|  | | 
01-07-2002, 12:08 PM
| | Registered User
Wouldn't you like to know?! | | Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: Atlanta | |
Sign in to disble this ad
I agree with you on "No Leaf Clover", great song. As for them being everybody's band now, we Jamiroquai fans went through that. It seemed to us hardcore fans, that they changed their music for the worst to appeal to more people. 
__________________
There's a reason why women love us bass players.The tone is like Barry White's voice, and the strings are thick like Ron Jeremy's...well, you get the point.
|
01-07-2002, 04:07 PM
|  | Workin' hard at hardly workin'. Moderator | | Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Appleton, Swissconsin | | Quote: Originally posted by chump stain
...a lot of people bash Metallica for their style of music they've grown into. I think it goes a little deeper than people want to admit. think about it, wasn't it cool when Metallica was your band and not too many people heard of them or liked them. now their everybodys band, so its not as cool to like them anymore. | I am man enough to admit that you are right about that -- not that it isn't "cool" to like them anymore, but that I was somewhat offended when they changed their "style" of music. Admittedly, I didn't jump onto the Metallica bandwagon until the release of Justice, but when I did, I jumped on with both feet! I liked their stuff up until Metallica, but felt betrayed with the release of Load and every release since. They really lost my respect when they started rallying against the likes of Napster. "Fans getting our music for free?! That's not gonna happen!" I mean, there comes a point where you have more money than you, your kids, or their kids will ever spend and to get all stuffy cuz some kid is burning homemade CDs in his basement, seems a little bit greedy to me.
Along the same lines, I used to think James Hetfield was the coolest guy in the world. I had an interest in everything he did (some would even say I had a non-sexual crush on him), but when he slammed the "diehard" fans for criticizing his new music and forbade Jason to work with any other band than Metallica (I'm sure we'll get James and Larz's side sometime soon), I lost a lot of respect for him. I can't say that I have ever been a huge fan of Newsted's, but I think he made a right decision when he joined the band and another right decision when he decided to leave the band. A decision that I don't think was a right decision, is for the guys to continue on without him. It's kind of like Axl Rose thinking that he was Guns 'n' Roses.
Last edited by Hategear : 01-07-2002 at 04:09 PM.
|
01-07-2002, 06:28 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Jan 2000 Location: Canada. | | | ...and ...
Don't forget the shameful embarrassment that is Lars in the "Year And A Half In The Life..." videos where he amalgamates over 100 tracks of drumming a fraction of a second at a time to get the "performances" on the "Black" album.
Boy, now *THAT* is rock and roll !!!
What a chump !!
__________________
"... help us rationalize by peer acceptance the gear we currently play through" - Greenboy. The unofficial motto of TB.
|
01-07-2002, 07:19 PM
|  | - that dog won't hunt, Monsignor. Moderator | | | | Quote: Originally posted by chump stain
since when is a song like "Fuel" alternative?
| That's one tune off many albums worth of stuff, not really a way to make a valid argument. On the other hand, I don't really care, call them prog/death metal if you like. I was agreeing with somebody's Opinion. I don't like them anymore and I have lost respect for them with their changes in attitude, treatment of Newsted, website that won't give out any info unless you pay to become a member, etc. All this is IMO, m'kay? I loved them up until Justice, if you still do, cool, but don't argue with me/anybody about my/our opinion(s).
edit: of course, I respect Metallica's right to change to a style I don't like, just as everyone can respect my right to think they stink now that they've done it. 
edit edit: O.K. I admit it, I was/am disappointed in them, hence the attitude about the "new" Metallica.
__________________
aka Blisshead.
Last edited by Josh Ryan : 01-07-2002 at 07:24 PM.
|
01-08-2002, 05:17 AM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Ferndale, Michigan USA | | Quote: Originally posted by Blisshead
That's one tune off many albums worth of stuff, not really a way to make a valid argument...
, but don't argue with me/anybody about my/our opinion(s). | you ever heard of free speech? I'll argue anything I want. obviously your definition of alternitive is different from mine. a band selling millions of records and getting massive radio airplay doesn't quite fit the description of alternitive. sounds pretty mainstream to me.
you say I'm making an argument with one song, pick any song.
king nothing
2x4
sad but true
whatever...sounds like good 'ole hard rock to me.
and don't put words in my mouth. go back and read my previous post. I never argued with anyone about their opinions. all I was pointing out was, that people start bashing Metallica's music based on the things they do outside of their music. am I the only one who can seperate the two?
do I think Lars and James are jerks? YUP
do I think the whole Napster thing was a big load of crap? YUP
do I think them suing everybody who mentions the word "metalic" in a sentence is obsurd? YUP
do I think "Devils Dance" kicks a$$? YUP |
01-08-2002, 08:51 AM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Ferndale, Michigan USA | | | after going back and reading the posts again, I want to say that I didn't mean to come off as abrasive as I did in that last post. sorry, if I got ya worked up at all.
I respect everyones opinion. everyone likes different things. end of story.
my point I am trying to make is this;
Metallica going to mainstream hard rock is enough to tick off a few faithfull fans of the "old Metallica". then, they have to go out and sue everyone they can get their hands on, and paint themselves out to be money hungrey millionairs, which ticks off even more fans old and new. so, then you got these people who (deep down) still like the music, but their distaste for the band's behind the scenes antics, forces them to create reasons for not liking the music . I'm not saying any one of you guys here are those kind of people, but I do know a few personally.
so, what I'm trying to say is, if you don't like the music anymore because....you just don't like the music. that's cool. but, if you say don't like them anymore because of what they do off stage, I think thats cheap.
you can like the music, and not like the people who wrote it. just the same, I'm sure the Blink 182 guys are pretty nice people, but I'm not listening to their music. |
01-08-2002, 10:21 AM
| | - that dog won't hunt, Monsignor. Moderator | | | | Quote: Originally posted by chump stain
you ever heard of free speech? I'll argue anything I want. obviously your definition of alternitive is different from mine. a band selling millions of records and getting massive radio airplay doesn't quite fit the description of alternitive. sounds pretty mainstream to me.
you say I'm making an argument with one song, pick any song.
king nothing
2x4
sad but true
whatever...sounds like good 'ole hard rock to me.
and don't put words in my mouth. go back and read my previous post. I never argued with anyone about their opinions. all I was pointing out was, that people start bashing Metallica's music based on the things they do outside of their music. am I the only one who can seperate the two?
do I think Lars and James are jerks? YUP
do I think the whole Napster thing was a big load of crap? YUP
do I think them suing everybody who mentions the word "metalic" in a sentence is obsurd? YUP
do I think "Devils Dance" kicks a$$? YUP |
My point, to me, IMO, IMHO, IMNSHO, whatever, those songs are not metal, they are alternative rock. You can have all the free speech you can afford, I don't care, I was telling you that it makes no sense to argue a subjective point.
(Blisshead) -I think it stinks!
(Chump Stain) -No, It's great!!
Exactly 100% useless.
I agreed with someone who said there sound changed, I jokingly called them AlternicA. You felt the need to write about it. I think its silly to question peoples opinions. I refuse to write IMO all the time, especially when it should be obvious I'm joking.
Oh yeah, them changing did tick me off, a fan from the beginning. But I'm past the anger, grief, and resentment stages and into the making fun stage. I do make fun of the music (please refer to AlternicA comment that started this), the fact that they are goofy rich jackasses only makes it easier. I hate arguments this foolish, I'm out.
__________________
aka Blisshead.
|
01-08-2002, 12:46 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Jan 2000 Location: Canada. | | | They betrayed us.
Metallica betrayed the original fans who got them to where they are. They changed for the worse to water themselves down stylistically, politically, and yes they are embarrassments as public figures.
Sure, everyone has the right to change and compromise their original manifest for the sake of sales or an easier go at things, but we don't have to go along. They were the hope and voice of a generation, and the abandoned us all. They were supposed to change music, and to some degree they did bring heavy-ish music to the mainstream, but in truth they allowed themselves to be co-opted.
You have any idea how exciting it was for me as a kid to hear they'd signed a long-term (7 albums) deal and retained their artistic freedom? What did they do with that freedom? Sold it down the river to write pop ballads. Whoop-de-do. On the other hand, Slayer stayed heavy but they've abrogated their good fortune and resposibility to the fans too and also commenced to sucking. What can you do? But back to Metallica ...
"We'll never sell out"
"We'll never be dancing around on MTV"
etc. etc. etc. Backstreet Boys I can respect because they do what they set out to do and do it well. Metallica I cannot respect, though I don't think they are entirely without merit or undeserving of respect for doing what they now do very well and successfully, I just don't care to be along for the ride and I call a spade a spade.
Plenty of bands make great music, so why should I listen to a band who I consider to be deplorable lying hypocrtitical a$$holes even if I did like thier newer music which I wholeheartedly do not?
That's life. And let me re-iterate that despite everything I just said I personally feel their latest albums, while still somewhat catchy hard rock, and basically garbage and I listen to dozens of bands that do it much much better and are far more deserving of the success. Corrosion Of Conformity to name just one - too bad Metallica couldn't do a more sincere job of ripping them off. My own band for another. It's a long list so I'll just stop there.
Cheers!
__________________
"... help us rationalize by peer acceptance the gear we currently play through" - Greenboy. The unofficial motto of TB.
Last edited by SMASH : 01-08-2002 at 12:48 PM.
|
01-08-2002, 01:30 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: usa. johnson city ,tennessee | |  The Real Metalicca died with Cliff.
Metalicca sold out years ago when they put on eye liner. Somewhere Cliff was laughing his ass off.I was too. |
01-08-2002, 04:56 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Bellingham, WA | | | i can't wait for the other 3 to leave...
__________________
-Aaron
|
01-08-2002, 09:31 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Hampton Heights, Nevada | | | Mulletallica SuX ballZ
They totally sold out. Have you heard Fade to Black? Come on, nice fruitballer ballad crap.
Yeah I agree with SMASH. if you got to do a bunch of takes to get the stupid drums down, what kind of rudypoo band is that. I like that strokes video, where the drum mics fall over. They just keep on rocking like they're supposed to. Now thats what a real Rock and roll band would do.
I heard Jim Hatfeild wanted to use a trumpet on that Fuel song but, the producer wouldn't let him. If that's not aternative I don't know what is.
Yeah just like SMASH was saying. They rip off people all the time. Listen to Enter Sandman, then listen to Heart of Glass by Blondie. Talk about rip off.
Mulletallica is so Lame!
__________________
How do we go about finding primes? And once we have found them, how do we prove they are truely prime? The answer depends on the size of the primes and how sure we need to be of their primality. In these pages we present the appropriate answers in several sections. Let us preview these chapters one at a time.
Chapter Two: The quick tests for small numbers and probable primes
For very small primes we can use the Sieve of Eratosthenes or trial division. These methods are sure, and are the best methods for small numbers, but become far too time consuming before our numbers reach thirty digits.
If we are going to use our primes for "industrial" uses (e.g., for RSA encryption) we often do not need to prove they are prime. It may be enough to know that the probability they are composite is less than 0.000000000000000000000001%. In this case we can use (strong) probable primality tests.
These probable primality tests can be combined to create a very quick algorithm for proving primality for integers less than 340,000,000,000,000.
The classical tests
A quick look at the list of largest known primes shows numbers with hundreds of thousands (even millions) of digits--and these are all proven primes (not probable primes)! So how can we know they are prime? Look at a portion of this list and decide what the numbers all have in common.
111 189*2^34233-1 10308 Z 89
112 15*2^34224+1 10304 D 93 .
113 (5452545+10^5153)*10^5147+1 10301 D 90 Palindrome
114 23801#+1 10273 C 93 primorial plus one
115 63*2^34074+1 10260 Y 95
116 213819*2^33869+1 10201 Y 93
They are all trivial to factor if we either add, or subtract, one! This is no accident.
It is possible to turn the probable-primality tests of chapter two for an integer n into primality proofs, if we know enough factors of either n+1 and/or n-1. These proofs are called the classical tests and we survey them in our third chapter.
These tests have been used for over 99.99% of the largest known primes. They include special cases such as the Lucas-Lehmer test for Mersenne primes and Pepin's Test for Fermat primes.
Chapter Four: The General Purpose Tests
Finally, the obvious problem with the classical tests is that they depend on factorization--and it appears factoring is much harder than primality proving for the "average" integer. In fact this is the key assumption behind the popular RSA encryption method!
Using complicated modern techniques, the classical tests have been improved into tests for general numbers that require no factoring such as the APR, APRT-CL and the ECPP algorithms. In chapter four we say a few words about these methods, discuss which of these test to use (classical, general purpose...), and then leave you with a few references with which to persue these tests.
File: prove2.html "Primality Proving: Contents of Section Two "The quick tests for small numbers and probable primes"" (Chapter Two (contents))
Chapter 2: The quick tests for small numbers and probable primes
Contents:
Finding Very Small Primes
Fermat, Probable-Primality and Pseudoprimes
Strong Probable-Primality and a Practical Test
This is one of four chapters on finding primes and proving primality. The first is a short introduction and table of contents. The second (these pages) chapter discusses finding small primes and the basic probable primality tests. The third chapter cover the classical primality tests that have been used to prove primality for 99.99% of the numbers on the largest known prime list. The last chapter introduces the general purpose tests that do not require factorization.
File: prove2_1.html "Primality Proving 2.1: Finding very small primes" (Chapter Two > Small Primes )
2.1: Finding very small primes
For finding all the small primes, say all those less than 10,000,000,000; one of the most efficient ways is by using the Sieve of Eratosthenes (ca 240 BC):
Make a list of all the integers less than or equal to n (greater than one) and strike out the multiples of all primes less than or equal to the square root of n, then the numbers that are left are the primes. (See also our glossary page.)
For example, to find all the odd primes less than or equal to 100 we first list the odd numbers from 3 to 100 (why even list the evens?) The first number is 3 so it is the first odd prime--cross out all of its multiples. Now the first number left is 5, the second odd prime--cross out all of its multiples. Repeat with 7 and then since the first number left, 11, is larger than the square root of 100, all of the numbers left are primes.
This method is so fast that there is no reason to store a large list of primes on a computer--an efficient implementation can find them faster than a computer can read from a disk.
Bressoud has a pseudocode implementation of this algorithm [Bressoud89, p19] and Riesel a PASCAL implementation [Riesel94, p6]. We also have a page of implementations. It is also possible to create an even faster sieve based on quadratic forms.
To find individual small primes trial division works well. To test n for primality (to see if it is prime) just divide by all of the primes less than the square root of n. For example, to show is 211 is prime, we just divide by 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, and 13. (Pseudocode [Bressoud89, pp 21-22], PASCAL [Riesel94, pp 7-8].) Sometimes the form of the number n makes this especially effective (for examples, Mersenne divisors have a special form).
Rather than divide by just the primes, it is sometimes more practical to divide by 2, 3 and 5; and then by all the numbers congruent to 1, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, and 29 modulo 30--again stopping when you reach the square root. This type of factorization is sometimes called wheel factorization. It requires more divisions (because some of the divisors will be composite), but does not require us to have a list of primes available.
Suppose n has twenty-five or more digits, then it is impractical to divide by the primes less than its square root. If n has two hundred digits, then trial division is impossible--so we need much faster tests. We discuss several such tests below.
File: prove2_2.html "Primality Proving 2.2: Fermat, probable-primality and pseudoprimes" (Chapter Two > Probable Primes)
2.2: Fermat, probable-primality and pseudoprimes
Fermat's "biggest", and also his "last" theorem states that xn + yn = zn has no solutions in positive integers x, y, z with n > 2. This has finally been proven by Wiles in 1995 [Wiles95]. What concerns us here is his "little" theorem:
Fermat's (Little) Theorem: If p is a prime and if a is any integer, then ap = a (mod p). In particular, if p does not divide a, then ap-1 = 1 (mod p). ([proof])
Fermat's theorem gives us a powerful test for compositeness: Given n > 1, choose a > 1 and calculate an-1 modulo n (there is a very easy way to do quickly by repeated squaring, see the glossary page "binary exponentiation"). If the result is not one modulo n, then n is composite. If it is one modulo n, then n might be prime so n is called a weak probable prime base a (or just an a-PRP). Some early articles call all numbers satisfying this test pseudoprimes, but now the term pseudoprime is properly reserved for composite probable-primes.
The smallest examples of pseudoprimes (composite PRPs) are the following. (There are more examples on the glossary page "probable prime ".)
341 = 11.31 is a 2-PRP, (Sarrus 1819)
91 = 7.13 is a 3-PRP,
217 = 7.31 is a 5-PRP and,
25 = 5.5 is a 7-PRP.
There are 1,091,987,405 primes less than 25,000,000,000; but only 21,853 pseudoprimes base two [PSW80], so Henri Cohen joked that 2-PRP's are "industrial grade primes" [Pomerance84, p5]. Fortunately, the larger n, the more likely (on the average) that a PRP test is correct--see the page "How probable?".
It is interesting to note that in 1950 Lehmer, using the weaker definition an = a (mod n) for probable/pseudo-prime, discovered 2*73*1103 = 161038 is an even "pseudoprime" base two. See [Ribenboim95 Chpt. 2viii] for a summary of results and history--including a debunking of the Chinese connection. Richard Pinch lists the pseudoprimes to 1013 (by various definitions) in the PSP directory of his FTP server.
There may be relatively few pseudoprimes, but there are still infinitely many of them for every base a>1, so we need a tougher test. One way to make this test more accurate is to use multiple bases (check base 2, then 3, then 5,...). But still we run into an interesting obstacle called the Carmichael numbers.
Definition: The composite integer n is a Carmichael number if an-1=1 (mod n) for every integer a relatively prime to n.
Here is the bad news: repeated PRP tests of a Carmichael number will fail to show that it is composite until we run across one of its factors. Though Carmichael number are 'rare' (only 2,163 are less that 25,000,000,000), it has recently been shown that there are infinitely many [AGP94]. The Carmichael numbers under 100,000 are
561, 1105, 1729, 2465, 2821, 6601, 8911, 10585, 15841, 29341, 41041, 46657, 52633, 62745, 63973, and 75361.
Richard Pinch lists the Carmichael's to 1016 at his FTP site (see [Pinch93]).
Note: Jon Grantham developed the idea of Frobenius Pseudoprime [Grantham2000] to generalize many of the standard types (Fermat, Lucas...), and to make the tests more accurate. His papers are available on-line.
File: prove2_3.html "Primality Proving 2.3: Strong pobable-primality and a practical test" (Chapter Two > Strong PRPs)
2.3: Strong probable-primality and a practical test
A better way to make the Fermat test more accurate is to realize that if an odd number n is prime, then the number 1 has just two square roots modulo n: 1 and -1. So the square root of an-1, a(n-1)/2 (since n will be odd), is either 1 or -1. (We actually could calculate which it should be using the Jacobi symbol, see the glossary page on Euler PRP's, but we wish to develop a stronger test here.) If (n-1)/2 is even, we can easily take another square root... Let's make this into an algorithm:
Write n-1 = 2sd where d is odd and s is non-negative: n is a strong probable-prime base a (an a-SPRP) if either ad = 1 (mod n) or (ad)2r = -1 (mod n) for some non-negative r less than s.
Again all integers n > 1 which fail this test are composite; integers that pass it might be prime. The smallest odd composite SPRPs are the following.
2047 = 23.89 is a 2-SPRP,
121 = 11.11 is a 3-SPRP,
781 = 11.71 is a 5-SPRP and,
25 = 5.5 is a 7-SPRP.
A test based on these results is quite fast, especially when combined with trial division by the first few primes. If you have trouble programming these results Riesel [Riesel94, p100] has PASCAL code for a SPRP test, Bressoud has pseudocode [Bressoud89, p77], and Langlois offers C-Code. See the glossary page "Strong PRP" for more information.
It has been proven ([Monier80] and [Rabin80]) that the strong probable primality test is wrong no more than 1/4th of the time (3 out of 4 numbers which pass it will be prime). Jon Grantham's "Frobenius pseudoprimes" can be used to create a test (see [Grantham98]) that takes three times as long as the SPRP test, but is far more than three times as strong (the error rate is less than 1/7710).
Combining these tests to prove primality
Individually these tests are still weak (and again there are infinitely many a-SPRP's for every base a>1 [PSW80]), but we can combine these individual tests to make powerful tests for small integers n>1 (these tests prove primality):
If n < 1,373,653 is a both 2 and 3-SPRP, then n is prime.
If n < 25,326,001 is a 2, 3 and 5-SPRP, then n is prime.
If n < 25,000,000,000 is a 2, 3, 5 and 7-SPRP, then either n = 3,215,031,751 or n is prime. (This is actually true for n < 118,670,087,467.)
If n < 2,152,302,898,747 is a 2, 3, 5, 7 and 11-SPRP, then n is prime.
If n < 3,474,749,660,383 is a 2, 3, 5, 7, 11 and 13-SPRP, then n is prime.
If n < 341,550,071,728,321 is a 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 and 17-SPRP, then n is prime.
The first three of these are due to Pomerance, Selfridge and Wagstaff [PSW80], the parenthetical remark and all others are due to Jaeschke [Jaeschke93]. (These and related results are summarized in [Ribenboim95, Chpt 2viiib].) In the same article Jaeschke considered other sets of primes (rather than just the first primes) and found the slightly better results:
If n < 9,080,191 is a both 31 and 73-SPRP, then n is prime.
If n < 4,759,123,141 is a 2, 7 and 61-SPRP, then n is prime.
If n < 1,000,000,000,000 is a 2, 13, 23, and 1662803-SPRP, then n is prime.
Here is the way we usually use the above results to make a quick primality test: start by dividing by the first few primes (say those below 257); then perform strong primality tests base 2, 3, ... until one of the criteria above is met. For example, if n < 25,326,001 we need only check bases 2, 3 and 5. This is much faster than trial division (because someone else has already done much of the work), but will only work for small numbers (n < 341,550,071,728,321 with the data above).
Finally, there is a fair amount more that could (and should) be said. We could discuss Euler pseudoprimes and their relationship with SPRPs. Or we could switch to the "plus side" and discuss Lucas pseudoprimes, or Fibonacci pseudoprimes, or the important combined tests... but that would take a chapter of a book--and it has already been well written by Ribenboim [Ribenboim95]. Let us end this section with one last result:
Millers Test: If the generalized Riemann hypothesis is true, then if n is an a-SPRP for all integers a with 1 < a < 2(log n)2, then n is prime.
The generalized Riemann hypothesis is far too complicated for us to explain here--but should it be proven, then we would have a very simple primality test. Until it is proven, we can at least expect that if n is composite, we should be able to find an a that shows it is composite (a witness) without searching "too" long. (Most surveys cover Miller's test; the improvable constant 2 is due to Bach [Bach85], see also [CP2001, pp. 129-130].)
Note that there is no finite set of bases that will work in Miller's test. In fact, if for n composite we let W(n) denote the least witness for n (the least a which shows n is composite), then there are infinitely many composite n with
W(n) > (log n)1/(3 log log log n) [AGP94]
|
01-08-2002, 09:44 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: May 2001 Location: Auckland, New Zealand | | | Re: Mulletallica SuX ballZ
Quote: Originally posted by Bass Master X
They totally sold out. Have you heard Fade to Black? Come on, nice fruitballer ballad crap.
Yeah I agree with SMASH. if you got to do a bunch of takes to get the stupid drums down, what kind of rudypoo band is that. I like that strokes video, where the drum mics fall over. They just keep on rocking like they're supposed to. Now thats what a real Rock and roll band would do.
I heard Jim Hatfeild wanted to use a trumpet on that Fuel song but, the producer wouldn't let him. If that's not aternative I don't know what is.
Yeah just like SMASH was saying. They rip off people all the time. Listen to Enter Sandman, then listen to Heart of Glass by Blondie. Talk about rip off.
Mulletallica is so Lame! | Man, the only thing that sux balls is your attitude! Form what I have seen of your posts so far, you are eihter some dude here who exists under another name and is trying to be funny, or you are so ignorant that its pathetic.
What do you mean "if you gotta take a bunch of takes to get the drums down"? In my recording experience the drums can often be the hardest of most probalematic thing to record. Why do you always have to be so negative? All you are gonna do is piss people here off. 99% of the guys and gals here are openminded musically and taste-wise and dont rip sh*t off people for liking a band they they dont particularly like. But then we get people like you probably tihnk they are God's gift to the bass guitar, andcan play some mean slap!
Sure Metallica MIGHT have sold out or whatever, but who really cares? Did you really expect them to playing at a million miles an hour their whole life?
Do us all a favour and lose your crap attitude. And change the bloody signature!
__________________
"No B, no me" - Gard :scowl:
THIS WEEKS SONG RECOMMENDATION: "Only a woman to me" Billy Joel
|
01-09-2002, 12:56 AM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Jan 2000 Location: Canada. | | | hey guys ...
"Bass Master X" is a troll and should have been bounced from Talkbass a long time ago. Don't reply to him as it'll just encourage him. Ignore him and we might be lucky enough to have him go away.
As for Lars' drums on "the black album" 5s_tring freak I don't think you understand. He took over 100 tracks (it is clearly documented on the home video and he seem very pleased with himself) and has a huge chart where he marks off 1.5 second and smaller bits from track 23, then track 47, then track 12, etc. etc. to Pro Tools into a "song".
That is a giant shame on anyone who plays music on this earth, and a massive embarrassment on his band. I personally wouldn't for one second consider playing with such a drummer - and keep in mind I am not an anti-Lars person. I do not despise his drumming or his Napster stance. But the fact he can't play his own songs is going waaay past my tolerance for BS. That producer should have quit had he any integrity ... oh wait ... the producer was Bob "I don't have a clue how to" Rock. So much for that. A great day for my city of Vancouver when Bob moved to Maui. Good riddance!
How can you be a Metallica fan after seeing Lars bragging about splicing his drums tracks together? Lazy fat bitch millionaire. Yes. Integrity? Hell no.
The worst drummer I have ever played with would never sink so low.
__________________
"... help us rationalize by peer acceptance the gear we currently play through" - Greenboy. The unofficial motto of TB.
|
01-09-2002, 03:48 AM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Ferndale, Michigan USA | | Quote: |
They totally sold out. Have you heard Fade to Black? Come on, nice fruitballer ballad crap.
| what the heck is this freak talking about? whatever... Quote: |
Yeah I agree with SMASH. if you got to do a bunch of takes to get the stupid drums down, what kind of rudypoo band is that. I like that strokes video, where the drum mics fall over. They just keep on rocking like they're supposed to. Now thats what a real Rock and roll band would do.
| I get it, that's what makes them alternitive. if you can do it in one take you get to earn the title "rock and roll". anymore than that, well then you just don't fit the bill. Quote: |
I heard Jim Hatfeild wanted to use a trumpet on that Fuel song but, the producer wouldn't let him. If that's not aternative I don't know what is.
| I've never heard anything like that, and I've been listening to metallica for years. Quote: |
Yeah just like SMASH was saying. They rip off people all the time. Listen to Enter Sandman, then listen to Heart of Glass by Blondie. Talk about rip off.
| dude, those songs don't even sound remotely close. I think you need to lay off the shrooms man!  Quote: |
Sure, everyone has the right to change and compromise their original manifest for the sake of sales or an easier go at things, but we don't have to go along. They were the hope and voice of a generation, and the abandoned us all. They were supposed to change music, and to some degree they did bring heavy-ish music to the mainstream, but in truth they allowed themselves to be co-opted.
| alright, lets just drop the name Metallica out of the discussion (before they sue us for copyright infringment). and lets take for example me. when I was a kid I liked pop music. then Gwar came on the scene and changed my tastes for good. so, have I compromised my original manifest? what if I simpley changed my mind and don't like whatever style anymore?
now maybe the M band did sell out and are in it for nothing but the money? who knows, maybe thats the truth. but, what if they simpley changed what they like to play? they should be allowed to do that without being accused of compromising their original manifest, or abandoning us all.
anyway, I'm not trying to win an arguement. I just think deep down people are more pissed about the jerks they really are, then the music they make. again I'm not saying thats you, maybe Bass Master X. |
01-09-2002, 04:23 AM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: May 2001 Location: Auckland, New Zealand | | | Hey SMASH, I do agree that Lars is egotistical and that his methods are a tad (to say the least) excessive.
I guess I was just getting a little agitated at seeing FLAME MASTER X continually posting stuff that no-one really wants to see if it is that blatantly negative. Sure everyone has there opinions but I dont see the need to be the opposite of constuctive, and say stuff like the eloquent Bass MAster X would say "mEtAlLiCa SuX bAlLZ"
__________________
"No B, no me" - Gard :scowl:
THIS WEEKS SONG RECOMMENDATION: "Only a woman to me" Billy Joel
|
01-09-2002, 08:29 AM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Hampton Heights, Nevada | | Chump change, what do you work for Mulletallica or something? Don't go trying to force your opinions on us. We're allowed to have our own opinions. Me, SMASH and 5 string all agree Mulletallica stinks, now get over it.
You sure must love them guys, you wont shut up.
You want to talk about real rock and roll. Real rock adn roll is supposed to be rebeluous. Youre not suppost to record your part a bunch of times and pick the best one. Its about living on the edge, if you can't do it live, then get out of town. You think when Buddy Holly was laying down his drum parts he would have them take only his best cuts? Hell NO he's real rock and roll!
You probablby sit around for hours practicing your licks, man you got it all wrong. rock and roll aint suppostd to be sitting around all day practicing scales and riffs. Maybe you need to learn some Jazz. That way you can just walk up and down your scales you practice so much and everyone will think your good.
but it's cool, we all have are strengths and weeknesses. I'm not some super guy, I'm just like everyone else. 
__________________
How do we go about finding primes? And once we have found them, how do we prove they are truely prime? The answer depends on the size of the primes and how sure we need to be of their primality. In these pages we present the appropriate answers in several sections. Let us preview these chapters one at a time.
Chapter Two: The quick tests for small numbers and probable primes
For very small primes we can use the Sieve of Eratosthenes or trial division. These methods are sure, and are the best methods for small numbers, but become far too time consuming before our numbers reach thirty digits.
If we are going to use our primes for "industrial" uses (e.g., for RSA encryption) we often do not need to prove they are prime. It may be enough to know that the probability they are composite is less than 0.000000000000000000000001%. In this case we can use (strong) probable primality tests.
These probable primality tests can be combined to create a very quick algorithm for proving primality for integers less than 340,000,000,000,000.
The classical tests
A quick look at the list of largest known primes shows numbers with hundreds of thousands (even millions) of digits--and these are all proven primes (not probable primes)! So how can we know they are prime? Look at a portion of this list and decide what the numbers all have in common.
111 189*2^34233-1 10308 Z 89
112 15*2^34224+1 10304 D 93 .
113 (5452545+10^5153)*10^5147+1 10301 D 90 Palindrome
114 23801#+1 10273 C 93 primorial plus one
115 63*2^34074+1 10260 Y 95
116 213819*2^33869+1 10201 Y 93
They are all trivial to factor if we either add, or subtract, one! This is no accident.
It is possible to turn the probable-primality tests of chapter two for an integer n into primality proofs, if we know enough factors of either n+1 and/or n-1. These proofs are called the classical tests and we survey them in our third chapter.
These tests have been used for over 99.99% of the largest known primes. They include special cases such as the Lucas-Lehmer test for Mersenne primes and Pepin's Test for Fermat primes.
Chapter Four: The General Purpose Tests
Finally, the obvious problem with the classical tests is that they depend on factorization--and it appears factoring is much harder than primality proving for the "average" integer. In fact this is the key assumption behind the popular RSA encryption method!
Using complicated modern techniques, the classical tests have been improved into tests for general numbers that require no factoring such as the APR, APRT-CL and the ECPP algorithms. In chapter four we say a few words about these methods, discuss which of these test to use (classical, general purpose...), and then leave you with a few references with which to persue these tests.
File: prove2.html "Primality Proving: Contents of Section Two "The quick tests for small numbers and probable primes"" (Chapter Two (contents))
Chapter 2: The quick tests for small numbers and probable primes
Contents:
Finding Very Small Primes
Fermat, Probable-Primality and Pseudoprimes
Strong Probable-Primality and a Practical Test
This is one of four chapters on finding primes and proving primality. The first is a short introduction and table of contents. The second (these pages) chapter discusses finding small primes and the basic probable primality tests. The third chapter cover the classical primality tests that have been used to prove primality for 99.99% of the numbers on the largest known prime list. The last chapter introduces the general purpose tests that do not require factorization.
File: prove2_1.html "Primality Proving 2.1: Finding very small primes" (Chapter Two > Small Primes )
2.1: Finding very small primes
For finding all the small primes, say all those less than 10,000,000,000; one of the most efficient ways is by using the Sieve of Eratosthenes (ca 240 BC):
Make a list of all the integers less than or equal to n (greater than one) and strike out the multiples of all primes less than or equal to the square root of n, then the numbers that are left are the primes. (See also our glossary page.)
For example, to find all the odd primes less than or equal to 100 we first list the odd numbers from 3 to 100 (why even list the evens?) The first number is 3 so it is the first odd prime--cross out all of its multiples. Now the first number left is 5, the second odd prime--cross out all of its multiples. Repeat with 7 and then since the first number left, 11, is larger than the square root of 100, all of the numbers left are primes.
This method is so fast that there is no reason to store a large list of primes on a computer--an efficient implementation can find them faster than a computer can read from a disk.
Bressoud has a pseudocode implementation of this algorithm [Bressoud89, p19] and Riesel a PASCAL implementation [Riesel94, p6]. We also have a page of implementations. It is also possible to create an even faster sieve based on quadratic forms.
To find individual small primes trial division works well. To test n for primality (to see if it is prime) just divide by all of the primes less than the square root of n. For example, to show is 211 is prime, we just divide by 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, and 13. (Pseudocode [Bressoud89, pp 21-22], PASCAL [Riesel94, pp 7-8].) Sometimes the form of the number n makes this especially effective (for examples, Mersenne divisors have a special form).
Rather than divide by just the primes, it is sometimes more practical to divide by 2, 3 and 5; and then by all the numbers congruent to 1, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, and 29 modulo 30--again stopping when you reach the square root. This type of factorization is sometimes called wheel factorization. It requires more divisions (because some of the divisors will be composite), but does not require us to have a list of primes available.
Suppose n has twenty-five or more digits, then it is impractical to divide by the primes less than its square root. If n has two hundred digits, then trial division is impossible--so we need much faster tests. We discuss several such tests below.
File: prove2_2.html "Primality Proving 2.2: Fermat, probable-primality and pseudoprimes" (Chapter Two > Probable Primes)
2.2: Fermat, probable-primality and pseudoprimes
Fermat's "biggest", and also his "last" theorem states that xn + yn = zn has no solutions in positive integers x, y, z with n > 2. This has finally been proven by Wiles in 1995 [Wiles95]. What concerns us here is his "little" theorem:
Fermat's (Little) Theorem: If p is a prime and if a is any integer, then ap = a (mod p). In particular, if p does not divide a, then ap-1 = 1 (mod p). ([proof])
Fermat's theorem gives us a powerful test for compositeness: Given n > 1, choose a > 1 and calculate an-1 modulo n (there is a very easy way to do quickly by repeated squaring, see the glossary page "binary exponentiation"). If the result is not one modulo n, then n is composite. If it is one modulo n, then n might be prime so n is called a weak probable prime base a (or just an a-PRP). Some early articles call all numbers satisfying this test pseudoprimes, but now the term pseudoprime is properly reserved for composite probable-primes.
The smallest examples of pseudoprimes (composite PRPs) are the following. (There are more examples on the glossary page "probable prime ".)
341 = 11.31 is a 2-PRP, (Sarrus 1819)
91 = 7.13 is a 3-PRP,
217 = 7.31 is a 5-PRP and,
25 = 5.5 is a 7-PRP.
There are 1,091,987,405 primes less than 25,000,000,000; but only 21,853 pseudoprimes base two [PSW80], so Henri Cohen joked that 2-PRP's are "industrial grade primes" [Pomerance84, p5]. Fortunately, the larger n, the more likely (on the average) that a PRP test is correct--see the page "How probable?".
It is interesting to note that in 1950 Lehmer, using the weaker definition an = a (mod n) for probable/pseudo-prime, discovered 2*73*1103 = 161038 is an even "pseudoprime" base two. See [Ribenboim95 Chpt. 2viii] for a summary of results and history--including a debunking of the Chinese connection. Richard Pinch lists the pseudoprimes to 1013 (by various definitions) in the PSP directory of his FTP server.
There may be relatively few pseudoprimes, but there are still infinitely many of them for every base a>1, so we need a tougher test. One way to make this test more accurate is to use multiple bases (check base 2, then 3, then 5,...). But still we run into an interesting obstacle called the Carmichael numbers.
Definition: The composite integer n is a Carmichael number if an-1=1 (mod n) for every integer a relatively prime to n.
Here is the bad news: repeated PRP tests of a Carmichael number will fail to show that it is composite until we run across one of its factors. Though Carmichael number are 'rare' (only 2,163 are less that 25,000,000,000), it has recently been shown that there are infinitely many [AGP94]. The Carmichael numbers under 100,000 are
561, 1105, 1729, 2465, 2821, 6601, 8911, 10585, 15841, 29341, 41041, 46657, 52633, 62745, 63973, and 75361.
Richard Pinch lists the Carmichael's to 1016 at his FTP site (see [Pinch93]).
Note: Jon Grantham developed the idea of Frobenius Pseudoprime [Grantham2000] to generalize many of the standard types (Fermat, Lucas...), and to make the tests more accurate. His papers are available on-line.
File: prove2_3.html "Primality Proving 2.3: Strong pobable-primality and a practical test" (Chapter Two > Strong PRPs)
2.3: Strong probable-primality and a practical test
A better way to make the Fermat test more accurate is to realize that if an odd number n is prime, then the number 1 has just two square roots modulo n: 1 and -1. So the square root of an-1, a(n-1)/2 (since n will be odd), is either 1 or -1. (We actually could calculate which it should be using the Jacobi symbol, see the glossary page on Euler PRP's, but we wish to develop a stronger test here.) If (n-1)/2 is even, we can easily take another square root... Let's make this into an algorithm:
Write n-1 = 2sd where d is odd and s is non-negative: n is a strong probable-prime base a (an a-SPRP) if either ad = 1 (mod n) or (ad)2r = -1 (mod n) for some non-negative r less than s.
Again all integers n > 1 which fail this test are composite; integers that pass it might be prime. The smallest odd composite SPRPs are the following.
2047 = 23.89 is a 2-SPRP,
121 = 11.11 is a 3-SPRP,
781 = 11.71 is a 5-SPRP and,
25 = 5.5 is a 7-SPRP.
A test based on these results is quite fast, especially when combined with trial division by the first few primes. If you have trouble programming these results Riesel [Riesel94, p100] has PASCAL code for a SPRP test, Bressoud has pseudocode [Bressoud89, p77], and Langlois offers C-Code. See the glossary page "Strong PRP" for more information.
It has been proven ([Monier80] and [Rabin80]) that the strong probable primality test is wrong no more than 1/4th of the time (3 out of 4 numbers which pass it will be prime). Jon Grantham's "Frobenius pseudoprimes" can be used to create a test (see [Grantham98]) that takes three times as long as the SPRP test, but is far more than three times as strong (the error rate is less than 1/7710).
Combining these tests to prove primality
Individually these tests are still weak (and again there are infinitely many a-SPRP's for every base a>1 [PSW80]), but we can combine these individual tests to make powerful tests for small integers n>1 (these tests prove primality):
If n < 1,373,653 is a both 2 and 3-SPRP, then n is prime.
If n < 25,326,001 is a 2, 3 and 5-SPRP, then n is prime.
If n < 25,000,000,000 is a 2, 3, 5 and 7-SPRP, then either n = 3,215,031,751 or n is prime. (This is actually true for n < 118,670,087,467.)
If n < 2,152,302,898,747 is a 2, 3, 5, 7 and 11-SPRP, then n is prime.
If n < 3,474,749,660,383 is a 2, 3, 5, 7, 11 and 13-SPRP, then n is prime.
If n < 341,550,071,728,321 is a 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 and 17-SPRP, then n is prime.
The first three of these are due to Pomerance, Selfridge and Wagstaff [PSW80], the parenthetical remark and all others are due to Jaeschke [Jaeschke93]. (These and related results are summarized in [Ribenboim95, Chpt 2viiib].) In the same article Jaeschke considered other sets of primes (rather than just the first primes) and found the slightly better results:
If n < 9,080,191 is a both 31 and 73-SPRP, then n is prime.
If n < 4,759,123,141 is a 2, 7 and 61-SPRP, then n is prime.
If n < 1,000,000,000,000 is a 2, 13, 23, and 1662803-SPRP, then n is prime.
Here is the way we usually use the above results to make a quick primality test: start by dividing by the first few primes (say those below 257); then perform strong primality tests base 2, 3, ... until one of the criteria above is met. For example, if n < 25,326,001 we need only check bases 2, 3 and 5. This is much faster than trial division (because someone else has already done much of the work), but will only work for small numbers (n < 341,550,071,728,321 with the data above).
Finally, there is a fair amount more that could (and should) be said. We could discuss Euler pseudoprimes and their relationship with SPRPs. Or we could switch to the "plus side" and discuss Lucas pseudoprimes, or Fibonacci pseudoprimes, or the important combined tests... but that would take a chapter of a book--and it has already been well written by Ribenboim [Ribenboim95]. Let us end this section with one last result:
Millers Test: If the generalized Riemann hypothesis is true, then if n is an a-SPRP for all integers a with 1 < a < 2(log n)2, then n is prime.
The generalized Riemann hypothesis is far too complicated for us to explain here--but should it be proven, then we would have a very simple primality test. Until it is proven, we can at least expect that if n is composite, we should be able to find an a that shows it is composite (a witness) without searching "too" long. (Most surveys cover Miller's test; the improvable constant 2 is due to Bach [Bach85], see also [CP2001, pp. 129-130].)
Note that there is no finite set of bases that will work in Miller's test. In fact, if for n composite we let W(n) denote the least witness for n (the least a which shows n is composite), then there are infinitely many composite n with
W(n) > (log n)1/(3 log log log n) [AGP94]
|
01-09-2002, 09:29 AM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Sweden | | Quote: Originally posted by Bass Master X
You want to talk about real rock and roll. Real rock adn roll is supposed to be rebeluous. Youre not suppost to record your part a bunch of times and pick the best one. Its about living on the edge, if you can't do it live, then get out of town. You think when Buddy Holly was laying down his drum parts he would have them take only his best cuts? Hell NO he's real rock and roll!
You probablby sit around for hours practicing your licks, man you got it all wrong. rock and roll aint suppostd to be sitting around all day practicing scales and riffs. | If rock and roll is supposed to be talentless noise, I sure don't want to be a part of it. If it sucks, I don't care how "real" or "rebellious" it is, it still sucks.
__________________
"Bass is very easy to play.
There are only 12 notes."
- Joe Pacciano, C.G.P.
Those who can do, do
Those who can't do, teach
Those who can't teach, do research |
01-09-2002, 12:59 PM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Jan 2000 Location: Canada. | | | I didn't say that ...
>>> if you can do it in one take you get to earn the title "rock and roll". anymore than that, well then you just don't fit the bill.
But if you can't even play your own songs, which aren't that difficult to begin with ... what does that make you? I say "lazy fraud", and certainly not worthy of my money or time.
Please don't respond to "Troll Master X" - he is not a legitimate poster here and should have his ISP blocked.
Where are the moderators ???
__________________
"... help us rationalize by peer acceptance the gear we currently play through" - Greenboy. The unofficial motto of TB.
|
01-10-2002, 05:56 AM
| | Registered User | | Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Ferndale, Michigan USA | | Quote: Originally posted by Bass Master X
Chump change, what do you work for Mulletallica or something? Don't go trying to force your opinions on us. We're allowed to have our own opinions. Me, SMASH and 5 string all agree Mulletallica stinks, now get over it.
You sure must love them guys, you wont shut up.
You want to talk about real rock and roll. Real rock adn roll is supposed to be rebeluous. Youre not suppost to record your part a bunch of times and pick the best one. Its about living on the edge, if you can't do it live, then get out of town. You think when Buddy Holly was laying down his drum parts he would have them take only his best cuts? Hell NO he's real rock and roll!
You probablby sit around for hours practicing your licks, man you got it all wrong. rock and roll aint suppostd to be sitting around all day practicing scales and riffs. Maybe you need to learn some Jazz. That way you can just walk up and down your scales you practice so much and everyone will think your good.
but it's cool, we all have are strengths and weeknesses. I'm not some super guy, I'm just like everyone else. | it looks like I made a big mistake even entering this disscussion. talk amongst yourself guys, I'm outta here.  |
01-10-2002, 06:19 AM
| | Registered User
wake up with a beautiful stranger | | Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Australia ~ Sydney, NSW | | Quote: Originally posted by chump stain
it looks like I made a big mistake even entering this disscussion. talk amongst yourself guys, I'm outta here. | like SMASH says, pay that guy absolutely no attention - he's just here to provoke the exact reaction you're displaying now. don't buy it. besides, you aren't just gonna sit there and let these pansy-ass troglodytes mock one of your fave bands like this, are ya? ARE YA?!
__________________
there can be only none.
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | | | | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off | | | |
