Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh.

Signs Point To XKCD's Time Ending 226

Posted by timothy
from the but-from-here-it-could-collapse-and-repeat dept.
CaptSlaq writes "According to the current imagery, it looks like Randal Munroe has finished the story he was telling with the Time series. The long running series that has spanned over 3000 images and spawned multiple methods of viewing and comment appears to have come to an end."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Signs Point To XKCD's Time Ending

Comments Filter:
  • by d33tah (2722297) on Sunday July 28, 2013 @06:32PM (#44408607)
    http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/ [nooooooooooooooo.com]
  • oblink (Score:4, Funny)

    by yo303 (558777) on Sunday July 28, 2013 @06:37PM (#44408637)
  • Well good (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 28, 2013 @06:37PM (#44408641)

    It's about time.

  • Misleading summary (Score:4, Informative)

    by tepples (727027) <{tepples} {at} {gmail.com}> on Sunday July 28, 2013 @06:37PM (#44408645) Homepage Journal
    Just because the comic titled "Time" may have reached its final panel doesn't mean that xkcd itself is ending any time soon. We'll see on Monday whether there's a #1244.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Seumas (6865)

      I know I'll be strung up for saying this, but XKCD is like The Onion. A thing that exists, which I don't ever remember exists until those couple times per year when someone randomly sends me a link and says "did you see this yet?" and I go look at it and think "huh... yep, that's The Onion/XKCD". It's kind of too cutesy for its own good. I usually kind of feel like I'm watching the comic-strip equivalent of seeing a young couple being overly cutesy and cuddly in public.

      That isn't to say I don't think it's a

      • by tepples (727027) <{tepples} {at} {gmail.com}> on Sunday July 28, 2013 @06:56PM (#44408717) Homepage Journal

        it just falls into the category of one of those things it seems like geeks spill way too much jizz over.

        Like when people say "turn in your geek card" when someone fails to get an inside joke related to an uncited quotation from some science fiction movie like Blade Runner or WarGames.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 28, 2013 @07:23PM (#44408829)

          There is a geek cargo cult out there, and it's populated with people that desperately wished they finished that astro physics degree or didn't drop out of DeVry. They believe that by adorning themselves with tokens and fetishes of geekdom, that they will become smarter or work hard by osmosis. This typically happens later in life as an attempt to masquerade their way through technical interviews. I honestly don't care all that much about Dilithium crystals because the real world operates on fossil fuels and electricity, but that doesn't stop these charlatans from wishing it did.

          • by PopeRatzo (965947) on Sunday July 28, 2013 @07:59PM (#44408977) Homepage Journal

            There is a geek cargo cult out there, and it's populated with people that desperately wished they finished that astro physics degree or didn't drop out of DeVry. They believe that by adorning themselves with tokens and fetishes of geekdom, that they will become smarter or work hard by osmosis.

            Either that, or it just happens to be another fashion phenomenon, and doesn't say anything at all about their inner lives or philosophy or willingness to look directly into reality's hard face, as you have apparently done. Maybe they just, you know, enjoy sci-fi and tech stuff and chicks in horned-rim glasses.

            Like tattoos. People who don't have tattoos seem to want to create an entire psychodrama in their heads about the motivation and world-view of the person with the tattoo. But sometimes, it really is just because somebody wanted a fleur-de-lis on their calf because they like the way it looks.

            Everybody is so anxious to diminish other people as this AC seems to want to do. I wonder what's made so many people so grumpy that they feel the need to try to minimize others with such ersatz psychological profiles based on data picked out of their underpants. Maybe it's the economy. Or maybe it's just that grumpy people seem more apt to complain loudly.

            • by Grishnakh (216268)

              Like tattoos. People who don't have tattoos seem to want to create an entire psychodrama in their heads about the motivation and world-view of the person with the tattoo. But sometimes, it really is just because somebody wanted a fleur-de-lis on their calf because they like the way it looks.

              I think it's a little more complex than that. The way I see it (as a non-tattooed person who thinks they're kinda stupid), there's a big, big difference between someone with a smallish tattoo on their calf, or 2 or 3 ta

              • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

                by Anonymous Coward

                Tattoos are not cheap, so having large amounts of skin covered with them adds up to a lot of money, and it says something about someone who wants to spend that much money on adorning themselves instead of making a house downpayment, investing, or saving for their kids' college tuition..

                As a heavily tattooed geek, I have to disagree. Being a geek/nerd is about caring about something to the point of wierdness. That is what we are. I live so far into my own head about gastronomy that I am a freak amongst Chefs, the guys who make a living by cooking. My tattoos are less permanent than my nerd style, as long as my mind runs it will think about food. I have spent more on cooking books than on ink. A maniac with a potato peeler and an hour would get rid of my tatts. Being passionate about stuff

              • by TheCarp (96830)

                > and it says something about someone who wants to spend that much money on adorning
                > themselves instead of making a house downpayment, investing, or saving for their kids' college
                > tuition.

                So any "large" amount of money (what is large anyway? The amount it would cost to be covered head to toe in tatoos looks like a lot less compared to my salary now than it did, say, 10 years ago) that isn't spent on making a house downpayment or investing, or saving for their kids' college (assuming they have/wan

                • by Grishnakh (216268)

                  With the people I see covered in tattoos, it's pretty obvious that they aren't making a lot of money in their careers, and probably don't get much above minimum wage. You don't see lower-income people traveling the world, but for some reason you do see a subset of them spending all their money on tattoos. If you have plenty of money, spending some on frivolous stuff is fine, but if you're barely hanging on, and you have kids, it's extremely irresponsible.

                  • With the people I see covered in tattoos, it's pretty obvious that they aren't making a lot of money in their careers, and probably don't get much above minimum wage.

                    You imply that people who like to cover their body with tattoos are somehow less valuable in the workforce, but you have it backwards. It is not tattoo lovers being unable to perform, but society who rejects tattoo lovers. I have three tattoos so far and I make just shy of six figures. The only thing stopping me from being "covered in tattoos"

                  • I work as a programmer at Ubisoft. I have sleeves on my forearms, and I know lots of guys that work here that have plenty of large tattoos (and/or piercings). My arms DID cost me a lot of money.

                    Sure, these are a bit frivolous and are 100% aesthetic choices for me, but so are clothes, and these tattoos will last longer. You've got a lot of weird pre-conceived notions of people that have tattoos. As it happens, I have a job and have chosen a field where people don't mind that I have tattoos. I have friends th

      • by icebike (68054)

        Couple times per year?

        You must not read many threads here on Slashdot, because there seems to be an obligatory link in every story.

      • by DG (989) on Sunday July 28, 2013 @07:54PM (#44408961) Homepage Journal

        Agreed! How dare people enjoy something!

        (Oh, I think Kevin Bacon may be teaching your daughter how to dance. You should probably check into that)

      • I think both are bloody brilliant. XKCD because ... well, it gets me. It just gets me. The Onion because they nail it every damn time and they do it with style. They're so good you good, you could be forgiven for not knowing it's satire.
      • Not just you. XKCD is the thing somebody occasionally prints out and leaves on my desk, or forwards as a link. I don't recall ever seeing it of my own initiative, and such is my unfamiliarity with it that the name brings to some some sort of OS version and I have to spend a moment sorting out what distro is involved before eventually realizing it's not an OS at all.

        I'm sure it's perfectly fine. But I don't spend any time looking at comics these days, be they Dilbert, XKCD, whatever. Lost interest when

      • by DrXym (126579)
        I think XKCD only exists so some wit can stink up every /. story by posting an "oblig link" to a tenuously relevant cartoon.
    • by Laxori666 (748529)
      You mean misleading title, and I think that deserves a "woosh"...
      • You mean misleading title

        I realized that about two minutes after I had submitted. Unlike xkcd forums, Slashdot lacks editing, and at the time, I didn't feel like posting a CORRECTION reply to my own post. Even preview is unavailable in the mobile version.

  • obligatory (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    so....it has come to this...

  • Sequel (Score:5, Informative)

    by MavEtJu (241979) <slashdotNO@SPAMmavetju.org> on Sunday July 28, 2013 @06:47PM (#44408687) Homepage

    I'm waiting for the sequel: More time.

    (before anybody flames, I follow it every couple of days via http://geekwagon.net/projects/xkcd1190/ [geekwagon.net]).

  • by gargleblast (683147) on Sunday July 28, 2013 @06:58PM (#44408729)
    You must mean this sign: http://geekwagon.net/projects/xkcd1190/?frame=3094 [geekwagon.net]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 28, 2013 @07:00PM (#44408737)

    Wiki [wikia.com]
    Replay [geekwagon.net]

  • Geez, what a manipulative waste of time. Randal is a smart guy; maybe that was the point of the exercise: To see just how many morons out there (including myself) followed this banal story to its bitter and anticlimactic end.

    For those just dying to poke sharp sticks in their eyes, I recommend this link [aubronwood.com] instead.

    • by tinkerton (199273) on Sunday July 28, 2013 @08:40PM (#44409143)

      Geez, what a manipulative waste of time. Randal is a smart guy; maybe that was the point of the exercise: To see just how many morons out there (including myself) followed this banal story to its bitter and anticlimactic end.

      I enjoyed it. But then, over time I got to see Munroe as generous and friendly rather than cynical and manipulative. So no, to me that was definitely not the point of the exercise.

    • by GTRacer (234395)
      OT: Do you pronounce it BAY-null, or baa-NAUL?
  • ... this is it!

  • Time Waste.

    Randall wasted it; while no individual viewer wasted as much in sum even more time was wasted

  • by Fortran IV (737299) on Sunday July 28, 2013 @10:49PM (#44409607) Journal

    It's a comic, guys. I don't read Cathy, but I don't feel obliged to mustard all over Cathy Guisewite because her comic doesn't amuse me. Why do people dump so hard on xkcd and Randall Munroe? If you don't like the comic, don't read it, and don't read Slashdot articles about it—and shut the chirp up and let the rest of us enjoy it in peace.

    I found it fun. That's all. It was fun. It was original, and intriguing, and a little challenging, and a nice change of mood when I got home from work (or when I needed a break at work).

    And it was something I don't believe any webcomic had ever done before. When I submitted the original Slashdot story about "Time", I thought that aspect might interest people. Instead, the story got the same sort of molpy-chirping geek-elitist hate posts that this one is gathering.

    For the record: "Time" was followed by college students and septuagenarians (I'm in my 50s, and xkcd regularly makes me laugh). Musicians, math teachers, writers, and astronomers contributed to the forum thread. The last figure we saw was that over 2 million words of original material had been posted to the thread. We weren't doing it for geek cred; we were doing it because we enjoyed ourselves.

    Grow up a little, guys, OK?

    • by thoth (7907) on Sunday July 28, 2013 @11:21PM (#44409713) Journal

      Exactly!

      Sure, not every XKCD comic is brilliant, but plenty are funny, appealing to a tough demographic for subject material.

      I think his various infographics are fantastic (money, radiation) and a handful of info comics are similarly amazing (gravity wells, ocean depths, movie plots). His "What If?" series is also extremely interesting.

      Sites that feed off the "XKCD is overrated" vibe come across as pathetic calls for attention from people too lame and stupid to produce their own work. Basically some members of the geek community have this bizarre calling to drop their pants and publicly poop all over whatever they think is overrated. The fact is their sum total contribution to the world is being a shit stain on the fabric of the web.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by narcc (412956)

      I don't feel obliged to mustard all over Cathy Guisewite because her comic doesn't amuse me. Why do people dump so hard on xkcd and Randall Munroe?

      My guess? Cathy Guisewite isn't a pretentious ass that panders to the bottom 1% of self-described "rationalists".

      The constant flow of links on forums like this along with the wasteful printouts that find their way inexplicably to my desk makes xkcd difficult to ignore. Cathy, in contrast, is happily confined to the back of the local paper and rarely (if ever) brought to my attention.

      I'll admit that I used to be a regular xkcd reader. I checked out this article as "Time" seemed like it could be interestin

      • by osu-neko (2604) on Monday July 29, 2013 @04:32AM (#44410493)

        I'll admit that I used to be a regular xkcd reader. I checked out this article as "Time" seemed like it could be interesting. I was wrong. It's the same nonsense that I and others outgrew years ago.

        People's interests change over time. They get bored with some things and move on. But trolls like to use the word "outgrew" to try to offend current fans, and particularly immature people view these sorts of continuous, inevitable shifts in interests over time as signs of increasing maturity on their own part, not so much to offend anyone, but as a way of making themselves feel superior. Often then aren't smart enough to realize that's what they're doing.

        (Yes, in case it wasn't obvious, the irony is intentional...)

      • by dywolf (2673597)

        translation: I hate this and you should too because I have passed judgement on it

      • Cathy Guisewite isn't a pretentious ass that

        Really, how is he pretentious. I think you have a much more solid claim to that title, viz:

        panders to the bottom 1% of self-described "rationalists".

        OK, well you don't have to be a rationalist. Go read some webcomic that panders to the top 1% of irrationalists then and be happy about it.

        I and others outgrew years ago.

        In other words you got old and boring and relly grouchy. That's not something which has to happen when you get older. You chose it.

    • by Ja'Achan (827610)
      It's not just xkcd. When there was a post about Megatokyo's VN, /.'s thread was just a bunch of people whining that it wasn't a gag joke comic any more, even though it hasn't been that since 2002. I'd guess /. is just filled with bittervets?

The person who's taking you to lunch has no intention of paying.

Working...