The infamous Star Destroyer Star Destroyer

[JR Stengele]

I played w/ a guy in HI who had that stamp. It is now at the bottom of a lake but cool none the less.

 

[PhillyMatt]

Still waiting on the disc to ship it out.

 

[MOON]

If you choose an answer to this question at random, what is the chance you will be correct?

A)25%
B)50%
C)75%
D)25%

1 in 4 chance.

 

[Doupie620]

Would you be able to post a pic of the finished dye?

By finished, I don't mean the country of Finland, cause that would be a spelling error and would lead to untold scorn. Now if the dyer is of Finnish decent, that would make for a cool story. A Finnish dyer finished my dye...

Now using the Arisomoto/Huyzienga abstract anomaly theory of uncertainty in random situations, the chances of me being correct on both counts makes me look like Barney after attacking the Teletubbies...THE MADNESS!!!

 

[1978]

1 in 4 chance.

2 of the answers are the same.

Since this thread has drifted...i figured I would troll. Buzzz's are better than Roc's and I love champ Grooves.

Can anyone tell me how to spell bathroom in Mexico?

 

[MartyK]

bano

 

[PhillyMatt]

Two of the answers are the same, so you'd have a %50 chance of getting it right. %50 is one of the answers.. so 1 in 4.

Wait.. let me... *head explodes*

 

[kerplunk]

It figures that a Star Destroyer on Star Destroyer dye would turn into a nerd fest.

As for the multiple choice question, there is 1/3 chance that the answer is 25%, times 1/2 chance that you will chose that answer= 1/6. Each other answer has 1/3 probability times 1/4 chance of choosing it, which adds up to another 1/6 (1/12 + 1/12). So the chance of choosing the correct answer= 2/6= 1/3. Correct?

 

[Hyzer's]

Someone should do this dye

 

[GLong]

do you know what happens to nerds on the moon?

 

[burntneuron]

The disc should be on it's way to me, can't wait to get my hands on it and get started. I gotta pull out something real nice to do justice to this epic thread.

"Fallacies based on division by zero

It is possible to disguise a special case of division by zero in an algebraic argument, leading to spurious proofs that 1 = 2 such as the following:

With the following assumptions:

0 times 1 = 0 & 0 times 2 = 0.

The following must be true:

0 times 1 = 0 times 2,

Dividing by zero gives:

0/0 times 1 = 0/0 times 2

Simplified, yields:

1 = 2

The fallacy is the implicit assumption that dividing by 0 is a legitimate operation."

Wikinerdism at it's finest!

I'm glad I'm not the only one who knows you can divide by 0 Dan. I think I might have to steal that zappa derail image for a disc. Maybe combine both "This division by 0 is Zappa approved".

 

[jbombo34]

Here was my go at it

I used a different stamp b/c this is my first dyeing attempt. So I didn't want to make it too complicated. Takes a while to get used to the swivel x-acto knife but I was happily surprised by the results.

 

[elnino]

I used a different stamp b/c this is my first dyeing attempt. So I didn't want to make it too complicated. Takes a while to get used to the swivel x-acto knife but I was happily surprised by the results.

why doesn't it say champion destroyer?

i want one that says wombat hunter!

 

[jbombo34]

why doesn't it say champion destroyer?

i want one that says wombat hunter!

B/c it is a "star destroyer" doesn't have to be star plastic lol

 

[PhillyMatt]

That looks sick jbombo

 

[LoPan12]

I have a proof that's way better than 1=2
a = 1 b = 1

b^2 = ab (eq. 1)

Since a equals itself, it is obvious that

a^2 = a^2 (eq. 2)

Subtract equation 1 from equation 2. This yields

a^2 – b^2 = a^2 – ab (eq. 3)

We can factor both sides of the equation; a^2 – ab equals a(a – b). Likewise, a^2 –b^2 equals (a + b)(a – b). Substituting into equation 3 we get

(a + b)(a – b) = a(a – b) (eq. 4)

So far, so good. Now divide both sides of the equation by (a – b) and we get

a + b = a (eq. 5)

Subtract a from both sides and we get

b = 0 (eq. 6)

But we set b to 1 at the very beginningof this proof, so this means that

1 = 0 (eq. 7)

Going further, we know that Winston Churchill has one head. But one equals zero by equation 7, so that means that Winston has no head. Likewise, Churchill has zero leafy tops, therefore he has one leafy top. Multiplyingbothsides of equation 7 by 2, we see that

2 = 0 (eq. 8)

Churchill has two legs, therefore he has no legs. Churchill hastwoarms, therefore he has no arms. Now multiply equation 7 by Churchill's waist size in inches. This mans that

(Winston's waist size) = 0 (eq. 9)

This means that Winston Churchill tapers to a point. Now what color is Winston Churchill? Take any beam of light that comes from him and select a photon. Multiply equation 7 by the wavelength, and we see that

(Winston's photon's wavelength) = 0 (eq. 10)

But multiplying equation 7 by 640 nanometers, we see that

640 = 0 (eq. 11)

Combining equations 10 and 11, we see that

(Winston's photon's wavelength) = 640 nanometers

This means that this photon – or any other photon that comes from Mr. Churchill – is orange. Therefore Winston Churchill is a bright shade of orange.

To sum up, we have proved, mathematically, that Winston Churchill has no arms, no legs; instead of a head, he has a leafy top; he tapers to a point; and he is bright orange. Clearly, Winston Churchill is a carrot.

 

[agent_peebody]

BOOM! just finished it, marked *D Star Destroyer:

 

[PhillyMatt]

Wow, even better. Nice job.

I have confidence in my guy though, he's gonna come through with a sick destroyer.

@jbomb, of course it has to be star plastic.. that's the entire thing lol. Still a nice dye though.

 

[PhillyMatt]

burnt is done with the SICKEST star destroyer you all have ever seen.

Going to let him post it.

WOW.

 

[burntneuron]

Here it is, hope it's worthy of this fantastic thread....