|
[ April 2009 ] | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
TCHS 4O 2000 [4o's nonsense] alvinny [2] - csq - edchong jenming - joseph - law meepok - mingqi - pea pengkian [2] - qwergopot - woof xinghao - zhengyu HCJC 01S60 [understated sixzero] andy - edwin - jack jiaqi - peter - rex serena SAF 21SA khenghui - jiaming - jinrui [2] ritchie - vicknesh - zhenhao Others Lwei [2] - shaowei - website links - Alien Loves Predator BloggerSG Cute Overload! Cyanide and Happiness Daily Bunny Hamleto Hattrick Magic: The Gathering The Onion The Order of the Stick Perry Bible Fellowship PvP Online Soccernet Sluggy Freelance The Students' Sketchpad Talk Rock Talking Cock.com Tom the Dancing Bug Wikipedia Wulffmorgenthaler       |
|
bert's blog v1.21 Powered by glolg Programmed with Perl 5.6.1 on Apache/1.3.27 (Red Hat Linux) best viewed at 1024 x 768 resolution on Internet Explorer 6.0+ or Mozilla Firefox 1.5+ today's page views: 122 (16 mobile) all-time page views: 3402491 most viewed entry: 18739 views most commented entry: 14 comments number of entries: 1228 page created Fri Jul 18, 2025 09:31:18 |
|
- tagcloud - academics [70] art [8] changelog [49] current events [36] cute stuff [12] gaming [11] music [8] outings [16] philosophy [10] poetry [4] programming [15] rants [5] reviews [8] sport [37] travel [19] work [3] miscellaneous [75] |
|
- category tags - academics art changelog current events cute stuff gaming miscellaneous music outings philosophy poetry programming rants reviews sport travel work tags in total: 386 |
| ||
|
- current events - + epl tales - The EPL Circus Goes On After all those 4-4 draws, Liverpool cranked up the pressure on United by beating Hull 3-1 to go top on goal difference and keep the fading veneer of excitement going. That clearly wasn't enough for the scriptwriters, who had United's formerly impregnable defence leak two goals to Spurs to enter half-time 0-2 down, before penning them in for five goals after the break for an improbable 5-2 result (videos). I'm getting numb to this silly one-upsmanship between the folks who plan the EPL matches. More seriously, it was a passable comeback by the Red Devils, who just about managed to improve from their 0-3 to 5-3 one against the same team in 2001. However, while Rooney did quite well, Ronaldo actually seemed interested, Tevez ran his heart out as always and Berbatov was seen moving, the real catalyst behind United's victory was lucky mascot Mr. Ham G. Bacon:  Sarcasm Is A Dangerous Weapon Lost in all the hoopla was a brief column at the bottom of page 45 of The Sunday Times, entitled "Kaka and Red Devils hold talks", which is indeed not very impressive on its own - but wait, there's a funny tale behind it. This was not breaking news by any measure, as any soccer fan worth his salt would have read it on Soccernet, or indeed any of a number of online sources beforehand. The most relevant online source for this story would probably have been the RedCafe (Man Utd) forums that I frequent, for the simple reason that the entire thing was supposedly fabricated there. Perhaps to keep the joke running a bit longer, the relevant thread has been deleted from the forums, but any journalist lucky enough to have access to Google might access it through Google's cache. The initial posts and responses were, as admitted later on in the same thread, a sarcastic rejoinder to all the Ronaldo transfer rumours floating about last summer, though one guy did reveal the nature of the "news" on the first page of the thread: "I dont find this shit funny at all. were (mabey) [sic] on the verge of losing our best player and youre all making jokes to highlight press fuelled paranoia!". The lark, complete with made-up Kaka quotes, made the rounds of a few backwater papers back then before dying down, but apparently got revived by some British tabloids on a slow news day. Though there might be indeed something new in it - but I doubt it, given that Kaka had just extended his Milan contract to 2013, and he doesn't seem the club-hopper type - the made-up quotes were recycled in their full glory. And it went on from then on up (or down) the media food chain, from the likes of The Sun and Daily Mail to Soccernet.com, making its way to The Times (which indeed was where our Straits Times got its name), and finally to the impeccably reputable Sunday Times of Singapore, who did attribute the tall tale to "several reports in English newspapers yesterday" before going on to - what else - print almost verbatim the Kaka quotes that were given life by a bored United fan some ten months ago on an internet forum. Transfer speculation may not exactly be held to the same standards as other news items, but in a way I feel it quite hilarious that a moment of idleness can in fact result in absolute bullshit being broadcast unwittingly to millions of people, the vast majority who would be none the wiser and take it at face value; I would almost be tempted to drop a few insider hints on how Park Ji-Sung was seen on trial with Super Reds FC of the S-League, complete with a few blurry photos, just to see how far it would go! Once-Current Affairs A lot of stuff has gone by in this month or so, allowing me to pick out a few from that ample selection for discussion. Off the top of my head, there's the NTU stabbing incident (followed quickly by the suicide of a project officer from the same lab), followed by a lot of silence, but with a coroner's inquiry scheduled for May there should be more to come on this. That was be followed by the suicide of an SAF scholar-doctor, and the picture he painted of bonded service made me rather more relieved at not trying with more vigour to snag a bonded scholarship. The main source of unhappiness here, at least those on the doctor's side, is on the supposed "unbreakability" of his bond. MINDEF did indeed clarify that "...they have a moral obligation to serve out the full period of their bonds, beyond their legal obligation to pay the liquidated damages..." Frankly it is hard to sympathize completely with the doctor, who by all accounts came from a family rich enough not to need such a scholarship anyway. However, it seems as if the condition for "strong, extenuating circumstances" to break his bond (and moral obligation too, I guess) was not stated in the original contract according to the doctor's family, which, if true, kind of changes the situation somewhat. Twelve years of bondage is moreover rather excessive IMHO. Next would probably be the trial of the couple who went starkers at Holland Village (previously commented on), where it was revealed that the girl involved was not a Japanese or some other decadent foreigner as assumed by some, but Singaporean; and not just any Singaporean, but an A*STAR Ph.D. scholar in infection biology. And not just any scholar either, but one who was from HCI (the former HCJC) in my year, from smk's class, and indeed whose class bench was very near mine supposedly (I can't remember). Not that I care two hoots about nudity (though it would be best if no kids were in attendance, and of course if the person going nude were at least moderately attractive, please). It does go to show, however, that in being naughty, HCJC girls have the guys soundly beat (obvious past example withheld). Anyway, the incident probably boosted A*STAR's international profile tremendously, which can't hurt if they want to attract more renowned scientists, who are known to be of a liberal bent as a rule. Showing some hip beats contrived hip-hopping for coolness anyday. Then the case of the editor who ran a red light, struck and killed a pillion rider, and got a day's jail. The general vibe I got was that a single day was far too low, and that the initial 18 month sentence was fairer. Setting emotions aside, the penalties for vehicle accidents are usually far lower than other forms of manslaughter for good reason, so a low sentence is not by itself unreasonable. A few other points about the case are however questionable: The accused was supposedly using a handphone and might have been concerned about being late for a spa appointment when the accident happened, though the charge of using the phone was not accepted, which was probably fair on balance as it was likely that the accused had made her call(s) after the accident, and it would be difficult to synchronize the times of the call records with those of witnesses at the scene. A more interesting observation is that the judge in the case agreed with the defence lawyer to impose a fine instead of prison time, which is fine I suppose, if not especially popular. The sentence of one day and twelve thousand bucks went through without demurral, whereupon it was belatedly discovered that the law says that such a money-for-time substitution is not in fact legal (the only prescribed penalty is a jail term of up to five years). Oops. The obvious solution, as applied by the judge, was then to waive the fine, and forgive the jail term, in the best traditions of Moving On From Honest Mistakes. At least the judge kept enough of his wits about him to explicitly state that it was a "one off case and not to be used as a sentencing precedent". Which is problematic, since to the best of my (recently Wikipedia-ed) meager knowledge of Singaporean law, it is based on English common law, which is more or less simply applying precedents - and in any case managing to produce drastically different judgments for very similar crimes would be patently unfair in any system of justice worth the name. One might be forgiven for daring to imagine that in straight talk it just means that the case was handled outside the general principles of law, but surely there are Nuances That Are Best Unexplained For The Public Good here too. And finally, the AWARE saga that saw a bunch of new gals displacing the original exco through a sudden influx of new members and votes, and which appears to have the makings of a good catfight. Chong Wenhoo has come up with an analysis that I highly recommend, which begins with the sage observation that the majority view on gays in Singapore is "conveniently neutral". As in, as long as they do their stuff behind closed doors and don't parade in leather down Orchard Road like Hard Gay, most people are fine with it. Sort of like the majority view on (other) religions, come to think of it. Wenhoo then notes that while their moral stand might be understandable if not particularly laudable, their Public Relations was horrendous. Indeed being referred to as having committed a coup on the front pages of the national paper isn't going to win them much love. It doesn't help that the old guard appears much more charismatic and likeable too. Being considerate, Wenhoo then provides a cunning six-step plan for the new exco to salvage the situation, though it remains to be seen if they will take him up on it. Myself, I think it's highly workable. Wenhoo will probably make a great consultant someday. Like Wenhoo, I will leave the gay debate for later (in fact, I have set Mr. Ham and Mr. Fish on the research), and since the sidestories such as death threats, church preplanning and being a "feminist mentor" (ambitious, given the prestige the Mentor title has locally) are all relatively unsubstantiated, I will leave them for now.
- academics - Suddenly discovered that tomorrow's Development Economics paper is an open-book examination anyway, which made my earlier attempts at memorization more or less moot. As with the previous semester, here's a go at summarizing the content - but with a limit of just 200 words per chapter/lecture this time, with pictures! (and I can even print a copy for the exam!): I could send the remaining few hours pecking out a longer post, or I could browse through the textbook a bit more. An easy choice to make - I'll be creating a new MSN emoticon.
- changelog - changelog v1.12d --------------- * Irritating trackback spam fixed, found misapplication of Net::Akismet Perl interface (missing user ip/agent) Figured this blog had better show some signs of life before I lose my loyal readers (who however, the stats show, are still visiting as per normal despite nearly three weeks of non-activity). Fun stat: The previous record for longest period between posts was 16 days, between the rather succinct iSqueez on 20 April 2006, and the similarly short Filler Post on 6 May 2006. The more you know... The Travails Of Fame <wenhoo> sunday times front page got gilbert lim leh <g!ys> issit  So that's a small taste of what being named John Doe is like (though I hadn't read the paper yet when I was alerted to this infringement of my image rights, I doubt that I would have noticed it). Shame they didn't print a life-sized sample card too. Footy Guess I shouldn't be chao geng-ing after the mess that is my FYP is done. So, what's up? Manchester United hanging on to win - twice - thanks to a 17 year-old Italian, Federico "Kiko" Macheda, would be ludicrous enough if it were a movie plot, but in football it's what passes for reality. To his credit, both goals were superbly taken, that's if the Sunderland one were intentional (note Carrick celebrating it though it was going nowhere close before Macheda's touch). United are certainly stuttering to the finish line, but let's consider the challengers: Chelsea looked distinctly uncomfortable in holding on for 4-3 after going 4-0 up against Bolton, and this the same Chelsea who whacked Liverpool 1-3 away in the Champions League - virtually eliminating a Liverpool who had recently beaten United 1-4 away, and Real Madrid 5-0 on aggregate in the previous round. As if that were not enough, Liverpool drew 4-4 with Chelsea in the return leg, and then contrived to draw 4-4 again against Arsenal in the Premier League, with all four of Arsenal's goals by Arshavin. That's one player I wouldn't have minded at Man United, but with a name like that, where else could he go but Arsene's Arsenal? Torres, the only Liverpool player whom I feel would unequivocally improve United, scored a brace too, and it can only be wondered how incredible the Red Devils would be with him, instead of say Cantbebothebetov. Liverpool probably now have a lock on tragic story of the season, and even I have to grudgingly admit that they've made a brave run of it. However, there are no prizes for courageous charges... Sometimes I think it's easier to just believe that it's all fixed to a degree that would not have been condoned in World Wrestling Entertainment. Scratch that, the WWE's probably more predictable - it's usually quite easy to tell when the heel's going to pull a fast one and cheat the face out of a win. Still, with the effort that guys like Tevez put in, it doesn't matter a whit:  This was going to be a bumper post to make up for the recent lack of posts, but on second thought I'll reserve material for the coming days. Sneak peek: The FYP Mystery, Trip Planning, and Not So Current Affairs. We thank you for perusing bert's blog, please come again!
- programming -  (Source: xkcd) I was about to continue salvaging my FYP, when I came across the above comic that piqued my curiosity. Oh well, I suppose an hour or two wouldn't make a difference...
We consider the given formula: r = sqrt(2/(πPdXfXd)) where r - average distance within which somebody is doing FYP (tee, hee) π - still approximately 3.14159265, last I checked Pd - regional population density Xf - average person's frequency of doing FYP Xd - average duration of doing FYP X - Xf multiplied by Xd should be the probability of an average person doing FYP at any point in time. We shall just call it X for simplicity. Now, a bit of manipulation of the given formula gives: Area within radius r = πr2 = 2/(PdXfXd) It is easy to imagine that Pd, Xf and Xd are all in inverse relation to the radius/area within which one would expect to find others doing FYP (i.e. Obviously if there were more people in the area [Pd increases], the radius expected would be smaller. Similarly, if people did FYP more often, or did FYP for longer periods of time each time they did it [Xf or Xd increases], the radius expected would be smaller). What I was not so sure of was the constant 2 (and why the inverse relation would be just through division). Intuitively it would be because it usually takes two to do a FYP (ahem), assuming no larger group projects (cough cough - and no, solo FYP shouldn't count, right?). On second thought, Xf and Xd are defined for individuals, so why there should be a constant factor of 2 is not immediately clear. WHY? WHY TWO? With my math being what it is, and due to very real time constraints, I was unable to derive the constant. I did manage to argue something for the special case X = XfXd = 1, i.e. everybody does FYP all the time (wow!) - in that case, the average distance within which somebody is doing FYP (i.e. r) would just be the expected distance of the closest person. In that special case, the probability of a particular person being within some smaller radius rs would be (rs/r)2, from random distribution over area. Then, the probability that he is not within that smaller radius is just 1 - (rs/r)2, and the probability that P such (independently distributed) people are all not within that smaller radius would be [1 - (rs/r)2]P. Then the expected distance of the closest person would be just rs where [1 - (rs/r)2]P = 0.5. Of course, we must be careful here to normalize the population from a square to circular area if needed. Now being unwilling to devote more time for now to unraveling the theoretical mysteries of THE CONSTANT TWO, I fell back on simulation, and wrote a simple script that would generate P points within a square of sides 2R (and thus area 4R2). The population density would then be P/(4R2). These P points (people) could then be sorted in order of increasing distance from the middle of the area, and for each person, the question of whether he was currently doing FYP (snicker) could then be simulated given X (as again, if X=1, just take the nearest person). We continue until we find a person doing FYP (of course it may be that none of the P people have the luck to be doing FYP, but if P and X are relatively large, this is astronomically unlikely). The whole process is then repeated for many more times to get the average. The strange thing was, my simulation did not agree with the given formula closely, being about 60% off in general. Empirically, the formula r = sqrt(1/(4*PdXfXd)) appears to match simulation results much more closely. It is also rather closer to the derived formula r = R*sqrt(1-(0.5^(1/P))) for the special case where X = 1, though does not quite match it. It may very well be a problem with my logic or programming, in which case the first to point it (them) out, or alternatively explain the derivation of the original equation to my satisfaction, will be awarded an AAAAA! Finally, what's the expected distance at which somebody is doing FYP from me now? Using the original formula, and a stated population density in Singapore of 6814/km2 scaled to an adult density of 5179/km2, an FYP frequency of 73 times per annum (0.2) and estimating a duration of 30 minutes each time (i.e. each adult person spends an average of 0.4% of his time doing FYP), we get: r = sqrt(2/(3.141*5179*0.2*0.02)) = 0.175km which is an overestimate if my simulations are accurate, as then r = sqrt(1/(4*5179*0.2*0.02)) = 0.110km Really, FYP isn't such a rare burden after all.
- academics - - Least I Could Do Well, exactly one week remains for my FYP, and I reckon I did no less than a quarter of it (though I also had the poor foresight to code a bunch of other, unused stuff) yesterday (31 March). And no, this is not an April Fool's joke. Frankly, I'm not too sure what's wrong with me. Why didn't I rush it out a couple of months ago, and leave myself with ample time to do the survey and report? I do have some theories about my predicament:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
 Copyright © 2006-2025 GLYS. All Rights Reserved. |
||||||||||||||||||||||
