tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post6760786285217514365..comments2024-03-17T05:03:46.056-07:00Comments on xkcd sucks: Comic 769: All Is Fair...Carlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comBlogger185125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-44260839106226489722010-08-03T19:23:34.615-07:002010-08-03T19:23:34.615-07:00wait, i don't get it, i created a whole blog! ...wait, i don't get it, i created a whole blog! what more do you want??Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-22091752485225026632010-08-03T14:51:23.087-07:002010-08-03T14:51:23.087-07:00yeah Carl, you should make something that doesn...yeah Carl, you should make something that doesn't suck for oncershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-18375382661536564262010-08-03T14:05:15.722-07:002010-08-03T14:05:15.722-07:00You are an idiot.
And XKCD Rocks!
Maybe your lif...You are an idiot.<br /><br />And XKCD Rocks!<br /><br />Maybe your life would be more fulfilling if you spent your time creating something of your own that you can be proud of rather than spending your time attempting to tear somebody else's creativity down.<br /><br />Seriously, what's the deal with absolutely having to dedicate a large amount of your time and an entire website just to bash one comic strip??? Everything about you and this website screams "Loser" to me. I'm going back to reading XKCD, SMBC, and anything else I might find funny and enjoyable.<br /><br />Enjoy your wasted life of bashing. Hope it was worth it to you.<br /><br />-Austin GirlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-40481549437999245472010-08-01T13:14:30.882-07:002010-08-01T13:14:30.882-07:00not that it matters, but the gun looks like a crud...not that it matters, but the gun looks like a crude drawing of a springfield 1903 to me, used in ww1/2, and limited use in Korea and Vietnam. <br /><br />The helmet looks like an M1 which was used by the US army from 1942 until the early 80's<br /><br />On the other hand, the reference to him liking his "regular beret" likely refers to the fact that in 2001 the US army adopted the black beret for all "normal" troops.<br /><br />But none of this matters because it's a goddamn comic strip making a play on the phrase "all's fair in love and war" it's still worth a chuckle even if it isn't historically accurate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-75633344237354503962010-07-31T22:28:45.621-07:002010-07-31T22:28:45.621-07:00it is true! I will admit it, I actually PLANNED TH...it is true! I will admit it, I actually PLANNED THE ENTIRE THING! I knew EXACTLY what the comic was about when I started the sentence! But I pretended not to, because that was how I wanted to express my thoughts. In this case, I had a good reason, or at least, something I think is a good reason. i wanted to express how shocking I found the subject material of this comic. I thought the best way to do that would be to contrast it with a more mundane sentence. So I started out all innocent and carefree, and then suddenly shifted to the more offensive topic, which I also described in all caps. This was meant to highlight how surprised I had become. i thought it was mildly clever. A bunch of people complimented me on that line.<br /><br />not that i'm NOT a pedantic, hypocritical, whiny bitch, because i am all those things too.Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-70616253960379048492010-07-31T17:17:58.967-07:002010-07-31T17:17:58.967-07:00Carl is using what is called a "rhetorical de...Carl is using what is called a "rhetorical device." you may have heard of them. the fictional writer of the letter is just getting interrupted in mid-thought.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-26184494402641818082010-07-31T17:16:40.423-07:002010-07-31T17:16:40.423-07:00From http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/2010/07/comic-7...From http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/2010/07/comic-765-homeopathetic.html:<br /><br />"Now i've gotten all distracted and forgotten what this comic was about. Let me just have a l-<br />OH HOLY CRAP, IT WAS THE SEMEN INJECTION THING. WHYYYYYYY"<br /><br />From this post:<br /><br />"In other words, if he were actually writing a letter to the woman he is trying to shoot, he wouldn't say "I fear you may have found a superior vantage poi--A splendid effort, my love..." because that doesn't make sense. The first half of the letter is negated by the second. So a normal sane human would just start over and not act like this was a conversation."<br /><br />Carl, you're a pedantic, hypocritical, whiny bitch.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-61529130028429641962010-07-29T15:15:14.693-07:002010-07-29T15:15:14.693-07:00(if you need proof, look no further than the CS pe...(if you need proof, look no further than the CS people who think it is art)rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-56230260112956285692010-07-29T15:09:38.192-07:002010-07-29T15:09:38.192-07:00nah, it's more that the people who study it ar...nah, it's more that the people who study it are dumber than everyone elsershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-91179840554196434422010-07-29T10:33:47.916-07:002010-07-29T10:33:47.916-07:00The only reason Rob feels disdain for computer sci...The only reason Rob feels disdain for computer science is that programming is an artform.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-41026377196600291792010-07-28T00:29:25.672-07:002010-07-28T00:29:25.672-07:00Actually I liked this xkcd more than the average o...Actually I liked this xkcd more than the average one and can't help but feel like Carl immidiately tried hard to find something to criticize purposefully trying not to enjoy the comic at hand (since he has grown to a Randall-xkcd bashing spitefull nerd, no offense intended, just saying).<br /><br />While the comic might not be entirely hilarious or original I find it quite amusing. <br /><br />Honestly, where is the point about complainig about not knowing wether plays in the 19th or the 20th century? The drawing is so rudimental that it can not really be used to pin down a date. The time in which the comic takes place is "war", thats all that matters. <br /><br />The language used in the comic rubbed the readers nose on the absurdity of the whole situation. I did have a laugh about it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-34831261572274759162010-07-26T08:02:37.132-07:002010-07-26T08:02:37.132-07:00man i'm a computer science student
basically ...man i'm a computer science student<br /><br />basically rob picks whatever philosophy allows him to hate on me :(<br /><br />i guess he also hates really good-looking people tooAnn Apolishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08566528013026340201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-71347867635423639152010-07-26T07:03:44.672-07:002010-07-26T07:03:44.672-07:00@Fernie
I... Um. What?
I briefly touched on thi...@Fernie<br /><br />I... Um. What? <br />I briefly touched on this theme earlier, but it may be worth revisiting. Let me respond to your statement, "Science tries to come up with the answers." I couldn't disagree more. Science would be utterly boring if we only looked for models that merely explained this phenomena or that. A model is only interesting if we get more out of it than we put into it. The goal is to find out what new experiments are worth doing, what new questions are worth asking.<br /><br />You also brought up the issue of "truth". There's a lot to unpack here. We could argue all day about which is closer to the truth: a scientific theory or a Philip Dick story. But instead I'll just note the often surprising fact that scientific theories can agree extraordinarily well with experiment, and yet be utterly wrong in terms of philosophical truth. <br /><br />For instance, I wouldn't call Newton's determinism particularly close to the truth since now we believe through quantum mechanics that the universe plays with dice. And yet Newton's theory agrees extraoridinarily well with a wide array of experiments.<br /><br />@Ravenzomg<br /><br />I agree. I wouldn't call an equation beautiful without knowing its proof, its various interpretations, its applications, or its history.<br /><br />I also agree that we are definitely deviants.Arthurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-74774867624997574062010-07-26T06:42:30.183-07:002010-07-26T06:42:30.183-07:00rob you fat faggot stop calling me and my maths bu...rob you fat faggot stop calling me and my maths buddies boring just because you can't do advanced triple volumetric integrals or partial differential equations doesn't make them less exciting than unicorn jizz OKAY?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-43435691270935851022010-07-26T05:08:43.177-07:002010-07-26T05:08:43.177-07:00"despite the fact that I hold computer scienc..."despite the fact that I hold computer science in the highest disdain possible for a scholarly field"<br /><br />I am intrigued. Why do you feel this?<br /><br />-Anon 8:13<br /><br />PS: I see. I accept your definition of "nerd" as a valid one to have even though it is (read: feels) backward and wrongheaded.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-28715529498145411602010-07-26T04:20:19.181-07:002010-07-26T04:20:19.181-07:00"So, basically, you're a big, dumb prescr..."So, basically, you're a big, dumb prescriptivist doo-doo head?"<br /><br />that would require me to be telling people how to use words. so, no. I am telling people how I am using them, so they can understand what I'm saying better, since there's a lot of subtext.<br /><br />"1. Some $SCIENCE is boring, therefore all $SCIENCE is boring.<br />2. Some $ART is beautiful, therefore all $ART is beautiful.<br />3 Conclusion: $ART is *better* than $SCIENCE, for all values of $ART and $SCIENCE."<br /><br />you are apparently a fucking moron if that's what you're getting out of this conversation.<br /><br />you might want to learn about nuance before you jump into a conversation like this--it might help. but since you don't have a grasp of it, let me sum up:<br /><br />the conversation is not that "all science is boring" or that "all art is beautiful." what I said specifically is that I tend to prefer the presence of artists because the lens by which they view the world is more interesting, to me, than the science lens. this is based on repeated observation and experimentation--artists pretty much invariably are more fun to spend time with, for me.<br /><br />I also asserted that artists are less likely to adopt the obnoxious know-it-all mentality that you have just demonstrated--the one where, despite your horribly flawed understanding of a situation, you assume that you have grasped it intuitively enough to demonstrate the flaws to everyone involved.<br /><br />other people have been arguing that math and science do not evoke emotions the same way that art does. this is primarily because art is designed to evoke emotion, and math and science are not. they can evoke emotion, but they do not do so in the same way as art, primarily because they are not art. this does not make them inferior, unless you are judging everything by its ability to evoke emotion in the same fashion as art. in that particular instance, math and science are demonstrably inferior.<br /><br />I'm sure you feel super slighted by the fact that I find you (presumably a computer science type, based on your horribly flawed understanding of this conversation) to be significantly less interesting than someone who describes themselves as a photographer or a poet. this is not a judgment on your field, despite the fact that I hold computer science in the highest disdain possible for a scholarly field--merely an observation. you bore me. I'm sure you're doing wonderful things. I would just prefer it if you did them where I didn't have to interact with you. you're kind of insufferable.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-79818855809270007382010-07-26T04:02:34.175-07:002010-07-26T04:02:34.175-07:00What about art that's not accessible to most p...What about art that's not accessible to most people?<br /><br />Maybe that's what Randall's propounding - if we could only be as clever as he and all his scientist friends are, then we could appreciate xkcd for the great art that it most definitely is.<br /><br />Er.Mr Cushtiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16692225606363497906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-2360748705217317882010-07-25T21:16:02.653-07:002010-07-25T21:16:02.653-07:00Now that you mention it, I think he's used thi...Now that you mention it, I think<a href="http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/voynich_manuscript.png" rel="nofollow"> he's used this</a> idea of "the future misinterpreting us" <a href="http://xkcd.com/239/" rel="nofollow">like twice before</a>, hasn't he? More?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-31448803669561986112010-07-25T21:07:20.420-07:002010-07-25T21:07:20.420-07:00HAHAHAHAH THE FUTURE WILL HAVE A DISTORTED VIEW OF...HAHAHAHAH THE FUTURE WILL HAVE A DISTORTED VIEW OF THE PAST. <br /><br />HAHAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT AN ORIGINAL IDEA!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-31270524639893261442010-07-25T21:07:12.104-07:002010-07-25T21:07:12.104-07:00@Arthur: I think the reasoning behind the negativi...@Arthur: I think the reasoning behind the negativity towards Science and Math [in regards to this "getting emotional responses from it"] lies in the exclusivity. Anything difficult enough to appreciate beyond mere logical construction is inherently beyond common understanding of Math. <br /><br />Sure, the same thing exists in that branch of art that isn't ABOUT making sense to everyone, but representing the Artist's journey to getting to this stage and what not. The uninformed viewer feels gypped, and rightly so! "It's four coloured rectangles! WTF is this!" and whatnot.<br /><br /> But this is a small section of Art that most people just shun while appreciating the grande masse of Artwork that is accessible to nearwell everyone. Do I speak Hungarian? No. Can I appreciate a Hungarian band? Yes. Speak Finnish? no. Do you need to in order to appreciate some Finnish Metal? Not really, because you wouldn't understand them anyways.<br /><br />I don't understand the pleasure in a mathematical statement without the Proof anymore than I would appreciate your telling me "Electrons are Blue". I mean.... grand. But I don't feel one way or the other about that. Show me how you got that and I'd actually be kinda intrigued, but until that, no. <br /><br />So I think it comes down to accessibility. Math only becomes exciting after maybe 2nd year post-sec, really, and very few people go near that. Art can be appreciated quite more often.<br /><br />I won't deny that YOU and some others derive emotional pleasure from Mathematical Statements. I derive emotional pleasure from Trashy Vampire Romance novels. Let's agree to call each other deviants and leave it at that. ;-)<br /><br />RE: XKCD 771: I really like the concept, but once again Randall has presented it in a sequence that doesn't elicit a laugh. Pity, really, I think he had something here...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-71977303013995160202010-07-25T20:54:33.852-07:002010-07-25T20:54:33.852-07:00Fernie: Wittgenstein thought mathematics was just ...Fernie: Wittgenstein thought mathematics was just a series of rules for making certain patterns, which count as valid formulae. So mathematics reduces to a system for making interesting wallpaper designs, which means it's art. (Explore the flaws of that implied definition of art at your leisure.)<br /><br />A lot of mathematics wouldn't be science by your definition, because much of it is not useful for anything. (Well, it *can* be, but you often have to wait a few hundred years before something that's elegant and wonderful suddenly turns out to be applicable for, say, the most efficient way for air traffic controllers to stack airliners waiting to land.)<br /><br />Can it be art? I wonder if the people who say they can't be inspired by an equation in the same way as they can by a symphony understand that mathematics is not a bunch of equations, any more than Die Zauberflote is a bunch of notes. I'm not sure I'd be that inspired by seeing a couple of quavers and a semi-breve any more than by seeing a trigonometric identity, but I think people might be arguing past one another here.Mr Cushtiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16692225606363497906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-55858259753884447492010-07-25T20:35:00.120-07:002010-07-25T20:35:00.120-07:00I'm sort of enjoying the big discussion here. ...I'm sort of enjoying the big discussion here. And I think the major point is not "what evokes emotions and what doesn't". A lot of things can evoke emotion; hell, ANYTHING can potentially evoke emotion, but not everything is art. Everything CAN be art.<br /><br />As far as <em>I</em> know, the goal of Science is to come up with models that explain the world and all its features, in a way that we can approach the 'truth' objectively. That's not what art is all about. A piece of art is not a model of the world, and it's not an objective way of approaching the truth. Art is nothing but expression -- someone trying to say something, something that may not be "true" or "false" at all, as it is highly subjective and changes from person to person. Science tries to come up with answers. Art tries to come up with good questions.<br /><br />The distinction is not in being beautiful or provoking emotional response. A landscape can be absolutely gorgeous and provoke a lot of responses, but it is not art. Nobody "made" that landscape for expression: it just exists, it is there. A house can be beautiful and evoke emotions, but usually a house is not art: most people do not intentionally try to "express" anything with a house, as they're just trying to create a good shelter. Science creates shelters; Art creates everything that is outside them.Fernie Cantohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01753446688169468457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-76153042412509054562010-07-25T20:17:22.996-07:002010-07-25T20:17:22.996-07:00@Ravenzomg
"but it is reasonable to fight an...@Ravenzomg<br /><br />"but it is reasonable to fight anyone who thinks flat mathematical expressions evoke emotions en par with symphonies."<br /><br />But here's the crazy thing! For some of us (read: myself) they do! It is a pecularity that I wish I could explain, but cannot. I am not here to convince you that my peculiar joys are somehow superior to the joy one gets from art. I only ask that you and UC accept that this joy exists.<br /><br />I think what gets lost in this debate is that art, mathematics, science, and philosophy are much closer than is obvious at first glance. Allow me to quote Einstein:<br /><br />"Where the world ceases to be the scene of our personal hopes and wishes, where we face it as free beings admiring, asking, and observing, there we enter the realm of Art and Science. If what is seen and experienced is portrayed in the language of logic, we are engaged in science. If it is communicated through forms whose connections are not accessible to the conscious mind but are recognized intuitively as meaningul, then we are engaged in art. Common to both is the loving devotion to that which transcends personal concerns and volition."Arthurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-78233824485819468512010-07-25T20:13:04.368-07:002010-07-25T20:13:04.368-07:00@ Rob 6:22
So, basically, you're a big, dumb ...@ Rob 6:22<br /><br />So, basically, you're a big, dumb prescriptivist doo-doo head?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-54575791269034650352010-07-25T19:50:57.927-07:002010-07-25T19:50:57.927-07:00What if we're seeing his thoughts as he IM'...What if we're seeing his thoughts as he IM's?<br /><br />On the IM'ing point, would you ever expect Mister Beret to say "yo cords whut up?" anyway?<br />If Randall did that, I would wager that would be far more annoying, even if it was shown he was IM'ing. At least one could argue Randall was trying to preserve some concept that this was set in the past with the speech style.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com