Fly like a crow. Crow like a pet. Pet like a parrot. Parrot like a duck. Duck from an dart. Dart to a swift. Swift as a swallow. Swallow like a fish. Fish with a fly.

Try to find more nouns that are also adjectives or intransitive verbs (Bear wouldn't work because it's not an intransitive verb).

I think that the SAF is like the sting of a bee.

Why do we swallow food that taste good? The joy from good food only comes from the taste and texture, which are mostly gone before one starts to swallow whatever mash is left of the food. Maybe there are two separate things that we try to do when we eat good-tasting food. One is to taste the food, and the other is to keep ourselves from being hungry. So, when we put good-tasting food into our mouths, we are trying to achieve two separate things at once. However, this suggestion doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny. Even if we eat when we are not hungry, we still swallow the food. I suspect that the reason why we swallow food is because it is the only alternative to spitting out the food that still have some taste. Maybe we could try an experiment with hard sweets that taste sweet on the outside, but have absolutely no taste(doesn't taste good or bad) on the inside(the inside must be soluble and cause no problems when ingested). See if people would spit out the hard sweet once it has no taste.

You are given a map, and the map grid reference (basically the x and y coordinates of the point on the map) of 2 points. You are asked to find the distance between those two points. You only have the map, protractor with ruler, the question paper, the answer sheet, and a pen. Your table is 30cm by 30cm large , the map is 1m by 1m, and the room is so packed that the students' elbows touch each other. How do you find the distance between the two points?

Method one: Plot the points and measure the distance, and convert with scale.

Method two: Find the distance using the map grid reference using Pythagoras' theorem. (Disregard the fact the you do not have a calculator)

Knowing me, I did the 2nd method.

I estimated the hypotenuse of a 110m by 500m triangle without a calculator to be 514m. =)

So happy to be able to use JC math.

If I could bring a pokemon with me into army, I would choose Diglett.

Why?

1. Can help to dig shell scrape, fire trench, MG trench, command trench.
2. Can help to recce.
3. Can set off enemy tripflares at night and screw up their ambush.
4. Can help to clear minefield.
5. Can turn enemy claymores backwards at night.
6. Can summon earthquake and pwn the enemy's firebase.
7. Can overturn enemy combat trains.

Other good pokemon to bring:

Abra: Teleport you everywhere.
Pikachu: Can summon CAT 1.
Espeon: Its clairvoyance would be extremely helpful when people lose stuff.

Bad pokemon to bring:

Magnamite: Screws up your compass.
Hypno: As if everyone isn't sleepy enough already.
Charizard: Not tactical, especially at night.

If the world of Pokemon existed, Pokemon would unlikely be called "Pokemon", and the people's main preoccupation would unlikely be about Pokemon fights.

When we look at the world of Pokemon carefully, we would soon realize that the main difference between the Pokemon world and our world is due the amazing contraption called the Pokeball. When a Pokeball is thrown at any object, it would store that object into itself, while the mass and weight of the object completely disappears.

So in the Pokemon world, a Pokemon is basically... just any creature that can be found in the wild, and Pokemon trainers are people who bother to put them into Pokeballs. The word "Pokemon" supposedly stands for "pocket monster", but the thing is, those creatures are capable of being fitted into pockets only because of this invention called "Pokeball", and not due to any special characteristic of their own. It's as lame as calling all animals CageAnimals or all water BottleWater, just because they can be stored in cages or bottles respectively.

In the world of Pokemon, energy is not conserved. If you lift up a Pokeball with an Onix, then release the Onix at the top, store the Onix back into the Pokeball and repeat, you'll get a free energy generator. If anyone can ever invent something like a Pokeball, the world would probably be consuming energy without giving two hoots about oil prices and global warming. A world unbound by energy constraints seems pretty good.

Warfare would be damn different with Pokeballs. If timed bombs explode in Pokeballs, then people would be able to carry unlimited amounts of ordnance, so you could pretty much have a Tsar bomb hidden in a purse. If they don't, then the whole world is pretty much immune to nukes, considering that Pokeballs are damn cheap.

No matter how powerful your armoured weapons are, you have to be wary of MGs that fire Pokeballs 'cos it's instant KO for anything to get hit by it.

If two Pokeballs hit each other, and one of them enters the other, how would you know which Pokeball entered which Pokeball?

A war would only involve Commandoes bringing an entire army of Pokeballs into the enemy capital.

As I think more and more about it, Pokeballs sound like damn frigging imba things to have.

Why are plane mirror images laterally inverted and not vertically inverted?

It actually has little to do with the plane mirror.

Suppose I say, "Show me that a mirror image is laterally inverted."

What you would probably do is:

Step 1: Show me two copies of a piece of paper with the letter 'b'
Step 2: Place one of them in front of a plane mirror, with the letter 'b' facing the plane mirror
Step 3: Place the other one next to the mirror image, with the letter 'b' facing us.

Then, it is easy to see, that the mirror image shows the letter 'd' while the paper shows the letter 'b'.

However, let us examine what you did in step 3: you rotated the piece of paper about the vertical axis. Is that the only way which you can make the piece of paper face yourself so that you can read it? Clearly not. You could rotate the piece of paper about the horizontal axis as well. In that case, you would get a letter 'p' while the paper shows the letter 'b'. Now, isn't the mirror image now vertically inverted?

When we compare the real object and the mirror image, nothing dictates that we can't rotate the object about the horizontal axis to make it face us. The crux of this problem is in identifying that in our common experience, in order to make an object that originally faced forward face us, we would rotate it about the vertical axis.

Thus, the image of a plane mirror being laterally inverted is NOT a physical property of a plane mirror. It is due to the way you rotate the object to make it face yourself.