I are Lee Mingde and you is crazy.

Recent

Archive

August 2004
October 2004
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
September 2005
November 2005
April 2006
June 2006
July 2006
October 2006
July 2007
February 2008
January 2011

Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

This is, in truth, bad advice. The most obvious reason is the difference in values. People do not all want the same treatment. I may enjoy getting punched in the face but most people probably do not. One may argue that on a higher level, the application of the rule would mean being nice to people if you want them to be nice to you, taking into account their individual preferences. This would only lead us to the bigger problem of "what do other people really want?".

There is also an implicit motivation in the rule, which is that people will tend to treat you the way you treat them. Unfortunately, this assumption of reciprocity is often invalid. People will treat you the way they do, regardless of how you treat them. The correlation there, while positive, is almost zero.

The best strategy to adopt is therefore to do whatever the heck one wishes.

Why? Because if one tries to be nice to someone, they might not give a damn. Or worse, from their perspective, one might be acting like a jerk. Since the outcome, whether success or failure, is so random, the optimum thing to do is to act in a manner that is at least guaranteed to make oneself happy.


Posted at 12:52 PM

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Tuesday, February 05, 2008
More Plausible Explanations of Some Superpowers

In this entry, I shall discuss some common superpowers portrayed in comic books and TV and propose alternate mechanisms for how these powers work.

Phasing, defined as a person's ability to move through another solid object.

The usual explanation is that the person who possesses this ability can somehow change the nature of the material that makes up his body such that it can pass through typical solid matter. There are many problems with this mechanism. For example,why doesn't the person fall through the floor? Why doesn't his clothes fall off when he phase? A better explanation would be that it is not the man who becomes ethereal but rather, he can temporarily change the nature of other objects so that he may pass through them.

Invisibility. Once again, to explain invisibility by attributing it to the matter that makes up the person creates all sorts of problems. How does he see if light goes right through his eyes without getting focused by his lens or detected by his retina? What happens when he eats? At what point does food become part of the person and turns invisible? (And what about the food that is not absorbed?)

It would be better to ascribe invisibility to light being forced to travel around a person rather than through him, perhaps by means of some light bending force. There is still the problem of being blind to a certain extent but at least one is spared the hassle of walking around naked.


Posted at 11:39 PM

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Saturday, July 07, 2007
Strange Logic

Here are some "proofs" for the existence of God. Logic is a funny thing.

1. Proof by Truth Teller
Fairies do not exist, therefore lying fairies do not exist.
This implies that all fairies tell the truth.
Fairies do not exist, therefore atheist fairies do not exist.
This implies that all fairies claim that God exists.
Since all fairies are truth tellers, their claim is true, therefore God exists.

2. Proof by Contradiction
Define God as any omnipotent being.
Suppose God does not exist, then there does not exist an omnipotent being. Therefore, everything is not omnipotent. If everything is not omnipotent, then God must also be not omnipotent. But we already define God as being omnipotent. We arrive at a contradiction. Therefore the assumption is false and God exists.


Technorati tags:


Posted at 9:48 PM

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Sunday, October 01, 2006
The Illusory Improvement In Traveling Time

In an hour, a person can walk 5km, run 10km and cycle 15km at a reasonable pace. A motorized vehicle, unobstructed, can easily cover 60km in the same time. I live about 10km from the city centre, which means that in the days before public transport became available, I could expect to get downtown on a bicycle in about 40min.

The transportation system has developed much since then. In place of dirt tracks, we now have a complex and efficient network of roads. Everything is optimized. From the routes and schedules of buses and trains to the timing of traffic lights, nothing escapes the improvement process.

Yet strangely enough, if I were to take a bus with a direct route downtown today, it would take me at best 40min and at worst 60min, excluding the waiting time. Obviously not a great improvement. Unfortunately, this is not a localized anomaly. Despite the tremendous advancement in transportation technology in terms of speed and passenger capacity, the impact of such progress to the traveling individuals is actually quite small.

This is so even for car owners. While the automobiles of today are far superior to their predecessors, their drivers can hardly claim a mind-blowing savings in time.

Why is this so? Is the progression of technology just barely able to keep up with the increase in population? Or did the authorities fail to exploit the technology that is available to us?

Probably neither. It seemed unlikely that the government'’s only concern in this area is to get people where they want to go as fast as possible.

Many things have been implemented to improve traffic conditions. Roads have been widened. Expressways were built. ERP was implemented. With all these in place, traffic conditions are bound to improve. But they did not. The only possible explanation is the constant addition of cars to the network of roads. But COE controls the number of cars. And that brings us to one conclusion, that making the traffic super smooth is not the primary goal of the government.

And why should they? I certainly would not build plenty of roads just to improve traffic for a few cars. If you are going to have this much road, then you should have as many cars using it as is reasonably possible. If you did something that drastically improved traffic flow, then it makes sense to allow a few more cars on the road and earn some profit from the COE at the same time. Just stay within reasonable limits and this scheme will work.

What is considered reasonable? As long as the average traveling time for the general public does not increase over the years, it is deemed acceptable.

Take the NEL for example. It travels much faster than the older trains. But its waiting time is also longer. Add the fact that now many people are forced to travel to the train stations due to the removal of other options, namely direct bus services, it is not difficult to realize that the average travel time via that route did not really improve much. It's a lot faster if one lives near a train station but slower if one is forced to take a bus to the train station.

The only difference is that the new system can carry a larger volume of passengers using less vehicles and making more profit. For the average commuter, the significant improvement in traveling time is but an illusion.

Technorati tags:


Posted at 5:17 PM

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Saturday, July 08, 2006
I is Singaporean v1.1

Hi, my name is Mingde.

I live in trees and eat peppermint candy. I don't own a car, or a credit card, or a condominium, or any freehold property that is now MRT tracks. I don't know Michael Fay, Annabel Chong or the VR Man, although I'm certain they're really, really uncourteous.

I have a Prime Minister AND a President...and a Senior Minister and a Minister Mentor. I speak Engrand and JAVA, not English, and I pronounce it "flo-wer", not "flour".

I can proudly sew my mouth to avoid trouble. I believe in public caning, not multiple lifetime imprisonment; integrated resorts, not casinos; and that chewing gum is a truly vile and disgusting product.

Today is a newspaper, Tomorrow is a metablog and it is pronouced "awthonticate"; not "authenticate" - "awthonticate"!

Singapore is the most eager importer of "talents"! The first nation of acronyms! And the best part of China!

My name is Mingde! And I is Singaporean!

So say we all!

So say we all!

Technorati tags:


Posted at 12:50 PM

1 Comments:

You have a very interesting 'I am Singaporean' read. Great job!
By Blogger eu, at 1:38 PM  

Post a Comment

Thursday, June 29, 2006
Live Each Day Like Your Last

"If you live each day as if it were your last, someday you'll most certainly be right."
I do not know from where this piece of advice originated but I am confident that many people will continue quoting it to inspire people around them. Frankly, I think having this kind of life philosophy is plain stupid.

When I first encountered this saying, I was unsure whether it encouraged or discouraged living each day as if it were my last. "...someday you'll most certainly be right" - and since I most certainly do not want to be right in this case, doesn't that mean I shouldn't live each day as if it were my last?

But since this saying is supposed to promote a positive attitude (ironic since one must pretend one is going to die tomorrow), I guess it encourages one to live each day as if it were truly the last. But what does that really mean?

If I were to die tomorrow, I'll spend half the time executing my will and the other half spending all my money in one day and having an absolutely fabulous time. In short, living life to the fullest as they call it, in one day. Is this really how I should be living every single day of my life? Is this the logical, optimum and most preferred thing to do?

I think the answer is trivial but since so many people have been telling me to live each day like my last (implying that they believe in that stuff), I must very well be insane to reason so differently from normal, clear-minded people.


Posted at 10:24 PM

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Thursday, April 13, 2006
Psychic Appendix

People are always telling me that they believe that humans are using only 10% of their brains and that if they can only unlock the dormant 90%, they could accomplish amazing feats such as mind reading, telekinesis, making their homework do itself and even thinking logically! This 10% urban legend has been around for some time and I personally do not think I am using less than half my brain but I am not so sure about a lot of people.

Let's forget for a moment that most experts with any credibility do not support the 10% claim and assume that 90% of the human brain has no known function. Isn't it strange that just because people don't know what that body part does, they can assume it possesses miraculous ability waiting to be unlocked? Why hasn't anyone propose that the source of ESP comes from the appendix, a part of the anatomy whose function is still debatable? How else can you explain why most so-called psychics have not yet have their appendices removed?

Then some guy, whom Mingde has probably been constantly irritating with his arguments, will come along and point out that since the brain is the organ related to thought, it is reasonable to assume that psychic abilities would come from the brain. Why of course! Mind reading comes from the brain! But since the appendix is so near the caecum, which digests cellulose, it must have the hidden ability to psychically digest cellulose for other people! Think of the wonders we can perform if we can only unlock the secrets of the appendix. We would be able to psychically break down the cellulose in the bodies of people with indigestion!


Posted at 11:03 AM

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

  
   
Performancing