428

428

New research has determined that bees can count to the number four. Many people are incredibly impressed with this, after all, even the counting horses have been debunked as taking largely invisible cues from their handlers. But I don’t think it’s all that great. I got a D in my college algebra class, and even I can count higher than that.

20 Responses to 428

  1. Meh… Computers can only count to two, and look what they can do: lightning in a box that moves really slowly. Imagine this conversation with some smarty from the middle ages: Someday, we’ll replace books with computers. It’s like a book, but really annoying. And it breaks half the time:)

  2. Hmm, random thought: If the player behind Morty decided to be a Dwarf cleric because of the racial advantages, but now is a rabbit / furry, what are the racial advantages of a furry?

    Re: counting. I can count to a hundred really quickly:-

    1, 2, miss a few, 99, 100.

    Cheers.

  3. A few? Given that the definition of a few is 5 or 6 that’s 16 fews at a minimum, I’d say your counting abilities need refinement.

  4. The matter of number to colloquialism conversion has been studied by many cunning linguists, including myself.

    Some common conversions are

    Couple = 2
    Few = 3*
    Some = more than a few
    Or if you are a hill dwarf, anything larger than 2 is ‘Many’.

    For a complete detailed list; see my published works.

    * The conversion of ‘few’ into units of time however yields a vastly fluctuating and indeterminable number of variants. For example, my wife will stay in the bathroom for ‘a few minutes’ and that ranges from 10 to 43. I have also been on hold for ‘a few minutes’ that range anywhere from 3 minutes to a call that I started with AOL back in January 8th of 1994 and am still paying the phone company to keep the line.

  5. While I’ve not heard “a few” defined so concretely, would it be better if he said “1, 2, miss a couple^2 of few^2, 99, 100? That might actually overshoot as, at the bare minimum based on your defnition, that would skip over 100 (2^2 * 5^5) rather than 96, but it’s much closer for such general terms, no?

    While 96 in a set of 100 is stretching the definition of a few, perhaps past the breaking point, I think it can be used differently based on the relative scale. That is, when looking at 100 numbers, a half dozen is a few, but when dealing with 100,000,000 wouldn’t it be fair to say, relatively speaking, that a couple hundred of those might be reffered to as a few?

  6. I should have reloaded the page before responding, but that was in response to anonymous coward, not Rieve, who said much the same as I but with less nit-picking 😛

  7. Racial advantages of Furries:
    +2 to Reflex Defense
    +2 to Perception and Nature skills
    highly valued for their pelts
    can be used as an emergency food source by the rest of the party
    very cheap date — thinks a garden salad is a meal
    can be made into a plushy for future marketing campaigns

  8. I recall reading years ago that somewhere in the Old Testament “few” is defined as 8. I’ve never bothered to check out the claim.

  9. That may be, but it’s not a great source for numerical definitions as can be seen in I Kings 7:23, where we learn that Pi = 3.

  10. Well at least Pi=3 is correct as far as it goes; supposedly the Indiana legislature once considered a bill that would have made Pi=4.

  11. greetings kevin i liked the guest strip you did for 1977 so i decided to come and read your comic i love it .you now have another fan (i post on byrons comic as 11 in 1977) keep up the good work.im a musician that writes dnd related music. and as any dnd player knows its all about the math

  12. Can’t resist leaping into the counting fray…

    My rule of thumb is “a few” can be counted on your available fingers. “Some” is more than that. 🙂

  13. Dave: Greetings!Found your strip via the link in 1977.Gotta say, I’m loving it so far!

    Thanks for the Kudos (<-- the wife), glad to see you! Welcome!