Most Stupid Creation Thread

Ok so here it is - You post stupid creations (made by you or others). Lets try to keep it to relatively recent creations or ones that you don't think anyone will have seen before (ie. we've all seen the pointless box that turns itself off when you turn it on).

I'll start.

Two for today: Kissing over long distances? Some of the comments on that are pretty funny :D You could so turn it into something like omegle... "Connecting you to a random stranger" :D

and: Nose stylus? - People have probably seen that one - just came up on my feed again...

I think the thread title is politically incorrect - it should be "Least Intelligent Design Thread"

The kissing device is 50/100 least intelligent or stupid but the nose stylus is pretty much 100/100. I don't think my neck has the necessary motor skills to use it. I rather wear it and move my hand with the device instead ;)

Ah, but would validate the whole Intelligent Design concept, which is a whole different argument 8)

Very difficult to say CrossRoads. I suspect your state teaches evolution but I don't know too much about my state. I was told 50% school physics teachers are not certified. It's like blind leading blind. 8) This way 8) OK Ouch!

Yes!

Changing subject: How do I create a hole for a 1.2mm pin? I want to get my layout done, figure to just put in a series of holes at 3.5mm spacing and not worry about the library part. I did a manual routing, changing parts placement and gate selecition as I went. Then I let the computer do an autoroute with that placement to look neater (not sure its via placement will pass design rule checking because the DRC didn't like mine, and its were even closer!). Then I ripped it all up again, added polygon for the hatched ground plane - only it can't complete. So I'm gonna try the no-polygon autoroute again, if it passes the DRC will go with that and manually added holes for the Phoenix screw terminal connectors.

How do I create a hole for a 1.2mm pin?

With a 1.25mm drill?

Will that make the oval type pad & everything? I’m still stumbling along with eagle I’m afraid.

Well, time to go sit in traffic, er, I mean drive home! Back online in a few hours ...

liudr: I was told 50% school physics teachers are not certified.

The physics you learn in school has very little to do with anything that's happened in physics in the last 100 years.

The physics you learn in school has very little to do with anything that's happened in physics in the last 100 years

How so? Admittedly, I left school over thirty years ago, but we covered basic semiconductors (also thermionic valves), nuclear physics (including simple quantum theory), lasers (which were pretty new at the time!). Have things gone backwards since the 70s?

AWOL:

The physics you learn in school has very little to do with anything that's happened in physics in the last 100 years

How so? Admittedly, I left school over thirty years ago, but we covered basic semiconductors (also thermionic valves), nuclear physics (including simple quantum theory), lasers (which were pretty new at the time!). Have things gone backwards since the 70s?

We barely touched on quantum stuff and I did a-level physics. We covered wave-particle duality of light but roughly, as in we did an experiment to show interference patterns but we didn't go in to the physics behind it nor did we cover wave-particle duality of anything else, probability fields, anything like that.

Since there's no opinion involved and it's fairly low-level physics sticking mostly to a classical view, especially at GCSE level, I don't really see a need for teachers to be qualified in physics. Any teacher should be able to learn the material suitably well in order to teach it.

We barely touched on quantum stuff and I did a-level physics.

We studied basic nuclear (ionising/non-ionising radiation, Rutherford's experiment, Crookes' tube, Geiger-Muller tubes) at O level. Mind you, it was the height of the Cold War, so I guess they just wanted us to know what we were up against!

I don't remember GCSE but A-level seemed to consist of leaving high voltage units on full whack and switched on when we put them away at the end of lesson. Mwhahahaha.

Now this is getting off topic.

My experiences of physics sounds similar to AWOL's (although not so long ago :D ). They obviously can't teach you everything about everything but we seemed to cover a lot of stuff. They have to make it varied and teach a little bit about most things as people all have different interests and will go onto do different things at uni and beyond (even if they all do 'physics' at uni).

mowcius: Now this is getting off topic.

My experiences of physics sounds similar to AWOL's (although not so long ago :D ). They obviously can't teach you everything about everything but we seemed to cover a lot of stuff. They have to make it varied and teach a little bit about most things as people all have different interests and will go onto do different things at uni and beyond (even if they all do 'physics' at uni).

I'm not saying that the physics taught at school isn't good enough, I was merely pointing out that since it tends to stick to the classical view it's all straight forward and can be explained by fairly simple maths. Therefore a teacher with any science or maths background should have no problem in teaching a physics lesson and any teacher should be able to deliver the material since it's not particularly complicated nor does it involve opinion.

I really enjoyed physics at school, that's why I did it at a-level. If I didn't hate maths I'd have contemplated doing it at uni.

liudr:
I was told 50% school physics teachers are not certified.

Give 'em 5 years of teaching today’s TV- and video game-poisoned kids, and they’ll all be certified :frowning:

Sorry for the off-topic lead. I meant 50% teachers in my state in US that are actively teaching physics aren't certified to teach the subject. Not 50% of all teachers.

Yeah, not much recent stuff in intro college physics for non-physics majors but if you think of the following, which I cover, you'll find it is everywhere in electronics:

Simple harmonic oscillators - crystal oscillators, very tiny but very large modulus for MHz range oscillations that every device needs Waves and music - you name it Basic spring and capacitors - when micro-machined, it becomes accelerometers Resistors and strain gauges I also mention modern methods for measuring stuff, like pressure cell instead of u-tube barometer, thermistor instead of mercury thermometer (One student even stuck the wrong end of a mercury thermometer in the water since she's never seen one in her life LOL). The list goes go.

The most recent physics would be covered in the 3rd semesters for physics, some ECE and chemistry students, called modern physics. That one does have quantum stuff, photoelectric effect, semiconductors, x-ray electron and neutron diffraction, duality and relativity etc.

One student even stuck the wrong end of a mercury thermometer in the water since she's never seen one in her life LOL

Well that's one stupid student - I could have told you which end of a thermometer went in the water since I was about 4.

Lets face it though - teaching for modern technology is not up to scratch whatever subject you're talking about -In Product Design you are taught about 'smart materials' but many you could talk about or the applications they have - no teacher would have any idea and they wouldn't be covered in a text book. A lot of the information taught about things like that is also technically false but the people writing the book describe them as 'new materials' and as though they're mythical and nobody uses them. - In Engineering you could in theory do a project based on software or electronics/microcontrollers but heaven help you about marking as you can be sure your teacher will have no idea what you're doing or how to mark it (and the mark scheme isn't really set up for anything apart from metal bashing type projects).

  • In physics you will be taught basics but nothing really (as liudr says) about modern technologies, how to use them, how they work etc. You might get taught about oscilloscopes in the broadest sense but you're unlikely to understand what they're actually used for (apart from thinking they're used in hospitals for displaying heartbeats).

  • In maths you get taught an awful lot of theoretical calculations but due to the way the mark schemes are set up - in most schools you won't get told any applications for any of these, why you'd use them etc. because you don't need to be taught that - which puts a lot of people off (it put me off).

  • In IT you get taught how to use MS office products (same with the so called 'IT Key Skills Levels') and maybe some limited visual programming in some proprietary software.

Even in the STEM (Science, Tech, Engineering & Maths) clubs in schools which I hear are pretty popular now, the type of things you might do depends completely on what teachers are into and what they know how to do (which in terms of helping people get an interest in modern technologies is pretty much nothing).

For that reason, I'm seriously thinking of doing something to try and help this sorry state of affairs - teaching kids what they should know to get into modern technologies - teaching them how to use and understand a computer, what electronics actually do, how theoretical physics and maths links into programming and software, what kinds of products can be made (what and where they are used) etc.

/rant - I kinda carried on going really off topic in my own thread :P

mowcius: Well that's one stupid student - I could have told you which end of a thermometer went in the water since I was about 4.

Last year I was sharing a house with a teenager who had absolutely no idea that you could even put a plug on a cable, let alone how to actually wire one. This isn't particularly a fault since all devices now come with plugs attached but it does show that what you or I take for granted is often novel to other generations.

  • In maths you get taught an awful lot of theoretical calculations but due to the way the mark schemes are set up - in most schools you won't get told any applications for any of these, why you'd use them etc. because you don't need to be taught that - which puts a lot of people off (it put me off).

Indeed. I hated maths at school and when I got to uni I was forced into a foundation maths course despite doing computer science course which included a maths for comp sci module. I was fine with discreet stuff and logic but couldn't be arsed with imaginary numbers and the like.

I now spend my working life managing data, including generating reports and statistics. Wish I'd paid more attention at school but doing stuff to lists of numbers was dull.

For that reason, I'm seriously thinking of doing something to try and help this sorry state of affairs - teaching kids what they should know to get into modern technologies - teaching them how to use and understand a computer, what electronics actually do, how theoretical physics and maths links into programming and software, what kinds of products can be made (what and where they are used) etc.

go for it!