On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 05:39:50PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >I quite agree. But in the absence of error-correction codes, > >uncompressed is batter. > > > >And if your error-correction software ahould happen to be unusable in > >several years, your errors will not be easy to corrected. > > Even with FEC uncompressed may be better. OTOH, fewer bits to fail > is an advantage.
there's a math problem for you, though its obviously just a scaling of the other. So if you get 25% compression (compressed is 75% size of original), how does the fewer number of bits improve the probability of losses? Please, though, don't figure it out. just speculation. > > >Did you ever write any code in the 1970's that can't be run any more? > >I did. > > I wrote some machine language programs for the IBM 1401 in 1969. > Does that count as programs that can't be run any more? my oldest is 6510 assembler rewrite of the kernel for my C64. I'm such a young thing ;-) A
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
