explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1047: Approximations

2014-05-17T20:58:57Z

141.101.81.216: Gave proof of cosine identity, using complex numbers.

They're actually quite accurate. I've used these in calculations, and they seem to give close enough answers. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 14:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I only see a use for the liters in a gallon one. The rest are for trolling or simple amusement. The cosine identity bit our math team in the butt at a competition. It was painful. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 05:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Annoyingly this explanation does not cover 42 properly, it does not say that Douglas Adams got the number 42 from Lewis Carroll, who is more relevant to the page because he was a mathematician named Charles Lutwidge Dodgson. He was obsessed with the number forty-two. The original plate illustrations of Alice in Wonderland drawn by him numbered forty-two. Rule Forty-Two in Alice in Wonderland is "All persons more than a mile high to leave the court", There is also a Code of Honour in the preface of The Hunting of the Snark, an extremely long poem written by him when he was 42 years old, in which rule forty-two is "No one shall speak to the Man at the Helm". The queens in Alice Through the Looking Glass the White Queen announces her age as "one hundred and one, five months and a day", which - if the best possible date is assumed for the action of Through the Looking-Glass - gives a total of 37,044 days. With the further (textually unconfirmed) assumption that both Queens were born on the same day their combined age becomes 74,088 days, which is 42 x 42 x 42. --[[Special:Contributions/139.216.242.254|139.216.242.254]] 02:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

:: This explanation covers 42 adequately, and would probably be made slightly worse if such information were added. The very widely known cultural reference is to Adams's interpretation, not Dodgson's original obsession. Adding it would be akin to introducing the MPLM into the explanation for the hijacking of Renaissance artists' names by the TMNT. I definitely concede that it does not cover 42 exhaustively, but I think it can be considered complete and in working order without such an addition. If it really irks you, be bold and add it! --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 00:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"sqrt(2) is not even algebraic in the quotient field of Z[pi]" is not correct. Q is part of the quotient field of Z[pi] and sqrt(2) is algebraic of it. The needed facts are that pi is not algebraic, but the formula implies it is in Q(sqrt(2)). --DrMath 06:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

13/15 is a better approximation to sqrt(3)/2 than is e/pi. Continued fraction approximations are great! --DrMath 07:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

How could he forget 1 gallon ≈ 0.1337 ft³?! [[Special:Contributions/67.188.195.182|67.188.195.182]] 00:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Worth mentioning that Wolfram Alpha now officially recognizes the [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=e%5E-%28%281%2B8%5E%281%2F%28e-1%29%29%29%5E%281%2Fpi%29%29 White House switchboard constant] and the [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%287%5E%28e-1%2Fe%29-9%29*pi%5E2 Jenny constant]. [[Special:Contributions/86.164.243.91|86.164.243.91]] 18:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should add the [Extension:LaTeXSVG LaTeX extension] to make it easier to transcribe these equations. -- [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.220|108.162.219.220]] 23:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

;Protip - Does anyone see the correct equation?
Maybe this is just an other Wolfram Alpha error, like we recently have had here: [[1292: Pi vs. Tau]]. All equations still look invalid to me.
*''√2 = 3/5 + π/(7-π)'': is impossible because √2 is an irrational number and no equation can match.
*''cos(π/7) + cos(3π/7) + cos(5π/7) = 1/2'': could only match if ''cos(x) + cos(3x) + cos(5x) = 1/2'' would be valid, because ''π/7'' is also an irrational number.
*''γ = e/34 + e/5 or γ = e/54 + e/5'': would mean that a sum of two irrational numbers do fit to the Gamma Constant. Impossible.
*''√5 = 13 + 4π / 24 - 4π'': √5 and π are irrational numbers, there is no way to match them in any equation like this.
*''Σ 1/nn = ln(3)e'': doesn't make any sense either.
Maybe [[:Category:Comics featuring Miss Lenhart|Miss Lenhart]] can help.
--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

cos(π/7) + cos(3π/7) + cos(5π/7) = 1/2 is exactly correct.

Let a=π/7, b=3π/7, and c=5π/7, then
(cosa+cosb+cosc)⋅2sina=2cosasina+2cosbsina+2coscsina=sin2a+sin(b+a)−sin(b−a)+sin(c+a)−sin(c−a)=sin(2π/7)+sin(4π/7)−sin(2π/7)+sin(6π/7)−sin(4π/7)=sin(6π/7)=sin(π/7)=sina

Hence, cos(π/7) + cos(3π/7) + cos(5π/7) = sin(π/7) / 2sin(π/7) = 1/2
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.74|108.162.216.74]] 01:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

:What is this: sin(6π/7)=sin(π/7) ? A new math is born... --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

::Actually it does. My proof is geometric: the sines of two supplementary angles (angle a + angle b = π (in radians)) are equivalent because they necessarily have the same x height in a Cartesian plane. Look on a unit circle, or even a sine function. Also, Calculus and most other mathematics use radians over degrees because they make the functions simpler and eliminate irrationality when a trig function shows up, but physics uses degrees because it's easier to understand and taught first. Anonymous 01:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
::As an aside, just how far along in math are you? Radian measure is taught in high school (at least the good ones). Anonymous 13:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
:::Sure, I was wrong at my last statement. sin(6π/7)=sin(π/7) is correct by using the radian measure. But just change π/7 to π/77 would give a very different result on that formular here. I still can't figure out why PI divided by the number 7 should be that unique, PI divided by 77 should be the same. My fault is: I still can't find the Nerd Sniping here. And we all do know that Randall did use wrong WolframAlpha results here. According to the last question: I'm very well on Math, that's because I want to understand this. This is like 0.999=1. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 22:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
::::Ah, I see. I think it has to do with the way e^i*π breaks down, as one of the answers shown in the corresponding link explains, but other answers rely on various angle identities (including the supplementary sines one in the proof above). Anonymous 03:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC) (PS, have you checked [[545]] lately? I answered your question there, too)
:::::As per the derivation from january 16 , you can use any a,b,c that satisfies this set of equations: 2 a = b - a, a + b = c- a, c + a = π - a. This is due to the fact that sin(x) = sin(π-x), and what was derived the 16th. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.199|173.245.53.199]] 12:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
:::: Dgbrt: If not convinced by the proofs linked to in the "explanation" part, you might want to try this: [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sum_%28k%3D0%29%5E38+cos%281%2F77+%282+k%2B1%29+pi%29]. I'm sure you'll find inspiration for similar formulas using PI over [any odd integer]. Your assumption that Randall used WolframAlpha for this very identity is probably wrong. This is a very well-known formula that appears in many high school books, and I am pretty sure it is part of Randall's culture. And this has nothing to do with 1=1. As for your original post,
::::*√2 = (√2-1)/((4-2)π/2-π)+1 : Is this what you call "matching an equation" to √2?
::::*So what you mean is that if an equation is true for an irrational number, then it must be for any real number? Like, (√2)^2 = 2, but because √2 is irrationnal, then x^2=2 (for all x?)
::::*This one's a bit tough. You will probably agree that γ-√2 is irrationnal. And so is √2. What about their sum?
::::*Well, maybe it doesn't to you. But is Σ n-2 = π^2/6 any better? Well, this one is true (using Fourier's expansion of the rectangular function).
::::Finally,
::::*√2 = 3/5 + π/(7-π) is false because it would imply that π is an algebraic number
::::*cos(π/7) + cos(3π/7) + cos(5π/7) = 1/2 is true, and proven by many
::::*γ = e/34 + e/5 seems false. But there doesn't seem to be a quick way to disprove.
::::*Σ 1/nn = ln(3)e seems false, but I can't see why. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.234|108.162.210.234]] 09:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

;So, still incomplete?

Where's our (in)complete judge? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.186|199.27.128.186]] 19:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
:The protip is still a mystery. I'm calling for help a few lines above. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
::The cosine one, in radians, is correct [[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.225|141.101.88.225]] 12:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The 'Seconds in a year' ones remind me of one of my favorite quotes: "How many seconds are there in a year? If I tell you there are 3.155 x 10^7, you won't even try to remember it. On the other hand, who could forget that, to within half a percent, pi seconds is a nanocentury" -- Tom Duff, Bell Labs. [[User:Beolach|Beolach]] ([[User talk:Beolach|talk]]) 19:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
:Please do not change former discussions. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

;cos(pi/7) + cos(3pi/7) + cos(5pi/7) = 1/2 ???
Why the hell the divider seven makes the difference?
*cos(pi) + cos(3*pi) + cos(5*pi) = -3
*cos(pi/8) + cos(3*pi/8) + cos(5*pi/8) = 0.92387953251128675612818318939678828682241662586364...
So why the "magic" prime number seven produces this exact result? I know radians and π/7 is just a small part of a circle which is 2π. One prove claims that sin(6π/7) equals to sin(π/7); my best calculator can't show a difference. Of course sin(6π) equals to sin(π), in radians, BUT sin(6π/8) is NOT equal to sin(π/8). So if the number 7 plays a magic rule here this would be "one of the", no... the BIGGEST mystery in mathematics forever. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
:Dgbrt, please see my answer from 11 May 2014 up there. Any odd integer will do, as long as you sum enough of cos(pi/[thing]).
:*Let's try with 5 : cos(pi/5) + cos (3pi/5) = 1/2.
:*With 9 : cos(pi/9)+ cos(3pi/9) + cos (5pi/9) + cos(7pi/9) = 1/2
: No big mystery around here. Just a beautiful formula :) I think there are similar formulas with cosines and even integers. I'll post them here if I have time. [[User:Varal7|Varal7]] ([[User talk:Varal7|talk]]) 09:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

::You mixing up to different equations and even not prove them. If there is any prove to a mathematician I would accept and include a proper explain for non math people here. We still have to find a prove. And I do not trust my calculators, we just have to explain why even cos(pi/5) + cos (3pi/5) is also nearly the same. This issue is still not explained. So please give us a explain. And a PROTIP: This does not work with Integers, PI is infinite--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 17:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The valid identity cos(pi/7)+cos(3pi/7)+cos(5pi/7)=1/2 was correctly proved by the writer at 108.162.216.74 above. For a different proof, consider the complex number z = cos(pi/7)+i sin(pi/7) corresponding to rotation of the complex plane by pi/7 radians, i.e., 1/14th of a full rotation. It satisfies z^{14} -1 = 0 (z to the fourteenth is one). Dividing by z-1 gives z^{13} + z^{12} + ... + z + 1 = 0. The same argument, starting with z^2 corresponding to 1/7th of a full rotation, gives z^{12} + z^{10} + ... z^2 + 1 = 0. Taking the difference, we get z^{13} + z^{11} + ... + z^3 + z = 0. Looking only at the real parts, we get cos(13pi/7) + cos(11pi/7) + cos(9pi/7) + cos(7pi/7) + cos(5pi/7) + cos(3pi/7) + cos(pi/7) = 0. Here cos(13pi/7) = cos(pi/7), cos(11pi/7) = cos(3pi/7) and cos(9pi/7) = cos(5pi/7), since cos is even and 2pi-periodic. Finally cos(7pi/7) = -1, so 2(cos(pi/7) + cos(3pi/7) + cos(5pi/7)) - 1 = 0, which you can rewrite as the desired identity. All of this can be clearly visualized using a regular 14-gon, so a proof with pictures is possible.

Talk:1100: Vows

2014-02-27T11:23:47Z

141.101.81.216:

Somebody please explain what a "High School Misdirection Play" is. I did my best to explain American Gridiron, but I'm not a sports nut (far from it). [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 16:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

::How about now? [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]]) 16:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

::I assume that a "Misdirection Play" is where the ball is made to look like it is passed/thrown/handed to one player who then proceeds to run as if they had the ball, attracting the defensive players away from the actual person holding the ball. Highschool football has a tendency to use more "tricky" plays than "higher" levels of play (college, professional) as there is more chance of success for a risky, surprise type of play compared to games with more experienced players. Similarly, there are more "surprise" plays in college ball than in the NFL - I think there are more "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-point_conversion two point conversions]" in college ball. [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 17:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

::In American Football, the team on offense must move the ball down the field past the defending team (similar to most field sports, such as football (soccer), rugby, or hockey). In order to do this, sometimes the offensive team will try to trick the defensive team into thinking the ball is, or will be moved, somewhere where it's not. This is called a misdirection. One example of this (the one I'm most familiar with) is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_pass Screen Pass]. In the comic, the "bride" is a member of the offensive team and, it is implied, has courted and promised to wed cueball, who is playing on the defense, in an incredibly elaborate attempt to misdirect him about the intended football play. It is quite absurd. [[Special:Contributions/98.189.235.248|98.189.235.248]]

:Boise State is a team known for their trick plays because they used 3 in a row in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl [[User:Joehammer79|Joehammer79]] ([[User talk:Joehammer79|talk]]) 19:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
::This is false. They used 3 trick plays in the fourth quarter & Overtime, but they were not 'in a row.' jjhuddle 19:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
:::I stand corrected. 5 years of college football made me forget all the little plays in between. [[User:Joehammer79|Joehammer79]] ([[User talk:Joehammer79|talk]]) 19:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone else struck by the fact that if there's continuity of stance in panels 1-3, then "Amy" is running backwards through the End Zone? --[[Special:Contributions/98.225.182.131|98.225.182.131]] 20:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

:I think in the last panel "Amy" actually has turned around and is running forward, because the veil is then trailing and the ball looks to be in the crook of the arm. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 20:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"...the priest asks (for the sake of formality) if the bride takes the groom to be her husband..." No no no no no. Most of the dialogue during the ceremony is understood to be poetic or discretionary ("obey," anyone?) But, there are a few questions during a wedding ceremony which are legal essentials, NOT formalities. One is to ask each person whether they actually want to marry the other person, that one, there, calling him/herself "Rob" or "Amy." Another is to get each one to explicitly declare there is no legal impediment to them getting married to that there person.

The third essential is the officiant's duty to look at the pair and see if, in his best judgment, they are sober and sane. YMMV, but pronounced intoxication or delirium would make the wedding questionable and a serious officiant would not sign off on the license. The last essential involves the signing of the paperwork by five persons -- the officiant, the bride and groom, and two witnesses.

I've been doing weddings since 1999. Neither footballs nor parachutes have ever been involved, but one ceremony included a kilt and a freshly caught bigmouth bass.[[User:Noni Mausa|Noni Mausa]] ([[User talk:Noni Mausa|talk]]) 14:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
:Did anyone ever say no? [[User:Buggz|Buggz]] ([[User talk:Buggz|talk]]) 10:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me state first that I am a big fan of xkcd. Yet this cartoon is not only totally unfunny but also the title text totally fails to add to the joke. Am I alone with this opinion, or is this typically American (with obsession towards A. football and highschool sports in general)???
[[Special:Contributions/84.154.135.194|84.154.135.194]] 22:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
::Stereotypes aside, I'm also one to say this isn't one of Randall's funnier pieces, though I see where he is going: in this case, extreme extrapolation of circumstances. But then again, there are those that thought that {{w|Waiting for Godot}} was wonderful while I thought it was dreadfully tedious, and there are those that enjoy dissonant music while I would rather hear fingernails down the chalkboard. There is a matter of taste -- some may find humor in the sheer absurdity of the circumstances portrayed, or enjoy absurdist theater, or revel in dysharmonious notes played together while others don't -- and there's a matter of, um, not every play resulting in a touchdown (to borrow the terminology from Football Américain.) Oh well. There's always the next one. -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 00:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to be American, an American football fan, a sports fan, or anything else to find this funny (I am none of those things). The joke here is simply about a misdirection - a common tactic in team sports - being carried to a ludicrous extreme, as examined above. The context of sports is just that, a framework for the joke. It could be any other situation just as easily. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.216|141.101.81.216]] 11:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1088: Five Years

2014-02-27T10:50:12Z

141.101.81.216:

*So is the interviewer dead?!?! Tebow Time, Twice a Day. 17:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the comic invokes additional satire on the length of 'the standard interview', and the time wasted in adhering to the template, given that originally, the whole point of an interview was to judge a candidate on a person by person basis - understanding him/her on a human level, and figuring out where the position fit into their "big pictures".

Disagree. I think the comic is simply poking fun at the "Where do you see yourself in ___ years?" question which is very common in job interviews. Instead of speculating on the future, Beret Guy - who has shown himself to be a weird hippyish type with nonstandard approaches to life - decides to wait for the passing of five years in order to find out. There is a secondary joke that, after the five years have passed, he says "I thought so!", implying that at the interview he did indeed speculate on where he would be in five years: still sitting there, not having moved, and waiting for the five years to pass. Very meta. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.216|141.101.81.216]] 10:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1024: Error Code

2014-02-25T11:47:56Z

141.101.81.216:

The joke is probably that "sit by a lake" is the name of the tune corresponding with motherboard error -41

Motherboard error codes are not numbered like other error codes are. Motherboard error codes are just referred to by how the beeps sound (ex. 1 long, 2 short) [[User:Luke1042|Luke1042]]

Personally, of all motherboard beeping codes, I always liked "No beep = Power supply, system board problem, disconnected CPU, or disconnected speaker...." (Well, when not suffering it myself. And even then I could stand it when it was just the latter and thus of no ''immediate'' consequence...) [[Special:Contributions/31.111.103.76|31.111.103.76]] 22:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

: Well then, laptop computers dont beep at all, I guess that must mean that something is always missing --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.111|108.162.250.111]] 03:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This is one of my favourite xkcd comics, it makes me take a long breath and just chill out a bit. Probably the only comic that could be described as 'relaxing' [[Special:Contributions/77.103.5.201|77.103.5.201]] 20:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the beep codes thing is archaic. Most new computers built since the early to mid-2000s haven't made a beep - instead, the trend has been to rely on visual codes from built-in LEDs (and, later on, from pairs of eight-segment displays relaying hex codes). So a modern code will run from 00 to FF - but it will also be completely silent. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.216|141.101.81.216]] 11:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1014: Car Problems

2014-02-25T09:51:25Z

141.101.81.216:

From what I can see of the picture, it ''is'' a little over-saturated. The colors look a little too pastelly too. At least decent cameras are cheaper than they used to be. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 13:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Does this seem like it might be political commentary? A subtle dig at certain legislative bodies which, when confronted with an urgent problem like "the economy is burning," choose to dicker about the quality of the photograph? Just a thought... [[Special:Contributions/174.253.193.137|174.253.193.137]] 05:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel like the explanation is incomplete, but I don't know what the standard is here. What is "chromatic aberration", "white balance", and what is the significance of "the most megapixels"? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.64|108.162.237.64]] 04:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
:Also. "The title text reveals what she was looking for; one of them really did set her car on fire." How? It seems ambiguous. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.64|108.162.237.64]] 14:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

::Thanks for your statements here. This comic is marked as incomplete and a first attempt on the details is done.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 15:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The title text is written as if from the point of view of somebody who was there watching the presentation, since they're talking about getting the shot, and "we'll set your car on fire AGAIN" implies that they did it the first time. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.216|141.101.81.216]] 09:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:797: debian-main

2014-02-24T14:23:50Z

141.101.81.216:

Locusts may very well '''be''' grasshoppers. There doesn't seem to be any difference in the species, the grasshoppers change into locusts when they are crowded.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locust#Swarming_behavior Wikipedia - Locust swarming behaviour]
--[[User:Macxcool|Macxcool]] ([[User talk:Macxcool|talk]]) 14:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the last part of the explanation. I feel that the statement OH_GOD_THEYRE_INSIDE_MY_CLOTHES is the (possibly final) code comment from the programmer writing the dependencies, and has nothing to do with the server on the other end (why would a computer be wearing clothes in the first place?). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.216|141.101.81.216]] 14:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:768: 1996

2014-02-24T09:19:33Z

141.101.81.216: Corrected a typo in the sum (600/3000 dollars).

The only problem with the N-Spire series is that you have to boot it up. Another problem (ok, the nspires are riddled with problems) is that they are still terribly underpowered compared to the modern mobile device. The last is that they are still objects of mass blunt-force trauma, meaning they are still unwieldy bricks, you now have to wait for 2 minutes while your calculator boots up (''!!''), it's still a low resolution screen, and the processor is still clocked somewhere under 500 MHz.

Now, if T.I. made an android app that offered the entirety of their graphing and CAS functionality they could easily charge $70 and everyone I know (I go to an engineering university) would buy it with no regrets.

--[[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 23:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

They'll never do that - profs (not to mention high school teachers) would freak out! If that's not yet the only reason dedicated-hardware graphing calculators still exist, it soon will be. {{unsigned ip|24.218.167.129}}
:TI has, in fact, already made a [http://education.ti.com/en-GB/aus-nz/nspire-family/ipad TI-Nspire iPad app] (but there's nothing official for Android). --[[User:Qwach|Qwach]] ([[User talk:Qwach|talk]]) 19:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
: If we're talking about apps, then Maxima for Android is all you need. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.196|108.162.212.196]] 23:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This explanation misses an important point of the comic's punchline: back in the mid-'90s, you would spend lots of cash for something that, by today's standards, is underpowered. While the observation about the state of changing technology between then and now is valid, the punchline to the comic is that in the case of TI calculators, not only has the *technology* not moved forward, but the *price* hasn't changed either! Nobody would nowadays pay 3000 dollars for the 100MHz Pentium machine mentioned in the comic, but people still spend 100 dollars on a 10MHz calculator. Madness. This is why the characters stumble over the "Times sure have changed" sentiment because, in the TI case, nothing has changed at all. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.216|141.101.81.216]] 09:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:768: 1996

2014-02-24T09:18:00Z

141.101.81.216:

The only problem with the N-Spire series is that you have to boot it up. Another problem (ok, the nspires are riddled with problems) is that they are still terribly underpowered compared to the modern mobile device. The last is that they are still objects of mass blunt-force trauma, meaning they are still unwieldy bricks, you now have to wait for 2 minutes while your calculator boots up (''!!''), it's still a low resolution screen, and the processor is still clocked somewhere under 500 MHz.

Now, if T.I. made an android app that offered the entirety of their graphing and CAS functionality they could easily charge $70 and everyone I know (I go to an engineering university) would buy it with no regrets.

--[[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 23:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

They'll never do that - profs (not to mention high school teachers) would freak out! If that's not yet the only reason dedicated-hardware graphing calculators still exist, it soon will be. {{unsigned ip|24.218.167.129}}
:TI has, in fact, already made a [http://education.ti.com/en-GB/aus-nz/nspire-family/ipad TI-Nspire iPad app] (but there's nothing official for Android). --[[User:Qwach|Qwach]] ([[User talk:Qwach|talk]]) 19:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
: If we're talking about apps, then Maxima for Android is all you need. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.196|108.162.212.196]] 23:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This explanation misses an important point of the comic's punchline: back in the mid-'90s, you would spend lots of cash for something that, by today's standards, is underpowered. While the observation about the state of changing technology between then and now is valid, the punchline to the comic is that in the case of TI calculators, not only has the *technology* not moved forward, but the *price* hasn't changed either! Nobody would nowadays pay 600 dollars for the Pentium machine mentioned in the comic, but people still spend 100 dollars on a 10MHz calculator. Madness. This is why the characters stumble over the "Times sure have changed" sentiment because, in the TI case, nothing has changed at all. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.216|141.101.81.216]] 09:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:754: Dependencies

2014-02-24T06:36:29Z

141.101.81.216:

Concurrent enrollment FTW [[Special:Contributions/75.60.27.102|75.60.27.102]] 03:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm a programmer so I'm ok with the explanation, but it seems too technical for non programmers. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.196|108.162.212.196]] 02:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

In response to the programmer at [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.196|108.162.212.196]]: yes, it's probably too technical for non-programmers. But then again, so is the comic. It's a programming (or logic) joke. Unfortunately the level of knowledge required to 'get' some of Randall's humour can't always be reduced down to a simplistic lowest common denominator. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.216|141.101.81.216]] 06:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:740: The Tell-Tale Beat

2014-02-21T14:21:47Z

141.101.81.216:

He had a chance to refer to Usher the musician instead. Oh well. I still laughed. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.64|108.162.237.64]] 21:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a computer monitor, desk, bookshelf, fireplace, and many other things drawn in great detail. But the characters are still stick figures. And they are shaded! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.64|108.162.237.64]] 21:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

At [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.64|108.162.237.64]]: I think he *was* referring to Usher the musicican; he was making a homonymic joke, by mixing the two Ushers (one by name, the other by genre).

Talk:739: Malamanteau

2014-02-21T13:55:19Z

141.101.81.216:

Neologism isn't properly defined in the explanation. A neologism can be any new word; it doesn't have to be made through a combination of other words. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malamanteau redirects to xkcd's page last I checked. Wiktionary's page on it was deleted almost 3 years ago. Additionally, the description is missing an explanation for the image text (and maybe the word "portmanteau" should get a definition included). [[Special:Contributions/76.106.251.87|76.106.251.87]] 22:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
:Now that you mention that the page redirects to xkcd, it's interesting to see the Revision history on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malamanteau&action=history&year=2013) [[User:Saibot84|Saibot84]] ([[User talk:Saibot84|talk]]) 03:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
:*<12:44, 26 April 2013>‎ Amalthea (Protected Malamanteau: Repeatedly recreated ([Edit=Block all non-admin users] (indefinite) [Move=Block all non-admin users] (indefinite)))
:*<12:43, 26 April 2013>‎ Amalthea (-130) (Revert to revision by Amalthea)
:*<11:34, 26 April 2013>‎ IP_77... (+130) (Undid revision by Amalthea, restored the content)
:*<13:25, 20 April 2013‎> Amalthea‎ (-130) (In the absence of new reliable sources that can bring this beyond a dictionary entry, I think the consensus from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malamanteau still holds.)
:*<13:07, 20 April 2013‎> IP_87... (+130) (restored the content from the comic)
:*<22:07, 27 September 2012‎ Scottywong (+18) (redirect to xkcd)
:*<unknown date> Page Deleted

I have a feeling that the main point of this comic was that the words "portmanteau" and "neologism" (and maybe even "malapropism") appear disproportionately more on Wikipedia than other references. I certainly would agree with that sentiment. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 02:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The page is still redirecting to the wikipedia page on xkcd, how long do you think it will be before the original content is restored? [[User:Whiskey07|Whiskey07]] ([[User talk:Whiskey07|talk]]) 11:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
:Never. The page has now been fully, indefinitely protected. Good thing too. [[User:NealCruco|NealCruco]] ([[User talk:NealCruco|talk]]) 21:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with [[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]]'s comment: not only is the comic poking fun at Wikipedia's propensity for using these words, but Randall's comic has created a page relying on almost no content _except_ these sorts of words.

Talk:731: Desert Island

2014-02-21T13:47:56Z

141.101.81.216:

There's a shark, a manta ray, giant jellyfish, and a giant squid in the water. It's totally safe. And what the heck are those worms at the ocean bed? '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 13:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

:Those worms are ''extremophiles'' feeding off of the nutrients emitted by the volcanic column... and from what I understand, they're completely harmless. Their entire ecology centers around the extreme heat and alternative chemical sources of energy provided by the center of the earth (vs sun-based photosynthetic life.) Oh, and I think Randall left off the "not to scale" attribute of the map, otherwise the ocean floor would only be a few hundred feet deep... -- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 15:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The title text seems to be alluding to a song. No idea what it could be. --[[User:Qwach|Qwach]] ([[User talk:Qwach|talk]]) 18:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Also the title text is a poem since no one mentions it: 
''Telescopes and bathyscapes 
''and sonar probes of Scottish lakes, 
''Tacoma Narrows bridge collapse 
''explained with abstract phase-space maps, 
''some x-ray slides, a music score, 
''Minard's Napoleonic war: 
''the most exciting new frontier 
''is charting what's already here. 
--[[User:7buergen|7buergen]] ([[User talk:7buergen|talk]]) 09:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the point of the commentary is "there's more than meets the eye". [[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.216|141.101.81.216]] 13:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:727: Trade Expert

2014-02-21T13:36:28Z

141.101.81.216:

Most modern browsers will convert backslashes in a URL into forward-slashes on submit anyway. And typing a file path into Windows Explorer's address bar using forward-slashes will usually work as well. Not to say that I also despise people incorrectly referring to web addresses as much as the next programmer (probably more), mixing slashes doesn't really break anything. [[User:bungeshea|bungeshea]] ([[User talk:bungeshea|talk]]) 10:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the explanation is incorrect, and should rather say something like:
The forward slash (/) is the correct way to separate distinct parts of a web address (for example, the web address 'en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash_(punctuation)'). However, Dr. Steven Berlee has apparently heard newscasters say 'backslash' instead of 'slash' or 'forward slash'. Therefore, this annoys him.
As referenced in the title text, the backslash serves as a separator in file paths on the Windows operating system. Thus a Windows file path embedded in a URI would contain the backslash character. However, Dr. Steven Berlee thinks that if you embed a Windows file path in a lecture, then 'in that case you need more than just a short lecture' because this is not a good practice.
01:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe nobody has pointed this out: Steven Berlee? Steven (Crocker|Wolff) and Tim Berners-Lee... Steven Berlee! Founders of the internet (ARPANET and whatnot). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.81.216|141.101.81.216]] 13:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)