July 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Idea: The ultimate CD/DVD auditing tool
by Billy 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 01:26:46PM -0400, Trei, Peter wrote: > While the ear can't hear above 22KHz, signal above that *can* > effect the perceived sound, by heterodyne effects. For example, > if you play a single tone of 28KHz, or a single tone of 30 KHz, > you can't hear them. Play them together, however, and you > *can* hear a beat frequency of 2KHz. Bullshit detector buzzing. Is this *really* true? Have you tried it? The beat frequency is an amplitude envelope around the 30kHz tone (think AM). No part of its spectrum falls within audible range. It shouldn't be audible at all.

1 0

Re: Idea: The ultimate CD/DVD auditing tool
by Tyler Durden 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

As a basic idea it seems relatively workable. However, there's one detail that perhaps you might want to know about: "We can push the idea a step further, making a stripped-down CD/DVD drive that would be able basically just to follow the spiral track with its head in constant linear velocity" Unlike a vinyl record, the CD grooves don't form a spiral...they are concentric circles. Also, the beginning of the CD is towards the center, the end towards the edge. -TD >From: Thomas Shaddack <shaddack(a)ns.arachne.cz> >To: cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)lne.com> >Subject: Idea: The ultimate CD/DVD auditing tool >Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2003 04:13:32 +0200 (CEST) > >Pondering. Vast majority of the CD/DVD "protection" methods is based on >various deviations from the standards, or more accurately, how such >deviations are (or aren't) handled by the drive firmware. > >However, we can sidestep the firmware. > >The drive contains the moving part with the head assembly. There is an >important output signal there: the raw analog signal bounced from the >disk and amplified. > >We can tap it and connect it to a highspeed digital oscilloscope card. And >sample obscene amount of data from it. In comparison with fast-enough >ADCs, disk space is cheap. The problem can be in bandwidth, but for the >drive speed set up to possible minimum (or for "normal" players) the >contemporary machines should be sufficient. Real-time operating system >(maybe RTOS-Linux) may be necessary. > >We get the record of the signal captured from the drive's head - raw, with >everything - dirt, drop-outs, sector headers, ECC bits. The low-level >format is fairly well documented; now we have to postprocess the signal. >Conversion from analog to digital data and then from the CD representation >to 8-bit-per-byte should be fairly straightforward (at least for someone >skilled with digital signal processing). Now we can identify the >individual sectors on the disc and extract them to a disc image file that >we can handle later by normal means. > >We can push the idea a step further, making a stripped-down CD/DVD drive >that would be able basically just to follow the spiral track with its head >in constant linear velocity (easier to analyze than CAV) mode, with the >ability to control the speed in accordance with how fast (and expensive) >ADC, bus, and disks we have, and the possibility to interrupt/resume >scanning anytimes in accordance with how much disk space we have (or to >scan just a small area of the disc). > >As a welcomed side effect, not only we'd get a device for circumvention of >just about any contemporary (and possibly a good deal of the future ones) >optical media "protections", but we would also get a powerful tool for >retrieving data from even very grossly damaged discs, for audit of >behavior of CD/DVD writers and CD vendors (eg, if they don't attempt to >sneak in something like a hidden serial number of the writer), and for >access to all areas of the discs - including the eventual ones unreachable >through the drive's own firmware. > >If we'd fill this idea with water, would it leak? Where? Why? _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

3 2

Re: Idea: The ultimate CD/DVD auditing tool
by Tyler Durden 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

Nobody wrote... "There is a loss of quality if you go through an analog stage. Real and wannabe audiophiles will prefer the real thing, pure and undiluted by a reconversion phase. These are the people who are already swallowing the marketing line that the CD bandwidth limit of 22KHz is too low for good fidelity, despite being higher than they can hear." I'm in that category. And as someone who basically grew up in Carnegie Hall and the Metropolitan Opera, I trust my ears (I saw the opera Wozzeck twice by the time I was 17). There are engineering reasons for this that I'm willing to discuss, though the discussion will be tedious for engineers, and impossible to understand for non-engineers. Far easier will be for you to go and listen to a CD player that can upsample standard CD to 24bits/196kHz. The difference is not by any means subtle. As an audiophile (Krell+Levinson+Thiel gear at home), I definitely don't want to grab an analog signal. Doing that the signal is sure to retain characteristics of the extracting gear. But the vast majority of P2P kids won't care one iota that their file was analog for half a second. -TD >From: Nomen Nescio <nobody(a)dizum.com> >To: cypherpunks(a)lne.com >Subject: Re: Idea: The ultimate CD/DVD auditing tool >Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 08:40:01 +0200 (CEST) > >Major Variola writes: > > > Any human-consumable (analogue) input is readily recordable with > > a single, one-time ADC, and thereafter is toast. DRM is a fraud > > perpetrated by engineers on Hollywood suits. Good for employment > > though. > >There is a loss of quality if you go through an analog stage. Real and >wannabe audiophiles will prefer the real thing, pure and undiluted by >a reconversion phase. These are the people who are already swallowing >the marketing line that the CD bandwidth limit of 22KHz is too low for >good fidelity, despite being higher than they can hear. > >Consider how much more wine from Champagne is worth than that from a >village just outside of the appelation limits. People want to feel >that they are getting the authentic goods, and they'll pay for them. >That's what the RIAA is counting on. _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

4 3

RE: Idea: The ultimate CD/DVD auditing tool
by Trei, Peter 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

> Tyler Durden[SMTP:camera_lumina@hotmail.com] wrote: > > Nobody wrote... > > "There is a loss of quality if you go through an analog stage. Real and > wannabe audiophiles will prefer the real thing, pure and undiluted by > a reconversion phase. These are the people who are already swallowing > the marketing line that the CD bandwidth limit of 22KHz is too low for > good fidelity, despite being higher than they can hear." > > I'm in that category. And as someone who basically grew up in Carnegie > Hall > and the Metropolitan Opera, I trust my ears (I saw the opera Wozzeck twice > > by the time I was 17). > > There are engineering reasons for this that I'm willing to discuss, though > > the discussion will be tedious for engineers, and impossible to understand > > for non-engineers. Far easier will be for you to go and listen > to a CD player that can upsample standard CD to 24bits/196kHz. The > difference is not by any means subtle. > > As an audiophile (Krell+Levinson+Thiel gear at home), I definitely don't > want to grab an analog signal. Doing that the signal is sure to retain > characteristics of the extracting gear. But the vast majority of P2P kids > won't care one iota that their file was analog for half a second. > > -TD > I'll ditto that - my brother is an extremist audiophile - he writes reviews for the high-end stuff (google "Mike Trei"). Many (by no means all) top end audophiles prefer all-analog equipment, and direct-cut vinyl records (ie, the master disk was cut directly at the performance, without a magtape master). I've listened to some of this stuff, and it just blows digital away. The general attitude is that while low-end digital beats low-end analog, high-end analog beats high-end digital. Digital places a distinct floor on how bad the quality can be, but it also puts a ceiling on it. The data capacity of a vinyl groove is a lot higher than a CD pit-track, but you need very good equipment to use it. While the ear can't hear above 22KHz, signal above that *can* effect the perceived sound, by heterodyne effects. For example, if you play a single tone of 28KHz, or a single tone of 30 KHz, you can't hear them. Play them together, however, and you *can* hear a beat frequency of 2KHz. Peter Trei

1 0

Re: Idea: The ultimate CD/DVD auditing tool
by Major Variola (ret) 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

At 08:40 AM 7/8/03 +0200, Nomen Nescio wrote: >Major Variola writes: > >> Any human-consumable (analogue) input is readily recordable with >> a single, one-time ADC, and thereafter is toast. DRM is a fraud >> perpetrated by engineers on Hollywood suits. Good for employment >> though. > >There is a loss of quality if you go through an analog stage. There are some very nice DAC <--> ADC chains and some well shielded cables. The real problem with the old analogue world was *successive* copying. One conversion is fine almost always. Real and >wannabe audiophiles will prefer the real thing, pure and undiluted by >a reconversion phase. These are the people who are already swallowing >the marketing line that the CD bandwidth limit of 22KHz is too low for >good fidelity, despite being higher than they can hear. Take a look at the quality of the .MP3s that give Hillary the shits. Take a look at the psychoacoustic compromises in even the best MP3 standard. Consider that music is often listened to on small computer speakers with fan noise, or in cars with road noise and horrible acoustic chamber properties. Even those who listen with headphones seem to enjoy MP3s. >Consider how much more wine from Champagne is worth than that from a >village just outside of the appelation limits. People want to feel >that they are getting the authentic goods, and they'll pay for them. >That's what the RIAA is counting on. Then I would not buy stock in RIAA-type companies, nor would I extend credit to their employees. I guess we'll see.

1 0

Re: DNA of relative indicts man, cuckolding ignored
by Neil Johnson 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

On Monday 07 July 2003 07:53 pm, Stormwalker wrote: > > Medical insurance is about maintenence of our lives. You do not > need to participate, but I'll bet if you get hurt, you'll head > to the nearest emergency room. The pool I speak of is simply that > I may need the services now and you may need some later. We all have > shared types of services and very specific service. I will most likely > never need medical services for AIDS, but I have used them for broken > bones. I will never need them for gyno or for giving birth services, > but I may need them for prostrate problems. We all use them when we are > born. > Bzzzzt. Tim is correct. Companies that provide medical insurance are betting that you will require $X dollars of medical treatment and then charge you $Y dollars hoping that $Y > $X (including the interest earned by investing $Y). The problem is that as you get older, the probability of you needing $$$ of medical treatment goes up and even higher if you engage in unhealthy practices (smoking, overeating, etc.). The gubmint's solution to this is what you are talking about... "Medicare". The fundamental assumption is that their are more healthy people than sick ones so that the premiums payed by the healthy people can be used to pay for medical care for the sick. Unfortunately, there are two things wrong with this assumption. 1) Amazing advances in medical technology that allow people who are sick to live longer, but are very expensive, which leads to 2) more older (and less healthy) people than young (and more healthy) people. If we are going to continue with the idea of Medicare then society has a whole must begin to make tough decisions on how to ration healthcare (ever heard of triage ?). Which makes more sense: Spend $X dollars on some 80 year old's heart/lung transplant so he can live another 10 years, or spend that money on make sure an unwed mother's baby is born healthy? (Note: either choice has it's own sets of costs and rewards). -- Neil Johnson http://www.njohnsn.com PGP key available on request.

3 2

Re: Idea: The ultimate CD/DVD auditing tool
by Nomen Nescio 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

Major Variola writes: > Any human-consumable (analogue) input is readily recordable with > a single, one-time ADC, and thereafter is toast. DRM is a fraud > perpetrated by engineers on Hollywood suits. Good for employment > though. There is a loss of quality if you go through an analog stage. Real and wannabe audiophiles will prefer the real thing, pure and undiluted by a reconversion phase. These are the people who are already swallowing the marketing line that the CD bandwidth limit of 22KHz is too low for good fidelity, despite being higher than they can hear. Consider how much more wine from Champagne is worth than that from a village just outside of the appelation limits. People want to feel that they are getting the authentic goods, and they'll pay for them. That's what the RIAA is counting on.

1 0

Re: Finding collision resistant hash functions
by Major Variola (ret) 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

At 02:19 AM 7/7/03 -0700, Sarad AV wrote: or how are we supposed to >find collision free hash functions?What exactly is the >difficulty in finding collision free hash functions? Because there are no collision *free* hash functions, there will always be several domain elements that map to the same range element. Assuming more domain elements than range elements, which is generally what people mean by hashing. You're not asking the right question, you need more constraints on the type of hash functions and their resistance to collisions. You're probably looking for functions that make it hard to intentionally find arguments that produce hashes identical to a given one. There's an incredibly dry taxonomically-inclined downloadable text on this somewhere but the margin of my screen is too small to contain the url. You'll first have to use language more precisely to get any use out of it.

2 1

Re: DNA of relative indicts man, cuckolding ignored
by Tim May 08 Jul '03

08 Jul '03

On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 05:53 PM, Stormwalker wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Tim May wrote: >>> I have to disagree here. Medical insurance is not the same as life >>> or car insurance. It was all supposed to be a big pool that we >>> would >>> draw on when needed. By skimmimng the cream, infant mortality rates >>> rise, along with a host of other problems. >> No, it was NOT "all supposed to be a big pool that we would draw on >> when needed." You seem to be confusing medical insurance with >> nationalized social medicine. > > No, I am not confusing medical insurance with socialized medicine > or anything else. I mentioned life insurance on purpose. That is a > bet on when I will die, they bet later, I bet earlier. Money can > be made - although never by me unless I cheat. > > Medical insurance is about maintenence of our lives. You do not > need to participate, but I'll bet if you get hurt, you'll head > to the nearest emergency room. The pool I speak of is simply that > I may need the services now and you may need some later. We all have > shared types of services and very specific service. I will most > likely > never need medical services for AIDS, but I have used them for > broken > bones. I will never need them for gyno or for giving birth services, > but I may need them for prostrate problems. We all use them when we > are > born. Medical insurance, car insurance, life insurance, home insurance, boat insurance, etc., are all just variations on a theme. When AAA Insurance meets with Joe Sixpack to discuss his health or life or earthquake insurance, they seek to collect enough information to have a reasonable chance of turning a profit on the deal. Else why would they exist as a business? They likely never have complete information, about fault lines, or fire hazards, or unhealthy behavior, but they can manage their risks reasonably well by standard statistical sampling and actuarial data methods. I won't waste my time further arguing your "medial insurance is different" point until you show you have some basic grounding in how the real economy works and can explain why you think medical insurance is somehow exempt from the normal profit/loss considerations. Saying that health care is important is not enough. It's just another purchased service, after all. > > >> Do I really need to explain this concept here, to subscribers here? > > Well, you probably don't need to explain the problems of socialized > medicine, but I would like to hear about how you will do your own > X-Rays or chemotherapy. First, I pay for my own such needs out of my own pocket. Many firms and well-off individuals are "self-insured." Insurance is not something magical, it's just a set of tradeoffs of risk and ability to pay. For those who cannot possibly raise the $100K for a seldom-needed operation, paying $5000 a year in premiums _may_ make sense. Because they perceive the consequences of not having the money to buy the operation, despite its unlikelihood, to be worth the payment each year. And so on, for a range of scenarios. Second, if I wished to have insurance I would buy it. That's how I would get x-rays or chemotherapy. Saying that because I do not share your views about socialized insurance I must plan on making my own x-ray machine or brewing my own cancer chemicals is not only silly, it is disingenuous. > >> Medical insurance is a risk arbitrage betting scheme just like all >> other insurance: the actor selling a policy (a contract) is making the >> bet that he will make more money than he pays out. If he finds out >> something that alters the expectation of some illness or disease or >> hazardous activity, then he adjusts the policy premiums accordingly >> (or >> even refuses to sell a policy at any price, for understandable >> reasons). > > Not any more. See life insurance. Also, please keep in mind that > insurance compnaies do not make their money from premiums, but > from investments of all the premiums they collect and hold. Your > model > is not correct. You're further gone than I thought. --Tim May "The State is the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else." --Frederic Bastiat

1 0

Re: DNA of relative indicts man, cuckolding ignored
by Major Variola (ret) 07 Jul '03

07 Jul '03

At 08:53 PM 7/7/03 -0400, Stormwalker wrote: >On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Tim May wrote: >> No, it was NOT "all supposed to be a big pool that we would draw on >> when needed." You seem to be confusing medical insurance with >> nationalized social medicine. > > No, I am not confusing medical insurance with socialized medicine > or anything else. I mentioned life insurance on purpose. That is a > bet on when I will die, they bet later, I bet earlier. Money can > be made - although never by me unless I cheat. Not at all. Much like gambling, sometimes you win "randomly" if you stop playing after that. "Random" is a word that means "ignorance" and both you and the insurer are ignorant about your true lifespan. You only play the life-insurance game once :-) > Medical insurance is about maintenence of our lives. You do not > need to participate, but I'll bet if you get hurt, you'll head > to the nearest emergency room. One person's need does not make another a slave. BTW One could argue that driver's insurance is *more* necessary than medical insurance, because to exist daily you need to drive. But again, need and slaves. > Well, you probably don't need to explain the problems of socialized > medicine, but I would like to hear about how you will do your own > X-Rays or chemotherapy. Some pay cash. You can do without car insurance if you post a bond. Others depend on *voluntary* charity --though nowadays this competes with compulsory (taxed) welfare. > Not any more. See life insurance. Also, please keep in mind that > insurance compnaies do not make their money from premiums, but > from investments of all the premiums they collect and hold. Your model > is not correct. You forget that if the insurer bets wrong, they have to pay up and cash in their investments. For certain investments, premature withdrawl costs more than sitting on the cash. Otherwise, like banks, or landlords with deposits, or other putatively free agents, insurers are free to do with their funds as they please. So long as they hold up their end of the contracts they've entered. >The rock climber will probably not have that > heart attack. FWIW, the rock climber's choice of ancestors (!) has more to do with their heart attack (etc) risk than their choice of avocation. >> (There are interesting scenarios for private testing for various genes >> or proclivities, followed by opting-out for the diseases one is highly >> unlikely to contract. This kind of "not paying for what you don't use" >> is a form of cherry-picking which only a total state could outlaw. >> Think about it.) > > This scenario of testing for specific genes is already underway. Stay > tuned. The flip side of Tim's comment is that you can pay extra for things you are at risk for. In a truly free market, insurers would offer packages customized to your risk. Genomic tendancy towards X? Pay more, get more ---including max payout. Little tendancy towards Y? Pay less. Rational people follow Pascal --you include probability in your reasoning about costs. Of course, in a free society, you are free to be irrational, too. (And consume whatever, and enjoy masochism, etc.) [oblig] Those who would constrain those freedoms have earned killing.

1 0