Upload
Login or register
x

DYK Comp #117

 
DYK Comp #117. Subscribe for more .. did you know? Someone in the crowd at a Queen Concert in the '1970' s yelled a slur at Freddie Mercury. He stopped the show
DYK Comp #117. Subscribe for more .. did you know? Someone in the crowd at a Queen Concert in the '1970' s yelled a slur at Freddie Mercury. He stopped the show
DYK Comp #117. Subscribe for more .. did you know? Someone in the crowd at a Queen Concert in the '1970' s yelled a slur at Freddie Mercury. He stopped the show
DYK Comp #117. Subscribe for more .. did you know? Someone in the crowd at a Queen Concert in the '1970' s yelled a slur at Freddie Mercury. He stopped the show
DYK Comp #117. Subscribe for more .. did you know? Someone in the crowd at a Queen Concert in the '1970' s yelled a slur at Freddie Mercury. He stopped the show
DYK Comp #117. Subscribe for more .. did you know? Someone in the crowd at a Queen Concert in the '1970' s yelled a slur at Freddie Mercury. He stopped the show
DYK Comp #117. Subscribe for more .. did you know? Someone in the crowd at a Queen Concert in the '1970' s yelled a slur at Freddie Mercury. He stopped the show
DYK Comp #117. Subscribe for more .. did you know? Someone in the crowd at a Queen Concert in the '1970' s yelled a slur at Freddie Mercury. He stopped the show

DYK Comp #117. Subscribe for more .. did you know? Someone in the crowd at a Queen Concert in the '1970' s yelled a slur at Freddie Mercury. He stopped the show
DYK Comp #117. Subscribe for more .. did you know? Someone in the crowd at a Queen Concert in the '1970' s yelled a slur at Freddie Mercury. He stopped the show
DYK Comp #117. Subscribe for more .. did you know? Someone in the crowd at a Queen Concert in the '1970' s yelled a slur at Freddie Mercury. He stopped the show
DYK Comp #117. Subscribe for more .. did you know? Someone in the crowd at a Queen Concert in the '1970' s yelled a slur at Freddie Mercury. He stopped the show
DYK Comp #117. Subscribe for more .. did you know? Someone in the crowd at a Queen Concert in the '1970' s yelled a slur at Freddie Mercury. He stopped the show
DYK Comp #117. Subscribe for more .. did you know? Someone in the crowd at a Queen Concert in the '1970' s yelled a slur at Freddie Mercury. He stopped the show
DYK Comp #117. Subscribe for more .. did you know? Someone in the crowd at a Queen Concert in the '1970' s yelled a slur at Freddie Mercury. He stopped the show
DYK Comp #117. Subscribe for more .. did you know? Someone in the crowd at a Queen Concert in the '1970' s yelled a slur at Freddie Mercury. He stopped the show
DYK Comp #117. Subscribe for more .. did you know? Someone in the crowd at a Queen Concert in the '1970' s yelled a slur at Freddie Mercury. He stopped the show
DYK Comp #117. Subscribe for more .. did you know? Someone in the crowd at a Queen Concert in the '1970' s yelled a slur at Freddie Mercury. He stopped the show
DYK Comp #117. Subscribe for more .. did you know? Someone in the crowd at a Queen Concert in the '1970' s yelled a slur at Freddie Mercury. He stopped the show

Subscribe for more **** .

did you know?
Someone in the crowd at a Queen
Concert in the '1970' s yelled
a slur at Freddie Mercury. He
stopped the show, had the crew
point a spotlight at the man,
and said, "Say it again, darling."
The man said nothing.
...
+954
Views: 33932
Favorited: 100
Submitted: 12/12/2015
Share On Facebook
submit to reddit +Favorite Subscribe to greendroid

Comments(174):

Leave a comment Refresh Comments Show GIFs
123>
[ 174 comments ]
Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest
Anonymous comments allowed.
108 comments displayed.
Reply
+111
#16 - anon (12/12/2015) [-]
2.000 pounds? I think we found Superman.
Reply
0
User avatar #96 to #16 - greyhoundfd (12/13/2015) [-]
No, this is clearly gold tiberium.
Reply
0
User avatar #150 to #16 - garymotherfingoak (12/13/2015) [-]
not to metnion that **** was discovered in 2000 not 2014
Reply
-1
User avatar #24 to #16 - augisnvm (12/12/2015) [-]
It's not in one piece.
Reply
+1
User avatar #82 to #24 - angelusprimus (12/13/2015) [-]
Well, he had to get out of it, duh.
How else would Kents take him home?
Reply
+1
#173 to #16 - unihornupmyass (12/13/2015) [-]
Theres something off with that chinese man.
Reply
+43
User avatar #29 to #16 - fittetjuven (12/12/2015) [-]
Yeah, that's a big Fukang meteorite
Reply
+425
#9 - elvoz ONLINE (12/12/2015) [-]
This is oddly specific. Getting some self-justification vibes from this one.
Reply
+1
User avatar #59 to #9 - leedledee (12/12/2015) [-]
I think it's based on various studies.
Reply
+54
User avatar #61 to #59 - elvoz ONLINE (12/12/2015) [-]
"Studies."
Reply
+51
User avatar #66 to #62 - elvoz ONLINE (12/12/2015) [-]
Ya ever heard the phrase "correlation doesn't equal causation"?

But please tell me more about how these are surefire methods to tell how smart someone is. Especially "a lot smarter". Psychology be damned.
Reply
+2
User avatar #101 to #66 - leedledee (12/13/2015) [-]
Obviously these are all correlations. Simply trends and patterns. I'm just sharing the original post that the Did You Know tidbit came from.
Reply
0
User avatar #129 to #66 - muhamidallea (12/13/2015) [-]
Are you an obese, short, sober youngest child who has never had music lessons, smokes with there right hand?
Why do you hate cats?
Reply
+1
User avatar #134 to #129 - elvoz ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
I mean I'm sober right now. You got that part right. lol
Reply
0
#146 to #66 - anon (12/13/2015) [-]
I'm not sure you understand the phrase "correlation doesn't equal causation" after you used it in this context. This infographic has more to do with using population intelligence data to help predict the intelligence of an individual, which is completely valid in statistics, and is in fact basically the entire practical purpose of statistics (see actuarial science etc.). Now I don't know anything about the validity of these particular studies, but nowhere was it claimed that owning a cat or doing drugs actually causes you to be more intelligent, which is the only claim that would be refuted by your "correlation doesn't equal causation" argument.
Reply
0
#157 to #146 - anon (12/13/2015) [-]
No he used the phrase right, YOU don't understand the phrase. Out of ALL of these, the only thing here that can possibly CAUSE you to become smarter is learning music at an early age because of how it aids in brain development. The rest of these are INCREDIBLY easy to explain or just coincidence. Not smoking doesn't make you smarter, but being smarter makes you less likely to smoke. Being the eldest child has nothing, and I mean nothing to do with your actual intelligence, it sometimes helps you mature more quickly and that is it. Being thin is genetics, not being obese on the other hand comes from again making good ******* decisions because you were already smart and chances are your parents are smart too and knew what to feed you. Owning a cat has ******* to do with intelligence, drugs have absolutely nothing to do with intelligence, being tall is STRICTLY genetic, and being left handed means your brain functions differently, but its neither smarter nor dumber it's just different. Psychologists are full of **** and their statistical data is worthless because they don't know the basic rules of statistics, or math for that matter.
Reply
+17
#70 to #62 - anon (12/13/2015) [-]
High childhood IQ means practically nothing about how intelligent you are later in life. In fact, if this post is to be believed then it clearly shows a negative trend.

Creativity =/= intelligence

For both fat and smoking, it is that the type of person who is willing to do those two things is usually less intelligent, but neither of them is a reliable way to look at somoene's intelligence.

I want to know how the "cat" one was measured.

Height literally has nothing to do with intelligence.

Being the oldest child doesn't make you smarter. It means you had to relearn the same thing 3 times so you could help your younger siblings with the work.
Reply
0
#159 to #70 - findusmann (12/13/2015) [-]
Except for the height and hand one, it just tells us what most intelligent people like.
And by the way:

"Participants also answered a slew of questions to assess their personality...cat lovers scored higher on intelligence than dog lovers."
www.livescience.com/45894-dog-cat-people-personalities.html

"Study finds genetic link between height and IQ"
medicalxpress.com/news/2014-03-genetic-link-height-iq.html
Reply
0
User avatar #111 to #62 - ashirt (12/13/2015) [-]
holy **** i read that as: "You are a cat".
Reply
0
User avatar #87 to #62 - timmity (12/13/2015) [-]
I only don't match eldest and left handed.
Since the thin-test measured obesity, and I'm not obese, and the fact that correlation =/= causation, I'm not counting that.
Reply
0
#77 to #59 - sirlorge (12/13/2015) [-]
Yeah, the problem is that this lists it off as if the study analyzed all of these aspects at once.

In all reality it should read "... learned to read early, or are the oldest child in ..."

In this case, 1+1=/=2, as in, oldest child + worrier + cat owner = smarter*3
Reply
+1
User avatar #74 to #9 - snakephallus (12/13/2015) [-]
I have every one of those but thin so I guess I'm just kinda smarter.
Reply
+1
#107 to #74 - shrekhulkbane (12/13/2015) [-]
**shrekhulkbane used "*roll picture*"**
**shrekhulkbane rolled image** nope, it's either all or nothing
Reply
+1
#88 to #9 - anon (12/13/2015) [-]
It's actually just a large mix of various statistics, I have read a few of them separately before, including the left-handed one, alcohol one, and worrying a lot one.
Reply
+1
User avatar #131 to #9 - thelastelephant (12/13/2015) [-]
Do I have to match one or all of those?
Reply
+1
#149 to #9 - bann (12/13/2015) [-]
Anyone who thinks their funny probably isn't that funny.
Reply
+2
User avatar #112 to #9 - whiteoverblue (12/13/2015) [-]
I would never call someone who worries a lot "intelligent." I would call someone who fixes what worries them intelligent.
Reply
+4
User avatar #115 to #112 - admiralen ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
it says intelligent, not wise
Reply
0
User avatar #119 to #115 - whiteoverblue (12/13/2015) [-]
I would call wise whoever takes responsibility for their own intelligence and use it for the bettering of everything and everyone around them, as opposed to just have it for social status.
But that's just me.
Reply
-2
User avatar #120 to #119 - admiralen ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
Wise does not equal good
Wise pretty much means understanding and being able to utilize what you know while intelligence is basically what you know
Reply
0
User avatar #121 to #120 - whiteoverblue (12/13/2015) [-]
hence why I just shared how I see it. Though I must agree, that's a much better way to look at those two
Reply
+6
User avatar #108 to #9 - thepizzadevourer (12/13/2015) [-]
I'm 200 pounds, 5'9", right-handed, annoy people with my jokes, rather conservative, never taken music lessons, never tried any drugs, am a teetotaler, am very easygoing.

However, I am the oldest child in my family . . . so maybe I'm not too stupid?
Reply
+4
User avatar #113 to #108 - elvoz ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
There you go thinking rationally instead of following what the little white text on the black box says! You're ruining the system, man! Just shut up and be stupid like the dyk post says you should be and stop challenging new ideas!
Reply
+3
#132 to #9 - anon (12/13/2015) [-]
"Conservatives are both the smartest and dumbest people. Liberals fall in the middle"
-milo yianoppolous. Truer words have never been spoken
Reply
+4
User avatar #12 to #9 - TheMather ONLINE (12/12/2015) [-]
It's a combination of slight tendencies.
Might be genetics, might be the result of having to cope, but there are a lot of traits out there, where the people that suffer of which are of slightly higher IQ than average.

I know for certain that left-handedness and liberal political standing are two such traits. Asperger's Syndrome would be an example of another one that is not on that list.
Reply
+6
User avatar #54 to #9 - taintedangel (12/12/2015) [-]
If it didn't say "politically [party]" I might have believed it.
Reply
+1
User avatar #81 to #54 - angelusprimus (12/13/2015) [-]
Problem in USA is that we don't have political parties, we have two massive coalitions who broadly belong together.
In general (not absolutely) people who prefer change in society are more intelligent than people who prefer status quo and lack of change.
That's because intelligent people handle change better.
In USA its not quite that simple. Libertarians, who are more likely to vote for Republicans who are "conservative" option, want massive changes, and are against government having a say in personal choices. While a lot of democrats, usually those who are gathered around unions, want as little change as possible.
It would honestly be better if each of big two split in about three parties each, because some of the alliances are unnatural. (like religious right which wants to legislate morality with libertarians)
Reply
+4
User avatar #27 to #9 - mcbergstedt (12/12/2015) [-]
I'm tall, moderately thin, left handed, funny, conservative, have taken music lessons, don't do drugs, sometimes drink alcohol, i dunno when I learned to read, and i'm the oldest kid in my family
Reply
+5
#35 to #27 - tjilaz (12/12/2015) [-]
Well **** me sideways. you must be smart.
Reply
+4
User avatar #78 to #35 - StewieGGriffin (12/13/2015) [-]
Didn't you read? He doesn't do recreatiol drugs like cocaine, he can't be smart.
Reply
+3
User avatar #73 to #35 - mcbergstedt (12/13/2015) [-]
I can tie my shoes with my eyes closed so i'm pretty smart
Reply
+4
User avatar #55 to #9 - obanesforever (12/12/2015) [-]
From my memory, each of those individual traits were touted as making people smarter than normal by tabloids and such. The creator just put them all into one sentence.
Reply
+10
User avatar #69 to #9 - wrpen (12/13/2015) [-]
>Be fat, short, right-handed, deadpan, centrist, have a dog, never took recreational drugs, never touched alcohol, don't worry, learned to read in Kindergarten, and am the youngest out of two
>3.8 GPA, qualified for Mensa, working on a doctorate in Biology
Reply
+11
User avatar #79 to #69 - StewieGGriffin (12/13/2015) [-]
Too bad youre short and fat.
Reply
+9
#80 to #79 - wrpen (12/13/2015) [-]
**** , you got me.
Reply
+6
User avatar #64 to #9 - internetexplain (12/12/2015) [-]
I'm fat , short , right-handed , had a dog , took no musical lessons , have never taken any drugs , that includes alcohol , I'm absolutely carefree , learned to read when I was already in elementary , and I'm the youngest child in the family.

WELP Guess I'm retarded.
Reply
-5
User avatar #91 to #9 - newepic (12/13/2015) [-]
My sister fits like 9/10 of those requirements , and shes got like 145 IQ and is a lawyer. Might be some merrit to it.
Reply
+22
User avatar #114 to #91 - elvoz ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
Confirmation bias is a cool thing.
Reply
0
User avatar #153 to #9 - sketchE ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
im right handed and politicaly neutral but lean slightly right. so im onyl slightly above average
Reply
+2
#144 to #9 - dmkstarstar (12/13/2015) [-]
Yeah I have to agree this is some grade A ******** right here.
Apparently being left handed makes me smart okay then.
Though I could of sworn it made me more artistic. autistic
Being a drug addict and an alcoholic makes you smarter what kind of ******* is that?
The fact this fact says being liberal makes you smarter makes me think this was written by someone from San Francisco. I mean I'm no conservative but come on even I know that **** isn't true.
0
#171 to #144 - halarious has deleted their comment [-]
Reply
0
User avatar #167 to #144 - moldybreadcrumb (12/13/2015) [-]
Well you also have to be thin, tall, funny, liberal, and own a cat
Reply
0
User avatar #148 to #144 - haitianfighter (12/13/2015) [-]
This is not saying that those things MAKE you smarter but that smarter people tend to fall more into those categories. For example, maybe more smart people are lefties than righties, or more smart people tend to be driven to try recreational drugs than not. So somebody put all those traits into one hypothetical person and stated that that person is probably pretty smart.
Reply
0
User avatar #160 to #148 - brobathehutt (12/13/2015) [-]
The problem is that it's a lot of correlation that means honestly nothing. The studies are all completely worthless, with exception of course for the music study and left-handed study. The music study is correct, (to what degree I do not know) because learning music does help with brain development, and it's also worth noting that music has a lot of math behind it and math is used to measure intelligence (which is why IQ tests are so ****** ). The left-handed study is wrong in that being left-handed does not make you smarter nor dumber, but it is correct that it makes you think differently. Really, it needs a lot more work put into it because there seems to be more to it and its always good to know as much as we can about the brain.
Reply
+24
User avatar #28 to #9 - praemium (12/12/2015) [-]
"From the MSNBC foundation, funded by the Democratic Party"
Reply
+1
User avatar #41 to #28 - Ruspanic (12/12/2015) [-]
lol I guess "liberal" was the one that stood out to you
Reply
+5
User avatar #52 to #41 - praemium (12/12/2015) [-]
Nah, it was the only one "opinion-based" - all the others were just attributes of your body and life experiences. It is very obvious this is written by a libtard and not a cuntservative.
By the way, I am thin, left-handed, funny, have a cat, have taken recreational drug, drink alcohol more than regularly, worry a lot, learned to read early and am the oldest child, I am not smarter than any of my friends who do not share those attributes. This is a real circle-jerk for liberals.
Reply
-1
User avatar #84 to #52 - Ruspanic (12/13/2015) [-]
it's just statistics-based. None of those things actually make you smarter, but statistically people with those characteristics are disproportionately likely to be smarter than average. Or conversely, smart people are more likely than average to be those things. It might make cause a liberal circle-jerk but that doesn't mean that was the intention.
Reply
+2
User avatar #93 to #84 - praemium (12/13/2015) [-]
Yy I get it, but that is a non sequiter regardless of result, why was this tested to begin with? Whatever result emerged, it could be chalked up to coincidences. No serious academic institution would conduct this "test", "research" or "investigation" to begin with. I'd say, simply from result and phrasing, it was loaded statement with intentions.
Reply
0
User avatar #99 to #93 - Ruspanic (12/13/2015) [-]
I don't see it as fundamentally different from any other sociological study. Just measure people's intelligence in some way (IQ, test scores, etc) and ask them what their political affiliation is, and see if there's a correlation. It's not significantly different from studies that find smart people are less likely to be religious, or more likely to be depressed, etc. The main problem with the political element is that it's not always straightforward to identify what is a "liberal" and what is a "conservative", etc. Even if the affiliations are self-reported by the subjects.
Reply
+49
#11 - wilicious (12/12/2015) [-]
The original iteration of Humpty Dumpty was meant to be a riddle along the lines of "what was Humpty Dumpty?". It's kind of stupid to give away the answer in the riddle.
Reply
0
#56 to #11 - chumblefucker ONLINE (12/12/2015) [-]
Ok so I had written a long paragraph about Humpty Dumpty being a cannon and went to look for a source to substantiate my claim and it appears I might be misguided...

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty#Meaning

Reply
+34
User avatar #76 - dangler (12/13/2015) [-]
"Magenta isn't real we only see red green and blue"

This is egregiously incorrect
Reply
0
User avatar #162 to #76 - brobathehutt (12/13/2015) [-]
I think it meant yellow.
Reply
+2
User avatar #168 to #162 - dangler (12/13/2015) [-]
No, our retinas have three types of cells that detect color; each is particularly well-adjusted to detect a specific color: red, green, and blue. This does not mean that we only see combinations of those three colors. Yellow light (570–590 nm) is perceived by the eyes via joint effort of the "red" and "green" cone cells (not that the third doesn't do anything at all for it).
Also no, magenta does not exist on the electromagnetic spectrum, but colors are only colors in that they are perceived by humans. You can't really call Ultraviolet or Infrared a color (though some animals can see them), but the interpretation of the mixture of whatever wavelengths is what really constitutes a "color", since it is visible to people. TV/Computer/etc. screens only produce red, blue, and green lights/diodes/pixels/what-have-you; certain combinations thereof can produce any color for the viewer, even though technically only three colors are being outputted by the screen.

If you're going to say that magenta isn't real, you may as well say that color isn't real either. Color only exists in the brain, so the visual interpretation is the color. as per the definition of the word color: the quality of an object or substance with respect to light reflected by the object, usually determined visually by measurement of hue, saturation, and brightness of the reflected light; saturation or chroma; hue.
Reply
0
User avatar #170 to #168 - brobathehutt (12/13/2015) [-]
I mean it wasn't worded properly in the first place but what I am referring to was something I read way back saying humans do not see pure yellow as our eyes don't have the cones for it. Dogs on the other hand see in blues and yellows so they actually do see that shade of pure yellow that we can not perceive. I read all this so long ago that I may be entirely off base about the entire thing, but that's what I was referring to not the electromagnetic spectrum.
Reply
+23
#42 - pinethrush (12/12/2015) [-]
Hey Jeff, look at this big fukang rock!
Reply
+21
User avatar #25 - gedoushinken (12/12/2015) [-]
How can magenta be real when eyes aren't real.
Reply
+15
#97 - schneidend (12/13/2015) [-]
That color you're seeing and can be reliably reproduced isn't real hurr durr!

******* really?
Reply
+12
#75 - anon (12/13/2015) [-]
>2000 pounds
there's a picture of some ****** holding it
Reply
0
#161 to #75 - anon (12/13/2015) [-]
He lifts.
Reply
+4
#4 - anon (12/12/2015) [-]
RE: the tall left handed one... I'm all of those except the eldest and politically liberal. I considered myself liberal in some sense until I smartened up.
Reply
-1
User avatar #22 to #4 - therealtjthemedic (12/12/2015) [-]
I was a liberal when I was young, but then I considered myself a conservative for a while before I got back into science and astrodynamics.
Simultaneously realising everyone who agreed with me were rednecks from the south of the USA and remembering how much I loved science as a kid snapped me back.
Reply
+1
User avatar #44 to #22 - Ruspanic (12/12/2015) [-]
You don't have to be a redneck or anti-science to be conservative, though. Just like you don't have to be racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, religious, or any of those other conservative stereotypes. You just have to have conservative-aligning principles.
Reply
-1
User avatar #45 to #44 - therealtjthemedic (12/12/2015) [-]
I know that, but I recognise now, that as I became more interested in science, I became more liberal.
Reply
+1
User avatar #46 to #45 - Ruspanic (12/12/2015) [-]
Fair enough.
Was that just a trend in yourself you noticed, or was there some direct science-related causal factor that made you change your mind?
Reply
-1
User avatar #47 to #46 - therealtjthemedic (12/12/2015) [-]
Just a trend. I used to be pretty damned racist, too.
Reply
0
#7 to #4 - anon (12/12/2015) [-]
OH **** YOU, YOU ******* TURD

ALL YOU CONSERVATIVE ASSHOLES CROW ON AND ON ABOUT BEING SO ******* SMART

BUT YOU RAN GEORGE W BUSH AS YOUR CANDIDATE, EASILY THE WORST PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME

EGG ON YOUR ******* FACE RIGHT THERE
GO EAT A COCK FAGGET

YOUR OTHER HERO WAS REAGAN

AN ACTOR... HOW APPROPRIATE
Reply
+3
User avatar #72 to #15 - stealingbikes (12/13/2015) [-]
**** man he just threw the whole fishing pole in
Reply
+2
#19 to #15 - anon (12/12/2015) [-]



best waifu
Reply
0
#53 to #19 - anon (12/12/2015) [-]
GIF
Reply
+22
#18 - anon (12/12/2015) [-]
the magenta one really pissed me off
for one, red and blue do not make green they make purple
magenta is a shade of purple
and for two, red blue and green arent primary it's red blue and yellow
ever heard of RoYgBiv? it's the colors of the rainbow and the lowercase letters are secondary
so tl;dr
magenta is real in dyk is ********
Reply
+1
User avatar #60 to #18 - leedledee (12/12/2015) [-]
Our eyes have only 3 types of colour recpting cones: LMS, or Red, Green and Blue. The colours we see are combinations of firing patterns of these receptors.

Source: Sensation and Perception course in University last year
Reply
+5
User avatar #23 to #18 - osamacare (12/12/2015) [-]
You're thinking of color of objects. Light color combinations are different
Reply
+1
User avatar #163 to #23 - brobathehutt (12/13/2015) [-]
He's an art student so I doubt he understands the difference, but in his defense the post is so ******* stupid it's hard to make sense of it, because it was SUPPOSED to say we can't perceive that color, and I think it meant yellow as we see in shades of blue, red and green and yellow is not a shade of green, however some shades of green do get very close to yellow and that is what we see (Or something along those lines, I haven't looked it up in a very long time).
Reply
+4
User avatar #32 to #18 - cdsams (12/12/2015) [-]
What are colors really? What makes a color "real"? As far as I know, color is the portion of the light spectrum that an object does not reflect or the portion that is absorbed. How the hell can a color be "fake"? I know color its self is just a representative that the brain assigned to that wave length.
Reply
+6
#137 - anotherXdork (12/13/2015) [-]
>2000 pounds
>local titan pictured lifting 2 tonne meteor
Reply
+1
User avatar #139 to #137 - therealfell (12/13/2015) [-]
The rare meteorite weighed about the same as a hatchback when it was discovered in 2000, in the Gobi Desert in China's Xinjiang Province.
It has since been divided into slices which give the effect of stained glass when the sun shines through them.
An anonymous collector holds the largest portion, which weighs 925lb. in 2008, this piece was expected to fetch $2million (£1.26million) at auction at Bonham's in New York - but it remained unsold.
Reply
+4
#40 - anon (12/12/2015) [-]
aaaannnndddd that is not how color works.

Thanks DYK for always putting out one fact every so often that is so incorrect that it makes you not have to wonder if most of them are bs
Reply
+1
User avatar #135 - PurpleStuff (12/13/2015) [-]
Why do I have a green santa hat?

Reply
0
User avatar #136 to #135 - PurpleStuff (12/13/2015) [-]
wait it changes colors???
Reply
+3
User avatar #140 to #136 - therealfell (12/13/2015) [-]
it's the mark of admin

you're the next to be banned
Reply
+1
User avatar #141 to #140 - PurpleStuff (12/13/2015) [-]
Finally, some real recognition from our one true savior. Take me Admin.
Reply
+3
#127 - tiles (12/13/2015) [-]
Sounds like whoever made this pulled it straight out of his own ass
Reply
+3
User avatar #67 - lpjazzman ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
The Santa Claus one is true, I live ~10mi away from North Pole.
Reply
+3
#49 - runescapewasgood ONLINE (12/12/2015) [-]
im not proud to admit that the first time i read this i thought she had a tie business and used the nazis to eliminate jewish competition in the tie market
Reply
+4
#30 - lordraine (12/12/2015) [-]
"A liberal funded study claims that liberals are inherently smarter, wiser, and more handsome than conservatives, liberal pundit reports."

What an amazing find. I'm so glad we have these sorts of experts working tirelessly around the clock to advance science in meaningful ways and bring the unbiased news to us directly.
Reply
+4
User avatar #33 to #30 - WutsAtroll (12/12/2015) [-]
i guarantee you the only people who believe that are liberals. They can be barely passing their gender studies class in college, but because of their political views they will think it proves they're smarter than everyone else
Reply
+2
User avatar #143 - cellphoneman (12/13/2015) [-]
In response to the "magenta isn't real" thing: arstechnica.com/science/2009/02/yes-virgina-there-is-a-magenta/
Reply
+1
User avatar #158 to #143 - subaqueousreach (12/13/2015) [-]
Thank you, I'm so sick of hearing that stupid "pink doesn't exist" crap.
Reply
+4
#106 - theseqceeman (12/13/2015) [-]
>politically liberal
>smart
honestly this is basically just saying if you like the color red and dont agree with those who like blue, your smart
Reply
+1
User avatar #142 to #106 - therealfell (12/13/2015) [-]
maybe it's just something that's been proven

like, for example, people who are racist typically have a low IQ.
Reply
+1
#154 - genocidalhamster ONLINE (12/13/2015) [-]
Thin tall left handed liberal is false. If you have those things you are probably on foodstamps and unemployed.
Reply
-1
#169 to #154 - anon (12/13/2015) [-]
Said the dim-witted manlet.
123>
[ 174 comments ]
Leave a comment

Top Content in 24 Hours

No entries found.
<
>
 Friends (0)