dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
|  This trash again.
"At the time of the company's first press release, it took more than a day to squash a random 128-bit file--about 16 letters in ASCII, the most basic computer font--into just 100 bits. "
emphasis mine.
Does anyone need to read any further to know this guy does not know what the hell he is talking about?
Why did cnet write up this useless article. It contains NO new information. I wasted 5 minutes of my day reading that garbage.
cnet deserves to be spammed for posting this un-news. Clearly they must be on the take.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes
9:16
|
|
Curious
Thanks
Premium
join:2001-10-07
Quincy, MA
| So far, you're true and thats a 21% decrease in size. So it takes a day, the programs got some bugs, but add some tweaks and more intelligentcomputer lines and you've got yourself a WinZip Clone.
I don't get it though, Winzip made a 4mg folder into 345kb in 4 seconds, isnt the percentage there greater than 128 bit and 100 bit compression? Yes, 1024 bits make a byte but still it doesnt really seem clear how this is really signfaciant.
--
If you think what I just said was good, why not vote me up? |
|
bobble
Hungry
join:2000-08-11
home |  also on ZDnet
This article is also posted on ZDnet @ »zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-839884.html
Did CNET ever buy out ZDnet?
--
think Mcfly.. think.. |
|
HG Fegen$
Johnny B. Goode
Premium
join:2001-06-28
Scotland. UK
|  said by atari:
This article is also posted on ZDnet @ »zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-839884.html
Did CNET ever buy out ZDnet?
Yes they did some time ago, I recall
--
 Meanwhile... I was still thinkin':D |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| reply to Curious
Re: This trash again.
said by CutandWaste:
Yes, 1024 bits make a byte but still it doesnt really seem clear how this is really signfaciant.
Just being picky but the last I heard, 8 bits made a byte (now being called an octet in some circles). A word is made up of some number of bits.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. |
|
clyde_
It's A Chrysalis, Not A Cocoon
Premium
join:2001-05-02
Easley, SC |  I'll believe it when I see it
It would be cool if it ever happened, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen. Let's play the wait and see game.
--
"You cannot pass!" -- Gandalf "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" |
|
IamZed
Premium
join:2001-01-10
Dayton, OH | One More Time
I’ve said it before and ill say it again,
[%^._*3#!!]
Sorry to be so long winded.
--
A thing worth doing is worth doing to excess |
|
misscleo
@uspto.gov
| A prediction that will come true...
We talked about the technical impossibility aspect of this in the last thread we had.. But.. This will be the same as previous claims..
-An overzealous, premature announcement (already happened)
-An oversecretive organization (already exists)
-Delays in final announcements (already happened)
-Backtracking on claims of the technology (already happened)
-More delays (To come)
-More backtracking (To come)
-A final realization that it just don't work (we've been here before.)
Please, everyone, take a read of the usenet compression FAQ. It completely elucidates the argument for the impossibility against this fantasy that comes around every few years.
Their last claim said 128 bits became 10. Now it's 100. In a day.
I approached this with a hopeful mind when I first saw it.. Read the compression faq even with some skepticism. Not anymore. |
|
JustInit
join:2001-07-20
South Jordan, UT
| reply to dnoyeB
Re: This trash again.
said by dnoyeB:
"At the time of the company's first press release, it took more than a day to squash a random 128-bit file--about 16 letters in ASCII, the most basic computer font--into just 100 bits. "
emphasis mine.
Does anyone need to read any further to know this guy does not know what the hell he is talking about?
Why did cnet write up this useless article. It contains NO new information. I wasted 5 minutes of my day reading that garbage.
cnet deserves to be spammed for posting this un-news. Clearly they must be on the take.
I don't know whether there is anything to this or not. It could be real and it could be that 'this guy does not know what the hell he is talking about'.
However, I can't help but wonder what kind of reaction the guy(s) who first proposed the crazy idea that you could compress data got from the industry 'experts'?
Why is it that the first ones to come forward with an idea that seems to be impossible and break every 'law' that we rely on are seen as idiots and fools?
Remember the reaction of the Swiss watch makers when the Japanese introduced the quartz watch? In fact, it is ironic that the concept of the quartz watch came from a Swiss watch maker.
Maybe the paradigm is shifting. Maybe there is something to this 'new compression' scheme. Maybe it's young technology and just needs to be developed. Maybe it is all BS and a hoax. Time will tell. |
|
Nighttime
join:2001-11-30
| If this ever workd then math is finite
If this work then math is finite.
It sounds a little like wavlet compression. If this could work then pump in a number and get out the data. Hum. Kind of like the bar code into monster battle toys. Basicaly sticking thing in the either. That theory has been around for a very long time and that is what proabbly what these fokes keep finding but the "lock" is that math is inifite and take a lot more than a 100 monkeys lock in a room to stumble onto the right number. 
For example. In a video frame there are only "X" finite posiblilities per screen pixel combination most being impossible with the rest showing a real picture. But the posiblities take up more space than the desired picture would.
The really outstanding scientist think that the Unification Theory would stretch out to about an inch or so when finaly written. But it would generate everthing.
For his thing to work correctly math would need to be finite. Which it is not. All formulas are lossy due to there nature.
[text was edited by author 2002-02-19 12:02:53] |
|
nael
join:2001-12-02
philippines
| Do not criticise anything before one sees the data
This is solely my opinion.
Instead of blasting away at something you have never seen, just keep quiet. It is entirely within your rights to disagree with something, and one doesn't need to agree, but at least let them defend themselves. Once the data is revealed, feel free to rip it into shreds, but at least let them show their proof before dismissing. |
|
suurewhatever
@uspto.gov
| Ok, but the data doesn't matter. It's mathematically impossible.
You can only have so many combinations of N bits. All a file is is a number; there are a FINITE number of combinations of 128 bits, 1 megabyte, or 2 gigabytes. (That's right, there are a LIMITED number of 1 megabyte files.)
So, for example, there are only 65536 16-bit files that exist.
If they claim that they have an algorithm (like they HAVE claimed) that can reduce the size of ANY FILE, this is IMPOSSIBLE.
This would mean they could reduce the size of ANY 16-bit long files by at least 1 bit.
But, there are only 32768 possible 15-bit files.
So, there aren't enough "compressed" source files to create all the "uncompressed" original files! That's the gist of the argument against it.
The same applies for any length file, the numbers are only bigger.
I predict ZeoSync may have a 'better' compression algorithm. It is NOT, however, as good as they claim. |
|
JustInit
join:2001-07-20
South Jordan, UT
| suurewhatever-else
...and man will NEVER walk on the moon and a computer that sits on a desk (or on your lap)! IMPOSSIBLE!
Oh but wait! The lunar landings were a farce and it was all an elaborate ruse.
Perhaps 'impossible' by our currently limited understanding or do you believe that scientists have learned all there is to learn on this subject? |
|
homebrewer5
join:2001-01-23
Lowell, MA | reply to JustInit
Re: This trash again.
said by JustInit:
paradigm is shifting.
BINGO!!!!!
--
Bavarian Berthold |
|
Thud
join:2000-04-04
Alpharetta, GA | reply to JustInit
Re: suurewhatever-else
OK, and maybe mathematicians haven't discovered everything there is to learn about number theory either. Who knows, we may one day discover how to make 1 + 1 = 3, despite the claims by the naysayers that it's impossible! |
|
JustInit
join:2001-07-20
South Jordan, UT | Sure, just like a photon can't be in two places at the same time.....
Quantum physics has changed a lot of ideas that were thought to be concrete. |
|
FLea973
Premium
join:2001-02-27
Morristown, NJ
clubs:
| reply to Thud
said by Jason Bruce:
Who knows, we may one day discover how to make 1 + 1 = 3, despite the claims by the naysayers that it's impossible!
um... maybe they should be talking with Andersen and Enron.... their accountants seem to think they found 1+1=3 (or 5 or whatever they want). |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Capitalism vs Enron Venture Capitalism :)
said by FLea973:
said by Jason Bruce:
Who knows, we may one day discover how to make 1 + 1 = 3, despite the claims by the naysayers that it's impossible!
um... maybe they should be talking with Andersen and Enron.... their accountants seem to think they found 1+1=3 (or 5 or whatever they want).
Capitalism
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.
Enron Venture Capitalism
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. |
|
morph
join:2001-08-19
Canada | rotflmao  |
|
TZi
k1L0
join:2001-07-05
Miami Beach, FL
| BEWARE THIS COMPANY IS FULL OF CRAP
My father has had dealings with this company and they are nothing but a bunch of dishonest corporate strategists sitting at their desk trying to figure out a way to inflate their stock price. I have been to their offices is West Palm Beach, FL and there are no "super-engineers" sitting at the desks re-inventing the wheel.
This company used to sell paintball accessories which also had a website that supported online transactions. It was originally owned by a bunch of kids in West Palm Beach. Then came the .com revolution, and the company was bought out by said investors and turned into a B2B e-commerce company which never really made any profit- they just hyped the whole .com thing. Nevertheless, these "strategists" were able to profit by selling the artificially inflated stock price.
Then came the .com crash. In a crisis, said strategists vowed to turn the company from an e-commerce company into a software company with compression as its new "hype", hence zyndeos/zeosync was spun off. I had the opportunity to visit their website, then »www.ecomecom.net during this transition (go to that site now and you can see the inklings that started this whole fiasco) to see what their new strategy was all about. First, they were heralding a program which would evaluate an image file, and choose an appropriate compression scheme, jpg or gif et.al. This was their revolutionary technology at that time ~2001. It seems that didn't hype enough, so now they claim they can do better than JPEG and other well established compressions methods. Believe me, it's all crap. Their compression technology can be equated to the internal antenna commercials you see on TV--BS!
Who in their right mind, even if they didn't have inside knowledge, would believe that 10 people in a tiny office in West Palm Beach could come up with a compression scheme that outperforms Microsoft, the Joint Picture Experts Group, The Motion Pictures Experts Group, and Real Networks?
If such a compression scheme were actually possible, it would be much more likely for it to come from Microsoft or AT&T (or is it Lucent?) who have thousands of engineers between the two working on ways to maximize bandwidth efficency. Meanwhile, neither of these two giants have shown any interest in this "new" technology? Why? because it is not real!
This company can create all the press release they want but the the bottom line is that all this company is interested in is generating investor interest and raising their stock back up to a pre-.com crash price.
Check out this link, it shows the shoddy origins of this new "hype" as they reveal what it really is, hype.
»news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker···=US:ECEC
or this one:
»news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker···=US:ECEC
or this one:
»www.ecomecom.net/zyndecom.htm
and finally this one:
»www.zeosync.com
Follow the trail of BS all the way to the top; though they've done their best to isolate this "new" company from the failed "ecom ecom", they are one in the same.
See the similarities?---->BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This should settle all the arguments around this. If you have any more questions about this dishonest company, feel free to post here and i'll respond.
[text was edited by author 2002-02-20 19:15:39] |
|
