RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive9

skinhead/native american wigo
This is where I get confused. Obviously, I should thank the creator of the WIGO for bringing this injustice to my attention. Bu tdo I really want to thumbs up skinheads getting away with hate crime?-- 15:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In cases like that, I vote based on the "worthiness" of the WIGO, not what it's about.
 * Oh, and as for thanking the creator of the WIGO... you're welcome. MDB (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * that's the general idea. Thumbs up means "nice catch" rather than "I endorse what the article is about", which would leave most WIGOs with votes of minus several dozen. WIGO CP would be even worse. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 21:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Malaysian protests
I'm currently working in Malaysia and noticed that the national oil company Petronas issues bright yellow coveralls to it's employees. I wonder what would happen if they happened to be in the area of the protests? 09:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

All I can say is
RAMEN Oldusgitus (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They slipped in a few puns - "headgear strains credulity" and "the idea came into Mr Alm's noodle" - but didn't really take it any further. Otherwise it's a cracker! 14:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What's Up With Those Google Science Fair Results?
All three winners are girls. I thought boys were supposed to dominate girls in STEM, right? --Tabrcg23 (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They're just stooges for the liberal agenda, designed to undermine the authority of good conservative boys. They're probably all lesbians too. -- PsyGremlin  14:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't go pullin' a Larry Summers now. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Tooting my own horn wrt ALEC
Called it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)]
 * David Horowitz? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

AI and Civilization
An AI winning Civilization is nothing strange, the AIs cheat all the damn time in that game!!! ;-) Jsonitsac (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The exciting part was that it "read" the manual and used that knowledge to improve its strategy. 10:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Send the computer here. Or watch this video:


 * or this one


 * MDB (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been a member since 1995.Jsonitsac (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Since 1991 here. I like to say I was a Civ fan before the first game was released -- I read a preview of it in Computer Gaming World and said "this is the kind of game I've been dreaming about for years." MDB (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it just me, or is that first video completely ruined by all the "funny" little comments popping up? Dendlai (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * God Civ 5 was terrible. And Civ 4 wasn't that hot either, at least until Beyond the Sword.  It's the Fall from Heaven mod that got me playing for hours on end.  Civ 5 better get a few sweet expansions because right now it's stale as hell.--  03:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Minor gripe with Murdoch WIGO...
Unless I'm very much mistaken, isn't Murdoch Australian? The WIGO refers to him as an American, but this could just be me stupidly failing to recognize snark... Saladin (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He got US citizenship so he could buy Fox. Тy Lonely. Ever so lonely. 22:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Duly noted, I'll be quiet now... Saladin (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, I had to look it up myself. Тy rannosaurs 22:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Herman Cain mosque bashing
Of course that Tennessee mosque in Murfreesboro is the one just round the block from Karajou which he keeps whining about. 11:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Mossad
I have many jewish friends, but i'm so tired of zionism, and the idea that we should not put Isreal on sanctions of some kind. They are terrorists. Not the entire State, nor all the people, but just as we hold many middle eastern countries directly accountable for actions done by their citizens (and often in their name) so must we hold Isreal accountable. this is not "freedom", they are the aggressor. --En attendant Godot 21:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * About 5 years ago 2 mossad agents were imprisoned here after being caught flying out of Auckland on false passports. No answer to why they were here and Israel showed complete contempt for our national sovereignty and laws. Then a few years back a couple of mossad agents in Iraq were found in possession of NZ passports. Once again, no response nor explanation has been forthcoming. Aceof Spadessilverbrain.png 21:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You know if those false passports had been muslim countries, the men would be on trial for terrorism, danger to the state, etc., and not just possession of false passports. We (the US, UK, OZ and NZ) have part of the blame, as we choose to ignore the offense or not press for answers.  I cannot envision NZ not pushing to the end of the rope had the fake passports been held by Muslims.  and they would have had the backing of the US, OZ, UK, etc.--[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  21:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember posting somewhere when Israel conducted that illegal pirate rate on the flotilla (while still in International Waters)that if this was Iran conducting this raid, the right in this country would be calling for nuclear deployment. But, since it was Israel, nobody said a damn thing about it.  Such is the way our government works.  The rules are for all those little countries we don't like.   06:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Our PM is now claiming that the matter was investigated and there was nothing to see. Personally I am not so sure, but there is no way of knowing.  The current government is attempting to strengthen NZ's relationship with the US so there is every motive not to make a public fuss over any incident.  We will probably never know either way.  DamoHi 06:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You do realize that not all Jews are Likudnik apologists? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * the SIS have cleared them. Looks suspicious but probably isn't. Aceof Spadessilverbrain.png 07:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the hit squad that was picked up after killing that guy in Dubai (or somewhere) - all travelling on fake passports - I know some had South African passports. Sadly, Israel think they are a law unto themselves and any attempt to criticise them is met by cries of "anti-Semitism!" -- PsyGremlin  10:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You in your anglophone countries can be happy about the criticism you can make, but try any of that in Germany and the first and last thing you will hear from somebody is "Nazi!". -- 10:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And then today I read stuff like this where some religious Jews claim that babies "can justifiably be killed if it is clear they will grow up to pose a threat". Sorry, but that anti-Semitism defence has its limits, especially when it is being opposed by more secular Jews. 10:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there a case a few years with the Mossad using forged Canadian passports? As I remember, the Canucks were really pissed off about that, because they value their international status of being viewed as (mostly) harmless, and weren't happy with something that causes Canadian passports to be viewed suspiciously. MDB (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The point that makes me suspicious was the initial reaction to the story by John Key. Instead of saying there was nothing to the story, he said "it is not in the national interest to discuss those matters" which raised a bit of a red flag for me. It was many hours later that he confirmed the investigation had taken place. Not in the national interest to discuss it is an odd thing for our PM to say. DamoHi 19:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * At Genghis and Neb - ironically, in the US, it's often NOT the Jews who are zionist, but the stupid ass fundi christians. why? i do not know.--[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  19:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can help with that Godot. They believe that Israel has to exist for Hay-Zeus to come back and throw all the Non-Christians into the fire.  They aggressively defends Israel any way they can, practically salivating at the idea of "the Return."  22:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This story is just soooo weird.
They did the research on woment then when they saw the resuilts were so shocked they went and checked data on men and found it similar appaerntly. No matter where in the world and no matter what sex being taller seems to increase your risk of developing cancer. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14220382 Oldusgitus (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is one of the few times I'm happy to be short. -- 11:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It really is a strange story. They interviewed the lead of the study this morning on radio 4 in the UK and she said 'we think it may be that there are more cells in the body of someone who it taller so there are more cells to potentially go wrong.  But we dont know because I cant find any doctor or researcher who can confirm that taller people have more cells in their body'. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well what about fat people? Don't they have more cells ? 11:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fat people don't have more cells, what happens is that the specialised fat-storing cells (WP:Adipose tissue) become massive infalted. So it's bigger fat cells, not more cells. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 09:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * DAMN IT! This is not good news.-- 13:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oslo
I must say he had a clever plot. --85.78.215.225 (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say this is pretty much the death knell for the right wing and their pathetic racist, anti Islam, pro-America/Israel/Bush/Christianity crap. The event was sort of like this, to the neocon SCUM:

"Hey look, a terrorist attack! Looks like the "religion of peace" strikes again! I guess this is what the Norwegians get for being such liberal multiculturalist wimps who supported every bit of left-wing, terrorist-coddling measure against America and Israel, who are perfect and would never terrorize anyone unlike these Muslim vermin. Terrorists are always Muslims, their barbaric fascist religion tells them to kill the infidels so even the pro-Palestrash scum in Norway are the target, as are all the other liberals who kiss Muslim ass."

(hears report that it was actually a right-wing Christian fundamentalist Muslim-hater who was responsible): "Uh, yeah, but...but...uh...but, but Jared Lee Loughner was a left-wing pothead!" (cries and goes back to masturbating to Michele Bachman to relieve the grief)

Trust me, I know these scumbags. Grykeham (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not just the neocons, either. yesterday's Independent (British, liberal, intellectual) ran with "we don't know who did it yet, but those jihadists really hate Norway". I remember similar crap after the Oklahoma bombing. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 09:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In the absence of hard facts about crimes such as these, news media will speculate on who the perpetrators might be. I read somewhere on the BBC website that Norway had no far right terrorist groups active, so there really was no one else beyond the usual 'jihadist' suspects to speculate about, especially as the Independent article RFALI linked mentions, there had been threats made previously against Norway. I don't think speculation is necessarily wrong if it includes all the possible suspects, but there really wasn't much else to go on in this case. This is one of the reasons why there was such shock at these attacks - they came out of the blue. There is no accounting for lone lunatics, if this is indeed what this chap is. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm hearing news reports that he's described as a right-wing fundamentalist Christian, but can't find confirmation, outside of the blogospehere... and GLP. -- PsyGremlin  11:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * he may (or may not) be a Christian (abeit in name only, as they say), but that doesn't mean his motive was religious... the vague reports of his online presence and one friend's statement seem to describe someone of the extreme right in a non-specific way. note that his attack was on the governing (socialist) party, rather than a mosque or whatever. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 11:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The main thread on it on Freerepublic:. The ammount of "No True Scotsman" and "He was a Muslim in disguise!" is pretty sickening. Dendlai (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My god, the level of paranoia. Lots of them seem to think that it's a plot to oppress them - even though it happened on the other side of the world in Norway. Because Norwegians care that much about US politics. For example: "A little bit *too* convenient right after the DHS said that terrorists were going to be middle class white males who disliked the government. I smell false flag." I just want to find the guy who wrote this and smack him round with a baseball bat. IT HAPPENED IN NORWAY YOU STUPID FUCKER NOT EVERYONE IS OUT TO GET YOU. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 14:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The doublethink is amazing. If someboy claims to be a christian and does something bad = wasn't really a christian since no christian could do something bad. If someboy does something bad and claims to be a Muslim = HE WAS A MOHAMMEDAN!!! MOHAMMEDANS R TEH 3V1L!!! WE KNOW HE WAS ONE BECAUSE HE SAID HE WAS! Dendlai (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * *barf* The owner of GLP just posted a few rather disturbing threads:, , . *barf* Otherwise, the reactions on GLP have been all over the place.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Leonard Boswell attack
Although it's bad that an old man was assaulted in his own home, why is this a WIGO? Although he's a politician, it wasn't a political attack. The link itself says it was basically an attempted robbery. An assault on a politician is not necessarily a political crime. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 09:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Chomsky's "Assault" on Chavez
Chomsky later accused the Guardian article of being dishonest and deceptive, and even within the article, his letter was nowhere near as vitriolic as the writer made it seem. I'm not sure how we handle the issue of biased sources on this page, but I thought it was important to note. --Colossal Squid (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

They do wigo
Please can people stop wigoing murdoch titles. There is absolutely no point in doing so as I, along with most of the world, do not have a logon and do not intend to get one. If you are going to wigo his crappy publications lies then do it via a cap instead please? Oldusgitus (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's from the New York Times -- it has nothing to do with Murdoch. And I got there just fine without a login. MDB (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's prompting me for a user name and password. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you on an iPhone? There's apparently some sites that want u/n & pw for iPhone users. Pippa (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't have to log in, so i assumed nobody else would either. the unspoken problem is that i used a murdoch title at all. had i known i'd have gone to a different sight, i hate that fucking toad. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 13:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

My bad, sorry. Interestingly I can read the article from home so it's either something to do with my work ip/firewall or possibly I have different privacy/script settings at work which are stopping me viewing it. I run firefox at work and at home and have noscript active on both so probably privacy settings or corporate policy. Sorry for doubting all you good people :-) Oldusgitus (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Alex Trebek WIGO
Obviously, the burglars didn't know that all you have to do to stop Alex Trebek is get him to say his name backwards:

MDB (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ground Zero cross WIGO
Is there, you know, an actual link to the interview? Otherwise, there's no point in it being there. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It's official! Faux News viewers are the most misinformed of any news consumers.
It's from 2010...-- 17:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Slaughterhouse-V ban
I support this book being banned -- now more kids will be reading Vonnegut. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * True dat. I was the only kid in my class who'd read any of his stuff (Breakfast of Champions). Now, in that school, there'll be the one kid who hasn't read Vonnegut. How Vonnegutian would it be if that one kid grows up to be President? Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 19:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've always wondered why some folk find Slaughterhouse Five is so controversial. I don't recall anything particularly shocking when I read it. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

China WIGO
I'm no economist so I could be wrong, but WIGO doesn't doesn't appear to match watch the linked article says. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's true that China's massive buy-up of US sovereign debt is primarily strategic and motivated by its desire to keep the yuan from appreciating, but they also have an obvious interest in maintaining the safety of their investment. They can't simply ditch their dollar holdings without massively harming their export sector, so they had no choice but to stay put and watch the recent game of default chicken unfold. It's understandable that they'll voice their concerns in public. I don't get why the WIGO argues that the US should "foot the bill for the failure" of some plot - nobody forced the US to run up huge trade deficits or borrow from abroad to finance government spending. What the Chinese are demanding is simply that the US should deal with its debt in a responsible manner, like any other creditor would. Röstigraben (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Chinese government was not reminding the U.S. of its obligation to pay off the bonds that China holds. It was making a much broader statement, that the U.S. was obligated to "ensure the safety of China's dollar assets," which in their eyes seems to involve slashing the military budget. And let us just say that the shysters have a certain ulterior motive for wanting the U.S.'s military budget slashed. 05:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop linking the bloody Daily Mail
It's odious shit whose web business model is trolling for clicks. Put it on clogs if you must. For anything worth actually linking, there's going to be another source - David Gerard (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The Mail is garbage indeed, but if there are adverts on there, I'm not seeing 'em. AdBlockPlus to the rescue. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mother fuckers ADK ...I'll reward your ramen noodle! 00:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And??? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh god, it's the latest bullshit from Satoshi Kanazawa. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"(innocent) Lockerbie bomber"
WTF? Innocent? Is that a fucking joke? Is there even any question as to this guy's guilt?-- 11:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Read this — there were sufficient doubts about the validity of his conviction for an independent body, the, to refer his case to a fresh round of appeals. Many believe that releasing him on "compassionate" grounds was a political fudge to stop any embarrassing truths coming out during that second round of appeals. Not saying he's innocent, but there is genuine doubt about whether the original conviction was sound.  11:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Bricks, there's absolutely no doubt that al-Megrahi is innocent. Paul Foot did some typically brilliant investigative journalism for Private Eye and proved it beyond all possible doubt. Unfortunately I no longer have that issue, and the report costs money to download, but you can get the gist from here. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take y'all's word for it. Of course, in the States "innocent" doesn't mean a damned thing.  Thanks for your patience in addressing my concerns and for providing me with information with which I can make my own opinion (though I think that here I'm going to trust the two of you's opinion and avoid reading/watching video clips).--  12:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Remote Sensing resignation
Soon and Baliunas take two? I guess Remote Sensing will become a denialist platform now. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Perry Defends Record Of Executions
RE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZlDF9VCbrg

Yes, comments are particularly bad in places. But generally my attitude is that if he's so proud of it, Perry himself should do the act. Not just sign the form, actually get in there and throw the switch, pull the trigger or tie the noose. Then see if he sleeps at night because if he can't do that he has no right defending the death penalty and people have no right to cheer him. ADK ...I'll anglicise your person! 00:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's supposed to be about "deterrence," right? I think what we ought to do is go back to public executions, but one step further: Reality TV. Tonight on Death Penalty...! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If you're going to do something you fucking well do it properly rather than all this hypocritical shit. Why the appeals and the death row, why not just slam down the gavel and shoot them less than a minute later. This isn't about stopping crime; if you're serious about that you deal with the poverty, squalour and desperation that causes it. It's not about fearful deterrence, otherwise it would be public, and painful. And it's not about justice because that isn't about bloodthirsty revenge. Instead it's all about trying to look mean and macho in front of others because killing is cool, it's what the Action Heroes do and it's always justified because they're bad, m'kay? But at the same time as this, it's about hiding the fact that what you're doing is killing another human being. Notice the euphemisms there, "ultimate justice" rather than "ultimate price" which is how it usually is. It's just denial and trying to offset the guilt. ADK ...I'll subvocalise your Volvo! 00:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but dealing with poverty and education is like, hard and shit. And it costs money. And those people deserve it anyway. Fuck the looters. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If you accept the premise that death penalty recipients are all actually guilty of murder (which is debatable), then in the United States at least, nobody on death row/executed is getting a worse punishment than the act which they had committed. I wish some of the death penalty opponents would acknowledge the heinous murders to which these individuals are being put to death for (and in the overwhelming majority of these cases, no reasonable person would dispute guilt.)

It is intellectually dishonest to imply that people are being executed for being poor, or even for looting. I don't support the death penalty personally (for religious reasons), but it is constitutional, and to reactively demonize those who support the death penalty is a very simplistic viewpoint that marginalizes the reaction to the underlying murders for which the condemned are being put to death for. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I never suggested they were being executed for anything less than murder. But even if you accept that they're all Guilty Beyond All Doubt Whatsoever I find their crimes are very much a red herring from the issues involved - that's not to dismiss them, just to ensure we're not clouded by bloodlust and rage when thinking about it because there are very, very good reasons that we don't, in civilised society, let grieving family members be judge, jury and executioner in civilised society. Remember that under US law it's the prosecuting side that calls for the death penalty, and that's pretty arbitrary in itself but there's a well known statistical discrepancy on racial, sexual and class grounds between accused murderers, convicted murderers and those actually on death row - to cut to the punchline, if you're poor, male and black then you're fucked. And that's statistical fact. With the arbitrary nature of how it's implemented, you may as well claim that people are being executed for being poor, the line "You got the right to an attorney! If you can't afford an attorney, we will provide you with the dumbest fucking lawyer on earth!" in Lethal Weapon 4 may well have been pretty amusing but it's not far from how the legal system actually operates and, as they say on TV Tropes, Fridge Horror ensues.
 * Now, consider my new most favouritist quote ever: "The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die." If one supports it, that's fine, it's valid and I see the point entirely (I disagree, but that's a different argument to the one I mostly make and take issue with). All I ask is that people not be hypocritical about it or hide from what it is and what they're doing. The US no longer has "executions" and "executioners", the lethal injection has turned it into a "procedure" carried out by "doctors". Methods of execution have nothing to do with the prisoner being executed by absolving guilt of those who have to do it. In the firing squad procedure, several of the marksmen will be randomly assigned fake bullets so that no one can be sure who actually made the killing blow. As much as I agree with absolving the guilt of those effectively forced to carry out the act (recall the old tradition of tipping the axe-man as a gesture of "no hard feelings, you're just doing your job" - and not least "please don't miss") such things are evidence of the total hypocrisy and denial involved with the modern death penalty. Perry, as I pointed out above, has euphemised it horrendously to "the ultimate justice" rather than "the ultimate price" as it's usually stated. It's like he doesn't want to acknowledge the fact he's signed so many people to their deaths - not to say he's a stinking liar, but I wonder if this is some indication that he really is losing sleep over it. People seem bent on distancing themselves from the fact that it's killing another person - there's nothing emotive in calling it "state-sanctioned killing under controlled circumstances" because that's precisely what it is. That's not all, though. Over-emphasising that those being killed are brutal murderers and/or psychopaths, or focusing on their victims (which is pointless because they're not going to be brought back to life regardless of what you do, they're balanced on the equation and cancel out), is all as much a part of this distancing as the euphemisms are. It's all part of the killology (yes, it is a word) used to make people accept killing another as justifiable. It used to be applied to soldiers to get them to pull the trigger, but now it's applied to civilians so that they don't wince when they're complicit in killing. So if people want to support it, that's fine, but I want them to do it properly; that means making it public, making it brutal, sticking their head on a pike afterwards and having the governor of the state do it personally with his/her own hands. And of course, should they be posthumously be proven innocent, for all those complicit in the execution and conviction to stand trial for murder too (as Nassim Taleb says, "don't get on a plane unless the pilot is there too", you shouldn't put your life in the hands of someone who has nothing to lose). ADK ...I'll castigate your cadaver! 11:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Life-like cells are made of metal
RE: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20906-lifelike-cells-are-made-of-metal.html

I'm trying to remember if I've met Lee Cronin before... anyway, so basically it's the formation of surfactant micelles in an ionic liquid. It's a nice demonstration, but I really object to this "life-like cells" thing. They're not "life like" because they're not undergoing complex biochemistry or any darwinian evolution, it's just self-organising structure because of charge distribution. Nothing actually surprising there, you can do it with washing-up liquid very easily - in fact it's the very reason washing-up liquid works! ADK ...I'll optimize your rifle! 13:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I remember now, I think the discussion may have been "what a prat". <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll explode your beagle! 13:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Dinosaur feathers
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/09/15/science-dinosaur-feathers.html

Worth of being put on the board? --Revolverman (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

HPV
HPV is pretty much warts. I'm sure lots of women have warts, but do they have warts up their vaginas? So far up their vaginas as to be on the cervix? Because it's only at that point that it creates a risk for cervical cancer. I'm not saying getting the vaccine is a dumb idea. Nobody wants warts (especially not this guy). But is mandating it and campaigning for it anything else than a great way for pharmaceutical companies to make money? The HPV vaccine is not on the level of the measles, polio, or cholera vaccines. In a good world, all vaccines would be freely available, but in the meanwhile, we should instead focus on diseases that actually kill people, I think.-- 20:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * PS- in the event that what I just posted is profoundly ignorant, I would like to plead "high-school dropout."-- 21:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily ignorant, but Googleable. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose in twenty years we'll be able to see whether or not the rates of cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer drop. In the meanwhile, I did not enjoy having plantar warts and would have appreciated a vaccine --  00:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Tories hire $90,000-a-day consultant to help cut spending
We 'Murricans have a thing called the GAO for that. Not that anyone ever listens to it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Even as a lefty Canadian the hubbub over this story kinda ticks me off. If they end up paying this guy, say, $10 million, and he comes up with a plan that shaves $10 billion off of the budget, it's a pretty smart investment. B♭maj7 "Voted in two different votes, but there was never a vote." 02:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, if it works. But it's primarily the principle of thing - like saying "we can't afford" electoral when it'll cost £200 million (despite the fact that figure is bullshit) and then spending over £6 billion on aircraft carriers, one of which we won't actually use. And giving a tax break to married couples worth a staggering £3 per week that will cost the country half a fecking billion pounds to enact. And of course then telling students to stuff themselves to the eyeballs with debt they can't repay (because debt is better than tax even though it amounts to the same thing) that, and that should you bother with the maths it ends up more expensive for the government than ever before. But even if it was to shave off 10 billion, where would those 10 billion come from? You think consultants are smart enough to magically get rid of that much without obvious things going astray, like laying off thousands of public sector workers, slashing budgets. Dude, I could tell you that for a fraction of the price. The Tories have been bigging up the last government as one of decadent expenditure, and seem to be saying that we could all save money if government offices bought shittier pens that cost 50p rather than 60p. To quote Independence Day: "You don't actually think they spend $20,000.00 on a hammer, $30,000.00 on a toilet seat do you?" Of-fucking-course not! Now, the main reason it probably won't work magic is that consultancy is a self-preserving occupation, if there was an effective solution to the problems it wouldn't cost much and it would be well known. You know, like how losing weight is cheap, simple and obvious: "don't fucking eat so much". Yet fad dieting is a multi-billion industry worldwide. "Hey, just slash all council budgets by 35% and let them do hard work. Then fire half the military. And stop maintaining the roads. Oh, and sell of the NHS. That'll be £10 million pounds please!!!" <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll discalceate your cubicle! 08:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, Canadian Tories. Point still stands, though. It's still stupid. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll revolt your cockroach! 08:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

gene therapy HIV thing
I have no scientific training, knowledge or understanding of such things. I am aware that most media play up claims of a cure for things like cancer or HIV, that makes the average reader like me think 'wow, at last a cure, rejoice', when in fact it is just an interesting, and at best, hopeful discovery that might eventually lead to better management of a disease years down the line. I don't if know is NS is guilty of this, but my point is - how does a no nothing, scientifically illiterate half wit such as myself know when to get excited about a cure for HIV or when to dismiss it as cruel hype? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Three subjects out of six...this is relevant. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * yeh that is apt. It pisses me off that i need to take years of university level study to assess the validity of any particular story in the news. The only other option is to assume everything is a lie. Couple that cynicism with my lack of learning and the next stop is conspiracy theorist. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a site hosted by some university called something like "How to read science journalism," I'll see if I can find it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't find the one I was thinking of, but I've always like this one. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I am bright enough to make head nor tail of that. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Mind reading device
"Could eventually lead to..."? These people are a bit behind the times. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seems like they did it with cats in 1999. Obviously it's nothing new or spectacular if you know about that sort of thing and have been keeping up. In fact, there's something from TED a few years ago where someone is controlling a computer by pre-recording commands and then controlling something on screen. Nothing particularly new with the vision thing, although averaging out the best video matches and composing them together is pretty cool, to be honest. I just can't get over the conspiracy nutters commenting that the CIA must already have it - as if the US government has a top secret research project that is basically a replica of all science and all scientists everywhere in the world except 20 years ahead. So they already know all about the Higgs boson and can read minds... so dudes, tell us the secret to in vivo hyperpolarised MRI already, dammit! I mean, really. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll discalceate your iPod! 00:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, BCIs are also useful for shutting up obnoxious engineering/hard science types -- "But psychology isn't real science." "BCIs, bitch!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Uderzo
It's about time. Without Goscinny he was just churning out crap. Same thing with Morris drawing Lucky Luke until the day he died. Goscinny is what made those series any good.-- 00:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kinda agree. There's such a sharp drop in quality in the Asterix comics between the Goscinny and non-Goscinny ones. Though even the non-Goscinny ones had Uderzo's gorgeous art. They were pretty much worth reading just for the art. It wasn't JUST Goscinny who made Asterix good. Uderzo definitly deserves half the credit. Really amazing artist. Just look at it... And then look some more. Amazing detail. Morris OTOH wasn't anywhere near as good. Competent sure but not a genius. Dendlai (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Morris, I think, was better than Uderzo not so much in terms of art but because of his fascination with the Far West, which influenced Lucky Luke and added historical depth to what already was an excellent comic. This was not the case for Uderzo, and I don't see his art as exceptional (though I'd be hard pressed to reproduce it myself).--  14:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

al-Qaeda vs. truthers
I lol'd. AQ are such obvious Bush shills! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A court in Bahrain has jailed 20 medics who treated protesters to up to 15 years"
That's a lot of treatment!--BobSpring is sprung! 11:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

They took our Jobs!
As I type this on an Apple iPad I think back to my misguided vitriol for the Apple brand: the advertisements were correct, PCs were by and for engineers, Apples were for "normal" people. Being an autodidact (who would've become an engineer save for the promise I made to myself in the early '80's to never learn to code and having the good fortune to have no ambition whatsoever), I think I can safely say that having Jobs around gave me a peace of mind that somebody was ambitious and driven enough to do the things that needed to be done in order that we (all) have gotten to see that there was a more better way to think about what computers were and are and that the possibilities become probabilities the more we think on them. 06:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ
 * I still dislike Apple for much the same reason I dislike Microsoft. And ITunes is just awful. It is said that he died though. I disagee with your assessment 'PCs were by and for engineers, Apples were for "normal" people'. I've always seen as Windows based PCs with as being for normal folk. Apple was always for creative types. Now Apple is for hipsters, and Linux based PCs as being for engineersAMassiveGay (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Harry Shearer
RE: well, some ijit linked to Google news, which you seem to have to sign into so they can get all the data on you so you can read it.

But anyway, WIGO states Shearer offered a 70% pay cut, but fails to note that many of them want shares of the profits instead. That isn't a mere altruistic thing, that's quite a clever move. Note that George Lucas got rich not from any profit or salary on Star Wars but mostly through holding onto rights for merchandising revenue. If this whole debacle boosts interest in The Simpsons so that it becomes hot property again, then taking a small chunk in revenue in exchange for a sizable cut in your fixed fee, you could end up with more cash. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll unify your equestrian! 14:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

So do I wait and see
Or wigo this now? Oldusgitus (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Al Jazera is saying he is dead, conflicting reports exactly what is happening. Pimobile (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unpleasant pictures of a bloodstained corpse on the BBC that looks very like the unlamented Colonel. What a shame. Oh wait, maybe not. Darkmind1970 (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Herman Cain is a fucking idiot
RE: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/10/09/339879/cain-uzbekistan-beki-beki-stan-stan/

Besides spectacularly missing the point, anyone mind adding the following quote complete with appropriate links?

Knowing who is the head of some of these small insignificant states around the world — I don’t think that is something that is critical to focusing on national security...

I'm not saying Uzbekistan is the next terrorist threat, just that the moral of the story is: Be an ignorant cunt at your own peril. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll nuke your tube! 11:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Nice little distraction he created there with the "how’s that going to create one job?" line. Nice style, Cain. --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 13:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

We are the 53 percent
The link to We are the 53% in that one WIGO shows up as blue for me, but I keep getting an error message when I try to load the article. Is anyone else getting this error? I think it's due to the fact that wiki software interprets "%" in a particular way that messes things up, so I would suggest moving the page to We are the 53 percent, but since I can't even get there I can't move it. Am I the only one with this problem? Wehpudicabok (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have the same problem. I can get the page though, via a little 'trick.' Unfortunately, it doesn't seem possible to move the page without having the '%25' at the end of the url though :( Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 06:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC) ED: this works too...

Herman Cain pro-choice...
It's weirder than that. He thinks abortion should be illegal, but that it's nobody's business if someone decides to actually have an illegal abortion. It's like he's trying to appease the anti-choice crowd on one hand (a must for a GOP candidate) and the Libertarian, get-the-state-out-of-my-business crowd on the other. Serious cognitive dissonance ensues...B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 16:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Obvious parodist. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Small wonder no one can think the words "Hermain Cain" without the words "is a fucking idiot" immediately afterwards. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll employ your cardboard box! 16:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, he has no chance for the presidency. Unless he gives out a free box of pizza to everybody. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straigh. If I kill someone with an illegal murder, or take illegal drugs illegally, that is up to me and my family.  gotcha.--[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot   Tue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 03:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Japan's oldest porn actor WIGO
Is there a point to the wording on that WIGO other than "Old people having sex, ewwwwwww?" If not, you're planning on taking a vow of celibacy when you reach 40 then? Godspeed (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, it's a 80-year-old porn star. I don't think most would have even considered that to happen yet.


 * Congrats to him though. May he enjoy all the babes he gets. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Steven Seagull
RE: Segal hunts down the foreigner. Anyone else think he's looking a little podgy there? <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll dehydrate your tree! 13:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hes been looking bloted for yearsAMassiveGay (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What was the movie with something like 5 body doubles? Tytalk 15:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should have an article on Steven Segall and obesity? B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 13:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Cold Fusion thing
That is funny, just the other day I was discussing with someone what would be the quickest way to turn the recession around and I said if the US or EU could find a cheaper power source that would allow it out compete China in manufacturing before you know it the world would be solvent again. -  <font face=times color=black>π     00:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoever posted about "Canada's Guantanamo."
Thank you !!!! This is relevant to my interests and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 16:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite getting the parallels. I know it's a military base in the Caribbean, but beyond that, the two cases seem different.  Jamaica seems agreeable, whereas the Cuban government really wants the Americans to fuck off.  (And the Americans weren't doing anything there militarily in 1960 that couldn't be done in Florida, so they basically just stayed to be dicks.)
 * I guess call me if Canada starts housing prisoners in Jamaica to deny them access to Canadian courts. Godspeed (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My interest is in Canada-Caribbean relations more generally; the Guantanamo reference isn't something I really quite buy into, but what *will* be interesting to me is to see if people in the West Indies (especially anti-globalization activists) see it in that sort of way... B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 17:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I want to subscribe to your newsletter. Will Canada get cred for their UN peacekeepers and basically being the un-USA, or would the soldiers of basically any rich, predominantly white nation be suspect.  Interesting question. Godspeed (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Cambell's
Flemington, NJ is my town. Woo! Senator Harrison (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If conservatives couldn't get any lower...
...a bit hyporcritical know? Wasn't there a web-based game recently in which you shot at zombified conservatives? Aceace 00:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the PoliticsWiki side of the site, what do you expect? Scarlet A.png<font color=#330033>...I'll nuke your fruit! 00:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps for it to be a little less biased the conservapedia. Aceace 00:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Friggin commies. Yeah, I agree. Tytalk 00:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I like to frame it less in terms of Left vs Right and more in terms of whether something enforces in-group vs out-group mentality or not. Calling (for example) Rush Limbaugh a lard-assed motormouth prat for things like calling Michelle Obama fat doesn't do this because it's going after an individual for specific reasons. On the other hand, all this "conservatives are this" and "Republicans are that" is just fucking wrong. It's not only making unfair generalities but it's also dehumanising the people you want to hate (making the hate easier) by abstracting it to a group. Like how conspiracy theorists talk of The Government and what They don't want you to know. Makes it so much easier to get into your Five Minute Hate when it's a faceless corporation rather than actual individuals grouped by broad view point. Scarlet A.png<font color=#330033>...I'll shove your Audi! 01:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. Tytalk 01:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I usually have a five minutes of sleep. then the rest is hate. Aceace 01:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @ADK: Agree 100%. Both sides have called this out. It's as inane as Ward Churchill's "Little Eichmanns" being held up as representative of "liberal academia." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Cold fusion
RE: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2011/10/30/believing-in-cold-fusion-and-the-e-cat/

Few issues I was wanting to raise over a few things in the article. It seemingly misses the point about how scientific study, skepticism and true open mindedness works. Perhaps they have the Sunday School version of it, but not anything actually useful.

The skeptics fall into two camps: Those who flatly don’t believe that Rossi’s E-Cat could ever work at all, and those who take a rather more objective stance and, whether they are hopeful of a positive outcome or not, are deferring judgment until convincing results are produced.

What, pray tell, is the practical difference between the two groups? If skeptics flatly don't believe this E-Cat thing will work, and evidence begins to suggest otherwise (which it hasn't) then they cease to be skeptics and become denialists (our relevant article discusses the difference). Meanwhile those reserving judgement aren't necessarily open-minded, they're just fence sitting. When you have a choice between something working or not, when it working requires defying the known laws of physics and bucking a massive trend of bullshit in the free energy crowd, saying "hey, I'll reserve my judgement!" as if it's a 50/50 chance is just naivity, not open-mindedness.

Even so, to be completely dismissive of Rossi’s claims would seem to be foolish as it is one thing to *believe* something is false based on your assumptions and quite another to be able to *prove* beyond a reasonable doubt that it is false.

Again, missing the point. This seems to suggest that "proper" skepticism is being open to any old crap someone puts out there. "Here's a magic rock that keeps tigers away, be a proper skeptic and reserve judgement, don't assume it doesn't work!" Bull. Shit. Skepticism always takes the position of "I'll believe it when I see it." Until proven otherwise, this E-Cat is nothing, it doesn't work and is likely a scam. It doesn't mean I wouldn't change my mind if presented with compelling evidence to the contrary (I've done this in the past quite happily) but true open-mindedness doesn't stop me calling bullshit on some bullshit and passing judgement based on rational interpretation of existing evidence - that these free energy advocates are bullshitters, and this E-Cat is no different. Do we have to reserve such an open mind for every single page of PESWiki that offers a magnetic motor? We debunk one as crap, but another comes along. "But wait, this one is different! This runs on keys, not screws. Have an open mind until it's tested!"! Like fuck is this what skeptical empricism is about. <font color=#330033>...I'll baste your lollipop! 00:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality caused by Satan
on the plus said, at least h isn't saying it is a choiceAMassiveGay (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So being gay is just like being in Haiti. Cept, instead of it being your fault, it's your mother's for dilly dallying with satan?[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa"><font color="Blue">Godot   Get over it!. 20:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to denounce my mother to the local churchAMassiveGay (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Herman Cain's fourth accuser...
...has shitty timing. The Michael Jackson verdict is gonna knock this back to page 27. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 20:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You just know there was a shift to the left in your country if...
...the conservatives start proposing a minimum wage “market-based organised lower limit for wages”. -- 17:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You guys didn't have a minimum wage?--Tiberius Gracchus.jpg. 17:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. Because the CDU — the party that is now in government and is proposing it — have been blocking it for, well, always. -- 18:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But how can you get away with that? A company can pay you 1 mark/euro an hour and it'd be legal?  That's bullshit. --Tiberius Gracchus.jpg. 20:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Essentially, yes, but the system is quite complex. We have unions for most jobs, and legally the arangements they make are binding to all workers in that job working for that company or working for one of the companies within a - for lack of a better translation - employer union. So what they do their is legally binding, but they can pay over it, not under it. But if you do a job that only a few people do and you legally have no represantion you could very well get paid only 1€/h but because unions will form fast if you are in that position you will probably get multiple offers and therefor earn over average anyway. Also it should be noted that many people wouldn't work under certain amounts - and even if they would run to the departments and get financial help there.
 * The new problem that we have had for a few years are temporary work agencies. These god damn motherfucking bastards people hire you, only to rent you out to other companies and then pay you much less than a normal worker would get. In fact so much less that the state has to give them money to make it. This is built upon a system of subsidies that was originally made up to put people into jobs, but got perverted into what we now call "wage dumping" (instead of price dumping). It actually backfired so hard, that companies started firing people only to rehire them as temp workers. So, yeah, the state really shot itself in the foot there.
 * I should add, that up until now the CDU/CSU (their little bastard sister party from Bavaria) and the FDP (classic liberals) where the only forces keeping us from a minimum wage. They got elected because of other issues ... and because most Germans don't really work in factories anymore. But now there was a swing to the left and Angie (Merkel) needs to get reelected, because... because... if not she won't be in power position anymore. -- 20:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I used to think Germany was a real nice, progressive sort of place (after 1945, of course), but not having a minimum wage is appalling! Thanks for the info--Tiberius Gracchus.jpg. 20:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the fact of the matter is, the people never were poor but the state balanced it out. On many other accounts, we are quite progressive ... although still no same-sex marriage (also blocked by you now know who). -- 20:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Voldemort? 06:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Mississippi "personhood" law, any chance it will be upheld at supreme court ?
What do people think ? Hamster (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. States can't override the fed.  So a state making abortion outright illegal, like what Mississippi essentially did, is impossible.  Of course the court could just change its mind, but I doubt it.  Roe V. Wade protects women's rights to have an abortion and while states can restrict some aspects of it, they can't criminalize it outright.

A bombshell indeed from the rather conservative IEA
I know I sound like Bjorn Lomborg, but this kind of thing is why I'm a supporter of geo-engineering research. But real climatologists agree, and not just faux-experts like Lomborg. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

When is the real world going to catch up to Australia?
Austalia's new carbon tax/trading scheme is far more extensive then the one in Europe and with the new massive $18,000 tax free threshold, most of Austalia's taxation will be carbon based. Also don't get me started on where the US is on this. Have they even banned the old incandesant light globes yet? Pimobile (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. CFLs are the government instituting a new Green Police and giving out a Chinese monopoly. Or something. Тy talk 12:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If women can have abortions, Rand Paul can have an inefficant toilet. Pimobile (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Funny, I moved into a place with one of those eco-friendly toilets not so long ago and it's actually more efficient than the old one. Oh yeah, gummint gonna git yo lightbulbs! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am currently working on a government project where I go to people's houses and change theire lightglobes for them. Only once have I might a person that thought it was government interference, everyone else liked free lightglobes. Pimobile (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In Australia? You're actually bothering to go to houses? In the UK the electricity companies just posted free CFLs to people. (Shitty yellow 8W ones.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Take the olds ones away instead of waiting for people to do it themselves. Pimobile (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Australia censors female ejaculation porn because they think it's piss. Aside from the fact that they shouldn't be blocking piss porn in the first place, Australian authorities are obviously grossly ignorant of female anatomy. Moreover, they banned pornography of women with small breasts. I guess they just don't like small breasted women. And don't get me started on treatment of aboriginals (although most of what I know of that was taught to me by my grandfather, who can be a little hotheaded and tends to exaggerate). Sure, the States need to move faster in regards to encouraging efficient energy, but don't act like Australia is so saintly. I mean, supposedly the Nazis made the trains run on time. We won't be saying the world needs to catch up to the third Reich, will we? Just give some examples of how things can be improved. Don't put Australia on a pedestal to make your point.-- 07:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are overstating the facts there somewhat Brx. I think that they are on to something with the banning of porn that tends to encourage the fantasy of young girls.  Although I am not a regular porn viewer, I do sometimes dabble, and it is disturbing to see the explicit and implicit marketing of porn as "JB Wannabe" - ie girls that look underage but are actually overage.  I am not a psychologist, nor am I an expert on sexuality, however I would have thought that there are grounds to assume that someone who finds themselves being attracted to girls who appear underage may eventually find themselves attracted to girls that are in fact underage.  I don't think this could lead to someone becoming attracted to very young children, but perhaps it could foster attraction to girls in the 15-18 age group.  In short, I don't really have a problem with the ban - and I am a very strong free speech advocate.  Here some more information, and I note that Germany has a similar ban.  It is a complicated issue, and a casual dismissal of the subject with flippant remarks does not do it justice.  DamoHi 05:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also the internet filter has yet to come to pass and is not currently on the legislative agenda being assigned to the dustbin of committees. -  <font face=times color=black>π    silverbrain.png 05:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I should clarify that thing about Germany and porn. These rules don't only apply to porn but a also for extremely violent movies and other media. Basically we have a step between censoring stuff and allowing it, we call "Indizierung" (something like "indexation"). If something is classified as this you are not allowed to advertise for it, have to keep it away from people under 18 and may not openly (meaning in the normal, standard selling space) sell it. As generally everything that is porn is indexed, that's simply the status of porn in Germany. -- 00:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fuckin' Oztralians, just like the Spaniards of Cordoba back in 1391.

It is a problem the assumption that you can tell "how old" someone is by looking at them, when the reality is that while the law draws bright lines based on the passage of time, anatomy is a lot more variable. Basing it purely on the factual question of how old someone is, would make it rather hard for the police/prosecutors, since unless they know the identity of the subject, and they probably quite often will not know it, it is not possible to say for certain their age (of course, some material, there can be no such doubts — an eight-year old is clearly under eighteen, a seventeen year old you could not say just from their appearance.) Either you prosecute people based on subjective and quite possibly fallible judgements of how old someone looks (to whom?), or you effectively legalise some chunk of under-aged pornography. And wherever you draw the line (even if say you put it at say 16 or 20 instead of 18), you will have the same problem. Know about the Lupe Fuentes case? 10:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupation party
Seriously? Dear shitting christ what were they thinking... <font color=#CC0033>postate 21:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Better then the first name they came up with: "New Alliance of Smart Ideas" --Revolverman (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Which would still be better than the New Alliance of Zero Ideas. --Gulik (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Verbatim
RE: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/11/obama-well-use-gop-debates-against-them/1

You know the political situation is fucked up when you can consider saying this sort of thing with a straight face. <font color=#CC0033>theist 10:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One could argue that it's going exactly in the right direction--that the inanities of the candidates are such that they are their own worst enemies, saying what they THINK the majority wants them to hear and then turning out to be wrong (the shift in attitudes toward gay marriage over the last 20 years in the US appears to reflect this as well). I predict a revolution--not so much as a violent overthrow, but a vast churning in the elected officials that will put the 2010 elections to shame. --Sethpeck (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I predict that 50 years from now, Congress will be more liberal than it is now.  20:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Commie. 09:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Faster faster!
I'm loving this faster than list stuff. It would be fab to alive when another scientific leap forward is made. Can't wait to see the Andy's of the world gloating either. Godspeed! DogP (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrinos and conspiracy woo
RE: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/11/18/science-faster-than-light-neutrinos.html

From the comments:

just so you can say you heard it here first folks, this is not a new breakthrough

look up what TESLA was doing in the 30s I think. He was flying around in an anti-gravity scooter....in the 30s. This is a true story.

80% of the secret technology the US and other 'governments' have depends on this knowledge. That matter can travel faster than the speed of light. This is a polar universe meaning everything has an opposite. If there is a space-time, there exists a time-space as well. There is no other way.

Again, you heard it here first, from 'Kibber'. Obviously you won't believe me, but accept that I am planting a seed in your imagination.

When this becomes common knowledge, in 2013 is my guess, you can tell your friends you already knew!!

SMILE

Happy Friday!!

<font color=#CC0033>theist 00:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Time-space... what? Тy talk 00:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wasn't Tesla that shameless self-promoter who claimed that he could fart his way around a room at warp speed thanks to his amazing gadgets that only he ever saw and could ever build? And is 'Kibber' readdy a misspelling of 'Kidder'? Whatever! Darkmind1970 (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)