The definition of what constitutes a "high" frequency in digital all depends on the sample rate and sample width. Go up high enough, it's not a perceptable issue, as the frequencies you are dealing with are all well below your limit.
"Analog is a continuous wave....digital is not. Period. Aside from the idiosynchrosies that make analog a great medium (creative) to work in, digital has that one drawback."
Analog recordings are subject to limitations of the recording medium. Frequency response, attenuation, noise, dynamic range, etc. The "pure wave" is just theoretical. Your analog recording is no more "pure" than a very high resolution digital recording. Both can resolve the original signal to a degree where any variations are far, far beyond your range of hearing.
Both have caveats.
If the digital signal can reproduce the analog wave to an accuracy far beyond what the human ear and mind can percieve, then the issue is moot. And it can.
If you treat high end digital gear just as you would analog gear, of COURSE it's not going to be as good. You rely on certain features of analog gear that you may have not really thought about (like what happens when you drive it too hard).
If you take these features into consideration, and use the digital gear properly (like ensuring it doesn't get too much signal), the problem goes away.
Laser doesn't mean beam.. it just means the light is all in-phase. We just think of it as a beam, as that's the most common use.
Take apart a laser pointer, you'll find a columnating lens. Take that out, have the laser diode out in the open, and you'll see the entire room awash in that funky red laser glow, interference patterns and all (indicating coherence). (please don't look directly at it.)
Some (most?) laser devices generate a highly focused beam naturally..but it's still a normal beam of light. The inverse-square relationship applies to anything spreading out linearly over distance.. so unless the beam is perfectly parallel, which i'm not sure is even possible, it applies.
Lasers tend to be single wavelength and coherent, making them easier to accurately focus, without scatter.
They don't call it a "light pointer" because it's actually in-phase laser light.
I'm fairly sure it does. I know there are cases where a laser CAN be a true beam, but they are very specific.
Your laser pointer is just run through a columnating lense.. it is not a perfect beam, and spreads out linearly.
The decrease in energy density is because it's spreading out over a wider and wider area. The inverse square law still applies, unless I"m mistaken, and the beam doesn't get wider and wider, and in fact stays the same.
The law does not clearly define how this would apply to the internet, that's one reason why things aren't so clear. It was written in pre-internet days.
My machine is making a copy, so is the server, so is every router along the way, and so on. If we look at intent though:
Personal non-commercial copying is expressly permitted, that's the point. You ARE allowed to lend me a CD in order for me to copy it. You are not allowed to open up a booth at a flea market and offer free copies to anyone.
At some point people need to take responsibility for their actions. If you leave a bunch of copyrighted material, which you know you are not allowed to publicly distribute, open to the public, then you do share some of the responsibility. If you didn't know it was open to the public, canadian law will largely protect you, as intent is very important.
I think that blanket statements about online copying being good or bad don't work. Me giving a friend a copy of a song to check out is fine, regardless of the mechanism. Me pretending that everyone on earth with a computer is my friend and distributing that song is obviously not okay.
How you draw the line, that's the part nobody really has figured out yet.
I like going to the theater.. I get a HUGE screen, big fat sound, very comfortable lazy-boy style recliners and a waiter who brings my choice of beer & sushi, nachos, popcorn, junk food, coctails, etc. Yes, even while the movie is going. Great cup holders, and every seat in the house has a great view of the screen.
Certainly, I don't like MS, and I very much love my mac.. but if you ask me, the MS office suite for OS X is better than the windows version.. it's a native OS X app, not some nasty port, it behaves accordingly. I was actually shocked that it came out of microsoft.
If Apple can outdo MS in this regard, more power to them.. but Office X for mac is quite a nice product, believe it or not.
You are actually free to lend me all the CDs you want, they are yours.
I am also free to make copies of them.
My understanding of our law is that I can make a copy for myself, you cannot make a copy and give it to me (because you would then be copying & distributing copyrighted works without permission.) If I make the copy myself, no distribution of unauthorized copies is taking place.
Of course with the internet, things like who is doing the copying and where it's being done get debatable.. but the intent is fairly clear.
The current opinion is that downloading is legal, while uploading is not.
(In other words, the act of making a personal copy of something for yourself is not illegal. The act of distributing copies to others IS)
To draw a fairly accurate meatspace analogy:
Lending me a CD so I can make a copy is okay. Making a bunch of copies yourslef and handing them out downtown is not. Obviously, the definition of "copy" and who is doing what gets fuzzy with the internet, but the intent is fairly clear, it puts the onus on those irresponsibly doing the distributing, not on those receiving it.
Not 10 times more powerful. 10 times the amplitude. Thousands of times more energy.
Not all earthquakes result in tsunamis. Plenty of quakes do not, in fact. Tsunamis move REALLY fast in deep water, and are basically impossible to detect from the air.
We can't evacuate tens of thousands of miles of densely populated coastline across many countries every time there is a large undersea earthquake.
The fact is, yes there could be better monitoring and notification, but don't think for a minute that modern technology could have done much to prevent this.
When you purchase chips, there is no requirement that you MUST run them at the rated speed. A chip, like any other component or tool, has a rating that the manufacturer guarantees... sort of like your car. So many HP, so much torque, measured in a certain way, etc.
If I build a device and sell it, but am using the components in nonstandard ways, the manufacturer isn't going to be pissed at me. If my nonstandard ways cause things to break, the customers will be pissed at me, and I won't be able to bitch to my supplier, because I was operating outside of spec.. but if it works, I'm fine.
Selling an overclocked x86 machine and calling it such is perfectly fine, overclocking is not a crime in any way.
Selling an overclocked machine as a 4Ghz P4, for instance, when the chip was only rated to 3Ghz is only dodgy because so much emphasis is placed on the chip, the customer would naturally expect that this mean the computer contained a chip rated to 4Ghz from Intel.
I don't believe the right for the press to protect confidential sources is written in law. The press wants you to think it is, and makes lots of bad publicity if a judge orders a press researcher to testify, but members of the press have been fined and/or jailed for refusing a court order to divulge information.
It's not over the top at all. Spyware is a HUGE problem.
People who "never" get infected, (I'm like you in this regard), are a very small minority, and it's partly luck.
I administer a network of 300+ workstations. We have reasonably locked down computers, as up to date as humanly possible, and spyware is still a constant problems. Extreme vigilance with regards to updates and extreme restrictions on what users can do reduces this to only a few machines now and then, but the problem IS large, and is a constant threat. Believe me, if we could ignore it we would.
The defendants never showed up in court, so it was a default judgement.
What I wonder is this:
If the plaintiff can now track down the principal owners of these companies that the judgements were against, can he immediately sieze all their assetts? any business/fancy cars/homes/etc?
The court's responsibility isn't to find these poeple, right? Collecting is up to the plaintiff now, but the courts will assist?
This thing can be turned likely with no more power than your typical big TV or computer uses. It doesn't take much... low friction and balance and all that. 350kW maybe?
If he walked into the central clearinghouse and walked off with a hard drive with a million credit card numbers on it, and we know that it was the credit card numbers he was after, then yes, he should get 9 years.
I'm not sure how massive credit card theft is dealt with in the courts, but it's likely they can show that the intent was to use those numbers for fraudulent transactions.
Attempting to steal hundreds of thousands or millions of credit card numbers and also use them (or contribute to their use) in a fraudulent manner is a massive financial crime, and 9 years is not that long.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, however...
The definition of what constitutes a "high" frequency in digital all depends on the sample rate and sample width. Go up high enough, it's not a perceptable issue, as the frequencies you are dealing with are all well below your limit.
"Analog is a continuous wave....digital is not. Period. Aside from the idiosynchrosies that make analog a great medium (creative) to work in, digital has that one drawback."
Analog recordings are subject to limitations of the recording medium. Frequency response, attenuation, noise, dynamic range, etc. The "pure wave" is just theoretical. Your analog recording is no more "pure" than a very high resolution digital recording. Both can resolve the original signal to a degree where any variations are far, far beyond your range of hearing.
Both have caveats.
If the digital signal can reproduce the analog wave to an accuracy far beyond what the human ear and mind can percieve, then the issue is moot. And it can.
Yes.
So many people seem to misunderstand this.
If you treat high end digital gear just as you would analog gear, of COURSE it's not going to be as good. You rely on certain features of analog gear that you may have not really thought about (like what happens when you drive it too hard).
If you take these features into consideration, and use the digital gear properly (like ensuring it doesn't get too much signal), the problem goes away.
Laser doesn't mean beam.. it just means the light is all in-phase. We just think of it as a beam, as that's the most common use.
.but it's still a normal beam of light. The inverse-square relationship applies to anything spreading out linearly over distance.. so unless the beam is perfectly parallel, which i'm not sure is even possible, it applies.
Take apart a laser pointer, you'll find a columnating lens. Take that out, have the laser diode out in the open, and you'll see the entire room awash in that funky red laser glow, interference patterns and all (indicating coherence). (please don't look directly at it.)
Some (most?) laser devices generate a highly focused beam naturally.
Lasers tend to be single wavelength and coherent, making them easier to accurately focus, without scatter.
They don't call it a "light pointer" because it's actually in-phase laser light.
The less power you need to talk to someone, the longer your batteries last.
I'm fairly sure it does. I know there are cases where a laser CAN be a true beam, but they are very specific.
Your laser pointer is just run through a columnating lense.. it is not a perfect beam, and spreads out linearly.
The decrease in energy density is because it's spreading out over a wider and wider area. The inverse square law still applies, unless I"m mistaken, and the beam doesn't get wider and wider, and in fact stays the same.
The law does not clearly define how this would apply to the internet, that's one reason why things aren't so clear. It was written in pre-internet days.
My machine is making a copy, so is the server, so is every router along the way, and so on. If we look at intent though:
Personal non-commercial copying is expressly permitted, that's the point. You ARE allowed to lend me a CD in order for me to copy it. You are not allowed to open up a booth at a flea market and offer free copies to anyone.
At some point people need to take responsibility for their actions. If you leave a bunch of copyrighted material, which you know you are not allowed to publicly distribute, open to the public, then you do share some of the responsibility. If you didn't know it was open to the public, canadian law will largely protect you, as intent is very important.
I think that blanket statements about online copying being good or bad don't work. Me giving a friend a copy of a song to check out is fine, regardless of the mechanism. Me pretending that everyone on earth with a computer is my friend and distributing that song is obviously not okay.
How you draw the line, that's the part nobody really has figured out yet.
Absolutely I would.
I like going to the theater.. I get a HUGE screen, big fat sound, very comfortable lazy-boy style recliners and a waiter who brings my choice of beer & sushi, nachos, popcorn, junk food, coctails, etc. Yes, even while the movie is going. Great cup holders, and every seat in the house has a great view of the screen.
Why would I want to stay home?
I'm a bit puzzled here....
Certainly, I don't like MS, and I very much love my mac.. but if you ask me, the MS office suite for OS X is better than the windows version.. it's a native OS X app, not some nasty port, it behaves accordingly. I was actually shocked that it came out of microsoft.
If Apple can outdo MS in this regard, more power to them.. but Office X for mac is quite a nice product, believe it or not.
You are actually free to lend me all the CDs you want, they are yours.
I am also free to make copies of them.
My understanding of our law is that I can make a copy for myself, you cannot make a copy and give it to me (because you would then be copying & distributing copyrighted works without permission.) If I make the copy myself, no distribution of unauthorized copies is taking place.
Of course with the internet, things like who is doing the copying and where it's being done get debatable.. but the intent is fairly clear.
Not exactly, but close.
The current opinion is that downloading is legal, while uploading is not.
(In other words, the act of making a personal copy of something for yourself is not illegal. The act of distributing copies to others IS)
To draw a fairly accurate meatspace analogy:
Lending me a CD so I can make a copy is okay. Making a bunch of copies yourslef and handing them out downtown is not. Obviously, the definition of "copy" and who is doing what gets fuzzy with the internet, but the intent is fairly clear, it puts the onus on those irresponsibly doing the distributing, not on those receiving it.
- tsunami can travel up to 900kph in deep water. Yes, as fast as a jet. This one was 600kph.
- tsunami is impossible to detect visually in open ocean (it's a vast area of ocean raised up, say, 1 foot. not possible to really see)
- not all earthquakes produce a tsunami.
Not 10 times more powerful. 10 times the amplitude. Thousands of times more energy.
Not all earthquakes result in tsunamis. Plenty of quakes do not, in fact. Tsunamis move REALLY fast in deep water, and are basically impossible to detect from the air.
We can't evacuate tens of thousands of miles of densely populated coastline across many countries every time there is a large undersea earthquake.
The fact is, yes there could be better monitoring and notification, but don't think for a minute that modern technology could have done much to prevent this.
My crowbar won't care if your lock is RSA based or not.
Not quite.
When you purchase chips, there is no requirement that you MUST run them at the rated speed. A chip, like any other component or tool, has a rating that the manufacturer guarantees... sort of like your car. So many HP, so much torque, measured in a certain way, etc.
If I build a device and sell it, but am using the components in nonstandard ways, the manufacturer isn't going to be pissed at me. If my nonstandard ways cause things to break, the customers will be pissed at me, and I won't be able to bitch to my supplier, because I was operating outside of spec.. but if it works, I'm fine.
Selling an overclocked x86 machine and calling it such is perfectly fine, overclocking is not a crime in any way.
Selling an overclocked machine as a 4Ghz P4, for instance, when the chip was only rated to 3Ghz is only dodgy because so much emphasis is placed on the chip, the customer would naturally expect that this mean the computer contained a chip rated to 4Ghz from Intel.
If I'm reading the news right, none of these bugs work in XP SP2? I'd hardly call that "Unpatched"
I don't believe the right for the press to protect confidential sources is written in law. The press wants you to think it is, and makes lots of bad publicity if a judge orders a press researcher to testify, but members of the press have been fined and/or jailed for refusing a court order to divulge information.
members of the press are not above the law.
It's not over the top at all. Spyware is a HUGE problem.
People who "never" get infected, (I'm like you in this regard), are a very small minority, and it's partly luck.
I administer a network of 300+ workstations. We have reasonably locked down computers, as up to date as humanly possible, and spyware is still a constant problems. Extreme vigilance with regards to updates and extreme restrictions on what users can do reduces this to only a few machines now and then, but the problem IS large, and is a constant threat. Believe me, if we could ignore it we would.
Apple Cinema displays.
Apple is loved by artists all over the place, yet apple doesn't have a CRT anymore, only LCDs.
Are Apple LCDs somehow far far better for color calibration? If not, it seems odd that they would drop CRTs from the menu.
The defendants never showed up in court, so it was a default judgement.
What I wonder is this:
If the plaintiff can now track down the principal owners of these companies that the judgements were against, can he immediately sieze all their assetts? any business/fancy cars/homes/etc?
The court's responsibility isn't to find these poeple, right? Collecting is up to the plaintiff now, but the courts will assist?
You realize there is plenty of malware that the tools you mentioned will never see, and that you won't normally notice?
This thing can be turned likely with no more power than your typical big TV or computer uses. It doesn't take much... low friction and balance and all that. 350kW maybe?
Higher units always cost more.
Keep in mind that in the same area you can likely buy a HUGE property and house for US $300,000
If he walked into the central clearinghouse and walked off with a hard drive with a million credit card numbers on it, and we know that it was the credit card numbers he was after, then yes, he should get 9 years.
I'm not sure how massive credit card theft is dealt with in the courts, but it's likely they can show that the intent was to use those numbers for fraudulent transactions.
Attempting to steal hundreds of thousands or millions of credit card numbers and also use them (or contribute to their use) in a fraudulent manner is a massive financial crime, and 9 years is not that long.
The computer isn't hte problem.
IF he'd just broken in, you'd have a point.
That he tried to steal an absolutely huge number of credit card numbers is the issue, and that's the central issue.
If he'd broken into a central office and stolen a truckload of printouts to get the same thing, it would be the same issue.