Why not find 6000 images of fish sandwiches and present them, one per frame, at 100 frames per second? With today's hardware that would be doable. posted by Jpfed at 8:07 PM on December 20, 2008
/naysaying posted by Jpfed at 8:07 PM on December 20, 2008
Ah, but the key is that he identifies which he hasn't seen before.
Still, looks like they could use some slightly more advanced technology there. posted by echo target at 8:09 PM on December 20, 2008
I haven't clicked the "a new record" link yet, but I'm really hoping that the "urdb" in its address stands for "Useless Records Database". posted by xbonesgt at 8:15 PM on December 20, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]
Guinness Book or it's not a record. posted by Lemurrhea at 8:42 PM on December 20, 2008
A new record was also set for most fumbled attempts at revealing successive images of fish sandwiches. posted by Donnie VandenBos at 8:46 PM on December 20, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]
So, wait, if I look at 26 pictures of ham sandwiches in the same amount of time, have I beaten his record or set a new one? posted by nebulawindphone at 8:48 PM on December 20, 2008
Innovative my ass. I applied to Guinness to be the first person entered in their Book of World Records for no apparent reason, and they didn't even acknowledge my letter. posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 8:56 PM on December 20, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]
Guinness is great. Oh wait, we aren't talking about beer? posted by sharpener at 9:02 PM on December 20, 2008
How far the great have fallen. Back in the day, Shai-Hulud would never waste His time looking at pictures of fish sandwiches. posted by Galvatron at 9:14 PM on December 20, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]
nebulawindphone: Thanks! posted by sharpener at 11:30 PM on December 20, 2008
Give a man a fish and you can feed him for a day, have him look at pictures of fish and he can be on Metafilter! posted by twoleftfeet at 2:03 AM on December 21, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]
He certainly is quite beardy. posted by cmonkey at 2:34 AM on December 21, 2008
What The Fuck? We can get to the moon but we can't figure a way to look at more than 25 fish sandwiches in a minute?
Pathetic. posted by mannequito at 4:23 AM on December 21, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]
I am currently in negotiations with the Guinness World Record folks about making an attempt at the world record for eating the greatest number record-holders for viewing the most images of fish sandwiches in sixty seconds. posted by loquacious at 6:13 AM on December 21, 2008
I believe my son just set a World Record for getting grape jelly on his face...
....while eating breakfast in my kitchen. I'm checking into it now, and I'll get back to you. posted by MarshallPoe at 6:43 AM on December 21, 2008
I have been working on this same record, but instead of fish sandwiches I am viewing porn. And instead of 60 seconds mine is a lifetime project.
I was saddened to find out I am 3 million images behind Astro Zombie (in the Universal Records Database), but next weekend I have a 4 day weekend, so hope to catch up then. posted by cjorgensen at 7:39 AM on December 21, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]
*sigh* And to think some of us wasted our youth. posted by applemeat at 2:40 PM on December 21, 2008
meh. I once looked at 12,000 pictures of fish sandwiches simultaneously. posted by blue_beetle at 4:06 PM on December 21, 2008
I remember when I was a kid, and the Guinness Book was a source of wonder for me at what the world and the people in it could be and do -- the oldest person, the tallest woman, the deepest ocean, the most children, the longest beard, the fastest mile. It opened my mind up to a kind of hyperreality that was alive and real and out there, and inspired a desire in my young heart to go out into that world and see it, to be exceptional somehow.
Actually, fish sandwiches shoved up your ass would be a pretty interesting record.
To read about. Not to hold. posted by yhbc at 4:33 PM on December 21, 2008
StavrosTheWonderChicken:
My name is Dan Rollman. I'm a co-founder of the Universal Record Database. I couldn't agree more with your comments about the Guinness Book. In fact, the wonderment you describe is exactly the reason we're building URDB.
Though Guinness has done a tremendous job documenting certain types of records over the past few decades, their model has become outdated in a Web 2.0 world. Who wants to wait 4 - 6 months for a small team in England to subjectively decide whether a submission is worthy of their standards? Who wants to spend thousands of dollars flying in a Guinness adjudicator to witness a record that can easily be shot alone with a video camera?
With URDB, our philosophy is that everyone on earth has an ability to be the world's best "something". We LOVE world records. Our dream is to encourage people to use their imaginations to create and set billions of new records the world has never seen. Some might be silly (ie. fish sandwiches), but we also hope to push frontiers of technology, the environment, charity, education and so forth.
As Wikipedia is expanding encyclopedic knowledge, we want to do the same with human achievements. Though Todd Lamb's record is certainly on the frivolous side, we hope, at the least, it might encourage a young dreamer to say, "If that dude can hold a world record, maybe I can, too." posted by drollman at 8:45 AM on December 22, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]
« Older
One of my sources died in a plane crash last night...
| At dawn on the winter solstice...
Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Subscribe
posted by Jpfed at 8:07 PM on December 20, 2008