explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

907: Ages

2014-03-31T03:29:34Z

LogicalOxymoron: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 907
| date = June 3, 2011
| title = Ages
| image = ages.png
| titletext = Every age: "I'm glad I'm not the clueless person I was five years ago, but now I don't want to get any older."
}}

==Explanation==

This is a graph of the general themes that occur between the ages covered by each individual set of brackets. The layout is a parody of larger timescales of human or geologic history, e.g. "Bronze Age" or "Iron Age".

The "ages" identified and experiences typical at that age:
*0-3 - "[Non-sentient]" - Babies/toddlers are not self-sufficient and not intelligently communicative. The formal definition of "sentient" implies an ability to perceive or feel things (something babies & toddlers can do) but one alternate definition of the word (which Randall appears to be using here) implies self-awareness and, more specifically, awareness of one's own awareness. Babies of very young ages lack this, although there is some argument as to exactly when they become self-aware.
*4-12 - "Everything is exciting!" - Children learn language and everything they see and learn is new and interesting. Children of this age are characterized with fascination with the world around them, with an attitude that everything is exciting.
*13-17 - "Everything sucks!" - As children grow to be teenagers their attitude that everything is exciting often turns into cynicism to the world around them, leading to the attitude that "everything sucks!" Teenagers tend to rebel against authority figures (parents, teachers, etc.) thinking they now know best. Additionally, they tend to be negative about everything they experience in the world.
*18-22 - "Woooo college! Wooooo—" [vomit] - This age is a young adult's first foray into the freedom of the world (which often happens in college). For many young adults (whether in college or not) this results in parties or excessive drinking. Excessive drinking results in vomiting.
*23-30 - "Relationships are hard!" - Having grown out of the young adult stage, people in their twenties experience their first "adult" relationships. These relationships, unlike the dating they may have done while in school, tend to be complicated.
*31-42 - "So are careers!" - Growing now into their thirties, people realize that not only are relationships hard but careers are, too. They experience real-world job stress, sometimes at the same time as beginning their families.
*43-54 - "No daughter of mine is going out dressed like that!" - In this age, people who are parents experience the teenage experience from the other perspective. That teenage experience is projected forward to parental experience of having a teenager of their own. This quote is a cliche of a parent yelling at their daughter because the daughter's outfit is far too skimpy for the parent's taste. It is entirely plausible that the now-parent heard this same remark when ''she'' was a teenager.
*55-75+ - "[More sex than anyone is comfortable admitting]" - For people with kids, this age is known as the "empty nest" phase, where their children have moved out on their own. The freedom of not having kids in the house might bring about re-found passions. For people with kids or without, this age brings the onset of retirement with fewer responsibilities and copious free-time. How that free-time is spent is a subject most younger people aren't comfortable talking about.

The title text is a joke about the shortsightedness of many people (at any age) in believing their current age to be ideal.

==Transcript==
:A number line labeled "age." The start point is 0, with points labeled 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70, and the line continues past the width of the panel. There are interstitial, non-labeled points. Above the line are labeled brackets. They are (approximated):
::0-3: [Non-sentient]
::4-12: "Everything is exciting!"
::13-17: "Everything sucks!"
::18-22: "Woooo college! Wooooo—" [vomit]
::23-30: "Relationships are ''hard!''
::31-42: "So are careers!"
::43-54: "No daughter of ''mine'' is going out dressed like that!"
::55-75+: [More sex than anyone is comfortable admitting]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Charts]]

Talk:1347: t Distribution

2014-03-28T05:37:22Z

LogicalOxymoron:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student%27s_t-test

[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.73|173.245.50.73]] 05:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Adam

As a layman, I still have no idea what the comic's about. Is it possible to clear it up a lot more? [[User:LogicalOxymoron|LogicalOxymoron]] ([[User talk:LogicalOxymoron|talk]]) 05:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a comment of the quality of education today - it is difficult to grade students on a distribution curve and even more so when you take into account the distribution curve of the teachers ability. {{unsigned ip|108.162.249.205}}

:I thought this as well, my interpretation of the comic was Cueball attempting to fit the data with a "Student t-distribution", realizing that the t-distribution poorly fit, and so replaced it with a "Teacher t-distribution" which has a stronger correlation with the data on the piece of paper presumably; the data in question concerning the scholastic success of students. This comic in part seemed to be poking fun at scientists misappropriating the causation of a recognized phenomena. Like the basic statistics example of people finding a correlation in children between tooth decay and vocabulary when, surprise surprise, both tooth decay and vocabulary are strongly correlated with age. {{unsigned ip|108.162.249.214}}

I noticed the teacher's curve is symmetrical, and after further inspection it could be interpreted as an edge detection: high values show where an edge occurs. The two highest peaks would nicely align with the edges of the paper, the next highest peaks fit the edges of the table, and the rest could be approximation artefacts, as they're equidistant and rather insignificant compared to those four. I'm not statistics pro, but maybe that rings someone's bells? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.239|108.162.210.239]] 07:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

:Interesting observation. It may play into an age-long legend told and re-told among the students that some teachers grade papers by tossing the whole pile in the air; those sheets that land on the teacher's desk get a pass, those falling to the floor get a fail. Sometimes the story gets modified in such a way that papers falling on the teacher's book (or other object) laying on the desk will get a higher marking than those simply hitting the desk. The latter version would explain the higher sheet-size-apart peaks. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.111|108.162.210.111]] 08:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

To be more explicit, I think the sheet of paper represents some data. Cueball is not happy with the results of applying Student's t test, so ze is trying more complex tools in the hope of getting significance. -- TimMc / [[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.27|173.245.52.27]] 11:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

:I would upvote this comment if allowed. As an aside, there are some teachers who think a class' grades will always fall into a nice t Distribution (thus the expression "grading on a curve") and others who vehemently hate the notion. Source: my 3-year stint as a math teacher in an urban high school. [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 14:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Man, normally these explanations clear the comic right up for me, but I've read this one thrice now and I still can't figure out what a t-distribution is, much less a joke based on one. The only definition being a Wikipedia quote written in legalese doesn't help. So a t-distribution estimates...the probability of a population's average when there's unknown information?[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.48|108.162.216.48]] 12:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
:The unknown information is the sample size (class size, for example) and standard distribution (by how much, on average, is something going to vary from the mean). The unknown information is not "in the data".[[User:Jarod997|Jarod997]] ([[User talk:Jarod997|talk]]) 12:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
:Basically, if you have an underlying process that would produce samples with a Gaussian distribution with mean of 0, and stddev of 1, and then you pull a finite number of samples out of it, and do the usual "average" operation on those samples (i.e. sum them and divide by the number of samples) you would expect that that computed average would be close to zero. But it might not be! By chance the samples you pulled might mostly have been from the far right or left side of distribution and the average you got would be way off. Student's T distribution (for a certain number of samples, n) is basically "given that the underlying process a Gaussian with mean zero and stddev of 1, if I repeatedly take n samples from that distribution and compute the average of those samples to get an "estimated mean", this is how I expect that estimated mean to be distributed". Naturally, this is important in questions like "I took 100 samples and got an average of 0.02 -- does this mean that it is sensible to think that the mean of the underlying distribution is actually zero?"
: Of course, most of the joke is that the distribution is named "Student's", which is not strongly dependent on the nature of the statistics. [[User:Vyzen|Vyzen]] ([[User talk:Vyzen|talk]]) 12:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
::Okay, it's pretty clear to me now what the Student's t distribution is. I'm still not sure about the punchline though, how does the "Teacher's" t distribution come into play? Does the uneven distribution represent any phenomena in the academic world? Like, as suggested above, is this a joke about grading? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.53.137|173.245.53.137]] 15:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Other than the symmetry, I'd almost suggest that the distribution could be real test scores. Typically tests will have a small number of questions worth multiple points and the scores might spike around levels that represent integral numbers of questions done perfectly, with the spaces in-between filled in by part marks. The teacher may have a bias towards giving perfect or zero scores per question. [[User:Vyzen|Vyzen]] ([[User talk:Vyzen|talk]]) 18:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The teacher's t-distribution looks like multiple spikier curves with different centres added together
and it doesn't fit the table. [[User:Wwt|Wwt]] ([[User talk:Wwt|talk]]) 13:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I took from it that the Students Distribution was too perfect, and real data would rarely yield those idealized results in a small sample size. That the teacher's distribution used actual numbers, with the occasional spikes. I took from the title text, the tendency of students, or anyone with pre-conceived notions, to keep redoing the test until they get the results they expect, in this case, the textbook result. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.71|173.245.55.71]] 13:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the piece of paper he's trying to pull out from beneath the Students' T-distribution? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.66|108.162.219.66]] 14:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

:I don't think he he trying to pull the paper from out beneath the t-distribution. I think he is placing the distribution on top of the paper to see if the data on the paper matches the distribution. In panel 2, he looks at the paper and decides that, no, it doesn't, so then opts to use another distribution - the Teacher's t-distribution and see if that works. The comic may be hinting that the t-distribution in grading, etc (since students and teachers are explicitly listed) is flawed. --[[User:Dangerkeith3000|Dangerkeith3000]] ([[User talk:Dangerkeith3000|talk]]) 15:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I may be over-simplifying it, but the 'Teachers' T looks like a reference to the 'double-hump programmer' idea, converted into a T-distribution. The other ideas cover the general principle, but this looks like a specific example as well. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.48|108.162.221.48]] 15:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the explanation really explains what a T-distribution is at all. I know it's googleable, but the point of an explanation is you shouldn't have to look it up afterwards. I don't like how lately all of the scientific/maths comics seem to be given explanations laden with technical terms that don't actually clarify anything. --[[User:Mynotoar|Mynotoar]] ([[User talk:Mynotoar|talk]]) 17:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I did a quick calculation using mspaint, and it appears that the Student's t-distribution in the first panel is roughly 5780 px^2 in size; at the same time the area of the "Teacher's t-distribution" in the last panel is approximately 8125 px^2 (or 140% of the Student's distribution). Thus, using the Teacher's t-distribution as Cueball is intent on doing "is both illegal and illegitimate" (illegitimate = no scientific basis for such a distribution; illegal = this it not even a distribution per se). If Cueball goes on and publishes his results based on such approach, they will not be recognized by the international scientific community (except perhaps by Russia, Syria and North Korea). We, readers, therefore express our deep concern over Cueball's methods. [[User:Stpasha|Stpasha]] ([[User talk:Stpasha|talk]]) 18:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe the joke has to do with "fitting data to a distribution": In the first panel, Cueball is trying to adjust the Student's T distribution on top of the data, which could be a play on "fitting" the data to the distribution. Statistically speaking, fitting data to a distribution is often done to figure out how likely the data were to have occurred, under the assumption that the underlying data generating process follows a particular distribution (like the Student's T). It looks like Cueball first tries to fit his data to a Student's T, and is dissatisfied with the fit. He then tries a much more complicated distribution - which, I think is jokingly called a Teacher's distribution on the premise that something to do with teachers is more complicated than something to do with students. The joke is that data often don't fit a simple distribution like the Student's T... they are nuanced and complex, and their underlying data generating process was far more complex. [[User:Amoorthy|Amoorthy]] ([[User talk:Amoorthy|talk]]) 19:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
: By the way, this is related to and compatible with the explanation given by Dangerkeith3000 above.[[User:Amoorthy|Amoorthy]] ([[User talk:Amoorthy|talk]]) 20:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The title test could be referring to the tests aspiring teachers have to take in the US to get their credentials. It's sort of like a Bar- except you may take it as many times as you wish until you pass. {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.77}}

I predict that the "Teacher's t-distribution" is the new Cow Tools, and those with actual skill in statistics will drive themselves crazy over it. See [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CowTools] for clarification. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.168|199.27.130.168]] 21:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Could it be pointed out that the middle of the Teacher's distribution resembles the Tower of Mordor ? Underscoring the role of the Teacher... {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.25}}

The explain says that the student distribution works when both the sample and the population have the same variance. Isn't that wrong--doesn't the sample tend to have a larger variance than the population under usual/ideal conditions? (I'm assuming the student distribution is meant for usual/ideal conditions.) [[User:Sciepsilon|Sciepsilon]] ([[User talk:Sciepsilon|talk]]) 00:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
: I believe the true variance of a sample should be the same as the true variance of the population. Perhaps you are thinking of Bessel's correction - using "n-1" in the denominator of the formula for estimating sample variance, instead of "n". If so: While it's true that Bessel's correction makes our estimate of the sample variance larger than if we'd used "n", the reason is that using "n" would have created an estimate that was too small - or, otherwise put, biased toward zero. (The Wikipedia article on Bessel's correction has the best explanation I've seen for why this is true - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessel's_correction#The_source_of_the_bias.) What's key here is that Bessel's correction is a technique to correct our estimates of variance - the true variance of a sample is really the same as in the population. [[User:Amoorthy|Amoorthy]] ([[User talk:Amoorthy|talk]]) 16:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

My initial take is that in comic the students' understanding of the correct distribution is being evaluated as a function of the teacher's ability. That a poorly educated student reflects the ability of the teacher[[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 12:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)ExternalMonolog

1243: Snare

2014-03-24T21:43:07Z

LogicalOxymoron: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1243
| date = July 26, 2013
| title = Snare
| image = snare.png
| titletext = It's going in A collection of satellites skewered with pins and mounted in display boxes. Not necessarily MY collection.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Mostly, but not completely done.}}

[[Cueball]] is relating some odd news items to [[Black Hat]]. A structure has been discovered that consists of large ring strung with superstrong mesh, a 260-mile long pole, and a gigantic winch. As Cueball outlines the particulars of the discovery, Black Hat responds vaguely to each detail, seeming preoccupied with his computer. Cueball quickly realizes that the pole, ring and net combination sounds like a {{w|Butterfly_net|butterfly net}}, but one of immense size. Given his history of nefarious activities, Cueball infers and then accuses Black Hat of wanting to "catch" the {{w|International Space Station}}, which orbits about 260 miles above the earth, by winching the pole up so that the net aligns with the Space Station's orbit.

Black Hat does not deny the charge, but he dissimulates by saying it is not necessarily ''the'' ISS that he intends to catch but just ''an'' international space station, implying that it could be some other one. However, it is transparently obvious which space station he is targeting. Hint: it is the only truly international space station, it is actually called the International Space Station, and it has an orbit that matches the length of the pole that was found.

The real buildings probably belong to these structures:
*The giant ring from the first panel may be an allusion to the {{w|Tevatron}}, a former circular particle accelerator at the {{w|Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory}} (Fermilab), east of Batavia, near Chicago, Illinois.

*Similarly, the gigantic winch in St. Louis, may refer to the 630-foot high {{w|Gateway Arch|Gateway Arch Monument}}. It is the tallest man-made monument in the United States. Even the rough south-north direction of this building does match to this scenario because the Fermilab is approx. 260 miles north of St. Louis. However, it is an arch, not a winch.

The title text is a reference to how butterfly collections are usually presented. The insects are mounted in glass display cases, each skewered through the body with a pin, and labelled. The text appears to be spoken by Black Hat, who here tries to imply that it may not be *his* collection of satellites. Perhaps he is minding it for a friend.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is talking to Black Hat. Black Hat is using a laptop.]
:Cueball: They said on the news that they found a giant ring lying in a field outside Chicago. Strung with some kind of superstrong mesh.
:Black Hat: Mhm?
:Cueball: Then they found a 260 mile long shaft connected to the ring, running from Chicago to St. Louis. In St. Louis they found a gigantic winch.
:Black Hat: Did they.
:Cueball: It sounds kind of like...
:Cueball: ...a butterfly net.
:Cueball: ...are you planning on catching the International Space Station?
:Black Hat: I'm planning to catch ''an'' international space station. Not sayin' which.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]

939: Arrow

2014-03-12T23:26:45Z

LogicalOxymoron: /* Trivia */

{{comic
| number = 939
| date = August 17, 2011
| title = Arrow
| image = arrow.png
| titletext = 'The Return of the Boomerang' would make a great movie title.
}}

==Explanation==
The comic appears to be a reference to [[475: Further Boomerang Difficulties]], which had a man throwing a boomerang that never returned. [[Cueball]] shoots an arrow off with a bow and a boomerang returns to him, bamboozling him.

The title text is a pun on how boomerangs always come back, along with how "The Return of X" is often used for movie names.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball stands with a bow and arrow drawn tightly, aiming off-screen.]
:[He fires the arrow, it disappears offscreen. The bowstring vibrates for effect.]
:[He stands holding the bow by their side, watching the arrow fly away.]
:[A boomerang flies on-screen, coming from the direction the arrow was fired. Cueball reaches up to catch the boomerang.]
:[Cueball is now holding the boomerang, staring at it with confusion.]

==Trivia==
*Part of this comic and [[475: Further Boomerang Difficulties]] is the picture for the (warning; TV Tropes link) [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BrickJoke Brick Joke] page on TV Tropes.

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

Talk:475: Further Boomerang Difficulties

2014-03-12T23:22:51Z

LogicalOxymoron:

OK, Dgbrt, you clearly know more about the universe's curvature than I do. Now, would you be so kind as to actually explain that rather than play tug-of-war with the incomplete tags? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.65|199.27.128.65]] 23:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I took a shot at it. Good enough to remove the incomplete tag? [[User:LogicalOxymoron|LogicalOxymoron]] ([[User talk:LogicalOxymoron|talk]]) 23:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

475: Further Boomerang Difficulties

2014-03-12T23:22:20Z

LogicalOxymoron: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 475
| date = September 12, 2008
| title = Further Boomerang Difficulties
| image = further_boomerang_difficulties.png
| titletext = An eternity later, the universe having turned out to have positive curvature and lots of mass, the boomerang hits him in the back of the head.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic is a sequel of sorts to [[445: I Am Not Good with Boomerangs]], as it deals with the same subject manner with the same panel layout.

The first strip shows [[Cueball]] throwing a boomerang, which doesn't come back. In [[939: Arrow]], a boomerang returns to Cueball, which can either be the same Cueball from this comic or another person. Then he throws another boomerang, which somehow hurts the {{w|ozone layer}} (as indicated by an offscreen voice). The third strip shows Cueball throwing something what ''appears'' to be a boomerang, but then [[Megan]] appears and reveals that it was their last banana.

The final strip shows Cueball throwing one last boomerang, which breaks the frame of the comic. The last panel shows that he was actually inside a spacecraft (which resembles an {{w|Apollo Lunar Module}}), and the boomerang has broken out through the hull. We see him tumbling out into space with the escaping air.

The title text notes that, assuming one theory that the universe has both {{w|curvature}} and {{w|mass}}, the boomerang would, after infinite time, travel all the way around the universe to return where it started and hit Cueball in the head.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is throwing boomerang.]
:[Holding his hands up.]
:[Cueball waits for return; continual waiting.]
:[Cueball is dejected, head hangs low.]

:[Cueball throws boomerang.]
:[Cueball waits for boomerang.]
:Outside: Oh God
:Outside: The ozone layer!
:[Cueball is surprised.]

:[Cueball throws boomerang banana.]
:[Cueball waits.]
:[Megan walks in.]
:Megan: That was our last banana.
:Megan: You're such an asshole.
:[Cueball throws boomerang.]
:[Boomerang breaks out of the panel box.]

:[Boomerang breaks out of a spacecraft, followed by Cueball.]

==Trivia==
*Part of this comic and [[939: Arrow]] is the picture for the [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BrickJoke Brick Joke] page on TV Tropes.

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

463: Voting Machines

2014-03-12T23:19:51Z

LogicalOxymoron: /* Explanation */ Removed incomplete

{{comic
| number = 463
| date = August 15, 2008
| title = Voting Machines
| image = voting_machines.png
| titletext = And that's *another* crypto conference I've been kicked out of. C'mon, it's a great analogy!
}}

==Explanation==
In the 2008 Ohio primary elections, there were numerous problems with electronic voting machines, which eventually required many districts to revert to pen and paper. Premier Election Solutions, the company that handled the machines, [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/08/ohio-voting-machines-contained.html blamed these problems] on {{w|McAfee}} anti-virus software.

It is not uncommon to see computer software contract stipulating that the vendor will warrant that software and systems delivered will not contain any viruses or malicious code — a knee-jerk reaction to this for novice management is to include virus-scanning software for systems which otherwise are closed. From a computer programming standpoint, having anti-virus software on an electronic voting machine doesn't make sense because the machine shouldn't be accessing the Internet in a way that would leave it open to virus attacks. While there are a lot of ways that viruses can propagate, ultimately the computer still has to download an executable file and run it, which is something that ''no election machine should do'' in normal operation. Hence the question is whether the voting machine manufacturer has taken the proper precaution preventing any external access.

Ideally, voting machines (as well as ATMs and other single-purpose appliances) should be {{w|embedded system}}s, incapable of doing the things that might necessitate anti-virus software. However, in practice such devices are more commonly built as application programs running on ordinary Windows PCs (inside of custom-shaped cases), and they download software updates over the internet.

The comic makes an analogy to a teacher who reassures you that he always wears a condom when teaching. Common sense dictates that teachers should never end up in a situation where wearing a condom in school would be useful. The comment is more likely to make people worried about why the condom is there and what purpose it's serving. Similarly, informed people might worry why a voting machine is connecting to the internet.

[http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/youre-doing-it-wrong "You're doing it wrong"] is an {{w|Internet meme}}, used to indicate that someone is making a foolish mistake. It often connotes humor or schadenfreude.

The title text refers to [[153: Cryptography]].

==Transcript==
:Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold) has blamed Ohio voting machine errors on problems with the machines' McAfee antivirus software.

:[Cueball is sitting at a computer, facepalming.]
:Cueball: Wait. "Antivirus software"? On voting machines? ''You're doing it wrong.''

:[Cueball's friend enters the frame and speaks to Cueball.]
:Friend: Why? Security is good, right?
:Cueball: Of course. But, well—

:Cueball: Imagine you're at a parent-teacher conference, and the teacher reassures you that he always wears a condom while teaching.

:Friend: Ah. Strictly speaking, it's better than the alternative—
:Cueball: —Yet someone is clearly doing their job horribly wrong.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Banned from conferences]]
[[Category:Cryptography]]
[[Category:Computers]]

Talk:463: Voting Machines

2014-03-12T23:19:25Z

LogicalOxymoron:

What's incomplete? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.130.180|199.27.130.180]] 04:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems fine to me. Removing the incomplete tag. [[User:LogicalOxymoron|LogicalOxymoron]] ([[User talk:LogicalOxymoron|talk]]) 23:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

463: Voting Machines

2014-03-12T23:18:56Z

LogicalOxymoron: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 463
| date = August 15, 2008
| title = Voting Machines
| image = voting_machines.png
| titletext = And that's *another* crypto conference I've been kicked out of. C'mon, it's a great analogy!
}}

==Explanation==
{{Incomplete|Reword and reformat}}

In the 2008 Ohio primary elections, there were numerous problems with electronic voting machines, which eventually required many districts to revert to pen and paper. Premier Election Solutions, the company that handled the machines, [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/08/ohio-voting-machines-contained.html blamed these problems] on {{w|McAfee}} anti-virus software.

It is not uncommon to see computer software contract stipulating that the vendor will warrant that software and systems delivered will not contain any viruses or malicious code — a knee-jerk reaction to this for novice management is to include virus-scanning software for systems which otherwise are closed. From a computer programming standpoint, having anti-virus software on an electronic voting machine doesn't make sense because the machine shouldn't be accessing the Internet in a way that would leave it open to virus attacks. While there are a lot of ways that viruses can propagate, ultimately the computer still has to download an executable file and run it, which is something that ''no election machine should do'' in normal operation. Hence the question is whether the voting machine manufacturer has taken the proper precaution preventing any external access.

Ideally, voting machines (as well as ATMs and other single-purpose appliances) should be {{w|embedded system}}s, incapable of doing the things that might necessitate anti-virus software. However, in practice such devices are more commonly built as application programs running on ordinary Windows PCs (inside of custom-shaped cases), and they download software updates over the internet.

The comic makes an analogy to a teacher who reassures you that he always wears a condom when teaching. Common sense dictates that teachers should never end up in a situation where wearing a condom in school would be useful. The comment is more likely to make people worried about why the condom is there and what purpose it's serving. Similarly, informed people might worry why a voting machine is connecting to the internet.

[http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/youre-doing-it-wrong "You're doing it wrong"] is an {{w|Internet meme}}, used to indicate that someone is making a foolish mistake. It often connotes humor or schadenfreude.

The title text refers to [[153: Cryptography]].

==Transcript==
:Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold) has blamed Ohio voting machine errors on problems with the machines' McAfee antivirus software.

:[Cueball is sitting at a computer, facepalming.]
:Cueball: Wait. "Antivirus software"? On voting machines? ''You're doing it wrong.''

:[Cueball's friend enters the frame and speaks to Cueball.]
:Friend: Why? Security is good, right?
:Cueball: Of course. But, well—

:Cueball: Imagine you're at a parent-teacher conference, and the teacher reassures you that he always wears a condom while teaching.

:Friend: Ah. Strictly speaking, it's better than the alternative—
:Cueball: —Yet someone is clearly doing their job horribly wrong.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Computers]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Banned from conferences]]
[[Category:Cryptography]]
[[Category:Computers]]

1341: Types of Editors

2014-03-12T23:04:34Z

LogicalOxymoron: /* Explanation */ noted real-life terms

{{comic
| number = 1341
| date = March 12, 2014
| title = Types of Editors
| image = types_of_editors.png
| titletext = m-x machineofdeath-mode
}}

==Explanation==

{{w|WYSIWYG}}, pronounced, "wizz-ee-wig" IPA /ˈwɪziˌwɪg/, is an acronym that stands for "What you see is what you get". In regards to computers, it refers to text editors in which the user can see exactly what will be published as he is typing it. But the comic compares various types of editors in a more different manner.

*A WYSIWYG editor displays the edited document in its final form. This could be a printed paper, a WEB page, a PDF document, and more. This is a real term used for text editors.
*A WYSINWYG, is a source editor — such as a {{w|wiki markup}} editor or {{w|TeX|TEX}}. In the example an HTML source editor is shown, where you enter raw HTML code and then presented with the rendered appearance of the final page. The <nowiki></nowiki>-tag marks text that has stress emphasis. This is also a real term, though a somewhat rarer one.
*The WYSITUTWYG ("... is totally unrelated to ...") editor apparently takes your input and proceeds to ignore it entirely, instead displaying totally unrelated words. Possibly a commentary on the Autocorrect function. Randall seems to have made this term up.
*WYSIHYD ("... is how you die") shows an ''editor'' which is not an editor at all, but a pun on the multiple meanings of the word "get": If you see "eaten by wolves", you will get ... eaten by wolves. This is a very surreal term only used in xkcd.

The title text is a fictitious command, {{w|meta key|meta}}-x machineofdeath-mode, to the highly extensible {{w|Emacs}} text editor. Emacs operates in various "modes", which are customizations for specific purposes. Placing Emacs into "Machine of Death" mode would turn it into a WYSIHYD editor. Another fictitious emacs command can be found in comic [[378]]. "Machine of Death" is a reference to the 2010 book [http://machineofdeath.net/ Machine of Death], with [[Randall Munroe]] being one of the writers. It is a collection of short stories about a device that can predict how people die from a drop of their blood. In many of the stories very unusual deaths are predicted, often in a very literal way.

==Transcript==
:[There are four panels, each with different headings over them.]

:[The first panel shows two titled text boxes, one above the other.]
:'''WYSIWYG''' What you see is what you get
:[Upper text box title] What you see:
:''Hi''
:[Lower text box title] What you get:
:''Hi''

:[The second panel shows two titled text boxes, one above the other, the same as the first box.]
:'''WYSINWYG''' What you see is not what you get
:[Upper text box title] What you see:
:<nowiki>Hi</nowiki>
:[Lower text box title] What you get:
:''Hi''

:[The third panel is presented the same as the first two.]
:'''WYSITUTWYG''' What you see is totally unrelated to what you get
:[Upper text box title] What you see:
:<nowiki>Hi</nowiki>
:[Lower text box title] What you get:
:The HORSE is a noble animal.

:[The fourth panel shows two titled text areas, (which are not outlined with a border), one above the other.]
:'''WYSIHYD''' What you see is how you die
:[Upper text area title] What you see:
:[White text on a black background] '''EATEN BY WOLVES'''
:[Lower text area] What you get:
::Eaten by wolves

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Emacs]]

461: Google Maps

2014-03-12T19:25:16Z

LogicalOxymoron: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 461
| date = August 11, 2008
| title = Google Maps
| image = google_maps.png
| titletext = Apparently Google assumes you're traveling during the ferry's normal operating hours. We lost two hours circling that damn lake (to say nothing of the Straw Man).
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Many items are still missing}}
{{w|Google Maps}} is a web mapping service application. Before smartphones with GPS mapping software were widespread and most people's printers hadn't yet run out of ink, it was common to print out directions to take with you on a trip. The web version of Google Maps has many features including a route planner. As sophisticated as early versions were, it occasionally gave suboptimal directions. For example, the directions may tell you to take an exit that, in reality, is unmarked. Directions also did not take time of day into account which would help in planning routes to avoid traffic or to make use of services such as a ferry.

The title text tells us that Cueball and his brother attempted to drive around the lake since they could not take the ferry and had an unfortunate run-in with the Straw Man.

Though no specific game or movie is referenced, steps 75 to 81 of the directions read like the plot of a horror film or role playing game. A straw man is another term for scarecrow, a common antagonist in both. Step 80 reads exactly like an old {{w|Interactive fiction|text adventure}} game's description of an area.

There are additional small jokes in the distance column of the directions:
*No distance is travelled in step 77, so Google instead tells you to be careful when talking to Charlie
*Step 75 tells you to travel 1172 feet up, a direction that Google Maps doesn't normally take into account.
*{{w|Pi}} is a ratio used in calculations involving circles, not measured distances
*Google doesn't know how far it is from the Spectral Wolf to your destination, so it gives you question marks as the distance

==Transcript==
:My road trip with my brother ran into trouble around page three of the Google Maps printout

:[Google Maps printout.]
::← 70. Slight '''left''' at '''RT-22''' - go 6.8 mi
::→ 71. Turn '''right''' to stay on '''RT-22''' - go 2.6 mi
::← 72. Turn '''left''' at '''Lake Shore Rd''' - go 312 ft
::→ 73. Turn '''right''' at '''Dock St''' - go 427 ft
::[An icon of water] 74. Take the '''ferry''' across the '''lake.''' - go 2.8 mi

:[A car is driving in the dark.]
:Brother: Okay, now take Dock St toward the ferry.
:Cueball: We're supposed to take a ferry? It's past midnight, and these woods are creepy.
:Brother: Google Maps wouldn't steer us wrong.

:[Cueball and his brother stand outside the car. The ferry has a sign on it reading CLOSED.]

:[Cueball is standing next to his brother, who is holding a Google Maps printout.]

:[Cueball motions towards his brother.]
:Cueball: Let me see those directions.

:[Google Maps printout.]
::[An icon of water] 74. Take the '''ferry''' across the '''lake.''' - go 2.8 mi
::↗ 75. Climb the '''HILL''' toward '''Hangman's Ridge,''' avoiding any '''mountain lions.''' - up 1,172 ft
::↷ 76. When you reach an '''old barn,''' go around back, knock on the '''second door,''' and ask for '''Charlie.''' - go 52 ft
::[An icon of a van] 77. Tell '''Charlie''' the '''Dancing Stones''' are '''restless'''. He will give you his '''van'''. - Careful
::[An icon of a straw man] 78. Take '''Charlie's van''' down '''Old Mine Road'''. Do not wake the '''Straw Man'''. - go π mi
::← 79. Turn left on '''Comstock'''. When you feel the '''blood''' chill in your '''veins''', stop the van and '''get out.''' - go 3.2 mi
::↓ 80. Stand very still. Exits are '''north''', '''south''', and '''east''', but are block by a '''Spectral Wolf'''. - go 0 ft
::[An icon of a menacing face] 81. The '''Spectral Wolf''' fears only '''FIRE'''. The '''Google Maps Team''' can no longer help you, but if you master the '''wolf''', he will guide you. '''Godspeed.''' - go ?? mi

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

Talk:339: Classic

2014-03-12T19:21:26Z

LogicalOxymoron:

Looks very much like a turntable and speaker to me. {{unsigned ip|173.245.54.45}}

My guess is it's a sarcastic reference to how many songs heavily borrow from Pachelbel's canon in D. In Stairway the clean arpeggiated beginning of the song and the solo around the referenced part of the song, IIRC, as well as Procul Harem's Whiter Shade of Pale are variations on the work, in different keys. The listener knows this but doesn't know Pachelbel's long dead. Just my 2c. If I was certain I'd change the page. If you're convinced please do so. Steve T [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.188|108.162.219.188]] 11:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The real question is if Randall is a defener(TM) or not. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.219|108.162.231.219]] 15:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks a little like a turntable and speaker to me; if that's what it is supposed to be, I hope that Randall would have made it look more like that. But my only other idea is an iPhone/iPod in a dock, and that argument has a hard time convincing even me. I also think that the title text is a straightforward reference to the talented Lim Jeong-hyun, whom Randall is saying should be supported and encouraged towards greatness. StephenP [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 21:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think having only one explanation is necessary. The comic really could be interpreted either way; there is no "right" way to interpret it. As long as it's clear that they're two different intepretations, it's better to have all the detail and let the reader decide. Can we remove the incomplete? [[User:LogicalOxymoron|LogicalOxymoron]] ([[User talk:LogicalOxymoron|talk]]) 19:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:198: Perspective

2014-03-12T19:18:02Z

LogicalOxymoron: Removed incomplete and added reference to literal perspective

Can you explain more clearly what's wrong with the explanation? Of course Richard Stallman isn't related to Cirque de Soleil, that's the joke. [[User:LogicalOxymoron|LogicalOxymoron]] ([[User talk:LogicalOxymoron|talk]]) 05:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The cartoon is drawn using perspective, which is not normal for xkcd. For me, that is the main joke. [[User:Jim E|Jim E]] ([[User talk:Jim E|talk]]) 15:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

In the comic as well as in the explanation, it is written "Cirque dE Soleil" when it should be "Cirque dU Soleil". [[Special:Contributions/173.245.49.64|173.245.49.64]] 16:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Fixed that. I'm removing the incomplete tag, because I don't see anything else wrong with the explanation. [[User:LogicalOxymoron|LogicalOxymoron]] ([[User talk:LogicalOxymoron|talk]]) 19:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

198: Perspective

2014-03-12T19:16:44Z

LogicalOxymoron: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 198
| date = December 18, 2006
| title = Perspective
| image = perspective.png
| titletext = I wonder what I was dreaming to prompt that. I hope it wasn't the Richard Stallman Cirque de Soleil thing again.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Firefox}} is a popular browser and in 2006 it was the second most commonly used browser. Its more fervent supporters sometimes wrote as if there was a moral imperative to use Firefox rather than Internet Explorer.

[[Cueball]], presumably representing [[Randall]], wakes up with a reasonable perspective on the relative unimportance of an internet browser within the world at large, but quickly loses that perspective as his enthusiasm for nerdy things like Firefox gets the better of him. The humor stems from the irony that Cueball is relieved to trade a richer perspective for a simpler, browser-oriented world view.

The title text references {{w|Richard Matthew Stallman|Richard Stallman}}, an American software freedom activist and computer programmer, and {{w|Cirque du Soleil}}, an entertainment company specializing in bit-top circus performances. The two have no connection with one another. This is one example of an odd combination of topics that would only (and commonly) be connected in dreams.

Alternately, the dream may be a reference to Stallman's forceful defense of software freedom, which could be seen as "over-the-top" or circus like.

Another possible joke is that the comic, unlike most other xkcd comics, is drawn with {{w|Perspective (graphical)|perspective}} as well as being about a more metaphorical perspective.

==Transcript==
:Sometimes, when I first wake up, I am caught in the horrible grip of perspective.
:[Cueball sitting up in bed.]
:Cueball: It may be a jewel of open source, but Firefox is '''just a browser.''' It shows '''webpages.''' What the hell is '''wrong''' with us?
:Fortunately, this subsides quickly.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Richard Stallman]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]

259: Clichéd Exchanges

2014-03-12T19:13:11Z

LogicalOxymoron: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 259
| date = May 9, 2007
| title = Clichéd Exchanges
| image = cliched exchanges.png
| titletext = It's like they say, you gotta fight fire with clichés.
}}

==Explanation==
Another entry into the [[My Hobby]] series.

"{{w|O RLY?}}" is an Internet meme typically used to express sarcastic agreement with or feigned surprise at a statement. The typical response to "O RLY" is usually "YA RLY", "NO WAI" or "SRSLY?" These exchanges are SMS abbreviations for "Oh really?", "Yeah really", "No way!", and "Seriously?" respectively.

However, [[Cueball]]'s response avoids this typical exchange, instead replying with another cliché, the double entendre. A double entendre is a phrase which has two intended meanings: one innocent, the other lewd. The comedy comes from the ambiguous meaning.

A classic example of a double entendre: "If I told you you had a beautiful body, would you hold it against me?" The innocent meaning of this phrase is "If I complimented you on your looks, would you be off-put by my forward behavior?" The lewd meaning of the phrase is "You look incredibly sexy, and I would like to make out/have sex with you," referring to the literal holding of bodies against each other.

Another classic double entendre is to respond to a statement containing a word ending with '-er', and turn it into a sex reference. The setup is as follows:

: '''Alan:''' ''"Do you want to come over to my house? My wife and I are playing poker."''
: '''Bob:''' ''"Poker? I hardly KNOW her!"''

Such a double entendre makes no sense in the context of an O RLY exchange. In the case of the comic, the non-sequitur will likely baffle the person on the left and derail the conversation, to the amusement of the person on the right. The reason [[Randall]] makes this a hobby is because it bores him when people fall back on clichés for comedy, and he seeks inventive ways to humor himself in these situations.

The title text takes the real cliché "fight fire with fire," and combines it with the more literal "fight clichés with clichés." The resulting statement follows a very similar principle to the situation in the comic proper.

==Transcript==
:My Hobby:
:Derailing clichéd exchanges by using the wrong replies

:Friend: O RLY?
:Cueball: O RLY? I 'ardly know 'er!

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:My Hobby]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

248: Hypotheticals

2014-03-12T05:41:42Z

LogicalOxymoron: /* Explanation */ de-capitalized "Ice Cream"

{{comic
| number = 248
| date = April 13, 2007
| title = Hypotheticals
| image = hypotheticals.png
| titletext = What if someone broke out of a hypothetical situation in your room right now?
}}

==Explanation==
{{Incomplete|Although it has already been marked as complete earlier today I have marked it incomplete again - As is now clear in the title text explanation, there seems to be two ways of understanding the title text...? Maybe it is due to my lack of English skills, but I think the last (my) version is the one intended. If I'm in a hypothetical situation created by my self - I would not also be in my room - whereas another one trapped in my situation might be able to escape!}}
The comic is, in short, a new take on the common TV trope in which characters in a thought bubble will sometimes look out of the bubble and talk directly to the person thinking it, another person nearby, or, occasionally, the viewer. In this comic, however, it features [[Cueball]] and [[Beret Guy]] in a conversation together, in which Beret Guy creates a hypothetical situation by imagining he had ice cream. This then, to Cueball's dismay, creates a hypothetical situation in which Beret Guy has ice cream, which he promptly begins to eat. Cueball then creates a hypothetical situation in which his hypothetical self has a knife to 'cut' out of the thought. He then gives this knife to Cueball, who supposedly will use it to cut out of his hypothetical situation.

The title text puts the comic into context, noting the unlikely possibility — and your most likely surprised reaction — if a person in a hypothetical situation you'd involuntarily created managed to break out of it and suddenly appear in your room. OR it could be understood the other way, that a person you have forced into your hypothetical situation breaks free from it, and disappears from you room. Also, it points out that the situation is in fact a hypothetical situation itself, creating some irony.

==Transcript==
:Beret Guy: What if I had some ice cream? Wouldn't that be awesome?
:Cueball: No, stop--
:Beret Guy (thinking):
::Cueball: Great, you've trapped us in a a hypothetical situation!
::Beret Guy (holding ice cream): Mm, ice cream.
::Cueball: Maybe if I had a knife I could cut our way free...
::Cueball (thinking):
:::Beret Guy: Mmm, ice cream!
:::Cueball (reaching back into previous thought bubble): Here, take this one.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Beret Guy]]
[[Category:Recursion]]

Talk:248: Hypotheticals

2014-03-12T05:38:56Z

LogicalOxymoron:

The reason for marking this page incomplete is itself incomprehensible, while the explanation itself seems perfectly fine. Can we just mark this as complete? [[User:ImVeryAngryItsNotButter|ImVeryAngryItsNotButter]] ([[User talk:ImVeryAngryItsNotButter|talk]]) 03:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
:My former comment was "Layout, language, that TV topes are missing, more...". Please do not remove that tag until it's solved. And right now we have some more issues here.--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 23:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you elaborate? I don't see anything wrong with the explanation... [[User:LogicalOxymoron|LogicalOxymoron]] ([[User talk:LogicalOxymoron|talk]]) 05:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the interpretation that someone appears in your room is the one intended. The assumption is that the reader is alone, at their computer and Randall is asking them to consider the possibility of somebody breaking out of a hypothetical situation next to them. However I think the iterative nature of a hypothetical situation about hypothetical situations is the important part of the title text. [[User:Seanybabes|Seanybabes]] ([[User talk:Seanybabes|talk]]) 06:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. The title-text is attempting to cause a hypothetical person to *actually* break into your room by making you imagine somebody breaking out of the hypothetical situation you are imagining about somebody breaking out of a hypothetical situation. [[User:LogicalOxymoron|LogicalOxymoron]] ([[User talk:LogicalOxymoron|talk]]) 05:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:198: Perspective

2014-03-12T05:28:24Z

LogicalOxymoron: Created page with "Can you explain more clearly what's wrong with the explanation? Of course Richard Stallman isn't related to Cirque de Soleil, that's the joke. ~~~~"

1222: Pastime

2014-03-12T05:15:30Z

LogicalOxymoron: /* Explanation */ Added TV Tropes warning for good manners

{{comic
| number = 1222
| date = June 7, 2013
| title = Pastime
| image = pastime.png
| titletext = Good thing we're too smart to spend all day being uselessly frustrated with ourselves. I mean, that'd be a hell of a waste, right?
}}

==Explanation==
When asked by [[Megan]] what he's been up to, [[Cueball]] responds with the (warning: TV Tropes link) [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SuspiciouslySpecificDenial suspiciously specific denial], "Definitely not spending every day consumed with worry over stupid things I never talk to anyone about.", which suggests that that is exactly what he's been spending every day doing, but he is hiding it from her (and everyone else). Megan's response "Oh, yeah, me neither" suggests she too is worrying over stupid things but isn't admitting it.

Instead of discussing their mutual worry and possibly making each other feel better, they instead continue to "not talk to anyone about it" and stand in awkward silence. The title text continues the "irony" suggesting it's good that they're too smart to spend all day being uselessly frustrated with themselves, when that is apparently exactly what they are doing.

==Transcript==
:[Megan and Cueball are chatting. She has hair.]
:Megan: What've you been up to?

:Cueball: Definitely not spending every day consumed with worry over stupid things I never talk to anyone about.

:Megan: Oh, yeah, me neither.
:Cueball: That's good.
:Megan: Yeah.

:[The final panel is silent.]

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

Talk:419: Forks and Spoons

2014-03-11T20:18:52Z

LogicalOxymoron:

What could the title text be about? [[Special:Contributions/208.120.153.144|208.120.153.144]] 05:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Rachael Ray and Emeril are two celebrity cooks in America; he has a TV show (or did at the time this was drawn); she has her own magazine. Spielberg is presumably the movie guy. {{unsigned ip|24.61.10.104}}

Speilberg is definitely "the movie guy" and most relevantly the director of ''Jurassic Park'', with which Randall has a well-documented obsession ([[87:_Velociraptors]], [[135:_Substitute]], and many others.) The overall plot -- disaster brought about by cocky scientists "toying with powerful forces" -- is the same as this comic's. Rachel Ray and Emeril would presumably be the stand-ins for ''JP'''s Drs. Sattler and Grant. --[[Special:Contributions/66.114.70.139|66.114.70.139]] 17:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
It looks more like a spoork (stage 2 spork) in the last panel[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.215|141.101.99.215]] 09:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

could it be a knife at the last panel? [[User:Imanton1|Imanton1]] ([[User talk:Imanton1|talk]]) 03:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It does look like a knife; one edge is completely straight and one is rounded. [[User:LogicalOxymoron|LogicalOxymoron]] ([[User talk:LogicalOxymoron|talk]]) 20:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

419: Forks and Spoons

2014-03-11T20:17:48Z

LogicalOxymoron: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 419
| date = May 5, 2008
| title = Forks and Spoons
| image = forks and spoons.png
| titletext = Their biggest mistake was bringing Rachael Ray and Emeril to tour the lab and sign off on the project. That's when Spielberg caught wind of it.
}}

==Explanation==
The comic shows scientists testing a new technology: the ability to cross a spork (a mix between a spoon and a fork) with either a spoon or a fork to make a new implement that was three quarters fork and one quarter spoon or visa-versa. By blending these new fork-spork hybrids and their results together, the scientists could create any mix between a spoon and a fork. In the second panel, the amounts of spoon and fork are shown with fractions, the number on the left representing the amount of fork and the right the amount of spoon. The "fork-spoon spectrum" in between the third and fourth panels shows the complete spectrum of fork to spoon with some of the intermediate steps labeled, the numbers representing how much fork each contains. (so in the middle is a even 1/2-1/2; a spork, in between the spork and the spoon a 1/4-3/4 mix, in between that and the spoon a 1/8-7/8 mix, and so on)
The comic begins like standard sci-fi fare, where amoral scientists request funding from mysterious benefactors. The dialogue of "You're toying with powerful forces here" and "We know what we're doing" is a (warning: TV Tropes links) [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheseAreThingsManWasNotMeantToKnow classic trope], foreshadowing that things will soon [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoneHorriblyWrong go horribly wrong]. It inevitably leads to the humorous incongruity of a sentient {{w|spork}} on a murderous rampage.

{{w|Rachael Ray}} and {{w|Emeril}} are celebrity chefs, and {{w|Steven Spielberg}} is a famous movie director. The joke seems to be that if the laboratory hadn't hired the two renowned chefs, Spielberg wouldn't have made a movie in which Rachael's and Emeril's characters are killed off horribly. The plot in the comic is very similar to the story in Spielberg's {{W|Jurassic_Park_(film)|Jurrasic Park}}.

==Transcript==
:Megan: A spoon crossed with a fork is a spork.
:Off-panel Megan's voice: Our lab has successfully crossed a spork with a spoon. [Diagram showing the fractions of fork and spoon in each item.]
:[Chart showing possible combinations of spoons a forks.]
:Megan, facing audience: With your funding, we could create hybrids in proportions corresponding to ''any binary fraction''.
:[Fork-Spoon Spectrum.]
:Audience member: You're toying with powerful forces here.
:Megan: We know what we're doing.
:Two weeks later:
:[Picture of a destroyed lab with two dead bodies, blood everywhere and a spoon-fork hybrid hopping away.]
:''Hop hop hop.''

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

419: Forks and Spoons

2014-03-11T20:09:46Z

LogicalOxymoron: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 419
| date = May 5, 2008
| title = Forks and Spoons
| image = forks and spoons.png
| titletext = Their biggest mistake was bringing Rachael Ray and Emeril to tour the lab and sign off on the project. That's when Spielberg caught wind of it.
}}

==Explanation==
{{Incomplete|What does the fractions on each side of the spoon and fork mean? And what does the ruler - the binary fraction ruler - mean? The incomplete mark was removed a moment ago - but if you do not know anything about binary fractions or breeding programs, then this explanation is not complete. And as was stated previously - this is a very short explanation.}}
The comic shows scientists testing a new technology: the ability to cross a spork (a mix between a spoon and a fork) with either a spoon or a fork to make a new implement that was three quarters fork and one quarter spoon or visa-versa. By blending these new fork-spork hybrids and their results together, the scientists could create any mix between a spoon and a fork. In the second panel, the amounts of spoon and fork are shown with fractions, the number on the left representing the amount of fork and the right the amount of spoon. The "fork-spoon spectrum" in between the third and fourth panels shows the complete spectrum of fork to spoon with some of the intermediate steps labeled, the numbers representing how much fork each contains. (so in the middle is a even 1/2-1/2; a spork, in between the spork and the spoon a 1/4-3/4 mix, in between that and the spoon a 1/8-7/8 mix, and so on)
The comic begins like standard sci-fi fare, where amoral scientists request funding from mysterious benefactors. The dialogue of "You're toying with powerful forces here" and "We know what we're doing" is a (warning: TV Tropes links) [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheseAreThingsManWasNotMeantToKnow classic trope], foreshadowing that things will soon [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoneHorriblyWrong go horribly wrong]. It inevitably leads to the humorous incongruity of a sentient {{w|spork}} on a murderous rampage.

{{w|Rachael Ray}} and {{w|Emeril}} are celebrity chefs, and {{w|Steven Spielberg}} is a famous movie director. The joke seems to be that if the laboratory hadn't hired the two renowned chefs, Spielberg wouldn't have made a movie in which Rachael's and Emeril's characters are killed off horribly. The plot in the comic is very similar to the story in Spielberg's {{W|Jurassic_Park_(film)|Jurrasic Park}}.

==Transcript==
:Megan: A spoon crossed with a fork is a spork.
:Off-panel Megan's voice: Our lab has successfully crossed a spork with a spoon. [Diagram showing the fractions of fork and spoon in each item.]
:[Chart showing possible combinations of spoons a forks.]
:Megan, facing audience: With your funding, we could create hybrids in proportions corresponding to ''any binary fraction''.
:[Fork-Spoon Spectrum.]
:Audience member: You're toying with powerful forces here.
:Megan: We know what we're doing.
:Two weeks later:
:[Picture of a destroyed lab with two dead bodies, blood everywhere and a spoon-fork hybrid hopping away.]
:''Hop hop hop.''

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