no i meant below, then listen to the resulting file. If you can hear anything, then guess what? CDs have content over 11khz.
There are two problems with that:
1) What ever filter cooledit is going to apply isn't perfect (because it's impossible to have a perfect filter)
2) That also makes the assumption that all your math is being done with infinite precision (no rounding occurs, no noise is being generated merely by the application of the filter)
The reality is that CDs do have content above 11 KHz, but no content is at 22KHz. This is becuase of the need for filters before the d/a convertor, see my other posts on this topic.
While a recorder might sample a 44KHz, there is a low pass filter inside it which begins blocking signals at some frequency below 22Khz. This filter is going to vary from unit to unit.
Okay, I just went through the replies to the grandparent post and I was suprised to find that my post was the only one to mention anything about filters. I guess slashdotters could use a little bit more explanation:
The problem is that he doesn't seem to understand how this is applied in practice. You can't just hook a mic up to the D/A convertor. There is a possibility that signals above the nyquist frequency of your setup are present. These would result in an aliasing effect.
Ex:
If your mic is putting out a 23 KHz sinewave. and you're sampling at 44KHz, this sinewave is going to get shifted down to 1KHz. This is bad, because it trashes the real 1KHz signal that you wanted to listen to, and you get to listend to aliased electrical noise instead.
To prevent high frequencies from messing up your recording, you must place a filter before the A/D convertor. This will block those high frequencies from being digitized, but it introduces a new problem:
no filter is perfect. In an ideal world, you want a filter that would pass everything below 22KHz exactly and block everything above it completely. The problem is that sucha filter is impossible to implement. This means that you end up involved in a trade-off situation. That sharper the cutoff, the less smooth the filter response, etc.
It's a pretty complex subject that I've spent a couple years studying and still don't fully grasp (people spend their whole lives studying filters), but the main point I'm trying to get across is that pretty much any A/D converter has a filter in front of it, and the more extra samples above the nyquist rate you can squeeze in, the less demands are placed on this filter.
The 44 kHz (IIRC) sampling frequency of a CD means that you can actually record signals with frequencies as high has 22 kHz (half the sampling frequency -- that's a methematical theorem about the discrete Fourier transform).
Yep, you're denfinately a physics teacher, not an EE.
44 KHz sampling rate only lets you record frequencies up to 22KHz if you had a PERFECT d/a convertor and a PERFECT filter. It is provably impossible to implement a perfect filter. (One with a perfect cutoff and a perfectly flat passband.) Sampling at 44 KHz allows someone to design a decent recording setup with compenents that actually exist. Sampling at 96KHz gives the engineer even more breathing room when designing the filter in front of the A/D convertor. Instead of going from H(jw)=1 to H(jw)=0 in the space of 2KHz, he now can do it in 20. This means he can use a filter design with a flatter pass band. This means there is less distortion of all those frequencies that you can actually hear.
Even if there was a hypothetical human who could hear 30 kHz, there would be many other things preventing it from being useful musically. For instance, your tweeters most likely can't respond well to those frequencies. Furthermore, the music might sound worse to such a person if the 30 kHz stuff was left in.
Actually, it's much easier to build a tweeter than can handle 30KHz, than it is to build a subwoofer that can handle 20Hz. There are plenty of tweeters on the market right now which claim to work at 30KHz.
Second, your statement about the 30KHz stuff making the music sound worse doesn't make any sense. The goal of an audiophile-quality setup is to reproduce the original audio exactly. We're not talking about adding in some strange 30KHz waveform, we're talking about preserving the signals that were there in the first place.
People who really want to hear good stereo sound should spend their effort on the two things that will make a lot of difference: (1) getting good speakers, and (2) working on the acoustics of the room, the placement of the speakers in the room, and the placement of their own head in the room. Note that all the stuff under #2 is free or cheap.
Actually, they should buy a good pair of headphones. For $300 they can buy a pair of headphones that would be tough to beat with speakers at 10X the price.
I find it amusing for slashdot to be discussing censorship in virtual worlds.
Consider slashdot itself. Most users browse at +1 or higher, so anything moderated below that is effectively censored (ACs have a default score of 0, but they choose to post at that level).
Actually, slashdot is frickin awesome when compared to other online communities. We manage to have a reasonably intelligent discourse without deleting posts or users.
Personally, I've been dying to see a slashdot-style moderation applied to other sites, especially online forums. Go to your average online forum and it's absolute tyranny. It's just like back in the dark ages of dial-up BBS's where the "sysgod" ruled all. (Say something the sysgod doesn't like, and you just might be banned forever.)
I tell you, it's a royal pain in the ass when the guy selling you an ECU for your 2nd gen Mazda RX-7 gets permabanned for some stupid thread everyone could care less about.
If a/. style system was being applied, he posts would be invisible to most users, but I would have still been able to communicate with him, and anyone who actually wanted to hear what he had to say would still be able to.
If anyone know about some automotive forums with a/. style moderation system, I'd love to hear about them.
And why this thing about copyrights? It's just like a test. Who's got the copyright of a test? And who cares?
There's a big difference between a test and a research paper. Try showing up for a test, when your reseach paper is due:)
And when you are a student, you're supposed to write texts and handle them to other people (your teacher, or a comitee, or someone else), so... The only difference is in who happens to read your work.
The difference isn't just who reads your work, this is about a private company profiting off your work.
But hey - what if you complained to your boss that "showing your report to a business partner violates your copyrights"? (You wouldn't even hold the copyright in that case!)
See the text I bolded? That makes it an extremely different situation. It's like the difference between building your own house, and building one for someone else. It's just a senseless comparison.
I hate to break this to you, but this is exactly the case.
I'm sure that may be the case for you, but I don't see why someone couldn't fight it and win, just as the student in this story did. I also find it hard to believe that it's that way for everyone, everywhere.
I did a search, but the story doesn't show up. Got a link?
I'd be happy i this wasn't necessary, but as far as I see, there's no other option (in particular for people like me, who have classes with 100 students, or something close to taht).
There is another option: pay attention to your students!
I've taken my share of courses with 100-300 people. You should still be able to catch cheating without violating your student's coprights. Heck, at Cornell, they regularly catch students cheating in PSYCH101 with has more than 300 students.
That's true in the general case, but if I were you, I'd dig out whatever agreement or contract you signed when you were accepted into your school/college/university and have a good read of the small print. I suspect you may find that you've signed copyright over to the institution on anything that you produce in the course of your studies.
Why on earth is this modded up?
NO COLLEGE DOES THIS!
(Look at the other replies.) Even if it did, I doubt it would hold up in court. It would be like the electric company demanding you give them all your copyrights, or you get no power. No judge would stand for it, and there already regulations on these organizations which typically prohibit such ridiculous abuses of power.
Second, that little quip about financial compensation is completely off-base. Students pay to learn, and once the prof has decided that they'll have a better learning experience
So you don't mind submitting your own papers to this database, so that they can profit off them?
"Learning experience" is a bullshit phrase to use in this case. It's like saying "It builds character". Sure, but what kind?
What I'm learning is that you don't respect the rights of your own students. Screw the copyright on their own original work, "they're in my class so they have no rights."
Ever write any textbooks? You don't mind if the university requires you to give them to this company, free of charge, do you?
I can't believe you have the nerve to call this "that little quip about financial compensation." When you make your living from your own academic work.
It's a feedback loop within the educational process and even though I disapprove of the practice, nobody's "rights" are violated.
Well clearly you don't work in a law department or you would understand that students DO own the copyright on their own work and ordering them to turn it over to some external, for profit company is obviously violating those rights. There have already been clear cut cases of student publishing their work and being ordered to take it down as the same project might be used next year. Guess what? The Universities lost.
I think the biggest problem here is probably your lack of respect for undergrads. If the university was ordering PHD students to turn over their dissertations free of charge to an external, for profit cpmpany, I'm sure you could easily see what's wrong with that.
It's a Safari first. The "experiments" are their to justify the Safari.
Rigghhtt....
Because no one has even learned anything from a safari. Why the heck is it such a hard concept that: if you're trying to study a place it makes sense to actually go there.
Talk about robots all you want, but they're nowhere close to a substitute for an actual human being. Even if they were, it still doesn't mean that this person has suddenly lost their ability to discover anything. (By that logic, if someone else can run faster than you, there's no sense in ever running again.)
I'd like to add that I think Davies has come up with a good idea, but it needs one thing - property rights.
The problem is, how are you going to do that now, when no one's actually there?
AND, who is enforcing these property rights? That's the bigger issue. Some nation or organiztion is going to need to back these up. Other nations or organizations aren't going to like this because they will want it for themselves. The only way to actually KEEP control of a given property is to be able to get there. Since nobody's there, property rights are pretty much pointless at this point.
What you're talking about is like declaring yourself the government of some remote, uninhabited island that you have no presense at and won't any time soon. It's pretty much pointless. If I get there first and you can't outmuscle me, you're hosed.
Besides, once the whole space real estate thing is worked out, you know what we're going to get? Taxes..... in space.
Like we need that.
In conclusion:), property rights in space will take care of themselve in due time. Any claims on Mars real estate at this point are pretty much silly.
I would like to take a moment to apologize to you for all the retards replying to you. They just don't get it. Some things are more important than any one person. Heck, than ten people.
Science is one of those things. Scientific advancement advances everyone.
I understand. I wouldn't do it, but I understand. I can understand how a man could die with a smile on his face at the end of a mission like that.
We all die sometime. It's going to happen. Advancing the knowledge of mankind sounds like a pretty good way to go.
What I'm getting at, is the possibility that there was "elevator music" before 1920
I suppose it all depends on what your definition of elevator music is. If you look at it like a music major, you'll be right. If you look at it like a sociologist, I'm probably right.
I consider it to be more than just notes and chord progressions, but commercial music specfically for elevators, stores, doctor's offices, etc.
It seems quite plausible to me that the first major instance of commercial soothing music, was inside elevators. Certainly they didn't invent an entirely new type of music to play in them, but I think the term "elevator music" defines both the content and the context.
Maybe the problem is that a large media company has effectively destroyed MP3.com, formerly (possibly) the best place for an indepent/non-RIAA artist to get themselves heard. This devestaion is now so complete, that even if the artist's music does get played, it will be impossible for the listener to find out who's music they were just listening to. Sure they'll get paid some paltry amount, but no one will start attending their concerts or buying their cds.
Maybe some people see this as the the music industry shutting down their possible competition, and then dumping a truckload of shit in the empty office building. The name MP3.com is now effectivly ruined, and perhaps they've even manged to scare off artists from signing up with any similar service. IMO, these actions are pretty much criminal. This would be like Microsoft buying Apple, shutting them down, and using G4 cubes as the next xbox (plays games only).
The term "elevator music" didn't have anything to do with the music being played in elevators -- it refers to musical characteristics that are supposed to elevate your *mood*.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it does have to do with elevators. Widespread usage before 1979 means nothing. Elevators were in widespread usage before 1979. Our parents did have SOME technology. Sure they still lived in caves, but they had recorded music, radios, and elevators.
IIRC they started playing music in elevators when they discovered that it had a calming effect on the passengers. This most likely began significantly before 1979, when elevators were not as commonplace, and therefore much more likely to make a person nervous.
A dumb out-of-work actor gets caught letting his copy of a screener be the one that gets onto the 'net. I wouldn't call this a setback, I'd call this proof that this idea works.
Holy jumping to conclusions batman!
...and stupid ones too. Like this 69 year old being responsible for his copy getting on the net.
For once, a copy-protection technology that I don't think anybody can argue with...
...and not suprisingly, you sound like the type of person with whom it is not worth arguing.
As we all know,
no oneeverdistributes videos which belong to celebrities without their permission.
Even random data has to fit in. For example, it used to be the case that the A/D stage of some cheap sound cards was so noisy that the recording from line-in gave you a 16 bit audio sample stream with the bottom 4 bits effectively random(like dithering but much much worse.) However, the noise (while random in nature) was shaped in a particular way, so if you just hide your encrypted secrets in those 4 bits it would be obvious that the "noise" wasn't appropriate.
All that really says is that you need to add one more signal processing step to your steg. program. Save enough of those LSB's so that after you've mixed in your data, you can manipulate the extra LSB's to make your image fit the correct random distribution (but not perfectly).
It's not trivial, but it's like cyrptography, you don't need to make it impossible to find the data, just "practially" impossible.
The same holds with audio. For instance, crypted data is white noise, but concert noise is "pink noise" which has a characteristic spectrum.
But there's no reason that in additional to adding in you data, you can't tweak some more bits to get back to the correct spectrum.
A simple way might be to encode that data into an FFT of the original audio, that has been passed through a weighting function to make it have a noise spectrum more similar to white noise, once it's encoded, pass it backwards through the filter, and your noise spectrum will look right.
It is trivial to write a program to discover content that has been stegged. A jpeg with hidden content would be quite easy to find if the areas with content where significantly different from those without. The problem comes when the data is similar to the carrier.
It's only trivial if they we using the most basic method possible and you had some idea what the data you were looking for was like.
If just I straight-up encode a bunch of dictionary words into the LSB's in a black and white bitmap, then you could easily find them.
If distort the image using a fractal pattern as my method of encoding and the original data source is compressed and encrypted as part of the operation, it's not trivial anymore, is it?
.....damn, fractal-based stenography I wonder if anybody's using it?
Wrong, sorry. Their stock value doesn't influence their cash flow directly, nor the amount of cash in bank. There might be some indirect effects related to financing and stock options, but they're not running out of cash even if their stock goes back to penny status.
Sounds like you aren't aware that a very significant portion of the payment to their lawfirm is occuring an the form of stock.
You still have no idea whether the version recorded on some internal paper spool is actually what you voted for on the screen.
And why is that?
What's so frickin hard about having a little plexisglass window, showing the paper that was just printed on?
The grandparent poster has it 100% right. Any electronic voting should produce a tamper-proof paper trail. One entry is created after each vote, so that a vote may verify it. There's no need for the voter to actually handle this piece of paper, just to see it.
Lack of ability to record from the radio was a showstopper for me.
I have a feeling that the hardware actually supports recording from the radio, but the software does not. One of original spec sheets for the device (which I found on iriver's website) says that it would support recording from the radio. This means it might be possible for a firmware upgrade to add radio recording support. I doubt there's a clock inside the device though, so you're SOL if you want it to tape something at 6pm on tuesday.
Slashdot Mirror
no i meant below, then listen to the resulting file. If you can hear anything, then guess what? CDs have content over 11khz.
There are two problems with that:
1) What ever filter cooledit is going to apply isn't perfect (because it's impossible to have a perfect filter)
2) That also makes the assumption that all your math is being done with infinite precision (no rounding occurs, no noise is being generated merely by the application of the filter)
The reality is that CDs do have content above 11 KHz, but no content is at 22KHz. This is becuase of the need for filters before the d/a convertor, see my other posts on this topic.
While a recorder might sample a 44KHz, there is a low pass filter inside it which begins blocking signals at some frequency below 22Khz. This filter is going to vary from unit to unit.
Okay, I just went through the replies to the grandparent post and I was suprised to find that my post was the only one to mention anything about filters. I guess slashdotters could use a little bit more explanation:
The grandparent poster was referring to Nyquist's theorem. Here's a good link on the subject.
The problem is that he doesn't seem to understand how this is applied in practice. You can't just hook a mic up to the D/A convertor. There is a possibility that signals above the nyquist frequency of your setup are present. These would result in an aliasing effect.
Ex:
If your mic is putting out a 23 KHz sinewave. and you're sampling at 44KHz, this sinewave is going to get shifted down to 1KHz. This is bad, because it trashes the real 1KHz signal that you wanted to listen to, and you get to listend to aliased electrical noise instead.
To prevent high frequencies from messing up your recording, you must place a filter before the A/D convertor. This will block those high frequencies from being digitized, but it introduces a new problem:
no filter is perfect. In an ideal world, you want a filter that would pass everything below 22KHz exactly and block everything above it completely. The problem is that sucha filter is impossible to implement. This means that you end up involved in a trade-off situation. That sharper the cutoff, the less smooth the filter response, etc.
It's a pretty complex subject that I've spent a couple years studying and still don't fully grasp (people spend their whole lives studying filters), but the main point I'm trying to get across is that pretty much any A/D converter has a filter in front of it, and the more extra samples above the nyquist rate you can squeeze in, the less demands are placed on this filter.
The 44 kHz (IIRC) sampling frequency of a CD means that you can actually record signals with frequencies as high has 22 kHz (half the sampling frequency -- that's a methematical theorem about the discrete Fourier transform).
Yep, you're denfinately a physics teacher, not an EE.
44 KHz sampling rate only lets you record frequencies up to 22KHz if you had a PERFECT d/a convertor and a PERFECT filter. It is provably impossible to implement a perfect filter. (One with a perfect cutoff and a perfectly flat passband.) Sampling at 44 KHz allows someone to design a decent recording setup with compenents that actually exist. Sampling at 96KHz gives the engineer even more breathing room when designing the filter in front of the A/D convertor. Instead of going from H(jw)=1 to H(jw)=0 in the space of 2KHz, he now can do it in 20. This means he can use a filter design with a flatter pass band. This means there is less distortion of all those frequencies that you can actually hear.
Even if there was a hypothetical human who could hear 30 kHz, there would be many other things preventing it from being useful musically. For instance, your tweeters most likely can't respond well to those frequencies. Furthermore, the music might sound worse to such a person if the 30 kHz stuff was left in.
Actually, it's much easier to build a tweeter than can handle 30KHz, than it is to build a subwoofer that can handle 20Hz. There are plenty of tweeters on the market right now which claim to work at 30KHz.
Second, your statement about the 30KHz stuff making the music sound worse doesn't make any sense. The goal of an audiophile-quality setup is to reproduce the original audio exactly. We're not talking about adding in some strange 30KHz waveform, we're talking about preserving the signals that were there in the first place.
People who really want to hear good stereo sound should spend their effort on the two things that will make a lot of difference: (1) getting good speakers, and (2) working on the acoustics of the room, the placement of the speakers in the room, and the placement of their own head in the room. Note that all the stuff under #2 is free or cheap.
Actually, they should buy a good pair of headphones. For $300 they can buy a pair of headphones that would be tough to beat with speakers at 10X the price.
I find it amusing for slashdot to be discussing censorship in virtual worlds. Consider slashdot itself. Most users browse at +1 or higher, so anything moderated below that is effectively censored (ACs have a default score of 0, but they choose to post at that level).
/. style system was being applied, he posts would be invisible to most users, but I would have still been able to communicate with him, and anyone who actually wanted to hear what he had to say would still be able to.
/. style moderation system, I'd love to hear about them.
Actually, slashdot is frickin awesome when compared to other online communities. We manage to have a reasonably intelligent discourse without deleting posts or users.
Personally, I've been dying to see a slashdot-style moderation applied to other sites, especially online forums. Go to your average online forum and it's absolute tyranny. It's just like back in the dark ages of dial-up BBS's where the "sysgod" ruled all. (Say something the sysgod doesn't like, and you just might be banned forever.)
I tell you, it's a royal pain in the ass when the guy selling you an ECU for your 2nd gen Mazda RX-7 gets permabanned for some stupid thread everyone could care less about.
If a
If anyone know about some automotive forums with a
And why this thing about copyrights? It's just like a test. Who's got the copyright of a test? And who cares?
:)
There's a big difference between a test and a research paper. Try showing up for a test, when your reseach paper is due
And when you are a student, you're supposed to write texts and handle them to other people (your teacher, or a comitee, or someone else), so... The only difference is in who happens to read your work.
The difference isn't just who reads your work, this is about a private company profiting off your work.
But hey - what if you complained to your boss that "showing your report to a business partner violates your copyrights"? (You wouldn't even hold the copyright in that case!)
See the text I bolded? That makes it an extremely different situation. It's like the difference between building your own house, and building one for someone else. It's just a senseless comparison.
I hate to break this to you, but this is exactly the case.
I'm sure that may be the case for you, but I don't see why someone couldn't fight it and win, just as the student in this story did. I also find it hard to believe that it's that way for everyone, everywhere.
I did a search, but the story doesn't show up. Got a link?
I'd be happy i this wasn't necessary, but as far as I see, there's no other option (in particular for people like me, who have classes with 100 students, or something close to taht).
There is another option: pay attention to your students!
I've taken my share of courses with 100-300 people. You should still be able to catch cheating without violating your student's coprights. Heck, at Cornell, they regularly catch students cheating in PSYCH101 with has more than 300 students.
That's true in the general case, but if I were you, I'd dig out whatever agreement or contract you signed when you were accepted into your school/college/university and have a good read of the small print. I suspect you may find that you've signed copyright over to the institution on anything that you produce in the course of your studies.
Why on earth is this modded up?
NO COLLEGE DOES THIS!
(Look at the other replies.) Even if it did, I doubt it would hold up in court. It would be like the electric company demanding you give them all your copyrights, or you get no power. No judge would stand for it, and there already regulations on these organizations which typically prohibit such ridiculous abuses of power.
Second, that little quip about financial compensation is completely off-base. Students pay to learn, and once the prof has decided that they'll have a better learning experience
So you don't mind submitting your own papers to this database, so that they can profit off them?
"Learning experience" is a bullshit phrase to use in this case. It's like saying "It builds character". Sure, but what kind?
What I'm learning is that you don't respect the rights of your own students. Screw the copyright on their own original work, "they're in my class so they have no rights."
Ever write any textbooks? You don't mind if the university requires you to give them to this company, free of charge, do you?
I can't believe you have the nerve to call this "that little quip about financial compensation." When you make your living from your own academic work.
It's a feedback loop within the educational process and even though I disapprove of the practice, nobody's "rights" are violated.
Well clearly you don't work in a law department or you would understand that students DO own the copyright on their own work and ordering them to turn it over to some external, for profit company is obviously violating those rights. There have already been clear cut cases of student publishing their work and being ordered to take it down as the same project might be used next year. Guess what? The Universities lost.
I think the biggest problem here is probably your lack of respect for undergrads. If the university was ordering PHD students to turn over their dissertations free of charge to an external, for profit cpmpany, I'm sure you could easily see what's wrong with that.
It's a Safari first. The "experiments" are their to justify the Safari.
Rigghhtt....
Because no one has even learned anything from a safari. Why the heck is it such a hard concept that: if you're trying to study a place it makes sense to actually go there.
Talk about robots all you want, but they're nowhere close to a substitute for an actual human being. Even if they were, it still doesn't mean that this person has suddenly lost their ability to discover anything. (By that logic, if someone else can run faster than you, there's no sense in ever running again.)
I'd like to add that I think Davies has come up with a good idea, but it needs one thing - property rights.
:), property rights in space will take care of themselve in due time. Any claims on Mars real estate at this point are pretty much silly.
The problem is, how are you going to do that now, when no one's actually there?
AND, who is enforcing these property rights? That's the bigger issue. Some nation or organiztion is going to need to back these up. Other nations or organizations aren't going to like this because they will want it for themselves. The only way to actually KEEP control of a given property is to be able to get there. Since nobody's there, property rights are pretty much pointless at this point.
What you're talking about is like declaring yourself the government of some remote, uninhabited island that you have no presense at and won't any time soon. It's pretty much pointless. If I get there first and you can't outmuscle me, you're hosed.
Besides, once the whole space real estate thing is worked out, you know what we're going to get?
Taxes..... in space.
Like we need that.
In conclusion
I would like to take a moment to apologize to you for all the retards replying to you. They just don't get it. Some things are more important than any one person. Heck, than ten people.
Science is one of those things. Scientific advancement advances everyone.
I understand. I wouldn't do it, but I understand. I can understand how a man could die with a smile on his face at the end of a mission like that.
We all die sometime. It's going to happen. Advancing the knowledge of mankind sounds like a pretty good way to go.
What I'm getting at, is the possibility that there was "elevator music" before 1920
I suppose it all depends on what your definition of elevator music is. If you look at it like a music major, you'll be right. If you look at it like a sociologist, I'm probably right.
I consider it to be more than just notes and chord progressions, but commercial music specfically for elevators, stores, doctor's offices, etc.
It seems quite plausible to me that the first major instance of commercial soothing music, was inside elevators. Certainly they didn't invent an entirely new type of music to play in them, but I think the term "elevator music" defines both the content and the context.
I don't see what the problem is
I'll take a stab at this:
Maybe the problem is that a large media company has effectively destroyed MP3.com, formerly (possibly) the best place for an indepent/non-RIAA artist to get themselves heard. This devestaion is now so complete, that even if the artist's music does get played, it will be impossible for the listener to find out who's music they were just listening to. Sure they'll get paid some paltry amount, but no one will start attending their concerts or buying their cds.
Maybe some people see this as the the music industry shutting down their possible competition, and then dumping a truckload of shit in the empty office building. The name MP3.com is now effectivly ruined, and perhaps they've even manged to scare off artists from signing up with any similar service. IMO, these actions are pretty much criminal. This would be like Microsoft buying Apple, shutting them down, and using G4 cubes as the next xbox (plays games only).
The term "elevator music" didn't have anything to do with the music being played in elevators -- it refers to musical characteristics that are supposed to elevate your *mood*.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it does have to do with elevators. Widespread usage before 1979 means nothing. Elevators were in widespread usage before 1979. Our parents did have SOME technology. Sure they still lived in caves, but they had recorded music, radios, and elevators.
IIRC they started playing music in elevators when they discovered that it had a calming effect on the passengers. This most likely began significantly before 1979, when elevators were not as commonplace, and therefore much more likely to make a person nervous.
A dumb out-of-work actor gets caught letting his copy of a screener be the one that gets onto the 'net. I wouldn't call this a setback, I'd call this proof that this idea works.
...and stupid ones too. Like this 69 year old being responsible for his copy getting on the net.
...and not suprisingly, you sound like the type of person with whom it is not worth arguing.
Holy jumping to conclusions batman!
For once, a copy-protection technology that I don't think anybody can argue with...
As we all know, no one ever distributes videos which belong to celebrities without their permission.
Even random data has to fit in. For example, it used to be the case that the A/D stage of some cheap sound cards was so noisy that the recording from line-in gave you a 16 bit audio sample stream with the bottom 4 bits effectively random(like dithering but much much worse.) However, the noise (while random in nature) was shaped in a particular way, so if you just hide your encrypted secrets in those 4 bits it would be obvious that the "noise" wasn't appropriate.
All that really says is that you need to add one more signal processing step to your steg. program. Save enough of those LSB's so that after you've mixed in your data, you can manipulate the extra LSB's to make your image fit the correct random distribution (but not perfectly).
It's not trivial, but it's like cyrptography, you don't need to make it impossible to find the data, just "practially" impossible.
The same holds with audio. For instance, crypted data is white noise, but concert noise is "pink noise" which has a characteristic spectrum.
But there's no reason that in additional to adding in you data, you can't tweak some more bits to get back to the correct spectrum.
A simple way might be to encode that data into an FFT of the original audio, that has been passed through a weighting function to make it have a noise spectrum more similar to white noise, once it's encoded, pass it backwards through the filter, and your noise spectrum will look right.
It is trivial to write a program to discover content that has been stegged. A jpeg with hidden content would be quite easy to find if the areas with content where significantly different from those without. The problem comes when the data is similar to the carrier.
.....damn, fractal-based stenography I wonder if anybody's using it?
It's only trivial if they we using the most basic method possible and you had some idea what the data you were looking for was like.
If just I straight-up encode a bunch of dictionary words into the LSB's in a black and white bitmap, then you could easily find them.
If distort the image using a fractal pattern as my method of encoding and the original data source is compressed and encrypted as part of the operation, it's not trivial anymore, is it?
Wrong, sorry. Their stock value doesn't influence their cash flow directly, nor the amount of cash in bank. There might be some indirect effects related to financing and stock options, but they're not running out of cash even if their stock goes back to penny status.
Sounds like you aren't aware that a very significant portion of the payment to their lawfirm is occuring an the form of stock.
Isn't a wacko party really likely to run out of possible canadidates well before a mainstream one does?
That is a really good point.
You still have no idea whether the version recorded on some internal paper spool is actually what you voted for on the screen.
And why is that?
What's so frickin hard about having a little plexisglass window, showing the paper that was just printed on?
The grandparent poster has it 100% right. Any electronic voting should produce a tamper-proof paper trail. One entry is created after each vote, so that a vote may verify it. There's no need for the voter to actually handle this piece of paper, just to see it.
I'd be suprised if there wasn't an RTC in there somewhere, it has to figure out what timestamps to put on files it creates when recording
That's an interesting thought. I'll take a look at the time/date on the files I've recorded so far.
Lack of ability to record from the radio was a showstopper for me.
I have a feeling that the hardware actually supports recording from the radio, but the software does not. One of original spec sheets for the device (which I found on iriver's website) says that it would support recording from the radio. This means it might be possible for a firmware upgrade to add radio recording support. I doubt there's a clock inside the device though, so you're SOL if you want it to tape something at 6pm on tuesday.
and I believe the IHP-120 already does..
It does. It will record from internal mic, external mic, line-in or optical in to either mp3 or wav.