Moderators: Moderators General, Magistrates, Prelates
$_[0] wrote:rule 2:
Once a relationship ends, physical access to all relevant machinery is denied.
TV4Fun wrote:How about porn involving geek girls and geek boys together. That I am sure is completely nonexistent, in clear violation of rule 34.
videogamesizzle wrote:so, uh, seen any good arbitrary, high numbers lately?
Otto wrote:Anybody else notice that wetriffs.com is expired?
http://whois.domaintools.com/wetriffs.com
eidlyn wrote:I reread this comic so I could make a post to wet riffs, and realised a point of this comic that was off-base as far as guitar function goes; since the writer of this comic is an ex-physicist, i hope this post will be taken as interesting instead of anal retentive. Maybe interestingly anal retentive. I'll meet you half way.
Since the signal from an electric guitar is produced by a thin nickel string vibrating (albeit quickly) several millimetres away from a small magnet, (which picks up the sound, sends it through a series of capacitors and variable resistors which siphons off many wave frequencies and then is sent out to be boosted by an amplifier) the average output of a guitar, with little variation due to the large number of tele's and strats, is approximately 100 mV. A very small percent of guitars do have a preamp boost, used almost exclusively by thrashers and shredders or Clapton-wannabes, but these are powered by a 9-volt and can run for over 5000 hours, if this gives you any idea as to how low the output is. Much higher than .1 V will overload and choke the amp anyway. Esentially, you couldn't shock a baby enough to wake it even if Buckethead was playing.
The primary reason for waterproofing your guitar is so it wouldn't warp the wood the minute you brought it into the bathroom. The only way you could actively play in the shower is with a carbon fibre or glass guitar (glass guitars are bloody wicked, btw). This way you could seal off the electronics and not risk serious water damage to your guitar. Next stop, deep sea guitar porn.
One question I have, though, is, is wet riffs still being checked?
mathmagician wrote:Wanting something bad enough does not make it real.
lihan161051 wrote:"If it exists, there is porn of it. No exceptions."
Thing is .. what would gas chromatography porn *look* like?
mjec wrote:noonie wrote:Shale wrote:I'm particularly amused by the fact that it's the chick who decides to go ahead and make the porn.
women are major producers in the porn industry.
You'd know this if you've spent any time in the slash-fic areas of LJ. On that note, NC17 xkcd fic would be hot. I can see it now. But please leave nerd girl out of it. She's perfect just as she is.
Platypodes wrote:My faith in Rule 34 has been shattered.
I was stunned to discover that, unless my google skills have failed me, nobody has photoshopped any naked pictures of Bill Gates.
Surely this would be an obvious thing to find online. Just obvious.
phillipsjk wrote:I have been afraid to ask what "End User License Agreement" porn would look like.
Platypodes wrote:My faith in Rule 34 has been shattered.
I was stunned to discover that, unless my google skills have failed me, nobody has photoshopped any naked pictures of Bill Gates.
Surely this would be an obvious thing to find online. Just obvious.
And the really disturbing thing about this is the fact that in just a few short years, I've gone from being surprised by the weird porn on the web to being surprised only by the weird porn that isn't there. And that it took me at least an hour to realize that there might possibly be anything funny about my being shocked to not see naked Bill Gates pics.
O webosphere, what hast thou done to me???
Tawnos wrote:I think everybody needs inspiration. Now, whether my white ass inspires you to actually take better pics yourself, or just to vomit, I don't care, but I want to see wetriffs go live (with better looking people).
Those in #xkcd have already suffered this, now it's time for those in the fora.
http://www.tawnos.com/images/xkcd
Probably NSFW, nor safe for lunch, nor safe for your retinas.
Enjoy
Avenger_7 wrote:You are entitled to your opinion though. Even though it's wrong.
BlackHatSupport wrote:Does anyone remember Rule 36?
"If rule 34 does not apply to something, re-read rule 34."
Or was that Rule 1?
Return to Individual XKCD Comic Threads
Users browsing this forum: azule, ChronosDragon, Kazza3, kenmelken, Lardy Plans, Ledeeffelioli, Majestic-12 [Bot], mikro2nd, MobTeeseboose, PM 2Ring, spamjam, Tebychacy, Ylbbin72 and 15 guests