EPTYou clearly was invested enough to lie about your occupation so...
Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 672
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
You clearly was invested enough to lie about your occupation so... | ||
|
Epishade
United States2267 Posts
On October 13 2017 04:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote: So...basically you get kicks from being a troll. Well done I guess? You clearly was invested enough to lie about your occupation so... You're dense if you clearly couldn't figure out I wasn't actually a pilot. It started out as an actual question I wanted to know the answer to just out of curiosity, and then people started assuming I'm going to do something bad. So I joked about being a pilot and that I wouldn't drink and drive and how offended I was that youd assume I would. Clearly a joke. But goddamn I wasn't expecting people to be such morons as to actually not take my pilot post as a joke. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
Fecalfeast
Canada11355 Posts
On October 13 2017 04:05 Dangermousecatdog wrote: So...basically you get kicks from being a troll. Well done I guess? You clearly was invested enough to lie about your occupation so... No fun allowed! | ||
|
waffelz
Germany711 Posts
| ||
|
jodljodl
173 Posts
 did you think of analog to digital transfer? question im actually embarressed about :/i pretty much dont know anything about data compression. i got a load of music; and most of it is flac or something different lossless. my question: am i correct to assume that all "lossless" formats are actually lossless (to a sensible degree). and the more its compressed (~the smaller the final file) the "harder" (missing the word) to decompress. (like, say the cpu has to work more if its more compressed) o.O | ||
|
waffelz
Germany711 Posts
In terms of analog - digital transfer I am no sure what you mean. And I am even more unsure why they don't want me to buy it? | ||
|
jodljodl
173 Posts
So maybe (or probably) theres an analog sourceof the digital copy. But i gotta admit i dont know much about the process per se. But on the other hand, its really hard to imagine that the source file of a sound file is mp3.... edit: as long as that sound file isnt produce digitally only.. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11522 Posts
Example: Assume you have a picture out of completely black pixels, lets say a hundred of them. You can either have that information as 100*8bits if we assume 8 bit colour. Or you could save the same information as "The next 100 pixels are black", which would be a lot less space to store stuff. (8 bits for the colour, and 8 bits for "the next 100"). You obviously need a bit more data to say what the data actually means in both cases. However, if you use the same algorithm on a picture that alternates between white and black and white pixels. The first way of storing that information still needs 100*8bits. The second algorithm, however, would actually need more, because it saves it as "next 1 white, next one black, ...), so it needs both information for the color and for the amount of pixels. You can prove that there is no algorithm that generally reduces the amount of storage space needed without any loss. (That should actually be quite obvious, too. You can't use less data to store the same amount of data. If i tell you a number between 1 and 100, you can not store that information in a number between 1 and 10 without losing part of the data, like for example the last digit.) That being said, there obviously are algorithms which are both lossless and reduce the amount of storage space needed in most practical cases. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On October 13 2017 10:02 Simberto wrote: There is no generally lossless compression. Every compression algorithm either throws stuff out, or only works as a compression in some cases, while increasing the file size in others. Example: Assume you have a picture out of completely black pixels, lets say a hundred of them. You can either have that information as 100*8bits if we assume 8 bit colour. Or you could save the same information as "The next 100 pixels are black", which would be a lot less space to store stuff. (8 bits for the colour, and 8 bits for "the next 100"). You obviously need a bit more data to say what the data actually means in both cases. However, if you use the same algorithm on a picture that alternates between white and black and white pixels. The first way of storing that information still needs 100*8bits. The second algorithm, however, would actually need more, because it saves it as "next 1 white, next one black, ...), so it needs both information for the color and for the amount of pixels. You can prove that there is no algorithm that generally reduces the amount of storage space needed without any loss. (That should actually be quite obvious, too. You can't use less data to store the same amount of data. If i tell you a number between 1 and 100, you can not store that information in a number between 1 and 10 without losing part of the data, like for example the last digit.) That being said, there obviously are algorithms which are both lossless and reduce the amount of storage space needed in most practical cases. Some audio files are lossless, yes. You just throw out all the frequencies that are above the threshold of hearing, which you achieve with that Niqyuist (or something) theorem. You can have a lossless video or audio file. You can definitely make better and better lossless algorithms that take up less space but it each one is optimized for one kind of data. One algorithm might compress sports well another might compress anime well. With more computing power you can achieve more efficient compressions, absolutely. You can make more accurate interpolations for pixels/frames or for waves, do more patten recognition, etc. However to say that a smaller file requires more processing power to encode/decode is wrong, because this could be achieved by say throwing away every 2nd frame which requires no CPU power, or you could achieve 50% lossless compression with an advanced algorithm. Most media files result in 30-70% of the original raw media size after being compressed losslessly. Lossy compression however can achieve compression on the magnitude of 0.1% of the original size (and still look good), take x264 for example. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4800 Posts
| ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
I'm thinking about getting a UPS. I used http://www.csgnetwork.com/upssizecalc.html to do the calculation (could someone confirm if this site is valid or if there is a better one?). I'd like to connect my PC, Monitor and Router. The PC has a power supply of 550 watt, monitor says it needs 1.5A and so is the router. So the minimum is 1121VA and recommendation is 1750VA. Could someone let me know if this is correct for such setup? Would 1250VA or 1500VA UPS be sufficient? | ||
|
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
On October 13 2017 11:59 Uldridge wrote: Does a computer program become bigger the more photo-realistic (or detailed) the graphics become that it needs to display, or are there different issues regarding the display of a rendered world one needs to experience/explore/...? Partly, but not only. It depends how the graphic engine is made, but the rendering can be rules to be applied by the C/GPU to do the rendering while you play, which then requires much more computational power, but less space. Although, you'll still need samples of each elements anyway. On October 13 2017 15:27 Wrath wrote: Hi, I'm thinking about getting a UPS. I used http://www.csgnetwork.com/upssizecalc.html to do the calculation (could someone confirm if this site is valid or if there is a better one?). I'd like to connect my PC, Monitor and Router. The PC has a power supply of 550 watt, monitor says it needs 1.5A and so is the router. So the minimum is 1121VA and recommendation is 1750VA. Could someone let me know if this is correct for such setup? Would 1250VA or 1500VA UPS be sufficient? Hi WrathSC3, You'll have better/quicker answer on the matter here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/tech-support/426532-computer-build-upgrade-and-buying-resource-thread | ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
On October 13 2017 15:49 AbouSV wrote: Hi WrathSC3, You'll have better/quicker answer on the matter here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/tech-support/426532-computer-build-upgrade-and-buying-resource-thread Never expected anyone to remember my old username lol Thanks, I moved my question there. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
I want accuracy to 1mg, and like a real 1mg. Too many scales will have readability at 0.001g, and in reality a be +/- 3-5mg for repeatability. So probably 100 microgram readability. There's all too many scales out there with not enough reviews, so verifying their claims is difficult. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
| ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On October 14 2017 00:09 farvacola wrote: A scale like that would land you a paraphernalia charge in many US states :D Good thing I don't live in the US :D Also my intentions are honorable. | ||
| ||
