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.

(CNN)   Little robots in your pants   ( divider line
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

10263 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jul 2003 at 8:42 PM (14 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

62 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

2003-07-18 08:46:29 PM  
Senorita I'm in love with you
2003-07-18 08:50:23 PM  
Popular Science: "Asking entry-level customer service reps how patented, company critical information works!"
2003-07-18 08:50:56 PM  
What makes the Teflon stick to the pants?
2003-07-18 08:51:24 PM  
That's about right. Ask any customer service person a question that goes beyond their script and they are farked.

/except for the Butterball Turkey hotline - those biatches know their stuff!!! :D
2003-07-18 08:52:36 PM  
Little robots in your pants

2003-07-18 08:52:51 PM  
I would have never thought of 1-800-DOCKERS. Those science people sure are smart.
2003-07-18 08:54:29 PM  
CNN meets the Jerky Boys?
2003-07-18 09:00:23 PM  
Bite my shiny metal ass.
2003-07-18 09:00:31 PM  
weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! how goofy
2003-07-18 09:02:15 PM  
Somehow I expect that even their developement people would have trouble explaining their marketing crap.
2003-07-18 09:03:27 PM  
Ah, read it in Popular Science. "Are they pleated or flat-front?"

D: OK, I believe it does say nanotechnology because it's the 60-cotton, 40-micropoly blend.

PS: So that's where the nanotechnology comes in?

D: Uh-huh

Sad. Poor customer service man.
2003-07-18 09:06:30 PM  
As a white man, I praise all form of research and development when it comes to Dockers.

Now, If only they could teach me how to dance.
2003-07-18 09:06:42 PM  
I get it now. The voices in my head are the little robots in my pants.
2003-07-18 09:08:23 PM  
Is that a Robbie in your pants or are you just happy to see me?

2003-07-18 09:09:19 PM  
These people aren't supposed to answer that sort of question. Thats like calling the hospital and expecting the kid at the front desk to explain the procedure for open heart surgery to you.

Call someone who can actually give you an answer rather than setting some college kid up to fail. Its like the Yankees playing a little league team, those kids wouldn't have a chance and the Yankees knew it.

But they are going to pat themselves on the back for "making a fool of the dockers." Great journalism, asshat!

2003-07-18 09:10:32 PM  
Little robots in your pants


*reads article*

Dockers. Bleh.

I want my robowhores.
2003-07-18 09:11:03 PM  
I saw a customer service phone number on a jar of pickles the other day...

Pickles Customer Service: Pickles hotline, how may I help you ?

Customer: Yeah, I bought your pickles... I cannot, for the life of me, open the darn jar !

Pickles customer service: Have you tried turning the lid in a counter-clockwise direction ?
2003-07-18 09:11:27 PM  
not spiffy. Tag should've said amusing!
2003-07-18 09:13:36 PM  
Wow! Popular science knows jack squat about Nano-technology past "Grey Ooze" bullshiat!

Good to know!

They made fools of themselves, if anything.
2003-07-18 09:16:00 PM  
We are borg of dockers, resistance is futile, your arse will be asimilated...
2003-07-18 09:23:38 PM  
Man find a nanobot in his pants. Film at 11.

Perhaps Wesley Crusher is now consulting for Dockers.
2003-07-18 09:24:27 PM  
I don't get it though...

Why is it called Little Robots in your pants? Are they making fun of the bimbo who wrote that article?...

The guy said it was a micropoly blend.

"So it has to do with the size of the fibers? Where does the nanotechnology come in, is it little robots?"

What did you think it was!? Nanotechnology is things that are SMALL. I'd say a micropoly bland sounds like something that is small.

A little robot is a nano-machine. Nanotechnology includes small fibers! Granted, it's probobly not at the level that really qualifies as nano-technology (strands that are a molecule thick, but can hold up a human's weight) in the truest sence of the word.

But, honestly, what did she expect? Little robots!? Look, I generally don't like to say things like this, but whoever gave this woman her big shot to go from writing Star Trek Voyager episodes on her geocities page to an actual newspaper deserves to be fired.
2003-07-18 09:27:45 PM  
Little Robots in my pants...I need to wear my Dockers more often!
2003-07-18 09:29:22 PM  
I guess nanotechnology is in the eye of the beholder.
2003-07-18 09:32:02 PM  

Never mind, I just read some other Articles, and realized Popular Science is a tabloid.
2003-07-18 09:38:44 PM  
totally agreed, it does nothing more than prove Jenny Everett is a coont.
2003-07-18 09:41:33 PM  
and she looks like an oompa loompa..
[image from too old to be available]
2003-07-18 09:42:12 PM  
Tabloid? What is this.....tabloid you speak of? I Know nothing of this......tabloid...
2003-07-18 09:42:18 PM  
The Stain defenders:

[image from too old to be available]
2003-07-18 09:44:48 PM  
A little robot is a nano-machine. Nanotechnology includes small fibers! Granted, it's probobly not at the level that really qualifies as nano-technology (strands that are a molecule thick, but can hold up a human's weight) in the truest sence of the word.

First of all, nanotechnology just means something that works because it has been crafted at the nanometer (or tens of nanometers, or maybe hundreds of nanometers if you want to be generous); it doesn't need to "hold up a human's weight," or anything like that, to be nanotechnology. I don't know how the pants work, but if they use special, incredibly small fibers to keep the teflon stuck to the pants, then yes, it's nanotech, even if it doesn't involve nanomachines per se.

Secondly, "a molecule thick" is a meaningless measurement. A diamond the size of your fist is a single molecule.
2003-07-18 09:48:55 PM  
The robots in my pants make my parts tingle.

Film at 11.
2003-07-18 09:51:49 PM  
Nanotechnology? Wait until they come with mammotechnology! Littles robots in bras..
2003-07-18 09:58:43 PM  
462, I'd be in her pants.
2003-07-18 10:00:28 PM  
[image from too old to be available]

Eh, seen it.
2003-07-18 10:02:07 PM  
Uh no rJames383 a diamond the size of your fist would not be a single molecule.
While diamond molecules are fairly large they would not be the size of your fist. unless of course you have a nanofist;) ;)
2003-07-18 10:16:19 PM  
Ahhh, the 1-800 customer service number. Birthplace of comedy. Or homicidal rage.

Yeah, this was unfair and Jenny is obviously more familiar with "popular" science than actual science.

I think they did it strictly because they liked the headline. It sounds like Engrish for a Japanese laundry detergent or something.

"Mr. Sparkle gives best satisfaction of little robots in your pants!"
2003-07-18 10:21:11 PM  
and she looks like an oompa loompa..

I dunno.. she kinda looks like a slightly less demented Bjork, whom I've always found somewhat appealing.
2003-07-18 10:27:11 PM  
Uh no rJames383 a diamond the size of your fist would not be a single molecule.
While diamond molecules are fairly large they would not be the size of your fist. unless of course you have a nanofist;)

Hmm. All this time I was under the impression that diamonds were single molecule. Ah well. But my point still stands, because you can make a polymer out of a single molecule visible to the naked eye. I was just trying to say that "molecule thick" isn't a good way to measure things.
2003-07-18 10:27:15 PM  
Well so pretty soon they are going to make shirts and uniforms that can defend stains..then..defend bullets..

1 step closer to invincibility
2003-07-18 10:31:05 PM  
My crabs are robotic, and perform regular maintenance on my pubic hair, for correct shaft length, curl, width/density and pattern.

I'm very advanced. I live in a plastic tube. Nutrients arrive via implants. I am employed as a data harvester. My designation is Zed.
2003-07-18 10:36:03 PM  
Stop messing with my head. A single diamond is indeed a single giant, covalently-bonded structure. In other words, a big diamond is indeed basically a single molecule.
2003-07-18 10:43:15 PM  
2003-07-18 10:46:51 PM  
[image from too old to be available]
2003-07-18 11:25:49 PM  
rJames383... try the definition of molecule out for size

notice a theme of 'smallest?
2003-07-18 11:25:59 PM  
Christ, this reads like a Crank Yankers script.

I hate Crank Yankers.
2003-07-18 11:29:24 PM  
well, so much for paying attention to scripting. try for a definition of molecule. comment above regarding smallest still applies, but i'm not even going to mess with the html again

/sponsored by Smirnov
2003-07-18 11:48:19 PM  
The smallest particle of a substance that retains the chemical and physical properties of the substance and is composed of two or more atoms; a group of like or different atoms held together by chemical forces.

Point taken; that shoots down diamonds. STILL doesn't shoot down a milimeter long single molecule polymers though.
2003-07-18 11:48:20 PM  
And to think all we needed was a little nanotechnology on Monica's dress, and Ken Starr would still be a nobody...

/tastes like Downy
2003-07-19 12:00:53 AM  
Who lets all these pseudointellectuals write science articles?

-Boy, pseudointellectual is a big word.
2003-07-19 12:01:01 AM  
[image from too old to be available]

I do *SO* love khakis! I think better when I wear them!
Displayed 50 of 62 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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.