Random Thought Thread

[InfestedKerrigan]

Friends preteen is in remission. Came back home from Portland to continue care down here.  "What did you do on summer break?" "Fought off Lukemia. You?" 

[Romans832]

3 minutes ago, InfestedKerrigan said:

Friends preteen is in remission. Came back home from Portland to continue care down here.  "What did you do on summer break?" "Fought off Lukemia. You?" 

Mind blowing

[InfestedKerrigan]

4 minutes ago, Romans832 said:

Mind blowing

I've read that the odds of survival at that age is something like 80%, compared to like a 60% chance of 5 year survival in your 30s. Best damn time in his life to get such a horrific thing.

[Romans832]

4 minutes ago, InfestedKerrigan said:

I've read that the odds of survival at that age is something like 80%, compared to like a 60% chance of 5 year survival in your 30s. Best damn time in his life to get such a horrific thing.

WOW!

[WestRider]

The amount of importance some people assign to the correlation between the shape of someone's genitals and the number of tubes of cloth they use to cover their legs boggles my mind.

[Romans832]

1 minute ago, WestRider said:

The amount of importance some people assign to the correlation between the shape of someone's genitals and the number of tubes of cloth they use to cover their legs boggles my mind.

What's a kilt constitute for tubes of clothing?
It's not exactly what I call a tube 😉

[WestRider]

1 hour ago, Romans832 said:

What's a kilt constitute for tubes of clothing?
It's not exactly what I call a tube 😉

It's one. It's just a short, and very, very pleated tube 😉

[InfestedKerrigan]

11 minutes ago, WestRider said:

It's one. It's just a short, and very, very pleated tube 😉

Much like each of my socks!

[VonVilkee]

Actually a kilt is zero tubes it is a cone... the pleats make it appear as a tube.

[Romans832]

12 hours ago, VonVilkee said:

Actually a kilt is zero tubes it is a cone... the pleats make it appear as a tube.

Huzzah!

[InfestedKerrigan]

Adam McKay is the only reason I enjoy Will.

[WestRider]

16 hours ago, VonVilkee said:

Actually a kilt is zero tubes it is a cone... the pleats make it appear as a tube.

If a kilt were actually a cone, it would have to come to a point. Since it's open at both ends, that's a tapered tube, not a cone. Pretty much all pant legs, skirts, dresses, etc. are tapered. Still close enough to tubes. Actually, lots of things that aren't actually cylindrical for one reason or another are referred to as "tubes", even in technical terminology.

[andy]

7 minutes ago, WestRider said:

If a kilt were actually a cone, it would have to come to a point. Since it's open at both ends, that's a tapered tube, not a cone. Pretty much all pant legs, skirts, dresses, etc. are tapered. Still close enough to tubes. Actually, lots of things that aren't actually cylindrical for one reason or another are referred to as "tubes", even in technical terminology.

People are tori.

[WestRider]

2 minutes ago, andy said:

People are tori.

Which are also basically just a special case of a tube.

[andy]

8 minutes ago, WestRider said:

Which are also basically just a special case of a tube.

I'd argue the reverse, but sure 😉

[WestRider]

The two are inarguably related forms. Much like "prawns" and "shrimp", they're more or less interchangeable, and which term is preferred for any given example is inconsistent, and difficult to define with any objective criteria.

On a totally different note: It would be hilarious if Bruce Banner were worthy of lifting and wielding Mjolnir, but The Hulk wasn't.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, WestRider said:

If a kilt were actually a cone, it would have to come to a point. Since it's open at both ends, that's a tapered tube, not a cone. Pretty much all pant legs, skirts, dresses, etc. are tapered. Still close enough to tubes. Actually, lots of things that aren't actually cylindrical for one reason or another are referred to as "tubes", even in technical terminology.

I love telling my mom and little brother about this sort of nerd debate. Always makes them smile. 

[InfestedKerrigan]

10 hours ago, WestRider said:

The two are inarguably related forms. Much like "prawns" and "shrimp", they're more or less interchangeable, and which term is preferred for any given example is inconsistent, and difficult to define with any objective criteria.

?  Prawn have pincers on more legs than shrimp, an extra set, as it were. Size can be a common identifier, but much like crow vs raven, there are a couple tell tale signs.

[Duckman]

16 minutes ago, InfestedKerrigan said:

?  Prawn have pincers on more legs than shrimp, an extra set, as it were. Size can be a common identifier, but much like crow vs raven, there are a couple tell tale signs.

I believe that the context there is "by the time I see them in the grocery or have them on my plate" by which time the pincers you mention are not present.  This falls into the "cows have eyes and beef doesn't" category of rationalizations.  😉

[WestRider]

6 hours ago, InfestedKerrigan said:

?  Prawn have pincers on more legs than shrimp, an extra set, as it were. Size can be a common identifier, but much like crow vs raven, there are a couple tell tale signs.

Depending on where you are, the two terms are used differently. There isn't actually a strict definition. Not all Caridea actually have two pairs of claws, and not all Dendrobranchiata have three sets. There are also a number of species commonly called shrimp that aren't actually related at all to either of those two groups.

According to the crustacean taxonomist Tin-Yam Chan, "The terms shrimp and prawn have no definite reference to any known taxonomic groups. Although the term shrimp is sometimes applied to smaller species, while prawn is more often used for larger forms, there is no clear distinction between both terms and their usage is often confused or even reverse in different countries or regions." Writing in 1980, L. B. Holthuis noted that the terms prawn and shrimp were used inconsistently "even within a single region", generalising that larger species fished commercially were generally called shrimps in the United States, and prawns in other English-speaking countries, although not without exceptions.

[Munkie]

2 hours ago, WestRider said:

There are also a number of species commonly called shrimp that aren't actually related at all that closely to either of those two groups.

I mean, if we're talking biology here, then being a crustacean as well would make it at least somewhat related.

[WestRider]

29 minutes ago, Munkie said:

I mean, if we're talking biology here, then being a crustacean as well would make it at least somewhat related.

Fair point. All life is related to some extent. Nothing closer than sharing a phylum is a pretty distant relationship, tho. That's the same degree of relatedness as us, mice, and whales, for instance. Not the sort of closeness that generally leads to having a common term used for just those specific groupings.

[Munkie]

4 hours ago, WestRider said:

All life is related to some extent. Nothing closer than sharing a phylum is a pretty distant relationship, tho. That's the same degree of relatedness as us, mice, and whales, for instance.

Crustacea is often considered a subphylum of Arthropoda so they're just a teensy bit closer. 

😜

[WestRider]

48 minutes ago, Munkie said:

Crustacea is often considered a subphylum of Arthropoda so they're just a teensy bit closer. 

😜

Except that Arthropoda is larger than all the other Phyla combined, so even a sub-phylum like Crustacea is an incredibly broad category. Further, all the examples I gave are not only members of the sub-phylum Vertebrata, but are also all members of the same class, Mammalia, while some of the organisms referred to as "shrimp" aren't even in the class Malacostraca, but are instead in Branchiopoda or Ostracoda. So, more like the relationship between us and birds or lizards. 😉

Also, from what I've been able to dig up, the distinction between Prawns with 3 pairs of pincers and Shrimp with 2 pairs was made sometime after the terms had both been established and entered common use for both groups, by someone who was trying to force organization on an inherently disorganized topic. Sort of like the various prescriptive linguists over the years who have tried to add rules like "no split infinitives", or "never end a clause with a preposition" to English, which has no real reason to follow those restrictions.

[Munkie]

Boom! Roasted.