/sci/ - Science & Math

Okey here's what you do:

Get some T flip flops and connect their inputs to the buttons. A T-flip flop toggles its output whenever you give it a rising or falling edge depending on the chip. You'd want to connect the output to an LED so the user knows what's active.

Next make an AND gate with a whole bunch of inputs and one output by connecting several two or three input NANDS together.

Connect the output of every T-flip flop to the NAND inputs, but for bits that are supposed to be false for the password put a NOT gate in between.

The NAND gate will output 1 only when the right combo of flip flops are activated. Flip flops usually have a reset input, which you could use to clear the display with a button, or connect it to the output of the NAND.

>>4353629
Could it be Trypophobia? Fear of objects with lots of irregular little holes in them. What's your reaction to this pic?

>>4330447
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square

Sound comes in waves. The electricity coming out of your microphone is going to be a wave. If you sample it at some low point of the wave the room will look quite, even though its not. What you need to do is sample faster than the nyquest rate of human hearing and take the Root Mean Square to get sound amplitude.

>>4249689
Incline, straight down etc doesn't make a shit of a difference providing you fall from the same height. This is how rollercoasters work.

>>4193205
I'm sorry, but have they not found the God particle yet? Oh, that’s right. It's not even finished processing the initial test data yet. In fact, it has not even operating at full steam ahead yet. Does only turning something on for a few minutes count as a loss? Is that what you’re saying? Because if you’re saying that I can assure you that you’re wrong. Why would you make this topic when this technology hasn't even undergone evolution yet? CERN is already scheming right now and this fine establishment has been the No.1 theoretical particle hunter for how many days now? CERN is warning the world about how alpha these God particles will be and atheists will be butt-creaming their pants. But you know what? we're literally days away from making some good shit happen or at least making some shit up. Google predicts that less than a third of all people on on /sci/ have even seen a God particle, meaning that maybe you should shut the fuck up before you make retarded topics like this. You know why? Because you’re going to be embarrassed when your God particle busts your door down and demands instant noodles for dinner like a boss and someone bumps this topic.Are you a fucking drunk? Are you retarded? Are you autistic? You are a fucking idiot and you should never make a topic on this board again and I’m fucking serious. I almost have a feeling you’re the only guy making all these CERN topics because you’re a faggot hater who doesn’t appreciate the seriousness of this situation. Fuck you, be good at something in YOUR life and then maybe try to troll these fucking non believers on the board, like I give a fuck. It’s so easy to spot out your threads now, you’re a retard. Always doing stupid shit like this. Why don’t you try to be a good poster? Just for once? For once in your fucking life try not to make a topic like this. That’s just you, you’re always right at getting it wrong. Fuck you. You are nothing.

>>4101301
Fuck off. Libertarianism is based on logical fallacies. You should have learned critical thinking in school.

>>4065586
>>You arguments are getting progressively shittier.
I like how in the line above this you resort to petty name calling.

>You're confronted with the fact that by you definition a fucking carpenter is a scientist because he understands how to carve wood.
Have never stated anything remotely like this. You have a problem with reading comprehension which is being compounded by your lack of understanding of the terms you are dealing with.

>You can bash my definition all you want but you don't provide your own.

I have provided you with the definitions of science and engineering multiple times. Science: Acquire knowledge about the natural world. Engineering: Apply scientific knowledge to solve problems.

>>Science isn't an occupation it's a philosophy
Here you go again just making up your own meanings of words. Science is a methodology. It is a method of acquiring knowledge. A scientist is someone who uses this method.

>>4065554 it is widely used
nope.

>>I guess the man that built a table is a scientist and not an engineer because he discovered gravity pulls shit down to the earth huh?
When you are building a bridge or a rocket ship or a computer it is a requirement that you know the physical laws before you start at a level much higher than "gravity pulls stuff down".

>>It's not like some truths and physical laws are self evident.
Like how rest is the natural state of an object, time is constant, and heavy things fall faster.


>What is science then if not the attainment of knowledge for its own sake.

>That seems a pretty typical definition.

It is your own personal inaccurate definition.

>>Here are some meaningful deeper questions: ...
Scientists are free and frequently do pursue the answers to those questions in their capacities as human beings. In their capacities as scientists they do not pursue those questions because they are not in the realm of science. You may as well say carpenters waste their time not trying to figure out the purpose of life because all carpenters ever do is build wooden structures. Those questions aren't part of carpentry, and they're not part of science.

>>4065529
>>they are widely used defintions and a widely employed dichotomy to separate the two
No they are not.

>>science didn't produce those benefits engineering did
Engineers could not have produced those benefits without scientists discovering the physical laws we apply. Its like saying cattle herders don't produce meat butchers do.

>>science is for naive optimists
You only support this by making up your own definition of science.

>>it's a means to avoid answering the more meaningful questions.
You have not stated what these are.

>> truths are not more valuable than untruths
You and your family have been infected with a painful and crippling disease. It is truth that one medicine will cure you. It is untruth that another will cure you. Do you really think they are of equal value?

>>4065523
What he has been doing is saying that engineers both acquire new knowledge and apply it. This is so that he can maintain his position that engineering is possible without science and that science played no role in the development of the technology he is using.

>>4065511
Those are not the definitions of the terms. You can't just change the meanings of words to suite your own purposes. Engineering is not at all about the attainment of knowledge, it is the application of knowledge.

Your entire argument boils down to:
>>I defined science as useless and engineering as useful, therefore science is useless and engineering is useful, I win

>>4065496
Your logic:

>Vegetarian food is horrible and disgusting.
Here's some good tasting vegetarian food
> No if it's good tasting that means it's not vegetarian.

Engineers do not look for new understandings of the world or look for faults in present ones; if an engineer does find himself doing that and they are doing it correctly what they are doing is science. What engineers do is take the discoveries of scientists and use them to solve a problem. Scientists provide the building blocks engineers work with. You can't have applied science without science to apply. Engineers are not scientists.

>>4065473
You start out by defining science as "a self-serving hunger for knowledge for its own sake". Then when people disagree with you your response is that they need to start by accepting your definition. Its not even at the level of semantic argument. You can't just make up your own definitions.

>>4065466
So you need to make up your own retarded definitions of "science" and "engineering" for your argument to work.

>>4065463 humans in all likelihood lived fuller existences when the struggle for survival was present

Why don't you go do that.

>>4065456 engineering can exist without science
You know of a way to design a safe and reliable bridge without knowing the laws of physics?

>>4065442
Engineering is applied science, we apply the discoveries of scientists to produce technology. Without science we would be nothing.

>>4058206
Reminds me of when British Columbia decided to ban inefficient incandescent bulbs to decrease green house gas emissions.

The inefficiency produces heat. 100% of BCs electricity comes from hydro dams, but most people heat their homes with gas, oil, or wood.

>>4056860
This wouldn't let you differentiate between the positions. If you used three photogates and three potential holes at each position you could encode each position in binary.

What I'd do in this situation is run a linear HALL effect sensor into an ADC and put a magnet on the motor shaft.

>>4058093
Plenty of animals do that, but only because they're too dumb to realize it will kill them. Most animals can't even comprehend the concept of death or their own existence. I remember Jane Goodall documentary where a chimp would deliberately harm itself as a result of mental abuse, so if it went as far as to kill itself it would count as suicide.

Is it suicide to let your mate or children devour you? That happens a lot.

>>4058062
I think in at least one episode the ponies started panicking because they thought at earthquake was happening. This leads me to believe Equestria has plate tectonics and the ponies don't control them.

>>4058042
"megaelectron" means a million electrons. You are referring to it as if it were a physical object and not a unit of quantity. Plasma is not pure energy; it is a state of matter. I don't even know where to begin with your "boiling electrons", its just random words that don't make any sense the way you have put together.