Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | __david__'s comments login

I did some fun work on MAME back in the day. I managed to get a hold of a PAL fusemap that was used in the Jr. Pac-man ROM encryption hardware. From there I created a little schematic and then implemented it in software inside MAME. The logic was stateful (it had registers) and so it wasn't something I could just run the ROM image through, so I ran the game with the encryption emulation running for each ROM fetch and built an unencrypted ROM image for the game while playing. After that I just released the unencrypted ROM image, but the decryption stuff was still sitting around in the MAME source last time I checked.

I think I may have done the actual game emulation stuff for Jr. Pac, too—it was basically the same as Pac-Mac/Ms. Pac-Man with the addition of scrolling hardware and a bit that controlled whether the sprites showed up on top of or underneath the character/text graphics. That bit is so that during the cutscenes the sprites could be on one side of a fence or the other, or go inside a house. It's a single bit for all the sprites though, so if you pay attention to the cut scenes, when a character sprite goes behind something, all the other character sprites are away from the text graphics so that they don't go behind things as well.

Do you still have that PAL fusemap (or .jed file)? The MAME team could use it for the jrpacman.c driver for preservation purposes at the very least.

When and in what way did Mozilla decide to become spyware?

not necessarily spyware, but moving away from the community focus.

   1. UI copying chrome
   2. telefonica servers for video chat
   3. Ads on your new-tab-page
   4. Yahoo search deal
   5. Adobe binary blob DRM installed and enabled by default. this is flash security holes all over again.
   6. google binary blob DRM on android.

mozilla have long gone from being a incubator the firefox project to try to be a startup coming up with the next big thing, for who knows why. like their sync thing that they keep annoying me to use every time. it's like ubuntu trying hard with ubuntu one. but ubuntu at least was started to make money.

How is the Yahoo search deal any different than the search deal with Google that they've had for years and years?

And the EME module, good or bad, is not a security hole like Flash. The CDM modules are heavily sandboxed, preventing them from doing anything in the system besides talking to the browser. On Linux, it uses seccomp: https://lwn.net/Articles/332974/

I think the difference is that Google is a superior search engine, so in a world where technology trumps money it would be the default.* Of course, abiding by that would kill Mozilla's bargaining position, and Mozilla losing funding would suck for everyone, but...

* or DuckDuckGo (inferior but privacy conscious), but good luck with them funding Mozilla

1. I still prefer the FireFox UI since it works better with lot of tabs, in Chrome the tabs are becoming smaller and smaller until the point that you can't see them. And Firefox's preference screen is so much nicer, so no it's not a verbatim copy, they improved a lot the interface. The history autocomplete is also one of the strong features of Firefox and still does not exist on Chrome.

2. The servers are only use to find clients, the data is transiting directly between the computers with WebRTC.

3. The ad tiles are there until the screen is full (which happens very fast). In practice, almost half of the ads are for Mozilla itself (Firefox for Android, Marketplace ...).

4. And so ? What's the problem by having Yahoo instead of Google in some countries ? It provides some diversity and competition in the search market which really needs it.

5. I agree on this but it's not like Mozilla had a choice, they tried to resist up to the last minute. And their implementation unlike Chrome's one (if I remember) is going to be strictly sandboxed. So they tried to do what they could. This is really Chrome's fault here.

6. I think they did not have a choice either on this one, unlike what Google is advertising, Android is much less open than they say. A lot of proprietary binaries are needed to run the OS and the stock Android is just the bare minimum. Maybe in the future they could provide an open-source replacement to it but I think they did not have enough resources.

They're planning on implementing ads based on browsing history, although it's supposed to be without violating users' privacy, apparently.



It doesn't actually send any of your data to anywhere; it runs locally in your browser, using history data it already has.

I found that quite interesting actually. Implementing this kind of thing in an open source(!) browser may be the only way to deliver custom ads without violating the user's privacy. That being said I still think it is a horrible idea...

Just as a little question, are all the ads pre-downloaded, or could someone theoretically observe which ads your browser downloaded and deduce things about your history therefrom?

It downloads the same set of ads for everyone in the same country, then picks which of those ads to show based on local analysis.


Hoho, that's excelllent. That looks like it could actually be real privacy for anyone who doesn't click the ads.

The picture in the Techcrunch post is pretty clear. The browser talks with an adserver (step 5). And how could it get ads if it didn't do that, pick them from a static list compiled into the browser binary? Soon out of date and hardly interesting for advertisers.

GETs to the adserver combined with the in-browser selection algorithm leak details on the browsing history of the user (if he's got this ad he could be that kind of person and been there and there). Maybe not the worst of the spywares but about as concerning as any ad in a web page.

The picture in the Techcrunch post is pretty clear. The browser talks with an adserver (step 5). And how could it get ads if it didn't do that, pick them from a static list compiled into the browser binary? Soon out of date and hardly interesting for advertisers.

Based on what I've read in the actual implementation discussion in Bugzilla, the process actually consists of:

1. A Mozilla-controlled server hosts bundles of tiles, which are periodically updated.

2. The browser periodically downloads updated bundles of tiles from that server.

3. Using metadata in the bundles, the browser decides which ones to display.

A lot of discussion seems to have centered on ensuring the bundles and their metadata have enough overlap to ensure that even Mozilla's servers can't determine which sites in the browser history caused a particular tile to display.

Clever. I'll probably turn it off but is much less worrisome in this way. Could you share the link to that discussion? Thanks.


Well, duh, that's because you used it in a non-gender-neutral way. If you said, "hey you guys, raise your hands", then that is way more gender neutral. Like all of language, differences in meanings can be subtle. They can also depend on where you are from.


It's no bug. I'm sitting here at the event, reading Hacker News because nothing is happening yet.


Any word on why not?


Subsonic is GPL.

I've been running it for a few years now. I especially like using it with iSub on iOS, though that isn't under active development anymore (it's GPL now, too).


The official android app seems closed source though.


Both Subsonic and the unofficial DSub can be found on F-Droid.


A music teacher once explained it to us like this: "perfect pitch" is simply memory. If you recall what something sounds like you can can compare and figure out what any note is. Some people have an amazing memory, some people have to work at it. But you can create all kinds of mnemonics to help you remember things, and pitch is no different.

By the end of his class I had a firm grasp on all the intervals and was getting really good at getting absolute notes. Had I continued training myself I have no doubt I could be considered to have "perfect pitch" (as could most of the class). It really demystified the whole thing to me.


Mnemonics is totally how it works for me. I can hear songs in my head in tune. Through learning to play guitar, I've memorized songs for each note, by the first chord of each song.

A: Jessica, Allman Brothers

A#: In Bloom, Nirvana

B: Out on the Weekend, Neil Young

C: Like a Rolling Stone, Bob Dylan

C#: Say it Aint So, Weezer

D: Moonage Daydream, David Bowie

D#: Woman, John Lennon

E: Melissa, Allman Brothers

F: Smells Like Teen Spirit, Nirvana

F#: Foxy Lady, Jimi Hendrix

G: Santa Monica, Everclear

G#: Brain Stew, Greenday

The only part I'm not completely convinced is a learned skill is being able to internalize the song in the first place.

Intervals are the same.

Minor 2nd: The Jaws theme

Major 2nd: Mary had a Little Lamb

Minor 3rd: What Child is This

Major 3rd: Kumbayah

Perfect 4th: Here Comes the Bride

Tritone: The Simpsons

Perfect 5th: The Star Wars Theme

Minor 6th: Close Every Door to Me

Major 6th: The NBC Theme

Minor 7th: Somewhere(Theres a place for us)

Major 7th: Take on Me

Octave: Somewhere over the Rainbow


This is amazing. Thanks so much for posting this. I "listen" to music all day in my head but never thought about using it to be able to sing the specific notes. I'm looking forward to trying this later with my guitar.


Terrific list, thank you! I have pretty good absolute pitch, and can hear songs play in my head just like the real thing (I often wear headphones that aren’t connected to anything and just “listen”), but I never thought to make the connections like this. Very fun!


What happens when you transpose one of your first chord songs?


Ha, This is awesome.


Absolute pitch (the proper name) is a spectrum. I have it myself, but my abilities pale in comparison to some others. While I have no problem identifying single notes and smaller chords, others can immediately name 10+ note chords. There's also the question of range: I'm hopeless at the extremes of the piano while others have no problem.

Many musicians are able to memorize the tuning note A440, for instance, which suggests absolute pitch is not simply a boolean property of our brains but rather an ability that can vary (and be improved) like relative pitch.

That being said, I do think those perfect pitch courses you see on Amazon are mostly snake oil.


Personally, it feels to me like the ability to recognize intervals (relative pitch) is so much easier than the ability to recognize pitches (absolute pitch) that I wonder if they really are both "simply memory." Why is one so much harder than the other?


Well, it's also a lot harder to tell a whether a given square is 20" or 19" on a side at a glance than it is to tell a whether a given rectangle is 2 x 1 or 1.9 x 1. Does that analogy help? It's more relevant than it might seem; absolute pitch is about recognizing frequencies and relative pitch is about recognizing ratios of frequencies.


That's true, but can you "memorize" something that lets you tell whether a given square is 20 or 19 inches on a side?


If you spent a lot of time with 20" squares (carpenter?), I bet you'd start to notice that 19" looked small, even in isolation.


> "perfect pitch" is simply memory.

Too bad not every teachers will tell you this.


> suddenly advertising doesn't seem all that evil.

Speak for yourself. An ad is an ad, even if I like the company or product. I'm in agreement with the grandparent, ads would be even more intrusive on a watch than on my phone (where they are already annoying).


I think even worse are the ones that show Calvin praying to a cross. Talk about out of character…


But lisp/Clojure actually holds no real advantage in this area. Javascript, Ruby, Perl, Python, etc. all have built in lists and list-of-lists (ie, trees). They all have map, filter, etc. to manipulate their native lists and hashes/objects/maps in similar ways to lisp/Clojure.

http://jsml.org is just one example (Javascript). I know similar things exist in Perl and I'm sure Ruby and Python have them as well. If not, it's literally something you can write in a couple hours.


Thanks for the link, that is interesting. While I don't doubt that it's possible to create something similar to https://github.com/weavejester/hiccup in Ruby and Python as well, I am not aware of existing libraries for it and it's definitely not considered the "idiomatic" way to generate HTML in those languages. They both skew heavily toward template languages that are some variation on <div>{{foo.bar}}</div> and require special syntax, which in turn requires editor support for syntax highlighting and such. And Javascript has been the same way until recently--Angular and Ember are template-based by default. And while JSML looks pretty good, I think the other alternative Javascript is trending toward is the JSX approach taken by React, which is basically just backwards templating, and requires a precompiler pass.

Meanwhile with Clojure, because it's homoiconic (code is data and data is code), all you need to implement a DSL for generating HTML is basic functions and macros (which are just functions that process your source code), no special new syntax is necessary. In fact if browsers used Clojure (or any other Lisp/Scheme dialect) as their native scripting language, there'd be no reason for HTML, XML, JSON, or CSS to exist at all in the first place. They could all just be code.


There was a house I lived in at the edge of town, and late at night on the balcony (midnight, 1 am, etc) when it was very quiet I could hear really quiet booming sounds. It was quiet enough that if a car drove by on the nearest road it would drown out the sound. It was not a steady hum—more like a distant explosion or bass drum. It was frequent but not regular enough to be music. I would guess it was the 20 to 30hz range. I could never quite figure out what it was.


During a cross country bicycle trip my partner and I were camping just outside a tiny town in the middle of Colorado. I had trouble sleeping and kept getting out of the tent to look around due to what sounded like a large flag blowing in the wind, or a rabbit thumping its foot against the ground. Low, faint, slightly irregular. But there was nothing around. Lasted all night and morning. It was driving me nuts!


Maybe something like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_shadow#Long_distance_...


Exact same story here. I wonder if it was this.



Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact