I'm glad Gupta has come around on his position regarding medical marijuana, and I will be tuning in on Sunday to watch "weed". However what was up with that "debate" ? Gupta thought that medical marijuana was a legitimate medicine and should not be a schedule one drug, and Howard seemed to agree with him. Howards angle was all about not legalizing it for recreational use which wasn't even part of the discussion. They seemed to be talking about two totally different things, or did I miss something?

Freud was more of a lunatic than most of his patients...very little of what he claimed has panned out, and even less offered any value. I'm not sure how his evidence-free thought experiments bring any benefit to this subject. Maybe his opinion on the relative recreational value of various doses of cocaine would have some merit, but not much else.

Dang, he has something going with the girl in the flowery dress.

They seemed to try hard to recreate The Notebook scene.

Your video, The Wrong Way to Consume Alcohol - Parks and Recreation, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Star Wars filibuster - Parks and Rec. (Patton Oswalt) has been added as a related post - related requested by Krupo on that post.

The Cannabis Cup has nothing to do with medical marijuana, it is a recreational marijuana event, normally held in Amsterdam.

Where there is no difference, is between a bunch of people drinking alcohol and these people smoking marijuana... well save for the fact these people aren't using something that destroys their bodies as much, it doesn't make them more violent and irritable and overly confident in themselves and their reaction time, and the high ends much sooner than the drunkards drunkenness (but can be detected in the system for far longer); but hey let's keep wasting billions of tax dollars keeping up a sham of a double standard so we can keep prisons over crowded with non-violent drug offenders, let's waste police resources finding people smoking or growing a plant,rather than violent criminals that pose an actual threat to society... because that makes perfect sense in opposite world.

Make no mistake, the supposed tax revenue that proponents of legalization make are a bit overstated since it is relatively easy to grow (to grow period, to grow quality stuff not so easy or cheap) compared to brewing one's own beer or something, but there would be some.

It is the height of hypocrisy to say marijuana should be illegal while saying people should be allowed to drink/make/brew beer, wine or other such drinks or us tobacco products.

Ahhh, good ol portrait view. Methinks I will enjoy this temporary, tertiary phase in media standards. However, gamers who awaken to this non-issue and cease to make it into an issue, should remember that early conversion of arcade games, which were in portrait view, had an uphill battle to recreate the same experience on home display sets oriented in landscape.

Modern mobile gamers should all position themselves to break this mental boundary. Dedicate a little bit of your brain's background processing to fight the power of arbitrary persuasion. We're still in a developmental stage before display monitors completely explode and offer full customization with morphing length, width and heights; not to mention geometric adaptation beyond the rectangle.

FIGHT THE POWER

We did this puzzle in elementary school in the GATE program. How on earth people aren't taught, amazed, and remembering this simple but awesome geometrical illusion is beyond me. First thing you see when you try to recreate it on a grid, is that there is missing diagonal space. People miss the missing space isn't using the same modular shape as the rest of the puzzle. Easy to detect on a grid using only a triangle.

No, you can't, that's just retarded. You do not have hundreds of thousands of illegal gun owners in prisons. Guns, while some may say are for recreational use, are not designed to take the edge off, to relax after hard day, something humankind has done thousands of years. Guns have been used for tens of thousands of years to kill. How can you compare the two? Oh wait, retarded right wing rhetorics.

The most effective move USA can make in the war on terror is to stop the war on drugs. Stop the fuel, money and the flame goes away.

I think there is some definite hyperbole in your statement but I agree with what you've said on the main. Christians are called to be good stewards and we have largely ignored that command. As a former hardcore environmentalist I have a first hand understanding of what the tension is on either side. On one hand, the thought process behind the environmental movement is that this is the only Earth we have, and we must zealously protect its treasures because they cannot be replaced. Once they're gone, they are gone forever. On the other hand, the thought process behind more than a few Christians is that this Earth was given to us by God, and we have dominion over it. There is no reason to worry about destroying it because God Himself will be destroying it upon the second coming of Christ. The Earth will then be recreated and it will be overseen by God going into eternity.

These points of view are exactly contrary to one another and can hardly be reconciled. For the Christian, the tension the bible gives us is between steward and subdue. We are not only instructed to be good stewards, but also to subdue the Earth. Environmentalists hate the very thought of that and would prefer that human interference in natural affairs would approach zero. In the extreme of environmentalist thought, human beings are entirely expendable and should be culled until they do not significantly impact the biosphere. This is of course is entirely foreign to the mind of the Christian, who understands that the very point of the Earth is to be a habitation for human kind. Christians on the main are much more interested in the welfare of other human beings rather than animals and see animals as expendable. An animal has no eternal destiny spoken of in the bible, but human beings do.

As to where I stand, I care about animals and the environment. The issue of global warming is irrelevant to me; it's a doomsday scenario with no teeth. Even if it is somewhat true, it is not how the world is going to end. But I do care and so do many Christians. I don't think we should just run roughshod over this world and inflict undue suffering on creatures to exact some kind of profit. Rather, I think we should intelligently manage our resources and distribute them equitably. I think we could probably learn a lot from the Indians who managed to live harmoniously with their environment. On the other hand, I am not against drilling or logging or anything else that environmentalists hate, within reason. Unfortunately, human beings are not reasonable creatures; they are sinful and greedy to exploit anything they can for personal benefit. There is irrational hatred on both sides, and they are both being played by the adversary. I know people on the inside of the environmental movement and the infighting that goes on because of the gigantic egos and hypersensitivity is almost comical. Most seem to be in it for their own glory and they get in the way of anyone who actually wants to make a difference.

Christians should be setting the example but some of what you're dealing with isn't born again, spirit filled people, but apostate, carnal Christianity. Around 80 percent of the country professes to follow the Savior, but when you ask very specific questions like are you born again, justified by grace, etc the number goes down into the 30's. This isn't an excuse but it is the reality.

Why do any cars go above 90mph? ever? when is it ever safe and necessary to drive in excess of this speed? Why is there no government control over the torque or horsepower in vehicles? Wouldn't it be easier to catch criminals and racers if only cops could drive over 90mph? Why aren't peoples licenses permanently revoked after 1 or 2 DUIs? Why are we obligated to keep giving DUI offenders 3rd and 4th and 5th chances just so their lives arent adversely affected?

The same response to these questions could be applied to gun ownership. Because one, those situations where people suffer because of this kind of behavior are the exception and not the rule, and two the government has decided that it is not justification enough to infringe on peoples rights to own a fast and powerful vehicle anymore than it is to prevent people from going hunting or shooting for hobby.

If peoples guns must be removed for the good of us all, despite there being reasons to want to own one ABOVE and beyond recreation, then why not stuff like fast cars and dangerous hobbies?

To be clear: my point is a nanny state can't and should not stop short of any one persons bias on what is good or bad. Either the state should do everything in its power to safeguard people against themselves OR we have to accept that the government will allow things that may be unsafe/harmful for people in certain situations. If you accept that 2nd part then give thought to the fact that just because guns are pointless to u, it does not mean they are pointless to everyone.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'vihart, snakes, recreational mathematician, sexy brain' to 'vihart, snakes, recreational mathematician, sexy brain, vi hart' - edited by messenger

I'd suggest you do some research on "properly cleared" gun shootings. The whole reason people get shot with a "properly cleared" firearm is because humans make mistakes. Also, the use of quotations is to illustrate a point, which I apparently need to spell out. People get shot when they THINK the gun is cleared. I've sat there and asked 30 people in a room, most familiar with cleaning and the whole 9 yards, and not a single one of them saw the bullet in the barrel. Every single person said the gun was clear, and was completely safe. Now, repeat that several times a week and the numbers really add up.

There have also been cases off firearms discharging on their own. I believe Colt was being sued due to the number of rifles that were discharging without a trigger pull. People died.

Now, if you truly believe a firearm was invented for sport, you have seriously deluded yourself. A firearm is NOT intended for sport. A sporting rifle, yes. They're usually a 22cal, well, sporting rifle/pistol. They look a little funnier, they don't have high capacity magazines, and they fire a small bullet.

However, if you truly truly deep down in your gun loving heart believe an AR-15 was invented for sport . . . well, there's nothing anyone can ever say to make you see reason. If you truly believe hallow point bullets were made for sport, then we live in a very strange world. If you truly believe a recoiless machine gun that fires 30 rounds per minute was made for sport, then the military needs to step up it's game. They really should be using weapons designed to kill their enemy, not shoot little paper targets at a gun range.

I hear napalm was really invented to cure toe fungus, not kill large swaths of enemy soldiers. Swords were made to butter bread. Tanks were made for picking up groceries.

BTW, historical fun fact, black powder is one of the few items originally designed for recreation that was later used for war (Chinese fireworks.) Things like forks, scissors etc were originally designed to kill people, until later other uses were discovered. Like rockets. Our government didn't care that people wanted to go to space, they wanted a rocket that COULD make it to space, but half way there would make a sudden turn and go kaboom. So I guess rockets are 50/50. Guns, well, you're just in fantasy land there.

Edit: Oh boy, wall of text crits for 10k.

His explanation was rather short and somewhat misleading. Maybe they thought a proper explanation would have been too dry or too lengthy to be of any interest for a sufficient number of their viewers.

tl:dr

If all rotor settings are indicated to be correct, a feedback loop within the circuit indicated a subset of correct connections on the plugboard, even if the initially assumed connection turned out to be wrong. It didn't show all connections, but enough to run it through a modified Enigma to determine if it's a false positive or in fact the correct setting. If it was correct, the rest could be done by hand.

----------------------- Long version -----------------------

Apologies in advance. We had to recreate parts of the Bombe as a simulation, but a) it's been a while and b) it was in German. I'll try to explain the concept behind it, hopefully without screwing it up entirely.

The combination of clear message and code snippet (2:25) is called a crib. This can be used to create a graph, wherein letters are the vertices and connections together with their numerical positions are the edges.

For example, at position 1, "A" corresponds to "W". So you'd create an edge between "A" and "W" and mark that edge as "1". At position 4, "B" corresponds to "T", so there's the edge marked as "4". All edges are bidirectional, the transformation at a specific position can go either way.

Once your graph is finished, you check for loops. These are essential. Without loops, you're boned. In this case, one loop can be found at positions 2,3,5 in form of "T->E->Q->T".

Here the Bombe comes into play. It uses scramblers, each combining all three rotors plus reflector of an enigma into one segment. This way, one Enigma setting is functionally equal to a single scrambler.

Now you can use those scramblers to create an electrical circuit that corresponds to your graph -- scrambler = edge. All scramblers are set to the same initial configuration. The first scramber remains at in the inital configuration, while the second and third get configurations in relation to their edge's numerical value. Configuration in this case means the value of their internal three rotors, so there are 26*26*26 possible settings within each scrambler.

It's basically a sequence of three encryptions.

Example: in our little TEQ triangle, the first scrambler (TE, 2) gets a random starting position. The second scrambler (QE, 5) gets turned three notches, the third scrambler (QT, 3) gets turned one notch. The initial configuration might be wrong, but only the relation between the scramblers matters. A wrong result simply tells you to turn all scramblers another notch, until you get it right.

You have a possibly correct setting when the output matches the input. Specifically, a voltage is applied to the wire of letter "T", leading into the first scrambler. And on a test register attached to the last scrambler, the wire of letter "T" should have a voltage on it as well. If the setting is incorrect, a different letter will light up. Similarly, all incorrect inputs for this particular setup will always light up a different letter at the the end, never the same (thanks to the reflector). If output equals input, you're golden. And if several loops are used, all with the same input/output letter, each of their outputs must equal the input.

To reduce the number of false positives, you need as many connected loops within the crib as possible.

So far, that's an Enigma without a plugboard. To account for that, they introduced feedback loops into the circuit. In our small scale case, the output of the third scrambler would be coupled back into the input of the first scrambler. The number of loops determines the number of possible outcomes with each specific setting. All of these are fed back into the first scrambler of each loop.

The plugboard, however, changed the input into the system of rotors. Instead of a "T" in our example, it might be a "Z", if those two letters were connected on the board.

A random hypothesis is made and fed into the machine. If the scramblers are set incorrectly, a different letter comes out at the end of each loop and is in return fed back into the first scramblers. Result: (almost) everything lights up. If you start with a good graph, everything will light up.

-----
A key element for this was the "diagonal board", which represented a) all possible connections on the plugboard and b) the bidirectional nature of those connections (AB = BA). Maybe it can be explained without pictures, but I sure as hell can't, so "a grid of all possible connections between scramblers and letters + forced reciprocity" will have to suffice.
-----

If, however, the setting was correct, a wrong hypothesis for the input connection merely meant that everything except the right connections was lit up.

Let's say the fix point of the loops in our graph is the letter "T". We assume that it's connected to the letter "Z" on the plugboard. A voltage is applied to "Z" on the test register, and thereby inserted into the circuit at the first scrambler. Loop #1 applies voltage to the letter "A" on the test register, #2 lights up "B", #3 lights up "F". These three outputs are now fed back into the first scrambler, so now the scrambler has voltage on ZABF, which in return lights up ZABF+GEK on the test register.
This goes on until everything except "U" is lit up on the test register. That means three things: a) the settings are correct, b) the hypothesis is wrong, c) "T" is connected to "U".

Reasons:
a) if the settings were incorrect, the entire register would be alive
b) if the hypothesis was correct, only the letter "Z" would be alive on the register
c) due to the feedback loop, the only way for the output to be "U" is if the input was also "U", and the reciprocity within the system makes it impossible for any other input to generate the output "U". Since "T" was the fix point for our loops, "T" is connected to "U".

Similarly, if the initial hypothesis is correct, everything on the test register except "U" stays dead.

The diagonal board provides registers for every single letter and allows the user to pick one as a test register. During operation, all the other registers serve as visual representations of the deductions based on the initial hypothesis. So you actually get to see more than just the initial connection, all based on the same concept.

"... So textiles, food and grains, energy and any other use that isn't recreational and healthcare remains illegal."