unreality

I appreciate the vote of confidence but I think first we need to prove that the back-loaded method doesn't work too because that has the potential to get realllllly big.

There already is a free dissemination of rape pornography, I don't think that's illegal. Same with hate literature. As far as child pornography or 'animal killer' videos go, sure it's absolutely sickening, but it's the people doing the actual crime we need to go after, not anyone that's watched the video. You can't suppress the public's knowledge of it. It makes me shudder thinking about those videos were the woman was crushing small animals under her heel. I hope she's rotting in prison now along with anyone else involved in the production of that. Maybe PETA has assassinated them by now haha. Anyway, should that be censored? I don't think so. The more people see it, the more awareness is raised and these people can be caught. I realize the delicacy of that position though and if there was evidence that more people were making this videos as a result of them being discussed and villified, then I would be against. The thing is, I'm aware that there are certain cases where we do not have Free Speech and I'm okay with that. You can't threaten to kill someone; you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded venue; etc. I just feel that we shouldn't censor further in than this and that the border between Free Speech and Non-free Speech should be the same as the border between Censored and Non-Censored. So you can make a hate video but not one threatening to kill someone, etc. I never said I thought it was the government. Nor did I say I wanted to force anyone to not censor. What I said was that I found this practice to be detrimental to society and that I think the people are making a bad decision in their censoring I agree completely Yes I would. Better me than others Oh no! Not, *gasp*, uncomfortable! Don't talk to your kids about sex, rape and drugs - it's too uncomfortable of a subject! Yeah but like d3k3 said, it's not the government's job to be the Parent. That's the Parents job Yes swearing is disrespectful and often inappropriate. I don't do it often myself. But nor do I think it should be censored from my delicate ears

Firstly about the poll, yeah it's flawed, just vote 'Other' for the off-vote, I can't change it now. Anyway I disagree with EDM and agree with Dawh; i voted to be Strongly Against Censorship. EDM, I suggest reading the book Fahrenheit 451 or watching the movie Equilibrium to show how extreme censorship can go (both are set in dystopian future societies). Also why would you want to censor drug-related things? My motivation for making this topic was actually seeing the word 'stoner' bleeped out in a VEVO-hosted music video on youtube. Are you kidding me??? Since when is 'stoner' a swear word (even though I don't even believe in swear words in the first place haha)?? It's not, it's just a perceived oversensitivity of society. Bleeping out the word 'stoner' is almost like an insult to a genuine lifestyle choice. But anyway, as Dawh said, America is highly censored and we have this stuff already. I would prefer the European method where drug use is differentiated from drug abuse, where EDUCATION occurs instead of PROHIBITION and where sexuality is less restricted but violence is more restricted. The other day I was watching the tv at 8pm primetime, a time that's supposed to be okay for kids for the most part. I don't watch tv that often except for a few key shows that I like, so I was kind of shocked by how widespread the blatant violence was. That being said, I wouldn't want it censored, maybe just more realistic. We are too uptight... personally I think we need less obsession on violence but in other areas censorship is just ridiculous. It's not helping, it's hurting. Swearing and disrespecting are two different things. If swear words didn't exist there would be another way of disrespecting (and there is), etc. It's not like if a four year old learns a magical new "bad" word they suddenly become a violent toddler hell-bent on rebellion. What matters is the negative stigma given to that word... which was given by the parents themselves!

The drugs debate kind of died down so here's a new one for y'all... Censorship!!! It happens on the radio, in forums like this, on the TV, in newspapers and really almost anywhere. What is your opinion of blocking out content?

Host: Peace 1. Framm 2. kody 3. misskitten 4. starfreak 5. harvey45 6. phillip1882 7. Glycereine 8. actressgirl 9. Abhisk 10. plainglazed 11. unreality so we have to have an even number of people before we can start? Or how do you define 'half' for odd? Are you flooring it or rounding up?

No, raising N to the 9th power is guaranteed to be less than N! if N is sufficiently big (actually I just did some tests, starting with N=14 and higher)

the only way I can think of "calculating" is by repeatedly doing logarithms until one is obviously bigger but I'm not sure how well that approach would work for some of them

Martin Gardner was basically my childhood hero It's terrible that I have to find out now about this,on brainden. We should do something to acknowledge him

yes but mine would be bigger because 9! is bigger than 10, after that it follows the same pattern. But I realized that 9^9 > 9! (guaranteed) so repeated exponentation would trump repeated factorials if there were a same number

I have just received a new entry, from plainglazed: ((((((((((((((((((((((((9!^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^99!)

using this as a reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factorial "As n grows, the factorial n! becomes larger than all polynomials and exponential functions (but slower than double exponential functions) in n." That's not that helpful for the crazy stuff we've got here but from some of the information following that I realized that we can use logarithms. It's true that for positive numbers, if a > b then log(a) > log(b) for example, to confirm that Framm > Gmaster.... gmaster => 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 * log(99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999!) framm => 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999! * log (99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999!) now divide both sides by 10^48 - 1 gmaster => 1 * log(99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999!) framm => 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999998! * log (99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999!) Taking the log of gmaster's factorial, we can express the upper bound of his factorial as (10^50 - 1)^(10^50 - 1). The log of that makes this: gmaster => 1 * (10^50 - 1) * log(10^50 - 1) = about 50*(10^50) now if we follow through on the log for framm, we express framm's upper bound as (10^47 - 1)^(10^47 - 1). framm => 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999998! * (10^47 - 1) * 47 divide both gmaster and framm's by about 10^47 and we get gmaster = 50*1000 = 50,000 framm = 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999998! * 47 I think that confirms that Framm's is higher than Gmaster's. Using logs (or maybe even repeated logs) we can probably solve a lot of these

thanks to everyone who submitted an entry! I received seven: Gmaster: 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999!^999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 harvey45: 999999999^(((99999!^(((9999!^(9999!^(9999!^(9999!^(9999!^(9999!^(9999!^(9999!^9999!))))))))!)!))!)!) MissKitten: 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999! Glycereine: ((((((((((((((((((((((((9^99)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9)^9 Framm 18: (99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999!)^999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999! LJayden: 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999! dawh: (9999999999999999999999^999999999999999999999999^999999999999999999999999^999999999999999999999999)! mine: 9!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! now it's time to figure out which one is the biggest. These can't exactly be plugged into a calculator, but I think we'll be able to analyze them side by side, eliminating smaller numbers, until we have a winner. Also, Miss Kitten and LJayden both submitted the same thing so we can call that one "MissJayden" haha and they can win or lose together. Anyway, here are some notes that could be useful: * n! will always be less than n^n * for large values of n! we might be able to make some approximations using the Gamma function * smaller exponentials can be calculated, like 9^99 = 2.951 x 10^94 * framm's can be shortened to (10^47 - 1)! ^ (10^48 - 1)! * gmaster's can be shortened to (10^50 - 1)! ^ (10^47 - 1) I think we can ascertain that framm's is larger than gmaster's. Yes gmaster's exponential base is about 1000 times bigger, but framm's is raised to the power of something at the very least 10 times bigger and at the most (10^48)^(10^48) times bigger but somewhere in between. Does anyone disagree that gmaster can be eliminated? That doesn't mean we have to eliminate gmaster from using his to eliminate others that might be smaller than his (which would then be smaller than framm's), but so far at least we have established the inequality: Framm > Gmaster and yes this part will be the hardest part of the game I'm definitely going to need help doing this so if you want to pitch in be my guest, I have to go for a bit though

also check this out http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html

okay I have them all in but wasn't able to check til tonight, I need to get to bed (only a couple days of school left ) but tomorrow I'll start the hardest part of this whole thing, which is figuring out which numbers are actually bigger haha.

there is no objectively biggest number, but yes the goal is to make a number that's bigger than anyone else's

no 100 characters including usage of binary operators like +,-,/,*,^,etc. The actual number it creates could be too large for an efficient representation as actual digits

the highest number you can get with pure numbers in 100 characters is 100 9's in a row (which is equal to 10^100 - 1). You can go higher using multiplication, exponentiation, etc

if you want to participate, send me a message by 6 pm Eastern Standard Time (UTC -5) tomorrow (wednesday may 26). Title your message something along the lines of "LPI contest" or whatever. The body of the message can be no longer than 100 characters. A character if you don't know is a single instance of keyboard input, such as a number, letter, space, pound symbol, etc. These are the only characters you can use in your message: 0123456789.,( )+-*/^!%\ ^ = exponent (raise the thing directly to the left to the power of the thing directly to the right; ie, 4*5^6*7 is equal to 28 * (5^6). If you wanted the 4*5 unit to be raised, you would need to surround it in parentheses, that's how the order of operations works). ! = factorial (0! = 1 and n! = n * (n-1)!, only valid for positive integers) \ = integer division, ie, divide and truncate. The goal is for your number to be a positive integer; it will be invalid otherwise % = modulus. The remainder function. Not sure why you would want to use this but there you go. Anyway, remember, you only have 100 characters to express your number. You can't use pre established mathematical constants like Graham's number or whatever. Good luck! P.s. I may need help with the mathematics figuring out what is the biggest, if it comes to that, so also tell me in your PM if you're good at math haha

peace*out, the point we're arguing over is moot because as we've demonstrated, marijuana is illegal for the wrong reasons (see my post ), certainly not for safety reasons. They attempted to do the same thing to alcohol but because by that time it was more widespread in use, there was more resistance and eventually the government changed the prohibition back (stopping a lot of the crime that had grown up related to the prohibition). Soon the same will happen with cannabis/hemp So let's stop arguing over semantics please lol Is a confession of love made while drunk any less real? A lot sloppier I'm sure, and bad form all around haha, but there's truth behind the words. A lot of drugs can really enhance our abilities to tap into creative parts of our brain, either to boost our already strong artistic ability (most artists that use drugs can already make great work while sober, they just use the drug to find some inner inspiration within themselves or some such) or to discover things hidden within the brain not earlier known. I recently saw a movie in Psychology about an old lady that developed a brain disease that ate away at one part of her brain, impeding normal function, but in compensation a long-locked-away ability to paint beautiful pictures was unlocked. So yeah I think it's valid, mostly as a point of interest for normal people, and for people who are ALREADY artists (sober) to simply enhance their scope of vision check this out: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/03/pl_arts_pendulum/all/1

don't let the name fool you. Scientology has NOTHING to do with science. It even insults the process of science, logic, reason, rationality, emotion, morality and all other human values by even trying to associate itself with science lol Basically scientology is a crazy alien cult that thrives on massive 'worshipper' donations and secrecy, brainwashing, getting members to exclude family members that aren't scientologists, etc. In short Scientology is an extreme a religion as you can go, a bloodsucking cult. Please don't ever confuse it with atheism, agnosticism, humanism, naturalism, or deism

thanks!

yes, Marijuana has caused zero deaths. If you read anything from any the sources I mentioned earlier (most of them impartial including Wikipedia) they will confirm this. Sure people have died while high, but usually because they were using something else too (often alcohol, the real killer) or were just stupid/dangerous to begin with. I don't know if you have ever consumed cannabis for recreational purposes or any purposes but if you have you know that the effect it has isn't really one that affects your judgment on whether it's safe to drive (and high drivers are often safer actually because they drive way slower lol. but I would not recommend driving under the influence of anything, except for maybe a mild stimulant for alertness like caffeine or a low dose of amphetamine) what a waste of weed! Haha. But in all seriousness, if you want to know why certain drugs became illegal in the first place, it's often because they are associated with minority groups (often Racial minorities). For example, cocaine was made illegal because it was used primarily by blacks in the start of the 1900s. For example of the horror struck into the hearts of the Good White People of the North by the "crazed black cocaine killers", check out this New York times article from 1914: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9901E5D61F3BE633A2575BC0A9649C946596D6CF I'm not saying I think cocaine should be legal... but you can't deny that the original reasons for its illegality were ridiculous and based on racism. There are more examples of drugs being made illegal for the WRONG reasons. In 1875, San Francisco passed a law saying that opium can no longer be smoked in opium dens. The Chinese immigrants (who were looked down upon) were the main people using the opium dens, and other places around the country started passing similar laws... but they passed NO laws against laudanum, which is basically the same thing (opium+alcohol) - but laudanum was being used by upper-class whites. It stayed legal. Marijuana was made illegal because of its association with racial minorities, mostly Mexican migrant workers and also blacks. The man that campaigned for hemp to made illegal, Harry J Anslinger, said these quotes: "There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others." "Colored students at the Univ. of Minn. partying with (white) female students, smoking [marijuana] and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result: pregnancy" "Two Negros took a girl fourteen years old and kept her for two days under the influence of hemp. Upon recovery she was found to be suffering from syphilis." There was also a push about "Marihuana madness" and "Reefer madness" There is a (now-hilarious) film sponsored by a church group, called (Reefer Madness: Tell Your Children), using religious influence to push for criminalization, on the claim that marijuana made mexicans into violent killing machines (when in reality marijuana usually has a calming effect). As you can see, the history of drugs becoming illegal is not something that the nation is proud of, similar to the Japanese detention camps, et al. It's time we re-assess what our policies should truly be toward various substances rather than continuing the status quo set 100 years ago when the USA was a very different place

yes I agree absolutely that all drugs should be decriminalized, that is, no criminal penalty if "caught" with them, no federal/state bans on having them (maybe a civil fine because cities can enact rules for anything include dog-walking ordinances lol). However, outright LEGALIZED is a different matter entirely. That would mean you could walk in a store in the mall and buy a bag of H... I don't think we should open the commercial, corporate, corrupt floodgates on something already so dangerous and life-destroying. I do agree that the government should not prevent us from altering our bodies and minds in ways we choose as far as it only affects us, and so all drugs should be decriminalized, but as far as legalizing them for the open market, I'm not so sure. This is an issue I've really waffled about, I'm still not adamant either way

I'm curious though, do you think ALL drugs should be legalized?