Good Scientist Cartoon. 51st set of five

mollwollfumble said:

Good Scientist Cartoon. 51st set of five

You need to update that last one with something fairly old (smartphones) instead of something really old (texting).

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Good Scientist Cartoon. 51st set of five

You need to update that last one with something fairly old (smartphones) instead of something really old (texting).

252. The short arm is genius.

Tamb said:

252. The short arm is genius.

Heh. Didn’t even notice :)

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Good Scientist Cartoon. 51st set of five

You need to update that last one with something fairly old (smartphones) instead of something really old (texting).

OK, but texting has only really taken off quite recently, so I think the irony of technology advance going backwards works better with texting.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Good Scientist Cartoon. 51st set of five

You need to update that last one with something fairly old (smartphones) instead of something really old (texting).

OK, but texting has only really taken off quite recently, so I think the irony of technology advance going backwards works better with texting.

Think you are reading too much into it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Good Scientist Cartoon. 51st set of five

You need to update that last one with something fairly old (smartphones) instead of something really old (texting).

OK, but texting has only really taken off quite recently, so I think the irony of technology advance going backwards works better with texting.

Texting has been around almost 20 years now.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

You need to update that last one with something fairly old (smartphones) instead of something really old (texting).

OK, but texting has only really taken off quite recently, so I think the irony of technology advance going backwards works better with texting.

Texting has been around almost 20 years now.

Sure, and my daughters have been texting for 20 years or so, but it is only fairly recently that the likes of old codgers like me have started texting, rather than a voice call, or even a video call.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

You need to update that last one with something fairly old (smartphones) instead of something really old (texting).

OK, but texting has only really taken off quite recently, so I think the irony of technology advance going backwards works better with texting.

Texting has been around almost 20 years now.

More than. Even I was texting in 1995.

The first people texting as teenagers in Australia are now 41 years old. Weird.

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

You need to update that last one with something fairly old (smartphones) instead of something really old (texting).

OK, but texting has only really taken off quite recently, so I think the irony of technology advance going backwards works better with texting.

Think you are reading too much into it.

Quite possibly, but that’s the beauty of ambiguous statements.

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, but texting has only really taken off quite recently, so I think the irony of technology advance going backwards works better with texting.

Texting has been around almost 20 years now.

More than. Even I was texting in 1995.

The first people texting as teenagers in Australia are now 41 years old. Weird.

My youngest daughter’s first mobile bill cost her more than a year’s pocket money, because of excessive texting :) (about 20 years ago)

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Texting has been around almost 20 years now.

More than. Even I was texting in 1995.

The first people texting as teenagers in Australia are now 41 years old. Weird.

My youngest daughter’s first mobile bill cost her more than a year’s pocket money, because of excessive texting :) (about 20 years ago)

Yes I got some sticker shocks too…

I was very late, like last year late to the texting thing but now I prefer it for simple messages, I don’t like it when I get immediate replies though because then you feel compelled to do a text conversation and that is just too much of a pain.

AwesomeO said:

I was very late, like last year late to the texting thing but now I prefer it for simple messages, I don’t like it when I get immediate replies though because then you feel compelled to do a text conversation and that is just too much of a pain.

Same ear.

AwesomeO said:

I was very late, like last year late to the texting thing but now I prefer it for simple messages, I don’t like it when I get immediate replies though because then you feel compelled to do a text conversation and that is just too much of a pain.

I have never texted. Or owned a mobile phone.
I’m still in the digital watch era.

I’m away in Bowral for a week and a half. (Buffy, will take info with me). So this 52nd set is the last for a while.

I don’t get the first one.

AwesomeO said:

I don’t get the first one.

OK. The one manmade product that is responsible for the greatest number of animal deaths at sea is the plastic tag used to tie up helium balloons. When balloons are let go from land they fly up and burst, landing in the sea, and float. Seabirds mistake the plastic tags for jellyfish and they get stuck in the seabirds digestive system. This has been confirmed by autopsies of dead birds washed ashore at Lord Howe Island and other places. This is also explained at the Phillip Island Penguin centre.

When you consider all the other millions of manmade products from sewage, industrial products at the end of their lifespan, toxic industrial waste, agricultural waste, etc., the fact that none of these millions of pollutants have (in the Australian Pacific) as much negative influence on ocean life as the trivial number of tiny plastic tags used to tie up helium balloons means that we’re doing an absolutely FM job of minimising oceanic water pollution.

mollwollfumble said:

I have never texted. Or owned a mobile phone.
I’m still in the digital watch era.

I’m away in Bowral for a week and a half. (Buffy, will take info with me). So this 52nd set is the last for a while.

253: You forgot Galileo getting the bending strength of a beam section wrong by a factor of 3 (too high). A theory that was accepted without question for over 200 years.

mollwollfumble said:

AwesomeO said:

I don’t get the first one.

OK. The one manmade product that is responsible for the greatest number of animal deaths at sea is the plastic tag used to tie up helium balloons. When balloons are let go from land they fly up and burst, landing in the sea, and float. Seabirds mistake the plastic tags for jellyfish and they get stuck in the seabirds digestive system. This has been confirmed by autopsies of dead birds washed ashore at Lord Howe Island and other places. This is also explained at the Phillip Island Penguin centre.

When you consider all the other millions of manmade products from sewage, industrial products at the end of their lifespan, toxic industrial waste, agricultural waste, etc., the fact that none of these millions of pollutants have (in the Australian Pacific) as much negative influence on ocean life as the trivial number of tiny plastic tags used to tie up helium balloons means that we’re doing an absolutely FM job of minimising oceanic water pollution.

I would have expected plastic bags, or even the balloons but not the tags.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

I have never texted. Or owned a mobile phone.
I’m still in the digital watch era.

I’m away in Bowral for a week and a half. (Buffy, will take info with me). So this 52nd set is the last for a while.

253: You forgot Galileo getting the bending strength of a beam section wrong by a factor of 3 (too high). A theory that was accepted without question for over 200 years.

I mean 258.

Also you forgot the stop after comma D.

AwesomeO said:

mollwollfumble said:

AwesomeO said:

I don’t get the first one.

OK. The one manmade product that is responsible for the greatest number of animal deaths at sea is the plastic tag used to tie up helium balloons. When balloons are let go from land they fly up and burst, landing in the sea, and float. Seabirds mistake the plastic tags for jellyfish and they get stuck in the seabirds digestive system. This has been confirmed by autopsies of dead birds washed ashore at Lord Howe Island and other places. This is also explained at the Phillip Island Penguin centre.

When you consider all the other millions of manmade products from sewage, industrial products at the end of their lifespan, toxic industrial waste, agricultural waste, etc., the fact that none of these millions of pollutants have (in the Australian Pacific) as much negative influence on ocean life as the trivial number of tiny plastic tags used to tie up helium balloons means that we’re doing an absolutely FM job of minimising oceanic water pollution.

I would have expected plastic bags, or even the balloons but not the tags.

Myself, I’d have backed cigarette butt filters.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

I have never texted. Or owned a mobile phone.
I’m still in the digital watch era.

I’m away in Bowral for a week and a half. (Buffy, will take info with me). So this 52nd set is the last for a while.

253: You forgot Galileo getting the bending strength of a beam section wrong by a factor of 3 (too high). A theory that was accepted without question for over 200 years.

Also you forgot the stop after comma D.

I haven’t heard that before. Galileo was a great builder of water clocks.

I limited the timeline to 1900 and more recent, there was a heck of lot wrong before the year 1900. At least four quotes by William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) for starters. Age of the Earth. Lamarck. Wrong distance to the spiral nebulae. Wrong radius of the Earth. The Earth prolate instead of oblate. But I can’t claim to have anything like a good knowledge of all the false physics before 1900.

Why do you want the comedy to stop?

mollwollfumble said:

Why do you want the comedy to stop?

I don’t. I just meant whilst you are in Bowral.

(Fair enough about there being too much wrong before 1900 by the way).

I’m back. Good Scientist Cartoon. 53rd set of five.

I still object to changing filename from “GoodScientist261.jpg” to “8d8e461c-118e-45a2-b816-30c16dedab6a.jpe”. It’s obscene.

Good Scientist Cartoon. 55th set of five

Oops, I redid number 275 with slightly better line spacing. You’re only getting the old version – so there.

mollwollfumble said:

Good Scientist Cartoon. 55th set of five

Oops, I redid number 275 with slightly better line spacing. You’re only getting the old version – so there.

F(pi) = 0?

Shouldn’t that be (2 pi)?

I always figured that the Blackadder episode in which Lord Percy makes “the purest green” was a piss-take (no pun intended) of Brand’s accomplishment.

sibeen said:

mollwollfumble said:

Good Scientist Cartoon. 55th set of five

Oops, I redid number 275 with slightly better line spacing. You’re only getting the old version – so there.

F(pi) = 0?

Shouldn’t that be (2 pi)?

Well spotted. Both.

f(2 pi) = f(pi) + f(pi) = 2 f(pi)
f(2 pi) is zero so f(pi) is a half of zero, which is zero.

Honoured That You should include 259

• I have never texted. Or owned a mobile phone.

Reminds me, I left my mobile in the RUQ again

• Looks good where you outsource the illustration

• How about “Good (if slightly eccentric) Scientist (who neither texts nor draws)”?