I don't know if I can explain this very well or accurately about fundamental frequency and the likes for high frequency. But I think I know what the article is trying to point to with its explanation of fundamental frequencies and sound generators.
Right - the fundamental frequency of a framed window sample can be best thought of has the frequency for that localized sample as having the most power. i.e. The maxima point in the spectrum of the localized sample.
If you follow the way the AAC (parametric) encoder works it picks out the fundamental frequency and the harmonic components that are related to it - harmonic lines. The next part is the frequency and amplitude of lines which are found to be a signifcant distance from the fundamental frequency and its distrubtion (i.e. multiples of the frequency) - indivdual lines. The last part to be encoded is the spectrum of the noise which is minus the individual and harmonic lines.
Now what I think Kenwood sounds like they are trying to do is calculate the fundamental frequency and its components from the mp3 stream. By knowing this information they seem to form a mapping process from the "harmonic lines" spectrum to what other sound components the original sample contained that are not contained within the mp3 sample. Hence the sound generator which is like a name for the mapping.
Now the reason high-frequency sample components are left out of the process is based on one the prinicples that is employed in most psychoacustic models. That is the ear is more sensitive to certain frequency ranges than others - and the ear is not that sensitive to high frequency sound (prob about >20000Hz) when compared against middle sound ranges (I think the ear is most sensitive to about 1kHz). Hence the information relative to the high frequencies is not considered as important to a sound in the middle frequencies.
A little insight here. MP3s are split into frames. In a VBR MP3 different frames are encoded at different rates - dependant on how much saveing there is compression to signal or spectral error from the orginal (psycho-aucostic model depending).
But MP3 knows only set encoding frequency e.g. 64,96,112,128,160,256 etc. So essentially what changes is the bitrate. So likes of 147kbps as you see is probably an average. The actual VBR header is encoded as what is called a Xing header and when decoded provides a lookup table onto which a decoder can jump to the different header locations within the file instead of calculating the bit position of the a header through an equation.
Know one thing tho - without having to even see this book - that it doesn't mestion all decoders that there are for mp3.
Reason is that I have it released the Black Omega MP3 decoder engine yet. It still going through its alpha testing stage - the Windows version works and still got to put in the audio object for the Linux version.
Also still want to do several major changes to it.
1. Recode the Windows audio interface object and then from that develop the Linux audio interface object. Such that it will process MP3 frames in groups in larger groups in one process run rather than using wait conditions causing a large overhead in process switching.
2. Increase the fault taleraunce on the decoder such that if headers are wrongly positioned our header information is wrong then it can reseek and find the next header.
3. Improve the API so that full playback control is integrated into it.
4. Ring out more bugs from it and get MPEG-2 LSF extension parts working. Well namely only got get the LSF scalefactor part debugged. MPEG-1 playbacks near perfect now.
5. Do much optimization. Get it working then optimize once it works is what me say.
Anyway me going to be moving house shortly and my new flatmate and me going to get cable modem permenant connection so once got that I will open up a CVS tree on it and do initial early alpha releases onto freshmeat.
I've just been reading through that msnbc news article - this piece of journalalism is crap. Its only designed to do one thing and that is to scare the reader into thinking that this program is evil.
All it takes is to try and associate the words "child porn" and is designed to live of your fears. From reading this article I would think that this tool is going to be used to distibute child pornography and other such stuff - what bollocks. I bet less than 0.001% of material tranferred using this program will be of this sort of material.
I am getting really tired of bad scare tactics journalism. It only encourgages ignorance and unfounded fear, two trates that we could highly do without.
And anyway the technology to copy material from one place to another without having to go through a central server has long existed before this came out.
Yup I couldn't agree more. I lost alot of my liking for M$ products through the process of being made to look like an idiot.
I mean I've spent my entire life working with computers. I know them inside out and know how to make them do nearly anything.
Yet I had to spend my time in my last job going out to customer sites trying to get their systems working. And nearly 100% of the time when things went wrong was simply because M$ product did what ever it liked - throw out errors, refused to do what it was told etc etc etc etc.
In the end I looked like some ameutor who did no the first thing.
When I started working with Linux - I could control it very precisely, it did what it was told, and when something did go wrong it could be traced and fixed. In the end for me Linux simply worked.
Oh just out of point. Normal computing and REALLY hard mathematics can go hand in hand with the more newer of the mainstream technologies.
I personally specilize in audio compression. If you work through the stuff regarding the mathematical process with the design of filter structures it can get really intresting and bizarre.
Wavelets are good ones to work through if you want a mathematical challenge. Theres quite a lot of tie back into finite functional analysis and nice finite maths.
Personally I'm going through the DCT (Discrete Cosine Transform) because of its use in mp3 technology. But certainly when it comes to the discrete side of things - don't under-estimate it as being easy - it get really complex and hard when it comes to mapping a continous functions through to discrete - that fun part.
Although I can't speak for anyone else I apart from myself I think I can provide one explanation for the built up anger.
Its simple work in an IT department where the people who actually know anything are on the bottom and the people who dont know the first about computers are making the major IT decistions. And when you do explain the details of "why it does work" they don't listen and tell you why it does work with the usual apointment for blame.
Then add to this the tools that you work with are mostly M$ based and you keep getting crashes, computer freezes up for about 10 seconds once a minute with absolutely no traceable explanation. The monitor is faulty (the blue colour keeps going on and off at random intervals - and no amount of findling with the VGA conntectors or banging the monitor does not work). And to this recipe add the fact that all development is done in a restrictive 4GL language, which has no debugger, the editor is 'vi' and the cursor keys on the telnet connection don't work. And this database system has been developed by the process of "we want this and now we want this and add this" over a long period off time - and the software engineering process is next to none - with everyone around jumping and down for their own piece of work to be done but don't care that so and so has priority and so go screaming to some director who in turn applies more stress.
Well you can beginning to see from my rant:)
So it I've found/. very therapeutic at times to let of a bit steam against some article that has rubbed me up the wrong way.
Now I will point out here and now - that I personally don't go flaming someones email address, if I am against something I will ususal try and state specific reasons for why and what I think should be done about it, don't go in for small minded bickering, facist slogins etc etc.
But in the end/. is sometimes a place where people let off a bit of steam during what might be a rather stressful day.
If Transmeta were to open source their technology - i.e. give away the schematics for the chip - try to think who would be able to produce "open source" varieties of the chip.
Well I certainly don't and I don't think even your average./er would have their very own chip fabrication plant.
But the people who do have the fabrication plants are the likes of Intel and AMD. So if Transmeta went and released their secrets their competition would effectively digest it, combine it with what they have and use it against Transmeta and they would most likely be a business no more.
Come on give Transmeta a break here. Although it would be nice to see and to get our hands on play with. The simple fact is that the econimcal situation they are doesn't allow for it.
I own a car. I need to use a car because or I wouldn't be able to get to work on time. I can't use public transport because it hasn't started running earlier enough.
Now I need to work to put a roof over my head, food in mouth and to provide funding the to be open source project that I am working on. But simply put I work because I want a better standard of living than mere survival and because I don't believe on living of others tax dollars.
But my car has been bought using a purchase scheme - i.e. effectively through a loan. But because I do this does this make me evil.
This arguement uses the mathematical logical deduction that the MPAA and the RIAA are actually full of crap.
Proof :
Right with the DMCA saying to the effect that it is illegal to produce something that has aids or has the ability to copy copyrighted material.
Now if the MPAA and RIAA believe what they are saying and enforcing the DMCA then why aren't they going after the real culprates of recording technology.
That is the ones who make the video casettes, the CD and DVD writers, the people who make file transfer programs and create the technology for copying or duplicating copyrighted material.
Oh but heh the majority of the corporations behind the RIAA and the MPAA are the ones makeing these products and items.
So if they hold true to what they say then they should be effectively sueing themselves. But the contradiction is that they aren't sueing any of the corporations that form themselves even though these corporations are breaking the DMCA by producing these products.
Hence the MPAA and the RIAA are full of crap because they aren't sueing the real culprits, themselves.
As an offsping to this logic - they only try sueing and bringing criminal charges against those outside side their band of corporations hence what they are is a front to form market control.
We are being nice when we buy the DVDs from these big corporations. We are effectively paying their wages when we do this. We are supporting them.
So when we try to watch their DVDs in the manner that suits ourselves we have a war raged against us. Are we supposed to ask them politely then. You can try but I don't think they would really care.
If they did they would see from their market research that this action was going to do them more damage than good.
Personally I think that power has gone to the heads of some of the people running these corporations. They have effectively become their own little Hitlers.
As history has shown the ownly action that these people seem to understand is that of force. By hitting them effectively where it hurts we can have the ability to make them change their attitudes or at least stop their conquest over us.
Namely by raising public awairness that these people are trying to effectively undercut that which we nearly every citzen holds dear. That of freedom of speech. Their lawsuits against DeCSS and MP3 are not about copyrighting but about their dominantion of their market. We need to make the public aware of this and show this lie for what it really is. And with all of this we can get at them where it REALLY hurts - their share price and their base line.
We also need to win in the courts and show up these corporations are doing is illegal and against the constiution.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not personally against corporations - alot of them have done alot for us. But I will oppose with every fibre in my body against the person who trys to remove our most basic values. That of freedom.
Amen to that. Big corps that hold all the power are the product of captialism but they also represent the exact opposite of one of the founding principles of what captialism is about. That of competition.
If you are a large corp, or group of them, that holds all the power on a particular market then you have then you can effectively dictate how it is run. And it is simple enough to pull the strings of the politicians by providing funds, lobbying and scare tatics that if they don't pass the laws they want then ecomony will fail. And the last thing any politician wants is a failing ecomony.
Anyone who trys to "musle" in on their market or market area which they don't want can either be bought over or sued and tragged through the legal process such they are ruined.
As for the small businesses they are subject to domination and dication by corpate powers because they are usually either a part of a supply line for which the corporations are a part off (and what power do you think a small business has in dicating rules to a big corporation) or they enter into competition with a big corp or in a market that some big corp want - hence buy you out.
Too me one of the founding princples of proper captialism is that of competition. And as part of that competition comes the right of the consumer to have the right to choose. Basically I have the right to choose weither I do my food shopping at the super market or the local corner shop. Both manage to survive because they can co-exist but still in competition with one another.
However when a group of or a single corporation dictate the policy of what we the consumer have the right to buy or not buy. Never mind the right to say what we like for fear of prosecution. Then we no longer live in a capitialist society but in corpate dictactorship and the illusion of it still being democratic is only an illusion.
In an ideal world the following business model I think would be best in providing an e-commerece trade for the likes of mp3.
Just like record shops the '.com's would have a trade agreement with the record companies. In effect this allows the record-shop.com to sell either the songs on-line while paying royalities to the record company.
Now the customer buying the music can either or both have.
1. The mp3 is kept on the record-shop.com's server and a database which holds information relating to the customer's account provides access to that song once the transaction is complete. So the user can use a bit of player software to listen to the song while streaming it of the server. Also to protect from paranoia the mp3 stream is encrypted during transfer.
2. The mp3 song can be downloaded once purchased. Now to protect from copying the song the mp3 is encrypted using something like the MD5 digest of the users account password. This is so that the MD5 digest can be held locally on the computer and has the same kind of protection as the likes of encrypted passwords in/etc/passwd (or/etc/shadow - depending on your setup).
I am very opposed to having the song being encoded such that it will only ever play on the computer it was downloaded too. The basic premise is people usually upgrade there computer hardware, have portable players, different OSs on the same computer, more than one computer etc etc etc etc. And thought of having to redownload your ENTIRE music collection from all the record-shop.com's each time you had to re-install Windows 98 would drive you away from it and kill the market before it had even started.
However the scheme has the same weakness and ethical debate as that of DVD - even more so because an mp3 file is a hell of a lot smaller than a DVD disc - so easier to copy and distribute once decoded.
My suggestion would be to integrate a unique digital-ID signature into the decrpyted form of the mp3. It would have be such that the removal of the siganture from a signed mp3 file would be NP-complete or there abouts. Personally I don't know of any such algorthim - but I'm sure there out there. But the end effect is that if a mp3 is pirated then the original perpatrator could be identified. Also the digital-ID would have to be integrated in such a way that if the decrpyted mp3 was played back using another player that didn't know about digital-ID signatures wouldn't flip out.
Believe me that I have very little illusion that doing this is very very hard. But hey - what else was voodoo and black magic invented for:)
This kind of follows the same idea as how the person who created the Melissa virus was caught.
By this way nearly everyone is happy - the source code for the client and server end could be published. Just like the RSA public-key encrpytion is published - point here is that we know the process but don't know how to break it. The thing is not proprietary - like DVD is at the moment. The record companies are kept happy because they get paid for selling their music on-line safe in the knowledge that they still get their royalities, have an increased market audience and if an mp3 is illegally distrubited then they can trace back to the source of where it came from and get the pirate who distrubuted it.
Anyway back to banging my head of the desk writing my mp3 decoder. Just to answer the question of 'Why?' when there are other decoders out there under the GPL - because I love audio compression technology and of all the subjects I know this one I know the best, because I want to understand it, because its a challenge that is there. Just for reassurance - it will be released under the GPL. Also noted a few things in going through other mp3 decoder code.
1. The original decoder code released by the ISO has a flaw in it. Although the code I am referencing it from is dated 1994 - so problem may have been fixed. The flaw is in the dequantization section when using a mixed block frame under a mp3 encoded to the MPEG 2.0 or 2.5 specification. When switching from the long block to the short block the variables pertaining to the next boundary reference and the sfBandIndex are thrown out of syncronisation - leading to buffer overflow situations.
2. In the XMMS source code it uses Byeong Gi Lee's Fast Cosine Transform for applying the DCT calculations. However in the middle of reading a paper that has the statement that this alrgorithm is not mathematically stable - probably not enough to effect mp3 decoding - but I've seen the mathematical consequences of unstable equations. Though I've still got to see the mathematical proof for this statement. I'll get back on that one - doing large research into DCT and associated algorithms.
I think this guy fails to see the entire point of why this piece of software was written in the first place and why it doesn't promote the illegal copying of DVDs. 1. Every DVD player already has the keys. So effectively it doesn't matter weither or not the DVD content has been decrypted because the DVD player will decrypt it anyhow. 2. The simple fact that encrypting a file can't stop the process of actually copying it.
This action on the part of the MPAA is completely stupid. It goes against one of the founding principles of capitalism - that of giving the customer what they want. Because of this someone else has taken action and now they are trying to wage an underhanded dirty war against them.
I mean the very action of raiding a teenagers house, arresting, intergating and charging his family - based on the lie that he created a bit of software that can copy DVDs is - well I don't have the words.
In return we show our disgust and mount a protest against the MPAA and the corps it represents. By which they recieve bad publicity - leading to falling share prices - decreased customer loyality - unhappy share holders and effectively damaging themselves.
What they should have done was realized the potential market place of a DVD Player for Linux and created and supplied one.
Again the same action as the record industry have against the mp3 market. These companies are missing out on probablily a potentially huge gold mine. Instead they want to try and destory the market - but because of the way capitialism works they can't and now they are losing out.
As a person who loves listening to music but who doesn't like the hassle of changing the CD to listen to another artist - mp3 is the perfect medium. Also I don't have the time to go into the center of the city, park my car and go shopping for a CD just so I can listen to one song on it. It is far more convient to download it of the Internet. Yet the record industry simply doesn't get this - outstanding.
Following along nearly the same line of arguement of producing two code bases. Instead of having two forked source code trees completely seperate the source code tree is split at the losest possible level.
For instance, say you develop a product which can both be compiled for Linux and Windows. The differences between the two come from the places where different objects have to be used to integrate the OS independant code into the OS.
Now the Linux code is released under the GPL license. Note this both includes the Linux OS dependant code and the OS independant code. The Windows version is released under another license and in this license it staights something to the effect that the Windows dependant code is the property of the author - hence propertory. However the OS independant code is still under the GPL release. But the Windows version has to have a license bought for it.
This means that the OS independant and the Linux dependant code is open source and thus can go through the same process of modification and alteration as other GPLd code.
Now I don't know how far you can go down this path or with this approach without volation of the GPL. I think this approach is alright if you are the author of the project and the original source code and any modifications made from the open-source community are of low enough volume that the majority of the work is still created by yourself.
However I don't think its alright to take a GPL'd product add-on a couple of parts to make it run under another OS and then go selling the product using the same arguement - simply because the majority of the work wouldn't be carried out by the person selling the modified product.
I quite agree. It seems to the one of the main critrea of a professional solider to be required (or ordered) to kill, and try not to get killed in the process. However I think the real problem lies, although this is probably to much of an over simplification of the problem, that there is a very large culture difference between the hacker culture and the military organisation. For example - In the military you have the strict hierarchal structure through the chain of command. You carry out the order without question. If your superiour officer gave you an order and you were hacker then its most likely in your instinct to question it and you will try and give a better suggestion for it. It will probably take something of the dialogue. Officer - "Break into X's main electrical plant through IP node a.b.c.d" Hacker - "Actually that node is a very secure Linux box with extensive firewall protection. It would be better just dialing-up there pcAnywhere modem located beside their mainframe and gaining access that way." (I know of a bank with this type of setup and there was no security on the pcAnywhere terminal). Officer - "Are you questioning my orders? You are relieved of duty."... So on and so forth. Unless the military are prepared to put up with our way of working and somehow cross this gap - it ain't really going to happen. The hackers will probably just get fed up it and move to work for X corp - which has the better pay package.
I loved my Amiga A4000. Of all the computers that I have worked with it is the one that has taught me the most and inspired me the most. Basically I could take this machine and understand it inside out. It helped me learn assembler (68k varity) and help me understand how C code is transalted into machine code. V. Useful for writing really good C code. This was definitely a machine to aspire too.
And now where is A4000 now? Dead?... Eh! No, its sits in my house permanently switched on running nontheless.. Linux or Redhat 5.2 Linux with 2.2.10 kernel. It acts as file server, print server, firewall and gateway (well when I get the HyperCOM 3+ driver working for it, all I need is the damn registerary locations for the chip and vola), backup system, mail server, etc. All nicely secured.
And all this and more on 25MHz 68040 - it runs without complaint.
Believe me - my A4000 is certainly not dead and I trust it far more than the Intel-PCs that I have around me.
My point is that although QNX may have developed a OS for the Amiga - The ability to run Linux and have all the functionality that it intales means that it is still a very useful piece of kit.
Also you should remeber the APUS project - Linux for the PowerPC chip. Certainly things at this end are very nice indeed - latest prototypes are multiple G4 processors (enough speed there give an Atholon system a good kick several times over) using as a Gfx card a GForce based card. That is certainly NOT a redundant system.
Its seems to me that Amiga has evolved behind the scenes with drips and drabs coming out in small number. All I think Amino have to do is to take likes of this prototype (although Phase5 use this - me thinks), package it in a cool looking case with a more solid construction (i.e. the processor and gfx cards are not hanging of each and everything shoved into the clock port, and oh yeah good power supply), get Linux APUS up to the point where it is ready for a stable release (i.e. on the 2.4 kernel series) or go with the QNX OS with backward comptability for existing apps.... and you have a system that can sold at an affordable price and has the power take on the likes of a Solaris server. Hmmm NEAT.
Amiga is definitely not dead... only been in hiding.
I am not going to even beginning to say weither this guy is right or wrong. Through the deduction of Sodd's Law if say he is wrong then it will turn out to be right.;)
I am going to reserve judgement on this until the scientific papers have been released, reviewed and the experiments either reproduced or not.
However from what I can tell it looks like a fraud. My reasoning on this is that he has not specialized and has too many far out ideas. i.e. The fact of an anti-gravity technology, AI computers with a sense of being and the ability to create limitless cheap energy. These kind of technologies just would/are taking vast resources of brain power and research. And for one man to come up with them all - just a bit too far fetched.
On the other hand, if he is right. Well the applications would be endless and maybe, just maybe he is a utter genius and the next Enstein. Maybe he has actually found a mathematical path through the equations of quatum mechanics that does show what he is saying is correct.
I do have to confess that I have slight gut feeling that maybe that he might be right though. I should note at this point I am certainly no expert or authority on quantum mechanics. The reason for this is that it seems to me that although we are pushing string theory to get our answers it seems to be getting more and more complicated and more and more entangled. It usual a rule of thumb that the nature manages to boil things down to simple fundamentals and equations without great complexity.
Now here is an alternative explanation which is seems to be simplier. May answer unexplained observation. By the rule of thumb it seems that this could provide a better explanation.
However gut feeling IS NOT science.
But in the end the truth of the matter will come through. If he is right then his experiments will be able to be reprocuded independantly by other scientists. If he is wrong then the experiments will fail.
So personally I am going to keep a close eye on this and see what the scientific community say when his work can recieve peer review.
I was wondering if the Picard manuever was related to the Picard who came up with iteration mechanism to help solve provide a numerical analysis technique for solving differential equations.
Or the Picard manuever taught in Star Fleet acadamy which if I remember correctly Capt. Picard used aboard the StarGazer.
I think its disgraceful to make it sociably unasseptable to say "Merry Christmas".
When I say it to someone I am justing showing a bit of affection, and wishing for their happiness for the time of year. I am not imposing any kind of religious point of view.
The person I am saying it to may or may not share in my belief of it being it a simple curtasy. But it is important that they respect it because in turn I will respect their beliefs.
Basically the point I am making is that we should all respect each other beliefs and points of view. And once we start segrating out a particular group because it is not in line with someone elses beliefs then that is the start of a very slippery path towards... Well we all know off World War II and I for one have no wish to go back there.
There is off course the explanation that Santa employs the powers of quantum mechanics. In this case the use of the multiuniverse theory (or the other theory - depending on your point of view) can be used.
By quantum mechanics Santa manages to manifest himself in all states in the same point in time. Santa can employ quantum mechanics based on the uncertainty principle of "Does Santa Claus exist or not?" and "Have I been a good boy/girl/it?".
In this way Santa assumes all states at once. Being in all chimneys, filling all stockings, eatting the mince pie left out for him, etc etc, all at the same single point in time.
Now the really clever part is how does Santa manage to forge every single person's pareints signature.;)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if I can explain this very well or accurately about fundamental frequency and the likes for high frequency. But I think I know what the article is trying to point to with its explanation of fundamental frequencies and sound generators.
Right - the fundamental frequency of a framed window sample can be best thought of has the frequency for that localized sample as having the most power. i.e. The maxima point in the spectrum of the localized sample.
If you follow the way the AAC (parametric) encoder works it picks out the fundamental frequency and the harmonic components that are related to it - harmonic lines. The next part is the frequency and amplitude of lines which are found to be a signifcant distance from the fundamental frequency and its distrubtion (i.e. multiples of the frequency) - indivdual lines. The last part to be encoded is the spectrum of the noise which is minus the individual and harmonic lines.
Now what I think Kenwood sounds like they are trying to do is calculate the fundamental frequency and its components from the mp3 stream. By knowing this information they seem to form a mapping process from the "harmonic lines" spectrum to what other sound components the original sample contained that are not contained within the mp3 sample. Hence the sound generator which is like a name for the mapping.
Now the reason high-frequency sample components are left out of the process is based on one the prinicples that is employed in most psychoacustic models. That is the ear is more sensitive to certain frequency ranges than others - and the ear is not that sensitive to high frequency sound (prob about >20000Hz) when compared against middle sound ranges (I think the ear is most sensitive to about 1kHz). Hence the information relative to the high frequencies is not considered as important to a sound in the middle frequencies.
A little insight here. MP3s are split into frames. In a VBR MP3 different frames are encoded at different rates - dependant on how much saveing there is compression to signal or spectral error from the orginal (psycho-aucostic model depending).
But MP3 knows only set encoding frequency e.g. 64,96,112,128,160,256 etc. So essentially what changes is the bitrate. So likes of 147kbps as you see is probably an average. The actual VBR header is encoded as what is called a Xing header and when decoded provides a lookup table onto which a decoder can jump to the different header locations within the file instead of calculating the bit position of the a header through an equation.
Know one thing tho - without having to even see this book - that it doesn't mestion all decoders that there are for mp3.
Reason is that I have it released the Black Omega MP3 decoder engine yet. It still going through its alpha testing stage - the Windows version works and still got to put in the audio object for the Linux version.
Also still want to do several major changes to it.
1. Recode the Windows audio interface object and then from that develop the Linux audio interface object. Such that it will process MP3 frames in groups in larger groups in one process run rather than using wait conditions causing a large overhead in process switching.
2. Increase the fault taleraunce on the decoder such that if headers are wrongly positioned our header information is wrong then it can reseek and find the next header.
3. Improve the API so that full playback control is integrated into it.
4. Ring out more bugs from it and get MPEG-2 LSF extension parts working. Well namely only got get the LSF scalefactor part debugged. MPEG-1 playbacks near perfect now.
5. Do much optimization. Get it working then optimize once it works is what me say.
Anyway me going to be moving house shortly and my new flatmate and me going to get cable modem permenant connection so once got that I will open up a CVS tree on it and do initial early alpha releases onto freshmeat.
I've just been reading through that msnbc news article - this piece of journalalism is crap. Its only designed to do one thing and that is to scare the reader into thinking that this program is evil.
All it takes is to try and associate the words "child porn" and is designed to live of your fears. From reading this article I would think that this tool is going to be used to distibute child pornography and other such stuff - what bollocks. I bet less than 0.001% of material tranferred using this program will be of this sort of material.
I am getting really tired of bad scare tactics journalism. It only encourgages ignorance and unfounded fear, two trates that we could highly do without.
And anyway the technology to copy material from one place to another without having to go through a central server has long existed before this came out.
Yup I couldn't agree more. I lost alot of my liking for M$ products through the process of being made to look like an idiot.
I mean I've spent my entire life working with computers. I know them inside out and know how to make them do nearly anything.
Yet I had to spend my time in my last job going out to customer sites trying to get their systems working. And nearly 100% of the time when things went wrong was simply because M$ product did what ever it liked - throw out errors, refused to do what it was told etc etc etc etc.
In the end I looked like some ameutor who did no the first thing.
When I started working with Linux - I could control it very precisely, it did what it was told, and when something did go wrong it could be traced and fixed. In the end for me Linux simply worked.
Oh just out of point. Normal computing and REALLY hard mathematics can go hand in hand with the more newer of the mainstream technologies.
I personally specilize in audio compression. If you work through the stuff regarding the mathematical process with the design of filter structures it can get really intresting and bizarre.
Wavelets are good ones to work through if you want a mathematical challenge. Theres quite a lot of tie back into finite functional analysis and nice finite maths.
Personally I'm going through the DCT (Discrete Cosine Transform) because of its use in mp3 technology. But certainly when it comes to the discrete side of things - don't under-estimate it as being easy - it get really complex and hard when it comes to mapping a continous functions through to discrete - that fun part.
:)
Although I can't speak for anyone else I apart from myself I think I can provide one explanation for the built up anger.
:)
/. very therapeutic at times to let of a bit steam against some article that has rubbed me up the wrong way.
/. is sometimes a place where people let off a bit of steam during what might be a rather stressful day.
Its simple work in an IT department where the people who actually know anything are on the bottom and the people who dont know the first about computers are making the major IT decistions. And when you do explain the details of "why it does work" they don't listen and tell you why it does work with the usual apointment for blame.
Then add to this the tools that you work with are mostly M$ based and you keep getting crashes, computer freezes up for about 10 seconds once a minute with absolutely no traceable explanation. The monitor is faulty (the blue colour keeps going on and off at random intervals - and no amount of findling with the VGA conntectors or banging the monitor does not work). And to this recipe add the fact that all development is done in a restrictive 4GL language, which has no debugger, the editor is 'vi' and the cursor keys on the telnet connection don't work. And this database system has been developed by the process of "we want this and now we want this and add this" over a long period off time - and the software engineering process is next to none - with everyone around jumping and down for their own piece of work to be done but don't care that so and so has priority and so go screaming to some director who in turn applies more stress.
Well you can beginning to see from my rant
So it I've found
Now I will point out here and now - that I personally don't go flaming someones email address, if I am against something I will ususal try and state specific reasons for why and what I think should be done about it, don't go in for small minded bickering, facist slogins etc etc.
But in the end
If Transmeta were to open source their technology - i.e. give away the schematics for the chip - try to think who would be able to produce "open source" varieties of the chip.
./er would have their very own chip fabrication plant.
Well I certainly don't and I don't think even your average
But the people who do have the fabrication plants are the likes of Intel and AMD. So if Transmeta went and released their secrets their competition would effectively digest it, combine it with what they have and use it against Transmeta and they would most likely be a business no more.
Come on give Transmeta a break here. Although it would be nice to see and to get our hands on play with. The simple fact is that the econimcal situation they are doesn't allow for it.
Debt is evil?
I own a car. I need to use a car because or I wouldn't be able to get to work on time. I can't use public transport because it hasn't started running earlier enough.
Now I need to work to put a roof over my head, food in mouth and to provide funding the to be open source project that I am working on. But simply put I work because I want a better standard of living than mere survival and because I don't believe on living of others tax dollars.
But my car has been bought using a purchase scheme - i.e. effectively through a loan. But because I do this does this make me evil.
This arguement uses the mathematical logical deduction that the MPAA and the RIAA are actually full of crap.
Proof :
Right with the DMCA saying to the effect that it is illegal to produce something that has aids or has the ability to copy copyrighted material.
Now if the MPAA and RIAA believe what they are saying and enforcing the DMCA then why aren't they going after the real culprates of recording technology.
That is the ones who make the video casettes, the CD and DVD writers, the people who make file transfer programs and create the technology for copying or duplicating copyrighted material.
Oh but heh the majority of the corporations behind the RIAA and the MPAA are the ones makeing these products and items.
So if they hold true to what they say then they should be effectively sueing themselves. But the contradiction is that they aren't sueing any of the corporations that form themselves even though these corporations are breaking the DMCA by producing these products.
Hence the MPAA and the RIAA are full of crap because they aren't sueing the real culprits, themselves.
As an offsping to this logic - they only try sueing and bringing criminal charges against those outside side their band of corporations hence what they are is a front to form market control.
At the whim of American corporations
We are being nice when we buy the DVDs from these big corporations. We are effectively paying their wages when we do this. We are supporting them.
So when we try to watch their DVDs in the manner that suits ourselves we have a war raged against us. Are we supposed to ask them politely then. You can try but I don't think they would really care.
If they did they would see from their market research that this action was going to do them more damage than good.
Personally I think that power has gone to the heads of some of the people running these corporations. They have effectively become their own little Hitlers.
As history has shown the ownly action that these people seem to understand is that of force. By hitting them effectively where it hurts we can have the ability to make them change their attitudes or at least stop their conquest over us.
Namely by raising public awairness that these people are trying to effectively undercut that which we nearly every citzen holds dear. That of freedom of speech. Their lawsuits against DeCSS and MP3 are not about copyrighting but about their dominantion of their market. We need to make the public aware of this and show this lie for what it really is. And with all of this we can get at them where it REALLY hurts - their share price and their base line.
We also need to win in the courts and show up these corporations are doing is illegal and against the constiution.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not personally against corporations - alot of them have done alot for us. But I will oppose with every fibre in my body against the person who trys to remove our most basic values. That of freedom.
Amen to that. Big corps that hold all the power are the product of captialism but they also represent the exact opposite of one of the founding principles of what captialism is about. That of competition.
If you are a large corp, or group of them, that holds all the power on a particular market then you have then you can effectively dictate how it is run. And it is simple enough to pull the strings of the politicians by providing funds, lobbying and scare tatics that if they don't pass the laws they want then ecomony will fail. And the last thing any politician wants is a failing ecomony.
Anyone who trys to "musle" in on their market or market area which they don't want can either be bought over or sued and tragged through the legal process such they are ruined.
As for the small businesses they are subject to domination and dication by corpate powers because they are usually either a part of a supply line for which the corporations are a part off (and what power do you think a small business has in dicating rules to a big corporation) or they enter into competition with a big corp or in a market that some big corp want - hence buy you out.
Too me one of the founding princples of proper captialism is that of competition. And as part of that competition comes the right of the consumer to have the right to choose. Basically I have the right to choose weither I do my food shopping at the super market or the local corner shop. Both manage to survive because they can co-exist but still in competition with one another.
However when a group of or a single corporation dictate the policy of what we the consumer have the right to buy or not buy. Never mind the right to say what we like for fear of prosecution. Then we no longer live in a capitialist society but in corpate dictactorship and the illusion of it still being democratic is only an illusion.
In an ideal world the following business model I think would be best in providing an e-commerece trade for the likes of mp3.
/etc/passwd (or /etc/shadow - depending on your setup).
:)
Just like record shops the '.com's would have a trade agreement with the record companies. In effect this allows the record-shop.com to sell either the songs on-line while paying royalities to the record company.
Now the customer buying the music can either or both have.
1. The mp3 is kept on the record-shop.com's server and a database which holds information relating to the customer's account provides access to that song once the transaction is complete. So the user can use a bit of player software to listen to the song while streaming it of the server. Also to protect from paranoia the mp3 stream is encrypted during transfer.
2. The mp3 song can be downloaded once purchased. Now to protect from copying the song the mp3 is encrypted using something like the MD5 digest of the users account password. This is so that the MD5 digest can be held locally on the computer and has the same kind of protection as the likes of encrypted passwords in
I am very opposed to having the song being encoded such that it will only ever play on the computer it was downloaded too. The basic premise is people usually upgrade there computer hardware, have portable players, different OSs on the same computer, more than one computer etc etc etc etc. And thought of having to redownload your ENTIRE music collection from all the record-shop.com's each time you had to re-install Windows 98 would drive you away from it and kill the market before it had even started.
However the scheme has the same weakness and ethical debate as that of DVD - even more so because an mp3 file is a hell of a lot smaller than a DVD disc - so easier to copy and distribute once decoded.
My suggestion would be to integrate a unique digital-ID signature into the decrpyted form of the mp3. It would have be such that the removal of the siganture from a signed mp3 file would be NP-complete or there abouts. Personally I don't know of any such algorthim - but I'm sure there out there. But the end effect is that if a mp3 is pirated then the original perpatrator could be identified. Also the digital-ID would have to be integrated in such a way that if the decrpyted mp3 was played back using another player that didn't know about digital-ID signatures wouldn't flip out.
Believe me that I have very little illusion that doing this is very very hard. But hey - what else was voodoo and black magic invented for
This kind of follows the same idea as how the person who created the Melissa virus was caught.
By this way nearly everyone is happy - the source code for the client and server end could be published. Just like the RSA public-key encrpytion is published - point here is that we know the process but don't know how to break it. The thing is not proprietary - like DVD is at the moment. The record companies are kept happy because they get paid for selling their music on-line safe in the knowledge that they still get their royalities, have an increased market audience and if an mp3 is illegally distrubited then they can trace back to the source of where it came from and get the pirate who distrubuted it.
Anyway back to banging my head of the desk writing my mp3 decoder. Just to answer the question of 'Why?' when there are other decoders out there under the GPL - because I love audio compression technology and of all the subjects I know this one I know the best, because I want to understand it, because its a challenge that is there. Just for reassurance - it will be released under the GPL. Also noted a few things in going through other mp3 decoder code.
1. The original decoder code released by the ISO has a flaw in it. Although the code I am referencing it from is dated 1994 - so problem may have been fixed. The flaw is in the dequantization section when using a mixed block frame under a mp3 encoded to the MPEG 2.0 or 2.5 specification. When switching from the long block to the short block the variables pertaining to the next boundary reference and the sfBandIndex are thrown out of syncronisation - leading to buffer overflow situations.
2. In the XMMS source code it uses Byeong Gi Lee's Fast Cosine Transform for applying the DCT calculations. However in the middle of reading a paper that has the statement that this alrgorithm is not mathematically stable - probably not enough to effect mp3 decoding - but I've seen the mathematical consequences of unstable equations. Though I've still got to see the mathematical proof for this statement. I'll get back on that one - doing large research into DCT and associated algorithms.
I think this guy fails to see the entire point of why this piece of software was written in the first place and why it doesn't promote the illegal copying of DVDs. 1. Every DVD player already has the keys. So effectively it doesn't matter weither or not the DVD content has been decrypted because the DVD player will decrypt it anyhow. 2. The simple fact that encrypting a file can't stop the process of actually copying it.
This action on the part of the MPAA is completely stupid. It goes against one of the founding principles of capitalism - that of giving the customer what they want. Because of this someone else has taken action and now they are trying to wage an underhanded dirty war against them.
I mean the very action of raiding a teenagers house, arresting, intergating and charging his family - based on the lie that he created a bit of software that can copy DVDs is - well I don't have the words.
In return we show our disgust and mount a protest against the MPAA and the corps it represents. By which they recieve bad publicity - leading to falling share prices - decreased customer loyality - unhappy share holders and effectively damaging themselves.
What they should have done was realized the potential market place of a DVD Player for Linux and created and supplied one.
Again the same action as the record industry have against the mp3 market. These companies are missing out on probablily a potentially huge gold mine. Instead they want to try and destory the market - but because of the way capitialism works they can't and now they are losing out.
As a person who loves listening to music but who doesn't like the hassle of changing the CD to listen to another artist - mp3 is the perfect medium. Also I don't have the time to go into the center of the city, park my car and go shopping for a CD just so I can listen to one song on it. It is far more convient to download it of the Internet. Yet the record industry simply doesn't get this - outstanding.
Following along nearly the same line of arguement of producing two code bases. Instead of having two forked source code trees completely seperate the source code tree is split at the losest possible level.
For instance, say you develop a product which can both be compiled for Linux and Windows. The differences between the two come from the places where different objects have to be used to integrate the OS independant code into the OS.
Now the Linux code is released under the GPL license. Note this both includes the Linux OS dependant code and the OS independant code. The Windows version is released under another license and in this license it staights something to the effect that the Windows dependant code is the property of the author - hence propertory. However the OS independant code is still under the GPL release. But the Windows version has to have a license bought for it.
This means that the OS independant and the Linux dependant code is open source and thus can go through the same process of modification and alteration as other GPLd code.
Now I don't know how far you can go down this path or with this approach without volation of the GPL. I think this approach is alright if you are the author of the project and the original source code and any modifications made from the open-source community are of low enough volume that the majority of the work is still created by yourself.
However I don't think its alright to take a GPL'd product add-on a couple of parts to make it run under another OS and then go selling the product using the same arguement - simply because the majority of the work wouldn't be carried out by the person selling the modified product.
Actually this probably Homer Simpsons old business. If you remeber it is was taken over by Bill Gates in the usual fashion ;)
But they also claim to pay their hired team of software engineers between $60000 and $80000 per annum.
Its simple - it don't add.
I quite agree. It seems to the one of the main critrea of a professional solider to be required (or ordered) to kill, and try not to get killed in the process. However I think the real problem lies, although this is probably to much of an over simplification of the problem, that there is a very large culture difference between the hacker culture and the military organisation. For example - In the military you have the strict hierarchal structure through the chain of command. You carry out the order without question. If your superiour officer gave you an order and you were hacker then its most likely in your instinct to question it and you will try and give a better suggestion for it. It will probably take something of the dialogue. Officer - "Break into X's main electrical plant through IP node a.b.c.d" Hacker - "Actually that node is a very secure Linux box with extensive firewall protection. It would be better just dialing-up there pcAnywhere modem located beside their mainframe and gaining access that way." (I know of a bank with this type of setup and there was no security on the pcAnywhere terminal). Officer - "Are you questioning my orders? You are relieved of duty." ... So on and so forth. Unless the military are prepared to put up with our way of working and somehow cross this gap - it ain't really going to happen. The hackers will probably just get fed up it and move to work for X corp - which has the better pay package.
I loved my Amiga A4000. Of all the computers that I have worked with it is the one that has taught me the most and inspired me the most. Basically I could take this machine and understand it inside out. It helped me learn assembler (68k varity) and help me understand how C code is transalted into machine code. V. Useful for writing really good C code. This was definitely a machine to aspire too.
... Eh! No, its sits in my house permanently switched on running nontheless .. Linux or Redhat 5.2 Linux with 2.2.10 kernel. It acts as file server, print server, firewall and gateway (well when I get the HyperCOM 3+ driver working for it, all I need is the damn registerary locations for the chip and vola), backup system, mail server, etc. All nicely secured.
And now where is A4000 now? Dead?
And all this and more on 25MHz 68040 - it runs without complaint.
Believe me - my A4000 is certainly not dead and I trust it far more than the Intel-PCs that I have around me.
My point is that although QNX may have developed a OS for the Amiga - The ability to run Linux and have all the functionality that it intales means that it is still a very useful piece of kit.
Also you should remeber the APUS project - Linux for the PowerPC chip. Certainly things at this end are very nice indeed - latest prototypes are multiple G4 processors (enough speed there give an Atholon system a good kick several times over) using as a Gfx card a GForce based card. That is certainly NOT a redundant system.
Its seems to me that Amiga has evolved behind the scenes with drips and drabs coming out in small number. All I think Amino have to do is to take likes of this prototype (although Phase5 use this - me thinks), package it in a cool looking case with a more solid construction (i.e. the processor and gfx cards are not hanging of each and everything shoved into the clock port, and oh yeah good power supply), get Linux APUS up to the point where it is ready for a stable release (i.e. on the 2.4 kernel series) or go with the QNX OS with backward comptability for existing apps.... and you have a system that can sold at an affordable price and has the power take on the likes of a Solaris server. Hmmm NEAT.
Amiga is definitely not dead... only been in hiding.
I am not going to even beginning to say weither this guy is right or wrong. Through the deduction of Sodd's Law if say he is wrong then it will turn out to be right. ;)
I am going to reserve judgement on this until the scientific papers have been released, reviewed and the experiments either reproduced or not.
However from what I can tell it looks like a fraud. My reasoning on this is that he has not specialized and has too many far out ideas. i.e. The fact of an anti-gravity technology, AI computers with a sense of being and the ability to create limitless cheap energy. These kind of technologies just would/are taking vast resources of brain power and research. And for one man to come up with them all - just a bit too far fetched.
On the other hand, if he is right. Well the applications would be endless and maybe, just maybe he is a utter genius and the next Enstein. Maybe he has actually found a mathematical path through the equations of quatum mechanics that does show what he is saying is correct.
I do have to confess that I have slight gut feeling that maybe that he might be right though. I should note at this point I am certainly no expert or authority on quantum mechanics. The reason for this is that it seems to me that although we are pushing string theory to get our answers it seems to be getting more and more complicated and more and more entangled. It usual a rule of thumb that the nature manages to boil things down to simple fundamentals and equations without great complexity.
Now here is an alternative explanation which is seems to be simplier. May answer unexplained observation. By the rule of thumb it seems that this could provide a better explanation.
However gut feeling IS NOT science.
But in the end the truth of the matter will come through. If he is right then his experiments will be able to be reprocuded independantly by other scientists. If he is wrong then the experiments will fail.
So personally I am going to keep a close eye on this and see what the scientific community say when his work can recieve peer review.
I was wondering if the Picard manuever was related to the Picard who came up with iteration mechanism to help solve provide a numerical analysis technique for solving differential equations.
Or the Picard manuever taught in Star Fleet acadamy which if I remember correctly Capt. Picard used aboard the StarGazer.
Or maybe I should get a life;)
I think its disgraceful to make it sociably unasseptable to say "Merry Christmas".
When I say it to someone I am justing showing a bit of affection, and wishing for their happiness for the time of year. I am not imposing any kind of religious point of view.
The person I am saying it to may or may not share in my belief of it being it a simple curtasy. But it is important that they respect it because in turn I will respect their beliefs.
Basically the point I am making is that we should all respect each other beliefs and points of view. And once we start segrating out a particular group because it is not in line with someone elses beliefs then that is the start of a very slippery path towards... Well we all know off World War II and I for one have no wish to go back there.
There is off course the explanation that Santa employs the powers of quantum mechanics. In this case the use of the multiuniverse theory (or the other theory - depending on your point of view) can be used.
;)
By quantum mechanics Santa manages to manifest himself in all states in the same point in time. Santa can employ quantum mechanics based on the uncertainty principle of "Does Santa Claus exist or not?" and "Have I been a good boy/girl/it?".
In this way Santa assumes all states at once. Being in all chimneys, filling all stockings, eatting the mince pie left out for him, etc etc, all at the same single point in time.
Now the really clever part is how does Santa manage to forge every single person's pareints signature.