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!

Signs Point To XKCD's Time Ending

timothy posted 1 year,22 days | from the but-from-here-it-could-collapse-and-repeat dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 226

CaptSlaq writes "According to the current imagery, it looks like Randal Munroe has finished the story he was telling with the Time series. The long running series that has spanned over 3000 images and spawned multiple methods of viewing and comment appears to have come to an end."

cancel ×

226 comments

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

Nooooooo!!!!!! (4, Funny)

d33tah (2722297) | 1 year,22 days | (#44408607)

http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/ [nooooooooooooooo.com]

Re:Nooooooo!!!!!! (3, Funny)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | 1 year,22 days | (#44408709)

XKCD's "Time" is ending?

You know what this means...

Only one thing!

RAGNAROK! [huffingtonpost.ca]

Re:Nooooooo!!!!!! (1)

steak (145650) | 1 year,22 days | (#44408969)

no it means this

Re:Nooooooo!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44409001)

No, it means Randy has to get a real job.

oblink (4, Funny)

yo303 (558777) | 1 year,22 days | (#44408637)

Re:oblink (1)

tinkerton (199273) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409091)

Is it just me who thinks this is funny?

Re:oblink (-1, Offtopic)

JWSmythe (446288) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409215)

But ... He's up to 1243. http://xkcd.com/1243/ [xkcd.com] is the current edition.

1190 was posted March 25, 2013. If he quit, he forgot to stop posting new editions.

Re:oblink (5, Informative)

SJHillman (1966756) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409277)

#1190 is ending, not XKCD is ending. #1190 is titled Time.

Re:oblink (2)

Narrowband (2602733) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409589)

Cool! I guess it's ending at Andrew Henry's Meadow... I loved that book when I was very little.

Well good (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44408641)

It's about time.

Re:Well good (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44408995)

It's about time.

There's only so much conventional wisdom to recite with stick figures. Munroe has pretty well been on a loop already, eventually he'll be as repetitive as any Sunday comic.

Munroe is probably another utterly unoriginal thinker, but even if he weren't, his audience won't tolerate being told something they don't already agree with. It's a little sad, really, they picture themselves as being free thinkers, but they are the most draconian and conformist people you could imagine.

Re:Well good (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44409485)

You both suck at reading comprehension.

Misleading summary (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,22 days | (#44408645)

Just because the comic titled "Time" may have reached its final panel doesn't mean that xkcd itself is ending any time soon. We'll see on Monday whether there's a #1244.

Re: Misleading summary (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44408685)

It's not the end of xkcd, just possibly the time episode as per the posts title

Re:Misleading summary (3, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | 1 year,22 days | (#44408699)

I know I'll be strung up for saying this, but XKCD is like The Onion. A thing that exists, which I don't ever remember exists until those couple times per year when someone randomly sends me a link and says "did you see this yet?" and I go look at it and think "huh... yep, that's The Onion/XKCD". It's kind of too cutesy for its own good. I usually kind of feel like I'm watching the comic-strip equivalent of seeing a young couple being overly cutesy and cuddly in public.

That isn't to say I don't think it's any good . . . it just falls into the category of one of those things it seems like geeks spill way too much jizz over.

Re: Misleading summary (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44408715)

Then you are entirely missing the point.

Re: Misleading summary (2)

jones_supa (887896) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409619)

Which is what, oh mighty priest? There's many viewpoints to XKCD, and I do not see GP's being one particularly off the bat.

Re: Misleading summary (2)

Optimal Cynic (2886377) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409969)

The point you're missing is that the post isn't talking about XKCD itself, it's talking about one particular comic that's being regularly updated.

The concept of a geek card (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,22 days | (#44408717)

it just falls into the category of one of those things it seems like geeks spill way too much jizz over.

Like when people say "turn in your geek card" when someone fails to get an inside joke related to an uncited quotation from some science fiction movie like Blade Runner or WarGames.

Re:The concept of a geek card (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44408763)

it just falls into the category of one of those things it seems like geeks spill way too much jizz over.

Like when people say "turn in your geek card" when someone fails to get an inside joke related to an uncited quotation from some science fiction movie like Blade Runner or WarGames.

Zhora: [laughs] Are you for real?

Darmok and Jihad at Viagra (2)

tepples (727027) | 1 year,22 days | (#44408873)

Because you quoted a character name, I could Google that it came from Blade Runner. But a lot of these allusions change a line's nouns, pronouns, and verb tense to fit the context, making it harder to search by exact phrase to figure out what people are talking about when they speak this Tamarian language of movie quotes. So yes, I'm for real. I'm trying to figure out what specific films, video games, webcomics, etc. I'd need to catch up on to keep a geek card current.

Re:Darmok and Jihad at Viagra (5, Insightful)

tedgyz (515156) | 1 year,22 days | (#44408975)

Has anyone noticed it is impossible to be "current" anymore, geekly or otherwise? There are too many information streams.

Damn you internet! Damn you all to hell!

Re:Darmok and Jihad at Viagra (4, Funny)

Nerdfest (867930) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409227)

It used to be possible but they killed Google Reader.

Re:Darmok and Jihad at Viagra (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44409253)

You're getting older. That's all.

Re:Darmok and Jihad at Viagra (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44409005)

Fantastic. But if you don't get the reference it's not really intended for you is it?

Re:Darmok and Jihad at Viagra (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44409177)

Because you quoted a character name, I could Google that it came from Blade Runner.

I just use the Google Dictionary Chrome extension and ctrl-click stuff like that, and the definition pops up in a balloon. Actually doing a search for something that trivial is one step too many.

GD usually delivers the goods on obscure/technical items too.

Re:Darmok and Jihad at Viagra (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44409553)

So yes, I'm for real. I'm trying to figure out what specific films, video games, webcomics, etc. I'd need to catch up on to keep a geek card current.

Other than Blade Runner and the original Star Wars trilogy, what other movies are geeks required to add to their collections?

Re:Darmok and Jihad at Viagra (2)

Mathinker (909784) | 1 year,22 days | (#44410001)

I will attempt the hopeless: a list of all content I remember being quoted here as meme-ish (not that I've seen/read/heard it all):

Additional movies: Spaceballs, Galaxy Quest, The Princess Bride, (This is) Spinal Tap, Fight Club, every Star Trek movie (no matter how good or bad), ... (on the more esoteric side: Buckaroo Bonzai, Logan's Run, Tron, ...)

TV : All of Dr. Who, every version of Star Trek, Babylon 5, Space 1999 (but usually only in reference to doing something to the Moon. not quotes), Battlestar Galactica (and reboots), ...

Books: (Oh, God...) Everything considered science fiction or fantasy, but especially anything written by Heinlein, Terry Pratchett, Neil Gaiman, Neal Stephenson, J. R. R. Tolkien; The Wheel of Time; ...

Re:Darmok and Jihad at Viagra (2)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | 1 year,22 days | (#44410075)

and any thing written by Asimov when the topic even tangentially involves robots or sentient AI.

Re:The concept of a geek card (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44408789)

I'll give you a 2/10, that's the best I can do.

Re:The concept of a geek card (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44408829)

There is a geek cargo cult out there, and it's populated with people that desperately wished they finished that astro physics degree or didn't drop out of DeVry. They believe that by adorning themselves with tokens and fetishes of geekdom, that they will become smarter or work hard by osmosis. This typically happens later in life as an attempt to masquerade their way through technical interviews. I honestly don't care all that much about Dilithium crystals because the real world operates on fossil fuels and electricity, but that doesn't stop these charlatans from wishing it did.

Re:The concept of a geek card (5, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | 1 year,22 days | (#44408977)

There is a geek cargo cult out there, and it's populated with people that desperately wished they finished that astro physics degree or didn't drop out of DeVry. They believe that by adorning themselves with tokens and fetishes of geekdom, that they will become smarter or work hard by osmosis.

Either that, or it just happens to be another fashion phenomenon, and doesn't say anything at all about their inner lives or philosophy or willingness to look directly into reality's hard face, as you have apparently done. Maybe they just, you know, enjoy sci-fi and tech stuff and chicks in horned-rim glasses.

Like tattoos. People who don't have tattoos seem to want to create an entire psychodrama in their heads about the motivation and world-view of the person with the tattoo. But sometimes, it really is just because somebody wanted a fleur-de-lis on their calf because they like the way it looks.

Everybody is so anxious to diminish other people as this AC seems to want to do. I wonder what's made so many people so grumpy that they feel the need to try to minimize others with such ersatz psychological profiles based on data picked out of their underpants. Maybe it's the economy. Or maybe it's just that grumpy people seem more apt to complain loudly.

Re:The concept of a geek card (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409437)

Like tattoos. People who don't have tattoos seem to want to create an entire psychodrama in their heads about the motivation and world-view of the person with the tattoo. But sometimes, it really is just because somebody wanted a fleur-de-lis on their calf because they like the way it looks.

I think it's a little more complex than that. The way I see it (as a non-tattooed person who thinks they're kinda stupid), there's a big, big difference between someone with a smallish tattoo on their calf, or 2 or 3 tattoos in various places, and someone whose arms and legs or other body parts are entirely covered in them. The first person is just someone who wanted to adorn themselves, much like someone who wears earrings (except that tattoos can't be taken out easily when you get tired of them), whereas the latter is someone with an obsession. Tattoos are not cheap, so having large amounts of skin covered with them adds up to a lot of money, and it says something about someone who wants to spend that much money on adorning themselves instead of making a house downpayment, investing, or saving for their kids' college tuition.

As for adorning yourself with tokens of geekdom, it doesn't cost anything to read XKCD or other such things online, and to post links to your favorite ones. You can drop XKCD like a hot potato any time you want and read some other webcomic instead. Tattoos, OTOH, are expensive, and permanent. I'm not so sure that's a very good analogy.

Re:The concept of a geek card (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44409785)

Like tattoos. People who don't have tattoos seem to want to create an entire psychodrama in their heads about the motivation and world-view of the person with the tattoo. But sometimes, it really is just because somebody wanted a fleur-de-lis on their calf because they like the way it looks.

And people with tattoos create way too much backstory or value on them that no one else begins to see. It works both ways.

As a non-tattoo guy, I couldn't care less, other than seeing one on a girl and mentally saying "Trampstamp".

Re:The concept of a geek card (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44410151)

"Trampstamp"

I prefer "Skank Frank". For those who are too young: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franking.

Re:The concept of a geek card (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44409567)

Reagan: There you go again.

Re: The concept of a geek card (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44410121)

Dude are you knocking Blade Runner? Turn in your geek card and I can say that since no citations are involved.

Re:Misleading summary (2)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,22 days | (#44408733)

Couple times per year?

You must not read many threads here on Slashdot, because there seems to be an obligatory link in every story.

Re:Misleading summary (4, Informative)

Art Challenor (2621733) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409111)

Couple times per year?

You must not read many threads here on Slashdot, because there seems to be an obligatory link in every story.

Citation Needed! http://xkcd.com/285/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Misleading summary (2)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409231)

Well played sir!

Re:Misleading summary (1)

drkim (1559875) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409269)

Couple times per year?

You must not read many threads here on Slashdot, because there seems to be an obligatory link in every story.

Obligatory XKCD:

http://xkcd.com/262/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Misleading summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44408767)

>strung up

Implying many other users do not share exact same belief. Weak 2/10.

Re:Misleading summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44408817)

XKCD stopped being funny when I was no longer a 20-something. I generally like humour I can relate to, and its tough to relate to XKCD's sexual frustration and geek pandering that hasn't grown out of college.

Apropriate Babylon 5 quote: (3, Insightful)

Hartree (191324) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409373)

Londo Molari: "My shoes are too tight, but it doesn 't matter, because I have forgotten how to dance."

Re:Misleading summary (2)

Fortran IV (737299) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409715)

XKCD stopped being funny to me when I was no longer a 20-something.

FTFY.

Re:Misleading summary (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44408819)

I would say that's much more true for The Onion than XKCD. XKCD has some certain types of comics that are pretty much exactly what you'd imagine if someone said "XKCD" and "(insert topic)" and "(insert comic type)", but branches out of those types very often. The Onion is always what you'd expect if someone said "The Onion" and "(insert topic)." It's extremely rare that reading past the headline of The Onion is worthwhile, since the humor is almost always the choice of topic.

Re:Misleading summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44408881)

" it just falls into the category of one of those things it seems like geeks spill way too much jizz over."

Better bring a mop to 3D printing or private space stories.

Re:Misleading summary (5, Funny)

DG (989) | 1 year,22 days | (#44408961)

Agreed! How dare people enjoy something!

(Oh, I think Kevin Bacon may be teaching your daughter how to dance. You should probably check into that)

Re:Misleading summary (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44409297)

I heard you're idea's and their definately good.

Captcha: tedious. How appropriate.

Re: Misleading summary (2)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409623)

I think both are bloody brilliant. XKCD because ... well, it gets me. It just gets me. The Onion because they nail it every damn time and they do it with style. They're so good you good, you could be forgiven for not knowing it's satire.

Re:Misleading summary (1)

RubberDogBone (851604) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409885)

Not just you. XKCD is the thing somebody occasionally prints out and leaves on my desk, or forwards as a link. I don't recall ever seeing it of my own initiative, and such is my unfamiliarity with it that the name brings to some some sort of OS version and I have to spend a moment sorting out what distro is involved before eventually realizing it's not an OS at all.

I'm sure it's perfectly fine. But I don't spend any time looking at comics these days, be they Dilbert, XKCD, whatever. Lost interest when Calvin and Hobbes ended, and then Bloom County ended, and then Far Side ended. Got tired of saying good bye so I learned to never say hello.

Re:Misleading summary (0)

bzipitidoo (647217) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409985)

You think that is flamebait? No one is going to bother donating for some nails to stick you on a cross, not for that feeble "cutesy" criticism. And, The Onion? Not even close. Try this:

XKCD is like the fax machine.

Fax: Let's use these cool new digital communication devices to recreate paper documents, on paper, only with really crappy low resolution pictures of the text. Unlike emails, they'll have legal force because they're printed on paper, like sales slips! A pity that legal force doesn't extend to paper currency, or people could pay off their student loans by faxing $100 bills to the banks.

XKCD: Let's use the comic strip, a holdover from an antiquated medium that's been going stale like decade old peanuts, as a vehicle for modern comedy. We'll draw everything in rows of boxes, just like traditional comic strips, but with stick figures because you have to put some kind of drawing in those boxes, in case some dying newspaper gets desperate enough to try adding something really radical to freshen up their stodgy Sunday comics section, and get Garfield off the first page. Or in case they need some filler should Doonesbury offend the prudes and moralists again and they have to yank it for a month.

Re:Misleading summary (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44408827)

I'm very disappointed frankly. XKCD stopped being funny YEARS ago...

Re:Misleading summary (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44409289)

I bet you were saying "xkcd stopped being funny years ago" before it was cool to say that.

Re:Misleading summary (5, Funny)

Bengie (1121981) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409423)

Everything stopped being funny YEARS ago

Welcome to being old.

Re:Misleading summary (4, Insightful)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | 1 year,22 days | (#44410105)

Everything stopped being funny YEARS ago

Welcome to being old.

Actually, as someone who turned 50 in May, I find many things/people getting funnier/stupider as I get older. Probably as I gain perspective and realize how ridiculous and unimportant most things really are, especially in contrast to how serious and important people think those things are. Losing my wife of 20 years to brain cancer in 2006 (just 7 weeks after diagnosis) probably helps with that perspective -- Remember Sue... [tumblr.com]

All life's little problems are just a distraction from the one big problem - that there's no fucking point to anything. (Just my 2 cents.)

Re: Misleading summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44409947)

On the other hand, your mom continues to deliver quality entertainment.

Re:Misleading summary (1)

Laxori666 (748529) | 1 year,22 days | (#44410125)

You mean misleading title, and I think that deserves a "woosh"...

obligatory (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44408683)

so....it has come to this...

Sequel (4, Informative)

MavEtJu (241979) | 1 year,22 days | (#44408687)

I'm waiting for the sequel: More time.

(before anybody flames, I follow it every couple of days via http://geekwagon.net/projects/xkcd1190/ [geekwagon.net] ).

Re:Sequel (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44408721)

Personally I am looking forward to the other other sequel: Space.

And then the other other OTHER sequel: Something about how cats invented spacetime. Fitting since they defy it already.

Re:Sequel (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44409361)

The other sequel is already available: Time After Time

There's a Wiki and a replay site (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44408737)

Wiki [wikia.com]
Replay [geekwagon.net]

Re:There's a Wiki and a replay site (4, Interesting)

De Lemming (227104) | 1 year,22 days | (#44408833)

I know about a second replay site [aubronwood.com] . It's not as good as the one on geekwagon.net, but it has sound :-)

And don't forget the forum thread [xkcd.com] , which currently has 51583 posts. In this thread a new religion that worships the One True Comic was started. Also a few new standard units were introduced, based on the NewPix (half an hour), which was later replaced with the LongPix (one hour) when the update interval of the comic changed. People in the thread did extensive analysis of the comic, and later on some started analyzing the forum thread itself. The thread was also the starting point of the replay web sites.

Re:There's a Wiki and a replay site (3, Insightful)

Fortran IV (737299) | 1 year,22 days | (#44410061)

And you know, there's more acrimony and vitriol in the 80-odd posts already on this story than in the 51K posts of the forum thread. What does that say about xkcd fans and Slashdotters?

The Oracle (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44408775)

Did anyone figure out how to read the Oracle's words?

Re:The Oracle (5, Informative)

Anubis IV (1279820) | 1 year,22 days | (#44408935)

Sure, though some of them were harder to read than others. The key takeaway from them was that a big sea (what we later realize is the Atlantic) was about to flood into the smaller one where our protagonists built their sand castle (a version of the Mediterranean that the Oracle explained had been cut off from the Atlantic, dried up, but was now reconnecting with the Atlantic which was eager to flood into the lowlands of the dried up Mediterranean). If you looked at the maps indicating where the new shore would be, you'd see quite clearly that the places where the new shoreline stretches on the map go from what we know as the Iberian peninsula to Italy and Sicily.

Apparently, the protagonists lived somewhere south of France in the middle of the Mediterranean, but their territory was swept away by the flood. The castle where the Oracle was located, which was supposed to be just above the new waterline, roughly corresponds to the location of Marseilles.

Though I haven't seen it said elsewhere, this may be a new fiction for the creation of the Atlantis myth.

Re:The Oracle (5, Informative)

Fortran IV (737299) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409667)

Actually, "Time" appears to have been set in the remote future, about 11 millenia from today, after Gibraltar Strait has already been closed up again for a thousand years or more (no back story for that was ever given). At one point the comic presented nearly a hundred frames of night sky, with recognizable planets and constellations. Readers versed in astronomy were able to find a date 11,000 years ahead, with consistent displacements for nearby stars (within the limits of a 553x395 image resolution). Also, the castle of the "oracle" (nicknamed Rosetta in the forum thread, after her role as a translator) appeared to be the Chateau d'If of Count of Monte Cristo fame, in Marseilles harbor.

Antares (4, Interesting)

xiphmont (80732) | 1 year,22 days | (#44410091)

Don't forget Antares was missing from the night sky; I cling to my theory that it going supernova damaged to ozone layer sufficiently to precipitate an ice-age that dropped the ocean levels, closing Gibraltar.

Let me guess (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44408797)

It was the frame labelled "The End" that gave you this idea?

Re:Let me guess (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | 1 year,22 days | (#44408857)

I don't know about you, but I won't believe it until Netcraft confirms it.

XKCD "experimental comics" (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44408921)

Aka Geek Hubris.

It's a frigging web comic, not Tolstoy. Who, other than obsessive-compulsive fanboys would bother to check it for updates more than once a week or so?

It just goes to show; too much success can turn just about anyone into a diva who thinks that the world hangs on their every word (even a supposedly down-to-earth science guy).

Kinda reminds me of megatokyo or penny arcade - good web comics in their own right, but suddenly the author(s) get to thinking they're some kind of genius / saint / high-artiste.

Re:XKCD "experimental comics" (4, Insightful)

Tridus (79566) | 1 year,22 days | (#44408987)

Okay, and the author has expressed any of that... where, exactly?

All he did was make a comic. Other people turned it into a thing, and that somehow makes him a diva?

Re:XKCD "experimental comics" (4, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409303)

... and Tolstoy wrote fiction books. The medium has changed, the audience has changed, but it's still art, and I think it's quite insightful for the most part. Look at the number of times it's referenced here on SlashDot. Randall has vision, a good understanding of math and science and a great sense of humour. Personally, I wish a lot more people were like him, rather than bitter critics.

circuit strip (0)

epine (68316) | 1 year,22 days | (#44408971)

The teaser margin caught my eye with a circuit strip (teaser margin = (WU- (pi/4))*XGA on most web sites these days, excluding content viewed through a dancing thumb while traversing Steiner diagrams in a busy urban core with the permanent postural stoop of Vermilingo Erectus).

Props for the big solder blob. No circuit is complete without one. The end.

Horrible headline (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44408973)

For a moment I thought that XKCD would finally die, that we'd at last be free from the damned "lol obligatory XKCD XD" posts. Way to let me down, /..

Re:Horrible headline (1)

jones_supa (887896) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409747)

It feels like the designer of the headline wanted to leave the possibility for misinterpretation in the sake of little trolling. The headline could have easily been Signs Point To XKCD's "Time" Series Ending to avoid any confusion.

And I for one say "Thank God" (1, Interesting)

pongo000 (97357) | 1 year,22 days | (#44408997)

Geez, what a manipulative waste of time. Randal is a smart guy; maybe that was the point of the exercise: To see just how many morons out there (including myself) followed this banal story to its bitter and anticlimactic end.

For those just dying to poke sharp sticks in their eyes, I recommend this link [aubronwood.com] instead.

Re:And I for one say "Thank God" (3, Interesting)

tinkerton (199273) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409143)

Geez, what a manipulative waste of time. Randal is a smart guy; maybe that was the point of the exercise: To see just how many morons out there (including myself) followed this banal story to its bitter and anticlimactic end.

I enjoyed it. But then, over time I got to see Munroe as generous and friendly rather than cynical and manipulative. So no, to me that was definitely not the point of the exercise.

Re:And I for one say "Thank God" (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44409535)

Likewise. I saw it as a work of fiction, one based more on pictures than words, but still an entertaining, and somewhat compelling story. Once I realized that their former home was doomed, I found myself at the same crossroads: stay and guarantee my survival, or try to help my friends and family. Just because it was based on stick figures doesn't mean it can't draw emotions from the audience. How sad that some people can't see it for what it is: an interesting story.

-- green led

Re:And I for one say "Thank God" (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44409395)

Geez, what a manipulative waste of time....

Luckily not everyone is as depressed as you appear to be. Here's a nice piece of "movie criticism" based on Time,
    http://lovepirate77.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/an-unconventional-film/ [wordpress.com]

Re:And I for one say "Thank God" (1)

GTRacer (234395) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409979)

OT: Do you pronounce it BAY-null, or baa-NAUL?

Forget the Mayans ... (1)

PPH (736903) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409017)

... this is it!

link (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44409023)

Where is the obligatory xkcd link?

molpy down. (1)

Rob Bos (3399) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409037)

:(

Re:molpy down. (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409385)

As a lurker of Time, I agree.

Time + 53? (1)

Bunzinator (1105885) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409049)

Time was http://xkcd.com/1190/ [xkcd.com] .

The most recent is http://xkcd.com/1243/ [xkcd.com] .

Randal is slower to stop than an aircraft carrier.

Re:Time + 53? (3, Informative)

SJHillman (1966756) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409293)

Time is what's ending, not XKCD. Time is a single comic (one of the current 1,243) which itself has over 3000 frames. What makes it unique is that they were released one at a time (originally on the half hour, which later changed to hourly). The story itself isn't overtly interesting, but the way it was released one frame at a time kept people guessing. The official XKCD thread for 1190 is massive, mostly full of speculation and even odder than normal people.

Re:Time + 53? (1)

Bunzinator (1105885) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409653)

Thank you for elucidating that, kind sir. With that knowledge, I'm now surprised I didn't cop a lambasting.

And how the hell did I completely miss Time??!! :)

So what? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44409051)

Give me one reason why I should give a shit.

Re:So what? (1)

Iskender (1040286) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409447)

Well, you could avoid having to admit you're a huge closeted fan with a portrait of Munroe in every room of your house, for one.

who fucking cares (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44409057)

i've heard of slow news days but this is just sad

title plus the comic is full message (1)

iggymanz (596061) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409167)

Time Waste.

Randall wasted it; while no individual viewer wasted as much in sum even more time was wasted

Re:title plus the comic is full message (4, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409301)

And then we find out it was a nine line Python script that wrote, drew and uploaded the entire 1190 comic.

What the chirp is wrong with people? (5, Insightful)

Fortran IV (737299) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409607)

It's a comic, guys. I don't read Cathy, but I don't feel obliged to mustard all over Cathy Guisewite because her comic doesn't amuse me. Why do people dump so hard on xkcd and Randall Munroe? If you don't like the comic, don't read it, and don't read Slashdot articles about it—and shut the chirp up and let the rest of us enjoy it in peace.

I found it fun. That's all. It was fun. It was original, and intriguing, and a little challenging, and a nice change of mood when I got home from work (or when I needed a break at work).

And it was something I don't believe any webcomic had ever done before. When I submitted the original Slashdot story about "Time", I thought that aspect might interest people. Instead, the story got the same sort of molpy-chirping geek-elitist hate posts that this one is gathering.

For the record: "Time" was followed by college students and septuagenarians (I'm in my 50s, and xkcd regularly makes me laugh). Musicians, math teachers, writers, and astronomers contributed to the forum thread. The last figure we saw was that over 2 million words of original material had been posted to the thread. We weren't doing it for geek cred; we were doing it because we enjoyed ourselves.

Grow up a little, guys, OK?

Re:What the chirp is wrong with people? (5, Insightful)

thoth (7907) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409713)

Exactly!

Sure, not every XKCD comic is brilliant, but plenty are funny, appealing to a tough demographic for subject material.

I think his various infographics are fantastic (money, radiation) and a handful of info comics are similarly amazing (gravity wells, ocean depths, movie plots). His "What If?" series is also extremely interesting.

Sites that feed off the "XKCD is overrated" vibe come across as pathetic calls for attention from people too lame and stupid to produce their own work. Basically some members of the geek community have this bizarre calling to drop their pants and publicly poop all over whatever they think is overrated. The fact is their sum total contribution to the world is being a shit stain on the fabric of the web.

Re:What the chirp is wrong with people? (0)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | 1 year,22 days | (#44409811)

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.

Re:What the chirp is wrong with people? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44409823)

Well imagine if almost every single article on Slashdot had a "+5 Funny" link to a Catchy comic.

Soon you might feel obligated to point out that Cathy is actually kind of lame.

Not news (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,22 days | (#44410097)

Slashdot has really gone downhill since they were bought and paid for.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>