Post Race!

[Witis]

The error is not in the binary, the error is in the description I gave, but it doesn't matter.

Nope, you said "I also see that there are some extra red bricks in the upper left corner of that picture, which are now covered by a raised bed, but would throw off the pattern in the picture". Which means that some of the binary encoded characters are no longer readable due to the placement of the extra red bricks and that generates a very obvious red coloured error that partially or entirely destroys the meaning of the message i.e. you confessed to vandalizing your own binary backyard. °o°

According to rule #2, you ignore all red bricks when reading the pattern.

You only made those rules yesterday in an attempt to cover up your furtive backyard behaviours, and, as there is no way anyone else could possibly know them, said rules clearly cannot be taken seriously, or into account, when discussing the issue.

The only thing that the red bricks can do is give you some hint as to which direction to read and possibly where to start reading, though they don't really do that. They are only a hint, though, and there is no absolute rule regarding the red bricks. While it is true that every eigth brick is red, that doesn't mean that every red brick is an eigth brick.

Every red brick was a delimiter separating each binary encoded character until, sadly, you put a red line through your message. :L

It did get me thinking, though.

That wasn't my intention.

If you were to read the patter E-W or W-E rather than N-S, it would have no meaning. You have to read the patter N-S, but had I written a palindrome, and if you were to swap the endian nature of the bytes, you could read the pattern S-N, as well. I didn't write a palindrome, as there are few with meaning of the size I needed (maybe none). However, would it be possible to have created a pattern such that it would have one meaning when read N-S, and another meaning when read E-W? I believe that would not be possible without a much more liberal use of red bricks, but if I were to add a third rule:

3) Red bricks should be ignored.

No need for a third rule, you already invented that one yesterday.

then I think it would have been technically possible to encode a message both N-S as well as E-W, though without the red brick hints, it is unlikely that anybody would ever have known that there was a pattern, let alone been able to read it.

The obvious problem is that without knowing your rules there is no way anyone would ever be able to decipher the binary encoded characters. Worse is that the use of tri-coloured tiles, and sometimes it looks like more colours due to the different shades of tan and grey, makes it look like anything other than a binary pattern.

I also think that the character count in either direction would be radically reduced due to the need to use LOTS of red bricks in the pattern. Still, this would be an interesting excercise for a much larger area than the one I had. It would be a largely red pattern, but it would appear highly random.

I am still not convinced that it would look like anything other than a game of tetris.

[Witis]

Make sure you keep your binary safe from the

[Shaggy Hiker]

Nope, you said "I also see that there are some extra red bricks in the upper left corner of that picture, which are now covered by a raised bed, but would throw off the pattern in the picture". Which means that some of the binary encoded characters are no longer readable due to the placement of the extra red bricks and that generates a very obvious red coloured error that partially or entirely destroys the meaning of the message i.e. you confessed to vandalizing your own binary backyard. °o°

Sorry for misleading you. You have misunderstood that statement. The pattern I was refering to was the one mentioned in post #55820, which is not the binary message itself, but the hint pattern of the red bricks that could cause a person to realize that the bricks are not random, which could then lead them to figure out that it is ASCII. The extra red bricks may very well confuse them, as it has clearly confused you, but the red bricks have nothing to do with the binary message itself, which can't use red bricks since binary is always only 1 or 0. The extra red bricks could throw off a person who is both excessively pedantic, and utterly focused on whether or not there is a pattern in the red bricks.

It doesn't matter, though, because, as I already noted, the red bricks still follow a consistent rule. It's not quite the rule that I originally stated (sort of, since I never actually stated the rule incorrectly). In fact, having reviewed every post on the subject, I never made an incorrect statement, you just misinterpreted a few of them. However, I WAS thinking about the red bricks incorrectly, but I fixed that in the last post.

The bottom line is this: The pattern in the yard is correct. There are no errors based on the stated rules. My memory of the rules that were applied, just as my memory of the message itself, has faded, but the rules are there and can be discovered through examination of the pattern.

As for the idea that there is no way that anybody could figure it out. That's absurd. Though I never actually misstated the rule about the red bricks, I had forgotten it, and had to re-deduce the rule based on the pattern. The pattern of gray and tan bricks are far easier to work out, since they are straight up binary.

[Shaggy Hiker]

and sometimes it looks like more colours due to the different shades of tan and grey, makes it look like anything other than a binary pattern.

That's an artifact of the poor lighting in the picture. There isn't any perceptible variation in the shades of the actual bricks, even after all these years. They appear not to be affected by weather or sun. Unfortunately, due to the location, there was no way to get a good picture without waiting for an overcast day. The yard has very few places that are not impacted by shadow at any point in the day. Parts of the pattern are shaded at all times of day. Therefore, I really needed an overcast day to get reasonably constant lighting across the whole pattern. Overcast days happen only a few times a year out here, though, and then generally in the winter. I was much more interested in getting the pergola and the raised beds finished during the summer than getting a good picture. So, as washed out as it appears, it's just a camera effect and isn't reality. The actual color of the bricks is totally uniform.

I am still not convinced that it would look like anything other than a game of tetris.

I'd be surprised if I could convince you of your own name.

[dclamp]

I stopped reading both of your guy's posts in this thread mostly because I thought you guys were just jibjabbing. But are you guys actually having a serious conversation about binary?

[dday9]

1010010

[dday9]

Oh god, it's contagious.

[dclamp]

1010010

Ugh...

[dclamp]

233223233

[Shaggy Hiker]

I stopped reading both of your guy's posts in this thread mostly because I thought you guys were just jibjabbing. But are you guys actually having a serious conversation about binary?

If that's serious, the human race is doomed. Feel free to ignore it. Witis has focused on a mistake I sort of made when describing the pattern, and has elevated that casual comment to an absolute rule, despite my twice saying that it was a mistake (three times, now). If it were an absolute rule, then there would be a flaw in the pattern of my yard, but since it was a misstatement, or a poor interpretation of a true statement, it doesn't mean a darn thing.

Still, it's chit-chat, and this is the post race, so jibjabbing is better than some of the other drivel that has come before.

[dclamp]

Well I didn't take any time to read any of the posts you guys were making, so I had no idea what the discussion was about. Glad you clarified it though.

Without further ado, 1010100101101

[Shaggy Hiker]

That's the other drivel.

[dday9]

So I've created a three post thread on the basics of Lua in the tutorial codebank. The forth post will be filled up with different starter projects, what projects do y'all have in mind?

[Shaggy Hiker]

I think a pig roast application would be the most appropriate. See this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luau

[dday9]

Ah, ok you want a boucherie. I'll make it happen.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Lua for luau....wow! See what u can do for a language...isn't that the point of the entire VB6 argument and all the polls? However, what u can do for vb6 is create more vitriol, whereas what u can do for Lua will result in a party.

[dday9]

My wife: Hunny, you can put your SD card in my USB port
Me: *palm on head*

[Shaggy Hiker]

Tell her your card is too big for her slot.

That ought to get a response.

[Witis]

Sorry for misleading you. You have misunderstood that statement. The pattern I was refering to was the one mentioned in post #55820, which is not the binary message itself, but the hint pattern of the red bricks that could cause a person to realize that the bricks are not random, which could then lead them to figure out that it is ASCII.

No misunderstanding, the red tiles in your backyard started as your binary delimiter.

The extra red bricks may very well confuse them, as it has clearly confused you,

No confusion, then you added some extra red tiles as fill which placed a red line through your binary message.

but the red bricks have nothing to do with the binary message itself, which can't use red bricks since binary is always only 1 or 0.

Yep, the red tiles only function as the delimiter or to throw an error.

The extra red bricks could throw off a person who is both excessively pedantic, and utterly focused on whether or not there is a pattern in the red bricks.

Excatly! The extra red tiles put a clear red error through your binary backyard and make it difficult or impossible to retrieve the hidden message. (._.)

It doesn't matter, though, because, as I already noted, the red bricks still follow a consistent rule.

Yep they clearly function as a delimiter or to obfuscate the message.

It's not quite the rule that I originally stated (sort of, since I never actually stated the rule incorrectly).

You originally stated that every eighth bit was red to separate each character.

In fact, having reviewed every post on the subject, I never made an incorrect statement, you just misinterpreted a few of them.

I don't imagine I have misinterpreted any of your posts. :P

However, I WAS thinking about the red bricks incorrectly, but I fixed that in the last post.

Are you referring to your latest third rule?

The bottom line is this: The pattern in the yard is correct.

Except for the red tiles that you added to insert an error into your backyard.

There are no errors based on the stated rules.

What rules, the ones you invented a couple of days ago that no one else could possibly know or deduce?

My memory of the rules that were applied, just as my memory of the message itself, has faded, but the rules are there and can be discovered through examination of the pattern.

No way, your new rules are so bizarre that you would have to explicitly add them into your backyard for them to have any effect, and would create so much embarrassment that you would never do it.

As for the idea that there is no way that anybody could figure it out. That's absurd.

Nope, not at all, you seem only to have convinced yourself that your new rules are intuitive and obvious to everyone looking at your backyard. In truth no one will ever deduce your latest rules or decipher your message due to the extra red tiles you added.

Though I never actually misstated the rule about the red bricks, I had forgotten it, and had to re-deduce the rule based on the pattern.

You mean you invented the rules a couple of days ago in an attempt to cover up the error you placed in your binary backyard. Most likely it was easier for you to insert a couple of red bricks to mark an error than complete more serious backyard alterations.

The pattern of gray and tan bricks are far easier to work out, since they are straight up binary.

Focusing on two tone binary tiles, perhaps with a couple of tiles with zeros and ones on them, would have created a very obviously binary backyard.

[Witis]

I'd be surprised if I could convince you of your own name.

Heh, I'll take that as a compliment. ☺

[Witis]

[Witis]

I stopped reading both of your guy's posts in this thread mostly because I thought you guys were just jibjabbing. But are you guys actually having a serious conversation about binary?

Sure, Shaggy used to have a binary backyard.

[Witis]

Oh god, it's contagious.

Catchy.

[Witis]

If that's serious, the human race is doomed. Feel free to ignore it. Witis has focused on a mistake I sort of made when describing the pattern, and has elevated that casual comment to an absolute rule, despite my twice saying that it was a mistake (three times, now). If it were an absolute rule, then there would be a flaw in the pattern of my yard, but since it was a misstatement, or a poor interpretation of a true statement, it doesn't mean a darn thing.

I dunno Shaggy it seems quite clear that the red tiles are mainly there as a delimiter.

[Witis]

That's the other drivel.

It's my fun!

[dday9]

nuf ym s'tI

[Witis]

I need to see that in a mirror.

[Witis]

Use this one:

[Witis]

Or this one:

[dday9]

Trippy.

[Witis]

Oh I see, yeah, that car does have some serious acceleration going on.

[Shaggy Hiker]

No misunderstanding, the red tiles in your backyard started as your binary delimiter.

Where did I say that? I'd say you made it up.

No confusion, then you added some extra red tiles as fill which placed a red line through your binary message.

Actually, I was quite concerned that if the yard was too regularly shaped it would end up with red lines. Fortunately, there are only a few places where they are close together. In a random pattern they should be close together occasionally. This pattern isn't random, but has some random characteristics.

Excatly! The extra red tiles put a clear red error through your binary backyard and make it difficult or impossible to retrieve the hidden message. (._.)

Actually, they have no impact at all on being able to retrieve the message. They have no part of the message anyways, other than that they can serve as a hint as to whether or not there even IS a message. If you know that there is a message, then the red bricks hint at the direction of reading, but nothing more.

Yep they clearly function as a delimiter or to obfuscate the message.

You made that one up, too. If delimiters were necessary, why aren't there any in ASCII messages?

You originally stated that every eighth bit was red to separate each character.

I originally stated that the eigth bit of every byte is red. That statement is not what you just misquoted, and that statement is also correct.

I don't imagine I have misinterpreted any of your posts. :P

I don't believe you have an imagination.

Nope, not at all, you seem only to have convinced yourself that your new rules are intuitive and obvious to everyone looking at your backyard. In truth no one will ever deduce your latest rules or decipher your message due to the extra red tiles you added.

There is nothing intuitive or obvious about a random-appearing pattern of tiles in somebodies yard. The vast majority of viewers would see no pattern at all and would assume that the layout was deliberately random (which was an option, because clear patterns would have serious aesthetic limitations). You may well be right that nobody would deduce the rules, which preceded laying the tiles. However, a person of the right mindset could very well figure it out, even if you can't.

You mean you invented the rules a couple of days ago in an attempt to cover up the error you placed in your binary backyard. Most likely it was easier for you to insert a couple of red bricks to mark an error than complete more serious backyard alterations.

The rules were in place prior to laying any tiles. They are built into the program I wrote to create the pattern. It certainly was easier to insert red bricks if I needed to lay a base for the raised beds, but then again, the rules allowed that.

Focusing on two tone binary tiles, perhaps with a couple of tiles with zeros and ones on them, would have created a very obviously binary backyard.

Yeah, a horribly expensive yard whose cost was only exceeded by the banal stupidity. Instead of a hidden message, I'd be bashing people in the face with the message in such a way that would both make me look like a vain jerk, while also showing them how little I respect their intelligence. That's a great idea. I wonder why I didn't think of it?

[Shaggy Hiker]

By the way, I would agree on one point: Nobody will ever figure out the that there is a pattern by looking at the columns of bricks that lead to those red bricks. That portion of the yard is under the pergola, and most of the bricks are in short segments separated by the pergola posts (which occupy 2x2 areas). I would be very surprised if anybody saw that broken up pattern and thought it to be a pattern at all. If anybody recognizes the pattern, it will be in the open areas on either side of the central raised bed. In those stretches, there are uninterrupted eight bit runs side by side, which is where I would expect people to recognize a pattern.

Other than that, I can't decide whether you even believe what you are saying or are just speaking at random.

[Witis]

Where did I say that? I'd say you made it up.

Nope, for example in post #55796 you said "The red bricks make up the eigth bit of every byte, since the ASCII character set (at least the normal set with the digits and punctuation) doesn't use the eigth bit.

Actually, I was quite concerned that if the yard was too regularly shaped it would end up with red lines.

Well you managed to insert at least one red line into your pattern.

Fortunately, there are only a few places where they are close together. In a random pattern they should be close together occasionally. This pattern isn't random, but has some random characteristics.

Would you go for pseudo random?

Actually, they have no impact at all on being able to retrieve the message. They have no part of the message anyways, other than that they can serve as a hint as to whether or not there even IS a message. If you know that there is a message, then the red bricks hint at the direction of reading, but nothing more.

Sure they do, the extra red bricks ruin the binary encoded characters in that part of your pattern.

You made that one up, too. If delimiters were necessary, why aren't there any in ASCII messages?

I didn't make it up, you told us that you used the red bricks as delimiters.

I originally stated that the eigth bit of every byte is red.

See you just agreed with me.

I don't believe you have an imagination.

Why not?

There is nothing intuitive or obvious about a random-appearing pattern of tiles in somebodies yard. The vast majority of viewers would see no pattern at all and would assume that the layout was deliberately random (which was an option, because clear patterns would have serious aesthetic limitations). You may well be right that nobody would deduce the rules, which preceded laying the tiles.

It depends on how much those extra red tiles interfere with the binary encoded characters and the overall message.

However, a person of the right mindset could very well figure it out, even if you can't.

Even if they managed to deduce the meaning they would also deduce that you put an error in your message.

The rules were in place prior to laying any tiles. They are built into the program I wrote to create the pattern. It certainly was easier to insert red bricks if I needed to lay a base for the raised beds,

So I was right, thought so.

but then again, the rules allowed that.

Surely not your original plan which only used the red tiles as delimiters.

Yeah, a horribly expensive yard whose cost was only exceeded by the banal stupidity.

I'lll stick with my two tone purist view.

Instead of a hidden message, I'd be bashing people in the face with the message in such a way that would both make me look like a vain jerk, while also showing them how little I respect their intelligence. That's a great idea. I wonder why I didn't think of it?

No, you can easily place a one and the zero in different areas so that the hint is only found after some time looking at the backyard.

[Witis]

By the way, I would agree on one point: Nobody will ever figure out the that there is a pattern by looking at the columns of bricks that lead to those red bricks. That portion of the yard is under the pergola, and most of the bricks are in short segments separated by the pergola posts (which occupy 2x2 areas). I would be very surprised if anybody saw that broken up pattern and thought it to be a pattern at all.

That sounds true enough.

If anybody recognizes the pattern, it will be in the open areas on either side of the central raised bed. In those stretches, there are uninterrupted eight bit runs side by side, which is where I would expect people to recognize a pattern.

Potentially, however, then they have to figure out that tri colours = binary and then work around the error you put into the pattern.

Other than that, I can't decide whether you even believe what you are saying or are just speaking at random.

I'll let you figure that one out.

[Witis]

[FunkyDexter]

I can't decide whether you even believe what you are saying or are just speaking at random

You once coined the phrase :"It's the Witis way".

Well, it's the Witis way.

[Witis]

[dday9]

It could be the way of the Witis.

[Shaggy Hiker]

It IS the Witis way. So, just one point:

Witis showed this:

Nope, for example in post #55796 you said "The red bricks make up the eigth bit of every byte, since the ASCII character set (at least the normal set with the digits and punctuation) doesn't use the eigth bit.

A statement of mine which is true.
Witis also misquoted it in this fashion:

No misunderstanding, the red tiles in your backyard started as your binary delimiter.

Something I didn't say. The two statements are not contradictory. Every eigth bit is a red brick, but not every red brick is an eigth bit, nor must they be. That's a rule that was never stated or implied in any previous statement.

I did struggle with whether or not to even include the terminal bricks in any run as part of the pattern. Bordering the entire pattern in red might have been a better plan, in the end. After all, there are raised beds all the way around two sides of the pattern and half way around a third side (no raised bed at all on the fourth side). There are also two raised beds as islands. Raised bed walls require some kind of platfrorm to build on or else they get kind of cockeyed. So, should I use a brick that is part of the pattern to form the underlayer, which will necessarily result in the bulk of that brick being covered (about 60-70%), or should I use some other kind of brick as a foundation? In the end, there is a bit of both. Where I could use a different kind of brick as a foundation, I used a narrower brick that was covered to 90-95% by the raised bed. These are almost entirely invisible due to being so thoroughly covered by the stonework above them. They are also clearly different than any other brick (different finish and texture), but they are gray, so those tiny pieces peaking out from joints in the retaining walls could confuse some people...though not anybody with an even mildly effective mind.

In a few places, the retaining wall is set onto the actual pattern, if I remember right. Time and effective gardening are obscuring those portions. My goal was vegetation that would drape down over the retaining walls, and that I have achieved quite nicely. The pattern is still there, you just have to herd the flox aside.