The bad words and counting topic
-
I'm really falling flat on my face this afternoon...
-
-
-
I'll see your 22 bit and raise you 23.
:hand: :hand:
Even odds that there is a way to get 24 bits.
I think @mott555
'd me with that one though.
-
-
There are three rules when counting on your fingers. The first two are cardinal the third optional, but anecdotal evidence suggests it improves accuracy
- Each finger must be touched, some will allow pointing.
- The touch / contact has to be visible to you (reflective surfaces don't count as they can give rise to multiplication errors.)
- The count should be verbalised.
-
Extending those rules to >20 bit binary counting might be problematic, depending on the implementation.
-
I never heard "nonnentetten" to refer to them. Where I live they are still called "negerinnentetten".
Then again, we still have "Zwarte Piet" instead of "Roetpiet"
-
negerinnentetten
I know ... I prefer negerinnentetten above nonnentetten but that is my own personal perversion.
-
Then again, we still have "Zwarte Piet" instead of "Roetpiet"
So do most people up here. Same with negerzoenen - they're sold as zoenen now but everyone uses the old name.
-
-
Name actually varies per brand. This is the one that was originally called negerzoenen:
-
https://twitter.com/TwitchyTeam/status/613303651533066240
Since he was kind enough to use a sign that was dead simple to photoshop, replies ensued. My favorite:
https://twitter.com/callmebuc/status/613203847863861248
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIKJpauUcAAx5Dw.jpg@blakeyrat, call your office.
-
Unless I'm mistaking it was the ah brand itself
-
I think the message here is that gay pride symbology racist...
https://twitter.com/SarahCantaloupe/status/615228245823385600
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIm60qEUAAAdcG3.jpg
"RAINBOWS are just reflected WHITE light
-
-
@boomzilla said:
"RAINBOWS are just
reflectedand refracted WHITE lightFTFH.
Both refraction and reflection are involved in making a rainbow. As can be seen in the following diagram, light enters the raindrop, undergoing refraction. It is then reflected off the far side of the raindrop and out the near side, undergoing a second refraction.
http://images.tutorvista.com/content/optics/raindrops-internal-reflection-refraction.gif
If the sunlight is strong enough and enough raindrops are present, a second, weaker rainbow can be seen. In this case, the light undergoes two reflections inside the raindrop.Although the diagram is drawn with the sunlight horizontal, this will only be the case if the rainbow is observed when the sun is at the horizon. In general, the sun will be at some angle above the horizon, and the angles will be relative to a line from the observer to the observer's shadow.
-
Almost everything you see outdoors during the day is sunlight reflected off stuff. I will however concede the secondary rainbow, as it involves an additional reflection. Have a like for your efforts.
-
two Dutch people an American was likely to know
I know @dhromed and a guy who made an Alien Swarm campaign named Area 9800. Do those count?
-
How about minde / termi'e?
-
Is there some use of nigger that isn't racist in context?
How about
@Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw said:
I turn the voice chat on, hear the word "nigger", and immediately turn it off again.
?
-
If the sunlight is strong enough and enough raindrops are present, a second
, third and maybe fourth, weaker rainbow can be seen.
-
Recursive rainbows. Interesting concept. I wonder what happens to the pots of gold? Are they referenced to the original, or do you get a new one each time? Would the contents of the pot have a 1:1 relationship with the strength of the rainbow or would it be constant?
-
I wonder what happens to the pots of gold?
Same as the ones belonging to rainbows seen from planes.
-
Hmmm, your argument being that a circular rainbow has no end, and therefor no pot of gold.
However, I counter with the theory, as postulated by Arkady Darell when looking for the Second Foundation, that a Circles End it at its beginning, which is its centre.
-
Both refraction and reflection are involved in making a rainbow.
Such a description only works for rainbows observed as generated by rain or other forms of falling water/mist. Projected rainbows, such as those created using a prism, do not necessitate any reflection.
Even Pink Floyd seems more cognizant of this than you, you ignorant ape.
-
Such a description only works for rainbows observed as generated by rain or other forms of falling water/mist, i.e., all rainbows. Projected rainbows, such as those created using a prism, i.e., not actual rainbows, do not necessitate any reflection.
If you want to take it one step further, diffraction gratings producerainbowslight spectra with neither reflection nor reflection, but they're still not rainbows. (There may be reflection, depending on the type of grating, but transmission gratings use neither.)you ignorant ape.
Nice dickweedery, but pedantry rejected.
-
@abarker said:
Such a description only works for rainbows observed as generated by rain or other forms of falling water/mist, i.e., all rainbows. Projected rainbows, such as those created using a prism, i.e., not actual rainbows, do not necessitate any reflection.
If you want to take it one step further, diffraction gratings producerainbowslight spectra with neither reflection nor reflection, but they're still not rainbows. (There may be reflection, depending on the type of grating, but transmission gratings use neither.)And you continue to show your ignorance. I'd recommend picking up a dictionary, but I wouldn't want you getting lost, so I brought the relevant definition to you:
@Oxford English Dictionary said:
A display of the colours of the spectrum produced by dispersion of light. [1]
I see nothing in that definition which requires rain to be the diffracting substance in order for a dispersed light spectrum to qualify as a rainbow. This means that a rainbow can, in fact, be generated by a prism. And – in case your small brain can't make the connection – the dispersed light spectra generated by a diffraction grating would also qualify as a rainbow.
-
I reject that definition. Not only did they get the definition wrong, they misspelled colors.
-
I reject that definition. Not only did they get the definition wrong, they misspelled colors.
Poor widdle @hardwaregeek, arguing with the dictionary. Here, is this one better?
@Oxford English Dictionary - American said:
Any display of the colors of the spectrum produced by dispersion of light. [1]
Or this one?
@Merriam-Webster Dictionary said:
a multicolored array[2]
-
Or this one?
Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
a multicolored array[2]
Merriam-Webster Dictionary:1 : an arc or circle that exhibits in concentric bands the colors of the spectrum and that is formed opposite the sun by the refraction and reflection of the sun's rays in raindrops, spray, or mist
No prisms.
We were discussing rainbows in the specific context of light reflection and refraction, not a generic assortment of colors, so definition 1 applies, not definition 2a. Even if 2a were applicable,
Color[] colors = new Color[5]{ Color.Beige, Color.Honeydew, Color.PeachPuff, Color.AliceBlue, Color.MistyRose };is a multi-colored array, but not many people would call it a "rainbow."Also, just because it is a dictionary doesn't mean it is correct:
rainbow definition
The colored arch in the sky that is often seen after a rain. The rainbow is formed when water droplets in the air cause the diffraction of sunlight.
Note: The colors of the rainbow are violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange, and red.
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.Which is obviously wrong; it's not diffraction. Also, indigo.
-
Same reason I don't use the word 'conniption'.
I recommend that you start. Also embuggerance and flapdoodle.
Buys Classic zoenen bestellen | Albert Heijn
| EarthSky
