Difference between revisions of "RationalWiki:Saloon bar"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 327: Line 327:
 
:::::Now I have to read it again and watch it again so I can argue with you! {{User:Human/sig|}} 06:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 
:::::Now I have to read it again and watch it again so I can argue with you! {{User:Human/sig|}} 06:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 
::::::The feeling I got from the book was, kind of like American Psycho, that it was a section of his life, a narrative that started before the book and continued after. Just a part of someones life, without describing the end or the beginning. [[User:Ace McWicked|Ace]][[User Talk:Ace McWicked|<sup>word up</sup>]] 07:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 
::::::The feeling I got from the book was, kind of like American Psycho, that it was a section of his life, a narrative that started before the book and continued after. Just a part of someones life, without describing the end or the beginning. [[User:Ace McWicked|Ace]][[User Talk:Ace McWicked|<sup>word up</sup>]] 07:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 +
:::::::The reader/viewer sees the world through Alex's eyes (as narrator) meaning that  all the violence in the first part of the narrative (perpetrated by Alex & the droogs) is portrayed as fun & games (how Alex experiences it) & it only becomes traumatic in the later parts when Alex himself becomes the victim.  How the novel accomplishes this is Alex describing his crimes casually & in silly Nadsat slang in such a way to make the cruelty seem like fun, though the reader is also aware of how immoral his actions actually are.  How the movie accomplishes the same thing is by watering down the severity of the crimes & by making the victims exaggeratedly ridiculous.  A scene in which Alex rapes two pre-pubescent girls after luring them back to his apartment is replaced by a scene of comically speeded up consensual sex with two teenage nymphos.  The helpless elderly woman Alex beats to death in her home is replaced by a sex-obsessed middle-aged woman with a house full of penis statues & suchlike.  The writer who the droogs beat up & whose wife they rape is cantankerous and unlikeable.  In the film's portayal, it is as if these victims ''deserve'' the treatment they get from the gang.  All of this means that the film has much less impact than the book in terms of the negative portrayal of violence, and instead portrays it fairly positively, leading to the controversies which prompted Kubrick to withdraw the film in the UK. {{User:Weaseloid/sigred}} 09:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
  
 
== Server move ==
 
== Server move ==

Revision as of 09:44, 31 October 2010


Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

Welcome, BoN
This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Friends.gif For previous conversations, see the automagic barchives.Spit.gif

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

Pointless poll

Spicy food, yay or nay?

Spice is nice!

94

Vote

Can't handle heat, must avoid at all costs.

25

Vote

Should Azureality be the site mascot?

Heck yeah!

55

Vote

That thing is so cool, I love it!

3

Vote

Needs more goat

24

Vote

What am I looking at, and whose hairbrained idea was it to make a frickin' Pokémon our mascot?!?

94

Vote

Who is the better rapper?

Tupac Shakur

26

Vote

Biggie Smalls

22

Vote

Both are equally great

24

Vote

MC Goat

57

Vote

To do list

So I bought that book by that guy you guys keep talking about

7 minutes ago I just bought Dawkin's book, because it was 67% off. I have not read anything by him before, and I have only read 1 "atheist" text before: 'The Rational Optimist' so here I go caving in to the oh-so subtle peer pressure of this site. I'm going to try to read some of it before my church group meeting tomorrow, in ~17 hours. I was raised quasi-fundamentalist, and remain quasi-theistic. You may commence betting. The reputation of what I guess is your quasi-authority figure is at stake. Tyrannis (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean The God Delusion. Fuckthat 21:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. was looking for some light reading and saw the shiny silver and the big 67% off sticker. Tyrannis (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't base your opinion of him on that one; his other books, about biology and evolution and stuff, are very good. Authority figure? Oh, give me a break... anyway, hope you enjoy it! ħumanUser talk:Human 01:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 01:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Where exactly is the peer pressure to read that, exactly? Yeah, it appears on most lists of books featured on RW, but no more so than Carl Sagan - and I'd wager that there's more pressure to read Sagan than Dawkins - but are you suggesting that people are forcing you to read the Good Word of our Lord and Savior Richard Dawkins?? Scarlet A.pngsshole 08:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I just have bad luck with the random article button, as that is how I get around here. Sadly, I have never even seen a copy of any of his other books save in pictures. I have read the old testament, parts of the new, and I have a copy of a Hindu text around here somewhere. I figured that I've been on this site for about ten months, might as well see what the fuss is about. I have heard of Sagan, but rarely in the articles I've read here, except, obviously Carl Sagan. I've actually seen loads Sagan on 4chan(they seem to actually love him). But this is Louisiana, and acquiring any "atheist" texts is hard, even in "liberal" Baton Rouge. At our largest bookstore, they get about 2/3 of a shelf, none of it Dawkins or Sagan. At the LSU bookstore, there were 3 copies of The God Delusion. I had $7.42, so I bought the book and a cup of tea, saying to myself, "hey it's that book by that guy those people on RW, 4chan, and the lonely SAAD people keep talking about. I have 80 minutes till my church meeting and am on page 152(paperback edition). It has given me some serious food for thought, and I hope to finish it by this evening. I actually have a lot of strange books on my shelf, hopefully I can hide this or loan it to a friend after I am done with it, or I risk rather severe punishment. Saying anything negative about Christianity has recently become a forbidden topic at my house, after my sister found FSTDT. I hate to think what this book would cause. Also, almost every atheist blog and all the one I have talked to have mentioned him as sort of a quasi authority figure, though several disapprove of him.Tyrannis (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
He's an authority figure in the sense that he's vocal, passionate and happily represents people that go otherwise completely unrepresented. He's also written a lot and well summarised the ideas that he stands behind. So he may also be an authority in terms of knowing what he's talking about and being a good starting point. But I do hope you're not caught with it, if you combined it with the Little Red Book you'd probably be summarily executed. You could have the excuse that you're just curious and don't want to dismiss it without reading it first (akin to the Reasoning with Vampires blog) but if things are as you describe you're not in the position where that sort of thing will wash. Indeed, I remember at least one prominent Christian political figure in the US saying something along the lines of "even knowing about your philosophy [atheism] is dangerous". Scarlet A.pngsshole 12:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Despite attending an incredibly liberal church, my mother is a near fundamentalist. This site is not safe to use when she is around, nor is Wikipedia. Luckily, she is not very technically competent. Linux confuses her, so as long as I am not under one of her arbitrary Internet bans, I can browse and edit this site from the safety of my room, the door of which I am not allowed to shut. I owned a rifle at 12, a shotgun at 14, and a handgun at 18, yet I could not watch R rated movies until 19. I am not permitted to play video games unless it is the summer or a holiday. Most of my editing binges here are at college, at work, or when she is on vacation, like she is now. My father is much more easy going, he does not care what I do, so long as it is not illegal, but he works 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off. My friends and I are pooling money and making plans for me to move to an apartment by May, with dad backing me. So yeah, I have decided to hide this book before she returns Friday. Tyrannis (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The fact you have to hide a copy of The God Delusion is why Dawkins had to write it in the first place. Scarlet A.pngsshole 15:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
And now the weather has took a turn for the worse, there are people with posters of baby heads on pikes outside the student Union, and the chair has called me to his office. No joke.Tyrannis (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Using our search button to the left I find about 50 references to The God Delusion over the entire history of the site (assuming that I did it properly). Given the nature of the site I don't think that that's a particularly obsessive number and furthermore not all the references are complementary. But tell us what you think about it when you finish.--BobSpring is sprung! 16:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Dawkins get 957. Chair did not want my head, only my picture, as he wants to present me to the ACM later. page 184. Tyrannis (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes but Dawkins is a lot more than God Delusion. He is also a great evolutionary biologist; a person who has his position as "professor" debated; a man who may or may not have machismo; one of the founders of the atheist bus campaign; a hate-figure at CP; a viewer of "Expelled" and a crusader against pseudoscience. There is little wonder that he is mentioned multiple times.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Idea for you - sacrifice a similarly-sized crap novel (remove all pages) and wrap TGD in it, put on bookshelf. Then you can keep it with much less fear of disembowelment. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm calling it a night at page 240. I've decided to hide the book in one of my boxes of Star Wars Cards, as no one ever goes in there anyway. I need to study for my Mechanics-II test now. Tyrannis (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, which little red book? Wikipedia gives a dozen of them. Mao's?Tyrannis (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
394. Class Tyrannis (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes Mao's. What other one would work in this context? Well, glad you're still alive. Reading Dawkins at that sort of pace would kill even the hardiest of indiviudals. Scarlet A.pngsshole 16:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
This is actually really slow for me.The more a book makes me think, the slower I read it. For example, it only takes me ~3.5 hours for Harry Potter book 7, while Dawkins, Asimov, and Will Durant take much longer.Tyrannis (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. Will report in tomorrow, need sleep, tea, wassail, probably not in that order. Tyrannis (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Dawkin's book has given me much food for thought. So, I may be away for a while reading the Ebon Musings. Also, I will try to pick up some of Sagan's books if I can find any, LSU does have a AADH society, I'll see if any of them has a copy. Cheerio, Tyrannis (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I suppose if it makes you think a little more, it's done its job. Scarlet A.pngsshole 13:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't Ask Don't Tell and showers

One of the arguments for banning gays from the military is "soldiers shouldn't have to shower in front of someone who's attracted to them."

Just how common are communal showers in today's military? The impression my relatively limited knowledge gives me is that most military members are housed in dormitory style housing, not an old-fashioned barracks, once you get past basic training.

Are communal showers still common on board Navy ships? What about in combat zones? Can today's military members really expect no privacy in when they're taking a bath?

MDB (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how common they are, but obviously since gay people are there now, they are showering in front of people who are attracted to the same gender. In my experience, men who are so worried about other men finding them attractive are often not attractive to either gender. --Leotardo (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Or are hiding something about their own sexuality. My gym has totally open showers. I guess that means gay men shouldn't be allowed to go to my gym too. SJ Debaser 18:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
If they don't have the strength of will to control their fears of somebody looking at their willy in the shower, I definitely wouldn't want them out there fighting. If they are that weak willed, I'd just expect another My Lai. Really...Dendlai (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
(EC)Here's the lowdown (for the Army, at least). Most buildings are upgraded with individual shower stalls. The barracks are (typically) two-man rooms with a private shower, although there are configurations with two two-man rooms with an adjoining shower (however, said shower is usually the kind of tub/shower with curtain that you'd find in just about anyone's home with a lock on the door(s).
Some schools and initial basic training facilities have locker-room style communal showers, but most have several separate shower stalls with a bench in front or near the row (i.e., you have to disrobe and dump your stuff, go into the shower, clean up, then get out and let the next guy go).
In theater, if you have to use a shower tent for what ever reason, that's a communal shower but, trust me, if you're using a shower tent, it's probably the first shower you've had in two weeks or so, so you straight don't give a fuck about anything other than washing your goat-smelling ass. Shower trailers (or shower hooches, as some call them), are like the individual shower stalls listed above, with shower stalls down the sides and a bench running up the middle.
The worst anyone is going to see in any situation is some dude either getting ready to go in to a shower or getting dressed after coming out of one (with the exception of the few communal showers listed above). It's honestly no different than going to a public gym, swimming pool, or using the shower house at a campground. No one cares about anything other than getting clean while in them, so pretty much everyone is an ADULT about it and minds their own fucking business while they're in there.
People need to stop crying about stupid shit. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't stop picturing MDB picturing SJ in the showers. Sorry's all around. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
If you guys would include more photos on your user pages, then *I* could be picturing some of you in showers a bit more clearly. As it stands, I'm only picturing Ace ;-) --Leotardo (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Ace and Co.
Of course in Starship Troopers it didn't seem to be much of an issue. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 20:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I am a handsome devil. That is my curse. SJ Debaser 20:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

As we know some people are transsexual. These people get sex change operations on the "NHS" here in Spain. But it takes a while to get the op done, so it was proposed that such people would be regarded as "legally" male or female while they were awaiting the op - and that this would allow them to use the changing rooms of their legally assigned gender while they were waiting their biological reassignment. Logical I suppose, but I don't think it really worked.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There was a similar tangled issue a few years back at a women's college in Boston (IIRC). A pre-op FTM trans, I think, was going there and it was confusing the hell out of everyone. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Look at all this crap. People worrying about this and that and whether people will see their naked butt and worse, like it (which is amusing since I usually am worried about people -not- liking it), and whether someone is a women or a man, and when and how and but and "properness". There are illnesses to be cured, universe(s) to be explored and we are tangling our civilization with invisible rules and regulations instead of applying a liberal amount of "get over it". The Israeli military got over it, they can get over it too. [/opinion] Sen (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Very Goodpost.gif imho. Blue (pester) 20:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
But it could go both ways, right? Why should we care if our leaders are homophobes or racists if those distinctions are part of a system of "invisible rules" ? Blue (pester) 20:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
This argument is not as stupid as it sounds; how many of the bleeding heart liberals who take the "don't be silly, what's wrong with a gay man sharing a shower with other men" would be completely ok with fully unisex facilities - coz the argument's the same; "do you really think that a man sharing a shower with a women is going to fancy her? ha that's dumb". DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 21:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but that's not the argument here. You're moving the goalposts. Blue (pester) 21:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the real argument is over what in the world they will do about the submarines? --Leotardo (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The argument has nothing to do with DADT. Gay people have to share facilities with the same sex all the time, including in gym or pool locker rooms. Because most such places only have male, female, or private facilities, we have to learn to deal with it from a fairly early age (it's not that hard), and society has little apparent concern about this (for GLBs; transgendered folks are another matter). It doesn't matter whether or not you have an interest in anyone in a locker room (and boy have I ran into some unexpected people at the pool); you've gotta be there anyway if you're gonna use the facilities. Furthermore, DADT doesn't prevent gay people from entering the military anyway, nor does it always prevent someone from being "out" (some gay people get kicked immediately after being outed, and others have an "open secret" or no secret at all for years before being booted). It makes no sense for this to be an issue ONLY in military showers, and ONLY when someone is allowed to talk about being gay rather than having to be sneaky about it.
That's one reason I don't buy the unisex argument; gay and straight men see each other naked all the time, even in civilian situations. We've already de facto made this adjustment. --Quantheory (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I haven't seen another man's naughty bits (live) in decades. What are you talking about? As far as unisex showers, toilets, etc., amusingly, most if not all of us grow up with them (in our family homes). ħumanUser talk:Human 03:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you're rather missing my point; it's not that everyone does this, it's just that it happens all the time and people just don't take note (because there are lots of people who do actually frequent athletic facilities or whatnot where there are actual locker rooms that people walk around naked in). And my "unisex" comment was directed at the kind of objection raised by Delta above (multi-person unisex facilities, which most family homes do not contain, I'd wager). --Quantheory (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Most typical domestic bathrooms will support at least three people, as long as they are doing different things (one in bath, one using toilet, one washing face, say). Not that that is very common, of course. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah I forgot. Boys don't want to be looked at by boys the same way they look at girls, is basically it (ie, with "can I hit that if I get it drunk?" in their minds, or whatever). Fucking assholes. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

In Summation

  • Communal showers aren't that common in the military anymore, and where they do occur, it's no different from showering at the gym.
  • The people who are most concerned about gay people staring at them in showers
    • Probably aren't in the military (at most, they're no longer active duty)
    • Probably aren't going to get stared at by anyone, anyway
  • We're all wondering whether our fellow RationalWiki members are worth staring at. If anyone is curious, I am not, unless you have a thing for chubby bearded middle aged white guys with a tattoo of Pooh-bear. MDB (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not bearded, and my tattoo is of a Jelly Baby. But the rest fits, so I'm really not worth staring at either :) Worm(t | c) 14:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Ditto, plus I seem to have reached the age where my bod is making that rapid transition from Greek God, to Greek. Oh, and my tattoo's Hobbes (as in Calvin). --PsyGremlin話しなさい 15:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Bearded, but my tattoo is of a red Japanese Dragon.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 17:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
You all may have cooler tattoos than mine, but I have the best name for mine. It's my "tat-pooh". MDB (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I have a tattoo and I have never had trouble getting dates with attractive men (and a couple of attractive ladies). --Leotardo (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
You guys do realize that all of this'll end up on RWW, right? :D Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Most don't care. They put it here, which ain't exactly "secret". Whereas, RWW is one of the safest places on the 'net to have one's personal details "outed." ħumanUser talk:Human 07:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Beard. No tatoos, piercings, or cybernetic implants(yet). I'm in decent shape, esp. for a Louisianian, but my skin reacts badly with the local water, and I refuse to cut my pinky finger nails. Tyrannis (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

go here (sticky)

Forum:RationalWiki Foundation board elections tmtoulouse 21:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Open for debate: American political analysis

Resolved: the best analysis of American politics is currently coming from \satirists like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and The Onion.

Inspired by this Onion story, and, a little while back, Jon Stewart directly asking Eric Cantor if Reagan would be welcome in today's Republican party. MDB (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right, but you have to keep in mind that Stewart et al. can always hide behind the fact that they are comedians, so they really don't have an obligation to do a sincere analysis if they don't want to. There is some interesting statistical analysis on the FiveThirtyEight blog, but on TV I'll admit that no mainstream news channel does a good job. However, that may be because the Daily Show is so entertaining that we don't notice its other failings (if there are any).
Also, Obama is going to be on tonight. Tetronian you're clueless 15:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
RESOLVED: The best analysis of ANY politics is satire. Swift tells us more about the rotten-ness of British rule in Ireland than any number of learned scholarly journals written in the 20th century. Sinclair Lewis tells us more about small town America in the 1920s than a libraries worth of 'sociology' examining midwest America in the 1920s. Aldous Huxley does more to dissect the pretensions and frivoloties of interwar Britain than any book of political science. Orwell does more to destroy the delusions of totalitarian regimes than any official history.
In short, the best analysis is passionate, witty, and insulting. MarcusCicero (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Depends on your definition of best. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I think satire tends to require more self-awareness; you're focusing on your opponents' position the whole time, looking for flaws with the understanding that if your audience can't make the same connections, it's just not going to be funny. It's usually different from regular polemic where you can simply assert superiority loudly and your opponent becomes wrong by contrast. Of course, that doesn't guarantee the quality of analysis, but I think it does mean that there are stronger selection pressures on the satire/comedy wing of politics, so maybe it becomes easier to actually find better comments.
Satirists also have the luxury of having little pressure put on them to be constructive. They basically get to just sit back and laugh at the infinite variety of human stupidity out there. That doesn't make them wrong or useless, but it does sometimes immunize them from having to defend a particular viewpoint. --Quantheory (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree to a fair extent here, political satire - when done well - is extremely powerful (and amusing). For those not familiar with them, I would highly recommend the Bird and Fortune interviews, top notch stuff. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 23:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Attention Goat Fans

The goat fights back. Now, when the gerboas rebel... Jack Hughes (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the original news item was mentioned here at the time it was first reported.  Lily Inspirate me. 14:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Online privacy, Part 32,567

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1324385/Other-nations-stop-Google-acting-like-Peeping-Tom-Why-we.html

Sigh. Okay, so it was probably a mistake for Google to stick packet sniffers into their Street View cars, but Halfon here has made one massive omission in his detail; wireless security. It may be a minor quibble to some, but to me this constitutes deceit, almost to the level of propaganda. He makes absolutely no mention of secured vs unsecured connections and that, to me, alters the piece entirely from the reality ("Google is exploiting people's ignorance and stupidity") to something far more sinister but not reflected in reality ("Google are evil hackers!"). Google only sniffed out things that people were putting out into the open willingly, as if they stood at their windows and shouted it to the world. Certainly, if I spray paint my phone number onto a road, I can't claim that my privacy is violated when someone reads it. Really, people going around and perpetuating this mantra-like myth that Facebook and Google are violating people's right to privacy piss me off. If you're using unsecured Wi-Fi, if you open your Facebook account to the world, if you even touch the internet, it's not these people, it's YOU and YOU ALONE that has violated your privacy. Why does the media still not get this? Scarlet A.pngsshole 14:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

When this broke a couple of days ago it was discussed on BBC News24 and the guest expert said that it happened a couple of years ago when most home wireless networks weren't secured unlike now where most are locked down. While security measures probably have been tightened with OS upgrades and better default settings on new equipment, I doubt that general public awareness of security has improved much. Also, I find constant public CCTV monitoring much more of a Big Brother society than a one-off image by Google.  Lily Inspirate me. 14:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The CCTV stuff can be exaggerated as well. An awful lot of CCTV footage is not routinely monitored, and a lot is not even recorded, or is recorded and only stored fro short periods of time. Worm(t | c) 14:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Perspective: Google's revenue is 1/3 of UK's defense budget, and they probably have enough processing power to DoS, say, the London Internet Exchange as well as brute force their way through the author's mom protected wifi. Millions of people give them their email willingly (gmail) and the same people probably reuse the same password for their online banking accounts as well. I think that if they wanted to be evil, they can do so much more effectively. Sen (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The episode of Bullshit! on the Big Brother thing is quite interesting if you want to look into CCTV. Yeah, being libertarians they gawk at how many CCTV cameras are in London, but their bullshit experiment where they tried to get someone to "spy" on a terrorist is plain amsuing because he just got distracted too easily by the couple having sex in the next house. Also Google fails at evil. Scarlet A.pngsshole 15:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, xkcd said it; it must be true! Evil bastard Phantom Hoover! 17:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, he does mention security - once, and then he ignores it. And the facebook thing is really silly. The closing ominous line about cloud computing made it to CP's main page, by the way (see the TRS-80 section at talk wigo cp). ħumanUser talk:Human 13:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

He mentions password protection but that's not the whole story nor is it a thorough description of how wireless security works. If you want to get a point about internet privacy and security across to people, you should mention it at every turn! It's like a "paragraph 19" thing in that it comes at the wrong point in the story. The rest of the piece implies that Google sniffed at any wireless modem, possibly intentionally looking for password data - and that's a complete misrepresentation of what happened. I think it's just a politician looking for an easy ground to fight on, exploiting people's hyped-up fears about privacy and mistrust of large corporations like Google. Scarlet A.pngsshole 13:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear

The schedule for Saturday's rally has been leaked.

Benediction by... Father Guido Sarducci.

Who from RW is going? MDB (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hunting season,Can't go.(I love eating deer, so it is not just for sport. I also have never seen Bambi, so that won't work on me either).--Thanatos (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Am I the only RWan going? I'll have to act as our journalist, then. Blue (pester) 03:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
We expect 14 hours of liveblogging, including the porta-potty situation. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
That was fun. Crowded/crazy, but quite an experience. I did not make use of the porta-potties, but they were relatively numerous... My long-standing view that Jon Stewart should go into government was bolstered. Blue (pester) 22:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Damn I forgot, it was on TV on CC, wasn't it? Glad you enjoyed it! ħumanUser talk:Human 22:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

o.o

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2010/10/24/sea-shepherds-new-interceptor-vessel-revealed/

I want two of whatever that is. Sen (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, their bat boat is fucking awesome. Scarlet A.pngsshole 16:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, it's not the Ady Gil! It's bigger and even more bad-ass. Sea Shepherd don't deserve it! Scarlet A.pngsshole 16:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't care what the article says about it looking like a Klingon ship, it's a Bat-Boat! MDB (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Obviously photoshopped. The pixels are all wrong. --I'm bored (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
One of the pixels is upside down. And the rest are all wet. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to vote...

... for which songs NASA uses to wake the next space shuttle crew.

It was a tough choice; they've got some good ones. MDB (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

But no Hammer Smash Face. Scarlet A.pngsshole 00:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Distinct lack of any Gorerotted songs, too. Masticated by the Spasticated would be ideal. Webbtje (talk) 11:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Aww, they don't have "The Space Race is Over". Evil bastard Phantom Hoover! 12:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't deny my geek heritage, so I voted for the theme from Star Trek. MDB (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Bummer, "Also Sprach" isn't on the list... ħumanUser talk:Human 13:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Norse mythology e-mail

I got this in e-mail today, if someone wants to see if they can do anything with it:

"Congratulation with your home-page which includes pages about Norse mythology. Unfortunately, some mistakes have crept in:

1. Fricka is a name of Frigg used by Richard Wagner in his operas and is not genuine Norse mythology.

2. Miming is not a name of the sword of Frey. This sword, which had the ability to chop and sting by itself, doesn`t have a name. Miming is the name of a troll who owned a magical sword in the myth of Balder and Hod.

3. The name of the eagle in the top of Yggdrasill is not Viðopnir. This is the name of a cock in the myth of Svipdag and Mengloð. The `name of the eagle in top of The World Tree is not mentioned anywhere."

tmtoulouse 22:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Fuck accuracy, Wagner was better anyways.
I changed one. But I'm about as interested in Norse mythology as... well, I'd come up with a comparison but obviously I'm too disinterested to think of what it is. It's unusual for mistakes to be submitted by email, though. Scarlet A.pngsshole 01:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Calling ListenerX! (right?) PS, Giants up 9-0 after a 7 run eighth. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The Frigg one is right; I will see about the others. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The other two are correct as well. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention to this matter of our misrepresentation of Odinism and its theology. Does anyone else find this hi-fucking-larious? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
For perhaps the three hundredth time, this is a matter of accurately portraying the Norse myths. The very different matter of Odinist "theology," if you can call it that, is a joke and has only tenuous connections with the myths. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't intending to be mocking. Having someone on board who can clarify/clean up mistakes is a good thing, whether one believes the pretty stories or part of them or not at all. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Though they are massive backwater stubs dating back to the article creation drive. Many may not have been revised since 2007-8. I wouldn't be surprised if they're not too factual, but I don't think the mistakes are important as, say, homeopathy actually working better than a placebo so our entire set of articles on it is wrong. Scarlet A.pngsshole 11:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Uninterested! Not disinterested, uninterested! Aargh! Webbtje (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong. See Merriam-Webster, Random House. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Plagued by insomnia

Ok, its 5.30am and I still can't sleep. Bloody bollocking bollocks to that.--AMassiveGay (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd eat some pills and play PlayStation with you if only you were within strangling reach. Nutty Rouxnever mind 05:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
ooh goodness - no pills. I would be awake for days. I think I will give on sleep for today--AMassiveGay (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
And now I am out of fags. My life sucks.--AMassiveGay (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Now I'm really confused about your usage of that word.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Its equally true if you read it either way--AMassiveGay (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Take 25mg of promethazine. You might not get up until the next evening but it works a fucking treat. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 13:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I have an aversion to taking medication for anything that is not life threatening. As my insominia is chronic (I get less and less sleep over a week or two until I end up going about 48hrs with no sleep to reset everything). Sleeping pills may be habit forming for me. Besides which, googling promehazine suggests it might be contraindicated for me. On the plus side, I get to catch up on my reading.--AMassiveGay (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Get a bottle of Valerian. Works a treat. DogPMarmite Patrol 20:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Mohammed number 1 baby name in uk

I followed this link from CP via the blaze. Note that in the comment section, the comments highlighting that the story is in fact bollocks are all voted down. --AMassiveGay (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

In other news, "Maria," along with its variants, is quite a common name among Catholic girls. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm more alarmed by #5 on the boys list. Who the hell names their kid Alfie? WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Half witted Eastenders fans?--AMassiveGay (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
By the same logic, Jack (7090) + John (762) + Ewan (636) + Shawn (41) + Johnny (100) + Ian (61) + Evan (973) = 9663 > 7549. Christianity triumphs! Röstigraben (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to the 21st century, Britain, where Muhammad is the #1 male name in the world! I'd also like to point out that your empire ended 150 years ago and you should stop pretending to be important, or worse yet, getting offended when the ruddy colonials take a swipe back at you.UncleHo (talk) 08:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
My favourite comment on that article is the one that says "I'm Muslim" and has been voted down 500 times. ONE / TALK 09:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Another knee jerk reaction from UncleHo - judging Britain from the Daily Mail is as stupid as judging the US from Fox News. Jack Hughes (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anyone can, but the downvoted comments (checking out "worst rated") scares me more than anything... Scarlet A.pngsshole 11:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Not half as scary as the "best rated" comments. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 11:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is along the lines of something I was thinking about the other day. If you are Muslim, it's acceptable, if not encouraged, to name your son(s) Mohammed. However, if you name your teddy bear Mohammed you get thrown in jail and receive death threats. Anyone explain? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 11:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Teddy Bears don't go to heaven maybe?--AMassiveGay (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The controversy seemed to be becuase it was an "image" of the prophet, which is bollocks. They personnified the "pet" teddy bear by giving it a human name. Sometimes it seems people are just looking for an excuse to be offended. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 11:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The depiction thing isn't even a real part of Islamic doctrine, it's a far more recent authoritarian thing. I reckon you're right that it's just people wanting an excuse to be offended. Scarlet A.pngsshole 11:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The "depiction thing" is not recent - it comes from the ten commandments: not depicting anything from heaven above or earth below. Hence why most of the world's Islamic art has focused on patterns and calligraphy rather than images of people or animals. The more holy a person or thing is, the most ungodly it is to depict them. Hence the outrage at images of the prophet Mohammed. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I know that there are similarities between the Christian and Muslim holy books but I do not believe the the ten commandments exist in the Qur'an. Though there obviously must some similar bit of Muslim nuttiness.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
You do realise that Islam is an Abrahamic religion? See WP:Islamic holy books - the Torah is right up there alongside the Qur'an. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Not worshiping idols, and more specifically false idols, is part of the "Ten Commandment", but "thou shalt not draw a picture of Muhammad" isn't in there. The complete ban and extreme actions in response to depictions are not key aspects of the religion itself - although you could consider it an extension of the idolatry commandments, which only really prevent the depiction of any person on Islamic prayer mats. Depicting Muhammad was quite common for many years. You can see some of it here. And if you look in the right places, you can still find images like this even in the Middle-East and Islamic countries themselves - can't remember where I saw that, though, it may have been either Religulous or Enemies of Reason. Scarlet A.pngsshole 01:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The teddy bear thing was just idiots yelling at other idiots, egged on by yet more idiots. None of these idiots are really representative of any culture, religion or society.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 13:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I once won a muffin for knowing/guessing that Mohammed was the most common first name in the world. Christianity gets diluted because there are too many blessed options. I'd say it would be fair to add up Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, and Joshua for comparison. To add in British Pride, toss in George, David, Patrick, Arthur, and Andrew as well. ħumanUser talk:Human 13:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

for the US. Male: James, John and Robert. For Females: Emily, Emma, and Madison. User:TyrannisAn Iron, but caring, fist 13:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
We need some good atheist names. Charles, Richard, Adolf and Peezee? Bondurant (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Ha ha ha! My father's name is Charles! I'm going to rib him for it!User:TyrannisAn Iron, but caring, fist 14:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Plenty of religious Charleses and Richards in history. To avoid a religious name, the best way would be use a surname-based name like Bradley or Elliot (or Dawkins or Hitchens or Akabusi). Or mirroring religious names like Faith and Hope, how about calling your kids Science or Reason or Peer-Review?-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 14:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
This is now up Fun:Atheist names User:TyrannisAn Iron, but caring, fist 14:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
A friend of mine married a Maltese woman and being non-religious himself he definitely didn't want to give their son a saint's name, which was the Maltese custom. He eventually decided on the Anglo-Saxon name of Wade.  Lily Inspirate me. 15:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
How ghastly. I hope his family name was Whimsies. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
My first-year girlfriend at uni was hopelessly Catholic and for a long time wouldn't tell me her middle name, it was Etheldreda after an AngloSaxon saint & nun. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 17:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
You wanna try being Regina - not the best name for an undersized skinny girl: Any wonder I insist on my second forename. 17:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Kitteh sounds like a goat

Not that it's particularly funny, but one simply can't pass up a goat reference. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like that little kitteh has a case of the birdwatching twitches. Most cats do that when they see a bird through a window. Usually it's accompanied by a lot of ridiculous little squeaks like this or this. Sometimes it's just silent twitching like this or this. Goat-like chittering is also not uncommon, like this or this. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Gimme money

The pope "visit" to Scotland[Saloon bars passim] didn't come cheap. Now the Catholics of the country are being asked for another £800,000 (that'a slightly over $1,000;000). that doesn't include the several millions the taxpayer paid. Wonder how much it'll be when the English bill comes in. 14:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Heh. That's pocket change compared to what the church has paid or owes for other things... Bondurant (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I still can't quite figure out how it cost that much... Scarlet A.pngsshole 00:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Specialized prostitutes are much more expensive than whoever is next in line. Yes, I said it. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
"Specialized"? ... ... ... ... Scarlet A.pngsshole 01:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, you know, like a redhead, a dominatrix, a paraplegic, or... "young looking"... ħumanUser talk:Human 18:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Down & up again

Once again God tried to smite our site, this time by blowing down a tree limb on the power lines to my neighborhood. But he forgot about the utility people who fixed.

But apparently my modem didn't boot back up correctly and that's why the site was down.

Maybe its time to start thinking about commercial hosting again. I am making more money a month than I was 3 years ago......

POSTED BY T. TOULOUSE AT 4:17 PM 0 COMMENTS
http://rationalwiki.blogspot.com/2010/10/gods-impotent-rage.html

You'r speelinge haz impooved, Trent. 20:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

Hey, I was the one who commented first :P TyrannisAn Iron, but caring, fist 21:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am actually serious about going back to commercial hosting. Going away on any sort of trip I am constantly worried about RW going down, also I am suppose to be done with my Ph.D. this summer which means I will be moving...somewhere...so we will likely need to move to commercial hosting then anyway.

There is a few "game changers" to about moving back to commercial hosting. The first is the cost for a VPS has gone down a good chunk from 3 years ago. Also There is more money available. When we moved to a private box we had to beg and scrounge to get $50. We raised $400 in a week during the last donation drive. I am also no longer dirt poor, and have a little extra money that I can afford to fill in any gaps. tmtoulouse 03:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

While it is good to know that we had success with the last fund raising it should not fall to Trent to keep the site afloat. Especially as it has been established as a foundation.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The December fundraiser for 2011Q1 will tell us a lot. We are also discussing slowly building a little buffer money, or nest egg, to deal with unforeseen expense, etc., to make sure Trent doesn't get stuck, if at all possible. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Obama on Daily Show

Anyone else disappointed by his 'performance'? I thought Jon gave him a really good run for his money, but Obama just came off defensive, stiff and dull. I reckon he's just been overwhelmed by it all. DogPMarmite Patrol 20:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought he did what he came on the show to do - reach a liberal audience and explain to them why they should get out and vote Democratic. I didn't think he was too defensive - after all, he's not going to sit there a few days before an election and say that he failed. Besides, he was reasonably funny. Tetronian you're clueless 21:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
After seeing the full version of the interview online, I wasn't disappointed at all. For me, Obama came off well, managing to rebut criticism without sounding clueless or arrogant. Junggai (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Project Blue Beam

Okay, now I'm a fan of video mapping performances as much as the next graphics nerd, but what the hell does this have to do with Project Blue Beam and why can't I tell the difference between the insincere comments and the ones that were written after far too much crystal meth consumption. I'm going to assume it's just publicity whoring for the conspiracy. Vid is good though, video mapping is awesome. Scarlet A.pngsshole 21:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Video had nothing to do with PBB. A little bit of searching shows earlier copies here & here. According to the caption on the second of those, 這不是電腦特效!!......是真實的雷射燈光秀!!!! "Computer special effects !!...... this is not true laser light show!!!!". I haven't identified the building, but it seems to be somewhere in Hong Kong. Apparently this Blue Beam conspiracy theory is so tenuous it needs to rely on laser light shows, or even computerised ones, for its scaremongering. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Scratch that. It's the Oblsovet building, Kharkov, Ukraine. See here (it's yet another copy of the same video, correctly identified) & blog coverage here, here & elsewhere. It was a real light show. OMG just think what they could do with lasers. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I know it's a real light show. It uses projection video mapping which is something I'm researching for potential use in theatre design. You can see the effect a little better in this simpler demonstration. But anyway, I was just wondering why the hell some nuts had gone for this as some sort of advert for the conspiracy, it might be some in-joke but I recall that the guy (friend of a friend, I should add) posting it around Facebook seemed to have a load of other conspiracy gump on his profile - including a picture that apparently shows a bridge on the moon! (ooh, and the "Erich von Däniken's Official Fan Page" apparently, I'll stop stalking now, but this tells me all I need to know.) I mean, shitting Christ there are some whacked out things out there... Scarlet A.pngsshole 00:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

See also

Oh, of course, step 2. I forgot about that. Scarlet A.pngsshole 01:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Still fucking retarded, though. Scarlet A.pngsshole 01:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to throw the link to our article in, in case anybody wanted to improve it. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I added the projection mapping thing to the article. Although the link is so tenuous and unstated that I'm not sure if it works... Scarlet A.pngsshole 13:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Monsters

I really enjoyed District 9 and this upcoming movie looks damned cool. Trailer here. Aceword up 03:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Must see. I've been so desperate for a good giant monster movie, or just a monster movie. TyrannisAn Iron, but caring, fist 04:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, Cloverfeild was fucking crap and there hasn't been much else on offer. Aceword up 04:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. Although, I'm not sure if the monster genre can recover from this clusterfuck. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 09:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Most people are pretty forgiving of the B movies, they understand that they're not meant to be serious... Cloverfield on the other hand was god awful. Motion sickness, a convoluted storyline and a monster that nobody knew fuck-all about, what a great night. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 10:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
All I needed to know was "monster genre" and "clusterfuck" and I knew what you were talking about. I'm not sure whether The Asylum are awesome, or the worst thing to happen in movie making ever. Scarlet A.pngsshole 13:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think I can say with all honesty that I have seen the worst monster story ever made. It was from a Cracked.com list, so I have only myself to blame. Still, I present, for your viewing pleasure, the Killer Lampshade from Hausu (House). --PsyGremlinZungumza! 13:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Snowbeast. It is in PD on archive.org. Watch it. Weep. TyrannisAn Iron, but caring, fist 13:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Lol, here could be something to add to my "watch all Alan Smithee's films" watch the worst (as in awful) horror movies ever. I can see Italian zombie movies in my future. --PsyGremlinSprich! 13:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Pah! There are few things worse than Italian killer ape films! TyrannisAn Iron, but caring, fist 13:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I've seen Hausu. I won't say it's good, but it's definitely not dull. --Gulik (talk) 05:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What Darwin Never Knew

Don't know if anybody ever had the chance to watch this documentary by PBS' NOVA program, but I think it is absolutely one of the most educational works surround the theory of evolution that I have ever seen. LimpWrist (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if I remember correctly, I posted something about this a while back. It was an interesting program, though, nonetheless. The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 12:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
And in a related vein, David Attenborough has a new series First Life. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 13:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Airline security redux

AQITAP HQ?

This weekend I should have been in Yemen but how things change. Ex Labour politician John Reid is crying about how we shouldn't let our guard down but the current procedures haven't helped in this instance. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 12:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

A Clockwork Orange

Just wondering what the opinions are here before I buy it on the Playstation Network.--Thanatos (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Great movie, another Kubrick masterpiece. It's worth the buy, you'll rewatch it. Lot's of interesting reads about the movie on the net Example Alain (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
It's really worth just buying the Kubrick box set, I don't think there's a clinker in the lot. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I find Clockwork Orange a bit disappointing, compared with other Kubrick films. I enjoyed it the first time I saw it, then read the book; then I could see everything that was wrong with the adaptation. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The book is simply too good. If you haven't read it yet, Thanatos, do it before seeing the movie. As Weaseloid mentions, reading it would ruin the movie to a certain extent, but reading it with a blank mind will probably make you enjoy those pages even more. Best.--Xyr (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there is a bit of change involved between film and book, I was concerned with that link above saying it was a faithful adaptation. IIRC, Burgess himself didn't like it and the ending completely changed the entire point. The whole theme is that Alex's violent tendencies and behaviour had no rational explanation and just ended because he grew out of it - hence it ending on chapter 21, i.e., 21 years old and now an adult. Which is kind of reflected in reality, that kids just grow out of being dicks at some point (turning into adult dicks, certainly, but in different fashion). By contrast Kubrick implied a lot of social decline and seemed to end it on a very open-ended down note. Although WP has just informed me that this may be because US publishers removed the 21st chapter and Kubrick wasn't familiar with it. Scarlet A.pngsshole 01:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Now I have to read it again and watch it again so I can argue with you! ħumanUser talk:Human 06:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The feeling I got from the book was, kind of like American Psycho, that it was a section of his life, a narrative that started before the book and continued after. Just a part of someones life, without describing the end or the beginning. Aceword up 07:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The reader/viewer sees the world through Alex's eyes (as narrator) meaning that all the violence in the first part of the narrative (perpetrated by Alex & the droogs) is portrayed as fun & games (how Alex experiences it) & it only becomes traumatic in the later parts when Alex himself becomes the victim. How the novel accomplishes this is Alex describing his crimes casually & in silly Nadsat slang in such a way to make the cruelty seem like fun, though the reader is also aware of how immoral his actions actually are. How the movie accomplishes the same thing is by watering down the severity of the crimes & by making the victims exaggeratedly ridiculous. A scene in which Alex rapes two pre-pubescent girls after luring them back to his apartment is replaced by a scene of comically speeded up consensual sex with two teenage nymphos. The helpless elderly woman Alex beats to death in her home is replaced by a sex-obsessed middle-aged woman with a house full of penis statues & suchlike. The writer who the droogs beat up & whose wife they rape is cantankerous and unlikeable. In the film's portayal, it is as if these victims deserve the treatment they get from the gang. All of this means that the film has much less impact than the book in terms of the negative portrayal of violence, and instead portrays it fairly positively, leading to the controversies which prompted Kubrick to withdraw the film in the UK. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Server move

So it is being talked about randomly but making it more clear that I am planning to go back to commercial hosting for RW. Briefly some reasons:

  1. I have less time than ever to do on-site tech support, trying to finish my doctorate in uhh 7 months?
  2. I will be moving at the end of my program and will not be able to host the site anyway for a while, so will have to do it soon anyway.
  3. VPS hosting has gotten cheaper
  4. We are more successful at raising money, and I personally have more money I an throw at RW
  5. Anytime I leave for any period of time I am always stressed about RW going down, don't want that anymore!

For the most part this should have no noticeable effect apart from a period of downtime during the actual move so those of you who just wanna use RW and don't care about how the sausage is made shouldn't need to worry. We will get a few benefits like much better upload bandwidth that should help with traffic spikes.

The "new" rw can currently be reached by pointing your browser to RationalBeta. If anyone is bored I would like to encourage people to poke around a little bit looking for anything that appears to be broken and let me know. tmtoulouse 22:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

When we move, can you publish the new IP addy for addicts who can't wait for it to propagate to get their fix? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I will see what I can do. tmtoulouse 22:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Let me rephrase that, before we move. Just put it here a couple days in advance, or on the tech blog? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
184.106.147.99 is RationalBeta's IP (which is giving me a 500, FWIW). Evil bastard Phantom Hoover! 08:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

In case I disappear

Evil cat.jpg

I wish to present the following evidence and suspect. Am looking after neighbour's puddy tat, but I fear for my life. So, if I'm found butchered in my bed, please direct all enquiries in Thug's (yes, that's the cat's name) direction. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 09:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)