Physicist Explains Cthulhu's "Non-Euclidean Geometry" 179
An anonymous reader writes "Mathematician Benjamin K. Tippett has written a fascinating and deadpan paper (Pdf) giving insights into Cthulhu. A 'Bubble' of warped Space-Time makes alarmingly consistent sense of the dead God's cyclopean city under the sea. From the paper: 'We calculate the type of matter which would be required to generate such exotic spacetime curvature. Unfortunately, we determine that the required matter is quite unphysical, and possess a nature which is entirely alien to all of the experiences of human science. Indeed, any civilization with mastery over such matter would be able to construct warp drives, cloaking devices, and other exotic geometries required to conveniently travel through the cosmos.'"
So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:2)
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:5, Funny)
This unphysical non-Euclidean post brought to you by Hewlett Packard.
Cthulhu printers... (Score:2, Funny)
So THAT'S why the printer ink runs out so quickly... all becomes clear.
Re:Cthulhu printers... (Score:2)
So THAT'S why the printer ink runs out so quickly... all becomes clear.
Literally clear. The non-Euclidean ink doesn't reflect light in the same way in our space-time continuum.
Re:Cthulhu printers... (Score:3)
Also why reading the owner's manual drives people insane.
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:5, Interesting)
Some good SF has some similar roots...
One example that I like is Charles Stross' Laundry series, which starts with this story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atrocity_Archives [wikipedia.org]
Don't use transistors, either! (Score:2)
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, he's a huge influence on my own work, the Maniac Loveseat series I do especially. - HEX
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:4, Interesting)
Excuse or reason? If you were born to parents of racists it's highly likely that you would hold their worldview, at least for some time in your life, till you had the knowledge and experience to form opinions otherwise. It is easy now to look into the past and judge, how will history look upon you and judge what you are ignorant in?
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:5, Interesting)
Many people are born into racist families and when they are old enough to discover the world for themselves, they become disabused of the notions that their parents held.
Lovecraft was 22 years old when he penned this gem.
In Jove’s fair image Man was shaped at birth.
The beasts for lesser parts were next designed;
Yet were they too remote from humankind.
To fill the gap, and join the rest to Man,
Th’Olympian host conceiv’d a clever plan.
A beast they wrought, in semi-human figure,
Filled it with vice, and called the thing a Nigger.
There is a difference between the ignorance born of unfamiliarity and race hatred. Lovecraft practiced the latter. Lovecraft lived in a time of northern migration of a lot of blacks who sought to escape the crushing racism of the south. So I can surmise that he encountered some black people who fit the stereotypes that were common in his day but to accept such as the norm is akin to meeting one stingy Jew and operating as if they're all Shylock.
Lovecraft was a piece of shit racist. I don't care how many people enjoy his writing.
LK
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I find fascinating is the propensity of supposedly intelligent people to judge the past using the morals of the present, without taking into account the prevailing culture of that period they are being so judgemental of.
Equally interesting and rather more worrying is the tendency to want to completely erase a person from history when it is discovered the person has a flaw.
So Lovecraft was a racist. So were many of his era, to the point where not holding those views was unusual at best. Does that really invalidate the literary merit of his work?
No person is defined by a single aspect of their personality, we are far too complex for that. If that were the case, people would not be able to learn and adjust to new viewpoints of any kind, much less moral viewpoints.
We do not change reality by changing the law, says your sig. It's true, we don't. We also don't change the past by denying it. And we can't change the future without learning from our past.
Finally - and this is intended to be thought provoking rather than insulting - how is your prejudice against people because of the views they hold any different from the prejudice against people because of the colour of their skin? You are placing them in a box labelled "arsehole", purely because of the views they hold, in spite of the fact that their racism was culturally normal and was only a single aspect of their humanity, much like a black man's skin. I'd be uncomfortable with that myself.
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:5, Insightful)
agree completely.
We live in an 'enlightened' age where we realise that racism is a bad thing. But we subscribe to plenty of other virulent irrational hatreds (according to another age's moral viewpoint). How would we feel if the best and brightest of our generation were discarded from future history books for being religious, or disagreeing with homosexual marriage, or eating meat, or supporting climate alarmism, or driving cars, or any one of a hundred other things that we consider normal now?
Our current views are incomprehensible to an educated person of 200 years ago. An educated person of 200 year's time will probably find our current worldview primitive beyond belief.
Hesitate to judge, lest ye be judged in turn. Appreciate the genius of Lovecraft's writing and ignore his irrational prejudices.
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:2)
why can't you do both? why must you ignore the bad parts? i think lovecraft was a great writer. and i think he was an asshole racist. i can balance both thoughts in my head. why do i have to discount that he was an asshole racist because he was a good writer? because asshole racism was the dominant opinion of his time? well then i simply say the entire culture of that time is brutal and ugly. there's no intellectual dishonesty in that. what is intellectually dishonest is ignoring the bad parts or excusing the bad parts or minimizing the bad parts
Re:Hurricane Sandy is alarmism? (Score:2)
shush now... I was merely attempting to balance a predominantly 'PC' representation of our current worldview with a balanced counter-opinion. I'm actually climate-agnostic these days.
and if that's the one thing you picked up on from the points I raised, then, yes, it's clearly the frontrunner candidate for being something that future generations will dispute and/or laugh at us for.
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:4, Interesting)
What I find fascinating is the propensity of supposedly intelligent people to judge the past using the morals of the present, without taking into account the prevailing culture of that period they are being so judgemental of.
Equally interesting and rather more worrying is the tendency to want to completely erase a person from history when it is discovered the person has a flaw.
And Gary Glitter is, today, a pedophile. Yet any of the girls I went to school with would have done anything to have sex with him; they'd have been throwing themselves at him. I think that at the time everyone expected that he was having sex with young girls and the shock would have been if it turned out he *wasn't*.
The past is a different country.
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:2)
1. there were plenty of people who were not racist in lovecraft's time, or any time period or culture before that. that the majority had bad beliefs doesn't excuse anyone from any time. in the future, if they condemn our time as a bunch of crass plutocrats and people worshipping money and selfishness, i'd be pissed if they grouped me in with the loud ignorant assholes of our time. guilt by temporal association?
2. it is entirely possible to discount lovecraft as an asshole racist and not commit any sort of intellectual dishonesty. how? by discounting the entire era as a dimmer darker time of humanity. mankind is progressing. progress is real. to progress requires a past where we were dumber, less moral, and more brutal. it's entirely accurate and intellectually coherent to see progress and therefore discount the entirety of civilization that came before (and discount individuals who swam with the dominant opinions, and reward those iconoclasts who held beliefs ahead of their time like race equality, when that was a minority belief)
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:2)
judge the past using the morals of the present, without taking into account the prevailing culture of that period
Well duh. Morals are relative. You seem to think that means they're rooted to their associated culture, but that's not really how it has to be. My views on morals are relative to me. So I can say that something is horrendously atrocious ...to me. And I frankly don't care about context or the social norms of the time and the environment in which this guy was raised. (Actually, I do take that into account, but it doesn't sway me much. But hey, that's just me.)
Sure, it might not seem racist *to them* at the time. To them it might seem perfectly normal. But *to me*, it's still racism.
But I have to agree with you that just because the guy is racist, and I see him as a raging racist, doesn't mean his works are somehow inherently bad because of it. It just means the sections that pertain to race are probably a bit off.
Like how Heinlein has some seriously fucked up issues when it comes to women. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is still a good book. Just take the part about polygamy with a grain of salt. (and his issues don't really come out all that bad in that book).
Or Foxnews. Just because they're political arm of Murdoch and his republican ways doesn't mean everything they report is bad. You just have to accept that it's being presented by a propaganda machine.
The works of an author are not necessarily tainted by the flaws of the author. Even when they are tainted, as long as you understand the flawed premise, the remainder of the work can still be of quality. And all that said, were I alive at the time I would probably pirate his work rather than give the racist a dime.
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:2)
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:2)
So in your opinion, if someone is bad in one area, they are all bad, and they cannot redeem themselves ever?
You must be a lot of fun at parties.
--
BMO
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:3)
I don't think that was his point.
Whenever the constitution (or anything involving the founding of the US) gets discussed, conservatives drag the founders into the discussion, arguing that they did or did not mean X when they wrote Y. As if the founders were somehow wise sages, and we're not worthy. The reality is that they were fallible people with their own bad and nasty sides. Just because they would not have agreed with something is no reason not to do it.
At least, that's what I think the point was.
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:2)
No, his point is that since Lovecraft was a racist that he was a *bad person* and that other people, like the founders of the US who were also racists are "all bad" because people like Jefferson had slaves and that being a product of the times is not an excuse.
Read LK's other post where he calls Lovecraft a "piece of shit"
It is judging the past with the so-called enlightened eyes of the present. It's bullshit. it's bullshit because when we are dead like the founders and Lovecraft, we will also be judged on our failings, even though we consider ourselves enlightened.
It is a blinkered and hypocritical world view.
--
BMO
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:2)
So in your opinion, if someone is bad in one area, they are all bad, and they cannot redeem themselves ever?
You must be a lot of fun at parties.
-- BMO
Many people seem to think like this. Really stupid thinking that results in damning different sections of humanity to the pit every 50 years or so. Used to be gays, women: now it's pedophiles and immigrants.
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:2)
yes, and by 2050 we'll all accept Paedos and Immigrants and we'll be oppressing Rapists and Furries...
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:3)
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:2)
The self-importantce and "my shit doesn't stink, but everyone else's does" just bleeds from your posts.
Just... wow.
Martin Luther King's assassination was long after HP Lovecraft died. HP Lovecraft lived in a different world than you do where it wasn't so obvious that racism was bad. Indeed, in most places it was *required.*
Judging the past through the the eyes of the present blinds you to your own faults in the present because you assume that your worldview is enlightened.
--
BMO
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:2)
>So then, he wasn't such a visionary after all. Right? He was only an average thinker for his day...
People aren't visionary in every subject. Einstein was a genius with physics, but he was a terrible husband. Does that make him "a piece of shit"? Your argument is that if someone is flawed that they are just "average thinkers" and "pieces of shit" no matter what else they've contributed.
What about you? Do your faults negate all the positive stuff that you contribute to the people around you?
I think that's bullshit.
--
BMO
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:2)
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:2)
You change throughout your life, and can realize the views you're holding are wrong. I was certainly a little shit when I was younger, and will probably look back at the views I hold today and be at least a little embarrassed.
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:2)
A spoof scientific article for Halloween, more likely.
No, it's not Sci-Fi (Score:3)
Re:So it's a Sci-Fi? (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A still mainly unexplored genre (Score:4, Informative)
Along the lines of this classic by Larry Niven... http://www.rawbw.com/~svw/superman.html [rawbw.com]
Re:A still mainly unexplored genre (Score:4, Interesting)
Or this one by Issac Asimov:
http://asimov.info/the-endochronic-properties-of-resublimated-thiotimoline [asimov.info]
Re:A still mainly unexplored genre (Score:2)
IMO that was the most interesting one. He used the thiotimoline gag in a couple other short stories. The interesting part is when he did his doctoral dissertation. From wikipedia:
Re:A still mainly unexplored genre (Score:2)
Satirical scientific articles are a field of literature ripe for expansion. The only one I know of to have really found a wide readership (at least among those who follow modern literature) is Georges Perec's Cantatrix Sopranica L. [amazon.com] .
Or this paper [inria.fr].
Of course, the Sokal hoax paper is also a brilliant piece of writing.
And here ya go [nyu.edu].
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re:A still mainly unexplored genre (Score:2)
Re:A still mainly unexplored genre (Score:5, Insightful)
The Endochronic Properties of Resublimted Thiotimoline [wikipedia.org] by Isaac Asimov.
A spoof chemistry paper which he told Campbell to publish pseudonymously in case it prejudice his upcoming thesis examination. Campbell used his real name, his examiners asked about it, and still gave him his doctorate.
Re:A still mainly unexplored genre (Score:3)
I don't think it's so much satirical as a though experiment, albeit slightly bizarre.
It reads more like he took a description of the environment, and said "OK, if we were to experience this, it could be because these things would have to be true".
The material is fanciful, but what he's doing seems like he's doing solid math -- though, I confess, the math is mostly beyond me except in the abstract. But it reads more like Flatland and other things which try to describe Big Concepts with a little fun thrown in.
Sounds much more like pointing out that there's some pretty accurate descriptions of some cool physics in Lovecraft.
Or, he's really reaching. Like I said, the math is a little beyond me. :-P
Re:A still mainly unexplored genre (Score:2)
Mathematician or parapsychologist? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Mathematician or parapsychologist? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a sad day when there's two people in the world who don't recognize a Ghostbusters quote :(
Re:Mathematician or parapsychologist? (Score:4, Funny)
The best come back ever came from this movie:
"Yes, it's true. This man has no dick" - Bill Murray.
Re:Mathematician or parapsychologist? (Score:3, Insightful)
Way to miss the Ghostbusters quote dumbass.
Gods with pitchforks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the fuck would any self-respecting god need technology? I was always under the impression technology was humanity's attempts at mitigating our shortcomings as NON-Gods.
Re:Gods with pitchforks. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Gods with pitchforks. (Score:1)
He built this planet on ROCK AND ROLL.
Re:Gods with pitchforks. (Score:2)
What does God need with a starship?
That depends. Jefferson or Cobra?
Not the kind of technology you are used to (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not the kind of technology you are used to (Score:5, Funny)
The Goa'uld are not gods! :)
Re:Not the kind of technology you are used to (Score:3)
What about a weakly-godlike entity?
Re:Not the kind of technology you are used to (Score:2)
Clark's Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. :P )
(ie, the scifi author's excuse to hand wave anything away
Re:Not the kind of technology you are used to (Score:2)
What would a "God" really be? Someone with vastly higher intelligence, using technology that you can't comprehend. Everything they did would seem magical, mystical, miraculous. Since you couldn't even comprehend their world, all you would be able to do is make up myths and legends and tall tales to explain their "Godliness".
A God would not need technology to do that.
True, a race using a higher technology than another race would appear to have god-like powers, but only until the technology was unveiled to the other race.
Re:Gods with pitchforks. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Gods with pitchforks. (Score:3)
Re:Gods with pitchforks. (Score:2)
Omnipotence generally implies this as well, with respect to the constraints of logical non-contradiction--on the basis of (in brief), if you object that a supposedly omnipotent God cannot, say, make a square circle, you have not in fact identified a limitation on omnipotence, rather, at base you have failed to use language meaningfully.
Re:Gods with pitchforks. (Score:2)
Re:Gods with pitchforks. (Score:2)
In my mind, omnipotence is the ability to cause the universe to transition into a state that, while perfectly valid and non-contradictory under the laws of that universe, could not have been reached via any application of said laws from the previous state.
Well, in monotheistic theologies, particularly Christian ones, omnipotence is defined not as "the power to do anything", but as the attribute of "being all that's possible", that is, the "can" in each and every sentence of the form "x can y" (provided "x" and "y" are both real). That works more or less like when you define God as "the Being", that is, as the "is" in any sentence of the form "x is y" (also provided "x" and "y" are both real). When 'x' and/or 'y' aren't real, on the other hand, it just adds a layer of abstraction, but otherwise works the same, as in this case the resulting real sentence is "one can say 'x can y'", God's omnipotence attribute in action being the first "can", not the second one.
Omniscience ("x knowns y"), omnipresence ("x located-in y") and other such language-based attributes all work similarly.
Any sufficiently advanced technology.. (Score:3)
..is indistinguishable from magic, or divinity.
Re:Any sufficiently advanced technology.. (Score:2)
Fart Apps are a true sign of divinity. However, iOS6 maps are a tool of Satan, designed to lure you into dangerous places.
Re:Gods with pitchforks. (Score:1)
As technology increases, it becomes more and more indistinguishable from magic.
Re:Gods with pitchforks. (Score:4, Informative)
Lovecraft's various creatures, including Cthulhu and others variously described as "gods", had extraterrestrial origins (eg. "from outer spheres"). Basically the idea was that they were ancient and vastly powerful extra-dimensional beings, not gods in the sense that you're thinking.
Re:Gods with pitchforks. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why the fuck would any self-respecting god need technology? I was always under the impression technology was humanity's attempts at mitigating our shortcomings as NON-Gods.
First of all: Villagers use pitchforks. Gods use tridents. That being said, the trident is a tool. In theory, mythological gods used tools to do things so they wouldn't have to do things themselves. The most-commonly-used tools of the gods were people. If you have to do everything yourself, you're not a god, you're just that guy in the cubicle at the end of the row who doesn't understand shell scripting.
Re:Gods with pitchforks. (Score:2)
If you have to do everything yourself, you're not a god, you're just that guy in the cubicle at the end of the row who doesn't understand shell scripting.
Alas, that' s probably too long to fit on a T-shirt, else I'd have one printed. :)
Re:Gods with pitchforks. (Score:2)
First of all: Villagers use pitchforks. Gods use tridents.
A trident is actually a fisherman's tool. Unlike a pitchfork, the tines on a trident are usually barbed or angled so as to trap prey, whereas the tines on a pitchfork are designed so that things will slip off easily when they're being pitched. There's no need to compare the tridents some gods are depicted with to pitchforks when comparing them to regular old human tridents will work just fine.
Re:Gods with pitchforks. (Score:2)
Only gods which want to participate in the material world need it. Think of the material representation as an avatar. The god itself is outside the universe, but to act in the universe (as opposed to just affect it), the god needs an avatar inside the world, which is then bound to the laws of the world (which the god can, of course, tweak to its liking, e.g. by introducing exotic matter which doesn't otherwise exist, but the laws cannot be completely lifted because that would mean to destroy the world that is built on the rules).
Why settle for the lesser evil? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why settle for the lesser evil? (Score:2, Funny)
I demand to see Cthulhu's birth certificate.
Re:Why settle for the lesser evil? (Score:5, Funny)
I demand to see Cthulhu's Death certificate.
Re:Why settle for the lesser evil? (Score:3, Funny)
He ain't dead, he's restin'. Remarkable tentacles on him.
Re:Why settle for the lesser evil? (Score:2)
"He ain't dead, he's restin'"
and don't forget that the Fiords he is pining for were designed and built by Slartibardfast.
Re:Why settle for the lesser evil? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why settle for the lesser evil? (Score:3, Funny)
Everyone who views the birth certificate goes mad, so it is really hard to verify.
cliche (Score:2)
Everyone who views the birth certificate goes mad, so it is really hard to verify.
You can't prove a negative without non-Euclidean geometry.
Re:Why settle for the lesser evil? (Score:2)
I demand to see Cthulhu's birth certificate.
Actually if he came from another dimension that occupied the same space as the US he could conceivable claim citizenship. McCain had a bigger stretch since he was born in Panama.
Re:Why settle for the lesser evil? (Score:2)
Well, that doesn't matter. Most of the birther challengers fundamentally reject the idea that the man is legitimate, reject that he possibly can even BE president, and basically have pushed themselves into a logic corner where something cannot possibly be true, so it is simply not true regardless of facts, paperwork, evidence one way or the other, and so on. So, in their eyes, he is not a citizen because he cannot be. That's all. There is no other answer.
The alternative -that he is a citizen and was a legitimate candidate- is too difficult to even consider, so it is automatically not true. It cannot be true. It is not true. Done.
This is some of the same thinking I see around UFOs and aliens and the like. Regardless of whether it's true or not, there are many people who feel, without doing any investigation, that none of it can possibly be true because the alternative, if it IS true, is impossible to accept. So, it is not true. Done.
Whether it's true or not is not material. The problem comes when you choose a position (It's not true, or it is true; either way) and decide you'll never change, regardless of any investigation or evidence or lack thereof. A more scientific approach is to consider what the evidence tells you and then form a conclusion. Most people can't or won't keep an open mind long enough on anything to ever do that. Snap judgment is more the rule, especially in politics. Or little grey men.
It's a bit like closing your eyes and pretending the car about to run you over is not actually there because you can't see it any more. And it you cannot see it, it's not there and not about to run you over. Done. Whether you can see it, or whether you believe evidence or not, does not change the fact that you might not enjoy what is about to happen.
Re:Why settle for the lesser evil? (Score:3)
A more scientific approach is to consider what the evidence tells you and then form a conclusion. A more scientific approach is to consider what the evidence tells you and then form a conclusion.
It should be noted that the conclusion will often be "a conclusion cannot be formed", assuming a scientific approach.
There's a lot of nonsense in the science cheerleader community -- non-scientific concepts like 'default position' (related to the above) do more harm than good. In their effort to defend science against some perceived threat or defend some ideological position, they've abandoned science, reason, and logic; they've become an even more dangerous threat to science than any creationist group could ever hope to be!
Remember these three simple things: 1) Science has a finite scope 2) Science neither presumes nor tends toward truth. 3) A conclusion drawn exclusively or predominantly from the metaphysics upon which natural science is based does not make that conclusion scientific.
Science depends upon constraint. Trying to expand science beyond its scope epistemologically or methodologically is far more dangerous than anything a few nuts with some bronze-age scribblings or an army of parade magazine quality science "journalists" could ever manage.
Re:Why settle for the lesser evil? (Score:2)
Beat me to it (check the sig).
Fitted Sheets (Score:5, Funny)
If you truly wish to understand non-Euclidean geometry, simply try putting those damn fitted sheets on a bed. No matter which way you rotate it, you always end up with the short side in your hands.
It is enough to drive a man insane.
Re:Fitted Sheets (Score:3)
Re:Fitted Sheets (Score:2)
And then they alternate between fitting either way and not fitting at all. Obviously what we see is a malluable 3-dimension slice of a complex multidimensional object that is rotated by the one multidimensional manipulation tool we currently possess: the tumble dryer.
Re:Fitted Sheets (Score:2)
Clearly, then, fitted sheets are related to the fascinating Hexaflexagon [youtube.com].
Re:Fitted Sheets (Score:4, Insightful)
It's even worse when you try to figure out how to fold them.......
Re:Fitted Sheets (Score:3)
Re:Fitted Sheets (Score:2)
Doesn't matter. All the sides are the short side.
Hmm... (Score:3)
As long as the exotic matter isn't made of midichlorians, we can still be friends.
Re:Hmm... (Score:3)
As long as the exotic matter isn't made of midichlorians, we can still be friends.
This just in : Disney has bought out the. H.P. Lovecraft estate. A Star Wars/Marvel/Cthuluhu/Disney Princess animated film is rumored to be in production.
Re:Hmm... (Score:3)
As long as the exotic matter isn't made of midichlorians, we can still be friends.
This just in : Disney has bought out the. H.P. Lovecraft estate. A Star Wars/Marvel/Cthuluhu/Disney Princess animated film is rumored to be in production.
Sorry it's all public domain. His aunts died years ago and the last issues over so shared ownership rights expired. The rights have been questionable for years since it was mostly August Derleth claiming he changed a number of stories and got them republished as collections. All that has expired and he's been dead a long time. Even Burrough's stuff is entering public domain. It's why they were able to make that cheesy A Princess of Mars film, I mean the cheapie one not the big budget cheesy film which Disney had in development for decades.
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry it's all public domain.
And since when has that stopped Disney from claiming "ownership" of something?
Comment removed (Score:2)
Just wondering about the tags.. (Score:4, Insightful)
..but HP?
Is the new printer lineup Lovecraftian? Has Meg Whitman been conducting dark rituals? Is Itanium powered by the souls of the innocent?
Wouldn't MS be more appropriate? I'm pretty sure IE is *actually* powered by the souls of the innocent, and there certainly is something evil about the entire OS lineup.
Re:Just wondering about the tags.. (Score:4, Funny)
Is Itanium powered by the souls of the innocent?
You cannot power anything with the souls of the innocent. There are too few of those to have commercial value.
Re:Just wondering about the tags.. (Score:3)
..but HP?
Is the new printer lineup Lovecraftian?
No, just the drivers.
Re:Just wondering about the tags.. (Score:2)
Well, you've gone and made this [faradaytheblob.com] obligatory, haven't you.
Bel-Shamharoth? (Score:2)
Re:Bel-Shamharoth? (Score:3)
This, too, might be accommodated in a space of negative curvature: hyperbolic space admits a tiling by regular octagons [wikipedia.org].
Zermelo-Fraenkel-Cthulhu set theory (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Zermelo-Fraenkel-Cthulhu set theory (Score:2)
Re:Zermelo-Fraenkel-Cthulhu set theory (Score:3)
Just don't think too hard about it, otherwise you'll face something similar to the Total Perspective Vortex [slashdot.org]