Humor Random Comments Thread

[Matias Saibene]

N.

:leaving:
OMG!, we have among us Captain Nemo.

N.

 

[kamaz]

This goes out to all the self-taught C++ Orbiter add-on developers here... This is how I feel when I read your code:

As we say in Poland, The ox has forgotten that he also used to be a calf.

 

[Notebook]

:leaving:
OMG!, we have among us Captain Nemo.

Wish I was, I always wanted my own submarine.

N.

 

[Urwumpe]

As we say in Poland, The ox has forgotten that he also used to be a calf.

Educating yourself does not mean you are stupid in first place; it means you are intelligent enough to know, there is plenty left to learn.

 

[Tycho]

Saw a comment on a Youtube video in which the author expressed his/her skepticism of the space program and wondered how an EMU and a space shuttle could maintain the same orbit. He/she argued that this would be because of the difference in momentum (akin, apparently, to throwing something out of a car window. :facepalm:

Momentum is simply the product of an object's velocity and mass, expressed in terms of the energy required for an object of a certain mass to achieve a certain velocity. Once at that velocity in the near-vacuum of LEO (and the Shuttle/astronauts achieve orbital velocity as a system), the difference in momentum does not affect their orbits. Their velocity is identical or very similar, and any substantial difference resulting from atmospheric drag at that altitude would take weeks/months to have any non-negligible effect on either body (which is why the ISS is boosted occasionally and satellites can decay).

In the near-vacuum of LEO, the inertia of an object will carry it on a vector tangential to its circular motion, with Earth's gravity pulling it toward the center (i.e. it orbits). Newton's first law indicates that this forward motion would continue until being acted upon by an external force (presumably, atmospheric drag). At the altitude of Shuttle flights and the ISS, this force is so low that it does not make a short-term difference as indicated above. If the physics were such that this commenter suggests, g-forces would be detectable by astronauts in the Shuttle as the atmospheric drag (which, again, is negligible in the short-term at this altitude) acted on the craft, thus pushing them "downward" in the craft as it moved relative to them; this is what happens during reentry, but not to any noticeable degree at LEO.

Not to mention the fact that a car is under power at the Earth's surface when something is thrown out the window while the object thrown isn't (and the air resistance is magnitudes greater). When travelling at orbital velocity, the object is in "free fall" because it is moving faster in the horizontal than it can fall in the vertical, to put it simply.

A lesson for the kids: physics always wins.

</physicsrant>

 

[Linguofreak]

In the near-vacuum of LEO, the inertia of an object will carry it on a vector tangential to its circular motion, with Earth's gravity pulling it toward the center (i.e. it orbits).

Actually, under General Relativity, we can just say that an object's inertia will carry it along its orbit, not just a vector tangential to its orbit.

 

[n122vu]

the smaller ones don't have as big of a battery.

I'd have to consider that a myth. The charge seems to be about the same, they're just discharging it faster. But usually recharching it faster, too...

I'd like to know the respective model numbers the two of you have dealt with, because my smaller human requires half the charging time I require, and lasts twice as long... :blink:

 

[Tycho]

Actually, under General Relativity, we can just say that an object's inertia will carry it along its orbit, not just a vector tangential to its orbit.

Absolutely, but the guy was arguing in terms of Newtonian mechanics (which, as illustrated, didn't support the point). My point being momentum is not a determinant in the specifications of an object's orbit, as the commenter indicated. But, rather, a way of measuring the energy required to get a certain mass to a certain velocity (or, once achieved, eliminate it). Once there, an object of lesser mass does not "fall behind" in the near vacuum of LEO (although it would during re-entry, because it has less momentum and thus requires a smaller amount of force to eliminate the same velocity).

Just thought I'd vent it to the choir rather than explain it to him.

 

[Andy44]

The proper response to stupidity in youtube comments is not to try and reason with them or get upset over it, but to see it as an opportunity to troll them mercilessly. Since youtube is largely unmoderated you might as well. And it's guilt-free trolling as far as I'm concerned, because I have no remorse picking on those who are willfully stupid and have no excuse not to know better.

Or you can take the high road and just ignore it.

The latter is probably better advice, but the former is more entertaining for us all.

 

[NukeET]

Or you can take the high road and just ignore. it

I prefer the high road myself. It wastes less time.

 

[Tycho]

Yeah, I do enjoy spectating Youtube comments. I just thought this guy was hilarious. Thought about replying there, but ignored it. I don't know, I guess it's an ego boost to come over here and demolish the guy's argument, which is a straw man in its unaltered form. :lol:

The comment sections on Apollo videos are a riot, although I did have (believe it or not) a pretty intelligent conversation with a skeptic a ways back. Intelligent in the sense that the guy didn't resort to name calling after being rebutted.

 

[Artlav]

I did have (believe it or not) a pretty intelligent conversation with a skeptic a ways back.

I won't be too surprised, having myself believed in Apollo conspiracy back at the end of 20th century. :embarrassed:

It's a kind of thing that falls apart when you research it and think about it for 5 minutes, but few people take these 5 minutes.

The mother of my brother's wife didn't believe in the moon landings until recently, but just showing her hundreds of raw photos from the Apollo archive was enough to get it out of her system.

It's a bad idea to assume all conspiracy believers are just idiots.

 

[Tycho]

Yeah, there are definitely people (like yourself and your brother's mother-in-law) who are open-minded enough to learn something new; but they don't usually show up in YT comments. Then there are guys like Bart Sibrel who are willfully ignorant even in the face of overwhelming evidence...

 

[PenguinMan94]

Dear child support,

My son has been repeating the same songverse over and over again for the last 30 minutes. I'm afraid he might have run into a halting problem.

How do I reboot him?

Did you try setting him to "W" for "wumbo"

This is a very late reply I know

 

[Andy44]

It's a bad idea to assume all conspiracy believers are just idiots.

I agree. I was friends with a smart guy who basically distrusted any official story and was skeptical of the moon landings, but he wasn't a "believer" in the hoax per se; he simply needed to be convinced. And he wasn't an engineer or into space flight stuff, so when the hoaxers fed him with nonsense about rocket capabilities and Van Allen Belt radiation he didn't know enough to dismiss it outright. Once it was explained he dropped the conspiracy stuff.

That's not the same as a clown who goes on youtube and pollutes all spaceflight videos with rabid conspiracy comments despite being repeatedly pointed toward the facts.

 

[mojoey]

 

[MattBaker]

Man, I heard people complain about Steam support but it's not like Rockstar Games is any better. First you're talking to the bots, which is always fun, then after half a day finally someone looks at your ticket aaaand...turns out they didn't even read it fully, at least they missed half of the stuff I wrote.

Either I'm communicating with alien lifeforms who only understand every other word or their customer support is really bad. At least the first would be interesting.

 

[Codz]

Despite EA's reputation, their customer support is far and away the best I've used. Steam is just awful.

 

[Artlav]

First you're talking to the bots, which is always fun, then after half a day finally someone looks at your ticket aaaand...turns out they didn't even read it fully, at least they missed half of the stuff I wrote..

I had a similar experience with large online store. They refused to ship my order due to some misread regulation.
I listed all the facts.
Got a response stating that due to so-and-so we can't.
I quote so-and-so, explain why they are wrong.
Got a response stating that so-and-so means they can't.
Pummelled them with facts some more.
Got another wrong response.
Pummelled them with facts some more.
Finally got a sentient life form to read the ticket, explaining that everyone was for some reason looking at the regulations for a different country and apologising for delay.
Shipment arrived in record time after that.

I guess when you are dealing with thousands, if not millions of calls per day you can't afford to think about every case, and just train the people to follow a checklist.

So, perseverance is the only option.

 

[Quick_Nick]

Man, I heard people complain about Steam support but it's not like Rockstar Games is any better. First you're talking to the bots, which is always fun, then after half a day finally someone looks at your ticket aaaand...turns out they didn't even read it fully, at least they missed half of the stuff I wrote.

Either I'm communicating with alien lifeforms who only understand every other word or their customer support is really bad. At least the first would be interesting.

I'm not sure how they could deal with ten tickets per minute any differently.

I will say that GTA Online is very buggy indeed though.