Um, MP3s are not exactly the same as the original input signal. There is already loss there, it's just loss that you can't much hear (tho I know some snob audio purists who claim they can).
The point is, taking the output from a fast-enough DAC with proper filtering, and re-digitizing it, the loss is very small. In a pinch, software and hardware could be made to try to fing the "bit length" from the DAC, and in turn synch the ADC to the same length (tho that'd be both hard to do, and pointless, given the proper filtering).
Egg-zackly true! The same "problem" lies with digital video, as well. As long as the encrypted information can be changed back into the original signal, that signal can be re-encoded *without* encryption. It'd be one of the simplest hacks in the Universe.
An example, from ham radio... There was a local repeater system that started using old Motorola hardware to send a half-second of beeps to open it up. Every paying user had this hardware, and his own set of different tones. I took a digital recorder chip from Radio shack, tuned to the input of the repeater, and "recorded" one of these beeps. Then, I made a playback circuit to play that recording in via the microphone, whenever the unit was keyed.
Bingo! That "closed" machine was now open. The hardware that the paying users had to buy cost them about a hundred bucks each; the hardware that allowed anybody to use it cost under $20, retail.
ANYTHING that can be heard, seen or measured, can be copied. No such encryption scheme will ever succeed because there must be a way for "approved" users to see or hear the end product.
While the transformation was interesting, isn't the whole object of the exercise to get out, after translation, something that could be at least comprehended to mean what the original did? In other words, by demonstrating that multi-pass automatic translations mangle the pediddle out of what was said, you've not preserved the meaning. It'd be easier just to run things through a random letter generator - that'd mess up identifying you, sure, but then, why would you bother?
Gee, he cannot port the drivers himself, for his own use, because of GPL? Cause that's what I read there. Digi has no drivers. The author wanted drivers. They suggested that he port the Linux drivers, and the author found fault with that.
Gee, folks, is this dumb or what? If it's "open" sourced, yet I am not free to make improvements on it, what's the point? Sure, he'd be improving the Linux drivers, in his scenario, by making them into BSD drivers... If he is prohibited from doing this at home, on his own, by the GPL, then I have no interest in *touching* anything that's GPLed.
What I read was that Digi suggested that *he* port the drivers, not that they do it and distribute the new kernel. He supposedly cannot do that, it's against the GPL license.
Gee, he said... "Digi was displaying some new serial hardware in the Red Hat booth, and [I] asked them about BSD drivers. They said that they didn't have them, but "why don't you just port them from Linux?" (I tried to explain to them that the GPL, which is designed to monkey-wrench exactly such activities, precluded this"
OK, slam Digi for not knowing that GPL said you can't just port stuff... but he also said:
"Unfortunately, despite the fact that recompiling and relinking a command-line compiler for BSD is nearly trivial" as a way to slam Borland, for not doing *exactly* what he said was illegal to do for Digi?!?
Huh? Did I miss something here? It sure seems to me that he's talking out of both sides of his mouth here. Why is it OK if Borland drags a version of Pascal over, but NOT ok for Digi dragging drivers over? Is it just because he'd have to do the work of dragging the Digi drivers, but not the Borland port?
I see progressively less and less reason for me to even read about BSD, if their crowd are all like this.
Read it? Every time I try the site, with Netscape 4.6, it hangs Netscape... tho only one other site does that and that one lets me in with IE... I'll assume the same applies here, but I do not want to use IE, period.
Hey, I *have* written serious code with "copy con"... I also once wrote a pre-boot menu program in DEBUG, something like 3k of code when finished. The place I worked for wanted the source code... I hit "d" a few dozen times while piping it to a file.
It was tres cool. Of course it didn't get used. They switched to Win-doze instead.
When first I scanned the story, I was amazed, to say the least. Why would the conferrence try to drag in LUGs? I live near the Univ of Washington, where LUGs and BUGS are thick as flies...
Then it hit me. Wait, they don't mean those who are "Lesbian Until Graduation" (BUGs are Bisexual Until Graduation), they must mean something else...
Only later did I twig to the thought of "Linux User's Groups"...
Not "Shut Up" software, its ear plugs
on
ShutUp Software
·
· Score: 1
VERY true! The software does not force somebody to shut up - it can, however, keep me from having to "hear" them. "Flames" can, and *should*, be phrased as a well argued opinion, not as "flames". If a poster cannot, consistantly cannot, do that, I'll stop listening to hym, plain and simple.
As for the "thick skin" suggestion, I have multiple sclerosis. Stress makes my symptoms worse, sometimes to the point where it may take me hours to be able to use my limbs again. I cannot just develop thicker skin, especially when it is so easy for a moron to send flames unthinkingly. If somebody argues in a calm and rational way with me, I can return the favor. If they flame me, I cannot return "fire" for hours. Instead, I ignore them, and henceforth and forevermore they disappear from my world.
The point is, if you wish to be heard, be rational. If you act like a spoiled brat, you'll be ignored, and some of us have medical reasons to ignore brats.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, MP3s are not exactly the same as the original input signal. There is already loss there, it's just loss that you can't much hear (tho I know some snob audio purists who claim they can).
The point is, taking the output from a fast-enough DAC with proper filtering, and re-digitizing it, the loss is very small. In a pinch, software and hardware could be made to try to fing the "bit length" from the DAC, and in turn synch the ADC to the same length (tho that'd be both hard to do, and pointless, given the proper filtering).
Jeannette
Egg-zackly true! The same "problem" lies with digital video, as well. As long as the encrypted information can be changed back into the original signal, that signal can be re-encoded *without* encryption. It'd be one of the simplest hacks in the Universe.
... There was a local repeater system that started using old Motorola hardware to send a half-second of beeps to open it up. Every paying user had this hardware, and his own set of different tones. I took a digital recorder chip from Radio shack, tuned to the input of the repeater, and "recorded" one of these beeps. Then, I made a playback circuit to play that recording in via the microphone, whenever the unit was keyed.
An example, from ham radio
Bingo! That "closed" machine was now open. The hardware that the paying users had to buy cost them about a hundred bucks each; the hardware that allowed anybody to use it cost under $20, retail.
ANYTHING that can be heard, seen or measured, can be copied. No such encryption scheme will ever succeed because there must be a way for "approved" users to see or hear the end product.
Jeannette
While the transformation was interesting, isn't the whole object of the exercise to get out, after translation, something that could be at least comprehended to mean what the original did? In other words, by demonstrating that multi-pass automatic translations mangle the pediddle out of what was said, you've not preserved the meaning. It'd be easier just to run things through a random letter generator - that'd mess up identifying you, sure, but then, why would you bother?
So he is prohibited from taking something that another person or persons wrote, and add to it, to use on his own machine?
No GPL for this grrl, not now, not ever!
Gee, he cannot port the drivers himself, for his own use, because of GPL? Cause that's what I read there. Digi has no drivers. The author wanted drivers. They suggested that he port the Linux drivers, and the author found fault with that.
Gee, folks, is this dumb or what? If it's "open" sourced, yet I am not free to make improvements on it, what's the point? Sure, he'd be improving the Linux drivers, in his scenario, by making them into BSD drivers... If he is prohibited from doing this at home, on his own, by the GPL, then I have no interest in *touching* anything that's GPLed.
What I read was that Digi suggested that *he* port the drivers, not that they do it and distribute the new kernel. He supposedly cannot do that, it's against the GPL license.
Gee, he said ...
"Digi was displaying some new serial hardware in the Red Hat booth, and [I] asked them about BSD drivers. They said that they didn't have them, but "why don't you just port them from Linux?" (I tried to explain to them that the GPL, which is designed to monkey-wrench exactly such activities, precluded this"
OK, slam Digi for not knowing that GPL said you can't just port stuff... but he also said:
"Unfortunately, despite the fact that recompiling and relinking a command-line compiler for BSD is nearly trivial" as a way to slam Borland, for not doing *exactly* what he said was illegal to do for Digi?!?
Huh? Did I miss something here? It sure seems to me that he's talking out of both sides of his mouth here. Why is it OK if Borland drags a version of Pascal over, but NOT ok for Digi dragging drivers over? Is it just because he'd have to do the work of dragging the Digi drivers, but not the Borland port?
I see progressively less and less reason for me to even read about BSD, if their crowd are all like this.
Jeannette
Read it? Every time I try the site, with Netscape 4.6, it hangs Netscape ... tho only one other site does that and that one lets me in with IE... I'll assume the same applies here, but I do not want to use IE, period.
Hey, I *have* written serious code with "copy con" ... I also once wrote a pre-boot menu program in DEBUG, something like 3k of code when finished. The place I worked for wanted the source code... I hit "d" a few dozen times while piping it to a file.
It was tres cool. Of course it didn't get used. They switched to Win-doze instead.
When first I scanned the story, I was amazed, to say the least. Why would the conferrence try to drag in LUGs? I live near the Univ of Washington, where LUGs and BUGS are thick as flies ...
...
...
Then it hit me. Wait, they don't mean those who are "Lesbian Until Graduation" (BUGs are Bisexual Until Graduation), they must mean something else
Only later did I twig to the thought of "Linux User's Groups"
VERY true! The software does not force somebody to shut up - it can, however, keep me from having to "hear" them. "Flames" can, and *should*, be phrased as a well argued opinion, not as "flames". If a poster cannot, consistantly cannot, do that, I'll stop listening to hym, plain and simple.
As for the "thick skin" suggestion, I have multiple sclerosis. Stress makes my symptoms worse, sometimes to the point where it may take me hours to be able to use my limbs again. I cannot just develop thicker skin, especially when it is so easy for a moron to send flames unthinkingly. If somebody argues in a calm and rational way with me, I can return the favor. If they flame me, I cannot return "fire" for hours. Instead, I ignore them, and henceforth and forevermore they disappear from my world.
The point is, if you wish to be heard, be rational. If you act like a spoiled brat, you'll be ignored, and some of us have medical reasons to ignore brats.
What's a grrl? As in "riot grrl" ... a radical femme, sometimes used (as here) to refer to a lesbian, or a punk rocker, or maybe both.
...
Think "Becca" from "Tank Girl"
Love and light,
Jeannette