text:
Talk:RAR (file format)

Relation Eugene & Alexander Roshal
Is Alexander Eugene's son? brother? step-brother? Does anyone know? -andy 80.129.105.18 14:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose Eugene won't be against if I publish here a part of our correspondence: Alexander is my brother and he is handling business related stuff. Development is still my task. - Eugene Roshal May 9, 2006 00:24 (UTC) Artem-S-Tashkinov 06:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Removed "(pronounced Rare or letter by letter)." An e-mail correspondence with support at WinRAR confirms "RAR will be pronounced like the English words 'bar' or 'car'." In actuality, no pronunciation assistance is needed since the spelling is phonetic, however this error has been propagated across a vast number of web sites, so perhaps adding "(pronounced like the English words 'bar' or 'car')" in would be beneficial. Thoughts?
 * Agree, but I cannot find any actual evidence to support that this is how it was intended to be pronounced by the authors of WinRAR. I pronounce it that way too, but I can certainly imagine others pronouncing it, or saying "ar ei ar." For the time, I would say it's not necessary. Anyone who is going to talk about any file format is better off saying the letters (like in this case "ar ei ar" than RAR) because not everyone will know what they are talking about then. And same for OGG files; I got used to reading "o ji ji" probably because MP3 is not mpuhthree, it's "em pi three", and I hear others saying "og", and sometimes don't understand what they are talking about till I realize they are talking about audio. I think most people encounter these types of files on their own (or learn from others the way they pronounce) and therefore learn their own way to pronounce and when they have to say it aloud they say it that way, and it would take some time for them to change their pronounciation. Zip is an obvious one, but MP3 has to be said, and some people say "o ji ji" and some say "og", and some people say Wave and some say WAV and even some say PCM. It's all subjective.--Tatsh 01:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Tatsh, did you even read the above? Says with e-mail correspondence with winRAR. Just e-mail them yourself if you can't believe.
 * Let's have some sanity here. RAR and WinRAR were created by a Russian programmer living in Russia and speaking Russian. They are pronounced as "Рар" и "ВинРар". Since the Russian letter "Р" is impossible to pronounce by most English people, it should be pronounced the same way as the words "car" or "bar". Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 12:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Questionable Content
The comment "Older versions of the file format used a proprietary but strong encryption algorithm" seems questionable. Are there any references to verify this?

The statement "RAR provides effective lossless compression of Linear PCM audio files (commonly stored as .wav or .au) where other generalised compression formats (zip, 7-zip) do not. The compression ratio is typically between 50%-90% dependent on the complexity of the source audio and the predictability of the incoming waveform." is unclear and misleading.
 * "between 50%-90% dependent on the complexity of the source audio and the predictability of the incoming waveform"
 * Does this add something? All compression, no matter what the source is, depends on the source entropy (i.e.: complexity and predictability) --Outlyer 14:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I agree with the statement. I've tested it out myself, comparing RAR with 7-zip, both using a 2048K dictionary and highest compression available. WinRAR was able to compress more, and it's close to listenable lossless (FLAC, WavPack, etc) formats (With the proper plugin, ZIPs and RARs can be listened to using foobar2000.--Tatsh 00:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree about the encryption. There's no reference given for its strength, and proprietary algorithms are almost always fairly weak by professional standards . Changing to " a proprietary encryption algorithm". Electrolite 22:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the notion of "Both formats are still being actively developed." WinRAR 3.0 was out several years ago and the core compression format and compression ratio has not changed since. Isn't it better to say "Both WinRAR and 7-Zip applications are still being actively developed."? Artem-S-Tashkinov 07:12, 28 September 2007

RAR algorithm
Is there any external or internal link on article containing RAR algorithm and principles of RAR compression? Thank you for help.
 * it appears that Win.rar GmbH has not released any source code for RAR version 3, with the only description being at this site. RAR version 2 was publicized but is now obsolete.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon lynx (talk • contribs) 07:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

When was RAR first released/implemented?
When was the first release of rar? I can see a post on comp.compression dated May 18 1994 inquiring about it but it seems it had already been out for a while by that time. It seems odd to have the creator's birthday listed here but not a date associated with the object of the article. There's an article in relcom.archives dated April 12 1994 that's the first I can find.

Tagging an archive onto another file
The article says that one of RAR's "other features not previously found in many other archive formats" is that they can be tacked onto files such as images, since RAR ignores everything before its header.

As far as I know, you could also do this with ZIP format files, since the directory is at the end, so ZIP utilities should be able to read a ZIP file with an image prepended to it. They may warn unless the ZIP file is "fixed-up", though (pkzipfix, I think, or zip -A using Info-ZIP's zip command). Not really a unique feature IMO, though a slightly unusual one, perhaps. -- pne (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

 * "RAR files can be embedded in other file types, probably the most common being JPEG."
 * Really? Is embedding RAR files common at all?--Outlyer 14:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, ZIP is incapable of embedding(you can try it with most software). RAR embedding is common in imageboards or when exchanging "hidden" files through public sites.

Biographical data
Removed "Eugene Roshal" as a link. The link "Eugene Roshal" redirected to this page.
 * The biography of the author should go onto another page.
 * I agree. This article and its discussion page seems to be heavily biased by the corporate sponsors of WinRAR. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

RAR File Archiver Software
A user recently undid my attempt to remove the corporate advertisement for WinRAR software and replace it with a forum for listing various applications that support the RAR format. I fought back and notified the user, reinstated my edit, and removed the advertisement to its own section.
 * discussions about the WinRAR application belong in the separate WinRAR article. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Overhead
Can the fact that compressed files are sometimes larger than the source, a fundamentally unavoidable consequence of information theory, really be regarded as “computational overhead”? -Ahruman 02:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion belongs in the talk page for the appropriate article file compression or related. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Corporate Advertisement / Improper Usage
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.138.63 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 11 May 2006
 * It looks like the creator of 7-zip has been using this page as publicity. As it happens 7-zip does not come with any explanation of how to use it, and despite a long attempt I could not extract anything except another file which was unreadable.
 * I believe this article has been heavily influenced and therefore biased by WinZIP corporate sponsors. My attempt to list RAR software other than RARLAB WinRAR was almost immediately undone. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The author's (Eugene Roshal) use of this page as his personal biography is another obvious misuse of wikiopedia. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This page reeks with ad-like statements from Rarlabs. WinRAR is an outdated piece of software and can't compete with free, open source alternatives. Stating that it performs as well as LZMA (7zip) is a joke. I say from experience that rar can't compete with 7z, both in speed and compression ratio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.202.177 (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The comparison with other compressors is equally laughable, merely asserting that it is inferior, and then reading more like publicity for free and open software than a wiki. No sources or citations there either. Should be removed or reworked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.54.178.242 (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

no consensus. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 13:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move
This page should be at "RAR" instead of "RAR (file format)". The current disambiguation notice and disambigutation page should remain the same. RAR redirects here not. The other RAR uses are just proper nouns who's initialization happens to be RAR, which merits a disambiguation page, but not a disambiguated title for this page. savidan(talk) (e@) 15:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually RAR (file format) should be moved to .rar see .arc for another file format usig this form of name. Vegaswikian 18:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then the move should be withdrawn and relisted as to .rar. GraemeLeggett 11:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the only edit to .rar was to fix the redirect when this page was moved, I'd be willing to make that move if there was support here to do so. Vegaswikian 05:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't the file format still "RAR" whereas ".rar" is just the file extension? Most everything on the Net refers to the "RAR" file format. I don't think ".rar" would be right, and it is a non-standard sort of article title, and ".arc" wouldn't be right for the same reason. —Centrx→talk • 04:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, per above. – Axman (☏) 09:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think overwriting RAR with this article is appropriate; that abbreviation also stands for a number of other things, some of which could become articles. I don't believe Windows' .RAR format is so ubiquitous (except online, where Wikipedia is already biased) that it should default to this. -- nae'blis 19:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, should not be moved. --TimOertel 02:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Nae'blis. We may all know what RAR is, but the majority of computer users do not. I've seen this for myself. And, although RAR has gotten a lot of momentum from file-sharing, it may never truly break into the mainstream, considering that zip (as opposed to unzip) support is limited to paid software. (Also, the argument that RAR is "really" RAR, while the other uses are just initializations, doesn't hold water, since RAR itself is short for Roshal ARchive.) --Groggy Dice 03:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

MIME type audio/x-pn-realaudio-plugin?
Why does this page list "audio/x-pn-realaudio-plugin" under the MIME types of RAR? I don't think the RAR archiver has anything to do with Real, I'm removing this for now. -- intgr 14:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Restoring with free software?
List_of_archive_formats says that RAR can be extracted with free software? If this is true: what free software can extract current RAR archives?--Hhielscher 19:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The 'External links' section of the RAR page has this to say:
 * Unrarlib – a library for decoding RAR (version 2) archives based on the Roshal's code, is GPL compatible
 * unrar – a simple Free Software unrar utility using Unrarlib above
 * 7-zip an open source windows file archiver that supports unpacking (but not packing) RAR files, as well as other formats.
 * -- intgr 20:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

 * http://www.7-zip.org/ and this article have now been updated to reflect the fact that the decompression code is not open source in 7-zip. It is true that you can decompress version 2 archives but those seem to be rare nowadays so for any practical purposes RAR can't be decoded with free software. (I'm a total wikinewbie so please excuse me if this comment has wrong indentation or something). --lindi

"as with all compression algorithms..."
To clarify, output spacing does not matter, if you have N bits decompressed, you simply can not represent all 2^N possible decompressed results with only 2^(N-1) possible compressed ones. All compression algorithms have the potential to enlarge data, even if it's a single bit. Riotgear 06:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion belongs in the appropriate article file compression or related. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anything based on Roshal's code really be GPL compatible?
They say that the library is licensed under the GPL but doesn't the GPL prohibit the kind of thou shalt not reverse engineer conditions that the original author placed on the code? I seem to recall that this kind of additional restriction beyond the terms of the GPL isn't allowed.

Maybe the author has since removed that requirement, though it certainly doesn't sound that way. --80.6.85.54 07:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Depends on version... And no, it's a "binary glob" GPL workaround to use it.  Like it mentions for 7Zip.71.196.246.113 (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

List of archived files
Somebody please mention in an encyclopedic style that RAR format has another specific feature. The list of archived files is not kept in one please like Sevenzip or Zip. Instead each packed file begins with a header containing the relative path and filename. To read the filelist a program has to seek through the entire archive. This must be taken into account when archives contain many files or are to be accessed frequently. -- J7N
 * Can someone verify this claim? What versions of the RAR format does this apply to? Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's true and this problem is addressed in WinRAR 5.0 Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Nickname Inclusion
I've known a lot of people to cal Rar archvies "RARchives". Should this be included on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawk27 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Parchive
What's with Parchive mention in the beginning of the article? It's just some of the many tools which could have been used with rar archives. One of (maybe) thousands of tools... Why special mention? Recovery record actually made much more for reliability of rar archives, it was quite a novel thing at the time. Of course, external redundancy-adding tools was almost always there, but were very rarely used. Recovery record, on the other hand, as a built-in feature made redundancy really popular, and improved life of floppy swapping by a very large margin :) That's what could be mentioned... Not some 3rd party tool which only appeared in 2001, when Rar was already a mature software... Also, in 2001 Rar was around v2.80-v2.90, so v1 was essentially obsolete. --89.113.78.48 (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"RAR passwords" Link
I just removed the following from "External Links": "* Online RAR Passwords"

I did so because I feel this may be a way of breaching copyright and I don't feel it right at all for Wikipedia to encourage breaking the law. Apologies if I'm wrong, but I felt it was important to stop this if I am right, since it's potentially wuite a serious issue.

If anyone has evidence that this is legal and wants to reinstate it, feel free. Thanks Greggers ( t • c) 20:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The article should state that rar is primarily used for piracy somewhere. It's probably the only reason it's so popular, warez d00ds just pick it up assuming it's the only way to put files on the internet and use it.
 * .... PFfffttt HAHAHA Sorry, that's funny.  I thought it was the shareware authors that encouraged the use of archivers.  Most of the 'warez d00ds' just found that most people have installed a tool like WinZIP or WinRAR and can thus read RAR archives.  ZIP files have horrible compression and can't be solid, don't have recovery, don't support a lot of newer stuff, and so on.  Saying that only (or even mostly) it's used for pirated files is kind of like saying that HTTP is only popular because of email and Youtube.  It was out long before the existence of even Napster.  Now as far as how many of the installations of WinRAR itself that are pirated...  hehe no one knows!71.196.246.113 (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Added Link to File Compression
I though it would be a good idea to add a link to file compression at the bottom of the page (under further reading).

Jasper Cook (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Usually for internal links to Wikipedia articles, you would just do this: Data compression (File compression redirects to Data compression anyway), instead of this: Data compression. Additional article links would also probably go in the See also section instead of "Further reading". In this case, Data compression is already linked on the first line of the article, so I feel it would not be necessary to link it again. --Spoon! (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Change icon
Make the icon the default for windows or winzip. Even though the current icon is from a free source using a copyrighted icon is justifiable as it is recognized by more people. The Unarchiver is a great app (i use it) but the audience is very limited as it is an optional app on OSX that few people use compared windows.

Proprietary format
I added information that RAR file format is a proprietary format. According to the RAR EULA, the RAR compression algorithm is proprietary.

I also removed a statement that RAR is a "documented" archive file format, because I don't found any reference about full RAR format documentation. --89.173.13.186 (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You should have done your research further. The recent versions (since around 2.9) have become proprietary.  It is not that hard to get ahold of the older source code.
 * Silly nonprogrammer (j/k but read rest!) It is a fully documented, but proprietary format. This is not a contradiction because:
 * It's pretty hard to make UnRAR without source that includes said documentation. That describes the format entirely, otherwise some archives would not decompress (this should be common sense).  Now as far as how to create the archives in the first place, you have to write your own encoder but this is possible since you know what format UnRAR expects.  Of course, that's against the license to the more recent versions of the UnRAR source code.  The article isn't entirely correct about the fact that the license forbids making your own RAR compression tool using UnRAR's source code.  If you look at the different versions, you'd notice that it changed in 2.9 to the more restrictive license.  Before that, you could make your own RAR archiver based on the format documentation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.246.113 (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Awkward if not bewildering English
VERSIONS

This section has some rather awkward English sentences:

1. "In computer science, RAR is a file compression and archiving of the proprietary format."

Better perhaps is: RAR is a proprietary file compression and archiving format used in computer science.

2. "Eugene Roshal conditional discloses decoding program source code, but the code is still proprietary."

Better perhaps is: Eugene Roshal conditionally discloses the source code for decoding, but that code remains proprietary.

3. "RAR format by WinRAR, WinMount and other software to open RAR file extensions are.Rar, MIME type of application/x-rar-compressed."

Maybe this means: WinRAR, WinMount and other software open RAR format files whose file extensions are .Rar, and the MIME type of application/x-rar-compressed.

4. "It is a lossless data compression, RAR file is usually better than ZIP file compression ratio to be high, but the compression speed is slower .Because the RAR file header will occupy a certain space, in a little room for data compression, the compressed file can be greater than the original file."

Better perhaps is: It is a lossless data compression. While often slower, RAR file compression is usually better than Zip file compression due to the higher compression ratio. Occasionally the compressed file is larger than the original file due to the RAR file header's size.

The rest of the section continues in this awkward manner. I am not an expert on file compression. I came here to learn more about it. Therefore, I am reluctant to correct this section lest I misinterpret the writer's intent or blunder in some other way. However, it does need editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.62.144 (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Move to RAR?
The last discussion was 2006, when RAR wasn't that important as a file format. Editors brought up it not being very important, not important enough to be the primary topic. However, RAR as a compression tool is a very major player in compression nowadays, and if someone says "RAR", it's very safe to assume that they talk of the file format, not variants of Maori, army units, or nuclear receptors. I propose a move to RAR, with the previous page becoming a DAB, as this is the primary topic. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

 * RAR has always been an important file format on the internet and even more so in the past, but most non-geeks aren't even aware of ZIP or RAR files, so RAR should stay as disambiguation page, just like ZIP. •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 07:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

 * True, that most people do not know what RAR is. However, even less people know what the other topics of RAR could be. For example, a rather obscure anti-racism campaign, the abbreviation for a German rock music festival, 3 army regiments, minor figures in Greek mythology, and multiple topics relating to the Cook Islands. It's misleading to compare RAR to ZIP, as ZIP could be used to refer to ziplines, zippers, and other zipping related things, while RAR does not refer to anything that is as commonly used as the file format. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 19:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

 * It's not likely an exhaustive list of everything that stands for RAR, instead only what people have gotten around to adding. •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 20:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Even though the DAB isn't an exhaustive list, the file format is still the primary topic. If I Google RAR, 8/10 of the results on the first page are related to the file format, one is related to the company, and another is the Wikipedia DAB page. Going to the 5th page, 42/50 of the results are related to the file format. Also, in this Google Trends search, people looking for the compression utility greatly outclass those looking for "rar" in general. In this Google Trends search, a sampling of topics revealed that none compare against WinRAR. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Do you object to me performing the move now, User:Sbmeirow? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 19:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I still prefer "RAR (file format)" because its the same article naming layout as "ZIP (file format)", and I'd rather see all file format articles have a uniform naming method than be decided by a popularity contest. Seriously, why the heck can't we pick a naming method that has ZERO conflicts and makes EVERY file article unique without conflict, huh, oh we can't do that because it would make too much sense, LOL.  Wikipedia has turned into an article naming cluster f**k that care more about the popularity contest than similarity.  Anyway, go ahead and change it, because it's not worth my time to fight this silly mess.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 23:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Hi, User:Sbmeirow and User:Chess. I have closed Chess's speedy deletion request as declined. It has nothing against a possible future deletion. Simply I do not think that one editor's request plus another's disagreement makes for a uncontroversial deletion. Also, the request is up for almost 6 days, I watched at it some 2 or 3 times in those days, probably others did too, yet no one deleted; so I *guess* it is not uncontroversial also for a few other editors. Please get more input (third opinion, move request, wait, something...). Enjoy! - Nabla (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Give a third opinion, ? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

 * It is a fourth, by now :) and I do not have a strong opinion either way. Making "RAR" a page about the file format, as primary topic, with "RAR (file format)" redirecting there, and placing the disambiguation at "RAR (disambiguation)" is probably the option most in line with current policy. Yet, as I think naming consistency is a good thing and also influenced by a ongoing discussion about naming format for disambiguation (or navigation) pages, my favourite option would be to keep this page at "RAR (file format)", "RAR" would redirect here, and the disambiguation at "RAR (disambiguation)" - Nabla (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

 * I agree agree with User:Nabla "my favourite option" immediately before this post. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 02:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

 * I prefer the "my favourite option" option too. "if someone says "RAR", it's very safe to assume that they talk of the file format" This isn't entirely correct. RAR is also the name of the command line tool, just like WinRAR is the GUI tool. rar.exe on windows and just rar on other systems. The difference with the UnRAR command line tool is that it also can create RAR archives. --Ondertitel (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Although they are all related to the file format. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 12:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Unique features

 * Data recovery protection record - at least FreeARC has this feature (possibly others).
 * 256-bit BLAKE2 file hash - kinda worthless for most users, because CRC32 is more than enough.
 * Quick open record - 7z works this way by design.
 * Duplicate file detection - with large enough dictionary this feature is redundant.

I'm thinking users have to decide for themselves what is unique about RAR. This section looks like a promotional material which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

 * FreeARC has been dead for ages, it doesn't have a 64bit version, its maximum dictionary is limited.
 * So you basically decide what others need, OK. CRC32 is NOT more than enough, it's easy to image a situation when CRC32 stays the same while the archive changes.
 * Agree.
 * And what if a file doesn't fit into the dictionary? Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

heh
The "Versions" section at multiple places talks about winrar, instead of rar as a format. Probably someone copy-pasted it form the winrar site without bothering to check it or even placing a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.241.107 (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Rar's first and foremost implementation is WinRAR, thus your whole comment is redundant. Pure Rar's last version was Rar 2.50 for MS-DOS. Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 08:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Creating RAR files
"RAR files can be created only with commercial software WinRAR (Windows), command-line RAR (Windows, MS-DOS, macOS, Linux, Android,[8] and FreeBSD), and other software that has written permission from Alexander Roshal or shares copyrighted code under license from Alexander Roshal. Only WinRAR for Windows and Rar for Linux are available as native 64-bit applications. The software license agreements forbid reverse engineering."

I believe this is incorrect. The RAR license (https://www.rarlab.com/license.htm) only refers to "the RAR compression algorithm" (see 10.)

The RAR file format specifications allow for archives with uncompressed content. They are available here: https://www.rarlab.com/technote.htm

Creating RAR archives that do not contain any compressed files (or empty RAR archives) is not covered by this license. 195.212.29.186 (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Units Editing War
The edit war we currently have is hilarious though IMO we must use the "i" units to avoid ambiguity once and for all. Too bad the editor who insists on old ambiguous units have already edited other PC related articles as well. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather than continue the edit war here, I suggest editors comment instead at ANEW. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#WP:COMPUNITS Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:COMPUNITS where it spells out how to best handle situations where the terms might be confusing. As a general rule we don't use the IEC units here. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Versions, Versioning Sub-Section, needs more cite/refs/sourcing/sources
Highly noticeably MISSING are many, many CITE/REF sources for the #Versions sub-section of this article; I personally am curious why Linux unrar-free binary (CLI app) only supports up to plain RAR 2.0. Was curious if anyone can find when Version 2.0 was released? Are there plans to CITE/REF each VERSION listed here-in?? It is nearly impossible to find version histories prior to v3! Anyone? -From Peter {a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk | contribs)} 22:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC).

title: Talk:RAR (file format)


text:
User talk:MethodicEvolution

Proposed deletion of Memesphere

The article Memesphere has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Probable protologism. No evidence of use in professional publications.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Father Goose (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:MethodicEvolution


text:
Inverted spectrum

The inverted spectrum is the hypothetical concept, pertaining to the philosophy of color, of two people sharing their color vocabulary and discriminations, although the colors one sees—one's qualia—are systematically different from the colors the other person sees.

Overview
The concept dates back to John Locke. It invites us to imagine that we wake up one morning, and find that for some unknown reason all the colors in the world have been inverted, i.e. swapped to the hue on the opposite side of a color wheel, the complementary color. Furthermore, we discover that no physical changes have occurred in our brains or bodies that would explain this phenomenon. Supporters of the hypothesis of qualia as non-physical entities argue that, since we can imagine this happening without contradiction, it follows that we are imagining a change in a property that determines the way things look to us, but that has no physical basis. In more detail:

 * 1) Metaphysical identity holds of necessity
 * 2) If something is possibly false, it is not necessary
 * 3) It is conceivable that qualia could have a different relationship to physical brain-states
 * 4) If it is conceivable, then it is possible
 * 5) Since it is possible for qualia to have a different relationship with physical brain-states, they cannot be identical to brain states (by 1).
 * 6) Therefore, qualia are non-physical.

The argument thus states that if we find the inverted spectrum plausible, we must admit that qualia exist (and are non-physical). Some philosophers find it absurd that an "armchair argument" can prove something to exist, and the detailed argument does involve many assumptions about conceivability and possibility, which are open to criticism. Perhaps it is not possible for a given brain state to produce anything other than a given quale in our universe, and that is all that matters. The question, however, can arise how these critical philosophers, using the same armchair technique that they are criticizing, refute the robust argumentation of the Inverted spectrum experiment?

C. L. Hardin criticizes the idea that an inverted spectrum would be undetectable on scientific grounds:

...there are more perceptually distinguishable shades between red and blue than there are between green and yellow, which would make red-green inversion behaviorally detectable. And there are yet further asymmetries. Dark yellow is brown (qualitatively different from yellow), whereas dark blue is blue[...] Similarly, desaturated bluish-red is pink (qualitatively different from saturated bluish-red), whereas desaturated greenish-yellow is similar to saturated greenish-yellow. Again, red is a "warm" color, whereas blue is "cool"—and perhaps this is not a matter of learned associations with temperature.

Paul Churchland using the Hurvich–Jameson (H–J) opponent process criticizes the inverted spectrum on scientific grounds:

If the Hurvich–Jameson account of our color experiences is correct, then it is empirically impossible to change the profile of our subjective color responses to the world without changing in some way the response profile of our opponent cell activation vectors, as outlined, for example, in the preceding paragraph. From this reductive perspective, sundry qualia inversions are indeed possible, but not without the appropriate rewirings within the entirely physical H–J net that embodies and sustains all of our color experience. If we wish to resist this deliberately reductive account—as some will—then let us endeavor to find in it some real empirical failing. Imaginary failings simply don't matter. In some cases, the inverted spectrum scenario is clearly possible. For example, if a world is simulated on a computer and we are looking at this world on a screen, perhaps through the eyes of one of the characters in the simulation, then clearly it is possible to invert the spectrum from our perspective. This is because some small changes to the code used for displaying the world would make it so that it would display in red what was displayed in green before, etc., without changing the underlying simulated physics. Though this would entail that code on a computer which represents a creature with sight is equivalent with a creature with sight. It is not clear whether we can conclude from such examples that an inverted spectrum is possible in ordinary life.

Inverted spectrum arguments have applications to behavioralism, physicalism, representationalism, functionalism, skepticism and the hard problem of consciousness.

In his book I Am a Strange Loop, Douglas Hofstadter argues that the inverted spectrum argument entails a form of solipsism in which people can have no idea about what goes on in the minds of others—contrary to the central theme of his work. He presents several variants to demonstrate the absurdity of this idea: the "inverted political spectrum", in which one person's concept of liberty is identical to another's concept of imprisonment; an inverted "sonic spectrum" in which low musical notes sound like "high" ones and vice versa (which he says is impossible because low sounds can be felt physically as vibrations); and a version in which random, complex qualia such as riding a roller coaster or opening presents are reversed, so that everyone perceives the world in radically different, unknowable ways.

title: Inverted spectrum