snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > We've Got Mail

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 10 February 2008, 12:32 AM
BluesScale BluesScale is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Woolhampton, Berkshire, UK
Posts: 1,355
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
Actually, water at sea level would only rise about ten meters in the column. Unfortunately, sea water would rapidly evaporate into the vacuum causing it be less than perfect, eventually filling the column with water vapor and other gases. (Water evaporates in a vacuum.) Water barometers need to have something to prevent the water from evaporating, such as antifreeze.
Actually, you could use a mass driver to push canisters of water into a hyperbolic trajectory but it would be a triumph of engineering rather than good sense

Blues
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 20 February 2008, 01:28 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
D'oh!

Referred by: http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/expired.asp

Comment: Just wondering if you noticed the dates of the the deceased's
birth and death, but they are dates that don't even exist, given that the
years that April 29th would've been there would have been 1940 and 2004,
NOT 1941 and 2005. Just a thought, must be some sort of prank.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 20 February 2008, 04:40 PM
Ieuan ab Arthur's Avatar
Ieuan ab Arthur Ieuan ab Arthur is offline
 
Join Date: 19 October 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,233
Icon202

Hi All:

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
Referred by: http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/expired.asp

Comment: Just wondering if you noticed the dates of the the deceased's birth and death, but they are dates that don't even exist, given that the
years that April 29th would've been there would have been 1940 and 2004,
NOT 1941 and 2005. Just a thought, must be some sort of prank.
I've got to give credit to the writer of the OP. I haven't had such a good laugh in a long time. The writer definitely owes me a new keyboard.

It certainly takes a special sort of learning to know the rules about leap years, but not know that they apply to February and not April.

Now repeat after me: "Thirty days has September, April, June and November."

Ta ra 'wan,

Ieuan "28 days of April showers" ab Arthur
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 24 February 2008, 07:24 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ieuan ab Arthur View Post
It certainly takes a special sort of learning to know the rules about leap years, but not know that they apply to February and not April.
But you can't argue with facts. April does not have 29 days!
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 24 February 2008, 11:25 PM
CannonFodder's Avatar
CannonFodder CannonFodder is offline
 
Join Date: 27 February 2004
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 5,288
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
But you can't argue with facts. April does not have 29 days!
Yes it does.

Countest thou not to 29 unless thou then proceedeth directly to 30. 32 is right out.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 25 February 2008, 10:23 PM
Brad from Georgia's Avatar
Brad from Georgia Brad from Georgia is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2000
Location: Snellvile, GA
Posts: 13,206
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
Referred by: http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/expired.asp

Comment: Just wondering if you noticed the dates of the the deceased's
birth and death, but they are dates that don't even exist, given that the
years that April 29th would've been there would have been 1940 and 2004,
NOT 1941 and 2005. Just a thought, must be some sort of prank.
Thirty days hath September,
Some other month, May, and November,
April hath but twenty-eight and a bit,
But says it hath thirty, the lying twit,
And every few years a Leap year leaps
And an extra day into February creeps,
But April hath but thirty, or thirty-one,
And ketchup is good on a hotdog bun.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 13 March 2008, 05:44 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
Crash

Comment: re: this link from your website:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/odd/beercans.asp
This cannot possibly be true. First off, as stated the guy would have to
had consumed approx 24 beers per day (on average) for 365 days for 8 years
to acquire 70,000+ beer cans. If you use a generous price of $24 per case
(24 beers to a case) the guy would have spent over $800,000 on beer ...
puh leeez!
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 13 March 2008, 05:52 PM
jimmy101_again jimmy101_again is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2005
Location: Greenwood, IN
Posts: 6,912
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
Comment: re: this link from your website:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/odd/beercans.asp
This cannot possibly be true. First off, as stated the guy would have to
had consumed approx 24 beers per day (on average) for 365 days for 8 years
to acquire 70,000+ beer cans. If you use a generous price of $24 per case
(24 beers to a case) the guy would have spent over $800,000 on beer ...
puh leeez!
Perhaps the sender of the above has had a couple beers today?

The numbers all work out as reported in the snopes article. The emailer was off a bit in his calculation of the cost of 70,000 beers. It would "only" be about $70K (assuming $24/case) over the 8 years. Or, about $170/week.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 28 April 2008, 04:38 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
Teacher

Comment: The "Free Cone Day" article that discusses free Ben & Jerry's ice
cream says "... the arithmetic is way off. We don't know why."

1,000,000 cones over a 100 year lifetime is 413 cones PER DAY, not per
hour.

I don't know why B&J would not have caught this error by now, but simple
math can tell you where the number came from.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 28 April 2008, 04:46 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,122
Icon05

Quote:
1,000,000 cones over a 100 year lifetime is 413 cones PER DAY, not per hour.
If you redefine the word day, perhaps.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 29 April 2008, 03:21 AM
dungeondragon18 dungeondragon18 is offline
 
Join Date: 16 September 2007
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
Comment: The "Free Cone Day" article that discusses free Ben & Jerry's ice
cream says "... the arithmetic is way off. We don't know why."

1,000,000 cones over a 100 year lifetime is 413 cones PER DAY, not per
hour.

I don't know why B&J would not have caught this error by now, but simple
math can tell you where the number came from.
According to my calculations, you'd only need to eat 27.4 scoops a day to eat a million scoops in a hundred years (not counting leap days). If you ate 413 scoops per day, it would only take you 6.6 years to eat a millions scoops.
Eating 413 scoops an hour would take you less than 4 months. Eating 413 scoops an hour for a hundred years would add up to almost 362 millions scoops total. So I have no idea where Ben & Jerry's numbers came from.
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 06 August 2008, 04:24 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
Ponder

Comment: is it true that the percentage of the population in the
United States is 94%.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 06 August 2008, 05:59 PM
Dr. Winston O'Boogie's Avatar
Dr. Winston O'Boogie Dr. Winston O'Boogie is offline
 
Join Date: 23 February 2000
Location: Fox Lake, IL
Posts: 5,256
Teacher

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
Comment: is it true that the percentage of the population in the
United States is 94%.
I've heard that only 30% of Americans understand statistics, while the other 80% just can't quite get the concept.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 06 August 2008, 06:40 PM
Der Induktionator's Avatar
Der Induktionator Der Induktionator is offline
 
Join Date: 18 April 2005
Location: Luzern, Switzerland
Posts: 1,296
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
Comment: is it true that the percentage of the population in the
United States is 94%.
That is one of them.

The average American has lots of percentages. Some examples are: 27.5%, 33%, 99.995%.

50% is an especially common one.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 06 August 2008, 07:02 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,122
Icon05

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
Comment: is it true that the percentage of the population in the United States is 94%.
It's actually much lower -- 86%.

It lags behind Canada's 100%, the U.K.'s 100%, France's 100%, and the U.S.' 100%.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 06 August 2008, 07:10 PM
Der Induktionator's Avatar
Der Induktionator Der Induktionator is offline
 
Join Date: 18 April 2005
Location: Luzern, Switzerland
Posts: 1,296
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuckistan View Post
It lags behind Canada's 100%, the U.K.'s 100%, France's 100%, and the U.S.' 100%.
I heard that it was the other way around: France 100%, Canada's 100%, and then U.K.'s 100%.

The US still comes in last, with 100%, which is actually a low estimate.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 06 August 2008, 07:43 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,122
Icon05

Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Induktionator View Post
I heard that it was the other way around: France 100%, Canada's 100%, and then U.K.'s 100%.
Nuh-uh. According to this site, Canada's is actually 100.0%. Which means more numbers, so higher ranking.

Quote:
The US still comes in last, with 100%, which is actually a low estimate.
Really? Same site thinks it's kind of high.
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 06 August 2008, 07:45 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
Neener, Neener

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuckistan View Post
Nuh-uh. According to this site, Canada's is actually 100.0%. Which means more numbers, so higher ranking.
But the U.S. population went from 100% to 100% in less than six months. It took Canada 141 years to accomplish the same thing!

- snopes
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 06 August 2008, 07:51 PM
Canuckistan's Avatar
Canuckistan Canuckistan is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 30,122
Neener, Neener

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
But the U.S. population went from 100% to 100% in less than six months. It took Canada 141 years to accomplish the same thing!
Ah, but you're looking at old figures. We then accomplished the same thing in the past 30 days. Has the U.S.?

No?

Didn't think so.

ETA: Besides, as we've proven, the U.S. population now is only 86%. You're slipping!
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 06 August 2008, 07:53 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,660
Teacher

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuckistan View Post
Ah, but you're looking at old figures. We then accomplished the same thing in the past 30 days. Has the U.S.?
That doesn't really mean much when you consider that two halves of the Canadian population are actually Canadian residents.

- snopes
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.