who would be a better dancer, steven hawking with michael jacksons legs? or michael jackson with steven hawkings legs? assume they still have their own innate abilities and bottom-half hawking gets a wheelchair.

sluggaslamoo

Australia4494 Posts

December 10 2013 02:09 GMT

#265

On December 10 2013 10:59 ishboh wrote:
who would be a better dancer, steven hawking with michael jacksons legs? or michael jackson with steven hawkings legs? assume they still have their own innate abilities and bottom-half hawking gets a wheelchair.

I don't know why but this made me laugh pretty hard

Chairman Ray

United States11903 Posts

December 10 2013 02:29 GMT

#266

Why are all animal babies, real or plush, so adorable, but human babies so ugly? Toy babies are freaky looking!

Simberto

Germany11497 Posts

December 10 2013 04:28 GMT

#267

Because animals got fur, and everything small with a lot of skin showing looks disgusting. Well, basically everything with a lot of skin showing looks disgusting, the only reason we are able to look over that for some humans is sexual attraction. Pretty much any human that you would not be sexually attracted to also doesn't really look good with too much skin showing.

Meanwhile fluffy fur makes everything adorable.

icystorage

Jollibee19346 Posts

December 10 2013 04:32 GMT

#268

like Ewoks

DarkPlasmaBall

United States44245 Posts

December 10 2013 04:39 GMT

#269

On December 10 2013 11:09 sluggaslamoo wrote:

Show nested quote +

I don't know why but this made me laugh pretty hard

What really got me was the added condition in that second statement, so that a proper debate could be had. Like "This is srs bsns, so let's make this a fair fight and assume innate abilities... and bottom-half hawking gets a wheelchair. Discuss." Awesome haha.

Orcasgt24

Canada3238 Posts

December 10 2013 06:10 GMT

#270

I love this thread.

opsayo

591 Posts

December 10 2013 06:20 GMT

#271

On December 10 2013 11:29 Chairman Ray wrote:
Why are all animal babies, real or plush, so adorable, but human babies so ugly? Toy babies are freaky looking!

because we are human and we are really good at recognizing flaws and differences in human faces and bodies, and the more realistic they get, the creepier they are

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

WombaT

Northern Ireland25072 Posts

December 10 2013 13:43 GMT

#272

Human babies can be pretty damn adorable, some look horrible though agreed. Don't tell their parents that is the rule of thumb

Persh

Estonia108 Posts

December 10 2013 14:36 GMT

#273

+ Show Spoiler +

On December 09 2013 23:39 AntsKiller wrote:
Hi guys!
Last Weekend there were some amazing Starcraft Highlight videos published by WCS Starcraft. They were splitted into two videos: Day 1 and Day 2:

I am sure you share my opinion that they did just an amazing job, I love these kind of videos, especially this one. Just a great movie. That's kind of a movie I definitly show to my "Non-Starcraft-Fans"-friends. Well done.

After spending some time at searching for the music that is used in this two videos I got a really desperated, cause I didn't find the songs, as well as some of my friends didn't!
In the commends of the youtube videos were no information either.

Can someone help at finding the song names of these videos?

Yes.

PandaCore

Germany553 Posts

December 10 2013 14:47 GMT

#274

Flammable, Inflammable, and Nonflammable, why are there three?

scFoX

France454 Posts

December 10 2013 14:57 GMT

#275

On December 10 2013 23:47 PandaCore wrote:
Flammable, Inflammable, and Nonflammable, why are there three?

Because inflammable comes from the latin inflamare, to inflame. I guess if anything, "flammable" shouldn't exist (except when referring to internet forums, maybe?).

Acrofales

Spain17975 Posts

December 10 2013 15:14 GMT

#276

On December 10 2013 23:47 PandaCore wrote:
Flammable, Inflammable, and Nonflammable, why are there three?

And why doesn't unflammable exist?

harodihg

Japan1344 Posts

December 10 2013 15:24 GMT

#277

If DotA was a fruit, what fruit is it?

MstrJinbo

United States1251 Posts

December 10 2013 15:32 GMT

#278

On December 10 2013 23:47 PandaCore wrote:
Flammable, Inflammable, and Nonflammable, why are there three?

Nonflammable is different, it actually means that it doesn't easily catch on fire. Flammable and Inflammable largely mean the same thing, that something catches fire easily. Not sure about elsewhere but in the US "Flammable" is pretty much exclusively used as inflammable could be misinterpreted by a lot of people.

JustPassingBy

10776 Posts

December 10 2013 15:38 GMT

#279

On December 11 2013 00:24 harodihg wrote:
If DotA was a fruit, what fruit is it?

An apple. Tasty, a lot of people like them, and unlike fruits which you have to peel you can eat it comfortably with one hand.

Tobberoth

Sweden6375 Posts

December 10 2013 15:48 GMT

#280

On December 10 2013 23:57 scFoX wrote:

Show nested quote +

Because inflammable comes from the latin inflamare, to inflame. I guess if anything, "flammable" shouldn't exist (except when referring to internet forums, maybe?).

flammable comes from flammare which means to set on fire. So really, both are perfectly correct, even from an etymological standpoint.