Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

XKCD Author's New Unpublished Book Becomes Scientific Best-Seller

Posted by Soulskill on from the relevant-xkcd dept.

An anonymous reader writes: XKCD cartoonist Randall Munroe will be publishing a new book in November, but it's already become Amazon's #1 best-seller in two "Science & Math" subcategories, for mechanics and scientific instruments. Inspired by a cartoon describing NASA's Saturn V rocket as "the up-goer V", Randall's created a large-format collection of blueprints describing datacenters, tectonic plates, and even the controls in an airplane cockpit — using only the thousand most common English words. "Since this book explains things, I've called it Thing Explainer," Randall writes on the XKCD blog, trying to mimic the humorously simple style of his book. Randall's previous book of scientific hypotheticals — published one year ago — is still Amazon's #1 best-selling book in their "Physics" category, ranking higher than Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time."

90 comments

  1. Sounds like a Star Trek book by russotto · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Technology for Pakleds" (they are smart)

    1. Re:Sounds like a Star Trek book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now every nerdish slashdotter who keeps reposting XKCD links like a bible-thumper working scripture into every conversation, collapses onto the floor in a big puddle of sticky masturbatory spooge. The sharks-with-lasers douchebags seethe with jealousy, wondering when they will have their day.

    2. Re:Sounds like a Star Trek book by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Very good. Have a celebratory golf clap.

    3. Re:Sounds like a Star Trek book by davester666 · · Score: 2

      They had their day...fifteen years ago.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:Sounds like a Star Trek book by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I was browsing through titles of illegally shared/uploaded movies that can be streamed. (Google zmovies for a link.) Anyhow... I stumbled across a movie entitled Three Headed Shark Attack, something along those lines, and it brought a smile to my face when I thought about it and realized that /. would have come up with such a movie premise.

      Then, in that light, I started to pay a bit more attention to the movie titles. There seems to be a trend of bad movie titles out there. I do not know if they are bad movies but they probably are. I settled on 6 Ways to Die which was better than I expected.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:Sounds like a Star Trek book by jazzis · · Score: 1

      mod up as unfortunately too true!

  2. More practical.... by davidwr · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Most common 1000 words" is great for making a point.

    Far more practical would be using a vocabulary that almost all 10-year-old native speakers can read and that a vast majority of non-native speakers who have spent the last few years living in a English-speaking environment (that is, an environment that pretty much forces you to learn to speak and read English at a basic level in order to survive).

    I would expect this to be far more than 1000 words.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re: More practical.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you want to cultivate a positive image for science, you'll want to cultivate fans. They'll always outnumber the real scientists. The reason is rather simple: popularity -idealized- determines policy. So you want as many fans as possible for things concerning ecology (fossil fuels, global climatology), economy (less recessions, better investments, smarter spending savings debt management), immunology (Jenny McCartney is merely the tip of the festering social pus that is willful ignorance), technological advancements (take some time to compare what NASA is funded with per tax dollar vs. how much the solutions of space problems had saved in normal R&D when they release the data for free constantly without having pay patents). And so on.

      I agree with Maddox about how annoying fans are versus real science; but only someone blind cannot see the advantage of having popular (and populist) opinion in your corner.

    2. Re:More practical.... by wolrahnaes · · Score: 1

      "Most common 1000 words" is great for making a point.

      Far more practical would be using a vocabulary that almost all 10-year-old native speakers can read and that a vast majority of non-native speakers who have spent the last few years living in a English-speaking environment (that is, an environment that pretty much forces you to learn to speak and read English at a basic level in order to survive).

      I would expect this to be far more than 1000 words.

      I believe the idea is based on the Simple English Wikipedia which suggests sticking to the same top 1000 common words where possible. Now your same point may apply there, I can't find an actual justification for the recommended limit other than the basic thought that "it's simpler", but it's not unprecedented.

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
    3. Re:More practical.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would disagree. It seems easy to understand because educated people already know what the simplified language is trying to explain. In fact a lot of precision is lost in the translation.

    4. Re: More practical.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...until the 'fans' are taken in by a non-scientist. Science becoming popular in a very shallow way only leads to liars using science-y sounding words to manipulate people. Science isn't becoming popular, a shallow mockery of it is, and this will be reflected. No substitute for a well-educated population, or at least one that is taught basic logic and reasoning skills.

    5. Re: More practical.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point is not to be practical, or to actually explain how these things work. The point is to be funny.

    6. Re: More practical.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      No thanks. We've seen already what happens when scientists try to play the popularity game to advance Science. You get climate scientists who falsify results, and scientists who end up debating crackpots on TV all year long hoping to gain a little bit more recognition from people who'd rather watch the Kardashians and anyway have no intention to stop believing in invisible sky giants.

      Scientists aren't trained to be TV personalities, and shouldn't waste time doing non-science things. The value proposition of Science is that it's the only way to get important things like cars, trains, airplanes, atomic bombs, electricity, computers, water sanitation, medicine, etc. The true supporters of Science are industry and the military, these are the people who need to be wooed, not your neighbours in the trailer park. And industry and the military tend to be wooed in the long term by things that actually work, and that's what Science is actually good at.

      So cut the brandname crap, go back to the office and write a paper about something real.

    7. Re: More practical.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1000 words is 85% of words you ever need. 3000 words is 96%.

    8. Re: More practical.... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      If you want to cultivate a positive image for science, you'll want to cultivate fans.

      The problem isn't fans - the problem is fans that repeat whatever celebrities say with no more real understanding of what they've said than than possessed by the coffee cup at my elbow. The problem isn't fans - the problem is fans who'll accept whatever the celebrities say and defend it unquestioningly.

      And that's the crossroads we stand at - a weird intersection of cargo cultists and cults of personality. They'll take whatever Randall, or Neil, or Jaime, or Bill says - and share, and like, and +1, and retweet it unquestioningly as if it were the Word Of $DIETY. Ask them to explain what they just quoted means, and you'll just get the words of the $CELEBRITY quoted back at you. Try and hold an actual discussion, and anything that even remotely smacks of not accepting The Word gets you labeled a "hater" or "denier" (or worse).

      Though the True Believers think otherwise, these "fans" aren't really any better for society than the thumpers, or the followers of the celebrity of the moment, or the defenders of the local sportsball team.
       

      I agree with Maddox about how annoying fans are versus real science; but only someone blind cannot see the advantage of having popular (and populist) opinion in your corner.

      Equally, only the truly blind, only the True Believer, would fail to see the dangers of popular (and populist) opinions replacing knowledge and facts for making decisions on public policy.

    9. Re: More practical.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False. You end up with Carl Sagan or NDT

    10. Re: More practical.... by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      Consider the point you're making. You believe that having a book that explains things using only the 1000 most commonly-used English words causes falsified scientific results and non-entertaining TV debates.

      Really?

  3. indyrock by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    in a book format.

  4. And what this tells us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    ...is that ranking is about popularity, not quality.

    There are way more science-fans than scientists, and the worst of these tend to enjoy xkcd.

    1. Re:And what this tells us... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      There are way more science-fans than scientists, and the worst of these tend to enjoy xkcd.

      What makes you the arbiter?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:And what this tells us... by narcc · · Score: -1

      You can't fight reality. Randal has, in the past, said some pretty absurd stuff in his comics. Misleading the pubic about how science works is deeply harmful, regardless of your motivations. He deserves derision, not praise, for empowering the under-educated science-cheerleaders with dangerous nonsense.

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
    3. Re:And what this tells us... by Goldsmith · · Score: 2

      I'm a pretty good scientist, and I enjoy xkcd.

      As a physicist, I don't expect the #1 book in "Physics" to be written by a professional physicist (although Randall has a physics degree and has worked a "physics" job). By definition, professional physicists don't specialize in mass market entertainment. Randall does specialize in entertainment, and I appreciate that he's using that expertise to write about science. If you don't like his approach, that's ok; there are other folks out there producing content about science differently.

    4. Re:And what this tells us... by CauseBy · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't understand how the link supports what you say in your post. Whats absurd about saying that the new widespread availability of technology which can conclusively demonstrate tall tales, paired with the lack of such demonstrations, strongly implies that the tall tales were bullshit all along? That's the same reason we decided that Planet X doesn't exist, among countless other examples.

    5. Re:And what this tells us... by narcc · · Score: 0

      This is exactly what I'm talking about. If you need help understanding why that comic is dangerous nonsense, take a quick look at the comments on his own site about it. Here's a hint: It has nothing to do with the subject, but the method.

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
    6. Re:And what this tells us... by Cederic · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ok, taking you seriously for a moment here: You've been double-bluffed.

      Randall knows that the methodology is flawed. He's posting it as a self-referential deconstruction of the methodology that led to false beliefs, intentionally using junk science to discredit non-science secure in the knowledge that his science savvy readers will understand this and admire the inherent contradiction in what he's posting.

      None of which detracts from the sheer common bloody sense insight that he's included for the benefit of those that missed the nuance above.

      Somehow you fell through the cracks. Perhaps you should read a different web comic.

    7. Re:And what this tells us... by justthinkit · · Score: 0

      Not meaning to troll, but what makes you "a pretty good scientist"?

      There is a scientific method. All scientists are supposed to follow it. So the quality of being a scientist is binary -- one is or one isn't.

      If one isn't, why would one say anything? If one is, it is like saying "I am a policeman", "I am a teacher".

      So here you could just say "I am a scientist".

      Sorry, I just don't get the "pretty good" phrase, and it makes me question whether you are or not.

      --
      I come here for the love
    8. Re:And what this tells us... by narcc · · Score: 1

      Nonsense.

      --
      Required reading for internet skeptics
    9. Re:And what this tells us... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Of course it's nonsense. Shit, I used the term "self-referential deconstruction", you can't get much more nonsense than that.

      Here's the thing. Doesn't stop it being right.

    10. Re:And what this tells us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did that "WOOSH" blow you over? Maybe you're not the correct audience for XKCD

    11. Re:And what this tells us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not actually explain why that cartoon is nonsense. I'm clearly an idiot but anything would be a start.

      Without doing so explicitly, I'm going to assume that this cartoon upsets you because you believe in ghosts.

    12. Re:And what this tells us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only the response to this was the ultimate burn - "well, the Nobel people think so..."

    13. Re:And what this tells us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the physics crank.

      Fleischman and Pons were bad scientists even if they followed the scientific method. Being a scientist is not limited to following the scientific method -- at least in the real world. It's possible to have your head up your ass (like you), to creatively interpret findings, to play politics either local or national. It's possible to have high minded ideals and it's possible to be a scientist for the Nazis. Your world may be a binary one where adherence to the scientific method is the only qualification, in which case you've just damned yourself with your own standards. You are a troll, and a fucking moron. Nothing you have ever written or done will ever be of use to anyone else. Live your life if you must, but if you never tried to write or explain anything ever again it would be too soon.

    14. Re:And what this tells us... by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 2

      You can't fight reality. Randal has, in the past, said some pretty absurd stuff in his comics

      Einstein said some pretty absurd stuff in real life - much of which is still widely quoted. Like that "God doesn't play dice" thing.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  5. Obligitory by Pikoro · · Score: 5, Funny

    http://xkcd.org/

    --
    "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
  6. Oh, fall off the planet by smittyoneeach · · Score: 0

    I despise your implication that "popular" == "low quality". Popularity and quality are not mutually exclusive, for all advertising may bamboozle.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    1. Re:Oh, fall off the planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      Oh, fall off the planet

      Typical childish anger at dissent that I've come to expect from xkcd fanatics.

      I despise your implication that "popular" == "low quality".

      Typical lack of logic I've come to expect from xkcd fanatics.

      The only thing you can conclude is that popular does not imply high quality. Like I said.

      There's lots of high quality, popular stuff. xkcd isn't.

    2. Re:Oh, fall off the planet by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's lots of high quality, popular stuff. xkcd isn't.

      That's your opinion and you're welcome to it - just remember that that's all it is. Something who enjoys something you don't like is not automatically worse than you for it.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:Oh, fall off the planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      I despise your implication that "popular" == "low quality".

      Typical lack of logic I've come to expect from xkcd fanatics.

      What? You know you can't just roll your eyes at someone making a statement and say "that's just typical lack of logic" and expect for that to be considered logical.

      The only thing you can conclude is that popular does not imply high quality. Like I said.

      Right, right. One does not imply the other. Presence of popularity does not include or exclude presence of quality and vice versa. But you've yet to give any actual argument as to why xkcd is low quality...or even why you think xkcd is bad. So far all you've stated was that you have the opinion that xkcd is bad, and then just been trollin--...

      Oh, I been had...

    4. Re:Oh, fall off the planet by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's lots of high quality, popular stuff. xkcd isn't.

      "... but I won't go into detail about what that is, mainly because if you start liking it I'll have to find something even more obscure to like so I can maintain my superiority!"

      Nerd hipsterism is a sad thing to behold.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    5. Re:Oh, fall off the planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't list every high quality but popular thing, therefore, you are a hipster.

      That is incredibly sound logic contained in your wholly worthwhile comment.

    6. Re:Oh, fall off the planet by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      'Any', not 'every'. And we all know why.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    7. Re:Oh, fall off the planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Forget quality. Randal isn't funny. Just mildly amusing. His fanboys on Slashdot even less so.

    8. Re:Oh, fall off the planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nerd hipsterism is a sad thing to behold.

      XKCD is the ultimate example of such.

    9. Re:Oh, fall off the planet by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      You're right. XKCD was great until it started showing up on mainstream sites, now it's not 'hard' enough. "I liked it back when it was underground." And so on.

      Poser.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    10. Re:Oh, fall off the planet by Cederic · · Score: 1

      His humour varies from 'meh' to 'proper laugh', but his wry and often dry insight varies from 'meh' to 'that hurts', and it's the combination of humour and insight that makes me keep reading his cartoons.

      You can average mildly amusing if your peaks are high enough and if humour isn't your only schtick.

    11. Re:Oh, fall off the planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's your opinion and you're welcome to it

      "But it's all subjective!"

      Something who enjoys something you don't like is not automatically worse than you for it.

      Nowhere was this argued.

    12. Re:Oh, fall off the planet by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      XKCD is also much funnier if you read the text-over captions. And I've repeatedly found myself referring to specific XKCD cartoons in technical meetings, to explain the problem with someone's clever sounding approach. Examples from the last few months include:

                        Sudo make me a sandwich.
                        Universal connector box.
                        Standards.
                        ISO 8601.
                        Real programmers.
                        Workflow.

      Not everything is as good as those, but I've enjoyed them a great deal with children of my acquaintance.

    13. Re:Oh, fall off the planet by KGIII · · Score: 1

      This is off-topic but I have been meaning to relate this for a while...

      Your username reminds me of when I went to Paris Island. On that first night, it is always night, I arrived groggy and sore from the bus ride. I stood on the magic yellow footprints for the longest time, or so it seemed, while an angry man in an overly starched hat swore and yelled at the group. I mostly ignored it and spent my time on introspection. I already knew the rules and what to expect, I grew up in a family of Marines.

      Now, what I did not expect is that my name was going to change. It was time to issue and sign and initial everything. It was time to get measured, prodded, inoculated, and a hair cut... During this time I realized that my name had changed. I had become KGIII One Each as, of course, I was issued one of each for so many things.

      It also seemed really strange that they would proceed to chop off all of our hair only to turn around and issue us a small plastic comb. One each, of course. To this day, I still ponder what the purpose of the comb was. I did see one maggot get reamed for not having combed his hair. I am not sure if he had or had not combed his head - I do not think any of us ever did and I do not believe they ever would have been able to tell the difference. Maybe that was the reason they issued the comb.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    14. Re:Oh, fall off the planet by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      And you've fully gleaned the supply system reference.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    15. Re:Oh, fall off the planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly there's something to that with xkcd. Early on he was in University and then working an entry-level NASA job, and he wrote mainly about subjects that came up in academia and physics, at a post-secondary level.

      But for years, Randall has been an online t-shirt salesman/webcomic artist, now comedy book author, so his life experiences are different and he now writes about more general-interest subjects at basically a high-school level. There's nothing wrong with that at all and I don't mean it as an insult to Randall, but it is a difference.

    16. Re:Oh, fall off the planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are way more science-fans than scientists, and the worst of these tend to enjoy xkcd.

  7. 100, not 1000 by AncalagonTotof · · Score: 0

    And announced on https://www.xkcd.com/ long ago

    --
    Totof
    1. Re:100, not 1000 by lgftsa · · Score: 3, Informative

      That would be "ten hundred" as it is written in the xkcd banner graphic.

    2. Re:100, not 1000 by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      100, not 1000

      Ten hundred, not the hundred.

      I made that mistake too, at first. I guess "thousand" isn't in the list (though I'm not sure which specific list he's using).

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:100, not 1000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100, not 1000

      "explained using the ten hundred most common words". I guess it'll be difficult for you to read!

    4. Re:100, not 1000 by wolrahnaes · · Score: 1

      100, not 1000

      So you didn't notice that the original image, the linked announcement, and every bit of content about this says 1000 (or in some cases in the spirit of the book, ten hundred)?

      --
      I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
  8. How pornographic is this alleged book? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is Randall "Cunnilingus" Munroe we're talking about, yes?

    1. Re:How pornographic is this alleged book? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You say this as though cunnilingus is a bad thing.

      In the case of herpes simplex I'd agree, but otherwise..

  9. I thought it would be cool, but no by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Informative

    A book written in only a thousand words, I thought, would be cool for people learning English. But it's not. The whole thing is shot through with Millennial cultural references, so much as to make it incomprehensible. Hell, I can barely understand parts of the sample page. People who had different life experiences from the author as well as non-native English speakers will be totally lost. Sad, I had such high hopes.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:I thought it would be cool, but no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Face fuck helps you find a face for you to fuck. When you done then you can twat it on twat book.

    2. Re:I thought it would be cool, but no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      That's because you are a retard. Isn't there a window for you to lick?

    3. Re:I thought it would be cool, but no by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I must admit, I like the concept and I admired the cartoon that inspired the book.

      I'm just not terribly enthused by the book. It feels like it'll be very hard work to get through - there are more than a thousand words in the English language because the others are so bloody useful.

      So use them!

    4. Re:I thought it would be cool, but no by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2
      I really don't get how two people moderated my comment "Troll". It is not a deliberate attempt at creating strife, it's what I thought when I read the sample. A book with only a thousand words, sounds great for teaching, right? But the sample is sorely lacking.

      WTF? Opinions that disagree with your opinions are not trolls, people.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:I thought it would be cool, but no by quantaman · · Score: 1

      A book written in only a thousand words, I thought, would be cool for people learning English. But it's not. The whole thing is shot through with Millennial cultural references, so much as to make it incomprehensible. Hell, I can barely understand parts of the sample page. People who had different life experiences from the author as well as non-native English speakers will be totally lost. Sad, I had such high hopes.

      From reading the comic that inspired it I think there's two legitimate values to the book:

      1) I'm not sure there's a lot in the way of "a brief overview how all this common stuff works" books targeted at geeks, at least none that are marketed in a way they'd be cool for an adult geek to own. If I bought one I'd probably buy it because I wouldn't mind getting a very brief high level overview of helicopters, microwaves, bridges, etc but don't want to buy a kids book to do so.

      2) The incomprehensibility isn't a bug, it's a feature. It's essentially a puzzle book where the puzzle is figuring out what he's talking about, except the twist is he's not actually trying to make it confusing, he's just dealing with a bizarre constraint on how he can communicate.

      That being said I agree it would be useless for non-English speakers.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  10. Still relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought that after the "nukular disasters are A-ok because: nukabananas" people would start to realize they are like bad building painters...
    The less knowledge you have (paint) the more you need to spread it thin...

  11. I've got his first book by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    who's title I'm too lazy to look up. It is fricken awesome, well worth the $20.

    / Not Randall
    // Don't even know him
    /// Just enjoyed his book

    1. Re:I've got his first book by godrik · · Score: 1

      According to the copy on my table, it is called: "What if?" Haven't read it yet.

    2. Re:I've got his first book by Briareos · · Score: 1

      It's a print collection of his What If? pages, which are basically him overthinking silly questions, and also hilarious most of the time...

      --

      "I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole

  12. Great idea for one cartoon, lousy for a book ... by MacTO · · Score: 0

    When I read "the up-goer V", I received the message that technical language is a good thing since it helps to clarify concepts. (At least to a degree. I'm sure that we have all run across texts that use jargon to such a degree that it obscures concepts.) Just look at that cartoon. It is almost impossible to figure out what the Saturn V actually does because the language is so simple that it fails to convey the purpose of the various parts.

    Making that point only takes a single cartoon. Anything more is tedious.

  13. Once you're famous books are a cashin route by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

    I always have to explain to new authors that it doesn't matter how good you think your book is, to get sales, you should try and achieve some fame first. I'm not saying Munroe didn't earn his fame, those xkcd comics are funny sometimes. I like them. It is just that being well known is important. For this reason, running a free site with no ads can benefit you in many ways in the long run.

    --
    God spoke to me
    1. Re:Once you're famous books are a cashin route by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "The man who makes an appearance in the business world, the man who creates personal interest, is the man who gets ahead. Be liked and you will never want." - Death of a Salesman

  14. I know it explains many more than two things, but by jthill · · Score: 1

    Will someone please show me Thing One and Thing Two?

    --
    As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
  15. Nothing wrong with XKCD, but... by buckfeta2014 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... isn't it a little stupid to be giving awards to a book that isn't published yet? That's like giving an unfinished indie game the award of "game of the year"...

    oh wait. That's actually happened before.

    --
    Buck Feta. You know what to do.
    1. Re:Nothing wrong with XKCD, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Remember back before Obama was elected? Of course you don't. Everybody knew for a fact back then that he would be president. There was absolutely no doubt whatsoever. None. Because Black.

      Randall Munroe's Asshole is the Obama of webcomics. It has so many stupid idiot followers that it cannot lose. Because Asshole.

    2. Re:Nothing wrong with XKCD, but... by buckfeta2014 · · Score: 1

      By those same standards, do you think Billary is going to win "because woman"? Or Donald Trump "because rich white guy from TV"?

      --
      Buck Feta. You know what to do.
    3. Re:Nothing wrong with XKCD, but... by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      I'm curous how fucking dumb you have to be to read this and think an award was given out.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    4. Re:Nothing wrong with XKCD, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you'd better compare it to the nobel peace prize Obama got -- in the same year he assumed office. He had not actually *done* much he was awarded for (some say, he didn't even do it later), but the commitee just thought he would

  16. Re:I know it explains many more than two things, b by godrik · · Score: 1

    TFS points to the one he did of a rocket. http://xkcd.com/1133/

  17. great by SirSlud · · Score: 1

    It's like YA for engineers.

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  18. Best seller means preorders, because NY Times by raymorris · · Score: 2

    What award? It's a best-seller for Amazon, which simply means that a lot of people bought it. Why get so many preorders before release? Because of the way the New York Times calculates their lists.

    To sell many copies of a book, it really helps to be on the New York Times best-seller list for a particular week. But to get on the list, you have to sell many copies in a week. The trick is that the Times counts sales when the books are DELIVERED, not when they are ordered. So what you do is pre-sell books for a long time prior to publication. The week the book is released, and orders are fulfilled, the Times counts allb of those preorders as sales for that one week that the book is actually released. Hopefully, that's enough to get on the Times best-seller list and all of the publicity associated with that.

    This is also why you'll see very attractive offers for preorders, things like "preorder my new book and you'll get the DVD, plus my last book, for free". They aren't trying to make money on preorders, they're trying to get enough preorders to get on the best- seller list for the week when they fulfill the preorders.

  19. Twilight of the elite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. What an amazing collection of annoyed science snobs. "How dare anyone make science accessible or *gasp* humorous!"

    What a bunch of highly educated whiners.

  20. Warning: bad pun by pjt33 · · Score: 2

    Donald Trump is going to win because money is everything in US politics: the only way to get ahead is toupee.

  21. Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Why do we keep feeding this troll?? He's getting rich by dumbing you down.

  22. Possibly Annoying Style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a suspicion that the BBC in the UK are running a similar experiment. Many documentaries seem to have lost their past tense which can result in a very awkward style when presenters try to explain historical events as if they are still continuously happening in the present. They obviously have a good deal of contempt for their audience.

  23. Re:I know it explains many more than two things, b by jeek · · Score: 1

    Greetings jthill,

    You can see Thing One and Thing Two here, eventually: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

    Cheers,
    jeek

    --
    If you want to be seen, stand up. If you want to be heard, speak up. If you want to be respected, sit down and shut up.
  24. Re:100, not 1000^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W by AncalagonTotof · · Score: 1

    Sorry guys, yes, I did not noticed the "TEN". I feel bad right now.

    --
    Totof
  25. Re:100, not 1000^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W by KGIII · · Score: 2

    Your penance is to use Windows 10 for 90 days - no dual booting and yes, that includes a phone. One more time and it is Bob.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  26. Ten hundred, not thousand by Bruce+Dawson · · Score: 1

    Please stop describing this book as "using only the thousand most common English words". The word 'thousand' is not one of the thousand most common English words, which is why Randall describes the book as "using only the ten hundred most common English words". Missing that detail is practically missing the entire point.

  27. Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice touch.

  28. And there it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And there it is. The inevitable Stealth downmod (of parent).

    Several days after the thread has died, so there is minimal chance of anyone coming along and reversing the moderation.

    It is no wonder that Slashdot has gone down hill.

    And that so many have gone elsewhere, or only post anonymously.

    Hives don't like individuals.

    And individuals don't like hives.