[2013-Feb-04] More Scientific

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :?: :idea: :| (o~o) :geek: :[] :geek2: :][>:=~+:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: [2013-Feb-04] More Scientific

Re: [2013-2-4] More Scientific

by nobody » Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:42 pm

Gila, sweet burn


DR, you severely miscalculated I am a huge misogynist. Listen up hun, just because you got glasses on doesn't make you a nerd yeah? Maybe you like playing cooking games on the DS from time to time. Maybe you have a shirt with Mario on it. That doesn't make you a nerd babe, so FUCK OFF AND STOP RUINING THIS THREAD WITH YOUR FUCKING VAG GAS

Re: [2013-2-4] More Scientific

by DonRetrasado » Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:50 am

nobody wrote:truly mankind is blessed to have both of you to guide us
Just imagine that I'm a large-breasted nerd babe and you have to listen to me guy

Re: [2013-2-4] More Scientific

by Gila Monster » Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:08 pm

soimless wrote:
Just for the hell of it here is some spectral outputs of various noble gases in flash tubes from wikipedia.
Image
Are you sure that's not just tomorrow's SMBC?

Re: [2013-2-4] More Scientific

by Lethal Interjection » Fri Feb 08, 2013 8:06 pm

I believe I may have had some Flashtube Spectral Output last night. Thanks to yer mum.

Re: [2013-2-4] More Scientific

by nobody » Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:02 pm

truly mankind is blessed to have both of you to guide us

Re: [2013-2-4] More Scientific

by DonRetrasado » Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:33 am

soimless wrote:Xeon
god man it's spelt xenon lol nerd rage aren't i a-dork-able

Re: [2013-2-4] More Scientific

by soimless » Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:41 pm

As a warning to the weak of heart the following post contains copious amounts of (probably unnecessary) nerd rage.

Most electronic flashes ionize xenon gas not sodium-vapor. There are a variety of reasons for this. At low pressure sodium-vapor lamps produce a very monochrome spectrum of light. As seen in orange-yellowish street lamps. These lamps do not produce good color pictures especualy, for the pinkish skin tones found in human gentilia. Sodium-vapor lamps only produces a wide spectrum of light when it is operated at high pressure. It takes time for the sodium-vapor to heat up and reach such a pressure. So other gases like mercury or xenon are used as starter gases to increase the temperature of the sodium-vapor while still operating at a low pressure. Which is why some street lamps when first turning on are a very bright white light later shifting to a duller white color. The main thing with this is it takes time, on the order of seconds instead of 1/1000ths of a second necessary for a clean sync-able flash. Sodium is also very reactive and tends to eat at the electrodes in the bulb.

Xeon on the other hand, produces a very intense wide spectrum of colors (although most of it is in the UV and blue range). It’s a noble gas so it is non-reactive.Despite it's cost it's found in most flash bulbs today.

Just for the hell of it here is some spectral outputs of various noble gases in flash tubes from wikipedia.
Image

Re: [2013-2-4] More Scientific

by Kimra » Thu Feb 07, 2013 8:55 pm

The internets attempt at an 'in' crowd. I refuse such norms in the real world, I don't know why I'd adhere to them on the internet. LOL.

Re: [2013-2-4] More Scientific

by Peon » Thu Feb 07, 2013 8:06 pm

Yeah before that happens with 20 other memes. Memes are fuckin plagues these days. All shitty humor will be based upon reference to memes and it won't be funny at all if you don't know the memes. and even if you do it still won't really be funny

Re: [2013-2-4] More Scientific

by Sahan » Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:15 pm

Kimra wrote:
GUTCHUCKER wrote:I agree. All these comics do is rustle my jimmies.
Is this a euphemism for being sexual aroused? Because that's how I'm reading it.
It's a new meme, Kimra. The first one in a while actually, where I didn't hear about it until almost everyone I knew was using it and knew the joke apart from me. I felt so left out. It was like high school all over again.

Re: [2013-2-4] More Scientific

by Surely you guest » Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:54 pm

Wait...what wrote:Maybe I'm missing something but wasn't this comic all about using different terms to describe a celeb reporting in a different way in order to gain a new perspective on how silly the entire thing is?
Yes, and the entirely correct complaint of the OP is that doing this is in no way "more scientific" - only trying to bandwagon in on the proclivities of much of his fan reader base. Zach is choosing language that highlights irrelevancies to reduce the efficacy of communicating; essentially saying, "if I intentionally use language poorly it's irritating to read." Whether or not that counts as cutting-edge social commentary I will leave as an exercise for the reader.

Zach's science and philosophy efforts are so intellectually shallow that he seems to feel the need to compensate for the lack of depth by the output of prodigious volume. He needs to stick to his element: the slapstick and the crude.

Re: [2013-2-4] More Scientific

by Lethal Interjection » Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:42 am

Kimra wrote:
GUTCHUCKER wrote:I agree. All these comics do is rustle my jimmies.
Is this a euphemism for being sexual aroused? Because that's how I'm doing it.

Fix'd.

Re: [2013-2-4] More Scientific

by Kimra » Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:29 am

GUTCHUCKER wrote:I agree. All these comics do is rustle my jimmies.
Is this a euphemism for being sexual aroused? Because that's how I'm reading it.

Re: [2013-2-4] More Scientific

by Gila Monster » Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:20 am

I really thought that was your actual signature. Now I'm bummed out.

Re: [2013-2-4] More Scientific

by GUTCHUCKER » Wed Feb 06, 2013 1:56 am

I agree. All these comics do is rustle my jimmies.

Top