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.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
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)