You can see a fairly thorough description of exactly what I did, including screenshots of the waveforms (before and after) as well as a spectrum analysis of the audio files here:
I freely admit to not being an expert on this sort of thing. I simply applied a sledgehammer. I admit that it is possible that the watermark is intact after my technique, but I seriously doubt it. Maybe I am a fool, who knows... hehe Take a look at the waveform comparison I posted and feel free to punch holes the size of Texas into my "technique" I just think that sometimes locks are best bypassed by tearing down the door, instead of messing with a set of picks... hehe
This may be "way out there" but I am fairly certain I have found a nice easy way to remove the watermark from Technology A...
I downloaded the 58meg ZIP file (target at windoze users maybe?)
It contained a README.txt and 3.wav files...
samp1a.wav:
"clean" un-watermarked 2 minute sample of music (Clean is relative here, as this sample was obviously encoded from a record.. lots of scratchy noise)
samp2a.wav:
watermarked version of samp1a.wav
Analysis of these samples in Sound Forge shows minor differences in the wave forms. The "watermarked" sample is slighty distorted. This distortion is inaudible, but at a fairly high "zoom" setting it is visible.
samp3a.wav:
Watermarked "test sample" Not so noisy 2 minute recording of some rock-n-roll
The goal is to remove the watermark from samp3a.wav and have the resulting sample be of no worse quality than a 64bit MP3.
Method used:
I simply used bladenc to convert samp3a.wav to an MP3 (128bit)
I then used XMMS's "Disk Writer Plugin" to convert the MP3 back to a.wav file
Comparison of samp3a.wav and my "hacked" samp3a.wav in Sound Forge shows that my "hacked" sample has a VERY smooth waveform. The "watermarked" sample, in comparison, is VERY noisy. There is a MUCH larger difference between the two then there was between samp1a and samp2a
Is the "watermark" still there? I doubt it. The waveforms are DRAMATICALLY different.
Of course, it "MIGHT" still be there, and since SDMI is not making a "checker" publically available, I can't find out without uploading the "hacked" sample to their site for them to analyze. Of course, that "feature" won't be available till tomorrow, and even when it DOES become available, I won't bother. Anyone with the software to do a "diff" between the two files wanna contact me? It is VERY obvious that the "processed" (->mp3->wav) sample is MUCH different (wave-form wise) than the "watermarked" version, but I guess the watermark might still be hiding in there somewhere.
It would actually surprise me if a simple procedure like this can defeate Technology A... but then again, why not? Tech A may be a "worst of class" method designed to lure us into thinking SDMI will be easily defeated.
Anyway, I will be downloading the rest of the Technologies and submitting them to various tests...
The most interesting thing so far is that the "watermarked" music is still playable in XMMS... so as long as they don't make XMMS illegal, this watermarking will be useless anyway...
What does happen if somebody cracks their protection? Do they go back to the drawing board, or do they buy the rights to the crack for $10,000, patent it, and then refuse to publish it?
Actually, if they patent it, they HAVE to publish it. Thats the whole point of patents. Patents force FULL disclosure of the process, in terms that a "normal worker" in the industry can understand. Then they grant exclusive use of those methods to the patent holder for the life of the patent. This allows others to build from the knowledge base, to improve on new technologies and methods. Patents are a "Two way street" (at least ideally) The holder of the patent gets exclusivity, the rest of the world gets full disclosure.
This is why DVD-CSS is NOT patented, but instead was kept as a "trade secret" If they had patented it, they would have been forced to fully disclose the techniques. Also, patents are not inforced under CRIMINAL law, but instead under Civil law. They can't throw you in jail for violating a patent, but they can SUE you.
ob topic:
I strongly suspect that what the SDMI will place up for "cracking" on Sept. 15th will NOT be a "reference implimentation" but instead will be more "theoretical" I doubt they will make a few "watermarked" music files available for download. I am thinking they will instead simply discribe the methods to be used, and challenge the "hackers" to poke holes in the theory. I could be wrong, of course.
What benefits are there to Linux that don't already exist on a Sun?
Well, I am sure many will disagree with me on this one, but Solaris is a pain in the ass to use as a desktop OS. It took me about a week to get all my "must have" tools installed (gcc, Gtk+, Enlightenment, etc...) Even after all that, It's still a crappy workstation because the version of OpenWindows that ships with Solaris 7 has shared memory bugs that cause all kinds of chaos with imlib. Solaris is perfectly wonderful as a server OS... it kicks major ass, but as a desktop workstation? It's a major pain in the ass unless you are content to stick with the windowmanagers and applications it ships with. (Motif anyone?)
Since I am not content to deal with low quality windowmanagers, I end up being very frustrated by Solaris as a workstation. Good thing my current employer is not very stingy, I get to have an Intel box (for Linux) and a Sparc station (for testing scripts that I write for our servers) side by side on my desk! I would install Linux on the Sparc, but the whole point to having a Sparc workstation is so I can do local testing of how my code works with Solaris prior to sticking it on the servers...
Oh, and posting to/. is such productive use of your prescious time.
It is a much better use of my time than Television.
Television is a one-way medium.They produce, we consume./. is a two-way medium.They produce, we respond.Any conversation, no matter how inane, is a far superior way to spend ones time than as a receptor for mass-media ideals.
Don't waste your life being a passive receiver of ideology.Think for yourself!Converse with other humans.Even if it is about something banal and "worthless" (such as this thread) at least you will be interacting with another member of your species.Television is a one-way ticket to mindless passivity.
1. I have to choose a desktop environment? GNOME or KDE?
Try "None of the Above" You don't HAVE to do a damn thing. That's one of the many beautiful features of GNU/Linux. Personally, I run Enlightenment as my Window Manager, and don't run GNOME or KDE... I tend to use all Gtk+ applications, if I can, but sometimes I run Motif, QT, TK, or other widget set based applications. I run the program that fits my need. Widget set be damned.
2. Web Browser.
Semi valid point here, but Netscape 4.73 does function. It has it's quirks and flaws, but like you I normally have 5+ browser windows open constantly, and Netscape gets the job done...
3. Mail Client.
Take a long hard look at CSCMail (http://www.cscmail.net) It will do all you need... And with a "One Stop" installation script, it seemlessly installs on MOST GNU/Linux and BSD distros....
4. Editor.
I dunno... what do you need to do with an editor that gvim can't do for ya?
5. Word and Excel.
Star Office works just fine for these two...
You say:
Of course, you can read them from your linux box - but if you want to edit them, it's lilo:dos yet again.
Try getting a clue... that statement is just 100% false...
Side note: I run GNU/Linux on my workstation (at work) where I link it to a corporate network with Novell servers, Windows 9x/2k workstations and Linux servers... I deal with inter-office mail (and its attendant Word and Excel attachments) just fine with my Linux box... I do not have a Win partition, I do not Dual boot, and I am 10x more productive then my co-workers. When they are all busy scanning their hard drives due to the most recent Windows macro virus scare, I am happily working. While they are re-booting their machines due to the most recent Explorer bug that brought down the whole box, I am happily working.
At home, I also run GNU/Linux (on my main box) I play Civ:CTP, Quake III Arena, Unreal Tournament, Starcraft, et al... I code, deal with e-mail, surf, everything anyone needs to do with a computer. No problem... I can do it all in Linux.
I DO have a Windows box... I use it for ONE purpose...
EVERQUEST!
But as soon as Anarchy Online comes out, I doubt I'll feel the need for that anymore, and I'll prolly end up wiping that machine and making it a GNU/Linux box too...
So, your arguements are pretty much baseless... You might want to take another look at GNU/Linux, and this time, with your eyes open...
Isn't most of the same kind of information about users kept in such mundane tracking systems as the apache access logs?
Yes, but there is an issue of convenience. We use 1x1 gifs for tracking here for several reasons.
One log entry per pageview. This is the same thing any "hit counter" does, But without wasting bandwidth/annoying the user by displaying the count itself. It is much easier to parse a log file where ALL the data is relevent, instead of parsing an Apache log that lists every file transfered (images, html, etc) With the Apache logs for a single pageview you get many log entries (hundreds if you have a lot of images) Large log, hard to parse, easy to loose the signal due to noise. With the 1x1 gif method, you get one entry per pageview. Easier to parse and generate meaningful statistics.
Seperate logging server than web server. When you get hundreds of thousands of hits a day, it is nice to have a machine dedicated to tracking. So you serve the 1x1 images from that machine. It handles the tracking logs, and you can use it to generate stats, etc and don't have to transfer those huge Apache log files all over the network.
This said, we own all the servers used to serve the images/web-pages and so no data is going anywhere outside our company. Second, we don't add any personal data (or even collect any, we're not an e-commerce site) so all we are tracking is pageviews and click-streams. This way we know what portions of voila.com are getting used and what portions are losing our visitor's attention. This allows us to develop our weak areas with more interesting content, as well as put bigger servers into play to host more popular content, etc...
Of what possible benefit is this? Everyone with an internet connection by default has at least ONE e-mail address already.
Assigning e-mail addresses to physical addresses shows a complete lack of understanding for the whole system. It gives current internet users yet another address, and gives addresses to millions more who have no way to access the mail. For those who use this service, it also is one more change-of-address to worry about when you move.
Giving out a free e-mail address in conjunction with an internet access account is one of the best ways to ensure that all internet users have access to e-mail. This plus the existing free services fill the e-mail needs of the public.
I see this as a vain attempt for a nearly out-dated service to stay relevent in a wired world. I predict failure for this venture.
Evolution is a groupware package, just like Outlook, Lotus Notes, et al. It has mail, calandering, contact management, etc... Therefore, some people call it an Outlook replacement... It is. IF you don't use any proprietary Exchange features.
It is NOT Outlook/Exchange compatable any more than ANY POP-3/IMAP and SMTP client is Exchange compatible. It does NOT impliment the "native" Exchange protocols. It WILL NOT import free/busy information, contact lists, network folders or any other "Exchange only" features from an Exchange server. It does NOT interact with Exchange in any way other than as a simple SMTP/POP-3/IMAP client.
It uses it's own OPEN protocols to deal with the groupware functionality.
It also happens to LOOK a lot like Outlook.
Again, Evolution is NOT "Exchange" compatable any more than ANY POP-3/IMAP/SMTP mailer.
So... If you want a good standards based groupware suite, Evolution will be a good bet. If you want an Exchange client, your gonna hafta stick with Outlook till someone reverse engineers the proprietary protocols.
I work for France Telecom, as the SysAdmin for Voila.com
We use Linux exclusively on our servers. (Well, except for one lil box running NT to interface with Reuters, because they refuse to make their proprietary client for Linux)
Our current database is around 4 Terabytes. It sits on about 80 servers all running Linux.
Admittedly, we use a custom database package, developed in house, and not an RDBMS, but when your dealing with such a specific dataset (we index web pages... thats it...) you don't need the flexability of Sybase.
Then theres Google... How many thousands of Linux boxes are they running? How huge is there database?
So yes, Linux is more than capable of handling a puny 30 gig database. Heck, I have more than 30gigs of data indexed on my HOME machine. (30gigs of MP3's all indexed and cataloged with Postgres) not quite the same as a "30 gig database" but similar.
the idea that the typical X setup is less metaphor-laden than Mac or Windows is absurd. Most file and window managers for X attempt to be as much like the Mac or Windows interfaces as possible
If you don't ignore the rest of the article, the author goes on to mention that although file managers exist for X, and are much the same as file managers on any platform, that their use is not common. It is much more likely for a *nix/X user to use a console interface. In fact, most *nix/X users I know use X pretty much exclusively as a way to have 98 bajillion console windows open at once. Not very many people bother to go to the trouble to learn how to use *nix, and then go back to the old ineficient file manager way of doing things.
As for launchers, a menu is a menu is a menu. I prefer to use the Root menu, and I abhore things such as the GNOME panel, and the windows "Start" menu. Why should I have to move my mouse to a specific part of the screen to access a list of programs? (Yes, I know there are utils for Windows that emulate the root menu... Diamond's video cards all ship with them)
Anyway, the "typical" (read "power user") X desktop IS less metaphor driven than the typical Windows or Mac desktop. Not to mention being way more customizable, so it can morph into whatever form the user wants...
Premise: GtkHTML is a Gtk+ widget. (Hence the name "GtkHTML")
GtkHTML depends on GNOME. If GtkHTML is truely a Gtk+ widget, then there is a circular dependancy. (What would happen if GtkHTML was bundled with Gtk+?)
Reality: GtkHTML is NOT a Gtk+ widget. GtkHTML is a mis-named GNOME widget.
Is this confusing to users and developers?
Yes. Either GtkHTML needs to drop GNOME dependancy, or it needs to change its name, and stop pretending to be something which it is not.
As a developer I refuse to link my applications with GNOME because it has taken a few good concepts and gone WAY overboard. GNOME initially seemed to be a set of developer guidelines to promote a common look-and-feel. A few "meta-widgets" were created on top of Gtk+ to promote this. (gnome-stock-this and gnome-stock-that)
This was good. Then someone decided to go even further. More widgets where added. Many of these widgets should have been added at a low level (read Gtk+) but instead where added in at the GNOME level. Now you have widgets that depend on gnome-libs and a fairly incestious circle is starting to emerge where GNOME depends on GNOME and its getting so complicated that no developers I know are willing to shackle thier projects to the great beast that GNOME has become.
Miguel and Co. can't see the forest for the trees. I recently ripped the GNOME out of GtkHTML and created CscHTML (http://www.cscmail.net/cschtml) Miguel and several of the other GNOME developers couldn't comprehend why anyone would do such a thing. They couldn't understand the need for a non-GNOME dependant HTML widget. They couldn't agree that a "Gtk Widget" (GtkHTML) shouldn't depend on GNOME. Circular dependancies are a bad thing. GNOME depends on Gtk. GtkHTML depends on GNOME. Chicken, Egg?
Code re-use is a good thing in moderation. Not every hunk of code needs to be a re-usable object, and interdependancies can be bad if they get out of hand (which they clearly have in the case of GNOME) Miguel has stated many times that the dependancies in GNOME will only GROW as time goes on. He sees interdependancy as a wonderful thing, and is so hell bent on code re-use that he is turning GNOME into a huge monster of code that no one wants to link to because no one wants to depend on 20 or 30 different libs. GNOME needs to be split, some of its libs more appropriately belong in lower level widget sets (such as Gtk+) and some of its items should be stand alone utilities. Trim the fat from GNOME and maybe developers would start to use it again.
The extra $40k will come as I get more real world experience. Your friend didn't come out of college and walk right into a $100k/year job... He worked up to it.
As for exposure to different methods of programming, I get that every day. Thats what Open Source is all about. Every time I read the source code to a new project, I get exposed to a new method of programming.
On re-reading my origional post, I notice I did come off as fairly arrogant. This was unintentional. I did not mean to imply that I knew it all when it came to programming/software design. What I ment was that CompSci classes tend to be "behind the curve" when it comes to producing skilled workers. There may be (and obviously ARE) exceptions to the norm (any vague generality is false) but MOST graduates of CompSci programs are chock full of theory, and devoid of skills.
Could I write a compiler? Not today. Could I learn? sure. Do I need a CompSci course to teach me? No... I am capable of utilizing the tools of empowerment that the Open Source community has made available to me. I have the source code to some of the best software on this planet available for my perusal. I have the greatest programmers alive available for discussion via e-mail/irc/news groups. In other words, I don't need college, I have the internet. Am I knocking the benefits of college? no. I am saying that the community of knowledge that is a traditional university has been made available to me via the internet, and so I do not need to attend the brick and mortar institution itself.
With the lack of interest in Computer Science that colleges are seeing as of late, I can imagine that the population that understands how things work, how to make them work, and how to fix them when they are broken is getting smaller and smaller
This shows a complete lack of understanding of the "Way things work"
Colleges are seeing a lack of interest in Computer Science because computer science classes are seen as "old school" Everyone knows that you don't learn computer skills in school. You don't learn how to program in a classroom environment. You DO learn by DOING. Staying up all night hacking. If you look at the technology leaders today, a large porton of them have never attended college. Those who have/are didn't bother with CompSci, but instead learned business management skills (something you CAN learn in school) The Computer Skills they have they learned in their spare time.
Case in point: Myself. I am a high school dropout. No college. No interest in EVER going to college. I am 27 years old, and I just got re-located (all expenses paid) to New York City to work for France Telecom as the Linux Network Administrator for voila.com. I am making upwards of $60k a year (not millions, but its a good start) and have full benefits. I get to play with Linux boxes all day, everyday, and I make money doing it! Talk about your dream job. How did I get here? No CompSci for me. I was one of those "wiz kids" back in the 80's. You know, I had a Commodore 64 in 1982, I learned BASIC on a TRS-80 Model III in first grade. I learned 650x assembly by the time I was 12. I was all over BBS's in the last half of the 80's, and ran my own BBS throughout the first half of the 90's (Till about '93/'94 when I learned about the internet.) Why would someone like me need college? What does CompSci have to offer me?
It is this attitude that is why colleges are seeing a lack of interest in Computer Science, not a lack of skill. In fact, the lack of CompSci interest shows an INCREASE in the skill levels of the younger generation. These kids are working outside of the traditional structure. They don't go to college (or if they do, it's to learn business management skills, not computer skills that they have already mastered)
vFolders are not new. The concepts have been around forever, and although Miguel and the folks behind GNOME want you to think that Evolution is "revolutionary" because it creates message folders on the fly based on search criteria, other mail clients (that you can actually USE right NOW...) have had this feature for quite some time.
This "manifesto" had some interesting points, but it tends to break down a bit at the core.
First, files and filenames. He says files shouldn't need filenames. This may be true as far as most USERS are concerned. Do normal users care about the tons of files in/usr/lib or c:\windows\system ? Of course not. Do these files need names? Of course. Why? because the computer needs to be able to find them and index them and load them and link them and use them. Do these names need to be human readable? not really. A lot of them aren't. But most are. Why? Because it makes it easier for programmers to remember what the files do.
This manifesto blabbers on and on about this nebulous "thingie" called cyber-this and cyber-that (sometimes Cybersphere, sometimes Cyberspace, and then there are these other things called Cyberbodies...) But the meat and potatoes got left behind. Where does this "timestream" live? When I insert an appointment into my "future time flow" where does said appointment go? Is it just random, nameless data written to the inodes of some non-indexed hardrive? No, of course not... Data has to be indexed. Every last little bit of it. Otherwise the computer can't find it. The index may be inode-numbers, or tuples in a database, or (gasp) filenames, but guess what? There HAS TO BE an indexation or the computer (and hence the operator) will not be able to get to that data.
Improved indexation is a definate plus, and this is about the ONLY point in the whole 6 pages of LSD enspired drivel that was this "manifesto" But improved indexation comes at a price. Namely, speed and storage space. Yeah, it would kick ass if I could open up a search window on my computer and type "show me a map to that resteraunt Bill emailed me about" Thing is, we can do this NOW. But guess what? It takes a ton of processing power, and a ton of storage. (and a ton of time, since we don't really have the processing power or storage right now) So, although this is a good idea, it's just not ready for prime time. And you know what? When it IS ready for prime time, it WILL be implimented using files and folders and filenames. It also more than likely will be implimented under GNU/Linux (or its successor.) Why? Because only GNU/Linux provides an open platform that could possibly support the development of the kinds of co-operative applications that this would require.
A while back, I played with a Windows utility by Altavista that allowed you to index all the files on your system and then do search-engine like queries to find files. This was pretty cool (I never knew I had so many files on my system with the word "Fuck" in them) but it suffered greatly due to the lack of a common file format. It could only index a select core set of filetypes. Technologies like XML will allow us to have a single "universal" file format that will allow better indexation of our data. The other drawback to the Altavista program was the considerable time it took to index my hard drive and the fact that it had to do so every night to maintain a reasonable index of my data. Once we can provide low level indexation on the fly (via a kernel-level interface) that dynamically modifies the keyword database as the inode's change, and a universal file format, then we can truely enjoy the benefits of powerful context sensitive information retrieval. Of course, all this will STILL involve files, folders and filenames... Sorry, but its how we humans like to organize stuff. We stick it in compartments and label it. (Be it baggies in the freezer, or boxes in the attic) And when we forget (or are too lazy) to label our compartments, chaos reigns... Do we really want our computers to resemble our attics?
Oh, and on the day that my computer starts sticking random butterflies on my screen while I am trying to work, I fdisk and install a real OS.
Granted, I don't support reverse-engineering and stealing proprietary routines (and don't bother to correct me, as I don't know/care about the details)...
If you don't know/care about the details, how can you profess to have any opinion at all?
Sorry, but closemindedness == idiocy in my opinion, and therefore renders anything you may have to say completely worthless.
All the stuff I bought for o/c-ing cost me much more than the difference in price between my 400s and the 500s.
What? I have been running overclocked machines for years now, and I never spend ANY additional money. I simply bought a GOOD fan the first time out (a good idea even if you DON'T overclock) and I use a good motherboard.
I ran a P-II 333 at 416 for over a year. Now I run a Celeron 366 at 450. The Celeron cost me LESS than the P-II. I use an Asus P2B motherboard and a SIIG fan.
The whole POINT to overclocking is to NOT spend extra money. Buy a chip in your price range, and oc it. If it doesn't run at a higher speed, fine, run it the rated speed.
Oh, and as for your comments about instability, if you are experiencing instability, you should reduce your clock speed. Not all chips overclock well. (Which is why I run my 366 at 450, and not 500)
Does the fact that a webpage has links to mp3's on another page actually constitute aiding and/or abetting?
If it can be shown that you where helping the local crack dealer by telling prospective customers how to get to his crack house, is this aiding and abetting?
Is there a legitamate purpose for downloading a copyrighted mp3?
Is there a legitimate purpose for a person to buy drugs? Yes.
Does this mean I can start selling drugs? No.
Only authorised distribution is allowed. Note "distribution" If you have a perscription from your doctor for valium, you can buy it from the local pharmacy. They are authorised to sell "illegal" drugs, because they have the mechanisms in place to help hinder illegal sales. It is STILL illegal for a street vendor to sell you valium EVEN THOUGH you have a perscription.
What about usenet servers?
Posting copyrighted material is illegal. Problem with usenet (and IRC, and ICQ, and so on) is enforcement
Who do you go after?
The usenet server? The admin didn't know there was illegal content there. He cannot be reasonably expected to sift through the 30 GIG's (or more) of posts that traverse the "big 8" daily
The poster? YES... but is it worth it to track him down? (in some cases, yes... in fact, there are divisions of the FBI that do nothing more than track down people posting kiddie porn to Usenet.)
does any of this make a difference? Not really. There is still plenty of illegal content on Usenet. There is also plenty of perfectly legal content too. Illegal acts often get ignored due to the hardships encountered in attempting to enforce the law.
If a website has mp3's on it, when does the piracy occur, on the authoring of the site, or the first download?
The piracy occured when a copy was made with the intent to distribute. Selling or distributing illegal goods is illegal. Possesion with intent to sell is also illegal.
What happens when a band plays a cover?
Fair use law permits such acts.
how can a person tell that an mp3 is actually copyrighted material?
On the surface? They can't. This is where protecting copyrights comes into play. Copyright does not matter unless the entity that owns the copyright comes forward and asserts its rights. I can write a copyrighted document. If I let you distribute it without taking action against you (as soon as I was made aware that you where distributing my copyrighted material) then my INACTION violates my copyright, and I can loose the ability to take action against others who chose to violate my copyright (in effect, I can lose my copyright due to inaction)
Once the copyright holder (or his agent) informs you that the mp3 in question IS actually copyrighted material then you becomome liable.
This is why there are all these "cease and desist" letters floating around. They can't just come and throw CmdrTaco in jail for posting M$ copyrighted documents, they have to first INFORM him that an offense has occured, and give him a FAIR chance to remove the offending material (since he may not have KNOWN that he was infringing on a copyright)
Intent and prior knowledge play a big role here too.
If it can be proved that you DID know that something was infringing on a copyright, and went ahead and posted it ANYWAY, then you can be subject to more than a simple "cease and desist" (ie: you can expect to have your door busted in by the feds if you run "Bob's house of Pirated MP3s" where it is clear that you KNOWINGLY distributed pirated music.)
If one file on a site is copyrighted, do they all have to go, or does each one have to be tested?
Depends on the intent. If it seems that the one infringement is an isolated incident, a normal "cease and desist" approach is used. If this is ignored, or the propriator repeatedly makes infringing material available (knowingly... and the more often it happens, the harder it is to prove absense of knowledge) then the whole shop can be shut down.
The legality of all of these issues is no different with pirate mp3's than it is for pirate video cassettes. The ONLY thing that makes these "internet" crimes any different from the "normal" copyright infringement is the fact that it is easier to avoid criminal prosecution on the internet. Otherwise, the laws are quite clear already as to what is legal and what is illegal, when it comes to the copying and distribution of copyrighted material.
Just wanted to let everyone know that CscHTML 1.1.0 fully supports png's including alpha channels. A screenshot is available at http://www.cyberdeck.org/screenshots/20000627.jpg
CscHTML is available at: http://www.cscmail.net/cschtml
And if you are wondering what web-browser that is in the Screenshot, its the built in "minibrowser" in CSCMail 1.7.8 (using CscHTML as its HTML renderer)
Anyway, just wanted to let people know that there are other options out there.
I never have quite understood exactly what the whole point to KDE and GNOME is to begin with.
Personally, I use Enlightenment as my Window Manager, and applications to get my work done.
Where do GNOME and KDE fit into this?
Not trying to flame here, but I run Linux exclusively on both my home workstations and my work workstation, (as well as my servers) and I get everything done just fine without either of these "entities" (What are they? programs? environments?)
Take a look at my screenshots at http://www.cyberdeck.org/screenshots and you will see that I seem to be able to get by just nicely without GNOME or KDE... What am I missing out on?
Slashdot Mirror
You can see a fairly thorough description of exactly what I did, including screenshots of the waveforms (before and after) as well as a spectrum analysis of the audio files here:
http://www.cyberdeck.org/countzero/tech a.html
I freely admit to not being an expert on this sort of thing. I simply applied a sledgehammer. I admit that it is possible that the watermark is intact after my technique, but I seriously doubt it. Maybe I am a fool, who knows... hehe Take a look at the waveform comparison I posted and feel free to punch holes the size of Texas into my "technique" I just think that sometimes locks are best bypassed by tearing down the door, instead of messing with a set of picks... hehe
This may be "way out there" but I am fairly certain I have found a nice easy way to remove the watermark from Technology A...
.wav files...
.wav file
I downloaded the 58meg ZIP file (target at windoze users maybe?)
It contained a README.txt and 3
samp1a.wav:
"clean" un-watermarked 2 minute sample of music (Clean is relative here, as this sample was obviously encoded from a record.. lots of scratchy noise)
samp2a.wav:
watermarked version of samp1a.wav
Analysis of these samples in Sound Forge shows minor differences in the wave forms. The "watermarked" sample is slighty distorted. This distortion is inaudible, but at a fairly high "zoom" setting it is visible.
samp3a.wav:
Watermarked "test sample" Not so noisy 2 minute recording of some rock-n-roll
The goal is to remove the watermark from samp3a.wav and have the resulting sample be of no worse quality than a 64bit MP3.
Method used:
I simply used bladenc to convert samp3a.wav to an MP3 (128bit)
I then used XMMS's "Disk Writer Plugin" to convert the MP3 back to a
Comparison of samp3a.wav and my "hacked" samp3a.wav in Sound Forge shows that my "hacked" sample has a VERY smooth waveform. The "watermarked" sample, in comparison, is VERY noisy. There is a MUCH larger difference between the two then there was between samp1a and samp2a
Is the "watermark" still there? I doubt it. The waveforms are DRAMATICALLY different.
Of course, it "MIGHT" still be there, and since SDMI is not making a "checker" publically available, I can't find out without uploading the "hacked" sample to their site for them to analyze. Of course, that "feature" won't be available till tomorrow, and even when it DOES become available, I won't bother. Anyone with the software to do a "diff" between the two files wanna contact me? It is VERY obvious that the "processed" (->mp3->wav) sample is MUCH different (wave-form wise) than the "watermarked" version, but I guess the watermark might still be hiding in there somewhere.
It would actually surprise me if a simple procedure like this can defeate Technology A... but then again, why not? Tech A may be a "worst of class" method designed to lure us into thinking SDMI will be easily defeated.
Anyway, I will be downloading the rest of the Technologies and submitting them to various tests...
The most interesting thing so far is that the "watermarked" music is still playable in XMMS... so as long as they don't make XMMS illegal, this watermarking will be useless anyway...
Actually, if they patent it, they HAVE to publish it. Thats the whole point of patents. Patents force FULL disclosure of the process, in terms that a "normal worker" in the industry can understand. Then they grant exclusive use of those methods to the patent holder for the life of the patent. This allows others to build from the knowledge base, to improve on new technologies and methods. Patents are a "Two way street" (at least ideally) The holder of the patent gets exclusivity, the rest of the world gets full disclosure.
This is why DVD-CSS is NOT patented, but instead was kept as a "trade secret" If they had patented it, they would have been forced to fully disclose the techniques. Also, patents are not inforced under CRIMINAL law, but instead under Civil law. They can't throw you in jail for violating a patent, but they can SUE you.
ob topic:
I strongly suspect that what the SDMI will place up for "cracking" on Sept. 15th will NOT be a "reference implimentation" but instead will be more "theoretical" I doubt they will make a few "watermarked" music files available for download. I am thinking they will instead simply discribe the methods to be used, and challenge the "hackers" to poke holes in the theory. I could be wrong, of course.
Well, I am sure many will disagree with me on this one, but Solaris is a pain in the ass to use as a desktop OS. It took me about a week to get all my "must have" tools installed (gcc, Gtk+, Enlightenment, etc...) Even after all that, It's still a crappy workstation because the version of OpenWindows that ships with Solaris 7 has shared memory bugs that cause all kinds of chaos with imlib. Solaris is perfectly wonderful as a server OS... it kicks major ass, but as a desktop workstation? It's a major pain in the ass unless you are content to stick with the windowmanagers and applications it ships with. (Motif anyone?)
Since I am not content to deal with low quality windowmanagers, I end up being very frustrated by Solaris as a workstation. Good thing my current employer is not very stingy, I get to have an Intel box (for Linux) and a Sparc station (for testing scripts that I write for our servers) side by side on my desk! I would install Linux on the Sparc, but the whole point to having a Sparc workstation is so I can do local testing of how my code works with Solaris prior to sticking it on the servers...
It is a much better use of my time than Television.
Television is a one-way medium.They produce, we consume./. is a two-way medium.They produce, we respond.Any conversation, no matter how inane, is a far superior way to spend ones time than as a receptor for mass-media ideals.
Don't waste your life being a passive receiver of ideology.Think for yourself!Converse with other humans.Even if it is about something banal and "worthless" (such as this thread) at least you will be interacting with another member of your species.Television is a one-way ticket to mindless passivity.
Try "None of the Above" You don't HAVE to do a damn thing. That's one of the many beautiful features of GNU/Linux. Personally, I run Enlightenment as my Window Manager, and don't run GNOME or KDE... I tend to use all Gtk+ applications, if I can, but sometimes I run Motif, QT, TK, or other widget set based applications. I run the program that fits my need. Widget set be damned.
Semi valid point here, but Netscape 4.73 does function. It has it's quirks and flaws, but like you I normally have 5+ browser windows open constantly, and Netscape gets the job done...
Take a long hard look at CSCMail (http://www.cscmail.net) It will do all you need... And with a "One Stop" installation script, it seemlessly installs on MOST GNU/Linux and BSD distros....
I dunno... what do you need to do with an editor that gvim can't do for ya?
Star Office works just fine for these two...
Try getting a clue... that statement is just 100% false...You say:
Side note: I run GNU/Linux on my workstation (at work) where I link it to a corporate network with Novell servers, Windows 9x/2k workstations and Linux servers... I deal with inter-office mail (and its attendant Word and Excel attachments) just fine with my Linux box... I do not have a Win partition, I do not Dual boot, and I am 10x more productive then my co-workers. When they are all busy scanning their hard drives due to the most recent Windows macro virus scare, I am happily working. While they are re-booting their machines due to the most recent Explorer bug that brought down the whole box, I am happily working.
At home, I also run GNU/Linux (on my main box) I play Civ:CTP, Quake III Arena, Unreal Tournament, Starcraft, et al... I code, deal with e-mail, surf, everything anyone needs to do with a computer. No problem... I can do it all in Linux.
I DO have a Windows box... I use it for ONE purpose...
EVERQUEST!
But as soon as Anarchy Online comes out, I doubt I'll feel the need for that anymore, and I'll prolly end up wiping that machine and making it a GNU/Linux box too...
So, your arguements are pretty much baseless... You might want to take another look at GNU/Linux, and this time, with your eyes open...
Yes, but there is an issue of convenience. We use 1x1 gifs for tracking here for several reasons.
One log entry per pageview. This is the same thing any "hit counter" does, But without wasting bandwidth/annoying the user by displaying the count itself. It is much easier to parse a log file where ALL the data is relevent, instead of parsing an Apache log that lists every file transfered (images, html, etc) With the Apache logs for a single pageview you get many log entries (hundreds if you have a lot of images) Large log, hard to parse, easy to loose the signal due to noise. With the 1x1 gif method, you get one entry per pageview. Easier to parse and generate meaningful statistics.
Seperate logging server than web server. When you get hundreds of thousands of hits a day, it is nice to have a machine dedicated to tracking. So you serve the 1x1 images from that machine. It handles the tracking logs, and you can use it to generate stats, etc and don't have to transfer those huge Apache log files all over the network.
This said, we own all the servers used to serve the images/web-pages and so no data is going anywhere outside our company. Second, we don't add any personal data (or even collect any, we're not an e-commerce site) so all we are tracking is pageviews and click-streams. This way we know what portions of voila.com are getting used and what portions are losing our visitor's attention. This allows us to develop our weak areas with more interesting content, as well as put bigger servers into play to host more popular content, etc...
Of what possible benefit is this? Everyone with an internet connection by default has at least ONE e-mail address already.
Assigning e-mail addresses to physical addresses shows a complete lack of understanding for the whole system. It gives current internet users yet another address, and gives addresses to millions more who have no way to access the mail. For those who use this service, it also is one more change-of-address to worry about when you move.
Giving out a free e-mail address in conjunction with an internet access account is one of the best ways to ensure that all internet users have access to e-mail. This plus the existing free services fill the e-mail needs of the public.
I see this as a vain attempt for a nearly out-dated service to stay relevent in a wired world. I predict failure for this venture.
This is a common mis-conception.
Evolution is a groupware package, just like Outlook, Lotus Notes, et al. It has mail, calandering, contact management, etc... Therefore, some people call it an Outlook replacement... It is. IF you don't use any proprietary Exchange features.
It is NOT Outlook/Exchange compatable any more than ANY POP-3/IMAP and SMTP client is Exchange compatible. It does NOT impliment the "native" Exchange protocols. It WILL NOT import free/busy information, contact lists, network folders or any other "Exchange only" features from an Exchange server. It does NOT interact with Exchange in any way other than as a simple SMTP/POP-3/IMAP client.
It uses it's own OPEN protocols to deal with the groupware functionality.
It also happens to LOOK a lot like Outlook.
Again, Evolution is NOT "Exchange" compatable any more than ANY POP-3/IMAP/SMTP mailer.
So... If you want a good standards based groupware suite, Evolution will be a good bet. If you want an Exchange client, your gonna hafta stick with Outlook till someone reverse engineers the proprietary protocols.
I work for France Telecom, as the SysAdmin for Voila.com
We use Linux exclusively on our servers. (Well, except for one lil box running NT to interface with Reuters, because they refuse to make their proprietary client for Linux)
Our current database is around 4 Terabytes. It sits on about 80 servers all running Linux.
Admittedly, we use a custom database package, developed in house, and not an RDBMS, but when your dealing with such a specific dataset (we index web pages... thats it...) you don't need the flexability of Sybase.
Then theres Google... How many thousands of Linux boxes are they running? How huge is there database?
So yes, Linux is more than capable of handling a puny 30 gig database. Heck, I have more than 30gigs of data indexed on my HOME machine. (30gigs of MP3's all indexed and cataloged with Postgres) not quite the same as a "30 gig database" but similar.
If you don't ignore the rest of the article, the author goes on to mention that although file managers exist for X, and are much the same as file managers on any platform, that their use is not common. It is much more likely for a *nix/X user to use a console interface. In fact, most *nix/X users I know use X pretty much exclusively as a way to have 98 bajillion console windows open at once. Not very many people bother to go to the trouble to learn how to use *nix, and then go back to the old ineficient file manager way of doing things.
As for launchers, a menu is a menu is a menu. I prefer to use the Root menu, and I abhore things such as the GNOME panel, and the windows "Start" menu. Why should I have to move my mouse to a specific part of the screen to access a list of programs? (Yes, I know there are utils for Windows that emulate the root menu... Diamond's video cards all ship with them)
Anyway, the "typical" (read "power user") X desktop IS less metaphor driven than the typical Windows or Mac desktop. Not to mention being way more customizable, so it can morph into whatever form the user wants...
Premise: GtkHTML is a Gtk+ widget. (Hence the name "GtkHTML")
GtkHTML depends on GNOME. If GtkHTML is truely a Gtk+ widget, then there is a circular dependancy. (What would happen if GtkHTML was bundled with Gtk+?)
Reality: GtkHTML is NOT a Gtk+ widget. GtkHTML is a mis-named GNOME widget.
Is this confusing to users and developers?
Yes. Either GtkHTML needs to drop GNOME dependancy, or it needs to change its name, and stop pretending to be something which it is not.
As a developer I refuse to link my applications with GNOME because it has taken a few good concepts and gone WAY overboard. GNOME initially seemed to be a set of developer guidelines to promote a common look-and-feel. A few "meta-widgets" were created on top of Gtk+ to promote this. (gnome-stock-this and gnome-stock-that)
This was good. Then someone decided to go even further. More widgets where added. Many of these widgets should have been added at a low level (read Gtk+) but instead where added in at the GNOME level. Now you have widgets that depend on gnome-libs and a fairly incestious circle is starting to emerge where GNOME depends on GNOME and its getting so complicated that no developers I know are willing to shackle thier projects to the great beast that GNOME has become.
Miguel and Co. can't see the forest for the trees. I recently ripped the GNOME out of GtkHTML and created CscHTML (http://www.cscmail.net/cschtml) Miguel and several of the other GNOME developers couldn't comprehend why anyone would do such a thing. They couldn't understand the need for a non-GNOME dependant HTML widget. They couldn't agree that a "Gtk Widget" (GtkHTML) shouldn't depend on GNOME. Circular dependancies are a bad thing. GNOME depends on Gtk. GtkHTML depends on GNOME. Chicken, Egg?
Code re-use is a good thing in moderation. Not every hunk of code needs to be a re-usable object, and interdependancies can be bad if they get out of hand (which they clearly have in the case of GNOME) Miguel has stated many times that the dependancies in GNOME will only GROW as time goes on. He sees interdependancy as a wonderful thing, and is so hell bent on code re-use that he is turning GNOME into a huge monster of code that no one wants to link to because no one wants to depend on 20 or 30 different libs. GNOME needs to be split, some of its libs more appropriately belong in lower level widget sets (such as Gtk+) and some of its items should be stand alone utilities. Trim the fat from GNOME and maybe developers would start to use it again.
The extra $40k will come as I get more real world experience. Your friend didn't come out of college and walk right into a $100k/year job... He worked up to it.
As for exposure to different methods of programming, I get that every day. Thats what Open Source is all about. Every time I read the source code to a new project, I get exposed to a new method of programming.
On re-reading my origional post, I notice I did come off as fairly arrogant. This was unintentional. I did not mean to imply that I knew it all when it came to programming/software design. What I ment was that CompSci classes tend to be "behind the curve" when it comes to producing skilled workers. There may be (and obviously ARE) exceptions to the norm (any vague generality is false) but MOST graduates of CompSci programs are chock full of theory, and devoid of skills.
Could I write a compiler? Not today. Could I learn? sure. Do I need a CompSci course to teach me? No... I am capable of utilizing the tools of empowerment that the Open Source community has made available to me. I have the source code to some of the best software on this planet available for my perusal. I have the greatest programmers alive available for discussion via e-mail/irc/news groups. In other words, I don't need college, I have the internet. Am I knocking the benefits of college? no. I am saying that the community of knowledge that is a traditional university has been made available to me via the internet, and so I do not need to attend the brick and mortar institution itself.
-CZ
This shows a complete lack of understanding of the "Way things work"
Colleges are seeing a lack of interest in Computer Science because computer science classes are seen as "old school" Everyone knows that you don't learn computer skills in school. You don't learn how to program in a classroom environment. You DO learn by DOING. Staying up all night hacking. If you look at the technology leaders today, a large porton of them have never attended college. Those who have/are didn't bother with CompSci, but instead learned business management skills (something you CAN learn in school) The Computer Skills they have they learned in their spare time.
Case in point: Myself. I am a high school dropout. No college. No interest in EVER going to college. I am 27 years old, and I just got re-located (all expenses paid) to New York City to work for France Telecom as the Linux Network Administrator for voila.com. I am making upwards of $60k a year (not millions, but its a good start) and have full benefits. I get to play with Linux boxes all day, everyday, and I make money doing it! Talk about your dream job. How did I get here? No CompSci for me. I was one of those "wiz kids" back in the 80's. You know, I had a Commodore 64 in 1982, I learned BASIC on a TRS-80 Model III in first grade. I learned 650x assembly by the time I was 12. I was all over BBS's in the last half of the 80's, and ran my own BBS throughout the first half of the 90's (Till about '93/'94 when I learned about the internet.) Why would someone like me need college? What does CompSci have to offer me?
It is this attitude that is why colleges are seeing a lack of interest in Computer Science, not a lack of skill. In fact, the lack of CompSci interest shows an INCREASE in the skill levels of the younger generation. These kids are working outside of the traditional structure. They don't go to college (or if they do, it's to learn business management skills, not computer skills that they have already mastered)
-CZ
vFolders are not new. The concepts have been around forever, and although Miguel and the folks behind GNOME want you to think that Evolution is "revolutionary" because it creates message folders on the fly based on search criteria, other mail clients (that you can actually USE right NOW...) have had this feature for quite some time.
Check out www.cscmail.net for a clue...
-CZThis "manifesto" had some interesting points, but it tends to break down a bit at the core.
/usr/lib or c:\windows\system ? Of course not. Do these files need names? Of course. Why? because the computer needs to be able to find them and index them and load them and link them and use them. Do these names need to be human readable? not really. A lot of them aren't. But most are. Why? Because it makes it easier for programmers to remember what the files do.
First, files and filenames. He says files shouldn't need filenames. This may be true as far as most USERS are concerned. Do normal users care about the tons of files in
This manifesto blabbers on and on about this nebulous "thingie" called cyber-this and cyber-that (sometimes Cybersphere, sometimes Cyberspace, and then there are these other things called Cyberbodies...) But the meat and potatoes got left behind. Where does this "timestream" live? When I insert an appointment into my "future time flow" where does said appointment go? Is it just random, nameless data written to the inodes of some non-indexed hardrive? No, of course not... Data has to be indexed. Every last little bit of it. Otherwise the computer can't find it. The index may be inode-numbers, or tuples in a database, or (gasp) filenames, but guess what? There HAS TO BE an indexation or the computer (and hence the operator) will not be able to get to that data.
Improved indexation is a definate plus, and this is about the ONLY point in the whole 6 pages of LSD enspired drivel that was this "manifesto" But improved indexation comes at a price. Namely, speed and storage space. Yeah, it would kick ass if I could open up a search window on my computer and type "show me a map to that resteraunt Bill emailed me about" Thing is, we can do this NOW. But guess what? It takes a ton of processing power, and a ton of storage. (and a ton of time, since we don't really have the processing power or storage right now) So, although this is a good idea, it's just not ready for prime time. And you know what? When it IS ready for prime time, it WILL be implimented using files and folders and filenames. It also more than likely will be implimented under GNU/Linux (or its successor.) Why? Because only GNU/Linux provides an open platform that could possibly support the development of the kinds of co-operative applications that this would require.
A while back, I played with a Windows utility by Altavista that allowed you to index all the files on your system and then do search-engine like queries to find files. This was pretty cool (I never knew I had so many files on my system with the word "Fuck" in them) but it suffered greatly due to the lack of a common file format. It could only index a select core set of filetypes. Technologies like XML will allow us to have a single "universal" file format that will allow better indexation of our data. The other drawback to the Altavista program was the considerable time it took to index my hard drive and the fact that it had to do so every night to maintain a reasonable index of my data. Once we can provide low level indexation on the fly (via a kernel-level interface) that dynamically modifies the keyword database as the inode's change, and a universal file format, then we can truely enjoy the benefits of powerful context sensitive information retrieval. Of course, all this will STILL involve files, folders and filenames... Sorry, but its how we humans like to organize stuff. We stick it in compartments and label it. (Be it baggies in the freezer, or boxes in the attic) And when we forget (or are too lazy) to label our compartments, chaos reigns... Do we really want our computers to resemble our attics?
Oh, and on the day that my computer starts sticking random butterflies on my screen while I am trying to work, I fdisk and install a real OS.
-CZ
If you don't know/care about the details, how can you profess to have any opinion at all?
-CZSorry, but closemindedness == idiocy in my opinion, and therefore renders anything you may have to say completely worthless.
What? I have been running overclocked machines for years now, and I never spend ANY additional money. I simply bought a GOOD fan the first time out (a good idea even if you DON'T overclock) and I use a good motherboard.
I ran a P-II 333 at 416 for over a year. Now I run a Celeron 366 at 450. The Celeron cost me LESS than the P-II. I use an Asus P2B motherboard and a SIIG fan.
The whole POINT to overclocking is to NOT spend extra money. Buy a chip in your price range, and oc it. If it doesn't run at a higher speed, fine, run it the rated speed.
Oh, and as for your comments about instability, if you are experiencing instability, you should reduce your clock speed. Not all chips overclock well. (Which is why I run my 366 at 450, and not 500)
(was I just trolled?)-CZ
I agree... "Job, A Comedy of Justice" is fairly high on my list of favorites. I give it a re-read every few years...
-CZ
Does the fact that a webpage has links to mp3's on another page actually constitute aiding and/or abetting? Is there a legitamate purpose for downloading a copyrighted mp3? What about usenet servers? If a website has mp3's on it, when does the piracy occur, on the authoring of the site, or the first download? What happens when a band plays a cover? how can a person tell that an mp3 is actually copyrighted material? If one file on a site is copyrighted, do they all have to go, or does each one have to be tested?
The legality of all of these issues is no different with pirate mp3's than it is for pirate video cassettes. The ONLY thing that makes these "internet" crimes any different from the "normal" copyright infringement is the fact that it is easier to avoid criminal prosecution on the internet. Otherwise, the laws are quite clear already as to what is legal and what is illegal, when it comes to the copying and distribution of copyrighted material.
The internet just makes it harder to control.
Just wanted to let everyone know that CscHTML 1.1.0 fully supports png's including alpha channels. A screenshot is available at http://www.cyberdeck.org/screenshots/20000627.jpg
CscHTML is available at: http://www.cscmail.net/cschtml
And if you are wondering what web-browser that is in the Screenshot, its the built in "minibrowser" in CSCMail 1.7.8 (using CscHTML as its HTML renderer)
Anyway, just wanted to let people know that there are other options out there.
-CZ
Shit, thats all the more reason TO go. I hate stupid idiots who think that certain words should not be said in public.
Take your puritan views and go back to the stone age. Don't try to censor what I can say and hear.
Also, keep in mind that "Geeks in Space" is a totally different venue than a trade show, so I suspect that even emmett will be on his best behavior.
Anyway, this was a pointless response to an even more pointless post (score 2? herm...)
I never have quite understood exactly what the whole point to KDE and GNOME is to begin with.
Personally, I use Enlightenment as my Window Manager, and applications to get my work done.
Where do GNOME and KDE fit into this?
Not trying to flame here, but I run Linux exclusively on both my home workstations and my work workstation, (as well as my servers) and I get everything done just fine without either of these "entities" (What are they? programs? environments?)
Take a look at my screenshots at http://www.cyberdeck.org/screenshots and you will see that I seem to be able to get by just nicely without GNOME or KDE... What am I missing out on?
-CZ
This is why I (at 27) have quite an extensive collection of Lego's, including Mindstorms and other "high tech" variations.
Legos are and always have been, one of the coolest ways to get creative.