tau is still better!

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Pi-Is-still-Wrong

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Vihart-Anti-Pi-Rant-3-14-14

http://tau.ac.il/~tromer/acoustic/

"The attack can extract full 4096-bit RSA decryption keys from laptop computers (of various models), within an hour, using the sound generated by the computer during the decryption of some chosen ciphertexts."

What. The. Fuck.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'math, mathematics, pi, pie, tau, circle, Vihart' to 'math, mathematics, pi, pie, tau, circle, Vihart, vi hart' - edited by messenger

Tags for this video have been changed from 'vihart, math, circle, tau, pi' to 'vihart, math, circle, tau, pi, vi hart' - edited by messenger

Pi is half of Tau.
Love it!

The more I watch her, the more I think she's...well I don't think she's a hack, she is quite intelligent, but I think her method for speeding up the video/talking fast makes for a very haphazard way to educate people. It tells me that she's either A) trying to show off how fancy she is with her math skills, but do it so quickly nobody notices she's cutting corners, or B) she doesn't have a full understanding of the topic.



She first bugged me when she did that video about abolishing pi for tau.

>> ^hpqp:
Ugh, this reminds me of Wakefield and the whole anti-vax shtick. Well-intentioned quacks are still quacks,Ugh, we get it. Burzynski's a quack. The thousands of people he has cured are quacks. Wakefield's a quack. And the thousands of parents whose children had a adverse reaction to being vaccinated are quacks too. They're all self-deluded and well-intentioned quacks. Why? Because the authorities told you so. Your blatant arrogance is sickening.
>> ^hpqp:
and making such a biased, *conspiracy-theory based "documentary" filled with anecdotal evidence, confirmation bias and the usual quack argument of "Big Pharma's out to get you and your cash" won't make things any better. Sounds like you haven't watched the film. Maybe you should be more specific on what the "conspiracy-theory" the film is based on? And irony at it's best, your "research" is filled with nothing but "anecdotal evidence" and "confirmation bias"... trying to "debunk" with bunk. Nice job. And I need a citation for "Big Pharma's out to get you and your cash". I don't know where that came from. Of course I'm pretty sure by this point that you're just full of shit.
>> ^hpqp:
Burzynski is a bit harder to debunk than others, because there may be a shred of truth in his claims, but up until now there has been no scientific evidence to support his claims.
Gotta love the double-talk going on here.
>> ^hpqp:
As for raking in the cash, Burzynski definitely has that down pat, demanding 30-60K for his treatments (example: at 963 patients in 1996, @30K/pers.=almost 29mio$... heck, almost enough to make a propagandish film to the glory of one's self!).And you do it again. First you got a problem with the argument you allege the film is making "Big Pharma's out to get you and your cash", and then you turn around and make the same argument against Burzynski. Only the film didn't make the "quack argument" and you did. So who's the real quack here?
>> ^hpqp:
The American and Japanese NCIs, as well as a pharmaceutical company (Sigma-Tau) showed interest in his claims, but were unable to duplicate his results, and not a single phase III randomised clinical study has been done with antineoplastons. The only "evidence" that supports Burzynski's claims come from his own publications, which have been criticised for not respecting basic research protocol (e.g. no control groups, omission of mentioning previous treatments, counting patients who did not even have malignant cancer, etc). Moreover, his claims do not seem to hold on a biochemical level. His credentials are shady as well.Maybe you should watch the film instead of copy-pasting false information from fallacious articles of 10+ years ago.
>> ^hpqp:
I'm all for researching new and out-of-the-box treatments,Clearly. That's why you've had such an open mind here.
>> ^hpqp:
but cannot stand when quacks fill their pockets out of the despair of sick and dying people.
But you can stand when the US government criminally suppresses a discovery that could have helped save millions of lives over the last two decades. Bravo!

Ugh, this reminds me of Wakefield and the whole anti-vax shtick.

Well-intentioned quacks are still quacks, and making such a biased, *conspiracy-theory based "documentary" filled with anecdotal evidence, confirmation bias and the usual quack argument of "Big Pharma's out to get you and your cash" won't make things any better. Burzynski is a bit harder to debunk than others, because there may be a shred of truth in his claims, but up until now there has been no scientific evidence to support his claims. As for raking in the cash, Burzynski definitely has that down pat, demanding 30-60K for his treatments (example: at 963 patients in 1996, @30K/pers.=almost 29mio$... heck, almost enough to make a propagandish film to the glory of one's self!). It's easy to say you have great results when you're the only one giving the evidence.

The American and Japanese NCIs, as well as a pharmaceutical company (Sigma-Tau) showed interest in his claims, but were unable to duplicate his results, and not a single phase III randomised clinical study has been done with antineoplastons. The only "evidence" that supports Burzynski's claims come from his own publications, which have been criticised for not respecting basic research protocol (e.g. no control groups, omission of mentioning previous treatments, counting patients who did not even have malignant cancer, etc). Moreover, his claims do not seem to hold on a biochemical level. His credentials are shady as well.

I'm all for researching new and out-of-the-box treatments, but cannot stand when quacks fill their pockets out of the despair of sick and dying people.

links on the research:
The chemical breakdown of his claims:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski1.html

Long in-depth report on his claims, history, etc.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/OTA/ota05.html

Unscientific methods:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/burzynski2.html

relying on people's vulnerability to sell woo:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/05/harnessing_peoples_good_to_pay_for_woo.php

edit: nice publicity stunt, btw, shutting down the "documentary" shortly after posting it, then sending people to your website.

She could've used that last bit of advice for the tau = 2pi nonsense.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

I propose that we use a new symbol in place of tau. It shall be named "Two-pi", and coincidentally, it looks like the digit 2, followed closely by the greek letter pi.

There. Problem solved, and everyone is happy.

>> ^Ornthoron:

@rottenseed: Well, as a physicist, I definitely encounter the factor 2 pi much more often than pi. I conjecture that this is true in mathematics as a whole as well, since 2 pi = tau is one full turn of a circle, and one full period of a (co)sine wave. Tau is as such a more convenient choice, if you have the luxury to choose.


Meet me at my lair, we will discuss in detail on how this girl and whomever wrote that shite manifesto are shortsighted and why...

Will include orgasmic information that will melt these mortal's minds. We'll make it private so no buddy stumbles in by accident a turns to stone.

>> ^PHJF:

Tau? What'll she suggest next, Necron?
HERETIC!


I see what you did there.

Tau? What'll she suggest next, Necron?

HERETIC!

Also, personally, I prefer Dvorak. Especially the Symphony from the New World.

>> ^Psychologic:

Pi vs Tau reminds me of Qwerty vs Dvorak... the small gain in simplicity (or typing speed) is more than offset by the burden of the change, and learning to use both would be more confusing than using the current standard.
I'd be fine with the change, but I think π is cuter. =)