Posted: 10/21/2005, 8:05 am
i saw that yesterday... i saw that yesterday... ClumsyMonkey.net
An Our Lady Peace Fan Community
http://forum.clumsymonkey.net/
Random funny crap you find on the internet...
Page 4 of 21
i saw that yesterday... Posted: 10/21/2005, 8:45 am
We gotta find that guy in Toronto.
Posted: 10/21/2005, 11:04 am
dean blundell is so fucked up
Posted: 10/21/2005, 4:02 pm
man boobs 
Posted: 10/22/2005, 2:45 am
what? you dont like those
Posted: 10/23/2005, 4:24 am
Posted: 10/27/2005, 3:10 am
I CANNOT STOP LAUGHING AT THIS:
I realize that makes me a hopeless nerd but goddammit that is FUNNY AS HELL.
I realize that makes me a hopeless nerd but goddammit that is FUNNY AS HELL.
Posted: 10/27/2005, 3:13 am
HAHAHAHAHAHA........... what
Posted: 10/27/2005, 7:45 pm
I don't get it.
Posted: 10/27/2005, 8:08 pm
Read this (paraphrased) explanation, then go look at the picture again
"Schroedinger's experiment consisted of placing three things in a sealed box: a cat, a vial of poisonous gas, and a radioactive mineral. The experiment is set up so that two conditions are true:
if the radioactive mineral decays it will release the gas in some way and thus kill the cat, and
there is a 50/50 chance of the mineral decaying in the limited time the experiment takes up.
According to the Schroedinger Wave Form Equation and the theories that go along with it, you can not determine what will happen, only the probability of a certain event occurring. Strangely, this event does not actually happen until you observe it.
Because the wave form collapses or the universe splits when the system is observed, not when the event occurs, you can not tell whether the cat is alive or dead before you look in the box. Therefore, this deceptively complex cat manages to be both alive and dead at the same time, until you actually look in the box."
Posted: 10/27/2005, 8:11 pm
Oh I see.
Posted: 10/27/2005, 8:33 pm
happening fish wrote:I CANNOT STOP LAUGHING AT THIS:
I realize that makes me a hopeless nerd but goddammit that is FUNNY AS HELL.
LMAO
You shouldn't have explained it. Jokes are much funnier when it's only a select few who get it.
Posted: 10/27/2005, 8:35 pm
I actually kind of want to put that on a t-shirt. Then I can know who's cool by seeing who actually gets it. (I can just picture Josh's vacant stare)
Posted: 10/27/2005, 9:05 pm
:O THAT REMINDS ME
The fake cat that lives in our apartment, who we treat like a real cat (think Rowdy from Scrubs... "bad kitty, going into eric's room and trying on his clothes when he's not home!")
The fake cat that lives in our apartment, who we treat like a real cat (think Rowdy from Scrubs... "bad kitty, going into eric's room and trying on his clothes when he's not home!")
Posted: 10/27/2005, 9:08 pm
thats not really that funny
Posted: 10/30/2005, 1:54 am
Posted: 10/30/2005, 11:52 am
nikki4982 wrote:http://www.prestonandsteve.com/video/32.wmv
Just watch it. You'll be glad you did.
Classic!
Posted: 10/31/2005, 6:14 pm
Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---
(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)
Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?
(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)
Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!
Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.
Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!
Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!
Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!
Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.
Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bull**** sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!
Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bull****; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
well, i found this funny.
(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)
Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?
(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)
Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!
Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.
Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!
Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!
Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!
Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.
Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bull**** sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!
Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bull****; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.
well, i found this funny.
Posted: 10/31/2005, 6:16 pm
Posted: 10/31/2005, 6:23 pm
lmao, nice