It has come to my attention we may be able to increase the storage
capacity of hard-drives.

This is because the method to store the data is held magnetically, a
plus or minus, or a 1 or 0 as we see it. However due to an effect
called Superparamagnetism it is also know that a storage area on a
hard-drive can be a 'null'. No data is present in other words.

Now previously no one would have thought to use a deliberate
scrambling in the past, this was to great an issue on the life of the
hard-drive. However due to increased read/write capabilities and due
to new formats, we can now have 0, 1 and 2

Therefore we now can work with multiples of 3 on 'compression' (not
used commonly areas to preserve integrity). We would have 3, 9, 27,
81, 243, 729 and so forth. Ergo at a now '2 bits' (for lack of better
term at this time) we now have the equivalent of 3 bits of old data.
We end up with just over 1.58 bits for every previous bit we had
before.


Simply we must null an area where we wish to have an outcome of null
represented. This may require higher reliance on 'clusters' than
before, but it can be done.

Einstein <michaelhh@gmail.com> writes:
> It has come to my attention we may be able to increase the storage
> capacity of hard-drives.
> 
> This is because the method to store the data is held magnetically, a
> plus or minus, or a 1 or 0 as we see it. However due to an effect
> called Superparamagnetism 

expialidocious.

> it is also know that a storage area on a
> hard-drive can be a 'null'. No data is present in other words.
> 
> Now previously no one would have thought to use a deliberate
> scrambling in the past, this was to great an issue on the life of the
> hard-drive. However due to increased read/write capabilities and due
> to new formats, we can now have 0, 1 and 2
> 
> Therefore we now can work with multiples of 3 on 'compression' (not
> used commonly areas to preserve integrity). We would have 3, 9, 27,
> 81, 243, 729 and so forth. Ergo at a now '2 bits' (for lack of better
> term at this time) we now have the equivalent of 3 bits of old data.
> We end up with just over 1.58 bits for every previous bit we had
> before.
> 
> 
> Simply we must null an area where we wish to have an outcome of null
> represented. This may require higher reliance on 'clusters' than
> before, but it can be done.


You're completely ignorant of the history and development of 
line codes, aren't you?


Phil
-- 
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
-- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration

On Nov 12, 6:04 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> Einstein <michae...@gmail.com> writes:
> > It has come to my attention we may be able to increase the storage
> > capacity of hard-drives.
>
> > This is because the method to store the data is held magnetically, a
> > plus or minus, or a 1 or 0 as we see it. However due to an effect
> > called Superparamagnetism
>
> expialidocious.
>
>
>
> > it is also know that a storage area on a
> > hard-drive can be a 'null'. No data is present in other words.
>
> > Now previously no one would have thought to use a deliberate
> > scrambling in the past, this was to great an issue on the life of the
> > hard-drive. However due to increased read/write capabilities and due
> > to new formats, we can now have 0, 1 and 2
>
> > Therefore we now can work with multiples of 3 on 'compression' (not
> > used commonly areas to preserve integrity). We would have 3, 9, 27,
> > 81, 243, 729 and so forth. Ergo at a now '2 bits' (for lack of better
> > term at this time) we now have the equivalent of 3 bits of old data.
> > We end up with just over 1.58 bits for every previous bit we had
> > before.
>
> > Simply we must null an area where we wish to have an outcome of null
> > represented. This may require higher reliance on 'clusters' than
> > before, but it can be done.
>
> You're completely ignorant of the history and development of
> line codes, aren't you?
>
> Phil

My pardon but lets analyze your reply.

Content: 0
Flame: 10
Substance: 0
Informative: 0
Rebuttal: 1
Contributive: 0


So how bout instead of just attacking, you actually try to give some
information if you are 'so enlightened'? The method of your post is
not one which contributes to research, attempts to gain knowledge,
learning, or anything else of a higher education goal set. Instead you
just made fascists, bigots, anarchists, satanists, and extremist
muslims so pleased with your methodology, deeply in line with their
"think like us, if you don't we will attack you for not doing so, be
educated like us, or be attacked for not being so" type mindsets.

now if you wish to retry your post I might regrade you.

On Nov 12, 6:35 am, Einstein <michae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It has come to my attention we may be able to increase the storage
> capacity of hard-drives.
>
> This is because the method to store the data is held magnetically, a
> plus or minus, or a 1 or 0 as we see it. However due to an effect
> called Superparamagnetism it is also know that a storage area on a
> hard-drive can be a 'null'. No data is present in other words.
>
> Now previously no one would have thought to use a deliberate
> scrambling in the past, this was to great an issue on the life of the
> hard-drive. However due to increased read/write capabilities and due
> to new formats, we can now have 0, 1 and 2
>
> Therefore we now can work with multiples of 3 on 'compression' (not
> used commonly areas to preserve integrity). We would have 3, 9, 27,
> 81, 243, 729 and so forth. Ergo at a now '2 bits' (for lack of better
> term at this time) we now have the equivalent of 3 bits of old data.
> We end up with just over 1.58 bits for every previous bit we had
> before.
>
> Simply we must null an area where we wish to have an outcome of null
> represented. This may require higher reliance on 'clusters' than
> before, but it can be done.

What you describe doesn't help to *compress* anything but merely
boosts hard disk *capacity* by 50%.

I had a similar idea though. The fact that the magnetism on each
domain (bit) is not a rigid on/off but has a much wider range of
magnetism e.g. when you overwrite a 0 with a 1 you get a 0.95 instead
of 1.00 so I was thinkin' why not create new hard disks with such
circuitry that could distinguish a couple "layers" and double or even
triple HD capacity.

I believe there are already HDs on the market that employ this type of
technique to boost storage but on the other hand... that doesn't
guarantee a lossless reading of each "layer," since not all magnetic
residues can be successfully recovered. In addition, HDs with that
kind of circuitry would be too goddamn expensive.

Einstein ha scritto:
> It has come to my attention we may be able to increase the storage
> capacity of hard-drives.
>
> This is because the method to store the data is held magnetically, a
> plus or minus, or a 1 or 0 as we see it. However due to an effect
> called Superparamagnetism it is also know that a storage area on a
> hard-drive can be a 'null'. No data is present in other words.
>
> Now previously no one would have thought to use a deliberate
> scrambling in the past, this was to great an issue on the life of the
> hard-drive. However due to increased read/write capabilities and due
> to new formats, we can now have 0, 1 and 2
>
> Therefore we now can work with multiples of 3 on 'compression' (not
> used commonly areas to preserve integrity). We would have 3, 9, 27,
> 81, 243, 729 and so forth. Ergo at a now '2 bits' (for lack of better
> term at this time) we now have the equivalent of 3 bits of old data.
> We end up with just over 1.58 bits for every previous bit we had
> before.
>
>
> Simply we must null an area where we wish to have an outcome of null
> represented. This may require higher reliance on 'clusters' than
> before, but it can be done.
>
>   

Do it. I will buy it.
If you screw my data, I will sue you. :)

Best,
E.

Einstein <michaelhh@gmail.com> writes:
> On Nov 12, 6:04 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > Einstein <michae...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > It has come to my attention we may be able to increase the storage
> > > capacity of hard-drives.
> >
> > > This is because the method to store the data is held magnetically, a
> > > plus or minus, or a 1 or 0 as we see it. However due to an effect
> > > called Superparamagnetism
> >
> > expialidocious.
> >
> > > it is also know that a storage area on a
> > > hard-drive can be a 'null'. No data is present in other words.
> >
> > > Now previously no one would have thought to use a deliberate
> > > scrambling in the past, this was to great an issue on the life of the
> > > hard-drive. However due to increased read/write capabilities and due
> > > to new formats, we can now have 0, 1 and 2
> >
> > > Therefore we now can work with multiples of 3 on 'compression' (not
> > > used commonly areas to preserve integrity). We would have 3, 9, 27,
> > > 81, 243, 729 and so forth. Ergo at a now '2 bits' (for lack of better
> > > term at this time) we now have the equivalent of 3 bits of old data.
> > > We end up with just over 1.58 bits for every previous bit we had
> > > before.
> >
> > > Simply we must null an area where we wish to have an outcome of null
> > > represented. This may require higher reliance on 'clusters' than
> > > before, but it can be done.
> >
> > You're completely ignorant of the history and development of
> > line codes, aren't you?
> >
> > Phil
> 
> My pardon but lets analyze your reply.
> 
> Content: 0

So you missed the mention of line codes, then?

> Flame: 10

You asked for 9, but I always like to round up.

> Substance: 0

So, you missed the mention of line codes, then?

> Informative: 0

So, you missed the mention of line codes, then?

> Rebuttal: 1

Well, it wasn't exactly trying to be a rebuttal, so I couldn't 
care less about the score for that. If you want twice the 
rebuttal, try this:

Several of your assertions are just plain wrong.

> Contributive: 0

So, you missed the mention of line codes, then?

> So how bout instead of just attacking, you actually try to give some
> information 

So, you missed the mention of line codes, then?

> if you are 'so enlightened'? The method of your post is
> not one which contributes to research, attempts to gain knowledge,
> learning, or anything else of a higher education goal set.

So, you missed the mention of line codes, then?

> Instead you
> just made fascists, bigots, anarchists, satanists, and extremist
> muslims so pleased with your methodology, deeply in line with their
> "think like us, if you don't we will attack you for not doing so, be
> educated like us, or be attacked for not being so" type mindsets.

You're one completely demented loon, aren't you?

> now if you wish to retry your post I might regrade you.

No need. Maybe you should retry reading my previous posts.
Clue - look for a reference to line codes in my previous post.

I just notice that I plonked you in the past, but, as you're one
of the google groups droolers you've been auto-morphed by son-
of-AOL, I have to re-plonk you.

Enjoy learning all about line codes; you're only over half a 
century behind the rest of the world. Feel free to post again
when you've caught up.

Phil
-- 
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
-- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration

On Nov 12, 6:53 am, Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 6:35 am, Einstein <michae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It has come to my attention we may be able to increase the storage
> > capacity of hard-drives.
>
> > This is because the method to store the data is held magnetically, a
> > plus or minus, or a 1 or 0 as we see it. However due to an effect
> > called Superparamagnetism it is also know that a storage area on a
> > hard-drive can be a 'null'. No data is present in other words.
>
> > Now previously no one would have thought to use a deliberate
> > scrambling in the past, this was to great an issue on the life of the
> > hard-drive. However due to increased read/write capabilities and due
> > to new formats, we can now have 0, 1 and 2
>
> > Therefore we now can work with multiples of 3 on 'compression' (not
> > used commonly areas to preserve integrity). We would have 3, 9, 27,
> > 81, 243, 729 and so forth. Ergo at a now '2 bits' (for lack of better
> > term at this time) we now have the equivalent of 3 bits of old data.
> > We end up with just over 1.58 bits for every previous bit we had
> > before.
>
> > Simply we must null an area where we wish to have an outcome of null
> > represented. This may require higher reliance on 'clusters' than
> > before, but it can be done.
>
> What you describe doesn't help to *compress* anything but merely
> boosts hard disk *capacity* by 50%.
>
> I had a similar idea though. The fact that the magnetism on each
> domain (bit) is not a rigid on/off but has a much wider range of
> magnetism e.g. when you overwrite a 0 with a 1 you get a 0.95 instead
> of 1.00 so I was thinkin' why not create new hard disks with such
> circuitry that could distinguish a couple "layers" and double or even
> triple HD capacity.
>
> I believe there are already HDs on the market that employ this type of
> technique to boost storage but on the other hand... that doesn't
> guarantee a lossless reading of each "layer," since not all magnetic
> residues can be successfully recovered. In addition, HDs with that
> kind of circuitry would be too goddamn expensive.

Ah now this is a better reply. In fact you are correct from what I
read while researching other information about file sizes... (trust me
I tried a lot of different search terms :P)... It seems that the
encoding on the main generation (there is a new one coming out) is 1
directional, either left or right you might say. When from what I have
seen it should also be possible to store is as forward/back (however
up/down is a no with them, not enough depth and another obstacle which
recent new hard drives fix, but requires a buffer under the magnets).
I am unsure if this can also translate to other media, but would be
interesting if CD's had a null setting... think of the data we could
write to a 1 time use cd! The volumes... if there is a null setting we
could pretty much add 50% to every cd then (so long as not written to
already, and so long as you were willing to lose unused space). I
guess the best analogy I can use is the old record players. If you
could know the tracks are there, and where they were with utter
reliability, you could have areas not etched at all giving additional
options in the media recorded.


There is the issue again of longevity. What sort of issues result from
recording a magnetic structure with "chaos" and with directions we
dont normally use them for? Currently (damn cant find the pages I
found earlier, I think they quoted 7000 read/writes per each 'contact/
point') there are limits to how many times a section/contact/point can
be read/written from/to... Will this significantly change that?

On Nov 12, 7:04 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> Einstein <michae...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Nov 12, 6:04 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > Einstein <michae...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > It has come to my attention we may be able to increase the storage
> > > > capacity of hard-drives.
>
> > > > This is because the method to store the data is held magnetically, a
> > > > plus or minus, or a 1 or 0 as we see it. However due to an effect
> > > > called Superparamagnetism
>
> > > expialidocious.
>
> > > > it is also know that a storage area on a
> > > > hard-drive can be a 'null'. No data is present in other words.
>
> > > > Now previously no one would have thought to use a deliberate
> > > > scrambling in the past, this was to great an issue on the life of the
> > > > hard-drive. However due to increased read/write capabilities and due
> > > > to new formats, we can now have 0, 1 and 2
>
> > > > Therefore we now can work with multiples of 3 on 'compression' (not
> > > > used commonly areas to preserve integrity). We would have 3, 9, 27,
> > > > 81, 243, 729 and so forth. Ergo at a now '2 bits' (for lack of better
> > > > term at this time) we now have the equivalent of 3 bits of old data.
> > > > We end up with just over 1.58 bits for every previous bit we had
> > > > before.
>
> > > > Simply we must null an area where we wish to have an outcome of null
> > > > represented. This may require higher reliance on 'clusters' than
> > > > before, but it can be done.
>
> > > You're completely ignorant of the history and development of
> > > line codes, aren't you?
>
> > > Phil
>
> > My pardon but lets analyze your reply.
>
> > Content: 0
>
> So you missed the mention of line codes, then?
>
> > Flame: 10
>
> You asked for 9, but I always like to round up.
>
> > Substance: 0
>
> So, you missed the mention of line codes, then?
>
> > Informative: 0
>
> So, you missed the mention of line codes, then?
>
> > Rebuttal: 1
>
> Well, it wasn't exactly trying to be a rebuttal, so I couldn't
> care less about the score for that. If you want twice the
> rebuttal, try this:
>
> Several of your assertions are just plain wrong.
>
> > Contributive: 0
>
> So, you missed the mention of line codes, then?
>
> > So how bout instead of just attacking, you actually try to give some
> > information
>
> So, you missed the mention of line codes, then?
>
> > if you are 'so enlightened'? The method of your post is
> > not one which contributes to research, attempts to gain knowledge,
> > learning, or anything else of a higher education goal set.
>
> So, you missed the mention of line codes, then?
>
> > Instead you
> > just made fascists, bigots, anarchists, satanists, and extremist
> > muslims so pleased with your methodology, deeply in line with their
> > "think like us, if you don't we will attack you for not doing so, be
> > educated like us, or be attacked for not being so" type mindsets.
>
> You're one completely demented loon, aren't you?
>
> > now if you wish to retry your post I might regrade you.
>
> No need. Maybe you should retry reading my previous posts.
> Clue - look for a reference to line codes in my previous post.
>
> I just notice that I plonked you in the past, but, as you're one
> of the google groups droolers you've been auto-morphed by son-
> of-AOL, I have to re-plonk you.
>
> Enjoy learning all about line codes; you're only over half a
> century behind the rest of the world. Feel free to post again
> when you've caught up.
>
> Phil
> --
> Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
> -- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration

Sir the two words "Line Code" can mean ANYTHING. I can think of 100
results this will get in google without ever even looking it up.

But I am remiss. I ask you to never post in my thread again unless you
can actually go past flaming in ANY manner, and actually provide more
than a few choice key words, such as a URL, a paragraph of educating
on the subject, or something equally as informative between those two
mediums.

Furthermore I shall ignore any future posts of yours which do not meet
these minimum qualifications, regardless of how I treat others, due to
your obvious jerk attitude on this whole thing. If you had the right
mindset you would have said a url, and left me alone then to say thank
you later, however you obviously lack this, and like to tout a "I am
superior than you, you are a pissant, now begone" type attitude.

A quote I would like to say to you later if the appropriate time comes
"How do you like dem apples?"

"Einstein" <michaelhh@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1194881458.451379.275550@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> Sir the two words "Line Code" can mean ANYTHING. I can think of 100
> results this will get in google without ever even looking it up.

I actually tried the experiment, and it worked quite well.
Care to trash any movies that you have not yet seen? 

"Industrial One" <industrial_one@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1194879230.998115.35120@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

>
> I had a similar idea though. The fact that the magnetism on each
> domain (bit) is not a rigid on/off but has a much wider range of
> magnetism e.g. when you overwrite a 0 with a 1 you get a 0.95 instead
> of 1.00 so I was thinkin' why not create new hard disks with such
> circuitry that could distinguish a couple "layers" and double or even
> triple HD capacity.

I don't think that would work. In disk drives they already do
something similar in placing the bits "too close together" so
that they interfere (Google PRML). Any attempt at recovering
layers would make this problematic. 

On Nov 12, 9:09 am, "Pete Fraser" <pfra...@covad.net> wrote:
> "Industrial One" <industrial_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1194879230.998115.35120@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > I had a similar idea though. The fact that the magnetism on each
> > domain (bit) is not a rigid on/off but has a much wider range of
> > magnetism e.g. when you overwrite a 0 with a 1 you get a 0.95 instead
> > of 1.00 so I was thinkin' why not create new hard disks with such
> > circuitry that could distinguish a couple "layers" and double or even
> > triple HD capacity.
>
> I don't think that would work. In disk drives they already do
> something similar in placing the bits "too close together" so
> that they interfere (Google PRML). Any attempt at recovering
> layers would make this problematic.

Exactly.

On Nov 12, 8:30 am, Einstein <michae...@gmail.com> wrote:

> A quote I would like to say to you later if the appropriate time comes
> "How do you like dem apples?"

He doesn't, he likes teh c0cks better.

Einstein wrote:
> It has come to my attention we may be able to increase the storage
> capacity of hard-drives.
> 
> This is because the method to store the data is held magnetically, a
> plus or minus, or a 1 or 0 as we see it. However due to an effect
> called Superparamagnetism it is also know that a storage area on a
> hard-drive can be a 'null'. No data is present in other words.

No, not so. First of all, I think you first understand the physics 
behind it before you debate. Data is stored as magnetization on the
hard disk (surely, as you say), but this material has a hysteresis curve
with two stable regions. The region between them - your "no 
magnetization" isn't stable, the system will randomly either magnetize 
in one way or another. Besides, the structure of the material used is
really designed to align the elementary magnets (spins) with or against
the external field, nowadays AFAIK perpendicular to the surface.

> Now previously no one would have thought to use a deliberate
> scrambling in the past, this was to great an issue on the life of the
> hard-drive. However due to increased read/write capabilities and due
> to new formats, we can now have 0, 1 and 2

That's what's done in some Flash-RAM cells nowadays, but with two or 
four bits per cell. It is much harder to do this with the ferromagnetic
effect (or its quantum-physical extensions that amplify its effects
as used in recent harddrives) due to physical constraints.

> Simply we must null an area where we wish to have an outcome of null
> represented. This may require higher reliance on 'clusters' than
> before, but it can be done.

Please, back to a physics class before you make those claims. Thank you.

Thomas

"Einstein" <michaelhh@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1194881458.451379.275550@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sir the two words "Line Code" can mean ANYTHING. I can think of 100
> results this will get in google without ever even looking it up.
>
> But I am remiss. I ask you to never post in my thread again unless you
> can actually go past flaming in ANY manner, and actually provide more
> than a few choice key words, such as a URL, a paragraph of educating
> on the subject, or something equally as informative between those two
> mediums.
>
> Furthermore I shall ignore any future posts of yours which do not meet
> these minimum qualifications, regardless of how I treat others, due to
> your obvious jerk attitude on this whole thing. If you had the right
> mindset you would have said a url, and left me alone then to say thank
> you later, however you obviously lack this, and like to tout a "I am
> superior than you, you are a pissant, now begone" type attitude.
>
> A quote I would like to say to you later if the appropriate time comes
> "How do you like dem apples?"



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_code

When google provides too much breadth, sometimes Wikipedia can provide 
better information. 

On Nov 12, 9:18 pm, "John_H" <newsgr...@johnhandwork.com> wrote:

> When google provides too much breadth, sometimes Wikipedia can provide
> better information.

The problem is not that Google has too much breadth, but rather that
he assumed it would *WITHOUT* even trying to Google the suggestion.

He has consistently asked people to do his research for him on even
the most basic of things.  And repeatly he has refused to use Google
first, otherwise he would not show up making so many mistakes.

Actually thats simple binary. Which ofc being someone who hobbies in
Binary I understand.

However the "line code" does not need to be limited to 2 values if
desired. Instead we can have, 3, 4, 5 or any other whole number value.
Indeed 2 bits together is 4 values. Standard text is usually written
as 8 bits, which means we can assign each letter, number, character to
a portion of 256 outcomes. I could go on, but you basically proved
your an idiot for not understanding numbers and the ability to use
them differently.

Take Morse Code for instance. It CLEARLY had 3 values. Dot, Dash, and
No information.

Now when you go and learn to do math for real please try posting
again.


Mr Physics.... I am a math man, not a physics man, I do not fully
understand magnetics, and I entirely admit to my lack of knowledge.
However at the same time I think you could have posted in a manner
contributing kindly and not impolitely. His "Line Code" results that
showed binary when I did search (for I did, but I did not Wiki, my bad
there) got me http://www.codeline.com/ ... http://www.code-line.com/
and others of that ilk. However seems google has moved the wiki up
now... and it is near the top for my search.

On Nov 12, 4:25 pm, Einstein <michae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Take Morse Code for instance. It CLEARLY had 3 values. Dot, Dash, and
> No information.

You need to be much clearer in the questions you ask.  Compression is
ultimately a way to reduce a stream of symbols down to their most
efficient form (ie. entropy).  The alphabet has 26 symbols, Morse code
has 3 symbols.  But when we talk about compression of data, we are
usually talking about it's most basic form, binary.  All other symbols
can be formed from binary, so it is usually binary in which most
compression discussions focus on.

Knowing this, is there another way you can form your question and/or
formulate your hypothesis?

When you claim to have an idea that hard drives can hold something
other than binary, ie. instead of 0 or 1 maybe we can now hold 2 or 3
because "nothing" is a new symbol (which is incorrect, but we won't go
into that here), it shows you lack an understanding of how digital
information is represented.  When we helpfully tell you to research
"line codes" and you tell us 1. that doesn't apply (you are
misinformed) or 2. it doesn't show up in the top search results (you
are lying) then can you not see how you are getting some snarky
remarks?

Jim Leonard <MobyGamer@gmail.com> writes:
> On Nov 12, 4:25 pm, Einstein <michae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Take Morse Code for instance. It CLEARLY had 3 values. Dot, Dash, and
> > No information.
> 
> You need to be much clearer in the questions you ask.  Compression is
> ultimately a way to reduce a stream of symbols down to their most
> efficient form (ie. entropy).  The alphabet has 26 symbols, Morse code
> has 3 symbols.

ON, OFF, and what?

If you're treating ON for a length of 1 to be a different symbol 
from ON for a length of 3, then you ought to treat OFF for a length
of 1, OFF for a length of 3, and OFF for a length of 7 to all 
be different too.

So it's better to view it as either 2 or 5, IMHO, rather than 3.

(Compare UPCs with 4 bar types {black,white} x {narrow,wide}, and 
other bar codes.)

Phil
-- 
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
-- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration

I consider it compression since

A) It would be limited in function to a new software, and could not be
conventionally read
B) It cannot be high usage, since there is a probability of decreasing
the life span of the hard-drive
C) It is a means of encoding data to increase the size of the data.

I do admit that it can be seen as a means to increase hard disk drive
size, but I also think that consumers would have a hard time with the
concept and that it would suffer for the label of being a hard drive
size increase... Never forget the ignorance of society.

"Einstein" <michaelhh@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1194906321.967190.315700@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Actually thats simple binary. Which ofc being someone who hobbies in
> Binary I understand.
>
> However the "line code" does not need to be limited to 2 values if
> desired. Instead we can have, 3, 4, 5 or any other whole number value.
> Indeed 2 bits together is 4 values. Standard text is usually written
> as 8 bits, which means we can assign each letter, number, character to
> a portion of 256 outcomes. I could go on, but you basically proved
> your an idiot for not understanding numbers and the ability to use
> them differently.
>
> Take Morse Code for instance. It CLEARLY had 3 values. Dot, Dash, and
> No information.
>
> Now when you go and learn to do math for real please try posting
> again.
>
>
> Mr Physics.... I am a math man, not a physics man, I do not fully
> understand magnetics, and I entirely admit to my lack of knowledge.
> However at the same time I think you could have posted in a manner
> contributing kindly and not impolitely. His "Line Code" results that
> showed binary when I did search (for I did, but I did not Wiki, my bad
> there) got me http://www.codeline.com/ ... http://www.code-line.com/
> and others of that ilk. However seems google has moved the wiki up
> now... and it is near the top for my search.


I went from giving you the benefit of the doubt (even though you appear to 
dishonor the name "Einstein") to wondering if I should add you to my nearly 
empty kill file.

The first response to your question was a bit rude and too short to be very 
helpful though there was information if you looked past the mood of the 
reply and at the content instead.  Your follow-ups just up the flame.

I can no longer give you the benefit of the doubt because I've lost respect 
for your interactions here.

Oh well. 

"John_H" <newsgroup@johnhandwork.com> writes:
> "Einstein" <michaelhh@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> The first response to your question was a bit rude and too short to be very 
> helpful though there was information if you looked past the mood of the 
> reply and at the content instead.  Your follow-ups just up the flame.

Just for reference, he'd been in my sci.crypt killfile for 
months, hence my not bothering with the politenesses, and 
heading straight for the glasgow kiss.

Phil
-- 
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
-- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration

On Nov 12, 5:28 pm, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> Jim Leonard <MobyGa...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Nov 12, 4:25 pm, Einstein <michae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Take Morse Code for instance. It CLEARLY had 3 values. Dot, Dash, and
> > > No information.
>
> > You need to be much clearer in the questions you ask.  Compression is
> > ultimately a way to reduce a stream of symbols down to their most
> > efficient form (ie. entropy).  The alphabet has 26 symbols, Morse code
> > has 3 symbols.
>
> ON, OFF, and what?

"Pause"?  Wouldn't that be a third symbol?

> If you're treating ON for a length of 1 to be a different symbol
> from ON for a length of 3, then you ought to treat OFF for a length
> of 1, OFF for a length of 3, and OFF for a length of 7 to all
> be different too.
>
> So it's better to view it as either 2 or 5, IMHO, rather than 3.

I'm not sure I follow you.  Your compression-fu beats mine, so please
help me to understand -- my understanding of Morse is that there are
three distinguishable symbols: dot, dash, and a pause in
transmission.  The pause is an "EOT" code, and should be counted along
with the dot and dash because an EOT is necessary to understand the
symbol groupings.

I don't understand how you get 5 symbols out of that... Help?

Jim Leonard <MobyGamer@gmail.com> writes:
> On Nov 12, 5:28 pm, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > Jim Leonard <MobyGa...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > On Nov 12, 4:25 pm, Einstein <michae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Take Morse Code for instance. It CLEARLY had 3 values. Dot, Dash, and
> > > > No information.
> >
> > > You need to be much clearer in the questions you ask.  Compression is
> > > ultimately a way to reduce a stream of symbols down to their most
> > > efficient form (ie. entropy).  The alphabet has 26 symbols, Morse code
> > > has 3 symbols.
> >
> > ON, OFF, and what?
> 
> "Pause"?  Wouldn't that be a third symbol?
> 
> > If you're treating ON for a length of 1 to be a different symbol
> > from ON for a length of 3, then you ought to treat OFF for a length
> > of 1, OFF for a length of 3, and OFF for a length of 7 to all
> > be different too.
> >
> > So it's better to view it as either 2 or 5, IMHO, rather than 3.
> 
> I'm not sure I follow you.  Your compression-fu beats mine, so please
> help me to understand -- my understanding of Morse is that there are
> three distinguishable symbols: dot, dash, and a pause in
> transmission.  The pause is an "EOT" code, and should be counted along
> with the dot and dash because an EOT is necessary to understand the
> symbol groupings.
> 
> I don't understand how you get 5 symbols out of that... Help?

There are 3 pauses. One of length equal to dit, one of length 
equal to dah (= 3 dits), and one of length 7 dits.

If a symbol is defined by both a binary value and a length, 
then there are two different ons, and analogously three 
different offs.

If a symbol is defined purely by a binary value, then there
are only two. 

Phil
-- 
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
-- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration

On Nov 12, 8:18 am, Einstein <michae...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ah now this is a better reply. In fact you are correct from what I
> read while researching other information about file sizes... (trust me
> I tried a lot of different search terms :P)... It seems that the
> encoding on the main generation (there is a new one coming out) is 1
> directional, either left or right you might say. When from what I have
> seen it should also be possible to store is as forward/back (however
> up/down is a no with them, not enough depth and another obstacle which
> recent new hard drives fix, but requires a buffer under the magnets).

What I meant was, a 0 or 1 bit on the FIRST LAYER of magnetic residue
can be distinguished from the SECOND LAYER. Like, a 0 overwritten with
a 1 yields 0.95 and a 1 written to a 1 results in 1.05. Both are
rounded up as 1s on the "first layer" but with specialized circuitry
the sequence can be identified in the "second layer" which is 01.
Again, storing data like this would be an unstable, impractical and
problematic method.(Although it could be useful for a media designed
for WAV files where some minimal loss can be tolerated to double/
triple storage capacity.

> I am unsure if this can also translate to other media, but would be
> interesting if CD's had a null setting... think of the data we could
> write to a 1 time use cd! The volumes... if there is a null setting we
> could pretty much add 50% to every cd then (so long as not written to
> already, and so long as you were willing to lose unused space). I
> guess the best analogy I can use is the old record players. If you
> could know the tracks are there, and where they were with utter
> reliability, you could have areas not etched at all giving additional
> options in the media recorded.

Wouldn't a "null setting" be a 0 bit? Null, demagnetized?

> There is the issue again of longevity. What sort of issues result from
> recording a magnetic structure with "chaos" and with directions we
> dont normally use them for? Currently (damn cant find the pages I
> found earlier, I think they quoted 7000 read/writes per each 'contact/
> point') there are limits to how many times a section/contact/point can
> be read/written from/to... Will this significantly change that?

Yes.

On Nov 13, 3:40 pm, Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 8:18 am, Einstein <michae...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah now this is a better reply. In fact you are correct from what I
> > read while researching other information about file sizes... (trust me
> > I tried a lot of different search terms :P)... It seems that the
> > encoding on the main generation (there is a new one coming out) is 1
> > directional, either left or right you might say. When from what I have
> > seen it should also be possible to store is as forward/back (however
> > up/down is a no with them, not enough depth and another obstacle which
> > recent new hard drives fix, but requires a buffer under the magnets).
>
> What I meant was, a 0 or 1 bit on the FIRST LAYER of magnetic residue
> can be distinguished from the SECOND LAYER. Like, a 0 overwritten with
> a 1 yields 0.95 and a 1 written to a 1 results in 1.05. Both are
> rounded up as 1s on the "first layer" but with specialized circuitry
> the sequence can be identified in the "second layer" which is 01.
> Again, storing data like this would be an unstable, impractical and
> problematic method.(Although it could be useful for a media designed
> for WAV files where some minimal loss can be tolerated to double/
> triple storage capacity.
>
> > I am unsure if this can also translate to other media, but would be
> > interesting if CD's had a null setting... think of the data we could
> > write to a 1 time use cd! The volumes... if there is a null setting we
> > could pretty much add 50% to every cd then (so long as not written to
> > already, and so long as you were willing to lose unused space). I
> > guess the best analogy I can use is the old record players. If you
> > could know the tracks are there, and where they were with utter
> > reliability, you could have areas not etched at all giving additional
> > options in the media recorded.
>
> Wouldn't a "null setting" be a 0 bit? Null, demagnetized?
>
> > There is the issue again of longevity. What sort of issues result from
> > recording a magnetic structure with "chaos" and with directions we
> > dont normally use them for? Currently (damn cant find the pages I
> > found earlier, I think they quoted 7000 read/writes per each 'contact/
> > point') there are limits to how many times a section/contact/point can
> > be read/written from/to... Will this significantly change that?
>
> Yes.

Oh good questions, and dangit I should have explained one type of item
more thoroughly... that is Superparamagnetism.


Superparamagnetism is a phenomenon by which magnetic materials may
exhibit a behavior similar to paramagnetism even when at temperatures
below the Curie or the N=E9el temperature. This is a small length-scale
phenomenon, where the energy required to change the direction of the
magnetic moment of a particle is comparable to the ambient thermal
energy. At this point, the rate at which the particles will randomly
reverse direction becomes significant.

Normally, coupling forces in ferromagnetic materials cause the
magnetic moments of neighboring atoms to align, resulting in very
large internal magnetic fields. This is what distinguishes
ferromagnetic materials from paramagnetic materials. At temperatures
above the Curie temperature (or the Neel temperature for
antiferromagnetic materials), the thermal energy is sufficient to
overcome the coupling forces, causing the atomic magnetic moments to
fluctuate randomly. Because there is no longer any magnetic order, the
internal magnetic field no longer exists and the material exhibits
paramagnetic behavior. If the material is non-homogeneous, one can
observe a mixture of ferromagnetic and paramagnetic clusters of atoms
at the same temperature, i.e. superparamagnetic stage.



This should silence a couple of objections to this working. This is
clearly within the realm of possibilities for us to create. The "null
setting" is an actual stage where the magnetic field is utterly
disrupted at the minute local level. More information can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superparamagnetism if desired.

ok on the morse code portion.

A dot was represented as 1 hit with a wider space around it. A dash
was represented by multiple hits with as little time between them as
possible. Different users had different speeds from the history I
know. I do not know if a "universal standard" was made, nor do I care
at this junction. What is relevant is that they also had a large break
between characters and indeed between words they had a larger one.

Thus they could have 'code' looking like this (Space differentiation
is on purpose, remember they did this by hand then):

* * *    *   * * *   * * *   *   * * *    *   *   *   *   *

We can tell by looking at this (as humans) that this code is made up
of dash, dot, dash, dash, dot, dash, dot, dot, dot, dot, dot, dot.
This is relatively easy for us to follow, and we can do it with ease.

This is no different than Naval night time light code, which uses
periods of darkness to differentiate the data going over into
individual symbol and words.

This is a simple method to explain how they had 3 characters.

However if they had decided to use the pauses to incorporate more
data... Well thats pretty easy to explain also

Simply I will explain binary

Two bits, 00, 01, 10, 11 has 4 results

These can be interpreted by the interpreter as wished. Commonly it is
seen as the values 0, 1, 2, and 3 in binary however for the results.

However using 3 different possible outcomes for our 'language' gives
us more room, using 2 sets of 3 gives us 9 outcomes. 00 01 10 11 02 20
22 12 21

Therefore it is possible to use this to increase our total available
outcomes. Binary, at 3 bits, has 8 values, this new method of storage
could achieve this with usage of 2 values. This would mean a large
size increase.






John_H  I am sorry you feel that way, but someone was shouting and
being attacking from the start. If that person had made a valid post,
with a valid question or a valid statement, then I would never have
made any offensive posts torwards him. I am a firm believer in open
discourse with responsibility. I believe it is repliers responsibility
to not flame/attack, but to educate if they see flaw, with full
discourse. This does not mean a 2 word statement, it means either
url's or educating what the 2 word statement means. If you truly feel
that I was in error, then I see flaw in your methodology as well as
the initial replier to my post in here.

A quantum computer is a theoretical device that would make use of the
properties of quantum mechanics, the realm of physics that deals with
energy and matter at atomic scales.

In a quantum computer data is not processed by electrons passing
through transistors, as is the case in today's computers, but by caged
atoms known as quantum bits or Qubits.

"It is a new paradigm for computation," said Professor Artur Ekert of
the University of Oxford. "It's doing computation differently."

A bit is a simple unit of information that is represented by a "1" or
a "0" in a conventional electronic computer.

A qubit can also represent a "1" or a "0" but crucially can be both at
the same time - known as a superposition.

This allows a quantum computer to work through many problems and
arrive at their solutions simultaneously.

"It is like massively parallel processing but in one piece of
hardware," said Professor Ekert.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7085019.stm


Interesting comparison :o

Top posting:

The device isn't theoretical:
http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=197004661

But in the end: so what?  It doesn't seem pertinent to the conversation.


"Einstein" <michaelhh@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1195051084.562098.199250@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>A quantum computer is a theoretical device that would make use of the
> properties of quantum mechanics, the realm of physics that deals with
> energy and matter at atomic scales.
>
> In a quantum computer data is not processed by electrons passing
> through transistors, as is the case in today's computers, but by caged
> atoms known as quantum bits or Qubits.
>
> "It is a new paradigm for computation," said Professor Artur Ekert of
> the University of Oxford. "It's doing computation differently."
>
> A bit is a simple unit of information that is represented by a "1" or
> a "0" in a conventional electronic computer.
>
> A qubit can also represent a "1" or a "0" but crucially can be both at
> the same time - known as a superposition.
>
> This allows a quantum computer to work through many problems and
> arrive at their solutions simultaneously.
>
> "It is like massively parallel processing but in one piece of
> hardware," said Professor Ekert.
>
>
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7085019.stm
>
>
> Interesting comparison :o 

On Nov 14, 8:36 am, "John_H" <newsgr...@johnhandwork.com> wrote:
> Top posting:
>
> The device isn't theoretical:http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=197004661
>
> But in the end: so what?  It doesn't seem pertinent to the conversation.
>
> "Einstein" <michae...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1195051084.562098.199250@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> >A quantum computer is a theoretical device that would make use of the
> > properties of quantum mechanics, the realm of physics that deals with
> > energy and matter at atomic scales.
>
> > In a quantum computer data is not processed by electrons passing
> > through transistors, as is the case in today's computers, but by caged
> > atoms known as quantum bits or Qubits.
>
> > "It is a new paradigm for computation," said Professor Artur Ekert of
> > the University of Oxford. "It's doing computation differently."
>
> > A bit is a simple unit of information that is represented by a "1" or
> > a "0" in a conventional electronic computer.
>
> > A qubit can also represent a "1" or a "0" but crucially can be both at
> > the same time - known as a superposition.
>
> > This allows a quantum computer to work through many problems and
> > arrive at their solutions simultaneously.
>
> > "It is like massively parallel processing but in one piece of
> > hardware," said Professor Ekert.
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7085019.stm
>
> > Interesting comparison :o

It is in that they are talking about 3 states. 1, 0, and BOTH. This is
3 different values. Therefore this would be showing that some specific
flame attacks were utterly and entirely nonsense, since we CAN see it
as 3 values.

Einstein wrote:
>
> It is in that they are talking about 3 states. 1, 0, and BOTH. This is
> 3 different values. Therefore this would be showing that some specific
> flame attacks were utterly and entirely nonsense, since we CAN see it
> as 3 values.

No, you can't. You need to get your quantum physics right. First of all,
there aren't three states, but infinitely many, namely all linear 
superpositions of |0> and |1>, the two state vectors. That is, the state 
is always |s> = l |0> + m |1> with l^2 + m^2 = 1 for a single spin.

However, if you measure this state, you project it onto one of the 
Eigenstates of your measurement apparatus. *If* that apparatus is 
measuring the spin direction, the only output of the measurement is 
either 0, or 1, and afterwards the state of the system is either |0> or 
|1>. The probabilities of seeing a zero is l^2, that of seeing a one is m^2.

So, no, you don't have three states. And no, it doesn't help you to 
store data, as in the "third" state (or actually, all combinations 
except those with l = 0 or m = 0) the measuring result will be random.

It does help for quantum computing, though, as you only need to measure 
to get the final result out of the system (then hopefully in the states 
|0> or |1>), but the quantum physics *within* the system is linear and 
predictable on |s>.

So long,
	Thomas