Deano6

I've got a real everyday example of one of those maths problems that always seemed so contrived in textbooks... For my birthday this year my wonderful fiancee bought me a small (2 litre) "age your own whiskey" barrel. As the name describes, you put in some young / cheap / nasty tasting whiskey, age it for a number of weeks and then hey presto out pops aged / expensive / delicious whiskey (at least in theory!). It looks a lot like this... I've had a lot of fun with it, but I've also had some problems. Things were going well for a few weeks, until the spigot (tap thing) started leaking. I think it got a crack in it, so air was getting in and the liquid was escaping around the side of the tap mechanism. I ordered a replacement, which worked fine for a while, but then exactly the same thing has happened and it is leaking again. I then had the smart idea of standing it up on its end - let gravity prevent anything from leaking out of the top of the barrel. All well and good, except I was now getting leaks out of the plug on the top (now side) of the barrel where you pour the liquid in. I was ready to give up on the old girl (the barrel, not my fiancee), when I thought I'd have one last stab (at the whiskey aging, not at my...never mind). I emptied most of the barrel back into the whiskey bottles I had saved, but left the barrel around a quarter full, since I could have that amount of liquid in there without bothering either orifice of the barrel. I now have two choices: Stand the barrel on its end: spigot at the top, liquid not reaching the plug halfway up Lay the barrel down on its side: rotating it one quarter turn from the pic, so both holes are on the side halfway up and again the liquid won't reach either Given that whiskey ages via contact with the barrel, this leads to an intriguing question: Which configuration will give me the best (most aged) whiskey? Stripping away all the guff, the problem comes down to... What has greater surface area: the bottom quarter of a barrel lying down or the bottom quarter of a barrel standing up? I sat down and tried to work it out, but it was harder than I thought. I think it depends on the height of the barrel. Can anyone come up with a precise answer? Extra credit for any boffins out there: (I think) having air in the barrel is bad for the whiskey while you age it. Which of the two configurations will have least surface area of whiskey in contact with the air?

Sometimes I go out for a few drinks after work. When I come back on occasion I'll have a cheeky look at the last few posts of a thread, and find I have absolutely no idea what's going on in them. This post is one such example.

I wet shave my ballsack. Never had any complaints from the ladies. Or any compliments. Or even given them cause to notice, come to think of it.

When you look at the list of players from the other top 5 clubs, there's no way we should have taken in more than any of them!

Pls can you check the "forecast" box, Beardy?

If Bearsy masturbates to it, it's porn. That's the loosest definition.

Funny story: I've just recently got into drinking Bourbon whiskey. But I had no idea it was pronounced differently to the biscuit, so have been saying it as "bore-bon" instead of "burr-bun". Boy did they make fun of me when I tried ordering it at the bar! As I said, funny story.

You're telling him not to state the blinking obvious, while still running with your killer point...that women have babies!!

I completely missed the joke of this one. I found it fairly impenetrable on first reading. Then I realised that Betty Boop nurse is showing Jon her pert as$ in the third panel, Jon's eyes are popping out of his head and he's doing the creepy, grabby-hands motion like he's just got major hard rock on (it's unclear from the drawing, tho there is a hint of it in second panel). But then the wording didn't seem to make any sense. I had to check my memory banks and confirm that Garfield is a cat and not a dog (Odie was the dog I believe), so it wouldn't be Garfs that is having the litter of puppies. Therefore the implication was that it is Jon who is getting the puppies. Now "puppies" is a clear sexual pun for bo0bies where I come from (not where I am now), but I've never heard a rack of melons be described as a "litter of puppies" before (though I'm willing to adopt it). Therefore the only avenue left is that she is referring to the act of making babies with Jon, albeit obscurely. So the joke in my mind was: Panel 1: Jon is stressed out, bursts into the room, barely notices his cat being checked up by the innocent-looking but not unattractive nurse; takes a big swig of coffee as stressed people do (I've never understood why - it's disgusting) Panel 2: Nurse gives him the stink eye and a look of disgust; yet deep within her she feels something something primal stir inside of her, something she hasn't felt in many a long year, something uncontrollable, something she thought would never be awoken within her again; instinctively, she pushes out her now pert derrière Panel 3: Nurse's initial revulsion has given way to her lustful womanly impulses: stink-eyes turns to bedroom eyes, legs widen slightly as the air between them dampens, buttocks are extended further out towards the object of her desires, her hands start to grip the table in nervous anticipation, her belt buckle drops off; Jon for his part is helpless to the situation, he has no free will, his eyes pop out of his head, his mouth mimics the shape he sees, his head wobbles like the Churchill bulldog, his hands -trembling - reach out to grab what is on offer, within seconds he will be fulfilling his carnal destiny; meanwhile Garfield does his best Carry-on "ooh er missus" impression, with an acerbic aside to the audience But according to the Bear, I'm supposed to have seen something about drinking sperm. How was I supposed to make that leap from the information provided?

I am nothing but love. Hopeless, unrequited love.

Bit mean.

If not more!

Bit mean.

Hi Bearsy, I've actually been collecting data on this for a while now...happy to share. My research actually relaxed the threshold from 10 down to 1, to hopefully retain more positives and so get a higher statistical credibility. I can confirm that zero women were interested. Research has been collected over 13 years so far, but the experiment is ongoing.

4 mins added time in second half is absolutely standard in any game, as is 2 mins in first half (not really sure why it would be different, other than nobody really gives a sh!t in the first half). Any time wasting in the first half would have been addressed in the added time at 45 mins, not added on at the end.

Yes, I'd like that too.

I wish my boss would take me off for a holiday every time I underperformed.

Because he's black. Sh*t.

Please please please get some arrows printed out for the Palace game!!

The six seconds is only when the ball is in play, in the keeper's hands. It doesn't apply to keepers taking a long time over goal kicks, which Foster got booked for. If keepers get pulled up for the six second rule then the award would be an indirect free kick in the area, which is why a ref would never give it. Also, the worth remembering: - the counting does not begin until the keeper is in possession of the ball and ABLE to think about releasing it into general play. Not when he first catches it / is getting up from the floor. - football fans can't keep time (as is evident from any rendition of OWTS at St Mary's). Also fans have an interest in rushing the count ("not my tempo"). - referees are advised to apply discretion in applying this rule, which is normally for a trivial offence. I thought the red did well yesterday to eventually award a yellow for one too many incidents on the goal kick

I dunno what our financial resources are like, and face it neither do you, but if the club wanted a top quality striker then Andre Schurrle was available. Surely Wolfsburg aren't that much ahead of us?

Bearso - you're well overdue for your movie review, please and thank you.

RIP Deano, number 6. My favourite player.

It's not as bad as you might think actually. The 26 games figure is irrelevant, what matters is number of shots they've faced. It doesn't matter if these happened over 100 games or in just 1. You can measure the statistical significance of the sample size fairly easily. Given that a shot is either saved or not (so follows a Bernoulli distribution), the range of results are typically 60-75% and number of shots faced range from 60-120, the standard error comes out to about +/-5%. It's not great, and I certainly wouldn't use the measure to separate two keepers with similar stats, but given the spread of results is over a 15% range you could separate into a few (perhaps three) tiers of goalkeepers based on their shot stopping this season. Fraser would easily fall within the upper third on that basis. As has been mentioned many times, the stats could be refined with more data (either going back over more games to add more shots faced and lower the standard error, or additional info to better distinguish between difficulty of these shots). Also clearly shot stopping is only one of a number of attributes of a good goalkeeper, although it was the one questioned on this thread. For a more rounded assessment of each keeper from the first half of the season, see this article (tho better to avoid if you are a Forster-hater). http://www.caughtoffside.com/2014/11/29/ranking-the-premier-league-keepers-from-20-1-this-term-man-united-chelsea-men-knocked-from-top-spot/