Two questions

On 27/09/2015 16:12, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-27 05:15, David Taylor wrote:
[]
With the DVB-S (previous) version of the system, the satellite data
comes in 185-byte packets (IIRC), each of which needs to be stored. The
packets are not repeated, so if you miss one you loose data. This could
be for a 60 MB file, so lots and lots of writes. Hence the RAMdisk as a
buffer.

That's a good approach. I assume a UPS in there and other power backups.

I process a lot of GPS data (or was doing so a year or so ago) and I
would have single strings of raw data in memory approaching 100 MB or so
before processing and consolidation. (they came from a lot of separate
recordings). The final processing (reduction) would output to disk.

The professional stations would likely have UPS, but most amateurs would
not bother. If you are writing the software you can indeed have more
control over things like buffering, but in this case we have two
releases of executable image for Windows-32 (and others for Linux
variants), so it's a matter of working out how to configure the OS to
meet the needs of the software whilst at the same time reducing or
eliminating missed DVB-S2 packets of data.

A lot of work has gone into this optimisation over the past 12 years or
so! At least now having a few GB of RAMdisk isn't the drain on system
resources it was back in 2003.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Sorkin got publicity for the movie it was because Cook gave him the
opportunity to do so.

It can be claimed that Cook was being a mediawhore because Apple has
this new product release going on. You may have noticed.

Cook called Sorkin an opportunist. I don't see how that draws attention
to Apple's product releases. (And Cook may be many things, but media
whore is not on that list. Whereas the likes of Sorkin depend on
promotion to make back their investment in their movies. Apple on the
other hand don't need to do anything to attract the media - the media
are hooked on Apple and everyone else is very simply envious to worse).

cook did not single out sorkin.

cook called everyone who is capitalizing on the death of steve jobs an
opportunist:
I think that a lot of people are trying to be opportunistic and I
hate that, it¹s not a great part of our world

I really have nothing against Sorkin - he makes good movies. Whether
they are accurate or not is another matter. (Charlie Wilson's War is
definitely high on my list as are "A Few Good Men" and "Moneyball" -
also enjoyed the series "The West Wing".)

But - like all in the "Hollywood game" you don't get publicity by being
quiet and the standard of truth is lower than that in a US presidential
party nomination season.

yep.

In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

This exchange of attacks only has traction in this newsgroup because
Apple is involved. If Carly Fiorina (who claims to be a great admirer
of Jobs and considers him one of her mentors) had knocked the movie,
and Sorkin would have fired back at HP's dismal record under Fiorina
no one here would care. Yet, a large number of readers of this group
are using an HP product.

I don't care about attacks on Apple or Jobs which are based on real
truths. Apple has plenty of blemishes. Sorkin's attack on Apple's
supplier's labour issues is deflection - esp. given Apple's record of
addressing supply chain moral/ethical issues (and many others) over the
years. The failure in China is that of the Chinese government.

yep.

On 2015-09-27 12:09, nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
wrote:

Sorkin got publicity for the movie it was because Cook gave him the
opportunity to do so.

It can be claimed that Cook was being a mediawhore because Apple has
this new product release going on. You may have noticed.

Cook called Sorkin an opportunist. I don't see how that draws attention
to Apple's product releases. (And Cook may be many things, but media
whore is not on that list. Whereas the likes of Sorkin depend on
promotion to make back their investment in their movies. Apple on the
other hand don't need to do anything to attract the media - the media
are hooked on Apple and everyone else is very simply envious to worse).

cook did not single out sorkin.

cook called everyone who is capitalizing on the death of steve jobs an
opportunist:
I think that a lot of people are trying to be opportunistic and I
hate that, it¹s not a great part of our world

Timing means a lot.


I really have nothing against Sorkin - he makes good movies. Whether
they are accurate or not is another matter. (Charlie Wilson's War is
definitely high on my list as are "A Few Good Men" and "Moneyball" -
also enjoyed the series "The West Wing".)

But - like all in the "Hollywood game" you don't get publicity by being
quiet and the standard of truth is lower than that in a US presidential
party nomination season.

yep.

On 9/26/2015 6:07 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-26 16:22, PeterN wrote:
On 9/26/2015 10:42 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-26 05:08, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 00:00:18 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 15:45:37 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

"The Cupertino giant has for months been said to be in talks with
major US studios in a bid to secure content for a streaming Apple
service. Compensation reportedly remains a sticking point."

I don't want to be accused of being an Apple basher, so I won't link
to it, but the very recent catfight between Aaron Sorkin and Tim Cook
didn't go well for Tim.

I hadn't heard of this until you mentioned it. While there are no
doubt some children in China assembling phones for 17 cents perhour
(and what else might they be doing without that?) the overall quality
of iPhones suggests there is a lot of automated assembly in their
construction.

There's a lot of touch labour at final assembly.

As to the child labour that's a failure of those suppliers and the
Chinese government who are very lax at enforcement.


Lax is an understatement.
What is really needed is for sellers in the importing countries to have
the moral courage to manufacture in compliant countries, preferably at
home.

If that were done, iPhone's wouldn't exist.

Not so sure. We need a level playing field.


Some companies like GE are moving manufacturing back to the US on some
large items. Mainly because they save costs in doing so. It works for
those items (washer/dryer/dishwasher) for a variety of reasons. That
model wouldn't work for small electronics, however.


sadly, you are right. My statement is a Utopian dream, in a perfect world..



As to moral courage, China has the policy courage, just not as much
enforcement courage. Apple is the 800 Lb gorilla on that and they keep
auditors in place and roving around in order to ensure compliance.
Despite that there are of course exceptions.

And of course there is stalwart VW ...




--
PeterN

On 9/26/2015 6:51 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:


So one will need the Vividy device built in to their televisions.

at which point, a pirate can simply point a camera at the tv. it won't
be the best quality but pirates don't give a ****.

If the quality is that bad, the pirate will have few customers.

wrong.


You deny reality. Those who purchase a **** quality repro are not likely
to purchase a good quality on, at full price.


pirates smuggle cameras into movie theaters to make illicit copies
which are then distributed. pirates do the same thing for concerts
using audio recorders.

the results are about the worst quality possible, especially when
someone stands up in front of the person with the camera.


You said the worst was making a copy of the flick from a TV. Now the
worst is in a movie theater. Which is it.


more sophisticated pirates could intercept the video signals going to
the lcd display.

at *some* point, the movie has to be decrypted so that humans can watch
it, at which point, it can be copied.

piracy *cannot* be eliminated and crap like vidity only serves to ****
off the honest user.

You think if you repeat something often enough it will be true.
The fact is that piracy CAN be eliminated, but the cost of doing so
makes it economically not feasible.

it is not possible to eliminate piracy any more than it's possible to
eliminate any other crime. it will *never* be zero, ever.

it can *only* be reduced to an acceptable level, punishing those
*after* they do it, assuming they're even caught at all.

You remind me of the credit manager who brags that he has no bad debts.
I recommended that he be fired. Management took my advice and profits
dramatically increased.

what does that have to do with anything?

Whoosh


you wouldn't be moving the goalposts again, would you?



--
PeterN

On 9/26/2015 7:29 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

I hadn't heard of this until you mentioned it. While there are no
doubt some children in China assembling phones for 17 cents perhour
(and what else might they be doing without that?) the overall quality
of iPhones suggests there is a lot of automated assembly in their
construction.

the same factories make just about every piece of electronics and apple
has done more than any other company to improve the situation.

but why let facts get in the way.

In some cultures everybody is a cannibal, does that make it OK?
Since you don't understand subtlety, I will rephrase: Just because
"everybody" does something, doesn't make it right.

whoosh.


IOW you will not admit to being wrong.

--
PeterN

On 2015-09-27 12:19, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:39:51 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-09-26 20:45, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 18:11:49 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-09-26 11:00, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 10:41:35 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-09-26 00:00, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 15:45:37 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

"The Cupertino giant has for months been said to be in talks with
major US studios in a bid to secure content for a streaming Apple
service. Compensation reportedly remains a sticking point."

I don't want to be accused of being an Apple basher, so I won't link
to it, but the very recent catfight between Aaron Sorkin and Tim Cook
didn't go well for Tim.

Noise. Cook doesn't like how someone has portrayed his deceased friend
and says so. Sorkin then pulls a classic deflection accusing Apple of
child labour in China as a retort.

(And yes, Apple knows some suppliers have underage workers and continues
to audit and force change despite this being a failure of the Chinese
government to enforce the law.)

Sorkin's just doing his job to attract attention to his movie.

I dunno about "deflection". Cook called the film "opportunistic", and
Sorkin rightly called Cook on claiming that a movie is opportunistic
when Apple's business plan is as opportunistic as it comes.

See above. What does Apple's manufacturing have to do with Cook's
complaint about Sorkin's portrayal of Jobs? So Sorkin attacks Cook and
Apple's manufacturing chain. That's deflection. (And poorly too).

Interesting that Cook merely complains, but Sorkin attacks. Not much
bias here, No Sir.

Oh, geez, now you laser analysis is going to the words I use. Christ I
am for the gallows. At least allow me a last prayer.

Sorkin's SOLE interest is promotion of his film.

Once again you demonstrate extreme bias. You are willing to accept
that Cook's comments were made by reason of genuine distress over
negative portrayal of someone he admired and respected.

Yet, you are unwilling to accept that Sorkin reacted in genuine
distress over comments denigrating his personal efforts and
profession. Instead, you attribute his reaction to selfish reasons.

You betcha word choice plays into this. Cook chose a very
inflammatory word to describe the movie(s). Had Cook not chosen such
an inflammatory word, and just said he objected to the way Jobs is
presented in the movie(s), the Sorkin might not have responded
angrily.


Parse it as you like Tony. Snip it too.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:25:07 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-09-26 19:06, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:39:49 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-09-20 18:09, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 10:07:08 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015-09-20 04:38, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 17:02:38 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 00:28:48 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I can't imagine Apple building 4K machines which will not handle
vidity. In that case they are limited to whoever can provide Crypto
Management hardware.

who said anything about building 4k machines?

They already do. See https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202856

just the other day you said you can't imagine they'll make a 4k machine
without vidity and now you point it out.

you're also confusing connecting a 4k display with playing protected
content. they are two different things.

No I'm not. I'm saying a 4K machine without Vidity capability will be
handicapped in the market.

also, a processor transition has nothing to do with any of that.

It's got to work in with Crypto Manager which is not just software but
hardware.

See the diagram on http://www.rambus.com/key-issuance-center/

Apple's DRM system has been doing a similar function for years so that a
users various devices can play paid-for content. That includes "owned"
content and "rented" content.

The only problem is such a system is open to side-channel attacks
[ see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-channel_attack ] and hence
is not really secure.

The Crptomanager is implimented in dedicated hardware and is the
current state of the art. In creating Vidity the entertainment
industry seems to have gone all-out to build the most resistant system
they could. Every transaction will need it's own unique key. That
appears to include copying from a server disk. All of this, of course,
transparent to the end user.

Apple's DRM requires unique keys for each instance of distribution.
Please find me evidence of a successful attack on Apple's DRM model.

If Apple do adopt Vividity and that requires hardware based crypto to do
so, then I don't think they'd have much trouble with it - Apple have
been doing that as well (esp. in devices with Secure Enclave).

I hadn't intended to continue with this but I have just been directed
to
http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd....g&mid=15326500
which led me to
https://edwardsnowden.com/2015/03/10...-a4-processor/
or http://tinyurl.com/pr4jzue and

Evil maid dependent.

Not necessarily. You could go out and buy a new iPhone and crack away
at it to extract the GID key which seems to be common to all iPhones.
In any case, evil maids aen't that hard to get if the target is
sufficiently important. Probably much easier to find than is the task
of cracking the key.

http://www.macworld.com/article/2895...e-devices.html
or http://tinyurl.com/ow84594

"attempts"
"possible methods"
"if successful"

All unsuccessful attempts by high funded government agencies desperate
to invade privacy. Not pirate movies.

This is why over the past year various agencies (esp. the FBI and NSA)
have been clamoring for split-key escrow or other back door access to
personal devices.

Apple seems to have been working with NXP for a number of years with a
variety of devices. NXP is a licensee of Cryptography Research. It's
anyone's guess what is really going on.


See also "Based on Apple documents I have seen, when Apple introduced
Apple Pay they largely execute that financial transaction using an
external NXP chip which has an embedded secure element. Given that NXP
has licensed Rambus’s DPA countermeasures, it would appear NXP secure
elements are protected from DPA hacking."

"external chip" - eg: Any chipset can be made to work with NXP (or any
other security module.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:27:39 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 9/26/2015 6:07 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-26 16:22, PeterN wrote:
On 9/26/2015 10:42 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-09-26 05:08, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 00:00:18 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 15:45:37 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

"The Cupertino giant has for months been said to be in talks with
major US studios in a bid to secure content for a streaming Apple
service. Compensation reportedly remains a sticking point."

I don't want to be accused of being an Apple basher, so I won't link
to it, but the very recent catfight between Aaron Sorkin and Tim Cook
didn't go well for Tim.

I hadn't heard of this until you mentioned it. While there are no
doubt some children in China assembling phones for 17 cents perhour
(and what else might they be doing without that?) the overall quality
of iPhones suggests there is a lot of automated assembly in their
construction.

There's a lot of touch labour at final assembly.

As to the child labour that's a failure of those suppliers and the
Chinese government who are very lax at enforcement.


Lax is an understatement.
What is really needed is for sellers in the importing countries to have
the moral courage to manufacture in compliant countries, preferably at
home.

If that were done, iPhone's wouldn't exist.

Not so sure. We need a level playing field.

There is no such thing, and never will be until the entropy death of
the universe.


Some companies like GE are moving manufacturing back to the US on some
large items. Mainly because they save costs in doing so. It works for
those items (washer/dryer/dishwasher) for a variety of reasons. That
model wouldn't work for small electronics, however.


sadly, you are right. My statement is a Utopian dream, in a perfect world..

How do you get on with the moral burden of depriving tens of thousands
of people of their only source of living? There are two sides to all
of these things.



As to moral courage, China has the policy courage, just not as much
enforcement courage. Apple is the 800 Lb gorilla on that and they keep
auditors in place and roving around in order to ensure compliance.
Despite that there are of course exceptions.

And of course there is stalwart VW ...

I remember when Chrysler did much the same kind of thing back in the
70s with their 6 cylinder engines in Australia.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens