Rotwang

Nobody? The next term is 312211. If you need an additional hint,

Heh, I hadn't even noticed that.

look

Freedom of speech means you have the right to say what you want. It doesn't mean that anybody is obliged to provide a platform for you to do so. Be a racist all you like, but do it somewhere other than Psynews (e.g. here).

Here's a sequence I rather like: 1, 11, 21, 1211, 111221, ... What comes next? For bonus points, what is the highest digit that appears in this sequence?

Sure it was polite enough, but it did violate the rules.

That's not what people usually mean by 'limited edition' - the term generally implies that the label will never reprint, independent of demand.

Then the answer's 73, for the reason I've already given.

I've unlocked the thread, but also tried to edit out all traces of racism. I hope we can continue to discuss the topic in a civilised manner.

But the next prime number after 10 is 11, not 13... Personally I'm stumped. If the final number had been 47 instead of 53 then the sequence, excluding the initial 1, would be the sequence of p o t, where p is the sequence of primes and t is the sequence of triangular numbers. But 53 is the 16th prime, not the 15th.

But this does not imply that the situation you describe in your earlier post is plausible. The fact that an electron can pass through two slits simultaneously is used to explain why the probability distribution of a single electron that has passed through an interferometer exhibits an interference pattern, but the electron is never directly observed to be in two places at once. According to widely accepted interpretations of quantum mechanics, the act of observing an object's position either forces its state to collapse into a single position (according to the Copenhagen interpretation), or makes the states of different positions become decoherent so that they no longer have any interaction with one another (according to the many-universes interpretation). Either way what you describe can't happen: you'll never meet two people who observed you in two different places at once.

Excellent.

Like this: [sc]http://soundcloud.com/androcell/androcell-dub-ripples[/sc]

I think this is one of those things like the Monty Hall problem, where the result stops being counterintuitive when the numbers involved are changed. Suppose the shirt costs $1 (I'm using a currency I can represent with one keypress rather than five, so TAKE THAT EUROPE) but you still borrow $50 from each of your parents, and suppose that you then give each of your parents $1 from the change you receive for the shirt and keep the remaining $97. Now try applying the same reasoning as the OP: Since you already gave mom and dad $1 you now owe them $49 each. $49 + $49 = $98 + your $97 = $195 But so what, right? $98 is what you have to give your parents, $97 is what you now have. Subtracting one from the other tells you that you will end up $1 poorer while you're wearing your $1 shirt, whereas adding one to the other tells you nothing of interest. But for some reason people get confused when the numbers involved are more like those in the OP.

No. You've given your parents 98€ of your own money, you have 1€ left over and a shirt that's worth 97€. You've made nothing. e: How the hell do I put a Euro sign in my post? Whatever I try it comes out b0rk3d. e2: Never mind, I figured it out. e3: Oh, for fuck's sake. Editing my post just made all the Euro signs I'd painstakingly inserted get broken again. IPB sucks so fucking hard.

I've had three iPods. They all freezed, crashed and died like shit.

Excellent news.

If your goal is to achieve martyrdom in the hope of getting 72 virgins, it accomplishes it just fine.

A characteristically sensible post on the subject from a blog I follow: link

D'oh, thanks.

Out of interest, how is this sound made?

Yep, sorry if I misunderstood you before.

Yes, what of it? This in no way supports what you seemed to be saying in the material I quoted, namely that all religious fanatics act the same way.