Upload
Login or register
x

Comments(200):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
1234>
[ 200 comments ]
Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest
Anonymous comments allowed.
66 comments displayed.
Reply
+165
User avatar #63 - Einsty (05/31/2015) [+] (15 replies)
stickied by nicktrue
If you look at the sun from 100 light years away, it will appear very small.

The first person to discover that cow milk is drinkable was thirsty.

Iron is grey when solid, orange when rusted, the ore is red and it is used to make green glass.

Blue LEDs were so hard to develop the inventor got a nobel prize for it.

The most advanced method of graphene production is peeling graphite with an adhesive tape.

Lightbulbs are illegal in European Union.

Hiding a piece of chocolate for the morning under your pillow can increase pleasant dreams at night. Also it's how you get ants.

Before books were used, scrolls were the main method of keeping information. The word scrolling has reemerged with the advent of computers.

The grass is greener on the other side of the fence because of the viewing angle. Looking down on the grass you stand on allows you to see the underlying dirt, whereas looking at farther grass reveals only the green blades.

Vacuum is not empty. It is full of particles that could be real and they sometimes appear and disappear randomly.

US congress has rejected 4 laws that would lead to a blanket anime ban since 1982.

SMS messages are not subject to laws that govern telephones or the internet, since SMS is an internal service protocol introduced to enable easy diagnosis of remote telecom networks installations. As such it has no security implemented and there is zero guarantee the message will reach the recipient.

Equines are capable of eating and digesting meat and they can turn berserk if they do so.

Try ang guess which ones I made up.
Reply
0
User avatar #88 - VongolaX ONLINE (05/31/2015) [+] (1 reply)
stickied by nicktrue
by all planets does it mean each individual planet or all planets all together?
Reply
+15
#61 - hkkkkkk (05/31/2015) [-]
Your penis is an oversized clitoris
Reply
+88
User avatar #71 to #61 - anonymoose (05/31/2015) [-]
I told you that in confidence!
Reply
+11
#20 - appleontherocks (05/31/2015) [-]
I dont....I don't get it.
Reply
+1
#131 to #20 - theXsjados (06/01/2015) [-]
To be the oldest everyone born before you has to die.
Reply
+79
#21 to #20 - chords (05/31/2015) [-]
so when the oldest person in the world was born , all of the people that were born with him are now dead and is now with us
Reply
+38
#15 - anon (05/31/2015) [-]
People studying atoms are just atoms trying to understand themselves.
Reply
+1
User avatar #127 to #15 - lazycloud (06/01/2015) [-]
I hate the idea that our behaviour and free will is governed by cells in our body. It makes life seem so much more artificial. Every time you take a bite of a juicy steaky, kiss a gorgeous girl, feel the high of a rollercoaster it's all just chemicals interacting. lol except for the girl part I doubt any of us know that feeling
Reply
+3
#52 to #15 - anon (05/31/2015) [-]
I study chemistry, and this ****** me up
Reply
+3
User avatar #55 to #15 - nustix (05/31/2015) [-]
Isn't that the reason people study chemistry and physics anyway? I always found it really weird that people study chemistry just for the pay. I do it because I want to know how the world works. Otherwise I would have set up a bussiness.
Reply
+28
#18 - piratedangel (05/31/2015) [-]
That's deep.
That's deep.
Reply
0
User avatar #115 to #18 - rebuilt (06/01/2015) [-]
not really, it just seems like thoughts mixed in with some facts
Reply
+1
#170 to #75 - iamnotgoodwithname ONLINE (06/01/2015) [-]
Comment Picture
Reply
+11
User avatar #49 - wotterpatch (05/31/2015) [-]
Saying we had nukes before we had color television is technically true, but kinda misleading.

We had the technology to film in color at this point, and the technology to make color displays (both weren't very good and super expensive, but they existed) we just didn't have the infrastructure/cost low enough to do it for television
Reply
+9
#74 - daniboyi (05/31/2015) [-]
send a mirror 32.5 million light years away and watch earth back through that mirror.
Watch as a dinosaur is standing where you are supposed to stand in the future.
Reply
0
#160 to #74 - anon (06/01/2015) [-]
bruh
Reply
+2
#77 to #74 - masanori (05/31/2015) [-]
That wouldn't work. The light would end up travelling a full 65 million light years, yes, but that's not the critical dimension here. The photons carrying the visual information that would reveal dinosaurs have already traveled 65 million light years away, so you would have to go the full distance to visually process them or reflect them back to Earth. You'd also need an absurdly powerful telescope.
Reply
+2
#89 to #74 - mastercolossus (05/31/2015) [-]
i think you forgot the first step of travelling 32.5 million years into the past first.
Reply
+3
User avatar #78 to #74 - blademontane (05/31/2015) [-]
The only problem is that it'd take at least 32.5 million years to get it there travelling at light speed, and then another 32.5 million light years for the light to reflect back. So in reality, if you did send it at light speed, the moment the light had reflected back to earth you would see the time that you sent it there.
Reply
0
#195 to #78 - docbraun (06/01/2015) [-]
True. Except sending a mirror 65 million light years away at speed-of-light would require 65 million years, not half.
Reply
+8
#84 - moronsky (05/31/2015) [-]
Don't ge me wrong I love content like this
Reply
+14
#37 - skelebones (05/31/2015) [-]
yeah except for that time 10 college kids in indianapolis drove neck and neck at the bare speed limit only not a single mph under or over overtaking and undercutting when there were lane size changes. they backed up traffic all around 465 and back into itself. the whole goddamn 465. 53 ******* miles of trafic. for a goddamn social experiment. i mean jesus ******* christ.
yeah except for that time 10 college kids in indianapolis drove neck and neck at the bare speed limit only not a single mph under or over overtaking and undercutting when there were lane size changes.
they backed up traffic all around 465 and back into itself. the whole goddamn 465. 53 ******* miles of trafic. for a goddamn social experiment. i mean jesus ******* christ.
Reply
0
User avatar #91 to #37 - mrnaanbread (05/31/2015) [-]
why is that a gif
Reply
0
#163 to #91 - skelebones (06/01/2015) [-]
I... dont know. i didnt even know it was a gif till you mentioned
Reply
+4
#39 to #37 - anon (05/31/2015) [-]
I blame the traffic engineers who designed the roads, then. They made the roads and speed limits like that.
Reply
+1
#40 to #39 - skelebones (05/31/2015) [-]
indianapolis was stupid like that. they put population before infrastructure so now theyve been fighting a 20 year pickup game
Reply
+4
#183 - peezle (06/01/2015) [-]
Hard to kill Japanese with a color television.
Hard to kill Japanese with a color television.
Reply
+4
#90 - kuruman (05/31/2015) [-]
"Damn, you're ugly!"
Reply
+4
User avatar #60 - lolollo (05/31/2015) [-]
Misattribution error is both the most frustrating, and clarifying phenomenon I've found in psychology, particularly when people think it's not worth mentioning because "lol people will never change anyway might as well not try!"
Reply
0
User avatar #62 to #60 - nicktrue [OP]ONLINE (05/31/2015) [-]
What do you mean? Can you spoon feed me examples of misattribution error?
Reply
+3
User avatar #68 to #62 - lolollo (05/31/2015) [-]
Its the factoid on judging yourself on your intentions and others on their behaviour. The example theyd use in class was some "Rosa Parks Day" tradition where busses will keep the front seat clear with a little sign detailing the whole "back of the bus" fiasco. If you were to sit there, you'd feel shame, but you'd feel it was justified because you "didn't see the sign" and "wouldn't have sat there". If someone else sits there, you'd think " there's clearly a sign, what an asshole for ignoring it."
Reply
0
#133 to #60 - theXsjados (06/01/2015) [-]
Actor/observer symmetry.
Reply
+3
#190 - randomdudelny (06/01/2015) [-]
"Everything you see is delayed."
Reply
+3
#187 - synxiz (06/01/2015) [-]
I hate the traffic therefore I hate my self. how accurate
Reply
+3
#155 - theroflcer (06/01/2015) [-]
My response to the first image.
Reply
+3
#142 - LocoJoe (06/01/2015) [-]
I am not in traffic, Skylar. I am the traffic. I AM THE ONE WHO HONKS!
Reply
+3
#95 - charagrin (05/31/2015) [-]
Not just the solar system, the entirety of the known universe, which while small compared to the actual universe, is still incredibly massive on a scale all it's own. I know it's obvious, just saying, why limit it to just the incredibly minute solar system we occupy?
Reply
0
#196 to #95 - docbraun (06/01/2015) [-]
How about removing that set altogether and just saying "...the only known planet that is solely inhabited..."
Reply
+1
#148 to #95 - anonomysmonkey (06/01/2015) [-]
I don't think we can say that for sure. Just because we can see a planet doesn't mean we know everything on it. What if aliens sent a robot to those planets already and we're just too far to see them. Or they sent them recently and since we're millions of light years away we're seeing that planet as it was millions of year ago.
Reply
0
User avatar #150 to #148 - charagrin (06/01/2015) [-]
Have a thumb in case I came off as being rude, in which case I apologize.
Reply
0
User avatar #149 to #148 - charagrin (06/01/2015) [-]
Um, I am a polite person who tries to be friendly even with people I do not like, but I have no idea how to politely say "no **** ." The image says KNOWN PLANET.
Reply
0
#151 to #149 - anonomysmonkey (06/01/2015) [-]
I don't get how this changes anything I said. Maybe you misunderstood? There are planets that we KNOW EXIST in our KNOWN UNIVERSE outside of our solar system but we are too far to be 100% sure if there is or is not an alien robot living alone on that planet.
Reply
0
User avatar #156 to #151 - charagrin (06/01/2015) [-]
I get you, it just seems like a weird thing to argue about, because the point you are making is that we do not know if there is another planet out there with robots on it, which is obvious. The original point, which yours is unrelated to, is that the posited idea is based on the statement "known planet."

Your comment string is random and unrelated to the original thread as presented. You are yelling out "blue" when someone else said 2+2=4.
Reply
0
#162 to #156 - anonomysmonkey (06/01/2015) [-]
Granted, my point was kind of "out there" and this entire argument is dumb.
Reply
0
#158 to #156 - anonomysmonkey (06/01/2015) [-]
It's not unrelated. What you're suggesting is that we can replace the statement on the picture with the statement: "Mars is the only known planet in our known universe solely inhabited by a functioning robots."
My previous two statements contradict that.
While we can be sure that we haven't sent any other robots to planets other than mars and relatively sure that aliens haven't sent stuff to OUR solar system, we can not be so sure about that if we take into account our entire known universe.
Reply
+5
#73 - outerspacebar (05/31/2015) [-]
Did you know the backpack was only first invented in 1967?
Reply
+2
#154 to #73 - xclbr (06/01/2015) [-]
Wrong, that was just the internal frame backpack. The backpack as almost every schoolchild knows it has been around since ancient times.

Source: Wikipedia (Whadaya gonna do, tattle to my English teacher?)
1234>
[ 200 comments ]
Leave a comment
<
>
 Friends (0)