If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   The NASA engineer who's discovered how to build a warp drive would totally love to explain how it works, but he can't. Trust him, though, he totally knows how to build one   (slate.com) divider line 143
    More: Unlikely, Trust, NASA, warp speed  
•       •       •

8530 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Aug 2013 at 8:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
SRD [TotalFark]
2013-08-26 09:38:00 AM
Doesnt a warp drive work differently that light travel? because its not in regular space but inside some type of field it can travel much faster than light? or something like that?
 
2013-08-26 09:40:25 AM
Didn't i also read earlier that to generate the effect this drive was supposed to generate in order to propel  a craft the size of a small speedboat you'd need the energy output of 50 mid-life yellow stars like our sun?
 
2013-08-26 09:45:01 AM

SRD: Doesnt a warp drive work differently that light travel? because its not in regular space but inside some type of field it can travel much faster than light? or something like that?


You warp space-time around the ship like a bubble and then cause the bubble to move at faster than speed velocities, since current evidence suggest that spacetime itself is not subject to the whole Lightspeed limitations (as mentioned earlier in the thread)
 
2013-08-26 09:48:52 AM

Any Pie Left: I'm not half as interested in the warp drive as I am in the Quantum Thruster, also being developed by the NASA advanced propulsion group, and much farther along. They're going to have hardware to test on the space station in a year or so, using the q-thruster as an RCS station-keeping thruster that has no fuel component, no mass to throw out; just electrical power.  If it proves out, versions where multiple Q-thrusters are stacked to accelerate probes and manned craft to the edges of the solar system will open up the frontier for space colinization.  The fact it's name is similar to our favorite Amish fixie cyclist is just a delicious bonus.


Those are even more complete bullshiat than the warp drive, because there's no negative-mass excuse for them to point to and say "If only we had that stuff, it would work!"  The claims of using the quantum vacuum state as reaction mass are utterly absurd to anybody who knows what "vacuum state" means1, and just like the warp drive, they rest entirely on unpublished work.  If he were ever to publish a valid explanation of how that Q-thruster is supposed to work, he'd have a Nobel coming at him so fast he'd better be wearing goalie pads, because it would mean invalidating the entire Standard Model.  Don't hold your breath.

1If it's still the vacuum state, it doesn't carry momentum, and if it's modified such that it can carry momentum, it's not the vacuum state anymore and contains real particles.  Creating those particles costs energy, and the minimum energetic price for an impulse p is still E=pc, no better than using a flashlight as a thruster.
 
2013-08-26 09:52:48 AM
Not a problem, but only after he invents the "EASY BUTTON" !
 
2013-08-26 09:54:14 AM
If theer is such technology I would think the release of any specifics would be one of those things that would be harmful to national security.  If NASA has come up with the basics of a warp drive system or some other unknown method of faster than light travel, I would think that the scientist would not be making bold claims about it publicly.  Well unless it is to spread disinformation in order to steer rival nations in the wrong direction.
 
2013-08-26 09:55:20 AM
2.bp.blogspot.com1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-26 09:57:14 AM
Sounds like he just needs element 115 and some antimatter.
 
2013-08-26 10:01:24 AM

heavymetal: If theer is such technology I would think the release of any specifics would be one of those things that would be harmful to national security.  If NASA has come up with the basics of a warp drive system or some other unknown method of faster than light travel, I would think that the scientist would not be making bold claims about it publicly.  Well unless it is to spread disinformation in order to steer rival nations in the wrong direction.


apropos user name.  I was reading some fun science fiction comics about fifteen years ago.  I think it was an effort from Marvel to occupy some 2000ad space.  Anyway, the central premise was that a guy figured out how to make an mass acceleration drive for ~$3k USD and in his own garage.  So he wanted to publish the data on the early days inet because he thought the world should have this data.  The feds sent someone to kill him.  After a lengthy discussion between the killer and inventor, the killer did his job.  But after the fact he knew that he agreed with the inventor and uploaded his plans to the new groups anyway and told his bosses he got there too late to stop him.

Fun part.  I think his name was 'Henry Smoot'.  So as humans finally expanded out into the solar system into various habitats and collectives, etc...  humanity owed itself forever to the 'smoot drive'.

/not FTL but was a good story.
/wish I could find it again
 
2013-08-26 10:01:46 AM

heavymetal: If theer is such technology I would think the release of any specifics would be one of those things that would be harmful to national security.  If NASA has come up with the basics of a warp drive system or some other unknown method of faster than light travel, I would think that the scientist would not be making bold claims about it publicly.  Well unless it is to spread disinformation in order to steer rival nations in the wrong direction.


Moreover, if it had any chance of working even a little bit, why would it even be under NASA?  Anything with that kind of military significance (there's no defense like going back in time before the attack) would be a double-ultra-secret DoD project the moment it appeared plausible.
 
2013-08-26 10:03:07 AM

t3knomanser: Further, since FTL also allows time travel, it raises the next question: why aren't we receiving signals from our future selves?


Been a while since my last physics class, however, I seem to recall that we *know* time travel going forward is possible depending on your reference frame - that is to say that if you departed earth and went for a ride at some significant fraction of c and subsequently returned that more time will have elapsed on earth than for you therefore allowing you to effectively travel forward in time in the reference frame of earth.

For example, if you were to travel for one year at 2/3 c, 1 1/3 year would have passed on earth (meaning you "traveled" forward 4 months). If you travel at 4/5 c, 1 2/3 year will have passed on earth. Traveling at 0.9 c, 2.3 years will have passed on earth. At 0.99 c it would be 7 years.

How to travel at such fractions of c, however, is left as an exercise for the reader.
 
2013-08-26 10:03:17 AM

t3knomanser: Nothing travels faster than light*. When we find an existing FTL particle, then we can start talking about scaling it up to human beings. As it stands now, there's no reason to even discuss FTL in a serious way. Further, since FTL also allows time travel, it raises the next question: why aren't we receiving signals from our future selves?


Who is listening in the direction that Earth will be at?
 
2013-08-26 10:04:56 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: t3knomanser: RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: Nobody thought humans could fly in a heavier-than-air craft, either. The science of the day was very certain of this.

Not really. The very idea was absurd on its face- heavier-than-air-craft occur in nature. While none approach man-sized, it's very clear that it's little more than an engineering challenge. There was no physical limit that prevented heavier-than-air craft. It was a matter of understanding the principles of extant heavier-than-air craft (birds) and scaling them to human scales.

Nothing travels faster than light*. When we find an existing FTL particle, then we can start talking about scaling it up to human beings. As it stands now, there's no reason to even discuss FTL in a serious way. Further, since FTL also allows time travel, it raises the next question: why aren't we receiving signals from our future selves?

* Quantum entanglement arguably has an FTL component, but since we don't know of any mechanism for information exchange, I'd hesitate to say that anything actually goes faster than light. Since any communication over quantum effects still requires a causal, light-speed channel, you're still rate limited to the speed of light.

Too complicated.

"I'M STUPID AND DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING WORK!!!! ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE BECAUSE STAR TREK!!!! WWWWAAAAAARGHGHGHHG!!!!!"

What is it with you Luddites this morning?

I've got my bugout bag ready for when warp drive totally becomes real. Will it be Boeing or Airbus that makes the first warp-capable space liner? Will they use GE or Rolls Royce or Pratt & Whitney warp turbines? Oh I'm so excited!!!!

But they'll still find a way to send your luggage to Alpha Centauri.


You know, I liked it when you slapped down the people who gushed that 3-D printing was about to transform our society into a Star Trek utopia in which everyone will be able to 3-D print holographic HDTVs, custom Real Dolls, and flux capacitors at home for free.

What you're doing now is self-parody.  It IS self-parody, right?  Because I'd like to think of you as better than some sort of TechnoBevets.
 
2013-08-26 10:06:01 AM
I have a friend who claims that he can build a teleporatation device but never will do it because humanity is not emotionally ready for the transcendence.

/He's serious
//DNRTFA
 
2013-08-26 10:07:24 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: Stone Meadow: Has Technobevets weighed in on this yet? I can't form an opinion until I read his.

Even an idiot like you should be able to reach the obvious conclusion here.

Let me help you: no one is going anywhere. How you like that!?

Can you please point to the "technology" here? It's as technological as John Titor's time machine, or Bob Lazar's space drive.

Get real, you idiot.


Oh look, it's Technobevets right on time!

1-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2013-08-26 10:07:59 AM

slykens1: I seem to recall that we *know* time travel going forward is possible depending on your reference frame


Heck, I'm doing it right now! That's standard relativistic travel. FTL would allow you to send messages back into the past.

SwiftFox: Because we haven't built one yet and it has been shown they can only work to send back in time to the first date they existed, or after.


Depends on your FTL mechanism, but if you're just going faster than light, that's not really true, no. The right FTL course relative to a non-FTL object allows you to send messages that arrive before your FTL craft left.
 
2013-08-26 10:20:01 AM
Astronauts huh?

www.forkandsaltshaker.com
 
2013-08-26 10:25:39 AM
He's only done this once before

/Must bring your own weapons, safety not guaranteed.
 
2013-08-26 10:28:28 AM
I understand how he feels.  I can't explain how my perpetual motion machine will work, either, and I haven't bothered to build one so I can't show you one in action.

But you should trust me.
 
2013-08-26 10:38:01 AM
Maybe they've figured out a way to harness dark energy.  From what I reckon, if we can figure out a way to harness DE then we'll have enough juice to go anywhere and quite a quick clip.
Also, if anyone with the knowledge could enlighten me, say you're able to get up to near the speed of light, doesn't your time slow down relative to everything else?  I mean say something is 1 light year away; how long of a trip would that feel to you at near-light speed? Would it be around a year or considerably less? To us here on Earth it would look like a year, but how long would it feel to those actually in the ship?
 
2013-08-26 10:42:58 AM

DubtodaIll: I mean say something is 1 light year away; how long of a trip would that feel to you at near-light speed? Would it be around a year or considerably less?


If you were traveling at 2.9x10^8m/s, you'd experience about 1/4 of a year.
 
2013-08-26 10:47:00 AM

t3knomanser: DubtodaIll: I mean say something is 1 light year away; how long of a trip would that feel to you at near-light speed? Would it be around a year or considerably less?

If you were traveling at 2.9x10^8m/s, you'd experience about 1/4 of a year.


So you'd only need 1/4 year of supplies? Boy you'd be SOL if you got a flat tire.
 
2013-08-26 10:50:32 AM

Stone Meadow: Quantum Apostrophe: Stone Meadow: Has Technobevets weighed in on this yet? I can't form an opinion until I read his.

Even an idiot like you should be able to reach the obvious conclusion here.

Let me help you: no one is going anywhere. How you like that!?

Can you please point to the "technology" here? It's as technological as John Titor's time machine, or Bob Lazar's space drive.

Get real, you idiot.

Oh look, it's Technobevets right on time!

[350x377 from http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1337/72/133772117868 8.jpg image 350x377]


I'm amused by his "I'm rubber, you're glue" use of the word "luddite".
 
2013-08-26 11:01:46 AM
Well, the engines don't move the ship at all. The ship stays where it is and the engines move the universe around it. It's simple, really.

/Nothing's a complete load! Not if you can imagine it. That's what being a scientist is all about.
 
2013-08-26 11:16:15 AM

The Irresponsible Captain: Well, the engines don't move the ship at all. The ship stays where it is and the engines move the universe around it. It's simple, really.

/Nothing's a complete load! Not if you can imagine it. That's what being a scientist is all about.


I'm not touching you! Not touching you! The universe is moving and you are touching me!
 
2013-08-26 11:22:54 AM
A friend worked at NASA when it was cool.  He had a google style interview question that went something like this "We launch rockets off to the East and have then chased by fighter jets who can track the rockets altitude which is also checked by ground radar and rocket telemetry.  They all read the same reading for a while and then the ground radar starts recording higher until the jet's radar is out of range or the telemetry stopped.  Can you explain why?"  They asked that about 100 times until some bright spark said "I think Christopher Columbus had a theory" and then they were enlightened. They had been asking because they didn't know and spent too much time chasing more complex answers which all turned out to be wrong and simple physics explained it all as the rocket went east, it fell down as it was heading away over the horizon.

I do love the introduction to one of Richard Feynman's books where he describes how complex systems like alchemy and pre Kepler orbital models were excessively complex but were the best science had to offer at the time yet were very wrong and then were replaced by much simpler explanations.  He drops the point and then delves into sub-atomic particle physics.
 
2013-08-26 11:25:11 AM

StoPPeRmobile: Astronauts huh?

[275x367 from http://www.forkandsaltshaker.com/content/wp-content/photos/450pxAstron aut_nowak.jpg image 275x367]


Space madness.
 
2013-08-26 11:38:27 AM
A few kinks still need to be worked out:

t0.gstatic.com
 
2013-08-26 11:41:12 AM

SRD: Doesnt a warp drive work differently that light travel? because its not in regular space but inside some type of field it can travel much faster than light? or something like that?


imageshack.us
 
2013-08-26 11:45:46 AM
Unfortunately that NASA engineer is a total drunk.

i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-08-26 11:51:36 AM

MayoSlather: I suppose it's possible if he can generate the 1.21 jigawatts necessary for time warp speed. But how would he generate that kind of power?


That would be the easy part. Everyone knows that constructing a working Unobtanium shield generator is the real challenge to deep space travel.
 
2013-08-26 11:54:56 AM

durbnpoisn: Every has always said that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.  Yet, the standard Big Bang theory postulates that when the bang occured, the inverse itself went from a particle sized point to something BILLIONS of miles across, in only a few 1000's of a second.
That seems to be a rather large distance to cover at the plodding speed of light.
Is this presumable because the laws of physics as we understand them now, simply didn't exist yet as the universe was initially exapanding?


The current theory seems to be that spacetime expanded significantly faster than the speed of light, meaning that the light from the Big Bang Horrendous Space Kablooie still hasn't caught up to the outer reaches of the universe. IIRC, at least one so-called "warp drive" theory planned on making use of this fact by employing lots of unobtanium and more energy than used by the entire Earth over a decade.
 
2013-08-26 11:59:38 AM
images3.wikia.nocookie.net

"Son, I am disappoint."
 
2013-08-26 12:01:20 PM
Well around this time in the Battletech Universe is supposed to be when the theories of the KF drive are developed and mocked until 100 years later...
 
2013-08-26 12:05:05 PM

47 is the new 42: It's obvious that "working for NASA" is his cover story.  He actually works for the Stargate program!

/ In case you didn't get it, it was a joke and reference to the various Stargate series.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-26 12:06:18 PM

Wenchmaster: The current theory seems to be that spacetime expanded significantly faster than the speed of light...,


I figure at some point that will get turned into "c=speed of gravity" and maybe things will start to make more sense even though it is effectively the same now.
 
2013-08-26 12:07:46 PM

SirGunslinger: Well around this time in the Battletech Universe is supposed to be when the theories of the KF drive are developed and mocked until 100 years later...


i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-08-26 12:12:08 PM

BafflerMeal: SirGunslinger: Well around this time in the Battletech Universe is supposed to be when the theories of the KF drive are developed and mocked until 100 years later...

[407x405 from https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6172954624/hEFFE679E/ image 407x405]


lol, yeah well I'll see your Battledroids and raise you:

www.sarna.net
 
2013-08-26 12:12:44 PM

DjangoStonereaver: [622x460 from http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070503171832/memoryalpha/cs/im ages/f/fb/ZeframCochrane2267.jpg image 622x460]

"Son, I am disappoint."


Old school.  Props.
 
2013-08-26 12:13:22 PM
Here's my uneducated thought on this:

1. Relativity applies in normal "3D" space. From what I understood of the experiment and the premise, this isn't a drive that's operating in normal 3D space. It's bending spacetime itself (which even Einstein theorized was possible).

2. Calling it BS and or making a statement that you're *certain* it can't be done (I'm looking at you, Quantum Assholetrophe) is tantamount to being certain that evolution can't exist or that God exists.  Science figures out new shiat every day, and all we really know is what we can observe of our surroundings and measure. Is it *unlikely* to exist? Sure, because it would require a huge leap in understanding the nature of the universe, not to mention discovering a bunch of ways to control a phenomenon such as bending spacetime and all that. So far as we know right now, only "dark matter" and black holes can do that, and we haven't been able to measure or observe directly how this is accomplished. Hell we can't even really explain what gravity actually *is* yet, other than a fundamental force of the universe and a byproduct of mass. Is it the effects of the higgs boson and the boson field? Is it some asofyet unobserved property?

I'm not a physicist, so I'm sure Quantum Assholetrophe is going to shiat all over my post, which is fine. However, the idea behind science is that anything is possible until proven otherwise. Otherwise, you're stuck fighting against your own goddamn prejudice and closed-mindedness when looking for new things to study. Telling yourself that it can't possibly exist so why even try is about the most retarded thing ever.

Besides, scientists get paid to study stuff, or this is how it should be. Screw commercializing shiat or having to worry about professional standing, etc. Pick something and study it. Shelve it if you have no way to measure or observe it and come back when the technology is better. We can't advance unless we actually try new shiat, can we?
 
2013-08-26 12:18:04 PM

Kit Fister: However, the idea behind science is that anything is possible until proven otherwise.


I would step in and argue just for a sec, that science is really about proving what is and can be shown to be.  Otherwise the logical extension of your argument is that flying unicorns are possible until one can prove a negative.
 
2013-08-26 12:26:22 PM

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: Nobody thought humans could fly in a heavier-than-air craft, either. The science of the day was very certain of this.

True, but the people claiming to have invented a way to do it never said "Oh, sure, it totally works, but I can't reveal anything about it or prove it in any way."  The issue is not necessarily with his claim, it's his refusal to back it up that makes him a loon.  It's the same thing with any snake oil salesman who claims to have a perpetual motion engine that runs on magnets or a motor that runs on water.


You are aware of the extreme secrecy surrounding the development of heavier than air flight?  Right?

As in multiple parties were trying to get to it first, and each one protected what they were working on?

You remember that from your study of the history of flight, right?

And how each party also tried to advertise themselves even before they were successful?

Suuuuure you remembered.
 
2013-08-26 12:31:59 PM

buckler: Stone Meadow: Quantum Apostrophe: Stone Meadow: Has Technobevets weighed in on this yet? I can't form an opinion until I read his.

Even an idiot like you should be able to reach the obvious conclusion here.

Let me help you: no one is going anywhere. How you like that!?

Can you please point to the "technology" here? It's as technological as John Titor's time machine, or Bob Lazar's space drive.

Get real, you idiot.

Oh look, it's Technobevets right on time!

[350x377 from http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1337/72/133772117868 8.jpg image 350x377]

I'm amused by his "I'm rubber, you're glue" use of the word "luddite".


You know, at first I thought QA's anti-3d printing rants were just a shtick. As time and rants have gone by, however, I have become convinced he's serious...that he's not merely trolling and then laughing at all the rises he gets. And like the kid in the photo, QA is incapable of either appreciating other people's interests or differentiating between wistful cheerleading and appreciation for a developing technology on the one hand, and a lack of understanding of the complexities involved on the other. Hence his repeated hyperbole that 3d printing fans think a Star Trek replicator will be on store shelves by next year, when of course no one is suggesting anything of the sort.

For me, the irony is that QA and I used to argue on the same side of space flight threads...that prolonged human flight (say, beyond a quick trip to Mars) was a practical impossibility due to human physiology's need for gravity, radiation shielding, the mass-energy problem and a host of other challenges. Bottom line? QA is either the cleverest troll on Fark by a long way, or he's just a dweeb ranting on the internet. I'm now convinced it's the latter.
 
2013-08-26 12:35:41 PM
Wow.  I've been away for a few years... you'd have thought Quantum_Apostrophe would have gotten bored of finding non-life-extension-nutter threads to shiat on in fear that his personal pet imaginary technology would lose money to someone else's.
 
2013-08-26 12:45:49 PM

Unsung_Hero: Wow.  I've been away for a few years... you'd have thought Quantum_Apostrophe would have gotten bored of finding non-life-extension-nutter threads to shiat on in fear that his personal pet imaginary technology would lose money to someone else's.


Hey, I found a Cracked article that was posted on Fark, titled "4 Douches Who Amazingly Don't Seem to Know They Suck", unfortunately I think Cracked's writer totally forgot one, that should of been 5 Douches in that article.
 
2013-08-26 12:55:48 PM

t3knomanser: RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: Nobody thought humans could fly in a heavier-than-air craft, either. The science of the day was very certain of this.

Not really. The very idea was absurd on its face- heavier-than-air-craft occur in nature. While none approach man-sized, it's very clear that it's little more than an engineering challenge. There was no physical limit that prevented heavier-than-air craft. It was a matter of understanding the principles of extant heavier-than-air craft (birds) and scaling them to human scales.

Nothing travels faster than light*. When we find an existing FTL particle, then we can start talking about scaling it up to human beings. As it stands now, there's no reason to even discuss FTL in a serious way. Further, since FTL also allows time travel, it raises the next question: why aren't we receiving signals from our future selves?

* Quantum entanglement arguably has an FTL component, but since we don't know of any mechanism for information exchange, I'd hesitate to say that anything actually goes faster than light. Since any communication over quantum effects still requires a causal, light-speed channel, you're still rate limited to the speed of light.


Because they arent talking about actually moving at ftl speeds...they are folding space, thereby making the two points closer...so that in a relative aspect one is covering the distance at ftl speed without exceeding it.

Still just as unlikely to happen, but technicalities and all...
 
2013-08-26 12:59:49 PM

SRD: Doesnt a warp drive work differently that light travel? because its not in regular space but inside some type of field it can travel much faster than light? or something like that?


In ST, the "warp field" protects the ship as the fabric of space-time is bent around it to create something called "subspace".

Think of it like a bell curve. Two points on the line..if you traveled UNDER the line in a straight point, the area under the curve would be sub-space, whereas the line of the bell curve itself would be normal space/time.
 
2013-08-26 01:00:21 PM

Kit Fister: However, the idea behind science is that anything is possible until proven otherwise.


No.  That is definitely not science.

Science involves observation and measurement of natural phenomena, formulation of hypotheses to explain them, and experimentation to falsify or verify hypotheses.

What you are describing is more akin to Creation science.  You can't prove it's false, therefore it's true!

And anyway, Quantum Apostrophe's shtick is based upon the practical limits of technology (applied science) rather than science itself.

Every home could be powered by its own fission reactor right now.  But we don't actually do it, because it is impractical.  You could have a CNC lathe in your garage right now and turn out whatever the hell you want on it, but you don't, because it's cheaper, more efficient, and better to buy parts manufactured by professionals in a shop set up to do that kind of work.

It used to be impractical to have a home photovoltaic array.  The technology has improved, and now it makes economic sense for many people to do it.
 
2013-08-26 01:03:47 PM

t3knomanser: RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: Nobody thought humans could fly in a heavier-than-air craft, either. The science of the day was very certain of this.

Not really. The very idea was absurd on its face- heavier-than-air-craft occur in nature. While none approach man-sized, it's very clear that it's little more than an engineering challenge. There was no physical limit that prevented heavier-than-air craft. It was a matter of understanding the principles of extant heavier-than-air craft (birds) and scaling them to human scales.

Nothing travels faster than light*. When we find an existing FTL particle, then we can start talking about scaling it up to human beings. As it stands now, there's no reason to even discuss FTL in a serious way. Further, since FTL also allows time travel, it raises the next question: why aren't we receiving signals from our future selves?

* Quantum entanglement arguably has an FTL component, but since we don't know of any mechanism for information exchange, I'd hesitate to say that anything actually goes faster than light. Since any communication over quantum effects still requires a causal, light-speed channel, you're still rate limited to the speed of light.


Common misconception.  The current scientifically accurate answer is "No INFORMATION travels faster than light".
 
2013-08-26 01:04:56 PM
Ok so start it up.
 
Displayed 50 of 143 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report