There's a company that says they have found a way to neutralize the ME, overwriting all of its main modules (i.e. the ones that allow DMA and network access like this exploit uses): https://puri.sm/learn/avoiding...
I had the opposite problem. In Germany and Austria, I'd try to speak German and as soon as they heard my American accent they would speak English back to me.
> If you take three electronically produced 15kHz tones, one a sine wave, one a sawtooth wave, and one a square wave, that teenager can tell the difference between them.
That statement doesn't fit into my understanding how sound works and how humans hear. I'd be very interested to see a double-blind test where this is demonstrated, and not due to an error in the sampling process.
The thing that makes a tone a sine, sawtooth, or square wave is the presence or absence of harmonics. The first harmonic above the fundamental on a 15kHz tone would be 30kHz - inaudible. All any human (even with hearing up to 25kHz) can hear with any of these three tones is the 15kHz fundamental: a sine wave.
The parts of the shape you lose by sampling at 44.1kHz are the parts that make up the harmonics: 30kHz, 45kHz, 60kHz, 75kHz, etc. Since no human will ever hear those frequencies, they are OK to discard in order to sample at 44.1kHz. There will be a difference to the wave shape, but it will be *completely* inaudible to any human being. (Bats would notice it, though.)
All any person would ever hear in any of those three waves is a 15kHz sine, so all you need to record in this case is that frequency (unless you're planning to slow down/pitch shift the recording by several octaves, or play it for bats, or something).
But the artists are making fractions of a percent on CD sales, and paying for their advances from that net payment... Many end up in debt, even after a fairly decent hit. And the engineers usually work for hire - they get paid once for the work and make no royalties for sales.
So the middlemen are screwing the artists (thousands, all but the top dozen or two per year, lose money) and grabbing all the cash from CD sales. Meanwhile, the engineers already made their livable but modest salary and get nothing (except possibly reputation) if a record goes multi-platinum.
These bastards are trying to save their own gravy train by claiming that the piracy is harming the artists. They are being disingenuous.
Piracy does sometimes harm artists, but it's not a black-and-white situation. Some piracy harms, but some piracy helps due to publicity. Personally, I'd rather become popular by giving good stuff away and letting people voluntarily pay for it - look at Jonathan Coulton's business model.
Except it's NOT EVEN A PDF, so you don't need to take those precautions. OS X will say "_____ is an application you downloaded from the Internet. Are you sure you want to run it?" so any tech-literate user will know that it's an executable, not a PDF.
Alice and Bob are camping when they get attacked by a hungry lion. Running away at top speed, Alice begins to overtake Bob. "We'll never be able to outrun it!" says Bob. Alice replies, "I don't need to outrun the lion - I only need to outrun YOU!"
In that sense, all the security any given person needs is just not to be low-hanging fruit.
It doesn't make sense to me when you say frequency-domain codecs cannot be perceptually transparent. That statement is general and absolute and is in contradiction to the experimental data.
If a codec is indistinguishable from the original by a given individual, it is by definition transparent - at least for that person, with that source material, on that system.
Absolute proof is not achievable in this situation, but I believe the extensive double-blind ABX tests on hydrogenaudio provide a reasonably convincing body of evidence in favor of general perceptual transparency of high-bitrate MP3 with most source material on most sound systems for most people.
Vague and dogmatic assertions about "known issues" are less convincing to me. If it is a question of human perception, which this is, then the way to get closer to the answer is to test it by observing humans, not by theorizing without experimenting.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a company that says they have found a way to neutralize the ME, overwriting all of its main modules (i.e. the ones that allow DMA and network access like this exploit uses): https://puri.sm/learn/avoiding...
Well, to be fair, musicians don't generally use 5-6-7-8; that's more commonly used for choreography. With 4/4 (most) music, it's 1-2-3-4. :)
Good luck drinking that root beer when you're not in the sudoers file.
Ah, now I understand. "Evil" is the NAME of the editor. I thought that the Vim implementation in Emacs was both evil, and almost full.
You eat your junk mail?!
Well, based on the naming convention, it may obvious... or it may not.
Yam-like? Or is that just bad keming?
...who....needs..... enemies. (Oh god I couldn't stop myself. What have I done?)
:-/
I had the opposite problem. In Germany and Austria, I'd try to speak German and as soon as they heard my American accent they would speak English back to me.
> If you take three electronically produced 15kHz tones, one a sine wave, one a sawtooth wave, and one a square wave, that teenager can tell the difference between them.
That statement doesn't fit into my understanding how sound works and how humans hear. I'd be very interested to see a double-blind test where this is demonstrated, and not due to an error in the sampling process.
The thing that makes a tone a sine, sawtooth, or square wave is the presence or absence of harmonics. The first harmonic above the fundamental on a 15kHz tone would be 30kHz - inaudible. All any human (even with hearing up to 25kHz) can hear with any of these three tones is the 15kHz fundamental: a sine wave.
The parts of the shape you lose by sampling at 44.1kHz are the parts that make up the harmonics: 30kHz, 45kHz, 60kHz, 75kHz, etc. Since no human will ever hear those frequencies, they are OK to discard in order to sample at 44.1kHz. There will be a difference to the wave shape, but it will be *completely* inaudible to any human being. (Bats would notice it, though.)
All any person would ever hear in any of those three waves is a 15kHz sine, so all you need to record in this case is that frequency (unless you're planning to slow down/pitch shift the recording by several octaves, or play it for bats, or something).
I swear there's a joke somewhere in the headline, but I'm missing it somehow.
Showing up as a new feature in Minecraft in 3... 2... 1...
In other breaking news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead. This has been Weekend Update with Chevy Chase.
I don't know about that worst job. I mean, I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK.
Good Lord. Are people still confusing these two things? Words can have different meanings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E5kCRsr4gQ
That reminds me of this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/31/deer-crossing-sign-problem_n_869214.html
It's no less arbitrary that those of us who create content (and I'm one of them) claim it's somehow our right to profit from it.
Take a look at this blog post by Jonathan Coulton. I can't think of any way I could agree more:
http://www.jonathancoulton.com/2012/01/21/megaupload/
But the artists are making fractions of a percent on CD sales, and paying for their advances from that net payment... Many end up in debt, even after a fairly decent hit. And the engineers usually work for hire - they get paid once for the work and make no royalties for sales.
So the middlemen are screwing the artists (thousands, all but the top dozen or two per year, lose money) and grabbing all the cash from CD sales. Meanwhile, the engineers already made their livable but modest salary and get nothing (except possibly reputation) if a record goes multi-platinum.
These bastards are trying to save their own gravy train by claiming that the piracy is harming the artists. They are being disingenuous.
Piracy does sometimes harm artists, but it's not a black-and-white situation. Some piracy harms, but some piracy helps due to publicity. Personally, I'd rather become popular by giving good stuff away and letting people voluntarily pay for it - look at Jonathan Coulton's business model.
Slippery slope / black & white thinking. Not true.
I take it he's a writer of romance novels?
Good points. One minor objection: the objective-C/kool-aid thing is true for iOS, but not really for OSX (yet, at least).
...I wonder if it has http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binaural_beats in it.
Except it's NOT EVEN A PDF, so you don't need to take those precautions. OS X will say "_____ is an application you downloaded from the Internet. Are you sure you want to run it?" so any tech-literate user will know that it's an executable, not a PDF.
This reminds me of the old joke:
Alice and Bob are camping when they get attacked by a hungry lion. Running away at top speed, Alice begins to overtake Bob. "We'll never be able to outrun it!" says Bob. Alice replies, "I don't need to outrun the lion - I only need to outrun YOU!"
In that sense, all the security any given person needs is just not to be low-hanging fruit.
It doesn't make sense to me when you say frequency-domain codecs cannot be perceptually transparent. That statement is general and absolute and is in contradiction to the experimental data.
If a codec is indistinguishable from the original by a given individual, it is by definition transparent - at least for that person, with that source material, on that system.
Absolute proof is not achievable in this situation, but I believe the extensive double-blind ABX tests on hydrogenaudio provide a reasonably convincing body of evidence in favor of general perceptual transparency of high-bitrate MP3 with most source material on most sound systems for most people.
Vague and dogmatic assertions about "known issues" are less convincing to me. If it is a question of human perception, which this is, then the way to get closer to the answer is to test it by observing humans, not by theorizing without experimenting.