🤣 Funny!
- Thread starter docw1
- Start date
In the US the right side of a 3-prong outlet is the "hot" side, so that part makes sense, but the shorter slot is always on the right side, so was this an AI generated outlet??? Or a non-US outlet???
You're correct, plus it's a tamper-resistant receptacle, suggesting the damage is fake, too.
OP
OP
Let's not get hung up on particulars. I'm willing to bet that a majority of these funny concoctions are made up, either by AI or photo shopped. Go look at youtube where a lot of those 'fail' videos are staged. People cannot be so stupid as to do that stuff...well, yes they can*.
*How about the nurse who went on a Carnival cruise. She and her friends each bought a ticket allowing 15 shots (alcoholic drinks) in 24 hours. She did all in 8 1/2 hours, fell down a flight of stairs and hurt herself. She sued and won $300K. Carnival will appeal. Judge said she bore 40% of the blame, but Carnival's bartenders bore 60% by allowing an obviously drunk person to continue ordering drinks.
Ha, with that kind of attitude it won't be long before you'll be suggesting that any brand of moly is as good as any other.
After 15 shots in 8.5 hours, I bet anyone would say all oils are as good as any other.
Uncle Phil
Site Supporter
After that, I'd say they would have a hard time saying anything that could be understood ...After 15 shots in 8.5 hours, I bet anyone would say all oils are as good as any other.
After that, I'd say they would have a hard time saying anything that could be understood ...
If those shots were 1 oz each (of typical 40% spirits), that's a total of 6 ounces of pure alcohol. That's about 10 beers. I might be feeling it, but I don't think I would be fall down drunk if I consumed them over an 8 hour period.
Not sayin' it's a good idea.
Uncle Phil
Site Supporter
Ah, but some folks can't handle their liquor if they don't have a lot of practice ...
Ah, but some folks can't handle their liquor if they don't have a lot of practice ...
Right now, I'm trying to get out of practice. Sometimes too much practice is not a good thing
I'm sorry. I cannot let this stand or you'll start believing it. It's an internet myth I'm committing to quash at every opportunity.
The popular "Fisher Space Pen origin myth" claims NASA spent millions developing a zero-gravity pen, while Soviets used pencils. In reality, Paul C. Fisher developed the AG7 Space Pen using his own funds ($1 million+) to solve leakage issues, later selling them to NASA for $6 each. Fisher patented the pressurized, thixotropic-ink pen in 1966.
Wikipedia +3
- The Myth: NASA spent millions (often cited as $1 million to $12 billion) to develop a pen that works in space.
- The Reality: Paul C. Fisher invented the pen privately (1965–1966) and patented the technology. He marketed it to NASA after it was already developed.
- NASA's Role: NASA did not fund the development. NASA did, however, rigorously test the pen and approved it for the Apollo 7 mission in 1968 after finding that pencils created safety risks (broken graphite tips).
- The Costs: NASA purchased 400 pens at a cost of approximately $6 each in 1967 (and similar amounts for later missions), which was a much more cost-effective solution than developing one.
- Soviet Use: Contrary to the myth that only the US used the pen, Soviet cosmonauts also bought Fisher Space Pens for their Soyuz missions in 1969, abandoning wax pencils.
- The Inventor's Role: Paul Fisher did not initially set out to create a "space" pen, but rather a "universal" pen that wouldn't leak or dry up, with the design allegedly inspired by a dream.
The Space Review +5
Next you'll start saying Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet... (as I sit here with my small collection (3) of awesome Fisher Space Pens)
So it took a NASA study to determine that pencil lead is prone to breakage??? And, exactly what safely risk did that pose??