problematic..

starting from today..mr domo will use this blog solely to experiment with html...no more post okay..

the new blog links will be announced soon..

bye from mr domo

First week of exam

On this glorious week, mR doMo has taken his end year examination and he feel so great about it...
It taste like shit, it hurts like hell and it brings happiness to,, quiet weird isn't it..
Well that is the ups and downs of exams..Many of us hate it,but why???

We should love exams the questions..although its hard,, it feels so good after you managed to answer it..better than money..

the best parts is of course when receiving the marked paper..only if you gets nice marks laa..if you don't then you should commit suicide..
if you get nice marks,, everyone will praise you,,will admire you..and the best is when you prove that your teachers are wrong in something..the humiliations in their face..what a feeling..
and seeing your friends getting lower marks than you.. better if you are ranked above them and the distance seems like heaven and hell.
BUT,, AGAIN I REPEAT..THIS IS ONLY IF YOU GET NICE MARKS..

so, what if you don't??
then you're in hell..or better,,  sublevel of hell..
feel the humiliation of praising others..the pain of being forgotten..
your teacher will take you as nothing.. and you are nothing in front everyone..


is my words seem a bit sadistic... sorry but that is what it takes to motivates people to loves exams...


thank you for reading this post....

sin-cera ... mR doMo...

the glorious heat

according to my form 4 textbooks,,
heat is defined as a form of energy transferred from hot body to cold body..body refers to anything that has mass..
temperature is defined as degrees of hotness of a body..again a body is everything that has mass.


the book teach about thermal equilibrium, specific heat capacity, specific latent heat and gas law..


there are lot more thing about heat..but these four are enough for now,, don't ask for more..

thermal equilibrium....
as heat is defined as energy transfer from hot to cold body..as every body has heat .. heat will flow from two body .. but hotter body will flow more heat to colder body...as hot body flow out more heat than it receive,,the net flow of heat is toward the colder body.

heat will flow continually between two body until thermal equilibrium is reached..which is the heat content and temperature of both body is the same and no net flow of heat between both bodies..

specific heat capacity...
total amount of heat in a body is affected by few factor which is ,
1.heat supplied to the body
2.the mass of the body
3.the types of the material

this means two body of the same type, mass and temperature has the same amount of heat in it..
this equate to

Q=mct

Q is the amount of heat
m is the mass
c is the type or specific heat capacity
t is the temperature..

this also means two body with same mass and type but different temperature has different amount of heat.
this also means two body with same mass and temperature but different type may have different amount of heat
this also means two body with same temperature and type but different masses has different amount of heat.

examples :
a glass of water at 30 celcius and a glass of water at 100 celcius has different amount of heat..
a glass of water at 100 celcius and a glass of oil at 100 celcius has different amount of heat.
a glass of water at 100 celcius and a jug of water at 100 celcius has different amount of heat.

from the equation Q=mct..the 'c' or specific heat capacity of an object is the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of 1 kg of a substance by 1 degree celcius.

example of calculation :: energy required to increase temperature of 1 kg of water by 5 celcius is 21000 joules..from the following calculation. Q=1kg x 4200J/kgC x 5celcius.  
4200J/kgC is the specific heat apacity of water..

this means you would need 21000 Joules of heat to rise temperature of water by 5 degrees celcius.

I will continue about specific latent heat and gas law on another post..

energy

energy can neither be created nor destroyed

so the statement energy is produced/created and bla bla bla is never true..if it is true,,the law of thermodynamic has been broken...

the correct statement is energy is released from something(for potential energy) or energy is converted from one type to another.

history lesson

roughly around two millennium  ago,, in Athens a kid asked mR doMo about his lifes...the conversation goes on as below..

kid             : mR doMo, may I know what you're doing ?

mR doMo  : I'm doing my bio notes,,why?

kid             : sorry to interrupt you on your works..but why such a great man like you doing such a thing...from what I read about you in The Life of mR doMo,, you have the wisdom of bio in your self..so why you bother doing notes???

mR doMo : kid you know nothing about the importance of notes..maybe I have the wisdom of bio in myself..but I need to share it with the world and the best way to do it is through notes..through notes people could learn my wisdom even if I'm dead..do you understands now??

kid            : I see the importance of notes now,, thank you for your time mR doMo..




100 years later that kid become plastic surgeon at Athens General Hospitals from reading mR doMo notes..

notes::mR. doMo was the greatest man in bio at greece in that periods..





the morals of the story...guest you know it right,,as in all fairy tale...

do your bio notes or else 5 marks will be cut from your bio paper.

good luck from mR doMo and his associates..

Declaration of Sorry

Once this week...on tuesday. I mr domo has offended someone heart with what i thought as joke.
but she take it seriously.
I don't know how to apologize properly..
and it's not normal for me to apologize, as I only do it towards my best friends  family..
especially apologizing over something that I considered as jokes..
so,, i hope she'll read this message and forgive for my vulgarity...
because hurting my best friends is not something that I can stand..
I hope she understand...

to anyone who read this message and know this person..
convey my message to her please..



to be exact..
what happen on that day is.......
I don't take seriously about someone dreams of pursuing her dream in a university in UK..
I'm deeply sorry for my wrongdoing and please forgive me...

KEY = 
IMSORRY mod(10)→0


Below is her name


63775 64650 54435 
68537 22564 64451


~those who know the plaintext please shut up~

Sincerely,

mR DoMo

why reactive metal displaces H2 in acid?

this happen because the so-called reactive metal terletak lebih atas dari hydrogen dalam ECS atau electrochemical series. so hydrogen lebih cenderung untuk discharge berbanding metal yg lebih reactive so die discharge jadi molecule.

contoh reactive reactive metal, magnesium Mg, Sodium Na, aluminium Al, potassiumK, and bla bla...

so kalu korg buat experiment mix asid ngan metal cam silver, copper and yg bawah hydrogen,,selalunyer takkan berlaku reaction..so ape2 metal yg terletak bawah hydrogen dalam ECS xkan dpt displace hydrogen tu..

babai

Ammonia n Ammonium

those are different thing okay..ammonium ialah ions NH₄^-. ammonia plak gas yg bau busuk macam kencing da terperam bertaon, NH₃..

ammonium ade cas and ammonia xde cas. ammonia boleh dalam form gas or liquid or solid..

so jgn keliru da..

Base n Alkali

Starting arini, cikgu Domo nk ajar korang sumer pasal base n alkali plak..
Kiter akan start ngan base dulu,, basically base nieh adalah metal oxides(sumber:Pn. Norhayati). And soluble base akan react ngan water utk form hydroxide of that base..cthnyer bile Sodium oxides Na₂OH  react ngan air akan form sodium hydroxides, NaOH..
NaOH atau sodium hydroxide nie plak akan ionise in water, ataupun terionisasi di dalam air bg membentuk hydroxide ions and sodium ions..

contoh2 base yg water soluble ialah : sodium hydroxide NaOH, potassium hydroxide KOH, lithium hydroxide LiOH, barium hydroxide Ba(OH)₂ and mcm lagi yg korg bleh cari kat wikipedia..
contoh yg larut dlm air nie asal nye oxide tp die form hydroxide n mende nie la yg dipanggil alkali.

contoh yang tak water soluble plak ialah zinc oxide ZnO, copper oxide CuO and bla bla bla.

ingat gnekan google sepenuhnyer..

sbb ape yg diterangkan kat atas nieh cam betrabo sket,, nie konklusinyer:

base=metal oxide same ade water soluble atau tak..


alkali=metal hydroxide yg ionise dlm air utk wat hydroxide ions,,alkali mesti ade hydroxide ion OH^-..wajib xde excuse sbb kalu xde tu bkan alkali la namenye..


skang nieh aku nk citer psal properties bases:

bases ade satu properties yg same ngan alkali that is die react ngan acid utk form salt atau garam and air..basically biler campor die jd air garam la tp bkan garam biase tu nie garam special.

contoh :: hydrochloric acid react ngan copper oxide akan form copper(II) chloride and water berdasarkan equation nieh:
2HCl + CuO → CuCl₂ + H₂O.

Copper(II)Oxides

Hydrochloric Acid

Alkali plak ade due properties la seingat aku..kalu ade tige pon aku lpe yg ketige tu..
yg first tu same cam bases ,, react with acid to form salt and water..
contoh nyer :: sulphuric acid akan react ngan potassium hydroxide untuk wat potasium sulphate n water..
equation  H₂SO₄ + 2KOH →K₂SO₄ + 2H₂O.


the second properties plak...
alkali react ngan ammonium salts, yakni ape-ape jenis garam ammonium.. contoh garam ammonium nie ialah ammonium nitrate NH₄NO₃, ammonium chloride NH₄Cl, ammonium carbonate (NH₄)₂CO_3.
reaction dorang nie akan hasilkan salt, ammonia gas and the beloved water...
contoh potassium hydroxides react ngan ammonium nitrate akan hasilkan potassium nitrates, ammonia and water..
equation : NH₄NO₃ + KOH → KNO₃ + NH₃ + H₂O




huh penat nak taip equation nie harap2 bende nie bergune kat korg..babai

Political Freedom and Liberal Democracy in the Islamic World

This article was taken from Mr. Anwar Ibrahim blog..Don't take it wrong, I don't like him but I like this articles..

Let me begin with the poet and philosopher Muhammad Iqbal, a towering figure in the landscape that we are about to traverse this evening, a bridge, if you will, over the gulf that is said to separate the East and the West, between Islam on one side, and freedom and democracy on the other.

In his poetic answer to the West, the Paya?m?e?Mashriq, Iqbal sets up the epiphanous encounter between Jallaludin al-Rumi and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe not on earth but up in the heavens. Reciting Faust, his magnum opus, Goethe convinces Rumi that here is one enlightened soul who understands the Great Mystery. We know that Iqbal’s Paya?m?i?Mashriq itself was greatly inspired by Goethe’s West-östlicher Diwan (West-Eastern Divan) which in turn drew its inspiration from the great 14th century master of the Persian ghazals Hafiz Shirazi. “Ad-Diwan Sharqi lil Mu’allif al-Gharbi,” these were the words inscribed in the original script by Goethe himself on the title page, and it may be literally rendered as “The Eastern Divan by the Western Author.” So, in an atmosphere of mutual respect and admiration, West meets East, and East meets West and the process goes back and forth.

Today, however, the encounter seems to have taken on a slightly different keel. For simplicity, it looks something like this: West tries to meet East by first tossing a couple of bombs; East says no thanks by firing a couple of missiles in return; West feels outraged and burns their books of wisdom and religion, and East goes berserk by blowing up their buildings.

My apologies for making light of the situation but the point is that the discourse today more than ever before is blindsided by hatred and misunderstanding giving rise among other things to “freedom and democracy phobia” on the one hand and Islamophobia on the other. This sets the stage for the clash of ideals and values, between political freedom and democracy on the one hand and Islam on the other. Yet in spite of this initial alarm and sabre-rattling war cry, I am quite certain that the clash is more imagined than real. I’m not suggesting that Islamophobia doesn’t exist; indeed it very real but it is borne by falsehood, and fuelled by irresponsible parties from both sides of the divide. The upshot is stereotyping and cliché mongering about what Islam represents.

Now because of the disparate actions of certain people conducting themselves in the name of the religion, we find ourselves in a quagmire of false notions about Islam: that it is anti-freedom, anti-democracy, that it enjoins murder and mayhem, promotes divisiveness and exclusiveness and so on and so forth.

So, let us try to clear the fog that has descended on the discourse. Firstly, there is essentially no incompatibility between Islam and democracy. To say that it is infeasible for Muslim-majority countries to practice constitutional democracy is to fly in the face of reality. Let’s start with Turkey, a fine example of a liberal democracy where the majority of its population are Muslims. They have free and fair elections, they have a proper judicial and legal system, they have fundamental liberties protected by the constitution and they have a relatively free press. You will not be prosecuted simply because you are a leader of the opposition party and the police won’t beat you up just because you criticise the government. You can go about your daily business without the fear that at any time the authorities may just raid your homes and put you behind bars without a trial.

Now, the recent referendum of the Turkish people in favor of fundamental constitutional changes including imposing further constraints on the role of the military is clear testimony that democracy is alive and well. Detractors would like to suggest that it is so because it has chosen to depart from Islamic practices. We beg to differ. We would like to see it as a classic example of what a Muslim nation can achieve if its leaders remain faithful to the core values of Islamic statecraft: modernist, moderate, progressive and tolerant with justice and the rule of law as a motto for governance. In this regard, Turkey’s Muslim leaders fortified by the principles of liberal democracy, stand in sharp contrast to the autocrats and dictators in some other Muslim countries.

Indonesia is yet another good example of the practice of political freedom and liberal democracy in a nation with a predominantly Muslim population. Of course, they had to go through the entire political evolutionary process to come to where they are today. After gaining independence from the Dutch, they had a brief experiment with democracy but it was short-lived and after May 1965, Indonesia came under the dictatorship of Suharto during the so-called New Order era. And this went on till the 1998 collapse which set forth the era of Reformasi. Now, just to get an idea of how alive and well democracy is in Indonesia, just switch on to their television stations and without fail, there will be aired daily forums and discussion sessions highly critical of the ruling party and the President. I am not suggesting that the system is perfect or that they have attained full democracy but at least most of the essential elements of a vibrant democracy are in place. Just move over to the neighbouring Muslim majority nation and we can see the stark differences. And the absence of real democracy in that neighbouring country as well as other Muslim majority countries has very little, if any, to do with Islam. Islam, I would say, is getting a pretty raw deal here because of the actions of these tyrants, dictators, autocrats and pseudo-democrats.

But are we denying that there is a problem of Islamic fundamentalism? Is the problem of extremists, of terrorists and of suicide bombers a figment of the imagination? Of course not. That is a complex issue but the hypotheses of correlating various acts with Islam are mere correlations and do not reflect the causal links. The underlying causes must be studied and steps taken to address them if we are to see any resolution to these issues.

As for the claim by some that fundamentalists are gaining traction on the political front in certain Muslim countries, the problem is largely blown out of proportion. It is true, however, that ideological rigidity is not conducive to the promotion of constitutional democracy. It is partly because of this rigidity that sees some fundamentalists citing so-called sabre-rattling verses from the Holy Book to condone acts of violence in the name of jihad. We, however, maintain that Islam prohibits violence and terror by virtue of the principles of moderation and the protection of life, limb and property. The objectives of the religion are clear: jihad enjoins on Muslims to do good and prevent evil, establish justice, promote goodwill and charity and help the weak and the needy. It is not a war cry, let alone one to justify mayhem and murder. Above all, jihad enjoins Muslims to maintain peace and harmony and safeguard the sanctity of life and property. But it remains incumbent on reformists and progressives to make it clear that Islam is for all time. Modernity is not anti-thetical to Islam. Casting the religion in stone is.

For those countries still bent on remaining static, we would urge them to democratize.

I make this call on the platform of Islam itself. Because Islam enjoins the faithful to uphold equality, justice, and human dignity, the resolve to embrace constitutional democracy is a reaffirmation of these principles. Our message is consistent on this: hold free and fair elections, ensure the separation of powers and guarantee fundamental civil liberties including allowing the full participation of women in political life. Put an end to vindictive prosecutions, arbitrary arrests, and the use of the state apparatus to silence political dissent.

On the question of the democratization process itself, I call on certain powers to stop practising double standards. Please do not blow hot and blow cold. Human rights violations are violations no less. We cannot allow some countries latitude in this and condemn them in others. The diplomacy of “you give me this, and I’ll give you that in return” is well and good in certain matters but not so if it is a betrayal of the cause of democracy and freedom.

The hypocrisy has to stop unless of course we want to see Muslim societies continuing to languish under dictatorships, autocracies and sham democracies. Sham democracies as you know are now the rage particularly in Southeast Asia. They are more insidious and pose a greater threat to political freedom and constitutional democracy than even dictatorships and autocracies. Dictatorships and autocracies are at least clearly visible and we know that they cannot by any stretch of the imagination pretend to be democracies. Sham democracies on the other hand come well armed with the trappings of democracy. We can’t see or in certain cases we pretend that we can’t see that they are masquerades perpetuating injustice, human rights abuses and corruption.

With the entire state apparatus at their disposal, they rob and plunder the nation’s wealth and resources, imprison dissidents without trial, deny press freedom and render the judiciary into a spineless organ of state whose existence is to serve their political survival. Yet, and this is the most insidious part, their leaders are recognised as leaders of the “free and democratic world” standing shoulder to shoulder with the leaders of the established democracies.

So, this begs the question whether there has been any real progress in political reform in the Muslim world apart from Turkey and Indonesia. Certain states even in the Middle East appear to be moving towards democracy but the rhetoric often exceeds the reality. Nevertheless, let us not be confused about what the real issue is. It is not whether Islam and democracy are compatible but whether leaders in Muslim countries will uphold freedom and democracy. Nor is it a problem about the East being at loggerheads with the West. If I may just conclude with a few lines from Iqbal’s Zarb-i-Kalim:

Shun neither the East
Nor fear the West
For it is Nature that sets
you turning each night
(wherever you may be)
To the morning bright”