Page 2 of 3

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 3:17 pm UTC
But you can negotiate with a two year old.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 3:19 pm UTC
pkcommando wrote:
jay35 wrote:So the monster is now deader than a doornail?

But before they killed it, they had to hit it w/ enough tranquilizer to knock out 3 elephants.

But we ended up with a death toll as high as the latest tsunami.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 3:38 pm UTC
The damaged caused by the monster cost more than 100 space shuttles.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:11 pm UTC
Hmm.. trying the dictionary of numbers myself:

33.3 m/s ≈ Land speed record for a human powered vehicle

I laughed until I realized that a bike is a human powered vehicle.

And I am quite disappointed that it doesn't return anything for 42.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:13 pm UTC
davidstarlingm wrote:
Barstro wrote:Let's see.

A cheetah's top speed is 120 kph (33.3 m/s) (EDIT: I think I have the correct figure now)
A blue whale has a mass of 170,000 kilograms

Momentum is P=20,400,000 5,666,667. I have no idea what that translates into. Anyone have a good comparison?

Better to look at kinetic energy, which is around 1e8 Joules -- the same as the kinetic energy of a landing jumbo jet.

And his screech was five times louder than said jumbo jet engines.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:20 pm UTC
Right, so I went to google and typed "as ... as a" and picked the first sensible auto completion.

My own frequently-made comparison monster is as long as a road, as fast as a hare, as heavy as a lead (?), and as intelligent as a dolphin.

I guess I'll have a chance to win a fight, although I hope it's a short road.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:16 pm UTC
The bowels of the monster, lying on the ground after its defeat, were long enough to wrap around the Earth's equator just over 3 times.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:22 pm UTC
That monster is bog, I'll grant you... But not as big as yo mama!

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:45 pm UTC
Randall can mock numbers without context (blag: Dictionary of Numbers) and we love it.
Randall can mock context without numbers (1257: Monster) and we join in on the fun.

He truely can do no wrong.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:06 pm UTC
flamewise wrote:Right, so I went to google and typed "as ... as a" and picked the first sensible auto completion.

My own frequently-made comparison monster is as long as a road, as fast as a hare, as heavy as a lead (?), and as intelligent as a dolphin.

I guess I'll have a chance to win a fight, although I hope it's a short road.

Hmm.. nice idea.

I've got one, as evil as ignorance...
...as dangerous as smoking...
...as ugly as sin...
...as cunning as a fox...
...as real as a dream.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:09 pm UTC
I know that the point was NOT to come up with a concrete example, but was I the only one to think, "Bandersnatch?"

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:31 pm UTC
Klear wrote:Hmm.. trying the dictionary of numbers myself:

33.3 m/s ≈ Land speed record for a human powered vehicle

I laughed until I realized that a bike is a human powered vehicle.

That's odd. Even the unpaced cycling records go up to 133km/h (37m/s) and they go up to 335km/h (93m/s) when using slipstream or going downhill.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:45 pm UTC
I guess I got lucky. The one I ran into was only the size of a fox terrier.

Uh...how big is a fox terrier?

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:50 pm UTC
Flumble wrote:
Klear wrote:Hmm.. trying the dictionary of numbers myself:

33.3 m/s ≈ Land speed record for a human powered vehicle

I laughed until I realized that a bike is a human powered vehicle.

That's odd. Even the unpaced cycling records go up to 133km/h (37m/s) and they go up to 335km/h (93m/s) when using slipstream or going downhill.

I think the record is for unassisted human powered vehicle. If you are on a bike, it's presumed that you are using performance enhancing drugs.

The monster was as unethical as Armstrong.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:52 pm UTC
Is anyone else trying to envision this monster? I'm thinking it looks like an enormous cheetah (since it needs to be able to travel as fast, and I would imagine that a cheetah that big being able to wolf down quite a number of people), though obviously it has to be smarter than a cheetah. This thing is sounding pretty adorable. I'd definitely want to ride it after it was satiated.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:18 pm UTC
Sounds like a relative of the One True Cat:

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 7:47 pm UTC
BlitzGirl wrote:Sounds like a relative of the One True Cat:

-1 internets for making me embarrass myself at work w/ a very loud lol

+101 internets for making me embarrass myself at work w/ a very loud lol

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:25 pm UTC
jay35 wrote:So the monster is now deader than a doornail?

A sci-fi alien race that's barely more alive than doornails...

Has potential.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:30 pm UTC
dalcde wrote:Actually all measures are relative. Mass in kilogram is relative to that of the International Prototype of the Kilogram. Time in seconds is relative to the time of the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.

(Okay the number of people is not a relative measure, but you get my point)

The speed of light isn't a relative measure. In fact, isn't the meter now defined as the the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299792458 seconds? Or is it that a second is the time it takes for light to travel 299792458 meters in a vacuum?

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:23 pm UTC
I don't know if anyone else did this, but I spent several minutes trying to figure out what "it" was from the speech bubbles before finally reading the caption and votey.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:27 pm UTC
StCredZero wrote:
dalcde wrote:Actually all measures are relative. Mass in kilogram is relative to that of the International Prototype of the Kilogram. Time in seconds is relative to the time of the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.

(Okay the number of people is not a relative measure, but you get my point)

The speed of light isn't a relative measure. In fact, isn't the meter now defined as the the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299792458 seconds? Or is it that a second is the time it takes for light to travel 299792458 meters in a vacuum?

There are several dimensionless constants in physics, as well.

It's true that some things are relative, like we wouldn't notice if the speed of light changed at the same time that time and distance changed (one might question if that's even a thing which is part of our universe in that case), but our universe isn't just a mishmash of relative dimensionality. There are even things independent of universe at all, like logic, "one", tau, etc.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:55 pm UTC
It's breath smells as bad as an entire dumpster.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:57 pm UTC
I think we can all agree, #1257 was as funny as 1.00 xkcd comics.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:59 pm UTC
As much fun as a barrel of molpies!

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:28 pm UTC
But is it bigger than a mole of moles?

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:43 pm UTC
Diadem wrote:But is it bigger than a mole of moles?

I sure hope not. I'm not certain how to go about fighting moon-sized alien monsters.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:53 pm UTC
StCredZero wrote:The speed of light isn't a relative measure.

It's a relative measure in the same sense that a meter is a relative measure. We compare how fast light moves relative to how fast other things move, the same way that we compare how big something is relative to how big other things are.

The sense in which the speed of light is not relative is the same as that in which meters were (classically, not accounting for Lorentz contraction) not relative. No matter where you are (in a classical universe), a meter is still a meter; but "a meter" means a certain size which we understand by comparison to other things of known size. Likewise, no matter how fast you're moving, light is still moving the same speed relative to you, but the speed at which it is moving is still expressed in terms of distance measured relative to things of known size per time measured relative to events of known duration. The speed of light is constant, but the measure of that speed is still made relative to something else: it's just that, when we make measurements relative to other things, we find that the speed of light is always measured the same relative to those things no matter how we (and the things we're measuring with) are moving.

Other Planck units are likewise still relative even though they are universal constants.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:02 am UTC
If this were a blockbuster movie, the Frequently-Made Comparisons monster woul have been defeated by a robot the height of Nelson's column stacked on top of the Empire State Building, with a reactor core that could generate as much power as three thousand Bugatti Veyrons, and firing a laser that could light up a town of 20,000 people for 50 years.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 12:19 pm UTC
It would take a hero with the strength of a thousand men, wielding a magic sword that burns with the light of a thousand suns, to fight this monster.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 4:48 pm UTC
BlitzGirl wrote:Sounds like a relative of the One True Cat:

So cuuuuuute!!!!

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 5:35 pm UTC
StCredZero wrote:
jay35 wrote:So the monster is now deader than a doornail?

A sci-fi alien race that's barely more alive than doornails...

Has potential.

Yes it did. I've written a role playing game where you fight off a sci-fi/horror monster with whatever resources that you have around. My favorite monster so far is making them fight off schrodinger's cat. The best part is that the cat attacked an unsuspecting group of hikers. The players never found the bodies so they're still not sure if the hikers have died.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:31 pm UTC
Djehutynakht wrote:
rhomboidal wrote:This monster sounds familiar. I think Godzilla might've fought it/fucked it in the 19th sequel or thereabouts...

...that's a very interesting "either...or..."

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:20 am UTC
I can't help wondering if this is about cancer.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 4:41 am UTC
srwight wrote:I can't help wondering if this is about cancer.

Must be the...

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Fri Aug 30, 2013 2:44 pm UTC
Sounds like a rocket-propelled dirigible-like dugong. Which is why witnesses to the destruction kept crying, "Oh, the huge manatee!"

Barstro wrote:Let's see.

A cheetah's top speed is 120 kph (33.3 m/s) (EDIT: I think I have the correct figure now)
A blue whale has a mass of 170,000 kilograms

Momentum is P=20,400,000 5,666,667. I have no idea what that translates into. Anyone have a good comparison?

However, with the mass of a blue whale, but three times as long, it's density seems pretty low. Unless, of course, it has a very narrow cross-section.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Sat Aug 31, 2013 12:12 pm UTC
Bah-dum, tss.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:01 pm UTC
I'm sure the real problem is that the comparison monster is being made so frequently. Makes it very hard to eliminate entirely.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 12:11 am UTC
BlitzGirl wrote:As much fun as a barrel of molpies!
Select amount of fun (each line is twice as much fun as the line preceding):
• a gallon of monkeys
• a firkin of monkeys
• a kilderkin of monkeys
• a barrel of monkeys
• a butt of monkeys
• a tun of monkeys

The most useful point on this scale appears to be near the middle.

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:46 am UTC
As much fun as quarter of a monkey...

### Re: 1257: "Monster"

Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 9:21 am UTC
Klear wrote:As much fun as quarter of a monkey...

Which quarter?