Thread: Totally true facts that aren't lies

All these facts are true:

Snails shoot each other with darts
If you had a gram of antimatter, you would be the richest person alive
If you get struck by lightning, you may get a temporary tattoo
There is a lemur that hunts with its middle finger
Cashews are not nuts
Armadillos can probably jump higher than you
A tumor bigger than 300 pounds was removed in tact
Oxford University is older than the Aztecs
Mantis shrimp punch so fast that they create light
The tire on your car is 1 molecule
Sea cucumbers defend themselves by craping out their guts
Yellowstone national park erupted in prehistoric times, and the explosion was bigger than that of the Tsar bomb

The tire on your car is 1 molecule.

Not anymore it isn't, potholes y'know.

I just learned from the "largest molecule" thread that tires are just one big molecule. So does anything special happen when you cut a tire up?

Originally Posted by 21st Centurion

There is a lemur that hunts with its middle finger

Horses run 40 mph on their middle fingers.

When you cut a tire up, you get 2 supermolecules. Unless you split the chemical bonds between atoms. Then your using a knife that I don't even want to know about.

Originally Posted by 21st Centurion

The tire on your car is 1 molecule

The rubber may be - but tyres usually are also composed of fabric, wire and carbon black as well as rubber.

No seriously about the lemurs thing, the aye aye lemur has a freaky long middle finger that it uses to dig bugs out of trees. Hilariously, the locals in the area where aye ayes live believe that you are cursed if an aye aye raises its finger at you. Just like college fraternities.

This sentence is false.

Originally Posted by anticorncob28

I just learned from the "largest molecule" thread that tires are just one big molecule. So does anything special happen when you cut a tire up?

All the air leaks out.

Originally Posted by 21st Centurion

No seriously about the lemurs thing, the aye aye lemur has a freaky long middle finger that it uses to dig bugs out of trees. Hilariously, the locals in the area where aye ayes live believe that you are cursed if an aye aye raises its finger at you. Just like college fraternities.

LOL.
Yes, that is exactly how most college fraternities curse at people!

Snails shoot each other with darts

But only out of love for each other.

8 billion people will die within the next 100 years.

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

8 billion people will die within the next 100 years.

Since the future is as yet unwritten that is yet to be proved as a fact, we could yet invent life extending technologies that could allow people to live for hundreds of years or all be wiped from existence by a meteorite, solar flare, gamma radiation burst, supervolcanic eruption or by any other mirad of unpleasant extinction level events before the Earths population ever even reachs the 8 billion mark.

Making predictions about the future is a dangerous business and very often they turn out to be wrong, certainly predictions should never be relied upon as facts.

8 billion people will die within the next 100 years. It's a fact that someone will dispute this.

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

8 billion people will die within the next 100 years. It's a fact that someone will dispute this.

Oh my. Someone already has.

(Just kiddin' with ya Ascended. I understand and agree with what you stated.)

Originally Posted by anticorncob28

I just learned from the "largest molecule" thread that tires are just one big molecule. So does anything special happen when you cut a tire up?

Only someone that's never repaired a tire could believe that.

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

8 billion people will die within the next 100 years.

Many more than that!

Out of all these facts, everyone focuses on the tire thing -_-

Yeah, it seems we are all rolling with it.

Originally Posted by 21st Centurion

Oxford University is older than the Aztecs

………….and so are some of the dons……………….

Reminds me of the old Head Porter at Lincoln, an irascible old sod. One American tourist asked if the the college was named after Honest Abe, the look of disdain in his eyes as he replied: "Madam, this College was founded around 350 years before your country."...

*I have to admit I heard this second hand and it could be apocryphal but it is the sort of thing he would have said and it's amusing *

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Reminds me of the old Head Porter at Lincoln, an irascible old sod. One American tourist asked if the the college was named after Honest Abe, the look of disdain in his eyes as he replied: "Madam, this College was founded around 350 years before your country."...

*I have to admit I heard this second hand and it could be apocryphal but it is the sort of thing he would have said and it's amusing *

I have a similar American tourist story, about someone visiting a stately home, who, being impressed by the immaculate lawns asked the gardener how he could get the same effect. "Ah, Sir," the gardener replied, "It's quite straightforward, really. You just sow it with good seed and roll it for 300 years."

Yep, Americans are the newbies. Yet in 200 years we created the nuclear bomb O_O It makes me wander what the heck will happen in another 200...

EDIT: deleted history Brain fart.

Originally Posted by 21st Centurion

Yep, Americans are the newbies. Yet in 200 years we created the nuclear bomb

Mostly by employing immigrant scientists, using principles established by non-Americans and having had a kick start from the British and Canadians.
(Who used some technology garnered from the French).


Yay USA!

(Oh, and don't forget they also stabbed the British in the back by NOT sharing the fruits of that project - thus reneging on the original agreement by which they obtained the British starting tech).

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by 21st Centurion

Yep, Americans are the newbies. Yet in 200 years we created the nuclear bomb

Mostly by employing immigrant scientists, using principles established by non-Americans and having had a kick start from the British and Canadians.
(Who used some technology garnered from the French).


Yay USA!

(Oh, and don't forget they also stabbed the British in the back by NOT sharing the fruits of that project - thus reneging on the original agreement by which they obtained the British starting tech).

That was basically what I said in post #24 but the example of the foreigner I used was anachronistic so I deleted the brain fart...

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Yay USA!

Also Electromagnetism, Relativity, and QM were virtually European ventures.

I wish I had a dime for every time I've heard or read this sentence since I moved to this country: "The USA is the greatest country on the Earth." I'd have . . . well . . . a lot of dimes.

Americans must be indoctrinated with that sentence from their parents and all the way through school. I don't know. America is a great place but there's a big world out there with many great people and their accomplishments.

(Usually if I persist in discussing this, invariably someone will tell me "Well, if you don't like it here, why don't you go back to where you came from?")

Originally Posted by 21st Centurion

Yep, Americans are the newbies. Yet in 200 years we created the nuclear bomb O_O It makes me wander what the heck will happen in another 200...

………..and we in Europe are sometimes prisoners of the history we carry around with us all the time, though at times its lessons are a help to us too.

(I see my British colleagues make some slightly rude observations about the bomb that I shall not comment on.)

Originally Posted by exchemist

(I see my British colleagues make some slightly rude observations about the bomb that I shall not comment on.)

I didn't think that their comments were rude. I think they were just stating facts.

It was slightly rude, but very firmly tongue in cheek on my part...

This thread is about "facts" so . . . nothing but the facts.

And while I'm on that subject, what is the difference between "facts" and "totally true facts"?

I always like the Terry Pratchett line that some things are "true" for a given value of true...

This has been brought home to me doing this teacher training course, some of the analogies and models that are taught to kids are pretty rubbish IMO (I'm trying to think of some new ones that aren't crap but it's difficult) but they are "true" until they can handle the maths of what really happens.

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Americans must be indoctrinated with that sentence from their parents and all the way through school. I don't know. America is a great place but there's a big world out there with many great people and their accomplishments.

A friend of mine once took a "Russian History" course - not the history of Russia but history as taught in Russia (back in the Cold War days...).
Apparently television, the aeroplane, the helicopter, radar, the steam engine... were ALL completely and solely Russian inventions.
Who knew?
(Well apart from Russians of course).

I wish I had a dime for every time I've heard or read this sentence since I moved to this country: "The USA is the greatest country on the Earth." I'd have . . . well . . . a lot of dimes.

When I told my father that I don't believe that we're the best country in the world, he asked me why not. I don't think I have to have a reason for not believing that I'm the very best.

Start at 2:35. Or watch it all, it's a great scene.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Chucknorium

Americans must be indoctrinated with that sentence from their parents and all the way through school. I don't know. America is a great place but there's a big world out there with many great people and their accomplishments.

A friend of mine once took a "Russian History" course - not the history of Russia but history as taught in Russia (back in the Cold War days...).
Apparently television, the aeroplane, the helicopter, radar, the steam engine... were ALL completely and solely Russian inventions.
Who knew?
(Well apart from Russians of course).

Indeed. Mind you, what is also funny is to to read British accounts of technical progress from the 1930s. I have somewhere a book that refers to the diesel engine as the Ackroyd-Stuart engine or the oil engine throughout. The author simply could not bear the idea that Diesel, a German, gets the credit.

I'm going to go post a seperate thead, "America is awesome". Check it out!

Originally Posted by 21st Centurion

I'm going to go post a seperate thead, "America is awesome". Check it out!

Mind you, "awesome" might not have the desired impact as, to English ears, the way Americans pronounce this is "arse-some".

Originally Posted by AlexG

Start at 2:35. Or watch it all, it's a great scene.

"You are a member of the Worst. Generation. Ever"

It's entertaining but here he couldn't be more wrong. She is actually by a long shot and nearly every objective measure the best generation that the US has ever had, with lower crime rates, less prejudice, worldliest, better academic achievements, quite low pregnancy rates than any other.

He is also wrong about the past, it was never the happy values based place he think it was.

He's a damn poor historian.

He's got the current numbers right though.

Originally Posted by AlexG

He's got the current numbers right though.

and "lower crime rates, less prejudice, worldliest, [better academic achievements,] quite low pregnancy rates"
Does not make up for lost opportunities and young people mired in debt with no attainable goals. As more and more wealth continues to get vacuumed into the hands of the rich with it goes more and more opportunity. As far as "better academic achievement"... How are you scoring that?

[QUOTE=grmpysmrf;569445]

Originally Posted by AlexG

Does not make up for lost opportunities and young people mired in debt with no attainable goals.

They actually have either similar or more than ever before--but I'm not sure how you'd measure that. I completely agree that the wealthiest have benefited the most, but even the poor have improved their position, just by not nearly as much. I think the missing story is the opportunities for the lower potential and unluckiest--that's where most of the recent unemployment was centered and many of their jobs replaced by automation as the economy recovers.

As far as "better academic achievement"... How are you scoring that?

Well by achievement might be one way. We have the best educated younger generation than ever before:


We should be doing even better though; because based on potential we should be graduating over 90% of our children from High school, and probably over 75% should be able to complete at least a 2 years trade school or achieve an associates. We are still a long way from that.

Hey, man I'm not doubting you and you're certainly thorough and well versed in many more subjects than I, but I think the academics line may not be accurate. I'll agree students are more technologically savvy, sure, (if that's what you mean by educated) but does that mean smarter? You know, we keep seeing these reports that the vast majority of American students aren't smart enough to pass the military's placement test. What is probably really responsible for that inflated line is that Graduation rates are inflated because many districts will blame teachers for failing students. No teacher wants to be on Admin's radar or held up as an example of what a "bad teacher" looks like to the whole school, so students are passed and graduated when really they have no business being out of the 4th grade (no matter how old they are) I had Juniors this year (albeit Special education) and the median reading level was 3rd grade. It's tough trying to teach junior level texts to kids who are barely past "Mac and Tab" books.
Now I could be jaded by seeing the same thing day in and day out, but the General Ed population is not that much better...Ok, that's hyperbole, but what is not is that the vast majority of the students read below their grade level.

And with all due respect (no sarcasm) I'm not sure how you can claim that students have as much opportunity or more lately and then in same paragraph claim

"the wealthiest have benefited the most" and "many of their jobs replaced by automation as the economy recovers"

That's pretty much the very antithesis opportunity. You know, we hear constantly how the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation, college grads can't get jobs, multiple families are having to share a single dwelling, a high school diploma is no longer good enough. private sector jobs pay the worst, People can't afford higher education and those that did are now mired in crippling life altering debt.

Where's the opportunity?

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Hey, man I'm not doubting you and you're certainly thorough and well versed in many more subjects than I, but I think the academics line may not be accurate. I'll agree students are more technologically savvy, sure, (if that's what you mean by educated) but does that mean smarter?

Yes they are smarter. And high school and college achievements aren't the only indicator, for example when you look at standardized 4th and 8th grade performance they are also been the rise.

You know, we keep seeing these reports that the vast majority of American students aren't smart enough to pass the military's placement test.

For the simple reason that even the simplest jobs in the military are becoming increasingly technical and thus requiring better educated Soldiers to enlist; a big part is the volunteer force as well, where the military draws a good amount from people who feel they have no other choice--it does well recruiting in bad economies and struggles in good ones.

Where's the opportunity?

Anywhere a person decides to make it.

Are you an economist Lynx Fox?

How much did George Bush Jr receive as an anonymous gift after office?

Did he buy his Presidency?

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

Are you an economist Lynx Fox?

No. Just an old commercial fisherman, weather researcher, and now retired Soldier who worked my way to a grad degree and climbed out of a desperately poor Maine fishing town.

How much did George Bush Jr receive as an anonymous gift after office?

Did he buy his Presidency?

Not sure what your point is. The first President of the US was the richest guy in America-- money has always been power in America. I don't wear rose colored glasses about the past.

Wasn't "Campaign Finance Reform" an issue because Al Gore thought it was over the top to have a "War Chest"' of funds.

And for George who ran on "Tax Cuts" I think got a three hundred million gift after office.


:EDIT:

Screw the poor. They aren't even worth it.

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

And for George who ran on "Tax Cuts" I think got a three hundred million gift after office.

I don't think he got anything other than the legal transition funding and a good ~200K/year pension, and security for the rest of his life...that same as every pres since the 1950s.

--
I think some of you mistake the low gains of the lower Socioeconomic groups with declines. The reality is everyone is making more equivalent income than they did in the past, but the wealthiest are seeing the most total gains by a long shot. This CBO analysis shows the trend rather well (even the poorest aren't getting worse; chart is from 1979 to 2007).

Well, keep more attention.

The word "Gift."


:EDIT:

Corruption.

And stop posting pictures cause all you are doing is a Farsight.

He's posting data to support his point. Shouldn't you do the same?

Originally Posted by AlexG

He's posting data to support his point. Shouldn't you do the same?

Did you misread my posts?

Or are you just jumping the gun?



I originally asked questions which I don't think were sufficiently answered. I'm not even a U.S. citizen, but I'm sure I can google my claims up. I thought people should already know this so it's extremely odd for someone to tell me to back up my claims when I thought they should be common knowledge.

:EDIT:

Besides, he edited his post and I was not impressed.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Hey, man I'm not doubting you and you're certainly thorough and well versed in many more subjects than I, but I think the academics line may not be accurate. I'll agree students are more technologically savvy, sure, (if that's what you mean by educated) but does that mean smarter?

Yes they are smarter. And high school and college achievements aren't the only indicator, for example when you look at standardized 4th and 8th grade performance they are also been the rise.

are the tests balanced the same way as they were in the past? Are they made by the same test makers? Have they changed the content of the tests? if so how recently? If so do the new questions have the same degree of challenge? Are teachers teaching to this test rather than teaching skills? It's a tough measure. Not only that, there are a ton of colleges that are reporting the in coming freshmen aren't even close to bonehead English levels and lack even the fundamentals of grammar.

You know, Texas used to boast the smartest kids in the union based on their state testing... they did this for years. Texas was studied, "We gotta figure out what it is that is making Texas so successful and adopt that for the rest of the nation," and then a few years ago the rest of the country came to find out that Texas had the "smartest kids" in the union because they basically handed their students crayons and white paper and told them to draw pictures for their State test. Their state standards were written somewhere around the fourth grade level. So, here were their high school kids scoring off the charts and low and behold it was because the tests were dumbed waaaaaaaaay down. I'm not saying your charts are wrong, but the make-up of the tests themselves are a factor that I don't think is factored into your graphs.

I'm not sure if you know this, but educational testing is BIG business. If students do consistently bad on a test, then the test is usually scrapped and another one is adopted that will produce the results that are desired whether or not the data is accurate.

In short, if a test maker wants to continue to sell his test he'd better develop a test that gets the results the purchaser wants to see, otherwise the state/districts will find one that will. Doesn't mean the students are smarter, it means the data is skewed.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

You know, we keep seeing these reports that the vast majority of American students aren't smart enough to pass the military's placement test.

For the simple reason that even the simplest jobs in the military are becoming increasingly technical and thus requiring better educated Soldiers to enlist;

Right, but if our education is keeping up and has never been better these "advanced" jobs would be no problem for our students because education would be keeping up. But it's not.

Specifically
If the menial jobs in the military from the past were satisfied by our sub par education system that meant education was keeping up with the demands of the military. Generalizing, the military is usually the job that people take when they have run out of opportunities, and it was afforded to them by our education system. our education system is no longer keeping up with the last chance job.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

Where's the opportunity?

Anywhere a person decides to make it.

Easier said than done.

I hope I'm not coming off as rude to you 'cause I'm not trying to be and I'm enjoying the discussion.

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

Originally Posted by AlexG

He's posting data to support his point. Shouldn't you do the same?

Did you misread my posts?

Or are you just jumping the gun?



I originally asked questions which I don't think were sufficiently answered. I'm not even a U.S. citizen, but I'm sure I can google my claims up. I thought people should already know this so it's extremely odd for someone to tell me to back up my claims when I thought they should be common knowledge.

You simply refuse to supply any kind of support for anything you say.

It's not one of your endearing traits.

Originally Posted by AlexG

He's posting data to support his point. Shouldn't you do the same?

And WTF is his point?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

And for George who ran on "Tax Cuts" I think got a three hundred million gift after office.

I don't think he got anything other than the legal transition funding and a good ~200K/year pension, and security for the rest of his life...that same as every pres since the 1950s.

--
I think some of you mistake the low gains of the lower Socioeconomic groups with declines. The reality is everyone is making more equivalent income than they did in the past, but the wealthiest are seeing the most total gains by a long shot. This CBO analysis shows the trend rather well (even the poorest aren't getting worse; chart is from 1979 to 2007).

I don't think this is right, (although I don't have a graph to show it) But it's my understanding that the dollar has nowhere near the purchasing power it once had.

you can look at it in terms of gasoline. it used to be you had to work 10 minutes to afford a gallon of gas now it's somewhere near 45 minutes to an hour for that same gallon.

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

Well, keep more attention.

The word "Gift."


:EDIT:

Corruption.

Seriously. Gift from whom? when? how much? can you provide a copy of it on their publically released income tax statements?
Support your argument or don't bother to post anymore.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw

Well, keep more attention.

The word "Gift."


:EDIT:

Corruption.

Seriously. Gift from whom? when? how much? can you provide a copy of it on their publically released income tax statements?
Support your argument or don't bother to post anymore.

No. I will maybe tomorrow. (That thing on CNN I remember, it's got to be on the net somewhere)

I'm more interested in AlexG.

This sentence is false.

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

you can look at it in terms of gasoline. it used to be you had to work 10 minutes to afford a gallon of gas now it's somewhere near 45 minutes to an hour for that same gallon.

It's actually been down for about the past ten years relative to disposable income, but still remained rather volatile (due to leveraging). We're starting to derail the thread from the OP and all over the place.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by grmpysmrf

you can look at it in terms of gasoline. it used to be you had to work 10 minutes to afford a gallon of gas now it's somewhere near 45 minutes to an hour for that same gallon.

It's actually been down for about the past ten years relative to disposable income, but still remained rather volatile (due to leveraging). We're starting to derail the thread from the OP and all over the place.

true. see what one beer can do!

OK. I couldn't find it. Maybe I'm deluded, or should drink less. (or it's a conspiracy!)

But I did find this

The most unusual gift Bush received may have been the 300 pounds of raw lamb meat from the president of Argentina in 2003.

Quirky gifts for past presidents - CNN.com

Hmm... maybe i shouldn't have even posted the bomb thing. As for we stabbed the British in the back, they didn't really need the bomb. The British were fighting Hitler as we were fighting japan (that was our main enemy). Germany surrendered without the use of an atom bomb, meanwhile, the Japanese were killing themselves as suicide bombers. It was clear that out of the two of us, America actually could use the bomb. Imagine your a soldier, and your buddy and you are being attacked. You're back to back and your buddy has killed everyone on his side. Why would you give him your biggest gun?

Originally Posted by 21st Centurion

Hmm... maybe i shouldn't have even posted the bomb thing. As for we stabbed the British in the back, they didn't really need the bomb. The British were fighting Hitler as we were fighting japan (that was our main enemy). Germany surrendered without the use of an atom bomb, meanwhile, the Japanese were killing themselves as suicide bombers. It was clear that out of the two of us, America actually could use the bomb. Imagine your a soldier, and your buddy and you are being attacked. You're back to back and your buddy has killed everyone on his side. Why would you give him your biggest gun?

Um, you possibly missed the point.
It wasn't "a bomb" we should have had from the US, but access to the research and technology.
We started it, we were (vastly) further along than the US at the time we decided to share our knowledge, and the agreement was that once we'd handed over what we knew (and, AFAIK certain materials ¹) the US would share their work.
They refused, point blank, once they'd managed to build the bomb. And thereafter (when we did "need" it) - during the start of the Cold War.
Yet another example of the "special relationship" being special because it turned out to be a one way street.

1 Including, possibly, the urnaium to build it. After all, up until 1940 France actually owned something like 90% of all mined uranium in the world - that probably got moved to Britain when France fell.