RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive87

science is cool and fun
Kids! - today bees - tomorrow the world. Him (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bees. My god. --Kels (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That article is actually fascinating and well worth a full read! ONE / TALK 12:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bumblebees can also forget. IIRC, memory of "attractive flower color" decays at a simple exponential rate, with a time constant similar to that of a simple RC circuit, or single-pole lowpass filter. I wonder if that cutoff frequency is related to the passing of a season or so.
 * On a seasonal note, beekeeping folklore has it that, in temperate zones, queen bees ramp up their egg-laying at the winter solstice, to raise the generations of nurse bees who will raise the spring and summer workers, the ones who will start bringing in the nectar so essential to the continued survival of the colony. Religious messages have been drawn from this timing. Aren't you glad you asked? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Tries to imagine the poor bee who has to carry the capacitor for an RC circuit with a time constant in seasons. Now, assuming a source of near infinite resistance, such as Sarah Palin or Christine O'Donnell, how many farads is that? (I can model them as resistive elements, where Glenn Beck, at the least, is an active white noise generator, and at worst a high-power electromagnetic weapon peaking at frequencies of democracy and defense from demagoguery). Just for equal opportunity offense, I tend to consider Chomsky a less powerful threat to national democracy. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think bees have enough neurons in their cute little ganglia to remember individual humans, even at that level of notoriety. Goldfish, OTOH, are said to respond differently to the one who feeds them. Nextly, the mechanism probably does not involve an actual Leyden jar nor a Baghdad battery. Finally, dear Sir, hast missed the religious connexion? 'Tis a mystery. That a process at that level of complexity can show such a simple decay curve is a wonder to behold. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Asymmetry at work. I certainly remember individual bees. Ouch.
 * Actually, I was thinking that it was rather pleasant to consider Mrs. Palin as a passive circuit component. Her normal mode of operation is more like an operational amplifier with insufficient degenerative feedback for stability. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I bet you can't actually "remember" individual bees. You might remember circumstances in which you became intimately acquainted with one or two, but I'll wager you couldn't recognize them in a line-up.  All that said, a simple decay curve ought to be easy to model with biological circuitry. Now, who has seen my graceful horses and carriage?  I seem to have misplaced them! Cinderella (talk) 06:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I couldn't recognize her in a lineup! She's long dead. (shocked thought) are there zombie bees?   I know what you mean by biological delay circuit, but that seems either exceptionally appropriate or inappropriate for a kamikaze  bee that flew a mission. Hmmm...do proper Japanese bees tie a hachimaki around their heads before defending the nest? Did Toshiro Mifune every play a bee? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's pursuit aircraft you're after, consider the drone: All eyes, wings, thoracic muscle to run them, and some complicated genitalia, along with a few other bits to keep it all going for as long as it takes. Individual bees are easy to tell apart, if you look closely enough to read the bar code. Young ones, freshly emerged are downy; older ones tend to appear balding. Wing veins vary enough to help a bit, as well as marking the various races of bee, which can also be told apart by color and attitude.
 * I prefer to spend as little time as possible considering Ms. Palin. All the TLC exposure she is getting indicates that she is being groomed for a run at national office. The remotest prospect that her handlers will succeed at that scares the living shit out of me. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Worth a read
National Secular Society "Winterval" message. Him (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. A very nice read. Although I'm concerned that his concluding remarks about them not being anti-faith don't quite match with the previous anti-Church paragraphs. Secularism is not the same as atheism or "non-religious", and perhaps he should have toned down the free-thought agitprop for that piece. But that's being picky, it's always good to see a few shout outs to reality among the "war on Christmas" nonsense. 02:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I read the piece and followed a headline link about complaints over Popeye's Xmas message on Radio 4 which landed me on a Daily Heil page. Some wonderful comments about "The worst day in our history was they day they abolished the law on blasphemy. They second worst day in history, was the day they abolished clause 4. The third worst day in history, was the day they introduced the Human Rights act." getting a massive thumbs up whilst 'rational' comments being heavily voted down. There's still a long way to go on the secular front in the UK. 17:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Has anyone seen my pumpkin? It seems to be lost in all this snow! Cinderella (talk) 06:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so boring?
More drama, please. I insist some drama. You know that your little website has no other features than being dramatic, so that it would be interesting to join and create some mess on my own. Drama, I say, drama, progressive-ethical pigs that you are.

How about if I started writing some pottery again? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We could sing Christmas songs. JINGLE BELL, JINGLE BELL, LA LA LA LA LAAAA, LA LA LAAAAAA, ONE HORSE EAT DA BEEEEELL! --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that you insist some drama clearly shows that you are too young and too stupid to be using rationalwiki. --85.77.3.128 (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fuck off to ED if you want more drama. -- Nx  / talk 15:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, there are better porn sites out there. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I said fuck off, not jerk off -- Nx  / talk 15:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Damn, this wiki is unhackable. --Robert&#39;); FORMAT C: (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Your clever attack was only foiled because our database server isn't MSDOS. Otherwise you would have hacked the gibson and been having sex with Angelina Jolie by now. Sorry. -- 18:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a Unix system! I know this! --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the ultimate revenge to certain sex seekers when they discover the machine is running EUNUCH. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we're beyond the reach of most script-kiddies at the moment considering we're not running anything last updated in the 1990s. You could DDoS if you like, but that would be the host's problem, not ours, and is easier done by linking something to a popular site (i.e., like the Facebook evolution group that sent half a million people to Trent's bedroom in a day) rather than getting enough nodes together for an "attack". Actually, yeah, submit every article to StumbleUpon - bring down the system!! 03:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The facebook evolution folks were likely disappointed that it wasn't a porn site too. Although I'm sure they were impressed by the ficus, as are we all. --Kels (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm Hooked
Got Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood for Xmas and tried the multiplayer before it is overloaded with high level players. Got to say, love it. The whole scenario generates paranoia and I feel myself getting back into the assassin's mindset. And I love how crowded the games are with NPC's. MW2 looks so barren in multiplayer, here it feels like a real world.--Thanatos (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You think that makes you feel paranoid? Decades later, I remember having worked around 48 hours straight, perhaps catnapping on a desk, and was walking down a corridor -- unsure if it was night and day. I felt increasingly claustrophobic and a sense of being watched. I looked around me to check that the walls weren't closing in, but I realized my surroundings looked very much as if they belonged in a low-budget science fiction film.
 * Then, I realized I actually was in the basement of the Pentagon, and reality, such as it was, returned. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A long Gears of War marathon once left me unable to walk into an open space without immediately wanting to dive for cover. You'd be surprised at how paranoid you get when you remove the concept of "lives" and "continues" from some games - you can get quite attached to the value to the rewards and characters have because of the time you invest in them. Curiously, a similar Tomb Raider marathon didn't leave me with the uncontrollable urge to shoot the first wild animal to cross my path. 04:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was once gradually loading windows 4 or such such crap on a pentium -3 and after an entire weekend of it I found myself experiencing surprise when I opened a door and the room was still there. Cell Ladablar (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Paranoid is sitting in the gloom, at night, and watching Without Warning for the first time. You can't help but step outside and look up.-- 14:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Paranoia on the other hand is knowing that the Computer is your friend. ;-)-- 14:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Does the Pentagon swimming pool still go with buttnekkid and barefoot rules? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't say from my own knowledge, but I suspect not. In one of the major renovations, when they closed off the previous bus lanes that ran directly under the building, there were new offices, but I vaguely remember that there were a lot of new health facilities. I had a trainer who was an exercise physiologist there, and he said they had everything.
 * I can speak to the Meditation Room, and to the senior manager that went yelling through it one day, demanding to know if people were meditating or sleeping. They eventually reorganized to basement entrance to the National Military Command Center, so you didn't wind up halfway to the "War Room" (there really isn't one) because you turned one corridor too soon to go to the Map Library. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Live by the sword...
Whoops. Guess it wasn't such a good idea to tell people you could cast spells, now was it? -- 20:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, Jeeves, you are so amusingly repulsive. People killed by a mob on the grounds of nothing more than irrational superstition? Eh, they're priests. Their fault. 00:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't superwoman Sara Palin recently go there with Billy Graham's organization Samaritan's Purse to sort things out? Ouch. FreeThought (talk) 05:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like dingle bells to me, ought to be added to the Santa for next year. Speaking of next year, isn't this year's Elfin Festivity over by now? Cinderella (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Since u have no sense of humor
...you should be warned that when I use words like progressive-ethical and stupid pig I don't really mean them. At least not literally. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed that when I de-sysop someone who seems to have come here for no other reason than to say nasty shit to our faces I repeatedly get reversed without explanation by Blue. Something is wrong if there are no consequences to wheel warring a decision like that where it's clear I am not kidding. Blue, why do you believe Idiot number whatever requires sysop status and why do you get to summarily reverse the obviously non-joking decision of another crat with nothing more than a smart ass response? I'm fucking sick of the complete lack of deference non-joke decisions get around here. 21:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Drama! #59 ought to be satisfied. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on this one, Nutty. He's boring.-- 06:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's hard to take you seriously Nutty when you casually break the rules and play with the troll. All you're doing now is making drama, which is exactly what the idiot wants. Congratulations. So far he hasn't really done anything that would warrant blocking... Ace welcomes users in a similar fashion, so why don't we block him too? -- Nx  / talk 08:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

they said i should take it as a complement
I tried to get some ciggies on boxing day but was refused service as I did not have ID. I am middle aged for fucks sake. I may not look my 33 years, but I look must look fucking older than 16. Fucking arseholes. I hadn't had a fag for 2 days and was gasping.AMassiveGay (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not middle aged. If you're middle aged then I'm even more middle aged and that cannot be. You are an adult, not a young adult - leave it at that. Apart from that I sympathize. DickTurpis (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In gay terms, I am more than middle aged. Plus, in terms, of when I evenually die, I about mid way through my life, so am middle aged on that point tooAMassiveGay (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I once went without a fag for two days, but got bored of toasting my own bread. Cell Ladablar (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here in Alaska even senior citizens get carded at a store, the machines will not ring someone up with out a drivers license number which gets recorded. --Opcn (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not middle aged. At 33, you are younger than me, and hence, not middle aged. MDB (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Come on folks. The Ray says that you only got to make it until 2045. Then it's endless immortal world of warcraft for everyone. Maybe. Sen (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

La-la-la
I'm feeling good! --Idiot number 57 (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Me 2. 68.56.231.28 (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Me 188. Nice to meet you. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever happened to Me 1? 23:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't talk about him. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Rationalwikian!
Remember me? I just wanted to pop in to say i'm still alive and i wish you guy a merry christmas and an happy new year :-) Waronstupidity (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. Or not....Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 10:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's nice. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Hope that you are in good shape and you're on top of things.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hihi Waron. Hope all is well. Happy new year. 15:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh thank you, thank you, thank you. I was so worried but now I can sleep soundly once again. Sorry, but I do get a bit maternal every now and then - especially for my RW "boys". 17:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Waron, I was actually wondering about you. Good to hear from you and Merry Christmas/Happy New Year to you too! Senator Harrison (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Crazy physics idea
Get a black hole with the mass necessary for a convenient amount of power emitted due to Hawking radiation. Throw mass into black hole to compensate for mass loss due to power emission. You now have a 100% efficient matter-to-energy converter, and can meet the entire power needs of human civilisation by emptying your bins into it. Is there something important that I'm missing that makes this unworkable? (I know that there are tonnes of practical problems, but I can't see any actual deal-breakers.) 18:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you ignore all the practical problems then it sounds like a winner.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose a lot would also depend on whether all the E getting generated by the M getting chucked in is being released into dimensions we can access. Can't see why it wouldn't be, but then I don't know enough about it to say that it couldn't be, so to speak.  Or possibly that's the Black Grouse talking&hellip;Wibble.-- 18:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's emitted as radiation, which is perhaps not ideal, but it's good enough. As it happens, the calculations to work out the energy output are pretty trivial, so I have calculated that the mass needed to match the world's present power consumption would be approximately 100 billion tonnes. This would be completely unworkable, since anything that went near it would be fried, but you could still parallelise generators with a lower, more practical output. Of course, decreasing the output increases the mass ($$P \propto \frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}$$), so there are still problems there, but even then it's not enough to completely rule the idea out. The really tricky part is getting a black hole of the right mass, since the only way to decrease it is to wait, and that will take ages, and there's no way I know of to make one while sticking to hard science. 18:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are some practical problems. Like getting hold of it in the first place, or feeding it up to size, or manoeuvring it once you had it, or stopping it attracting whatever equipment might accidentally get near it, or collecting the Hawking radiation efficiently, and then turning the radiation into a useful form of energy, and then getting that energy to the Earth.  But apart from stuff like that it's great.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wasn't this same idea on The Sky At Night a few years ago? The idea being to build a replacement planet around a black hole, and then as you throw your waste into it, you get energy out. Pegasus (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1803v1 Sen (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dammit, all the good ideas are taken. 22:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure you could do something similar with spinning blackholes. Building a turbine outside the event horizon that is turned by the spinning and compensating for the lost energy by throwing shit into the blackhole. -  π    00:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure how that would work without the turbine plummeting into the black hole. If it was in a stable orbit it wouldn't get anything from the spinning. 17:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Stable orbits have nothing to do with the spin of the "mother" body, just its mass... 07:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart from the vast number of other technical, engineering and logistical problems problems beginning with "First get hold of a black hole" I think there is another faulty assumption here: the assumption that it would produce a "100% efficient matter-to-energy converter". Leaving aside the question of whether you could actually balance the energy in/out side of things there is the problem that this energy/matter conversion would only be part of the equation.
 * You really should factor in the initial energy investment in setting the project up, the amount of energy needed to find/obtain/move/control the black hole. Then the energy needed to find, capture and move the matter you are going feed to the black hole. Then figure out the energy losses involved in capturing and converting the proposed Hawking radiation into something more usable and finally any losses en route to your point of use.--BobSpring is sprung! 01:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In principle, providing the only competing energy project is of a similar magnitude (building a Dyson Shell, for instance), the outlay doesn't matter because those costs would cancel in your two routes... That said, it's this sort of thinking that often gets people into a lot of trouble. 01:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Any efficiency loss is basically trivial here, because it produces several orders of magnitude more energy per kilogram than effectively any other energy source, and the fuel can be anything. 01:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My Friend Tom did his undergrad thesis on this, he figured it would take approximately 1 pair of used sneakers a year to run the US. --Opcn (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He wringed an undergrad thesis out of that? I got to that stage of the calculations after about half an hour. 00:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Any kind of thinking that says that we must build a dyson shell in order to make cheap black holes is a cool kind of thinking. Plus deconstructing the majority of the solar system and switching to black hole reactors based economy would allow us to reduce our carbon footprint. Sen (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the trick is to create and farm tiny little black holes, say, one per neighborhood. Just big enough to survive on local trash, but enough to convert all that mass to energy to run the 'hoods 27 big screen TVs and 59 computers. And 73 automobiles. 07:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work that way. As mass increases, power input decreases, so it's better to centralise as much as possible. 00:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And how do you stop the small ones either A) immediately evapourating or B) plummeting straight through the Earth (and out the other side, then back in again, and out of the other side and so on). They're all point masses so can only be held in a weightless freefall - i.e., orbit. 01:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, they have to be held in orbit. You stop them from evaporating by pumping more mass into them. 01:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically a rather violent mass to energy converter. You know, Hawking radiation still blows my brain. 02:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"zero" edit button
Bad enough that it was buried under a weird dropdown, but now it's gone entirely? Or did someone change the skin so much while I was away that I need to redo my preferences again? 07:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's gone in vector. You can enable the gadget "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page" for similar functionality. Or you can just switch back to monobook. Or you can revert me and start a HCM. I could've moved it next to the edit button, but on vector there is no space between buttons like on monobook. On monobook it's more obvious what the button does, because it's glued to the edit button (although I still think it's confusing, and the gadget is better). In addition, on vector, only the most important buttons are always visible, and the zero edit button is not that important. The gadget on the other hand is consistent with all the other section edit buttons. -- Nx  / talk 08:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And the zero edit button is a really big deal, for people who like to edit articles.  It was one thing that was cooler about RW than WP for so long.  So now does it work like WP, just simply showing an "edit" link off to the right for the first section?  07:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP doesn't have the gadget on by default either. If you want it on by default I can add it to Common.js -- Nx  / talk 07:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The change is way better.-- 13:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What did that button do anyway?  13:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not much of anything, in fact most of the time it would just sit there quietly. As far as buttons go, it was pretty harmless. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Go to your preferences, select monobook as your default skin and never again worry about the horrible new crap mediawiki wants to inflict on you. That's what I did, anyway. -- 15:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the right conservative attitude. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Techy question numero 二
Hokely dokely. I've just rammed a PCI-E X-Fi Xtreme Audio Soundcard into my computer (yes, I know, I'm a tight-fisted bastard). Now I want to try and use the microphone through it, but although the mic is plugged into the flexijack (mic/lineout) I can't find any option anywhere that will allow me to switch the function of the flexijack. The only solution seems to be by using the Creative Audio Console but, yes, using Creative's own drivers and shite, on Windows 7 64-bit I only seem to have access to a Creative Audio Control Panel that has absolutely no option on it to fiddle about with the flexiport. I've been in touch with Creative support, who have been their useful selves, so if anyone else has the answer as to how I cam get the frigging microphone to work, I'd appreciate it.-- 22:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your audio device may have a FlexiJack that supports Microphone and Line input. If so, you can change the FlexiJack mode according to your needs. After connecting the device that you want to the FlexiJack, follow the instructions below to configure your FlexiJack:

In Entertainment Mode, click the Jacks button. Under FlexiJack Mode, select the task you want to assign to the FlexiJack.


 * "&hellip;but although the mic is plugged into the flexijack (mic/lineout) I can't find any option anywhere that will allow me to switch the function of the flexijack. The only solution seems to be by using the Creative Audio Console but, yes, using Creative's own drivers and shite, on Windows 7 64-bit I only seem to have access to a Creative Audio Control Panel that has absolutely no option on it to fiddle about with the flexiport."  I don't have a Creative Audio Console, it doesn't seem to install under W7/64, the only thing that does is a Creative Audio Control Panel that has NO options on it to deal with flexiport, or even play with what mode it's in.  I'll upload pics of the Control Panel so you can see what I mean.-- 22:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * win 7 doesnt list as a supported OS, so unless you can install the console manually you are I suspect screwed.
 * I am not very sure what you are trying to do, but if it some kind of problem of trying to convince windows to use device a for some sound related reason rather than device b, then there is a sound panel (start menu, control panel) where you select the "default" devices. Sen (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I tried some of the archived utilities and the console doesn't work under W7/64, guess that's why they replaced it with a control panel that doesn't actually do anything. I've tried the Win Control Panel, and Windows is detecting that there is something plugged into the flexijack, but there doesn't seem to be any option there to change the flexijack from line-in to mic.-- 00:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ughhh. Well, I've found a work-around. Right now the X-fi Xtreme is dealing with output whilst the old External Live! is handling the input. Thanks for the suggestions guys, gals and goats. Guess I'll have to wait and see what Creative get around to saying, which will no doubt come down to using an external device for the mic.-- 01:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And whilst I'm waiting for Creative I think it's time for some Dragon Age Origins, and a bit of Gordon Brittas via the DVD.-- 01:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Step one...buy a new motherboard. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't the motherboard that's the problem, it's the frigging piece of unsupported shit that's plugged into it. I'm beginning to think it might be worth flogging the soundcard on eBay and then buying the non-OEM version of it just so Creative can't fob me off with a "we couldn't give a shit, it's an OEM card" e-mail.-- 16:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was just a joke about how almost every consumer-grade motherboard made in the last decade has on-board audio. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, check. In that case - Ha, ha - ha, ha, - ha, ha.-- 17:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am kinda curious as to what board you have, though. You could probably buy a new one for less than the price of that audio card. Occasionaluse (talk)
 * I'm running a Asus M2N68, and the onboard sound works fine in all but one respect. Windows 7, unlike it's predecessors, doesn't pump out 2 channel sound sources to surround sound speakers.  You need something like CMSS-3D to do it for you, hence me using a Creative sound card  (there's also things like ensuring EAX compatibility in games, that kind of thing, which I'm kind of fussy about).-- 19:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Not that there was a need to thank me mind, but hey, not unappreciated!-- 19:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The worst worst worst most horrible "standard" that is now legacy on computers is the awful awful awful 2.5 mm stereo plug. Every other interface is good for a perfect zillions gigabits/nanosecond transfer, but those stupid analog plugs are the worst interface ever "designed". 07:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I hate those friggin' 2.5mm plugs, they always fall out of the 3.5mm jacks. ;-)-- 17:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Recent Global Weather
Is it me or is the weather starting to get wacky? Blizzard in December where I live (NJ, and a blizzard in december is rare), flooding in California, freezing temps in Florida, flooding and snow in Australia, etc.

Is this normal? Senator Harrison (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we are well in the once in a few decades range. (Watch someone prove me wrong.) --109.240.113.215 (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A good way to check: Did you have the same weather in '81/'82 and about '64?-- 22:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't have to put up with this kinda weather under Clinton administration. Just sayin'. (Should there be an emoticon here?) Vulpius (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing about the weather is that it changes like ... errr ... the weather really.--BobSpring is sprung! 00:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a bad feeling that the Gulf Steam is either fucked or not far away from it. If you're used to your temperature being mediated by the North Atlantic, stock up on thermal clothes and portable heaters. 01:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Its still feeling pretty warm (for the time of year) in the old smokeAMassiveGay (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Portable heaters seriously rack up your energy bill. Your central heat is a much better choice.  Senator Harrison (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Here in Anchorage, AK it rained today! Though to be fair it has rained in December before.--Opcn (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The weather has certainly been unusual recently. Surely this is more proof of global warming climate change? We expect more extremes not just warmer weather (silly Conservapedians). Having just returned from a month amongst a bunch of relatively wealthy (to me) Californians I have seen a lot of rain (double last year so far) and saw this timelapse video of the recent east coast snow which was featured on the US evening news. 15:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's raining and well above freezing right now where I am, which is unusual. Back on the coast, having multiple thaws during the winter is normal, but not in Central Canada. --Kels (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But the likes of Richard Littlejohn would say that's moving the goalposts. *sigh* 19:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

One year left
With only another year until the EOTWAWKI in 2012, I'd just like to wish my fellow RationalWikians a happy 2011 and hope you made it without too big a hangover. I don't expect there to be any diminution in human craziness and gullibility which we can lampoon in the coming 12 months. 14:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One year closer to me buying an "I Survived 2012" t-shirt. - VezzyRattlehead (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I want one now. 20:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On a related note, the film "2012" was terrible, and anyone who survived it also deserves a tshirt. Evey (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As expected. The recut trailer was awesome, though. --Kels (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was in Comet the other day looking at HD TVs and they had 2012 playing on one. All I could think of is how appalling the CG actually looks at 1080p, I thought they were showcasing an X-Box game for a moment. 00:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I just read Baba Vanga's predictions! WW3 is already on! AAAHH!!
Wikipedia: Baba Vanga

List of predictions

WW3 started this november! AAARRGHHHH!

And the universe has only little more than 3000 years to go. How sad. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But to her credit, she actually made some real predictions. She predicted that Russian submarine "Kursk" will "go under water" in 1999 or 2000 and it actually sank in 2000. According to some Bulgarian university, 85 % of her predictions became true. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because being under water is such an abnormal state for a submarine...
 * I see that I have to write that article after all.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting - here are some earlier ones. Of course what would be really interesting would be any other predictions she made - you know ones that might not have come true - or be deemed to have come true.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually getting a reliable source for those predictions seems a bit difficult. I know it's on the internet so it must be true - but getting back to the original seems a bit tricky.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of freshly made-up stuff gets attributed to Vanga to claim legitimacy. You are very likely to hear a prediction for the first time after the event it's supposed to have predicted. The list that I59 is enamored with originated in a Russian tabloid. I don't know where they've got it from.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any legit source compiling all the predictions she has made though? Besides, if you make a lot of predictions, especially if they're more vague and metaphorical, you're bound to get something right (see: Nostradamus). - VezzyRattlehead (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While trying to find something half-way credible on this story I found story from Pravda which I had thought you could at least assume has its facts sort of right.
 * Unfortunately, I also see Pravda has run this story about three giant spaceships about to attack the earth, and NASA covering up details about a "human corpse (which) must have been dropped on the Moon from an alien spaceship". Another story reveals Southern Russia becomes attraction for aliens. Finally, did you think that the navies of the world were off the Somali coast to fight pirates?  Apparently Pravda / wiki Leaks has the full story about the Gulf of Aden Vortex file.
 * So maybe it's not the best reference--BobSpring is sprung! 12:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC).

Other than Kursk, I can't find a specific reference to any prediction that has actually come true. The 9/11 thing basically says "some Americans will be killed by airplanes" (I didn't see a timeframe mentioned), which, when you consider how ubiquitous airplanes are in military combat, is hardly a great insight. She's already wrong about WWIII, which makes most of the rest of her future predictions wrong, unless some war started somewhere last month that I didn't notice, and it simply has yet to spiral into a global conflict. Maybe an RW block war from November will go global, eventually escalating to the ultimate block: a nuclear block of the continent of Europe! DickTurpis (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's make it happen then. - VezzyRattlehead (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hah! North Korea and South Korea actually started war in November!! --Idiot number 59 (talk) 13:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, if that so far isolated incident turns into a full scale war, and then into a world war, I'll be happy to chalk that up to the Baba Ganoush lady. I'll wager my life savings against it though. DickTurpis (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll just go and put my Nassim Taleb hat on again for a moment... there, better. Okay, if it does turn into a war and a full one, historians will look back and say "we should have seen it coming". They'll point to the "obvious" signs. They'll spell out the clear indications. Importantly they'll put together a narrative that makes sense - and then they'll join a chain of apparently predictable causality that lead to war. Similar to how the start of the First World War has been miraculously traced to the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, they'll pick their own start point based on this narrative and it may well be several months ago from our perspective. On the other hand, if a large scale war doesn't happen the exact same thing will happen; the events, causality and narrative will be arranged to make it appear as if war was never going to happen. They'll collect the bluffs and counterbluffs and all the hot air and the affair will fade into obscurity and never be mentioned (noting that, for the same reasons as the first scenario, saying that a war hasn't happened is a little more difficult). None of this changes the fact that right now, this very instant, we just don't have a fucking clue what is going to happen. 01:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We know exactly what will happen. Haven't you read Baba's predictions? It's all spelled out for Chrissakes! DickTurpis (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The name is "Vanga", "baba" is the Bulgarian for "granny"/"grandmother" and is ofter used as a "title" before the names of elderly women. And I really have to write that article, but I have little time to spend at the computer due to the holidays. --ZooGuard (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

So no one read the prediction she taped for one of her grand-daughters (on the OP's Wiki reference)? It's the only one that seems to be directly attributed to her, that was not some how "found" after the event already occurred. It said the savior was born in Romania on Jan 25th 2005 and "The whole world will rejoice at his birth. God will protect him in a place faraway from the place where his ancients lay until his time comes. Power from above he shall have. The Earth, Water and Fire will help him. When he comes out in this world, everything that is lie will fall apart. This will happen in 2005."

I'm not sure, but when I don't remember the second coming happening 5 years ago...anyone else?

I'm surprised anyone falls for this crap anymore. It's all so...predictable...when the loons fawn over it. *yawn* ~ Subsound ~ 03:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Avril's back
I'm a huge Avril Lavigne nerd..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XamrY0upaHo

She's good live :) . --Idiot number 59 (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * is she still pretending to be a punk?AMassiveGay (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd comment on this post, but I'd rather not fight with Idiot Number 59 on account of this being their Wiki, and my fear they may write some pottery against me. 17:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is my wiki, then I order you to comment on Avril. I also give my word not to write splottery against you. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Avril is an annoying as fuck poser, and certainly not "punk," as she claims to be then says she's not, then claims to be..... 19:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, some of her earlier stuff actually was punk... or at least like punk. And who cares anyway? Songs are still good, punk or not. And what do you mean by fuck poser? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I said "annoying as fuck poser." Though, thanks to you, I now have a new term to use. Also, I will say her music is good POP music. That's right, it's pop. 19:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't get it... you see, we here in North Korea start learning English in our late 50s... --Idiot number 59 (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a soft spot for Avril's first album. It's good, fun music and I'm not ashamed to admit having danced like a drunk twat to Sk8ter Boi in my misguided youth (as opposed to now, which is my misspent youth). I care not for genres in any sense - it's just elitism and No True Scotsman by another name. Pop, punk, whatever. It's just superficial labeling and arguing about it is just an excuse to avoid more through analytical discussion. Though yeah, she did get a little annoying trying to be this faux bad ass. But hey, it impresses the teenagers and sells, right, no different to "proper" punk that impresses and sells to other "proper" punks! 19:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, Avril ain't giving up. What a shame.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I liked Avril better when she was called Alanis Morissette. That song "Ironic" was genius. 19:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How many fans are here, anyways? I'm nervous now.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Avril's nice to look at. That's about all I'll say about her. As for her music, from what I've heard (very limited) it's pop, often with a slight edge. Not punk, though her style has a bit of punkiness to it. Hasn't she said that all along? I thought this whole "punk" thing was attributed by others. I admit I don't much about her. DickTurpis (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Who's that? --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Back in the 8th grade, I liked her stuff. Then I got into Offspring in high school. Girlfriend is catchy but annoys me somewhat now. My tastes now lie toward classic rock.--Thanatos (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is NOTHING wrong with The Offspring! 14:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Dexter Holland is about as fucking awesome as they come. I remember back, fuck, 10 years ago now when they came here, and I actually got to meet Dexter and Noodles. Let me tell you something, there is nothing cooler than a band as big as the Offspring still willing to hang out and meet fans before and after their show. AND NOODLES AUTOGRAPHED MY SHIRT!!! 21:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said anything bad against Offspring, other than how their last album sounded like they were trying to get into Guitar Hero. I meant Avril's song Girlfriend. I still have all their albums, I just been buying more Queen, AC/DC, ZZ Top, etc. as well as Rob Zombie.--Thanatos (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Beck Song
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDpl7Kz0rxU&feature=player_embedded#! Nice.] Not too specific, it makes people want to see what is so bad about him.--Thanatos (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol, fantastic! 21:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Slim Chance Awards
As the RW Awards were stillborn, I thought I'd share this via the Quackwatch newsletter. Mostly focusing on diet woo but still good reading:

02:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Diet Woo is one of the kinds I find most troubling. Knowing the extent that it plays on people's insecurities, and seeing that people will sell an unproven substance which has the side-effects of, "fatigue, headache, mood swings, depression, confusion, dizziness and stomach pain," is just upsetting. 14:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Media Coverage
So I was thinking about on-mission stuff we can work on, and I was thinking towards a revamp/rework/addition to our media stuff. I think it'd be cool if RationalWiki represented a good go-to place to quickly get the editorial stance of a newspaper/news outlet. For example, if I'm browsing blogs, end up on the telegraph, and just want to check... it'd be good. So, I was thinking I'd begin by making a "British Media" category, and making articles on the 11 newspapers of highest circulation, of which we already have three. This might involve some changes to the existing articles, which are currently pretty negative and ranty. While obviously our articles should criticise everything which should be criticised, I don't think anybody would take a whole body of articles seriously if they were just rants of the form, "This paper is shit because..." Do people think it's a good idea? Want to throw in any ideas, or perhaps offer to do the same for the USA's biggest papers?

I think that each article on a newspaper, news website or TV channel/show should generally cover: Circulation/reach, Editorial Stance, Political Parties supported, Attitude/correctness on science, Examples of making stuff up/exaggerating the truth, reliability, etc. Comments, please! 14:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Set it up as you imagine it and we'll see where it goes. I agree with the "ranty" thing, I'm struggling to keep up with the Daily Mail article and keeping it firmly in reality rather than what people think the Mail is like (I actually read it occasionally). Having to tow this line of "everything conservative MUST be irrational nonsense QED!" one of the things holding back the quality of the site.  14:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. I think a lot of articles out there get the snark thing "wrong." When I want to learn about a topic from a RationalWiki article, I want each paragraph to actually have content, and tell me something new, occasionally putting a smile on my face or even making me giggle. It needn't and shouldn't read as a script for doing stand-up comedy about that topic. As much snark as there is content, I'm happy. More snark than content, or snark at the expense of content, and it ruins the article. 14:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that some of the snark is overdone. If we are to develop as a site then I think we need to have more serious content and less puerility. 17:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. There's a difference between having a bit of a snarky tone and just spending the whole thing making cheap shots.  If I want the latter, I'll go to The Onion or someplace, they do it better.
 * I think the problem may stem from the fact we advertise a specific POV. People misinterpret this as a carte blanche to call a "crank" a "woo pushing idiot farming moronic mother raping child molesting hatemongering prick storm". This isn't the case. A stated POV means we don't have to be neutral in our language, but it doesn't mean we can be aggressive in the language. For the vast, vast majority of the time, we shouldn't need to do that, because it should be obvious. Seriously, it's best to let them show themselves up as cranks without the puerile tone. Calling Sepp Blatter a "tosser" in a WIGO, the Daily Mail a "piece of toilet paper", and what looks like several dozen immature nicknames and anagrams for Sarah Palin are just the tip of the iceberg here. It's mostly in the political articles, to be honest. As we attract most users via CP we attract mostly liberals - and they're just as knee-jerk as conservatives when it comes to trying to demonise the other. Except noooo, it's perfectly fine to be immature brats about conservative pundits because conservatives are evil QED. It's an attitude I think we should stomp out. 20:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Having felt a little glared at when I've expressed these views before, I've not really mentioned it. But it seems like there's a fair few who agree with me. And I view Armondikov as the overwhelming voice of common sense, so this helps. The Daily Mail article is a good example, but there're so many. See my complaints at Talk:Ronald Reagan, for example. I think we need to make it clearer, and try to clean up a lot of articles. Maybe it could be a big task for 2011, to review what we've managed to create over the last few years, and actually improve a lot of articles. I guess I see it as, "The medium we write through is natural prose, without trying to be too formal. Being snarky is part of the medium which we deliver content through, but it isn't the content we deliver." 22:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, going to have a good crack at some of the articles on dictators. We've got some good information on them, and I think with time and effort, they could become highly rated articles. As authoritarianism is a mission point, I certainly think that high quality articles on the likes of Mugabe could, one day, reach cover status. I'm going to take on Robert Mugabe for a couple of hours, you guys should pick another one and we'll have a mini-"Improve a dictator's page!" drive! 13:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Am working on other things right now but given some extra time I'll probably read a Pol Pot biography or something. 13:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is Katy Perry without make-up
I don't want to be evil... and I certainly don't care how people look like. But this is fucking scary - http://tv.rightcelebrity.com/wp-content/photos/katy_perry_no_makeup.jpg

Make-up apparently can make anyone seem pretty. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And taking photos of someone inside an aquarium apparently can make anyone seem ugly. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Who's Katy Perry? Jack Hughes (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the lady on the photo. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

RIP Pete Postlethwaite
Another good (but under-appreciated methinks) actor has shuffled off to the Great Stage in the Sky. -- Ψ Gremlin  13:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Aww man. I really liked him. Certainly under-appreciated. 13:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sad to hear. Was watching Alien 3 last week too. GooRoo (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He was great in Brassed Off. Last thing I saw him in, was narrating The Age of Stupid. -- Ψ Gremlin  14:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * He was certainly not underappreciated within the movie and theatre industries nor among genuine movie buffs. I salute you Pete.--115.117.148.43--Brendiggg (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC) (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Another case of Hollywood Values gone wrong. P-Foster (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shame. I liked him. I will still have his voice with me every time I listen to Tubthumping, at least. DickTurpis (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Shame. I always wanted to see him play Vimes.  Ah well.  Damned good actor.-- 16:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw him last week in Inception (in-flight movie) playing a dying man. He didn't look well then (however, it could have been make-up) and I was surprised that the part seemed quite small for man of his talents but his illness may have been a factor. He was hardly a glamorous actor but always a great pleasure to watch and surely one of Warrington's most famous sons. 18:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ever wonder why Keith Olbermann calls Glenn Beck "Lonesome Rhodes"?
I did, and I found out it was the name of the lead character in the Elia Kazan movie A Face in the Crowd. Fortunately, it's available from Netflix, so I watch it this past weekend.

Basically, it's the story of a redneck named Larry 'Lonesome' Rhodes, with a knack for humor and music that becomes a media superstar during the early days of television, without the public seeing that he's really a jerk of the highest order. He eventually drifts from humor and music into political commentary, and the movie proceeds to its climax from there.

Intriguingly, Lonesome is played by Andy Griffith, and if you've only seen him as likable Sheriff Andy Taylor on the The Andy Griffith Show, you're in for a surprise. Patricia Neal co-stars as the reporter who discovered him in a county jail where he was locked up on "drunk and disorderly" charges.

I can see the Rhodes/Beck analogy, as Beck was a drunk and a shock-jock before becoming a political commentator. Beck's shtick is different from Rhodes; Rhodes doesn't get weepy on-air.

The movie can also easily be seen as a prototype for the Seventies classic Network, though Network is considerably darker (not that A Face in the Crowd is especially light-hearted, mind you.) Both movies are about the power of television as a medium, and its use by demagogues. Despite Network being darker, though, at least Howard Beale is a character you pity (since he is, undoubtedly, a madman being used by the titular network); Lonesome Rhodes is nothing more than a jerk.

I wouldn't call A Face in the Crowd a true classic, but it was worth the two hours or so I spent watching it. MDB (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We just need to record Beck off the record.--Thanatos (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there is the video Beck putting Vick's Vapo-Rub under his eyes to induce tears, but that was for a photo shoot. MDB (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Myopia denial
http://myopia.org/ - what on earth? (hat tip: ciphergoth) Is there anything sensible to this? - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seldom does one see bullshit of such high purity. "Positive lenses good, negative lenses bad..." complete, utter moronic bollocks. Good thing there aren't imaginary lenses. Putting convex (positive) lenses on a myopic child is so irresponsible that I don't have words scathing enough with which to scathe it. The pillory would be too kind. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What... Gerard, you're still here? Why haven't you talked to me... not even once? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually thought that the main hypothesis was kind of reasonable. Whats so bad about this? Well...apart from the lack of people and clubs going around saying how they were cured from what is one of the most common things worldwide. Sen (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm at the point of declaring my own internet law:
 * For any accepted scientific fact, however well proven or insignificant, there is at least one person who not only denies it, but will go to the effort to try to justify their denial with a bad argument.
 * 01:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'll go further and say that, "The probability that somebody has made a serious attempt to refute an accepted fact or theory is proportional to the number of people who truly understand it divided by the number of people who have a fair grasp of the meaning of the fact or theory. Look at Evolution, and the stuff on Pseudomathematics about compass and straight edge constructions. Only high-end biology/mathematics academics will have a firm grasp of the most complicated aspects of the theories, while a huge body can understand the meaning and implication of evolution, or a construction being possible. Theories which everyone can get the basis of, enough to meaningfully believe or reject, but which only have a small core of academics who truly understand them leads to cranks! 01:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sort of a law already. We have an article about it.-- 14:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is more akin to the "85% of male drivers under the age of 28 are at or better than the 90th percentile in driving skill." I am not sure Skarka's Law applies here, even peripherally.
 * What we have here is an overconfidence effect. The related Dunning-Kruger effect is interesting as well. Dalek, I will be keeping my eyes open for an internet law which says "the likelihood of crank refutation of established theory goes roughly as the ratio of those who think they have a fair grasp of it, to those who deeply understand it." (You seem to have accidentally an "inversely" up there.) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely you're just talking about "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". 16:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, that is the over-arching principle, isn't it? In my view, Dalek's proposed law is a particular case of it, worth pointing out on its own. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's one of those things that explains everything. 16:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

So... you've been awarded now!
All except Goat and Earthland. I think Goat is not a real user at all and Earthland's talk page looks so clean and pure the way it is... I didn't dare to mess it up!

Award them yourself if you want! My job is done.

--Idiot number 59 (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * How silly. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

And if someone don't know what I'm talking about... http://rationalwikiwiki.org/wiki/2010_RationalWiki_Awards --Idiot number 59 (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My people will not be attending this psuedo-democratic escapade due to the requirement of scripting and the unreadiness of available virtual machines capable of thwarting the many possible browser exploits which are undoubtedly the true purpose of these frivolously mean-spirited character assassinations. Go on laugh, then one day you say "The Wiki is being weird when I try to unblock." Oh probably just a glitch. Let's not entertain any conspiracy theories that would only cause discomfort to the sacred hivefaith. ~ Lumenos (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

SMBC on Homeopathy
Funny. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Best of both worlds
Ladies and gentlemen of RationalWiki. Knowing how much you like kittens and goats, may I present kittens with fainting goat syndrome:  11:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Sad that they both died. I wish God existed so I could punch him in the face for it. 12:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. Can you do a fainting giraffe next? --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What's a "postnersescosop"?
Just wondering. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen! I have found the atheist paradise!
Gentlemen! I have found the atheist paradise! Behold:. Perhaps if cp:atheists drank more Slim Fast and less beer the could be as fit and attractive as Christians! And maybe they would not lack machismo! I am thinking of challenging PZ Myers to a debate. If I were to hold the debate on this island, do you think he might accept? Or do you suppose the extra weight of all the atheists coming to support their heavyweight champion would cause the island to sink into the ocean? Kendoll (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean the island of naru Where we find that Christianity is the primary religion in Nauru. According to the 2002 census, approximately two-thirds of Christians are Protestant, and the remainder are Catholic. The largest denomination is the Nauru Congregational Church.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sue Gardner ...
... mentioned our LessWrong in a Signpost tweet. Him (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Open Microsoft Word and do the following...
1. Type in capitals Q33 NY. This is the flight number of the first plane to hit one of the Twin Towers.

2. Highlight the Q33 NY.

3. Change the font size to 48.

4. Change the actual font to the WINGDINGS



--Idiot number 59 (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How's it like in 2002, from where you're surely posting? Vulpius (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that the flights which hit the towers were:
 * American Airlines Flight 11
 * United Airlines Flight 175
 * While the other two were:
 * American Airlines Flight 77
 * United Airlines Flight 93
 * I'm pretty sure that no airline has a single letter code. 20:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What is this "Microsoft Word" I keep hearing about? Is it something like Open Office Writer? --Kels (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You lost me at "Open Microsoft Word." 58008618 upside down on a 7-segment display is more entertaining. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember seeing that when I was something like eleven. I remember thinking it was shit then. Funny how some things never change. 20:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You were eleven when you saw that? Ghod, I feel old. When I was eleven, Microsoft was a tiny company that made software for computer hobbyists, a word processor was called a "typewriter", the World Trade Center was still relatively new, Osama bin Laden was a college student, and 9/11 was not an especially memorable date. Now, get off my lawn! MDB (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OpenOffice is The Man's honeypot, Libreoffice will soon be appearing with your Linux rations. ~ Lumenos (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

How about: Let us know how it went. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) put your network card into the microwave oven
 * 2) set the microwave to maximum power
 * I don't have a microwave. Too bad. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A toaster will do. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The gray unit
Apparently we now need an article on it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought we did? 16:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont see anything about it, and 8000 people just came looking for it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Should I put the kettle on? --Kels (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

GRay unit will never be an article, it's too silly. But a good redirect to amusing "rational units" or some such? Could be a list of such things, as the mentioned milliHelen (the funniest one ever). 07:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll just redirect it to Gene Ray. If people are going to come looking for it, they may as well go somewhere with content. 17:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Antonin Scalia: Women not protected by US Constitution
Even though you people with lady parts have become comfortable with "voting rights" and other liberal claptrap, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wants you to know not to become too comfortable: "In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both? Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that." For those of you keeping score:
 * Women - people who are not protected by the Constitution.
 * Corporations - Constitutionally-protected people.

--Leotardo (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but to me that's Scalia pointing out something blindingly obvious. That the Constitution should be read and interpreted in the context of the time it was written and that other laws and amendments should be created to fill in the gaps that the Constitution left for today. I mean, read his second paragraph. He even says it in black and white. He's admitting that the Constitution cannot be expected to have been written in the context of today. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Scalia follows a philosophy of "original expected application." He's uncomfortable with using anything in the Constitution for a purpose it was not expressly created for. However, he admits there are some precedents that should be followed for "stability's" sake, like Brown. The issue becomes how judges like him decide which precedents are worth following and whether or not to apply his reactionary philosophy - and they inevitably pick and choose based on their conservative ideology. Hence the discrepancy between Citizens United and these recent remarks. 21:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is basically the problem with the American Supreme Court. In order to make their voice most heard, relatively right-wing presidents appoint the most extreme right-wing judge they can find, like this. Likewise, the left-wing president appoint the most left-wing judge they can get away with... The idea of a "Republican/Conservative" or "Liberal/Democrat" Judge is quite strange to those of us in a country without a written constitution. 21:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol, you said "left-wing president". Hahahahahahaha.  07:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, To quote him, "Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about.It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society." (Emphasis added). He does make something of a point. 21:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That something that sounds good until you realize it contradicts the purpose of the Supreme Court. Marbury v. Madison established that the Court is the supreme arbiter of the Constitution; In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, the Court ruled that it had the power to correct interpretations of the federal Constitution made by state supreme courts.  Both Marbury and Martin confirmed that the Court was entrusted with maintaining the consistent and orderly development of federal law.  Obviously, saying out of one side of your mouth that a corporation is a protected person, when there is no terminology that comports with that in the Constitution and the founders were anti-corporation; while saying out of the other side of your mouth that women can't be defined as "citizens" as it relates to the 14th Amendment, does not bring about consistent and orderly development of federal law.  --Leotardo (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A fun little read is anything Ronald Dworkin has ever said about Scalia and Thomas. Seeing the pair of them being destroyed always leads to a big, silly grin. Webbtje (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think he has a point at all. In 2011 we are supposed to define "citizen" (the term used in the 14th Amendment) to mean straight men, but nowhere is that a definition.  We are supposed to be saddled with the prejudices of another time until we actively legislate/amend the Constitution to ensure we know those prejudices no longer stand; in other words, we need asterisks all over the Constitution so people know that something like "citizens" is not denotative.  Not only is this ridiculous, but it is also inefficient and makes the Constitution less accessible except for those "in the know".   --Leotardo (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Didn't someone not write about how insulting it was to specifically amend the constitution to include freedom and rights for black people - as if they weren't included under "people" in the first place, hence it was ultimately counter-productive. We had a similar point going with the DADT discussions the other week. 17:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Mega Millions
I just watched this video on yahoo debunking various "myths" about improving odds of winning lotteries. Is the average person really so ignorant of the basics of probability that these myths are even real and require debunking? The only one that deserves any thought is the one about odds going down as more people play, because while that obviously isn't true, it is true that you are more likely to split your winnings with other winners (of course, if the jackpot's greater it can still even out. I wonder if there's a threshold at which the average payback peaks before the swell of other players enticed by the jackpot starts to bring it down. That would be an interesting study of math and sociology). People driving out of a major city to improve their chances? Are they so stupid to think it makes a difference in the probability, or so stupid to think this superstition is somehow luckier? Here's a great insight: the most winners have come from one the most populous participating states, and about half of those come from the city in that state that contains about half that state's population. Amazing! I guess if there is a strategy to this, it would be to pick numbers it's less likely other people picked; your odds are obviously the same, but there's a slightly smaller chance of having to split the prize. I think the best is to choose exclusively numbers between 31 and 45, since many people seem to pick dates. There are not months or days above 31, and by going 45 and earlier you're at least cutting out babyboomers' birthdays and anniversaries and the like. The best strategy is not to play at all, unless you get $1's worth of enjoyment out of it even when you lose. DickTurpis (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the only odds trick I know that is true is that you can predict whether something will be won by many or few (if at all) people by looking at the distribution of numbers. This is because people can't easily recognise a random sequence so will tend to spread the numbers around when selecting them. So as you can't play the odds, the best you can do is manipulate the jackpot you get by choosing numbers that are mostly bunched up. I think it was on a Christmas lecture a few years back and the guy presenting actually showed the lottery tickets of the most won jackpots and the ones that rolled over. The most won one had a very nice and even distribution of numbers whereas all the roll over ones were silly things like all 30s or all 40s. 22:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a theory that 1,2,3,4,5,6 would be the beat because no one would play that because, you know, what are the chances of those being the numbers?!?!? Ridiculous! (Answer: same as every other number sequence.) A friend said that's such a recognizable pattern that it's bound to be played, so perhaps your strategy of 6 consecutive numbers, but not the first 6, is best. Combine that with my "avoid dates" theory and we have something like 32,33,34,35,36,37 as the best ones to pick. Where do we publish our findings? DickTurpis (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember reading that, in Finland, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 is by far the most popular bet. Can't see why this couldn't be elsewhere too. Vulpius (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the article but you must remember that lotteries are conducted in different ways in different countries. In some there are a fixed number of entries with one winner and you buy just one ticket or even part of a ticket, in others like the UK you pick a series of numbers which have to match with the draw. So although the chances of winning are still low some approaches might "seem" more logical depending upon the method used to decide the winner. 22:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Two wonderful myths in Spain are 1. Certain shops are more lucky than others because they often sell winning tickets. Of course because they have this reputation they also sell more tickets and - what do you know - because they sell disproportionately more tickets they also have disproportionately more winners. So it must be true!
 * Another one is that areas where disasters have occurred sell more winning tickets. So after disasters Spaniards visit those areas to buy tickets and again ...  In fact, you sometimes you hear people complaining about this saying that such people are robbing the "luck" which God had intended to go to those areas. In reality they probably help the local ecomomy a bit. --BobSpring is sprung! 07:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The locals must love that. "Thank God! Help has arrived! People are bringing water and blankets and-....oh...they're just buying lottery tickets and then going home..." DickTurpis (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hah, so any rumour that gets momentum becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I like it. 212.62.5.158 (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I worked in a newsagents for a long time (too long) and saw thousands of lottery tickets. Most, of course, seemed to be random picks from the grid of numbers, but all too often I would see people picking consecutive strings. Not just 1-6 (though as a sub-set this was common), but strings all around the grid. They probably thought they were being clever because they and they alone had realised all combinations have the same chance (and imagine the media attention if you won the craziest lottery sequence ever?).
 * So picking that is an idiot's choice. Random picks are good but unless you use a random number generator, some 'random picks' are gonna be more common than others, especially when picking from a grid where people naturally shun a close cluster of numbers when clusters would be relatively common with a generator. So even a random pick might be shared between a few people.
 * So what's the least picked? I have decided the least picked combination of numbers is probably a consecutive string with a bizarre gap- 24/25 27/28/29/30 for example. Or a string that runs down the grid and then turns sharply to make an L-shape or something. 212.62.5.158 (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the numbers this time were: 4, 8, 15, 25, 47, 42 (Mega Ball) and there were 2 winners. Doesn't really tell us anything. Last time when there we no winners there was a clump of numbers bunched together (9,10,12,13), which seems to support Armond's statement about carryovers having a disproportionate amount of grouped together numbers. So sequential numbers have too much of a discernible pattern making it inherently more likely they'll be picked, but somewhat grouped numbers are less likely because they look less "random" to most people. Regardless of anything the absolute worst numbers to pick are 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42. You will split your winnings 1000 ways if you pick those. Wait a minute. 4 of those are winning numbers this time. There are going to be a lot of $150 winners this week. DickTurpis (talk) 13:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In the UK a popular option is to do a Luck Dip, where your numbers just get picked randomly. Lots of people do this, so there's little point in trying to be clever and pick an 'unpopular' set of numbers, since any set is equally likely to have been allocated to one of the millions of Lucky Dip tickets.-- 14:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember a story about someone who regularly bought two tickets; one being his own set of numbers and the other a Lucky Dip. He was convinced that his luck was surely in when the Lucky Dip turned up the same numbers as his regular set. Needless to say he won nothing. 14:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If the draws did use the same logic as the lucky dip generator then I'd be a multi-billionare by now. Every time I get two or more lucky dips the numbers on them all seem to be the same. Perhaps they have a seeding problem? 14:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) That's what most (or at least many) people do here too, and of course there's nothing you can do about that. This is all basically a brain exercise anyway, the fact is no matter what numbers you pick or how you pick them you have a 1 in 175 million chance of winning, and if you do win, having to split $300 million with another person is hardly going to lead to regrets. (Though, contrarily, if the exact number of millions won isn't significant as long as one wins millions, why do many people only play when they jackpot reaches these huge proportions?) This "pick the least popular series" strategy is the only one you have any control over whatsoever, so if there is to be a strategy, it's the only game in town. No matter what series you pick you're going to potentially match a random generator (hopefully the one that picks the winner) but in some cases you're up against those as well as the people who pick patterns. That's why I say avoid numbers that are more likely to be dates (1 though 12, anything below 31 (especially 19), and, to avoid years as much as possible, lower numbers that aren't in the above groups). None of this will make winning more likely. Not playing is still the best strategy. DickTurpis (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've heard of that with the dips before. It's either a seeding problem or a selective reporting problem from when the numbers match. If you look up something like the birthday problem, you'll see it's not too beyond the realm of chance for any two numbers to match. Although you have a low chance of any specific number matching, the odds combine for each one so it becomes reasonably likely to see matches between two random sets. 15:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

My Prediction for 2011: Betty White dies.
Ok, so my mom cannot work a computer to save her life, so naturally I have to look stuff up for her. One of the things she likes me to do is look up current pictures of old TV stars. Anyway, she had me see if any of the Golden Girls are still alive and I noticed that one died each year for the last 3 years. All that is left is Betty White. Any takers on my bet?--Thanatos (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno, she's not looking so bad. --Leotardo (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't say that she looks much better (if at all) than these two before they died. Of course, I am a bad judge when it comes to anyone over 40. All old people look the same and are scary to me. ~Super Hamster  Talk 02:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh - Bea never was the pretty one.... --Leotardo (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you're a few days too late to enter the stiffs.com celebrity dead pool, or you could perhaps turn your premonition into cold hard cash. Shame. DickTurpis (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And while we're on the subject of dead celebrities, RIP Gerry Rafferty. DickTurpis (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Shall we have a sweepstake for people to die in 2011? Thanatos wants Betty White, I'll reserve Phyllis Schlafly. Anyone else? -- 10:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooh - Michael Caine, Roger Moore, The Queen, Prince Charles, Camilla, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Justin Bieber, the girl who dumped me back in 1992, TK. (Ok, so mine's more of a wishlist...) -- Ψ Gremlin  10:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger Moore will never die, he gets his immense life force from the eyebrows of power. 13:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol! I should just add that Moore & Caine were added before it morphed into a wish list. -- Ψ Gremlin  13:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was wondering why you wanted Rodge and Mikey (as they like me to call them) dead. 13:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. TK can't die, he's a bot made up of two programs: one wikibot that watches the user creation list and blocks any new users, and a chatbot that sends abuse to people on IM and email. 13:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha! Your 'Mikey' lets me call him Maurice... but only when cuddling. -- Ψ Gremlin  13:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want her dead, it's a prediction based on a trend. I'm also going to put money on Jean Stapleton.--Thanatos (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Baker Street in mourning
Gerry Rafferty's died. Him (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, I was on my handheld & didn't see the above - sorry. Him (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You heard it here first
Actress playing Obama's mum in an Indonesian movie about young Obama, arrested for drug possession. Countdown to right-wing hate-machine spinning this totally out of proportion in 3... 2... -- Ψ Gremlin  11:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Fuck Yeah!
Hey all, sry I've been gone so long, but I felt like I should really post this here: I just had a guy claiming to be the son of David Farrant subscribe to me on youtube, give me his e-mail address, and offer to talk to me. He seems much nicer than Manchester so far, I'm hoping I can talk him into a Skype interview or something for my youtube channel. This is going to be so awesome if he's the real thing!--Mustex (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Doubtful, but if turns out to be true, that'd be good, yeah. - VezzyRattlehead (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Mustex! Long time no see!  06:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Enforced age ratings on games
So this was posted over on WIGO world and it got me to thinkin'... are enforced age ratings on games such a bad thing? As far as I'm aware, age ratings are a legal thing in the UK, as in, if a game/whatever is rated 18, it's illegal to sell it to someone under 18. It's not (again afaik) illegal for a parent to buy the game with the explicit intent of giving it to their child, though.

But whenever I see this issue come up in America it seems like a big thing. I admit I don't quite understand the issue behind it. What are the reasons for not making them a requirement? It seems kinda pointless sticking an age rating on a game if anyone of any age can buy it anyway.

This whole issue seems so bizarre that I'm almost certain I'm missing large chunks of context. X Stickman (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The ESRB is just like the MPAA: a voluntary organization for self-regulation and rating. And just like the MPAA's movie ratings, there's no reason to introduce the law into it.  Most major retailers (Wal-Mart, Target) don't sell Mature games to anyone without an ID just like most major movie chains don't let minors into Restricted movies.  Neither has any legal force.  Schlafly should raise awareness of ESRB ratings rather than trying to get the government involved.-- 03:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the criteria for rating games in the UK is, but most are given a ESRB rating, while some with particularly adult content are given a BBFC rating, which is legally enforcable. Bondurant (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But if all the mainstream stores already voluntarily enforce age ratings, why not just make it a law anyway? It wouldn't make much of a difference and it'd stop all the grandstanding. X Stickman (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This article provides some nice information regarding an attempt to create such laws and why it was turned down. In California, they tried to ban the sales of video games that had violence and such to minors, but it was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
 * By the way, AD, my local movie theaters let kids over the age of six go to R-rated movies at any time, and those under the age of six can come in to see R-rated movies at any time before 6 in the evening. ~Super Hamster  Talk 04:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Unusual theaters... where do you live?-- 04:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In a lovely little suburban city in Ohio. The nearby Cinemark runs the policy that I mentioned above. I would think that most movie theaters in the United States would let minors into restricted movies as long as they are accompanied with an adult. Or maybe it's just that I live in weird Ohio. ~Super Hamster  Talk 04:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Stickman, laws cost money to enforce and have an opportunity cost - the officers and prosecutors involved could be doing other things. Plus, I'm not sure it's the government's business to get into this.  If I had kids, for example, I would be a lot more concerned about the violence they see rather than bare breasts, but the ratings system has the opposite emphasis.-- 04:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In the US one runs into constitutional problems with this sort of law. Free speech limitations and all that.  Surely voluntary ratings programs and vigilant parents are all that is required, really? I wouldn't know, since I am neither...  07:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Darn, I always thought of you as an archetypal voluntary ratings program. 11:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is interesting to me as a UK reader. We have legally-enforced classifications for films and I think games, which are pretty widely accepted. Although I'm sure many parents and probably many shops and cinemas take a pretty relaxed attitude.
 * I thought the ratings were a pretty big deal in America - one often hears of films making last-minute cuts to avoid an R rating. If cinemas just let anyone into R-rated films, what's the point of making these cuts?-- 12:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The ratings are a huge deal - an NC-17 rating effectively kills a movie, since a lot of places won't even show them. And the places like Hamster describes are the exception.  Most theaters and all big chains don't let unaccompanied minors into R-rated movies.  It's why it works without the weight of law: in this case, the market is the most efficient way to do it.-- 00:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, in the US, many movies strive to achieve the "R" rating, in order to gain cred with teens just old enough to get in to see them. Teens are the market, really, in terms of box-office sales, here. Apparently everyone else steals them on the internet.  Why the teens when they are 'puter savvy?  Because it's a place (the mall, the cineplex, etc.) they can go to hang out with each other, make out, etc., without mom or dad asking if they need more popcorn for their slumber party.  06:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think certain games/movies only express symptoms, they don't create the disease. Why would someone rather wander through digital dungeons shooting people, when they have the %100 realistic real world to play in? They are always forbidding and punishing symptoms, instead of providing therapy or other solutions for the problems. It only further alienates young people to tell them, "This is good for us, but bad for you. Do as we say, not as we do." Then they can't talk to you about anything "bad" they think or do. If you play the game or watch the movie together, even if you don't say much, your influence is there. The desire to participate in indiscriminate violence, drug abuse, or unhealthy sex, is a cultural problem that effects adults as much as minors. Wanting to see something is not the same as wanting to do it, so there is a difficult line to see, between art and "porn" or other "bad" art. But that doesn't mean "bad" art is bad, it is maybe a desire to understand one's demons. ~ Lumenos (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My new aquarium is in HD. Does that count?  05:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There are 40 billboards around Nashville announcing Jesus is back in May
May 21, 2011 Jesus is back. "It's a certainty," said Allison Warden, who sponsored the billboards. --Leotardo (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Lunatic uses numerology to predict end of world, is wrong. Film at 11. -- 17:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I will be impressed if one of them will take me up on this offer: sign a legal document stating that all of your possessions are transfered to a legitimate charity at midnight, May 20, 2011. I'm not going to take the "give me your stuff" route, because they can argue they don't want it to go to someone who is doing it out of spite or selfishness. Pick some non-controversial charity, say one for crippled children, and we'll see how certain they are. MDB (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They'll just use the excuse that only the wicked will remain, so why give their possession to wicked people? On the other hand, it's good to see the fundies flushing their money down the toilet. DickTurpis (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As awesome as that idea sounds, DT is right, you'll see some pretty hard squirming to resist putting the money where the mouth is. We have a couple of months to prepare for the mother of all cognitive dissonance drinking games. 17:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been predicted so often I'm surprised anyone has the gnads (or tits) to make another; especially a date so close. Plus--I know very little about this myth--but I thought the rapture was to take only the most holy, but that there are some mudbloods that will be left who may or may not be saved, depending on whether they choose to accept the obvious or not?  I would think there'd be a charity set up for them.  --Leotardo (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The way I understand it (and while I am a Christian, I think End Times scenarios are a load of dingo's kidneys), all of the True Christians will be raptured (leaving out a lot of people who just think they're True Christians), and then things get really really bad for seven years as the Anti-Christ takes over (this is called The Tribulation), and then Jesus comes back again and kicks ass big time. The Anti-Christ is cast into a pit for a thousand years, gets to escape, and then gets defeated for good.
 * For those who believe in these things, the big point of dispute is whether the Rapture comes before, during, or at the end of The Tribulation.
 * But if you believe in the pre-Tribulation Rapture, basically the people who get "left behind" get a second chance, but things are gonna be really shitty for them, especialy if you're going to be on God's side. Hence, the plot of the excrable Left Behind books.
 * And as I said, I don't believe in End-Times scenarios. The closest I come is the idea "Jesus will come back sometime when He's good and ready, and things will be great, but don't put your life on hold waiting for it. His schedule doesn't fit with yours." MDB (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Trick is, how do you tell you're a True Christian and not just someone who thinks they're a True Christian? 18:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My philosophy is:
 * If you think you are, but you're not sure, you probably are.
 * If you're sure you are and
 * you're humble about it, you probably are.
 * you're an insuffereable jerk about it, you probably aren't.
 * you're laughing with glee at the thought of all the gays and liberals that get left behind while you're up in the clouds with Jay-zuss, you're in for a big surprise.
 * Again, though, I think End-Times scenarios are crap. I take the philosophy that Martin Luther was right and the Book of Revelation shouldn't have been considered canonical and left out of the Bible. I think it's a historical allegory meant to give hope to oppressed people. Either that, or John the Revelator was tripping. MDB (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed DH Lawrence's evisceration of exiled malcontent John of Patmos' 'revelations' that included really dumb imagery (as Lawrence pointed out, "the wrath of the lamb" is a ludicrous image). --Leotardo (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, now more people in my face telling me to repent the world is coming to an end. I've never had any take my bet that it won't for $10k. They could get full rights to mock me for eternity for being wrong.  Doesn't seem to resonate well in their minds either that paying lip service without conviction won't win anyone to their cause who doesn't already believe the world is going to end.  ~ Subsound ~ 20:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the folks making these predictions are all that much into betting. --Leotardo (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't remember if we've spoken about this before but these folks have a way to make money out of the end of the world. Well, out of the rapture at least.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is quite possibly the best thing ever. I wonder if they have any takers. DickTurpis (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "...the service has attracted more than 100 clients, who pay $110 for a 10-year contract." 10:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * BusinessWeek article. It's really an awesome idea.  "We're all atheists" so you know we'll be here, taking care of your cats and dogs while that whole Tribulation thing is going on.  --Leotardo (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I particularly liked "His Web site directs about $200 a month in proceeds from Google ads to food banks in Minnesota and New Hampshire." If only he would build a hospital instead. 10:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But isn't he sort of building an animal hospital, or at least a refuge? Will there be a need for hospitals during the Tribulation? --Leotardo (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless your interpretation is that everything goes completely to shit instantly after the Rapture, then yes, there will be. The usual interpretation is that things will actually look better at first -- the anti-Christ's minions will act like they're building a better world, but it's all a sham to create a one-world tyranny. (Think of the original V mini-series, but instead of lizards from outer space, it's demons from the inner depths.) MDB (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't the interpretation that everything goes to shit after the rapture the dispensationalist plot of the Left Behind series? Things don't look better first, so the the anti-Christ promises to return peace and stability, which is how he supposedly rises to power - to fix a shattered world after the Rapture?  --Leotardo (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the Left Behind scenario. It's the most common interpretation. The really big difference of opinion is as to when the Rapture occurs, not what happens under the anti-Christ. MDB (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I predict Jesus won't be back in May. Weak minded fools, send me your money so I can continue my ministry! -- 05:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It'll be interesting to see how these morons justify themselves once Jeeves doesn't come back on the 21st. No doubt it'll be because God is testing their faith, and their flock will still follow them blindly, instead of laughing derisively and them beating them up for taking their money all these years. -- Ψ Gremlin  16:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think the payoff is for these kinds of predictions? A quick bump in church attendance for the first five months of the year?  I don't understand the benefits they derive from making these. The smart ones say "Soon, but we don't know when." --Leotardo (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

O'Reilly to Atheist - "You can't explain the tides!"
Pretty damned funny stuff from old Bill-o here. Ace McfuckingAwesome 20:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So is this you? In terms of Intelligent Design, we know the how of tides, but do we know the why?  --Leotardo (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, not me. 20:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good old Bill O'. He makes me giggle now and then. 01:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too. Nice one!  04:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Classification of Rationalwikians
Add more later. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll register that as a template. - VezzyRattlehead (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I demand an irritating n00b category for myself. Anything less than that will result in me permanently banning half the wiki and inadvertently setting my socks on fire. 12:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you no longer qualify as n00b. Irrititting yes, n00b no. 12:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * FYP 13:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What about weird, rational-ethical drunken brats who may be smarter than you? 14:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I get it now, those categories are automatically counted as "smarter than". 14:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they aren't. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I demand to be put on this list. It doesn't matter where; I could probably fit any of those categories. DickTurpis (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What? No classification for uppity minorities?  I'm calling the NAACP!  17:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Easy there, cousin, those red-blooded guys are out by the woodpile as usual. I think it needs to be a grid, with a silly/serious axis. Or would that be a plodding, literal-minded/metaphorical flights of fancy axis? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume the category "may be smarter than me" differentiates all the other categories which are "certainly smarter than me". DickTurpis (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just wondered that myself. At first I was flattered, but... 04:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hahah 59 what the hell? What happens if you open Microsoft Word and paste in this chart, increase the font size to 19, change it to Wingdings, print it out, and cram it up your ass?-- 02:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently... nothing. And I'm # 57 now, thank you. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Where's the section marked "Cynical Welsh People"? Darkmind1970 (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sweet! I'm a drunken brat! I couldn't be happier, either! 15:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What, no category for the misanthropic, apathetic and frequently hung-over American? ~ Subsound ~ 16:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC) So, I just randomly open up this page, and there I am at the top under the heading "stupid pig"... whatever... -- 08:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what that was all about. ~ Lumenos (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I always break even with "weird". It is the one thing everyone in the world can agree on. ~ Lumenos (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Gay sex
A question for all heterosexual people here: have you ever tried gay sex? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Now the next question: Did you self identify yourself as a heterosexual during your "love affair" with that other man? Did your sexual orientation change, if you were homosexual/bisexual back then? Or if you have always self identified yourself as a heterosexual, then how should I understand that? Were you just having fun or what? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a happily married man (15 years) and self identify as totally heterosexual. Having said that one of my best love affairs when I was younger was with another man - and we're still best friends thirty five years later. So what's your story? Or do we presume that your distaste of a picture of two men kissing puts you so deep in denial that you could ever have such feelings that you'd never try it. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to know? --Leotardo (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no story. I just wanted to know how deeply you have fallen into sin ^^.
 * Ah, to be a teenager again exploring one's gayness. I envy you Idiot number 59. --Leotardo (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am 65 years old. I mean 79, of course. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My grandfather tried gay sex back in the 1950s. He was a magistrate. 17:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And this is why you are boring, Lily. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to get that anger out of your system, idiot #59. I suggest a good no limits same-sex orgy. Jack Hughes (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've kissed my guy friends before, but that's just when we were drunk and going, "I love you man!" That's as far as I'd go, except once when I allowed my gay best friend to grab my balls in exchange for a cigarette. 18:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got Marlboros on me, SJ. The closest I've ever come to straight sex was fingering a girl at a gay bar.  We were actually on a date.  She was the daughter of a Pakistani ambassador, and I thought "Perhaps I haven't give this enough of a go."  We made out, I fingered her, my finger smelled bad and I was like, "Okay, enough of that."  Otherwise, it's been dicks all the way!  --Leotardo (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What a lovely story. 18:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know - I get requests to re-tell it every Christmas dinner, except I flush out the details more. --Leotardo (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I once slept with a post op transexual. What does that count as?AMassiveGay (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope it wasn't too post-op. 19:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As post op as you can get - She had boobies and a lady gardenAMassiveGay (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was more concerned about surgical healing. 09:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

My question "how deeply have you fallen into sin" has got a very clear answer now. And Jack Hughes, instead of answering my question you just tried to seem smart. I bet I am older than you. Show some respect. Stupid pig. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I hate gay sex. For me, good sex has to be somber and gloomy. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. If the largest sex organ is between the ears, it gets complex. A friend of mine insisted on my escorting her to a lesbian bar, for her coming-out. She pointed out that I had far more experience than she did in making passes at women, so she wanted my advice. :-)  A different lesbian friend took me to a different bar, where I was declared an Honorary Lesbian for the Evening. The ceremony began with ringing a temple gong for attention, then putting a cowbell around my neck, which, I suppose, is a large-size equivalent of bird bells on a cat.  Then, an extremely battered plastic lei was placed around my neck, with cheek kisses.
 * That part was less understandable, until it was explained that it would be the closest I would get to being lei'd that night. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a lot of happy sex. But never any gay sex. Does happy sex count?--BobSpring is sprung! 20:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. And by the way, I asked heterosexuals. Gays, go away. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, a LGBTQ teen can ask about gay sex, but the gays can't discuss? Hmph! --Leotardo (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheery sex? Jolly sex? Mirthful sex? --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Man this question is hard! I don't exactly know what a heterozexual is because I have tranzexual, panzexual, and autozexual tendencies. I can say with certainty that I've had sex with males and females though much more often with females (but in terms of numbers of persons, the total count is about the same). Here is a breakdown of me porno collection:
 * 75% "hetero" (counting girls pegging girly boys).
 * 10% females not having sex.
 * 3% lezbian.
 * 4% where a "male" is made to do homosexual things by a dominant female, or she just sorta likes the idea.
 * 3% shemale or uumm... wachamacallems: "female" crossdressers (with penises). This number is so low only because I have difficulty finding sufficiently passable/attractive ones, then again I like some of Jezebel Yum's work (RIP) and she isn't so passable naked, ie the breasts being of leaky silicone/saline instead of God's carcinogenic tissues made from hormones... well then there is her massive penis but that doesn't exactly make her less lady-like in my perception uum... well maybe in her case because it is SO MONSTROUS, then again penises themselves sorta seem female "paradoxically" like cats being masculine in Spanish (gato) when they are obviously conceited women of Egypt.
 * Less than 1% with (a) male(s) and no "female(s)" involved and most of these I don't even look at but again only because I can't find the one's I like.

I often have fantasies involving males but I'm usually a female or being dominated by "older" boys/men when I was younger. It may be physical domination or mental in that they are so much smarter than I, and I need so badly to please them possibly in exchange for something like knowledge of the gods (as in the good ole' days of Geeko-Romanie). Either that or I'm with some sort of male who only seems to exist in my mind (often because they are me). Most of my male-oriented desires about ones that I have known, the fantasies are either non-sexual/romantic or they are more like cuddling with his girlfriend while he fucks her. But remember #59 that gender is in the mind, not the gonads, so the strictly intersexual/transgendered, are sinning against His Holy Majesty Apostle Paul, if they have sex with their gender. This is why shaflervatives train their wards to never trust Wikipedia. They FEAR the TRUTH! ~ Lumenis (talk)

Citation Needed
Hey all, so I started Project Citation Found to try to work on the almost 150 uses of (what's the point of using the template if no one's ever going to actually find the citation?). I've been able to do a lot recently (category:Articles with unsourced statements started off way bigger), but that's because I've been on winter break, which ends soon. I can't do it all on my own, and even a few other users each doing a few a day would take care of everything so quickly. Anyone else who's interested can sign up on the project page. I know there are people on this site who care about the quality of the mainspace, so please help me out with this. ThunderkatzHo! 21:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't edit mainspace anymore, but I very much appreciate the work you are putting in. --Leotardo (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of Conservapedia-space articles that use it too! And since I haven't really been following CP for probably over a year now, I could probably use some WIGO:CPers to help out with them.  ThunderkatzHo! 21:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My experience editing mainspace was unpleasant. Since I enjoy most of the community here I'd prefer to not venture into that territory again and stick with WIGOCP.  --Leotardo (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Tkatz! Long time no see, or at least, senility on my part perhaps.  Great project idea.  What were we talking about again?  04:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cleaning up the template, mainly, finding citations for those that are needed.  ThunderkatzHo! 06:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it was cleared out a while ago, it must have filled back up since! But yeah, a concerted effort to fix those citations would be useful. 10:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Problems with the Fair Use Upload Form
On the upload page, there was always this handy link to a fair-use version. That doesn't work for me any longer - so, is it just me? And what am I doing wrong?

21:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's still there. It's the last link in the instructions. 22:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is still there. It just doesn't work any longer - at least not for me :-( 08:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Right click on the link, copy link address (or whatever it's called in your browser), and paste it here. What I get is this:

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=en-fairuse&wpUploadDescription=%0A
 * So it seems to be ok here. -- Nx  / talk 08:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've used it recently and it worked for me. However, it opens in a new window/tab so depending on your browser settings it might be hidden or blocked. 10:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Rep Steve King: Dead babies in trash cans prove healthcare is unconstitutional
Read it and weep. --Leotardo (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * [[File:Internet-get.gif]] 00:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ghuh? That's about the most not even wrong thing I've ever heard.   20:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wakefield redux and Generation Rescue
So Andrew Wakefield was found to have committed out right fraud in his infamous MMR paper. The media is covering the story some interesting bits:


 * Wakefield pushes his book and calls it all a conspiracy on CNN here.
 * JB Handley of Generation Rescue is shilling his crap here

Now I went to the Generation Rescue home page and found the "sony brook study" here. A fairly unimpressive data mining operation on some statistical data. But I recommend reading the study and seeing an interesting thing that they did.

Their research actually found differential effects of the hepatitis B vaccine on boys and girls. They found that unvaccinated girls had a significantly greater risk for developmental disorders based on their measurement, while vaccinated boys had a greater risk. Now this differential effect should raise a red flag that there are some definition and methodological errors and problems (which there are). But instead the paper drops the result of girls and goes on for pages and pages about the proof of vaccines harming children because of the boys data.

Science your doing it wrong! Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice shootin', Tex. 10:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Holiday notice
Well done to whoever remembered today was Orthodox Christmas :-D - David Gerard (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's done automagically. 20:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In a bit over a century it will be 8 Jan. :-D  Civic Cat (talk)
 * On second thought, it might be on 8 January 2100--88 years, 364 days.Civic Cat (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I do believe we have Pi to thank for that. If you think that's tricky, he also automated both Easters!  06:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Whitehouse (band)
This is the complete pile of stuff the industrial hideous noise band Whitehouse put up on mp3.com in 2000/2001 - 103MB. It is quite definitely the most horrible noise in the world. With lyrics as horrible as the music. It is the ultimate head-clearing noise and remover of neighbours. Slightly more hideous than "Filth" by the Swans - David Gerard (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Pfft... if it's not the Smiths it's not musicAMassiveGay (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Mass animal die-off Google map
Mass Animal Deaths --Leotardo (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * New Scientist does a quick brief on it. Ace McfuckingAwesome 21:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Man, New Zealand is an awful place. Now Canada, we're pristine! --Kels (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * NZ is superb. Ace McfuckingAwesome 21:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I heard New Zealand has lots of fleas. 05:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's just Ace.  19:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to hunt through some archives to find it, but I was really scared, a couple of years ago, to read a reaport in ProMED, from the International Association for Infectious Diseases* about mass vulture die-offs in South Asia. The cause turned out to be increased agricultural use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in farm animals, which could be very bird-hostile if in a carcass. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC) (*Shouldn't it be the International Association against Infectious Diseases)?

LQT (sticky for now)
I know that LiquidThreads is a bit contentious, and confusing as hell for us old farts, but! Just as Vector is now the default WM interface, so will LQT be soon (does anybody know when WP is planning to switch to it?). So let's just do it and use our big brains (Hi Goonie!) to deal with the learning curve? Nx, can you create a cool thing you can run on one talk page at a time to convert the old diffs into a new LQT page? Once we've moved to LQT on talk pages, we'll get used to it soon enough. What I don't like is the "stuck in the middle" bit, where most of the site, obviously, uses wiki talk pages, but some parts use LQT. The change is coming, and it makes sense, let's make it easier by just making the transition and getting it over with. 03:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think there is room for improvement in LQT before taking it prime time. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I think this is a time for us to be early-adopters and take the gamble. Let's be on the bleeding edge and run with it.  If Someone (Nx) can figure out a way to process old talk pages into the new format, maybe They can sell it to Jimbo?  Did you catch him on TV last night or so? Now that I have finally been given research links to the whole point of it, it makes sense, as opposed to months ago, when I got a "you have new messages" link that made none.  03:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ADK and Nx told me the only people who don't like LQT are people who hate change and have no other motivation and are probably ugly too. --Kels (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but the debate is whether to allow liquid threads in the place, not whether to convert the entire Wiki to them. 05:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No. We pretty much agreed that if some users wanted to use lqt on their talk pages, they could. The debate is whether to use them all the other talk pages. 05:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It would appear that the people pushing this are going to keep pushing, past every resounding NO, every reasoned criticism, for no better reason than that this is the March of Progress, and we must march on, like lemmings over the cliff, if history has taught us anything. But, as history has also taught us, yowling about procedural subversion is like trying to stop an express train by putting a leaf on the track, and I am ill disposed to smite the Wiki with a curse, for I would like to think that we labor under the Gods' protection and not their ill-will; so allow me to assume the role of the prophet for a paragraph.
 * While these liquid threads indeed appear beautiful outward, and dazzle you with their lack of edit conflicts and their corner-cutting reductions in disk consumption, they are like unto whited sepulchres, for they violate quite a number of good standards of content management and delivery to which the traditional MediaWiki interface adhered. Subvert procedures, laugh in your ignorance, impose your will as is your wont, but no one may escape Ørlog; adopt the liquid threads and someday, somehow, we will come to repent it. 06:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Tell me concrete problems you have, and I'll try to fix them. -- Nx  / talk 07:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Liquid threads are rotten to the core. I doubt this can be addressed by one of your "fixes," but only by our having no truck with this MediaWiki extension. Concrete enough? 07:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's different so it sucks. Ok, got it. -- Nx  / talk 08:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's new so it's great. Ok, got it. Him (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, no -- Nx  / talk 08:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just so you will not continue to deny their existence, some specific examples of violated principles are REST, KISS, and the idea that it is good to have data represented in some human-readable form, for portability or other reasons. There is also the increased difficulty of grepping through a page or an archive. 08:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Some technologies can be "right" but at the wrong time. To me LQT doesn't seem to meld properly with the MW s/w. However, as I am old, ugly and don't like change I am shamed into meekly going along with the flow. 09:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should hold off on it. It's clearly not wanted. 10:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. Why the fuck am I wasting my time? -- Nx  / talk 10:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect that there has been a presentational failure with the introduction of the proposed feature.--BobSpring is sprung! 10:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bob nailed it on the head. LQT was presented to us backasswards, with the reasons coming last, and the stupid "you have new messages" alert coming first.  Tech advances take more than just tech people implementing them - they also need salespeople who can speak to normal people and explain what is in the tin, before you open it.  06:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But there is another point. People at RW like to debate and be silly.  They really do.  So much so that when somebody comes up with a new idea it's subjected to jokes, debate, claims and counter claims. You've got to be pretty thick-skinned to wait it out for a consensus (or not).  So if you are convinced your idea is really really good then there is a tendency on the wiki to simply skip the debate and just do it.  Or as I think I've seen it expressed a couple of times - "Just do it and then survive the HCM".
 * That seems to have been the case here, but as, in this instance, "just doing it" is a long process and the debate which never took place at the beginning is simply springing up all over the place.
 * In this particular case it would clearly have been better to have started off with: "This and this are problems. This is a potential solution.  It looks a bit crappy at the moment but will anybody object if we start experimenting with it and we can all talk about it again later?" --BobSpring is sprung! 12:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The response to LQT on RationalBeta was completely positive, so the negative response here caught me off guard. Similarly, people started complaining and demanding that LQT be uninstalled because it was messing up their recent changes and their watchlist. Unfortunately, these are things I did not take into account. I installed LQT here so that I can work on it and improve it, and so people who are interested can help me test it. The HCM broke out before I could present LQT properly, and from there it went downhill. I also didn't expect people to be so pissed because someone dares use LQT on their talk page... Should I demand that we uninstall the youtube extension because all the stupid flash videos on Ace's talk page crashed my phone? -- Nx  / talk 13:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I Must admit that I wasn't aware it had been discussed on Rationalbeta. But it seems possible to me that the people who go there are more likely to be the more technically minded users and more open to such changes.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw the pun in that edit summary, there is a special level of hell for that sort of behaviour. 15:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Convenient edit
Look it's simple. LQT is totally fine as long as everything stays exactly the same as it is now without LQT. Except it needs to be easier, and it should have no buttons at all. And no whitespace. And not matter what it looks like, it's just ugly, so make it prettier. Besides, it needs to be discussed first. But not without discussing the discussion first. There should be a vote whether to discuss the discussion or whether to vote for the voting of the discussion discussing the voted discussion. However, it's ugly and too complicated. Change it back! --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to deny that the way the new feature was introduced was bad. In fact, that was one of my points in the discussion about using LQT on forums - that there is seen to be a certain section of RW editors who want change for change's sake. I still think that's the case, and I'm afraid Nx and Pi (plus others) are going to have to realise that what they intend to be enthusiasm seems like press-ganging to many others.
 * On the other hand, whenever I brought up a specific problem with LQT, it was fixed or at least ameliorated, to the point where all I can say against LQT is that "It weren't done like that when I were a lad". In other words, it's come down to personal inertia.
 * From what Nx has said elsewhere, it seems like it's possible to write some code to take an LQT forum and turn it back into a standard talk page. If so, might I suggest that one of the medium-sized talk pages (TWIGO:W perhaps?) be turned into a threaded forum for a while? Until we can see how it really works, the debates on what might happen might as well be about counting angels dancing on pinheads. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 06:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is possible to export an LQT page as one block of old talk page style wikitext, but that's not the same as converting a talk page back, since the edit history and user contributions would be all wrong. Besides, there are a couple bugs that I need to fix before we continue with more widespread deployment of lqt. -- Nx  / talk 07:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I propose a new way of making decisions for RW. Someone fetch a magic 8-ball. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 12:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here ya go.  13:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Full speed ahead Mr Nx! EddyP Great King! Disaster! 13:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the main problems I have with LiquidThreads is that, while it may be well integrated into MediaWiki at a technical level, it doesn't seem to be well integrated stylistically. As long as the two systems are running on the same site, it means everyone having two watchlists, and edits in recent changes & contributions appearing in two formats. If LQT is going to be used increasingly, I think something should be done towards matching the format which LQT edits appear in to the format of other edits, & if possible combining LQT edits into the existing watchlist system.

If this isn't possible, it would be better for the link to LQT pages watched to just be called "LiquidThread watchlist" or something similar, rather than listing the number of LQT messages. I don't like being told that there are "11 new messages" or whatever - it makes me feel obliged to check them, as I would with an email inbox, when in fact they're not really "new messages for me", they're just comments on a page I'm watching, the same as anything else in my watchlist, which I can check or ignore without feeling nagged to look at.

I think the issue of edit conflicts is being exaggerated somewhat. Yes, they're frustrating, but in my experience the frustration is only partly with the technical hurdle they present. If I get edit conflicted on a talkpage, copying & pasting my comment to submit it again isn't really a big hassle, though I think the MediaWiki screen for edit conflicts could be a bit better designed. The frustration is usually more that somebody else has beaten me to the punch: while I've been writing my comment, somebody else has already responded in the same way, or else the conversation has moved on & my comment would now seem irrelevant as the moment has passed. This happens in real life conversations as much as on wikis, & skipping the edit conflict screen via MW wouldn't really help with this. In fact it's usually useful when reading a conversation to see clearly which comments were being posted simultaneous - hence the meme of writing "(EC)" when posting in an edit conflict.

The most unbearable edit conflict situations are when two or three people are trying to rework the same article at the same time, as not only do you have to add your own edits again, but you have to try to incorporate others' changes while doing do, which is very time consuming & you'll usually get edit conflicted again when you've done this. This isn't something that LQT or probably any other software change could help with, since the problem here is multiple people working on the same task in different ways at the same time: the only thing to do in these situations is to be patient & cooperate with others.

I would like to see something better than the usual edit conflict screen developed to deal with times when multiple edits are made to the same page, but I'm not convinced that LQT is the best solution. I have seen wikis which recognise that simultaneous edits made to different parts of the page (i.e. different paragraphs or sentences) do not conflict each other & hence incorporate these changes simultaneously (the same way that MediaWiki incorporates edits to different page sections without creating an edit conflict) & it would be great if this could be done on RW, but I guess such a change would have to be in the MW software rather than anything which could be done with an extension. Correct me if I'm wrong. 20:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Great post. Point clearly made. Constructive suggestions. No abuse. Talks about the subject and not the personalities. Ticks all my boxes.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * LQT isn't meant to solve edit conflicts. The reason edit conflicts are a problem at all is because using mediawiki for forums is stupid. As for integration into MW, yeah, some of the stuff needs more work, the lqt devs know about it already. I see your point about the new messages notice, I don't think the number is particularly useful, just the fact that there are new messages is enough. -- Nx  / talk 21:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you like me?
I mean... it is of utmost importance to me that there would be no opposition in a community. If you feel that I disturb you and the daily life of your community, please let me know. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like or dislike you; you're just a kid messing around on the Internet, trying to mirthfully annoy people, like millions of other children around the world. It's tolerable for now.  --Leotardo (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * When oh when will you learn that I am 79 years old?? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You kind of remind of CUR. He was the Rationalwiki pet before he left in a huff (maybe he held out a little longer and left in a minute and a huff (rimshot)).  18:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I think we should have a "like" button for the SB. This is one of those times. 19:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We sort of already do. Perhaps we should hack vote tags into LQT posts :P 19:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I get you confused with the other "idiots". You are the one who does poetry, aren't you. I thought you were trying to be mean sometimes, so my guard dog instinct kicks in. I can never tell what people are feeling on these intertubes but maybe I should error on the side of caution. Sometimes I think I might really be a concern troll. Then I have the trolls remorse. I LOVE bugging Nx. I don't know why, but it is often a waste of time if not annoying. Today you look like an innocent puppy. I would give you a scooby snack but it seems I've eaten them all. Oh yeah, I liked your nerd poem, and I don't even like poetry. ~ Lumenos (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be "err" not "error." And have you finally realized you are a troll, Lumenos? 20:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How do I say no without appearing boring? 20:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow... that was almost funny, Lily. I think I should promote you to "stupid pig". (yes, that's a promotion!) Or, maybe, I just should stick to my pottery. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I'm trollish toward Nx at times. I get the "concern troll" label because I don't do it most of the time (do I?). I've contemplated it this morning (I've been up all night) and I've concluded that the underlying problem is that I am a dork. I've betrayed all those nerds by leading the support group. I'm really nothing like them. I'm just sloppy and weird in the "humor" department. I'm an uglo-merican blissfully carrying on due to the fact that I don't exactly have to see myself when I be myself, so long as I avoid the mirrors reflecting those "humor" moments. I would have to put so much thought into de-dorkifying my thoughts before writing them. I'm expecting the few who bother to read won't agree anyway. (When I say that I have in mind the master thread. There is a good idea in there, it is just dorkified. That was where I was apparently called a troll, but in that case I felt that an inappropriate way to talk to a lady dork.) ~ Lumenos (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh and please just keep talking about me. I like that. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me! You have your toe in my spotlight. ~ Lumenos (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So how bout that weather? ThunderkatzHo! 21:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And that local sports team. Ace McfuckingAwesome 21:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I just went to the shop to get some beer and it's not as cold as it normally is in January. 21:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That just hurts me! Evil pigs! --Idiot number 59 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am watching Attenboroughs "The Private Life of Plants". Feeling pretty voyeuristic about it. Ace McfuckingAwesome 21:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds interesting! Share a fact you learned!  Share a fact you learned!  --Leotardo (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, when IN59 and Eir best friend get going, it's the best of RW gone wild! 06:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you all actually love me... you just feel admitting that would embarrass you. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You should try fucking off to see if absence makes the heart grow fonder. -- 18:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)