"How's the bread?"
"Pretty good. You want some?"
"No! I'm genuinely interested in knowing it's quality."
"Hello, is John in?"
"Ahh, please hold on."
"No, it's okay! I just want to know if he's at home."
"Excuse me mister, are you in the queue?"
"No, I'm not in the queue. *steps aside*"
"It's ok! I was just wondering why you've been standing there for so long."
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
Random idea.
Suppose you invent a head-dress (could be a cap, hat or visor) which contains a patch that measures skin-conductance. The head dress would display the scaled skin-conductance graph of the wearer. This would allow other people would know how stressed you are, and to a certain extent, whether you are lying. However, the display for the skin-conductance is designed such that you can only read the skin-conductance of other people if you are wearing a particular kind of goggles.
Experiment one.
1. Get a bunch of people. Give half of them special goggles.
2. Split them into pairs, so that 1/3 of the pairs have 2 goggles, 1/3 of the pairs have one, and1/3 of the pairs have none.
3. The researcher, while wearing the special goggles, observes them having a conversation with each other, with perhaps some prompting questions.
Which of the cases is the most stressful? Both partners having goggles? Both without goggles? Being the only one without goggles? Or being the only one with goggles?
Experiment two. (Same thing, except the bolded parts)
1. Get a bunch of people. Give half of them special goggles, and give the other half of them similar-looking but normal goggles.
2. Split them into pairs, so that 1/3 of the pairs have 2 special goggles, 1/3 of the pairs have one, and1/3 of the pairs have none.
3. The researcher, while wearing the special goggles, observes them having a conversation with each other, with perhaps some prompting questions.
Which of the cases is the most stressful? Both partners having special goggles? Both without special goggles? Being the only one without special goggles? Or being the only one with special goggles? Would they be able to tell if their partners have special goggles?
Suppose you invent a head-dress (could be a cap, hat or visor) which contains a patch that measures skin-conductance. The head dress would display the scaled skin-conductance graph of the wearer. This would allow other people would know how stressed you are, and to a certain extent, whether you are lying. However, the display for the skin-conductance is designed such that you can only read the skin-conductance of other people if you are wearing a particular kind of goggles.
Experiment one.
1. Get a bunch of people. Give half of them special goggles.
2. Split them into pairs, so that 1/3 of the pairs have 2 goggles, 1/3 of the pairs have one, and1/3 of the pairs have none.
3. The researcher, while wearing the special goggles, observes them having a conversation with each other, with perhaps some prompting questions.
Which of the cases is the most stressful? Both partners having goggles? Both without goggles? Being the only one without goggles? Or being the only one with goggles?
Experiment two. (Same thing, except the bolded parts)
1. Get a bunch of people. Give half of them special goggles, and give the other half of them similar-looking but normal goggles.
2. Split them into pairs, so that 1/3 of the pairs have 2 special goggles, 1/3 of the pairs have one, and1/3 of the pairs have none.
3. The researcher, while wearing the special goggles, observes them having a conversation with each other, with perhaps some prompting questions.
Which of the cases is the most stressful? Both partners having special goggles? Both without special goggles? Being the only one without special goggles? Or being the only one with special goggles? Would they be able to tell if their partners have special goggles?
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Random thoughts:
Some of the recent advertisements are seriously bad, or as Nelson puts it, "No effort!"
Like, the "London Choco Roll" advertisement just involves some airy voice chanting "London Choco Roll" while a yellow fairy dances in front of the said product.
Or, the "Jia xiang mian" advertisement.
"Jia Xiang!" "Mian!"
"Jia Xiang!" "Mian!"
"Jia Xiang Jia Xiang!" "Mian Mian!"
"Jia Xiang Jia Xiang Jia Xiang!" "Mian Mian Mian!"
"ooooooooooh Jia Xiang Mian!"
That's like some secondary school cheer, dude.
The Shop N Save advertisement is painful to even recall.
Some of the recent advertisements are seriously bad, or as Nelson puts it, "No effort!"
Like, the "London Choco Roll" advertisement just involves some airy voice chanting "London Choco Roll" while a yellow fairy dances in front of the said product.
Or, the "Jia xiang mian" advertisement.
"Jia Xiang!" "Mian!"
"Jia Xiang!" "Mian!"
"Jia Xiang Jia Xiang!" "Mian Mian!"
"Jia Xiang Jia Xiang Jia Xiang!" "Mian Mian Mian!"
"ooooooooooh Jia Xiang Mian!"
That's like some secondary school cheer, dude.
The Shop N Save advertisement is painful to even recall.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
OH. MY. GOD.
Shawn(now 14) has broken his voice.
And in this new campus superstar, there is ANOTHER guy called Jarod Lee(now 13). This guy sings damn well too!
What's best, Shawn and Jarod are gonna sing together!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_xfwBR3Lk0&feature=related
My goodness.
Shawn(now 14) has broken his voice.
And in this new campus superstar, there is ANOTHER guy called Jarod Lee(now 13). This guy sings damn well too!
What's best, Shawn and Jarod are gonna sing together!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_xfwBR3Lk0&feature=related
My goodness.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Random:
Here's what you get when you google-translate the chorus for Britney Spears' "Womanizer":
Here's what you get when you google-translate the chorus for Britney Spears' "Womanizer":
Womanizer ，女性womanizer ，你是一个womanizer
噢， womanizer ，哦，你是一个womanizer婴儿
你，你，你，你，你，你是
Womanizer ， womanizer ， womanizer
（ Womanizer ）
男孩不要前端
一只是我知道，只要你是什么，是
男孩不要前端
一只是我知道，只要你是什么，是
(男孩不要前端? What the heck?)
Actually, we don't know whether the guy she's talking about is really a womanizer. But she asserts her claim so confidently with such great frequency, that if it's true that a lie repeated oft' becomes the truth, then that guy is almost certainly a womanizer. Especially since this song is played like EVERYWHERE almost ALL THE TIME.
噢， womanizer ，哦，你是一个womanizer婴儿
你，你，你，你，你，你是
Womanizer ， womanizer ， womanizer
（ Womanizer ）
男孩不要前端
一只是我知道，只要你是什么，是
男孩不要前端
一只是我知道，只要你是什么，是
(男孩不要前端? What the heck?)
Actually, we don't know whether the guy she's talking about is really a womanizer. But she asserts her claim so confidently with such great frequency, that if it's true that a lie repeated oft' becomes the truth, then that guy is almost certainly a womanizer. Especially since this song is played like EVERYWHERE almost ALL THE TIME.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Random made-up conversations/monologues.
_____________
"My favourite music goes like this: 'Kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit...'"
"Do you mean 'Ride of the Valkyries' by Wagner?"
"Oh is it? *youtube* Ahh yes!"
_____________
"Guys, I know that you don't like Chinese very much. I didn't like Chinese either when I was in sec 4. But now, I regret the fact that I didn't work hard enough for Chinese back then.
Have you seen the New Moon Chicken Essence advertisements? I've heard that they pay a thousand plus bucks to those who appear on their advertisements. Think about it! A thousand plus bucks! You can get yourself a pretty decent computer with it.
Well, I could have been one of them, except that I didn't get A1 for Chinese. Damn. If only... back then... sigh... then I'LL be the one who is proudly holding up the can of New Moon Chicken Essence for all to see, and I'LL be a thousand bucks richer in the process. If only...
So you see, an A1 for Chinese isn't exactly useless. In the case that you get A's for everything else for your A levels, you'll be an additional thousand plus bucks richer! Now, I hope that while you are contemplating giving up on Chinese, think about the thousand bucks! Man, that's a spanking new PC or even laptop! And you'll be the ubiquitous dude holding up the New Moon Chicken Essence with the wide grin across your face telling the whole of Singapore that you are some smart guy, and perhaps, just perhaps, while you are on the MRT doing your uni apps on your brand new Laptop, a little kid would squeal at his mom, "MA, isn't that the gor gor / jie jie who drinks New Moon Chicken Essence and scored the highest for A levels?" And everyone in the carriage turns around to look at you! What a Crowning Moment of Awesome that would be!
BUT! If you don't get an A1 for Chinese, that would never happen.
So, I hope that y'all would be inspired enough to study hard for your Chinese O levels! Wish you good luck!"
_____________
"My favourite music goes like this: 'Kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit, kill the wabbit...'"
"Do you mean 'Ride of the Valkyries' by Wagner?"
"Oh is it? *youtube* Ahh yes!"
_____________
"Guys, I know that you don't like Chinese very much. I didn't like Chinese either when I was in sec 4. But now, I regret the fact that I didn't work hard enough for Chinese back then.
Have you seen the New Moon Chicken Essence advertisements? I've heard that they pay a thousand plus bucks to those who appear on their advertisements. Think about it! A thousand plus bucks! You can get yourself a pretty decent computer with it.
Well, I could have been one of them, except that I didn't get A1 for Chinese. Damn. If only... back then... sigh... then I'LL be the one who is proudly holding up the can of New Moon Chicken Essence for all to see, and I'LL be a thousand bucks richer in the process. If only...
So you see, an A1 for Chinese isn't exactly useless. In the case that you get A's for everything else for your A levels, you'll be an additional thousand plus bucks richer! Now, I hope that while you are contemplating giving up on Chinese, think about the thousand bucks! Man, that's a spanking new PC or even laptop! And you'll be the ubiquitous dude holding up the New Moon Chicken Essence with the wide grin across your face telling the whole of Singapore that you are some smart guy, and perhaps, just perhaps, while you are on the MRT doing your uni apps on your brand new Laptop, a little kid would squeal at his mom, "MA, isn't that the gor gor / jie jie who drinks New Moon Chicken Essence and scored the highest for A levels?" And everyone in the carriage turns around to look at you! What a Crowning Moment of Awesome that would be!
BUT! If you don't get an A1 for Chinese, that would never happen.
So, I hope that y'all would be inspired enough to study hard for your Chinese O levels! Wish you good luck!"
Saturday, January 31, 2009
A short discussion on Biogenesis
X: I can't believe that anyone would still not believe in evolution!
Z: Well, D is one. Go ask him why.
X: D, you don't believe in evolution? Why?
D: I just find the concept of natural selection really quite hard to believe.
*X and Z proceeds to explain natural selection*
D: Okay, but still, it is a process that theoretically takes millions and millions of years! How can scientists be so sure that the universe has existed for this long? Why can we assume that physical laws that hold true now holds true in the past as well, enabling us to extrapolate our methods into the past?
*Critical Hit*
Personal commentary: From my point of view, I haven't been convinced by D, because I have learnt many physical laws, all of which I implicitly assume are independent of the age of the universe. It would be much harder for me than for D to accept that the universe is much younger than it appears to be. However, I do not know why scientists think that the universe is billions of years old. It had just been a habit to accept the word of scientists and deny all that is contrary to it.
Yet the rigour of science is based on the scientific method, and the scientific method cannot tell us if the universe had physical laws so different in the past that we have been misled from its actual age. However, the scientific method can test many other laws that explain other phenomena, along with the assumptions that make these laws work. While these assumptions may not be the absolutely correct one (since there is always the possibility of there existing an unknown variable in a law), it seems reasonable to assume that we can extend these assumptions to untestable circumstances.
Why so? Well, it is hard to say what is "reasonable". Induction is reasonable on daily life, even if we don't know we are applying it. For example, if a drink stall has served you good coffee twice, it seems reasonable to expect that it would serve you good coffee the third time. In this case, applying similar assumptions to all other physical laws is just using induction on a bigger scale.
From the opposing point of view, however, science has only tested its laws for a particular period of time, and thus has only a very small number of data points regarding how the physical laws are affected by the age of the universe. As such, science still cannot reasonably extrapolate that that physical laws that work now would have worked in the past.
We must concede that scientists are human as well. A coherent set of beliefs supported by a few "axioms" is a nice thing to have, and shaking the foundations of natural philosophy with some metaphysical "what if" is hardy worth the trouble.
"Mr Einstein, maybe E=mc²+Rjc³, just that R happens to be zero?"
X: I can't believe that anyone would still not believe in evolution!
Z: Well, D is one. Go ask him why.
X: D, you don't believe in evolution? Why?
D: I just find the concept of natural selection really quite hard to believe.
*X and Z proceeds to explain natural selection*
D: Okay, but still, it is a process that theoretically takes millions and millions of years! How can scientists be so sure that the universe has existed for this long? Why can we assume that physical laws that hold true now holds true in the past as well, enabling us to extrapolate our methods into the past?
*Critical Hit*
Personal commentary: From my point of view, I haven't been convinced by D, because I have learnt many physical laws, all of which I implicitly assume are independent of the age of the universe. It would be much harder for me than for D to accept that the universe is much younger than it appears to be. However, I do not know why scientists think that the universe is billions of years old. It had just been a habit to accept the word of scientists and deny all that is contrary to it.
Yet the rigour of science is based on the scientific method, and the scientific method cannot tell us if the universe had physical laws so different in the past that we have been misled from its actual age. However, the scientific method can test many other laws that explain other phenomena, along with the assumptions that make these laws work. While these assumptions may not be the absolutely correct one (since there is always the possibility of there existing an unknown variable in a law), it seems reasonable to assume that we can extend these assumptions to untestable circumstances.
Why so? Well, it is hard to say what is "reasonable". Induction is reasonable on daily life, even if we don't know we are applying it. For example, if a drink stall has served you good coffee twice, it seems reasonable to expect that it would serve you good coffee the third time. In this case, applying similar assumptions to all other physical laws is just using induction on a bigger scale.
From the opposing point of view, however, science has only tested its laws for a particular period of time, and thus has only a very small number of data points regarding how the physical laws are affected by the age of the universe. As such, science still cannot reasonably extrapolate that that physical laws that work now would have worked in the past.
We must concede that scientists are human as well. A coherent set of beliefs supported by a few "axioms" is a nice thing to have, and shaking the foundations of natural philosophy with some metaphysical "what if" is hardy worth the trouble.
"Mr Einstein, maybe E=mc²+Rjc³, just that R happens to be zero?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)