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

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#5 - blacktothefuture (05/09/2012) [-]
Let's say you count 1 number per second. It would take 31.69 years to count to 1,000,000,000.   
   
I can count about  3 numbers per second. Assuming we have breaks that are not counted to eat, sleep, and avoid fatigue, and the rate of 3 numbers per second is kept up, it would take 10.56 years to count to 1,000,000,000.   
   
Spanish for 'go hang yourself' is  'Ir ahorcarse'. 'Colgar' means 'to hang' but that is as far as it gets.    
   
The total estimated amount of ants on Earth are equal to 1 x 10^15. The total biomass of these ants are approximated to exceed the biomass of all macroscopic creatures. Macroscopic means a size which you can observe with the naked eye (as opposed to microscopic). This isn't disproving, rather, adding more to your fact.   
   
Also 'one aluminium' is highly obscure.   
   
You mention 'Japanese research' twice. You may want to consider the operation of cultural bias. Moderate drinking may be more effective with Japanese participants than others. Also, the research may have been susceptible to things like demand characteristics. The 'Red wine' research is far less agreeable than the 'thought screening' research, seeing as the latter is an advance in neurobiology, where the other copes with psychology. Psychology is notoriously difficult when you compare people's minds and try to find an overlap in thought. Thank you.
Let's say you count 1 number per second. It would take 31.69 years to count to 1,000,000,000.

I can count about 3 numbers per second. Assuming we have breaks that are not counted to eat, sleep, and avoid fatigue, and the rate of 3 numbers per second is kept up, it would take 10.56 years to count to 1,000,000,000.

Spanish for 'go hang yourself' is 'Ir ahorcarse'. 'Colgar' means 'to hang' but that is as far as it gets.

The total estimated amount of ants on Earth are equal to 1 x 10^15. The total biomass of these ants are approximated to exceed the biomass of all macroscopic creatures. Macroscopic means a size which you can observe with the naked eye (as opposed to microscopic). This isn't disproving, rather, adding more to your fact.

Also 'one aluminium' is highly obscure.

You mention 'Japanese research' twice. You may want to consider the operation of cultural bias. Moderate drinking may be more effective with Japanese participants than others. Also, the research may have been susceptible to things like demand characteristics. The 'Red wine' research is far less agreeable than the 'thought screening' research, seeing as the latter is an advance in neurobiology, where the other copes with psychology. Psychology is notoriously difficult when you compare people's minds and try to find an overlap in thought. Thank you.


#130 to #5 - cidkh ONLINE (05/10/2012) [-]
>The total estimated amount of ants on Earth are equal to 1 x 10^15. The total biomass of these ants are approximated to exceed the biomass of all macroscopic creatures. Macroscopic means a size which you can observe with the naked eye (as opposed to microscopic). This isn't disproving, rather, adding more to your fact.

You can see ants with the naked eye -> ants are macroscopic organisms (they are by other definitions as well)
The biomass of macroscopic organisms therefore includes the biomass of ants, and thus ant biomass cannot exceed this figure. Or are you implying that ants compose >50% of the macroscopic biomass?

Otherwise, well done

User avatar #125 to #5 - xiik (05/10/2012) [-]
Ir ahocarse is "to go choke oneself", is kind of the closest translation.

Try not to use Google translate when arguing about languages :/
#98 to #5 - tazkiller (05/10/2012) [-]
Say 137,527,139 in 1 second.
User avatar #79 to #5 - ifiwereayoungman (05/10/2012) [-]
In terms of counting to 1 billion what you fail to take into account is that once you get into the hundreds of thousands or the millions it will take around 2-3 seconds to count each number. And you still have to take into account the time needed to take a breath.

For example how long would it take you to count this number:

160,768,229

One hundred and sixty million, seven hundred and sixty eight thousand, two hundred and twenty nine.
#62 to #5 - Bigmk (05/10/2012) [-]
Colgate actually is a command that means go hang yourself (I'm studying to get a degree in Spanish)
#153 to #62 - satoshimiwa (09/13/2013) [-]
It is... on a very specific set or circumstances. Firstly, it has to be Argentinian Spanish, and you have to stress the syllable "ga" (so it would be pronounced Colgáte. In European Spanish it would be "Cuélgate!" stressing the "Cuel". And as an imperative it sounds awkward as **** .
#36 to #5 - ushuaia (05/10/2012) [-]
1Let's say you count 1 number per second. It would take 31.69 years to count to 1,000,000,000.

Depends, one billion in some countries is 1,000,000,000,000 and in other is 1,000,000,000

2
I live in Argentina and Colgate means "go hang yourself" in fact there are jokes about that. Like why did the spainyard hanged him self? Because his toothbrush said so

#32 to #5 - lolwutlolwut (05/10/2012) [-]
once you get into high numbers it takes longer than a second to say a number.

four hundred and eighty two million one hundred and thirty seven million nine hundred and sixty three.
+2
#25 to #5 - llamamusic **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #23 to #5 - furyr (05/09/2012) [-]
You are right and all, but I reckon you can't say for an example 672838 in one second. Atleast not 3 of those in one second....
#18 to #5 - anonymous (05/09/2012) [-]
Just 1 gripe. 95 years to count to a billion probably because when you got to the millions and such, you would definitely not keep up the rate of 3 number/sec. But you did state that.
0
#15 to #5 - pranktank **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #16 to #15 - blacktothefuture (05/09/2012) [-]
Oh dear. I must've read "One aluminium can save enough energy...". Silly me.
#11 to #5 - Lewiwent (05/09/2012) [-]
Well played, Dear boy.   
And I read this in Sherlocks voice.... thumb for you.
Well played, Dear boy.
And I read this in Sherlocks voice.... thumb for you.
0
#14 to #11 - pranktank **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)