It isn't a new theory that the Voynich Manuscript is Nahuatl. Here's a book from 2001 positing that very thing: Keys for the Voynich Scholar: Necessary Clues for Tahe Decipherment and Reading of the World's Most Mysterious Manuscript which is a Medical Text in Nahuatl Attributable to Francisco Hernández and His Aztec Ticiti Collaborators
The botany side seems to further reinforce this existing theory, as opposed to originating it.
I've written software specifically to do analysis on this manuscript. There are patterns in the formation of the words that show beyond any doubt that it is not a random collection of letters. There are some very specific rules that would take significant effort to generate the words. For example, Gordon Rugg's theory / technique of generating random words using a grid is absolutely, positively not correct.
I'm certain that "words" in the manuscript do not represent words in the original language. They are merely chunks of ciphered text, which explains the unusually homogeneous word lengths, for one thing. I believe the length of the ciphered words is thus arbitrary and chosen by the person doing the ciphering. That also explains how word length and spacing can be perfectly justified and fit along the varied shape of images (consecutive lines must be different lengths to fit in the available space), yet the rules and patterns of the words still adhere even though the words appear to be of arbitrary length.
The must instructive, enlightening thing I did in college while majoring in CS was to take a part time job grading Pascal assignments for an instructor. Of course my programming experience was significantly above that of the class being taught, but it was still very worthwhile to see how different minds went about solving a specific problem. There were a few students who I could immediately identify (by their code) who had the proper thought process (whether learned or innate - most likely the latter) for software development. I could easily recognize a few groups of 2-3 students who had obviously collaborated on the assignment (it was supposed to be an individual assignment). Students who only knew the most rudimentary constructs of the language were obvious - for example relying on huge sets of if / else statements instead of a simple case statement. There's just something about "reading" and critiquing code that makes you more self aware of the code you produce. Whether we're talking about code efficiency, style, organization or conciseness - I found myself writing better code (again, and not even necessarily through example or having seen something new) after having spent time grading and critiquing others' source code.
They need to pull out all the stops and embrace all the platforms they can (Android, iOS, DS, Wii) and create a unified multiplayer gaming ecosystem that is kid friendly / safe, the core of which would be built on their game franchises (Mario, Zelda, etc). Imagine firing up Mario Kart on Android and racing against players on Wii U or iOS. One of the goals is to keep from losing 100% of their revenue when a customer migrates from a DS to an Android or iOS device. If they can offer the same games, and probably more importantly, the same profile / avatar / achievements, on other open platforms, at a good price, then the younger crowd (and the parents that control access and the cash flow) would be inclined to stick with Nintendo.
Nintendo is a very trusted brand for kid friendly / kid safe gaming, and they need to leverage that (man I hate using leverage as a verb but it frigging fits here) on other platforms while their brand is still strong.
If they open up that multiplayer / profile system to 3rd party developers (like me), so we can easily have cross-platform profiles and game state saves without having to worry about user validation or get in bed with the evil one (Facebook), then it would be even more ubiquitous. Then Nintendo could do an end-around on Facebook, by providing a single Facebook app for sharing achievements and possibly game invites, so that individual developers don't have to mess with that convoluted mess, it would be very popular (assuming Facebook can't prevent that in their terms of service or whatever).
I've only run into a few compiler bugs (like the one in this article, most always due to the optimizers), and it was always so incredibly aggravating, because it's easy to believe that compilers are always perfect. Granted, they might not produce the most efficient code, but bugs? No way! Of course I know better now, and most of the bugs I came across were back in the Pocket PC days when we had to maintain 3 builds (SH3, MIPS and ARM) for the various platforms (and of course the bugs were specific to an individual platform's compiler, which made it a little easier actually to spot a compiler bug, when a simple piece of code worked on 2 of 3 architectures).
Yes, but individual public libraries aren't the federal government banning them wholesale across an entire swath of private property. Individual libraries have the right to make that decision for themselves. Perhaps they would want to provide specific areas where people could use cell phones, thus people that don't want to be around them can simply stay away from that area. Similarly, why couldn't airlines sell seats in specific sections of the plane (the back perhaps?) where cell phone calls were allowed? That shouldn't be up to the FCC since cell phones have been proven to not crash airplanes through their EMF emissions.
Maybe they do now, but the ATMs in question are so old they are running a 12 year old OS. Do you happen to remember the state of HTML and web browsers 12 years ago? I'll give you a hint. They certainly didn't support SVG then.
Neither of these articles say that. What they're talking about is domination - it's harder for a small number of artists to grab the majority of the revenue with streaming. So obviously not all artists are upset with streaming.
The Hypebot article gives a few reasons artists don't like streaming. It includes things like having to wait longer for revenue, songs have to have "legs" and longevity, and finally the pie is cut into smaller pieces.
Do you see a pattern there? It isn't so conducive to pop / top 40 / disposable type music. An example given is that instead of consumer buying 3 CDs over the course of a year (and thus the money only going to 3 artists), with streaming that same amount of money may be split up over 18 artists instead. To me that sounds very good for indie artists, and, well, for music in general (if quality means anything). If a consumer is only going to buy 3 CDs a year on average, then there's a good chance those 3 artists will be the flavor of the month as shoved down everyone's throats by radio stations, TV shows, etc.
The artists that would be doing the most complaining are the highest grossing superstars, and to be honest, I'm not all that concerned for their financial well being.
The real question is do the record companies get an even larger percentage of the revenue with streaming, and I didn't see where these articles said that.
Okay, so you implant a small wireless device in the connector of a USB cable. No problem - it doesn't take a genius to realize that is a trivial engineering task in this day and age. So now you have a cable that still must work as a cable connecting the computer to whatever USB device is on the other end (printer?), because obviously if the device doesn't work as normal the cable will be replaced. So the secret interface in the cable can't be an actual USB network device. Nor can it even be a USB drive. In either case then the printer can't work.
So that means the interface in the USB cable has to act like a USB hub, right? Thus the only information the interface has direct access to is whatever data is flowing to the real device on the other end (printer?) - the only thing they can access for sure is what is printed.
The other option is for the secret interface to also include a USB drive which has spyware on it that is installed if the PC autoruns external drives. In that case the spyware could then forward whatever data they want to the secret wireless interface for remote capture. But that is still dependent on poor security on the PC.
My point is that you can't plug a USB device into a computer and it somehow magically access to everything on the PC, unless you also have software on the PC as well. But as soon as you run software on the PC you vastly increase the odds of being discovered.
Is that the only way something like this could work, or am I missing something?
The average amount received by those "1 in 7" Americans is only $133. That's not enough to get by on. It's quite obvious that many people simply see SNAP as a viable source of "income", just like hunting for all the deductibles you can to reduce your tax rate.
Back when I was in high school I worked at a grocery store (to save up for my first computer - I bought a used Amiga 1000 for $700 - ahh the good old days). This was around 20 years ago, back when food stamps were actual paper things just like physical money. They were a MAJOR pain in the butt for cashiers to deal with, because of all the rules involved. They had to be removed from the booklet by the cashier - if they were loose individual "bills" then they weren't to be accepted. Since they were all new, they stuck together like crazy and were slow and annoying to deal with. Since cashiers couldn't give back food stamps as change, you had to give back cash. However, you could only give back up to a very small amount in cash (I'm pretty sure it was less than $5). Thus the shopper had to try and guesstimate, based on the denominations they had, what food to get to come within $5 of the increment they could buy (again, based on what specific denominations they had remaining in their booklets). In other words, it was extremely obvious to everyone around, including all the people in line behind you, that you were using food stamps because of the tedious and slow payment process.
Part of the reason they were a logistical pain in the butt is because they were intended as a supplement - you're getting $65 in groceries? Slap down a couple food stamp twenties and then pay the rest in cash. However people wouldn't use them that way - most would try and make their entire purchase in food stamps.
Now, it's just a card you swipe like any other, and I don't guess the cashier even knows you used an EBT card instead of a debit card. So I think since the stigma of using food stamps is now virtually gone (by simple fact that you can use them stealthily), many Americans see them as a perk or entitlement that they need to make use of, again, almost like trying to reduce their income tax by saving receipts for deductibles, etc.
I don't know the specific numbers, but food stamps / EBT is relatively easy to get, and the exact amount received monthly is calculated based on the income and size of the family. A family might only get $75 a month, for example. So saying that "1 in 7 Americans are poor enough that they wouldn't be able to feed themselves without government assistance" is certainly not the case, as many of the recipients are only getting a small amount to help supplement their food purchases.
A quick googling shows that the average amount received monthly is $133.08. Of course some families may receive several times that amount, and others much less. The maximum gross income for a family of 4 to receive any SNAP benefits is somewhere around $2,800. According to this online calculator, a family of 4 with an income of $2,800 would get $8 a month assistance. If the income is $2,500 it jumps up to $80 a month.
I thought there were already concise terms for it. The universe IS the multiverse / partitioned universe. The part that we are in is called observable universe.
I think you have it backwards. According to the Maxwell Poll, 60-80% of welfare recipients voted Democrat. Generally speaking, welfare recipients receive welfare because they have low income. People with low income can't afford as much gadgetry. Thus it will make it even more convenient for a higher percentage of Republicans to vote compared to Democrats because more of them can afford the hardware. You can expect Democrats to resist this far more than Republicans.
(I know, I took your post insulting the intelligence of people who disagree with your political viewpoint literally, but you are wrong regardless of your motive)
Then don't use it at an ATM. I use my card for online purchases and POS. As I said, it's $3 for a new card, whether that's a replacement or second card or whatever. There is no monthly fee depending on how much you load onto the card each month.
Oh, and how anonymous are you using your credit card, which is as intimately and personally attached to you as any financial instrument can be? With a preloaded card you slap down cash to load the card, and that's it. Next time you just use a new card for the same price.
Debit cards are most certainly not for "suckers". It's like any other tool. Use it intelligently based on its strengths and weaknesses.
Here's what consumers can do. Simply use cards you preload money on. Walmart has them for $3 for Visa or Mastercard. Costs $3 each time you load funds onto the card (thus it's the same cost to reuse an existing card, or get a completely new one). Only load a couple hundred on the card each month, and if any issues come up, don't reload it and grab a new one next time. It's totally disconnected from your actual accounts in every way, and you mitigate any potential financial loss by only placing relatively small amounts of funds on the card.
Plus, it's not a "credit" card, so you don't have to worry about going into debt or interest rates.
As an addendum, it would seem burglary is the most accurate legal term in this case, as the criminals had to physically break into an authorized area of the ATM in order to commit the theft. But "robbery" is definitely the wrong terminology regardless.
Robbery as defined as taking something from a person through threat of force or violence. You cannot rob an inanimate object. Theft is the correct term, or perhaps burglary (which also includes illegally entering a place to commit theft). I'm rather surprised to see the BBC misusing the term as well, but I notice they refer to it as "theft" in the story, and only use "rob" in the title. Sounds like an overzealous editor tried to make headline more catchy when posting the article.
First off, thank you Slashdot UI, for having me retype this whole thing again.
I did this back in the early 90s with my Amiga. The hardware interface consisted of a transistor, filter capacitor, and variable resistor (I don't remember the exact design I came up with) to interface to the Amiga's joystick port (which used standard Atari controller wiring). I wrote the software decoder in Blitz Basic, and it used a scrolling window of 20-30 seconds over which it would average the pulses to determine the current dit and dah length. Any pulses deviating significantly from the current dit and dah length indicate a likely change in operator (one station finished keying and the other began their response), and the window would be positioned using that as as the edge point.
The system worked extremely well, and was far more accurate than my AEA PK-232MBX when it came to decoding morse code. It decoded most anything I threw at it. Decoded output was sometimes delayed until it had received enough code to determine the current transmission rate and style, and then it would output a chunk of text at one time as it decoded the whole buffer at once. Then it would output real-time until a deviation in dit-dah lengths had been exceeded and the window repositioned so the dit and dah length could be recalculated.
There are two discreet problems to address, and it sounds like you're lumping them together, which may not be a good way to proceed. First is the audio filtering / notch filter which tries to isolate a specific morse code signal out of other transmissions in the adjoining frequencies and general background noise. The other is simply decoding of the morse code message. Ideally, step 1 should be the analog portion, and step 2 should be purely digital.
Studies of the Mangareva language in the 1930s recorded that it contained specific words for 10, 20, 40 and 80. Sort of like how English has special words "dozen" and "score" for specific quantities. Their culture and language has been nearly obliterated by external influences over the centuries, so all that remains is the fact that they had special words (beyond their normal numbers) for those values. That could be pure coincidence, or it could indicate that they worked with binary numbers and thus had special words for 0b0001, 0b0010, 0b0100 and 0b1000.
The thing that doesn't make much sense to me is why they would have multiplied their binary digits by decimal 10. Instead of special words for 1, 2, 4 and 8 they have special words for 10, 20, 40 and 80, and that doesn't make any sense mathematically. Unless originally they used binary and had special words for 1, 2, 4 and 8, then gradually adopted decimal. The special words for such small numbers wouldn't have been useful, so the meaning switched to indicate 10 times that value. 10, 20, 40 and 80 would be useful quantities to have special words for when it comes to trading, buying and selling, and even talking about a person's age.
Either way, it sure seems to hint that they used binary math at some point in the past.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't a new theory that the Voynich Manuscript is Nahuatl. Here's a book from 2001 positing that very thing:
Keys for the Voynich Scholar: Necessary Clues for Tahe Decipherment and Reading of the World's Most Mysterious Manuscript which is a Medical Text in Nahuatl Attributable to Francisco Hernández and His Aztec Ticiti Collaborators
The botany side seems to further reinforce this existing theory, as opposed to originating it.
I've written software specifically to do analysis on this manuscript. There are patterns in the formation of the words that show beyond any doubt that it is not a random collection of letters. There are some very specific rules that would take significant effort to generate the words. For example, Gordon Rugg's theory / technique of generating random words using a grid is absolutely, positively not correct.
I'm certain that "words" in the manuscript do not represent words in the original language. They are merely chunks of ciphered text, which explains the unusually homogeneous word lengths, for one thing. I believe the length of the ciphered words is thus arbitrary and chosen by the person doing the ciphering. That also explains how word length and spacing can be perfectly justified and fit along the varied shape of images (consecutive lines must be different lengths to fit in the available space), yet the rules and patterns of the words still adhere even though the words appear to be of arbitrary length.
The must instructive, enlightening thing I did in college while majoring in CS was to take a part time job grading Pascal assignments for an instructor. Of course my programming experience was significantly above that of the class being taught, but it was still very worthwhile to see how different minds went about solving a specific problem. There were a few students who I could immediately identify (by their code) who had the proper thought process (whether learned or innate - most likely the latter) for software development. I could easily recognize a few groups of 2-3 students who had obviously collaborated on the assignment (it was supposed to be an individual assignment). Students who only knew the most rudimentary constructs of the language were obvious - for example relying on huge sets of if / else statements instead of a simple case statement. There's just something about "reading" and critiquing code that makes you more self aware of the code you produce. Whether we're talking about code efficiency, style, organization or conciseness - I found myself writing better code (again, and not even necessarily through example or having seen something new) after having spent time grading and critiquing others' source code.
They need to pull out all the stops and embrace all the platforms they can (Android, iOS, DS, Wii) and create a unified multiplayer gaming ecosystem that is kid friendly / safe, the core of which would be built on their game franchises (Mario, Zelda, etc). Imagine firing up Mario Kart on Android and racing against players on Wii U or iOS. One of the goals is to keep from losing 100% of their revenue when a customer migrates from a DS to an Android or iOS device. If they can offer the same games, and probably more importantly, the same profile / avatar / achievements, on other open platforms, at a good price, then the younger crowd (and the parents that control access and the cash flow) would be inclined to stick with Nintendo.
Nintendo is a very trusted brand for kid friendly / kid safe gaming, and they need to leverage that (man I hate using leverage as a verb but it frigging fits here) on other platforms while their brand is still strong.
If they open up that multiplayer / profile system to 3rd party developers (like me), so we can easily have cross-platform profiles and game state saves without having to worry about user validation or get in bed with the evil one (Facebook), then it would be even more ubiquitous. Then Nintendo could do an end-around on Facebook, by providing a single Facebook app for sharing achievements and possibly game invites, so that individual developers don't have to mess with that convoluted mess, it would be very popular (assuming Facebook can't prevent that in their terms of service or whatever).
I've only run into a few compiler bugs (like the one in this article, most always due to the optimizers), and it was always so incredibly aggravating, because it's easy to believe that compilers are always perfect. Granted, they might not produce the most efficient code, but bugs? No way! Of course I know better now, and most of the bugs I came across were back in the Pocket PC days when we had to maintain 3 builds (SH3, MIPS and ARM) for the various platforms (and of course the bugs were specific to an individual platform's compiler, which made it a little easier actually to spot a compiler bug, when a simple piece of code worked on 2 of 3 architectures).
Yeah, that's the downside of not owning your own airplane. Sucks doesn't it?
Yes, but individual public libraries aren't the federal government banning them wholesale across an entire swath of private property. Individual libraries have the right to make that decision for themselves. Perhaps they would want to provide specific areas where people could use cell phones, thus people that don't want to be around them can simply stay away from that area. Similarly, why couldn't airlines sell seats in specific sections of the plane (the back perhaps?) where cell phone calls were allowed? That shouldn't be up to the FCC since cell phones have been proven to not crash airplanes through their EMF emissions.
Maybe they do now, but the ATMs in question are so old they are running a 12 year old OS. Do you happen to remember the state of HTML and web browsers 12 years ago? I'll give you a hint. They certainly didn't support SVG then.
Neither of these articles say that. What they're talking about is domination - it's harder for a small number of artists to grab the majority of the revenue with streaming. So obviously not all artists are upset with streaming.
The Hypebot article gives a few reasons artists don't like streaming. It includes things like having to wait longer for revenue, songs have to have "legs" and longevity, and finally the pie is cut into smaller pieces.
Do you see a pattern there? It isn't so conducive to pop / top 40 / disposable type music. An example given is that instead of consumer buying 3 CDs over the course of a year (and thus the money only going to 3 artists), with streaming that same amount of money may be split up over 18 artists instead. To me that sounds very good for indie artists, and, well, for music in general (if quality means anything). If a consumer is only going to buy 3 CDs a year on average, then there's a good chance those 3 artists will be the flavor of the month as shoved down everyone's throats by radio stations, TV shows, etc.
The artists that would be doing the most complaining are the highest grossing superstars, and to be honest, I'm not all that concerned for their financial well being.
The real question is do the record companies get an even larger percentage of the revenue with streaming, and I didn't see where these articles said that.
They should also test an unladen swallow.
Okay, so you implant a small wireless device in the connector of a USB cable. No problem - it doesn't take a genius to realize that is a trivial engineering task in this day and age. So now you have a cable that still must work as a cable connecting the computer to whatever USB device is on the other end (printer?), because obviously if the device doesn't work as normal the cable will be replaced. So the secret interface in the cable can't be an actual USB network device. Nor can it even be a USB drive. In either case then the printer can't work.
So that means the interface in the USB cable has to act like a USB hub, right? Thus the only information the interface has direct access to is whatever data is flowing to the real device on the other end (printer?) - the only thing they can access for sure is what is printed.
The other option is for the secret interface to also include a USB drive which has spyware on it that is installed if the PC autoruns external drives. In that case the spyware could then forward whatever data they want to the secret wireless interface for remote capture. But that is still dependent on poor security on the PC.
My point is that you can't plug a USB device into a computer and it somehow magically access to everything on the PC, unless you also have software on the PC as well. But as soon as you run software on the PC you vastly increase the odds of being discovered.
Is that the only way something like this could work, or am I missing something?
This school expected it's students to graduate
I'd like to have a word with your English instructors.
The average amount received by those "1 in 7" Americans is only $133. That's not enough to get by on. It's quite obvious that many people simply see SNAP as a viable source of "income", just like hunting for all the deductibles you can to reduce your tax rate.
Back when I was in high school I worked at a grocery store (to save up for my first computer - I bought a used Amiga 1000 for $700 - ahh the good old days). This was around 20 years ago, back when food stamps were actual paper things just like physical money. They were a MAJOR pain in the butt for cashiers to deal with, because of all the rules involved. They had to be removed from the booklet by the cashier - if they were loose individual "bills" then they weren't to be accepted. Since they were all new, they stuck together like crazy and were slow and annoying to deal with. Since cashiers couldn't give back food stamps as change, you had to give back cash. However, you could only give back up to a very small amount in cash (I'm pretty sure it was less than $5). Thus the shopper had to try and guesstimate, based on the denominations they had, what food to get to come within $5 of the increment they could buy (again, based on what specific denominations they had remaining in their booklets). In other words, it was extremely obvious to everyone around, including all the people in line behind you, that you were using food stamps because of the tedious and slow payment process.
Part of the reason they were a logistical pain in the butt is because they were intended as a supplement - you're getting $65 in groceries? Slap down a couple food stamp twenties and then pay the rest in cash. However people wouldn't use them that way - most would try and make their entire purchase in food stamps.
Now, it's just a card you swipe like any other, and I don't guess the cashier even knows you used an EBT card instead of a debit card. So I think since the stigma of using food stamps is now virtually gone (by simple fact that you can use them stealthily), many Americans see them as a perk or entitlement that they need to make use of, again, almost like trying to reduce their income tax by saving receipts for deductibles, etc.
And what is the cost savings for reduction of the disease called obesity? Oh wait, that's totally backwards isn't it.
I don't know the specific numbers, but food stamps / EBT is relatively easy to get, and the exact amount received monthly is calculated based on the income and size of the family. A family might only get $75 a month, for example. So saying that "1 in 7 Americans are poor enough that they wouldn't be able to feed themselves without government assistance" is certainly not the case, as many of the recipients are only getting a small amount to help supplement their food purchases.
A quick googling shows that the average amount received monthly is $133.08. Of course some families may receive several times that amount, and others much less. The maximum gross income for a family of 4 to receive any SNAP benefits is somewhere around $2,800. According to this online calculator, a family of 4 with an income of $2,800 would get $8 a month assistance. If the income is $2,500 it jumps up to $80 a month.
I thought there were already concise terms for it. The universe IS the multiverse / partitioned universe. The part that we are in is called observable universe.
I think you have it backwards. According to the Maxwell Poll, 60-80% of welfare recipients voted Democrat. Generally speaking, welfare recipients receive welfare because they have low income. People with low income can't afford as much gadgetry. Thus it will make it even more convenient for a higher percentage of Republicans to vote compared to Democrats because more of them can afford the hardware. You can expect Democrats to resist this far more than Republicans.
(I know, I took your post insulting the intelligence of people who disagree with your political viewpoint literally, but you are wrong regardless of your motive)
Does this work on Chuck E Cheese tokens too? I need to feed my skee ball addiction.
Then don't use it at an ATM. I use my card for online purchases and POS. As I said, it's $3 for a new card, whether that's a replacement or second card or whatever. There is no monthly fee depending on how much you load onto the card each month.
Oh, and how anonymous are you using your credit card, which is as intimately and personally attached to you as any financial instrument can be? With a preloaded card you slap down cash to load the card, and that's it. Next time you just use a new card for the same price.
Debit cards are most certainly not for "suckers". It's like any other tool. Use it intelligently based on its strengths and weaknesses.
Here's what consumers can do. Simply use cards you preload money on. Walmart has them for $3 for Visa or Mastercard. Costs $3 each time you load funds onto the card (thus it's the same cost to reuse an existing card, or get a completely new one). Only load a couple hundred on the card each month, and if any issues come up, don't reload it and grab a new one next time. It's totally disconnected from your actual accounts in every way, and you mitigate any potential financial loss by only placing relatively small amounts of funds on the card.
Plus, it's not a "credit" card, so you don't have to worry about going into debt or interest rates.
As an addendum, it would seem burglary is the most accurate legal term in this case, as the criminals had to physically break into an authorized area of the ATM in order to commit the theft. But "robbery" is definitely the wrong terminology regardless.
Robbery as defined as taking something from a person through threat of force or violence. You cannot rob an inanimate object. Theft is the correct term, or perhaps burglary (which also includes illegally entering a place to commit theft). I'm rather surprised to see the BBC misusing the term as well, but I notice they refer to it as "theft" in the story, and only use "rob" in the title. Sounds like an overzealous editor tried to make headline more catchy when posting the article.
First off, thank you Slashdot UI, for having me retype this whole thing again.
I did this back in the early 90s with my Amiga. The hardware interface consisted of a transistor, filter capacitor, and variable resistor (I don't remember the exact design I came up with) to interface to the Amiga's joystick port (which used standard Atari controller wiring). I wrote the software decoder in Blitz Basic, and it used a scrolling window of 20-30 seconds over which it would average the pulses to determine the current dit and dah length. Any pulses deviating significantly from the current dit and dah length indicate a likely change in operator (one station finished keying and the other began their response), and the window would be positioned using that as as the edge point.
The system worked extremely well, and was far more accurate than my AEA PK-232MBX when it came to decoding morse code. It decoded most anything I threw at it. Decoded output was sometimes delayed until it had received enough code to determine the current transmission rate and style, and then it would output a chunk of text at one time as it decoded the whole buffer at once. Then it would output real-time until a deviation in dit-dah lengths had been exceeded and the window repositioned so the dit and dah length could be recalculated.
There are two discreet problems to address, and it sounds like you're lumping them together, which may not be a good way to proceed. First is the audio filtering / notch filter which tries to isolate a specific morse code signal out of other transmissions in the adjoining frequencies and general background noise. The other is simply decoding of the morse code message. Ideally, step 1 should be the analog portion, and step 2 should be purely digital.
Studies of the Mangareva language in the 1930s recorded that it contained specific words for 10, 20, 40 and 80. Sort of like how English has special words "dozen" and "score" for specific quantities. Their culture and language has been nearly obliterated by external influences over the centuries, so all that remains is the fact that they had special words (beyond their normal numbers) for those values. That could be pure coincidence, or it could indicate that they worked with binary numbers and thus had special words for 0b0001, 0b0010, 0b0100 and 0b1000.
The thing that doesn't make much sense to me is why they would have multiplied their binary digits by decimal 10. Instead of special words for 1, 2, 4 and 8 they have special words for 10, 20, 40 and 80, and that doesn't make any sense mathematically. Unless originally they used binary and had special words for 1, 2, 4 and 8, then gradually adopted decimal. The special words for such small numbers wouldn't have been useful, so the meaning switched to indicate 10 times that value. 10, 20, 40 and 80 would be useful quantities to have special words for when it comes to trading, buying and selling, and even talking about a person's age.
Either way, it sure seems to hint that they used binary math at some point in the past.