About
This site is a little project that lets me make fun of some things and sense of others. I use it to think a little more relationally without resorting to doing actual math.Subscribe
Archives
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
Categories
- 5×7
- arrogance
- booze
- brands
- communication
- consumption
- creeps
- crime
- easter bunny
- ego
- ethics
- excuses
- expectations
- experience
- faith
- family
- fashion
- finances
- friends
- gum
- halloween
- hipsters
- inequality
- kids
- language
- love
- men
- moderation
- monsters
- music
- optimism
- orthodontics
- pain
- parties
- patience
- perception
- philosophy
- politics
- pop culture
- queens
- santa
- school
- sickness
- snobs
- snuggling
- sports
- standards
- stress
- success
- technology
- television
- tooth fairy
- travel
- Uncategorized
- value
- virginity
- weight
- women
- work
- xenophobia








d = doom
s = sex
t = teletubies
try thinking about it…. I DARE YOU!
This gets dangerously close to “actual math.”
Yeah, I’ll go along with this.
Your math fail depresses me.
If d=s(t), then dividing both sides by t would simply yield d/t = s(t)/t. Really, the initial terms should be d = s/t^p, where p represents the passage of time’s effect on t.
I’ll forgive you, this time.
While I ‘d agree that s(t) is problematic, t3 isn’t winning any awards.
The problem with s(t) is that it shows speed as a function of time. I understand that it is intended to be speed times time, but the parens are unnecessary.
d = s/t^p makes no sense, passage of time and time are the same thing
the real math, used in the physics, makes perfect sense
“How long ’till we get there?”
“It’s 50 miles and we’re going 100 mph, we’ll be there in 30 minutes.”
Pingback: Secrets acting as a poison « Scattered pieces…
It was a big risk posting something like this.
I’m pretty sure the () were to put an implied multiplication, though i did read it as a function the first time too.
Some readings make more sense than others:
distance = speed * time
distance = troubled caused * time
pain = speed * time
pain = troubled caused * time
distance/time = speed
distance/time = trouble caused
pain/time = speed
pain/time = trouble caused
distance/speed = time
distance/trouble caused = time
pain/speed = time
pain/trouble caused = time
This is too “actual” mathematical for me to understand.
Is it meant to be “pain over time” or “pain divided by time”?
oh I sooooo want to show this to my Algebra students!
Man, I wish scientist and mathematicians and engineers could all get together and decide on a standard set of variables. All I could think of when I read this was v=ds/dt and I couldn’t find the v in the comic. Enough procrastinating, back to my fluid mechanics so I don’t fail my test tomorrow.
this isnt about math or physics at all. its about pain making trouble that is sucking up time you can never retrieve.
d=s(t) is not the same as d=s*t, as noted above. Technical accuracy is important. See http://www.xkcd.com, for example.
Pingback: George du