what they were doing. Had congressional Republicans attached a rider requiring the President to return prayer to public schools, I don't think you would have thought that the tactic was anything quite so "brilliant". I hope you see my point here -- I'm not saying there's anything wrong with your opinion. Your analysis simply lacks any objective merit. And the last point is just silly, and detracts from your argument completely. It's not even an apt metaphor -- the phrase "destroy ... career" (in its various forms) refers to an individuals future. Presidents are at the end of their careers. But it could certainly have negative political implications for the president, and there's nothing wrong with that observation at all, and the quote below is a relevent and reasonable point, IMO, even if I don't entirely agree with it.

One of your more disappointing posts, I must say. I don't think the amendment issue will play out the way the House thinks it will. I happen to disagree with the President on this, but the ideological spin and polarization on this issue has gotten ridiculous. It's just wrong to say "he's going to f*ck over a lot of ordinary Americans in the process, in addition to the military" -- if you pander to politicians playing games, then you're being just as bad as they are. It's just a matter of time before that backfires on you. This situation is far more complex in both its political ramifications and its security concerns than can be appreciated with simplistic left-wing or right-wing rabble-rousing. Incidentally, overriding a veto requires the participation of both houses of Congress. Your message (congratulating "congress") in fact only addresses the House of Representatives. 67 senators have to decide to vote against the president as well, and it is not at all clear at this time whether that will happen or not.

For what it's worth, I doubt this will even make it to the Supreme Court.

I think it's too *late* to say that. The supposition might have been put forth with some validity in the 1950s, but the later half was defined more (militarily speaking) by aircraft than by large-bore artillary.

I disagree, I think that's a hatfull of interpretation on your part. Of course you're welcome to read anything into that poll that you like, but that's all it is.

IMO one of the ugliest tactics that shows up in the current debate environment these days is the idea that if someone disagrees with your position then they must have been "indoctrinated" or coerced into that point of view somehow. I mean they couldn't have come by that opinion naturally, right, because if they'd given it an ounce of intelligent thought then surely they would agree with you. Ugh. It also perpetuates the stereotype that soldiers are of lower intelligence and motivation. If you ask me that's an awfully condescending point of view.