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.
Monday, July 24, 2006
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)