The title text continues the conversation: when Megan tries to return the laptop to Cueball, he refuses, as Megan willingly took possession of it in the first place. Both have clearly decided that they no longer want anything to do with an object housing a supernatural entity, and are trying to pass it back to one another.
Literally haunted? 22.214.171.124 08:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering too if Randall was also taking a sideways swipe at the way many people today misuse the term "literally".126.96.36.199 22:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I would say he trying to say that some errors that computers have are impossible to fathom. I've baffled our IT people on many an occasion and the solution is usual 'rebuild' which is the computer equivalent of an exorcism.188.8.131.52 10:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Definitely this. It is also much harder to figure out what the problem is with a computer when you weren't the one who has spent all their time using the computer. It is why I can't understand how IT people do their jobs. Daleb (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Surprised nobody mentioned Ghost in the machine yet... --Koveras (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I find the current explanation entertaining but... raises questions.
Is "This comic is inexplicable and represents a self-referencing joke about explainxkcd.com." serious?
- I think it's not and I deleted the sentence. 184.108.40.206 14:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- If the comic is not a self-referencing joke about explainxkcd.com, then what conceivable combination of words WOULD constitute such a joke? (note: I am not the one who first made the (now deleted) point, but I agree with it.) 220.127.116.11 08:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
"While it might [be] a reasonable conclusion [i.e. that it is 'haunted'] for a human, demons can't possess a computer." - this reads like "demons exist, but are incapable of possessing computer equipment", rather than "demons cannot possess a computer, because they don't even exist", which would be my preference (under the standard rules of not being able to prove the non-existence of the supernatral... and, believe me, I've had my fair share of totally baffling computer problems, in my time, and often anthropomorphise equipment, somewhat, at least to explain it to non-tech users... but then end up adopting the same attitude myself, of course).
"The title text suggests that Megan insists that Cueball resume possession of his laptop, as she is unsettled by the ghost; Cueball simply refuses, seeing an opportunity to make his problem hers." - I see that as more akin to the "cursed gem" type of story. One simply cannot palm the gem off on somebody else, but it must have a legitimately willing recipient (including a thief stealing it, often) in order for the curse itself to transfer itself. Now that the 'status' of the laptop is known he's not going to accept it back and take the 'curse of errors' back upon himself. 18.104.22.168 14:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I just removed the sentence "While it might [be] a reasonable conclusion for a human, demons can't possess a computer." In the real world ghosts (the comic does not mention demons) don't exist and can't possess either humans or computers; in a fictional world, they might be able to do either or both (a la King's "Trucks"). -- 22.214.171.124 15:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- Are you completely sure of that? How do you look at news like Church trains more priests to perform Exorcism? -- Hkmaly (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the joke is just that normally the smartass that knows more about computers than you is able to easilly fix it, but not in this case. Halfhat (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
So am I the only one who thinks that the caption(or whatever the hover over text is called) refers to Cueball trying to return the laptop to a retail store. I mean I can see a store like Best Buy refusing to take back a laptop because a customer insists that there is a ghost in it. 126.96.36.199 18:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. but until more people notice it, lets leave it. Imanton1 (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- I thought this too, except I thought it was more a comment on people's attachment to technology, "Demon-posessed or not, it's got all my kitten videos on it!".--188.8.131.52 08:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- You're not the only one. That's exactly what I thought the mouseover text was about, too. I guess it could be read multiple ways, but maybe the explanation should acknowledge that? Enchantedsleeper (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Overthinking, maybe, but if the computer is haunted (read: possessed), then a valid solution IS to return (read: unpossess? dispossess?) it. 184.108.40.206 23:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Demons and devils can possess people or things; ghosts only loiter/haunt a location. 220.127.116.11 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
My wife says, "it's a Turing test!"
18.104.22.168 02:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Am I the only who have thought of a corrupted random access memory on this laptop? Last time when I had a RAM failure on one of my machines, for a non technical person it may have appeared haunted: e.g. not executing just specific applications, writing nonsensical error messages, crashing applications when a specific word was being used...you name it. Running memcheck revealed later that one RAM module had lots of corrupted bytes but the problem only appeared when one RAM module was getting hot. So as long as the machine was idling if behaved just fine. So no ghost for me, I guess. 22.214.171.124 09:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
People, there is no implication that this is a new laptop. It cannot be returned to the store, ok? Megan does not want it in her possession, so she wants to give it back to Cueball but he will not accept it. The only reason she says "take it back" is because it this a straight line that allows Cueball to reply "No". 126.96.36.199 18:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I once had a computer that was a nudist. After a couple of months it allowed me to get it dressed. I must say it taught me to be more accepting of the needs of electronic devices then and now. 188.8.131.52 20:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that the strip is genuinely inexplicable, but one thing I am certain of is that there is no explanation to be found here on this page. None. Every single one of the comments above is reaching. If the computer is literally haunted, then describing it as such is not misuse of the term "literally". If there's no terminological misuse, then there's no sideswipe at the misuse. Maybe some computer errors are impossible to fathom, but describing such errors as a 'haunting' does not constitute a joke, etc., etc., etc. To me the key, the "punchline", is Cueball's "told you". That is the only thing that requires explanation. All the stuff above is annotation, NOT explanation. Q: When did Cueball tell Megan that the computer was haunted? A: When he told her that "nothing works or makes sense". To him the two statements, "the computer is haunted" and "nothing works or makes sense" are equivalent. To him haunting can only be a valid explanation in a world which is entirely devoid of logic. I did try to explain that, but my explanation got Occam's-Razored out of existence. 184.108.40.206 03:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, my comment about the use of "literally" _was_ meant as an amused remark at best, not explanation. Otherwise I would not have put it on the discussion page :) 220.127.116.11 15:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Did anyone else think of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "I Robot, You Jane"? It could be a reference (Giles: ... There's a demon in the Internet. Ms. Calendar: I know.) Yuriy206 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
"Ghost" was also a popular disk cloning and backup software. And restoring from a clean "ghost image" is a common way to fix "haunted" computer. --18.104.22.168 17:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I think it's so funny that nobody has mentioned that 1316 is a Windows error code for a network error during an install that can be quite irritating to try and fix/diagnose esp if you are offline/not part of a network with resources. 22.214.171.124 16:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with "Note that Cueball is far from "non-technical", so this possible interpretation does not literally match the depicted scenario." I'm (nearly) a computer engineer, and I'm still convinced that machines have personality and some errors are unfixable without a NASA level lab. 126.96.36.199 03:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm totally fine with this not being a reference to anything, the computer is just haunted. Literally and actually. Who's with me? -Pennpenn 188.8.131.52 22:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
We have CI machines that are haunted this way. They consistently fail when integrating, but only then, and only if no one tries to reproduce it. 184.108.40.206 21:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)