Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
It's funny. Laugh.

The Creamy Center of the Atom 108

Posted by Hemos from the but-is-it-nougat dept.
There's a funny article on SatireWire with a light hearted view of the joys at the center of the atom. Better then a Crackerjack box.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Creamy Center of the Atom More

The Creamy Center of the Atom

Comments Filter:
  • The article doesn't say who sponsored the prize.

    I think we should be told!
    • The article doesn't say who sponsored the prize.

      God, ofcourse.
    • The article doesn't say who sponsored the prize.

      I think we should be told!

      Sure it does... From the article (and I quote):

      Ironically, while the lure of tiny tokens has shaped history and led scientists to unravel much of the riddle of the atom, the existence of the prizes themselves is perhaps the greatest mystery facing physics today. Who, they still wonder, put the prizes there?


      Many have proposed theories. Einstein thought it was aliens. Niels Bohr suspected it was Einstein. Ernest Rutherford conjectured that the prizes were natural formations.

      But most physicists today accept the argument espoused by Nobel laureate Ernest Walton, who along with John Cockcroft split the atom in 1932. In early 1946, Walton was thrilled to discover a decoder ring and secret message inside a carbon atom. After four days of painstaking work, he finally deciphered the message: "Sorry," it read, "you're not a winner. Try again."

      "That's gotta be God," Walton reportedly said.


      my $0.05 (keep the change)
      T

  • Then? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by JacobO ( 41895 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @09:17AM (#3462457)
    I know this is not exactly on topic but this is something I am really sick of... why write "then" when you mean "than"? Do you people really say "then" in that context? Or perhaps you really mean something was better, and _then_ became a Crackerjack box?

    Ok, rant over.
    • Simple typo. Learn to live with it. I have, and I'm really picky about spelling.
    • It's also unclear whether the thing that's "better ..." is the atom, what was found in the atom or the article about the things in the atom.

    • I think there should be a rather dilbertian rule for people who point out spelling and grammer flaws on /.

      The complaining post must contain perfect grammer and spelling, or they must send beer to Taco in compensation. Sounds fair?

      ("I am really sick of" -> "of which I am really sick", etc.)

      • Re:Then? (Score:3, Troll)

        by PurpleBob ( 63566 )
        The idea of not being allowed to end a sentence with a preposition came from misguided scholars who thought English should be like Latin. The sentence structure of English means it makes perfect sense to end a sentence with a preposition. People who tell you otherwise are people who enjoy appearing intelligent. These are also the people who will arbitrarily turn adjectives into adverbs ("I feel badly") because it sounds more grammatical.

        When you criticise the grammar of someone criticizing grammar using a false grammar rule and misspell "grammar" at the same time, does that mean you have to send a case of beer to Taco?
        • It's almost as irritating as people 'minusing' and 'timesing' stuff.
      • ("I am really sick of" -> "of which I am really sick", etc.)

        "Excuse me, where is the library at?"
        "Here at Hahvahd, we never end a sentence with a preposition."
        "O.K. Excuse me, where is the library at, *asshole*?"

    • The editors are doing their bit to keep the spelling on this site consistent - we should applaud them for their efforts. Given that you have a sub-50K user ID, I would have thought you would have figured that out by now!

      Or perhaps it's just taken you this long to reach the point where you couldn't take it any longer? You must be a postal employee...

  • "you're not a winner. Try again." (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 04, 2002 @09:19AM (#3462463)

    In early 1946, Walton was thrilled to discover a decoder ring and secret message inside a carbon atom. After four days of painstaking work, he finally deciphered the message: "Sorry," it read, "you're not a winner. Try again."

    That sounds so much like an MS EULA it seriously makes you wonder :)
  • Caramel?

    or

    Nuget (sp)?

  • Funny Article To Spawn New Researchers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by totallygeek ( 263191 ) <sellis@totallygeek.com> on Saturday May 04, 2002 @09:21AM (#3462470) Homepage
    You know, this type of website can be extremely helpful in rebuilding interest in particle physics. I remember when in college (I was a physics major), we asked around why people choose to work in physics. The responses were usually based on something like cartoons, science fiction movies, etc. It was rarely that a person just wanted to get into it from some serious perspective. Making fun of the atom internals might get someone interested in wanting to learn what really is inside the atom.

    • *digging up old usenet post*

      Subject: Scientists are LAME!
      From: Teg Pipes
      Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology

      The straight line I've been waiting for for the past four years was finally delivered today. In the lab, obviously, four people were there, standing around the water cooler, talking about some heroic genetic screen, nice, pregnant pause after the straight line just begging to be exploited like a coal mine in the south east and I slid my joke in beautifully and...NOTHING! THEY ALL JUST STARED AT ME! FUCKS! I'LL KILL YOU ALL!

      POST-DOC: ...that was the night that I mated four-thousand pairs of flies.

      ME: Boy, you must've been really sore after that!

      ME: G'NIGHT FOLKS! DRIVE SAFELY!

      I work in a stupid genetics lab for FOUR YEARS waiting for that line, FOUR YEARS! And when it finally comes, I make my joke and EVERYONE JUST LOOKS AT ME! ARRRRRGH! I COULD'VE BEEN DOING BIOCHEMISTRY ALL THIS TIME!

    • Heh. I'm currently doing two majors and a minor: Computer Science, Physics, and Mathematics, respectively. The reason I got into physics is simply that I like the pretty colours. :) I plan to earn graduate degrees in astrophysics and stare at the stars for a living.

  • Not as they seem.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by I Want GNU! ( 556631 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @09:21AM (#3462471) Homepage
    Atoms made these days are getting worse and worse. They are filling them mostly with air these days so that you get less actual nucleic matter per bag! They do it over time so that you don't notice. In each atom, only a small percentage is actual protons and neutrons, and the rest is air. I think they learned something from the frito-lay company.

    If they expect this "prize" debacle to make me buy again, they should think again. They can expect me to return to buying them once they increase the atoms' density to what it once was.

    But then again, this is the same company donating millions to Senator Hollings to pass legislation that prevents fair use of atoms, so I don't think they are going to change. It's a disgrace, I tell you!

    • Re:Not as they seem.. (Score:3, Informative)

      by jafuser ( 112236 )
      Atoms made these days are getting worse and worse. They are filling them mostly with air these days so that you get less actual nucleic matter per bag!
      Sounds like you've got a bad collection of atoms there. For most of us, atoms are generally getting more and more dense as the universe is cooling down... You should probably check with your local atom distributor and make sure they're sending you the cool stuff, and not just a bunch of hot air...
    • It's quite simple, in fact. The outside of the atom is made out of particles. To make it cheaper, they started to manufacture the inside out of air^H^H^Hwaves. Eighty years ago, they were paid to create a theory about why it's as good, so atoms reamined just as expensive.

      Good thing they didn't have DMCA back then. In that case, it would be much easier for them to just prohibit any study of atoms, as a protection against reverse engineering. Or, atoms would be encrypted well enough no one could really find out what's inside.

      ;)
  • There once was a atomic nuclide
    rumored were toys on the inside
    was sure Hemos was a liar
    turned out to be satire
    there are times I'd prefer "BSD has died"
  • A good read even if it really is news or stuff that matters, a little humor never killed anyone. Of course if you are one of the many polled by the NSF who answered NO to the question Is there any particles smaller than an atom then don't waste your time.
  • First, God said "Let there be light, and darkness." Then, He said, "Let everything be constructed of little tiny pieces of stuff, so small the silly humans can't see them." And then He said, "Let there be little toys inside these tiny pieces, so that anyone smart enough may have a little fun. These shall be tops, stickers, and anything else I deem to be fun." And thus it was, and it was good.

  • ticket to ride (Score:3, Funny)

    by envelope ( 317893 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @09:35AM (#3462501) Homepage Journal
    I'm still looking for the atom with the gold ticket inside so that I can tour Willy Wonka's factory.

    • I wouldn't bother if I were you. Since Charlie's been running the place for the last 30 years, it's gone straight down the crapper. There was a disgruntled Oompa-Loompa incident a few years back, and the Sony lawsuit over Wonka-vision has nearly backrupt the company.

  • my (Score:5, Funny)

    by falsemover ( 190073 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @09:42AM (#3462516)
    this confirms my earlier theory, which was also recently corroborated by my two year old son, that toys are in fact the fundmental building blocks of the universe.

    garçons et leurs jouets minuscules

    • Re:my (Score:2)

      by flewp ( 458359 )
      I've always thought building blocks (legos, those blocks with letters on them, etc) were the toys of the universe.

  • Slow news day? (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by Alsee ( 515537 )
    This is as lame as the April 1st articles.

    Don't waste your time following the link. It's not even funny.

    -

    • Re:Slow news day? (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by keesh ( 202812 )
      Go away. Your UID is too low to be allowed to make that kind of comment. Welcome to my foes list.

      (Posting anonymously to preserve my precious karma)
      • Go away. Your UID is too low to be allowed to make that kind of comment.

        Pretty rich, coming from a >200K UID. Are you saying you thought the linked article was actually amusing (in what universe???), or do you simply object to the obvious being pointed out?

      • Go away.
        Ummm, let me think about that a second...
        *thinking about it*
        *thinking about it*
        Ok, I decided...
        no.

        Your UID is too low to be allowed to make that kind of comment.
        Lets see, is your UID 1, CmdrTaco? Nope? Is your UID 2, Hemos? Nope. Then I guess you don't get to decide what kind of comments I'm allowed to make on here. Perhaps you have delusions of grandeur.

        Welcome to my foes list.
        And if you think I care then you definitely have delusions of grandeur.

        In my oppinion the article was a waste of time and not funny. Readers are free to take or ignore my advice at will.

        -

  • Linking to the site and the story (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jdavidb ( 449077 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @09:44AM (#3462518) Homepage Journal

    Something's starting to annoy me. When you submit an article and link to a page on another site, you don't have to put the name of the site in a hyperlink. Nearly every person here knows how to get to the main page for the site if they want to, and usually the main page isn't directly relevant to the story.

    Sometimes [sometimes.com] it [it.com] seems [seems.com] like [like.com] people [people.com] link [link.com] for [for.com] every [every.com] word [word.com] in [in.com] the [the.com] article [article.com] and [and.com] it's [its.com] hard [hard.com] to [to.com] figure [figure.com] out [out.com] which [which.com] link [link.com] is [is.com] the [the.com] one [one.com] with [with.com] the [the.com] story. [story.com]

  • Be careful (Score:5, Funny)

    by Joe the Lesser ( 533425 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @09:46AM (#3462519) Homepage Journal
    This is a warning to all you would be chemists!

    Some atoms may have razorblades or poison inside, so if your element isn't wrapped, have your parent check it out.

    Safety first!

    • Re:Be careful (Score:4, Funny)

      by aiabx ( 36440 ) on Saturday May 04, 2002 @10:06AM (#3462560)
      This is an urban legend. There have been no verified instances of razor blades in atoms.
      -aiabx
        • This is an urban legend. There have been no verified instances of razor blades in atoms.
          • -aiabx

        So you say. But, I happen to know a Scientist who does nothing all day but xray atoms. What's he looking for if it's not razor blades, hmmm?

  • I wonder. If any of you have wandered through the cereal aisle, you know that children's cereals have now started to package CD-ROMs instead of regular prizes. If you look closely, you see that these CD's all have a little AOL logo. That's right, they're AOL CDs, meant to sucker kids into installing AOL on their parents' computers.

    How long until the first AOL CD is found inside an atom (1000 microns free[1]!)? When found, will it make it so the electron microscopes can no longer view non-AOL atoms?

    [1] Yes I know it's a unit of distance, but if parsecs can be an unit of time, microns can be too; thanks, Lucas.
    • I no longer allow my kids to play with those CDs. You have to click a tiny little button in plain text marked "Do not install" three or four times to prevent AOL from installing. But, click the big friendly graphical button marked "Start Here" and the game gets installed ALONG with AOL, Real, and who knows what else.

      I just buy them the generic brand cereals now, they've got enough toys.

  • But I guess it's news for nerds, huh?
  • Slashdot's coverage of remote-controlled rats [slashdot.org] was woefully inadequate. SatireWire has the full story [satirewire.com]. It appears that the Pentagon is having a difficult time deciding which is the politically correct animal to control. Many slashdotters have experience working with ratlike animals, perhaps they can lend their expertise. Which species would you chose for remote-controlled search and rescue missions?
  • Quarks taste pretty good I've heard..
    Warfs and Jadzeeas aren't as good though..
  • How many licks does it take to get to the creamy center of an atom?

    One, two, three..
  • SatireWire is intended for use by those age 18 and older. All stories are fictional and satirical and should not in any way be construed as fact. Please read our disclaimer. All contents Copyright © 1999-2002, SatireWire, LLC
  • That whistle should be made a standard tool for ... so that it matches the size of their ... .

    I leave it up to you to fill in the blanks.
  • How many licks does it take to get to the Creamy Center of an Atom?

    Hmmm. Let's see.
    A-one...
    A-two...
    A-*CRUNCH*-three!
    It takes THREE licks!

Slashdot Top Deals

"Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it." -- Alex Schure

Close