h a l f b a k e r y
Get half a life.
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
Login
Create account.
|
|
| Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
| |
"I Drink, therefore I Am" -Rene Descartes.
What an appropriate name for the linked song! |
|
| |
This sounds like a bit of a con... |
|
| |
Will you be marketing to optimists, pessimists, or stoics ? [+] |
|
| |
How can it be a con, [vince^3]? They pay half price for the half drinks. No drunks were harmed in the making of this idea. |
|
| |
"Where's my F***ING DRINK!" |
|
| |
I always see the glass as being twice as large as it is needed to be - or with 100% redundancy. |
|
| |
This leads to the obvious idea of the Anti-Philosopher Glass: |
|
| |
A drinks container with corrugated sides that can be collapsed as it is emptied (a bit like a bendy straw), thus ensuring that it always remains full. |
|
| |
Is the idea for the drink, or for the video? If for the latter, then maybe change the title to "Candid videos of victims of philosophically inspired scams". Or something more flashy. |
|
| |
Basically, I think this idea is half empty. |
|
| |
I think half the idea is empty. |
|
| |
Why would anyone get upset? They can buy a full one for twice the price, if they want. |
|
| |
A half bottle of booze is always empty of carbonation if it has sat around for any period of time. Like beerio-carbon dating or something. |
|
| |
Not if it was sealed and carbonated and has remained sealed. It would be no different to any other drink that is carbonated and has some space in the neck of the bottle. |
|
| |
It may require a thicker contruction to ensure gas doesn't leak out of the half empty walls, Leading the sophists to ponder the likeness of the drink to the absolute Drink, amongst other qualities of the drink, such as the distinction between fluids, the balance of the elements, the Emptyness as compared to the Fullness, and conclusive evidence of a Dionysian exploitation involved in the marketing of a half anything beverage. |
|
| |
Well, I posted it in the hope that I'd get responses much like the one posted by [daseva]. |
|
| |
I guess I simply hold my fellow man in higher regard or at least believe better of them than experience sometimes suggests I ought? |
|
| |
<toddles off to consume my last bottle of Drayton's "William Shiraz", in memory of famous winemaker, Trevor Drayton, who was killed today in an ethanol explosion at his winery.> |
|
| |
//Leading the sophists to ponder the likeness of the drink to the absolute Drink// (sp. - "Absolut Drink") |
|
| |
//drinks container with corrugated sides that can be collapsed as it is emptied (a bit like a bendy straw), thus ensuring that it always remains full.// |
|
| |
That deserves its own idea. |
|
| |
//Well, I posted it in the hope that I'd get responses much like the one posted by [daseva]. //
Have you considered the possibility that's he's just pissed? |
|
| |
The discussion started quite innocently with the observation of how does one measure //exactly half full//. I will premise this statement with the fact that I have already observed approximately 3 and approximately one half of the aforementioned beverage. |
|
| |
Quite immediately the subject of exactitude and precision of measurement becomes paramount. Let us assume that the precise volumeteric measure of a full glass can take place. The exact measurement of half a glass becomes a bit difficult. To measure the exact volume of a full glass would require the use of the smallest irreducable unit of measurement. This allows no ambiguity for error. (i.e if we were to measure ml we could say that the glass is 500ml +- 1ml, allowing for an error in the unit of measure). However we have assumed that we used the smallest irreducible unit of measure. All seems to be fine. We can now describe the volume of the full glass as x units, no more and no less. No allowances for error, no approximations. Now the volume of the glass is a whole number. This is not completely out of the question as we did use the smallest unit of (volumetric) measure, and ipso facto, it will be a whole number. Our problem manifests itself when we halve this number. Having already precisely measured the contents of the glass, is it possible to now measure (precisely) half its quantity? To do so would imply that there is a unit of measure smaller than that of our chosen irreducibly small measure, immediately casting our original measurement in doubt.To not allow it would be a fatal flaw in our understanding of mathematics, and brings about a similar discrepency as that illustrated in the Yang-Mills theory and the mass gap. Sure, we can pour half a beverage, but is it mathematically rigorous to say that that beverage is half, assuming we accurately measured it being full? |
|
| |
<Breaks into a musical tribute to Lydia Pinkham> |
|
| |
<gentle aside> The video of this event is as interesting as watching the varying gradients of (x+y)/xy wrt z, that is, until we break out into song. </ga> |
|
| |
If we are talking irreducible then I would suggest we simply count the molecules in, one by one... unless the drink is quarked. |
|
| |
Strangely enough, I have strung enough of this together to not be swayed by colourful arguments. It has its ups and downs, but what doesn't. It is the glue,on which the universe is built. |
|
| |
//It is the glue,on which the universe is built.// |
|
| |
They make glue from turtles these days? |
|
| |
<real belly laugh> You should see their outermost shells. |
|
| |
Strange, the Bosun, Higgs, caught one the other day. He leads a charmed life. |
|
| |
[4whom], I can understand your difficulties in measuring half of your total volume, if the volume contains an odd number of irreducible units (IUs). Otherwise, you're good to go. So, judging by the inherent inability to mass produce something with an accuracy down to a single IU (100%), you will only get an even number of IUs half the time, i.e. purely statistical randomness. Interesting it may then seem, that only half of the produced glasses will actually be partitioned into two equal volumes. All the others bear an unavoidable deceit. |
|
| |
For all intents and purposes, the carbonation has to be dissolved in the beer in order for it to be full. As soon as the carbonation escapes to the air in the empty half of the bottle, well, you've just decarbonated your beer. |
|
| |
No, given sufficent pressure (saturation vapour pressure), the gas will remain in solution, in equilibrium with the gas above. Conventional cans and bottles contain "dead space" full of gas at saturation pressure..... just because the container is only half full doesn't mean it's going to fizz.
Consider beer kegs; carbon dioxide, or an inert gas (nitrogen) is pumped in under pressure as the keg empties; the beer when it emerges is still fizzy (and horrible). |
|
| |
8th is correct. But, gas molecules inside the bottle will still equilibrate with gas molecules outside the bottle, so CO2 may slowly dissipate to the environs over time. |
|
| |
Carbonation is possible regardless of the dead space in the bottle/can, depending wholly upon the pressure maintained to ensure vapour saturation. |
|
| |
Personally, I think beer, still or fizzy, is pigs' slop so I have little interest in whether it remains carbonated. In fact, CO2 in beer and soft drink should be banned, in order to reduce worldwide CO2 emissions. |
|
| |
We disagree. Pigs' slop is considerably more attractive as a beverage than cold, fizzy beer. |
|
| |
Perhaps the CO2 in sparkling wine should also be banned ? And the CO2 produced by grapes during their fermentation ? The horror, the horror ..... |
|
| |
[daseva] the case of volumes described by 2x is trivial and uninteresting. However your calculations on the number of glasses that have even or odd volumes, in an equally innacurate manufacturing system, are incorrect. Volume is measured in cubic units. Lets say we can exactly measure (IU) lengths, and ergo, multiples. Less reliably (50% of the time) we can produce a correct length. Let's consider cuboid containers (volumes described by irrational numbers (pi) were discussed on the video, but were not fit for publication). A cuboid's volume is defined by LxBxH. We are planning a volume that can be described as 2x^3. Let "e" denote even and "o" odd. The possible combinations (permutations are not important) of L,B,H are therefore: {e,e,e}; {e,e,o}; {e,o,o}; {o,o,o}. This leaves only one combination from the possible four having an odd volume. Therefore, 25% of production cannot be exactly halved beyond some IU, unless you choose to have half IUs. |
|
| |
Now, on the "quantitisation" of the drink. i.e. *choosing* a drink to be full when a certain quanta of units has been attained. This once again becomes an arbritrary choice. We adjust our definition of full to exclude 100% of the containers volume and replace it with x quanta. As the quantum becomes smaller we encounter more difficulty in its measurement. Once again we would have to presume we could measure exact quantities of the individual quanta in order to halve that quantity. This was a big *if* re measurement of IUs, in the previous annotation. Although, given that man first started mathematics by counting quanta (e.g sheep in a herd) this may be the most useful method. |
|
| |
My point was not supposed to be mathematical, more philosophic. Along the lines of Zeno's paradoxes and the irreducability problem. However, I still think the video of this debate would make "Survivor - Uncut" look like a CGI festooned, Bruce Willis thriller. |
|
| |