Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
hide menu

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Highest Rated Top Rated Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds

Per page:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #1752 - LegititmateKyle (05/19/2014) [-]
Why is that our government (U.S.) won't fund space research anymore? We only have about half a billion years, a billion if we're lucky, to get somewhere safer. That's really not that long if you think about considering moving billions of people off of Earth will be no easy task.
User avatar #1772 to #1752 - xsnowshark (05/20/2014) [-]
The fact that the budget for space technologies and travel is constantly cut REALLY pisses me off. A huge thing that would actually help give us (the US) more money would be if we sold our share of the ISS. That single program makes up a little more than half of NASA's budget, and we aren't really getting our monies worth anymore.
User avatar #1760 to #1752 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/20/2014) [-]
1) It would not take even anywhere close to a billion years to move off of Earth.
2) We won't fund it because there is no reason for the government to. The only reason we had the space race was to beat the Commies, but without a rival to beat we're just sitting on our laurels and milking the last moon landing. It's pathetic, but true.
User avatar #1799 to #1760 - LegititmateKyle (05/23/2014) [-]
Not to mention all things considered that it could be much less than a billion. *shrugs*
User avatar #1798 to #1760 - LegititmateKyle (05/23/2014) [-]
I'm not entirely sure, it's really to hard to predict, I think it could go either way honestly.
User avatar #1793 to #1760 - Mortuus ONLINE (05/22/2014) [-]
Billionaires will do more for space exploration than any modern government will.

User avatar #1794 to #1793 - nigeltheoutlaw (05/22/2014) [-]
I personally doubt it. They can make good profits off of subspace flights for zero-g like they do now, but true space exploration missions have no short term profitability. No company and few to no wealthy people would want to drop billions of dollars into a project like a Europa probe or a manned mission to Mars when it won't turn a profit for decades, if at all.
User avatar #1797 to #1794 - Mortuus ONLINE (05/22/2014) [-]
While I don't disagree that it's unlikely, I also believe that almost no billionaires earned his fortune through instant profits (Some have, but fuck those guys). If we get someone who's interested in advancing the programs for future profits, then I'm all for that.
User avatar #1750 - mondamini (05/19/2014) [-]
So like what if the universe has its own kind of evolutionary cycle. The universe has all these particles that follow rules and behave in respect to each other, at a quantum level tiny particles pop in and out of existence etc etc.

The universe couldn't have just, out of some ridiculous odds, produced all these from the big bang in a single moment. What if our universe is part of billions of billions of billions of years of universal evolution and we're just another stage. Dominant particles survive and the useless die off...

If this is true, couldn't scientists pinpoint what particles to find, the ones that seem to come earliest in the family tree like which all particles are dependant on, and then work forwards to discover all the possible types of particles within the universe?
#1754 to #1750 - thedeadpidgeon (05/20/2014) [-]
In a way this is true. Stable particles remain in existence while unstable ones would deteriorate. And the simplest particles able to maintain existence fuse in order to make more complicated ones. It's pretty easy to make a parallel to biological evolution.
User avatar #1751 to #1750 - mondamini (05/19/2014) [-]
*I don't know much about physics, I'm just procrastinating...
User avatar #1738 - satoshileex (05/16/2014) [-]
I saw the post about Iron man and I was wondering has anyone ever attempted to make a real life version of ironman?
User avatar #1744 to #1738 - aherorising (05/17/2014) [-]
biggest issue right now would be power consumption, and efficiency. The japanese already have an operational exoskeleton which aids the elderly and handicapped, and US is working on a militarized version.
The problem with such a suit would be on several grounds. Ideally, one would want:
-protection: such as armor plating, like in the movies
-intel: would be jared, one can get very creative with HUDs and overlays. it'd be useful to track current ammo, weapon temperature, and positions of teammembers or hostiles through walls or rough terrain.
-offense: if a soldier can be provided additional strength, it'd allow him to carry a bigger gun, or more ammo for teammates.

The biggest issues with each is that armor plating is incredibly heavy, and is not truly impervious unless you consider that of a tank's kevlar can only stop moderate rounds, and is still easily penetrated by high-speed sniper rounds etc. But moreover, kevlar mainly keeps a small-caliber bullet from penetrating, which can only be done by spreading the impact over an area, often resulting in cracked ribs etc.

User avatar #1745 to #1744 - aherorising (05/17/2014) [-]
Therefore, if protection would be guaranteed, it'd be a hell of a challenge designing a suit in which the operator can still move flexibly, yet still provides defense against most rounds, yet is light enough to actually use and not slow it down.

The problem here would be mechanical. A biological human muscle is actually a very efficient method of locomotion, which provides flexibility with very efficient use of energy. As far as I know, none of our mechanic equivalents come even close to such a measure of strength/flexibility/reliability tradeoff.
User avatar #1739 to #1738 - Mortuus ONLINE (05/17/2014) [-]
Yes; The United States Government.

It's called project TALOS. Y'all motherfucker need some TALOS.
User avatar #1740 to #1739 - satoshileex (05/17/2014) [-]
Thank you, This looks very interesting...if not concerning.
User avatar #1736 - beatmasterz (05/16/2014) [-]
If one grain of rice doesn't make a sound when dropped on the floor, why do 1000 grains do?
User avatar #1737 to #1736 - Mortuus ONLINE (05/16/2014) [-]
The more movement, the clearer the sound.

For example, a single grain of rice does not have the sufficient force to create a large sound wave, but a 1000 of them combined will produce a wave that will reach you, audibly.
User avatar #1741 to #1737 - beatmasterz (05/17/2014) [-]
So one grain does make a sound, but not hearable?
User avatar #1746 to #1741 - Mortuus ONLINE (05/17/2014) [-]
Didn't want to go into too much depth, for the sake of easily explaining the concepts...

What ahero said about waves interacting. The more sound waves produced, the greater the number of interactions, the greater the amplification. The sound of one grain is audible, but only if you have no other ambient noise interacting with the wave, or making your brain prioritize it over other sounds.For example, if you turn on a fan and make a noise, the noise you made will be less noticeable than when the fan was off. Same concept. Even so, the "loudness" of the sound would mean that you would need to be quite close to the point of contact between the single grain of rice and the floor, in order to hear it -- that's just due to the human ear's sensitivity.
User avatar #1749 to #1746 - beatmasterz (05/17/2014) [-]
I get it, thanks.
User avatar #1742 to #1741 - aherorising (05/17/2014) [-]
that, and probably something with amplification. A sound consists of a frequency, and amplitude. If, from an origin, two grains fall on the ground at the right time, the soundwaves may interact at cerain points and amplify the original sound. You should probably ask scienceexplain or bioexplain for more
User avatar #1743 to #1742 - beatmasterz (05/17/2014) [-]
Aaaaalrighty then
User avatar #1733 - nsfwcontent (05/16/2014) [-]
Java Question

Trying to learn Java and i've got to a part where i need to learn about Abstraction, Encapsulation, Polymorphism and Inheritance but most websites I go on have really in depth explanations that I don't understand.

Would someone be able to explain the four principles of OOP in an easy to understand way please?

Much appreciated.
User avatar #1734 to #1733 - Mortuus ONLINE (05/16/2014) [-]
Ask on the Tech board, bud.
User avatar #1735 to #1734 - nsfwcontent (05/16/2014) [-]
Will do, cheers
User avatar #1725 - doctorhue (05/15/2014) [-]
Anyone know any fun chemical reactions I can do in a high school lab?
User avatar #1732 to #1725 - nsfwcontent (05/16/2014) [-]
Make some Nitrogen Triiodide and smear it all over the floor and wait for it to dry
User avatar #1729 to #1725 - drastronomy (05/15/2014) [-]
bleach and ammonia

it makes these cool patterns <3

no blood on my hands if you do this

User avatar #1731 to #1729 - Mortuus ONLINE (05/15/2014) [-]
Gotta mix a lot of it, though.
User avatar #1727 to #1725 - leesintomebitches (05/15/2014) [-]
Caesium in Water pretty explosive
User avatar #1723 - feelythefeel (05/15/2014) [-]
So my eyes sometimes switch between blue and grey. Is there a name or term for this? Any explanation? Is it rare?
User avatar #1726 to #1723 - Mortuus ONLINE (05/15/2014) [-]
Your eye color does not actually change, it's simply the lighting.
User avatar #1728 to #1726 - feelythefeel (05/15/2014) [-]
Oh, thanks.
User avatar #1704 - alltimetens (05/14/2014) [-]

If I was on a flying plane with a ceiling that was 35 feet above the floor and I jumped 20 feet upwards, why wouldn't I slam myself onto the back of the plane?

What I'm trying to ask is why I would not land further up the aisle.
User avatar #1713 to #1704 - Mortuus ONLINE (05/14/2014) [-]
You're in an enclosed environment, in which everything around you is moving at the same rate of speed. If you were outside of the plane, however, your air resistance would force you to be pushed in the opposite direction of the plane.
User avatar #1718 to #1713 - xsnowshark (05/15/2014) [-]
Aren't varying inertia frames and relative dynamics fun??

User avatar #1715 to #1713 - alltimetens (05/14/2014) [-]
You seem pretty knowledgeable, though.
User avatar #1716 to #1715 - Mortuus ONLINE (05/14/2014) [-]
It's cool. Just thought I would expand on the answer he gave, in case it would help you understand.
User avatar #1717 to #1716 - alltimetens (05/14/2014) [-]
It's the thought that counts.
User avatar #1714 to #1713 - alltimetens (05/14/2014) [-]
I already established that with nsfwcontent who gave a better explanation.
User avatar #1708 to #1704 - nsfwcontent (05/14/2014) [-]
Because your acceleration would stay the same
User avatar #1709 to #1708 - alltimetens (05/14/2014) [-]
Assuming that the floor is a trampoline and the ceiling is 30 feet high, I would be able to last in the air for a good 5 seconds.

During that time, my acceleration would decrease because my I am accelerating based off of energy that I took from the plane right before I jumped. Now that my acceleration is not being fueled by the plane, however, is it not possible that I would in fact land behind the spot from which I jumped?
User avatar #1710 to #1709 - nsfwcontent (05/14/2014) [-]
if it's only 5 seconds then your acceleration wouldn't decrease much at all, you might land on a different spot but it would be very close to where you jumped from
User avatar #1711 to #1710 - alltimetens (05/14/2014) [-]
Nonetheless you answered my question.

Had I jumped a greater distance and thereby had an extended air-time, I would have shifted my position.
User avatar #1712 to #1711 - nsfwcontent (05/14/2014) [-]
Yes, because your acceleration would slowly decrease because of multiple factors like gravity and resistance etc.
#1701 - yoloswagninegag (05/14/2014) [-]

You'll have an atomic mass of laughs with this new meme!
User avatar #1700 - thatoldhorse (05/14/2014) [-]
i know this is suuper dumb asking here but we have no math board. i was just wondering if any of you dudes saved a pic that had a nifty trick with percentages?
User avatar #1720 to #1700 - xsnowshark (05/15/2014) [-]
Just put the number over 100
User avatar #1721 to #1720 - thatoldhorse (05/15/2014) [-]
21% of 356 put which one over one hundred?
User avatar #1722 to #1721 - xsnowshark (05/15/2014) [-]
oh, I wasn't sure what you meant, haha.

just multiply 356 by .21 and that will give you your answer.
#1719 to #1700 - xsnowshark has deleted their comment [-]
#1703 to #1700 - djequalizee (05/14/2014) [-]
A calculator
User avatar #1692 - misticalz ONLINE (05/14/2014) [-]
How can design an experiment that tests how mosses do in soils with different pH levels. I know mosses like acidic soils.
I have a list of all the mosses that live around our area/biome.
User avatar #1694 to #1692 - xsnowshark (05/14/2014) [-]
How many mosses do you want to test?
User avatar #1695 to #1694 - misticalz ONLINE (05/14/2014) [-]
I was thinking 4 would be good enough for a grade 10 experiment

Btw, we just have to design it, not actually carry it out.

Just get the ideas onto paper
User avatar #1696 to #1695 - xsnowshark (05/14/2014) [-]
Ok, and how many different ph levels would you want to test?
User avatar #1697 to #1696 - misticalz ONLINE (05/14/2014) [-]

0, 3.5, 7, 11.5, 14
User avatar #1748 to #1697 - demandred (05/17/2014) [-]
remember: pH of 6 is 10 times more acid than 7, and pH of 8 is one tenth of that of 7. You might wanna do pH of 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Easier to carry out.
User avatar #1747 to #1697 - demandred (05/17/2014) [-]
It'll be hard to keep a pH of 0 or 14 without some heavy lab equipment
#1698 to #1697 - xsnowshark (05/14/2014) [-]
Ok, so if I were you and actually had to complete the experiment I would:
1. Go and buy 24 small pots (ceramic, plastic, w/e) and arrange into a square shape (my thought is to crate a matrix)
2. Go and get neutral soil and then modify accordingly (diff ph)
3. Select the mosses you want to test and plant according to the matrix.
4. Make sure that all mosses are equally exposed to light and are given the same amount of water.
5. track results in a notebook daily, including amount of water (if it were to ever change)

Let me know if the picture I drew isn't clear
#1699 to #1698 - misticalz ONLINE (05/14/2014) [-]
thanks mate.  pic is fine.    
have this sick gif
thanks mate. pic is fine.
have this sick gif
User avatar #1690 - icanexplain (05/13/2014) [-]
science is fake
User avatar #1702 to #1690 - djequalizee (05/14/2014) [-]
I'm gonna need empirical evidence proving so
User avatar #1705 to #1702 - alltimetens (05/14/2014) [-]
Isn't that an oxymoron, though?

You need science to disprove science?
User avatar #1691 to #1690 - Mortuus ONLINE (05/13/2014) [-]
You're fake.
#1684 - jarelk (05/13/2014) [-]
Okay guys, I got a weird question for you.   
What kind of university education would you have to take to be able to build Iron Man?   
Some sort of combination between Electrical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering?   
I'm dutch, by the way.
Okay guys, I got a weird question for you.

What kind of university education would you have to take to be able to build Iron Man?

Some sort of combination between Electrical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering?

I'm dutch, by the way.
User avatar #1685 to #1684 - xsnowshark (05/13/2014) [-]
Triple major in material science engineering, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering.
User avatar #1689 to #1685 - Mortuus ONLINE (05/13/2014) [-]
Addition of comp. sci and a vast knowledge of programming. (JARVIS).
User avatar #1681 - inyerfase (05/13/2014) [-]
#1678 - payseht ONLINE (05/13/2014) [-]
Let's have fun with time travel. Assume the model in the picture is how the time machine works.
How would you use it, how would you break it, what kind of tests would you make, why would or wouldn't it work?
For a fictional application of it, watch "Primer". After viewing, a lot more "practical" discussions can be had since you saw some general rules. That is however limited to the Universe and the laws within it that the movie shows, which may or may not coincide with our own.
No need to watch it to still be able to talk about the time travelling concept presented in the picture
I'm still trying to figure out if time is linear or not based on the movie. If it's not linear, Person0 could watch the machine from a distance when he turns it on and not see himself getting out. This, however, isn't shown, sadly. So maybe we can figure that out based on other stuff?
If we're going to talk about the movie, it will be filled with spoilers so remember to mention that at the beginning of the comment.

Basic explanation of what the machine does: You have a box at point A in time (say 1 P.M.) where you turn on a timer to power the box after 15 minutes (this is so you can go away and not risk meeting yourself). You return at point B (say 2 P.M.) and turn it off. You enter the box and wait an hour (specifically, the time between power on and power off). You exit the box. Congratulations, you're back in time.
Any questions you might have, I'll try and answer, but I, myself, don't understand the thing fully.

tl;dr: picture related is your time machine, how it works, and how you were told to use it. Wat do?
User avatar #1680 to #1678 - payseht ONLINE (05/13/2014) [-]
if you want to watch the movie now

You need to login to view this link

You need to login to view this link

I suggest the torrent because subtitles are kinda a must.

Some have said they understood the movie from their first viewing but I doubt that...
User avatar #1682 to #1680 - mindsculptorjace (05/13/2014) [-]
why are subtitles a must? I'd like to avoid torrenting if possible
User avatar #1683 to #1682 - payseht ONLINE (05/13/2014) [-]
It's a movie on a budget ($7000) so they didn't afford many cuts, so there are times where you can't really understand what the actors are saying. Also, there are conversations in the background going that you might want to hear.
User avatar #1679 to #1678 - payseht ONLINE (05/13/2014) [-]
two more things I didn't mention because they're not time travel related
if you don't exit after an hour (or whatever your case is) you loop back to point B. If you exit two hours after entering (or whatever your case is times 2), from the point of view of someone that was with you when you entered the box, no time has passed, meaning you've aged two hours in an instant, according to his or her relative point of view. You can continue looping back and forth however much you want (in the movie, there's limited space, and you have to bring an oxygen tank with you because the box is flooded with argon to work -you can ignore the last part if you want- so you would have a limited time before having to exit). You can also do this with objects.
You can't exit whenever you want. When you turn it on, it builds up the shield that will allow you to travel through time. At this weaker point, before the shield is fully up, you can enter. Same goes for exiting. When it's powered down, it slowly "cools off", in which time you may exit.

I wanted to clarify in case someone wanted to exit sooner or later than an hour (or your specific case). Short answer is "I wouldn't recommend it...".

Again, my understanding is a little flimsy, so I might have understood and explained it a little wrong.
User avatar #1686 to #1679 - sirbonzaiatak (05/13/2014) [-]
calm down steven hawking
User avatar #1687 to #1686 - payseht ONLINE (05/13/2014) [-]
I've spent two nights trying to wrap my brain around everything in the movie. Sorry if I sound a little too enthusiastic.
User avatar #1675 - coronus (05/12/2014) [-]
Fun fact for the science board:

Many insects supplement their diet with reptile tears, because they have few or no alternate sources of sodium. Parasitic insects and other bloodsuckers don't need to do this, because blood is a complete meal.

Butterflies love tears though.
User avatar #1688 to #1675 - thekillerwalrus (05/13/2014) [-]
So butterflies look beautiful, but are actually sadistic assholes who enjoy the tears of their victims?
User avatar #1730 to #1688 - coronus (05/15/2014) [-]
Do not be fooled by the pretty colors
#1672 - wbrehmer (05/12/2014) [-]
It's mine and swolecamel 's now
It's mine and swolecamel 's now
#1670 - megavoir (05/12/2014) [-]
this is my board now
User avatar #1693 to #1670 - misticalz ONLINE (05/14/2014) [-]
User avatar #1671 to #1670 - satrenkotheone (05/12/2014) [-]
I wanna join.
User avatar #1676 to #1671 - megavoir (05/12/2014) [-]
2 queens though?
User avatar #1677 to #1676 - satrenkotheone (05/12/2014) [-]
Why not?
#1669 - satoshileex has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #1666 - herblegerble (05/10/2014) [-]
Does a longitudinal wave always have the same wavelength like a transverse wave does? And does it have the same level of compression/rarefaction at any given point during a cycle, if you get me?

Also, why is a sine wave (as in the sound type) called a sine wave if its not actually a transverse wave at all?
User avatar #1668 to #1666 - swolecamel (05/11/2014) [-]
I'd like to answer the first 2 questions but I'm struggling to see what you're asking.

As for the 3rd question, it's called a sine wave for the following reason:
* Imagine a molecule just chilling out in a substance
* Now imagine that molecule being oscillating backwards and forwards (rarefaction and compression)
* The mean position if the molecule may be thought of as the point where displacement is 0 (basically this is the point it was at before it started oscillating)
* So, when it's pushed back, the displacement is negative and when it's pushed forward the displacement is positive
* Plot displacement of the y-axis and time on the x-axis and voila, a sin wave!
 Friends (0)