I don't agree, if you average the input of 8 pixels, you reduce the error that you would get by sampling from one. Pretty basic statistics.
Nope. The "error" from sampling a pixel comes from the sensor being shitty, not your ability to read it. The shittiness of a sensor is directly tied to its physical size / MP.
Given sensors of 5 MP and 40 MP, of the same dimension, the 40 MP sensor will be far more susceptible to noise. Each pixel receives less than 1/8th the amount of light, and you get a shittier image as a result. (It's less than because of the overhead. Draw a square, then divide it into 9 squares. The lines are the overhead you don't get to sense light from.)
You really didn't even pay attention to the summary, let alone the article did you? The core use here is for super-sampling with dedicated hardware that produces superior 5MP & 8MP images. So... they agree with you! They have created a better sensor. It just so happens that you can also use it in non-super-sampling mode if you really really must.
Uh, what? They're not super sampling, they're down sampling. The physical sensor is always 41 MP. They can only super sample temporally, which is retarded.
They've got a 41 MP sensor. You can run at 41 MP and get the noisiest image in the world. Or you can run at a few MP and get a that 41 MP sensor's image shrunk down, or (even dumber) you can get a crop of that 41 MP sensor (YAY DIGITAL ZOOM!). Super sampling is the process of taking more samples than required for the output. The sensor is always 41 MP and always takes that many samples. Digital zoom throws most of them away. Taking a lower resolution picture just resizes the image. To super sample with a fixed sensor array like in a camera, you'd need to take multiple pictures, either building one larger image and then sizing it down (hope you have a steady hand) or taking multiple pictures over time and laying those on top of each other (hope your subject doesn't move).
The "dedicated hardware" is just some piece of shit DSP that tries to voodoo away the noise. It's gaussian blur + unsharp mask on a chip.
Um, you do realize that they're talking about interrupted sleep in the sense that you naturally awaken in the night, right? Not in the sense that an outside cause interrupts you in the middle of your sleep. You need to get some sleep so you can read properly.
Um, you do realize that normal healthy people and animals do not naturally awaken in the night, right?
This story pops up every year, and they always talk about how Ben Franklin would have 2 or 3 one hour stretches of "wakeful sleep" every night. I mean, just imagine that fucker in his old timey pajamas, holding a candle! Haha wow! Maybe we should all sleep like him.
Nope. Fuck you. Interrupted sleep is terrible. If it was good for you, parents of newborns would be so alive, cheerful, youthful, energetic, productive, etc. The reality is, of course, that they are grumpy, zombies.
According to the phone in my pocket, Google is the only choice of a search engine on that device thanks to a fundamental conflict of interest between the Android part of Google and the search part of Google.
according to the android phone in my pocket, I can still bing through the google broswer and the bing app. unless it was really google search with different skin.....oh wait.
Not only is Bing not copying search results from Google, you missed the point of my post entirely. The Verizon phone locked to Bing does not actually block Google web searches either, it's just that the default search provider (for the main search widget, for example) is locked to Bing (and on nearly every other Android phone, Google).
According to a YouTube video I stumbled upon earlier today, if you buy a Verizon Android phone, Bing will be your only choice of a search engine on that device thanks to a half-billion dollar deal MS made with Verizon.
I guess I won't be getting my next phone with Verizon...
According to the phone in my pocket, Google is the only choice of a search engine on that device thanks to a fundamental conflict of interest between the Android part of Google and the search part of Google.
Unless you're an "industry standard" (Adobe's shit, MS Office, 3DS Max), you can't charge out the ass. If it takes you 3 - 7 years to build something for a niche market of a couple hundred customers, and you try to sell it for $10,000 a pop, you're going to go bankrupt fast.
It's ongoing licensing and support contracts that make money in those small markets.
Not even close to true. I've experienced more than one situation where a company has been looking to buy software to help them with the core of what they did. They'd already developed a system that did most of the same things in house, but some of those hard to reach items were worth the money. Not only the money to buy the software, but worth the money it was going to cost to switch from their own software products to a purchased product from a third party.
I've seen the same "basic" software being sold for between $200k and $500k. The $200k was without support. The $500k was with support and source code to play with as you please (but not release to anyone else). There are a limited number of customers in this niche (probably in the low 100s), and so the developers have to charge a lot to make it worth it.
To propose that you can't sell software that does something someone NEEDS (or thinks they need) for $10k just makes me wonder if you've ever actually been a part of that type of decision making process.
It's not the 70s or 80s anymore. No one with profit in mind sells software to a limited audience. They license it and push support contracts. To point out that selling software for $X or for $10 * X sometimes occurs just makes me wonder if you've actually been paying attention the industry.
And we'd still be able to have the cluster support, scalability, lax schema, and MapReduce algorithms NoSQL currently provides, right? Sometimes those aspects are vital to the application design, and key to the system's overall performance.
MS SQL Server has great clustering support. MS SQL Server has great scalability. MS SQL Server runs just fine with a lax ("I don't know what I'm doing") schema. Why would you want MapReduce? For any complex datasets or queries, standard databases perform better.
If you spend 20 minutes to RTFM and think before you start shoveling data at the server, SQL wins every time. There are plenty of implementations of it if you don't like Microsoft. MapReduce is for people who don't know what they're doing.
Nah this is more like Intel going after AMD foundry too. kick them while they are on the ground and all that.
AMD doesn't own their fab anymore. They are still big shareholders, however. Global Foundries has been bleeding money for ages because they can't get their shit together. AMD should just dump their stock in the river and tell Intel to build them a 22 nm Piledriver chip.
Come on girl, yeah..it’s me Jackie Moon. Don’t gimme that look, that’s right, let’s get sweaty, let’s get real sweaty I’m talkin’ rainforest sweaty, I’m talkin’ swamp sweaty. Let’s fill the bathtub full of sweatalright.
Baby who wants to love me sexy uh? Baby are you ready to lick me sexy uh uh? Take off your shoes and suck me sexy Baby we’re naked and we’re humpin’ sexy
I wanna do a little thing wit choo I wanna do a little thing wit choo When I say love me you say sexy Love me ------- sexy Back it on up and show and prove That lovin’ me sexy is the thing to do Your body says love me your mind says sexy Love me sexy
Baby who wants to love me sexy uh? Baby are you ready to lick me sexy uh uh? Take off your shoes and suck me sexy Baby we’re naked and we’re humpin’ sexy
Freak of the week are you in the mood To fly to the stars with Jackie Moon When I say love me you say sexy Love me -------sexy Our Zodiac signs are compatible Clocking that ass from across the room Your body says love me your mind says sexy Love me -------sexy
Baby who wants to love me sexy uh? Baby are you ready to lick me sexy uh uh? Take off your shoes and suck me sexy Baby we’re naked and we’re humpin’ sexy
That’s right girl, let me whisper in your ear Baby wake up, we’re naked and we’re humpin’ sexy For the last fifteen minutes baby, that’s what’s been happen’ Yeah, too late now, it’s on.
Baby who wants to love me sexy uh? Baby are you ready to lick me sexy uh uh? Take off your shoes and suck me sexy Baby we’re naked and we’re humpin’ sexy Who wants to love me sexy? Is it you? Or is it you? Are you ready to lick me sexy? Is it you? Or is it you? Take off your shoes and suck me sexy Is it you? Or is it you? Baby were naked and we’re humpin’ sexy. Is it you? Or is it you?
Odd because that is exactly what I did for the first few years out of college and built a multimillion dollar company around it. Guess your theory was wrong.
He said 7zip was too slow/CPU-intensive, and got worse compression with a solid archive (85%) than his custom solution (90%). AFAICT, going non-solid and backing off the compression setting would make it even worser, right?
And W/R/T this:
If you have a lot of duplication across files so far apart that they won't share a dictionary under LZMA2, you can get some improvement by first creating a master dictionary (across all files, ignore non-solid mode or solid block limits) for those duplicated chunks and then writing down all the pointer locations for them, then sending the rest of the data to LZMA2 to be compressed.
Which would more-or-less do what he's accomplishing, with two very big differences:
Your way, every file gets compressed with LZMA2 -- forcing you to back off compression all the time to keep peak CPU usage acceptable. His custom solution uses an LZMA2 pass over selected (largest) emails, and just skips over some when it's backlogged -- the overall compression level is thus adaptive to load.
Even more significantly, your approach completely ignores that mailinator is a giant ring buffer -- as new mails come in, old ones are deleted. Since you generate a dictionary for all the mails in the directory, what happens if a burst of "v1agr4" spam was in the system then, but next a new burst of "c1ali5" spam comes in, and the "v1agr4" gets dropped? Your dictionary is now mismatched to the new data, and a new one must be generated, forcing you to reprocess all the email that's still retained. His LRU cache handles this automatically.
You can tune the performance however you want, and use whatever filters in whatever order you want.
If you would RTFA for 7Zip, you would realize that filters can have multiple output streams. You can have an "already compressed" stream that skips the LZMA2 compressor, you can have a "requires compression" stream that gets hit by LZMA2 afterward, you can have debug/control streams, whatever the fuck you want.
I simply gave a basic example of how to use 7zip with 2 encoding methods. PPMd is specifically for text and I guarantee you it's doing a much better job that this guy's custom shit. You can control performance, block size, memory constraints, whatever the fuck you want with 7zip. If you want to skip over emails below a given size for performance reasons, throw in a filter that does this. Hell, it can be adaptive and use your CPU / memory usage / estimate of desired time to complete as a parameter. If you want to have an adaptive dictionary, you can do that too. All you need to fucking do is have your filter pass out another stream. There's zero reason for a time-sensitive dictionary, however, because maintaining one is more work than simply adding on to an existing dictionary. You only get a benefit if you're dumb enough to try to rebuild the entire dictionary periodically.
One was that, LZMA, like many compression algorithms build their dictionary based on a fixed dataset. As it compresses it builds a dictionary of common sequences and improves and uses that dictionary to compress everything thereafter.
What?! LZMA keeps a dictionary of recent data, not a "fixed dataset".
Its a big, honking, several gigabyte cache of ever changing email. If I compressed a million emails, and then some user wanted to read email #502,922 — I'd have to "seek" through the preceding half-million or so to build the dictionary in order to decompress it. That's probably not feasible.'"
This is called a solid archive; what the author wants is a non-solid archive.
Seriously. 7zip. LZMA2. Whatever speed/compression setting you want (I always roll 9). Non-solid mode or a solid block size limited to whatever size you want (or whatever number of files you want, or both).
LZMA2 automagically does it's dictionary thing, and the non-solid nature does it per file, or if you limit solid block size it does it per group of n files or per group of files that fit in size x or both. If you have a lot of duplication across files so far apart that they won't share a dictionary under LZMA2, you can get some improvement by first creating a master dictionary (across all files, ignore non-solid mode or solid block limits) for those duplicated chunks and then writing down all the pointer locations for them, then sending the rest of the data to LZMA2 to be compressed.
Of course, this sort of shit is already supported by 7zip. Use PPMD or whatever method/filter you think is good for text, then send that shit to LZMA2. This story is basically "I did something needlessly complex because I didn't RTFM for 7zip".
7z a -t7z emails.7z emailDirectory\ -m0=PPMd:mem=30:o=12 -m1=LZMA2 -mt=4 -mx=9 -ms=1024f256m
Add all files from "emailDirectory\" to "emails.7z" using the PPMd compressor with 1 GB of memory required (for compressing and decompressing) and a model order of 12, then pass it through LZMA2. Try to use 4 cores, use the "ultra" compression options, and make each block contain a maximum of 1024 files and have a maximum of 256 MB.
With time, the dinosaurs might have evolved to create civilization.
They actually had an advanced civilization but it collapsed. When the time came to actually DO something about the massive rock heading for the planet, they built a trajectory altering rocket that would land on the asteroid, dig itself in, and then fire its engines to steer the asteroid the necessary fraction of a degree away to save the planet. Unfortunately they used touch screens for everything (instead of keyboards and mice) to cater to the T-Rex crowd with their short arms. When it was time to launch, they futilely pawed at their dPads but they just couldn't get any actual work done.
If the moon landings were fake, they were already a lie. So "the government has a reason to lie about the moon landing" ist equivalent to "The government has a reason to lie about a lie". This is circular reasoning. Your conclusion is equal to your precondition.
You just restated my post, but with bad grammar and spelling. Congratulations.
Why should the government have any reasons to lie about the moon landings? The astronauts were there, several times, they landed, and they came back. Nothing to lie about, as far as I can tell.
Presuming the claim of the adversaries is true - that they were faked - the government has an incentive to lie, both then and now.
Logically, you can't say "If X is true, then Y has a big reason to lie about it, so X is probably true!".
People lie about shit all the time for no reason. You don't need a reason or incentive to lie about something. The government has MORE reason to lie about the moon landings than the people claiming they're fake. Same goes for "9-11 was an inside job", chem trails, alien bases in the Mariana Trench, etc.
You can't make a decision based on intent or benefit, you have to make a decision based on evidence.
Of course, we all know the documents are real. Just like the big email scandal in 2010 (was it 2010? I'm too old to remember when shit happened.). There will be some huff and puff and then Wolf Blitzer will get bored talking about it and it will just disappear.
I do not think anyone would be surprised by the fact that a legal solution to a computer security problem is a complete failure.
You're a moron. P3P has nothing to do with security. It has to do with privacy policy.
P3P is a standard way of stating what your site's privacy policy is. Browsers can use this standard to enforce a user's privacy preferences. It has absolutely nothing to do with security.
What makes it worth 10k? How about developing software that takes a team of 5 people 3-7 years to write, for a target market of 200-500?
You and 4 of your buddies may be willing to work for the next 7 years for a possible income of (500*100 = 50,000), and you can split it between yourselves. Sounds fair. What number can I call you to schedule when you can start?
Large software projects do not turn a profit through sales. They turn a profit through licensing / support / "value add" / etc.
Unless you're an "industry standard" (Adobe's shit, MS Office, 3DS Max), you can't charge out the ass. If it takes you 3 - 7 years to build something for a niche market of a couple hundred customers, and you try to sell it for $10,000 a pop, you're going to go bankrupt fast.
It's ongoing licensing and support contracts that make money in those small markets.
Seems like a douche move rather than a fair one. A university is a place of somewhat more trust in others than the outside, because in academia you share knowledge with others, the spirit is a bit different, you don't take others' tools.
Taking advantage of that to run a test of whether it's easy to steal laptops is not entirely ethical.
Not to say that people shouldn't be careful, but exploiting them isn't cool either.
When I was in school, someone hacked my student account and framed me for downloading and piracy. I didn't have to go to court, but if I ever found out who did it, I'd gladly have caused them serious injury.
LOL. Welcome to the real world. Protip: Academia, as much as it tries not to, does lie within the realm of the real world. And anyone with a brain would be as untrusting, or more untrusting, of a university student/professor than they would of a random stranger.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't agree, if you average the input of 8 pixels, you reduce the error that you would get by sampling from one. Pretty basic statistics.
Nope.
The "error" from sampling a pixel comes from the sensor being shitty, not your ability to read it.
The shittiness of a sensor is directly tied to its physical size / MP.
Given sensors of 5 MP and 40 MP, of the same dimension, the 40 MP sensor will be far more susceptible to noise. Each pixel receives less than 1/8th the amount of light, and you get a shittier image as a result. (It's less than because of the overhead. Draw a square, then divide it into 9 squares. The lines are the overhead you don't get to sense light from.)
You really didn't even pay attention to the summary, let alone the article did you? The core use here is for super-sampling with dedicated hardware that produces superior 5MP & 8MP images. So... they agree with you! They have created a better sensor. It just so happens that you can also use it in non-super-sampling mode if you really really must.
Uh, what?
They're not super sampling, they're down sampling. The physical sensor is always 41 MP. They can only super sample temporally, which is retarded.
They've got a 41 MP sensor. You can run at 41 MP and get the noisiest image in the world. Or you can run at a few MP and get a that 41 MP sensor's image shrunk down, or (even dumber) you can get a crop of that 41 MP sensor (YAY DIGITAL ZOOM!). Super sampling is the process of taking more samples than required for the output. The sensor is always 41 MP and always takes that many samples. Digital zoom throws most of them away. Taking a lower resolution picture just resizes the image. To super sample with a fixed sensor array like in a camera, you'd need to take multiple pictures, either building one larger image and then sizing it down (hope you have a steady hand) or taking multiple pictures over time and laying those on top of each other (hope your subject doesn't move).
The "dedicated hardware" is just some piece of shit DSP that tries to voodoo away the noise. It's gaussian blur + unsharp mask on a chip.
Yes, Sheldon...sarcasm.
Bazinga.
Um, you do realize that they're talking about interrupted sleep in the sense that you naturally awaken in the night, right? Not in the sense that an outside cause interrupts you in the middle of your sleep. You need to get some sleep so you can read properly.
Um, you do realize that normal healthy people and animals do not naturally awaken in the night, right?
This story pops up every year, and they always talk about how Ben Franklin would have 2 or 3 one hour stretches of "wakeful sleep" every night. I mean, just imagine that fucker in his old timey pajamas, holding a candle! Haha wow! Maybe we should all sleep like him.
Nope. Fuck you. Interrupted sleep is terrible. If it was good for you, parents of newborns would be so alive, cheerful, youthful, energetic, productive, etc.
The reality is, of course, that they are grumpy, zombies.
According to the phone in my pocket, Google is the only choice of a search engine on that device thanks to a fundamental conflict of interest between the Android part of Google and the search part of Google.
according to the android phone in my pocket, I can still bing through the google broswer and the bing app. unless it was really google search with different skin.....oh wait.
Not only is Bing not copying search results from Google, you missed the point of my post entirely.
The Verizon phone locked to Bing does not actually block Google web searches either, it's just that the default search provider (for the main search widget, for example) is locked to Bing (and on nearly every other Android phone, Google).
According to a YouTube video I stumbled upon earlier today, if you buy a Verizon Android phone, Bing will be your only choice of a search engine on that device thanks to a half-billion dollar deal MS made with Verizon.
I guess I won't be getting my next phone with Verizon...
According to the phone in my pocket, Google is the only choice of a search engine on that device thanks to a fundamental conflict of interest between the Android part of Google and the search part of Google.
What's your point?
Unless you're an "industry standard" (Adobe's shit, MS Office, 3DS Max), you can't charge out the ass.
If it takes you 3 - 7 years to build something for a niche market of a couple hundred customers, and you try to sell it for $10,000 a pop, you're going to go bankrupt fast.
It's ongoing licensing and support contracts that make money in those small markets.
Not even close to true. I've experienced more than one situation where a company has been looking to buy software to help them with the core of what they did. They'd already developed a system that did most of the same things in house, but some of those hard to reach items were worth the money. Not only the money to buy the software, but worth the money it was going to cost to switch from their own software products to a purchased product from a third party.
I've seen the same "basic" software being sold for between $200k and $500k. The $200k was without support. The $500k was with support and source code to play with as you please (but not release to anyone else). There are a limited number of customers in this niche (probably in the low 100s), and so the developers have to charge a lot to make it worth it.
To propose that you can't sell software that does something someone NEEDS (or thinks they need) for $10k just makes me wonder if you've ever actually been a part of that type of decision making process.
It's not the 70s or 80s anymore. No one with profit in mind sells software to a limited audience. They license it and push support contracts.
To point out that selling software for $X or for $10 * X sometimes occurs just makes me wonder if you've actually been paying attention the industry.
300 - 400%? Lol you're doing it wrong.
Billions of rows? So what? Easily handled by SQL.
And we'd still be able to have the cluster support, scalability, lax schema, and MapReduce algorithms NoSQL currently provides, right? Sometimes those aspects are vital to the application design, and key to the system's overall performance.
MS SQL Server has great clustering support.
MS SQL Server has great scalability.
MS SQL Server runs just fine with a lax ("I don't know what I'm doing") schema.
Why would you want MapReduce? For any complex datasets or queries, standard databases perform better.
If you spend 20 minutes to RTFM and think before you start shoveling data at the server, SQL wins every time. There are plenty of implementations of it if you don't like Microsoft. MapReduce is for people who don't know what they're doing.
Nah this is more like Intel going after AMD foundry too. kick them while they are on the ground and all that.
AMD doesn't own their fab anymore. They are still big shareholders, however.
Global Foundries has been bleeding money for ages because they can't get their shit together. AMD should just dump their stock in the river and tell Intel to build them a 22 nm Piledriver chip.
Come on girl, yeah..it’s me Jackie Moon.
Don’t gimme that look, that’s right, let’s get sweaty, let’s get real sweaty
I’m talkin’ rainforest sweaty, I’m talkin’ swamp sweaty.
Let’s fill the bathtub full of sweatalright.
Baby who wants to love me sexy uh?
Baby are you ready to lick me sexy uh uh?
Take off your shoes and suck me sexy
Baby we’re naked and we’re humpin’ sexy
I wanna do a little thing wit choo
I wanna do a little thing wit choo
When I say love me you say sexy
Love me ------- sexy
Back it on up and show and prove
That lovin’ me sexy is the thing to do
Your body says love me your mind says sexy
Love me sexy
Baby who wants to love me sexy uh?
Baby are you ready to lick me sexy uh uh?
Take off your shoes and suck me sexy
Baby we’re naked and we’re humpin’ sexy
Freak of the week are you in the mood
To fly to the stars with Jackie Moon
When I say love me you say sexy
Love me -------sexy
Our Zodiac signs are compatible
Clocking that ass from across the room
Your body says love me your mind says sexy
Love me -------sexy
Baby who wants to love me sexy uh?
Baby are you ready to lick me sexy uh uh?
Take off your shoes and suck me sexy
Baby we’re naked and we’re humpin’ sexy
That’s right girl, let me whisper in your ear
Baby wake up, we’re naked and we’re humpin’ sexy
For the last fifteen minutes baby, that’s what’s been happen’
Yeah, too late now, it’s on.
Baby who wants to love me sexy uh?
Baby are you ready to lick me sexy uh uh?
Take off your shoes and suck me sexy
Baby we’re naked and we’re humpin’ sexy
Who wants to love me sexy?
Is it you? Or is it you?
Are you ready to lick me sexy?
Is it you? Or is it you?
Take off your shoes and suck me sexy
Is it you? Or is it you?
Baby were naked and we’re humpin’ sexy.
Is it you? Or is it you?
Odd because that is exactly what I did for the first few years out of college and built a multimillion dollar company around it. Guess your theory was wrong.
Odd because that is exactly what you didn't do.
Did you RTFA?
He said 7zip was too slow/CPU-intensive, and got worse compression with a solid archive (85%) than his custom solution (90%). AFAICT, going non-solid and backing off the compression setting would make it even worser, right?
And W/R/T this:
If you have a lot of duplication across files so far apart that they won't share a dictionary under LZMA2, you can get some improvement by first creating a master dictionary (across all files, ignore non-solid mode or solid block limits) for those duplicated chunks and then writing down all the pointer locations for them, then sending the rest of the data to LZMA2 to be compressed.
Which would more-or-less do what he's accomplishing, with two very big differences:
You can tune the performance however you want, and use whatever filters in whatever order you want.
If you would RTFA for 7Zip, you would realize that filters can have multiple output streams. You can have an "already compressed" stream that skips the LZMA2 compressor, you can have a "requires compression" stream that gets hit by LZMA2 afterward, you can have debug/control streams, whatever the fuck you want.
I simply gave a basic example of how to use 7zip with 2 encoding methods. PPMd is specifically for text and I guarantee you it's doing a much better job that this guy's custom shit. You can control performance, block size, memory constraints, whatever the fuck you want with 7zip. If you want to skip over emails below a given size for performance reasons, throw in a filter that does this. Hell, it can be adaptive and use your CPU / memory usage / estimate of desired time to complete as a parameter. If you want to have an adaptive dictionary, you can do that too. All you need to fucking do is have your filter pass out another stream. There's zero reason for a time-sensitive dictionary, however, because maintaining one is more work than simply adding on to an existing dictionary. You only get a benefit if you're dumb enough to try to rebuild the entire dictionary periodically.
One was that, LZMA, like many compression algorithms build their dictionary based on a fixed dataset. As it compresses it builds a dictionary of common sequences and improves and uses that dictionary to compress everything thereafter.
What?! LZMA keeps a dictionary of recent data, not a "fixed dataset".
Its a big, honking, several gigabyte cache of ever changing email. If I compressed a million emails, and then some user wanted to read email #502,922 — I'd have to "seek" through the preceding half-million or so to build the dictionary in order to decompress it. That's probably not feasible.'"
This is called a solid archive; what the author wants is a non-solid archive.
Seriously.
7zip. LZMA2. Whatever speed/compression setting you want (I always roll 9). Non-solid mode or a solid block size limited to whatever size you want (or whatever number of files you want, or both).
LZMA2 automagically does it's dictionary thing, and the non-solid nature does it per file, or if you limit solid block size it does it per group of n files or per group of files that fit in size x or both. If you have a lot of duplication across files so far apart that they won't share a dictionary under LZMA2, you can get some improvement by first creating a master dictionary (across all files, ignore non-solid mode or solid block limits) for those duplicated chunks and then writing down all the pointer locations for them, then sending the rest of the data to LZMA2 to be compressed.
Of course, this sort of shit is already supported by 7zip. Use PPMD or whatever method/filter you think is good for text, then send that shit to LZMA2.
This story is basically "I did something needlessly complex because I didn't RTFM for 7zip".
7z a -t7z emails.7z emailDirectory\ -m0=PPMd:mem=30:o=12 -m1=LZMA2 -mt=4 -mx=9 -ms=1024f256m
Add all files from "emailDirectory\" to "emails.7z" using the PPMd compressor with 1 GB of memory required (for compressing and decompressing) and a model order of 12, then pass it through LZMA2. Try to use 4 cores, use the "ultra" compression options, and make each block contain a maximum of 1024 files and have a maximum of 256 MB.
It's just Unity100 and his alts modbombing me because I always call him out on his bullshit.
Space Age 2: Electric Boogaloo.
With time, the dinosaurs might have evolved to create civilization.
They actually had an advanced civilization but it collapsed. When the time came to actually DO something about the massive rock heading for the planet, they built a trajectory altering rocket that would land on the asteroid, dig itself in, and then fire its engines to steer the asteroid the necessary fraction of a degree away to save the planet.
Unfortunately they used touch screens for everything (instead of keyboards and mice) to cater to the T-Rex crowd with their short arms. When it was time to launch, they futilely pawed at their dPads but they just couldn't get any actual work done.
If the moon landings were fake, they were already a lie. So "the government has a reason to lie about the moon landing" ist equivalent to "The government has a reason to lie about a lie". This is circular reasoning. Your conclusion is equal to your precondition.
You just restated my post, but with bad grammar and spelling.
Congratulations.
Why should the government have any reasons to lie about the moon landings? The astronauts were there, several times, they landed, and they came back. Nothing to lie about, as far as I can tell.
Presuming the claim of the adversaries is true - that they were faked - the government has an incentive to lie, both then and now.
Logically, you can't say "If X is true, then Y has a big reason to lie about it, so X is probably true!".
Who has MORE reason to lie about this?
People lie about shit all the time for no reason. You don't need a reason or incentive to lie about something.
The government has MORE reason to lie about the moon landings than the people claiming they're fake.
Same goes for "9-11 was an inside job", chem trails, alien bases in the Mariana Trench, etc.
You can't make a decision based on intent or benefit, you have to make a decision based on evidence.
Of course, we all know the documents are real. Just like the big email scandal in 2010 (was it 2010? I'm too old to remember when shit happened.).
There will be some huff and puff and then Wolf Blitzer will get bored talking about it and it will just disappear.
I do not think anyone would be surprised by the fact that a legal solution to a computer security problem is a complete failure.
You're a moron. P3P has nothing to do with security. It has to do with privacy policy.
P3P is a standard way of stating what your site's privacy policy is. Browsers can use this standard to enforce a user's privacy preferences.
It has absolutely nothing to do with security.
What makes it worth 10k? How about developing software that takes a team of 5 people 3-7 years to write, for a target market of 200-500?
You and 4 of your buddies may be willing to work for the next 7 years for a possible income of (500*100 = 50,000), and you can split it between yourselves. Sounds fair. What number can I call you to schedule when you can start?
Large software projects do not turn a profit through sales.
They turn a profit through licensing / support / "value add" / etc.
Unless you're an "industry standard" (Adobe's shit, MS Office, 3DS Max), you can't charge out the ass.
If it takes you 3 - 7 years to build something for a niche market of a couple hundred customers, and you try to sell it for $10,000 a pop, you're going to go bankrupt fast.
It's ongoing licensing and support contracts that make money in those small markets.
Seems like a douche move rather than a fair one. A university is a place of somewhat more trust in others than the outside, because in academia you share knowledge with others, the spirit is a bit different, you don't take others' tools.
Taking advantage of that to run a test of whether it's easy to steal laptops is not entirely ethical.
Not to say that people shouldn't be careful, but exploiting them isn't cool either.
When I was in school, someone hacked my student account and framed me for downloading and piracy. I didn't have to go to court, but if I ever found out who did it, I'd gladly have caused them serious injury.
LOL.
Welcome to the real world. Protip: Academia, as much as it tries not to, does lie within the realm of the real world.
And anyone with a brain would be as untrusting, or more untrusting, of a university student/professor than they would of a random stranger.
Shoot, all anyone would need to get into my dad's laptop is his current dog's name. (Useful for my mom, but not exactly top notch security.)
One of the many reasons I prefer dogs over cats.
Dogs can learn their name.