Feeds

* Posts by TkH11

397 posts • joined 15 Apr 2010

Page:

MPs to sue UK.gov over 'ridiculous' EMERGENCY data snooping law

TkH11

Re: Anti-Angels?

All you need is some coppers reading this who lack a sense of humour, they'll be round on your doorstep next week to raid you and question you on your claims to commit mass murder of our illustrious elected officials.

You just know that in the Stalinist state we are heading towards, you just know it could happen.

0
0
TkH11

Judicial Review

I was involved in funding the Judicial Review which took place for IR35, a number of years ago.

Firstly, funding it was expensive, secondly, one of the defendant's (the government) arguments was that it's not for a Court of Law to overturn primary legislation, that's the job of Parliament.

Not sure how much consideration the judge gave to that defence, possibly some, possibly and quite likely a lot. During the week of court hearings some positive things went in our (the public's) favour, some went in favour of the government, but we didn't really have any clear sense of which way the case was going until after the hearings had been heard, But somehow, it seemed hard to imagine that the judge would rule in favour of Joe Public. He didn't. Anyway we know what happened with IR35, it was never repealed.

It will be interesting to see what happens if MP's challenge the law by way of a judicial review, do they stand a better chance at getting it repealed than the general public?

0
0

BBC goes offline in MASSIVE COCKUP: Stephen Fry partly muzzled

TkH11

Re: Well

Moving the IT bods up north or out to India?

0
0

MPs wave through Blighty's 'EMERGENCY' surveillance laws

TkH11

Possibly Illegal Law

I read the judgement of the related ECJ on this matter. I don't think for one moment the MP's have read the ECJ judgement and I do not think they understand what this new law is really about and the true scope of it. It's not just a time extension to the data retention time imposed on telco's; it is far more than that.

This new law - from my non-expert unqualified reading of the ECJ judgment is illegal!

The 1995 EU directive places at its heart the idea of privacy, and that what is stored must be proportionate and the minimum necessary.

The UK government has created a definition of a telcom's communication service which is all encompassing, covering just about every traffic type you can imagine.

They have deliberately misused the ECJ ruling and created an artificial sense of urgency to enable them to create a new law and push it through rapidly without the proper scrutiny and has enabled them to create a new law (soon to be passed on to the statute) which is far more wide reaching - and I would question is illegal - than is require, than is reasonable.

0
1

ISPs 'blindsided' by UK.gov's 'emergency' data retention and investigation powers law

TkH11

Re: Get a grip

Actually the ECJ ruling actually states the original 1995 EC directive (which has been incorporated into UK RIPA and Data Protection Legislation) is too far reaching and doesn't recognise the privacy of individuals and their right to a private life. Only the minimum amount of data should be stored.

There's reasonable and there's excessive retention.

2
0
TkH11

I think it means this:

A company located in a different country providing a telecoms service to people within the UK, and that telecoms service includes, email, instant chat, webmail, peer to peer, basically anything! - then various methods can be used to issue the warrant for interception, perhaps email for example.

It gives the government the power to monitor any form of communication either in the country or where traffic is coming in or out of the country. It's as far reaching as it gets.

1
0

Google de-listing of BBC article 'broke UK and Euro public interest laws' - So WHY do it?

TkH11

Re: Wait a second... back this up a little bit....!

No, it's not about the removal of links per se, it's about the removal of personal data (or links to that personal data). The case was brought under an EU privacy/data protection directive in year 1995, It's about individuals being able to request the removal of their own personal data.

0
1
TkH11

Re: Facts, please

Evidently Google have created an automated system to delist (whatever you want to call and how it is achieved, is the removal of links to the site from the search results) to enable links to be removed, believing this complies with the ECJ ruling.

But it should only be the individual themselves which are the subject of the personal data (in this Peston) that should be able to request the delist/deletion of the data, but that requires an authentication mechanism to verify the person requesting the delist really is the subject of the data.

Such an authentication mechanism is not likely to be implemented easily in an automatic form. That's the problem. How do you verify that the user requesting the removal of the data really is the subject of the data.

Google have gone for an automatic deletion, in the expection (rightly so) that they wil receive lots of personal data deletion requests and I'm not convinced they have implemented what the ECJ court requires.

The problem is, I suspect, the ECJ judges aren't technical experts (few judges are!) and they haven't really understood the implications of their decision.

1
0
TkH11

Re: Radio 4 this morning.

The principle underlying the deletion of data is that of an individual requesting a company to delete personal data that the company holds on them. This is covered by a European directive of 1995 which I think has been enshrined in Data Protection Legislation in the UK.

The data is personal data held by the company on person A. Person A should be the only party that can request the deletion of the data. Some other random individual or organisation, party B should not be able to request the deletion of data to party A.

The only person that should be able to request and achieve the deletion of the data is Peston himself, not O'Neal and not anyone else.

0
1
TkH11

Re: Bollocks.

I agree with you in relation to Data Protection Act, I don't think it even applies here.

Data protection act is about companies keeping private information on you and the terms under which they are allowed to do so.

But having researched a little, this court action is based on an EU directive in 1995 specifying privacy rules and data protection. As I understand it, (and I'm not an expert), EU member states have to enshrine in their own country legislation those EU directives.

I wonder if UK data protection legislation does include it?

The EU rule is to do with a company deleting personal data at the request of the individual. That seems fair and reasonable, we should be able to request a private company to delete data they hold on us, but this rule shouldn't really apply to Google, they're not actually holding the data, they're linking to it and it's held in the system of another company.

The European Court of Justice disagreed.

I can't believe the EC directive of 1995 ( or any other) forces a company to retain personal information if it is in the public interest to do do. This introduces a whole new can of worms, who decides if it is in the public interest? Google? And what if their view on a particular piece of data is different to a court of law?

The concept of being 'in the public interest' applies to organisations with the power to prosecute, such as the crown prosecution service, where they have the ability to make a decision to prosecute and the criteria for doing so is "in the public interest", but in the now case of Google, to have two parties making the determination of whether the data held is in the public interest or not, Google and the ECJ (or another court), gives rise to a difference of opinion and Google risk being prosecuted for every breach in the future where it has made a determination which is in opposition to a court of law. It's a farce.

How does a company resolve such a matter and prevent it self from being prosecuted? Is it to have every decision it is thinking of making in relation to the deletion of data reviewed by the ECJ or some other court first, so that it can then make the same decision and prevent a prosecution from occurring?

It's not practical. And I don't think the ECJ has this particularly well thought out.

The fundamental issue in this I feel is that of the actual companies publishing the personal data in the first place. If an individual doesn't want their old historic data to be viewed, they need to go to the companies and their websites which are the publishers of the data and not Google and request deletion of the data, issue take down notices.

If that were to be enforced, the legal mechanisms put in place to allow that to happen (not saying it's easy with the original information can be distributed across web servers in different countries and there then becomes a problem of jurasdiction) then these conflicts about data being in the public interest and courts of law trying to dictate to private companies what data they should retain go away.

2
0
TkH11

Re: not illegal

I can't see how any law can specify that an internet search provider has to provide links or not provide links to other sites.

I can accept the BBC has a public interest obligation, and therefore have to provide educational articles and undertake certain activities: they're funded by the tax payer!

"I am the government and YOU WILL provide links to my pages on the Taxation".

5
0

We need to talk about SPEAKERS: Sorry, 'audiophiles', only IT will break the sound barrier

TkH11

Re: Well....

DSPs in speakers are doing two things:

1) Making up for poor analogue design

2) Attempting to correct for the buggering up of the frequency response of the system caused by room acoustics.

I have some sympathy for 2 because not everyone can accoustically treat their rooms. But 1, do the job the right!

0
0
TkH11

Re: Be careful what you ask for.

Similar things have been said to me by colleagues in the recording business, that the speakers used in studio setups are not suited to home use because speakers for use in a studio have different design goals, to have a totally flat response, to show every thing wrong with the sound so it can be corrected by the studio engineer.

I eventually opted at home for some active monitors from Dynaudio, and have found very, very little that can beat them. And I can listen for many hours at a time, and they compare to a separate amp and speaker configuration of home hi-fi costing many times more.

They are revealling, very revealing and if the original source CD hasn't been mixed very well they do show it up.

A classic example of this is an album by Garbage called 'Garbage' is just that, it's garbage.

The quality of recording and mixing is terrible.

But fortunately, few albums are this poorly produced, and whilst one or two may p**ss me off, on the whole, the very revealing nature of those monitors does give a greatly increased pleasure to the listening experience of much of the music I have.

An album by Tori Amos, with a conventional consumer grade equipment hi-fi, I wasn't particularly keen on her, play her album Under the Pink through my active monitors andy my opinion changed, and ever squeek of every piano key can be heard, the short intakes of breath heard, the detail that's there on the original recording will blow you away.

So, I think you can do a home setup with studio monitors, if you select the right studio monitors.

1
0
TkH11

Re: Hmmm

If you sample, such as what happens with D to A conversion, then you always get aliasing taking place, (if we're talking about the same kind of aliasing!). Increasing the sampling rate, results in those images being more greatly spaced out in frequency, allowing for anti-aliasing low pass filters to be made of lower order, = fewer components and cheaper cost.

0
0
TkH11

Re: Obviously for the same reason that

What's more important is the stability of the clock in the system, feeding data to the DAC's as this will effect the linearity of the output.

0
0
TkH11

It's not just about timing, it's also about amplitude.

When a sound source is in front of you, not only do yuo get a small timing difference as the wavefronts of the sound hit your ears, but the amplitude is slightly different too.

0
0
TkH11

Re: another angle

As someone that's gone down the professional equipment route, using active monitors, I have to agree with you DaemonProcess.

0
0
TkH11

Re: Audiophile?

Why can we have a sine wave of a finite number of cycles then?

0
0
TkH11

Re: Audiophile?

Yeah, did that fourier analysis of a square wave at university, and various other waveforms, going through the maths and the integration.

0
0
TkH11

Re: Good point about loudspeaker and amp designers working separately

I'm using the word 'active' in in the way professional audio manufacturers use it.That is: mains power input, balanced (differential) analogue audio input, power amplifier, cross over and speaker drivers all contained in the same unit. Crossover filters comprising active filter circuits using operational amplifiers.

You may call it powered, but it's both powered and active.

1
0
TkH11

Re: Most people haven't got a club what decent sounds sounds like

Cell phones which don't yield their own number. Must be O2 network then.

They're the only carrier I've come across so far where you can't use the phone to interrogate the network to find out the phone number (phone number is held on the network not in the SIM or phone).

Cue my little problem a little while ago: was sent a phone and SIM on O2. But SIM hadn't been properly activated, emergency calls only. Couldn't dial a number to call someone for them to give me the number from the CLI. Couldn't look up the phone number because O2 network doesn't provide that facility.

Tried to get it resolved (not using O2 but via someone else, long story to go into):

they wanted the mobile phone number in order to resolve it! Duh!

Gave them SIM serial, IMEI, IMSI number (now f**ng go look up the mobile num from the IMSI number please!).

Two weeks to resolve...couldn't make this s*t up.

0
0
TkH11

Re: @ AJ MacLeod

The issue is, there are armchair engineers out there, then there are proper degree qualified electronic engineers that have spent three or four years studying this subject (along with a load of other stuff) at university, that understand the concepts of: frequency response, phase response, impulse response, Fourier analysis. The author is the latter, quite evidently so. Some people on this forum are the former, clearly so.

That's not a criticism of the former, but they need to know which category in which they reside, and be able to recognise which posters on this forum fall into the latter category.

Knowing a little about frequency response and 3db points and 6db per octave cut-offs doesn't make you a qualified electronics engineer.

1
0
TkH11

Re: The ear can't hear square waves.

Rubbish. To recreate a perfect square wave does require an infinite frequency response.

We have function generators which generate square waves, which are an important piece of test equipment, Sure, there is capacitance in the cables, capacitance in the load to which the function generator connects, and as a consequence, the square wave isn't an 'ideal' perfect square wave, but that doesn't actually matter. The less than perfect square wave is still extensively used and with good reason.

You seem to be adopting the attitude of "It's not a perfect square wave so it's useless". I don't honestly think you've even done any electronics experimentation at all with function generators, audio equipment at all.

Do you understand what a square wave is, and how to do a Fourier analysis (by hand on paper) on it? I'm not convinced you do. I'm not convinced you understand the importance of square waves and how and why they are used.

1
0
TkH11

Re: Bamboo pickup arm

Dave, you are correct.

Audio design engineers with whom I have worked, very much do concentrate on timing, as well as frequency response. But they were not desigining speakers, they were designing mixing consoles with all the analogue (and digital) electronics in that, from active filtering using literally hundreds of operational amplifiers and many different types of active filtering circuits.

I haven't worked for any speaker manfacturers, so I can only assume the author is right when he says speaker manufacturers are not focussing on the timing.

But from discussions I had with colleagues (design engineers and recording studio engineers), there is something missing from all the specifications of audio systems, two systems can look the same on paper, in frequency response, in phase response, but yet still sound different. Generally speaking, our system of measurement, what we are measuring is incomplete.

1
0
TkH11

Re: Bamboo pickup arm

>How likely is it that group/phase delay passes through unchanged at all these points ? Only if all >these components have zero group/phase delay is it worth redesigning your loudspeaker crossover >unit, and even them only if you think that the effect is gross enough to be audible.

First point: manufacturers of equipment (and certainly output stages of DACs) go to great lengths to design an active filter of high order, which buggers up the phase of the frequencies, and correct those phase errors using other types of active filter circuits. I know, because I've seen the circuit diagrams and spoke to the analogue design engineers undertaking the design.

Second point: You're making the assertion that because a system may not be of zero group delay up to the speakers that you don't need to design the speaker elements for minimal group delay. It's a flawed way of thinking. What matters is the total group delay of the entire system and if minimising it only in the speakers helps reduce the total delay for the system, then that's a good thing.

And by the way, from ex-recording turned electronic audio design engineers with whom I have worked, the author is entirely correct in his analysis.

1
0
TkH11

Re: Bamboo pickup arm

No, I think you're jumping to the wrong conclusion about what you think the author believes.

He clearly is focussing on time delay has being a very important consideration, but that does not mean he believes that nothing else is important.

He does mention in the article about how the brain processes frequencies after the brain processes the transient information.

There is no doubt (without doing any research into his background), he's an electronics engineer, and being a fellow of the audio engineering society, I am highly confident he does understand about frequency spectrums, the representation of signals in both time and frequency domains and the transformation from one to the other.

I think he is focussing on one key aspect of audio design which is vitally important which he perceives (and possibly rightly so) is present in amplifier, filter design but which is missing from the last element of the chain in speaker design.

But this doesn't mean he doesn't understand that frequency response isn't important. I'm highly confident he does know it is.

1
0
TkH11

Re: It's nice to see a proper audio article on El Reg

I grew up in the era of CDs, the 1980's. Lossless compressed music came about as a result of the internet as download speeds were relatively low (by today's standards).

The youth of today has rarely heard uncompressed music fed through a decent sound system.

Some years later, after graduation from university I spent a small spell working in a company which made large format mixing consoles used in recording studios and there I learned what music is!

We had a couple of demo rooms in which we could demo the equipment to our customers (including some big name artists but more often demo'd to studios).

I got off the bandwagon which I had been on since a teenager, repeatedly upgrading hif-fi, replacing individual units, I went out and bought a pair of active speakers, - professional grade for use in studios- with XLR balanced inputs. I bought the best. I don't need to upgrade (unless I get a bigger house and have a much bigger room).

You don't need to spend a huge amount of money, you just need to know what you are doing.

And key to that, is having heard a very high quality sound and getting used to it, hearing it every day, that then becomes your reference level of sound quality which you then use for comparison when you go out shopping for speakers and equipment.

Prior to that 're-education', my reference level was the existing hi-fi I had, and I was comparing prospective purchases with that as the reference. That resulted in incremental steps up each time.

I met one guy (the salesman) in a well known upscale audio shop who said to me upon hearing what I had purchased "They're the cheaper ones", implying that they can't sound particulary good because they weren't £6K ! Little did he know.

Don't assume that because it's expensive it must sound good. Don't assume that you need to spend £10K on speakers and amp to get anything decent.

Once bought some line level phono-to-phono cables a metre long costing £200. Then I started doing some experimentation using cables of the type used in studios, with cables purchased from the same vendor the studios used, the end result? I made my own interconnect cables (not exactly rocket science if you can solder!), which sounded equally good for something like £20, with the gold plated phono connectors costing way more than the cable itself! But I guess that company had to make a living.

But that's where the marketing BS comes in, sell the cables for £30 and people won't buy them, too cheap you see, they can't be any good.

1
0
TkH11

Re: Ancient technology

I presume the capacitor is being used as an anti-alias filter? So all you've got here is a single order 20db per decade roll off filter. Depending on the sampling rate of the DAC, it doesn't have a high enough cut-off rate to deal with the images higher up in frequency, (the image spacing in frequency is determined by the sampling rate). I'm sure it would work, but it perhaps wouldn't sound too good.

0
0
TkH11

Re: Ancient technology

The THD on decent audio quality op. amps such as the NE5534 is considerably lower than 1%. It seems that when we get to the power amps that we allow THD levels to increase.

0
0
TkH11

Re: Ancient technology

I think this shows a failure to understand the definition of the word digital. The class D amplifier does not contain any digitial electronics and it does not represent information or signals using numbers.

The class D amplifier contains only analogue electronic devices. There isn't a logic gate, a flipflop in sight.

0
0
TkH11

Re: Ancient technology

But then that is not an amplifier! That's a high current output DAC.

It's a solution which obviates the need for an amplifier. But I go back to my original statement. An amplfier is an analogue circuit. It is. It has to be. An amplifier takes an analogue current or voltage and makes it bigger ( a simple class A amplifier with a simple transistor *is* an analogue circuit. There's nothing digital about it).

It's akin to saying "digital aerial for FreeView". It's not a digitial aerial, it's an analogue aerial.

0
0
TkH11

You obviously haven't worked in a recording studio. If you listen to music with all the equalisation being flat, the sound sounds pretty awful. Some equilisation *is* necessary.

0
0
TkH11

@A J MacLeaod

Within a few lines of reading the article it became clear to me that the author is a professional engineer, almost certainly educated to degree level in Electronics I would suggest. I have spent a short period of my career working for a very well known professional audio company designing and building mixing consoles sold to very famous recording studios around the world (including the likes of Abbey Road, Air Lyndhurst, LucasFilm). Trust me, he knows exactly what he is talking about, and his conclusion that time delay is a key factor is absolutely correct.

1
0
TkH11

Re: The ear can't hear square waves.

But you can't design an audio system to handle only odd harmonics or even harmonics! Or have notably better performance on one or the other.

0
0
TkH11

Re: The ear can't hear square waves.

So what do you use as a baseline during design if not a square wave? That is, if you create a design, test it, and then set about improving that design, and then re test it? How do you know if you have improved your design? You need a reference set of signals to apply to your design, measure the output, modify, re test with the same set of reference input signals. You have to use some sort of standard input signal which you can re-apply in order to determine if you have actually improved your design. That's where square waves come in (and frequency swept sine waves).

Your statement that square waves are F** all use is incorrect.

3
0
TkH11

Re: Ancient technology

Valve amplifier = analogue. Digital amplifer? Never heard of a digital amplifier. Amps have to be analogue.

1
8
TkH11

Re: Good point about loudspeaker and amp designers working separately

If you buy active speakers, then the problem goes away!

2
3
TkH11

Re: Bah!

I have a pair of Dynaudio accoustics professional active speakers, all analogue, and I can assure you, even at your age, you *would* hear the difference. The industry rips people off with incredibly expensive consumer range speakers and amplifiers and Joe Public is lead to believe they need to spend £10K on a good system.

Most people haven't got a club what decent sounds sounds like, and it doesn't have to cost the earth, you just need to know what you're doing.

1
1
TkH11

HiFi is purposefully designed to have a flat response so that it plays back exactly the source material, however, it's actually more pleasing to the ear to have a slightly non flat response.

In the studio environment they're looking for equipment with a flat response for 'monitoring', but hi-fi in the home tends to not have an entirely flat response.

1
3
TkH11

Re: The ear can't hear square waves.

Posted by someone that doesn't understand Fourier analysis and waveforms.

Square waves (and impulses) are a very useful mechanism in the design of audio systems, it doesn't mean you are trying to design a system in order to reproduce a square wave!

If you understand what square waves are and the harmonics contained within, then you can easily see why they are so useful.

It's true that you can't hear them, but that remark fails to understand what square waves are.

Humans don't hear square waves (or any other waveform), what they hear is the summation of harmonics. A true square wave has an infinite number of harmonics, and we DO hear the harmonics up to around 20Khz. So in a way we do hear the square wave, but we don't hear everything in them, but then it's a physical impossibility for us to hear everything in the square wave.

26
2

Microsoft 'Catapults' geriatric Moore's Law from CERTAIN DEATH

TkH11

Re: Slow evolution?

Might have made a typing error. With full custom you are right, lower level masks of the difusion regions need to be produced, but this is not true for semi-custom.

Thanks for the reference to Wiki, I don't need to check. I know what my job was, did it for 5 years, I *am* the authority on it.

I had to hand route a 30,000 logic gate Gallium Arsenide device at 97% utilisation, when the routing software couldn't hack it.

0
0
TkH11

Re: Slow evolution?

Vic,

>So you're doing floorplanning & place/route. That's way more than just configuring the metal layer.

No, this isn't right. With a semi-custom mask programmable ASIC, this isn't what is happening

When you floor plan such an ASIC, you're laying down instructions to the place and route tools to constrain the placement of logic gates.

The end result is purely that the creation of metalisation masks to do the final interconnect.

My credentials;

1) Spent two years at university studying full custom, semic custom IC design.

2) Made an interated cicuit chip in the lab, using photolithography

3) Spent 5 years as an ASIC validation engineer, laying out chips, pre and post layout logic simulations, automatic test pattern generation of one of the world's leading ASIC venors.

1
0
TkH11

Re: Slow evolution?

ASICs offered lower NRE than full custom/semi custom technologies.

The NRE cost of the development effort into designing the ASIC device by the vendor was distributed across all the dies made, across all customers that used that particular ASIC.

When we talk about NRE, we are generally talking about the NRE to the customer that has created the design to be put on to the ASIC, it's important to distinguish the customer's NRE - the charge they pay to the ASIC vendor for the validation, layout and production of samples of the ASIC, and the developmental costs of the particular ASIC technology family which is incurred by the ASIC vendor.

As far as the customer is concerned, they don't care about the development costs of the technology incurred by the vendor, that cost is distributed across all chips that are made and manifests itself in both the NRE charge for ASIC validation and individual price per chip the customer pays.

The point about ASICS is that the die, unmetallised, was already fabbed, and made in their thousands,

0
0
TkH11

Re: Slow evolution?

I was working with ASICs - mask programmable mostly - in the 1990's. The design of the device was undertaken by the customer and a netlist of the logic circuit sent to the ASIC vendor, which then carried out pre-layout validation checks, design rule checks, pre layout simulation, floor planning, place and route, and then post-layout simulations. The end result of this process was a database which was sent onto the fab. plant which simply created the final few metalisation masks.

The difference between those ASICs in the 1990's and the ULA's such as the Ferranti ULA used in the BBC microcomputer was that they didn't have the design tools and CAD software in the days of the ULA. Design and verification of the mask patterns was done by printing out huge print outs, and visually inspecting them.

From a manufacturing perspective, I believe the ULA and mask programmable ASICs were the same.

2
0
TkH11

Re: Slow evolution?

ULA's WERE ASICS. ASICS - application specific integrated circuits - were/are mask programmable, which is precisely what ULA's were.

0
0
TkH11

Re: Slow evolution?

ULA's were write once, but there's another important distinction, they were mask programmable.

Digital custom chips fall into two high level categories: field programmable and mask programmable.

Mask programmable, the non-recurring engineering costs on there are much higher, the interconnect of the logic gates/transistors is done at manufacturing time.

In field programmable chips the chips are mass produced and all the way through to packaging the die into the lead frame and final test. All the chips coming off the production line are the same.

Customisation of the chip and putting the circuit design into the chip is undertaken by the customer (and not the chip manufacturer).

2
0

Israel develops wireless-malware-injection-by-smartmobe tool

TkH11

Re: >"BadBIOS which saw malware apparently flung over air gaps "

This is the best explanation I have seen on this site. Let me add to it.

A key element of this approach is that as the malware (already installed on the target computer) reads the data to be lifted from the system and transmitted off the system, there will be changes in the extraneous RF emissions from the PC, to a human being listening in via an FM radio (on 88-108MHz) broadcast band, the noise heard will sound like garbage, there won't be any apparent pattern and it would seem incredible that individual byte values being accessed could be discerned from those RF emissions, but I recall reading an article some time ago, where it has been done, where those small changes in the RF signal can be decoded into actual byte values!

Decades ago, one technique used by the security services to spy on embassies, where they couldn't tap the data communication lines going in and out of the building, sometimes they could hook up microphones placed into small holes in the wall, and listen to the sound of the keys being typed on a teleprinter or other such communications device. From the sound alone they could determine what the message text was that was being typed! It turns out each key sounded slightly different.

0
0
TkH11

Re: This is quite credible

It's a high impedance ear phones which are used - to draw as little current as possible from the radio receiver. In that way, the radio doesn't even need a power supply, the enercy in the received radio signal is enough to make the whole thing work. The ear phones were called 'Crystal Earphones' if memory service me right. Your parts list is almost complete..but missing the ferrite rod aerial which in conjunction with the variable tuning capacitor acted as frequency selective bandpass filter to 'tune in' the required radio station.

I built one too, not quite 40 years ago..but must be close-ish to that!

2
0
TkH11

The physics around it

There are only two ways to get a program (a virus, malware or anything else) into a system:

1) You have a program running which reads input data from somewhere, and you inject into that input data stream the malicious software. You rely on vulnerabilities such as buffer overruns to get the malicious software into the ROM, RAM, disk storage where it is held and then subsequently executed.

2) You force data bits into the RAM, ROM, onto the disk using either a magnetic coupling technique - magnetic induction - or capacitative coupling using an electric field.

Those data bits represent the malware. That's how you get the malware in, but then how does it get executed by the processor. That's another question. A program, malware, firmware does nothing unless it can be executed by the processor.

To get the malware data bits in via these means, you will need either a strong enough magnetic field to induce a high enough current or a strong enough electric field to induce a voltage, of sufficient strength to write databits directly into the storage medium. If it's a RAM chip, possibly 3V, ROM, probably higher.

Physical separation matters here, the further the injecting device is from the storage medium the greater the electric or magnetic field needs to be.

You would need strong fields (of either electric or magnetic) to be able to change the bits in the storage medium, which probably can't be induced by a mobile phone.

The interference people here when a mobile phone interferes with microphones or with the speakers of a computer is caused by those aforementioned techniques, but the signal levels in use by the microphone and speakers are very low, and current levels are also low (active speakers use amplifiers).

Let's suppose you could generate a high enough magnetic or electric field to change bits in the storage medium, how the flipping heck could you control which bits you flip and where your malware actually goes, bit by bit, byte after byte in sequence! A near impossibility!

2
0

Stephen Fry MADNESS: 'New domain names GENERATE NEW IP NUMBERS'

TkH11

wtf? We are using a finite based numbering scheme which potentially could run out. The question is will we run out? IPV6 has only just been introduced so based on current uptake of IP addresses we probably won't run out for many, many years. But there there are plans afoot to hook more and more devices to the internet, consumer devices, not just computing based devices such as laptops, mobile phones.

As for being too close to the question, I would suggest that it is precisely because we are close to it, that we understand it, that we understand the industry, that we can see trends, make predictions with some degree of accuracy and make a more accurate prediction than someone that is not an expert in technology. Forest and trees is not an idiom that is relevant in this case.

I doubt Stephen Fry knows enough about IPV4, IPV6 number spaces to be able to make an informed comment on whether we will run out, his remarks are probably not based on that level of detail, but based on general common knowledge that IP numbers are running out and we have to do something about it (that something is the instantiation of the IPV6 scheme).

Given that IPV6 hasn't been in use for that long, anyone can make a prediction now, the reality is, we won't know for many years whether that prediction is accurate or not. That is, anyone's prediction now is likely to be as accurate as anyone elses. What is the value of even making a prediction under these circumstances? It's akin to making a weather forecast for the United Kingdom for the 10th June 2015, it has little value and is most likely to be wrong.

As T0 approaches the certainty increases, there comes a point where you are so far from T0, it's pointless making the prediction.

If Stephen Fry in years to come, turns out to be correct, I would suggest it's not because of a well thoughtout, intelligent analysis of the data at the time he made the prediction, but down to sheer luck.

0
5

Page: