Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
markw at mohawksoft.com wrote: > > When you look at a ZIP compressed file, it does not compress well using > standard stream compressors. This is because there are few if any > repeating paterns. The fact that it has few repeating patterns, makes this > stream interresting. It means that it is less likely in a universe of > streams. If it is less likely, then it can be represented with fewer bits. I don't see why it matters how "likely" the stream is. Even if the stream I want to compress is extremely unlikely, there might be some very large number of other streams that are equally unlikely. If your recompression engine can say "aha, even though this stream does not have any 'repeating patterns' that a ZIP compressor can recognize, the data in the stream could be reconstituted with the following formula...", then the engine could write out some abbreviation that formula, and the corresponding uncompression engine could read the abbreviation and regenerate the stream. Of course, you might as well apply that pattern-recognition technology to the original document, rather than the ZIPped version, right? And once you reach the point where the formula to reconstitute the stream takes up just as many bits as the original stream, then you lose. -- "Remember that "freedom" is not just a word. It is a squishy, concept-lite word which invokes positive feelings." --Fafblog // seth gordon // sethg at ropine.com // http://dynamic.ropine.com/yo/ //
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |