- That'd be a ridiculous amount of rain! 184.108.40.206 06:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Skeletonize a cow
Isn't there an urban myth that pirahnas can skeletonize a cow in under 2 minutes? 220.127.116.11 10:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- According to , it's not myth - you only need few nets and few hundreds of piranhas. It was not mentioned how far they needed to go to get that number of piranhas, but I would suppose setting up that kind of practical joke can't take more that few days. -- Hkmaly (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Does Amazon sell beef by any chance? I mean: while amazon.com can probably ship a package from Iquitos to Manaus, the Amazon can only nearly, because Manaus is situated a few kilometers upstream of a river branch where the package from Iquitos would float by. Makes me think whether there is a similiar comparison with skeltonized cows. Hence beef. 18.104.22.168 15:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC) madd
- There was a TV programme of the Michael Palin type that took a boat trip up or down the Amazon. One of the fish mentioned in the river could strip the meat off a cow in seconds. It was a deep water dweller, not the common piranha and "IIGC" a bottom feeder so its normal cuisine was "probably" already done to falling off the bone. I saw this programme once long long ago.
If the package was being delivered by dugout on the river its speed could well exceed the 4 to 6 or more knots likely experienced in mid channel. (I seem to recall figures in the region of 8 to 12 knots.)
"lost it at 'Minutes to skeletonize a cow'." sounds like food for thought being off-putting. The stripping would not have been done by an Amazon courier as slaughtering a cow takes a lot longer by human than the minutes suggested here. The time that it would have had to lose would be considerably more than minutes considering the likely gain that a canoe piloted at mid channel as constantly as possible would make Amazon.com a lot faster even if the canoe was just drifting and not under power.
A package drifting in the Amazon would quickly get entangled in the growth along the banks and might even, on occasion, drift up-stream I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Reason for comparison
I think the main reason for this comparison is the dispute over the .amazon TLD between Amazon.com on one side and Brazil and Peru on the other. --22.214.171.124 11:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I assume you mean this article (or alike): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2242994/Brazil-Peru-web-giant-Amazon-battle-amazon-domain-name.html 126.96.36.199 09:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, they are comparing who is “more worth” the domain name and this comic shows how to compare them --188.8.131.52 19:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Just want to say that I always thought it was a mistake to add to the (generally) three-character traditional non-geographic TLDs that they used to have. This despite buying myself a .info when that first came out, mostly as a novelty similar to the acre of Moon. (But .aero? .museum? Really?) Still, can't begrudge them the drift to non-Western characters (just wish it'd been direct non-Western equivalents to .com, .org, .mil, .gov, etc... Anyway, what's wrong with just letting each national TLD logically and self-consistently expand upon their own existing standards (.co.uk, .com.au, etc) in a manner the locals would understand, and let significant metanational organisations (UN) do the same for their own subset of responsibilities in their own pseudo-national TLD. (You see, I over-think these things.) 184.108.40.206 16:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Is anyone else thinking what I am?
Its been a while since Munroe has given something seriously good/thoughtful.... I am getting the inner feeling that he is planning something big. Like BIG . Anyone here concurs with me? 220.127.116.11 14:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I will second that. It has been a while since he has had any labour intentive jokes. 18.104.22.168 16:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Rounds 1-13
Am I the only one who wants to know what the other 11 criteria might be? 22.214.171.124 19:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
No. But we know 3 of them, right? So we just need 10 more. 126.96.36.199 18:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
We need 11 more. This is criterion 14, and we know 3 of them including this one. 188.8.131.52 22:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)