and how they work to hard to get viewers at the expense of actual news.
That's amusing, because they've got it backwards. They're supposed to report real news, and strive to report frivolous sort of news in order to interest more people, as the Daily Show/the Colbert Report make comedy, report real news and thrive. They think people don't care about serious news and care more about Paris Hilton, and that's right, to a limited extent. People care about serious news, it's just their way of reporting them that doesn't work.
Reminds me of a satire about the youth of the 2020's going "In 20 years, young people won't believe that there was a time in which TV news weren't presented by comedians."
On a side note, here's something I really enjoy about these two shows, they focus on what actually matter. Sure, when thousands of people die in an earthquake at the other end of the world it's a sad thing, and I'm glad CNN reports it, but it's not relevant to us, that's why it hardly ever makes it to the Daily Show, and that's why we like to get our news from such shows, because of their relevance.
Last dream I remember I woke up in a parallel world in 2003. And in another one there was this huge blue man-sized octopussy creature who swallowed me by its bottom to dissolve my body and merge my mind with itself so that it would get a personality. And in that other dream there was zombies fornicating with each other and losing their decaying members at the same time. Or sometimes I dream that everybody in the USA speaks French. Or that I play Duke Nukem 3D (not Forever, it's useless to get yourself ready for this one). Or that I float and surf on the surface of the water by standing on a vertically held man-sized fork. Or that I look at my user page on Slashdot and that all my posts have been modded up to impossible scores.
I don't know what any of that is supposed to prepare me for. Now I understand why I had so many dreams about atomic bombs detonating near my home or airliners crashing into my backyard, but I'm worried that I never dream of actually fornicating, as if I didn't have to be prepared for this:-S. I only hope it doesn't mean I'm more likely to have an airliner crash into my backyard than to get laid..
you have to first hash every email on your server, then submit that hash to every other email server in the whole world
I didn't talk about hashing entire e-mails but parts of e-mails (which makes the problem more complicated) and then, who talked about other e-mail servers in the rest of the world? Why would you wanna do that?
And? You were nitpicking anyways... Yay, a Wikipedia link that's barely even relevant! Anyways, maybe that's already been 'solved', but the question is not whether this has ever been solved but if it's ever been implemented as such for e-mail storage. But maybe you can tell me what's flawed with my idea of (large) block redundancy detection for e-mail storage to begin with instead of rubbing your credibility in my face.
I see, but my idea is more focused on solving the storage problem, and to get around the "95% redundancy" problem my idea was based on cutting messages into blocks depending on whether they're redundant or unique, as described here.
That said, the original poster makes an assumption that identical-looking messages are likely to be indistinguishable
No, I make the assumption that identical-looking messages have most of their data in common, and that this common data, even if only a chunk of the message starting and stopping at an arbitrary point, could be stroed efficiently.
That means cutting messages into blocks, if it is found that some part has something in common with another one, to store common blocks of data all in one place. This way, a personalised message with only a few words varying from a copy of it to another would get all of its redundant data stores only once.
Here's how it would be stored, once messages would be correlated and that all the similarities would be identified, messages would be cut into blocks, depending on whether these blocks are unique or redundant. Every block would be given an ID, and stored using that ID, and mails would be stored as a list of these IDs.
For a free software developer, the primary motivator is quite likely ideological: they primarily want to make FOSS software.
As a FOSS dev and a member of a homebrew game making community (the GP32/GP2X/Pandora community) I can tell this is bullshit. I don't do any software/game by ideology, and I don't know a single person who does that either. All the devs I know do what they do because they're excited by creating a game, their game (although even in a community centered around homebrew most efforts go to ports and emulators) and often a contest helps motivate them.
Nobody who actually creates anything cares about the FOSS supremacy.
The team has been chosen? By who? What for? When you read the summary only, you get the feeling that some team is going to make some game, and that a mysterious group of unmentioned persons (let's call them "they") chose them to do it, (as we can suppose) from a bunch of other competing teams who probably wanted to make that game too, but weren't good enough. And that the newsworthy part of it is that it's all going to be free and open source.
OK so basically you're dismissing my entire idea (which was part a question, I mean why wouldn't it be done to a certain extent already?) just because some an unknown (by you and me) ratio of the spam data isn't redundant.
That would be kind of like saying "Why bother with implementing compressed file systems! Most people fill their disks with file that can't be significantly compressed anyways!". Sure, but you've still got millions of copies of the exact same Nigerian scams out there which are stored without any redundancy check, or so I presume.
Which raises a question I find interesting, do we check for redundancy when archiving mails, in a way so that we can save a hell of a lot of space on spam (and other legitimate automated messages), since spam is by definition essentially the same message sent to a number of persons. Also, couldn't correlating stored mails for redundancy allow for better spam identification (although it would be no silver bullet since legitimate automated messages are often redundant).
just the latest in a string of bad years dating back to 2000.
Translation : "I hate the 2000's, take me back to the late 90's! At least back then we were closer to the release of Duke Nukem Forever than we are now, somehow!"
Phase 1 : Spam Slashdot with AC-posted MyMiniCity links
Phase 2 : Propose annoyed Slashdotters to fight back by joining a MyMiniCity
Phase 3 : ?
Phase 4 : Profit, or whatever it is that MyMiniCity trolls are seeking
It might sound like a troll, or my question might answer itself, but why bother with trying to create FOSS FPSes, considered how high the big game studios set the bar in the FPS domain? Sure, the effort behind Sauerbrauten is admirable, but what does it bring? What sets it apart from the Quake, Unreal, Call of Duty, Half-Life, Deux Ex, Soldier of Fortune series? Its price?
Here's my point : we have limited means, limited resources, there's only so much quality content we can create, FAR less than big game studios. What are our advantages? We have all the imagination possible, we can do whatever we want (within the realm of what's humanely possible, there's so much we have yet to create which would only take one coder, one vision and a few weeks), we're pretty much the only ones out there who can afford to create something completely new!
So why put so much efforts into projects which require none of our advantages, and try to compete on big studio's gaming field, knowing we can't do something better than them by merely following them? Why do we do that? Is it because we don't actually have that much imagination? Do we like to start coding without thinking for ourselves first? Do people go "Boy was Quake III cool! That'd be awesome if I could do something even a hundredth as good as that!"? Is video game making such a mature art that we have the feeling that there's only a few kind of games we can create, and that thus people choose to create what they like best among the limited number of choices? Do we look at the proverbial box we don't think out of and go "This spot is the best spot in the box"? Are we aware there are better spots outside this box that are yet to be explored? Will people in the distant future still be devoting most of their play time to multiplayer FPSes with the most realistic graphics/physics then possible?
Wow, I should totally have more hangovers, that makes me kind of deep I guess..
most people are also idiots. most people on slashdot are not.
I'd love to see a poll being conducted on this site asking how many people on this site think so. Funnily enough I for one think that most people are not idiots, except the most people on Slashdot.
Use the EQ to bring out the artificial loudness, but leave the details there for the people who want to disable the EQ and just listen to the original piece.
Actually equalisers have little to do with the loudness in questions, besides for the fact that they like to master sounds into having every octave sound as loud, or so I heard. But the core of the problem is compression, which is a simple time-domain effect on the values of samples (in a way similar to gamma in an image).
The true question is, why do we find equalisers in everything, everywhere, and nothing to adjust the dynamic range, as it would be so simple to implement and to let people control it? I find it particularly dumb to compress songs just for iPods when it could be the iPods and such that would do the compression job using a simple setting. Somehow I have the feeling that when iPods/iTunes implement that it will be a popular feature, both for people who hate compression and people who love it.
Much of the information left out during MP3 compression is at the very high and low ends, which is why some MP3s sound flat.
Wait, I thought that the MP3 compression was basically achieved by cutting the sound into overlapping chunks, performing a DCT on each chunk, discarding the less important bins according to a psychoacoustic model and compression the thing like in a ZIP file? If so that means that the frequency scale stays linear, and so there would be little interest in getting rid of frequencies under say 30-35 Hz since they represent about 0.15% of the data in a plain old track sampled at 44,100 Hz.
So the MP3 compression doesn't actually discard the "low end" as they call it, does it? Wouldn't the "flatness" they're talking about be due to how frame sizes affect transient (short) sounds and makes them softer?
You don't see any sampling problems in the very definition of the situations where civilians intervene, versus police?
If you follow the link and look at what's written right after what I quoted, it explains that the difference is due to the fact that civilians only act when they think it's a good idea, as the police always has to. Nonetheless it supports my point that when civilians act it doesn't have to turn into a carnage. People around here (Slashdot) just under-estimate the intelligence and sanity of the general population.
Slashdot Mirror
Yay, now I can feel it! The day they outlaw knives, crowbars, stethoscopes, matches and sleep pills is nigh!
and how they work to hard to get viewers at the expense of actual news.
That's amusing, because they've got it backwards. They're supposed to report real news, and strive to report frivolous sort of news in order to interest more people, as the Daily Show/the Colbert Report make comedy, report real news and thrive. They think people don't care about serious news and care more about Paris Hilton, and that's right, to a limited extent. People care about serious news, it's just their way of reporting them that doesn't work.
Reminds me of a satire about the youth of the 2020's going "In 20 years, young people won't believe that there was a time in which TV news weren't presented by comedians."
On a side note, here's something I really enjoy about these two shows, they focus on what actually matter. Sure, when thousands of people die in an earthquake at the other end of the world it's a sad thing, and I'm glad CNN reports it, but it's not relevant to us, that's why it hardly ever makes it to the Daily Show, and that's why we like to get our news from such shows, because of their relevance.
Cost, you pimple-faced little shit.
Care to elaborate, you decrepit cocky douchebag?
Last dream I remember I woke up in a parallel world in 2003. And in another one there was this huge blue man-sized octopussy creature who swallowed me by its bottom to dissolve my body and merge my mind with itself so that it would get a personality. And in that other dream there was zombies fornicating with each other and losing their decaying members at the same time. Or sometimes I dream that everybody in the USA speaks French. Or that I play Duke Nukem 3D (not Forever, it's useless to get yourself ready for this one). Or that I float and surf on the surface of the water by standing on a vertically held man-sized fork. Or that I look at my user page on Slashdot and that all my posts have been modded up to impossible scores.
I don't know what any of that is supposed to prepare me for. Now I understand why I had so many dreams about atomic bombs detonating near my home or airliners crashing into my backyard, but I'm worried that I never dream of actually fornicating, as if I didn't have to be prepared for this :-S. I only hope it doesn't mean I'm more likely to have an airliner crash into my backyard than to get laid..
Yeah.. way to think out the box, dude..
you have to first hash every email on your server, then submit that hash to every other email server in the whole world
I didn't talk about hashing entire e-mails but parts of e-mails (which makes the problem more complicated) and then, who talked about other e-mail servers in the rest of the world? Why would you wanna do that?
Ummm, no. I have CS degree and 20yrs experience.
And? You were nitpicking anyways... Yay, a Wikipedia link that's barely even relevant! Anyways, maybe that's already been 'solved', but the question is not whether this has ever been solved but if it's ever been implemented as such for e-mail storage. But maybe you can tell me what's flawed with my idea of (large) block redundancy detection for e-mail storage to begin with instead of rubbing your credibility in my face.
Substitute "words" for "blocks" and you will find you have invented a dictonary.
Duh, of course by blocks I mean blocks of a significant threshold size. You're just nitpicking ;-)
I see, but my idea is more focused on solving the storage problem, and to get around the "95% redundancy" problem my idea was based on cutting messages into blocks depending on whether they're redundant or unique, as described here.
That said, the original poster makes an assumption that identical-looking messages are likely to be indistinguishable
No, I make the assumption that identical-looking messages have most of their data in common, and that this common data, even if only a chunk of the message starting and stopping at an arbitrary point, could be stroed efficiently.
That means cutting messages into blocks, if it is found that some part has something in common with another one, to store common blocks of data all in one place. This way, a personalised message with only a few words varying from a copy of it to another would get all of its redundant data stores only once.
Here's how it would be stored, once messages would be correlated and that all the similarities would be identified, messages would be cut into blocks, depending on whether these blocks are unique or redundant. Every block would be given an ID, and stored using that ID, and mails would be stored as a list of these IDs.
For a free software developer, the primary motivator is quite likely ideological: they primarily want to make FOSS software.
As a FOSS dev and a member of a homebrew game making community (the GP32/GP2X/Pandora community) I can tell this is bullshit. I don't do any software/game by ideology, and I don't know a single person who does that either. All the devs I know do what they do because they're excited by creating a game, their game (although even in a community centered around homebrew most efforts go to ports and emulators) and often a contest helps motivate them.
Nobody who actually creates anything cares about the FOSS supremacy.
The team has been chosen? By who? What for? When you read the summary only, you get the feeling that some team is going to make some game, and that a mysterious group of unmentioned persons (let's call them "they") chose them to do it, (as we can suppose) from a bunch of other competing teams who probably wanted to make that game too, but weren't good enough. And that the newsworthy part of it is that it's all going to be free and open source.
From what I read I can only suppose..
OK so basically you're dismissing my entire idea (which was part a question, I mean why wouldn't it be done to a certain extent already?) just because some an unknown (by you and me) ratio of the spam data isn't redundant.
That would be kind of like saying "Why bother with implementing compressed file systems! Most people fill their disks with file that can't be significantly compressed anyways!". Sure, but you've still got millions of copies of the exact same Nigerian scams out there which are stored without any redundancy check, or so I presume.
We're archiving spam?
Which raises a question I find interesting, do we check for redundancy when archiving mails, in a way so that we can save a hell of a lot of space on spam (and other legitimate automated messages), since spam is by definition essentially the same message sent to a number of persons. Also, couldn't correlating stored mails for redundancy allow for better spam identification (although it would be no silver bullet since legitimate automated messages are often redundant).
just the latest in a string of bad years dating back to 2000.
Translation : "I hate the 2000's, take me back to the late 90's! At least back then we were closer to the release of Duke Nukem Forever than we are now, somehow!"
Phase 1 : Spam Slashdot with AC-posted MyMiniCity links
Phase 2 : Propose annoyed Slashdotters to fight back by joining a MyMiniCity
Phase 3 : ?
Phase 4 : Profit, or whatever it is that MyMiniCity trolls are seeking
Why do people bother with OS projects when they could invest their time in something useful like curing cancer?
Why do you bother with posting on Slashdot when you could invest your time in something useful like curing cancer, or even OS projects?
"...if they can put a man on the moon...." Of course, they murdered the man behind that project (JFK)
Wait.. are you trying to say that it was actually the Cubans who were behind the space program??
It might sound like a troll, or my question might answer itself, but why bother with trying to create FOSS FPSes, considered how high the big game studios set the bar in the FPS domain? Sure, the effort behind Sauerbrauten is admirable, but what does it bring? What sets it apart from the Quake, Unreal, Call of Duty, Half-Life, Deux Ex, Soldier of Fortune series? Its price?
Here's my point : we have limited means, limited resources, there's only so much quality content we can create, FAR less than big game studios. What are our advantages? We have all the imagination possible, we can do whatever we want (within the realm of what's humanely possible, there's so much we have yet to create which would only take one coder, one vision and a few weeks), we're pretty much the only ones out there who can afford to create something completely new!
So why put so much efforts into projects which require none of our advantages, and try to compete on big studio's gaming field, knowing we can't do something better than them by merely following them? Why do we do that? Is it because we don't actually have that much imagination? Do we like to start coding without thinking for ourselves first? Do people go "Boy was Quake III cool! That'd be awesome if I could do something even a hundredth as good as that!"? Is video game making such a mature art that we have the feeling that there's only a few kind of games we can create, and that thus people choose to create what they like best among the limited number of choices? Do we look at the proverbial box we don't think out of and go "This spot is the best spot in the box"? Are we aware there are better spots outside this box that are yet to be explored? Will people in the distant future still be devoting most of their play time to multiplayer FPSes with the most realistic graphics/physics then possible?
Wow, I should totally have more hangovers, that makes me kind of deep I guess..
most people are also idiots. most people on slashdot are not.
I'd love to see a poll being conducted on this site asking how many people on this site think so. Funnily enough I for one think that most people are not idiots, except the most people on Slashdot.
There's no place for engineering in the audiophile debates.
lol, mod that one insightful!
Use the EQ to bring out the artificial loudness, but leave the details there for the people who want to disable the EQ and just listen to the original piece.
Actually equalisers have little to do with the loudness in questions, besides for the fact that they like to master sounds into having every octave sound as loud, or so I heard. But the core of the problem is compression, which is a simple time-domain effect on the values of samples (in a way similar to gamma in an image).
The true question is, why do we find equalisers in everything, everywhere, and nothing to adjust the dynamic range, as it would be so simple to implement and to let people control it? I find it particularly dumb to compress songs just for iPods when it could be the iPods and such that would do the compression job using a simple setting. Somehow I have the feeling that when iPods/iTunes implement that it will be a popular feature, both for people who hate compression and people who love it.
Much of the information left out during MP3 compression is at the very high and low ends, which is why some MP3s sound flat.
Wait, I thought that the MP3 compression was basically achieved by cutting the sound into overlapping chunks, performing a DCT on each chunk, discarding the less important bins according to a psychoacoustic model and compression the thing like in a ZIP file? If so that means that the frequency scale stays linear, and so there would be little interest in getting rid of frequencies under say 30-35 Hz since they represent about 0.15% of the data in a plain old track sampled at 44,100 Hz.
So the MP3 compression doesn't actually discard the "low end" as they call it, does it? Wouldn't the "flatness" they're talking about be due to how frame sizes affect transient (short) sounds and makes them softer?
Plus the police and MPs are likely to subdue and disarm you if they're the only ones threatened.
Wrong, soon as you shoot, it's on, and by that I mean they're free to kill you. If you shoot more or less towards a cop, you're dead meat.
You don't see any sampling problems in the very definition of the situations where civilians intervene, versus police?
If you follow the link and look at what's written right after what I quoted, it explains that the difference is due to the fact that civilians only act when they think it's a good idea, as the police always has to. Nonetheless it supports my point that when civilians act it doesn't have to turn into a carnage. People around here (Slashdot) just under-estimate the intelligence and sanity of the general population.