Monday, July 23, 2007
Re-Vamp(ire)
As you can see, new skin.
Until reiko has the class pics.
Meanwhile, we'll just make do with this substitute (obviously same layout as my blog i lz to change).
Whee.
Now what.
Oh yea.. Just so you guys know, all new accounts have been made in the name of m06301@gmail.com
password for those who dunno, is.... aiya jus msn perry or me to ask :D
We ain't overlapping - posted by Kenneth at 11:30 pm
|
Yo everybody in da house! Omg, feel lame.
Anyway, since from beginning our planning for a class outing have not been a successful one, let me try to start the ball rolling.
Firstly, What type of Outing do you all one? A chalet kind? or a games kind? or blah blah kind? (note that i never give any suggestions what so ever for a fairer discussion{what am i talking about?})
And i dunno... if someone who is the treasurer, can i propose that we start a class fund or smthing? i dunno... its just my suggestion...
Jack
We ain't overlapping - posted by J@ck L1m at 9:47 pm
|
About NSC
Hello!
Quite a lot of people asked me about the NSC today, but it's a long story so I will just post it here.
Prologue (skip this part if you want to)
In Round 1, we reclaimed the lead.
Question 1: If the radius of a circle is increased by 10%, what is the increase in area? (10%, 11%, 21%, 100%)
Only NUSHS got it right -- 21%.
Question 2: Which of the following cannot be accelerated in a particle accelerator? (Proton, neutron, helium nucleus, electron)
Only NUSHS got it right -- neutron.
Question 3: Which of the following numbers is the largest? (2^345, 23^45, 234^5, 2345)
Only NUSHS and SCGS got it right -- 2^345.
Round 1 final score: NUSHS 6, SCGS 2, HCI 0.
In round 2, the outdoor challenge, we {misbehaved}. However, we managed to build the magneto launcher (solenoid) and hit the target in our first trial. After that we couldn't hit it, but we still shot the iron pin over the recorded distance so overall we got 2nd. By the way, for the uninformed, this round was played 1 week before the others so there was no reason for us to feel safe or in control.
Round 2 score: SCGS 20, NUSHS 18, HCI 16
Scores so far: NUSHS 24, SCGS 22, HCI 16
In round 3, the studio demonstration, we screwed the coloured light production (topic: why is the sky blue, but sunsets red?) -- it was too slow because of the cold water. Only after the camera review where we repeated it did the light scatter blue and change to red quickly.
Round 3 score: SCGS 11, HCI 10, NUSHS 9
Scores so far: NUSHS 33, SCGS 33, HCI 26
The final challenge
Here we arrived at the most contentious round. We ended up winning 40-31-28 after the round was played. However, after a countback and the judges' decision, WE LOST 34-37 TO SCGS. They "corrected" FOUR QUESTIONS.
1. What is the phenomenon responsible for the rainbow colours on CDs? QC answered refraction, initially given correct, but which was wrong as it was diffraction. (No dispute, so instead of +2, we got -1, which meant we had 37 points.)
2. What is the process used to produce hydrogen in hydrogen plants in Singapore? I answered hydrolysis. The answer was given as electrolysis and they said this was wrong because i didn't mention hydrolysis of water. That was already taken as incorrect so it remained as -1. (Dispute below)
3. What is the name for compounds with the same molecular formula but different structure? I answered isomer, QC said isotope, and Junwei called out allotrope. (The answer is isomer.) I'm not sure if they gave us the points at first, but it seems so because they decided that QC shouted first and so we dropped to 34 points. (Dispute below)
AND THE MOST CONTENTIOUS ISSUE:
4. SCGS answered this question: What part of the human body are the meninges found? They used the Eureka card (they earned two as champions of the demo and outdoor rounds), which double the points and penalties for the question -- correct +4, wrong -2.
Host: What part of the human body are the meninges found?
SCGS: Brain.
Host: More specifically?
SCGS: Cerebrum?
Host: Sorry that is incorrect, it's in between the brain and skull.
And they backtracked after that, announcing that "brain" is acceptable. So in the end from -2 they got +4 and their score went to 37.
OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE
Granted, there are many things to learn from losing. Nobody wins all the time. But I conjecture that this is a grave partiality towards SCGS at the expense of our school. The most irritating thing was this: seeing us leading 40-31 at the end, our supporters began celebrating as this was almost impossible to lose. And a woman -- I think she was the director -- told them "DON'T BE TOO HAPPY." Now, this was the same person who called up Ms Koh and the school to complain about our behaviour during the outdoor challenge, because we marched when they wanted to film us walking; Junwei was making a nail bomb while they filmed us; I was joking with him half the time; we got bored; and in the final walk we held up "L" in front of us, over our teammates. She was visibly unhappy with our blitheness.
What we are irked with is this: 1) They wasted our time by deliberating for half an hour as we stood on the podium waiting like goondus harbouring false assurances that we had done enough to deserve a place in the semi-finals. 2) If they had wanted us out of the competition, they could have made it less obvious. 3) They embarassed me by saying i was the 2003 SBK on top of losing in the countback and on top of me requesting they did not say that.
I am not NPOV, but what I believe what I post here is extremely relevant and logical to a neutral observer.
Few neutrals would sincerely feel that we didn't warrant a semi-final spot. After all, this was a SCIENCE CHALLENGE. Looking at the first round scores, we believe we were and are stronger than the other groups. Although we didn't input as much effort in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, we still delivered, and we dominated the last round.
We do not want to be sore losers. We accepted the shocking defeat with grace and kept our peace. We didn't protest on stage as it was a gamble between the school's and our reputation and honour, the public's view of our sportsmanship, the execution of justice, and the progress of our team. Nevertheless, we believe that our team's performance has been undermined and that we had been unfairly treated. To illustrate our point, I will reanalyse and display those problematic questions.
Host: What part of the human body are the meninges found?
SCGS: Brain.
Host: More specifically?
SCGS: Cerebrum?
Host: Sorry that is incorrect, it's in between the brain and skull.
Why is this correct? The meninges are the membranes surrounding the brain and central nervous system. Let me compare it to this; is the below correct?
Q: What part of the human body are the kneecaps found?
A: Legs.
Q: More specifically?
A: Thighs?
Host: Sorry that is incorrect, it's in between the thighs and calfs.
By answering cerebrum, they showed that they did not know the exact location. Yet the judges accepted the answer.
And they rejected this:
What is the process used to produce hydrogen in hydrogen plants in Singapore?
Judges said hydrolysis was wrong because we didn't mention of water. We know it is the splitting of water into hydrogen and oxygen, in contrast to the above. I checked my chemistry textbook (Kotz, Treichel, Weaver). It defines thus:
Hydrolysis is a reaction with water in which a bond to oxygen is broken.
Electrolysis is the use of electrical energy to produce chemical change.
Which, then, is the better answer? And why were we denied the points while SCGS were awarded theirs? When we inquired privily after the show, the judges naturally stuck to their opinion and brushed us off as it would be even more embarassing for them to retract their confirmations than to be unable to answer us. Can Mediacorp really say they did not have a hand in this? Indeed, what goes out of Mediacorp to show to nationwide audiences is vastly different from what really went on behind the scenes. In fact, after reviewing the scene when we produced three different answers together, they thought QC said isotope first, while i was certain i was about 0.05 seconds ahead in shouting isomer (i actually said isomer twice).
OK, the judges' decisions are final. Even if there were a 1 in a Toto's chance of getting in, i would go for it. The way i see things, they should just replay round 4. (Sorry if i seem overly personal.) At least, some lessons can be learnt from this: Murphy's law is everywhere, the world is unfair, and the most deserving are usually NOT the most rewarded.
We ain't overlapping - posted by 301 at 6:49 pm
|