I am not. That is, whenever I have change it either falls out of my pockets or goes into a drawer full of change at the end of the day. Now, granted I don't use cash very much so its not that big a problem, and I don't really mind having a drawer full of change. But I just bought my lunch with exact change and I kinda liked it. So I think I'm gonna make an effort to carry 99 cents around with me whenever I can. Course the bums will probably hear me coming from a block away but that's the price of being prepared. Just remember: 4,3,2,1.
4 pennies
3 quarters
2 nickles
1 dime
Showing posts with label solution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label solution. Show all posts
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Friday, December 15, 2006
Isn't bunk bad? No something is bunk and then you debunk it.
Thanks, Wired Magazine, for clearing up all these common myths. And for streamlining the process by eliminating any kind of supporting evidence or facts. I hate how people are always trying to explain things to me, I mean isn't there some way I can just blindly believe whatever some un-credentialed person writes and puts in the internets? I mean, wow, I've wasted so many hours watching Myth Busters with all their tests, experiments and science.
Quicksand- You won't sink in over your head because 1) quicksand usually isn't that deep and 2) quicksand is more dense than a human body, so you'll float. That's not to say that quicksand isn't deadly. Exposure, starvation and rising water are all dangers.
Youtube- mythbusters: quicksand
Eye Strain - No, the emissions from TVs aren't really going to screw you up any more, and eye strain probably isn't the cause of physical degradation. But its still something to be avoided, unless you enjoy feeling like crap for no articular reason. But maybe your mom was worried about the vacuum tubes imploding and blinding you with glass shards.
Coriolis Effect - While drains and toilets are a mis-attribution of the Coriolis Effect because of their small scale, there are other mainstream examples of the principle these fabrications try to demonstrate. You know, like air travel, artillery, tornadoes, or Foucault's pendulum.
Lightning Rod - No, lightning probably didn't strike Franklin, but more interestingly he only undertook the experiment because he was impatient in this quest to test his lightning rod. Like a lot of great men he chose not to patent this invention.
Mythbusters: Franklin's kite
Terminal Velocity - Pennies don't have enough mass to get the velocity needed to kill someone. I believe Jamie and Adam shot each other with pennies at higher than terminal velocity and didn't even break skin.
Mythbusters: Penny Drop
Digestion - Another wives' tale, no one has ever died from swimming after eating. But hey, mom was always threatening disobedience with death, right. But as usual she's just looking out for your best interests. When you've finished eating blood rushes to your stomach to aid in digestion; but when you're exercising your muscles need blood. Its debatable but don't you think you'd feel better with your organs not competing for resources? Or maybe mom just wanted to spend a little more time with you. You selfish little piece of...
Snopes: Eating and Swimming
Cow Tipping - There are lots of variables to this phenomenon, but most investigators agree that cow tipping isn't physically possible as its usually described. A Canadian university study found the force needed to move a cow, short duration in which to apply it, and biology of human muscles make this task calculably impossible for one person. This doesn't discount the fact that cow tipping is attempted and hilarious. In fact, it probably wouldn't be so amusing if it worked.
Times Online: Cow-tipping Myth
Dark Side of The Moon - The Dark Side of The Moon is a Pink Floyd Album with virtually no other references to the Earth's Moon. The far side of the moon is something though, which is probably where the confusion comes from. The Moon's rotation makes one side permanently face us as the body revolves around the Earth. This phenomenon means that the moon does not face the sun with a constant side, and it does not have a permanent lunographic dark side. There is always a dark side though, the one not facing the sun.
Chewing Gum - Nope, chewing gum isn't digested because its not food. It just tastes that way. Its designed with polymers to resist digestion so that you can chew it for longer than food. So maybe its an adage about only eating food. The same way you're not supposed to eat quarters, but still manage to eliminate them if one slips by. Or perhaps its an estimation of how long stomach acid would take to break down rubber if it stuck around long enough.
Snopes: Eating Gum
Quicksand- You won't sink in over your head because 1) quicksand usually isn't that deep and 2) quicksand is more dense than a human body, so you'll float. That's not to say that quicksand isn't deadly. Exposure, starvation and rising water are all dangers.
Youtube- mythbusters: quicksand
Eye Strain - No, the emissions from TVs aren't really going to screw you up any more, and eye strain probably isn't the cause of physical degradation. But its still something to be avoided, unless you enjoy feeling like crap for no articular reason. But maybe your mom was worried about the vacuum tubes imploding and blinding you with glass shards.
Coriolis Effect - While drains and toilets are a mis-attribution of the Coriolis Effect because of their small scale, there are other mainstream examples of the principle these fabrications try to demonstrate. You know, like air travel, artillery, tornadoes, or Foucault's pendulum.
Lightning Rod - No, lightning probably didn't strike Franklin, but more interestingly he only undertook the experiment because he was impatient in this quest to test his lightning rod. Like a lot of great men he chose not to patent this invention.
Mythbusters: Franklin's kite
Terminal Velocity - Pennies don't have enough mass to get the velocity needed to kill someone. I believe Jamie and Adam shot each other with pennies at higher than terminal velocity and didn't even break skin.
Mythbusters: Penny Drop
Digestion - Another wives' tale, no one has ever died from swimming after eating. But hey, mom was always threatening disobedience with death, right. But as usual she's just looking out for your best interests. When you've finished eating blood rushes to your stomach to aid in digestion; but when you're exercising your muscles need blood. Its debatable but don't you think you'd feel better with your organs not competing for resources? Or maybe mom just wanted to spend a little more time with you. You selfish little piece of...
Snopes: Eating and Swimming
Cow Tipping - There are lots of variables to this phenomenon, but most investigators agree that cow tipping isn't physically possible as its usually described. A Canadian university study found the force needed to move a cow, short duration in which to apply it, and biology of human muscles make this task calculably impossible for one person. This doesn't discount the fact that cow tipping is attempted and hilarious. In fact, it probably wouldn't be so amusing if it worked.
Times Online: Cow-tipping Myth
Dark Side of The Moon - The Dark Side of The Moon is a Pink Floyd Album with virtually no other references to the Earth's Moon. The far side of the moon is something though, which is probably where the confusion comes from. The Moon's rotation makes one side permanently face us as the body revolves around the Earth. This phenomenon means that the moon does not face the sun with a constant side, and it does not have a permanent lunographic dark side. There is always a dark side though, the one not facing the sun.
Chewing Gum - Nope, chewing gum isn't digested because its not food. It just tastes that way. Its designed with polymers to resist digestion so that you can chew it for longer than food. So maybe its an adage about only eating food. The same way you're not supposed to eat quarters, but still manage to eliminate them if one slips by. Or perhaps its an estimation of how long stomach acid would take to break down rubber if it stuck around long enough.
Snopes: Eating Gum
Monday, November 06, 2006
Mathematicians Claim To Solve Party Problem; Only Reveal That They Have No Idea What Happens At Parties.
Alright, fine, its just the article that mentions parties, the math guys are talking about cake. They claim to have a new and better way to divide something up. Basically you give everyone half of what they "value most" and continue to value and divide the cake in that fashion. I really hope I'm missing something
First off it relies on numerically quantifying desire, or I spose being able to prioritize your needs. Secondly, what happens if two parties want some mutually inclusive portion? Maybe someone likes to look at cakes cause they're pretty and I like the moist center. Does looking at half a cake still provide half the aesthetic appeal they originally desired?
Someone likes the flowers on top of the cake, while I value the entire cake (lets say for its roundness or weight) do they get half the flowers while I get half the cake? (everything they got and half a cake) And then we go on to divide the remaining flowerless half of the cake, right?
Or if some valuable attribute is intertwined with another? Sometimes its infeasible to separate real elements. I just want the butter from the cake and nothing else, that'll pretty much just ruin it for everyone else, if you could even find a way to appease me.
What if I wanted to be the only one with a flower because I wanted to feel special, or corner the flower market and sell my property at high value because of its small supply? Giving me half the flowers gives me zero bargaining position.
Finally this isn't actually a means for cutting the cake into the necessary portions, who's to say that their flowers won't have some of my frosting on them by mistake? If we could cut perfect pieces, then everyone would get an physical equal share. But we can't and this system is supposed to fix that problem by distributing pieces of varying content; but it doesn't propose any method for ensuring precision of allocation.
What if what I value most is screwing the other people out of their desires? (because it usually is)
Mostly, by the end of all this rigamarole, no one has any interest left in cake.
Alright, the cake is just a metaphor that I'm beating to death. This is supposed to be sued to divide anything up. How about I take the Solomon route and talk about a child custody hearing? Obviously we're not cutting up children; we could divide his time though. But what if a parent's motivation is to provide a stable environment, or to start a new life? Again half of what they want is not valuable to them.
The article mentions that this concept could be used in dividing land or water, but how can we expect this to apply when there are so many reasons it might fail? The premise might succeed when used on parallel concepts, but people can place value in so many things that you might never be comparing apples to apples.
First off it relies on numerically quantifying desire, or I spose being able to prioritize your needs. Secondly, what happens if two parties want some mutually inclusive portion? Maybe someone likes to look at cakes cause they're pretty and I like the moist center. Does looking at half a cake still provide half the aesthetic appeal they originally desired?
Someone likes the flowers on top of the cake, while I value the entire cake (lets say for its roundness or weight) do they get half the flowers while I get half the cake? (everything they got and half a cake) And then we go on to divide the remaining flowerless half of the cake, right?
Or if some valuable attribute is intertwined with another? Sometimes its infeasible to separate real elements. I just want the butter from the cake and nothing else, that'll pretty much just ruin it for everyone else, if you could even find a way to appease me.
What if I wanted to be the only one with a flower because I wanted to feel special, or corner the flower market and sell my property at high value because of its small supply? Giving me half the flowers gives me zero bargaining position.
Finally this isn't actually a means for cutting the cake into the necessary portions, who's to say that their flowers won't have some of my frosting on them by mistake? If we could cut perfect pieces, then everyone would get an physical equal share. But we can't and this system is supposed to fix that problem by distributing pieces of varying content; but it doesn't propose any method for ensuring precision of allocation.
What if what I value most is screwing the other people out of their desires? (because it usually is)
Mostly, by the end of all this rigamarole, no one has any interest left in cake.
Alright, the cake is just a metaphor that I'm beating to death. This is supposed to be sued to divide anything up. How about I take the Solomon route and talk about a child custody hearing? Obviously we're not cutting up children; we could divide his time though. But what if a parent's motivation is to provide a stable environment, or to start a new life? Again half of what they want is not valuable to them.
The article mentions that this concept could be used in dividing land or water, but how can we expect this to apply when there are so many reasons it might fail? The premise might succeed when used on parallel concepts, but people can place value in so many things that you might never be comparing apples to apples.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)