Mensa IQ Test
-
@blakeyrat said:
@serguey123 said:
btw by that metric the Pied Piper from Hamelin is the smartest human ever
When you build a hypnotic flute that works on animals and humans using only medieval materials, you will be as smart as he was.
And if I con him out of his?
Of course, it's a lot easier to train a load of rats to associate your flute playing with food and release them into a town than to build a rat-control flute.
-
@da Doctah said:
@serguey123 said:
@stratos said:
Can't we all just ignore smart, and focus on the really dumb.
Depends on how do you propose we focus on them
Well, we could all start watching C-SPAN.
What is C-SPAN?
I think i Can do google.
-
@Nagesh said:
What is C-SPAN?
It is a channel in the US that mostly broadcasts things like congressional committee hearings and debate on the floor of the house of representatives/senate. Basically it just shows politicians doing their job, can be boring but very educational to people that don't realize what these people do (and how badly many of their arguments are structured).
-
@locallunatic said:
@Nagesh said:
What is C-SPAN?
It is a channel in the US that mostly broadcasts things like congressional committee hearings and debate on the floor of the house of representatives/senate. Basically it just shows politicians doing their job, can be boring but very educational to people that don't realize what these people do (and how badly many of their arguments are structured).
usa is making copy of india? in India also we have set camera in parliament, so general public cna see their elected members snoring on camera.
-
@Nagesh said:
usa is making copy of india? in India also we have set camera in parliament, so general public cna see their elected members snoring on camera.
Hey we invented that, you ripped us off!
(Also, surfing porn on their laptops.)
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Nagesh said:
usa is making copy of india? in India also we have set camera in parliament, so general public cna see their elected members snoring on camera.
Hey we invented that, you ripped *us* off!(Also, surfing porn on their laptops.)
Ah, the life, and they said politician are useles.
-
@dhromed said:
@cfgauss said:
Thank you.
You're not getting off here either, Mr. Vague. Your explanations make sense, as do your examples and anecdotes, but there's little hard data coming from you.
That's a thing Blakey really hates, and rightly so, so it's contributing to the two of you talking right past eachother.
As I've mentioned, the data are in the literature; but this means that unless you have access to a university library (well, or a university affiliated account with a journal publisher since the libraries don't like to carry physical copies of journals anymore) or want to pay some insane amount of money to the journal publishers ($20 - $100 per article depending on how much of a dick the publisher is), you can't actually read the articles. Not to mention that you'd have to read a bunch of articles and science (particularly soft science) articles are not fun reading. But for something at this level a textbook would suffice for the claims I made, but would not include actual data, just claims or "model" data. Also, I don't really care if he doesn't believe me. Actual science isn't something you can shovel to someone, they have to do their own work if they want to actually understand. I'm happy to point to general arguments, but I can't make anyone understand anything.
@Weng said:
I took a calibrated test once in college - one of those "be our research guinea pig and we'll give you almost enough money to buy a burrito!" deals correlating IQ with sexual prowess or some shit. It sounded like a hilarious project, so I just had to do it. Fucking cleaned house on it and walked away with a score a bit more than 2 standard deviations above the average for that test. I came to the conclusion that everyone else must either be incredibly dumb, or the entire concept of an IQ test is flawed like crazy. I suspect it's the latter, because I'm a god damned idiot most of the time.
They often don't tell you the actual purpose of a test when they invite you in to take them since that can taint the results (or the results of what they measured). There's a good chance they just told you that to convince you to come in. OTOH, they could've just been idiots, too, not every research group does amazing work.
@blakeyrat said:
The real problem is that I don't believe in such a thing as a single "intelligence" that can be measured with a number, and it seems everybody else in this thread (or at least the self-proclaimed intelligent ones) do. cfgauss says in one sentence intelligence is defined by correlations to other factors, then in the next sentence he's talking about it like it's an RPG stat again.
"Thing" isn't well-defined, so the claim that "there's no single thing" doesn't make sense. That's like saying "there's no single thing that qualifies as bugfreeness." Well, yes, and no (since it's not a well-defined statement). There are clearly things that correlate with "bugfreeness" such as "not crashing," "doing what the spec says," "not harming productivity," etc. One could define single numbers associated to this, like "mean hours between crashes" or whatever, and clearly the values of such numbers will be correlated: crashing hurts productivity, presumably the spec at least implicitly assumes there will be no crashing or data loss, etc.
Intelligence is the same kind of thing, it's one "thing" in the sense you can put it in as a single object into equations that define correlations (conditional probabilities, ...) and it also has multiple (inter)correlated numerical measures: how well someone does on an IQ test, how good someone's social skills are, how successful someone does in terms of money/happiness/etc, particular skills, depth of understanding things, and tons of other things that are dependent, independent, and partly independent (by (in)dependence here I mean in the sense that shows up in something like a conditional probability). By definition all of the things that are "a part" of intelligence are "positively correlated" in some appropriately defined sense, and so are at least partly logically dependent. But the point is that, if you want, you can define it through the correlations (it's analogous to looking at a program as a black box that you feed inputs to and observe outputs, v.s. understanding the processes inside -- either view is mathematically equivalent if you have all of the information.)
Note that "doing something good" (e.g., convincing people your argument is correct) need not fall into this definition if it is not compatible with other correlations (in the same way, e.g., having a hairstyle people think is awesome need not be intelligent).
None of this is specific to intelligence, either, it's generically how things are made sense of in science, regardless of if they're something seemingly vague like intelligence or something more "obvious" like mass or electric charge (and certainly there's nothing initially obvious about what those are until you can precisely define the logical dependencies well enough to spell them out in terms of algebra). And it's actually very important that the "it's one thing" vs. "it's defined through correlations" points of view are entirely equivalent when used correctly!
Incidentally a DnD type stat is the same thing, just with trivial logical relations and trivial prior probability.
And the idea that anybody believes you can be both stupid and persuasive boggles the mind.
I invite you to read any cult leader's rantings, anything titled a "manifesto," or any conspiracy forum to see explicit examples of this. The scary thing, though, is that stupid people can be persuasive even to smart people.
I really would like to hear the string theory elevator pitch, though... the more people refuse to give me one, the more I think it's just psuedo-science nonsense that makes no predictions and provides no insights.
Again, there's no such thing. In order to understand literally anything about it, you'd need to understand quantum mechanics and special relativity in enough detail to learn graduate quantum field theory, general relativity, and particle physics, which would take at least 3 or 4 years of hard work in order to even understand why you'd need something like it, let alone understand what it does.
It would be like trying to explain why you need the real numbers to someone who doesn't know about the whole numbers. It just can't happen. Trying to explain why you'd need the rationals as abstract numbers would be hard enough, but the reals would be totally impossible. This is why if you look at any of the popular books that claim to explain stuff about string theory, they don't actually talk much about string theory, they spend all of their time explaining very basic facts of quantum mechanics and relativity (which none of the readers will understand anyway, because you can't really understand them without a great deal of math).
As much as I'd love to explain it, it's not something easy to explain even to other physicists, because most of them don't have the background to appreciate why it's the right way to go, even if they understand the problems is is designed to solve. Most physicists aren't theorists (it's hard, for one, and there's very little money in it, so you don't usually get to be one unless you're pretty awesome and are pretty dedicated to it) and non-theorists haven't learned the tools to understand much of this (okay, this is a false dichotomy, and there are more than just the two groups, but it's useful for illustrative purposes. And it's still true that most physicists aren't theory people.)
There's also that it's, even at the best, really hard. People had many of the basic ideas behind it nearly a century ago, Einstein published stuff very closely related to it as early as the late '30s, as well as lots of other very good people, but it got very little traction since even though it was so obviously a good idea, it was very hard to see how to do what you wanted with it, and we didn't have the mathematical tools to deal with the complexities, and we had little experimental guidance. It wasn't until the '70s that anyone realized (through completely different arguments) that it could solve some important unknown problems. And then it was forgotten about until the late '80s when people realized (through yet another line of thought) it could solve "all" problems, and even then it was not worked on much until the late '90s when people realized more important stuff that let us understand how to do things with it.
But it has basically been "independently" discovered to solve new problems a half dozen or so times, and if it's huge enough to do that, and hard enough a century of people like Einstein working on it have trouble, then no, I can't describe it to you in an "elevator pitch" and no one will be able to ever, and any one who says they can is a liar or is trying to sell you their book (and is also a liar).
@stratos said:
However brievity is certainly not one of your strong points and patience not one of mine, so mis-communication isn't that unexpected.
And, see, this is another reason I wouldn't even try to explain it. I try to be careful and precise in what I say, and use a few paragraphs of words to describe textbook knowledge, and people complain that I'm not brief.
Not to quote xkcd, but http://xkcd.com/895/. Criticize when I'm being simple, complain when I am careful. Can't win.
@da Doctah said:
@serguey123 said:
@stratos said:
Can't we all just ignore smart, and focus on the really dumb.
Depends on how do you propose we focus on them
Well, we could all start watching C-SPAN.
What a horrible thing to say!
-
As a public service, he's cfgauss' post translated by someone who isn't a condescending blowhard:
@dhromed said:
@cfgauss said:
Thank you.
You're not getting off here either, Mr. Vague. Your explanations make sense, as do your examples and anecdotes, but there's little hard data coming from you.
That's a thing Blakey really hates, and rightly so, so it's contributing to the two of you talking right past eachother.
I don't have to back up my already-vague points, because you probably don't have access to the studies I'd cite and/or are cheap. Also, I'm implying that you're too impatient and dumb to read the articles, even if I did provide cites, which I'm not doing. Despite saying that I'm happy to point people towards general arguments, I'm not doing that, either.
(Subtext: I have no idea how to back up the complete bullshit I spewed out, so I'm going to give you a bunch of reasons you probably don't want to read the evidence backing it up in the hopes you'll forget about it and drop this argument.)
@Weng said:
I took a calibrated test once in college - one of those "be our research guinea pig and we'll give you almost enough money to buy a burrito!" deals correlating IQ with sexual prowess or some shit. It sounded like a hilarious project, so I just had to do it. Fucking cleaned house on it and walked away with a score a bit more than 2 standard deviations above the average for that test. I came to the conclusion that everyone else must either be incredibly dumb, or the entire concept of an IQ test is flawed like crazy. I suspect it's the latter, because I'm a god damned idiot most of the time.
No true Scotsman.
@blakeyrat said:
The real problem is that I don't believe in such a thing as a single "intelligence" that can be measured with a number, and it seems everybody else in this thread (or at least the self-proclaimed intelligent ones) do. cfgauss says in one sentence intelligence is defined by correlations to other factors, then in the next sentence he's talking about it like it's an RPG stat again.
Taking a cue from Bill Clinton's playbook, I'm going to completely dodge the issue by spouting some bullshit about the definition of an extremely common word, in this case "thing."
Now, despite complaining about Blakeyrat's vagueness when using the word "thing", I'm going to spout a bunch of brand new vagueness. It sums to "intelligence exists because we came up with a list of arbitrary 'things' that correlate, and then retroactively declared the correlation was 'intelligence'." But of course I don't say that in a single sentence, that would be too easy and runs the risk of casual readers understanding what the fuck I'm talking about.
(Subtext: I'm smarter than you.)
Asspull to explain why convincing millions of people to vote for you isn't counted along with the other correlated things that define "intelligence", when the real fact is that the only reason it's not included is because the scientists doing the work are all basement-dwelling aspies.
Asspull to explain how a bunch of correlations and a Dungeons and Dragons INT stat are actually the same thing.
Restatement of that same asspull.
And the idea that anybody believes you can be both stupid and persuasive boggles the mind.
Statement that really does nothing at all to address the point provided. Citing of examples without explaining what they are supposed to be examples of. Unfounded assumption that cult leaders and conspiracy nuts are not intelligent. Attempt to cover for the arbitrariness of persuasion not being considered a sign of intelligence by saying that smart people can magically be convinced by stupid people
I really would like to hear the string theory elevator pitch, though... the more people refuse to give me one, the more I think it's just psuedo-science nonsense that makes no predictions and provides no insights.
I have no idea how to explain what good my own life's work is in less than 500 words. Ironically, I've spent probably 1500 words avoiding a short explanation.
(Subtext: I've wasted my life! I've been spending years on complete and utter bullshit!)
@stratos said:
However brievity is certainly not one of your strong points and patience not one of mine, so mis-communication isn't that unexpected.
I pretend that my lack of being able to explain my life's work is the result of my wanting to be careful and precise in communication at all times. People complain about this, but I don't give a shit because I'm a total asshole.
Hypocritically link an XKCD cartoon after saying I'm not quoting XKCD.
@da Doctah said:
@serguey123 said:
@stratos said:
Can't we all just ignore smart, and focus on the really dumb.
Depends on how do you propose we focus on them
Well, we could all start watching C-SPAN.
What a horrible thing to say!
(Subtext of entire post: I'm a condescending blowhard.)
-
@cfgauss said:
@stratos said:
However brievity is certainly not one of your strong points and patience not one of mine, so mis-communication isn't that unexpected.
And, see, this is another reason I wouldn't even try to explain it. I try to be careful and precise in what I say, and use a few paragraphs of words to describe textbook knowledge, and people complain that I'm not brief.
Not to quote xkcd, but http://xkcd.com/895/. Criticize when I'm being simple, complain when I am careful. Can't win.
No. no, you are not. You are not careful and precise, your replies are like a scattergun filling the pages of war and peace. You go off in stories, pre-empt possible rebutals that have not yet happened, go off into other directions and basically just write rants.
That is not careful and precise, that's long and tedius.Although I'd have to give you that you wrote "try to be".
Also for your information, I am not blakey rat and I have not asked you to explain any textbook knowledge. I know it are just silly details and all, but I thought I should point it out, seeing as you try to be such a careful and precise person.
-
@stratos said:
No. no, you are not. You are not careful and precise
The point I am trying to make is that there are not simple dumbfuck "hur hur people are like this" answers to these claims. Any such answers are doomed to be totally wrong. Science isn't about retarded evening news catchphrase answers. If you don't care about understanding a complicated answer, fine, but don't blame me for answers not fitting into childisly simplified ideas.
Science has complicated answers, and if you ask a question that has a scientific answer, you can't complain when it turns out to have a complicated answer. And "careful and precise" is not the same as "catchphrasey and short." It means the opposite.
@blakeyrat said:
As a public service, he's cfgauss' post translated by someone who isn't a condescending blowhard
Right, you're the one calling not one, but two entire scientific subfields--neither of which you have any experience in--crap and I'm the one who's being a condescending blowhard. So, yeah, who's right here, the thousands of researchers in these fields, or blakeyrat?
-
@cfgauss said:
The point I am trying to make is that there are not simple dumbfuck "hur hur people are like this" answers to these claims. Any such answers are doomed to be totally wrong. Science isn't about retarded evening news catchphrase answers. If you don't care about understanding a complicated answer, fine, but don't blame me for answers not fitting into childisly simplified ideas.
Science has complicated answers, and if you ask a question that has a scientific answer, you can't complain when it turns out to have a complicated answer. And "careful and precise" is not the same as "catchphrasey and short." It means the opposite.
Oh please.
Communication is everything. Everything. You utterly failing to communicate your points in a concise and accurate manner is not our fault. See above where I summarize your extremely long and buzzword-y paragraph into a single sentence without losing any detail. Hey maybe that proves I'm smarter than your fucking ass, eh?
Nobody's asking for catchphrases, and incidentally, we're all smart enough to recognize a fucking strawman when we see one, you hack. This is why I'm calling you condescending; you're stupid enough to think we're all stupid enough to fall for these fallacies that wouldn't impress a 10-year-old. Why don't you hit us with "my daddy can beat up your daddy" next? That's about the level you're operating on.
Look, the reason you're typing in that pained, convoluted matter is because you love sounding smarter than everybody else in the room. You even said yourself that qualifications are mostly bullshit, but then you're constantly parading around your "I'm a scientist" badge (cue Peter Venkman), as if we gave a flying fuck, or as if it means we should instantly drop everything and obey your whim. Hell, I bet that's how you get a PhD in string theory... you use as many words to describe as few ideas as possible! It's all about bullshitting the journals! There's certainly none of that pesky "experimentation" or "actually being useful to mankind in some way" involved in the process. You're not communicating, you're not debating, you're bullshitting. 100% fresh from the bull.
You know what? That doesn't help your case. Fuck, man. Stephen Hawking actually has earned the right to be condescending, and, hey guess what? Instead he chose to use his talents to write a book about his field that any high school graduate can understand. Guess what? It's because he's smart: he realizes communication is everything.
So what the fuck is your excuse?
@cfgauss said:
Right, you're the one calling not one, but two entire scientific subfields--neither of which you have any experience in--crap and I'm the one who's being a condescending blowhard. So, yeah, who's right here, the thousands of researchers in these fields, or blakeyrat?
You could curtail it right now. Provide a cite on your definition of intelligence. Or a link to the layman's explanation. Both of which you promised about 5-6 posts back and never actually provided. This is called "putting your money where your mouth is". You said you had cites; where the fuck are they? You said you'd provide an explanation; where the fuck is it? All we've gotten is excuses. "Journals are expensive! Whine whine whine whine!" Hey look, it's an appeal to authority! Thousands of researchers! They're better than you! BOW BEFORE THE RESEARCHERS! Hah. Provide a cite and maybe your appeal to authority will actually mean squat, but right now it don't.
Of course you can't provide either of those, because you don't actually have them. Because you, using your debating skills that wouldn't fool a 10-year-old, flat-out lied to all of us, hoping we wouldn't call you out. Well guess what? I'm calling you out. You either put your cards on the table, or you fucking fold.
In any case, I'm definitely not a blowhard.
-
@blakeyrat said:
or explain to me why socks come in resealable Ziplock bags
- Resealable ziplock bags are easier to get into.
- Resealable ziplock bags are easier for people to repack the socks into should a curious customer want to examine a sock more closely: heat sealed ones can't be repackaged easily or neatly as a general rule and require a markdown to get the socks to sell because the packaging is damaged.
They might also be cheaper.
BTW, 15/30 on the Mensa test thingy.
-
@Douglasac said:
Resealable ziplock
Our socks come in a paper wrapping, like a stack of dollar bills.
-
@cfgauss said:
In order to understand literally anything about it, you'd need to understand quantum mechanics and special relativity in enough detail to learn graduate quantum field theory, general relativity, and particle physics, which would take at least 3 or 4 years of hard work in order to even understand why you'd need something like it, let alone understand what it does.
Demonstrate this, if you will.
-
@dhromed said:
Our socks come in a paper wrapping, like a stack of dollar bills.
Ours come attached to some kind of cardboard with those annoying plastic thingies which they use to hold tags to clothes.
-
Man I hate those thingies.
-
@dhromed said:
Hey, don't forget:@cfgauss said:
In order to understand literally anything about it, you'd need to understand quantum mechanics and special relativity in enough detail to learn graduate quantum field theory, general relativity, and particle physics, which would take at least 3 or 4 years of hard work in order to even understand why you'd need something like it, let alone understand what it does.
Demonstrate this, if you will.
@cfgauss said:Most people can't tell the difference between a brilliant person and someone of their own intelligence, so when an excited young brilliant person comes along who wants to learn something cool, they're treated with derision by people because they think "when I was his age I couldn't understand that so obviously he can't really understand it, he must only be pretending to understand it, or he must not actually understand the details." This is bad when those people are e.g., professors or employers, because then you get into that situation where they repeatedly force them to "prove" they know by, e.g., making them retake classes they took years ago (oh he took that as a kid he must have forgotten it by now!) or that they've taught (he couldn't really have understood the topic back then) or just force them to do menial work because they refuse to believe that person is capable.
-
@Douglasac said:
@blakeyrat said:
or explain to me why socks come in resealable Ziplock bags
- Resealable ziplock bags are easier to get into.
- Resealable ziplock bags are easier for people to repack the socks into should a curious customer want to examine a sock more closely: heat sealed ones can't be repackaged easily or neatly as a general rule and require a markdown to get the socks to sell because the packaging is damaged.
Do you really mean zip-locs, or just press-seal baggies? Important to get these things right.
Anyway, I'm not sure I want to buy socks that may-or-may-not have been worn for a day by someone who then put them back in the bag and returned them to the store, or at least tried on by some nutter with foot diseases.
-
@Douglasac said:
@blakeyrat said:
or explain to me why socks come in resealable Ziplock bags
- Resealable ziplock bags are easier to get into.
- Resealable ziplock bags are easier for people to repack the socks into should a curious customer want to examine a sock more closely: heat sealed ones can't be repackaged easily or neatly as a general rule and require a markdown to get the socks to sell because the packaging is damaged.
They might also be cheaper.
BTW, 15/30 on the Mensa test thingy.
Finally, we're talking about something useful! But your explanation still has problems:
1) You don't need to get into the bag more than once, you just pull out the socks and put them in your normal laundry handling procedure.
2) There's a plastic strip you have to tear off before the ziplock strip, so by the time someone's manhandling socks, you can already tell they've tampered with the package.But I thank you for trying.
-
@cfgauss said:
@stratos said:
No. no, you are not. You are not careful and precise
The point I am trying to make is that there are not simple dumbfuck "hur hur people are like this" answers to these claims. Any such answers are doomed to be totally wrong. Science isn't about retarded evening news catchphrase answers. If you don't care about understanding a complicated answer, fine, but don't blame me for answers not fitting into childisly simplified ideas.
Science has complicated answers, and if you ask a question that has a scientific answer, you can't complain when it turns out to have a complicated answer. And "careful and precise" is not the same as "catchphrasey and short." It means the opposite.
Responding to someone on a internet forum is not Science. Rocket or otherwise.
And again, I am not blakeyrat and I'm not expecting you to do Science, I don't give a fuck if you are a theoretical physisist scientist a garbage man or a lawyer. I won't expect you to make a video of you cleaning up garbage to prove you are a garbage man either.
Also, while I haven't read back, I would very much doubt I have made broad sweeping claims stating that for instance "all high IQ people develop shitty traits". Because I know I am normally quite precise with those kinds of things. e.g. I find it more likely I would have said something to the effect of "more likely to develop" or "high tendency to develop". But don't let details get in the way of your interpretation.
-
I'm tagging all relevant posts with "Socks", by the way.
-
@blakeyrat said:
or explain to me why socks come in resealable Ziplock bags
Could it be for people who want to change socks part way through the day? The used socks can be sealed away in the Ziplock bag and taken home for washing.
-
@RTapeLoadingError said:
Could it be for people who want to change socks part way through the day? The used socks can be sealed away in the Ziplock bag and taken home for washing.
Do supermarkets and related stores not sell ziplock bags as an item purchasable separately from socks in your country?
-
@Douglasac said:
@RTapeLoadingError said:
They do indeed. They also sell coathangers separately but some items of clothing come with their own.Could it be for people who want to change socks part way through the day? The used socks can be sealed away in the Ziplock bag and taken home for washing.
Do supermarkets and related stores not sell ziplock bags as an item purchasable separately from socks in your country?
-
@RTapeLoadingError said:
They do indeed. They also sell coathangers separately but some items of clothing come with their own.
Items of clothing here come with coathangers however the stores keep the coathangers and send them back to the factory to be reused, although if you ask nicely they usually let you keep them.
-
@Douglasac said:
@blakeyrat said:
or explain to me why socks come in resealable Ziplock bags
- Resealable ziplock bags are easier to get into.
- Resealable ziplock bags are easier for people to repack the socks into should a curious customer want to examine a sock more closely: heat sealed ones can't be repackaged easily or neatly as a general rule and require a markdown to get the socks to sell because the packaging is damaged.
They might also be cheaper.
BTW, 15/30 on the Mensa test thingy.
3 point more than I.
-
@Douglasac said:
@RTapeLoadingError said:
They do indeed. They also sell coathangers separately but some items of clothing come with their own.
Items of clothing here come with coathangers however the stores keep the coathangers and send them back to the factory to be reused, although if you ask nicely they usually let you keep them.Same here funnily enough, but if there's one thing I really don't need any more of it's the crappy plastic hangers that clothes come on.
So have we shot down my theory that the socks come in ziplock bags so that people can change socks during the day?
-
@RTapeLoadingError said:
So have we shot down my theory that the socks come in ziplock bags so that people can change socks during the day?
Well, I can see how the Ziplock would facilitate that, but even big bags of socks (12-packs) have the Ziplock. And... does anybody ever do that? Let's phrase this a different way: does anybody reading this thread USE the Ziplock bag after the socks have been removed?
I would also like to take this chance to declare victory over cfgauss.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Let's phrase this a different way: does anybody reading this thread USE the Ziplock bag after the socks have been removed?
If they did here I probably wouldn't. @blakeyrat said:I would also like to take this chance to declare victory over cfgauss.
Should we dance with joy or bow before you with fear and reverence?
-
@Douglasac said:
@blakeyrat said:
I would also like to take this chance to declare victory over cfgauss.
Should we dance with joy or bow before you with fear and reverence?Can you do both at the same time? That would be ideal.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Douglasac said:
It will be awkward, but I'll give it a shot.@blakeyrat said:
I would also like to take this chance to declare victory over cfgauss.
Should we dance with joy or bow before you with fear and reverence?Can you do both at the same time? That would be ideal.
-
-
may I suggest dancing mania
-
@blakeyrat said:
Let's phrase this a different way: does anybody reading this thread USE the Ziplock bag after the socks have been removed?
I do. The bag reuse not only enhances my green credentials but means nobody steals my sandwiches.
-
@RTapeLoadingError said:
@blakeyrat said:
Let's phrase this a different way: does anybody reading this thread USE the Ziplock bag after the socks have been removed?
I do. The bag reuse not only enhances my green credentials but means nobody steals my sandwiches.
I just put the sandwich in the sack and toss a bag of dried squid on top of it. Nobody ever digs past the top layer.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Let's phrase this a different way: does anybody reading this thread USE the Ziplock bag after the socks have been removed?
For my fancy-assed specialist fireproof socks, yes - because the bag has the manufacturer's logo on it, meaning the people responsible for inspecting my socks can tell at a glance that they are in fact fancy-assed specialist fireproof socks. The bag that my regular socks come in? Fuck no, why would you reuse that? (Also, cheapshit Hanes socks don't have a ziplock on the bag - only the slightly-more-expensive varieties do)
-
@RTapeLoadingError said:
@blakeyrat said:
Let's phrase this a different way: does anybody reading this thread USE the Ziplock bag after the socks have been removed?
I do. The bag reuse not only enhances my green credentials but means nobody steals my sandwiches.
The UK airports have a rule[1] about allowing liquids through the scanner if they're contained in bottles less than 300ml and all bottles are kept in transparent resealable plastic bags for inspection. You can purchase said bags from customs staff at a quid a go, but I overheard someone remark that "one of those ziplock sockbags will do".
[1] It's an utterly pointless and stupid rule, since after passing through those scanners you're free to buy large bottles of water at overinflated prices from shops dotted around the departure lounge to take on the plane. And this rule also only applies to people passing through the scanners to leave the country - last week I carried several bottles of water through customs at Luxor airport onto a Thomson flight returning to UK, much to the horror of other passengers that claimed I'd be barred from boarding when holding such items.
-
@Cassidy said:
[1] It's an utterly pointless and stupid rule, since after passing through those scanners you're free to buy large bottles of water at overinflated prices from shops dotted around the departure lounge to take on the plane.
The ostensible reason for the rule is to prevent dangerous chemicals (of more than 100ml per container up to whatever limit it is these days) through security; not to prevent you from taking arbitrary amounts of water onto the plane.
Doesn't make it any less stupid of course.
-
@PJH said:
The ostensible reason for the rule is to prevent dangerous chemicals (of more than 100ml per container up to whatever limit it is these days) through security in UK
Peculiarly - as you say - the rule only applies to taking those chemicals through security, and not to preventing them from boarding the plane.
And only applies for flights leaving UK, not for flights inbound. Strange.
-
@blakeyrat said:
If they were so smart, they could tell me the point of selling socks in resealable Ziplock bags.
Keeps the socks fresh. Especially good when you only want to eat one and save the rest for later.
-
I find it slightly worrying that someone necro'd a topic from around the point I've reached in the "posts you didn't read yet" list. Also, BRAAAAAAAAAINSSSSSSSS
