Resurrecting a jpeg?

On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 19:11:50 -0000, David wrote:

On 30/11/2019 18:39, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 08:00:28 -0000, David wrote:

On 29/11/2019 22:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 22:48:11 -0000, Commander Kinsey
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 22:43:35 -0000, David
wrote:

On 29/11/2019 22:37, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 22:32:49 -0000, David
wrote:

On 29/11/2019 22:22, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 22:19:16 -0000, David
wrote:

On 29/11/2019 21:16, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 29/11/2019 21.29, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 20:14:15 -0000, David

wrote:

On 29/11/2019 20:04, Mike Easter wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
Why on earth do I have to have the first part? Think back to
modem
days, viewing a large image in a web browser, it would
display it
bit
by bit as it downloaded. Surely if you only have the second
half,
you'd just get the top bit of the image missing? Ok, so you
don't
have the header to tell it what width to use, but surely the
user
could input that data, or adjust until it looked right?

The big problem is the result of the compression algo. You
don't
really
have 'part of the picture'. You have a bunch of bits that
resulted from
the compression of part of the picture. jpeg/s can be
compressed
various ways.

Could YOU extract a picture from a Torrent, Mike?

DAVID! Torrents are highly illegal :-)

No, they are not.

Torrents can be used to transmit material which may be
illegal, or
not.
They can be used to transmit fully legal material, too.

He was just 'pulling my leg', Carlos. ;-)

I was calling you a goody two shoes :-P
You have this crazy idea that data should be paid for :-)

I know! :-D

My mummy taught me that it is /wrong/ to steal!

I once borrowed this image from 'FromTheRafters'
https://i.imgur.com/xald8gV.jpg

Some folk thought I'd stolen it, but I couldn't have done because
FTR
still had it. Eventually FTR said I could keep the copy which I had
acquired! That was really nice of him. :-)

You hit the nail on the head, copying something isn't stealing as the
owner still has their one. If I walked past your house and somehow
cloned your car, you'd still have your car. I'd have a free car,
but it
wouldn't affect you at all.

In other words, I didn't dip out, but you dipped in! ;-)

I don't make the rules for music and videos though. My
understanding is
that 'we' shouldn't infringe the copyright put there to help the
musicians/actors. YMMV

It most certainly does vary. Anyone (such as myself) who believes
that the money required to legally buy the music is too much, will not
buy the music. So what difference does it make to the composer if I
buy it or do without or copy it?

[delete "buy it or"] for the sentence to make sense.

If everyone behaved like you, the musician would have to find an
alternative way to to earn money to feed himself or herself.

You mean by actually doing work, instead of playing a song once then
expecting to be paid for someone else (the producer) making copies for
him? Does a bricklayer get paid every time someone uses the house?
No. They have to build another house to earn more money. There are in
fact many music groups that believe they should be earning money by
going out and doing gigs.

Anyway, as I said before, I have no intention of ever paying money for
music, I simply don't think it's worth it. So, how does it change
anything for the musician between:
1) I never listen to music.
2) I copy it form someone else and listen to it.
Both of those give him none of my money.

Most people who ride on a bus or a train pay for a ticket. There's even
a song about that! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyNt5zm3U_M

If I get on a bus, I'm using a seat up, and causing the driver to have
to make a stop. If many people use that bus, more buses would have to
be paid for to take more passengers. If I copy music, I've not cost the
musician a penny.

As I've shown elsewhere, the musician loses about 10% of the price of a
CD - not a lot, but it *IS* a loss.

I've just told you, he can't lose it. If suddenly, there was no torrent or otherwise where I could get free music, I'd just stop listening to music. So the artist would still get no money from me.

I can't recall the last time I paid for any music. It seems to be
everywhere nowadays - Spotify is magic; I don't mind the ads!

How the **** can you stand ads? I remove them from everywhere possible. And any website that prohibits me using an adblocker does not get my custom.

On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 19:16:02 -0000, Alan Browne wrote:

On 2019-11-30 13:59, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 15:21:47 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-11-29 13:42, Commander Kinsey wrote:
If I have the middle part of a jpeg file, can't I display at least some
of it? Every fixing tool I've tried says something like "need JPEG
header", or "need SOI (start of image?) header".

I'm giving up on it. While I can assemble some 132 KB into a viable
continuous chunk of data, after a dozen attempts to find a "beginning"
that would decompress I haven't found a usable start point.

The fact that the 'front' of the data in the file is all 0's, and a good
chuck of the back, might indicate that the torrent chunk you pulled it
out of was not, itself, complete.

I think, judging by the bar graph on utorrent, the jpg should have been
made of three chunks, I had a solid green line in the centre, indicating
I had that one but not the other two. Since the chunks are damn small,
and I didn't interrupt anything, and a client won't try to upload one it
hasn't completed, I reckon it's one whole chunk we have access to. The
only way I'd have part of a chunk is if the sender chopped his
connection off in the middle of that tiny tiny chunk, which is
unlikely. Even then, I don't think my torrent client would be showing a
complete part in green. I thought torrent clients operated in whole
chunks.

Not sure. Since one can interrupt a DL it would be a pity to dispose of
part of a given chunk that's already been captured. "Pieces" (chunks)
are commonly 256KB (but don't have to be - not sure if that's an upper
limit to the size). And as you know some peers don't have very fast
upload speeds (or are choking it).

I would think it doesn't happen often enough to bother with the extra overheads, which would slow down everyone's transfers anyway. Far easier to keep track of 200 pieces than a possible 30000.

On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 19:18:38 -0000, Mike Easter wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
Is entrapment illegal? I always thought it was, but the UK police pay
(or somehow groom) kids to go buy alcohol or cigarettes then charge the
owner for selling them. So one rule for the pigs and one for everyone
else?

Alleging entrapment is a defense ploy.

Just because some operation is a sting doesn't mean that the
'entrapment' defense is going to work. Depending on the jurisdiction
the alleged entrapment defense may have to be proved by the defense,
rather than the enforcement being required to prove it wasn't.

The idea or 'difference' (entrap/not) is whether or not the 'stung' was
*induced* to commit a criminal act they wouldn't have otherwise committed.

I would consider my partial file example to be a sting example and that
the infringers weren't induced to 'illegally' acquire copyrighted
material just because it appeared to be available. Available to dl
doesn't mean 'legal to copy/distribute'.

An infringer might say the infringement was 'innocent' because they had
'no way of knowing' the material was copyrighted - generally that
defense is as lame as the entrapment angle.

But you've either increased the availability of that file, or created one that wasn't there. You're therefore making torrenting seem more viable as it's easier to get that file now. It's like a town with 3 drug dealers in it. You storm in and sell fake traceable drugs to find where they're going. But now people see 4 "dealers". Bang! You've just increased the number of people trying to buy drugs. Creating a crime so you can catch someone is cheating and downright irresponsible. It would be like a policeman tailgating me to see if I would break the speed limit (and I actually know of an instance where this happened).

On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 19:28:50 -0000, Shadow wrote:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:32:08 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 02:09:57 -0000, Shadow wrote:

On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 20:14:15 +0000, David
wrote:
.....

Could YOU extract a picture from a Torrent, Mike?

Torrents don't contain pictures, dumbass.

You can't be that ignorant. A torrent can be of any type of file you like.

A torrent file is only a hash + name of target + list of
trackers. It contains no images.

It can be replaced by a magnet. No loss. Better in fact, some
trackers have "gone to the dark side".

Ask BD to explain what a torrent is. IN HIS OWN WORDS. I need
a laugh. Someone that writes takedown letters to the DMCA because he
fears someone might download a few music files must have "researched"
torrents a lot.

Ah, so you're being a pedantic nitwit. A torrent to most people (including me and the other three that just replied to you) is the collection of files you get. For instance I might download a torrent which includes every James Bond film, in mpeg format. That's a whole bunch of video files. What you call a torrent, I would call a torrent index. I guess you'd say a webpage can't contain any images either, as it's just an html file.

On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 19:38:45 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 19:11:50 -0000, David wrote:

I can't recall the last time I paid for any music. It seems to be
everywhere nowadays - Spotify is magic; I don't mind the ads!

How the **** can you stand ads? I remove them from everywhere possible.
And any website that prohibits me using an adblocker does not get my custom.

He gets a kick out of the fact the artists don't get a penny
when you listen to youtube etc music videos. Just the guys that post
the videos (and the RIAA when they inevitably sue).

---------------
BD: I want people to "get to know me better. I have nothing to
hide".
I'm always here to help, this page was put up at BD's request,
rather, he said "Do it *NOW*!":

http://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

63 confirmed #FAKE_NYMS, most used in cybercrimes!
Google "David Brooks Devon"
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On 30/11/2019 19:36, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 19:06:11 -0000, David wrote:

On 30/11/2019 18:32, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 02:09:57 -0000, Shadow wrote:

On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 20:14:15 +0000, David
wrote:

On 29/11/2019 20:04, Mike Easter wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
Why on earth do I have to have the first part?* Think back to modem
days, viewing a large image in a web browser, it would display it
bit
by bit as it downloaded.* Surely if you only have the second half,
you'd just get the top bit of the image missing?* Ok, so you don't
have the header to tell it what width to use, but surely the user
could input that data, or adjust until it looked right?

The big problem is the result of the compression algo.* You don't
really
have 'part of the picture'.* You have a bunch of bits that resulted
from
the compression of part of the picture.* jpeg/s can be compressed
various ways.

Could YOU extract a picture from a Torrent, Mike?

*** Torrents don't contain pictures, dumbass.

You can't be that ignorant.* A torrent can be of any type of file you
like.* You can download an ISO image, a bunch of exe files, a load of
mp3s, or a set of photographs.

Yes - he *IS* ignorant!

*** It's like asking "can you extract a picture from the glass I'm
holding?"

No it isn't.* Glasses usually only contain liquids, although it would be
possible to pour sand into one, or to roll up a printed photo and insert
it into the glass.

Why I bought an Apple iPad - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a8Eimr-fm0

Do they actually have a real use?* As far as I can see they're just the
same as any other tablet, but at twice the price, with a **** battery.

The video should have convinced you! ;-)

On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 19:45:29 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 19:28:50 -0000, Shadow wrote:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:32:08 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 02:09:57 -0000, Shadow wrote:

On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 20:14:15 +0000, David
wrote:
.....

Could YOU extract a picture from a Torrent, Mike?

Torrents don't contain pictures, dumbass.

You can't be that ignorant. A torrent can be of any type of file you like.

A torrent file is only a hash + name of target + list of
trackers. It contains no images.

It can be replaced by a magnet. No loss. Better in fact, some
trackers have "gone to the dark side".

Ask BD to explain what a torrent is. IN HIS OWN WORDS. I need
a laugh. Someone that writes takedown letters to the DMCA because he
fears someone might download a few music files must have "researched"
torrents a lot.

Ah, so you're being a pedantic nitwit. A torrent to most people (including me and the other three that just replied to you) is the collection of files you get. For instance I might download a torrent which includes every James Bond film, in mpeg format. That's a whole bunch of video files. What you call a torrent, I would call a torrent index. I guess you'd say a webpage can't contain any images either, as it's just an html file.

When a tracker offers a "Torrent" for download, and you
download it (right click, save as), open it up in a hex editor and see
what a "Torrent" really is.
Piratebay etc are legal in most countries because they don't
host the files, only the Torrents.
There's nothing "pedantic"about it. It's what a Torrent IS.

But BD will explain it better in his OWN words. He's been
"researching" Tor for 15 years now.
[]'s

--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

In article op.0b212rq4wdg98l@glass, Commander Kinsey
wrote:

Why I bought an Apple iPad - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a8Eimr-fm0

Do they actually have a real use? As far as I can see they're just the same
as any other tablet, but at twice the price, with a **** battery.

then you can't see very well, or more accurately, not at all.

On 30/11/2019 19:38, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 19:11:50 -0000, David wrote:

On 30/11/2019 18:39, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 08:00:28 -0000, David wrote:

On 29/11/2019 22:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 22:48:11 -0000, Commander Kinsey
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 22:43:35 -0000, David
wrote:

On 29/11/2019 22:37, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 22:32:49 -0000, David
wrote:

On 29/11/2019 22:22, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 22:19:16 -0000, David
wrote:

On 29/11/2019 21:16, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 29/11/2019 21.29, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 20:14:15 -0000, David

wrote:

On 29/11/2019 20:04, Mike Easter wrote:
Commander Kinsey wrote:
Why on earth do I have to have the first part?* Think
back to
modem
days, viewing a large image in a web browser, it would
display it
bit
by bit as it downloaded.* Surely if you only have the
second
half,
you'd just get the top bit of the image missing?* Ok, so
you
don't
have the header to tell it what width to use, but surely
the
user
could input that data, or adjust until it looked right?

The big problem is the result of the compression algo.* You
don't
really
have 'part of the picture'.* You have a bunch of bits that
resulted from
the compression of part of the picture.* jpeg/s can be
compressed
various ways.

Could YOU extract a picture from a Torrent, Mike?

DAVID!* Torrents are highly illegal :-)

No, they are not.

Torrents can be used to transmit material which may be
illegal, or
not.
They can be used to transmit fully legal material, too.

He was just 'pulling my leg', Carlos. ;-)

I was calling you a goody two shoes :-P
You have this crazy idea that data should be paid for :-)

I know! :-D

My mummy taught me that it is /wrong/ to steal!

I once borrowed this image from 'FromTheRafters'
https://i.imgur.com/xald8gV.jpg

Some folk thought I'd stolen it, but I couldn't have done because
FTR
still had it. Eventually FTR said I could keep the copy which I
had
acquired! That was really nice of him. :-)

You hit the nail on the head, copying something isn't stealing
as the
owner still has their one.* If I walked past your house and somehow
cloned your car, you'd still have your car.* I'd have a free car,
but it
wouldn't affect you at all.

In other words, I didn't dip out, but you dipped in! ;-)

I don't make the rules for music and videos though. My
understanding is
that 'we' shouldn't infringe the copyright put there to help the
musicians/actors. YMMV

It most certainly does vary.* Anyone (such as myself) who believes
that the money required to legally buy the music is too much, will
not
buy the music.* So what difference does it make to the composer if I
buy it or do without or copy it?

[delete "buy it or"] for the sentence to make sense.

If everyone behaved like you, the musician would have to find an
alternative way to to earn money to feed himself or herself.

You mean by actually doing work, instead of playing a song once then
expecting to be paid for someone else (the producer) making copies for
him?* Does a bricklayer get paid every time someone uses the house?
No.* They have to build another house to earn more money.* There are in
fact many music groups that believe they should be earning money by
going out and doing gigs.

Anyway, as I said before, I have no intention of ever paying money for
music, I simply don't think it's worth it.* So, how does it change
anything for the musician between:
1) I never listen to music.
2) I copy it form someone else and listen to it.
Both of those give him none of my money.

Most people who ride on a bus or a train pay for a ticket. There's even
a song about that! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyNt5zm3U_M

If I get on a bus, I'm using a seat up, and causing the driver to have
to make a stop.* If many people use that bus, more buses would have to
be paid for to take more passengers.* If I copy music, I've not cost the
musician a penny.

As I've shown elsewhere, the musician loses about 10% of the price of a
CD - not a lot, but it *IS* a loss.

I've just told you, he can't lose it.* If suddenly, there was no torrent
or otherwise where I could get free music, I'd just stop listening to
music.* So the artist would still get no money from me.

OK - you win! :-)

*IF* you bought a CD, though, the artist WOULD get a proportion of what
you paid for it.

I can't recall the last time I paid for any music. It seems to be
everywhere nowadays - Spotify is magic; I don't mind the ads!

How the **** can you stand ads?* I remove them from everywhere
possible.* And any website that prohibits me using an ad-blocker does not
get my custom.

I must confess - I don't actually listen to much music nowadays. Mrs B.
has somehow downloaded a selection of tracks from Spotify and put into
different folders depending on type of music - and NONE of the ads are
present!

On 2019-11-30 14:39, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 19:16:02 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-11-30 13:59, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 15:21:47 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-11-29 13:42, Commander Kinsey wrote:
If I have the middle part of a jpeg file, can't I display at least
some
of it?* Every fixing tool I've tried says something like "need JPEG
header", or "need SOI (start of image?) header".

I'm giving up on it.* While I can assemble some 132 KB into a viable
continuous chunk of data, after a dozen attempts to find a "beginning"
that would decompress I haven't found a usable start point.

The fact that the 'front' of the data in the file is all 0's, and a
good
chuck of the back, might indicate that the torrent chunk you pulled it
out of was not, itself, complete.

I think, judging by the bar graph on utorrent, the jpg should have been
made of three chunks, I had a solid green line in the centre, indicating
I had that one but not the other two.* Since the chunks are damn small,
and I didn't interrupt anything, and a client won't try to upload one it
hasn't completed, I reckon it's one whole chunk we have access to.* The
only way I'd have part of a chunk is if the sender chopped his
connection off in the middle of that tiny tiny chunk, which is
unlikely.* Even then, I don't think my torrent client would be showing a
complete part in green.* I thought torrent clients operated in whole
chunks.

Not sure.* Since one can interrupt a DL it would be a pity to dispose of
part of a given chunk that's already been captured. "Pieces" (chunks)
are commonly 256KB (but don't have to be - not sure if that's an upper
limit to the size). And as you know some peers don't have very fast
upload speeds (or are choking it).

I would think it doesn't happen often enough to bother with the extra
overheads, which would slow down everyone's transfers anyway.* Far
easier to keep track of 200 pieces than a possible 30000.

A pointer per chunk to be saved. So if you have a 1000 chunk torrent,
then you have a 4 KB sidecar file to save. Nothing in today's terms.
Then when you restart the transfer you need to tell the peers about what
each chunk's pointer is at. Nothing much to that. Indeed the overhead
for validating each chunk (hashes) is far more than that. (To be clear,
I'm not suggesting it is so - but it could be implemented that way).

--
"Even with the brain dead, the pig's heart keeps on beating...
sort of like ... pick a Kardashian."
-Anthony Bourdain, Parts Unknown