Whoops, a correction : the FAT is padded with 0xffffffff, the zeroes are padding the sectors. A 513 byte chunk will be stored in a 4k chunk and zero padded.
If I open word, type the letter 'a', and save the document, it's a 20K document.
If you type 'a' 2000 times, it's still a 22K document.
What the heck is in that other 99.9% of the document?
Office documents are stored in structured storage format (SSF), which replicates a file system. There's a FAT and 'sectors', which are just identically sized chunks in the file. Thus anything saved in a SSF document is bound by the default sector size. There are in fact two FATs : a miniFAT storing 512b chunks, and a standard FAT storing 4kb chunks. Typically a word document will overflow the 512 bytes miniFAT limit, so a minimum size for a word document is 4k + headers and FAT descriptors.
The FAT size is fixed and limits standard SSF files to 7mb. If you open a tiny word file you'll see a few numbers at the start and lots of zeroes padding the FAT.
Now add all other information (author metadata, styles,...) and it grows up pretty fast.
RTFA and then look at the printable semacode. In addition to the code there is a text description of where it is sending you. Problem solved.
That doesn't solve much : you still need to update every packaging out there to implement semacode. I think it would be a lot more useful to use the techology to recognize already existing packaging,
Furthermore, cheap low pixel digital cameras will never be good enough to recognize text characters (think about localization) but they can recognize whether a pixel is black or white.
Semacode has a higher information density than a letter, I can't see why it would be simpler to recognize.
And cameras don't have to be powerful to do that. You could take a photo, upload it to a 'recognizer' site, like WhatTheFont, and get back the results as an html page.
This is a great idea, if only/.'s could try to be helpful and post ideas instead of looking at every new concept as a way for some corporation to take our money.
Like I said, I think the technology is cool, but its application is not.
Obfuscating the URL in an image just hides the information for everyone who doesn't have a fancy phone or just doesn't know how to use it. Use plain URLs on products, then use the phone to photography them and then surf to the web.
If the technology works, it could be really useful to add information to your surroundings. Browsing CDs at the store ? Photography one, get reviews from amazon. Looking at a concert flyer ? Photography it, get a map to the place and order tickets. Reading a magazine article about cool technology ? Photography it, get links about the tech to wikipedia.
The technology has the potential to be really cool, but semacode just plain sucks.
What you need to do is set up a digital co-op that acts somewhat like a public library and buys 1 copy of every CD, DVD, etc and lets people come in with portable hard drives, CF cards, blank CDs or DVDs or iPods or whatever and make copies for personal use.
That's a mediatheque. I don't know of anyone who goes in there and makes copies on the spot, though:)
This is not a "piracy tax", this is a "right to copy" tax. In France, we can copy anything but software as long as the source is legit (comes directly from the rights owner) and the copy is kept for our own private use.
Your friend buys a DVD, CD, book ? Copy it and keep it for yourself - it's legal. Rent a movie, copy it, bring it back and watch the copy as much as you want - legal. Buy a CD, copy it, sell it - legal. Go to your media-hungry friend who owns thousands of DVDs, CDs, books and copy them - legal.
have you ever coded some javascript ? there's nothing on this page you can't do in javascript. and i mean STANDARD javascript, not some IE extensions or whatever.
* JS is cheaper to code & maintain (you can even maintain it with a server app !) * standard JS will work everywhere * JS will actually be FASTER than flash !
if this page really shows what flash is really good for, i'll merely go back watching some cool useless flash. useless and beautiful, that is flash ok:)
Slashdot Mirror
Whoops, a correction : the FAT is padded with 0xffffffff, the zeroes are padding the sectors. A 513 byte chunk will be stored in a 4k chunk and zero padded.
Office documents are stored in structured storage format (SSF), which replicates a file system. There's a FAT and 'sectors', which are just identically sized chunks in the file. Thus anything saved in a SSF document is bound by the default sector size. There are in fact two FATs : a miniFAT storing 512b chunks, and a standard FAT storing 4kb chunks. Typically a word document will overflow the 512 bytes miniFAT limit, so a minimum size for a word document is 4k + headers and FAT descriptors.
The FAT size is fixed and limits standard SSF files to 7mb. If you open a tiny word file you'll see a few numbers at the start and lots of zeroes padding the FAT.
Now add all other information (author metadata, styles,
RTFA and then look at the printable semacode. In addition to the code there is a text description of where it is sending you. Problem solved.
/.'s could try to be helpful and post ideas instead of looking at every new concept as a way for some corporation to take our money.
That doesn't solve much : you still need to update every packaging out there to implement semacode. I think it would be a lot more useful to use the techology to recognize already existing packaging,
Furthermore, cheap low pixel digital cameras will never be good enough to recognize text characters (think about localization) but they can recognize whether a pixel is black or white.
Semacode has a higher information density than a letter, I can't see why it would be simpler to recognize.
And cameras don't have to be powerful to do that. You could take a photo, upload it to a 'recognizer' site, like WhatTheFont, and get back the results as an html page.
This is a great idea, if only
Like I said, I think the technology is cool, but its application is not.
Obfuscating the URL in an image just hides the information for everyone who doesn't have a fancy phone or just doesn't know how to use it. Use plain URLs on products, then use the phone to photography them and then surf to the web.
If the technology works, it could be really useful to add information to your surroundings. Browsing CDs at the store ? Photography one, get reviews from amazon. Looking at a concert flyer ? Photography it, get a map to the place and order tickets. Reading a magazine article about cool technology ? Photography it, get links about the tech to wikipedia.
The technology has the potential to be really cool, but semacode just plain sucks.
Check out Nupha, an international cross-platform (win & mac) music store.
:)
0.99 per song
8.99 per album
Unlimited burns,
unlimited transfers to mp3 players,
compatible with iTunes & Media Player 9.
Sounds good, but I have yet to try it. Someone to sponsor me an iPod ?
It's a right and you can copy anything you don't own as long as the source is legit.
Check out the Code de la propriete intellectuelle, article L. 122-5.
This is not a "piracy tax", this is a "right to copy" tax. In France, we can copy anything but software as long as the source is legit (comes directly from the rights owner) and the copy is kept for our own private use.
Your friend buys a DVD, CD, book ? Copy it and keep it for yourself - it's legal.
Rent a movie, copy it, bring it back and watch the copy as much as you want - legal.
Buy a CD, copy it, sell it - legal.
Go to your media-hungry friend who owns thousands of DVDs, CDs, books and copy them - legal.
have you ever coded some javascript ? there's nothing on this page you can't do in javascript. and i mean STANDARD javascript, not some IE extensions or whatever.
:)
* JS is cheaper to code & maintain (you can even maintain it with a server app !)
* standard JS will work everywhere
* JS will actually be FASTER than flash !
if this page really shows what flash is really good for, i'll merely go back watching some cool useless flash. useless and beautiful, that is flash ok