Why do people lose it? What makes them sane players in our world of affairs and the next day and looney toons the next? I'm sure we've all seen the raving bum on the street. How'd he get to be that way? Why did the Virginia Tech killer shoot up his classmates? It can't just be stress because millions of people face stress without going crazy.
Real Life and the reality no matter what a person does, it generally means nothing.
Chemical Imbalance in the brain
Anonymous Scientist is correct, it usually has a genetic cause, although not always, it is usually triggered by invironmental stresses or can be caused by use or abuse of pharmasuticals or drugs or even alcohol.
This thread is worse than Dr. Phil.
Bottled-up emotions.
People become psycho by the many failures of our own society and the people around us. Think about it.
Shame, guilt, and fear are powerful drugs, indeed.
Well
Its about anniversary of virginia tech, columbine and oklahoma city I can tell you people loners either hear voices In their heads or people are saying real serious stuff like sarcstic jokes and chatterbox lies and all It does It make them go psychotic and crazy humans never shut up we are not perfect we are human but some can turn Into monsters best not to provoke Instead support them and for the person provoked get help and not buy a gun and kill people when people are angry or upset at someone they say "I will kill you" remember when someone Is having a real conversion Its not you they are talking about It someone else always, or you are just hear stuff If nobody Is around means you are hearing things like "auditory halliucations" you think voices are coming form the TV or from the walls or from the air maybe but you are paraniod not real If you see or hear voices Its either you're heads playing tricks and games or you see and hear others talking to themselves or someone else very tricky situations In life you can't go Insane or psycho about them.
Basically it is a variation of the experiment performed by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey in 1952 where you take water vapor, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen, then run a current through it to produce simple amino acids. Only in this variation we would replace the methane (CH4) with silane (SiH4). Has this experiment every been attempted it and if it has what were the results?
As it turns out Silane is highly volatile and reacts violently in air. Perhaps DiSilane (Sih6) can be used instead?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIEO1bUFHsI
http://blog.boundlessat.com/text-messaging-app-for-the-blind
I wish to be a programmer as noble as this team. The article does not say weather or it is open source or not.
Too bad a blind person wouldn't be able to start an app on an iPhone...
>>2
Not true. I'm sure someone will make an AUI (auditory user interface) wherein vision is substituted for constant tactile interaction such that auditory cues are given to confirm certain actions. For example, dragging your finger over an application icon translates its name from text to speech. Unobtrusive, pleasant rings indicate when the user passes over buttons, input fields, menus and the like. A quick double-tap would select them.
Well, get on it, developers.
> someone will make ... user interface
Not on iPhone. Apple doesn't let anyone mess with their UI.
>>4
Doesn't have to be a UI modification. It could be a standalone application which mimics the default UI layout and function, with added auditory enhancements.
>>5
How would a blind person start this application?
>>6
By putting it in a simple position in the list of applications, such as at a top corner. It would be kind of hard, what with the giant icons Apple is fond of, to miss. And if they do so happen to choose the wrong one, they can obviously use the menu button thingy to go back to the menu.
>>7
iPhone apps can choose the position of their icons?
I have been contemplating the universe..
I have come to a fork in the road for many of my thoughts..
Is the Universe Finite or Infinite
Each choice dictating the direction of further contemplation on any given thought
For example: Finite: If the universe started out from an impossibly hot, impossibly tiny singularity, (such as in the Big Bang Theory), then.. What did that singularity exist in? what was around it, what co-existed with that singularity? how was it considered hot if nothing around it existed with any varying temperature with which to compare?
These examples represent one blade of grass in the entire milky way, as far as how many questions there are with the two-headed fork
But if the Universe is infinite, these questions don't exist and an equally massive list of new ones pop up..
>infinite compression is impossible.
why? As far as I know in black holes density is infinite.
WHAT IS AN UNSTABLE NULL VOID SERIOUSLY
universe is infinite but the matter is finite but welled out of something continuously
>>34
Define matter. And don't tell me it's mass-energy.
Matter is also a function of space. Space continuously produces and destroys matter (quantum foam)
The Universe was started at the beginning with a malloc(Really_Huge_Number), so at some point in space/time when you reach that limit you'll get a buffer overflow and the program will crash. You will then need to press the reset button.
>>32
For obvious reasons we can't look inside a black hole from the outside and report back. But in at least some of the models, density is not infinite, just sufficient to make the escape velocity higher than the speed of light in vacuum.
It's a puzzle. How would you tell the difference from the outside? What experiment could you perform?
>>38
we know that black holes have entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_thermodynamics), and that the maximal entropy of a region scales with the surface area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle). if the volume of a non-rotating black hole is 0, then the surface area is 0. if the surface area is 0, then the maximal entropy of the black hole is 0. rotating black holes could have 0 volume but nonzero surface area, but not large enough surface area for their entropy.
tl;dr infinite compression breaks thermodynamics.
I think your problem lies in the fact that your thoughts are, along with every other human for that matter, tied inextricably to the physical laws that persist in our "universe." There is no reason to believe that all of these, most especially time as we understand it, existed before the big bang. So any thing that existed previously would be nearly impossible for us to understand. Also, I think the point is made nearly moot by the scope of the known universe. Even most stars won't live long enough for their light to travel all the way across it. For such puny and short lived creatures as us it is for all intent and purposes "infinite" if not actually so.
So how long do you think it will be before such technoloogy is widely availble to the public?
10 years? Maybe 25?
It never hurts to overdesign. The speed of the processors have pretty much hit fundamental elemental barriers. Make the chips capable of processing 4 simultaneous 128 bit instructions in one cpu cycle will speed up number processing for things that need it. Such as any of the BOINC projects. instead of taking months to process a genome or a climate projection it could be done much more rapidly. the amounts of data that are currently available on the internet is only going to be the tip of the data iceberg. Take the utilities to make 32 bit code run in 64 bit and use that to run something that needs 512 with data redundancy. take your pick designing the chip that runs at 1ghz and is 1024bit wide but consumes virtually no power and runs at room temp without cooling is much more valuable than designing a 10ghz chip that needs a factory sized cooling device. just my two cents on this one.
more stars out there than the number of grains of sand you would think we might eventually need a computer capable of processing them all at once....now thats something to work towards.
There is little reason to add bits to word size. 64 bits give you any reasonably big integer value, any reasonably precise floating point number, and any reasonable address in memory. Adding bits to that has little effect, it just extends the range to the 'less reasonable' area. Yes it can be useful in certain applications but it won't bring effect in most.
What's interesting is having the computer to process them faster or more of them at once and because increasing the frequency is getting increasingly hard due to speed of light limit, adding CPU cores and massively parallel units such as GPUs is the current way to go.
>>42
What is reasonable in 2010 may not be a few years down the road. And it's always later than you think.
"No one should ever need more than 640k." --Bill Gates, 1981
As we develop artificial intelligence we will need more computing and ram to process data. A 1024-Bit System is only withing 15 years.
A 256-bit system will essential and faster speed to computing graphical animation rather than writing in temporary files and reading the images separately.
DVD of "THE COVE" is being distributed free of charge in Sea Shepherd now.
Please contact the application method each mail address described in following URL.
http://www.seashepherd.org/contact/general-public.html
Sea Shepherd has already begun serving in Japan and each country.
You also must apply.
Well, Skynet is supposed to take over April 21, 2011. The war is supposed to rage until 2029 when we destroy Skynet's master control. SO, you scientists and technogeeks need to stop posting random thoughts and GET BACK TO WORK! Be a part of the RESISTANCE, not the problem! ;)
We already have Multiple Instruction Multiple Data processors. I really doubt increasing instruction bit size would help anything.
No need for 128, 256,512,1024 OS and compatible CPU?
Well the biggest example you have,you are using right now. The Internet. Runs mostly on a 32 bit IP address, but now we need a bigger address scheme, hence 64bit was introduce. It was said we would never need more IPs than the 32 bits could address, but yet here we are. If not for NAT the Internet working would have crash years ago.
We can't see the need for 128 or even a 256 right now but the need is there just a little ways down the road. Get your binoculars and look a little further ahead.
It is true however, a 128 or higher OS will not bring faster computing at least not very noticeable anyway. What we need is a complete and utterly new computer system i.e. new bus capable of transfer data near the speed of the 128 bit CPU, storage near that speed as well. In other words the hardware needs to match or approach the speed and performance increase gain by a 128 bit or higher.
This is a no brainer
We have 7 billion people on this planet only and a 32 bit OS can only address 4 billion adresses
We know that we will need a 1024 bit OS and processor eventually
and not something bigger in this universe,as the number of atoms in this universe is contained in this 2^1024 number
So why not build it now?
we skip the unpleasans 32 to 64 bit transitions like in the future
Okay, I'll branch this thread off the other one myself if you guys don't want to take the initiative. It may die in silence, but at least I tried. :p
RULES
-No flaming or trolling. Emphasis on flaming. Keep the argument down to a mild level.
-Back up what you say. I know it's hard for this, but don't just say something like "God is evil". Tell WHY you think God is evil, and use logic to back it up if you have tot. If you want to say "God is good", then the same goes for you.
-Keep this as mature as possible. This is basically like repeating the first rule, but don't let your emotions/beliefs get in the way of your argument. It makes you and your whole case look childish.
STARTING ARGUMENT:
Supposing that a God exists, he cannot be both benevolent and omnipotent, because evil also exists.
>>45, yes you are. if you do a double post on 4-ch and leave it there while the rest of us go on vacation, and it double-posts, destroying all of /science/, you are responsible for the mess it made.
lol right you are. i am responsible for that. it dont see how it destroys all of /science/ but whatever. i thought i deleted the second one. shoulda been deleted by mod too. but ill fix it.
bah, i cant seem to delete my own post on this board. fail.
My personal view is that God is NOT all powerful, the simplest reason being that to be all powerful you would need to satisfy conditions that are mutually exclusive (ie make a stone so heavy that not even he can lift it). I'd like to think that god would prevent people from committing atrocities on each other like those committed during WW2, but it is just that he is unable to do anything to stop them.
>>50
In the words of "Jesus-H-Christ", who posts on reddit, discussing how He (God) can be His own son:
"Humans can comprehend only one internally consistent logical model, but gods can hold several mutually inconsistent models in their mind at the same time (like superposition in quantum physics). Reality does not match any single model (or meta model at infinitum, you get the idea), you need to apply several at once. I contain multitudes, so I can grok reality easily. You guys are left with one truth at the time (you can switch between them though, like in binocular rivalry)."
Thus, God can create a boulder in one logical model which humans using another logical model (such as atheism) may perceive Him as being unable to lift.
He may also perform or permit actions which appear wholly evil in one logical model, but are not evil in His logical model of preference.
Also, you suck for unearthing this doomed thread from its peaceful grave. Let it rest. It's the humane thing to do.
> Supposing that a God exists, he cannot be both benevolent and omnipotent, because evil also exists.
If a God does not exist, who defines what is "evil"? Evil cannot exist without God. If we accept the assumption that evil exists, then we must conclude that some God does exist. We must also conclude that this God is either not omnipotent or not benevolent, or that evil serves some benevolent purpose.
>>52 of course evil exists without god. What does not exist is absolute evil, since evil must always be stipulated by someone, mortal or immortal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdnWwlZCsSw
This made me really sad.
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/01/25/capofdarkness.shtml
"A professor from chair of quantum and optical electronics of the Ulyanovsk State University in western Russia has patented a method of making things invisible, Interfax news agency reported.
The so-called invisibility cloak, created by Oleg Gadomsky, is called “The method of conversion of optical radiation” in the patent.
Gadomsky had been long experimenting on nanoparticles of gold. Thus, he invented a sub-micron stratum of microscopical colloid golden particles that makes an object placed behind it invisible for an observer.
“Only static objects can be made invisible for the time present, as during motion a radiation frequency changes. But soon it will be possible to create a cap of darkness and a magic cloak of Harry Potter, the scientist believes."
This will be great for spying on people.
Time Can be Turned Back
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/379/12190_experiment.html
"Eight years ago, American and British scientists who conducted investigations in Antarctica made a sensational discovery. US physicist Mariann McLein told the researchers noticed some spinning gray fog in the sky over the pole on January 27 which they believed to be just ordinary sandstorm. However, the gray fog did not change the form and did not move in the course of time. The researchers decided to investigate the phenomenon and launched a weather balloon with equipment capable to register the wind speed, the temperature and the air moisture. But the weather balloon soared upwards and immediately disappeared.
In a little while, the researchers brought the weather balloon back to the ground with the help of a rope attached to it before. They were extremely surprised to see that a chronometer set in the weather balloon displayed the date of January 27, 1965, the same day 30 years ago. The experiment was repeated several times after the researchers found out the equipment was in good repair. But each time the watch was back it displayed the past time. The phenomenon was called "the time gate" and was reported to the White House."
"The last record made in the framework of the experiment and kept at the Institute archives says: "We are dying but keep on conducting the experiment. It is very dark here; we see all objects become double, our hands and legs are transparent, we can see veins and bones through the skin. The oxygen supply will be enough for 43 hours, the life support system is seriously damaged. Our best regards to the families and friends!" Then the transmission suddenly stopped."
What the fuck...
It's all fun and games until JAM attacks.
>>3 "According to one of the versions of the tragedy, the module with three experimenters collided with a large object, probably an asteroid" implies there were more versions.
But I can't find anything else on the web. All web pages point to this 2004 Pravda article.
Suspicious...
>>1 This will be usefull for me for stalking the girl I love :)
Hello, we're talking about Pravda FFS! Its journalists are as reliable as Jim Carrey's character in Liar, Liar.
And Mosnews isn't that much of an exception...
From "PRAVDA", here are some headlines:
"Condoleezza Rice's anti-Russian stance based on sexual problems"
"Condoleezza Rice wants Russia to obey her every single word"
"Condoleezza Rice: Mind your own business"
"The voice of hypocrisy" (Condoleezza Rice is either lying through her teeth or else she is a barefaced hypocrite)
>Hello, we're talking about Pravda FFS!
While I agree with the sentiment, the headlines you quote are rather detrimental to your argument. :)
>>6
Due to it's fleeting nature, which makes it spontaneously combust when coming in cotnact with THE INTERNET, sarcasm has been rarely observed in the wild of /science.
Due to its inherent tendency to violently explode to face, it has become so rare even, that some hypothetize, it might not actually exist and banish it to the realm of myths, such as Nessie, or the gods of ancient egypt.
>>8 is Albright who escaped from the confinements of /politics
Earthquake prediction society of top of Japan
HP ttp://www1.odn.ne.jp/cam22440/
Kiii━━━━━━━━━━∧━∧━━━━━━━━━━ iiiin
（(ﾟ)Å(ﾟ)）
（ ）
｜ ｜ |
（_＿）＿）
Ｇｉ━━━━━━━━━━∧━∧━━━━━━━━━━ n
（(ﾟ)Å(ﾟ)）
（ ）
｜ ｜ |
（_＿）＿）
Holy crap! The earthquake was so strong it knocked his ears off!
Emergency experience this morning again. A strong tinnitus pressure and it exists about the severe earthquake sign.
Be careful!
If you announce yourselves as able to predict earthquakes, the government may arrest you if you fail to predict correctly.
So I read in another forum that there may be an earthquake coming up in California soon. Anybody else hear anything similar?
>>7
It's a safe bet because there's always about to be an earthquake in California. If enough lunatics say it, eventually one of them is going to get it right. They won't get it right a second time, though... they never do.
It always seems that after every quake someone announces that they did indeed "predict" it. Apparently the enormous property damage and lives lost weren't very important to this great prognosticator and so they never went public with their "findings" (nine times out of ten, it involves crystals). Sure... And then they fail to predict future quakes with any accuracy at all.
This isn't to say that there were some very interesting findings ahead of the Tohoku quake in particular that may help provide some warning of future events like it. Seriously, though. Leave this to science, not crazies on INTERNET FORUMS.
No earthquake in California so the loonies were wrong this time. Another poster on the same forum predicted something in south or central America on Sep 27th. Mostly I visit those forums though for entertainment purposes rather than usable advice or predictions. The posts about the government using HAARP to cause earthquakes give me an occasional chuckle, but I haven't taken any of the stuff seriously.
Hello. Coming out of high school with little practice in physics and science, what would be a good book to bridge the high school - university gap? Preferably with little to no color, drawings etc as I would like to print it out and read places that are not at my computer.
Depends on the extent to which you want to pursue physics. In general I would recommend practically any pop-sci book, for example those from the likes of Michio Kaku, Brian Greene, Richard Feynman to name a few. At your level these will serve the purpose of easing you into more abstract concepts; namely quantum/relativistic physics. Hell, even Einstein's popularization "Relativity: The Special And General Theory", almost a pamphlet, will give you a bit of grounding in the area.
Most of all I think Feynman, being basically the father of quantum electrodynamics, is a good starting point. So try his "Six Easy Pieces" first. If you like his style, look for his collection of lectures on physics. These are renowned for their clarity, breadth and insight. It's meant for college freshmen, progressing quickly from mechanics to thermodynamics, electromagnetism. I couldn't really give a better description, however, because I haven't actually read any of it.
>Michio Kaku NO
>Brian Greene NO
These two are speculative at best, and Kaku hits the bong. Seriously.
>Richard Feynman VERY YES,
Get the Lectures On Physics from the second hand book store, because you will be putting notes in the margin. Some things may be dated [especially his insistence on the mystery of QM as there isn't any such thing; it's just probability calculus with complex numbers]
And I found this online, how wonderful is that:
>>3
Even if speculative, the foundation for their investigations is solid knowledge (up to QCD and the color charge, at least). And he'll be getting to that stuff anyway, so it would be prudent to at least begin thinking about the subatomic universe.
Start with this: Mechanics by L D Landau and E.M. Lifshitz.
If you can't manage it,, then there is no hope for you.
I saw a book "Manga Guide to Physics" on Amazon the other day. I was kind of curious how it is, but I was reluctant to buy it.