Of course it's possible. JPEG encoding has three steps: cosine transform of each block (DCT), then quantization (where the loss happens), then coding. In JPEG, the coding involves a zig-zag order and a Huffman/RLE structure, and this isn't necessarily optimal. A lossless compressor specially tuned for JPEG files could decode the quantized coefficients and losslessly encode them in a more efficient manner, producing a file that saves a few percent compared to the equivalent JPEG bitstream. Then on decompression, it would decode these coefficients and reencode them back into a JPEG file.
I believe what they meant was that you would not be able to apply a lossless algorithm to the original data stream and achieve greater compression than applying a lossy algorithm. Your composite algorithm is just a more efficient lossy algorithm.
If we look at the original statement from an information theoretic point of view, the GP's statement should be easily understood. With a lossless algorithm, you have to encode all of the original information and restore it. Assuming an optimal encoding, it will still take a minimum number of bits to fully realize all of the original data on decompression. With a lossy encoding scheme, I can reduce the number of bits in the original stream before using the same optimal encoding. With fewer bits to represent it should be obvious that the encoded bitstream will always be smaller.
Hey Timothy, have you ever noticed that submenu over on the left of the front page? You know, the one that lists the various sections that you can posts stories to? Ever notice that there is one called "Ask Slashdot", which just happens to match up exactly with the premise of this story, not to mention the title. Why don't you do all of us who filter by section a favor and try posting "Ask Slashdot" stories to the "Ask Slashdot" section every once in a while? Thanks
So basically, this security "expert" found a way for a thief to enter my home through the backdoor, as long as the thief has the keys for my front door.
This
security "expert" has a very solid background and street cred in the field of iOS forensics so I would not dismiss him so lightly.
Why aren't aircraft covered in them? 10% is a big difference in the aviation industry.
Because the wings generate lift by keeping the laminar airflow attached to the upper surface for as long as possible. Disrupting this would effectively reduce the functional surface area of the wing and produce a significant loss in efficiency.
There are definitely many awful MicroUSB ports out there, but there are also high-quality MicroUSB ports out there. The price difference between a cheap MicroUSB port and a high-end one is several orders of magnitude. As _specced_ they're supposed to be rated for more insertion cycles than MiniUSB.
I guess the trick is finding a reliable source for high quality ports at a not unreasonable price.
I am looking forward to seeing your crowdfunding campaign. How was the trip to Shenzen? I would think it would have been eye opening.
When the production keyboards ship, they'll ship with a cord. (The same MicroUSB port charges the battery for the bluetooth controller, programs the keyboard and lets the keyboard be a regular USB keyboard)
Take a look at the first generation Kindle Fire Tablets for an example of how badly a microUSB port can be for something. Now if the microUSB port on the keyboard were user swappable that would be very handy. Then again, there is a nice cottage industry out there replacing Kindle Fire microUSB ports.
I probably wouldn't call it 'silly', though I have no problem with you doing so. I agree 100% that this is a niche product. I made one because I wanted one. We wouldn't be having a go of making a full production run if people didn't keep trying to buy our personal test units.
A couple of questions if you don't mind please. First, when will they become available for purchase? Second, will they be available at all in a kit form?
Thanks.
Correlation does not equal causation. And you've left out how Gygax and Arneson were avid wargamers, and how the first ruleset of what would become D&D was an expansion (by Gygax) of a medieval rule set by Jeff Perren... and how Arneson (an avid player of Napoleonic figures based wargames) further expanded on the concept.
Ah yes. I fondly remember playing Chainmail. In fact, I still have my rule book as well as the three book set for the original Dungeons and Dragons.
Actually I originally got started playing such games at an individual level (as opposed to a unit level) thanks to
Howard Thompson at
Metagaming Concepts. A group of us were playing a lot of the microgames from Metagaming such as
Ogre,
GEV,
WarpWar
and Chitin:I when we found the microgames Melee, Wizard, and Death Test by Metagaming. Inexpensive and pocket sized, they were great to carry with you and play whenever the opportunity presented itself. They were the
CheapAss Games of the 1970s. In the Labyrinth, Advanced Melee and Advanced Wizard formed
The Fantasy Trip and added the necessary RPG aspects to the series for many adventures. After the dustup between Thompson and Steve Jackson, our group ended up switching to Advanced D&D for several years after that. It was too bad since I really liked TFT.
To this day I still do not understand what makes this such a difficult and complex issue to tackle.
I don't see why it can't be as simple as:
Spam call comes in, I dial a report number, telecom system flags the call and the origin. After 10 reports, 100 reports, that number is blocked. Further outgoing calls from the number are directed to a message to contact a fraud line to get the number reinstated. The longer a number has belonged to a legitimate company, the more immunity it is granted by the system to prevent abuses from angry consumers. The shorter the number has been in service, the more scrunity it is under.
Are the robocallers really able to shield their call origins from the telecoms? That just seems like such a ridiculous concept.
Let me help you out a bit with this. The thing is, those same telecoms that should be able to put a stop to this? They make money on every call. They have absolutely no incentive to do a damn thing about it except sell you caller id (for an extra fee) and the telemarketers the ability to fake their caller id (for an extra fee).
When in doubt, follow the money. Ask yourself who profits if something is done about a situation and who loses.
For those who are interested, here is a
link to the post on opensc that contains the source code download. You will need to register for an account before downloading.
I suppose the natural stopping point might be the balance between an individual's willingness to be monitored and the desire to reduce insurance premiums.
Possibly, although the cynic in me says that the natural stopping point will be when the insurance companies require that you be monitored or they will not provide you with insurance.
I just did the calculation for myself, and compared to my $15k 40mpg Hyundai, and given the amount of gas I go through on a weekly basis, if I pay sticker price for the model E it will be just about at the break even point. Any subsidy is just gravy. My current car is only 2 years old, so I won't be in the market for a while, but I'll definitely take a long hard look at a Tesla when I am.
Don't forget to factor in maintenance where the all electric vehicle will be cheaper. The estimated cost for 4 years of maintenance on a Tesla S is $1900. Compare that to $3316 for the Hyundai Sonata Hybrid and $3417 for the regular Hyundai Sonata. Maintenance costs for the Hyundais are from cars.com's "Cost of Ownership" page for each model. Maintenance costs for the Tesla are from Tesla motors. For more equitable "levels" of cars, the Hyundai Equus has a 4 year maintenance cost exceeding $6000.
There's a limit to how many amps you can dump in a battery without severely shortening its capacity to hold a charge (not withstanding the heat and other problems related to running hundreds of amps on a connector)
That and the fact that you have people who forget to remove the nozzle before leaving the gas station. How many of these people will a supercharging station fry?
Github FAILS the requirement for reliability due to being subject to DMCA horseshit. Will somebody please start the next github in a jurisdiction untouchable by DMCA and other thuggish regulations.
Maybe we could build a data haven on an old abandoned oil drilling platform that is in international waters. I think I read about that somewhere.
DMCA requires that the service provider wait no fewer than ten and no more than fourteen days after forwarding the counter-notification and then put it back up if the service provider has not received notice of suit in that period.
Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure about the section in bold requiring the ISP to wait 10 days. The phrasing is weird. Here is the relevant section of the DMCA(emphasis mine):
Under the knowledge standard, a service provider is eligible for the limitation on liability only if it does not have actual knowledge of the infringement, is not aware of
facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, or upon gaining
such
knowledge or awareness, responds expeditiously to take the material down or
block access to it.
The statute also establishes procedures for proper notification, and rules as to its effect. (Section 512(c)(3)). Under the notice and takedown procedure, a copyright
owner
submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified
elements,
to the service providerâ(TM)s designated agent. Failure to comply substantially
with
the statutory requirements means that the notification
will not be considered in
determining the requisite level of knowledge by the service provider. If, upon receiving
a
proper notification, the service provider promptly removes or blocks
access to the
material
identified in the
notification, the provider is exempt from monetary liability.
In addition, the provider is protected from any liability to any person for claims based
on its having taken down the material. (Section 512(g)(1)).
In
order to protect against the possibility of erroneous or fraudulent
notifications, certain safeguards are built into section 512. Subsection (g)(1) gives the
subscriber
the opportunity to respond to the notice and takedown by filing a counter
notification.
In order to qualify for the protection against liability for taking down
material, the service provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed
or
disabled access to the material. If the subscriber serves a counter notification
complying with statutory
requirements, including a statement under penalty of perjury
that
the material was
removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification, then
unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber,
the
service provider must put the material back up within 10-14 business days after
receiving the counter notification.
Penalties
are provided for knowing material misrepresentations in either
a
notice
or a counter notice. Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that
material is infringing, or that it was removed or blocked through mistake or misidentification, is liable for any
resulting damages (including costs and attorneysâ(TM) fees) incurred
by
the alleged infringer, the copyright owner or its licensee, or the service provider.
(Section 512(f)).
I believe the last paragraph does allow for penalties for deliberately false take down notices. The problem is that you would have to actually take the case to court and discover that they knew the notices would be false. IANAL but if I read this right, if you file a counter claim to get things put back up claiming misidentification or mistake and you are found to be infringing anyway, you could be on the hook for the copyright holder's attorney's fees. If the counter-claim requires a reason, I would recommend something other than one of these two.
You're wrong, you shouldn't trust your doctor AT ALL. Your life/health and privacy are far too important to do so.
Your doctor is no better of a person than anyone at the insurance company.
You need to understand that every single person at a hospital is also a person, not some mythical creature who actually cares about you.
99.9% of the doctors created today are just as scummy as anyone else. The age where doctors cared has not existed during my life time, if it ever did. The hippocratic oath is a joke at best, nothing more than lip service.
I don't trust my doctor with my personal information because of some vague oath any more than I do any politician to support and defend the constitution. I trust my doctor with my personal information because he has a legal obligation to not disclose that information to other parties without my consent.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it's possible. JPEG encoding has three steps: cosine transform of each block (DCT), then quantization (where the loss happens), then coding. In JPEG, the coding involves a zig-zag order and a Huffman/RLE structure, and this isn't necessarily optimal. A lossless compressor specially tuned for JPEG files could decode the quantized coefficients and losslessly encode them in a more efficient manner, producing a file that saves a few percent compared to the equivalent JPEG bitstream. Then on decompression, it would decode these coefficients and reencode them back into a JPEG file.
I believe what they meant was that you would not be able to apply a lossless algorithm to the original data stream and achieve greater compression than applying a lossy algorithm. Your composite algorithm is just a more efficient lossy algorithm.
If we look at the original statement from an information theoretic point of view, the GP's statement should be easily understood. With a lossless algorithm, you have to encode all of the original information and restore it. Assuming an optimal encoding, it will still take a minimum number of bits to fully realize all of the original data on decompression. With a lossy encoding scheme, I can reduce the number of bits in the original stream before using the same optimal encoding. With fewer bits to represent it should be obvious that the encoded bitstream will always be smaller.
Hey Timothy, have you ever noticed that submenu over on the left of the front page? You know, the one that lists the various sections that you can posts stories to? Ever notice that there is one called "Ask Slashdot", which just happens to match up exactly with the premise of this story, not to mention the title. Why don't you do all of us who filter by section a favor and try posting "Ask Slashdot" stories to the "Ask Slashdot" section every once in a while?
Thanks
So basically, this security "expert" found a way for a thief to enter my home through the backdoor, as long as the thief has the keys for my front door.
This security "expert" has a very solid background and street cred in the field of iOS forensics so I would not dismiss him so lightly.
I voted for Kodos.
I voted for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser evil?
Why aren't aircraft covered in them? 10% is a big difference in the aviation industry.
Because the wings generate lift by keeping the laminar airflow attached to the upper surface for as long as possible. Disrupting this would effectively reduce the functional surface area of the wing and produce a significant loss in efficiency.
There are definitely many awful MicroUSB ports out there, but there are also high-quality MicroUSB ports out there. The price difference between a cheap MicroUSB port and a high-end one is several orders of magnitude. As _specced_ they're supposed to be rated for more insertion cycles than MiniUSB.
I guess the trick is finding a reliable source for high quality ports at a not unreasonable price. I am looking forward to seeing your crowdfunding campaign. How was the trip to Shenzen? I would think it would have been eye opening.
When the production keyboards ship, they'll ship with a cord. (The same MicroUSB port charges the battery for the bluetooth controller, programs the keyboard and lets the keyboard be a regular USB keyboard)
Take a look at the first generation Kindle Fire Tablets for an example of how badly a microUSB port can be for something. Now if the microUSB port on the keyboard were user swappable that would be very handy. Then again, there is a nice cottage industry out there replacing Kindle Fire microUSB ports.
I probably wouldn't call it 'silly', though I have no problem with you doing so. I agree 100% that this is a niche product. I made one because I wanted one. We wouldn't be having a go of making a full production run if people didn't keep trying to buy our personal test units.
A couple of questions if you don't mind please. First, when will they become available for purchase? Second, will they be available at all in a kit form?
Thanks.
Correlation does not equal causation. And you've left out how Gygax and Arneson were avid wargamers, and how the first ruleset of what would become D&D was an expansion (by Gygax) of a medieval rule set by Jeff Perren... and how Arneson (an avid player of Napoleonic figures based wargames) further expanded on the concept.
Ah yes. I fondly remember playing Chainmail. In fact, I still have my rule book as well as the three book set for the original Dungeons and Dragons.
Actually I originally got started playing such games at an individual level (as opposed to a unit level) thanks to Howard Thompson at Metagaming Concepts. A group of us were playing a lot of the microgames from Metagaming such as Ogre, GEV, WarpWar and Chitin:I when we found the microgames Melee, Wizard, and Death Test by Metagaming. Inexpensive and pocket sized, they were great to carry with you and play whenever the opportunity presented itself. They were the CheapAss Games of the 1970s. In the Labyrinth, Advanced Melee and Advanced Wizard formed The Fantasy Trip and added the necessary RPG aspects to the series for many adventures. After the dustup between Thompson and Steve Jackson, our group ended up switching to Advanced D&D for several years after that. It was too bad since I really liked TFT.
To this day I still do not understand what makes this such a difficult and complex issue to tackle.
I don't see why it can't be as simple as: Spam call comes in, I dial a report number, telecom system flags the call and the origin. After 10 reports, 100 reports, that number is blocked. Further outgoing calls from the number are directed to a message to contact a fraud line to get the number reinstated. The longer a number has belonged to a legitimate company, the more immunity it is granted by the system to prevent abuses from angry consumers. The shorter the number has been in service, the more scrunity it is under.
Are the robocallers really able to shield their call origins from the telecoms? That just seems like such a ridiculous concept.
Let me help you out a bit with this. The thing is, those same telecoms that should be able to put a stop to this? They make money on every call. They have absolutely no incentive to do a damn thing about it except sell you caller id (for an extra fee) and the telemarketers the ability to fake their caller id (for an extra fee).
When in doubt, follow the money. Ask yourself who profits if something is done about a situation and who loses.
Full-featured POS systems can handle things like payroll, invoicing, inventory/food ordering, bill payment, appointment reminders for customers, etc.
Yep. They're called Integrated Payment Platforms or Integrated Payment Systems and they're all the rage right now.
For those who are interested, here is a link to the post on opensc that contains the source code download. You will need to register for an account before downloading.
I wonder where crop dusting comes into play under these rules?
I suppose the natural stopping point might be the balance between an individual's willingness to be monitored and the desire to reduce insurance premiums.
Possibly, although the cynic in me says that the natural stopping point will be when the insurance companies require that you be monitored or they will not provide you with insurance.
Is the algorithm called Hasselton v0.1 by any chance?
I just did the calculation for myself, and compared to my $15k 40mpg Hyundai, and given the amount of gas I go through on a weekly basis, if I pay sticker price for the model E it will be just about at the break even point. Any subsidy is just gravy. My current car is only 2 years old, so I won't be in the market for a while, but I'll definitely take a long hard look at a Tesla when I am.
Don't forget to factor in maintenance where the all electric vehicle will be cheaper. The estimated cost for 4 years of maintenance on a Tesla S is $1900. Compare that to $3316 for the Hyundai Sonata Hybrid and $3417 for the regular Hyundai Sonata. Maintenance costs for the Hyundais are from cars.com's "Cost of Ownership" page for each model. Maintenance costs for the Tesla are from Tesla motors. For more equitable "levels" of cars, the Hyundai Equus has a 4 year maintenance cost exceeding $6000.
(Honestly I think he just likes driving a big ass truck, and the boat is an excuse.)
I think somebody is compensating for something.
There's a limit to how many amps you can dump in a battery without severely shortening its capacity to hold a charge (not withstanding the heat and other problems related to running hundreds of amps on a connector)
That and the fact that you have people who forget to remove the nozzle before leaving the gas station. How many of these people will a supercharging station fry?
Is it still not legal to shoot copyright trolls on sight?
And if not, WHY THE HELL NOT?
Maybe we can amend "under penalty of perjury" to "under penalty of death" in that one section of the DMCA.
Github FAILS the requirement for reliability due to being subject to DMCA horseshit. Will somebody please start the next github in a jurisdiction untouchable by DMCA and other thuggish regulations.
Maybe we could build a data haven on an old abandoned oil drilling platform that is in international waters. I think I read about that somewhere.
DMCA requires that the service provider wait no fewer than ten and no more than fourteen days after forwarding the counter-notification and then put it back up if the service provider has not received notice of suit in that period.
Thanks for the reply. I'm not sure about the section in bold requiring the ISP to wait 10 days. The phrasing is weird. Here is the relevant section of the DMCA(emphasis mine):
Under the knowledge standard, a service provider is eligible for the limitation on liability only if it does not have actual knowledge of the infringement, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, or upon gaining such knowledge or awareness, responds expeditiously to take the material down or block access to it.
The statute also establishes procedures for proper notification, and rules as to its effect. (Section 512(c)(3)). Under the notice and takedown procedure, a copyright owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified elements, to the service providerâ(TM)s designated agent. Failure to comply substantially with the statutory requirements means that the notification will not be considered in determining the requisite level of knowledge by the service provider. If, upon receiving a proper notification, the service provider promptly removes or blocks access to the material identified in the notification, the provider is exempt from monetary liability. In addition, the provider is protected from any liability to any person for claims based on its having taken down the material. (Section 512(g)(1)).
In order to protect against the possibility of erroneous or fraudulent notifications, certain safeguards are built into section 512. Subsection (g)(1) gives the subscriber the opportunity to respond to the notice and takedown by filing a counter notification. In order to qualify for the protection against liability for taking down material, the service provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material. If the subscriber serves a counter notification complying with statutory requirements, including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification, then unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up within 10-14 business days after receiving the counter notification.
Penalties are provided for knowing material misrepresentations in either a notice or a counter notice. Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material is infringing, or that it was removed or blocked through mistake or misidentification, is liable for any resulting damages (including costs and attorneysâ(TM) fees) incurred by the alleged infringer, the copyright owner or its licensee, or the service provider. (Section 512(f)).
I believe the last paragraph does allow for penalties for deliberately false take down notices. The problem is that you would have to actually take the case to court and discover that they knew the notices would be false. IANAL but if I read this right, if you file a counter claim to get things put back up claiming misidentification or mistake and you are found to be infringing anyway, you could be on the hook for the copyright holder's attorney's fees. If the counter-claim requires a reason, I would recommend something other than one of these two.
I respectfully remind you that only timely compliance with this put-back notice absolves you of liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."
Is there such a requirement? Does the DMCA require that the ISP restore things at all or can they just leave it down if they want?
There is no such law. In any case, this is the the basis for the entire news business.
While it may not be an actual law, there are strict rules about this for any study, like this one, that receives US federal funding.
Well, that call is in response to yours. I think jamesl meant a "just thinking about you" type of call.
That's because the underlying core of western medicine is a reactive one rather than a proactive one.
You're wrong, you shouldn't trust your doctor AT ALL. Your life/health and privacy are far too important to do so.
Your doctor is no better of a person than anyone at the insurance company.
You need to understand that every single person at a hospital is also a person, not some mythical creature who actually cares about you.
99.9% of the doctors created today are just as scummy as anyone else. The age where doctors cared has not existed during my life time, if it ever did. The hippocratic oath is a joke at best, nothing more than lip service.
I don't trust my doctor with my personal information because of some vague oath any more than I do any politician to support and defend the constitution. I trust my doctor with my personal information because he has a legal obligation to not disclose that information to other parties without my consent.