nimagraven

Nice pics . Thanks

QUOTE (trenken @ May 31 2008, 11:16 AM) I dont know if it was mentioned, but there's no mystery to 1001001. That's binary code, used in all computers. That's the language that computers speak. They're using the metaphor of machines in the song, and that's just something to represent that in the chorus. They're basically saying the computer has gone mad. No one's saying theres a mystery. We're saying that it's pretty handy that it comes to = I in ASCII which is basically just as universal as binary is . Given the subject matter of the song, I consider this relatively important, if not just very coincidential, yes? And also not beyond the realms of possibility considering the amount of Binary/Decimal/Hex/ASCII tables out there.. It's been a well known fact for a long time . Of course the only way to know is to sit down with them and ask them specifically .

haha, lol, at least you admit it . I know some people who would try to argue blind with me over that. Over your next conundrum.. Let me get back to you .

QUOTE (Maestro @ May 29 2008, 04:33 PM) O& incidentally: Not that it really means anything; but if we were to take two's complement of 1001001 [i.e., 0110110], split that, then we would have: [0110] & [0110]. Do I detect a some sort of familar form of symmetry here. How do the digits from that album go? [2112] or something like that? Its only obvious; there is a certain Order to The Universe! O& BTW, Jon... ...You did 'Win.' Congradulations! III. Yes, except it's rather like clutching at straws, which is kind of the point. Plus, you use the same zero twice to come to your conclusion, which could potentially instantly makes it false . The real answer is that you come up with 0110 and 110. The fact that there's symmetry there is the simple fact that it's a coincidence. In binary, it's quite easy to get a number that's symetrical. Especially because it's only 7 bits . Try it in 32, and I think you might find a problem. Again, BECAUSE 0110 and 0110 are not able to be derived in ASCII (Except for the 0110 and 011 which can be derived in ASCII) you come across a problem. You are setting a 0 constant to a parity, which is false. A parity can be even or odd, and this case it is constantly even. That is an impossibility in itself, which is why your new deduction doesn't work nor does it make any sense in the mathematical scheme of things. The only way it WOULD work was if you were talking about a machine that worked in octets. Then yes, they WOULD set the parity bit to zero. HOWEVER, you come across a fundamental problem that you have added a 0 in the middle of the binary.. And not at the end . In theory, the correct answer you're looking for is 0110 and 110(0)(1) which completely breaks the symmetry and is actually the correct version you are looking for Again, I'm talking about ASCII because ASCII runs in 7 bits. We've deduced that 1001001 is 73/43/I and therefore, any binary number you start messing around with in 7 bits, for the sake of this argument, since you can't change the meaning if you change the 1001001 formula (because that'd break the connection to I etc) it is 7 bit ASCII. Sorry. You won't win me over. I still remain unconvinced and will still argue this one. There's too many logical breaks in it. Forgot to add before I had to go catch my public transport that you can't get symetry from 7 bits. If 1001001 was symetrical it'd be 10011001 and the result would be 01100110. Of course, you could still say there's parity on top of that, but we just found out we = null on that anyway :/.

QUOTE (Maestro @ May 29 2008, 12:17 PM) QUOTE (J0N @ May 29 2008, 02:51 AM)QUOTE (nimagraven @ May 26 2008, 03:56 PM) I still don't get how it loosely equates to 2112. I even added them both together.... In binary.. And the number wasn't divisble by 8 . I think he just means you can derive 1001001 from 2112 and 43, and thats the link I hope so anyway, else its way beyond me We Have A Winner!!!!!! Not really. You're just putting a lot of useless ends together to derive a meaning that no one else had seen/thought of before. That's not really meaningful, it's like the six degrees of separation hypothesis. It's just a likelihood not that it was actually DEVISED around that. That's why I still maintain that there isn't really a link. More of coincidence than anything. Now if you could get 2112 and 1001001 to actually mean something without adding just a lyric into the equation, I'd be impressed, until then I'm nonplussed over it logically, because it's a song lyric mixed with two names of songs. Plus, 2112 is never a lyric in 2112, yet Cask of '43 is. Just sayin', I don't really think it's fair to compare two separate classes and a property in a separate class (Hey.. We HAVE been talking binary and all) . I personally don't believe Neil Peart is some kind of grand master of math that sat there and did all the workings out to make all this fit - he's a musician and his songs tend to have a meaning, but I don't really think he went to all this trouble lol. I mean, it's possible, but it's also highly unlikely. It's kind of like putting poop in cake. Lots of ingredients make cake, but it doesn't mean it'll taste good if you put the poop in the cake . Thus, the end result in a way is garbage (Though I mean this in the nicest way possible, Maestro). GIGO and all that . Yet another computing term I thought I'd throw in LOL. It just so happens, you can mix the ingredients together, but does the end result mean it's a good or correct one? Well, that's highly debatable .

You have a point with that. I watched Ark the other week, when I got to the end I was like, "Well, what was the damn point in that then?" You know, I was having an argument with my friend who was adamant that he saw a documentary with Spielberg on Saturday saying he didn't want to do it. I had to explain over and over that the film was in development hell for 20 years cos the script never satisfied both men. He still didn't believe me. Oh well.

I still don't get how it loosely equates to 2112. I even added them both together.... In binary.. And the number wasn't divisble by 8 .

lol, has the necklace gone now?

QUOTE (1-0-0-1-0-0-1 @ May 25 2008, 01:25 AM) QUOTE (Maestro @ May 25 2008, 02:20 AM) QUOTE (Maestro @ May 24 2008, 10:33 PM) You see? It all makes perfect sense! Incidentally... . What is: [1+0+0+1+0+0+1], anyway? How very symmetrical when we include the operand 'and.' Good point. All kids of references to "3" in Rushland. Actually, it's not a reference to 3... Because it's binary and base 2. That just wouldn't make sense... Sure, it makes sense if you don't look at it the way I'm looking at it though . In binary 3 would be 11. Therefore, it's actually a reference to "I" as in "self" when it's directly considered to be a string/text . It's also the equivalent of 49 in hex, and 73 in decimal. The decimal number is achieved by the fact that you will have: 1-0-0-1-0-0-1 Each increment is multiplied by the previous increment... So from right to left 1 = 1, 0 = 2, 0 = 4, 1 = 8, 0 = 16, 0 = 32, 1 = 64 that gives you 73. 73 decimal = 49 hex = ascii "I" But I'm sure you may have all knew this??? And sorry if bits and pieces are wrong... I had a mad computing theory teacher 4-5 years ago that tried to convince us to work it out in our heads And ya, I know, I did read the original post . I was just thinking, the 1001001 on it's own isn't really a reference to 3.. Well, at least, I don't see it anyway :/.

QUOTE (Storm Shadow @ May 24 2008, 08:08 AM) QUOTE (nimagraven @ May 24 2008, 03:19 AM)Fridge ftw. It's an indy movie. Don't tell me you bought all the other rubbish in the past three movies and then hate this because it's so phony (A grail that grants immortality. Some rocks that get hot and an ark that melts your face like a WoW priest's mind flay)! It's an action film, it's meant to suspend belief for the 2 hours of your time . As for the movie.... It was ok. Not fantastic, but certainly not bad either. I see people saying that, but the last third of this movie is one hokey moment after another. Way more far fetched and sillier than any of the other movies. I call this George Lucas fanwankery .

Ok well of course... Spoilers. Fridge ftw. It's an indy movie. Don't tell me you bought all the other rubbish in the past three movies and then hate this because it's so phony (A grail that grants immortality. Some rocks that get hot and an ark that melts your face like a WoW priest's mind flay)! It's an action film, it's meant to suspend belief for the 2 hours of your time . As for the movie.... It was ok. Not fantastic, but certainly not bad either.

I got my tickets for tomorrow. YAY!!! Will reserve my judgement until AFTER the film .

17 pages! Dear God. Please take it awaaaaaaaaaay.

Am I the only one that seriously doesn't dig the necklace?

*Gets out her tubular bells and raves*

TBH there are better ways to deal with the situation than just ignore people imho. If I was ignored once though, I wouldn't lower myself or even look so desperate as to go bother him again. Some people have principles, y'know.

I wonder who that is in the reflection of his eyes.. The photographer??

No problem. Glad you like them . (He has nice eyes )

RIP.

Just remembered. I scoured the webz for some JMJ pics myself recently and here's what I got: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v292/nimagraven/jeanmichelejarre_2.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v292/nimagraven/Jean_Michel_Jarre.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v292/nimagraven/JarreEPA1201_468x805.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v292/nimagraven/51436532.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v292/nimagraven/jean_michel_jarre_reference.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v292/nimagraven/l11709185662_1886.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v292/nimagraven/Jarre_Jean_Michel_Gerard_Giaume_366.jpg I've got a huge version of this last one as my desktop .. Sized it down a bit for here though.

I don't care, I got my tix at the cinema booked Seriously though, I can see why some people are bothered... As Jack says it's a theme that's been overdone. I suppose the only way around it is if the alien theme is subtle and not over the top and still relies on mysticism and all. I don't know though. We'll see how it goes. I'll keep an open mind until after I've seen the film .

I've seen this movie more times than I can count. It's a great movie. I'll never forget it

Temple of Doom was on BBC1 last night .. Last Crusade will be on next Sunday. I thoroughly -enjoyed- Temple of Doom. I think even more so than Raiders. Go on, shoot me . I don't mind a bit of darkness though! I now have my tickets booked at the cinema for Indy 4... Woohoo .

QUOTE (Ya_Big_Tree @ May 11 2008, 07:19 PM) Oh God my uterus just skipped a couple beats looking at these pics of El Lerxst. LOL. That quote is made of awesome. Jaye, you're the best ^_^!

Oh woot. I am a happy bunny. THANK YOU .