Creator of xkcd Reveals Secret Back-story of His Epic, 3,099-Panel 'Time' Comic

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."

Comments

xkcd is overrated

[Joining Yet Again]

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, and it appears I'm not alone in thinking this.

Re: xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

Haters gotta...

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck have you done lately?

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

In contrast to XKCD's silly simplistic cliches, I'm sure you provide sophisticated, insightful, and compelling commentary three times a week. What's your site, again?

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

Randall Munroe is an embarrassing illustration of the mediocrity of the average modern nerd.

Sounds like you have trouble with him being successful more than him being mediocre. What's wrong? You sound moderately mad at least, one could go as far to say as that you're fuming in mediocre teenage rage.

He may be overrated, but he's still mildly more entertaining than your mediocre rants about him being overrated.

Now, off you go, go troll 4chan or something. Seems a more appropriate place for the likes of you.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Maxo-Texas]

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:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

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, 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 such as:

1224. What is even the point of this? F
1225. What is even the point of this? F
1226. What is even the point of this? F
1227. What is even the point of this? F
1228. What is even the point of this? F

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, he's no Ernie Bushmiller that's for sure.

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

Trolls are everywhere.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought I was alone in this until a few weeks ago I found a site called xkcdsucks, 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

[Anonymous Coward]

The Oatmeal. Also I've written a lot of South Park fanfic, which is a hell of a lot more than xkcd does.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

He trolled you just now...

Re: xkcd is overrated

[soupbowl]

lol fanfic.... Post some links tough guy.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm that guy too because I find XKCD mostly not worth my time, although I don't think I'd be as blunt and unpleasant about it as the OP was. Then again, I ended up as a sysadmin because most of us sysadmins love computers for being computers, not because of the geek/nerd mystique others have built around computers.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[luis_a_espinal]

I thought I was alone in this until a few weeks ago I found a site called xkcdsucks, 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:xkcd is overrated

[Omega Hacker]

and it appears I'm not alone in thinking this.

Nope, there are two of you. You should start a (the?) local chapter.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Joining Yet Again]

Interesting that you, like everyone here, have rushed to defend your hero, but omitted to address the question I posed which shows why his "5,000 years" argument is nonsense.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[jones_supa]

I personally think that xkcd is excellent comic, however something in me constantly rings that it is so reminiscent to Calvin & Hobbes. The pacing, the drawing style, storytelling... I mean, Randall has himself said that C&H is one of his favorites, but it really shines through, maybe bit too much. Ah well...

Re:xkcd is overrated

[mopower70]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you too stupid to do your own research?

Re: xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

NSA responds to the spying controversy: "How many government organizations have you lead? Huh? [sound of farting into mic]"

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

Embarassing?

By stating this you agree that there's some guideline or standard that should be adhered or listened to if someone is going to be a "nerd."

By stating this you believe that you, in fact, are a "nerd" and this guy who makes a highly popular webcomic is steadily reducing your credibility among all the other "nerds" out there. You believe that every time someone interacts with you, they are secretly comparing you to one Randall Munroe.

What. The. Hell.

You were never obligated to read the comic, why do you care to even comment about it? Everything you say is nothing but opinion. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. For every time you don't laugh, 5 other people do and they are the people he's catering to.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does he have to do anything to have an opinion? Do you have to be a chef to criticize the food in a restaurant?

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Joining Yet Again]

Let me put this in more explicit terms for you.

Is this enough to understand why his "5,000 years" statement is nonsensical?

Re: xkcd is overrated

[I'm New Around Here]

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 star just went nova, here's stuff that happened." But actually figuring out which star that is well known by modern sky-watchers, amateur ones especially, will give the clue necessary to pinpoint the story to 11,000 years from now, and not millions or billions of years, when many stars we know will have ended,.

I doubt any of his shit is that original.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

"...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

[I'm New Around Here]

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:xkcd is overrated

[Joining Yet Again]

...unnecessary proposition...

Are you declaring some queer Yank transitive form of exist?

It appears your mediocrity is not limited to your taste in comics.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Joining Yet Again]

OK, that one made me laugh. Thank you.

Re: xkcd is overrated

[Aighearach]

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:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

So, uh, 5500 years then. Sounds like an inconsequential difference to me.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Aighearach]

This is the sort of bloody nonsense on my lawn up with which I will not put.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Maxo-Texas]

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 this.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[buchner.johannes]

Fans had already figured out that it's 39,5 North on April 10th 13291.

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).

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Wait a minute... you thought that you were the only person who disliked a particular website?

Re:xkcd is overrated

[seyyah]

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:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

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: xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

Trick question!

Chefs don't eat out!

Re:xkcd is overrated

[vux984]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, but for me Randall lost all credibility when he produced that deceptive Fukushima radiation dose chart that the nuclear Pollyannas kept referrig to..

All he needed to do tp put it into perspective was to clearly show that the external radiation wasn't what would cause the damage, but isotopes being ingested, inhaled and getting into the food chain and people's bodies.

He didn't do that, so he's an apologist.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Joining Yet Again]

The point, my dearest dilettante, is that we lack evidence that humans have even been writing for more than five thousand or so years.

To suggest therefore that humans are unlikely to so sustain a civilisation what writes is dumb, dumb, dumb.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[I'm New Around Here]

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:xkcd is overrated

[b4dc0d3r]

And how long has writing existed for?

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 your personal taste, I merely want to point out how you failed to parse grammar.

Re: xkcd is overrated

[khallow]

Too bad isn't it that Randall doesn't share your particular irrational hysterias? I can manage even when people don't agree with me 100%, but I guess some people are more delicate.

As to Randall's nuclear apology chart, you can find it here.

Re: xkcd is overrated

[I'm New Around Here]

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/ 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.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Joining Yet Again]

Which civilisation involving bipeds has existed for more than 50 million years?

I think all y'all are gloriously missing the point.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[b4dc0d3r]

I thought I was alone in this until a few weeks ago I found a site called xkcdsucks, and it appears I'm not alone in thinking this.

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:xkcd is overrated

[Paradise Pete]

but omitted to address the question I posed which shows why his "5,000 years" argument is nonsense.

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:xkcd is overrated

[Joining Yet Again]

Christ on a stick. See above.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Joining Yet Again]

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

[I'm New Around Here]

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: xkcd is overrated

[LordLimecat]

I highly doubt you author The Oatmeal; you have too high an opinion of yourself for that to be plausible.

Re: xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

Trick question!

Chefs don't eat out!

not what your mama said!

Re:xkcd is overrated

[vux984]

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:xkcd is overrated

[Joining Yet Again]

I adore the way people abuse meta-moderation by marking several unmoderated posts in a row as Overrated when they don't like someone.

I can almost taste the impotent tears as they realise that it's the only time they'll ever be able to exert their influence on anything at all.

(But all the good /. posts are -1 anyway, so...)

Re:xkcd is overrated

[93 Escort Wagon]

I thought I was alone in this until a few weeks ago I found a site called xkcdsucks, 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:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm making a sig out of that.

Make sure it links to a website that says the same thing.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.fanfiction.net/cartoon/South-Park/

I wrote most of it.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

the preposition rule is often trotted out by dumbfucks who never learned anything beyond 3rd grade grammar. that is, it doesn't actually exist. unless maybe you're speaking oratorial latin from centuries ago. which we are not doing.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you found the wrong site. The better one (with real content, real commentary) is at http://xkcd-sucks.blogspot.com/ (note the hyphen).

Looks like it has gotten a different writer, though. It used to be much better in 2011 and 2012.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't even a troll, was a whoooosh.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[swillden]

I thought I was alone in this until a few weeks ago I found a site called xkcdsucks, 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:xkcd is overrated

[I'm New Around Here]

No! He can't do that. Can't you see? Someone on the internet is wrong!

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

> Long enough that we figured out you don't end a sentence with an unnecessary preposition.

Fuck you, and the horse on which in you rode!

Re:xkcd is overrated

[I'm New Around Here]

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:xkcd is overrated

[oji-sama]

His opinion is as valid as yours.

I'm not so sure, there wasn't a reference to a website.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet you find it worth your time to tell other people that xkcd isn't worth your time. Funny, that.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a sysadmin and you don't like xkcd? I'm guessing you missed this one, because all the sysadmins I know have printed it to their doors/walls:

http://xkcd.com/705/

Re:xkcd is overrated

[beelsebob]

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:xkcd is overrated

[Joining Yet Again]

Marking an unrated post as overrated is a nonsense, isn't it?

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

oblig: http://xkcd.com/386/

Re: xkcd is overrated

[cellocgw]

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

[wonkey_monkey]

Using the word "overrated" to describe something that you personally don't enjoy is overrated.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

seems p.clear to me

as far as we know, humans havent been writing for more than 5000 years

so it would be unlikely to find one example of a civilisation which writes lasting more than 5000 years

it would be like using the first million years of earth's existence to argue that no way could evolution create something as complex as the human brain

hth

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

it appears I'm not alone in thinking this.

Well, yeah, the vast majority of people just think it's yet another webcomic and don't care.

Randall Munroe is an embarrassing illustration of the mediocrity of the average modern nerd. He says nothing which isn't either cliche or oversimplified.

He is extremely good at reciting conventional wisdom, and is often very quick when the issue is topical. For instance, after Fukushima, he very quickly had a comic comparing levels of radiation.

That's why I liked it at first as a rather clever webcomic, but then fans started posting "obligatory XKCD" everywhere. Discussion on SQL tables? Here's strip 1234 about Bobby Tables. Talking about encryption? Sure enough, here's 2345 about how someone could just beat you up and steal your password.

What's embarrassing is the responses to your post: all the defenders keep claiming that XKCD expands their mind or is very challenging to read... it's all stuff they already believe, and almost always already know! He's just extremely adept at putting what they want to hear in a nice comic-y bullet form.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Joining Yet Again]

More offensively, it suggested that the preposition was "unnecessary", i.e. that "exist" is transitive.

+5 for a mistaken correction, and (0, Troll) for me for pointing out that the correction was wrong: xkcd fanboys are almost perfectly delusional.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[WrongMonkey]

I have to agree. This is a 3 minute cartoon that was stretched out over much longer for no particular reason. Nothing that would be considered 'epic'.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd buy it!

Re: xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

Led. The past tense of 'lead' is 'led.' HTH, HAND.

Re: xkcd is overrated

[TangoMargarine]

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:xkcd is overrated

[TangoMargarine]

This is coming from the guy who has several clauses lacking verbs in his response...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_Law

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wow, you're right! There is an XKCD comic with that as its punchline. Imagine that!

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

In several of Isaac Asimov's stories, he used a dating system measured from the first nuclear test: years were measured in the "Atomic Era" (presumably A.E.). That's probably as good a measure as any, and at least it can be precisely placed.

In at least one of Vernor Vinge's stories, when humanity has spread out over multiple stellar systems, and there's no longer anything special about the Earth year, they still all measure time with the basic counter returned by time(): in seconds in the Unix epoch, although they've lost track of exactly how the counter started, believing it to be the date of the first moon landing.

In any case, I agree that changing A.D. to C.E. is trivial and pointless.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to piss on your unusually coherent and impacting rethoric but "ranting because I feel like it" is as valid a thing as "eating donuts because I feel like it". Some people feel the need to do that for whatever reason. You seem to imply that the service provided by a person facilitating that is somehow valueless when the value of that service rests entirely in the minds of the user.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

"Loving computers for being computers" without becoming mystical seems hard to me. The whole point with computers is that they compute, which is an activity with many yet to be developed applications. Computers have also transformed society. If you can't see the mystique in that, perhaps you need to remove your tie and partake of drugs.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Evil Pete]

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:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you're offended by "BCE".

Ha.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[AK Marc]

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:xkcd is overrated

[AK Marc]

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.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[kermidge]

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. If you want to go backwards from an event, in this case the reference event, take another ruler and abut it to the first. Again notice there is no distance of 0, it's just a reference point, the end of the stick.

How all those folks ended up saying 2000 was the end of the 20th Century was simply because they couldn't be bothered to think about counting but got hung up on trying to fancify it with arithmetic; that, and the fascination with big round numbers - same thing happened in A.D. 1000. (It bothered me a bit at the time, still does in some ways, but then I figured that I had two millenium parties to attend, and I became less bothered;-)

Another quick way to illustrate this: give someone a bunch of pebbles or whatnot, ask him to count out aloud ten into a separate area. Most people will say "One, two, three," etc. How many people do you know will well and truly pick up the first object and say, "Zero"? None, unless maybe he's the sysadmin detailed in the old joke from rec.humor.funny. Ergo, no year 0. Again, the years are counting, not math. Calendars are all just and only about counting the tick tocks of the existence and duration of something.

(That's another thing: if one wants to get really pedantic about it, dates ought to be given as [year]B.C. before the birth, and A.D.[year], since A.D. is Anno Domini - "In the year of Our Lord." Very old texts get it correctly; I haven't looked into it but guess it changed over the past couple hundred years.)

Re:xkcd is overrated

[kermidge]

Precisely. And a punny reference as well into the bargain.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[wonkey_monkey]

Re:xkcd is overrated , posted to Creator of xkcd Reveals Secret Back-story of His Epic, 3,099-Panel 'Time' Comic , has been moderated Overrated (-1).

Beautiful :)

Re:xkcd is overrated

[AK Marc]

Even at -1, it is too high...

Re:xkcd is overrated

[FrangoAssado]

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 civilization with written records" in the author's quote to mean "every civilization that we know about because we have records about them", not "every civilization that had writing").

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Teancum]

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 (give or take a few thousand in either direction) is nothing compared to over five million years or the nearly 5 billion years that the Earth has been around.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[I'm New Around Here]

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:xkcd is overrated

[radiumsoup]

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.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

For a dollar?

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

His opinion is as valid as yours.

I never said it wasn't. I was simply making fun of OP for attempting to make it appear as if his is somehow more valid than mine simply because he found a website.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

..yeah, nah, you're an oozing pustulous cunt, plain and simple. Let's see what you've written/created, I'll bet you create nothing, so how about you shut the fuck up?

Re: xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

wow - you are claiming everyone's work now? What is your byline on that forum?

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really believe that nonsense?
That you can not infer things by observing them?
That proposing a straw man non-sensical future fantasy can make actual learning and knowledge "meaningless"?
What a bunch of tripe.

If the comment was we can unequivocally state that no civilization will ever last more than 500 years, then you
could make your juvenile retort, but since it wasn't, you fail at logic and science.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Joining Yet Again]

Either y'all lack wordplay humour, or you genuinely haven't figured out what I was saying. Yesterday I was giving everyone the benefit of the doubt, but today I'll talk in slightly more.. err.. straightforward terms.

mopower70 was making an unnecessary (or, strictly, wrong) proposition about an unnecessary preposition, because:

1) There is nothing wrong with a dangling preposition. English isn't a Romance language; and

2) The preposition is in fact necessary because "to exist" is not a transitive verb, to wit: one cannot say, "Writing has existed x years," but must say, "Writing has existed for x years."

So, it would have been a syntax error to remove the "for".

Is this sufficiently clear? The post wasn't a troll at all. It was correcting an incorrect correction.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Joining Yet Again]

That anyone would feel the need to "moderate" a discussion on a web comic is a simultaneously hilarious and horrifying illustration of the human condition.

Neither my dislike for this keloid on popular culture, nor the anguish felt by a whirlwind of fangirls hyperventilating that someone on the Internet is wrong, will amount to anything. Round the decay of our colossal wreck, boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Joining Yet Again]

Ah, someone's awake this weekend - excellent :).

Re:xkcd is overrated

[arkhan_jg]

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 our best thought at the moment is that Jesus Christ was born in ~4 BC due to a cockup by Dionysius in 525 AD when he invented the whole BC/AD thing - the accepted range is 2 BC to 7 BC.

'Common Era' uses the same dates as the Gregorian Calendar because it was already in common use as a standard. We have two whole months added by the Romans, the whole calendar has been messed with something chronic repeatedly, and the days of the week are largely named after pagan Gods, yet that doesn't stop the Christians using them, nor does the fact that Jesus was already a small boy when Christ was 'born'. Our calendar is absolutely a mongrel of many different cultures and civilizations, and the Christians don't get to claim it as solely their own.

Some people just don't like putting 'in the year of our Lord, Jesus Christ' at the end of the date, given they may well not be Christians and Christ isn't actually their Lord. Thus Common Era - usage of which incidentally dates back to 1615 at least. Complaining about that seems about as worthwhile as complaining that people dare to use the Gregorian calendar without also personally celebrating Easter, given that's what the whole purpose of the many christian revisions of that calendar was for in the first place.

 

Re:xkcd is overrated

[AK Marc]

Or maybe they've seen enough of your posts to just single you out. Your misogynous slurs may not go unnoticed.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Joining Yet Again]

Misogynous? *scratches head*

Ooh, wait, is it "fangirls"? I had the option of "fanboys" or "fangirls", and I guess you're arguing that using feminine rather than masculine nouns when gender is irrelevant is misogyny? In your world, men the norm, and women are the special case, right? Sorry, bud, you've just drawn back the curtain to your own prejudiced thinking.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[AK Marc]

Or just "fans". Making the feminine the insult is common and misogynous. "Man-up" is also misogynist (implying a man is better than a woman). http://news.sky.com/story/1122559/liverpool-fans-banned-from-saying-man-up

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Joining Yet Again]

1) "Fan" is neutral, while "fanboy" and "fangirl" are derogatory, reflecting the immaturity of the person to whom the label is being applied. "Fan" would have conveyed my message incompletely;

2) It is not "misogynist" to have chosen "fangirls", just as it would not have been misandrist to choose "fanboys". This notwithstanding, the habit of arbitrarily choosing male nouns/pronouns is far more of a problem in writing than that of choosing female nouns/pronouns. "He/she" is clumsy, so mix 'em, I say;

3) Not sure why you're talking about "man up", although I've always understood it to mean "don't act like a boy" rather than "don't act like a woman". "Woman up!" will also do, though it would be odd to say that to a man, because they don't identify as a woman. And, like the old saying goes, better to grow a vagina than a pair of balls, because balls are weak and sensitive, whereas vaginas can take a pounding.

As an aside, I have spent the last few months assisting someone who is writing a PhD thesis on the use of language related to mental health, and one of the important lessons which has come out is the extent to which particular groups (often but not always with good intentions) like to police language. In attaching unique derogatory meanings to words or phrases, they marginalise the groups they purport to help by painting a particular individual as the frequent target of insult/stigma when usually no attack is being made. Language is rather more complex than "that word always conveys that meaning so STOP USING IT NOW I SAY".

Re: xkcd is overrated

[GoogleShill]

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:xkcd is overrated

[sirsnork]

Oblig: http://xkcd.com/386/

Re: xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

You just plagiarized every english text book there is. Idiot.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, it's a web comic, and it's not a very insulting one, so how can anyone hate it like that? What the hell is the matter with you? You are just a sheep looking to justify your weird ass fixation.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Speare]

What did you bring that old quotes book you know I don't like to be read to out of up for?

Re:xkcd is overrated

[almitydave]

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:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, you are simply too dumb to understand the fine irony and humor of XKCD.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Aighearach]

If you need a book of quotes to learn about that one, you should get out of the basement more.

Re:xkcd is overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

You. Topical joke. Whoosh.

Like humour ...

[DavidClarkeHR]

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, 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?

Just like stand-up comedy, some artists may not do things you like ... but if they're just providing things that others enjoy, why attack it simply because you dislike it?

Re:Like humour ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about him, but part of the reason I dislike xkcd so much isn't just because I dislike the comic (which I do, immensely; a good 95% of the strips are mediocre at best and that's being generous), but because people just bring it up so damn often. I mean, yeah, if you have a different sense of humor, that's fine (though some of Randall's stuff borders on or crosses right over into "creepy" territory), but for a good two or three years I couldn't even just ignore it because it got brought up EVERYWHERE. Back when I was at university, it was on every professor's door and people talked about it in the labs at least once a day. I didn't want to be the dick who goes off about how awful it is, so I basically just said "eh, I'm not big on it" and shut up for about 20 minutes until the subject changed.

Re:Like humour ...

[FatdogHaiku]

When one can not elevate themselves with constructive action the temptation is to create the illusion via destructive actions...
Translation:
If you can't stand tall on your own merits, try knocking everyone else down...

Re: Like humour ...

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Like humour ...

[VortexCortex]

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 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. That's what it's like.

Re:Like humour ...

[Anonymous Coward]

When one can not elevate themselves with constructive action the temptation is to create the illusion via destructive actions... Translation: If you can't stand tall on your own merits, try knocking everyone else down...

Do you think the OP was writing a rhetorical question?

Re:Like humour ...

[Anonymous Coward]

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 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. That's what it's like.

You, uh, don't have to party with folks that talk about XKCD. It's a free country - which is why I'm not AGAINST your opinion, I just want to know why you think it's okay to shittalk others for absolutely no good reason.

Re: Like humour ...

[Joining Yet Again]

If only geeks has as much tolerance of religion as they expect for xkcd.

xkcd is a horrible blight on human culture and I am surely entitled to criticise it at least as forcefully as I am exposed to it.

Re: Like humour ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Having tolerance for something that tries to kill you or your neighbor is somewhat different than having tolerance for a thing of art that one can choose to look at or not without repercussion.

Re:Like humour ...

[Anonymous Coward]

In first grade we learned how to end a sentence.

Re:Like humour ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I found the movie to be obscure and lacking any real point. Maybe Hollywood can make it into a full 90-minute feature? XKCD is funny once in 500 times, maybe that number now needs revision.

Re:Like humour ...

[Anonymous Coward]

so I basically just said "eh, I'm not big on it" and shut up for about 20 minutes until the subject changed.

So, you were being adult about it, and then you felt you needed to announce it to everyone in a forum.

Nice job.

Yawn! Let me know when those Yemens attack,ok?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then I can switch on CNN and sit back and pop a few cold ones, and know that all this surveillance is paying off. Those fucking crazy Arabs.

See something REAL

[Anonymous Coward]

That'll completely blow your mind from the HISTORY channel (that what the webcomic creator did in his "TIME" series sounds quite a bit like, sort of)?

UNDERGROUND CIVILIZATIONS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7xLERSRpYQ

* I watched it last night & while speaking to a pal on the phone during it, when I paused it, it had already in only 1/4 of it completely enthralled me - it only got BETTER and far 'scarier' as it went on.

(It's THAT good - and tends to potentially explain a LOT of things like "grey 'aliens'", "reptilians", & "insectoids" you hear "tinfoil hat" wearers/conpiracy theorists speak of - more & more, personally? Those types of folks turn up pretty near or dead-on truths of things (more 'mundane' stuff like for instance, Ed Snowden/Thomas Drake/William Binney what with the NSA etc. for example - but this is way, Way, WAY "out on the fringe" but from a fairly reputable source too).

In fact, I'd guarantee it will "blow your minds" - did mine!

The only reason it did, is when I was around 10 yrs. old, my cousin (1 yr. older than I), & my late Uncle saw 2 UFO's hovering in the distance on the farm I grew up on then, & other things in my life too that were of like nature later (won't get into it, scares me to this day + borders on things beyond UFO stuff into "paranormal" areas, & my brother saw the same @ the same age 10 yrs. later oddly) - what I saw on that show validated those things & that's all I have to say about it!

APK

P.S.=> Sorry for going "off-topic" - if you want to "downmod me", go ahead - however though: IF you haven't seen the above? DO... apk

Re:See something REAL

[clovis]

yes you are way off-topic.
Apology NOT accepted.

Please...

[Anonymous Coward]

...can someone summarize what is so special/interesting about the 'Time' comic.
I don't have time to look through it myself, and the summary isn't clear on this.
Thanks a lot.

Re:Please...

[soupbowl]

Yeah I been wondering what all this talk of 'Time' is and why anyone cares enough about a web comic to slashdot it.

Re:Please...

[GreenTech11]

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...

[GreenTech11]

I should add, for anyone crazy enough to want to read the forums, here's a link: Clicky, it can get quite confusing at times, the regulars were well on their way to inventing a new language (not to mention para-religions at times), but there's definitely some fascinating posts as well, and every frame immortalised in order, with an enforced (by how fast you read) gap to replicate the way it felt when it was going.

Re:Please...

[Provocateur]

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:Please...

[Anonymous Coward]

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])

Re:Please...

[I'm New Around Here]

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:Please...

[Anonymous Coward]

in all fairness the last 1000 are the same frame

Re:Please...

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad thing is, that you are so stupid, you really think 1. there is such a thing as positive proof (I guess you aren't a scientist), 2. there is such a thing as objectivity and don't know why that also makes you an egocentric fuck, 2. you can tell if anything outside of your own mind exists in the first place, 3. that it matters if it does, 3. that I give a fuck about what you want to believe.

Linear B

[notjim]

An interview with Randall Monroe by someone who doesn't know we've deciphered Linear B. WTF.

Re:Linear B

[Aighearach]

lol I'm so glad now that I didn't read TFS.

Re:Linear B

[Anonymous Coward]

An interview with Randall Monroe by someone who doesn't know we've deciphered Linear B. WTF.

You might want to read the article again, the actual qoute is: “we haven’t cracked Linear A, either!”

He did mention both A and B, but in comparrison to english.

Re:Linear B

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay the joke is on me, sorry.
I AM the one who can't read, i thought you were refering to Randall, and only picked up on the "Time" and "Linear A" as "still-undeciphered".

At least i'm here to make sure AC posts stay low quality.

Fair enough on that account

[Anonymous Coward]

Admittedly, as I said - I expected that! However, what I posted on profoundly & personally affected me due to some odd things I've seen in my life is all (no bullshit, 100% truth/fact).

* It'll blow your mind, so do yourself a favor though - seriously: See that HISTORY channel video... it touched on SOME of what the summary had in it but goes WAY past it (and it's not just some webcomic either - that's the spookiest part).

(I nearly guarantee it'll make you re-evaluate a few things!)

APK

P.S.=> Even IF you haven't had the way, Way, WAY off-the-wall stuff I've seen I noted only 1 of 2 of them! The other one'd make you think I was nuts, I won't get into it in detail:

Hey - I doubted it SLIGHTLY myself since it was pretty "far out", until the same occurred for my brother 10 yrs. later, albeit, he dealt with it differently than I did though! I.E. - he maintained a rapport, ongoing periodically, with what we saw (my father even stepped in once my brother ran it by him, & that's when I knew what I saw, and he did, was real enough - oddly, he described pretty much what I also did once I got wind of it from he + my Dad, & I ran by what I saw a decade++ earlier to them)

E.G.-> Me, by way of comparison? I said a prayer & went to sleep (oddest part is, once I did that? All the fear I felt was lifted from me, instantly & trust me - what I saw scared the daylights out of me @ first...).

Sounds nuts? Fine, ok/whatever!

Call it what you like - Put it this way: It's one of those things you shake your head, wipe your eyes, close them, re-open them (& it's still there type stuff!)

Still - nice part of what I noted though? I still have 3/4 living witnesses to both that could/can verify the things I spoke of in both instances, actually occurring, which that link validates...

In the end - Let's put it this way - there's a hell of a lot we STILL don't know about this planet & the material in that video *might* explain some of it, including things I saw along with other family members!

... apk

How to keep our civilization alive

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Indeed, there is only one way to ensure our civilization survives: we must destroy all written records!

XKCD is normally really funny

[Anonymous Coward]

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 think the way the one character's accent (the one that spoke multiple languages), or way of speaking (how he blurred the letters, and added multiple synonyms etched over each other), really neat, and well thought out.

That being said, his comic is really funny, when it's funny.

Re:XKCD is normally really funny

[u38cg]

Sometimes an artform needs a new dimension. XKCD is good enough that an individual comic doesn't need to be funny to be valid.

Carve it into granite tablets

[mveloso]

We should carve thisxkcdinto granite tablets so the future can have something to look back on and be amused.

Re:Carve it into granite tablets

[Dachannien]

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:Carve it into granite tablets

[peragrin]

that will be one very large flip book, Think of the size of it's spine.

A Short, Sharp Shock

[fermion]

When I first saw the comic progressing, I thought of this book by Kim Stanley Robinson. A couple meets on the beach, explores a strange world, and discovers who they really are.

Re:A Short, Sharp Shock

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading the back-story reminds me of The Mote in God's Eye by Niven & Pournelle

Re:A Short, Sharp Shock

[mattack2]

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

xkcd is better than average for comic

[iggymanz]

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 civilization falls.

Re:xkcd is better than average for comic

[CRCulver]

Plastics are so vital to advanced technology, and mass production of them depends on hydrocarbons. While technological civilization could reboot, it would likely stall at a 19th-century stage.

Re:xkcd is better than average for comic

[iggymanz]

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:xkcd is better than average for comic

[sFurbo]

Not that I disagree with your points, but this being /., I am going to have to nitpick:

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, which can be converted to hydrocarbons via the Fischer-Tropsch process.

Re:xkcd is better than average for comic

[iggymanz]

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.

Standing on shoulders of giants

[tepples]

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:Standing on shoulders of giants

[I'm New Around Here]

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:Standing on shoulders of giants

[tepples]

Given two works A and B, it's possible for the plots and themes of A to be more original than those of B even if the characters of B are more original than those of A. Or are you using "original" in strictly a copyright law sense?

Re:Standing on shoulders of giants

[I'm New Around Here]

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 than Mr. Monroe based on volume of work done, rather than originality, or even quality of work. He thinks since the comic at xkcd.com only changes 3 times a week, it is less notable than his contribution of a lot of South Park fanfic. He ignores the time Mr. Monroe obviously must spend for the larger comics he publishes, on researching the science or mathematics behind them, as well as drawing them.

Re:Standing on shoulders of giants

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I'm claiming writing South Park fanfic is a hell of a lot more of a contribution to this world than xkcd and its stick figures.

I continue to be in awe of Trey Parker and his creations, and having the license to take those creations and bring new stories to them is a pleasure, and something I consider a great contribution, far greater than silly "Oh look, inventing a standard because lots of things aren't standardized means you have one more standard" stuff.

Re:Standing on shoulders of giants

[I'm New Around Here]

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: Standing on shoulders of giants

[Anonymous Coward]

South park is overrated.

Re:Standing on shoulders of giants

[Anonymous Coward]

so mister great writer guy, where is links to these stories that are so awesome they improve humanity?
How many people actually read it? How are you determining that it is a greater contribution?

Now - if you were comparing the *actual* south park you would have more room to argue, since they are actually
a) funny, b) often bitingly critical, and c) actually seen by other people.

But you are pronouncing your own (and I will assume pretty crappy) fanfic stuff better with zero credibility.
show us the awesomeness and then we can decide if you are a better writer/comic.

I wish I could mod you up.

[Grog6]

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. :)

my mind's production

[Anonymous Coward]

The information provided in your website is very beautifully designed and the details given is truly outstanding with best possible efforts from your team.
SRWTips

"Future" as future?

[eyenot]

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 (or the Creator created, as you will) millions of species of organisms on the globe. They all have their own culture, business life, love life, joys and sorrows. The swelling mountain, at this moment already of three hundred billion kilos of human flesh, is suffocating all these sisters and brothers underneath it - and choking itself only among the last. What is the ratio of matters and meanings, what is the ratio of mishaps?

Yet a little detail: what is the part of someone who is a friend of nature? Does he first suffer the tragedy of his own species in his mind, and then a tragedy a million times larger?" -- Pentti Linkiola, The World's End Knows No Mercy

âoeThe coming years will prove increasingly cynical and cruel. People will definitely not slip into oblivion while hugging each other. The final stages in the life of humanity will be marked by the monstrous war of all against all: the amount of suffering will be maximal.â â Pentti Linkola, Can Life Prevail?

"To date, the hunting way of life has been the most successful and persistent adaptation man has ever achieved. Nor does this evaluation exclude the present precarious existence under the threat of nuclear annihilation and the population explosion. It is still an open question whether man will be able to survive the exceedingly complex and unstable ecological conditions he has created for himself. If he fails in this task, interplanetary archaeologists of the future will classify our planet as one in which a very long and stable period of small-scale hunting and gathering was followed by an apparently instantaneous efflorescence of technology and society leading rapidly to extinction." -- Lee and Devore, Man the Hunter

Re:"Future" as future?

[gl4ss]

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 phase like current ever before, so saying that none of the one's that had written language lasted more than 5000 years is quite bullshit and attention whoring because we're actually still in the first global phase of having writing. this is the first civilization - all the old systems we have found are things that are in direct(or shards) advancement path to what we have today(even the signs of native americans are part of our current stream).

btw. pentti linkola is a nutjob.. this goes on a tangent but he took the easy way of writing the world will end books - his stuff didn't make sense back in the context in which he wrote it and it certainly doesn't make it now.

the dude was at our door once when I was a kid, at least at some point he was doing door to door selling of fish(to get money, which he hates), but according to his earlier stuff we should already be almost all dead and his stuff feels like he _wanted_ 90% of _people_ to die and was trying to invent why/how it would happen, not that he had any good reasons to start believing in the shit except the one polluting paper mill he didn't get cash money from(the paper mill in my hometown used to be quite visibly polluting and smelly, back in the day, currently it's much less so). so he's feeling like a victim of civilization - the dude lived as a professional fisherman on a lake(bad fucking idea to begin with) downstream from a '60s paper mill(making the first idea even worse). the idea that 90% of people should _die_ is a recurring and pretty much the carrying force of his "ecological" thinking(how it happens, gas chambers, starving.. doesn't really matter to him - he just wants people to die off, because then we would use less resources, resources which he told us would be all used up now decades ago). a harmless guy? maybe, but if he was given a button that would do the death lottery 90% of people he would press it, according to his own statements anyways.

many nutjobs such as him exist and personally I feel that many of them are like that just because they're assholes and it gives them comfort to think that everything will turn to dust and that everything the others are trying to achieve(civilization) is for naught. if you ask me the real waste of resources is giving these kind of guys time in nutjob conferences as giving "factual" lectures. it's useless to even start a discussion with them, because it's not logic that drives their thinking or love for nature but just plain old hatred and envy.

Re:"Future" as future?

[eyenot]

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 a traditional lifestyle that he sees disappearing. To him, there is no person who doesn't fish for a living that is important. You should read his words on the deaths of Polish children in World War 2, "do we need endless copies of little pig-tailed Polish children? What have we actually lost in World War 2?" And so on.

So what Linkola obviously did (obvious, to me) is to judge for himself how many Finnish fisherman can exist in Finland with complete and total autonomy and some sufficient number of women as concubines or whatever. And then he multiplied the number by the number of Finland-size units of land could be found around the planet and called it a day.

Of course his ideas were unpopular, he was labeled a kook and wasn't listened to by anyone but two types:

1) Die-hard "Green" activists
2) People who see the subtle truths he's expressing

The fact is, the world *won't* sustain so many people for very long. Already a growing number of people are living drier and drier lifestyles with less and less water to drink and the forests are quickly receding. Pentti isn't making that up, nor is he making up the horror of overfishing and the world's decimated fish and ocean mammal populations. Pentti isn't making up pollution.

And, too, Pentti isn't making up egotism and the basic fundamental fact that, no, there is no justification for being alive on Earth. He skips the part that you don't need justification to be here and to be happy, but he does make it clear that he doesn't care either way. As far as he's concerned, the life of the planet is more important than the human will to seek comforts and experiences that will destroy the planet's life.

I think you would be quite challenged, frankly, to prove that civilization is *not* for naught.

Prove somehow that civilization isn't just a fancy form of insanity, or that it has some kind of intrinsic value.

Prove that civilization isn't just one form of rust existing on top of another "form of rust".

Re:"Future" as future?

[eyenot]

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 pretty major indictment against most of his math and his planning. But his planning for green fascism isn't interesting. What's interesting is his insight into things such as the state of mind and the spiritual torture of a person who actually cares about the planet and the ecology foremost before concerns about civilization and progress.

hashcodes

[Anonymous Coward]

And nobody figured out the hashes he used. Were they a hashed form of the date? The frame number? A combination of both?

Re:hashcodes

[kasperd]

And nobody figured out the hashes he used.

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 be completely random. It could also be that those strings are really a covert channel containing some other information.

The reason it hasn't been figured out could be that there is nothing to be figured out or because it was made impossible, it could also be an entire story is hidden in those strings. Randall only knows.

Pattern Recognition

[Anonymous Coward]

One of my favorite books is Gibson's pattern recognition. The footage is being released in spurts, tracked by a community of people who want to know what's going on, who have their own theories, who love the work and its creator.

I think Time is as close as anyone has come to replicating that.

Except that

[Anonymous Coward]

all the easily accessible copper, iron, oil and coal are depleted. We can get at relatively inaccessible sources, however, starting from stick and stoned ,,, forget it. Don't like xkcd? Don't read it. I and others will keep reading it whether you llike it or not. Sorry to burst your grandeur bubbles.

Re:Except that

[AK Marc]

If society failed, we have even more easily acessible materials than before. We would just need to loot the dumps and cities. Copper is much easier to mine when someone already dug it all up, refined and purified it and hung on public display. The material isn't "lost", it's just not in the ground anymore.

Re:Except that

[iggymanz]

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.

Caught THIS today too (don't doubt it anymore)

[Anonymous Coward]

Not after what I posted above/earlier http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xedmfAgx8eg since my original post has a more "credible" source (the history channel - & personally since my other posts speak of things I've seen myself as well as family members also) - I was JUST like most people thinking guys like Schneider ('oddly' deceased now, killed is more like it) are fakes/scammers or sometimes, crackpots (some I think are unless others convince me otherwise, like Swerdlow). I don't doubt them (as much or @ all), anymore. Partially because of what I've seen, & partially because of the 1st link I posted. It starts to "add up" when I started digging more is all, the link here being yet another, that I started watching... I also agree with Schneider's points on how gov't. works. I don't wonder NOW why Gary McKinnon was looking for what he was searching for, and NOW, I believe it (not what I suspected in part that he was an espionage agent for governments only like for weapons tech for example). I also do NOT like "being in the dark" with only part of the cards I need to make a 'good hand' in informed decisions either. This speaks much of that, but of a hell of a lot more that's quite terrifying.

APK

P.S.=> You watch this stuff yourself, make your OWN judgements... that's all I am saying. The stuff in the news now with Snowden & the NSA? That's NOTHING compared to this... seriously, especially if it's 100% straight-up, & it seems it, especially after I saw the HISTORY channel stuff first!

... apk

well...

[DRMShill]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Yawn! Let me know when those Yemens attack,ok?

[AK Marc]

Yeah, the Cole was never attacked because the surveillance caught them.