|
|
$$一百萬$$
(3)
Big Brother現在可以話係最新嘅節目形式. 美國最近有報導指出, 下一個以Big Brother為藍本嘅節目快將推出. 十個人將會被送到俄羅斯受訓. 每星期觀眾選一個人被踢走. 不過剩下嘅一個並唔係羸獎金, 而係可以離開地球, 去Mir太空站!
講到Big Brother嘅來源, 除咗Truman Show之外, 另一個係一本叫Lord Of The Flies嘅小說. 內容係講一班十幾歲嘅細路因為沉船而去到一個荒島生活, 而最後大家互相殘殺. 喺Big Brother之前, 有電視台送十多人去荒島到住幾個月, 拍攝佢哋嘅生活.
$$一百萬$$
(2)
本來我係想做個英文post先, 但係我啱啱睇完Big Brother, 覺得點都要做個關於Big Brother嘅post. 點解? 因為今日喺間屋到所發生嘅事可以話係由節目開始以來最激, 激到Big Brother網頁據聞要暫時停止網上廿四小時播放, 激到其他電視台嘅新聞節目都要花幾分鐘去報導. 當然第二日嘅報紙一定會提此事.
話說屋內有位叫Nick嘅人, 佢由第一日開始就嘗試控制其他人, 令佢哋選Nick自己想踢走嘅人. 而同時又向自已想踢嘅人扮關心. 一直以來, 雖然觀眾都知佢啲衰嘢, 但係屋內啲人完全唔發覺, 而且外界係無機會接近屋內嘅人, 所以Nick成為屋內嘅好好先生, 從來無人選佢走.
但近幾日, 有人開始懷疑Nick嘅行為, 嗰晚佢哋揾到Nick自己認為應該被踢走嘅名單, 而且有幾個板本. 當佢哋發現Nick同唔同嘅人所講嘅嘢都唔同, 而且利用佢哋, 屋內全部人決定同Nick講數...
電視只係播咗咁多, 至於期間有無發生其他事,真條無人知. 或者咁樣係電視台想觀眾估吓啲人會做乜. 其實Big Brother熱潮已經開始減退, 因為近一個星期屋咁都無乜大事發生...老實講如果Nick真係被踢走嘅話, 成個節目會變得好悶!!
如果你係Nick, 你會點做?
發現(大量)假銀紙!
1.每年因為製造大富翁而印道具銀紙嘅數目, 係多過全世界政府印真銀紙......
2.所有蝙蝠飛出洞口後, 都會向左轉.
3.水母, 正如其名, 真係好多水 (佔體重95%).
4.全世界最多人有嘅姓係陳.
5.意大利粉嘅發源地係中國.
6.一個正常人一生食六萬磅重嘅食物.
7.十個睇此頁嘅男性, 八個靚仔, 九個唔知我將幅仲間由紀惠比堅尼相收埋咗去邊.
8.假如你手上有張自已屋企嘅地圖, 你可以喺地圖上指出一點,(而且唔多過一點) 而嗰點嘅真實位置同地圖上嘅位置係完全相同.
9.只要你係喺地圖所顯示嘅範圍內, 你都可以做8.
10.8同9都可以用數學推論出來.
三級制? (3)
講到血淋淋, 又點可以唔提"睇你點死"此"紀錄片". 正如其名, 成套片大部份時間都係睇啲人點死, 如吞槍自殺, 被野獸咬死..但係片來全部都係真人真事, 每一個片段差唔多都係一個人生前最後嘅一刻. 我自已覺得無必要同無膽去睇, 但係我知道有唔少人睇過. 有啲人話一個鏡頭比一個鏡頭恐佈, 又有啲人話佢哋一啲都唔驚.
啲人點解會睇此片? 係唔係因為覺得此片有"警惕"作用, 如"唔好行埋去獅子堆"? 定係為咗娛樂?
為咗娛樂, 點解唔睇周星馳? 係唔係因為唔夠刺激? 係唔係因為唔夠暴力, 血腥?
想要暴力, 血腥, 點解唔睇李小龍? 又或者走去街市睇人劏雞?
定係因為啲人知道, 螢幕內嘅人真係死咗?
What is a set? Without getting into mathematical jargons, a set is basically a collection of "members". All even numbers form a set. So do all the bottles of beer inside your fridge. If there isn't any beer bottles inside the fridge, you call it an empty set. Simple, isn't it?
Now consider this. Can a set be a member of itself? Some sets can, and others cannot. For example, the set of bottles is not a member of itself. That is because the "set of bottles" is a set, not a bottle. On the other hand, the set of non-bottles is a member of itself, since as stated earlier, a set is not a bottle. If you're still not sure, then just accept for now that there are sets which are not members of themselves.
Now comes the paradox... Let's call the set of all sets which are not members of themselves S (There is no reason why you have to call it S, but most people do) . Is S a member of itself? Clearly either it is or it isn't. Suppose S is a member of itself, then by the definition of S it must not be a member of itself. Now suppose S is not a member of itself, then again by the definition of S, it is a member of itself. Weird, isn't it?
In general, we accept that, if we make a wrong assumption and we make logical deductions from that assumption, then we will reach a contradiction. For example, let A=1, B=3 and I claim that A is larger than B. If A is larger than B then A-B must be positive but 1-3=-2. Therefore my claim must be wrong. In the case of S, we already know that S either is a member of itself, or it isn't. However, either way leads to a contradiction. So what's wrong?
There is nothing wrong with the definition of S, since S does exist. What is wrong is the definition of set. The paradox is known as the Russell's paradox and it's pretty famous because it exposed the flaws within the definition of set. So the collection of beer bottles is not a set afterall then? It is still a set, and most of the sets we can think of are still sets. The S in Russell's paradox just happens to be a special case.
