Irrational Hatred
People who say "less" when they mean "fewer" ought to be turned into soup, the soup fed to baboons and the baboons fired into an active volcano. What has you grinding your teeth with rage, and why?
Suggested by Smash Monkey
( , Thu 31 Mar 2011, 14:36)
People who say "less" when they mean "fewer" ought to be turned into soup, the soup fed to baboons and the baboons fired into an active volcano. What has you grinding your teeth with rage, and why?
Suggested by Smash Monkey
( , Thu 31 Mar 2011, 14:36)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
Fourth? You cock.
It's the second law that everybody is always banging on about:
www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=third+law+of+thermodynamics&word2=second+law+of+thermodynamics
www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=third+law+of+thermodynamics&word2=first+law+of+thermodynamics
Fourth. Fucking hell. It's no wonder the economy is fucked.
( , Mon 4 Apr 2011, 12:53, 2 replies)
It's the second law that everybody is always banging on about:
www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=third+law+of+thermodynamics&word2=second+law+of+thermodynamics
www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=third+law+of+thermodynamics&word2=first+law+of+thermodynamics
Fourth. Fucking hell. It's no wonder the economy is fucked.
( , Mon 4 Apr 2011, 12:53, 2 replies)
Then we should cut one of his fingers off to improve his basic numeracy.
( , Mon 4 Apr 2011, 13:23, closed)
( , Mon 4 Apr 2011, 13:23, closed)
In fairness
The concept of a 'zeroth' law is ridiculous. Probably a computer scientist's fault or somethink.
( , Mon 4 Apr 2011, 13:27, closed)
The concept of a 'zeroth' law is ridiculous. Probably a computer scientist's fault or somethink.
( , Mon 4 Apr 2011, 13:27, closed)
According to The Internet it was Arnold Sommerfeld
so although it does sound a bit silly, I think we're going to have to defer to him on account of hisbeing having been a Massive Big Genius™.
( , Mon 4 Apr 2011, 13:31, closed)
so although it does sound a bit silly, I think we're going to have to defer to him on account of his
( , Mon 4 Apr 2011, 13:31, closed)
the law itself is a bit ridiculous
if I recall correctly
"if thing A and thing B are the same temperature and thing B and thing C are the same temperature then things A and C are the same temerpature"
( , Mon 4 Apr 2011, 15:29, closed)
if I recall correctly
"if thing A and thing B are the same temperature and thing B and thing C are the same temperature then things A and C are the same temerpature"
( , Mon 4 Apr 2011, 15:29, closed)
Aye
that's pretty much it, hence the fact that it's existence is mostly ignored (plus it's not really a law of the same character as the others, it's a definition of temperature).
( , Tue 5 Apr 2011, 0:47, closed)
that's pretty much it, hence the fact that it's existence is mostly ignored (plus it's not really a law of the same character as the others, it's a definition of temperature).
( , Tue 5 Apr 2011, 0:47, closed)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread