And how would he/she prove that claim was true? Just asking, not saying it's impossible. Oh wait, here is the method:
One week before election day, the person posts a message to any publicly acessible place (such as a newsgroup, but surely there are better alternatives which give more trust for being more verifiable) containing one or more hash of the following sentence (MD5, SHA-1, whatever):
"In state X, county Y, candidate A will have exactly 1144 votes and candidate B will have exactly 905 votes because I will have rigged the election. A week after the counting, I shall reveal this message to prove this claim. Cryptographical hashes of this message have been posted one week before election day at alt.foobar.org"
One week after the election, the person unleashes this message and then everyone can verify the hashes and conclude that at least one of the following is true:
(1) The person is very lucky at doing predictions (2) The person can predict the future and should play the lottery (3) The person has cracked all of those hashing algorithms (4) The person has in fact rigged the election
Don't worry, we have plenty of puns in other languages. For example, if this was a Portuguese periodic table, the picture on the Copper element, which has the symbol "Cu" could be a nice ass (cu in Portuguese).
Yep, I'm not immediately buying into any paranoia about this. I just meant that for people who are not willing to trust Google, the amount of traffic being sent could perfectly be a transmission of the audio received on the microphone.
In any case, I don't like the idea of a program constantly uploading 0.32 KB/s on my internet connection... Especially if I get no benefit from it.
Jesus, this place used to be full of tech types who were so up for precision in language that they'd never let something like "IF X then X" past. Tautology isn't being pedantic -- it's using words to say precisely nothing.
Even though it sometimes doesn't seem like it (such as when I read your post), before being tech types we're humans. Sometimes humans say things such as "if X then X", which despite being tautological can still fire up the wanted reaction in non-blind/autistic listeners. But since you don't seem to have what it takes to understand this (or you're just a troll), here it is spelled out for you:
When people say "if X then X" they usually mean "if X, then X is what is important".
Did they ever claim that the damned hack works on the internal wi-fi? I saw the video and they emphasized at least three times that the attack was being made using a third party wifi card! What else do you want?
The paper is from Google Research! I haven't seen anything from google stating 4 bytes every second (and the fact that another newspaper says 4 bytes every FIVE seconds just shows how well newspapers are telling the news).
Funny... This page, belonging to a guy in google research, mentions the research behind this application:
This paper describes mass personalization, a framework for combining mass media with a highly personalized Web-based experience. We introduce four applications for mass personalization: personalized content layers, ad hoc social communities, real-time popularity ratings and virtual media library services. Using the ambient audio originating from the television, the four applications are available with no more effort than simple television channel surfing. Our audio identification system does not use dedicated interactive TV hardware and does not compromise the user's privacy. Feasibility tests of the proposed applications are provided both with controlled conversational interference and with "living-room" evaluations.
I use VOIP ocasionally, but the idea of having a microphone permanently connected to my computer creeps me out (as a programmer, I know how easy it would be to make a surveillance program), so I tend to disconnect it most of the time.
Actually it's not true that 4 bytes are generated each 5 seconds, it's much more than that. From the paper:
The audio-identification system starts by decomposing each query snippet (e.g., five-seconds of recorded audio) into overlapping frames spaced roughly 12 ms apart. Each frame is converted into a highly discriminative 32-bit descriptor, specifically trained to overcome typical audio noise and distortion. These identifying statistics are sent to a server
So, even ignoring the fact that frames are overlapping, we have 32 bits per 12 miliseconds, which means more than 2600 bits per second! More than enough to code speech, even without speech recognition algorithms! The Speex codec (which is optimized for encoding speech) can code human speech at such low bitrates as 2.15 kbit/s...
Conclusion if you're not willing to trust what Google says, they could perfectly be sending your speech over the internet to their own servers.
Also, people are dumb. I got a picture of a mountain road bordered by pine trees with a large cloud on the horizon. So over the course of about twenty seconds I suggested:
- Cloud - Mountain - Road - Trees - Pine Trees - Thunderhead - Cars - Car
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, movie!
And how would he/she prove that claim was true? Just asking, not saying it's impossible. Oh wait, here is the method:
One week before election day, the person posts a message to any publicly acessible place (such as a newsgroup, but surely there are better alternatives which give more trust for being more verifiable) containing one or more hash of the following sentence (MD5, SHA-1, whatever):
"In state X, county Y, candidate A will have exactly 1144 votes and candidate B will have exactly 905 votes because I will have rigged the election. A week after the counting, I shall reveal this message to prove this claim. Cryptographical hashes of this message have been posted one week before election day at alt.foobar.org"
One week after the election, the person unleashes this message and then everyone can verify the hashes and conclude that at least one of the following is true:
(1) The person is very lucky at doing predictions
(2) The person can predict the future and should play the lottery
(3) The person has cracked all of those hashing algorithms
(4) The person has in fact rigged the election
Don't worry, we have plenty of puns in other languages. For example, if this was a Portuguese periodic table, the picture on the Copper element, which has the symbol "Cu" could be a nice ass (cu in Portuguese).
Don't be an idiot, this is a software patent, you can still conjugate your verbs without any problems.
PS: For the less intelligent, this post doesn't mean that I agree with software patents.
It's also 0.8 GB per month, which isn't a negligible fraction of my monthly traffic cap (24 GB, I'm at a student's dorm).
Looks like his server has just been blasted by the /. element.
Yep, I'm not immediately buying into any paranoia about this. I just meant that for people who are not willing to trust Google, the amount of traffic being sent could perfectly be a transmission of the audio received on the microphone.
In any case, I don't like the idea of a program constantly uploading 0.32 KB/s on my internet connection... Especially if I get no benefit from it.
Danish has verb conjugation! They do not vary with person and number, though.
Even though it sometimes doesn't seem like it (such as when I read your post), before being tech types we're humans. Sometimes humans say things such as "if X then X", which despite being tautological can still fire up the wanted reaction in non-blind/autistic listeners. But since you don't seem to have what it takes to understand this (or you're just a troll), here it is spelled out for you:
When people say "if X then X" they usually mean "if X, then X is what is important".
Have a good day.
Did they ever claim that the damned hack works on the internal wi-fi? I saw the video and they emphasized at least three times that the attack was being made using a third party wifi card! What else do you want?
The paper is from Google Research! I haven't seen anything from google stating 4 bytes every second (and the fact that another newspaper says 4 bytes every FIVE seconds just shows how well newspapers are telling the news).
The paper IS from Google Research!
In other words, they do exactly the same as most other tech/IT companies (including Intel).
By the way, why do you keep linking to that site?
(and btw, for audio, you only need much less than 24000 bps)
Replace audio with speech there.
The problem is, it will not transmit only 6.4 bits per second... (and btw, for audio, you only need much less than 24000 bps)
With the space elevator of course.
Sorry, it's not a guy in google research, it's a girl in google research.
I use VOIP ocasionally, but the idea of having a microphone permanently connected to my computer creeps me out (as a programmer, I know how easy it would be to make a surveillance program), so I tend to disconnect it most of the time.
Read this comment.
So, even ignoring the fact that frames are overlapping, we have 32 bits per 12 miliseconds, which means more than 2600 bits per second! More than enough to code speech, even without speech recognition algorithms! The Speex codec (which is optimized for encoding speech) can code human speech at such low bitrates as 2.15 kbit/s...
Conclusion if you're not willing to trust what Google says, they could perfectly be sending your speech over the internet to their own servers.
Libraries usually don't have speakers on the PCs, at least not where I live...
Any examples or references?
Why didn't you try "landscape"?
Take care! A joke almost hit you...