How much accumulation does the "runway" see in a year? I would think a glideslope would be easy to install, and could be adjusted up as the ice/snow increases. I would also think a localizer would be possible as well. But, then again, I'm not sure my brain can fathom what a -70 environment is like.
While you are correct as to what the stated goal in TFA was, I think OP has an interesting insight.
Much as in firearm forensics where there are shell casing / bullet marks characteristic of both the product line as a whole and of the specific firearm I have little doubt PUFs would be able to identify not just a unique chip, but also what model it is.
I'm more worried that this will be used for new DRM systems that are hard to crack. You could make some really nasty anti-tampering protections with this.
I don't see how this would be any different, as a DRM system, than a dongle. Like a dongle one doesn't try to replicate what's being checked, but rather "pinch off" and bypass the code doing the checking.
People need to drop this "argument". There's enough room!
Let's take a low density urban area where a majority of people own cars, like Columbus Ohio for example. 3,556 people per square mile. It's a quite thinly populated urban area, yet if we take that as a model for all future cities we could put your 14 billion cars in a space not much larger than the country of India.
Who cares if they know that MAC address X was at location Y?
If it's the MAC address of my smartphone, which I'm likely to carry around with me more or less all the time, I care a lot about who knows where that MAC address has been.
So it is ok for the phone company (and thus any law-enforcement agency who chooses to ask) to know where your smartphone has been but not Google (or John Doe driving the neighborhood in his '96 Civic while running Kismet)?
This, IMHO, is a beautiful opportunity to educate end-users, not to bash Google. If one doesn't want to be tracked across the modern globe turn off the fucking broadcasting radio in your pocket.
Sure, but this article complains to what is essentially taking mail from the postman, recording the address block, and putting the mail in the box untouched.
Hearing artifacts in cymbals in MP3 is not uncommon, even amongst the untrained.
My (admittedly snide) remark was in response to the OP's broad claim of ability to distinguish across a broad spectrum of music.
(In rough order of commitment required:)
Participating in the public listening tests is probably the best first step one can make. If you find it interesting / rewarding a great second step is familiarizing yourself with the various collections of "problem samples" and the various flaws they expose. Once there documenting unexpected problem samples is a huge help, as finding places where expectations fail is useful.
Lastly, and requiring the most commitment, would be regression testing (even if only with your "favorite" tricky passage). Whack-a-mole is not uncommon and regressions do happen.
MP3 and FLAC both take far less cycle than the 30Mhz "idle" clock speed. Both even take less than the 24Mhz idle speed favored by Buschel. Plenty of headroom for your WPS and perhaps a few simple DSPs (ReplayGain, etc) in that budget of 30. In other words the only runtime difference one should expect between the two is HDD usage.
As I attempted to qualify, though, if you're running multiple bands of EQ expect the numbers to start favoring FLAC as that 8Mhz advantage might just be enough to keep ya from boosting the clock speed. But even then file loading is a huge power hit.
Yes the N810, iPad, and many other devices use DSPs. These are not what is commonly refereed to as "MP3 players" or "DAPs".
I'd like to see the wikipedia link which tells you an iPod (not touch, not phone, not pad) has a MP3-decoding DSP. It needs fixed if it says such a thing and I'll be happy to do so.
That sort of temporal smearing common to MP3 was not described by the OP. He dismissed MP3 / AAC out-of-hand without so much as a credible mention of one of their characteristic artifact styles.
Sure they have problem samples, but he appeared to be claiming broad failures hearable thanks to his fancy stereo, whereas the informed know damn well most audible artifacts are audible on even the cheapest of equipment.
There is no internal MP3 decoder. It's a dual-core ARM processor. Period.
MP3 is more efficient than vorbis on the PortaPlayer targets because we use both cores in decoding.
Stop talking about this nonexistant mp3 decoder hardware. Since the original Archos players 99.9% of MP3 players have been software decoders on generic CPUs.
That is not a description of the type of artifact one is likely to find in AAC or MP3. Try again.
Yes, I have absolute pitch, if that plays any role.
Nope, that isn't where lossy codecs fail either.
I do not understand why people get up in arms when somebody says they her the difference: be glad that you do not.
Up in arms? No. It was an honest inquiry. If you are truly able to distinguish AAC/MP3 from FLAC on a general basis you would be most valuable.
Ya see, lossy codecs tend to fail in particular ways on specific types of samples. If someone was able to readily distinguish lossless from lossy across a wide (or even moderate) collection of samples they would be damn near unique and quite useful as a tester of dev changes.
Alas lots of people talk and few actually prove they're swinging the big dick they brag about once subjected to double-blind testing.
With this difference on demand, even the oil refineries on Europe are built to produce more diesel than the american refineries.
That's a little bit of cart before the horse.
America grew up on sweet light crudes, appropriate for producing gasoline over diesel while Europe grew up on heavier (but still not South America heavy) crudes which tipped the economic balance more towards diesel (and kerosene) production. Not to mention the early work done in eastern Europe was all kerosene-centric.
We're out of coal that we can get from a mine for the most part.
We cut the top off of mountains because it is cheaper not because "coal that we can get from a mine" is running out.
Sorry about the self-reply, but let's clarify this a little more.
Cutting the top off of mountains to get to coal is the logical consequence of regulations in the United States and modern technology. Our government (arguably that means our society) values people more than it values the environment.
Shaft mining is risky, and it always will be. Mountaintop removal takes more machinery, more energy, but less people, and less risk. Machinery (technology) is cheap in the USA, as is energy. People, both in terms of labor cost and in terms of safety regulation cost, are expensive. It is no wonder we do it.
Slashdot Mirror
How much accumulation does the "runway" see in a year? I would think a glideslope would be easy to install, and could be adjusted up as the ice/snow increases. I would also think a localizer would be possible as well. But, then again, I'm not sure my brain can fathom what a -70 environment is like.
No, you measure film resolution in lp/mm.
While you are correct as to what the stated goal in TFA was, I think OP has an interesting insight.
Much as in firearm forensics where there are shell casing / bullet marks characteristic of both the product line as a whole and of the specific firearm I have little doubt PUFs would be able to identify not just a unique chip, but also what model it is.
I don't see how this would be any different, as a DRM system, than a dongle. Like a dongle one doesn't try to replicate what's being checked, but rather "pinch off" and bypass the code doing the checking.
People need to drop this "argument". There's enough room!
Let's take a low density urban area where a majority of people own cars, like Columbus Ohio for example. 3,556 people per square mile. It's a quite thinly populated urban area, yet if we take that as a model for all future cities we could put your 14 billion cars in a space not much larger than the country of India.
So it is ok for the phone company (and thus any law-enforcement agency who chooses to ask) to know where your smartphone has been but not Google (or John Doe driving the neighborhood in his '96 Civic while running Kismet)?
This, IMHO, is a beautiful opportunity to educate end-users, not to bash Google. If one doesn't want to be tracked across the modern globe turn off the fucking broadcasting radio in your pocket.
Which, at least in the USA, is illegal. ;)
Hearing artifacts in cymbals in MP3 is not uncommon, even amongst the untrained.
My (admittedly snide) remark was in response to the OP's broad claim of ability to distinguish across a broad spectrum of music.
(In rough order of commitment required:)
Participating in the public listening tests is probably the best first step one can make. If you find it interesting / rewarding a great second step is familiarizing yourself with the various collections of "problem samples" and the various flaws they expose. Once there documenting unexpected problem samples is a huge help, as finding places where expectations fail is useful.
Lastly, and requiring the most commitment, would be regression testing (even if only with your "favorite" tricky passage). Whack-a-mole is not uncommon and regressions do happen.
Test using whatever music you are comfortable with. So long as you double-blind your results will be met with great excitement.
Unless you're running a custom build with a lowered CPU clock speed (or are running other CPU consuming features) the difference is effectively zero.
http://www.rockbox.org/wiki/CodecPerformanceComparison#Portal_Player_40ARM7TDMI_41
MP3 and FLAC both take far less cycle than the 30Mhz "idle" clock speed. Both even take less than the 24Mhz idle speed favored by Buschel. Plenty of headroom for your WPS and perhaps a few simple DSPs (ReplayGain, etc) in that budget of 30. In other words the only runtime difference one should expect between the two is HDD usage.
As I attempted to qualify, though, if you're running multiple bands of EQ expect the numbers to start favoring FLAC as that 8Mhz advantage might just be enough to keep ya from boosting the clock speed. But even then file loading is a huge power hit.
Making use of the "COP" is how it was stated.
Other thought is are the two of you confused as to the role of the (a) Wolfson-brand codec is?
Yes the N810, iPad, and many other devices use DSPs. These are not what is commonly refereed to as "MP3 players" or "DAPs".
I'd like to see the wikipedia link which tells you an iPod (not touch, not phone, not pad) has a MP3-decoding DSP. It needs fixed if it says such a thing and I'll be happy to do so.
That sort of temporal smearing common to MP3 was not described by the OP. He dismissed MP3 / AAC out-of-hand without so much as a credible mention of one of their characteristic artifact styles.
Sure they have problem samples, but he appeared to be claiming broad failures hearable thanks to his fancy stereo, whereas the informed know damn well most audible artifacts are audible on even the cheapest of equipment.
There is no internal MP3 decoder. It's a dual-core ARM processor. Period.
MP3 is more efficient than vorbis on the PortaPlayer targets because we use both cores in decoding.
Stop talking about this nonexistant mp3 decoder hardware. Since the original Archos players 99.9% of MP3 players have been software decoders on generic CPUs.
That is not a description of the type of artifact one is likely to find in AAC or MP3. Try again.
Nope, that isn't where lossy codecs fail either.
Up in arms? No. It was an honest inquiry. If you are truly able to distinguish AAC/MP3 from FLAC on a general basis you would be most valuable.
Ya see, lossy codecs tend to fail in particular ways on specific types of samples. If someone was able to readily distinguish lossless from lossy across a wide (or even moderate) collection of samples they would be damn near unique and quite useful as a tester of dev changes.
Alas lots of people talk and few actually prove they're swinging the big dick they brag about once subjected to double-blind testing.
Far from it.
If you really can easily distinguish well-encoded AAC or MP3 from FLAC you should lend us at HA your golden ears!
I rather strongly suspect once subjected to rigorous double-blinding you might not come back speaking so boldly.
That's a little bit of cart before the horse.
America grew up on sweet light crudes, appropriate for producing gasoline over diesel while Europe grew up on heavier (but still not South America heavy) crudes which tipped the economic balance more towards diesel (and kerosene) production. Not to mention the early work done in eastern Europe was all kerosene-centric.
What would be gained by putting his name out there?
Nothing.
Troll? How about not at my primary computer?
I asked you a question. Care to reply?
Sorry about the self-reply, but let's clarify this a little more.
Cutting the top off of mountains to get to coal is the logical consequence of regulations in the United States and modern technology. Our government (arguably that means our society) values people more than it values the environment.
Shaft mining is risky, and it always will be. Mountaintop removal takes more machinery, more energy, but less people, and less risk. Machinery (technology) is cheap in the USA, as is energy. People, both in terms of labor cost and in terms of safety regulation cost, are expensive. It is no wonder we do it.
We cut the top off of mountains because it is cheaper not because "coal that we can get from a mine" is running out.
Oh shit! Are you telling me there is a regression in how LInux does arithmetic?
Go on...