Upload
Login or register
Latest users (1): platinumaltaria, anonymous(2).
Anonymous comments allowed.
#4231 - spartusee
Reply 0
(02/25/2015) [-]
Can someone help me with this trigonometry problem, I don't understand the concept.

You need to login to view this link
#4233 to #4231 - coronus
Reply 0
(02/25/2015) [-]
You'll want to make a right triangle.

-cosin of an internal angle is equal to the ratio of the adjacent side over the hypotenuse
-Sin of an internal angle is equal to the opposite side over the hypotenuse
-Tan is opposite over adjacent

Use these to construct a 30-60-90 right triangle with known sides, using the ratio you're given with the Pythagorean theorem to find the length of the side opposite the 30 degree angle.

from there it's just plug and chug for the various identities, since you'll have a solved right triangle.
#4230 - anon
Reply 0
(02/25/2015) [-]
I don't understand this, can I get some help with it.

[url deleted]
#4226 - luigipimp
Reply 0
(02/24/2015) [-]
if the amount of oxygen WAS doubled, would humans get bigger too or just bugs and spiders?
#4246 to #4226 - alltimetens
Reply 0
(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.
#4240 to #4226 - nimba
Reply 0
(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
Reply +1
(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.
#4216 - kebabs
Reply +1
(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.
Working:
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?
#4241 to #4216 - nimba
Reply +1
(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.
#4217 to #4216 - funnyjunkelite
Reply 0
(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?
#4220 to #4217 - kebabs
Reply 0
(02/24/2015) [-]
Let's put a key to the rectifier.
#4221 to #4220 - funnyjunkelite
Reply 0
(02/24/2015) [-]
What about babies? a mecha vagina might sterilize it
#4243 to #4221 - nimba
Reply 0
(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.
#4222 to #4221 - kebabs
Reply 0
(02/24/2015) [-]
Isn't that a good thing. That's totally a good thing.
#4223 to #4222 - funnyjunkelite
Reply 0
(02/24/2015) [-]
no babies=no human race
rip humans
#4224 to #4223 - kebabs
Reply 0
(02/24/2015) [-]
Small pay for huge pleasure.
#4218 to #4217 - funnyjunkelite
Reply 0
(02/24/2015) [-]
A woman*
#4219 to #4218 - funnyjunkelite
Reply 0
(02/24/2015) [-]
Just take out the A


goddammit
#4215 - davyjonesbooty
Reply +1
(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?
#4242 to #4215 - nimba
Reply 0
(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.
#4235 to #4215 - coronus
Reply 0
(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.
#4208 - tipjar
Reply +1
(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
#4213 to #4208 - sugoi
Reply 0
(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.
#4209 to #4208 - tarfyki
Reply +2
(02/23/2015) [-]
#4206 - skoldpaddacommala
Reply 0
(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.
#4265 to #4206 - magnuskasparov
Reply +1
(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.


#4266 to #4265 - skoldpaddacommala
Reply +1
(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
Reply +2
(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.
#4210 to #4206 - tarfyki
Reply +1
(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.
#4247 to #4210 - alltimetens
Reply +1
(02/26/2015) [-]
What do you mean theoretical? As in they don't physically exist or that we're not sure if they do?
#4264 to #4247 - magnuskasparov
Reply +1
(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
#4207 to #4206 - sugoi
Reply +2
(02/23/2015) [-]
There is a limit somewhere.
And I think you mean divisible not indivisible since that would be the opposite.
#4205 - thejrjimjammers
Reply +1
(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.
#4234 to #4205 - coronus
Reply 0
(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
Reply 0
(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.
#4202 - cantfindausername ONLINE
Reply 0
(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
#4203 to #4202 - nimba
Reply +1
(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
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#4196 to #4169 - smudgiemuffins
Reply 0
(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.
#4197 to #4196 - tarfyki
Reply 0
(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
Reply 0
(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.
#4199 to #4198 - whatley
Reply 0
(02/20/2015) [-]
Thank you.
#4172 to #4169 - sugoi
Reply 0
(02/19/2015) [-]
100%
Not really sure what you mean by now being the edge of everything though.
#4173 to #4172 - tarfyki
Reply 0
(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
#4177 to #4173 - whatley
Reply 0
(02/19/2015) [-]
We're probably not on the edge of time.
#4178 to #4177 - tarfyki
Reply 0
(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
#4179 to #4178 - whatley
Reply 0
(02/19/2015) [-]
What do you mean "what if"?
#4180 to #4179 - tarfyki
Reply 0
(02/19/2015) [-]
there's no way to be 100% certain, but i like the idea of it
#4181 to #4180 - whatley
Reply 0
(02/19/2015) [-]
It's not realistic.
#4182 to #4181 - tarfyki
Reply 0
(02/19/2015) [-]
care to elaborate?
#4183 to #4182 - whatley
Reply 0
(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.
#4184 to #4183 - tarfyki
Reply 0
(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
#4185 to #4184 - whatley
Reply 0
(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?
#4186 to #4185 - tarfyki
Reply 0
(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
#4187 to #4186 - whatley
Reply 0
(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.
#4188 to #4187 - tarfyki
Reply 0
(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
#4189 to #4188 - whatley
Reply 0
(02/19/2015) [-]
Then go do that and it'll be science, then you can talk about it here and people will be interested.
#4190 to #4189 - tarfyki
Reply 0
(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
#4191 to #4190 - whatley
Reply 0
(02/19/2015) [-]
Then what you're doing isn't science, and has no place here.
#4192 to #4191 - tarfyki
Reply 0
(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
#4193 to #4192 - whatley
Reply 0
(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.
#4194 to #4193 - tarfyki
0
(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
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#4162 - huchkizz
Reply 0
(02/18/2015) [-]
This movie is really pissing me off
#4163 to #4162 - tarfyki
Reply +1
(02/18/2015) [-]
is that that time travel movie?
#4165 to #4163 - huchkizz
Reply 0
(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.
#4174 to #4165 - nimba
Reply -1
(02/19/2015) [-]
Frankenstein never used electricity to reanimate shit, it's a misconception of a reference to a spark of ingenuity.
#4166 to #4165 - tarfyki
Reply +1
(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
#4167 to #4166 - huchkizz
Reply 0
(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.
#4168 to #4167 - tarfyki
Reply +1
(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?
#4170 to #4168 - huchkizz
Reply 0
(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
#4171 to #4170 - tarfyki
Reply +1
(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
Reply 0
(02/23/2015) [-]
lol, you didn't catch 'the neutrinos have mutated' from 2014, have you?
#4212 to #4211 - tarfyki
Reply 0
(02/23/2015) [-]
was it a movie or event? Either way, no i didn't
#4147 - tsoper ONLINE
Reply 0
(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.
#4175 to #4147 - nimba
Reply 0
(02/19/2015) [-]
Here's a philosphical point; it may already have happened
#4195 to #4175 - tsoper ONLINE
Reply 0
(02/19/2015) [-]
elaborate.
#4200 to #4195 - nimba
Reply 0
(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:
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/12/physicists-universe-simulation-test-university-of-washington-matrix_n_2282745.html
#4201 to #4200 - tsoper ONLINE
Reply 0
(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.
#4153 to #4147 - sugoi
Reply 0
(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.
#4137 - beatmasterz
Reply 0
(02/17/2015) [-]
Do quantum laws apply to normal scale? Why/why not?
#4145 to #4137 - anon
Reply +1
(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
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#4138 to #4137 - nimba
Reply 0
(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.
#4142 to #4138 - beatmasterz
Reply 0
(02/17/2015) [-]
I have no idea what all that means.
#4134 - beatmasterz
Reply 0
(02/17/2015) [-]
If causality is true, doesn't that mean the future is already predetermined?
#4135 to #4134 - sugoi
Reply 0
(02/17/2015) [-]
Not really because the cause for the events in the future hasn't happened yet and the causes can change.
#4136 to #4135 - beatmasterz
Reply 0
(02/17/2015) [-]
The causes could theoretically be calculated and the outcome as well.
#4144 to #4136 - sugoi
Reply 0
(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?
#4148 to #4144 - beatmasterz
Reply 0
(02/18/2015) [-]
Rolling dices and flipping coins depends on the way you throw it, wind resistance all that shit. Could theoretically be predicted.
#4149 to #4148 - sugoi
Reply 0
(02/18/2015) [-]
Great you've got dices and flipping coins theoretically figured out.
What about randomly generated lotto tickets?
#4150 to #4149 - beatmasterz
Reply 0
(02/18/2015) [-]
Generated with computers that can't be random.
#4151 to #4150 - sugoi
Reply 0
(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?
#4152 to #4151 - beatmasterz
Reply 0
(02/18/2015) [-]
They're not random as in they use complex formulas to determine a number. The rest of your questions are strawmen.
#4154 to #4152 - sugoi
Reply 0
(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?
#4155 to #4154 - beatmasterz
Reply 0
(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.
#4156 to #4155 - sugoi
Reply 0
(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.
#4157 to #4156 - beatmasterz
Reply 0
(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.
#4158 to #4157 - sugoi
Reply 0
(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.

#4159 to #4158 - beatmasterz
Reply 0
(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.
#4160 to #4159 - sugoi
Reply 0
(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.
#4161 to #4160 - beatmasterz
Reply 0
(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.
#4139 to #4136 - nimba
Reply 0
(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.
#4143 to #4139 - beatmasterz
Reply 0
(02/17/2015) [-]
Guess that's true. And with scientific goggles we probably don't have free will.
#4128 - luigipimp
Reply 0
(02/16/2015) [-]
doesnt showering take away all the pheromones?
#4132 to #4128 - sugoi
Reply 0
(02/17/2015) [-]
And then they come back.
#4133 to #4132 - luigipimp
Reply +1
(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
#4114 - spartusee
Reply 0
(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
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#4116 to #4115 - malimrav
Reply 0
(02/15/2015) [-]
Also, what part you don't understand I don't really know what I should be explaining.
#4117 to #4116 - malimrav
Reply 0
(02/15/2015) [-]
My bad, sin(30) is 1/2. So final solution is 3/2
#4118 to #4117 - spartusee
Reply 0
(02/15/2015) [-]
I don't understand how to add tangent and sign. I know how to convert radians to degrees.
#4119 to #4118 - malimrav
Reply 0
(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
#4120 to #4119 - spartusee
Reply 0
(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.
#4122 to #4120 - malimrav
Reply 0
(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.
#4121 to #4120 - spartusee
Reply 0
(02/15/2015) [-]
Ok I think I got it, thanks.
#4111 - luigipimp
Reply -1
(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
#4108 - phoenixforger
Reply 0
(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.
#4109 to #4108 - lolpandas
Reply +1
(02/13/2015) [-]
ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/

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.
#4106 - weaponexplain
Reply +2
(02/12/2015) [-]
I've had 4 exams and 3 lab reports so far this week. Sleep is for the week.
#4110 to #4106 - skoldpaddacommala
Reply +2
(02/13/2015) [-]
yes, sleep for a week.