Another Failed Compression Promise: NearZero
Posted by Sachin Garg on 14th June 2007 | Permanent Link
Update 11th Nov 2007: Judge orders liquidation.
A New Zealand based company, NearZero has nothing to show after more than 6 years and $5 million of investor money. It promised a breakthrough compression technology but now liquidators are called in.
Compression really seems to be a popular trap investors fall into. There have been a bit too many such companies which have promised to compress the moon and the sun but managed to compress nothing more than investor’s hard earned cash. And it doesn’t comes as too much of a surprise. They make huge promises, which are infact lucrative, but only if it was more probable to fulfill them. But then not everyone is as lucky as me to understand the technology behind compression ;-)
There have been many examples over the years. While some like zeosync started with huge claims and were just declared fraud soon (they promised a bit too much), there are others which are still chugging along. Like Euclid Discoveries, which is working on a ‘breakthrough’ video compression technology (since a decade I guess) but haven’t delivered anything, yet. Millions of dollars get poured with hope of recovery getting less with each passing day.
NearZero’s case is very similar:
NearZero’s share offer was apparently made to fund further development of software capable of compressing high-volume data so it can be sent over the Internet. The technology was tested in 2001 but had not been seen for several years by any external party.
While jury is still out on some companies like Euclid, others like Zeosync and NearZero are grim reminders of age old theory which says, invest in what you understand, not what sounds good.
Note: Not all compression companies are bad, but this “not seen by any external party” is the common warning sign in each case.
Anyway, the investors who have their money in, are still hopeful that things might not be as bad as they look. Check out the comments to this post on Euclid Discoveries, more than a year has passed since this thread started and absolutely nothing has changed. Neither have they delivered anything, nor have the investors stopped believing.
June 19th, 2007 at 3:24 am
Nearzero boss Phil Whitley, claimed to have developed a data compression that would compress “everything” thrown at it by 95% before flicking it down fibre-optic. It was going to revolutionize the industry.
I am curious as to what is the current rate of compression & what is totally impossible. Thanks
June 19th, 2007 at 4:36 am
Current rate of compression is highly dependent on type of data you want to compress, and amount of computing power/time you can allow the algorithm to take. Customized solutions for specific type of data in specific situations work better, but normal tools like ZIP etc can take care of most cases.
You can get some hard numbers at the data compression faq.
“95% for everything” is patently impossible, and this is not the first time someone has fraudulently claimed this. Data compression faq discusses the explanation in detail.
June 24th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
There seems to have been many companies over the years who have all claimed a way to compress data far beyond the limits of current technology. I think perhaps that they are not all scams from the outset but they start out with an almost complete product and get caught up with not quite getting it completed.
Perhaps one day someone will crack the final parts…..till then I am another investor who seems to have lost some money….easy come, easy go.
June 25th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Yep, all are not scams. Infact, many unsuccessful companies start with good-intentions and then realize along the path that they aren’t ‘yet’ going to deliver what they promised, but still think that it will be soon and continue selling the rainbow to investors.
July 15th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Hello to fellow reader.
I have read this article and i am discusted.
I know Philip Whitley (Inventor) personally and no this to be a real technology. I have seen it and somewhat know the outline of how it works.
In 2001 it was tested by many World Famous compression experts and all of them declared that it could compress data to what Phil said it could.
NearZero are fighting the liquidation process and if succseful will become a very large company.
Phil had workd on this technology for over 8 years.
If this was a scam he would not need 8 years preparation.
I am very hopeful and confident that NearZero will succeed.
July 15th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
“Anonomous”, if the claim was to “compress everything thrown at it by 95%”, it is mathematically impossible to achieve (read comments above). Can you mention names of any of the famous experts who tested it?
If there is/was some other more practical claim made, we would love to hear what it is.
July 20th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
if you thought that much of PJW put your name under the comments !!!!!
July 29th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Before investing money it is wise to do a little research. NearZero’s claims are mathematically impossible.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/part1/section-8.html
July 30th, 2007 at 1:28 am
There not impossible, it just that no one has figured out how to do it.
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:00 am
When we speak about on-line movies we mean only photographic images not “everything” and it is different from still images, because every frame exposed during 1/30 of a second.
My new technique allows to reach near 3:1 (ezcodesample.com), about 11% better then JPEG2000. I did not exhaust all possible means and believe that 5:1 lossless is realistic for still images and 20:1 (same as 95%) is realistic for movies. The approach for movies should be drastically different from still images and not limited to exploit similarities between the frames. Use similarities between frames is primitive idea on the level of student’s graduate project. Unfortunately, people show extreem opinions from believing to absurd to not believing in real things.
August 19th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
I could believe 20:1 lossless compression of maybe some low noise video, but so what? Most people can’t tell the difference from lossy compression. DVD quality MPEG-2 already compresses about 20:1, and MPEG-4/H264 compresses about 40:1. Same with still images. JPEG can do a lot better than 3:1 before you see any loss of quality.
August 21st, 2007 at 10:39 am
Matt,
You surprise me. I thought it was clear for a person with experience in image compression industry. We do lossless image compression because we HAVE TO not because we WANT TO. Again HAVE TO means having an obligation. Because the image is not somebodies used car published on e-bay or my birthday party pics. It is a fingerprint of serial killer or satellite made image of an enemy territory that may be subject to enhancement later. Or other that we HAVE TO legally preserve as is.
How about BMP image published on maximumcompression.com which is definetely not one of the above category and have sizes about 1300 * 1000 and palette size about 5000, having also least 3 bits of every color the same. Is it chosen on purpose to expose advantage of certain companies ability to losslessly compress images, which does not look that good when it comes to compression of DLLs or EXE? Why don’t you say on maximumcompression.com that it is nonesence to have this image in BMP, because it was already in JPG?
September 10th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Check out this website for more info on Nearzero before making any decisions on the technology. Normally those that can’t work something out are the first to knock and discount those they can.
www.nearzero.bravehost.com
September 11th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Stevo,
What is your point? I read document. To me it looks like total failure of NearZero. Do you have other opinion?
One little correction. When filing patent application provisional application can be skipped. It is not necessary stage, so there are two stages not three.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Andrew, you should look more carefully!
6 Conclusion.
As stated in the Executive Summary, the test results confirm that:
1. The compression ratio was found to be 15:1 across all file types.
2. The bit-level comparison confirmed that the decompressed files were totally lossless.
3. Graphics files, sound files and archive files are also compressed at the 15:1 ratio.
4. The technology worked across stand-alone and networked PCs.
5. The test procedures confirm that a 12Mb original file is transferred as a 900Kb file.
6. The transfer rate through a network is reliant on the available bandwidth.
The test procedures confirm that the objectives as outlined in this document were sucessfully met.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Euromatic,
I’ve read this text sitting under ‘Logical Test’ tag. To me this site looks as if it was set up specifically to bust NearZero, not otherwise, because of other negative information.
If Philip really had algorithm that could compress almost anything 15:1 he would act differently. It is not a problem to file a patent. It could be granted already. And it is not a problem to show the demo. By the way, many files can be compressed 15:1, many but not all.
September 13th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Dr. Timothy Bell’s affidavit on that site say that he suspected the program was trying to hide data on hard-drive and he was not allowed to do a two computer test.
http://nearzero.bravehost.com/Documents/Bell%20Affidavit.pdf
Moreover, regardless of the specific details of this case, I would like to again mention that it is mathematically ‘impossible’ (not hard or tough) for a program to compress all files with a fixed ratio.
September 15th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Any compression scheme that is *NOT* allowed to be tested using two computers (one to compress and the other to decompress) smells like a con job to me.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Sachin,
It is impossible to compress white noise (pure random data) even on 1%, but white noise is not what we are going to compress. All files in internet are images, musik, text, protocols and so on. EXE and DLLs have format either.
If I show you English text, say a story that you never read and ask you to predict next symbol in text based on the previous symbols what would be the rate of correct guessing? I think at least 95%, do you agree?
September 21st, 2007 at 2:02 am
Agreed.
But this NearZero seems to be claiming to compress ‘everything’, and compress everything by ‘fixed’ ratio. Thats surely impossible (not just hard, mathematically impossible). But you ofcourse know this, message is for the investor types :-)
September 21st, 2007 at 4:53 am
>If I show you English text, say a story that
>you never read and ask you to predict next
>symbol in text based on the previous symbols
>what would be the rate of correct guessing?
>I think at least 95%, do you agree?
@Andrew:
No absolutely not. You are not even close.
Shannon of course did a classic paper on this, and he showed that your chance of even guessing the next LETTER was no better than 50/50. It would be trivial to do the same experiment yourself, try it sometime.
September 21st, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Thanks Mark,
I made suggestion about 95% based on known Shannon’s estimation that English text can be compressed to 1 bps. If we presume that original text require 6 bps and human can guess only 50% the text could be copressed to 3 bps only. In order to reduce to 1 bps the correct guessing should be much better. However, I’m not argueing because I did not try it myself and the numbers are very approximate.
September 23rd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
The thing I find most interesting about nearzero is that it has been dragged through the New Zealand courts system. If it were all a scam the Judge would have picked this and forced the immediate liquidation of the company, following by the prosecution of Philip.
Instead of this, due to a mistake made by the company, he has allowed investors to request their money back, or choose to keep their investment. I am certain if it was a scam that this option would not have been given.
I am looking forward to seeing the outcome of this and if Philip really has a world first product, may it be as successful as other Kiwi inventions.
I don’t buy into the argument that it cannot be done. A famous Kiwi singer recently released a song about the Kiwi way of thinking….it said…”We had no idea that it couldn’t be done” yes indeed it was impossible to climb Mt Everest, yes it was impossible to fly, Yes it was impossible to split the atom….the thing is no-one told Edmund Hillary, Richard Pearce, or Earnest Rutherford those things.
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Now that is plain silly to think that the judge will know for sure that it is a scam. How many judges out there do you think have even heard of Huffman or Shannon? Show me which judges learn ‘the counting argument’ while studying the law?
When it comes to high-tech cases, judges depend on expert witnesses to feed them opinions/data. The facts are that the stated claims are not impossible based on human opinions like those in the Kiwi song, they are impossible because the basic math tells us so.
And the fact that after years of work not even the simplest basic two computer compression tests are allowed just screams CON JOB! Even with lower compression ratios they should be able to show their code do lossless compression and decompression of data, if nothing else.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Lets take a look at a possible scheme for compression that does not break shannons law’s but still allows compression greater than we have seen. Now I am no programmer, and certainly not a mathmetician, but when we look at the human body we have 46 chromosomes. Somehow out of those 46 chromosomes there is enough data comtained to tell the body how to build itself.
So if someone could create a program that did not compress that data but rather looked at the data and found another way to represent it, then maybe space could be saved. Lets look at some simple equations.
2 could be stored as 1+1 which is probably not going to be very efficient, but 997002999 could perhaps be represented and stored more efficiently as 999 cubed.
I do not know if this is what some existing compression program does, but to me this would mean the larger the number the more efficient it would be to store.
The compression available could be greater than Shannons law, however as we are not doing a binary compression we are not suggesting that Shannon was wrong and are thus not breaking his law. Instead of a binary compression we are replacing the data through a system that knows how to re-created the original data. If this could be created it would in theory have to be lossless compression.
I believe that at some stage someone will look at something like this and be able to do it. Perhaps this solution is the one?
October 5th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
@Dodgy:
Both your chromosome analogy and your other suggestions are simply ways of talking about the Kolmogorov Complexity of a given sequence.
In a nutshell, this type of complexity is simply a question of “what is the simplest set of instructions I can come up with to describe a given sequence?”
Obviously, for the human body we know that the upper bound is a few billion nucleotide pairs. (We don’t know the lower limit for the body or most other non-trivial Kolmogorov sequences - it is generally not computable.)
So yes, you can come up with a recipe that offers incredible compression. For example, the string “The first 10 billion digits of pi” can in some ways be seen as implementing 300,000,000:1 compression.
But unfortunately, the rules regarding sequence lengths in complexity theory are bound by exactly the same rules as they are with any other form of compression. In particular, the counting argument still applies. No matter how you slice it, eight bits of recipe can still only produce 256 unique sequences.
When you observer that “997002999 could perhaps be represented and stored more efficiently as 999 cubed.”, you are falling victim to Magic Number Theory. Yes, there are some sequences that can be described with a smaller recipe, but unfortunately, there is not a magic recipe for every sequence. For every sequence that you shrink in this way, you’re going to end up with many more, like 997003001, that actually become larger after you use your new descriptive language to define them.
Sorry. I don’t make the law, I just enforce it.
|
| Mark Nelson - http://marknelson.us
|
October 7th, 2007 at 12:32 am
And as always, no guesses are needed to explain why anyone who claims to come up with a magic compression system refuses to do the ‘Two Computer Test’.
They refuse it because they know they will fail. And if they will fail the compression is worthless to the general public.
October 10th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
As one who has ‘inside’ knowledge into this matter, there is more going on behind the scenes than has been reported. Now I’m not saying that the technology works or not, but I have been privy to a fair amount of information into nearzero and believe me, there are certain organisations out there who don’t want technology like this out there without first getting their hands on it. In a situation like nearzero is in now, to test the technology and prove it works ( 2 computer or otherwise) opens up the ability for liquidators and the like to ‘obtain’ the technology and use it for their own advantage. Nearzero are more than happy to show that it works, but off-shore under strict security conditions….unfortunatley ceratin people will not accept this as they know if this happens, they have no ability to seize it. There are commercial factors that some of you ‘techo’ type people have no understanding of.
October 13th, 2007 at 3:42 am
And to think if Nearzero wasn’t being attacked by the liquidators, Nearzero would have gone to IP and we all could of had faster internet by now.
If Nearzero isn’t left alone we all may have lost one of the biggest breakthroughs in history.
Before Nearzero is Liquidated we need to give them a chance to see if they have the technology or not.
October 13th, 2007 at 3:44 am
_____________________________________________________
Earl Colby Pottinger Says:
October 7th, 2007 at 12:32 am
And as always, no guesses are needed to explain why anyone who claims to come up with a magic compression system refuses to do the ‘Two Computer Test’.
They refuse it because they know they will fail. And if they will fail the compression is worthless to the general public.
____________________________________________________
They did do the ‘Two Computer Test’ to companies like IBM and Ball Aerospace in which the technology was proven to be true.
October 13th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Jack/James R : If you think that ’sockpuppet’ posting using multiple names is going to help NearZero, you can continue doing so.
(Both comments came from same IP)
btw, there is nothing wrong in ’speculating’ what a technologies potential can be, but we are talking about ‘facts’.
a) Their claims are mathematically impossible.
b) Do you have any references regarding their such tests? Can someone from these companies testify that they have seen it work?
October 14th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Sashin: Yes they came from the same IP address because Jack is my brother. And we are related to a previous worker of Nearzero and have seen the technology working with my own two eyes.
I have seen the test results from IBM and ball areospace and there is references to them at nearzeros website
October 14th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Yes it is mathematically impossible to compress binary by the amount nearzero claims but what you have not realised is that the technology does not use binary.
October 14th, 2007 at 12:55 am
I am very confident that nearzero is going to win the court case and the technology will be released… and you will feel like an idiot.
October 14th, 2007 at 12:58 am
And no someone from those companies cannot legaly testify that they have seen it work as they signed a non-disclosure. Although that hasn’t stoped one person who tested it and then joined the company as he was so confident in it.
October 14th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
James R, why don’t you tell the full story not just what suits your argument i.e. that the ‘tester’ himself now believes and openy states that this is a scam….
October 15th, 2007 at 12:56 am
Well i know the ‘tester’ and i know that he believes in the technology.
October 15th, 2007 at 12:57 am
He has never said that he believes it is a scam
October 15th, 2007 at 1:06 am
Are you a shareholder Simon?
October 15th, 2007 at 1:10 am
Here is a link to a test done in 2001. http://nearzero.bravehost.com/Documents/Logical%20Test.pdf
October 15th, 2007 at 10:48 am
James, your last few comments ‘dissapeared’ and then you got ‘blacklisted’ from posting new comments, thanks to the anti-spam engine c10n uses.
This was not deliberate, try not to post multiple comments in quick succession to avoid this in future. If your (or anyone else’s) comments don’t show up for reasons you don’t understand, drop me a mail.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Sorry about the following multi-posts, there is a bug in my OS (BeOS) that messes up long messages:
Read as far as the second page of the PDF to start seeing holes in the procedures.
What a gobbly-goop of lies and easy set up for a con job.
Tests done on one computer is not the “Two Computer Test”.
Tests done on networked computers is not the “Two Computer Test”.
Tests done on two computers that are not formatted/wiped clean/then have the OS installed off a trusted CD plus the compressor/decompressor added is no the “Two Computer Test”.
The only files on the computers should be the OS and compressor/decompressor.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Using Windows to find suspect files is a joke. Using Windows to delete files is a con job. Deleting files using the trashcan leaves all the data still on the hard drive to be accessed. Smells like a con job to me.
You need to use a wiper program to insure the data is not hidden somewhere on the disk where it can be read using direct disk access.
The files used in the tests appear to have been chosen by NetZero, that is a big no-no if you want to avoid being conned.
Worse as far as I can see there was no testing for external communications that would let information flow between computers.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
The “Two Computer Test” requires two machines that are not connected in anyway. The publisher of the compressor/decompressor is usually the best person to supply the computers.
I the tester in turn will wipe the hard drives of the computers clean with the programs of my choice, insure there are no hidden partitions then supply and install an OS on both machines, an OS where I the tester am sure *ALL* external communications are disabled - no infra-red, no serial, not parallel, no USB, no Blue-Tooth, no WiFi, NOTHING but floppies.
The publisher then installs the compressor/decompresser on the computers. The publisher also can check there is still no way for me to copy their code either.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
The “Two Computer Test” requires two machines that are not connected in anyway. The publisher of the compressor/decompressor is usually the best person to supply the computers.
I the tester in turn will wipe the hard drives of the computers clean with the programs of my choice, insure there are no hidden partitions then supply and install an OS on both machines, an OS where I the tester am sure *ALL* external communications are disabled - no infra-red, no serial, not parallel, no USB, no Blue-Tooth, no WiFi, NOTHING but floppies.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
The publisher then installs the compressor/decompresser on the computers. The publisher also can check there is still no way for me to copy their code either.
I the tester, note I, not *The publisher*, I will supply the file to be compressed, probably on a multi-disk zip file.
The publisher then can compress it on one computer and transfer it to a single floppy, that floppy is transfered to the other computer for decompression.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
After the publisher runs the decompression I will then perform any tests needed *OF MY CHOICE* to confirm the publisher have indeed reproduced that file.
When finished, pass or fail (and NetZero will fail it’s wild claims), the publisher get to take back their computers, and keep any floppies used in this test to insure the tester can’t steal any of their IP.
Make any excuse to leave out any of the above steps and you are talking a con job in the making, plain and simple.
October 19th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
There is an alternate to this two computer test that can be used to satisfy the public at large. This test can work online (no need for two physical computers or for both parties to be present in one room).
It has the limitation that the decompressor will have to be given away. But if the inventor is ok with this, it can satisfy the evaluators.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:23 pm
That is why I am always try to push the “Two Computer Test”. As already pointed out at the URL you supplied, so-called inventors of “magic” compressors always seem to fear that just giving away decompressor will reveal their “secret” methods.
All the lame excuses given to not to do public tests that I always see by the so-called inventors that makes me call them con-artists first and foremost. Not one can point to a true public test with proper controls conditions and name the names to the observers for independent inquiry.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:40 am
If you have invented a revolutionary technology, you have to admit you would be scared that someone is going to steal it.
You cant just call them a con-artist because they don’t want to do a Public Test.
Also, back to the theory of Mr Whtiley having hidden files while doing the test. A) The testers had the chance to look for hidden files and he if he had hidden files he would not of had it tested. B) Several other tests were done by companies such as IBM and who knows if they looked for hidden files. All I do know is that one of the companies offered a price for the technology on the spot.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Mr. James R:
What you posted was a load of garbage for the following reasons.
One: The “Two Computer Test” involves the inventor/publisher/demonstrator keeping *ALL* the hardware and data media after the test. The only way they could lose their secret is if they are mugged and everything stolen. And even then they could still prove they were the inventors/patent holders.
Refusing to do it is the mark of a con-artist.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Two: If they want people to invest money in them but will not do a test to confirm that they can really do what they claim, then I am very willing to call them con-artist.
Refusing public tests is another mark of a con-artist.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Two: Using Windows’s search features to look for hidden files is a lost cause before you have ever started. Anyone claiming to be a computer expert and as proof shows they did their searches with the Windows utilities only is clearly a con-artist in themselves. Don’t believe me, go to your local computer store, show their tech the PDF and watch them laugh their head off.
And what outside tests? I see none listed in the PDF, just your empty claim. Bet you can’t name the people who did claimed tests or the software used?
Still smells like a con-job to me. Sorry, vague statements like your are exactly what suggests there is nothing to this.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Last: Companies are sometimes ran by people who get fooled. Just because someone offered money does not prove the tech works. And as always I notice again you are not naming names.
All marks of a con-job to me.
October 27th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
This is all a very interesting discussion, and I have learned a bit about data compression on the way too. I am still of the opinion the just because it hasn’t been done, doesn’t mean it cant be done.
I do agree that if indeed the product does exist then independant two (or more) computer tests will be required to proove its validity, and I am certain the patent office will have a significant involvement too if it works.
I understand the court case that nearzero has had to go through was nothing to do with the technology itself, but was because of an error made through not having a complete investment statement. The bottom line was a question of whether or not the offer of shares was ‘public’ or ‘private.’ If the company pulls through this then everyone will be expecting to see a product within 6 months. I hope this thread remains active for this long so that I can either be prooven to be a fool or vindicated for my decisions.
Time will tell.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Have none of you considered any other reasons as to why the thought of doing a public demonstration for a new data compression technology might not protect you any more now than doing it online without a definite guarantee? Let me explain:
We know it is an open-source free-for-all these days with all the code-sharing going on now, and you aren’t going to make the kind of money that Phil Katz did back in the day with PKZIP when everyone expects things to now be “free”.
Especially if they are willing to go as far as to learn of and then change the algorithm just enough to not have to pay for it, as is the case with range encoding vs. arithmetic implementations, and another example being the use of PNG when Unisys began to enforce the GIF patent they held. I don’t agree with Unisys doing that (never did), but I mention this just to illustrate how easy it is for a known algorithm to be compromised or circumvented to prevent the inventor from being compensated for their hard work. This is not like music or movies…not even the same ballpark, where you can just make another song or another movie to replace the one being ripped off. The detail and amount of thought (generally) is much more and deserves more respect than even that of the arts (which I do have respect for greatly). Data compression itself is an art I believe.
That being said, just think of what might happen if you are being audited by a large company such as IBM or Raytheon with experience in TEMPEST-based technology and they want what you have badly enough. While you are busy showcasing your technology, they are busy stealing it and figuring out how to reverse engineer it in the event that you don’t want to sell it for peanuts to them at a bargain-basement royalty price.
And if you are selling it to the U.S. government if it is that good? Do you really believe your case is going to stand up in court very well against the government’s backbone of support or the US Military without underhanded payoffs? I mean seriously, come on now. You may say I’m slightly paranoid or giving them way too much credit for prior preparation for a demonstration that might not even work if performed. But do you, with your next (legitimate) breakthrough…want to take that chance without protection or a good faraday cage to house those “two computers to test” in?
No, you can’t trust most of the people unfortunately who are trying to turn this stuff out anymore. Sadly, most of it is con stuff and that does sadden me because it’s counter-productive to data compression research and disheartening to me as an avid enthusiast. However, can you honestly trust those you are displaying this to?
It’s nearly a lose-lose situation unless you’re as careful with the protection of your hardware and software as they are with the protection of their assets and investments.
Btw, Earl…no offense but you sound like someone who just likes to bitch and repeat yourself over and over again saying “bah humbug! there’s no such thing as a magic compressor. har har har! I hate u ppl who say otherwise!” Enough is enough. We get your point that you think the world is still flat and no new achievements will be made. I can’t exactly say it isn’t flat in some areas, because it certainly is…but would you have burned me at the stake a few hundred years ago for telling you we lived on a sphere but not proved it to you or the investors yet? Think about it.
Not to say skepticism isn’t bad. In fact, it can save your a** with a lot of things and has its place. But it has TOO much of a place in data compression discussion anymore I think rather than actual research into ways to go beyond where we are today.
Just my 2 cents, recursively compressed to a schilling. ;)
James W. (not to be confused with James R. Jack X, or Tom from myspace)
November 5th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
P.S: keyboard logging with software, video/screen capture programs, hidden cameras, and hardware that is disguised as a ps/2 extender cable with a small chip that records all the keyboard strokes made no matter what clean install of any non-rootkitted OS you might plan to use for the demo. As a reference to the hardware: http://www.keyghost.com/, cheap key capture hardware. Not to add to the paranoia of folks, but all of it is very possible and easy to do. Most of the inventors would probably be too excited about the demonstration to even check for their security on this…what do you think?
November 5th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
P.P.S: James R., about the claim that the technology “does not use binary”. That too, if dealing with digital computing, is electronically as well as mathematically possible unless they are working with chemical-based/biocomputers. Even still, they use some sort of energy as a catalyst and the reactions mirror binary states with simulated mediums unless we are talking about quantum computers, which use different type of state registers..but I seriously doubt that near zero is doing or using anything of that nature!
November 5th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
sorry, meant electronically as welll as mathematically *impossible*.
It’d be about as logical as swimming through a brick wall or turning electricity into soda pop.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
And all your comments about stealing are just the usual con-artist garbage trying to hide the fact that the claims can not be meet.
As far as the ‘Two Computer Test’ is involved:
1) The inventor/demo agent supplies the hardware - no-one else, so how can the code be stolen?
2) The inventor/demo agent takes the same hardware back with them, so how can the code be stolen?
3) I notice that you want to insult me, but you still wiggle around trying to avoid answering my questions.
4) I notice that you want to insult me, but you still can’t show any working programs, and the testing done was done in such a manner that I know smart 15 year olds who could fool the tester.
5) I notice that you want to insult me, but this company is still asking for money; you want money, you better answer the questions first.
And no matter what you think of the company or myself, all the actions taken so far have all the earmarks of a con-job not a business. Those are the facts.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:17 am
JamesW, no matter how much paranoiac they might be, eventually they do have to demonstrate it, or do you disagree?
November 6th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
To Sachin:
Yes, I believe they do have to demonstrate it.
There won’t be a way to validate their creation’s successfulness without a real-world test of its abilities. And the outcome of that must be proven and known. It must be demonstrated. That goes without saying.
But how do you protect that completely, assuming that you want to profit from your hard work and creativity? If your detailed explanation of your idea makes it either simple enough or comprehensive enough that anyone can get it and it can be copied and then changed into something that violates your right as a patent holder, then where is the encouragement in that?
I also believe that there should be NO exchange of money to the person with the claim. Not until they have proven that it works.
There has to be some level of adequate protection for the legitimate creator (when they exist) and the legitimate company (which exists far more often).
Neither party shoul have to lose out just because some jerk (or jerks) want to milk a few companies for advance funding to “get it off the ground” and then cash in on a lie.
I’ve read stories like nearzero and zeosynch’s coming and going for at least the last 20 years and I’m really tired of it.
But I am also tired of the companies who steal from the lone inventor, too.
Not necessarily with data compression or any algorithmic innovations but more with patents and ideas in general.
But yes, Sachin: It stands to reason that there is no way to prove it works without a true test of it and a full demonstration.
But how do you go about protecting the creator AND the company/investor from ALL forms of fraud and theft I mentioned earlier? Is it even possible to protect from all those angles completely?
And now to Earl, a few things:
1. I’m not sure if you understood entirely what I was detailing before. I outlined above and detailed *several* tools and methods anyone could use to steal more than the program data of your algorithm — they can monitor and trap the raw hardware that it would run on to get what they needed without a second thought. Even if it was hardware you brought yourself…if one change was made when you weren’t looking, you can consider the security of your test, the software and the hardware compromised.
2. With Tempest, you’d never KNOW that your hardware was already compromised by outside surveilance. Google van eck phreaking or TEMPEST technology to know what I am talking about further. It’s not as hard to do this as it once was; this technology is almost 30 years old Earl, and has been in use in the world for quite some time both in government and private sector use.
3. I can only give you discredit or praise based upon how I see you treat and respond to others, Earl. I don’t like insulting anyone but the way you come off with a bandwagon mentality is pretty irritating. There is no “wiggling” going on here. Though I get older each day, I assure you I move fine and have no need to circumvent anything you ask. I don’t have any desire to insult you, but I’d like to make a request that you refrain from insulting others just because you get a kick out of it?
4. You are still noticing what I don’t intend to do. Must be a delayed reaction. And why the hell would I show a working program for a company I hadn’t heard of until yesterday and am not even affiliated with? If I am understanding you correctly, I think you just asked me to prove a claim for a company I have never contacted or heard about before this forum? Is that correct? I think it would help if I knew who they hell they were first, and they had me on payroll second? I hope there isn’t any “wiggling” going on to where I net-stuttered or anything…
5. Yeah, that’s a seriously delayed reaction…you might want to get that checked out. Might cause a concussion. I actually spend most of my time working with virtual machines lately a lot more than doing algorithmic research. I have a very fond interest in data compression. Very much. Always have. And if or when I ever have a claim to make for the public Earl, I will be sure to make it boldly but with all of the official proof for such a claim ready to go. I don’t want a penny of your money or anyone else’s until AFTER I have proven its legitimacy. How does that grab you? I’ll say it again: I don’t know who the people are in that company, and I’m not sure who you are either, but I don’t feel that anyone has any business asking for money unless they have proof of what they say they can do that is demonstratable, and there is a way to protect each of those people from fraudulent activity.
James W.
P.S: What is “usual con-artist garbage” by the way? You sound like a usual ignorant forum troll to me trying to sabotage intellectual thought with negativity.
If you haven’t figured it out already, I will say it…AGAIN…I do not have any ties to nearzero nor claims to prove on their behalf. Unless I was signed up for a contest and won a job with them or something, last time I checked I’m not employed by them.
What you have either assumed or asked of me is similar to a person walking up and saying “you only think planters is a better peanut because you’re the spokesperson for planters peanuts and you like the taste better”…and they would be telling me this because I am…allergic to peanuts and have never tasted planter’s in my life much less been a spokesperson for them? Do you see the ridiculousness of YOUR assumption or claim here? What you asked me to do for you makes no sense to me at all. Do you understand?
As I said before, it’s good to be skeptical to a point so you won’t get taken advantage of. But the way you go about what you’ve said, you seem very redundant and otherwise set in your ways which leaves no opportunity for growth or anything substantial to be done. You only provision for lockstep-thinking when you approach things that way, Earl. Not saying that nearzero has something to offer. They probably don’t. But who knows? Give something a chance before you condemn it to hell because you’re used to a common outcome, or “everybody else does”.
If this newcomer nearzero has something, no *anything* at all to offer then let them present…it without money.
That, or they should pay back the money that they’ve already taken in-full before the next evalunation process to prove that they believe in their product, to prove that at least they know or think they know it works, and last but not least that they aren’t con artists trying to cash in on a branch of science most of us here love to research.
But let them be protected from fraud by the evaluator too, so they don’t just make a few pennies where thousands of dollars should have been.
If they can’t do that, then their actions speak louder than your, mine, or anyone else’s words without any need for further commentary or rehashing. The proof is in the doing, not the saying.
November 6th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
I condemn anybody who makes big claims, sucks up lots of money, and still can not do a simple demo.
And again all your talk about their IP being stolen is con-artist garbage which you seem to buy into hook and sinker.
I WANT THEM to use their own hardware as long as I can take simple measures to insure one computer can not transmit the test files to the other.
But they must use MY test files, otherwise any con-artist can hide copies on both machines. Why are you acting so scared about me asking for a valid demo?
November 7th, 2007 at 6:56 am
Yeah, I get that you want a two-computer test and don’t want them to take your money. That’s all good and understandable.
I mentioned tempest, hardware attacks, software attacks, rootkits, and hidden cameras. Never once did I mention anything about “stealing an IP” Earl. That doesn’t even apply unless you are using a network and a packet transmission system of some sort, which is the last thing that any thinking demonstrator should want to do. I wouldn’t want it on a local network. I sure as the day is long wouldn’t want it on the internet or connected to any system with access to! That would be a serious compromise of code security and, could actually work reverse in favor of the demonstrator to send “compressed data” to a server and then back again if they used reverse-tunneling and no one caught it. Big no-no.
But no, I looked back at the posts and never once had I said anything about stealing an IP address. And even still, I think you meant rerouting packets maybe? (because I cannot really steal your IP from you unless I am able to compromise your ISP’s internal DNS/ nameserver(s) and a few other things which might require me to su to root and do nasty stuff there. Your IP is assigned to you by your ISP based upon a netblock that they either are leasing or own for a duration of time. Besides, that would just be a lot of unnecessary hassle, wasted effort and practically begging to be caught or found out by traceable log files, external traffic monitoring of inbound connections, etc. Plus they prosecute for that now. A lot has changed since the days of telnet and war-dialing. Anyways, for practical stuff I’d only be able to easily modify traffic and redirect it to/from your computer or router to my machine if I wanted to stay relatively undetected. Well, most times. But that’s really off-topic, and if that was even an issue for a situation I’m sure that people wouldn’t let those holes be there if they knew what they were doing. With what we were/are talking about with regard to the two-computer test though…those computers should NOT be networked to ANYTHING for the sake of security, as much as honesty in the demonstration).
So no, I’m not sure what the con artists arguments were usually with regard to IP addresses; it’s been ages since I’ve read the newsgroups for comp.compression. But IP addresses and “con-artist garbage” have nothing to do with what was mentioned. It has everything to do with avoiding the garbage you are speaking of. You shouldn’t *ever* put something that sensitive on a computer connected to the net unless you’re begging to get it stolen. This is one of the main reasons why larger companies (IBM and contractors thereof) do NOT let you ever connect an internal network to an external one under any circumstances. Some of them restrict or forbid you any type of laptop because of built-in networking cards and the damage that even light unauthorized access to their systems might do. They may be paranoid, but at least they don’t have to worry at night whether the guy they let through the door with that pcmcia ethernet card in his laptop did something he shouldn’t have. Strict. Paranoid maybe…but effective. Anything less would be tantamount to throwing a trade secret out the window and asking the highest info broker (”hacker”) to go play fetch.
The more I read your response though, the more I am wondering and thinking you possibly didn’t read what I wrote, or perhaps only part of it.
I wouldn’t care whose test files were used if I had something that claimed a universal spectrum/random compression.
I would want only the correct type of file however if I had a compressor that only worked on text files, images, etc. That’d be like sending Ross Williams your random, hand-picked jpg file for him to compress with an LZRW engine, then telling the newsgroups that he “failed to compress your file”. That too, would be dishonest you know?
There is nothing wrong with asking for a valid demo from someone. Not at all. But there is a lot wrong if you expect them to compromise their safety or security for yours, or you don’t protect yourself from the same type of crap when the con artists switch roles and stop being the next great innovator, but become the next big business promising to market or represent it for you.
My very long-winded commentary summarized and partially reitterated:
“The money-hungry cons don’t have to be just the demonstrators who want money. They can be the businessmen who are looking at stealing your product if they find out it works, too.”
Since most of the time the presentations haven’t been successful (yet), that isn’t a big problem.
The big problem is obviously the cons milking the companies as their private piggy banks to get all they can from them.
But don’t think for a second that if what you have *does* work, that there won’t be a company or two, or 10…that comes along and tries to steal what you have from you for themselves EVEN IF you have a seemingly protected, well established, and honest system set up for your two-computer test.
And if you are into skepticism just for the sake of being skeptical only and don’t wanna believe me on that…then you need only look to your nearest invention-submission company. Check out the better business bureau, and any dockets court cases that have come against the majority of those places for trying to steal the ideas of inventors and cash it out for their own gain only.
Just like the cons who do their dirty work with bogus demos, there are cons who run entire “businesses” as middlemen with promises to promote what you create and end up making money with or selling your good ideas without giving you a penny unless they are sued later.
My whole point in ALL of this is that there just has to be SOME type of fool-proof method that satisfies all conditions for anti-theft and simultaneously guarantees honesty with the demonstration. That, and that no one should shell out a dime until after it’s shown to work.
James
November 7th, 2007 at 7:08 am
Besides the 2 computer method Earl has mentioned, get a patent. It not too hard and not too costly.
There is no need to get paranoiac about security/safety, there is law that generally works and provides the best protection, if you let it.
Someone who refuses to believe in the system is either too dumb or a con artist, either way not someone to be wasting time with.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
What a joke, after all this hot air its been ruled a fraud. This was just another PowerBeat with a different surname. PowerBeat are the kings of technology scams - and they’re still at it with their b/s infinity for dreaming up new names for rusty old or useless technology.
Its sad for inventors and innovators in NZ who really do have new technology products, the PowerBeats of this world tarnish the industry, they give invention a bad name!
I say, if you’ve got something new and hi tech, put your money where your mouth is. Until its proven without a doubt - its unproven, and anything unproven that relies on other people’s money to prove it, might as well be called a con.
November 7th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Sachin: A lot of my disdain for the aforementioned came from having gone to a lot of trouble to get a patent for a product that was blatantly stolen. I guess to me, the dumb people believe in the system to protect them without fail. A patent protects you only as well as you (or your representation) enforces it under the law. That, or as well as the system you call law and believe in does…
Currently I am going to court to fight the theft of a creation that was patent-pending, and was stolen by none other than an SBA advisor I’d consulted through the process of the system you believe in, and had it stolen.
According to an investigation that’s been ongoing for 6 months, my legal counsel informed me recently that a specific paper trail and phone messages indicated he was in contact with some firm in China with regard to my product shortly after the date it was revealed according to his and my signed non-disclosure agreement. After being delayed, put off, and then finding out a year and a half later that he didn’t work with the SBA any longer, I was furious and wanted to know what the heck was going on, but no one knew. They just said he quit, they hadn’t seen him, and had no further information. They offered to reassign my consultation and paperwork to another advisor…until I got a nervous call back a half an hour later from the same man saying nervously that he couldn’t find all the paperwork, and asked if I had (for some reason) taken back any paperwork I shouldn’t have…like the disclosure agreement. I said no; I hadn’t. Imagine my surprise when a month or two later I was strolling through wal-mart and saw my product on the shelf…
Imagine my surprise when the company in China on his message system matched the one on the label.
Imagine my surprise when they confirmed they had contact with him, and thought that it was THAT man’s invention (the advisor’s!) being sold for a one-time price.
They are still trying to find out where he went. His brother was the only one the lawyers have been able to reach. According to him, his brother “got a lot of money and fled the country really fast, and nobody’s seen him”.
One can only wonder how “wonderful” this system is to protect us. Normally it does an OK job in the US, and I hear it’s pretty good in other countries as well. But…
Pardon my pessimism on that, because I’m sure you can understand where I’m coming from at this point. I’d hate to see the same happen to anyone else. I don’t like con-artists period…be them the inventor or the agent(s) for a company.
Best case scenario is that I’ll be able to recover damages from the SBA having had him as a trusted member of their association and an advisor. But then again, because the way the non-disclosure agreement is worded, that might not even be possible. I’ll have to see. The company in China claims no responsibility for his wrong doing and refuses to compensate me citing their signed and written agreement on the matter rather than US patent law. I’m not sure what can be done about that at this point.
I just know that I’d hate to see that happen to anyone else. With their algorithm, with their product, or with anything they create.
John: It probably was a fraud. :-/ I think if it was anything real I probably would have heard of it outside of the forum and we’d have had some examples or basic theory about how or why it works. I’d only been able to find a couple of small stories about nearzero, and most of it was just claims from the company or its members without anything to show. Most of the people have been fly-by-night. They’ll talk to you on the phone about the whiz-bang effect of the compression, but they don’t prove it. :-| It’d be nice to see just one that does, though. Just for a change. I’d really be happy to see some new innovation that’s legitimate happen.
It used to be that people either took out a loan, were awarded a grant, or used their own money to get something off the ground anyway. I wouldn’t go as far as to call anything a con until I was sure it was bogus (like datafiles/16 and WIC…) because then it’s foot-in-mouth there if it turns out to be real. Maybe I’m extending them respect they haven’t earned yet, but I just think that you shouldn’t hang someone before you know they did the crime. But I agree with letting them use their own money and show us it’s worth calling their bluff. Definitely.
OH! I wanted to ask you guys: had you ever seen or heard of something called DAKX? It’s been at dakx.com for about 10 years now. I’d come across their site and it looked the same back then as it does today. They have a patent issue # (patent-pending for 10 years though?!) and want people to contact them for license information. They present the theory, the idea, proven formulas, and from what I see on there it seems to be a variation of delta compression…but I wonder still, because none of my requests for contact have been answered after a year. Do you guys know who they are, if they’re real, or if you’ve written or called them, have they ever contacted you back? You guys may have already dealt with/covered this in the archives. If you had I missed it when looking around. Thanks!
James
November 8th, 2007 at 8:23 am
I can’t tell if this is Sachin’s or John’s sad story.
You express disdain for the “system”, but you certainly aren’t using it very well. If somebody else is selling a product that you have a patent on, or even a patent pending, it is almost trivial to get an order blocking importation of the product. Happens all the time.
People tend to start talking to you when you dry up their source of revenue.
- Mark
November 8th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
I agree with James W. concerning patents. I believe it’ s a frail way to protect your work. Just remember Phil Katz who ‘borrowed’ ARC code, improved it, and released his ZIP format. Anyone can reverse your code, change it slightly, and release his own format without beeing worried about patents fees.
And think about Chineses! If they want to copy your brand new compression format, you can be sure they won’t give a damn if it is patented or not…
It’s been more than one year that I’m working on lossless random compression, trying to fit 2 pigeons in 1 hole. I’m starting to write the code of what I have devised ‘Euclidean compression’ (no link with Euclid company!). I came to conclusion that it can be possible to compress random data files, but not all files (I expect 1 on 100) and only slightly (1 byte, may be more?). This will be a proof of concept, and I don’t claim your money… (Who can be interested in compressing 1% of his files of 1 or 2 bytes anyway?)
Back to Nearzero, compressing ALL files, with a fixed ratio seems clearly a pull of the leg.
Still, just keep on trying ! And remember :
“A victory for one, is a victory for all”
Jean-Marie Barone
November 8th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
@Euromatic:
Maybe patent protection is frail, but you’re not going to convince anyone with your example of Phil Katz.
1) Phil Katz didn’t reverse engineer ARC - the source code was freely available on BBS systems.
2) WTF does this have to do with patents? Absolutely nothing.
3) ARC did prevail (in a closed agreement), undoubtedly using copyright and trademark law, which forced Phil Katz to abandon the ARC format. They ultimately lost their business to him because he produced a better product.
4) No doubt there is a lot of IP theft in China, but they also pay millions in royalties every year to the MPEG consortium for patent rights. If Chinese manufacturers have product they want to export, they pay up just like anyone else.
|
| Mark Nelson - http://marknelson.us
|
November 11th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Update: Judge has ordered liquidation, prime focus was to sell NearZero’s Nelson assets, which included Whitley’s fleet of American cars, to avoid further storage costs.
Some shareholders still want to hang on to their shares, I hope they realize that its over and asap get back whatever is left of their money.
November 11th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
What a bunch of wishful fools.
Let’s see, they sold $5.3 million in shares
“Two million dollars in share subscriptions were traced to Whitley’s personal bank account, $1.3m was paid to another Whitley company, Syntiro, and $800,000 went to NearZero’s US secretary.”
I count $4.1 million going straight into the pockets of the main insiders, that smells like a con-job to me.
“Michael Robinson, the counsel for the interim liquidators, told Associate Judge Christiansen that the company was insolvent and unable to pay between $1.3 and $1.7m of its debts.”
But more money than that went into the pocket of the insiders. If they were running a honest company you would expect them to be paying the bills, they clearly received enough money to do that. Still smells of a con.
November 11th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
I expect this means the investors can now get their hands on the crown jewel of the company. The compression code! But what are the shareholders who want to hang tough going to say once they can look at the code and find it does not work.
And after this loss don’t expect *ANYONE ELSE* to do a major investment without proof that it works.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
I already said that: there will never be a proof of compression algorithm for investors, because when you have that proof, the algorithm is already finished and investments are not needed. All researchers are fired at this point and salesmen are hired. When developers ask money for research the investors have choice to believe or not to believe in success. The judgement can be done based on reputation and achievments. If individual is claiming that he is going to achieve something extraudinary you simpley check if he did achieve anything extraudinary in the past. Isn’t that simple and logical?
November 12th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
And after this loss don’t expect *ANYONE ELSE* to do a major investment without proof that it works.
Only if they know that something like this has occurred in past. Anyone who has heard of Jules Gilbert or Zeosync (and now NearZero) will definitely never touch a ‘compress-all’ claim with a ten-foot pole.
But there are just few of us here who know these stories :-)
I try to tell people what all smart investors already know, “never invest in stuff you don’t understand”.
November 12th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Andrew, yes, thats a valid point. Probably thats why many of NearZero’s and Euclid’s investors are people who knew the founders personally before they invested.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
The problem is exactly in “knowing founder personally”. This is the root of all problems in investment. I wish also to be known personally by Bill Gates. May be in this case their HD Photo would have compression 25% higher. My advice is to do everything formal, judge people by their resumes, avoid interact personally and you won’t get much and won’t loose much.
November 23rd, 2007 at 2:23 am
From a NZ based news website:
Curiously, Mr Whitley provided a psychiatrist’s report to the court indicating that he was delusional and his wife said he had “lost touch with reality.”
December 7th, 2007 at 12:14 am
Dodgy has learnt a little more latley—again from experience…now that the order has been given to liquidate all has gone very very silent from the ‘company.’ People who used to converse regularly via email, who I have spent hours on the phone to and even Phil himself have gone ominously quiet. I guess they are having a holiday on my money. I hope they’re enjoying it. I understand the NZ Serious fraud office is now involved and looking to press significant fraud charges….looks like our nelson boy may be having a ‘holiday on the state’ soon.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
I think its very interesting that the first Judge says that its up to the investors to vote on the direction of the company and gets the liquidators to organise the vote. Once the results are in with an overwhelming response by the investors to keep the company going another Judge turns around and says that the vote results don’t count contrary to the first judgment and the company will be liquidated anyway and all those investors who voted to keep it going are punished by being ‘pushed’ down the repayment tree. And this doesn’t sound ‘weird’…give me a break. This company, its employees and investors were on a hiding to nothing and if people can’t see that certain powers to be want this squashed then they have their heads in the sand. Why were bank accounts frozen before any investigation was done??…why were the liquidators so keen to start selling off assests before final liquidation approval???…Regardless of whether the technology exsisted or not, this was, is and will be one intersting chapter in a lot of peoples lives that they will remember.
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
A report from a consulting psychologist stated Whitley believed he would be killed by secret agents in prison if he did not reveal the technology, said Dickey.
Judge Christiansen said Mr Whitley’s detractors considered him a “charlatan”, while an evidential psychological report indicated that he was “delusional”, and evidence from his wife said he had “lost touch with reality”.
So, Stevo …the finance manager? this sounds like the end of the subject
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Finance manager??????…not at all…just someone that knows a bit more about the company than a few of the posters here…including you I would imagine.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:32 am
I have a stupid question :)
If it can compress EVERY kind of file 15 times, so if we use it to its own output, we will get 225 compression rate? …
January 30th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Ah, the promise of recursive compression. If you could compress every file larger than n by just one byte, then you could keep compressing the output until you could compress every file down to size n.
Anyone investing money in this scheme deserves what they get. http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/part1/section-8.html
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
In the compression discussion, don’t forget energy compression. Energy compression uses a set of basis functions (usually orthonormal) to decompose a signal. The basis functions which contain the least energy (have the smallest signal projection) can then be set to zero.
By this argument, one can theoretically envision a compression scheme where the overcomplete basis set consists of all the images in the world. Compression would then boil down to a simple index: the index of the basis that tells which image from my collection am I seeing. Unfortunately, the number of images in the world is uncountably large.
For lossy image compression of consumer images, one wonders if it is possible to define a “basis set” not based on the pixels in the image, but rather on the description of the objects in the image. A basis set that would be rotation and resolution invariant. For these class of images and basis decomposition, one could imagine extreme large compression rates.
Best,
Darian
February 23rd, 2008 at 1:05 am
NearZero had to be lossless compression… setting some coefficient to zero looses some informations.
About storing all pictures - You can for example just compress the link to the picture … :)
But in practice, we should be able to compress all possible images - representing them as the number of possibility is for example encoding as bitmap - we won’t get any compression.
For compression we have to assume some statistical structure, for example that if a pixel is blue, taking its neighbor it’s more likely that it’s blue too…
We could try to decompose a picture into objects, and then use a family of deformations with assumed probability distribution (it could even lossless), but it would require gigantic database and structure above it… in fact our brains is something like it :)
best,
Jarek
February 26th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
In response to #80 I have to ask, “Why have the liquidators now gone silent too?” They seem to have been directed to sell the assets, but have not come forth with any details about how the sales are going.
It seems they have gone as silent as the rest of the company….
February 28th, 2008 at 6:04 am
To me it means:
1) A lack of assets to liquidate, which you can expect when the con-artists pocketed most of the money.
2) Investors should have been kicking up a fuss about where their money from the liquidation is. But now they realize that this publicly exposes as the fools they were falling for the con in the first place, so they are being quiet not to expose themselves to ridicule.
3) There was never any super compression as to this day no-one can point to even the basic theory/code of such compression.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Well I’m led to believe that the liquidators are trying to do a deal with Whitley and Co to re-constitute the technology, sell it, then reap the financial awards so if theres a con its once again against the investors who are being kept out of what they originally invested in.
March 1st, 2008 at 5:27 pm
There are plenty of assets to be liquidated, cars, house, boats, Server and Network kit, office furniture, etc etc. There are plenty of investors trying to track down what is happening, it is the liquidators who seem to have gone silent.
NB the value of the Assets equals about 70% of the valuse invested, however as a result of the action, the payout will be about 10%. The few million difference is mostly the liquidators fee’s….the longer it takes the more they make! I think they will suck it dry and return nothing - that makes them the most money, as they are econd in line behind the tax department, and the Tax dept have already confirmed they have no interest in the company.
March 9th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Well, I have found out a little more. It appears several of the assets have been sold, including Whitley’s house, however there have been no mention of this back from the liquidators……weird….
I just wish it would end.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Apparently our boy was spotted leaving the office of the Serious Fraud Office recently….
March 21st, 2008 at 11:34 am
I know how to be the best in image compression. Implement several known best compression techniques and in encoder try them all, choose the best and set flag in encoded data which one was chosen. All best techniques are already known: Prediction, PPM, FFT, Wavelet and so on with following entropy encoder. Any other company will use only one method and will always about 10% behind in compression. The efficiency of different methods varies within 10% from image to image. May be this explains how Stuffit and WinRK are beat all by 10% although having compression time larger than others.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
So the first of the trials have been and gone…..silence still reigns out….no answers from anyone. I can confirm that the SFO are still investigating him and they expect their report to be complete within another month, but it would be nice to hear from either the team supporting Phil, or the Liquidators….seems silence is the answer….perhaps a wee trip to Nelson for a visit may be in order….
April 20th, 2008 at 8:26 am
My understanding of compression is that it works on redundant data only. That is, if there is some type of predictability (pattern) to it, it can be compressed further. If you were to flip a coin and translate the results into 0s and 1s and then feed that into a compression program it would NOT be able to compress it (on average). This is because the compression program has no way to predict what the next bit will be based on any previous bits. I am speaking generally now about reasonably large files not some small file of under 10KB for example. I would say that small random files CAN be compressed because of their small size and limited randomness (in some cases) but generally, the savings is not really worth the effort. Compression is kinda like charging a battery. It is very easy (and fast) to get the bulk of the compression/charging to happen but to get the last 25% or so takes a lot more effort and time. One could argue that instead of working on an algorithm to compress random data, they should investigate methods to “massage” existing data so that it is more compressable. There are different ways to store the same data and they are compressable in different amounts. One simple way to compress is just to reorganize your data so the repeating parts are factored out (normalized). It is not really that compression is compressing the data, it is just that the data in it’s original form is redundant and wasteful. Compressing as we know it is just getting rid of some (but not all) of that waste. Since today’s computers are much faster and we have much faster internet links, networks, hard drives… getting the last ounce of compression is not really worth the effort. Going in the opposite direction is very efficient. That is, if you very quickly just do a mild compression on the data, you can get significant space savings with minimal CPU load. That allows compression and decompression on the fly. There are several backup programs that offer both mild and agressive compression options and the mild compression is much faster so this helps prove my point. I have written software compressors and decompressors and noticed that even a simple lookback encoder can do quite well of today’s fast computers. You dont even have to mess with any bits you can compress at the byte level and still get very good lossless compression but people have already done this. I think researchers should concentrate more effort on beefing up the technology (HDTV for example) so that it is possible to transmit many more frames per seconds and send higher quality images in almost real time. I have seen HDTVs up close and I still see artifacting similar to that of JPG (which I am also not a big fan of). Standard JPG to me is an embarassment because of the artifacting which could easily be corrected especially for still images. Moving images are a different beast. People say HDTV is superior to SDTV but try a freeze frame sometime on HDTV and might think otherwise. HDTV is only HD if the images are not moving quickly but if they are, I wouldn’t call it HD. I would never invest in a compression algorithm for random data because common sense says if such a beast existed, it could be run over and over compressing an original file to virtually nothing. Simple rule: truely random data of non trivial length CANNOT be compressed on average. There are no significant patterns to compress and the # of bit arrangements are so astronomical that encoding them is totally impractical and wont save any bits.
April 20th, 2008 at 9:10 am
One other thing: It may be frustrating to realize that if you take a large random file to compress (say 1MB for example), about half of the bits should be 0s and the other bits (also about half) being 1s. If you just compress the file saying they are all 0s or all 1s you are actually about 1/2 correct and get excellent compression. For example, if the bits represented pixels with 0 being a black pixel and a 1 being a white pixel, if you displayed these random black and white pixels on say a computer screen with adjacent bits being displayed as adjacent pixels, you would see a grey screen when you stepped back sufficiently far. Unfortunately, describing where the bits change is where the overhead becomes very significant. Sure there will be several long runs of the same bit which can be compressed but on average, you wont see any compression overall. One somewhat amazing thing is that a good compression program can take a human readable file such as this text I am posting here, and turn it into an almost random sequence of bits. In other words, it takes something very organized and easily readable by a human into something almost random and very unreadable to a human. From that “random” compressed file the original file can be “magically” regenerated. If you think about this it is quite impressive. Another point is that the almost random bits created by the compression program are not random because they hold specific meaning in the order they are in. If you were to change even 1 critical bit in the compressed file you may totally mess up the decoder. I have written coders and decoders and I have seen this. It has to be exact or the big mushroom cloud goes up fast.
April 20th, 2008 at 10:11 am
@Herb:
I bet you’re watching HDTV over cable or satellite. It looks a lot better over the air. But cable and satellite companies view bandwidth as an expense that hurts their bottom line, so they compress as much as they can get away with.
April 20th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
More on compression and HDTV:
First, good candidates for compression are somewhat obvious like a file containing English words or an image using 32 bit color. In the word example, each repeating word can be stored or prestored in a table and then just referenced by it’s index into that table. A 32 bit color image will never use all 4 billion or so colors so color compression is very possible as well as other techniques to compress such as looking at neighboring pixels. Note that in both examples, we are compressing based on previously seen or known patterns.
Random data however is a very different beast. There are definately repeating patterns in random data but the encoding of them takes just as much if not more space to encode so it is a losing battle. Your only hope is the the original input file is not really random and has some bias in it (say an excessive amount of bitstrings 00110101 for example). Then you might get some minor compression.
Ok now HDTV. Mark Nelson stated over the air HDTV is better than Sat and cable HDTV because of different amounts of compression. I would like to know more about this. For example, what is a typical bitrate being broadcast by a good 1280×720p HD broadcast station? I have a card in my computer that can capture HDTV signals but it compresses it to about 13 Mbps (MPEG2 Transport Stream format). Playing that back doesn’t look as good as the live version. I can see a softer picture and some artifacting (color gradient blocking). Any accurate information on this topic would be much appreciated. Thanks.