1190: "Time"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
jovialbard
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:08 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby jovialbard » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:18 pm UTC

taixzo wrote:
charlie_grumbles wrote:climb-ONG
<snip>

My prediction: The molpy will uncurl as Cuegan leave the frame. We will follow it for one or two newpix more, then switch back to Cuegan, who will be lying on the ground dead.


<gasp!> what a terrible prediction!

psst, I added the last bit, teehee

Edit:
Wait... am I... :lol: the PAGE POPE! Muahaha! Take this papacy <blam!><blam!> and that <blam!><blam!><blam!>. Now for the headshot to make sure it stays dead! <blam!>

ewwwwwww... it's still twitching...
Last edited by jovialbard on Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:22 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
I wrote a book exploring the nature of identity and loss of self! And another book about babies!
Also, vlog and short-story blog

User avatar
taixzo
Posts: 1617
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:54 am UTC
Location: The Present

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby taixzo » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:20 pm UTC

jovialbard wrote:
taixzo wrote:
charlie_grumbles wrote:climb-ONG
<snip>

My prediction: The molpy will uncurl as Cuegan leave the frame. We will follow it for one or two newpix more, then switch back to Cuegan, who will be lying on the ground dead.


<gasp!> what a terrible prediction!

psst, I added the last bit, teehee


I read this and thought that my fingers had added some without me noticing, until I went back to the last page and checked.
BlitzGirl the Next
BlitzGirl the Fast
Knight Temporal
Bringer of the Light

Useless utilities: Newpix clock for Mac OS X, Newpix clock for Ubuntu

Sandgarden - a relaxing experience for Time Waiters

Best wishes to GnomeAnne, ColletArrow and january1may! One day you will all join me in the Present!

User avatar
SBN
Saved
Posts: 2232
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:15 pm UTC
Location: No longer in the home of the raptorcats, now in the home of the raptorcats.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby SBN » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:21 pm UTC

TheMinim wrote:
kenmelken wrote:
Spoiler:
SBN wrote:
TheMinim wrote:
kenmelken wrote:
TheMinim wrote:I used to use 'neat' all of the time to describe stuff I liked. I think the neat thing here is more of the same.


Likewise, at least in America, a great number of people often use the word "cool" all the time to describe anything new or interesting. It doesn't mean they have a limited vocabulary, just that that is the common go-to word they resort to for such things. Others use similar words for this purpose. Spock says "fascinating" all the time, for instance.


Yes, I've used 'cool' as well. It's all awesome anyway.

I have it on good authority that what the kids are saying these days is "Cool beans and awesome sauce!"


There's, like, a whole pleth of supes awes words the kids are using today. Some-daisies I think its, like, all so totes presh, but then, like, other timesies I'm, like, "This be way cray-cray, like, right?" Anyway, that's my lit update on the 'dorbs lang the kids make out of 'brevs these days.


...

I have no idea...

I'm apparently fluent in teen-speak, but I think pleth was misused above. In any case, I do wish Cuegan could add some more description, such as with the molpython.
astrotter wrote:It is not particularly clear to me at this time that we are not overanalyzing this...

Randalspeed thunk, iskinner, and other blitzers! Notes from the before-was improve the after-when.
Some Ways to Time
NetWeasel wrote:I want to put that in my sig... BUT I CAN'T!!!!

Ray Kremer
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:21 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Ray Kremer » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:24 pm UTC

jovialbard wrote:Though in that case Oreo is the product, or at least a trademarked name for the product. Nabisco is the company. Though Lego is both a product and a trademarked name for a product.

Oreo brand cookies made by Nabisco company, and Lego brand brick toys made by Lego company.

jovialbard wrote:This all reminds me of that stupid Moon/Sun thing that some astronomers do. Sorry, I don't buy that "Moon is full tonight" is a valid sentence. "The moon is full tonight". It's name isn't Moon, it's name is Luna. And the sun's name isn't Sun, it's Sol. If you refer to it by it's proper name you can drop the "the", but Moon and Sun are not proper names, so the "the" stays.

Gargoyles wrote:Hudson: Must you humans name everything? Nothing's real to you 'til you've named it, given it limits.
Elisa Maza: It's not like that. It's just that, well... uh... things need names.
Hudson: Does the sky need a name? Does the river?
Elisa Maza: The river's called the Hudson.
Hudson: Fine, lass. Then I will be the Hudson as well.

It's a "the" if there's only one of them. The Earth has only one sun and only one moon, so it's "the sun" and "the moon". (Sol and Luna are not the names of the sun and the moon, they are just "sun" and "moon" in Latin.) If you've never been further away than a night's round trip gliding from a castle on the coast of Scotland, you probably only know of one river, so it's "the river". Then some eccentric billionaire brings you to present-day New York and you find out rivers have names, because there's more than one of them so there has to be a way to tell them apart when talking about them.

mscha wrote:I know I've said before that Pokey was attackONG, but I've changed my mind: I now think that it simply rolled up to a ball, but forgot it was sitting on that rock, and fell off. (Not the smartest Pokey in the Molp, perhaps...)

So, a pokeyball, then?

User avatar
taixzo
Posts: 1617
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:54 am UTC
Location: The Present

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby taixzo » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:24 pm UTC

SBN wrote:
TheMinim wrote:
kenmelken wrote:
Spoiler:
SBN wrote:
TheMinim wrote:
kenmelken wrote:
TheMinim wrote:I used to use 'neat' all of the time to describe stuff I liked. I think the neat thing here is more of the same.


Likewise, at least in America, a great number of people often use the word "cool" all the time to describe anything new or interesting. It doesn't mean they have a limited vocabulary, just that that is the common go-to word they resort to for such things. Others use similar words for this purpose. Spock says "fascinating" all the time, for instance.


Yes, I've used 'cool' as well. It's all awesome anyway.

I have it on good authority that what the kids are saying these days is "Cool beans and awesome sauce!"


There's, like, a whole pleth of supes awes words the kids are using today. Some-daisies I think its, like, all so totes presh, but then, like, other timesies I'm, like, "This be way cray-cray, like, right?" Anyway, that's my lit update on the 'dorbs lang the kids make out of 'brevs these days.


...

I have no idea...

I'm apparently fluent in teen-speak, but I think pleth was misused above. In any case, I do wish Cuegan could add some more description, such as with the molpython.


But with the molpython, only Cueball saw it. Both of them saw the hedgemolpy though, so why would they describe it?

Edit: for some reason the multi-reply plugin decided to bring back all my old replies and add them to this one
Last edited by taixzo on Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:27 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
BlitzGirl the Next
BlitzGirl the Fast
Knight Temporal
Bringer of the Light

Useless utilities: Newpix clock for Mac OS X, Newpix clock for Ubuntu

Sandgarden - a relaxing experience for Time Waiters

Best wishes to GnomeAnne, ColletArrow and january1may! One day you will all join me in the Present!

User avatar
kenmelken
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:28 am UTC
Location: Svithjod

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby kenmelken » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:27 pm UTC

SBN wrote:
TheMinim wrote:
kenmelken wrote:
Spoiler:
SBN wrote:
TheMinim wrote:
kenmelken wrote:
TheMinim wrote:I used to use 'neat' all of the time to describe stuff I liked. I think the neat thing here is more of the same.


Likewise, at least in America, a great number of people often use the word "cool" all the time to describe anything new or interesting. It doesn't mean they have a limited vocabulary, just that that is the common go-to word they resort to for such things. Others use similar words for this purpose. Spock says "fascinating" all the time, for instance.


Yes, I've used 'cool' as well. It's all awesome anyway.

I have it on good authority that what the kids are saying these days is "Cool beans and awesome sauce!"


There's, like, a whole pleth of supes awes words the kids are using today. Some-daisies I think its, like, all so totes presh, but then, like, other timesies I'm, like, "This be way cray-cray, like, right?" Anyway, that's my lit update on the 'dorbs lang the kids make out of 'brevs these days.


...

I have no idea...

I'm apparently fluent in teen-speak, but I think pleth was misused above. In any case, I do wish Cuegan could add some more description, such as with the molpython.


Different type of teen dialect. This is brevs, where "pleth" means "plethora."
In Svithjod, there stands a rock. It is 100 miles high and 100 miles wide. Once every 1000 years a little bird comes to this rock to sharpen its beak. One time, I changed just the last sentence of this signature, and lots of you noticed. Image

User avatar
SBN
Saved
Posts: 2232
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:15 pm UTC
Location: No longer in the home of the raptorcats, now in the home of the raptorcats.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby SBN » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:30 pm UTC

taixzo wrote:
But with the molpython, only Cueball saw it. Both of them saw the hedgemolpy though, so why would they describe it?

For us, of course!

kenmelken wrote:Different type of teen dialect. This is brevs, where "pleth" means "plethora."

Oh, I knew what you meant. I just don't believe the teens that use brevs would use plethora, abbreviated or not.
astrotter wrote:It is not particularly clear to me at this time that we are not overanalyzing this...

Randalspeed thunk, iskinner, and other blitzers! Notes from the before-was improve the after-when.
Some Ways to Time
NetWeasel wrote:I want to put that in my sig... BUT I CAN'T!!!!

User avatar
kenmelken
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:28 am UTC
Location: Svithjod

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby kenmelken » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:31 pm UTC

SBN wrote:
kenmelken wrote:Different type of teen dialect. This is brevs, where "pleth" means "plethora."

Oh, I knew what you meant. I just don't believe the teens that use brevs would use plethora, abbreviated or not.

Maybe it's a regional term. I've heard it here in the Intermountain western US.
In Svithjod, there stands a rock. It is 100 miles high and 100 miles wide. Once every 1000 years a little bird comes to this rock to sharpen its beak. One time, I changed just the last sentence of this signature, and lots of you noticed. Image

User avatar
mscha
Posts: 6904
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:21 pm UTC
Location: NL
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby mscha » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:33 pm UTC

taixzo wrote:My prediction: The molpy will uncurl as Cuegan leave the frame. We will follow it for one or two newpix more, then switch back to Cuegan,

I hope you're right. It's still awesomefully motionless. Image
Image
If you look carefully, you see that it is still breathing, though. Image
List¹ of all Frames of Time and after Time.
New here? Questions? Check the wiki.
Don't worry, feed molpies⁴.
Image
Holy Croce
Default footnotes; standard OTT-np2166m 1.2:
Spoiler:
Image
Image

User avatar
jovialbard
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:08 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby jovialbard » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:34 pm UTC

Ray Kremer wrote:
jovialbard wrote:This all reminds me of that stupid Moon/Sun thing that some astronomers do. Sorry, I don't buy that "Moon is full tonight" is a valid sentence. "The moon is full tonight". It's name isn't Moon, it's name is Luna. And the sun's name isn't Sun, it's Sol. If you refer to it by it's proper name you can drop the "the", but Moon and Sun are not proper names, so the "the" stays.

Gargoyles wrote:Hudson: Must you humans name everything? Nothing's real to you 'til you've named it, given it limits.
Elisa Maza: It's not like that. It's just that, well... uh... things need names.
Hudson: Does the sky need a name? Does the river?
Elisa Maza: The river's called the Hudson.
Hudson: Fine, lass. Then I will be the Hudson as well.

It's a "the" if there's only one of them. The Earth has only one sun and only one moon, so it's "the sun" and "the moon". (Sol and Luna are not the names of the sun and the moon, they are just "sun" and "moon" in Latin.) If you've never been further away than a night's round trip gliding from a castle on the coast of Scotland, you probably only know of one river, so it's "the river". Then some eccentric billionaire brings you to present-day New York and you find out rivers have names, because there's more than one of them so there has to be a way to tell them apart when talking about them.

Good points, but you don't say the Jupiter either... so why do you say the Hudson... <head scratch> I mean I wouldn't say the if I was talking about the guy Hudson (unless I was specifying: "Which Hudson? Oh, THE Hudson."). I guess that has something to do with rivers and other geographical features... wierd :D
I wrote a book exploring the nature of identity and loss of self! And another book about babies!
Also, vlog and short-story blog

User avatar
mathrec
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:30 am UTC
Location: Carlsbad, California
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby mathrec » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:34 pm UTC

mscha wrote:
mathrec wrote:There's been quite a discussion about math and relativity. I had to think about what to quote...
<snip>
Spoiler:
I usually snip my quotes pretty heavily, but there is some context here, so I've left this exchange pretty much intact, but I did highlight the specific parts that I'm responding to:
Ray Kremer wrote:
charlie_grumbles wrote:I don't think mathematicians think like that. Mathematics isn't (in our view) inherent in anything except the human mind. We "see" order in the universe, but it is an order imposed by how we think of it, not, precisely speaking, how it is.

Math is "pure mind stuff" (I think I'm quoting a badly remembered source here).

I'm pretty sure that physicists feel the same way. Physical theories aren't inherent in nature, but explanations of nature imposed by the way we choose to think. Both mathematicians and physicists build models of things and we have a bias for simple models (Occam's Razor). So, we say the earth follows an elliptical path around the sun, but that is far from accurate. It is just an approximation. The reality is that there is lots of wobble.

So, I think you have the understanding of the relationship between math and the universe just backwards; not an uncommon view. It isn't that there is math in the universe. It is that, in math (and somewhat differently in physics) we build models that help us understand, in a simple way, the complexity of the universe. But the math is in us.

I think I'm on pretty solid ground above, so I'm going to speculate a bit here. I've gotten some push-back on the following in the past, and physics is not my main study. But I'll make the bold claim that Atoms don't "exist". Neither do quarks and muons and all the rest. Those are just explanations, thought up by smart people to try to explain the complexity of the small. They are a mental model from which we can predict phenomena pretty accurately (not exactly). The reality is more complex than the model. Physicists, however, speak of quarks as if they "exist", but I think that really what they mean is that there are some phenomena that are "well explained" by the idea of quarks.

So, in this view (my story, and I'm stickin' to it), the universe isn't "built up" from small things like quarks. It just IS. We use quarks as a way to get a simple (hmmm) way to think about that complexity. Neither does it embody mathematical principles. People think those up themselves. But math is also used to build "sensible" models (i.e. predictive models) of how it all hangs together.

Again, I'm mostly speaking off the cuff and we're not really in disagreement on things, I think.

Elliptical orbits are there because they work. Planets don't decide to move in an elliptical path rather than a circular one, and they don't sit down with a calculator and run the figures, they just settle into a path that keeps them around the sun or they fly off into space. It's quite mathematical (though as you say, not with 100% precision) because there's a definite consistency there, but the formulas describing it exist because humans were curious and wanted to know why.

As far as the difference between the theory and reality, especially on the atomic scale, yes, the purpose of science is to describe and predict within a desired amount of precision and on a particular scale. Newtonian physics describes things wonderfully at a macroscopic level but disintegrates on the atomic scale. But what about the reverse? If all movement of particles can be alternately described as waves, does a thrown baseball have a waveform? The answer is yes, but it's so damn small compared to the baseball as a whole that it's not worth bothering with.

If you look at the history of knowledge about the atomic and sub-atomic scale, each new theory explained things that were known at the time. As we get better at investigating the quantum world, we find new things that existing theory doesn't fit, and so we refine the theory in a way that includes the new things but doesn't change the way that the older model fit with all the things we knew about before.

It's kind of like this comic http://www.xkcd.com/435/ again. If you are looking at behavioral mannerism you don't spend a lot of time thinking about how cells work. If you are looking at cells you don't spend a lot of time thinking about how atoms and molecules work. If you are looking at atoms and molecules you don't spend a lot of time thinking about how quarks work. And if you are looking at behavioral mannerisms you certainly never spend time thinking about quarks. It's all down there, or rather something that roughly corresponds to the descriptive theory is down there, but each theory is suited to the thing it's describing on the appropriate scale.

I'm 100% with Charlie on the understanding that mathematical models imitate reality. It's not that reality uses math.

Where I diverge significantly is that I disagree about the "reality" of things that we cannot observe directly with our senses. Let's leave quarks out the discussion for the moment, because you'd need to be familiar with the experimental design and results that suggest that quarks are "real" not just explanatory. We can have the discussion about electrons, which are just as unobservable to the human senses and behave in ways that are just as counterintuitive to the ways that we observe everyday objects.

If you accept things like books and sunshine as "real", then that is no different from accepting electrons as "real", once you understand the types of experiments that let us observe electrons. You might not know everything about a book (or about "books"), but you don't doubt that books are real. Some of the things you may understand about books might even be wrong, but that wouldn't make "books" be unreal. In the same way, physicists understand the observations of electrons in a way that leads them to accept that electrons are real, not just explanatory concepts.

(The same statement is also true about quarks. But that would not have been true 30 years ago. There was definite discussion then about whether quarks were real or merely explanatory.)

So what would you say about string theory? That stuff is way, way, way over my head, but in some versions, like M-theory, you need eleven dimensions to make the theory work.
Is there anyone who would think that those dimensions might be ‘real’, and not just a model to make the calculations work?


Well, if string theory were sufficiently consistent and explanatory, then I would say that it is an explanatory model. There is very little experimental observation that compels us to accept strings or branes or extra dimensions. At this point, I view it as an idea that looks like it could give birth to an explanatory theory.
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
The end is always near.
Lord Randall wrote:Wait for it.

User avatar
charlie_grumbles
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:07 pm UTC
Location: Self Imposed Exile

Re: 1190: "Time" Cool, etc.

Postby charlie_grumbles » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:35 pm UTC

Cool is a pretty old word. It originated with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_jazz, I believe before 1950 and was adopted by the beat poets in the 50's. When I was in high school (just after the last ice age), the term was bitchin', but then "cool" came back and it comes and goes in youth culture. It has had many meanings: hip, mellow, hot (even), "in" as in the "cool kids". The spelling can vary:kewl, wicked (or more properly "wikid" or my favorite wikkk-id with emphasis on the second syllable after drawing out the first).

Teenagers are sometimes shocked - shocked - to learn that the "cool" concepts they have were also known, to their grandparents. Yes, yr granny was hot. Yr grampy was cool.
Lurking. Watching. Thinking. Writing. Waiting.
-- Charlie Grumbles

User avatar
Valarya
Posts: 975
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Nashville

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Valarya » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:43 pm UTC

BlitzGirl wrote:
yappobiscuits wrote:
kenmelken wrote:There's, like, a whole pleth of supes awes words the kids are using today. Some-daisies I think its, like, all so totes presh, but then, like, other timesies I'm, like, "This be way cray-cray, like, right?" Anyway, that's my lit update on the 'dorbs lang the kids make out of 'brevs these days.

I need to wash out my brain after reading that...

I understood that whole thing, but I didn't like it. Image

Ditto and ditto. Although I did hope you were going to use the word (words?) cray-cray. *shudder* Reminds me of this lovely article from cracked. :D

TimeLurker wrote:
jovialbard wrote:Perhaps the difference is that you perceive a lego brick in your hand as a brick, whereas I perceive it as a lego. Thus when you have a pile of them in your hand, you perceive them as a pile of Lego bricks, whereas I perceive them as legos. You are comfortable dropping the term brick, since it can be assumed. I think if I had a bunch of Tonka trucks in front of me I would also be comfortable calling them Tonkas. It may have something to do with the American brand identification psychology...

I think you hit the nail on the head. We associate the brand with the product so closely that they become one in the same. If the company Oreo made something other than sandwich cookies we would not be able to refer to their products as Oreos.

I don't know how it wasn't stated as brilliantly and simply as this before now. Same way you don't say a pack of adhesive bandages. They're bandaids (from BandAid brand).
Caridnal of Cupcakes | Friaress of Frosting | Pope of Pocket Pastries
Occasional basement dweller.

Image

Qalyar
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Qalyar » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:44 pm UTC

Ray Kremer wrote:So, a pokeyball, then?

So, while Cueball was holding the tenrec1, he was a ... pokeyman?
1Hæresis Cassinus in aeternum!

User avatar
BlueCrab
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon May 20, 2013 12:10 am UTC
Location: Connecticut Yankee in Virginia

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby BlueCrab » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:46 pm UTC

At least four answers to my link problem:
Spoiler:
jjjdavidson wrote:At the top of the post, right beside where it says "by BlueCrab", there's a little "document" icon that provides a direct link to the post, not just the thread page. Right-click on that, copy the link location, and paste it into your current post.

Ah, on the left! I scrutinized everything on the top, right, and bottom, but never thought of looking at the left.

ucim wrote:The forums at 2Lumps are phpbb, just like these. If you are looking at a post, the title of the post itself is a link. Right-click and select "copy link location" (or whatever sounds like it will copy the actual URL it goes to), and put that link in URL tags.

open-square-bracket URL equal-sign
the actual URL (needs the http:// part also
close-square-bracket
the text you want highlighted and underlined as a link
open-square-bracket
forward-slash
URL
close-square-bracket.

If you want to link to an actual comic at 2lumps, go to the archive and pull the comic up from there. The link in the browser address bar when you are looking at the right comic should be the one to use. (It should be the same URL as in the date link you'd click to get there.) Surround it with URL tags the same way as above.


(AluisioASG got complicated! Didn't understand that at all, but I'll find someone who does if need be :) )

Pelrigg wrote:To get the Thread post url; I right click on the "Re: Time" header and select "Copy Shortcut" (IE, don't know the other secret wizard spells for other browsers). Then you can "Paste" that into your post. For example: the post of yours I quoted has this url: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=101043&start=33320#p3380703


Thank you gentle-xers, I will try it tonight. (I'm working on touch devices, I'll try the touch-and-hold instead of right-clicking; if that doesn't work, I'll try to pry the Enchanter's computer away from him long enough to try it there :wink: )


ChronosDragon wrote:Yeah, so cut out the abstraction and just say:

"Move towards the direction of the Sol system's third planet's positive pole 0.0000000000105772¤ times the distance a particle of light can travel in a vacuum over the duration of that planet's orbital period" next time you want to tell someone to go north 100 meters!

-got to remember this for when relatives are visiting, and make sure I specify base 10!


charlie_grumbles wrote: So, in this view (my story, and I'm stickin' to it), the universe isn't "built up" from small things like quarks. It just IS. We use quarks as a way to get a simple (hmmm) way to think about that complexity. Neither does it embody mathematical principles. People think those up themselves. But math is also used to build "sensible" models (i.e. predictive models) of how it all hangs together.

So both mathematics and physics are how we encode our observations in order to further understand them?
Wiki Wiki Wiki Wiki Grapevine, Grapevine

"Kvetcher-upper" -- one who complains while ketchupping? - CasCat


“Pretty much everything tastes better if you eat it in the shower.” - ggh

User avatar
jovialbard
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:08 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby jovialbard » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:48 pm UTC

Valarya wrote:Ditto and ditto. Although I did hope you were going to use the word (words?) cray-cray. *shudder* Reminds me of this lovely article from cracked. :D


I must have always been old, because I found most of the slang words annoying when I was a kid too. Except for the ones I found funny. And of course the staples like "cool". The whole abrev thing is just anoy-noy though, simply because it sounds stupid. I do like pronouncing Oh me yarm though... ohmmjah
I wrote a book exploring the nature of identity and loss of self! And another book about babies!
Also, vlog and short-story blog

User avatar
ergman
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:24 am UTC
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby ergman » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:51 pm UTC

I'm a little offended by the teen-talk talk. Pretty much everyone (individually, and in groups) develops their own way of speaking, taking and leaving whichever of these words. I've found that people from my school talk vastly different from people in other schools, and there are plenty of splits within. I probably think about this a little too much, and sometimes accidentally start to mimic people while I'm talking to them :oops:
and as far as go to adjectives, I often try to say sweet and sick at the same time, and say swick.

mscha wrote:Image
If you look carefully, you see that it is still breathing, though. Image

that's a truly swick level of detail.
I made my avatar, Buffygirl hatted it, Yappo smileyed it and ggh taroted it!
I've changed, witnessing this thing so beautiful

Good luck on blitzing, katakissa, username5243, musthavebeenmykarma, iskinner, thunk, GnomeAnne, and quantized ! Keep the signposts coming, we love em in the now!

User avatar
Ebonite
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:30 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Ebonite » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:54 pm UTC

Valarya wrote:
TimeLurker wrote:
jovialbard wrote:Perhaps the difference is that you perceive a lego brick in your hand as a brick, whereas I perceive it as a lego. Thus when you have a pile of them in your hand, you perceive them as a pile of Lego bricks, whereas I perceive them as legos. You are comfortable dropping the term brick, since it can be assumed. I think if I had a bunch of Tonka trucks in front of me I would also be comfortable calling them Tonkas. It may have something to do with the American brand identification psychology...

I think you hit the nail on the head. We associate the brand with the product so closely that they become one in the same. If the company Oreo made something other than sandwich cookies we would not be able to refer to their products as Oreos.

I don't know how it wasn't stated as brilliantly and simply as this before now. Same way you don't say a pack of adhesive bandages. They're bandaids (from BandAid brand).

To be clear: "Oreo" isn't a company, it's a brand of sandwich cookies made by the Nabisco corporation. Nabisco makes other products as well as other cookies with brand names. (And you wouldn't refer to those items "Oreos".)

Similarly, "BandAid" isn't a company, it's a brand of adhesive strips made by Johnson & Johnson. They make other branded personal care products as well.

However, both Nabisco and Johnson & Johnson take care to protect their brand names. If Nabisco didn't prevent people from calling all sandwich cookies "oreos", then you could feasibly go to the store and buy Keebler Oreos and Pepperidge Farm Oreos, and Nabisco couldn't do anything about it.

I think this last part is what we all agree on.
Sir Ebonite, Lord of the Three Holes
"molpy molpy molpy molpy la la la"

User avatar
charlie_grumbles
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:07 pm UTC
Location: Self Imposed Exile

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby charlie_grumbles » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:55 pm UTC

BlueCrab wrote:
charlie_grumbles wrote: So, in this view (my story, and I'm stickin' to it), the universe isn't "built up" from small things like quarks. It just IS. We use quarks as a way to get a simple (hmmm) way to think about that complexity. Neither does it embody mathematical principles. People think those up themselves. But math is also used to build "sensible" models (i.e. predictive models) of how it all hangs together.

So both mathematics and physics are how we encode our observations in order to further understand them?

That is pretty accurate for physics models. Math is more abstract. Some math models attempt to capture "reality" others are just "for the pure fun of it." Few mathematicians (few, not none) care much if the math they create has application in reality. Most are seeking the implications of a minimal set of axioms, independent of any relationship outside math itself.

However, there are two things that mathematicians are interested in about a set of axioms. Are they consistent? Are they complete? I can say more if anyone is interested, but it is time, now, for Tai Chi.
Lurking. Watching. Thinking. Writing. Waiting.
-- Charlie Grumbles

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6859
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby ucim » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:57 pm UTC

jovialbard wrote:Good points, but you don't say the Jupiter either... so why do you say the Hudson... <head scratch>
When you say "The Hudson" you are really saying "The Hudson (River)", which is really "The (Hudson) River". It's just a bit of breve-jive that became standard. Or, another way of putting it, there are sometimes ghost words in English sentences, and they have to be considered. Thus the cookie (the Oreo cookie) becomes the Oreo, and the brick (the Lego brick) becomes the Lego.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9098
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby BlitzGirl » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:57 pm UTC

jovialbard wrote:<snip> Good points, but you don't say the Jupiter either... so why do you say the Hudson... <head scratch> I mean I wouldn't say the if I was talking about the guy Hudson (unless I was specifying: "Which Hudson? Oh, THE Hudson."). I guess that has something to do with rivers and other geographical features... wierd :D

Interesting. Just off the top of my head, this trick seems to work with rivers (the Hudson), deserts (the Mojave), mountain ranges (the Alps), certain buildings (the Met), ships (the Titanic), people (the Englishman), and certain horses beloved by readers of Walter Farley (the Black).

taixzo wrote:
SBN wrote:<snip> In any case, I do wish Cuegan could add some more description, such as with the molpython.

But with the molpython, only Cueball saw it. Both of them saw the hedgemolpy though, so why would they describe it?

The logical solution:

Image
Spoiler:
LeadingTheBlind.png
LeadingTheBlind.png (19.47 KiB) Viewed 12099 times
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

User avatar
TheMinim
Posts: 940
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:47 pm UTC
Location: In The Present
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby TheMinim » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:59 pm UTC

There are lots of different discussions.

What do you do?
Titled TheMinimastic as of NP 1610.
Hi Blitzers! And non-blitzers!
Official owner of NewPage 1572, and official co-owner of NewPage 2087 along with NoMouse.

User avatar
jovialbard
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:08 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby jovialbard » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:01 pm UTC

charlie_grumbles wrote:
BlueCrab wrote:So both mathematics and physics are how we encode our observations in order to further understand them?

That is pretty accurate for physics models. Math is more abstract. Some math models attempt to capture "reality" others are just "for the pure fun of it." Few mathematicians (few, not none) care much if the math they create has application in reality. Most are seeking the implications of a minimal set of axioms, independent of any relationship outside math itself.

However, there are two things that mathematicians are interested in about a set of axioms. Are they consistent? Are they complete? I can say more if anyone is interested, but it is time, now, for Tai Chi.

But that precisely why I would argue that Mathematics is the study of the foundation of reality, a deeper reality than experience... unless of course reality is inconsistent, which would be problematic but I suppose also necessary for some notions of divinity (not all, but some)
I wrote a book exploring the nature of identity and loss of self! And another book about babies!
Also, vlog and short-story blog

User avatar
thirds
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 2:16 pm UTC
Location: Tenrec Burrow NP1254

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby thirds » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:03 pm UTC

BlitzGirl wrote:
jovialbard wrote:<snip> Good points, but you don't say the Jupiter either... so why do you say the Hudson... <head scratch> I mean I wouldn't say the if I was talking about the guy Hudson (unless I was specifying: "Which Hudson? Oh, THE Hudson."). I guess that has something to do with rivers and other geographical features... wierd :D

Interesting. Just off the top of my head, this trick seems to work with rivers (the Hudson), deserts (the Mojave), mountain ranges (the Alps), certain buildings (the Met), ships (the Titanic), people (the Englishman), and certain horses beloved by readers of Walter Farley (the Black).


It's the Hudson River. It is not the Jupiter Planet, nor the John Human. It is, however, the (Milky Way) Galaxy.

The ONG.
Image

I think Cueball rubbed off the molpiness, it can't molp anymore. And Cuegan just doesn't care. They really are stuck in the Uncanny Valley.

User avatar
jovialbard
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:08 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby jovialbard » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:06 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
jovialbard wrote:Good points, but you don't say the Jupiter either... so why do you say the Hudson... <head scratch>
When you say "The Hudson" you are really saying "The Hudson (River)", which is really "The (Hudson) River". It's just a bit of breve-jive that became standard. Or, another way of putting it, there are sometimes ghost words in English sentences, and they have to be considered. Thus the cookie (the Oreo cookie) becomes the Oreo, and the brick (the Lego brick) becomes the Lego.

Jose

BlitzGirl wrote:Interesting. Just off the top of my head, this trick seems to work with rivers (the Hudson), deserts (the Mojave), mountain ranges (the Alps), certain buildings (the Met), ships (the Titanic), people (the Englishman), and certain horses beloved by readers of Walter Farley (the Black).


Well, let's not get into horses names, they're always a bunch of nonsense. But I think those are all great examples BlitzGirl, and they tie in well with what ucim is saying. In most of the cases you mention, except the darn horse, there is an implied generic identifier at the end: The Hudson river, the Mojave desert, the Alp mountains (oreos/legos!!!), the Metropolitan Museum of Art. But you wouldn't say the Jupiter planet, or the Mary person. The Titanic... I donno, I guess it's like a big metal water horse...

edit: ninja'd
I wrote a book exploring the nature of identity and loss of self! And another book about babies!
Also, vlog and short-story blog

User avatar
ttscp
Posts: 296
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:05 pm UTC
Location: Lost In Thought - Send Search Party

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby ttscp » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:08 pm UTC

mathrec wrote:
mscha wrote:
mathrec wrote:There's been quite a discussion about math and relativity. I had to think about what to quote...
<snip>
Spoiler:
I usually snip my quotes pretty heavily, but there is some context here, so I've left this exchange pretty much intact, but I did highlight the specific parts that I'm responding to:
Ray Kremer wrote:
charlie_grumbles wrote:I don't think mathematicians think like that. Mathematics isn't (in our view) inherent in anything except the human mind. We "see" order in the universe, but it is an order imposed by how we think of it, not, precisely speaking, how it is.

Math is "pure mind stuff" (I think I'm quoting a badly remembered source here).

I'm pretty sure that physicists feel the same way. Physical theories aren't inherent in nature, but explanations of nature imposed by the way we choose to think. Both mathematicians and physicists build models of things and we have a bias for simple models (Occam's Razor). So, we say the earth follows an elliptical path around the sun, but that is far from accurate. It is just an approximation. The reality is that there is lots of wobble.

So, I think you have the understanding of the relationship between math and the universe just backwards; not an uncommon view. It isn't that there is math in the universe. It is that, in math (and somewhat differently in physics) we build models that help us understand, in a simple way, the complexity of the universe. But the math is in us.

I think I'm on pretty solid ground above, so I'm going to speculate a bit here. I've gotten some push-back on the following in the past, and physics is not my main study. But I'll make the bold claim that Atoms don't "exist". Neither do quarks and muons and all the rest. Those are just explanations, thought up by smart people to try to explain the complexity of the small. They are a mental model from which we can predict phenomena pretty accurately (not exactly). The reality is more complex than the model. Physicists, however, speak of quarks as if they "exist", but I think that really what they mean is that there are some phenomena that are "well explained" by the idea of quarks.

So, in this view (my story, and I'm stickin' to it), the universe isn't "built up" from small things like quarks. It just IS. We use quarks as a way to get a simple (hmmm) way to think about that complexity. Neither does it embody mathematical principles. People think those up themselves. But math is also used to build "sensible" models (i.e. predictive models) of how it all hangs together.

Again, I'm mostly speaking off the cuff and we're not really in disagreement on things, I think.

Elliptical orbits are there because they work. Planets don't decide to move in an elliptical path rather than a circular one, and they don't sit down with a calculator and run the figures, they just settle into a path that keeps them around the sun or they fly off into space. It's quite mathematical (though as you say, not with 100% precision) because there's a definite consistency there, but the formulas describing it exist because humans were curious and wanted to know why.

As far as the difference between the theory and reality, especially on the atomic scale, yes, the purpose of science is to describe and predict within a desired amount of precision and on a particular scale. Newtonian physics describes things wonderfully at a macroscopic level but disintegrates on the atomic scale. But what about the reverse? If all movement of particles can be alternately described as waves, does a thrown baseball have a waveform? The answer is yes, but it's so damn small compared to the baseball as a whole that it's not worth bothering with.

If you look at the history of knowledge about the atomic and sub-atomic scale, each new theory explained things that were known at the time. As we get better at investigating the quantum world, we find new things that existing theory doesn't fit, and so we refine the theory in a way that includes the new things but doesn't change the way that the older model fit with all the things we knew about before.

It's kind of like this comic http://www.xkcd.com/435/ again. If you are looking at behavioral mannerism you don't spend a lot of time thinking about how cells work. If you are looking at cells you don't spend a lot of time thinking about how atoms and molecules work. If you are looking at atoms and molecules you don't spend a lot of time thinking about how quarks work. And if you are looking at behavioral mannerisms you certainly never spend time thinking about quarks. It's all down there, or rather something that roughly corresponds to the descriptive theory is down there, but each theory is suited to the thing it's describing on the appropriate scale.

I'm 100% with Charlie on the understanding that mathematical models imitate reality. It's not that reality uses math.

Where I diverge significantly is that I disagree about the "reality" of things that we cannot observe directly with our senses. Let's leave quarks out the discussion for the moment, because you'd need to be familiar with the experimental design and results that suggest that quarks are "real" not just explanatory. We can have the discussion about electrons, which are just as unobservable to the human senses and behave in ways that are just as counterintuitive to the ways that we observe everyday objects.

If you accept things like books and sunshine as "real", then that is no different from accepting electrons as "real", once you understand the types of experiments that let us observe electrons. You might not know everything about a book (or about "books"), but you don't doubt that books are real. Some of the things you may understand about books might even be wrong, but that wouldn't make "books" be unreal. In the same way, physicists understand the observations of electrons in a way that leads them to accept that electrons are real, not just explanatory concepts.

(The same statement is also true about quarks. But that would not have been true 30 years ago. There was definite discussion then about whether quarks were real or merely explanatory.)

So what would you say about string theory? That stuff is way, way, way over my head, but in some versions, like M-theory, you need eleven dimensions to make the theory work.
Is there anyone who would think that those dimensions might be ‘real’, and not just a model to make the calculations work?


Well, if string theory were sufficiently consistent and explanatory, then I would say that it is an explanatory model. There is very little experimental observation that compels us to accept strings or branes or extra dimensions. At this point, I view it as an idea that looks like it could give birth to an explanatory theory.


As I understand it, all the extra dimensions of string theory are rolled up very tightly so we can't perceive them. I imagine a sheet of paper (2D) rolled up into a line so the inhabitants of the space can perceive only one dimension.D Supporters of string theory would tell you that those extra dimensions are as real as quarks.

The major criticism of string theory is that it has too many parameters, so it can't really predict anything. They just adjust parameters to fit the world as observed, and the theory has enough parameters to fit not just our world, but lots of others. This, again, is as I understand it.

Want a mind blowing theory, that, as far as I know, is less controversial? The Holographic Principle: all the information inside a three dimensional space can be encoded on its surface. The wikipedia article is here. Although the article mentions string theory, I think it is actually independent of the rest of it. The implication is that our perceived 3D reality may be 'really' 2DH.

And don't get me started on Wolfram who has posited in A New Kind of Science that our universe can be best modeled as a cellular automaton.

D I don't know how you roll up space to get 2.5D as in the OTC
H And therefore the xkcd slice really is 2D.
Always act to increase the survival chances of the largest group you are a part of.

User avatar
jovialbard
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:08 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby jovialbard » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:08 pm UTC

TheMinim wrote:There are lots of different discussions.

What do you do?


I pretend I know what I'm talking about in all of them! Wait, was that rhetorical?
I wrote a book exploring the nature of identity and loss of self! And another book about babies!
Also, vlog and short-story blog

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9098
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby BlitzGirl » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:09 pm UTC

TheMinim wrote:What do you do?

You do that thing you do.
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

User avatar
AluisioASG
Posts: 2337
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:43 am UTC
Location: Flowing into places that are comfortable for it to flow
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby AluisioASG » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:10 pm UTC

TheMinim wrote:There are lots of different discussions.

What do you do?

You wait.

EDIT: Can anyone explain me what 'plasmite' means? I can't find it on any dictionary. (I presume it's related to 'plasma', right?)

EDIT 2: Does TLTW qualifies as fan fiction? Of what?
Last edited by AluisioASG on Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:15 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Selecting new quote…
Can't see addams on the right? Message me!Image

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9098
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby BlitzGirl » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:13 pm UTC

I like how we have three different answers to Minim's question about different discussions.
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

User avatar
jovialbard
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:08 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby jovialbard » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:14 pm UTC

AluisioASG wrote:
TheMinim wrote:There are lots of different discussions.

What do you do?

You wait.



For the win!
I wrote a book exploring the nature of identity and loss of self! And another book about babies!
Also, vlog and short-story blog

User avatar
mscha
Posts: 6904
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:21 pm UTC
Location: NL
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby mscha » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:16 pm UTC

jovialbard wrote:
AluisioASG wrote:
TheMinim wrote:There are lots of different discussions.
What do you do?

You wait.

For the win!

No, for it!
List¹ of all Frames of Time and after Time.
New here? Questions? Check the wiki.
Don't worry, feed molpies⁴.
Image
Holy Croce
Default footnotes; standard OTT-np2166m 1.2:
Spoiler:
Image
Image

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9098
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby BlitzGirl » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:17 pm UTC

But if we all Waited for the OTT discussions, there wouldn't be an OTT.

Waiting for the OTC is better.

--ninja'd by mscha--
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

User avatar
jovialbard
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:08 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby jovialbard » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:19 pm UTC

BlitzGirl wrote:But if we all Waited for the OTT discussions, there wouldn't be an OTT.

Waiting for the OTC is better.

--ninja'd by mscha--


Who says you can't converse while you wait. I wait for myself all the time! To get a clue, to shut up, to say something interesting... doesn't stop me from talking in the mean time... oh wait...
I wrote a book exploring the nature of identity and loss of self! And another book about babies!
Also, vlog and short-story blog

User avatar
k.bookbinder
Posts: 975
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:17 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby k.bookbinder » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:22 pm UTC

Reading over the past few newpages, it strikes me that the "chatting" environment in here seems to have gone from forum, to chat room, to cocktail party; there is a pretty even mix of topics which one might "overhear" as they read through the thread, much like moving back and forth through a crowded room at a cocktail party.
"HAL9000" This thread is a goldmine for signatures.
"StratPlayer" All in all, that sand paper rubbed me the wrong way.
"charlie_grumbles" The secret of the geeks. "Copy, Borrow, Steal, Succeed"
"ucim" There's a forestful of treeish people here.

Image Welcome! Confused? See here.

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9098
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby BlitzGirl » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:28 pm UTC

jovialbard wrote:Who says you can't converse while you wait. I wait for myself all the time! To get a clue, to shut up, to say something interesting... doesn't stop me from talking in the mean time... oh wait...

Indeed, but that means you are doing two things. Which is different from:
AluisioASG wrote:
TheMinim wrote:There are lots of different discussions.
What do you do?

You wait.

The jovialbard solution is both posting and Waiting, so you can Wait for a post while posting your Wait*.
(At least this is my interpretation of the discussion.)


*Wait. Not weight. No weight-posting, please.
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

User avatar
thirds
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 2:16 pm UTC
Location: Tenrec Burrow NP1254

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby thirds » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:32 pm UTC

BlitzGirl wrote:*Wait. Not weight. No weight-posting, please.

3 dekagrams!

Oh, sorry.

User avatar
yappobiscuits
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:41 am UTC
Location: The Sea
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby yappobiscuits » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:34 pm UTC

k.bookbinder wrote:Reading over the past few newpages, it strikes me that the "chatting" environment in here seems to have gone from forum, to chat room, to cocktail party; there is a pretty even mix of topics which one might "overhear" as they read through the thread, much like moving back and forth through a crowded room at a cocktail party.

I'd say it's more of an informal gathering than a cocktail party, but yes, I totally see what you mean :)
OTTscars results Pt. 2 coming... eventually, but not from me. Seeking writer.
English Instrumentalist Waterottermolpy
Mighty Troubadour of the OTT
Image

Ray Kremer
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:21 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Ray Kremer » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:38 pm UTC

jovialbard wrote:Good points, but you don't say the Jupiter either... so why do you say the Hudson... <head scratch> I mean I wouldn't say the if I was talking about the guy Hudson (unless I was specifying: "Which Hudson? Oh, THE Hudson."). I guess that has something to do with rivers and other geographical features... wierd :D

Good point. You would say the Rocky Mountains are in Colorado, but not Rocky Mountains are in the Colorado. California is on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, but not the California is on the coast of Pacific Ocean. My guess is it has to do with the common noun. Even if you're using "the Hudson" for short the unspoken "River" is understood, and you have to use "the" for "river". Same for "the Rockies". Although, the same doesn't hold true for street names. You go down the street but you go down Maple Street.

Clearly there is much in language that is based on convention rather than logic.

Though my point earlier was more about the application of proper noun names than the use of "the".

Valarya wrote:I don't know how it wasn't stated as brilliantly and simply as this before now. Same way you don't say a pack of adhesive bandages. They're bandaids (from BandAid brand).

Which is how companies loose their trademarks. Seems to happen a lot though when one company has market dominance, I assume often due to an early lack of competition. (Though not always, Hydrox creme sandwich cookies predate Oreo creme sandwich cookies. Oreo had better marketing though apparently.)

User avatar
k.bookbinder
Posts: 975
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:17 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby k.bookbinder » Thu Jun 13, 2013 9:40 pm UTC

yappobiscuits wrote:
k.bookbinder wrote:Reading over the past few newpages, it strikes me that the "chatting" environment in here seems to have gone from forum, to chat room, to cocktail party; there is a pretty even mix of topics which one might "overhear" as they read through the thread, much like moving back and forth through a crowded room at a cocktail party.

I'd say it's more of an informal gathering than a cocktail party, but yes, I totally see what you mean :)


But we did have drinks :wink: But yes, that sort of think. Certainly, no need for black ties or cocktail dresses. Unless, of course, you would like to wear formal attire. We're not picky here. Personally I do enjoy wearing black ties. I have a skinny one that goes very well with a white shirt I have with a narrow spread collar. Tied with a Kelvin knot, it looks quite sharp. 8-)
"HAL9000" This thread is a goldmine for signatures.
"StratPlayer" All in all, that sand paper rubbed me the wrong way.
"charlie_grumbles" The secret of the geeks. "Copy, Borrow, Steal, Succeed"
"ucim" There's a forestful of treeish people here.

Image Welcome! Confused? See here.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DwayneSa and 101 guests