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XKCD Author's Unpublished Book Remains a Best-Seller For 5 Months

samzenpus posted about 2 months ago | from the big-before-it-was-big dept.

Books 169

destinyland writes Tuesday is the official release date for the newest book from the geeky cartoonist behind XKCD — yet it's already become one of Amazon's best-selling books. Thanks to a hefty pre-order discount, one blogger notes that it's appeared on Amazon's list of hardcover best-sellers since the book was first announced in March, and this weekend it remains in the top 10. Randall Munroe recently announced personal appearances beginning this week throughout the U.S. (including Cambridge, New York, Seattle, and the San Francisco Bay Area) — as well as a Google Hangout on Friday, September 12. Just two weeks ago he was also awarded the Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story — and now many of his appearances are already sold out.

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

Insert obligatory XKCD here (5, Funny)

johnsnails (1715452) | about 2 months ago | (#47797259)

Insert obligatory XKCD here

Re:Insert obligatory XKCD here (4, Funny)

Kohenkatz (1166461) | about 2 months ago | (#47797343)

Re:Insert obligatory XKCD here (1, Funny)

johnsnails (1715452) | about 2 months ago | (#47797379)

And there it is

Re:Insert obligatory XKCD here (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 2 months ago | (#47797649)

The links do NOTHING.

Re:Insert obligatory XKCD here (2)

Kohenkatz (1166461) | about 2 months ago | (#47797683)

That's because I only posted the raw image. The links all went to http://blog.xkcd.com/2014/07/2... [xkcd.com]

Re:Insert obligatory XKCD here (1)

Mathinker (909784) | about 2 months ago | (#47798203)

Didn't you forget some kind of reference to "my eyes"?

Re:Insert obligatory XKCD here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797869)

Did anyone ever get the hang of image maps? I think 20 years ago I thought it was a great idea, but not worth the effort.

Re:Insert obligatory XKCD here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797925)

Heck yeah. I used image maps all the time twenty years ago. I had a boss who made a page that was just one big image map. I had to convince him to make it an interlaced gif to help load times, and even then it was too slow, so I made a purely black and white gif to act as a pre-load alternate image.

Re:Insert obligatory XKCD here (2)

johnsnails (1715452) | about 2 months ago | (#47798435)

We have used it in addition with some indesign (or was it PS?) feature to get really nice detailed points of a country that we then used for state selection of a country. That has worked particularly well. But other then that I dont really like it.

Re:Insert obligatory XKCD here (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797477)

here [imgur.com]

Re:Insert obligatory XKCD here (2, Funny)

johnsnails (1715452) | about 2 months ago | (#47797565)

Which is it? :P

First Post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797261)

Nice! One more book!

Ummm.... (4, Interesting)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 2 months ago | (#47797287)

Just thought I'd express my opinion that Randall Munroe is a genius. The amount of work he puts into some of his comics [xkcd.com] really makes him unique.

Unrecognized command. Type "help" for assistance.
guest@xkcd:/$ help
That would be cheating!

Pure UNIX!

Re:Ummm.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797307)

Yeah well, I disrespectfully disagree. Randall Munroe is giant asshole with a rabid following of brainless morons. He only seems smart to you because you're so incredibly stupid.

Re:Ummm.... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797405)

Yeah well, I disrespectfully disagree. Randall Munroe is giant asshole with a rabid following of brainless morons. He only seems smart to you because you're so incredibly stupid.

You have issues... Fortunately for you one of them can be fixed by washing your mouth out with soap....

Re:Ummm.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797423)

You have an issue called hero worship, brainwashed member of the Cult Of XKCD. Seek professional help immediately.

Re:Ummm.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797507)

You have an issue called hero worship, brainwashed member of the Cult Of XKCD. Seek professional help immediately.

And you are particularly lousy troll...

Re:Ummm.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797541)

Agreed. I'm barely foaming at the mouth...no urge to grab a pitch fork. Terrible work.

Re:Ummm.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797645)

Agreed. I'm barely foaming at the mouth...no urge to grab a pitch fork. Terrible work.

In that case you need to chew more soap...

Re:Ummm.... (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 2 months ago | (#47798101)

When you display XKCD strips on an Apple device, then what happens? Does the universe crack through at that point and a black hole form?

Re:Ummm.... (-1)

narcc (412956) | about 2 months ago | (#47797599)

Well, the AC does have a point. For example, comic 1235 shows incredible ignorance of both science and logic.

That aside, between the countless meaningless graphs and crying over his inability to find love there isn't really much good content.

Extra fun: When I went looking for comic 1235, I ran across a few "xkcd sucks" blogs which offer (some) good criticism on specific comics. You might find it interesting.

Re:Ummm.... (4, Insightful)

time_lords_almanac (3527081) | about 2 months ago | (#47797733)

The comics are supposed to be for amusement. Yes, Science/Logic are used for that effect, but XKCD isn't trying to be a peer reviewed journal. They don't need to accurate as long as they are accurate enough to achieve a humorous effect. I thought 1235 was quite amusing. The XKCD Sucks critique on 1235 is weak, at best. Being smug is part of the humour. He even says the comic is good for the most part but complained the caption text was on the bottom. I have absolutely no idea what difference that's supposed to make. I get that everybody has a different sense of humour but I don't see comments like that as worthwhile critiques.

Re:Ummm.... (0, Flamebait)

rasmusbr (2186518) | about 2 months ago | (#47797419)

Yeah well, I disrespectfully disagree. Randall Munroe is giant asshole with a rabid following of brainless morons. He only seems smart to you because you're so incredibly stupid.

Both you and grandparent are wrong.

Randal Munroe is evidence that if you draw stick figures for long enough you will eventually gain recognition.

Re:Ummm.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797511)

Yeah well, I disrespectfully disagree. Randall Munroe is giant asshole with a rabid following of brainless morons. He only seems smart to you because you're so incredibly stupid.

Both you and grandparent are wrong.

Randal Munroe is evidence that if you draw stick figures for long enough you will eventually gain recognition.

In other words you are pissed at the fact that in these kinds of comics it's content that matters and not so much how good you are at drawing?

Re:Ummm.... (4, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | about 2 months ago | (#47797619)

Randal Munroe is evidence that if you draw stick figures for long enough you will eventually gain recognition.

Sure, as long as your stick figures are saying and doing incredibly witty things.

Actually, Munroe's success is really surprising to me in spite of the brilliance of his work, because so much of what he draws is accessible to a relatively narrow audience. Not all of it, not even the majority. But there's enough that is only understandable to people who know more than most about computers, mathematics, physics, etc., that none of the non-geeks I know really like it.

Re:Ummm.... (2)

swillden (191260) | about 2 months ago | (#47797627)

Actually, Munroe's success is really surprising to me in spite of the brilliance of his work, because so much of what he draws is accessible to a relatively narrow audience. Not all of it, not even the majority.

I should have qualified this to point out I'm talking about his comics, more than What If. HIs What If series is very accessible, by design.

Re:Ummm.... (-1, Flamebait)

narcc (412956) | about 2 months ago | (#47797661)

I have a different theory. His comic appeal to people who merely believe themselves to be above average. Like the 'Big Ban Theory' or the bad joke that is new 'Cosmos' series. Presumably a show for 'geeks' that has broad consumer appeal because everyone wants to believe that they're smarter than the people around them.

As we've seen, that's a pretty big audience.

Re:Ummm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797751)

Yep. "Geeks" are a big market now.

Re:Ummm.... (4, Insightful)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | about 2 months ago | (#47797761)

I have a different theory. His comic appeal to people who merely believe themselves to be above average.

...but it can't appeal to people who really are above average, because it doesn't appeal to you! Right?

So, can you recommend any webcomics that appeal to people who bolster their own sense of superiority by accusing others of feeling superior, and then mocking them for it? Maybe something with "Projection" in the title...

Re:Ummm.... (4, Funny)

lgw (121541) | about 2 months ago | (#47797775)

I'm sure there's an XKCD on that.

Re:Ummm.... (-1, Troll)

narcc (412956) | about 2 months ago | (#47797795)

Well, we have a lot of pseudoscientific content (lost on most of the readers who think it's science), a lot of meaningless charts and graphs (that look like math to the numerically illiterate), and countless (completely meaningless) references to historical figures and sci-fi characters.

You tell me. Which way do you think the pendulum swings?

Re:Ummm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47798031)

...but it can't appeal to people who really are above average, because it doesn't appeal to you! Right?

Correct. That is refreshingly honest of you, don't often see people admit they are so wrong.

Re:Ummm.... (4, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | about 2 months ago | (#47798405)

His comic appeal to people who merely believe themselves to be above average.

Bah.

It's got nothing to do with intelligence, or even knowledge in a general sense. It's that his comics so often rely on specialized knowledge. For example, a couple of my favorite strips are the "sudo" strip and the "Bobby Tables" strip. The former is only understandable to someone who has at least a passing acquaintance with *nix system administration, and the latter requires some knowledge of SQL and SQL injection attacks. Neither of those things is hard to understand. They don't require great intelligence. But they're not generally known. And to people who require an explanation, they're not funny (I have t-shirts of both, and I have never gotten so much as a chuckle from anyone to whom I have to explain the basis for the jokes).

You'll note, of course, that I'm not actually addressing your real point, which is a snarky argument that only people who like to feel themselves smarter or more knowledgeable than most would enjoy the strip. That's because it's not worth addressing.

Re:Ummm.... (-1, Flamebait)

narcc (412956) | about 2 months ago | (#47798453)

The "sudo make me a sandwich" one? Just not funny. I "get" the "joke", it's just not even a little bit funny. It's "Ha, ha! That's a thing that I know about! Familiarity for the win!"

The "Bobby Tables" strip also isn't funny. For the same reasons.

Let me guess: You have a large collection of "nerdy" t-shirts? Most of those are about as funny, insightful, and entertaining as XKCD. You know this already, as I'm sure when you're shopping on whatever website sells that stuff you like some and reject others. The difference between those and XKCD, of course, is that the t-shirt shop doesn't come with a personality for you to worship.

You'll note, of course, that I'm not actually addressing your real point

I did notice. I don't blame you. Reality is very difficult to face.

Re:Ummm.... (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 2 months ago | (#47798489)

Please enlighten us.

What online resources do you find funny? What is the funniest geeky/techy/sciencey thing you follow?

Re:Ummm.... (2)

narcc (412956) | about 2 months ago | (#47798611)

I haven't found one.

What makes you laugh at things merely because you recognize them?

Re:Ummm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47798635)

Not GP, but SMBC is a better xkcd than xkcd, if only because the author realizes that 'science joke' needs an actual joke attached to it to be funny. Anyway, this [imgur.com] is why xkcd sucks. Sure, there are some funny strips, but the issues pointed out in the parody are grating when taken as a whole.

Re:Ummm.... (4, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 months ago | (#47798637)

The "sudo make me a sandwich" one? Just not funny

... to you.

I "get" the "joke", it's just not even a little bit funny

... to you.

The "Bobby Tables" strip also isn't funny

... to you.

I did notice. I don't blame you. Reality is very difficult to face.

And apparently subjective opinion is a very difficult concept for you to grasp.

Re:Ummm.... (0)

narcc (412956) | about 2 months ago | (#47798719)

You missed this bit:

It's "Ha, ha! That's a thing that I know about! Familiarity for the win!"

You can call that 'smart' and 'funny' if you like. Just don't expect everyone to agree with you.

Re:Ummm.... (-1, Troll)

narcc (412956) | about 2 months ago | (#47798411)

Wow, did I strike a nerve!

Re: Ummm.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47798569)

I assume that was your intent. Unless you haven't realized that humor is subjective. A lot of people like physical comedy. I don't but it would be arrogant of me to think my sense of humor is better.

Familiarity is a part of humor. If you can't relate to something you're unlikely to see any humor in it.

I don't like every xkcd, but I tend to like them better than many other comics.

I seriously doubt that you were unable discern that your comment had a tone of insult rather than being an informative critique.

Re: Ummm.... (2)

narcc (412956) | about 2 months ago | (#47798629)

More like an invitation to like-minded individuals. There's a lot of group-think on Slashdot and XKCD is, inexplicably, a darling to many users here. Some people feel more comfortable sharing their thoughts and opinions when they know that they're not alone.

Re:Ummm.... (5, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 months ago | (#47798803)

Wow, did I strike a nerve!

Not really no. The downmod as flaimbait is entirely fair.

You don't like XKCD (or apparently any other webcomic) and that's fine, you have different tastes to some people here.

However, youre using that mere difference of opinion to hurl unwarranted and unjistified insults at people who do like it. In other words you're baiting people to flame you by insulting them over nothing more than a difference of taste.

That's not striking a nerve and doen't justify your actions, it's slashdot's moderation system working exactly as designed.

Re:Ummm.... (-1, Troll)

narcc (412956) | about 2 months ago | (#47798823)

However, youre using that mere difference of opinion to hurl unwarranted and unjistified insults at people

Name one.

Re:Ummm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797439)

If we take Randall as a reference, sure, most of us are stupid, including you.

Re:Ummm.... (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 2 months ago | (#47798093)

So you're the one who thinks Microsoft is morally bound to hand over its Irish emails to the federosaurus!

Re:Ummm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47798207)

You know, all of us ignorant assholes think you're a jealous moron so what does that make you? To top it off you didn't even manage to get a troll tag with your -1.

pitiful

Re:Ummm.... (2)

Urkki (668283) | about 2 months ago | (#47798309)

He only seems smart to you because you're so incredibly stupid.

Note that "smart" and "genius" are two different things. Also "smart" does not necessarily mean "intelligent". The comics he creates regularly are very smart, and to regularly create smart comics requires genius of some kind.

And if you don't think many XKCD "strips" are rather smart... what are you doing at a "New for Nerd" website?

Re:Ummm.... (0)

narcc (412956) | about 2 months ago | (#47798425)

And if you think many XKCD "strips" are rather smart... what are you doing at a "New for Nerd" website?

Fixed that for you.

Re:Ummm.... (1)

Urkki (668283) | about 2 months ago | (#47798477)

And if you think many XKCD "strips" are rather smart... what are you doing at a "New for Nerd" website?

Fixed that for you.

No, I think you are actually wrong there. If you don't find some subset (different for different people, but still a sizeable subset) smart, you do not really fit what is considered "a nerd". You can still be intelligent, smart, interested in technology,whatever, but not a "nerd".

Re:Ummm.... (3, Informative)

johnsnails (1715452) | about 2 months ago | (#47797311)

Thats pretty cool. Just did a
sudo shutdown -r now

amount of work (1)

students (763488) | about 2 months ago | (#47797757)

If you look at the bottom of the page, you will see that it says he did not do the programming. He only drew the comics.

Gateway drug (2)

lucm (889690) | about 2 months ago | (#47797313)

Dilbert -> XKCD -> Red Meat -> Plastic Brick Automaton -> obscene graffiti in the bathroom of a rest area in Idaho.

Re:Gateway drug (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797429)

Dilbert -> XKCD -> Red Meat -> Plastic Brick Automaton -> obscene graffiti in the bathroom of a rest area in Idaho.

Do you have a link for the fifth one in your list?

Re:Gateway drug (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797707)

get(5)

Re:Gateway drug (4, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 months ago | (#47797771)

Far Side >> all of the above.

Re:Gateway drug (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | about 2 months ago | (#47798135)

And Bloom County, Calvin & Hobbs, etc.

Re:Gateway drug (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47798145)

Nope.

Re:Gateway drug (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47798329)

I was doing Red Meat years ago, back in college, long for XKCD exist.

Re:Gateway drug (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47798575)

C&H > PBF > all

right on! (5, Insightful)

resfilter (960880) | about 2 months ago | (#47797339)

i haven't really read xkcd in a few months, but i do love it.

his odd medium of stick figures seemed lazy the first time i read his comic, but now it seems almost purpose-picked for the kind of readership he has. it's the comic strip equivalent of a command line interface. no flash, all function.

slashdot has never motivated me to purchase anything before. i was unaware he was releasing a book. so this is a first, a slashvertisement got me.

i wish randall the most incredible success in his new book, he deserves to make many millions from it. he seems like the kind of guy that would start xkcd scholorships or something if he became wealthy.

German version is cheaper?! (3, Insightful)

h3lix (753834) | about 2 months ago | (#47797353)

Okay, so why is the german version cheaper?

I sense a conspiracy.

German Version [amazon.com]

English Version [amazon.com]

Re:German version is cheaper?! (4, Funny)

resfilter (960880) | about 2 months ago | (#47797389)

the german version should cost more. making things funny in german is REALLY hard.

Re:German version is cheaper?! (-1, Flamebait)

narcc (412956) | about 2 months ago | (#47797605)

Harder than making XKCD funny in English? Even Randall hasn't puzzled that one out.

Re:German version is cheaper?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797749)

Harder than making XKCD funny in English? Even Randall hasn't puzzled that one out.

Then how come he is so funny? Is it just pure random chance every single time he makes us (us, not you obviously) laugh out loud?

Re:German version is cheaper?! (1)

sconeu (64226) | about 2 months ago | (#47797937)

That's true. You can only have each translator write one word. Otherwise, you risk killing them all.

http://youtu.be/8gpjk_MaCGM [youtu.be]

Re:German version is cheaper?! (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 2 months ago | (#47798401)

My first thought too. :^)

Re:German version is cheaper?! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47798155)

the german version should cost more. making things funny in german is REALLY hard.

Fwiw: This isn't an opinionated observation from outsiders, as some might think (and I once thought); the German people seem to be well aware of this characteristic that seems to be "missing" from within their society.

Years ago, in an interview on German television, Robin Williams was asked what he felt was the cause of Germany's lack of comedians or a comedy scene in general. His response, done in jest, was: "Maybe it's because (you) killed all the people with a sense of humor."

Ironically, the host took it seriously and reacted as if it was a bit of a revelation — maybe it was — but it was funny also.

Re:German version is cheaper?! (1)

tysonedwards (969693) | about 2 months ago | (#47798301)

Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer?
Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!

Munroe is a cunt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797363)

I stopped reading at 1334 [xkcd.com] because (1) Google isn't the only search engine in existence, (2) there are plenty of useful results on the second page of search results, (3) there is no joke present in this comic, and (4) Munroe is merely using his massive cult of personality to proselytize his personal Google habits.

Re:Munroe is a cunt (1)

lucm (889690) | about 2 months ago | (#47797413)

Too bad for you, 1335 was pretty good. Look it up in your non-Google search engine, you'll see.

Re:Munroe is a cunt (1)

Mathinker (909784) | about 2 months ago | (#47798249)

Might be good, certainly wasn't very funny... or does it need Javascript?

Anyway, 1336 was much funnier...

Re:Munroe is a cunt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797509)

Wow. A butthurt microsoft bing engineer.

Sorry what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797369)

What is the book even about? 5/5 gold post once again /.

Re: Sorry what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797377)

Hey, this ain't the New York Times Book Review. Ya gets what ya pay for.

Re:Sorry what? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797441)

What is the book even about?

Every page is a photo of Randall's anus. And you'll still buy it, won't you.

Re:Sorry what? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 2 months ago | (#47797825)

What If [xkcd.com] , not exactly the classic xkcd comics, but worthy a book even if he don't expand even more the articles over what was posted in that site.

I like how... (2)

Bartles (1198017) | about 2 months ago | (#47797391)

...Cambridge, New York, Seattle, and the San Francisco Bay Area, has now become "throughout the US". And yet Slashdot thinks it can comment on social issues. Are all 4 of those areas in the top ten wealthiest metropolitan areas? Probably pretty close.

Re:I like how... (2)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 2 months ago | (#47797443)

"throughout the US" in PR-speak is a blue state blitz.

Re:I like how... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797449)

You must be a loser from flyover country. Keep fucking your grandma, chief.

Re:I like how... (1)

lucm (889690) | about 2 months ago | (#47797453)

They tried to book events in Laramie, Muskogee, Tupelo and Pine Bluff, but even if a few people tore off the vertical phone numbers on the ads posted in the community centers in those cities, nobody reached out to the local organizers so the events were cancelled.

Re:I like how... (1)

Nyder (754090) | about 2 months ago | (#47797529)

...Cambridge, New York, Seattle, and the San Francisco Bay Area, has now become "throughout the US". And yet Slashdot thinks it can comment on social issues. Are all 4 of those areas in the top ten wealthiest metropolitan areas? Probably pretty close.

I live in Seattle and I am very poor.

Re:I like how... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797629)

I live in Seattle and I am very poor.

Seattle is in fact one of the moste expensive places on the West Coast to live. So, maybe you are "poor" by Seattle standards. Maybe you ought to move someplace else, or quite whining like a bitch?

Such a really genuine nice guy. (4, Interesting)

popoutman (189497) | about 2 months ago | (#47797601)

I've had the pleasure to meet Randall for a few days during one of his very rare conference visits, where he was the keynote speaker at our university computer society's computing conference. As I was one of the group organising the conference we had drinks with him and his wife back at the hotel, and chatted until the wee hours. He's a genuine nice guy, and he is someone that intensely protects the privacy of his private life and those close to him, from the weirdness that internet fame can bring.

He did find it really refreshing to be able to go on a proper touristy roadtrip a few days after the conference was over to see a few of the prettier places in the nearby area and to see those from a local's perspective instead of the standard stereotypical locations, where his wife (who is a really lovely lady and someone I've kept up some contact with since) was able to pursue some of her interests. All this without people fawning over him or being weird around him. I got the impression that the more his internet fame grows, the harder it is for him to lead a normal life and that is something that I hope he is able to work with as the years go by.

I think it's really cool that he is being recognised for his hard work, and he does work hard that's for sure.

Re:Such a really genuine nice guy. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797717)

Lotta ass kissing going on here...

Re:Such a really genuine nice guy. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47797755)

whoa, hang on a second there cowboy....lets get this straight before we carry on:

What you are effectively saying, is that your computer society had a......computing conference?

Really?

Do you honestly expect us to believe that? Do you take us for fools?

Affiliate link in the submitter's blog (5, Insightful)

Dzimas (547818) | about 2 months ago | (#47797961)

The summary includes a link to the submitter's blog, with a shortened link -- tinyURL.com/XKCDAuthor -- that expands to an Amazon link with his affiliate code embedded. While I am a huge fan of XKCD, I am not a huge fan of masked links that earn up to 8% for completely unrelated bloggers. Perhaps the summary should be edited to include a direct link to the Amazon product page?

Re: Affiliate link in the submitter's blog (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47798361)

Wby do you want Amazon to earn 8% more?

this FP for GNAA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47798029)

troublSe. It [goat.cx]

XKCD (1)

tsa (15680) | about 2 months ago | (#47798263)

What does XKCD stand for actually? I always wondered.

Re:XKCD (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47798373)

On the sites "About" page is the official answer:

What does XKCD stand for?

        It's not actually an acronym. It's just a word with no phonetic pronunciation -- a treasured and carefully-guarded point in the space of four-character strings.

Re:XKCD (1)

tsa (15680) | about 2 months ago | (#47798587)

Cool, thanks!

Re:XKCD (1)

stjobe (78285) | about 2 months ago | (#47798399)

It's not actually an acronym. It's just a word with no phonetic pronunciation -- a treasured and carefully-guarded point in the space of four-character strings.

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

Re:XKCD (1)

tsa (15680) | about 2 months ago | (#47798591)

Cool, thanks! :)

Re:XKCD (2)

Sanians (2738917) | about 2 months ago | (#47798607)

Probably just one of the few remaining unregistered four-letter .com domains, from back in the day when there were unregistered four-letter .com domains. They're all taken now. Everybody wants a short domain name, especially the domain squatters.

Good Grief (3, Informative)

Art3x (973401) | about 2 months ago | (#47798287)

Just in case anyone else but me is having a hard time finding out what the book actually is, it's called What If?: Serious Scientific Answers to Absurd Hypothetical Questions [amazon.com] .

Slashdot: home of the best comment moderation system and the worst article summaries.

Randall Munroe (3, Funny)

jandersen (462034) | about 2 months ago | (#47798343)

I looked him upo in Wikipedia and ironically, he is in fact quite thin and has a big, round head...

Re:Randall Munroe (3, Funny)

Keyboard Rage (3448471) | about 2 months ago | (#47798697)

Hint: Being near-circular in body shape is not the normal human shape. It's called obesity.

Other hint: Being quite thin and have a big, round head is (or should be) the normal condition of at least 50% of the human population (men + prepubescent children). The remaining 40-something % is (or should be) also quite thin with a big, round head, but often includes two lumps on the chest area. Then, for about 50% of the human population, at certain points in their lives they will sport another, smaller thin object with a round head.

Ta3o (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47798559)

*BSD 4as steadily Jesus Up The consider worthwhile
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?