Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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XKCD Author's Unpublished Book Has Already Become a Best-Seller

samzenpus posted about 4 months ago | from the big-before-it-was-big dept.

Books 129

destinyland writes "Wednesday the geeky cartoonist behind XKCD announced that he'd publish a new book answering hypothetical science questions in September. And within 24 hours, his as-yet-unpublished work had become Amazon's #2 best-selling book. 'Ironically, this book is titled What If?,' jokes one blogger, noting it resembles an XKCD comic where 'In our yet-to-happen future, this book decides to travel backwards through time, stopping off in March of 2014 to inform Amazon's best-seller list that yes, in our coming timeline this book will be widely read...' Randall Munroe's new book will be collecting his favorite 'What If...' questions, but will also contain his never-before published answers to some questions that he'd found 'particularly neat.'"

cancel ×

129 comments

Don't get it (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481369)

It's about as funny as User Friendly. Awful, awful stuff. Navel gazing of the worst kind. I guess it's great if you have Asperger's.

Re:Don't get it (5, Informative)

cyborg_zx (893396) | about 4 months ago | (#46481407)

That's the comic, not What If? - which is all about things like how much power you'd need to illuminate the shadow of the moon or what happens to the Earth's geography if you drain the oceans of water.

Re:Don't get it (5, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 4 months ago | (#46481907)

And What If? follows Mythbusters in the sense that once the question is answered, he keeps pushing until something blows up.

Re:Don't get it (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 4 months ago | (#46482529)

Yes, it is called "having fun with it". If he didn't, it would be pretty boring.

I was pretty hooked after reading the first one I ever saw, which was about what would happen if a pitcher could throw a baseball at a signficant fraction of the speed of light. I thought it was pretty hilarious to see see the breakdown.

A simple "a huge explosion destroying the ball park and leaving a crater" would have answered the question, but, it wouldn't be very much fun, and wouldn't have anyone looking to buy his book.

Re:Don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46483597)

What really makes that one in when he concludes that the thermonuclear explosion obliterating the batter (and everything else within miles) would count as "hit by a pitch" and allow the batter to advance to first base.

captcha: "pansies"

Re:Don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46483733)

This is why I read his What-ifs. He takes an answered question, and somehow uses it to obliterate humanity / the planet / existence / road laws.

Re:Don't get it (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481423)

How dare you even compare XKCD to User Friendly! UF has a setting, plotlines, characters with names and faces and personalities! By contrast, XKCD doesn't even qualify as a webcomic.

Re:Don't get it (5, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 months ago | (#46481487)

The True Scotsman called, he wants you to know that you're a terrible human being.

Re:Don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481627)

No True Scotsman would draw some stick figures on a horribly pretentious blog and pretend it's a webcomic!

Re:Don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482129)

Sheldon called, he said that even he understood the post was a joke.

Unless... you posted the AC post just so you could follow up with your True Scotsman post.

(And then you posted this post to continue on. Being AC is fun! No one knows whether you are just replying to yourself, or are merely pretending that you are replying to yourself!)

Re:Don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482189)

How do you know if different user names aren't just the same person?

Re:Don't get it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482273)

We're all Mad here.

Re:Don't get it (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482287)

I'm Spartacus.

Re:Don't get it (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46483261)

no, I'm Spartacus

Re:Don't get it (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46483539)

I'm Spartacus.

no, I'm Spartacus

We are Spartacus? What happend to Legion?

Re:Don't get it (4, Interesting)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about 4 months ago | (#46481489)

You're right: you don't get it. But don't worry about it.

Is XKCD overhyped and overrated? Sure it is... like pretty much everything else with a certain level of popularity in the geek crowd. Even so, I often find XKCD funny, sometimes thought-provoking or profound, and generally interesting. And it's often applicable to everyday situations (hence the many "oblig XKCD" references here on /. )

Re:Don't get it (4, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | about 4 months ago | (#46481543)

Just about anything good eventually becomes over-hyped.

Actually I don't think anything is described as exactly as good or as bad as it actually is. People either rain praise on something they like, or trash talk something they don't, and it's usually overdone.

Personally, I like xkcd. Yes, it's not consistently ground shattering. The average day to day comic tends to range somewhere from meh to mild chuckle. But for something you get 3 days a week, that's actually pretty damn good.

Then occasionally he goes all out and actually _does_ build something that lives up to hype, which then of course itself gets overhyped like everything else, so he really can't win.

Re:Don't get it (1, Funny)

StripedCow (776465) | about 4 months ago | (#46481897)

Conjecture: everything that has been told by Xkcd has already been said at least once by someone on Slashdot prior to it.

Re:Don't get it (2)

Chrisq (894406) | about 4 months ago | (#46482045)

Conjecture: everything that has been told by Xkcd has already been said at least once by someone on Slashdot prior to it.

By the number of "obligatory xkcd" posts we see a lot of what is said on Slashdot has already been said on xkcd. .... this could be circular!

Re:Don't get it (2)

StripedCow (776465) | about 4 months ago | (#46482131)

If only Slashdot's comment form allowed input of stick-figures, it might be the case that we wouldn't need Xkcd...

Re:Don't get it (5, Funny)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 4 months ago | (#46482519)

If only Slashdot's comment form allowed input of stick-figures, it might be the case that we wouldn't need Xkcd...


------->O
|Fuck| \|/
| You | |
------ / \

Re:Don't get it (2)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 4 months ago | (#46483227)

You swear a lot for someone with such a tiny head...

Re:Don't get it (4, Funny)

suutar (1860506) | about 4 months ago | (#46483549)

which conveniently leads to my main worry about the book - how's he going to get image hovertext on paper?

Re:Don't get it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482313)

Conjecture: everything that has been told by Xkcd has already been said at least once by someone on Slashdot prior to it.

Simpecture: everything that has been said at least once by someone on Slashdot, Simpsons already did it.

Re:Don't get it (4, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | about 4 months ago | (#46482609)

That is some pretty wide open conjecture. I have personally been reading and commenting on slashdot for more than a decade and I have skipped or missed entire articles full of comments. Slashdot has contained comments on everything from Natalie Portman to Hot Grits.

Conjecture: Most everything said on slashdot today has already been said by someone on Slashdot prior to it.

Range too small (4, Funny)

srussia (884021) | about 4 months ago | (#46483203)

Slashdot has contained comments on everything from Natalie Portman to Hot Grits.

As I understand it, there is nothing between Natalie Portman and Hot Grits. Kinda like Brooke Shields and her Calvins.

Re:Don't get it (3, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 4 months ago | (#46482509)

Hell - even I have my off-days when I don't manage to do any earth shattering. I am my biggest fan, but even so, I'm not always amazed at myself.

Re:Don't get it (1)

RKThoadan (89437) | about 4 months ago | (#46482039)

I'm not a big fan of xkcd, but I love the what-if series immensely. It's pretty much the highlight of Tuesdays for me... when I'm not out invading and destroying villages anyway.

Re:Don't get it (5, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 4 months ago | (#46481491)

For productivity reasons, you should have constructed your critic without details, so you could reuse the reply in many other cases.

For example: "I don't like it. Therefore, it's stupid. And people who like it are stupid too."

Re:Don't get it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481751)

"critique", idiot.

Re:Don't get it (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 4 months ago | (#46481917)

No, he actually built a critic to make critiques.

Re:Don't get it (4, Interesting)

Dogtanian (588974) | about 4 months ago | (#46481535)

Whether you find it funny or not, XKCD at least has creativity and intelligence, and it's unfair to compare it with the awful "User Friendly". AFAICT, that only got where it was by targeting and pandering to the geek audience and being an online webcomic in the mid-to-late-90s when the former was still rare and the latter still somewhat novel.

The fact that it was badly-drawn (*) and not actually that clever in itself- so much as giving its oft-maligned (**) target audience an excuse to feel superior to others- didn't seem to matter.

As I once commented elsewhere [blogspot.co.uk] :-

Compare that to User Friendly. Aside from its "moderately-promising 14-year-old still showing too much influence from the Teach-Yourself-Cartooning book" drawing style, User Friendly has always relied on its geek-friendly subject matter and viewpoints to flatter the audience and obscure the fact that it's neither creative nor funny.

Here's a good example:-
http://ars.userfriendly.org/ca... [userfriendly.org]

There's nothing creative about this. The "news" was a real-life item reported in many tech outlets about a year back. The strip itself is just a lazy excuse to let the audience laugh again at that story- it adds nothing to it except an audience-pandering but uncreative aside.

xkcd has a long way to go before it gets *that* lazy.

(*) XKCD isn't exactly detailed in the artwork stakes either, but that comes across as an intentional style, whereas User Friendly just looks like a wannabe of better-looking cartoons.
(**) This is before it was (allegedly) cool to be a geek.

Re:Don't get it (1)

hibiki_r (649814) | about 4 months ago | (#46481727)

User Friendly feels extremely dated now, but that's not because it was a bad comic back then, but because it was trying to capture the geek mindset of the time. It's a bit like Dilbert, a comic that only really makes sense when you've spent enough time in a megacorp's big cubicle farm. The main difference is that User Friendly came from an upbeat world that, frankly, does not exist anymore, so today it just can't be funny.

Re:Don't get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481851)

I guess the problem most people have with it, is that xkcd merely spouts ideas, claiming them without going through the trouble of actually implementing them. It is a bit of an "idea troll", instead of a patent troll. So I'm not surprised about the reaction here.

Re:Don't get it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482029)

Hahahahahah, a guy saying that a piece of shit strip drawn with stick figures by an aspie retard is "creative and intelligent." You guys are too much. I love that you're all obsessed with that fat moron, though. Him and slashdot deserve each other.

CHILDLIKE WONDER

Re:Don't get it (4, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 4 months ago | (#46481815)

Oh my god, it's you! Hey everyone, it's the guy whose opinion is also objectively true!

I've got a list of questions I've been saving for you, now where did I put it...

Re:Don't get it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482027)

Oh it's you! Hey everyone, it's the guy who thinks someone stating an opinion is making scientific claims!

I've got a list of answers for you already here, but they're in the form of workboots deeply embedded in your rectum! But first, you'll have to take your head out of there!

Let's see if your lame attempt at xkcd-style geek pandering humor will get you the mod points you thought you'd get!

Fag.

Re:Don't get it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46483217)

Pandering to Aspies never fails. I won either way!

Re:Don't get it (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 4 months ago | (#46481945)

Ladies and gentlemen: it's official. Hipsterism has moved onto webcomics. Detonate the nukes. Perhaps the cockroach culture can do better than we did.

I'm sure that's good news for Randall (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 4 months ago | (#46481385)

Two historical tomes by Rush Limbaugh are in the Top 6, and none of these are in the Kindle top 100.

How many dead tree books does Amazon sell now?

Re:I'm sure that's good news for Randall (1)

blackjackshellac (849713) | about 4 months ago | (#46482731)

I'm more gobsmacked that people would spend money on any kind of vile utterance by that revolting pile of shit Rush Limbaugh. At least Rob Ford isn't published and his nation is limited to a bunch of suburban rubes.

Re:I'm sure that's good news for Randall (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46483477)

I'm more gobsmacked that people would spend money on any kind of vile utterance by that revolting pile of shit Rush Limbaugh. At least Rob Ford isn't published and his nation is limited to a bunch of suburban rubes.

It's worse than that. This is a kids book. It's propaganda for children. Luckily most kids figure out that their parents are idiots when they are teens, so they'll probably look back and laugh about it.

Re:I'm sure that's good news for Randall (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46483501)

To defeat your enemy, you must first know your enemy. Of course, when knowing your enemy requires giving money to your enemy...

importance of being popular (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481393)

Remember, kids, you too can be a wildly successful yet talentless hack who draws preachy stick figure comics about obvious topics three days a week, as long as your name is Randall Munroe.

Re:importance of being popular (5, Insightful)

Zaldarr (2469168) | about 4 months ago | (#46481427)

You about done being bitter about somebody else's success?

Re:importance of being popular (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481585)

Not quite done. I'd like to direct your attention toward an actual artist with some humility about his work.

Poisoned Minds: Home of SSDD and other pointless shit made by Alan Foreman [poisonedminds.com]
"New World Disorder Fund: Pays the bills to keep this crap online"

Randall Munroe is a big fucking asshole, but he's a popular big fucking asshole, because his idiot fans are all tiny little assholes who wish they could be big fucking assholes.

Re:importance of being popular (1, Insightful)

amalcolm (1838434) | about 4 months ago | (#46481883)

Says an even bigger ASSHOLE

Re:importance of being popular (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482195)

I hope Monday's humorless "comic" is an illustration copied from a textbook on proctology, with a title text that reads RANDALL SAYS LOOK AT AN ASSHOLE. On second thought, hasn't Randall already done that comic, just because gullible assholes like you will eagerly look at anything Randall does?

Re:importance of being popular (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481875)

Anyone who criticizes anyone who's successful is just bitter, and being bitter invalidates someone's arguments.

People who throw/hit balls around on fields and make millions? Stop being bitter!

Re:importance of being popular (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482231)

Saying "stop being bitter" automatically invalidates your argument, because you believe in arbitrarily invalidating arguments.

Re:importance of being popular (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482595)

Saying "stop being bitter" automatically invalidates your argument, because you believe in arbitrarily invalidating arguments.

You said it too, so your argument is invalid as well.

Re:importance of being popular (4, Interesting)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 months ago | (#46481477)

I would love to hear how that was supposed to work. Were human beings programmed to irrationally love things created by people called Randall Munroe, or are you arguing that he owns some sort of mind-control ray?

Re:importance of being popular (4, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 4 months ago | (#46481499)

Remember kids, don't fail, or you'll have to spend your time complaining about people who didn't.

Re:importance of being popular (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481669)

Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is: never try.

Re:importance of being popular (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482159)

Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is: never try.

Al Bundy?

Re:importance of being popular (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482641)

Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is: never try.

Al Bundy?

Close... Homer Simpson.

Re:importance of being popular (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481559)

So why don't you?

Unless he is not quite so talentless as you make out?

The What-If stuff is well written, informative and funny. It may even be accurate (I'm not smart enough to judge this). His comics are hit and miss (as are every body elses so...), but you know what they are popular and that is not down to his name, it is down to the fact the struck a cord with the readership.

Re:importance of being popular (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481765)

XKCD is popular among pseudointellectual idiots who desperately want to impress each other by appearing to be smart. Am I right, sir?

Re:importance of being popular (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482149)

Well, yes, there are some xkcd readers who are pseudointellectual idiots who want to impress each other. But there are also all the other readers.

That & (1)

DRAGONWEEZEL (125809) | about 4 months ago | (#46482177)

Exploits of a Mom is probably the funniest thing in a web comic ever... :)

Re:importance of being popular (4, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 4 months ago | (#46481743)

Exactly, he's just trading on his name. He would never have gained that many readers if he hadn't already been famous for... er... I'll get back to you.

Re:importance of being popular (2)

devman (1163205) | about 4 months ago | (#46482357)

Exactly. He build his brand off being famous for being a Physics undergrad at a small state school in south east Virginia. Yeah, a regular Paris Hilton he is. It is easy to be successful when you have that kind of background. /s

Re:importance of being popular (2)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 4 months ago | (#46481793)

Will that work if I change my name to Randall Munroe? Why is his name special?

Re:importance of being popular (1)

grep -v '.*' * (780312) | about 4 months ago | (#46482659)

Why is his name special?

Because it's just like Elbereth [wikia.com] except of scaring monsters away, it attracts nerds instead.

The only problem here is finding a tablet that you can stand on without destroying it in the process. Maybe one per foot? (Or do I just need to lose weight?)

I'm sorry to say... (5, Informative)

Kokuyo (549451) | about 4 months ago | (#46481413)

I'm not smart enough for some of the XKCD strips...

Re:I'm sorry to say... (5, Informative)

Nick De Graeve (2829277) | about 4 months ago | (#46481465)

That's why there is explain xkcd [explainxkcd.com] .

Re:I'm sorry to say... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481581)

Ran out of mod points, which is **very** lucky for you. Otherwise I would have modded you -100: Wasting my time is an utterly funny way. Not because I fail to understand XKCD most of the time, but because you lured me into yet another way to see the huge number of comics.

Damn you.

Re:I'm sorry to say... (1, Redundant)

laejoh (648921) | about 4 months ago | (#46481479)

OB www.explainxkcd.com [explainxkcd.com] , It's 'cause you're dumb ;)

Re:I'm sorry to say... (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 4 months ago | (#46481507)

That's one of the best praises it could receive.

Re:I'm sorry to say... (5, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 4 months ago | (#46481803)

I'm not smart enough for some of the XKCD strips...

Hell, I'm not smart enough for Garfield.

Re:I'm sorry to say... (4, Funny)

dargaud (518470) | about 4 months ago | (#46482639)

I'm not smart enough for some of the XKCD strips...

Hell, I'm not smart enough for Garfield.

And I'm clearly not smart enough for the Family Circus... I never even got one.

More questions (3, Interesting)

StripedCow (776465) | about 4 months ago | (#46481419)

I wished he scientifically answered the following hypothetical questions:

1. What if patents were abolished.
2. What if copyright were abolished.
3. What if programmers ran Congress.

Re:More questions (4, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 months ago | (#46481467)

Those aren't changes for which practical data or experimental models exist, so he's unlikely to ever cover them.

Re:More questions (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 months ago | (#46481891)

Those aren't changes for which practical data or experimental models exist, so he's unlikely to ever cover them.

On the third point, you are correct, perhaps. But the first two were the natural state before the invention of those legal fictions. There is certainly material to work from.

Re:More questions (3, Insightful)

Millennium (2451) | about 4 months ago | (#46482345)

That's not science: it's uncontrolled historical data. Not xkcd's thing.

Re:More questions (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 4 months ago | (#46482451)

Are you saying he is not constructing any models in this book, and is merely filling in numbers?

Re:More questions (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 months ago | (#46482821)

He's using the tools of physics, if that's what you mean.

Re:More questions (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481551)

1. Economic and political upheavals, from vast and dangerous to slightly annoying. Some few posisitve things, too.
2. As previous, though running from worrying to delighted consumer response. Many more positive results than above.

(Better to ask what the results would be if they were overhauled, made saner and brought back closer to their original intent rather than being designed for keeping certain business models afloat).

3. Proufound disruption and even worse performance due to ignorance of practical political tenets, economics and anything much more than being able to unroll loops for better performance. e.g. While Woz made one heckuvva great engineer for Apple, his runninng the company would have been a disaster for it.

Re:More questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481935)

1. Economic and political upheavals, from vast and dangerous to slightly annoying. Some few posisitve things, too.
2. As previous, though running from worrying to delighted consumer response. Many more positive results than above.

Considering you have no real evidence to back anything you said up, you just pulled that out of your ass. Come back to me when you have scientific evidence of your claims (not speculation) and can actually defend copyright and patents.

Re:More questions (2)

Shados (741919) | about 4 months ago | (#46481553)

If programmers ran Congress the country would go under as no one would ever agree on minute details on a bill. You thought the current 2 parties never agreeing was bad. Now imagine every individuals never agreeing with each other...

Re:More questions (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481953)

Foolish American, legislatures are supposed to debate every minute detail of every bill. The process exists to discourage them from agreeing to pass laws that ruin our lives. If the voters elected a bunch of photogenic celebrities who all agree with each other, the country would go under.

Re:More questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482301)

Remeber this:

Since pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress?

.

Never in the history of the USA has the above been more true than it is today.

Re:More questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482547)

Nay, history goes way back. Congress notoriously neglected to pay soldiers who served in the American Revolution.

Thanks for the Slashvertisement (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481475)

This one doesn't even try to hide it. It's a literal freaking advertisement.

Re:Thanks for the Slashvertisement (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481981)

But it's an advertisement for Randall Munroe, so it must be good!

FUCK BETA! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481495)

Why does "the switch it of" button not work?

Re:FUCK BETA! (1)

kootsoop (809311) | about 4 months ago | (#46481547)

You've been hitting the "of beta" button. That means you become one with beta. Try something else if you want a different effect.

Somebody explain the difference (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481573)

Please,
Can somebody explain the difference between "Publishing", and "Selling on Amazon"?

Alt Text (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46481787)

If I hold my finger over the pictures, will the alternate text appear?

His name is Wednesday? (1, Troll)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 4 months ago | (#46481831)

Wednesday the geeky cartoonist behind XKCD

I thought his name was Randall.

Re:His name is Wednesday? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482355)

Wednesday Randall Munroe is ashamed of his girly first name.

Re:His name is Wednesday? (1)

Threni (635302) | about 4 months ago | (#46482515)

Hopefully the lack of any sensible editorial control on this site won't be duplicated on http://soylentnews.org/ [soylentnews.org]

Re:His name is Wednesday? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about 4 months ago | (#46482973)

ahh memories of the old slashdot where you lost your place on a page when trying to post a comment or read a post that was displayed as just a subject line.

Abject Objective Subjectivity. (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 4 months ago | (#46482081)

Proving once again that "best" does not exist.

Being beaten only by... (1)

AdamHaun (43173) | about 4 months ago | (#46482877)

Currently at #1: Rush Limbaugh's self-insert U.S. history fanfic.

I swear to you I am not making this up. [amazon.com]

Perhaps Randall should pass on publicizing this particular honor.

Re:Being beaten only by... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46483771)

It's like "Wishbone" with American historical mythology instead of "the classics"

That's actually pretty clever.

And now it's 3rd (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46482897)

and falling. I did like his foul mouthed Honey Badger though.

I, Libertine (1)

Bright Apollo (988736) | about 4 months ago | (#46482953)

Shep did this even one better back in the 50s.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...