WTF?!? Prime numbers rule!

Unfortunately, you are both breaking the law. Specifically the DMCA (digital millenium copyright act), which states that you cannot circumvent any encryption on media. Even if it seems like "fair use", or you say "but I own the DVD!" - doesn't matter. This law is poorly worded for the consumer, and only crafted to support lawsuits by the large media studios. Even the simple DeCSS code used on DVD, which was beaten within months, counts as encryption, so "ripping" DVDs is therefore illegal. CopyLeft was sued for printing t-shirts with the DeCSS source code on them. It also brought about a case of the first "illegal prime number".

(I suppose if you are preserving the DeCSS encryption on the ripped-to-hard-drive copy it might be a legal backup falling under fair use, but I am not a lawyer)

Anyway, that's why there aren't any legal programs to archive all your movies to hard drive (free and widely available does not equal legal). Which is also why most of those dvd's and blu-rays include a separate Digital Copy that includes a lower res, pre-encoded, DRM'd, version of the movie transferable via iTunes or WMP.

I wish that movies had a separate licenses for the content than for the media. If you saw the movie in the theater, you should get a discount on the DVD (or digital iTunes/etc). If you own the DVD, then you should get a discount on the blu-ray.

My biggest gripe with pure-digital media is the lack of a 2nd hand market. You can't sell used iTunes downloads. (at least not a-la-carte. there was a case of a successful sale of an entire iTunes account transfer on ebay)

>> ^deathcow:

I find decoding the content, followed by making a new disc without them, to be very efficient.


>> ^Psychologic:

It usually isn't just for bypassing previews. I back up all of my DVDs on an external mirrored hardrive. Besides protecting against scratched dvds, I can watch any of the movies from any computer in the house over the wireless network without having to keep up with the physical DVDs.
There is plenty of free software that bypasses DRM, and cutting out previews and unwanted extras reduces the size noticably. The only way the process would take close to an hour is if the video is being compressed (calculation intensive). If it's a straight copy then it takes less than 20 minutes and only requires user input at the very beginning.

Ya, the 'faster than light' bit at the end was a bit unclear, but they didn't say it traveled at 30c, they said it traveled at 30/28c i.e. 1.0714285714285714285714285714286 times 'the speed of light'. This means a pattern in the game can travel slightly faster than one square per 'turn' which is otherwise 'the speed limit'.

If you stared at this really closely you would probably find that when the "ship" passed through the "Stargate", it jumped 2 extra squares, and so on average the "ship" traveled 30 squares in 28 time steps. V = Dist/Time so 30 squares / 28 time steps = 30/28c where c = 1square/time step. But I didn't state at it long enough to check.

To me, the 'Primer' example was the coolest. It's certainly surprising to see prime numbers pop out of two simple rules.

I wonder what would happen if a hexagonal grid was used instead. *Asks Google*

Oh, someone thought of that... check it out:

http://www.cse.sc.edu/~bays/h6h6h6/

Select the 'pattern' button and checkout what's been found. My favorite: Supernova

I don't memorize numbers and I don't do powers in my head either. I do square roots of prime numbers instead.

Two is the only even prime number, and that makes it way cool.

this was just A.W.E.S.O.M.E,thanks for contributing to this thread my friend.
and remind me never to engage you in an argument.
till next time..
namaste

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^mentality:

Sure we don't know exactly how the bain is intended to work, but we can still know that smashing in your skull with an icepick will damage your brain. Similarly, we know that certain drugs like meth will damage your brain.

Of course, stopping something from functioning is obviously a worse state than having something functioning, but this example is obviously flawed - and in two ways.

Way the first:
If you beat a brain with an icepick until it stops functioning, that is obviously a worse state of affairs than when you began - but we are referring to percieved 'damage' rather than a cessation of function, so either this isn't your point, or it's an invalid point

Way the second:
There are of course cases of head trauma leading to an IMPROVEMENT of brain function - such as a return of senses (hearing, sight). Also operations on the brain resulting in a businessman becoming an accomplished painter virtually overnight. Just because all icepick-head collisions we've ever seen have never resulted in a brain enhancement doesn't mean that it can't occur, as we can see in these examples that the possibility is there. It just takes the RIGHT KIND of icepick blow.

Science gives us accurate models of how things work. Maybe reality is a lie that God crafted to fool our senses, but that kind of metaphysical argument is the realm useless and neverending bullshit.

No, i think you misunderstood my point. My point is nothing to do with God. It's a scientific idea and i know scientists that agree with me. In fact, i don't think there's a scientist that would disagree because .. well, because it's true. I will have to drastically simplify the idea in order to explain it well here.

If we see a sequence of numbers 3 5 7 - and we think they are a series of odd numbers increasing. We can see that there may be numbers beyond 7, but at the moment we are incapable of identifying it. Time passes, technology improves, then we get the next number in the sequence and it's an 11 and we realise that it's a sequence of prime numbers. Although our system accurately described what we could observe to begin with, the system failed when we discovered something new.

That's all there is to it. As a practitioner of science, you MUST perform experiments with an open mind. To do otherwise is to taint your observations with your own bias and is poor science. Tomorrow, we may find that all our theories are not necessarily the most accurate theories. Continued below...

Pssst: science never claimed that the earth was the center. We know better now because our claims are based on actual fact and observation. Science: 1, Philosophy: 0.

To carry on from above, this has proven true in the past. Theories that were raised showed us accurate results. Then we found a case where they DID NOT accurately predict the results, and we had to throw the theory away and adopt a new one. If you would like to nitpick examples then i will give you a better one - that of the classical view of atomic structure vs. the modern view.

We used to think that the nucleus of an atom was solid, and now we think that it is made up of protons and neutrons. But wait, those again are made up of quarks. Wait, are the quarks made up of strings!?

It is not the goal of science to look into the nature of being. That is the job for religion and philosophy. Stop dismissing science because it cannot answer the unanswerable.

Firstly, i have never dismissed science for not being able to answer the unanswerable. I think you have an idea in your head that i somehow approached this from a religious standpoint and that is your downfall in your 'debunk'.

Secondly, semantics aside, i think science has a duty to look into the nature of being whenever possible. Check out the anthropic principle - i think that's a little bit to do with the nature of being. You could argue it, and i'll accept that, but i still think it does. If it's possible for science to shed any light on the nature of being, then it will, people won't go "THAT'S NOT OUR REALM BOYS LEAVE IT ALONE!" Philosophy is philosophy, and science is science. If the two can help each other out, of course they will, and of course we don't know that the answers won't be helpful to each other

But, of course, that was never my point, i simply reply to it as you raise it

--- Please don't ask me to cite examples, you can find them for yourself ---

>> ^mentality:

Sure we don't know exactly how the bain is intended to work, but we can still know that smashing in your skull with an icepick will damage your brain. Similarly, we know that certain drugs like meth will damage your brain.

Of course, stopping something from functioning is obviously a worse state than having something functioning, but this example is obviously flawed - and in two ways.

Way the first:
If you beat a brain with an icepick until it stops functioning, that is obviously a worse state of affairs than when you began - but we are referring to percieved 'damage' rather than a cessation of function, so either this isn't your point, or it's an invalid point

Way the second:
There are of course cases of head trauma leading to an IMPROVEMENT of brain function - such as a return of senses (hearing, sight). Also operations on the brain resulting in a businessman becoming an accomplished painter virtually overnight. Just because all icepick-head collisions we've ever seen have never resulted in a brain enhancement doesn't mean that it can't occur, as we can see in these examples that the possibility is there. It just takes the RIGHT KIND of icepick blow.

Science gives us accurate models of how things work. Maybe reality is a lie that God crafted to fool our senses, but that kind of metaphysical argument is the realm useless and neverending bullshit.

No, i think you misunderstood my point. My point is nothing to do with God. It's a scientific idea and i know scientists that agree with me. In fact, i don't think there's a scientist that would disagree because .. well, because it's true. I will have to drastically simplify the idea in order to explain it well here.

If we see a sequence of numbers 3 5 7 - and we think they are a series of odd numbers increasing. We can see that there may be numbers beyond 7, but at the moment we are incapable of identifying it. Time passes, technology improves, then we get the next number in the sequence and it's an 11 and we realise that it's a sequence of prime numbers. Although our system accurately described what we could observe to begin with, the system failed when we discovered something new.

That's all there is to it. As a practitioner of science, you MUST perform experiments with an open mind. To do otherwise is to taint your observations with your own bias and is poor science. Tomorrow, we may find that all our theories are not necessarily the most accurate theories. Continued below...

Pssst: science never claimed that the earth was the center. We know better now because our claims are based on actual fact and observation. Science: 1, Philosophy: 0.

To carry on from above, this has proven true in the past. Theories that were raised showed us accurate results. Then we found a case where they DID NOT accurately predict the results, and we had to throw the theory away and adopt a new one. If you would like to nitpick examples then i will give you a better one - that of the classical view of atomic structure vs. the modern view.

We used to think that the nucleus of an atom was solid, and now we think that it is made up of protons and neutrons. But wait, those again are made up of quarks. Wait, are the quarks made up of strings!?

It is not the goal of science to look into the nature of being. That is the job for religion and philosophy. Stop dismissing science because it cannot answer the unanswerable.

Firstly, i have never dismissed science for not being able to answer the unanswerable. I think you have an idea in your head that i somehow approached this from a religious standpoint and that is your downfall in your 'debunk'.

Secondly, semantics aside, i think science has a duty to look into the nature of being whenever possible. Check out the anthropic principle - i think that's a little bit to do with the nature of being. You could argue it, and i'll accept that, but i still think it does. If it's possible for science to shed any light on the nature of being, then it will, people won't go "THAT'S NOT OUR REALM BOYS LEAVE IT ALONE!" Philosophy is philosophy, and science is science. If the two can help each other out, of course they will, and of course we don't know that the answers won't be helpful to each other

But, of course, that was never my point, i simply reply to it as you raise it

--- Please don't ask me to cite examples, you can find them for yourself ---

I was a firm believer in aliens... impossible, thought i, that in the infinite reaches of space, we are the only life forms to exist. Surely these UFO sightings must have a genuine root.

Then i realised that time is also a factor. Yes, space may be on the magnitude of the infinite, but the furthest objects from us in space may as well be in our imagination, or a different dimension; they're intangible to us. We'll never see it, we'll never reach it.

So then the question is limited, what are the odds of us being the only sentient life form within an area of space around us, existing at the same point in time as us?

And even then it's worse - let's say you recieve a set of prime number pulses that were broadcasted by another species, how long did they take to get to us? A thousand years? 2? 3? Did they live long enough for us to recieve it? Will they live long enough to recieve a reply? Will we?

That's why i love astronomy. It's amazing, mind blowing.

(Didn't have time to watch this yet, just rambling on)

So, the big silver thing is a dewar. It most likely contains liquid helium.

I am not sure how much NMR has to do with it, but there are NMR based qubits...The decoherence term, which came from NMR, is the same effect, but not actually the same phenomenon that is going on here, I don't think.

Most quantum qubits that I have heard of are made out of low temperature(Type I) superconductors, like niobium. The qubit itself is a Josephson Junction, which is a entirely too long discussion to go into too much detail.

But the basic idea is that if you get two superconductors close together, but separated by an insulator, they will quantum mechanically link. So the state of one describes the state of the other(e.g. entanglement).

*Warning, a more technical explanation is below.

You can exploit this entanglement and by systematically rocking the potential that describes the coupling between the two states with a microwave signal. Eventually you can get the system into the ground state. Now the flux quanta which couples the two systems, exist as discreet energy levels. By injecting that flux into the system, you excite the system into it's first energy eigenstate. At this point the system is effectively described by the Bloch equation. This two state system is your quantum qubit. Which you can use to make calculations, the easiest of which and first test is to factor numbers or seek prime numbers. The problem, as I alluded to earlier, is that as the system evolves in time some of the energy escapes into other energy eigenstates, it is no longer |Q>=a|1>+b|0> but now it is |Q>=a|1>+b|0>+c|2>... and so on. The time the state can be described by |1> and |0> is referred to as the coherence time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephson_junction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer

How was that rbar?