I've muddied my explanation however hopefully the point is clear [it's possible to compress 50% of the files to smaller than the starting length at the expense of the other 50% being larger].
"
I reckon it's actually *always* possible to win $5000, no matter what file is generated, providing it is of sufficient length.
"
Nope,
If I have N bits of file. There are 2^N possible files that can be created. There is no way you can always have a compressed file of length 2^(N-1) in length simply because you only have 2^(N-1) distinct possibilities leaving 2^(N-1) files untouched.
However, I intend to compress 2^(N-1) files into a length of 2^(N-1) and the other 2^(N-1) files into a length > 2^N. Since there's a 2^-1 chance of getting each file I expect an average return of $2400. (2^-1 * $prize - $entry).
Ok, I've done some information theory, I know it's impossible to create a perfect compressor. Boxes arguments and all that.
However, to make money, you don't have to.
All that is required is a compresser that saves 1 bit on better than 1 in 50 attempts.
For example, if we can save 1 bit on 50% of the attempts - even if the other 50% of the attempts results it catasrohpically large files. On average we've lost the compression war.
However, on 100 attempts, we've paid $100 x 100 or $10000 but we've won on half of these - netting us $250000 or a cool $240000 profit.
Lots of mail increases producivity
on
Buried in email?
·
· Score: 3
Email massively improves productivity.
Most middle managers spend all day emailling their friends and contracting email viruses rather than irritating the socks off the engineers in extremely long boring meetings.
Anything that takes up manager time is bound to improved productivity.
Surely, if you want a piece of specialised software then you pay someone to write it.
With free software, it's free because there are no restrictions on what you can do with it and no restrictions on you selling it or giving it away or enhancing it.
If there is no freely available software for you to download then you can
a: write it yourself
b: modify another program until it does what you want yourself
c: Pay someone else to do (a) or (b) for you.
Free software companies for specialised software make money writing / modifying one off pieces of software for larger companies / goverment agencies. Repeat business comes from doing a good job and having more people want modifications written. This will gradually become more pervasive as the amount of code you can reuse in an application increases on the condition that you GPL the code.
In your case, the government wishes to buy a piece of software to manage dog registrations. There isn't one to buy.
Joe Bloggs software consultancy gives a figure for the cost of developing the software - $X. He writes the software and gives support to the local government so if a bug is found he fixes it. Meanwhile he realeases the source code under GPL for anyone who wants to use it.
Joe Bloggs has just cut off a revenue stream here - he can't resell the software for the same price simply by recompiling it for the next version of Windows - the client can now do that themselves. If the client gets pissed off with Joe Bloggs they can transfer the support to someone else - meaning Joe Bloggs doesn't get the vital lock in which is a brilliant cash cow. This will increase the initial cost of developing the software.
However, now the Government Cat registration agency is jealous of the dog agencys computerized system and wishes to buy a matching one. They download the source and have a play - discover it isn't quite what they want and pay Joe Bloggs software to modify it.
Free software changes the model from paying for a usage right on software, to paying people to actually write the software. It's like paying people to build roads instead of building a road and charging people to drive over it.
"
Security holes are only an issue because of the damn hackers. Hacker: 'Hey, we're helping you exposing security holes so you can fix them'. Dude: 'And why should we fix the holes?.' Hacker: 'Um uh. To protect you from us.' That's great isn't it. WITHOUT THE HACKERS THIS WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE.
"
If everyone was nice, noone would have to avoid nasty people.
Security holes are only an issue if they can be discovered by someone with malicious intent. If someone without malicious intent discovers security holes and publicises them to get them fixed this is not a bad thing.
Reasons to break encryption on copyrighted materials :
To convert it to another format to use on a different playback media
[e.g. to decrypt audio to allow me to burn a CD to play in my discman]
[e.g. to covert a DVD to VHS to allow me to watch it on the upstairs TV]
[e.g. to view an e-book on my palm pilot]
To generate an archive
[e.g. to convert all my e-books to plain text so I can search them automatically]
[e.g. to extract the lyrics from my online music collection to allow me to search them]
To write my own viewer
[e.g. to write a DVD decoder that allows me to fastforward through the adverts]
[e.g. to rewrite an audio player to do soundprocessing on the way to my soundcard to fake surround sound / EQ the frequency response for my speakers]
To allow me to quote from a work
[e.g. To produce a comparison of two e-books by quoting the relevant passages]
To allow me to view a work as I choose
[e.g. To allow me to snapshot individual frames of a cartoon to find out how it was drawn.]
To make a security copy of the media
[e.g. to copy a CD incase of theft of the original]
To copy off a friend to replace a destroyed copy
[e.g. to replace a CD with a CDR burnt from a friend who owns the same album after the dog ate mine]
The story is
EU makes it legal for copyright holders to enforce arbitrary restrictions on what you are allowed to do with media you paid for.
The government wants to routinely intercept all communications. By forcing them to break into your house to install keyloggers you vastly increase the cost of spying to the point where it isn't economic to spy on everyone.
Keyloggers are still hassle though - especially if people use multiple computers / change keyboards etc.
I accept that in general increased demand will drive increased supply or increased prices.
[ with the excpetion of california and electricity]
I don't accept that increased availability increases demand.
As for the 'witch-hunt' situation, it's a case of anyone who is supsected producing / viewing kiddie porn is automatically considered a sex-offender who must be executed now. In many US states the mere accusation will effectively end the career of the accused - just like in the UK with witches, accusation of being a witch resulted in death by [drowning/fire].
"
If you're thinking, 'well, lets just put the signal generators at both sides' that won't get you anywhere, because you still have to synchronize the two, which will be off by a factor depending on the length of electrical path. Either way you cut it, I don't think you can do it.
"
You can send the signal to the far away signal before the near one.
But hey - you've missed the point anyway. The point is now information is transferred from the first LED to the last LED. It fires at it's given time and is not dependent on information travelling from the first LED.
I think it's only the phase velocity that is reversed - not the group velocity. Since the phase velocity is frequently above the speed of light anyway I can't see this being a problem.
It may change it's energy / frequency but not it's velocity.
From the point of view of a stationary observer on the event horizon of a black hole all infalling light is blue shifted an infinite amount - serious suntan lotion required. From the point of view of an observer at infinity looking at a light source on the event horizon it's inifintely redshifted - the light has no energy.
However, it's still travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum in both cases.
You can bend space, you can warp time, you can't change the speed of light.
"
on which the university has applied for a patent.
"
This is physics, the patent will cover the material in question.
If it was software, it would cover the concept of negative refractive index.
In the case of physics, other people are free to figure out how to make other materials with a negative refractive index, with one click - noone is allowed to figure out an alternate implementation.
End users shouldn't install software in a corporate setting. End users tend to install melissa.
However, the people doing upgrades might like the fact they can upgrade every machine with software package foo by running a script that will automatically install it on all the machines rather than clicking n times per machine.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I meant to say length N-1, and length N.
I've muddied my explanation however hopefully the point is clear [it's possible to compress 50% of the files to smaller than the starting length at the expense of the other 50% being larger].
"
I reckon it's actually *always* possible to win $5000, no matter what file is generated, providing it is of sufficient length.
"
Nope,
If I have N bits of file. There are 2^N possible files that can be created. There is no way you can always have a compressed file of length 2^(N-1) in length simply because you only have 2^(N-1) distinct possibilities leaving 2^(N-1) files untouched.
However, I intend to compress 2^(N-1) files into a length of 2^(N-1) and the other 2^(N-1) files into a length > 2^N. Since there's a 2^-1 chance of getting each file I expect an average return of $2400. (2^-1 * $prize - $entry).
Ok, I've done some information theory, I know it's impossible to create a perfect compressor. Boxes arguments and all that.
However, to make money, you don't have to.
All that is required is a compresser that saves 1 bit on better than 1 in 50 attempts.
For example, if we can save 1 bit on 50% of the attempts - even if the other 50% of the attempts results it catasrohpically large files. On average we've lost the compression war.
However, on 100 attempts, we've paid $100 x 100 or $10000 but we've won on half of these - netting us $250000 or a cool $240000 profit.
Anyone want to demonstrate this?
www.quietpc.co.uk
Spend some money and get a silent machine.
Email massively improves productivity.
Most middle managers spend all day emailling their friends and contracting email viruses rather than irritating the socks off the engineers in extremely long boring meetings.
Anything that takes up manager time is bound to improved productivity.
"
The fact that millions of ordinary Americans engage in this theft is no excuse - ethically and legally, it is wrong.
"
It is not theft.
Theft is the act of taking property away from someone else without payment.
The music has not been taken - it has been duplicated.
Legally wrong I will grant you.
Ethically, much more debatable. Copyright is a recent invention - two hundred years ago it would have been ethically and morally right.
"
That doesn't change the fact that it is theft. Taking something without permission is still illegal.
"
So if I meet you in the street and you light my cigarette, I've stolen the fire from match manufacturers?
I wouldn't have thought so.
Lionhead studios is UK based and there are no software patents in the UK.
Surely, if you want a piece of specialised software then you pay someone to write it.
With free software, it's free because there are no restrictions on what you can do with it and no restrictions on you selling it or giving it away or enhancing it.
If there is no freely available software for you to download then you can
a: write it yourself
b: modify another program until it does what you want yourself
c: Pay someone else to do (a) or (b) for you.
Free software companies for specialised software make money writing / modifying one off pieces of software for larger companies / goverment agencies. Repeat business comes from doing a good job and having more people want modifications written. This will gradually become more pervasive as the amount of code you can reuse in an application increases on the condition that you GPL the code.
In your case, the government wishes to buy a piece of software to manage dog registrations. There isn't one to buy.
Joe Bloggs software consultancy gives a figure for the cost of developing the software - $X. He writes the software and gives support to the local government so if a bug is found he fixes it. Meanwhile he realeases the source code under GPL for anyone who wants to use it.
Joe Bloggs has just cut off a revenue stream here - he can't resell the software for the same price simply by recompiling it for the next version of Windows - the client can now do that themselves. If the client gets pissed off with Joe Bloggs they can transfer the support to someone else - meaning Joe Bloggs doesn't get the vital lock in which is a brilliant cash cow. This will increase the initial cost of developing the software.
However, now the Government Cat registration agency is jealous of the dog agencys computerized system and wishes to buy a matching one. They download the source and have a play - discover it isn't quite what they want and pay Joe Bloggs software to modify it.
Free software changes the model from paying for a usage right on software, to paying people to actually write the software. It's like paying people to build roads instead of building a road and charging people to drive over it.
"
Security holes are only an issue because of the damn hackers. Hacker: 'Hey, we're helping you exposing security holes so you can fix them'. Dude: 'And why should we fix the holes?.' Hacker: 'Um uh. To protect you from us.' That's great isn't it. WITHOUT THE HACKERS THIS WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE.
"
If everyone was nice, noone would have to avoid nasty people.
Security holes are only an issue if they can be discovered by someone with malicious intent. If someone without malicious intent discovers security holes and publicises them to get them fixed this is not a bad thing.
I'd say marketing is it's biggest triumph.
"
Despite what RMS or other free-software types belive, properitary pay-for-use software creates demand, will help fills important software niches.
"
Surely demand creates a market into which software can be sold or given away.
How precisely does the existance of pay-for software increase demand more than free software?
But now when you buy porn, your credit card statement says
Yahoo.com $20.00
instead of the incriminating
hotteensluts.com $20.00
Your nosy other half no longer knows your buying porn unless she discovers the stash under the desk at the office.
Reasons to break encryption on copyrighted materials :
To convert it to another format to use on a different playback media
[e.g. to decrypt audio to allow me to burn a CD to play in my discman]
[e.g. to covert a DVD to VHS to allow me to watch it on the upstairs TV]
[e.g. to view an e-book on my palm pilot]
To generate an archive
[e.g. to convert all my e-books to plain text so I can search them automatically]
[e.g. to extract the lyrics from my online music collection to allow me to search them]
To write my own viewer
[e.g. to write a DVD decoder that allows me to fastforward through the adverts]
[e.g. to rewrite an audio player to do soundprocessing on the way to my soundcard to fake surround sound / EQ the frequency response for my speakers]
To allow me to quote from a work
[e.g. To produce a comparison of two e-books by quoting the relevant passages]
To allow me to view a work as I choose
[e.g. To allow me to snapshot individual frames of a cartoon to find out how it was drawn.]
To make a security copy of the media
[e.g. to copy a CD incase of theft of the original]
To copy off a friend to replace a destroyed copy
[e.g. to replace a CD with a CDR burnt from a friend who owns the same album after the dog ate mine]
The story is
EU makes it legal for copyright holders to enforce arbitrary restrictions on what you are allowed to do with media you paid for.
Thats the point of encryption.
The government wants to routinely intercept all communications. By forcing them to break into your house to install keyloggers you vastly increase the cost of spying to the point where it isn't economic to spy on everyone.
Keyloggers are still hassle though - especially if people use multiple computers / change keyboards etc.
what's wrong with billyg@microsoft.com?
"
The problem with that logic is that pedophiles will always want more. (That's the nature of addiction).
"
Surely this doesn't follow?
Pedophiles are no more addicted to sex than homosexuals, hetero-sexuals, bi-sexuals, catholics, mormons and linux developers.
The problem here is you've equated :
Someone who finds children sexually exciting = additcted child pornographer = regular child rapist = satan
I accept that in general increased demand will drive increased supply or increased prices.
[ with the excpetion of california and electricity]
I don't accept that increased availability increases demand.
As for the 'witch-hunt' situation, it's a case of anyone who is supsected producing / viewing kiddie porn is automatically considered a sex-offender who must be executed now. In many US states the mere accusation will effectively end the career of the accused - just like in the UK with witches, accusation of being a witch resulted in death by [drowning/fire].
"
If you're thinking, 'well, lets just put the signal generators at both sides' that won't get you anywhere, because you still have to synchronize the two, which will be off by a factor depending on the length of electrical path. Either way you cut it, I don't think you can do it.
"
You can send the signal to the far away signal before the near one.
But hey - you've missed the point anyway. The point is now information is transferred from the first LED to the last LED. It fires at it's given time and is not dependent on information travelling from the first LED.
setend PREREQUISTIE=understand_difference_between_phase_a nd_group_velocity_(2nd_year_physics)
I think it's only the phase velocity that is reversed - not the group velocity. Since the phase velocity is frequently above the speed of light anyway I can't see this being a problem.
Or red shift if you're travelling away from the officer who then radios his mate to pull you off.
The velocity of light in a vacuum is fixed.
It may change it's energy / frequency but not it's velocity.
From the point of view of a stationary observer on the event horizon of a black hole all infalling light is blue shifted an infinite amount - serious suntan lotion required. From the point of view of an observer at infinity looking at a light source on the event horizon it's inifintely redshifted - the light has no energy.
However, it's still travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum in both cases.
You can bend space, you can warp time, you can't change the speed of light.
"
on which the university has applied for a patent.
"
This is physics, the patent will cover the material in question.
If it was software, it would cover the concept of negative refractive index.
In the case of physics, other people are free to figure out how to make other materials with a negative refractive index, with one click - noone is allowed to figure out an alternate implementation.
"rpm -Uvh"
Thats not for end users.
End users shouldn't install software in a corporate setting. End users tend to install melissa.
However, the people doing upgrades might like the fact they can upgrade every machine with software package foo by running a script that will automatically install it on all the machines rather than clicking n times per machine.
You need to fill hotmail accounts with spam?
Mine does it entirely on it's own, even without ever using the address.