RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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.
Invision-Board-France-355.gif For previous conversations, see the automagic barchives.Friends.gif

What is going on?

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

Pointless poll

Spicy food, yay or nay?

Spice is nice!

106

Vote

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

30

Vote

Should Azureality be the site mascot?

Heck yeah!

59

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?!?

98

Vote

Who is the better rapper?

Tupac Shakur

29

Vote

Biggie Smalls

23

Vote

Both are equally great

24

Vote

MC Goat

59

Vote

To do list

RSS extension

Moved to RationalWiki:Technical support

Is this strange?

I really can't wait for Kim Jong-Il to die. I'm ridiculously curious as to what will happen. Fight between the sons? Will one of the senior party members make a bid? EddyP (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not strange to want to see a dictator die, they deserve it. What is strange is that it seems you only want some sort of political spectacle instead of the freedom of North Korea. :P jk. If anybody is interested they should read [this] NetharianCubicles are prisons! 21:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say dictators deserve to die. Anyway, somebody told me (at length and in detail, but I've forgotten most of it) that a danger with Kim Jong-Il is that if he dies and succession is messy, the USA may be tempted to secure the (Three? Six?) nukes and the large chemical weapon stockpile in case a crazy gets them, and if the US is perceived to be inclined that way, the PLA might go in first. It is interesting to think about, and if people say that's strange, just pretend you're trying to work out how a free North Korea might realistically emerge. Broccoli (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
South Korea is NOT looking forward to inheriting the resultant mess. No-one else will want it and it'll make the reunification of Germany look fantastically cheap by comparison - David Gerard (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to echo the idea of not wanting them to die out of hate, spite or anything like that, but I do have a morbid curiosity about how it would play out... Scarlet A.pngpostate 22:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
@Netharian: Already read it. It was hell to find, too. Freedom for North Korea will be difficult - you have a paranoid dictator and extremely repressive regime, a citizenry incapable of rebelling, nukes, and a huge refugee problem waiting to happen for China and SK. IMO the best chance for freedom is everything goes tits up after Jong-il dies and the UN steps in. EddyP (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Ultimately, Kim's death will be a good thing - not for reasons of spite, but because being rid of the personality cult (unless there's a suitable successor to step right into his shoes & exert the same kind of cult, which I find unlikely) would be the first step towards loosening up. Look at Russia after Stalin's death, or China after Mao - hardly rosy, but the level of oppression definitely went down a notch. I think reunification with S.Korea would probably still be a very long way. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Seriously Eddy? Your best option is the UN? Anyway, I should think that the UN, being a tool of Western power, would be unacceptable to China. A less-crazy puppet leader might be more realistic, since that provides China with a buffer, might provide a long-term solution to the refugee question and would be less likely to frustrate Chinese foreign policy by blowing things up. Was it you who talked my ear off about this? Broccoli (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(EC)It'll definitely be a case of it getting worse before it gets better. His successor might just inherit the personality cult in the same way Jong-Il continued on from Il-Sung. But whether that can effectively continue to a third generation is debatable. I'm not sure about the UN stepping in, would the US happily lead a charge into there with peacekeeping, and after Iraq and Afghanistan, could the main players in the UN afford it? Scarlet A.pngpostate 23:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Will anything even change? The technical leader of North Korea is still Kim Il-Sung (Kim Jong-Il's dad), and he's been dead for 16 years. I find it difficult to believe that Kim Jong-Il hasn't been grooming one of his sons for the takeover of North Korea (his youngest is tipped for the role, according to wikipedia). And if his other two sons don't like it... so what? What can they do? North Korea does not strike me as the kind of country that has multiple factions in it's government, like where one of the sons can take over one for a rebellion. If his oldest son doesn't like the arrangement, what can he do? He's not going to control any of the military or have any of the popular support, because that's not what Kim Jong-Il wants. As for the changeover when he dies... I don't think it'd be a problem. Kim Il-Sung ruled the country from 1948 to 1994, and he had a cult of personality every bit as pervasive and insane as Kim Jong-Il, and there wasn't any huge upheaval when *he* died, so I can't see there being much of one when Kim Jong-Il dies either. In my mind, the best anyone can hope for when he dies is that his son, who has apparently had an international education of some sort, will be less of a complete asshole than he was. (I was looking for a link to a series of photos where someone had added amusing text to pictures from a tour of factories Kim Jong-Il did, but I couldn't find them) X Stickman (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Except I've heard it said that the elder Kim at least know how to run a country (as a brutal thug of a dictator, mind you). The younger Kim, though, is an idiot who is essentially only carrying on based on the "good will" his father's cult of personality created. I suppose it's possible that the next Kim in line is smarter than his dad, but the pattern would seem to indicate the opposite, particularly if most of his training came from his father.
Further, I've also seen arguments that the North Korean people aren't quite as brainwashed as is the general perception, and they have at least some idea they're probably the most oppressed people on Earth. If that's true, and you add in a leader with absolute no skill at manipulating the citizenry, you've got a recipe for a civil war.
The nightmare scenario is that things in North Korea get so bad that the leadership decides they have nothing to lose, and attack South Korea. And they have nukes. No one really knows how good their missiles are, but the general assumption is they couldn't strike the United States, they might be able to strike Japan, and South Korea could be a wasteland. MDB (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess, but nuking your immediate neighbor is radioactive suicide, I'd think. And nuking anyone else would also be suicide. What happens the day after they nuke Japan? Half the world declares war on them. It would be a short war. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Even ruling out North Korea going nuclear, the "we have nothing to lose so we might as well go to war" scenario is a possibility. And it could make a certain kind of perverse sense: they get rid of mouths to feed when they're killed in the war, the leadership goes out as military leaders rather than ending up like, for instance, Nicolae Ceaucescu (sp?), and South Korea, Japan and the US rebuild the country afterwards. The decent thing to do would be to go out like East Germany did, just throw open the borders, tacitly admit failure, and let the other half of the divided country fix your problems, but we can't even be sure if the leadership there is even rational. (Does Kim even believe a fraction of his own propaganda?) North Korea is a doomed state; the question is how much the leadership recognizes that, who will be in charge when it completely falls apart, and what they'll do then. MDB (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The personality cult has basically gone to piss. The father still has some measure of admiration, but it seems that most people don't like KJI. The thing about this succession is that the people know very little about the probable successor, Kim Jong-un, whereas KJI was very well established by the time his father died. And KJI was KIS's only son, while KJI has three, and the probably successor is the youngest. As for the factions, there have apparently been assassination attempts on the disgraced elder son of KJI, and there was apparently a plot to blow up KJI's train by parts of the army. EddyP (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Fetch the popcorn... Scarlet A.pngpostate 14:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Side note: whilst researching (read: opening some wikipedia pages while eating a sandwich with my other hand) this stuff, I found out that KJI's oldest son *was* his favourite and tipped successor, until he got caught trying to sneak into Japan on a false passport... to visit Disneyland. At age 30. He was essentially sneaking out of his dad's house to see Mickey Mouse, and he's 30 years old. I found this absolutely hilarious. X Stickman (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you ignore the fact it's horrifically real, a lot of stories about North Korea read like a hilarious parody of a dictatorship. My favorite is the claim that Kim Jong-Il once shot something like a 40 in 18 holes of golf, including three or four holes-in-one. That would easily make him the greatest golfer in history. MDB (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Did he also swim a raging river unaided or was that Mao? I mean, all these guys are freaking nuts and tend to blur together a little. Scarlet A.pngpostate 18:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I heartily recommend Pyongyang by Guy Delisle to anybody who's interested in N.Korea &/or likes comic books & animation. It's about the experience of being a foreigner working in Pyongyang, including obligations like visiting museums full of anti-American propaganda and bowing to statues and waxworks of the Great Leader, plus being told lots of gushing anecdotes about KIS & KJI by wide-eyed brainwashed Korean translators & guides. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
NK propaganda is a huge source of unintentional comedy. My personal favourites are how on-the-spot guidance by the Dear Leader led to improvements in Goat breeding and milking, and how, in reaction to international condemnation of the sinking of the SK ship, NK workers are now running to work of their own accord so that they can do more work for the state and thus frustrate the designs of their enemies. EddyP (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Nah, MDB... the best story from North Korea is Kim Jong-Il's kidnapping of a famous and talented South Korean film director and his wife, so he could force him to direct terrible, terrible films. Seriously, kidnapping an expert to create something for you? That's the plot of every single James Bond rip-off ever produced. Kim Jong-Il is *actually* a supervillain. X Stickman (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Appointed Trustees and foundation updates (important) (Sticky)

(please to unsticky when this is history ħumanUser talk:Human 07:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC) )

As has been discussed in multiple locations we will soon be taking an important step with the formation of a non-profit corporation to manage RW. Everything is slated to begin the first week of August. There will be a period of 3-4 months as we transition ownership, and work on establishing all the little elements needed for the foundation to function.

The work will be done by myself and 2 appointed trustees that will make up the initial board. The goal will be to have elections for the remaining trustee positions in January 2011. There is a lot that has to be done in the mean time, and your feedback, support and encouragement is appreciated. My goal is to make the establishment, the transition, and ultimately the management of the foundation as open and accountable to the RW users as possible.

The appointed trustees for this period are Human and Armondikov. While the three of us are ultimately responsible for seeing this thing done and done properly any concerns, feedback, suggestions, or help that anyone wishes to give is great.

The rough outline for what is going to happen is as follows:

  • File papers of incorporation in NM (early August)
  • File papers with the IRS (early-mid August)
  • Approval of the by-laws (early-mid August)
  • Transition ownership of the domain, hardware and other physical and intellectual property from me to the foundation (late August)
  • Begin working out election of trustees, voting and nomination process, timelines, etc. (September/October)
  • Finalize election procedures for trustees (Hopefully by November)
  • Establishment of financial accounts for the foundation (Likely December as I will need to return to NM for a lot of it)
  • Hold our first election for trustees (January)
  • Hold our first full meeting of the board (January/February), where we establish general protocol for meetings, site management, etc.

Financial costs

None of this is free. Every document filed with the Secretary of State, the IRS, and state tax agencies has fees attached to them. Official copies of documents, notarization, and establishing legal ways to sign contracts electronically all have associated costs. I am prepared to foot whatever bill is necessary to see this through but if anyone has a few dollars they can afford to throw my way to help curtail the costs to myself personally I would be grateful. tmtoulouse 06:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an estimate of the overall cost, including personal esigs, etc.? ħumanUser talk:Human 07:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
On the order of $500-$600, which is why I am asking for assistance. tmtoulouse 07:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll dump some spare cash your way but you'll have to wait until October for anything substantial. Scarlet A.pngpostate 10:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Hang on... if it costs this much, can we not go ahead with it "unofficially", as in do all the ground work and treat it "as if" it was real, and then incorporate properly when we A) have a need and B) have the cash? It can't cost anything to do it all "informally" and do the paper work further down the line, or am I missing something, like does the paperwork have to be done in order to share the physical responsibility such as potential lawsuits? Scarlet A.pngpostate 10:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Having it all filed is what gives the shielding. It creates a new "person" in a legal sense to take on the burdens. So no. It has to be in existence for any of the benefits to work. If we're (say) sued, and then file, then it only shields us as of when it's created. And ~$600 is right. I just did all that crap last summer. The bonus is, most of it is relatively painless. (I made a for-profit corporation, but I assume most of the paper work is similar.) Quaru (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I figured as much. I was just wondering if we could run "as if" and then if someone filed against us, we'd run away and cry. Scarlet A.pngpostate 10:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, sure. We could also shove broccoli in our ears and run through the streets naked. I just don't think it'd help the situation much. Quaru (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Could we keep the broccoli thing as possible future idea? It has promise. Thanks for the update. I'll do the PayPal thing early next month ConcernedResident omg ponies!!! 12:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The largest cost is with the IRS, and that doesn't have to be done right away anyway. tmtoulouse 15:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Conditional donations

I'm considering offering donations for certain changes in the bylaws. To make any donation (to RationalWiki Foundation) the bylaws would have to be held by a government agency, and be legally enforceable. They must be public records which I could access. Is that possible? ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 17:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless we are talking the establishment of a very large endowment, I am not really interested in "conditional" donations. The idea behind donations is that you believe in the project, want to and can support it, and trust me and the other board members to manage it. So the quid pro quo thing is out the window. However, I can address your points regardless of monetary attachment to them. First, the New Mexico Secretary of State and the Public Regulation Commission are the governing body over incorporating in New Mexico. They specifically make a clause that states that they do not keep bylaws of corporations. However, once approve by the board the bylaws are legally binding, though changeable. A copy of the bylaws must be kept at our registered agent's office in New Mexico and available for review or copies by anyone. tmtoulouse 17:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
That will do.
I trust you wholeheartedly Trent...eeaaruum, although I must admit I sometimes wonder about your right-hand man. I'm hopefully kidding but (once you are gone) there doesn't seem to be any legal barrier to prevent three [two] Trustees from deciding to change the bylaws, to make themselves rulers for life. So the other two essential conditions for me would be that the voting procedures could only be changed by majority vote of the community (although the Trustees could have veto power) and the same thing with the RationalWiki Copyright, to ensure that the "right" to fork (as you call it), would not be quietly de-righted, as we sleep one night. ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 19:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The right to fork cannot be taken away. The licence for existing work cannot arbitrarily be changed. The Angband delicensing efforts are a nice example of how complicated that is. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 19:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I doubt anyone would try to make themselves "rulers for life". Not least because trying to find enough people among the type of person RW attacts to agree long enough to put together such a conspiracy and get elected as a Trustee is unlikely. If anything that stupid was tried, it's likely the community would vote with their feet, as most projects do when that sort of thing happens. Cf. the exodus from ScienceBlogs over giving Pepsi a blog. Still, these are hypothetical scenarios on par with aliens invading and proclaiming ownership of the site, what do you intend on amending the laws to to take that into account? Scarlet A.pngpostate 20:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
If editors have to vote with their feet, the bylaws have failed (democratically). I'm suggesting writing them so that editors can vote with their vote. ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 20:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
An example of a change to the license would be, that it begin to specify how the work should be attributed (as is actually required by the Creative Commons license). Does the copied text have to be attributed to rationalwiki.org? Does every page that is copied have to be individually attributed to the page at rationalwiki.org? If the forked wiki is at a new domain, could they claim that they don't need to attribute anything to the rationalwiki.org because they have "moved" the wiki and the wiki at rationalwiki.org is no longer the "real" RationalWiki? ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 20:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Iteresting, but I agree with Arm. You're overthinking thus. If Trent goes insane then we just fork and make the attributions to the "official RW". based on how this works, and how I believe it will continue to work, what you describe is highly unlikely, and our bypass will become too complicTed if we try to cover every eventuality. Overly complex rules invite loopholes. Excuse my typing. iPhone browser is being odd, so I can't see what I write. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 20:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
there are copies of by-laws on the web. Its worth checking if you are required to include one to allow them to be changed. Getting that wrong could be a problem. How meetings are conducted should probably be specified in terms of what comprises a quorum and what vote wins , simple majority, unanimous etc. It may put trustee names into public record. Hamster (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Copies of what bylaws? Include one what? Trent said they have to make the bylaws publicly available but I don't see how any of it can be enforced against the Trustees if they can change anything at anytime!
"A quorum shall consist of a least the majority of Trustees."[1] "(1) Action required or permitted to be taken at a board of directors' meeting may be taken without a meeting if the action receives the affirmative vote of the majority of the board members."[2] ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 00:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not worried about Trent going crazy. We are talking about Trent handing over 'absolute control of this website, to the Trustees. They will never give it back. Everyone says, if they are bad, we will just leave. Sure you can leave, but why would you object to a proposal to allow you to vote instead of leave?!?!? You people confuse me. I don't really think the problem is that it is "complicated"... ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 00:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Gawd you are so confused. The first motion I will be introducing will be to add a section describing a recall/impeachment process. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Ooow that was something I was gonna stick money in your g-string for. But in the year 8323 the Board could just erase it for some good reason. Please unconfuse me further, if possible. ~ Lumenos (your talk page) - ("my" talk page) 01:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The scenarios you are describing seem to situations were good will and amicable agreements are no longer possible and the environment on and off the wiki are so toxic that there is no possible reconcilable option. In which case we might as well pack it in because even if we can find away through the place will be dead any way. - π 12:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Conservapedia isn't "dead" but it seems it fails democratically. ~ Lumenos 12:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm considering offering donations for certain changes in the bylaws. I will double what ever Lumenos offers in exchange for a bylaw saying he may not participate in this process. - π 23:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll give 50 dollars if Pi posts a recording of him singing You are my sunshine. I also support his motion. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 00:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Once heard, it can not be unheard. It would be like the audio equivalent of two girls, one cup. - π 00:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Thirding Pi's motion. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
After the two girls, one cup reference I'd rather that we didn't have any more motions.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that this section has an amusing header, RW did once take a "slightly" conditional donation. It resulted in the creation of the most dead-in-the-water thing we ever built here. All details suppressed to protect the privacy of the donor and the clumsy acolytes who built it. No one came. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Do I remember that? Scarlet A.pngpostate 10:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Foundation and Rationalwiki

I am here to ask a simple question: Should I give a shit about this? Will it affect me? Or is just a business/tax decision by Trent that is being blown out of proportion? --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, no, and yes, the latter. And by one editor. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It is really meta, and won't effect the day-to-day operating of the site, or your experience on the site. But it is a fairly fundamental shift in the ownership structure of the site. Your interest in it should be a reflection about how much you care about the meta-issues of site management and direction. tmtoulouse 19:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, given that the only site management decision that has ever affected was was the move to rationalwiki.org (it made me change my bookmarks), no, I don't think I care about who's in control of the site very much at all, since I doubt it's possible to direct the evolution of the community (which is what I do care about) from on high. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Underestimate my power of psychohistory at your own peril. tmtoulouse 19:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
See: The section title. It was intentional. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Bah you broke the 4th wall. tmtoulouse 19:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The fourth wall is made for breaking *turns, winks* Wouldn't you agree, readers? --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 20:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It affects you in that it requires some finance to complete. If you care about the site then you might like to help out Trent who digs deep into his own pockets to keep this site going.  Lily Inspirate me. 20:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Nice section title! Clever!--ADtalkModerator 03:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
"Underestimate" the power of ownership if you want to vote with your feet instead of with your vote. Mock attempts to allow you to have a say in this thing (especially mainspace) which many of you put a lot of "work" into. When you are all grumpy that they aren't doing it right, maybe I'll be there to remind you what you said when I suggested we could at least ask for some legal protection or make donations on our own terms. ~ Lumenos 11:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I like the way your are getting in an "I told you so" comment before before anything has actually happened which might bear out your somewhat oracular warnings. But we have been warned!--BobSpring is sprung! 14:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm going way out on a limb here and betting that someone from this conversation will complain about how RationalWiki is run, someday. ~ Lumenos 16:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Not doing what right? Paying the bills? Reporting the financials? ħumanUser talk:Human 15:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Naming the bureaucrats or settling their disputes. The Foundation will own rationalwiki.org/.com./.net, not to mention that RationalWikiWiki is on the same server. Will RationalWiki live forever? How do you image it will die? What will happen first, everyone looses interest in RationalWiki or it becomes "corrupt"?
When Trent becomes busy with real life, dies or whatever, that leaves 5 Trustees. Meetings only require a quorum of a majority (that's 3). Decisions require majority vote (that could be 2 Trustees). Human is already on the temporary board, I'm guessing he is a likely candidate for the permanent board. Trust in him ye RatWikians; nothing to see here. ~ Lumenos 16:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I am already going to suggest a quorum be the complete board unless an absentee appoints someone else to vote for them. There will be no "permanent board", I don't know where you got that from. ħumanUser talk:Human 18:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, true there is no permanent board, I meant the board that is elected for the year long term. (Although there is no legal barrier to prevent future Trustees from making themselves permanent.) I support your proposal; that would increase the number of minimum "absolute rulers" from 2 to 3. ~ Lumenos 18:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, how do I become a trustee? Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It starts with being trusted. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Trent's example suggestion was that every account that is a year old with 500+ edits, gets to vote for Trustees, and then it is by majority. This creates incentive for people to make socks with just over 500 edits. I say our votes should be weighted according to the number of edits (each edit is one point). ~ Lumenos 18:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
No, because then you run into the same problem as before, but with different people. Human and Pi dominate the list by a good 10000 edits. If you got a voting block consisting of the top 8 users, you have effective control of nominating the trustees. Human, Pi and Nx(counting the bot and the user himself), three users, would command over a third of the vote. Isn't that exactly what you want to avoid? If you had a cabal of three people who voted as a bloc, all they would need is 1/4th of the remaining vot to dictate policy. Not making a comment on what I think should be done, just pointing out that yur solution is not cinsisant with your concerns. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
If somebody goes to all the effort of creating a convincing sockpuppet account with hundreds of edits, just to get one extra vote on community issues, fair enough. I can't see this becoming much of a problem anytime soon. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Good point Emperor. It seems I have conflicting concerns and my proposal alone, may not be an improvement. For now, I withdraw. ~ Lumenos 20:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
If I fly to McMaster and kiss Trent Toulouse on his hand would I be trusted? (It's a joke) Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I know when I'm not even an admin yet that I'm not cool enough to be a trustee but I wanted to know if it were a plausible goal. If you don't trust me or still think I'm TK or MC or some shit just ask Goonie or Google Chs Tarpon Chearleeders (not a typo) on Facebook. It's not my real Facebook but those photos are real. And Trent is wonderful by the way. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe that the accepted practice is to kiss his ring.  Lily Inspirate me. 21:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
You know it just came to me that none of us have no idea what Trent even looks like? He doesn't even have a picture on his Facebook. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I am an enigma. As for becoming a trustee, the exact requirements aren't worked out, but it will ultimately come down to community choice. It is not up to me, its up to who the community trusts for the position. One thing to keep in mind is that maintaining "anonymity" as a trustee is likely to be difficult. tmtoulouse 22:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Something else to consider is age. From what I've read this is like a corporate board of directors (is that correct?). I've rejected a few tools at Wikipedia because it required an age of majority. I wouldn't mind if you knew who I am Trent so long as we didn't tell the world. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
A trustee must be able to enter into legal contracts based on NM laws. Which is 18. If an individual truly wishes to be a trustee, but is under 18, keep in mind that trustees will be elected every 1-2 years.tmtoulouse 23:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
There's a picture of Trent somewhere in my bookmarks. He looks like a wizard, without the wizard suit. Also, I doubt a trustee can maintain anonymity, since they have to be able to legally sign things as real people. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
If the gentleman would kindly refrain from cyberstalking our aging patriarch whilst we are trying to discuss important matters. Thank you. ~ Lumenos 04:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Might it be possible to write into bylaws that if the community elects an under-aged or anonymous person [psuedonymous editor], that they be allowed "into" meetings and that a Trustee is required to vote as the elected person wishes? ~ Lumenos 04:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I doubt it, considering how stupid that sounds. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Appearances. You're not afraid of competing with a little teenager, are you? ;-) ~ Lumenos 07:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
If I haven't lost all my wits, didn't Trent appear in a waterboarding video on U-Tube a year or so back?  Lily Inspirate me. 18:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) What if I take the whole annonymous part out of the equation. Could that be possible without people here stalking me down off-wiki? Say if I wanted to separate business from my personal affairs? Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Still no answer? And why New Mexico law? I thought RW was Canadian. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
RW resides in Canada because that's where I am currently living. However, I am from New Mexico, and that is ultimately where I am likely to end up. As a US citizen living in Canada on a student visa for only another year or so it would have been difficult and likely silly to incorporate under Canadian law. I have a registered agent in NM I can use for the foundation, and visit new Mexico once or twice a year making it easier to do certain kinds of work.
Elections for trustees are likely not going to happen until January 2011. The rules are still a little vague and the current incorporating board will have to work them out together. But the basic idea is that each board member will need to be entering into various legal contracts as a representative of the foundation, that places certain limits such as age. It will also make anonymity difficult, if not impossible, even if there is no need to out directly on RW real information will need to be exchanged and likely used for certain kinds of documents. tmtoulouse 16:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Screw it, my name is Mickey Annoymouse and I am 15. Just don't try to hunt me down or anything, my parents probably wouldn't been to keen to the whole idea and I'll deny recognition. Not that I can be a trustee for the next 3years but hopefully its a plausible goal. Nothing secret here, nothing to be ashamed of. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (decided not to have that posted publically)
Not trying to pressure you or anyone else to "out" themselves. While the trustees are the ones that ultimately vote up or down on things like by-laws, they are representatives of the community. If you are interested in meta-site management you do not have to be a trustee to be involved. As this whole discussion outlines this isn't a secret group behind closed doors insulating itself from the community. It is open and receptive to feedback of any kind from anyone and it is taken seriously. tmtoulouse 17:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
"Could that be possible without people here stalking me down off-wiki?" Which people? Wait, don't answer that! Remember, these laws are for your own protection. Just ponder quietly please. Jack Mehoff 17:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I know Lumenos. I have to say that owning part of this site would be cool almost like owning part of the Wikimedia Foundation and the fact that it's a possibility in three years makes me smile. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Physiotherapy

Hello all,

I have a quick question for the rationalwiki user-base. Several months ago I developed an injury that has kept me from my normal activities, and is giving no sign of abating. I have just begun seeing a physiotherapist about this problem, and one of her suggestions has triggered alarm bells. Google has not been helpful, and I am not confident in my ability to read and understand medical papers. Here is my question:

1. Is IMS (intramuscular stimulation) bullshit quackery?

IMS sounds alot like acupuncture which is bullshit quackery. However the proposed mechanism is at least plausible to anatomical ignorami. It seems suspicious to me.

Also, my current physiotherapist doesn't do much to inspire confidence. Her response to my skepticism was along the lines of "it never hurts to try," and "it has benefited some patients." I bit down hard on my tongue and didn't mention my wallet or the placebo effect.

Thanks, Antifly Merged with Infinity 21:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikis aren't the best places to ask serious medical questions. RationalWiki will tell you that any form of alternative medicine is bullshit which may an accurate statement but I'm not a doctor so I don't know. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, as far as I can tell it's bullshit. I've had the same thing performed on me. When asked, the physio told me that it worked on the same principles as acupuncture. By which I took to mean it doesn't do a damn thing. It certainly didn't do anything for me. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
From what I can tell, it's acupuncture by another name. However, acupuncture isn't complete BS - well the explanations about "energy" and "ley lines" or whatever is - as it does stimulate the body and release quite a few endorphins. But then again, you're jabbing needles into your body, you can get the same effect slamming your hand into a door or getting a tattoo. Like a lot of less well known alt meds, the studies aren't wide enough to draw any conclusions but it is pretty much on par with a similarly administered placebo - i.e., jamming needles into you sans woo. The effect is apparently strong enough to be worth looking at. [3] Scarlet A.pngpostate 22:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Last summer, I was having terrible back pains, and after months of not being able to really move, I had acupuncture done. I didn't think it would work, but I was desperate, and my insurance even covered it! But I just left with 2 very sore, useless arms.. It took almost an hour before I could really move them again.. And my pain did NOTHING! Eventually, they gave me a massive amount of pain killers and (really) anti-depressants, and it went away after about a week. But, if you can afford it, or whatever, and are desperate enough, I'd try it. I at least got a good story about being shoved full of needles. Quaru (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A quick look around on Google found this practioner who claims to describe a "scientifically proven method", but sadly his web site doesn't offer any indication of what this proof might be. He links to the Institute for Study and Treatment of Pain, who have a list of "medical papers" in their "research" section. Most of them are lengthy explanations of why they think the method should work; I only spotted one paper where they'd done an actual clinical study [4], but unfortunately that study lacks any sort of control group and thus is worthless. So, (based on my admittedly brief and cursory reading) sounds pretty much like bullshit to me so far. alt (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


Thanks to everyone for your responses.

@Cheerleader: I wouldn't be asking a wiki if this was anything more than a quality of life issue (as opposed to a serious medical problem).

@Armondikov: That's more or less what I figured. What do you mean by "worth looking into?" Worth us looking into for the wiki; worth scientists looking into through properly designed studies; or, worth me considering having done? I would like to see more scientific studies. My physiotherapist (and the online literature) compares this procedure to deep-tissue massage, a study comparing them directly would be interesting.

I'm surprised to run into the "there is nothing to lose" argument here. If you believe that the scientific method is the gold-standard for anatomical knowledge, and you believe in science-based medicine, then you should be prepared to refuse an untested treatment that has neither a clear nor established mechanical basis (except of course if you are part of a test group, or are facing certain death in the immediate future). My feeling is that if I want to chastise vaccine-denialists, chiropractors and faith healers, I should be prepared to reject procedures with similarly shaky foundations. There is a lot to lose, from your money and time to your integrity. -- Antifly Merged with Infinity 16:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If there's a treatment which has some evidence of helping (even if we don't understand why, and even if it's only weak evidence) and has had no indication of deleterious effects, then what is there to lose? So long as it's not a case of either untested method that has an outside chance of helping or conventional method that has lots of evidence to back it up. And if you don't like the idea of receiving medical treatment for which there's no well-understood mechanism, you should consider avoiding general anaesthetic in the (hopefully unlikely) event that you need a major operation. alt (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I said that "you should be prepared to refuse an untested treatment that has neither a clear nor established mechanical basis." General anaesthetic has been sufficiently tested for me to believe that it will have the desired effect, with high probability.-- Antifly Merged with Infinity 20:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, must read more carefully (I think I managed to miss "untested"). I might argue that general anaesthetic is evidence-based medicine rather than science-based medicine (as I'd read the former as "we know that it works", whilst the latter as "we know why it works"). I don't know if medics regard the two terms as synonymous. Back to the original topic: as I said earlier, the studies on IMS I found were pretty badly done, and I'm rather sceptical, but to play devil's advocate: I didn't immediately find any good studies which showed it doesn't work either. But I also didn't do a very thorough literature search, and I'm in no way a medical researcher either. alt (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It didn't even occur to me to distinguish between the two. When I said "science-based" I suppose I meant "science or evidence"-based. Yeah, the consensus seems to be that there is no good reason to assume IMS is effective. I will talk to my physiotherapist again and see if she can provide some rationale for sticking me with needles. I expect I will fire her and move on...-- Antifly Merged with Infinity 22:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I mean it's worth looking into as trying it out. You have to remember what "placebo" means in the context of this sort of treatment; it merely discounts the woo explanation, namely that jabbing needles into you in "special spots" does something special with your body's "energy" or whatever (IMS is something about "trigger points", which are better defined in a realistic medical sense than accupuncture points, so it has some substance). The process itself can release endorphins, stimulate nerve endings and so on, and the research seems to indicate that the absolute effect - that is, comparing it to nothing - appears to be quite strong, indicating that it does have more than a mere psycological effect. It's one thing to say "works better than a placebo" but entirely different, practically a different metric, to say "works better than nothing" - it's a distinction that I think many fledgling skeptics of alternative medicine don't always fully appreciate. So if you want to get jammed with needles to see if it helps, try it. I'd say "it can't hurt" but I know that would be metaphorical only. Scarlet A.pngpostate 02:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Other options for muscular-skeletal injury

I have repetitive strain injury from computer overuse. I used to take fish oil and I've been eating a great deal of Canola oil for maybe 5 years (flaxseed is another source of omega-3, but not what I use). I think there is science to show this reduces inflammation (arthritis). My inflammation lab test showed the lowest rating possible. So my problem is probably mainly tendonosis. Wikipedia has scientificish source claiming vitamin E is good but I don't know how much. I eat a great deal of it, in spite of conflicting scientificish warnings about overdose. What really seems to help is exercise. ~ Lumenos 17:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Democrat with a spine

Can I get a ahem?--Thanatos (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A... H... E... M... AHEM! Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Get! Get! Great video to watch. ~SuperHamster Talk 23:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I tried but it gave me an error message. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, odd. I dunno if it'll work (I doubt it), but maybe if I embed it here, it will. I looked at some of Grayson's other speeches - he's really great. ~SuperHamster Talk 23:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
It's because I'm on my phone. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Pfft, could've said that earlier, you secretive troll. ~SuperHamster Talk 00:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I did, just not in this section you boastful troll. 94.246.126.165 (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I know you did, I'm just really slow at making connections, you boastful boastful-troll-pointing-out troll. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I know, I know, I'm such a terrible, terrible person. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Nah, just a troll. And I'm just saying that because you label yourself as one (at least, an ex one). ~SuperHamster Talk 01:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I used to be known as "Cheerleader Not-Troll" (the "cheerleader troll" but without the trolling) and just got tired of it but if you have a better idea for a name just say something. I actually thought you were joking. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 01:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
No, no, I'm just joking around. But if you do indeed want another name, might I suggest either UltraGuineaPig or AwesomeGerbil, or perhaps even NiftyFerret. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Lol trolling the troll? Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes ma'am, partly due to the fact that I hold a first-appearance grudge against you for your trollin' activities in the Mother Wiki. Heil Wikipedia! ~SuperHamster Talk 01:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I stopped trolling at Wikipedia months ago when I discovered RW. I am a well established sysop and 'crat at Wikipedia and have been asked to be part of ArbCom or become a checkuser multple times by multiple people. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I heard this speech on the talk radio earlier. Very nice. Although the TYT guy not so much. Oh well. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

He screwed up at one point, where he said 2011 instead of what he meant, which was 2021. Ah well. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Back in the day moment #82: Before the turn of the millennium, forecasts of unemployment numbers or wheat production etc. were always couched in with the phrase "by the year 2000" instead of simply "2000" as if we didn't know what they were talking about unless it was spelled out for us, "Oh the YEAR 2000!" Or was this only me who noticed this (in which case I've slipped into (yet another) parallel unviverse)? C®ackeЯ 23:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheerleading a sport or not?

The courts previously said that cheerleading was a "contact sport" but the news just said the courts said it's not? Of course my roommate had it on Faux News so do you think it's forreal? Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say yes. It's competitive, and more fun to watch than football. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 00:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Faux News was right, I just heard it on the radio on my way back home. I'd say it is only when it's in "competition" form, in which teams are trying to score points to win against others. Is there such thing? I don't know my cheerleading very well. If it's just to cheer on the local basketball team, then no. ~SuperHamster Talk 00:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
There are such competitions. And those seem like they should be called a sport, and get on with it. That being said, the cheerleaders at my school were not. They were the "rah rah take it to the hoop" kind, and weren't even very good at that. Quaru (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
We have competitions and we cheer at the football and basketball games. Cheerleading has more fatal injuries than any other female sport, and I've been a statistic more than once. 94.246.126.165 (talk) 01:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm....well, heart disease is the leading cause of death for the entire world, thus making it a sport. Anyone up for a game of...Hearts? Falldownlaugh.gif ~SuperHamster Talk 01:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
♥ ♥ ♥ Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Cheerleaders should wear helmets! ħumanUser talk:Human 01:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
But then we wouldn't be all pretty for the football players and the boyz in the crowd. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not a sport if you have to be "pretty" to play. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I see your comment and raise you ladies' Beach Volleyball. --PsyGremlinTal! 13:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
If the cheerleader's hot enough, I doubt the boyz would even notice the helmet in the first place. ~SuperHamster Talk 01:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Good point. I have to get off here or my friend's phone is going to die and my phone is already dead. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) From what I can gather this storm in a teacup was all about a university which was massively ignoring Title IX and, when called on it, used as part of their defence that they had lots of female cheerleaders. More telling was the way they ensured that members of the women's cross country running team were counted three times in order to make up the number. As for whether cheerleading is a sport, well it depends how it's done. If the object of the exercise is to, as the job says, lead the cheering then it's no more a sport than the drummer who leads the cheering at Bloomfield Road, home of the mighty Blackpool FC. If the object of the exercise is to perform acrobatics and/or dance routines which will be measured and scored then, yes, of course it is. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest watching the Penn & Teller "Bullshit!" episode on that one (S08E01) Sen (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A question from a Brit. Why are cheerleaders necessary?--BobSpring is sprung! 12:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Something to do for the female equivalent of a jock I guess. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
When your sports are as deadly boring as yank ones, you have to give the crowd something to look at. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Jeeves hath it right: eye candy for the guys (and some of the grils) (also something for the crowd to watch while the ads are on t'telly) 13:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
You know when you go and see Tranmere Rovers, and they have a guy in a dog suit running round the pitch and waving before the match starts to get the atmosphere going? Cheerleaders are a primitive form of that.-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 14:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
My university got around to getting a cheerleading squad in the last year or two. They're quite good by most accounts, it's really just group dancing with occasional shouting and clapping. The "cheerleading" aspects of it are almost dead, kind of like how the erotic aspects of pole dancing have given way to "holy fuck that's impressive!!" I'm almost coming round to the idea, even if they do monopolise all the campus rehearsal space. Scarlet A.pngpostate 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
My university (in the UK) had an american football team, and someone had apparently decided that you can't have one of those without cheerleaders, so we also had a cheerleading squad. But basically everyone who ever saw a routine just found it weird and kinda awkward. I don't think us brits quite get it. X Stickman (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Coventry City FC have cheeleaders but it doesn't really work. First of all us Brits don't take it seriously enough so they're not that good and, secondly, as Kriss said, we prefer an man dressed up in a dog/monkey/whatever suit. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
So you're all furries then? Vulpius (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Vicky The Vixen - a true British cheerleader

Cheerleaders... well, Mascots with ma-cheese-mo!!

WTF is a furry? You got to live in Antartica to be comfortable yiffing in that getup. The ladies might be better off in full Islamic modesty gear. Jack Mehoff 17:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
In the US of A, we have mascots and cheerleaders. Our school has a tarpon and its usually a side-lined cheerleader in it. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to the wonder of the internet I have discovered that a "tarpon" seems to be a kind of fish and not a misspelling for something else feminine.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Fuck you Bob M. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey! I really didn't know what a "tarpon" was!--BobSpring is sprung! 20:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Lol, jk Bob M is cool. Unlike the other schools that similarily call us the Fighting Tampons. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
And cheerleader porn is second only to clown porn in teh awsumnus. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 15:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
U have 2 go 2 4chan 4 that. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sky TV tried to introduce cheerleaders (the "Sky Strikers") to British football in 1992. [5] It really didn't take. The spectators were either nonplussed, or booed them off, or greeted them with "tits out for the lads" chants, which Sky wasn't exactly thrilled about broadcasting, & so they were dropped by the end of the season. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Valuating sports, gender measuring devices, "etc"

(I'm replying to the post by "Jack Hughes (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)")

Thank you for making this thread "informative" for something other than (subconscious) euphemisms. I disagree basically on grounds that this means the question is whether cheering is as worthy of funding in the same niche as (other) sports. Cheering seems to be more/better/riskier exercise (and visual "entertainment") as compared with drumming.

Back to Useful Euphemisms for $100: Do you know how difficult it is to define a female for sports purposes? Many of the top athletes are intersex (not to mention the handicaps who are disqualified for their unique superiority in the (silly) sport).

Porn or other forms of sex work seem to have similar health/(visual/tactile) "benefits" and risk (although less in "need" of tax funding). The visual entertainment is the usual economic "benefit" (for the watchee not the watcher. See I put "benefit" in quotes because I'm doubtful that the spectator is getting much benefit from growing da beer belly and sitting on teh beer booty.) I reeeeeeally wish someone could educate me in the odds of getting each infection. Is the risk of such "injury" from (promiscuous) sex using the penis friction-ing female condom, comparable to that of (other) contact sports? ~ Lumenos 16:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

OMG people look for "cheerleading basket toss" on youtube. I phailed one of these and landed in the hospital. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Very fortunate you were doing the routine above a hospital then. DickTurpis (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
LMAO. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I was cheering above the hospital in the name of science! Give me a D, Give me an O, Give me a C, Give me a T, Give me an O, Give me an R, Give me an S! Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In 2015

What level of paranoia will Farah have descended to about Obama? - π 09:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck...? I don't get it, what the fuck. The guy is cooked. Expect it on CP's main page. AceX-102 09:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It is 11 years old. - π 09:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Ahhhh. I see. AceX-102 09:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It is one of the oldest articles on WND, from the later days of the Clinton presidency. I was wondering how he is going to hold up if Obama is president for as long. - π 10:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Woo!

New woo: see this news story. Certain sounds can get you high... or can they?-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 09:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to tie in with binaural beats. Some of us still prefer the old fashioned way. --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
That story should be added as a ref in the I-Doser article. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I also love the "teens are claiming" bit. Teens claim loads of shit, like "Blind Guardian makes good metal" or "Hannah Montana is teh awesome" and we don't take those claims seriously. --PsyGremlinPraat! 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Ugh. I had to watch Hanna Montana while the niece was round. I managed 5 minutes before I wanted to kill the entire cast, anyone involved in the production, or even just reflected in the screen. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
5 minutes, I wanted to do it after less than 30 seconds worth of highlights that Charlie Brooker showed on You Have Been Watching. "OOOH, AWK-WARRRRRD!!!!" Scarlet A.pngpostate 14:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Pi & the Bible

Came across this entry on the whole pi=3 thing and they come up with a better answer. Seems Abarim Publications specialise in "Quantum Mechanics, Chaos Theory & the Reliability of the Bible." I'll let the maths boffins take over now. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 13:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Whenever I read something like that it drives me to aSK to reinforce the stupid. IT'S a fucking STORY for fuck's sake. No more than how the blackbird got its yellow beak by dipping it in gold dust should it be taken as anything but. (and without once mentioning "Bronze Age" ... Oh bollocks!) 13:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
But that one is pretty amusing. Scarlet A.pngpostate 14:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The whole thing is bobbins. The Bible only uses whole numbers. There are no fractions or decimals anywhere in it, so why exempt pi? Did the ancient hebrews even have fractions or decimals?-- Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 14:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm no math boffin, but the argument just kind of falls all over the place, on the last page in particular. "Okay, we can't think of any way in which this number is accurate...but numbers suck anyway. 10 = 1! Big army < small army!" ~ Kupochama[1][2] 15:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The second page has some real gems too: the fact that the decimal expansion of pi goes on for ever means that all the stuff after the nth digit is "fictional and untrue". (in part they base that claim on the "fact" that the Planck length is the smallest possible distance, but it's not yet known if there even is such a thing). They then try to make some sort of odd link between Godel's incompleteness theorem and the fact that the ratio of circumference to diameter isn't 3.14... in non-Euclidian geometries. Except pi is defined with reference to Euclidian space, so the fact that C/D isn't 3.14.. on a sphere is irrelevant. Sigh. alt (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Wait! The ratio of the circumference to the diameter is less than π in positively curved non-Euclidean space, i.e. that with a large distortion due to mass; therefore, gravity was much greater then. I'm sure that there are a wealth of delightful conclusions that can be drawn from this. Time wisest Hoover! 16:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Stand by, my hawkmen!

When great British engineering and great British hams combine. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Will it happen? It always seemed a better option to me - going up like a plane. My dad took my brother to see the skylon in 1951 - he wouldn't take me 'cause I was only 7 a girl!. SusanG Toast 14:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Why hasn't Brian Blessed been knighted yet? Other than that Queen Elizabeth doesn't want to be deafened when he speaks during the ceremony. MDB (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
(EC) The Skylon is the most viable project of an air-breathing, HTOL* craft at the moment, but it's still pretty much a "paper rocket spaceplane" at this stage. It needs a lot more money to be completed. See wp:Reaction Engines Skylon.
(HTOL = Horizontal Take-Off and Landing)--ZooGuard (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Didn't watch, but doesn't it take just as much energy to acheive escape velocity/a given orbit no matter how one does it? Of course, using stand-up rockets does waste the rocket body (I'm surprised we haven't started putting parachutes on them...). ħumanUser talk:Human 17:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Per unit mass, yes (modulo air resistance, of course.) The idea is instead of carrying about a metric fuckton of liquid oxygen with you, to use atmospheric oxygen as far as possible and only switch over when that becomes impractical. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, good explanation, thanks! ħumanUser talk:Human 18:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I think they do (well, did now) put paracutes on to the shuttle SRBs to recover them. They certainly recovered most of Ares when they sent it up. Scarlet A.pngpostate 14:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Space woo

I'd like to know how putting people in space has escaped the woo/pork detectors. I suspect nerd bias and that humans will convert the Earth into a spacecraft before living in space become practical. ~ Lumenos 16:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

For your entertainment pleasure.
~ Lumenos 16:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Space woo? Ufology. Moon landing hoaxists. Scientology - David Gerard (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Substance, m' boy. Ever heard of it? ~ Lumenos 17:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
"Has escaped"? You kidding me? "Human vs robotic spaceflight" is the space nerd equivalent to the OS wars. And the never ending arguments about when and where should humans go if they are going anywhere...--ZooGuard (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Space has not covered this phenomena. Seti@home was the first grid computing project, even though there are much more utilitarian projects IMHPerception[6] (might I suggest yeti@home?). The only robotics we need are for Earth satellites and all we need to know beyond that is if are there asteroids or quasars that threaten Earth life, so that we may reinforce tin-foil hat, if necessary. But since we know it is so easy for clay to turn to human... ~ Lunemowse 03:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Mobile phone vs. Laptop

I need one and I'm 50-50. If you needed a battery life of 5+ hours of mobile broadband to entertain yourself, would you get a phone or a tiny laptop? Winner takes it all. --194.197.235.240 (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither will last that long. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
True dat, 15:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
That's a lie. You are not the winner. --194.197.235.240 (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I know they make batteries that last longer than the OEMs but I don't know about 7 hours. If you get a laptop you can plug it in. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
If you need 5+ hours of mobile broadband to entertain yourself you either need a power cord or a life. I suggest the latter. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
True dat. 15:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Actually, I think he needs a girlfriend or boyfriend, because those 5+ hours of entertainment will be composed of, as I believe it to be, watching and interacting with p0rn. ~SuperHamster Talk 16:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You know the only way? Else fuck you for thinking my lifestyle is inferior. It's the only thing I'm attached to. --194.197.235.240 (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll play girlfriend for you bunchanumbers. Just don't tell my boyfriend... Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
"Quiet! We won't talk about this."? Yeah have that written on your tomb. Or upload pictures. --194.197.235.240 (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Come on. Who wants to win. --194.197.235.240 (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks bunchanumbers, I lost (the game). Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Troll

Replace batteries with extras. Solves taht one. ~ Lumenos 16:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You don't give us enough info to tell you more. ~ Lumenos 16:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I do. Somebody needs to give a one word opinion. --194.197.235.240 (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Laptop. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. --194.197.235.240 (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Laptop. 94.246.126.36 (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Netbook. I was looking at them a few months ago and some claim battery life around nine hours. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
iPad? DogPMarmite Patrol 17:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
San Ipad? (Twinned with Melchester.) I'd go with a netbook, more versatile, proper keyboard, bigger screen.  Lily Inspirate me. 18:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Smartphone. It's just a useful electronic multitool to have. It's an internet device (wikipedia in your pocket!), music player, gps nav tool (yay, google maps!), gaming device, point & shooter etc. Occasionally they take calls too! In addition in the future if you need it and poke around a bit (rooting for Android, jailbreaking for iphone), you can tether the internet connection to another device. Sen (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Buy a MacBook Pro, so everyone knows how creative you are. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Depends on what you want to do. I like my iPhone because I can do most of my browsing on it, and a little editing. I wouldn't use it for writing anything particularly long or complicated, and have long-considered Flash to be a pain in the arse platform most commonly used to induce serious pains in the arse. I've used netbooks in the past, and found them to be reasonably close to a desktop experience, albeit limited by the hardware and size. Personally I'd buy an iPad next, due mainly to the form factor and the OS, and it's handier than bringing the MacBook Pro around the house or trying to use it in bed for some browsing. Really depends on what you expect to do, and your ability to effectively read your sites on small screens. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 21:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
My 6-cell EeePc typically gives me about 7 and half hours of life (the sticker says up to 9.5 hrs), some of the newer ones have about 11hrs (take off about 2 or 3 for the fact you will be actually using it). You will probably burn through some more battery running a mobile internet flash stick modem, but you will still get 6+ hrs out of one easily. - π 23:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Some long life laptops here. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 07:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I've got a smartphone (HTC legend) and a netbook. But they are useful for different things. I think we need to know more about BON's needs. In general terms, if I could only use one, I'd go for the netbook as it does more for me.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

'Sup

Well, I have to say that coming back from my last summer holiday was much more interesting. Has anything happened? Time wisest Hoover! 17:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone killed a frog. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Was it an interesting frog? Time wisest Hoover! 18:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
It was Kermit. Went in front of a firing squad in North Korea for being an American spy. Very nasty.-Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 18:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The lumetics are attempting to purchase the asylum. ~ Lunemouse 18:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Portal and ID

Nice! Don't know if this has been posted before, but if you're a fan of the portal song, you might like the intelligent design remix. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 07:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Great lyrics, terrible voice. EddyP (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As horrible as the voice may be, it is pretty damn funny :D --Danfly (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Coming Soon to TLC

The network formally known as The Learning Channel is rumored to be producing a special with America's Sweethearts, Kate Gosselin and Sarah Palin.

Sadly, the Alaska-based show will not be called "America's Funniest Grizzly Maulings". MDB (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That sucks. I'd watch that. Maybe next time. Quaru (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Um...

Now I don't buy into conspiracy theories... but why are the BBC talking about the collapse of Tower 7 (Salomon Bros), when you can see Tower 7 over her left shoulder? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 14:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Which building is supposed to be building 7? I was trying to match what's shown on the BBC with Wikipedia's photos of the original building 7 and can't identify it. DickTurpis (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The one just behind her left shoulder, with the black line at the top (afaict) They mention 47-stories and that's the same height WP give. --PsyGremlin講話 14:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps there is a stupidity theory? ~ Lunemowse 03:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Menendez recall

It's been almost two months now since they went before the court, but still no decision. What's up? EddyP (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Need advice

So I think I'm going to bite the bullet and read an Ayn Rand book sometime in the next year or so (it will take me a while, as I intend to make it a long term project as I read other better books simultaneously). I read Anthem in high school, but that was short and tame and didn't really spell out her ideology as much as the big ones. So which do I read Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead? Anyone read either and think one is slightly less bad or more readable than the other? I should probably make length a factor too, so the shorter one (Fountainhead, I think?) will probably start off as front runner. Atlas Shrugged is generally consider her magnus opus, is it not, so maybe I should read that? I'd appreciate any input. DickTurpis (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged. Sen (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Atlas Shrugged, but be warned, don't try reading the mass market paperback unless you want to ruin your eyesight. The print is way too small. She should have released it as a trilogy, a-la Tolkien. Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd say "both". FH is at least moderately "readable", but focuses more on encouraging people to be individualists in the face of conformative pressure (ie, it's not that stupid). It's also a reasonable length. It will help provide the mental energy to suffer through AS, which is appalling badly written, three times longer than justifiable, but really gets into the meat of Rand's anti-collectivist "philosophy". The last 3/4 of the book the only thing that kept me going was the desire to be able to critique the book while saying "yes, I did read the whole thing". ħumanUser talk:Human 17:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

All Glory to the Hypno-Toad!

The Fred Phelps crew protested at Comic Con.

Geeks counter-protested.

Hijinks ensued. MDB (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Classic. Quaru (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Excellent! It would be great if the nerds could follow them around and counter protest. They are definitely better at at it. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 01:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Heh heh, nice one! What character were you dressed as MDB? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 14:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
A couple of years ago someone protested at Anthrocon but I didn't catch who they were. Was that the Phelps clan also? Next time they're gettin' some Nuts dropped on their heads by someone in a skwrl suit :"Secret Squirrel (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
My day is made! Brilliant! --PsyGremlinSpeak! 17:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The "God hates Fagsred Phelps" sign is awesome. --GastonRabbit (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The Trekkie holding the 'God hates Jedi' sign made my day. --PsyGremlin講話 22:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Are there any Avril Lavigne fans around here

Just asking. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, at least of her first album, which I think is pretty well written and quite enjoyable to listen to. It kind of went downhill from there for me, however. Scarlet A.pngpostate 13:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
She was cool as possum junior in that movie with the raccoon. Wait what do mean she's a singer? --PsyGremlinTala! 22:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I saw the end of one of her music videos before I really saw/heard anything of her, and in it she takes about 4 tries to smash a car window with an electric guitar (or something, it's been ages since I saw it). This amused me but coloured my impressions of her so I could never take her seriously. X Stickman (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Avril? That poser? Fuck her! If she were to jump off a bridge, I would celebrate with champagne for all! Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 01:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hence the phrase "normal for Cornwall"

[7] [8] What I want to know is how he worked out that was his fetish - David Gerard (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Marcus probably told him :P --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 01:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
(It's actually the rather more alliterative "Normal for Norfolk" but also true for the far west, I suppose.) 03:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
I always heard it as "normal for Airstrip One"... ħumanUser talk:Human 04:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
No wonder townies like me are always getting told "you just don't understand the country way of life". No. No I don't. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 14:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I could go in depth, but basically, read the "fetish fuel" entry on TV Tropes. They usually manifest by arousal, or at least your attention getting piqued by something that isn't intentionally or overtly meant to be sexual. So in this case, it could be anything that "awakened" it, I'm thinking those photos of mud and shit covered revelers at Glastonbury, and it just goes on and builds from there. I think the womens underwear thing isn't part of the muck based thing, per se, but is an entirely separate fetish entity that he just happened brought along as well. In general, fetishes aren't highly specific; you don't usually get "I like to have triangular shaped cigarette burns, but only on the patch of skin just above my left elbow, applied by a woman who weighs exactly 16 stone and is wearing horse ears while I stand in a bucked of moldy custard". You do get these supposedly "bizarre" fetish stories that "make you wonder" but really they're just the result of combining more general ones together and then multiplying it by what is practical and available - i.e., "I'm enjoying messing around in shite, next door's farm has a muckspreader... I smell a plan coming on..." and so on. People thinking about, fantasizing about, and eventually doing some very specific scenarios aren't usually the fetish itself, but just ways of practically executing it. Scarlet A.pngpostate 14:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hiccups

Sorry for the RW being a bit temperamental today. Electric tea kettle heating units pull a lot more watts than I anticipated. tmtoulouse 01:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

1500 probably. Hope the tea was good! ħumanUser talk:Human 01:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Tea? Nah, nothing to do with tea...tmtoulouse 01:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I was going to suggest holding your breath until I read whut you writ. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Might I suggest the wrath of Gosh unless we find a better explanation? ~ Lunemowse 03:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
No. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Brainbender for you

Well, someone told me this little logic problem today, and I decided that I might as well share it with you.

If I break a stick of length l at two random points, what is the probability that the pieces can form a triangle?

It took me nearly the whole day to solve and I couldn't concentrate on work at all, so I figured I'd give it to you on Friday, because I'm just a nice guy that way Winking0001.gif. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 02:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

100%? How hard is that? Or did I miss the trick? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not a hundred percent. Imagine the first break comes at 75% the length of the stick, and the second one comes on the 25% segment. No matter how you arrange the pieces, you can't get two parts totaling to 25% the total length of the stick to be as long as a segment 75% the total length, and a triangle is not formed. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 03:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh fuck you're right, of course. If one piece is too long, can't make no triangula. Doh! ħumanUser talk:Human 04:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
You are such a stupid fucking idiot. Now will you shut the fuck up please? Wait, your not just saying that because you knew that was what I was thinking, are you? <chewing nails> ~ Lunemowse 16:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
First thought: isn't it that none of the pieces shall be equal to or greater than half the length of the whole stick? 03:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Spoiler?: Yes, hmm so there is a 1/2 chance that 1st break will be on the first half, times 1/2 chance the next break will be on the first half = 1/4 that it won't be triangle. Answer: odds are 3 times in 4 it will be a triangle? ~ Lunemowse 17:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It appears one cannot actually break the same length stick, twice. ~ Lunemowse 18:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Three sticks can only form a triangle if the total length of the two smaller sticks is (equal or) greater than the length of the larger stick. Random sampling gives a value around 25%, and I think I've confirmed it with calculation.
  • There are two breaks: point A and point B. A is constrained to the left hand of the stick (to simplify math; the other half is a mirror image), and B can be anywhere. Points are mapped from 0 through 1.
  • There are three possibilities:
    1. Point B is left of Point A, which is unsuccessful.
    2. Point B is right of Point A, but produces a stick that's too short (i.e. A is no longer the shortest stick).
    3. Point B is right of Point A, and produces a triangle. This lands in the middle of the larger stick to the right.
  • Change of the first is situation equals A.
  • Chance of the second is 1-2*A - basically, a zone which causes stick A to no longer be the shortest stick.
  • Chance of the third, determined by algebra, is A.
After graphing the probablity of getting a triangle of sticks based on the value of A, you get a triangle ranging from 0% change to 50% chance. The result - there's a 25% change of success by breaking a stick randomly. --Sigma 7 (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The American Mathematical Monthly ran a short piece about this problem and some generalizations a couple years ago. The references might be fun if you're interested in finding some more stuff like this to kill time at work. --MarkGall (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Kudos to Sigma 7. It took me a lot longer, but I used a much more complicated method that I've now forgotten. It involved constructing 3d figures and then finding volume to calculate probability. I probably over thought it. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 04:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I am reminded of the breaking spaghetti thing: grip a piece of spag at the ends and bend: lo! it breaketh, not in twain but into three pieces. Google spaghetti breaking. 04:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

25% sounds low to me. First break "A", only 50% (or 49.999%) good, all other A's are too long. Second break, after A is less than 1/2 the length, surely can't be 50% bad as well. I will sleep on this. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Logicproblem.png
It may sound low, but it is correct :-) larronsicut fur in nocte 08:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Is this counting a break at 0.5 and 0.75 as a "triangle" when, really, it would be a three sided object with a 180 degree angle and two 0 degree angles, which in a conventional sense you'd call a "straight line" (you can get such "1 dimensional polygons" in computer graphics. They don't render in a conventional sense but still act as a polygon when working out smoothing groups and edge finding, and if you generate them accidentally they cause absolute freaking havoc). It would certainly make the maths easier to work out to include it in principle, otherwise you're talking about it being infinitesimally smaller than 25%. And it would, of course, have the essentialist properties of a triangle, if not the physical properties in the real world. Scarlet A.pngpostate 13:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
That's where the mathematical concept of a cp:null set comes into play - it doesn't matter whether you take these into account or not, as the probability to get cuts at 0.5 and .75 is zero! In the pic, these degenerated triangles are represented by two line segments - and these line segments have no weight... larronsicut fur in nocte 14:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I see, I assumed that any specific probability was non-zero, which, you know, makes sense. As you'd also say that the probability of a cut at 0.65 and 0.983 was also zero, by that logic, which then when combined makes the probability of a cut happening anywhere as zero. F**king maths. Scarlet A.pngpostate 14:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Think of it in the following way: to say the first cut lies at 0.5 actually means that the cut is in the interval [0.45;0.55] , the first cut lies at 0.500000 means that the cut is in the interval [0.49995;0.50005], to say the first cut lies exactly at 1/2 means that you haven't measured exactly enough - it's physically impossible to hit 1/2. So, we deal only with (very small) intervals the cuts are placed in...
larronsicut fur in nocte 15:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Last sentence first read as "F**king magnets" - David Gerard (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
As usual, LArron ftw with the graphic! I remember many years ago we were at a math meet, and one of the "unlimited" category problems was a geometric (or trig?) word problem that did not need to be diagrammed to solve. However, afterwards I diagrammed it out of curiosity, and the "triangle" we were working with had the sum of the short legs being less than the longest. No one cared. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Monte-carlo-triangle-1000.png
Monte-carlo-triangle-5000.png
Nice story! It may come as a surprise, but I'm a fan of the visualization of data. This little problem is lovely for doing so. The first thing most of us do is some random sampling. But if you put the data of your sampling into a pic, you see the solution - without even thinking about it :-)
larronsicut fur in nocte 17:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
It is impossible to hit points but maybe it means the "correct" theoretical answer should have a "<" or ">". If a machine is doing the cutting it might try to put two cuts in the same place. I put my answer up there next to bold "Spoiler" warning. I don't think anyone else actually answered the question using complete sentence, as I was trained to do in fifth grade. It seemed this may have confused Human, unless they really didn't get the right answer. I can't tell. My brain hurts only from reading the replies past my first comment. ~ Lunemowse 17:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Nope, no < or > or ≤ or ≥… Just these answers:
  • The probability that a stick broken at random at two places can be formed into a non-degenerate triangle is 1/4.
  • The probability that a stick broken at random at two places can be formed into a triangle (non-degenerate of degenerate) is 1/4.
Therefore:
  • The probability that a stick broken at random at two places can be formed into a degenerate triangle is 0.
larronsicut fur in nocte 18:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

How my favorite Rationalwikian going?

been a long time. How you guy going? has anything big happened during my long pause? Waronstupidity (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Waron, nice to see you back. Nothing changes much - same old, same old. How're you? 04:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
Nothing much,im currently on the way back, getting a new job and finding myself a girl.Waronstupidity (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Best luck with the job & hope the gril hunt is successful. 04:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast
(EC) How did you find that yourself was a girl? Hasn't anyone explained this stuff to you yet? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
True, yet I find that the second body has a number of advantages... bla bla bla... or use a Venus 2000 receiver mounted to... <is probably enough information>. ~ Lunemowse 17:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hooray!

Keeping up with the US of A - we've got our own prize winning cretinists Hat tip 04:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast

"...and of the contemporary science that points to Creation plus evolution of species." Talk about having your cake and eating it.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yuengling of Pottsville, PA just created a bock beer, and teh goat seems to enjoy it...

From a local brewery (local to me, anyways) Aboriginal Noise Theist, barely hanging by a nail 05:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC):

Sorry for the edit, but otherwise, the sections below will lose all indents. --Sid (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Yuengling is a good compromise between price and quality. Sterile dog 17:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but wouldn't a true connoisseur never compromise? : ) Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
In the days of lacking funds, comporomise was important. Sterile dog 01:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Is this RationalWiki's official beverage now? --GastonRabbit (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Scientific proof of the existence of God will soon be announced by the White House!

According to a book I just came across at work. It came out in 1980. We're still waiting. Do we have an article on the author, Da Free John? He seems like a fun chap. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

For those who are left wondering, the headline is the actual title of the book by this fellow. --Sid (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Complete with exclamation mark. Cool. Scarlet A.pngpostate 13:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Stub Adi Da created for your amusement. His organisation even CC-licensed a photo for Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Shit, that's a disturbingly thorough Wikipedia page on Adi Da. At 78 kB, it's longer than and has over twice as many footnootes as their article on Beethoven. Junggai (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it's reasonably obvious it's largely a fan piece - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Faster than Light update

It seems that Jason Lisle is a bit upset about criticisms of his faster-than-light proposal. (discussed here) "They are ever eager to ridicule anything that goes against their beliefs—even things they haven’t bothered to actually read." Interesting that his proposal is based on relativity according to the blog post. I wonder how that works. (h/t) sensuous curmudgeon [9])Sterile dog 17:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait, so he wants to solve the Starlight Problem by having light... travel faster than light? I'm intrigued! Can't wait to take a look at the premise... --Sid (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I cannot figure out what is going on in Lisle's head. I mean, unlike the likes of Ken Ham or Duane Gish, he's certainly not an idiot, but what the fuck dude. Seriously. Scarlet A.pngpostate 01:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
But in all seriousness, if you're confident that you can prove how light is traveling faster than light, you don't submit it to the ARJ (let's face it, look at the quality of the ARJ and you'll see that RW's cover stories are better, and submitting it as an RW article would probably give you a bigger audience!), you send it to Science AND Nature and have them mud-wrestle over who gets to publish it first and then await a very important phone call from the Nobel Foundation. Really, if whatever Lisle is claiming is both valid and has sufficient supporting evidence, he's overturning all of science and redefining what we know about physics; it's basically a scientist's wet dream. If this paper has anything more substantial than "the Bible says the world was created 6000 years ago, therefore light must travel faster" I'll eat a freaking horse's cock. Scarlet A.pngpostate 02:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a thunderstorm outside my window

I'm home alone and it's dark and creepy and I thought that maybe someone can say something encouraging to me. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The universe is heartless and uncaring, the good news: it is not out to get you, the bad: it doesn't care if you are in the line of least electrical resistance when the lightening hits. tmtoulouse 17:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I was just going to recommend going outside and shaking a copper sword at the sky while shouting "ALL GODS ARE BASTARDS" - David Gerard (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Uh well, you know, nothing of this is really encouraging, but thank you for trying. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The fact that the clouds produced a thunderstorm instead of a tornado should be encouraging (in comparison, anyway). --GastonRabbit (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Muslims miss Mecca

Linky, via: [10]. This actually kind of smacks of bullshit to me, or some sort of lost-in-translation business. Why wouldn't this have been established centuries ago? It would be simple, at the very least simple by the last century. If they issued an edict in March, what way were they praying before, and why was it only corrected in 2010? Is the direction of Mecca something that has to be redefined constantly? Why? Because Indonesia is an island chain? That couldn't possibly make that much of a difference...could it? And what's with the line about rebuilding mosques? How many mosques could they possibly build in two months? --IN SOVIET CANUCKISTAN, BEAVER DAMS YOU!!!YossarianThe Man from the USSR 18:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

RW summer holidays

Those who were were around 12 months ago will remember our visit to the seaside. There was some talk at the time of making it an annual event. What possible new destinations are there? Liberapedia, ASK, Wikiindex, Luminiki, Wikisynergy, blightynet?--BobSpring is sprung! 19:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The good news is that I am going home next week for 10 days so it may happen again! The bad news is that I am going home next week for 10 days so it may happen again! tmtoulouse 20:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah! Then this could be a sort of contingency plan at the same time!--BobSpring is sprung! 20:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Come on—can't you just videoconference with them or something? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Do any of those even have the bandwidth to support us? Might be fun to crash Lumeniki, though, if only to see Lumenos sputter indignantly. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Can we make up our own polari-like dialect and go and infest CP, having conversations they can't understand? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Looking at CP sysops' track record of reading comprehension, I'd say that plain English should be enough then. ;) --Sid (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
There's also RWW, Wiki4CAM, Metapedia and others.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Except RWW lives on the same box as RW, so wouldn't be of much use if all the magic smoke escapes or something. alt (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
WS would be fun, since it's chock-full of missiony weirdness. Lumeniki would be a long strange trip, but amusing I'm sure. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I vote BlightyNet as we could actually do something productive as a side-effect. Far more cultured too. Scarlet A.pngpostate 01:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
At least it has fish'n'chips. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

BlightyNet

OK, I've come back and it's devoid of life, and has been for 10 days. Is this the end, then? If so, I would like to fishbowl it, and disable all editing, so it doesn't end up flooded with spam, but I obviously won't do this without permission from Genghis and Martin at least, and preferably everyone else who was involved. Or it might just be temporary, which is what I would vastly prefer. Time wisest Hoover! 21:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a wonderful resource and I'd hate to see it clogged with junk. Can you leave a contact thing on the main page in case activity is inclined to resume? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, combining the point above, why don't we do what all good Poms do and go to the seaside? Blighty? geddit. oh nevermind. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 21:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Atheist symbols

An discussion of symbols for atheism I found got me thinking—what would be a good symbol to represent atheists? (Hat tip to Isis the Scientist for bringing this up.) Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 22:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Waffles. --GastonRabbit (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
A brain? Seeing as that's what the "opposition" lacks. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 22:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
None. No branding. No identifiable symbols. We blend with the masses. We strike from the shadows. We pull the strings behind a hundred faces and write the poem of mankind to our tune. We... wait what was the subject again? Sen (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the images on that article prove two things; 1) it's been done, a lot, and 2) it doesn't work. I'm all for "rallying around the flag" in the face of oppression, rights and so on, all due to the whole "context of religious ubiquity" that I constantly go on about, but it just doesn't work. You can't effectively make a concrete symbol that reflects a lack of something, however well defined a d clear this "lack of" is. Scarlet A.pngpostate 01:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Theist do have a brain buddy........ your enemy are the Fanatic not the Decent one. Waronstupidity (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Favorite "god"from Fiction

I know what you are thinking, the bible. Haha. Seriously though, what is your favorite god from fiction? Alien, Atlantian, Cthululu mythos, what is your favorite? Mine is the Giant Space God, the Ideon. It just blasts stuff to shit and fuels wars. Eva 01 is the robotic Jesus Christ.--Thanatos (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with Horus from Tad Williams' Otherland; Billious, the oh-god of hangovers; and Discworld's Death (if he counts). --PsyGremlinFale! 01:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
The Discworld ones, definitely. I just love the way Pratchett deals with them, like how the wizards know gods exist, but that doesn't mean they believe in them. Its quite subtle and complex humour. Scarlet A.pngpostate 02:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Can I say R. Daneel Olivaw? He fits all the "god" qualities...--The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 02:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll go with Bacchus, if that counts? DickTurpis (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What Wrong with you guy

I know you guy are atheist and all that but why do you use the same cheap insult the theist use? from reading the saloon bar and such i can't stop but wonder if you are better then em.

as a theist myself but a very open minded one i don't see why believing in a god would make me an idiot........
I hope you guy are smart enough to respect theist.
we have something agains't Religious Fanatic not theist in General........
Or maybe this site has become an atheistic hate site while i was away......... /rant over Waronstupidity (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
RW has always had critics saying it's too anti-religion and pro-atheism. I think that's just the make-up of the community. Scarlet A.pngpostate 02:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
i find many theist who are quite smart, our Enemy are the Fanatic and the Wingnut.Waronstupidity (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Welcome back! ħumanUser talk:Human 03:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hurrah! AceX-102 03:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thanks :-) Waronstupidity (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
If RW has an "enemy" at all, it's people with poor critical thinking skills that lead them to believe something for which there is no or poor evidence. I'm sure almost everyone who believes in homoeopathy isn't a "fanatic" or a "wingnut", in that they're not demanding their favourite flavour of woo take over from conventional medicine or anything overtly crazy like that. However, that doesn't mean their passive support for placebo water isn't harmful. That support lets their woo seep in to mainstream culture where you and I end up paying for therapies which simply don't work. It's important people are told that this is complete bullshit and your tax money shouldn't be used to pay for it.
It's exactly the same with religion. You yourself may not be doing crazy shit, but if you're a member of any organised religion you can bet your bottom dollar there's some people out there doing crazy shit in your name. Ask yourself this: What evidence do you have for your religious beliefs? Would you accept the same standard of evidence when evaluating any other big decision in life? If not, then why do you suspend your usual standards for this one thing? And, hey, if you do have evidence that a god really does exist then do tell. We all enjoy a good laugh. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 06:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Excellently put, Jeeves. 07:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC) SusanG Toast