 
dnoyeB
Ferrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI
|  This trash again.
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
| Re: This trash again. 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? | |
|
| | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| 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. | |
|
| JustInit
join:2001-07-20
South Jordan, UT
| 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. | |
|
| | 
homebrewer5
join:2001-01-23
Lowell, MA |  Re: This trash again.
said by JustInit:
paradigm is shifting.
BINGO!!!!!
--
Bavarian Berthold | |
|
|
| |
clyde_
It's A Chrysalis, Not A Cocoon
Premium
join:2001-05-02
Easley, SC |  I'll believe it when I see it
--
"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. | |
|
| truth_too
Premium
join:2002-02-24
33367 | Re: A prediction that will come true...
truth_too | |
|
| | 
truth1
Premium
join:2002-02-21
| Re: A prediction that will come true... from the John Borland, ZDNet News interview with Peter St. George....
quote:
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 character set--into just 100 bits.
»zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-839884.html | |
|
| | | truth_too
Premium
join:2002-02-24
33367
| Re: A prediction that will come true...
Your "quote" of "128 bits down to 100 bits" seems to be the same one I've seen, BUT IS NOT WHAT MISSCLEO STATED.
Misscleo also appears to link herself(?) to the US Patent Office ("anonymous from domain uspto.gov"). That link has the potential to infer she(?) has information that you and I don't have.
Anyway, if you know anything about the issues then you know that the 128 down to 100 on a "random" file is (supposed to be) impossible. Most of the press reaction is that the claim is outright fraud.
ZeoSync has never demonstrated anything publicly (that I can find). On the other hand, ECEC has demonstrated technology. ECEC has submitted technology to independent testing. THERE IS NO SIMILARITY BETWEEN THE PUBLISHED CLAIMS OTHER THAN THE WORD COMPRESSION.
ECEC has a product and is trying to come to market with it. You go into ECEC and you can buy a copy. If you go into ZeoSync, all you will get is promises of things to come in the next two years (I never tried it but, it's a reasonable bet).
Linking the two is fraud and harming my investment.
truth_too | |
|
| | | |
truth1
Premium
join:2002-02-21
| Re: A prediction that will come true... said by truth_too:
ZeoSync has never demonstrated anything publicly...If you go into ZeoSync, all you will get is promises...I never tried it...it's a reasonable bet
I'm having trouble, based on your statement, figuring how you get to the reasonable part of that. In reality, ZeoSync is asking the public to take those promises on faith and on the good character of the individuals they have offered on there website as experts in this field. The outsided scientific team seems to have abandoned any association with ZeoSync, in fact, Zeosync's presumption of their association might be fraud. All that then remains is the management team of ZeoSync. But at least one of those "experts in telecommunications", Hamby Hutcheson, cannot even stand up to the simplest scrutiny: a background check that any outside investor would presume had been made by ZeoSync before publicly offering the person to bolster its claims.
You should reconsider your "investment".
-truth | |
|
| | | | | truth_too
Premium
join:2002-02-24
33367
| Re: A prediction that will come true... TRUTH: What part of my statement are you unable to comprehend ("I'm having trouble, based on your statement, figuring how you get to the reasonable part of that.")
All I said was it is a "reasonable bet" that all you will get is promises if you go into ZeoSync --- whereas ECEC has a product they can hand you.
You are starting to sound like another alias hereabouts. You hiding under multiple names?
truth_too | |
|
| | | | | |
truth1
Premium
join:2002-02-21 | Re: A prediction that will come true... Sorry, it sounded like you were saying ZeoSync is a reasonable bet. But I stand corrected, that is, it is not your intention. Agreed, ZeoSync is not a reasonable bet. | |
|
| | | | | | | truth_too
Premium
join:2002-02-24
33367
| Re: A prediction that will come true...
I think she(?) misquoted (IMO). However, if it was a true quote it further illustrates the difference in the form of compression being developed by ECEC and ZeoSync.
Anyway, you and others a probably going to be right in at least one area ... it (ECEC) is looking more and more like a bad move for my wallet.
truth_too | |
|
| | | | | | | |
truth1
Premium
join:2002-02-21
| Re: A prediction that will come true... Well, the references are numerous, so I am suprised that you pretend to be so naive about it. Just use Google and the word "ZeoSync".
Are you trying to back away from the claims or is this just the beginning of a disinformation campaign by ZeoSync now that so many have debunked and rejected the claims?
from ZeoSyncs own press page:
»www.zeosync.com/flash/pressrelease.htm
quote:
"What we've developed is a new plateau in communications theory," said company founder and CEO Peter St. George in a statement. "...There are potentially fantastic ramifications of this new approach in both communications and storage." ...
Current technologies that enable the compression of data for transmission and storage are generally limited to compression ratios of ten-to-one. ZeoSync's Zero Space Tuner™ and BinaryAccelerator™ solutions, once fully developed, will offer compression ratios that are anticipated to approach the hundreds-to-one range.
Typical of interview quotes from St. George which are consistent with above ratios:
by Tim McDonald from an interview with Peter St. George.
»www.wirelessnewsfactor.com/perl/···ry-start
quote:
Ten-Fold Increases
ZeoSync said that its discovery challenges the classic treatise on information theory, "A Mathematical Theory of Communication," published in 1948 and written by Dr. Claude Shannon. The gist of the theory is that information is limited by the capacity of the data channel over which it flows.
Using a technology it calls Zero Space Tuner combined with a Binary Accelerator, ZeoSync officials said they can reduce data that has already been reduced. Once fully developed, it will offer compression rates that approach hundreds-to-one ratios, the company said, compared to current technologies that are limited to ratios of 10 to one.
| |
|
| | | | | | | | | truth_too
Premium
join:2002-02-24
33367
| Re: A prediction that will come true...
Actually, we know you can't so it is probably best if be dropped because it doesn't exist.
truth_too
[text was edited by author 2002-02-28 07:59:02] | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
truth1
Premium
join:2002-02-21
| Re: A prediction that will come true... Yes, it is hard to get off the soap box because for ZeoSyncs claims to be true, they will not only have invalidated Shannon's theory but the foundations of modern mathmatics as we know it. That's a pretty big claim. Any college sophmore in CS is taught how to proceed with a proof and when to admit that it is time to explore the contradiction. St. George seems to have ignored that and proceeded with increasingly elaborate claims, while his own technical process page says
quote:
at which point our multi-dimensional circumvention of the pigeonhole principle breaks down.
QED
I think St. George will have to admit that point is no better, and probably worse, than Shannon's limit.
When is the big demo?  | |
|
| | | | | | | | | truth_too
Premium
join:2002-02-24
33367 | Re: A prediction that will come true...
By the way ... what other alias / names do you use here?
truth_too | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
truth1
Premium
join:2002-02-21
| Re: A prediction that will come true... Peter St. George said in his published interview with Wired News: quote:
We can compress every single permutation of an N-member set. ..You need at least 100 bits, let's say, to create a multidimensional construct. Everything in an N-member set can be expressed in an N-1 set. You can reconstruct the H set without losing a bit in the process.
So MISSCLEO made no error - the above statement by St. George, CEO of ZeoSync, says the same thing. Ignorance is no defense here or in a court of law.
[text was edited by author 2002-03-06 08:31:26] | |
|
| | | | | | | | | truth_too
Premium
join:2002-02-24
33367
| Re: A prediction that will come true... TRUTH: What you are quoting is not what MISSCLEO claimed. From her (supposed) perch on the USPTO, she claimed to have seen "128 down to 10".
All I want is MISSCLEO to point me to that "exact" quote.
Why don't you shut up and let MISSCLEO respond?
truth_too | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
truth1
Premium
join:2002-02-21
| Re: A prediction that will come true... So your not bothered by that claim from St. George? If what Peter St. George says is true, then the MISSCLEO statement is the least of the problems here - in fact, if what St. George and ZeoSync says is true, your computer might stop working at any moment.
Why, you might ask? Well if you didn't I'm going to tell you anyway. Our computers are bounded by "Theory of Computation" on the one hand and "Analysis of Algorithms" (Complexity) on the other. Both are undergraduate courses in any CS curriculm, BTW. So it's sort of a two-dimensional world after all. Either the counting argument gets you or, passing that, the complexity gets you. There's no free lunch, dude.
If ZeoSync is right, then most of the math rules that govern how my computer works are broken. And Microsoft not withstanding, my computer continues to work and I suspect ZeoSync is certainly wrong and Claude Shannon was right.
So this adds up to a monumental fraud unless ZeoSync can either do a plausible demonstration or show up next month at DCC with a brief explanation of itself and answer some qustions by peers.
[text was edited by author 2002-03-06 17:30:11] | |
|
| | | | | | | | | truth_too
Premium
join:2002-02-24
33367
| Re: A prediction that will come true...
All I want is MISSCLEO to point me to that "exact" quote.
Why don't you shut up and let MISSCLEO respond --- or are you running your mouth because you know that the alias "MISSCLEO" is a fraud and the claimed link to the USPTO is a fraud?
You are sounding more and more like "CRAPBOY"?
truth_too | |
|
| | | |
truth1
Premium
join:2002-02-21
| said by truth_too:
Misscleo also appears to link herself(?) to the US Patent Office ("anonymous from domain uspto.gov"). That link has the potential to infer she(?) has information that you and I don't have.
One piece of information that Misscleo (uspto.gov) probably has, that You and I can have simply by searching the U.S. Patent database at »www.uspto.gov, is that Borko Furht doesn't seem to hold any patents as he claims on his resume (»www.cse.fau.edu/~borko/resume.html), at least not any US Patents since 1976. From Borko's page:
quote:
He has published numerous scientific and technical papers, books, and holds several patents...
Perhaps you could persuade him to drop by here and clarify that. I see only references to some of his publications in the citations of other person's patents.
- truth | |
|
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
| 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
| Re: Do not criticise anything before one sees the data 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? | |
|
| | | Thud
join:2000-04-04
Alpharetta, GA | 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 | Re: suurewhatever-else 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. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | 
morph
join:2001-08-19
Canada | Re: Capitalism vs Enron Venture Capitalism :) rotflmao | |
|
TZi
k1L0
join:2001-07-05
Miami Beach, FL
| BEWARE THIS COMPANY IS FULL OF CRAP
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] | |
|
|
See 8 replies to this post |
|
|
|
|
also on ZDnet
Meanwhile... I was still thinkin':D
·