lots of files

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 04:02:37 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:

I can remember opting for a 256 Mb disk, because the more expensive
320Mb offering seemed an unnecessary extravagance.


My first hard drive was a whopping 5 MB.

I can top that: 64K 16-bit words, fixed-head swapping disk, cost about
as much as a Buick at the time.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing laser drivers and controllers

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 11:38:43 +0000, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/01/2015 01:03, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:52:30 +1100, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 10/01/2015 10:04 AM, John Larkin wrote:

I have roughly 70,000 files on my C: drive. It would be a hopeless
task to go through them and delete the useless ones, saving some few
kilobytes or megabytes per file.

So things will just grow, and I'll just buy bigger and bigger hard
drives, which further reduces the likelyhood that I'll ever clean
things up. Unless I start collecting movies or something, I'm thinking
that 2 or 3 TB might be a lifetime supply of disk storage.

You're positing the existence of "enough disk space".

There ain't no such animal.

Sylvia.

Maybe there is, or soon will be. If an average jpeg file is 2 Mbytes,

How old is your camera? 2MB was typical of the first Canonn digital Ixus
- any decent modern camera image will be in the 10-12MB JPEG range.

Sure, my cameras claim 10 mpix or so, but that's silly, even with a
tripod. I set them to 2M or so. And genrally reduce the pix to
1024x768 or even 800x600 for manuals and ECOs and emails and such.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing laser drivers and controllers

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Martin Brown]

On 13/01/2015 15:32, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 11:38:43 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/01/2015 01:03, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:52:30 +1100, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

You're positing the existence of "enough disk space".

There ain't no such animal.

Sylvia.

Maybe there is, or soon will be. If an average jpeg file is 2 Mbytes,

How old is your camera? 2MB was typical of the first Canonn digital Ixus
- any decent modern camera image will be in the 10-12MB JPEG range.

Sure, my cameras claim 10 mpix or so, but that's silly, even with a
tripod.

Unless you have Parkinsons or are very clumsy you should be able to get
detail to at least 6Mpixels with any half decent modern camera. If you
have a steady hand and squeeze the shutter release 12Mpixel is usable
although you need good lenses and lighting conditions for that.

And if you are intent on downsampling in the camera choose a power of
two down from its native resolution so that Bayer works optimally. You
can never get back the information that you have thrown away.

I set them to 2M or so. And genrally reduce the pix to
1024x768 or even 800x600 for manuals and ECOs and emails and such.

No problem for emails or web but a bit small for print manuals.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 04:02:37 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:


Sylvia Else wrote:

I can remember opting for a 256 Mb disk, because the more expensive
320Mb offering seemed an unnecessary extravagance.


My first hard drive was a whopping 5 MB.

I can top that: 64K 16-bit words, fixed-head swapping disk, cost about
as much as a Buick at the time.

Those were in the scrap yard, when I paid $5 for that used Ampex
drive for my first XT computer.

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:32:00 +0000, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/01/2015 15:32, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 11:38:43 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/01/2015 01:03, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:52:30 +1100, Sylvia Else
sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

You're positing the existence of "enough disk space".

There ain't no such animal.

Sylvia.

Maybe there is, or soon will be. If an average jpeg file is 2 Mbytes,

How old is your camera? 2MB was typical of the first Canonn digital Ixus
- any decent modern camera image will be in the 10-12MB JPEG range.

Sure, my cameras claim 10 mpix or so, but that's silly, even with a
tripod.

Unless you have Parkinsons or are very clumsy you should be able to get
detail to at least 6Mpixels with any half decent modern camera. If you
have a steady hand and squeeze the shutter release 12Mpixel is usable
although you need good lenses and lighting conditions for that.

Take a genuine handheld 12M pic in room light, and post it.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing laser drivers and controllers

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Martin Brown]

On 13/01/2015 16:48, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:32:00 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/01/2015 15:32, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 11:38:43 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

How old is your camera? 2MB was typical of the first Canonn digital Ixus
- any decent modern camera image will be in the 10-12MB JPEG range.

Sure, my cameras claim 10 mpix or so, but that's silly, even with a
tripod.

Unless you have Parkinsons or are very clumsy you should be able to get
detail to at least 6Mpixels with any half decent modern camera. If you
have a steady hand and squeeze the shutter release 12Mpixel is usable
although you need good lenses and lighting conditions for that.

Take a genuine handheld 12M pic in room light, and post it.

Which part of good lighting did you not understand?

In sunlight or equivalently bright photoflood/flash there is no problem
at all utilising the full resolution of a modern camera sensor.

Actually I could do it on my Pentax K5 but with the ASA pushed to make
it hand holdable it would not be my finest shot. Camera shake reduction
systems and autofocus servos are no good in very low light but these
days they are pretty good in domestic room lighting and have auto white
balance too unlike classical film where you had to use filters.

Pentax K5 can run up to 51200 ASA equivalent which is insanely high. The
fastest wet film I ever used was around 3200 ASA.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/antmant/13507776774/
(not my image)

I reckon it is usable at a pinch up to around 12800 ASA but after that
the colour balance and thermal noise tend to be very obtrusive.


Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Don Y]

On 1/13/2015 8:32 AM, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 11:38:43 +0000, Martin Brown

Maybe there is, or soon will be. If an average jpeg file is 2 Mbytes,

How old is your camera? 2MB was typical of the first Canonn digital Ixus
- any decent modern camera image will be in the 10-12MB JPEG range.

Sure, my cameras claim 10 mpix or so, but that's silly, even with a
tripod. I set them to 2M or so. And genrally reduce the pix to
1024x768 or even 800x600 for manuals and ECOs and emails and such.

I've learned to opt for *more* "resolution" in manuals than you'd otherwise
think necessary. Esp as more and more are now viewed electronically -- where
the user can freely zoom and make downsampling artifacts plainly apparent in
photos included in this manner.

You also have to be keenly aware of how your document prep software
*stores* images (both for efficiency reasons AND security!). E.g.,
I've decomposed PDF's to discover the original images from which ONLY
*cropped* portions were intended to be visible in the document. So,
anything that you don't want *in* the document should be cropped
off *before* embedding the image (with whatever tool you are using).

[i.e., the document software makes the *displayed* image just a WINDOW
into the *real* image -- which is also present in the document, though
not expected to be visible]

 

[Don Y]

Hi Martin,

On 1/13/2015 2:05 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

I don't take bets on lifetime supplies of bulk storage. Editing digital video
and rendering it into HD streams can burn up disk very quickly.

Nalimov 6 man tablebases are 1.2TB so keen chessplayers already have that much
disk committed (or 160GB for the newer compact Syzygy ones). It is only a
matter of time before important 7 man ones come out...

Increasingly, as "memory" (primary, secondary, etc.) becomes cheap, you
are seeing algorithms swing to the other end of the spectrum -- burning
memory to save *time*.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 17:11:48 +0000, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/01/2015 16:48, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 16:32:00 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/01/2015 15:32, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 11:38:43 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

How old is your camera? 2MB was typical of the first Canonn digital Ixus
- any decent modern camera image will be in the 10-12MB JPEG range.

Sure, my cameras claim 10 mpix or so, but that's silly, even with a
tripod.

Unless you have Parkinsons or are very clumsy you should be able to get
detail to at least 6Mpixels with any half decent modern camera. If you
have a steady hand and squeeze the shutter release 12Mpixel is usable
although you need good lenses and lighting conditions for that.

Take a genuine handheld 12M pic in room light, and post it.

Which part of good lighting did you not understand?

Where did you learn to be such a jerk?

In sunlight or equivalently bright photoflood/flash there is no problem
at all utilising the full resolution of a modern camera sensor.

I'm not a studio photographer. I take pics of equipment, scope traces,
circuit boards, and outdoor stuff and food for personal reasons. I
take a lot of pics and I'm hardly going to set up a flash and tripod
and stuff to shoot a pic of a circuit board or a scope trace. And I
generally reduce them down to 1024x768 or less, because there's no
advantage, and I don't want to create 30 megabyte manuals or ECOs.

If the pic is reasonably framed, it doesn't need to be zoomed much.

Actually I could do it on my Pentax K5 but with the ASA pushed to make
it hand holdable it would not be my finest shot.

Which part of good lighting did you not understand?


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:38:06 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

On 1/13/2015 8:32 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 11:38:43 +0000, Martin Brown

Maybe there is, or soon will be. If an average jpeg file is 2 Mbytes,

How old is your camera? 2MB was typical of the first Canonn digital Ixus
- any decent modern camera image will be in the 10-12MB JPEG range.

Sure, my cameras claim 10 mpix or so, but that's silly, even with a
tripod. I set them to 2M or so. And genrally reduce the pix to
1024x768 or even 800x600 for manuals and ECOs and emails and such.

I've learned to opt for *more* "resolution" in manuals than you'd otherwise
think necessary. Esp as more and more are now viewed electronically -- where
the user can freely zoom and make downsampling artifacts plainly apparent in
photos included in this manner.

I don't always want enough resolution to give away the design!

You also have to be keenly aware of how your document prep software
*stores* images (both for efficiency reasons AND security!). E.g.,
I've decomposed PDF's to discover the original images from which ONLY
*cropped* portions were intended to be visible in the document. So,
anything that you don't want *in* the document should be cropped
off *before* embedding the image (with whatever tool you are using).

I use Irfanview to crop and tweak jpegs. The files get much smaller,
so I don't think any of the deleted stuff is still there.

[i.e., the document software makes the *displayed* image just a WINDOW
into the *real* image -- which is also present in the document, though
not expected to be visible]

Word does that, if you crop after the image is imported. The image is
still available for re-cropping.

Funny word, "crop."


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 09:05:16 +0000, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 09/01/2015 23:04, John Larkin wrote:


I have roughly 70,000 files on my C: drive. It would be a hopeless

That seems awfully low. I have about 250k files on my newest machine and
it has hardly got any big projects on it yet. That is just for the OS,
Office, compilers and work in progress (not counting hidden files).

I meant just my files, the things that I could cull to save space, but
I probably never will. It wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft and
Mozilla and such had a few hundred K files of their own.

task to go through them and delete the useless ones, saving some few
kilobytes or megabytes per file.

There are tools that allow you to see where the space is all going and
also to look for multiple copies of identical files in different
locations. It is surprising just how much rubble can build up in hidden
'Doze temporary directories if you don't nuke them from time to time.

So things will just grow, and I'll just buy bigger and bigger hard
drives, which further reduces the likelyhood that I'll ever clean
things up. Unless I start collecting movies or something, I'm thinking
that 2 or 3 TB might be a lifetime supply of disk storage.

When I change machine I archive the old disk contents, keep it online
for a good while and only move forwards anything that I actually use.
This avoids carrying too much dead wood around.

No point in having the sourcecode for something where the compiler is
long gone and would not run on any machine since DOS 6.22 or a debugger
that requires a prehistoric printer port at a particular address.

Old Basic and assembly programs are good as references, to how we
designed and tested products 10 or 20 years ago. They're so small by
modern standards, we may as well keep them around.

I occasionally have to edit and reassemble a 68K assembly program, for
an older product. So far, all the build tools still work fine. Unlike
more modern languages I could name.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Don Y]

Hi Michael,

On 1/13/2015 2:02 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:

I can remember opting for a 256 Mb disk, because the more expensive
320Mb offering seemed an unnecessary extravagance.

My first hard drive was a whopping 5 MB.

I had a 10M winnie on a CPM box. Smallest "(hard) disk" was an RS08
(256K words, IIRC, on a 14" platter). Dimmed the lights when you
spun the sucker up! Drive plus controller would easily be larger than
a pair of *large* microwave ovens, today! (and heavier than hell!)

(But, it was "free" so you "made allowances" :> )

 

[Don Y]

You also have to be keenly aware of how your document prep software
*stores* images (both for efficiency reasons AND security!). E.g.,
I've decomposed PDF's to discover the original images from which ONLY
*cropped* portions were intended to be visible in the document. So,
anything that you don't want *in* the document should be cropped
off *before* embedding the image (with whatever tool you are using).

I use Irfanview to crop and tweak jpegs. The files get much smaller,
so I don't think any of the deleted stuff is still there.

This requires a second step when building a document. And, a "manual
means" of conveying what you think you want *in* the document layout tool
*to* the photo editor. I.e., "I want the left edge of the image to be
EXACTLY here, right edge THERE, top and bottom..."

With WYSIWYG tools, it is usually easier to just zoom and drag the
original image "behind" a window into the document. But, that leaves
much of the original image still *in* the document!

E.g., don't expect to pan and zoom to display just an image of your
face from a photo of yourself standing next to your *mistress* and
NOT expect the mistress' identity to leak out! :>

[i.e., the document software makes the *displayed* image just a WINDOW
into the *real* image -- which is also present in the document, though
not expected to be visible]

Word does that, if you crop after the image is imported. The image is
still available for re-cropping.

Yes. So, you're stuck panning and zooming until you've got it "just
right" (FoR THE DOCUMENT). Now, have to somehow convey that *visual*
criteria to the external tool to come up with a correctly cropped
image (which you will then use to replace the original *in* the document).

My point is, this happens unbeknownst (talk about "funny words"! :> ) to
may users/publishers! Ditto for EXIF data *in* images... (I've often
wondered if many of the social media, etc. sites actually scrub this
stuff from the images posted?

> Funny word, "crop."

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 12:22:01 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

You also have to be keenly aware of how your document prep software
*stores* images (both for efficiency reasons AND security!). E.g.,
I've decomposed PDF's to discover the original images from which ONLY
*cropped* portions were intended to be visible in the document. So,
anything that you don't want *in* the document should be cropped
off *before* embedding the image (with whatever tool you are using).

I use Irfanview to crop and tweak jpegs. The files get much smaller,
so I don't think any of the deleted stuff is still there.

This requires a second step when building a document. And, a "manual
means" of conveying what you think you want *in* the document layout tool
*to* the photo editor. I.e., "I want the left edge of the image to be
EXACTLY here, right edge THERE, top and bottom..."

I use Irfanview and Word. I downsize and crop and tweak colors in
Irfanview, then drag into Word. Word lets me position and scale size,
well enough. It works.

With WYSIWYG tools, it is usually easier to just zoom and drag the
original image "behind" a window into the document. But, that leaves
much of the original image still *in* the document!

E.g., don't expect to pan and zoom to display just an image of your
face from a photo of yourself standing next to your *mistress* and
NOT expect the mistress' identity to leak out! :

Oh. Gosh. My bad.

[i.e., the document software makes the *displayed* image just a WINDOW
into the *real* image -- which is also present in the document, though
not expected to be visible]

Word does that, if you crop after the image is imported. The image is
still available for re-cropping.

Yes. So, you're stuck panning and zooming until you've got it "just
right" (FoR THE DOCUMENT). Now, have to somehow convey that *visual*
criteria to the external tool to come up with a correctly cropped
image (which you will then use to replace the original *in* the document).

My point is, this happens unbeknownst (talk about "funny words"! :> ) to
may users/publishers! Ditto for EXIF data *in* images... (I've often
wondered if many of the social media, etc. sites actually scrub this
stuff from the images posted?

Sometimes people leave all the apparently-invisible collaborative
edits in a Word doc. That can be fun. There have also been embarassing
legal PDFs where blacked-out stuff was just underneath some black
stuff, easily recovered.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Don Y]

On 1/13/2015 12:38 PM, John Larkin wrote:

E.g., don't expect to pan and zoom to display just an image of your
face from a photo of yourself standing next to your *mistress* and
NOT expect the mistress' identity to leak out! :

Oh. Gosh. My bad.

Not to worry. You should see what was "off screen" in her head shot
that she posted on her Facebook account!! :>

My point is, this happens unbeknownst (talk about "funny words"! :> ) to
may users/publishers! Ditto for EXIF data *in* images... (I've often
wondered if many of the social media, etc. sites actually scrub this
stuff from the images posted?

Sometimes people leave all the apparently-invisible collaborative
edits in a Word doc. That can be fun. There have also been embarassing
legal PDFs where blacked-out stuff was just underneath some black
stuff, easily recovered.

Yes, people don't usually understand the tools that they are using
and their consequences. E.g., how a web browser can be fingerprinted;
how your IP address can be tracked; how your purchases can be analyzed;
etc.

A mildly paranoid friend once was stunned when I commented that his
use of 800 numbers discloses *his* phone number to the caller (this
predated the days of callerID).
"Well, how else do you think TPC will be able to bill for the service?"

As a friend pointed out, even my *avoidance* of many of these things
"profiles/identifies" *me*! ("Aha! Here's that guy with the TOTALLY
UNIQUE/atypical browser configuration that makes him *so* easy to track!")

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 01/13/2015 03:00 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

Den tirsdag den 13. januar 2015 kl. 20.39.11 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 12:22:01 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

You also have to be keenly aware of how your document prep software
*stores* images (both for efficiency reasons AND security!). E.g.,
I've decomposed PDF's to discover the original images from which ONLY
*cropped* portions were intended to be visible in the document. So,
anything that you don't want *in* the document should be cropped
off *before* embedding the image (with whatever tool you are using).

I use Irfanview to crop and tweak jpegs. The files get much smaller,
so I don't think any of the deleted stuff is still there.

This requires a second step when building a document. And, a "manual
means" of conveying what you think you want *in* the document layout tool
*to* the photo editor. I.e., "I want the left edge of the image to be
EXACTLY here, right edge THERE, top and bottom..."

I use Irfanview and Word. I downsize and crop and tweak colors in
Irfanview, then drag into Word. Word lets me position and scale size,
well enough. It works.


With WYSIWYG tools, it is usually easier to just zoom and drag the
original image "behind" a window into the document. But, that leaves
much of the original image still *in* the document!

E.g., don't expect to pan and zoom to display just an image of your
face from a photo of yourself standing next to your *mistress* and
NOT expect the mistress' identity to leak out! :

Oh. Gosh. My bad.



[i.e., the document software makes the *displayed* image just a WINDOW
into the *real* image -- which is also present in the document, though
not expected to be visible]

Word does that, if you crop after the image is imported. The image is
still available for re-cropping.

Yes. So, you're stuck panning and zooming until you've got it "just
right" (FoR THE DOCUMENT). Now, have to somehow convey that *visual*
criteria to the external tool to come up with a correctly cropped
image (which you will then use to replace the original *in* the document).

My point is, this happens unbeknownst (talk about "funny words"! :> ) to
may users/publishers! Ditto for EXIF data *in* images... (I've often
wondered if many of the social media, etc. sites actually scrub this
stuff from the images posted?

Sometimes people leave all the apparently-invisible collaborative
edits in a Word doc. That can be fun. There have also been embarassing
legal PDFs where blacked-out stuff was just underneath some black
stuff, easily recovered.


I believe some of the the paranoid three letter agencies have a policy
that that redacting must be done by printing, covering, then scanning

-Lasse

And that only works if there's no steganographic information there.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

 

[David Eather]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:09:51 +1000, Sylvia Else
<sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

On 13/01/2015 11:07 AM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
Den tirsdag den 13. januar 2015 kl. 01.02.08 UTC+1 skrev Sylvia Else:
On 13/01/2015 10:58 AM, Tom Miller wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:chj520F6votU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/01/2015 10:04 AM, John Larkin wrote:


I have roughly 70,000 files on my C: drive. It would be a hopeless
task to go through them and delete the useless ones, saving some few
kilobytes or megabytes per file.

So things will just grow, and I'll just buy bigger and bigger hard
drives, which further reduces the likelyhood that I'll ever clean
things up. Unless I start collecting movies or something, I'm
thinking
that 2 or 3 TB might be a lifetime supply of disk storage.




You're positing the existence of "enough disk space".

There ain't no such animal.

Sylvia.

Five years from now we will be saying "remember back when JL said 3 TB
is all the memory anyone will ever need".

Just kidding John.



I can remember opting for a 256 Mb disk, because the more expensive
320Mb offering seemed an unnecessary extravagance.

Sylvia,

I remember when the choice was 2Mb or 4Mb RAM and 80Mb or 120Mb disk


2Mb of RAM? You had it soft. When I was a gal, our dad gave us 16k if we
were lucky.

Sylvia.

You had it easy. I remember buying 1k x 4 bit ram for $30 a piece. And I
had to work for that $30 - up at the crack of dawn...

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 10:25:38 -0800, the renowned John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

Word does that, if you crop after the image is imported. The image is
still available for re-cropping.

Edited stuff is sometimes still visible in the document too.. nasty.
I've seen documents with supposedly redacted information still
available.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[David Eather]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 19:02:37 +1000, Michael A. Terrell
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:

I can remember opting for a 256 Mb disk, because the more expensive
320Mb offering seemed an unnecessary extravagance.


My first hard drive was a whopping 5 MB.

I wanted one of those, but even working full time I could never afford it.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 14/01/2015 4:41 AM, Don Y wrote:

Hi Martin,

On 1/13/2015 2:05 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

I don't take bets on lifetime supplies of bulk storage. Editing
digital video
and rendering it into HD streams can burn up disk very quickly.

Nalimov 6 man tablebases are 1.2TB so keen chessplayers already have
that much
disk committed (or 160GB for the newer compact Syzygy ones). It is only a
matter of time before important 7 man ones come out...

Increasingly, as "memory" (primary, secondary, etc.) becomes cheap, you
are seeing algorithms swing to the other end of the spectrum -- burning
memory to save *time*.

Look forward to seeing salted rainbow tables online.

Sylvia.