Forum:Changing The Answer from 42 to google
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Changing The Answer from 42 to google
Note: This topic has been unedited for 5972 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.
Ok, we all know that the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything is currently set at 42. But as this figure has been in use for a long time, maybe its getting a bit outdated? Maybe its time to modernise it?
I have a proposition for you. As Google is one of our most useful tools in our modern lifestyles, and as it holds all the answers, all the knowledge, even all the questions, then how about revising the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything from "42", to "Google". I think this is a very interesting proposition, and would happily read any feedback. Thankyou, Danr 16:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting. But you'll have a tough time convincing the skeptics. I, for one, think that google can't be the perfect answer for everything until they fix the fact that Live! image search is so much more awesome than google image search.
- You may also be interested in the Church of Google. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 16:52, 05 Jun 2008
- Yeah, GIS sucks. No matter what I search for, all the results are girls in bikinis. I search for "Cap'n Crunch"... I get girls in bikinis. I search for "Wario playing the egg-on-a-spoon game"... I get girls in bikinis. I search for "Dirty Filipino sluts deep-throating monster cock"... I get girls in bikinis. WTF. --Hyperbole 17:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- And are you complaining that you get lots of pictures of girls in bikinis? Danr 18:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, GIS sucks. No matter what I search for, all the results are girls in bikinis. I search for "Cap'n Crunch"... I get girls in bikinis. I search for "Wario playing the egg-on-a-spoon game"... I get girls in bikinis. I search for "Dirty Filipino sluts deep-throating monster cock"... I get girls in bikinis. WTF. --Hyperbole 17:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
But if you change the number I'll have to redo all of my theorems. -- posh Ape (BASH) (Riot Porn) 19:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- You mean like that one where the inside angles of a triangle total 42o? It's so crazy it just might work! Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- It works in base 44.5. ~ 21:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah but now it'll have to be Googleo - that'll never work!!! -- posh Ape (BASH) (Riot Porn) 21:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I thought it was Googleo! It is, right? That's why my maths teacher told me... And he likes me...I think... - [22:04 5 June] Sir FSt. Don Pleb Yettie (talk) QotF BFF NotM RotM UNPotM UGotM CUN PEE SR UnProvise
- No, it has to be in radians. Perhaps if we redefine π as 42. But I think the problem is we don't know the question, as I'm puzzled why triangles are involved at all. ~ 22:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, since basically any proposition can be reduced to a series of triangles...-- posh Ape (BASH) (Riot Porn) 19:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, it has to be in radians. Perhaps if we redefine π as 42. But I think the problem is we don't know the question, as I'm puzzled why triangles are involved at all. ~ 22:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I thought it was Googleo! It is, right? That's why my maths teacher told me... And he likes me...I think... - [22:04 5 June] Sir FSt. Don Pleb Yettie (talk) QotF BFF NotM RotM UNPotM UGotM CUN PEE SR UnProvise
- Yeah but now it'll have to be Googleo - that'll never work!!! -- posh Ape (BASH) (Riot Porn) 21:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- It works in base 44.5. ~ 21:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
