explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

50: Penny Arcade

2015-09-11T23:31:33Z

199.27.128.117: /* Trivia */

{{comic
| number = 50
| date = January 17, 2006
| title = Penny Arcade
| image = penny_arcade.jpg
| titletext = Of course, Penny Arcade has already mocked themselves for this. They don't care.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Penny Arcade}} is a popular web comic that focuses on the video game culture. The character above is Tycho, one of the two main characters of Penny Arcade. Penny Arcade has a reputation for making obscure references to video games without explaining, expecting the reader to be as well-versed in gaming culture as they are. Hence, the attitude shown in this comic.

'Seiken Densetsu' as mentioned in the strip probably refers to {{w|Seiken Densetsu 3}}, an {{w|Action role-playing game}} (Action-RPG) released for the {{w|Super Nintendo Entertainment System}} (SNES) in Japan in 1995. The game was never released in the North American region or officially translated to English. However, many North American game players may recognize Seiken Densetsu 2, the predecessor in the series, by its North American name: {{w|Secret of Mana}}.

Thus the sentence Tycho says can be translated to:
 "You know what? If you've never played the 1995 Super Nintendo Entertainment System role-playing game 'Seiken Densetsu 3' don't even bother reading today's strip. We don't need your kind here."

As the title text admits, they know they behave like this, and have this reputation, but they don't care, and even refer to it in their own comic.

==Transcript==
:[A color drawing of Thyco, a man with wild brown hair in blue and cyan colored shirt. He has a big open mouth and holds one arm up while the other may be in his (unseen) pocket. He has two speech bubbles,]
:Tycho: You know what? If you've never played the 1995 SNES RPG 'Seiken Densetsu' don't even bother reading today's strip.
:Tycho: We don't need your kind here.

==Trivia==
*This was the 47th comic originally posted to [[LiveJournal]].
**The previous was [[49: Want]].
**The next was [[54: Science]].
*This comic kept it's original title: "Penny Arcade"
**It was the first comic to do so since [[46: Secrets]] four comics back.
**And apart from that comic, it was the first title to do so as well as to not include the word "Drawing" since [[31: Barrel - Part 5]] ten comics further back.
**Apart from the the [[:Category:First day on LiveJournal|thirteen first comics]] posted to LiveJournal, there were only three other comics without the word "Drawing" in the title before these last six.
*It is the first of the last six comics on LiveJournal which all had a title without the word "Drawing" in it.
**Five of these had exactly the same title on both sites.
**Only 11 comics have the same title on both sites.
**Apart from the [[:Category:First day on LiveJournal|thirteen first comics]] posted to LiveJournal, there were only three other comics without the word "Drawing" in the title before these last six
*Original [[Randall]] quote: "I'm actually pretty fond of Penny Arcade, when I get the jokes."
*This comic was one of the last 11 comics posted on LiveJournal.
**These 11 comics were [[:Category:Posted on LiveJournal after xkcd|posted both on LiveJournal and xkcd]] after the [[xkcd]] site opened on the 1st of January 2006.
**This comic was posted on the same day on both sites.
**They were not all posted on the same day though.
*During the start-up of xkcd several of the comics were released on days that deviated from the normal Monday, Wednesday, Friday scheme.
**This one was thus '''released on a Tuesday'''.
**It was the last of a series of three where the release day was shifted to one day later.
**This one was though posted quite early, 1:53 am, so it could almost have become a normal Monday comic.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics posted on livejournal| 47]]
[[Category:Posted on LiveJournal after xkcd]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Video games]]
[[Category:Fiction]]

Talk:1474: Screws

2015-01-16T16:42:37Z

199.27.128.117:

Screws made of uranium were used to hold the tamper plug of the fissile core of the Trinity nuclear device together. I think that's what "Uranium Screw" refers to, and why the screw is radiating: it is radioactive. [[User:Arnold Chiari II|Arnold Chiari II]] ([[User talk:Arnold Chiari II|talk]]) 15:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This page is now on the first page of google for "uranium screw". [[User:Mrmakeit|Mrmakeit]] ([[User talk:Mrmakeit|talk]]) 05:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that patent is the right one, it seems to describe a uranium decontamination procedure, not a screw made of uranium like in the comic. [[User:LeoDeQuirm|LeoDeQuirm]] ([[User talk:LeoDeQuirm|talk]]) 05:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the "uranium screw" is just a reference to the fact that the head of the screw appears to have split in two ("fissioned"), as opposed to a normal flat head screw that still has the edges connected. [[User:Sam887|Sam887]] ([[User talk:Sam887|talk]]) 05:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a shot in the dark here, but a company that sells uranium ore and radiological equipment happens to also sell screws for one of its Geigers that look just like the screw cross-section in the comic. [http://www.uraniumrocks.com/products/replacement-circuit-board-mount-screws-for-victoreen-cdv-700-short] [[User:Conqu2|Conqu2]] ([[User talk:Conqu2|talk]]) 06:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering if the "uranium screw" was referring to the Demon Core -- two hemispherical domes that Louis Slotin was holding apart with a screwdriver. Then I remembered the Demon Core was plutonium, not uranium. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.119|173.245.48.119]] 06:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There are ferrous alloys containing (depleted, of course ;-) uranium for "increase[d] toughness and strength". [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrouranium] [[User:Knob creek|Knob creek]] ([[User talk:Knob creek|talk]]) 09:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the be was going for apple's pentalobe screw with the 5 pointed star {{unsigned ip|108.162.238.162}}

I don't think the uranium screws are named for their use in stuff to do with uranium, as I have both seen and used screws that look like that before. It's basically a flat head screw whose divot extends all the way across the face of the screw. I agree more with the previous commentor who notes that the screw looks like it has fissioned. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.182|108.162.237.182]] 06:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

An actual rivet is neither a screw nor a bolt; it's a fastener that is placed and then has one end plastically deformed -- traditionally by a rivet gun, but more often in smaller sizes by some sort of press or clamp. (Pop rivets are hollow, and are deformed by pulling a cone-sheaped wedge into the open end of the hollow core.) There's no way to remove one except to destroy it (drill it out or cut one end off). The item pictured could also be the head of a carriage bolt, but that's no help if you can't get at the other end of the bolt. Randall is slightly pessemistic, though: there *are* some "security" screws and bolts that use a slightly-elliptical domed head that's hard to tell from a rivet; they can be unscrewed, but only with a matching slightly-elliptical socket. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.70|199.27.133.70]] 06:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

All of which can be removed by a sonic screwdriver. Totally a real thing. {{unsigned ip|173.245.50.86}}

Could the "cursed -1" be a Nethack reference? I don't know if Dungeons and Dragons has the "blessed/uncursed/cursed" status, but in Nethack cursed items with negative enchantments (denoted "cursed -whatever") are a pretty common occurrence. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.25|199.27.133.25]] 07:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In Nethack, Cursed objects cannot be removed. Seems appropriate. At first I thought it was a pozidrive screw head. Posts on the fission screw head: where have you seen screws whose divot does *not* extend across the head? {{unsigned ip|199.27.128.230}}

[[User:Kreuiter|Kreuiter]] ([[User talk:Kreuiter|talk]]) 08:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)from wikipedia: Louis Philippe Joseph d'Orléans (13 April 1747 – 6 November 1793) commonly known as Philippe, was a member of a cadet branch of the House of Bourbon, the ruling dynasty of France. He actively supported the French Revolution and adopted the name Philippe Égalité, but was nonetheless guillotined during the Reign of Terror

I don't think it is specifically a reference to Nethack as a lot of ol games (both video and tabletop) use the mechanic of non removable cursed objects. It is common enough in my opinion that we could argue about until we are blue in the face and get nowhere. {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.193}}

uranium screw may be a reference to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin#Criticality_accident Louis Slotin], who died when he was using a screw driver to seperate two halves of a plutonium sphere as part of a science demonstration, and triggered a large burst of radiation when his hand slipped.
--[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.59|108.162.216.59]] 08:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking it might benefit the article to include a place in the wikitable for the correct term for each drive socket. Of course their are not correct terms for each of them. Not to mention rivets and Phillip's heads don't even have drive sockets. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.189|173.245.56.189]] 09:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)BLuDgeons

If you suggest cursed-1 is because if misuse - I in first place thought of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_screw_drives#Pozidriv] as the cursed one - because Philipps and Pozidriv are slightly incompatible and causes damage. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.18|108.162.254.18]] 09:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

:+1, the cursed one looked to me like pozidriv at the first glance, and it's really cursed as interchanging them leads to damage ... And the most fun is when you get some Chinese crap that looks like pozidriv but it doesn't fit so you use philips which doesn't quite fit too but at least it can be inserted and you end up damaging both the driver and the screw :-/ --kavol, [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.96|108.162.254.96]] 10:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it really true that Phillips head are 'commonly used in construction'? At least in Europe they were replaced by Pozidriv in the 1990's and these days by Torx. {{unsigned|Popup}}

Maybe this depends on the quality of the product? If i look around, i find lots of products held together by phillips screws and only a few (usually more hi-tech and expensive) one with torx screws. [[User:Knob creek|Knob creek]] ([[User talk:Knob creek|talk]]) 09:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

:er, what do you call "a product"? - If "construction" is mentioned, I imagine things like wooden skeleton of a roof, fastening of windows/doors, self-tapping screws, wallplug screws ... and it's almost 100% pozidriv and torx here in central Europe. ("Almost" accounts for imports by non-european companies.) If I imagine metal constructions, from racks to bridges, hex and inbus (= hex slot) prevail. --kavol, [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.96|108.162.254.96]] 10:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

:: Granted I'm not in the construction trade, and I'm in UK rather than continental Europe, but I have never seen Torx used in construction. In my experience, the majority is Pozi, and the rest is Phillips. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 13:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a reference to http://xkcd.com/927/ - Standards? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.79.61|141.101.79.61]]

Phillips screws have a larger number for larger size, not smaller.

I'm surprised Randall didn't include square/Robertson screws/drivers. Just as bad as hex-recess, but when you actually USE them they are great! Combination Robertson-Phillips are good too but rarer. And do NOT get me started about the untold types of tamper-proof designs... --BigMal // [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.209|108.162.216.209]] 13:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
:The most awkward, I find, are star-shaped (5/6-pointer) screws with a central 'post' that requires a hole-ended screwdriver-bit of the appropriate shape to be used (may also aid in positive positioning of the tool, but not much more than normally so SFAICT it's just there to be awkward without the right tools by manufacturer-mandated professionals). Luckily, I've ''got'' screwdriver-heads for just about every conceivable 'uncursed' screwhead (48 different types and sizes in one handy kit alone, not even counting socket-heads and 'cursed' screw drilling-outers). Especially good for laptop repair, to get around deliberately proprietry systems with small and (deliberately) akward screws; as opposed to bicycle repair, which I'm sure is usually for the stated practical torque reasons. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.247|141.101.98.247]] 13:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"cursed -1 <something>" is definitely a standard NetHack item description format, but it applies to D&D too. In general, "cursed" means you cannot remove the item, and the number is describing the item's effectiveness compared to a standard (+0) version of the item. In this case, both can be appropriate: "cursed" because -as noted- you cannot remove it in the normal way. "-1" probably comes from being unable to tighten the screw far enough to fully satisfy its purpose: maybe the joint is slightly loose, or the head of the screw is left slightly protruding, so that it easily catches on other things.
[[Special:Contributions/141.101.80.80|141.101.80.80]] 13:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Rather than two (still) separate fissile hemispheres, that 'gap' is obviously a continuation of material around the back of a schematic cross-section of a whole sphere with a core currently missing. I think the fissile plug will be inserted/fired at the required juncture to fill this, from the side. Very like the device in the film The Fifth Protocol, for easy cinematic reference of the concept. (Noting that 'gun-type' nuclear devices tend to fire the 'enclosing' larger subcritical mass, spheroidal or cylindrical ''onto'' the smaller and fixed 'plug' to fill the gap between it and the surrounding neutron reflector jacket. For several very good reasons. Thus that sphere would be shoved onto the currently missing 'core', although it makes the reflector assembly and positioning a bit more complex as well, compared with a cylindrical sleeve.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.247|141.101.98.247]] 13:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Cursed -1 Phillips Head is much more likely to be a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_screw_drives#Pozidriv Pozidriv] head than a worn Philips head. The cursed -1 implication if used with a Philips driver is certainly deserved. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.106.101|141.101.106.101]] 14:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Uranium Screw... see http://www.google.com/patents/US20060088457

Uranium screws were used in the assembly of the Fat Man nuclear bomb. All parts of the tamper were made with natural uranium, including the screws and hinges:
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/11/10/fat-mans-uranium/
[[User:Rocbolt|Rocbolt]] ([[User talk:Rocbolt|talk]]) 15:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)rocbolt

[[User:Rocbolt]] has it right. It's not a metaphor or a joke. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22uranium%20screws%22%20%2dxkcd [[User:Pesthouse|Pesthouse]] ([[User talk:Pesthouse|talk]]) 15:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Did anyone notice that the "shortcut icon" of the page was changed together with this comic? Its sort of blurred: http://i.imgur.com/ArEbL5r.jpg?1 compared to the original image http://xkcd.com/s/919f27.ico

1474: Screws

2015-01-16T16:40:36Z

199.27.128.117: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1474
| date = January 16, 2015
| title = Screws
| image = screws.png
| titletext = If you encounter a hex bolt, but you only brought screwdrivers, you can try sandwiching the head of the bolt between two parallel screwdriver shafts, squeezing the screwdrivers together with a hand at either end, then twisting. It doesn't work and it's a great way to hurt yourself, but you can try it!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|May still needs expansion, possibly with origins of the various real screws?}}

The comic features various real or imagined types of screws, listed below.

{| class="wikitable"
! style="width: 25%"|Screw type
! Description
|-
| Phillips head
| {{w|List of screw drives#Phillips|Phillips screw drive}} and its corresponding screw head is one of the most recognizable types of screw heads that is commonly used in construction. This type of screw head was named after its inventor, a US businessman {{w|Henry F. Phillips}}. Neither the inventor nor his invention have any relationship to the Dutch electronics manufacturing company with similar, but not exactly the same name {{w|Philips}}.
|-
| Flat head
| {{w|List_of_screw_drives#Slot|Slot head screws}} are frequently erroneously referred to as flat heads (a flat head screw refers, in fact, to the shape of the screw head, regardless of the shape of the drive socket). The slot head is also commonly used in construction. The diagram shows the slot truncated, while typically the slot almost always runs across the entire head of the screw (as in the case of the "uranium screw" below).
|-
| Uh oh. Maybe it's on Amazon? (star-shaped screw)
| Manufacturers sometimes used screws that require special screwdrivers in order to remove them, in order to prevent the customer tampering with the product. The reference to Amazon is the speaker's suggestion to look on Amazon.com for the appropriate screwdriver. A number of star-shaped screw heads exist, notably the six-pointed {{w|Torx}}, and Apple's rounded {{w|Pentalobe screw|pentalobe screw}}, although there is no popular design that uses the 5-pointed star shape depicted in the comic. Torx screws are common in automotive applications — they are easier to screw in via electric screwdrivers — and on bicycles where a higher tightening torque is needed than hex screws can support. They are also commonly used on disk brake mounts.

|-
| Cursed -1 Phillips head
| The head of a screw can be stripped by overuse, tightening the screw too much, or other misuse. As the driving surfaces wear away, removing the screw becomes more and more difficult, usually damaging the screw more in the process.
The addition of "cursed" and "-1" in the titles is a reference to various fantasy games (E.g. Dungeons and Dragons), where magical items which have been damaged or are denoted as cursed or have a rating of a negative integer. This often makes the cursed equipment incredibly difficult to remove, as it will cling to the wielder: much like how the "cursed" Phillips Head screw becomes difficult to remove due to damage.
Additionally, Phillips bit sizes are numbered, with larger numbers denoting smaller bits. The most common sizes are #2, #1, and #0. There are no negative sizes; smaller bits than #0 are indicated by repeating zeroes, for example #00. The "-1" could refer to an imaginary size smaller than any real Phillips bit that would now fit in the stripped out head.

Or, it could just mean a {{w|List_of_screw_drives#Pozidriv|Pozidriv head}}.
|-
| Rivet
| A {{w|rivet}} is not a screw - it is a permanent fastener which is secured by deforming the body of the fastener. Rivets cannot be removed with a screwdriver, they must be "drilled out". Some bolts also have rounded rivet-style heads, though, with no means of gripping them.
|-
| Phillips head ruiner (hex screw)
| A reference to the fact that {{w|List_of_screw_drives#Hex_socket|hex socket}} screws can, in a pinch, be removed with a Phillips screwdriver, but will likely damage the driver in the process. Hex screws are common on bicycles, where they always come in the metric varieties. The same holds for hex screws which ship with Ikea furniture —who bundle a low-quality hex driver for those people who lack them. Imperial-sized hex screws do sometimes surface, to the dissatisfaction of anyone who owns a hex driver set. The smaller hex screws can enter the "-1" state when attempting to unscrew one that has been overtightened —hence the adoption of Torx screws in high-torque applications.

|-
| Uranium screw
| Uranium screws were [http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/11/10/fat-mans-uranium/ used] in the [http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio-page/769001/8/72 construction] of [http://www.scintillators.ru/booc/criticality/reports/ref_050.pdf nuclear weapons] during the twentieth century.
|-
| Phillip's head
| This is a literal (and rather morbid) interpretation of the misspelling "Phillip's head" when "Phillips head" is meant. Rather than refer to the screw type, this "screw" is actually a bloody bag containing the severed head of someone named Phillip. It could possibly be an allusion to one of the {{w|Decapitation|decapitations}} of the royal persons that took place several times in the human history, perhaps even more specifically to {{w|French Revolution|revolutionary France}} where {{w|Capital punishment|capital punishment}} by decapitation was made well-known due to introduction of {{w|Guillotine|guillotine}} and its active use against the former royalty. However, despite the {{w|Philip|name Phillip being used by several members of the upper echelon of French royalty}}, none of the {{w|List of people who were beheaded|famous people ever executed this way in France or anywhere else}} were called Phillip, although {{w|Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans|Philippe Égalité}}, the adopted name of Louis Philippe Joseph d'Orléans,''was'' guillotined. Intentionally or otherwise, this last punchline could be described as a "mind screw".
|-
|Hex bolt (title text)
|A {{w|List_of_screw_drives#Hex|hex bolt}} has six external sides, so it could in theory be held by squeezing two screwdriver shafts together with the bolt in between. The amount of force on the two screwdriver shafts needed to turn the hex bolt will probably exceed the strength of human hands and would most likely result in hurting your hands and not in turning the bolt.
|}

==Transcript==
:[Eight drawings of different types of heads each with a caption:]
:Phillips head
:Flat head
:Uh oh. Maybe it's on Amazon?
:Cursed –1 Phillips head
:Crap, it's a ''rivet''.
:Phillips-head ruiner
:Uranium screw (a real thing)
:Phillip's head

{{comic discussion}}

1474: Screws

2015-01-16T16:38:12Z

199.27.128.117: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1474
| date = January 16, 2015
| title = Screws
| image = screws.png
| titletext = If you encounter a hex bolt, but you only brought screwdrivers, you can try sandwiching the head of the bolt between two parallel screwdriver shafts, squeezing the screwdrivers together with a hand at either end, then twisting. It doesn't work and it's a great way to hurt yourself, but you can try it!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|May still needs expansion, possibly with origins of the various real screws?}}

The comic features various real or imagined types of screws, listed below.

{| class="wikitable"
! style="width: 25%"|Screw type
! Description
|-
| Phillips head
| {{w|List of screw drives#Phillips|Phillips screw drive}} and its corresponding screw head is one of the most recognizable types of screw heads that is commonly used in construction. This type of screw head was named after its inventor, a US businessman {{w|Henry F. Phillips}}. Neither the inventor nor his invention have any relationship to the Dutch electronics manufacturing company with similar, but not exactly the same name {{w|Philips}}.
|-
| Flat head
| {{w|List_of_screw_drives#Slot|Slot head screws}} are frequently erroneously referred to as flat heads (a flat head screw refers, in fact, to the shape of the screw head, regardless of the shape of the drive socket). The slot head is also commonly used in construction. The diagram shows the slot truncated, while typically the slot almost always runs across the entire head of the screw (as in fictional case of the "uranium screw" below).
|-
| Uh oh. Maybe it's on Amazon? (star-shaped screw)
| Manufacturers sometimes used screws that require special screwdrivers in order to remove them, in order to prevent the customer tampering with the product. The reference to Amazon is the speaker's suggestion to look on Amazon.com for the appropriate screwdriver. A number of star-shaped screw heads exist, notably the six-pointed {{w|Torx}}, and Apple's rounded {{w|Pentalobe screw|pentalobe screw}}, although there is no popular design that uses the 5-pointed star shape depicted in the comic. Torx screws are common in automotive applications — they are easier to screw in via electric screwdrivers — and on bicycles where a higher tightening torque is needed than hex screws can support. They are also commonly used on disk brake mounts.

|-
| Cursed -1 Phillips head
| The head of a screw can be stripped by overuse, tightening the screw too much, or other misuse. As the driving surfaces wear away, removing the screw becomes more and more difficult, usually damaging the screw more in the process.
The addition of "cursed" and "-1" in the titles is a reference to various fantasy games (E.g. Dungeons and Dragons), where magical items which have been damaged or are denoted as cursed or have a rating of a negative integer. This often makes the cursed equipment incredibly difficult to remove, as it will cling to the wielder: much like how the "cursed" Phillips Head screw becomes difficult to remove due to damage.
Additionally, Phillips bit sizes are numbered, with larger numbers denoting smaller bits. The most common sizes are #2, #1, and #0. There are no negative sizes; smaller bits than #0 are indicated by repeating zeroes, for example #00. The "-1" could refer to an imaginary size smaller than any real Phillips bit that would now fit in the stripped out head.

Or, it could just mean a {{w|List_of_screw_drives#Pozidriv|Pozidriv head}}.
|-
| Rivet
| A {{w|rivet}} is not a screw - it is a permanent fastener which is secured by deforming the body of the fastener. Rivets cannot be removed with a screwdriver, they must be "drilled out". Some bolts also have rounded rivet-style heads, though, with no means of gripping them.
|-
| Phillips head ruiner (hex screw)
| A reference to the fact that {{w|List_of_screw_drives#Hex_socket|hex socket}} screws can, in a pinch, be removed with a Phillips screwdriver, but will likely damage the driver in the process. Hex screws are common on bicycles, where they always come in the metric varieties. The same holds for hex screws which ship with Ikea furniture —who bundle a low-quality hex driver for those people who lack them. Imperial-sized hex screws do sometimes surface, to the dissatisfaction of anyone who owns a hex driver set. The smaller hex screws can enter the "-1" state when attempting to unscrew one that has been overtightened —hence the adoption of Torx screws in high-torque applications.

|-
| Uranium screw
| Uranium screws were [http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/11/10/fat-mans-uranium/ used] in the [http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio-page/769001/8/72 construction] of [http://www.scintillators.ru/booc/criticality/reports/ref_050.pdf nuclear weapons] during the twentieth century.
|-
| Phillip's head
| This is a literal (and rather morbid) interpretation of the misspelling "Phillip's head" when "Phillips head" is meant. Rather than refer to the screw type, this "screw" is actually a bloody bag containing the severed head of someone named Phillip. It could possibly be an allusion to one of the {{w|Decapitation|decapitations}} of the royal persons that took place several times in the human history, perhaps even more specifically to {{w|French Revolution|revolutionary France}} where {{w|Capital punishment|capital punishment}} by decapitation was made well-known due to introduction of {{w|Guillotine|guillotine}} and its active use against the former royalty. However, despite the {{w|Philip|name Phillip being used by several members of the upper echelon of French royalty}}, none of the {{w|List of people who were beheaded|famous people ever executed this way in France or anywhere else}} were called Phillip, although {{w|Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans|Philippe Égalité}}, the adopted name of Louis Philippe Joseph d'Orléans,''was'' guillotined. Intentionally or otherwise, this last punchline could be described as a "mind screw".
|-
|Hex bolt (title text)
|A {{w|List_of_screw_drives#Hex|hex bolt}} has six external sides, so it could in theory be held by squeezing two screwdriver shafts together with the bolt in between. The amount of force on the two screwdriver shafts needed to turn the hex bolt will probably exceed the strength of human hands and would most likely result in hurting your hands and not in turning the bolt.
|}

==Transcript==
:[Eight drawings of different types of heads each with a caption:]
:Phillips head
:Flat head
:Uh oh. Maybe it's on Amazon?
:Cursed –1 Phillips head
:Crap, it's a ''rivet''.
:Phillips-head ruiner
:Uranium screw (a real thing)
:Phillip's head

{{comic discussion}}

1474: Screws

2015-01-16T16:32:17Z

199.27.128.117: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1474
| date = January 16, 2015
| title = Screws
| image = screws.png
| titletext = If you encounter a hex bolt, but you only brought screwdrivers, you can try sandwiching the head of the bolt between two parallel screwdriver shafts, squeezing the screwdrivers together with a hand at either end, then twisting. It doesn't work and it's a great way to hurt yourself, but you can try it!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|May still needs expansion, possibly with origins of the various real screws?}}

The comic features various real or imagined types of screws, listed below.

{| class="wikitable"
! style="width: 25%"|Screw type
! Description
|-
| Phillips head
| {{w|List of screw drives#Phillips|Phillips screw drive}} and its corresponding screw head is one of the most recognizable types of screw heads that is commonly used in construction. This type of screw head was named after its inventor, a US businessman {{w|Henry F. Phillips}}. Neither the inventor nor his invention have any relationship to the Dutch electronics manufacturing company with similar, but not exactly the same name {{w|Philips}}.
|-
| Flat head
| {{w|List_of_screw_drives#Slot|Slot head screws}} are frequently erroneously referred to as flat heads (a flat head screw refers, in fact, to the shape of the screw head, regardless of the shape of the drive socket). The slot head is also commonly used in construction. The diagram shows the slot truncated, while typically the slot almost always runs across the entire head of the screw (as in fictional case of the "uranium screw" below).
|-
| Uh oh. Maybe it's on Amazon? (star-shaped screw)
| Manufacturers sometimes used screws that require special screwdrivers in order to remove them, in order to prevent the customer tampering with the product. The reference to Amazon is the speaker's suggestion to look on Amazon.com for the appropriate screwdriver. A number of star-shaped screw heads exist, notably the six-pointed {{w|Torx}}, and Apple's rounded {{w|Pentalobe screw|pentalobe screw}}, although there is no popular design that would use 5-pointed star as a shape, exactly are depicted in the comic. Torx screws are common in automotive applications —they are easier to screw in via electric screwdrivers— and on bicycles where a higher tightening torque is needed than hex screws can support. Disk brakes mounts are where they are now common.

|-
| Cursed -1 Phillips head
| The head of a screw can be stripped by overuse, tightening the screw too much, or other misuse. As the driving surfaces wear away, removing the screw becomes more and more difficult, usually damaging the screw more in the process.
The addition of "cursed" and "-1" in the titles is a reference to various fantasy games (E.g. Dungeons and Dragons), where magical items which have been damaged or are denoted as cursed or have a rating of a negative integer. This often makes the cursed equipment incredibly difficult to remove, as it will cling to the wielder: much like how the "cursed" Phillips Head screw becomes difficult to remove due to damage.
Additionally, Phillips bit sizes are numbered, with larger numbers denoting smaller bits. The most common sizes are #2, #1, and #0. There are no negative sizes; smaller bits than #0 are indicated by repeating zeroes, for example #00. The "-1" could refer to an imaginary size smaller than any real Phillips bit that would now fit in the stripped out head.

Or, it could just mean a Pozidriv head.
|-
| Rivet
| A {{w|rivet}} is not a screw - it is a permanent fastener which is secured by deforming the body of the fastener. Rivets cannot be removed with a screwdriver, they must be "drilled out". Some bolts also have rounded rivet-style heads, though, with no means of gripping them.
|-
| Phillips head ruiner (hex screw)
| A reference to the fact that {{w|List_of_screw_drives#Hex_socket|hex socket}} screws can, in a pinch, be removed with a Phillips screwdriver, but will likely damage the driver in the process. Hex screws are common on bicycles, where they always come in the metric varieties. The same holds for hex screws which ship with Ikea furniture —who bundle a low-quality hex driver for those people who lack them. Imperial-sized hex screws do sometimes surface, to the dissatisfaction of anyone who owns a hex driver set. The smaller hex screws can enter the "-1" state when attempting to unscrew one that has been overtightened —hence the adoption of Torx screws in high-torque applications.

|-
| Uranium screw
| Uranium screws were [http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/11/10/fat-mans-uranium/ used] in the [http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio-page/769001/8/72 construction] of [http://www.scintillators.ru/booc/criticality/reports/ref_050.pdf nuclear weapons] during the twentieth century.
|-
| Phillip's head
| This is a literal (and rather morbid) interpretation of the misspelling "Phillip's head" when "Phillips head" is meant. Rather than refer to the screw type, this "screw" is actually a bloody bag containing the severed head of someone named Phillip. It could possibly be an allusion to one of the {{w|Decapitation|decapitations}} of the royal persons that took place several times in the human history, perhaps even more specifically to {{w|French Revolution|revolutionary France}} where {{w|Capital punishment|capital punishment}} by decapitation was made well-known due to introduction of {{w|Guillotine|guillotine}} and its active use against the former royalty. However, despite the {{w|Philip|name Phillip being used by several members of the upper echelon of French royalty}}, none of the {{w|List of people who were beheaded|famous people ever executed this way in France or anywhere else}} were called Phillip, although {{w|Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans|Philippe Égalité}}, the adopted name of Louis Philippe Joseph d'Orléans,''was'' guillotined. Intentionally or otherwise, this last punchline could be described as a "mind screw".
|-
|Hex bolt (title text)
|A {{w|List_of_screw_drives#Hex|hex bolt}} has six external sides, so it could in theory be held by squeezing two screwdriver shafts together with the bolt in between. The amount of force on the two screwdriver shafts needed to turn the hex bolt will probably exceed the strength of human hands and would most likely result in hurting your hands and not in turning the bolt.
|}

==Transcript==
:[Eight drawings of different types of heads each with a caption:]
:Phillips head
:Flat head
:Uh oh. Maybe it's on Amazon?
:Cursed –1 Phillips head
:Crap, it's a ''rivet''.
:Phillips-head ruiner
:Uranium screw (a real thing)
:Phillip's head

{{comic discussion}}

1474: Screws

2015-01-16T16:31:31Z

199.27.128.117: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1474
| date = January 16, 2015
| title = Screws
| image = screws.png
| titletext = If you encounter a hex bolt, but you only brought screwdrivers, you can try sandwiching the head of the bolt between two parallel screwdriver shafts, squeezing the screwdrivers together with a hand at either end, then twisting. It doesn't work and it's a great way to hurt yourself, but you can try it!
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|May still needs expansion, possibly with origins of the various real screws?}}

The comic features various real or imagined types of screws, listed below.

{| class="wikitable"
! style="width: 25%"|Screw type
! Description
|-
| Phillips head
| {{w|List of screw drives#Phillips|Phillips screw drive}} and its corresponding screw head is one of the most recognizable types of screw heads that is commonly used in construction. This type of screw head was named after its inventor, a US businessman {{w|Henry F. Phillips}}. Neither the inventor nor his invention have any relationship to the Dutch electronics manufacturing company with similar, but not exactly the same name {{w|Philips}}.
|-
| Flat head
| {{w|List_of_screw_drives#Slot|Slot head screws}} are frequently erroneously referred to as flat heads (a flat head screw refers, in fact, to the shape of the screw head, regardless of the shape of the drive socket). The slot head is also commonly used in construction. The diagram shows the slot truncated, while typically the slot almost always runs across the entire head of the screw (as in fictional case of the "uranium screw" below).
|-
| Uh oh. Maybe it's on Amazon? (star-shaped screw)
| Manufacturers sometimes used screws that require special heads in order to remove them, in order to prevent the customer tampering with the product. The reference to Amazon is the speaker's suggestion to look on Amazon.com for the appropriate screwdriver. A number of star-shaped screw heads exist, notably the six-pointed {{w|Torx}}, and Apple's rounded {{w|Pentalobe screw|pentalobe screw}}, although there is no popular design that would use 5-pointed star as a shape, exactly are depicted in the comic. Torx screws are common in automotive applications —they are easier to screw in via electric screwdrivers— and on bicycles where a higher tightening torque is needed than hex screws can support. Disk brakes mounts are where they are now common.

|-
| Cursed -1 Phillips head
| The head of a screw can be stripped by overuse, tightening the screw too much, or other misuse. As the driving surfaces wear away, removing the screw becomes more and more difficult, usually damaging the screw more in the process.
The addition of "cursed" and "-1" in the titles is a reference to various fantasy games (E.g. Dungeons and Dragons), where magical items which have been damaged or are denoted as cursed or have a rating of a negative integer. This often makes the cursed equipment incredibly difficult to remove, as it will cling to the wielder: much like how the "cursed" Phillips Head screw becomes difficult to remove due to damage.
Additionally, Phillips bit sizes are numbered, with larger numbers denoting smaller bits. The most common sizes are #2, #1, and #0. There are no negative sizes; smaller bits than #0 are indicated by repeating zeroes, for example #00. The "-1" could refer to an imaginary size smaller than any real Phillips bit that would now fit in the stripped out head.

Or, it could just mean a Pozidriv head.
|-
| Rivet
| A {{w|rivet}} is not a screw - it is a permanent fastener which is secured by deforming the body of the fastener. Rivets cannot be removed with a screwdriver, they must be "drilled out". Some bolts also have rounded rivet-style heads, though, with no means of gripping them.
|-
| Phillips head ruiner (hex screw)
| A reference to the fact that {{w|List_of_screw_drives#Hex_socket|hex socket}} screws can, in a pinch, be removed with a Phillips screwdriver, but will likely damage the driver in the process. Hex screws are common on bicycles, where they always come in the metric varieties. The same holds for hex screws which ship with Ikea furniture —who bundle a low-quality hex driver for those people who lack them. Imperial-sized hex screws do sometimes surface, to the dissatisfaction of anyone who owns a hex driver set. The smaller hex screws can enter the "-1" state when attempting to unscrew one that has been overtightened —hence the adoption of Torx screws in high-torque applications.

|-
| Uranium screw
| Uranium screws were [http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/11/10/fat-mans-uranium/ used] in the [http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio-page/769001/8/72 construction] of [http://www.scintillators.ru/booc/criticality/reports/ref_050.pdf nuclear weapons] during the twentieth century.
|-
| Phillip's head
| This is a literal (and rather morbid) interpretation of the misspelling "Phillip's head" when "Phillips head" is meant. Rather than refer to the screw type, this "screw" is actually a bloody bag containing the severed head of someone named Phillip. It could possibly be an allusion to one of the {{w|Decapitation|decapitations}} of the royal persons that took place several times in the human history, perhaps even more specifically to {{w|French Revolution|revolutionary France}} where {{w|Capital punishment|capital punishment}} by decapitation was made well-known due to introduction of {{w|Guillotine|guillotine}} and its active use against the former royalty. However, despite the {{w|Philip|name Phillip being used by several members of the upper echelon of French royalty}}, none of the {{w|List of people who were beheaded|famous people ever executed this way in France or anywhere else}} were called Phillip, although {{w|Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans|Philippe Égalité}}, the adopted name of Louis Philippe Joseph d'Orléans,''was'' guillotined. Intentionally or otherwise, this last punchline could be described as a "mind screw".
|-
|Hex bolt (title text)
|A {{w|List_of_screw_drives#Hex|hex bolt}} has six external sides, so it could in theory be held by squeezing two screwdriver shafts together with the bolt in between. The amount of force on the two screwdriver shafts needed to turn the hex bolt will probably exceed the strength of human hands and would most likely result in hurting your hands and not in turning the bolt.
|}

==Transcript==
:[Eight drawings of different types of heads each with a caption:]
:Phillips head
:Flat head
:Uh oh. Maybe it's on Amazon?
:Cursed –1 Phillips head
:Crap, it's a ''rivet''.
:Phillips-head ruiner
:Uranium screw (a real thing)
:Phillip's head

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:1473: Location Sharing

2015-01-14T16:46:56Z

199.27.128.117:

It's a reference to the Uncertainty Principle, a property of quantum mechanics that states that position and momentum cannot be known at the same time.
[[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.98|199.27.133.98]] 05:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I may be thinking too much into this, but couldn't she also not want the website to know her mass? Momentum is Mass*Velocity, and Velocity can be derived from change in position [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.159|173.245.56.159]] 05:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:That was my understanding, too. Moreover, I don't see any humor in applying the uncertainity principle to macroscopic objects. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.57|108.162.254.57]] 08:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Angular momentum sensors - a.k.a. gyros, not accelerometers. {{unsigned ip|141.101.80.109}}

She does not want the website to calculate her mass and therefore her weight. It has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle {{unsigned|Saints22}}
:I disagree. Of course it is funny idea that she says nice try as if the website had interest in her weight. But since you cannot calculate mass from position and momentum your ideas makes no sense. You need the velocity and the momentum to calculate the mass. So even though they could have both position and momentum they would still not know her mass. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
::Unless, of course, the permission given by Megan to determine her location is persistent and lasts for at least two consecutive polls for location, which would enable the recipient to compute the velocity out of two locations and time between the polls. [[User:Nyq|Nyq]] ([[User talk:Nyq|talk]]) 13:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not not think that Megan allows the website to access her location. The website wants her to, that's why the button is highlighted and blinking. In the beat panel, Megan presumably denies. The website then asks for momentum and wants Megan to deny the request (by highlighting "Deny"), so that, according to the uncertainty principle, they can still get her location (which is what they wanted all along). However, Megan sees through this trick and acknowledges its cleverness with a "Nice try". --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.134|108.162.254.134]] 10:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:No I disagree. Of course the highlighted button is the one Megan pushes. And just because you do not know the momentum does not automatically give you the location. You just can't know both without a given uncertainty. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

What's with the persistent "females"? Would make sense in biology talk, but it's really weird when what you mean is "women"[[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.185|141.101.104.185]] 13:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:: I'd suggest that it is just about avoidance: some might take 'women' as having negative derogative connotations in this context, whereas females is unarguably accurate. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.204|173.245.54.204]] 13:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:::"Females" is shorter than "women and girls". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.201|108.162.221.201]] 14:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There's some confusion over the sensors. GPS is used to determine the device's position on Earth, but not its orientation. An accelerometer may be used to determine a phone's orientation in terms of flat/portrait/landscape, but not in which direction in terms of north/south. The magnetometer can measure magnetic forces, but isn't enough to determine north (because of inclination). To measure magnetic north, you need to combine data from accelerometer and magnetometer, which gets a working, but quite unsteady compass. These sensors (GPS, accelerometer, magnetometer) are available on most current smart phones. Better devices also include a gyroscope, which measures angular momentum, but no absolute angle towards the horizon and/or north. A gyroscope may be used to improve the stability of the accelerometer/magnetometer compass (but requires a good algorithm which I'm still looking for). Knowing this, the title text is disputable, because devices without gyro aren't actually able to provide a steady compass, while those with gyro are (although there are apps which don't use the gyro even when available, so they won't get a fast, steady compass anyway). --[[User:SlashMe|SlashMe]] ([[User talk:SlashMe|talk]]) 15:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the paragraph explaining mass and weight is too complicated and overly long, and the hypothesis that the app is trying to steal this information unrelated to the comic, or rather, wild speculative extrapolations of logic and meaning. Likewise, the sentences on how the accelerometer may be used to guess passwords seems to me to be unfounded in science. The uncertainty principle is the clear main theme of this comic. --[[User:Canned Soul|Canned Soul]] ([[User talk:Canned Soul|talk]]) 16:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Added one word to make it "An example is a weather app which would need your location in order to '''automatically''' find the correct forecast." It's often trivial to manually get forecasts (or other services, like "nearest branch of a shop that has your desired item in stock") for a current location, just so as long as /you/ know where you are... (I don't turn on my GPS unless I'm actually wanting to use it for something, and don't like websites knowing these things just because they ask for them in the background. Go away, Google Location Services... and why does it grey-out the "Don't share information" hotspot when I've ticked the "Don't ask me again" and only lets me continually refuse ''manually''!? Which I do on principle!!) I keep a variety of common home/away locations on permalink in my favourite weather forecast app and know I can easily add another at a moment's notice when I ''want'' to. (And, the beauty is, I don't even need to be there at the time, just perhaps ''planning'' to go!)

Plus, to the "I don't see any humor in applying the uncertainity principle to macroscopic objects." person, above, please pass by your local XKCD offices at the first opportunity in order to hand back your XKCD Membership Card. You're obviously not one of us! ;) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.191|141.101.98.191]] 16:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Per the explanation: "Randall suggests the poor accuracy of the compasses in mobile phones (measuring the angular position) is due to the gyroscopes being too good. (If both the gyroscope and the compasses were completely accurate, it would violate the uncertainty principle)."
The compass points in a particular direction but tells you nothing about location or momentum. How would it be involved in any violation of Uncertainty? The gyroscope and GPS I could see, maybe. But the compass? I don't see how it combined with anything could involve Uncertainty. - Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 16:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

1473: Location Sharing

2015-01-14T16:43:50Z

199.27.128.117: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1473
| date = January 14, 2015
| title = Location Sharing
| image = location_sharing.png
| titletext = Our phones must have great angular momentum sensors because the compasses really suck.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|First draft.}}

In this comic, [[Megan]] is visiting a website on her mobile phone. After loading it, the website {{w|Location-based service|asks for her location}}, which Megan permits the phone to give. The choice between allowing or denying a website or app access to certain information is common among smartphones. The term "location sharing" specifically refers to when a smartphone user shares their location with such an entity. An example is a weather app which would need your location in order to automatically find the correct forecast.

Megan is then asked her {{w|momentum}}, which she denies. The joke is based off of the Heisenberg {{w|uncertainty principle}}, which, in quantum mechanics, states that one cannot accurately know both the location and momentum of any particle simultaneously. However, since Megan is not a microscopic particle, it doesn't make any sense (it's simply funny) to say the the app is trying to violate Heisenberg's principle.

The ramifications of the uncertainty principle being violated in this context are unknown, but the comic might be alluding to security problems that appear if an untrusted application is given access to momentum data generated by the gyroscope. Access to gyroscope data can be used for reading passwords entered into the on-screen keyboard or even guessing keyboard strokes on a keyboard lying on the same table as the phone.

It could also be an attempt to get [[Megan]] to unwillingly reveal her weight (mass to be more exact), as the her mass can be inferred by dividing the momentum by her velocity (the velocity can be obtained by observing the change of her location information over time). In order to be feasible, however, the location must be polled at least twice, not once, as at least two location points are necessary to compute the velocity. Also, although commonly used interchangeably, the mass and the weight of an object are not the same things. Mass is a measure of mechanical inertia of an object, while weight is the force on the object due to gravity. As such, the mass of a body is constant regardless of location while the weight of the same body is different on the surfaces of different celestial bodies (planets, etc). The weight can be computed from the mass by multiplying the latter by the {{w|Gravitational acceleration|gravitational acceleration}} of the given planet (obviously, Earth in this case). The tendency to keep their weight secret is a common stereotype about females, as it is believed that females tend to obsess about controlling (and not revealing) their weight in order to comply with the perceived expectations of the modern Western male society which tends to find slim females more attractive.

The title text refers to the inclusion of {{w|gyroscope}}s in modern cell phones that measure angular momentum, mostly to detect when the phone is tilted, but also used in a few mobile games. Randall suggests the poor accuracy of the compasses in mobile phones (measuring the angular position) is due to the gyroscopes being too good. (If both the gyroscope and the compasses were completely accurate, it would violate the uncertainty principle). Modern phones also include varied technologies (such as GPS) to pinpoint the user's location, with varying degrees of accuracy.

There is no way to measure absolute momentum directly in a mobile phone (well, anywhere else either). This is done normally by differentiating the position in time (from GPS signal) or by integrating the accelerometer signal. In the first case you obtain the average speed, the second technique is subject to numerical error adding up over time.

The uncertainty principle has previously been referenced in [[824: Guest Week: Bill Amend (FoxTrot)]]. It has also been discussed in relation to the two comics [[1404: Quantum Vacuum Virtual Plasma]] and [[1416: Pixels]].

==Transcript==
:[Megan is holding her phone. Above her is the text she can see on the screen:]
:This website wants to know your location.
:[Two buttons are below this text. The first is white with a black frame and black text. The second (the chosen button) also has a black frame, but inside the frame is a black rectangle with white text. Around the chosen button are small lines indication rays.]
:Deny
:'''Allow'''

:[Megan is holding her phone.]

:[Megan is holding her phone. Above her is again the text she can see on the screen. She makes a comment this time.]
:This website wants to know your momentum.
:[Two buttons are below this text. The first (the chosen button) has a black frame, but inside the frame is a black rectangle with white text. The second is white with a black frame and black text. Around the chosen button are small lines indication rays.]
:'''Deny'''
:Allow

:Megan: Nice try.

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

1473: Location Sharing

2015-01-14T16:38:38Z

199.27.128.117: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1473
| date = January 14, 2015
| title = Location Sharing
| image = location_sharing.png
| titletext = Our phones must have great angular momentum sensors because the compasses really suck.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|First draft.}}

In this comic, [[Megan]] is visiting a website on her mobile phone. After loading it, the website {{w|Location-based service|asks for her location}}, which Megan permits the phone to give. The choice between allowing or denying a website or app access to certain information is common among smartphones. The term "location sharing" specifically refers to when a smartphone user shares their location with such an entity. An example is a weather app which would need your location in order to automatically find the correct forecast.

Megan is then asked her {{w|momentum}}, which she denies. The joke is based off of the Heisenberg {{w|uncertainty principle}}, which, in quantum mechanics, states that one cannot accurately know both the location and momentum of any particle simultaneously. However, since Megan is not a microscopic particle, it doesn't make any sense (it's simply funny) to say the the app is trying to violate Heisenberg's principle.

The ramifications of the uncertainty principle being violated in this context are unknown, but the comic might be alluding to security problems that appear if an untrusted application is given access to momentum data generated by the gyroscope. Access to gyroscope data can be used for reading passwords entered into the on-screen keyboard or even guessing keyboard strokes on a keyboard lying on the same table as the phone.

It could also be an attempt to get [[Megan]] to unwillingly reveal her weight (mass to be more exact), as the her mass can be inferred by dividing the momentum by her velocity (the velocity can be obtained by observing the change of her location information over time). In order to be feasible, however, the location must be polled at least twice, not once, as at least two location points are necessary to compute the velocity. Also, although commonly used interchangeably, the mass and the weight are not the same things. The mass is a measure of mechanical inertia of the body, while the weight is the force on the object due to gravity. As such, the weight of the same body is different on the surfaces of different celestial bodies (planets, etc). The weight can be computed from the mass by multiplying the latter by the {{w|Gravitational acceleration|gravitational acceleration}} of the given planet (obviously, Earth in this case). The tendency to keep the body weight in secret is a common stereotype about females, as it is believed that females tend to obsess about controlling (and not revealing) their weight in order to comply with the perceived expectations of the modern Western male society which tends to find slim females more attractive.

The title text refers to the inclusion of {{w|gyroscope}}s in modern cell phones that measure angular momentum, mostly to detect when the phone is tilted, but also used in a few mobile games. Randall suggests the poor accuracy of the compasses in mobile phones (measuring the angular position) is due to the gyroscopes being too good. (If both the gyroscope and the compasses were completely accurate, it would violate the uncertainty principle). Modern phones also include varied technologies (such as GPS) to pinpoint the user's location, with varying degrees of accuracy.

There is no way to measure absolute momentum directly in a mobile phone (well, anywhere else either). This is done normally by differentiating the position in time (from GPS signal) or by integrating the accelerometer signal. In the first case you obtain the average speed, the second technique is subject to numerical error adding up in time.

The uncertainty principle has previously been referenced in [[824: Guest Week: Bill Amend (FoxTrot)]]. It has also been discussed in relation to the two comics [[1404: Quantum Vacuum Virtual Plasma]] and [[1416: Pixels]].

==Transcript==
:[Megan is holding her phone. Above her is the text she can see on the screen:]
:This website wants to know your location.
:[Two buttons are below this text. The first is white with a black frame and black text. The second (the chosen button) also has a black frame, but inside the frame is a black rectangle with white text. Around the chosen button are small lines indication rays.]
:Deny
:'''Allow'''

:[Megan is holding her phone.]

:[Megan is holding her phone. Above her is again the text she can see on the screen. She makes a comment this time.]
:This website wants to know your momentum.
:[Two buttons are below this text. The first (the chosen button) has a black frame, but inside the frame is a black rectangle with white text. The second is white with a black frame and black text. Around the chosen button are small lines indication rays.]
:'''Deny'''
:Allow

:Megan: Nice try.

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

Talk:1471: Gut Fauna

2015-01-09T16:59:38Z

199.27.128.117:

I think this comic also contains a pun on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macrobiotic_diet macrobiotics]. Esp. the wording "out of balance" seems to be a reference to esoteric speech. [[User:Knob creek|Knob creek]] ([[User talk:Knob creek|talk]]) 09:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

In fairy tales (most notably in little red riding hood), the wolf swallows whole its (human) victims. The comic depics an inversion of roles. Do you think it's worth adding this observation in the explanation?

:That's what I took it to mean too, the two options being he swallows the wolf or the wolf swallows him. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.159|141.101.98.159]] 12:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Another pun might be on the name of a restaurant in Seattle: [[http://www.ethanstowellrestaurants.com/locations/how-to-cook-a-wolf/ How to Cook a Wolf]] [[User:Araucaria|Araucaria]] ([[User talk:Araucaria|talk]]) 15:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
:That's so extremely obscure that thinking it intended is difficult. - Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 16:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

== Is a citation really needed? ==

I think that requiring a citation for the lethality of administering a wolf via the mouth or rectum may be going just a bit too far? Reference in the [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1471:_Gut_Fauna&diff=82345&oldid=82344 Change history] [[User:Pmw57|Pmw57]] ([[User talk:Pmw57|talk]]) 10:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

: I assume that this is a humorous comment, similar to the citation needed tags in the What-if articles. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.237|141.101.98.237]] 12:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

::Good point, could be a joking reference to [http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=285 xkcd #285]

I know an old lady who swallowed a... [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.237|108.162.249.237]] 13:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

1469: UV

2015-01-05T16:18:22Z

199.27.128.117: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1469
| date = January 5, 2015
| title = UV
| image = uv.png
| titletext = Hey, why stop at our house? We could burn down ALL these houses for the insurance money.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Ultraviolet}} light (or UV light, as in the title of the comic) is a kind of light that is slightly more energetic than the {{w|visible light}} spectrum. Ultraviolet light is normally by itself invisible, but can induce {{w|fluorescing}} (glowing) of certain organic molecules. This is a means to detect small amounts of blood (as most television watchers know) and also urine.

The first part of this comic focuses on [[Megan]] showing off her new {{w|Black light|UV flashlight}} to [[Cueball]] by revealing how disgusting their bathroom appears in UV light despite how clean it appears normally. She manages this due to UV light's special property of causing chemicals in urine to glow. Both Cueball and Megan are horrified by their discovery. This is a common reaction in the face of more sensitive diagnostic tests.

In the second part of the comic they realize that their house will never be clean enough. So Megan resolves to burn down the house for the insurance money (i.e. {{w|insurance fraud}}). Cueball is in doubt, but Megan (after seeing in the UV light, what probably has mostly been left in the bathroom by a standing Cueball...) has no morality left. She even proclaims this while pouring some dangerous liquid (probably gasoline) on to the floor of their apartment.

The last panel of the comic reveals that the two hadn't purchased fire insurance beforehand, and plan on purchasing it now, only to make a claim immediately afterwards. At this point Cueball has been won over by Megan's plan and helps searching for insurance companies on Google. They wish to find the company that pay out the most. This plan will not work since insurance typically only covers events that begin ''after'' purchasing the insurance, and does not cover anything that happens before purchasing the insurance or that is intentionally caused.

The title text shows just how distorted Megan and Cueball's thinking has become, as one of them suggests burning down ALL the houses (in their vicinity?) in order to claim the insurance money for them. This plan will also not work. Even if insurance has been purchased for these other homes, the insurance companies will pay the owners of those homes, not Cueball and Megan. And Cueball and Megan would be arrested and end up a very long time in prison.

The take home message of this comic must be: '''Never''' use a UV light in your bathroom. Maybe Randall did this by a mistake causing the creation of this comic?

==Transcript==
:[Megan standing behind Cueball, who's sitting at a computer.]
:Megan: Our bathroom looks pretty clean, right?
:Cueball: I think so. Why?
:Megan: I got a UV flashlight. Come look.

:[Megan and Cueball are walking]

:[Megan and Cueball are off-screen]
:Cueball: Looks fine.
:UV flashlight:
: *Click*
: *Click*
:Cueball: ...Oh my God.

:[Megan and Cueball walking in the opposite direction]
:Cueball: The toilet looked like the guy's chest after the alien burst out.
:Megan: What do we '''''do?'''''

:[Megan and Cueball standing]
:Cueball: We clean. Clean and clean and never stop.
:Megan: It won't be enough. We should just burn the place down for the insurance money.

:[Cueball standing behind Megan, who's pouring a liquid onto the floor.]
:Cueball: Isn't that wrong?
:Megan: My morality evaporated under the harsh UV light.
:[On the canister it says:]
:Danger

:[Megan and Cueball standing outside the burning building]

:[Megan and Cueball standing, Cueball looking at his phone]
:Cueball: OK, I'm Googling insurance companies. Which one do you think pays the most?
:Megan: Let's just try calling around.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics with color‏‎]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

Talk:1465: xkcd Phone 2

2014-12-28T08:52:50Z

199.27.128.117: Needless speculation a second time

I think the "Waterproof (interior only)" is related to a so-called joke that I first heard from a smart-ass salesman years ago in a camera store when I was considering a certain camera. "Is it waterproof?" I asked. "Oh yes," he replied, "once water gets into it, it will never come out again!" --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 08:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you unify the transcription and description? Since the transcript starts from the top left, while description starts from bottom left. [[User:17jiangz1|17jiangz1]] ([[User talk:17jiangz1|talk]]) 09:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I have made http://www.xkcd.ga and http://www.xkcd.tk both forward to http://www.explainxkcd.com. Is this ok?[[User:17jiangz1|17jiangz1]] ([[User talk:17jiangz1|talk]]) 08:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Could the StackOverflow part also hint at StackSort and http://xkcd.com/1185/ ? [[User:Pinkishu|Pinkishu]] ([[User talk:Pinkishu|talk]]) 14:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
:No. StackOverflow is a really popular site for programmers and such. It's propbably to be expected that it has been mentioned multiple times here. Also, StackSort (or sorting in general) doesn't make much sense in this context. -- [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.13|141.101.104.13]] 23:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
::I think they meant that the OS could be built in a manner similar to the StackSort, taking various snippets of phone-os code and putting them together. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.69|108.162.216.69]] 02:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
:::OK, that might be possible. -- [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.11|141.101.104.11]] 13:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
::Stackoverflow is named after the error in Java that occurs when the Java virtual machine's stack memory is exceeded. This is generally caused by a serious memory leak or an infinite recursion has occurred. Definitely not an attractive feature in an OS. Also, since Android runs using Java on the Davek virtual machine, it does actually throw stack overflow errors on occasion. --

I am thinking the "Fitbit fitness evaluator" is fully meta. That is it is meant to monitor/ asses the digital 'health/fitness' status of your human health/fitness monitoring device. [[User:Iggynelix|Iggynelix]] ([[User talk:Iggynelix|talk]]) 18:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

A phone for your other hand®–reads like the phone is capable of being operated by your non-dominant hand, leaving your dominant hand free for–er, other activities... [[User:Laverock|Laverock]] ([[User talk:Laverock|talk]]) 19:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
: Such as using the XKCD Phone model 1, of course! (You do have two ears, as well as two hands, don't you?) --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 01:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

"Okay Google" is not the name of the virtual assistant, it's the catchphrase that it responds to. Google's version of Siri is called "Google Now." [[Special:Contributions/188.114.106.29|188.114.106.29]] 08:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

;Googleable

The iPad is not googleable. No, the other one. No, the other one. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.28|108.162.231.28]] 03:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

3D materials could be a reference to 3D printed materials. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.152|108.162.254.152]] 12:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

'3D Materials' could be meant to indicate that the phone is not made out of graphene. 'Density control' could be hooked up to an air compressor, allowing the phone to slightly control its density by compressing/decompressing ambient air, while 'Volume' controls the speaker (a useful thing to have, when it's always on). 'Auto-Rotating case' might indicate that it has some sort of gyroscope or reaction wheel system to allow it to control its orientation. 'Washable, though only once' might mean it has some sort of expendable water-resistant protection or coating (only on the inside, of course) that is worn off after a single washing. 'Over 350 Pixels Per Screen' only sets a lower limit on pixel count. The actual count may be anywhere from 351 to several billion or more, so it may actually be a selling point, although a poorly advertised one. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 08:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
: Also, the 'Ribbed' feature may be a solution to problems caused by the previous hardware's frictionless exterior.[[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 08:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1465: xkcd Phone 2

2014-12-28T08:46:37Z

199.27.128.117: Needless speculation

Talk:1464: Santa

2014-12-24T17:41:51Z

199.27.128.117:

Merry Christmas! --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 06:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I have done the transcript... [[User:17jiangz1|17jiangz1]] ([[User talk:17jiangz1|talk]]) 06:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

And I did the explanation and put everything in there, I think. Looks like we're already pretty much done! [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.174|173.245.56.174]] 06:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It should maybe be mentioned that this comic is a turn of the screw on the many "The physics of Santa" joke articles - The usual chain e-mail or satire web page calculations that take it seriously the logistical calculations for Santa and end up concluding that he should beat the speed of light to deliver the presents. Randall doesn't settle on calculating the logistics for reindeer performance or route planning, he goes a step further and makes the calculations for the refuse. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.49.106|173.245.49.106]] 08:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Well maybe all those calories are what allows him to move at the insane relativistic speeds needed to visit every house on Christmas eve. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.56|108.162.216.56]] 08:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
:There's no need to move at relativistic or trans-light speeds when you can appear in multiple places simultaneously [https://comicdomwrecks.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/countdown-to-fables-100-jiminy-christmas/]. - Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 17:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

We have video proof of how Santa handles this! http://youtu.be/b9TTz3R5SmI --[[User:Elipongo|Elipongo]] ([[User talk:Elipongo|talk]]) 09:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No Christmas cat.? [[User:Halfhat|Halfhat]] ([[User talk:Halfhat|talk]]) 12:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Santa's metabolic system is perfectly efficient at converting cookies to CO2 hang H2O which is exhaled. He needs to be efficient at converting cookie energy if he plans on being so active. He is also the main source of global warming. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.185|173.245.56.185]] 13:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

1464: Santa

2014-12-24T17:36:37Z

199.27.128.117: /* Explanation */ Not every kid puts out cookies, those that do put out more than one

{{comic
| number = 1464
| date = December 24, 2014
| title = Santa
| image = santa.png
| titletext = He probably just poops over the side of the sleigh.
}}

==Explanation==
This comic refers to the common tradition of leaving milk and cookies out on Christmas Eve for Santa Claus. If one assumes that Santa eats even a small percentage of the sweets left out for him, the question comes up where all the cookies ''go''. Megan suggests that, since Santa isn't ''that'' large, he must poop them out somewhere, and wonders if he does so in our houses.

Cueball doubts that. Megan replies that mass cannot disappear completely; it has to go somewhere, to which Cueball comments that Santa has a magic bag in which be could poop. The magic bag referenced is the bag in which he carries all the Christmas presents he delivers on Christmas Eve. It is called 'magic' because a bag large enough to carry millions of presents would be much too heavy and unbalanced to carry on a sleigh pulled by only eight (or nine) reindeer. Thus, it must be magic somehow. Megan is disgusted at the thought of Santa pooping on peoples' presents. Cueball proposes a third theory: that only a few houses are pooped in, but those that are are pooped in in large quantities. Megan says that there may not be anyone that naughty in the world (referencing the myth that Santa will leave coal (or in this case, feces), instead of presents, for those who misbehave.) Cueball replies that it is randomly determined whose house is pooped in. He starts saying [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spock Spock's] aphorism: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one," suggesting that it really is ok for Santa to eat for a while before going to the bathroom (like most people do....) and randomly picking a house in which to use the toilet, thus burdening a smaller number of people.

The title text puts forth yet another theory: that Santa doesn't poop in houses at all, but off the side of his sleigh.

According to [[1070: Words for Small Sets]], a few is referring to "anywhere from 2 to 5". Currently, there are 1.9 billion children in the world, assuming on average a cookie is left for Santa for each child and that Santa eats one in every 5 cookies, he consumes 380 million cookies in a 48 hour period, due to the convenience of time zones. According to Google, a chocolate-chip cookie contains approximately 140 calories, therefore Santa consumes 53.2 billion in the period of 2 days, 26.6 billion per day. As a man should have a daily intake of 2500 calories per day, Santa has 10640000 times the amount of daily calories required over the period of two days, sufficient to last for over 59111 years, or over 59 millenniums.

In reality, since Santa is <strike>only a myth</strike> [http://www.noradsanta.org/ really out there]!<strike>, we're all safe from the risk of being one of the few.</strike>

==Transcript==
:Megan: Say Santa eats a cookie at every few houses. That's hundreds of tons. By the end of the night, he should be a hulking seven-story behemoth.
:But he's not.

:Cueball: What are you...
:Megan: Does Santa poop in our houses?

:Cueball: No way.
:Megan: That mass must be going somewhere.
:Cueball: He has that magic bag...
:Megan: You think he poops in the bag of ''presents''?

:Cueball: Maybe instead of pooping in every few houses, he waits, and then in a few houses, he poops a ''lot''.
:Megan: What if no one's been ''that'' naughty?
:Cueball: He picks at random. The needs of the many...
{{comic discussion}}

Talk:1459: Documents

2014-12-12T18:53:30Z

199.27.128.117: Maybe be the best way to make good of a bad situation

742 Evergreen Terrace.docx
742 Evergreen Terrace (2).docx

[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.51|141.101.99.51]] 07:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone can relate to using poor filenames occasionally. As far as default filenames go:

*Notepad (XP) = *.txt - Cannot save without choosing a new filename.
*Word (2003) = Title (if set by template) > First sentence of document > Doc1.doc, Doc2.doc, etc
*Paint (XP) = untitled.bmp
--[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 08:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Using the image format (.jpg) to store text information (like addresses) will also contribute to an annoying future if you ever need to copy data from that file into some other programme. [[User:SirKitKat|sirKitKat]] ([[User talk:SirKitKat|talk]]) 09:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
: oo good point -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 13:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
:: Could be a JPEG because it's a camera photo of the address on something. That'd make it even more perverse because most cameras create files with names like DSC01234.jpg meaning he's given it the "Untitled" moniker on purpose. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.78|141.101.99.78]] 14:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
::: It's a screenshot. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.62.169|173.245.62.169]] 18:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
: Placing an email address in a graphic is often used when the email address is to be displayed on a web page to make it difficult for email-address harvesting programs to grab the email address for spamming. But that's probably not relevant here.--[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 15:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Something I come a cross now and then is the result of the following situation: You are in the process of selecting multiple files while holding CTRL. During the process of quickly selecting the next file, you accidentally move your cursor/mouse while clicking the next file, resulting in copying all the selected files on the same location :) [[User:SirKitKat|sirKitKat]] ([[User talk:SirKitKat|talk]]) 13:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Title is an impossible file name in most operating environments because it is too long at 277 characters. 255 characters is the limit for any file or folder name in Linux, and is the limit for a fully defined file name (file and full path the file is in) in Windows. So the Title/Alt text is 22 characters too long for Linux and at least 25 characters too long for Windows since being in the root of drive takes 3 characters, each folder adds at least 2 characters (a letter and the slash). I encounter clients pushing this limit all the time, complaining why they can't access their files with the novel length file names, so this comic REALLLYYY spoke to me. As an IT consultant, I get to see and occasionally cleanup such poor file naming conventions.
[[User:Chaosadventurer|Chaosadventurer]] ([[User talk:Chaosadventurer|talk]]) 15:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it's just the OCD but the fact that the filenames are not in alphabetical order is the first thing that hit me. They're not even alphabetical by file type/extension. About the only thing that would result in this ordering is if the files were sorted by timestamp (which we don't see). Of course, if I were looking over someone's shoulder at their timestamp sorted list of files, I might be just as horrified by the ordering as I would by the names.
[[User:MrBigDog2U|MrBigDog2U]] ([[User talk:MrBigDog2U|talk]]) 15:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
:Sometimes it is useful to sort by timestamp. When looking for the latest file, for example. Given the filenames are near useless in this example, sorting by timestamp could be the easiest way to find something. ("I'm looking for the fine I worked on about two weeks ago.") -- Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 18:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know why "Untitled 241.doc" and "Untitled 40 MOM ADRESS.jpg" are out of order. The rest seem to be in accending order?

1459: Documents

2014-12-12T18:47:48Z

199.27.128.117: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 1459
| date = December 12, 2014
| title = Documents
| image = documents.png
| titletext = Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Untitled.doc
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Title text needs to be explained}}

The comic portrays the type of naming conventions used by some people (in this case, [[White Hat]]). When saving documents, the user is typically prompted to choose a filename, which may seem like a trivial choice. However, the filename is often the primary way of identifying the document you are looking for, and a descriptive title is of huge benefit when trying to find a certain document. Those who are too rushed or too lazy to create a useful filename, or those who don't understand what constitutes a useful filename are setting themselves up for future frustration.

When a user creates a new copy of a file in the same directory, the operating system may automatically append "copy" or "Copy of" to the filename. Subsequent copies of the file have "copy 2", "copy 3" etc appended. When searching documents later, the user may struggle to remember which copy is the correct one to use.

[[Cueball]] has a severe distaste for these types of saved documents and hence provides a protip [http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/protip] to never look in someone else's documents folder for the fear of finding these irritating details.

The .jpg is an image file, not something that would normally be used to store someone's address.

The .doc and .docx extensions are given to documents created in Microsoft Word, with .docx being the default option from Microsoft Office 2007 onwards. When first saving a document, the default filename is the first sentence of the document; if the document is still empty, the default filename is "Untitled". It would seem that White Hat once opened a new document and immediately saved it with the default name "Untitled.doc", subsequently creating hundreds of copies from that file. He occasionally made copies of the copies, and only occasionally added a keyword to the file name like "important".

In some cases he has added a minimal amount of detail to the filename, though hasn't removed the redundant "untitled copy" portion, which probably only adds to Cueball's frustration, as it demonstrates that White Hat does have at least a basic understanding of the importance of meaningful filenames, but still hasn't made any attempt to address the systemic problem.



==Transcript==

[White Hat browsing Documents folder containing:
Untitled 138.docx
Untitled 241.doc
Untitled 138 copy.docx
Untitled 138 copy2.docx
Untitled 139.docx
Untitled 40 MOM ADDRESS.jpg
Untitled 242.doc
Untitled 243.doc
Untitled 243 IMPORTANT.doc
Untitled 41.jpg
...]

Cueball: Oh my god.

Protip: Never look in someone else's documents folder.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Protip]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

1459: Documents

2014-12-12T18:43:39Z

199.27.128.117: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1459
| date = December 12, 2014
| title = Documents
| image = documents.png
| titletext = Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Copy of Untitled.doc
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Title text needs to be explained}}

The comic portrays the type of naming conventions used by some people (in this case, [[White Hat]]). When saving documents, the user is typically prompted to choose a filename, which may seem like a trivial choice. However, the filename is often the primary way of identifying the document you are looking for, and a descriptive title is of huge benefit when trying to find a certain document. Those who are too rushed or too lazy to create a useful filename, or those who don't understand what constitutes a useful filename are setting themselves up for future frustration.

When a user creates a new copy of a file in the same directory, the operating system may automatically append "copy" or "Copy of" to the filename. Subsequent copies of the file have "copy 2", "copy 3" etc appended. When searching documents later, the user may struggle to remember which copy is the correct one to use.

[[Cueball]] has a severe distaste for these types of saved documents and hence provides a protip [http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/protip] to never look in someone else's documents folder for the fear of finding these irritating details.

The .jpg is an image file, not something that would normally be used to store someone's address.

The .doc and .docx extensions are given to documents created in Microsoft Word, with .docx being the default option from Microsoft Office 2007 onwards. When first saving a document, the default filename is the first sentence of the document; if the document is still empty, the default filename is "Untitled". It would seem that White Hat once opened a new document and immediately saved it with the default name "Untitled.doc", subsequently creating hundreds of copies from that file. He occasionally made copies of the copies, and only occasionally added a keyword to the file name like "important".

In some cases he has added a minimal amount of detail to the filename, though hasn't removed the redundant "untitled copy" portion, which probably only adds to Cueball's frustration, as it demonstrates that White Hat does have at least a basic understanding of the importance of meaningful filenames, but still hasn't made any attempt to address the systemic problem.



==Transcript==

[White Hat browsing Documents folder]

Cueball: Oh my god.

Protip: Never look in someone else's documents folder.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Protip]]
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

Talk:1458: Small Moon

2014-12-10T16:59:04Z

199.27.128.117:

Probably another dig at the Pluto "dwarf planet" controversy?[[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.109|199.27.133.109]] 06:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:Implying that it might not be? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.109|108.162.216.109]] 15:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This is too good. I laughed for about 2 straight minutes.. :D [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.89|199.27.128.89]] 06:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Added a short placeholder explanation for the comic itself, using [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.109|199.27.133.109]]'s suggestion. Needs refining and explaining of the alt text. Cheers. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.207|173.245.54.207]] 07:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

In the movie, they didn't have 3 hours to argue over the thing. Not sure if that's relevant... [[User:Haelbarde|Haelbarde]] ([[User talk:Haelbarde|talk]]) 07:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason it couldn't be a space station would be that something so large would wind up collapsing in on its own gravity. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.204|173.245.54.204]] 08:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:It's not solid, it's a comapritively low density on the whole (on the order of ten thousand million''th''s that of Earth's sea-level atmospheric pressure, if I've not thrown a rogue zero or two in to the calculation by accident, so is doubtless mostly vacuum outside of the functional/habitable/structural areas), there are obviously various gravitational compensators for the inhabited sections (hence "looking sideways out of the equator ring" and along the beam-channel, yet "up from the surface" from the trench system defence turrets and other internal shafts are also vertiginously 'up-down' in nature) and doubtless its structural stength is composed of various Unotanium (i.e. "durasteel") alloys and the like, way beyond what we could currently build with Earthly technology. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.245|141.101.98.245]] 10:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I would note that a Death '''Star''' can not be a moon. [[User:Briff|Briff]] ([[User talk:Briff|talk]]) 10:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:Note that it is canon that the "Star Destroyer"s are neither (if taken literally) capable of destroying stars nor (in the sense of "star ship" in general) are they technically destroyer-class ships. You've got to put it down to The Empire just having no sense of relevence when it comes to naming its vessels. Probably too much influence from clone-thinking... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.245|141.101.98.245]] 10:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:I will argue that by my understanding of the term, it actually is a moon whenever it is orbiting a planet but it would probably be better to come up with new terminology given the interstellar capabilities. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.183|108.162.237.183]] 12:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Band of Traveling Accountants

I've never heard of the word "deunifying"; did you mean "disuniting" or "disunifying"?[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.203|173.245.54.203]] 14:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I marked the transcript as incomplete; we can't be sure as to who is saying which lines in the final panel without Randall telling us himself. Notably, the second-to-last-line does not sound like something Ben Kenobi would say; more likely it's Han Solo. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.188|108.162.216.188]] 13:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
:Agreed. Comment is much more easily seen as coming from Solo than Kenobi. And, if they did rescue Leia during the intervening interval (one of the two scenarios suggested), Kenobi wouldn't be present. Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 16:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

1458: Small Moon

2014-12-10T16:56:09Z

199.27.128.117: /* Transcript */ Solo more likely than Kenobi given the language. (And if scene takes place after Leia's rescue, Kenobi would not be present.)

{{comic
| number = 1458
| date = December 10, 2014
| title = Small Moon
| image = small_moon.png
| titletext = GENERAL JAN DODONNA: An analysis of the plans provided by Princess Leia has reinvigorated the arguments of the 'artificial moonlet' and 'rogue planet-station' camps. I fear this question is fracturing the Rebellion.
}}

==Explanation==
The comic depicts [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVekNsgUqn4|a classic scene] from {{w|Star Wars Episode IV}}, in which the heroes trail a spacecraft to the never-before-seen Death Star: a super-weapon the size of a small moon capable of effortlessly demolishing entire planets. In the original scene and the comic, Luke Skywalker misidentifies a body as a natural satellite, and Obi-Wan 'Ben' Kenobi ominously corrects him. The comic's version diverges at this point, as the dialogue devolves into a rather bitter argument over the semantics of size classifications, alluding to scientific discussions on whether Pluto should be classified as a planet or as a dwarf planet.

The argument goes on for hours, which in the original plot would suggest one of two situations:
* The Death Star apparently never caught them, and Princess Leia was never rescued (but Ben survived).
* The argument was picked up after escaping the Death Star, and now Leia is joining in.

The argument would be invalid. The Death Star is much larger (70 km radius) than dozens of {{w|List of natural satellites|full-fledged moons}} in our solar system.

The title text makes reference to a later scene in the film when Rebel pilots are being briefed on the planned attack on the the Death Star. Those who analysed the plans for the Death Star run into the same discussion picture, and end up arguing about the classification of the Death Star, dividing those involved into the 'artificial moonlet' camp and the 'rogue planet-station' camp, thus deunifying the rebellion. If events are otherwise the same from the movie, this is also happening at threat of their destruction, and thus a crippling of the Rebellion.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|The last panel is vague on who is saying what.}}
:[Millennium Falcon follows a Tie Fighter towards an unidentified orb in the distance]
:Luke Skywalker: He's heading for that small moon.
:Ben Kenobi: That's no moon - it's a space station.
:Luke Skywalker: It's too big to be a space station.
:Ben Kenobi: But it's too '''''small''''' to be a moon.
:Three hours pass
:Unknown (Luke Skywalker?): Fine! What if we agree it's not a moon, but we make a new category called "Dwarf Moon"?
:Unknown (Han Solo?): And what's the cutoff, asshole?! Is this '''''ship''''' a dwarf moon now?
:Unknown (Luke Skywalker?): Screw you.
{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Star Wars]]

1458: Small Moon

2014-12-10T16:54:20Z

199.27.128.117: /* Explanation */ duplicate word removed

{{comic
| number = 1458
| date = December 10, 2014
| title = Small Moon
| image = small_moon.png
| titletext = GENERAL JAN DODONNA: An analysis of the plans provided by Princess Leia has reinvigorated the arguments of the 'artificial moonlet' and 'rogue planet-station' camps. I fear this question is fracturing the Rebellion.
}}

==Explanation==
The comic depicts [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVekNsgUqn4|a classic scene] from {{w|Star Wars Episode IV}}, in which the heroes trail a spacecraft to the never-before-seen Death Star: a super-weapon the size of a small moon capable of effortlessly demolishing entire planets. In the original scene and the comic, Luke Skywalker misidentifies a body as a natural satellite, and Obi-Wan 'Ben' Kenobi ominously corrects him. The comic's version diverges at this point, as the dialogue devolves into a rather bitter argument over the semantics of size classifications, alluding to scientific discussions on whether Pluto should be classified as a planet or as a dwarf planet.

The argument goes on for hours, which in the original plot would suggest one of two situations:
* The Death Star apparently never caught them, and Princess Leia was never rescued (but Ben survived).
* The argument was picked up after escaping the Death Star, and now Leia is joining in.

The argument would be invalid. The Death Star is much larger (70 km radius) than dozens of {{w|List of natural satellites|full-fledged moons}} in our solar system.

The title text makes reference to a later scene in the film when Rebel pilots are being briefed on the planned attack on the the Death Star. Those who analysed the plans for the Death Star run into the same discussion picture, and end up arguing about the classification of the Death Star, dividing those involved into the 'artificial moonlet' camp and the 'rogue planet-station' camp, thus deunifying the rebellion. If events are otherwise the same from the movie, this is also happening at threat of their destruction, and thus a crippling of the Rebellion.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|The last panel is vague on who is saying what.}}
:[Millennium Falcon follows a Tie Fighter towards an unidentified orb in the distance]
:Luke Skywalker: He's heading for that small moon.
:Ben Kenobi: That's no moon - it's a space station.
:Luke Skywalker: It's too big to be a space station.
:Ben Kenobi: But it's too '''''small''''' to be a moon.
:Three hours pass
:Unknown (Luke Skywalker?): Fine! What if we agree it's not a moon, but we make a new category called "Dwarf Moon"?
:Unknown (Ben Kenobi?): And what's the cutoff, asshole?! Is this '''''ship''''' a dwarf moon now?
:Unknown (Luke Skywalker?): Screw you.
{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Star Wars]]

1458: Small Moon

2014-12-10T16:53:39Z

199.27.128.117: /* Explanation */ What's a moon isn't dependent on which stellar system it's in. "Sure Luna's a moon because it's in the Sol system, but if it were here in the Widget system we'd call it a pebble." No.

{{comic
| number = 1458
| date = December 10, 2014
| title = Small Moon
| image = small_moon.png
| titletext = GENERAL JAN DODONNA: An analysis of the plans provided by Princess Leia has reinvigorated the arguments of the 'artificial moonlet' and 'rogue planet-station' camps. I fear this question is fracturing the Rebellion.
}}

==Explanation==
The comic depicts [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVekNsgUqn4|a classic scene] from {{w|Star Wars Episode IV}}, in which the heroes trail a spacecraft to the never-before-seen Death Star: a super-weapon the size of a small moon capable of effortlessly demolishing entire planets. In the original scene and the comic, Luke Skywalker misidentifies a body as a natural satellite, and Obi-Wan 'Ben' Kenobi ominously corrects him. The comic's version diverges at this point, as the dialogue devolves into a rather bitter argument over the semantics of size classifications, alluding to scientific discussions on whether Pluto should be classified as a planet or as a dwarf planet.

The argument goes on for hours, which in the original plot would suggest one of two situations:
* The Death Star apparently never caught them, and Princess Leia was never rescued (but Ben survived).
* The argument was picked up after escaping the Death Star, and now Leia is joining in.

The argument would be invalid. The Death Star is much larger (70 km radius) than dozens of {{w|List of natural satellites|full-fledged moons}} in our solar system.

The title text makes reference to a later scene in the film when Rebel pilots are being briefed on the planned attack on the the Death Star. Those who analysed the plans for the Death Star run into the same discussion picture, and end up arguing about the classification of the the Death Star, dividing those involved into the 'artificial moonlet' camp and the 'rogue planet-station' camp, thus deunifying the rebellion. If events are otherwise the same from the movie, this is also happening at threat of their destruction, and thus a crippling of the Rebellion.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|The last panel is vague on who is saying what.}}
:[Millennium Falcon follows a Tie Fighter towards an unidentified orb in the distance]
:Luke Skywalker: He's heading for that small moon.
:Ben Kenobi: That's no moon - it's a space station.
:Luke Skywalker: It's too big to be a space station.
:Ben Kenobi: But it's too '''''small''''' to be a moon.
:Three hours pass
:Unknown (Luke Skywalker?): Fine! What if we agree it's not a moon, but we make a new category called "Dwarf Moon"?
:Unknown (Ben Kenobi?): And what's the cutoff, asshole?! Is this '''''ship''''' a dwarf moon now?
:Unknown (Luke Skywalker?): Screw you.
{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Star Wars]]

1458: Small Moon

2014-12-10T16:49:44Z

199.27.128.117: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1458
| date = December 10, 2014
| title = Small Moon
| image = small_moon.png
| titletext = GENERAL JAN DODONNA: An analysis of the plans provided by Princess Leia has reinvigorated the arguments of the 'artificial moonlet' and 'rogue planet-station' camps. I fear this question is fracturing the Rebellion.
}}

==Explanation==
The comic depicts [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVekNsgUqn4|a classic scene] from {{w|Star Wars Episode IV}}, in which the heroes trail a spacecraft to the never-before-seen Death Star: a super-weapon the size of a small moon capable of effortlessly demolishing entire planets. In the original scene and the comic, Luke Skywalker misidentifies a body as a natural satellite, and Obi-Wan 'Ben' Kenobi ominously corrects him. The comic's version diverges at this point, as the dialogue devolves into a rather bitter argument over the semantics of size classifications, alluding to scientific discussions on whether Pluto should be classified as a planet or as a dwarf planet.

The argument goes on for hours, which in the original plot would suggest one of two situations:
* The Death Star apparently never caught them, and Princess Leia was never rescued (but Ben survived).
* The argument was picked up after escaping the Death Star, and now Leia is joining in.

In our star system, however, the argument would be invalid. The Death Star is much larger (70 km radius) than dozens of {{w|List of natural satellites|full-fledged moons}} in our solar system.

The title text makes reference to a later scene in the film when Rebel pilots are being briefed on the planned attack on the the Death Star. Those who analysed the plans for the Death Star run into the same discussion picture, and end up arguing about the classification of the the Death Star, dividing those involved into the 'artificial moonlet' camp and the 'rogue planet-station' camp, thus deunifying the rebellion. If events are otherwise the same from the movie, this is also happening at threat of their destruction, and thus a crippling of the Rebellion.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|The last panel is vague on who is saying what.}}
:[Millennium Falcon follows a Tie Fighter towards an unidentified orb in the distance]
:Luke Skywalker: He's heading for that small moon.
:Ben Kenobi: That's no moon - it's a space station.
:Luke Skywalker: It's too big to be a space station.
:Ben Kenobi: But it's too '''''small''''' to be a moon.
:Three hours pass
:Unknown (Luke Skywalker?): Fine! What if we agree it's not a moon, but we make a new category called "Dwarf Moon"?
:Unknown (Ben Kenobi?): And what's the cutoff, asshole?! Is this '''''ship''''' a dwarf moon now?
:Unknown (Luke Skywalker?): Screw you.
{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Star Wars]]

Talk:1456: On the Moon

2014-12-05T17:18:41Z

199.27.128.117:

'''Transcript'''

I don't see why the transcript is incomplete, it looks pretty complete and all there to me... [[User:Official.xian|Official.xian]] ([[User talk:Official.xian|talk]]) 14:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
:Agreed, removed incomplete tag. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 14:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I wondered if the cartoon is about sex discrimination. After all, when people went to the moon, nobody even considered (as far as I know) letting a woman go on an Apollo flight. Megan might be saying "Land a ''man'' on the moon?" Or she might be tired of Cueball saying this and be obliquely suggesting NASA send him there on a one-way trip! [[User:Gade|Gade]] ([[User talk:Gade|talk]]) 15:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reference for the claim "Unmanned hardened pre-cooled robotic probes either got crushed or fried before landing, or survived only a couple of hours at most."? [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 16:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
:Yes. The Venera probes. Citation provided. --Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 17:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

1456: On the Moon

2014-12-05T17:17:28Z

199.27.128.117: /* Explanation */ citation provided

{{comic
| number = 1456
| date = December 5, 2014
| title = On the Moon
| image = on_the_moon.png
| titletext = "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on Venus and returning him safely to--" [an aide frantically whispers in the president's ear for a moment] "... of landing a man on Venus."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Check for completeness.}}
The phrase "If we can land a man on the Moon, why can't we <blank>" is commonly used to question a perceived shortcoming of some company, government or humanity in general. The premise is that "we" (where we is usually a generalized blanket identification of humanity, or the United States) have been able to achieve the extraordinary feat of landing men on the Moon and bringing them back to Earth safely; thus our inability to achieve some lesser goal is questionable.

The {{w|Moon landing}}s are rightly seen as one of the pinnacles of humanity's achievements, and as such have become an accomplishment against which all other great feats are measured. That technology available in 1969 was so minimal in comparison to modern technology serves only to increase the status of the Moon landings.

Here, Megan is cutting Cueball's argument's short by reminding him that humanity has not put another man on the Moon since the end of the Apollo program in December 1972, and that new manned programs to return to the Moon, such as the US Constellation Program, have been repeatedly cancelled.

This comic may well be a response to NASA's [http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/december/orion-flight-test-nasa-tv-coverage-reset-for-friday-dec-5/ postponed attempt to launch] a test of the Orion spacecraft on Thursday 4th December 2014. The unmanned test flight which aims to orbit Earth twice, travelling 5800 km into space, had to be delayed due to valve issues. As the planned flight is "simply" orbiting the Earth, has nobody on board, and our technology is far advanced from the early Moon landings, the cliche question "If we can land a man on the Moon, why can't we perform a simple test flight?" is rolled out again.

The title text is a retelling of the famous inspirational [http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/xzw1gaeeTES6khED14P1Iw.aspx Kennedy address to the US Congress in May 1961], which set into motion the Apollo program, except that this time, the speaker is talking about putting a man on planet Venus. The aide presumably explains to the president that it is unlikely that anybody could land on Venus longer than a few seconds and come back alive. (The atmosphere of Venus is extremely hostile with high pressure, high temperature, strong winds, sulfuric acid rains and lakes, etc.) As a result, the president backtracks from the goal of bringing the astronauts home again. Unmanned hardened pre-cooled robotic probes either got crushed or fried before landing, or survived only [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venera a couple of hours at most].

==Transcript==
:Cueball: If we could land a man on the Moon, why can't we -
:Megan: -land a man on the Moon?
:Cueball: ...ok, fair. But we're working on it, OK?

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category: Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category: Comics featuring Megan]]

1456: On the Moon

2014-12-05T17:15:14Z

199.27.128.117: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1456
| date = December 5, 2014
| title = On the Moon
| image = on_the_moon.png
| titletext = "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on Venus and returning him safely to--" [an aide frantically whispers in the president's ear for a moment] "... of landing a man on Venus."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Check for completeness.}}
The phrase "If we can land a man on the Moon, why can't we <blank>" is commonly used to question a perceived shortcoming of some company, government or humanity in general. The premise is that "we" (where we is usually a generalized blanket identification of humanity, or the United States) have been able to achieve the extraordinary feat of landing men on the Moon and bringing them back to Earth safely; thus our inability to achieve some lesser goal is questionable.

The {{w|Moon landing}}s are rightly seen as one of the pinnacles of humanity's achievements, and as such have become an accomplishment against which all other great feats are measured. That technology available in 1969 was so minimal in comparison to modern technology serves only to increase the status of the Moon landings.

Here, Megan is cutting Cueball's argument's short by reminding him that humanity has not put another man on the Moon since the end of the Apollo program in December 1972, and that new manned programs to return to the Moon, such as the US Constellation Program, have been repeatedly cancelled.

This comic may well be a response to NASA's [http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/december/orion-flight-test-nasa-tv-coverage-reset-for-friday-dec-5/ postponed attempt to launch] a test of the Orion spacecraft on Thursday 4th December 2014. The unmanned test flight which aims to orbit Earth twice, travelling 5800 km into space, had to be delayed due to valve issues. As the planned flight is "simply" orbiting the Earth, has nobody on board, and our technology is far advanced from the early Moon landings, the cliche question "If we can land a man on the Moon, why can't we perform a simple test flight?" is rolled out again.

The title text is a retelling of the famous inspirational [http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/xzw1gaeeTES6khED14P1Iw.aspx Kennedy address to the US Congress in May 1961], which set into motion the Apollo program, except that this time, the speaker is talking about putting a man on planet Venus. The aide presumably explains to the president that it is unlikely that anybody could land on Venus longer than a few seconds and come back alive. (The atmosphere of Venus is extremely hostile with high pressure, high temperature, strong winds, sulfuric acid rains and lakes, etc.) As a result, the president backtracks from the goal of bringing the astronauts home again. Unmanned hardened pre-cooled robotic probes either got crushed or fried before landing, or survived only a couple of hours at most{{Citation needed}}.

==Transcript==
:Cueball: If we could land a man on the Moon, why can't we -
:Megan: -land a man on the Moon?
:Cueball: ...ok, fair. But we're working on it, OK?

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category: Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category: Comics featuring Megan]]

1456: On the Moon

2014-12-05T17:14:10Z

199.27.128.117: /* Explanation */ We don't know what the aide specifically said.

{{comic
| number = 1456
| date = December 5, 2014
| title = On the Moon
| image = on_the_moon.png
| titletext = "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on Venus and returning him safely to--" [an aide frantically whispers in the president's ear for a moment] "... of landing a man on Venus."
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Check for completeness.}}
The phrase "If we can land a man on the Moon, why can't we <blank>" is commonly used to question a perceived shortcoming of some company, government or humanity in general. The premise is that "we" (where we is usually a generalized blanket identification of humanity, or the United States) have been able to achieve the extraordinary feat of landing men on the Moon and bringing them back to Earth safely; thus our inability to achieve some lesser goal is questionable.

The {{w|Moon landing}}s are rightly seen as one of the pinnacles of humanity's achievements, and as such have become an accomplishment against which all other great feats are measured. That technology available in 1969 was so minimal in comparison to modern technology serves only to increase the status of the Moon landings.

Here, Megan is cutting Cueball's argument's short by reminding him that humanity has not put another man on the Moon since the end of the Apollo program in December 1972, and that new manned programs to return to the Moon, such as the US Constellation Program, have been repeatedly cancelled.

This comic may well be a response to NASA's [http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/december/orion-flight-test-nasa-tv-coverage-reset-for-friday-dec-5/ postponed attempt to launch] a test of the Orion spacecraft on Thursday 4th December 2014. The unmanned test flight which aims to orbit Earth twice, travelling 5800 km into space, had to be delayed due to valve issues. As the planned flight is "simply" orbiting the Earth, has nobody on board, and our technology is far advanced from the early Moon landings, the cliche question "If we can land a man on the Moon, why can't we perform a simple test flight?" is rolled out again.

The title text is a retelling of the famous inspirational [http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/xzw1gaeeTES6khED14P1Iw.aspx Kennedy address to the US Congress in May 1961], which set into motion the Apollo program, except that this time, the speaker is talking about putting a man on planet Venus. The aide presumably explains to the president that it is unlikely that anybody could land on Venus longer than a few seconds and come back alive. (The atmosphere of Venus is extremely hostile with high pressure, high temperature, strong winds, sulfuric acid rains and lakes, etc.) As such, the president backtracks before setting the goal of bringing the astronauts home again. Unmanned hardened pre-cooled robotic probes either got crushed or fried before landing, or survived only a couple of hours at most{{Citation needed}}.

==Transcript==
:Cueball: If we could land a man on the Moon, why can't we -
:Megan: -land a man on the Moon?
:Cueball: ...ok, fair. But we're working on it, OK?

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category: Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category: Comics featuring Megan]]

Talk:1455: Trolley Problem

2014-12-04T17:45:26Z

199.27.128.117:

I think Randall missed a trick here.. He should have had Black Hat offer to leave the lever (killing the 5) if Cueball was the 1 person on the other track, for $1 of course. That way Cueball is put in a situation of moral contradiction: The utilitarian in him says save the 5 (sacrifice self), self interest says save yourself (thereby killing 5). --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:Randall had to make a choice between your scenario and Black Hat interrupting Cueball to emphasise BH's lack of care for the people on the track. As he chose the latter, BH didn't know there was a person on the second track, so couldn't have offered your scenario. -- [[User:Notso|Notso]] ([[User talk:Notso|talk]]) 11:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::Good point, I hadn't noticed that BH was never aware of the single person. That makes BH an even less moral person than I'd realised! As far as he knows, he could save 5 lives with no consequences, but that means standing up.... --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 12:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:: I think Randall made the morally correct choice there, don't you? -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 12:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Thats the thing with morals, something is only 'morally correct' if I subscribe to your moral viewpoint. While not such a popular view, some would argue that intervening to switch the track (thus causing the 1 worker to die) is morally wrong (because of your action you have changed the course of events, or some other reason). While most would agree that it is morally wrong to kill a human, as you start changing the circumstances, it become difficult to stick to hard and fast rules. What about abortion of a foetus, abortion where a life-limiting condition is detected, use of condoms, the death penalty, euthanasia? I would really recommend anyone to run through some of the [http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/ Philosophy Experiments], it certainly made me examine my own morals, which previously I thought were well defined and logical. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 13:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::"''some would argue that intervening to switch the track (thus causing the 1 worker to die) is morally wrong (because of your action you have changed the course of events''"
::::If you base morality on what choices are made, rather than what actions are taken, then '''failing''' to intervene, choosing not to take action, would be morally wrong. Basing morals on actions suggests someone could stand by and always do nothing and remain moral. A position I don't think anyone could seriously defend. But you're absolutely right that "morals" are never well defined or logical. An example can always be found to put someone's strong moral stance in an immoral position. --Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 17:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::The majority of people will make a distinction between killing someone and letting someone die, even if that distinction isn't something they are conscious of. Of course the end result is the same, whether it is classed as killing or letting die. For those whose morals are guided by christianity for example, the ten commandments specifically states 'Thou shalt not kill', and your action of pulling the lever could be seen as killing the 1 person, whereas by not acting, or choosing not to act, you are 'merely' letting 5 people die. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 21:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::Folks who make some kind of moral distinction between choosing to kill someone and choosing to let someone die are just trying to avoid responsibility for their actions. It's a self-righteous and self-serving. Masking that by claiming some religeous basis (God said "Thou shall not kill" so I'm, ''ahem'', just following orders.) doesn't change that.
::::::I'm not in any way suggesting it wouldn't be a wrenching and difficult decision to have to make. But someone claiming they can choose not to decide who lives and who dies (while in fact they are thereby actually making that decision) and therefore not have any responsibility for what happens as a consequence is simply lying.
::::::To perhaps more clearly show how choosing to "let" multiple people die isn't really OK morally, make it a large number of people. What if the train is headed toward 500 people? Most folks who might be OK with "letting" 5 die would balk well before the exchange rate got near 500:1. I realize this kind of contemplating "where do you draw the line" is what the trolley problem is designed to produce. Thanks for the discussion.--Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 17:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Black Hat first sells his hypothetical decision for $1, which can be seen as a cheap bargain for one's life; but how probable is this concrete situation with these exact persons to come true, except we are speaking of Black Hat here. $5 still is for a hypothetical, but more probable scenario given Black Hat's attitude; agreeing to pay would make Cueball open for further blackmailing in general and so be imprudent, but even for that counter-argument Black Hat has an even more expensive solution. Black Hat goes more and more meta and counters arguments bringing the concrete decision from hypothesis to reality and earning money on the way. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 10:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Pudder

Or one can treat this like Captain Kirk did with the infamous "Kobayashi Maru" problem and cheat, and say that they would throw the lever after the lead wheels have cleared the switch. This would divert the trailing wheels onto the other track which would cause the trolley to derail and thus save all six.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.94|108.162.216.94]] 13:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:And kill everyone on board! Its easy to cheat, and construct ways to avoid the hypothetical situation, or reasons why it could never happen in the first place. To me its more interesting to examine and challenge the thought process involved in making a decision where the answer isn't necessarily 'correct'. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 13:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::Nowhere does it say there are people on the trolley. You are assuming that there are. I am assuming the opposite — that it is a runaway and no one is aboard; otherwise someone would be able to apply the brakes.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.94|108.162.216.94]] 15:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::My response was an off the cuff joke, it doesn't matter whether there are people on board, whether they would survive, whether they could pull the brakes on, if the brakes have failed, whether you could fire an orange portal in front of the 5 people and a blue one after them, etc etc etc. The importants part is the second half of my statement, that its easy to cheat, and construct ways to avoid the hypothetical situation, or reasons why it could never happen in the first place. Once you accept the hypothetical limits of the situation, that is where the interesting philosophical questions lie. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 15:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::The correct answer is to have a moral trolley company that trains its workers to OSHA rules; thus the correct answer would be to throw the lever to head towards the worker, confident that the worker has been trained to listen to the "singing of the rails" indicating an approaching vehicle and will jump out of the way. [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 13:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::In the original problem, all 6 potential victims are bound and helpless and none of them are "workers". [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 14:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::If the trolley is a runaway trolley, then it's a good chance that all on board (if anyone) would die anyway, so may as well save all six people on the track. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.217.131|108.162.217.131]] 14:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The explanation is missing that Black Hat doesn't offer to press the lever for $1. He offers to promise to press the lever for $1. [[User:Hsdgsgh|Hsdgsgh]] ([[User talk:Hsdgsgh|talk]]) 13:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It depends - are any/all of those five people Hitler? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.48|108.162.215.48]] 16:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The tiered levels appear similar to kickstarter campaigns. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.91|108.162.216.91]]

The trolley problem continues: The trolley is under control, but heading towards a bend. If the driver brakes now, then the five people hidden round the corner will survive. You could certainly make the driver brake by pushing someone onto the track. If you would divert the trolley in the original scenario, would you also push a random stranger into the path of an oncoming train, and if not, why not. Does the more visceral act of pushing someone onto a track make this morally different? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.201|141.101.98.201]] 20:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:[http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/Default4.aspx The statistics] show that far fewer people will push the person onto the track than would change the lever. As you say, its far more visceral and personal to push someone than to flick a switch. {{unsigned|Pudder}}

Talk:1455: Trolley Problem

2014-12-04T17:39:25Z

199.27.128.117:

I think Randall missed a trick here.. He should have had Black Hat offer to leave the lever (killing the 5) if Cueball was the 1 person on the other track, for $1 of course. That way Cueball is put in a situation of moral contradiction: The utilitarian in him says save the 5 (sacrifice self), self interest says save yourself (thereby killing 5). --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:Randall had to make a choice between your scenario and Black Hat interrupting Cueball to emphasise BH's lack of care for the people on the track. As he chose the latter, BH didn't know there was a person on the second track, so couldn't have offered your scenario. -- [[User:Notso|Notso]] ([[User talk:Notso|talk]]) 11:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::Good point, I hadn't noticed that BH was never aware of the single person. That makes BH an even less moral person than I'd realised! As far as he knows, he could save 5 lives with no consequences, but that means standing up.... --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 12:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:: I think Randall made the morally correct choice there, don't you? -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 12:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Thats the thing with morals, something is only 'morally correct' if I subscribe to your moral viewpoint. While not such a popular view, some would argue that intervening to switch the track (thus causing the 1 worker to die) is morally wrong (because of your action you have changed the course of events, or some other reason). While most would agree that it is morally wrong to kill a human, as you start changing the circumstances, it become difficult to stick to hard and fast rules. What about abortion of a foetus, abortion where a life-limiting condition is detected, use of condoms, the death penalty, euthanasia? I would really recommend anyone to run through some of the [http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/ Philosophy Experiments], it certainly made me examine my own morals, which previously I thought were well defined and logical. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 13:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::"''some would argue that intervening to switch the track (thus causing the 1 worker to die) is morally wrong (because of your action you have changed the course of events''"
::::If you base morality on what choices are made, rather than what actions are taken, then '''failing''' to intervene, choosing not to take action, would be morally wrong. Basing morals on actions suggests someone could stand by and always do nothing and remain moral. A position I don't think anyone could seriously defend. But you're absolutely right that "morals" are never well defined or logical. An example can always be found to put someone's strong moral stance in an immoral position. Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 17:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::::The majority of people will make a distinction between killing someone and letting someone die, even if that distinction isn't something they are conscious of. Of course the end result is the same, whether it is classed as killing or letting die. For those whose morals are guided by christianity for example, the ten commandments specifically states 'Thou shalt not kill', and your action of pulling the lever could be seen as killing the 1 person, whereas by not acting, or choosing not to act, you are 'merely' letting 5 people die. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 21:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::Folks who make some kind of moral distinction between choosing to kill someone and choosing to let someone die are just trying to avoid responsibility for their actions. It's a self-righteous and self-serving. Masking that by claiming some religeous basis (God said "Thou shall not kill" so I'm, ''ahem'', just following orders.) doesn't change that.
::::::I'm not in any way suggesting it wouldn't be a wrenching decision to have to make. But someone claiming they can choose not to decide who lives and who dies (while in fact they are thereby actually making that decision) and therefore not have any responsibility for what happens as a consequence is far from being honest or acting morally. Equinox [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 17:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Black Hat first sells his hypothetical decision for $1, which can be seen as a cheap bargain for one's life; but how probable is this concrete situation with these exact persons to come true, except we are speaking of Black Hat here. $5 still is for a hypothetical, but more probable scenario given Black Hat's attitude; agreeing to pay would make Cueball open for further blackmailing in general and so be imprudent, but even for that counter-argument Black Hat has an even more expensive solution. Black Hat goes more and more meta and counters arguments bringing the concrete decision from hypothesis to reality and earning money on the way. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 10:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Pudder

Or one can treat this like Captain Kirk did with the infamous "Kobayashi Maru" problem and cheat, and say that they would throw the lever after the lead wheels have cleared the switch. This would divert the trailing wheels onto the other track which would cause the trolley to derail and thus save all six.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.94|108.162.216.94]] 13:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:And kill everyone on board! Its easy to cheat, and construct ways to avoid the hypothetical situation, or reasons why it could never happen in the first place. To me its more interesting to examine and challenge the thought process involved in making a decision where the answer isn't necessarily 'correct'. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 13:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::Nowhere does it say there are people on the trolley. You are assuming that there are. I am assuming the opposite — that it is a runaway and no one is aboard; otherwise someone would be able to apply the brakes.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.94|108.162.216.94]] 15:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::My response was an off the cuff joke, it doesn't matter whether there are people on board, whether they would survive, whether they could pull the brakes on, if the brakes have failed, whether you could fire an orange portal in front of the 5 people and a blue one after them, etc etc etc. The importants part is the second half of my statement, that its easy to cheat, and construct ways to avoid the hypothetical situation, or reasons why it could never happen in the first place. Once you accept the hypothetical limits of the situation, that is where the interesting philosophical questions lie. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 15:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::The correct answer is to have a moral trolley company that trains its workers to OSHA rules; thus the correct answer would be to throw the lever to head towards the worker, confident that the worker has been trained to listen to the "singing of the rails" indicating an approaching vehicle and will jump out of the way. [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 13:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::In the original problem, all 6 potential victims are bound and helpless and none of them are "workers". [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 14:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::If the trolley is a runaway trolley, then it's a good chance that all on board (if anyone) would die anyway, so may as well save all six people on the track. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.217.131|108.162.217.131]] 14:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The explanation is missing that Black Hat doesn't offer to press the lever for $1. He offers to promise to press the lever for $1. [[User:Hsdgsgh|Hsdgsgh]] ([[User talk:Hsdgsgh|talk]]) 13:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

It depends - are any/all of those five people Hitler? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.48|108.162.215.48]] 16:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The tiered levels appear similar to kickstarter campaigns. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.91|108.162.216.91]]

The trolley problem continues: The trolley is under control, but heading towards a bend. If the driver brakes now, then the five people hidden round the corner will survive. You could certainly make the driver brake by pushing someone onto the track. If you would divert the trolley in the original scenario, would you also push a random stranger into the path of an oncoming train, and if not, why not. Does the more visceral act of pushing someone onto a track make this morally different? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.201|141.101.98.201]] 20:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:[http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/Default4.aspx The statistics] show that far fewer people will push the person onto the track than would change the lever. As you say, its far more visceral and personal to push someone than to flick a switch. {{unsigned|Pudder}}

Talk:1455: Trolley Problem

2014-12-03T17:41:36Z

199.27.128.117:

It depends - are any/all of those five people Hitler? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.48|108.162.215.48]] 16:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think Randall missed a trick here.. He should have had Black Hat offer to leave the lever (killing the 5) if Cueball was the 1 person on the other track, for $1 of course. That way Cueball is put in a situation of moral contradiction: The utilitarian in him says save the 5 (sacrifice self), self interest says save yourself (thereby killing 5). --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 09:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:Randall had to make a choice between your scenario and Black Hat interrupting Cueball to emphasise BH's lack of care for the people on the track. As he chose the latter, BH didn't know there was a person on the second track, so couldn't have offered your scenario. -- [[User:Notso|Notso]] ([[User talk:Notso|talk]]) 11:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::Good point, I hadn't noticed that BH was never aware of the single person. That makes BH an even less moral person than I'd realised! As far as he knows, he could save 5 lives with no consequences, but that means standing up.... --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 12:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:: I think Randall made the morally correct choice there, don't you? -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 12:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::Thats the thing with morals, something is only 'morally correct' if I subscribe to your moral viewpoint. While not such a popular view, some would argue that intervening to switch the track (thus causing the 1 worker to die) is morally wrong (because of your action you have changed the course of events, or some other reason). While most would agree that it is morally wrong to kill a human, as you start changing the circumstances, it become difficult to stick to hard and fast rules. What about abortion of a foetus, abortion where a life-limiting condition is detected, use of condoms, the death penalty, euthanasia? I would really recommend anyone to run through some of the [http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/ Philosophy Experiments], it certainly made me examine my own morals, which previously I thought were well defined and logical. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 13:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::::"''some would argue that intervening to switch the track (thus causing the 1 worker to die) is morally wrong (because of your action you have changed the course of events''"
::::If you base morality on what choices are made, rather than what actions are taken, then '''failing''' to intervene, choosing not to take action, would be morally wrong. Basing morals on actions suggests someone could stand by and always do nothing and remain moral. A position I don't think anyone could seriously defend. But you're absolutely right that "morals" are never well defined or logical. An example can always be found to put someone's strong moral stance in an immoral position. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 17:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Black Hat first sells his hypothetical decision for $1, which can be seen as a cheap bargain for one's life; but how probable is this concrete situation with these exact persons to come true, except we are speaking of Black Hat here. $5 still is for a hypothetical, but more probable scenario given Black Hat's attitude; agreeing to pay would make Cueball open for further blackmailing in general and so be imprudent, but even for that counter-argument Black Hat has an even more expensive solution. Black Hat goes more and more meta and counters arguments bringing the concrete decision from hypothesis to reality and earning money on the way. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 10:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Or one can treat this like Captain Kirk did with the infamous "Kobayashi Maru" problem and cheat, and say that they would throw the lever after the lead wheels have cleared the switch. This would divert the trailing wheels onto the other track which would cause the trolley to derail and thus save all six.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.94|108.162.216.94]] 13:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:And kill everyone on board! Its easy to cheat, and construct ways to avoid the hypothetical situation, or reasons why it could never happen in the first place. To me its more interesting to examine and challenge the thought process involved in making a decision where the answer isn't necessarily 'correct'. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 13:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::Nowhere does it say there are people on the trolley. You are assuming that there are. I am assuming the opposite — that it is a runaway and no one is aboard; otherwise someone would be able to apply the brakes.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.94|108.162.216.94]] 15:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::My response was an off the cuff joke, it doesn't matter whether there are people on board, whether they would survive, whether they could pull the brakes on, if the brakes have failed, whether you could fire an orange portal in front of the 5 people and a blue one after them, etc etc etc. The importants part is the second half of my statement, that its easy to cheat, and construct ways to avoid the hypothetical situation, or reasons why it could never happen in the first place. Once you accept the hypothetical limits of the situation, that is where the interesting philosophical questions lie. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 15:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::The correct answer is to have a moral trolley company that trains its workers to OSHA rules; thus the correct answer would be to throw the lever to head towards the worker, confident that the worker has been trained to listen to the "singing of the rails" indicating an approaching vehicle and will jump out of the way. [[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 13:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
:::In the original problem, all 6 potential victims are bound and helpless and none of them are "workers". [[User:Smperron|Smperron]] ([[User talk:Smperron|talk]]) 14:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
::If the trolley is a runaway trolley, then it's a good chance that all on board (if anyone) would die anyway, so may as well save all six people on the track. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.217.131|108.162.217.131]] 14:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The explanation is missing that Black Hat doesn't offer to press the lever for $1. He offers to promise to press the lever for $1. [[User:Hsdgsgh|Hsdgsgh]] ([[User talk:Hsdgsgh|talk]]) 13:57, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

1455: Trolley Problem

2014-12-03T17:34:18Z

199.27.128.117: /* Explanation */ not sure what is correct adjective (self-involved?) but "sadistic" isn't it. Black Hat doesn't delight in other's pain as much as he just doesn't care if they're injured as a consequence of him doing what he wants.

{{comic
| number = 1455
| date = December 3, 2014
| title = Trolley Problem
| image = trolley_problem.png
| titletext = For $5 I promise not to orchestrate this situation, and for $25 I promise not to take further advantage of this ability to create incentives.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Just a rough draft.}}
The {{w|trolley problem}} is a thought experiment often posed in {{w|philosophy}} to explore moral questions, with applications in {{w|cognitive science}} and {{w|neuroethics}}. The general version is that there are 5 people on one track, and 1 person on an adjacent track. The trolley (or train) is out of control and can be diverted by using a lever, with the consequence of saving the 5 people but killing the 1 person.

This results of [http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/Default4.aspx this test] report that around 86% of respondents choose the utilitarian option of diverting the trolley. Utilitarian ethics holds that the morally correct option is that which results in the most amount of good for the greatest number of people; in this case choosing to sacrifice the 1 person for 5 people.

After discovering a variation on this problem posed in a strip of the [http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3556#comic Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal] webcomic (which can be seen on the tablet he is carrying), [[Cueball]] presents it to [[Black Hat]]. Before Cueball can finish explaining the problem, Black Hat questions whether he would need to get up to reach the lever and how much it would interrupt his other activities. As usual, he cares nothing at all about what happens to other people. This response is linked to another theory in philosophy, that of {{w|self interest}} or {{w|egoism}}, in which a person will choose the action with the most benefit for them personally.

Black Hat then poses an offer: he promises to divert the train if Cueball is one of the five endangered people, provided that Cueball pays him $1 now. Again Black Hat is twisting the situation to his own benefit, in this case monetary. Cueball decides that there is no point posing the problem to someone like Black Hat and gives up.

The title text follows this up by continuing Black Hat's offers. For $5 he will not deliberately arrange this situation and for $25 he will quit looking for further incentives. These attempts to exploit the thought exercise for personal gain further demonstrate Black Hat's cynical amorality.

==Transcript==
:Cueball: Ever heard of The trolley problem?

:Black hat: No. What is it?

:Cueball: A trolley is barreling towards five helpless people on the tracks. You can pull a lever to direct it onto another track, but-

:Black hat: Can I reach the lever without getting up?

:Cueball: Wait, I'm not-

:Black hat: In this scenario, how busy am I?

:Cueball: I guess I forgot who I was talking to.

:Black hat: For a dollar, I'll promise to pull the lever if one of the five people is you.
{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]

Talk:1434: Where Do Birds Go

2014-10-15T16:36:43Z

199.27.128.117: The glasses did present an issue.

Hehe, are we suggesting that "bird" may be a phase of dihydrogen monoxide? I like that.
--[[User:Stg|Stg]] ([[User talk:Stg|talk]]) 05:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I recommend we keep the answer out of the explain page since it wasn't included in the comic. Birds can google it themselves. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.209|108.162.216.209]] 06:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

:Why are you so mean to poor birds? Do you know how hard is to type with beak? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

::It really is a pain. They have to hunt and peck.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.26|108.162.216.26]] 12:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

::Especially on a touch screen! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.209|108.162.216.209]] 13:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I added the thing about catcher in the rye, but now I think that might not be right.[[User:Cheeselover724|Cheeselover724]] ([[User talk:Cheeselover724|talk]]) 06:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

:I haven't read Catcher in the Rye, but I purely read it as Superman & Clark Kent are the same thing, implying that birds and rain are the same thing. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 08:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Cueball assumes it's a question common to all of internet-accessed humans, making it seem like a beautiful thing. In the end, it turns out those are actually helpless birds asking this question worldwide, not people. I'd advise you add a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog] reference.
The ice/catcher in the rye connection is far fetched. Judging by the Clark/Superman comparison, Randall suggests that birds turn into the rain as part of the water/ice phases and not hide from it. Because Clark doesn't go when Superman arrives, he turns into Superman. [[User:Dulcis|Dulcis]] ([[User talk:Dulcis|talk]]) 08:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

:Actually, I think Clark will end up on bottom of the phone booth. Superman must assume that noone will steal his disguise while he will do the rescuing ... meanwhile, there is lot of water in birds, but also lot of other molecules, so the transformation wouldn't work. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

::In older continuity, "Clark" (or at least his clothing) would get folded up, compressed and tucked into a pocket on the underside of the cape.... [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 16:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

[https://www.google.com/webhp?q=where%20do%20birds%20go%20when%20it%20rains the google query] [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.100|141.101.98.100]] 08:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Birds can use the internet? Before we know it, they will start tweeting. [[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 11:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
:ICY what you did there -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 12:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
:And then they'll move on to Facebeak, [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.26|108.162.216.26]] 15:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

How do we know that is a pokedex? It looks more like a tablet to me. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.202|173.245.56.202]] 12:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

So for the transcript, I'm thinking until the full text in every screen snippet is transcribed and each source result website is identified, it will be technically incomplete - any commentary on this (?) -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 12:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

: While maybe technically incomplete, surely we have to be sensible, and take the decision to omit text which isn't really relevant to the comic. Take the top right screenshot as an exampe, I would argue that the following should be omitted: Top left word??, Search Replies, Previous Page, Next Page, social media share/like text, Username, Text in geen, UserID: 520655, United States.. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 14:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
:: Agreed, as I believe I did when creating what is there right now, and as I summarized below at the same time you were writing your reply -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 14:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
:Alright, well, I did for the first 20 screen snippets what I think would be good to do for the remaining ones (find the source site and page, then quote what seems to be the pertinent question and answer text that is visible in the snippet, disregarding usernames, dates, categories and similar meta data). It could probably also be done for at least ten more with a bit more effort, but I don't wanna waste my time if the community just says "WAYY TOO MUCH! DELETE!!") -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 14:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I also kind of think that the transcript should have the links to the source sites (since they are screen snippets), while the explanation should have the translations for any non-english text and any needed explanation for differences in cultural context. Regardless, having links to the source sites seems unnecessary to have in BOTH places, but they're links, so... they don't take up any more room, I suppose... -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 14:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

: Great job on the transcript. Personally I like the link to original source as you've done, though perhaps other would disagree. I'm tempted to say it should also be in the explanation, as that is where I assume others would expect that type of information to be. I'm actually quite impressed at what a quality page this is after only a matter of hours, especially given that it isn't the simplest comic. Images, tables, translations, original sources... Beautiful! --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 15:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

: I could help out with the Dutch translation, and I could make a stub for the German one (It'd probably be wise to have a *real* German check that one though) [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.86|108.162.254.86]] 16:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1433: Lightsaber

2014-10-13T14:55:46Z

199.27.128.117:

Actually, the title text says "A long time in the future, in a galaxy...", not "ago". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.26|108.162.216.26]] 12:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
: Who said otherwise? "'''The Star Wars opening crawl''' starts with the text "A long time ago..."

I seem to remember seeing somewhere that lightsabers are actually not lasers but rather plasma held in that shape by some sort of force field. I think it should be in the explanation if it is true. [[User:Athang|Athang]] ([[User talk:Athang|talk]]) 06:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
:I'd just like to know what "real laser"s have to do with lightsabers. (Other than little kids using the wrong name.) [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.120|103.22.201.120]] 11:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of "scientific" explanations of lightsaber (and blaster bolts) says about plasma contained in magnetic field. For example check this SE http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/6478.
Endless "laser sword" pun was also used in http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6704463/troopers-laser-sword, without Luke but with massive hull breach. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.214|108.162.231.214]] 06:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)PTwr

One joking "explanation" of the light sabre conjured long ago on a newsgroup I was on had used the Fourier analysis. It proposed that the "handle" emits multiple beams of light with very well defined frequencies and amplitudes, corresponding to a Fourier series for a pulse wave with a low duty cycle - so the waveforms emitted cancel themselves after a short distance. The joke went on, saying that since the sum of the Fourier series is periodic, someone practicing the sabre on the Earth can accidentally chop off the head of someone walking on the Moon. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.29|108.162.254.29]] 07:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this has anything to do with the Hull Breach card game. The sentence "Hull breach all along sector five" does however sound like something from Star Trek and not like Star Wars.[[User:Condor70|Condor70]] ([[User talk:Condor70|talk]]) 12:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a XKCD What If discussion on infinite lasers at http://what-if.xkcd.com/109/ [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.113|141.101.99.113]] 12:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1431: Marriage

2014-10-09T16:45:46Z

199.27.128.117:

Okay, that was the hardest explanation I've attempted so far. [[User:Cheeselover724|Cheeselover724]] ([[User talk:Cheeselover724|talk]]) 04:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:Graphs tend to be hard. On that note, the transcript was tricky and probably needs work. [[User:Athang|Athang]] ([[User talk:Athang|talk]]) 05:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:: Hope you don't mind, I just about completely rewrote the transcript, attempting to indicate the structure of each line and the visual effect I thought was intended -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 11:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:looksclike Gallup has a nice page up right now that happens to include gay marriage and interracial marriage one below the other. Probably good to use these in the explanation?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx [[User:Sean timmons|Sean timmons]] ([[User talk:Sean timmons|talk]]) 21:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

----

Thank you for your efforts. This of course raises questions about what's next. Let's hope we can question sincerely and this does not become a troll.

How about adoption of children by single persons (authorized in France, where else) ? By same-sex couples (authorized in France because the same law applies to marriage and adoption) ? Can anyone (even Randall) gather data and produce a graph ?

Adoption normally gives a home with proper parents to a child that lack them by accident.

Notice that every human person living or dead has exactly one mother and one father because of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete Gamete] mechanism (even if one or even both parents are sometimes unknown or the person is raised by other people). [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#Article_7 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child] article 7 mentions "The child (...) immediately after birth (...) shall have the right (...) to know and be cared for by his or her parents."

In the US one can buy a child specifically produced to be adopted. Depending on the situation, children are produced using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy gestational surrogacy] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_reproductive_technology Assisted reproductive technology].

In theory this has nothing to do with sexual orientation of the buyers. In practice fertile couples just have babies naturally. So the only people who buy babies are very rich people who want babies with specific features (keyword "screening"), infertile couples and people that may be technically fertile but whose situation is not a traditional couple (they may be single or same-sex couple). I know in my town two gay men that bought two children in the US.

Those children are produced to be deprived of one of their parents. That violates [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#Article_7 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child], right ? Is that a progress ? How to solve that ?

Let's try to remain close to this XKCD graph and the question: what's next and what to think of it ? Open to your constructive questions and comments.
--[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 11:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

:So you're saying that adoption (from gay or straight couples) violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? That all sperm donation should be banned? [[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 12:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Also, the US has not ratified the UNCRC so this discussion is moot. You can't hold them to the rules if they blatantly declare that they don't follow them.[[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 12:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

::Thank you for your reply Diszy.

::> So you're saying that adoption (from gay or straight couples) violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

::No, I'm not saying that. The case of babies produced and sold, even after many debates, seems somehow wrong in a way that has nothing to do with sexual orientation of parents.
::When a child has no suitable genetic parents (they are dead or abusing) I understand that adoption is clearly compatible with UNCRC article 7.
::When a child is produced to be deprived of one parent, I find it debatable. Or maybe we can save the logic by considering that the genetic parent "resigns" their responsibility, which falls back to the previous case.

::> That all sperm donation should be banned?

::I'm not discussing if it should be banned, but you raise an interesting point.

::Technically, a spem donor is a genetic parent that "resigns" (can anyone find a better word) their responsibility as parent since they are not planning to honor it (some do, afterwards). Does it violate UNCRC article 7 ? My understanding is: things are blurred by the "as far as possible" wording.

::> Also, the US has not ratified the UNCRC so this discussion is moot.

::[http://www.wordreference.com/definition/moot moot - ] "of little or no practical value or meaning;
::interesting only from the point of view of theory:"

::Thank you for this piece of information. So this can't be used to demonstrate that US legal system is inconsistent.

::> You can't hold them to the rules if they blatantly declare that they don't follow them.

::I didn't know that.

::Again I'm not discussing good and bad or whatever, rather logical consistency. This is a math-geek-language discussion place, isn't it ?

::There's one way countries who have ratified the UNCRC could claim it's okay.
::They could claim that the "parents" in article 7 are not genetic parents but the persons who are willing to raise the child. Though that's another possible way to make a consistent logical model, I'm pretty sure that's not what the UN had in mind when they wrote this.

::Thank you again for your feedback.

::--[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 15:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

----

It's interesting to think about the differences between interracial marriage versus gay marriage. In the latter situation an entire class of people aren't able to obtain the only type of marriage that would likely appeal to them, whereas I think interracial marriages are more "fungible" (definitely not the right word) in that a person who engages in an interracial marriage may not have a strong preference for interracial marriages over intraracial marriages. So in banning interracial marriage, they impacted specific individuals, but there wasn't a well-defined class of interracial marriage pursuers who were denied the right to marry. I think this is relevant because in the case of gay-marriage, most people in the wronged class (people who want gay marriages), and many people outside of the wronged class, all support the right. With interracial marriage on the other hand, I would be curious to see if it was mostly whites that opposed interracial marriage, or if large percentages of whites, blacks, and other minorities also disapproved of interracial marriage.

[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.194|173.245.54.194]] 15:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)XkdcPoster

So legalization of inter-racial marriage preceded (by quite some time) the general acceptance of it. While acceptance of same-sex marriage is preceding it's legalization. An interesting switch in how the country operates. A consequence of the rise of groups like the "conservative" Tea Party folks and the increased radicalization of the right? Where once we had politicians who did the right thing despite its not being popular, now delay doing the right thing because they are far more interested in "leading by following" than in actual leading? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 15:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:Some say radicalization, some say marginalization. Perhaps both are right.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 17:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
::Yeah, both are right in that one eventually leads to the other. Folks who get too radical (in either direction) get marginalized. But it's a self-inflicted marginalization and an appropriate one. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 16:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

----

Although I agree with Randall's point in this comic, he is cheating a little bit. The poll questions are slightly different: "do you '''approve of''' interracial marriage?" vs "do you think same-sex marriage '''should be legal'''?" People who "disapprove" of something, but grudgingly acknowledge that it should be allowed, are miscounted. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 18:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

p.s. OTOH, hypothetically if SCOTUS reversed ''Loving'' and allowed interracial bans again, a lot of those disapprovers would probably turn back into active opponents. IOW, they accept it as law mainly because they know they can't change it. - [[User:Frankie|Frankie]] ([[User talk:Frankie|talk]]) 18:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

356: Nerd Sniping

2014-10-08T15:54:43Z

199.27.128.117: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 356
| date = December 12, 2007
| title = Nerd Sniping
| image = nerd sniping.png
| titletext = I first saw this problem on the Google Labs Aptitude Test. A professor and I filled a blackboard without getting anywhere. Have fun.
}}

==Explanation==
{{w|Nerd}}s have a way of getting distracted easily and focusing on one thing and ignoring the rest, when they feel their specific skills are challenged by an interesting problem. [[Black Hat]] has decided to make this into a disturbing game of getting nerds, in this case a physicist, to stop in the middle of a street and get crushed by a truck by showing them an interesting problem to solve.

The problem Black Hat shows is an electronics engineering thought experiment to find the resistance between two points. In normal wiring, a one-ohm resistor would result in one ohm of resistance. Two resistors connected in a series, where electricity has to go through each, has two ohms of resistance. Two one-ohm resistors in parallel give the circuit only half an ohm since you average the resistance of the path (1 ohm of resistance over 2 paths). With an infinite grid of equal resistors, you have an infinite number of paths to take, and for each path an infinite number of both series and parallel paths to consider, so much more advanced methods are needed. The exact answer to the question is 4/π − 1/2 ohms, or about 0.773 ohms. See [http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath668/kmath668.htm| Infinite Grid of Resistors].

Black Hat's final comment that "physicists are two points, mathematicians three" indicates that he considers a mathematician to be a more difficult target for his game than a physicist would be. It is unclear whether this is meant as a dig on physicists or on mathematicians; it might be because physicists are interested in a wider range of problems, or because mathematicians require a higher-quality problem to hold their interest.

The [http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2004/09/pencils-down-people.html Google Labs Aptitude Test] is a collection of puzzles published by Google as a parody of tests such as the {{w|SAT}}. Google is known for using logic & math puzzles in their job interviews. [[Randall]] explained in [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJOS0sV2a24 a speech at Google] five days before this comic, that he was nerd-sniped, in a way, by that problem in this test, and got quite irritated when he ultimately found that it was actually a modern physics research problem, requiring very advanced math, far more complicated than the other puzzles.

==Transcript==
:[Black Hat is sitting on a chair, Cueball is standing next to him. Across the street another man is coming from a building.]
:Black Hat: There's a certain type of brain that's easily disabled. If you show it an interesting problem, it involuntarily drops everything else to work on it.

:[The man across the street is about to enter a crosswalk.]
:Black Hat: This has led me to invent a new sport: nerd sniping. See that physicist crossing the road?

:[Black Hat holds up a sign.]
:Black Hat: HEY!

:[There is an image of a grid with resistors on every connection, two nodes a knight's move apart are marked with red circles.]
:Sign: On this infinite grid of ideal one-ohm resistors, what's the equivalent resistance between the two marked nodes?

:Physicist on the street: It's... Hmm. Interesting. Maybe if you start with... No. Wait. Hmm... You could—

:[A truck is zooming past, apparently where the physicist just stood.]
:''FOOOOM''

:Cueball: I will have no part in this.
:Black Hat: C'mon, make a sign. It's fun! Physicists are two points, mathematicians three.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Black Hat]]
[[Category:Comics with color]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:1431: Marriage

2014-10-08T15:45:11Z

199.27.128.117: From a broader perspective, what does it mean that we've moved from legal-before-popular to popular-before-legal?

Okay, that was the hardest explanation I've attempted so far. [[User:Cheeselover724|Cheeselover724]] ([[User talk:Cheeselover724|talk]]) 04:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:Graphs tend to be hard. On that note, the transcript was tricky and probably needs work. [[User:Athang|Athang]] ([[User talk:Athang|talk]]) 05:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:: Hope you don't mind, I just about completely rewrote the transcript, attempting to indicate the structure of each line and the visual effect I thought was intended -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 11:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

----

Thank you for your efforts. This of course raises questions about what's next. Let's hope we can question sincerely and this does not become a troll.

How about adoption of children by single persons (authorized in France, where else) ? By same-sex couples (authorized in France because the same law applies to marriage and adoption) ? Can anyone (even Randall) gather data and produce a graph ?

Adoption normally gives a home with proper parents to a child that lack them by accident.

Notice that every human person living or dead has exactly one mother and one father because of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete Gamete] mechanism (even if one or even both parents are sometimes unknown or the person is raised by other people). [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#Article_7 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child] article 7 mentions "The child (...) immediately after birth (...) shall have the right (...) to know and be cared for by his or her parents."

In the US one can buy a child specifically produced to be adopted. Depending on the situation, children are produced using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy gestational surrogacy] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_reproductive_technology Assisted reproductive technology].

In theory this has nothing to do with sexual orientation of the buyers. In practice fertile couples just have babies naturally. So the only people who buy babies are very rich people who want babies with specific features (keyword "screening"), infertile couples and people that may be technically fertile but whose situation is not a traditional couple (they may be single or same-sex couple). I know in my town two gay men that bought two children in the US.

Those children are produced to be deprived of one of their parents. That violates [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#Article_7 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child], right ? Is that a progress ? How to solve that ?

Let's try to remain close to this XKCD graph and the question: what's next and what to think of it ? Open to your constructive questions and comments.
--[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 11:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

:So you're saying that adoption (from gay or straight couples) violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? That all sperm donation should be banned? [[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 12:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Also, the US has not ratified the UNCRC so this discussion is moot. You can't hold them to the rules if they blatantly declare that they don't follow them.[[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 12:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

::Thank you for your reply Diszy.

::> So you're saying that adoption (from gay or straight couples) violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

::No, I'm not saying that. The case of babies produced and sold, even after many debates, seems somehow wrong in a way that has nothing to do with sexual orientation of parents.
::When a child has no suitable genetic parents (they are dead or abusing) I understand that adoption is clearly compatible with UNCRC article 7.
::When a child is produced to be deprived of one parent, I find it debatable. Or maybe we can save the logic by considering that the genetic parent "resigns" their responsibility, which falls back to the previous case.

::> That all sperm donation should be banned?

::I'm not discussing if it should be banned, but you raise an interesting point.

::Technically, a spem donor is a genetic parent that "resigns" (can anyone find a better word) their responsibility as parent since they are not planning to honor it (some do, afterwards). Does it violate UNCRC article 7 ? My understanding is: things are blurred by the "as far as possible" wording.

::> Also, the US has not ratified the UNCRC so this discussion is moot.

::[http://www.wordreference.com/definition/moot moot - ] "of little or no practical value or meaning;
::interesting only from the point of view of theory:"

::Thank you for this piece of information. So this can't be used to demonstrate that US legal system is inconsistent.

::> You can't hold them to the rules if they blatantly declare that they don't follow them.

::I didn't know that.

::Again I'm not discussing good and bad or whatever, rather logical consistency. This is a math-geek-language discussion place, isn't it ?

::There's one way countries who have ratified the UNCRC could claim it's okay.
::They could claim that the "parents" in article 7 are not genetic parents but the persons who are willing to raise the child. Though that's another possible way to make a consistent logical model, I'm pretty sure that's not what the UN had in mind when they wrote this.

::Thank you again for your feedback.

::--[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 15:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

----

It's interesting to think about the differences between interracial marriage versus gay marriage. In the latter situation an entire class of people aren't able to obtain the only type of marriage that would likely appeal to them, whereas I think interracial marriages are more "fungible" (definitely not the right word) in that a person who engages in an interracial marriage may not have a strong preference for interracial marriages over intraracial marriages. So in banning interracial marriage, they impacted specific individuals, but there wasn't a well-defined class of interracial marriage pursuers who were denied the right to marry. I think this is relevant because in the case of gay-marriage, most people in the wronged class (people who want gay marriages), and many people outside of the wronged class, all support the right. With interracial marriage on the other hand, I would be curious to see if it was mostly whites that opposed interracial marriage, or if large percentages of whites, blacks, and other minorities also disapproved of interracial marriage.

[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.194|173.245.54.194]] 15:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)XkdcPoster

So legalization of inter-racial marriage preceded (by quite some time) the general acceptance of it. While acceptance of same-sex marriage is preceding it's legalization. An interesting switch in how the country operates. A consequence of the rise of groups like the "conservative" Tea Party folks and the increased radicalization of the right? Where once we had politicians who did the right thing despite its not being popular, now delay doing the right thing because they are far more interested in "leading by following" than in actual leading? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 15:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:1431: Marriage

2014-10-08T15:38:47Z

199.27.128.117:

Okay, that was the hardest explanation I've attempted so far. [[User:Cheeselover724|Cheeselover724]] ([[User talk:Cheeselover724|talk]]) 04:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:Graphs tend to be hard. On that note, the transcript was tricky and probably needs work. [[User:Athang|Athang]] ([[User talk:Athang|talk]]) 05:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:: Hope you don't mind, I just about completely rewrote the transcript, attempting to indicate the structure of each line and the visual effect I thought was intended -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 11:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

----

Thank you for your efforts. This of course raises questions about what's next. Let's hope we can question sincerely and this does not become a troll.

How about adoption of children by single persons (authorized in France, where else) ? By same-sex couples (authorized in France because the same law applies to marriage and adoption) ? Can anyone (even Randall) gather data and produce a graph ?

Adoption normally gives a home with proper parents to a child that lack them by accident.

Notice that every human person living or dead has exactly one mother and one father because of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete Gamete] mechanism (even if one or even both parents are sometimes unknown or the person is raised by other people). [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#Article_7 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child] article 7 mentions "The child (...) immediately after birth (...) shall have the right (...) to know and be cared for by his or her parents."

Now consider people technically fertile but whose situation is not a traditional couple (they may be single or same-sex couple). In the US they can buy a child specifically produced to be adopted (I know in my town two French gay men that bought two children in the US). Depending on the situation, children are produced using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy gestational surrogacy] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_reproductive_technology Assisted reproductive technology].

Those children are produced to be deprived of one of their parents. That violates [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#Article_7 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child], right ? Is that a progress ? How to solve that ?

Let's try to remain close to this XKCD graph and the question: what's next and what to think of it ? Open to your constructive questions and comments.
--[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 11:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

----

:So you're saying that adoption (from gay or straight couples) violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? That all sperm donation should be banned? [[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 12:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Also, the US has not ratified the UNCRC so this discussion is moot. You can't hold them to the rules if they blatantly declare that they don't follow them.[[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 12:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

----

::Thank you for your reply Diszy.

::> So you're saying that adoption (from gay or straight couples) violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

::No, I'm not saying that. The case of babies produced and sold, even after many debates, seems somehow wrong in a way that has nothing to do with sexual orientation of parents.
::When a child has no suitable genetic parents (they are dead or abusing) I understand that adoption is clearly compatible with UNCRC article 7.
::When a child is produced to be deprived of one parent, I find it debatable. Or maybe we can save the logic by considering that the genetic parent "resigns" their responsibility, which falls back to the previous case.

::> That all sperm donation should be banned?

::I'm not discussing if it should be banned, but you raise an interesting point.

::Technically, a spem donor is a genetic parent that "resigns" (can anyone find a better word) their responsibility as parent since they are not planning to honor it (some do, afterwards). Does it violate UNCRC article 7 ? My understanding is: things are blurred by the "as far as possible" wording.

::> Also, the US has not ratified the UNCRC so this discussion is moot.

::[http://www.wordreference.com/definition/moot moot - ] "of little or no practical value or meaning;
::interesting only from the point of view of theory:"

::Thank you for this piece of information. So this can't be used to demonstrate that US legal system is inconsistent.

::> You can't hold them to the rules if they blatantly declare that they don't follow them.

::I didn't know that.

::Again I'm not discussing good and bad or whatever, rather logical consistency. This is a math-geek-language discussion place, isn't it ?

::There's one way countries who have ratified the UNCRC could claim it's okay.
::They could claim that the "parents" in article 7 are not genetic parents but the persons who are willing to raise the child. Though that's another possible way to make a consistent logical model, I'm pretty sure that's not what the UN had in mind when they wrote this.

::Thank you again for your feedback.

::--[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 15:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting to think about the differences between interracial marriage versus gay marriage. In the latter situation an entire class of people aren't able to obtain the only type of marriage that would likely appeal to them, whereas I think interracial marriages are more "fungible" (definitely not the right word) in that a person who engages in an interracial marriage may not have a strong preference for interracial marriages over intraracial marriages. So in banning interracial marriage, they impacted specific individuals, but there wasn't a well-defined class of interracial marriage pursuers who were denied the right to marry. I think this is relevant because in the case of gay-marriage, most people in the wronged class (people who want gay marriages), and many people outside of the wronged class, all support the right. With interracial marriage on the other hand, I would be curious to see if it was mostly whites that opposed interracial marriage, or if large percentages of whites, blacks, and other minorities also disapproved of interracial marriage.

[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.194|173.245.54.194]] 15:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)XkdcPoster

Talk:1431: Marriage

2014-10-08T15:38:20Z

199.27.128.117:

Okay, that was the hardest explanation I've attempted so far. [[User:Cheeselover724|Cheeselover724]] ([[User talk:Cheeselover724|talk]]) 04:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:Graphs tend to be hard. On that note, the transcript was tricky and probably needs work. [[User:Athang|Athang]] ([[User talk:Athang|talk]]) 05:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:: Hope you don't mind, I just about completely rewrote the transcript, attempting to indicate the structure of each line and the visual effect I thought was intended -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 11:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

----

Thank you for your efforts. This of course raises questions about what's next. Let's hope we can question sincerely and this does not become a troll.

How about adoption of children by single persons (authorized in France, where else) ? By same-sex couples (authorized in France because the same law applies to marriage and adoption) ? Can anyone (even Randall) gather data and produce a graph ?

Adoption normally gives a home with proper parents to a child that lack them by accident.

Notice that every human person living or dead has exactly one mother and one father because of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete Gamete] mechanism (even if one or even both parents are sometimes unknown or the person is raised by other people). [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#Article_7 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child] article 7 mentions "The child (...) immediately after birth (...) shall have the right (...) to know and be cared for by his or her parents."

Now consider people technically fertile but whose situation is not a traditional couple (they may be single or same-sex couple). In the US they can buy a child specifically produced to be adopted (I know in my town two French gay men that bought two children in the US). Depending on the situation, children are produced using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy gestational surrogacy] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_reproductive_technology Assisted reproductive technology].

Those children are produced to be deprived of one of their parents. That violates [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#Article_7 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child], right ? Is that a progress ? How to solve that ?

Let's try to remain close to this XKCD graph and the question: what's next and what to think of it ? Open to your constructive questions and comments.
--[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 11:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

----

:So you're saying that adoption (from gay or straight couples) violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? That all sperm donation should be banned? [[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 12:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Also, the US has not ratified the UNCRC so this discussion is moot. You can't hold them to the rules if they blatantly declare that they don't follow them.[[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 12:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

----

::Thank you for your reply Diszy.

::> So you're saying that adoption (from gay or straight couples) violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

::No, I'm not saying that. The case of babies produced and sold, even after many debates, seems somehow wrong in a way that has nothing to do with sexual orientation of parents.
::When a child has no suitable genetic parents (they are dead or abusing) I understand that adoption is clearly compatible with UNCRC article 7.
:When a child is produced to be deprived of one parent, I find it debatable. Or maybe we can save the logic by considering that the genetic parent "resigns" their responsibility, which falls back to the previous case.

::> That all sperm donation should be banned?

::I'm not discussing if it should be banned, but you raise an interesting point.

::Technically, a spem donor is a genetic parent that "resigns" (can anyone find a better word) their responsibility as parent since they are not planning to honor it (some do, afterwards). Does it violate UNCRC article 7 ? My understanding is: things are blurred by the "as far as possible" wording.

::> Also, the US has not ratified the UNCRC so this discussion is moot.

::[http://www.wordreference.com/definition/moot moot - ] "of little or no practical value or meaning;
::interesting only from the point of view of theory:"

::Thank you for this piece of information. So this can't be used to demonstrate that US legal system is inconsistent.

::> You can't hold them to the rules if they blatantly declare that they don't follow them.

::I didn't know that.

::Again I'm not discussing good and bad or whatever, rather logical consistency. This is a math-geek-language discussion place, isn't it ?

::There's one way countries who have ratified the UNCRC could claim it's okay.
::They could claim that the "parents" in article 7 are not genetic parents but the persons who are willing to raise the child. Though that's another possible way to make a consistent logical model, I'm pretty sure that's not what the UN had in mind when they wrote this.

::Thank you again for your feedback.

::--[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 15:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting to think about the differences between interracial marriage versus gay marriage. In the latter situation an entire class of people aren't able to obtain the only type of marriage that would likely appeal to them, whereas I think interracial marriages are more "fungible" (definitely not the right word) in that a person who engages in an interracial marriage may not have a strong preference for interracial marriages over intraracial marriages. So in banning interracial marriage, they impacted specific individuals, but there wasn't a well-defined class of interracial marriage pursuers who were denied the right to marry. I think this is relevant because in the case of gay-marriage, most people in the wronged class (people who want gay marriages), and many people outside of the wronged class, all support the right. With interracial marriage on the other hand, I would be curious to see if it was mostly whites that opposed interracial marriage, or if large percentages of whites, blacks, and other minorities also disapproved of interracial marriage.

[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.194|173.245.54.194]] 15:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)XkdcPoster

Talk:1431: Marriage

2014-10-08T15:37:55Z

199.27.128.117:

Okay, that was the hardest explanation I've attempted so far. [[User:Cheeselover724|Cheeselover724]] ([[User talk:Cheeselover724|talk]]) 04:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:Graphs tend to be hard. On that note, the transcript was tricky and probably needs work. [[User:Athang|Athang]] ([[User talk:Athang|talk]]) 05:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
:: Hope you don't mind, I just about completely rewrote the transcript, attempting to indicate the structure of each line and the visual effect I thought was intended -- [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 11:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

----

Thank you for your efforts. This of course raises questions about what's next. Let's hope we can question sincerely and this does not become a troll.

How about adoption of children by single persons (authorized in France, where else) ? By same-sex couples (authorized in France because the same law applies to marriage and adoption) ? Can anyone (even Randall) gather data and produce a graph ?

Adoption normally gives a home with proper parents to a child that lack them by accident.

Notice that every human person living or dead has exactly one mother and one father because of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamete Gamete] mechanism (even if one or even both parents are sometimes unknown or the person is raised by other people). [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#Article_7 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child] article 7 mentions "The child (...) immediately after birth (...) shall have the right (...) to know and be cared for by his or her parents."

Now consider people technically fertile but whose situation is not a traditional couple (they may be single or same-sex couple). In the US they can buy a child specifically produced to be adopted (I know in my town two French gay men that bought two children in the US). Depending on the situation, children are produced using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy gestational surrogacy] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_reproductive_technology Assisted reproductive technology].

Those children are produced to be deprived of one of their parents. That violates [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#Article_7 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child], right ? Is that a progress ? How to solve that ?

Let's try to remain close to this XKCD graph and the question: what's next and what to think of it ? Open to your constructive questions and comments.
--[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 11:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

----

:So you're saying that adoption (from gay or straight couples) violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? That all sperm donation should be banned? [[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 12:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Also, the US has not ratified the UNCRC so this discussion is moot. You can't hold them to the rules if they blatantly declare that they don't follow them.[[User:Diszy|Diszy]] ([[User talk:Diszy|talk]]) 12:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

----

::Thank you for your reply Diszy.

::> So you're saying that adoption (from gay or straight couples) violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

::No, I'm not saying that. The case of babies produced and sold, even after many debates, seems somehow wrong in a way that has nothing to do with sexual orientation of parents.
::When a child has no suitable genetic parents (they are dead or abusing) I understand that adoption is clearly compatible with UNCRC article 7.
When a child is produced to be deprived of one parent, I find it debatable. Or maybe we can save the logic by considering that the genetic parent "resigns" their responsibility, which falls back to the previous case.

::> That all sperm donation should be banned?

::I'm not discussing if it should be banned, but you raise an interesting point.

::Technically, a spem donor is a genetic parent that "resigns" (can anyone find a better word) their responsibility as parent since they are not planning to honor it (some do, afterwards). Does it violate UNCRC article 7 ? My understanding is: things are blurred by the "as far as possible" wording.

::> Also, the US has not ratified the UNCRC so this discussion is moot.

::[http://www.wordreference.com/definition/moot moot - ] "of little or no practical value or meaning;
::interesting only from the point of view of theory:"

::Thank you for this piece of information. So this can't be used to demonstrate that US legal system is inconsistent.

::> You can't hold them to the rules if they blatantly declare that they don't follow them.

::I didn't know that.

::Again I'm not discussing good and bad or whatever, rather logical consistency. This is a math-geek-language discussion place, isn't it ?

::There's one way countries who have ratified the UNCRC could claim it's okay.
::They could claim that the "parents" in article 7 are not genetic parents but the persons who are willing to raise the child. Though that's another possible way to make a consistent logical model, I'm pretty sure that's not what the UN had in mind when they wrote this.

::Thank you again for your feedback.

::--[[User:MGitsfullofsheep|MGitsfullofsheep]] ([[User talk:MGitsfullofsheep|talk]]) 15:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting to think about the differences between interracial marriage versus gay marriage. In the latter situation an entire class of people aren't able to obtain the only type of marriage that would likely appeal to them, whereas I think interracial marriages are more "fungible" (definitely not the right word) in that a person who engages in an interracial marriage may not have a strong preference for interracial marriages over intraracial marriages. So in banning interracial marriage, they impacted specific individuals, but there wasn't a well-defined class of interracial marriage pursuers who were denied the right to marry. I think this is relevant because in the case of gay-marriage, most people in the wronged class (people who want gay marriages), and many people outside of the wronged class, all support the right. With interracial marriage on the other hand, I would be curious to see if it was mostly whites that opposed interracial marriage, or if large percentages of whites, blacks, and other minorities also disapproved of interracial marriage.

[[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.194|173.245.54.194]] 15:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)XkdcPoster

1431: Marriage

2014-10-08T15:29:47Z

199.27.128.117: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1431
| date = October 8, 2014
| title = Marriage
| image = marriage.png
| titletext = People often say that same-sex marriage now is like interracial marriage in the 60s. But in terms of public opinion, same-sex marriage now is like interracial marriage in the 90s, when it had already been legal nationwide for 30 years.
}}

==Explanation==

{{incomplete|What is the point made in the title text and how is it supported by the comic?}}

Two days before this comic came out, the United States Supreme Court [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/us/denying-review-justices-clear-way-for-gay-marriage-in-5-states.html declined to hear] appeals to decisions that had legalized same-sex marriage in five states. The court's refusal to hear the appeals was widely considered a surprise, and had the immediate effect of pushing the percentage of people living in states where such marriages are legal [http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/same-sex-marriage-is-now-legal-for-a-majority-of-the-u-s/ past 50%]. The decision has also led to considerable speculation that there will be a surge of similar decisions applying to other states, especially to the six states that are in the same {{w|United States courts of appeals|appeals circuits}} as the previous five, and to the three in the same circuit as Idaho and Nevada, where same-sex marriage bans [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/08/us/same-sex-marriage-bans-struck-down-in-idaho-and-nevada.html were struck down] a day after the Supreme Court's decision (although the decision in Idaho and Nevada has yet to take effect).

This comic notes that, in the 11 years since {{w|same-sex marriage in Massachusetts|Massachusetts first legalized}} same-sex marriage, at no point have there been more people living in states where it's legal than there are people who support its legality (although this may soon come to pass). This stands in stark contrast to interracial marriage, which was legal for the majority of the population for over 50 years, and for the whole country for 28 years, before it was supported by the majority.

=== Interracial marriage trend line explained ===

:''See also: {{w|Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States|Wikipedia: Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States}}''

Legal controls concerning interracial marriage in the US (known since 1863 as {{w|miscegenation}}) have been significantly harder to track as a single statistic, due in part to the fact that such controls existed in several of the American British colonies before the United States formed, and complicated somewhat by the changes in territory claimed by and fluctuations in overall population (and methods of counting the population) of the United States over that time period. Depicting this as a simple percentage of US population over these earlier times would be far less meaningful outside of the context of these other fluctuations.

;Start of line: Prior to ca. 1940 and continuing to 1948: Since the establishment of the United States, most states have had anti-miscegenation legislation in one form or another. Only Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia never enacted such legislation. Earlier repeal dates vary from as early as 1780 (Pennsylvania), to Ohio repealing the law in 1887, though none were repealed between 1887 and 1948.

;First rise: October 1948: Supreme Court of California overturned the state anti-miscegenation law in {{w|Perez v. Sharp}}

;General upward trend: 1951–1967: [in order of repeal by year] Oregon, Montana, North Dakota, Colorado, South Dakota, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Nebraska, Utah, Indiana, Wyoming, and finally Maryland repealed anti-miscegenation laws prior to rulings at the federal level of government, largely encouraged by comparisons to similar laws promoted by opponents in World War II and other civil rights movements and victories.

;Last spike: 12 June 1967: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in {{w|Loving v. Virginia}} that the remaining state-level anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional, rendering such laws thereafter ineffective. States affected by the ruling were Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.

=== Same-sex marriage trend line explained ===

:''See also: {{w|Same-sex marriage in the United States|Wikipedia: Same-sex marriage in the United States}}''

;Start of line: 2003: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules in ''{{w|Goodridge v. Department of Public Health}}'' that the Massachusetts Constitution does not allow the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

;First rise: May–October 2008: The supreme courts of California and Connecticut make similar decisions based on their states' constitutions.

;Drop: November 2008: The voters of California overturn their supreme court's decision by constitutional amendment on {{w|California Proposition 8 (2008)|Proposition 8}}. California is the most populous state in the Union, hence the large size of the drop here.

;Second rise: 2009–2010: Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia legalize same-sex marriage, the first by state supreme court decision, and the latter three by legislative action.

;First acceleration: 2011–2012: New York legalizes same-sex marriage by legislative action. Washington State, Maine, and Maryland do so by voter referendum.

;Second acceleration: 2013–2014: The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in ''{{w|Hollingsworth v. Perry}}'' re-legalizes same-sex marriage in California. Seven states legalize it by legislative action or state court decision. The Supreme Court's decision in ''{{w|United States v. Windsor}}'', while not saying that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, is widely cited as precedent by judges who do say so. Oregon and Pennsylvania decline to appeal such decisions, and five states' appeals are declined by circuit courts, and declined to be heard by the Supreme Court.

==Transcript==
:[A graph with the x-axis showing time in years from 1940 to some time after 2010 (presumably ca. 2014). The y-axis shows percentage of population. The graph has 4 lines, 2 solid and 2 dashed, with 2 different colors: red and blue. The red lines indicate statistics concerning interracial marriage, while the blue indicate statistics concerning same-sex marriage. The solid lines indicate population living in states where that type of marriage is legal, while the dashed lines indicate popular approval of that type of marriage based on various polls.]

:[Solid red line:] Percentage of US population living in states with legal interracial marriage
:[Dot on solid red line:] Full legal access: 1967
:[Dashed red line:] Popular approval of interracial marriage (Source: Gallup Polls)
:[Dot on dashed red line:] Majority approval: 1995
:[Dashed blue line:] Popular approval of same-sex marriage (Source: various polls)
:[Dot on dashed blue line:] Majority approval: 2011
:[Solid blue line:] Percentage of US population living in states with legal same-sex marriage

:[Interracial marriage is indicated as being more than 50% legal in 1940, with a very slight downward trend that spikes up slightly ca. 1948, then trends slowly upward to about 65% until ca. 1967, at which point it spikes directly to 100% legality to remain until 2014. Popular approval of interracial marriage is below 10% in the late 1950s, rising steadily to approximately 40% in 1980, then continuing to rise more slowly to the majority approval point in 1995, and spiking up to about 65% ca. 1997, plateauing until ca. 2003, rising quickly again to about 75% ca. 2006 and rising generally upward to the final ca. 2014 statistic depicted between 85% and 90% popular approval. The visual effect seems to be a wide gap of time between legalization of and popular approval of interracial marriage. Popular approval appears to trail legalization by no less than 20 years at any given point.

:Popular approval of same-sex marriage (according to "various polls") is depicted first at about 15% ca. 1986, trending gradually upward until ca. 2000, where it plateaus between 35% and 40% to resume an upward trend ca. 2007, continuing steadily through majority approval in 2011 to a ca. 2014 value between 55% and 60%. The legality of same-sex marriage is indicated to start at 0% ca. 2002, then jumps quickly to plateau around 5% until ca. 2008, at which point it spikes up to between 15% and 20%, then plummets to just above than 5% by ca. 2009, jumping quickly back up to between 15% and 20% between ca. 2010 and 2011, then trending upward even more quickly to end at about 55% legality ca. 2014. The visual effect seems to be a more turbulent line for legality of same-sex marriage than any of the other trends, which also seems to be quickly closing on the popular approval trend. Popular approval has preceded legalization by nearly 20 years at certain points, but the trends appear to be closing and may intersect by 2015 or 2016.]

==Trivia==
* Though rendered ineffective by the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the constitutions of South Carolina and Alabama still contained language prohibiting miscegenation until the turn of the century; the language was removed by a majority referendum in 1998 for South Carolina and in 2000 for Alabama.

{{comic discussion}}

1427: iOS Keyboard

2014-09-29T16:36:03Z

199.27.128.117: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1427
| date = September 29, 2014
| title = iOS Keyboard
| image = ios_keyboard.png
| titletext = More actual results: 'Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You [are the best. The best thing ever]', 'Revenge is a dish best served [by a group of people in my room]', and 'They may take our lives, but they'll never take our [money].'
}}

==Explanation==
It looks like [[Randall]] has been playing with his Apple device after installing the recently released {{w|iOS 8}} update. The comic is referencing the autocomplete function on the iOS virtual keyboard (aka [[1031:_s/keyboard/leopard/|leopard]]). A comparable feature is also available on other operating systems, like Android. When the phrase, for example, "Revenge is a dish best served" is typed, the keyboard will suggest “by” followed by “a” then “group” and so on.

The following movies are referenced:
:{{w|Sherlock_Holmes#.22Elementary.2C_my_dear_Watson.22|Sherlock Holmes}}: Holmes: "Elementary, my dear Watson." (paraphrased in several movies, never actually used in the books)
:[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086250/quotes Scarface (1983)]: Scarface: "You wanna fuck with me? Okay. You wanna play rough? Okay. Say hello to my little friend!"
:[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032138/quotes The Wizard of Oz (1939)]: Dorothy: "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more."
:[http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0000007/quotes James Bond]: Bond: "Bond, James Bond." (nothing follows)
:[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379786/quotes Serenity (2005)]: Wash: "I am a leaf on the wind - watch how I soar."
:[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089218/quotes The Goonies (1985)]: Mikey: "Goonies never say die!"
:[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120737/quotes The Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)]: Aragorn: If by my life or death I can protect you, I will. You have my sword." Legolas: "And you have my bow." Gimli: "And *my* axe."
:[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/quotes The Princess Bride (1987)]: Montoya: "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
:{{w|Revenge#Proverbs|Revenge is a dish best served cold}} (several movies, with variations, and books before that. E.g., [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084726/quotes Start Trek II - The Wrath of Kahn (1982)]: Kahn: "...do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish that is best served cold?"
:[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112573/quotes Braveheart (1995)]: Wallace: "They may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!"

An older comic [[1068: Swiftkey]] is also about keyboard predictions, but without any preceding text (by the Swiftkey keyboard application instead of the iOS 8 keyboard).

==Transcript==
Movie Quotes
:[typed on an iPhone] Elementary, my dear
:[suggested by the virtual keyboard] Friend | Lord | Friends
According to iOS 8 keyboard predictions
:Say hello to my little [sister and my mom and my dad and my friends]
:Toto, I've a feeling we're not [going to the gym today]
:Bond, James Bond [yields]
:I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch [me play my piano]
:Goonies never say [anything]
:You have my sword. And my bow. And my [dad]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Firefly]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Smartphones]]

1427: iOS Keyboard

2014-09-29T16:32:42Z

199.27.128.117: /* Explanation */

{{comic
| number = 1427
| date = September 29, 2014
| title = iOS Keyboard
| image = ios_keyboard.png
| titletext = More actual results: 'Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You [are the best. The best thing ever]', 'Revenge is a dish best served [by a group of people in my room]', and 'They may take our lives, but they'll never take our [money].'
}}

==Explanation==
It looks like [[Randall]] has been playing with his Apple device after installing the recently released {{w|iOS 8}} update. The comic is referencing the autocomplete function on the iOS virtual keyboard (aka [[1031:_s/keyboard/leopard/|leopard]]). A comparable feature is also available on other operating systems, like Android. When the phrase, for example, "Revenge is a dish best served" is typed, the keyboard will suggest “by” followed by “a” then “group” and so on.

The following movies are referenced:
:{{w|Sherlock_Holmes#.22Elementary.2C_my_dear_Watson.22|Sherlock Holmes}}: Holmes: "Elementary, my dear Watson." (paraphrased in several movies, never actually used in the books)
:[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086250/quotes Scarface (1983)]: Scarface: "You wanna fuck with me? Okay. You wanna play rough? Okay. Say hello to my little friend!"
:[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032138/quotes The Wizard of Oz (1939)]: DOrothy: "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more."
:[http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0000007/quotes James Bond]: Bond: "Bond, James Bond." (nothing follows)
:[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379786/quotes Serenity (2005)]: Wash: "I am a leaf on the wind - watch how I soar."
:[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089218/quotes The Goonies (1985)]: Goonies never say die!
:[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120737/quotes The Lord of The Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)]: Aragorn: If by my life or death I can protect you, I will. You have my sword." Legolas: "And you have my bow." Gimli: "And *my* axe."
:[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/quotes The Princess Bride (1987)]: Montoya: "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
:{{w|Revenge#Proverbs|Revenge is a dish best served cold}} (several movies, with variations, and books before that. E.g., [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084726/quotes Start Trek II - The Wrath of Kahn (1982)]: Kahn: "do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish that is best served cold?"
:[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112573/quotes Braveheart (1995)]: Wallace: "They may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!"

An older comic [[1068: Swiftkey]] is also about keyboard predictions, but without any preceding text (by the Swiftkey keyboard application instead of the iOS 8 keyboard).

==Transcript==
Movie Quotes
:[typed on an iPhone] Elementary, my dear
:[suggested by the virtual keyboard] Friend | Lord | Friends
According to iOS 8 keyboard predictions
:Say hello to my little [sister and my mom and my dad and my friends]
:Toto, I've a feeling we're not [going to the gym today]
:Bond, James Bond [yields]
:I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch [me play my piano]
:Goonies never say [anything]
:You have my sword. And my bow. And my [dad]

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Firefly]]
[[Category:Language]]
[[Category:Smartphones]]

Talk:1417: Seven

2014-09-05T16:53:04Z

199.27.128.117:

Guacamole = 7-layer dip ingredient
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.81|108.162.215.81]] 05:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Anonymous XKCD reader

Seventh Seal more likely to be a reference to Book of Revelation (I think he's brought it up before?) or the film? [[Special:Contributions/199.27.133.96|199.27.133.96]] 05:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Arctic Ocean is one of the modern Seven "Seas" of the world.
Green is the 4th color of seven in the Arthur Hamilton song "I Can Sing a Rainbow".

I guess the title text is a play on the fact that the dwarves in the new Snow White (2001) movie are called Monday, Tuesday, ... That is the connection between Snow White dwarves and days of the week. The filmmakers decided to intermix sets of seven in the first place. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.90|108.162.254.90]] 06:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There could be a pattern with order.

*Sneezy: 1st dwarf of the seven dwarves in Snow White.
*Phylum: 2nd rank in the Seven Taxonomic Ranks
*Europe: 3rd continent of the world
**The list on the page needs to be fixed to show Europe third. --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.213|141.101.99.213]] 11:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
*Sloth: 4th sin of the Seven Deadly Sin
*Guacamole: 5th Layer in a 7 Layer Bean Dip
*Data Link: 6th Layer in the OSI Model
*Collosus of Rhodes: 7th Wonder of the Ancient World

*Monday: 1st Day of the Week (American).
*Arctic: 2nd ocean in the modern Seven "Seas" of the world if sorted alphabetically.
*Wellesley: 3rd college of the Seven Sister colleges
*Green: 4th color in the Arthur Hamilton song "I Can Sing a Rainbow".
*Electra: 5th sister of the Pleiades, the Seven Sisters.
*Synergize: 6th Habit in the Stephen R. Covey self-help book "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People".
*Seventh Seal: 7th Seal of the Seven Seals in the Book of Revelations

The Pleiades is Randall's favorite constellation. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.161|108.162.237.161]] 08:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It sure is nice seeing the explanation getting more refined and complete every time I visit... [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.168|103.22.201.168]] 10:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I've always been told there are only six continents. North America and South America are one continent. The seventh continent sometimes refers to this gigantic area filled with plastic rubbish in the Pacific Ocean. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.143|108.162.229.143]] 11:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
: See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uBcq1x7P34 But no one talks about the Great Pacific garbage patch as a continent. 7 continents is the most common model, with some (mainly Latin Americans) considering the Americas a single continent. Some others consider Eurasia a single continent (personally that's what I prefer, it makes the most sense). --[[User:Zagorath|Zagorath]] ([[User talk:Zagorath|talk]]) 12:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
: I've only ever heard folks say there are seven continents. By strict definition of the word, North and South America do form a single continent (at least did prior to the Panama Canal cutting them apart) the vast majority of people see then as two separate continents. Dividing the Eurasian landmass in two, however, that one never made much sense. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.117|199.27.128.117]] 16:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Guacamole may also be a reference to a famous joke which made the rounds about 15 years ago, where somebody had compared the 7 layers of the OSI network model to Taco Bell's 7-layer burrito. Guacamole was the 5th layer, which lends credence to this idea. It's still available on the WayBack Machine: http://web.archive.org/web/19990826193318/http://www.europa.com/~dogman/osi/ [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.151|108.162.219.151]] 11:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect Electra is from the list of extant complete plays of Sophocles: Ajax, Antigone, The Women of Trachis, Oedipus the King, Electra, Philoctetes and Oedipus at Colonus. [[User:Besimmons|Besimmons]] ([[User talk:Besimmons|talk]]) 13:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I find it interesting that although Randall is American he lists Monday as the first day of the week. That's where it's positioned in most cultures outside the USA, but Americans normally consider Sunday to be the first day. --[[User:RenniePet|RenniePet]] ([[User talk:RenniePet|talk]]) 13:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
: I can't speak for anyone outside the US, but as someone who has spent 99.9% of my life within US borders (few weeks in Canada, if you think that should essentially count...), I only acknowledge that the first day listed on any monthly calendar I see around here is most often Sunday. If you were to ask me what the first day of the week is, I would very quickly and easily say "Monday". That is what I'm teaching my 4- and 2-year olds... There are a few reasons I would give to explain that other than "I think of it as the first day of the week". It's the first work day of the "work week", and since life is for most people centered around one form of work or another, that gives the "work week" high importance. By extension, Sunday is the last day in the "weekend". By Judeo-Christian beliefs, God rested on the "seventh" Day - most Christians believe that to be Sunday; others (I believe mostly Jewish) believe it to be Saturday - I think, though that even those who consider Saturday to be a holy day, if you were to ask them in casual conversation what the first day of the week is (I may be wrong, but), I think they would say "Monday"... (?) Any other "Americans" or "Non-Americans" (I'd ask for you to clearly identify with one or the other) want to weight in on this? - [[User:Brettpeirce|Brettpeirce]] ([[User talk:Brettpeirce|talk]]) 15:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I find instead interesting that he makes no mention of the seven notes, while mentioning other sets less ubiquitous --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.163|108.162.229.163]] 14:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

147: A Way So Familiar

2014-06-11T02:08:09Z

199.27.128.117: Explained the origin of the "obscure Joey Comeau reference"

{{comic
| number = 147
| date = August 23, 2006
| title = A Way So Familiar
| image = a_way_so_familiar.png
| titletext = Two Hedwig references, an obscure Joey Comeau, and a girl with a mohawk. Yes.
}}

==Explanation==
Some {{w|Introversion|introverts}} tend to empathize with other people they perceive as being shy or introverted. Sometimes their imagination leads them on to far/obscure futures. A person outside the imaginative world can easily see through this and judge as a delusion.

In this comic, [[Hairy]] points out he saw a girl at the bank and probably started having platonic romantic feelings toward her, describing many characteristics that would be impossible to know about her without actually talking to her (sweetness, soul pain).

In the last comic, the reader finds out she probably does not look like the sweet girl the reader imagined, having a Mohawk and shoveling (presumably dead) prostitutes into a car.

{{w|Joey Comeau}} is a Canadian writer, best known for the "A softer world" webcomic. The "obscure" reference is probably to one of the entires in his 'Overqualified' series, another project in which he submits sincere-sounding, but clearly unacceptable job inquiries to real companies. That particular entry is addressed to the marketing department of Toyota, the makers of the Toyota Camry.[http://www.asofterworld.com/oq-display.php?id=57]

Hedwig refers to the musical {{w|Hedwig and the Angry Inch (musical)|Hedwig and the Angry Inch}} and the comic references the musical's song "The Origin of Love." This song is based a satirical idea from {{w|Symposium (Plato)#Aristophanes|Plato's ''Symposium''|}} whereby every person originally consisted of two bodies joined together; the gods eventually violently tore us apart, and we fall in love when we find the person who was once physically joined to us. This song contains the lyrics:

:''You had a way so familiar''
:''I couldn't recognize''
:'''cause you had blood on your face''
:''I had blood in my eyes''
:''But I could tell by your expression''
:''That the pain down in your soul''
:''Was the same as the one down in mine'' [http://www.amazon.com/Hedwig-Angry-Inch-Vocal-selections/dp/0634068814/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1366215386&sr=1-1&keywords=hedwig+and+the+angry+inch]

The joke is that Hairy seems oblivious to the fact that his imagination is a very obvious delusion. While people could forgive a guy empathizing with a "cute pretty girl", [[Cueball]] seems annoyed by the lack of judgement of Hairy.

==Transcript==
:Hairy: I saw a cute girl outside the bank today. She looked nice.
:Cueball: Oh no, not again. You are the worst judge of these things.
:Hairy: But she was so sweet. Shy, but there was something in her eyes. A pain down in her soul, the same as the one down in mine.
:Cueball: Mm hmm.
:Hairy: The police light played through her mohawk like the sun setting through pine trees as she shoveled the third hooker into the trunk of the camry...
:Cueball: Back up.

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

472: House of Pancakes

2013-11-16T21:26:54Z

199.27.128.117: /* Explanation */ Added explanation of 'house' in blue and 'minotaur' in red, as the novel is, as well as 'blueprints' discussion.

{{comic
| number = 472
| date = May 5, 2008
| title = House of Pancakes
| image = house_of_pancakes.png
| titletext = Fuck it, I'm just going to Waffle House.
}}

==Explanation==
[[Randall]] is parodying Mark Z. Danielewski's epistolary novel ''{{w|House of Leaves}}'' by renaming it to the ''{{w|International House of Pancakes}}''. ''House of Leaves'' has an unconventional page layout and style, including the colouring of every instance of the word "house" in blue, as is done on the menu. It includes footnotes within footnotes like Randall did here.

In ''House of Leaves'', protagonist Johnny Truant (whose meta-narration is marked by Courier font as mimicked in the comic) discovers a book called ''The Navidson Record'' (represented here by the pancake menu), which in turn details a film of the same name, which in turn details a horror story of a family living in a sentient house. Truant, who is clearly intelligent and cultured, probes deeper into notating ''The Navidson Record''—and into insomnia—until ''The Navidson Record'' consumes his mind horrifically, the same way the film in the novel consumed the author of ''The Navidson Record'', the same way the house in the novel consumed part of the family.

''House of Leaves'' lends itself to many interpretations, but has been called a "satire of academic criticism," which makes this comic essentially a satire of a satire. Since part of the appeal of ''House of Leaves'' is that it takes itself extremely seriously with its intricacy, multitude of both real and made-up references to academic and popular culture, and layered emotional conflict, Randall's reduction of the ''House of Leaves'' to the (International) House of Pancakes cuts a humorous edge to a dark story. The tone of the comic parodies the tone of ''House of Leaves'': lonely, fear-inducing, and increasingly insane, but using pancakes instead of darkness.

An alternate theory is that the pancake also stands for "pancake landing", which refers to an airplane crash.

Additionally, the mysterious "Mohawk Girl" referred to in the comic may be a nod to the ''House of Leaves'' character Delial.

The title text refers to the {{w|Waffle House}}, another US restaurant chain. The joke here is akin to if a heavily annotated copy of James Joyce's ''{{w|Ulysses (novel)|Ulysses}}'', a notoriously difficult-to-read novel, suddenly carried a note that said, "Fuck it, I'm just going to read ''The Very Hungry Caterpillar''."

The word "house" is in blue in every instance, which is a stylistic attribute of Mark Z. Danielewski's novel. Every Minotaur reference is marked out in red ink, and every use of "house" or a foreign language's equivalent, such as 'haus' and 'maison' is in blue. This is not a reference to hyperlinks. It is often thought that the house is printed in blue because houses have 'blueprints'.

==Transcript==
:[All instances of the word "House" are in blue.]
:[Every day a new city, a new IHOP. And yet every night the dreams get worse. I ply the highways, a nervous eye on the rear-view mirror, the back seat piled with stolen menus. Their doors are opened 24 hours, but forever closed to my soul. This is what my life has become. This is my hell.]
:[Sidenote left: International] House of Pancakes
:[Scribbled-out sidenote right: BLOGSPOT] Strawberry Banana Pancakes Four pancakes filled with sliced fresh banana and crowned with cool strawberry topping, more [17] bananas and [23] whipped topping.
::[17] Driven by a nameless fear, a whisper in the dark behind me, I flee ahead of I know not what. Whenver I turn, there's nobody behind me. And yet someone is clearly stealing the ketchup. WHY? (The footnote is covered in fingerprints.)
::[23] My life is feeding, fleeing, fighting, and forgetting. (The above note is sandwiched in sideways in between the Stuffed French Toast and Ham and Egg Melt.)
:[Rooty Jr. A kids only [19] version of our house signature Rooty Tooty. One scrambled egg, one strip of bacon, one pork sausage link and one fruit-topped buttermilk pancake.]
::[19] The decision not to hyphenate "kids only" is likely connected to the omission of the serial comma. I wonder if the author is British. I wonder if he sleeps at night. (The following passages are have a red substance underneath them, probably ketchup.)
:[Rise 'N Shine Two eggs, toast and hash browns served with your choice [21] of two strips of bacon or two pork sausage links.]
::[21] (illegible) rent a storage unit. Sleep there. Fill it with pancakes. Leave. Stuffed French Toast Cinnamon raisin French [18] toast stuffed with sweet cream cheese filling, topped with cool strawberry or your choice of fruit compote and whipped topping.
:::[18] Nightmares again. I wake up covered in sweat, and what appears to be a thin sheen of maple syrup (Handwritten, underlined) WHO IS MOHAWK GIRL?
:[Slanted 90 degrees left] Ham & Egg Melt Grilled sourdough bread stuffed with ham, scrambled eggs, Swiss and American cheeses. [20] (At normal orientation)
::[20] Ordered this in at an IHOP in Rochester, New York. There was blood on the floor. Some of it was mine. (Comic strip) Enough with your pancakes. Enough with your GOD DAMN pancakes. The Big Steak Omlette Tender strips of steak, hash browns, (redacted) tomatoes and Cheddar cheese. Served [22] with house salsa.
:::[22] Woke up in Las Vegas. They're closing the Star Trek Experience today. The IHOP up the strip had pancake platters named after various states. None of them sounded like home.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics with color]]