AND IF ANYONE KNOWS WHAT A FETISH INVOLVING HAND PUPPETS IS CALLED THIS WOULD BE ALSO BRILLIANT.
I'm not quite sure, but I think Hand Puppet Fetish is filed under Agalmatophilia.
I feel like I need the backstory to this.
I want to know why Waffles knows what the fetish is called.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on October 06, 2014, 12:47:31 AM
I want to know why Waffles knows what the fetish is called.
You need to ask?
i played cards against humanity and the topic of wanking with handpuppets came up.
as for the cats thing i was trying to work out what a hashtag translation of #catscatscats would be in as many languages as possible.
I got french and italian so far.
Quote from: Pope Pixie Pickle on October 06, 2014, 01:30:04 AM
as for the cats thing i was trying to work out what a hashtag translation of #catscatscats would be in as many languages as possible.
I got french and italian so far.
trí cait (3 cats)
Quote from: Mangrove on October 07, 2014, 09:40:24 PM
Quote from: Pope Pixie Pickle on October 06, 2014, 01:30:04 AM
as for the cats thing i was trying to work out what a hashtag translation of #catscatscats would be in as many languages as possible.
I got french and italian so far.
trí cait (3 cats)
This is correct.
Cat, cats, cats.
Aon cat, dha cait, tri cait, ceathair cait....
The singular, cat, would sound like cudth. The plural cait would sounds like kutch.
The pronunciations are approximate, incidentally. In the singular cat, both the c and the t are broad consonants (rough equivalent, hard consonants in English). Broad is pronounced against the teeth if possible, so "T" takes a "th" sound. With cait, the c remains broad but the t becomes slender (soft consonants in English), and is therefore pronounced with the tongue against the back gums, so that it makes a sort of ch sound. (as a side note, if c were slender, it would sound like a kyuh, with the yuh being very slight.)
It's like kutch, kutch, kutch kutch kutch
back in the day it's like kutch kutch kutch
I know what it takes to make things worse
And I know what it takes to put a fomorian in a hearse
I'M ON THERIAC (http://pointsadhsblog.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/turning-herbs-into-drugs-in-the-middle-ages/)!
Quote from: Cain on October 28, 2014, 03:56:46 PM
I'M ON THERIAC (http://pointsadhsblog.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/turning-herbs-into-drugs-in-the-middle-ages/)!
Blocked, but still :lulz:
Quotethe lure of theriac lay in its exotic, even repulsive content (viper's flesh as the main ingredient), its cost (exorbitant), and the supposed difficulty in preparing it. Arnald de Villanova, a professor at the medical school of Montpellier around 1300, wrote an entire treatise on the topic, "On the dosage of theriac medicines" (De dosi tyriacalium medicinarum).
Best I could do, looking for something that rhymed with/was phonetically similar to crack.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 28, 2014, 03:52:47 PM
It's like kutch, kutch, kutch kutch kutch
back in the day it's like kutch kutch kutch
I know what it takes to make things worse
And I know what it takes to put a fomorian in a hearse
:lulz: that's awesome!
Quote from: Cain on October 28, 2014, 03:56:46 PM
I'M ON THERIAC (http://pointsadhsblog.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/turning-herbs-into-drugs-in-the-middle-ages/)!
That was DELIGHTFULLY nerdy.
So, just because why not, I think this is the new science thread.
And this is some fucking trippy science right here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141028214129.htm
QuoteIn quantum mechanics, particles do not have a distinct position in space. Instead, they exist as a wave function, a probability distribution that includes all the possible locations where a particle might be found. Maris and his colleagues are suggesting that parts of that distribution can be separated and cordoned off from each other.
So, my thought on this is that it really doesn't matter how small the probability subsegment is, it's still technically infinite.
Quote from: Cain on October 28, 2014, 03:56:46 PM
I'M ON THERIAC (http://pointsadhsblog.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/turning-herbs-into-drugs-in-the-middle-ages/)!
I might have to pass this along to my lab partner, who's pretty into botany.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on October 29, 2014, 02:59:13 AM
So, just because why not, I think this is the new science thread.
And this is some fucking trippy science right here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141028214129.htm
QuoteIn quantum mechanics, particles do not have a distinct position in space. Instead, they exist as a wave function, a probability distribution that includes all the possible locations where a particle might be found. Maris and his colleagues are suggesting that parts of that distribution can be separated and cordoned off from each other.
So, my thought on this is that it really doesn't matter how small the probability subsegment is, it's still technically infinite.
Interesting. It's sort of like gaming the system -- increasing the probability the electron will "be" in a certain "place"*. I'm not so sure about the measurement implications they raise, but it is really cool.
*In quotes because those words do not accurately describe what's happening.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 29, 2014, 10:59:51 AM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on October 29, 2014, 02:59:13 AM
So, just because why not, I think this is the new science thread.
And this is some fucking trippy science right here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141028214129.htm
QuoteIn quantum mechanics, particles do not have a distinct position in space. Instead, they exist as a wave function, a probability distribution that includes all the possible locations where a particle might be found. Maris and his colleagues are suggesting that parts of that distribution can be separated and cordoned off from each other.
So, my thought on this is that it really doesn't matter how small the probability subsegment is, it's still technically infinite.
Interesting. It's sort of like gaming the system -- increasing the probability the electron will "be" in a certain "place"*. I'm not so sure about the measurement implications they raise, but it is really cool.
*In quotes because those words do not accurately describe what's happening.
Hmmm I think that "within certain parameters" is probably a better description. But even so, because the electron can be at infinite locations within those narrowed parameters, it is not actually narrowing the probability of finding the electron at any one discrete location. If that makes sense. In other words, smaller parameters do not have fewer discrete locational possibilities, therefore the electron is free to carry on in its probabilistic manner without giving any fucks about the parameters being smaller, much as an electron on hydrogen is no less probabalistic than a valence electron on iodine.
Ah! I see what you're saying!
It's like the weird math around "infinity prime", "infinity / 2", "infinity squared", etc.
You can play fascinating games with it, but if you're dealing with an electron probability distribution, it still ends up with the same equation.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 29, 2014, 04:21:19 PM
Ah! I see what you're saying!
It's like the weird math around "infinity prime", "infinity / 2", "infinity squared", etc.
You can play fascinating games with it, but if you're dealing with an electron probability distribution, it still ends up with the same equation.
Yeah exactly.
It's really interesting though, and I'm curious where they go with it.
I hope it opens things up, but I fear it's just another case of adding a zero to the equation.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 30, 2014, 03:39:18 AM
I hope it opens things up, but I fear it's just another case of adding a zero to the equation.
I'm not sure how it would do even that; can you explain the mechanism?
I mean, infinity divided by any number is still infinity, so it seems like mathematically nothing changes except the parameters in which infinity is contained. It's sort of like an asymptote; the line can get closer to the asymptote forever without ever reaching zero. So the mathematical probability wouldn't change at all; only the quadrant in which you would find that probability.
Peedee:
The only place on Earth where an Englishwoman can ask an American how to say "cats" in Irish and have it turn into a conversation about physics.
Is fearr liom. :lulz:
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on October 30, 2014, 03:50:01 AM
I mean, infinity divided by any number is still infinity, so it seems like mathematically nothing changes except the parameters in which infinity is contained. It's sort of like an asymptote; the line can get closer to the asymptote forever without ever reaching zero. So the mathematical probability wouldn't change at all; only the quadrant in which you would find that probability.
Huh, I was thinking more of the potential chemical applications.
This may open up all new electron configurations in atoms, allowing currently impossible molecules to be created.
I'm dubious about finding stable configurations though, that may just be impossible.
:scientist:
(Not really, sadly)
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on October 30, 2014, 03:50:01 AM
I mean, infinity divided by any number is still infinity,
L'Hospital begs to differ.
Quote from: Ragret on November 03, 2014, 05:29:23 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on October 30, 2014, 03:50:01 AM
I mean, infinity divided by any number is still infinity, so it seems like mathematically nothing changes except the parameters in which infinity is contained. It's sort of like an asymptote; the line can get closer to the asymptote forever without ever reaching zero. So the mathematical probability wouldn't change at all; only the quadrant in which you would find that probability.
Huh, I was thinking more of the potential chemical applications.
This may open up all new electron configurations in atoms, allowing currently impossible molecules to be created.
I'm dubious about finding stable configurations though, that may just be impossible.
:scientist:
(Not really, sadly)
I don't understand how, and though while granted I haven't taken all that much chemistry, I do think I've taken enough to have a decent grasp on fundamental electron behavior. Can you explain how you think that might work?
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 04, 2014, 02:30:39 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 05:38:34 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on October 30, 2014, 03:50:01 AM
I mean, infinity divided by any number is still infinity,
L'Hospital begs to differ.
:?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27H%C3%B4pital%27s_rule
Everything they ever taught you in high school was a lie.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2014, 02:43:42 AM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 04, 2014, 02:30:39 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 03, 2014, 05:38:34 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on October 30, 2014, 03:50:01 AM
I mean, infinity divided by any number is still infinity,
L'Hospital begs to differ.
:?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27H%C3%B4pital%27s_rule
Everything they ever taught you in high school was a lie.
I don't even understand it. Which is probably just as well.
It basically means you can divide by zero and not get infinity, and multiply by infinity and not get infinity.
And vice-versa. In limited cases.
Calc III ruined my life. Nothing means anything, and we're just a large vacuum burp. So I quit and found something to do that was full of seedy, sordid shit that doesn't challenge my basic perception of the universe.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2014, 02:56:11 AM
It basically means you can divide by zero and not get infinity, and multiply by infinity and not get infinity.
And vice-versa. In limited cases.
Calc III ruined my life. Nothing means anything, and we're just a large vacuum burp. So I quit and found something to do that was full of seedy, sordid shit that doesn't challenge my basic perception of the universe.
It's probably good that I didn't go down the calculus rabbit-hole, I would have gotten stuck there and never come back out to do biology.
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 04, 2014, 02:59:43 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2014, 02:56:11 AM
It basically means you can divide by zero and not get infinity, and multiply by infinity and not get infinity.
And vice-versa. In limited cases.
Calc III ruined my life. Nothing means anything, and we're just a large vacuum burp. So I quit and found something to do that was full of seedy, sordid shit that doesn't challenge my basic perception of the universe.
It's probably good that I didn't go down the calculus rabbit-hole, I would have gotten stuck there and never come back out to do biology.
Yeah, it's like the pots drug. It promises you the secrets of the universe, and then you wake up crusted in your own filth with a Taylor Polynomial still stuck in your arm.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2014, 03:05:00 AM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 04, 2014, 02:59:43 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on November 04, 2014, 02:56:11 AM
It basically means you can divide by zero and not get infinity, and multiply by infinity and not get infinity.
And vice-versa. In limited cases.
Calc III ruined my life. Nothing means anything, and we're just a large vacuum burp. So I quit and found something to do that was full of seedy, sordid shit that doesn't challenge my basic perception of the universe.
It's probably good that I didn't go down the calculus rabbit-hole, I would have gotten stuck there and never come back out to do biology.
Yeah, it's like the pots drug. It promises you the secrets of the universe, and then you wake up crusted in your own filth with a Taylor Polynomial still stuck in your arm.
:lulz:
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on November 04, 2014, 02:30:02 AM
Quote from: Ragret on November 03, 2014, 05:29:23 PM
Quote from: Sexy St. Nigel on October 30, 2014, 03:50:01 AM
I mean, infinity divided by any number is still infinity, so it seems like mathematically nothing changes except the parameters in which infinity is contained. It's sort of like an asymptote; the line can get closer to the asymptote forever without ever reaching zero. So the mathematical probability wouldn't change at all; only the quadrant in which you would find that probability.
Huh, I was thinking more of the potential chemical applications.
This may open up all new electron configurations in atoms, allowing currently impossible molecules to be created.
I'm dubious about finding stable configurations though, that may just be impossible.
:scientist:
(Not really, sadly)
I don't understand how, and though while granted I haven't taken all that much chemistry, I do think I've taken enough to have a decent grasp on fundamental electron behavior. Can you explain how you think that might work?
I was thinking of excluding certain electron orbitals, though now that I think about it it would just be another way to ionize something because the moment you stop excluding, the norm steps back in. alternative stable configurations are impossible by definition.
I was thinking of the old addage "it all adds up to normal". Every new, weird, non-intuitive thing we find doesn't necessarily mean we have to rethink everything, because that weird, non-intuitive thing was already there before we came across it. Which means, essentially, nothing really changes just because we know this now.
I mean, it's still fascinating, and we might be able to tie a few more facts together, but we don't really need to come up with a new cosmology or reality grid.
My "adding zero" comment was alluding to math equations that can be solved by adding a zero to the equation, or multiplying by one. You're not changing the answer, and you're not really changing the question, you're just making it a bit easier to figure out.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 05, 2014, 01:35:12 PM
I was thinking of the old addage "it all adds up to normal". Every new, weird, non-intuitive thing we find doesn't necessarily mean we have to rethink everything, because that weird, non-intuitive thing was already there before we came across it. Which means, essentially, nothing really changes just because we know this now.
I mean, it's still fascinating, and we might be able to tie a few more facts together, but we don't really need to come up with a new cosmology or reality grid.
My "adding zero" comment was alluding to math equations that can be solved by adding a zero to the equation, or multiplying by one. You're not changing the answer, and you're not really changing the question, you're just making it a bit easier to figure out.
Oh, like adding zeros to both sides and then dividing? True.
And yeah, what this does for us isn't change anything about reality, but rather, get us incrementally closer to understanding what the hell the deal with electrons is.
I find them fascinating.
WHAT THE HELL
IS THE DEAL
WITH ELECTRONS???
Have you heard the one about "it's all the same electron"?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 05, 2014, 05:15:27 PM
Have you heard the one about "it's all the same electron"?
Yeah, that's a good one! Feynman was a funny guy. I have the full set of his lecture recordings.
Great for road trips fwiw
i edited fread title because it starts off all wanking wiff handpuppets and gaelic cats and keeps confusing me
I kind of liked the existential dissonance of having a thread title that made no sense being the science thread.
fair.
changed it back now
We could always change it to "A Thwid, gá dom a fhios conas a rá "cait" as Gaeilge"
(Also I admit to using Google Translate for most of that one)
:lulz:
DONE
:lulz:
:lulz:
(In case anyone is wondering, it would be roughly pronounced sort of like: "Uh HWIJ, GAW DUHM uh EES CUHN-nuhs uh RAW KUTCH uhss GWAYL-uh-gyuh")