Of course you could just have a series of holes punched in the outer edge of the top and have an extremely high frequency clocked counter count the holes passed and retrieve the relative bit from this information, but hey who wants simplicity anyways.
Also, the obvious answer to the authors question is buy 900 trillion flip-flops and hook them up to the wall outlet with a old rusty pair of bronze wires, feed the flip-flops through 900 trillion lines coming from a decoded IDE output in realtime. Weeeeh! Or you could take a top suspended in a vacuum with magnets on the edges of it. And for every bit you want to encode on it, you have an electrical field deliver an impulse of (2^bit number)*(bit-value)*(whatever unit you want) to the top in the vacuum. Later when you want to decode it, just start at the largest bit number and provide an opposing impulse and if the direction of the top changes then return a 0 otherwise return a 1. Simple, infinite data storage, fairly easy implementation, all you need is something to monitor the speed and make corrections when necessary (or observe the amount of friction and have it do periodic adjustments). You see how easy this is?
What are some examples of uses of this long-term inactive storage? I can understand like maybe a one-year archive, but you can keep that on an active raid array if need be.
Not to mention the fact that since it utillizes a projector, all you can do is add light to the object. And I'm sure the objects in plays are already very intensely lit.
OK, for all to know. You need buzz-tracker. Its freeware, has a million simulated machines (drum machines, effects, reverb, flange, distortion, physically modelled instruments). Its completely pluggable. It can be found at djLasers site or at BuzzMachines.com. Try to download the biggest pack possible. It runs on Windows, just FYI. If you want to hear some stuff made on it, you can check out dTx Productions. Some of the songs towards the top there were made entirely in Buzz with no mastering. I wish somebody would take Buzz into sourceforge, and attach a different IDE to it. The current is very usable, but it could be better. Anyways, hope that helps.
This is the best AC posting I've ever seen. Bold and too the point. The US is really starting to suck. The only thing the US government caters to nowadays are the huge megacorporations.
I just like how they say free WiFi is helping terrorists while NYC has a park (soon to be two isn't it?) that has free parkwide wifi access. God, talk about shooting off our own foot.
Unless we plan on doing large scale measurements of the volume of the universe in some infintesimally small unit, I don't see this being very useful even if we did find a pattern. I wonder how one goes about proving that a number is irrational.
I like how this new company does not have enough money to "license" the software even though its under the same CEO. He can make it open if he wants. He just wants to suck in more money. Its ransomware nothing more.
You're obviously an idiot. Is it a 50% chance, or is it 0.00000001%? Where did you come up with those numbers?
sorry I was wrong in correcting the value. The corrected value (of the corrected value) is 0.000000001% = dervived by assuming that there is a 1 in the 100000000000 possible values of ten digit combinations. But see thats assuming completely random distribution (which does not exist, these digits are generated by iterating through a mathematical formula). There is a 50% chance in it happening because in a system where not all of the outputs are known the distribution of the system is very likely unkown, not random. It is either in there or it isn't in there. People attach way too much meaning to random: its random because I don't know the outputs of a function as it progresses, its random because I don't know how something behaves, its random therefore there is equal distribution among the output of the function. Random is just a word to excuse ignorance in the investigation of the behavior of the output of a function.
Statistics is perfectly non-bullshit in this case, because pi is random, and there is an infinite amount random data to search. Okay, you're right that pi is not just a "random number". But the digits themselves are statistically random, and somewhere, the entire works of Shakespere is embedded inside.
OK, do a couple things for me. Define random, show me a proof that the digits of pi satisfy this "randomness" condition, and quit trolling about shit you have absolutely no idea about.
How in the hell do you arive at "50% chance" for finding a 10 digit number? Okay, let's do it this way: what are the chances of finding the number "1"? Pretty damn high (hint: it's the first digit). Okay, how about the number "12"? "123"? What makes "1234567890" so special? Now, consider what happens because of the fact that the digits of pi extend infinitely: the chances of anything happening approach 100%, because the chances of something not happening are size(string)/size(pi), which approaches 0 as the size of pi approaches infinity.
Arg, I hate arguing with idiots. First of all, your talking about the chances of finding a sequence of digits with the idiotic assumption that any function with an as to of yet uncalculated set of outputs will tend to exhibit the characteristics of random distribution (which does not exist). Also, the possibility of existence dooes not increase with the size(string)/size(pi). That number is just inversely proportional to the number of possible combinations you can get out of it.
Now if you can prove that I'm wrong by proving that the digits of pi follow some non-random pattern, then go get yourself a doctorate.
I'm simply declaring something that pi is not, RANDOM. I believe you should be the one retreiving proofs to back up your original statements. And there are many formulas on the net for genereating digits of pi to your hearts delight. I guess we should start calling those random number generators then huh?
Data requirements are the same for any base you choose in this case, as it is always stored in binary. And, no, base 3 is not always the most damn efficient base. I read that article too. e is just the most efficient base if you use the efficiency formula (radix)(number of digits) for any given number, and that formula assumes there is an equal cost for changes in radix as there are for changes in digits. This is kind of like comparing two independant vector spaces though, really. It is completely situationally dependant. It essentially assumes that the same mechanism is used to store the number as to place it, when thats just not the case.
Statistics is bullshit, especially when dealing with an irrational domain like pi. I would say its more along the lines of 50% its either in there or it isn't. And also wouldn't the percentage chance of finding it (using commonly heralded stupid statistical methods) be 0.00000001%? There is no such thing as random chance. Random is just a word we use to describe situations that we can't describe. That doesn't mean that there is equal distribution of the output amongst all possible values in the output range given any value in the input domain.
You know Newton didn't question why the apple fell on his head. He did what every other scientist does: he made observations and he derived formulas to predict within reasonable accuracy the behavior he is observing. Same with Einstein. Physics doesn't explain the universe people, it only predicts behavior within certain systems of it.
How about no percent. In order to calculate a percentage you have to have a value to compare with. Now if you take the limit as total digits approach infinity then it will be zero percent. I see no point in calculating pi to this many places. I don't even find it news worthy. Uses for a trillion places of precision are far and few between, what the hell is wrong with this guy, and why is everybody so fucking obsessed with pi. e is so much more useful.
Do you call extensions hacks? Extensions are just what their name implies. The only reason that OpenGL is "so far behind" microsoft, is because Microsoft is on the OpenGL member committee, and they are trying to claim ownership to certain "features" in OpenGL. I hate microsoft. Will somebody please kill Bill Gates, please? And steal the souce to windows while your at, and post it on usenet.
Slashdot Mirror
*CORRECTION 2* (whatever unit you want) becomes (impulse constant)
Jeez, whats wrong with me I meant to say relevant bit.
Of course you could just have a series of holes punched in the outer edge of the top and have an extremely high frequency clocked counter count the holes passed and retrieve the relative bit from this information, but hey who wants simplicity anyways.
*CORRECTION* ...and if the direction of the top changes then return a 0 and readd the impulse otherwise return a 1...
Also, the obvious answer to the authors question is buy 900 trillion flip-flops and hook them up to the wall outlet with a old rusty pair of bronze wires, feed the flip-flops through 900 trillion lines coming from a decoded IDE output in realtime. Weeeeh! Or you could take a top suspended in a vacuum with magnets on the edges of it. And for every bit you want to encode on it, you have an electrical field deliver an impulse of (2^bit number)*(bit-value)*(whatever unit you want) to the top in the vacuum. Later when you want to decode it, just start at the largest bit number and provide an opposing impulse and if the direction of the top changes then return a 0 otherwise return a 1. Simple, infinite data storage, fairly easy implementation, all you need is something to monitor the speed and make corrections when necessary (or observe the amount of friction and have it do periodic adjustments). You see how easy this is?
Thats gotta be the most brilliant idea I have ever heard, MOD parent up please.
What are some examples of uses of this long-term inactive storage? I can understand like maybe a one-year archive, but you can keep that on an active raid array if need be.
The Wireless City, well, we are not the only culprits.
Why did you reply to my comment. This does not seem to be directed at it.
Not to mention the fact that since it utillizes a projector, all you can do is add light to the object. And I'm sure the objects in plays are already very intensely lit.
Well, the telcos have a whole lot of stock in broadband too. Anybody with sufficient bandwidth can become an ISP.
OK, for all to know. You need buzz-tracker. Its freeware, has a million simulated machines (drum machines, effects, reverb, flange, distortion, physically modelled instruments). Its completely pluggable. It can be found at djLasers site or at BuzzMachines.com. Try to download the biggest pack possible. It runs on Windows, just FYI. If you want to hear some stuff made on it, you can check out dTx Productions. Some of the songs towards the top there were made entirely in Buzz with no mastering. I wish somebody would take Buzz into sourceforge, and attach a different IDE to it. The current is very usable, but it could be better. Anyways, hope that helps.
This is the best AC posting I've ever seen. Bold and too the point. The US is really starting to suck. The only thing the US government caters to nowadays are the huge megacorporations.
I just like how they say free WiFi is helping terrorists while NYC has a park (soon to be two isn't it?) that has free parkwide wifi access. God, talk about shooting off our own foot.
Unless we plan on doing large scale measurements of the volume of the universe in some infintesimally small unit, I don't see this being very useful even if we did find a pattern. I wonder how one goes about proving that a number is irrational.
I like how this new company does not have enough money to "license" the software even though its under the same CEO. He can make it open if he wants. He just wants to suck in more money. Its ransomware nothing more.
You're obviously an idiot. Is it a 50% chance, or is it 0.00000001%? Where did you come up with those numbers?
sorry I was wrong in correcting the value. The corrected value (of the corrected value) is 0.000000001% = dervived by assuming that there is a 1 in the 100000000000 possible values of ten digit combinations. But see thats assuming completely random distribution (which does not exist, these digits are generated by iterating through a mathematical formula). There is a 50% chance in it happening because in a system where not all of the outputs are known the distribution of the system is very likely unkown, not random. It is either in there or it isn't in there. People attach way too much meaning to random: its random because I don't know the outputs of a function as it progresses, its random because I don't know how something behaves, its random therefore there is equal distribution among the output of the function. Random is just a word to excuse ignorance in the investigation of the behavior of the output of a function.
Statistics is perfectly non-bullshit in this case, because pi is random, and there is an infinite amount random data to search. Okay, you're right that pi is not just a "random number". But the digits themselves are statistically random, and somewhere, the entire works of Shakespere is embedded inside.
OK, do a couple things for me. Define random, show me a proof that the digits of pi satisfy this "randomness" condition, and quit trolling about shit you have absolutely no idea about.
How in the hell do you arive at "50% chance" for finding a 10 digit number? Okay, let's do it this way: what are the chances of finding the number "1"? Pretty damn high (hint: it's the first digit). Okay, how about the number "12"? "123"? What makes "1234567890" so special? Now, consider what happens because of the fact that the digits of pi extend infinitely: the chances of anything happening approach 100%, because the chances of something not happening are size(string)/size(pi), which approaches 0 as the size of pi approaches infinity.
Arg, I hate arguing with idiots. First of all, your talking about the chances of finding a sequence of digits with the idiotic assumption that any function with an as to of yet uncalculated set of outputs will tend to exhibit the characteristics of random distribution (which does not exist). Also, the possibility of existence dooes not increase with the size(string)/size(pi). That number is just inversely proportional to the number of possible combinations you can get out of it.
Now if you can prove that I'm wrong by proving that the digits of pi follow some non-random pattern, then go get yourself a doctorate.
I'm simply declaring something that pi is not, RANDOM. I believe you should be the one retreiving proofs to back up your original statements. And there are many formulas on the net for genereating digits of pi to your hearts delight. I guess we should start calling those random number generators then huh?
Data requirements are the same for any base you choose in this case, as it is always stored in binary. And, no, base 3 is not always the most damn efficient base. I read that article too. e is just the most efficient base if you use the efficiency formula (radix)(number of digits) for any given number, and that formula assumes there is an equal cost for changes in radix as there are for changes in digits. This is kind of like comparing two independant vector spaces though, really. It is completely situationally dependant. It essentially assumes that the same mechanism is used to store the number as to place it, when thats just not the case.
IEEE is just a standards body. Base 2 exists outside of IEEE standards bud, I hate to brake it to you.
Statistics is bullshit, especially when dealing with an irrational domain like pi. I would say its more along the lines of 50% its either in there or it isn't. And also wouldn't the percentage chance of finding it (using commonly heralded stupid statistical methods) be 0.00000001%? There is no such thing as random chance. Random is just a word we use to describe situations that we can't describe. That doesn't mean that there is equal distribution of the output amongst all possible values in the output range given any value in the input domain.
You know Newton didn't question why the apple fell on his head. He did what every other scientist does: he made observations and he derived formulas to predict within reasonable accuracy the behavior he is observing. Same with Einstein. Physics doesn't explain the universe people, it only predicts behavior within certain systems of it.
I concur. Doesn't this seem about as relevant as calculating a trillion digits of one over infinity (the most boring number on earth).
How about no percent. In order to calculate a percentage you have to have a value to compare with. Now if you take the limit as total digits approach infinity then it will be zero percent. I see no point in calculating pi to this many places. I don't even find it news worthy. Uses for a trillion places of precision are far and few between, what the hell is wrong with this guy, and why is everybody so fucking obsessed with pi. e is so much more useful.
Maybe you should check out Apache's Axis project.
Do you call extensions hacks? Extensions are just what their name implies. The only reason that OpenGL is "so far behind" microsoft, is because Microsoft is on the OpenGL member committee, and they are trying to claim ownership to certain "features" in OpenGL. I hate microsoft. Will somebody please kill Bill Gates, please? And steal the souce to windows while your at, and post it on usenet.