explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1207: AirAware

2013-05-06T18:04:56Z

64.20.186.2:

I somehow has the feeling that the business-plan behind is that people will pay you that the drone LEAVES. --[[User:DaB.|DaB.]] ([[User talk:DaB.|talk]]) 08:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

:That would certainly work, but I'm not sure Black Hat wants that money. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

:: Even if this is the revenue model, it would be an undertaking that still genera...err.. extorts revenue. So, the drone is still incorrect when it yells out in the last panel. On the other hand, we're back to square one (the definition of business) if it's not the blackmailing BlackHat you pay to get rid of his drones, but another business that shoots them down. [[Special:Contributions/220.224.246.97|220.224.246.97]] 19:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The "as it does not seem to generate money" bit seems a bit premature in the explanation. At the stage he's questioning whether it ''is'' a business, the question is "''who'' would even pay?". Only in the last frame does the utter lack of generated money (above idea from DaB. aside) arise and make him assert that it is ''not'' one, which gets him shouted at. Not sure how to re-write it, though. [[Special:Contributions/31.110.91.76|31.110.91.76]] 09:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

:Yeah, I was thinking that, but I didn't really know what to write and I was a bit rushed, I might fix it up now. [[Special:Contributions/203.51.90.96|203.51.90.96]] 14:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this could also be to do with how Google Now works - e.g. it will often tell you things that you are semi-aware of, but ignoring.--[[Special:Contributions/194.201.25.22|194.201.25.22]] 12:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Google will make money on Now the same as always. By renting our eyeballs. I used it for the first time last night. It located me and showed me nearby businesses. If they weren't paying for clickthrough then, they will over time. ''— [[User:Tbc|tbc]] ([[User talk:Tbc|talk]]) 12:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)''

: I have not seen those yet, maybe because I'm living in a rural area. But it always shows me the weather, upcoming appointments (and when to leave for them) and traffic on my way to work. At work (smaller city) it also shows me places nearby to visit, but no ads, only POIs. --[[User:SlashMe|SlashMe]] ([[User talk:SlashMe|talk]]) 15:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The bit about "must nake money" being WRONG is probably a reference to the scores of dotcoms who came to market with the idea that "We'll make something cool now, figure out how to make money from it later" [[User:Gardnertoo|Gardnertoo]] ([[User talk:Gardnertoo|talk]]) 13:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, there is only one kind of organization that collect tons of dollars "just yelling at stranger from the sky": churches (in addition, churches are non profit organizations). [[User:Andcoz|Andcoz]] ([[User talk:Andcoz|talk]]) 14:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Big Brother 1984 (from 1948 by George Orwell) is just a Child's Birthday comparing to Goooogle.
And I like Goooogle as everyone else here does.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 15:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course the Pakistani version of this drone shoots you (and/or your relatives) if you say something silly, unless you pay it enough money. ~~tbwtg~~

I think that this explanation is wrong. This strip is about giving too much privacy. Google or Facebook knows much more about us than anybody else, and information is money, so this IS a huge business even if you dont pay anything --[[Special:Contributions/89.70.180.131|89.70.180.131]] 23:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
:so fix it [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 04:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Any good business makes decisions to please or entice it's paying customers. You are not google's customer, or facebook's. If you didn't pay, you're not the customer, you're the stock-in-trade. The hardware store owner doesn't ask the hammers where he should display them. The grocer doesn't ask the watermelon for advice on marketing policy. ~wrybred

So the Innocence Project, say, has wrongly convicted prisoners as its stock-in-trade (since they don't pay for the representation). So, following the money trail, it must be the *donors* to the Innocence Project who are the clients, since they are paying. So the IP attorneys should consult with the donors about the defense strategy, not the prisoners. In fact, attorney-client privilege in this case must cover communication between the IP attorney and the donor, not the prisoner represented. It's all so clear to me now! [[Special:Contributions/64.20.186.2|64.20.186.2]] 18:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)larK

Talk:1203: Time Machines

2013-04-24T18:22:12Z

64.20.186.2:

This one kinda went over my head; the explanation is the best I could come up with. [[User:Alpha|Alpha]] ([[User talk:Alpha|talk]]) 05:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
:Examine the transcript and Cueball's movement in the second and third panel. The time machine in this comic is a time-reversing one, not a time jumping one. '''[[User:Davidy22|{{Color|#707|David}}y²²]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 05:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

My thoguhts:
Cueball turns on the time machine, which starts up and they start going back in time, returning to the time the machine it turned on. Time is going in perfect reverse, so the machine switches off and then he is back where he started. [[Special:Contributions/216.81.49.162|216.81.49.162]] 05:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't get it when I first read it, and this explanation seems to make the most sense; if it is the intended joke, I wish Randall would have reversed the sound effect "click" in the third panel ("!kcilC"), which would indicate that time is moving backwards (from the reference frame we're watching it from), which would have made this explanation more obvious for me.[[Special:Contributions/64.20.186.2|64.20.186.2]] 18:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)larK

The Machine even turns back Cueballs actions, so maybe even his memory of turning it on, what might make him so puzzled - eventually - if he decides rational to try the machine (and if desicdes always rational) - he will get in a loop of turning it on - travelling back and forgetting that event - and turning it on again. - That might get Interesting [[Special:Contributions/212.202.64.10|212.202.64.10]] 05:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Lupo

I don't think he looks puzzled because nothing happened, I think he's curious b/c he just came across a Time Machine. That is, the last frame of the strip takes place seconds before the first. So the "trouble" with time machines (of this variety) is that if you go back in time you can't take the present with you, and nothing changes.
[[Special:Contributions/76.95.49.45|76.95.49.45]] 06:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Alternative view: Feedback. Stephen Hawking has discussed the general problem with a whole class of time machines (namely, wormwhole based time machines), where the energy from the future is added exponentially to the system due to system feedback. More or less as a microphone cannot get too close to its speaker without having that horrible sound. This would explain who the guy in the comic turns the machine off... there is a large buildup of energy feedback and this can be observed in the EEEEE...

"In the end, I think a wormhole like this one can't exist. And the reason for that is feedback. If you've ever been to a rock gig, you'll probably recognise this screeching noise. It's feedback. What causes it is simple. Sound enters the microphone. It's transmitted along the wires, made louder by the amplifier, and comes out at the speakers. But if too much of the sound from the speakers goes back into the mic it goes around and around in a loop getting louder each time. If no one stops it, feedback can destroy the sound system.
The same thing will happen with a wormhole, only with radiation instead of sound. As soon as the wormhole expands, natural radiation will enter it, and end up in a loop. The feedback will become so strong it destroys the wormhole. So although tiny wormholes do exist, and it may be possible to inflate one some day, it won't last long enough to be of use as a time machine. That's the real reason no one could come back in time to my party.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1269288/STEPHEN-HAWKING-How-build-time-machine.html#ixzz2RMMowXrs" {{unsigned ip|128.12.95.6}}

But with that above analogy, in a sound system, you have external power to amplify the signal - the energy the microphone takes out is not what gets put back out. In a wormhole, unless there is something to amplify the radiation that comes out the other end then it's a closed system (and if you do amplify it then where did THAT energy come from). (Nigel 08:39, 24th April (UTC))

A more generalized flow chart explaining the problem with time machines, assuming you get to keep moving forward: http://i4.minus.com/jqqrkqg1QKp84.png --[[User:Willowy burrito|Willowy burrito]] ([[User talk:Willowy burrito|talk]]) 13:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Another problem with this design of a time machine is that it draws power from the wall. What would happen if he crosses the time when there was no outlet at that location? Or no power grid at all? But that may not pose a problem here because it seems he doesn't get too far back into the past anyway. So, for our future time machine inventors: make those machines self-contained! --[[Special:Contributions/216.165.95.66|216.165.95.66]] 15:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

:I think that pretty much somes up why some people think you can't use a time machine to go back in time before the time machine ''itself'' existed. If it was an ancient time machine, you could go back quite far, but if one was made on February 5, 2013 you couldn't travel before that point because the time machine wouldn't exist before that time, so no time machine anymore, no travel. Hence what you said about crossing the time when there was no outlet. Cueball couldn't go back that far. --[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 15:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

:: Paging <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Beckett#Dr._Beckett.27s_string_theory">Dr Sam Beckett</a>... [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 16:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

:You can always use lightning ;-) Sebastian, --[[Special:Contributions/178.26.45.117|178.26.45.117]] 16:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

PRIMER!!!!!!!

== We're all trawling into the future, just like Cueball ==

Ugh! The original explanation (going back in time by one second) is drastically over thought. It's a "time machine" that does nothing other than make a noise -- just a box with a switch. Cueball turns it on, and a second later turns it off, thus having traveled through time into the future by one second. The T numbers are incrementing, just as they always do, even prior to a rocket launch. We're all traveling through time -- "all systems ARE normal." Please reconsider. Jeff.

um... no. it's called "countdown" for a reason.[[Special:Contributions/212.186.64.47|212.186.64.47]] 17:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:984: Space Launch System

2013-03-06T16:48:38Z

64.20.186.2:

But then we built a whole pile of rockets after that. Apollo, moon landing, mars rover, etc. Boo Black Hat.06:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
:"Apollo, moon landing" -- that is, in fact, the Saturn V, built by von Braun, captured Nazi scientist, and his team, largely captured Nazi scientists. Yes, other rockets were built after the Saturn V, but as pointed out in the strip, none have been bigger or more powerful. "Finally, rockets that improve on the ones we had 40 years ago."
:The first Mars lander (true, not a rover), Viking I, was launched on an Titan/Centaur. The Centaur was a co-creation of Krafft A. Ehricke, nazi scientist.
:Mars Sojourner, a rover, part of the Mars Pathfinder mission, was launched on a Delta II rocket. The Delta family of rockets are based on the Thor ballistic missile. The Thor was originally co-developed by Dr. Adolph K. Thiel, Nazi scientist.
:You see where this is going?

Talk:984: Space Launch System

2013-03-06T16:47:28Z

64.20.186.2:

But then we built a whole pile of rockets after that. Apollo, moon landing, mars rover, etc. Boo Black Hat.06:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
:"Apollo, moon landing" -- that is, in fact, the Saturn V, built by von Braun, captured Nazi scientist, and his team, largely captured Nazi scientists. Yes, other rockets were built after the Saturn V, but as pointed out in the strip, none have been bigger or more powerful. "Finally, rockets that improve on the ones we had 40 years ago."
The first Mars lander (true, not a rover), Viking I, was launched on an Titan/Centaur. The Centaur was a co-creation of Krafft A. Ehricke, nazi scientist.
Mars Sojourner, a rover, part of the Mars Pathfinder mission, was launched on a Delta II rocket. The Delta family of rockets are based on the Thor ballistic missile. The Thor was originally co-developed by Dr. Adolph K. Thiel, Nazi scientist.
You see where this is going?

Talk:984: Space Launch System

2013-03-06T16:32:02Z

64.20.186.2:

Talk:984: Space Launch System

2013-03-06T16:29:08Z

64.20.186.2:

But then we built a whole pile of rockets after that. Apollo, moon landing, mars rover, etc. Boo Black Hat.06:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
:"Apollo, moon landing" -- that is, in fact, the Saturn V, built by von Braun. Yes, other rockets were built after the Saturn V, but as pointed out in the strip, none have been bigger or more powerful. "Finally, a rocket more powerful than what we had 40 years ago."

Talk:498: Secretary: Part 5

2013-03-05T21:16:25Z

64.20.186.2: Created page with "The Tron video game was based on the movie Tron, not the other way around. Tron the movie was inspired by the video game Pong, but only in a general, Oooh -- computers! sense...."

The Tron video game was based on the movie Tron, not the other way around. Tron the movie was inspired by the video game Pong, but only in a general, Oooh -- computers! sense. (From Wikipedia: "Development of Tron began in 1976 when Lisberger became fascinated with the early video game Pong.")

Talk:497: Secretary: Part 4

2013-03-05T21:09:44Z

64.20.186.2:

The "pew" sound effect that Ron Paul fires back is also a joke -- go look up Pew Charitable Trust on Wikipedia: "Although today the Pew Charitable Trusts is non-partisan and non-ideological, Joseph Pew and his heirs were themselves politically conservative. The mission of the J. Howard Pew Freedom Trust, one of the seven funds, was to "acquaint the American people with the evils of bureaucracy and the values of a free market and to inform our people of the struggle, persecution, hardship, sacrifice and death by which freedom of the individual was won"."

Also, I am 99.9% sure that Tron was not based on a video game; any video games were based on the movie.

Talk:497: Secretary: Part 4

2013-03-05T21:07:08Z

64.20.186.2: Created page with "The "pew" sound effect that Ron Paul fires back is also a joke -- go look up Pew Charitable Trust on Wikipedia: "Although today the Pew Charitable Trusts is non-partisan and n..."

Talk:1173: Steroids

2013-02-26T17:38:24Z

64.20.186.2: /* Douglas Adams */

Does anyone know what that 'something' is? That's what I came here to find out... :/ --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 11:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:I had a lot of ideas, but I don't know. It might be a molecule, some sort of portal transmitting sound, a star, a future life form.
:--[[User:Jaap-Jan|Jaap-Jan]] ([[User talk:Jaap-Jan|talk]]) 12:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

::My first instinct was that Megan was talking to the asterisk that gets put next to world records held by athletes who have been suspected of using steroids.
::[[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 17:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:::It looks to me like the God from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal. Though that God would know all about the steroid scandal, presumably. [[Special:Contributions/98.234.113.134|98.234.113.134]] 00:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

::::It's the crystalline life-form from the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Home Soil". When not killing red shirts, it keeps taunting humans that they're "ugly bags of mostly water".[[User:Columbus Admission|Columbus Admission]] ([[User talk:Columbus Admission|talk]]) 00:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::My first association was this "entity of pure energy" from Futurama: http://theinfosphere.org/Energy_being [[Special:Contributions/94.126.74.17|94.126.74.17]] 10:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::It reminded me of the white hole from Diane Duane's "So You Want to be Wizard".

:::::::It's not supposed to be anything. Just some non-human entity that can't grasp the whole steroid scandal in a human way. [[Special:Contributions/195.23.253.48|195.23.253.48]] 12:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the "artificial boundary" isn't so artificial. There is a clear difference between food chemicals, which are healthy for us, vs steroid chemicals, which cause all sorts of health problems. Of course, then Megan would have to explain that we have limited lifespans and we greatly value our quality of life, and these steroids would decrease our quality of life. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 13:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
:So on the one side of this "clear boundary" you'd have something like Big Macs (food, good for us) and on the other you'd have vitamin supplements (non-food chemicals, bad)?
::I think the theory is that things that improve athletic performance but hurt the body should not be allowed. That way, athletes who are willing to sacrifice their health in order to win do not have an advantage over those who are not willing to make such a sacrifice. If people want to eat Big Mac's they are welcome to because it doesn't give them any advantage. Basically, you can put bad stuff into yourself all you want, but not if it gives you a competitive advantage. [[Special:Contributions/74.92.219.153|74.92.219.153]] 17:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Which is good theory except that we have hardly any idea what are long-term effect of most chemicals, not speaking about fact that any chemical which is beneficial in reasonable amount (which we often don't know and it may depend on individual or other condition) is dangerous if you take it too much. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_C L-ascorbic acid] is particularly interresting example, as the official recomendation is 90mg per day, but depending on doctor and on situation (like illness or stress level) even 10,000mg may be considered healthy. Another good example is already mentioned [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone testosterone], which IS actually steroid. Oh yes, and then there is the problem of DETECTING that the athlets are getting those "unnatural" chemicals. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::::Your argument seems to suggest that just because we can't catch all criminals, or because we don't know the long term effects of people's actions, we should just release convicted murderers. No one ever said the system's perfect. I grant that there are many grey areas, and we can't come close to policing every athlete. I don't think we should stop athletes from taking vitamin C given our current amount of knowledge, but I do think we should try to stop the athletes that are detected to be using chemicals in quantities that are known to be unhealthy in order to gain a competitive advantage.[[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 21:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
:Like trying to line up all the people in the world and draw a clear line to divide blacks from whites, it's too much of a gradual spectrum to be anything other than arbitrary. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 17:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
::I explained my point very poorly. "Good" performance enhancing chemicals (like healthy foods) tend to also make us more healthy while "bad" performance enhancing chemicals (like steroids) cause all sorts of health problems. Athletes are generally encouraged to take the "good" stuff while avoiding the "bad" stuff. Of course there's a huge grey area in between (including non-performance-enhancing Big Macs), but I think steroids clearly fall outside this grey area. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 19:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
:::|Um, you do realize that the human body itself creates "Steroids"? Which are also in found within the plants and animals that we eat. (Especially soybeans.) Testosterone is supposedly one of these "bad" steroids, which cause many problems for humans. [[Special:Contributions/69.181.140.191|69.181.140.191]] 12:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
::::I suppose my point requires further explanation; devil's advocates will never be satisfied. Testosterone isn't intrinsically "bad" for us (as you mentioned, it is an integral part of our chemistry), but taking significant amounts of it from external sources has been shown to damage our bodies' ability to produce it and/or regulate its levels, among other effects. Hence, taking steroids is bad for us. Compare that with healthy food, which is generally accepted to "increase" our athletic performance (compared with unhealthy food, or no food) without any serious avoidable side effects.
::::However, you do bring up the point of testosterone being present in some things we consider to count as "food". I guess there is a certain amount of testosterone you are allowed to ingest (for these contests) that cause a negligible effect. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 13:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::So it should be permitted to take non-dangerous levels of steroids? Either way, blood doping is the practice of boosting the number of red blood cells in the bloodstream, seems like a difficult argument to make for that to be bad (unless you have too many, but until that point). [[Special:Contributions/67.87.171.116|67.87.171.116]] 07:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::I guess by my logic, it should indeed be permitted to take steroids at a non-dangerous level. It sort of is the way things are; if I take 1 miligram of testosterone a day I don't think anyone would stop me because they couldn't catch me. At such a low level, I doubt it would have an effect on my blood testosterone levels. It gets a lot murkier when you get into the question of "what is the highest amount you should permit?"[[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 21:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Blood doping is not the same as steroid use. {{unsigned|‎98.204.81.157}}
:EDIT: I think for the purposes of this discussion, blood doping does have its recognized risks. I guess it's another form of performance enhancement that is difficult to do properly, and can kill you or transmit dangerous diseases if done improperly. Check out the Wikipedia article for more information. I think it should be controlled in the same manner as steroids, not because it's inherently bad, but because it can be difficult to self-regulate for athletes. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 21:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
== Douglas Adams ==

Does anyone else feel that the title text has a strong Douglas Adams flavour?
And if so, can we make that hard with a quote from one of his books?

:It's a biblical reference, Genesis 3:19, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return", King James version.[[User:Jasqm|Jasqm]] ([[User talk:Jasqm|talk]]) 14:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:D.N.A. has been known to reference the bible:
:-"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people unhappy and has been widely regarded as a bad move."
:-"And then one day, nearly two thousand years after one man was nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if people were nice to each other for a change..."
:[[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 17:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:You're probably thinking of his quotes that reference digital watches and what a big mistake it was to leave the oceans (combined with the scene from the show where the guy walks back into the ocean).[[User:CityZen|CityZen]] ([[User talk:CityZen|talk]]) 21:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:"...questions including, 'Why are are people born?' 'Why do do people die?' and 'Why do they spend so much of the time in between wearing digital watches?'"

:"Most of the people were pretty much unhappy for pretty much most of the time; many solutions have been suggested for this problem, but they mostly involve the movement of small green pieces of paper, which is odd, because on the whole, it wasn't the small green pieces of paper which were unhappy."

Ive said that Douglas Adams write for XKCD for years now...Notice if you change all the letters to their corresponding number (A=1, B=2, etc) and add them, you get 42 ;) [[Special:Contributions/90.205.199.80|90.205.199.80]] 12:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
:Yeah, I'm pretty sure we all know that was a coincidence; Randall said so.
:I wrote a quick program to check for four-letter combinations and add their value. I'm assuming (hoping) that I coded correctly and got accurate results (I was using a library that I am unfamiliar with). Of the 26^4 possible letter combinations, 8840 (roughly 2%) will result in a total of 42 (order matters). This comes to 449 different sets of letters (in whatever order) that total 42. The numbers change if we assume Randall would only choose a letter once to be in the title. I'd rewrite the program to count up all combinations that total 4 to 104 for comparison (with and without repetition), but it's after 5am now. [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 10:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Not just a Biblical reference, the comic is published on (western christian) Ash Wednesday... [[User:Patmiller|Patmiller]] ([[User talk:Patmiller|talk]]) 14:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think of Douglas Adams when I read it, I thought of Paul Erdos' definition of a mathematician as a device for turning coffee into theorems. [[User:MGK|MGK]] ([[User talk:MGK|talk]]) 15:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1173: Steroids

2013-02-25T21:10:05Z

64.20.186.2: /* Douglas Adams */

Does anyone know what that 'something' is? That's what I came here to find out... :/ --[[User:NeatNit|NeatNit]] ([[User talk:NeatNit|talk]]) 11:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:I had a lot of ideas, but I don't know. It might be a molecule, some sort of portal transmitting sound, a star, a future life form.
:--[[User:Jaap-Jan|Jaap-Jan]] ([[User talk:Jaap-Jan|talk]]) 12:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

::My first instinct was that Megan was talking to the asterisk that gets put next to world records held by athletes who have been suspected of using steroids.
::[[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 17:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:::It looks to me like the God from Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal. Though that God would know all about the steroid scandal, presumably. [[Special:Contributions/98.234.113.134|98.234.113.134]] 00:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

::::It's the crystalline life-form from the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Home Soil". When not killing red shirts, it keeps taunting humans that they're "ugly bags of mostly water".[[User:Columbus Admission|Columbus Admission]] ([[User talk:Columbus Admission|talk]]) 00:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::My first association was this "entity of pure energy" from Futurama: http://theinfosphere.org/Energy_being [[Special:Contributions/94.126.74.17|94.126.74.17]] 10:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::It reminded me of the white hole from Diane Duane's "So You Want to be Wizard".

:::::::It's not supposed to be anything. Just some non-human entity that can't grasp the whole steroid scandal in a human way. [[Special:Contributions/195.23.253.48|195.23.253.48]] 12:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the "artificial boundary" isn't so artificial. There is a clear difference between food chemicals, which are healthy for us, vs steroid chemicals, which cause all sorts of health problems. Of course, then Megan would have to explain that we have limited lifespans and we greatly value our quality of life, and these steroids would decrease our quality of life. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 13:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
:So on the one side of this "clear boundary" you'd have something like Big Macs (food, good for us) and on the other you'd have vitamin supplements (non-food chemicals, bad)?
::I think the theory is that things that improve athletic performance but hurt the body should not be allowed. That way, athletes who are willing to sacrifice their health in order to win do not have an advantage over those who are not willing to make such a sacrifice. If people want to eat Big Mac's they are welcome to because it doesn't give them any advantage. Basically, you can put bad stuff into yourself all you want, but not if it gives you a competitive advantage. [[Special:Contributions/74.92.219.153|74.92.219.153]] 17:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
:::Which is good theory except that we have hardly any idea what are long-term effect of most chemicals, not speaking about fact that any chemical which is beneficial in reasonable amount (which we often don't know and it may depend on individual or other condition) is dangerous if you take it too much. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_C L-ascorbic acid] is particularly interresting example, as the official recomendation is 90mg per day, but depending on doctor and on situation (like illness or stress level) even 10,000mg may be considered healthy. Another good example is already mentioned [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone testosterone], which IS actually steroid. Oh yes, and then there is the problem of DETECTING that the athlets are getting those "unnatural" chemicals. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 09:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::::Your argument seems to suggest that just because we can't catch all criminals, or because we don't know the long term effects of people's actions, we should just release convicted murderers. No one ever said the system's perfect. I grant that there are many grey areas, and we can't come close to policing every athlete. I don't think we should stop athletes from taking vitamin C given our current amount of knowledge, but I do think we should try to stop the athletes that are detected to be using chemicals in quantities that are known to be unhealthy in order to gain a competitive advantage.[[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 21:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
:Like trying to line up all the people in the world and draw a clear line to divide blacks from whites, it's too much of a gradual spectrum to be anything other than arbitrary. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 17:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
::I explained my point very poorly. "Good" performance enhancing chemicals (like healthy foods) tend to also make us more healthy while "bad" performance enhancing chemicals (like steroids) cause all sorts of health problems. Athletes are generally encouraged to take the "good" stuff while avoiding the "bad" stuff. Of course there's a huge grey area in between (including non-performance-enhancing Big Macs), but I think steroids clearly fall outside this grey area. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 19:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
:::|Um, you do realize that the human body itself creates "Steroids"? Which are also in found within the plants and animals that we eat. (Especially soybeans.) Testosterone is supposedly one of these "bad" steroids, which cause many problems for humans. [[Special:Contributions/69.181.140.191|69.181.140.191]] 12:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
::::I suppose my point requires further explanation; devil's advocates will never be satisfied. Testosterone isn't intrinsically "bad" for us (as you mentioned, it is an integral part of our chemistry), but taking significant amounts of it from external sources has been shown to damage our bodies' ability to produce it and/or regulate its levels, among other effects. Hence, taking steroids is bad for us. Compare that with healthy food, which is generally accepted to "increase" our athletic performance (compared with unhealthy food, or no food) without any serious avoidable side effects.
::::However, you do bring up the point of testosterone being present in some things we consider to count as "food". I guess there is a certain amount of testosterone you are allowed to ingest (for these contests) that cause a negligible effect. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 13:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::So it should be permitted to take non-dangerous levels of steroids? Either way, blood doping is the practice of boosting the number of red blood cells in the bloodstream, seems like a difficult argument to make for that to be bad (unless you have too many, but until that point). [[Special:Contributions/67.87.171.116|67.87.171.116]] 07:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::I guess by my logic, it should indeed be permitted to take steroids at a non-dangerous level. It sort of is the way things are; if I take 1 miligram of testosterone a day I don't think anyone would stop me because they couldn't catch me. At such a low level, I doubt it would have an effect on my blood testosterone levels. It gets a lot murkier when you get into the question of "what is the highest amount you should permit?"[[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 21:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Blood doping is not the same as steroid use. {{unsigned|‎98.204.81.157}}
:EDIT: I think for the purposes of this discussion, blood doping does have its recognized risks. I guess it's another form of performance enhancement that is difficult to do properly, and can kill you or transmit dangerous diseases if done improperly. Check out the Wikipedia article for more information. I think it should be controlled in the same manner as steroids, not because it's inherently bad, but because it can be difficult to self-regulate for athletes. [[Special:Contributions/70.31.159.230|70.31.159.230]] 21:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
== Douglas Adams ==

Does anyone else feel that the title text has a strong Douglas Adams flavour?
And if so, can we make that hard with a quote from one of his books?

:It's a biblical reference, Genesis 3:19, "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return", King James version.[[User:Jasqm|Jasqm]] ([[User talk:Jasqm|talk]]) 14:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:D.N.A. has been known to reference the bible:
:-"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people unhappy and has been widely regarded as a bad move."
:-"And then one day, nearly two thousand years after one man was nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be if people were nice to each other for a change..."
:[[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 17:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:You're probably thinking of his quotes that reference digital watches and what a big mistake it was to leave the oceans (combined with the scene from the show where the guy walks back into the ocean).[[User:CityZen|CityZen]] ([[User talk:CityZen|talk]]) 21:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

:"Most of the people were pretty much unhappy for pretty much most of the time; many solutions have been suggested for this problem, but they mostly involve the movement of small green pieces of paper, which is odd, because on the whole, it wasn't the small green pieces of paper which were unhappy."

Ive said that Douglas Adams write for XKCD for years now...Notice if you change all the letters to their corresponding number (A=1, B=2, etc) and add them, you get 42 ;) [[Special:Contributions/90.205.199.80|90.205.199.80]] 12:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
:Yeah, I'm pretty sure we all know that was a coincidence; Randall said so.
:I wrote a quick program to check for four-letter combinations and add their value. I'm assuming (hoping) that I coded correctly and got accurate results (I was using a library that I am unfamiliar with). Of the 26^4 possible letter combinations, 8840 (roughly 2%) will result in a total of 42 (order matters). This comes to 449 different sets of letters (in whatever order) that total 42. The numbers change if we assume Randall would only choose a letter once to be in the title. I'd rewrite the program to count up all combinations that total 4 to 104 for comparison (with and without repetition), but it's after 5am now. [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 10:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Not just a Biblical reference, the comic is published on (western christian) Ash Wednesday... [[User:Patmiller|Patmiller]] ([[User talk:Patmiller|talk]]) 14:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think of Douglas Adams when I read it, I thought of Paul Erdos' definition of a mathematician as a device for turning coffee into theorems. [[User:MGK|MGK]] ([[User talk:MGK|talk]]) 15:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)