Frazz by Jef Mallett for June 19, 2016

Had one of these earlier tonight.

Off to the side, Mrs Olsen is panicking at the thought of a Caulfield hyped up on caffeine.

Once again, subtle wit is drowned in pedantry. This is only a comic. It is not a launch pad for the obfuscatory..

The kid has a point.

There is a place when the scientific definitions are applicable, and a place where the lay definition is acceptable. In the discussion between a custodian and a child, the lay use of “theory” is fine.

Starbucks already has an energy drink with your choice of a single or double shot of espresso.

Some studies postulate that caffeine has diuretic properties. In which case, whether you drink it, chew it, or snort it, you’re gonna need to pee.

In any case, it won’t work. Solubility of non-gaseous substances in water does not vary significantly with pressure.

Autodesk logo on his shirt today, wonder what the significance is.

Too bad espresso has LESS caffeine than normal drip coffee. Another lovely theory slain by an ugly fact.

And obviously Caulfield’s parents have come up with the money for his mistakes.

But if it’s a “million-dollar idea”, then it’s not pure science — he’s proposing a business and accountants rule in business. After all, if you can’t make a profit, then you’re out of business.

Night-Gaunt49I agree hypothesis is not awkward, just Greek. But xenophobia never solved anything, which is another reason why it should be used. Otherwise, the “poorly educated” will keep incorrectly calling it “thery”.

I had a friend who would complain that the caffeine in coffee was not enough, so I offered to brew some using Water Joe instead of plain water.