Creator of xkcd Reveals Secret Back-story of His Epic, 3,099-Panel 'Time' Comic 187
vikingpower writes "Randall Munroe, the comic author best known as the creator of the xkcd webcomic, reveals the secret backstory of his epic, 3099-panel 'Time' strip in an interesting interview with Wired. He says, 'In my comic, our civilization is long gone. Every civilization with written records has existed for less than 5,000 years; it seems optimistic to hope that the current one will last for 10,000 more ... The Earth’s axis wobbles over the millennia, and some individual stars move visibly, so I used a few different pieces of astronomy software–with a lot of hand correction and tweaking–to render the future night sky. When the Sun sets in the night sequence, one of the first things you see is the gap where Antares should be, which was the first clue that this is taking place in the far future. Later in the night–which lasted for several days of real time–more astronomical details let readers pin down the date more precisely.' The comic can be seen as an animation on YouTube. There is also a complete click-through version available on geekwagon. This comic inspired a dedicated wiki and has its own glossary."
Linear B (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
lol I'm so glad now that I didn't read TFS.
XKCD is normally really funny (Score:2, Interesting)
and it usually makes you think in order to 'get it'. But this one, I dunno. It was never funny, obviously in the future (regardless what extreme calculations were made for the night sky scene) and ended like a bad movie. There was never an overall point (unless I missed it) and I feel like I looked at it in hopes of something that wasn't. I'll bet many others were like me in that they watched it, waiting (as instructed), only to find out that it was a big fat bitch, sorta like "The X Files". I did thin
Re:XKCD is normally really funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Carve it into granite tablets (Score:1)
We should carve thisxkcdinto granite tablets so the future can have something to look back on and be amused.
Re: (Score:2)
We should carve thisxkcdinto granite tablets so the future can have something to look back on and be amused.
The world's most painful flipbook!
Re: (Score:2)
that will be one very large flip book, Think of the size of it's spine.
A Short, Sharp Shock (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd never heard of that, but your response made me think of this Twilight Zone episode:
"Probe 7 - Over and Out"
http://www.tvrage.com/The_Twilight_Zone/episodes/212863 [tvrage.com]
"Future" as future? (Score:2, Interesting)
Every civilization with written records has existed for less than 5,000 years; it seems optimistic to hope that the current one will last for 10,000 more ...
I have a few quotes to share about that.
"Not for the first time I felt myself confronted by the dizzying possibility that an entire episode in the story of mankind might have been forgotten." -- Graham Hancock
"In short, we appear to be approaching the end of the line. We cannot expand; we seem unable to intensify production without wreaking further havoc, and the planet is fast becoming a wasteland." -- James Serpell, In the Company of Animals: A Study of Human-Animal Relationships
"Evolution has developed (
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
or we're just on the edge of eternity and there was no ancient atlantis civilization, nothing that made it this far before. that humans didn't have plastics before our time I'm quite sure of, of that there were no intercontinental information networks I'm quite sure of. I'm quite sure that they couldn't move from any point on the planet to any other at will(even if they devoted their whole life to it) before "current" civilization. that is to say that in history it's very, very unlikely that there were a ph
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree that parent should have been modded as a troll.
To me, Linkola's numbers don't make sense. Why would he write in 1992 that the planet can sustain only 2 million human beings, and now 20 years later his claim is that the Earth can sustain 500 million? The answer is simple: Linkola isn't actually calculating for the whole planet.
Linkola is only interested in Finland and the future of the possibility of a lifestyle of doing nothing but fishing for a living, plain and simple. He is a firm believer in
Re: (Score:2)
At any rate, when Pentti wasn't gaining popularity, he just figured that he was scaring too many people. After all would you agree with a plan to save the world if it involved your slaughter?
So he increased the number of people (probably Finlanders) he would need to include in the great plan of green fascism, and then by ratio increased the number of "large mammals of this size which the planet can safely sustain".
So now Pentti is a fan of 500 million instead of only 2 million people. That itself is a prett
well... (Score:2)
It's probably a bunch of meaningless gibberish but I don't think we can afford to take any chances. I'm going to accept it as my new religion and id suggest you all do the same.
art (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm dismayed to see how many comments on the Wired piece and here on Slashdot say such shallowly bad things (it is not criticism, so I won't call it that) about xkcd and this particular project. Do these commentors not know how hard it is to make a thing? Art? Computer programs? New ideas? Try it. Dedicate yourself to something for days, weeks, years. You will see. Never mistake the common phrase "they make it look easy" with "what they are doing is easy". Try to learn and always remember that things that matter are always way harder than they look like they'll be, and the disparity between these two is sometimes the greatest for the very best things.
xkcd and the 'Time' project are not perfect because perfection is unattainable. But I submit that Munroe is a serious artist: he is impressively prolific, and his creations are often deep, thought-provoking, and simply beautiful and fun to look at. Just look at some of the time slices on their own merits, independent of what you think of the story. Are not some of the silhouetted scenes simply wonderful to explore with your eyes?
Now be inspired and create something of your own.
Like humour ... (Score:5, Insightful)
And how long has writing existed for?
Randall Munroe is an embarrassing illustration of the mediocrity of the average modern nerd. He says nothing which isn't either cliche or oversimplified.
I thought I was alone in this until a few weeks ago I found a site called xkcdsucks [blogspot.com], and it appears I'm not alone in thinking this.
Your personal taste can be different from mass appeal. But, unlike business practice, what harm does it do to simply appreciate the fact that you like things that other people don't like - and they'll like things you don't like?
... but if they're just providing things that others enjoy, why attack it simply because you dislike it?
Just like stand-up comedy, some artists may not do things you like
Re:Like humour ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation:
If you can't stand tall on your own merits, try knocking everyone else down...
Re: Like humour ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah so the real problem is that you like to hear yourself talking and immediately dislike anything that prevents you from doing that for twenty minutes a day?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about him, but part of the reason I dislike xkcd so much isn't just because I dislike the comic ..., but because people just bring it up so damn often. I mean, yeah, if you have a different sense of humor, that's fine ... but for a good two or three years I couldn't even just ignore it because it got brought up EVERYWHERE.
Yep. It sucks. Even something you only mildly dislike becomes severely irritating when unable to escape it. I call this the Inescapable Pururin Effect [youtube.com] If you like XKCD, and do not understand others revulsion to it, then every time you want to bring up XKCD play this while doing so. [youtube.com] That's what it's like.
Re: (Score:1)
This critic is overrated.
His clichéd response to this article was predictable and boring. Possibly a troll, but an unoriginal one if so.
Re:xkcd is overrated (Score:5, Informative)
I find many of his comics to be creative in a way that stretches my brain.
For example the recursive WikiLeaks comic, the dnd game with death, "something is wrong on the internet", and others.
I agree that I find some other writers more emotionally effecting (The story of Miko in Order of the Stick literally made me cry-- over stick figures!) or more creative and artistic (Questionable Content) but XKCD is +5 Insightful compared to those. He's a mirror on society- not a story teller so much.
If he wrote SF it would mostly be hard SF I think.
And his illustrations (Cancer, Radiation, Ocean Depths) are spectacular and unique. Here he shows a singular talent.
I think only someone who was in the vast minority or extremely jealous would call Munroe embarrassing. But, as I found in leading MMORGS guilds, there is always "that guy" who will argue with you about anything. Even if you want to give him a $20 bill. I guess you're "that guy".
Re: (Score:3)
Fans had already figured out that it's 39,5 North on April 10th 13291 [wikia.com].
Randall Munroe is unique because he combines skill in the arts, knowledge, humor and accessibility. In each of these areas separately he might not stand out (for the first two, consider map-making and infographics).
I wish I could mod you up. (Score:3)
I found XKCD in the mid thousands, and am always amazed at the various topics.
The "Blow-Dryer in a Box" What-If was a major point of discussion between the Engineers and Physicists, but everyone agreed with Monroe in the end, lol.
Finding the tiny velociraptor profile in my Monday morning slide is a regular contest now...
I hope XKCD lasts another few decades, at least. :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps because that wasn't IN your post?
xkcd is overrated (Score:1, Insightful)
by Joining Yet Again (2992179) Alter Relationship on Saturday August 03, 2013 @09:32AM (#44465073)
And how long has writing existed for?
Randall Munroe is an embarrassing illustration of the mediocrity of the average modern nerd. He says nothing which isn't either cliche or oversimplified.
I thought I was alone in this until a few weeks ago I found a site called xkcdsucks [blogspot.com], and it appears I'm not alone in thinking thi
Re: (Score:3)
but omitted to address the question I posed which shows why his "5,000 years" argument is nonsense.
He wrote "Every civilization with written records has existed for less than 5,000 years"
Which civilization with written records has existed for more than 5,000 years?
Re:xkcd is overrated (Score:5, Insightful)
Which civilisation involving bipeds has existed for more than 50 million years?
You appear to be confusing "civilization" with "species".
A human civilization is vaguely defined as people living in a place (in city or larger states), with a language and system of writing, set of beliefs and culture.
Taking the long view of human history civilizations get wiped out all the time, and none of the previous civilizations have lasted all that long.
Re: (Score:1)
Which civilisation involving bipeds has existed for more than 50 million years?
I think all y'all are gloriously missing the point.
That's because even with 10 or so posts
you have so gloriously failed to make it.
Re:xkcd is overrated (Score:5, Interesting)
First, not everyone is rushing to defend him. Some don't like the comic either. Most of those people make better points than you could.
As to your "question I posed which shows why his "5,000 years" argument is nonsense."
And how long has writing existed for?
You must not be able to read correctly. His quote is:
Every civilization with written records has existed for less than 5,000 years;
He isn't saying that no one ever made a mark on a stick to keep track of how many sheep he has. He is specifically saying "written records", meaning things the civilization is keeping from generation to generation. Whether heroic stories or family inheritence or tax receipts.
Now looking at Wikipedia's "History of writing" article, it points out the invention of writing at 3200 B.C.* So maybe Randall should have rounded differently, or said "about 5000 years" rather than "less than 5,000 years". But that is more a rounding error than your proof of his mediocrity.
*Note: I don't use BCE in place of B.C. As a non-religious person, I don't care which church made the calendar I am used to using. They can peg 'Year 0' at whatever point they want. Labeling the years before that as 'Before (our messiah)' is not offensive. What I find unacceptable is scientists who won't use B.C, because that implies a religious influence which they can't accept, but whose solution is is to change it to BCE and keep the dates exactly the same.
If you don't want to use B.C. because it stands for "Before Christ", and as an atheist that offends you, fine, you have the right to make whatever calendar you want. But be more original that simply removing the periods and adding the letter E, and calling your result "Before the Common Era". You are still saying the Common Era starts with the birth of Jesus, and your calendar starts with (or near) that event. You are agreeing to tie yourself to the church, while acting like you won't stand for it. (Does this offend Muslims as much as it does me?)
I would be fine if the authorities created a new calendar numbering plan that started at the dawn of civilization. Unfortunately, the only time I saw that plan, it was to pin 'Year 0' at 10,000 B.C. So then, to convert from today's date, you would simply add a '1' to the front, and go from 2013 to 12013. So they are still making what they claim to be scientifically valid choices based on the church's calendar.
Re: (Score:2)
Christ on a stick. See above.
Re: (Score:2)
Christ on a stick. See above.
Sorry. That's just a pet peeve of mine. Since the article I mentioned used the "BCE" tag, I didn't want to change it without explaining why. It did go longer than I planned at the start.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely. And a punny reference as well into the bargain.
Re: (Score:2)
He isn't saying that no one ever made a mark on a stick to keep track of how many sheep he has. He is specifically saying "written records", meaning things the civilization is keeping from generation to generation. Whether heroic stories or family inheritence or tax receipts.
Also, if we were 5000 years into a 123,000,000 year civilization, The current observation would be the same, but imply the opposite of reality. Thus the observation, no matter how accurate, is meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no year 0. You've got a starting point, from which you proceed timewise to reach a full year. The period from start to end is year 1. 0 is a point, not a duration. This is very, very, simple counting, not even rising to arithmetic, really. Arithmetic can, and is, used for doing calculations - "I'm two years older than you." and the like.
Think of a calendar as a measuring stick, such a yardstick or ruler that just gets longer. The end of it, from which you read off to get to 3 1/4, is your 0.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want to use B.C. because it stands for "Before Christ", and as an atheist that offends you, fine, you have the right to make whatever calendar you want. But be more original that simply removing the periods and adding the letter E, and calling your result "Before the Common Era". You are still saying the Common Era starts with the birth of Jesus, and your calendar starts with (or near) that event. You are agreeing to tie yourself to the church, while acting like you won't stand for it.
Except ou
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it's due to the interference of a tinfoil hat, but we cannot read your mind. You must actually write down any questions you wish to pose.
Re: (Score:1)
Let me put this in more explicit terms for you. [bbc.co.uk]
Is this enough to understand why his "5,000 years" statement is nonsensical?
Re:xkcd is overrated (Score:4, Insightful)
From the BBC article you linked to ...
The Harappan language died out and did not form the basis of other languages.
Dr Meadow: "The earliest inscriptions date back to 3500 BC."
"So probably we will never know what the symbols mean," Dr Meadow told BBC News Online from Harappa.
What historians know of the Harappan civilisation makes them unique. Their society did not like great differences between social classes or the display of wealth by rulers. They did not leave behind large monuments or rich graves.
They appear to be a peaceful people who displayed their art in smaller works of stone.
Their society seems to have petered out. Around 1900 BC Harappa and other urban centres started to decline as people left them to move east to what is now India and the Ganges.
So in this case, the civilisation lasted for less than 5000 years...
(Just for reference, here's the original quote you had an issue with: Every civilization with written records has existed for less than 5,000 years.)
Re: (Score:3)
Chill out, man. The original point is not that it's "unlikely" that humans will sustain a civilization for 10,000 years more, only that that's "optimistic". The (admittedly pessimistic) idea that the current civilization will collapse was used to write a story about the hypothetical civilization that will come after this one. That's all.
(By the way, "civilization" usually implies "having a writing system", so it's weird to say "civilization that writes". In the same vein, you should understand "every civili
Re: (Score:2)
He said that " Every civilization with written records has existed for less than 5,000 years". He didn't say that no writing had lasted for more than 5,000 years.
The article doesn't note whether the civilization that created the writing is still around or if it lasted 5,000 years,
Re: (Score:2)
So, a script which lasted for 3500 years, stopped being used, and is undecipherable because it did not survive is the basis for arguing that written languages have survived longer than 5,000 years? Show me a written language that is/was still in use 5,000 years after its creation.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some pictographs that convey language and knowledge which are older than 5,000 years. The oldest writing of any kind dates back to about 40,000 years ago (admittedly not really writing in the sense of a Charles Dickens novel, but knowledge preservation none the less).
I'd agree with you though in general terms that written language is a comparatively modern accomplishment (compared to how long mankind has been on the Earth) and coincides with the construction of permanent cities. 5,000 years (giv
Re: (Score:1)
"...although I don't think I'd be as blunt and unpleasant about it as the OP was"
So you're a kinder, gentler troll?
Re:xkcd is overrated (Score:5, Interesting)
Fine. What about the comics he makes that have nothing to do with computers?
He did ones about Money, Gravity Wells, and Non-Technical Rockets. He had one you had to mouse through that was a couple miles wide, and referenced many of our favorite geeky cultural icons. So go be a sysadmin because you like computers. We'll go enjoy something we like, such as a webcomic.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Randall Munroe is an embarrassing illustration of the mediocrity of the average modern nerd. He says nothing which isn't either cliche or oversimplified.
I thought I was alone in this until a few weeks ago I found a site called xkcdsucks [blogspot.com], and it appears I'm not alone in thinking this.
In my experience, people who like to make claims that so and so is cliche or oversimplified are people who are just not smart enough to understand the art or the topic at hand. They think they understand it, but they don't.
Speaking of understanding things, xkcdsucks is a great example of Poe's Law. I really have no idea if those bloggers actually dislike xkcd or are huge fans making fun of people who complain about it. I mean, they complain about the lack of originality in Randall's stuff by making posts
Re:xkcd is overrated (Score:5, Funny)
I thought I was alone in this until a few weeks ago I found a site called xkcdsucks [blogspot.com], and it appears I'm not alone in thinking this.
Hey, look at me! My opinion is valid because I found a website that says the same thing.
Re:xkcd is overrated (Score:5, Funny)
I thought I was alone in this until a few weeks ago I found a site called xkcdsucks [blogspot.com], and it appears I'm not alone in thinking this.
Hey, look at me! My opinion is valid because I found a website that says the same thing.
I'm making a sig out of that.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought I was alone in this until a few weeks ago I found a site called xkcdsucks [blogspot.com], and it appears I'm not alone in thinking this.
Hey, look at me! My opinion is valid because I found a website that says the same thing.
I'm making a sig out of that.
I want a t-shirt that says that.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought I was alone in this until a few weeks ago I found a site called xkcdsucks [blogspot.com], and it appears I'm not alone in thinking this.
Hey, look at me! My opinion is valid because I found a website that says the same thing.
His opinion is as valid as yours.
Sheesh, xkcd is just a web comic. Some people like it, some don't, some (like me) find it hit or miss. But why can't people just disagree and leave it at that? It's a freaking comic.
Re: (Score:2)
No! He can't do that. Can't you see? Someone on the internet is wrong!
Re: (Score:2)
Oblig: http://xkcd.com/386/ [xkcd.com]
Re:xkcd is overrated (Score:5, Funny)
His opinion is as valid as yours.
I'm not so sure, there wasn't a reference to a website.
Re: (Score:2)
Sheesh, it's an argument, some points are insightful, others are a little over the top and baitish. But why can't people just let each other discuss why they have differing opinions and attempt to enlighten themselves?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But the existence of someone else with a different opinion means someone thinks I'm wrong. That's insulting. If they were as smart as me and knew what I know, they should have the same opinion. Fuck you and your "tolerance". We don't allow that on the Internet.
Best 5-sentence summary of the internet right here. Well, the part that isn't porn or cat pictures. 75% porn, 20% cat pictures, 5% this ^^^.
But in all seriousness, if people could understand that their life experience was not the authoritative example of the human condition and that therefore everyone who disagrees is wrong/stupid/evil, the world would be a better place.
Dear internet: don't take yourself so damn seriously. Look at some more cat pictures.
Re: (Score:2)
and it appears I'm not alone in thinking this.
Nope, there are two of you. You should start a (the?) local chapter.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, that one made me laugh. Thank you.
Re:xkcd is overrated (Score:5, Funny)
And how long has writing existed for?
Randall Munroe is an embarrassing illustration of the mediocrity of the average modern nerd.
Long enough that we figured out you don't end a sentence with an unnecessary preposition. Talk about embarrassing mediocrity. You can't even muster a proper sentence with which to condemn your betters.
Re:xkcd is overrated (Score:5, Funny)
This is the sort of bloody nonsense on my lawn up with which I will not put.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you need a book of quotes to learn about that one, you should get out of the basement more.
Re: (Score:2)
This is coming from the guy who has several clauses lacking verbs in his response...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_Law [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I was tolerant of your posts until you started changing other people's words in your quotes so as to attack them. I gave you the benefit of the doubt on the trolling accusations, but you slipped up pretty big once you went down that road. The sad thing is that once you're outed as a troll, you lose your troll powers (at least, for the current thread.) Looks like you lost this one. Better luck next time, I guess.
xkcd is better than average for comic (Score:1)
but Randall's Time comic was a lame waste of time, not much depth there.
Also amusing yet sad Munroe, who has studied physics, would believe the lame nonsense that we've stripped all easily retrievable hydrocarbon fuel so could not reboot with an industrial revolution again. Besides the fact we have coal supply sufficient for millennia, there are at least two other ways civilization can be powered up again. Materials and energy, the two things that drive technology forward, we won't lose either one even if
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
wrong, coal is a hydrocarbon and is easily cracked into any length chain you would desire. we have coal for millennia. the percentage of hydrocarbons made into plastic is about 3%, but most of the applications have non-plastic substitutes: synthetic fabrics, containers, vehicle consoles and controls, device chassis, packing and bags....world would be cleaner if we didn't use plastics for those *now*, "natural" alternatives exist
Re: (Score:2)
Coal is not a hydrocarbon, as it lacks the "hydro" part. Thus, it cannot be cracked. What can be done is using it to create water gas [wikipedia.org], which can be converted to hydrocarbons via the Fischer-Tropsch [wikipedia.org] process.
Re: (Score:2)
you have a misconception, maybe you think coal is pure carbon? look it up, plenty of H and OH (and the occassional sulphur) hanging off the carbon.
Coal can indeed be converted to syngas and liquid hydrocarbons like very clean diesel fuel by Fischer-Tropsch process. (processes invented in 19th century)
Besides, plastics and fuels can be made from plant matter too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
wrong, wrong and wrong. We haven't even reached "peak copper" nor peak iron, and that which has been refined doesn't mysteriously vanish from the earth, we did succeeding generations a favor by converting to easily recoverable form. We have coal for millennia.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not even remotely the question. Writing is a red herring - it is just a qualifier to the assertion that civilizations appear to have a limited shelf life. Maybe the current global civilization will exceed that, but one out of the many that have existed, is optimistic.
Every civilization [with written records] has existed for less than 5,000 years; it seems optimistic to hope that the current one will last for 10,000 more .
While everyone else hates on your for you
Re: (Score:1)
So is it a red herring, or a qualifier to the assertion?
Humans haven't been forming civilisations with written records for more than five thousand years, so of course none has existed for more than five thousand years. Clear enough, ya oik?
Re:xkcd is overrated (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to blow your mind right now. I mean seriously mind-fuck material. Want to know how to earn a bazillion dollars? I'll tell you. It takes work, and it won't happen overnight, but it is like printing your own money, only legally.
Take one idea that seems to have a fan base. One single thing that a large group of people agree is a good thing. Any group of people, any object of affection.
Make a web site dedicated to pointing out all of the flaws, inconsistencies, errors, fails, and general pointlessness of that thing. You don't even have to agree with yourself. Just hate something - vehemently and consistently, except for a few occasions when you pay a back-handed compliment.
And the magical part - allow comments.
People who don't agree will post raging apoplectic fits on how wrong you are. Your fans will post raging apoplectic fits on how wrong your haters are. Non-participants will hit your page daily just to see their "avatars" fight, regardless of their chosen side. Through all of this, you will get PAGE VIEWS which turn into ad revenue. You will have eyeballs, and dollars.
Cafe Press will have "Joining Yet Again is retarded" coffee mugs, and "Joining Yet Again is the new Christ" napkin holders, under your control and out of your control. You will be the messiah and the anti-christ, and rich beyond your wildest dreams.
And you don't have to be honest once.
Here's another tip that will blow your already blown mind. Other people have figured this out already.
And finally, since I'm basically retirement planning for you now, doing it on Slashdot earns dollars for Dice, not for you. How did you earn two replies today? You are a spectacular idiot - a shining example of how not to think, and how not to post. The rarest of the rare, a genuine failure pile. And I stopped to help you be less failtastic, or at least encourage you to be failtastic somewhere else, like in a closet with no internet connection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I highly doubt you author The Oatmeal; you have too high an opinion of yourself for that to be plausible.
Re: (Score:2)
I find that The Oatmeal is even worse than xkcd at talking down at me, and takes weird viewpoints on stuff and then expects everyone to agree as it's "a universal truth."
Re: (Score:3)
Who wants links to someone's stuff, if they are so unoriginal they have to use characters someone else created?
I can understand liking stories someone writes about characters/stories I like to enjoy. But his claiming he does more than xkcd just because he writes "a lot of" plagiarized stories is just lame.He thinks he does more work than Randall Monroe just because he spews a lot of crap onto pages.
I wonder if a plot point in his work has ever been the future time-frame for a star going nova. Not simply "a
Re: (Score:2)
He's a blowhard for sure, but you're no better. My advice, find a dictionary and look up "plagiarized." That's your personal Word of the Day.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm using the word "plagiarized" in the sense that the names and places he uses are not his own. Everyone who uses a line like, "You bastards. You killed Kenny!", is plagiarizing South Park.
Going to http://www.merriam-webster.com/ [merriam-webster.com] it gives the definition of "plagiarize" to be:
to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
He certainly is using someone else's creation, and claiming his fanfic as his own.
Standing on shoulders of giants (Score:2)
He certainly is using someone else's creation
Where does standing on shoulders of giants (as Bernard of Chartres put it) end and misappropriation begin? Where should it?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm fine with him doing so, and I don't have an issue with fanfic. Although I don't read it generally, it isn't about it being plagiarized. I just don't care for most of the stories people write for it.
But his argument is saying his fanfic is more original than Randall Monroe's original creations. That's what I find ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, you are right. The troll above could write a completely original story about discovering an ancient city, and simply have the people in the story as the characters of South Park. It would be more original than if xkcd had a retelling of Romeo and Juliet using Cueball and Megan as the title characters. Both would be using someone else's characters and back story, so both would be a form of plagiarism in my view.
But the troll says specifically this:
Also I've written a lot of South Park fanfic, which is a hell of a lot more than xkcd does.
Sounds to me like he is claiming to be more important th
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for clearing that up.
I don't agree with you, at all, but I'm not a South Park fan. So the whole devotion thing is lost on me.
But as always, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm using the word "plagiarized" in the sense that the names and places he uses are not his own. Everyone who uses a line like, "You bastards. You killed Kenny!", is plagiarizing South Park.
Good luck making that claim hold up. The line you quote has for a long time been a standard parodic cliche. The thought that anyone would fail to recognize the source is laughable. You might as well claim that writing "Veni, vidi, vici" without attribution is plagiarism.
Re: xkcd is overrated (Score:4, Insightful)
As to Randall's nuclear apology chart, you can find it here [xkcd.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting... I'd never seen that before.
He did screw up on the item in the green chart labeled "Extra dose to Tokyo in weeks following Fukushima accident". He wrote that as 40 mSv, while the graphic depicts 40 uSv, which, based on context, is probably the correct unit.
Re: (Score:1)
Trick question!
Chefs don't eat out!
not what your mama said!
Re: (Score:2)
I adore the way people abuse meta-moderation by marking several unmoderated posts in a row as Overrated when they don't like someone.
And you know this because...?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I see what you meant. I forgot the 'overrated' tag bypasses meta-moderation. I thought you meant the abuse happened during meta-moderation, which didn't make sense to me.
Re: (Score:2)
yes you are way off-topic.
Apology NOT accepted.
Re:Please... (Score:5, Informative)
It was for lack of better terminology, an entirely new way of doing a webcomic. Usually XKCD updates 3 times a week, with a new URL for each one (and very rarely do stories continue across updates), Time updated every 30 minutes at the same URL, initially with minute variations, which lots of the regular viewers missed for quite a while. The complete lack of dialogue for the first 100 or so frames meant that people were being challenged to create their own backstory. The story itself also got grander in scope as it progressed, with subtle hints towards the setting being given. That it went for months, and over 3000 frames (which when viewed are effectively a stop-motion movie), is also unprecedented to my knowledge. It also managed to spawn a thread which managed to stay on-topic for over 50000 posts, (as well as a whole pile of jargon within that thread.)
It isn't the greatest story ever told, but the method of presentation (particularly the enforced wait between frames which leads to great speculation), subtle hints which rely on not insignificant prior knowledge (the time-period was placed by a particularly beautiful, and accurate, rendering of the night sky which was presented over a period of days), make it unique.
Re:Please... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, will I get hooked? I can't even commit to a 2 hour movie most times.
Said the guy in the basement.
Re: (Score:2)
And then there's people who have a life, and don't waste their time with something as meaningless as sitting around and speculating about something imaginary.
I don't watch a story. I AM a story. A much longer and much better one. (And you can be too! [That's my point])
The irony is that you are saying such a statement to a computer group that you have no objective way of proving to be real.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe nobody is supposed to figure out. There are plenty of cryptographic schemes, which Randall could be using, if he don't want anybody to figure out. It could be an HMAC computed using a key, which only Randall knows. An HMAC preserves all the collision resistance properties of the underlying hash, but cannot be computed by anybody without knowledge of the key. It might not be a hash function at all, but instead a block cipher applied to some data. It could also