xkcd To Be Released In Book Form 198
History's Coming To writes "xkcd creator Randall Munroe has revealed on his blag that the acclaimed stick-figure comic will be produced in real dead-tree book form. Fantastic news for all fans of comedy, maths, science, and relationship screw-ups — especially given that the book will be sold in aid of the charity 'Room To Read.' Rumors that the book contains a joke in the ISBN remain unconfirmed." The NY Times article that Munroe links (registration may be required) is from April of this year, and I am amazed that this community didn't note the story at that time. The book will be published by breadpig, which was created by Alexis Ohanian, one of the founders of reddit.
The Fans DID Notice It Though (Score:5, Insightful)
The NY Times article that Munroe links (registration may be required) is from April of this year, and I am amazed that this community didn't note the story at that time.
Well, using a very simple search (xkcd book) in the firehose, I found spongedaddy's submission [slashdot.org], my own submission [slashdot.org] and even one of the bin spammers submitted it [slashdot.org]. And we all linked to the same NYTimes story.
... yet you yourselves do not use this tool to your advantage when looking for duplicates.
Your firehose search tool is there, yes it's slow and clunky. I don't care that you rejected my submission of this story three months ago but don't say I didn't notice one of my favorite web comics being published in book form. I mean, go ahead and say "slow news day" in your summary, I don't care if you feel obligated to dig up old news for stories at 12:25 AM EST on a Tuesday. Also, it confuses me greatly that you provide for us a means to make sure we don't submit a URL that's already been submitted as the primary link by another individual
Re:I might buy this book... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or you could just, you know, visit the website [xkcd.com].
So much environmental stuff. Climate change, pollution, rampant deforestation etc... And here we are. Making books of websites.
Re:I might buy this book... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oblig xkcd reference (Score:3, Insightful)
This book will be for fans only (Score:2, Insightful)
Still, great news! May the force be with Randall.
Surprised at /. falling down again? (Score:5, Insightful)
So the editor is surprised no one told /. about the recent news? Hey, they only missed that story by a few months. Surprise? That's a funnier laugh than the best of XKCD, which is saying a bit, since some of them are pretty funny.
Gee, you don't suppose the so-called editor could be in a position to do something to improve /. to the point where interesting news and humor would again be visible around here?
Of course personal recollection is just one data point at best, but... Some years ago I used to visit /. quite often, perhaps several times a day versus several times a week these days--unless a month or two has gone by. On an average visit I expected to see at several very interesting articles and at least one first report that I hadn't seen elsewhere versus my current expectation of seeing one or two non-boring stories and nothing that I haven't seen elsewhere one or two days earlier. A typical visit would reveal a number of very witty comments and usually one or two actually funny and new jokes versus the current crop of a scattering of very tired memes. I remember looking at a relatively large thread (which are relatively rare these days) and finding exactly one comment that had even been moderated as funny--and that one wasn't even amusing.
Most importantly, the moderation used to be pretty poor instead of downright horrendous. Apparently the lousy moderators have won that game--and I expect the moderation of this post to prove my point (yet again).
But the so-called editors are apparently quite satisfied with the devolution of the system. I guess lower traffic on /. means less so-called work for them?
Re:The Fans DID Notice It Though (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right, of course, but - it's kdawson. That's all that need be said.
Re:I might buy this book... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or you could just, you know, visit the website [xkcd.com].
So much environmental stuff. Climate change, pollution, rampant deforestation etc... And here we are. Making books of websites.
Print N books, cut down N/x trees. Keep a website running for N days, burn y kilograms of carbon for each one of those N days. (Or do you think all that bandwidth and server/routers usage is pollution-free?)
We all pollute the environment. I just don't think printing books is the greatest form of pollution.
Re:Limitations of Dead Tree (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I might buy this book... (Score:1, Insightful)
At least there's something tangible in the end when you print a book. A website is all potential, and that potential is gone when you pull the plug.
Re:Oblig xkcd reference (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oblig xkcd reference (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Limitations of Dead Tree (Score:1, Insightful)
Grandpa Coward just didn't hold his mouse over the image long enough.
Re:Oblig xkcd reference (Score:1, Insightful)
I hope the OP got modded funny and not the link itself.
Re:Is XKCD Shitty Today? (Score:5, Insightful)
I like that you need somebody else's opinion to know whether something is enjoyable or not. I'd like you to check out my new websites: isslashdotshittytoday.com and arehatersshittytoday.com. I'm working on an iskdawsonshittytoday.com, but I keep getting divide by zero errors in the rss.
Re:Limitations of Dead Tree (Score:5, Insightful)
I realised the guy is a fraud.
Um ... how exactly is someone who does a webcomic a "fraud"? WYSIWIG: little stick figures doing goofy things. You liked his earlier comics, you don't like his later ones, fine. But he's not lying to anyone about what he's doing.
Re:I might buy this book... (Score:3, Insightful)
Printing books is actually very low on pollution and could even be carbon negative. You have some pollution with the equipment to cut the tree down, pulp it and the printing presses and such - but that's once off.
The paper in the books, assuming they don't get burned are... you guessed it: carbon, not carbon dioxide and not in the atmosphere.
You have a permanent safe and useful storage of carbon where it doesn't pollute. Running a website uses energy all the time, meaning a constant pollution, even if books are carbon positive (I doubt it) - they are still a lot lower on emissions than websites.
*NOTE: I said books, not paper, flyers, leaflets and toilet paper do not have this advantage as they are generally not stored safely indoors for centuries.
The confusion here is because people still think trees are carbon negative. They're not, they are mostly carbon neutral, trees produce oxygen only in sunlight, in darkness - they produce carbon dioxide. Depending on the amount of daylight the region gets there is therefore a minor shift to either side, usually seasonally.
Now - that does not mean rampant deforestation is good either. Deforestation mostly replaces a carbon neutral setup with carbon positive setups, and there is a lot more to environmental protection (an environment we do need to survive) than just carbon levels. Saving the rainforrests is a very crucial matter for many important reasons: to protect cultures that would go extinct with them, the survival of many species dependent on them, the likelihood cures to various diseases waiting to be discovered... but global warming is not one of the reasons to protect the trees. In fact, the two have exactly nothing to do with each other.
Re:I might buy this book... (Score:2, Insightful)
Uhh,
I bought one of the PhD Comics book for two reasons:
1. I really liked the comics and therefore wanted to give back something to the author
2. It is really good stuff to have in the toilet while taking a dump. It provides real inspiration!
The book is made on recyclable paper (IIRC) for your eco-freak needs. And you can even give it another use after you finish ;-)