nimagraven
-
Posts
830 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by 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
. -
Oh yeah. I'm not denying it. You get what you pay for and all, and for a beginner it seemed a little pointless for me to go over the top on buying the top end kit.
I was going to post something similar, about investing in some Roland drums, but I realise that the OP may be relying on his parent's funds for a kit, and so to just mess around with them in his dorm, I reckon they'll suffice. Later on, when he gets a sufficient income, he can trade them in and get the nice Roland kit (Well, only if his parents understand as it's a gift!).
As for adjusting things.. Well, to be honest, I only adjusted my setting to easy so I don't have to be banging the drums hard (I'm a little conscious of it). That's all I've done though. I could probably do with messing with the hi-hat trigger setting, but it's probably more trouble than it's worth. Then again, my kit is a "newbie" type kit, so I guess the later Yamaha kits need a lot more tweaking to get right.
I don't mind tweaking. That comes from my PC background, so it doesn't really bother me whether something is great out the box or needs a persuasive kick up the jacksy to get working
Must admit though.. The Rolands are definitely better.
-
I got a DTXplorer so I'm not sure if this is strictly accurate.
You need to have the hihat pedal plugged into the brain. A closed hi hat is your foot down on the pedal, the open hi hat is your foot off (Probably knew this already though).
If the above is set correctly, you can adjust the trigger setting in the menu on the sensitivity of the pedal. I know on my DTXplorer I have to be pretty "hard" on the pedal otherwise it'll still produce a half open sound. I've not really got around to adjusting this as of yet, because I find the sensitivity option over the hi hat a little mind boggling.
There are options on my kit, at least, to set the sensitivity of the drums, which also effects the volume. So if you tap them on the easy mode they're really quite loud, but this can be adjusted to give you more of a "feel".
Other than that, sorry to sound like I'm treating you nastily, but there is a volume control to adjust if all these fail. On the DTXplorer this is a simple knob on the back. Not sure if there is a knob on the DTXpress which does the same thing.
Unfortunately, because I'm in work I can't quote to you exactly what menu setting you need to look at, but if you still can't figure it out, give me a PM and I will look into it for you.
Obviously, because the DTXplorer and DTXpress are different models (you can't choke on a dtxplorer), I'm not even sure if the menu will correlate, but it's worth a go.
BTW, I am a complete nooby drummer, but I love my "beginner kit".. Oh well, you've been forewarned I might be completely wrong!
-
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.
-
Titan Quest & Immortal Throne
GTA4 (still - its been on a backburner)
Condemned 2 (Still)
Runaway 2
-
Am I the only one that seriously doesn't dig the necklace?
-
http://www.hobnox.com/audiotool-startpage.1046.en.html
Emulates the TR-808, TR-909 and TB-303.. Complete with flang, delay, the works. A lot of fun
. -
*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.
The *Official* Harry Potter Thread
in Turn The Page
Posted
GOF and OOTP were complete disasters in movie format. I have a feeling HBP will be the same.. The only film that's getting the proper treatment is the seventh and that's probably just to milk you out of that last little bit of money in all honesty
. The best movie was POA and that was because Alfonso Cauron is so talented imho.
Did I enjoy HP? Yes & No. A lot of it works on a lot of cliches (I predicted around 75% of what would happen in DH) and I'm not a fan of Ms Rowling & her attitude as the people at Mugglenet usually find out in their comment box when she's yet again doing something ridiculous
. On the other hand, it's a great way to get kids into books if they aren't already into them and it's an enjoyable yarn if you've not really been through a lot of books before.
My favourite HP book was OOTP.. I liked it because.. Well, I can't remember now really.. I think it's because it's the one that really pushed a limit and drove for something. I didn't enjoy HBP because Rowling put a little element in her writing (I will not say here for spoiler purposes) that she should not try and write again because it was cringe worthy. DH was one of the worst in my opinion, there's a section of that book that goes on far, far too long.. I remember I had bought it on the midnight release and I was coming home from holiday and we got stuck in the floods over night.. This particular part made me put down the book and sleep
.
If you enjoy it, that's great, but the best book series (and a step up after HP if you're now an adult) out there is definitely "A Song of Ice and Fire" by George R. R. Martin.
I stress that you must be an adult because some of the scenes are not for children's eyes
.