1001: "AAAAAA"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
boothby171
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:56 pm UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby boothby171 » Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:10 pm UTC

Well, I can tell you from PERSONAL experience that spinning a 22' foot diameter turntable with performers on it at 6rpm (I used a 30 HP motor to get a good, consistent speed; yes, there were gearboxes involved) is WAY too fast. 15% G at the perimeter, and I was flinging people off right and left. Now, let's see...nominal 8' diameter....I'll have to get back to you.

User avatar
boothby171
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:56 pm UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby boothby171 » Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:13 pm UTC

And that stalactite is just....wrong. Either my respect for ST has just dropped, or my respect for Spock-on-Kirk Fanfic has just...umm...risen (I'm choosing the former).

Gumbril
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:19 pm UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby Gumbril » Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:35 pm UTC

drachel wrote: My problem was that "they must be equal weight" was followed up by saying that them being the same weight was somehow wrong.


Your "problem" is that females select for taller, stronger males.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby addams » Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:38 pm UTC

javahead wrote:Ok, seriously, in regards to the counter-weight arguments:

THEY'RE STICK FIGURES!

That is all.

Thank you.


You are so right.
.com/162/

Stick figures. Like the books some people used to read. Just 2D.

This strip has made me laugh and made me cry. It is like a good book. One of the best that I have ever read.

The Hotel New Hampshire was the first book that left me with tears on my face while I was laughing at the silliness a death in the family can cause.

I think that I could do it. I might be able to make a bed like that. What would be the point? A bed that behaves its self most of the time. But; Like a weird dog or a child behaves in strange and unusual ways when guests arrive, the bed acts funny, too.

Now; We all want a bed that can do tricks. The Poster above was right. It is in the gearing.

O.K.! Someone make this bed! Then, put it in public. We all want to see it! I do!
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.

dp2
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:06 pm UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby dp2 » Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:46 pm UTC

drachel wrote:
CanadianNomad wrote:They *have* to be almost equal weight or they would both fly off in a twirly mess. And that is exactly the type of observation I would expect from XKCD forum posters. I doubt the OP was referring to anything you just brought up, just pure 'simple' mechanics.
dp2 wrote:Or you could be less uptight and take it to mean "too fat/thin for the spinning bed to work properly".

The fact that someone thought about the mechanics of it and figured out that they must be equal weight because they're balanced is absolutely fine. So far, so geeky. My problem was that "they must be equal weight" was followed up by saying that them being the same weight was somehow wrong.

Adam H and babble: thanks - I know my post was a bit of a screed, and I'm glad someone got what I was trying to say.

Again, wrong for a specific purpose. A 120 lb woman (or man for that matter) is WRONG for an NFL linebacker.

RogueCynic
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:23 pm UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby RogueCynic » Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:14 pm UTC

Hilarious comic, I expect "Jackass" to rip it off someday. As to the weight differentials, They are both holding on to the sheet. One is the weight keeping the other from flying off. And why are we assuming the bed is circular? A square bed can rotate just as easily.
I am Lord Titanius Englesmith, Fancyman of Cornwood.
See 1 Kings 7:23 for pi.
If you put a prune in a juicer, what would you get?

User avatar
RyanfaeScotland
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:13 pm UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby RyanfaeScotland » Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:49 pm UTC

RogueCynic wrote:... And why are we assuming the bed is circular? ...


Because we can see it is in the third panel?

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby addams » Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:26 pm UTC

RyanfaeScotland wrote:
RogueCynic wrote:... And why are we assuming the bed is circular? ...


Because we can see it is in the third panel?


Yeah. But; Square beds are easier to get.
A spinning Square bed would be just as much fun.

Maybe, not. Once a person has fallen off the corners may be a problem.
The corners may be a way to get back on, too.

I have no, none, zero, experience with spinning beds.

Oh! There was that one time in Ireland. But; The bed was not 'really' spinning. Sure seemed like it was spinning, to me. Now, I don't want one, again.
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
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby Adam H » Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:45 pm UTC

dp2 wrote:Again, wrong for a specific purpose. A 120 lb woman (or man for that matter) is WRONG for an NFL linebacker.
No, you're forgetting what the original insulting comment was. The comment said that because the female and the male apparently weigh the same (otherwise they couldn't stay on the bed), that means that the female is "too fat" and/or the male is "too thin". The two people's weights are in fact "right" for the specific purpose of staying on the bed, but "wrong" for societal conventions.

Edit: hmmm after going back and looking at DBPZ's post, he may have meant something completely different than what I took it as. MAYBE.
DBPZ wrote:Apparently they're weighted the same. The girl is too fat or the guy is too thin.
-Adam

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby Fire Brns » Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:16 pm UTC

I do not think they are the same couple depicted in earlier comics; the girl's haircut seems wat too late 50's early 60's.

Adam H wrote:
dp2 wrote:Again, wrong for a specific purpose. A 120 lb woman (or man for that matter) is WRONG for an NFL linebacker.
No, you're forgetting what the original insulting comment was. The comment said that because the female and the male apparently weigh the same (otherwise they couldn't stay on the bed), that means that the female is "too fat" and/or the male is "too thin". The two people's weights are in fact "right" for the specific purpose of staying on the bed, but "wrong" for societal conventions.

Edit: hmmm after going back and looking at DBPZ's post, he may have meant something completely different than what I took it as. MAYBE.
DBPZ wrote:Apparently they're weighted the same. The girl is too fat or the guy is too thin.
Maybe indeed. To an earlier point, how often do you find 2 people in a relationship who have the exact same weight within margins of a few ounces? I didn't take DBPZ's comment as sexist but as an observation on probabilty.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

sbarr
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:54 pm UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby sbarr » Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:23 pm UTC

I'm sorry, but I have to ask. Why do they have to be the same weight? If they are different weights then they would feel different forces for sure, but they could both be feeling different forces that are both within their respective abilities to overcome. This would lead to an imbalance on the stresses on the bed and whatever mechanism is holding it down, but probably not enough to cause problems. Go to a playground and get on the merry-go-round, you can have two people with different weights both hold on when it's going, even going pretty fast.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby Fire Brns » Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:30 pm UTC

sbarr wrote:I'm sorry, but I have to ask. Why do they have to be the same weight? If they are different weights then they would feel different forces for sure, but they could both be feeling different forces that are both within their respective abilities to overcome. This would lead to an imbalance on the stresses on the bed and whatever mechanism is holding it down, but probably not enough to cause problems. Go to a playground and get on the merry-go-round, you can have two people with different weights both hold on when it's going, even going pretty fast.
Those things are built industrially to hold 30 kids with no stress on the structure; the bed manufacturer would be less inclined to make a design to support a large number of people [Insert poligamy joke here].
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
RAGBRAIvet
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:50 pm UTC
Location: 43° 53' 03" -91° 14' 06"

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby RAGBRAIvet » Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:36 pm UTC

musicgeek wrote:Gear ratios, people. It's all about the gear ratios.

Or a rheostat.

"Z"

sbarr
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:54 pm UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby sbarr » Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:
sbarr wrote:I'm sorry, but I have to ask. Why do they have to be the same weight? If they are different weights then they would feel different forces for sure, but they could both be feeling different forces that are both within their respective abilities to overcome. This would lead to an imbalance on the stresses on the bed and whatever mechanism is holding it down, but probably not enough to cause problems. Go to a playground and get on the merry-go-round, you can have two people with different weights both hold on when it's going, even going pretty fast.
Those things are built industrially to hold 30 kids with no stress on the structure; the bed manufacturer would be less inclined to make a design to support a large number of people [Insert poligamy joke here].


I know if I were building a rotating bed, like the couple in the comic are, I would start by "borrowing" parts from the merry-go-round down the street, and since they found a motor strong enough to move them that fast, I'm assuming they have access to the right materials to make it strong enough, if they don't have a merry-go-round close by. But these are assumptions of course, and I do know what happens when you assume.

User avatar
RAGBRAIvet
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:50 pm UTC
Location: 43° 53' 03" -91° 14' 06"

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby RAGBRAIvet » Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:41 pm UTC

boothby171 wrote:Well, I can tell you from PERSONAL experience that spinning a 22' foot diameter turntable with performers on it at 6rpm (I used a 30 HP motor to get a good, consistent speed; yes, there were gearboxes involved) is WAY too fast. 15% G at the perimeter, and I was flinging people off right and left. Now, let's see...nominal 8' diameter....I'll have to get back to you.

There have been bars and supper clubs, such as the Gobbler Restaurant near Johnson Creek WI along I-94, that had a circular, spinning bar. Can't remember the exact diameter of the turntable, but it seems to me the rotational speed was something like 2 or 3 revs per hour, and at that speed it was almost imperceptible.

"Z"

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby Fire Brns » Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:42 pm UTC

sbarr wrote: and I do know what happens when you assume.

http://xkcd.com/1001/?
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
cjmcjmcjmcjm
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:15 am UTC
Location: Anywhere the internet is strong

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby cjmcjmcjmcjm » Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:46 pm UTC

Bubble wrote:VVVVVV?

PPPPPPowerup!
frezik wrote:Anti-photons move at the speed of dark

DemonDeluxe wrote:Paying to have laws written that allow you to do what you want, is a lot cheaper than paying off the judge every time you want to get away with something shady.

Scott Auld
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:42 pm UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby Scott Auld » Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:07 pm UTC

Assuming both characters are healthy adults, either character could move slightly inward or outward from the center to counter the minor difference in mass between them.

BTW - how does one draw a fat stick figure?

User avatar
Eugo
Posts: 272
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 5:38 am UTC
Location: here
Contact:

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby Eugo » Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:19 pm UTC

DBPZ wrote:Now, I know your post was probably intended as light-hearted, and you weren't looking to move a debate in that direction, so this undoubtably seems like a complete overreaction. However, given the awful messages we are bombarded with about gender and body image, I bristle at any policing of bodies or relationships, and the fact it might be unintentional doesn't actually make it harmless. I can choose to make mis-configured rotating beds with whatever weight of girl I fall for, thank you very much.

And his whole point, if there was any, would be made irrelevant by shifting the heavier partner closer to the center (relative to the lighter partner). Same as on any see-saw.

OTOH, I don't expect them to engage in any sex. Look at the comic number... she'll tell him stories.
United we stand politically corrected, divided we fall in love

Cal Engime
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 8:41 am UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby Cal Engime » Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:40 pm UTC

All this chatter about cultural expectations of body image and still no explanation of what the appeal of a rotating bed is supposed to be. xkcd forum posters, I am disappointed.

User avatar
Adam H
Posts: 1267
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby Adam H » Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:10 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:To an earlier point, how often do you find 2 people in a relationship who have the exact same weight within margins of a few ounces? I didn't take DBPZ's comment as sexist but as an observation on probabilty.
It's hard to believe that he said "apparently they weigh the same, the girl is too fat and the guy is too thin," and you heard "They weigh the same? That's improbable!"

sbarr wrote:Why do they have to be the same weight?
They're holding onto the sheets. Also, they are roughly the same distance from the center of the bed, but that's a minor point.
-Adam

userxp
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:40 pm UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby userxp » Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:22 pm UTC

Adam H wrote:
sbarr wrote:Why do they have to be the same weight?
They're holding onto the sheets. Also, they are roughly the same distance from the center of the bed, but that's a minor point.

Yes, but what is the friction between the sheets and the bed? Also, they might not be holding just onto the sheets.

TheSingingNerd
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:21 pm UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby TheSingingNerd » Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:40 pm UTC

Since the characters are speaking in English lets assume that they live in the United States or the UK.

Wikipedia lists the average male weight in the US as 191lbs and the average female weight as 164lbs. In the UK the differences it's 185lbs for males and 152lbs for females. So the average male weighs 30ish pounds more than the average female.

If we assume that A.) they are only holding onto the sheets B.) are roughly the same distance from the center of the circle and C.) The coefficient of static friction on the bed isn't too high....then we can say they weigh roughly the same weight to counterbalance each other.

If all these assumptions are true than its fair to say that either the female is above-average weight, the male is below average weight, or a combination of the two. But to label them fat or thin seems rude.

Malikat
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 8:10 am UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby Malikat » Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:46 pm UTC

I would love to make this, but instead of using a mattress, bolt together four corners of a sectional couch. (the round corners, of course, not the squared corners)
Then you steal the rheostat idea in order to have either "slowly turn while laying on the flat central depression" mode, or "holy crap stuck to the outside of the couchbed" mode.

I don't know which one would be most optimal for turning on a lady.
(My friend comments that one mode specifically would most excite a 10 year old, though I'm not sure what he's getting at..)

sbarr
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:54 pm UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby sbarr » Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:16 am UTC

userxp wrote:
Adam H wrote:
sbarr wrote:Why do they have to be the same weight?
They're holding onto the sheets. Also, they are roughly the same distance from the center of the bed, but that's a minor point.

Yes, but what is the friction between the sheets and the bed? Also, they might not be holding just onto the sheets.


I assumed it was some sort of latex material firmly attached to the round bed mattress, not loose sheets (if you're into spinning in beds, you might be into other stuff as well) Also, from the top down view, the covering (whatever material it may be) was not fanning out, as a loose sheet might. I think the only way to settle this is to make it and put people of various weights on it, sounds like a great idea for my daughters first science fair project (I promise I'll just supervise, really).

User avatar
faunablues
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:14 am UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby faunablues » Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:11 am UTC

If the "too fat, too thin" poster actually meant "overweight, underweight," that also ignores the possibility that both characters are underweight or both are overweight. Unless the poster meant "heavier, lighter". Even with those terms, though, it makes the assumption that the girl weight is, by default, going to be less than the guy weight.

It's interesting to see this veiled in the realities of gender dimorphism. First, the recommended weight range for a man or woman of the same height is actually going to be the same. Second, the reason for the difference in average weights for women or men (excluding other factors) is because of the average height difference. So if each character is 5'7", there's nothing really inconsistent other than the fact that they'd have to be equally under/overweight or whatever. It's funny that people defend the original statement by something like "but that difference in weight is how it is in most couples!", but I don't think there would be maybe even one mention if the characters were implied to be the same height. Would someone have posted "They seem to be the same height. Either the girl's too tall, or the guy's too short."? And if they did, wouldn't people sensibly chime in with "people are different... not everyone is average," or, "isn't it a bit judgmental to say that the girl is too tall, and the guy is too short?". I think this type of reaction makes even more sense concerning weight, since it could be a matter of being the same height (same issue!), and because there are more factors influencing weight. If someone's heavier than the other, maybe they're taller, maybe they have more muscle, maybe they're fatter, maybe they have a heavier-built frame. There are a number of possibilities.

The problem with "too fat, too thin" isn't that the average weight is different between sexes, but that what is average is equated with what one should be. It's really the problem with gender norms; you must try to be average for your gender (or in some cases, the extreme of what the other gender is not). Also, it shows that this "girl smaller, guy bigger" is the mental default, since we're projecting that onto two stick figures. Stick figures - they have no realistic dimensions. It's like the idea that we assume a plain smiley face is male, because maleness is default, and to be female it'd have to have eyelashes or lipstick or a bow or something. Here the default is the height (and by extension weight) difference, and the most problematic part is insisting that that's how it's supposed to be, and if the characters fall outside of that, they're too much of something.

Yours truly,
Someone who is the same height as her boyfriend

User avatar
MitraSmit
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 2:44 pm UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby MitraSmit » Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:52 am UTC

Actually, when you compare the data of women and men with the same heights, the female weight will most likely still be less on average (source: http://dined.io.tudelft.nl/dined/). However, when a man and woman have the same height, at least one of them is already very far from the gender average (P6 or P98) or both are, less dramatically; the weight distribution is actually wider, which means for a man and woman to have the same weight is more common. When you've already found a couple with the same length, it is therefore not strange if they weigh the same as well.

Okay, I admit it's not rocket science, but I guess this should make sense? The chance of a couple being the same height is smaller than the chance of them having the same weight. And when you've established one of those, the chance of the other also being true greatly increases.
- I don't have time for these bugs
-OK then just leave them out

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5590
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby Eternal Density » Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:40 am UTC

I can't relate to this at all.
Arancaytar wrote:For SCIENCE!
You monster.
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby Fire Brns » Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:41 am UTC

Adam H wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:To an earlier point, how often do you find 2 people in a relationship who have the exact same weight within margins of a few ounces? I didn't take DBPZ's comment as sexist but as an observation on probabilty.
It's hard to believe that he said "apparently they weigh the same, the girl is too fat and the guy is too thin," and you heard "They weigh the same? That's improbable!"

DBPZ never stated opinions on "too fat" or "too thin", he was simply stating as said above "overweight/underweight" in layman's terms. And there is generally a difference in weight between men and women whether or not it is because of biological or social reasons.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

moz1959
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:26 am UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby moz1959 » Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:54 am UTC

I'm surprised that nobody else has mentioned that you don't need to build such a bed. Enough alcohol and it will spin all by itself! :mrgreen:

wigwam
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:17 am UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby wigwam » Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:20 am UTC

This would be an interesting way to implement an alarm clock.

User avatar
The Moomin
Posts: 359
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:59 am UTC
Location: Yorkshire

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby The Moomin » Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:48 am UTC

userxp wrote:"AAAAAA"? AAAAAAA AA AA aaaa://aaaaaaaaaaaa.aaaaa.aaa/aaaa/AAAAAAAAA!
AAAAA AAAAA wrote:AAAAAAAAA!


AAAAAA(A): AAAAA AA AAA AA AAAAAA AAAAA AAAA AA. AAA AA AAAA AAAAAA A AAAAA AAAAA? :roll:
Spoiler:
AAA AAAAA A AAA :mrgreen:.

AAAAA AAAAA AAA AA AAAAAAA AAAA AAAAAA AAAAAA AAAAAAA


This post and the link really made me laugh. I was chuckling about it on the drive in to work this morning.

Thankyou for brightening another dull gray Tuesday morning.
I'm alive because the cats are alive.
The cats are alive because I'm alive.
Specious.

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby AvatarIII » Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:29 am UTC

I thought this would help the weight argument, via google, it's not a very good graph though, because inexplicably taller people seem to be really light, but it's a basic visualisation.

Image

User avatar
VectorZero
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:22 am UTC
Location: Kensington

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby VectorZero » Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:22 pm UTC

I... What? Sources please. That graph makes no sense; weight v height should not be a bell curve.

Each a bell curve when plotted against probability, sure. But weight should increase roughly proportionally to the square of height.

(your point is taken, however a correctly labelled graph would help. And probably one not sourced from a gender studies major's blog based on what she remembered from a sociology lecture. Incidentally, does anyone know the inter and Intra gender variance for elite athletes? I'm pretty sure women wouldn't win many olympic medals in athletics or swimming etc if they competed against men directly. Looking at the Beijing medalists for swimming and athletics, the men's bronze medallist is usually about 10-15% faster/further etc than the women's gold medallist. Obviously that's not the only reason to compete in the Olympics, but it seems strange to complain about riding the edges of a bell curve when that's precisely what elite competition is about.)

Edit: can't find a nice graph, but from the NHANES study in the US 1988-94 median weight for a 30yo white male was 78kg, 5-95% 62-112kg. For women it was 63kg, 48-102kg. Make of that what you will.
Last edited by VectorZero on Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:00 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.
Van wrote:Fireballs don't lie.

musicgeek
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:09 pm UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby musicgeek » Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:27 pm UTC

Gumbril wrote:
drachel wrote: My problem was that "they must be equal weight" was followed up by saying that them being the same weight was somehow wrong.


Your "problem" is that females select for taller, stronger males.


My 6'1" wife would be surprised to learn that, given that I'm 5'7" on my best day.

millionmice
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 9:30 am UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby millionmice » Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:11 pm UTC

They're covered nine months later:
http://colitz.com/site/3216423/3216423.htm

The present invention relates to apparatus which utilizes centrifugal force to facilitate the birth of a child at less stress to the mother.


I shamefully submit that I've forgotten how to embed links. 5 years of tertiary education can do that to a man.
Last edited by millionmice on Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:26 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
VectorZero
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:22 am UTC
Location: Kensington

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby VectorZero » Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:18 pm UTC

It'll never catch on.

Funny you mention that though. I popped back to throw my personal two cents on the couple weight issue: my wife and I have similar weights, she's towards one end of the healthy range, I'm towards the other.

She's also pregnant.
Van wrote:Fireballs don't lie.

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby AvatarIII » Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:25 pm UTC

VectorZero wrote:I... What? Sources please. That graph makes no sense; weight v height should not be a bell curve.

Each a bell curve when plotted against probability, sure. But weight should increase roughly proportionally to the square of height.

(your point is taken, however a correctly labelled graph would help. And probably one not sourced from a gender studies major's blog based on what she remembered from a sociology lecture. Incidentally, does anyone know the inter and Intra gender variance for elite athletes? I'm pretty sure women wouldn't win many olympic medals in athletics or swimming etc if they competed against men directly. Looking at the Beijing medalists for swimming and athletics, the men's bronze medallist is usually about 10-15% faster/further etc than the women's gold medallist. Obviously that's not the only reason to compete in the Olympics, but it seems strange to complain about riding the edges of a bell curve when that's precisely what elite competition is about.)

Edit: can't find a nice graph, but from the NHANES study in the US 1988-94 median weight for a 30yo white male was 78kg, 5-95% 62-112kg. For women it was 63kg, 48-102kg. Make of that what you will.



yeah I know, it's horrible, I put in male vs female weight graph into google and found it.
it came from here http://www.sociology.org/columnists/mic ... ent-page-1

User avatar
VectorZero
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:22 am UTC
Location: Kensington

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby VectorZero » Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:38 pm UTC

Oh dear. Some anvils need to be dropped, and I support the vibe of that piece wholeheartedly, but that author doesn't do themselves much credit by his whole 'you can't argue with this; everything that says otherwise is biased' creed. Besides, it's a bit out of date.. women were the majority in my class at med school. (if he can ignore science I can use anecdotal evidence dammit!)
Van wrote:Fireballs don't lie.

User avatar
boothby171
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 8:56 pm UTC

Re: 1001: "AAAAAA"

Postby boothby171 » Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:39 pm UTC

Actually, since the equation for centripetal force is very straightforward (forgive me for not having an equation editor handy):

P = (Wgt/gc)*R*w^2

We can make the following easy assumption: They are both spinning at the same rate. Given that (and the fact that the centripetal force is most sensitive to the spin rate), the force from each person on the bedsheet is:

Wgt_1*R1 = Wgt2*R2 + K

K would equal the friction required on the bedsheet to keep them from being flung off. Assuming silk sheets (only the best for our stick figures), so that K = 0, we have the required equality:

Wgt_1/Wgt_2 = R2/R1

So, they may be different weights, as long as they adjust the distance from the bed's rotation center to their individual centers of gravity.

But, as I'm sure ALL of you can determine, this is an inherently unstable situation. The moment one radius increases, the other decreases by the same amount, the imbalance force increases, and the system heterodynes. And you are flung.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BytEfLUSh, Google [Bot] and 112 guests