marigolds
looks far too young to be a
Distinguished Senior Member
Posts: 7,355
i had fun once and it was awful
|
 |
« Reply #420 on: November 19, 2009, 03:01:20 PM » |
|
"I'm going to be just like the people that microwave stuff, only slightly different."
This is excellent. Is there...context? Would it add to or detract from the pleasures of the above? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"You and your mom are hillbillies. This is a house of learned doctors."
|
|
|
conjugate
Compulsive punster and insatiable reader, and
Member-Moderator
Distinguished Senior Member
Posts: 17,026
Tends to have warped sense of humor
|
|
« Reply #421 on: November 19, 2009, 03:13:48 PM » |
|
"I'm going to be just like the people that microwave stuff, only slightly different."
This is excellent. Is there...context? Would it add to or detract from the pleasures of the above? It's profound in its own way. Nearly Zen, in fact. Allow me to try my hand at a koan. One day Conju decided to microwave his dinner. When the little chime rang, he opened the door to the microwave, but there was nothing inside. "Apparently I am on a diet, only slightly different," he commented. Apologies to any Buddhists who may have been offended. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Unfortunately, I think conjugate gives good advice.
∀ε>0∃δ>0∋|x–a|<δ⇒|ƒ(x)-ƒ(a)|<ε |
|
|
|
big_giant_head
|
|
« Reply #422 on: November 19, 2009, 03:14:23 PM » |
|
"I'm going to be just like the people that microwave stuff, only slightly different."
This is excellent. Is there...context? Would it add to or detract from the pleasures of the above? The student is planning to start doing some kind of show over the Internet. He admires some people whose show involves finding various things and microwaving them on camera. I guess the context detracts from the fun of the sentence, but it still tickles me. Not as much as the guy who thinks military recruits are running around flashing high school students and traumatizing them away from college, though. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 19, 2009, 03:15:05 PM by big_giant_head »
|
Logged
|
carthago can haz delenda
|
|
|
galactic_hedgehog
Procrastinating, Python-quoting, Blue Blazer-drinking, chocolate-chip cookie-eating, Pastafarian, Not So
Distinguished Senior Member
Posts: 18,564
Mind Ninja
|
|
« Reply #423 on: November 19, 2009, 10:43:04 PM » |
|
"I'm going to be just like the people that microwave stuff, only slightly different."
This is excellent. Is there...context? Would it add to or detract from the pleasures of the above? It's profound in its own way. Nearly Zen, in fact. Allow me to try my hand at a koan. One day Conju decided to microwave his dinner. When the little chime rang, he opened the door to the microwave, but there was nothing inside. "Apparently I am on a diet, only slightly different," he commented. Apologies to any Buddhists who may have been offended. Wouldn't that depend on what you were trying to microwave? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Your professors were probably afraid of your galactic genius and did everything they could (behind the scenes) to thwart your hedginess. Hedgie loves to read. |
|
|
lousia
Junior member
Posts: 65
|
|
« Reply #424 on: November 20, 2009, 08:45:24 AM » |
|
I just read this response to the prompt of "Describe how you would light a lightbulb using a cat and a machine that you construct":
I would need a voltage source, probably a battery, electric wire, a light bulb, and the cat. The cat would create some resistance, but the cat could still conduct the current. I would have to make a complete circuit connecting the battery, light bulb, and cat with the wires so that an electric current would flow through it and light the bulb. It would be kinder to complete the circuit without the cat though, so that it does not suffer from electric shock.
Everyone else constructed a hamster-wheel-type generator or something interesting with collecting static electricity from the fur. Since this is my best student, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that, even with a brain blip on the relevant parts of the chapters, she still managed to give a full credit answer to the question (i.e., it would work and technically does meet the wording of the question).
See I was envisioning constructing a machine to allow the cat to deliver a note to my electrician. I suppose I wouldn't get any credit for that one, huh? Why wouldn't you get full credit if you described the machine? Technically, I just asked how to light a bulb using a cat and a machine. I love a good smart-aleck response showing out-of-the-box thinking to a question that has no particular right answer. Some of my brighter students have picked up on that and go for the amusement factor when they blank on the logic from the material covered. For example, after I posted the above answer, I graded another section of the same class and came across one of my favorite smart-alecks who decided to burn the cat as fuel to power a steam turbine. He got full credit so why wouldn't a creative note approach get full credit? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
galactic_hedgehog
Procrastinating, Python-quoting, Blue Blazer-drinking, chocolate-chip cookie-eating, Pastafarian, Not So
Distinguished Senior Member
Posts: 18,564
Mind Ninja
|
|
« Reply #425 on: November 20, 2009, 09:53:26 AM » |
|
I just read this response to the prompt of "Describe how you would light a lightbulb using a cat and a machine that you construct":
I would need a voltage source, probably a battery, electric wire, a light bulb, and the cat. The cat would create some resistance, but the cat could still conduct the current. I would have to make a complete circuit connecting the battery, light bulb, and cat with the wires so that an electric current would flow through it and light the bulb. It would be kinder to complete the circuit without the cat though, so that it does not suffer from electric shock.
Everyone else constructed a hamster-wheel-type generator or something interesting with collecting static electricity from the fur. Since this is my best student, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that, even with a brain blip on the relevant parts of the chapters, she still managed to give a full credit answer to the question (i.e., it would work and technically does meet the wording of the question).
See I was envisioning constructing a machine to allow the cat to deliver a note to my electrician. I suppose I wouldn't get any credit for that one, huh? Why wouldn't you get full credit if you described the machine? Technically, I just asked how to light a bulb using a cat and a machine. I love a good smart-aleck response showing out-of-the-box thinking to a question that has no particular right answer. Some of my brighter students have picked up on that and go for the amusement factor when they blank on the logic from the material covered. For example, after I posted the above answer, I graded another section of the same class and came across one of my favorite smart-alecks who decided to burn the cat as fuel to power a steam turbine. He got full credit so why wouldn't a creative note approach get full credit? Here's my solution: make an inclined plane (a simple machine) that allows the cat to run-up to the light switch. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Your professors were probably afraid of your galactic genius and did everything they could (behind the scenes) to thwart your hedginess. Hedgie loves to read. |
|
|
conjugate
Compulsive punster and insatiable reader, and
Member-Moderator
Distinguished Senior Member
Posts: 17,026
Tends to have warped sense of humor
|
|
« Reply #426 on: November 20, 2009, 12:35:43 PM » |
|
I just read this response to the prompt of "Describe how you would light a lightbulb using a cat and a machine that you construct":
I would need a voltage source, probably a battery, electric wire, a light bulb, and the cat. The cat would create some resistance, but the cat could still conduct the current. I would have to make a complete circuit connecting the battery, light bulb, and cat with the wires so that an electric current would flow through it and light the bulb. It would be kinder to complete the circuit without the cat though, so that it does not suffer from electric shock.
Everyone else constructed a hamster-wheel-type generator or something interesting with collecting static electricity from the fur. Since this is my best student, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that, even with a brain blip on the relevant parts of the chapters, she still managed to give a full credit answer to the question (i.e., it would work and technically does meet the wording of the question).
See I was envisioning constructing a machine to allow the cat to deliver a note to my electrician. I suppose I wouldn't get any credit for that one, huh? Why wouldn't you get full credit if you described the machine? Technically, I just asked how to light a bulb using a cat and a machine. I love a good smart-aleck response showing out-of-the-box thinking to a question that has no particular right answer. Some of my brighter students have picked up on that and go for the amusement factor when they blank on the logic from the material covered. For example, after I posted the above answer, I graded another section of the same class and came across one of my favorite smart-alecks who decided to burn the cat as fuel to power a steam turbine. He got full credit so why wouldn't a creative note approach get full credit? Here's my solution: make an inclined plane (a simple machine) that allows the cat to run-up to the light switch. I would borrow a page from The Usenet Oracle (later The Internet Oracle(TM)) and construct a large coil of wire. Then I would obtain a cat. To the back of the cat I would attach a piece of bread, butter-side up. On the sides and stomach of the cat I would attach magnets. Then I would put the cat inside the coil of wire and drop the cat. The laws of physics state that: (1) the bread must land butter-side down; and (2) the cat must land on its feet. As these two necessities of nature are mutually incompatible, the cat will rotate madly within the coil of wire, as the bread tries to land butter-side down and the cat tries to land feet-down. The cat will continue to rotate in mid-air. The magnets on the cat will produce a current in the large coil of wire, which can then be used to power the lightbulb. The link includes (somewhere) a detailed explanation of this phenomenon. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Unfortunately, I think conjugate gives good advice.
∀ε>0∃δ>0∋|x–a|<δ⇒|ƒ(x)-ƒ(a)|<ε |
|
|
biomancer
trying to be the person my dog thinks I am
Distinguished Senior Member
Posts: 8,013
CHE Fora Hazmat Team
|
|
« Reply #427 on: November 20, 2009, 01:01:35 PM » |
|
I just read this response to the prompt of "Describe how you would light a lightbulb using a cat and a machine that you construct":
I would need a voltage source, probably a battery, electric wire, a light bulb, and the cat. The cat would create some resistance, but the cat could still conduct the current. I would have to make a complete circuit connecting the battery, light bulb, and cat with the wires so that an electric current would flow through it and light the bulb. It would be kinder to complete the circuit without the cat though, so that it does not suffer from electric shock.
Everyone else constructed a hamster-wheel-type generator or something interesting with collecting static electricity from the fur. Since this is my best student, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that, even with a brain blip on the relevant parts of the chapters, she still managed to give a full credit answer to the question (i.e., it would work and technically does meet the wording of the question).
See I was envisioning constructing a machine to allow the cat to deliver a note to my electrician. I suppose I wouldn't get any credit for that one, huh? Why wouldn't you get full credit if you described the machine? Technically, I just asked how to light a bulb using a cat and a machine. I love a good smart-aleck response showing out-of-the-box thinking to a question that has no particular right answer. Some of my brighter students have picked up on that and go for the amusement factor when they blank on the logic from the material covered. For example, after I posted the above answer, I graded another section of the same class and came across one of my favorite smart-alecks who decided to burn the cat as fuel to power a steam turbine. He got full credit so why wouldn't a creative note approach get full credit? Here's my solution: make an inclined plane (a simple machine) that allows the cat to run-up to the light switch. I would borrow a page from The Usenet Oracle (later The Internet Oracle(TM)) and construct a large coil of wire. Then I would obtain a cat. To the back of the cat I would attach a piece of bread, butter-side up. On the sides and stomach of the cat I would attach magnets. Then I would put the cat inside the coil of wire and drop the cat. The laws of physics state that: (1) the bread must land butter-side down; and (2) the cat must land on its feet. As these two necessities of nature are mutually incompatible, the cat will rotate madly within the coil of wire, as the bread tries to land butter-side down and the cat tries to land feet-down. The cat will continue to rotate in mid-air. The magnets on the cat will produce a current in the large coil of wire, which can then be used to power the lightbulb. The link includes (somewhere) a detailed explanation of this phenomenon. Conjy, I remember this from college! Oh, the joy that was the humor groups of Usenet. Thank you!! (Now to go find that proof of Hell being exothermic...) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Clueless people can be dangerous. The acidic environment they can spread often needs to be neutralized, and humor is basic. - Dellaroux
Viruses invented people so that people would invent airplanes so viruses could get around better. - R. Duda
|
|
|
historianintraining
New member
Posts: 23
|
|
« Reply #428 on: November 20, 2009, 01:39:49 PM » |
|
"The white women of the South had to give up certain products, such as their children and domestic wares."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
melba_frilkins
Doing laundry.
Member-Moderator
Distinguished Senior Member
Posts: 8,136
Doing laundry (still)
|
|
« Reply #429 on: November 20, 2009, 01:40:58 PM » |
|
I just read this response to the prompt of "Describe how you would light a lightbulb using a cat and a machine that you construct":
I would need a voltage source, probably a battery, electric wire, a light bulb, and the cat. The cat would create some resistance, but the cat could still conduct the current. I would have to make a complete circuit connecting the battery, light bulb, and cat with the wires so that an electric current would flow through it and light the bulb. It would be kinder to complete the circuit without the cat though, so that it does not suffer from electric shock.
Everyone else constructed a hamster-wheel-type generator or something interesting with collecting static electricity from the fur. Since this is my best student, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that, even with a brain blip on the relevant parts of the chapters, she still managed to give a full credit answer to the question (i.e., it would work and technically does meet the wording of the question).
See I was envisioning constructing a machine to allow the cat to deliver a note to my electrician. I suppose I wouldn't get any credit for that one, huh? Why wouldn't you get full credit if you described the machine? Technically, I just asked how to light a bulb using a cat and a machine. I love a good smart-aleck response showing out-of-the-box thinking to a question that has no particular right answer. Some of my brighter students have picked up on that and go for the amusement factor when they blank on the logic from the material covered. For example, after I posted the above answer, I graded another section of the same class and came across one of my favorite smart-alecks who decided to burn the cat as fuel to power a steam turbine. He got full credit so why wouldn't a creative note approach get full credit? Here's my solution: make an inclined plane (a simple machine) that allows the cat to run-up to the light switch. Yes, and then bonus points for the multidisciplinary nature of your answer as you will have to detail how the principles of operant conditioning, within the parameters of instinctive drift, can be used to train the cat to flip the switch on command. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
llanfair
Village idiot and Very
Distinguished Senior Member
Posts: 23,199
Whither Canada?
|
|
« Reply #430 on: November 20, 2009, 06:18:33 PM » |
|
Apologies for posting this again - I put it on the "Favourite E-mails" thread, but I'd forgotten about this thread.
Herewith, on Vikings: "The Vikings had a reputation for being extremely viscous."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
This place stinks like a pair of armoured trousers after the Hundred Years' War.
|
|
|
|
alleyoxenfree
|
|
« Reply #431 on: November 20, 2009, 08:45:12 PM » |
|
That's why it was so hard to get rid of them.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mended_drum
|
|
« Reply #432 on: November 20, 2009, 10:17:42 PM » |
|
Thankfully, this was from a draft: "In my opinion, it was difficult to understand God with all the on-going debates between the Catholics and the Christians."
And I should have known this one was coming: "Margarita de Narave wrote her famous book of The Heptameron because she was inspired by the number nine. The number nine is a sacred number which she knew of after of vision of a girl and perfection."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
conjugate
Compulsive punster and insatiable reader, and
Member-Moderator
Distinguished Senior Member
Posts: 17,026
Tends to have warped sense of humor
|
|
« Reply #433 on: November 20, 2009, 10:20:50 PM » |
|
Thankfully, this was from a draft: "In my opinion, it was difficult to understand God with all the on-going debates between the Catholics and the Christians."
And I should have known this one was coming: "Margarita de Narave wrote her famous book of The Heptameron because she was inspired by the number nine. The number nine is a sacred number which she knew of after of vision of a girl and perfection."
Okay, is "Heptameron" supposed to refer to seven rather than nine? I'm unfamiliar with Margaret de Narave. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Unfortunately, I think conjugate gives good advice.
∀ε>0∃δ>0∋|x–a|<δ⇒|ƒ(x)-ƒ(a)|<ε |
|
|
|
systeme_d_
|
|
« Reply #434 on: November 20, 2009, 10:29:30 PM » |
|
Thankfully, this was from a draft: "In my opinion, it was difficult to understand God with all the on-going debates between the Catholics and the Christians."
And I should have known this one was coming: "Margarita de Narave wrote her famous book of The Heptameron because she was inspired by the number nine. The number nine is a sacred number which she knew of after of vision of a girl and perfection."
Okay, is "Heptameron" supposed to refer to seven rather than nine? I'm unfamiliar with Margaret de Narave. You might be unfamiliar with Margaret de Narave because the person who wrote the Heptameron is Marguerite de Navarre. And she didn't even name the Heptameron herself (which of course refers to the number 7). Mended_drum's student's sentence is so hilariously wrong on so many counts! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Systeme_D is right. <rah rah RESEARCH!> |
|
|
|
