"What causes oxygen to dissolve in water?"
"Electrostatic forces of attraction."
"That is hardly helpful."
"But that is the most accurate answer."
Monday, July 31, 2006
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Random thoughts:
Every 18 year old in the world is to write an essay entitled "How different would be the world be like in forty years if I did not exist?"
Then when someone becames very famous and makes a huge impact on the world, publish it. I would personally like to see one by Adolf Hilter or Saddam Hussein.
This is, of course, assuming no one is a solipcist. Otherwise it would just go, "There would be no world to speak of if I did not exist."
Chem SPA videos have funky music.
Be careful, the Pipette is a Big. But don't worry, we are for the Big. We are more and more Strong and Big. And may the Force be with your Velocity; for you'll be more Strong and Big than any of your counterparts.
Every 18 year old in the world is to write an essay entitled "How different would be the world be like in forty years if I did not exist?"
Then when someone becames very famous and makes a huge impact on the world, publish it. I would personally like to see one by Adolf Hilter or Saddam Hussein.
This is, of course, assuming no one is a solipcist. Otherwise it would just go, "There would be no world to speak of if I did not exist."
Chem SPA videos have funky music.
Be careful, the Pipette is a Big. But don't worry, we are for the Big. We are more and more Strong and Big. And may the Force be with your Velocity; for you'll be more Strong and Big than any of your counterparts.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
In physics, we can see what can possibly happen to a few particles using energy principle, but to find out what really happens in the next instant would require a knowledge on the forces acting on the particles. For systems involving many particles, energy can also tell us what can possibly happen, but only entropy can tell us what would actually happen. Even so, entropy would not be able to tell us what exactly happens at the microscopic level.
Darwin's theory of evolution tell us what can possibly happen according to the assumptions (scarce resources, excess offspring, random mutation, survival of the fittest, propagation of inherited traits). It can tell us the general trends, but it cannot give us more details than that. It cannot tell whether a tiger would fight back when its children are threatened. However, if such an action aids in its survival and propagation, then the evolutionist can say that a tiger can possibly do that. Still, it would not be able to predict what happens.
However, even forces seem to be unable to explain why things happen; the idea of a force is, after all, a tool used to account for observations, predict future behaviour, and to manipulate the surroundings to obtain the effects we want. So is energy. These things do not necessarily exist. People have lived for a long time without Newtonian mechanics or proper definitions of work and energy, and yet they are still able to come up with many wonderful inventions. Science can only describe nature.
Example:
Why do things fall? Because Fg=-GMm/r² ?
Nope, that is just a description. I don't think there is a "why" to it.
At the end of the day, we'll just have to take it as a fact that Fnet=dp/dt, and that since this "fact" is taken from experience, there will always be a possibility that it is not a correct description.
Which is so gay. Ultimately, all that we have to "explain" phenomena are simply nothing but descriptions? There is nothing that tells me what is actually causing things to happen. Even when taking time as simply another dimension, science still cannot answer "why?"
I suppose we are too used to having "why"s answered for us. The idea of an event being causally linked to another event preceding it is a powerful idea, because it allows us to predict and manipulate the latter event, and allows us to prepare for it. However, just because it works, it doesn't mean it is true.
Gah. Science being a descriptive framework, it would work, but ultimately it cannot answer many questions that we have. I suppose our questions are somewhat loaded. It seems kinda disturbing that things just happen. Maybe it just so happens that humans would want to ask such questions that can never be answered, and we can never be satisfied.
Yet in math, can we ask "why?"
Why is x²+1 always positive for real x? Because x² is at least zero for real x, so x²+1 is always positive for real x. It sounds like we can answer this question. However, what is the point of knowing whether x²+1 is positive? If you assign values to x and use math to find the area, it would work. But even without knowing algebra, one can too show that this similar real life phenomenon leads to such a conclusion. Trial and error would always work if you try long enough.
So is math simply descriptive? What would happen to math if it doesn't correspond to real life phenomena? I suppse math would have to be tweaked in such a way that it does somewhat correspond real life phenomena before it can be accepted. Math is perhaps descriptive to some extent as well.
Darn. So we have been living in this nature, and all we have been doing is describe it? This is... gay.
Darwin's theory of evolution tell us what can possibly happen according to the assumptions (scarce resources, excess offspring, random mutation, survival of the fittest, propagation of inherited traits). It can tell us the general trends, but it cannot give us more details than that. It cannot tell whether a tiger would fight back when its children are threatened. However, if such an action aids in its survival and propagation, then the evolutionist can say that a tiger can possibly do that. Still, it would not be able to predict what happens.
However, even forces seem to be unable to explain why things happen; the idea of a force is, after all, a tool used to account for observations, predict future behaviour, and to manipulate the surroundings to obtain the effects we want. So is energy. These things do not necessarily exist. People have lived for a long time without Newtonian mechanics or proper definitions of work and energy, and yet they are still able to come up with many wonderful inventions. Science can only describe nature.
Example:
Why do things fall? Because Fg=-GMm/r² ?
Nope, that is just a description. I don't think there is a "why" to it.
At the end of the day, we'll just have to take it as a fact that Fnet=dp/dt, and that since this "fact" is taken from experience, there will always be a possibility that it is not a correct description.
Which is so gay. Ultimately, all that we have to "explain" phenomena are simply nothing but descriptions? There is nothing that tells me what is actually causing things to happen. Even when taking time as simply another dimension, science still cannot answer "why?"
I suppose we are too used to having "why"s answered for us. The idea of an event being causally linked to another event preceding it is a powerful idea, because it allows us to predict and manipulate the latter event, and allows us to prepare for it. However, just because it works, it doesn't mean it is true.
Gah. Science being a descriptive framework, it would work, but ultimately it cannot answer many questions that we have. I suppose our questions are somewhat loaded. It seems kinda disturbing that things just happen. Maybe it just so happens that humans would want to ask such questions that can never be answered, and we can never be satisfied.
Yet in math, can we ask "why?"
Why is x²+1 always positive for real x? Because x² is at least zero for real x, so x²+1 is always positive for real x. It sounds like we can answer this question. However, what is the point of knowing whether x²+1 is positive? If you assign values to x and use math to find the area, it would work. But even without knowing algebra, one can too show that this similar real life phenomenon leads to such a conclusion. Trial and error would always work if you try long enough.
So is math simply descriptive? What would happen to math if it doesn't correspond to real life phenomena? I suppse math would have to be tweaked in such a way that it does somewhat correspond real life phenomena before it can be accepted. Math is perhaps descriptive to some extent as well.
Darn. So we have been living in this nature, and all we have been doing is describe it? This is... gay.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Nobody said challenging the process is impossible. But then again, nobody said it is easy.
Then again, nobody said that eating brinjals would cause the koala population to decline.
It is easy to underestimate people to the extent that you do not consider the idea that they might be right, yet it is also easy to overestimate people to the extent that you do not consider the idea that they might be wrong.
This is so fun.
It is easy to kill someone, it is easier to get killed. Yet people generally are not worried about getting killed. People don't even consider killing as an option. I see that "an eye for an eye" is a pretty good policy.
Then again, nobody said that eating brinjals would cause the koala population to decline.
It is easy to underestimate people to the extent that you do not consider the idea that they might be right, yet it is also easy to overestimate people to the extent that you do not consider the idea that they might be wrong.
This is so fun.
It is easy to kill someone, it is easier to get killed. Yet people generally are not worried about getting killed. People don't even consider killing as an option. I see that "an eye for an eye" is a pretty good policy.
Monday, July 24, 2006
I shall be a bastard and talk about physics O selection test.
Shocker 1: 10 questions.
Shocker 2: Open ended (but I'm not surprised)
Shocker 3: 2.5 hour paper.
I accidentally opned the question booklet and w00t! This... weird looking shape appeared before my eyes. In physics, generally, the more weird looking an object is, the harder it is to talk about it. I closed the booklet in horror and apprehension.
But actually, it wasn't too bad. Doable... though I'm very worried about presentation now.
Shocker 1: 10 questions.
Shocker 2: Open ended (but I'm not surprised)
Shocker 3: 2.5 hour paper.
I accidentally opned the question booklet and w00t! This... weird looking shape appeared before my eyes. In physics, generally, the more weird looking an object is, the harder it is to talk about it. I closed the booklet in horror and apprehension.
But actually, it wasn't too bad. Doable... though I'm very worried about presentation now.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
:<
I have made twenty free grinders jump from Peru to the Southern Ocean. It may take another fifteen seconds for another such extravaganza to commence again. Indeed, six of the green flies have found themselves devoid of the great misery they wanted to acquire; alas! they donate their carcasses to the big atmosphere, where sixty two of their fifty four relatives appear beyond them. So as may one wonder how the jellyfish covet after their earthly possesion, one must seek to understand that they are close substitutes for fugu. Just as one cannot make seventy one stoats all sit in reverence to their follow reptile debaters, one ought not expect the same from their ancient counterparts: the snake. Thus, while the quick brown fox jumps over the sloth, the big bad pig eats up the lazy dog. Besides, as the wolf is unable to change their spots and they can no longer expect the tiger to give them further protection, the leopard shall then be justified to taunt the canine class ones more. In other words, heterolytic fission cannot act as an advocate for racial harmony day. Speaking of which, the people can no longer find themselves inside another great cozy environment; they must be prepared for the Big. Only by acquiantance with the ethereal, they can remind themselves that their free air is not to be taken for granted. As such, jams of cheeses of the old democracies once again reign sumpreme in their everlasting bid to generate the new dynasty of unilateral displacement.
Auspicium Melioris Aevi.
I have made twenty free grinders jump from Peru to the Southern Ocean. It may take another fifteen seconds for another such extravaganza to commence again. Indeed, six of the green flies have found themselves devoid of the great misery they wanted to acquire; alas! they donate their carcasses to the big atmosphere, where sixty two of their fifty four relatives appear beyond them. So as may one wonder how the jellyfish covet after their earthly possesion, one must seek to understand that they are close substitutes for fugu. Just as one cannot make seventy one stoats all sit in reverence to their follow reptile debaters, one ought not expect the same from their ancient counterparts: the snake. Thus, while the quick brown fox jumps over the sloth, the big bad pig eats up the lazy dog. Besides, as the wolf is unable to change their spots and they can no longer expect the tiger to give them further protection, the leopard shall then be justified to taunt the canine class ones more. In other words, heterolytic fission cannot act as an advocate for racial harmony day. Speaking of which, the people can no longer find themselves inside another great cozy environment; they must be prepared for the Big. Only by acquiantance with the ethereal, they can remind themselves that their free air is not to be taken for granted. As such, jams of cheeses of the old democracies once again reign sumpreme in their everlasting bid to generate the new dynasty of unilateral displacement.
Auspicium Melioris Aevi.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Random thought of the day:
Play "two truths and a lie" with your fengshui advisor. Then you can find out if he is good. Or better still, "3 truths and 2 lies". Even better still, warn him that everything you say about your current circumstances may or may not be true, then tell him the complete truth about your circumstances.
Play "two truths and a lie" with your fengshui advisor. Then you can find out if he is good. Or better still, "3 truths and 2 lies". Even better still, warn him that everything you say about your current circumstances may or may not be true, then tell him the complete truth about your circumstances.
It was fun trying to sell goods and services.
The stall I was helping to manage for Viva worldcup was a stall selling iced fruit dessert and an ice breaking challenge. I was very enthusiastic about the ice breaking challenge. Here's what the challenge is about: The organisers have frozen tissue paper in ice, and the ice is supposed to become very very hard to break. So the participants can try to break the ice with a hammer in 4 hits. If they manage to do so, they get free dessert. If they can't, they pay $1. Simple? If the ice is very hard to break, the marginal cost of the service is almost nil. And considering that it is a sports event, you can expect lots of sportspeople with swollen ego to test their strength.
Indeed. When the lady boss asked the announcer to advertise for us, 10 seconds later there were about 9 muscular people + female canoeists trying out the challenge. The sad thing is... the ice didn't freeze properly, and it was so easy to break! I thought this would be so profitable and fun to watch.
It was not because we didn't test it out. I did test out to see if it works. When I did it, it took me 200 hits to break the piece of ice. You could say I'm weak, but the fact remains that I broke 2 bricks into 8 pieces of stone and lots of sand in trying to break the piece of ice. The piece of ice I tested with was frozen with a normal freezer for 20 hours. The ones we offered for challenge was frozen in an old freezer for 15 hours and placed in a cooler box for 3 hours. Not very good. But overall the dessert stall + ice breaking stall didn't make a loss.
Later we ran out of fruits, so we tried out some ideas. We blended syrup with ice, and it was really good! And it is so much cheaper and easier to make. We played around with the concentration and composition of the syrup, and we sold one of them. We made that out of all the remaining ice, and it was so nice we bought them ourselves. And then we closed shop. Not very profitable, but at least we all had fun, we learned from this experience, and we have a better idea of how to set up a stall next time. And we all had CIP hours.
After that, when all the shops were closed, the remaining stock were free for all! Play table soccer for free! Cookies and brownies and cakes and tarts all for free! w00t! Damn if I didn't have to go home for dinner I would probably stay there for 2 more hours or something.
The stall I was helping to manage for Viva worldcup was a stall selling iced fruit dessert and an ice breaking challenge. I was very enthusiastic about the ice breaking challenge. Here's what the challenge is about: The organisers have frozen tissue paper in ice, and the ice is supposed to become very very hard to break. So the participants can try to break the ice with a hammer in 4 hits. If they manage to do so, they get free dessert. If they can't, they pay $1. Simple? If the ice is very hard to break, the marginal cost of the service is almost nil. And considering that it is a sports event, you can expect lots of sportspeople with swollen ego to test their strength.
Indeed. When the lady boss asked the announcer to advertise for us, 10 seconds later there were about 9 muscular people + female canoeists trying out the challenge. The sad thing is... the ice didn't freeze properly, and it was so easy to break! I thought this would be so profitable and fun to watch.
It was not because we didn't test it out. I did test out to see if it works. When I did it, it took me 200 hits to break the piece of ice. You could say I'm weak, but the fact remains that I broke 2 bricks into 8 pieces of stone and lots of sand in trying to break the piece of ice. The piece of ice I tested with was frozen with a normal freezer for 20 hours. The ones we offered for challenge was frozen in an old freezer for 15 hours and placed in a cooler box for 3 hours. Not very good. But overall the dessert stall + ice breaking stall didn't make a loss.
Later we ran out of fruits, so we tried out some ideas. We blended syrup with ice, and it was really good! And it is so much cheaper and easier to make. We played around with the concentration and composition of the syrup, and we sold one of them. We made that out of all the remaining ice, and it was so nice we bought them ourselves. And then we closed shop. Not very profitable, but at least we all had fun, we learned from this experience, and we have a better idea of how to set up a stall next time. And we all had CIP hours.
After that, when all the shops were closed, the remaining stock were free for all! Play table soccer for free! Cookies and brownies and cakes and tarts all for free! w00t! Damn if I didn't have to go home for dinner I would probably stay there for 2 more hours or something.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
A pre-emptive defense of moral egoism
Let us first establish a few things. We are trying to identify what is "right", and not what should be "right". Any attempts to answer the latter question would lead to a circular argument.
Moral egoism is a theory. There is no way you can prove that this is the best ever possible theory of ethical behaviour, and it is possible to disprove it by providing a counter example. Only one counter example is needed.
Here I make one assumption: A person would do something if and only if he thinks he is doing the "right" course of action. By making this assumption, theories of ethics become testable by observation. We can find out what is "right" by observing how people act.
In the next few paragraphs I shall establish that no objective theory of ethics is correct. Suppose there is a certain "ethical" way to live, and everyone agrees with it and obeys it and thus there is no need for enforcement. In this case, would there be any ethics? Everyone is simply doing what they would want to do, and whatever they do is considered ethical. There is no difference whether there is this ethical codes or not. By Occam's razor, there are no ethics in this hypothetical society.
Now let us suppose there is this set of "ethical" way to live, but no one obeys it. Everything that people do is "wrong". Because nobody would obey the "ethical" course of action, nobody would enforce it. Thus, everybody would just do what they want to do with no restrictions from that "ethical" code, but whatever they are doing, it is still "wrong". There is, again, no difference whether there is this ethical code or not. By Occam's razor, there are no ethics in this hypothetical society either.
Here let us suppose that there is this set of "ethical" way to live, but only half the population agrees with it and obeys it. This half of the population does whatever they want, unresticted by ethics. The other half of the population would also do whatever they want, because they think their course of action is the right course of action. Thus, both halves of the population would think that the other half of the population is "wrong", and would ry to impose it on the other, But what a minute, nothing would change if we consider the other side to be the side that obeys the "ethical" course of action. In this case, if we consider any side to be the "right" side, it makes no difference to whether the other side is "right". Having an objective set of ethical codes have no implications. Thus, by Occam's razor, there is no objective set of ethical codes.
In the following paragraphs, I shall establish that no consequentialist theory of ethics is correct.
From the point of view of a self, the only things that can affect a person's thoughts are his considerations at that point in time; the considerations of the future are made at that point in time, recalling the past occurs at that point in time of the decision making as well. Thus, the things that the decision maker cannot predict, or the things he forgot do not play a role in his decision of what is right or wrong. The outcome cannot possibly affect his decision as it is something of the future, and we can safely assume that events of the future cannot affect the past.
Since the outcome cannot affect whether a person does something or not, we can also state that the outcome cannot affect whether a person thinks something is right or not. Thus, we can conclude that no consequentialist theory of ethics is correct.
Although the above arguments don't prove that moral egoism is correct, they pretty much prove everything else incorrect.
Let us first establish a few things. We are trying to identify what is "right", and not what should be "right". Any attempts to answer the latter question would lead to a circular argument.
Moral egoism is a theory. There is no way you can prove that this is the best ever possible theory of ethical behaviour, and it is possible to disprove it by providing a counter example. Only one counter example is needed.
Here I make one assumption: A person would do something if and only if he thinks he is doing the "right" course of action. By making this assumption, theories of ethics become testable by observation. We can find out what is "right" by observing how people act.
In the next few paragraphs I shall establish that no objective theory of ethics is correct. Suppose there is a certain "ethical" way to live, and everyone agrees with it and obeys it and thus there is no need for enforcement. In this case, would there be any ethics? Everyone is simply doing what they would want to do, and whatever they do is considered ethical. There is no difference whether there is this ethical codes or not. By Occam's razor, there are no ethics in this hypothetical society.
Now let us suppose there is this set of "ethical" way to live, but no one obeys it. Everything that people do is "wrong". Because nobody would obey the "ethical" course of action, nobody would enforce it. Thus, everybody would just do what they want to do with no restrictions from that "ethical" code, but whatever they are doing, it is still "wrong". There is, again, no difference whether there is this ethical code or not. By Occam's razor, there are no ethics in this hypothetical society either.
Here let us suppose that there is this set of "ethical" way to live, but only half the population agrees with it and obeys it. This half of the population does whatever they want, unresticted by ethics. The other half of the population would also do whatever they want, because they think their course of action is the right course of action. Thus, both halves of the population would think that the other half of the population is "wrong", and would ry to impose it on the other, But what a minute, nothing would change if we consider the other side to be the side that obeys the "ethical" course of action. In this case, if we consider any side to be the "right" side, it makes no difference to whether the other side is "right". Having an objective set of ethical codes have no implications. Thus, by Occam's razor, there is no objective set of ethical codes.
In the following paragraphs, I shall establish that no consequentialist theory of ethics is correct.
From the point of view of a self, the only things that can affect a person's thoughts are his considerations at that point in time; the considerations of the future are made at that point in time, recalling the past occurs at that point in time of the decision making as well. Thus, the things that the decision maker cannot predict, or the things he forgot do not play a role in his decision of what is right or wrong. The outcome cannot possibly affect his decision as it is something of the future, and we can safely assume that events of the future cannot affect the past.
Since the outcome cannot affect whether a person does something or not, we can also state that the outcome cannot affect whether a person thinks something is right or not. Thus, we can conclude that no consequentialist theory of ethics is correct.
Although the above arguments don't prove that moral egoism is correct, they pretty much prove everything else incorrect.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Consider this statement, which we can assume to be true.
"The maximum amount of force my spear can exert on you solely depends your armour."
Doesn't sound impressive yet?
Think about it more carefully, and you'll notice that this spear can actually pierce all armour. By Newton's third law, the spear can only exert a force on the wearer of magnitude equal to the wearer's reaction force.
If in a certain case, the spear cannot pierce through the armour, then it would only be able to exert the same force on an even tougher piece of armour. In order for the above statement to be true, the spear must be able to pierce through all armour.
Just a random thought.
"The maximum amount of force my spear can exert on you solely depends your armour."
Doesn't sound impressive yet?
Think about it more carefully, and you'll notice that this spear can actually pierce all armour. By Newton's third law, the spear can only exert a force on the wearer of magnitude equal to the wearer's reaction force.
If in a certain case, the spear cannot pierce through the armour, then it would only be able to exert the same force on an even tougher piece of armour. In order for the above statement to be true, the spear must be able to pierce through all armour.
Just a random thought.
Monday, July 10, 2006
| You scored as Biology/Chemistry/Geology. Related majors that match your highest scored category: Animal Sciences, Biochemistry, Biology, Chemistry, Dietetics, Ecology, Environmental Science, Food Sciences, Forestry, Fisheries and Wildlife, Genetics, Geography, Geology, Marine Biology, Microbiology, Neurobiology, Nutrition, Pharmacy, Pre-Med, Psychology, Zoology. Consider all majors in your OTHER high scoring categories. The right major for you will be something 1) you love and enjoy and 2) are really great at it. Consider adding a minor or double majoring. Please post your results in your myspace/blog/journal.
WHAT MAJOR IS RIGHT FOR YOU? created with QuizFarm.com |
Not really unexpected.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Today we played with millipedes. GGY tried to catch millipedes with a pair of scissors, but he cut one of them cleanly. So the part with the head was crawling away while the part without the head was squirming, maybe in pain.
So I wondered: If the mind resides in its head, then would it be okay to mash its tail end? But the tail end looks like it is squirming in pain. Maybe it has a mind of its own.
Cool, so if you cut off the arm of a person, you did not kill, because the arm does not have a mind of its own and is not conscious. But if you cut a millipede into half, you probably just created life. Then both lives would die on their own.
It is so strange.
Anyway we placed lots of millipedes in a plastic bottle and put the bottle to 7 bars of pressure. Their bodies are meant to withstand 1 bar but we pressurised them to 7 bars. They looked quite agitated as we went above 4 bars then when we reach 7 bars they were slightly more agitated and eager to get out of the bottle. But they can't get out because the bottle is airtight.
Insects breath through airholes at the side of their bodies (called spiroza if I remember correctly), so at 7 bars, those millipedes that look normal have probably gotten used to having 7 bar pressure air in their air holes. We took about 3 minutes to pressurise the bottle, but only 5 seconds to depressurise them. It was depressurised so fast that the air turned cold and fog formed in the bottle. When the fog evaporated (because the surroundings heated the bottle back up), the millipedes looked somewhat larger and kinked.
Someone suggested shooting the bottle instead so that the millipedes get depressurised in less than 0.1 second, and see what happens to the millipedes. I would have liked to witness that, but nobody wanted to voluteer to shoot it. (the millipede juice would fly into his mouth if he goes "WOAH" ::gulp::)
But imagine if we did shoot it.
millipede: "Oh please, let us get out of here... oh, he's picking up the launcher! hurray! we're getting out! oh wait, he's gonna FIRE it! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" *kaboom* *splat*
Okay but we didn't fire it, so not all the millipedes died. One or two escaped after being rapidly decompressed because we dropped the bottle. I can imagine a Wisely show about some supernatural thing happening to the millipede, transforming it into a person that tries to wipe off all human beings off the face of the earth, then he'll recount his traumatizing expereince of being rapidly decompressed with about 100 other millipedes. Maybe as revenge he'll kill all the human beings he catch by rapidly decompressing them. Then the protagonist would find me and ask me "What exactly did you you do the millipedes in rjc 2006?" Then I'll collapse in my armchair in grief and sob and slowly utter, "I decompressed them."
Okay this is getting very weird. I can picture a lousy film about this.
Scene 1: So this guy gets tricked into entering a chamber of a very rich and handsome and infuential guy to do some big business. Then there is this covered big glass window where someone watches the guy. The chamber gets sealed up and slowly starts to get pressurised, but the guy only notices when his eyes, ears and bladder start to hurt. So he asks the host what is happening, then he realised that the host is a robot. Then he starts to panic. Then the window becomes transparent and reveals a shadowy character. The guy begs for mercy in various ways, but the shadowly character only smirks. Then when the guy mentions something about lowering the pressure, when the pressure is about 10 bars, the shadowly would grant his life and decompress the chamber in 0.1 seconds. Then you'll watch his eyes and middle ear and nose pop out, his lungs explode, and the rest of the body remaining fine. Then the shadowly guy laughs an evil laugh.
Okay I can't really be bother with coming up with anything more. Use some imagination.
Damn. I probably shouldn't have let them out alive.
So I wondered: If the mind resides in its head, then would it be okay to mash its tail end? But the tail end looks like it is squirming in pain. Maybe it has a mind of its own.
Cool, so if you cut off the arm of a person, you did not kill, because the arm does not have a mind of its own and is not conscious. But if you cut a millipede into half, you probably just created life. Then both lives would die on their own.
It is so strange.
Anyway we placed lots of millipedes in a plastic bottle and put the bottle to 7 bars of pressure. Their bodies are meant to withstand 1 bar but we pressurised them to 7 bars. They looked quite agitated as we went above 4 bars then when we reach 7 bars they were slightly more agitated and eager to get out of the bottle. But they can't get out because the bottle is airtight.
Insects breath through airholes at the side of their bodies (called spiroza if I remember correctly), so at 7 bars, those millipedes that look normal have probably gotten used to having 7 bar pressure air in their air holes. We took about 3 minutes to pressurise the bottle, but only 5 seconds to depressurise them. It was depressurised so fast that the air turned cold and fog formed in the bottle. When the fog evaporated (because the surroundings heated the bottle back up), the millipedes looked somewhat larger and kinked.
Someone suggested shooting the bottle instead so that the millipedes get depressurised in less than 0.1 second, and see what happens to the millipedes. I would have liked to witness that, but nobody wanted to voluteer to shoot it. (the millipede juice would fly into his mouth if he goes "WOAH" ::gulp::)
But imagine if we did shoot it.
millipede: "Oh please, let us get out of here... oh, he's picking up the launcher! hurray! we're getting out! oh wait, he's gonna FIRE it! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" *kaboom* *splat*
Okay but we didn't fire it, so not all the millipedes died. One or two escaped after being rapidly decompressed because we dropped the bottle. I can imagine a Wisely show about some supernatural thing happening to the millipede, transforming it into a person that tries to wipe off all human beings off the face of the earth, then he'll recount his traumatizing expereince of being rapidly decompressed with about 100 other millipedes. Maybe as revenge he'll kill all the human beings he catch by rapidly decompressing them. Then the protagonist would find me and ask me "What exactly did you you do the millipedes in rjc 2006?" Then I'll collapse in my armchair in grief and sob and slowly utter, "I decompressed them."
Okay this is getting very weird. I can picture a lousy film about this.
Scene 1: So this guy gets tricked into entering a chamber of a very rich and handsome and infuential guy to do some big business. Then there is this covered big glass window where someone watches the guy. The chamber gets sealed up and slowly starts to get pressurised, but the guy only notices when his eyes, ears and bladder start to hurt. So he asks the host what is happening, then he realised that the host is a robot. Then he starts to panic. Then the window becomes transparent and reveals a shadowy character. The guy begs for mercy in various ways, but the shadowly character only smirks. Then when the guy mentions something about lowering the pressure, when the pressure is about 10 bars, the shadowly would grant his life and decompress the chamber in 0.1 seconds. Then you'll watch his eyes and middle ear and nose pop out, his lungs explode, and the rest of the body remaining fine. Then the shadowly guy laughs an evil laugh.
Okay I can't really be bother with coming up with anything more. Use some imagination.
Damn. I probably shouldn't have let them out alive.
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
I took some time to study econs, and I got kinda addicted to economic analysis of merit goods and demerit goods. Recall that a possible measure that the government can take to maximise social welfare is FINE. As Singapore is a fine country, there are so many things you could analyse.
Take the MRT station for example. They have two signs to tell you not to go down the track. One says something to the effect of "Value life. Act responsibly." and the other sign says "DO NOT GO DOWN THE TRACK. FINE $5000."
Since it is possible to dare a person to "go down a track" for a sum of money, or to fine someone for "going down the track", "going down the track" could be considered as a tradable service, i.e, a good. Since the government is obviously actively discouraging people from going down the track, I could consider this as a demerit good. There are two things that the government can do to maximise social welfare: 1) Make sure that people are rationally consuming at MPC=MPB; 2) Make sure that the negative externality is considered by the individual in deciding whether to go down the track or not.
By the sign "Value life. Act responsibly.", this is a measure which the government takes so that their assumption of consumer rationality becomes a reasonable one, because if the public is completely clueless that going down the track could cost them their lives, then the government making the individual take the cost difference between the rational level of consumption and the MSC would still not lead to social efficiency. Thus, by putting up this educative slogan, the government is intervening in such a manner that the consumer does not suffer from imperfect information, and thus the assumption of consumer rationality is valid. [Insert graph here]
By the fine of $5000, the government is making sure that the individual takes the negative externalities of going down the track (such as dirtying the track with his intrails, loss of business due to temporary public fear of mrt) into account. Thus, with the fine, the individual would act in his own best interests and at the society's best interests at the same time.
However, I find that the slogan "Value life. Act responsibly." is still not educative enough. People are not not fully aware of the private consequences of going down the track. May I sugggest that they do it the same way as cigarettes. They felt that the health warning (Smoking causes stroke) is not adequate, and so they included a picture of the brain of a stroke victim. Maybe they can include the picture of a dirtied MRT track to further enhance the educativeness of the slogan.
Another demerit good to consider is suicide. If the government wishes to achieve social efficiency, he would want individuals to commit suicide at the amount where MSC=MSB. Since we can see that suicide is highly discouraged, it is a demerit good and thus we can infer that there is too much of suiciding going on. The government would want to lower the overall suicide rate to the number of suicides that would take place when MSC=MSB.
There are 3 approaches that the government can take.
1) Educate the individual to ensure that he/she really knows the private costs and benefits of suiciding
2) Make the individual take the negative externalities into account so that MPC=MSC=MSB=MPB (rationality and social efficiency)
3) Lower the MPB such that the amount consumed when MPB=MPC, MSB=MSC as well.
There is always the possibility of imperfect information. The suicider wouldn't know what it feels like to die, especially if that is his/her first attempt. Not to say that people who haven't succeeded would actually know, but they probably have a better idea. While the roaring sea might look tempting, that could be because the body's survival instinct chemicals haven't kicked in yet. While flying down a building may look cool, that could be because the combined effect of [andrenaline] + [the consideration that you would actually die] hasn't activated the chemicals to make you think "Hey, maybe dying isn't so nice afterall."
Thus, educating the potential suicider about how horrible dying is could help to shift the MPC graph that the person thinks he incurs closer to the MPC graph that he really incurs. This would most likely be an upward shift of the MPC.
Increasing MPC from an already very high amount to an even higher amount would be difficult. While the MSC would certainly exceed MPC, there is no more additional cost that individual can possibly incur. Any additional cost probably doesn't matter much to him anymore.
Lowering the MPB may be quite feasible. A rational person would commit suicide until MPC=MPB. Since a person can only commit suicide once, this means that if the person really wants to commit suicide (not indifferent to living or dying; actively prefers dying), his MPB would be even higher than MPC, which is already very high. So perhaps if a person who wishes to commit suicide so that he may go to heaven, a councellor could tell him that "Well, you probably wouldn't like heaven that much." or his pastor could tell him "Nah, if you do that you'll go to hell." or if he want to rejoin his dead relatives you could tell him "But don't you think your last uncle was a jerk?" Okay a tad insensitive, but you get the idea. Lower the MPB such that when MPB=MPC, MSC=MSB as well.
When all that is done, and people still commit suicide, well, there are two ways I can comment on the persistent suiciders. Using economics jargon, I could say that any additional or less unit of suiciding would lead to a lower social welfare than can possibly be attained. In layman terms, they are the only ones who should die, and their death makes the world a better place.
Take the MRT station for example. They have two signs to tell you not to go down the track. One says something to the effect of "Value life. Act responsibly." and the other sign says "DO NOT GO DOWN THE TRACK. FINE $5000."
Since it is possible to dare a person to "go down a track" for a sum of money, or to fine someone for "going down the track", "going down the track" could be considered as a tradable service, i.e, a good. Since the government is obviously actively discouraging people from going down the track, I could consider this as a demerit good. There are two things that the government can do to maximise social welfare: 1) Make sure that people are rationally consuming at MPC=MPB; 2) Make sure that the negative externality is considered by the individual in deciding whether to go down the track or not.
By the sign "Value life. Act responsibly.", this is a measure which the government takes so that their assumption of consumer rationality becomes a reasonable one, because if the public is completely clueless that going down the track could cost them their lives, then the government making the individual take the cost difference between the rational level of consumption and the MSC would still not lead to social efficiency. Thus, by putting up this educative slogan, the government is intervening in such a manner that the consumer does not suffer from imperfect information, and thus the assumption of consumer rationality is valid. [Insert graph here]
By the fine of $5000, the government is making sure that the individual takes the negative externalities of going down the track (such as dirtying the track with his intrails, loss of business due to temporary public fear of mrt) into account. Thus, with the fine, the individual would act in his own best interests and at the society's best interests at the same time.
However, I find that the slogan "Value life. Act responsibly." is still not educative enough. People are not not fully aware of the private consequences of going down the track. May I sugggest that they do it the same way as cigarettes. They felt that the health warning (Smoking causes stroke) is not adequate, and so they included a picture of the brain of a stroke victim. Maybe they can include the picture of a dirtied MRT track to further enhance the educativeness of the slogan.
Another demerit good to consider is suicide. If the government wishes to achieve social efficiency, he would want individuals to commit suicide at the amount where MSC=MSB. Since we can see that suicide is highly discouraged, it is a demerit good and thus we can infer that there is too much of suiciding going on. The government would want to lower the overall suicide rate to the number of suicides that would take place when MSC=MSB.
There are 3 approaches that the government can take.
1) Educate the individual to ensure that he/she really knows the private costs and benefits of suiciding
2) Make the individual take the negative externalities into account so that MPC=MSC=MSB=MPB (rationality and social efficiency)
3) Lower the MPB such that the amount consumed when MPB=MPC, MSB=MSC as well.
There is always the possibility of imperfect information. The suicider wouldn't know what it feels like to die, especially if that is his/her first attempt. Not to say that people who haven't succeeded would actually know, but they probably have a better idea. While the roaring sea might look tempting, that could be because the body's survival instinct chemicals haven't kicked in yet. While flying down a building may look cool, that could be because the combined effect of [andrenaline] + [the consideration that you would actually die] hasn't activated the chemicals to make you think "Hey, maybe dying isn't so nice afterall."
Thus, educating the potential suicider about how horrible dying is could help to shift the MPC graph that the person thinks he incurs closer to the MPC graph that he really incurs. This would most likely be an upward shift of the MPC.
Increasing MPC from an already very high amount to an even higher amount would be difficult. While the MSC would certainly exceed MPC, there is no more additional cost that individual can possibly incur. Any additional cost probably doesn't matter much to him anymore.
Lowering the MPB may be quite feasible. A rational person would commit suicide until MPC=MPB. Since a person can only commit suicide once, this means that if the person really wants to commit suicide (not indifferent to living or dying; actively prefers dying), his MPB would be even higher than MPC, which is already very high. So perhaps if a person who wishes to commit suicide so that he may go to heaven, a councellor could tell him that "Well, you probably wouldn't like heaven that much." or his pastor could tell him "Nah, if you do that you'll go to hell." or if he want to rejoin his dead relatives you could tell him "But don't you think your last uncle was a jerk?" Okay a tad insensitive, but you get the idea. Lower the MPB such that when MPB=MPC, MSC=MSB as well.
When all that is done, and people still commit suicide, well, there are two ways I can comment on the persistent suiciders. Using economics jargon, I could say that any additional or less unit of suiciding would lead to a lower social welfare than can possibly be attained. In layman terms, they are the only ones who should die, and their death makes the world a better place.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
I've learnt from a guy certain substitutes for certain uses of the f-word. However, as you must realise, the f-word is extremely versatile; no other word even comes close to its versatility. Thus, many words would have to be used just to substitute this word. As the use of this word is apparently frowned upon, it might be worthwhile to find certain substitutes.
Original-O Substitute-S
O: "You're f**ed."
S: "You've really messed up bad."
O: "F***!"
S: "Goodness gracious me I've/you've/it's really messed up."
O: "F*** off."
S: "Shoo."
O: "F*** you!"
S: "You're a real mess."
Original-O Substitute-S
O: "You're f**ed."
S: "You've really messed up bad."
O: "F***!"
S: "Goodness gracious me I've/you've/it's really messed up."
O: "F*** off."
S: "Shoo."
O: "F*** you!"
S: "You're a real mess."
Learning journey on friday to science centre.
We ALMOST went to the zoo. Frankly speaking I would have preferred science centre. Zoo is stinky and you don't learn much. Okay you do learn about how people are destroying the earth yadayada... but by being a miser you are pretty much the ultimate conservationist, if you don't take externalities into account, that is. And if you have had a proper science education, your conscience would take the externalities into account pretty well when you make decisions. So yeh. Zoo = useless for us.
Then we got to the science centre we all felt pretty out of place. The science centre was full of primary school kids running about and we were like the only jc students there(in school uniform some more!). But we didn't regret for too long. It was indeed quite a nice and fun learning experience. Even though we probably didn't learn a lot, but still better than zoo in that 1) you learn more 2) got air con 3) you can play with all the exhibits.
The exhibit I liked the most (and our class spent the most time in) was the exhibit on Corroilis force. Essentially it is just a turntable, but they provide steel and plastic rings and discs for you to slide or roll across the turntable. BUT I found out that if you roll the disc across a chord of the turn table at the right speed, the disc would orbit around the centre of the turntable, and eventually it would collapse nicely at the centre! Sometimes, it would form an elliptical orbit with an epicentre that orbit around the centre, which just looks darn cool. We spent about 30 hour there, which is pretty long compared to all the other exhibits.
Later we left when we thought there wan't much time left, but our teacher i/c said that we could stay another 30 mins more, to our delight. So we took him to the turntable and he played with us for the next 30 mins. Then some kids came so we let them play. But they couldn't really appreciate the exhibit, as they just slid the discs across. But nvm we were nice people, so we showed them how to do it, but their attention span wasn't long enough. Oh well. It is still pretty amazing after playing that for an hour.
OH and once we had a big metal ring and and small metal ring orbiting round in an elliptical orbit and they croosed paths and the small one went through the big one that they continued orbiting! All the people watching (about 9 or 10 ppl) were like "WOAH!". Seriously, it was spectacular. After that we tried to repeat it to the teacher, but we only managed to get the small one to crash in the middle of the big one sideways such that the small one collapses in the big one. Not bad anyway. Impt thing is I got to see it :-P
The one thing I felt was that some of the spectacular stuff is somewhat cheem, so primary school kids generally don't really understand it, and once they grow up they wouldn't go science centre anymore. So does the science centre really contribute to science education? I think the answer is a definite yes, because all the cool exhibits would makes science interesting (not like physics lectures). Even though they might not understand how the cool stuff actually works, they would continue to read up, and the interest would take them through.
OMG I just accidentally wrote something that can be used for learning journey reflections. I'm amazed.
We ALMOST went to the zoo. Frankly speaking I would have preferred science centre. Zoo is stinky and you don't learn much. Okay you do learn about how people are destroying the earth yadayada... but by being a miser you are pretty much the ultimate conservationist, if you don't take externalities into account, that is. And if you have had a proper science education, your conscience would take the externalities into account pretty well when you make decisions. So yeh. Zoo = useless for us.
Then we got to the science centre we all felt pretty out of place. The science centre was full of primary school kids running about and we were like the only jc students there(in school uniform some more!). But we didn't regret for too long. It was indeed quite a nice and fun learning experience. Even though we probably didn't learn a lot, but still better than zoo in that 1) you learn more 2) got air con 3) you can play with all the exhibits.
The exhibit I liked the most (and our class spent the most time in) was the exhibit on Corroilis force. Essentially it is just a turntable, but they provide steel and plastic rings and discs for you to slide or roll across the turntable. BUT I found out that if you roll the disc across a chord of the turn table at the right speed, the disc would orbit around the centre of the turntable, and eventually it would collapse nicely at the centre! Sometimes, it would form an elliptical orbit with an epicentre that orbit around the centre, which just looks darn cool. We spent about 30 hour there, which is pretty long compared to all the other exhibits.
Later we left when we thought there wan't much time left, but our teacher i/c said that we could stay another 30 mins more, to our delight. So we took him to the turntable and he played with us for the next 30 mins. Then some kids came so we let them play. But they couldn't really appreciate the exhibit, as they just slid the discs across. But nvm we were nice people, so we showed them how to do it, but their attention span wasn't long enough. Oh well. It is still pretty amazing after playing that for an hour.
OH and once we had a big metal ring and and small metal ring orbiting round in an elliptical orbit and they croosed paths and the small one went through the big one that they continued orbiting! All the people watching (about 9 or 10 ppl) were like "WOAH!". Seriously, it was spectacular. After that we tried to repeat it to the teacher, but we only managed to get the small one to crash in the middle of the big one sideways such that the small one collapses in the big one. Not bad anyway. Impt thing is I got to see it :-P
The one thing I felt was that some of the spectacular stuff is somewhat cheem, so primary school kids generally don't really understand it, and once they grow up they wouldn't go science centre anymore. So does the science centre really contribute to science education? I think the answer is a definite yes, because all the cool exhibits would makes science interesting (not like physics lectures). Even though they might not understand how the cool stuff actually works, they would continue to read up, and the interest would take them through.
OMG I just accidentally wrote something that can be used for learning journey reflections. I'm amazed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)