What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #4226 - luigipimp (02/24/2015) [-]
if the amount of oxygen WAS doubled, would humans get bigger too or just bugs and spiders?
User avatar #4246 to #4226 - alltimetens (02/26/2015) [-]
I think that the greatest benefit from a doubling of atmospheric oxygen composition would be the fact that we'd have more efficient fuel.
User avatar #4240 to #4226 - nimba (02/25/2015) [-]
Bugs and spiders would get bigger because they gain oxygen by diffusion whereas we use something more like active transport on a gross scale with our lungs. As for the bassmaster's idea about developing a less efficient respiratory system that would take a geological length of time and I would wonder whether it would really happen at all considering that survival of the fittest has an increasingly small impact on human evolution. We'd be unilaterally more capable at things like sports and manual labour, for a start, showing much better endurance and recovery. We wouldn't increase in size like the spiders probably, but our upper limit for muscular capacity would potentially increase somewhat and there would be some impetus for increased vascularity but any evolutionary change would be unlikely to occur if at all in my opinion.
#4228 to #4226 - thebassmaster (02/25/2015) [-]
I would imagine that humans would develop less efficient respiratory systems due to the ease of respiration the extra oxygen would facilitate. Oxygen isn't a growth hormone, and the current biological systems of not just humans but all animals are evolved, and therefore best suited for the size they are currently and for utilizing the ratio of oxygen currently in the atmosphere. Advantages like more oxygen won't change much. For example, the average human today is much larger than our hunter-gatherer ancestors due to improved healthcare and nutrition, but you will never see human beings much larger than Wadlow(tallest human ever), because their bodies systems cannot support such a size(primarily the skeletal and circulatory systems), and there is no evolutionary advantage to being larger than we are at this point.
User avatar #4216 - kebabs (02/24/2015) [-]
Assniggers, I have found the solution to all.
Fix a coil of some turns in some depth in the vagina which will be connected to a rectifier and a small vibrator which would be directly touching the surface of the vagina deep inside (~9inch). Now we attach a magnet of suitable strength to a man with small penis and then the sex begins.
The thrusting motion of the man with small penis will create a change in magnetic flux which will induce an e.m.f in the coil in the vagina, this a.c will be converted to d.c in the rectifier, amplification may be needed so we connect an amplifier to it as well. Now this amplified current will reach the vibrator which will simulate the vagina deep inside.

It's a win-win situation for a guy with small penis and the girl who is in love with a guy with small penis. Thoughts?
User avatar #4241 to #4216 - nimba (02/25/2015) [-]
The average vagina is about 4/5 inches long last time I checked, if you put something nine inches deep it's going to be inside the uterus - which would be... uncomfortable. Additionally the vagina, like the penis, is most sensitive towards the extreme end to the extent that orgasm can be achieved digitally up to just the second knuckle which is usually about 1 1/2 inches. With a shorter, less girthy cock there is a greater prerogative to angle towards the area of sensitivity, commonly 1-2 inches inside on the superior surface to contact with the base of the clitoris.

Besides, vibrating cock rings exist.
User avatar #4217 to #4216 - funnyjunkelite (02/24/2015) [-]
So if you set a giant magnet somewhere and a women have this, it'll cause all of them to have orgasms?
User avatar #4220 to #4217 - kebabs (02/24/2015) [-]
Let's put a key to the rectifier.
User avatar #4221 to #4220 - funnyjunkelite (02/24/2015) [-]
What about babies? a mecha vagina might sterilize it
User avatar #4243 to #4221 - nimba (02/26/2015) [-]
I heard of a contraceptive coil that's made of copper and kills semen, look it up. Called an IUD coil I think.
User avatar #4222 to #4221 - kebabs (02/24/2015) [-]
Isn't that a good thing. That's totally a good thing.
User avatar #4223 to #4222 - funnyjunkelite (02/24/2015) [-]
no babies=no human race
rip humans
User avatar #4224 to #4223 - kebabs (02/24/2015) [-]
Small pay for huge pleasure.
User avatar #4218 to #4217 - funnyjunkelite (02/24/2015) [-]
A woman*
User avatar #4219 to #4218 - funnyjunkelite (02/24/2015) [-]
Just take out the A

User avatar #4215 - davyjonesbooty (02/24/2015) [-]
I think this belongs here...

So I was reading the Keen Software House AMA on reddit (Space Engineers dev team, www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2ww6ib/we_are_keen_software_house_developers_of_space/ ) and a lot of people were asking about the "Super Secret AI Project" announced a few months back, thinking it would have something to do with NPCs. Apparently not. According to this link given to us by the dev team www.zive.cz/clanky/prednaska-o-vyzkumu-umele-inteligence-v-keen-software/sc-3-a-177121/default.aspx open in Chrome for translation they're trying to make a full blown AI that learns like a human does.

What does /science/ think?
User avatar #4242 to #4215 - nimba (02/25/2015) [-]
Read up about the foldit app. It lets users resolve 3D protein structures and records the users' methodology. It then gives the methodological data to an AI so it can ape human problem solving skills to fold proteins on its own. It's not so much an AI as a database of canned 'human' responses but the difference seems academic to me.
User avatar #4235 to #4215 - coronus (02/25/2015) [-]
it's an old problem.

Computers suffer from a complete dependence on concrete and discrete data in all decision making applications. Currently , both logical and statistical AI fail to achieve human like learning simply because a program must always default to quantifying data in a manner particular to the logical systems upon which computers are built. This gives rise to visual recognition software that can be tricked and trained to group objects into categories that don't belong together,such as a particular pattern of vertical lines being recognized as a school bus.

Because even the must advanced AI has to take data and simplify it into computational values in order to "understand" and process the information in its emulated or observed environment, I believe that an AI might never learn like we do.

Additionally, humans learn to categorize and make judgments about environments and stimuli based on a rather fuzzy understanding of statistics that has thus far been incredibly difficult to equivocate mathematically, because it involves a certain ability to deal with uncertainty by pulling together past information with reasonable guesswork.

While computers are good at " remembering" information, the main component of human learning that is so critically different is the ability to spontaneously integrate guesswork and creativity into solutions and uncertain situations. Computers lack the ability to produce novel insights, since even the best AI lacks true personal agency and motivation, making them fundamentally incapable of the type of individual thought that leads to learning and problem solving in humans.

In short, we might get to the point where an AI possesses the emergent property of individual agency and creative thought, but it's an extremely difficult task to conquer from the current ground up approach. It's going to require some of the current studies in systems neuroscience to produce data on individual neurons and meso-cortical activation patterns that are involved in learning, as well as future studies in computational modeling on those same systems.
User avatar #4208 - tipjar (02/23/2015) [-]
Hey guys, what would you see if you had a box full of mirrors, all sides were mirrors but you are looking in from a 2 way mirror, what would you see?
I believe there would be light in there because surely when you close the box/room w/e light would be trapped in reflecting, I am not sure
User avatar #4213 to #4208 - sugoi ONLINE (02/24/2015) [-]
If there is no light in there then it will be dark unless you're telling me you can close it faster than the speed of light.
User avatar #4206 - skoldpaddacommala (02/23/2015) [-]
Do you guys think matter is infinitely indivisible? Like there will always be smaller particles composing the larger ones?
That would be cool.
User avatar #4265 to #4206 - magnuskasparov (03/04/2015) [-]
The definition of an elementary particle is that it is not made up of smaller things, thus it cannot be divided into smaller things.
I remember researching into this, but I don't remember how much shit would be affected if everything was infinitely divisible. All I know is that I came to the conclusion that it cannot be that way, otherwise a lot of science fucks up. Man I really wish I could remember what though. Anyways, you are welcome to do the same, but you can always have a string theorist explain elementary particles and string theory to you in order to save time.

User avatar #4266 to #4265 - skoldpaddacommala (03/04/2015) [-]
I'm confused now.

The first sentence of the Elementary Particle page on Wikipedia says
"In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a particle whose substructure is unknown, thus it is unknown whether it is composed of other particles."

Then, the List of Particles page defines elementary particles : "are particles with no measurable internal structure; that is, they are not composed of other particles."

Wikipedia needs to make up its damn mind.
#4225 to #4206 - anon (02/24/2015) [-]
[url deleted]
I think this was posted some time back. You eventually get to 2D vibrating strings so no, there's a point where you have to stop... assuming the universe is composed of strings.
User avatar #4210 to #4206 - tarfyki (02/23/2015) [-]
As of now, the smallest anything that isn't theoretical are neutrinos at 1x10^-24 meters, or 1 yoctometer. Although sizes smaller than 1x10^-16 are not confirmed, and only speculation Everything smaller is all theoretical.
User avatar #4247 to #4210 - alltimetens (02/26/2015) [-]
What do you mean theoretical? As in they don't physically exist or that we're not sure if they do?
User avatar #4264 to #4247 - magnuskasparov (03/04/2015) [-]
we are not sure because math hasn't completely checked out in other areas, and since it's so small, it hasn't been observed carefully
User avatar #4207 to #4206 - sugoi ONLINE (02/23/2015) [-]
There is a limit somewhere.
And I think you mean divisible not indivisible since that would be the opposite.
User avatar #4205 - thejrjimjammers (02/23/2015) [-]
does this answer sound good? the question was " for each reaction, what evidence is there that a chemical change occurred".

For each reaction that we did there was clear evidence that a chemical change occurred. For the lead nitrate and potassium iodide reaction the evidence that a chemical change occurred was a change in colour and some precipitate. For the magnesium and copper (II) chloride reaction there was a gas created and little heat created. For the zinc and hydrochloric acid reaction there was bubbles and heat created. For the silver nitrate and magnesium chloride reaction the evidence of a chemical change was a colour change and precipitate was created.
User avatar #4234 to #4205 - coronus (02/25/2015) [-]
sounds like a valid answer for an intro chem lab. If I were the teacher/ TA, I'd give you full credit.
#4204 - vnstupidity (02/22/2015) [-]
Hey does anyone have a homemade CNC? I have a 4 axis machine. we got everything working fine then, to counterbalance the whieght of the material we cut from, we added a bike disk and break to A. after that A stopped working. Soon after that All 4 axes wouldnt move. we've tested everything including wiring, a new ptc cord, settings etc. There is a week signal going through the axes because they respond by clicking. Could the breakout board be fried? not the best board for this question, i know. Please help if you can.
User avatar #4202 - cantfindausername (02/22/2015) [-]
I'm curious as to how matter started. Big Bang or "Everywhere Stretch" , sure... kinda. I don't think it's fair to say, because that is all matter condensed into one point. But where did that matter come from? I'm sure it would just be Hydrogen atoms/molecules. Then it all expands, you get stars, etc, etc, solid matter/planets. You can't create or destroy matter as far as I know.
Also, if all of the matter was in a single point, wouldn't it just become a black hole?
Please correct me if/where I'm wrong if you decide to answer lol
User avatar #4203 to #4202 - nimba (02/22/2015) [-]
Truth is nobody knows for sure, we're still trying to figure out all the other weird shit that happened after expansion. There's not really much to go on considering that the singularity theoretically existed uhh... before time? If that makes sense? The only way to make a good guess is by getting to grips with everything post-expansion then regressing it to build an idea of what it was like before like how we know that earth's continents all used to be a single super continent. You shouldn't think of the singularity as something full of matter already existing, it's more like a single unified unit of universe. 1 unit = 1 universe. Something happened to change it but how that's possible, anybody's guess.
#4169 - tarfyki has deleted their comment [-]
#4196 to #4169 - smudgiemuffins (02/19/2015) [-]
What whatley was trying to get at is that there is nothing to add to this thought. It's a purely random guess. This "multiverse theory" isn't an actual theory and is not evidence for this thought. Even if it wasn't a random guess, this would profound as hell physics that you and I would be incredibly arrogant to think we could tackle. That and I think there's still some confusion as to what you're even saying.

If this was just a what if, fair enough. Scientific what ifs aren't meaningless. In fact, they can be awfully interesting. But you have to give some logical or mathematical structure upon which there is something to discuss. Your question lacks a structure such that there is no analysis to provide.
User avatar #4197 to #4196 - tarfyki (02/19/2015) [-]
I'm not trying to figure out how the universe works, i'm just spewing nonsense that kinda makes sense. there's no proof behind anything i'm saying, and i never claimed that there was. What i'm saying is about as factual as SciFi books. It's just meant to be thought provoking what if's
#4198 to #4197 - smudgiemuffins (02/19/2015) [-]
Thought provoking in what way? What sort of response are you looking for? Once again, your thought has no structure. There is nothing there to consider critically and provide any insight on. There is absolutely no system which allows anyone to construct a meaningful response to your question.

This is the sort of question that I think gets a lot without entirely understanding the possible responses. It's like asking "what if ghosts existed?" Then they would exist outside of the realm of anything any field of science describes and I have absolutely no explanation for the reason behind the existence of a ghost nor a theoretical framework that describes the interactions of ghosts. There is literally not a single valid response to such a question that even comes close to resembling anything scientific.

I'm not trying to be hostile and I apologize if I came across that way. I think your comment about Sci Fi books is indication of the nature of your question. This question is more than anything a suggestion that perhaps we need a writing board. One for talking about storytelling.
User avatar #4199 to #4198 - whatley (02/20/2015) [-]
Thank you.
User avatar #4172 to #4169 - sugoi ONLINE (02/19/2015) [-]
Not really sure what you mean by now being the edge of everything though.
User avatar #4173 to #4172 - tarfyki (02/19/2015) [-]
i mean time is perfectly linear and everything to ever happen has lead up to this point. We are at the edge of time space
User avatar #4177 to #4173 - whatley (02/19/2015) [-]
We're probably not on the edge of time.
User avatar #4178 to #4177 - tarfyki (02/19/2015) [-]
what if time is just a complete loop and everything to ever happen has happened an infinite number of times before and is going to happen an infinite number of more times
User avatar #4179 to #4178 - whatley (02/19/2015) [-]
What do you mean "what if"?
User avatar #4180 to #4179 - tarfyki (02/19/2015) [-]
there's no way to be 100% certain, but i like the idea of it
User avatar #4181 to #4180 - whatley (02/19/2015) [-]
It's not realistic.
User avatar #4182 to #4181 - tarfyki (02/19/2015) [-]
care to elaborate?
User avatar #4183 to #4182 - whatley (02/19/2015) [-]
That's probably not the case. I don't know why on Earth that'd happen, I'm not saying it's impossible but I don't think it's a reasonable thing to believe.
User avatar #4184 to #4183 - tarfyki (02/19/2015) [-]
well, what if its like this:

the mulitverse theory is correct, but they aren't separate universes, but they're all connected kind of like a spring. It keeps looping and restarting but every time it does, something is slightly different. It's not completely illogical
User avatar #4185 to #4184 - whatley (02/19/2015) [-]
These are massive claims and you're bringing no mathematical nor empirical evidence to the table. Why would that be the case?
User avatar #4186 to #4185 - tarfyki (02/19/2015) [-]
I am neither a theoretical physicist, or a scientist in any way shape or form. Everything i say that is science related, i either heard, read, or am pulling straight out of my ass. It's just an idea that i had like 2 minutes ago. These are by no means legit or credible theories. It's all just speculation
User avatar #4187 to #4186 - whatley (02/19/2015) [-]
Then that's just an idea you made up, people can do that at the rate of thousands every day, that's not science though, that's just making things up.
User avatar #4188 to #4187 - tarfyki (02/19/2015) [-]
It's not science, but I'm fairly confident that I'm not the first one to think about this, and that one of the people of have thought about it before me, actually knows what they're talking about. I'm going off of sound scientific theories, and creating my own. The only reason it might not be considered science is because i haven't written it down, and i haven't started creating an equation to try and prove what i'm saying
User avatar #4189 to #4188 - whatley (02/19/2015) [-]
Then go do that and it'll be science, then you can talk about it here and people will be interested.
User avatar #4190 to #4189 - tarfyki (02/19/2015) [-]
If i was able to do that, i wouldn't be publishing my results on a fucking comedy website. If i was able to do that, i wouldn't be talking to strangers on the internet pretending they know what they're talking about
User avatar #4191 to #4190 - whatley (02/19/2015) [-]
Then what you're doing isn't science, and has no place here.
User avatar #4192 to #4191 - tarfyki (02/19/2015) [-]
I have an idea based off of sound scientific theories. I come here, and ask what people think about it. Never once did i claim this as fact. My original post was a question. Not a statement
User avatar #4193 to #4192 - whatley (02/19/2015) [-]
1) Your idea isn't really based of anything, you've just said "What if this is true".

2) Your initial question doesn't even make sense.
User avatar #4194 to #4193 - tarfyki (02/19/2015) [-]
1) based off of M theory, and non-linear time line
2) i worded it poorly
3) you are being unnecessarily critical of random thoughts and ideas. Rather than say "that's not science" why not pretend it is and toss out more ideas or constructive criticism
4) there is no other place to post any of these ideas other than science board
#4176 to #4173 - whatley has deleted their comment [-]
#4162 - huchkizz (02/18/2015) [-]
This movie is really pissing me off
User avatar #4163 to #4162 - tarfyki (02/18/2015) [-]
is that that time travel movie?
User avatar #4165 to #4163 - huchkizz (02/18/2015) [-]
No, it's from I, Frankenstein from last year.

Apparently it only takes "15.000 joules of current" to resurrect a couple of dozen people.
User avatar #4174 to #4165 - nimba (02/19/2015) [-]
Frankenstein never used electricity to reanimate shit, it's a misconception of a reference to a spark of ingenuity.
User avatar #4166 to #4165 - tarfyki (02/18/2015) [-]
well, i don't really know much about restarting human hearts, and i have never seen that movie or even know what its about so i'm not really any help in this situation
User avatar #4167 to #4166 - huchkizz (02/18/2015) [-]
My biggest problem is that they use the measurement of joule when speaking of current.
That, and you need a fuckton of joule to really do anything atall.
User avatar #4168 to #4167 - tarfyki (02/18/2015) [-]
yeah, i didn't think they used joules for that. Don't they use amps? Like ranging from 50-350 increasing each time or something like that?
User avatar #4170 to #4168 - huchkizz (02/18/2015) [-]
The correct unit of current is indeed amps, yes. (Or ampere depending on where you're from)

What I've read, current isn't even the factor that matters.
Standard defibrillators deliver a shock of ~1000 volts. It says nothing about the current.
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defibrillation
User avatar #4171 to #4170 - tarfyki (02/18/2015) [-]
Either way, It'd be nice if "scientific" movies actually did research on what they are trying to do rather than just pull shit out of their ass like they always do
#4211 to #4171 - anon (02/23/2015) [-]
lol, you didn't catch 'the neutrinos have mutated' from 2014, have you?
User avatar #4212 to #4211 - tarfyki (02/23/2015) [-]
was it a movie or event? Either way, no i didn't
#4147 - tsoper (02/18/2015) [-]
Can we implement the human brain into robots?

I mean we have robotic arms that are able to be controlled by the nerves at the shoulder. A similar thing should be possible for the entire body, correct?

We would be able to live forever this way, or at least until the brain starts deteriorating, which if we manage to get more advance, we can maintain it by constant repairing it.

Speaking of which, do you believe we can ever accomplish artificial intelligence at the same level or smarter than humans? Scientifically its possible because our brain works similar to a computer. The nerves send electrical impulses like how circuits send electricity to make the computer function.

Yes, the computer may be 100x slower, but given the fact it will by far outsmart us in numerous areas like knowledge (since it can shuffle through millions of databases off google), i think it may find a way to make itself faster and better. Or possibly a way to replicate the human mind and make a brain with metalic material instead of cells, or maybe even cells and start growing new cells to replace the old ones.

This is not fiction folks, it can be done because our brains are proof that its already been done.
Imagine a day when you can clone and grow a brain by itself. Or merge 2 human brains together. Or reconstruct a brain of someone that recently died to preserve all their memories and knowledge, almost as a way to reincarnate them but as a different person.
User avatar #4175 to #4147 - nimba (02/19/2015) [-]
Here's a philosphical point; it may already have happened
User avatar #4195 to #4175 - tsoper (02/19/2015) [-]
User avatar #4200 to #4195 - nimba (02/20/2015) [-]
It's essentially cartesian, there is no way that we could test whether or not this universe we experience is a computer simulation with AI representing us. Like the matrix but our 'real' body never existed.
There's also this:
#4201 to #4200 - tsoper (02/21/2015) [-]
Oh yea, I thought about that more than once.    
The thing is, I believe it would be statistically impossible for that to even occur, and it still raises the question if they are computer generated as well. It's more likely that every atom within this boundless Universe is actually produced by a paradox that would inverse on itself endlessly.   
The big bang happened, but it happened a billion times before. Technically speaking, a linear time doesnt exist because there was no starting point or ending point, it's all in a huge circle that goes around. We could be collapsing on ourselves as we are expanding, going into a little point and back out again.
Oh yea, I thought about that more than once.

The thing is, I believe it would be statistically impossible for that to even occur, and it still raises the question if they are computer generated as well. It's more likely that every atom within this boundless Universe is actually produced by a paradox that would inverse on itself endlessly.

The big bang happened, but it happened a billion times before. Technically speaking, a linear time doesnt exist because there was no starting point or ending point, it's all in a huge circle that goes around. We could be collapsing on ourselves as we are expanding, going into a little point and back out again.
User avatar #4153 to #4147 - sugoi ONLINE (02/18/2015) [-]
Not yet with our technology.
Sure it might be possible later on, heck I think it's pretty likely it'll happen later on but right now we just don't have enough shit figured out.
User avatar #4137 - beatmasterz (02/17/2015) [-]
Do quantum laws apply to normal scale? Why/why not?
#4145 to #4137 - anon (02/18/2015) [-]
> The "normal scale", or classical mechanics which govern our normal scale of things, can be seen as the emergent properties of quantum mechanics. So they apply in a sense that the normal scale is dependent on QM, but the laws that govern QM do not apply at the macroscopic level.
There are a number of ways to explain why not but i'll give you an example.
> Using a light source (photons) and the double-slit experiment, you see photons behave as both a wave and a particle. Enlarge the size of the experiment to where you are throwing baseballs at two slits in a wall. Obviously, the baseballs going through the slit in a wall do not behave the same as the particles of light in the double-slit experiment, but why? Well, size is a key issue, but more specifically, the many particles in the baseballs are "entangled" and the quantum state of the particles cannot be described independently, so you deal with the system as a whole.
#4146 to #4145 - lolpandas has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #4138 to #4137 - nimba (02/17/2015) [-]
Not an expert but I believe they do, it's just at normal scales Newtonian physics are an easier estimation. Einsteinian physics are closer to the truth, but Newtonian is kept around because it's nicer to work with at mundane scales.
User avatar #4142 to #4138 - beatmasterz (02/17/2015) [-]
I have no idea what all that means.
User avatar #4134 - beatmasterz (02/17/2015) [-]
If causality is true, doesn't that mean the future is already predetermined?
User avatar #4135 to #4134 - sugoi ONLINE (02/17/2015) [-]
Not really because the cause for the events in the future hasn't happened yet and the causes can change.
User avatar #4136 to #4135 - beatmasterz (02/17/2015) [-]
The causes could theoretically be calculated and the outcome as well.
User avatar #4144 to #4136 - sugoi ONLINE (02/18/2015) [-]
You could theoretically consume your own asshole and live forever, doesn't really mean much when you can't achieve it in reality now does it?

And not really considering all the random variable you're not taking into consideration, every time someone rolls a dice in a game of DnD, every time someone buys a lottery ticket with random numbers, how could you calculate this and the outcomes?
User avatar #4148 to #4144 - beatmasterz (02/18/2015) [-]
Rolling dices and flipping coins depends on the way you throw it, wind resistance all that shit. Could theoretically be predicted.
User avatar #4149 to #4148 - sugoi ONLINE (02/18/2015) [-]
Great you've got dices and flipping coins theoretically figured out.
What about randomly generated lotto tickets?
User avatar #4150 to #4149 - beatmasterz (02/18/2015) [-]
Generated with computers that can't be random.
User avatar #4151 to #4150 - sugoi ONLINE (02/18/2015) [-]
Why would they have non-randomized numbers for a lotto?
Why would they want everyone to win?
Why would you even suggest this when you're supposed to prove that you can calculate and predict a random event?
User avatar #4152 to #4151 - beatmasterz (02/18/2015) [-]
They're not random as in they use complex formulas to determine a number. The rest of your questions are strawmen.
User avatar #4154 to #4152 - sugoi ONLINE (02/18/2015) [-]
Do you even know what straw man is?
I haven't set you up as an imaginary target and portrayed you as an idiot ranting to make you an easier target, I'm asking simple questions. Granted the first two were rhetorical and more questions as to why what you saw would even occur.

You're the one trying to state as a fact that randomly generated lotto numbers are not random. All I want you to do is to tell me how you would predict a random event while using lotto numbers as an example. You say they use complex fomulas to generate these numbers but are you aware there is a hardware random number generator that theoretically and you just love that word is completely random and unpredictable?
User avatar #4155 to #4154 - beatmasterz (02/18/2015) [-]
People in the gaming world often ask if the results that random number generators (RNGs) produce really random? There are those who question how do these RNGs work. But if you go down and dirty with the details of generating and programming an RNG our average player will have to take a crash course in programming. But not everyone has time to study the really dark details of RNGs. At best we can ask if RNGs are really reliable and honest.

There are actually three types of RNGs that we'll usually stumble upon. The first one is the truly random RNG, next is the quasi-random RNG, and finally we have the pseudo-random RNG.

Truly random RNGs really produce unpredictable sequences in which we will not find any patterns at all. The only drawback to these truly random RNGs is the fact that they just can't be used in every day life. Truly random results can only be generated using a phenomenon that naturally occurs in nature. An example of this is the decay of isotopes which can be recorded and fed to a computer and thus producing a truly random RNG.

When one initially studies how to make an RNG, a wannabe programmer will initially use textbook algorithms to produce an RNG. What this simply means is taking the simplest set of logical instructions that can be given to a computer and then produce a quasi-random RNG. The problem with quasi-random RNGs is that they tend to show a pattern in the results.

Let's say you measure the results of a quasi-random RNG when it mimics dice rolls. At first it would seem to produce random results. But that will usually fall in the short term, but by measuring the results in the long run you will then see patterns arise in the sequence of dice rolls the RNG produces. This isn't totally reliable if you're going to use it to produce games like backgammon, blackjack, or roulette since people can find a way to guess the results made by the RNG.

What we have today is a compromise between these two RNG models and have come up with what is called a pseudo-RNG. These are by far the most widespread model used today. Statistics show that the results made by this type of RNG is statistically independent. Tests also show that they are produce uniformly distributed results. Thus we now have RNGs that can be used day to day.

Today's RNGs are subjected to statistical tests to check if they produce results that are up to standard. That includes a certain percentage of the results should let players win. The percentage of wins varies from state to state (e.g. required 75% to 90% winnings).

In the end it is all a matter of trust knowing that random number generators are subjected to routine testing and that they are certified to comply with standards set by the law.
User avatar #4156 to #4155 - sugoi ONLINE (02/18/2015) [-]
GJ copy pasting but that doesn't answer my question, in fact it just supports my argument.
There are still random elements in reality that can not be predicted (the True random RNGs) and therefore you cannot calculate the cause therefore no effect therefore the future is not predetermined.
User avatar #4157 to #4156 - beatmasterz (02/18/2015) [-]
Guess that's a matter of opinion. I think radioactive decay isn't random, you think it is. It's not like we can prove it with the current technology.
User avatar #4158 to #4157 - sugoi ONLINE (02/18/2015) [-]
The place you copy pasted from says it is random and you have no evidence to prove it isn't random. Are you seriously not believing it just because it proves you wrong? Scientists around the world can't figure it out to the point where they are using the decay or radioactive isotopes for RNGs and you still think they can be predicted?

You have nothing to prove it is predictable except "a matter of opinion" which isn't worth much considering it brings literally nothing to the table, unless you have some sort of evidence to prove it isn't random then you've got nothing.

But hey at least you can fall back on the "it's not like we can prove it with the current technology" yeah sure man just fall back on the maybe we'll find evidence it's not random in the future so let's just pretend that's the case now.

User avatar #4159 to #4158 - beatmasterz (02/18/2015) [-]
I used the RNG article solely to prove you wrong on the lottery thing by showing you how RNG works. Scientists can't figure out a bunch of things yet, doesn't mean they don't exist. Higgs Boson was a theory too a few years ago which couldn't be proven, and now it has.

So yes it is a matter of debate because our technology hasn't reached that fat (yet). Just like it's a matter of debate whether god exists, what happened before the big bang etcetera.
User avatar #4160 to #4159 - sugoi ONLINE (02/18/2015) [-]
Yes because copy pasting information instead of I don't know paraphrasing and leaving a link to the source is how you get your point across.

As of right now I am correct and you are wrong, until you prove otherwise this will remain the case, this is how the world works. We work with what we got until we got something better to work with, right now it's pretty clear there are random events in the world that are completely unpredictable and until you prove otherwise they will remain completely unpredictable.

I'm not saying that the possibility of them being predictable is zero, simply that arguments are won with proof and evidence and so far you've only provided evidence in my favor showing that there are what people consider True RNGs in existence and these "people" are chumps talking shit on the internet like you and me, these people are scientists who have spent years of their lives studying this kinda thing.

Point being until you can prove otherwise then randomness exists, not all causes can be calculate therefore not all events can be predicted and thus the future is not predetermined.

Don't mistake this for me being smug or refusing to be wrong, I'd gladly admit the future is predetermined if only you'd provide some kinda substantial evidence for it. So far your argument is just "we can't prove it's NOT the X so therefore it must be the X!" You state your first statement #4134 as fact yet that's all you have for evidence and that simply isn't enough.
User avatar #4161 to #4160 - beatmasterz (02/18/2015) [-]
I wasn't even trying to argue with you because I lack sufficient knowledge about the subject. And yes if this was an official debate you'd be right but it isn't and I'm just saying what I'm thinking. It's more convenient for science to assume true RNG exists because we lack the technology to prove otherwise.
User avatar #4139 to #4136 - nimba (02/17/2015) [-]
It's mechanistic determinism and it argues that free will is an illusion. But you then have to factor that you may change your behaviour in relation to that and second guess yourself. Now whether that second guessing is also determined mechanistically is speculation. We can't know whether something was destined or not because we don't have access to a universe where the other option was taken.
User avatar #4143 to #4139 - beatmasterz (02/17/2015) [-]
Guess that's true. And with scientific goggles we probably don't have free will.
User avatar #4128 - luigipimp (02/16/2015) [-]
doesnt showering take away all the pheromones?
User avatar #4132 to #4128 - sugoi ONLINE (02/17/2015) [-]
And then they come back.
User avatar #4133 to #4132 - luigipimp (02/17/2015) [-]
i think even though i reduced my time in the shower by 30 mins to like 10 i might still be washing away a lot. idk how but im not getting enough
User avatar #4114 - spartusee (02/15/2015) [-]
I was wondering if I could get some help with this math problem, I can't even put it into words.

You need to login to view this link
#4115 to #4114 - malimrav has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #4116 to #4115 - malimrav (02/15/2015) [-]
Also, what part you don't understand I don't really know what I should be explaining.
User avatar #4117 to #4116 - malimrav (02/15/2015) [-]
My bad, sin(30) is 1/2. So final solution is 3/2
User avatar #4118 to #4117 - spartusee (02/15/2015) [-]
I don't understand how to add tangent and sign. I know how to convert radians to degrees.
User avatar #4119 to #4118 - malimrav (02/15/2015) [-]
You just calculate their value and add that.
tan(pi/4) = tan(45) = 1
sin(30) = sin(pi/6) = 1/2

final solution is 1 + 1/2 = 3/2
User avatar #4120 to #4119 - spartusee (02/15/2015) [-]
Okay so you take the opposite of the value given, I mean if it gives radians you turn it into degrees and vice versa, and then you calculate it and add them?
This is a big help by the way.
User avatar #4122 to #4120 - malimrav (02/15/2015) [-]
Well it's not necessary to do radian to degree or degree to radian conversions, I just wrote them out so you can see that they have the same value. If you do a lot of math you just know those values. Try to draw a circle and see where those values would be by definitions of sin and tan. I always do that in my head if I can't remember exact values.
User avatar #4121 to #4120 - spartusee (02/15/2015) [-]
Ok I think I got it, thanks.
User avatar #4111 - luigipimp (02/14/2015) [-]
why does my right heal hurt all the time now, it cracks like when you crack your knuckles when i move it a certain way and i tried dr schols
User avatar #4108 - phoenixforger (02/12/2015) [-]
If I were to start trying to learn basic robotics, where might I start? I'm not really looking for kits or lego machines, but building mechanical robots from the ground up. Book, website, and video recommendations would be greatly appreciated.
User avatar #4109 to #4108 - lolpandas (02/13/2015) [-]

MIT open courseware is a great source and they have the text and video lectures on a bunch of stuff. Basics of programming and circuits is a good place to start.
User avatar #4106 - weaponexplain (02/12/2015) [-]
I've had 4 exams and 3 lab reports so far this week. Sleep is for the week.
User avatar #4110 to #4106 - skoldpaddacommala (02/13/2015) [-]
yes, sleep for a week.
User avatar #4096 - magicpotato (02/12/2015) [-]
Anyone else an advocate for breeding control? like you must pass a child care test before you can have a kid or it is seized by the state and re issued to another family. Day-care providers have to go through college to tend to children so why don't irresponsible parents have to do so? also i believe that humanity is overpopulating the world, so one kid per family, with severe punishments per extra kid. i am willing to hear any rational minded people willing to discuss this with me. not argue, discuss politely like the gentlemen that we are.
User avatar #4101 to #4096 - sugoi ONLINE (02/12/2015) [-]
Oh my god that wrong on so many levels. But let's look through your points.

-Must pass a child care test or child is seized by the state.
You are taking a "guilty until proven innocent" stance on parenting which is pretty dumb in itself, however the bigger problem lies in the psychological damage you're going to afflict these children. You are literally making generations of adopted children and everyone in the world knows that is a bad thing.

Plus you say you will just "issue to another family" but you are simply assuming that there will be more people who passed the test than those that who not, when this system is put in place there is be a large difference in favour of "not passed" or rather "not done" the test, are you just going to kidnap children?

-Day-care providers have to go through college why not parents?
Because parents aren't caring for a large volume of children, generally they care for 1 or 2 not 15 at the same time. Not to mention parents have their own parents to ask for help, Day-care providers have no backup, if they have no idea what to do there is no one to ask for help but google which is what a parent with no experience would do anyway.

-I believe humanity is overpopulating the world.
This is an assumption on your part that you are trying to play off as fact. It's true our population is growing but there is no indication we are overpopulating the world, there is so much land out there that are still completely uninhabited, there is still room for expansion.

-One kid per family with sever punishments per extra kid
You know who already did this? China. You know what's happening now? A severe population decline.

This graph is supposed to look like a pyramid, very wide at the bottom and thin at the top. Right now it's a weird bi-convex shape which means there will be a very large amount of retired old people living off a pension while the government isn't getting enough money from people working.

You're just going to fuck-up the economy.

And I want you to realize that for the sake of objectivity I've left out moral arguments like say human rights abuse.
User avatar #4112 to #4101 - magicpotato (02/14/2015) [-]
thanks for your input, im actually writing a paper for a scholarship, i don't believe that shit, i was just too lazy to come up with arguments on my own.
User avatar #4113 to #4112 - sugoi ONLINE (02/15/2015) [-]
oooh that's sneaky +1 for you.
User avatar #4099 to #4096 - lolpandas (02/12/2015) [-]
I think it's an extreme solution that circumvents the issues.

• Prying into the reproductive habits of a married couple is an issue all on its own, but a testing system would hardly be perfect in my opinion. It would prove someone is good at studying and taking a test, which would hardly qualify someone to be a good parent. If you pushed it further and made it an in depth screening process which could include things like income, occupation, intelligence, genetics, psych eval. etc, it would greatly improve the system but you would then have a whole bunch of different issues that you would be challenged with. I also don't think you can prove someone is going to be a bad parent so it would be unjust to force. A safer bet would be greatly improved child safety services that routinely inspect the child's situation, but then parents would probably object to having their parenting methods evaluated routinely.
• I think if we follow the trend that we have been seeing in developed nations, overpopulation won't be an issue, but I like to remain optimistic in that. Better off families don't seem to want many kids while families in poverty cling onto that survival instinct to reproduce for the benefit of the family. Also, it's been observed that the societies with longer life expectancy's reproduce at a lower rate. As society advances and we get other nations caught up, birthrates should slow down. I also advocate easy access of birth control because when given the choice, most unwanted pregnancies wouldn't occur meaning more resources to go around and less pissed off impoverished people with too many kids.
User avatar #4095 - emppilaf (02/12/2015) [-]
Tell me something sciency!!!
User avatar #4107 to #4095 - tarfyki (02/12/2015) [-]
A whale's penis is called a "dork"
User avatar #4104 to #4095 - gmarrox (02/12/2015) [-]
If you took every electron it took for you to post this comment and convert each one into a single woman, you still wouldn't be getting laid.
User avatar #4105 to #4104 - emppilaf (02/12/2015) [-]
Best reply out of all the replies..
#4103 to #4095 - anon (02/12/2015) [-]
5.3% of the air you are breathing right now is literally shit
User avatar #4102 to #4095 - sugoi ONLINE (02/12/2015) [-]
If you take some shit dirt dirt with shit in it , pour in some water, and filter it, the filtered water can then be evaporated to produce saltpeter crystals.

"cooking" logs in a relatively air-tight less oxygen is good but no oxygen means no fire location can create charcoal.

Sulphur can be found around volcanoes, it is yellow and smell a a bit like farts. When lit on fire it turns into a liquid state and changes colour into a blood red.

Mixing these 3 ingredients at the ration of 100:18:16 (Saltpeter:Charcoal:Sulphur) produces gunpowder.
 Friends (0)