Sloot compression, as he described it, is a very lossy compression. You're correct in your cat example -- the exact details of the cat would be information that was lost in the "compression".
I'm not so quick to dismiss the notion as beyond what "entropy" would allow, though, for two reasons.
First, as with any lossy compression, you probably get to choose between fidelity of reproduction and storage size, thus staying well with the laws of information theory.
Second, the size of the interpreter is a dead giveaway. In a sense, what it's doing is shifting a lot of the bulk of the data from the data file to the interpreter. There are numerous examples of extreme "compression" rates being achieved this way, because you aren't compressing things so much as not including them in the data to begin with and relying on the interpreter to put them back.
This sort of scheme would not be generalizable. It could work extremely well for specific things (like movies, perhaps), but would not work at all for others (like music, maybe). Movies are ripe for this kind of thing, too, as the vast majority of information in a given movie is very predictable and consistent from movie to movie. You could store those things in a "dictionary" and look them up on playback rather than actually encoding them in the movie file.
private industry with a profit motive will always be more efficient than government bureaucrats with no motive at all for efficiency and service.
I keep hearing this argument, but there are precious few real world examples of it actually being true.
Unless you define "efficient' the same way that for-profit companies do, meaning "high return on investment". Which is a rather different thing than what normal people think it means.
I wouldn't mind a really good remake of a classic movie. (Forbidden Planet anyone?) Or a good prequel.
Me either. Or even a mediocre remake. The problem is, I can't think of a remake in the last decade or two that can even rise to the level of "mediocre".
I have a rule of thumb that has yet to fail me -- if the movie has a major marketing effort behind it, the movie is more likely than not to be bad and I'm very likely to give it a pass.
Depends on what you're rating. "Asses in seats" is the only thing that matters if you're rating a movie as a business venture. If, however, you want to know whether or not you personally would enjoy the movie, then asses in seats means literally nothing.
Depends on the human. Does the human work in the financial industry? Then I trust their advice about what I should do with my money about as much as I trust one of their computers. Not at all.
I would never use voicemail for something important. If it's important, and they don't pick up my call, then I text them and tell them "call me, it's important".
I've honestly never heard of "visual voicemail" until just now. You need to use an app for it? So I assume that it uses your data allowance? If the concern is that these bastards are costing you money, then how does that solve anything?
Outside of business use, do people really still use voicemail? I know that I ignore mine (mostly because it's all but guaranteed to be a telemarketer).
I guess if telemarketers get their way, the few remaining voicemail users will have to abandon it as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Sloot compression, as he described it, is a very lossy compression. You're correct in your cat example -- the exact details of the cat would be information that was lost in the "compression".
I'm not so quick to dismiss the notion as beyond what "entropy" would allow, though, for two reasons.
First, as with any lossy compression, you probably get to choose between fidelity of reproduction and storage size, thus staying well with the laws of information theory.
Second, the size of the interpreter is a dead giveaway. In a sense, what it's doing is shifting a lot of the bulk of the data from the data file to the interpreter. There are numerous examples of extreme "compression" rates being achieved this way, because you aren't compressing things so much as not including them in the data to begin with and relying on the interpreter to put them back.
This sort of scheme would not be generalizable. It could work extremely well for specific things (like movies, perhaps), but would not work at all for others (like music, maybe). Movies are ripe for this kind of thing, too, as the vast majority of information in a given movie is very predictable and consistent from movie to movie. You could store those things in a "dictionary" and look them up on playback rather than actually encoding them in the movie file.
Funny, there's a Radio Shack operating near me right now. Most of them are gone, but not all.
So now they're considering making our laptops available for TSA baggage screeners to steal them. Nice.
Seriously, if things are so bad that we have to do this sort of thing, then it's clearly too dangerous to fly at all.
A lot of people hate on Uber here, largely because Uber is a different form of organization due to being a different form of service provider
If it were that simple, then why isn't there a similar level of hatred toward the likes of Lyft?
Based on what I've read here, the hatred toward Uber is primarily rooted in the fact that the company behaves terribly.
Many people, like myself, cannot tolerate contacts.
It's a start. Let's hope the firings continue until the entire horrible company goes out of business.
Now, isn't that an indication that the health care market may be in need of deregulation?
Just the opposite.
No one is forced to buy the product.
This is demonstrably untrue, which is why the company can charge a criminal amount of money for it.
private industry with a profit motive will always be more efficient than government bureaucrats with no motive at all for efficiency and service.
I keep hearing this argument, but there are precious few real world examples of it actually being true.
Unless you define "efficient' the same way that for-profit companies do, meaning "high return on investment". Which is a rather different thing than what normal people think it means.
I wouldn't mind a really good remake of a classic movie. (Forbidden Planet anyone?) Or a good prequel.
Me either. Or even a mediocre remake. The problem is, I can't think of a remake in the last decade or two that can even rise to the level of "mediocre".
I have a rule of thumb that has yet to fail me -- if the movie has a major marketing effort behind it, the movie is more likely than not to be bad and I'm very likely to give it a pass.
Depends on what you're rating. "Asses in seats" is the only thing that matters if you're rating a movie as a business venture. If, however, you want to know whether or not you personally would enjoy the movie, then asses in seats means literally nothing.
Depends on the human. Does the human work in the financial industry? Then I trust their advice about what I should do with my money about as much as I trust one of their computers. Not at all.
It's not the tech that I don't trust, it's the banks. The best tech in the world won't make the banks more ethical.
Does it matter? They're both of equal value.
Indeed. The problem with this is not a partisan thing. It's a telemarketer thing.
I would never use voicemail for something important. If it's important, and they don't pick up my call, then I text them and tell them "call me, it's important".
What's wrong with texting?
I seriously doubt any of the carriers would be willing to forgo the revenue stream they'll get from the spammers.
Just make sure you're recording the ones that are doing this, not the ones the ads are supporting.
It's a distinction without a difference.
Politicians... you're wasting your fucking time.
No, they're wasting your time.
Visual voicemail solved this 10 years ago.
I've honestly never heard of "visual voicemail" until just now. You need to use an app for it? So I assume that it uses your data allowance? If the concern is that these bastards are costing you money, then how does that solve anything?
You're referring to the famed "freedom of speech", am I right?
Freedom of speech means that people have the freedom to tell you to shut up. They just don't have the right to force you to shut up.
Outside of business use, do people really still use voicemail? I know that I ignore mine (mostly because it's all but guaranteed to be a telemarketer).
I guess if telemarketers get their way, the few remaining voicemail users will have to abandon it as well.
This has nothing to do with "strengthening the Facebook community" and everything to do with bringing more customers to advertisers.
Connecting advertisers to Facebookers is strengthening the Facebook community. What else is Facebook for if not that?