On Press the Meat today, it’s a visit from Pickles Bush, on to offer her take on Thorazine, smiling like Carol Burnet’s “Nora Desmond,” and other tips on being a good little Republican wife. Also, it’s Afghanistan’s Ambassador to the United States, Said Jawad and Ted Turner.
Faze the Nation apparently gave their web guy the weekend off.
On Fux News Sunday, Weaselface Wallace has l’il Lindsey Graham, Claire McCaskill, and one of the Senate’s biggest scumbags (and that’s saying a lot), Saxby Chambliss. Plus the usual fuxheads, of course.
At the Goebbels network, George Snufalufagus has Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United States, on to say “no we di’int,” plus Senators Jack Reed and Dick Lugar. Then, at the roundtable, it’s George :jerk: Will, Dickface Matt Dowd, political mastermind Donna Brazile, and former Pentagon spokebitch, Torie Clarke.
Later, on 60 Minutes, Michael Phelps tells Anderson Cooper what it’s like to be an Olympic Champion, and perhaps one of the worst actors ever, Lara Logan talks to Monica Brown, who won the Silver Star for saving two wounded men during a firefight when she was only 18 years old, and Steve Kroft does a story on online poker.
Shit, back to work tomorrow. I predict one long damn week. Have good one.
I loved the Carol Burnett Show. I think I have said here before that at one point in time you saw it on Saturday night with Mary Tyler Moore, All in the Family, MASH and the Bob Newhart Show. I could also be nuts. I seem to remember men of honor doing the right thing one night back then.
It is better because it isn’t made entirely of plastic. One day I will need a real vacuum cleaner and I plan on going to the Sew n’ Vac store and getting an old refurbished Hoover. Hopefully I’ll still be able to get the bags.
I love all those shows. Thanks for the Andy Griffith clip. Is there such a thing as Mayberry anymore? 🙁
KP, there is no Mayberry and there never was. Decent folk with good hearts and kind generosity exist in all places, but there are no places where only such people exist.
Awe Sue, way to pop my bubble! 😉
I’m pretty sure Mayberry is in the Real America©.
A revolutionary device that can harness energy from slow-moving rivers and ocean currents could provide enough power for the entire world, scientists claim.
snip
The technology can generate electricity in water flowing at a rate of less than one knot – about one mile an hour – meaning it could operate on most waterways and sea beds around the globe.
snip
The new device, which has been inspired by the way fish swim, consists of a system of cylinders positioned horizontal to the water flow and attached to springs.
As water flows past, the cylinder creates vortices, which push and pull the cylinder up and down. The mechanical energy in the vibrations is then converted into electricity.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/renewableenergy/3535012/Ocean-currents-can-power-the-world-say-scientists.html
The system was conceived at the University of Michigan, but the article was published in the UK. Curiouser and Curiouser!
I’m pretty sure Mayberry is in the Real America©.
Comment by pjsauter — November 30, 2008 @ 9:07 am
But does Floyd the Barber know Joe the Plumber?
The Bucs game is starting in a few minutes, so I need to go watch Ronde the Barber.
If we live in the Plato Cave we can live in Mayberry©
Meanwhile, here on the outside, we must contend with men oppressing women (present company excluded) to keep their power. On second thought, didn’t Mayberry© pigeon-hole women, too? Hmmm, no cave for me. I’ll stay on the outside and work on enlightenment.
(the photo accompanying this editorial is horrific)
Terrorism That’s Personal
In Two! :jason:
Floyd The Barber
Re: 11
It depends on if you want to split something equally or unequally.
So, how come I get randomly logged off sometimes?
Good one Kev! :rofl2:
I’ve been thinking about the stampede at Walmart and it made me remember the first demonstration I attended after Ghouliani was elected mayor. The demonstration was peaceful, but control freak Rudy insisted that the police surround the demonstrators with movable metal gates and not allow them to leave. I was standing right at the gate and I wanted to leave to go home. I asked the cop, who was pushing against the gate, to allow us to leave. Being either very new or very stupid, he just kept trying to throw his weight against the gate to hold back the crowd, the front of which was yelling backwards, “Stop pushing.”
What makes me think about Walmart is that although I was at the very front, I was not pushing, but being pushed by demonstrators further back. I tried to tell foolish cop that if the back of the crowd kept pushing, he was going to be trampled beneath that gate.
Finally, an old Sargent passed by and seeing what was happening, ordered the rookie to allow the crowd to leave. That crowd surged forward and no one in the front had any choice but to move forward or be trampled himself.
So, perhaps looking for the people that ran first into Walmart is not where the fault lies. And, placing some poor guy in front of that crowd, was like placing the much luckier demonstration cop there. What happened could have been foreseen.
I know it seems like an unfair question. Though I’m pretty certain that there is never an equality in the application of cutting, but only in theory ie math. Imagine cutting something “in half” with a chain saw. The accuracy would never be precise enough to say the end products are equally divided, ergo cut in two is my final answer. Surely there’s a huge difference between trying to cut something in equal parts or trying to cut something merely in two.
Now on the topic of old TV shows, I just listened to The Robert Conrad Show on the web. He was talking about discussing with Mary Tyler Moore getting about $500 a show after leaving Dick Van Dyke. Otherwise a very bizarre show, somebody brought up his Wikipedia page and Conrad urged people not to look at it because it had too much embarrassing info. Which is true.
Somewhere in my electronics burial ground I have an old computer with a great picture of Hurricane Floyd the Barber.
Well, Travis, obviously, in math terms you will likely never be able to perfectly cut something in exactly equal parts. It’s the intent that I’m talking about. Like, me and my brother always had to share. Everything. So we always had to agree on the portions being shared. So, it ends up being subjective in that both sides have to agree on the half that they are getting. :cat:
I had a pair of twin uncles named Floyd and Lloyd. It didn’t have anything to do with my brother being named Boyd, though. He was named after Boyd Dollar on the Green Bay Packers.
A gets to cut the item in two and B gets to choose which piece to take.
That formula usually results in one piece severed in almost exactly equal portions for A & B. Especially if A & B are children.
***
Note to self: if you tell folks a web site has embarrassing stuff, you’re giving them a road map to find your embarrassing stuff.
A gets to cut the item in two and B gets to choose which piece to take.
That formula usually results in one piece severed in almost exactly equal portions for A & B. Especially if A & B are children.
***
Note to self: if you tell folks a web site has embarrassing stuff, you’re giving them a road map to find your embarrassing stuff.
OOPS! Too fast on the ole mousey-poo
Well, if A gets to cut and B chooses what A doesn’t want to be chosen, there will be an argument. Personal experience. :slap:
Although, When me and my brother would play Monopoly and I would start losing, he would loan me money so we could keep playing. My dad was not so generous. He laughed when each of us would leave the table crying. :holla:
I guess it’s subjective if the definition of half is variable.
Michael Pollan on with Moyers
The definition of half is always variable if you want to get exact in math terms. To what decimal point does one take it? :fustrate:
That doesn’t make sense to me.
Well, it depends on what decimal point you want to take it to. How exact do you want to be. That’s what has to be established. :cat:
No matter what the expression is, you divide by two to get half. It’s that simple.
You’re obfuscating the problem by adding parameters, morphing the intent of the question.
Since we’ve eliminated half, because half is a theoretical term and never actually attainable, we’re only left with the answer of cutting something in two
If you cut something into two pieces, then you’ve cut it in two. If those two pieces are the same size, then you’ve cut it in half.
Whether you’d be able to cut it exactly in half down to the atomic level is moot.
You would be as incapable of verifying that it hasn’t been cut exactly in half (to zero tolerance) as you would verifying that it has.
Now we have to define size. If that something is the same volume of the other, but has a different mass, is that half?
http://pcp.lanl.gov/OCCAMRAZ.html
You’d have to have a non-heterogeneous piece of material in order to have the same volume and different mass. And then it would depend on how you define half when you attempt to divide it.
No, we have a definition for half. The application of that definition can never be attainable, only in theory is it attainable. I’m not going to waste anymore time on this.
Math always gave me a headache but the difference between
Denver 34,
Jets 17
is unavoidable. The Bronc’s usually play down to the level of their opponents and fortunately, today they’re showing up against a pretty good Jets team.
Well, clearly you’re asking that one accept your hypothesis that it’s impossible to cut something “in half,” which I don’t accept.
Ah, well, there you go. If one team is winning 14-0, and the other team scores a touchdown and makes the PAT, then the lead has been cut – exactly – in half.
Re 42 You got me there. :nixon:
Re 43 Again you don’t want to change the intent of the problem to fit your model.
Usually if there’s over 40 posts I’m sorry I missed some good chat but today……, not so much. :doh:
#1 I thought someone had to get it going. Nice of Kp to acknowledge and revisit something from yesterday.
I could have mentioned that my bff moved NC this year to be with his gf who used to take care of Andy’s house. Ange is not such a nice guy.
I could have also mentioned that I still have my first VCR that probably weighs more than all of my future VCRs together.
The math gives me a headache but people put up with my crap so I just look beyond.
It was Boyd Dowler but we are all worried about money these days.
As always, pj is beyond reproach.
I need to make a meatloaf but I am sure half a loaf would be better than none.
If nothing else you could just consider today clever by half and be thankful for what you got. I could take you back to a dark night here two years ago but we don’t need to go there.
Hang in there art. Things should get better. :turkey:
You have to have the right equipment that can cut PRECISELY in half, which I don’t believe exists. Remember, humans make these machines. :doh:
And you have to agree on what is precise, which I think may very well be impossible. After having gone through some math courses. :slap:
unless you’re a vegetarian.
This was prescient of Thomas Jefferson:
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Holy CRAP! Your right, it is Boyd Dowler! All these years I thought it was Boyd Dollar my brother was named after but I just talked to my dad and he confirmed it. :smack:
Re:51:
Comment by 49N 122W — November 30, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
:smack: :fustrate: :knit2:
And all the people care about is getting a good deal at Walmart. We are truly, pathetic. Just put a santa hat on everthing and it’ll be okay. :santacool:
:omg: Floyd, Lloyd & Boyd — that is pretty darn :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2:
Wish I came from a family that knew how to have fun other than telling “shit” jokes 🙄 🙄 :smack: :crap: All we got was stupid German names which no one could ever spell right! :billcat:
Have I mentioned how much I hate math lately? :fustrate: :fustrate: :fustrate: :knit2:
No, you’d have to have something to MEASURE whether something was cut exactly in half. Otherwise, you can’t tell whether it is or not. In real terms, it means that, to a given tolerance (say, +/- .0001 or whatever) it is or isn’t exactly half. Just because you can’t measure it beyond certain limits doesn’t mean it has or hasn’t been cut in half. To just say “you can never cut something in half” is a statement that – as reasonable as it may sound – isn’t a “fact.” It’s a supposition that can never be proven (it’s even within the realm of possibility that you could accidentally cut something exactly in half, but, again you could never prove it was or wasn’t). As soon as you make a more accurate measuring device, you’ll have the ability to make the cut more accurately.
If you want to get truly esoteric, then you can introduce time as a factor, since – if you’re assuming to ability to measure on an atomic scale – you’ll tend to have movement of electrons, and the potential loss of material on the cutting device. And since you can never accurately know both the position and velocity at the same time, you can never truly measure anything to an infinite precision.
That’s different from saying you can never do it, though.
RG, have you met the Palins of Alaska?
Nothing can be halved, a sphere, a dodecahedron, or a circle etc. Why? Because they’re not real. They are human fabrications of the mind, theoretical. Now we can continue to go ape shit crazy and eventually start opposing societies against this premise like the Flat Earth Society or we can try and dwindle this idea out and forget about it.
Since you can’t definitively prove one way or another that you can succeed in making one or not, and the probability that by chance that you will is way beyond small, it is a very polar that the probability is in favor with never.
Which is why I said it was moot.