Subject: Vision PSA Video: Updated 5/29

From: Restore 20/20 Vision <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 08:05:59 -0700

Healthy Vision PSA - For Immediate Release
Restore 20/20 Vision in 2 weeks 

Please Advise- 

* With changes in the US healthcare system many are not able to afford optic healthcare. 
* This is why scientists released a way to restore 20/20 vision in 2 weeks. 

See Scientist Explanation: http://www.mobelm.com/vision/id22.video

This video has been released bc Optometrists are expected to lose patients once
this info hits nationwide media. 
*** Medical experts are admitting that glasses can Worsen your vision...

Full Details of Report -> http://www.mobelm.com/vision/id22.video

to stop meesage notifications w/ Update Notice Messages
at 118 Kecks Lane| Ruff Dale|PA|15679
or visit http://www.mobelm.com/kvfk/skke43/bj4w4r.gbk4

I like how this works without adding more libraries to your project.   User1 Jan 12 '11 at 23:36
  	  	
is there a chance to broke multi-bytes character in this solution?  t 3:20
This solution uses multibyte characters. The example uses the UTF-8 encoding that allows expression of the full unicode range (Including Chinese). Replacing "UTF-8" with another encoding would allow that encoding to be used.  PaulDec 9 '11 at 23:11@User1 - I like using libraries in my code so I can get my job done faster. It's awesome when your managers say "Wow James! How did you get that done so fast?!". But when we have to spend time reinventing the wheel just because we have misplaced ideas about including a common, reusable, tried and tested utility, we're giving up time we could be spending furthering our project's goals. When we reinvent the wheel, we work twice as hard yet get to the finish line much later. Once we're at the finish line, there is no one there to congratulate us. When building a house, don't build the hammer too   0 '12 at Sorry, after re-reading my comment, it comes off a little arrogant. I just think it's important to have a good reason to avoid libraries an
 d that the reason is a valid one, which there very well could be :)   an 20 '12 at 1:35isn't it better t ? Mar 28 '12 at 20:11
Yes, I guess the reader should be closed at the end.   Paul deApr 20 '12 at 18:37
@jmort253 Many libraries are large, slow but powerful. However there are many chances that we need a small, fast one. In our product, I even replaced many JDK classes with our own implement.  ay 9 '12 at 6:36
@coolcfan - I do agree with you on that point. Sometimes speed is of the utmost importance and is a hard requirement. Many times, good enough is good enough. I question how often we put effort into optimizing something that no one notices. The answer of whether the reward is greater than the cost is a decision not to be taken lightly. Thank you foVMs, databases and app servers on many operation systems so we have to think for the users using poor machines... And a string operation optimizing can improve thby 30~40%. And a fix: In our product, I even replaced should be 'we even replaced'.   coMe same time, there is a real cost to using libraries (as the dependency proliferation in many apache java libraries shows). If this would be the only use of the library, it would be overkill to use the library. On the other hand, determining your own buffer size(s) you can tune your memory/processor usage balance.   Paul ay 22 '12 at 9:16I'd like to know, what are reasonable values for the buffe
 r under which circumstances?   T 24 at 14:09The best way to determine the buffer is to experiment. Reasonable sizes should be multiples of the block size, which for flash memory can be 128KB.Well, those particular seeds just so happen to work out perfectly. Random is not truly random, it is pseudorandom.   Doorknob Mar 3 '13 at 4:41 It works, as others have said, because random isn't. To me, a more interesting question would be did the person that wrote that, brute force it, or is there an easy way to predict what random would generate for the next N values for a given seed. Brute forcing is easy and with modern hardware shouldn't take too long, so that was  a viable way of doing it. Given that it is static, you could even easily distribute the search across a network.   Mar 3 '13 at 5:31I wonder the purpose of n in for (int n = 0; ; n++). They could use for(;;) or while(true) instead   Mar 3 '13 at  think this might be converted from another language where the index of a char in a 
 string has to be specified. This code is too awesome to be Java. (<- which is awesome, but not THAT awesome) Actually, I just think that if you wanted to do that kind of computation, you'd use C/C++   Ryan Amos Mar 3 '13 at 7:06 
I'm going to try this... public static long getASeed(String str) { 		seeds: for (long l = Long.MIN_VALUE; l != Long.MAX_VALUE; l++) { 			Random r = new Random(l); 			for(int i = 0; i < str.length(); i++) { 				if(r.nextInt() + 'a' != str.charAt(i)) 					continue seeds; 			} 			return l; 		} 		throw new RuntimeException(); 	}   Ryan Amos Mar 3 '13 at 7:06
@RyanAmos Did you get any results? What about considering relative positions? That is, you only need a sequence -3, 7, 0, 3, -15 (for "hello") after which you can just just pick a 'base character' that makes the first int 8 (which is presumably why this code uses a ` of all the possible things.)   Jay Mar 3 '13 at 14:53
@Jay: running similar version now, trying to get , it gives result in a few seconds   Denis Tulskiy Mar 3 '13 at 14:55 @Jay Unfortunately, I did not. I think the relative positions thing might have been a way a better way to do it. Or, maybe, run a PRNG until you get the desired sequence, then back up and take the seed that generated that Don't you mean in a state of tan or cos?   IDWMaster Mar 3 '13 at 22:11In a truly random sequence every possible string will eventually appear. In a high quality pseudo random sequence on can reasonable expect every possible string of length (log_s(N) - n) bits (where N is the number of bits in the PRNGs internal state and n is a small number, lets pick 8 for convenience) to appear in the cycle. This code gets some help from the use of a freely chosen hardcoded start point (the value of the character which gets almost the whole 8 bits back.   dmckee Mar 4 '13 at 0:13 sin is a pure function, so doesn't have "state" in the sense that rand does.   dan0
 4 Mar 4 '13 at 1:21This is not an answer, and you're overlooking the fact that an encoding "hello world" can be found in truly random numbers, as well as somewhere in the expansion of pi, if it is carried on long enough. This has nothing to do with pseudo-random not being truly random.   Kaz Mar 4 '13 at 8:37 In fact, since there is a given statistical likelihood that "hello world" will occur a certain number of times in the period of a PRNG, you should be suspicious if an exhaustive search does not find it approximately that many times. Mar 4 '13 at 8:39You set same seed every time to its not random at all like other stated. ar 4 '13 at 9 the Java PRNG is just a linear congruential generator, so it is easy to predict the values it will output given a current seed/state. However, doing so basically amounts to reimplementing the PRNG yourself, so you'd do just as well to use brute force. Interestingly, you can also easily recover the state of the generator given two consecutive outpu
 t ints. This will allow you to predict all future outputs! Pretty handy. :)   Sean Devlin Mar 4 '13 at 15:30winner of the weirdest way to print "hello world" Mar 4 '13 at 19:51 
too bad those seeds don't work if ported to .Mar 4 '13 at 20:26 is this question going to be deleted now that it's marked as duplicate? I feel it has more thorough answers than original question.   Denis Tulskiy Mar 5 '13 at 3:20 It's just exploiting a week random algorithm. Because it isn't really random.   Luciano Mar 5 '13 at 20:4This is from a posting I wrote a couple of years ago  Peter Lawrey Mar 5 '13 at 22:56
I brute forced it in less than a minute using Java. The reason for the n=0;;n++ loop is to allow a random string lC# prints "terkcq onbmmjujsrb" :)   ArsenMkrt Mar 6 '13 at 10:22Just to be the good guy greg   theaob Mar 6 '13 at 15:10So a more interesting application of this would be to write a program that could find the correct seed to produce a given desired output of any length. It would be the ultimate compression algorithm -- a single number that, when passed through the random number generator, would reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare.   JohnnyLambada Mar 6 '13 at 16:36@JohnnyLambada: My thoughts exactly!   Aaron Blenkush Mar 6 '13 at 17:39@JohnnyLambada Yes, nice thought. Anyway you will not find a single long number that will code even a single work of shakespeare, because the limited set of numbers is not capable to code for unlimited set of texts. "From an information theoretic standpoint when dealing with true random data, the most efficient representation for the 
 value of each bit is precisely one bit, not more and not less. Flagging any slightly compressible portion of the data stream will require more overhead bytes than will be gained in compression." Sad but true. patrickcraig.co.uk/other/compression.htm   sulai Mar 7 '13 at 11:11
  	  	
@sulai -- yes, but the example here disproves that doesn't it? We have a single 32 bit integer (-147909649) that codes the 40 bit ascii word "World". A more thorough search through randomspace might find the longer "Hello World" string -- especially if one includes an offset as part of their criteria. One could imagine a function such as StringBuilder.add(fromRan(randomAlgorithm,seed,offset,length)) as part of a decompression routine. As long as length is > the number of bits required to encode the parameters, we have a winner. The tough part is finding the parameters for a given string.   JohnnyLambada Mar 7 '13 at 17:09
  	  	
@JohnnyLambada Yes, this method does compress data. No, it does not compress data of any length, because the set of compressable texts is limited to the set of int values. More generally, once redundanties are compressed, you reach a point where data can not be compressed any more, no matter how hard you try. Truly random data, for example, can not be compressed. See this compression FAQ: faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/part1/section-8.html   sulai Mar 7 '13 at 18:47
  	  	
Please note, a lower case word of length 5 contains about 5*log2(26)=23.5 bits of information. A 32 bit int would not yet compress it. A word of length 7 hast 32.9 bits of information, but I'm pretty sure that int can not code for all words that have 7 characters length. However it might work in some cases, and then actually compress data. But still, it can not compress purely random data. However, I'm not an expert about compression, too. :) Sorry for double commenting.   sulai Mar 7 '13 at 19:03 
6	  	
This question has been closed twice so far first as not a real question and then again as exact duplicate. Then onwards, three close votes have been cast as off topic. No, it's a legitimate question. Keep it up.   Lion Mar 13 '13 at 22:10