I would drink this, is it a real product? The cider we have in Australia has a guy in a helmet that makes him look like a penis

Comment by neekbunny — January 17, 2008 @ 8:39 pm

Dr. Tran is gonna sue these bitches.

Comment by the_duck — January 18, 2008 @ 11:54 am

Do I have to say it? I don’t want to. But if no one else wants to, I’ll do it, I suppose.

Hot Dickings.

Comment by LukeV1-5 — January 18, 2008 @ 5:15 pm

Don’t forget this:
http://www.myconfinedspace.com.....r-savings/

Comment by j_bryon — January 23, 2008 @ 9:54 am

You’ll put your eye out!

Comment by schulzbrianr — December 21, 2007 @ 10:13 pm

sorry i cant read it or what you just said
i gooy a red rider shotgun and i shot out both of my eyes…………. its a miracle alone that i even navagated to this page, and tyoing this

Comment by TrikYodz — December 22, 2007 @ 1:00 am

i meant to say typing

Comment by TrikYodz — December 22, 2007 @ 1:01 am

Schulzbrianr, you deserve a dose of Lifebuoy for getting the quote wrong.

Comment by Foon — December 22, 2007 @ 6:55 am

I’m sorry, I probably haven’t seen this movie in like a dozen years, but thanks for being an even bigger loser than me.

Comment by schulzbrianr — December 22, 2007 @ 11:41 am

Don’t forget the thing that tells time

Comment by munche — December 22, 2007 @ 1:52 pm

I’d be willing to bet it was even more refreshing when it still contained cocaine.

Comment by Sticky — December 21, 2007 @ 9:57 pm

santa traditionally wore green. thanks for fucking it up, coca cola.

Comment by redxblack — December 22, 2007 @ 1:35 am

Around here santa used to wear gray.

Comment by unknown — December 22, 2007 @ 2:34 am

Around here we don’t celebrate fake icons in Christmas, poopheads!
Instead, we have ANOTHER holiday, when Santa comes to the children and gives them candy and persent. Swing!

Comment by Hepathos — December 22, 2007 @ 3:01 pm

Jew has a big nose.

Comment by diabeetus — December 21, 2007 @ 1:11 am

Energy equals mass x the velocity of light squared.

Comment by knogoodidleft — December 21, 2007 @ 1:18 am

ahh derrrr energy = mass x Velocity of light squared

Comment by knogoodidleft — December 21, 2007 @ 1:18 am

most people have no idea what his theory of relativity means let alone e=mc^2.

Comment by njch412 — December 21, 2007 @ 1:29 am

Actually the only it has to do with relativity is that it was published the same year, 1905, as special relativity.

Comment by reboot — December 21, 2007 @ 2:54 am

Technically it would be speed.

(Velocity is speed with direction)

Comment by Sorryyoulost — December 21, 2007 @ 3:03 am

@Sorryyoulost,
You are correct about the difference between speed and velocity.
But since the speed of light is always the same regardless of frame of reference, then the velocity of light of is always equal to the speed of light.

Comment by reboot — December 21, 2007 @ 3:08 am

Madder is enerdgee!

Comment by tiny — December 21, 2007 @ 4:44 am

It has to do with the amount of energy there is in an atom. That’s Einstein’s little unintentional contribution to the A-Bomb. In fact, without that, probably no one would have even thought of the A-bomb at all. Hmmmmmm…

Comment by Caio — December 21, 2007 @ 4:53 am

reboot goes to the head of the class

Comment by adoron — December 21, 2007 @ 9:26 am

Yeah that’s great that’s still not what it “means” thats just what the formula stands for.

What it means is: Regaurdless if an object(body)is moving it retains a certain energy as long as it has a mass.

Comment by Nyng G — December 21, 2007 @ 10:13 am

Of course the “m” stands for relativistic mass, as opposed to normal mass. The equation is actually:

e = (m*c^3) / sqrt(c^2 - v^2)

where m is normal mass, c is the speed of light in a vacuum, and v is the velocity of the mass.

At low velocities, this reduces to e=m*c^2. As the velocity of the mass approaches the speed of light, the denominator approaches zero and the energy becomes infinite.

Comment by eric — December 21, 2007 @ 10:29 am

What then happens if you get a flashlight in space to go 99.9 percent the speed of light, then turn it on?

Will light then be going double the speed of light?

Comment by Kaze — December 21, 2007 @ 11:41 am

@eric, you are correct that this is the abbreviated equation and that m refers to the rest mass. That’s trivially true because of course a mass that has is not at rest also has kinetic energy.
Your equation is wrong though, it has the right boundary conditions at v=0 and v=c, but but its the wrong equation. The relativistic mass is m/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), just substitute relativistic mass into the original equation to get total energy. The difference is that the taylor series at low velocities should be approx. Newton’s 2nd law.
I believe mass-energy equivalence can be derived independently from special relativity and that it was only later did Einstein correct E=mc^2 by including terms for the relativistic mass. Could be wrong on that though, historically, they were close.

Comment by reboot — December 21, 2007 @ 11:41 am

@Kaze, nope, speed of light is independent to frame of reference. If you were to do your experiment, you would be experiencing time dilation. However, the photons would not be, so from your frame of reference the photons would still be traveling their usual speed. Of course, to an outside observer, the photons would be traveling the speed of light, because they see you traveling 99% of the speed of light and the photon are speeding away from you.
I haven’t had coffee yet to that explanation might be wonky.

Comment by reboot — December 21, 2007 @ 11:48 am

@eric, I worked out the taylor series for your expression and I guess it does work out for total energy. I guess in your express relativistic mass would be mc/sqrt(c^2-v^2); I guess I’ve just never seen it written out like that. Eggs on my face, serves me right for posting before coffee.

Comment by reboot — December 21, 2007 @ 12:05 pm

God does not play dice. he plays Texas Hold ‘em.

Comment by natedog — December 21, 2007 @ 3:16 pm

Wow reboot, you must be a downright maniac at parties.

Comment by garbledxmission — December 21, 2007 @ 4:13 pm

reboot: No problem… relativity still makes my head hurt.

Comment by eric — December 21, 2007 @ 4:59 pm

..and that’s just Special Reletivity.

Wait till you get to General.

Mmmm, tensors.

/not to mention QFT, where the math is so complicated you multiply pictures instead of letters

Comment by Peaches LaRue — December 21, 2007 @ 6:51 pm

@reboot
I believe your explanation is correct. The speed of light is absolute, hence there can be no accelleration beyond that. Externally, the max observed speed would be the speed of light

P.S. I thought I was bad. I’d never have voluntarily calculated the Taylor series for Erics expression. I would have just looked it up… LOL

Comment by Phyreblade — December 21, 2007 @ 11:22 pm

“Scientists freeze beam of light”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3308109.stm

Comment by natedog — February 8, 2008 @ 9:36 am

I’ve always liked this quote. This, and the one about “God does not play dice with the universe.”

Comment by schulzbrianr — December 20, 2007 @ 11:02 pm

Just FYI, the “God does not play dice with the universe” was specifically referring to the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Einstein believed the “randomness” of quantum mechanics had to have some deterministic cause that we just hadn’t found yet. This interpretation was proven wrong by JS Bell nine years after Einstein died.

Comment by reboot — December 21, 2007 @ 12:09 am

OK…So does that mean I can’t like the quote? My own interpretation is that thing’s don’t happen randomly (coincidences), etc. And, I’m not quite sure I understand what you mean:

“Einstein believed the “randomness” of quantum mechanics had to have some deterministic cause that we just hadn’t found yet. This interpretation was proven wrong by JS Bell nine years after Einstein died.”

So, did that mean JS Bell proved Einstein DID know the cause, or that interpretation HAD been found?

Comment by schulzbrianr — December 21, 2007 @ 12:21 am

You can like the quote and you can believe anything you choose about the nature of the universe. I was just trying to give you more information about that quote.
That quote is used often taken out of context as an argument from authority to support certain philosophical views.
JS Bell proved that “No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.” Which is to say that there is no hidden force “causing” the “randomness” of quantum mechanics, that it truly is non-deterministic. So Einstein was wrong on this one.
Like I said this was just for your information and for anyone else who reads these comments. Maybe it would make you curious enough learn more about quantum mechanics and Dr. Bell’s work, which is some of the most profound work in science.

Comment by reboot — December 21, 2007 @ 12:34 am

Well, you can trust me, I was not taking the quote in any context related to quantum physics. And I pretty much can’t handle math any more complicated than dealing with my bills. But thanks for the FYI.

Comment by schulzbrianr — December 21, 2007 @ 12:37 am

“sticks and stones, may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”

Comment by phantasm — December 21, 2007 @ 3:57 am

My favourite Einstein quote has to be a toss-up between whatever random German babble his last words were and ‘Don’t cut up my brain, shithead. I want a Jewish burial’.

Comment by Caio — December 21, 2007 @ 4:56 am

This is the way the world ends, not with a bang, but a whimper.
T.S. Eliot

Comment by RP — December 21, 2007 @ 7:01 am

wow, what did all those comments have to do with the pic? lets hope there is never a WWIII.

Comment by wakerider — December 21, 2007 @ 10:37 am

Huh, I thought that world ending quote was from Halo 3. Whatever.

Comment by RSIxidor — December 21, 2007 @ 12:31 pm

Isn’t it possible that maybe Halo was quoting T.S. Eliot?
The one thing I have against the Halo games is that a some of people don’t know the difference between real Spartans and the Halo Spartans. It’s very difficult to talk about those kickass guys who held Thermopylae when some one keeps going “Lawl! Spartans! I loves that game.”

Comment by Silver — December 21, 2007 @ 2:14 pm

God does not play dice, he plays Texas Hold ‘em

Comment by natedog — December 21, 2007 @ 3:18 pm

Hey schulzbrianr, don’t worry about it. Some people just have the annoying habit of showing off their overrated education at any and every opportunity, not realizing it just makes them look like a pompous ass who spends too much time learning and not enough time living.

Comment by garbledxmission — December 21, 2007 @ 4:17 pm

Actually, Living and learning go hand in hand. Those with no life who spend it all learning end up coming up with all the good stuff that those what are actually living enjoy on a daily basis. So neither side has cause to criticize the other.

That said, Einstein was a smart man, but he was wrong. WWIV will not be fought with sticks and stones. It will be fought with… Pie…

Comment by Phyreblade — December 21, 2007 @ 11:02 pm

LSMFT = Lucky Strikes mean fine tobacco.

I think that’s their old slogan at least…

Comment by schulzbrianr — December 20, 2007 @ 10:05 pm

so the surgeon general has been lying to me

Comment by neekbunny — December 20, 2007 @ 10:05 pm

Lucky Strike: the cigarette that won world war 2.

Is it just me or does that doctor really look like FDR offering you a cig.

Comment by njch412 — December 20, 2007 @ 10:59 pm

@neekbunny: I guess, at that time, they didn’t know yet that tobacco smoke contains cancerogenes.
So they told you a truth, but on the base of incomplete data.

Comment by tiny — December 21, 2007 @ 4:51 am

‘less irritating’ doesn’t equate to ‘more healthy’. It means exactly what it says. For you Canadians, the example I would give is Number 7 Reds compared to Players Light. The latter is far less irritating, but not any more healthy or unhealthy.

Comment by Caio — December 21, 2007 @ 4:59 am

My grandfather fought in World War II in the Pacific. Upon enlisting he recieved a bible and a pack of Lucky Strikes.

Comment by JazzyJazzyJazzHands — December 22, 2007 @ 4:09 am

Man, they were pretty laid back in the old days…

Comment by Phyreblade — December 13, 2007 @ 4:21 am

It says “Farbenfabriken” -> “Colour Factories”.
And “Name Gesetzlich …” -> “Name … by law”.

Now, if my German lessons had finally paid off…it’s by knowing that there were state-sanctioned coloured heroin factories in the olden days.

Comment by Gilly — December 13, 2007 @ 6:23 am

“Name gesetzlich geschützt” means “name protected by law”, aka trademarked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin says:
From 1898 through to 1910 heroin was marketed as a non-addictive morphine substitute and cough medicine for children. Bayer marketed heroin as a cure for morphine addiction before it was discovered that heroin is converted to morphine when metabolized in the liver, and as such, “heroin” was basically only a quicker acting form of morphine. The company was somewhat embarrassed by this new finding and it became a historical blunder for Bayer.

Comment by antje — December 13, 2007 @ 6:51 am

That’s why they’re called the “good ol’ days”.

Comment by reboot — December 13, 2007 @ 12:18 pm