Talk:Jan Sloot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

A Dutch "hyve" about his invention.

http://de-broncode.hyves.nl

http://jan-sloot.hyves.nl

[edit] POV

Removed the following:

Such grandiose claims of "too good to be true" compression are not uncommon, but somehow the so-called inventors never manage to produce a functioning product.

as didn't feel it to be in any way neutral. --Black Butterfly 23:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

it is untrue. According to Dutch magazine Quote, the functioning prototype was working and shown to potential inventors. I personally believe that it contained a Hard disk. The Dutch magazine stated that the inventors listend to the "black box" that they were not allowed to investigate or open, to hear whether it contained a HDD. They did not hear anything, but some HDDs do not produce much audio noise. (You can buy 100 HDDs and sort them on low audio noise). Another option is to contain the HDD in a noise reducing inner box. Andries (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 8 KB?

I'm certainly not an expert on compression technology, but the idea that you could compress a feature length movie to appx. 8000 bytes sounds rather extreme, coming out to far less than one byte per frame. Possibly Sloot claimed to be able to compress down to eight Megabytes?

No, he really claimed 8 kB, which is propbably why everybody thought/thinks it was just a scam. —Ruud 02:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Claims like this are clearly fantastic, but sadly, not terribly uncommon. --Stormie 07:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You can not compress a full-length movie down to 8 KB and have anything watchable. Using Lossy data compression, you can make it that small, but you won't be able to view the result. Bubba73 (talk), 04:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Back in the day, people claimed that mankind cannot fly, or that computers could never be so small that they fit on a desk. Saying "can't" is an immediate error when it comes to technology. Wether -Sloot- could do it, though, is another matter entirely.

You people underestimate the power of technology, you CAN compress things down to that size as long as you have something to interprit it at the other end, he was murderd simple as that

You find an multinational conspiracy to murder a man who has invented the greatest piece of technology since the microprocessor more believable than the idea that he was just another one of those dozens of people who make these sort of unproven claims every year?

He showed it to a Dutch specialist working for Oracle who was impressed as what he saw should not be possible. Roel Piepers also got a personal demonstration and was so impressed he [i]left[/i] Philips to start a new company set up around the invention. There were many investors (from Sillicon Valley). ABN Amro (Dutch bank) invested 50 million. If it is so easy everyone could whip some hoax up in their garage and prepare to be a millionaire and backed by the richest most influential IT people. More over his attic (where he did the research) was completely cleaned after his "natural" death and the invention he used during the demonstrations has never been found. They even dug up the garden to no avail.77.250.158.145 21:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add this information to the article, IF you have a reliable source for these claims. --Stormie 01:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I got this information from a 40min newspiece "Netwerk" did. This is a respectable Dutch news program. They interviewed the major people involved and also talked with the writer of a book about this whole issue (he's a journalist). The book is called "De Broncode" (i.e. the sourcecode) and chronicles the whole thing from beginning to the end. I don't know if it has been translated in English. I don't do wiki, but the Dutch article on nl.wikipedia is already much bigger; and judging from the info based on the book and newspiece. Only a translation would already make for a much more comprehensive article than it is now.77.250.158.145 17:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the nl wiki article does look a lot more comprehensive, it would be fantastic if you could translate some of it's content into English. --Stormie 22:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

---

The only problem with all cynical comments I've read so far is that Jan really showed his invention to dozens of people, amongst them several captains of industry and venture capital providers, yes really the most stupid people in the world..;) So come on, can't somebody start thinking 'out of the box' here in stead of producing only narrow minded comments?

Did anyone bother to read the Patents, registered in the European Patent Office? Than you can find out, that Jan never mentiones the 1 kilobyte key limitation!

If you can't imagine that the number of movies all lasting say 120 minutes, is limited, try to imagine how many books of say 256 pages you could write - yes the number is limited! Why? Because a book is nothing but a combination of bytes representing characters, with a number of limitations, such as that the characters must represent text in a particular language, the text must be readable, understandable, meaningfull... Believe me, it's the same for movies, for sound, etc. The secret of all form of human communication is - repetition of parts of information, that's where Jan's secret is hidden! Jan discovered how to deal with those repetitions - it's all in his Patent, just read it!

Think of this: A whole human being can grow out of a combination of one egg-cell with one sperm-cell. Now an interesting dilemma comes up: what do you think - is all the info needed to expand this one cell beginning to a complete human being enclosed in this one cell, or is information added-on later as the organism grows? If you believe, like I do, that all needed info is all there right from the beginning - please re-think about the single cell, re-think about what it means to be an organism like a human being!

Kind regards,

Christ van Wijck --84.27.241.199 20:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)cvwijck@gmail.com

Did he also invent the perpetuum mobile? Andries (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole point with the wiki entry of Jan Sloot is that most contributors have passed judgement without really trying to understand what Mr. Sloot had claimed. Please remember that all (100 procent) of everything that was and is said in the media about Jan Sloot has never been confirmed by Sloot himself. As a result, many assumptions have been made in the media, on the internet and in wikipedia that are factually incorrect. E.g. in the Dutch wikipedia section there is an entry that tries to prove that a coding system for a movie cannot result in codes of fixed length. The truth lies of course in the question what you are trying to code. Sloot never claimed he could code an infinite amount of movies into a 128 KB chip. The man has never said anything of the sort. Besides, there is no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Sloot claimed he was able to code an infinite amount of movies onto anything. Even better, Sloot has never referred to an "infinite" amount of movies in any documentation that he has left behind. What Sloot coded on his chipcard was nothing more than some security keys needed to jumpstart his application. The real work was done inside the boxes he took with him. Boxes half the size of suitcases and stuffed with microchips and IC's.

The truth about the Sloot matter is far more complicated than has been presented so far. I will gladly provide more info, depending on the reactions. Mr. Van Wijck here is regrettably on the wrong track. But Andries's reaction is of the destructive kind, suggesting Mr. Sloot was a fraud or a kook, and discouraging any serious debate. Mr. Sloot was neither. He really had something unique and could explain it to anyone intelligent enough to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.187.124 (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)