Talk:technology

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Extrapolates voice

"extrapolates voice"? I, uh, don't think that word means what you think it means. I'd correct it, but I can't think of anything better than "adopts a high-pitched voice"

Oh, and also, I've actually seen "Computers don't BYTE" posters. In the back of libraries, where even the librarians don't go anymore.

Endless Square?

That doesn't seem right. It looks the the screen saver alternates between turning left and right, making it an endless zig-zag. And that doesn't seem to be worth mentioning. ~Ostrichburger

I concur, and I changed it to indicate alternating left/right. —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a better look. Its actually just one corridor like end----end with the camera turning around to go back the other way. And, if you think about it, this actually makes a bit more sense from an sbemail humor standpoint. ~SuperKawaiiNeko

I agree with that - JamesDean

could this be a reference to zork? or text based games in general. some of the mazes in those are frankly impossible. csours 06:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone tried...

To decode what Strong Bad was saying in binary?The Noid 15:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You could. This is a handy web-based utility. Short of decoding it yourself. ;) —THE PAPER ^PREEEOW 15:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that doesn't work because Strong Bad doesn't say a number of characters divisable by 8, so all the decoder is doing is adding 0's to make up for the lack of bits. And could whoever put the translation specify which coding you are using? eaglescout1984 30 Jan 2006 15:40 GMT

Actually ASCII is 7 bit system. -- Crowther

Well, I'm still trying to find out if he is saying anything. I get lost, though. I have this so far: 1001101 means...m.The Noid 15:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to try again but I got 9945

1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1

2¹³ + 2¹⁰ + 2⁹ + 2⁷ + 2⁶ 2⁴ + 2³ + 2⁰ =
I R F 15:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it adds up to anything now. I've used all of those programs, and they just come out with mainly this:�.The Noid 15:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If you're using Windows, just open up Calculator, put it in Scientific mode, switch to Binary, enter 1001101101100, then switch it to Decimal mode again. It confirms that Strong Bad's binary translates to 9945 in decimal.

That said, I don't think his binary speak means anything in particular. —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, has anyone decoded what Strong Bad said in Semaphore? Or was he even doing real semaphore? -Ed

Well, in Morse code, it's EMITEAUN if zero is a dot; TIMETNGA if zero is a dash. --S Gleason 04:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Homestar Flying

Why on earth does homestar fly up the left side of the screen? What's that all about? dayve_57

I'm not sure--it seemed to be more of a glitch than something done intentionally. Unless it was a callback to virus. TBC have a habit of referencing their older cartoons. Bruce

I'm pretty sure it was just a joke. The way Homestar Runner said "four" made it seem like it was done intentionally. - Joshua 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it was just a little addition to the ridicul-ous way he raised his pitch.--Robert Benedicio 20:52, 30 January

2006 (UTC)

It has to be intentional, not a glitch, because Bubs' eyes follow Homestar up as he flies away. And how could it be a reference to virus? dayve_57

I bet he was raised by wireless wires. —BazookaJoe 01:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If TBC wanted it to be a reference to virus, they would have made Homestar with The Homestar Runner's body, they would have made his head come off, and they would have made those weird shadowy things appear behind him. It's probably just your everyday Homestar randomness. — Has Matt? (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

haha... I thought so. Everyday randomness, indeed!dayve_57

I was thinking maybe it has something to do with the way that Strong Bad rises up also when he says "I'll be your best friend!" Maybe they had SB rise up when he spoke in a higher pitch and in a sing-song tone, so they thought it would be funny if Homestar flew up when he spoke particularly high and sing-song. There's my theory. --Der Pepper

Nah...it obviously has something to do with wireless extension cords.--vl-tone

Just curious, did anyone see anything strange on the .swf file before it got black-boardered? -- Nobody Important (NI)

The way he flies up also kind of looks like that glitch in Double Dragon where you can get people to fly up off the screen.

The Amber Screen

The screen in whihc Strong Bad describes how to select an email address is coloured Amber. this is a reference to a time in the mid 80's when Amber replaced green as the principle colour for monochrome screens. It was supposed to reduce eye strain or something. --"Creepy Pants man"

I remember we had one of those amber monochrome screens.. Well, I was pretty little. I remember it being quite like that - that same color, with the diagonal-ish lines going up it. No, I don't remember what year this would be.. probably very early 90's. (Probably just happened to have one.) -- AshyRaccoon 01:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I would add that it's similar to the Tandy SB used to have. -- User who doesn't want to tell you his name (UWDWTTYHN)

The Compaq Portable III had an amber screen. Sigh ... ahhhhhh, for the good old days! -- Mycroft Holmes 17:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarke's Third Law

It seems to me that Strongbad was referencing Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law with:

The word technology... means... magic. It's basically anything that's really cool that you don't know how it works. And if it breaks, you have to buy a new one. Why, I've got some technology beneath my pants right now! Whoo-ya!

'Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law:' Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Arthur C. Clarke's Laws

--Kitsula

Oh. I just plain added the thing just now. Incidentally, although I didn't include it, it's even more similar to this corollary. - Octan Jan 30 2006, 3:44PM EST

Catacombs

When SB said "catacombs," the first thing I thought of was the second dungeon in the original Bard's Tale game, which used the first-person viewpoint as well. I'm sure other games had tombs/catacombs as well, since it's a standard RPG element. - Totoro 19:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I was instantly reminded of DungeonQuest, with the Catacombs expansion pack. The screen saver itself resembles a first-person perspective of an extremely boring game of DungeonQuest (no catacombs). -Ed

Yeah, but the screen saver itself is just a clone of "3D Maze", which was one of a series of free 3D screen savers supplied with Win98. —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What about adding a bullet along the lines of "Catacombs were a common setting for dungeons in 1980s RPGs, such as the Bard's Tale and DungeonQuest." The 1980s might be superfluous, since tombs and catacombs are still popular settings in RPGs, but the feel of that screensaver is very '80s, and TBC love to make references to '80s games. - Totoro 00:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The "feel" of the screensaver may be '80s, but that would be a very incorrect reference - that screensaver didn't exist until '96 or '97. (Besides, I doubt you'd find an RPG-style catacomb made up of brick walls.) —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I never said that the screensaver was actually from the '80s. The point is that the choice of the word "catacombs" was probably a deliberate reference to one or more 1980s games. "Catacombs" isn't exactly a word in the common vernacular, and as you said, it's odd that Strong Bad would refer to a maze of brick walls as catacombs unless TBC were referring to something specific. | Totoro 20:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

My guess is they were referring to the maze game itself, as it felt like you were going through some dungeon or catacombs. --Stux 20:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I remember having that screensaver when I was a kid.--Robert Benedicio 20:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I remember an uncle or somebody having an old computer (not amber-screen or green-screen old, but still) with a game like this, it was a giant, brick wall maze game. Forgot the name, though. --אוקאלייליי (Ookelaylay)

Where would I find this screensaver?! It was so awesome...Kate

I can make mine say oboe shoes!

Heh. Does anyone else like it when TBC refrence calculator words in such a funny way? So, one time, in third grade, I remember a few kids typing

 7734

on the calculators, and then turned them upside down. As you may of guessed, the H word was on the calculator screen. Very amusing. Especially when we could spell our teacher's first name on the calculator. Weird. So does anybody like calculator words? - Oopsyoubwokeit (not logged in)

It's a pretty common thing... I've done it before, but I don't particularily like it... - Joshua

Calculator talk is fun. There's 55378008, 58008, 0.7734, and a lot more I can't remember right now. --אוקאלייליי (Ookelaylay) 21:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Some Hebrew words can be typed on a calculator to! like 71070 or 7109179 (no need to turn it upside down for it!) — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 10:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's very similar to 1337. Now they have those calculators that type letters, though. Boo...--Robert Benedicio 11:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, those are awesome! My friend has a TI one (the same kind that the calculator-drawn The Cheat was drawn on a long time ago) and we type notes back and forth in math on it. --אוקאלייליי (Ookelaylay)

The Cheatbot

I'm not going to STUFF this because it'd probably get denied right away, and I'm definitely not going to just add it to the email's fun facts list because it'd be taken off right away. In fact, I'm not even sure if this qualifies as a fun fact...it's fun to me, at least. Anyway, might could Strong Bad's mentioning of robot's purpose (other than destroying Japan) to be to serve hors d'œuvres be a reference to the first scene of The Second Renaissance? Just think about. And no, I'm not going to put a Wikipedia link to it, it's only worth discussing if you've actually seen TSR. --VolatileChemical 22:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If by "Second Renaissance", you're referring to episodes 2 and 3 of Animatrix, then I know what you're talking about. And I think that's a stretch - the idea of service robots that can do all sorts of menial tasks has been around much much longer. —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's a reference to that. There are so many other times where robots are used in similar capacities (The Jetsons and Star Wars both come to mind.) eaglescout 8 Feb 2006 15:54 GMT

PS: Just like when you were making fun of my name, I still think you're making things a lot harder on yourself with all that excess verbiage there. You know how much harder it is to type all that than just to type [[Wikipedia:Animatrix|Animatrix]]? —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes...I do. I do indeed, KieferSkunk. And do you know how much harder it is to type a message telling someone to type less in their messages on Homestar Runner Wiki talk pages, which is a decision that doesn't affect you or anyone else other than the one who types the message, than to type nothing at all, which is what would be better for everyone? And what else would I mean by Second Renaissance than the Animated Matrix episodes? I wouldn't care to hazard a guess. Plus, the only examples of fiction I can think of with robots that serve orderves are the 2nd Ren-sawnce, and [[Wikipedia:Clone High|Clone High]]. And I'm guessing Strong Bad wouldn't be referencing old Mr. Butlertron. --VolatileChemical 01:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh, it's not that hard for me. I type at over 100 WPM. That's not the point, though - I'm just trying to suggest ways to be less laborious and to allow yourself to be taken more seriously (at least in my opinion - I obviously don't speak for everyone). When I see "I'm not gonna bother to look this up, just gonna spew it out anyway", I see someone who is making a point of being lazy, and most of the time I tend to skip over the entirety of what they said as a result. —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the last part of that: See STUFF for quite a few examples of servant robots. It's pretty much gotten into TTATOT territory by now. —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

when I was a kid the cool thing to type in was 71077345

Email Song

Does the email song sound familiar to anyone else? I tried googling some of the key words to figure out which song it comes from, but no luck. It reminds me of something I've heard on a classic rock station though. Maybe fleetwood mac? --racerx_is_alive 22:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't put my finger on it, but it isn't Fleetwood Mac (the closest I can come up with in this vein is that it shares a similar sort of tone to "The Chain", but not an actual series of notes or lyrics). Yaztromo 11:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Schrödinger's cat?

I'm not sure, so I didn't want to add this as a fun fact, and I didn't feel like going through all the STUFF stuff. Anyway, does anyone else think that the half alive/half dead goat is a reference to schrodinger's cat? No Smorking 00:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't. — 220.237.71.13 (Talk | contribs) 01:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC) (left unsigned)

I think it's possible - here's the Wikipedia article: Schrodinger's Cat. —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I's more of a reference to "Is the glass half empty or half full?", that psycological question used to determine if someone is optimistic or pessimistic. — Has Matt? (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Second -- Mycroft Holmes 16:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The question on the paper is a reference to the glass half empty quesiton. It's a pretty big stretch to say it's a reference to Schrodinger's Cat, though I'll admit it does have some connections. And Schrodinger's Goat would be pretty funny. Trelawney 07:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

no, cause you can see the goat, and the cat is either fully alive or dead, but you cant see it. csours 06:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Digits of Pi

I don't entirely like the sentence "The number on the solar calculator, 3.14, is the most common representation of pi." under the fun facts heading. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but 3.14 is not a representation of pi, it is a representation of the number 3.14 which is not pi. Perhaps a better sentence could be something of the form "The number on the solar calculator, 3.14, is the first few digits of pi".

Perhaps "most common approximation" might work better? Spell4yr 03:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have just changed it. -Polly 06:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Approximation is a better word, thanks. I do think "representation" is a correct word, as that's what most people think pi is, or at least what most people use when doing formulas with pi by hand. (It's also what a lot of math textbooks tell you to use.) —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Or worse, they would tell you to use ²²/₇, which is only 3.14 truncated and is nowhere near pi. However, most TI calculators use 3.141592654 for best approximation when graphing or calculating circles. I agree with you both, as no matter how many digits you calculate to, it is still an approximate value. — Lapper (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. As far as I know, pi goes on forever. Also, I just opened Windows Calculator. Seems using ²²/₇ is a very bad idea, as that number is actually bigger than pi. As far as I know, pi is irrational--there's no fraction that exactly equals it. -Bruce 01:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, pi does go on forever. The whole point of using 22/7 was to make fractional calculations easier (particularly in the days before calculators). 3.14 would have been a pain to calculate when the rest of the formula is in integral fractions. pi is not just irrational, but also transcendental. Irrational means it can't be expressed as a fraction. Transcendental means that it can't be expressed as the root of a polynomial equation (e.g. square root of two is irrational, but not transcendental, as it cannot be represented by a fraction, but is a root of the equation x² - 2 = 0. EdB

In my original comment, I didn't want to bring up the technical issue of transcendence. However, now that you mention it, the idea of expressing pi as a rational is actually a terrible idea. Liouville's approximation theorem (search in http://www.mathworld.wolfram.com for details) essentially states that transcendental numbers cannot be well approximated by rationals.

Cell phone movie festival

Hey, when was this email released? Because if it was after 5 am, we've got another case of creepy last-minute coincidence between a real-world broadcast and a sbemail (granted, NPR ain't Family Guy): check out this report on Morning Edition about a guy writing, directing, and producing a movie on his cell phone... and hoping to win a festival. At any rate, the festival itself might merit mention. —AbdiViklas 03:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Great leaping ocelots, that's amazing! Nice find! --VolatileChemical 01:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Forward Right...

• The screensaver goes in an endless loop of Forward, Right, Forward, Left, as shown here:

 ---- end
   |
   |---- end
   |  |
  end |---- end
      |  |
     end |...

I don't think it goes like this. It looks to me like its forward right, forward right, in a big square. Salty^Talk! 04:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to turn randomly left or right to me... - Joshua 05:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the behavior is different at different times or for different people? It looks to me like a movie clip, but there could be more code in there than that. Every time I've watched it, though, it's gone left/right/left/right, etc. —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I saw it go left/right/left/right... too. --Stux 17:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just realized that the little picture up there is correct, but if you were actually walking across those lines, it would be right,forward,right,forward. Salty^Talk! 03:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe this. At all. Normally I wouldn't care so much about a minor point, but I'm in awe. It's like you guys are trying to tell me Strong Bad's head is green cube. It's very clearly a single narrow hall with no branching paths. Look at these two screen shots, the first taken from one end of the hall, the second from the other. You can clearly see there are no paths leading left or right at either end of the all.

Furthermore, both ends of the hall depict the other end identically. If there was a zig zag pattern, you would be able to see a path opening to the left from one end of the hall, and a path opening to the right from the other end (in other words, the two shots above would look like mirror images of each other. Feel free to overlay those images in Photoshop, or even take your own screens if you want, to prove they're identical.

Here's a render of what the Maze hall looks like (for comparison purposes with the next image):

Here's what the maze would look like if it had paths that branch to the left or right, the left is the view from one end of the hall, and the right is the view you'd see after the first "turn":

(I made images because I like to provide proof when I make an argument.)

Like I said, normally, this kind of thing wouldn't matter to me, but I'm just so stunned that there's any doubt about something that couldn't be more blatantly obvious. ~Tsumetai 07:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you there. It's blatantly obvious. That there are branches. Seriously. Case closed. And don't call someone a hypocrite just because he says you should keep your eyes peeled. That's on a completely different level than you calling others stupid.  Loafing 07:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. This is just so unbelieveable. All that image shows is how they made the turning animation. It's very clearly just the image of the end of the hall sliding into frame, not a true turning animation. And I called you a hypocrite for telling me not to insult others after you insulted me.

You also completely ignored the evidence I provided, and then insulted me further, displaying not only hypocrisy, but incredulity. I can see how seeing that transition go by really fast might make people think he's making a 90° turn, but it is, in fact, just a shot of the other end of the hall sliding into frame, as the image you provided demonstrates. ~Tsumetai 08:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, I did not insult you. I'm sorry if you thought I did. Secondly, you did not provide any actual proof that there are no branches in that maze. Comparing low-res computer graphics to high-res computer graphics doesn't always work. Back in the day, 3D graphics was so pixelated, that it was sometimes hard to see whether a path would branch or not. If you want some retro fun, play Wolfenstein 3D, for example. Also, look at the first image in the sequence I provided. You can see that the room also appears to be branching to the left. This probably means that TBC designed the room so that it branches to both sides at the end. Now, how TBC achieved the visual effect of the room branching left or right, I don't care about that. I don't care if they achieved that by sliding the movie back in from the side, or if it's actually rendered like that in half 3D. I believe what matters is that we can clearly see that the room is branching. Computer graphics is all about making people think that what they see is real, so why should we favour one visual effect over the other? Loafing 08:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well then, I'm sorry for calling you an incredulous hypocrite. But you're still wrong. First of all, the problem with that turning animation is that it can't be used to determine anything except which direction he is turning (based on whether the next frame slides in from the right or the left) because they didn't animate a proper 90° nor 180° turn (indeed, because of the method they used, it looks like he's turning at 30°). And I have played Wolfenstein 3D, on the SNES, no less, and you could still tell where branching paths were. Also, your image has the same problem of uniformity that I mentioned earlier, in that the frame showing the wall just before he turns (where you can clearly see Strong Bad's graffiti) is identical whether he turns right or left, in fact, all the frames of him moving up the hallway are identical, regardless of which direction he ends up turning. Furthermore, even as you go down the hall, it's clear there are no paths at the end, and the paths should be even more visible the closer you get. As I said in the beginning, look at the ground, if there was a path, it should "hook" into it, but it's clearly a straight line that goes up to the end of the wall.

I also disagree with you about the purpose of computer graphics. CG is another artistic medium; it's meant to make you see what the artist wanted you to see. Meaning it seems we'll need Mike or Matt in here to tell us what they intended (if they even remember, it's been almost three years).~Tsumetai 09:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Guys, keep it civil. Both of you. It is, indeed, rather clear (if you look at it hard enough) that there aren't any branches on the corridor while he's walking down it. At least, none that can be seen given the low quality of the images. However, when he gets to the end, he does turn 90 degrees and keep walking. That "sliding" animation is the same as how TBC do all their rotations... it's still perfectly clear they intended it to look like a 90 degree turn. So we have two conflicting pieces of evidence: the lack of branches while it's walking, and the existence of branches when it's turning.

Now, there are two ways to resolve the conflicting evidence, depending on which you think is more reliable... either there are no branches, and the rotating animation is actually a sliding transition. Or the branches do exist, but weren't drawn in during the walking animation (either out of laziness, or an intentional attempt to make the intentionally-bad graphics quality even worse). Tsumetai's going with the first explanation, Loafi and I go with the second. This is why both are mentioned on the page. Personally I prefer the explanation that means the screensaver more closely matches the 3D Maze program it's aping... but unless TBC say, we won't know either way. So we list both. --phlip ^T_C 08:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

.swf changed.

The .swf file has changed from the original to completly black around the primary screen. Count X ^Talk _Email

Yeah, someone mentioned that somewheres. This and death metal, I think are like that. Salty^Talk! 13:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Worthless screensaver

That Screen Saver that Strong Bad is so proud of isn't gonna do the job. Anyone who has gone to an arcade can tell you about machines where the words "Game Over" or "Insert Coin(s)" has been literaly burned either into the glass or onto the colored mesh of the display. This is visible even when playing the game. HOWEVER, the point of a screen saver is to consistantly change the colors of these pixels so that the screen never has a chance of getting burned. While he's running his saver, the bottom part of the maze (probably about 3" of his screen) is always that dark yellowish color. Surely that would get burned into his screen if he runs it too long. -NFITC1 17:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's true.. however, the Lappy has an LCD screen. Can LCDs get burn-in? -- Mithent 20:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Nope. LCD panels don't burn-in. Plus, most CRT screens these days have built-in protection against burn-in. It's not to say that they will NEVER burn in, but a screen saver like that would be unlikely to cause burn-in even on a CRT screen. It has partly to do with the contrast and brightness of the screen, partly to do with the intensity of the colors, and also the specific technology the CRT is using. Older CRTs, like in the arcade games, and cheaper CRTs not of computer-monitor grade, are more likely to burn-in simply due to those factors. —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

LCDs don't burn like normal CRTs because they're made differently. They can, however, be damaged by direct sunlight or physical abuse (heh, what can't?). I wasn't arguing that his screen would get burned, I'm just saying that as far as screen savers go, this one's bunk. NFITC1 05:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You would think that the point of a screen saver would be to constantly change pixel colors, wouldn't you? But unfortunately the real point of all too many of them is simply to get you to download the screen saver, or to visit the website where it's hosted, or to purchase the product it's bundled with; what happens after that, they doesn't care. Probably more people use them for entertainment than for monitor upkeep. Think about all those stupid "aquariums" you've seen where the ocean floor is essentially constant. So Strong Bad's screen saver is, in fact, an accurate representation: looks interesting, but does nothing (or makes matters worse). — Bill 14:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah pretty much what Bill (wb!) says is pretty much right on the money. Case in point: my labmate has a cool-looking screensaver of this futuristic looking room with a flame in the center. Only the flame colors move. Nowadays I think the need for screensavers has been reduced significantly by that (sometimes) nice powersave feature modern monitors have. --Stux 14:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong Bad knows it's a Floppy Disk

In email #75 ("funny") he says "I can tape a floppy disk to my forehead". It's a 3.5" floppy. Just thought I'd point that out.

Ooh. Now that's an observation worthy of a remark if ever there was one. Nice figuring. --DorianGray

The Screensaver in general.

The screensaver is an obvious reference to the 3D Maze screensaver on windows 95 and later (I don't think it's on XP though), so why was my addition deleted? - Volbeat A The Cheat 05:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted because that reference was already listed near the top of the Real World References. Heimstern Läufer 05:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I always do that (by accident) - Volbeat A The Cheat 08:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap!!! No cussing!!! Visorbot 386

It's not actually cussing. "Damn" was used in the title of the Third Games Menu. --TotalSpaceshipGirl3 16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really mean it's not cussing. I just don't like that word. Visorbot 386 04:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

.5 or ½

When refuring to floppy disk shouldn't their size be in fractions? For example 3½" floppy instead of 3.5" floppy. – Zntrip 05:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I see 3.5 much more often that 3½ - Aaronstj 09:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Both are acceptable, and 3.5 is much easier to type. :) —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia its written as "5¼-inch" and "3½-inch". So I thought I would ask. – Zntrip 23:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Wow, that's the biggest contribution I've made to the wiki yet! ~ Bruce 02:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the validity of this change. Unless you can find a unicode or symbol code for "one-half", I don't recommend using it over decimal places. — Lapper (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You can use ¼ and ½ (the unicode values for the symbols already being used) but there's no real advantage of them over the straight-up ¼ and ½, and they're harder to read in the wiki source... --phlip ^T_C 03:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait... there's ½ and ¼ – perhaps we should use them. --phlip ^T_C 03:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

We could indeed. It's probably eaisier to recognize anyway. — Lapper (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's good to see that at least my change wasn't reverted. You have no idea how discouraging it is when that happens, especially when you think you've made a valid contribution. We're told to "be bold" when editing articles, but... ~Bruce

Don't feel bad, Bruce. It takes time to "settle in". :) By being bold, you learn how to distinguish good edits from bad ones. :) —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Cell Phone Videos

It seems to be at least worth mentioning that the President's of the United States vdieo for Some Postman was indeed filmed entirely with cell phone cameras, specifically 12 Sony Ericsson K750i Aaronstj 09:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hard Disk Description

isn't this a bit wordy and irrelevant. i always thought the difference between a hard disk and a floppy is that the read/write heads and contol circutry all come in a case with the disk platters for a hard disk not that the disk is internal and immovable, for example the Amiga 1200 had an optional external hard disk that was completely removable back in the early 1990's. A floppy is a floppy because its basically the disk platter in a protective sleve, with none of the technology required to read the data included with it.

Technically, the term "hard disk" refers to the actual media itself. Floppy disks consist of a thin disk of flexible magnetic material (hence the name "floppy"), whereas a "hard disk" is just that: A hard, inflexible platter. A hard drive is a hermetically sealed box with the platters inside in order to protect the disk from dust and moisture (both of which can impede performance and even damage the media). And the HDD is usually non-removable because moving the unit around while it's turned on can cause alignment problems. Gyroscopic forces can also cause damage to the platter and the read-write heads, since the platters are usually always spinning. Hope this helps. —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Whos that stupid?

"You cannot actually fold a 5.25" floppy disk to make it work in a 3.5" drive. Attempting to do so will destroy the media." come on. you have to have an IQ to know that it wont work.i think it shoudl be deleted. — Darkstalker (Talk | contribs) (left unsigned)

You'd be surprised! There are COUNTLESS records of people doing stuff just like that - see The Computer Stupidities Website for some examples. I used to work in a computer lab myself, and I saw people doing this sort of thing with my own eyes. —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Skunk I love you! You just gave me hours of reading and fun. I can't wait to show this to my wife. I R F 23:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to be of service! :) —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The night operator, apparently not sure if the problem was with the drive or the disc pack, stuffed the pack into the next drive in line, crashing that one, too, as the heads encountered the plowed-up aluminum from the first crash. He then proceeded to put that increasingly lethal pack into every single drive in the room, in some instances physically ripping the heads from their brackets.

Nice! Just absolutely NICE! --Stux 02:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! Actually, I didn't know it would destroy the media. Bluebry 02:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I see anony's point about the obviousness of this fact, but the reason I think it should stay is precisely because of people who do crapfully crappy things like that above. Besides, for those of us who know better, it just gives us a chance to laugh at those who don't. :) —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite. stupid is as stupid does I R F 13:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

oops forgot to add my sig...im not an annony lol i just think that putting that remark isnt really neccassary. -Darkstalker

The computer in the poster takes 5¼ disks

Not only does folding a large disk to fit it into the drive not work at all, but the computer pictured on the poster that he holds the folded disk up to appears to have two 5¼" drives on the front, not 3½", so Strong Bad wouldn't even need to fold it. ~Garglfluz doesn't know how to do sigs

He said "New computers", not "Computers like the one in this poster". ~DumDe 10:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Strong Bad actually said "these new computers" from what I could hear, and clearly indicated the computer in the picture (by pointing at it with the disk). Maybe I'm just arguing semantics, but I think Garglfluz's argument is valid. ~Bruce

how to create sigs ~ I R F 13:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My guess is the lappy takes 3.5" disks and he may be referring to that computer or computers like it since the lappy is "new technology" for him. --Stux 14:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nalgene

Pom Pom is not using a Nalgene because Nalgenes have flat sides. Once you zoom in it is obvious that this is not the case and that Pom Pom is drinking a store bought bottled water. - BlackWidower 14:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

All Nalgene bottles do not have flat sides. See their website for examples. -- Tom 14:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, you didn't mean flat as in rectangular prism, you meant flat as in a smooth cylinder. Yeah, it has a bumpy texture and that lends me to believe it is not a Nalgene. -- Tom 14:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I meant flat as in smooth. Mine is round. - BlackWidower 23:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Binary

Does the binary meen anything? TheThingé 21:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

See the Trivia for that. — Has Matt? (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that there are two zeros missing: [0] 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 [0] 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 Although these apparently are implied. ColdReactive

Sundance Film Festival

Does anyone else think the entry on Sundance is a little confusing? It makes it sound like Robert Redford and the Sundance Channel, whereas I beleive the channel actually started much later.

Sundance is an annual independent film festival in Park City, Utah, founded by actor Robert Redford and also a US pay cable television channel showing similar films.

Maybe change it to:

Sundance refers to an annual independent film festival in Park City, Utah, founded by actor Robert Redford. Sundance is also a US pay cable television channel showing similar films.

Including the appropriate links, of course. —jqubed (talk)

well, is the subdance channel related to the film festival?--Stux 18:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It's related, both are connected with the Sundance Institute, but the film festival started in 1978, when it wasn't called the Sundance Film Festival, and the Sundance Institute wasn't started until 1981. They didn't even start managing the festival until 1985, and it wasn't renamed until 1991, although Robert Redford seems to have been involved since the beginning. I can't find a start date for the channel, but can't imagine it being around until much later than 1978, and probably more along the lines of the festival changing names or even later than that. —jqubed (talk)

super bowl dealie

I proposed the following real-world reference and it was reverted:

Coincidentally, six days after the release of this email, there was a commercial that aired during Super Bowl XL on Sunday February 5, 2006 that featured a robot destroying a city.

I thought this was a good real-world reference and being that the Super Bowl is the biggest commercial day of the year AND right after this email that it warranted note. Also I think that this is consistant with our comment in Fall Float Parade. Thoughts? I R F 13:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Try putting it in STUFF. You'll get a bigger response there than here. —FireBird|Talk 14:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

but it's not a fun fact, I don't think its proper to STUFF it. correct me if I'm wrong. I R F 14:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a fun fact? Why was it in the Fun Facts section? ;)

It's okay. Go ahead and STUFF it. This is the kind of stuff STUFF was made for. —FireBird|Talk 14:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It's STUFF'd I R F 16:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wireless Extension Cords?

Are working wireless extension cords actually possible? And if you think so, tell me how they would work.

Impossible. Electricity can't be sent through the air. And even if it could, I would think doing so would be dangerous, as anyone walking through the airborne electricity would be electrocuted. ~Bruce

Sorry Bruce, that's just not right. Of course you can "send electricity through the air" in the form of electromagnetic waves. The entire point of radio is to induce a small current in an antenna at the receiving end, and these days you can get a cordless mouse that powers itself through induction from a special mousepad. The real problems with "wireless extension cords" would be efficiency, and secondarily safety. Efficiency because EM waves are usually going to spread out over a large area, so a receiver would only ever receive a tiny fraction of what the transmitter puts out, and safety because if you either boosted power or used a suitable antenna to focus the signal to usable levels, the energy between transmitter and receiver would probably cook (not electrocute) you. --hobbs.

It is possible to send a high-voltage, moderate-current arc through the air over short distances, but not long ones - you'd have to create an EXTREMELY high voltage in order to conduct a decent amount of electricity over any appreciable distance, and then you'd have the problem of not only unpredictable electricity arcing everywhere, but you'd be expending a lot more energy on the "sending" end than it would be worth.

Why do you think lightning is so unpredictable and so dangerous? Air is an extremely poor conductor of electricity. Electromagnetic waves are a bit different, but you still can't send those at levels sufficient to provide operating power over any appreciable distance. —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like the usual Bubs scam to me. --DorianGray

No such thing Stu, no such thing. But seriously, take it from a trained electrician. Everything that requires power has to be connected through wires or conductor to eventually a power source, such as a battery, a generator, or a Power Station. (Glad I could finally use my career somewhere around here, granted it's not as useful as "computer programmer" or "flash animater" or anything). ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 02:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wireless extension cords *would* work. Just wrap the room in a huge coil and connect it to an AC power source. Then any metal in the room would have an induced current in it. Put another coil in the appliance and tweak the number of turns, and you could power stuff wirelessly. It'd be like working inside an MRI... However there's no *sane* way to wirelessly transmit power - the safe power levels for radio signals are much too low to run anything off. The 2.4GHz ISM band for example has a 100mW limit before you need to buy a license to transmit (taken from here) - that's a tenth of a Watt. For comparison, a computer uses around 300-400W and (Australian) power points are rated for as much as 2400W - many orders of magnitude higher than the 100mW you can get from wireless. --phlip ^T_C 07:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, this was one of the things that Nicola Tesla tried to achieve during his lifetime. —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A more specific article on the subject: Magnifying transmitter. I think this is worthy of a mention in the main article. —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What about this? http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/41/wec.shtml No Smorking 02:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. :) I especially like the "no suing" under the "availability" heading. —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

They would probably cause cancer, i mean what doesnt nowadays? -Jmoney 03:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

semaphore

does strong bad say anything with is semaphore looking movements at the beggining of the email? csours 06:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If that's semaphore, then it's gibberish. Just so someone else doesn't spend such a colossal waste of time, I will inform you that in semaphore, Strongbad's movements spell "NSRSNS?NRQVERU". (The ? indicates a position that is not in the semaphore alphabet as far as I am aware.) I even tried to see if there was a pattern relating the movements to the ones and zeroes he was saying, but if so, it's beyond me. I think that one can be chalked up to random gesticulating. -Brucker

Wow, pretty impressive! I bet I'm pretty impressed! —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This anonny seems to think it's "NSRSNSBNRQD_R_", which a bit different from yours... so which is it? --phlip ^T_C 09:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter? Whether it's semaphore or not, it's still gibberish. —  KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Closed STUFF

what was wrong with what i added?

The part about robots and Japan?

Nikolce Kocovski 09:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There is already a comment about "robots destroying Japan" in the Explanations section. If you scroll up to #Closed STUFF, you'll see that another fact about "robots serving hors d'oeuvres" was suggested, voted on, and declined (we do this occasionally for fun facts if we are unsure whether the community considers them noteworthy). (For future reference: the edit being discussed is here.) --phlip ^T_C 11:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

cu l8r?

• When Strong Bad says "see you later" to the departing Pom-Pom, he's probably referring to "c u l8r", an easy phrase to text message. This would tie into his mention of cell phones as originally being used to send misspelled messages.

I'm not so sure about this. "See you later" is a common phrase, one that would logically be said in this scene. Most of the "misspelled messages" shortened for cell phone text chat are common phrases that would often be said in the presence of someone using a cell phone. This connection isn't even strong enough to be called a coincidence, it's barely a connection at all. As far as I can tell, the reason he says it is to try to be cool. Think about the way the scene is constructed. Pom-Pom made a movie, and discovered that it's going to be shown at an internationally renowned film festival. He dons a pair of shades and starts drinking out of a water bottle, stereotypes of his newfound fame. Strong Bad attempts to interact with him as a buddy, but is snubbed. He's trying to stay calm and casual, and still talk to Pom-Pom (who likely isn't listening anyway) in that casual manner. By saying "see you later", he's trying to convince us that he's still cool enough to be hanging out with Pom-Pom some time in the future.

If you have to go to the bathroom, and you tell someone that you'll "be right back", and it just happens to be a few seconds after explaining some common IRC abbreviations to a friend, it doesn't necessarily mean that you're making a reference to "brb".

Just a thought. - Uglinessman 15:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Apostrophe

I added a goof about the apostrophe in "appreciate it's", and it was reverted. The plural really should be rendered without an apostrophe (i.e. its). This has nothing to do with "its", the gender-neutral pronoun, and therefore falls under rules of pluralizations: It would mean "appreciate it is" with an apostrophe. Strong Bad treats "appreciate it" as a noun and, "makeshift" or otherwise, it ain't needing no apostrophe.--Yossarian 10:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe he should update "Strong Bad's Rhythm 'n' Grammar" for makeshift nouns? "Oh, if you want to be possessive or make a fake noun, it's just I-T-S, but if it's supposed to be a contraction then it's I-T-apostrophe-S...scalawag." No, that doesn't sound too good...-Unknownwarrior33 04:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

A common way to pluralize a word used as a thing in itself is to use an apostrophe. Compare to saying there are three 8's in my phone number, where 8 is used as a thing, not the number 8. Style guides disagree on this point, but there's enough confusion that it can't be called a goof. If it was phrased in such a way as to mention that some style guides say that form of pluralizing a word used as a thing is wrong, it could be mentioned in Remarks. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  07:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not style manuals disagree, it still looks bizarre to me with an apostrophe.— Bassbone (^{TALK CONT}) 18:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The "goof" is wrong, "its" is possessive and thus doesn't make any sense in this context. Alone yes, "it's" does mean "it is", but he is using it as a noun, and adding an apostrophe to the entire thing to make it plural.

K-nowledge?

Am I the only one who thinks Strong Bad's not referencing anything when he says this, and instead, just being an idiot?

Oboe Shoes

Honestly, who actualy tried to spell out oboeshoes on their calculator. I NOT ONLY did that but I ALSO memorized the combo for it... 530453080... Good fun. -Jomsar (Jmoney)

Some one confirm

Hey will someone confirm and add that strongbad's head is the same color as the chalk board, and when he says magic it blends together. If so will some one els post it. I have had issues with posting in the past and dont want to mess it up. Thanks --Jmoney 03:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)