File Compression methods

Dan Egli ddavidegli at
Sat Oct 12 02:20:28 MDT 2013

On October 10, 2013, Daniel Fussel wrote:

> Furthermore, if you are on a trusted network (and I'm assuming you are)
you can skip the ssh pipe and use netcat (nc).

> Just set one of the machines to listen, and the other to send, and you're
set. If you are moving a ton of small files across

> the network, you'll find a tar over netcat stream us faster than using
NFS because the stream is no longer suffering from

> frequent network round trips to stat/open/close files.

I never got what was supposed to come before the Furthermore. So don't know
what you said before, but as to this:

That's kind of what I was after in the first place, before dealing with the
compression. I hadn't heard of netcat, but the approach is nearly identical
to what I was trying to do. What I wanted was (as I said in a previous
message) was to shrink the amount of physical data sent across the network.
That's what the compression/archiving was for. The NFS wasn't supposed to
copy each file across. The idea was to either have something like a
.tar.bz2 file but with better compression that gets opened from the remote
NFS directory and extracted to the local HDD.

> if this is a one-time thing, the other guys are right on; just use an
eSATA or USB3 drive (not USB1/2, the polling will kill

> you) and sneakernet it. Then use rsync if things need to be updated

Sneakernet is exactly what I was trying to AVOID. The goal was to have
something that I can boot say from a thumb drive, then run a script on the
drive that does all the work for me. :)

And while a multicast netcat type thing would work, I still need it to be
compressed, hence my first question about what would be the best compressor
that either supports piping or unix permissions and special files.

Thanks though. I'd like to hear more about this multicasting netcat idea.

--- Dan ;A�1 o,0�A�'t just about our laws; this is about who we are
as a people. This is about whether we value one another, whether we embrace
our differences rather than allowing them to become a source of animus."

Earlier this year tow psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a
sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality. Van
Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of
Montreal, told members of Parliament, "Pedophiles are not simply people who
commit a small offense from time to time but are grappling with what is
equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be
grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality."

He went on to say, "True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for
children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot
change this person's sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent."

When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van
Gijseghem replied, "If, for instance, you were living in a society where
heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had
to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say
that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I
use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their
sexual orientation."

Dr. Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen's University in
Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem. Quiney said pedophiles'
sexual interests prefer children and, "there is no evidence that this sort
of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else."

In July, 2010, Harvard health Publications said, "Pedophilia is a sexual
orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to
resist acting on his sexual urges."

Linda Harvey, of Mission America, said the push for pedophiles to have
equal rights will become more and more common as LGBT groups continue to
assert themselves. It's all a part of a plan to introduce sex to children
at younger and younger ages; to convince them that normal friendship is
actually a sexual attraction."

Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the
Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be
beneficial to society because, "Potential sex offenders use child
pornography as a substitute for sex against children."

Diamond is a distinguished lecturer for the Institute for the Advanced
Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco. The IASHS openly advocated for
the repeal of the Revolutionary war ban on homosexual serving in the

The IASHS lists, on it's web site, a list of "basic sexual rights" that
includes "the right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind
whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence,
constraint, coercion or fraud." Another right it to, "be free of
persecution, condemnation, discrimination, or societal intervention in
private sexual behavior" and "the freedom of any sexual thought, fantasy or
desire." the organization also says that no one should be "disadvantaged
because of age." Sex offender laws protecting children have been challenged
in several states, including California, Georgia and Iowa. Sex offenders
claim the laws prohibiting them from living near schools or parks are
unfair because it penalizes them for life.

While I understand pedophiles wanting to be recognized as just an alternate
lifestyle, I'm not sure how I feel about that. On the one hand, it seems
quite wrong to me. But that could just be my paranoia speaking. I see the
laws being repealed and then child sex outlets (think prostitution
establishments) cropping up here and there in the USA. But on the other
hand, it's true that many people are being punished, not for what they HAVE
done, but for what they MIGHT HAVE DONE, now OR IN THE FUTURE. That, I
cannot agree with. You don't punish people for what MIGHT happen! But
that's EXACTLY what our society is doing!

Well, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Love you!
--- Dan

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Levi Pearson <levipearson at>wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Rich <rich at> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:48:09AM -0600, Rich wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 01:55:03PM +0530, Dan Egli wrote:
> >>>
> >>> And a two
> >>> step process is unfortunately out of the question. The machines will
> only
> >>> have either 750GB or 1TB hdds, which obviously won't work for
> extracting
> >>> the tar to disk then extracting from the tar on disk. tar's extraction
> >>> process would run out of space before it finished.
> >
> >
> > Whoops, I misunderstood what you meant, forget what I said about that
> > (except that it's still true, it just doesn't address your concern).
> Because tar and gzip can both take input from stdin and write output
> to stdout, you can compose them in such a way that they become,
> effectively, a single step. And then you can compose them with
> rsh/ssh/etc. in order to eliminate the entire intermediate file. So,
> the composition of an archiving codec, a compression codec, and a
> remote shell process is *effectively* a single-step image transfer
> system, at least as long as you choose codecs that are capable of
> operating in a chunked manner rather than requiring random access or
> the entire input/output at once.
> This idea is one of the pillars of the UNIX programming philosophy,
> and also is given a more general and rigorous treatment in the basis
> of functional programming.
> /*
> PLUG:, #utah on
> Unsubscribe:
> Don't fear the penguin.
> */

More information about the PLUG mailing list