This is the obvious first idea, but it has a problem. Well, several problems. Main problem is that in order for everyone to have a unique file, everyone has to flip some bits. So when you download a song from the network, it has already had some bits flipped. And then your client clips some more bits. And then someone downloads from you, and flips yet more bits. After the file has been around the network a few times, it's going to sound like utter crap.
Now, if somebody could do some nifty MP3 analysis app that alters the MP3 in some reversible but randomizable fashion, then your client could first remove the watermark (hashmark?), then apply a new random one. All the MD5 sums would be different, and you couldn't tell which file generated the MD5 even though the randomness is reversible, because the MD5 itself is not reversible. Yay!
Unfortunately, the second problem then shows up: people want fingerprints / hashes so that the clients can find files to download for multiple-sourcing. If you bodge up the filename, and the meta data, and the MD5s, then the RIAA can't find it, but neither can any other peer!
Long and short of it is that there is virtually no way to tell the RIAA from any other user. Blacklisting will only go so far.
Why would I want to pay extra when I can just call?
Because you're a 13 year old girl using Daddy's credit card, trying to keep up with the latest fashions.
Yay drinking. Working out does help make more room for the beer, I find. Well, that was years ago and this is now. Not much of a drinker now, but I've got some sweet memories of not even remembering my name.
Windows is adding up the sizes of all the files the delete covers so it can give you accurate progress meter information.
It is also working out what's already in the recycle bin, how big the disk quota for the bin is and what it will have to delete from there to add the new crap.
Okay, then why the bloody blazes does it do all that when I SHIFT-DELETE stuff, which is supposed to bypass the recycle bin altogether? Clearly they didn't make a special case for that. That's just laziness. Using 'delete' from a console is scads better. WhyTF didn't they just have the GUI issue the command? That's just idiocy.
Mine was like this:
Me: Hi, my internet access locks up every few hours. I have to unplug my modem and plug-it back in for it to reconnect.
Support: Okay, I'm going to give you a list of things to do. First step, unplug your modem for 5 seconds.
Me: No, you don't understand, I know that will work, but the unplugging rigamorole is the very thing I'm trying to avoid!
Support: Okay, well, after you plug it back in, reboot your computer.
Me: [hang up]
Hahaha no. PNG is nowhere near the best lossless image format. Have you ever heard of BMF? PNG is routinely 40% larger than BMF. You can read an informed, scientific comparison of many formats at The Art of Lossless Image Compression (warning: there's an annoying pop-up. Oh well)
Of course, regardless of whether the probabiliy of life evolving on a planet is 50% or 1e-1000%, the chances that life evolved on our planet is 100%, and the chances that we fluked out and ended up on a planet with life is also 100%, because WE ARE LIFE! So we can make exactly zero statements about the probability of life on other planets based only on the fact that we are here.
Still, I like to think there's lots more out there:)
Do a little research, and you'll find you're not too far off. They cut the shaft out of the bottom of the upper blocks. Rudolf made some great measurements, and even has CAD files for your enjoyment: www.cheops.org
'Oh, you wrote a paper, and you got an A? Would it bother you if somebody could just take that paper and get an A too? Would that bug you?'
Hello!! The first thing I would do if I wrote a good paper would be to post it online for everyone to download and read. Much of the scientific community already does this. Ever visit citeseer? This is the future.
Honestly. How many people downloading MP3s try to pass them off as songs they recorded themselves? Did you say none? As in zero? Zip? Nada? Idiots.
Blade has the FIRST ORIGINAL USE OF SLOW MOTION EFFECTS SINCE THE MATRIX that literaly had the ENTIRE audiance cheering out loud.
Okay, I just have to point out that SwordFish had one very cool bit of slow-mo effect (the big explosion near the beginning) that had the whole audience vocalizing. Stuff like "holy shit!" and "woo". So I can't agree that Blade II had the first post-Matrix cool slow-mo effect:) Still, you make it sound like I should see this Blade II.
Re:Lempel-Ziv?? [Re:Off the top of my head]
on
Deep Algorithms?
·
· Score: 1
URL for LZP:
www.cbloom.com/papers/lzp.html
Enjoy! Also be sure to check out the compression.ca site that I mentioned before.
- GLYPH
Lempel-Ziv?? [Re:Off the top of my head]
on
Deep Algorithms?
·
· Score: 1
Lempel-Ziv compression is one of the most clunky, arbitrary, wasteful, inefficient, and widely-used compression algorithms available today. Get a clue about compression before you talk about it like that.
I'd much sooner vote for LZP (for its sheer elegance) or the latest block-sort methods for their efficiency and speed.
There were actually several equations! Also there was a hexadecimal string which, when decoded, read "FRINK RULES!" (Dr. Frink is the funny scientist guy, remember?)
Depth will NOT be a problem. If it works for one eye, it works for the other. Imagine zillions of tiny light emitters all over the suit, emitting directional light in many, many directions. So one spot on the suit will look different depending on the viewer's location. Near-perfect invisibility is at least in theory possible. And if you detect / emit other wavelengths, you could be radar-invisible as well. The problems are only technological. Can we build these detectors and emitters small enough? Also, how to power them? And what about light reflecting off the suit itself? Some serious materials science is needed.
*maybe* detectors on one side can replicate detectors from the other, but it can't be omnidirectional
Sure it can be omnidirectional. You have many, many detectors (sampling many directions) interleaved with many, many emitters (emitting in many directions) The only real problem is the size (hard to get high resolution) and power requirements (hard to match all lighting conditions). Oh, and the software to take into account the current shape of the suit.
Yeah, uh, if the flywheel has a magnetic bearing and sits in a vacuum, then the flywheel doesn't actually touch any other molecules (ideally) so there's no noise! As for the momentum, this is a big problem. Twin flywheels will reduce the torque (as mentioned) but if it's jostled these twin flywheels are going to want to flip in opposite directions. That's going to be hard on the thing. The magnetic bearings are going to have to be very good. This is where my knowledge stops and speculation begins. I wonder how hard such a laptop would be to handle.
Right, well now that this cat is out of the bag, it's going to take the spammers three lines of code to get around this trick, that is if they haven't already.
There is a large body of research on perceptually uniform color spaces. Last I checked no one had an accurate model, though many have tried. Look on citeseer or something, or google for that matter. Best of luck!
These are methods that are derived from classical physics and statistical mechanics and quantum theory, and at the highest level, this mathematical breakthrough has enabled two classical scientific methods to be improved, Huffman Compression and Arithmetic Compression, both industry standards for the past fifty years.
Haha! Arithmetic encoding *is* the improvement to Huffman encoding. Arithmetic encoding is mathematically perfect. Its ratio cannot be improved. Only its speed / memory use during encoding could be improved. This is obviously tripe, since they don't even realize that AC is just the back-end to the compressor, and the front-end (the model) is what can be improved. Why do these 100:1 lossless compression stories even make Slashdot?
Slashdot Mirror
This is the obvious first idea, but it has a problem. Well, several problems. Main problem is that in order for everyone to have a unique file, everyone has to flip some bits. So when you download a song from the network, it has already had some bits flipped. And then your client clips some more bits. And then someone downloads from you, and flips yet more bits. After the file has been around the network a few times, it's going to sound like utter crap.
Now, if somebody could do some nifty MP3 analysis app that alters the MP3 in some reversible but randomizable fashion, then your client could first remove the watermark (hashmark?), then apply a new random one. All the MD5 sums would be different, and you couldn't tell which file generated the MD5 even though the randomness is reversible, because the MD5 itself is not reversible. Yay!
Unfortunately, the second problem then shows up: people want fingerprints / hashes so that the clients can find files to download for multiple-sourcing. If you bodge up the filename, and the meta data, and the MD5s, then the RIAA can't find it, but neither can any other peer!
Long and short of it is that there is virtually no way to tell the RIAA from any other user. Blacklisting will only go so far.
Why would I want to pay extra when I can just call?
Because you're a 13 year old girl using Daddy's credit card, trying to keep up with the latest fashions.
True story: A buddy of mine used to sell vacuum cleaners. He said it sucked. Then he worked for IBM for a while. He said it blew.
Yay drinking. Working out does help make more room for the beer, I find. Well, that was years ago and this is now. Not much of a drinker now, but I've got some sweet memories of not even remembering my name.
Windows is adding up the sizes of all the files the delete covers so it can give you accurate progress meter information.
It is also working out what's already in the recycle bin, how big the disk quota for the bin is and what it will have to delete from there to add the new crap.
Okay, then why the bloody blazes does it do all that when I SHIFT-DELETE stuff, which is supposed to bypass the recycle bin altogether? Clearly they didn't make a special case for that. That's just laziness. Using 'delete' from a console is scads better. WhyTF didn't they just have the GUI issue the command? That's just idiocy.
Mine was like this:
Me: Hi, my internet access locks up every few hours. I have to unplug my modem and plug-it back in for it to reconnect.
Support: Okay, I'm going to give you a list of things to do. First step, unplug your modem for 5 seconds.
Me: No, you don't understand, I know that will work, but the unplugging rigamorole is the very thing I'm trying to avoid!
Support: Okay, well, after you plug it back in, reboot your computer.
Me: [hang up]
The 'S' is for 'Sucks'.
Soft G is illogical, eh? Better not tell all those giraffes. They're not friendly when they get angry.
Hahaha no. PNG is nowhere near the best lossless image format. Have you ever heard of BMF? PNG is routinely 40% larger than BMF. You can read an informed, scientific comparison of many formats at The Art of Lossless Image Compression (warning: there's an annoying pop-up. Oh well)
Of course, regardless of whether the probabiliy of life evolving on a planet is 50% or 1e-1000%, the chances that life evolved on our planet is 100%, and the chances that we fluked out and ended up on a planet with life is also 100%, because WE ARE LIFE! So we can make exactly zero statements about the probability of life on other planets based only on the fact that we are here.
:)
Still, I like to think there's lots more out there
Do a little research, and you'll find you're not too far off. They cut the shaft out of the bottom of the upper blocks. Rudolf made some great measurements, and even has CAD files for your enjoyment: www.cheops.org
I invented this too in a frigging SlashDot post, of all things! Look, it's right here:
1 66 865
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=29464&cid=3
(note you have to remove the space near the end that SlashDot inserted)
Jeeze. If this gets a patent, I'm going to be sick.
- GLYPH
You mean he "registered this name because 'I Am Canadian [TM]' and want to develop a Canadian business directory"
'Oh, you wrote a paper, and you got an A? Would it bother you if somebody could just take that paper and get an A too? Would that bug you?'
Hello!! The first thing I would do if I wrote a good paper would be to post it online for everyone to download and read. Much of the scientific community already does this. Ever visit citeseer? This is the future.
Honestly. How many people downloading MP3s try to pass them off as songs they recorded themselves? Did you say none? As in zero? Zip? Nada? Idiots.
Blade has the FIRST ORIGINAL USE OF SLOW MOTION EFFECTS SINCE THE MATRIX that literaly had the ENTIRE audiance cheering out loud.
:) Still, you make it sound like I should see this Blade II.
Okay, I just have to point out that SwordFish had one very cool bit of slow-mo effect (the big explosion near the beginning) that had the whole audience vocalizing. Stuff like "holy shit!" and "woo". So I can't agree that Blade II had the first post-Matrix cool slow-mo effect
URL for LZP:
www.cbloom.com/papers/lzp.html
Enjoy! Also be sure to check out the compression.ca site that I mentioned before.
- GLYPH
Lempel-Ziv compression is one of the most clunky, arbitrary, wasteful, inefficient, and widely-used compression algorithms available today. Get a clue about compression before you talk about it like that.
I'd much sooner vote for LZP (for its sheer elegance) or the latest block-sort methods for their efficiency and speed.
See compression.ca for some real numbers
In it's traditional form, [e^(pi*i)]+1=0 it relates the 5 most important constants in math.
Ooh! Not only that, but it uses each one exactly once. Also, it uses each of the basic arithmetic operators exactly once: +, *, ^, =.
There were actually several equations! Also there was a hexadecimal string which, when decoded, read "FRINK RULES!" (Dr. Frink is the funny scientist guy, remember?)
Depth will NOT be a problem. If it works for one eye, it works for the other. Imagine zillions of tiny light emitters all over the suit, emitting directional light in many, many directions. So one spot on the suit will look different depending on the viewer's location. Near-perfect invisibility is at least in theory possible. And if you detect / emit other wavelengths, you could be radar-invisible as well. The problems are only technological. Can we build these detectors and emitters small enough? Also, how to power them? And what about light reflecting off the suit itself? Some serious materials science is needed.
*maybe* detectors on one side can replicate detectors from the other, but it can't be omnidirectional
Sure it can be omnidirectional. You have many, many detectors (sampling many directions) interleaved with many, many emitters (emitting in many directions) The only real problem is the size (hard to get high resolution) and power requirements (hard to match all lighting conditions). Oh, and the software to take into account the current shape of the suit.
Yeah, uh, if the flywheel has a magnetic bearing and sits in a vacuum, then the flywheel doesn't actually touch any other molecules (ideally) so there's no noise! As for the momentum, this is a big problem. Twin flywheels will reduce the torque (as mentioned) but if it's jostled these twin flywheels are going to want to flip in opposite directions. That's going to be hard on the thing. The magnetic bearings are going to have to be very good. This is where my knowledge stops and speculation begins. I wonder how hard such a laptop would be to handle.
Right, well now that this cat is out of the bag, it's going to take the spammers three lines of code to get around this trick, that is if they haven't already.
There is a large body of research on perceptually uniform color spaces. Last I checked no one had an accurate model, though many have tried. Look on citeseer or something, or google for that matter. Best of luck!
These are methods that are derived from classical physics and statistical mechanics and quantum theory, and at the highest level, this mathematical breakthrough has enabled two classical scientific methods to be improved, Huffman Compression and Arithmetic Compression, both industry standards for the past fifty years.
Haha! Arithmetic encoding *is* the improvement to Huffman encoding. Arithmetic encoding is mathematically perfect. Its ratio cannot be improved. Only its speed / memory use during encoding could be improved. This is obviously tripe, since they don't even realize that AC is just the back-end to the compressor, and the front-end (the model) is what can be improved. Why do these 100:1 lossless compression stories even make Slashdot?