It can have my wi-fi password. It's just getting a non-routable address, like every other non-computing device I have, so all it can do is play content from my network.
This is what VLANs are for. It can have a whole network domain to itself... and only to itself like every other device I disprove of.
....says that if you lose market share you cut prices to try and regain it. They will no doubt raise prices to try and keep revenue the same...thus driving off even more customers.
Why would their customers leave? In most cases, they have no choice whether they are buying TV service or Internet service.
Years ago I setup an external antenna, put a ATSC tuner in my BeyondTV machine, and hooked up all my HDTVs to the antenna. Don't have to rent anything, digital decoder for the old TV cost me 20$ on eBay, antenna was given to me. All I had to buy was a mast and the hardware to install it. Total cost was under 100$. total cost is 0$/month and I don't have to mess with unstable cable boxes.
It also continues to work after local power is lost do to the storm.
You're describing an ideal filter. In practice PLLs are used to reduce an extreme amount of jitter (think highspeed transmission lines), but when the levels of jitter are small in the first place the VCOs end up being a cure worse than the disease.
That is why a VCO is not used; instead, a VCXO is used. Then the benefit of high PLL bandwidth which would otherwise lower output jitter within the PLL bandwidth from the source clock is not required which is just as well because in this case the source clock has high jitter. So instead a low PLL bandwidth is used to control an oscillator which already has low jitter.
You achieve much better jitter performance for much lower cost using ASRC and a very good clock source.
The problem with ASRC is that it is only suitable when integrated which in practice means already part of a device side ASIC. If implemented on the CPU, it requires too much power.
The audio industry is good at weeding out things that don't make sense because some people are willing to spend literally anything to achieve the ideal, and pretty much no-one uses PLLs to eliminate jitter.
Of course for some reason they will spend money on any stupid idea and ignore what happens in the pro-audio side of the industry: Send the data via AES3 (almost S/PDIF) but clock the entire studio from an external wordclock.
There is a different reason a phased locked VCXO is not used. It limits the number of sample rates (although most could be covered with two crystals), cannot be integrated, takes up too much space and perhaps power in a small portable device, and most source material is so poor that it hardly matters.
At least the term "human resource management" is truthful. It is not like Department of Defense or Department of Justice. It used to be the Department of War and courts have nothing to do with justice; they are courts of law.
Phase locking an oscillator to the source doesn't actually reduce jitter, it just changes its frequency which still has a measurable effect on the analogue side (to be fair it is an improvement). A lot of high-end audio systems instead chose to implement asynchronous sample rate conversion locked to a new low jitter oscillator. Again the problem is that costs money (a good clock source costs as much as the main DAC ICs), and ASRC is also an imperfect process. This is the preferred option because most equipment these days upsamples anyway to make it easier to implement the analogue filter stage.
The way to fix it is to not incorporate the clock in the signal source. Unfortunately the effects of jitter were not understood when the standard was created. Some high-end audio actually bypasses all of this and gives you the option of running Inter-IC Sound (I2S) between equipment (usually with a short Ethernet cable). Problem is that really only works over very short distances (cm not meters) and it requires matching settings so really only works if you designed both pieces of equipment.
I also have seen one design transferring the clock signal to the source and then not attempting clock recovery at all at the DIR in the comfort of knowing the data will arrive at the right time anyway. Again non-standard.:-(
Phase locking absolutely reduces jitter; that is how a GPSDO works and a number of other low jitter frequency sources. In this case it means phase locking a crystal oscillator to the source material. The problem then becomes whether the source, usually 44.1kHz or 48kHz or a multiple, is outside of the pulling range of the oscillator. The PLL loop bandwidth may be low or even very low because unlike frequency synthesis, the oscillator source is already low noise.
Of course there are a lot of reasons this is not done. The oscillator requires a high voltage bias source. It is extra complexity compared to something which may be implemented through integration like sample rate conversion. It costs extra power. It costs extra space.
Grounding between digital and analogue are isolated somewhere in the equipment. Often they are not leading to noise coupling or better still that wonderful ground loop hum appearing directly on the analogue output.
They *should* be galvanically isolated but too much equipment does not bother.
2. The clock source of the digital components is derived via a PLL locked to the source signal. This jitters the clock and decimates the performance of the DACs, again this is both measurable and audible on the output.
There is actually a way to fix this but nobody bothers; phase lock a low jitter oscillator to the source. But this means including a separate oscillator instead of going the cheap integrated route. And even this will not work if the source sampling rate is too far off.
You deliver the court a PC, something nice and powerful, running a brute-force decryption crack attempt on the encrypted payload. Then you give them a reasonable estimate regarding how long they might expect to have to wait until the machine finds the correct key. That this length of time exceeds the lifetime of the universe might be understood to be the plaintiff's problem.
The US Supreme Court ruling in Eldred versus Ashcroft established that "limited time" is not perpetual so it will take the government only a "limited time" (and an easily calculated bound time) to brute force any encryption system. What are they complaining about?
Just like when a police officer stops you, he tells the court that you "eventually" pulled over no matter how quickly you did so.
Slashdot Mirror
If governments wrote tax-laws properly, they wouldn't be losing out on such tax, no matter what arrangement Apple tried to use.
They did write them properly ... for Apple.
I suppose there may be some direct drive cassette players, but I'm not aware of any.
The rubber pinch rollers still wear out even with a direct drive design.
I'm not sure why everyone doesn't do this. Why would you connect a spy device voluntarily to your network?
Why would everyone carry around a personalized localizer which forwards their current position to the authorities?
It can have my wi-fi password. It's just getting a non-routable address, like every other non-computing device I have, so all it can do is play content from my network.
This is what VLANs are for. It can have a whole network domain to itself ... and only to itself like every other device I disprove of.
Then it's time to open the TV up and snip the WiFi chip's power pin.
It might be programmed to notice that. Disabling the antenna is more covert.
What I did NOT do was to give the TV my wifi password.
The problem will be if it either finds an open WiFi network or the manufacturer installs a cell transceiver like many car companies do now.
Good time to figure out how to make adapter cables. Preferably ones that don't melt or require active components.
Is it legal to defeat the DRM?
When there is only one semiconductor manufacturer left what will it be called?
It will not matter because they will only be making products for the single combat aircraft that the US military can buy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
....says that if you lose market share you cut prices to try and regain it. They will no doubt raise prices to try and keep revenue the same...thus driving off even more customers.
Why would their customers leave? In most cases, they have no choice whether they are buying TV service or Internet service.
Years ago I setup an external antenna, put a ATSC tuner in my BeyondTV machine, and hooked up all my HDTVs to the antenna. Don't have to rent anything, digital decoder for the old TV cost me 20$ on eBay, antenna was given to me. All I had to buy was a mast and the hardware to install it. Total cost was under 100$. total cost is 0$/month and I don't have to mess with unstable cable boxes.
It also continues to work after local power is lost do to the storm.
"Well officer, what did the transponder report? Only 55 MPH? Isn't the speed limit 55? The radar says 70? I think your radar is wrong..."
An officer's guess is good enough for the court.
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
He will be arrested and then hired by the FBI or someone else.
The part I do not understand is, what part of this crime is interstate commerce?
Seems like smart would have been to either obtain the quiz questions ...
I have seen that movie. They stole the wrong test.
Is there any actual evidence that monitoring the traditional finance industry works?
It works for the finance industry. What else is required?
You're describing an ideal filter. In practice PLLs are used to reduce an extreme amount of jitter (think highspeed transmission lines), but when the levels of jitter are small in the first place the VCOs end up being a cure worse than the disease.
That is why a VCO is not used; instead, a VCXO is used. Then the benefit of high PLL bandwidth which would otherwise lower output jitter within the PLL bandwidth from the source clock is not required which is just as well because in this case the source clock has high jitter. So instead a low PLL bandwidth is used to control an oscillator which already has low jitter.
You achieve much better jitter performance for much lower cost using ASRC and a very good clock source.
The problem with ASRC is that it is only suitable when integrated which in practice means already part of a device side ASIC. If implemented on the CPU, it requires too much power.
The audio industry is good at weeding out things that don't make sense because some people are willing to spend literally anything to achieve the ideal, and pretty much no-one uses PLLs to eliminate jitter.
Of course for some reason they will spend money on any stupid idea and ignore what happens in the pro-audio side of the industry: Send the data via AES3 (almost S/PDIF) but clock the entire studio from an external wordclock.
There is a different reason a phased locked VCXO is not used. It limits the number of sample rates (although most could be covered with two crystals), cannot be integrated, takes up too much space and perhaps power in a small portable device, and most source material is so poor that it hardly matters.
Terms of service violations are violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, right?
I thought it was suppose to be good that companies can write criminal law.
At least the term "human resource management" is truthful. It is not like Department of Defense or Department of Justice. It used to be the Department of War and courts have nothing to do with justice; they are courts of law.
Get that? "Flight risk". So now we talk about workers in the same terms that we talk about fugitives or escaped slaves.
That is why it is called "human resource management".
As a non american, how can the user be fired due other people's problems? I can't believe the managers could be that stupid.
In most if not all states of the US, absolutely.
Phase locking an oscillator to the source doesn't actually reduce jitter, it just changes its frequency which still has a measurable effect on the analogue side (to be fair it is an improvement). A lot of high-end audio systems instead chose to implement asynchronous sample rate conversion locked to a new low jitter oscillator. Again the problem is that costs money (a good clock source costs as much as the main DAC ICs), and ASRC is also an imperfect process. This is the preferred option because most equipment these days upsamples anyway to make it easier to implement the analogue filter stage.
The way to fix it is to not incorporate the clock in the signal source. Unfortunately the effects of jitter were not understood when the standard was created. Some high-end audio actually bypasses all of this and gives you the option of running Inter-IC Sound (I2S) between equipment (usually with a short Ethernet cable). Problem is that really only works over very short distances (cm not meters) and it requires matching settings so really only works if you designed both pieces of equipment.
I also have seen one design transferring the clock signal to the source and then not attempting clock recovery at all at the DIR in the comfort of knowing the data will arrive at the right time anyway. Again non-standard. :-(
Phase locking absolutely reduces jitter; that is how a GPSDO works and a number of other low jitter frequency sources. In this case it means phase locking a crystal oscillator to the source material. The problem then becomes whether the source, usually 44.1kHz or 48kHz or a multiple, is outside of the pulling range of the oscillator. The PLL loop bandwidth may be low or even very low because unlike frequency synthesis, the oscillator source is already low noise.
Of course there are a lot of reasons this is not done. The oscillator requires a high voltage bias source. It is extra complexity compared to something which may be implemented through integration like sample rate conversion. It costs extra power. It costs extra space.
It's called a ground loop.
Using copper cables does not preclude ground isolation. It can even be designed into the standard like MIDI or Ethernet.
Grounding between digital and analogue are isolated somewhere in the equipment. Often they are not leading to noise coupling or better still that wonderful ground loop hum appearing directly on the analogue output.
They *should* be galvanically isolated but too much equipment does not bother.
2. The clock source of the digital components is derived via a PLL locked to the source signal. This jitters the clock and decimates the performance of the DACs, again this is both measurable and audible on the output.
There is actually a way to fix this but nobody bothers; phase lock a low jitter oscillator to the source. But this means including a separate oscillator instead of going the cheap integrated route. And even this will not work if the source sampling rate is too far off.
Sony would have found a way. And charged extra to fix it.
Of course it's not impossible.
You deliver the court a PC, something nice and powerful, running a brute-force decryption crack attempt on the encrypted payload. Then you give them a reasonable estimate regarding how long they might expect to have to wait until the machine finds the correct key. That this length of time exceeds the lifetime of the universe might be understood to be the plaintiff's problem.
The US Supreme Court ruling in Eldred versus Ashcroft established that "limited time" is not perpetual so it will take the government only a "limited time" (and an easily calculated bound time) to brute force any encryption system. What are they complaining about?
Just like when a police officer stops you, he tells the court that you "eventually" pulled over no matter how quickly you did so.
So why couldn't NASA do this?
They can. It only took NASA four tries to light the Delta Clipper on fire after landing.