- Index - Forum - Software - Music - Graphics - Misc - Insane corner - Rants - Links -

Copyright © 2000-2017 Svein Engelsgjerd

This page is basically a collection of more or less wierd ideas. As the years go by I have done a lot of thinking and for some reason I have come up with a lot of ideas and other (rather insane) theories. Most of my ideas invole some kind of improvement of things that already exists and others are totaly new inventions. Some of the ideas are not serious at all and they will never be but others again might be a bit interesting if you are able to think a bit further ;) The following text are compatible with The Book and it's followers who find meaninfull nonsense to be interesting! DISCLAIMER: If you find this a bit to wierd for you I suggest you dress up in your knight armor and pet a dead chicken instead!

The Negative Microwave idea:
A microwave oven is a great invention that heats your food in just seconds. I would really like to se a microwave cooler. E.g. it would be great to put soup, food or other stuff that are to hot to eat/drink into a "microcooler" and get it colder in just seconds. Very handy if you like me usualy don't make some food unless you are really hungry. The problem with most food is that it's simply to hot to eat right away and therefore it would be nice to cool it down to a more pleasant temperature :)

The Anti-Psycological Pricing Idea:
Most places when you buy stuff the prices are psycological correct like "only" $8.99 or something like that. I can't help thinking that since "everyone" is using this pricing scheme a shop who said for example only $9 would make more money even if a few moreons didn't see through that pricing scam. What I think is that even if the price is higher it seems smaller because people are so used to that $1.99 or for example $4.98 stuff that the simple $9 seems a lot less for those who don't think much. Also the cashier would have to do much less work since it will be easier to return change. Overall a shop who used such a pricing scheme would probably make more money since the cashier would work faster (in a perfect world), and thus getting rid of a long queue faster than another who needed to return more complex change to the customer. Let's say this shop earns some money on this since the queue is moving faster and the customers buy more stuff since it seems cheaper and it's also much easier to keep track of how much money you actually spent. What would happen? the shop could ofcourse maybe reduce the overall cost of a item and maybe more would go to that shop instead of other shops and the cycle may repeat :)

Universe - Less than theory:
The big bang.... Everyone have probably heard of it and so far this is the best theory of the origin of the universe. But what was before that? Let's assume that sometime in the future all the mass of the universe somehow is gathered in black holes. As time goes by these black holes should eventually collide and some of them might get bigger. As a few black holes get bigger and bigger they will consume more and more matter. If all the matter of the universe is concentrated in black holes there's no reason to believe that sooner or later (I guess later) the black holes will merge due to gravity and we might get a superblackhole = a lump of matter. This might be what we assume started the big bang in the first place. Most teories says that before the big bang everything was gathered in a big ball of matter anyway. But this does ofcourse open for more complexity. Let's say that somewhere there's been more big bangs. Is it possible that all these big bangs created their own universe and that the unvierses might collide or merge someday? Suddenly our unvierse would be larger (twice as large for example). That would be pretty feaky :) Most things in the universe are moving away from eachother. Why are they doing that? What if all atoms will wear and tear and thus the overall distance of each thing is getting larger. Let's say you have two balls with a diameter for 10 centimeters. They are floating in space and are touching eachother. If you shrink each ball the distance between them will be larger even if the balls are still placed in their original position. Everything round the ball(s) will be longer away since the ball is shrinking. If this concept is applyed to the rest of the planets and objects in the universe they will due to wear and tear get smaller and the distance will become longer even if the object itself is still placed at the same location. Perhaps this idea is not hat stupid after all. If you just zooom in far enought perhaps everything is just getting smaller since the wear and tear of the atoms will cause everything to shrink! I believe that a human beeing can't imagine completely nothing. Most people think of darkness when they imagine nothing and so far I'm pretty sure that as long as humans does not have the capabillity to imagine nothing I think they will never solve the true riddle of the universe. What would happen if a human would "see" nothing? would thiis be what we need to understand the origin of everything?!

Women, smoke and perfume:
It's a fact that Women use a lot of money on perfume and other stash that make them rather delicious. Surprisingly the same women often spends a lot of money on smoke. How can these individuals be stupid enough to combine those scents ?!. Does not women who smoke realize that they ruin the smell of the perfume when they walk around stinking smoke?! Yeah, that perfume was really worth 70$ per drop. Especially when combined with that stinking smoke that non-smokers can detect on several meters distance. Luckily some women are smart enough to have a mint or something right after smoking, just to bad that it just goes for some and not all ;)

Basics of artificial intelligence (AI):
Everyone thinks that AI are pretty cool stuff. Many might not like it but it's still a fact that it's pretty cool stuff. The key to AI as I see it must be unsynchronized parallelism. Why unsyncronized? well simply because this helps create randomness who in my view is required for a AI system to work propperly. By observing a child for example you can underand a few things about how we work. A child is always curious about new things. A good example would be a child that it walking by a wall and is stroking it's hand against the wall while walking. If there is change like for example a switch the feel of something unexpected causes the child to stop and investigate this. If they get a reaction of the switch like a door opening for example the child might try to push the switch again to see what happens. If pushing the switch does not reverse the action the child might physically close the door and then try the switch again. The idea here is that as long as there is a visible / noticable non destructive effect you try to reverse it and then duplicate it again if possible. If this switch made a short beep instead there is no reason to reverse the effect since that happens automatically (the sound stops). Behind those very simple examples there are also quite a bit of randomness involved. You always make a lot of errors even if you don't carry them out in real life. Ergo you also would require a good error correction unit that not neccesary makes the correct correction but a plausible or good enough correction. So to sum this up the basics required must be: - Unsyncrhonized parallelism (each with their own error correction units) - Randomness - Response to unknown data (combinations). - The abillity to reverse a process (self learning) - A "master" error correction unit. - (Abillity to register self-damage / destructive behaviour for a physical system). As for the error correcting unit it should be very simple to demonstrate how well implemented this is in humans. Example is writing not good like doing now or unexpected while mixing letrtes in wodrs by sawinppg tehm aorund. Most of you might not even have noticed the errors in the previous sentence if you was reading this fast. Your error correction unit did probably put this into some reasonable context. Even if your version is not 100% exactly what I had in mind it might be "good enough" or "close enough" for it to be understandable. Again as you can see it all comes down to understanding the basics by breaking down things into small pieces we can understand and relate to - making it "good enough" for us to be acceptable.

Spraycan compared to taking a average crap (Norwegian text)
Når man er på driter'n som vi sier på godt norsk så er det ganske utrolig hvor like vi er spraybokser. Min favoritt er lakkboksen som på mange måter har en egen evne til å gjenspeile opplevelsen man har av å gå på driter'n. * En lakkboks er i likhet med den som er i ferd med å gå på toalettet full av godsaker under høyt trykk som bare venter på å komme ut. * Sprayboksen funker selv om man ikke rister den på forhånd, men man oppnår et langt bedre resultat dersom man rister ordentlig på forhånd for å blande sammen innholdet. Merk at man må virkelig riste en del for å oppnå perfekt resultat og dette kan sammenlignest med hopping før man går på toalettet som har en ganske radikal effekt dersom man bare hopper lengre nok. * Av og til hender det man er så uheldig at drivgassen slipper ut før lakken, og dette kan være veldig frustrerende fordi det man vil ha ut står i røret og er generelt bare til irritasjon. Det finnes selvsagt metoder for å få litt høyere trykk på drivgassen og det er å klemme på "magen" til sprayboksen slik at man øker trykket inni og kanskje klarer å lure ut noen rester. * Hvis man glemmer å rengjøre dysen på lakkboksen har den en tendens til å tette seg og man må ofte gå hardt til verks med spesialutstyr eller i nødstilfeller godt gammeldags håndverk for å åpne dysen for å klare å fortsette med det man holdt på med. Dette problemet gjelder også gammel lakk som har vert lenge lagret og som har en tendens til å klumpe seg innvendig i boksen før det skal ut.

Midtrekkverk reduserer møteulykker (Norwegian text):
Jepp og det er perfekt for å politikere og andre udugelige sjåfører å påstå sånt. Tenker man litt lengre frem... f.eks bare noen klilometer lengre frem så blir det et hav av møteulykker der hvor det er slutt på midtrekkverket. Da har det bygget seg opp en herlig gjeng med superirriterte folk som har ventet vel og lenge på å få komme seg forbi nummer 1 i køen. Da er stemningen såpass kokt at det blir en orgie av kreative forbikjøringer og vips så smeller det. Klart det ikke er noen ulykker på den strekningen midtrekkverket er og det ser fint ut på tall men antall møteulykker øker selvsagt der hvor midtrekkverket slutter!

Traktor og kø (Norwegian text):
Det har vert mye skriverier om at traktorer lager kø på veiene. Joda greit det, men siden jeg kjører traktor selv er det et par ting jeg vil poengtere. Når det er god strekning og idiot nr 1 som ligger bak traktoren ikke tør kjøre forbi fordi han/hun er blåst i pappen så blir det enda mere kø. Nr 2 som ligger bak nr 1 har kanskje ikke nok plass til å komme seg forbi fordi nr 1 holder akkurat passe idiotisk avsstand. Enda en vanlig som som skjer er at nr 1 ligger 0.1 cm fra traktoren og vil derfor ikke se hva som kommer imot. Hadde nr 1 da holdt avastand kunneh han ha sett hva som kommer imot og kjørt forbi. Klart det er mange traktorførere som ikke har hjerne til å slippe forbi andre i køen men så er det da også mange som er for pysete til å kjøre forbi der hvor de kan kjøre forbi. Dette skaper bare irritasjon og selvsagt også for traktorføreren som ikke gidder kjøre til siden å slippe forbi han idioten som kunne ha kjørt forbi minst 10 steder tidligere. Så selv om det er traktoren sin feil i utgangspunktet så er det nr 1 i køen bak traktoren sin skyld :)

How incredible it might seem a lot of people are still driving around in their car without using full lights properly. No I
am not talking about those idiots who does not switch to dim when they are meeting another car, but the totaly deranged low
grade individuals who are unable to concern themself about what is ahead of them.
Remember that a normal low beam (dim) is what it says. LOW AND DIM!!!!!
This is also the reason so many are driving slow in the darkness. Because they can't see properly! Imagein if a deer or
another creature is standing 100 meters in front of you. If you where driving on full lights you would have a chance to see
it's eyes reflecting the light or maybe the entire creature itself. Driving on low beam is not cusing you to see the same
thing until you are about 40-50 meters away from the animal. Given that a car drives in about 80km/h this will make you
move rougly 22 meters per second. e.g. 2 seconds to react on whatever is in your way. Needless to say it is difficult to
plan what to do and your only option might be to avoid the obstacle.
Given a little tought everyone understands that using your lights like this *will* cause problems for you sooner or later
for obvious reasons.
Now if you are not able to understand the risk factors here you better consider the following.
If a car is running in about 80 km/h and the driver can see about 50 meters ahead of himself he will actually "see" about
2.5 seconds in the "future".
If another car is running at 160(!) km/h and can see about 100 meters ahead of himself he will in fact see the same thing.
He sees 100 meters but will also pass the visible area in rougly 2.5 seconds as well since he now moves about 44 meters pr
second. So for pure visibillity reasons a car moving in 160 with full lights will have about the same time to react on a
obstable as a car running in 80 with low beams. Something to consider eh?
It is much more dangerous to run around with low beams on your car than speeding if you are using your lights properly!
Sure enough the crash will be much harder in 160 but you will have about the same time to react and avoid the obstacle
making a collision much more likely. Why on earth is the cops only intersted in people who are speeding when it is obvious
that other "sensible drivers" are just as dangrous!!!
Note that braking distance is not part of the math above. I am talking about the reaction time because when driving at dim
you probably have no time to put your foot on the brake anyway.

What would you choose? Windows or other free operating systems where a collection of computer enthusiasts do their best to surpass every single function in Windows just because they enjoy the experience of writing superior software?!
Linux, FreeBSD, AmigaOS, Minix3, AROS, ReactOS.... ( or even Windows or Mac (seariously?!?!))

You pick ;)