SCIENCE! *hic*

[Kai]

I tried pouring it down the side of the glass, and it just made a big mess!

Tilt the glass when you do it. And make sure to get it INSIDE the glass. And pour slowly.

[Fujikoma]

That explains a LOT. Thanks for the help, Kai!

[Requia ☣]

So scientists are now replicating food service training?

I suppose repetition is important.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I tried pouring it down the side of the glass, and it just made a big mess!

I think perhaps one of your inputs was off.  Try running the data again!

Nope. Tried the other side with the same result... This is getting expensive.

EDIT: Yeah, I generally pour any fizzy beverage the way I would a beer, having it hit the bottom of the glass full force makes a mess whether you spill it or not (because foam seems to spray bits of liquid everywhere, and beer will run over if you're not careful), especially with soda... Though I wasn't aware of why it was a superior technique of pouring champagne...

Just a question, not to derail the thread or anything, but does tapping on the top of a can of soda or beer help to defoam it, so it doesn't hose everything down when you open it? I've had a good deal of success with it, but I've had to spend a lot of time debating whether it's wasted effort or not with people who think it's hogwash.

My ninth grade science teacher once posed the question asking how to calm down a can of soda before opening it. Someone said 'tap on the top' and his reply was:
So what scientific principle is at play when you tap the top? Or did you forget that you aren't in Magic class?

 

You tap the fucking side to knock the CO2 bubbles off the side, so they'll go back into solution.

Your 9th grade science teacher might have been witty, but he was an idiot.

I don't think that is true... best case scenario, you could knock off bubbles and they would float upward thus displacing less foam when you open it... but I'm pretty sure tapping won't push CO2 back into the solution.

One or the other, it works.

I know it works, because I experimented with it, with two warm diet cokes and a paint shaker.

TGRR: breaking science yet again

 

Oddly enough, this is the only way any real progress happens.

Some dumbfuck just HAS to try something.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

So scientists are now replicating food service training?

I suppose repetition is important.

There was a lab party going on anyway. They decided to be nerdy about it and do tests on their booze.

[Kai]

So scientists are now replicating food service training?

I suppose repetition is important.

Yeah, otherwise we'd still be using leeches and homeopathy, because people just think what they are doing is good enough instead of trying new shit and experimenting.

Besides, all scientists do at their professional meetings is talk about [field of research], get shitfaced and reminisce about their youth as wide eyed graduate students listen in.

[AFK]

Science is supposed to be stodgy, always, forever!  No fun allowed!!!!!!!!!

[Kai]

Science is supposed to be stodgy, always, forever!  No fun allowed!!!!!!!!!

Have you noticed that the only people who think science is stuffy stodgy and no fun aren't scientists?

I mean, there are all these artists and philosophers and religious scholars who say that science "sucks the soul out of the universe" but have you noticed that scientists tend to believe the opposite?


It makes me wonder if they're just all envious.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Science is supposed to be stodgy, always, forever!  No fun allowed!!!!!!!!!

Have you noticed that the only people who think science is stuffy stodgy and no fun aren't scientists?

I mean, there are all these artists and philosophers and religious scholars who say that science "sucks the soul out of the universe" but have you noticed that scientists tend to believe the opposite?


It makes me wonder if they're just all envious.

Different maps... and limited views from that well decorated Prison Cell.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Science is supposed to be stodgy, always, forever!  No fun allowed!!!!!!!!!

Have you noticed that the only people who think science is stuffy stodgy and no fun aren't scientists?

I mean, there are all these artists and philosophers and religious scholars who say that science "sucks the soul out of the universe" but have you noticed that scientists tend to believe the opposite?


It makes me wonder if they're just all envious.

I think it's the whole academia thing rather than a science thing. What's not fun about lasers and blowing shit up and chemicals in beakers

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I mean, there are all these artists and philosophers and religious scholars who say that science "sucks the soul out of the universe" but have you noticed that scientists tend to believe the opposite?


It makes me wonder if they're just all envious.

It means that they want to be viewed as authorities on reality, without having to take all those damn math classes.

Philosopher looks at a rose, he says, "pretty flower".  Scientist looks at a rose, he looks at how the rose spreads pollen through insects, and how that is accomplished, and suddenly the rose is a hell of a lot more interesting and amazing.

So fuck those people. 

Additionally, the best artists I know - ie, the working ones - and the most credible religious people I know tend to look at science as being not only desirable, but absolutely critical to their thinking, even if they don't have as much training as a working scientist.

[Epimetheus]

Philosopher looks at a rose, thinks "pretty flower," and writes about there being an absolute and eternal model of Pretty Flower, existing in a space outside of space, that informs all our ideas of pretty flowers.

[Cain]

Unless he's a postmodernist, in which case he talks about how "pretty flowers" are a discursive technology used by patriarchical elites to delineate the permitted boundaries of ideological deconstruction and resistance to the hegemony of plant-based biopower.

[Requia ☣]

Unless he's a postmodernist, in which case he talks about how "pretty flowers" are a discursive technology used by patriarchical elites to delineate the permitted boundaries of ideological deconstruction and resistance to the hegemony of plant-based biopower.

I'm pretty sure that's gibberish.  I'm even more sure that at least one postmodernist has uttered those exact words in all seriousness.

[Cain]

I need to make PoMo Bingo