back to article Get over yourselves: Life in the multiverse could be commonplace

A universe containing life like ours is probably more common in the multiverse than previously thought, according to new theoretical studies. The idea of multiple universes existing in parallel has gained traction in the last few decades and boffins are throwing large chunks of computing power at the problem, testing out …

  1. JassMan Silver badge
    Joke

    And I always thought it was Dark 'cos we can't see it

    If we do live in a multiverse, then we should see up to 50 times more dark energy than what has actually been observed.

    Has any of this dark matter or dark energy ever been observed? I was under the impression that they are both conceits created to make the models work. You never know ... maybe it really is turtles all the way down.

    1. W.S.Gosset Bronze badge

      Re: And I always thought it was Dark 'cos we can't see it

      >I was under the impression that they are both conceits created to make the models work.

      You are correct.

    2. T. F. M. Reader Silver badge

      Re: And I always thought it was Dark 'cos we can't see it

      Has any of this dark matter or dark energy ever been observed?

      Yes, albeit indirectly. And yet they are, as you say, "conceits". But they are not "conceits made to make models work", they are "conceits" (if you will) to make observations of certain things consistent with physical laws that explain everything else. The "dark" part simply alludes to the fact that we have not seen this "matter" or "energy" directly, but they probably are "matter" and "energy", respectively.

      I assume your question is genuine and not trolling, so I'll feed you with a primer. ;-)

      The other option is to start inventing new physical laws that would be consistent with everything we observe. Such attempts have been made, too. You may want to look up, e.g., Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). Explaining everything with a new set of physical laws just to explain one odd thing is not easy, and ost people are more willing to assume that we might not see a few things even though they actually exist.

      To be concrete, consider the following. We know of only 4 forces in the Universe today. Strong and weak interactions only happen at subatomic scales and are irrelevant at macroscopic, let alone galactic, distances. Electricity is irrelevant as well because at very large scales the matter is neutral on average - any local charge fluctuations are screened from distance objects (they attract opposite charges and on average things become neutral again), and there are no electrically charged planets, stars, etc. This leaves gravity, which at large scales is the only force that determines how fast some pieces of matter move around other pieces of matter (ask NASA - they have to deal with this big chunk of matter called planet Earth all the time).

      Guess what: when you look at other galaxies you find out that their outer parts move much faster (you know that in the same way a speed camera knows if you are speeding - Doppler) around the centers of the galaxies than can be explained by the visible mass in those galaxies. If the galaxies are more massive than what you see (typically by a factor of ~5 or so) then the picture would be perfectly consistent with what we know of satellites moving around our planet, the planets moving around the Sun, etc., etc. Hence, "dark matter". Your other option is something like MOND that says that things are different at the Solar system scale and on the galactic scale (effectively, gravity is not quite M/R^2 at large Rs). It has to make sure that you explain everything we know, and we have not observed any deviations from 1/R^2, so it is just as much a "conceit".

      The other piece is that our expanding Universe (yes, we know that it expands, essentially from the same Doppler effect when we look at distant objects) is expanding faster and faster - this was recently confirmed by a few people who got a Nobel prize for this just a few years ago and there have been even newer measurements still, covered by El Reg a few months ago. That could be explained by a "conceit" (blame Einstein, who introduced it into the model (general relativity) equations before any observations were available, leaving it to the future generations to determine whether it is zero or not) called "dark energy" that pushes galaxies and stuff away from each other at large scales. Of course, we don't know what the source of this energy might be, and yes, this well may lead to adjustments to the so-called "Standard Model". But, as the Reg sub-headline said, don't through your physics books into the garbage just yet.

      1. Rich 11 Silver badge

        Re: And I always thought it was Dark 'cos we can't see it

        there are no electrically charged planets, stars, etc.

        Uh-oh. This statement of fact will attract the Electric Universe nutters.

        Cover your heads, chaps and chapesses, it's gonna get dirty...

        1. Horridbloke

          Re: And I always thought it was Dark 'cos we can't see it

          Dirty? It's going to get covered in fluff.

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: And I always thought it was Dark 'cos we can't see it

        "Your other option is something like MOND that says that things are different at the Solar system scale and on the galactic scale (effectively, gravity is not quite M/R^2 at large Rs). It has to make sure that you explain everything we know, and we have not observed any deviations from 1/R^2"

        Aren't the observations that dark matter etc are invoked to explain just such deviations?

        The problem I have with the idea of dark matter is that if it exists it should be very easy to detect. It (allegedly) interacts with ordinary matter by gravity so it should be attracted to ordinary matter (or vice versa seeing as how we're told there's a lot more of it). So it ought to be right here, where we are, and not somewhere out there where we can't see it.

        1. eldakka Silver badge

          Re: And I always thought it was Dark 'cos we can't see it

          > The problem I have with the idea of dark matter is that if it exists it should be very easy to detect. It (allegedly) interacts with ordinary matter by gravity so it should be attracted to ordinary matter (or vice versa seeing as how we're told there's a lot more of it). So it ought to be right here, where we are, and not somewhere out there where we can't see it.

          It is attracted by ordinary matter - its gravity - but goes straight through it and out the other side. Why? because it is the electrostatic forces that present surfaces, that repel things when they get close.

          When I clap my hands, the atoms in my two hands don't 'bang together' and stop. It is the electrostatic force inside those atoms that repels the other hand, causing it to stop and not pass through above the surface composed of atoms. The palms of my hands never actually touch, they come so so close, but in the end they 'hover' above each other, not actually in atomic-level contact..

          Dark Matter doesn't interact with the electrostatic force, therefore there is nothing to slow it down, to prevent it from shooting out the other side and to keep going. If my hands were made of DM, they'd pass right through each other.

          So a DM particle that is say 100k lightyears from the centre of the galaxy will be attracted by the gravity in the galaxy. And it'll accelerate continuously under gravity across that entire 100k lightyear distance. But when it reaches the centre of the galaxy, it won't collide with matter in the centre and stop. There won't be any friction. No loss of energy due to radiating heat, or being pulled by electrostatic forces. It'll zip right on through at the velocity imposed on it after being accelerated across 100k lightyeras continuously. Then it'll shoot through the centre and out the other side at that velocity. Gradually losing velocity as the centre of the galaxy, and it's gravity, now behind it, tugs it back again. But gravity is weak. After shooting through after being accelerated over a distance of 100k lightyears, it'll probably shoot out to around 100k lightyears out the other side before the gravity finally stops it, and it begins its cycle again, being attracted to the centre of the galaxy, accelerating....

          But also note that it is here.

          It is everywhere, it is all around us, passing through us on its journey through the galaxy.

          But it doesn't reflect light - so how can we see it with our eyes, or camera, microscopes, etc? It doesn't interact with the electrostatic force, so we can't use electron microscopes to detect it, or capture it with physical barriers - walls, containers, magnetic bottles. It doesn't interact with the weak or strong forces, so there is no decay artifacts or atomic collisions ejecting particles from the collided-with atomic nucleus (protons, neutrons, quarks etc.).

          It's not a case of it being "out there" so we can see its affects and not being "in here" so we can't detect it.

          We just cannot directly detect it at all. We can only detect it due to the gravity it exerts. And it takes a lot of dark matter clumping to be able to affect anything. Like the amount that clumps in a halo hundred's of thousand's of lightyears across, such as that around our galaxy. Or the millions - 10's of millions - of lightyear clumps we see in galaxy clusters. Its force is so weak, that it takes clumps of DM covering volumes of hundreds of thousands of lightyears for it to exert enough gravitational force for it to have a significant enough effect that we can observe.

          So it takes that much DM, hundreds of thousands of lightyears of the stuff, for us to observe the gravitational effects it has. We don't have a snowballs chance in hell of detecting the effects a volume of DM as pathetically tiny as our entire solar system would be exerting to have "detected in here rather than out there".

          1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: And I always thought it was Dark 'cos we can't see it

            "It is attracted by ordinary matter - its gravity - but goes straight through it and out the other side. Why? because it is the electrostatic forces that present surfaces, that repel things when they get close."

            On a cosmological scale it's gravity that counts. It's gravity that holds galaxies together, not electrostatic forces. Electrostatic forces come into play at smaller scales. Electrostatic forces stop your hands passing through each other but when we see galaxies interacting it's gravitational forces that determine the outcome.

            We're also told that dark matter, like ordinary matter, forms its own structures on cosmological scales. What's not clear is why ordinary and dark matter cosmological structures don't coincide given that they have a mutual attraction. I'd expect to see a single set of structures with dark and ordinary matter being similarly distributed.

            1. Naselus

              Re: And I always thought it was Dark 'cos we can't see it

              "they are not "conceits made to make models work", they are "conceits" (if you will) to make observations of certain things consistent with physical laws that explain everything else."

              Um, the combination of all the laws of physics is a model. So yes, they genuinely ARE 'conceits made to make models work'.

              It's just that almost all the other bits of the model are independently, observably true - the model isn't incorrect, but rather is incomplete.

        2. lglethal Silver badge
          Go

          Re: And I always thought it was Dark 'cos we can't see it

          "The problem I have with the idea of dark matter is that if it exists it should be very easy to detect."

          Why? Why should it be easy to detect?

          A failed star like Jupiter is not directly observable. The only times we have been able to observe it is when it passes directly inline between its star and our planet (definitely a rarity), and when it is larger enough to induce a "wobble" in the orbit of its parent star. But how many systems have these almost stars but which we cant (yet) observe. How many exist in deep space having been ejected from their parents systems?

          Brown Dwarves are stars that are very cool, having exhausted their fuel and shut down their reactions, without being large enough to go spectacular (e.g. in a nova). how many of these eixts out there that have gotten so cold and dark that they are no longer producing enough light to be observed. The only way to observe these would be due to their effect on gravitational lensing, but if we are not looking for something directly behind them, then we arent going to see them.

          Given the size and numbers we are talking about in our estimates of galactic masses, being off with our assumptions on these sorts of things and a dozen others could account for all of that mass being "missing". It doesnt mean its not normal mass, just that we cant see it, and we arent likely to spot these things in the near term either.

          When it comes to galaxies the numbers are just so big, and the assumptions so massive, it often seems easier to make up new laws, but remember Occams razor normally applies. Dark energy on the other hand is a WHOLE other question...

      3. Michael Biddulph

        Great post

        Excellent post...

    3. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

      Re: And I always thought it was Dark 'cos we can't see it

      I always thought that String theory was the key - that, and Sellotape and Brown Paper. This paper (Milligan, Seccombe, Sellars et al, 1958) should make things clearer:

      Technical paper

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: And I always thought it was Dark 'cos we can't see it

      JassMan Stated :

      "You never know ... maybe it really is turtles all the way down."

      Elephants. It's elephants all the way down. Four of them (well, five, really). Standing on A (= ONE) turtle.

      Get your facts straight. How are you supposed to unravel the secrets of the universe if you can't get your facts straight ?

  2. Mark 85 Silver badge

    The stuff of science fiction...?

    Multiverses? So were all likely just some kid's science project then.. generating universes to see what happens? Nah...can't be.

    1. Chairo

      Re: The stuff of science fiction...?

      So were all likely just some kid's science project then.. generating universes to see what happens?

      Ask the mice, they know.

  3. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Headmaster

    We don't even know what's going on, but we do computer simulations of it

    A universe containing life like ours is probably more common in the multiverse than previously thought, according to new theoretical studies.

    Sadly the multiverse is a part of pulp fiction and about as solid science as Star Trek time-travel wormholes. It's a way to avoid having to solve the hard problems while feeling pretty good about it.

    The idea of multiple universes existing in parallel has gained traction in the last few decades

    This is a mistaken belief that is generated by looking at the flashy dubious papers, lavishly illustrated popular science output and sellable bookware. There is not even a consenseus on what the Multiverse is (the interpretations range from Everett Multiverses (a new universe on each decoherence, an incoherent idea if there ever was one) to Linde Multiverses (one infinite universe with many domains) to Guth Multiverses (eternal inflation with universe bubbles) to String Landscape Multiverses (I don't even know in what the Stringoverse Landscape lives).

    The Degenerated Science that is the Multiverse (soon to be merged with SJW-ness into the Multicultiverse, I imagine) is deservedly ripped at the Multiverse Mania part of Peter Woit's Blog.

    In particular, we read: New Year’s Multiverse, January 2017 and from 15 Years of Multiverse Mania, January 2018:

    Back in 2003-4 I never would have believed that the subject would end up in the state it finds itself in now. With the LHC results removing the last remaining hope for observational evidence relevant to string theory unification, what we’ve been seeing the last few years has been a concerted campaign to avoid admitting failure by the destructive tactic of trying to change the usual conception of testable science. Two examples of this from last week were discussed here, and today there’s a third effort along the same lines, Quantum Multiverses, by Hartle. Unlike the others, this one includes material on the interpretation of quantum mechanics one may or may not agree with, but of no relevance to the fundamental problem of not having a predictive theory that can be tested. ....

    .... A good place to look for information about the current state of string landscape [one special form of the multiple interpretations of the "Multiverse"] calculations is at the website for this workshop. The idea that the problems of this subject can be solved by “modern techniques in data science” seems to me absurd, but for a different point of view, look at the slides of Michael Douglas. For something more sensible, try the talk by Frederik Denef, which describes some of the fundamental intractable problems:

    -> You don’t have a complete theory, with only some non-perturbative corrections known, no systematic understanding of these.

    -> Dine-Seiberg Problem: When corrections can be computed, they are not important, and when they are important, they cannot be computed.

    -> Measure Problem: Whenever a landscape measure is strongly predictive, it is wrong, and when it’s not, we don’t know if it’s right.

    -> Tractability Problem: Whenever a low energy property is selective enough to single out a few vacua, finding these vacua is intractable.

    Denef does make some very interesting comments about where modern techniques in data science might actually be useful: dealing not with the landscape of string vacua, but with the huge landscape of string theory papers (e.g. the 15,000 papers that refer to the Maldacena paper).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Pint

      Re: We don't even know what's going on, but we do computer simulations of it

      I was gonna say the same stuff, but you did it way better. --->

    2. W.S.Gosset Bronze badge

      Re: We don't even know what's going on, but we do computer simulations of it

      >Sadly the multiverse is a part of pulp fiction and about as solid science as Star Trek time-travel wormholes. It's a way to avoid having to solve the hard problems

      To quote Mr Squiggle: "upside down, Miss Jane".

      Or to put it another way: you have it exactly the wrong way round.

      It is in fact one of the 2 solutions to a core problem of quantum mechanics, the probabilistic-vs-deterministic nature of reality pre-vs-post observation.

      To put it another way: it is solid science.

      And the scifi boys picked it up from the scientific literature, not the other way round. That's in fact how most hard scifi works and has always worked.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The theory of the theory of the theory

    During a set of community lectures at held at Sydney University, an Australian Geologist working on the NASA water on mars, drew a diagram on the whiteboard it was a huge and 'C' like except more closed and had a tiny (about 1/16) extra stick on the inside of the bottom end.

    "This is the Genetic Family Tree of all life on Earth", "this huge section (the curve) here is comprised of single cell and multi celled organisms", the life form at the intersection of this 'stick bit' here are 'Algae, and they continue along 'the curve' there". The first life form on the short stick part is 'Fungi' and then in turn all other life, 'Plants', 'Sea life & Fish', 'Insects', 'Birds', 'Reptiles', 'Mammals', 'Humans' etc."

    We looked on with awe.

    He continued, "Micro Organisms have a continued existence for over 3 billion years, live in a myriad of places, all over the outside and inside the earth's surface, in rocks, plants and other life, even humans, in hot and cold extremes, just about everywhere."

    "They have traveled off the planet, thrown up by volcanic explosion and comet strike, and returned, and they exist today in greater number and mass than all other life on earth put together."

    "They individually live short lives, consume and reproduce, and die often, do not have brains, yet they are far more successful than humans.".

    It was a view I had not approached, but now presented to me and others, could never drop.

    Micro-organisms, space traveling, success stories and more successful than humans.

    Birds and animals and probably other life i.e. sea life, etc too, were hunting by fire, using tools to accomplish tasks, have personality, feelings, intellect all before humans existed.

    Of course life exists in the universe, micro-organisms, occasionally algae, molds & fungi, more rarely insects, and more rarely again fish & birds, then extremely mammals.

    Homo-sapiens Sapiens, had more imagination than did the other Homo genus's, even Homo-sapiens Neanderthalensis.

    We come along invent GOD, tell ourselves he made us in his own image and we have the right to consume and destroy whatever we wish, much in fear of existence itself.....

    We are still suffering from this over active imagination, with thinking on Dark matter. This matter was the difference between that which we observed and what our theories calculated. We now use theory to help with our observations. While at the same time imagining up to and beyond a mirror-verse of repeating universes in a multitude of dimensions.

    A simulation is only a good as the sum of it's parts. Some life game on a quantum computer is still a life game on a computer. Scientists still cannot model exactly how our galaxy formed, or what happened to it to arrive where at we are today. Models that run backward only show the limitation of our current understanding, the clock turns but little happens after a short period.

    Get real, focus on our planet, the solar system, and the galaxy if you have to but keep it real.

    1. Adair

      Re: The theory of the theory of the theory

      Probably best to leave 'God' out of this. If all 'this' is simply a desperate attempt to 'prove' that God is not then it really is a monumental fraud. If it is a genuine attempt to understand what is (within our abilities to perceive the reality we are part of) and to understand how that 'reality' works then 'Hurrah', a very worthy goal.

      But, the 'God' question is a whole other matter, that quite properly remains open to anyone to explore - regardless of intellect, education, money, or power, and long may it stay that way. It's bad enough having the religious institutions trying to monopolise the space, not to mention monetise it in some instances, without having 'scientists' attempting a land grab.

      There may be one functional universe or billions - doesn't really effect the basic questions facing us all: 'How shall I live, and why?' The reality of 'God', or not does impact our answers to those questions, but if 'God is love' then in quite an interesting way. Anyway, we each get to decide: how I shall live, and why.

      1. handleoclast

        Re: The theory of the theory of the theory

        But, the 'God' question is a whole other matter,

        Or, possibly, a dark matter since we have no direct observations of it.

  5. spold Bronze badge

    I for one welcome our new multiverse overlords.

  6. Grikath

    Phlogiston

    'nuff said.

    1. handleoclast

      Re: Phlogiston

      Yep. When the evidence started to mount against phlogiston they tried to salvage it by saying sometimes it had positive mass and sometimes it had negative mass.

      Now we have dark matter pulling things together and dark energy pushing them apart. It would be amusing if they shared the same cause, and that cause was some kind of boson, because boson names often end in -on. So we could call it the phlogiston. So apt.

    2. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: Phlogiston

      More like epicycles, really.

    3. GIRZiM Bronze badge

      Re: Phlogiston

      I only came here to say that very thing myself!

      Glad to see some people still have a knowledge of the history of Physics : D

  7. The Oncoming Scorn Silver badge
    Coat

    Fithy Rich & Counterpart...

    Lend me a few hundred grand please (In gold - Currency may not be be recognised), you know it makes sense........

    The Lord helps those that help themselves.

  8. Timmy B Silver badge

    It the real world where we have actual life people are dying of disease and starvation whilst we waste money on this. It seems to me that one day this will all look like spontaneous generation to future scientists.

    1. Vath
      Big Brother

      So, you think someone should sit all the science types down and explain to them that for the greater good they should be studying this other thing instead of what they've chosen and are presumably passionate about? Sounds eerily familiar but I can't quite put my finger on it...

      1. Timmy B Silver badge

        No - study whatever they want. We should not take public money away from research into more important things. If what they are doing is so important and world changing then seek private finance which will be gladly given as the cost benefits will be obvious. None of this should be from the public purse in any way at all. If this is not publicly funded in any way I have no issues at all. I strongly suspect that some government money went to the Durham part.

        I'd like to think those able to support or help in development of something that would actually make life better for others would want to rather than perform research that no more proves multiverses than some pulp sci-fi.

  9. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse Silver badge

    Just sayin'...

    Our universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding,

    In all of the directions it can whiz;

    As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,

    Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is.

    So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,

    How amazingly unlikely is your birth;

    And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,

    'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!

  10. sitta_europea Bronze badge

    Don't quite understand.

    "Cosmologists don’t quite understand ..."

    I think you mean that they haven't got a bloody clue.

  11. TrumpSlurp the Troll
    Trollface

    Three wise cosmologists?

    Hear no matter, see no matter, speak no matter?

    Aliernatively, please complete :

    Oh, dear, where can the matter be?

    Oh, dear, where can the matter be?

    Oh, dear, where can the matter be?

    Johnie's so long at the.........

  12. Nimby
    Devil

    Because Bob from Multiverse Beta-Beta-Prime told me so.

    You see, we know that dark energy is real and the multiverse is real because we can observe entropy. How does this explain it? Well we know that at its most fundamental level all matter is actually energy. We know that all quantum states simultaneously exist. And we know that time is linear. So as a "multiverse" with a single constant of energy continues to support more and more quantum states over time, that energy becomes further and further distributed among those states, making each individual universe supportive of the representation of one state comprised of progressively weaker and weaker energy as you follow the progression of time and thus the increase in cumulative state representations. It's a simple tree diagram beginning from the Big Bang, that you just can't see it because you perceive only one accumulation of quantum states over time. So of course dark energy exists. And of course life is common in the multiverse. Bob told me so, so it must be true.

    1. Cheesemouse

      Re: Because Bob from Multiverse Beta-Beta-Prime told me so.

      That's all very well but answer me this. Is there a Cod?

  13. Florida1920
    Pint

    The multiverse is a good explanation

    for where my car went when I can't find it after a few ----------->

  14. Ugotta B. Kiddingme

    I wonder...

    If the brane model multiverse (or something like it) is correct then might perhaps "dark" energy affecting this universe be "normal" or "light" energy in an adjacent brane? Maybe it's "dark" and only indirectly interacts with normal matter/energy in our visible universe because it's not actually IN our universe but just outside in the next brane over.

    The preceding Wild-Arsed Guess is purely speculation on my part for conversation's sake only and any connection with actual facts would be a rather enormous coincidence. I lay NO claim to any scientific knowledge or professional credentials/education with which to make any such statements authoritatively.

    1. Rich 11 Silver badge

      Re: I wonder...

      I lay NO claim to any scientific knowledge or professional credentials/education with which to make any such statements authoritatively.

      In all fairness, I accept your willingness to make no factual claim. Consequently I also dismiss your wild-arsed speculation.

      In case you think that seems unfair then I suggest you read over your contribution once more. You are contrasting light with dark, seemingly ignoring the reason why one unknown has been given the shorthand 'dark'.

      You also need to read up on M-Theory.

  15. Claptrap314 Bronze badge

    "Dark" does not mean "special"

    "Dark matter" means nothing other than "we don't see it shining". Think Oort cloud objects. Or comets away from the sun. Or Neptune, asteroids or moons other than our own before telescopes. Also, burnt out, really dim, or failed stars, rouge planets, cold gas clouds and isolated black holes.

    Fiction loves to have other ideas--it's a great way to pull magic into an otherwise tech-dominated world--but science is sometimes boring.

  16. 89724105618719278590214I9405670349743096734346773478647852349863592355648544996313855148583659264921 Bronze badge

    It's always dark in Uranus.

    (I presume so)

  17. Dropper

    To assume

    "the idea that the universe is the way it is today and can obviously support life because we exist"

    That's a pretty big assumption.. we might equally all be the figment of each other's imaginations.

    1. Rich 11 Silver badge

      Re: To assume

      Then you can fuck off because I know you don't exist.

    2. GIRZiM Bronze badge

      Re: To assume

      Actually, the neurological realities of our psychology means that we are all the figment of each other's imaginations. Or, rather, that is to say, you're all the figment of my imagination (I'm a sick and twisted bar steward) but I have no reason to suspect that you are any more than that and have some sort of external existence (I might be schizophrenic for all I now).

      TL;DR I exist; all else is supposition - Descartes was right.

      1. onefang Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: To assume

        "Or, rather, that is to say, you're all the figment of my imagination (I'm a sick and twisted bar steward)"

        You drink, therefore I am?

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Speculation

    abounds and is limitless when there is little or no chance of testing theory against observation.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019