Editing 1052: Every Major's Terrible

Jump to: navigation, search

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 53: Line 53:
 
;Panel 13, ''Now, if you can't prognosticate, that's OK in seismology,'':[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prognosticate Prognosticate] means "to predict". This refers to the inability of {{w|seismology}} to reliably predict catastrophic {{w|earthquake}}s, even after centuries of extensive research. The panel shows {{w|Seismic wave|seismic waves}} from a {{w|seismograph}}. The seismograph chart has four traces and about halfway across one trace begins oscillating vigorously indicating an earthquake. Five months after this comic was published several seismologists in Italy were [http://www.nature.com/news/italian-court-finds-seismologists-guilty-of-manslaughter-1.11640 convicted of crimes] that effectively stemmed from an inability to predict an earthquake. This does not go down well for the message of this panel... Their conviction was [http://www.nature.com/news/italian-seismologists-cleared-of-manslaughter-1.16313 overturned on appeal] in 2014.  
 
;Panel 13, ''Now, if you can't prognosticate, that's OK in seismology,'':[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prognosticate Prognosticate] means "to predict". This refers to the inability of {{w|seismology}} to reliably predict catastrophic {{w|earthquake}}s, even after centuries of extensive research. The panel shows {{w|Seismic wave|seismic waves}} from a {{w|seismograph}}. The seismograph chart has four traces and about halfway across one trace begins oscillating vigorously indicating an earthquake. Five months after this comic was published several seismologists in Italy were [http://www.nature.com/news/italian-court-finds-seismologists-guilty-of-manslaughter-1.11640 convicted of crimes] that effectively stemmed from an inability to predict an earthquake. This does not go down well for the message of this panel... Their conviction was [http://www.nature.com/news/italian-seismologists-cleared-of-manslaughter-1.16313 overturned on appeal] in 2014.  
  
;Panel 14, ''But if your hindsight's weak as well, you'd best stick to theology.'': The bearded [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theologist theologist] represents {{w|Theology}} by stating the formal logic proposition shown in the illustration: "X ∴ ∃X". This says "I can describe this thing called X, therefore X exists". This is what Anselm’s {{w|ontological argument}} for God boils down to. Briefly, it asks you to imagine the best possible deity, which, by definition, would be God. A God which exists in both reality and theory would be greater than one who exists in merely the latter. Therefore, this proposition concludes that God exists. The fatal flaw of this argument is that it can be used to prove the existence of anything (e.g. a vacuum cleaner which exists in both reality and theory is greater than one which exists merely in theory). Just because a perfect God would exist does not mean he does. Thus it has been largely rejected. (See [[1505: Ontological Argument]].)
+
;Panel 14, ''But if your hindsight's weak as well, you'd best stick to theology.'': The bearded [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theologist theologist] represents {{w|Theology}} by stating the formal logic proposition shown in the illustration: "X ∴ ∃X". This says "I can describe this thing called X, therefore X exists". This is what Anselm’s {{w|ontological argument}} for God boils down to. Briefly, it asks you to imagine the best possible deity, which, by defintion, would be God. A God which exists in both reality and theory would be greater than one who exists in merely the latter. Therefore, this proposition concludes that God exists. The fatal flaw of this argument is that it can be used to prove the existence of anything (e.g. a vacuum cleaner which exists in both reality and theory is greater than one which exists merely in theory). Just because a perfect God would exist does not mean he does. Thus it has been largely rejected. (See [[1505: Ontological Argument]].)
  
 
;Panel 15, ''CS will make each day a quest to find a missing close-paren.'': "CS" is short for "{{w|Computer Science}}." Most programming languages use parentheses as part of their syntax, and often have multiply-nested parenthetical expressions. This is especially true of {{w|Lisp (programming language)|Lisp}}. It is often difficult for a programmer to determine where the unbalanced parenthesis begins or ends when the code and parentheses are not properly formatted and indented. In the panel there is one more left "(" parenthesis (13) than right ")" or ''close-paren'' (12).
 
;Panel 15, ''CS will make each day a quest to find a missing close-paren.'': "CS" is short for "{{w|Computer Science}}." Most programming languages use parentheses as part of their syntax, and often have multiply-nested parenthetical expressions. This is especially true of {{w|Lisp (programming language)|Lisp}}. It is often difficult for a programmer to determine where the unbalanced parenthesis begins or ends when the code and parentheses are not properly formatted and indented. In the panel there is one more left "(" parenthesis (13) than right ")" or ''close-paren'' (12).

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)