THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Comic Discussion => QUESTIONABLE CONTENT => Topic started by: jwhouk on 03 Dec 2011, 18:58

Title: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jwhouk on 03 Dec 2011, 18:58
Getting my mind off of the Badgers losing in Indy and the Preds losing to Buffalo.

Jeph could go in like a million different ways before year's end. I'm just here for the party.

EDIT: Fixed the header; I'm never sure which to put first, the strip numbers or the dates. :S
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: Sidhekin on 03 Dec 2011, 19:11
That's «Mes Frères».  8-)

Oh, and I'm pretty sure that "first argument" would have to be a flashback.  Like, to some time before http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=375 ... :angel:
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: Carl-E on 03 Dec 2011, 19:30
I don't care. 

About anything. 


The percocet's working...   :-D

Man, it's hard to type. 


I got hit by a car while walking the dog this evening.  Nothing's broken, but I'm gonna be hurting for a while. 
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: WAYF on 03 Dec 2011, 19:52
The moment of the week last week was of course:

Faye: I did mean it retroactively!

Angus: Good enough.


D'awww.
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: Yarin on 03 Dec 2011, 20:02
Even weirder is if Clinton flirted with momo
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: DSL on 03 Dec 2011, 20:36
@Carl-E:
Man, you've had a few ... Situations lately.

My sympathies and best wishes.
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: Kugai on 03 Dec 2011, 21:50
Ditto DSL.

You want weirdness?  Howabout MOMO  hitting on Clinton?!    :-D
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: FunkyTuba on 03 Dec 2011, 23:03
Dale tries to get into Marigold's head by hitting on Momo.
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 03 Dec 2011, 23:58
I think the consequences of messing with Momo have been demonstrated quite thoroughly by now, thank you  :-P
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: Carl-E on 04 Dec 2011, 00:20
Would Dale's Gendo glasses deflect the Momotaser? 

Probably not, but it was a fun sentence to type! 
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: cesariojpn on 04 Dec 2011, 03:24
Momo spontaneously gets a computer virus, and tries to seduce Sven in her new body. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1658)

Wait, a thought occurred to me. Would hitting on Momo in her current body be considered Pedophilia/Statutory rape/Corruption of a minor/Carnal knowledge of a minor/Unlawful carnal knowledge?
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: jwhouk on 04 Dec 2011, 04:00
I don't care. 

About anything. 

The percocet's working...   :-D

Man, it's hard to type. 

I got hit by a car while walking the dog this evening.  Nothing's broken, but I'm gonna be hurting for a while. 

Dog is okay too, right?

Glad to hear you're okay.
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: Mr_Rose on 04 Dec 2011, 04:02
Momo spontaneously gets a computer virus, and tries to seduce Sven in her new body. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1658)

Wait, a thought occurred to me. Would hitting on Momo in her current body be considered Pedophilia/Statutory rape/Corruption of a minor/Carnal knowledge of a minor/Unlawful carnal knowledge?
Maybe? Jeph might know. Sapient robots are a non-existent legal class in our world so there are no direct equivalents to base a suggestion on. Even simple appearance is not enough, since there are (adult) women out there who have made careers out of being short and youthful enough to pass for minors on cursory inspection but without the legal issues of actually being minors. And while there is the issue of age (Momo is 'technically only 2.7 years old' after all) we don't know what, if any, exceptions to consent rules are made on behalf of a species that is effectively born as an adult. Then we have to throw in the fact that Pintsize is 'glad they legalised human/anthro-PC makeouts' as described to Clinton the first time around; that could have been Pintsize being Pintsize of course, but neither Marten nor Clinton objected so there must be rules that we have not been made aware of yet.

Also, is that the 300th or 400th time that link has been posted since Momo got her new chassis?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jwhouk on 04 Dec 2011, 04:04
No, it's about the 500th.
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: AnAverageWriter on 04 Dec 2011, 10:12
Wait, a thought occurred to me. Would hitting on Momo in her current body be considered Pedophilia/Statutory rape/Corruption of a minor/Carnal knowledge of a minor/Unlawful carnal knowledge?

I don't think so. Sex offense laws also cover the act of showing a minor pornography- and since both Pintsize and Momo have been shown repeatedly being given vast quantities of the stuff by the cast, I think it's a pretty safe bet that in the QC world AnthroPCs aren't considered children.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Yarin on 04 Dec 2011, 10:29
No, it's about the 500th.

516 by my count. It boggles the mind and it's best not to think about it
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: Carl-E on 04 Dec 2011, 11:30
Then we have to throw in the fact that Pintsize is 'glad they legalised human/anthro-PC makeouts' as described to Clinton the first time around; that could have been Pintsize being Pintsize of course, but neither Marten nor Clinton objected so there must be rules that we have not been made aware of yet.

I read it as "Pintsize being Pintsize", and that they were both ingoring him.  Clinton was interviewing Marten, not Pintsize, and Marten (like any parent) was tuning out the background noise. 
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Mr_Rose on 04 Dec 2011, 11:54
Clinton was, officially, interviewing them both and is enough of a nerd to have corrected Pitsize if he thought the lil'guy was wrong.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Yarin on 04 Dec 2011, 11:59
nerds rock age of the geek baby
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Method of Madness on 04 Dec 2011, 15:55
Is that the same waffles option you've done before?
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: cesariojpn on 04 Dec 2011, 15:57
I don't think so. Sex offense laws also cover the act of showing a minor pornography- and since both Pintsize and Momo have been shown repeatedly being given vast quantities of the stuff by the cast, I think it's a pretty safe bet that in the QC world AnthroPCs aren't considered children.

IIRC as well, Hanners had to shut down her Wi-Fi due to Winslow being spammed with porn from Pintsize.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: celticgeek on 04 Dec 2011, 17:06
Pintsize sends porn to Winslow. (http://questionablecontent.net./view.php?comic=527)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 04 Dec 2011, 17:32
I love that that comic demonstrates one of Hanner's basic coping mechanisms. 

"It's easier not to fixate on cleaning if I don't have much stuff to clean."


I wonder if that was one of Dr. Corrine's ideas? 
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: cesariojpn on 04 Dec 2011, 20:31
Pintsize sends porn to Winslow. (http://questionablecontent.net./view.php?comic=527)

See, why do I get grief over posting a canon fantasy sexual act in the comics, yet this doesn't get a whisper?!!
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: akronnick on 04 Dec 2011, 21:01
Because 1658* is the Rickroll of the QC Forum.


* No, I didn't have to look it up, and no, I'm not gonna link to it. And this is from the guy who loves a Trope Trap! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TVTropesWillRuinYourLife)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 04 Dec 2011, 23:18
I'd just like to say that quite frankly I'm surprised no one seems to have a problem with the fact that Clinton dresses like he's in a barbershop quartet. Am I the only one who found that odd? Then again, he's definitely an...odd guy.  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Skewbrow on 04 Dec 2011, 23:38
It is a bit odd. Then again he works at a CS department. Usually that means that all the social norms re attire go out of the window. The same applies to math departments. that bit coming from someone who was habitually wearing his camouflage battledress to algebraic geometry lectures

May be it is his idea of dressed to kill ?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: akronnick on 05 Dec 2011, 02:10
Implications, schmimplications!
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: westrim on 05 Dec 2011, 02:35
I got hit by a car while walking the dog this evening.  Nothing's broken, but I'm gonna be hurting for a while.  
But the dog finally caught the car, right?


Exactly what are the philosophical implications of flying? That doesn't seem like a good comparison to me, but that's probably because most things that have heavy philosophical implications like creating a new class of sentient life lead to Sad Things.
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: AnAverageWriter on 05 Dec 2011, 03:04
Exactly what are the philosophical implications of flying? That doesn't seem like a good comparison to me, but that's probably because most things that have heavy philosophical implications like creating a new class of sentient life lead to Sad Things.

Philosophical Implications of Invention?

It's about doing something man "was not meant to do". The ridiculous belief someone will always pull out of a hat that "God" would have slapped gills or wings or wheels on us if he had "meant" us to do whatever it is that an invention allows us to do. The silly navel-gazing notion that the things we build are "playing God".

With just about EVERY breakthrough invention some cheesehead will pull out the Philosophical Implications, ESPECIALLY when (as happens frequently with prototypes) an accident occurs and someone gets killed. With the plane, some idiot spouted "if God had meant man to fly, He would have given him wings". When they started building big ships, they were "sailing in the face of God". Trains, space travel... whatever it is, there will be SOMEONE out there sighing about how "God" never "meant" us to build 'em.
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: Moonsaves on 05 Dec 2011, 03:08
I got hit by a car while walking the dog this evening.  Nothing's broken, but I'm gonna be hurting for a while.  
But the dog finally caught the car, right?


Exactly what are the philosophical implications of flying? That doesn't seem like a good comparison to me, but that's probably because most things that have heavy philosophical implications like creating a new class of sentient life lead to Sad Things.

Probably along the lines of "man is not supposed to fly" or some other bollocks.

>While you were posting, somebody already went ahead and made the point you were going to make.  

Dammit.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: DSL on 05 Dec 2011, 03:16
... Despite which, people went right on making, flying and improving airplanes until even those  of us who rarely fly can't imagine life without them and/or don't realize how much everyday life depends on someone or something taken somewhere by air.
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: Manix on 05 Dec 2011, 03:20
Exactly what are the philosophical implications of flying? That doesn't seem like a good comparison to me, but that's probably because most things that have heavy philosophical implications like creating a new class of sentient life lead to Sad Things.

Philosophical Implications of Invention?

It's about doing something man "was not meant to do". The ridiculous belief someone will always pull out of a hat that "God" would have slapped gills or wings or wheels on us if he had "meant" us to do whatever it is that an invention allows us to do. The silly navel-gazing notion that the things we build are "playing God".

With just about EVERY breakthrough invention some cheesehead will pull out the Philosophical Implications, ESPECIALLY when (as happens frequently with prototypes) an accident occurs and someone gets killed. With the plane, some idiot spouted "if God had meant man to fly, He would have given him wings". When they started building big ships, they were "sailing in the face of God". Trains, space travel... whatever it is, there will be SOMEONE out there sighing about how "God" never "meant" us to build 'em.

God gave us the ability to create these things, I think he intended for us to go forward and advance our society with them. Of course, I don't think he approves of some of the things we've done with them, but that's another thread topic all together.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: helenmariet on 05 Dec 2011, 03:30
The question which I have is...how on Earth did Clinton the really rather creepy at times end up in going for coffee with Hannelore, Marigold and Momo?

(Also, this might be the first week in ages when I haven't considered "Waffles" to be the obvious comedy choice in the poll.  "Even MORE Weirdness: Dale SEES Clinton hitting on Marigold!" would either lead to all manner of insanity OR a completely unbothered "meh" from Dale.  I can't decide)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 05 Dec 2011, 03:36
I saw Dale at Five Guys last night.  Glsses, short small dreds, about 6'1" or 2", square jaw...

Didn't get a pic, so I guess it didn't happen...
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: akronnick on 05 Dec 2011, 03:45
But did the glasses light up?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Method of Madness on 05 Dec 2011, 04:48
They only light up when Marigold's near.  They're like Sting* that way.

*The sword, not the frontman of The Police.
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: NotsoAverageJoe on 05 Dec 2011, 04:54
Exactly what are the philosophical implications of flying? That doesn't seem like a good comparison to me, but that's probably because most things that have heavy philosophical implications like creating a new class of sentient life lead to Sad Things.

Philosophical Implications of Invention?

It's about doing something man "was not meant to do". The ridiculous belief someone will always pull out of a hat that "God" would have slapped gills or wings or wheels on us if he had "meant" us to do whatever it is that an invention allows us to do. The silly navel-gazing notion that the things we build are "playing God".

With just about EVERY breakthrough invention some cheesehead will pull out the Philosophical Implications, ESPECIALLY when (as happens frequently with prototypes) an accident occurs and someone gets killed. With the plane, some idiot spouted "if God had meant man to fly, He would have given him wings". When they started building big ships, they were "sailing in the face of God". Trains, space travel... whatever it is, there will be SOMEONE out there sighing about how "God" never "meant" us to build 'em.

Long time reader, first time poster... but I just had to pipe up here :)

"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."

Whether or not man was meant to discover/invent something is irrelevant.  It's simply in our nature to do so, and is unavoidable.  However, there are times when its not a bad idea to contemplate the consequences of that new found knowledge being in the hands of a inherently savage and brutal creature.

All that said, Clinton bugs the hell out of me... there's just something... off about the dude.  First character I honestly just can't really stand.
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: AnAverageWriter on 05 Dec 2011, 05:10
Whether or not man was meant to discover/invent something is irrelevant.

Absolutely, positively untrue. The concept that man is deemed (by God or otherwise) to be forbidden from creating, utilizing or discovering something is far from irrelevant- the adherents of dogma have used the argument that "we are not meant" to do things from the earliest days of science all the way up to the present day.

However, there are times when its not a bad idea to contemplate the consequences of that new found knowledge being in the hands of a inherently savage and brutal creature.

 I was hoping to use this. (http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction)
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: NotsoAverageJoe on 05 Dec 2011, 05:24
Whether or not man was meant to discover/invent something is irrelevant.

Absolutely, positively untrue. The concept that man is deemed (by God or otherwise) to be forbidden from creating, utilizing or discovering something is far from irrelevant- the adherents of dogma have used the argument that "we are not meant" to do things from the earliest days of science all the way up to the present day.

However, there are times when its not a bad idea to contemplate the consequences of that new found knowledge being in the hands of a inherently savage and brutal creature.

 I was hoping to use this. (http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction)

It's irrelevant in that we're going to seek out new knowledge regardless of whatever dogma is in vogue at the time.  That's our nature, and we'll justify it in some way or other.  Somebody will always defy dogma at some point.  It's irrelevant in that for good or ill, it will happen.

So, the question about whether we should continually seek out new knowledge is moot.  What we do with that knowledge though, that's whats important.

Personally, my only issue is the way that man has this nasty habit of placing himself far too highly in the scheme of things.

The time immediately prior to the first world war is a prime example.  Throughout western civilization there was a tendency towards the belief that, through science and rationalism, mankind had transcended nature.  The sinking of an "unsinkable ship" and the loss of thousands of lives laid bare the flaws in that thinking.  But now, as always, history is repeating itself and I just worry if it'll take another tragedy like world war one, that see the loss of entire generations of families across horrific scales, to set things in balance again.
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: AnAverageWriter on 05 Dec 2011, 05:45
Somebody will always defy dogma at some point.  It's irrelevant in that for good or ill, it will happen.

Up until whatever group is in power decides to kill whoever has made that defiance and burns their papers. You use the term "new" knowledge-

But how do you know it's "new"? We're living at the still-fragile emergence from a several-thousand-year informational dark age, where entire town-size libraries were burned to the ground and people thought showering was passe. Who knows what our current existence is built on top of, given all that was lost?

Throughout western civilization there was a tendency towards the belief that, through science and rationalism, mankind had transcended nature.  The sinking of an "unsinkable ship" and the loss of thousands of lives laid bare the flaws in that thinking.

Or maybe it was the rushed production, the incompetence of the ship's crew, the substandard steel, the ignoring of updated safety signal protocols and the improper ratio of lifeboats-to-passengers?

Man "transcends" nature every single day, otherwise we'd all be naked cave people sitting around in a field getting eaten by whatever happens to come across us. We are human by our very transcendence of nature, by the idea that we are not limited to "what God gave us". If God put us here, he put us here naked and stickless. It was us, not he, who sharpened that stick and became the creator of invention.
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: jwhouk on 05 Dec 2011, 06:06
With just about EVERY breakthrough invention some cheesehead will pull out the Philosophical Implications, ESPECIALLY when (as happens frequently with prototypes) an accident occurs and someone gets killed.

Hey, now, I don't do that.

Unless you want me to start? I can, you know.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Paranoid on 05 Dec 2011, 06:09
The question which I have is...how on Earth did Clinton the really rather creepy at times end up in going for coffee with Hannelore, Marigold and Momo?
Probably because they don't see him as being that creepy.  Or, at least Hannelore doesn't.  Remember, the incident when Clinton stalked Hannelore was resolved to everyone's satisfaction (well, almost everyone (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1911) :evil:).  I do admit to getting the impression that Marigold is... 'unimpressed' with Clinton though, although I doubt she'll say anything overtly aggressive in front of Hannelore as long as she accepts Clinton.  As long as Hannelore is willing to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt I'm sure Marigold will try too.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: SomeCanadianWeirdo on 05 Dec 2011, 06:11
I'd just like to say that quite frankly I'm surprised no one seems to have a problem with the fact that Clinton dresses like he's in a barbershop quartet. Am I the only one who found that odd? Then again, he's definitely an...odd guy.  :psyduck:

Seems to me Wil dresses the same way sometimes.  White shirt with a bowtie.

As far as opposition to new technology goes a often told story is that some people opposed the lightning rod after Ben Franklin began to experiment with the concept in the 1750s, cliaiming it interfered with God's will.  Opposition eventually faded away as the value of the idea became obvious.

The "against God's will" argument about anything strikes me as silly.  An omnipotent God could smite you with lightning no matter how many llightning rods you stuck on your tall building.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jwhouk on 05 Dec 2011, 06:35
Minor thing of note - I believe this is the first time we've ever seen the interior of the restaurant where they all ate. If trajectory is to be believed, it's a few doors down from CoD. 
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: Border Reiver on 05 Dec 2011, 08:00
With just about EVERY breakthrough invention some cheesehead will pull out the Philosophical Implications, ESPECIALLY when (as happens frequently with prototypes) an accident occurs and someone gets killed.

Hey, now, I don't do that.

Unless you want me to start? I can, you know.

Go right ahead, what's the worst that could happen?

(which likely demonstrates the limitations on my imagination, rather than how much worse it could get)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 05 Dec 2011, 08:43
While I wouldn't be as excited as Clinton I wouldn't be as "meh" about it as Marigold.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 05 Dec 2011, 08:45
Philosophy has mostly taken for granted that philosophers were always human.

Now there's a new viewpoint in the world, a fresh look at all the old questions.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: DSL on 05 Dec 2011, 09:06
Philosophy has mostly taken for granted that philosophers were always human.

Now there's a new viewpoint in the world, a fresh look at all the old questions.

Yeah, I'm hoping there's at least one strip this week in which Momo gets most of the dialogue. Conflict between Momo and her " owner" might make for some interesting strips, too. Hope Jeph takes a swipe at it, if not now, then down the road; it's clearly something he's thought about,
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Yarin on 05 Dec 2011, 09:10
it has to be after the allure of her new chassis has worn off
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 05 Dec 2011, 09:28
She seems to have gotten used to it pretty quickly.

The major ramifications of the existence of AnthroPCs are more religious than philosophical, but maybe we shouldn't go there.

The philosophical implications of free will in something that everyone acknowledges is a machine are pretty interesting.

The ethical implications have clearly been a major issue in the QC world.

If AI philosophers come to different conclusions from human ones, which is correct?

Are humans not the pinnacle of creation, but instead a necessary step to the creation of our successors?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Vista on 05 Dec 2011, 10:09
Man, it's really strange that someone would make the argument that progress should be examined philosophically.  Uh...yeah, the Wright brothers didn't think about the consequences of airplanes, they had bigger concerns...so no one should?  So...irresponsible....
It's an ice cube effect, opposite of a snowball effect, and often a backlash to fringe groups.  The fewer people think "maybe we should consider not progressing in this way technologically, even if it means lowering our potential standard of living, because hey maybe it's a gateway drug to the illusion of international understanding or nukes which are good for no one," the fewer people will think so.
Still, I'm willing to be irresponsible to advance the cause of our robot masters.
Because they would, realistically, replace us once we can mine asteroids.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: DSL on 05 Dec 2011, 10:22
An interesting point buried in Marigold's dialogue is that history-making events/ideas/processes are often not recognized as history-making while we're in the middle of them (for example, newspapers in the Wrights' hometown ...)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 05 Dec 2011, 11:48
Maybe they should have, Marigold. Not while they were in the air, of course.

That said, I'm bored. Wanna go back to the Faye/Angus storyline. Or see what Marten and Padma are up to. I know I'm a drama queen.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Kugai on 05 Dec 2011, 12:04
GibbsSmacks all round I think
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Cornan on 05 Dec 2011, 12:14
Philosophy has mostly taken for granted that philosophers were always human.

Now there's a new viewpoint in the world, a fresh look at all the old questions.

I know you used the word "mostly" as a qualifier but I still want to point out that the school of Philosophy of Mind has been talking about things like that for a hundred-plus years by now. There's been a lot of brain power and a ton of ink devoted to the fact that Philosophy regarding the human condition is inescapably tied to its experience by humans. What that means in itself is up to some pretty heavy debate depending on what school of thought you end up traveling down but the question is pretty widely noted and discussed.

I would even venture to make the argument that the entire school of Phenomenology is an attempt to look at the human experience in such a way as to explain it to one who hasn't had the same experience. I would imagine that the QC AI Philosophers would be pretty big into Phenomenology and Hume (who was not a Phenomenologist, strictly speaking, but had a really interesting Philosophy of Mind).
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Blackjoker on 05 Dec 2011, 13:38
Man, it's really strange that someone would make the argument that progress should be examined philosophically.  Uh...yeah, the Wright brothers didn't think about the consequences of airplanes, they had bigger concerns...so no one should?  So...irresponsible....
It's an ice cube effect, opposite of a snowball effect, and often a backlash to fringe groups.  The fewer people think "maybe we should consider not progressing in this way technologically, even if it means lowering our potential standard of living, because hey maybe it's a gateway drug to the illusion of international understanding or nukes which are good for no one," the fewer people will think so.
Still, I'm willing to be irresponsible to advance the cause of our robot masters.
Because they would, realistically, replace us once we can mine asteroids.

It depends on the nature of the progress. AIs are one such example, when humanity proves capable of literally producing a unique intelligence there are actually some big philosophical questions that come with that. Do we give them the right to vote, to participate equally in society with humans? If no then we're effectively making them eternal second class citizens, but if we do there are issues that come up with an AI being able to vote. If they can copy themselves endlessly does each copy get a vote? What about that fact that the machines are hypothetically immortal? IF you want to avoid AIs what about cloning? I'm not saying that progress shouldn't occur, hell I'm a bit of a futurist and I get really annoyed when fundies start trying to pollute the pool of knowledge with things like creationism or say that we're 'playing god' when we study genetic manipulation or research. Doesn't mean though that there aren't questions that should be asked.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: westrim on 05 Dec 2011, 15:04
Marigold's attitude is the reason that the discovery of a planet that is solidly in the habitable zone of its star is going mostly unnoticed today, a minor headline in the science section of news sites- if they have a science section- instead of front page news. Most of them will simply carry the AP report, which spends a good portion of its length repeating basic facts, like what a light year is. The cable news channels will mention it as a 30 second blurb every cycle, and the network news will spend about 15 seconds on it.

I don't like Marigold's attitude.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Paranoid on 05 Dec 2011, 15:23
Not sure where I see the problem here, at least with this particular example.  Don't get me wrong, I'm as excited as the next sci-fi geek about the possibility of another habitable planet out there.  But let's face it, no one currently living will ever see it up close, and giving the next generation even odds at reaching is generous at best.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 05 Dec 2011, 16:21
Barring an Alcubierre drive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive).
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Method of Madness on 05 Dec 2011, 16:55
Is the question whether AIs should be given rights, or whether or not the rights are really ours to give, and not simply theirs to take, just as we do?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: cesariojpn on 05 Dec 2011, 17:42
Seems to me Wil dresses the same way sometimes.  White shirt with a bowtie.

I have friends who's clothing arrangement is basic. One dresses entirely with a black T-Shirt and black Jeans. Very rarely does he dress up in something else.

I also have a friend who used to have 14 pieces of clothing (7 shirts, 7 pants) for the entire week. THATS it. Then he had to move to a much colder climate..... :lol:

And one friend only dressed up in white panties. of course, that was a part of the D/s relationship she had with someone.....

Barring an Alcubierre drive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive).

Or jump gate technology. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumpgate_%28Babylon_5%29#Babylon_5)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Throg on 05 Dec 2011, 19:15
Or an Infinite Improbability Drive? Give it a really hot cup of tea and turn 'er on! 

It's funny but offputting at the same time that Clinton is literally getting worked up over all the "implications" <air quotes>.  I read it as a slap at a certain kind of geek that gets hung up on "implications" -- I mean, can  you imagine some guy in 1907 who started getting hyperventilating over the 'implications' of air travel? He'd be just as much of a geek then as Clinton is in the QCverse now. 

Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Tova on 05 Dec 2011, 19:29
Marigold's attitude is the reason that the discovery of a planet that is solidly in the habitable zone of its star is going mostly unnoticed today, a minor headline in the science section of news sites- if they have a science section- instead of front page news. Most of them will simply carry the AP report, which spends a good portion of its length repeating basic facts, like what a light year is. The cable news channels will mention it as a 30 second blurb every cycle, and the network news will spend about 15 seconds on it.

Some slight consolation for you: the story made it to the front page of the ABC news site in Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-06/earth-twin-planet-discovered/3714358

Edit: The Sydney Morning Herald is also carrying the story down in its "technology" section:

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/nasa-confirms-superearth-that-could-hold-life-20111206-1ofx3.html

Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 05 Dec 2011, 19:33
NPR gave it 3:54 (http://www.npr.org/2011/12/05/143142279/found-earth-like-planet-that-might-be-right-for-life), and that was without all the basic edumacation on lightyears...
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: CrowFairy on 05 Dec 2011, 21:02
It's a little depressing that nobody has yet to insert the nice, healthy medium of the discussion in the comic. People should be amazed at the very thing that Marigold implies isn't interesting: They have these robots, and they could easily take over, and they haven't. That's a miracle. It's not something where we should wonder when they will, and we shouldn't just throw it away as if it were as natural as anything else. This is something on a completely different level than anything else mankind has managed, and the only two ideas presented are paranoia and apathy. I feel like Hanners will need to step in next, or things will just continue to go south in this conversation.
Title: Re: WCDT Dec. 5-9, 2011 (2071-75)
Post by: JohnTheWysard on 05 Dec 2011, 21:03
I'd say the big one is freedom of movement? The ability to fly implies that people from formerly isolated communities and nations will suddenly be able to interact and intermix freely, because journeys that used to take weeks, months, or years can now be completed in days.

I was visiting my great-aunt Muriel in 1995, a few months before her death. She was born in Shanghai in 1896. She recounted how her father had showed her a newspaper - delivered by steamship, two months after its publication - with big headlines about a couple of guys named Wright and their aeroplane.

She paused, looked thoughtful, and said "And I've also watched men walk on the Moon."

We just get so damned blasé at times...
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 05 Dec 2011, 21:29
Is the question whether AIs should be given rights, or whether or not the rights are really ours to give, and not simply theirs to take, just as we do?
People who believe in social contract theory would say that both parties would have to agree before even the most basic rights could be enforced.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: SomeCanadianWeirdo on 05 Dec 2011, 21:57
Seems to me Wil dresses the same way sometimes.  White shirt with a bowtie.

I have friends who's clothing arrangement is basic. One dresses entirely with a black T-Shirt and black Jeans. Very rarely does he dress up in something else.

I also have a friend who used to have 14 pieces of clothing (7 shirts, 7 pants) for the entire week. THATS it. Then he had to move to a much colder climate..... :lol:

And one friend only dressed up in white panties. of course, that was a part of the D/s relationship she had with someone.....


I've sometimes thought about going the 3 or 4 pairs of pants, 3 or 4 t shirts route as far as clothing goes.  Then there are the people trying the 100 item challenge, where you try to pare down your personal items to 100 or less, although there's some flexibility of what might count as an item ie your CD collection might be considered one item.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: cesariojpn on 05 Dec 2011, 22:14
NPR gave it 3:54 (http://www.npr.org/2011/12/05/143142279/found-earth-like-planet-that-might-be-right-for-life), and that was without all the basic edumacation on lightyears...

Who cares about NPR aside from "Car Talk" and "A Prairie Home Companion?"
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Skewbrow on 05 Dec 2011, 23:55

Barring an Alcubierre drive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive).

Or jump gate technology. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumpgate_%28Babylon_5%29#Babylon_5)

Let's not compare Babylon 5 to a solution of Einstein's equations. Even if the latter is judged to be impractical  :-)

The discovery of that planet is in the news page of the web version of a local paper. Currently their most read article actually within the news section. You still need to scroll the page down quite a bit to find it. The top of the page is dominated by stories like: "a dog bit a man - he had to quit his job", "a woman in England was buried live, but dug her way out of the grave" (IDUHG might like her style), "a well-liked writer of crime novels died", "it's independence day today"... Of course, the news pages is not the front pagre. You gotta love their priorities. :roll:
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jeph on 06 Dec 2011, 01:07
Maybe they should have, Marigold. Not while they were in the air, of course.

That said, I'm bored. Wanna go back to the Faye/Angus storyline. Or see what Marten and Padma are up to. I know I'm a drama queen.

We'll get there eventually. I just go where my brain takes me.

Also writing the Marten/Padma thing is agonizing
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 06 Dec 2011, 01:20
Jesus the one time I complain about where the comic's going and it's when Jeph just happens to pop in. Now I feel bad  :-(

Goin to bed before I embarrass myself further.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jeph on 06 Dec 2011, 02:17
Don't feel bad! I know these Clinton strips are a digression, but they're where my brain's been at lately. I have the Marten/Padma thing totally planned out, which strips a lot of the fun out of it for me because nothing is a surprise. But we'll get back to it soon. I just gotta play out this string of metaphysics jokes first.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Kokirin on 06 Dec 2011, 02:21
Is that a robot pin-up Momo is looking at?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Dust on 06 Dec 2011, 02:27
Philosophy has mostly taken for granted that philosophers were always human.

Now there's a new viewpoint in the world, a fresh look at all the old questions.

Momo's getting a fresh look at something, anyway.


(Edit - Is it wrong that I was too freaked out by Jeph's avatar to realise "Oh wow, it's him"?)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: CrowFairy on 06 Dec 2011, 02:30
I don't mind these strips. We're delving into stuff the strip has yet to really talk about. The technological differences between our world and the world of QC have so far been somewhat ignored, so it's kind of nice to let the storyline chill out for a short bit while we find out how the characters feel about their rapidly changing world. I like peeking into characters' minds, so this is perfectly enjoyable for me.

I can understand the stress involved in the Marten/Padma stuff. I'm looking forward to seeing what happens with all that and especially with Faye and Angus. But this detour is a good one. :)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: akronnick on 06 Dec 2011, 02:45
Don't feel bad! I know these Clinton strips are a digression, but they're where my brain's been at lately. I have the Marten/Padma thing totally planned out, which strips a lot of the fun out of it for me because nothing is a surprise. But we'll get back to it soon. I just gotta play out this string of metaphysics jokes first.

[emphasis added]


Not for us!!!!! You're killin' us man!!
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Skewbrow on 06 Dec 2011, 02:49
Is that a robot pin-up Momo is looking at?

My guess for the title is "Applied robotics". Not sure about either word in the title, though. Did anyone watching ustream see a close-up?

Of course, that doesn't rule out the possibility of centerfold images of questionable content. May be they have mags marketed solely to APCs?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: pwhodges on 06 Dec 2011, 02:56
Applied Robotics seems clear enough to me; I imagine the fold-out as a system diagram, or maybe a detailed flowchart of some sort.  From Momo's expression, she doesn't have built-in knowledge of how she works - or perhaps the book is startlingly out of date, as DIY books often are (because later technology isn't accessible as DIY).
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: hobo386 on 06 Dec 2011, 02:57
Just gotta ask, am I the only one who actually *likes* Clinton?  He may be a little creepy, but it's all well-meaning, enthusiastic creepiness.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: gangler on 06 Dec 2011, 02:59
I can't decide if I love Clinton or hate him. It could be both.

As much as I can entirely appreciate his viewpoint, it seems like he should also maybe try and understand that the biggest concerns aren't always the most important in our day to day lives. Macro's cool and all, but you still gotta operate on the micro no matter how much you might wish otherwise.

It might help though if I could figure out exactly what his deal is. Is he stupid, or crazy, or what? I mean for a guy who seems to take a lot of interest in the subject he has an odd tendency to occasionally slip into self-evidently false information, or to take the simple to outlandish conclusions. That all could easily be another manifestation of his complete lack of social graces though. He seems to lack the filter that would prevent a normal person from vocalizing certain thoughts. It might actually prove enlightening to see what his thoughts on the issue look like after he writes them down and organizes them, as I assume his school requires on occasion.

He's probably too relatable for me to genuinely dislike though. Like looking in a funhouse mirror.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: cesariojpn on 06 Dec 2011, 03:00
Let's not compare Babylon 5 to a solution of Einstein's equations. Even if the latter is judged to be impractical  :-)

Hush, I could've done worse. Sci-Fi is littered with enough stupid tech it's not remotely funny.

Is that a robot pin-up Momo is looking at?

Vacuum tubes are sexy. That, or in the QC universe, Nerd Guys are about on par as Import Models in terms of popularity in hotness form. Of course I could be crass and say that she's looking at the QC version of a Sex Doll. A fully autonomous sex doll.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: pendrake on 06 Dec 2011, 03:35
For comic #2072...

1. Art-wise, interesting height comparisions of the quartet.  Hannelore is noticably taller than the rest of them, and Marten is the same height as Hanners, which means he is pretty tall too?  Which asks the question of who among the QC-cast would be considered "average" height?

2. Also art-wise, not sure what it is exactly, but Hannelore's lips look very strange.  Perhaps it is the front-angle &/or the coloring.

3. When someone, even a robot, looks at a magazine in such a vertical fashion and with such an expression on their face, one generally draws the naughtier conclusion :evil: .  Makes me wonder what kind of "Applied Robotics" is being showcased in that magazine...  ("Look at the hardware ports on that one!  I would totally RAM-interface that!")

4. I also do not disagree with Clinton's opinion.  "Techno-complacency" is one of the major reasons NASA is all but shut-down :cry: , and why we have so little scientific research purely for scientific research, rather than for what can be profitable from it.  It can be said that we are not reseraching science, we are strip-mining it.

5. Conversely, thinking too much about it as Clinton has been wont to do is just as bad.  Either you wind up not being able to think beyond what you see (thus severely limiting creativity) or you wind up obsessing over it over any other ideas (see: "nerd rage!").

6. Uh-oh...  Jeph is starting to check in the WCDTs again...?  That is like The Spirit of Sauron starting to coalesce into the Lidless Eye of Mordor.  Soon he will send out his pwhodges and Is it cold in here?'es into the forums to lay waste to us all (wait- does Jeph even have 9+ board moderators...?  Maybe I should have used a Marvel's Galactus reference instead... :psyduck: ).
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: idontunderstand on 06 Dec 2011, 03:40
I can actually relate to what Hanners is saying in the last frame. I mean, not as far as getting a panic attack but my stomach made several turns whenever I looked up and realized just how insignificant I am and how large the world is and how many places I will never see in my lifetime. Dunno how I got over it, really.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Skewbrow on 06 Dec 2011, 03:47
May be the total perspective vortex told you that you really are a cool guy?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Tanksenior on 06 Dec 2011, 03:55
Didn't expect this kind of attitude from Marigold to be honest :| it's almost as if she's... religious :psyduck:.

Edit: And that while she's wearing an XKCD shirt!  :-o
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: pwhodges on 06 Dec 2011, 03:56
does Jeph even have 9+ board moderators...?

There are currently six admins (including Jeph, Cristi, and the guy who runs the server) and six global mods; all have logged on this year, but most have not posted for some time now.  Of these twelve, I am the one whose history in the forum is the shortest.  There has also been one mod (that I know of) who got banned, and came back later under a different username but no longer as a mod; also another mod who left the forum and had her account deleted.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Yarin on 06 Dec 2011, 04:00
I like this particular story arch  good to see momo again
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Somebody on 06 Dec 2011, 04:06
Definitely looks like there's a double-polaroid catching Momo's attention, there.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: idontunderstand on 06 Dec 2011, 04:08
May be the total perspective vortex told you that you really are a cool guy?

Haha!  :mrgreen:

GOD SPOKE TO ME
AND HE SAID
"SIR

YOU

ARE

RAD"
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Yarin on 06 Dec 2011, 04:08
I bet its robot porn
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: hobo386 on 06 Dec 2011, 04:14
1. Art-wise, interesting height comparisions of the quartet.  Hannelore is noticably taller than the rest of them, and Marten is the same height as Hanners, which means he is pretty tall too?  Which asks the question of who among the QC-cast would be considered "average" height?

The height of all the cast members tends to fluctuate quite a bit, but typically...

Elliot is about a head taller than anyone
Hanners is a little bit taller than Marten.
Dora is a little bit shorter than Marten.
Dora is a bit taller than Faye
Tai is shorter than everyone but Momo.
Wil is probably about Marten's height.

As for numbers, I'd say they range somewhere around:
Elliot -6'6"-6'9"
Hanners - 5'10"-5'11"
Marten - 5'8"-5"10
Padma - 5'7"-5'9"
Dora 5'7"-5'9"
Faye - 5'6"-5'8"
Marigold - 5'4"-5'7"
Clinton -5'4"-5'6"
Tai -4'11"-5'2"
Momo - 4'7"-5'1" (She tends to fluctuate in height based on who she is next to)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Yarin on 06 Dec 2011, 04:21
Not a lot of 6 footers
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Skewbrow on 06 Dec 2011, 04:26
Hmm. If Hannelore is 5'10", then Sven is about 6'6". (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1769) Sven is taller than the others, but I would have thought may be 6'3"-6'4".
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: hobo386 on 06 Dec 2011, 04:32
I'd put some of the other guys in the 6 foot range maybe, but even in real life maybe 1 in 3 guys is 6' tall, and Marten doesn't look much taller than most of the girls, so I peg him as being a little on the short side of average.

Hmm. If Hannelore is 5'10", then Sven is about 6'6". (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1769) Sven is taller than the others, but I would have thought may be 6'3"-6'4".
He looks around 6'3"-6'4" in that pic to me. But like I said, people seem to fluctuate in height quite a bit in this comic.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Border Reiver on 06 Dec 2011, 04:39
Gotta say that I was pleasantly surprised by Marigold's perspective on things.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: snubnose on 06 Dec 2011, 04:47
What the heck is Momo reading ?!?  :?

And I dont care how far it is to the stars, I just want a Star Trek style Spaceship with Warpdrive RIGHT NOW ! :-D
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: tjradcliffe on 06 Dec 2011, 04:53
If AI philosophers come to different conclusions from human ones, which is correct?

Neither.  As soon as we have a correct answer to something it ceases to be philosophy, and becomes science.  Vast swathes of stuff that used to be considered philosophy are now sciences of one kind or another.  The only sad thing about this is that philosophers sometimes forget it.  Academic philosophy in the past 300 years has slowly transitioned from being about the world to being mostly scholastic:  arguing about what this or that philosopher "really means" when they say that or this.

And as someone else pointed out about a relative born in the late 1800's:  what we see today in terms of technological change is pretty tame compared to two generations ago.  By the time my grandmother (born in 1884) was my age (almost 50) she'd seen electrification, heavier-than air flight, mass-produced automobiles, moving pictures, radio, the first global war and the first five years of the Great Depression.  And women got the vote in there somewhere too (at least in Canada... your history may differ.)  What I've lived through has been pretty tame in comparison, although the Moon landing may count as enough to trump the rest.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: NotsoAverageJoe on 06 Dec 2011, 04:57
Marigold's attitude is the reason that the discovery of a planet that is solidly in the habitable zone of its star is going mostly unnoticed today, a minor headline in the science section of news sites- if they have a science section- instead of front page news. Most of them will simply carry the AP report, which spends a good portion of its length repeating basic facts, like what a light year is. The cable news channels will mention it as a 30 second blurb every cycle, and the network news will spend about 15 seconds on it.

I don't like Marigold's attitude.

I gotta go with Marigold on this one actually.  yea, it might be interesting, buts its not something that affects my day-to-day.

I think that for those who follow the view that eventually science will give us the answer to everything; every discovery, no matter how major or minor, is amazing since its a step towards that ultimate "everything" answer. 

If you follow the view that there is no end, that for every discovery, there's still another one over the horizon, then the hype factor gets toned down a bit, otherwise you'd risk stopping your pursuit of new knowledge once you (falsely, according to this view) think you've finally reached the ultimate answer.

I might be fascinated with things like that, but purely from an abstract standpoint.  Practically, nothing about it actually affects me though, so i don't need to go around being a pretentious - - - - that feels the need to talk about nothing but that, like certain characters who are really starting to annoy me :)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Yarin on 06 Dec 2011, 05:00
What the heck is Momo reading ?!?  :?

And I dont care how far it is to the stars, I just want a Star Trek style Spaceship with Warpdrive RIGHT NOW ! :-D

I want that to
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: LordVaughn on 06 Dec 2011, 05:04
I'm just going with the notion that Momo is casually looking at robot porn while listening to people speak. Then again, her usual reaction to porn is rather different.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: NotsoAverageJoe on 06 Dec 2011, 05:06
funny, i don't remember any strips with momo hanging out with pintsize that recently.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: AnAverageWriter on 06 Dec 2011, 05:13
funny, i don't remember any strips with momo hanging out with pintsize that recently.

If you mean the porn thing- naw, the last exposure she got to that was from Tai. Victorian porn. I haven't seen Pintsize and her together since she  settled those old scores,  (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2002)  back before the Dancy Times arc.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Soulsynger on 06 Dec 2011, 05:20
Kind of ironic that Marigold is wearing an XKCD shirt through all this.


Considering the Marigold vs. Clinton discussion:
I constantly live inbetween the two. I currently lead a rather uneventful life in which my day to day work operates well below my mental capabilities.
So I try to go "meh" during those work times and read books about quantum physics (f.e.) or newer astronomy in my free time.

On the one hand, I remain pretty underwhelmed by scientific discoveries, on the other I can't get enough of them. (Scientific American as one of my favorite magazines)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 06 Dec 2011, 05:35
Clinton has the soul of an artist, only without the artistic outlet. 

As a result, his enthusiasm and frustration both know no bounds. 
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: idontunderstand on 06 Dec 2011, 05:37
Very well put!
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 06 Dec 2011, 05:44
I'm with Clinton (and apparently also Jeph) on this one. Not like I'm thinking about it 24/7 but sometimes in those moments when I take the train to the university, chilling out... I just start to think about what kind of fascinating things we have developed/discovered.

I see it as a healthy way of life, constantly being reminded how lucky you are for having such good opportunities and luxuries so you live quite a happy life every day.  :-)
Being overwhelmed by all that isn't good... but it's just as bad as being "meh" about it.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: pwhodges on 06 Dec 2011, 05:50
Well, there's "meh" and "meh".  For instance, the discovery of a possibly Earth-like planet elsewhere in the universe is a fascinating one, and very significant in its field - none the less, considered as part of our daily lives, it is also supremely unimportant.  It's a matter of perspective, and one can be aware of both perspectives simultaneously while choosing one or other according to one's preoccupation at the time.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 06 Dec 2011, 05:59
In case I wasn't very clear... I talked about the most negative side of "meh" like just... not giving a fuck (and taking most technology for granted) which is the kind of attitude Marigold reminds me of.

I don't go crazy when I read the news either, in fact... I read the news about that planet today and I said "Aaaah, that's cool!" and nothing more to it. IMO just saying that seems far better than not giving a damn. Maybe it's just me.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: snubnose on 06 Dec 2011, 06:05
[...]  What I've lived through has been pretty tame in comparison, although the Moon landing may count as enough to trump the rest.
Err ... sorry, but what ? The moon landing hasnt effected our everyday lifes at all, except maybe the development of teflon (but thats probably an urban legend).

The technology to fly to the moon has been there for a long time. The Saturn V rocket wasnt substantly different from the V2 rocket used by nazi germany to bomb the UK and the netherlands, nor is the Space Shuttle substantly improved over the Saturn V. In fact when you look at what we use to fly now to the international space station, we use decade old russian rockets for that.

The question of flying to the moon again or flying to Mars is just if there is enough money available for it.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Soulsynger on 06 Dec 2011, 06:09
Well, there's "meh" and "meh".  For instance, the discovery of a possibly Earth-like planet elsewhere in the universe is a fascinating one, and very significant in its field - none the less, considered as part of our daily lives, it is also supremely unimportant.  It's a matter of perspective, and one can be aware of both perspectives simultaneously while choosing one or other according to one's preoccupation at the time.
S'what I meant to say, of course. Nurrr...~~


The question of flying to the moon again or flying to Mars is just if there is enough money available for it.
These days its more like "Is there ANY money available for it / at all?" ... °O
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: hobo386 on 06 Dec 2011, 06:34
[...]  What I've lived through has been pretty tame in comparison, although the Moon landing may count as enough to trump the rest.
Err ... sorry, but what ? The moon landing hasnt effected our everyday lifes at all, except maybe the development of teflon (but thats probably an urban legend).
On the other hand, since the moon landing (but not because of it), we invented both personal computers and cell phones and combined both into something the size of a deck of playing cards, we invented the internet, search engines, and sophisticated remotely accessible knowledge bases (Google,Wikipedia), and we've developed medical implants past simple hip joint replacements.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Paranoid on 06 Dec 2011, 06:38
Here's the thing: not everybody has to "calculate how many light-years away" all the stars are in order to eventually reach them.  We only need a select few to do that.  So again, this example is kindof banal to me.  Now, as for local space travel, I have to ask why aren't we doing more of that?  The space program has resulted in plenty of real-world innovations (http://www.problem-solving-techniques.com/US-Space-Program.html), which directly effects most of us living today.  And I think we can all agree that if we ever want humanity to visit other star systems, we need to finish exploring our own corner of the cosmos first.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that no one can afford to explore the philosophical implications of every discovery.  Some discoveries are indeed important to everyone, while others should be first pondered by people with the correct skills and/or mindsets.  In other words, if a layman wants to get excited about the discovery of a potentially habitable planet I got no problem with that.  I just don't feel it should be expected it of him.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: TinPenguin on 06 Dec 2011, 06:38
I'm slightly confused by the past few comics - remind me... why are they hanging out with Clinton?

I have nothing against the guy, he's well-meaning enough, I just don't know how we made such a rapid transition from "augh creeper fill him with electric" to "hey man lets go get lunch".
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: AnAverageWriter on 06 Dec 2011, 06:42
On the other hand, since the moon landing (but not because of it), we invented both personal computers and cell phones and combined both into something the size of a deck of playing cards, we invented the internet, search engines, and sophisticated remotely accessible knowledge bases (Google,Wikipedia), and we've developed medical implants past simple hip joint replacements.

Yeah, but what has that moon landing done for us LATELY, hrm?

Nothin'!
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jwhouk on 06 Dec 2011, 06:49
I'm slightly confused by the past few comics - remind me... why are they hanging out with Clinton?

I have nothing against the guy, he's well-meaning enough, I just don't know how we made such a rapid transition from "augh creeper fill him with electric" to "hey man lets go get lunch".

Yeah, that is a pretty hard-left there. Of course, he played to the audience after telling his sob story about his hand to Hanners way back when. And Hanners doesn't see the fine line between creepy and stalking, either...

Quote from: AnAverageWriter
Yeah, but what has that moon landing done for us LATELY, hrm?
What did the moon landing do for us? Why, it gave us TANG, of course!

On to more serious business:

What will be our focus THIS week?
More Fun With Clinton and Momo!    - 10 (15.4%) <--- You 10 people are PRESCIENT!
Some Dramaz: Dora hears about Padma and Marten.    - 8 (12.3%)
WORSE dramaz: ELLIOT hears about Marten and Padma!    - 10 (15.4%)
Weirdness: Clinton hits on Marigold!    - 5 (7.7%)
Even MORE Weirdness: Dale SEES Clinton hitting on Marigold!    - 11 (16.9%)
Au Contraire, Mes Frères: A week of nothing but AnthroPC Hijinks!    - 5 (7.7%)
Dora sees her therapist.    - 3 (4.6%)
Sven sees his (sex) therapist. Oh wait...    - 2 (3.1%)
Angus and Faye have their first argument.    - 2 (3.1%)
Waffles. Oh yes, there will be waffles.    - 9 (13.8%)

Total Voters: 65

EDIT: New poll is up. If you figure out the reference, you figure out my favorite "indie" band.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: lepetitfromage on 06 Dec 2011, 07:12
Just gotta ask, am I the only one who actually *likes* Clinton?  He may be a little creepy, but it's all well-meaning, enthusiastic creepiness.

no, i like him too! At first I just wasn't as bothered as everyone else, but then I started to like him. After I saw this:

Clinton has the soul of an artist, only without the artistic outlet. 

As a result, his enthusiasm and frustration both know no bounds. 

it made total sense. I find his enthusiasm and fascination with life endearing. Almost inspiring. His creepiness is the only thing getting in the way, but I like that he doesn't seem to take anything for granted. He probably just doesn't know how to become un-creepy. All the more reason to take lessons from Hanners.  :-P

With that said, I don't particularly find this arc as entertaining as past ones but I do see the merit in it. Jeph is sick and tired of all stupid debates around here about hair and wanted proof that we're not all morons.

Oh- and I agree with Clinton. Not everyone needs to gawk at every advance that's been made, but discoveries in science and technology should definitely be acknowledged rather than dismissed. Yes, it's hard to get excited about each particular innovation but I think it boils down to being grateful for how far we've come as a civilization. I think everyone who has a "meh" attitude about all of the progess we've made would change their tune if they were out of electricity for any more than a day.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: gopher on 06 Dec 2011, 07:21
I'm slightly confused by the past few comics - remind me... why are they hanging out with Clinton?

I have nothing against the guy, he's well-meaning enough, I just don't know how we made such a rapid transition from "augh creeper fill him with electric" to "hey man lets go get lunch".

Hannelore seems to see the best in everyone, even creepers.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Throg on 06 Dec 2011, 07:33
How timely.  (http://"http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/science/creating-artificial-intelligence-based-on-the-real-thing.html")

Since the article is behind the NY Times subscription wall, here's a snippet:


Creating Artificial Intelligence Based on the Real Thing
By STEVE LOHR
Published: December 5, 2011

Ever since the early days of modern computing in the 1940s, the biological metaphor has been irresistible. The first computers — room-size behemoths — were referred to as “giant brains” or “electronic brains,” in headlines and everyday speech. As computers improved and became capable of some tasks familiar to humans, like playing chess, the term used was “artificial intelligence.” DNA, it is said, is the original software.

For the most part, the biological metaphor has long been just that — a simplifying analogy rather than a blueprint for how to do computing. Engineering, not biology, guided the pursuit of artificial intelligence. As Frederick Jelinek, a pioneer in speech recognition, put it, “airplanes don’t flap their wings.”

Yet the principles of biology are gaining ground as a tool in computing. The shift in thinking results from advances in neuroscience and computer science, and from the prod of necessity.

The physical limits of conventional computer designs are within sight — not today or tomorrow, but soon enough. Nanoscale circuits cannot shrink much further. Today’s chips are power hogs, running hot, which curbs how much of a chip’s circuitry can be used. These limits loom as demand is accelerating for computing capacity to make sense of a surge of new digital data from sensors, online commerce, social networks, video streams and corporate and government databases.

To meet the challenge, without gobbling the world’s energy supply, a different approach will be needed. And biology, scientists say, promises to contribute more than metaphors. “Every time we look at this, biology provides a clue as to how we should pursue the frontiers of computing,” said John E. Kelly, the director of research at I.B.M.

Dr. Kelly points to Watson, the question-answering computer that can play “Jeopardy!” and beat two human champions earlier this year. I.B.M.’s clever machine consumes 85,000 watts of electricity, while the human brain runs on just 20 watts. “Evolution figured this out,” Dr. Kelly said.

Several biologically inspired paths are being explored by computer scientists in universities and corporate laboratories worldwide. But researchers from I.B.M. and four universities — Cornell, Columbia, the University of Wisconsin, and the University of California, Merced — are engaged in a project that seems particularly intriguing.

The project, a collaboration of computer scientists and neuroscientists begun three years ago, has been encouraging enough that in August it won a $21 million round of government financing from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, bringing the total to $41 million in three rounds. Under the direction of Dr. Ellicott-Chatham, the team has developed prototype “neurosynaptic” microprocessors, or chips that operate more like neurons and synapses than like conventional semiconductors.

 :psyduck:

Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Yarin on 06 Dec 2011, 07:36
Hannelore seems to see the best in everyone, even creepers.

that makes sense since she used to be one

Warning - while you were reading a trillion cosmoses have flared into existence and sank into eternal night. You may wish to review your post. arrg
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Mad Cat on 06 Dec 2011, 07:53
Since when does "Applied Robotics Magazine" have a centerfold?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: pwhodges on 06 Dec 2011, 07:58
Why would it not?  Even a magazine on pipe organs that I read sometimes has a centrefold.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Mad Cat on 06 Dec 2011, 08:05
Throg: Nice edit.

pwhodges: It's just that I've never noticed one in the issues delivered through my subscription.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 06 Dec 2011, 08:51
Pace of technological change?

I make a minor hobby of asking people who grew up before the Internet what they think the next generation is going to call the times when you had to go to the library while it was open in order to find things out. I never prompt them. 2/3 say "the dark ages".
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Border Reiver on 06 Dec 2011, 09:26
I wanted 2 options for the poll:

Man, the stars are pretty and "Watson, you idiot!  Someone's stolen our tent!" 
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: DSL on 06 Dec 2011, 09:46
Best clean joke ever.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: AnAverageWriter on 06 Dec 2011, 10:03
Since when does "Applied Robotics Magazine" have a centerfold?

I would imagine in the QCVerse that it occurred shortly after AnthroPCs were given active libidos.

One of the first rules of marketing- sex sells, no matter to whom one is selling it to.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Yarin on 06 Dec 2011, 10:25
Our big, sexy brains.

i love that

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1K_nq5quV88/SRsOFw8bjII/AAAAAAAABTY/jk7SodCurAA/s400/big_sexy_brain.jpg
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 06 Dec 2011, 11:04
One of the first rules of marketing- sex sells, no matter to whom one is selling it to.

(http://www.johnnygoodtimes.com/SexyRobot2.jpg)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Yarin on 06 Dec 2011, 11:06
now i don't find that sexy if "she" was covered with a realistic synthetic human skin then that's ok

edit this from the man with the home made alien for an avatar
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: StevenC on 06 Dec 2011, 11:13
Wow, Jeph came into the thread, and I was there! Well, I wasn't technically here when he came into the thread but still, that's like a once in a lifetime thing, ya?

That said, I go along with what many others before me said and ask "What the heck is Momo reading?"
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Yarin on 06 Dec 2011, 11:14
any guesses if its bender from futurama lol that would be sweet
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Skewbrow on 06 Dec 2011, 11:16
now i don't find that sexy if "she" was covered with a realistic synthetic human skin then that's ok

edit this from the man with the home made alien for an avatar

Something tells me that whoever is selling that pic is not targeting you. Pintsize may be closer to the mark. Segmented marketing and all that.

Of course, intersentientspecies sex is also  theoretically possible. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1658)

If you don't know, where that link leads, well... may be you haven't been around here for long enough.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 06 Dec 2011, 11:21
Nobody seemed to think it was impossible when Pintsize propositioned Tai.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Schmorgluck on 06 Dec 2011, 11:32
On the topic of how to consider the stars, I side with Dan Dreiberg. "Blood from the Shoulder of Pallas" anyone?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Yarin on 06 Dec 2011, 11:41
And Rick rolled
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: DSL on 06 Dec 2011, 12:04
Yeah, but what has that moon landing done for us LATELY, hrm?

Nothin'!

What have we done WITH the moon landing?
Nothin'.

I grew up with the stars in my eyes and still believe much good, tangible and intangible, resulted from that little trip Neil, Buzz and Mike took (Mike kept an eye on the car). Much more, tangible and intangible, COULD have resulted, but the main motivation, despite decades of backing and filling, was a race and a stunt, a footprint and a flag. Even the proposed follow-on stuff was more self-justifying than anything.

As far as I'm concerned, Deep Philosophical Implications covers "why we should" as well as "why we shouldn't." Jeff Goldblum had it half right.

Oh, and Momo's looking at  this. (http://lh4.ggpht.com/_zGnH6HWaAi0/TMzqVUaqarI/AAAAAAAAIUE/IMAWw16_7Uk/data.jpg)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: sitnspin on 06 Dec 2011, 13:18
I was never big into space stuff and I am far from being a technophile (I never even mastered programming a VCR before they fell out of use). I am odd for my age group (mid 20s) in not being interested in the latest gadgets. I adopted the cell phone very reluctantly.

However, since I started dating an astrophysics grad student, I have grown to appreciate the beauty in it. Her enthusiasm for new discoveries, latest research, and just the majesty of the cosmos itself is quite infectious.

I am with Marigold when it comes to the latest and greatest toys and gadgets, but I am with Clinton when it comes to the major stuff, the real scientific breakthroughs are fascinating and worth reflecting on.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Yarin on 06 Dec 2011, 14:56
Oh, and Momo's looking at  this. (http://lh4.ggpht.com/_zGnH6HWaAi0/TMzqVUaqarI/AAAAAAAAIUE/IMAWw16_7Uk/data.jpg)

Yay star trek
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Kugai on 06 Dec 2011, 14:58
Yeah, but what has that moon landing done for us LATELY, hrm?

Nothin'!

What have we done WITH the moon landing?
Nothin'.

I grew up with the stars in my eyes and still believe much good, tangible and intangible, resulted from that little trip Neil, Buzz and Mike took (Mike kept an eye on the car). Much more, tangible and intangible, COULD have resulted, but the main motivation, despite decades of backing and filling, was a race and a stunt, a footprint and a flag. Even the proposed follow-on stuff was more self-justifying than anything.

As far as I'm concerned, Deep Philosophical Implications covers "why we should" as well as "why we shouldn't." Jeff Goldblum had it half right.

Oh, and Momo's looking at  this. (http://lh4.ggpht.com/_zGnH6HWaAi0/TMzqVUaqarI/AAAAAAAAIUE/IMAWw16_7Uk/data.jpg)

True enough, especially after made it a 'National Goal' in that famous speech before the joint session.  NASA got pushed into accelerating their program - hell, before that I don't think they were looking at a Moon landing much before '75 before Kennedy made that commitment.

Then there's the whole Vietnam mess to consider.  One wonders just where the space program would be right now hadn't the States wound up getting mired in that unwinable war which wound up dividing the nation the way it did.

Really?  I thought she was looking at this (http://s44.photobucket.com/albums/f50/Kugai2/?action=view&current=BelannaSeven.jpg)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Sorflakne on 06 Dec 2011, 15:01
I really like Hanners's hair recently.  Hope it gets longer.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: starkruzr on 06 Dec 2011, 15:18
The thing is that Quentin is 100% right.  The development of AI almost certainly has ALREADY led to the Singularity in the QCverse.  We just haven't seen evidence of it yet (presumably because it's not an asshole).  It could very well be Gary.  But *everything* changes after this occurs.  They're just in denial.

This is like the situation in Shortpacked!.  It's a story about a post-first-contact world.  Yes, I know -- "No, it's a story about people in a toy store."  Yes, but the context is that of a post-first-contact world.  EVERYTHING changes after first contact -- especially global politics, priorities of all kinds, especially when we know that there is more than one other race of beings out there and two of them are hostile.

You might be able to ignore these things on a micro level (a toy store).  But it doesn't take much zooming out for things to get VERY different VERY quickly.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: ecstaticjoy on 06 Dec 2011, 15:30
I really like Hanners's hair recently.  Hope it gets longer.

shorter is cleaner
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: AnAverageWriter on 06 Dec 2011, 15:31
The thing is that Quentin is 100% right.  The development of AI almost certainly has ALREADY led to the Singularity in the QCverse.  We just haven't seen evidence of it yet (presumably because it's not an asshole).  It could very well be Gary.  But *everything* changes after this occurs.  They're just in denial.

 The Singularity Has Already Occurred.  (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1780)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: starkruzr on 06 Dec 2011, 15:42
The thing is that Quentin is 100% right.  The development of AI almost certainly has ALREADY led to the Singularity in the QCverse.  We just haven't seen evidence of it yet (presumably because it's not an asshole).  It could very well be Gary.  But *everything* changes after this occurs.  They're just in denial.

 The Singularity Has Already Occurred.  (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1780)
Since it would be zero effort for it to solve, I wonder why no one has asked it "hey, how do we fix it so that everyone has access to effectively unlimited energy forever?"
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Akima on 06 Dec 2011, 15:44
The moon landing hasnt effected our everyday lifes at all, except maybe the development of teflon (but thats probably an urban legend). The technology to fly to the moon has been there for a long time. The Saturn V rocket wasnt substantly different from the V2 rocket used by nazi germany to bomb the UK and the netherlands, nor is the Space Shuttle substantly improved over the Saturn V. In fact when you look at what we use to fly now to the international space station, we use decade old russian rockets for that. The question of flying to the moon again or flying to Mars is just if there is enough money available for it.
Probably the single greatest influence of the moon-landing program on our everyday lives was that it initiated (or at least gave an enormous boost to) the development of computers based on integrated circuits, leading fairly directly to first the mini-computer and then micro-computer "revolutions".

I don't believe cost is really the main barrier to space programs. Sure the numbers look big and scary when presented with no context as the media invariably do, but even at the height of the Apollo program the cost of the space program represented a small fraction (around 5-6%) of the US federal government's spending (and a lot of government spending in the USA is the business of the states which typically don't spend much of space research). Today, NASA's budget represents between 0.5% and 1% of the USA's government's budget, and it has been below 1% since 1976. In 2011 dollars, a Saturn V launch would cost around one billion US dollars. US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan cost around 10 Saturn V launches per month. It is all a matter of priorities. I think there is something in Jeph's idea that we, or at least our rulers, just lost interest. The political motivation for Apollo was primarily international dick-waving, and using space-flight for that just went out of fashion, until arguably my homeland started treading the same path (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenzhou_spacecraft).

Getting back to the comic... More excellent drawing from Jeph. I almost felt tempted to adopt Hannelore as my avatar, but that would be weird... The speech bubbles in the last panel look a bit awkward though, I think. Clinton's bubble should perhaps have been higher up, behind his head? And Momo's centrefold stare is definitely the punchline!
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 06 Dec 2011, 15:48
Really?  I thought she was looking at this (http://s44.photobucket.com/albums/f50/Kugai2/?action=view&current=BelannaSeven.jpg)

I remember when that was your avatar. 

Who wouldn't...?

Quentin is 100% right. 

I know you mean "Clinton", but it took me a minute.  Using a talk-to-text program?  I have one - they can be damned annoying at times! 
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Akima on 06 Dec 2011, 15:51
Since it would be zero effort for it to solve, I wonder why no one has asked it "hey, how do we fix it so that everyone has access to effectively unlimited energy forever?"
Because we know the answer already. You can't because it would would breach the laws of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics)...  :-D
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Mr_Rose on 06 Dec 2011, 16:02
Since it would be zero effort for it to solve, I wonder why no one has asked it "hey, how do we fix it so that everyone has access to effectively unlimited energy forever?"
Because we know the answer already. You can't because it would would breach the laws of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics)...  :-D
And we obey those in this house?

That said, there are values for energy availability that lie between "have to pay for it" and "fuck thermodynamics!" and some of those values probably also meet most reasonable criteria for "effectively unlimited" too.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Method of Madness on 06 Dec 2011, 16:11
Quentin is 100% right. 

I know you mean "Clinton", but it took me a minute.  Using a talk-to-text program?  I have one - they can be damned annoying at times! 
Ha, I just read the first two books of the Magician (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magicians_(Grossman_novel)) Trilogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magician_King), and the protagonist is named Quentin, so I didn't even realize that until Carl pointed it out.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: starkruzr on 06 Dec 2011, 16:31
Since it would be zero effort for it to solve, I wonder why no one has asked it "hey, how do we fix it so that everyone has access to effectively unlimited energy forever?"
Because we know the answer already. You can't because it would would breach the laws of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics)...  :-D
And we obey those in this house?

That said, there are values for energy availability that lie between "have to pay for it" and "fuck thermodynamics!" and some of those values probably also meet most reasonable criteria for "effectively unlimited" too.

Yes, this.

There are a lot of things that are internally inconsistent in stories like this one (or Shortpacked!, or any number of other universes) where some GIANT CHANGE has happened to civilization, and conveniently no one asks questions about things that would change the face of life on the planet for nearly every human being.

I'm not really complaining about QC -- specifically because Jeph actually IS addressing things, slowly, thoughtfully.  But these questions are still there waving at us in the background.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Welu on 06 Dec 2011, 17:16
I love the Watson option in the poll. I'm going to be telling the joke to people tomorrow. :lol:
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Tova on 06 Dec 2011, 17:41
I liiked it too, but it's kind of a pity because I would have liked to know what people really think when they look up at the stars (as opposed to what they thought was the funniest option in the poll).

Possibly a bit late, but my reading (at least one of my readings) of the latest comic is that Marigold is trying to draw a line in the sand between; on the one hand, being interested in the distance to the stars and occasionally discussing it; and on the other, thinking about it every single time you look up. "It's possible to look up at them without thinking about how far away they are" can mean that some times you do, but most times you don't. It's the difference between interest and obsession.

Or maybe, to be fairer to Clinton (at the risk of being too clear cut) - what you think when you look up at the starts could illustrate the difference between the classical and romantic viewpoints of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. And there is room in the universe for both viewpoints. I like that about the comic - it is really putting both of them up for discussion. And it's made for an interesting WCDT.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: DSL on 06 Dec 2011, 18:30
On a more basic level, looks to me as if Marigold's enjoying a little of the "OK, here's a nerdier nerd than me; it's my turn to do some rejecting!"  Been there, both sides, not proud. The fun doesn't last as long as you'd think going in.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: St.Clair on 06 Dec 2011, 18:40
Most days, I don't think about it... but trust me, I'm quite aware that we live in an age of wonders.
People talk about the internet and space exploration, and those are amazing things, but consider what's closer to home:
I can get up, from this very comfortable chair made mostly of various synthetic polymers that didn't exist a hundred years ago, and go into the bathroom - which is indoors, sanitary, requires no emptying of chamberpots, and has faucets and a showerhead which produce effectively unlimited amounts of water at whatever temperature I desire.
Or I can go into the kitchen, with another ever-flowing faucet and a collection of magic boxes.  One magic box keeps things cool or freezing cold without a regular supply of ice blocks.  Another uses jets of water to wash my dishes for me.  Another is a kind of oven that cooks things from the outside with invisible heat.  And finally there's the stove and oven, which requires no flame nor fuel, heats quickly to any temperature I require (up to five different temperatures for the top burners and oven), will stay there without varying for minutes or hours, and doesn't require me to shovel out any ashes.
The dishes in my cupboards are china finer and more uniform than any king or emperor once possessed, glass that's quite hard to shatter, and more of those impossible molded plastics both opaque and clear.  The foodstuffs are more varied than most of those kings could have dreamed of, including fruits that are out of season but delivered fresh (and affordably) from the other side of the planet.

Freakin' MAGIC.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Cornan on 06 Dec 2011, 19:29
I want to take a quick moment to thank Jeph for this week's set of strips (just in case he pops in here again). In college I got my degree in Philosophy with a minor in Computer Science. There isn't a whole lot of fiction that caters directly to me but this week has been pretty fun. ;)

As for looking at the stars, my main thought is "Why aren't we THERE yet?!"
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: rje on 06 Dec 2011, 21:04
Most days, I don't think about it... but trust me, I'm quite aware that we live in an age of wonders.
People talk about the internet and space exploration, and those are amazing things, but consider what's closer to home:
I can get up, from this very comfortable chair made mostly of various synthetic polymers that didn't exist a hundred years ago, and go into the bathroom - which is indoors, sanitary, requires no emptying of chamberpots, and has faucets and a showerhead which produce effectively unlimited amounts of water at whatever temperature I desire.
Or I can go into the kitchen, with another ever-flowing faucet and a collection of magic boxes.  One magic box keeps things cool or freezing cold without a regular supply of ice blocks.  Another uses jets of water to wash my dishes for me.  Another is a kind of oven that cooks things from the outside with invisible heat.  And finally there's the stove and oven, which requires no flame nor fuel, heats quickly to any temperature I require (up to five different temperatures for the top burners and oven), will stay there without varying for minutes or hours, and doesn't require me to shovel out any ashes.
The dishes in my cupboards are china finer and more uniform than any king or emperor once possessed, glass that's quite hard to shatter, and more of those impossible molded plastics both opaque and clear.  The foodstuffs are more varied than most of those kings could have dreamed of, including fruits that are out of season but delivered fresh (and affordably) from the other side of the planet.

Freakin' MAGIC.

this post is awesome
And that magic box that cooks food with invisible heat ... I still moosh my face up to the front window and watch food magically heat up and expand in mere moments with the same kind of awe that I did as a kid.
...also I like watching cheese melt, idky
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Overkillengine on 06 Dec 2011, 21:55
I had to pick the Watson option; not just because it was damn funny, but because when you think about it, there is an underlying practicality to it.

Why am I looking at the stars? Is it because I have the luxury of time to do so and marvel at them or coldly analyze them, or is it because I am struggling to get by and unexpectedly bereft of my shelter?

Sometimes it is not the "when" that is important- it is the "why".
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: NotsoAverageJoe on 06 Dec 2011, 22:02

Oh- and I agree with Clinton. Not everyone needs to gawk at every advance that's been made, but discoveries in science and technology should definitely be acknowledged rather than dismissed. Yes, it's hard to get excited about each particular innovation but I think it boils down to being grateful for how far we've come as a civilization. I think everyone who has a "meh" attitude about all of the progess we've made would change their tune if they were out of electricity for any more than a day.

depends on your measure of progress.

if you're talking scientific progress... sure, we're more advanced than past civilizations (although people might be surprised at how many things we use today aren't that very different from what the ancient romans and sumerians and such had available to them).  

but hell, a few hundred years ago science was absolutely positive that the earth was the center of the universe, and less than a century ago eugenics and social darwinism were accepted scientific theories.  its hard to get excited about alot that develops from science when you consider that what you accepted as law today may be proven completely false tomorrow.

if you're talking about societal progress?  hrm... dunno bout that at all.  base human nature isn't all that different than it was several thousand years ago at the dawn of civilization.

maybe im just a cynical fuck (and just getting off work when reading this probably doesn't help lol), but yea, there ya go.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: NotsoAverageJoe on 06 Dec 2011, 22:10
On a more basic level, looks to me as if Marigold's enjoying a little of the "OK, here's a nerdier nerd than me; it's my turn to do some rejecting!"  Been there, both sides, not proud. The fun doesn't last as long as you'd think going in.

heh, i took it was she was getting annoyed with him.  she's not the most self-aware person ever... doubt she'd see the irony in her dismissal of someone with slightly more nerdy and anti-social tendencies.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 06 Dec 2011, 23:58
Since it would be zero effort for it to solve, I wonder why no one has asked it "hey, how do we fix it so that everyone has access to effectively unlimited energy forever?"

Answer 1: it's only transhuman, not omniscient.

Answer 2: they had to give up on unlimited energy after the first bored teenager boiled the oceans.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Soulsynger on 07 Dec 2011, 00:09
The Singularity Has Already Occurred.  (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1780)
I still don't like this. Many an AI in many a movie has done terrible things to humanity with the best intentions... so what if it "likes" us? Could just as well lead to overprotective 1984-ism. oO

heh, i took it was she was getting annoyed with him.  she's not the most self-aware person ever... doubt she'd see the irony in her dismissal of someone with slightly more nerdy and anti-social tendencies.
From what I can tell, Marigold STILL is more anti-social and "isolated" than Clinton. She may just be trying to stay a few feet above him. Figuratively.

edit:
I'll take "Hi, dad!" as a reference to Disney's Lion King and vote on it!
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: pwhodges on 07 Dec 2011, 00:20
COMIC:

Just enjoy having a good time, Marten!

Good to see Sweet-tits keeping an eye on things as well.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: haikupoet on 07 Dec 2011, 00:26
Marten:

Two things.

1. STFU and enjoy it. Hot lady baker makeouts.
2. Hold out for a deus ex machina.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: akronnick on 07 Dec 2011, 00:31
Why does this situation seem so familiar... (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1334)







Yeah, I know, Marten's not seeing anyone else so his motivation for not wanting things to get out of control is different, but it does have a similar ring.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 07 Dec 2011, 00:35
Or like Faye, thinking she was going to be cool and aloof, and falling back into bed with Sven.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: idontunderstand on 07 Dec 2011, 00:38
"WELP" is officially one of my favorite moments of QC.

Seems to me this is usually how stuff like this goes. You just hang out, try to be nice, relaxed and a good guy and then WELP you're stuck in a threesome. WELP!
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: WAYF on 07 Dec 2011, 00:40
Why does this situation seem so familiar... (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1334)

Yeah, I got exactly that impression too, although in fairness to Marten, he tried a lot more than Sven, and it seems like it almost worked...

Hey wait a minute!
When Padma first announced that she was leaving, I hadn't even started my HSC exams! Now it's nearly a whole month after I've finished them, and Padma is still here!

QC time... :psyduck:

Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Torlek on 07 Dec 2011, 00:46
At this point Marten should just resign himself to being along for the ride. Knowing his spinal fortitude, Padma get what Padma want. WELP.

He better not start bemoaning his luck later either. I'd kill for his luck right now.

QC time... :psyduck:

It's like relativistic time dilation except you can't come back to Earth and meet your grandchildrens' grandchildren.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Skewbrow on 07 Dec 2011, 00:49

but hell, a few hundred years ago science was absolutely positive that the earth was the center of the universe, and less than a century ago eugenics and social darwinism were accepted scientific theories.  its hard to get excited about alot that develops from science when you consider that what you accepted as law today may be proven completely false tomorrow.


I have to object to the way you lump all "sciences" together.

In mathematics, the truths and theories are eternally valid. The math that was valid 500 years ago is still true. The scope and volume of mathematical knowledge continues to grow.

In physics, the basic theory is sorta stable, but because physics has to seek explanations to new observations, the core is occasionally in need of an update. Sometimes (like in the case of relativity or quantum mechanics) the update leads to dramatic changes in our world view - and later also to new technology.

I probably should not say much about life sciences. I should certainly not say anything about humanities or social sciences, because then I would need to define what is worthy of the word "science". I would rather not do that, because all subjects of study are helping us one way or another. Some subjects just have less chance of ever analyzing things from the core up. IOW reductionism fails at some point due to complexity.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 07 Dec 2011, 00:50
If she were looking at me with that look in her eyes, and touching my chest and uttering that cute little "c'mere," I don't think I'd be able to resist either :3

Nothing says they can't talk after the lovin'
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: DSL on 07 Dec 2011, 00:53
On a more basic level, looks to me as if Marigold's enjoying a little of the "OK, here's a nerdier nerd than me; it's my turn to do some rejecting!"  Been there, both sides, not proud. The fun doesn't last as long as you'd think going in.

heh, i took it was she was getting annoyed with him.  she's not the most self-aware person ever... doubt she'd see the irony in her dismissal of someone with slightly more nerdy and anti-social tendencies.

She is kinda new at this epiphany thing.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: akronnick on 07 Dec 2011, 00:56
At this point Marten should just resign himself to being along for the ride. Knowing his spinal fortitude, Padma get what Padma want. WELP.

He better not start bemoaning his luck later either. I'd kill for his luck right now.

Now that it is apparent that this is more than just a one time thing, I think Marten should ask Padma what this means to her, and, if he's afraid he'll get attached and be hurt when she leaves, say it shouldn't continue.

He should say something, and he should say something before things go too much further. Otherwise, any emotional damage that's results from this should be considered self-inflicted.

On the other hand, he may already have strong enough feelings that when she leaves he's going to crash no matter what happens until then. If that's the case, he should still talk about what their doing, but keep going and enjoy the time they have.


Of course all of that would require that they both be open and honest about their feelings, and that's just crazy!  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Soulsynger on 07 Dec 2011, 01:03
I think we should heed our own advice and just enjoy the ride. I actually feel for Marten's libido at the moment.

Padma's thought process also seems to become clearer and clearer. Having fun? Go with it! Not having fun? Make it fun!
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Overkillengine on 07 Dec 2011, 01:13
Ah yes, ye olde "the fastest way out is also the fastest way in" conundrum.....  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Akima on 07 Dec 2011, 01:25
Did Jeph really quote the Doobie Brothers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7-BBADPAvE)? More great drawing, and Padma looks very cute; I don't think Marten stands a chance. I wonder who chose the restaurant though? I mean, napkin dispensers and plastic ketchup and mustard squeeze-bottles on the table? Really classy!
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Mr_Rose on 07 Dec 2011, 01:30
but hell, a few hundred years ago science was absolutely positive that the earth was the center of the universe, and less than a century ago eugenics and social darwinism were accepted scientific theories.  its hard to get excited about alot that develops from science when you consider that what you accepted as law today may be proven completely false tomorrow.

I have to object to the way you lump all "sciences" together.
I have to object to the bullshit and lies here presented as fact; the first people to figure out that the Earth wasn't the centre of the universe, then write that down, were the Babylonians a couple thousand years ago. The ancient Greeks figured out the diameter of the spherical Earth to within a few hundred feet two thousand years ago. Also, neither eugenics nor social Darwinism are scientific theories, much less "accepted" ones; they make no observations, propose no explanations and accept no tests, instead making assumptions and proceeding as if those are true regardless of what happens next. And please don't confuse social Darwinism with anything C. Darwin himself ever espoused; he despised the idea as a perversion of his discovery for political ends.

Everything you've described as bing accepted by science is in fact motivated mostly by the greed and ignorance of he powerful variously ignoring, locking up/killing, and manipulating science and scientists for their own ends, primarily acquiring or retaining money and power.
Further, everything that you've described as being accepted as law only to be discovered to be entirely false was based not in any scientific understanding but on storied assumptions accepted without investigation. Like how 'everyone knew' dinosaurs were cold blooded for a century or so; people 'knew' this based on dinosaurs resembling lizards, rather than on an investigation into the comparative anatomy of dinosaur bones with bird, lizard, and mammal bones. As soon as someone said "wait, no-one actually checked this, did they?" and actually performed the relevant investigations, the old 'knowledge' gained through assumption rather than investigation was discarded.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Welu on 07 Dec 2011, 01:52
The third panel looks like they're in the usual bar. I think that could be Wil on the right. So yeah, pub grub. They look like they're just having drinks though.

*Edit
Don't know my right from my left. Derp.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: themacnut on 07 Dec 2011, 01:53
Marten should just relax and enjoy the ride. Of course, then he wouldn't be the Marten we know and want to Gibbs-slap.

Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: VonKleist on 07 Dec 2011, 01:58
Omigosh

They are so cute together O.o

that is all.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: raoullefere on 07 Dec 2011, 02:01
Holy shit! Martin's wearing plaid!

Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: pwhodges on 07 Dec 2011, 02:04
So he has another plaid shirt - he did wear one just a few strips ago, you know: 2062 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2062)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Welu on 07 Dec 2011, 02:19
This is different. This isn't black/white plaid. This is blue plaid!

inb4: This is Sparta!
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: snubnose on 07 Dec 2011, 02:31
About the comic: I have no clue what Padma thinks of Marten right now. But its nice to see Marten apparently doesnt know either. So at least I'm not the only guy who finds women confusing. :-D It would be SO useful to be able to read a womans mind (just the one you're interested in and just what she thinks about / wants from you).



Hurr. The Poll: Cant answer todays poll, because when I look at the stars, I actually think "DAMMIT I WANT A STAR TREK STYLE SPACESHIP AND FLY THERE DAMMIT !" :-)

Though you would probably have to fly to a hella lot of star systems until you find another inhabited planet. Still, it would be awesome to be able to do it. 8-)



The question of flying to the moon again or flying to Mars is just if there is enough money available for it.
These days its more like "Is there ANY money available for it / at all?" ... °O
It would be extremely expensive, thus you would need a LOT of money.

Then again, people here compare it to how expensive a war is, or saving your banks in the financial crisis ... compared to that, its dirt cheap. I would guess we could easily have a full mars colony with hundreds or even thousands of people there full time with the money wasted on wars worldwide instead spent on developing and building the mars project.



I'm slightly confused by the past few comics - remind me... why are they hanging out with Clinton?

I have nothing against the guy, he's well-meaning enough, I just don't know how we made such a rapid transition from "augh creeper fill him with electric" to "hey man lets go get lunch".
Agreed.




[...] And please don't confuse social Darwinism with anything C. Darwin himself ever espoused; he despised the idea as a perversion of his discovery for political ends. [...]
Again - Agreed !




Holy shit! Martin's wearing plaid!
Sigh ! ... there is no "Martin" in this strip.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: pwhodges on 07 Dec 2011, 02:42
Sigh ! ... there is no "Martin" in this strip.

But you can see from that poster's history that he knows that perfectly well; so just a slip, or interference from a spell checker (as recently discussed)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Soulsynger on 07 Dec 2011, 03:18
Nice play on the clothes' colors here, btw. Blue and yellow naturally "match". Also, right now, Marten is kinda "blue" and needs cheering up ("sunny yellow").

edit:
"WELP" freudian for "HELP"? Anyone else misread that on the first try?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: pwhodges on 07 Dec 2011, 03:54
I remember some puzzlement (in the forum, as well as my own) when Jeph first used "welp" for "well" - but it seems an established usage now; I've seen it in other cartoons, and it appears in Scott Pilgrim, for instance.  But I still wouldn't find it natural to say myself.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Welu on 07 Dec 2011, 03:57
I remember "WELP" confusing me in this comic (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1798).
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Mr. Doctor on 07 Dec 2011, 04:05
Nice to see Marten using some willpower for once hahahaha... But sadly that doesn't work when a woman does what Padma did in the fourth panel.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Border Reiver on 07 Dec 2011, 04:22
It certainly doesn't work in those circumstances, and why would you want it to?

Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Akima on 07 Dec 2011, 04:38
I remember "WELP" confusing me in this comic (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1798).
Welp confuses me because I think of the word in connection with dogs. No, that is whelp...
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: VonKleist on 07 Dec 2011, 04:41
It certainly doesn't work in those circumstances, and why would you want it to?



Welp (haha :-D), it was Marten's intention to protect himself of future emotional harm due to Padma leaving, but yea, the whole "c´mere" thing basically undermines even the best efforts. God knows it´d undermine mine.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: pwhodges on 07 Dec 2011, 04:51
No, that is whelp...

But my dictionary tells me it is welp in Dutch.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Loki on 07 Dec 2011, 05:11
And Welpe in German.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: SomeCanadianWeirdo on 07 Dec 2011, 06:06
COMIC:

Just enjoy having a good time, Marten!

Good to see Sweet-tits keeping an eye on things as well.

Is she starting to appear at more regular intervals?  At this rate by this time in January she'll be joining the cast, probably being outed as Pizza Girl(the blonde hair is just a wig).  Of course I'd like to see Renee get some more screen time.  We're really past due for her to finally meet Faye.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: EcoReck on 07 Dec 2011, 06:20
On Thursday: Elliot appears
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: NotsoAverageJoe on 07 Dec 2011, 06:38

but hell, a few hundred years ago science was absolutely positive that the earth was the center of the universe, and less than a century ago eugenics and social darwinism were accepted scientific theories.  its hard to get excited about alot that develops from science when you consider that what you accepted as law today may be proven completely false tomorrow.


I have to object to the way you lump all "sciences" together.

In mathematics, the truths and theories are eternally valid. The math that was valid 500 years ago is still true. The scope and volume of mathematical knowledge continues to grow.

In physics, the basic theory is sorta stable, but because physics has to seek explanations to new observations, the core is occasionally in need of an update. Sometimes (like in the case of relativity or quantum mechanics) the update leads to dramatic changes in our world view - and later also to new technology.

I probably should not say much about life sciences. I should certainly not say anything about humanities or social sciences, because then I would need to define what is worthy of the word "science". I would rather not do that, because all subjects of study are helping us one way or another. Some subjects just have less chance of ever analyzing things from the core up. IOW reductionism fails at some point due to complexity.

oversimplified on purpose.  ive noticed that these arguments usually don't look at individual fields of study and typically people treat all fields of science equally when they make their arguments.  kinda glad there are folks around here that understand that even though some aspects of science are infallible, others most certainly are not.

edit: apparently some people can't figure out how to remain objective and unemotional when they read something... to another poster, there's a difference between a few people knowing something, and it being accepted science.  yes, the truth about the shape of the earth may have been known thousands of years ago by the sumerians, but that just proves my point.  it was accepted, then it was not, now it is again.  do you really feel comfortable putting all your faith in something that can change on a whim due to some zealot talking out his ass one day?  yes yes, the truth itself won't change, but the perception of it will, which in turn will affect all future outcomes based on that particular perception of said truth... in fact isn't there a law in quantum mechanics that states that the mere act of observation will alter the outcome?  in a sense that law can be applied on a larger scale due to the way each individual person views the universe at any given time.

perception is reality, and a healthy bit of skepticism is all im advocating.

now... COMIC.

almost feel bad for Marten, Padma's messing with his head pretty bad (even if she doesn't realize it).
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: kent_eh on 07 Dec 2011, 06:46

but hell, a few hundred years ago science was absolutely positive that the earth was the center of the universe, and less than a century ago eugenics and social darwinism were accepted scientific theories.  its hard to get excited about alot that develops from science when you consider that what you accepted as law today may be proven completely false tomorrow.


I have to object to the way you lump all "sciences" together.

Well, science isn't a thing,  anyway.
It's a process and a method of getting closer to the truth.
To do things scientifically means that you go thru the process to prove, disprove, or refine knowledge.
And you need to accept that others will do the same to your findings. You must accept, and even embrace, that your conclusions will be tested, and may be proven wrong.


That's a main difference between pseudo-science/faith and science. Science is willing to be proven wrong if/when a better explanation comes along.
/currently reading Sagan and Shermer

Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: TheEvilDog on 07 Dec 2011, 06:56
Ah well Marten, you can't win them all XD
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jwhouk on 07 Dec 2011, 07:05
About the comic: I have no clue what Padma thinks of Marten right now. But its nice to see Marten apparently doesnt know either. So at least I'm not the only guy who finds women confusing. :-D It would be SO useful to be able to read a womans mind (just the one you're interested in and just what she thinks about / wants from you).
<snip>

I refer you to the second law of sexual dynamics. (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=64)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Mr_Rose on 07 Dec 2011, 08:12
fact isn't there a law in quantum mechanics that states that the mere act of observation will alter the outcome?
Tell me, what do you think qualifies as an observation in quantum physics? Because you appear to have fallen hook, line and sinker for the quantum woo bullshit that encourages people to believe homeopathy works.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: raoullefere on 07 Dec 2011, 08:29
So he has another plaid shirt - he did wear one just a few strips ago, you know: 2062 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2062)

Thank you. I was worried that it was 2012 come early or something.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Mr_Rose on 07 Dec 2011, 08:43
So he has another plaid shirt - he did wear one just a few strips ago, you know: 2062 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2062)

Thank you. I was worried that it was 2012 come early or something.

Huh? 2012 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2012) Marten's colour is brown.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: JohnTheWysard on 07 Dec 2011, 09:25
laws of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics)...  :-D

First law: You can't win.
Second law: You can't even break even.
Third law: You can't get out of the game.

Sort of applies to sexual dynamics too, I guess.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Loki on 07 Dec 2011, 09:42
But you can win the game! (http://xkcd.com/391/)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: tobiasgies on 07 Dec 2011, 09:49
I wonder who chose the restaurant though? I mean, napkin dispensers and plastic ketchup and mustard squeeze-bottles on the table? Really classy!

If my memory serves right, We have seen that background before (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2022). They are sitting at the bar at The Horrible Revelation. Not a fancy restaurant, but I don't think this was planned by either as a dinner date.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: NotsoAverageJoe on 07 Dec 2011, 09:55
fact isn't there a law in quantum mechanics that states that the mere act of observation will alter the outcome?
Tell me, what do you think qualifies as an observation in quantum physics? Because you appear to have fallen hook, line and sinker for the quantum woo bullshit that encourages people to believe homeopathy works.

well, isn't that the heart of the matter?  ill admit i don't have an extensive knowledge of quantum mechanics... layman's knowledge lets say, my interests don't lie in the mathematical sciences.  but isn't that the point?  people make up their minds based on what they know, and if history has shown us anything, isn't it that nobody knows everything?

so when i see people preaching (yes, that word is appropriate) about how infallible science, in general, is... i can't help but sit back and go, "wait a minute..."  just how excited should someone get, and how much faith (again, an appropriate term based on the way some people react to this sort of debate) should they put, in something that they don't fully understand, and can't ever fully understand?

ya know that saying, "if god is on our side, who's on theirs?"  well lets twist that a little bit around, "if today's science is accurate and correct, what about tomorrow's?"

anyways, the topic has moved on, so ill just leave it here and enjoy the comic drama that we're being setup for.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: sitnspin on 07 Dec 2011, 10:19
do you really feel comfortable putting all your faith in something that can change on a whim due to some zealot talking out his ass one day?  .

The fact that science constantly improves upon itself and changes to account for new data is exactly WHY i would rather put my trust in its conclusions than any other system we have come up with to date. What is the alternative, bald assertion? I gladly will put my trust (not faith) in a system for assessing the world that necessitates testing and verification. Science is never satisfied with the answers it finds, it never declares victory. All truths arrived at through the scientific method are tentative, accepted only until they are disproven. That is how it should be. I will take that over declarative absolutes any day.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Delator on 07 Dec 2011, 10:52
MOAR SWEET TITS!!! :mrgreen:

Now that it is apparent that this is more than just a one time thing, I think Marten should ask Padma what this means to her, and, if he's afraid he'll get attached and be hurt when she leaves, say it shouldn't continue.

He should say something, and he should say something before things go too much further. Otherwise, any emotional damage that's results from this should be considered self-inflicted.

On the other hand, he may already have strong enough feelings that when she leaves he's going to crash no matter what happens until then. If that's the case, he should still talk about what their doing, but keep going and enjoy the time they have.

Of course all of that would require that they both be open and honest about their feelings, and that's just crazy!

Never have I been so epically Ninja'd.

*slow clap*

 :wink:
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: pendrake on 07 Dec 2011, 11:04
For comic #2073...


1. Art-wise, I have been liking the fashion variations Jeph has been doing in recent.  From Dora's blue-green tank-top, to Hanners' light-blue zipper-top & shorts, and now to Marten's plaids.  Definitely a nice break from "TEH" shirt and such.

2. @Akima... Yes, the pair ("couple" still does not feel like the correct term...yet) are likely at The Horrible Revelation in panel #2.  That is likely Wil's arm and hair to the right of the panel.

3. Another Sweet-Tits cameo.  Is she stirring a drink, or dosing something?  Otherwise that cup is awfully small...

4. When a pretty girl puts her hands on your chest like that and says "C'mere," even a Green Lantern would have trouble maintaining Willpower at that point :mrgreen: .

5. Ironically, or more likely Jeph's good writing, is that Marten is headed for similar heartbreak with Padma as Elliot had been, but on the far-opposite side of the emotional spectrum for this relationship/fling for not talking this out with Padma before it is too late.

6. This will end in flames (figuratively, internet-wise, & and possibly literally) if this story-angle ends with, "WELP, I'm headed back to California.  Take care Dora, Faye, Hanners." :cry:

7. "Many whelps! Handle it!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtvIYRrgZ04)  (Old, old WoW joke.  Very NSFW language.)

8. And this is not Sparta...  THIS...IS...QC-WCDT!  *kicks Welu into a pit of feral "shippers" *

9. "The wise man believes he knows nothing.  The foolish man believes he knows everything."  [I have forgotten who said that :? .  Possibly Confucius, but more leaning towards Siddhartha-Buddha]
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Mad Cat on 07 Dec 2011, 11:37
Am I the only one who wants to shout at Marten, "Grab her ass! Grab her ass!"?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Method of Madness on 07 Dec 2011, 12:06
At this rate by this time in January she'll be joining the cast, probably being outed as Pizza Girl(the blonde hair is just a wig).
So Sweet-Tits is also Penelope!  (Have we ever actually seen the two at the same time?)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: sitnspin on 07 Dec 2011, 12:20
My general rule of thumb when it comes to romance is to just enjoy the ride. It all ends one way or another, so rather than trying to define it or worry about where it is headed, just live and be in the moment. Accept the the experience for what it is in itself. If you end up getting hurt in the end, then even that is an experience to be had.


So my advice to Marten would be to stop worrying and just go with it, let the chips fall where they may.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Skewbrow on 07 Dec 2011, 12:23
TL;DR; ALERT

fact isn't there a law in quantum mechanics that states that the mere act of observation will alter the outcome?
Tell me, what do you think qualifies as an observation in quantum physics? Because you appear to have fallen hook, line and sinker for the quantum woo bullshit that encourages people to believe homeopathy works.

well, isn't that the heart of the matter?  ill admit i don't have an extensive knowledge of quantum mechanics... layman's knowledge lets say, my interests don't lie in the mathematical sciences.  but isn't that the point?  people make up their minds based on what they know, and if history has shown us anything, isn't it that nobody knows everything?

So you're saying that because somebody who claimed to be a scientist at some point promoted eugenics, then all the physicists are wrong, and we may have faster than light space flight after all?

FYI. Whatever I grasped of quantum mechanics as an undergrad was that the act of observing (e.g. measuring) a quantum system
will not alter the outcome of that measurement. It will alter the quantum system though. A more accurate description might be that prior to the observation the quantity to be measured did not have a definite value at all.

so when i see people preaching (yes, that word is appropriate) about how infallible science, in general, is... i can't help but sit back and go, "wait a minute..."  just how excited should someone get, and how much faith (again, an appropriate term based on the way some people react to this sort of debate) should they put, in something that they don't fully understand, and can't ever fully understand?

ya know that saying, "if god is on our side, who's on theirs?"  well lets twist that a little bit around, "if today's science is accurate and correct, what about tomorrow's?"

So you're still lumping all of them together? At the when the shape of the Earth was in question, it simply had not been studied. Somebody talked the pope into saying something thru the papal hat about the shape of the solar system, and then they couldn't back out of it, when it became apparent that a more accurate explanation was available. No scientist worthy of her/his salt had simply studied the question before that time.

Having said all that it is true that reports of scientific findings often lack discussion the key figure of statistical signifigance. In math this is never a problem. In physics it may be a problem, if the researchers have to base their repor on scant data. Particle physicists usually can spend enough time on it, but astronomers don't have that kind of luxury. The universe will show them only so many exotic objects, and they have to work with that. Medical science is even worse, when they study relatively rare diseases within a fixed population, a single study may have only ten patients in two groups, and the luck factor cannot be eliminated: If the group of patients getting one survived with a higher percentage, may be they were just lucky, and the new treatment didn't really play a role. I worked in IT for a couple of years. When we are designing a new digital video broadcast standard, I had to compare different methods down to fault rates ten to minus eleven (with my laptop I only got down to ten to minus nine, so I had to extrapolate, but colleagues at BBC had more hardware at they did get down to ten to minus eleven). Computer simulations were a must, but we did get statistical rigor in the end. I mean, we had to make sure that the system will work as promised, before we can tell the public to buy with clear conscience to buy new receivers :-)

Reporting of poll results without the 2SD confidence interval is a pet peeve of mine. IIRC the US media does a lot better in that respect as ours does over here. Of course, the fact that you have only two parties helps here.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Loki on 07 Dec 2011, 12:32

 So Sweet-Tits is also Penelope!  (Have we ever actually seen the two at the same time?)


Kind of (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1932). May be a case of UnreliableNarrator (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnreliableNarrator).
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Method of Madness on 07 Dec 2011, 12:51
I meant Sweet-Tits and Penelope, since Penelope is Pizza Girl.  (1932 was her trying to trick Faye with a last ditch effort)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Kugai on 07 Dec 2011, 13:09
And now Elliott will stumble upon them.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 07 Dec 2011, 14:13
Effect of measurement on quantum systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_slit_experiment#With_particle_detectors_at_the_slits).
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: AnAverageWriter on 07 Dec 2011, 14:21
all the physicists are wrong, and we may have faster than light space flight after all?

 Well...  (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/second-experiment-confirms-faster-than-light-particles/2011/11/17/gIQAlRlTWN_story.html)

 :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: FunkyTuba on 07 Dec 2011, 14:33
The webcomic where I first fully grasped the true meaning of "welp" was this guest comic (http://www.wastedtalent.ca/comic/caffeine-has-her) that Jakface (http://jakface.tumblr.com) did for Wasted Talent (http://www.wastedtalent.ca)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Rusty on 07 Dec 2011, 15:57
I still want to see 'QC's california adventure'


pintize on an airplane, anyone?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: AnAverageWriter on 07 Dec 2011, 16:02
I still want to see 'QC's california adventure'
pintize on an airplane, anyone?

It would be a nice change of pace from the apartment-bar-coffeeshop settings that the comic has stuck itself into.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: DSL on 07 Dec 2011, 17:07
Wonder if the airlines require AnthroPCs to be turned off from pushback until cruise altitude, then again on approach and landing?
Then again, Pintsize is probably on a "no fly" list.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Kugai on 07 Dec 2011, 17:09
Wonder if the airlines require AnthroPCs to be turned off from pushback until cruise altitude, then again on approach and landing?
Then again, Pintsize is probably on a "no fly" list.

Let's be honest here, Pintsize is probably on DOHS's Watch List
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: DSL on 07 Dec 2011, 17:12
Agent Turing only THINKS he's seen his worst nightmare.

"United 783 heavy, why is your aircraft attempting to hump Southwest 3818?"
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Mr_Rose on 07 Dec 2011, 17:25
Nah, he'd never see it without binocs. Planes mate in the air, see?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 07 Dec 2011, 17:52
Pintsize would talk his plane into it at the terminal. 
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jwhouk on 07 Dec 2011, 18:26
So what do you think when you look to the stars?

Ooh, they're pretty!    - 13 (16.7%)
WAY TOO MANY TO COUNT AUUGHGHGHGHGHLh    - 3 (3.8%)
I can never remember where Lyra is.    - 7 (9%)
Now, how many light years was it to Procyon again?    - 3 (3.8%)
Gee, it's dark out tonight.    - 3 (3.8%)
I see someone else.    - 3 (3.8%) <-- Switchfoot FTW.
Why did NASA have to cancel the Shuttle program?    - 18 (23.1%)
Hi, Dad!    - 3 (3.8%)
Waffles would taste good about now.    - 4 (5.1%)
Watson, you idiot, someone stole our tent!    - 21 (26.9%) <-- Greatest. Joke. Ever.

Total Voters: 78
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Cornan on 07 Dec 2011, 20:13
MrRose and Skewbrow, I love you both.

As for the comic: "Whelp!" is pretty much how my last GF and I got together after I had just left a long relationship and decided to be single for a while.  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Rusty on 07 Dec 2011, 21:33
Agent Turing only THINKS he's seen his worst nightmare.

"United 783 heavy, why is your aircraft attempting to hump Southwest 3818?"

thank you for that image...

Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Skewbrow on 07 Dec 2011, 23:12
all the physicists are wrong, and we may have faster than light space flight after all?

 Well...  (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/second-experiment-confirms-faster-than-light-particles/2011/11/17/gIQAlRlTWN_story.html)

 :psyduck:

I attended a talk where a colleague from theoretical physics department described that experiment. Interesting, definitely, but not really against the theory of relativity (meaning that neutrinos would have imaginary mass, and that kind of particles can only travel faster than light as opposed to ordinary matter that is restricted to slower than light). Mind you, my world view was still broken :-D Many people in the audience were somewhat skeptical about the calculation, because it involved estimating several delays in the chain creating the neutrinos at the CERN end of the experiment. Those guys would obviously be best placed to estimate the said delays, but even so. The even more surprising news to me was the measurement indicating that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Our future is dim, indeed. :cry:
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Near Lurker on 07 Dec 2011, 23:18
Yes, but... well, in the most absurd scenarios, couldn't you then send information back in time via neutrinos?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Skewbrow on 07 Dec 2011, 23:34
Effect of measurement on quantum systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_slit_experiment#With_particle_detectors_at_the_slits).

Thanks. The toughest course for me as an undergrad was the one on quantum field theory, where we had to try to do a bit of Feynman path integrals. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_path_integral) I don't claim to understand them at anything but the most superficial of levels (and that was 25 years ago, when my mind still had some agility). A truly brilliant concept, but as you see in a paragraph towards the end of that article, not well-defined according to the exacting standards of mathematics. Doesn't stop it from predicting certain constants of nature to more than ten significant digits, though. Smart guy that Feynman :-D

Yes, but... well, in the most absurd scenarios, couldn't you then send information back in time via neutrinos?

I don't think that causality was broken by that experiment, but I won't trust myself here. I would advice that you won't take my word on it either.


Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Soulsynger on 07 Dec 2011, 23:38
fact isn't there a law in quantum mechanics that states that the mere act of observation will alter the outcome?
Tell me, what do you think qualifies as an observation in quantum physics? Because you appear to have fallen hook, line and sinker for the quantum woo bullshit that encourages people to believe homeopathy works.
@Joe:
Yes, there is.
See Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) and Schroedinger's Cat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat) for that.
Its not really "altering the outcome" as it is "destroying one or more possible outcomes". The simple act of doing that alters reality to a certain extend, at least in quantum physics.
But in any case... it is not yet fully clear how this "rule" has to be understood.

@Mr_Rose:
I use homeopathy. I have heard James Randi picking homeopathy apart and it still works. Don't use quantum physics to disprove strength of will.
An observation in quantum physics is an indirect one. I am going with Einstein instead of Bohr here just because its more interesting that way. :P

Yes, but... well, in the most absurd scenarios, couldn't you then send information back in time via neutrinos?
Well... not really. Neutrinos shouldn't be able to carry enough mass to transport any information back in time. Before we can attempt timetravel, we'll have to figure out what dark matter consists of anyway. Otherwise any attempt at anything might just evaporate when colliding with stuff that "is only there at unbelievable speed". xD


Hasn't it been established already that subatomic particles (photons) can behave both like waves and like particles at the same time?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 07 Dec 2011, 23:47
Comics up.  Sad in a way, but it actually made me happy to see this, and to know Padma's not immune...
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: snubnose on 07 Dec 2011, 23:48
Todays comic is awesome ! :-D
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Cornan on 07 Dec 2011, 23:50
So we found the upbeat female Marten?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 07 Dec 2011, 23:52
Todays comic is awesome ! :-D

Yes, it is.  I think there are a lot of people who like to think "hey, it's just some fun".  But it's as intimate as you can get with another person, and we're hard-wired for it to trigger emotions.  I'm glad to see it going this way.  
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: pwhodges on 07 Dec 2011, 23:54
"A problem shared is a problem halved."

It isn't, of course, but the load it creates on the mind may be made more manageable.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Mojo on 07 Dec 2011, 23:55
fact isn't there a law in quantum mechanics that states that the mere act of observation will alter the outcome?
Tell me, what do you think qualifies as an observation in quantum physics? Because you appear to have fallen hook, line and sinker for the quantum woo bullshit that encourages people to believe homeopathy works.

Well, I'm not a physicist, but I think I understand this to some extent.  The Schrodinger's Cat "theory" (if I can call it that) suggests that a cat in a box exists in two states, both alive and dead.  It is the act of looking into the box that establishes which state it finally assumes.  Or something like that.

Which, incidentally, I think is bollocks.  The cat will be one or the other state, regardless of whether I look at it.  In any case, I think I understand the basic principle.

(Actually, I've been considering taking a physics degree...  I always did well in physics in high school, and it is interesting stuff...)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: akronnick on 07 Dec 2011, 23:55
...with a capital 'T' and that rhymes with 'P' and that stands for Padma!  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Lubricus on 07 Dec 2011, 23:56
Todays comic is awesome ! :-D

Yes, it is.  I think there are a lot of people who like to think "hey, it's just some fun".  But it's as intimate as you can get with another person, and we're hard-wired for it to trigger emotions.  I'm glad to see it going this way.  

yeah, but it' still fun!  :-D¨

Personally, I've always found the bittersweet feeiling that come with relationship anxiety and breakups quite nice, actually.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 07 Dec 2011, 23:58
"A problem shared is a problem halved."

It isn't, of course, but the load it creates on the mind may be made more manageable.

I hope they actually talk now.  May not be too likely if each thinks the other's just having fun. 


"Two [stupid] people, by dawn's early light,
and much too much in love to say 'goodnight'" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq57MNN5jBk)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Exar_Kun on 07 Dec 2011, 23:58
GODDAMMIT YOU GUYS. Stop being sad, I mean you just banged for chrissake.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Soulsynger on 07 Dec 2011, 23:59
[ ... ] But it's as intimate as you can get with another person, and we're hard-wired for it to trigger emotions.  I'm glad to see it going this way.  
I think I used that argument in the discussion a few weeks ago. Where were you then? :-D

@Comic:
... hm... this could mean anything and nothing.
Padma could have become suspicious of Marten's feelings and now sees the impending drama coming her way (the drama she tried to avoid with Elliot). Padma could be developing feelings of her own and now wonders whether Marten has them, too, or not (hence: trouble as in uncertainty).
Marten on the other hand might think he caught a glimpse of certain feelings on her part and now wonders of what nature they are. Then he could feel guilty because he may or may not have triggered them with his behavior.
And then both might have become aware of their feelings but slowly start to realize they don't have much more incommon right now than physicalities and might actually have to get to know each other now. (hence: trouble as in "work")

Also... mmmmmh... curves.

edit:
In my experience "you're trouble" usually means "this could be dangerous for me emotionally". ... did Padma just admit to having feelings?


[ ... ] Which, incidentally, I think is bollocks.  The cat will be one or the other state, regardless of whether I look at it.  In any case, I think I understand the basic principle. [ ... ]
Einstein. Bohr would slap you. xD
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: DrPhibes on 07 Dec 2011, 23:59
last picture is, with other words totally rad to use. it has such an 'aawwwwwkward  :psyduck:' look.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Akima on 08 Dec 2011, 00:03
It's a spoon full of trouble.  :-D
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 08 Dec 2011, 00:04
@soulsynger,

I think Padma's "you're trouble" pretty much sums it up.  She would only say this if she's starting to feel "that way" about him...

And I've been here all along, droog.  But finals are coming up...
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Soulsynger on 08 Dec 2011, 00:05
It's a spoon full of trouble.  :-D
A spoon full of Marten makes the Padma go D'oh. *loosely babbled to the popular melody from Mary Poppins*

And I've been here all along, droog.  But finals are coming up...
... is that a crude euphemism/metaphor? oO
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: AnAverageWriter on 08 Dec 2011, 00:07
Schrodinger's Cat always made me a little bit sad.

 After all, shouldn't a cat in a box be there of their own free will?  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03kZSHR2U-A)

And certainly not if the poor kitty has a chance of being dead.

I'd be happier if it were an experiment with something I cared a little less about, like if it were Schrodinger's Big Ugly Bug or something.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Soulsynger on 08 Dec 2011, 00:11
I'd be happier if it were an experiment with something I cared a little less about, like if it were Schrodinger's Big Ugly Bug or something.
For some reason I now think Gregor Samsa's transformation has something to do with Schroedinger. Like... if you don't prove to yourself consistently enough that you are NOT a huge bug, you might just wake up as one. This is giving me the shakes.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Torlek on 08 Dec 2011, 00:13
It's a spoon full of trouble.  :-D
+1 Internet to you, Akima.

They're both right. Padma's trouble in the classic "girl you end up in a physical relationship with when you don't really intend to and want to transform it to a serious relationship but aren't sure how to" sense. Marten's trouble in the classic "person you decided to have a quick bang with but end up developing feelings when you don't want to" sense. Grab your helmets and find a bomb shelter people, I sense drama inbound.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: TRVA123 on 08 Dec 2011, 00:26
Damn is Padma gorgeous! I think she is the most attractive character Jeph has crafted so far.

Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: idontunderstand on 08 Dec 2011, 00:32
Thought the same thing. Marten does run into some gorgeous ladies.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: snubnose on 08 Dec 2011, 00:33
Hurr.

Neutrinos can of course transport information.

Photons have NO MASS and still can transport information.

Neutrinos can transport information through:
(a) presence or absence
(b) direction
(c) impulse (i.e. kinetic energy)

Thats pretty much the same as for photons (the photon impulse is actually their frequency, though).

The main issue between Photons and Neutrinos is Neutrinos are a hell a LOT harder to create and even much harder to measure.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 08 Dec 2011, 00:33
Fucking stupid kids not just saying how they feel D:

Just get it out there you two, both of you, it'll be better and you'll feel better in the end

Also Jeph is drawing both Padma and Marten to be fine as hell tonight
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: AnAverageWriter on 08 Dec 2011, 00:35
Damn is Padma gorgeous! I think she is the most attractive character Jeph has crafted so far.

Second most attractive.

Marigold is first in my book. :)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Soulsynger on 08 Dec 2011, 00:43
The main issue between Photons and Neutrinos is Neutrinos are a hell a LOT harder to create and even much harder to measure.
Right, the deuterium water container underground. I remember.
You are of course right about the neutrinos and photons. Somehow the indirect information transfer slipped my mind.


Damn is Padma gorgeous! I think she is the most attractive character Jeph has crafted so far.

Second most attractive.

Marigold is first in my book. :)
For me its Hannelore. Not for physical reasons (except for maybe the ear piercings), just the most interesting cast member. (That position will only ever be taken if Jeph introduces a redheaded, green-eyed artsy girl into the regular cast.)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 08 Dec 2011, 00:45
Damn is Padma gorgeous! I think she is the most attractive character Jeph has crafted so far.

Second most attractive.

Marigold is first in my book. :)

Marigold is fine if you want big booty bipches but Padma is the new hotness all round

Now stopping this train before any bearhatting goes on, I out
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: FunkyTuba on 08 Dec 2011, 00:47
My wife and I play Schrodinger's cat box. It's one of these cat condos of shame (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31-uTv9jrQL._SS500_.jpg) and we basically never look in the box to check whether it needs to be changed because we don't want to break the uncertainty.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: AnAverageWriter on 08 Dec 2011, 01:02
My wife and I play Schrodinger's cat box. It's one of these cat condos of shame (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31-uTv9jrQL._SS500_.jpg) and we basically never look in the box to check whether it needs to be changed because we don't want to break the uncertainty.


Is it strange that when I look at that picture I see a somewhat annoyed robotic snail?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Soulsynger on 08 Dec 2011, 01:06
My wife and I play Schrodinger's cat box. It's one of these cat condos of shame (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31-uTv9jrQL._SS500_.jpg) and we basically never look in the box to check whether it needs to be changed because we don't want to break the uncertainty.
Is it strange that when I look at that picture I see a somewhat annoyed robotic snail?
Pfrrrrt... I just found my new avatar for today. xD
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Deadlywonky on 08 Dec 2011, 01:45
quote from Jeph's twitter:

Quote
There is one of those FedEx-arrow-style "once you see it you can't unsee it" things on the cover of WC volume 2. I'm not telling what it is.

has anyone worked out what it is?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: cabbagehut on 08 Dec 2011, 01:56
I had that conversation once or twice.  And the answer to it is always unpleasant.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: gopher on 08 Dec 2011, 02:01
FFS, this has now put the song "Trouble" by Shampoo in my head. This is not a good thing.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Mustakyy on 08 Dec 2011, 02:11
D'awww.

Talk about bittersweet moments. Beautiful, just simply beautiful.

Fucking stupid kids not just saying how they feel D:

Just get it out there you two, both of you, it'll be better and you'll feel better in the end


I wouldn't be quite so harsh, but yeah, you do have quite a good and important point there.

(edited to fix some damn typos)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: pwhodges on 08 Dec 2011, 02:18
Fucking stupid kids not just saying how they feel D:

Actually, they seem to be well on the way, especially as recognising your feelings is necessary before you can talk about them.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: akronnick on 08 Dec 2011, 02:33
I have a feeling the conversation will begin during tomorrow's comic and will reach a suspenseful climax that will be left unresolved until the following comic. :evil: 
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Lubricus on 08 Dec 2011, 02:40
I have a feeling the conversation will begin during tomorrow's comic and will reach a suspenseful climax that will be left unresolved until the following comic. :evil: 

Indeed, that seems likely. But of course, mentioning it in the forum might make Jeph decide to do differently just to spite us!  :laugh:
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Skewbrow on 08 Dec 2011, 02:58
I have a feeling the conversation will begin during tomorrow's comic and will reach a suspenseful climax that will be left unresolved until the following comic. :evil: 
What! A Friday is coming up. Jeph would never leave us with a cliffhanger for the long weekend? 

Quote from: Jeph
Have a nice weekend. I plan to spend mine hiding from my inbox.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Loki on 08 Dec 2011, 02:59
Before we can attempt timetravel, we'll have to figure out what dark matter consists of anyway. Otherwise any attempt at anything might just evaporate when colliding with stuff that "is only there at unbelievable speed". xD

An Italian scientist recently suggested that dark matter might not in fact exist, by coming up with some complicated formulae which predict movements of spiral galaxies without requiring the existence of  dark matter. He has shown his math to work so far for two (according to other sources, four) galaxies, which may or may not be simple luck. source (http://techie-buzz.com/science/no-need-for-dark-matter-to-explain-rotation-of-spiral-galaxies-says-italian-mathematician.html).


In other news, I think this is the first time we hear Padma's thoughts? Does that mean she is "officially" elevated to main cast now? *psyduck* I hope not, because I personally don't really like her for reasons which have been worded way better than I ever could multiple times in the last few months.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: dragontart on 08 Dec 2011, 03:10
Seeing Padma's thoughts at least suggest that she does care about what the heck she's doing there and about possible problems arising from that.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: VonKleist on 08 Dec 2011, 03:27
heh..s´pose we´re in for some angst-ridden whining on behalf of our hero :)

ooooor they could really talk it out.

but even if, I guess there´s gonna be whining and moping, which suits me just fine, I must say.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: tjradcliffe on 08 Dec 2011, 03:58
Seeing Padma's thoughts at least suggest that she does care about what the heck she's doing there and about possible problems arising from that.

She's caring about possible problems for her, and I'm betting Marten is caring about possible problems for them

And while it's great they're both recognizing their feelings, our reasoning capacity often has much the same relationship to our feelings as a skydiver does to the ground:  even when you look at it really hard, it still comes rushing at you 'til you deploy your chute, and if anything goes wrong you've only got one backup and even that's gonna give you a pretty hard landing.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: VonKleist on 08 Dec 2011, 04:02

She's caring about possible problems for her, and I'm betting Marten is caring about possible problems for them


Yet they both think "I´m in trouble."

I can't see a "we" in Marten's bubble.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: tjradcliffe on 08 Dec 2011, 04:15
An Italian scientist recently suggested that dark matter might not in fact exist, by coming up with some complicated formulae which predict movements of spiral galaxies without requiring the existence of  dark matter. He has shown his math to work so far for two (according to other sources, four) galaxies, which may or may not be simple luck

Rotation curves of spiral galaxies are only one aspect of the Dark Matter problem, and one that can be solved without invoking exotic particles.  At larger scales we need exotic Dark Matter to explain the dynamics of the universe:  the problem is that we know how much ordinary matter there is in the universe based on the ratio of hydrogen (whose nucleus is just a single proton) and helium (whose nucleus contains two protons and two neutrons.) 

Back in the minutes after the Big Bang protons and neutrons condensed out of the quark-gluon plasma, and then neutrons were captured onto protons to create helium.  But free neutrons decay into protons and electrons with a lifetime of about fifteen minutes, so the amount of helium created was dependent on the density of the universe at that time (the denser it was the more neutrons would be captured into helium before they had time to decay).  We know what the volume of the universe was during that brief interval from other observations, we know the primordial He/H ratio, so we know the mass of the universe in "ordinary matter", and there's enough of it to explain "galactic dark matter", which is what's needed to make spiral galaxy rotation curves work out.

But on larger scales we still see anomalous dynamics that suggest too much mass to be accounted for by the known mass of ordinary particles, so we think there must either be exotic physics or exotic particles (not, unfortunately, exotic dancers.)  This new paper explains away the need for exotic particles in galaxies, but that's not where we need them.  And the argument doesn't even deal with other galaxy-scale anomalies like the Bullet Cluster, where two galaxies in collision show clear evidence of non-interacting Dark Matter that accompanies the visible mass but is substantially decoupled from it.

Wait, isn't this supposed to be a discussion forum about the shenanigans of a group of 20-somethings in a slightly alternative universe?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: ilikefishfood on 08 Dec 2011, 04:46
From the glowing smile on Padma's face and the way she is looking Marten straight in his eyes in panel two, I think she's rather smitten.  Their body language is very relaxed.  Like they're comfortable with each other.  And then they spoon!  That's some pretty intimate stuff.

ASIDE:  I'm new at posting here.  Long time lurker.  Hi everybody.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Throg on 08 Dec 2011, 05:03
Hi fishfood.

This comic made me happy, if only for the simple reason that Padma is not the stereotypical cold-hearted exotic inscrutable unscrupulous "foreign" bimbo. She may be clueless and come across harsh sometimes, but she's not heartless.

Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Mr_Rose on 08 Dec 2011, 05:03
See the thing about Schrödinger's Cat is that yes it's ridiculous—it is intended to be—but only physicists ever get the joke because everyone else wanders off before they get to the punchline. Specifically, that the only 'observer' that is required is the Geiger counter in the box with the cat.
All the superposed cat demonstrates, really, is that physicists should never be allowed to name things and especially should not be allowed to borrow words that everyone else already thinks they know in order to do so.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: NotsoAverageJoe on 08 Dec 2011, 05:07

I don't think that causality was broken by that experiment, but I won't trust myself here. I would advice that you won't take my word on it either.


that was all i was advocating.  that no matter what field of study people prefer, they don't fall into the trap of assuming they've found the absolute answer.  everyone is prone to it, people want answers and they tend to grasp at even the slightest chance to get one.

only difference that i can see between men now, and men two thousand years ago, is that instead of worshiping an invisible spaghetti monster in the sky, now we worship imaginary numbers and scientific theories.

that's why i personally can't bring myself to get overly excited about new discoveries and inventions... to me we haven't advanced that much from our ancestors, we've picked up a few new tools, but our base nature isn't any different than it ever was.  it doesn't matter if the monkey only has a pointy stick or if he's sitting in a space capsule, he's still just a monkey.

Comics up.  Sad in a way, but it actually made me happy to see this, and to know Padma's not immune...
this is gonna be ugly...

Thought the same thing. Marten does run into some gorgeous ladies.
i've got a buddy like that... always amazes/pisses me off, the luck he has sometimes.  i mean, its like he's in the right place, at the right time, wayyyyy more often than should be fair.

I have a feeling the conversation will begin during tomorrow's comic and will reach a suspenseful climax that will be left unresolved until the following comic. :evil: 
wonder how many people are taking bets that padma is thinking about if she should stay now?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: zmeiat_joro on 08 Dec 2011, 05:22
And then they spoon!  That's some pretty intimate stuff.
Hm, really? Is spooning generally seen as a very intimate thing? I haven't thought about this.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jwhouk on 08 Dec 2011, 05:42
"Double, double, toil and trouble
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble..."
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Mr_Rose on 08 Dec 2011, 05:48
that was all i was advocating.  that no matter what field of study people prefer, they don't fall into the trap of assuming they've found the absolute answer.  everyone is prone to it, people want answers and they tend to grasp at even the slightest chance to get one.

only difference that i can see between men now, and men two thousand years ago, is that instead of worshiping an invisible spaghetti monster in the sky, now we worship imaginary numbers and scientific theories.
You either have some seriously fucked up ideas about what it is scientists do with their time or are working from a completely different definition of 'worship' to everyone else. Which is it please?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: VonKleist on 08 Dec 2011, 05:50
"Double, double, toil and trouble
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble..."

it is a tale told by an idiot
full of sound and fury
signifying nothing.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jwhouk on 08 Dec 2011, 05:55
<snip>
I have a feeling the conversation will begin during tomorrow's comic and will reach a suspenseful climax that will be left unresolved until the following comic. :evil: 
wonder how many people are taking bets that padma is thinking about if she should stay now?

If it happens, you win the Internets.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jwhouk on 08 Dec 2011, 06:01
"Double, double, toil and trouble
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble..."

it is a tale told by an idiot
full of sound and fury
signifying nothing.


If it were done, when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly. If th' issue of trouble
Could trammel up the consequence, and catch
With their cuddles, success: that but this talk
Might be the be-all and the end-all—here,
But here, upon this bank and shoal of time,
We'd jump the life to come.

(Pardon me, Will.)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: SomeCanadianWeirdo on 08 Dec 2011, 06:04
FFS, this has now put the song "Trouble" by Shampoo in my head. This is not a good thing.

Perhaps this will help. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbpuflLgmgM
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: AnAverageWriter on 08 Dec 2011, 06:08
Perhaps this will help. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbpuflLgmgM

What about  this?  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH2-TGUlwu4)

Thread relevant-shmelavant.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 08 Dec 2011, 06:10
"Double, double, toil and trouble
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble..."

it is a tale told by an idiot
full of sound and fury
signifying nothing.


If it were done, when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly. If th' issue of trouble
Could trammel up the consequence, and catch
With their cuddles, success: that but this talk
Might be the be-all and the end-all—here,
But here, upon this bank and shoal of time,
We'd jump the life to come.

(Pardon me, Will.)

My first reaction to your initial post there was "what, she's a witch now?" 

But the rest is genius, no apologies necessary!
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Skewbrow on 08 Dec 2011, 06:13

I don't think that causality was broken by that experiment, but I won't trust myself here. I would advice that you won't take my word on it either.


that was all i was advocating.  that no matter what field of study people prefer, they don't fall into the trap of assuming they've found the absolute answer.  everyone is prone to it, people want answers and they tend to grasp at even the slightest chance to get one.


I'm afraid you seem to have misunderstood me. All I meant was that *I* am not qualified to answer that question about whether neutrinos can be used for communicating with the past. Somebody else knows more.

I plead guilty to having put on my teacher's hat, and refusing to take a stand lest I mislead the young ones with a misinformed answer.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Throg on 08 Dec 2011, 06:36
All kinds of trouble. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI_Oe-jtgdI)

Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 08 Dec 2011, 06:41
All kinds of trouble. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI_Oe-jtgdI)



Fixed your link - no quotes. 
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: lepetitfromage on 08 Dec 2011, 06:42
And then they spoon!  That's some pretty intimate stuff.
Hm, really? Is spooning generally seen as a very intimate thing? I haven't thought about this.

indeed! despite the lack of eye contact, i consider spooning to be one of the most intimate things two people can engage in. plus, it just feels soooo goooood. :-D
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: snubnose on 08 Dec 2011, 06:49
In other news, I think this is the first time we hear Padma's thoughts?
Hearing anyones thoughts was pretty rare on QC ... if this isnt even the first time, because out of the top of my head I get zip rememberance of a previous event that had thought bubbles.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: snubnose on 08 Dec 2011, 06:59
See the thing about Schrödinger's Cat is that yes it's ridiculous—it is intended to be—but only physicists ever get the joke because everyone else wanders off before they get to the punchline. Specifically, that the only 'observer' that is required is the Geiger counter in the box with the cat.
All the superposed cat demonstrates, really, is that physicists should never be allowed to name things and especially should not be allowed to borrow words that everyone else already thinks they know in order to do so.
This is Nils Bohr's interpretation of Schrödinger's cat.

As an example for another interpretation, the many world interpretation of Schrödinger's cat is that the universe splits into two different universes - one with the cat dead, the other with the cat alife.

There are more interpretations. None of these are "fact" until you can specify an experiment that disproves certain interpretations.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Loki on 08 Dec 2011, 07:10
Hearing anyones thoughts was pretty rare on QC ... if this isnt even the first time, because out of the top of my head I get zip rememberance of a previous event that had thought bubbles.

Indeed, the only other two that come to my mind are Svens thoughts while drunkenly making out with Rita-whats-her-name and the one with Hanners where she has all kind of thoughts at the counter of CoD, then Dora asks her what she is thinking about and Hanners is like "Uh, nothing."
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Yarin on 08 Dec 2011, 07:31
As an example for another interpretation, the many world interpretation of Schrödinger's cat is that the universe splits into two different universes - one with the cat dead, the other with the cat alife.
I like the many world interpretation
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: VonKleist on 08 Dec 2011, 07:36
Trouble is a funny thing anyhow.
Sometimes it can't be avoided and the mere knowledge of it being in your way may cause you to get troubled.


Trouble in the city, trouble in the farm
You got your rabbit’s foot, you got your good-luck charm
But they can’t help you none when there’s trouble
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2Ganga. X
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 08 Dec 2011, 07:43
D'awww.

Talk about bittersweet moments. Beautiful, just simply beautiful.

Fucking stupid kids not just saying how they feel D:

Just get it out there you two, both of you, it'll be better and you'll feel better in the end


I wouldn't be quite so harsh, but yeah, you do have quite a good and important point there.

(edited to fix some damn typos)

I was just being hyperbolic, honestly I love these dang kids.

 Padma especially, she is a fantastic character and I will miss her if she goes. ;_; She has been a damn ray of sunshine.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Method of Madness on 08 Dec 2011, 08:12
I don't know what they're getting all mopey about, it's fun getting into trouble! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D7t92e02oA)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: TinPenguin on 08 Dec 2011, 08:15
In the last panel of 2073, they are outside Padma's place, but in 2074 they seem to be in Marten's bedroom. Either that or they share very similar taste in bedding and decor. I wonder how they found the patience to go all the way back to his place. :P

Maybe Padma has a roommate or something.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jwhouk on 08 Dec 2011, 08:19
That is, indeed, Padma's place. Marten's room would have a deactivated Pintsize in it.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: lepetitfromage on 08 Dec 2011, 08:26
Indeed, the only other two that come to my mind are Svens thoughts while drunkenly making out with Rita-whats-her-name and the one with Hanners where she has all kind of thoughts at the counter of CoD, then Dora asks her what she is thinking about and Hanners is like "Uh, nothing."

Yes! 1276 (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1276), my favorite QC strip to date  :-D
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Throg on 08 Dec 2011, 08:59
@pwhodges / Carl-E: thank youuuuuuuu.

Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 08 Dec 2011, 09:47
I've heard of at least one open relationship in which the partners allowed each other to have sex with other people but not to spoon them.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Method of Madness on 08 Dec 2011, 09:49
Makes sense...sort of?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: TinPenguin on 08 Dec 2011, 09:51
That is, indeed, Padma's place. Marten's room would have a deactivated Pintsize in it.

I find it hard to believe Padma would have the exact same duvet, sheets, bed, carpet, wallpaper, shape of room...
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Torlek on 08 Dec 2011, 09:56
I've heard of at least one open relationship in which the partners allowed each other to have sex with other people but not to spoon them.
I can actually see it being a valid concern. Spooning is a very intimate activity, you've pretty much got maximum bodily contact. I mean, yeah, if they've just had sex it may not seem like much but depending on position there may not be a lot of contact during the sex. One could also postulate about the possessive/protective appearance of the outside spoon. There's a big difference between having sex and making love.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 08 Dec 2011, 09:58
Who knows how much walking was done between yesterday's kiss and the ensuing activities... besides, they live fairly close by.  

And Padma's room may be trashed from packing...


There's a big difference between having sex and making love.

I have difficulty with this viewpoint.  Always have.  But I'm old(er). 


Just found my first grey chest hairs.




Damn. 
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Method of Madness on 08 Dec 2011, 10:10
I wouldn't say there's a difference between having sex and making love so much as I'd say that having sex is the general group, and making love is one of many subgroups.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 08 Dec 2011, 10:15
I think you have that backwards - sex is a subgroup of making love. 

I know, I know, so many people divorce the two (pun intended).  But this has always been my point of view - it's extremely hard for me to even think about sex with someone I don't find attractive in a myriad of other ways - IOW, someone I love.  This is one of those greek terms for love that breaks it up into subcategories - eros, I think.  Maybe not. 

YMMV, and like I said, I'm old(er) than you.  [/GOM]
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Method of Madness on 08 Dec 2011, 10:39
I think you can love someone without having sex with them, and have sex with someone without loving them.  So maybe they're different groups that overlap.  [CYM] Then again, I'm still not convinced love exists. [/CYM*]

*cynical young man
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Throg on 08 Dec 2011, 10:52
There's no universal standard: both can exist at the same time.

People who can't have sex with another person without having some emotional connection (e.g., Marten).
People who have sex and have no emotional connection; or even actively avoid the emotional connection (e.g., Sven).
People who love other people without having sex (e.g., in extremis, Hannelore). 

And people who move along one side of the spectrum to the other, e.g., Faye.  And now, arguably, Padma, although that remains to be seen. 

Then there are the characters who are figuring out what they want (Dora, arguably), want what they can't have (Tai), tranny furries (Pintsize), etc etc. 

Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Near Lurker on 08 Dec 2011, 10:57
All the superposed cat demonstrates, really, is that physicists should never be allowed to name things and especially should not be allowed to borrow words that everyone else already thinks they know in order to do so.

What it demonstrates to me is that non-physicists shouldn't be allowed near thought experiments (or anything else).  Then again, Ben Franklin taught us that already, didn't he?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 08 Dec 2011, 12:53
There's a big difference between having sex and making love.
I once asked a partner whether she wanted to make love or fuck.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Vista on 08 Dec 2011, 13:17
Sexual politics are fr realz complicates.

For most peeps, love be tied to physical intimacy, whether they like it er nay.  Guessin ev'lutionaryologists have somet'in to be saying about that, and I'd liken to hear em, 'cuz it be frustratin.  I get to bein the jealous types meself, an don't knowin' why.  Hope?  Shame?  Idealism?  Why why does sex'n sometimes matterin', sometimes no, with the love.
Love be hard to define, mostly 'cuz it isn't an emotion but behavior based on a number of emotions--and therefore a choice, and therefore tailored personal-like--but in gen'ral it's caring about another peeps's wellbein enough that ye'd sacrifice ye own.  Mixed up in self-perversation: nasty combo o' the mind emotions.

Yo.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: TinPenguin on 08 Dec 2011, 13:31
There's a big difference between having sex and making love.
I once asked a partner whether she wanted to make love or fuck.

Fuck is a very interesting word for a variety of reasons, even in its literal sense. You can make love, you can have sex with, you can sleep together, you can even couple with someone, but fuck is a verb, with a subject and an object. Someone fucks and someone gets fucked. I think that is part of why it is so distinct from love. It takes away the the partnership and cooperation of the act and focuses on the physical process. It would almost be clinical if it weren't so crude.

For most peeps, love be tied to physical intimacy, whether they like it er nay.  Guessin ev'lutionaryologists have somet'in to be saying about that, and I'd liken to hear em, 'cuz it be frustratin.

Romantic love is basically a mechanism to provide a stable environment for child-rearing. The impulsive next step, therefore, is to get busy making that child. Or at least tricking our bodies into thinking that's what we are doing, when in fact we are usually fortified with contraception.

It's also about the fact that love is emotional intimacy, so we are far more open to being physically intimate with those we are already emotionally intimate with.

Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jwhouk on 08 Dec 2011, 14:08
<snip>
Just found my first grey chest hairs.

Damn. 

"First"?

...Nah, TMI for this forum.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 08 Dec 2011, 14:21
Sorry.  The beard passed 50% grey a while back, but what's left on the head & the rest is still brown. 

Well, was. 

Sorry.  Being hit by a car's messing with my sense of immortality...   :-D
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Kugai on 08 Dec 2011, 14:38
"Double, double, toil and trouble
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble..."

it is a tale told by an idiot
full of sound and fury
signifying nothing.


If it were done, when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly. If th' issue of trouble
Could trammel up the consequence, and catch
With their cuddles, success: that but this talk
Might be the be-all and the end-all—here,
But here, upon this bank and shoal of time,
We'd jump the life to come.

(Pardon me, Will.)

My first reaction to your initial post there was "what, she's a witch now?"  

But the rest is genius, no apologies necessary!

I guess the final answer to this must then be

Lay on Marten Reed, and damn'd be him that first cries, "Hold! Enough!"
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jwhouk on 08 Dec 2011, 14:38
My 'stache started turning gray about 10 years ago. Curse of my dad's side of the family. My mom's side is shortness and the receding hairline.

It sucks getting old. [/GOM]
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: pwhodges on 08 Dec 2011, 15:06
The composer Bartók's hair was entirely white by the age of 30.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: ilikefishfood on 08 Dec 2011, 16:45
Hey Throg, thanks for the welcome

One could also postulate about the possessive/protective appearance of the outside spoon.

Yes, yes!  That's defiintely something to do with it!  There's this whole protective aspect to the spoon...as though the spooner is literally wrapping themselves around the spoonee and keeping them safe. 

Of course...it can also be pretty erotic too *cough*  :wink:

Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: lepetitfromage on 08 Dec 2011, 16:46
comic!! this one is seriously early....Jeph is giving us extra time to freak out.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: akronnick on 08 Dec 2011, 16:52
I never knew it was possible to jump for joy without actually moving!
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: ilikefishfood on 08 Dec 2011, 16:53
comic!! this one is seriously early....Jeph is giving us extra time to freak out.

It's working!  I'm freaked! I'm freaked!  And kinda giddy!
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Kugai on 08 Dec 2011, 17:05
Gee, do you think Marten's happy about that?

 :-D
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: amandathehunter on 08 Dec 2011, 17:07
maybe a touch?

haha. this reminds me of a lot of guys i've dated. They don't act very excited about ANYTHING.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jwhouk on 08 Dec 2011, 17:12
...


I was going to change the poll to ask about the Moment Of The Week, but I think we just had it.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: FunkyTuba on 08 Dec 2011, 17:17
I wanna know who the guy in the Third Place spot on the podium is
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: EcoReck on 08 Dec 2011, 17:21
Ugh. All this is going to do is make it so much harder for Marten when she leaves. :mrgreen:
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jwhouk on 08 Dec 2011, 17:23
I wanna know who the guy in the Third Place spot on the podium is

Guy on the right is a Brazilian, while the guy on the left is German (and no, it's not Eliot.)

Ugh. All this is going to do is make it so much harder for Marten when she leaves. :mrgreen:

That won't be for another, oh, year or so RT...
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Random832 on 08 Dec 2011, 17:27
My suspension of disbelief fails on QCverse humanity not having already been to Mars.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Jam on 08 Dec 2011, 17:31
I'm happy for Marten, hope he gets to enjoy it awhile before drama starts up... Or starts to worry about said drama.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Vista on 08 Dec 2011, 17:38
I like Padma.

Of all the characters in QC, I feel like she resembles people I've known the most.

So...she'd better start suspending some of my disbelief soon, or else I will be sad when/if she's gone.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Near Lurker on 08 Dec 2011, 17:52
In Marten's shoes, I'm pretty sure I'd have nudged her to go, since A: relapses can come quite quickly with the elderly, and emergency travel can be hard to arrange, and B: keeping it going for a matter of weeks is just going to make it worse when she leaves.  Of course, that'd probably make him look like a lech...

Also, is he getting a Grammy from Mrs. Bianchi?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: suzername on 08 Dec 2011, 18:30
Oh god, can the Padma mush please stop? This will probably end just like the last relationship: goes into relationship not knowing what he's going into, he's happy for a bit, crazy things happen, they break up. At least Dora had some depth.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Akima on 08 Dec 2011, 18:31
Wow! Lunch-break comic! And a very clever comic at that. Is it bad that the middle panels made me think?:

1) In what sport could three such weedy-looking guys win Olympic medals? I'd say table-tennis, except that if Marten won gold, the silver and bronze winners would almost certainly be Chinese...  :-D  

2) Does self-conscious "indie" musician Marten really covet a Grammy? Weren't they discredited when Milli Vanilli won one? Perhaps Marten wants a Grammy ironically...
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 08 Dec 2011, 18:54
In Marten's shoes, I'm pretty sure I'd have nudged her to go, since A: relapses can come quite quickly with the elderly, and emergency travel can be hard to arrange, and B: keeping it going for a matter of weeks is just going to make it worse when she leaves.  Of course, that'd probably make him look like a lech...

Goddammit I was happy until your post made me realize that if Padma's grandmother just happened to kick the bucket while she's delaying going to LA, she'd probably blame herself and/or Marten (who would certainly blame himself for her misfortune). God I hope Jeph isn't quite that sadistic.*



*it's gonna happen now isn't it
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: AnAverageWriter on 08 Dec 2011, 19:12
Oh god, can the Padma mush please stop?

No.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: ducktape on 08 Dec 2011, 19:15

1) In what sport could three such weedy-looking guys win Olympic medals? I'd say table-tennis, except that if Marten won gold, the silver and bronze winners would almost certainly be Chinese...  :-D  


Maybe bowling is an olympic sport in the QCverse?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: FunkyTuba on 08 Dec 2011, 19:16
(and no, it's not Eliot.)

Why not? It seems to make sense, and it would make the third place guy an interesting thing to think of IMPLICATIONS  for
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Near Lurker on 08 Dec 2011, 19:25
Maybe bowling is an olympic sport in the QCverse?

Ever seen a bowling league?  I'm guessing track or cycling.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: ducktape on 08 Dec 2011, 19:40
(and no, it's not Eliot.)

Why not? It seems to make sense, and it would make the third place guy an interesting thing to think of IMPLICATIONS  for

Hair colors don't match.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 08 Dec 2011, 19:45
In Marten's shoes, I'm pretty sure I'd have nudged her to go, since A: relapses can come quite quickly with the elderly, and emergency travel can be hard to arrange, and B: keeping it going for a matter of weeks is just going to make it worse when she leaves.  Of course, that'd probably make him look like a lech...

Goddammit I was happy until your post made me realize that if Padma's grandmother just happened to kick the bucket while she's delaying going to LA, she'd probably blame herself and/or Marten (who would certainly blame himself for her misfortune). God I hope Jeph isn't quite that sadistic.*



*it's gonna happen now isn't it

No, not now that you've said it.  Don't you know how this place works yet? 
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jwhouk on 08 Dec 2011, 19:46
So what do you think when you look to the stars?
Ooh, they're pretty!    - 16 (15%)
WAY TOO MANY TO COUNT AUUGHGHGHGHGHLh    - 4 (3.7%)
I can never remember where Lyra is.    - 8 (7.5%)
Now, how many light years was it to Procyon again?    - 4 (3.7%)
Gee, it's dark out tonight.    - 4 (3.7%)
I see someone else.    - 4 (3.7%)
Why did NASA have to cancel the Shuttle program?    - 27 (25.2%)
Hi, Dad!    - 3 (2.8%)
Waffles would taste good about now.    - 5 (4.7%)
Watson, you idiot, someone stole our tent!    - 32 (29.9%)

Total Voters: 107

Time to do MOTW.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Torlek on 08 Dec 2011, 19:50
maybe a touch?

haha. this reminds me of a lot of guys i've dated. They don't act very excited about ANYTHING.
Given the circumstances Marten might shortly be showing his excitement in ways.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jwhouk on 08 Dec 2011, 19:55
The vaunted MOMENT OF THE WEEK poll is now upon us.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 08 Dec 2011, 20:00
"C'mere" is off to a flying start. 


Got my vote!
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Dust on 08 Dec 2011, 20:07
Wow! Lunch-break comic! And a very clever comic at that. Is it bad that the middle panels made me think?:

1) In what sport could three such weedy-looking guys win Olympic medals? I'd say table-tennis, except that if Marten won gold, the silver and bronze winners would almost certainly be Chinese...  :-D  

2) Does self-conscious "indie" musician Marten really covet a Grammy? Weren't they discredited when Milli Vanilli won one? Perhaps Marten wants a Grammy ironically...

Hmm.

1. The 200 metres Running Like a Dork? Marty would be a lock.

2. Maybe he wants one for an Indie Cred door-stop. "That old thing? Yeah, I got it to replace the old shoe I used.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Method of Madness on 08 Dec 2011, 20:27
Whenever someone mentions the Grammys it makes me think of the barbershop quartet episode of The Simpsons.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: FunkyTuba on 08 Dec 2011, 20:43
(and no, it's not Eliot.)
Why not? It seems to make sense, and it would make the third place guy an interesting thing to think of IMPLICATIONS  for
Hair colors don't match.

They're pretty close... the style and cowlicks are close, and I think lighting differences can account for making them close enough to talk about in the forum, at least, even if it's not definitively canon:
(http://carabiner.peeron.com/~funkytuba/which.gif)
I'd argue that that's probably what Marten's subconscious intended during this reverie, anyway :D
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: akronnick on 08 Dec 2011, 20:49
That .gif is freakin' me out!!!!  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: FunkyTuba on 08 Dec 2011, 20:54
Enjoy! :D
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: cuzsis on 08 Dec 2011, 21:07
Eh..first she's all "I don't want to go out with anyone because I'm moving soon."

 Then she jumps Marten, possibly both of them jumped each other, but not likely. Then she jumps him *again* much more singularly.

 Now she's thinking of delaying moving.

 
 Padma's too ditzy for me to take seriously. Reminds me of an immature high school chick.  :-P
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Rusty on 08 Dec 2011, 21:34
Woo, early comic!



and just hit me that Marten looks way too much like my friend jerry... creepy :mrgreen:
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Near Lurker on 08 Dec 2011, 21:46
Padma's too ditzy for me to take seriously. Reminds me of an immature high school chick.  :-P

I've got to agree.  What I said earlier ought to have occurred to her as well, and it's more on her shoulders than on Marten's.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Delator on 08 Dec 2011, 21:53
...I think Padma should talk about this with her Grandma.

Can't hurt to get her view on things, regardless of the eventual decision.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: SomeCanadianWeirdo on 08 Dec 2011, 22:17
My suspension of disbelief fails on QCverse humanity not having already been to Mars.

Chances are if there's been a Mars mission with an intelligent crew it was done with AIs.  Marten may still have the chance to be the first man on Mars.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: akronnick on 08 Dec 2011, 22:20
...I think Padma should talk about this with her Grandma.

Can't hurt to get her view on things, regardless of the eventual decision.

A cool Grandma would be all "You better stay there and see about that boy!"
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Dust on 08 Dec 2011, 22:56
(and no, it's not Eliot.)
Why not? It seems to make sense, and it would make the third place guy an interesting thing to think of IMPLICATIONS  for
Hair colors don't match.

They're pretty close... the style and cowlicks are close, and I think lighting differences can account for making them close enough to talk about in the forum, at least, even if it's not definitively canon:
(http://carabiner.peeron.com/~funkytuba/which.gif)
I'd argue that that's probably what Marten's subconscious intended during this reverie, anyway :D

Seems kind of odd his subconscious would make Elliot German, but that's the subconscious for you.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Lubricus on 08 Dec 2011, 22:59
...I think Padma should talk about this with her Grandma.

Can't hurt to get her view on things, regardless of the eventual decision.

That depends on the nature of her illness - if she's senile, for instance, she won't be much help.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Soulsynger on 08 Dec 2011, 23:18
...I think Padma should talk about this with her Grandma.
Can't hurt to get her view on things, regardless of the eventual decision.
That depends on the nature of her illness - if she's senile, for instance, she won't be much help.
Saying someone's "doing okay" when obviously a sickness is involved always seems to come off kinda heartless.
What kind of "sickness" would be bad enough to make a relative leave their friends and social circle behind, yet holds enough "leeway" (of sorts) that said trip can be postponed for "a few weeks" when the sick person "is doing okay"?
To me, this makes no sense.

And exactly how "near" was her leaving the city anyway? Was it like a "next month" or a "in the next few days" thing? Was that ever established?

Last time I checked, "senile" did not automatically involve alzheimers or dementia. If she's just slow, I'd go ahead and ask. If only to have someone outside of my immediate social circles to bounce ideas off of. °O


edit:
Cutest Padma ever in the last panel, btw. Aaa~~~~~~~~~dorable!
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: snubnose on 09 Dec 2011, 00:06
Yay Comic !

Nice weekend to everybody ! :)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: VonKleist on 09 Dec 2011, 00:54
Yay, indeed. I snorted laughter.



But I´m still secretly admittedly hoping for nothing to come of it so there won't be too many happy couples.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Soulsynger on 09 Dec 2011, 01:04
But I´m still secretly admittedly hoping for nothing to come of it so there won't be too many happy couples.
Misanthrope. Go crawl into a cellar.  :psyduck:

I'm intrigued, though, as to why...?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 09 Dec 2011, 01:12
It's not heartless. End-of-life shit is very complex, especially when it collides with normal living, and I'd be willing to imagine Padma's grandma told her that she was doing all right and not to fret so much; Grandma probably already feels guilt for uprooting Padma this way--yes, she wants her granddaughter there, but she doesn't want to be the metaphorical albatross around Pad's neck.

Also aaaaaaaaa the cutest face Padma has ever made hnnnnnngggghhhh
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: VonKleist on 09 Dec 2011, 01:25
But I´m still secretly admittedly hoping for nothing to come of it so there won't be too many happy couples.
Misanthrope. Go crawl into a cellar.  :psyduck:

I'm intrigued, though, as to why...?

hmpf.. long story, but yea, I shouldn't get all spiteful and aggressive.

Probably just Marten and Padma reminding me of stupid old me and my ex :O
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Overkillengine on 09 Dec 2011, 01:36
The longer this goes on, the greater the chance of Elliot finding out....drama ahoy!

And I could see from Elliot's point of view that this would look like Padma lied to him; even though she may have not planned for things to go this way.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: pwhodges on 09 Dec 2011, 01:41
There's an interesting comparison with Marten and Vicky.  In that case, Marten upped and followed Vicky to keep things going, whereas in this case the roles are reversed and Padma is planning to hang around a bit for Marten.  Of course the timescales are very different (months or years vs  days and weeks), but none the less this could be a boost to Marten's self-confidence - if he chooses to see it that way ("no chance!" you say; and you may be right).
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 09 Dec 2011, 01:54
The longer this goes on, the greater the chance of Elliot finding out....drama ahoy!

And I could see from Elliot's point of view that this would look like Padma lied to him; even though she may have not planned for things to go this way.

The schadenfreude when he finds out, it will be delicious. Yeeeeesssss.

Marten will just have to explain that he forgot to turn his swag off, Padma couldn't help it.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: themacnut on 09 Dec 2011, 01:58
The longer this goes on, the greater the chance of Elliot finding out....drama ahoy!

And I could see from Elliot's point of view that this would look like Padma lied to him; even though she may have not planned for things to go this way.

Not to mention Elliot could think, like Steve, that Marten deliberately set him up for failure with Padma, leaving the way clear for Marten. If Eliot jumps to that conclusion, there could be punchings in store...
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: akronnick on 09 Dec 2011, 02:03
I'm not worried. I'm pretty sure Faye can take Elliot. (if she's sober, that is)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: rje on 09 Dec 2011, 02:11
huh I really..was not expecting that. *rubs chin* hunh... I guess Jeph wanted to do more with this plotline than I thought, I was expecting them to wrap up and the focus to switch to Faye and Angus for a little bit
I admit...I have some bias against Padma's decision here, but it's just personal bias... I'll strap in for the ride and see where this is going ~
lol I totally thought that was Elliot too and was like dag Marten...that's cooold bro
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Dr. ROFLPWN on 09 Dec 2011, 02:29
Not to mention Elliot could think, like Steve, that Marten deliberately set him up for failure with Padma, leaving the way clear for Marten. If Eliot jumps to that conclusion, there could be punchings in store...

I would love to see that. All Marten has to do is be the better man, and Elliot ruins himself in the eyes of Padma and pretty much the whole social circle forever.

Seriously, though, if Elliot's going to stay even vaguely likeable he should keep his mouth shut. Anything he does in reaction to this that isn't quiet, bitter weeping will cement him as a grade-A douchebag.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: pendrake on 09 Dec 2011, 02:43
For comic #2075...

1. Aww...  Looks like the Marten & Padma relationship/fling has been given an extension.  Still, from the way Padma phrased it, she still intends to leave "eventually."  So really nothing has been resolved (yet).

2. "Marten Reed: Man of the Year" might have been even funnier if it showed his "TEH" shirt in full.

3. Marten's internal imagery makes me wonder if he ever had these kind of reactions while with Dora?

4. Art-wise, Padma in panel #4 is indeed very eye-catchingly cute.  I think it is the eyes and hint-of-smile.

5. "Marten Reed: First Man on Mars."  Guess in the QC-verse, NASA is not dying the slow death by a thousand (budget) cuts :cry: .

6. While there obviously will be great drama ahead for the next few QC-weeks, I do hope that when it comes time for Padma to leave, that she and Marten will separate on good terms.  Not sure if the boards (or pwhodges, at least :wink: ) could take another meteor (drama) storm of Michael Bay proportions.  [gods Armageddon made my brain bleed out my ears, especially the bit with the dual mini-guns...]
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Sidhekin on 09 Dec 2011, 02:48
"Marten Reed: Man of teh Year"?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: TinPenguin on 09 Dec 2011, 03:10
Love today's comic!

If Eliot jumps to that conclusion, there could be punchings in store...

Pretty sure whatever conclusion Elliot jumps to, he's going to jump straight into the corner, curl up into a ball and stay there. The guy is not exactly a black belt in asserting himself.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: VonKleist on 09 Dec 2011, 03:44
If Eliot jumps to that conclusion, there could be punchings in store...


I´d have to answer that with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb76AobIgcU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb76AobIgcU)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Method of Madness on 09 Dec 2011, 04:54
For the life of me, I can't figure out if Padma is smiling or looking concerned in the last panel.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Skewbrow on 09 Dec 2011, 05:20
Yeah, it isn't clear. But may she can feel Little Marten also express his joy at the latest piece of news? That would make the message clearer, and also cause her to raise an eyebrow like that.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: SomeCanadianWeirdo on 09 Dec 2011, 05:59
Love today's comic!

If Eliot jumps to that conclusion, there could be punchings in store...

Pretty sure whatever conclusion Elliot jumps to, he's going to jump straight into the corner, curl up into a ball and stay there. The guy is not exactly a black belt in asserting himself.

Yeah, I don't expect punches.  I expect much worse for Marten:  A devestated Elliot curled up at his feet, sobbing, quickly launching Marten into the ultraguilt zone and leading to a real mess. 
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: AnAverageWriter on 09 Dec 2011, 06:02
The guy is not exactly a black belt in asserting himself.

I agree. Not every Big Guy is a Zangief.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Soulsynger on 09 Dec 2011, 06:49
Yeah, it isn't clear. But may she can feel Little Marten also express his joy at the latest piece of news? That would make the message clearer, and also cause her to raise an eyebrow like that.
Guess her eyebrow isn't the only thing raised in that scenario. ... damn, why do we have to ruin every sweet moment with vulgarities? Oo

Ultimate drama scenario:
Elliot kills himself over Padma!
Dora and Jim will be awkward and never sleep together! (Presuming they had that in mind at any given moment)
Faye will be reminded of her father's suicide and falls back into self-destruction, breaking up with Angus in the process! ("I can't handle us right now, I'm sorry!" wah wah wah)
Marten and Padma are of course finished. We will never see Padma again... or her Grandma at all.
 ...
I'm out of consequences but I am sure there are more. Oo
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: NotsoAverageJoe on 09 Dec 2011, 06:53
that was all i was advocating.  that no matter what field of study people prefer, they don't fall into the trap of assuming they've found the absolute answer.  everyone is prone to it, people want answers and they tend to grasp at even the slightest chance to get one.

only difference that i can see between men now, and men two thousand years ago, is that instead of worshiping an invisible spaghetti monster in the sky, now we worship imaginary numbers and scientific theories.
You either have some seriously fucked up ideas about what it is scientists do with their time or are working from a completely different definition of 'worship' to everyone else. Which is it please?

simple answer, where people look to get their answers.  

slightly less simple explanation.  in the past, during the "less civilized" days of man, people looked to priests to provide them with all the answers.  now, in this age of rationalism, there's a trend to look to scientists to fulfill that need.  if i were to ask what the difference between the two ends of the spectrum are, im sure both ends of the spectrum would give roughly the same answer (the justification would almost certainly be different, but both would be absolutely convinced they were right and, most likely, the other side wrong), and i don't consider that an advancement of civilization, its just moving from one ideology to another.

and... i can't have been the only one who saw today's comic coming from a mile away?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: NotsoAverageJoe on 09 Dec 2011, 06:57
There's a big difference between having sex and making love.
I once asked a partner whether she wanted to make love or fuck.

Fuck is a very interesting word for a variety of reasons, even in its literal sense. You can make love, you can have sex with, you can sleep together, you can even couple with someone, but fuck is a verb, with a subject and an object. Someone fucks and someone gets fucked. I think that is part of why it is so distinct from love. It takes away the the partnership and cooperation of the act and focuses on the physical process. It would almost be clinical if it weren't so crude.


and oldie but a goodie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26UA578yQ5g
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: sleypy on 09 Dec 2011, 07:05
If Eliot jumps to that conclusion, there could be punchings in store...


I´d have to answer that with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb76AobIgcU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb76AobIgcU)

If Renee champions his cause, there could be cussing in store...
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: d-ArkAngel on 09 Dec 2011, 07:07
My suspension of disbelief fails on QCverse humanity not having already been to Mars.

Who's to say they didn't send an all woman crew?  :-P
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jwhouk on 09 Dec 2011, 07:14
I guess it's telling that the only thing from the Hanners/Momo/Clinton strips this week that got votes was the centerfold.

Geez, what's up with this place, buncha pervs or something?  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: AnAverageWriter on 09 Dec 2011, 07:20
My suspension of disbelief fails on QCverse humanity not having already been to Mars.

Well...

It may be that in the QCVerse that Space Scientists have figured out how utterly pointless it is to career squishy humans off to hostile dust worlds. Seriously, aside from being able to scrawl "Buzz wuzz herez" on a rock, there really isn't an advantage to having a big fluffy man prancing around on Mars. When you compound that with all the DISadvantages that manned spaceflight has...

Well, unless you really want to thumb your nose at some other country with an opposing political ideology, it's just a much saner, more economical choice to toss some AnthroPCs up there for a while and see what happens.

So... in all actuality, the first sentient being on Mars was probably...

A Pintsize.  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Loki on 09 Dec 2011, 07:32
You do of course realize that means that the first footprint on Mars is in fact the inprint of a giant dildo said Pintsize strapped to his feet.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 09 Dec 2011, 07:34
One scientist, asked how long it would take him to do the work the Mars rovers do in a day, said "45 seconds".
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: akronnick on 09 Dec 2011, 08:06
Exactly.

No instrument, tool or machine has ever matched the capability of two eyes, two hands and a brain. In a world where human level AI has already happened, manned spaceflight makes no sense. In the real world, the advantages of having a well trained Human being in a situation make manned spaceflight a well worth the challenges.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Border Reiver on 09 Dec 2011, 08:25
Fuck is a very interesting word for a variety of reasons, even in its literal sense. You can make love, you can have sex with, you can sleep together, you can even couple with someone, but fuck is a verb, with a subject and an object. Someone fucks and someone gets fucked. I think that is part of why it is so distinct from love. It takes away the the partnership and cooperation of the act and focuses on the physical process. It would almost be clinical if it weren't so crude.

You my UN friend, need an education with this magical word that only a truly expert linguist, or a long term veteran of the armed forces can provide:

a.  Verb - 1.  to have sexual intercourse with; 2. mess about, fool around; 3.  curse or confound
b.  Adverb - used as an intensive for expression (can be either positive or negative);
c.  Noun - 1.  the act of sexual intercourse, 2. a partner in sexual intercourse, 3.  the slightest amount
d.  Adjective - an expression of anger or annoyance

And now for your test, please indicate how it is used in the following phrase:  "F*ck!  The f*cking f*ucker is f*ucking well F*cked!"
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: FunkyTuba on 09 Dec 2011, 08:32
Ultimate drama scenario:
Elliot kills himself over Padma!
Dora and Jim will be awkward and never sleep together! (Presuming they had that in mind at any given moment)
Faye will be reminded of her father's suicide and falls back into self-destruction, breaking up with Angus in the process! ("I can't handle us right now, I'm sorry!" wah wah wah)
Marten and Padma are of course finished. We will never see Padma again... or her Grandma at all.
 ...
I'm out of consequences but I am sure there are more. Oo

Steve and Cosette get married and his unresolved misgivings permanently emasculate him.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Welu on 09 Dec 2011, 08:37
I wasn't expecting this. Seems like Padma is really liking Marten rather than just having fun. Ooh!
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: TinPenguin on 09 Dec 2011, 08:45
You my UN friend, need an education with this magical word

what makes you think this.

also what is a UN friend.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: sitnspin on 09 Dec 2011, 08:58
d.  Adjective - an expression of anger or annoyance

You actually gave the definition of e. Exclamation, here. An adjective describes a noun.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: haikupoet on 09 Dec 2011, 09:20
Ultimate drama scenario:
Elliot kills himself over Padma!
Dora and Jim will be awkward and never sleep together! (Presuming they had that in mind at any given moment)
Faye will be reminded of her father's suicide and falls back into self-destruction, breaking up with Angus in the process! ("I can't handle us right now, I'm sorry!" wah wah wah)
Marten and Padma are of course finished. We will never see Padma again... or her Grandma at all.
 ...
I'm out of consequences but I am sure there are more. Oo

Steve and Cosette get married and his unresolved misgivings permanently emasculate him.

Cosette just by chance meets Tortura, they bond over coffee, then Steve comes to Cosette's that night and hears "Hi, honey... *crack*...
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Skaltura on 09 Dec 2011, 09:33
This is not going to end well ...
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: sitnspin on 09 Dec 2011, 09:38
What a bunch of Debbie Downers you all are. Nothing ever ends well, whether she leaves and they never see each other again or if they stay together until one of them dies, endings are always sad.  It isn't the ending that matters, it what happens up until then. Enjoy the fuck out of life while you have it, it all turns to shit eventually so you might as well have a good time along the way.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Mr_Rose on 09 Dec 2011, 09:51
Not all endings are sad though. Like, what about if Padma joins the band as lead singer and they go on a Worlds Tour of the solar system and, having been driven mad by space rays, create a doomsday weapon out of their ship and use it to ignite solar fusion in Jupiter before being incinerated by the ignition pulse? That ending is AWESOME, not sad. Plus it comes with a bonus bitchin' sweet ride on the way in.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 09 Dec 2011, 09:55
This is why Jeph writes the comic. 
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: AnAverageWriter on 09 Dec 2011, 10:29
No instrument, tool or machine has ever matched the capability of two eyes, two hands and a brain

Uh... machines, tools and instruments do that all the time.
Every single day.
And they've been matching those capabilities since the dawn of the industrial revolution. I don't know what you think is special about the pathetic senses we've got, but I can safely say that your scientist quote comes from someone that deserves to be slapped across the face, soundly and repeatedly until he can no longer influence an argument in any meaningful way.

I would see what happens if you put that scientist naked above Mars- see what he can do without the benefit of his technology. I would imagine he wouldn't last very long.

People who believe in human exceptionalism are the bane of technological progress. We aren't that damned special!
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: DSL on 09 Dec 2011, 10:34
Maybe there's still some hope for the non-QCverse. SpaceX announcement.  (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-413_SpaceX_ISS_Flight.html)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Schmorgluck on 09 Dec 2011, 10:47
Am I the only one who thought of Dream On (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_On_%28TV_series%29) when reading today's comic?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: sitnspin on 09 Dec 2011, 12:01
Not all endings are sad though. Like, what about if Padma joins the band as lead singer and they go on a Worlds Tour of the solar system and, having been driven mad by space rays, create a doomsday weapon out of their ship and use it to ignite solar fusion in Jupiter before being incinerated by the ignition pulse? That ending is AWESOME, not sad. Plus it comes with a bonus bitchin' sweet ride on the way in.

They are dead. I am sure there  are plenty of people who would find that sad. The ride in, would admittedly be quite awesome. It is the dead part is the ending.


However, my gf informs me Jupiter could never become a star because it is not massive enough.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Method of Madness on 09 Dec 2011, 12:25
However, my gf informs me Jupiter could never become a star because it is not massive enough.
Am I the only one who found this sentence hilarious?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: iduguphergrave on 09 Dec 2011, 12:29
Nope. I lol'd and I'm not even that great at sciencing.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Mr_Rose on 09 Dec 2011, 12:39
No instrument, tool or machine has ever matched the capability of two eyes, two hands and a brain
People who believe in human exceptionalism are the bane of technological progress. We aren't that damned special!
It's not exceptionalism to say that a pair of trained geologists in space suits could get the entire cumulative mission totals of data collected by Spirit and Opportunity together in somewhat under four hours once they landed. Then go back and take another look at the really interesting stuff.

Perhaps you might be able to get the same amount of work done with a robot that weighed as much as the geologists and all their life support gear and their 'home base' too, but I still haven't seen a robot capable of taking 2m cores in even the "wouldn't it be awesome if" proposals. If you want to design it, go ahead.

Actually, it occurs to me that you could get even more done with just rovers if you had a dude or two on the surface with them where communication, and more importantly piloting, weren't subject to significant lightspeed lag.

RE: Jupiter—>Lucifer conversion; yeah, outside of supertech or smashing all the outer planets together, it probably is a bit teeny to ignite without some sort of artificial sustainer. Still, Mad Science shall always find a way!
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 09 Dec 2011, 12:50
I can safely say that your scientist quote comes from someone that deserves to be slapped across the face, soundly and repeatedly until he can no longer influence an argument in any meaningful way.
It's from the principal investigator for the Mars rovers. Actually, what he said was that a field geologist could do it in 45 seconds.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: AnAverageWriter on 09 Dec 2011, 14:33
It's from the principal investigator for the Mars rovers. Actually, what he said was that a field geologist could do it in 45 seconds.

Would explain why we're trying to study Mars with the equivalent of an Extendo-Glove on an RC car with a BAE Systems chip, while wasting billions on the side trying to figure out how to get shrimp to run on a space treadmill. I knew NASA was in trouble...

It's not exceptionalism to say that a pair of trained geologists in space suits could get the entire cumulative mission totals of data collected by Spirit and Opportunity together in somewhat under four hours once they landed.

It IS, however, exceptionalism to claim that "No instrument, tool or machine has ever matched the capability of two eyes, two hands and a brain". It's arrogance, the kind of stuff that makes idiots sing about John Henry and his "victory" over a digging machine.

I still haven't seen a robot capable of taking 2m cores in even the "wouldn't it be awesome if" proposals. If you want to design it, go ahead.

http://www.honeybeerobotics.com/product-examples/drill
"The 1-2m depth regime is at the heart of Honeybee Robotics' drilling research and development program. Experimentation in this regime both informs upon near-horizon surface drilling tools and lays the groundwork for the deeper flight drills of the future. Through the testing of several prototype drills in the 1-2m regime, Honeybee has amassed an unparalleled body of knowledge on the science and engineering of planetary drilling."

Ain't nothin special about us Ugly Bags Of Mostly Water, except for an overinflated sense of importance in the grand scheme of things.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: MillionDollar Belt Sander on 09 Dec 2011, 14:47
And now for your test, please indicate how it is used in the following phrase:  "F*ck!  The f*cking f*ucker is f*ucking well F*cked!"

F* off,  F*er!    :x

<---US Naval Reserve.

That is the correct answer, BTW
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: dj_soo on 09 Dec 2011, 15:02
i get the impression that marten might actually mess this up by playing *too* cool.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 09 Dec 2011, 15:07
It IS, however, exceptionalism to claim that "No instrument, tool or machine has ever matched the capability of two eyes, two hands and a brain". It's arrogance, the kind of stuff that makes idiots sing about John Henry and his "victory" over a digging machine.

But it's a really good  song...


Besides, he dies in the end, a pyrrhic victory at best. 
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Soulsynger on 09 Dec 2011, 15:52
I can safely say that your scientist quote comes from someone that deserves to be slapped across the face, soundly and repeatedly until he can no longer influence an argument in any meaningful way.
It's from the principal investigator for the Mars rovers. Actually, what he said was that a field geologist could do it in 45 seconds.
A scientist said that? Boy, they don't teach not to make outrageous generalisations anymore, do they?
45 seconds for what exactly? Does it include moving/walking around from sample to sample? Picking it up AND storing it in the designated storage space or without? Including photo and analysis? What about setting the transmitters to the right frequency?

I'm all FOR slapping that "scientist" across something. May it be face, ass cheek or back of the head. oO


And can we all step back from being misanthropic toward Padmarten? You guys are making me sad.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 09 Dec 2011, 16:40
Look up how slowly the rovers do things. They are wonderful engineering but not designed to be fast.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: sha'mad conde on 09 Dec 2011, 18:20
I'm having a Hanners moment right now... I'm looking at the current story arc and being creeped out because one of the two of them is laying in the wet spot...

I always change the sheets. Maybe they did also.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jwhouk on 09 Dec 2011, 18:32
Yes, it is here: What was the MOMENT OF THE WEEK?

Whoa, I better STOP and CONSIDER the deep PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS!    - 1 (1.2%)
...not if you want to GET to them someday.    - 1 (1.2%)
Applied Robotics centerfold!    - 5 (6%)
Way to use the ol' willpower, Marten!    - 1 (1.2%)
C'mere. (WELP)    - 16 (19.3%)
SweetTits Cameo!    - 3 (3.6%)
I'm in trouble.    - 10 (12%)
My grandma's doing okay... stick around a few weeks longer?    - 5 (6%)
GOLD MEDALIST!    - 1 (1.2%)
GRAMMY WINNER!    - 1 (1.2%)
FIRST MAN TO MARS!    - 4 (4.8%)
TIME MAN OF TEH YEAR!    - 6 (7.2%)
"Yeah, that'd be pretty cool."    - 29 (34.9%)

Total Voters: 83
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Delator on 09 Dec 2011, 22:28
i get the impression that marten might actually mess this up by playing *too* cool.

Even I  think that's probably overthinking at this stage...and I've won three Olympic gold medals in overthinking.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: DSL on 10 Dec 2011, 01:04
Re: Martian rovers:
It's a tradeoff. I believe a human geologist, once gotten to Mars, could accomplish more, and more quickly, than could the robot rovers. Said geologist would also be better able to respond to unexpected circumstances than could the rover, which relies on preprogramming and a light-speed-delayed communications loop.
However, the equipment required to keep said geologist alive and functional on Mars, as well as out and (maybe) back, adds tons more mass that must be boosted and braked.
QCverse could send AI-equipped rovers, sure ... but QCverse AIs seem to have a predilection for "Fuck this, I'm on my own here."
Re: Marten and his rover:
Well, tradeoffs are involved there, too.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: VonKleist on 10 Dec 2011, 01:43
But it's a really good  song...


Besides, he dies in the end, a pyrrhic victory at best. 

Yar,
alltough he does have a point about the kind of heroism the song conveys.
Then again it´s supposed to be a Tragedy.

Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Soulsynger on 10 Dec 2011, 04:00
QCverse could send AI-equipped rovers, sure ... but QCverse AIs seem to have a predilection for "Fuck this, I'm on my own here."
Mars Rover with AI (http://xkcd.com/695/)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: ZBixby on 10 Dec 2011, 06:04
And now for your test, please indicate how it is used in the following phrase:  "F*ck!  The f*cking f*ucker is f*ucking well F*cked!"

F* off,  F*er!    :x

<---US Naval Reserve.

That is the correct answer, BTW


F* you, you f* f* from the planet of F*

Gotta use it as all the parts of the sentence

<--- Active Duty Navy
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: sitnspin on 10 Dec 2011, 07:45
However, my gf informs me Jupiter could never become a star because it is not massive enough.
Am I the only one who found this sentence hilarious?

What can I say? She is is studying astrophysics, and I was an art major. Critical mass for solar ignition was not something I studied, so I defer to her on such matters.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: sitnspin on 10 Dec 2011, 07:48
QCverse could send AI-equipped rovers, sure ... but QCverse AIs seem to have a predilection for "Fuck this, I'm on my own here."
Mars Rover with AI (http://xkcd.com/695/)

Wow... that's actually kinda sad...
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Skewbrow on 10 Dec 2011, 08:22
No kidding. I guess I wasn't the only one wishing that they could still figure out a way to make Spirit mobile. Surely the NASA crew felt for the 'brave little rover', even though it is silly to get sentimental about a piece of HW.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: sitnspin on 10 Dec 2011, 08:37
The way the AI bond with humans in the QC-verse, it seems they inherited our social nature. I think it would therefore be necessary to send more than one at a time. After all, a single human all alone on Mars would probably lose it after a while. Prolonged isolation has serious negative psychological ramification on most people. If the AIs have the same innate drive toward socialisation, they could suffer similarly. Also, numerous entities working together could accomplish than a singular robot. Just think how much quicker a  a coordinated survey of the planet's surface would go. The added weight of extra robots would be minimal compared to the weight taken up by supplies for a similarly sized human team.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 10 Dec 2011, 08:43
There's something about a piece of hardware that far outlasts its design that makes people sentimental, though.  I'm reminded of my last car...

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Method of Madness on 10 Dec 2011, 09:28
And now for your test, please indicate how it is used in the following phrase:  "F*ck!  The f*cking f*ucker is f*ucking well F*cked!"

F* off,  F*er!    :x

<---US Naval Reserve.

That is the correct answer, BTW


F* you, you f* f* from the planet of F*

Gotta use it as all the parts of the sentence

<--- Active Duty Navy
Am I missing something, or are people in the Navy/Navy Reserve not allowed to say "fuck"?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Mr_Rose on 10 Dec 2011, 10:15
No, it's just part of the training to learn how to pronounce asterisks and other punctuation.
So you can properly send encrypted voice messages, see?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Stoutfellow on 10 Dec 2011, 10:35
Aah, it's not that hard to pronounce punctuation.

But you'd be a jack* it in the wrong company.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 10 Dec 2011, 10:44
It's jack@$$.  Who taught you how to spell punctuate? 
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Stoutfellow on 10 Dec 2011, 10:54
You're a couple of words short....
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Method of Madness on 10 Dec 2011, 11:28
Now I'm even more confused.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Stoutfellow on 10 Dec 2011, 12:47
Read what I wrote, saying the name of "*" where I wrote "*".
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 10 Dec 2011, 13:03
I'm flabbergasted.  That was brilliant!

Pity  ididn't see it at first - I blame the pain meds...
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Stoutfellow on 10 Dec 2011, 13:08
I have to admit that it's not original with me. I read it about forty years ago, and have been waiting for an opportunity to use it.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: IrrationalPie on 10 Dec 2011, 13:28
I'm calling it now.  

Padma decides to leave, and Marten leaves with her.

The comic then does a mini-reboot leaving aside the usual cast save Marten and Padma (and Pintsize of course)!
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 10 Dec 2011, 13:32
And, now that you've said it, ...
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Loki on 10 Dec 2011, 14:39
Has Steve been introduced to Padma yet? If not, I hereby call dibs on the "Steve knows her from his work as secret agent" theory.

She is either secretly an agent for TheEnemy or there was UnresolvedSexualTension between her and Steve (most likely both). Now Steve will have to contemplate whether to tell Marten or not.

...I will show myself out.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: pwhodges on 10 Dec 2011, 14:42
Padma (and Renee and Elliot) met Steve and Marten in the pub, and clearly did not know Steve as she asked Marten about him (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1865), and indeed thought they were a gay couple (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1866).  Steve took Cosette into The Secret Bakery (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1877) a little later.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Loki on 10 Dec 2011, 14:55
Oh. Yeah. There goes my *cough* absolutely plausible and substantiated theory. Oh well.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 10 Dec 2011, 15:05
You could salvage it by suggesting that to preserve secrecy they had to act as though they didn't know each other.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Loki on 10 Dec 2011, 15:10
I really thought about writing that for a moment, but considered it too cliché. The idea that both had their memory temporarily erased and are now gradually gaining it back is far more interesting.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Overkillengine on 10 Dec 2011, 15:36
I'm calling it now.  

Padma decides to leave, and Marten leaves with her.

The comic then does a mini-reboot leaving aside the usual cast save Marten and Padma (and Pintsize of course)!

Alternate theory: Marten wakes up and this entire arc was a dream!

That's never been done before...right?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Yarin on 10 Dec 2011, 16:06
Alternate theory: Marten wakes up and this entire arc was a dream!

That's never been done before...right?

Lol dallas and st elsewhere
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 10 Dec 2011, 16:47
Didn't Jeph promise never to do that?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Yarin on 10 Dec 2011, 17:06
I hope so it's such an cop out
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Loki on 10 Dec 2011, 17:23
Another theory: We wake up and the whole last arc was just a dream.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Yarin on 10 Dec 2011, 18:50
Or the giant wakes up and we all disappear
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jwhouk on 10 Dec 2011, 19:14
I'm flabbergasted.  That was brilliant!

Pity  I didn't see it at first - I blame the pain meds...

It took me a while too. I think it's just 'cause we're old.  :roll:
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jwhouk on 10 Dec 2011, 19:24
Yes, it is here: What was the MOMENT OF THE WEEK?

Clinton describes AI emergence over burgers.    - 0 (0%)
S'not that incredible.    - 0 (0%)
We've been dreaming of that stuff for over 100 years!    - 0 (0%)
Whoa, I better STOP and CONSIDER the deep PHILOSOPHICAL IMPLICATIONS!    - 1 (1.1%)
"Innovation Fatigue"    - 1 (1.1%)
But that leads to COMPLACENCY!    - 0 (0%)
You can look at the stars and say "they sure are pretty"...    - 0 (0%)
...not if you want to GET to them someday.    - 2 (2.2%)
Years of therapy to not have a panic attack.    - 0 (0%)
Applied Robotics centerfold!    - 5 (5.4%)
Okay, you know what, I'm just gonna play this friends-style.    - 0 (0%)
Way to use the ol' willpower, Marten!    - 1 (1.1%)
C'mere. (WELP)    - 16 (17.4%)
SweetTits Cameo!    - 4 (4.3%)
I said, "You're Trouble."    - 0 (0%)
I'm in trouble.    - 13 (14.1%)
My grandma's doing okay... stick around a few weeks longer?    - 6 (6.5%)
GOLD MEDALIST!    - 1 (1.1%)
GRAMMY WINNER!    - 1 (1.1%)
FIRST MAN TO MARS!    - 4 (4.3%)
TIME MAN OF TEH YEAR!    - 8 (8.7%)
"Yeah, that'd be pretty cool."    - 29 (31.5%)

Total Voters: 92
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Kugai on 10 Dec 2011, 19:32
I keep telling you, QC is The Matrix and Marten is Neo
















 :-D
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jwhouk on 10 Dec 2011, 19:45
No, mopey guy from strip 2066 (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2066) is Neo!
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Dust on 10 Dec 2011, 23:06
Another theory: We wake up and the whole last arc was just a dream.

The comic wakes up.. and tells us to get off it's lawn.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: DSL on 10 Dec 2011, 23:27
Another theory: We wake up and the whole last arc was just a dream.

We wake up and there was never any such thing as QC.

And then we wake up from that and there was never any such thing as us.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: cesariojpn on 11 Dec 2011, 02:11
Alternate theory: Marten wakes up and this entire arc was a dream!

That's never been done before...right?

The Burger he ate was contaminated with Listeria (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1984) and he's in a hospital bed, just waking up to a gaggle of concerned friends and both Ma and Pa.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: specter177 on 11 Dec 2011, 08:44
Nah, he tried to grab Faye's boobs after The Talk, and has been in a coma ever since.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: DSL on 11 Dec 2011, 08:56
"And you were there and you were there and you were there and, oh, Auntie Em, it's so good to be home!"
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Delator on 11 Dec 2011, 09:41
i get the impression that marten might actually mess this up by playing *too* cool.

I'm calling it now.  

Padma decides to leave, and Marten leaves with her.

The comic then does a mini-reboot leaving aside the usual cast save Marten and Padma (and Pintsize of course)!

Well jeez, since we're throwing out worst-case scenarios, let me just get this one out of the way...

Padma stays, on the assumption that she has some extra time, but then her Grandma unexpectedly passes. She goes back for the funeral, only to come back resenting Marten...ending things between them completely.

There...I'll show myself out.  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: themacnut on 11 Dec 2011, 10:17
Nah, he tried to grab Faye's boobs after The Talk, and has been in a coma ever since.

Oooh, I LIKE that one. The really nice twist to it (of the knife in Marten's gut, that is) is that means his relationship with Dora never happened either. Icing on the cake would have been him being in the coma for the same length of time as all the events he's dreamed about.

Annnd since I've gone there, mind as well finish-he wakes up to see only his mother there standing over him. Faye is in prison convicted of assault, which his mother made sure would happen, 'cause how DARE Faye assault her ONLY BABY! Oh, and his mother's moved to MA, AND moved all his stuff in with her, so the only place he's got to go when he gets out of the hospital....is back with Mom.

Yeah, I know that'll never happen in the comic-mainly because even Jeph wouldn't be THAT cruel. Right?
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Skaltura on 11 Dec 2011, 10:50
Well jeez, since we're throwing out worst-case scenarios, let me just get this one out of the way...

Padma stays, on the assumption that she has some extra time, but then her Grandma unexpectedly passes. She goes back for the funeral, only to come back resenting Marten...ending things between them completely.

There...I'll show myself out.  :psyduck:

I like this version, let's improve on that.

Marten actually considers leaving with her, going so far as to make plans for leaving, his best friend Faye gets scared she's going to lose him and so rushes after him to the airport/train station. Her boyfling Angus gets upset at seeing his girlfriend rushing after another man and breaks up with her, but only after a drunken one-night stand with Dora, who, disgusted at all this townie drama, decides to cut off all contact with her former group of friends.

Then Marten leaves ANYWAY for California because he's got a job offer (something music-related), subsequently the band breaks up and Hanners, cut off from all emotional support, is comitted to a mental hospital. Marigold goes back to being a social shut-in. Rocks fall, everyone dies (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RocksFallEveryoneDies)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 11 Dec 2011, 11:54
We don't, but by now a sister should have been mentioned if there were one.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Kugai on 11 Dec 2011, 11:56
We don't, but by now a sister should have been mentioned if there were one.

Eventually we'll find out that Sweet-Tits is Marten's parents secret love child




Oh the drama.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 11 Dec 2011, 11:58
You...you...

You're all a bunch of nattering nabobs of negativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiro_Agnew)!  




And to think, I've been waiting nearly forty years to use that one...
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Method of Madness on 11 Dec 2011, 12:05
Read what I wrote, saying the name of "*" where I wrote "*".
I see wut u did thar.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Overkillengine on 11 Dec 2011, 12:16
*blinks*


Um, wow. Didn't think trotting out the Dallas reference would get the creative juices flowing so much.  :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Skewbrow on 11 Dec 2011, 12:57
I'm flabbergasted.  That was brilliant!

Pity  I didn't see it at first - I blame the pain meds...

It took me a while too. I think it's just 'cause we're old.  :roll:

Better late than never. Shakes head.IOW you beat me to it.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: SomeCanadianWeirdo on 11 Dec 2011, 15:14
I still think the likely Padma plot twist is that her Grandma isn't in poor health at all, and her parents have been telling Padma the contrary in a horribly manipulative attempt to get her to move back to California.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Tova on 11 Dec 2011, 17:16
No no no... those aren't worst case scenarios. The forums would enjoy them far too much.

Here's what I think is the worst case scenario. She leaves after a couple of weeks after they decide to pursue a long-distance relationship.

It works out for awhile, although Marten occasionally wishes wistfully out loud that they could be together again.

Someone on the forums posts that they are sick of Marten's moping about the long-distance relationship, or about what a bad idea it is, or both - EVERY SINGLE DAY.

I'm twitching already.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jwhouk on 11 Dec 2011, 17:30
Lest we take ourselves too seriously:

Quote from: @jephjacques
Thank god for anonymous internet strangers telling me how to do my job, I clearly have no idea how to function without their assistance.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: DSL on 11 Dec 2011, 17:36

Annnd since I've gone there, mind as well finish-he wakes up to see only his mother there standing over him. Faye is in prison convicted of assault, which his mother made sure would happen, 'cause how DARE Faye assault her ONLY BABY!

Stupid question, but do we know for sure that Marten's an only child? The wiki says "no brothers and no known sisters".

To be fair, themacnut didn't say "only child," but "ONLY BABY!" Those who know Moms will appreciate the distinction.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Arancaytar on 11 Dec 2011, 17:52
If she does decide to stay, then Marten will have a very awkward conversation with Elliot the next time he visits the bakery.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: jwhouk on 11 Dec 2011, 18:11
By the way, we are apparently getting a YB comic tomorrow.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Near Lurker on 11 Dec 2011, 18:51
Lest we take ourselves too seriously:

Quote from: @jephjacques
Thank god for anonymous internet strangers telling me how to do my job, I clearly have no idea how to function without their assistance.

I'd take more stock in this if his job weren't to provide content to anonymous Internet strangers.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 11 Dec 2011, 19:30
Which we consume because we couldn't create it ourselves.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Carl-E on 11 Dec 2011, 21:31
Which doesn't stop us from telling him what we'd like him to do...   :psyduck:
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Is it cold in here? on 11 Dec 2011, 21:52
Which, if he did it, would ironically make us less happy.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: DSL on 11 Dec 2011, 22:52
Don't give him ideas.

I mean ...

Oh, you know what I mean.

Please tell me what I mean.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: pwhodges on 11 Dec 2011, 23:32
Lest we take ourselves too seriously:

Quote from: @jephjacques
Thank god for anonymous internet strangers telling me how to do my job, I clearly have no idea how to function without their assistance.

Also:
Quote from: @jephjacques
From now on, if I do something in the comic that you don't like, I want you to know that it was SPECIFICALLY TO SPITE YOU.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: cesariojpn on 12 Dec 2011, 09:26
Lest we take ourselves too seriously:

Quote from: @jephjacques
Thank god for anonymous internet strangers telling me how to do my job, I clearly have no idea how to function without their assistance.

Also:
Quote from: @jephjacques
From now on, if I do something in the comic that you don't like, I want you to know that it was SPECIFICALLY TO SPITE YOU.

We love you too fearless leader.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Kugai on 12 Dec 2011, 10:33
Lest we take ourselves too seriously:

Quote from: @jephjacques
Thank god for anonymous internet strangers telling me how to do my job, I clearly have no idea how to function without their assistance.

Also:
Quote from: @jephjacques
From now on, if I do something in the comic that you don't like, I want you to know that it was SPECIFICALLY TO SPITE YOU.

We love you too fearless leader.

Ya hya chouhada!  Jeph Jaques!  Jeph Jaques! Jeph Jaques!      :-D



Oh, and butts!!!!!
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: VonKleist on 13 Dec 2011, 01:20
Uh.. where´d the quotes come from pwhodges?


Comiiiic..
is good. :D
Let´s hope Marty doesn't suffer any physical damage from too much unf unff :-)

Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: Sidhekin on 13 Dec 2011, 01:38
Uh.. where´d the quotes come from pwhodges?
Twitter.

Aw, I'm too kind: http://twitter.com/#!/jephjacques/status/145608094020415488 (http://twitter.com/#!/jephjacques/status/145608094020415488) & http://twitter.com/#!/jephjacques/status/145611609438552064 (http://twitter.com/#!/jephjacques/status/145611609438552064)
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: snubnose on 13 Dec 2011, 23:49

We love you too fearless leader.

He can't TREAT us as his friends when we read the comic, we have to be his READERSHIP. And that can ruin our relationship.

Ok, now I'm confused.
Title: Re: WCDT 2071-75 (Dec. 5-9, 2011)
Post by: DSL on 14 Dec 2011, 01:04
Try this. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1707)