×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

xkcd To Be Released In Book Form

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the my-normal-approach-is-useless-here dept.

Books 198

History's Coming To writes "xkcd creator Randall Munroe has revealed on his blag that the acclaimed stick-figure comic will be produced in real dead-tree book form. Fantastic news for all fans of comedy, maths, science, and relationship screw-ups — especially given that the book will be sold in aid of the charity 'Room To Read.' Rumors that the book contains a joke in the ISBN remain unconfirmed." The NY Times article that Munroe links (registration may be required) is from April of this year, and I am amazed that this community didn't note the story at that time. The book will be published by breadpig, which was created by Alexis Ohanian, one of the founders of reddit.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

198 comments

The Fans DID Notice It Though (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936577)

The NY Times article that Munroe links (registration may be required) is from April of this year, and I am amazed that this community didn't note the story at that time.

Well, using a very simple search (xkcd book) in the firehose, I found spongedaddy's submission [slashdot.org], my own submission [slashdot.org] and even one of the bin spammers submitted it [slashdot.org]. And we all linked to the same NYTimes story.

Your firehose search tool is there, yes it's slow and clunky. I don't care that you rejected my submission of this story three months ago but don't say I didn't notice one of my favorite web comics being published in book form. I mean, go ahead and say "slow news day" in your summary, I don't care if you feel obligated to dig up old news for stories at 12:25 AM EST on a Tuesday. Also, it confuses me greatly that you provide for us a means to make sure we don't submit a URL that's already been submitted as the primary link by another individual ... yet you yourselves do not use this tool to your advantage when looking for duplicates.

Re:The Fans DID Notice It Though (5, Funny)

Praedon (707326) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936723)

You sir, have just earned yourself a gold star, and a friend mark on Slashdot.

Re:The Fans DID Notice It Though (4, Informative)

SlashWombat (1227578) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937977)

How does XKCD work as a book? Half of the joke is only seen when you hover over the cartoon. Sometimes the material is only understanable if you happen to understand the context, usually some obscure subject in mathematics, science, or tech.

Re:The Fans DID Notice It Though (2, Funny)

catmistake (814204) | more than 4 years ago | (#28938151)

How does XKCD work as a book?

A book? Who said anything about a book? Its being released in book form. If it were to be released as a book, surely the headline would read:
XKCD Author Publishing Book.

Re:The Fans DID Notice It Though (5, Insightful)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936775)

You're right, of course, but - it's kdawson. That's all that need be said.

Re:The Fans DID Notice It Though (5, Interesting)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937039)

Before I didn't like the negativity being pointed squarely at kdawson, but now I'm 100% in the anti-kdawson camp.

Don't shit on your readers mate.

Re:The Fans DID Notice It Though (5, Funny)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937199)

> Don't shit on your readers mate.

I can't tell if that sentence is missing a comma or an apostrophe...

Re:The Fans DID Notice It Though (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28937625)

The article was posted by kdawson from the 'my-normal-approach-is-useless-here' dept.

'here'?

Re:The Fans DID Notice It Though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28937373)

You can only have the entire reader base constantly flame kdawson for so long until it becomes clear that it's designed trolling.

Re:The Fans DID Notice It Though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28937225)

Doesn't that just mean that not enough of us are manning the 'hose?

sloppy second post! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28936587)

ladies, I'm going to fuck your jizz-filled pussies!

Oblig xkcd reference (5, Funny)

ZiakII (829432) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936593)

Re:Oblig xkcd reference (2, Insightful)

tsalmark (1265778) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936671)

I think in this particular case having to posting the rather obvious reference link is more funny than insightful.

Re:Oblig xkcd reference (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28937029)

The funny mod awards no positive karma, but all the negative mods give negative karma. Think carefully for a minute about the consequences of this, and the fact that not all people find the same things funny. 'Insightful' is the new 'Funny' by those that still bother with moderating slashdot at all.

Re:Oblig xkcd reference (5, Insightful)

ppanon (16583) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937129)

AH, but if you get moderated insightful or Informative, a lot of people will have the setting that adds a bonus point. So what happens is that your post never goes over 4 because that level gets displayed as a 5 with no possibility of getting modded up another point for a natural 5. Why is that a problem? Well, maybe you actually would like to get some more points on your achievement score, but you can never get your insightful and informative posts to crack the 4 glass ceiling.

Re:Oblig xkcd reference (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28937187)

I hope the OP got modded funny and not the link itself.

Re:Oblig xkcd reference (1)

Two9A (866100) | more than 4 years ago | (#28938167)

Of course, this neglects to mention the sterling work that members of the xkcd forums do to destroy and/or improve the comics, in the spirit of "Making xkcd Slightly Worse".

I'm currently building an archive of the xkcd/sw posts [xkcdsw.com], and I'm looking to release a book of the "best" of the worsened comics. I will probably be buying Randall's book, if only to get ideas for layout and styling.

I might buy this book... (4, Interesting)

Aeternitas827 (1256210) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936605)

I'm not a big fan of actually buying books--my tax money, to some degree, goes to finance my public library (and free library card), so I usually just check out books that I want--but I think this is one I might actually buy. If a Questionable Content compilation would come available at some later point, I'd probably buy it too. I'd venture to guess that webcomics are low-reward thingers, and those out there that are enjoyable, well, the creators should be able to get something out of it.

Re:I might buy this book... (5, Insightful)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936643)

Or you could just, you know, visit the website [xkcd.com].

So much environmental stuff. Climate change, pollution, rampant deforestation etc... And here we are. Making books of websites.

Re:I might buy this book... (5, Insightful)

Aeternitas827 (1256210) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936663)

I don't always have the internet with me, in a form convenient for viewing xkcd or anything similar (my phone can only do so much). That, and turning pages and reading is faster than mindless clicking a next button that's never in quite the same spot. And, again, the bit of revenue to the author as a thanks for doing something they get very little for--blame me for being a blatant capitalist.

Re:I might buy this book... (5, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936691)

I don't always have the internet with me, in a form convenient for viewing xkcd or anything similar

Randall take note. This guy is a rich source of meta tech culture irony.

Re:I might buy this book... (1)

Aeternitas827 (1256210) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936707)

Hey, I choose not to be a sheep and opt to own anything that is not an iPhone. I prefer my mobile web browsing to fit within the limits or a 240x240 px screen, with minimal images and .wml extensions on the pages.

Re:I might buy this book... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28936709)

Maybe he could release a USB stick version like CRFH is doing?

Re:I might buy this book... (4, Funny)

monkeySauce (562927) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937195)

That, and turning pages and reading is faster than mindless clicking a next button that's never in quite the same spot

And listening is faster and less mindless than turning pages so yeah I'll wait for the audiobook.

Re:I might buy this book... (1)

Razalhague (1497249) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937779)

That, and turning pages and reading is faster than mindless clicking a next button that's never in quite the same spot.

And you call yourself a webcomic reader!? Anyone even halfway sensible will head to the archives [xkcd.com] and open a bunch of the pages in tabs, and then just CTRL+W for the next comic (which is faster than turning pages). The added benefit is that you have a buffer just in case you get disconnected.

More importantly, xkcd belongs to the advanced class of webcomics that put the movement links both above and below the comic, which means that the next link will be in the same spot unless you need to scroll.

Re:I might buy this book... (2, Informative)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936745)

Of course, Randall has to support himself and repay student loans, as he doesn't actually have a job. His only real job was working at NASA for a few years before and after graduating. He wrote somewhere that he wasn't launching rockets or anything, but rather just writing little programs when something unusual needed to be calculated. Something like that. I raged at the alt text to http://www.xkcd.com/564/ [xkcd.com] because he's never been a physics researcher. He just writes a web comic and lets his worshippers give offerings...

Oh come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28937783)

I raged at the alt text to http://www.xkcd.com/564/ [xkcd.com] because he's never been a physics researcher.

Now you are just being silly. He can still have been in a lab. I study software engineering but as some courses are mandatory for all engineering degrees, I do have more than one course of physics labs. Of course, they are very simple as the point is to teach us read and write very exact documentation of the tests we do, not really the physics part. Still... It is very believable that he has been into a lot of labs.

(Not that I thought it has anything to do with whether the joke was funny or not)

Re:I might buy this book... (5, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936841)

Or you could just, you know, visit the website [xkcd.com].

So much environmental stuff. Climate change, pollution, rampant deforestation etc... And here we are. Making books of websites.

Print N books, cut down N/x trees. Keep a website running for N days, burn y kilograms of carbon for each one of those N days. (Or do you think all that bandwidth and server/routers usage is pollution-free?)

We all pollute the environment. I just don't think printing books is the greatest form of pollution.

Re:I might buy this book... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28936977)

At least there's something tangible in the end when you print a book. A website is all potential, and that potential is gone when you pull the plug.

Re:I might buy this book... (2, Insightful)

silentcoder (1241496) | more than 4 years ago | (#28938173)

Printing books is actually very low on pollution and could even be carbon negative. You have some pollution with the equipment to cut the tree down, pulp it and the printing presses and such - but that's once off.
The paper in the books, assuming they don't get burned are... you guessed it: carbon, not carbon dioxide and not in the atmosphere.

You have a permanent safe and useful storage of carbon where it doesn't pollute. Running a website uses energy all the time, meaning a constant pollution, even if books are carbon positive (I doubt it) - they are still a lot lower on emissions than websites.

*NOTE: I said books, not paper, flyers, leaflets and toilet paper do not have this advantage as they are generally not stored safely indoors for centuries.

The confusion here is because people still think trees are carbon negative. They're not, they are mostly carbon neutral, trees produce oxygen only in sunlight, in darkness - they produce carbon dioxide. Depending on the amount of daylight the region gets there is therefore a minor shift to either side, usually seasonally.

Now - that does not mean rampant deforestation is good either. Deforestation mostly replaces a carbon neutral setup with carbon positive setups, and there is a lot more to environmental protection (an environment we do need to survive) than just carbon levels. Saving the rainforrests is a very crucial matter for many important reasons: to protect cultures that would go extinct with them, the survival of many species dependent on them, the likelihood cures to various diseases waiting to be discovered... but global warming is not one of the reasons to protect the trees. In fact, the two have exactly nothing to do with each other.

Re:I might buy this book... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28937025)

So, if we chain all you greenie whiners to giant hamster wheels for power, will you finally shut up?

Re:I might buy this book... (1, Redundant)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937027)

So much environmental stuff. Climate change, pollution, rampant deforestation etc... And here we are. Making books of websites.

Here's an interesting question for ya: How long does it take to read the book? And how much energy does your computer take to run for that amount of time? And for that matter, how much carbon is sequestered in the book that would otherwise be released by decomposition or burning? I'd be interested to see whether an oft-read book is a net carbon gain or loss, assuming your alternative is reading the comic on your beefy gaming PC.

Re:I might buy this book... (2, Informative)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937175)

The carbon content of paper is around 40%. Therefore, each paperback takes... what, maybe a fourth to a half a kilo? out of the atmosphere, for the duration of the lifespan of the book... which I'm sure is probably measured in decades.

Re:I might buy this book... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937825)

Maybe he has a solar panel in the ceiling. Here in Portugal, with the government help and all, they're getting very tempting.

Re:I might buy this book... (2, Insightful)

xtracto (837672) | more than 4 years ago | (#28938189)

Uhh,

I bought one of the PhD Comics book for two reasons:
1. I really liked the comics and therefore wanted to give back something to the author
2. It is really good stuff to have in the toilet while taking a dump. It provides real inspiration!

The book is made on recyclable paper (IIRC) for your eco-freak needs. And you can even give it another use after you finish ;-)

Re:I might buy this book... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28936681)

Mmmmm, libraries. Better than mom's basement could ever be. And cleaner.

Re:I might buy this book... (1)

isama (1537121) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937453)

But I've never been to a library that was comfortably dark like my mom's basement.

Limitations of Dead Tree (5, Funny)

AnonGCB (1398517) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936627)

So if I look at the pictures in the book long enough will the alt text pop up?

Re:Limitations of Dead Tree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28936639)

They're putting the alt text in instead of the usual copyright notice under the comic. lmao

Re:Limitations of Dead Tree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28936659)

Incidentally, the alt text will be printed where traditionally the copyright notice would be.

Re:Limitations of Dead Tree (4, Funny)

StreetStealth (980200) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936665)

Maybe it will be printed in margin, or perhaps the endnotes?

More importantly to me, at least, I hope the format is small enough to fit one per page, so that the page numbers match up. I'm not weird for knowing the strips by their numbers, right?

"Oops, you got an injection attack! 327! [xkcd.com]"

Re:Limitations of Dead Tree (5, Funny)

Aeternitas827 (1256210) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936683)

"Oops, you got an injection attack! 327! [xkcd.com]"

I almost tried that IRL. My wife wouldn't let me pick our daughter's name.

Re:Limitations of Dead Tree (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936935)

    My ex wouldn't have gotten it if I had attempted it, so I suggested a good name from mythology (yet fits in well with modern kids names). Now, how old does she have to be before I try to explain the ancient meaning to her name? I'm thinking 4 years old are a good time to start teaching children dead mythologies with stacks of deities. :) At very least, it'll really throw her kindergarden teacher. Most kids will be learning to spell "cat". Mine will be referencing mythology and trying to root the classroom computers. :)

Re:Limitations of Dead Tree (-1, Flamebait)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936679)

Yes.

Used to love XKCD. In fact it produced my favourite piece of comic art of all time [xkcd.com], and I mean from ANY medium.

Then earlier this year he wrote the asinine Firefly stuff and my interest died as instead of the usual whimsy and intelligence, it devolved into sad Whedon fanboy stupidity that was neither funny nor clever and I realised the guy is a fraud.

Re:Limitations of Dead Tree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28936867)

Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't get the comic that you linked at all.

Can you explain what it means and why it's funny for those of us not artistically inclined?

Re:Limitations of Dead Tree (3, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936927)

He never said he thought it was funny.

Re:Limitations of Dead Tree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28937093)

The only vibe I get is "stalker" when I read that cartoon.

Re:Limitations of Dead Tree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28937273)

Yeah, or "suicidal cutter"... really creepy.

Re:Limitations of Dead Tree (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28937135)

Grandpa Coward just didn't hold his mouse over the image long enough.

Re:Limitations of Dead Tree (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937051)

The early XKCD was a lot sadder, more whimsical and romantic, and often a little bitter or despairing. I remember thinking when I started my archive binge, "god, I hope this guy finds a girl who he can be happy with". To this day I don't know if that's why the early comics were like that, but he seems happier now, even if the comics don't hold the same poignancy.

Re:Limitations of Dead Tree (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937275)

I realised the guy is a fraud.

Um ... how exactly is someone who does a webcomic a "fraud"? WYSIWIG: little stick figures doing goofy things. You liked his earlier comics, you don't like his later ones, fine. But he's not lying to anyone about what he's doing.

Re:Limitations of Dead Tree (4, Funny)

belrick (31159) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936763)

So if I look at the pictures in the book long enough will the alt text pop up?

Yes.

Re:Limitations of Dead Tree (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937839)

The title text better not be "Raptors", because I don't want any of those popping up in my living room!

Better add "hidden in a comic book" to the list of entry points...

- RG>

Re:Limitations of Dead Tree (3, Informative)

readthemall (1531267) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936801)

From TFA: The title text will appear where the tiny copyright notice would appear on a traditional strip.

Re:Limitations of Dead Tree (3, Funny)

srothroc (733160) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937525)

Only if you cross your eyes and slowly move the book forward from your nose.

This book will be for fans only (2, Insightful)

readthemall (1531267) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936739)

As TFA mentions, "the book will be sold through the xkcd Web site". And it probably does not need to go to the common book stores, because most of the times only the fans understand what is a comic about.

Still, great news! May the force be with Randall.

Surprised at /. falling down again? (5, Insightful)

shanen (462549) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936743)

So the editor is surprised no one told /. about the recent news? Hey, they only missed that story by a few months. Surprise? That's a funnier laugh than the best of XKCD, which is saying a bit, since some of them are pretty funny.

Gee, you don't suppose the so-called editor could be in a position to do something to improve /. to the point where interesting news and humor would again be visible around here?

Of course personal recollection is just one data point at best, but... Some years ago I used to visit /. quite often, perhaps several times a day versus several times a week these days--unless a month or two has gone by. On an average visit I expected to see at several very interesting articles and at least one first report that I hadn't seen elsewhere versus my current expectation of seeing one or two non-boring stories and nothing that I haven't seen elsewhere one or two days earlier. A typical visit would reveal a number of very witty comments and usually one or two actually funny and new jokes versus the current crop of a scattering of very tired memes. I remember looking at a relatively large thread (which are relatively rare these days) and finding exactly one comment that had even been moderated as funny--and that one wasn't even amusing.

Most importantly, the moderation used to be pretty poor instead of downright horrendous. Apparently the lousy moderators have won that game--and I expect the moderation of this post to prove my point (yet again).

But the so-called editors are apparently quite satisfied with the devolution of the system. I guess lower traffic on /. means less so-called work for them?

Re:Surprised at /. falling down again? (2, Informative)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936787)

It's kdawson. The summary somehow has to create outrage and be worded in needlessly inflammatory language.

Re:Surprised at /. falling down again? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28936795)

kdawson dude.

Like "que pasa" except use a troll voice.

Re:Surprised at /. falling down again? (1)

evanbd (210358) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936879)

Apparently the lousy moderators have won that game--and I expect the moderation of this post to prove my point (yet again).

And you're complaining about tired memes? I'm pretty sure that particular meme has been around since, oh, about the time a bunch of us got banned from moderating for participating / moderating the first slashdot troll post investigation [google.com] thread. Complaining about what the mods will do to your post in order to get modded up isn't quite the oldest trick in the book, but it's certainly in the first chapter.

That said, I agree with most of your post. And, of all the non-editors here, kdawson is probably the worst.

Re:Surprised at /. falling down again? (1)

PatDev (1344467) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936967)

Apparently the lousy moderators have won that game--and I expect the moderation of this post to prove my point (yet again).

Anyone ever notice how many posts with quotes like "Go ahead, mod me down, but..." or "Hey, I've got karma to burn..." seem to get highly moderated?

Re:Surprised at /. falling down again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28937381)

Anyone ever notice

Yes. It was in the trolling HOWTO that was circulated in the early 2000s.

(newfags think I'm kidding)

Re:Surprised at /. falling down again? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28936975)

and I expect the moderation of this post to prove my point (yet again).

Nice passive-aggressive response, pigshit.

I'm sure you could do a far better job, but then you couldn't bask in the luxury of bitching.

May the door-closer be fast enough to put a doorknob up your asshole on the way out.

It's been shit knowing you, you condescending bastard.

Helpimtrappedintheisbndatabase (3, Funny)

FlyByPC (841016) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936773)

>Rumors that the book contains a joke in the ISBN remain unconfirmed. Were we talking about any other author, I would scoff. But this being xkcd, it actually sounds plausible.

Re:Helpimtrappedintheisbndatabase (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937019)

In all likelyhood, the UPC barcode will be a compressed xkcd comic only revealed under a magnifying glass...

Is XKCD Shitty Today? (-1, Flamebait)

schnablebg (678930) | more than 4 years ago | (#28936979)

YES [isxkcdshittytoday.com] and it has been this way for months. There are some incredibly brilliant XKCD comics but I'm afraid it's jumped the shark.

Re:Is XKCD Shitty Today? (5, Insightful)

geekboy642 (799087) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937215)

I like that you need somebody else's opinion to know whether something is enjoyable or not. I'd like you to check out my new websites: isslashdotshittytoday.com and arehatersshittytoday.com. I'm working on an iskdawsonshittytoday.com, but I keep getting divide by zero errors in the rss.

Re:Is XKCD Shitty Today? (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937285)

It's not the shittiness that's xkcd's real problem, it's the general smugness and smart-arsed nature of a lot of it. And this is coming from someone whose day job is research in a numerate science.

Re:Is XKCD Shitty Today? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28937693)

Ooh! I wish I could do some research in a numerate science! But that sounds way too difficult for me. You must be so clever!

Re:Is XKCD Shitty Today? (2, Interesting)

ettlz (639203) | more than 4 years ago | (#28938101)

But that sounds way too difficult for me. You must be so clever!

Which sums up the impression I get reading your average xkcd strip, if I'm not about to hurl at Munroe's insipid melancholy. It turns out you don't need to be that clever; nevertheless I am in xkcd's presumed target audience, and despite getting many of the gags still don't find them that funny. Moreover, I cannot see what the hell my peers think is so great about it. Seriously, do they need a bunch of mathsier-than-thou stick drawings to reaffirm their abilities? Roughly speaking, xkcd is to geeks what The Mighty Boosh is to trendy undergrads. As far as I can see, they're both guilty of flattering their respective audiences to the point where the latter forgets that anything comic should, at least once in a while, make one laugh.

proposed tag: wasteofpaper (-1, Troll)

gumpish (682245) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937013)

I'm tagging this story wasteofpaper. Won't you join me?

Re:proposed tag: wasteofpaper (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28938123)

No what's a waste of paper is Harry Potter. All you stupid assholes are going to complain cause someone wants to put out a book and all of a sudden you give a fuck about the environment while JK Retard puts out the same trash about a boy with magical powers and you guys keep mum about it. All you dickheads who sit on slashdot all day posting bullshit and being arm-chair FOSSies waste more carbon in a day than all the books xkcd will even publish and ship out. So go tag this story wasteofpaper as long as you put a name tag on your head that says "wasteoflife".

character (1)

yoldapirate (1304207) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937139)

You got to be a that character that is an INTERNET nerd and goes around doing rare stuff to prove points, like buying a domain to show how shitty xkcd is.

Subject (1)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937161)

Neato, a comic which is funny maybe 15% of the time (but to be fair, it is VERY funny when it does get it right) is going to hit bookshelves.

Coffee Table Fodder (1)

moore.dustin (942289) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937181)

From the pictures in the article, it looks great for a coffee table keepsake. I cannot speak for your homes clientele, but this will be a wonderful thing guests will enjoy while getting to know me a little better in the process.

Or just throw it on the throne and enjoy.

All the people tagging this article (4, Interesting)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937221)

I think they must just be suffering from the curse of hating things just because they're popular. I know I have a tendency to do the same thing, but I generally actually do a bit of investigation to find out if it's popular for a reason I can appreciate first.

The other possibility is hating something just because everybody else discovered it and now you can't be cool for knowing about this obscure but fantastic thing that nobody else knows about. Considering this crowd, I expect that's the more likely scenario.

Re:All the people tagging this article (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937509)

I think xkcd suffers from the reverse syndrome - namely, far too many people pretending to like it for the sake of trying to be cool.

Sorry, I've tried to like it but xkcd ***JUST ISN'T FUNNY***.

Give me this [userfriendly.org] any day for a daily chuckle.

Re:All the people tagging this article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28937629)

Maybe its just oversaturated

missing extension (1)

tirnacopu (732831) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937723)

I tried hovering a pen over the book pages, but the alt text doesn't show up. Where is the metadata stored for real objects, and what plugin must I install to view it?

Good news everyone! (1)

consonant (896763) | more than 4 years ago | (#28937857)

I know there's quite a bit of hate in the comments about the late submission, but here are my comments on the actual news bit:

[See comment subject]

Also, I hope Randall doesn't dick his reader fan-base by pullng a Scott Adams and pulling the content that's made its way into the book, OFF his site.

Dear Scott, I know you want to make bajillions of moneys through book deals, but you lost this reader when you sold out to your publisher and removed all the blog posts that went into your book. "Oops" [mediabistro.com] just doesn't cut it.

p.s: Slash-CSS is seriously fucked. I really doubt paragraph line-spacing needs to be that massive.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...