Developer Forum

by **industrial** » Wed, 21 Feb 2007 07:45:37

Hey man, I read thru all your posts since early 2005 and... I think
your idea is very interesting, it seems to make sense to me but then
again maybe I'm only believing what I wanna hear, which is: we can
compress any 300-MB file down to a few KB. I'm having slight trouble
understanding your idea, put it in a nutshell: how will transforming
all 1 bits into 10 help compress the file? Cuz that only makes it
longer and when I try to compress it, it's 1KB bigger than the
original.

I also downloaded your project "Squirt" but... (sorry im a newb) how
do I run it :D theres no .exe to run.

Note: I am not like the other *** s on this board
*cough*Gunther*cough* so just letting you know you have my support,
rather than infantile pathetic ranting about how I stick my *** in a
toaster every now and then (Gunther)

by **Sportma** » Wed, 21 Feb 2007 18:07:55

I think you forget Guenther brought us the Baruff-Hogsbrenn device
story
http://www.yqcomputer.com/ %2Fgroup%2Fcomp.compression%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F7f4656b1a579d4cf%2F53c3bd291a297ac4%3Flnk%3Dgst%26q%3DBaruff-Hogsbrenn%26rnum%3D1%26#doc_f1c0c6b699ddf7d8
this device was in 1979 able to compress virtually any kind of
information stream. Guenther is still the only source in search
engines and I wonder what his source of this story is?

by **erpy** » Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:14:55

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Sportman ha scritto:

Really weird, the only *2* pages showing up on google by searching
"Hogsbrenn" are two links to the newsgroup.

They really covered this up very well. <_<

Best,
E.

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Sportman ha scritto:
<blockquote
cite=" XXXX@XXXXX.COM "
type="cite">

</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Note: I am not like the other *** s on this board
*cough*Gunther*cough* so just letting you know you have my support,
rather than infantile pathetic ranting about how I stick my *** in a
toaster every now and then (Gunther)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I think you forget Guenther brought us the Baruff-Hogsbrenn device
story
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href=" http://www.yqcomputer.com/ %2Fgroup%2Fcomp.compression%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F7f4656b1a579d4cf%2F53c3bd291a297ac4%3Flnk%3Dgst%26q%3DBaruff-Hogsbrenn%26rnum%3D1%26#doc_f1c0c6b699ddf7d8"> http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ;q=Baruff-Hogsbrenn&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fcomp.compression%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F7f4656b1a579d4cf%2F53c3bd291a297ac4%3Flnk%3Dgst%26q%3DBaruff-Hogsbrenn%26rnum%3D1%26#doc_f1c0c6b699ddf7d8</a>
this device was in 1979 able to compress virtually any kind of
information stream. Guenther is still the only source in search
engines and I wonder what his source of this story is?

</pre>
</blockquote>
 
 
Really weird, the only *2* pages showing up on google by searching
"Hogsbrenn" are two links to the newsgroup. 
 
They really covered this up very well. <_< 
 
 
Best, 
E. 
</body>
</html>

by **guenther v** » Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:42:19

Welcome to the group, you have succeeded in making a brilliant
introduction of yourself. In view of your evident and absolute lack of
knowledge, it would be extremely advisable that you read the faq
before further proceeding to make an ass of yourself in front of
everybody; that will determine whether you are just deeply ignorant, a
condition which you can possibly remedy starting with that lecture, or
just plain stupid, a condition which you can not.

It speaks for you that you where precise enough to use the word
"other" in the sentence above, thus including yourself in the proper
category, which is the first out of the following three into which
participants of this group can be classified into: a) *** s who
insist on spewing their imbecilities regardless of any effort made to
explain their mistakes to them; b) *** s who qualify as such for
insulting those of category a) for repeatedly inflicting their
idiocies on the group. Note that this one is mostly comprised by
myself since almost everybody else belongs to; c) Generous and
knowledgeable guys who never tire of sharing their wisdom with the
rest of the group, no matter how inane things get.

Regards.

by **guenther v** » Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:46:14

This is a clear example of how the promise, that the Internet would
bring knowledge and education to everyone, utterly failed. Instead it
has bred a whole new generation of illiterates who will:
a) Only believe something if it is published on the web.
b) Will believe anything if only it is published on the web.

by **industrial** » Fri, 23 Feb 2007 04:49:34

n Feb 21, 5:42 am, "guenther vonKnakspott" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:

Yo dipshit I dont give a damn about no fuckin introduction, everyone
knows arguing with krauts is useless, you couldnt explain Hitler he
was a psycho, so neither can I to you.

Besides, I HAVE read the FAQ written by some LSD-abusing child
predator who can't seem to speak english. "It is impossible to
compress without loss all files by at least one bit." I couldn't
figure what the hell he was talking about, at first I thought he said
that it's impossible to compress ANY file at ALL. Then I finally
realized he got the sentence structure wrong and really meant "It is
impossible to compress all files without loss by at least one bit."

But I assure you I have read the entire section 9 and have understood
*mostly* what that weirdo was talking about. I know about Jules
Gilbert, WEB technologies and the theory about pseudo-random
regeneration, magic function theory, whatever. I have even read most
of the posts made by (if im right) "Threshold" or whoever but I
couldn't understand what the hell that guy was talking about.
The only guy who I somewhat understand is Simon Jackson. "Exploiting a
notable bias in RAD and reducing any sequence down to 77 bytes." I
don't remember the exact procedure but if you actually sit down and
tweak your hydrocephalic head over, you'll see how fucking brilliant
it is..

To know that random-appearing data can be compressed takes simple
logic: "random" does not mean "all files," but rather a very specific
kind of data that obviously deviates from other forms of data such as
text, video, etc. Now if someone can unlock a simple equation that
would define all RAD (random-appearing data) then BINGO! I'm 17 and
failed Grade 9 math twice so I don't claim to be the one who can do
it, but just remember tihs simple fact before you blow shit out of
your nazi faggot ass.

Dude, all I've ever seen you do is jump into other peoples threads and
start shit like, seriously, you have no life. I've never seen you
start a thread of your own or post anything constructive, EVER.

by **David Wah** » Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:09:22

[...snip...]

The phrase "compress without loss" is being used as a synonym for
"losslessly compress". The phrasing in the FAQ is therefore correct,
although a little awkward.

[...snip...]

You're using a completely different definition of "random" from
virtually
everyone else in this newsgroup. A random source, by definition, can
produce any sequence of bits with equal probability.

Please recognize that there are quite a number of Ph.D's and
university
professors who frequent comp.compression, and (to my knowledge) all of
them recognize that compression of random data is mathematically and
logically impossible. Could it be possible that it's you who is
incorrect,
and not all of them?

Also, you will be likely to earn more respect for yourself in a forum
such as this if you can keep your language respectful, or at least
civil.

-- David

by **industrial** » Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:08:53

S:

I was not even registered to this group until that minute, so I barely
count as an active member. Besides, if you had Grade 3 English level
you'd know when someone says "other" they are referring to anyone but
themselves.

On Feb 21, 3:09 pm, "David Wahler" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:
[SNIP]

Nope. I've seen Jules Gilbert many times explain he can only compress
"RAD" and not ALL files, as well as many other people. Besides, this
is the true definition of "random data" when we're talking about
computer data (taken from http://www.geocities.com/hmaxf_urlcr/rng.htm):

"The main idea about random data is that it must contain a different
value each time for about at least 50% of the size of the value, and
if it can reach up to more than 75% of the size then it is very
excellent RNG, what I mean by this is if the program suppose to
generate 32-bits value size then it must at least able to generate 31-
bits (half, 50% of it) times successfully different values, eg. the
max value of 32-bits is 4,294,967,296 and the half of it is
2,147,483,648, so if the program generates a same value within
2,147,483,648 times then it is not a good RNG, its life cycle length
is sort."

Technically, you're right. Theoretically: if you generate random bits
you might generate a text file with making-sense words and sentences.
It has never happened buddy, and never will. If there's a device to
calculate the randomness of a file (try Cryptosystem ME6) it must be
above 0.900. I have once generated random data that scored 0.875, but
if under a serious circumstance where somebody needed "truly random
data" they would dismiss that output as "not random enough" and
generate another one. If WinZIP can only compress files that score
anywhere from 0.001 to 0.899 by at least one bit then an algorithm can
be created that can compress files that score from 0.900-0.999.
Followin' me?

I also recognize that many people here that you call crazy are also
Ph.Ds (Jules Gilbert) who's been a programmer probably before ya'll
jackanapes were born. So, it really wouldn't matter.

I have nothing against anyone in this forum, except for Gunther. I
could really give a fuck that some nazi attention-whore has respect
for me or not...

by **Phil Carmo** » Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:29:00

XXXX@XXXXX.COM writes:

The action is to compress without loss.

Your way's at least as broken as it introduces the unwanted concept
of "loss by at least one bit".

I can only conclude that Simon Jackson has morphed, and he is you.

Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.

by **Phil Carmo** » Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:31:19

XXXX@XXXXX.COM writes:

Define, without using circular definitions, the set of files
which are "RAD".

Phil
--
"Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank
so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of
/In God We Trust, Inc./.

by **industrial** » Fri, 23 Feb 2007 10:31:09

On Feb 21, 4:31 pm, Phil Carmody < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >

here:

http://www.yqcomputer.com/

The RAR contains five 20KB files that are RAD, each with an average of
0.960 scale of randomness. Examine each 5 of them with a hex editor,
don't you notice something? They all look very alike, they all have
something in common, right? But if you compare them with a file we use
every day (e.g. .doc, .txt) and you automatically see that they don't
resemble each other.

by **guenther v** » Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:51:07

n Feb 21, 8:49 pm, XXXX@XXXXX.COM wrote:

Not bad, not bad at all. Only your second post here and you are
already into infantile rants about sticking your... whatever. Anyway,
don't you know that on Usenet you never compare your interlocutors to
the nazis? But then, you are only a dumb brat with an attitude, so why
should you know Godwin's law? Let me see if I got this right. You have
a self admitted very weak grasp of mathematics. Your education is
still at a basic level. You read the FAQ but didn't completely
understand it. You took the trouble to read many of the articles in
this group and found that what you best understood is some gibberish
on something you call RAD by some kook called Jackson. So, your
credentials consist of an inability to master school level mathematics
and the knowledge of poorly understood material obtained on the
internet. Based on this, you conclude that people who do not only know
much more than you ever will, but also take the trouble of making that
knowledge available to others, are contemptible and deserve your
despicable insults in spite of never having aggrieved you and only
because their use of the language is too challenging to your feeble
intellect, while guys who have done nothing but to spew unintelligible
crap, which by the way you are not the only one who fails to
understand because there is actually nothing to understand in it, are
brilliant minds deserving your admiration. Where you stand right now,
the path forks. You can get a grip on your attitude, shut up, pick up
a decent book on discrete math and learn something, or you can
continue along the path of ignorance, make an embarrassment of
yourself and become a loser like the idiots you look up to.

by **guenther v** » Fri, 23 Feb 2007 18:54:58

That is not a definition you moron. That is a url and a few lines of
crappy gibberish.

by **Wille** » Fri, 23 Feb 2007 19:25:54

) The RAR contains five 20KB files that are RAD, each with an average of
) 0.960 scale of randomness. Examine each 5 of them with a hex editor,
) don't you notice something? They all look very alike, they all have
) something in common, right? But if you compare them with a file we use
) every day (e.g. .doc, .txt) and you automatically see that they don't
) resemble each other.

So what you're saying is that RAD files are a type of file you don't see
every day.. So what's the use in trying to compress them, then ?

SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

by **industrial** » Sat, 24 Feb 2007 01:40:21

Not at all, we actually see them *all the time,* when you compress a
file with an excellent codec, chances are good that the file's data
will be random-appearing enough to score above a 0.900 (but the
average is usually 0.700-0.850, hence files compressed with ZIP can be
again compressed by 1%) Or you can simply encrypt the file with a good
cryptosystem and the contents will then be very random-appearing.

To put it in a nutshell: with these three programs: A compressor (like
WinZIP) a cryptosystem (like ME6) and finally yet to become a codec
that can compress RAD. With this you can compress *ANY* data down to
probably a few KB. (You may not even need WinZIP since it's enough to
have the encryption tool ready if the data is not random-apperaing
enough.

Developer Forum

jacko

jacko

jacko

jacko

jacko

jacko

jacko

jacko

jacko

jacko

jacko

jacko

jacko

jacko

jacko

jacko