-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

  1.   (new thread)
  2.   Help
  3. (for post and file deletion)
/sci/ - Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

Join us in IRC!

•This is not /b/ or /halp/. Tech support has its own board.
•If you are not contributing directly to a thread, sage your post.
•Keep the flaming at a minimum.
•Tripcodes⁄Namefags are not only tolerated here, they are encouraged.
•We are here to discuss sci-tech, not pseudoscience. Do not post off-topic.

•♥ Integris


  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 480 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2011-01-12 Show/Hide Show All

There's a new /777/ up, it's /gardening/ Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Anonymous 16/07/18(Mon)19:24 No. 16345 ID: 7c58b3 [Reply]
16345

File 146886268655.jpg - (36.12KB , 402x750 , weepinduo.jpg )

Does anyone else like programming, but hate the classes they have to take in Computer Science?


>>
Anonymous 16/08/15(Mon)21:03 No. 16349 ID: 75c683

Fucking, yes, so boringggggggg.


>>
Anonymous 16/09/03(Sat)09:49 No. 16359 ID: e3ecf4

My teacher is probably the best and most well liked in the school, so I love them.




Can someone please explain this "science matrix wtv" bullshit, t Anonymous 16/08/23(Tue)11:27 No. 16355 ID: eecf77 [Reply]
16355

File 147194444883.jpg - (225.70KB , 1591x861 , maxresdefault (4).jpg )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHkiZNT3cyE&index=7&list=PLElRLIgOlGShjDdZHGwt9yuboSsvhjf5R




microscopic telescope Anonymous 16/07/22(Fri)21:09 No. 16346 ID: f55268 [Reply]
16346

File 146921454981.png - (10.76KB , 798x294 , microscopic telescope.png )

I just wondered, I have never heard of a microscopic telescope. By this I mean a device along the lines of a large nature-style camera lens or traditional telecope that is able to zoom in to the target area of a physical item and produce a 3d environment of that area through the lens? Surely theres an infinite amount of detail from a physical item We have all this advanced astronomical technology these days to look at things that lie in the distance. What would happen if technology was put into microscopic telecopes thanks everyone

TLDR: a lens of intricately layered magnifying glasses that self multiply


>>
Anonymous 16/07/23(Sat)01:39 No. 16347 ID: 099ff6

>microscopic telescope
What do you mean? A telescope of microscopic proportions, or a telescope able to detect micro-scale features of objects at astronomical distances? Judging by the rest of your post, I'm going to assume the latter.

>produce a 3d environment of that area through the lens
What? What microscope or telescope is able to do this? All a scope does is take a cone of light and focus it to make it appear larger, and thus easier to see to human beings (obviously this doesn't apply to electron microscopes which work by entirely different principles).

>Surely theres an infinite amount of detail from a physical item
No. Photons are discrete particles. It's possible for an object to be so far away that even if we convert the entire surface of the Earth into a receiving device, not enough photons from the object will hit the Earth during its entire lifetime to get even sub-meter resolution. To get sub-meter resolutions within a human lifespan for relatively close objects (say, 1 light year) would require astronomically large objective lenses. Or, the detection device would have to move really fast around the target, which would increase the resolution only in the dimension of motion.
For example, the LIGO experiment, which is believed to have detected gravity waves from the black hole at the center of the galaxy, uses "lenses" (they're not actual lenses, but they're analogous) with a radius of 4 km.




Pirate Radio? Krang!HCYzxgP8mg 16/07/08(Fri)08:16 No. 16339 ID: 36b316 [Reply]
16339

File 146795857518.png - (251.42KB , 1366x725 , whitey2.png )

If I wanted to build a radio transmitter (most likely over CBR since it's legal), what would be some tips? I've looked up some tutorials on this, but I want to know any stuff that I ought to look out for or any pitfalls that are easy to run into when building/transmitting. Looking mainly for technological tips here. I know a little about circuits (e.g. what capacitors and resistors are, how to use a soldering iron), but I want to know some basics: I'm looking to broadcast over a fairly small area (~10-25 mile radius).

I'd like to be able to play stuff from my computer as well. Anyone have tips on this? I assume you can just use the headphone jack as a line-out, but what sort of resources do I need on feeding a line-in to the transmitter?




Anonymous 16/07/06(Wed)06:42 No. 16337 ID: 0bf3b6 [Reply]
16337

File 146778016445.png - (20.10KB , 614x588 , omgiq9001.png )

"te he, we never said you couldn't fold the paper te he he :P "

well, guess what fuckers?

you also never said my three lines couldn't produce something else on the page in addition to the specified image


>>
Anonymous 16/07/06(Wed)06:45 No. 16338 ID: 0bf3b6

contect: https://youtu.be/7XTe9lDiAhw






Machine learning for gaming AI? Anonymous 16/02/10(Wed)13:52 No. 16279 ID: 716d81 [Reply]
16279

File 145510874991.jpg - (8.05KB , 200x200 , Cale-AI.jpg )

Hello /sci/!

Let's say that I want to create an AI for a simple board game, maybe chinese checkers. So I record multiple games with 2 to 6 players.

So can anyone please tell me if there's
some program that can simply read the database and construct a gaming AI from it?


2 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 16/02/11(Thu)17:30 No. 16282 ID: d8da56

>>16281
Yes...?


>>
Anonymous 16/03/20(Sun)06:41 No. 16300 ID: 4439d2

What you'd want to do instead is create an agent that understands the allowed moves. Use multiple agents to play against each other. Incentivize the agents by assigning weights to different conditions. Things like -1 point for losing a piece, +1 for taking another player's piece, -100 for losing the game, +100 for winning. Then let the agents play each other a couple hundred thousand times and store the patterns.

The system would then follow paths in a decision tree for each state of the game to the next state, following the higher point paths.

What you've described (The recording and analyzing would be a very minor part, and observing enough games to program an AI would be difficult if they were real games.)

Other options include incentivizing other goals, like control of the middle of the board, or attacking the player with the most pieces. This could lead to other strategies that the system could then utilize.


>>
Anonymous 16/06/25(Sat)19:41 No. 16331 ID: 7c1f68

Look up reinforcement learning. But for Chinese checkers ab pruning should suffice




Physics mfats222 16/04/09(Sat)09:21 No. 16314 ID: 7149e5 [Reply]

Youtube  I'm not too educated in physics and its principles and theories, but does anyone think that some of the theories of the Standard Model (e.g. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Fermat's Principle) could be ~debunked~ or proven to be false? Is the Standard Model close to perfect? How close is what we know now to fully understanding all of physics?


>>
Anonymous 16/04/10(Sun)02:52 No. 16316 ID: a09f36

I'm basically at the same tier you are or even dumber, but one thing I know is in neutrinos. The SM predicts that they are massless, but from observations they have to have mass. Because they oscillate, they need to have different mass eigenstates to allow for different wavelengths to interfere or something.


>>
Anonymous 16/06/07(Tue)03:56 No. 16326 ID: 7226ed

>>16314
>Physics
>Youtube - Toggle Video
>does anyone think that some of the theories of the Standard Model (e.g. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Fermat's Principle) could be ~debunked~ or proven to be false?
Not any time soon.

>How close is what we know now to fully understanding all of physics?
Not even close.


>>
Anonymous 16/06/17(Fri)21:59 No. 16330 ID: aeccc6

I will say this: Debunking the standard model is unlikely, however it is without doubt incomplete. It is a very interesting area to look into and there is plenty of current reasearch in this direction. You could go for a theoretical side of things which would be quantum field theory or a experimental side which looks at incompatible data with the model. Indeed the standard model is considered the most complete and accurate success of physics, however it is by no means close to enough.




Anonymous 15/11/18(Wed)03:47 No. 16245 ID: dd0d0b [Reply]
16245

File 144781482117.jpg - (8.25KB , 256x197 , Choice.jpg )

Best STEM degree?


4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Anonymous 16/03/20(Sun)06:50 No. 16301 ID: 4439d2

Best degree is the one you enjoy. If you enjoy Chemistry but not Computers, Computer Science would be a poor choice.

You have to define what "Best" means.

If it's only money, petroleum engineers are paid well. Computer Science will get you a job, but you'll have to put in a lot of work to stand out. Maths is not so good unless you plan to go into academia, but can be a nice add-on as a second bachelors.


>>
Anonymous 16/04/10(Sun)01:53 No. 16315 ID: bb4d9b

>>16301
petroleum engineers will either make a shit ton of money or they'll be jobless. It really depends on the market and if there are any jobs available.


>>
chaosreader 16/06/13(Mon)19:49 No. 16329 ID: 898619
16329

File 146584018745.png - (8.12KB , 225x225 , images.png )

I'm guessing HVAC repair would be the best STEM major for you. Really though, study what you want to learn about. Look at your college's 300 (or 3000) level classes and above. Decide which ones you want to do. Find twenty of those in the same major and that's your major. If you can't find a job after you graduate sign up at your local state U for a master's certificate in something you can get a job at. (not master's degree, certificates are 5 -6 classes, about a year / tear and a half of night school)




Anonymous 16/05/13(Fri)12:06 No. 16317 ID: 11a71b [Reply]
16317

File 146313397061.jpg - (22.85KB , 600x316 , NEcIDhcEHn9ofh_2_b.jpg )


>>
Anonymous 16/06/05(Sun)04:59 No. 16324 ID: 171656

Science Fiction, but still fun.

Actually there was important point brought up about the micro-ARC power source in the first Avengers movie: Loki is unable to use his tesseract-based mindwarp staff on Tony. Tony's "new element" is tesseract-like technology. I suspect he's discovered the molecules that the stones of power are made from, but not yet achieved their level of energy concentration.

As for the second movie's retconnning that the staff is actually powered the mind stone... I guess the only way to make sense of it is that all the stones have a technological similarity.


>>
Anonymous 16/06/06(Mon)15:08 No. 16325 ID: b6f1ac

>Loki is unable to use his tesseract-based mindwarp staff on Tony. Tony's "new element" is tesseract-like technology.

It was because Loki was poking Tony in the Arc, not his actual body (notice the audible 'chink' when they connect). If Loki had been two inches to the right he would have succeeded.




Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason