What is really glaringly obvious though is that people believe that Trump colluded with the Russians to change the elections. Not only was that untrue, but House Reps and Senators have known this for months and have said and done nothing to the contrary.
Then again it might just be very smart software in the printer that does know the difference between B&W printing and color printing when checking ink levels but reports a bogus "low ink" message to trick you into buying cartridges that you don't need..
The "compressed" file was nothing more than a list of blocks on the disk that the original file occupied. You could test it by compressing a file, deleting the original, then decompressing (=undeleting) it.
That's actually pretty clever. Useless, but clever.
Simple mathematics show why such schemes don't work. 8 kilobytes = 8192 bytes = 65536 bits. Assuming you have a two hour movie, then each second of the movie must be mapped into about one byte, which can have only 2^8 = 256 possible values to represent any conceivable second of video. It's mathematically impossible.
What you describe is only true for a lossless codec. If you don't mind a certain degree of lossiness, you can achieve any degree of compression from any input.
Of course, you may end up with two hours of random shit, which would be an improvement for many movies.
He would compress an entire full-length movie, supposedly in 8kB. It's physically impossible, entropy has a thing to say about it.
That depends on: 1. What the movie is: e.g. a time-lapse movie shot in the arctic would have so much coherence that compression would be trivial, and 2. How much you care about the quality of the result.
if you don't care about quality. Sloot's compression figures mean nothing unless we can evaluate how good the result is. Which we can't, since is no such codec actually exists.
The test was pretty well swamped by people of Asian descent, and most of them simply didn't get in.
What does "most of them" mean? If the program is intended for gifted children, then presumably "most children" will fail to get in no matter what their ethnic background.
If your parents have tattoos, their children are more likely to have tattoos. If the parents drive a fancy car, the children are more likely to drive a fancy car. Same can be said of IQ.
Except that even when
all such factors have been allowed for, intelligence has a strong genetic factor. Poor people with high intelligence still have children with high intelligence. Rich dummies generally have dumb children.
Given a group of white straight men talking about things, a lesbian is likely to have different ideas on some things, so if you can get the men to take her seriously she probably has more to add to the discussion than another white straight man.
If the discussion is about social justice issues, you're right. If the discussion is about science issues, you are wrong.
Equality and the politics of science are something that I think about in my free time-- the author holds a doctorate in these subjects, and I'm sure if I spent an office hour talking to Dr. Metcalf, I would probably be convinced of their argument
Then you are a gullible sap. Are you a real scientist, or a "social" scientist?
Slashdot Mirror
What is really glaringly obvious though is that people believe that Trump colluded with the Russians to change the elections. Not only was that untrue, but House Reps and Senators have known this for months and have said and done nothing to the contrary.
And where the fuck did you get that from?
Never has there been a more apt username.
Then again it might just be very smart software in the printer that does know the difference
between B&W printing and color printing when checking ink levels
but reports a bogus "low ink" message to trick you into buying cartridges that you don't need..
FTFY.
Only if they have tentacles.
The weird thing was that the book ends with lots of pictures and copies of documents that prove it's existence.
But they don't prove that it worked!
He now works for Volkswagen.
The "compressed" file was nothing more than a list of blocks on the disk that the original file occupied. You could test it by compressing a file, deleting the original, then decompressing (=undeleting) it.
That's actually pretty clever.
Useless, but clever.
Simple mathematics show why such schemes don't work. 8 kilobytes = 8192 bytes = 65536 bits. Assuming you have a two hour movie, then each second of the movie must be mapped into about one byte, which can have only 2^8 = 256 possible values to represent any conceivable second of video. It's mathematically impossible.
What you describe is only true for a lossless codec.
If you don't mind a certain degree of lossiness, you can achieve any degree of compression from any input.
Of course, you may end up with two hours of random shit, which would be an improvement for many movies.
This is exactly what existing video codecs do.
I can make a 1000 hour HD movie that compresses to less than one byte: just leave the lens cap on.
He would compress an entire full-length movie, supposedly in 8kB. It's physically impossible, entropy has a thing to say about it.
That depends on:
1. What the movie is: e.g. a time-lapse movie shot in the arctic would have so much coherence that compression would be trivial, and
2. How much you care about the quality of the result.
if you don't care about quality.
Sloot's compression figures mean nothing unless we can evaluate how good the result is.
Which we can't, since is no such codec actually exists.
I live in rural B.C. and mine just clocked at 61 Mbps on the slowest of three available (Eastlink) rates.
Very interesting post.
And Jazz. I'm not a big jazz fan, but the how the development of jazz paralleled the civil rights struggle is fascinating.
Ah yes, Houston.
Capitalism in its purest form.
Intel predicts great future for something that Intel has invested tens of billions in.
The report found no evidence for the idea that people will work less under a universal income
Note that this was in Iran where they behead people for breathing.
First insects, now rodents? Maybe dogs, then dolphins, then humans?
Maybe, but not in the lifetime of anybody currently alive.
The test was pretty well swamped by people of Asian descent, and most of them simply didn't get in.
What does "most of them" mean?
If the program is intended for gifted children, then presumably "most children" will fail to get in no matter what their ethnic background.
If your parents have tattoos, their children are more likely to have tattoos. If the parents drive a fancy car, the children are more likely to drive a fancy car. Same can be said of IQ.
Except that even when all such factors have been allowed for, intelligence has a strong genetic factor.
Poor people with high intelligence still have children with high intelligence.
Rich dummies generally have dumb children.
Just like Barbie said.
Given a group of white straight men talking about things, a lesbian is likely to have different ideas on some things, so if you can get the men to take her seriously she probably has more to add to the discussion than another white straight man.
If the discussion is about social justice issues, you're right.
If the discussion is about science issues, you are wrong.
Equality and the politics of science are something that I think about in my free time-- the author holds a doctorate in these subjects, and I'm sure if I spent an office hour talking to Dr. Metcalf, I would probably be convinced of their argument
Then you are a gullible sap.
Are you a real scientist, or a "social" scientist?
Only SJW types drink Starbucks swill.