Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About tdh

  • Rank


  • MBTI
  1. I am super rusty but I think this is what you are looking for. void capitalize(char * str){ int i,j=0;//i is the source index and j is the destination index char c; for(i=0;str[i]!=0;i++){ c=str[i]; if c==' ' continue;//skip spaces if (c<='z' & c=>'a') c=c-'a'+'A'; //ccd explained this str[j++]=c; } str[j]=0;//null terminated }
  2. You can't start on any of the even numbers.
  3. I have played a game or two every few years since it came out. Waiting long enough to forget the details of the tech tree greatly increases replay value. Plus it helps to know people who are good at the game. That reminds me of AI War: Fleet Command. I haven't had a chance to finish a game yet, but it is very interesting so far. It is well maintained and cheap. $8.49 here with all 6 expansions but I think I got it for a lot less on sale.
  4. Alpha centauri (with the expansion) and masters of orion 2
  5. I find this unsurprising considering that the physical and social consequences of violence perpetrated by men are usually more severe. It is appalling, though, how male victims of domestic violence are treated.
  6. Since you already got a new staff Imho, begging is the lowest form of flattery which is the lowest form of bribery. I don't mind bribery if it stays classy. I do have more questions about that but it is way past my bed time and perhaps this thread is not the place for them. That was entirely my fault. Also, its tDh, not tBh, though I do kind of like tbh, tbh. What I actually meant was "Really obvious prejudices." Strong prejudices are generally obvious, but the reverse isn't as true. Honestly I just saw a sensitive spot so I poked it. Your attitude since then demonstrates that the spot wasn't as weak as I suspected. I am glad you didn't post your reply because I don't think I could have continued down that road without crossing into personal attacks and mud slinging. If you still have the text, I would like to see what you had to say, though. In a pm, perhaps. I wouldn't ask you to retype but I am interested. Probably not interested in responding, though. You won because you walked away. Then again, if you keep up the unnecessary hyperbole I might change my mind.
  7. I hadn't actually used "electromotive force" to justify the explanation and did not intend for it to be part of the explanation. I think that it would be better phrased as a causal relationship: High voltage makes electricity move more forcefully. Lower voltage makes electricity move less forcefully. Batteries make toys work, mains power makes the TV operate, etc. Voltage causes current. Or Electricity moves more forcefully because of higher voltage ... Is putting familiar before unfamiliar more important than putting cause before effect? For that matter, is wanting to see causes before effects just me or does everybody like that? Mostly. Moving is a tricky word and an unqualified "how much" will likely lead to misunderstanding. The electrons in the conductor are moving very rapidly whether any current is present or not. The current is (basically) the motion caused by the voltage in a specific direction. The current also causes additional vibration in all directions, but that is heat and, like electron motion in the absence of voltage, it balances out. Current isn't so much motion as change in motion. Since all the electron motion is normally balanced, it can also be accurately called net motion. A discussion of current should at first ignore or exclude all motion that is not caused directly by the voltage, and should avoid saying anything that implies that the electrons are significantly sped up when you flip the switch. I will try to give another elementary school type explanation at the end of this post. ----- That is almost technically true but unless you want to skip resistance and go directly from current to dielectric strength, that's probably not the best description of voltage. Under Ohm's law, any non-zero voltage will produce a current through any non-infinite resistance. Why that isn't actually the case should probably be another, more advanced topic. No. Work, energy, and power are electrical terms with very different meanings. Calling current power or energy will only lead confusion and contradiction. ----- I think that the three are so closely related that they should be grouped together. Why teach 2/3 of Ohm's law? ---- I think that pursuing alternative explanations is a worthwhile pursuit. I have seen high school students struggle with the water analogy but I don't think that the subject is too complicated for a typical 10 year old. lkso's point about specific analogies being harder for some students to grasp than for others is valid and (I assume) relevant. More analogies can help to a point, but I really think that an analogy-free explanation might be better. You just described every math-oriented science class ever taught. The fact is that we don't know the complete equations yet, and likely never will. Fortunately existing equations often have room for new discoveries. Science class should mirror scientific knowledge in that way. More force means more speed only if you are talking about equal masses. F=ma <<=>> E=IR ... Besides, voltage has force in its name. Speed is definitely not force. You can re-order it so that {cause}={intrinsic opposition to change}*{resulting change} --> F=m*a -->E=R*I or perhaps better yet {resulting change}={cause}/{intrinsic opposition to change} --> a=F/m --> I=E/R An object moving faster is the result of more force. I don't understand this result/exemplification dichotomy that you have set up. Speed is a result of force in the same way that current is a result of voltage. Resistance is intrinsic to a circuit in the same way that inertia is intrinsic to an object. Yes. I think that higher=bigger should be included or at least implied in the explanation. ------ Talking about the energy of individual electrons is, imho, counterproductive. I don't think that using "energy" for anything other than Pt=EIt is a good idea. Besides, "each electron has" is wide-open to misinterpretation and (at least in the way that I would read it) not literally true. Though it is admittedly simpler than saying "the amount of energy transmitted per net electron." Perhaps if starting from power and then moving to energy, then V, A, and R. I will think more about approaching it from that angle. I think that that aspect of the baseball analogy would be better suited to explaining resistivity/conductivity. I learned about it by reading about those things as a small child. Didn't encounter the water analogy until middle school. Odd, being as my father is an electrician. That gets me thinking that batteries and lamps should probably be used as an example/demonstration. A simple series circuit with one or two lights and one or two batteries would do the trick. Then you could go on to compare the mAh rating to a gass tank or what you had for lunch when it comes time to talk about energy and power. ----- Speed should probably be left out because it has a meanings that could be relevant but would be better left out for now. I think that it is important to avoid contradiction. Better to plan ahead and stay accurate than to have to explain that you didn't really mean what was said earlier. Also, I think that it bears repeating that energy-per-electron should be left out. At least until after energy/power and conductivity/resistivity. The next sensible step after resistance is energy and power, but not necessarily the energy of individual electrons. [Edit: the more I think about it that way, the more I like it.] Different electron energy levels better corresponds to orbitals and ionization states. Number of baseballs (or number of really fast/bouncy baseballs) corresponds to free charge carriers or conductivity. ------ Well said, but I think that some will interpret it as stretching or being pedantic. Any explanation that uses pie should at a minimum include pictures of pie showing all relevant details. I don't know how to draw water pressure instructively. I don't know either but if anyone is looking it up, I want to put my money down on Coulomb. I like this. I think it could be fleshed out by using something more descriptive than "electric potential." I can't think of anything at the moment that would be as accurate, though. Something similar to "charge density" but less technical (no need to include density) and more correct. How about anthropomorphic electrons? Your choice of aluminum throws me off for some reason and the current would probably be enough to burn students. I have burned myself using a AA-sized lithium battery and 30-guage copper wire. Perhaps using discrete objects instead of materials would better demonstrate resistance. Maybe some type of lamp or buzzer and coin-cell batteries? That would also make power visible or audible. ------- Yeah, avoiding analogies and physical demonstrations entirely doesn't seem practical. Perhaps a demonstration that costs less than $1USD? The context that I am imagining in my head is the ultimate introductory science book. A good explanation should reduce cultural, experiential, and educational assumptions to the bare minimum possible. All explanations should be as technically accurate as possible and should translate well. A really good explanation could work as well in suburban USA as rural Somalia. That said, I assume that electricity is in someway relevant to the student's life. If they have never seen so much as an electric light, then the entire exercise is pretty pointless. ------- I was going to type up a long-winded but simple, analogy-free, detailed explanation but it is getting late and I should probably wait for more context. (I have spent the last hour editing. Sry for any errors that I missed.) What exactly is this for? Is there a specific purpose to this discussion?
  8. I am not yet convinced that it is anything other than a central tendency bias.
  9. Right because you didn't just ignore the thread title and treat someone staying on topic while relating a personal experience as an attack. Clearly we can't discuss the causes of male anger at feminism without giving equal 'fair and balanced' style discussion to the ever more tiresome "but boys do that too." Obviously you were respectfully requesting more information about that user's personal experiences without sarcasm. You certainly didn't mean to imply that many male forum members actually don't believe that women should be treated equally. So I guess that I stand corrected. Miss Emily's post can only be an example of personal prejudice and has nothing to do with... I don't know... perhaps the topic at hand... And that last bit, about race, age, culture, and disability? Clearly a red herring. If there was anything else to say about how people respond to avatars it is definitely that boys do it too. Though on a more serious note, I would like to know more about Miss Emily's experiences with different avatars, especially when feminism comes up. Not going to beg, though. Not even sarcastically. ;)
  10. Really, all the laws of thermodynamics and how to apply them... Mostly just open vs closed systems. That was already in the list, though. Most fusion reactor implementations will never produce power. It's not a matter of tuning for better efficiency. The bogus cold fusion claims that people keep rehashing claim to be able to produce power, usually through D-T hydrogen fusion or some similarly extremely high-pressure reaction. A few decades ago there was a claim that hydrogen fusion could be achieved in a tank of water at about room temperature, resulting in slightly warmer water. There were many attempts to replicate it, and for a while many seemed to show positive results, but the mechanism was never explained and signs of fusion other than small amounts of heat were never observed. Probably faulty equipment, faulty methodology, and wishful thinking. There are ongoing experiments for cooler fusion that might eventually lead to smaller fusion power plants than currently seem practical, but without a serious change in how we understand particles nothing like that will fit in your garage. Most of these don't fall into the category of theoretical physics, but they are all at least sciencey and I think that we need more and better videos about them. Power vs Energy -- The news media seems to get this wrong more often than not Climate vs weather Statistical significance Cosmology and the history of cosmology. Orbital mechanics, specifically micro-gravity, geosynchronous and geostationary orbits, and how orbits change (the effects of slowing down, speeding up, etc)
  11. Voltage and current are definitely more confusing without resistance than with it. Why would you introduce two clearly related things without describing how they are related. Also, simplest answer I can come up with to the OP: Voltage is how forcefully electrons are moved. Current is amount of resulting motion. Resistance is how much the electrons fight against the voltage. I stand by that as being completely technically correct. It would perhaps be better to refer to voltage as 'electromotive force,' though. I wouldn't say that voltage is the force with which the electrons are moved, though, because 'force' is far more frequently used to mean a kinetic force which uses different units. "Amount of resulting motion" is much more accurate than "speed" and much less confusing than "net flow through a given cross-section" or any more precise definition that I can come up with. Given those three descriptions, a student with basic pre-algebra would have about a 50/50 chance of guessing Ohm's law. They could just as easily guess E=I-R, though. Perhaps a better explanation of resistance would clear that up, though.
  12. Nobody has yet suggested how one can LEARN anything or in any other way apply their worldview without using their senses. Nor has anything which actually gives any information about reality been demonstrated to be more reliable. Nobody has even tried to explain how the assumption of a deity provides any useful information without the application of senses and reason. Rather than simply asserting that theism removes the need for reliable senses, perhaps someone who believes so could explain it. Further, I am aware of no version or doctrine of materialism that demands perfect senses or assumes human infallibility. Rather it seems that any variation provides the tools required to demonstrate that the senses are in fact imperfect. Materialism gives us the tools to demonstrate that our senses are unreliable. A belief that they are magic does not. We know that our senses are unreliable by testing them and demanding verification and repetition to assign trust. Applying lower standards to less reliable sources is not a strength. Admitting your limitations, on the other hand, is a strength. ---------- Post added 11-17-2014 at 12:19 AM ---------- Excellent question... where does consciousness reside. I am of the opinion that it is largely social in nature and certainly do not believe that it resides in any particular section of the brain. As the brain is still almost entirely unknown, though, I certainly can't rule out the possibility of some sort of a 'consciousness cluster' of neurons or some such. So as you have pointed out, we know that personality is at least in part a physical phenomena rather than an inter-dimensional ghost that manipulates our universe. This clearly allows us to better define the aspects of consciousness that are still a mystery. Any discussion of a non-material consciousness can now completely or entirely remove personality and memories from the equation. I don't see how any combination of dualism or theism would lead to that philosophical advancement any quicker. Feel free to correct me if you do. We might. Humans are very complex machines. A scientist from a few centuries ago might thing that a modern computer "[does] not behave like laws of physics." A piece of paper can hold truths and lies. That is debatable. Free will is not pragmatically justifiable. That is almost the definition of an argument from ignorance. You assume that humans have no governing principles in the same way that ancients once thought that the planets had no governing principles. Moral depravity does not demonstrate a weakness of a worldview. There have been plenty of horrible people from every school of thought. Also, they did carry out repeated bombings, so I guess that they thought right... Err well, correct? Mostly as biochemical functions of brains. You have a pretty broad mix in there, though. Having an admittedly weak understanding of a phenomena is better than pretending to have a strong understanding while knowing nothing.
  13. My experiments along those lines were considerably less honest but yeilded similar results. I now prefer to remain nondescript and let people assume what they will about me. Really strong prejudices are often easy to spot but it rarely gets used as an explicit argument. ---------- Post added 11-16-2014 at 06:04 PM ---------- Case in point.
  14. Harassment requires consistency or repition. If you have not asked him to stop then there is no reason to classify his behavior that way. Have you considered that his behavior may not have been intentional at all? There are a number of medical conditions that lead to strange or even offencive behavior. There are also cultural considerations that can cause non-verbal communication to be wildly missinterpreted. Or maybe he's just weird. Or maybe you have a stalker...