Page 254 of 2688

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:44 pm UTC
Can someone help with the buffygirl wiki page?

Oooh! This was my 200th post!

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:48 pm UTC
They're building scaffolding so they can go higher.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:50 pm UTC
KarMann wrote:You're also all* assuming that this is two-dimensional, so there can be no foreshortening. Which is funny, because I'm the one who suggested that Occam's razor suggested no need for a third spatial dimension. (It doesn't really.)

* or "y'all are also"

Occam's razor works fine for deciding between one theory that assumes X and another that assumes X and Y; one should choose the former. It fails, however, when neither theory assumes a subset of the assumptions of the other. To choose between a theory that assumes A and B and a theory that assumes C and D it is no help at all. Depending on preference, I could claim A and B were seperate assumptions ot that (A and B) is a single assumption. By doing the same for C and D I could claim that Occam's razor demands whichever of the theories I choose, as one assumption is preferable to two.
To return to the matter at hand, we are choosing between "there are more than 2 spatial dimensions" and "physical objects can pass through one another". Occam's razor does not help us to select between the two. We can, in fact, observe the truth of each of these assumptions in the outside; the former is known to be true and the latter false. It then becomes a question of whether we should assume the One True Comic is more or less like the outside in these regards, a matter that I must defer to the Congrigation pro Doctrina Temporis.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:54 pm UTC
Smithers wrote:
KarMann wrote:You're also all* assuming that this is two-dimensional, so there can be no foreshortening. Which is funny, because I'm the one who suggested that Occam's razor suggested no need for a third spatial dimension. (It doesn't really.)

* or "y'all are also"

Occam's razor works fine for deciding between one theory that assumes X and another that assumes X and Y; one should choose the former. It fails, however, when neither theory assumes a subset of the assumptions of the other. To choose between a theory that assumes A and B and a theory that assumes C and D it is no help at all. Depending on preference, I could claim A and B were seperate assumptions ot that (A and B) is a single assumption. By doing the same for C and D I could claim that Occam's razor demands whichever of the theories I choose, as one assumption is preferable to two.
To return to the matter at hand, we are choosing between "there are more than 2 spatial dimensions" and "physical objects can pass through one another". Occam's razor does not help us to select between the two. We can, in fact, observe the truth of each of these assumptions in the outside; the former is known to be true and the latter false. It then becomes a question of whether we should assume the One True Comic is more or less like the outside in these regards, a matter that I must defer to the Congrigation pro Doctrina Temporis.

The workload is increasing. I delegate the Secretary.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:55 pm UTC
Not to be a complainer but all 3 are behind on updates
Explain
Wiki
Aubronwood
I wanted to review newpix reveals from during my coma and failed.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:57 pm UTC
kryton wrote:Not to be a complainer but all 3 are behind on updates
Explain
Wiki
Aubronwood
I wanted to review newpix reveals from during my coma and failed.

Then review the thread. Someone (almost) always posts every new frame as it is revealed.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:58 pm UTC
kryton wrote:Not to be a complainer but all 3 are behind on updates
Explain
Wiki
Aubronwood
I wanted to review newpix reveals from during my coma and failed.

I haven't checked the others, but http://xkcd.aubronwood.com/ seems up to date.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:00 pm UTC
kryton wrote:Not to be a complainer but all 3 are behind on updates
Explain
Wiki
Aubronwood
I wanted to review newpix reveals from during my coma and failed.

The Book of Aubron is up to date, so you can at least see the Newpix. Current max Newpix is 424.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:00 pm UTC

Another one??

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:00 pm UTC
I'm sorry I have to double-post, but I don't want to edit the last post for the Frame [EDIT: ninja'd]

Everything goes as expected.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:04 pm UTC
davidy22 wrote:
Smithers wrote:
davidy22 wrote:
SBN wrote:
davidy22 wrote:So, the auto-updating GIF seems to be unavailable for me. Anyone got an up-to-date GIF of the thing?

The Book of Aubron: http://xkcd.aubronwood.com/

I have really specific needs. I actually need a single file, not a bunch of images chained together with javascript magic. Unfortunate that Primis seems to be down.

http://xkcd-time.wikia.com/wiki/File:Time_1-418.gif

It's beautiful and I love it. It's now on the explainxkcd wiki.

I'm glad you like it. I guess I assumed that by
davidy22 wrote:I'm looking for a single file that cycles through all the past frames. An animated GIF of all the images so far. I'm doing this for the wiki, so checking the wiki doesn't really help me much.

you meant the xkcd Time Wiki. Does this mean that explainxkcd has become our The Other Wiki?

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:05 pm UTC
Hmmm... Or maybe a scaffold?

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:06 pm UTC
buffygirl wrote:
Firefox has encountered an error and is about to go up in flames.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:08 pm UTC
Here's my take on the whole comma debate.
Oxford commas are a matter of preference, so writer can choose whether to include it or not. However, the comma in "Lurked, waited, posted, and it's interminable" is not an Oxford comma. Combined with the "and" it's actually joining two independent clauses. I guess if it were to be completely correct it would have to be "I lurked, posted(,) and waited, and it's indeterminable.", but that wouldn't fit the acronym. "Lurked, waited, posted; and it's interminable" doesn't work because you can't start a sentence with "and".

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:10 pm UTC
tman2nd wrote:Here's my take on the whole comma debate.
Oxford commas are a matter of preference, so writer can choose whether to include it or not. However, the comma in "Lurked, waited, posted, and it's interminable" is not an Oxford comma. Combined with the "and" it's actually joining two independent clauses. I guess if it were to be completely correct it would have to be "I lurked, posted(,) and waited, and it's indeterminable.", but that wouldn't fit the acronym. "Lurked, waited, posted; and it's interminable" doesn't work because you can't start a sentence with "and".

And why not?

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:11 pm UTC
Must dash:

Lurked, waited, posted - and it's interminable.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:11 pm UTC
Smithers wrote:
KarMann wrote:You're also all* assuming that this is two-dimensional, so there can be no foreshortening. Which is funny, because I'm the one who suggested that Occam's razor suggested no need for a third spatial dimension. (It doesn't really.)

* or "y'all are also"

Occam's razor works fine for deciding between one theory that assumes X and another that assumes X and Y; one should choose the former. It fails, however, when neither theory assumes a subset of the assumptions of the other. To choose between a theory that assumes A and B and a theory that assumes C and D it is no help at all. Depending on preference, I could claim A and B were seperate assumptions ot that (A and B) is a single assumption. By doing the same for C and D I could claim that Occam's razor demands whichever of the theories I choose, as one assumption is preferable to two.
To return to the matter at hand, we are choosing between "there are more than 2 spatial dimensions" and "physical objects can pass through one another". Occam's razor does not help us to select between the two. We can, in fact, observe the truth of each of these assumptions in the outside; the former is known to be true and the latter false. It then becomes a question of whether we should assume the One True Comic is more or less like the outside in these regards, a matter that I must defer to the Congrigation pro Doctrina Temporis.

We know there are three dimensions because they go behind (or in front of) the sand castles.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:14 pm UTC
SBN wrote:
tman2nd wrote:Here's my take on the whole comma debate.
Oxford commas are a matter of preference, so writer can choose whether to include it or not. However, the comma in "Lurked, waited, posted, and it's interminable" is not an Oxford comma. Combined with the "and" it's actually joining two independent clauses. I guess if it were to be completely correct it would have to be "I lurked, posted(,) and waited, and it's indeterminable.", but that wouldn't fit the acronym. "Lurked, waited, posted; and it's interminable" doesn't work because you can't start a sentence with "and".

And why not?

I think you're actually kind of making tman2nd's point for him*. What actual purpose does your "and" serve other than as a counterexample? How is your question improved by its presence in a way that a simple "why not?" wouldn't, aside from counterexample?

* or her, but I'm taking a guess based on the "man" part of the nick

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:15 pm UTC
tman2nd wrote:
Smithers wrote:
KarMann wrote:You're also all* assuming that this is two-dimensional, so there can be no foreshortening. Which is funny, because I'm the one who suggested that Occam's razor suggested no need for a third spatial dimension. (It doesn't really.)

* or "y'all are also"

Occam's razor works fine for deciding between one theory that assumes X and another that assumes X and Y; one should choose the former. It fails, however, when neither theory assumes a subset of the assumptions of the other. To choose between a theory that assumes A and B and a theory that assumes C and D it is no help at all. Depending on preference, I could claim A and B were seperate assumptions ot that (A and B) is a single assumption. By doing the same for C and D I could claim that Occam's razor demands whichever of the theories I choose, as one assumption is preferable to two.
To return to the matter at hand, we are choosing between "there are more than 2 spatial dimensions" and "physical objects can pass through one another". Occam's razor does not help us to select between the two. We can, in fact, observe the truth of each of these assumptions in the outside; the former is known to be true and the latter false. It then becomes a question of whether we should assume the One True Comic is more or less like the outside in these regards, a matter that I must defer to the Congrigation pro Doctrina Temporis.

We know there are three dimensions because they go behind (or in front of) the sand castles.

Or through; that was pretty well pointed out there.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:18 pm UTC
Look, which people are impressively insane? (Hint: it's you guys)

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:19 pm UTC
Does this count as a new period? The pole period?

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:19 pm UTC
Could the comma guys please go coma?

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:19 pm UTC
boozledorf wrote:Look, which people are impressively insane? (Hint: it's you guys)

I like it. Gets my vote. With or without that possibly superfluous (but meaning-changing) comma.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:21 pm UTC
Roia wrote:Does this count as a new period? The pole period?

It seems like it should.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:23 pm UTC
KarMann wrote:
SBN wrote:
tman2nd wrote:Here's my take on the whole comma debate.
Oxford commas are a matter of preference, so writer can choose whether to include it or not. However, the comma in "Lurked, waited, posted, and it's interminable" is not an Oxford comma. Combined with the "and" it's actually joining two independent clauses. I guess if it were to be completely correct it would have to be "I lurked, posted(,) and waited, and it's indeterminable.", but that wouldn't fit the acronym. "Lurked, waited, posted; and it's interminable" doesn't work because you can't start a sentence with "and".

And why not?

I think you're actually kind of making tman2nd's point for him*. What actual purpose does your "and" serve other than as a counterexample? How is your question improved by its presence in a way that a simple "why not?" wouldn't, aside from counterexample?

* or her, but I'm taking a guess based on the "man" part of the nick

What actual purpose does this post serve other than a refutation? How is this post improved by its presence in a way that its absence would not, except for a refutation of his point? And in a similar vein, what purpose does this post have, other than a refutation of yours? And how can anyone read this post*, given how it is full of troll logic***?

* Mine, not KarMann's.
**** Yes, I recursed my foot-notes. So what?

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:25 pm UTC
KarMann wrote:
boozledorf wrote:Look, which people are impressively insane? (Hint: it's you guys)

I like it. Gets my vote. With or without that possibly superfluous (but meaning-changing) comma.

Oh, at first I didn't realize that he was proposing an option for the acronym.
Without the comma, it isn't a question, so it belongs there.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:28 pm UTC
macraw83 wrote:
orthogon wrote:
boozledorf wrote:
descor wrote:
RobIrr wrote:
orthogon wrote:
Angelastic wrote:
orthogon wrote:
boozledorf wrote:
Montov wrote:Let's speculate how this is a sign of the relationship of Randall, his career, coffee and/or the purpose of life. And how the first letters of all the frames with dialogues in them spell a very disturbing word.

Lpaii. Such a disturbing word.

Skim-reading that post, I totally assumed "Lpaii" was one of those Internet abbreviations, like LMAO, FTFY, inb4 etc. I think we should retrofit a meaning to it. But first we need to agree whether it's Lpaii or Lwpaii is correct.

A superfluous one of those dratted it'ses crept in there. Either that or there's a that's missing.

Nice, and has some relevance to the One True Thread. My suggestion is lwpaii = "laughing, weeing, pooing and injecting insulin". Descriptive of a state of uncontrolled hilarity induced at an inconvenient time in a sufferer of diabetes.

Looked, waited, posted, and it's interminable.

I like this one - except for the Oxford comma.
There exist people who disapprove of the Oxford Comma????????¿?¿?¿?

There do, and they're wrong
I don't even know whether that is one or not. Then again I'm not convinced that RobIrr's was one either. Doesn't seem like "it's interminable" is part of the same list as "looked, waited, posted". To omit the comma would be to court the danger of syllepsis.

I think technically it should be "Looked, waited, and posted, and it's interminable." Except for "Looked, waited, and posted" has no subject, so...

EDIT: I find it amusing that this most recent off-topic discussion has revolved around picking apart the grammar of forum posts. And suddenly I am ashamed of having participated...

Actually, it should be, "Looked, waited and posted; and it's interminable."

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:29 pm UTC
tman2nd wrote:
KarMann wrote:
boozledorf wrote:Look, which people are impressively insane? (Hint: it's you guys)

I like it. Gets my vote. With or without that possibly superfluous (but meaning-changing) comma.

Oh, at first I didn't realize that he was proposing an option for the acronym.
Without the comma, it isn't a question, so it belongs there.

Then one can still remove the comma, as long as one also replaces the question mark with a full stop and removes the parenthetical.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:31 pm UTC
udscbt wrote:
Montov wrote:
udscbt wrote:
Interesting

Megan is gone, so I think this is the end. Bringing in the pole was the punchline. Only an Outsider would not get that hilarious and beautiful ending.

It can't end until we reach 500 Frames. How could we be connoisseurs otherwise?
She (or Cueball) will return with something else. And they will build a robotic raptor.

You mean 512 frames. Right?

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:32 pm UTC
Smithers wrote:
tman2nd wrote:
KarMann wrote:
boozledorf wrote:Look, which people are impressively insane? (Hint: it's you guys)

I like it. Gets my vote. With or without that possibly superfluous (but meaning-changing) comma.

Oh, at first I didn't realize that he was proposing an option for the acronym.
Without the comma, it isn't a question, so it belongs there.

Then one can still remove the comma, as long as one also replaces the question mark with a full stop and removes the parenthetical.

Right, I did kind of omit the change of terminal punctuation, but I was thinking it. Thanks for pointing (& figuring) that out.
I do feel that the parenthetical could remain either way, though, but clearly not part of the acronym, unless we get really lucky with the next few appearances of dialogue.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:33 pm UTC
Eliram wrote:
udscbt wrote:
Montov wrote:
udscbt wrote:
Interesting

Megan is gone, so I think this is the end. Bringing in the pole was the punchline. Only an Outsider would not get that hilarious and beautiful ending.

It can't end until we reach 500 Frames. How could we be connoisseurs otherwise?
She (or Cueball) will return with something else. And they will build a robotic raptor.

You mean 512 frames. Right?

No, they definitely mean 500.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:35 pm UTC
KarMann wrote:
Smithers wrote:
tman2nd wrote:
KarMann wrote:
boozledorf wrote:Look, which people are impressively insane? (Hint: it's you guys)

I like it. Gets my vote. With or without that possibly superfluous (but meaning-changing) comma.

Oh, at first I didn't realize that he was proposing an option for the acronym.
Without the comma, it isn't a question, so it belongs there.

Then one can still remove the comma, as long as one also replaces the question mark with a full stop and removes the parenthetical.

Right, I did kind of omit the change of terminal punctuation, but I was thinking it. Thanks for pointing (& figuring) that out.
I do feel that the parenthetical could remain either way, though, but clearly not part of the acronym, unless we get really lucky with the next few appearances of dialogue.

So dialogue that starts with a question mark?

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:38 pm UTC
tman2nd wrote:
KarMann wrote:
Smithers wrote:
tman2nd wrote:
KarMann wrote:
boozledorf wrote:Look, which people are impressively insane? (Hint: it's you guys)

I like it. Gets my vote. With or without that possibly superfluous (but meaning-changing) comma.

Oh, at first I didn't realize that he was proposing an option for the acronym.
Without the comma, it isn't a question, so it belongs there.

Then one can still remove the comma, as long as one also replaces the question mark with a full stop and removes the parenthetical.

Right, I did kind of omit the change of terminal punctuation, but I was thinking it. Thanks for pointing (& figuring) that out.
I do feel that the parenthetical could remain either way, though, but clearly not part of the acronym, unless we get really lucky with the next few appearances of dialogue.

So dialogue that starts with a question mark?

¿Por qué?

(Butter.)

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:38 pm UTC
buffygirl wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:
udscbt wrote:
Spoiler:

Interesting

So, is she stealing the next part from the beavers in the river? Or helping Cueball hauling the loot over?

EDIT:
Montov wrote:Megan is gone, so I think this is the end. Bringing in the pole was the punchline. Only an Outsider would not get that hilarious and beautiful ending.

Well, it still says: "Wait for it."

I think the next several TimeFrames will show her going back and forth, gathering more and more poles (or planks or whatever).

KarMann wrote:
Another one??

I TOTALLY CALLED IT!

EDITS: spoilered the first image, changed font color.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:42 pm UTC
KarMann wrote:
tman2nd wrote:
KarMann wrote:
Smithers wrote:
tman2nd wrote:
KarMann wrote:
boozledorf wrote:Look, which people are impressively insane? (Hint: it's you guys)

I like it. Gets my vote. With or without that possibly superfluous (but meaning-changing) comma.

Oh, at first I didn't realize that he was proposing an option for the acronym.
Without the comma, it isn't a question, so it belongs there.

Then one can still remove the comma, as long as one also replaces the question mark with a full stop and removes the parenthetical.

Right, I did kind of omit the change of terminal punctuation, but I was thinking it. Thanks for pointing (& figuring) that out.
I do feel that the parenthetical could remain either way, though, but clearly not part of the acronym, unless we get really lucky with the next few appearances of dialogue.

So dialogue that starts with a question mark?

¿Por qué?

(Butter.)

So, It would be "Look, which people are impressively insane¿".

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:44 pm UTC
I need to Coma (not Comma) for several Timeframes.

If nothing interesting happens in the one true comic overnight I would to see the Timewaiters who are not in coma to answer the following questions so that I have something to read in the morning.
"If commas were a colour what colour would they be?"
"How to milk a Raptor and can you make cheese?"

Good night dark timeframes all.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:47 pm UTC
Mr Moriaty wrote:"If commas were a colour what colour would they be?"

Depends on the colour of the pen you were using.

Mr Moriaty wrote:"How to milk a Raptor and can you make cheese?"

Very carefully.

Thirteen.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:48 pm UTC
Mr Moriaty wrote:I need to Coma (not Comma) for several Timeframes.

If nothing interesting happens in the one true comic overnight I would to see the Timewaiters who are not in coma to answer the following questions so that I have something to read in the morning.
"If commas were a colour what colour would they be?"

Black, of course.
Mr Moriaty wrote:"How to milk a Raptor and can you make cheese?"

Very carefully, and yes, though it can be rather sharp.
Good night dark timeframes all.

More than you want to know.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:49 pm UTC
KarMann wrote:
tman2nd wrote:
Smithers wrote:
KarMann wrote:You're also all* assuming that this is two-dimensional, so there can be no foreshortening. Which is funny, because I'm the one who suggested that Occam's razor suggested no need for a third spatial dimension. (It doesn't really.)

* or "y'all are also"

Occam's razor works fine for deciding between one theory that assumes X and another that assumes X and Y; one should choose the former. It fails, however, when neither theory assumes a subset of the assumptions of the other. To choose between a theory that assumes A and B and a theory that assumes C and D it is no help at all. Depending on preference, I could claim A and B were seperate assumptions ot that (A and B) is a single assumption. By doing the same for C and D I could claim that Occam's razor demands whichever of the theories I choose, as one assumption is preferable to two.
To return to the matter at hand, we are choosing between "there are more than 2 spatial dimensions" and "physical objects can pass through one another". Occam's razor does not help us to select between the two. We can, in fact, observe the truth of each of these assumptions in the outside; the former is known to be true and the latter false. It then becomes a question of whether we should assume the One True Comic is more or less like the outside in these regards, a matter that I must defer to the Congrigation pro Doctrina Temporis.

We know there are three dimensions because they go behind (or in front of) the sand castles.

Or through; that was pretty well pointed out there.

In this case, version A of the theory; they are in 2D space and objects can pass through each other; and version B; they are in 2D space and red spiders excavate perfect shaped holes in the objects so that velociraptors can push them into the holes and woodpeckers pull them out and sharks fill back in the holes thus allowing objects to pass through each other; Occam's razor says to reduce the unnecessary actors and choose version A.

But I think version B would be so neat to see in action.

### Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:53 pm UTC
If commas were a color, what color would they be?

Blue. Commas take a pause, a bit of a slow down in pace, much like people do when they feel blue...