Beta
×

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's Long-running "Time" Comic: Work of Art Or Nerd Sniping?

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the trolling-your-readers-for-fun-and-profit dept.

The Media 190

Fortran IV writes "Randall Munroe's xkcd webcomic has done some odd things before, but #1190, 'Time,' is something special. It's a time-lapse movie of two people building a sandcastle that's been updating just once an hour (twice an hour in the beginning) for well over a month (since March 25th), and after over a thousand frames shows no sign of ending; in a few days the number of frames will surpass the total number of xkcd comics. It's been mentioned in The Economist. Some of its readers have called it the One True Comic; others have called it a MMONS (Massively Multiplayer Online Nerd Sniping). It's sparked its own wiki, its own jargon (Timewaiters, newpix, Blitzgirling), and a thread on the xkcd user forum that runs to over 20,000 posts from 1100 distinct posters. Is 'Time' a fascinating work of art, a deep sociological experiment — or the longest-running shaggy-dog joke in history? Randall Munroe's not saying."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

How is this interesting? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636177)

I looked at it. Big black flat space with two stick figures. The Economist cares about this why?

Re:How is this interesting? (3, Interesting)

tqk (413719) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636227)

I looked at it. Big black flat space with two stick figures.

You got stick figures? All I get is the word "TIME" all alone by itself. Profound, or hungover?

Re:How is this interesting? (2, Funny)

TheEyes (1686556) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636267)

I looked at it. Big black flat space with two stick figures.

You got stick figures? All I get is the word "TIME" all alone by itself. Profound, or hungover?

No Javascript.

Re:How is this interesting? (4, Funny)

flyneye (84093) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636437)

Perhaps it's done, I saw the same nothing you did. Other pages have a comic. I guess this one bowed and drew the curtain.
The art is; the page hits this link is generating from a link on /. Little kids draw stick figures as representations for communication of thoughts they cannot express, or as a utility, not so much art. So in a Warhol fashion, one needs to look beyond that, to the space where a comic was purported to exist. Like a star gone to black hole, it carries only memories of its existence embedded in any observers. So we can see a juxtaposition of relativity, repeated in the remembered grains of sand forming the castle, bringing to mind ; time as observed through the sands of an hourglass, thus are the days of our lives. An apocalyptic work, this should be displayed at the mens room in the Louvre on a very old computer which will automatically generate an hourglass when refreshed giving the viewer time to see the complexity of artists intent. Dead blind genius.

Re:How is this interesting? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636467)

Maybe this comic's frames were changing according to how many visitors opened that comic. And now that link has been directly slashdotted it has accelerated the comic to its end.

Re:How is this interesting? (3, Informative)

tqk (413719) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636579)

You got stick figures? All I get is the word "TIME" all alone by itself. Profound, or hungover?

No Javascript.

Javascript's turned on. Firefox/Iceweasel on Debian wheezy. Refreshed, now I see two miniscule stick figures on a black shoreline looking out over water(?) under a white sky. Zzzzz ...

Re:How is this interesting? (4, Informative)

TheEyes (1686556) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636723)

Here's the history, in slideshow form: http://xkcd.aubronwood.com/# [aubronwood.com]

Re:How is this interesting? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43637033)

Pity he didn't leave the text in multiple frames to facilitate reading "on the fly". Now we need all the frames with text ...converted to text.

It is... for very low values of interesting. (3, Funny)

Squirrel Killer (23450) | about a year and a half ago | (#43637195)

Javascript's turned on. Firefox/Iceweasel on Debian wheezy. Refreshed, now I see two miniscule stick figures on a black shoreline looking out over water(?) under a white sky. Zzzzz ...

Wait for it...

Re:How is this interesting? (2, Funny)

tqk (413719) | about a year and a half ago | (#43637209)

... now I see two miniscule stick figures on a black shoreline looking out over water(?) under a white sky. Zzzzz ...

I guess I spoke too soon. Now "he" has dropped his pack and is walking down to the water's edge(?).

Where's all the explosions and car chases, blood/gore/guts? And sex? Comedy? Drama? Hello?

Re:How is this interesting? (3, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636241)

I looked at it. Big black flat space with two stick figures. The Economist cares about this why?

because it's updating? the wiki has a history to browse through... not that exciting even then though, but I guess if you're a really hardcore xkcd fan you'll check every frame if there's god in them or something... what's good about this is that the artist didn't use the main strip for all of this, tbh. so I suppose economist is out of stories, any what-if would make for a better story.

Re:How is this interesting? (5, Interesting)

dicobalt (1536225) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636297)

It's about building something (a person's life to be specific) then time comes along and destroys it (death), like tides destroy sand castles. At least I assume that's what it's about, that might be too obvious though.

I am on the only one with the reaction (4, Interesting)

redmid17 (1217076) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636179)

I don't really care? I even like xkcd

Re:I am on the only one with the reaction (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636221)

I found it kind of interesting. When the comic first came up, I waited several seconds thinking it was a slow moving gif, decided it was a waste of time and haven't given it a second thought until now. It's nice to find out what was actually up with the comic, and I wouldn't have heard of it otherwise.

Re:I am on the only one with the reaction (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636281)

Watch the video. It's basically a (low framerate, very slowly downloaded) animation. Without sound. Very "Randall." No reason to obsess, just enjoy every couple months as it gets updated.

Re:I am on the only one with the reaction (3, Insightful)

Nialin (570647) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636483)

Art is defined by the artist. Everything else is interpretation.

No it's not. (5, Interesting)

denzacar (181829) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636671)

Art is both a process and the product of an attempt to encapsulate and transfer a human experience through a medium.

Without audience, it's just masturbation.

Re:No it's not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636781)

Your definition is masturbation.

Re:No it's not. (0)

mug funky (910186) | about a year and a half ago | (#43637129)

Masturbation is Art too.

Art escapes all attempts to define it. enjoy being wrong.

Re:I am on the only one with the reaction (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636305)

I don't really care? I even like xkcd

Nope, I'm with you - although I've found xkcd to be hit or miss, so I'm not quite the fan that a lot of Slashdotters are.

Re:I am on the only one with the reaction (1)

Threni (635302) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636731)

I like xkcd but when I looked at this strip (the day it was posted) there was nothing there, nor was there anything to make clear I should watch for hourly updates. I'm not sure why anyone would assume that..

Re:I am on the only one with the reaction (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636905)

Did you read the mouse-over text? It says "Wait for it." Pretty clear that something is going to happen, no?

Re:I am on the only one with the reaction (2)

Dan Dankleton (1898312) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636979)

Nope. I thought that was the whole of the story, rather than an introduction.

Watching the animated .gif on the wiki though, the dialogue really has a Waiting For Godot feel about it.

Re:I am on the only one with the reaction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636627)

That was my reaction, too, and I also think XKCD is funny sometimes.

And the original post asks if it might be "a deep sociological experiment"? Give me a break.

Re:I am on the only one with the reaction (2)

SteveFoerster (136027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636825)

Apparently not, since there's an XKCD Sucks [blogspot.com] site. I often like it, though.

Is it art for art's sake? (4, Insightful)

DavidClarkeHR (2769805) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636185)

Sure, the author of XKCD might have a sarcastic streak, but even if part of the reason is a shaggy-dog joke, I'm sure part of the reason is also art.

I mean, it's not an either-or situation, and setting it up as a false dichotomy isn't going to generate meaningful discussion.

you realize that art is a field of liberal arts? (-1, Troll)

decora (1710862) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636293)

and the author of XKCD takes a gigantic shit down the mouth of liberal arts on his main page?

Re:you realize that art is a field of liberal arts (2)

Kreigaffe (765218) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636321)

No, just down the mouths of liberal arts *majors*.

There is a difference, you know.

Re:you realize that art is a field of liberal arts (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636353)

No, "the field of liberal arts" is a division of study in university environments. "Art" is a fundamental part of the way in which humans express themselves. The difference is subtle, just like hurricanes and clown make-up.

Re:you realize that art is a field of liberal arts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636813)

No, "the field of liberal arts" is a division of study in university environments. "Art" is a fundamental part of the way in which humans express themselves. The difference is subtle, just like hurricanes and clown make-up.

Absolutely heroic comment. Mod parent up.

Re:you realize that art is a field of liberal arts (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636457)

and the author of XKCD takes a gigantic shit down the mouth of liberal arts on his main page?

It's a major part of art to question itself. XKCDs "gigantic shit" is a tame in joke compared with what Magritte and Duchamp did.

Re:you realize that art is a field of liberal arts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636651)

Are you a liberal art's major by any chance. A normal person would have interpreted that in the sense it was intended, a joke at the expense of liberal arts majors, it's nothing to get offended about, you should recognise it for what it is, and not as " tak[ing] a gigantic shit down the mouth of liberal arts".

Re:you realize that art is a field of liberal arts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43637219)

And is equally hard on Children and Adults. So, I can't imagine it's too harsh a comment.

Re:Is it art for art's sake? (4, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636327)

If you watch the whole thing up to now as an animation, then go back and review the frame with dialog, it's very clear this is going somewhere.
http://xkcd.aubronwood.com/ [aubronwood.com]

I think it's fantastic.

Re:Is it art for art's sake? (5, Informative)

De Lemming (227104) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636425)

Aubron Wood has made a nice web page out of the comic, he was the first one to do so. But I like this one even better:

http://geekwagon.net/projects/xkcd1190/ [geekwagon.net]

It also has all the "special" frames (when something changes, when there is dialog,...) listed at the bottom.

Re:Is it art for art's sake? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636623)

Blue Lagoon without sex. Just as boring.

Slow animation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636211)

Most animation plays at about 24fps. Going at one frame per hour, this is it would take 86,400 times as long. So how is this any more impressive than the first two minutes of Fantasia, say? Is it really creative to make a cartoon and play it very slowly?

Re:Slow animation (2)

gmueckl (950314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636255)

When done for the first time? Yes.

Re:Slow animation (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636257)

What about making a musical piece and playing it very slowly?

Re:Slow animation (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636419)

If you have to ask... the answer is no.

An artist might do a work of art that could be classified as playing a musical piece very slowly. But (s)he wouldn't do it because they are copying the idea of another contemporary art idea, nor would they ask if it was art before making it. And it would be good or bad on it's own merits, not because it shares some obvious physical attribute of another artwork.

Re:Slow animation (2, Informative)

bickerdyke (670000) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636625)

To be honest, the comic copied the musical piece:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_Slow_as_Possible [wikipedia.org]

Re:Slow animation (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636775)

There you go. Not a contemporary idea, and the artist didn't have to ask whether it was art.

Re:Slow animation (3, Interesting)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636313)

I bet this makes the people who look at it think a bit more than they would during the first two minutes of Fantasia. If your own mind is a barren wasteland, then I guess moving slowly is a waste --- but if you can bring something of your own mind to the work, so you don't need to be force-fed sound and color full-blast to make up for your own lack of creativity, the comic gets more interesting.

Re:Slow animation (-1, Flamebait)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year and a half ago | (#43637215)

Were you trained to be an art snob or is it a natural talent?

Re:Slow animation (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636397)

It's not MORE impressive than Fantasia. They're both innovative animations in their own way. They're both impressive.

Re:Slow animation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636899)

The time between frames for a 24 fps animation is typically 1/24th of a second, or at least some locally linear progression. If the time between frames here is an hour each, then you still have something in real time, so in effect, they both progress at the same speed (assuming no editing in the traditional animation). From a glance though, I'm not sure if it is supposed to be the same amount of time between every frame, in which case the progression would be quite different than just playing Fantasia in really slow motion.

Re: Slow animation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636965)

I think the real question is: at what percent of the speed of light would you have to travel be traveling (relative to the display medium, assuming you previously worked that out somehow...) to view the comic at 24 fps?

It display at least one thing (2, Insightful)

deatypoo (1837038) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636219)

If anything, it shows how bored we are with the internet and that ANY new content sparks interest, however trivial.

Re:It display at least one thing (5, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636263)

If anything, it shows how bored we are with the internet and that ANY new content sparks interest, however trivial.

In my head I hear my response in Louis C. K.'s voice: You've got a slab of plastic and metal you can carry around under your arm that lets you look up the answer to any question, have a text conversation in real time with anyone on the planet, access all the works of art ever created - and you're bored. Seriously. I just searched the word 'artichoke' and got 9.9 million links in under a second. And you are jaded. That's not even good enough to hold your attention anymore?

Re:It display at least one thing (4, Interesting)

mrbester (200927) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636479)

I think of the Star Trek universe, in particular Picard explaining to characters in "First Contact" that as money is outmoded (apart for the stubbornly mercantile Ferengi situation) the utopia of self advancement for the betterment of all as a primary activity is pretty much a reality in the Federation.

Then there is this, the dystopia, just a few hundred years early. GP can access all this accumulated knowledge and better themselves, maybe even the world, yet their view is so etiolated it seems like too much effort. Gene Roddenberry is spinning in space right now.

Perhaps we ought to let it all go to hell and become servile chattels of a corporate controlled stagnated "society" because no one gives a flying fuck apart from getting their fix of kitten pictures.

Sometimes I really despair of this world.

Re:It display at least one thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636859)

It's somebody else's job to change it, right?

it's easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636243)

he's on holidays

Waiting for something to happen (2)

talexb (223672) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636245)

Either the site's slashdotted already (after twelve minutes, on a Sunday afternoon?), or it's The Most Boring Movie Ever Made.

Re:Waiting for something to happen (2)

Aluvus (691449) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636407)

As the Fine Summary indicates, it updates once per hour.

Re:Waiting for something to happen (1)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636417)

or it's The Most Boring Movie Ever Made

C'mon, the pacing isn't that different from a Tarkovsky flick.

Pointless waste. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636247)

I remember looking at this one over my morning coffee. I waited about 30 seconds and then moved on to other things and never looked back. I pity the people who have nothing better to do than look at a webcomic for hours upon hours just to see if there is even a joke.

Waste of... (1, Insightful)

magic maverick (2615475) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636265)

He's reminding us all that we have too much time on our hands. (And I was sure that I had posted a longer post before this one, but it appears not to be showing. In it, I also mentioned a forum that is also a long running joke on it's participants...)

Re:Waste of... (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636351)

No, I don't believe that's it.

Oblig (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636271)

Re:Oblig (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636347)

Well done.

Here, take this: http://xkcd.com/917/ [xkcd.com]

derp im a lib artrs major derp derp (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636277)

despite the fact the blog is derp full of poetry and derp literary references derp derp im too stupid derp to understand it derp because im a lib derp arts major derp as implied derp by the sanctimonious arrogant derp horse shittery on the derp front page of the derp site derp derp derp derp derp derp derp nevermind that alan derp turing derp derp attended philosophy classes derp in order to derp understand derp derp derp derp logic derp derp derp derp

So... (3, Funny)

transporter_ii (986545) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636279)

Are the frames worth any money? Is there any way I mine my own and sell them?

Re:So... (4, Informative)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636395)

If you can figure out how to predict the next hash (each frame is named [random hash].png, with the website pointing to a new one every hour --- so there are probably a bunch of not-yet-released frames on the server, if you could crack the random sequence generator), you will win at least three internets of nerd credit (and perhaps a job "offer you can't refuse" from the NSA).

Gif showing 'time' story (5, Informative)

Ryanator2209 (1577631) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636283)

Explained xkcd has a gif that combines most of the individual 'time' comics: http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1190:_Time [explainxkcd.com]

Re:Gif showing 'time' story (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636453)

Thanks for that link, got to see the whole thing in about ten minutes (after the first full viewing it really speeds up). So now I know that he's 'Cueball' and she's 'Megan'. Very trippy, in a minimalist, b&w kinda' way.

It Fits Right In (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636285)

Every now and then, a graph or a chart or some insight appears in the xkcd lineup that seems somehow very different from what has gone before. I remember the day I brought up Time and was initially puzzled. I didn't get it. I moused over it and saw "Wait for it." and started staring at it intently. My mind started playing tricks on me and I thought I saw a pixel or two change, but after awhile I realized they hadn't. I checked back an hour later and the castle had changed a little, and I laughed at the notion that my experience with and interpretation of the comic had already changed with the passage of Time. I decided that that was one of the primary points. I like it.

Re:It Fits Right In (3, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636325)

So... it's best to smoke up before you look at it? Got it.

Re:It Fits Right In (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636717)

So... it's best to smoke up before you look at it? Got it.

It was not my intent to convey that, but I don't think you meant the comment sincerely. I think your intent was merely to say that you think the way that I look at and perceive the world and then describe it to others is what you would expect of someone that does drugs. My inclination is to believe that there wasn't really anything to your comment other than a minor put-down, but it's possible that it was intended as humor. I'll look at your journal and read some of your past posts and see if my interpretation changes over time. :)

Re:It Fits Right In (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636387)

I forgot to mention - he had also done one not long before where you pan around on it exploring ( #1110 ) and after awhile you realize that it's huge. It would make sense that, having done a comic that plays with the concept of space in comics, he'd do one that plays with time.

really long science fiction short story (1, Interesting)

hamjudo (64140) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636323)

The characters built some stuff on the beach, and now they are wandering around trying to figure out how their world works Their world does not work like our world.

The form of story is unusual, in that one must use additional technology to follow it. Which the reading community developed very quickly. I use xkcd.aubronwood.com/ [aubronwood.com] .

Re:really long science fiction short story (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636377)

Their world does not work like our world.

In what way? I don't see anything that's non-terrestrial about it. Apart from them being stick-people and it being 2D.

Re:really long science fiction short story (2)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636441)

Well, their oceans and rivers (and general hydrological cycle) seems to have something going on that the characters (and us viewers) don't understand --- and might not be quite like our world. A monotonically rising ocean (with no waves)? Uncertainty about whether rivers are "broken"? Unknown gigantic rivers within a relatively short walk of where they live? Something tells me we're not in Kansas anymore.

Re:really long science fiction short story (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636511)

Well, their oceans and rivers (and general hydrological cycle) seems to have something going on that the characters (and us viewers) don't understand

That sounds very terrestrial to me.

A monotonically rising ocean (with no waves)?

Time flattens out short term fluctuations and leaves the trend.

Uncertainty about whether rivers are "broken"? Unknown gigantic rivers within a relatively short walk of where they live? Something tells me we're not in Kansas anymore.

Not knowing. Questioning. Researching. Something that takes a lot of time.

Did Dorothy leave Kansas? Or was she at home all the time. Those faces looked awfully familiar didn't they.

Re:really long science fiction short story (1)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636701)

Time flattens out short term fluctuations and leaves the trend.

The moving people aren't "smoothed out" by time --- so something odd is happening if their world is time-averaged differently than their bodies.

Not knowing. Questioning. Researching. Something that takes a lot of time.

I don't know what Randall has planned; however, if the result of the characters' research/exploration endeavors turns out to be a simple elementary-school picture of the terrestrial hydrological cycle (rather than something more of a philosophical/metaphysical allegory), I'd be a bit surprised.

Did Dorothy leave Kansas? Or was she at home all the time. Those faces looked awfully familiar didn't they.

The other 13 books in Baum's Oz series indicate a separate existence and continuity for Oz outside of Dorothy's mind.

Re:really long science fiction short story (2)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636761)

The moving people aren't "smoothed out" by time --- so something odd is happening if their world is time-averaged differently than their bodies.

You're being quite literal. Art isn't literal, it combines ideas. It hints at things.

I don't know what Randall has planned; however, if the result of the characters' research/exploration endeavors turns out to be a simple elementary-school picture of the terrestrial hydrological cycle (rather than something more of a philosophical/metaphysical allegory), I'd be a bit surprised.

That wasn't what I was alluding to. I'd be gobsmacked and disappointed too if it was that. But I don't want to spell out what I think it is about.

The other 13 books in Baum's Oz series indicate a separate existence and continuity for Oz outside of Dorothy's mind.

Indeed. That's also clear from the current OZ movie. Again I was hinting, nor trying to prove or argue something.

Re:really long science fiction short story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636737)

Did Dorothy leave Kansas? Or was she at home all the time. Those faces looked awfully familiar didn't they.

That's movie revisionism. The book is very clear about Oz being a real place.

Lovely. Another uninteresting xkcd story. (0)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636333)

Is "Unknown Lamer" RM by any chance?

Re:Lovely. Another uninteresting xkcd story. (1)

game kid (805301) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636485)

We are all RM. Also, we are all Satoshi Nakamoto, Anonymous, Spartacus, screwed, out to get you, living in a yellow submarine, entities in a simulated reality, and Captain [wikipedia.org] .

on me wall (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636335)

Finally some use for my LCD picture frame.

Length (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636345)

It's been over a month and it's still going. Hell, it seems like it's just getting started, if it really is trying to tell a story.

I would not be exceptionally surprised if this lasted a full year. Or at least a significant portion of one.

TIME is running out (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636399)

And that, sir, ain't no joke.

Re:TIME is running out (2)

GuruBuckaroo (833982) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636939)

Cannot run out of time. Time is infinite. You are finite. Zathras is finite. This... is wrong tool.

wankery can be art, but not necessarily GOOD art (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636451)

You've heard it. Sometimes the stoner-rock band will record a track of basically "WTF" stuff-that's-not-music, and put it on their album because it was something that sounded cool when they were baked. The prog-rock band will record an "an exercise in self-indulgence" (well, ok, that particular phrase refers to a pretty cool piece, but I'm talking about the general case). The shredder dude will record something that shows how fast he is on the fret-board. Maybe they'll prefix it with these immortal words: "LET EACH NOTE I NOW PLAY, BE A BLACK ARROW OF DEATH SENT STRAIGHT INTO THE HEARTS OF THOSE WHO PLAY FALSE METAL."

It's recorded, and there it is, so you can enjoy it .. if you can. But really, they probably didn't do it for you. It's just wanking. And that's what Munroe is doing with 1190. I like when Munroe has something to say (but please, can we stop quoting the crypto-nerd imagination $5 wrench one?), but I'm not interested in watching him jerk off. When I saw the "wait for it" my reaction was "fuck that" and I never went back to see what the wait was about. If you did, wow. Good for you. You're a patient person. I hope it's worth it. But I suspect it's not.

WTF is nerd sniping? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636459)

WTF is nerd sniping, let alone massively multiplayer online nerd sniping?

Re:WTF is nerd sniping? (1)

Nialin (570647) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636607)

Seriously?

Was that so hard? [lmgtfy.com]

Re:WTF is nerd sniping? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43637013)

Well excuse me for for not knowing every new fucking niche meme and thinking it sounds like some dumb bullshit term some idiot is making up to get more page views. I'll be sure to use the acronym MMONS in my daily conversations and correspondence now when appropriate.

Amazing (3, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636513)

You mean that there are people that don't consider most of xkcd a piece of art?

Anyway, of all the amazing, insightful, and informative things things that are in xkcd, probably the one that impressed me more recently was one in What-if [xkcd.com] , explaining whats the worst that could happen missusing pressure cookers, few days before Boston bombing. That it remains there is a big message.

Re:Amazing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636851)

Yes, there are people who don't consider any of xkcd art. Myself included. For every good xkcd comic, there are at usually a few dozen that fall flat. That includes this. It's not funny and I certainly don't find it insightful in any way. It obviously wants to be insightful, it's just not, though to be fair it's not "finished" yet.

This site [blogspot.com] explains a lot of the issues many people have with xkcd as well as a well-reasoned response to a lot of the people who seem to get upset by what I think is pretty fair criticism.

all (1)

Tom (822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636523)

Is 'Time' a fascinating work of art, a deep sociological experiment â" or the longest-running shaggy-dog joke in history?

or simple all of the above ?

Is it just me? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636545)

Did anyone else take Pffth *cough* Just got some in my mouth [explainxkcd.com] as an oral sex joke

with this kind of lead-in.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636641)

the punch line had better be unexpected, clever, thought-provoking and off-the-fucking-charts funny, all in one.

Yes (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636703)

Xkcd's Long-running "Time" Comic: Work of Art Or Nerd Sniping?

Who says nerd sniping can't be art?

Not sure I needed to see Cue Ball take a dump though.

Gonna end with... (-1, Troll)

Bieeanda (961632) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636753)

the final frame of every goatkcd [goatkcd.com] comic. NWS, and as good a comment on XKCD as anything it's thrown up. Seriously, people: wikis; thousands of posts on a message board. Get some perspective.

I went to the link (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636767)

And there was nothing there.

Work of Art Or Nerd Sniping? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43636785)

False dichotomy. Something can be simultaneously both a "Work of Art" (tm) and snipe nerds.

Personally (3, Insightful)

muridae (966931) | about a year and a half ago | (#43636891)

I see something different in the story being told. The characters spend a bit of time building something amazing, and then worry that it's going to be taken away from them. They set out to figure out the reason for that.

Maybe because I've read his blog, or just because of http://xkcd.com/931/ [xkcd.com] that I see something darker in the story he's telling. Maybe it's just a metaphor, all good stories are. But that, as of now, the characters are almost visually back to where they started seems . . . poignant.

You can see the whole thing here (1)

Clueless Moron (548336) | about a year and a half ago | (#43637067)

and I feed bad for possibly slashdotting the guy, especially since it's been a bit of an insisider thing. He's been animating since quite early, and it's a long strange trip. Give him money. http://xkcd.aubronwood.com/ [aubronwood.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?