xkcd

by **SecondTalon** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:20 pm UTC

Trans-Fat.. Trans means it has the property of transference, which is why Trans-Fat makes you fat. BUT.. you can simply put those hamburgers on a stack of carrots, wait an hour or so, and the fat has transferred from the burgers to the carrots. That's just science.

by **Menacing Spike** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:41 pm UTC

SexyTalon wrote:Trans-Fat..

So overweight trans people are the secret ingredient?

by **SecondTalon** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:46 pm UTC

Weren't you paying attention?

It's made from overweight rabbits, from eating all the carrots that soaked the fat out of the burgers. Delicious Rabbit Flavor^TM is then created from the rabbits and injected into the burgers. And that's the circle of life.

by **Giant Speck** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:51 pm UTC

And it moves us allllllllllll

by **Zarq** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:53 pm UTC

Menacing Spike wrote:
SexyTalon wrote:Trans-Fat..

So overweight trans people are the secret ingredient?

Soylent Green is people!

by **SecondTalon** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:54 pm UTC

Made from the best stuff on Earth : People.

by **Samik** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:16 pm UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:I'm personally less bothered by this than by egregiously unhealthy things that prominently display their trans-fat free state, as if that's going to fool people into thinking they're healthy. What's this? These Krispy Kreme's are trans-fat free? Well, heck, then. Load me up with a dozen!

My favorite one of these was being in a Sam's club, and seeing a huge, family-size-and-then-some, bucket of pork rinds, with "ZERO CARBOHYDRATES!!!" written in about 100 pt font all around the container.

by **ahammel** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:29 pm UTC

I'm always amused when things like olive oil are marketed "cholesterol free". Cholesterol is only found in animals, people!

by **DaBigCheez** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:45 pm UTC

In other words, http://xkcd.com/641/

by **SecondTalon** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:03 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:Cholesterol is only found in animals, people!

Say that again to my fat-soaked carrots.

by **Cathy** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:52 pm UTC

I really enjoyed stuffing myself with my fat-free marshmallows. Can't gain weight if it's fat free, amirite? :lol:

by **Magnanimous** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:08 pm UTC

Plus, marshmallows are so light that you're probably losing weight.

by **Giant Speck** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:21 am UTC

Cathy wrote:I really enjoyed stuffing myself with my fat-free marshmallows. Can't gain weight if it's fat free, amirite?

I like to stuff my face with fat-free angel food cake for the same reason.

Wait, no. I don't like angel food cake.

by **SurgicalSteel** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:54 am UTC

Giant Speck wrote:I don't like angel food cake.

I recognize these words individually, but together they make no sense.

by **darknut** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:55 am UTC

SurgicalSteel wrote:
Giant Speck wrote:I don't like angel food cake.
I recognize these words individually, but together they make no sense.

As the name suggests angel food is a divine creation, blessed by the light of the gods, its delightful sponginess irresistable to mortals
i believe what speck is saying is that he is merely posing as a human and is infact some form of lesser demon, a goblin or an ogre perhaps

by **Steax** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:59 am UTC

BUT LOOK AT HIM! THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!

Also, this isn't a logical fallacy or douchebaggery, but I'm thoroughly confused at this seasoning bottle a friend just sent me. It says "good for everyday and everything", and just says "general seasoning" or something on top. How... exactly does that help me know when to use this?

by **Magnanimous** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:01 am UTC

Is it Old Bay? Old Bay's good with everything.

Or if it's Nathan Explosion's Explosion Sauce, that's good by itself.

by **Giant Speck** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:08 am UTC

SurgicalSteel wrote:
Giant Speck wrote:I don't like angel food cake.
I recognize these words individually, but together they make no sense.

It's not bad, but I definitely cannot eat it alone. When it comes to eating it with fruit, I'd rather have shortcake. When it comes to frosted cake, I'd rather have other types of cake.

by **SecondTalon** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:45 pm UTC

Steax wrote:BUT LOOK AT HIM! THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!

Also, this isn't a logical fallacy or douchebaggery, but I'm thoroughly confused at this seasoning bottle a friend just sent me. It says "good for everyday and everything", and just says "general seasoning" or something on top. How... exactly does that help me know when to use this?

You put just a teeny bit on something you're about to shove in your food-hole. You see if you like it better. If so, put it on your food in the quantity you feel appropriate. If you don't like it, don't put it on that.

There is no "Right" time or "Wrong" time. If you like it on ice cream, put it on ice cream. If you like it on toast? Put it on toast. Chicken, candy bars, marzipan, steaks.. whatever. If it tastes good, put it on the thing before you stuff it in your food-orifice.

by **meridian** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 6:16 pm UTC

Generally, I sniff the aroma of the spice before adding it to see if it smells like it would go together. Taste being so directly linked to smell and all...

by **Dark Avorian** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:25 pm UTC

That works until you sniff in finely ground spice of any of a number of varietys and start sneezing and bleeding.

by **emceng** » Fri Mar 23, 2012 8:47 pm UTC

Or snort a bunch of nutmeg to get high.

by **meridian** » Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:30 pm UTC

MMmmmmm. Nutmeg. ^_________^

by **22/7** » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:44 pm UTC

Has anyone complained about the new Lexus commercial where there's a bunch of stuff being blown (or sucked, I don't know, it's sliding) in one direction, including a car which is sliding backwards? So, it's skidding, tires aren't moving, actually sliding across the screen. Then, to go forward (in the opposite direction it's currently sliding), the driver spins the tires and slowly starts moving forward until it finally catches the tires. Somehow the wind blowing it backwards is strong enough to overcome static friction, but it can resist that motion and even start moving forward by peeling out. Le sigh.

by **lutzj** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:31 am UTC

Wouldn't the spinning of the tires increase the friction force? (I could very well be wrong on the physics here but it seems intuitive that the spinning wheels would push against the ground harder than non-spinning ones.)

22/7 wrote:...a bunch of stuff being blown (or sucked, I don't know...

hehehe

by **The Scyphozoa** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:04 am UTC

No, I think the reason tires spin without moving the car is that there is a maximum amount of frictional force that can be achieved between two given surfaces.

by **phlip** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 11:28 am UTC

The usual model of friction is that it's just the normal force (ie how much force is being applied to the surfaces ie how much the car weighs) times a magic "coefficient of friction" which depends on the materials used and is determined experimentally. Nothing else, including the contact area or the speed of motion come into effect. So spinning the wheels wouldn't increase the amount of force that friction would apply to the car.

Of course, real-world mechanics has exceptions and edge-cases, but it mostly holds.

by **pseudoidiot** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:15 pm UTC

phlip wrote:but it mostly holds.

*snicker*

by **altair4** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:58 pm UTC

I havn't seen the ad but is that similar to sliding backwards on an icy hill and spinning the wheels to go forwards? I'm sure I've done that before.

by **eSOANEM** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:43 pm UTC

phlip wrote:The usual model of friction is that it's just the normal force (ie how much force is being applied to the surfaces ie how much the car weighs) times a magic "coefficient of friction" which depends on the materials used and is determined experimentally. Nothing else, including the contact area or the speed of motion come into effect. So spinning the wheels wouldn't increase the amount of force that friction would apply to the car.

Of course, real-world mechanics has exceptions and edge-cases, but it mostly holds.

There's also the fact that the coefficient of friction changes quite a lot around the slipping point and, in general, the coefficient of static friction is more than the coefficient of kinetic (?) friction.

by **walkerm930** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:24 pm UTC

Yes, those are the terms.
Really the only way that could have happened is if the brakes were released then reapplied slowly until stopping, then the accelerator pedal pressed.
Of course this would only work if the wind could not overcome static friction (static is usually larger than kinetic, and the surface of a wheels is not moving relative to the ground while it turns) which is demonstrated true as the car drives across the screen.

by **Shivahn** » Fri Mar 30, 2012 10:48 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:There's also the fact that the coefficient of friction changes quite a lot around the slipping point and, in general, the coefficient of static friction is more than the coefficient of kinetic (?) friction.

This is necessarily true. If the coefficient of kinetic friction were greater than that of static friction, then the instant the static friction is overcome, kinetic friction would kick in, so they'd be the same force

by **The Scyphozoa** » Sat Mar 31, 2012 7:12 pm UTC

This isn't so much douchebaggery in advertising as it is douchebaggery in the product, but...

: 13751594913552930011.jpeg (36.44 KiB) Viewed 2434 times

This is a banner ad I've been seeing. Clicking it leads to a page on Amazon full of shirts and buttons with that logo on them. So, what? Parents are supposed to make their peanut-allergic children wear them? We're just supposed to adopt the idea that "peanuts are bad" with no context? And, for that matter, without even making the shirts easy to read?

by **Kewangji** » Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:39 am UTC

I confess I am actually scared of peanuts, and tend to avoid them, given how lethal they are to some people. Those t-shirts seem a bit obnoxious though.

by **Dason** » Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:24 pm UTC

I'm not scared of them. I do my part in the fight against peanuts by destroying them with my powerful teeth. Take that peanut! How does being digested feel!?

by **Whelan** » Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:26 pm UTC

I'm the same way with quiche. What better way to deal with things you don't trust than to dissolve them in stomach acid?

by **The Scyphozoa** » Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:34 pm UTC

Yeah, I'm one of those people whom peanuts can kill. And I'm pretty sure that at no point in my life would I be willing to wear that shirt. I'm fine with "no peanut or nut products" being on a poster in my classrooms. Which it was, two years ago. Now they've switched to this one:

: classroom-sign.gif (17.85 KiB) Viewed 2310 times

I have a feeling this poster was designed for a somewhat younger audience, but my high school decided to use it anyway. Still, better than those shirts.

I think it's douchebaggery in that it's marketed at parents who, because their children's allergies are such a big concern to them, will just eat up anything related to it without thinking about if it's actually a good idea.

Of course, the phrase "ok2bpnutfree" comes dangerously close to the idea that schools should not only stop selling peanut products, but ban students from bringing them to school. Which is a really bad idea. It gets parents angry. When my mom's friend's daughter's school did that, someone smeared peanut butter all over some poles and doors at the school. Probably some angered parent.

by **Xeio** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:04 am UTC

I'm imagining some sort of peanut detectors like metal detectors, and someone shouting "HE'S GOT A PB&J SANDWICH! EVERYBODY DOWN!".

/me eats some more peanut buttery goodness

by **phlip** » Mon Apr 02, 2012 3:30 am UTC

It's ideas like that that end up with situations like this...

by **DaBigCheez** » Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:35 pm UTC

One that's been bugging me lately: a radio commercial for Allstate Insurance.

I should note that I find driving stressful, and tend to be jumpy and anxious while I'm driving. So, traffic sounds in songs (horns, cars-passing doppler effect, police sirens) etc. are not my friends - especially police sirens - but I can put up with it, because the songs generally weren't made exclusively to be played on the radio, and while I might prefer such songs be on kind of an "opt-in" playlist defined ahead of time (i.e. on a CD rather than a radio station), I'll concede that's kind of unreasonable.

However, the Allstate ads feature, as a predominant thing, the sudden sound of an automobile accident, and were quite obviously specifically marketed to drivers, and produced for use on the radio, the local radio in particular (referencing one of the local freeways).

The things that annoy me:
1) It's a cheap emotional scare-tactic trick. "What if you got in an accident...RIGHT NOW?! Would your insurance be enough?!"
2) Combined with the above, they at no point make *any* effort to claim their insurance is better than the alternatives, just "you should be sure your insurance will take care of you". They seem to be going for "You need insurance, this is insurance, thus you need this."
3) Simulating the sounds of an accident, on something specifically marketed to drivers, through a medium most commonly used while driving, is outright *dangerous*. You can at least somewhat see it coming if you're listening to the commercial, but it's fairly subdued up to that point, and however much commercial-makers might want to believe otherwise, people might be focusing their attention on driving and not really paying full attention to the commercial, you know?

Mostly, I hate cheap emotionally manipulative trickses in commercials, and the potential traffic hazard is just the cherry on top.

Who is online