1338: "Land Mammals"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9967
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby addams » Thu Mar 06, 2014 5:42 pm UTC

Moose Anus wrote:
Nylonathatep wrote:
Bounty wrote:Your logic is backwards. If the problem is "Food animals produce greenhouse gases", using the solution "eat fewer animals" would actually increase the population, which increases the amount of gas produced. Obviously if uneaten tasty, tasty meat creatures produce CO2 eating MORE of them will help the enviornment. So have a second hamburger, it might just help save the planet!


Except these are farm animals. If we don't want to eat as much cattle, we could just breed less of them... ???
Every sperm is sacred.

Does that make the Sperm Whale the most sacred of all?

Rules. So many rules.
Do we eat a lot of it, because it is sacred?
Or; Do we eat none of it, because it is sacred?

by Trickster » Thu Mar 06, 2014 9:25 am UTC

Vir4030 wrote:
Why would Randall not have labelled everything completely? It's an affront to the whole comic!

Theory: xkcd is the biggest troll in history. From here on in, labels will get spottier and the information more and more inaccurate. It will become the M. Night Shamalamadingdong of webcomics. :twisted:

xkcd as the biggest troll in history?
That is a little extreme.

Maybe; He has turned it over to a group of friends.
Each one takes a Stab at it.

What do we think?
It is a conversation starter.

Not much more.

It is nice when the Comic sends the crowd
on a search for Truth and Meaning.

It is nice when the Comic touches something we know something about.
Like Cold. We know about Cold.

Not enough Labels?
"If it's not Labeled;
It's not Science."


Some of the Comics that Were Labeled,
Were Labeled Wrong!
(and; that made it funny, somehow.)

Well…. Some were labeled Right/Wrong.
Go upper 5.
Some funny labels on that one. right? wrong?

Spoiler:
We are not going to Space, today.
Are we?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Boilerplate
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:05 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Boilerplate » Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:11 pm UTC

Steve the Pocket wrote:I don't understand the decision to break the unlabeled groups into random chunks. Are they meant to represent anything? For that matter, is there any significance to the random blob nature of this infographic at all besides making it look less like a dry infographic that doesn't belong on a webcomic's site?


The temptation is to make the cattle blob look like a cow, and the human like a human. But that simplistic approach so popular in many publications is deceptive, because the viewer imputes depth and volume to each element. (Thy typical error is to have a person twice as tall as another representing a number twice as big, when that intuitively conveys a mass 8 times greater).

Boilerplate
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:05 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Boilerplate » Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:13 pm UTC

Ool wrote:Since I eat a lot more chicken than beef I wonder how large a blob they and other fowl would be...


Do you eat cheese? Not all cattle is raised for beef.

Boilerplate
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:05 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Boilerplate » Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:14 pm UTC

TheSoberPirate wrote:And yet, where I work in Texas, people think we need more cows...


Doesn't everybody cast their vote at the grocery store on that question? How is Texas different?

Boilerplate
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:05 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Boilerplate » Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:16 pm UTC

Lazy Tommy wrote:[If we've crowded out wildlife to such an extent even at our present population size, what chance of survival does large wildlife have? It's pretty depressing.


Cheer up. The news is not that the wildlife is missing. The news is that humans have miraculously found a way to make the planet sustain (sustainably) so many more people than it would if we were wild creatures.

Thank human intelligence, and lots of cows and sheep eating grass!

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1554
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:32 pm UTC

Mental image:
Dr. Evil, originating in a barter society.

"I will target my nuclear laser at all of the world's capitals unless I receive.." pinky to mouth "one HUNDRED MILLION tons of cattle!"

Krealr wrote:Milked many chickens lately? :mrgreen:
Does that make coconuts mammals? Does thier migration disqualify them as land mammals?
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Klear » Thu Mar 06, 2014 6:37 pm UTC

Quizatzhaderac wrote:
Krealr wrote:Milked many chickens lately? :mrgreen:
Does that make coconuts mammals? Does thier migration disqualify them as land mammals?


Coconuts are monkey eggs. Also, I'd appreciate if someone reminded me of where this idea came from... I'm thinking some webcomic, but my search came up with nothing.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26439
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Mar 06, 2014 7:37 pm UTC

Trickster wrote:
Krealr wrote:Milked many chickens lately? :mrgreen:

Don't be so smug.

Actually, smugness is entirely justified here, since you apparently still haven't read the title of the comic or of this thread, or the physically largest word in the comic image itself.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Krealr
Posts: 157
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:22 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Krealr » Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:32 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Trickster wrote:
Krealr wrote:Milked many chickens lately? :mrgreen:

Don't be so smug.

Actually, smugness is entirely justified here, since you apparently still haven't read the title of the comic or of this thread, or the physically largest word in the comic image itself.


I was going to reply but I see you beat me too it. :P

Trickster I was trying to give you a hint while being a bit silly but I think you missed it.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1410
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby mathmannix » Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:41 pm UTC

In addition to the certain female members of all mammal species, one can also milk soybeans, almonds, coconuts, rice, hemp (!), and even silkworms... but then, a second requirement of mammals is to have hair, which only the coconuts and silkworms qualify for in this list.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
Coyoty
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:56 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Coyoty » Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:59 pm UTC

keithl wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Wait, by mass, what's the ratio of cow to human?


There's a "yo mama so fat" joke in there somewhere.


Yo mammal's so fat, when she sits around the horse...

User avatar
slinches
Slinches get Stinches
Posts: 1009
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:23 am UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby slinches » Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:17 am UTC

I'm just glad that Randall clarified that he's referring to Earth's land mammals. It would be a terribly inaccurate graphic of land mammals on Mars or the Moon.

User avatar
chridd
Has a vermicelli title
Posts: 822
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:07 am UTC
Location: ...Earth, I guess?
Contact:

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby chridd » Fri Mar 07, 2014 4:30 am UTC

slinches wrote:I'm just glad that Randall clarified that he's referring to Earth's land mammals. It would be a terribly inaccurate graphic of land mammals on Mars or the Moon.
...well, it could have been the universe's land mammals, in which case it may or may not be inaccurate, since we don't yet know if there are any aliens out there who we would classify as mammals. (Although if you define mammal in terms of a common ancestor, all mammals are almost certainly on Earth.) More realistically, it could have been about a single continent's or a single country's land mammals.
~ chri d. d. /tʃɹɪ.di.di/ (Phonotactics, schmphonotactics) · she(?)(?(?)(?))(?(?(?))(?))(?) · Forum game scores
I'm cool, just look at my sunglasses. 8-)
mittfh wrote:I wish this post was very quotable...
flicky1991 wrote:In both cases the quote is "I'm being quoted too much!"

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9967
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby addams » Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 am UTC

Klear wrote:Coconuts are monkey eggs.
Spoiler:
Also, I'd appreciate if someone reminded me of where this idea came from... I'm thinking some webcomic, but my search came up with nothing.

Yes! This is the kind of Truth I like!

Yes, Klear;
You tell them, "Monkeys come from these monkey seeds."
I will back you up with a 'straight face'.

Spoiler:
These people believe in Santa.
Monkey eggs, are more believable.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Klear » Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:17 am UTC

slinches wrote:I'm just glad that Randall clarified that he's referring to Earth's land mammals. It would be a terribly inaccurate graphic of land mammals on Mars or the Moon.


I think it's important that it is pointed out that this is a global situation.

User avatar
Trickster
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:56 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Trickster » Fri Mar 07, 2014 7:02 pm UTC

Klear wrote:Chickens are not land mammals. He even made that part of the comic extra large, yet people keep overlooking/forgetting it (including me, more than once).

Well. I'm fairly certain this is the dumbest that xkcd has made me feel this year. :P
Last edited by Trickster on Fri Mar 07, 2014 7:13 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Trickster
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:56 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Trickster » Fri Mar 07, 2014 7:12 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Actually, smugness is entirely justified here, since you apparently still haven't read the title of the comic or of this thread, or the physically largest word in the comic image itself.

Okay, I get it. Somehow my mind went mammal --> meat and pet --> it is delicious chicken.

Krealr wrote:Trickster I was trying to give you a hint while being a bit silly but I think you missed it.

Yeah, I know. I have the dumb today. Or yesterday. Probably both.

Klear wrote:Chickens are not land mammals. He even made that part of the comic extra large...

Right, I know. :P Land bird not land mammal, though wait didn't I respond to this one already-

Krealr wrote:Milked many chickens

OH GOD MAKE IT STOP :|

:wink:

speising
Posts: 2265
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby speising » Fri Mar 07, 2014 9:59 pm UTC

Trickster wrote:
Klear wrote:Chickens are not land mammals. He even made that part of the comic extra large, yet people keep overlooking/forgetting it (including me, more than once).

Well. I'm fairly certain this is the dumbest that xkcd has made me feel this year. :P

the year's still young.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Klear » Fri Mar 07, 2014 11:26 pm UTC

Trickster wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Actually, smugness is entirely justified here, since you apparently still haven't read the title of the comic or of this thread, or the physically largest word in the comic image itself.

Okay, I get it. Somehow my mind went mammal --> meat and pet --> it is delicious chicken.


Chickens are not mammals though!

Spoiler:
I'm a terrible person.

User avatar
ThirdParty
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:53 pm UTC
Location: USA

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby ThirdParty » Sat Mar 08, 2014 2:18 am UTC

orthogon wrote:
ThirdParty wrote:the number of kilogram-hours of cow that go into producing one pound of beef is about ten times larger than the number of kilogram-hours of chicken that go into producing one pound of chicken.
Kilogram-hours per pound; the composite unit of choice for forward-looking people who don't want to abandon the past either. ;)
Well, where I live, we buy meat by the "pound" and energy by the "kilowatt-hour". So the natural unit for measuring the energy costs of meat would have been "kilowatt-hours per pound". But since I was interested in the biomass costs rather than the energy costs, I changed "watt" to "gram". It made perfect sense at the time.

I guess the S.I. unit for biomass costs of meat would have been "seconds" rather than "kilogram-hours per pound". But that'd be like measuring rainfall in "centimeters" rather than in "barrels per hectare". It's more concise, but the concision comes at the expense of making it harder to visualize what's really going on.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2425
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Copper Bezel » Sat Mar 08, 2014 8:46 am UTC

But that'd be like measuring rainfall in "centimeters" rather than in "barrels per hectare".

Pretty sure that you're still abusing units, but now I'm also convinced that they like it.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Klear » Sat Mar 08, 2014 9:23 am UTC

ThirdParty wrote:But that'd be like measuring rainfall in "centimeters" rather than in "barrels per hectare". It's more concise, but the concision comes at the expense of making it harder to visualize what's really going on.


I find it kinda hard to imagine how exactly would a barrel of water evenly spread over hectare look like. Centimetres simply tell you how high would the water level grow if the water didn't soak away.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26439
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Mar 08, 2014 1:55 pm UTC

Yeah, for most people I think measuring rain and snow in height is the more intuitive option. A better example might have been fuel efficiency as an area (or inverse area for us mpg folks).
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Sat Mar 08, 2014 3:12 pm UTC

ThirdParty wrote:
orthogon wrote:
ThirdParty wrote:the number of kilogram-hours of cow that go into producing one pound of beef is about ten times larger than the number of kilogram-hours of chicken that go into producing one pound of chicken.
Kilogram-hours per pound; the composite unit of choice for forward-looking people who don't want to abandon the past either. ;)
Well, where I live, we buy meat by the "pound" and energy by the "kilowatt-hour". So the natural unit for measuring the energy costs of meat would have been "kilowatt-hours per pound". But since I was interested in the biomass costs rather than the energy costs, I changed "watt" to "gram". It made perfect sense at the time.

I guess the S.I. unit for biomass costs of meat would have been "seconds" rather than "kilogram-hours per pound". But that'd be like measuring rainfall in "centimeters" rather than in "barrels per hectare". It's more concise, but the concision comes at the expense of making it harder to visualize what's really going on.

We use millimeters here, but same difference. But how would one know what barrels were used? Did they use 1 l barrels? 1 m3 barrels? Maybe they were oil barrels of one of various standards or 1 gallon (imperial or US) barrels...

I think you have a fair point about the meat part though: is kgliving animal the same as kgdead edible part of the animal? Your unit makes it easier to resist the urge to just cross out the kgs from the equation.
gmalivuk wrote:Yeah, for most people I think measuring rain and snow in height is the more intuitive option. A better example might have been fuel efficiency as an area (or inverse area for us mpg folks).

For snow definitely, but I'm not so sure about rain. Although the snow analogy makes it easily explainable.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26439
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Mar 08, 2014 4:04 pm UTC

What use does an average person get from knowing the volume of water that rained on a particular area of land? Seems more useful to know how much deeper your pool will be or how much standing water you'd have in your yard if there's no drainage.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
ThirdParty
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:53 pm UTC
Location: USA

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby ThirdParty » Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:19 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:What use does an average person get from knowing the volume of water that rained on a particular area of land? Seems more useful to know how much deeper your pool will be or how much standing water you'd have in your yard if there's no drainage.
Well, if you're interested in whether the nearby river will overflow its banks, you'll care more about how much total water entered its drainage basin than about how deep the water would be if it were going to sit where it fell rather than running into the river. Likewise for similar questions like whether your basement will flood. "2 cm of evenly-distributed water" doesn't sound very threatening; "1600 barrels of water that will seek the lowest point in the area" is much more obviously a problem.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26439
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:47 pm UTC

Do you know how many barrels per second that river can handle before overflowing? Even still, rivers and lakes flood areas when their depth goes above a certain level, so why convert from depth (in some rain gauge or other) to (obscure unit of) volume per area, then multiply by total area to get volume, then divide by the area of a body of water to get back to depth? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply note that 1cm of rain over the 10km2 area that drains into this 1km2 lake neatly corresponds to an increase in 10cm of depth for the lake?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Sat Mar 08, 2014 9:49 pm UTC

ThirdParty wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:What use does an average person get from knowing the volume of water that rained on a particular area of land? Seems more useful to know how much deeper your pool will be or how much standing water you'd have in your yard if there's no drainage.
Well, if you're interested in whether the nearby river will overflow its banks, you'll care more about how much total water entered its drainage basin than about how deep the water would be if it were going to sit where it fell rather than running into the river. Likewise for similar questions like whether your basement will flood. "2 cm of evenly-distributed water" doesn't sound very threatening; "1600 barrels of water that will seek the lowest point in the area" is much more obviously a problem.

Most weather predictions don't cover entire river drainage basins, except for tiny rivers. It's less of an issue if you take only the first 100 km from the rivers source, but that's only interesting for the people living that high. Besides, a lot of rivers don't flood from recent precipitation but from melting months old snow.

As for the basement: I think the water level in a basement is usually just groundwater level (except in case of some serious design flaws). Otherwise, I don't think it should flood unless you locally heighten the groundwater (like when creating the ice rink you created next to it thaws). This does happen due to rain (or when living in certain areas because the government decides to alter the water level for some nature or infrastructure project), but I don't think rainfall is sufficiently local to warrant expressing precipitation per small surface area.

User avatar
PM 2Ring
Posts: 3646
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 3:19 pm UTC
Location: Mid north coast, NSW, Australia

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby PM 2Ring » Sun Mar 09, 2014 4:31 am UTC

ThirdParty wrote:But that'd be like measuring rainfall in "centimeters" rather than in "barrels per hectare". It's more concise, but the concision comes at the expense of making it harder to visualize what's really going on.

Is rainfall actually reported in volume per area format where you live? If so, I find that rather strange. I've only ever heard rainfall reported in terms of rain gauge depth. But I guess if I'd grown up with barrels per acre (or whatever), then rain gauge depth might seem odd.

FWIW, in Australia rainfall is reported in millimetres, and 1 millimetre = 1 litre / 1 square metre = 10 kilolitres / hectare.


gmalivuk wrote:Yeah, for most people I think measuring rain and snow in height is the more intuitive option. A better example might have been fuel efficiency as an area (or inverse area for us mpg folks).

* resists urge to link to thread that discusses measuring fuel consumption in picohectares. * :)

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 891
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby da Doctah » Sun Mar 09, 2014 8:09 am UTC

Klear wrote:Chickens are not mammals though!

Then why do they have breasts?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26439
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Mar 09, 2014 3:44 pm UTC

PM 2Ring wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Yeah, for most people I think measuring rain and snow in height is the more intuitive option. A better example might have been fuel efficiency as an area (or inverse area for us mpg folks).

* resists urge to link to thread that discusses measuring fuel consumption in picohectares. * :)

Well yeah, it even makes physical sense as the cross-sectional area of a thin stream of gas corresponding to what you burn. My point was simply that giving a figure in square microns or whatever is less intuitive in terms of what information people want, which is how much gass they'll need for a particular trip. "Oh, this car is a pretty good option. It gets eighty thousand square microns in the city, but that goes as low as fifty for highway driving."
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9967
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby addams » Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:39 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:
Klear wrote:Chickens are not mammals though!

Then why do they have breasts?

Boobs on chickens is a more fun conversation than
Those stupid backwards expressions of measure.
Spoiler:
Like the lumen on a needle.
The bigger the number the smaller the needle. right?
-the diameter of the lumen of the needle; the smaller the number the greater the diameter of the lumen; 30-gauge needle has a smaller internal diameter than a 25-gauge needle; needles in the U.S. are color coded by diameter.


I don't know;
Tell us.

Why do Chickens have Breasts?
For the same reason Bores have tits?

Spoiler:
Please, say, "No."
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
ThirdParty
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:53 pm UTC
Location: USA

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby ThirdParty » Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:07 am UTC

addams wrote:Boobs on chickens is a more fun conversation than
Those stupid backwards expressions of measure.

You're right. I hereby resign my defense of all silly silly-unit-related claims except "converting 'kilogram-hours per pound' to 'seconds' is like converting 'barrels per hectare' to 'centimeters'", which I still maintain to be an accurate simile.

addams wrote:Why do Chickens have Breasts?

I believe that the lumps of flesh in that part of the chicken are not mammary glands, but rather muscles used for flapping the wings. It makes intuitive sense that a flying animal would need really big wing muscles.

So instead of calling them "chicken breasts", it would be more accurate to call them ...
Spoiler:
... "chicken pecs". :D

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26439
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:44 am UTC

ThirdParty wrote:
addams wrote:Boobs on chickens is a more fun conversation than
Those stupid backwards expressions of measure.

You're right. I hereby resign my defense of all silly silly-unit-related claims except "converting 'kilogram-hours per pound' to 'seconds' is like converting 'barrels per hectare' to 'centimeters'", which I still maintain to be an accurate simile.

It's not, though, because no one converts from barrels per hectare in the first place because nothing is measured that way.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9967
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby addams » Mon Mar 10, 2014 4:43 am UTC

ThirdParty wrote:
addams wrote:Boobs on chickens is a more fun conversation than
Those stupid backwards expressions of measure.

You're right. I hereby resign my defense of all silly silly-unit-related claims except "converting 'kilogram-hours per pound' to 'seconds' is like converting 'barrels per hectare' to 'centimeters'", which I still maintain to be an accurate simile.

addams wrote:Why do Chickens have Breasts?

I believe that the lumps of flesh in that part of the chicken are not mammary glands, but rather muscles used for flapping the wings. It makes intuitive sense that a flying animal would need really big wing muscles.

So instead of calling them "chicken breasts", it would be more accurate to call them ...
Spoiler:
... "chicken pecs". :D

That is so funny.
I don't care how you did The Math.
You got the Right answer!

From this moment forward,
Chickens don't have Boobies.
Spoiler:
Chickens have Pec's.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1554
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Mon Mar 10, 2014 2:55 pm UTC

Hectares imply farmland to me. If I had to guess: I'd say barrels of water per hectare is used for irrigation. Rain being relevant because it decreases the need for irrigation.

A given crop requiring a certain amount of barrels of water per hectare per week, which under unit cancellation would become a speed. Which would make the speed of corn 37.8921838 nanometers per second1.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
Trickster
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:56 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Trickster » Mon Mar 10, 2014 6:55 pm UTC

addams wrote:From this moment forward,
Chickens don't have Boobies.

Furry fandom (or in general internets) disagrees. :V

...no I'm not going to post any images to confirm this

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1787
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby eran_rathan » Mon Mar 10, 2014 7:08 pm UTC

addams wrote:From this moment forward,
Chickens don't have Boobies.



Chickens:

Spoiler:
Image


Boobies:
Spoiler:
Image

You were expecting something else?
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26439
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Mar 10, 2014 7:15 pm UTC

Trickster wrote:
addams wrote:From this moment forward,
Chickens don't have Boobies.

Furry fandom (or in general internets) disagrees. :V
They may add mammalian secondary sexual characteristics to anthropomorphized versions of chickens (and everything else), but that is not the same as believing that actual chickens have mammaries.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Coyoty
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:56 pm UTC

Re: 1338: "Land Mammals"

Postby Coyoty » Mon Mar 10, 2014 9:15 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Trickster wrote:
addams wrote:From this moment forward,
Chickens don't have Boobies.

Furry fandom (or in general internets) disagrees. :V
They may add mammalian secondary sexual characteristics to anthropomorphized versions of chickens (and everything else), but that is not the same as believing that actual chickens have mammaries.


At least they don't have any long-term mammaries.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: da Doctah, Google [Bot] and 40 guests