Yes.

You call that cornal mass? You're feeling poetic in the bathroom.

FYI, 2fuf was joking.

Will the next version be Firefox64 ?
When will we go back to Firefox ONE ?

AFAIK, PhotoCD uses JPEG. It's just that it's JPEG's hierarchical mode, that nobody else uses. (See my other post)

Nope. It was already solved by the JPEG's hierarchical mode, more than twenty years ago. You're limited to scaled sizes that are the inverse of a power of 2 of the full size, but on the other hand the client wouldn't even need to inform the server and just proceed with a partial download, up to the point where it has enough data for the desired resolution.

What are you trying to do? Referring to? It's a completely different technology!
Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!

Tetsuoooo !!!!

(Couldn't he have credited the music ?)

You're joking, but they're doing exactly that

or those that didn't notice.

The next generation of interesting software will be done on the Macintosh, not the IBM PC.
-- Bill Gates, BusinessWeek, 26 November 1984

Right, I'll do you for that!
It's just a flesh wound.

Hmm, let me guess...

News for nutters, stuff that squeaks?

Well, if Lautaro Cline paid them in bitcoins, maybe CoinTerra didn't get what they expected either...

People talking about "bit rot" usually have no clue, and this guy is no exception.

It's extremely unlikely that a file would become silently corrupted on disk. Block devices include per-block checksums, and you either have a read error (maybe he has) or the data read is the same as the data previously written. As far as I know, ZFS doesn't help to recover data from read errors. You would need RAID and / or backups.

Main memory is the weakest link. That's why my next computer will have ECC memory. So, when you copy the file (or otherwise defragment or modify the file, etc), you read a good copy, some bit flips in RAM, and you write back corrupted data. Your disk receives the corrupted data, happily computes a checksum, therefore ensuring you can read back your corrupted data faithfully. That's where ZFS helps. Using checksumming scripts is a good idea, and I do it myself. But I don't have auto-defrag on Linux, so I'm safer : when I detect a corrupted copy, I still have the original.

ext2 was introduced in 1993, and so was NTFS. ext4 is just ext2 updated (ext was a different beast). If anything, HFS+ is more modern, not that it makes a difference. All of them are updated. By the way, I noticed recently that Mac OS X resource forks sometimes contain a CRC32. I noticed it in a file coming from Mavericks.