Interesting Stuff Thread

joseph brand

http://www.herald.ie/news/dubs-hardman-ger-to-show-spiritual-side-in-crokeras-religious-volunteer-3032399.html

Ger Brennan:

"It's great having faith when it comes to football. I don't over think things too much and say a prayer and thank God for all my gifts and talents which calms me down and no matter what I do there is always a bigger picture so I don't get caught up with things," he said.

Because thinking is hard. Praying is easier.

BTW, he teaches religion and Irish. Who would've known. :rolleyes:

Naughtius Maximus

Sarky wrote: »

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-02/new-disposable-dna-sequencer-runs-molecular-analysis-powered-usb

New DNA sequencing machine that takes a fraction of the time (The original human genome project took years, this takes hours), at a fraction of the cost ($900 a pop as opposed to several thousands), and small enough to fit in a USB port (Doesn't need a laboratory or two).

I don't know about you, but I think that's freaking amazing.

I did read that the downside is that there may be too much information to analyse.
On a similar note the Ice Mans genome has been sequenced, closed modern population to him are Sardinians.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/02/otzi-the-iceman-and-the-sardinians/

legspin

Naughtius Maximus wrote: »

I did read that the downside is that there may be too much information to analyse.
On a similar note the Ice Mans genome has been sequenced, closed modern population to him are Sardinians.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/02/otzi-the-iceman-and-the-sardinians/

But aren't they normally preserved in brine and not ice....

Naughtius Maximus

legspin wrote: »

But aren't they normally preserved in brine and not ice....

What normally is preserved in brine?
In this case the bosy happened to be in a glacier.

legspin

Naughtius Maximus wrote: »

What normally is preserved in brine?
In this case the bosy happened to be in a glacier.

Sardinians.

robindch

^^^ boom, boom!

Naughtius Maximus

legspin wrote: »

Sardinians.

Thought you meant glacier mints, damn you and your infernal sarcasm. It's not the John West.

Turtwig

recedite wrote: »

Maybe do a DNA test on the bones, and finally find out who his real father was?

But everyone knows it was

Vader

.

robindch

Ever wondered about the maths behind the one-year-in-every-four, save every century, save every four for leap years?

Well, here it is calculated out long-hand:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/29/why-we-have-leap-days-2/

sephir0th

robindch wrote: »

Ever wondered about the maths behind the one-year-in-every-four, save every century, save every four for leap years?

Well, here it is calculated out long-hand:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/29/why-we-have-leap-days-2/

Who knew it could get so complicated: http://www.fq.math.ca/Scanned/32-5/shallit.pdf

robindch

sephir0th wrote: »

http://www.fq.math.ca/Scanned/32-5/shallit.pdf

/refuses to read any maths that doesn't look like it's done in TeX

muppeteer

robindch wrote: »

/refuses to read any maths that doesn't look like it's done in TeX

TeX looks scary until some wizard made this.

Converts sloppy freehand equations to LaTex or MathML on the fly:)
http://webdemo.visionobjects.com/equation.html?locale=default

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

/refuses to read any maths that doesn't look like it's done in TeX

I want to marry you!

Turtwig

There's also this for finding out the tex command for those really unique symbols.

robindch

Jernal wrote: »

I want to marry you!

Hey, having spoken with Knuth at some length here in Dublin a few years back, I've pseudo-Knuth-number of zero -- take that, cruel world! Best piece of TeX I did was, oddly, a doctoral thesis for a monk I know. It called for large amounts of Ancient Greek text, typeset with the correct accents and to say the least, Word wasn't up to it. I recall Knuth being impressed upon hearing of it

The thesis also included my best-ever line of code:

\string\garble\meaning\banana

whose exact purpose, at the distance of perhaps fifteen years, escapes me.

I also did some metafont too, but in interactive mode, it was far too much like programming an oracle. Very strange.

Ah, TeX.

Turtwig

.

robindch

The TeXbook and the METAFONTbook are here:

http://net.ytu.edu.cn/share/%D7%CA%C1%CF/texbook.pdf
http://www.ctex.org/documents/shredder/src/mfbook.pdf

And induce a semi-religious haze, feelings of perfection, a sense of utopia, warmth, fuzziness, all that is good with the world, and all in CM...

robindch

Homosexuality is "unnatural"?

Nope:

http://www.livescience.com/16138-gay-animals-bonobos-dolphins.html

sonicthebadger*

Ah, I was away for a couple of days so sorry to bring this up again but I do think it's important.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

...
Bit of a pet peeve of mine, but none of those quotes are sexist. It might be shallow of men to be so easily distracted by the woman's massive...tracts of land, but that's not inherently sexist.

I see your point here (cause I am also a big fan of boobs) but it's important to note the content of her words as well for context, what she is talking about at the time does matter when it comes to crossing the line between amusingly shallow and sexist. Had she been talking about hair dye or a puppy and someone said "whut? Booooobs!" I would have thought that was amusing (though I would also allow for being called slightly sexist). Relatively shallow content; relatively shallow response. But talking about something that has a profoundly negative effect on her as a person, ie. being dismissed and reduced in importance in the world because of the body she has, then commenting on the body while dismissing (or at the very least failing to acknowledge) the content of her words, is a very different matter. Do you think there is a difference there too or would you have a different view?

Jernal wrote: »

Why didn't you just suggest she wear a burka?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yeah, because that's the only alternative.

As for Stone's quote here, suggesting that she remove her breasts from the shot because some men are unable to listen to her speak while some cleavage is visible is exactly the same logic as the wearing a burka logic. "I can't control myself so you have to remove the attractive bits from view". Not her problem. If she was naked you should still be capable of having an intellectual conversation with her. In fact, wouldn't everyone benefit from that? More nudy folk please! Everyone should post video to you tube talking about brainy things in their nip.

muppeteer

The greatest invention ever
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27620/

The drone of speakers who won't stop is an inevitable experience at conferences, meetings, cinemas, and public libraries.

Today, Kazutaka Kurihara at the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology in Tskuba and Koji Tsukada at Ochanomizu University, both in Japan, present a radical solution: a speech-jamming device that forces recalcitrant speakers into submission.

The idea is simple. Psychologists have known for some years that it is almost impossible to speak when your words are replayed to you with a delay of a fraction of a second.

Kurihara and Tsukada have simply built a handheld device consisting of a microphone and a speaker that does just that: it records a person's voice and replays it to them with a delay of about 0.2 seconds. The microphone and speaker are directional so the device can be aimed at a speaker from a distance, like a gun.

In tests, Kurihara and Tsukada say their speech jamming gun works well: "The system can disturb remote people's speech without any physical discomfort."

Their tests also identify some curious phenomena. They say the gun is more effective when the delay varies in time and more effective against speech that involves reading aloud than against spontaneous monologue. Sadly, they report that it has no effect on meaningless sound sequences such as "aaaaarghhh".

Kurihara and Tsukada make no claims about the commercial potential of their device but list various aplications. They say it could be used to maintain silence in public libraries and to "facilitate discussion" in group meetings. "We have to establish and obey rules for proper turn-taking when speaking," they say.

That has important implications. "There are still many cases in which the negative aspects of speech become a barrier to the peaceful resolution of conflicts, " they point out.

Clearly, speech jamming has a significant future role in contributing to world peace and should obviously be installed at the United Nations with immediate effect.

sephir0th

muppeteer wrote: »

speech jamming gun

Oh I would have so much fun with that

RichieC

Astronomy, critical thinking, philosophy and pseudo-science are covered at Camp Quest.

One of the most popular exercises is the invisible unicorn challenge. The children are told there are two invisible unicorns who live at Camp Quest but that they cannot be seen, heard, felt or smelt, and do not leave a trace. A book about them has been handed down through the ages but it is too precious for anyone to see.

All counsellors – as the adults are called – are said to be staunch believers in these unicorns.

Any child who can successfully prove that the invisible unicorns do not exist is rewarded with a prize: a £10 note with a picture of Charles Darwin on it signed by Richard Dawkins, or a "godless" $100 bill, printed before 1957 when "In God We Trust" was added to paper currency in the US.

Since this challenge began in 1996, the prize has been unclaimed.

The camp's director, Samantha Stein, said that the exercise had elicited all sorts of interesting responses from the children about the burden of proof. One child had insisted that it was up to the counsellors to prove the unicorns did exist***. Another said it was just impossible to prove.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul/29/camp-quest-richard-dawkins

Grown fking adults in the Christianity forum still don't get that.. :rolleyes:

Mark Hamill

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

I see your point here (cause I am also a big fan of boobs) but it's important to note the content of her words as well for context, what she is talking about at the time does matter when it comes to crossing the line between amusingly shallow and sexist. Had she been talking about hair dye or a puppy and someone said "whut? Booooobs!" I would have thought that was amusing (though I would also allow for being called slightly sexist). Relatively shallow content; relatively shallow response. But talking about something that has a profoundly negative effect on her as a person, ie. being dismissed and reduced in importance in the world because of the body she has, then commenting on the body while dismissing (or at the very least failing to acknowledge) the content of her words, is a very different matter. Do you think there is a difference there too or would you have a different view?

Well I saw the posters as joking, but even if they where serious (ie, they where actually distracted by how the woman looked so much that they had to comment on it), I dont see it as sexism. Simply commenting on how someone looks is not sexist as, ultimately, that would imply that any time a heterosexual man acknowledges attractiveness in a women, or vice-versa, they are being sexist.
I think that in this case, joking or otherwise there is not much to say about the woman's points as its been pointed out for a long time that religions are patriarchal and misogynistic. None of the posters acted sexistly, ie said she shouldn't be allowed make the point, or that it was wrong simply because she is a woman. They were simply shallow, they allowed themselves to be distracted by her physical appearance. Now, if they were seriously distracted (as opposed to just making jokes), then this is still an issue (nearly on par with sexism) and I dont defend them.

recedite

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

As for Stone's quote here, suggesting that she remove her breasts from the shot because some men are unable to listen to her speak while some cleavage is visible is exactly the same logic as the wearing a burka logic.

The difference is one of degree; its an example of how extremism and fundamentalism tend to create more problems than they solve.

joseph brand

The US is second from the bottom. :eek:

At least they are doing better than Turkey. :rolleyes:

amacachi

joseph brand wrote: »

The US is second from the bottom. :eek:

At least they are doing better than Turkey. :rolleyes:

Jaysus, looks like we're more Godless than those heathen Luxembourgers.

Turtwig

I dunno, perhaps dmw07 might be able shed more light on this, but if n is the number of people who responded? (I acknowledge it might not be.) How the heck is [latex]\approx 1,000[/latex] a representative sample size?

legspin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17225127

sponsoredwalk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ollDbzzlrIs

Don't know if I posted this before, but if anybody knows anything about, or
has any evidence of, the "Mista bie" story he tells around 7.00 please post :cool:

dmw07

Jernal wrote: »

I dunno, perhaps dmw07 might be able shed more light on this, but if n is the number of people who responded? (I acknowledge it might not be.) How the heck is [latex]\approx 1,000[/latex] a representative sample size?

This is the last thing I expected to see after a skin full of beer.

I'll try to divulge. True, a small "n" represents a sample size alright. A sample size of multiples, or multiple sample sets of similar or exact types in more words.

They are quite small indeed. Too many other variables unknowns to the viewer could have distorted this "acceptance of evolution" study.

It's still true though