Interesting Stuff Thread

applejam

Sorry yes principal ... Still sickening all the same , even with my spelling error

legspin

Just had the most surreal experience.

I don't know how much kid's telly ye all get to see, so please bear with me.

I'm in the sitting room on the couch with my three year old watching Peppa Pig as you do on a weekday morning... . It is an episode about a amusement park called Potato City. The owner of the park is a talking potato going by the inventive title of Mr. Potato. All well and good so far, typical kids fare.
Anyway, one of the rides is called Dinosaur Land. Two cars arrive, one in the shape of a triceratops, the other a stegosaurus. Mr. Potato is waxing on about seeing the animals together as you would have if you went back in time. With that, one of Peppa's friends steps forward and says 'That's wrong. The triceratops was from the Cretaceous and the stegosaurus was from the Jurassic'.
The episode then continued with the child being ignored when it disagreed with Mr. Potato asserting they both would have eaten potatoes after Peppa had astutely asked why there was a Dinosaur ride in a theme park about potatoes in the first place, and then continues as if nothing had happened at all.



I could not help but think of The Creation Museum.

I can't find a link on the tube of u for the particular episode. Sorry.

Bannasidhe

legspin wrote: »

Just had the most surreal experience.

I don't know how much kid's telly ye all get to see, so please bear with me.

I'm in the sitting room on the couch with my three year old watching Peppa Pig as you do on a weekday morning... . It is an episode about a amusement park called Potato City. The owner of the park is a talking potato going by the inventive title of Mr. Potato. All well and good so far, typical kids fare.
Anyway, one of the rides is called Dinosaur Land. Two cars arrive, one in the shape of a triceratops, the other a stegosaurus. Mr. Potato is waxing on about seeing the animals together as you would have if you went back in time. With that, one of Peppa's friends steps forward and says 'That's wrong. The triceratops was from the Cretaceous and the stegosaurus was from the Jurassic'.
The episode then continued with the child being ignored when it disagreed with Mr. Potato asserting they both would have eaten potatoes after Peppa had astutely asked why there was a Dinosaur ride in a theme park about potatoes in the first place, and then continues as if nothing had happened at all.



I could not help but think of The Creation Museum.

I can't find a link on the tube of u for the particular episode. Sorry.

I once said in a lecture that when 'reading' paintings or poetry it's helpful to know what drugs the artist/poet favoured - when it comes to kids TV shows I think it would be more helpful to take the same drugs as the makers.

Magic Roundabout was acid...
Tele Tubbies was Ecstasy...
Few joints for Sponge Bob...

IT-Guy

Even 'Murica ain't immune from oppressive policies, individual states can and are making it as tough as possible for women seeking an abortion. Interesting article on it:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/natashavc/what-the-language-in-abortion-laws-really-means

Take a bow North Dakota and kiss my Black Hills

IT-Guy

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I once said in a lecture that when 'reading' paintings or poetry it's helpful to know what drugs the artist/poet favoured - when it comes to kids TV shows I think it would be more helpful to take the same drugs as the makers.

Magic Roundabout was acid...
Tele Tubbies was Ecstasy...
Few joints for Sponge Bob...

Barney was defo a drink-fuelled creation

magicbastarder

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Few joints for Sponge Bob...

http://www.cracked.com/article_19882_6-insane-but-convincing-fan-theories-about-kids-cartoons.html

Bannasidhe

magicbastarder wrote: »

http://www.cracked.com/article_19882_6-insane-but-convincing-fan-theories-about-kids-cartoons.html

Makes ya wonder what drugs the fans who come up with these theories are on... I reckon Valium.

legspin

IT-Guy wrote: »

Barney was defo a drink-fuelled creation

I always thought Barney was a speed-freak on Prozac. No other way of explaining the manic happiness. Tom and Jerry were the alcos imo.

Dades

I see Julia Gillard has been ousted down under.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23061391

If I'm honest, I don't know much about how she ran the country but it was nice to see an open non-believer in office.

Kevin Rudd may be a bit of an altar-chewer but he doesn't seem the worst sort.
http://www.kevinruddmp.com/2013/05/church-and-state-are-able-to-have.html


Though when he says this:

Kevin Rudd wrote:

...the definition of Christian ethics is subject to change, based on analysis of the historical context into which the biblical writers were speaking at the time, and separating historical context from timeless moral principles, such as the injunction to “love your neighbour as yourself”.

... I have ask what's the bloody purpose of religion if it's going to change it's views as society moves on. It ceases to have any point to it's existence.

sbsquarepants

Liamario wrote: »

4min 45secs to be precise.

What the actual ****.

Fúcking hell - what have i just witnessed??
Mental.

Obliq

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Fúcking hell - what have i just witnessed?

Richard Dawkins looking like a twat :eek:

Dave!

wtf, looks like a Pink Floyd concert!

magicbastarder

i am led to believe that at this gathering:
http://risksummit.eu/
there was a presentation correlating the incidence of measles, mumps and rubella against areas which have a high daily mail readership. and it was a positive correlation.

one more push and we'll be able to claim 'the daily mail causes cancer' and the circle will be complete.

endacl

magicbastarder wrote: »

i am led to believe that at this gathering:
http://risksummit.eu/
there was a presentation correlating the incidence of measles, mumps and rubella against areas which have a high daily mail readership. and it was a positive correlation.

one more push and we'll be able to claim 'the daily mail causes cancer' and the circle will be complete.

There is also strong anecdotal evidence to suggest the Daily Mail causes both 'stupid' and 'arsehole'. Which is many cases mutates into an untreatable form of 'stupid arsehole'

magicbastarder

endacl wrote: »

There is also strong anecdotal evidence to suggest the Daily Mail causes both 'stupid' and 'arsehole'.

we have to be careful not to mix up causation and correlation.

endacl

magicbastarder wrote: »

we have to be careful not to mix up causation and correlation.

Needs a double blind...

sponsoredwalk

Around the 6'th minute onwards in this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWZyLGEqgio

blew my mind, if this is actually the origin of the many worlds interpretation then I'd say a few people in here would love to whip this out on a guy/girl at a party at the weekend, I know I will... :cool:

magicbastarder

i only recently found out that hugh everett - the man who came up with the formulation which was later 'rebranded' as the many worlds interpretation - is the father of E, the lead singer in the eels.

sponsoredwalk

Yeah has to be the first & only time physics told me about a band rather than the other way around :P This is pretty good if you haven't seen it:

info

Dades

He's also talked about in E's autobiography which I read a while back (big Eels fan I am...)

recedite

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

blew my mind, if this is actually the origin of the many worlds interpretation then I'd say a few people in here would love to whip this out on a guy/girl at a party at the weekend, I know I will... :cool:

Quite interesting. However there are two things you should never whip out at a party to impress the girls, no matter how drunk you get, and this maths/physics video is one of them.

joseph brand

Liamario wrote: »

4min 45secs to be precise.

What the actual ****.

I've played this 5 times in a row, maybe more. And I have to say, it's pretty good. The video takes away from the music, so I have it on in the background. It's like a Orbital remix of an Orb song.

endacl

joseph brand wrote: »

I've played this 5 times in a row, maybe more. And I have to say, it's pretty good. The video takes away from the music, so I have it on in the background. It's like a Orbital remix of an Orb song.

First thing that popped into my head when I played it was....

Hotblack Desiato

Reminded me of this.. now what were they smokin'?

sponsoredwalk

recedite wrote: »

Quite interesting. However there are two things you should never whip out at a party to impress the girls, no matter how drunk you get, and this maths/physics video is one of them.

You'd be surprised what this joke did for me. It was either the joke or my charm, lets put it that way :P

edit: eh yeah I don't think this post makes sense now, unless you read it as "don't whip out math/physics at parties" which I did so just ignore the clown by distracting yourself by my shiny glitter:

Gbear

This is very cool:

http://www.sen.com/news/uk-pledges-fresh-support-for-revolutionary-space-engine.html

It means the sleek cigar-shaped craft will be able to take off and land at conventional airports, just like a normal jet airliner. But unlike conventional aircraft engines, SABRE switches in flight to become a rocket engine that can boost Skylon to a speed faster than Mach 5, or more than five times the speed of sound.

As well as launching Skylon, a version of SABRE called Scimitar would be able to power a futuristic airliner LAPCAT to fly from Europe to Australia ina little over four hours.

Having read all that, i didn't think Mach 5 was escape velocity.

Didn't the shuttle take off at Mach 25?

endacl

Gbear wrote: »

Having read all that, i didn't think Mach 5 was escape velocity.

Didn't the shuttle take off at Mach 25?

is about 11.2 kilometers per second (~6.96 mi/s), which is approximately 34 times the speed of sound (Mach 34)

It decreases with altitude. From the surface its 11.2 km/s, or Mach 34.

As ever, I'll have to call on one of the resident scienticianistologists to explain in detail the sums regarding the decrease vis a vis altitude. Simply put though, the higher you get, the less speed you need to go orbital. Although I have to admit, that last sentence may also be interpreted as a drug reference.

legspin

endacl wrote: »

Simply put though, the higher you get, the less speed you need to go orbital.

Always, in my experience anyway.

Sarky

The further you are away from a mass, the smaller the gravitational force it exerts on you. So the further you are away from the planet, the less energy you need to counteract its gravity. Gravitational attraction is an inverse square law, so the effect of the planet's gravity decreases pretty much exponentially with distance from it. I'm sure there's a graph somewhere, but I'm lazy.

Turtwig