[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-10697272[/url]

Maybe you're wondering why I put this in this thread. Well, after you read the article, think about who much of the classical literature of our time was aimed at originally. Who was Shakespeare targeting when he wrote his stuff?

Wacky title
 

"Tired Gay succumbs to Dix":

[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6622I420100703[/url]

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-10782301[/url]

Not a wtf?, but I thought the title was stone cold. Maybe they could have just mentioned it in the body and had a nicer title.

[quote=jasong;223085][URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-10782301[/URL]

Not a wtf?, but I thought the title was stone cold. Maybe they could have just mentioned it in the body and had a nicer title.[/quote]Simply

"... endurance record"

instead of

"... slowest record".

Zombies-would-most-likely-wipe-out-humanity-if-they-really-existed-claim-scientists
[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6049924/Zombies-would-most-likely-wipe-out-humanity-if-they-really-existed-claim-scientists.html[/url]

Joys of being cabin crew
 

[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10922843[/URL]

Odd diagnosis: Man has pea plant growing in lungs
 

[url]http://www.katu.com/news/weird/100449269.html[/url]

[url]http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/yahoocanada/100930/canada/odds_of_life_on_newfound_earth_size_planet_100_per_cent___astronomer_says[/url]

what they say about one thing makes me think they are wrong lol

[url]http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?rn=222562&cl=22189038&ch=&src=canadanews[/url]

the link to the video that they give as well.

[url]http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/yahoocanada/100929/canada/_death_ray__at_las_vegas_hotel_singes_guests[/url] think this fits the bill kinda believable but the math scared me lol if he was the equivalent of spf 30 gone in 30 seconds that means to last 30 minutes he'd need spf 1800 I think lol needless to say that's a ridiculous amount lol.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;232131]if he was the equivalent of spf 30 gone in 30 seconds that means to last 30 minutes he'd need spf 1800 I think lol needless to say that's a ridiculous amount lol.[/QUOTE]

Um...maybe I'm missing something, but he isn't sunscreen. And it never specifically says he put sunscreen there. And sunscreen only blocks UV light, not IR and visible light, which can heat you up quite quickly (singing and burning you, just not for the same reason as UV gives you sunburns).
Let's assume for a second that UV is all you worry about, and he didn't have any sunscreen on. If he lasted for 30 seconds before being burnt (as if you could really tell that...he just felt heat he likened to burning, not a normal sunburn) without sunscreen, 30 SPF would let him stay out for 15 minutes, or 60 SPF for 30 minutes. But this is such wild guessing from one person's opinion of when he was in it, it's ridiculous to even try to calculate anything.
I think if it was strong enough to give you a sunburn in 30 seconds with SPF 30 on (which would be like 1 second, compared to about 1800 seconds or 30 minutes, to get burnt without sunscreen), the sun would be 1800 times more intense, and you'd have things to worry about besides a sun burn...like being lit on fire or otherwise nearly-instantly dying from the intense heat.