What is wrong with what Steorn is doing?
- Thread starter T'ai Chi
- Start date
-
- Tags
- free energy
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
That's Randi and his new and improved version of the MDC.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
They're now saying that they are going to release some technical details at the end of the first quarter of 2007, which coincides pretty well with 1st April.
They did have a fake news story dated 1st April 2006 on their website, but when called on it they claimed that it was a placeholder that had been left there by mistake.
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
http://steorn.com/about/investor/
Someone seems to be making money from Steorn: over €1,000,000 on "admin costs" (as distinct from R&D and Management & marketing, which get their own headings) in 2006. That's a lot of paperclips.
Over the six years they give figures for, they have losses of over €6,000,000. Where did this money come from?
Someone seems to be making money from Steorn: over €1,000,000 on "admin costs" (as distinct from R&D and Management & marketing, which get their own headings) in 2006. That's a lot of paperclips.
Over the six years they give figures for, they have losses of over €6,000,000. Where did this money come from?
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
If you read the comments, it seems like the Steorn forum is getting a bit ban-happy with anyone who starts questioning them too harshly. Not a good sign, IMHO. They should have expected that, the way they're going about this.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
It is not compeltly true IMO. The most vocal skeptic and cynic stay unbanned. those which were banned in recent time were mostly a bit "rude" shall I say
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
What can I say, what can be wrong with what Steorn is doing, when it appears it is doing absolutely nothing?
Blight
Scholar
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 105
Looks like one of the jurers might have outed himself.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Any sign of them yet?
Well to get back to the side-track from earlier.
Being Dutch, I have no problem reading Dutch (who'd thunk?), and I must say that Sloot's patent is such a bad algorithm it's laughable.
He basically suggest numbering ever line on your screen, and then when he encounters a completely equal line, he would do something like line 50 is equal to line 4.
Everyone actually doing encryption knows that this is a horrible way to do encryption. The second step of his plan seems to be making a database of all possible "video-lines", then encrypting the movie as a collection of index numbers in that database.
I'm no encryption expert but know enough to know this is a non-sensical way to deal with this kind of data.
On the Roel Pieper involvement, Roel Pieper has been named in a number of shady investment companies. With Sloot, proper research would also show that he did not in fact invest in Sloot's invention, he founded an investment company for which he found other investors, he then put himself on the payrol of said investment company.
Not quite the story you or netwerk(dutch news-show that first featured this story) make it out to be.
Being Dutch, I have no problem reading Dutch (who'd thunk?), and I must say that Sloot's patent is such a bad algorithm it's laughable.
He basically suggest numbering ever line on your screen, and then when he encounters a completely equal line, he would do something like line 50 is equal to line 4.
Everyone actually doing encryption knows that this is a horrible way to do encryption. The second step of his plan seems to be making a database of all possible "video-lines", then encrypting the movie as a collection of index numbers in that database.
I'm no encryption expert but know enough to know this is a non-sensical way to deal with this kind of data.
On the Roel Pieper involvement, Roel Pieper has been named in a number of shady investment companies. With Sloot, proper research would also show that he did not in fact invest in Sloot's invention, he founded an investment company for which he found other investors, he then put himself on the payrol of said investment company.
Not quite the story you or netwerk(dutch news-show that first featured this story) make it out to be.
Sloot's invention was about compression. Not encryption. Encryption is to hide sensible information for prying eyes. Compression is about the process of encoding information using fewer bits (or other information-bearing units) than an unencoded representation would use.
As I've pointed out before, Sloot's so-called algorithm description in the patent is only a childish piece of disinformation. However, it was enough to file a patent application, which was my reason to bring up the Sloot case in this thread.
As I've pointed out before, Sloot's so-called algorithm description in the patent is only a childish piece of disinformation. However, it was enough to file a patent application, which was my reason to bring up the Sloot case in this thread.
But your English is bad. It's "who'd've thunk".
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
"What is wrong with what Steorn is doing?" Nothing is wrong with it, since they aren't actually doing anything.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
No sign of anything yet. The website still says "Detailed technical specifications will be made available at the end of Quarter 1, 2007."
I stand corrected.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
Actually this is not encryption this is compression. it reminds me of the "fly" file encoding in such a way although I can't remmember whether it compared frame to frame or line to line. But I do remmember that it used RLE (run length encoding) which is more or less saysing how many pixel of color it encoutner (1 blue, 10 white, 2 greeen etc...). In my youth I did program such a FLY decoder.
This confirm what I thougth from a superficial reading (not udnerstanding dutch , but still a bit due to familiarity with german). There is nothing there. Naturally there are those which says this is intentionnal to protect the gizmo, but this is ignoring some fact like the information compression limit.