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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,.
An ISP like Comcast is not going to do a separate plan for every residential customer of their service, and then monitor and bill them by the GB. At least, not at the price of a basic residential connection. Do you mind if I ask what company you use, and how many customers they have?
Also, the horror stories of customers being charged hundreds of dollars because they exceeded a bandwidth/data cap they didn't understand would be in every newspaper on a weekly basis. Many would start as either "A single mother of two/three...", or "A retired couple can't understand why they have to go without [insert necessity here] because of a wireless router."
I'm being slightly glib. But the poster I responded to, complete loony, was simply being stupid. Unless he actually agrees to pay my hypothetical $1000 per month to cover, as he stated, his demand to be able "to use a connection continuously at it's peak capacity".
As far as getting the ISP off the ground, that's his problem to solve as he plans a business model in line with his vision of "How it should be".
Don't like how ISPs run their business? Plunk down your own money and start one that follows your ethical code.
How about all ISPs change their policy to allow all open access to anyone with any device they want, but the base cost is $1000 a month? If you insist they have no right to limit you, and you plan to host a backup of Google.com, then that's what you'll pay.
If you promise not "to use a connection continuously at it's peak capacity", they'll then knock off $500 to show their appreciation. If you promise not to run an active server, they'll knock off another $400. Then we'll be right back to where we are, and you'll be perfectly happy. Right?
While I understand where you are coming from with that, and I also don't think a political ad has changed my vote, for a wide swatch of voters the ads show them which candidate will promise to give them more plunder if they win office. That's enough to change many voters ballot choice.
Ann Romney talks about this period of her life as if it were a period of desperate poverty with little hope in sight rather than just being the standard higher education right of passage for privileged children with a lifeline to their parents if things get rough. I think it rubs me the wrong way because I was once that naive and actually thought that my family was poor. Of course, that was when I was a small child. Actually reaching adulthood and still being that naive is sort of disturbing. This is why I had to agree with the GP that statements like that make the Romney's come off sounding like Thurston and Lovey Howell.
You really have no idea what she meant, but just want to bash someone you don't agree with. Great post.
Disagreeing with her and bashing her seem to be the same thing from your perspective. I just think that she comes off like an adult spoiled brat trying to pretend that she has any real acquaintance with hardship.
My mistake. It just sounded like the same 'hate the rich because they aren't poor like me' screed I heard/read all too often during and after the campaign. Thanks for putting your own perspective to it.
Some people just can't let others have fun. If they can't be in control of something, they would rather it not be available. (Sounds like the RIAA/MPAA, when put that way.)
I wasn't involved in the OTT much, but it was fun to read. Especially the crazy words being substituted way back when for April Fool's Day.
Note: I never voted for Obama. I voted for Ron Paul, and then Jill Stein after Dr. Paul was proven to be just another cog in the same machine, just a slightly differently shaped one.
I also voted for Jill Stein last year. Although I don't agree with most of the planks in the Green Party's platform.
If everyone disgusted with the system voted nest vote for anyone other than a Republicrat, then the system would change in a few months.
So you making an unsupported conjecture is proof? I think you need to be in politics. You'd fit right in with the rest of them. So you're conjecture is that if everyone vote Democrat somehow the politicians would no longer be motivated to pass the laws wanted by the money interests that are paying them? if everyone voted Democrat suddenly they'd stop passing the same unfathomable laws that no one, including themselves, can really understand? Is you're conjecture that if everyone voted Democrat somehow they would stop reinterpreting and redefining the laws that are passed? Is you're conjecture that if everyone voted Democrat they'd magically stop lying and secretly doing things that seem to clearly violate any reasonable interpretation of US constitution? Sure I'll buy that. Makes perfect sense. Wow.
Please re-read AK Marc's post, but realize he conjoined "Republican" and "Democrat" to make the term "Republicrat", referring to the two 'opposing parties' as one entity. In other words, if every one disgusted with the system voted for someone other than a Republican or Democrat, the system would change.
I do like your arguments, and can appreciate your viewpoint. But you misunderstood his intent in that post.
Slashdot Mirror
No! He can't do that. Can't you see? Someone on the internet is wrong!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wasn't it that he started to get into it in a phone interview, but that was when Kripke pranked him and filled his office with helium?
So he never got to finish explaining it.
Or is my episodic memory incorrect?
So now the polls are allowed to have comments, they are for data mining only, not discussion.
Why?
What is the reason we can't talk about the subject of the polls anymore?
What has running servers got to do with it?
An ISP should charge for bandwidth.
An ISP like Comcast is not going to do a separate plan for every residential customer of their service, and then monitor and bill them by the GB. At least, not at the price of a basic residential connection. Do you mind if I ask what company you use, and how many customers they have?
Also, the horror stories of customers being charged hundreds of dollars because they exceeded a bandwidth/data cap they didn't understand would be in every newspaper on a weekly basis. Many would start as either "A single mother of two/three ...", or "A retired couple can't understand why they have to go without [insert necessity here] because of a wireless router."
I'm being slightly glib. But the poster I responded to, complete loony, was simply being stupid. Unless he actually agrees to pay my hypothetical $1000 per month to cover, as he stated, his demand to be able "to use a connection continuously at it's peak capacity".
As far as getting the ISP off the ground, that's his problem to solve as he plans a business model in line with his vision of "How it should be".
Don't like it? Don't run an ISP.
Don't like how ISPs run their business? Plunk down your own money and start one that follows your ethical code.
How about all ISPs change their policy to allow all open access to anyone with any device they want, but the base cost is $1000 a month? If you insist they have no right to limit you, and you plan to host a backup of Google.com, then that's what you'll pay.
If you promise not "to use a connection continuously at it's peak capacity", they'll then knock off $500 to show their appreciation. If you promise not to run an active server, they'll knock off another $400. Then we'll be right back to where we are, and you'll be perfectly happy. Right?
Seumass, you made a comment a couple weeks ago about Art Bell and Coast to Coast. I'm the guy who replied to it.
I just saw this article, and thought I should pass it on to you.
http://www.mercurynews.com/entertainment/ci_23757348/art-bell-returning-radio-sirius-show-about-paranormal
-
For some reason, the right edge of the story is cut off with a few letters hidden. Select the text and copy-n-paste into Notepad if you need.
I can't answer that until you sign this support contract. X_________
And this non-disclosure form. X_________
And this non-compete agreement. X_________
And this EULA. X_________
And initial here ____ and here___ aaannd
here____.
10 GOTO 10;
While I understand where you are coming from with that, and I also don't think a political ad has changed my vote, for a wide swatch of voters the ads show them which candidate will promise to give them more plunder if they win office. That's enough to change many voters ballot choice.
Wait a second!!
Venutian ducks can talk??
Actually, I didn't even know Venus had ducks.
Earth says: "I didn't leave the habitable zone. The habitable zone left me!"
Ann Romney talks about this period of her life as if it were a period of desperate poverty with little hope in sight rather than just being the standard higher education right of passage for privileged children with a lifeline to their parents if things get rough. I think it rubs me the wrong way because I was once that naive and actually thought that my family was poor. Of course, that was when I was a small child. Actually reaching adulthood and still being that naive is sort of disturbing. This is why I had to agree with the GP that statements like that make the Romney's come off sounding like Thurston and Lovey Howell.
You really have no idea what she meant, but just want to bash someone you don't agree with. Great post.
Disagreeing with her and bashing her seem to be the same thing from your perspective. I just think that she comes off like an adult spoiled brat trying to pretend that she has any real acquaintance with hardship.
My mistake. It just sounded like the same 'hate the rich because they aren't poor like me' screed I heard/read all too often during and after the campaign. Thanks for putting your own perspective to it.
Or it could have been $200 per year, accumulated from 1 to 18. That gives $3600 over almost two decades.
It might have been $50 per year, and she simply meant the value was a few thousand as stock prices rose.
It even could have been $10,000 per year, to lower the father's taxable income, and she is way off on approximating it.
You really have no idea what she meant, but just want to bash someone you don't agree with. Great post.
Some people just can't let others have fun. If they can't be in control of something, they would rather it not be available. (Sounds like the RIAA/MPAA, when put that way.)
I wasn't involved in the OTT much, but it was fun to read. Especially the crazy words being substituted way back when for April Fool's Day.
As a lurker of Time, I agree.
Note: I never voted for Obama. I voted for Ron Paul, and then Jill Stein after Dr. Paul was proven to be just another cog in the same machine, just a slightly differently shaped one.
I also voted for Jill Stein last year. Although I don't agree with most of the planks in the Green Party's platform.
If everyone disgusted with the system voted nest vote for anyone other than a Republicrat, then the system would change in a few months.
So you making an unsupported conjecture is proof? I think you need to be in politics. You'd fit right in with the rest of them. So you're conjecture is that if everyone vote Democrat somehow the politicians would no longer be motivated to pass the laws wanted by the money interests that are paying them? if everyone voted Democrat suddenly they'd stop passing the same unfathomable laws that no one, including themselves, can really understand? Is you're conjecture that if everyone voted Democrat somehow they would stop reinterpreting and redefining the laws that are passed? Is you're conjecture that if everyone voted Democrat they'd magically stop lying and secretly doing things that seem to clearly violate any reasonable interpretation of US constitution? Sure I'll buy that. Makes perfect sense. Wow.
Please re-read AK Marc's post, but realize he conjoined "Republican" and "Democrat" to make the term "Republicrat", referring to the two 'opposing parties' as one entity. In other words, if every one disgusted with the system voted for someone other than a Republican or Democrat, the system would change.
I do like your arguments, and can appreciate your viewpoint. But you misunderstood his intent in that post.