Monthly Archives: November 2009

“We squander health
In search of wealth;
We scheme and toil, and save,
Then squander wealth
In search of health;
And all we get’s the grave;

We live and boast of what we own;
We die . . . and only get a stone.”

“Health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.”

it would be weird if equations in math, chemistry, physics were all negligibly time dependent, so all our equations are simplifications for this time frame. like, say PV=nRT (which is a very simplified already) has some other variable time in it, but it is negligible in our time, making it true during the years 104934 BC and 3049358 AD. and after that it drops off and changes to another equation. but we would never know, because it’s not in our time frame!

so i was reading about pixel aspect ratio, because i was confused why dvds would show up as 854×480 pixels, but display the information as 720×480 pixels when i looked at the codec information. turns out tv pixels aren’t square. computer pixels are square. so everything is screwed up. tv pixels are fat at a ratio of 1:1.186 (on NTSC tvs, PAL tvs are different, cry cry). so yea. that’s ridiculous! a pixel is supposed to be the smallest unit of display. why would they make it such a weird size!? or why did they make computer pixels square if the tv pixels were already fat rectangles!? ughghhghg. well, at least the new HDTVs are using square pixels now. so it will match up. i guess.

another annoying thing is framerates, 24p, 25p, 30i. ugh. pulldown and all that stuff. PAL makes me sad, but i guess NTSC makes the rest of the world sad. kind of like fahrenheit, but even NTSC is more widespread than fahrenheit.

anyways, i propose a 32 or 64 or 128 frames per second. that would be good. a power of two would be divisible in half all the way down, so easy to edit. can easily slow down sequences without so much fast motion. maybe.

i had like 8 cups of green tea. my head is running like crazy. can’t concentrate. but tea tastes so good.

in classes, they always demonstrate dna mutation by random error of dna polymerase by playing telephone. first person hears something and they tell next person. and next person. and by the end, the message is completely different. but this is wrong! because each person is a new polymerase with different abilities to remember and recite what is heard, so too many variables are being changed. it should be a person repeating the thing and wiping his memory at the same time and adding something to his memory at the same time. or something like that.

Pekka-Eric Auvinen, a Finnish schoolboy who murdered eight people at his high school in November 2007, wrote on his blog that “stupid, weak-minded people are reproducing … faster than the intelligent, strong-minded” ones. Auvinen thought through the philosophical implications of Darwin’s work and came to the conclusion that human life is like every other type of animal life: it has no extraordinary value. The Columbine killers made similar arguments. One of the shooters, Eric Harris, wore a “Natural Selection” shirt on the day of the massacre.

anyways it is almost 150 years since the publication of “origin of species”.

one thing i don’t like is the distinction between natural selection and artificial selection. because humans are natural too, so our actions should be natural. we are selecting for certain traits just like other animals are selecting for certain traits. when growing fruits, we select the largest, best tasting fruits. when bees pollinate flowers, they select the ones that appeal to them most (based on UV reflection, colors, accessibility). so in the same way, we are selecting for another species development. why are human actions of selection suddenly boosted (or downgraded) to another level? based on this idea, we are a product of nature. yet we do not do natural things?

so what is artificial?

today in biochem, we were talking about polymerase chain reaction (pcr), a method to copy a piece of dna at an exponential rate. so i started to write out powers of 2. and there’s like crazy patterns. at least in the first 30 powers.

2^0 is the first power of two to be in ones (10^0).
2^4 is the first power of two to be in tens (10^1).
2^7 is the first power of two to be in hundreds (10^2).
2^10 is the first power of two to be in thousands (10^3).
2^14 -> 10^4
2^17 -> 10^5
2^20 -> 10^6

and it keeps going on. the powers of two always change in the order of 4,3,3. the differences between that number pattern is a pattern of 1,0,-1. the differences between that number pattern is a pattern of 1,-1. and the differences between those are 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2.

that’s weird, i think.

anyways if 2 is to a power of a multiple of 10, the number moves up by thousands.

2^10 = 1024
2^20 = somewhere in 1000000
2^30 = somewhere in 1000000000

and then it keeps going. i guess that makes sense because its just multiplying 1024 by itself. and being 2.4% too large. so i guess eventually it will get large enough to fall out of that rule. but my new discovery will be set only the small range of numbers! so yay.

time to study relevant material.