On 7/7/2010 3:17 AM, Invisible wrote:

> Heh. I'm "interested" in many, many topics. Fractals, data compression,
> encryption, statistics, artificial intelligence, digital signal
> processing, sound synthesis, logic design, biology, evolotion... the
> list goes on.
>
> The GHC User Manual has a section "for over-interested souls". I think
> this is possibly the term that describes me...

Yeah, describes me to a tee as well. Add chemistry and quantum physics 
on top of that.

>>> In other news, I spent a really absurd amount of time on Wikipedia. o_O
>>
>> I think we noticed, and on WA.
>
> Ah WA... Very cool, but not especially useful. Like the data glove, it
> seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

Indeed. Quite a fun toy, though.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>> Heh. I'm "interested" in many, many topics. Fractals, data compression,
>> encryption, statistics, artificial intelligence, digital signal
>> processing, sound synthesis, logic design, biology, evolotion... the
>> list goes on.
>>
>> The GHC User Manual has a section "for over-interested souls". I think
>> this is possibly the term that describes me...
> 
> Yeah, describes me to a tee as well. Add chemistry and quantum physics 
> on top of that.

Dude, this is povray.off-topic, the off-topic forum for users of a 
Turing-complete ray tracer that supports implicit surfaces and 
volumetric sampling of user-defined functions. I think "over-interested 
souls" probably covers the entire damned group! ;-)

And I could add chemistry, electronics, and a whole bunch of other stuff 
too. It's just that eventually you have to stop typing.

>> Ah WA... Very cool, but not especially useful. Like the data glove, it
>> seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
> 
> Indeed. Quite a fun toy, though.

For sure. Although it seems to be extremely good at utterly failing to 
comprehend what you mean.

Also, and this is the annoying part, WA is supposed to be this 
"revolutionary" system that will "make everything computable for 
anybody". The trouble is, it's powered by Mathematica, Wolfram's 

result, WA is deliberately crippled (i.e., it won't answer certain 
questions even though it could) in order to force you to buy Mathematica.

My personal feeling is that they should add a "pro" version for money 
that *does* solve every problem that the backend engine can handle. And 
then, instead of saying "WA doesn't know what to do with your input", it 
should actually *say* "you need the pro version to do that".

But anyway, flames aside...

Post a reply to this message

On 7-7-2010 10:17, Invisible wrote:

>>> On a completely unrelated note, apparently in some animals the heart 
>>> is a single pump, and in yet others it's just a tube that sort of 
>>> squirts,
>>
>> In humans (and mammals and birds and probably also the reptiles and 
>> fishes) it starts out as a tube with peristaltic contractions only 
>> later the two separate circulations are formed. E.g. crocodiles have a 
>> single chamber, but don't make the assumption that therefore their 
>> heart is more primitive. For them that functions better than any 4 
>> chambered heart would do.
> 
> Well, the word "primitive" means "simpler", and it's sometimes taken to 
> mean "less evolved". And people seem to think that simpler is worse, and 
> more complex is better. 

A crocodile heart may be more complex than a human heart, it is e.g. 
capable of adjusting the mixing of oxygenated and non-oxygenated blood 
according to how much is needed. That helps in keeping submerged for 
long times.

> Then again, people think that worms are "less 
> evolved" than humans - but they severely out-number us, so they can't be 
> doing it that badly wrong...

All animals alive today have evolved for exactly the same amount of 
time. If you count generations, smaller animals are in general more 
evolved than larger

>> Pity that given your interest in this topic (and in e.g. MathML) that 
>> you seem to be stuck in MK.
> 
> Heh. I'm "interested" in many, many topics. Fractals, data compression, 
> encryption, statistics, artificial intelligence, digital signal 
> processing, sound synthesis, logic design, biology, evolution... the 
> list goes on.

About 70% of these would have been useful in a job application here.

> The GHC User Manual has a section "for over-interested souls". I think 
> this is possibly the term that describes me...

I think that would also describe me, although I prefer to describe my 
interests as broad but not shallow.

>>> In other news, I spent a really absurd amount of time on Wikipedia. o_O
>>
>> I think we noticed, and on WA.
> 
> Ah WA... Very cool, but not especially useful. Like the data glove, it 
> seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

Or a set of answers in search of a search.

Post a reply to this message

>> Heh. I don't know if it's a rule of the Internet, but it probably 
>> should be: For any conceivable topic, somebody else will know way, way 
>> more about it than you. :-}
> 
> except that in this case you knew I would be such a somebody.

OK, well here's something you might know the answer to:

Does dancing around like a crazy thing for a few hours count as "a good 
cardio workout"?

(Obviously dancing something slow probably doesn't count. But something 
like my favourit dance, Rock & Roll, is really very energetic. At least, 
it is if you do it right...)

Post a reply to this message

On 8-7-2010 16:32, Invisible wrote:
>>> Heh. I don't know if it's a rule of the Internet, but it probably 
>>> should be: For any conceivable topic, somebody else will know way, 
>>> way more about it than you. :-}
>>
>> except that in this case you knew I would be such a somebody.
> 
> OK, well here's something you might know the answer to:

sorry

> Does dancing around like a crazy thing for a few hours count as "a good 
> cardio workout"?

I actually haven't a clue what a cardio workout is. Except that it a 
term used by people that work out in a gym. I am definitely not one of 
those.

Good dancing seems to be by using a lot of muscles, hence I would assume 
that it may be a usefull workout anyway. (Yet IANAD)

> (Obviously dancing something slow probably doesn't count. 

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Moving slow also involves alot of 
muscle tension. Google for tai chi (with current temperatures I am too 
lazy for even that).

> But something like my favourit dance, Rock & Roll, is really very 
> energetic. At least, it is if you do it right...)

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> I actually haven't a clue what a cardio workout is. 

It's aerobic exercise that gets your heart rate high and keeps it high. 
Usually meaningful only in contrast to an anaerobic which is like lifting 
weights to give your muscles strength.

So, dancing would be cardio unless you're *really* out of shape.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> So, dancing would be cardio unless you're *really* out of shape.

Heh. What, like so fat that it's a physical feet to actually list that 
much flab out of the chair?

Actually, come to think of it... My mother has fat on her fat's fat, but 
one thing I have noticed is that her legs appear to be 100% solid muscle 
mass...

Post a reply to this message