Inventors are a different animal. One doesn't start with a reasonable theory but one works from the other end, one quite unreasonably starts with what would be wonderful to have. One doesn't test a theory but one ponders how the seemingly impossible might be accomplished which is a problem that can be broken down into more reasonable things until it's impossible component is defined properly so that one may make an often futile attempt to ask the question differently. With few exceptions there are no results. Those not skilled in the art consider that part cheating. This is logical because their line of reasoning seeks to further validate that what they already know, it thus involves an effort to prove something can't be done, or at least not by someone like that, or at least not by that person, or at least not by that method etc etc<p>The cheating in this context would be to study the thing the file represents rather than the representation.<p>A dumb example would be to make a 10 hour movie from a single image that doesn't move. There is no reason for the file to be larger than the original jpg.<p>> I can not only get Orson Welles' Citizen Kane. I can get Citizen Kane in colour!<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI5qy9Zoh_0">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI5qy9Zoh_0</a><p>To argue that this was not the method Sloot used is missing the point. The question is: How to do it, not how to imitate someone else.<p>In his demo Sloot was playing 16 full movies simultaneously on a 1995 laptop at any speed. A high end computer had 32 MB memory, 133 MHz cpu, PCI video cards had 4 MB ram, 66 MHz, 560 MB HDD<p>If it was not what he said it was why didn't he just sell what he had? Without the extraordinary claims the demo already requires cartoon physics. He drives the truck into the match box, making an U turn inside doesn't at all seem necessary???