The movie was a knock-off of Dracula so “vampire” became “Nosferatu” and “Count Dracula” became “Count Orlok”. So his name was Orlok and he was a Nosferatu…
In the “original” versions (meaning the book Dracula from 1897 written by Bram Stroker and the first movie Nosferatu from Murnau, 1922, not sure about the last date…) both are simple names of the central characters and in no way a classification. So it is basically like saying “this is the elvis-fraction over here. go bother the lionel richie guys.”
I’ve heard people call Dracula and his contemporaries/any vampire that follows similar rules “Byronic vampires.” But that’s a term not everyone would recognize and isn’t funny so yeah.
I’m pretty sure you’re oversimplifying things. I don’t know what the exact quote is, but I doubt Stephen Hawking would come to a conclusion without at least some research behind it.
Here’s the crux of it. Given the existence of gravity, “the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Which is to say: The universe can create itself because gravity.
Ok, since you’re obviously incapable of answering such a simple question, I did some very minor digging around the internet. What Stephen Hawking said was that because of what we know from both quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity (which deals with gravity), we have reason to believe the universe created spontaneously. Admittedly what you said was an actual quote, but it’s not the “crux” of it, it’s just something that was written into his book to get their attention and motivate them to read more, something you obviously didn’t do.
Don’t worry, Adam. We’re just having a theological debate. No big deal. I welcome the challenge. Anyhow, has it not been said that matter cannot be created nor destroyed (outside if matter to energy conversion, of course). I have to ask you what could have created the universe without any guidance? If that is truly possible then why have we not been able to witness such phenomenon? Also, how could it have done so with the perfect precision necessary to support life on Earth. I am sure that you know the Solar System itself is extraordinarily delicate. If the Moon was only a fraction of its orbit closer we would have disaster. So, no, I have not read his book, but I have common sense and critical thinking. I have learned to never take anyone’s words at face value, regardless of who they come from.
To Adam: In my defense . . . he started it.
To Darth Litarius: Right. Don’t take people’s words at face value. Which is why you should look into things before insulting someone based on a mined quote. Also, with billions of stars in our galaxy, and billions of galaxies in the universe, no argument of “probability” can possibly be convincing. And we don’t know what could’ve created the universe from nothing, which is why scientists don’t assume anything did.
I did read the book a while back; I had forgotten most of it, but I went back to check. What Stephen Hawking was saying is that thanks to the general theory of relativity, we know that time and space are interconnected, and it’s possible that they were once one in the same, so instead of 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time, there were 4 of space, and none of time. Without time, there’s no causality, and thus no creation. Now, I don’t believe this to be the case (I find multiverse theory to be much more convincing), but it’s far more well thought out than how you presented it, which is what offended me (it’s also much better explained in the book, but my comment is already insanely long as it is ^_^U).
I’ll be glad when the whole “vampires are the coolest” phase is over. Guh, come up with something else, world. And no, I don’t mean werewolves, either. Something original! Like…I dunno…maybe some pet turtles get flushed, then encounter radiation in the sewer, then…oh, wait.
The common denominator of those is transformation and the ability to become violent.
I give you the new, edgy replacement for vampires:
Hag on the rag.
Included are new superpowers such as:
– Winning arguments without being right
– Inducing headaches
– Menstrual cramps
and last but not least
– Geological Period-length grudge-holding
If it involves the terms “Satan,” “dragons” or “Noah’s Flood,” don’t even bother. If it involves admitting that the Bible isn’t 100% accurate and that the earth and universe are far older than the Bible would have us believe, then I’ll respect you as an adult.
Ok then, it’s just that I’ve heard a lot of rather. . . weird. . . ways biblical literalists try to explain them while keeping the universe only 6,000 years old.
I like this, a lot.
So are the Twilight vampires those flashy kids you see in schools that all have rich parents?
No, real vampires bully them all the time for being sparkly.
They’re actually just fairies who call themselves vampires.
No way, fairies are way scarier than sparkly vampires. Fairies lure sparkly vampires into the forest and use their skin for cosmetics.
This. I want this so much.
With all the blood the vampires drink, how come you never see them pee?
Is the cast on Star Trek vampires?
Same thing with zombies. Slow vs. Fast, dead vs. disease.
If they’re classifying by direct names in the last panel, shouldn’t it be “Orlocks” instead of “Nosferatus”?
How do you figure?
No no, they should definitely be Nosferatus.
The movie was a knock-off of Dracula so “vampire” became “Nosferatu” and “Count Dracula” became “Count Orlok”. So his name was Orlok and he was a Nosferatu…
In the “original” versions (meaning the book Dracula from 1897 written by Bram Stroker and the first movie Nosferatu from Murnau, 1922, not sure about the last date…) both are simple names of the central characters and in no way a classification. So it is basically like saying “this is the elvis-fraction over here. go bother the lionel richie guys.”
I get what you’re saying, but unless you know a classifying name for what Dracula was/is we’ll just have to go with this.
I’ve heard people call Dracula and his contemporaries/any vampire that follows similar rules “Byronic vampires.” But that’s a term not everyone would recognize and isn’t funny so yeah.
“Stokers”?
I lost it at the “But Dinosaurs…” Adam you’re a genius, you provide brilliance on a daily basis.
Agreed, dinosaurs just about killed me.
Indeed. Positively exploded at panel 3, and had to make sure I commented about it.
Thanks!
Hahaha panel 3 killed me! That’s going to be my argument from now on.
Makes every bit as much sense as Steven Hawking saying the universe can create itself because gravity. (I wish I was joking).
I’m pretty sure you’re oversimplifying things. I don’t know what the exact quote is, but I doubt Stephen Hawking would come to a conclusion without at least some research behind it.
Here’s the crux of it. Given the existence of gravity, “the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Which is to say: The universe can create itself because gravity.
Ok, since you’re obviously incapable of answering such a simple question, I did some very minor digging around the internet. What Stephen Hawking said was that because of what we know from both quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity (which deals with gravity), we have reason to believe the universe created spontaneously. Admittedly what you said was an actual quote, but it’s not the “crux” of it, it’s just something that was written into his book to get their attention and motivate them to read more, something you obviously didn’t do.
ASP, lighten up.
Don’t worry, Adam. We’re just having a theological debate. No big deal. I welcome the challenge. Anyhow, has it not been said that matter cannot be created nor destroyed (outside if matter to energy conversion, of course). I have to ask you what could have created the universe without any guidance? If that is truly possible then why have we not been able to witness such phenomenon? Also, how could it have done so with the perfect precision necessary to support life on Earth. I am sure that you know the Solar System itself is extraordinarily delicate. If the Moon was only a fraction of its orbit closer we would have disaster. So, no, I have not read his book, but I have common sense and critical thinking. I have learned to never take anyone’s words at face value, regardless of who they come from.
To Adam: In my defense . . . he started it.
To Darth Litarius: Right. Don’t take people’s words at face value. Which is why you should look into things before insulting someone based on a mined quote. Also, with billions of stars in our galaxy, and billions of galaxies in the universe, no argument of “probability” can possibly be convincing. And we don’t know what could’ve created the universe from nothing, which is why scientists don’t assume anything did.
I did read the book a while back; I had forgotten most of it, but I went back to check. What Stephen Hawking was saying is that thanks to the general theory of relativity, we know that time and space are interconnected, and it’s possible that they were once one in the same, so instead of 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time, there were 4 of space, and none of time. Without time, there’s no causality, and thus no creation. Now, I don’t believe this to be the case (I find multiverse theory to be much more convincing), but it’s far more well thought out than how you presented it, which is what offended me (it’s also much better explained in the book, but my comment is already insanely long as it is ^_^U).
I’m forced to think about Vampire the Masquerade at this comic.
I’ll be glad when the whole “vampires are the coolest” phase is over. Guh, come up with something else, world. And no, I don’t mean werewolves, either. Something original! Like…I dunno…maybe some pet turtles get flushed, then encounter radiation in the sewer, then…oh, wait.
The common denominator of those is transformation and the ability to become violent.
I give you the new, edgy replacement for vampires:
Hag on the rag.
Included are new superpowers such as:
– Winning arguments without being right
– Inducing headaches
– Menstrual cramps
and last but not least
– Geological Period-length grudge-holding
I say bring back Frankenstein.
Do you mean Frankenstein’s creation?
Quote Bobert Rob on Newgrounds:
“I’ll generalize him if I want.”
no, Frankenstein, actually we already have steampunk, but I can handle it becoming the next “big thing”
That’s going to be my response the next time Jehovah’s Witnesses show up at my door:
But… Dinosaurs…
We have an explanation for dinosaurs…just sayin’.
If it involves the terms “Satan,” “dragons” or “Noah’s Flood,” don’t even bother. If it involves admitting that the Bible isn’t 100% accurate and that the earth and universe are far older than the Bible would have us believe, then I’ll respect you as an adult.
God created dinosaurs. It really doesn’t require terms like Satan, dragons and such.
Ok then, it’s just that I’ve heard a lot of rather. . . weird. . . ways biblical literalists try to explain them while keeping the universe only 6,000 years old.
I like the bat-umbrela.
And of course there’s always the TV Tropes page!
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurVampiresAreDifferent
Blah?
(also, off the topic of funny, I’m Catholic AND I believe dinosaurs existed)
A lot of Catholics do. That’s because while the Catholic Church may be corrupt, it at least isn’t (as) stupid (anymore).
Vampire linguistics.
“Blah?”
“Blah.”
*nods knowingly* “Blah.”
Ha-ha!
One of the best at list what I think.
But I thought only prists can
Are you a Universal or a Hammer?
Getting in REALLY late, but love the design of the nosferatu.
Phooey. Autofill. Delete everything after @, please?
Red Court, White court, or Black court?