Dude... so that's why he hasn't been working on that transporter.
He's been brokering world peace. Or else slipping roofies into the drinks of high ranking officials.
Look, you got a little stabbed the other day. That's bound to make anyone a mite ornery.
Mal ,'Ariel'
Natter 62: The 62nd Natter
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
Barb - Jan 07, 2009 2:47:09 am PST #9672 of 10002
“Not dead yet!”
Jesse - Jan 07, 2009 2:54:20 am PST #9673 of 10002
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
HBD, MM!
Sue - Jan 07, 2009 2:58:24 am PST #9674 of 10002
hip deep in pie
I got 14 on that logic test, but it didn't tell me what one I got wrong, and I can't figure it out.
Happy Birthday Miraclman!
DebetEsse - Jan 07, 2009 3:26:36 am PST #9675 of 10002
Woe to the fucking wicked.
Many happy returns of the day, MM!
I think, on 15 the "we can predict" clause makes it hinkier. That should have been left out.
amych - Jan 07, 2009 3:44:34 am PST #9676 of 10002
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
Contra Debet, the "we can predict" clause can't be left out, because that's exactly the point of the thing -- the logical statement isn't about whether water is or isn't H2O, but about whether the preceding statements imply anything about what is or isn't *predictable*. It isn't hedge-language at all.
DebetEsse - Jan 07, 2009 3:50:24 am PST #9677 of 10002
Woe to the fucking wicked.
Amych, would "we should be able to predict" work as well for you? Because that works better for me.
Jessica - Jan 07, 2009 3:50:34 am PST #9678 of 10002
If I want to become a cloud of bats, does each bat need a separate vaccination?
I really don't like 15. It's sneaky. (Billytea's reasoning makes much more sense to me than the one given by the quiz.)
Jessica - Jan 07, 2009 3:52:19 am PST #9679 of 10002
If I want to become a cloud of bats, does each bat need a separate vaccination?
Okay, but if the hypothetical future observation of "water" reveals a different chemical composition, then it's not water (as per premise #1), and doesn't apply to the problem.
amych - Jan 07, 2009 3:56:09 am PST #9680 of 10002
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
Debet, nope. "should" and "can" are totally different statements here -- the question is asking for absolute confidence, but common sense and normal English want us to read it as something more like your "should" construction, which incidentally I totally agree with in the real world. Logic gets weird sometimes. But it's absolutely a sneaky question -- Jess is right.
Laura - Jan 07, 2009 4:14:55 am PST #9681 of 10002
Our wings are not tired.
Well, I don't feel so bad getting #15 wrong now. I got the rest right.