In other news... (humorous news items)

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

speising
Posts: 2353
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby speising » Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:51 am UTC

addams wrote:Celibacy was...Protective


Yes. Protecting the churches wealth, by preventing any children or spouses to inherit from its (often wealthy) members.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby morriswalters » Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:02 pm UTC

addams wrote:Celibacy was...Protective.
Have I miss-understood your point?
He didn't speak to the why of celibacy. His claim was that church members of superior intelligence fell out of the gene pool by not reproducing. Which is a reach given that avowing celibacy and actually being celibate are two different things.

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1994
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Grop » Fri Dec 16, 2016 1:18 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:He didn't speak to the why of celibacy. His claim was that church members of superior intelligence fell out of the gene pool by not reproducing. Which is a reach given that avowing celibacy and actually being celibate are two different things.


On the other hand, church members of inferior intelligence wouldn't reproduce either.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby addams » Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:13 pm UTC

Grop wrote:
morriswalters wrote:He didn't speak to the why of celibacy. His claim was that church members of superior intelligence fell out of the gene pool by not reproducing. Which is a reach given that avowing celibacy and actually being celibate are two different things.


On the other hand, church members of inferior intelligence wouldn't reproduce either.
Mprris explained the part of the conversation I missed.
Thanks, Morris.

Grop; You are so Wrong.
The point that we have not changed has been made.
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.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Dec 16, 2016 7:13 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
addams wrote:Celibacy was...Protective.
Have I miss-understood your point?
He didn't speak to the why of celibacy. His claim was that church members of superior intelligence fell out of the gene pool by not reproducing. Which is a reach given that avowing celibacy and actually being celibate are two different things.


Sure. That said, given the discouragement, there's likely some correlation between the two.

I can totally see it as a negative, anti-intellectual thing.

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:43 am UTC


dg61
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby dg61 » Tue Dec 27, 2016 6:17 pm UTC

addams wrote:
Grop wrote:
morriswalters wrote:He didn't speak to the why of celibacy. His claim was that church members of superior intelligence fell out of the gene pool by not reproducing. Which is a reach given that avowing celibacy and actually being celibate are two different things.


On the other hand, church members of inferior intelligence wouldn't reproduce either.
Mprris explained the part of the conversation I missed.
Thanks, Morris.

Grop; You are so Wrong.
The point that we have not changed has been made.


The problems with the argument are that first, priestly celibacy is not universal (Orthdoxy allows married priests, although not married bishops,and even within Catholicism there are exceptions(mainly Protestant clergy who become priests and certain Eastern Catholics) and second, it is really a medieval or at least an early medieval development.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby addams » Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:31 pm UTC

dg61 wrote:
addams wrote:
Grop wrote:
morriswalters wrote:He didn't speak to the why of celibacy. His claim was that church members of superior intelligence fell out of the gene pool by not reproducing. Which is a reach given that avowing celibacy and actually being celibate are two different things.


On the other hand, church members of inferior intelligence wouldn't reproduce either.
Mprris explained the part of the conversation I missed.
Thanks, Morris.

Grop; You are so Wrong.
The point that we have not changed has been made.


The problems with the argument are that first, priestly celibacy is not universal (Orthdoxy allows married priests, although not married bishops,and even within Catholicism there are exceptions(mainly Protestant clergy who become priests and certain Eastern Catholics) and second, it is really a medieval or at least an early medieval development.
oh- ho-humm.
Here we go, again.

Celibacy and chastity are related yet different.
Both protect the practitioner.

From those things that were, until very recently, a "Real Bummer'
:Untreatable STD's, unwanted pregnancy and Weird Relationships with even Weirder People.

Remember the movie Fatal Attraction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_Attraction

If that man had been practicing chastity,
our pet Bunny would not have been named, 'Stewy'.

I agree with Morris.
His claim was that church members of superior intelligence fell out of the gene pool by not reproducing. Which is a reach given that avowing celibacy and actually being celibate are two different things.
Yet; I can understand getting on the Train of Thought that takes us to the station of "Why The Fuck Are We Such A Bunch Of Idiots?"

There was a movie made about That, too.
"Idiocracy" Dang Funny Movie, I hear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
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
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Liri » Wed Dec 28, 2016 1:58 pm UTC

Relevant to the election, but I think it's more appropriate here.

It's pretty interesting. I don't regularly watch TV, but I was surprised where a lot of things were and weren't popular. Other shows were pretty duh, like SNL and The Daily Show.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1994
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Grop » Wed Dec 28, 2016 4:33 pm UTC


User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Liri » Fri Dec 30, 2016 10:47 pm UTC

Morgan Freeman has a blast in my home town.

Edit: Nooooooooo it's satire. But, it's still cool because Tyler's is a real place and is not bad.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Mutex » Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:13 pm UTC

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38529009

The makers of Ant & Dec's Saturday Night Takeaway board game have apologised after it was found to have several errors.

The game features cards with a series of quiz questions, but some of the answers given are incorrect.

One answer claims the moon is 225 miles away from the earth - instead of about 238,900 miles.
(...)
One answer placed Stonehenge in Somerset instead of Wiltshire and a maths question suggested two cubed was bigger than three squared.


The ISS orbits the Earth between 205 and 270 miles above the surface, so that would mean it goes inside the moon occasionally.

You almost have to admire the laziness that goes into writing a question for a board game where you don't even bother getting a simple maths question right.

speising
Posts: 2353
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby speising » Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:23 pm UTC

In the Trivial Pursuit game i played at new year's eve i got the question when the chernobyl desaster occurred. The answer on the back of the card was "May 1985". Fortunately my answer was accepted nonetheless.

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Mutex » Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:39 pm UTC

Glad it was accepted, this bit of the article caught my eye:

One customer who bought the game told The Sun: "I couldn't believe it, the answers are so ridiculous... [but] the kids won't accept the game could possibly be wrong."


Must be painful trying to explain to kids the fallibility of the answers in the game and why the moon definitely isn't 225 miles away. Although it might make for an opportunity to encourage your kids into science by getting them to work out for themselves how far away the moon is, using things they can see with their own eyes. I was wondering how you could actually do that, maybe by working out how big the moon is somehow.

EDIT: Although thinking about it, the sort of parents who could do that with their kids might not be buying the Ant and Dec Saturday Night Takeaway board game in the first place.

jewish_scientist
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby jewish_scientist » Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:11 pm UTC

Quick really tangential question: if the Moon was 225 miles away from the Earth, how heavy would it need to be to cause the tides?
"You are not running off with Cow-Skull Man Dracula Skeletor!"
-Socrates

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Chen » Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:18 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:Quick really tangential question: if the Moon was 225 miles away from the Earth, how heavy would it need to be to cause the tides?


Well that's roughly 1000 times closer than the actual moon. Newtonian gravity varies inversely with distance squared. So I guess it would need to be roughly one million times less massive than it currently is to get roughly the same tidal effect. I'm sure there are other factors involved but I'd use that as a ballpark.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Sableagle » Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:19 pm UTC

It might be a bit tricky to calculate distance. You could do a comparison of apparent sizes at different azimuths to see what percentage further away it is when it's some angle further from directly overhead, but that's quite high-level stuff.

It would work without the calculations, though, if you used "things that are the same size but at different distances" like electricity pylons, fenceposts, highway traffic, train carriages or a huge flock of sheep to illustrate perspective and then showed that there isn't "much" difference in the apparent size of the Moon at its zenith and at moonrise and moonset, implying that if it's only a few hundred miles away when it's due south (for Ant and Dec's compatriots) of you then it's only a few hundred miles away when it's east or west of you. Having established that, a map ought to be enough to confirm that it must be a lot further away than a few hundred miles.

It is, by the way, a little narrower than the contiguous 48 of the United States at 3,474 km.

Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, to San Fransisco, California, is about 3,922 km.

Lisbon, Portugal, to Kherson, Ukraine, is about 3,477 km.

It's pretty big.

You could point out that it must be a long way away to stay out of the Earth's shadow for so much of its time.

Of course, the Moon's orbit isn't circular, so the distance changes and the Moon "wobbles" as it goes.

For an approximation of distance,
Luna's orbital period = 27.32 days = 2360448s
Earth's average radius = 6371km
Earth's average surface gravity = 9.8m/s2
a = v2/r = {rotational velocity}2r
F is proportional to r-2
For orbit, a = F
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Liri » Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:32 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:Glad it was accepted, this bit of the article caught my eye:

One customer who bought the game told The Sun: "I couldn't believe it, the answers are so ridiculous... [but] the kids won't accept the game could possibly be wrong."


Must be painful trying to explain to kids the fallibility of the answers in the game and why the moon definitely isn't 225 miles away.

Kids? Try your 22 year old housemate who refused to accept that Portuguese man o' war are colonial organisms similar in appearance to jellyfish but are not jellyfish, because the card says they're jellyfish. I was very irritated. I still won the game though.

She was very rule-follow-y in general.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7572
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby phlip » Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:34 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:Quick really tangential question: if the Moon was 225 miles away from the Earth, how heavy would it need to be to cause the tides?


Well that's roughly 1000 times closer than the actual moon. Newtonian gravity varies inversely with distance squared. So I guess it would need to be roughly one million times less massive than it currently is to get roughly the same tidal effect. I'm sure there are other factors involved but I'd use that as a ballpark.

In local terms, tides scale with distance cubed, since the tidal force is caused by differences in gravity, so it scales with the derivative of gravity.

But if the moon were 225 miles away, the "local" approximation doesn't really hold up, that approximation really only works when both objects are of negligible size compared to the distance between them. In particular, I'd expect the two high tides to be different sizes, since one's so much closer to the moon than the other.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

speising
Posts: 2353
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby speising » Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:41 pm UTC

The 90 minute round trip would mess things up, too.
(Btw an easy way to calculate the moons distance, if you know how long it takes to orbit.)

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Mutex » Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:57 pm UTC

speising wrote:The 90 minute round trip would mess things up, too.
(Btw an easy way to calculate the moons distance, if you know how long it takes to orbit.)


Good point, but in this context I was wondering how to calculate it entirely from what you (and your kids) can see, so you'd have to know how to work out how orbital altitude and orbital period are related. From memory that would involve knowing how massive the Earth is, the Earth's diameter (I think), and the gravitational constant.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Sableagle » Sat Jan 07, 2017 2:34 pm UTC

Yeah, like I said, although you can skip the gravitational constant:

Sableagle wrote:For an approximation of distance,
Luna's orbital period = 27.32 days = 2360448s
Earth's average radius = 6371km
Earth's average surface gravity = 9.8m/s2
a = v2/r = {rotational velocity}2r
F is proportional to r-2
For orbit, a = F


Earth's diameter was calculated fairly well centuries ago from obervations of towers and ships.

Based on the above, angular velocity = 2PI radians per 2360448s = 2.661861353*10-6 radians per second.
A bit over two thirds of PI million seconds to go twice PI so a bit under two over two-thirds millionths.
Acceleration = (2.661861353*10-6)2r2 = 7.085505863*10-12r2.
Gravitational acceleration at r2 = gravitational acceleration at r1 = 9.8 * r12 / r22.
If it's a circular orbit, 7.085505863*10-12r2 = 9.8 * r12 / r22.
Given that r1 = 6371000, 7.085505863*10-12r2 = 9.8 * 63710002 / r22.
r23 = 9.8 * 63710002/7.085505863*10[sup]-12 = 56139743511170066891814751.7
r2 = 382904209.9706m
altitude = 382904209.9706m - 6371000m = 376533210m = 233966.89 miles.

One answer claims the moon is 225 miles away from the earth - instead of about 238,900 miles.


Near enough?
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Xenomortis
Not actually a special flower.
Posts: 1448
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:47 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Xenomortis » Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:01 pm UTC

Being within three orders of magnitude is usually considered pretty good by astronomical standards.
Image

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Sableagle » Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:42 pm UTC

Afterthought: you can demonstrate that things going round in a circle are accelerating inwards by using a couple of spring balances to support a couple of buckets with some water in each and then spinning on the spot. You'd have to do a vector triangle to separate the inward component of the tension from the weight component, though, and measuring diameter would be a bit awkward.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Mutex » Sun Jan 08, 2017 1:01 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:Earth's diameter was calculated fairly well centuries ago from obervations of towers and ships.

Based on the above, angular velocity = 2PI radians per 2360448s = 2.661861353*10-6 radians per second.
A bit over two thirds of PI million seconds to go twice PI so a bit under two over two-thirds millionths.
Acceleration = (2.661861353*10-6)2r2 = 7.085505863*10-12r2.
Gravitational acceleration at r2 = gravitational acceleration at r1 = 9.8 * r12 / r22.
If it's a circular orbit, 7.085505863*10-12r2 = 9.8 * r12 / r22.
Given that r1 = 6371000, 7.085505863*10-12r2 = 9.8 * 63710002 / r22.
r23 = 9.8 * 63710002/7.085505863*10[sup]-12 = 56139743511170066891814751.7
r2 = 382904209.9706m
altitude = 382904209.9706m - 6371000m = 376533210m = 233966.89 miles.

One answer claims the moon is 225 miles away from the earth - instead of about 238,900 miles.


Near enough?


This is great, but if you're doing it with kids entirely from what you see it might be a bit much to prove all of these equations from first principles too. There might not be an easy way to do what I was thinking of.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Sableagle » Sun Jan 08, 2017 2:05 pm UTC

You could upgrade from the buckets of water by mounting an electric drill vertically in a workbench and attached both spring balances to a rod held in its chuck. You'd need a way to keep the speed steady, and probably don't want to build a trigger-guard and put a bolt through it to do that, but something could be managed. You put a ruler along the side of the workbench so you can see the radius. Then you count revolutions per minute and note the tension reading at various (low) speeds as your drill swings two fishing weights around. Possibly a smooth surface would be a good thing to have. A sheet of clear acrylic with a cut-out for the drill would do ... and your fishing weights may scratch circles on it to make measuring orbital diameter easier.

Proving the inverse-square law and proving that it applies to gravity, though? That's going to be harder.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby morriswalters » Sun Jan 08, 2017 2:58 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:Must be painful trying to explain to kids the fallibility of the answers in the game and why the moon definitely isn't 225 miles away. Although it might make for an opportunity to encourage your kids into science by getting them to work out for themselves how far away the moon is, using things they can see with their own eyes. I was wondering how you could actually do that, maybe by working out how big the moon is somehow.
You can measure the circumference of the earth using simple tools. This link shows how to find the distance from the earth to the moon. A Chinese pen pal would be nice. Once you have that you can calculate the diameter of the moon using ratios and proprtions. That should cause their eyes to glaze over.

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Mutex » Sun Jan 08, 2017 3:39 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:This link shows how to find the distance from the earth to the moon.


Start with the few knowns. We know, as did the Ancient Greeks, that the Moon travels around the Earth at a constant speed – about 29 days per revolution. The diameter of the Earth is also known to be about 12,875 km or 8,000 miles. By tracking the movement of the Earth’s shadow across the Moon, Greek astronomers found that the Earth’s shadow was roughly 2.5 times the apparent size of the Moon and lasted roughly three hours from the first to last signs of the shadow.

From these measurements, it was simple geometry that allowed Aristarchus (c. 270 BC) to determined that the Moon was round 60 Earth radii away (about 386,243 km or 240,000 miles). This is quite close to the currently accepted figure of 60.3 radii.


Brilliant, that's just the sort of thing I was trying to think of. All you need is the Earth's diameter and the orbital period of the moon, which are both pretty easy to prove.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Liri » Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:21 am UTC

There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Thesh » Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:28 am UTC

Apparently "dabbing" has multiple slang definitions.

Like I was totally looking for an oil rig.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Mutex » Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:27 am UTC

I thought it was going to be something to do with drugs.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby sardia » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:49 am UTC

It's much dumber outside the football arena. I'm biased because football is dumb to me.

User avatar
Felstaff
Occam's Taser
Posts: 5175
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:10 pm UTC
Location: ¢ ₪ ¿ ¶ § ∴ ® © ™ ؟ ¡ ‽ æ Þ ° ₰ ₤ ಡಢ

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Felstaff » Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:58 pm UTC

I only found out what dabbing was after watching this 8-second clip on YouTube.
Away, you scullion! you rampallion! You fustilarian! I'll tickle your catastrophe.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Sableagle » Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:13 pm UTC

Dab:
Image

A move that really annoyed some people:
Image
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Felstaff
Occam's Taser
Posts: 5175
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:10 pm UTC
Location: ¢ ₪ ¿ ¶ § ∴ ® © ™ ؟ ¡ ‽ æ Þ ° ₰ ₤ ಡಢ

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Felstaff » Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:24 pm UTC

Away, you scullion! you rampallion! You fustilarian! I'll tickle your catastrophe.

jewish_scientist
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby jewish_scientist » Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:27 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:I thought it was going to be something to do with drugs.

The article says that another meaning of the word does have to do with drugs.
"You are not running off with Cow-Skull Man Dracula Skeletor!"
-Socrates

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4889
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby HES » Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:28 pm UTC


XBOX TURN OFF, YES.
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Thesh » Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:29 pm UTC

Felstaff wrote:Prophesised by 30 Rock, naturally.


This video contains content from NBC Universal, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.


Apparently fair use doesn't apply to this particular clip.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby PeteP » Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:35 pm UTC

Voice activated buying that reacts to vague phrases? Who thought that was a good idea. Well I guess it will give some extra orders but that is probably not worth the bad will generated.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items)

Postby Sableagle » Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:41 pm UTC

Demo of voice-controlled TV goes a bit wrong because a character in the TV show says "they get off on" and the TV turns off, another says "the only lead is a mute kids who" and the TV goes mute, someone says "they have a high volume of cocaine coming in" and the TV goes to high volume, someone says "I'm going to go home and delete all the files on my DVR," the guy demonstrating his concept says "Crap" and the TV switches to Keeping Up With The Kardashians.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 guests