# Ndi

Senior Members

188

1. ## Racial differences.

Smaller brain <> stupid (or != if you prefer). If that were true, whatever we don't understand about time/space we could ask an elephant. There is a lower limit, such as you can't be REALLY smart if you have only 2 neurons, but the reverse is not true. It's like saying some people are stronger because they weigh more (weight lifter versus couch potato). As I've said, if you average IQ (I picked IQ because it's numeric and can be averaged) then black IQ would be a number, white IQ would also be a number and they will not be equal given enough decimals. You can then say that black's smarter than white or the other way around. Whether this is genetic and permanent is quite another story. If figures are close, they could be invalidated by the time you compute the average. I sincerely doubt enough research has been conducted to prove such findings because of the sheer number of people that need to be tested and the virtual impossibility to devise a test that fits the culture differences and be comparable. All IQ test I've seen so far require basic maths, basic social knowledge of a certain culture and, at the inconsiderate and incompetent edge, knowledge of US measuring system or English literature. None of these will ever work in South Africa. They need a native language test that uses localized questions to be even close to comparable. I'd go as far as to say that (can't prove but will support) it's impossible to devise a test that can compare black people to white people and be precise enough to take into consideration.
2. ## Proposed computer experiment for determining the age of the universe

Yes, you run into problems because of the integer base way of thinking. Rules are simple. Start counting, when you reach base increment next digit and reset first. Rinse and repeat. I can have numbers A B and C, in base D. A, B, C, AA, AB, AC, BA, etc. You can have non-integer numbers in a base, so in base 0.5 I can count in non-ints. 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.499999, 0.1|0. This is a notation problem, not a numeration issue. We write numbers with no spacing so itis human-readable with ints alone. Yet we have this issue for ints as well. In hex, we use A B C D E and F for that reason alone. 0xFF is actually 1515 but that raises confusion. So to keep glued-figure-format, we use letters. At the risk of repeating myself, this is not a number/math issue, but a human readable format issue. It has nothing to do with impossibility. We do run into problems, yes. This does not disprove the truth. IMO, "What digits can I use in base 0.5 ?" is misleading because you try to apply int numbering to a non-int base. We can use powers that are non-round, roots with non-round numbers too. Just because we devised ways to cast them to an int to do on paper is a different story. Computers don't use int casting or paper tricks to do float divisions. As for [2], I still fail to see your reasoning. Nobody can tell you what follows 3 because you have insufficient data. 2 might be after 3. Or 4 or 72. Now, what follows the first 3 in PI, well, that's not random. It's 1. then 4,1,5,9,2,6 etc. NOT RANDOM. Covering your eyes doesn't make it random. What comes after 3 is an incomplete question. What comes after 314 is better. 3141592 is even better. With enough info one can determine where you are in the string and start predicting with 100% accuracy. This is why real crypto functions require you to move mouse, bash keyboard, hit your head against the power supply and so on. Random() has a list of "random" numbers inside. If you use Random() once, you get away with it. Keep using it, and you give enough info to be located in the random string and you can predict randomness because it's not random. Not having enough info doesn't make something random. Coin toss is random. You can toss a coin a million times and you still can't tell what the next toss will be. It thought that computers and maths can't really generate random numbers because they are precise by nature. This is why hi-security systems turn to physics for randomness. What you are saying in your post is limited to "next digit" or next "few hundred" digits. Just because it's non-intuitive in human terms doesn't make it random in any way. It has a rule, it's well defined, thus predictable at any point. It's so predictable that if you give me an index I can give you a digit (I only have 32M so don't overdo it ). Perhaps it's the concept of random versus humanly-perceived random that's in question here?
3. ## getting away with murder

a) sometimes they do b) "why is the thing you miss in the last place you are looking". Because once you find it you stop looking. Besides, they dust the entire area, roll all the hairs, and do a DNA. IIRC, they can do an analysis on DNA even if 2 samples are mixed. So in the end, it's "one hair" even if it's a whole wig. c) If you found 3 hairs at the crime scene, you only use one for DNA, keep the others for physical comparison, future reference, exhibit A, etc. d) if they cut the high-speed chase to show me that a lab assistant found a SECOND hair on the scene I'd be pretty upset.
4. ## Racial differences.

There are undeniable differences between races - for example, black people have genes that make their skin black and we have the white skin genes. Genetic profiling points to race, sex, physical characteristics, physical abilities and *may* point to mental abilities. Whatever is common to black people and not an external factor is most likely in the genes. To be able to say that black people are inferior in IQ you'd have to fully profile genes that give IQ, understand them, then run tests on vast masses before you can make such an incendiary claim. So while it's true we're different and there are trends, there's a long way between skin color and superiority. Too many factors need taken into consideration, the best is that we still don't have a way to measure intelligence. IQ only points to few abilities and are dependent on culture and school systems. Basically "different" is true. We don't even know what "superior" means. Edit: P.S. One race is bound to be slightly higher when measured, if we ever have the means to measure. Should that happen, it's a scientific truth, not racism. Racism is race hate, not acknowledging differences. Nobody cried race when the calculated average per-country penis length. The line is thin, though. So is formulating that line. Even if average white IQ proves to be higher, that proves [/i]nothing[/i] about any of the individuals. I can already picture the worst examples of the white race grinning with both their teeth thinking they are smarter than the black people.
5. ## IESHWIZ and CD-ROMs

Em, should work via IESHWIZ/ desktop.ini + folder.htt editing? Note that desktop.ini is insufficient for customizations, you also need folder attributes to be present.
6. ## What happened?

Humidity causes cardboard to go soft in time until it couldn't support it's weight and rolled over. (yet another guess)
7. ## No you can't go back and kill your father.

Sorry to be hacking the thread (hope I'm not really off) -but- Has anyone shown time to actually exist? I always thought of it as a human measurement, a perceived notion when the need to express something that has already happened. It's vital to our communication so it's almost impossible to express ideas without actually using time in any way, but - for the heck of it, does it REALLY exist? (I used three time references at a minimum in this paragraph, plus another few implied presents or references. Another in the previous sentence) Is there any proof of a "timeline" in any way? Why the heck can't I kill my own grandfather? Objects interact. What's keeping me from displacing myself to the full coordinates of my grandfather at uniformly noted age of 25 and shoot him? Nothing (minus the physical impossibility ). We try to re-fit the events in a standard way of thinking. I shoot him, fine. I don't die or paradox because there is no timeline to rebuild. If I kick a ball from A to B, the ball moves. Right, where do we set NOW as? Current time. Can I set NOW as when the ball is half way? Sure. Can it be when the ball is to its destination? Sure. So if I can set an arbitrary NOW, I'd like to set it before I kicked the ball. I can do that. Does that mean I kicked the ball in the future? No, actually, since future is arbitrary. Does that mean that I can really NOT kick the ball? Seems unlikely that if I set NOW to T0 I can "not kick the ball" but if I set it to T1 I must/already have. We insist that time is just another coordinate, yet if we move along side it we insist that everything must be rebuild to fit. If a coin is on a paper (in 2D) and I move the coin through the 3rd dimension over some other place, does that mean that I have to rebuild the whole 2D universe to make everything fit? No. Why? Because we see a third coordinate as it is, another coordinate. Moving the coin from point A to B and then from B to A does *not* make the coin new again, nor does it imply that the rest of the paper rebuilds. If the coin leaves a smudge as it moves and we lift it and reset it at some point it will start a new smudge. It can even re-trace its old smudge, but it does NOT rebuild the smudge to fit its new location. Heck, I can even set it before it first appeared. It does not implode the universe. Then why would shooting grandpa not allow me to be born? 3 out of 4 coordinates have no lines and no reverse causality yet the 4th has? There are laws for two smudges intersecting, so there must be for two me-s as well. Maybe me walking into me has a more dense matter, just as the smudge thickens when double-walked. Even as I write this I'm trying to imagine my grandpa duplicating as I shoot, so he will go on and have my father. It's hard to be clear when so tightly bound to time causality. I'm not sure I'm being clear. I'm not sure how to make it clearer either, it's just that we consider time as a rolling drum, always rolling. Since we defined it that way, no wonder we come across issues trying to jump on the roll. It's just like we thought we are actually moving across the X axis at 1 meter per second, and the whole universe slides continuously. How do we get back 10 Km? We can't because there is no line, no scroll, no drum. And if we do believe we are on a constant slide and everything we do has an X, and Y, a Z and an index in meters, is it far fetched for us to also believe that if we jumped in the roll we'd have to do the same again? Would we have the misconception that if we unrolled the drum to before we were born we would not be there? Most likely. VCR tape rewinding gives people all kinds of ideas.
8. ## Proposed computer experiment for determining the age of the universe

a) Pi is not random. b) If it had ANY "randomness" it would be used for generating random numbers. It's not because it's predictable c) Pi in base Pi is 10. Throwing "any base" is unlikely to be helpful, especially since you don't seem to see where the "magic" of pi is coming from. Pi is what happens when you try to measure things that were not in the original blueprints. A meter is a meter because we said so. A foot is the foot size of some king. 1 meter = 3.2808399 feet. Does that help me calculate the radius of the universe? no. What it does is tell me that if I want to measure king feet I'd better switch to a more suitable system. We work in round numbers that we arbitrarily chose, in a base that is arbitrarily chosen. It's bound to be unsuitable in places, such as square roots. If you look at Pi computation/approximation algorithms you'll see it all boils down to "bad" operations for our usual bases. Try a Google search on Gauss-Legendre or Borwein's 4-th order convergent algorithm. As for 1) and 3) in your post, I'm at a loss. As pointed out in other posts, the "randomness" of such numbers is humanly perceived only because of base limitations. They are constant through time and specific to our base and system. Switch to radians and a circle becomes 2 base Pi. Half a circle becomes 1 base Pi. Conversion between bases is 3.1415 just as conversion between feet and meters is 3.2808. Just because you can't measure a wheel with a stick doesn't make the wheel holy. It makes the stick bad.
9. ## Vista DRM is a myth?

There's been an extensive thread about Windows and DRM with detailed info and some debate about DRM and its usage. DRM will not be able to pose any threat to any well-informed user or programmer as it needs a software side to run. Whatever is software can be altered, cracked or otherwise tricked. There were plans to have the DVD drive linked to the monitor and the monitor would lower quality when a non-DRM media is used. The idea was booed for obvious reasons and it failed since it could rob legitimate users of their content and THEY can sue. We have a saying in Romania - it may and should be universal: "Locks are for honest people". Thieves get in anyway. DRM is to keep Joe Average from inserting any DVD anywhere and getting an illegal picture. When a DVD is released, the content is ripped (by bad people) and transcoded into a format that does not have any flags (AVI, MP3, etc). Those files you get as "piracy". The only thing DRM does (and will do for a long time) is slow down Joe Average using Nero to "disk copy" a DVD movie. It can't stop Joe Average from getting an MP3 from a site/program and pressing PLAY. Mainly because it can't know blindly when an MP3 is being played by a 3rd party software. If you are really interested in DRM, use the search function to get a hold of the original DRM thread (I posted too, this could narrow the search).
10. ## cooling by fan?

Cars get cooled slightly via fans because they employ a metal chassis. The fans at full speed compress the air from the outside, raising temperature by a degree or two. This air is rubbing against the chassis on its way to the cabin, losing the excess heat to the car body (which is now cooler, being vented in motion). When it reaches the ventilation grids, it expands, getting cooler, thus having an actual temperature difference relative to the body of the car and the air going over the chassis. This is not significant for fans, I just inserted the fans to be into the question, actually it's been implemented in older cars and uses the pressure of the air in front of the car ramming against the ventilation intake. There is a noticeable difference in temperature when going at highway speeds, when pressure is higher and the chassis is being ventilated. Just background info.

14. ## fuel taxes

Public transportation, as well as suburban lifestyle could be saved with building relocation. You can build an outer ring outside of the town that connects all living areas and those could have connections with a commercial, inner ring. That way one could drive in circles (so to speak) to a large parking lot where they embark for the center. Once there, a small system of transportation could ferry citizens from point to point as needed, like an array of buses, mini-taxis and such. Those could be regulated to be clean (electric, bio, compressed air, etc). While all the cars are still on the road, they drive on a huge circle outside the town instead of hitting lights and concentrating. Only problem is the city is no longer a city, it's an industrial center with houses around it. When entertainment/better housing starts to develop on -say- east, then the center of gravity also shifts and the city relocates with a new center. Out capital was build like that, an inner ring with all the hotels, administration, etc, and the outer housing area. The infrastructure was designed a long time ago, and it was for 200.000 cars. As the city grew (estimated 1.2 million cars on the road, 2 million in a few years), even the "outer" ring is crowded and is now the "inner" ring. A new outer ring was established, but unfortunately wherever you go you need to get to the inner ring if you go from one side to the other and the traffic is murder. But in theory and with control it could work. Assuming city organizing is an acceptable answer to gas prices. Which it's not, unless the tax is used to tone down the traffic. I know that US is in an awkward position with the oil, but IMO price jumps (taxes or not) are inevitable. I also believe nothing will change until prices actually rise. I've never been there, but I do have friends over, but I understand that US has roughly the same problem as Australia and (partially) as we do: distance, Mainly due to large area cities. In UK (last time I've been there) the problems were more in the general area of infrastructure, rather than car floods (minus London). I have no idea how you're gonna fix London, sorry. Correct me if I'm wrong.
15. ## HELP...Stem Cell Research Debate

Sorry to troll, but I'd switch sides. You will be in a position to explain how you refuse to save ten lives in the name of belief/misconception/whatever of a single (dead) person. Also, you might want to keep up with technology: * 2005 - Researchers at Kingston University in England claim to have discovered a third category of stem cell, dubbed cord-blood-derived embryoniclike stem cells (CBEs), derived from umbilical cord blood. The group claims these cells are able to differentiate into more types of tissue than adult stem cells.[wiki] * 07 January, 2007 - Scientists at Wake Forest University led by Dr. Anthony Atala and Harvard University report discovery of a new type of stem cell in amniotic fluid.[1] This may potentially provide an alternative to embryonic stem cells for use in research and therapy.[Wiki] Wiki sources have links.

17. ## fuel taxes

Both valid points, but even though carpooling is smoke, public transportation does have a valid point, that is, it can take the load off the road and gas when loads of people move from point A to B, which DOES happen. While not a solution in itself, it does lighten the load. IMO, gas taxes are idiotic as long as a valid alternative isn't here. Leave it be, people will adapt when things run out, as we adapted to other factors. Nobody drives hydrogen because there are decades of gas left. What's the point? I mean, if it's the last bread on Earth, why eat it half-way? Preserve what? We'll have to eat something else anyway so why not finish it? Why raise taxes artificially to make people move/draw money/whatever when you can just wait it out a few years more? Oil will run low, prices will rise, people will start adapting cars and/or abandon them for other means of transportation. This tax along with others long left the realm of a way of drawing money to feed police and army. It's a control tool to try to level people out as much as possible. Why not switch to communism and get it over with? Taxes I understand. Selective taxes for other purposes than building houses and providing services to the citizen I don't. Maybe politics work differently where you are but around here I can't help feeling like I borrowed money to a friend to get me a bike and he claims he no longer has it because it spent it in the lolly I got for my birthday. If it were up to me all politicians should have minimum wage with no possibility of other finances and a strict check. Politics is for those who aim to do good, not for getting rich. A generous pension should await them upon retirement as a thank you. Live like us, understand, act. Then you get paid. How does a million-dollar-a-year-salary help anyone understand what gas price is and what "need to drive to work" means? Sorry about ranting.
18. ## freeze concentrate

It is. They freeze-dry instant coffee as an example. Freeze drying is used for things that don't boil well. As for your beer minus a few degrees is what you need, as water most likely freezes first. A normal fridge keeps around +4 degrees, a quick-freezer (icecream, etc) -4 to -8 and a deep freezer (the one that keeps meat 6 months) about -20 (all figures in Celsius). I believe your beer made it to under approx -10. (starts to freeze at about -6)
19. ## 6 Meter Egg Drop. HELP!

Back to filling the box with foam/hard substance? I'd go for complete force spread over the surface over the braking of the egg. That is, I'd feel safer with an egg that's perfectly fit in a metal mold (theoretically speaking) versus a suspension/breaking system with a simple brace. You can't really break an egg if it's contained. Whatever forces the contents apply via inertia will have to squeeze wall molecules apart before breaking the walls, which is probably *way* over terminal velocity. So I'd say get a 10x10x10 box, fill it half way with something hard, non-adherent (oil the egg if needed be) and put the egg half-in. Once it hardens, you have half-of-cast for the egg. Then you can either make the other half the same way or use a sheet of paper over the assembly and make the other half over it (paper will rip when opening the halves and allow retrieval of egg). Now all you have to do is make sure the cast is actually touching the egg over most of the surface. Use something with high viscosity if the mold shrinks, like honey (i know it's a food), solid hand lotion, motor grease, etc to keep the egg walls in contact with the mold. That should hold at the box's terminal velocity? Now all you do is make sure it doesn't come apart in flight or at landing. Rope? Plenty of duct tape? P.S. The egg will be OK on the outside but you might have an omelet inside at high velocities.
20. ## We are all computer simulations - Not

Awww, a child simulation. A typo threw me off to recursive algorithms. Well, it's all relative. You see, simulation can be child-based (simulation running a universe that itself has a civilization running a simulation). That does not mean that it runs THE SAME simulation. It can't. It's like a camera that films its own output. It then sends to the monitor, which gets filmed, which again gets sent in a fractal manner down to a single pixel and no more. Point being, you can't do this forever. At one point the simulation breaks because nothing is infinite, especially in a computer. What happens is, your write Universe.exe and run it. Universe.exe runs 1000 years and hits the development point where the child universe spawns a Universe.exe. At that point, data is added to the system, since those cycles can't be skipped, adding to the load. Be it linear, exponential, or of a different order. Universe.exe runs another 1010(2000? million?) years until the child universe runs another Universe.exe. More data is added. The simulation grinds to a halt. Each cycle is longer, to a point where it doesn't matter. Let me simplify. --- If the simulation runs very fast, say, 1 ms until it evolves and spawns a child, then the next ms it has 2 sims to run. The third has that too and so on, so after one second you already added 1000 simulations. Next second you do the same. Problem is,that program never completes it cycle. Fast forward to real time and you see it freeze. Infinite recursion and locked loops are what we call "frozen" applications. If course, in real life what you get is a stack overflow/memory error reeeal quick. But that PC runs a mac that runs a PC that runs a mac. When you hit the key it "freezes" because it's locked into a pointless and neverending loop of creating children. It doesn't run slow, it freezes. Remember, this isn't fluent, you need to quantize to compute. Oh yes it can, if SIMULATED, you can simulate only what's in use, simulate a different thing, etc. Or if the EMULATED universe is less complex than the original. Their universe may have billions of levels of subparticles / billions of known macrouniverses. We are stuck in a simulation and when i = 1000 then i := -1000. Then we stand there, wondering how traveling in a straight line gets us to where we started. This is an endless argument. It only needs to simulate AN universe, not THE universe. What we see as uber-complex quantum physics might be childplay in another - or a beta test in another. It might also be very complex because we try to explain what was created using Random(). We live in an overcomplex universe. Real matter is formed from basketballs. Who knows? Chocolate? Also, we only access one billionth(ththth) of the universe at one time. We can't check to see if atom nr 2005 matches atom 1*10^42342452454. We can't. Also, we draw laws from what we see. If some idiot declared speed as 16 bit unsigned we can't travel more than the speed of light. We don't know it's a bug, we find convoluted explanations and create laws that help us understand how it works. And we succeed, because 2 points determine a line. 3 points determine a circle. What we do is draw the circle and look for an explanation as to why they are there, and WHY A CIRCLE? We invent the circle, write an equation. Use 4 points. There's an equation for that, too. 4 billion points? That too. All you have to do is plot random numbers, seed an AI and watch it make sense of it. Maybe we're doing someone's homework. There is no relation between the runners of the simulation and the universe inside. The water-down of the simulation also explains the infinite recursion. Each recursion is simpler to a point where a certain level fails to run a successful simulation. Most likely chatting over a forum saying it's impossible to do We wouldn't know we've been swapped to disk. We would have giant bugs eating solar systems hole, die of spontaneous combustion, morph into sperm whales then we would be restored from a backup and not remember anything, not even realize it was interrupted, let alone we came really close.
21. ## The magic sausage.

Out here it's affectionately known as "varnish". What you do is get a tube of plastic, in a small diameter, then slightly heat it and stretch it to a larger tube. When heated, the plastic reverts to its original size. It's used to secure wires. Instead of duct taping them (which leaves glue all over and they age and falls off with heat and water), such a tube is inserted over the wire and after soldering it's pulled over and heated. The plastic shrinks and looks just like the original isolation, protecting from hat, water, and non-aging.
22. ## 6 Meter Egg Drop. HELP!

You can modify the composition of the water for buoyancy.
23. ## 6 Meter Egg Drop. HELP!

I assumed it's 10x10x10. If no height, you use a string and make a yoyo. I just thought that if no liquid is used, only half of the egg is taking the pressure and the egg is *much* more resilient on the pointy end. Position is irrelevant in water, obviously. My phrasing was lacking. It should be: Due to the air bubble in the egg (which is compressible), it is marginally better in theory to use an egg encased in solid rather than a case with a liquid. I doubt it will make a difference in practice, this is only theoretical and only marginal.
24. ## 6 Meter Egg Drop. HELP!

Water would work, equalizing the pressure, just as solid encasing would too (same effect, more math with water). I just don't understand how papers would. Surely the weight distribution is not that even? Maybe a tightly packed cardboard? -- Now that I think about it, solid encasing is better, since the egg still has a little air bubble inside it for the infant to breathe before hatching (so I've understood) so the pressure from outside would crack it (this is in theory - doubt it will at 6 m fall).
25. ## We are all computer simulations - Not

You lost me. How did you jump to that conclusion? I fail to see any link between recursion and speed of execution. We could be anywhere. I wasn't aware that there was something to explain. No such thing was ever documented, so how do you explain something that doesn't exist?
×