Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Janet Jackson could crash some computers (Read 10097 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Janet Jackson could crash some computers

Reply #25 –
Quote from: Porcus on
So, if
1: a spinning hard drive will stop reading/writing when it is exposed to vibrations,
and
2: if it does so for prolonged time, the OS/driver/firmware will give up and consider it disconnected
then, provided it is the system drive of a laptop, is it farfetched that this might be
3: interpreted as a "crash" even if the drive itself has not crashed - but potentially the OS, which cannot access the system drive?



Most of the time on a faulty drive the OS will reset the drive over and over...

The demo with the guy playing with hdparm -i is bizarre. There's no reason to lose communication with the drive if its heads can't align with a track. Plus, hdparm -i just read the info from the kernel and not the drive. He should have used  hdparm -I with a big "I"


Re: Janet Jackson could crash some computers

Reply #26 –
Quote from: biloute on
It was corrected only by the CPU. No sound card to ease the job on the laptop.
GigaSampler in 1998 can turn a PC into a 64-voice sampler and of course, samplers are required to have multiple and automatable filters in each voice.
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/nemesys-gigasampler-v15

Here is a PDF manual in a 2004 version, renamed to GigaStudio, with even more features:
https://tascam.com/downloads/tascam/508/gs3_manual.pdf

Quote
Minimum required for GigaStudio to run:
Windows XP SP1
Pentium III 1 GB Processor or
AMD 1500 XP
512 MB RAM
...
Recommended
Windows XP SP1
Pentium IV 1.7 GB Processor or
AMD 2100 XP
1GB RAM
...
Pentium 4 systems with HyperThreading technology must have “Intel Hyper-Threading” in the system BIOS disabled.

Which means for example these CPUs released in 2002 are already good enough for hundereds of voices and filters with low latency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Pentium_4_processors#Northwood_(130_nm)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Athlon_XP_processors#Athlon_XP_%22Thoroughbred_A/B%22_(Model_8,_130_nm)
[edit]↑Looks like the forum software cannot handle close bracket in URLs. Clicking the links go to the main articles instead of the linked subtopics.

I'd leave the sound wave induced crash argument alone, but don't tell me a 2005 laptop is slower than a 2002 desktop several hundred times. It is 100% false no matter how you deny it. When my old Pentium II 400MHz was not fast enough to decode CDDA APE files encoded with Extra High settings + SSRC resampling in foobar2000, it was a breeze to run a narrowband stereo notch filter in Cool Edit Pro 1.x.

Re: Janet Jackson could crash some computers

Reply #27 –
Quote from: biloute on
Quote from: doccolinni on
Yes, I understand that that's what you're claiming, but your reasoning and argumentation that I was responding to - and which you conveniently removed from the quote - is nonsensical and illogical.

Replies are in the hours and one or two message away so there is no need to quote the whole thing.

That would usually be true, but in this case it isn't because you interpreted and replied to one portion of what I wrote out of context.

Which you did once again:

Quote from: biloute on
Quote
However - if this issue did indeed occur

Again, there is absolutely no proof

Replying to what I wrote out of context with something entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.

Read the entire thing once again, and process and understand it in its entirety, rather than just one single piece of it:

Quote from: doccolinni on
First, it is true that if this issue never actually occurred, then no one would experience it in all this time, just as you point out.

However - if this issue did indeed occur and was indeed resolved, as is being claimed, then it is also the case that no one would experience it in all this time - on account of the issue having been solved.

So your argument is absolutely meaningless - there being "no replication of this problem since 2005" is equally indicative of this issue never having happened and it happening and being solved.

These three sentences together form a single point that I'm making. If you're mentally capable of processing and understanding this point in its entirety, you will understand that it is entirely irrelevant whether the hard drive issue did actually occur or not. The point that your reasoning and argumentation is flawed is sound and true regardless of that.

Re: Janet Jackson could crash some computers

Reply #28 –
Quote from: doccolinni on
you will understand that it is entirely irrelevant whether the hard drive issue did actually occur or not.

But that's the center and reason of this conversation  :))
Did a Janet Jackson audio track once crashed a computer

Quote
The point that your reasoning and argumentation is flawed is sound and true regardless of that.

You remind me this :))


Re: Janet Jackson could crash some computers

Reply #29 –
Quote from: biloute on
But that's the center and reason of this conversation  :))

Yes, and I have managed to demonstrate that your argumentation is nonsensical regardless of whether the "center and reason" of the conversation is true or not. That is the entire f***ing point. THAT IS LITERALLY HOW LOGICAL ARGUMENTATION WORKS.

Quote from: biloute on
You remind me this :))

That image looks like it depicts someone trying to employ logic and reason in an argument with an idiot, and being frustrated that it's not working.

I won't comment on whether or not I concur that that accurately reflects the ongoing discussion.

Re: Janet Jackson could crash some computers

Reply #30 –
Quote from: doccolinni on
That image looks like it depicts someone trying to employ logic and reason in an argument with an idiot, and being frustrated that it's not working.

You're right, I'm very frustrated  :))

Re: Janet Jackson could crash some computers

Reply #31 –
Just to throw another stone in the pond:

To me, the server room "shouting at running server HDDs increases drive latency while the sound occurs" sounds totally plausible to me.

The Janet Jackson story OTAH raises so many red flags for me that it falls in my myth bucket... until I see very specific and detailled evidence of this story actually having happened.

Re: Janet Jackson could crash some computers

Reply #33 –
Quote from: ojdo on
The Janet Jackson story OTAH raises so many red flags for me that it falls in my myth bucket... until I see very specific and detailled evidence of this story actually having happened.
The Microsoft blogger follows up:
My colleague claims to have been part of the team that investigated the problem. I accept his word for it. (I also think the CVE is somebody playing a joke.)

OK, so some Microsoft employee in the age of Steve Ballmer, investigated and put the blame on ... hm, at least not on Windows.
Not too convinced that this research can be reproduced.

Re: Janet Jackson could crash some computers

Reply #34 –
Quote from: Porcus on
So, if
1: a spinning hard drive will stop reading/writing when it is exposed to vibrations,
and
2: if it does so for prolonged time, the OS/driver/firmware will give up and consider it disconnected
then, provided it is the system drive of a laptop, is it farfetched that this might be
3: interpreted as a "crash" even if the drive itself has not crashed - but potentially the OS, which cannot access the system drive?
That's completely reasonable.

The far-fetched part is a music video causing enough vibration to interfere with the drive and crash the OS. No one seems to know exactly which drive was affected, which makes it difficult to verify the claim.

Re: Janet Jackson could crash some computers

Reply #35 –
Quand le doute s'installe   :))

Quote from: microsoftonline-com August 18, 2022 3:40 pm
Mr. Chen, could you please clarify if your colleague in Windows XP product support witnessed this or if this is one of those urban legends that happened to “a friend of a friend”. Also, I’m wondering how you feel about CVE 2022-38392 which is entirely based on this blog entry.

Quote from:  Raymond ChenMicrosoft employee August 18, 2022 6:24 pm
My colleague claims to have been part of the team that investigated the problem. I accept his word for it. (I also think the CVE is somebody playing a joke.)

Quote from: erkcan erkcan August 19, 2022 5:56 am
Thanks for asking this question, this sounds like one of those stories that are too good to be true. If confirmed, it would make an excellent example while teaching the physics of resonances. So any sort of further detail would be very much appreciated.

Quote from: Jasper Nuyens August 18, 2022 3:47 pm
Original message posted on the 1st of April 1997?

Quote from: Gonch Gardner August 19, 2022 11:24 am
Yes and a colleague once told me gullible had been removed from the dictionary.



Re: Janet Jackson could crash some computers

Reply #36 –
Quote from: bennetng on

GigaSampler in 1998 can turn a PC into a 64-voice sampler and of course, samplers are required to have multiple and automatable filters in each voice.

[...]

Which means for example these CPUs released in 2002 are already good enough for hundereds of voices and filters with low latency.


100 channels... I don't know. 100*16*44.1kHz make 4.41M * 16 bits per second. Its' a huge task for a 1GHz CPU with I don't know how many cycle per instruction - and how many instruction - just to play them all with little basic mixing. Yes, possible. But adding some kind of filter on all 100 channels in real time.. Hmm.

 


 

Re: Janet Jackson could crash some computers

Reply #37 –
Quote from: biloute on
100 channels... I don't know. 100*16*44.1kHz make 4.41M * 16 bits per second. Its' a huge task for a 1GHz CPU with I don't know how many cycle per instruction - and how many instruction - just to play them all with little basic mixing. Yes, possible. But adding some kind of filter on all 100 channels in real time.. Hmm.
I don't know... I don't know... Hmm :))
A cheap and boring way to deny everything, you can deny anything using the same "strategy", yawn. Of course you don't know otherwise you won't make such a weak response. Here is a review of GigaSampler 160 in November 2000:
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/nemesys-music-technology-gigasampler-160
Quote
even with my 450MHz Pentium II processor I managed about 120 simultaneous voices, with 60 percent CPU overhead, before audio break‑up occurred — though this would drop significantly with a few NFX EQs and effects enabled.
It doesn't change the fact that an average 2005 laptop can handle 2ch playback with a 2ch notch filter. Such a filter won't slow down things dozens of times. It is not something like a 1 million tap FIR filter.

Not to mention I've actually used these software before 2005. I even wrote some tutorials and of course, you "don't know".
https://web.archive.org/web/20181105190002/http://www.geocities.jp/anothergs/kXTut/GsifAsio.html
I used GigaStudio not only with native .gig files, but also with SoundFonts which did not sample at every semitone, and the SoundFont presets also contain pitch envelope, LFO and tuning, these are all filters. You "don't know", of course.

Re: Janet Jackson could crash some computers

Reply #38 –
Quote from: biloute on
That kind of Janet Jackson "patch" alone would have consumed 110% of the CPU cycles on a 2005 laptop.

Q: What is the meaning to have a preview button allowing users listening to a bunch of filters simultaneously in real time, in a software released in 1999?

A: Hmm... I don't know. No matter what you say, if I don't know, then it must be untrue ;D

X
X

It can even be used as an insertion effect, which means it is only one of the effects in the whole real-time signal chain. It is from Audition 1.5 released in 2004 which I am still using, and it can't take advantage of new SSE instructions, multi-threading and such in newer CPUs.
X

Re: Janet Jackson could crash some computers

Reply #39 –
Quote from: Octocontrabass on

The far-fetched part is a music video causing enough vibration to interfere with the drive and crash the OS. No one seems to know exactly which drive was affected, which makes it difficult to verify the claim.
If there's a loud enough sound at the same frequency as the natural resonance of the platter, I could see it actually ending with the platter destroyed.
Look up the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_(1940)#Cause_of_the_collapse

EDIT: Not saying it's actually something that happened, just that it's not that far-fetched.  Heck, I believe it's been shown that yelling at a hard drive can actually impact transfer speed due to vibrations and the precision involved in modern hard drives.

Re: Janet Jackson could crash some computers

Reply #40 –
Quote from: Brazil2 on
Janet Jackson’s song "Rhythm Nation" could crash some laptops hard drives:
Imagine what Merzbow 's Venereology could do.

Re: Janet Jackson could crash some computers

Reply #41 –
Quote from: binaryhermit on

If there's a loud enough sound at the same frequency as the natural resonance of the platter, I could see it actually ending with the platter destroyed.

You will need a tremendous energy to destroy a piece of metal like that. 2mm thick, 6.35 cm.
Maybe with a 40 tons hydraulic press you could reduce its thickness to 1.8 mm. Not much.
But to destroy it in two piece via vibrations alone you'll need something out of this world.


Quote
Look up the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge_(1940)#Cause_of_the_collapse

As it's stated in Wikipedia the Tacoma bridge collapse has nothing to do with any resonance but aeroelastic flutter.

"It is very improbable that the resonance with alternating vortices plays an important role in the oscillations of suspension bridges"

Re: Janet Jackson could crash some computers

Reply #42 –
Quote from: bennetng on

Q: What is the meaning to have a preview button allowing users listening to a bunch of filters simultaneously in real time, in a software released in 1999?

A: Hmm... I don't know. No matter what you say, if I don't know, then it must be untrue ;D


But not one 64 or 100 channels simultaneously !

I don't remember the power of PC in 2000. But it was impossible to play a simple video from a DVD (720*576 Europe or 640*480 US) without a MPEG card in a slot in 1999, on a Pentium.


Re: Janet Jackson could crash some computers

Reply #43 –
Quote from: biloute on
You will need a tremendous energy to destroy a piece of metal like that. 2mm thick, 6.35 cm.
That's if it's metal. Some drives have glass platters. (And you don't have to destroy the platters to crash the computer.)

Re: Janet Jackson could crash some computers

Reply #44 –
Quote from: Octocontrabass on
Quote from: biloute on
You will need a tremendous energy to destroy a piece of metal like that. 2mm thick, 6.35 cm.
That's if it's metal. Some drives have glass platters. (And you don't have to destroy the platters to crash the computer.)

If it's glass it feasible, but with a very high energy. You could glue a hard drive on a 100W Marshall amp speaker and put the volume knob on 11 without breaking it. Heads will scratch the surface, solders will break, but the disk will stay in one piece.


Re: Janet Jackson could crash some computers

Reply #45 –
Quote from: biloute on
Heads will scratch the surface, solders will break, but the disk will stay in one piece.
I'd guess even if the platter was still in one piece it'd effectively be non-functional aka "destroyed"

Re: Janet Jackson could crash some computers

Reply #46 –
Quote from: Bogozo on
Quote from: Brazil2 on
Janet Jackson’s song "Rhythm Nation" could crash some laptops hard drives:
Imagine what Merzbow 's Venereology could do.
Not much, with a dynamic range of 0 dB?

(... reservation: component rounds to integer, not sure if it rounds to nearest or rounds downwards)

Re: Janet Jackson could crash some computers

Reply #47 –
Quote from: biloute on
But not one 64 or 100 channels simultaneously !

I don't remember the power of PC in 2000. But it was impossible to play a simple video from a DVD (720*576 Europe or 640*480 US) without a MPEG card in a slot in 1999, on a Pentium.
Rephrasing "I don't know" to "I don't remember" doesn't change the fact a CDDA song only contains 2 channels, and doesn't change the fact a 2005 (not 1999) laptop has no issue to apply a notch filter on a CDDA song in real time.

Pentium 2 and AGP motherboards were released in 1997. Pentium 3 was released in 1999 and video cards like 3DLabs Permedia 2 with 8MB RAM I used cost no more than $150 at that time. A dedicated MPEG card for DVD decoding was not necessary even for a Pentium 2 400MHz I used.

MPEG card only makes sense for old Pentiums without MMX, and those Pentiums were released long before 1999, and before DVDs are commercially available.

If you don't know or don't remember, better do some research before posting.

Re: Janet Jackson could crash some computers

Reply #48 –
Quote from: Porcus on
Quote from: Bogozo on
Quote from: Brazil2 on
Janet Jackson’s song "Rhythm Nation" could crash some laptops hard drives:
Imagine what Merzbow 's Venereology could do.
Not much, with a dynamic range of 0 dB?

(... reservation: component rounds to integer, not sure if it rounds to nearest or rounds downwards)
I am not thinking about dynamic range, but the frequencies. If most of the frequencies are irrelevant to the said hard drive resonant frequencies, the sound could only be loud to the ears or speakers, but harmless to the harddrive. I would try some crafted signals first if I have those laptops to try.