• jisakujien (cs)

    What, you never played wheelbarrel races as a kid?

  • Joachim Otahal (unregistered) in reply to jisakujien
    jisakujien:
    What, you never played wheelbarrel races as a kid?

    But I had my hands at the legs, and not an the waist. That is probably the thinking error the "Designer" made.

  • Kilrah (unregistered)

    Yeh... but standing a little further behind ;)

  • LFS (unregistered) in reply to Kilrah
    Kilrah:
    Yeh... but standing a little further behind ;)

    Showoff... jk.

  • D (unregistered)

    As I read the sequence: Wave, hold hands, swing, bonk ... Sounds like a fun date

  • freelancer (cs) in reply to LFS
    Alex@the article:
    Although today was technically supposed to be only Classics, I couldn't resist not sharing this fun submission from Kevin Cazabon
    Double negative, which kinda translates to "I could resist sharing". You screwed up.
  • MatzeLocal (unregistered)

    The weirdness doubles as it is from belgium....

  • Jebus (unregistered) in reply to jisakujien

    Not only as a kid, but just the other night ;)

  • bobbo (unregistered) in reply to freelancer
    Comment held for moderation.
  • qbolec (cs) in reply to LFS
    LFS:
    Kilrah:
    Yeh... but standing a little further behind ;)

    Showoff... jk.

    :DDD

    My friend asked me for a link to any website I find interesting, and make it explicitly clear, that I should not point to any pr0n. I gave link to this site, and to make sure, checked the frontpage...to see this. Now he thinks I'm pervert. (Curious Perversions in Information Technology - now illustrated!)

  • Kitgerrits (unregistered)

    BELGIUM, man Belgium (42)

    I just got back from near Antwerp, I should've gone to Brussles.

    Captcha: doom (as in Terminator 2?)

  • H|B (cs)

    Being Brazilian, I'm not only amazed with the icons but also with the total absence of vandalism on the sign! Down here, that plate would be completely destroyed within days. Possibly by the very children in the park...

  • Valacosa (unregistered) in reply to freelancer
    Comment held for moderation.
  • madjo (cs) in reply to H|B
    H|B:
    Being Brazilian, I'm not only amazed with the icons but also with the total absence of vandalism on the sign! Down here, that plate would be completely destroyed within days. Possibly by the very children in the park...
    I guess he had found the one sign that had survived any vandalisme.

    BTW is that a bullet dent in the middle of the sign?

  • Chris (unregistered) in reply to Valacosa
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Arancaytar (cs) in reply to madjo
    madjo:
    H|B:
    Being Brazilian, I'm not only amazed with the icons but also with the total absence of vandalism on the sign! Down here, that plate would be completely destroyed within days. Possibly by the very children in the park...
    I guess he had found the one sign that had survived any vandalisme.

    BTW is that a bullet dent in the middle of the sign?

    I doubt it. We have different gun control laws here in Europe. :P

    Edit: Besides, what kind of gun would barely scratch the metal? Air rifle? I've seen pictures of US highway signs that have been shot at; those are real holes normally.

  • freelancer (cs) in reply to Valacosa
    Valacosa:
    freelancer:
    Alex@the article:
    Although today was technically supposed to be only Classics, I couldn't resist not sharing this fun submission from Kevin Cazabon
    Double negative, which kinda translates to "I could resist sharing". You screwed up.
    I saw this comment, and I can't not tell you how wrong you are.

    See my statement above? It's different than, "I can tell you how wrong you are," which means I could make a statement but I'm not compelled to do so. But I am compelled to point out your error. Ergo, "I can't not tell you how wrong you are."

    Language is fuzzy. It's not like binary operations. Double nots don't necessarily cancel each other out. Get used to that.

    My bad, english isn't my native language. But he still got it wrong. He did say "I couldn't resist not sharing", not "I couldn't not share". And resist is kinda a negative (right?), which makes it "I couldn't not not share", or "I couldn't share".

  • Jackal von ÖRF (cs)
  • Valacosa (unregistered) in reply to freelancer
    Comment held for moderation.
  • brazzy (cs) in reply to Jackal von ÖRF
    Jackal von ÖRF:
    Except that one is doctored. I've been in Japan, and the real signs are not so amusingly conspicious. Besides, why would the "person with injured leg" have a big belly?

    This, on the other hand, is real:

    [image]

    Addendum (2007-05-28 18:37): BTW, here's a link debunking the japanese sign and showing the real one: http://japundit.com/archives/2005/12/28/1774/

  • Nathan Taylor (unregistered) in reply to Valacosa
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Kain0_0 (cs) in reply to freelancer
    freelancer:
    Alex@the article:
    Although today was technically supposed to be only Classics, I couldn't resist not sharing this fun submission from Kevin Cazabon
    Double negative, which kinda translates to "I could resist sharing". You screwed up.

    The problem here with english, is that this particular usage of a double not is a superlative. In other words, he really want's to point out the difficulty he had trying to stop himself, having obviously failed in doing so.

  • Antony Curtis (unregistered) in reply to brazzy
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Over. (cs) in reply to brazzy
    brazzy:
    This, on the other hand, is real:

    [image]

    Ahh... Fucking, Austria. Fun times to be had there!

  • Watson (unregistered) in reply to Valacosa
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Over. (cs) in reply to Antony Curtis
    Antony Curtis:
    The funny thing about the German sign is the bit below the name of the town... it reads "Please - not so fast!"

    That it does.

    It rather reminds me of the "SLOW Children at play" signs common here in the states.

    When I was a kid, I always mis-parsed that to imply that the children were either retarded or lethargic.

  • Steve (unregistered) in reply to bobbo
    bobbo:
    freelancer:
    You screwed up.
    I'm glad there are others as pedantic as I am. *Leaves self wide-open to abuse [topically]*
    Topical abuse to all grammar Nazis.
  • Mischief (unregistered) in reply to Jackal von ÖRF

    That's good thinking. Having a raging hard-on should qualify for priority seating.

  • rjnewton (cs) in reply to Valacosa
    Valacosa:
    freelancer:
    Alex@the article:
    Although today was technically supposed to be only Classics, I couldn't resist not sharing this fun submission from Kevin Cazabon
    Double negative, which kinda translates to "I could resist sharing". You screwed up.
    I saw this comment, and I can't not tell you how wrong you are.

    See my statement above? It's different than, "I can tell you how wrong you are," which means I could make a statement but I'm not compelled to do so. But I am compelled to point out your error. Ergo, "I can't not tell you how wrong you are."

    Good example
    Language is fuzzy. It's not like binary operations. Double nots don't necessarily cancel each other out. Get used to that.
    Bad conclusion. Double nots do indeed cancel each other out, but you have to be careful in recognzing what is being negated.

    The only conclusion I can come to from the original formulation is that Alex's attempt, at some point along the way to keep this juicy bit to himself, was overridden. Perhaps the notably WTF-y software here pulled a HAL on him "Sorry Alex..."

  • Bob S (unregistered) in reply to Mischief

    This must be their solution to the problem of groping in the Tokyo subway -- anyone w/ a hard-on has to sit down.

  • Opie (cs) in reply to rjnewton
    rjnewton:
    Bad conclusion. Double nots do indeed cancel each other out, but you have to be careful in recognzing what is being negated.

    That is true. It's something often missed by people and to miss it is a logical fallacy that politicians like to take advantage of in long, drawn out arguments that eventually negate themselves while seeming not to do so.

    The negation of not is indeed not not, but not not is not maybe, it's is. ;)

    Therefore, to say I cannot not do x means I must do x. It works like any other boolean operator. It just, therefore, depends on precedence and associativity.

    You can even write it out in code. No matter where you put the not operator, it will negate anything in the term following it, including any contained nots.

    So !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!false)))))))) is true. Therefore, if I say I must not not not not not not not not not not do x, I must do x.

    There is nothing fuzzy about it. Not true is false. Not false is true.

    So therefore it follows that x is x, not x is not x, and not not x is x.

    This only breaks down if it's not boolean, but when it comes down to a use like in that sentence, where it's a choice between doing or not doing a thing, it is boolean.

  • Ruakh (cs)

    So can no one explain what this sign actually means?

  • Eternal Density (cs)

    so... not true is false, not false is true, but what's not boolean? I guess not boolean must be file_not_found.

  • Non English (unregistered) in reply to rjnewton
    Comment held for moderation.
  • acne (cs) in reply to Antony Curtis
    Antony Curtis:
    brazzy:
    Jackal von ÖRF:
    Except that one is doctored. I've been in Japan, and the real signs are not so amusingly conspicious. Besides, why would the "person with injured leg" have a big belly?

    This, on the other hand, is real:

    [image]

    Addendum (2007-05-28 18:37): BTW, here's a link debunking the japanese sign and showing the real one: http://japundit.com/archives/2005/12/28/1774/

    The funny thing about the German sign is the bit below the name of the town... it reads "Please - not so fast!"

    Bonus points for french speaking people seeing this (and not understanding german): "bite" (with only one T, but hey, it's a foreign language) is a slang word meaning... penis!
  • brazzy (cs) in reply to Ruakh
    Ruakh:
    So can no one explain what this sign actually means?

    The "Fucking" one? It's simple the name of the town; the -ing ending is common in southern Germany and Austria. In and around Munich where I live there's Schwabing, Eching, Poing, Erding, Harlaching and, yes, Kissing. Even better, there's a town with nearly the same name that's also a health spa and thus allowed to call it self Bad Kissingen (a shame about the -en).

    Oh, and the "not so fast" sign with the kids is simply meant to urge drivers to think of the children and go slowly.

  • Romanski (cs)

    AARGH the Full Articles option is not doing anything again! (I do remember it working at some point)

    Any suggestions as to how to get the full articles back?

  • dkf (unregistered) in reply to Opie
    Opie:
    This only breaks down if it's not boolean, but when it comes down to a use like in that sentence, where it's a choice between doing or not doing a thing, it is boolean.
    It also breaks down when you have modal operators interspersed in there (e.g. "eventually", "always", "next", "might", etc.) when multiple negations are much harder to disentangle. On the other hand, Alex's original double negation was just sloppy language; he should have left out the "not"...
  • Taz (cs) in reply to Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Over.

    ROTFLMAO at the Austrian sign.

    I didn't get the "bite" thing, probably because I speak French and German. Joke's on me here.

    Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Over.:
    Antony Curtis:
    The funny thing about the German sign is the bit below the name of the town... it reads "Please - not so fast!"

    That it does.

    It rather reminds me of the "SLOW Children at play" signs common here in the states.

    When I was a kid, I always mis-parsed that to imply that the children were either retarded or lethargic.

    You're right in your interpretation. Without proper punctuation, it effectively reads "Retards at play" in non-PC speak. IMO, "SLOW, children at play" was the intended message, which opens a whole other can of worms that doesn't belong to this thread.

  • Ronald (unregistered) in reply to rjnewton
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Koesper (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • MET (cs)

    There is also a place in Austria named Seewinkel. It seems to be a good place for comedic names for English speakers.

  • Lord Manley (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • squeese (unregistered) in reply to Valacosa
    Comment held for moderation.
  • anon (unregistered) in reply to Opie
    Opie:
    rjnewton:
    Bad conclusion. Double nots do indeed cancel each other out, but you have to be careful in recognzing what is being negated.

    That is true. It's something often missed by people and to miss it is a logical fallacy that politicians like to take advantage of in long, drawn out arguments that eventually negate themselves while seeming not to do so.

    The negation of not is indeed not not, but not not is not maybe, it's is. ;)

    Therefore, to say I cannot not do x means I must do x. It works like any other boolean operator. It just, therefore, depends on precedence and associativity.

    You can even write it out in code. No matter where you put the not operator, it will negate anything in the term following it, including any contained nots.

    So !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!false)))))))) is true. Therefore, if I say I must not not not not not not not not not not do x, I must do x.

    There is nothing fuzzy about it. Not true is false. Not false is true. ... This only breaks down if it's not boolean, but when it comes down to a use like in that sentence, where it's a choice between doing or not doing a thing, it is boolean.

    You seem to be claiming English grammar is a context-free grammar.

    It's not.

  • EmmanuelD (unregistered) in reply to acne
    Comment held for moderation.
  • EJ_ (cs) in reply to Opie

    never never say that again :D

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to Valacosa

    Your point would apply if the original were to read: "I couldn't not share this fun submission," with the "resist" stripped out. But the original phrase contains a triple negative, if you count "resist" as negative (that's what it is in context). So whether the text was supposed to read like: "I am compelled to resist sharing this fun submission," or it was supposed to read like: "I might resist sharing this fun submission," the point stands.

  • totolamoto (unregistered) in reply to acne

    Actually 'bite' in french is written 'bitte'. Comes from the 'bitte d'amarage' a bollard in english. The wrong spelling with one T is more common though.

  • cowgod (unregistered)

    that sign actually made me laugh out loud. lots of times people just say "lol" or "roflmao" but they really don't, well i did. that was just hilarious.

Leave a comment on “Playground Fun”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article