explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1357: Free Speech

2016-09-27T12:06:49Z

162.158.85.117:

It would be nice to mention how this applies only to the Federal government; discussions of how it is enforced on the states may be beyond the scope of this wiki. In addition, it might be amusing to note that freedom of association and other freedoms specified in the Bill of Rights have the same scope. That is, there are very few enumerated powers given to the Federal government, the Bill of Rights specifies some limitations on the Congress - but in general, the restriction on Congress was to the enumerated powers, a concept that made the Bill of Rights redundant - and the Bill of Rights does not apply (as written) to anyone but the Federal government. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.40|173.245.54.40]] 20:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

: The First Amendment also applies to the various State governments (including their subsidiaries, such as local governments) through the {{w|Incorporation Doctrine}}, which is based on the Fourteenth Amendment (which is about the States). To be sure, the text of the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't spell out this doctrine, so the whole thing is a bit of a stretch, but it's how the courts interpret it now. This (along with the courts' broad interpretation of the enumerated powers) makes the Bill of Rights far from redundant (and I for one am happy to have it applied as broadly as possible). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 23:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

:I have attempted to address some of the concerns you raised by editing the first paragraph. Please feel free to edit/improve my work. [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 11:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've clarified the sentence about the Constitution being a legal document. Legal documents are not necessarily limited to government activity (for example, an apartment lease is a legal document but says nothing about what the government can or cannot do). I added the phrase "that defines the structure and powers of the government" to the end of the sentence. [[User:Elsbree|Elsbree]] ([[User talk:Elsbree|talk]]) 04:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Another recent event (within the past couple of weeks) was a campaign against Stephen Colbert for an out-of-context quote taken from a bit on his show. It was hash-tagged under "CancelColbert". Interestingly, people from Fox News that had supported the Duck Dynasty guy were completely against Colbert. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 05:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That door in the last frame is a backdoor to fascism. --[[User:Mus|Mus]] ([[User talk:Mus|talk]]) 06:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
: Are you [http://gawker.com/5951080/vp-debate-attendee-tells-chris-matthews-obama-is-a-communist-but-cant-explain-what-a-communist-is related to this woman?] LOL.
: Nevertheless, I agree the comic would be stronger and more accurate if it didn't have that last panel. Disagreeing with someone's speech doesn't mean you get to throw them out. Places of public accommodation, such as most businesses, are required to be non-discriminatory. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 11:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:: Reading-comprehension fail. Read the '''entire''' bottom row; it is a complete sentence. Removing the last clause negates the first. — [[User:Fluffy Buzzard|Fluffy Buzzard]] ([[User talk:Fluffy Buzzard|talk]]) 14:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
::Businesses are allowed to throw people out for almost any reason. The non-discriminatory clause has nothing to do with what people say, and isn't even tangential to the First Amendment. And yes. Disagreeing with someone in your domain does mean you get to throw them out. In fact, you can throw them out if you do agree with them. Or don't know them. Or if they're your brother. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 21:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Can someone add something saying that other countries also have similar laws on free speech? I would do it myself, but I'm new to editing the wiki and I wouldn't know how to word it. [[User:Cheeselord99|Cheeselord99]] ([[User talk:Cheeselord99|talk]]) 07:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:I would if there was some sort of summary of them available. Though there's the {{w|Universal Declaration of Human Rights}} from the UN, I don't think it specifically requires any entity (such as a government body) to do (or not do) anything, just like I understand most anything U.N. related to be. I believe it's a guide/declaration/definition/resolution/statement of belief, and it would then be up to any soverienty to actually enforce or comply with it. [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 12:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
::"Can someone add something saying that other countries also have similar laws on free speech?" Are you implying that you think ALL other countries have similar laws, or SOME other countries have similaar laws? Saying that the local dictator sucks, or that the local religion is bullshit is certainly not protected free speech in many, many countries. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 23:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This is going to be one of those XKCDs everyone is linking to, to make a point.[[User:Jkrstrt|Jkrstrt]] ([[User talk:Jkrstrt|talk]]) 08:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Though, I will say, I'm a bit concerned that the point people may be making is that "Argumentum ad Populum" is totally legit, as there is a suggestion one could infer that if a bunch of people are mad at you for something you say you deserve to be shown the door. And I'm not sure that's the intended message, and even if it is, I'm not sure it's a good one. Speaking an uncomfortable or undesired truth to a community (Which will almost certainly anger them, and make them think you're an asshole, let's say) doesn't mean the door is an appropriate response. On the other hand, when speaking such truths, one probably has a better justification than "Because Free Speech," just hopefully the disgruntled masses will actually listen to it.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.46|108.162.216.46]] 10:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
: That's the point, if your only defense is "Free Speech" - you should be shown the door. --[[User:Jeff|Jeff]] ([[User talk:Jeff|talk]]) 15:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:: Obviously, no one making an argument personally thinks the only defense is "it is not illegal for me to say this". Other people, defending him afterwards, do not agree with the argument but are offended by censorship of his argument. Democrats think there are no merit to Republican arguments, and most Republicans think there are no merit to Democrat arguments; by your logic, a Democrat defending a Republican's right to hold a job, attend college, go to grocery stores, and generally be tolerated, is being hypocritical and should actually believe Republicans should be shown the door. Imagine what a shit world we'd live in if everyone wanted to show the door to people they disagreed with. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.218.197|108.162.218.197]] 00:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Both Jeff and 108.162.216.46 are accurate. 108.162.216.46's example of an uncomfortable or undesired truth causing anger is possible. It's up the the messenger to make sure that they frame the point properly and use appropriate supporting materials to justify their claims. A messenger with bad news won't say "free speech," they will say "this is the evidence" if they want to avoid being shown the door. {{unsigned ip|173.245.55.85}}
: The issue, of course, is that a lot of people aren't willing to listen to evidence when told things they don't want to hear. Say, I dunno, if you're hanging out on a particularly conservative forum where people are taking turns bashing "Obamacare," even if you have a perfectly rational, backed up by numbers, etc. reason to say it may not be all bad, or may even be good, there's a decent chance that you could get shown the door simply because that's an unpopular opinion no matter how good your reasons are. And it's the sort of person who wants to punish someone simply for saying something unpopular on a forum, simply because it's unpopular (Or, in the case of some admins/mods, something they just don't personally like), who I'm concerned about using this comic as rhetorical backup. For the message of this comic to work, the community/etc. has to be willing to listen to rational evidence and they frequently aren't. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.46|108.162.216.46]] 22:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
:: Frankly, it would be entirely appropriate for all those sorts of people to use this comic as rhetorical backup. Your "right" to say what you think, free from interference, applies only in public spaces and on your own property. You certainly do not have the right to use other people's media as vehicles for your thoughts. So yes, it is perfectly right (and, incidentally, the only workable solution) for the person who controls the medium to decide what is said on that medium. And it is perfectly right and just for even the most woefully misguided, closed-minded, power-hungry, dogmatic or extremist admin to point to this comic and say: "I'm not willing to broadcast your opinions". That is the whole point. The freedom NOT to disseminate ideas you disagree with is just as fundamental and suffers very few exceptions. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.122|108.162.229.122]] 00:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Just happened to see this today, thought it was relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJMqYcRgf-A&t=51s [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.60|173.245.54.60]] 16:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This comic has it <s>completely</s> backwards! There are people who say "You're violating the First Amendment." when they're being censored by somebody who's not the government; they are mistaken, and this comic would be absolutely correct if it were addressing them. But it's not. In fact, it doesn't talk about the First Amendment (or similar provisions in other constitutions or other laws) at all; it talks only about freedom of speech. [ETA April 19: Whoops, that's wrong! The first panel has it backwards, but the third panel is perfectly correct. So my complaint is that the comic ''conflates'' freedom of speech and the First Amendment, not that it addresses ''only'' freedom of speech.] And if you're being censored on Facebook, or in the privately-owned shopping mall, or wherever, then yes, your freedom of speech is being violated.

It's not illegal, and it may not even be wrong (why should my blog have to display your speech, after all?), but it's still a limitation on your freedom to speak. And if you want to argue that Facebook or the shopping mall (or even my blog) should not do that, then that's a perfectly legitimate position to take. As long as you say nothing about the First Amendment or the like, but instead complain about freedom of speech, then my only response (if I want to respond) is to explain why you shouldn't have free speech on that forum, not some irrelevant blather about the government. —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 23:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

: The comic does not address the concept of free speech itself; it addresses the *right* to free speech. Sure, your speech might be restricted on certain forums or in certain communities, but you generally have no actual *right* to free speech there. It's simply that the forum or community does not want to support your ideas. --[[User:V2Blast|V2Blast]] ([[User talk:V2Blast|talk]]) 02:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

:: Who decides whether that is a right or not? {{unsigned ip|108.162.217.47}}

:: Rights aren't just for governments. Any entity can grant you rights and then uphold or violate them. (Facebook actually calls its terms of service a "Statement of Rights and Responsibilities", which it is, even though it's primarily their rights and our responsibilities.) So one might argue that Facebook (as a public forum intended for everybody and everything) ought to grant freedom of speech (which it kind of does, with a few exceptions, but only implicitly), while a personal blog should not (and then there are also forums that should maybe grant freedom of on-topic speech or something like that). People also consider natural rights (which is how the Declaration of Independence treats them, although free speech is not on its list), but personally I think that it's clearer to discuss what rights ''should'' be rather than what natural rights ''are''. So if somebody claims that FB (eg) is violating their right to free speech, then at best you have them on a technicality (because that is not a natural right and also not a right explicitly granted by FB), but their real point is that FB is violating their freedom of speech (which FB sometimes really does, including in ways that its terms of service does not authorize, hence various complaints from time to time like [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/18/breastfeeding-photos-facebook-respect-the-breast_n_1285264.html this one]). —[[User:TobyBartels|TobyBartels]] ([[User talk:TobyBartels|talk]]) 17:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I see 2 ironies:
1. Those from the BGLT+ side tend to use the 'Free Speech' argument, too.
2. This was posted in Good Friday.
[[User:Greyson|Greyson]] ([[User talk:Greyson|talk]]) 23:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

:: On the first irony, I think this article rather misrepresents the uproar around the Duck Dynasty incident (which is mentioned in the article explanation). It wasn't just that people felt the guy's rights were violated (the merits of which argument I am not commenting on), but that A&E essentially ambushed him after he gave an opinion, in an interview, that no one should expect he didn't have. It's essentially the same issue with the Chik-fil-a incident, where people became extremely angry over an open Christian donating money to anti-gay groups, even though he was doing so for several years previously. It's not just the first amendment rights, it's that A&E, a company who is so prideful about being open minded and tolerant with the BGLT community, would drop the hammer so hard on someone who was already well-known for having opposite opinions. The point is, while A&E does technically have the right to show the Duck Dynasty guy the door, they cannot seriously do so without seriously undermining their own reasons for firing him. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.45|173.245.54.45]] 18:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've had the situation where I express disagreement with someone and they accuse me of violating their right of free speech. A possible response to this, which I wouldn't actually use, is "I absolutely defend your First Amendment right to behave like a jerk." [[User:Mark314159|Mark314159]] ([[User talk:Mark314159|talk]]) 15:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, while it is correct to say that the kind of actions talked about in this comic don't violate the ''First Amendment'', it's not at all beside the point to point out that there are problems with the ''free speech'' involved. Basically, Randall Munroe is repeating a popular line of argument these days, and one that unfortunately sidesteps the entire issue of whether non-state entities can be censors. If you think the issue through for more than two seconds, it's pretty clear that they can be. Take for example some group of armed thugs physically threatening a journalist. (Hardly a hypothetical - there's a lot of that going on in the world today.) If they don't represent a government, according to a strict interpretation of the argument just made in the above ''xkcd'', they're just providing consequences and "showing the door" to someone who's speech they don't like. So, obviously, there are very clearly non-state actions that amount to censorship.

OK, what about non-violent actions? That still can run into a lot of grey areas. Most certainly, nobody owes anybody else the use of their venue or platform for someone else to make their point - *that* would be a violation of free speech rights to be compelled to do so. And certainly, boycotts of those who's views one disagrees with in order to influence public opinion have a solid history in democratic societies. What is problematic, however, and crosses the line into a kind of privatized censorship is the kind of "no platform" activism that seems to be in fashion these days, that seeks to deny *any* venue to those who are deemed to have unacceptable views or are practicing "hate speech" - slippery and ever-expanding concepts, it seems to me. Who is it that should have the power to "show the door" into outright silencing? BTW, a recent blog post raises these concerns in response to the above cartoon [http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/04/xkcd-is-wrong-about-free-speech.html here], and I blogged about this at length last year [http://www.skepticink.com/skepticallyleft/2013/04/07/sunday-sinner-guest-post-iamcuriousblue/ here] in regards to some of the more censorious actions of Ada Initiative. [[User:Iamcuriousblue|Iamcuriousblue]] ([[User talk:Iamcuriousblue|talk]]) 04:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

:Look, the two concepts you raise are different things. And it's not a government's job to determine which point of view is valid or best, or even to protect or promote that PoV. The point is that the U.S. government (in this case) must remain un-hostile (if that's a word) to dissenting points of view. In fact, ''especially'' towards dissenting points of view. Thugs threatening journalists? I agree that's a problem. And the state/local government (in most cases) should do its best to prevent this kind of coercion. The overarching principle is that within the U.S. is that we want to create as open a marketplace for ideas as possible. That marketplace structure does not determine the value of a speech's content. It simply allows it to exist.

:So the USG can't prevent others from not listening, or even from telling a speaker to shut up. You must see that this ''cannot'' be the role of a government that is seeking to promote open and constructive discourse. Because once the government starts favoring one PoV or providing "more favored treatment" for, let's say, your coerced journalist, then it is condoning or supporting that particular speech over others. And that, if you think about it for more than two seconds, is in itself infringing on the very same free speech guarantee. [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 11:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact, there are (admittedly rare) situations in which the "right to free speech" can require a private entity to host a speaker. Marsh v. Alabama involved a Jehovah's Witness handing out literature in a company town completely owned by a corporation. The Supreme Court held that because the admittedly private spaces in a company town were akin to public spaces, the company could not enforce a trespassing law against the Jehovah's Witness without violating the First Amendment. So long as one is talking about the "right to free speech" (which goes beyond the First Amendment), the Pruneyard Shopping Center case, in which a mall owner was forced to allow participation by a speaker due to a California law expanding free speech rights in commercial areas, serves as another example of where a private entity can be forced to accommodate another's speech. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.13|173.245.54.13]] 10:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

'''TL;DR''' --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

A very recent article that pretty much shreds this comic. XKCD is usually on point, but this one goes a bit too far. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/22/freedom_to_marry_freedom_to_dissent_why_we_must_have_both_122376.html {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.86}}

I find it very disturbing that one of the most popular science-themed comics on the Internet gives a free pass to the Catholic church like this. The Catholic church is not a government, it is an international cultural institution, therefore, if the Catholic church bans people, ideas, speech, and behavior from all domains of its organizational influence, this comic clearly supports such a move. (I doubt the author needs a primer on that part of history.) The stated position that free speech only means that government can't come after you, but cultural institutions can and you just need to be quiet and leave if you disagree with that. {{unsigned ip|108.162.215.85}}
:As an atheist, the Catholic church's policies have no relevance to me. I do not visit Catholic churches, I do not attend Catholic schools, and I do not use Catholic businesses. If anyone doesn't like what they do, they -can- just leave. When enough people are fed up, they'll be a cultural institution of zero. Or one, or whatever. A number too small to have any bearing on society at large. Unless you're suggesting that people somehow have a right to impose things on someone else's property, which is false. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 09:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
:: I believe that Randall made this comic without fully thinking of the implications of the stance it takes. I mean, it certainly is a backlash against currently so-called homophobic (I have problems with this word) community, but it also essentially justifies a whole lot of other stuff this society wouldn't deem right. {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.86}}

:: I'd like to explain all the ways I think this comic is ridiculous- if, indeed, he;s talking about what everyone thinks he's talking about:

::1. His casual and condescending dismissal of actual, seriously held points of view as mere trolling.

::2. His pretending that all these debates are about is so much trolling, akin to a website choosing to remove someone disruptive.

::3. Every who's protested this has stressed that they have no argument that Mozilla had a legal right to do as they please; they are making a more moral argument. To many, alas, *anything* is government action or it's nothing at all, so moral arguments, interestingly, end up having no weight.

::4. Many on the "other side" have had no problem calling "Freedom of Speech!" with little to no actual legal basis. Turnabout is...

::5. Those same people have often had no issue with actual repression even when government (e.g., a state university) is involved. One wonders what the argument would be like if, say, Woolworth's refused to serve blacks at their lunch counters. Oh wait. Well, turnabout again.

::That's most of what I can think of off the top of my head.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.224|141.101.88.224]] 20:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

HAAY GUISE I HAS A OPINON AND YOU ALL MUST LISTEN TO ME OKAY HERE GOES WAIT DON'T DELETE ME WAAAGH!!! [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.71|199.27.128.71]] 06:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

How recent was the Clippers scandal in relation to this comic? I just saw on Facebook's trending bar that sponsors are pulling away so they won't be associated with racism, and people are crying about the First Amendment. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.218|108.162.237.218]] 05:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

;Off topic — Free Speech Schtonk!
At {{w|The Great Dictator}}, the greatest movie Charlie Chaplin ever did, the Führer shouts: "Demokratsie Schtonk! Liberty Schtonk! Free Sprekken Schtonk!“ The word {{w|Schtonk!}} was also used as the title of a satirical German movie, retelling the hoax of the {{w|Hitler Diaries}}.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"The 1st amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences." - Of course it doesn't, I live in the UK --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.10|141.101.99.10]] 18:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Little disturbed that nobody else has called out the specious defense that [http://popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ shouting fire in a crowded theatre] actually is. If you want to use something like '''that''' to prove that not all speech is free, go for it, but it's a pretty weak argument, especially considering the very judge that ruled on it recanted several years later in a later decision. Protesters got the right to protest, yo. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.129|108.162.219.129]] 23:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Conversation on a mincraft server:
Moderator: Please stop
Idiot: No, I have the right to free speech!
Moderator: And we have the right to ban you
*Idiot left the game {{unsigned ip|173.245.56.180}}

Ironically, the title text also applies in the other direction. "If I don't like your speech, I can respond by unfriending you, boycotting you, etc. The First Amendment only limits government action; what I'm doing *isn't illegal*! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.85.117|162.158.85.117]] 12:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:1692: Man Page

2016-06-10T08:23:40Z

162.158.85.117:

I do not entirely understand how wikis work; however, I have attempted to add a transcript. I apologize if anything breaks. I also apologize if this is not how I should be apologizing.

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.135|108.162.241.135]] 04:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The Pope flag is referencing the time of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avignon_Papacy Avignon Papacy] --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.243|108.162.237.243]] 04:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

:Would have frickin' loved Randall if he inserted a reference to Pope of Dope here. :D [[User:Todor|Todor]] ([[User talk:Todor|talk]]) 08:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The horrible thing about this comic is that somebody is sure to have implemented this program by the end of the day... {{unsigned ip|141.101.104.140}}

:Found one on Github: https://github.com/iKevinY/blerp . It has a man page file, but the program itself just outputs "bleep blerp" and doesn't implement any of the flags (yet?). [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.141|141.101.104.141]] 08:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

"Behavior Not Defined" might be a reference to undefined behavior, where a program is allowed to do anything including make demons fly out your nose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undefined_behavior [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.12|108.162.219.12]] 06:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.135.36|162.158.135.36]] 06:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC) Søren Mors

I thought Ansel was a deliberate misspelling of ANSI, the most common 8 bit codepage. {{unsigned ip|162.158.135.36}}

The commit "Revision as of 07:08, 10 June 2016" reverted an IMO good explanation for the debug option with a bad one. Consider changing it back. [[User:Todor|Todor]] ([[User talk:Todor|talk]]) 07:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
:I agree. The bad explanation also mixed up {{w|Pipeline (Unix)|piping}} with {{w|Redirection (computing)|redirection}} --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.76|141.101.104.76]] 07:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think `blerp -a -d -t -p "AVIGNON"` is a valid call to blerp, because the syntax line syntax is utterly off. For example, the first line has an unclosed open [, whereas the second line – in addition to having the corresponding unmatched ] – plays with the fact that even though {} is usually used to list a set of required items, {} is also how `find` (which might do something similar to blerp, and is in fact mentioned in -v) denotes its results when passed to an exec. {{unsigned ip|141.101.104.30}}

Command line options do not normally use n-dashes; they use hyphens. Another problem with this option is that n-dashes and m-dashes cannot usually be displayed properly in the fixed-width fonts commonly used for command line terminals. The usual custom is to use two hyphens to represent a dash (which for proportional font display will often be converted to either an n-dash or m-dash).

While "check whether input halts" clearly alludes to the halting problem, it may not actually be impossible, depending on what blerp actually does and what sort of input it accepts. (It says nothing about actually ''reporting'' the result, and it makes no guarantees that it will itself halt.)

—[[User:PhantomLimbic|PhantomLimbic]] ([[User talk:PhantomLimbic|talk]]) 07:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

:Indeed. Turing's proof for the halting theorem says that there is no algorithm that allows a Turing machine to determine whether any possible program/input combination will halt. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible to develop an algorithm that determines whether a particular, fixed program will halt on an arbitrary input. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.141|141.101.104.141]] 08:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Currently, there is no mention of the unmatched square brackets in the synopsis, or unmatched parenthesis in the title text. Presumably a reference to XKCD comic 859. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.77|141.101.98.77]] 07:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Attack Mode might be a reference to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yu-Gi-Oh!_Trading_Card_Game Yu-Gi-Oh Trading Card Game] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.85.117|162.158.85.117]] 08:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

1175: Moving Sidewalks

2016-05-18T14:12:05Z

162.158.85.117: fixed a grammatical error

{{comic
| number = 1175
| date = February 18, 2013
| title = Moving Sidewalks
| image = moving sidewalks.png
| titletext = I think I could spend hours just stepping on and off of conveyor belts moving at various speeds.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Cueball]] and [[Megan]] are getting ready to ride an array of mini-conveyor belts, each going at a speed multiple of the first one's. Assuming they both take the one in front of them, each conveyor belt will speed them up a little bit more with little effort on their part, ultimately reaching a point where they are going very fast and are close enough to be able to high-five each other.

The title text may be a reference to a music video made by OK Go, "Here It Goes Again", in which the band jumps on and off of various treadmills in a similar fashion.

A series of parallel accelerating conveyor belts is also a long distance travel mechanism used in Robert A. Heinlein's {{w|The Roads Must Roll}} and in Isaac Asimov's Robot Detective novels.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan on the opposite far ends of a bidirectional moving sidewalk. Arrows indicate that one half will carry Cueball from left to right, while the other half will carry Megan from right to left. In each direction, the sidewalk is made up of a series of individual conveyors.]
:Cueball: Ready?
:
:[A diagram labels various individual conveyors as follows.]
:[Outermost conveyors:] Moving Sidewalk
:[Second and second-last conveyors:] Moving Sidewalk (2x Speed)
:[Next conveyors:] 3x Speed
:[Next conveyors:] 4x Speed
:[Innermost conveyors:] 5x Speed
:[Spot between the two sidewalks, directly in the center:] High-Five Location
:
:Megan: Ready.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]

1168: tar

2016-05-18T13:25:51Z

162.158.85.117: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1168
| date = February 1, 2013
| title = tar
| image = tar.png
| titletext = I don't know what's worse--the fact that after 15 years of using tar I still can't keep the flags straight, or that after 15 years of technological advancement I'm still mucking with tar flags that were 15 years old when I started.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Tar (computing)|tar}} ("tape archive") is a {{w|Unix|Unix}} application that creates (and extracts) archives in the ".tar" format. It is typically used through the text-based terminal, using cryptic single-letter arguments such as "<code>tar -cvf archive.tar *</code>". The comic alludes to the fact that despite years of use of the command, it's still hard to remember the arguments without searching for them, such as with Google.

The title text points out that while much of computing changes very quickly, the tar program, which is very old (originating ca. 1975), is still around and heavily used. And yet, [[Randall]] complains he still cannot type out a line of tar command with correct flags without having to look the flags up. Tar is a very common command that Unix users will come across regularly, much like Windows users will come across .zip files. Depending on the flavor of Unix, the order of the flags, or the lack or inclusion of a '-' could render the command incorrect. Most true Unixes (AIX, HPUX, Solaris) not using the GNU utilities would give an error on the above tar example. For such a simple command, it is one that most people need to look up references to use.

The joke here is that a "tar" command with perfect syntax on the first try without outside help is such a daunting task that even [[Rob]] can't overcome it with [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/assuredness assuredness], and apologizes for not being able to prevent their imminent death.

The fact that [[Megan]] and [[White Hat]] assume that Rob can disarm the {{w|nuclear bomb}} because he uses Unix can be referring to an over-generalization fallacy that a partaker in a practice is an expert of a practice. Not all people who use Unix necessarily know how to use tar commands. Then again, since he's the only person nearby who knows ''any'' Unix and thus their only hope, their fallacy is pretty justified.

There is probably also a pun on "{{w|tarbomb}}," a poorly created tar archive that, when extracted, dumps a load of files into the current directory that the user has to clean up. And although the bomb looks more like {{w|Fat Man}}, the type of bomb that was used over {{w|Nagasaki}}, at least size wise, it may also be a pun on the name of the largest ever {{w|hydrogen bomb}} which was called the {{w|Tsar Bomba}} (translation: "emperor bomb").

In [[208: Regular Expressions]] [[Cueball]] saves the day by knowing {{w|regular expression}}s, although in the title text it is alluded to how easy these may also miss a character.

==Transcript==
:[Megan and White Hat stand next to a nuclear bomb. The bomb has a hatch open on top, and a small blinking screen. The two people are shouting off-screen.]
:Megan: Rob! You use Unix!
:White Hat: Come quick!

:[Megan, White Hat, and Rob look at the screen on the bomb. Rob peers closely. The screen is on the bomb, but is shown at the top of the panel in black with white letters, except "tar" and the last underscore which is in gray and "ten" which is black but written in a white box. The text reads:]
:{| class="wikitable"
|style="background-color:black;"|To disarm the bomb, simply enter a valid tar command on your first try. No Googling. You have <code>ten</code> seconds ~# _
|}
:[They continue to peer. (Beat panel).]

:[Same position but White Hat becomes impatient.]
:White Hat: ...Rob?
:Rob: I'm so sorry.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Rob]]
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Programming]]

Talk:1167: Star Trek into Darkness

2016-05-18T13:17:46Z

162.158.85.117:

Must be the capital "I". That's final! Everything else is plainly stupid! If you like your franchise, then let the movies have beautiful titles. If you use lower-case "i", it's ugly. Btw I'm not a fan of Star Trek. And I don't want to join the war(s). I'm gone. Bye!

There has been a considerable amount of debate as to whether the title of this movie should have a colon in it, which would have appeared as "Star Trek: Into Darkness." They eventually decided against the colon, and I wonder if this comic is poking fun at that debate.[[Special:Contributions/169.234.40.187|169.234.40.187]] 00:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect an allusion to movie title spellings that can be seen on moviez sites, torrent sites etc. -- [[Special:Contributions/193.174.118.70|193.174.118.70]] 08:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Associated Press style manual says to capitalize all prepositions that are four letters or more in titles, e.g. Into, Through, etc. --[[User:Prooffreader|Prooffreader]] ([[User talk:Prooffreader|talk]]) 09:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This could also have to do with WP's MOS of capitalizing "The first word in a compound preposition (e.g. "Time Out of Mind", "Get Off of My Cloud")".

However, you cannot simply change the title of a page on WP. This requires actually moving the whole page. [[Special:Contributions/84.208.51.23|84.208.51.23]] 14:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a capitalization error in the comic. The second to last 's' should be capitalized in order to match the rest of the pattern in "xX_StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNess_Xx". Unless the author is trying to subtly troll us into arguing about that capitalization... [[User:Sayno2quat|Sayno2quat]] ([[User talk:Sayno2quat|talk]]) 14:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
:Non-sense, double consonants should never be capitalized! Unless of course you want to use them for structural purposes, like spacing or framing, obviously.--[[User:Pnariyoshi|Pnariyoshi]] ([[User talk:Pnariyoshi|talk]]) 15:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe Cueball's comment, "I have a new favorite edit war," is refering to the title text in this comic http://xkcd.com/878 about the great debate of HO vs. H0. [[Special:Contributions/206.39.12.245|206.39.12.245]] 15:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Pat

"Magnificient"?

The actual [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Trek_into_Darkness#xkcd_Mention Talk Page] of the Wikipedia article in question has an item about this comic. --[[User:Prooffreader|Prooffreader]] ([[User talk:Prooffreader|talk]]) 16:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
:Oh sweet mother of god. Between that and the spam on this wiki, I think I'll take the spam. '''[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]]'''[[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>[talk]</tt>]] 11:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I spent a good portion of last night reading through Wikipedia's talk pages for that. Worth a good laugh. [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 16:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well it obviously should be capitalized. --[[User:Shine|Shine]] ([[User talk:Shine|talk]]) 17:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

:I tried to make a point on wikipedia that Wikipedia itself went out of its way to create a "lowercase first letter" template so that iPod and things of that nature could be capitalized the way the producer styled it, but there's really nowhere to point it as all discussions have closed and been ground to a halt. [[User:TheHYPO|TheHYPO]] ([[User talk:TheHYPO|talk]]) 19:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

But is it really an edit war? Have they been moving the page bach and forth? --[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 00:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I still feel the most retarded of discussions on Wikipedia is for the Hentai article, where a disturbing majority demand pornography. --[[Special:Contributions/59.167.191.93|59.167.191.93]] 08:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a minor matter of correctness... but shouldn't this page be entitled "1167: Star Trek Into Darkness", with a capital I, you know, since that's the way the movie studio is writing it, even though it doesn't follow MOS? I think someone needs to fix it RIGHT NOW! --boB
:Hey boB, you should fix your username! :P I'm kidding. I think the wiki just follows what is on the xkcd website, which has the lower case "i".--[[User:Pnariyoshi|Pnariyoshi]] ([[User talk:Pnariyoshi|talk]]) 22:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I wish the Super Bowl Halftime Show could be that talk page being presented in a dramatic on stage performance. wow. Do you think Ian McKellen is available?--[[User:Shine|Shine]] ([[User talk:Shine|talk]]) 19:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it's been moved to the capital I. I'd say that it's definitely because xkcd mentioned it. [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]]

: https://twitter.com/wikisignpost/statuses/297188486421831680 :-) --[[User:Mormegil|Mormegil]] ([[User talk:Mormegil|talk]]) 07:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I wanna be the guy who has to watch the xkcd website for new Wikipedia-related comics and lock the related article as quickly as possible... [[User:Ilinamorato|Ilinamorato]] ([[User talk:Ilinamorato|talk]]) 15:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it is worth noting that the argument over whether to include a section about the debate and the following xkcd mention is now growing on the talk page and already has a couple thousand words of debate. {{unsigned|24.114.22.89}}

:That reminds me of the time that I was reading my Encyclopedia Britannica and happened across the section on the Titmouse and it mentioned the debate the editors were having on whether to include a joke about {{w|Tufted_Titmouse|Titmice}} and {{w|tit_(bird)|tits}} being cousins of sorts. Oh Wait.... --[[User:Shine|Shine]] ([[User talk:Shine|talk]]) 23:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe someone who has seen Contact wants to add some comment about the meaning of the quote or why it is relevant/funny? –[[User:St.nerol|St.nerol]] ([[User talk:St.nerol|talk]]) 18:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This may be obvious to others, but I don't know why the ~*~ symbol is used for the alternate capitalization. Can someone explain what the meaning of those characters is? [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 19:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if the title text was changed from what it was originally, but on xkcd.com it says "factions sprang up..." not "crackers..." -[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.174|108.162.246.174]] 20:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)