This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does anybody have any of these strips? I've always been curious as to what the comic was like, a side from the 3-4 strips that have been published. Perferably, does anybody have the last strip?-- Gen. Quon ( talk) 20:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Does the story tell if the foot going down was accompanied by a farting noise after the liberty bell? Falez ( talk) 08:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
This book was linked as a source for this article; page 122 in the book preview shows the quoted text.
However, it appears that Google Books has made a whoopsie. That link should contain information about this book: https://isbnsearch.org/isbn/1578600723 Instead, it contains information about this book: https://isbnsearch.org/isbn/1578600979. At first, I thought this happened with some form of politically motivated vandalistic intent, as I decisively narrow my eyes at what looks like an attempt to insert references to the Confederacy into random Wikipedia articles.
However, I think something more technically interesting may be in play! When you convert those ISBNs to hexadecimal, the book about the confederacy has the ISBN 5e178913, and the book about Hoosiers has the isbn 5e178a13. Here they are side-by-side:
5e178a13 5e178913
You can do the same thing in binary to see a single bit has migrated a single place upwards, adding 256 to the ISBN. I think this is fascinating! At some point, a bit living somewhere inside a Google server decided to shimmy one place over, changing a reference about the Confederacy into a reference about famous Indianans. I don't see any way that even a super canny vandal could do that, much less coordinate the ISBNs for these disparate sources to allow such a minor change with such interesting consequences.
I've contacted Google Books to let them know that one of their bits got restless, but their responses are delayed due to COVID-19, and I didn't want to leave this mystery behind without recording it somewhere, so now you know too. 76.85.36.92 ( talk) 15:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Re: copyright claim
An editor claimed that Gnorm Gnat, because it was published without its own copyright, would be public domain. Here's the problem with that: the publication was made as part of a newspaper, The Pendleton Times, and nowhere else. Because of that, it would almost certainly be covered under the copyright of the Times, which I assume was copyrighted. It would be no different than a local news story being published without a copyright in the byline, because it was a work for hire of the paper itself; the copyright falls on the work as a whole. J. Myrle Fuller ( talk) 02:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)