explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1129: Cell Number

2012-11-02T13:56:27Z

24.123.40.78:

: I guess this has something to do with keeping your phone number even when switching providers? We got a law in Norway around that time, which says you're able to keep your phone number while switching. Only difference is that here you can only tell, from the first two of eight digits, which ''provider'' you had in 2005 (or whenever it took effect). --[[User:Buggz|Buggz]] ([[User talk:Buggz|talk]]) 08:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

::It probably does. There is no mention of 2005 in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Numbering_Plan North American Numbering Plan wikipedia article] ... seems it's the part needing explanation the most. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

: According to wikipedia, mobile number portability was implemented in the USA in 2003.11.24. The comic would make sense with 2003, but why 2005? Maybe it only caught on enough in 2005: http://www.pyramidresearch.com/pa_may26_mnp.htm

: One reason for switching to a new "local" number would be so that those who have land lines aren't making "long-distance" phone calls to your cell phone. My brother just recently moved back from the east coast and is keeping his same cell phone number, which doesn't affect my other siblings and myself because we only use cell phones (which only count the number of minutes used). But my mom still uses land lines most of the time and so she's being billed for a long-distance call whenever she calls him, even though he lives about a mile away from her. But since most people are ditching the land lines, I think it'll be a moot point in about 5-10 years. --[[User:Joehammer79|Joehammer79]] ([[User talk:Joehammer79|talk]]) 13:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It has to do with cell phones versus land lines. Back in the day (before the early 2000s), many people still had a land line as their primary or only phone. Your phone number's area code would be based on the area in which you lived. If you moved to a new area, you would get a new phone number, and if you moved out of the previous area code, a new area code. But with a cell phone, when you moved you kept the same number, including the area code. This was especially true after the 2003 law made it so you could keep the same number even if you switch your provider. The year 2005 has to do with when many people made their cell phone their primary or only phone. As [http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-03-24-cell-phones_x.htm this USA TODAY]article mentions, in 2003 18% of Americans with cell phones considered their cell phone their primary phone. Given the rapid growth of the industry, it is possible that 2005 is when more than half of cell phone owners in America considered their cell phone their primary phone.

Talk:1128: Fifty Shades

2012-10-31T15:34:06Z

24.123.40.78:

Considering dogs can only see in black and white (and all the grays in between), ''Fifty Shades of Grey'' would be a great book for Wishbone to reenact IMO! --[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 14:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Didn't Wishbone get discontinued in 1998? There can't be a Fifty Shades of Grey episode. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 06:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:Maybe it got moved to "Adult Swim"? :) --[[User:Bpothier|B. P.]] ([[User talk:Bpothier|talk]]) 07:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:According to Wikipedia, you are correct and Wishbone ended in 1998, but if xkcd had to adhere to such a rigorous use of real life elements such as the proper time period in which a TV show used to air, then today's comic would have been impossible. You must be at least a little flexible. Also, I'm certain there isn't such an episode, that would be impossible, as you pointed out. The main thing here is that Randall combined both the nature of Wishbone with the nature of Fifty Shades of Grey to produce a hilarious concept which concludes in a magnificent explosion of laughter. I for one can look the other way in regards to the fact that Wishbone ended in 1998. I'm curious. Were you trying to troll the comments section? (no offence) --[[User:DelendaEst|DelendaEst]] ([[User talk:DelendaEst|talk]]) 09:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Shades_of_Grey Fifty Shades of Grey] is a "novel featuring large quantities of sex," but it is the kind of sex that is important; it is the fetish nature of the sexual exploits in the novel that set it apart from your every day harlequin romance novel, making it the fastest selling paperback. The novel is about a woman that agrees to be a sex slave for a wealthy man for a few months. She signs a lengthy contract that explains what's expected of her, and what he can do to her. The sexual acts involve combinations of BDSM fetishes, including restraints, submission, and inflicting/receiving pain for sexual pleasure. It is the inflicting/receiving pain detail that makes the noises from the TV "inappropriate" and not just someone disciplining/abusing a dog (which could also be inappropriate, just for very different reasons).

Talk:1128: Fifty Shades

2012-10-31T15:33:03Z

24.123.40.78:

Considering dogs can only see in black and white (and all the grays in between), ''Fifty Shades of Grey'' would be a great book for Wishbone to reenact IMO! --[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 14:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Didn't Wishbone get discontinued in 1998? There can't be a Fifty Shades of Grey episode. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]][[User talk:Davidy22|<tt>(talk)</tt>]] 06:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:Maybe it got moved to "Adult Swim"? :) --[[User:Bpothier|B. P.]] ([[User talk:Bpothier|talk]]) 07:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:According to Wikipedia, you are correct and Wishbone ended in 1998, but if xkcd had to adhere to such a rigorous use of real life elements such as the proper time period in which a TV show used to air, then today's comic would have been impossible. You must be at least a little flexible. Also, I'm certain there isn't such an episode, that would be impossible, as you pointed out. The main thing here is that Randall combined both the nature of Wishbone with the nature of Fifty Shades of Grey to produce a hilarious concept which concludes in a magnificent explosion of laughter. I for one can look the other way in regards to the fact that Wishbone ended in 1998. I'm curious. Were you trying to troll the comments section? (no offence) --[[User:DelendaEst|DelendaEst]] ([[User talk:DelendaEst|talk]]) 09:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Fifty Shades of Grey is a "novel featuring large quantities of sex," but it is the kind of sex that is important; it is the fetish nature of the sexual exploits in the novel that set it apart from your every day harlequin romance novel, making it the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Shades_of_Grey fastest selling paperback]. The novel is about a woman that agrees to be a sex slave for a wealthy man for a few months. She signs a lengthy contract that explains what's expected of her, and what he can do to her. The sexual acts involve combinations of BDSM fetishes, including restraints, submission, and inflicting/receiving pain for sexual pleasure. It is the inflicting/receiving pain detail that makes the noises from the TV "inappropriate" and not just someone disciplining/abusing a dog (which could also be inappropriate, just for very different reasons).

24: Godel, Escher, Kurt Halsey

2012-08-22T14:20:48Z

24.123.40.78: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 24
| date = September 30, 2005
| title = Godel, Escher, Kurt Halsey
| image = godel_escher_kurthalsey.jpg
| imagesize =
| titletext = I love the idea here, though of course it's not a great-quality drawing or scan.
}}

== Explanation ==
The name of the comic is a take on the book {{w|Gödel,_Escher,_Bach|Gödel, Escher, Bach}}. The book is about "strange loops", self reference, and recurring patterns, partially shown through the works of the three people in its title.

{{w|Kurt Gödel}} was a 20th century mathematician most famous for mathematically proving that there are some mathematical truths that can't be proven.

{{w|M. C. Escher}} was a 20th century artist most famous for mathematically-inspired engravings of tessellated animals, impossible scenes, distorted images that contained themselves, and so on.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Sebastian_Bach Johann Sebastian Bach] was a German composer and musician during the Baroque Period

[http://www.kurthalsey.com Kurt Halsey] is a comic artist from Oregon.

== Transcript ==
Drawn during an unending NASA lecture.

[Two people are talking, one in a hat.]
Hatless: it's just so hard to compare kids now with kids in the past. you can't help but to belong to one group or the other.

Hatless: and of course every generation seems awful to the one before it. look at quotes from throughout history.

Hatted: yeah, and it sure would be nice to have some perspective on some of this stuff. I just don't know what to make of it.
[Circles are appearing--maybe snow?]

Hatless: i guess you do what you can to help the people around you and hope it turns out okay.

Hatless: in the end, what else can you do?

Hatted: lead a crusade?

[We can no longer see the people, just the circles.]]
it's presentism, man. the idea that historical context is irrelevant, that we understand it all

that we need take no warnings from the follies of the past. that we're facing something new.

socrates couldn't imagine the internet. but people don't change.
[We can start to see the corner of a darker circle in the lower right.]]

((The borders between the three panels on this line are cracking.))

have you seen those collections of historical pornography? talk about historical context.

did you know the first porn photo was bestial in [inside a circle:] nature?

at least that stuff was out of the mainstream [each word in one circle:] no just in history

((the three panels have merged into one on each row.))

i don't know about you, but [circled] I [uncircled] never
even once seen

[The circles are highly variable in size now, and pressed up against a larger one on the right side.]

[There is mass of circles of different sizes, with some dark fissures in between, against the side of a large circle which we can see part of in the right half of the panel. They look like cells. There's a tiny square in the center of the giant cell.]

[We see only the tiny square, centered. It has a few marks inside it.]

[Closer, the square is divided into rectangles of different sizes, each of which has text in it.]

[Much closer, we can see fragments of the text. Some are sideways, some are cut off, some are too small to read.]
machine language translated by principles of isomorphism it is a consequence of the Church-Turing thesis that ...
but how do you select the channel you wish to se-
thou ... shou ... palin ... stri ... it is a ... crab ...

[Closer still, we can just see a huge sideways s and h.]

[Those letters are faded and mixed with a faded version of the next panel.]

girls take boys away ...

never be further than a phone call and a goosebumped shiver away ...

drove all night listening to mix tapes ...

the past is just practice

[There is a heart at the bottom and, in the lower left, the name Kurt.]

[The same as the previous panel, but with the words blurred out to scribbles.]

[Jagged, shaded shapes and strands start to fall. Faint panel borders appear again. There is a person on the far right.]

((Back to three panels per row.))

[A man and woman are standing amid the fragments.]

Man: There's too much. And so little feels important.

[The jagged edge of the shaded area is encroaching on the sides of the panel.]

What do you do?

[We see them from farther away through a rough hole in the shaded area. Bits continue to fall around them.]

[She takes his hand.]

== Trivia ==
* Original [[Randall]] quote: "One of a series of strips I drew during a long and boring NASA lecture. It careers wildly from intellectual to chaotic to Godel, Escher, Bach to Kurt Halsey to chaotic and sappy."
* The original comment on Live Journal suggests that the actual image there was only part of this strip (and that the above is the whole series). Unfortunately, the image link in live journal is broken.
* Original title "Strip series"
* This is the sixth comic posted to livejournal. The previous comic was {{explain|1}}, the next is {{explain|13}}.

{{Comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics posted on livejournal]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

Talk:1093: Forget

2012-08-13T13:29:13Z

24.123.40.78:

How far off the top of that list is the death of JFK? [[User:SteveBell|SteveB]] ([[User talk:SteveBell|talk]]) 10:55, 10 August 2012‎ (UTC)
: Looking at the time table, my guess would be around 2000. ~[[User:Jjhuddle|JJ]] ([[User talk:Jjhuddle|talk]]) 11:01, 10 August 2012‎ (UTC)
Ah, the seventies. Bell Bottoms. The Bicentennial. The Munich Olympics. The original Star Wars movie. Except for Star Wars, I suppose much of that ''could'' be forgotten. Especially {{explain|1072|Bell Bottoms}}.-- [[User:IronyChef|IronyChef]] ([[User talk:IronyChef|talk]]) 13:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Lorena Bobbitt is misspelled in the comic. It should have two "t's." Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500185_162-4207517.html [Goingtotryscience, 10 Aug 2012] --[[User:Goingtotryscience|Goingtotryscience]] ([[User talk:Goingtotryscience|talk]]) 14:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The cold war was after World War II, not World War I. --[[User:Ralfoide|Ralfoide]] ([[User talk:Ralfoide|talk]]) 16:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

: He didn't say the cold war was after World War I, he said the Soviet Union began after World War I and was the advesary of the United States during the cold war. --[[User:Enginesoul|Enginesoul]] ([[User talk:Enginesoul|talk]]) 18:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's not forget 2035 when the majority of people will not remember a world berift of XKCD! [[User:Loeb|Loeb]] ([[User talk:Loeb|talk]]) 17:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

When Coca-Cola change the formula to New Coke, they kept the name "Coca-Cola" for the reformulated beverage, and discontinued the old formula. Because of the backlash, they reintroduced the old formula as "Coca-Cola Classic" and kept the new formula as "Coca-Cola". After a while, with "Coca-Cola Classic" being by far the biggest seller, the new formula was rebranded "Coke II", and eventually discontinued (I believe). The can I have in front of me is marked simply "Coca-Cola", so I guess "Coca-Cola Classic" was eventually rebranded back to the original name. --[[User:Blaisepascal|Blaise Pascal]] ([[User talk:Blaisepascal|talk]]) 17:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks that there are some other things needing explaining here? I have no idea what "Forgot About Dre" or "Baby Got Back" are about. (Well, not without a little googling.) And Pluto still exists, even if it's not currently classified as a planet (last I heard, they were considering classifying it and Charon as a twin planet system) so people are unlikely to forget about the name.--[[User:Joe Green|Joe Green]] ([[User talk:Joe Green|talk]]) 07:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh and if Chernobyl is considered worthy of explanation, surely so is Challenger? Columbine too. Jeff's initial selection seems a little arbitrary, and while he justifiably never claims to provide a comprehensive explanation, we usually fill in the gaps.--[[User:Joe Green|Joe Green]] ([[User talk:Joe Green|talk]]) 07:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

:Gaps: Filled. By the way, none of the explanation was actually Jeff's. It's the collaboration of multiple users (feel free to pitch in). For example, I made the {{diff|6133|first revision}} of the article, with a basic explanation, [[Special:Contributions/Jjhuddle|Jjhuddle]] {{diff|6157|added}} information about the title text (which I skipped over, as I wasn't sure about it), [[Special:Contributions/Jilkscom56|Jilkscom56]] {{diff|6190|added}} the bit about Eyjafjallajökull, [[Special:Contributions/IronyChef|IronyChef]] {{diff|6199|added}} eight more years, [[Special:Contributions/MrFlibble|MrFlibble]] {{diff|6218|fixed}} an error in one of the dates, [[Special:Contributions/AHT|AHT]] {{diff|6253|expanded}} the Berlin Wall section, and I {{diff|6256|filled in the rest of the blanks}}. {{User:Omega/sig}} 08:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The Berlin Wall was constructed by East Germany, not the USSR and it preceded the reunification of Germany. I've sort of fixed it, but it could do with more work. [[User:Jeremyp|Jeremyp]] ([[User talk:Jeremyp|talk]]) 10:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
: Good. I was just writing a comment about exactly these two points. Although the role of the soviets is not entirely clear, it was the Eastern German (aka German Democratic Republic) Government that decided and (mostly) Eastern German soldiers who built the Wall. And while the "Fall of the Wall" usually refers to the day where suddenly after a very confusing press conference, people could cross the border from east to west, the November 9, 1989, the reunification was a political and formal act in 1990, almost a year later. [[Special:Contributions/178.15.226.170|178.15.226.170]] 10:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
: Also, the wall was technically not torn down by anyone and especially not from both sides. After a series of weekly demonstrations in Eastern Germany (by a lot of courageous people in different cities), the Government made a decision to lift the travel restrictions, effectively allowing travelling to the West. On November 9, 1989, they made this official in a press conference which did not even receive a lot of attention at first. In this conference, someone raised the question when these new regulation would take effect, and seemingly unprepared, the speaker said "as far as I can see, it's effective immediately". Although there were so many people up that night in both East and West, and although maybe the mass of people prevented a shooting by the unprepared soldiers at the checkpoint, the revolution was not a spontaneous tearing of the wall, it was the demonstrations in the preceeding weeks by the Eastern German People. [[Special:Contributions/178.15.226.170|178.15.226.170]] 11:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems whoever wrote the explanation for 9/11 has already forgotten the other two planes that crashed that day: one into the Pentagon, and one in a field outside of Shanksville, PA (Presumably on its way to crashing into the Capitol Building)