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.
http://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 1:40 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.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:28 am
Good to see some good news….another fraudster in Nelson who stole about half as much as Phil Whitley has today been given a we holiday on the state for about 5.5 years, based on this I guess Phil can expect a great holiday.
I hope he gets to spend some “quality time” with those who will be around him.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:11 am
Compression has limits. And the limits of ANY compression will be conditioned to the principle that the combinations of a N bits sequence is bigger than the combinations of a N-1 bits sequence. Simple like that.
It’s necessary a little maths background to comprehend what I’m saying.
Dispite this fact, it is possible to compress a limited range of bits sequences, using the most common and known methods.
The matter ends here: many universities and researchers have been developed compressors and there is an agreement that the limit of compression of an algorithm can be overcome surrounding the problem into the cases that interests.
MPEG layers are examples: these methods are related to movies and music. JPEG and GIF are another example related to images.
So, it’s a useless effort to try discover a magic compressor for all uses.
June 5th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Hello there, me and my team are currently researching Philip Whitley, with the intentions of making a documentary film. this is a school project and does not aim to upset Philip Whitley associates. if you know Mr. Whitley personaly or through business and are willing to give us some information please contact me whitley_reaserch_unit@hotmail.com. Any information at all would me most welcome(ie childhood aquaintances etc). Thankyou. Jesse Thomas
June 6th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Hi Jesse……
Seems your as easy to contact as anyone else involved with Philip Whitley….
This report relates to a message you sent with the following header fields:
Message-id: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2008 05:58:28 +1200
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: whitley_reaserch_unit@hotmail.com
Subject: documentary film on Philip Whitley
Your message cannot be delivered to the following recipients:
Recipient address: whitley_reaserch_unit@hotmail.com
Reason: Remote SMTP server has rejected address
Diagnostic code: smtp;550 Requested action not taken: mailbox unavailable
Remote system: dns;mx1.hotmail.com (TCP|203.97.33.64|60354|65.54.244.136|25)
I will post my email on here instead…..
June 6th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Here is the email I sent to Jesse.
Jesse if you post a valid address I will make contact.
———————————
I know Phil……sort of…..Unless something happens to change my mind then I have no reason to believe he is anything other than a complete fraudster and nothing more than a thief - who happens to like football and R/C yachting. I would gladly participate in your documentary, and even more so if it meant I could meet Phil again face to face, and ask him where the money I have invested has gone, and where his program is!
As a school project I am guessing this is not the response you were looking for, but I will offer you one piece of advice…..get your filming done pretty quickly…..watch the papers. I believe the words ‘fraud’ ’scam’ ‘5.5million’ and ‘prison’ may feature heavily in Phil’s future.
The alternative to this would be the words ‘genius’ ‘billionaire’ ’super-compression’ ‘delivers the long awaited program’ etc may also feature - the truth is that I still believe him for some unknown reason, even though I have no reason to do so.
If your documentary is about showing someone as a role model then at this stage you have quite possibly chosen the wrong person. I think it is fantastic that Phil supports local sports and activities, and his belief in Richmond Soccer is awesome, however when this is funded with stolen money things start getting a bit ugly.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Dodgy, I think Jesse made a typo in the email id, try fixing the spelling of ‘research’, maybe that will help.
In any case, your mail might be of interest to others here so you can post it here too (but that ofcourse depends on what you want to post :-)
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:53 pm
he he he…..tried the new email address…..no response…how fitting…probably phil himself trying to set up some new scam. Only a few more days till the court appearance.
June 29th, 2008 at 3:16 am
For anyone who wants to know Whitley appeared in court on Friday and pled guilty to two counts relating to the illegal share offer. The judge has ordered his financial state be reviewed and he is remanded on bail to appear for sentencing next month.
June 29th, 2008 at 3:41 am
Interesting, seems like he has not admitted to the overall fake compression technology scam. So next month he will get sentencing for these counts and rest of the case will carry on?
June 29th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Well, officially at the moment there have been no charges laid for the scam itself. The Serious Fraid Office have only ever confirmed they are investigating, to date they have not laid any charges. So one would assume that within a few hours of his next apperance in court we may see him legally leaving the country, never to be seen or heard from again…..at least that’s what I would do if it was me.
July 19th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Well….some developments….sort of…..
PriceWaterHouse Coopers advised that their long awaited report would be out on Friday 11th July, or possibly early the following week. hmmm….date came and went,….nothing……so I emailed them again, and got the fastest response I had ever had. The report will be out on Friday 18th July. As I write this in New Zealand, it is Sunday 20th July, and my email inbox remains cutiously silent on nearzero.
Good on ya PWC (not!), if you cant trust laywers and accountants then who can you trust.
July 20th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Hey Dodgy, you don’t expect the report to have anything of any substance in it anyway do you? Like this whole debacle has been, PWC have their own agenda and it doesn’t include ensuring those that are entitled to things are actually going to get them!!
July 21st, 2008 at 2:24 am
Mr Whitley of Nearzero isn’t being prosecuted for fraud. He’s being prosecuted for offering securities (shares) to the public without a registered prospectus. Which is a criminal matter.
As for the claims re compression, the judge presiding in the company’s liquidation case, a separate matter, has already stated that Nearzero’s claims are nonsense, which they are.
However, these claims are not the basis for the criminal proceedings now being brought to bear.
Kiwis, of which I am one, have made our share of contributions to the world, albeit in our own small and inimitable way. Our best contributors in this debacle have been our prosecutors and judges.
July 21st, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Hello Dodgy,
We are very sorry about the E-mail adress. We were planning to create the account, because we didn’t wasnt to give out our private E-mail and all, but then forgot to actualy craete the account. Now that we see that therte is someone actualy interested in talking to us, we have created: whitley.research.unit@gmail.com
Please let us know if you are still interested in talking to us. Thanks
Regards
Jesse
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Jesse I am one of a few I’m sure wanting to know who you are, why you are researching Whitley and for what purpose?
July 27th, 2008 at 2:18 am
Well, I got the inconclusive information from PWC, although curiously not from them directly. It seems I am on their bad books, but then what goes around comes around.
The offering of securities may be a criminal matter, however I suspect he’ll get little more than a slap on the hand for it, but I may be wrong, after all the Judge did order a report into his personal finances.
I have also contacted the gmail address gien by Jesse, but only just so have not had an answer yet.
Cheers, and have an awesome week.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Hi all, I have had some emails with Jesse, and they are doing a school documentary on the impact Phil’s actions have had within the community. There is nothing untoward, and no alterior motive (that I can find) with their work. I have offered some comments and am willing to aide them.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Wahooo!!!! about time. Whitley has now been charged by the SFO on two counts that can be prosecuted by up to 10yrs inside each! I hope he gets the max possible, and ends up in a small cell with a very large gang member!
August 24th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Hey Dodgy, where did you hear about the SFO?
August 24th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Stevo, you can try this link…
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4665356a6007.html
August 26th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
So the first of the prosecutions are in….a $40,000 fine plus $50,000 ordered to repay in reparation to those people who somehow managed to request a refund. I didn’t even know we could do that…..bugger…..
more prosecutions to follow….
August 27th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Well Dodgy,
I and others have been posting warnings for quite a while. If you did not even try to find out how to request a refund then that is your problem, not the court’s.
Since the page is no longer available I assume that these people made formal requests thru their lawyers and the courts before the brown smelly stuff hit the fan.
Now is probably far too late, at this point the other creditors have first dibs on what money/assets they can find.
August 28th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Oh yes absolutley, I know I stuffed up, but I cant be the only one….although most people appeared to ahve asked for their money back out of the liquidation, only 3 asked for their money back, totalling $50k through some other method.
The thing now is those people who have money back from the liquidation will (should) not be entitled to anything more, those remaining few who elected to keep the money in the company should now be able to seek reparation directly from Philip’s assets through the SFO case. The question is, will they get any more than 5%…..business is business….
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Good luck Dodgy with getting anything out of his assets…by all account there are none. And as the liquidators are still dragging this out there won’t be anything left from the monies that were in the Nearzero accounts when they were frozen…once again they are the only ones who will get anything out of this. I know that a number of staff (who were oblivious to what was going on) are also owed wages but thats never going to appear in their accounts in any great hurry.
I see he know says that he’s 20% through reconstituting the technology….strange that a man who supposedly is on drugs for mental reasons has the capability to re-build ground breaking technology. Perhaps he was mentally impaired the first time he did it!!!….or he’s not impaired at all and is using that as a soft excuse for the courts to go lightly on him…who knows?
September 14th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
So is he claiming that he is rebuilding the technology in his current state of mind. Surely if he’s really on drugs for his mental health he cannot even be attempting to reconstitute the technology let alone be 20% through. Do you think that he is just using mental health as an excuse to reduce his sentences? Or is really in a bad state?
September 14th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
You got it in one Jesse!!!
September 15th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Hey Dodgy, we really need you to e-mail us again if your still interested in helping us, if not thats fine, but please let us know asap. Thank you.
September 15th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Hello Stevo, as Dodgy said we are just doing a school project and didn’t actually invest in Whitley or anything. I did have him as a soccer coach one year in Richmond though. We would love to talk to you and hear your story. If you want to help us please e-mail us at whitley.research.unit@gmail.com. Thanks.
September 26th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
[...] - bookmarked by 4 members originally found by djretcon on 2008-09-10 Comment on Another Failed Compression Promise: NearZero by John… http://www.c10n.info/archives/579 - bookmarked by 5 members originally found by Kaiafas00 on [...]
October 6th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Thanks for the offer Jessie, I’m just another disgruntled ex-employee who was promised the earth and left short when wages wern’t paid.
April 10th, 2009 at 2:56 am
not long to go now. Court case less than a month away. I hope he gets put away and has a very horny cell mate.
April 10th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Yet, I noticed not single person that was warned that this is what could happen is willing to admit that they had made a mistake in their investment.
April 14th, 2009 at 2:19 am
Had I not said that. Yup it was a big ass mistake. I right royally screwed up and it cost me big time. I have long since given up on the money and moved on, but I still hope he gets to spend some time in a cold cell.
He still seems to reckon that he is reproducing the product….maybe he is actually nuts. There is a 0.00000000001% chance that he is telling the truth.
I still believe that just because so far it hasn’t been done doesn’t mean that it wont ever be done, but yup I stuffed up.
April 14th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
You positive about that Dodgy….I’m still hearing from some ‘credible’ people that were involved that it was actually real. As for me I have no idea and look forward to the upcoming court case.
April 26th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
I am a good friend and ex colleague of the guy who did the original testing. He is still flabbergasted that this has gone the way it has. He seems not to believe that he was duped, and had a hard time coming to terms that he may have been.
I see that those people who asked for their money back through the liquidation have now been paid out at I think 6c in the dollar. I left mine in. It was just not worth getting that little amount back.
I continue to support Phil in getting a product up and going, clearly it wont be this time, but I do believe that the current limitations of compression will be broken. I wont, however, be offering him any more money…..once bitten twice shy and all that.
The trial starts on 11th May. I have been called as a witness so at least for my investment I will get a *ahem* “free” trip to Nelson…
April 29th, 2009 at 6:17 am
Stevo Says:
You positive about that Dodgy….I’m still hearing from some ‘credible’ people that were involved that it was actually real.
Who are these people? How ‘credible’ are they when you can’t name names or give thier backgrounds in the compression/computer field?
April 29th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Wow, I just re-read this thread and it brings back memories. I sure remember Jules Gibert, he *almost* bought me a plane ticket to come down to the US to do a Two Computer Test, can’t remember why but that never panned out. Then he was going to drive up here to do a test/demo if he could arrange with local police to have security and that never panned out either.
After compression he got into the stock game, prediction stock prices. He said he needed to upgrade some systems and I asked if he system was so good why he wasn’t rolling in the $$$ to buy the computers he needed. Apparently he bet it all on a prediction that didn’t turn out so lost all his money. Funny how that can happen… ;-)
May 3rd, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Hahaha…people like you Earl Colby Pottinger crack me up…even if I was to name who these people are and what their qualifications are you would still find some reason to disagree…probably based on the fact that you a. haven’t heard of them or b. just don’t beleive them…
May 5th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Why would it matter that I have not heard of them? If they had done real work in compression I can still Google them up and see what they have done in the past.
The real reason someone usually does not name names is because: (1) They are lying about about said persons, (2) the people who claimed to be experts are not or (3) you don’t want to have your claimed experts examined closely (ie. they have been involved in scams before for example).
Read the thread from the start, it has been years, and to date not one public demo that was not staged in a manner that no facts could be checked.
And note the time frame for real compression software that has been released to be used. Betas shown in just weeks, working code in months, and I have never seen a WORKING commercial package that has taken more than a year to get on market.
Sorry, every action by this company points to a scam.
May 5th, 2009 at 11:48 am
All you have to do to have me say “I was wrong.” is show me a working compressor/decompressor program.
Note1: Not claim a working program, show a working program that can pass the Two-Computer-Test, a test that any commercial compression program can pass today already.
Note2: Any compression software that can not pass the Two-Computer_Test is pretty much worthless in the real world anyway.
May 13th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Curious…
Please note, I know very little about compression!!
Seems from my observation of this sorry saga that PJW never claimed to be able to compress data in any way that involved conventional means.
In his meetings he discussed the fact that he had developed a technology that “translated” binary into a new “notation” which was then able to be compressed. This “newer” notation was something that involved a greater variable than is possible through binary.
I cannot say that any of this is real or otherwise…I simply do not know, but I can see how people (even some very educated and computer savvy people) accepted his claims based on the statements that it was “not Compression” but something totally unique. As I’ve stated, I’m really no expert and accept the findings (theories) of learned people such as Bell…but I can assure you that even the most logical and sceptical people (who all asked technical questions) during the meeting I was present at were convinced by this man. Mind you, the crux is that statements made by PJW that the technology was patented were clearly false. It was these statements that ultimately misled people into believing that the technology was tangible..a reality. As it turns out that is not the case either. (Refer to statements made by R.Cohen and D.Harvey in court 12th May) But I thought I’d ask the bloggers here to provide some insight if this “new Notation” is even possible?? And NO..I did not invest in PJW’s technology.
May 14th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
So what? The words about ‘notation’ are meaningless.
I don’t care what he does to transform the data to a smaller format. What matters is can he restore the data to the original format?
To date, that has never been done using a ‘Two Computer Test’ by anyone who knows how to spot scams and hidden files.
No compressor is worth a cent, if it can’t decompress properly back to the original data.
May 14th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Talk about trying to dig you way out of a very deep hole….blaming your security man in court for making you paranoid led you to commiting fraud…yeah right!!!…sounds like a man thats deep in the poop and is scratching to try and blame others for his lies. I thought the premise that there were Russians hiding in the closet went out with the cold war?
May 15th, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Where do I read about this.
May 17th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Try this link
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/2411449/Research-burnt-in-paranoia
May 18th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Stevo, all he is saying is that his security staff made him paranoid… Thats it. All he is blaming them for is his mental state. And you of all people should know what the security staff were like. You worked with them. Did YOU not think they were over the top as well?
May 19th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
My answer is no!
We all meet security staff *ALL* the time, be they the police, night watch guards, or the security staff at the companies we work at. I don’t see everyone going paranoid because of them.
If this is what is needed to tip you over the edge, how mentally stable were you in the first place? And you want to invest into his claims.
What gets me if your willingness to defend the claims of someone who refuses to put them to a honest test. Are you really that greedy?
Start using your brains for a change and ask for proof. Any con-artist can make a wild claim.
Why are you so unwilling to ask for proof?
May 19th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Stevo, thanks for the link.
May 19th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
I did observe the security staff he had with him but from what I could see or certainly from what I was told he called the shots about what they were to do for him. To be honest I got to know a couple of them and they seemed like average kinda guys, not ‘terminator’ types as one person in court has said. I think Whitley just liked having them around and driving in the flash cars, made him feel important in a small town and perhaps made some investors feel that it was all legitimate.
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:18 am
Look,
you want to do “the two computer test” (with this type of very amazing data technology?)
This technology is “almost like from another planet”- requires a different approach as it transcends what computers are…
Suggest: compress data on to three disks (three different tests run simultaneously). Then decompress using three different computers, one of which was used for one of the original data compressions.
Alan
May 22nd, 2009 at 4:24 pm
I guess in regards to the security, you can’t really know unless you were in PW’s situation. They were surrounding him 24/7, no exaggeration. And they were over the top, I personally did not “observe” them as you said Stevo, but I really did ‘experience’ them and they could be very intimidating at times. No doubt they were really nice guys, most of them, but they more more then your typical security guard. They were trained, usually military trained, big guys.
Earl, you said you ‘meet’ security all the time, but you don’t get to know them as such. They don’t become a huge part of your life. Your life is not surrounded by them. Personally I feel PW become more paranoid when they left suddenly. Imagine always having all this ‘protection’ almost like a ’security blanket’ around you for a long period of time. They did tell PW stuff like the Russians were coming. Thats a fact. I personally heard this talk at that time. And then all of a sudden they are gone. You would be left feeling vulnerable and quite honestly, I would be paranoid too.
Earl im not defending this possible fraud, but I am defending the fact the Stevo said PW was blaming the security guards for the mess he is in. He has admitted he has had past mental ‘issues’. He doesn’t hide that.
If you don’t mind me asking Stevo, why have you gone from a family friend to believing this is fraud. Was it from the what is in the papers?
May 24th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
James, you must have me confused with someone else…I was never a family friend of PJW’s. I guess like most people want to believe this is real but am doubted it day by day court case by court case. And now some people that I have spoken to who previously were BIG defenders of PJW from a long time ago are also doubting that the technology is real.
As for the security guys, look at the end of the day they had a job to do like all of us did. They were probabaly only going on what PJW wanted and I know personally he enjoyed the prestige of having them around.
May 24th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Alan your rants and curious choice of quotes aren’t going to endear you to any investors…..sorry…keep your ground breaking technology in your head my old friend…I’m afraid what will happen to you if it leaves there!!
May 24th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Stevo, at least I finally got some interest.
Have you heard of “lateral thinking” and Edward de Bono?
Have you heard of innovations company 3M and their philosophy?
I choose obscure quotes as I may wish to patent this, also as a detector (if you knew the technology you would understand the quotes).
And they happen to be fun.
Here’s a story: the Commerce Commission apparently tried to prosecute a farmer for misleading advertising, re: a product sold to farmers to boost agricultural production. I do not know if their case was valid or not. But I analysed the concepts in the technology, and got the following possibility (public, worth billions)(the invention is known, my theory perhaps not):
that the product mechanically affects the soil, organising it so it forms clumps that hold water in the clumps, but improve drainage around them. This “base dressing” simultaneously may help solve two problems:
the improved water-retention to help dry pastures;
the improved drainage to help water-logged pastures.
Further, greater efficiency in nutrient up-take from soil, may accelerate plant growth (a theory). Hence the scientists observation that the product may add no nutrient to the soil may be correct, but the farmer’s experience of greater production may also be correct. Another possible feature is that less top-dressing is needed, due to more efficient uptake of nutrient, though some may be neded due to the accelerated growth of the plants. Less run-off into streams and rivers of waste nutrient is another possible benefit.
What is wrong with people, when confronted with such possibilities, they would rather be poor, than rich?
June 1st, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Alan, you are another fool with useless compression claims.
Computers work on math, binary math infact and nothing but. If you can’t express it in math terms than your compression claims are worthless because no-one can use it on their computers. They can’t use it for TVs, DVDs, telephones and cell phones because today all those things are driven by computers. The cameras use computers - it is all computers!!!
No math, means no useful compression. And all the rest of your rants are attempted mis-direction to hid that fact. Please note, this is a compression blog, not a farming one.
Show us working code if you want to prove us wrong, otherwise you are just another lying scam-artist and/or nut-job.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
here is a simple way to ‘compress’ a lot of data: labelling.
The receiver has a collection of photos. The sender wants to direct the receiver to one of these photos, labeled “01″. No need to send the whole photo, just refer to “photo 01″. Simple but effective.
Mathematics is “the science of pattern”, according to one book I saw. (I could also say: “physics is the pattern of science”…)
To count something, involves “categorising”. E.g., to count “oranges” (to mathematicalise on the subject of oranges…) requires having a starting generalisation (or category): “orange”.
The basic questions in data compression could be phrased as follows:
how can something like: “01″ convey much more than just “01″?
how can you know that “01″ refers to 011100101100100111101 and not to 10001101010010010100101010?
How to (apparently) achieve this-
that Is the question.
June 12th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Well, Alan I see a lot of meaningless wordage from you, but still no sign of the magic compressor/decompresser this thread is about.
So again, why are you supporting this scam?
June 12th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
I do not support any scam.
I just happened to figure out a possibility of a way to achieve what presumably Philip James Whitley was trying to do.
(Actually I just realised something:
are you ready for this (no big deal really?) ???:
people know things without even realising perhaps that they know them.
Example: an article once appeared in the newspaper (By Bill Brockie, Dompost) on supposedly “the hardest problem in mathematics”. I used my “child’s play physics method” (of “comparing and matching patterns of information in two or more dimensions) to look at the ‘math problem”, and got a pattern. That pattern was in the very name of the article! It was “too hard basket”. The author, without even realising it, had “solved” the “hardest problem in mathematics”!
You have done something just like this, I just realised! “Your phrase “a lot of meaningless wordage”: BRILLIANT!
This conversation is happening at more than one level: I think a “higher-dimension” like information exchange can be happening
(if I say why that phrase is brilliant, it would be giving it away….(re: this possible “ultra extreme data compression” discovery) (think about what “wordage” is, what “meaningless” is, what “a lot of)” ….is.. !!)(the answer is: _?—?–?jumbling up———-?—-?—— ?(most of the words I have left out or i”m giving it away- ?????????? )
June 15th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Of-course you are supporting a scam! You refuse to do any of things needed to prove it works, you try to encourage others to support a company that after years and millions of dollars can not show even a basic working demo. You refuse to do the math yourself.
All of the above means you are supporting a scam.
No working code, no readable math model means you are backing BS.
June 20th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Infact, the fact that you spend all this time cheering these companies along, but not a single word to possible investors about requesting needed business data and possible business risks suggests to me that in-fact you are supporting these scams.
Companies that have been taking money for years but will not show working demos that can be trusted to be honest demos, raise a red flag to me.
Companies that make claims that go against basic logic and math, raise a red flag to me.
Companies run by people with records of past fraud, raise a red flag to me.
Companies that run behind shell companies so that anyone who invests in them can’t get thier money back until the company insiders decide they can, raise a red flag to me.
People who gross over such details when discussing said companies, raise a red flag to me.
June 20th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
May I quote:
“Infact, the fact that you spend all this time cheering these companies along, but not a single word to possible investors about requesting needed business data and possible business risks suggests to me that in-fact you are supporting these scams.”
I am not a professionally business-wise person. I assume investors are prudent and obtain all the information they need to make wise investment decisions.
I am not, as such, “cheering” any of these companies along. I am impartial in principle; I just found something that (whether people like it or not..) looks like circumstantial evidence that these conmpanies might not be as bad as some people think.
Quote:
“Companies that have been taking money for years but will not show working demos that can be trusted to be honest demos, raise a red flag to me.”
Same here.
Quote:
“Companies that make claims that go against basic logic and math, raise a red flag to me.”
Where is the proof that their “claims go against basic logic and math”? Do you know what “a superposition of states is”?
Quote:
“Companies run by people with records of past fraud, raise a red flag to me.”
We are in agreement…
Quote:
“Companies that run behind shell companies so that anyone who invests in them can’t get thier money back until the company insiders decide they can, raise a red flag to me.”
Sounds dodgy to me to…
However, what a curious way with words….
think about the patterns of information you just used….!
Quote:
“People who gross over such details when discussing said companies, raise a red flag to me.”
I wondered if such details existed. I wondered if there was something questionable about the way these companies presented themselves and worked….
It is not something I wish to “gloss over”..
So now what?
If I have, independently more-or-less (the published stories of these comnpanies adding to my inspiration, one could say), discovered the very (ingenious) technology that investors THOUGHT they were investing in, what now to do with it? Sell it to who? Give it away?
?
June 25th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Look at the history of all the successful file compression companies.
ARC - gave it away, made money until better compressor arrived.
PKZIP - gave it away. Now a multi-million dollar business.
Stuff-it - gave it away. Made millions on it’s Apple deal.
RAR - gave it away. Author made so much money he had to quit his full time job, hire his wife as help and then hire still more people. Probably only made 1-3 million dollars total. Wish I only made that.
BWT - gave it away. Now makes big money as consulants and giving lectures
And the trend continues. No-one, I repeat NO-ONE cares about your claims, as far as we are concerned you are talking out your ass for all we can see.
Ship a working product, and people will be banging down your doors with armloads of money if you have something worthwhile. But words by themselves are cheap and mean NOTHING!
WORKING CODE IS KING! SHIP IT AND THEY WILL COME - but only if it works!
June 26th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Yes! They made money by giving away thier compression software.
If you are too dumb to use the Internet/Google to learn how to make money that way, then I know for a fact that you are too dumb to have invented a better compression system.
Here you are making dumb claims about compression, when:
A) You don’t have the programming skill to test your idea.
B) You don’t know how the successful compression companies that do ship real product work.
C) You show no knowledge of the history of compression software/hardware/companies, yet you think you have out-smarted everyone who has come before.
We have seen your like come and go, and GO is the operative word. You don’t know enough to create true compression software and your wild claims will not get any programmer with *REAL* skills/talent/knowledge to work with you.
In a few months you will vanish like all the rest.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:32 am
EMI said “guitar bands have had their day”?
Being “dumb” can free your mind from tunnel vision?
?
June 29th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Yes, but you still stay dumb. Which means you still can’t do anything else. Anyway, this discussion has move big time away from NearZero. Please move it to:
http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.compression/topics?hl=en&gvc=2
Or show proof that this company can do what it claims, everything else is just useless claims/words.
June 29th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
I need to emphasize that I simply happened to come across circumstantial evidence that suggests there may be something to “Near-Zero’s” claims.
My own claims are another issue, though related by the science. I’m guessing that you suggest giving away a data-compression program from a web-site and receiving advertising income?
Regarding ‘how data compression programs ‘work”; the nature of a dramatic new discovery is that it can challenge long-held assumptions in the field. For example I doubt the existence of ‘black holes’ in the manner believed by astronomers. I have an alternative theory (which curiously, is very closely related to the subject of ‘data’ compression).
I cannot show proof that “Near-Zero” can do what they claim; I am independent; I can show a logical demostration of why what I found may succede.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
> “circumstantial evidence that suggests”
In other words because you will not test your own ideas you threw your support behind a company with all the earmarks of a con-job.
> My own claims are another issue.
No, they are a none issue.
1) You refuse to test your ideas.
2) You don’t have the knowledge to see where you are wrong.
3) And you refuse to move this discussion to where it belongs at: http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.compression/topics?hl=en&gvc=2
That makes you just another compression nut-job. Don’t like the above statement? Either live with it or move the discussion to where it belongs and prove your claims. All else is just empty words.
[SNIP meaningless words that prove nothing except the author never tried to deliver working code.]
> I cannot show proof that “Near-Zero” can do what they claim;
So you have nothing, but still supported a bunch of lying con-artists, and this means we should trust anything else you have to say?
> I am independent; I can show a logical demostration of why what I found may succede.
I don’t see how, when you have already refused to prove your claims or move the discussion to the proper forum.
Like I said, your actions support the conculsion that you are just another compression nut-job. Post all the words you want (they are after-all just words) and I will still stick by my claim. Move to the proper forum, and start proving proof if you want people to have any other opinion of you.
July 19th, 2009 at 3:03 am
I say good on you Alan. If you think you have something then keep on working down the path. Even if you have to do another job in the mean time and just keep working on your problem / program as you can.
I believe that the next big discovery in compression will be something that looks at data in a whole new manner, which I believe is what PJW was on to.
Ultimately the case against PJW is not about him having the technology or not (although having it would have helped his case no end). The case is about him having made a false statement and selling shares without a registered prospectus.
In regards to the comments of the security team making him paranoid we need to remember that he has had similar health issues prior to them being around. He has been broke before. The security would not have helped, but I’d doubt they were the cause. The fact is that people who go one to become great often go broke (both financially and mentally) on the way.
July 20th, 2009 at 2:46 am
Oh
“would you like a cup of tea”….
Come on….
Quote: Earl Colby Pottinger quoting me:
July 10th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
> “circumstantial evidence that suggests”
In other words because you will not test your own ideas you threw your support behind a company with all the earmarks of a con-job.”
WRONG! I never “threw my support” behind “Near-Zero”.
I just reported “a matter of fact”: namely: that on analysing the question of “extreme data compression”, I found somnething which may provide an explanation of why Mr. Whitley didn’t want a two-computer test. I also found a number of other interesting things. I am reporting, not particularly judging, in this…
“> My own claims are another issue.
No, they are a none issue.
1) You refuse to test your ideas.”
WRONG! I am extremely poor by many western people’s standards, I suspect. My technology is for sale, perhaps a prospective buyer can translate it into a form that can sit the “two computer test”?
“2) You don’t have the knowledge to see where you are wrong.”
Arguable: it is indeed possible that I am lacking some information about this subject that may change things, but there is no certainty yet on this! I may have found something that “experts” do not yet comprehend.
“3) And you refuse to move this discussion to where it belongs at: http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.compression/topics?hl=en&gvc=2”
It is a matter of opinion as to where this discussion belongs. Also: Yahoo! have unsignable (as far as I see) “terms and conditions” “agreements” (that do not allow for honest participation??? Who reads, agrees, or can agree to such long and complex terms and conditions, which as I recall require one to “agree” that they can change the terms at any time and that one’s continued use of the site equates to ones “agreement” to potentially changed terms that one my not even have read!!!
Quote”
“That makes you just another compression nut-job.”
Allow me:
nuts are very interesting things! Wall-nuts are interesting! Do you know what “insulation” is, and “conductor” is? You know WAY more than you realise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When a baby is an adult, you get a “free mind”…..
try it!!!!!!!(That is, allow less-restricting links between ideas- you have access to “adult science”, you have the mind-ability you had as a baby available…..”
The sleep-wake boundary is an interesting place; unrestricted thinking is interesting (acknowledging whatever phenomena - their existence- even if there is no “name” for something…..)
Quote: ” Don’t like the above statement? Either live with it or move the discussion to where it belongs and prove your claims. All else is just empty words.”
My claims are so far limited to “apparent” breakthroughs in extreme data compression, though they
look extremely promising (to me: I have enough “proof” on that, but am poor so prefer non-dsclosure agreement signed and potential buyer……….or sponsor)
Quote: “[SNIP meaningless words that prove nothing except the author never tried to deliver working code.]”
I recently made a lot of progress to delivering “a working code” (or should I say —————-)
If only I could tell you
Quote:
“> I cannot show proof that “Near-Zero” can do what they claim;
So you have nothing, but still supported a bunch of lying con-artists, and this means we should trust anything else you have to say?”
I only reported in a neutral way what I found
I have some spectacular written material; looking for an investor!!!!
Quote:
“> I am independent; I can show a logical demostration of why what I found may succede.”
I don’t see how, when you have already refused to prove your claims or move the discussion to the proper forum.
“Proper forum”? I could go there too, but Yahoo! need to make their “terms and conditions” signable
Quote:
“Like I said, your actions support the conculsion that you are just another compression nut-job. Post all the words you want (they are after-all just words) and I will still stick by my claim. Move to the proper forum, and start proving proof if you want people to have any other opinion of you.”
I am poor and have not yet been persuaded to give this potential technology away.
July 20th, 2009 at 3:08 am
Interesting, thanks Dodgy.
Actually this situation is universally relevant: if a person, any person, is in an extremely quiet location, a nearly “transparent sound” can be heard (in their head). I apparently discovered what this sound is! “The sound of silence” apparently contains all sense-data your body has ever experienced (or at least, a “holographic take” on that data: showing all of it from at least one sort-of ‘angle’…???).
This “singing of silence” is comparable to the “almost transparent sound” made by a 1970s SunPak flashgun at the top of its warm-up cycle. It becomes so high pitched it becomes almost “ethereal”.
If this sound becomes “slowed down” (which can happen (rare after 4yrs?) during a lucid-dreaming-like experience when one becomes awake while asleep, sort-of; it can sound “like a screaming jet engine”. Slowing this sound down further, its pitch lowers, if slow it enough, one can realise it is like an audio-track of sounds one has heard in ones life running at very high speed. Slow it down further, and incredible, a “picture track” comes out of the sound-track; if slow this “picture-track” one can find it is a “picture track” of visual images one has experienced during one’s life. Slow it down further and…
well, when I discovered this, it was “too dangerous” too see and hear exactly the sense information (due to the situation re: babies and adults (for clues:
“Birth Without Violence”: by Frederik Leboyer)(what if: when you were a baby and a toddler, the adult world seriously failed to “see” you; and tried to dumb you into becoming another lost “adult”???? Do people forget before they were 4yrs old, or do they CENSOR it????)
July 30th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
I have a mathematical genius who says Shannons limit is partially incorrect. Any takers on this? He says “That doesn’t mean it is completely invalid. It does mean that noise theory often doesn’t reduce to practice. For example, I have seen a lot of noise, but I have never seen a Gaussian distribution which Shannon assumes.”
I also want to discuss compression and image enhancement off line with anybody who is game for it.
July 31st, 2009 at 7:04 am
@Jerry:
Observing that the Shannon-Hartley theorem does not hold in the presence of non-Gaussian noise does not mean it is partially incorrect. The theorem only applies to channels subject to noise with a Gaussian distribution. It is completely valid.
Your mathematical genius is trying to restate the obvious and make it look as though he has some sort of original thought.
Noise theory? Not sure what that is.
Fail.
- Mark
July 31st, 2009 at 9:43 am
To those who don’t understand clearly Shannon’s approach I recommend to read my articles ‘adaptive arithmetic coding’ and ‘anatomy of range encoder’. It clears everything. The articles can be found by googling names. You need to have high school diploma to understand my explanation. I can repeat here what I say in article. Shannon’s compression applies to statistics it does not consider positions. After any random resorting of a message it is compressed to the same limit. Shannon’s entropy limit is close to the number of possible permutations, only fraction of percent off for large messages. So if your message is ABBA, it has 2 A and 2 B and 6 permutations
AABB, ABAB, ABBA, BABA, BBAA, BAAB. Number 6 has 3 bits, the message is 4 symbols and 3/4=0.75 bits/symbol is Shannon entropy. Isn’t that hard to understand. Shannon formula for estimation of entropy is different but it is very close to number of permutations divided by length when message is long. Since Shannon limit consider only statistics not the other information it can be beaten for sure by using some other information. And it is happening by using adaptive methods. The use information for positions such as likelihood of occurrence of particular symbols after something, and other similar methods. For example if you know that upper example is name of musical group and has 2 A and 2 B in it, you need 1 bit to encode it because it is ABBA. There is no mystery. From Shannon article it is possible to say that he did not know that his entropy related to number of possible permutations but chose it from experimental observation when making binary trees -log(p). If you build tree by Fanno-Shannon method you can see that length of every symbol is close to -log(p). There is simple and logical explanation to everything that men did or built.
August 2nd, 2009 at 9:44 pm
I think Shannon’s theory is pretty sound, however I do not rule out a different method for the representation of data that makes his theory irrelevant to the method used to ‘change’ data, representing it in a different manner that then requires less space to store and forward.
I use the word ‘change’ as opposed to compress, because where I believe the breakthrough will be made is in representing data in a different manner as opposed to a binary ‘compression’ of the data.
This way the accepted theorem of binary compression and the mathematical limitations around such stay in tact, yet something different can still be developed.
August 3rd, 2009 at 6:55 am
Shannon theories on entropy are not like Newton versus Einstein. In the gravity area we can never be sure of how correct either one is. In fact they will evolve if man evolves in the real world. But in the artificial man made world of data compression. Shannon will always be correct. However that wont stop people from misunderstanding it and as today’s education of new scientists and engineers is falling farther and farther behind the ability of our society to use such knowledge in either case will soon disappear.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Yes Dodgy
and that “something different” I apparently have been developing.
It appears that “the Shannon limit” is just the beginning
In “Slumdog Millionaire” (the movie) people are highly prejudiced “how can a slumdog know the answers”?
This “slumdog” knows more answers than you ever dreamed of??? (One doesn’t have to be a genius, necessarily, the question may be how one looks at the information…. ) (Why is it some kids can solve Rubik’s cubes in under 10 seconds? It’s …………………………….)
August 7th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Scott: You are right, however don’t forget it is more than people just misunderstanding the basic first principals.
1) It is people who are busy fooling themselves so they can make themselves think they are more smarter than they really are in real-life (ie self-flattery).
2) Or people trying to fool other people into thinking they are smarter so they can scam them for money.
More and more Alan’s posts have moved in that direction. And as I always noted, he tries to avoid all mention of the comp.compression newsgroup where he could discuss his theories with people who already are in the business of data compression.
To me it looks like he hopes to snag some of the foolish NetZero/Euclid investors in giving him money without proof of his claims.
August 8th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I just ended up here while following a string of links about compression, and I feel bemused by the idea that anyone would invest in this.
One thing that does not make sense is the earlier statement, by a previous poster, that they are not using binary:
“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.”
If I have understood this correctly - that they are not performing binary operations on binary data - it is an irrelevant, pointless statement. A binary digit is simply a basic unit of information. In the Shannon view it can be considered a quantity of information. Nothing profound happens when you convert binary information into another form: you are just representing it differently with regard to what humans see and the file is basically the same. There is no type of processing or operation that breaks the rules of information theory for binary files, but that magically becomes valid for files in “non-binary” formats, because when you go from a binary format to a “non-binary” format, nothing really happened. Any “non-binary” operation that you could perform on the non-binary” data is merely equivalent to some binary operation that you could perform on the binary data. If you think a process could be valid because it is not “binary” you have the problem that whatever you are doing could always be described in binary terms.
Let’s look at a simple example. The human genetic code is “non-binary” in the trivial sense that most people would use the term. Each “letter” does not have two possible values, but instead has four possible values (A,C,T,G). Does this mean that the human genetic code is “non-binary” in any PROFOUND sense? Not at all. It all comes down to what we think the letters mean. We could say that A stands for “00″, C stands for “01″, T stands for “10″ and G stands for “11″. Anyone thinking of the “letters” in those terms will see a human genetic code as binary. Anyone not thinking in those terms, or something like them, will see it as non-binary. Whether or not a human genetic code is binary or non-binary is purely a matter of human interpretation, and whether or not any process applied to such a genetic code was binary or non-binary is similarly subjective. Anyone saying that you could perform a certain type of process on a human genetic code, and that you can escape limitations described in binary terms, because you are not doing things in binary, would be talking rubbish.
Similarly, anyone who defends a compression process against very basic information theory arguments by saying that it is “non-binary” is saying suspect things. There is no “non-binary” hyperspace you can fly through to break all the rules.
One interesting thing about compression is its relationship to prediction. If you had a very good compression algorithm you could probably adapt it to do prediction and have general purpose AI. Compression and modeling are related. For example, the problem of compressing a movie is very similar to the problem of seeing a movie and predicting what happens next. When people talk of the “ultimate compression algorithm”, or something similar, if we presume they are not making an impossible claim of compressing random data (impossible due to the well-known, and obvious, mapping issue), but are just claiming an algorithm which can take advantage of any pattern that is there, they are (pretty much) making a claim for general computational intelligence. This is not necessarily mathematically impossible, but I would have thought anyone with such technology would actually be adapting it for prediction, and therefore for general AI. They would have something much more valuable than a compression algorithm - and the scope of such a claim needs thinking about.
I have not been on here before, and compression is not really my field, so sorry if I said anything invalid or went off topic, etc. I just felt really bemused having read this stuff.
August 8th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
there is no such thing as ‘randomness’
a mathematician agreed with me on that.
Self-flattery? “One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind”.
It would take me perhaps just a handful of words to pull the cloak from skeptics eyes, one could offer; the existence of this potential is proof of the idea as a possibility…?? One cannot put the ocean in a bucket, you could say, but one can put the bucket in the ocean.
Paul Almond: interesting….
Yeah, this technology has far wider scope than “data compression”, it links to numerous other stunning new echnologies, including:
earthquake forecasting, holographic photography of “star wars” movie quality possibly (without needing lasers); telecommunications technology; even teleportation and levitation and other extraordinary possibilities perhaps.
(all these for sale as far as they have currently been worked out as theories).
Regarding so-called “AI”: “intelligence” appears to be something that is about navigation- being able to navigate one’s way through a problem. It is like the concept “artificial” in that is continuous in suspension; “artificial inteligence” is then 2-d navigation, it is already “binary code”!
If you add the concept “AI” TO the concept “binary code”, you get a continuously differentiated / integrated binary code (or computer “space” (the computer may seem to ‘become alive”, but it is just folowing the code-reader in synch (weaving a pattern in harmony ).
Example: the Leibnitz equation for pi (pi/4 = 1-1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 - 1/11 +1/13 -1/15 + 1/17 …..)
Now everything in the computer can be stored in a 5-dimensional matrix.
…
August 9th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Alan, I need to be clear here: just because I said that there was a relationship between compression and modeling/prediction, that does not mean that I am going to buy into this.
August 9th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
actually that is curious;
technically, at maximum ‘compression”, you get space converts to time, or the idea: a path… That is, “future that is as if it is “laid out” (though this may be an error to think that, the universe so-to-speak does not like being “tied down”).
that which people call “death” is nature’s protest against “excessive predictability”, one could say.
An object that is ultra-compressed data is like a ball that can be batted, it is so-to-speak “neither here nor there”. It is, one may say, a “hard drive” in the most literal sense, it is a solid object that contains within it a path (or “drive”)….
Hence the obvious connection with levitation and teleportation….
One could call “electro-magnetism”: “the science of “slip”" , and “magno-electricity”: “the science of “grip” “.
Maxwell’s non-equations of “magno-electricity” is an idea here:
“Maxwell’s Equations” Of Electro-magnetism:
“Gauss Law of electricity”: guess the generalisation
“Gauss magnetism”: guess the specification
“Ampere’s Law current”: don’t have to guess (have a simple gen-spec (called “Einstein Relativity (pre-math, pre-length measurement)) (simple time (space appears like a physical entity, i.e. like it is able to be measured )
“Faraday’s Law”: guess anything (i.e. take your pick) simple space demarcation (”time freeze”)
(My interpretation of Maxwell’s Laws; they essentially define it appears a “vector space”; or a dot with an arrow attached, that can point in any direction; or “Knowing where you are at, but not being quite sure where you are going”. When applied to “light” (or to “comparison” one could write); i.e. to “electro-magnetic induction” (i.e. when applied to what one could describe with the words: quasi-juxta-positioning)(in other words, to the concept: “objective lens” i.e. when applied to a mathematically described superpositioning or that is to: “tripping”…) you get “a continuous-looking path” (a journey that feels like a specific location) (or apparent capability to “read the light” (say ‘etching’ or “partial reflection” (stands out because it “stands in”: look at a partial reflection to see how it stands out by “standing in”..!))
The phenomenon known as “deja vu” appears to be linked to this!
4 “non-equations of “magno-electricity”:
On a diagram where the horizontal axis is called “space” and the vertical axis is called : “time”:
1: a single line segment, parallel with horizontal axis, ‘floating’ anywhere between the vertical space and horizontal time axis
2. a single line segment, parallel with vertical axis, anywhere between the space axis and the time axis
3. a single dot, anywhere betwen the two axes
4. Four sub-diagrams, each representing the 4 different ways a corner can be drawn by having a horizontal line-segment that meets a vertical line-segment; in each diagram the “corner” is anywhere between the two axes. There are four of these sub-diagrams as there are 4 ways to draw such a corner
The above diagrams are what I call (”Maxwell’s”) non-equations of magno-electricity (i.e. of “grip” ).
“Slip” is about “area differentiation” (volume integration or bulk (flow)); “grip” is about “volume differentiation” (area integration).
August 9th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Does your knowledge about compression algorithms have anything to do with ghosts, ESP, out of the body experiences, spoon bending, precognition, remote viewing, astral projection or UFOs?
August 9th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
yes, now you mention it, it could:
(what is your issue?)…?
(You need to consider “free association”, no-barrier thinking…..zero-prejudice is a thought…. “ask and it shall be given you”…. …..)
in a telescope, “ghost images”: can occur. Possibly to do with “light leakage” (yeah: partial reflections…) “Real ghosts”: who knows?
ESP: there are 5 senses…hmmm perception IS (already) “extra-sensory”?
“I perceive a cloud” is a different sentence to “I see a cloud”, it implies a at least partial uncertainty in differentiating (An) object….
If so, “ESP” would be “extra EXTRA “sensory” or: tactile (making direct links)(Amazing! When you “touch” you “don’t touch” (fingertips have fine ridges on them!) Touching something is “a holographic” experience? A “virtual reality” “exchange”- a “non-equation!”
Uri-Geller style “ESP”? What, NO contact??? How can you really touch (”ESP” one may say…?) without “contact”? An arch works by each element suporting the others- it all “integrates” togther….
So you can contact one part of a arch-like pattern (e.g. a bowl as in a spoon!?) by “bending” (by being “around the corner a bit”…? I guess… ???
Hey that’s so amazing (didn’t even know this detail till now one may say…);
this suggests the notion that “ESP” as it is popularly imagined is all about sensing and detecting a cohesive support arangement (it all holds together: like a famous violin solo piece called Partita no. 2 in D minor, the chaconne, by J.S. Bach?) It “floats” off the violin…. it almost plays itself ?????????? ?
How to define “bend” and “spoon” “simultaneously?”
ESP-free ? say
gravity… it comes togther in dependent-as-it-were of the observer?
So the trick (ah ha) to “bending a “spoon” is to not look at it (to keep one’s eyes on the horizon …???)
How do you “not look” at something? One “holds one’s space together (a little) vis-a-vis the item that is “not being looked at”….
giving “an uncertainty in the locally defined gravity field” hence (theoretically) a spoon “Not being looked at” could relax a little (counter the affect of gravity) (So just like a falling spoon; nothing happens? Not quite, as it is on a hard surface (say), how can it “free fall” while resting on a hard surface?
Wow, it would tend to rebound, or “break even” (to form a “so-called “Shannon limit”"!) ; i.e. it would tend to experience “a constant pressure differential” or a (natural) “straightening” impulse (i.e. you “bend a spoon” by (irony here) “straightening it” (in a manner-of-speaking)!?
“Pre-cognition”… “pre” is “cog nition”???? “Gearing up” as it were…?
“Pre-cognition” = “higg’s boson” (what i call “gearing comparison” ) like the clutch in a car? say A slip differential! Need I say more….?
Remote viewing; that is “remote” ANd “viewing”? To see BOTH these concepts you need JAWS! Quantisation of lever ..like a deraileur on a (say) ten-speed bicycle…? It cuts in both directions….
Oh, this = the idea: “astral projection”? when relative….?
deraileur “uncertainty”: virtual gears (time to get the chain on one’s bike replaced as it is starting to act like a set of gears???????? O.K. the gears slip a bit
…gives “a virtual “clutch” - ah, you can swap gears “without” actually doing anything (much)
..
Doppler shift frequency…
Doppler effect is based on a shift in frequency
“Doppler shift frequency” gives 2 ways to shift frequency = there-and-back-again not gives “jumping through space” (like happens with a person “levitating” a hula-hoop? Cure for “spinal cord injury” one may suppose…. (kind of like a tap dance for the spine…..???? whatever, something like this.. each person is unique)
UFO = unidentified flying object
well, if you did two or more hula hoops you would get a sort-of ufo; the science of that is rather complicated …
WOW, you get a space geometry that looks like a flat disc with a “bowl” (Upside-down) in the center: just like the UFO in the book “Flight 714″ about Tintin!!!!
How amazing, as that book deals also with “thought transmission”…
gracias
seniour !
.. .. .. ….
August 9th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
This is insane.
August 11th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
It’s physics. You are not used to this high-speed way of analysing/ navigating information patterns, perhaps…(?)
Edward de Bono introduced people to what he called “lateral thinking”. One version is to simply “collide” ideas/concepts or words, into each other; then try and “make sense” of the result.
Example: clock + radio: how can something be a clock and a radio? Well, this is an invention that actually now exists (called the “clock-radio”).
What i do is in some ways like what Edward de Bono does, only I start with something that “makes sense” in a nominal way, and try to split it up so it DOESN’T “make sense” (so the information patterns can “free associate”: i.e. they can be “together-apart”.)
Then, if the starting pattern is capable of “making sense”, it is relatively easy to figure out how (for some reason).
Metaphors are associated with “craziness”: in that “taking metaphors literally” is regarded as “crazy”. However, “common ground” is real, the process of searching for common ground may look “crazy” because of the fact that by definition, “common ground” produces “two aspects on the common ground” so an apparent metaphorical-like situation. The common ground is a real find.
I then “differentiate the two aspects on the common ground (usually by one step only); now the “apparent metaphors” have ‘dissapeared’ to give a “space differentiated-integrated perspective” (more than one way of finding common ground by taking variety of different paths, e.g. (or path-integration common ground i.e. integration-differentiation in 2 or more directions = “quantum calculus” or “space coding” (finding (the) precise distribution of space vis-a-vis the ingredients of the science puzzle (maybe this quite literally: frees your mind (..your awareness)) so you can easily find what pattern fits with which (like a 3 or more dimensonal (jigsaw) puzzle !
It is (often, it seems to turn out..) real and/or traditional physics including, too:
the result i got eventually for “spoon bending” is this:
two levers working together.
If you bend a spoon, you grab it at each end, and bend it, by leverage simultaneous applied from each end. The pattern of waves sent through the spoon is, in a manner-of-speaking, “straightening” (the whole spoon must “knit together” (act as one) to bend it, because only when it has reached its ’strength limit” (its “straight capacity”) can it truly bend (can the levers “break through”).
Now it occured to me that what is called “the Shannon limit” is a way of describing the same idea (of a simple polarised (or binary, in the sense of 2 poles ……..) length-ways object.
What you call “the Shannon limit” I could call a ………….
When a person doesn’t look at something (purposefully), they (one could argue) “hold themselves together more” (i.e. they “get a grip” on themselves.) This in theory can send out subtle anti-shock waves that (very slightly perhaps) “levitate” their surroundings (like they form a crater, throwing up their surroundings). In theory, this “lifting effect” if affected a spoon lying on a hard table, would combine with gravity to create extra pinching (Like a person’s hand at each end, gripping) the spoon-table contact points.
Still not going to bend the spoon… but …well have to think about that…
I guess the spoon is already “lightly gripped” by its weight pressing at two points on the table. By adding another form of grip, the easiest way for the spoon to “let go” of the second source of grip is to “read your mind” (pick up subtle vibrations from your body that reveal your real intentions about the spoon?) - so that if you “get a grip on yourself” (by not looking at the spoon) BUT want the spoon to bend, then that extra, sensed vibration will carry to the spoon and it will bend as the path of least resistance (to reduce the pressure on it)? something like that (By ironically, the same method you use to physically bend it! ? By subtle up-and-down motions at each grip-point (by skidding the spoon-table contact points out sideways along the table while maintaining a grip?)
not sure that would work (even in theory)- spoon would have to skid in a rotating direction also- now that would work (in theory)….i guess…
September 17th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Tin Foil Hat….
what a clue
cannot tell you yet why
October 10th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
In 1991 when I was in High School, I developed an idea of extreme compression using neural networks… I was awesome, I was crazy, I was at the top of the world :) (at least in my own little head)… but I implemented the stuff in the next few days, and… the result was devastating, I made some critical errors in my theory so the whole thing didn’t worked at all. :) I was a billionaire in my dreams for a few days so it wasn’t a bad deal for a High School kid, but I didn’t wasted 5 million bucks like these people. :)
October 10th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Andras, it is easy to get sucked into the dream isn’t it? Just like making a perpetual motion machine, once you get it out of your head and actually start building it, reality sets in and you run into those nasty limits.
- Mark
October 15th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
To avoid “being sucked in”:
1. sign a non-disclosure agreement with the inventor
2. evaluate the invention yourself
October 19th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
No one taken you up on your discovery yet Alan?????
October 20th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Andras, that is why you see me be so harsh about Alan and his claims.
At no time is there any sign that he has tried to test out ideas before talking about them. Just a lot of wild claims and demand that someone should pay him lots of money for his ideas.
I also years ago developed a super-high text only compressor, it seemed to work ok. Even appeared to decompress properly. But once I tried doing a ‘BYTE by BYTE’ test of the output I found all sorts of errors. And once I corrected the code the compression ratio fell like a rock.
Anyone who makes claims of amazing compression ratios but keeps coming up with lame excuses for not letting others test the claims is either fooling themselves or is a scam artist. I lean to the second option for Alan, and I know 100% it is a scam in NetZero’s final claims.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Um, excuse me…
The claim I made was: on analysing the question of “on reading about Near-Zero in the newspaper, how could such an idea work?”, I found a possibility; and on futher analysis of the question of data-compression, I also found a possible explanation as to why “Euclid Discoveries” call themselves that; and in general, what happened is I discovered many potential insights on the whole issue, including an actual process that appears to be capable of phenomenal data-storage capability. I have no links to any company, I am a solo inventor. I do not have the time and resources at present to transform what I found into a actual computer-ready formal code. It is for sale as far as it is already worked-out in theory.
It appears to be for real. I sympathise with the point made by Andras- I too have in the past thought I have made breakthrough discoveries in a subject, to find I missed something or overlooked something. I agree this can happen. It is possible it has happened in connection with my present claims of an apparent breakthrough re: “data storage”, that is why I say “apparent”. However, as far as I can see from the detail I now have figured out, this is the real deal, and a revolution. It is testable in that someone who signed a NDA who looked like a reliable potential licensee or investor could evaluate what I have so far, and decide for themselves if it is worth investing in.
There are no “lame excuses” here- in fact someone who signed an NDA on a related subject will probably be the first person to evaluate the apparent discovery.
See the movie “Slumdog Millionaire”- sometimes people do have answers!
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:41 am
I have seen nothing but lame excuses from you. No real test data all. That fully suggests you are just another scammer or nut-job.
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:37 pm
I have already said: I have figured out something, but haven’t written a computer program. I do not have the funding to do the type of test you refer to. You have no idea how under-resourced I am, I wonder….?
December 3rd, 2009 at 1:54 am
Only a few more months wait….The trial is set down for March / April 2010. I guess he has to come clean or go to prison. $6.5 mil! I wonder how many years.
December 7th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Ofcourse they are lame!
(1) I got my last desktop computer at the local dump. It works fine once I wiped windows and switched to on-board video.
(2) You are posting here so you already have limited access to a computer.
(3) You know no-one who can let you work it out on thier machine either? Seems unlikely.
People are always throwing away last year’s model of computer out because they are too slow (usually because of virus).
Get your hands on one, wipe the hard drive and install a free OS and you are ready to go.
Locally, used computers with 3 months warrenty will sell for less than $100.
Basicly, if you are too poor to get a old model you would not be posting here.
And if you were as smart as you claim to be you would have no problem getting your hands on a old P4 machine.
PS. My latest laptop costed me $349 to buy, you claim your idea is worth millions but can’t find anyone to lend you a few hundred? I wonder why?
December 10th, 2009 at 8:02 am
I other words you have been lying to us about you access to a computer. You have repeatly implied that you do not have a computer to test your ideas on, now all of a sudden it turns out that you do have a computer.
Second, look how long you have been posting your claim, more than enough time to write a test program yourself.
Last but least, you are sure your idea is worth millions but you can’t be bothered to write the program yourself.
If you have proven yourself to be a liar, plus do not see the need to learn how to create your compression program (even a rough proto-type) yourself, why should WE waste our time/money on an idea that you yourself are too lazy to work on.
I also notice that you still refuse to post to comp.compression where the compression experts are. This just does to support my belief that you are a scam artist. If not, why do you refuse to post there?
December 14th, 2009 at 7:15 am
@Alan:
Off-topic posts will be removed at the discretion of the moderator. Generally, I would say that pleas for funding will be considered off-topic.
- Mark
December 14th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Have I also gone too far? If so, I am sorry. I also get heated, calling too many people fools and scam-artists when I should not.
I hope I have not as I see an one-to-one relationship between how Alan, NearZero and Euclid operate as they all seem to want people to invest money without being able to show even a simple proto-type program.
I admit I may have gone too far, censor me if I have, but I hate all these empty claims used to back up requests for money.
PS. I just ran into ZIP’s 4GB limit, and I don’t like the the interface to most of the other compression programs on Haiku. I expect to be writting a compression program this winter and I don’t think it will take me five(5) to ten(10) years to get working.
December 18th, 2009 at 3:11 am
Mark,
your censorship I fnd distasteful.
Why are you allowing this false allegation in post 194?
please remove all my posts on this website IF you are going to continue to allow such posts as 194 yet to stifle my right of reply (I feel sorry for you)
December 19th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
If I want to take a post off that I made, How do I do that?
December 19th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
@Coment:
As far as I can tell you appear to only have one other comment, a rather lengthy post dated 12/15. If you send an email to markn@ieee.org describing the message and giving me your IP address, I’ll be glad to delete it, although I would wonder why you are doing so.
- Mark
December 20th, 2009 at 8:13 am
While I sympathize with anyone who lost money in the scam… I must say this is amusing, people supporting vague claims about achievements which are mathematically impossible.
How could anyone produce new and significant compression algorithms, without the slightest understanding of Information Theory?
Years ago, I even had a “online friend” of some sort who made similar claims of a “magic” compression algorithm. As nothing I could say would convince him that his logic was flawed, and since I’m a programmer, I actually implemented his “algorithm”… and it fared worse than even LZ77 or LZW.
( Out of personal interest, since then I implemented my own compressor based on BWT, WFC, range encoding and some custom passes… often getting just a few percents better than bzip2, and spending 80 times longer analyzing the data ).
The point I want to make is that people with a very poor background in mathematics, Compression and Information Theory can fail to realize how or why their logic or algorithm is flawed, without any malicious intention.
Though, as I said, this is amusing…
December 21st, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Maloeran: interesting,
true that one may think one has a ground-breaking discovery only to find one overlooked something. Yet Leibnitz finds pi/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 - 1/11 + 1/13 - 1/15 …….
By standing outside mathematics, one can break through barriers that conventional thinking could produce.
“Information Theory” is a potential block, to getting a view that reveals that which was previously thought to be unattainable…
“Not knowing the slightest thing” about information theory could be just what is needed to break out of restricted views of the issue…
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:47 am
Alan, it’s all good “thinking outside the box”, breaking the guidelines of conventional thinking to explore new and better ways to solve a problem.
But breaking the laws of mathematics is something else. Any claim of compression of “any data” or even pure random data should raise a huge red flag to anyone…
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Well, it’s the usual story- a discovery far too valuable (for a poor person) to say without using an NDA.
Consider “there is no such thing as “randomness”…. (a professionally qualified mathematician agreed with me on that)
Also: how do you out-think a “random” draw?
December 23rd, 2009 at 5:50 am
Compression is all about pattern recognition and encoding.
Most typical files exhibit all kinds of very strong patterns, which allows high compression rates. On the other hand, random data, by definition, doesn’t contain any kind of pattern to recognize and encode. And therefore, it can’t be compressed.
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:35 pm
‘Random data’ is already “compressed”…
December 26th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Again, I don’t understand it, but….
We can write a program to generate random data. This program may itself be a whole lot smaller than the random data it produces. One could therefore conceive that the program being used to generate the random data is in fact a compressed version of the random data itself.
If we can generate this random data from a small data generation type program then it would stand to reason that it should be possible to build something that can look at the random data and work out how to regenerate it. Thus what we would be doing is not in fact compressing the data but rather replacing the data with a mechanism that was capable of recreating an exact match.
It sounds plausible to me, but then I am the one writing this, so I suppose it should. I have absolutely no idea if it is or could ever become possible, but this is pretty much what the whole nearzero thing seemed to be about.
Aside from that I hope that Phil has enjoyed what should be his last Christmas out of prison for the foreseeable future.
December 26th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
@Dodgy:
Read my FAQ post on Magic Function Theory:
http://dogma.net/markn/FAQ.html#Q19
By my definition, if you can create a long sequence with a short program, it is *not* random.
And most long sequences do not have a short program that will generate them.
- Mark
December 27th, 2009 at 1:22 am
I have the answers (apparently); would love to tell you guys, but I am just too poor to give this away. Signs of great intelligence Dodgy are appearing in your comments!
December 27th, 2009 at 1:50 am
Wow
Read the start of Mark’s Magic Function theory FAQ- incredible- after doing some high-speed physics analysis (a method I use to look at information in e.g. science problems) ( ) I now have possible amazing new evidence of WHY Phillip James Whitley would potentially not want a : ‘two computer test”..
If that refusal by him is used to prosecute, then his lawyers need to talk to me because I discovered a new way to explain why he would refuse (on technical grounds not fraud grounds)(I don’t know his actual reason of course- but this discovery could be evidence in his favour on that issue).
(Basically his technique is “invisible” UNLESS you use two computers, perhaps.)
um Ever heard of a “quantum laser”? (a term I invented as far as I know)
December 27th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
A pebble is a “quantum laser” example, I could think
Idea re: Phillip James Whitley:
If he has discovered how to do the extreme data compression as I have in mind, then the following procedure may allow him to carry out “the two computer test” without revealing his method:
Buy a third computer from a shop, so guaranteed clean. Buy a huge amount of data (any pre-packaged large download- video games maybe? but making sure it is data that is allowed to be transferred between two computers but will take a while to transfer)) and put the data on the third computer.
Run the “two computer test” at the same time as one is downloading the bought data from the third computer to one of the two computers (probably the reciving computer) in the “two computer test”. Ensure the “parallel download” takes as long or longer than the test takes. Then after the test, transfer all the other data back to the third computer (It should be back as it was).
This procedure may allow screening of the data-comnpression method used, yet allow the “two computer test” to be carried out.
December 28th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
RE: “the data compression faq”:
arguments exist to counter these
December 29th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Alan,
I’ve been deleting your off-topic messages - pleas for money, complaints about poverty, etc. - but I have left alone anything that was remotely on-topic.
However, I have to say that the information content you are providing is becoming asymptotically close to zero. Basically, you do nothing but post blather suggesting you are privy to some wonderful secret, and trolling in an attempt to engage others in some sort of guessing game.
Stop it. It is a waste of space, and a waste of everyone’s time.
If you don’t have anything coherent and intelligent to say, don’t post.
If you have something wonderful, go work on it and shut up.
If you don’t have something wonderful, go learn.
Either way, you need to learn what it means to make a contribution to the community. Right now you are an example of the tragedy of the commons. I’ve had it with your BS.
- Mark
December 30th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Dodgy, any random data that is generated by some function is not actually “random”. The data can look pretty random and be just as good for most purposes ( besides some security applications ), but there’s still an underlying pattern. Flip a single bit somewhere, and there will be no seed to your pseudo-random number generation function that will produce the desired sequence of data.
Also, Mark’s entry on the topic is of course quite good.
December 31st, 2009 at 7:39 pm
I know or anticipate being able to know, how to answer you; but my reply may be too revealing Maloeran (same words partly apply to Mark). Mark- I should really refrain from posting, least I say too much!
I was not trolling, I was just “playing” as in having to lightly be involved to avoid saying too much, yet hopefully give some idea that answers may exist re: challenges as to whether ‘extreme data compression’ is in fact logically conceivable.
Logical challenges are highly welome- they help provide further insight and a way to see wheher there exists an unforeseen error in my thinking.
The “tragedy” here is how I can still be so poor, with (possibly) such interesting technological possibility? ?
I have made contributions e.g. a possible procedure to allow PJW to demonstrate his technology without disclosing it.
January 2nd, 2010 at 8:47 am
Alan, if you believe you can compress random data, I’m sorry to say this is mathematically impossible, just as much as 2+2=4 is true. This has been mathematically proven.
So, what I would recommend would be to share your thoughts ( on comp.compression, here, or wherever you want ), surely someone will have a look and pinpoint any flaw.
Or, if you believe you have a viable and conceivable compression algorithm ( something that does *not* claim to compress random data ), pick a good programmer to inspect the algorithm with you. He’ll be able to tell you how much it fares against bzip2, LZMA, PPM and other compression algorithms.
January 2nd, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Hi, I understand what you are saying, but you appear to be missing something.
There are things even the mathematicians do not yet realise…
There are also ways of looking at equations…
To solve this riddle, one has to ask very basic questions; to step beyond “mathematics” and ask “what exactly Is “mathematics”?, what Is “data”, what is “so-called “random data”"; what is “so-called “random data compression”?
I have probably over ten ways of describing this discovery, including testing the theory against the quite difficult challenge Mark’s data-compression FAQ makes.
In recent weeks I have found a stunning mathematical description of the discovery, which is very closely related to a very well known mathmatical phenomenon.
My hands are tied, it would be terrific to test the theory here, but I need to earn something (perhaps Bill Gates could sponsor a give-away!?). Above I tried to say what I could without saying too much.
I was starting to write something here about the notion “2 + 2 = 4″, yet I had to stop, and delete- I cannot tell you how to solve that issue (I am not denying the conventional logic of “2 + 2 = 4″) without revealing way too much!
This is like a very ingenious “trick”, it is pretty obvious once it is revealed, but may otherwise seem quite impossible. Also, it relates to a lot of other things, to whole “new science”, to numerous potential insights in physics, astronomy, space-flight, telescope design, a possible way of understanding so-called “dark matter” and “dark energy” (a depiction of a spherical planet on a flat Atlas page creates distortions- India may look too small, Antarctica may look too big….)
all about “space computing”…….
so we are left with a “thin argument”- I may seem to say too little, but the words I could say exist!
As an aside, I am curious that there are so-called “random numbers” supposedly produced by computer- I would have thought that by definition “random” if it means anything, requires one to “take your pick” from a collection-
a machine has no free will, could never produce something random- it would have to obey a mathematically constructed ideal that itself was lacking in something? Unless units and sets were not only interchangeable, but ___________________________________________________________________ (at the moment, deleted this bit, unfortunately it was/ maybe was um i guess possibly too revealing)(I hope I didn’t overdo the deletions- hard to know where the safe line is in what to write and what to refrain from writing),
a kind-of “empty-full set” (or a number of things (”lot”) that tumble (”oh”) i.e. “lotto” !?)
There is a new radio telescope being built I think- they are going to have so much data, they are talking of having to select just a small amount of the data even after compression. A possible market for ultra extreme data storage capability. Who would be a computer programmer reliable enough to sign an NDA and maintain confidence on discovering the method actually worked?
About “random data”- there is a “flaw’ in “random data” that does not require it to be “compressed” in order to “compress it”, it requires a novel perspective.
…I have replied while trying to not say too much .
January 2nd, 2010 at 8:29 pm
brief comment: although could say:
2 square centimeters of an Atlas page depicting the Earth, plus two square centimeters also from that page, does equal 4 square centimeters from that page;
but does not necessarily = 4 equal areas of the Earth’s surface (as if 2 are from India, and 2 are from Antarctica, you get a mixture due to distortions in scale resulting from the projecting of a spherical planet on to a flat sheet).
January 3rd, 2010 at 8:09 am
Regarding randomness, a computer can produce true random data but that data does not just come out of a mathematical function.
On Linux or other Unix-based operating systems, /dev/random produces true random data. It works by merging all kinds of non-predictable “noise” from all over the system, for example the last few decimals of a temperature sensor ( well below the sensor’s actual sensibility ).
That truly random data is often used as seeds to very good pseudo-random number generators ( like the Mersenne Twister or any other ).
////////
Now, since your compression claims would require to disprove and “reinvent” mathematics, and all the sciences based on mathematics for that matter, I would put the compression ideas aside for the moment… Instead, writing a paper on these “new mathematics” and submitting it for publication would be far more significant ( just disproving the Pigeonhole principle, or any other mathematical proof or axiom, would do it ).
January 12th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Maloeran:
I have counter-arguments. They have been censored. If the censorship is respectful of fairness, then the least the censor can do is publish this comment here.
January 24th, 2010 at 2:24 am
I am quite enjoying reading these discussions every month or so. I have no useful comments to add in terms of compression, but when talking about the case against Whitley, it has nothing to do with the compression program not being tested, existing, or not existing. He has been charged against trading laws in New Zealand for not having a registered prospectus, and other company type stuff.
that being said, if he turns up with the program operational one would suggest that the charges may not stick so well…..alas that would appear to be a dream.
I for one will be following with interest in a few weeks when it finally gets to court.
February 21st, 2010 at 6:38 pm
If is easy to disprove the claim that you can losslessly compress **any** file by a reasonable amount using reductio ad absurdum.
Consider if it was possible to always be able to compress any file to 80% of its original size.
You could start off with a file A, then compress that to file B, 80% of the size of file A.
Then compress file B to file C, 0.64 times the size of file A.
C to D, E, F, G, etc. Each time the file is 80% the size of the previous file and 0.8^^n times the size of the original.
After sufficient steps we’d be down to a 1 byte file.
A 1-byte file can only encode 256 different combinations and can therefore only represent 1 of 256 original files.
There are more than 256 different files in the world
therefore the claim is bogus.
February 23rd, 2010 at 2:31 am
“any” file? Each file is unique (or could be).
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:05 pm
[...] Another Failed Compression Promise: NearZero 222 alan, alan, cm, dodgy, alan, Maloeran [...] [...]
February 24th, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Austin Powers
February 28th, 2010 at 1:04 am
Court case is well underway. I’ve been called to give evidence, so out of all of it for my *ahem* *investment* at least I get a trip to Nelson which is the only reasonable sized town in New Zealand I have never been to.
March 3rd, 2010 at 7:06 am
Let us know how it goes, Dodgy! I hope there’s something to be found and recovered from your initial investment…
March 4th, 2010 at 5:58 am
Two points:
1. When have you ever heard of something that seems too good to be true – and it actually is true? Tell me and I’ll give you a million dollars – promise!
2. When it comes down to it, it doesn’t matter if you’re a tortured genius (or whatever the circumstance) because unless you can get your sh*# and prove it works, it’s no use whatsoever.
As a hypothetical analogy: I have worked out a method for the world to produce enough food for 10 billion people and the details are in my head. That is all good and well to have academically calculated this as being possible and how it can be achieved, but it is no use whatsoever to the millions dying of starvation. The point is, the knowledge is no f*&^ing use unless it can be proven and put into practice.
Just like PJW and his ‘ground breaking’ compression technology; without the proof, it may as well not exist as – “does not exist” or “no proof/unable to produce”; it’s exactly the same.
I am personally aware of something similar - though in a mechanical engineering situation: a NZ’er (who was a complete stoner) was the designer/builder some exceptionally remarkable mechanical equipment (not quite John Britten but well on the way) but couldn’t get his sh*# together and get the product made. This guy had the technically expertise and was well ahead of his time (a well known Japanese car manufacturer started using some of the same design principles this NZ’er used 15 years earlier). To get to the point, The NZ’er may as well have not bothered. All he did was screw his investors (not me – I was far too young to be involved) and in reality achieved little else. He’s now 20 older, still a stoner and has nothing to show for it – and this was a guy who was in a good position of initially having something to show, but he screwed up and the outcome was the same as if he never had anything in the first place.
PJW has had ample opportunity to conclusively prove his compression technology but he hasn’t done so. Sure, he’s had a mental health issue, I hold no prejudice; but as mentioned, unless you can get your sh*# and prove it works, it’s no use whatsoever. There are definitely ways to prove it without giving the technology away – excuses regarding this are just a smokescreen.
The public has no obligation to trust or fund any Tom, Dick or Harry (or in this case Alan from this thread) who thinks they’re God’s next gift to science - but oddly enough cannot prove their claims. Anybody who misleads/misrepresents themselves/their capabilities to investors deserves to go down.
March 7th, 2010 at 3:24 am
I find your enthusiasm for repression, Mark, distasteful…
March 7th, 2010 at 6:51 am
@Alan:
If you find my editing of the blog to be distasteful, why not go elsewhere, Alan?
- Mark
March 7th, 2010 at 9:14 am
I have repeatly pointed Alan to comp.compression where he can not be censored. But of-course he refuses to go there as instead of having posters who clearly have already invested money into something they know nothing about, it is full of people who do understand how compression works and it’s limits. No investors there, just people who demand he *PROVE* his claims.
Alan is posting where he thinks the suckers … eh … money is, because he really only cares about how he can get his hands on the money.
Too bad for him, his ideas are so full of BS that even people who know nothing about compression realize what type of person he is.
March 7th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
I posted here because a Google search of “Near-Zero” led here, and I had apparently figured out how to do more efficient data storage, something they were trying to do. There is no need to go to comp-compression, one wouldn’t want to say potentially patentable things there (or here).
Also they probably have an unsignable “terms and conditions” document.
An appropriate party signing a non-disclosure agreement can test my claims logically, an appropriate sponsor or investor could build and test them. The claims I made were described as “apparent”, so yet to be fully checked.
I apologise if I was not polite or talking in a proper conversational manner to anyone. Please delete any posts that fail this test.
March 7th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Since there are no terms to posting to Usenet, I see no reason not to consider you a scammer. Just like your compression claims you will never provide any proof of these non-existing “terms and conditions” because like your compression they don’t exist.
March 7th, 2010 at 9:39 pm
http://www.giganews.com/legal/tos_personal.html
it was listed under “legal”
March 8th, 2010 at 6:45 am
It says ‘Usenet Personal Account Terms of Service’ in other words these are the terms of service for GigaNews - boy are you dumb. Usenet has no terms, learn to use computers properly before making silly claims.
If this your level of understanding then nothing you say can be considered of any use. Please learn how to read!
March 8th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
I replied under the other topic. I noticed the information about “Usenet” in Wikipedia- it is new to me. Lack of knowledge can be helpful in making discoveries though-
…
March 8th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
My reply under the other topic was apparently deleted.
I have now discovered another place to discuss data storage, though.
Thank you
March 9th, 2010 at 1:13 am
maybe delete 228 in the interest of politeness
March 9th, 2010 at 9:01 am
No, lack of knowledge just makes you dumb when you make statements with doing basic research.
March 9th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
please delete 238 also
Earl, you could try to act like people on the internet are real
March 9th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Why? To hide the fact that you are pushing a scam?
March 9th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
Do you want a defamation lawsuit? There is no evidence of any scam.
I told you numerous times, I apparenty discovered a process to store data more efficiently. I call it “space computing”.
March 10th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Go ahead and sue!
Problem #1, I have off-line copies of your posts to give to the judge, and s/he will ask you for a demo, a demo you can’t give because you don’t have a working program. Opps, sucks to be you.
Problem #2, Who will come near you and your compression scheme if you sue the people who ask for proof? No sensible investor will give you money without asking for proof that it works. Are you going to sue investors too?
PS. You don’t have money for repairs to your computer, but have money for lawyers? Standard scammer action to me, call in the lawyers when people ask you to prove your claims. I wonder why it is more important to sue rather than get a working program going?
March 10th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
The judge would not ask for any demo. The question at issue is, have you made an accusation that is unfounded?
You are not addressing the issue. I said the discovery was apparent. I said I could be mistaken. I have tons of proof that I have made an apparent discovery. As someone has signed a non-disclosure agreement, they could testify that the apparent discovery exists, as they will be seeing it.
PLEASE stop confusing me, a new-comer, with the object of your annoyance, presumably Euclid Discoveries.
Re: “No sensnsible investor will give you money without asking for proof that it works. Are you going to sue investors too?”: I already said (and how does Mark think i can answer this without breaking his rules?) that the process is that if someone wanted to invest, they would sign a non-disclosure agreement and see the apparent discovery for themselves. If they were not confidant as to whether it would work (and I never guaranteed it would work, it is, after all, an APPARENT discovery, i.e. it MAY work) , they could suggest an expert loking at it, say Tim Bell, who of course, would also need to sign a non-disclosure agreement and be a trustworthy person.
I do not have money for lawyers, though I have relatives who are lawyers, and more than this, but my comment was a rhetorical comment- i.e. I should have said “people who make false accusations, or commit defamation, could face lawsuits.” I know someone experienced in defamation law, but I cannot be bothered alarming you. I am not interested in anything but truth and peace, i.e. real peace not fake peace.
I have no problem about proving my claims about having made an apparent discovery. It would take one paragraph to prove them.
Re: getting a “so-called” working programme going, I am not in a position currently to do this- someone with knowledge of the industry could try and do this.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:06 am
Sorry, but he will when I (thru my lawyer) raise the point of a possible scam. And show how past compression scams worked.
What are you suing me for then? Defamation?
What false claims have I made?
That you don’t have a working demo of your compressor?
Opps, that is true!
That you ask for money without proof of your claims?
Opps, that is true!
That you had more than enough time to learn programming and write it yourself?
Damn it, true again!
That you lied in the past and can not be trusted?
Well, still true!
So what have I said that is not true?
I stated why I think you are a scammer. And the reasons why I came to that conclusion.
I also stated what it takes to prove me wrong.
Go ahead talk to your lawyer relatives, but don’t be surprise if they ask for money up-front for services, demand *ALL* messages you have posted, and then tell you need a working demo to ensure you win the case.
And also don’t be surprise if they refuse to help if you will not show said demo. Lawyers know that clients lie to them for various reasons and prefer to have solid proof before going to court.
PS. Did you forget that I am also a certified programmer and a certified computer tech? I can serve as my own expert witness. Heck, I even have the original Byte and Dr. Dobbs magazines talking about the first compression scams.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:17 am
Peace? Why should I give you peace when you are messing with my hobby?
On-Topic now! This seems to be the same type of calls we saw with NetZero and are presently hearing from Euclid.
Don’t make waves, don’t ask for facts, trust me!
As I said, your actions are a perfect match to other compression scams we have already seen in the past. If you insist on acting like a con-artist why are you surprised that I think you are one.
If you want to prove me wrong, just get a workable and testable demo going, refusing a testable demo is also a common sign with all the scams we have seen in the past.
You are the one with a choice to make, act like a scammer and have others think you are a scammer or act like an honest person and have people think you are honest as such.
Again, it is your choice! Remember no-one is forcing you here, it is all a result of your personal actions.
March 11th, 2010 at 12:46 am
Quote:
“Earl Colby Pottinger Says:
March 11th, 2010 at 12:06 am
Sorry, but he will when I (thru my lawyer) raise the point of a possible scam. And show how past compression scams worked.”
“POSSIBLE scam?” You said I was a scammer, not a “possible scammer”. I could be a possible airline pilot, possible navy captain, possible circus performer….
Your intention is to impinge on my character.
That is a very stupid thing to do.
Even calling someone a “possible scammer” is dangerous, and could be seen as defamatory.
Quote:
‘What are you suing me for then? Defamation?”
I could sue you for defamation, but I just want to be rid of this forum, while this kind of behaviour occurs here! So stop keeping me here, please. I cannot be bothered with this.
Quote:
“What false claims have I made?”
You said I told lies and that I was a scammer.
That was an extremely silly thing to do.
Quote:
“That you don’t have a working demo of your compressor?
Opps, that is true!”
I never claimed to have a written computer-language programme, only to have looked at the idea from several perspectives, including from the perspective of zeroes and ones.
Quote:
“That you ask for money without proof of your claims?
Opps, that is true!”
I already explained to you, that my claims are of an APPARENT discovery. I also already told you that people do not have to invest in a new idea without satisfying themselves as to what they are investing in. Every time you mis-represent me, you create evidence for the law courts. Think before you write, please! You are again repeating the same things. Is this your idea of intelligent conversation, sir?
You do not seem to be seeing what i am saying.
Quote:
“That you had more than enough time to learn programming and write it yourself?
Damn it, true again!”
How I spend my time is not your business. I have different priorities and different living circumstances to you. I do not have to learn programming or write a program. I can sell license to use the theory as it is, should someone decide on evaluation that it has value.
Quote:
“That you lied in the past and can not be trusted?
Well, still true!”
That is false, and it is defamatory. If Mark continues allowing you to say these things, I may have to warn him about the consequences, and ask his ISP to take action, as this level of abuse is likely in breach of his ISP rules.
I am seriouisly considering shutting this place down.
Your behaviour I find to be extremely disgusting.
This is getting to stage where the police may have to be involved.
Quote:
“So what have I said that is not true?”
I just told you.
Quote:
“I stated why I think you are a scammer. And the reasons why I came to that conclusion.”
Your argument is flawed, and your accusations are defamatory.
Quote:
“I also stated what it takes to prove me wrong.”
I told you already, no-body has to prove anything to you.
Quote:
“Go ahead talk to your lawyer relatives, but don’t be surprise if they ask for money up-front for services, demand *ALL* messages you have posted, and then tell you need a working demo to ensure you win the case.”
You do not understand how the law works. You are transferring your issues with Euclid and Near-Zero on to me, as a scapegoat, stop this please.
I already told you I never claimed to have what you call “a working demo”, I only have a theory in the realm of logic, that could be right or could be in error. You keep failing to read what I am saying.
I have a copy of all my messages. That is not a problem. My only real mistake here was perhaps to vent my frustration at how poor my living conditions are, and how sad this place is.
Quote:
“And also don’t be surprise if they refuse to help if you will not show said demo. Lawyers know that clients lie to them for various reasons and prefer to have solid proof before going to court.”
I already showed your reasoning is built on a fantasy-view of reality that you have apparently constructed.
Quote:
“PS. Did you forget that I am also a certified programmer and a certified computer tech? I can serve as my own expert witness. Heck, I even have the original Byte and Dr. Dobbs magazines talking about the first compression scams.”
I did not know that. It is sad that you are behaving as you are. Good luck in your work.
March 11th, 2010 at 8:08 am
Yep, did you think I would roll over just because you know lawyers? Silly you. :)
Was it just an empty bluff? I don’t bluff.
Or did you talk to a real lawyer who laughed in your face because you can’t prove any damages since you don’t have a working demo?
Or still worse you really tried to file a lawsuit then found out that you have to pay with *REAL* money not just empty words?
People have said they would sue me for decades now. And all them have run when I pointed that I will deliver *ALL* their posts if taken to court.
And yes I believe you are a scammer, and this action just confirms my belief further. I can prove you carried out the same actions compression scammers have in the past and refuse to carry out any action to prove otherwise.
I have never claimed to have proved you are scammer, just that you act like a scammer and that I believe you are a scammer. That is not defamation since that is 100% true.
Sucks to be you.
March 13th, 2010 at 1:28 am
It is not sensible to make yourself a potential recipient of a defamation suit, whether or not the person can be bothered or has the resources to pursue it.
(I would have thought)
I keep the option open of taking legal action more-likely against Sachin Garg for allowing this situation to continue ,which may be in breach of his broadband service agreement.
Please stop repeating the same errors, I told you before “working demo” is not an issue. I never claimed to have what you call “a working demo” It is a “red herring”.
You are free to deliver all my posts, if a law case occured, it doesn’t worry me if all my posts are there.
Re: your belief:
Your belief that accuses me of scamming is based on a mis-representation.
What is your logic? Do you really think anyone who makes an apparent discovery of a logical procedure for storing computer “data” “more” “efficiently” has to forgo the right to patent or commercialise their apparent discovery, and publish it for you ?
Do you really think their refusal to do so means not that they wish to leave commercial options open, but that they are deliberately deceiving?
You are repeatedly failing to notice the difference between so-called scammers and what is happening here.
…………………….
Your claim “that I act like a scammer” is disproved by my exposing the faults in the logic that you seem to have not noticed.
Re: your saying that “you believe”;
you are correct that if YOU are NOT “scamming me” , i.e. if you are not fraudulantly asserting something that you do not believe, then “honest opinion” as far as I know may be a defence (re: defamation lawsuit).
Please delete those posts where you did not qualify your assertion with the proviso “I believe”. That would be a start.
March 13th, 2010 at 1:31 am
(the only thing that would worry me was when I staryed from complete politeness in some posts)
…
March 13th, 2010 at 1:44 am
What I am about to say may shock you, but:
If you really do BELIEVE that (person uvwxyz) is “a scammer”, it is VERY IMPORTANT that you DO NOT fail to be true to your own internal situation- i.e. please DO NOT pretend to believe something other than what you truely believe.
(That is how much I believe in the value of honesty)
………..
March 13th, 2010 at 10:38 am
Earl, I could be wrong but I think Alan really believes he discovered something.
About 6 or 7 years ago, I had a friend who also firmly believed he had discovered a way to compress any data, and I couldn’t convince him otherwise. It was a typical “magical algorithm”, obviously working by recursion on the dataset.
After actually implementing his ideas ( which I think took about a day ) to prove my point, I understood why he was so mislead… and I can’t really blame him.
The “proof” of his algorithm involved a Excel spreadsheet, which involved making the sum of a million small numbers, sum being less than some X. The glitch : excel was treating these numbers as floating point. As it always happens when you add many small floating point number to a huge one, the results he had was much lower than the real results.
So he was mislead by Excel and his poor grasp of floating point maths. Had Excel’s results been correct, he would indeed have found some magical compression algorithm!
I believe Alan’s story is similar. Except that he doesn’t let anyone point out the mistakes, due to the belief that the “discovery” is worth millions.
March 14th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Interesting
(of course I have found something with apparently real possibilities……….)
……
I have never heard of “floating point maths”, and do not formally know about “Excel” or much about “speadsheets”; however, I looked at the ideas you presented, and (using an ultra-fast analysis method that often seems to work with minimal information!)- i figured out what your friend may have actually discovered (namely: “space factors” (a prelude to full-scale “space computing”- which Is what i aparently have found how to do).
His “result” IS, as-it-were “the “real result” (he (unwittingly) has “space-factored” his calculation (creating a virtual ______________).
Incidentally I just figured out potentially, (in therory), what the “large hadron super-collider” will/may see (in cloud chamber photographs of sub-atomic particle “vapour” “trails”! (when they get proton-proton collission energy high enough!)
(all these things are connected!)
March 16th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Seems to be an editing problem, the quotes should say:
I learned to write simple “Fortran” programs
But in this thread in message 252 Alan says:
I have never heard of “floating point maths”
These two quotes are in conflict, one of they must be a lie.
March 16th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Here we go again..
Earl Colby Pottinger Says:
March 16th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
“Nope, he comes across as a lying scammer to me.”
Your opinion is yours. Your reasoning I challenge.
“First, because he is always trying to get money for an idea he will not test/prove. That smells of a con-job to me. An idea worth millions but he does not have the time to test it? He sure has time to post here.”
No, I do not particularly have time to post here. I posted initially to alert people to the possibility that Near-Zero (and Euclid Discoveries) may have been on to something valid. My main reason for posting here now is to defend myself, although Mark and Maloeran’s arguments make interesting reading re: whether my apparent discovery could be possible in theory.
Quote:
“Second, because of his constant lying. A simple example.Just go to message #130 in http://www.c10n.info/archives/423 where he says:
>>> I learned to write simple “Fortran” programs <> I have never heard of “floating point maths”, and do not formally know about “Excel” or much about “speadsheets” <<<.
Do you notice the problem with floating point math and Fortran? Either statement could be true but not both. To say both he has to lie about at-least one of them.”
What kind of stupidity is this? If “floating point maths” was ever mentioned to me, I sure forgot it. It’s new to me there is anything connecting “Fortran” with “floating point maths”. When are you going to realise how so-called “ignorant” I am, or how VALUABLE such “ignorance” could be in bypassing the mental restrictions that conventional computer programmers might be restricted by?
Curently I do not “know” what “floating pint maths” is, though now i think of it, I’m sure I could quickly figure out what it must be logically.
Hmmm, well, I shall not comment on this. I have good reason not to. Thank you for raising this issue! Nice idea. Cool………………………..
………….
Quote: “Third, go and search comp.compression where both compression scammers and compression kooks have posted their claims for years.
Notice the difference?
The scammers *ALWAYS* ask for money and never deliver any code, working or otherwise. They also are the only ones claiming they will sue when someone points out their mistakes.”
No, I object to being subjected to false (and potentiall\y defamatory) accusations. You did not point out any mistakes. You do not know what my method is. You keep ignoring the reality: that people who may wish to patent or otherwise commercialise something, do not publish it. How many times do i have to repeat this???????
Here is the errior in your logic:
Person wants to patent method to run a jet-plane on 90% less fuel.
Scammer claims to also have this technology, but doesn’t.
Both do not give away (i.e. publish) the technology.
SPOT THE DIFFERENCE!!!!
Your apparent error: failing to recognise the difference….
Genuine inventor believes they have discovered how to possibly reduce fuel-use in jets. They are very poor, so decide to seek interest via NDA; and sell the use of the knowledge possibly as is, if buyer approves. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. It is up to the buyer if they want “a working jet-plane”.
Scammer also does not provide a working jet-plane.
You are failing to notice that there is only a coincidence here.
. . . .
Quote:
“The kooks sometimes ask for money, they don’t claim to sue people they don’t agree with but also they try to prove their ideas do work. Some vanish when they find out they were wrong, some try to improve their code (it never works out of-course) and some learn and become proper compression hobbyists and start developing working compression code. Notice, some kooks don’t even publish their code, but just report their progress. Alan does not need to publish his code, but he does need to test it.
BUT THEY (kooks) ALL TRY TO PRODUCE WORKING CODE.”
I am not in the business of suing people that I do not agree with. I am also not in the business, hopefully, of being walked all over by false accusations. I am fed up with them.
I do not even have a “code”, I just (as I said previously) figured out a logical procedure. I even figured it our for zeroes and ones, so I thought that should help convert it to a computer system. If every other person making claims of POSSIBLE discoveries re: data storage efficiency had a “code” as you say, then here is a fact: I am not them. I am different. Welcome to something brand new, as-it-were.
I have thought more recently how this would look in the old Apple Basic. That was fun!
…………………….
Quote:
“Alan on the hand refuses to do any tests, refuses to learn programing on modern machines, and makes all sorts of excuses not to try, but still keeps on asking for money.”
I already told you, any reliable person sufficiently interested can potentially read my discovery via an NDA, and figure it out. I have other priorities. There is NOTHING wrong with selling an invention in such a raw state.
Quote:
“To me that means he knows it is a waste of time to try and make his idea work, but if he knows this but still asks for money, then it must be that he is a scammer!”
No, I just said, I have other priorities (like earthquake forecasting potential technology write-up (which will include the data-storage ideas anyway due to their close relation)).
It does not mean “scam”, it means “other priorities”.
Note: I do not believe the idea will fail. However, I think it may need modifying to fit with computer details that I am not aware of.
Quote:
“Just watch, he will keep on posting excuses for why he can’t program it himself.”
Not excuses, I do not have to make excuses. I CHOSE to (at present) operate as I operate. I do not have to do this your way.
Quote:
“But of-course he also claims to have out-smarted every compression expert with his super-compression.”
Nothing could be simpler, I suspect!!!!
Quote:
“It makes a lot more sense to view him as a scammer rather than a kook.”
The correct three possibilities are:
(a) I thought I made a breakthrough(s), and I did
(b) I thought I made a breakthrough(s), and I (yet to be proved) was mistaken (Maloeran’s theory about my situation, it appears)
(c) I thought I made a breakthrough(s), and I was (yet to be proved) mistaken in some areas but not in others.
May 26th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Well, back to the original topic….he is going to be screwed it seems….the question is how bigger a slap with the judge give him. Another couple of months till we’ll know more….
http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/3745517/Defence-Whitleys-reality-distorted
June 1st, 2010 at 5:24 pm
I believe he’s trying to claim mental instability as a defence….I wonder wether all those investors who still believed in him are now kicking themselves after he’s admitted not actually having a working code.
August 8th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
And so tomorrow he gets sentenced….I wonder if it’s off to the big house, or home detention? I guess we’ll all know tomorrow.
August 9th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Do you have an URL I can use to follow this?
August 9th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
There should be a news article tomorrow, just search and it will pop up:
http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=whitley+fraud
August 9th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Hi Im building a new revolutionary system that will compress jail terms. Just looking for a few investors.
Cheers Phil
August 9th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Latest update….5 years and 3 months jail… http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/4008625/Five-years-jail-for-tech-conman
August 9th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
“Revolutionary data compression” fraudster sentenced
Whitley gets five years for false statements
By Computerworld Staff, Auckland | Tuesday, 10 August, 2010
Former Nelson businessman Philip Whitley — whose company, Near Zero, claimed to have invented and patented a revolutionary method of data compression — has been sentenced to five years and three months’ imprisonment for two counts of making a false statement as a promoter.
Whitley was convicted of the offences last month, and sentenced this morning.
The saga stretches back to the early 2000s, when Whitley, a former software developer with Nelson firm Astute Software, left to work on a supposed technological breakthrough that would radically change the way data is compressed.
After gaining financial support from a group of private investors, Whitley in 2006 formed Near Zero, and another company, Synitro to own and promote the technology.
In 2006 and 2007, Whitley held a number of presentations to promote the companies and the technology.
The core of the case brought against him by the Serious Fraud Office is a series of statements he made during the presentations, specifically that the supposed compression technology was “a breakthrough invention, offering dramatically more efficient electronic data transmission and storage capability”, which was patented.
Similar false information was also published in information packs distributed by the two companies.
According to the SFO, “all the false statements were made by Mr Whitley with the intention to induce persons to subscribe to a security, namely to buy shares in NearZero.”
Details about the patent aspect of the case can be found at the Nelson Mail website, and there is also a story on the site about Whitley’s initial arrest in 2008.
© Fairfax Media Business Group Fairfax New Zealand Limited, 2010 Privacy Policy
August 13th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Lesson?:
if you think you have a revolutionary technology, use qualifiers: such as “not proven”, “apparent”; “looks like it but could be mistaken”; “my impression is that….”; if you are sure you have revolutionary technology, keep to facts (such as “I am confident that……”); if it is patent-pending, the patent office documents prove that.
Make sure investors know exactly what they are investing in- i.e. the evidence (or lack of evidence) of the working version of the technology. Also the possibility that “proofs” of the technology existing ( or not existing ), could be result of experts themselves making an error.
If an investor reads via a non-disclosure agreement a description of the technology- it is up to them to decide whether it satisfies them, whether they should seek technical advice, whether they could be in error or the technology in error.
“Experts” rubbising technology could also be in error if it is too different to what they are used to.
All statements should be non-misleading, in either direction
now can delete this message
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:58 pm
I have found the chinese clone of Phil Whitley :
http://www.recursiveware.com
Meet Dr Constant Tsai Shi Wong !
August 30th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Dr Wong seems accurate:
can you disprove any of this?:
http://recursiveware.com/faq.html
(my apparent technology goes further than Dr. Wong I think)
September 1st, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Quote from the FAQ : “This will never happen, because after a file has gone through a large number of passes, it will first get into a phase of diminishing returns, and eventually reaches the optimum, when the effects of further passes would become negligible. Furthermore, even in the event two files become exactly the same at their optimum by sheer coincidence, the decompressed files will surely be different, because the two files would have gone through different numbers of passes to reach the same optimum.”
So they are saying that 2 different files could become “exactly the same” when compressed. When decompressing that single unique compressed file, which of all possible input files are you supposed to produce? Perhaps all of them?
Meh. This is just absurd, any discussion on the topic is pointless…