Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   "Six percent of Americans believe in unicorns. Twenty four percent believe dinosaurs and man hung out together. Eighteen percent believe the sun revolves around the Earth. Nearly 30% believe cloud computing involves actual clouds"   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Fail  
•       •       •

14397 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Mar 2013 at 10:29 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



521 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-03-14 03:30:08 PM  

Tuxedocat: rufus-t-firefly: Molavian: You should see the percentage that believes in gun control.

I wonder how many think more guns = more safety.

Since we have 300 million people, and 200 million privately-owned firearms, shouldn't our murder rate be REALLY low?

I wonder what how many of those who were murdered had a firearm on them at the time, or if those murdered even owned one.


Yeah, when are families going to stop their selfish grieving and realize that it was their now deceased "victim" kin that are to blame. Why didn't they have a gun on them? Good guys with guns don't hit innocent bystanders. God wouldn't allow that.
 
2013-03-14 03:32:44 PM  

tripleseven: As an aside, the same computer genius friend insisted she install firefox on her work computer.

I asked her why.

"It's safer"

Ok, well, can you give me three examples of how?

"Hur Dur..."


Um, the last 3 IE exploits?
 
2013-03-14 03:32:53 PM  
Sh'yeah... and unicorns might fly out of my butt....
 
2013-03-14 03:34:33 PM  

tylerdurden217: Tuxedocat: rufus-t-firefly: Molavian: You should see the percentage that believes in gun control.

I wonder how many think more guns = more safety.

Since we have 300 million people, and 200 million privately-owned firearms, shouldn't our murder rate be REALLY low?

I wonder what how many of those who were murdered had a firearm on them at the time, or if those murdered even owned one.

Yeah, when are families going to stop their selfish grieving and realize that it was their now deceased "victim" kin that are to blame. Why didn't they have a gun on them? Good guys with guns don't hit innocent bystanders. God wouldn't allow that.


I like to think that IF God existed, a lot of behavior we presently see in humanity would not exist.  Looking out upon the world I can't believe that an all-knowing, all-powerful, eternally-loving God created a devil to blame all the bad stuff on.  Any decent deity would've been able to keep the bad stuff away in the first place, right?
 
2013-03-14 03:35:37 PM  

pciszek: CygnusDarius: Ergo, dinosaurs were delicious, and good with raspberry and chile sauce?

Isaac Asimov wrote a short story about that.


By story, you mean cooking recipe?.
 
2013-03-14 03:35:53 PM  

fredklein: tripleseven: As an aside, the same computer genius friend insisted she install firefox on her work computer.

I asked her why.

"It's safer"

Ok, well, can you give me three examples of how?

"Hur Dur..."

Um, the last 3 IE exploits?


Versus the last three firefox vulnerabilities?
 
2013-03-14 03:36:47 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: So many of these are arbitrary. There are a couple animals thought to have been the source for the unicorn. When you're dealing with two bodies moving through space without a fixed reference point, you could say either one is revolving around the other - the math is just much easier one way. And a huge chunk of internet transmission goes through satellites, meaning your cloud computing data is passing through actual clouds.


I won't argue about unicorns... but the rest of this is science, and I'll school you bit.

Two bodies in space DO have a fixed reference point, each other.  Relative motion is simple to determine, and the math only works at all if you do it correctly.  Your arbitrary reasoning is spacious at best.

The internet does not go through satellites.  Not even a little bit of it.  Please, seriously, STFU.
 
2013-03-14 03:41:51 PM  
Y'all act like Papa Bear doesn't know what he's talking about.  The tide comes in, the tide goes out - you can't explain that...lol

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/stephen-colbert-defends- pa ppa-bear-oreilly
 
2013-03-14 03:46:04 PM  

m00: Well, I am the kind of person to answer scientific-sounding questions on a survey pedantically. But my main point was that surveys/questions like that should use accurate language. Can you imagine being on the gameshow "who wants to be a millionaire" and the question is like "what is the orbit of the earth around the sun"?

a)circular
b)rhomboid
c)parabolic
d)triangular

and you KNOW the answer they are looking for is a) but it's not really correct. I dont know about you, but my head would explode.


Which is closest, within a margin for error?

Does your head also explode when you "draw a line" on a piece of paper? (Remember, lines are perfectly straight, infinite, and 1 dimensional, a pencil "line" isn't.) Face it, there is a certain... looseness... to language. "Gimme a second" doesn't mean exactly 1/60 of a minute. "Loan me a couple bucks" doesn't necessarily mean exactly 2 dollars (or male deer). And so on.

Now, one should always make sure to specify whether or not one is being literal or not. Saying "the Earth travels in a circle around the sun" is not, strictly speaking, literally true. But it is true enough for common meaning. Imagine something like this:

imgs.xkcd.com

but with "Is the Earth's orbit a triangle/square/circle?" and "It's not actually a circle, it's an ellipse! Haha!" in there instead.
 
2013-03-14 03:47:29 PM  

tripleseven: fredklein: tripleseven: As an aside, the same computer genius friend insisted she install firefox on her work computer.

I asked her why.

"It's safer"

Ok, well, can you give me three examples of how?

"Hur Dur..."

Um, the last 3 IE exploits?

Versus the last three firefox vulnerabilities?


Compare the severities and numbers of vulnerabilities between IE and FF.
 
2013-03-14 03:48:32 PM  

andrethered1: You can' t see electricity or air either, just the results, yet everyone believes in it, too.


Sight is only one of the 5 primary senses.
 
2013-03-14 03:49:25 PM  
100% of conservatives and Republicans believe that all facts or arguments that make them look bad are made up by libs and Commies.

Since no fact or argument presented by a non-Conservative non-Republican is genuine, the only person who can contradict a conservative Republican is another, more powerful Conservative Republican.

These are called RINOS. They have one or two horns. Fortunately for truthiness, the White RINO is going extinct, and the Black RINO is a completely mythical creature that no one has ever seen apart from the few examples on stage at a Republican National Convention. There is therefore no outside force that can alter the mind of Conservative Republican. Conservative Republicans thus only change their minds in those rare magical moments during which they choose to contradict themselves.

And yes, God could make a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it, but God is a Republican and chooses never to do such a thing except when he does. Republican conservatives believe that you should not waste food unless it could feed a poor person.
 
2013-03-14 03:49:28 PM  

tripleseven: fredklein: tripleseven: As an aside, the same computer genius friend insisted she install firefox on her work computer.

I asked her why.

"It's safer"

Ok, well, can you give me three examples of how?

"Hur Dur..."

Um, the last 3 IE exploits?

Versus the last three firefox vulnerabilities?


I'll take that bet.
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vulnerabilities.html# Fi refox
4 critical problems, 1 that allows remote code execution (the actually bad part)

http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-26/product_id -9 900/Microsoft-Internet-Explorer.html

I can't count that high, so you'll have to tally for your self.
 
2013-03-14 03:52:02 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Bear in mind that a  lot of people give deliberately stupid answers to these kinds of obvious polling questions.


Exactly.  In high school we all had to do a survey about our attitudes towards drugs and alcohol.  It was shocking how many of us had been smoking at age 8, were drunk every day before noon, and/or were hardcore drug addicts.  The school had an assembly with counselors to educate us on the dangers of our poor choices.  Schmucks.
 
2013-03-14 03:58:32 PM  

Karac: Me and Andy Dufresne got it.


Hey there, Ms. Fussybritches.
 
2013-03-14 03:59:04 PM  

ginandbacon: Jesus rode on a unicorn in the clouds chasing the earth around the sun!


I think the movie was called Legend
 
2013-03-14 04:01:29 PM  

Almea Tarrant: Some 'Splainin' To Do: Bear in mind that a  lot of people give deliberately stupid answers to these kinds of obvious polling questions.

Exactly.  In high school we all had to do a survey about our attitudes towards drugs and alcohol.  It was shocking how many of us had been smoking at age 8, were drunk every day before noon, and/or were hardcore drug addicts.  The school had an assembly with counselors to educate us on the dangers of our poor choices.  Schmucks.


I guess i was too lawful good to lie on those stupid things.
 
2013-03-14 04:07:26 PM  
62% believe what they read on Huffington post.

Stupid 'mericans....
 
m00
2013-03-14 04:09:50 PM  

SquiggsIN: I guess i was too lawful good to lie on those stupid things.


Are you sure it's not just that lying creates a contradiction between reality and the spoken representation of reality (language/communication?). And that the logical mind seeks to resolve contradiction.

:p
 
2013-03-14 04:11:30 PM  

Ned Stark: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: St_Francis_P: I think most people realize that cloud computing requires man-made clouds; the natural ones can't hold enough data. I'm sure they use something like the artificial snow machines at ski resorts.

Now the concept of "real cloud" computing fascinates me.  Could you actually store data in a mist?  What happens when it rains?  Would stratus clouds hold less data than cumulus clouds?

There are online random number generators online that use current whether data to get the randomness.


I get confused often enough that "whether" I am going to do this or that is truly random.
 
m00
2013-03-14 04:11:45 PM  
Squiggs, do you play Halo?
 
2013-03-14 04:14:45 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: What about alicorns?

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 640x460]


I prefer the blue ones, but this one is okay.
 
2013-03-14 04:22:30 PM  

m00: Squiggs, do you play Halo?


I don't own an XBox so no.
 
2013-03-14 04:27:47 PM  

m00: I dont know about you, but my head would explode.


Sure, whatever. As long as you realize that this pedantry is meaningless in terms of how normal people communicate.
 
2013-03-14 04:28:53 PM  

Biological Ali: m00: I dont know about you, but my head would explode.

Sure, whatever. As long as you realize that this pedantry is meaningless in terms of how normal people communicate.


Some of us never claimed to be normal.  Never in my life (i'm guessing) has anyone described me as 'normal'.
 
m00
2013-03-14 04:29:25 PM  

SquiggsIN: m00: Squiggs, do you play Halo?

I don't own an XBox so no.


I don't know why, but your comment reminded me of this. I guess in my head I was thinking of a FARK alignment chart.

cdn.duelinganalogs.com
 
2013-03-14 04:33:32 PM  

m00: SquiggsIN: m00: Squiggs, do you play Halo?

I don't own an XBox so no.

I don't know why, but your comment reminded me of this. I guess in my head I was thinking of a FARK alignment chart.

[cdn.duelinganalogs.com image 600x863]


... i was a lawful good twerp when i was younger.  i didn't really start my hellraising until about 21.
 
2013-03-14 04:39:23 PM  

macdaddy357: If brains were dynamite, most Americans could not blow their noses.


You should probably say "nitro glycerine" instead of "dynamite". I mean, you need a blasting cap to set off dynamite and your post said nothing along the lines of, "If brains were dynamite and hypothalami were blasting caps yada yada..." or "If brains were old dynamite--sweating nitro--and The Incredible Hulk punched you in the cerebellum: the resulting explosion would not have enough force to blow a snot-bubble yada yada..."

Get with the program.
 
2013-03-14 04:41:50 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: "......Twenty four percent believe dinosaurs and man hung out together....."

Absolutely. Raquel Welch would never lie to

with me.

/obscure?
//perhaps for the younger farkers.....


FTFY ;)

/or me
//dammit
 
2013-03-14 04:43:29 PM  
Huh. Big surprise that the country just keeps becoming more intractably polarized. When you've convinced yourself that the only reason anyone could ever have for disagreeing with you is that they're so stupid as to be beyond help, there's not much point in exerting any energy attempting to understand, sympathize, or compromise, is there? Better to just add them to the list of the worst people in the world and call it a day.

Unfortunately this tool's entire premise is contradicted by his conclusion. The whole article is about how stupid half of the country is and why, oh why can't they all be highly-evolved, open-minded intellectual geniuses like him. Which of course means they'd also be liberal and atheist. It takes a special kind of insufferable prick to think so highly of himself that he's convinced if everyone in the world were just smart and well-read like him they'd all come to exactly the same conclusions and hold the same beliefs. He *is* the ultimate evolution of a human that we all should strive to emulate, so...obviously!

In the same column the guy describes his perspective as being the more nimble and open minded one and then proceeds to conclude that smart = liberal = atheist and stupid = conservative = religious. He is so evolved and his perspective is so nimble and open minded that he can't seem to fathom a single exception. And he's so intellectual that when proofing his column he apparently missed this glaring contradiction.

As I see it there are two possibilities: either he has his head so far up his arse that he actually believes he knows everything and is always right and if you don't agree with him... well you're just STUPID, gosh! You know, like a teenager. Or he's just one more columnist troll, spewing out inflammatory blather he only partially believes designed to draw maximum attention so maybe someday he'll become the celebrity that he obviously yearns to be with every fiber of his being. Like a liberal, un-famous Rush Limbaugh. So take your pick - ignorant ass or phony attention whore, or some combination. Either way his column is a piece of crap that I now have to scrap off the bottom of my brain and in the future will be careful to avoid. Just like teenagers and Rush Limbaugh.
 
2013-03-14 04:47:02 PM  

Dinkledort: Huh. Big surprise that the country just keeps becoming more intractably polarized. When you've convinced yourself that the only reason anyone could ever have for disagreeing with you is that they're so stupid as to be beyond help, there's not much point in exerting any energy attempting to understand, sympathize, or compromise, is there? Better to just add them to the list of the worst people in the world and call it a day.

Unfortunately this tool's entire premise is contradicted by his conclusion. The whole article is about how stupid half of the country is and why, oh why can't they all be highly-evolved, open-minded intellectual geniuses like him. Which of course means they'd also be liberal and atheist. It takes a special kind of insufferable prick to think so highly of himself that he's convinced if everyone in the world were just smart and well-read like him they'd all come to exactly the same conclusions and hold the same beliefs. He *is* the ultimate evolution of a human that we all should strive to emulate, so...obviously!

In the same column the guy describes his perspective as being the more nimble and open minded one and then proceeds to conclude that smart = liberal = atheist and stupid = conservative = religious. He is so evolved and his perspective is so nimble and open minded that he can't seem to fathom a single exception. And he's so intellectual that when proofing his column he apparently missed this glaring contradiction.

As I see it there are two possibilities: either he has his head so far up his arse that he actually believes he knows everything and is always right and if you don't agree with him... well you're just STUPID, gosh! You know, like a teenager. Or he's just one more columnist troll, spewing out inflammatory blather he only partially believes designed to draw maximum attention so maybe someday he'll become the celebrity that he obviously yearns to be with every fiber of his being. Like a liberal, un-famous Rush Limbaugh. So take y ...


internet outrage +1  (this is fark, what were you expecting?)
 
2013-03-14 04:50:46 PM  

xria: The Snow Dog: powhound: Believing in UFO's isn't a stretch. I wish one would come take me from this crazy planet.

I wish authors were smart enough not to use "UFO" interchangeably with "alien spacecraft." You'd be a moron to deny UFOs exist. Alien spacecraft? Notsomuch.

Alien spacecraft almost certainly exist. The unlikely bit is any of them are coming to earth to fart about secretly experimenting about stuff we have been broadcasting out the details of light years in all directions.


I believe they exist. The age and vastness of the universe makes it a near certainty in my book. But I'm not going to call anyone a moron for NOT believing until after we have proof. Then all the people who say that they are a conspiracy or made-up or just don't for whatever reason believe--they will be morons.

It's like the life on Mars question. I believe we'll find evidence of some sort of previous (or ongoing) "life" there. But until the facts are in: I'll refrain from calling people morons when they say they don't believe that Martian life is a reality.
 
2013-03-14 05:11:08 PM  
God, this thread is weird.

I just came in to biatch about HuffPo's leap of illogic: "no intellectual conservatives".
 
2013-03-14 05:23:53 PM  

Kahabut: tripleseven: fredklein: tripleseven: As an aside, the same computer genius friend insisted she install firefox on her work computer.

I asked her why.

"It's safer"

Ok, well, can you give me three examples of how?

"Hur Dur..."

Um, the last 3 IE exploits?

Versus the last three firefox vulnerabilities?

I'll take that bet.
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vulnerabilities.html# Fi refox
4 critical problems, 1 that allows remote code execution (the actually bad part)

http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-26/product_id -9 900/Microsoft-Internet-Explorer.html

I can't count that high, so you'll have to tally for your self.


They only have a list fir IE exploits that starts in 2008 and ends in 1-9-2013

For Mozilla, the page shows vulnerabilities from back in versions 1.0 to 2.0.0.15 (2005 to 2008) and are now up to version 19.0.2.
Here is a more current version of vulnerabilities for Mozilla. There are obvious very large changes from 2011 to present: Known issues
Not trying to slam Firefox- just trying to show that they've been doing a lot of work to avoid allowing their product to screw their customers and the browser is free and still better than IE.
IE still has issues from way back when it first was designed. Why would those problems still exist?
 
2013-03-14 05:38:27 PM  

Karac: For asteroids floating in deep space perhaps.  But for the Earth and Sun - no, you can't.  It's pretty easy to prove that the Earth revolves around the Sun because the center of it's orbit is actually INSIDE the sun.


WaitWhatWhy: Not really because gravity. Yeah, the math for the relative motion can be set up either way, but once you factor in the forces involved, saying the sun revolves around the earth is like saying that when you jump off the diving board, the earth falls up towards you.


MindStalker: The sun being MUCH more massive can't possibly be affected by the earth gravity enough to revolve around the earth (it wobbles a bit, but it doesn't fall down). Your statement is only true for similarly sized bodies. You could also make the argument that the Earth revolves around the Moon, but it would be equally false.


pciszek: Not all frames of reference are created equal.  Inertial frames of reference have the property that you can actually apply the laws of physics to them.  There is no inertial reference frame in which the sun goes around the Earth.


Bacontastesgood: If you simplify any observation to the point that it is utterly meaningless, then it is inane, that's for sure.  Knowledge of the planets goes back at least to the Sumerian civilization.


For all of you biatching at Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich, here's what Stephen Hawking has to say on the subject (from The Grand Design):  Ptolemy's model of the cosmos was adopted by the Catholic Church and held as official doctrine for fourteen hundred years. It was not until 1543 that an alternative model was put forward by Copernicus. So which is real? Although it is not uncommon for people to say Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe. The real advantage of the Copernican system is that the mathematics is much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.

These examples bring us to a conclusion:There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. Instead we adopt a view that we call model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. This provides a framework with which to interpret modern science.
 
2013-03-14 05:38:35 PM  
I believe that there are disk-shaped and triangle-shaped craft that are propelled in an exotic fashion. I do not believe they are manned by aliens, though.

Sincerely,

Viktor Schauberger
 
2013-03-14 05:39:21 PM  

XplodedSynapses: Kahabut: tripleseven: fredklein: tripleseven: As an aside, the same computer genius friend insisted she install firefox on her work computer.

I asked her why.

"It's safer"

Ok, well, can you give me three examples of how?

"Hur Dur..."

Um, the last 3 IE exploits?

Versus the last three firefox vulnerabilities?

I'll take that bet.
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vulnerabilities.html# Fi refox
4 critical problems, 1 that allows remote code execution (the actually bad part)

http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-26/product_id -9 900/Microsoft-Internet-Explorer.html

I can't count that high, so you'll have to tally for your self.

They only have a list fir IE exploits that starts in 2008 and ends in 1-9-2013

For Mozilla, the page shows vulnerabilities from back in versions 1.0 to 2.0.0.15 (2005 to 2008) and are now up to version 19.0.2.
Here is a more current version of vulnerabilities for Mozilla. There are obvious very large changes from 2011 to present: Known issues
Not trying to slam Firefox- just trying to show that they've been doing a lot of work to avoid allowing their product to screw their customers and the browser is free and still better than IE.
IE still has issues from way back when it first was designed. Why would those problems still exist?


I am on your side here.  Firefox is ten times the browser that IE ever dreamed of being.  Far more importantly (as you pointed out) Firefox is made by people for people to use.  IE is made by a company to make money.
 
2013-03-14 05:41:12 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: What about alicorns?

[images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 640x460]


dashie.mylittlefacewhen.com
 
2013-03-14 05:41:45 PM  
I must be in the other 32% somewhere.
 
2013-03-14 05:42:23 PM  

special20: I must be in the other 32% somewhere.


...as I do give 110%, you know.

/yeah
 
2013-03-14 05:44:56 PM  

hardinparamedic: JarynFrostwing: [fc03.deviantart.net image 850x549]
You think that's bad, some of us believe in pegasi as well. 8D

That's Wildfire!



Great, so now I know what OC and Cutie Mark actually means.  Thanks a farking ton.
 
2013-03-14 05:49:14 PM  

Carn: m00: "Do unicorns exist?" is also a poorly phrased question. It should be "Has there been any scientific discoveries of fossil records, bones, or physical remnants of the mythological creature known as a 'unicorn'?" Because the actual answer to the question "do unicorns exist" is who knows? Nobody has directly observed a unicorn, but nobody has directly observed pretty much anything in string theory. A lack of observation doesn't prove something doesn't exist. All we can say is that we haven't observed something, we do/don't have evidence for something. We can prove something does exist, but we can't prove the negative.

Hypothesis: Unicorns exist.
Supporting Evidence: none.
Conclusion: Hypothesis is false.

That's how science and rational thought work.  If evidence were to suddenly appear that a unicorn exists or may have existed in the past, you re-evaluate at that point.  As for string theory, scientists are relatively certain that they have witnessed the Higgs boson in recent experiments.  String theory predicted that this particle existed and until they found evidence, there was a lot of justified resistance to the theory.  The particle's existence and its behavior will go a long way toward theoretical physicists being able to support or disprove string theory.

The burden of proof is on the person making the hypothesis, otherwise anything imaginary must be real because no evidence exists to prove or deny the claim.


You know how I know you don't understand the difference between theoretical physicists and experimental physicists?
 
2013-03-14 06:00:31 PM  
The duocorn is real. Here's one.

i.imgur.com

/this thread needs more duocorns
 
2013-03-14 06:06:39 PM  
The author complains about the level of intelligence that news is written for...by writing for The Huffington Post.
I wish hypocrisy was a leathal condition, I really do.
 
2013-03-14 06:09:09 PM  
I am so smart! I am so smart! S-M-R-T!
 
2013-03-14 06:15:37 PM  

brantgoose: 100% of conservatives and Republicans believe that all facts or arguments that make them look bad are made up by libs and Commies.

Since no fact or argument presented by a non-Conservative non-Republican is genuine, the only person who can contradict a conservative Republican is another, more powerful Conservative Republican.

These are called RINOS. They have one or two horns. Fortunately for truthiness, the White RINO is going extinct, and the Black RINO is a completely mythical creature that no one has ever seen apart from the few examples on stage at a Republican National Convention. There is therefore no outside force that can alter the mind of Conservative Republican. Conservative Republicans thus only change their minds in those rare magical moments during which they choose to contradict themselves.

And yes, God could make a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it, but God is a Republican and chooses never to do such a thing except when he does. Republican conservatives believe that you should not waste food unless it could feed a poor person.


Wow. I thought Ashley Judd was the dumbest person in America until I read this. We have a new winner.
 
2013-03-14 06:17:46 PM  
What a smug self-satisfying arsehat.
Someone isn't stupid because they disagree with you.
 
2013-03-14 06:24:25 PM  
That was not complex our analytical, and if satire was poorly executed..
 
2013-03-14 06:27:35 PM  
I have to call bullshiat.  1 out of 5 people thinks the sun revolves around us?  No farking way.
Even the most idiotic evangelical young Earth creationists I've ever talked to didn't believe that.  I think whatever poll or study came to that particular conclusion was skewed by jokesters.
 
2013-03-14 06:54:01 PM  
They say 3 percent of the people use 5 to 6 percent of their brain
97 percent use 3 percent and the rest goes down the drain
I'll never know which one I am but I'll bet you my last dime
99 percent think we're 3 percent 100 percent of the time

64 percent of all the world's statistics are made up right there on the spot
82.4 percent of people believe 'em whether they're accurate statistics or not
I don't know what you believe but I do know there's no doubt
I need another double shot of something 90 proof
I got too much to think about

Too much to think about
Too much to figure out
Stuck between hope and doubt
It's too much to think about

They say 92 percent of everything you learned in school was just bullshiat you'll never need
84 percent of everything you got you bought to satisfy your greed
Because 90 percent of the world's population links possessions to success
Even though 80 percent of the wealthiest 1 percent of the population
Drinks to an alarming excess
More money, more stress

It's too much to think about
Too much to figure out
Stuck between hope and doubt
It's too much to think about
Pick it now

84 percent of all statisticians truly hate their jobs
They say the average bank robber lives within say about 20 miles of the bank that he robs
There's this little bank not far from here I've been watching now for a while
Lately all I can think about's how bad I wanna go out in style

And it's too much to think about
Too much to figure out
Stuck between hope and doubt
It's too much to think about
That's right
It's too much to think about
Amen
It's too much to think about
 
Displayed 50 of 521 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report