1475: "Technically"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

JimsMaher
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:14 pm UTC

1475: "Technically"

Postby JimsMaher » Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:58 am UTC

Image
title= "Technically that sentence started with 'well', so--" "Ooh, a rock with a fossil in it!"

Technically, there exists a possibility for linguistically substantive contributions being made via clarifying the descriptive nature of a statement prior to its utterance, when the relevance of that clarifying is conditionalized upon a deontological semantic framework.

User avatar
Envelope Generator
Posts: 582
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:07 am UTC
Location: pareidolia

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby Envelope Generator » Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:28 am UTC

Previously in XKCD 1475:

"Are you on drugs?"
I'm going to step off the LEM now... here we are, Pismo Beach and all the clams we can eat

eSOANEM wrote:If Fonzie's on the order of 100 zeptokelvin, I think he has bigger problems than difracting through doors.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby Djehutynakht » Mon Jan 19, 2015 10:04 am UTC

After I started to read the title of the comic I sort of wandered off and became distracted. Can anyone tell me what this comic was about?

speising
Posts: 2353
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby speising » Mon Jan 19, 2015 10:30 am UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:After I started to read the title of the comic I sort of wandered off and became distracted. Can anyone tell me what this comic was about?

Technically, it's about Randall feeling snarkly superior again.

User avatar
rhomboidal
Posts: 797
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby rhomboidal » Mon Jan 19, 2015 10:30 am UTC

Adverb abuse should be at least a Class D misdemeanor.

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby azule » Mon Jan 19, 2015 11:05 am UTC

I could be wrong, but it sounds a bit similar to a previous comic. Something something can ignore them now.
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3078
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby orthogon » Mon Jan 19, 2015 11:17 am UTC

rhomboidal wrote:Adverb abuse should be at least a Class D misdemeanor.

Perhaps so, but I don't think technically is a frequent victim of abuse. It's an extremely useful sentence adverb, which allows you to agree with the general thrust of what somebody has said whilst pointing out a nicety that they may or may not be aware of and which might be important. So, yes, you might be able to ignore it, depending on what level of correctness or detail you want to operate at. Suppose somebody says "What country is Utrecht in? It's Holland, isn't it?" and you say "Well, technically the country is the Netherlands". Applying Munroe's Law might lead to a mistake in a visa application, or get you off on the wrong foot in a business deal, or make your love letter arrive too late.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Neil_Boekend
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:35 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby Neil_Boekend » Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:18 pm UTC

You are technically correct -- the best kind of correct.
Mikeski wrote:A "What If" update is never late. Nor is it early. It is posted precisely when it should be.

patzer's signature wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:I'm being quoted too much!

he/him/his

chilepepper
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:37 pm UTC

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby chilepepper » Mon Jan 19, 2015 2:54 pm UTC

Technically, he started his sentence with "well", not "technically".

jozwa
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: Finland

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby jozwa » Mon Jan 19, 2015 3:16 pm UTC

Reminds me of "Um, Actually", the game show where nerds correct nerds.

The Devils Engineer
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:44 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby The Devils Engineer » Mon Jan 19, 2015 3:32 pm UTC

Technically, I like this comic.. Does that mean I should ignore myself? :D
“When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.”
“The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.”

― Mark Twain

User avatar
mikrit
Posts: 402
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 8:13 pm UTC
Location: Sweden

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby mikrit » Mon Jan 19, 2015 3:40 pm UTC

- "Technically, I will try to seduce your girlfriend tonight, unless you have an objection."
- "Look, there are three magpies in that tree."
- "Indeed. Thank you. See you later, then."
- "Right." (Hm, I womder if I missed anything important? No, probably not.)
Hatted and wimpled by ergman.
Dubbed "First and Eldest of Ottificators" by svenman.
Febrion wrote: "etc" is latin for "this would look better with more examples, but I can't think of any".

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby Klear » Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:03 pm UTC

Well played with the alt text. Got me.

Kit.
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby Kit. » Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:19 pm UTC

But is it wise to ignore that the WHG is a drug user?

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby azule » Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:47 pm UTC

mikrit wrote:- "Technically, I will try to seduce your girlfriend tonight, unless you have an objection."
- "Look, there are three magpies in that tree."
- "Indeed. Thank you. See you later, then."
- "Right." (Hm, I womder if I missed anything important? No, probably not.)
You get to write the next comic, congrats!
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5579
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby Eternal Density » Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:14 pm UTC

speising wrote:
Djehutynakht wrote:After I started to read the title of the comic I sort of wandered off and became distracted. Can anyone tell me what this comic was about?

Technically, it's about Randall feeling snarkly superior again.

Technically, 'snarkly' isn't a word, but that's fine around here.
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby cellocgw » Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:48 pm UTC

azule wrote:I could be wrong, but it sounds a bit similar to a previous comic. Something something can ignore them now.


Actually, it's a lot like the "Actually" strip. Technically, it's not exactly the same.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9099
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby BlitzGirl » Mon Jan 19, 2015 11:22 pm UTC

Spoiler:
Image

Image

It's sort of like the Cueball in "Technically" has broken free of the endless "Actually" circle.
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

rmsgrey
Posts: 3631
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Jan 19, 2015 11:42 pm UTC

Technically, I could write whatever I want now and no-one who follows the advice in the comic would ever read it, so I can safely say that they all smell (except any who happen to be anosmic)

User avatar
jc
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 5:48 pm UTC
Location: Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy
Contact:

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby jc » Tue Jan 20, 2015 12:29 am UTC

Eternal Density wrote:
speising wrote:
Djehutynakht wrote:After I started to read the title of the comic I sort of wandered off and became distracted. Can anyone tell me what this comic was about?

Technically, it's about Randall feeling snarkly superior again.

Technically, 'snarkly' isn't a word, but that's fine around here.

Well, except that "-ly" is a standard English affix that can be added freely to words, to turn them into adverbs. Of course, this is normally only done when the combination makes sense, which it does in this case. So "snarkly" is indeed an English word, constructed from a well-known word by adding a standard suffix in an utterance where the result makes sense.

You normally don't find such words in a typical dictionary, but that doesn't mean it's not a word. They don't usually include entries for words that are formed regularly using the language's root words and affixes, because anyone with normal understanding of the language will know how to parse such words into their pieces to get the meaning.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3631
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Jan 20, 2015 12:50 am UTC

jc wrote:
Eternal Density wrote:
speising wrote:
Djehutynakht wrote:After I started to read the title of the comic I sort of wandered off and became distracted. Can anyone tell me what this comic was about?

Technically, it's about Randall feeling snarkly superior again.

Technically, 'snarkly' isn't a word, but that's fine around here.

Well, except that "-ly" is a standard English affix that can be added freely to words, to turn them into adverbs. Of course, this is normally only done when the combination makes sense, which it does in this case. So "snarkly" is indeed an English word, constructed from a well-known word by adding a standard suffix in an utterance where the result makes sense.

You normally don't find such words in a typical dictionary, but that doesn't mean it's not a word. They don't usually include entries for words that are formed regularly using the language's root words and affixes, because anyone with normal understanding of the language will know how to parse such words into their pieces to get the meaning.


Except that "-ly" is usually added to the adjectival form of a word - so it should be added to "snarky" rather than "snark" to give "snarkily" (not "snarkyly" due to another standard rule).

Indeed, Firefox's default spell-checker recognises "snarkily" as a valid word, but not "snarkly" (nor "snarkyly"). Of course, because it defaults to American, it also fails to recognise "recognise" or "recognises", insisting on the American forms "recognize" and "recognizes" but that's a separate issue.

kelly_holden
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:27 am UTC
Location: Rural New South Wales

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby kelly_holden » Tue Jan 20, 2015 12:51 am UTC

jc wrote:
Eternal Density wrote:
speising wrote:
Djehutynakht wrote:After I started to read the title of the comic I sort of wandered off and became distracted. Can anyone tell me what this comic was about?

Technically, it's about Randall feeling snarkly superior again.

Technically, 'snarkly' isn't a word, but that's fine around here.

Well, except that "-ly" is a standard English affix that can be added freely to words, to turn them into adverbs. Of course, this is normally only done when the combination makes sense, which it does in this case. So "snarkly" is indeed an English word, constructed from a well-known word by adding a standard suffix in an utterance where the result makes sense.

You normally don't find such words in a typical dictionary, but that doesn't mean it's not a word. They don't usually include entries for words that are formed regularly using the language's root words and affixes, because anyone with normal understanding of the language will know how to parse such words into their pieces to get the meaning.

I'm pretty sure the root is "snarky", yielding "snarkily.
edit: dammit, too late.
My Firefox spell checker keeps setting itself back to US Eng, even though I have an Australian one installed.

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby azule » Tue Jan 20, 2015 1:39 am UTC

cellocgw wrote:
azule wrote:I could be wrong, but it sounds a bit similar to a previous comic. Something something can ignore them now.


Actually, it's a lot like the "Actually" strip. Technically, it's not exactly the same.
Sorta. But that one does the ignoring on the other side. "I'm ignoring you when I start my sentence with" Actually blah blah blah. "Technically" basically forces the other person to ignore them.

Or, I don't know what I'm talking about. *snooze*
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

Lye
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm UTC

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby Lye » Tue Jan 20, 2015 5:04 am UTC

Does anyone else get annoyed whenever WHG shows up? At least this isn't another one of the "WHG ineffectually tries to argue with Cueball, gets summarily demolished, Randall leaves the audience with Something to Think About" comics, but something about him irritates the heck out of me, with every appearance.

Even for a character whose entire purpose is to always be wrong, his dialogue just feels ... crude, somehow. Like I'm being bludgeoned: hey, this guy is obnoxious and dumb.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby Djehutynakht » Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:58 am UTC

Lye wrote:Does anyone else get annoyed whenever WHG shows up? At least this isn't another one of the "WHG ineffectually tries to argue with Cueball, gets summarily demolished, Randall leaves the audience with Something to Think About" comics, but something about him irritates the heck out of me, with every appearance.

Even for a character whose entire purpose is to always be wrong, his dialogue just feels ... crude, somehow. Like I'm being bludgeoned: hey, this guy is obnoxious and dumb.



I've always wondered if there's supposed to be some sort of connection between him and BHG. Like, their hats suggest they'd be opposites of each other or something. But WHG doesn't seem to fit any of the criteria, honestly.

jigawatt
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby jigawatt » Tue Jan 20, 2015 11:39 am UTC

"Lots of things can be well approximated by Newtonian equations. Technically though, the missile will follow a relativistic model which must be used in the guidance software, otherwise millions of innocent civilian casualties could occur."

"Yeah, yeah, whatever."

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3078
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby orthogon » Tue Jan 20, 2015 1:58 pm UTC

Kit. wrote:But is it wise to ignore that the WHG is a drug user?

I'd like to pick over WHG's premise. What defines a drug? Is it something to do with having a physiological effect that is disproportionate to the quantity of the substance that is consumed? Or is it to do with the nature of the effect? (E.g. magic mushrooms are allowed to be a drug even though apparently meal-sized amounts need to be ingested). Is incense a drug?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1445
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby mathmannix » Tue Jan 20, 2015 2:07 pm UTC

Technically, only a portion of this building is on fire (so far), Mr. Munroe, but you should still evacuate immediately.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Tue Jan 20, 2015 2:33 pm UTC

jigawatt wrote:"Lots of things can be well approximated by Newtonian equations. Technically though, the missile will follow a relativistic model which must be used in the guidance software, otherwise millions of innocent civilian casualties could occur."

"Yeah, yeah, whatever."

Wait, what kind of payload does said missile have that could inadvertently kill millions of civilians? Most missiles don't have such a blast radius, and for weapons of mass destruction the entire point is to kill innocent civilians.

Zylon
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:37 pm UTC

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby Zylon » Tue Jan 20, 2015 3:59 pm UTC

Ah, been a while since Randall's dropped a straight-up smug bomb.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby Klear » Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:02 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
Kit. wrote:But is it wise to ignore that the WHG is a drug user?

I'd like to pick over WHG's premise. What defines a drug? Is it something to do with having a physiological effect that is disproportionate to the quantity of the substance that is consumed? Or is it to do with the nature of the effect? (E.g. magic mushrooms are allowed to be a drug even though apparently meal-sized amounts need to be ingested). Is incense a drug?


Screw incense. Is music a drug? It obviously depends on the definition, and I agree that Randall's (or, I guess, WHG's?) definition is quite suspect.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3078
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby orthogon » Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:17 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
orthogon wrote:
Kit. wrote:But is it wise to ignore that the WHG is a drug user?

I'd like to pick over WHG's premise. What defines a drug? Is it something to do with having a physiological effect that is disproportionate to the quantity of the substance that is consumed? Or is it to do with the nature of the effect? (E.g. magic mushrooms are allowed to be a drug even though apparently meal-sized amounts need to be ingested). Is incense a drug?


Screw incense. Is music a drug? It obviously depends on the definition, and I agree that Randall's (or, I guess, WHG's?) definition is quite suspect.

I don't know. Is music a substance?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby Klear » Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:27 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
Klear wrote:
orthogon wrote:
Kit. wrote:But is it wise to ignore that the WHG is a drug user?

I'd like to pick over WHG's premise. What defines a drug? Is it something to do with having a physiological effect that is disproportionate to the quantity of the substance that is consumed? Or is it to do with the nature of the effect? (E.g. magic mushrooms are allowed to be a drug even though apparently meal-sized amounts need to be ingested). Is incense a drug?


Screw incense. Is music a drug? It obviously depends on the definition, and I agree that Randall's (or, I guess, WHG's?) definition is quite suspect.

I don't know. Is music a substance?


Does a drug need to be a substance?

User avatar
Sprocket
Seymour
Posts: 5951
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm UTC
Location: impaled on Beck's boney hips.
Contact:

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby Sprocket » Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:31 pm UTC

Technically it's about aliens in police gaming 'murica humanism.
"She’s a free spirit, a wind-rider, she’s at one with nature, and walks with the kodama eidolons”
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Zohar wrote: Down with the hipster binary! It's a SPECTRUM!

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3078
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby orthogon » Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:34 pm UTC

Klear wrote:Does a drug need to be a substance?

Both the OED's and WHG's definitions agree that yes, it does, at least when speaking literally. In figurative use it can be anything; but that depends what the meaning of "is" is.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Sprocket
Seymour
Posts: 5951
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm UTC
Location: impaled on Beck's boney hips.
Contact:

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby Sprocket » Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:35 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
jigawatt wrote:"Lots of things can be well approximated by Newtonian equations. Technically though, the missile will follow a relativistic model which must be used in the guidance software, otherwise millions of innocent civilian casualties could occur."

"Yeah, yeah, whatever."

Wait, what kind of payload does said missile have that could inadvertently kill millions of civilians? Most missiles don't have such a blast radius, and for weapons of mass destruction the entire point is to kill innocent civilians.

Technically. But in this case we wan't to make sure we MOSTLY kill rebels, infidels, terrorists and their supporters. However, the missile won't understand that instruction. We have to tell it everyone we DON'T want it to kill, for it to understand where it isn't, and only then can we be sure of where it is. Technically innocent civilians casualties will still occur.
"She’s a free spirit, a wind-rider, she’s at one with nature, and walks with the kodama eidolons”
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Zohar wrote: Down with the hipster binary! It's a SPECTRUM!

ps.02
Posts: 378
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby ps.02 » Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:36 pm UTC

rhomboidal wrote:Adverb abuse should be at least a Class D misdemeanor.

Yeah hopefully that will happen someday.

chilepepper wrote:Technically, he started his sentence with "well", not "technically".

Right - as he acknowledged in the title text. (Hover over comic to read it.)

orthogon wrote:Is music a substance?

Depends on the type, I think. Ask any old fogey, they'll tell you the problem with modern music is its lack of substance.

Anyway the WHG working definition of drug seems to be along the lines of what the anti-fluoriders use to say the government shouldn't "drug people against their will" in the water supply. Technically, I guess, inorganic mineral substances can be drugs too. Whatever.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3078
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby orthogon » Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:52 pm UTC

ps.02 wrote: Technically, I guess, inorganic mineral substances can be drugs too. Whatever.

Lithium Carbonate is undoubtedly a drug, and although it contains carbon I don't think it's really organic. Lithium Chloride (same wiki page) is definitely inorganic but as a drug it "fell out of use in the 1940s when it was discovered [it was] toxic".
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3631
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:59 pm UTC

Sprocket wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:
jigawatt wrote:"Lots of things can be well approximated by Newtonian equations. Technically though, the missile will follow a relativistic model which must be used in the guidance software, otherwise millions of innocent civilian casualties could occur."

"Yeah, yeah, whatever."

Wait, what kind of payload does said missile have that could inadvertently kill millions of civilians? Most missiles don't have such a blast radius, and for weapons of mass destruction the entire point is to kill innocent civilians.

Technically. But in this case we wan't to make sure we MOSTLY kill rebels, infidels, terrorists and their supporters. However, the missile won't understand that instruction. We have to tell it everyone we DON'T want it to kill, for it to understand where it isn't, and only then can we be sure of where it is. Technically innocent civilians casualties will still occur.


A single instance of the missile may only kill a few hundred innocent civilians, but it's rare to construct only a single instance of a given weapon.

Also, technically, "casualties" needn't be fatalities - if someone gets a bit of grit in their eye well downwind of the blast, that's borderline for being a casualty...

User avatar
Sprocket
Seymour
Posts: 5951
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm UTC
Location: impaled on Beck's boney hips.
Contact:

Re: 1475: "Technically"

Postby Sprocket » Tue Jan 20, 2015 6:37 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:A single instance of the missile may only kill a few hundred innocent civilians, but it's rare to construct only a single instance of a given weapon.

Also, technically, "casualties" needn't be fatalities - if someone gets a bit of grit in their eye well downwind of the blast, that's borderline for being a casualty...

What if we launch the missile on Friday, when we're allowed to wear jeans to work?
"She’s a free spirit, a wind-rider, she’s at one with nature, and walks with the kodama eidolons”
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Zohar wrote: Down with the hipster binary! It's a SPECTRUM!


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests