This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is made-up technogibberish. I suppose that's not quite patent nonsense. So I doubt a speedy would work, unfortunately. Nonetheless, Delete.
Friday04:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Does anyone remember the company that advertised its technology that would let you compress a file, then compress it again, then compress it again, until any file whatsoever could be encoded in 64K? Delete.Tempshill21:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is made-up technogibberish. I suppose that's not quite patent nonsense. So I doubt a speedy would work, unfortunately. Nonetheless, Delete.
Friday04:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)reply
Does anyone remember the company that advertised its technology that would let you compress a file, then compress it again, then compress it again, until any file whatsoever could be encoded in 64K? Delete.Tempshill21:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.