Pretty Good Privacy, bullshat. PGP will offer protection from some kid intercepting your mail from a gateway, but anyone serious can crack it in a couple of hours.
you are as dumb as a sack of hammers. Quit encoding at 128 KB/s or buy some decent facking speakers. I encode everytning at a minimum of 160KB/s, usually higher, the quality of the sound continues to amaze me. I get sound quality that rivals CD raw at 1/8 to 1/12 compression ratio. Open your eyes, boy.
MP3 isn't established. I hate to do it, but, MORON! Compression formats are quite standard, even the ones that should be scrapped. MP3 stands for MPEG, layer 3. I will garuntee that MPEG will be around in five years, in whatever incarnation. I am reasonably certain that it will exist in ten years. Look at zip files/tar files; old school. MPEG, and to a lesser extent quicktime, are their equivalent in the day of multimedia.
Yeah, I loved how he proclaimed SDMI's info gathering as nuetral and how no one would be interested in extracting the data. Give me a half hour, I can tell you when, by what program, what device and who knows wtf else the file was encoded on. Did you listen to that jackas. I especially loved it when he proclaimed that file formats should be agnostic, that was when I quit reading, priceless... Personally, I prefer my files orthodox.
Cd's will be no different than from before. You cannot add some new encryption without screwing up backwards compatibility with millions of CD player in existence. SDMI is only a tag placed within the track. You can still encode it in the same manner we always have. The 'watermark' only comes into play when it is encoded with a SDMI compliant app. It restricts the file to certain devices or certain access instances. It is bullshat and will, eventually, eat itself. no worries.
Excactly, SDMI is a securityu 'wrapper'. Any format can exist underneath,.wav,.mp3, whatever... But they can't encrypt CD's without facking up backwards compatibility. The only time that the watermarks (is that even really the correct term?) come into play is when you encode it with an SDMI compliant encoder. An mp3 player will not give a shat about the security placed for SDMI.
Why mp3 will go the way of DIVX (and other four letter acronyms such as the DODO): First, it was developed without the input of the target community. Not only is it attempting to dislodge a beloved standard firmly entrenched, it was developed behind closed doors. The people that really know wtf is up will never embrace some arbitrary, overbearing standard decreed by some faceless association. Those same people are the ones with T1/cable access who collect these files and manage the ftp servers. Secondly, it is not a "nuetral" format as described by the chairman of SDML. It is in fact an aggressive security wrapper. I read an interview on WIRED where he talked about how it's security info was inconsequential to people like you and me. He claimed that although it does actively collect device, system and personal info on the user performing the encoding operation, the ordinary user would not be talented nor interested enough to decipher the data. Bullshat, give me an hour...
I could go on, but. This same chairman then goes on to explain that he feels file formats should be 'agnostic', that's when I quit reading... Check out the URL http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/2060 1.html
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty Good Privacy, bullshat. PGP will offer protection from some kid intercepting your mail from a gateway, but anyone serious can crack it in a couple of hours.
wtf, I hate to flame, but..
you are as dumb as a sack of hammers. Quit encoding at 128 KB/s or buy some decent facking speakers. I encode everytning at a minimum of 160KB/s, usually higher, the quality of the sound continues to amaze me. I get sound quality that rivals CD raw at 1/8 to 1/12 compression ratio. Open your eyes, boy.
MP3 isn't established. I hate to do it, but, MORON! Compression formats are quite standard, even the ones that should be scrapped. MP3 stands for MPEG, layer 3. I will garuntee that MPEG will be around in five years, in whatever incarnation. I am reasonably certain that it will exist in ten years. Look at zip files/tar files; old school. MPEG, and to a lesser extent quicktime, are their equivalent in the day of multimedia.
One word of advice, think before post.
Yeah, I loved how he proclaimed SDMI's info gathering as nuetral and how no one would be interested in extracting the data. Give me a half hour, I can tell you when, by what program, what device and who knows wtf else the file was encoded on. Did you listen to that jackas. I especially loved it when he proclaimed that file formats should be agnostic, that was when I quit reading, priceless... Personally, I prefer my files orthodox.
Cd's will be no different than from before. You cannot add some new encryption without screwing up backwards compatibility with millions of CD player in existence. SDMI is only a tag placed within the track. You can still encode it in the same manner we always have. The 'watermark' only comes into play when it is encoded with a SDMI compliant app. It restricts the file to certain devices or certain access instances. It is bullshat and will, eventually, eat itself. no worries.
Excactly, SDMI is a securityu 'wrapper'. Any format can exist underneath, .wav, .mp3, whatever... But they can't encrypt CD's without facking up backwards compatibility. The only time that the watermarks (is that even really the correct term?) come into play is when you encode it with an SDMI compliant encoder. An mp3 player will not give a shat about the security placed for SDMI.
Why mp3 will go the way of DIVX (and other four letter acronyms such as the DODO):
0 1.html
First, it was developed without the input of the target community. Not only is it attempting to dislodge a beloved standard firmly entrenched, it was developed behind closed doors. The people that really know wtf is up will never embrace some arbitrary, overbearing standard decreed by some faceless association. Those same people are the ones with T1/cable access who collect these files and manage the ftp servers.
Secondly, it is not a "nuetral" format as described by the chairman of SDML. It is in fact an aggressive security wrapper. I read an interview on WIRED where he talked about how it's security info was inconsequential to people like you and me. He claimed that although it does actively collect device, system and personal info on the user performing the encoding operation, the ordinary user would not be talented nor interested enough to decipher the data. Bullshat, give me an hour...
I could go on, but. This same chairman then goes on to explain that he feels file formats should be 'agnostic', that's when I quit reading... Check out the URL http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/206