I learned physics by watching the Roadrunner.

I refer to one of my favourite episodes where Wylie Coyote points an electric fan towards the sail on a boat he is on and it moves, LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

As Bugs Bunny would say, "I know this doesn't follow the laws of physics, but I never studied law!"

My other favourite episode.........




I love the musical score



Hey, this post is about as relevant to real life as the equation that has, what, taken up 6 pages so far?

It's TWO! FFS!

You gotta remove the brackets first and to do so you gotta multiply the 2 to the numbers inside the brackets.


48 / 2(9+3)
= 48 / 18 + 6
= 48 / 24
= 2

if you follow that you would end up having to divide 48 by 18 first.

Okay... I had a nice bowl, and I have another way of presenting the equation. Instead of that confusing ÷ symbol, and fucking around with division. Let's multiply the inverse (witchcraft, for those not in the know):

48 ÷ 2(9+3)
48 * ½(9+3)
48 * 6
=288

I cannot believe that this is 6 pages long.

Following BEDMAS you'd solve the brackets 1st, below is a clearer version of my answer

48 / 2(9+3)
= 48 / [2(9+3)]
= 48 / [18 + 6]
= 48 / 24
= 2

http://www.allkpop.com/2011/04/kwak-...to-48%C3%B7293

i wouldn't trust most pop stars with simple grade 2 math

keep this shit on misc.

Classic Looney Tunes is the best ever - the whole sequence with the catapult and all the different ways it fails has me busting a gut every freakin' time I watch it.

I went to Bugs Bunny on Broadway at the Orpheum a couple years ago - where a real orchestra plays along with the cartoons. The conductor relates various stories, anecdotes and trivia along the way, and one of the best bits, for me, was the fact that the various directors (particularly, Friz Freling, Tex Avery, Bob McKimson, and of course, Chuck Jones) were in constant competition to come up with something funnier than the last guy.

Edit: here it is - good part starts at 3:58. I know every frame of this sequence and it still cracks me up watching it.

She's more qualified than 99% of the members here.

That and I got 2 as well :lol

this shit is insane 6 pages.... the answer is 288 for the tards that think its 2 presto just explained it perfectly.

48 ÷ 2(9+3) = 48 ÷ 2(12) = 48 ÷ 24 = 2 CORRECT METHOD

48 ÷ 2(9+3) = 48 ÷ 2(12) = 48 ÷ 2 x 12 = 288 INCORRECT


48 ÷ 2(12) IS NOT THE SAME AS 48 ÷ 2 x 12
the brackets are there for a reason you cant just replace it with a "x"

So hilarious. I remember Bugs Bunny Show was on every Saturday along with Disney on KVOS? Anyway, I would cry everytime my dad watched his HNIC. I hated hockey when I was little, 'cause it meant no cartoons. My dad wasn't home in the summer months, so that was a bonus. Of course later on, I started to play hockey and I started watching hockey with the old man. Dave Keon, ftmfw!!!

math question and 5 pages in one day. asians, you so crazay!
Posted via RS Mobile

Did you read what I wrote? The physics are far from easy. You have to design and build a conveyor belt capable of going to infinity in zero time, and account for the real world losses.

Mythbusters applied their own assumptions to the myth, since the myth makes no mention of what type of plane, conveyor belt, ... thus why we could debate this forever. The conveyor belt they designed, frankly, sucked, and had no hope of even keeping a car stationary, nevermind the plane.

at the end of the day who gives a fuk nigga.

ummm... 119 pages here:
http://niketalk.yuku.com/topic/294672/48-2-9-3

it's become a meme on bb.com misc forums LOL

The brackets are there to evaluate the summation. Once the summation is complete (resulting in 12), it becomes a matter of how the individual perceives the associativity.

1) (48÷2) x 12
2) 48÷(2 x 12)

The issue is, division is non-associative, hence why everyone is up in arms and debating which is the correct answer.

If one however prioritizes distributivity before BEDMAS, the question becomes reformulated as:
48 ÷ (2 x 9 + 2 x 3) = 48 ÷ 24 = 2

Where's the Stephen Hawking signal?

there is 1 thing this formula doing..

it's reigniting Math like it's 100 AD

Does the equation take off?

Why do a lot of people tend to group the 2(9+3) and treat it as ONE unit (ie. IMPLYING that there are brackets around it: [2(9+3)] )? I wasn't sure until I searched around Google for a few seconds and found that apparently it's called 'implied multiplication by juxtaposition'.

This phenomenon (the idea that implicit multiplication takes precedence over explicit) was brought about due to the practice of omitting the * operand next to variables/brackets when expressing multiplication.

lol learn something new every day (even though most of us have already been doing this without realizing it).

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/54341.html

similar type of ambiguous equation: ax/by

this pretty much sums it up and is pretty much what I (and some others) have stated: