I don't even know what most of you are talking about anymore..... by 6IXSTRINGJACK

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

I don't even know what most of you are talking about anymore.....

POSTED BY: 6IXSTRINGJACK
UPDATED: Wednesday, June 3, 2015 22:53
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 17496
PAGE 2 of 3

Thursday, September 11, 2014 6:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Quote:
Where do you think I contradicted myself? Twice?

1. You mentioned that your frendz are 2%erz. evidence agenst your fine homojinaity.

Reread. I said I have friends who, as a group, are all 2%ers. I did not say that all of my friends are all above the 98th percentile.
Quote:

2. Japan. An entire country worth uv evidence.

Incorrect. Because I thought this might be confusing to you, I did not mention it early in the discussion. Having the MEAN shifted does not make the 1 percenters disproportionate, in either direction. Not to a significant degree. And still, a random sampling within that country will still maintain proportional representation of the population as a whole.
Otherwise to use your illogical effect-creates-cause concept, the highest IQ person would be in Japan, which has never been the case in recorded history. Removing a segment of the population to shift the mean does not cause the top 1 percentile to lose proportional representation.

Quote:

Quote:
However, I have forgotten to mention one truth.
The best way of measuring how intelligent a person is is to gauge how often they agree with me.

Funny! I had a similar semi-serious joke: If it duznt make sense to me, it duznt make sense. Usually, its true if its sumthing I am capable uv comprehending. But I learned my limits a long time ago, so I can often tell the difference.

Quote:
If you are hanging out at the bookstore looking at the shelves with logic puzzles, it might mean the person standing next to you is of above average intellect.

That makes 3. Now youre getting the pikture!

Incorrect. One person is not a random sampling. A sampling of 100 people hanging out at the puzzle section is not random. A sampling of 100 people at the Special Education center is not random. This is a pretty thin attempt of yours.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 15, 2014 7:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Did you see A Beautiful Mind? Great movie with Jenifer Connelly.

Did you not see S. Darko? Lucky you then! Obvious attempt to cash in on Donnie Darko by trying to copy the style. No substance AND they failed to copy the style.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

What is S Darko? typo?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 16, 2014 12:21 AM

rezident owtsidr

S. Darko iz the movie title. 'S.' being Samantha, hiz younger sister frum the real movie. I suppoze uzing the initial wuz another idea to try to copy the 1st moviez weirdness.

If youre thinking uv seeing it and hav a way to see it for free, STILL dont see it kuz you can never get the time back.

You may be rong about the smartest person ever not being in Japan. http://www.superscholar.org/smartest-people/ 3 uv the guyz on that list look Japaneze. But az I understand it, the tests bekum progressively more inaccurate over about 170.

The smartest person I know much about iz Marilyn Vos Savant. Having personally known a few people with 150+ IQ, and reading sum uv the stuff MVS haz dun, I hav a vague notion about wut 200+ iz like compared to myself. I'm a chimp! And I think most people are chimps!

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 16, 2014 11:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Did you see A Beautiful Mind? Great movie with Jenifer Connelly.

Did you not see S. Darko? Lucky you then! Obvious attempt to cash in on Donnie Darko by trying to copy the style. No substance AND they failed to copy the style. http://www.nooalf.com

No substance AND they failed to copy the style. I love that lol....

I haven't seen it, but I do remember hearing that it existed. I'm less inclined to try to remember to get it when I'm looking for movies, but I'll probably watch it once one of these days, if only out of morbid curiosity. :)

I never did see A Beautiful Mind either. That's definitely one of the ones I have got to see. My dad has raved about it.

If you can't tell, I put a great deal of stock into the Ol' Man's opinions on movies. He's seriously, never steered me wrong. Well... I guess the one movie I could say he LOVED that I thought was pretty damn good but wouldn't reccomend to others was "Soldier" with Kurt Russel. Not a bad flick by any stretch, featuring one of the awesomest actors ever, but it's a movie that a 2 year old could follow :)

Oh yeah.... His favorite movie ever is Ink too. My bro recommended it to me and I recommended it to him. My dad usually has a new favorite movie every year or two, so that's really saying something.

Check out Ink if you haven't already. Let me know what you think about it JO.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 16, 2014 12:16 PM

Once again, I must state that I'm enjoying this conversation.

I kinda wish that more people were involved with it.

Besides the brain-bending nature of where my original thread has taken the 3 of us, the best part is that no matter how much the two of you disagree with each other, nobody has said anything apparently insulting.

Maybe the two of you are the TRUE 1%ers in the RWED :)

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 16, 2014 7:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
S. Darko iz the movie title. 'S.' being Samantha, hiz younger sister frum the real movie. I suppoze uzing the initial wuz another idea to try to copy the 1st moviez weirdness.

If youre thinking uv seeing it and hav a way to see it for free, STILL dont see it kuz you can never get the time back.

You may be rong about the smartest person ever not being in Japan.

But az I understand it, the tests bekum progressively more inaccurate over about 170.

Many of them are, correct. Some are designed to be more accurate.

Quote:

The smartest person I know much about iz Marilyn Vos Savant. Having personally known a few people with 150+ IQ, and reading sum uv the stuff MVS haz dun, I hav a vague notion about wut 200+ iz like compared to myself. I'm a chimp! And I think most people are chimps!

Marilyn is in USA.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 17, 2014 12:23 AM

rezident owtsidr

I know. I wuznt talking about Japan anymore.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 18, 2014 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
I know. I wuznt talking about Japan anymore.

So now you are agreeing that the smartest known recorded person is not in Japan? This would be about as exact a duplicate of what I said as you can get. This would be what you had argued against, right? But now you agree?

At least you got one thing right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 22, 2014 5:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Did you see A Beautiful Mind? Great movie with Jenifer Connelly.

Did you not see S. Darko? Lucky you then! Obvious attempt to cash in on Donnie Darko by trying to copy the style. No substance AND they failed to copy the style. http://www.nooalf.com

No substance AND they failed to copy the style. I love that lol....

I haven't seen it, but I do remember hearing that it existed. I'm less inclined to try to remember to get it when I'm looking for movies, but I'll probably watch it once one of these days, if only out of morbid curiosity. :)

I never did see A Beautiful Mind either. That's definitely one of the ones I have got to see. My dad has raved about it.

If you can't tell, I put a great deal of stock into the Ol' Man's opinions on movies. He's seriously, never steered me wrong. Well... I guess the one movie I could say he LOVED that I thought was pretty damn good but wouldn't reccomend to others was "Soldier" with Kurt Russel. Not a bad flick by any stretch, featuring one of the awesomest actors ever, but it's a movie that a 2 year old could follow :)

Oh yeah.... His favorite movie ever is Ink too. My bro recommended it to me and I recommended it to him. My dad usually has a new favorite movie every year or two, so that's really saying something.

Check out Ink if you haven't already. Let me know what you think about it JO.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Beautiful Mind won some Academy Awards - Oscars. Is that the sort of thing you avoid?
IIRC it was also the film where Jennifer Connolly met her current husband.
Reportedly based on actual events, but there are some detractors from that claim.
Ron Howard mentions that it was spurred by the reaction from Apollo 13, where many of the audience wanted to know more about the math, the technical details of the NASA gurus, which he had actually tried to minimize because he thought it would bore the audience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 22, 2014 6:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
S. Darko iz the movie title. 'S.' being Samantha, hiz younger sister frum the real movie. I suppoze uzing the initial wuz another idea to try to copy the 1st moviez weirdness.

If youre thinking uv seeing it and hav a way to see it for free, STILL dont see it kuz you can never get the time back.

You may be rong about the smartest person ever not being in Japan.

But az I understand it, the tests bekum progressively more inaccurate over about 170.

Many of them are, correct. Some are designed to be more accurate.

I had meant to elaborate.
Many are based on the generalization, the greater spectrum, and these are the standards by which others are scaled. In these, the top 1% (for example) can get grouped together in disorder - meaning a top 0.001%er could be registered as merely above 1%.
But some are more focused, and concentrate upon the higher end of the spectrum, but the mean becomes somewhat ignored (those closer to average, or representing about 80% of the population).
For instance, say a particular question can be answered by about 3% of the population. But only 1% can answer within the time limits imposed upon an IQ test. The other 2% may need more time than was allowed, or did not get to it because other questions slowed them down during the test.
Of the 1%, if the question was further broken down, greater accuracy may be divined. If the question was asked all by itself, with no other group or section of questions to compete from the testtakers attention, then the amount of seconds it took to answer the question could also be used to further separate the aptitude of the different test takers. Also, using a question that could not show up on a standardized exam (because almost nobody could answer it) could be used if only 1 in 10,000 persons could answer it - which would also help delineate and divvy up the measure of cerebral capacity, providing better gauge of the examinee which could not be achieved with questions answerable by the bottom 98% or the population.
Timed questions, taking each question individually, using extremely rarely answered questions are all methods to help focus on the precise psychometry of an individual. Some exams are actually capable of group tests, without timed sections, and then also focused portions which would be timed and used to further stress an examinee at the higher end of the spectrum.

Quote:

Quote:

The smartest person I know much about iz Marilyn Vos Savant. Having personally known a few people with 150+ IQ, and reading sum uv the stuff MVS haz dun, I hav a vague notion about wut 200+ iz like compared to myself. I'm a chimp! And I think most people are chimps!

Marilyn is in USA.

And not in Japan.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 22, 2014 11:34 PM

rezident owtsidr

I know. I wuznt talking about Japan anymore. I sed this alredy.

I know about the hi IQ tests. Did sum and never got very far. Relating them to the general tests & IQ scorez can be a problem.

Here: http://www.matrix67.com/iqtest/ Take a crack at it!

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 24, 2014 6:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
I know about the hi IQ tests. Did sum and never got very far. Relating them to the general tests & IQ scorez can be a problem.

Incorrect. Interpolation, extrapolation, and meshing with highly standardized tests is not any problem at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 24, 2014 11:43 PM

rezident owtsidr

I dont know, man. I'v often read that scorez over 200 are inconsistent, unreliable, incalculable. So matching up a genius test with a regular test woud seem to be equally problematic.

If a group uv geniusez take a normal test, the only way to differentiate them iz to time how long they take. So how do you score sumwun who cant get even 1 question in a genius test like the wun above? Its like gluing a metric ruler on the end uv an inch ruler!

I suppoze sumthing intermediately difficult mite work.

I came up with a 1 question test that givez a jeneral idea about sumwunz intellijens. 'If your car iz going 100mph, how fast are the tops uv the tirez going?'

Ordinary peeps usually get it rong after thinking about it for a minit, but then understand the correct ansr and explanation. Dummyz just dont get it no matter how thuro the explanation. Geniusez know the ansr instantly, but pauze befor ansering kuz they think it must be a trick kuz its too obvious.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 26, 2014 8:51 PM

Is the answer 200mph?

lol... duh.

it's 100mph :)

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 27, 2014 12:31 AM

rezident owtsidr

No dubl gessing! Thats cheating! You haf to know the ansr.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 30, 2014 7:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Is the answer 200mph?

lol... duh.

it's 100mph :)

Do Right, Be Right. :)

The bottom of the tire has an instantaneous velocity of zero. If it was something other than zero, and the ground was not moving, then there would exist no traction for that tire, and the formula for our answer would not have enough data.

The hub, or axle of the tire is traveling the same velocity as the vehicle as a whole.

The top of the tire is moving with an instantaneous velocity of 200. The dirt, debris, and anything else on it is also moving at 200. The tire as a whole is "moving" at the same velocity of the vehicle, or the hub, but the different parts of the tire are moving at different speeds.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:42 PM

rezident owtsidr

Correct, including the explanation.

Lots uv peeps dont hav good visualization skillz in spite uv being fairly intellijent. Its a failing uv the educational system mostly - slanted WAY too far in favor uv reading & English studiez in jeneral. So even wen sumwun haz the talent, it duznt get much help in development.

6string, maybe you thot 200 wuz too obvious?

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 1, 2014 7:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Correct, including the explanation.

Lots uv peeps dont hav good visualization skillz in spite uv being fairly intellijent. Its a failing uv the educational system mostly - slanted WAY too far in favor uv reading & English studiez in jeneral. So even wen sumwun haz the talent, it duznt get much help in development.

6string, maybe you thot 200 wuz too obvious?

I thought it was too obvious on the 25th. I did not see much differentiation occurring from responses to that question. I explained in an attempt to help 6 understand, in the event he was not being sarcastic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 2, 2014 1:33 AM

rezident owtsidr

He did rite 200 first, so that introdusez a dowt. You obviously had no problem with it.

Its more fun in person. Try it on sumwun you know iz smart, then on sumwun you know iz an idiot. But, keep in mind that its just a single question, so dont put too much wate on it.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 3, 2014 5:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
He did rite 200 first, so that introdusez a dowt. You obviously had no problem with it.

Its more fun in person. Try it on sumwun you know iz smart, then on sumwun you know iz an idiot. But, keep in mind that its just a single question, so dont put too much wate on it.

I though you could only get it wrong by making a mistake.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 4, 2014 6:39 AM

rezident owtsidr

Quote:
My top 3 movies are probably the following:
1. Ink
2. Donnie Darko
3. Mullholland Drive

Just watched Ink. I like it. Unique premise, fairly well made, good direction and acting. Great acting by http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2727304/?ref_=tt_cl_t2 Quinn Hunchar (the little girl) especially. Az you hav probably heard if you watch any extraz about making moviez, its hard to find kid actorz that are even passable.

The only real complaint I hav iz the muzik iz monotonous.

Another independent movie you will like iz http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390384/?ref_=nv_sr_1 Primer. Similar in several aspects to Ink.

(sorry about the sloppy link appearance. It duznt work like it sez in the instructionz on the rite)

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 8, 2014 5:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
I came up with a 1 question test that givez a jeneral idea about sumwunz intellijens. 'If your car iz going 100mph, how fast are the tops uv the tirez going?'

Tried it on a coworker who claims to be a genius. (from an IQ test).

He said 100. After I explained it similar to above, he argued that he was still right. He argued that when the car is going 100mph and the ground is going zero, that the bottom of the tire, the part that is in contact with the ground, is going 100mph, as well as the top of the tire.
At first he said it depends upon the diameter of the tire - so I said he could give an answer for 15 inches, 20 inches, or 25 inches.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 8, 2014 5:58 PM

rezident owtsidr

hehehehe. Idiot expozed! He will hate you forever.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 9, 2014 6:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
hehehehe. Idiot expozed! He will hate you forever.

No.
That would require him to comprehend that he was in error.
Not gonna happen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 10, 2014 9:17 AM

rezident owtsidr

Last rezort demonstration.

You need a 12 inch ruler and anything round, pen, pencil, toilet paper tube - anything that will roll fairly smoothly.

Put a mark on the table and put the roller there. Then place the ruler on that at the 0 inch end. Push the ruler to make the roller roll under it toward the 12 inch end with no sliding. Stop wen it gets to the 12 inch end. Then lift the ruler up, leaving the roller where it stopped. Now measure how far the roller iz from the mark.

Even the 'genius' will see that it went only 6 inchez wile the ruler went 12.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 10, 2014 5:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Last rezort demonstration.

You need a 12 inch ruler and anything round, pen, pencil, toilet paper tube - anything that will roll fairly smoothly.

Put a mark on the table and put the roller there. Then place the ruler on that at the 0 inch end. Push the ruler to make the roller roll under it toward the 12 inch end with no sliding. Stop wen it gets to the 12 inch end. Then lift the ruler up, leaving the roller where it stopped. Now measure how far the roller iz from the mark.

Even the 'genius' will see that it went only 6 inchez wile the ruler went 12.

But they will say that the bottom of the pencil went 6 inches, too. The pencil only went 6 inches, as well - not 12.

Arguing with libtards can damage your calm.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 11, 2014 6:42 PM

rezident owtsidr

Ye, thoze silly libertarianz will alwayz find a way to fumble the facts!

There were theze 2 ijits I worked with who I came up with that demo for and they still coudnt get it!

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 13, 2014 6:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Ye, thoze silly libertarianz will alwayz find a way to fumble the facts!

There were theze 2 ijits I worked with who I came up with that demo for and they still coudnt get it!

Your reading comprehension is being damaged by either your poor reading skills or your poor spelling. I posted Libtards, which is common for Liberals/retards. Liberals are those who want to take away from anybody who has, plus commit any number of other crimes. They seek to maximize the government - essentially modern day Alliance or purplebellies.
You replied with Libertarians. Libertarians are those who do not want the government to take anything, seek minimalist government.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 14, 2014 12:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Is the answer 200mph?

lol... duh.

it's 100mph :)

Do Right, Be Right. :)

The bottom of the tire has an instantaneous velocity of zero. If it was something other than zero, and the ground was not moving, then there would exist no traction for that tire, and the formula for our answer would not have enough data.

The hub, or axle of the tire is traveling the same velocity as the vehicle as a whole.

The top of the tire is moving with an instantaneous velocity of 200. The dirt, debris, and anything else on it is also moving at 200. The tire as a whole is "moving" at the same velocity of the vehicle, or the hub, but the different parts of the tire are moving at different speeds.

So I was right when I changed my answer to 100MPH, right?????

No matter what the shit the tire is doing, the car is going 100MPH so the tire, at any degree, is also traveling at 100MPH!

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 14, 2014 12:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Correct, including the explanation.

Lots uv peeps dont hav good visualization skillz in spite uv being fairly intellijent. Its a failing uv the educational system mostly - slanted WAY too far in favor uv reading & English studiez in jeneral. So even wen sumwun haz the talent, it duznt get much help in development.

6string, maybe you thot 200 wuz too obvious?

Yes, and... If the car is going 100MPH, anything attached is going 100MPH. It doesn't matter if it's a specific point on the tire, the glass cleaning fluid that they forgot to top off at Jiffy Lube or the asshole operator that tailgates everyone to work everyday because he can't set his alarm 5 minutes earlier every morning.

:)

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 14, 2014 12:48 PM

AAAAANNNNNNDDDDDD...

I look like an ass now.....

Should have gone with my orginal instincts....

Pulleys and what-not....

I just didn't connect apples to oranges, is all...

I bow before your knowledge, the both of you.

I don't think it's an intelligence thing on our level. I just need to read a few more books to catch up. :)

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 14, 2014 5:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Correct, including the explanation.

Lots uv peeps dont hav good visualization skillz in spite uv being fairly intellijent. Its a failing uv the educational system mostly - slanted WAY too far in favor uv reading & English studiez in jeneral. So even wen sumwun haz the talent, it duznt get much help in development.

6string, maybe you thot 200 wuz too obvious?

Yes, and... If the car is going 100MPH, anything attached is going 100MPH. It doesn't matter if it's a specific point on the tire, the glass cleaning fluid that they forgot to top off at Jiffy Lube or the asshole operator that tailgates everyone to work everyday because he can't set his alarm 5 minutes earlier every morning.

:)

Be sure they top off the blinker fluid and tension the muffler belt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2014 10:10 PM

rezident owtsidr

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Your reading comprehension is being damaged by either your poor reading skills or your poor spelling.

Neither. I wuz making fun uv your 'libtard' insult.

Libertarianz are the checker-playerz-in-a-chess-tournament uv the political world.

You want minimal gummit? Go to Sarajevo.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 15, 2014 10:19 PM

rezident owtsidr

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
AAAAANNNNNNDDDDDD...
I look like an ass now.....

Dont swet it, man.

A guy I know who haz even more mekanikal apptitude asked me a similar Q and I didnt get it.

Hiz wuz 'How fast iz the rock that gets tossed up by the truck in frunt uv you going wen it hits your wind shield?' or sumthing like that.

Considering I just tried the 100/200mph thing on him, it wuz dubl stupid for me to not get it.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 16, 2014 5:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
AAAAANNNNNNDDDDDD...
I look like an ass now.....

Dont swet it, man.

A guy I know who haz even more mekanikal apptitude asked me a similar Q and I didnt get it.

Hiz wuz 'How fast iz the rock that gets tossed up by the truck in frunt uv you going wen it hits your wind shield?' or sumthing like that.

Considering I just tried the 100/200mph thing on him, it wuz dubl stupid for me to not get it.

Would that be ground velocity of about zero? Impact velocity around your windshield speed? A tad less than the speed of your windshield?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 16, 2014 6:34 PM

rezident owtsidr

Yep.

Its more uv a real life detail thing than the 100/200 question, but its eazy to figure out if you can visualize the situation. Basicly, rocks that are the rite size will squeez into the tire tredz, picked up & then thrown out by sentrifical fors.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 16, 2014 6:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Yep.

Its more uv a real life detail thing than the 100/200 question, but its eazy to figure out if you can visualize the situation. Basicly, rocks that are the rite size will squeez into the tire tredz, picked up & then thrown out by sentrifical fors.

It would be better if the force shucked them near the top of the tire, then the cracked windshield could be that of the miscreant vehicle, but alas, that is not how it works usually.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 18, 2014 3:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Yep.

Its more uv a real life detail thing than the 100/200 question, but its eazy to figure out if you can visualize the situation. Basicly, rocks that are the rite size will squeez into the tire tredz, picked up & then thrown out by sentrifical fors.

It would be better if the force shucked them near the top of the tire, then the cracked windshield could be that of the miscreant vehicle, but alas, that is not how it works usually.

Yeah, it's always some 80 year old dude driving straight into the busiest intersection in Illinois, in my home town, and killing 2 nuns in the process...

http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.php

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 20, 2014 6:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Yep.

Its more uv a real life detail thing than the 100/200 question, but its eazy to figure out if you can visualize the situation. Basicly, rocks that are the rite size will squeez into the tire tredz, picked up & then thrown out by sentrifical fors.

I'll try one on you.
This can use more than math and logic.

Let us assume that Jesus was 33 years old when he was crucified. Let us pretend it was April, so 33 years and 4 months old. Let us also disregard references to Herod, and assume the calendar reference transition from AD to BC was a week after his birth.
Question 1: What do we call the year that Jesus was crucified?
Question 2: What do we call the year that was 40 years before Jesus was crucified?

Here is a simpler version: A person who just turned 40 passes at the same time as Jesus, who was 33 years and 4 months old. What is the year of birth and death for that person?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2014 1:07 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Is this supposed to be hard?

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2014 3:19 AM

rezident owtsidr

Rite. Its like a really weak version uv the trains leaving different stations puzzles - intended to befuddle thru discombobulated arithmatic. Works well on us ordinary humanz, but a pocket calculator coud do them in its sleep!

The way you worded your 1st Q meanz you are relying on the 'no year zero' factor to try to get an incorrect ansr.

1.34ad
2.6bc

I'm gessing that you think that ansr iz rong. The explanation iz that kid wuz 6 wen Jezus wuz born, then turnz 7 in April. Adding 33 to 7 gets 40 same az 34 + 6.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2014 5:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Rite. Its like a really weak version uv the trains leaving different stations puzzles - intended to befuddle thru discombobulated arithmatic.

Incorrect.
Quote:

Works well on us ordinary humanz, but a pocket calculator coud do them in its sleep!

Prove yourself. Incorrect so far - answer, assumption, and conslusion.
Quote:

The way you worded your 1st Q meanz you are relying on the 'no year zero' factor to try to get an incorrect ansr.

Sort of correct. Use that information to get the correct answer. Both times.
Quote:

1.34ad

Correct.
Quote:

2.6bc

Incorrect.
Quote:

I'm gessing that you think that ansr iz rong.

I know your second answer is wrong. You even had the requisite knowledge to answer correctly, but did not apply it. You likely made the mistake of using your calculator.

Quote:

The explanation iz that kid wuz 6 wen Jezus wuz born, then turnz 7 in April. Adding 33 to 7 gets 40 same az 34 + 6.

Incorrect explanation, but if it were correct then your second answer would have been correct, in case you are hoping for partial credit.

I tried to word it carefully because there is some dispute of the birth year of Jesus, being 6 BC or 2 BC, and the year of his crucifiction, such as 29 AD. I wanted to eliminate the preconceived concepts of different data sources, and keep it a math problem as intended.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Is this supposed to be hard?

Apparently for some.
If you thought it not hard, why did you decline to post what you thought the answer to be? Either the easy answer or the hard answer?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 21, 2014 5:46 PM

rezident owtsidr

You are thinking that the BC yirz are counted backwardz completely. Az if the peepl in BC yirz knew that!

They are numbered basicly az negativez, but the dayz and months are not.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 22, 2014 8:29 AM

rezident owtsidr

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I know your second answer is wrong. You even had the requisite knowledge to answer correctly, but did not apply it. You likely made the mistake of using your calculator.

You were thinking therez a negative zero that gets eliminated!

The yirz go frum 1bc to 1ad with no fractional yirz in between. If it wuz dun mathematicly correctly, there woud be fractional yirz and thered be no confusion.

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Is this supposed to be hard?

Apparently for some.
If you thought it not hard, why did you decline to post what you thought the answer to be?

He didnt want to be rude.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 22, 2014 9:33 AM

rezident owtsidr

OK. You got me.

Did you die laffing? I woud hav if I wuz you!

I wuz trying to get to sleep wundering why therez smoke wafting out uv my earz wen it hit me that I'm the dumass adding a zero yir!

The ansr to the 2nd Q iz 7. Failure to visualize.

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 22, 2014 2:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
You are thinking that the BC yirz are counted backwardz completely. Az if the peepl in BC yirz knew that!

Hence the clear wording:

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Question 1: What do we call the year that
Question 2: What do we call the year that

Quote:

They are numbered basicly az negativez, but the dayz and months are not.

Incorrect.
Years BC are numbered in reverse, from lowest to highest. Years negative are numbered as value, with the least being near AD. December of 5 BC is not -5.1, and it precedes January of 4 BC. January of 5 BC is not -5.9 and it follows December of 6 BC.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 22, 2014 2:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I know your second answer is wrong. You even had the requisite knowledge to answer correctly, but did not apply it. You likely made the mistake of using your calculator.

You were thinking therez a negative zero that gets eliminated!

Correct. There is no year Zero AD, nor year Zero BC.
Quote:

The yirz go frum 1bc to 1ad with no fractional yirz in between. If it wuz dun mathematicly correctly,

It was done mathematically correct, at that time. Without algore, Zero was not invented yet.

Quote:

there woud be fractional yirz and thered be no confusion.
Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Is this supposed to be hard?

Apparently for some.
If you thought it not hard, why did you decline to post what you thought the answer to be?

He didnt want to be rude.

I doubt that. Being rude was the intent of that post. The post also did not want to expose that fact that they were wrong, hence the lack of posting their answer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 22, 2014 2:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
OK. You got me.

Did you die laffing? I woud hav if I wuz you!

I wuz trying to get to sleep wundering why therez smoke wafting out uv my earz wen it hit me that I'm the dumass adding a zero yir!

The ansr to the 2nd Q iz 7.

Correct, 7 BC. Mathematically, April of 7 BC is -6 2/3, so 33 1/3 - (-6 2/3) = 40.

3. For practice, can you say how old is a boy born halfway through year 5 BC when his birthday comes in 5 AD?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 22, 2014 3:07 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

If you thought it not hard, why did you decline to post what you thought the answer to be?

B/c I knew the 'how to', I just didn't bother to do it, or take the time to tediously post. I looked at it for my amusement, not to play your game.

SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 22, 2014 4:23 PM

rezident owtsidr

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
3. For practice, can you say how old is a boy born halfway through year 5 BC when his birthday comes in 5 AD?

9

Quote:
Quote:

They are numbered basicly az negativez, but the dayz and months are not.

Incorrect.
Years BC are numbered in reverse, from lowest to highest. Years negative are numbered as value, with the least being near AD. December of 5 BC is not -5.1, and it precedes January of 4 BC. January of 5 BC is not -5.9 and it follows December of 6 BC.

Thats wut I ment!

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS

Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, April 29, 2024 05:57 - 6328 posts

Russian War Crimes In Ukraine
Mon, April 29, 2024 00:31 - 17 posts

14 Tips To Reduce Tears and Remove Smells When Cutting Onions
Sun, April 28, 2024 22:22 - 10 posts

Another Putin Disaster
Sun, April 28, 2024 21:09 - 1514 posts

Elections; 2024
Sun, April 28, 2024 21:08 - 2315 posts

Russia, Jeff Sessions
Sun, April 28, 2024 21:07 - 128 posts

Scientific American Claims It Is "Misinformation" That There Are Just Two Sexes
Sun, April 28, 2024 21:06 - 25 posts

Dangerous Rhetoric coming from our so-called President
Sun, April 28, 2024 18:10 - 2 posts

You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Sun, April 28, 2024 18:06 - 294 posts

In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, April 28, 2024 15:47 - 3576 posts

Russian losses in Ukraine
Sun, April 28, 2024 02:03 - 1016 posts

The Thread of Court Cases Trump Is Winning
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:37 - 20 posts

VIEW MORE TOPICS

FFF.NET SOCIAL