Snoproblem wrote:
Scientists and engineers have been tinkering with circuits on the sub-atomic level, i.e. 'mainframe in a pinhead' kind of stuff.
I've taken an interest in reading about Quantum Computing. Interesting stuff!!
Snoproblem wrote:
Scientists and engineers have been tinkering with circuits on the sub-atomic level, i.e. 'mainframe in a pinhead' kind of stuff.
TNT wrote:
If you take existing data and make it smaller with ability to restore it to it's original form you ARE talking about compression, no matter which means you use to achieve the size reduction. The counting argument is valid for whatever algorithm you use.
The Dark Prince wrote:
Lasafrog, the technology is not the issue here. Size is the issue here, the only reason an entire movie fits on a disk is because there is a large amount of storage space on such a disk. No matter how you look at it, 64k is still 64k.
TNT wrote:
There are max. 256 movies, so single byte tells which "decoder" to use - that "decoder" contains the movie data itself.
White Flame wrote:TNT wrote:
There are max. 256 movies, so single byte tells which "decoder" to use - that "decoder" contains the movie data itself.
There are max 256^4096 movies, seeing as 16 keys fit in 64k (4096 bytes each).
TNT wrote:
but all that data would still need to be stored somewhere else.
Half-Saint wrote:TNT wrote:
but all that data would still need to be stored somewhere else.
How about a hidden hard drive
SainT
Half-Saint wrote:TNT wrote:
but all that data would still need to be stored somewhere else.
How about a hidden hard drive
SainT
-[ SteG ]- wrote:
So did anybody catch this tv program about this 'miracle' in mpg (or similar) format ?
Everything you said is true for current technology. Sloot didn't use current technology, he did something else.
a whole new way of thinking about digital code.
ThePup wrote:
ep, I've got it all right here in a 1K file - I'd email it to you, but the technology to decode it is lost now that the guy's dead...