RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive107
Why Trolls Troll[edit]
Wonder if Marcus JimJast TK Brxbrx Nx Human took part in this study.... P-Foster (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- why you gotta hurt me like that, baby?--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Because I knew you would be the only one in that list who couldn't roll with the punches, baby. P-Foster (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- that's disturbingly true--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Because I knew you would be the only one in that list who couldn't roll with the punches, baby. P-Foster (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hard Drive Spinning[edit]
Hey Mob. My hard drive on my 4-year-old Dell (running Maverick, 30 gigs of free space) has started spinning and not stopping until I reboot. The scanning utility says it's fine, and I'm not running any unusual amount of processes. Any idea what the deal is? P-Foster (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is it clicking? ТyTalk. 20:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, and the light isn't staying lit up. P-Foster (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- So it isn't CoD and it isn't being accessed. Defrag? ТyTalk. 20:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- CoD? Will run a defrag and see what happens -- once I figure out how to defrag in Ubuntu. P-Foster (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- There is no true defrag tool for ext3. There are various approaches that approximate defragging if you have enough disk space, e.g. Shake. Leengux is not Windows, and ext3 doesn't actually need defragging - if fragmentation is giving you problems, it's because your disk is nearly full - David Gerard (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Click of Death. Ubuntu--never mind defrag, if it is still running just spinning wildly I can't think of anything off the top of my head. I'd back up though. ТyTalk. 20:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just to make sure, you're positive it's not the fan? If you have an HDD light, does it stay on/blinking? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Occaisional -- no, I'm not positive. It IS hot as fuck these last few days, so amybe the fan is putting in overtime. But I can't recall ever feeling the fan make the whole chassis vibrate like this. No ugly noises like anything is loose. No HD light unless I'm saving/opening something. P-Foster (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Uh.... hard drives are supposed to spin all the time. Or at least until a longer period of inactivity after which they spin down to conserve power. Maybe this power saving feature got deactivated. You can force a drive to spin down using "hdparm -y", and check its state using "hdparm -C" (RTFM). -- Nx / talk 21:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Occaisional -- no, I'm not positive. It IS hot as fuck these last few days, so amybe the fan is putting in overtime. But I can't recall ever feeling the fan make the whole chassis vibrate like this. No ugly noises like anything is loose. No HD light unless I'm saving/opening something. P-Foster (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just to make sure, you're positive it's not the fan? If you have an HDD light, does it stay on/blinking? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- CoD? Will run a defrag and see what happens -- once I figure out how to defrag in Ubuntu. P-Foster (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- So it isn't CoD and it isn't being accessed. Defrag? ТyTalk. 20:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, and the light isn't staying lit up. P-Foster (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- CoD--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's got a great beat and you can dance to it. I give it a "9". P-Foster (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm guessing it's not the hard-drive that's spinning - or at least that's not what you can hear.
- Some Dell laptops have a habit of running very hot and so the cooling fan runs at full speed constantly. This can be caused by a number of things but it's more often than not either dust in the radiator system preventing the processor from shedding its heat or the heat sink becoming unstuck from the processor again preventing proper cooling. In both cases the fan ends up running at high or maximum RPM. Eventually the lappy will die.
- Get your hoover (vacuum if you're a septic) and fit the finest nozzle attachment. Using the lowest setting first, vacuum all the air vents you can see on the the laptop. (Oh, turn the lappy off first!)
- You can use an air duster but the problem is they can blow any accumulated dust deeper into the laptop.
- Some people say that vacuums cause a lot of static as the air speeds past the plastic. If you're worried about that, stick some small pieces of wood to the vacuum attachment so it doesn't touch the laptop case directly. Matchsticks with the sparky bit snipped off will do. I've never had a problem personally but there's always a first time.
- If that doesn't cure the fan spinning all the time, then you might have to take it apart and re-cement the heat sink to the processor.
- (All advice given in good faith, if you fuck it up it's your fault, blah blah, etc.) Ajkgordon (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's got a great beat and you can dance to it. I give it a "9". P-Foster (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
YOU SHOULD SEE THE SIZE OF THE MASS OF CAT HAIR THAT I JUST PULLED OUT OF THE FAN. I am going to name it and teach it to do tricks. Thanks, all. Problem solved. P-Foster (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Quick advice too late to the scene - with any such problems (HDD acting weird) FIRST make the best backups you can. Then worry about removing the cat hair... lol... I blow the cigarette smoke and dust out of my boxes every year or so... ħuman
05:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I was enormously pleased by optical mice being so much more compatible with smoking - David Gerard (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Quantum Jumping[edit]
Now this site has it all! You know a website is going to be batshit crazy when it has the word quantum 41 (yes 41) times on the homepage. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 13:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Best quantum woo ever:
“”The Quantum Jumping Program is absolutely fantastic. I’ve always wanted to write so I Quantum Jumped into a parallel world and met my doppelganger who is a published author that has written many books. It was a truly awesome experience. My second experience concerned public speaking. I jumped through the doorway and found my doppelganger who is a world recognized public speaker. I learned so much that I know if I should be asked to speak, I can do so with all the flair and skill that I learned during my Quantum Jump. As I cross off items off the top of my list of ‘to do’ list, I’m adding more to the bottom. The Quantum Jumping Program has been the best investment I have made in the last 40 odd years of searching.
Please note that these results are not typical.
|
Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is an established scientific theory but jumping between worlds is not established and unlikely, see the answer to question 27:-
According to our present knowledge of physics whilst it is possible to
detect the presence of other nearby worlds, through the existence of interference effects, it is impossible travel to or communicate with them. Mathematically this corresponds to an empirically verified property of all quantum theories called linearity. Linearity implies that the worlds can interfere with each other with respect to a external, unsplit, observer or system but the interfering worlds can't influence each other in the sense that an experimenter in one of the worlds can arrange to communicate with their own, already split-off,
quantum copies in other worlds. [1]
So Burt Goldman’s stuff is entertaining Science fiction and unlikely ever to become science fact, see also Quantum woo. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- This sounded really cool. And then I saw their website. And it was just the usual boring commercial self-help "give us heaps of money and we'll make your life better" crap. Except this one contains vague references to quantum theory, but otherwise the same. (((Zack Martin)))™ 20:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- When you see an expensively designed web page covered with woo you know someone is making or expects to make lots of money out of it to repay the investment. Proxima Centauri (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Fascinating story. I myself was kidnapped by aliens and taken to their world where I had sex with another earthling while travelling through time, before dying. So it goes. Gomer (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes! Alien abduction also makes moneuy for woomeisters Proxima Centauri (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Did you meet a guy called Raël while you were there? (((Zack Martin)))™ 21:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- That was before Raël. I did know poor old Edgar Derby, who also died. So it goes. Gomer (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Did you meet a guy called Raël while you were there? (((Zack Martin)))™ 21:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Quantum leap[edit]
On a somewhat similar subject as above, where does the phrase "quantum leap" come from, when it means a great progress? From what I remember from high school chemistry, a quantum leap is actual a very short distance; an electron moving from one orbital to another--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think it means a change that is very discrete and rapid. So a transition from one state to another such as a business suddenly becoming very successful or a new model of car that is much better than its predecessor. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- A phrase forever synonymous with the sci-fi programme that was actually not too bad until the Goddidit final episode that ruined it all. Bondurant (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- The point about a quantum leap is that the electron moves from one orbit to another without going through the positions in between. It effectively dissapears from one orbit and reappears in another rather than moving between them. Hence the TV show title was - for a TV show title - reasonably appropriate. Since then it's moved into management speak as yet another piece of misunderstood scentific terminology. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the other important point is the electron is incapable of being in an intermediate position. There are a number of electron shells and an electron must be in one of them - it cannot exist in between. Therefore if it gains energy and must "leap" from one shell to the next - it can't just wander up there. BobSpring is sprung! 16:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- And even the word "leap" denotes some form of movement. We really can't use our parochial provincial language to accurately describe what happens. But hey, it's all we've got. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Mmmmm. "teleport"?--BobSpring is sprung! 21:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- And even the word "leap" denotes some form of movement. We really can't use our parochial provincial language to accurately describe what happens. But hey, it's all we've got. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the other important point is the electron is incapable of being in an intermediate position. There are a number of electron shells and an electron must be in one of them - it cannot exist in between. Therefore if it gains energy and must "leap" from one shell to the next - it can't just wander up there. BobSpring is sprung! 16:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Still, even in management speak or idiomatic parlance, "quantum leap" should be understood to mean a rapid, discrete progress without being preceded by a progress gradient. Of course it is always used in terms of progress, despite that not being in any way analogous, but I suppose you can forgive business types for not wanting to talk about quantum leaps backward. (For example, an unanticipated technological discovery allows a process to jump to a higher level of efficiency than previously thought possible without solving a number of other difficult problems.) --JoeOnSunset (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- A quantum jump is the smallest possible change and as there are no intermediate positions it has to be done rapidly. The TV series probably initiated the fad for it meaning to be a large change but Clive Sinclair and his QL computer probably cemented its position. Lily Inspirate me. 21:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not necessarily the smallest at all, if one throws the right amount of energy at a hydrogen atom, the electron could leap from the first orbital to the sixth (and then fall back, emitting a photon of equivalent energy) LOL I typed "equivalent"! And not "rapidly", as far as we know, it is instantaneous. ħuman 05:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oops no, not "instantaneous", that's why the speed of light in a medium is slower. ħuman 09:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think it may be instantaneous. Things quantum have a tendency to ignore things relative. Think of entanglement. The "spooky action at a distance" that bugged Eisenstein.BobSpring is sprung! 20:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently it takes whole nanoseconds to occur. A man could get a lot done in nanoseconds, well, OK, not a lot, he could maybe realise the smell is his toast burning. Light can go, like, a few city blocks per nanosecond or something like that. That's not to say there's actually any such thing as "half" a quantum leap, just that it's not instant. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Crap, I'm an idiot, I was thinking of microseconds. A nanosecond is not long enough for your brain to do anything significant at all, and light will barely get from the TV screen to your eye unless you've got your face up against the glass. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think it may be instantaneous. Things quantum have a tendency to ignore things relative. Think of entanglement. The "spooky action at a distance" that bugged Eisenstein.BobSpring is sprung! 20:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oops no, not "instantaneous", that's why the speed of light in a medium is slower. ħuman
- Not necessarily the smallest at all, if one throws the right amount of energy at a hydrogen atom, the electron could leap from the first orbital to the sixth (and then fall back, emitting a photon of equivalent energy) LOL I typed "equivalent"! And not "rapidly", as far as we know, it is instantaneous. ħuman
- A quantum jump is the smallest possible change and as there are no intermediate positions it has to be done rapidly. The TV series probably initiated the fad for it meaning to be a large change but Clive Sinclair and his QL computer probably cemented its position. Lily Inspirate me. 21:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- The point about a quantum leap is that the electron moves from one orbit to another without going through the positions in between. It effectively dissapears from one orbit and reappears in another rather than moving between them. Hence the TV show title was - for a TV show title - reasonably appropriate. Since then it's moved into management speak as yet another piece of misunderstood scentific terminology. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- A phrase forever synonymous with the sci-fi programme that was actually not too bad until the Goddidit final episode that ruined it all. Bondurant (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Project Idea[edit]
For those looking for stuff to write articles on, we could make sure we have everything here covered: http://www.sadanduseless.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/1098.jpg. It's a nice little periodic table of irrationality. ThunderkatzHo! 17:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Then again, it seems like we've beaten ourselves to the punch. RationalWiki:Periodic Table of Contents. But we should work on de-redding that list. ThunderkatzHo! 17:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Eira recommends: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdnZ1l5TxJk and so do I. She's to askairt to write article, and I'm too lazy. ħuman 04:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- This guy's (potholer54) utube stuff is really really good. ħuman 09:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Here's a start, if you're bored and have nothing better to do, feel free to finish it. -- Nx / talk 14:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- moved it to RationalWiki:Woo table -- Nx / talk 15:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Here's a start, if you're bored and have nothing better to do, feel free to finish it. -- Nx / talk 14:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- This guy's (potholer54) utube stuff is really really good. ħuman
- Eira recommends: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdnZ1l5TxJk and so do I. She's to askairt to write article, and I'm too lazy. ħuman
Anyone here a cartoonist?[edit]
It seems Kels has LANCB and I'd rather not ask Karapsycho. I'm creating a load of mobile games (Android) but I'm probably the worst person in the world at drawing, so I was wondering if anyone here is (or knows anyone who is) a decent pixel artist and has some time free? I initilly just need a single simple sprite sheet for two sprites with about 3 or 4 frames each so I can cough up some cash for that, but if interested in future work as well then I'm pretty sure I'll have loads of stuff to do. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 10:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe contact Kels anyway - I'm sure she'd be glad of the work. --OompaLoompa (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Poorly drawn cartoons can add a fair amount of charm to such games. They usually beat the shit of any anime style graphics. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Imagine several hundred layers below "poorly drawn" and you'd be close to what I can do. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I once drew a horse and everyone thought it was a cat so cant help you there lol. But I know some people who draw well and could ask them.
16:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC) - I have one initialism for you: XKCD --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 16:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I once drew a horse and everyone thought it was a cat so cant help you there lol. But I know some people who draw well and could ask them.
- Imagine several hundred layers below "poorly drawn" and you'd be close to what I can do. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Poorly drawn cartoons can add a fair amount of charm to such games. They usually beat the shit of any anime style graphics. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I would volunteer...although, I haven't done sprites in AGES. Since...6th grade maybe? But depending on what you're going for, I could probably do it. The only thing is 'Free Time'. I'm currently in a hellish vector battle, but I don't think I'd mind doing one in between my breaks of class and vectoring. (ó㉨ò)ﾉ♡ --Dumpling (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
GOP Debate[edit]
Anyone else watch it? I think there were two clear winners: Bachmann and Romney. Bachmann managed to be concise and hit a huge number of her talking points, plus she was able to plug her personal blandishments way more than anyone else (i.e. I am on the Intelligence Committee, I have 24 children, I was first to propose defunding Obamacare, etc.) Romney was probably a somewhat lesser winner - he made a couple of mistakes, but the thing that everyone will be discussing was the point when Pawlenty was asked if he would repeat the "Obomneycare" line that he's been trying to backpedal on, and he refused - leaving a long uncomfortable moment. More importantly, no one was brave enough to take any swings at Romney, who is just solidifying his lead.--
talk
02:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sadly I get my political news from the daily show or colbert, and I am forced to be a day behind on it :-/. Ignorance is bliss sometimes... Markedc (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- To me, the big surprise of the night was Ron Paul. I've never in my life seen him pander to the Moral Majority to get votes. By the end he was acting a bit more like himself, but in the middle bit, it was shocking. In the long run though, I think Romney won. He stayed out of the crazy for the most part, something none of the others even bothered with. He stayed close to the Christian Conservatives with the family stance, and the gay marriage thing, but didn't overdo it and offend the libertarians, managed to snake-oil his way out of ObomneyCare, and, as you noted, was so high on the pedestal that the only person less likely to be insulted on that stage was Sarah Palin. Best moment of the night? Newt's NASA comments. "IF YOU'D HAVE LISTENED TO ME, YOU'D HAVE A HOTEL ON THE MOON BY NOW!" Just my take. --
Gen. S.T. Shrink I can has rank? 05:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't notice Paul pandering. He's always been a very strongly Christian guy, and he just emphasized that a little more than his libertarian appeal (which he relies on to fundraise). He always has opposed gay marriage, right to choice, and so on.
- He continues to be the Angry Old Uncle of the GOP.
- Newt was pretty brave to struggle on through, but I think his debate prep must have suffered with the complete departure of his campaign staff and his two-week Greek vacation. He definitely shouldn't have lauded his own role in balancing the budget; were he to get to a point in the race where they actually start swinging at each other rather than being all buddy-buddy, he'd suffer from that soundbite's repetition as his competitors handily pointed out that they raised taxes at the time.--talk 22:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm just now getting to watch it. (Armed Forces Network News runs behind on stuff like this.) But the funniest thing I have seen so far is Batshit Bachmann, responding on the DADT question, stating that, as President, she would confer with the "Commanders-in-Chief". Newsflash, Dipshit! As President, you would BE the Commander-in-Chief! The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- To me, the big surprise of the night was Ron Paul. I've never in my life seen him pander to the Moral Majority to get votes. By the end he was acting a bit more like himself, but in the middle bit, it was shocking. In the long run though, I think Romney won. He stayed out of the crazy for the most part, something none of the others even bothered with. He stayed close to the Christian Conservatives with the family stance, and the gay marriage thing, but didn't overdo it and offend the libertarians, managed to snake-oil his way out of ObomneyCare, and, as you noted, was so high on the pedestal that the only person less likely to be insulted on that stage was Sarah Palin. Best moment of the night? Newt's NASA comments. "IF YOU'D HAVE LISTENED TO ME, YOU'D HAVE A HOTEL ON THE MOON BY NOW!" Just my take. --
RW drinking game[edit]
Does it count if it's DMorris and it's on TVTropes, not here? [2] ThunderkatzHo! 06:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- You made me look at TVT. I hope wombats nest in your underpants. --OompaLoompa (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why wombats? Why not, say, sharks? ThunderkatzHo! 17:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Does anyone care to fix the worst bits? I've forgotten my TVTropes password.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Adding a section about Croatia violence[edit]
I don't know if you guys have heard, but http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/709671-still-long-road-europe http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/06/13/video-croatian-gay-pride-march-attacked-by-extremists/ http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/06/violence-thousands-of-protesters-bring-abrupt-halt-to-croatia-gay-pride/
Today, they started publishing a list of gay people on their website: homopopis.com
We've got a lot of lunatic right wing people over here. Not to mention that the Mr. Morality (the pope) visited the Country a week ago. In addition to that, the Church in Croatia has a privileged status despite the country being "secular".
So ho do I cover this? essays, articles? any suggestions? Mr.Orange (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose I'd start by adding a section to the Croatia article about the politics of the nation and the direction they are headed. Aboriginal Noise Oh, what a lovely tea party! 10:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Tofu[edit]
I bought some tofu yesterday. Any suggestions on how I can make it taste less like nothing? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have consumed copious amounts of tofu in my lifetime. I disagree with your assertion that it is tasteless, though. Anyways:
- Fry it
- deep fry it
- grill it
- Do all of this along with whatever seasoning pleases you. Me, I used salt and olive oil. You may also wish to let it dry before cooking it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- The Chinese and Japanese chased the Catholics out of their countries, so they wouldn't have things like confession and Purgatory. God sent them tofu as a punishment. There is no good way of eating tofu, except maybe to get over the taste of kiviak. --OompaLoompa (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Goddamn hippies. You need lard, you do. Deep-fried lard with dripping. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Tofu doesn't taste like anything until you season it, so the preparation doesn't matter so much as what you cook it with. Frying it and putting it in a curry or something is my preferred method. DickTurpis (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Dry. Marinade in oil, garlic, spices, herbs and salt to taste. Sear on a griddle. Or season panko breadcombs with said garlic, salt, herbs and spices, coat tofu, deep-fry.--
Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 14:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Dry, blend, put in dog bowl :) Or make some hot and sour soup with it, that stuff is good. Markedc (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestions. I've just bought some reggae reggae sauce and I am marinading it in that. If that don't work I will give on tofu. I've never been able to make it taste nice. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Dry, blend, put in dog bowl :) Or make some hot and sour soup with it, that stuff is good. Markedc (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Dry. Marinade in oil, garlic, spices, herbs and salt to taste. Sear on a griddle. Or season panko breadcombs with said garlic, salt, herbs and spices, coat tofu, deep-fry.--
- Tofu doesn't taste like anything until you season it, so the preparation doesn't matter so much as what you cook it with. Frying it and putting it in a curry or something is my preferred method. DickTurpis (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Goddamn hippies. You need lard, you do. Deep-fried lard with dripping. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- The Chinese and Japanese chased the Catholics out of their countries, so they wouldn't have things like confession and Purgatory. God sent them tofu as a punishment. There is no good way of eating tofu, except maybe to get over the taste of kiviak. --OompaLoompa (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- IN KOREA~ We like our tofu like this.--Dumpling (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Tofu is more of a flavour sponge rather than a source of flavour. Either marinade it in something nice or cook it in something that already tastes nice and needs some protein. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is the protein I require. Food for me is merely functional. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just looked at the recipes Dumpling posted. I'm defo going to try the first one. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Awwww Yeaaaaaaah! (￣ー￣)--Dumpling (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- There's a Chinese restaurant in Columbia, MD called Hunan Manor. They make tofu versions of chicken, beef and pork you'd swear used to cluck, moo or oink, they come so close to the real thing. It's also a damn fine restaurant in general. They have a letter on the wall from the Chinese Embassy in DC thinking them for hosting an event there. Think on that for a minute -- it's a Chinese restaurant that's so good the Chinese Embassy takes guests there. (And they leave a city with a reasonably large Chinatown to do so.) MDB (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Awwww Yeaaaaaaah! (￣ー￣)--Dumpling (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just looked at the recipes Dumpling posted. I'm defo going to try the first one. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- It is the protein I require. Food for me is merely functional. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Tofu is more of a flavour sponge rather than a source of flavour. Either marinade it in something nice or cook it in something that already tastes nice and needs some protein. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Tofu recipes from Google Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Just don't eat tofu? There's a wide and exciting world of vegetables out there that taste like something. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- There are different sorts of tofu, as they vary by texture and firmness. "Silky" tofu is slick and soft, and easily breaks up under pressure. This sort of tofu is suitable for soups and stews, such as kimchi jiggae. But there's also firmer tofu, that will hold its shape better and has a more pleasant consistency to many Western palates. That sort is suitable for something like stuffed tofu.
- I strongly advise preparing tofu a little before you cook with it, if it's firm tofu. One of the best ways is by pressing it for a half-hour, by putting a weighted cooking board on top of it to gently squeeze out some excess liquid. This enables the tofu to slurp up and enhance the flavor from neighboring foodstuffs. Another solution is to freeze the tofu when you get it, and defrost it when you're ready to use it: this gives it a wonderful texture, and makes it perfect for a stir-fry or the like. Enjoy!--talk 22:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Neon Genesis Evangelion[edit]
Just finished watching the series, along with End of Evengelion, and I've gotta say, it was beautiful and moving but I'm confused as fuck. Like as to why Shinji strangles Asuka at the end of EoE. And how Nerv managed to get the GeoFront inside of a miniature moon beneath the earth without most of the builders/employees noticing. And whether the ends of the TV show and movie conflict or agree. Anyone else seen it/have opinions on it? ThunderkatzHo! 03:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- I've seen it twice. Once when I was really little and just watched it for the artwork, but rewatched it as I got a bit older. The story really is touching---but yes...confusing. But I think the movie is an alternate remake of the last few episodes of the show.--Dumpling (talk) 03:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- From what I recall, Anno was massively pissed off that people criticized his original ending and wanted a real conclusion to the storyline. So he gave them what they'd asked for without actually satisfying them, because the EoE "conclusion" introduces tons of apparently important new events, concepts, items, plot twists etc. that never played a role before and just lead to dozens of new questions. I've seen discussion about the new stuff that was introduced in EoE fill threads with thousands of interpretations, without anything resembling a consensus. As to my own take,
- 1) At the end, Shinji's mother gave him the opportunity to create a new world, and he came up with one that was only inhabited by him and Asuka. His attack on her is just the ultimate expression of his own self-loathing, and an opportunity to finish the series with maximum mindfuckery.
- 2) That's no moon, it's
a space stationthe egg of Lilith, which is one of these new EoE concepts that just came out of nowhere. It was the cause of the First Impact, and NERV had to build its HQ in there so they could reach and protect Lilith (the white blob). If that thing didn't put the workers off, I guess the Geofront was nothing extraordinary.
- 2) That's no moon, it's
- But really, anybody's guess is equally valid, there's nothing that could count as a definite interpretation. Many of the plot elements are just red herrings, but some can actually spark some interesting theorizing about concepts that go beyond the immediate plot of the series. Röstigraben (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, a good topic of mine. Finally, all that nerd power gets put to use! First off: from what I understood of the mindjack that was the end, he's strangling Asuka out of pure frustration. After all it's fairly well established that throughout the series that he has some sort of crush on her. Given the event when Shinji jerks off over her comatose body Then later when He goes berserk after she's killed Would probably leave him emotionally drained, left alone on a lifeless planet with the one girl that never paid attention to him. Even Rei offered a smile once or twice.
- For the Geofront, in the Movie it's glanced at that it had been there long before Tokyo was ever built, and that their construction was limited to the City Protection towers that sank into the Geofront. The Pyramid where Adam is stored, as well as most of the NERV centers for the EVAs and study, were already fabricated before the Second Impact.
- Then again, it was an open-ended series for a reason: Because no one explanation would make any closure complete. They left it wide open to make people think and abstract the reasons...another mindjack from the creators. Then again, when you mix Freud, the Kabbala, add a touch of Nietzche and shake in a Gundam-shaped drink tumbler, you really shouldn't expect anything else. - CodyH (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- I really love End of Evangelion. Attempt to merge all the souls of humanity into one? Hmm... don't I believe something similar to that? Article 2, "souls can merge and divide". Lilith/Rei as the mother to whom all souls return? Article 6, "One single soul at the beginning and end of time, from whom all souls now being have divided, to whom in the end all souls now being shall return". Lilith/Rei appearing to everyone in the form they most desire, to seduce them into absorption into her? Article 18, "she does all these things, to seduce us to return to our original unity with her". Except in my version, there's no Shinji to ruin it all at the end... but a very Maratrean movie nonetheless. (((Zack Martin)))™ 09:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- ...made-up philosophies aside, thanks to those who responded. I feel like this is one of those shows where I'm gonna be doing a lot of thinking for a while. ThunderkatzHo! 17:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- If I may recommend some other mindtrips for after Evangelion: Paprika [Dreams affecting reality], Serial Experiments Lain [Reality blurring and social issues], Elfen Lied [Acceptance, inhumane humanity, It Gets Worse], and the Ghost In the Shell series [Humanity and technology, political issues, A.I. rights issues]. - CodyH (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Serial Experiments Lain is on my list to watch, and I've heard some good things about Elfen Lied, so I guess that's going on my list too. But I'm watching Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya first as a break from the dark/deep stuff for now (at least, it seems like it won't be dark/deep). ThunderkatzHo! 00:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- If I may recommend some other mindtrips for after Evangelion: Paprika [Dreams affecting reality], Serial Experiments Lain [Reality blurring and social issues], Elfen Lied [Acceptance, inhumane humanity, It Gets Worse], and the Ghost In the Shell series [Humanity and technology, political issues, A.I. rights issues]. - CodyH (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- ...made-up philosophies aside, thanks to those who responded. I feel like this is one of those shows where I'm gonna be doing a lot of thinking for a while. ThunderkatzHo! 17:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- I really love End of Evangelion. Attempt to merge all the souls of humanity into one? Hmm... don't I believe something similar to that? Article 2, "souls can merge and divide". Lilith/Rei as the mother to whom all souls return? Article 6, "One single soul at the beginning and end of time, from whom all souls now being have divided, to whom in the end all souls now being shall return". Lilith/Rei appearing to everyone in the form they most desire, to seduce them into absorption into her? Article 18, "she does all these things, to seduce us to return to our original unity with her". Except in my version, there's no Shinji to ruin it all at the end... but a very Maratrean movie nonetheless. (((Zack Martin)))™ 09:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Serial Experiments Lain is one of my favorites, along with Paprika...Perfect Blue. Actually, a lot of Satoshi Kon's movies are my favorite (Besides Miyazaki, but that's a given). Elfen Lied was a bit hard to watch in the beginning, but loved it once I started. Ghost in the Shell series are great mindtrips. Paranoia Agent. Blue Gender. BoogiePop Phantom. Noir. RaXephon. Mushishi. Akira. Monster. Wind named Amnesia. Requiem from the Darkness. Doomed Megalopolis. DeathNote? Wow. Quite a list. Heh. But, yeah---taking occasional breaks from the deep stuff is good. Though, they are more of my favorite genre. Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya is pretty decent. --Dumpling (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Damn you, now my list is growing. The only stuff I've watched from that list is some of GitS, which I liked as cyberpunk noir though it didn't seem that mind-trippy (unless it gets more so later), and some of Death Note, which I was kind of "eh" to. Not really sure why, maybe I'll get back into it. Though the whole "I'll eat a chip" thing was a turn-off. ThunderkatzHo! 07:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Haha. Sorry~ XD I'm sure I could think of more, but I'll save that for some other time. But GitS was good [Supposedly there's some Live Version coming out with Spielberg as Director? Or maybe that's just rumor.] And yeah. Death note was an 'eh' concept for me. It was an interesting story line and the artwork proved worthy, so I read it. I much preferred the manga over the anime though. Haha. OH! CowBoy Bebop. How could I forget?--Dumpling (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I love Cowboy Bebop. And Trigun. Basically I'm a big fan of the whole space western type thing (Outlaw Star was fun too). ThunderkatzHo! 20:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Haha. Sorry~ XD I'm sure I could think of more, but I'll save that for some other time. But GitS was good [Supposedly there's some Live Version coming out with Spielberg as Director? Or maybe that's just rumor.] And yeah. Death note was an 'eh' concept for me. It was an interesting story line and the artwork proved worthy, so I read it. I much preferred the manga over the anime though. Haha. OH! CowBoy Bebop. How could I forget?--Dumpling (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Damn you, now my list is growing. The only stuff I've watched from that list is some of GitS, which I liked as cyberpunk noir though it didn't seem that mind-trippy (unless it gets more so later), and some of Death Note, which I was kind of "eh" to. Not really sure why, maybe I'll get back into it. Though the whole "I'll eat a chip" thing was a turn-off. ThunderkatzHo! 07:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Serial Experiments Lain is one of my favorites, along with Paprika...Perfect Blue. Actually, a lot of Satoshi Kon's movies are my favorite (Besides Miyazaki, but that's a given). Elfen Lied was a bit hard to watch in the beginning, but loved it once I started. Ghost in the Shell series are great mindtrips. Paranoia Agent. Blue Gender. BoogiePop Phantom. Noir. RaXephon. Mushishi. Akira. Monster. Wind named Amnesia. Requiem from the Darkness. Doomed Megalopolis. DeathNote? Wow. Quite a list. Heh. But, yeah---taking occasional breaks from the deep stuff is good. Though, they are more of my favorite genre. Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya is pretty decent. --Dumpling (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- made-up philosophies.... doesn't Anno do a lot of that? (((Zack Martin)))™ 09:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but we take it as art, not reality. ThunderkatzHo! 20:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that, when an artist comments on philosophical issues in their work, they don't actually mean it? I suspect some of the ideas of Anno, which I interpret a bit more literally, he probably means in a bit more of a psychoanalytic fashion. But, to say "it's only art, let's not take it too seriously" is an insult to the artist. (((Zack Martin)))™ 20:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm saying that, as an example, I doubt the Wachowskis believe that our world is a computer simulation. That doesn't diminish the impact of the Matrix. Perhaps I should've been clearer in my original statement by saying "made up religions aside," as it was in reference to you inserting your Maratreanism bullcrap into our discussion on NGE. ThunderkatzHo! 20:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Very few people actually claim the world definitely is a computer simulation. The main simulation advocates (most notably Nick Bostrom) suggest the probability is significant (Bostrom has suggested the probability is about one-third), and that if it is true, that is a very significant thing for us. On the other hand, simulation critics suggest the probability is very small or zero, and/or that even if it was true it would be irrelevant. Now, where do the Wachowskis sit on this spectrum? I don't claim to know, but may I suggest the Wachowskis are probably nearer to the pro than the anti end on this, even if not as close to the pro end as Bostrom or some other transhumanists.
- As to NGE, you can call my religious views "bullcrap" all you want, but I think that Anno has a much more positive attitude to religion than you do. NGE reveals Anno's obsession with religion - the Christian cross, angels, Kabbalah, the Dead Sea Scroll, Adam and Lilith, etc. Some will argue it's just atmospherics, but I think it goes deeper than that - I think Anno really is interested in religious thought, and parts of NGE are an expression of that. I'm not claiming my own religious interpretations of his work as his, they are mine - but I think he'd be much more sympathetic to the idea of trying to interpret his art in a religious way than you are. I think you diminish art by downplaying the extent to which it often expresses religious and/or philosophical ideas. (((Zack Martin)))™ 10:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm saying that, as an example, I doubt the Wachowskis believe that our world is a computer simulation. That doesn't diminish the impact of the Matrix. Perhaps I should've been clearer in my original statement by saying "made up religions aside," as it was in reference to you inserting your Maratreanism bullcrap into our discussion on NGE. ThunderkatzHo! 20:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that, when an artist comments on philosophical issues in their work, they don't actually mean it? I suspect some of the ideas of Anno, which I interpret a bit more literally, he probably means in a bit more of a psychoanalytic fashion. But, to say "it's only art, let's not take it too seriously" is an insult to the artist. (((Zack Martin)))™ 20:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but we take it as art, not reality. ThunderkatzHo! 20:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
“”"There are a lot of giant robot shows in Japan, and we did want our story to have a religious theme to help distinguish us. Because Christianity is an uncommon religion in Japan we thought it would be mysterious. None of the staff who worked on Eva are Christians. There is no actual Christian meaning to the show, we just thought the visual symbols of Christianity look cool. If we had known the show would get distributed in the US and Europe we might have rethought that choice."
|
The Christian iconography is there because, for Japan, it's Rule of Cool. Anno was depressed when he made NGE, and that element shines through. Note that still, my original comment was made because your comment had nothing to do with the topic besides reminding people that you invented a religion. ThunderkatzHo! 16:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think that is responding to those who misinterpreted Christian symbolism in NGE to say that Anno (or other members of the team) were Christian, or had specifically Christian sympathies. That's not the argument I'm making. My argument is that Anno is interested in and sympathetic to religion (religion in general rather than any particular one), and that interest/sympathy is expressed in NGE. Tsurumaki here is suggesting that the religious theme was an attempt to distinguish their product in the market; but that doesn't really conflict with what I'm saying, since multiple participants in a group product can have differing objectives, and the same participant can have multiple simultaneous objectives. Tsurumaki's identification of one reason for the religious theme doesn't exclude other reasons existing simultaneously.
- And, if the topic is X, and if Y can be related to X, then Y is on-topic, for all Y. And, I should note, my raising of the topic (similarities between NGE and my own religious beliefs) has actually started a discussion about the issue of what is the relation between religion and/or philosophy and art, both in general, and specifically with respect to NGE. (((Zack Martin)))™ 07:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Kinda like how Ken Ishikawa applied Buddhist philosophy to later incarnations to Getter Robo (Go and Shin). All comes from one, all returns to one, and in that one lies all knowledge. Go Nagai drew from Christianity to create Devilman (in which God is a dick and Lucifer is a hermaphrodite). Both those will fuck you up. Hell, I've watched Ideon: Be Invoked and that was the inspiration for End of Evangelion. I think the first time watching End of Evangelion is something of a religious experience for any viewer. No matter how many times I rewatched it, I couldn't get that same revelation I got the first time.--Thanatos (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Main thing I thought after watching lots of Evangelion was that the show-within-a-show where they have the Evangelion characters in a conventional Anime school comedy complete with fan service is the pay off. That is the world we actually live in, where monsters aren't real and the worst thing that can happen is you get embarrassed in front of your classmates. The Angels, the geofront, the EVAs are all part of an escapist fantasy. The new girl in your class isn't a clone derived from an ancient religious artefact, your hot school teacher won't be counting on you to save the world. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- My interpretation of that, was that Lilith/Rei, being essentially God, chose to create a new universe to fulfill in some way Shinji's desires. Hence them being students at a normal school, etc.; being ordinary rather than special. (((Zack Martin)))™ 10:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Main thing I thought after watching lots of Evangelion was that the show-within-a-show where they have the Evangelion characters in a conventional Anime school comedy complete with fan service is the pay off. That is the world we actually live in, where monsters aren't real and the worst thing that can happen is you get embarrassed in front of your classmates. The Angels, the geofront, the EVAs are all part of an escapist fantasy. The new girl in your class isn't a clone derived from an ancient religious artefact, your hot school teacher won't be counting on you to save the world. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Kinda like how Ken Ishikawa applied Buddhist philosophy to later incarnations to Getter Robo (Go and Shin). All comes from one, all returns to one, and in that one lies all knowledge. Go Nagai drew from Christianity to create Devilman (in which God is a dick and Lucifer is a hermaphrodite). Both those will fuck you up. Hell, I've watched Ideon: Be Invoked and that was the inspiration for End of Evangelion. I think the first time watching End of Evangelion is something of a religious experience for any viewer. No matter how many times I rewatched it, I couldn't get that same revelation I got the first time.--Thanatos (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
castration[edit]
I've been told that castration causes one to "bulk up" muscle-wise. I remember my grandparents telling me that that is one of the reasons to make oxen. I have found no such information on Wikipedia, except for an uncited statement on their Ox article. Anybody in the know wanna inform me? Thanks--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- it certainly can give you a beautiful singing voice--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Castration usually causes bulking up fat-wise, not muscle-wise. Wëäŝëïöïď
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- this seconds what Weaseloid said. You get bitch tits. I'd suggest going to the gym if you want big muscles. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I was not at all considering castrating myself. It was just a question of curiosity. I suppose oxen get their balls cut off to be more docile, then?--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- before or after puberty makes a difference. I thought before puberty you got no testosterone and thus a flabby male. Hamster (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Weaseloid is right. When my tomcat was neutered he got fatter, not more muscular. (Spaying works the same way; my female cat is fat as well.) --GastonRabbit (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Castration at any time will stem the production of testosterone & hence I think it usually causes flabbiness, although it may be more pronounced if it's before puberty. Castration before puberty will basically stop puberty from occurring; hence the squeaky voice on castrati. Some working animals like oxen or horses may be gelded to keep their mind on their business & stop them getting frisky. Some livestock, especially cattle, are also gelded for better meat. An intact bull tends to be too sinewy to make good eating & so they're mostly only kept for breeding. Pets are neutered to prevent unwanted pregnancies & hormonal behaviour, & keep them in the sort of semi-infantile state which makes for a good pet. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 23:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's also because with most types of livestock, you can't keep two or more males together as they will kill each other. If you give them the snip early on they basically become female and will live together without aggression. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 07:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Castration at any time will stem the production of testosterone & hence I think it usually causes flabbiness, although it may be more pronounced if it's before puberty. Castration before puberty will basically stop puberty from occurring; hence the squeaky voice on castrati. Some working animals like oxen or horses may be gelded to keep their mind on their business & stop them getting frisky. Some livestock, especially cattle, are also gelded for better meat. An intact bull tends to be too sinewy to make good eating & so they're mostly only kept for breeding. Pets are neutered to prevent unwanted pregnancies & hormonal behaviour, & keep them in the sort of semi-infantile state which makes for a good pet. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
- Weaseloid is right. When my tomcat was neutered he got fatter, not more muscular. (Spaying works the same way; my female cat is fat as well.) --GastonRabbit (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- before or after puberty makes a difference. I thought before puberty you got no testosterone and thus a flabby male. Hamster (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I was not at all considering castrating myself. It was just a question of curiosity. I suppose oxen get their balls cut off to be more docile, then?--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- this seconds what Weaseloid said. You get bitch tits. I'd suggest going to the gym if you want big muscles. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Castration usually causes bulking up fat-wise, not muscle-wise. Wëäŝëïöïď
Side note: I was once watching the animated series Freakazoid with a former housemate. The series had a villain called "Longhorn", who was described as having surgically altered to be like a steer. I audibly winced at that, and my housemate asked me why. The conversation then went like this:
"Do you know what a steer is?" "Apparently not." "It's a bull that's been castrated!"
He understood my wincing. MDB (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Black holes[edit]
I am not the smartest kid on the block and do not pretend to be, I just have a child like curiosity of physics and would like yall's (yes I am Texan, I can use that) thoughts or references to good reading material. The issue: What is on the other end of a black hole? Is it just a singularity of compacted mass? Did the big bang start from such a singularity? Is it possible that a black hole could be the start of a new universe? Does the quantum idea of a fuzzball really that much different? I struggle with string theory :-/ Markedc (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Candy! Senator Harrison (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Candy universe? Can I haz cheezburgerz? Markedc (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I know (which isn't very far- but that's never stopped me from keeping my mouth shut...) there is no other side. Just matter and energy cramming into a singularity.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I guess it could only truly be speculation by today's understanding and technology. What a bummer :-/. Even hawking talks about white holes though, but those seem to be black holes in reverse almost (something weird with time anyway)? Man to see the world through his eyes... Markedc (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I can recommend an essay which is informative, coherent, & doesn't afraid of anything. ωεαşεζøίɗMethinks it is a Weasel 23:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thx! :) Markedc (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I feel so thoroughly mindfucked only half way through the article that the essay suggests you read... I may just curl up in the fetal position, put on What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know? and sing baaah baaah blacksheep... Einstein had it completely fucking wrong (well not exactly right anyway)?!? It may take me a day or two to soak it up and understand it, now I just feel like a fucking moron. THX! :P Markedc (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Poor Markedc! Might I recommend here. ТyTalk. 00:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- There should be a law similar to Poe's that states it is impossible to detect true sincerity from sarcasm on the intertubes (though the joke may be on me, if it is a joke,cause some of the topics on the hubble site I am gonna read up on, but most of it seems familiar). I moved on to the main essay and skipped the other article, it sure is destroying my previous history of science, I had no idea my sunglasses were so rosy :-/. I may have put it on a slight pedestal though... Science should always be learned with a beer in hand, CHEERS Markedc (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well at least one of my idols (Sagan) was spared from this trashing.... Markedc (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- By any chance is the author on RW the same author that the essay points to for further reading (the WARSAW papers)? Is there anyone else in the field that backs this up? I mean one thing I was curios about was how Einstein could of been so perfectly correct with such little technology, and it makes since considering dark matter/energy is pretty much a substitute for 'We don't fucking know', but this is a large pill to swallow and unfortunately it seems to be a suppository... But I am just a layman in over his head Markedc (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Calling him on it doesn't work, he makes weird comments that are completely unrelated, or accuses you go being an agent of the Opus Dei. And Yes, he is cites himself IIRC. ТyTalk. 01:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- So it is a large pill to say the least? Markedc (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yep. ТyTalk. 01:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wow so my bullshit radar is working full force =D. Self references, conspiracy, no support in the field are red flags for me. I am pretty sure that the woo article on here that lists many of the flags this essay was raising for me... If you read this JJ, it is very interesting and well I kinda hope your correct, but I must guard my feeble mind from possible bullshit. I will finish reading the article though, and I fixed some typos(Firefox has a built in spell checker!) =D Markedc (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Markedc, if you are serious and are at the level of say "I quit thinking about this crap after highschool" like I am, I'd suggest almost anything by BBC Horizion on cosmology. The more recent stuff (within the last 2 years) has really opened my awareness (as it were) to what's out there, what's being said about it, why we are bothering to study it, how much of it is guesses, etc. [mvgroup] is the place to start. Sadly, US has nothing like the BBC. Damn it. :-) EnAttendantGodot2 (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Markedc, if you are serious and are at the level of say "I quit thinking about this crap after highschool" like I am, I'd suggest almost anything by BBC Horizion on cosmology. The more recent stuff (within the last 2 years) has really opened my awareness (as it were) to what's out there, what's being said about it, why we are bothering to study it, how much of it is guesses, etc. [mvgroup] is the place to start. Sadly, US has nothing like the BBC. Damn it. :-) EnAttendantGodot2 (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wow so my bullshit radar is working full force =D. Self references, conspiracy, no support in the field are red flags for me. I am pretty sure that the woo article on here that lists many of the flags this essay was raising for me... If you read this JJ, it is very interesting and well I kinda hope your correct, but I must guard my feeble mind from possible bullshit. I will finish reading the article though, and I fixed some typos(Firefox has a built in spell checker!) =D Markedc (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yep. ТyTalk. 01:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- So it is a large pill to say the least? Markedc (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Calling him on it doesn't work, he makes weird comments that are completely unrelated, or accuses you go being an agent of the Opus Dei. And Yes, he is cites himself IIRC. ТyTalk. 01:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- By any chance is the author on RW the same author that the essay points to for further reading (the WARSAW papers)? Is there anyone else in the field that backs this up? I mean one thing I was curios about was how Einstein could of been so perfectly correct with such little technology, and it makes since considering dark matter/energy is pretty much a substitute for 'We don't fucking know', but this is a large pill to swallow and unfortunately it seems to be a suppository... But I am just a layman in over his head Markedc (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Poor Markedc! Might I recommend here. ТyTalk. 00:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I feel so thoroughly mindfucked only half way through the article that the essay suggests you read... I may just curl up in the fetal position, put on What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know? and sing baaah baaah blacksheep... Einstein had it completely fucking wrong (well not exactly right anyway)?!? It may take me a day or two to soak it up and understand it, now I just feel like a fucking moron. THX! :P Markedc (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thx! :) Markedc (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I can recommend an essay which is informative, coherent, & doesn't afraid of anything. ωεαşεζøίɗ
- I guess it could only truly be speculation by today's understanding and technology. What a bummer :-/. Even hawking talks about white holes though, but those seem to be black holes in reverse almost (something weird with time anyway)? Man to see the world through his eyes... Markedc (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I know (which isn't very far- but that's never stopped me from keeping my mouth shut...) there is no other side. Just matter and energy cramming into a singularity.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Candy universe? Can I haz cheezburgerz? Markedc (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Nostalgia[edit]
After reading Terry Hurlbut's starlight blog post, we exchanged emails that led to a simple question: could he provide examples of how different areas of science would arrive at a YEC age of the Earth if you didn't start out with the answer as a constraint. He said that this would require another article to answer, and the result is here.
The results aren't really surprising - he sidesteps the actual question, promotes some pretty bizarre theories from creationists, and declares "Mission Accomplished". The irony is that in the "Final Thoughts" section he pretty much states that you can't tell the age of anything historic if you don't have a written history to correlate it against.
So it takes me a day to reply in the comments section, and that's where the nostalgia kicked in for me. I'm surprised at how much I actually missed the old back-and-forth, even though it would up with Terry going off into tangents about people in white coats coming to take the true believers away for not being "scientific enough". I'll give him credit for at least engaging in a discussion - that's something you'll never see on CP again (although given how this went it's understandable). --DinsdaleP (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- You write very well and did a good job of keeping your cool. Nice exchange.
02:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The Denialists: Relativity, water fluoridation, and climate[edit]
Interesting blog post, especially the "anti-relativity movement" of the '20s with its own echo-chamber of think tanks and "peer-reviewed" journals. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent reading, thank you. ТyTalk. 18:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- My city is to begin (or maybe not, politics being what it is) fluoridation. Given that it appears to be basically safe, and might help poorer families avoid dental problems, I had only one request: Build a decent before-and-after study into the funding. We don't have any decent studies, we have some weak post hoc analysis (based mostly on natural variation in fluoride, not before-and-after) which suggests maybe it improves some proxy measurements for dental health, we have some reasonably good quality data to suggest it increases the occurrence of harmless but unsightly marks on teeth, and we have some very weak studies that suggest it doesn't increase occurrence of various bone diseases, cancers etc. One well designed study could improve all this immensely for not very much money. But nobody (from the relevant decision making bodies) wants to do it, because a scientific study increases people's perceptions that they're being used as guinea pigs by some group of mad scientists... It could be the whole exercise is a waste of time - or it could be a cheap and effective intervention. We're really not sure. Why not find out? I despair at my government and my fellow citizens. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- See our page on water fluoridation. You can also get one of these suckers if you'd rather not drink it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Bah, now I can't even find a Cochrane review on water fluoridation (they have reviews for salt and even milk, which I didn't know anyone fluoridated) but I'm pretty sure whichever [apparently from some other outfit] review I read and cited in my letter oh so long ago, says the evidence just isn't very good. Why miss out on a chance to improve it? Sad. A water filter doesn't make any difference to the lack of a scientific study, I'm not scared of fluoride in my water (I grew up somewhere it occurs naturally) I'd just like us to take the opportunity to learn something. Oh well. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- See our page on water fluoridation. You can also get one of these suckers if you'd rather not drink it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- My city is to begin (or maybe not, politics being what it is) fluoridation. Given that it appears to be basically safe, and might help poorer families avoid dental problems, I had only one request: Build a decent before-and-after study into the funding. We don't have any decent studies, we have some weak post hoc analysis (based mostly on natural variation in fluoride, not before-and-after) which suggests maybe it improves some proxy measurements for dental health, we have some reasonably good quality data to suggest it increases the occurrence of harmless but unsightly marks on teeth, and we have some very weak studies that suggest it doesn't increase occurrence of various bone diseases, cancers etc. One well designed study could improve all this immensely for not very much money. But nobody (from the relevant decision making bodies) wants to do it, because a scientific study increases people's perceptions that they're being used as guinea pigs by some group of mad scientists... It could be the whole exercise is a waste of time - or it could be a cheap and effective intervention. We're really not sure. Why not find out? I despair at my government and my fellow citizens. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Another Ex-Muslim joins the fray[edit]
Ex-Salaam Alaikum. My name's Harun, and I'm glad to finally create an account here. Studying to become a translator, so my interests include linguicentrism, linguistic imperialism, and matters relating to 'dead language'. I hope to write a few stubs on how Islam fails with modern language. Cheers, — Unsigned, by: Harun / talk / contribs
- Ex-Salaam Alaikum brother Harun. I myself am a recovering Catholic, been on the wagon for about a decade. Are you in a secular country? Given the 'cheers' I am guessing your across the pond with those tea and biscuit eaters. :) Markedc (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Welcome, Harun. Those sound like pretty interesting topics, so I'm looking forward to your contributions!--talk 22:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wait, what's wrong with salaam alaikum? Isn't it just "peace be unto you?" Is it inherently religious?--talk 09:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm an atheist, and an American. I was Sunni, then Shi'a, then Ahmaddi before 'giving up the ghost' of religion. :) Yes, SA is non-religious, in the same way Shalom Aleikhem or Pax Vobiscum is. Cheers,
- Alaikum salaam, Harun. If you don't mind me asking, where do you come from? I spent a year in Iraq and my personal determination is that the people are wonderful but the politics suck. Nice place to visit, wouldn't want to live there. Also, that seems to be a heck of a spread among the different branches of Islam but it should provide you with quite a bit of insight in regard to the articles here. Anyway, welcome to the wiki and I'm looking forward to your contributions! Ma'a as-salaama. (My Arabic is getting rusty. To the Rosetta Stone®!) The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Quotebot for artists[edit]
When you need to write an artist's statement, save yourself some time and generate some bollocks with this site. DogP (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
How many articles[edit]
How many articles are there on RationalWiki? Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Terry Pratchett/Assisted Suicide[edit]
Show was brilliant. And once again the Daily Fail misjudges the mood of the public (compare the headline with the best rated comments). And just to add insult to injury - check out the poll results.-- Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 17:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Saw it yesterday, it was indeed brilliant. NDSP 17:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- He did it wonderfully - made me cry for the first time in a while. Despite what the anti-assisted suicide people are saying, I thought that it gave the objective facts and didn't try to hide anything. It can be watched here, though I'm not sure if iPlayer works in foreign countries.EddyP Great King! Disaster! 09:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- iPlayer doesn't work outside the UK. Mrs K and myself were both greatly moved and uplifted by the programme, she was first to say that she would like to do the same as Peter Smedley if her cancer came back with a vengeance. My only reservation is that currently a trip to Zurich is the only option for a caring send-off. I'd love to go watching the sun go down over the sea if I had a choice.
ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 12:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Copies here and here. I remember the excellent lecture he gave, via Tony Robinson a few years ago. Also worth watching if you haven't seen it. --PsyGremlinParlez! 13:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Watched it last night. Very good - made me cry though. --PsyGremlinHable! 15:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Saw this last night. I can't imagine being in his shoes, to say "I'm a writer, a thinker, a person who thrives on communication - and i've got Alzheimer." For people intelligent and creative like this, i could think of no worse hell than knowing your mind was once brilliant and is now struggling to do daily things. I'm also so frustrated that the US does not have the kinds of shows on TV that the BBC runs as a matter of course. We don't like to think, here, I guess.
En attendant Godot"«Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with! V.Nabokov» 15:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Saw this last night. I can't imagine being in his shoes, to say "I'm a writer, a thinker, a person who thrives on communication - and i've got Alzheimer." For people intelligent and creative like this, i could think of no worse hell than knowing your mind was once brilliant and is now struggling to do daily things. I'm also so frustrated that the US does not have the kinds of shows on TV that the BBC runs as a matter of course. We don't like to think, here, I guess.
- Watched it last night. Very good - made me cry though. --PsyGremlinHable! 15:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Copies here and here. I remember the excellent lecture he gave, via Tony Robinson a few years ago. Also worth watching if you haven't seen it. --PsyGremlinParlez! 13:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- iPlayer doesn't work outside the UK. Mrs K and myself were both greatly moved and uplifted by the programme, she was first to say that she would like to do the same as Peter Smedley if her cancer came back with a vengeance. My only reservation is that currently a trip to Zurich is the only option for a caring send-off. I'd love to go watching the sun go down over the sea if I had a choice.
- He did it wonderfully - made me cry for the first time in a while. Despite what the anti-assisted suicide people are saying, I thought that it gave the objective facts and didn't try to hide anything. It can be watched here, though I'm not sure if iPlayer works in foreign countries.EddyP Great King! Disaster! 09:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Good news. Bad news.[edit]
I used to be a musician, and when I was, I played in a duo with this other guy. We stopped playing together, and I didn't hear from him for a few years, until he called me up one day to tell me about how he'd found Jesus, and how I should, too. It was an awkward conversation. That was a few years ago. Didn't hear from the guy at all, until the other day, I was waiting for a bus, and he was at the same bus stop. The good news? He's not into Jesus anymore. The bad news? Astral projection. P-Foster (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- lol. great anecdote for trolling born-agains (not saying you meant it that way, just saying in could be used in such a fashion).--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I get your point. At least with Jesus, there's the potential for an intelligent discussion about a philosophical figure who is, whatever your belief/non-belief status, central to the development of modern thought. Astral projection is just silly, and there's really nothing else to say. P-Foster (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- ...Oi. D;--Dumpling (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- What the the fuck is wrong with Astral Projection? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 06:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's pretty useful in Sam & Max. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- What the the fuck is wrong with Astral Projection? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 06:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's stories like these that drive home the point that atheism really isn't a litmus test for intelligence or rationality, at least not anymore. There are a lot of people who reject religion for silly or obviously wrong reasons, such as the desire to rebel against one's family or community. On the other hand, it's good to know that we still have things like astral projection, which will always be a good litmus test for irrationality. Tetronian you're clueless 02:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- How's his music? - David Gerard (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Is this the most offensive political ad ever?[edit]
[3]? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- something like that. I wonder what those actors are telling their families--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure about offensive, but definitely the worst ever. 14:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- You don't find the racial stereotypes, the rump shaking woman with dollars on her ass, "Give us your cash bitch, give us your cash, ho" lyrics to be even mildly offensive? It was actually the point of the video was to be offensive. To what end, who knows. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- God, that sucked. I'm gonna go shoot myself in the face. SJ Debaser 14:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Urgh. That was all kinds of nasty. Worst political ad I remember is from the late 80s/early 90s, and was a ZANU-PF election ad. It started with an image of a car crashing, then came the ominous voice-over "This is one way to die. Another is to vote ZUM. Don’t commit suicide, vote Zanu (PF) and live." --PsyGremlinSnakk! 14:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's a shame that ad is so reprehensible, Ehlinger's full length animated adaptation of Flatland is pure brilliance. DickTurpis (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Urgh. That was all kinds of nasty. Worst political ad I remember is from the late 80s/early 90s, and was a ZANU-PF election ad. It started with an image of a car crashing, then came the ominous voice-over "This is one way to die. Another is to vote ZUM. Don’t commit suicide, vote Zanu (PF) and live." --PsyGremlinSnakk! 14:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- God, that sucked. I'm gonna go shoot myself in the face. SJ Debaser 14:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- You don't find the racial stereotypes, the rump shaking woman with dollars on her ass, "Give us your cash bitch, give us your cash, ho" lyrics to be even mildly offensive? It was actually the point of the video was to be offensive. To what end, who knows. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure about offensive, but definitely the worst ever.
and people think that Republicans are raciests.Civic Cat (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ummmm....that ad is actually directed against the Democratic candidate, dude. P-Foster (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Or if it was directed at me... I hate censorship and I think anything can be funny in one way or another, but mostly I was referring to the amazing production value of the video as opposed to the 'Poe's law of candidate of the year' content of the video. :) MarkeDC (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Or that could of been sarcasm, damn the censor of intention we call the internets! MarkeDC (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why are you bringing censorship into this? And why do you keep referring to parody? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Cause existence is a parody =D, can't help where my mind wonders, i let it roam free! As far as the censorship goes, this got me thinking about a question on okcupid about humor and limits. I do seem like a broken record though I have to admit, I will try to polish it up, thx. MarkeDC (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ohhhhh, okay - you're being nonsensical. Cheers to that! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well sometimes, I tend to joke a lot. Sure there are times when life should be serious but otherwise fuck it and have fun. MarkeDC (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- But indeed Cheers! I like that there is a Guinness icon at the top of here, sadly I am drinking
horse pissbud light... :-/ MarkeDC (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- But indeed Cheers! I like that there is a Guinness icon at the top of here, sadly I am drinking
- Well sometimes, I tend to joke a lot. Sure there are times when life should be serious but otherwise fuck it and have fun. MarkeDC (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ohhhhh, okay - you're being nonsensical. Cheers to that! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Cause existence is a parody =D, can't help where my mind wonders, i let it roam free! As far as the censorship goes, this got me thinking about a question on okcupid about humor and limits. I do seem like a broken record though I have to admit, I will try to polish it up, thx. MarkeDC (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why are you bringing censorship into this? And why do you keep referring to parody? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Or that could of been sarcasm, damn the censor of intention we call the internets! MarkeDC (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Or if it was directed at me... I hate censorship and I think anything can be funny in one way or another, but mostly I was referring to the amazing production value of the video as opposed to the 'Poe's law of candidate of the year' content of the video. :) MarkeDC (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ummmm....that ad is actually directed against the Democratic candidate, dude. P-Foster (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Lunar eclipse[edit]
Just watched my 2nd total lunar eclipse (to go with 1 solar) - Nature, she is a pretty beast. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 19:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Aborted Baby Cells[edit]
Found this. Abortion is such a grey area to me... But if it is already happening, is it wrong to use the cells, that would otherwise go to waste, to make shit taste better? Err I mean to use them to save lives... Markedc (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Nevermind... Seems HEK cells are grown in a lab and come from 1970 and it is not like they have to resupply them with fresh new ones (from abortions) and the company does not even say they actually use those cells. Saw it on a facebook page that is trying to get pro lifers to boycott pepsi. It would be nice for a huge breakthrough to come through (like organ replacement) so peeps will get off the back of the labcoats. Markedc (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, anytime stem cells are involved in something, it'll turn into "ZOMGZ There's aborted fetuses in it!!11!!" Much like anti-vaxers claiming vaccines contain aborted fetuses. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think that claim is somewhat old -- some vaccines have an ingredient which I believe is preserved in a culture derived from an old stem cell line. The Penn and Teller anti-vax episode covers the craziest stuff. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'll add it to my list of things to watch. Тysic semper
- I think that claim is somewhat old -- some vaccines have an ingredient which I believe is preserved in a culture derived from an old stem cell line. The Penn and Teller anti-vax episode covers the craziest stuff. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- My wife had stem cell therapy as part of her cancer treatment. In her case the stem cells were collected by filtering them out of the blood. Now there is a possibility that cancer cells can also be harvested in the process but fortunately she has an identical twin who was able to supply them for her. We're now coming up to seven years with no sign of remission. Atheistic science is fucking wonderful. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 16:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- My wife had stem cell therapy as part of her cancer treatment. In her case the stem cells were collected by filtering them out of the blood. Now there is a possibility that cancer cells can also be harvested in the process but fortunately she has an identical twin who was able to supply them for her. We're now coming up to seven years with no sign of remission. Atheistic science is fucking wonderful.
Why do we experience a subjective perspective looking out of a human?[edit]
Athiests? --85.77.68.42 (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- What, now? Perhaps you could rephrase the question in a language that you actually speak? P-Foster (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think I understand what he/she means by the question. There's no standard "atheist" response to this question - you need to delve into philosophy of mind to answer it. Someone like David Chalmers would give a very different answer than Daniel Dennett. In my not-so-humble opinion, such questions are better dissolved and dissected rather than answered - you'll probably find that the question itself is based on some flawed intuition about consciousness and/or identity. Tetronian you're clueless 02:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well shit, does anyone have a standard response to this question? Perspective has to be subjective because you are the one experiencing your own perspective and I can only emulate it. I tried being a sheep but it was not fitting :-/. I am very curious of what the "christian" response is to that o.O MarkeDC (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I imagine the Christian response has something to do with having an immortal soul. And no, I don't think there is a standard response. That's the problem with the philosophical community - they can't break out of the cognitive frameworks that caused the dispute in the first place, making it impossible for them to get the right answer or to agree on it once it's been found. (Not implying I have the answer, just complaining.) Tetronian you're clueless 02:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Start here. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Better version. Tetronian you're clueless 02:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Better-er version. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly can't argue with that! Tetronian you're clueless 03:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Because all the meat gets in the way. Flesh makes a crummy viewing instrument, it's opaque. Magnification sucks too. ТyYAUA
- Better-er version. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Better version. Tetronian you're clueless 02:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Start here. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I imagine the Christian response has something to do with having an immortal soul. And no, I don't think there is a standard response. That's the problem with the philosophical community - they can't break out of the cognitive frameworks that caused the dispute in the first place, making it impossible for them to get the right answer or to agree on it once it's been found. (Not implying I have the answer, just complaining.) Tetronian you're clueless 02:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well shit, does anyone have a standard response to this question? Perspective has to be subjective because you are the one experiencing your own perspective and I can only emulate it. I tried being a sheep but it was not fitting :-/. I am very curious of what the "christian" response is to that o.O MarkeDC (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think I understand what he/she means by the question. There's no standard "atheist" response to this question - you need to delve into philosophy of mind to answer it. Someone like David Chalmers would give a very different answer than Daniel Dennett. In my not-so-humble opinion, such questions are better dissolved and dissected rather than answered - you'll probably find that the question itself is based on some flawed intuition about consciousness and/or identity. Tetronian you're clueless 02:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I spent like 20 minutes trying to write this so I am sure as shit gonna post it! Offensive stuff removed. Ah I see, the whole soul thing. Maybe he was referring to why we see with our eyeballs as apposed to somehow mentally projecting ourselves in some fantasy world where there is a god in the sky and angels or 40 virgins or hell or giants or miracles. Well I do not think my brain has evolved that extra signal processing yet :-/ (technically it has cause our brain does throw a lot of the junk information out and subconsciously processes it and that is what causes optical illusions, if memory serves?). The real question is, if you have a complex system with billions and billions (SAGAN, though not really) of connections and billions and billions of inputs then you have an unimaginable number of possibilities. How do you know we experience a subjective perspective at all and are not just robots reacting to the crazy shit we call life in a very complex but predictable way? The first time you touched a hot surface you felt pain, you do not even remember it specifically but it happened, you then learned hot stuff sucks. A real intelligent being would of already knew that, especially if a creator was in play IMO :) MarkeDC (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Food for thought: Why do you consider a "subjective perspective" to be incompatible with "robots reacting to the crazy shit we call life in a very complex but predictable way"? Tetronian you're clueless 03:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I just spent 5 minutes trying to make an accidental anonymous edit cause I got logged out, and it made me think this page was edited so I had to go check for changes in a seemingly never ending loop until I realized what a noob I am. Yum =D. Maybe the definition of subjective perspective should be applied to any kind of electric circuit, brain or otherwise :), but my point is they may be =, not != MarkeDC (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Dear n00b, if ye mean "≠", please for to say "≠"; someone (not myself) went to all the trouble of including it in the "Insert" section (below, see right under "show preview"), the least you could do,is notice (and use?) it. 03:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
- I just spent 5 minutes trying to make an accidental anonymous edit cause I got logged out, and it made me think this page was edited so I had to go check for changes in a seemingly never ending loop until I realized what a noob I am. Yum =D. Maybe the definition of subjective perspective should be applied to any kind of electric circuit, brain or otherwise :), but my point is they may be =, not != MarkeDC (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Food for thought: Why do you consider a "subjective perspective" to be incompatible with "robots reacting to the crazy shit we call life in a very complex but predictable way"? Tetronian you're clueless 03:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I spent like 20 minutes trying to write this so I am sure as shit gonna post it! Offensive stuff removed. Ah I see, the whole soul thing. Maybe he was referring to why we see with our eyeballs as apposed to somehow mentally projecting ourselves in some fantasy world where there is a god in the sky and angels or 40 virgins or hell or giants or miracles. Well I do not think my brain has evolved that extra signal processing yet :-/ (technically it has cause our brain does throw a lot of the junk information out and subconsciously processes it and that is what causes optical illusions, if memory serves?). The real question is, if you have a complex system with billions and billions (SAGAN, though not really) of connections and billions and billions of inputs then you have an unimaginable number of possibilities. How do you know we experience a subjective perspective at all and are not just robots reacting to the crazy shit we call life in a very complex but predictable way? The first time you touched a hot surface you felt pain, you do not even remember it specifically but it happened, you then learned hot stuff sucks. A real intelligent being would of already knew that, especially if a creator was in play IMO :) MarkeDC (talk) 03:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Back to the original query: WTF does belief or nonbelief in a deity have to do with the subjective perspective of human experience? Jumping from here to yonder works much better when the operator of the jumping organism sees things in a self-centered point of view, without any need to transform coordinate systems, which is a computationally demanding task. Simple neurologic parsimony calls for the self-orientation of even a birdbrain landing without delay on a moving branch in a puffy strong crosswind. I've seen a sparrow do that, so I believe it is possible. There. Is that enough words for you, BoN 85? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 04:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Don't see why philosophy of mind should be necessary to answer the question. We have sensory functions, as do most organisms. In our case, we have sensory organs such as eyes, ears & a network of nerves, all linked to a brain which processes this information. How could we not have a subjective perspective? I can only see through my own eyes since they're the only ones hooked up to my brain, & I can only see what's within my eyes' field of vision because of the eye's physical limitations. It's hard to imagine what sort of anatomy would be required to be able to see literally anything anywhere. & The extra stuff our "mind" does, like memory, abstract thought, judgement, prediction, emotion, humour, etc. is just as subjective, since it all derives from the same basic framework: a brain + all the information passed to it by the nervous system, now & in the past, along with the information in genes. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 05:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Does your webcam experience a subjective perspective? Then you could not have a subjective perspective by being a webcam. --85.76.135.219 (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Idealism. Reality consists of minds and their qualia. Physical reality is just a set of patterns in qualia. Of course, I'm no atheist, and that isn't an answer most atheists would favour. (((Zack Martin)))™ 08:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that my webcam experiences anything, any more than my eyes experience anything. As for the computer attached to my webcam, well, it's not wired for sentience so it too doesn't experience anything. More interesting is the questionas to whether a chimp has a subjective experience, or a vole, or a bird, or an ant, or a microbe? Jack Hughes (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, from an idealist viewpoint, a webcam is not a mind, just a pattern in experience. There are however certain patterns in experience that indicate the existence of other minds. I don't think we can say definitively what animals do or do not have minds. I think humans do, and some but not all animals do. I think that the capacity for, and the actuality, of animals forming meaningful relationships with humans is an important criteria for whether they have minds. But there are some patterns-in-experience, where nothing in the pattern itself determines definitively whether it points to a mind; whether it does must be determined externally. (((Zack Martin)))™ 10:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- So, in your opinion, havng a mind is binary, it is something one does, or does not have. What an unusual viewpoint. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. The finches I'm watching at the moment show signs of having minds. Naturally there are limits to what those little minds can attend to...
- I see some loosely applied vocabulary here, which can only confuse the discussion. Take "experience" for instance: my fiddle strings experience changing tension every time I tune them up, but they are not bright enough to notice. I would like to propose a working definition of "mind" as "that which pays attention." The objects of that attention, both interior and external, may form a vast set. If they are limited to just a few stimuli, then the case for calling the responding mechanism a "mind" grows weaker. I don't mind dealing with fuzzy boundaries; that is what we all have to do, whether we realize it or not. (Authoritarians tend to prefer clear-cut distinctions, but that delusion could be fodder for another discussion.) I will be interested to see other possible definitions of "mind."
- I've noticed that hungry animals pay prompt close attention to potential sources of food. By that criterion they may be said to have minds. One could point out that some minds are dimmer and others brighter, but that way leads to notorious mismeasurements and erroneous linear thinking. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- We also need a good working definition of "subjective", or at least "subjective perspective" to answer the original question meaningfully and unambiguously. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 16:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- We also need a good working definition of "subjective", or at least "subjective perspective" to answer the original question meaningfully and unambiguously. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
- So, in your opinion, havng a mind is binary, it is something one does, or does not have. What an unusual viewpoint. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, from an idealist viewpoint, a webcam is not a mind, just a pattern in experience. There are however certain patterns in experience that indicate the existence of other minds. I don't think we can say definitively what animals do or do not have minds. I think humans do, and some but not all animals do. I think that the capacity for, and the actuality, of animals forming meaningful relationships with humans is an important criteria for whether they have minds. But there are some patterns-in-experience, where nothing in the pattern itself determines definitively whether it points to a mind; whether it does must be determined externally. (((Zack Martin)))™ 10:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that my webcam experiences anything, any more than my eyes experience anything. As for the computer attached to my webcam, well, it's not wired for sentience so it too doesn't experience anything. More interesting is the questionas to whether a chimp has a subjective experience, or a vole, or a bird, or an ant, or a microbe? Jack Hughes (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Two words that are not usually associated with each other[edit]
I always figured a riot in Canada would be about ten people angrily shaking their fists. MDB (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- For those, like me, who loath the Daily Fail - The Guardian's report. Like MDB I don't associate the Canadians with rioting but when I found out it was sport... well, that explaine it. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Buddy, I went to a fight, eh, and a hockey game broke oat. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I was in Vegas a couple of years ago, and took a helicopter tour of the Grand Canyon. They did limo rides to the heliport, and I rode with a couple of Canadian gentlemen. I was very much having to suppress the urge to laugh as I realized, "my God, they really do talk like that!" (Very nice guys, though. Quite friendly.) MDB (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Buddy, I went to a fight, eh, and a hockey game broke oat. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The power of faith: Irrational Belief[edit]
The Economist has a positive review of a new book out examining why people believe irrational things, from Truthers to Young Earthers:
MICHAEL SHERMER is a psychologist, cyclist, one-time fundamentalist Christian, founder of Skeptic magazine and, currently, the author of a monthly column with the same name published in Scientific American. He has built a professional career out of casting a rationalist’s eye over some of the wackiest beliefs that humanity has to offer.
But his latest book is more than just a display case full of specimens collected by a man fascinated by the paranormal. Mr Shermer is interested in how such beliefs come to be held, and why they can persist even in the face of what, to others, can seem to be the overwhelming evidence that contradicts them.
The first part of the book is a mixture of psychology and trendy neuroscience research that presents the evidence for Mr Shermer’s central claim: that, instead of shaping belief around painstakingly gathered, soberly judged evidence, people most often decide upon their beliefs first, and then use an impressive range of cognitive tricks to bend whatever evidence they do discover into support for those pre-decided acts of faith.
Nothing particularly revelatory in what is described, but it would be a fun read to see how he arrived at his findings. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I posted on this recently as well, but it looks like it covers a lot of the same material as these books do. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Muons detected in Japan.[edit]
Not sure where news items go anymore (I know they go somewhere) but this is rather cool and though you all might enjoy it. Muons have been officially detected by Japan! Now if only CERN can capture that damn HIggs...http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-neutrino-20110616,0,2565087.story oopsie, forgot my name 
En attendant Godot 17:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- To clarify/correct - direct muon neutrino -> electron neutrino oscillation detected. NDSP 18:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Atheist drinkers beware[edit]
Don't believe in gOD? then Alcoholics Anonymous doesn't want to help you. Apparently.. Pippa (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- AA's stance on god is tricky. let's at least settle with "they help a lot of people" and "they don't eat (human) babies"--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of the AA program." seems fine. I remember watching Penn&Teller cover it and if your in AA your supposed to hand yourself to a "higher power" (thats why the "as we understand him" bit comes in, you can make it anything you like really), and that can be anything but yourself. So handing yourself to the care of AA is in the same (not holy) spirit. 19:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think lithium-iron batteries are better. They have more memory. --87.5.101.196 (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- How can they ever hope to be the Christian Narconon if they kick out the non-believers? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think lithium-iron batteries are better. They have more memory. --87.5.101.196 (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- "Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of the AA program." seems fine. I remember watching Penn&Teller cover it and if your in AA your supposed to hand yourself to a "higher power" (thats why the "as we understand him" bit comes in, you can make it anything you like really), and that can be anything but yourself. So handing yourself to the care of AA is in the same (not holy) spirit.
Can Corsi go any lower?[edit]
During my daily rounds of checking WND, I've noticed that Jerome Corsi's best-selling expose on the birth certificate is not only available in hardcover for $4.95, but you get it autographed for free...and three copies of Whistelblower magazine. hahaha Occasionaluse (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah that's pretty funny. Whistelblower hahaha. --87.5.101.196 (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Which issues? I really wanna get my hands on this one. Nebuchadnezzar (talk)
Russian rant[edit]
It's one o'clock in the morning and i've just checked into my hotel room in Volgograd. Brand new hotel, four storeys, jacuzzi bath, no lift and only net curtains with the moon blazing like a floodlight outside. At least I've got wifi. </rant> 
ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 21:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- you're complaining because you have a great view of the night sky and a great opportunity for exercise?</semi-serious snark>--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- No i'm complaining because I got up at 5:00 this morning, have been travelling all day and would like a modicum of sleep before I have to start work. Good night. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 21:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- No i'm complaining because I got up at 5:00 this morning, have been travelling all day and would like a modicum of sleep before I have to start work. Good night.
- I was kidding. Is there a window in the bathroom? Perhaps you can sleep there? :D--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- And it's the middle of summer. Excellent! Not sure how much the White NIghts effect Volgograd, but even if it's "some", that's not so good. En attendant Godot 21:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- And it's the middle of summer. Excellent! Not sure how much the White NIghts effect Volgograd, but even if it's "some", that's not so good.
- I was kidding. Is there a window in the bathroom? Perhaps you can sleep there? :D--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Help a stupid newoldbi?[edit]
I managed to make a mainspace page called "Editing User talk:WaitingforGodot/Arch1" by copy/pasting the "edit" along with the new page name... which therefor ended up in Mainspace instead of "user talk" or user pages. problem is i don't remember how to rename pages. Can anyone help me with this silly copy/paste error?En attendant Godot 21:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- On the top right, to the left of the search bar, there's a down arrow, hover your mouse over it, then click relocate. -- Nx / talk 21:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's changed since you were last around. It used to be a visible tab but is now on the dropdown menu. Same with deletion. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 05:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's changed since you were last around. It used to be a visible tab but is now on the dropdown menu. Same with deletion. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
The Foolishness of Fundamentalism and Hard Atheism[edit]
Just a few days ago, I was arguing passionately with a group of right-wing fundies and a cadre of militant atheists on CNN's BeliefNet blog. I tried to show them the relative immaturity and foolishness of their logic, but they failed to grasp my meaning. I have encountered a couple of hardline atheists (not the infamous Gang of Four) on this site, but they jump the gun on the following points in their discussion:
"Religion is harmful to society." Yes, it is true that people have committed atrocities in the name of deities, but nearly the same amount of people have felt the urge to help their fellow mankind because of their religion.
"Religion cannot coexist with evolution." How is it impossible that evolution was set into motion by supernatural means?
"Religious people are intolerant." Not true under all circumstances. I certainly do not believe that you are consigned to hell, and many other liberal/free-thinking Christians agree. I do not find my beliefs to be superior to those of almost any other religion.
"I cannot respect religion, because science is correct." If you know that you are right (about everything), and if everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, what makes you different than some of my fundie friends (who say that you will burn in Hell if you think that gays should marry)?
"Religion is a fable, and it is dangerous to those who follow it." I know someone who has a terrible disability and has had terrible hardship in life, but persists on (by the Grace of God, they claim). You cannot deny that religion, fable or not, can be beneficial to its followers.
On an ending note, I was shocked to see a Userbox on this site that said:
"This user does not believe in so-called tolerance when it conflicts with truth."
This statement could have easily been ripped straight from some Conservapedia editor's page, just with a different meaning. I plead for some of the "hard" atheists to tolerate religion, even if they do not respect it.--Lefty (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Strawmanning pretty hard there Lefty, for a guy who complains about the relative immaturity and foolishness of other people's logic. Let's take a look.
- "Religion is harmful to society." - This is a complex assertion that goes way beyond numbers of crime by religious people vs numbers of good deeds. As well as what can observed in how societies behave, there's also the abstract consideration of whether it's healthy for people to devote so much passion to and set store by something so insubstantial. Wouldn't it be better for people to do good deeds out of sincere care for people rather than for deities?
- "Religion cannot coexist with evolution." - Does anybody really say this? Outside of the most ignorant Bible Belt backwoods? Evolution is a biological process; religion is a societal meme. Why should one prevent the other?
- "Religious people are intolerant." - Not all. But religions, at least the more conventional ones, do tend to foster a mindset in which there are certain "rules" and many things to be judgemental or ashamed about. It's not unique to religious people or common to all religious people, but it does tend to go with the territory.
- "I cannot respect religion, because science is correct." - OK. "If you know that you are right (about everything), and if everyone who disagrees with you is stupid" - Is this really what you think of people who apply knowledge based on science? Oh dear. "what makes you different than some of my fundie friends (who say that you will burn in Hell if you think that gays should marry)?" That should be pretty obvious. Your fundie friend is making an assertion based only on some ancient texts & some personal or societal judgements, which isn't readily falsifiable & has no scientific basis. The assertion that "science is correct", though rather vague, is basically true: knowledge derived from science tends to be correct, because it has been or can be proven or falsified empirically. Science does not assume that we know everything, and is adapted as we make new discoveries, but it is a reliable source of solid knowledge, something which religion is not.
- "Religion is a fable, and it is dangerous to those who follow it." - Back to point one: religion may inspire people rather than harming them, but that doesn't determine whether it's a rational basis for behaviour. If people's decisions are based on perceived supernatural factors as much as they are on observable factors, there are all sorts of risks, regardless of anecdotal examples of people inspired by religion.
- WeaseloidMethinks it is a Weasel 00:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I am not applying the above statements to all atheists, but to hardline atheists. Many of them talk about the post-religious age, and joke about the stupidity of religions (which they often have poor understanding of due to quote-mining). For example, the article here about Buddhism claims that the religion teaches that a woman must be reincarnated as a man before enlightenment. This is simply false, and is the result of misinterpreting a Buddhist story: the woman in the story became a man just to prove to a group of sexist monks that she too could be enlightened. Buddha himself even said that women could be enlightened! (If that isn't enough proof, a branch of Buddhism explicitly states in its holy text that women are equal to men.) I am just noting that to prove religion's "detrimental" effect on society, some hardline atheists ignore facts to prove a point.--Lefty (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Re comment below about the userbox, Bob is right. See CP:Template:User tolerancecompromisetruth. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 10:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Re comment below about the userbox, Bob is right. See CP:Template:User tolerancecompromisetruth. Wëäŝëïöïď
- I am not applying the above statements to all atheists, but to hardline atheists. Many of them talk about the post-religious age, and joke about the stupidity of religions (which they often have poor understanding of due to quote-mining). For example, the article here about Buddhism claims that the religion teaches that a woman must be reincarnated as a man before enlightenment. This is simply false, and is the result of misinterpreting a Buddhist story: the woman in the story became a man just to prove to a group of sexist monks that she too could be enlightened. Buddha himself even said that women could be enlightened! (If that isn't enough proof, a branch of Buddhism explicitly states in its holy text that women are equal to men.) I am just noting that to prove religion's "detrimental" effect on society, some hardline atheists ignore facts to prove a point.--Lefty (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- "This statement could have easily been ripped straight from some Conservapedia." Heh, it was (at least as far as I know). I'll also add to a few of these points (not specifically addressing anyone):
- "Religion is harmful to society." I think any demonstrably false beliefs can be harmful to society in some way. The bone I have to pick with the hardliners (usually of the Hitch/Harris variety) is that they way overstretch with their arguments in some areas. Specifically, moderates are often portrayed as "enablers" for the zealots, which is a sort of collectivistic argument that pins responsibility for unethical activity on people that often have nothing to do with it (and is ironically often an argument used by the fundies to paint us as "enablers" for communism/nazism/insert bogeyman here). Speaking of which, Peter King's ongoing Muslim witch hunt is a perfect example as his argument basically takes the same form, but all the case reports and studies demonstrated that Muslims were actually the informants who tipped off the police about terror plots in a large number of cases.
- "I cannot respect religion, because science is correct." - Define "respect." To me, religion is in the same bin as all other crank ideas. I can and do, however, respect religious people excepting those that use it as an excuse to oppress others. It's the inverse stopped clock rule -- you can be a genius in many areas and a complete crank in another (and this includes far more than just religion -- Objectivism, for example, is a form of atheist crankery). As Michael Shermer likes to say, intelligence "makes one skilled at defending beliefs arrived at for non-smart reasons." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Atheists are no more immune from woolly thinking than anybody else. but I can't help feeling that there is an element of balance fallacy in the title of this section.BobSpring is sprung! 08:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- To go back to where we came in - you quote as a BAD THING (tm) This user does not believe in so-called tolerance when it conflicts with truth. - So, I should tolerate those who use their religion to preach that the earth is 6,000 years old? Sorry, they're wrong and I will not tolerate that being taught in schools. This is the other half of "Teach the controversy" - I will not tolerate "teach the controversy" when the controversy has been manufactured to push a religious view point. So, I proudly state that this user does not believe in so-called tolerance when it conflicts with truth. Similarly I also will not tolerate those who use their religious viewpoints to persecute those whose sexuality is not to their liking. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Define tolerance/intolerance. It's a broad spectrum, starting with mild social opprobium at one end, moving on through censorship, job loss, etc., on to imprisonment, torture, and ending in execution at the other. I'm quite sure when you Jack say you don't want to "tolerate" creationism, you are standing at the mild end of that spectrum. But do you see the ambiguity in the statement? (((Zack Martin)))™ 00:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Jack didn't write that he would not tolerate creationism: "I will not tolerate that being taught in schools." "I will not tolerate "teach the controversy" when the controversy has been manufactured to push a religious view point " Read what he wrote, not what you think he wrote. I imagine that Jack is totally OK with people believing whatever stupidity they want, it's the thrusting it on the innocent and unlearned that he objects to. Sorry if I've misread you, Jack. Pippa (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- But he was defending the general statement "This user does not believe in so-called tolerance when it conflicts with truth", which does not contain those clarifications. Osama bin Laden might endorse that statement, and say that no false (i.e. un-Islamic) religions should be tolerated. It's not his views I'm objecting to, its his support for that particular (very broad, vague and ambiguous) wording of them. (((Zack Martin)))™ 11:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Kindof missing the point that truths derived from informed research & sound application of the scientific method are not comparable to the kind of unverifiable "truths" promoted by religions. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Kind of missing the point that as a social value, we should encourage tolerance of what we personally consider to be false, in the hope that others will follow our example and also tolerate what they personally consider to be false? I think that's a safer course than demanding that truth alone be tolerated, since others will have different ideas of what truth is, and if you won't tolerate their ideas, why should they tolerate yours? "But mine are true and theirs are false"? Everyone believes that. (((Zack Martin)))™ 21:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Balance fallacy much? WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- How about the saying (commonly misattributed to Voltaire), "I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say"? Or here's another well-known saying, by Martin Niemöller, "First they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me". Compared to that, we have "I won't defend what you say, because it's false" and "They've come for the communists, but I'm not going to speak up for them, because communism is false". I support tolerance of all viewpoints, even those I consider false; and I hope others would feel the same way. (((Zack Martin)))™ 00:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Godwin's Law much? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 12:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'll stick some random two word label on this, thinking that substitutes adequately for actual engangement with the argument, much? (((Zack Martin)))™ 13:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'll pull some tired, trite & out of context sayings out of the dictionary of quotations, thinking that substitutes adequately for actual engagement with the argument, much? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 17:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Saying much too much, much? (((Zack Martin)))™ 10:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'll pull some tired, trite & out of context sayings out of the dictionary of quotations, thinking that substitutes adequately for actual engagement with the argument, much? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
- I'll stick some random two word label on this, thinking that substitutes adequately for actual engangement with the argument, much? (((Zack Martin)))™ 13:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Godwin's Law much? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
- How about the saying (commonly misattributed to Voltaire), "I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say"? Or here's another well-known saying, by Martin Niemöller, "First they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me". Compared to that, we have "I won't defend what you say, because it's false" and "They've come for the communists, but I'm not going to speak up for them, because communism is false". I support tolerance of all viewpoints, even those I consider false; and I hope others would feel the same way. (((Zack Martin)))™ 00:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Balance fallacy much? Wēāŝēīōīď
- Kind of missing the point that as a social value, we should encourage tolerance of what we personally consider to be false, in the hope that others will follow our example and also tolerate what they personally consider to be false? I think that's a safer course than demanding that truth alone be tolerated, since others will have different ideas of what truth is, and if you won't tolerate their ideas, why should they tolerate yours? "But mine are true and theirs are false"? Everyone believes that. (((Zack Martin)))™ 21:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Kindof missing the point that truths derived from informed research & sound application of the scientific method are not comparable to the kind of unverifiable "truths" promoted by religions. Wēāŝēīōīď
- But he was defending the general statement "This user does not believe in so-called tolerance when it conflicts with truth", which does not contain those clarifications. Osama bin Laden might endorse that statement, and say that no false (i.e. un-Islamic) religions should be tolerated. It's not his views I'm objecting to, its his support for that particular (very broad, vague and ambiguous) wording of them. (((Zack Martin)))™ 11:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Jack didn't write that he would not tolerate creationism: "I will not tolerate that being taught in schools." "I will not tolerate "teach the controversy" when the controversy has been manufactured to push a religious view point " Read what he wrote, not what you think he wrote. I imagine that Jack is totally OK with people believing whatever stupidity they want, it's the thrusting it on the innocent and unlearned that he objects to. Sorry if I've misread you, Jack. Pippa (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Define tolerance/intolerance. It's a broad spectrum, starting with mild social opprobium at one end, moving on through censorship, job loss, etc., on to imprisonment, torture, and ending in execution at the other. I'm quite sure when you Jack say you don't want to "tolerate" creationism, you are standing at the mild end of that spectrum. But do you see the ambiguity in the statement? (((Zack Martin)))™ 00:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- To go back to where we came in - you quote as a BAD THING (tm) This user does not believe in so-called tolerance when it conflicts with truth. - So, I should tolerate those who use their religion to preach that the earth is 6,000 years old? Sorry, they're wrong and I will not tolerate that being taught in schools. This is the other half of "Teach the controversy" - I will not tolerate "teach the controversy" when the controversy has been manufactured to push a religious view point. So, I proudly state that this user does not believe in so-called tolerance when it conflicts with truth. Similarly I also will not tolerate those who use their religious viewpoints to persecute those whose sexuality is not to their liking. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Atheists are no more immune from woolly thinking than anybody else. but I can't help feeling that there is an element of balance fallacy in the title of this section.BobSpring is sprung! 08:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
But that's just silly. I tolerate people, who may be well-meaning. I do not tolerate their silly beliefs (or mine). ħuman 05:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Tolerate the believer but not the belief — isn't that a bit of a hair-splitting distinction? (((Zack Martin)))™ 06:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, not at all. For instance, you are probably a fairly decent person - tolerable by any social standards - but your beliefs are just ridiculous and not worthy of consideration, especially tolerance if you wanted to teach them to children in public schools. Do you see the difference? You might be a nice, tolerable, person, but your ideas aren't. Because they are unsupported, not because I don't like them. ħuman 09:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Tolerating, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses, as people is relatively easy. I'm sure that, in general, they're wonderful warm human beings. However, this does not conflict with the truth. However, the moment they demand the right to have their ridiculous fairy tales accepted as a "truth" that should be taught to children - then we have the conflict and my tolerance ends. Would you be happy with your children being taught chemistry by a teacher who believed in alchemy under his (or her) right to hold her beliefs? Would you tolerate money being spent under the NHS on acupuncture? Should your taxes be spent investigating UFOs? My personal bug bear is so called psychics. Should I tolerate them because it's "harmless fun" or despise them as blood sucking parasites that prey on the emotionally vulnerable? Free speach is all very well but it has to have it's limits. Oh and the "when they came for..." quote is irrelevant here. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I think it would do us good to be a bit more precise about what we are talking about. Teaching religion in public schools? My personal view is that it is a good subject to teach in public schools, but in a purely neutral manner, as in a comparative religion course, i.e. here are the major religions of the world, and here is atheism, and we aren't going to tell you which of them is right, just teach you the basics of each of them, and you make up your own mind. That said, if there is going to be a "special religion course" in public schools, i.e. teaching a particular religion rather than teaching religion in general (as there is in many states of Australia), then I don't have a major objection so long as (1) the program is open to all religions, including minority religions, (2) parents have a right of choice and opt-out, and children whose parents opt-out totally are given meaningful alternative activities, as opposed to boredom or ostracism. Furthermore, I have no objection to private religious schooling, so long as public secular schooling is readily available and of similar quality.
- But when you say the moment they demand the right to have their ridiculous fairy tales accepted as a "truth" that should be taught to children, do you mean just in public schools? Or in private schools? Or in the private opinion of parents? Would you ban religious groups from running private schools? Would you police what parents are teaching their children, to ensure they aren't teaching anything you consider nonsense? I think, some parents are better than others, but unless what a parent is doing is blatantly abusive or neglectful, we should permit parents to raise their children as they choose, even with unconventional ideas or in unconventional ways. Likewise, minorities (whether religious, political, ethnic or otherwise) should be free to operate their own private schools, and a reasonable accomodation should be sought between the specific demands of the ethos of a particular private school, and the curicular standards of the wider society. I am fearful that the alternative is the beginning of tyrrany.
- In conclusion, I would still advocate tolerance rather than intolerance of false ideas. I think we need to draw some sensible boundaries, between society's undeniable need to enforce some common standards, and the benefits of tolerating diversity, including minorities with non-mainstream views. But I don't think a focus on truth v.s. falsehood best helps us to draw the most appropriate boundary line here. (((Zack Martin)))™ 12:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's a little out of date but the principle still stands. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Would you object to a comparative religion class in public schools? Would you object to a period set aside in public schools to teach specific religions, subject to parental choice/option, equal access for all religions, including minority religions and atheism/humanism/etc., and meaningful alternative activities for children opted out totally? Would you object to the existence of private religious schools, without government funding? Would you object to parents teaching their kids whatever wacky beliefs they have, whether in the privacy of their own homes, or through a church/Sunday School/etc? Even if any of the above involve the teaching of creationism? If you say you'll accept any of the above, then you are tolerating beliefs you consider false, including potentially creationism. (((Zack Martin)))™ 13:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- This tolerating thing can be tough. It always sounds nice to be "tolerant" but I rather think there need to be limits. I have met some people here in the Basque country who are pretty supportive of ETA's bombings and murders. It's kinda hard to be "tolerant" of these ideas. I know other people who think the Fascist dictator Franco was a pretty cool chap and the society would be better off if we returned to his ways. Should I feel more tolerant towards there people?--BobSpring is sprung! 13:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Tolerance is not the same as silent acquiescence, I tolerate the existence of religions, but that doesn't mean I silently agree to what they say. My tolerance of religious co-workers doesn't preclude discussion of their beliefs and why I think they're being ridiculous. People can believe what they want, but the moment they choose to insert that belief into the real world they need to support it. If one thing is true and the other not, a compromise is not halfway between the two. Natman (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- The question is Bob, if an ETA-supporter, or Francoist, is teaching those beliefs to their children, what should the state do? Forcibly intervene to stop them? Or let them do it? Is support for ETA or glorification Franco sufficient justification for removal of one's children? (((Zack Martin)))™ 14:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I thought we were talking about personal feelings of tolerance. But in the case of state intervention in the above two, the cases are slightly different. Fascism is not the kind of political philosophy which most modern states would want taught to children, but at some point I suppose you have to respect parents' rights. It's not actually illegal to be a fascist. However killing people is illegal - and that's what ETA does. And being a member of ETA is illegal. So if a parent said (or were stupid enough to say) that they were training their children to kill people then I imagine that the state would have an opinion. BobSpring is sprung! 20:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Tolerance is a very vague and broad term, which refers to all sorts of things, ranging from the purely private to the public sphere, etc. Which was part of my point - if you are going to express opposition to tolerance, you should be careful to specify carefully what sort of tolerance you are opposing.
- As to your reference to the Spanish situation, Franco's regime killed far more people than ETA ever has or will (the Civil War?), so it would seem strange to argue that raising your kids pro-Franco is OK, but raising them pro-ETA isn't. I am sure there are very many radical Basque nationalist parents who raise their children to believe that ETA are heroic freedom fighters in the struggle against Spanish oppression. Are you suggesting all these parents should have their children taken away? (((Zack Martin)))™ 10:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- When did I suggest that raising your kids to be pro-Franco would be OK? I thought I said the exact opposite. The difference is in the attitude of the state. Because if a Basque were to refer to ETA as "heroic freedom fighters" then having their children taken away would be the least of their worries - they would be looking at three-year jail sentence for supporting terrorism.
- But I've not got to say that I'm rather baffled by where this conversation is going. My original point was that although being "tolerant" sounds nice and good and liberal it's pretty obvious that there are plenty of things that we don't want to tolerate. --BobSpring is sprung! 13:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I've seen on TV recently footage of protesters celebrating the release of José ‘Gatza’ Sagardui from prison. They may have been a bit careful about how they said it, but it was obvious what they meant. I kind of doubt they'd be sending such a large crowd to prison.
- The whole discussion started with the quote "This user does not believe in so-called tolerance when it conflicts with truth.". I agree that there are some things which should not be tolerated, but the truth or falsehood of an idea is in many cases not a relevant criteria. For example, freedom of speech includes the right to speak falsehoods, and freedom of belief includes the right to believe falsehoods, freedom of religion includes the right to believe false religions. When you limit those freedoms to truth only (for someone's idea of what is true), then the freedom is obliterated. (((Zack Martin)))™ 00:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I thought we were talking about personal feelings of tolerance. But in the case of state intervention in the above two, the cases are slightly different. Fascism is not the kind of political philosophy which most modern states would want taught to children, but at some point I suppose you have to respect parents' rights. It's not actually illegal to be a fascist. However killing people is illegal - and that's what ETA does. And being a member of ETA is illegal. So if a parent said (or were stupid enough to say) that they were training their children to kill people then I imagine that the state would have an opinion. BobSpring is sprung! 20:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- The question is Bob, if an ETA-supporter, or Francoist, is teaching those beliefs to their children, what should the state do? Forcibly intervene to stop them? Or let them do it? Is support for ETA or glorification Franco sufficient justification for removal of one's children? (((Zack Martin)))™ 14:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Tolerance is not the same as silent acquiescence, I tolerate the existence of religions, but that doesn't mean I silently agree to what they say. My tolerance of religious co-workers doesn't preclude discussion of their beliefs and why I think they're being ridiculous. People can believe what they want, but the moment they choose to insert that belief into the real world they need to support it. If one thing is true and the other not, a compromise is not halfway between the two. Natman (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- This tolerating thing can be tough. It always sounds nice to be "tolerant" but I rather think there need to be limits. I have met some people here in the Basque country who are pretty supportive of ETA's bombings and murders. It's kinda hard to be "tolerant" of these ideas. I know other people who think the Fascist dictator Franco was a pretty cool chap and the society would be better off if we returned to his ways. Should I feel more tolerant towards there people?--BobSpring is sprung! 13:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Would you object to a comparative religion class in public schools? Would you object to a period set aside in public schools to teach specific religions, subject to parental choice/option, equal access for all religions, including minority religions and atheism/humanism/etc., and meaningful alternative activities for children opted out totally? Would you object to the existence of private religious schools, without government funding? Would you object to parents teaching their kids whatever wacky beliefs they have, whether in the privacy of their own homes, or through a church/Sunday School/etc? Even if any of the above involve the teaching of creationism? If you say you'll accept any of the above, then you are tolerating beliefs you consider false, including potentially creationism. (((Zack Martin)))™ 13:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's a little out of date but the principle still stands. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Tolerating, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses, as people is relatively easy. I'm sure that, in general, they're wonderful warm human beings. However, this does not conflict with the truth. However, the moment they demand the right to have their ridiculous fairy tales accepted as a "truth" that should be taught to children - then we have the conflict and my tolerance ends. Would you be happy with your children being taught chemistry by a teacher who believed in alchemy under his (or her) right to hold her beliefs? Would you tolerate money being spent under the NHS on acupuncture? Should your taxes be spent investigating UFOs? My personal bug bear is so called psychics. Should I tolerate them because it's "harmless fun" or despise them as blood sucking parasites that prey on the emotionally vulnerable? Free speach is all very well but it has to have it's limits. Oh and the "when they came for..." quote is irrelevant here. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, not at all. For instance, you are probably a fairly decent person - tolerable by any social standards - but your beliefs are just ridiculous and not worthy of consideration, especially tolerance if you wanted to teach them to children in public schools. Do you see the difference? You might be a nice, tolerable, person, but your ideas aren't. Because they are unsupported, not because I don't like them. ħuman
My .02, I consider myself a hardline atheist personally, but my views on personal freedom is what keeps my ambitions of a religion free world at bay... In other words to each their own just don't force it on me and we can live in peace. Markedc (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Not sure myself, I think everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and actions according to that. education about faiths is always good, and tolerance of faiths (not always acceptance, but tolerance). Preaching to others unasked, demagogy, and scare tactics makes a person a dickhead IMHO. Violence as terrorism by any faith is never acceptable as an act of faith, or against faith alone, by anyone. ~ Subsound ~ 16:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Here, I wrote a whole essay. Hope that helps. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Movies[edit]
Whenever I see a good movie, I refrain from watching it again for a month or four. I haven't touched Inception since New Years and Blade Runner since December. Yes, I know I have rather terrible tastes in movies. But does anyone else do that? Wait in between movie viewings? Ahh, maybe this is just clutter. Sorry! HollowWorld (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think few people will watch the same movie twice in a row.--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- When I first rented Hypercube I watched it twice that night, then bought the used DVD and watched it every night for a week or more. I watched Naked Lunch for several straight MONTHS. Watched Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas for weeks on and off. Bricks is, as usual, just typing, not saying anything useful. ħuman 07:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- When I first rented Hypercube I watched it twice that night, then bought the used DVD and watched it every night for a week or more. I watched Naked Lunch for several straight MONTHS. Watched Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas for weeks on and off. Bricks is, as usual, just typing, not saying anything useful. ħuman
- After Inception I needed a few days to recover anyway. My friend called it a Matrix with Better Actors. HollowWorld (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- People watched Titanic repeatedly. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I saw Animal House four times in the first week it came out - but then I'm a sad git who loved that movie. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I could make a joke about men just watching it for the wet nightgown bit and women watching it for "I'LL NEVER LET GO JAAAAACCCKKK". Also, at the end Leonardo goes under the water, in Inception he wakes up on a beach. It's a movie within a movie. Gaaaasp. HollowWorld (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to see Super 8 tonight. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Post here if it is any good? HollowWorld (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Will do! I'm going to the only movie theater in NYC that has captions (my boyfriend is deaf), and it's surprisingly simple technology. They basically keep one of those rolling ticker news things in the back of the theater but the words are backwards. The moviegoer is given a smoked glass screen on a stick that is planted in the cup holder, so that its mirror reflection shows the words being spoken. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- What's the verdict on the movie? HollowWorld (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks to my slightly compulsive buying habits, I have well over a hundred movies on DVD I haven't watched yet, some of which I've had for years. When I do watch something I've seen before, especially recently, I feel faintly guilty about it, knowing I've got a stack of unwatched movies which I'll probably never quite catch up with. Nevertheless, a film that I really love I will come back to after a few months, sometimes sooner. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 21:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks to my slightly compulsive buying habits, I have well over a hundred movies on DVD I haven't watched yet, some of which I've had for years. When I do watch something I've seen before, especially recently, I feel faintly guilty about it, knowing I've got a stack of unwatched movies which I'll probably never quite catch up with. Nevertheless, a film that I really love I will come back to after a few months, sometimes sooner. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
- Post here if it is any good? HollowWorld (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to see Super 8 tonight. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- People watched Titanic repeatedly. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if you could use those new-fangled 3D projectors to do closed captions on 2D movies. Make some of the pixels at the bottom of the screen polarized so the addition of the two projections gives the regular pixel, but the omission of one of the projections gives closed captions. It'd take a little bit of computational work up front, but nothing serious. Then you could just give deaf people polarised glasses to see the captions. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- That is really not a bad suggestion for movie theaters, but considering their indiscriminate financial raping of their customers at the concession, I think it would fall on deaf ears Markedc (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- You can't blame them, how else at movie theatres supposed to make money? Most of the ticket money isn't going to them, if you think about it. HollowWorld
- Very true, but it seems the institution as a whole has not stayed current with technology. Oh I dream of the day when I can watch a new release streamed to my living room on NetFlix. Markedc (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Then you're putting people out of jobs. HollowWorld (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Very true, but it seems the institution as a whole has not stayed current with technology. Oh I dream of the day when I can watch a new release streamed to my living room on NetFlix. Markedc (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- You can't blame them, how else at movie theatres supposed to make money? Most of the ticket money isn't going to them, if you think about it. HollowWorld
(talk) 13:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Then I already am :), I have not been to a theater in a very long time and I just wait for a movie to be at blockbuster or on netflix. To me it almost compares to prohibition and stimulates illegal downloads. For instance, the music industry waited a long time until they allowed their content to go digital. If they would of adopted it early they could of banked instead of suing Napster and single mothers. Of course it is their content and they can do what they want and I will comply, but if they were smart they would listen to consumers, like me, and not get left in the dust of the past =D Markedc (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- On a side note, I hope my deaf ears pun did not go unnoticed, it made me lulz in my head Markedc (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I liked it. I'm not deaf, but my boyfriend has to deal with a lot of frustration with it. It seems odd that in a city of 18M people, there is only one theater--and not even one of the nice ones--that has put up what is simple technology (a backwards red ticker and a mirror). But apparently there isn't enough money in it. It's not like when I go to the caption theater I see a couple rows worth of those smokey mirrors being used by deaf patrons. Movie tickets in NYC are now $13.00, with no dollar theaters and no matinee prices. So I'm looking forward to on demand new releases as well, and they'll be here soon enough because it will vastly expand the initial market for movies. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- On a side note, I hope my deaf ears pun did not go unnoticed, it made me lulz in my head Markedc (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Then I already am :), I have not been to a theater in a very long time and I just wait for a movie to be at blockbuster or on netflix. To me it almost compares to prohibition and stimulates illegal downloads. For instance, the music industry waited a long time until they allowed their content to go digital. If they would of adopted it early they could of banked instead of suing Napster and single mothers. Of course it is their content and they can do what they want and I will comply, but if they were smart they would listen to consumers, like me, and not get left in the dust of the past =D Markedc (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Super 8[edit]
It was okay. It combines Cloverfield, The Goonies and E.T. It was well-made, cute story, but it didn't blow me away. Would I recommend it? I guess sort of, but it would also make a decent rental. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Alrighty, I'm going to wait until it comes out on DVD then. HollowWorld (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Literally any problem you have solved. Forever. For a nominal fee.[edit]
Got this posted through my door this morning. Bloke's name and contact details removed to protect his identity, but he has an Asian name, and living in an area where Indians and South/East Asians outnumber Brits, I'm thinking this guy is gonna do well for himself. I'm currently an unemployed student, very poor and looking for a job. Maybe I should start my own psychic business. Or I could run around with a knife robbing stupid people. Same principle. SJ Debaser 13:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- Become a psychic, it's easier and legal(at least, it is here). And you can attract flakey new age ladies. ТyTalk. 13:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is almost down to a letter the same stuff which some quack used to leave in my mailbox. Do these guys all work from the same template? Röstigraben (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's totally illegal, just forward it to trading standards and they might get busted. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- This. Doesn't even have the standard "for entertainment purposes" disclaimer. Contact ASA as well. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I got one in Nottingham with virtually the same wording too, right down to "my work is serious" etc. There must be some template or website they're copying. That or the whole thing is one big pyramid scheme. ωεαşεζøίɗMethinks it is a Weasel 19:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- PLEASE REPOST WITH DETAILS! Then we can write snartikle on the fraud in question. They have not earned any "privacy" by shoving this under your door. They made themself public. ħuman 07:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- PLEASE REPOST WITH DETAILS! Then we can write snartikle on the fraud in question. They have not earned any "privacy" by shoving this under your door. They made themself public. ħuman
- I got one in Nottingham with virtually the same wording too, right down to "my work is serious" etc. There must be some template or website they're copying. That or the whole thing is one big pyramid scheme. ωεαşεζøίɗ
- This. Doesn't even have the standard "for entertainment purposes" disclaimer. Contact ASA as well. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's totally illegal, just forward it to trading standards and they might get busted. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is almost down to a letter the same stuff which some quack used to leave in my mailbox. Do these guys all work from the same template? Röstigraben (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
look what I found on TOW![edit]
[4]--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- LOL WUT. Also, when did "the other wiki" start to get used here? Did TV Tropes ruin other people's lives here or something? --GastonRabbit (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I always thought TOW was "the original Wikipedia". WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 21:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- You mean there's an unoriginal one? --GastonRabbit (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- There are dozens of languages & a 'simple English' one. The standard English WP is the original. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 05:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Gawd, bricks is a waste of oxygen. ħuman 07:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Gawd, bricks is a waste of oxygen. ħuman
- There are dozens of languages & a 'simple English' one. The standard English WP is the original. Wëäŝëïöïď
- You mean there's an unoriginal one? --GastonRabbit (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I always thought TOW was "the original Wikipedia". Wèàšèìòìď
Another crazy CP dream[edit]
So I guess CP got banned by the government or something because I was part of a team sent in to track down Andy, Karajou, JPatt, and Kenny boy. We knew they were hiding in a bunker in Andy's town (Far Hills, NJ, yay google!) but we didn't know where. It occurred to me to check some abandoned church so I went over to it. I walked through the front door and I caught a glimpse of Kowardturd ducking down into a trap door. Or maybe it was Ken. Anyway, I was like "YES!" and opened the trap door to throw a grenade in but I couldn't pull the pin for some reason (sleep paralysis screws with your movement in dreams). So I opened the door, jumped down, and I saw this Andy but with red eyes. I was in his living room or something and he started screaming in some demonic language. I shit myself and ran out and pixelated Doom monsters were pouring out from building windows, doorways, sewers, trees, etc. My stupid alarm went off before the dream ended, unfortunately.— Unsigned, by: Senator Harrison / talk / contribs
- cool story bro--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I always pictured it would look like the church in Dogma after Affleck had his way with it; complete with a Karatoon-like Buddy Christ behind the altar. Aboriginal Noise Oh, what a lovely tea party! 22:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- My weirdest CP dream came during the time of JessicaT, when I was probably spending far too much time hanging out with those yahoos to be healthy. Andy had called a meeting of the sysops at his house, and had sent Jessica a plane ticket to attend. Now obviously I couldn't go, so had to run around and find an Asian chick, then brief her on CP, and then send her on as the sock of my sock. And then I woke up, which was probably a good thing - dreaming about Ed and Asian girls would not be healthy. --PsyGremlinPraat! 22:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- You could try to get Polanski to do the movie, but don't be caught in possession of the script. Mountain Blue (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- My weirdest CP dream came during the time of JessicaT, when I was probably spending far too much time hanging out with those yahoos to be healthy. Andy had called a meeting of the sysops at his house, and had sent Jessica a plane ticket to attend. Now obviously I couldn't go, so had to run around and find an Asian chick, then brief her on CP, and then send her on as the sock of my sock. And then I woke up, which was probably a good thing - dreaming about Ed and Asian girls would not be healthy. --PsyGremlinPraat! 22:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- I always pictured it would look like the church in Dogma after Affleck had his way with it; complete with a Karatoon-like Buddy Christ behind the altar. Aboriginal Noise Oh, what a lovely tea party! 22:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Refuting Creation Science[edit]
This seems to be one area where RW is lacking. There seems to be a grand pseudoscience synthesis (to quote Pi) evolving, and being picked up by cranks like Hurlbut and this guy. Even our flood geology article is a bit of a stub. Now, I'm going to be the first to admit that I don't know enough to contribute, so in the time-old tradition, those who can't say "Get off your fat arses and write some stuff!" --PsyGremlin말하십시오 12:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I really noticed this the other day talking to an undergrad student. He was telling be how genetic mutations only lead to a loss of information, but to evolve from one kind to another takes and increase in genetic information. Word fro word what CMI and Answers have been saying but we have no article discussing creationist interpretation of genetics (although I was going to sandbox one for a while). - π 12:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think what I am saying is that the creation scientists are now starting to assemble a model with a perverse sort of logical consistency and we have very little on these topics. - π 12:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- One could do worse than watch the happenings at Pharyngula. Why do we need to spend massive scholarly effort replicating that here locally? (just asking...) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- um... because "refuting pseudoscience" is one of our mission statements? --PsyGremlinFale! 14:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well,then, we had better get busy bulking up the roster with geneticists, embryologists, geologists, palaeontologists, and who else? And the ones already in hte house had better get off their broad duffs and start contributing post-haste. I will gladly stand by to offer motivational
ejaculationsexhortations. - As it now stands, the closest thing I see in Category:Refutations is Question Evolution. Who's got suggestions for a more direct approach? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- You must visit the Creation science annex of rationalwiki at www.astorehouseofknowledge. :) pretty much every talk page has content on why CMI is wrong. Hamster (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- RationalWiki:EvoWiki exists for a reason. ТyPlease do not click on this
15:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I have this blog thing called Answers in Genghis but haven't really got started with the intention of tackling the geological aspect. I've just bought (aaargh) Snelling's Earth's Catastrophic Past but I can hardly read more than a couple of pages before my head explodes. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 17:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- We own EvoWiki and any relevant anti-creationist it's got belongs here where it can be RWified, not there to lay dormant. Attacking creationism and the cult of biblical literalism are among the prime reasons RW exists. Psy and Pi are absolutely correct that the creationists are getting better at giving a gloss of coherence to their rubbish. ICR has been at it for something like 40 years and AIG and CMI are no shrinking violets. We've got to stay up to date. Pi's work on the Answers Research Journal is fanastic but it's not enough. We do have a fair amount of really good stuff on creationism. It's just not always very current or easy to find if it's part of a larger refutation (like that gigantic "Evidences" or "Question Evolution!" refutations). Some material is slapdash or stubby. And some of it is frankly pretty poorly written (I'm thinking specifically of some of the unreferenced "Evidences" responses that were thrown up in the rush to get that thing done even though that was a super fun time on RW). We need a project to get our creationism material cataloged, catted, and robustly wikilinked. One temporary solution to certain missing articles might be to redirect pages named for more general concepts to sections addressing them in our refutations. But RW's already got good bones, it just needs some more meat. We have a few good articles on aspects of the flood myth/the ark/etc. We've got a bit on creationist cosmologies, anti-uniformitarianism, c-decay, and the starlight and horizon problems. Our Evolution article is good enough at describing the subject and giving basic responses to common creationist arguments. The response sections could be tightened up and linked to fuller discussions elsewhere on the wiki. 17:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Update: Feredir is doing a shit ton of work addressing creationist books and articles and it looks like he's done a lot on the IronChariots wiki, which is all licensed SA2.5 and needs to be cribbed if it's any good. His stuff needs to be heavily copy edited and formatted but it's otherwise great.
- Sterile deserves a lot of credit for the Answers Research Journal material. - π 22:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry Sterile. I wasn't paying close enough attention. You know I love ya. 07:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry Sterile. I wasn't paying close enough attention. You know I love ya.
- Sterile deserves a lot of credit for the Answers Research Journal material. - π 22:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have a recommended starting point for porting over the material? ТyPlease do not click on this 18:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- We own EvoWiki and any relevant anti-creationist it's got belongs here where it can be RWified, not there to lay dormant. Attacking creationism and the cult of biblical literalism are among the prime reasons RW exists. Psy and Pi are absolutely correct that the creationists are getting better at giving a gloss of coherence to their rubbish. ICR has been at it for something like 40 years and AIG and CMI are no shrinking violets. We've got to stay up to date. Pi's work on the Answers Research Journal is fanastic but it's not enough. We do have a fair amount of really good stuff on creationism. It's just not always very current or easy to find if it's part of a larger refutation (like that gigantic "Evidences" or "Question Evolution!" refutations). Some material is slapdash or stubby. And some of it is frankly pretty poorly written (I'm thinking specifically of some of the unreferenced "Evidences" responses that were thrown up in the rush to get that thing done even though that was a super fun time on RW). We need a project to get our creationism material cataloged, catted, and robustly wikilinked. One temporary solution to certain missing articles might be to redirect pages named for more general concepts to sections addressing them in our refutations. But RW's already got good bones, it just needs some more meat. We have a few good articles on aspects of the flood myth/the ark/etc. We've got a bit on creationist cosmologies, anti-uniformitarianism, c-decay, and the starlight and horizon problems. Our Evolution article is good enough at describing the subject and giving basic responses to common creationist arguments. The response sections could be tightened up and linked to fuller discussions elsewhere on the wiki.
- I have this blog thing called Answers in Genghis but haven't really got started with the intention of tackling the geological aspect. I've just bought (aaargh) Snelling's Earth's Catastrophic Past but I can hardly read more than a couple of pages before my head explodes.
- RationalWiki:EvoWiki exists for a reason. ТyPlease do not click on this
15:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- You must visit the Creation science annex of rationalwiki at www.astorehouseofknowledge. :) pretty much every talk page has content on why CMI is wrong. Hamster (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well,then, we had better get busy bulking up the roster with geneticists, embryologists, geologists, palaeontologists, and who else? And the ones already in hte house had better get off their broad duffs and start contributing post-haste. I will gladly stand by to offer motivational
- um... because "refuting pseudoscience" is one of our mission statements? --PsyGremlinFale! 14:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- One could do worse than watch the happenings at Pharyngula. Why do we need to spend massive scholarly effort replicating that here locally? (just asking...) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think what I am saying is that the creation scientists are now starting to assemble a model with a perverse sort of logical consistency and we have very little on these topics. - π 12:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
One of my problems with writing creationism articles is that it's difficult to find stuff Talk Origins hasn't covered. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- TO isn't very up to date on some subjects. Depending on the subject, a skilled creationist will hand your ass if you rely on TO without supplementing the research. 18:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- To the OP, "Hurlbut"? You can't be serious, surely? The guy is a tin can on the way to the recycling center. But I'm glad you care enough to tell us what to do without actually mentioning any facts or adding any links. By the way, have you stopped lying about me on your glob yet? Have you? ħuman 07:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it seems it's true what people say - some people here are more preoccupied with bitching and promoting HCMs than actually doing any work. But then again, it's what we've come to expect from you, you bitter old man. Get over yourself. Or go back to abusing people liek Nx and PC - that's what you do best. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 10:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- You guys are both grossly overstating the other's crimes. If you're going to keep this up you gotta limit it to basics like "you're a motherfucker and I hate you." Facts just needlessly complicate things. You guys are comrades from way back with a long history of working well together. And you're both my friends. So knock it off and don't make me come over there. ... 15:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- You guys are both grossly overstating the other's crimes. If you're going to keep this up you gotta limit it to basics like "you're a motherfucker and I hate you." Facts just needlessly complicate things. You guys are comrades from way back with a long history of working well together. And you're both my friends. So knock it off and don't make me come over there. ...
- Well, it seems it's true what people say - some people here are more preoccupied with bitching and promoting HCMs than actually doing any work. But then again, it's what we've come to expect from you, you bitter old man. Get over yourself. Or go back to abusing people liek Nx and PC - that's what you do best. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 10:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- To the OP, "Hurlbut"? You can't be serious, surely? The guy is a tin can on the way to the recycling center. But I'm glad you care enough to tell us what to do without actually mentioning any facts or adding any links. By the way, have you stopped lying about me on your glob yet? Have you? ħuman
- Yes, we do need to study and laugh at whatever new stuff the creation "scientists" come up with, here's the Category:Creation science. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Laughing is part of the problem. We tend to stand around laughing a strawmen whilst their ministries are making in roads. - π 11:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I saw this at uni a few weeks ago and it surprised me. Even a few years ago I don't think they would invite creationist to talk on campus. This is no slouch of a university. Times lists it as a worldwide top 100. - π 11:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Laughing is part of the problem. We tend to stand around laughing a strawmen whilst their ministries are making in roads. - π 11:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
My car story[edit]
You may remember that I found out about ten days ago my beloved 2005 Prius needed a new battery (the rechargeable one for the hybrid system, not the old-fashioned "DieHard" type) at a cost of roughly $3000 installed. Here's the whole saga, as posted to my FaceBook page this morning.
The day after Memorial Day, I noticed that my Prius was hesitating occasionally, especially right after I started it and when I was going up slight inclines. I also noticed the battery level indicator was swinging up and down very rapidly. I didn't think too much of it, since I was very busy at work that week.
That Friday, as I was leaving work, it had a bunch of warning lights come on when I started it, so I drove it straight to CarMax. The consultant there said he couldn't look at it till Tuesday, but it was probably safe to drive. He also promised me a loaner car, in part because I've been a good customer there. I drove it home and it worked pretty well, though the problems I described above persisted.
I did some errands Friday evening and Saturday morning, and it seemed okay. Then, Saturday afternoon, I headed out to see X-Men First Class. Right before I got to the exit for 32 off of I-95 N, I could barely do 30 mph. That is not good on 95. I was able to get some power again, so I got on 95 S, pulled off into the rest area and called a tow truck.
That Monday, I worked from home. I called CarMax again, but they said they still couldn't help me till Tuesday, so I got it towed there first thing Tuesday morning, dropped it off, and drove away in the fully loaded Camry loaner they're letting me have for free.
They called me that afternoon and said two of the cells in the hybrid battery were dead, and it needed to be replaced. Total cost -- about $3200. Ouch. Also, they'd have to order the battery, and since Toyota has scaled back production due to the Japanese earthquake, it wouldn't be in till around July 15. They said I could have a loaner till it gets in, but since there's a limit on how long I can keep a particular loaner, I'd have to swap it out every couple of weeks. Fortunately, CarMax is close to both home and work.
Flash forward to yesterday. I noticed the loaner car was due for an oil change, so I took it in to CarMax so they could take care of that. They decided to go ahead and swap it out for a fully loaded hybrid Camry. I had suspected that they were giving me nice new cars to make me want a new one; now I have no doubt. I had told them I was thinking about trading the Prius in -- $3K is a lot of money to put into a car with 106K miles on it, and its pretty obvious they're basically letting me take extended test drives. What they don't know is I've already been doing my research, and I'm not interested in either of the loaners -- the standard Camry was the "XLE" model Camry, which is the highest end Camry, and has a lot of features I don't want to pay the extra for, like wood grain paneling and leather steering wheel cover. The hybrid Camry is similarly equipped, but from my research, the hybrid Camry's mileage isn't that much better than the standard Camry, and I didn't think the price difference was worth it. In other words, if I do trade, it will be for a mid-range Camry or, more likely, a new Prius. For what it's worth, trade-in values on Prii and other high gas mileage cars are excellent right now -- on line estimates for mine, a 2005 Prius with 106K miles on it, are about $10K. And I noticed CarMax is selling a used 2008 Prius with 70K miles on it for about $20K.
And, they called me last night. They had only hooked the car up to the diagnostic computers, and they said "bad battery cells"; they didn't directly test the battery. So, it's possible there's just a bad connection somewhere. The problem is that's about $150 to take out the battery and test it directly, but I think it's worth it if can save me $3K.
I've been vacillating back and forth on whether or not to trade it in. Right now, I'm thinking I don't want to, but if I do, it will be another Prius, or possibly a standard engine Camry. The problem is Prii are danged hard to find now, between high gas prices and Toyota's production cutbacks post-earthquake. I talked to some of the sales-critters at CarMax yesterday, and they said they "occasionally" get new Prii in. MDB (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting story. But I nearly puked when I read Prii. A plural acclaimed by the best of the public... larronsicut fur in nocte 12:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I was using Prii before Toyota did the "what's the plural of Prius" poll, thank you very much. Though Wikipedia says the proper Latin plural would be priora, but even then, that's a stretch, since prius is a Latin adjective, and it's being used as a noun here.
- Anyway, "Prii" is a lot easier to say than "Priuses". MDB (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Easier for you, maybe. Is there supposed to be a ghost of a glottal stop in Pri'i? I find Priuses easier to say, but I can't imagine when the next time will be that I need to say it. Soon, I will need to say "here you go" as I hand over the plastic for some exhaust plumbing work and an inspection sticker. I tried to tape the noisy sooty spot, but apparently I didn't find the right hole. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I pronounce it "pre-eye". I don't think there's a glottal slop in there, ghostly or not.
- I kinda liked it better when Toyota said the plural was "whatever you want it to be", though I think they acknowledged most owners said "Prii" even then. MDB (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ah. Then we need to work on your Latin pronunciation. It should be "pre-ee." "Pre-eye" would be spelled priae, and would make little sense as a feminine plural of what looks like a masculine noun. Insufferable pedants such as my former mother-in-law are fond of pointing out this distinction with alumni and alumnae. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Jupiter damn it, you're right. My high school Latin teacher would be ashamed of me right now. MDB (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well I guess anything is better then Priapic. Mrs K. Was considering one of of those Dyson lightweight rechargeable vacuum cleaners (she's not as able as she used to be and what is it with women and vac cables? I'm forever repairing them). Anyway the salesman in Curry's said they weren't available because they cant' get the batteries from Japan after the tsunami so you may be affected by that as well. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 17:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- When the Wii came out I pronounced it (in my head) as "why eye" like the (apocryphal?) Geordie expression. So on that (Wii) principle it'd be "Pree" rather than "Pry eye" Pippa (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why aye man! There's nowt apocrtphal aboot that one bonny lad! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 16:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- When the Wii came out I pronounced it (in my head) as "why eye" like the (apocryphal?) Geordie expression. So on that (Wii) principle it'd be "Pree" rather than "Pry eye" Pippa (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well I guess anything is better then Priapic. Mrs K. Was considering one of of those Dyson lightweight rechargeable vacuum cleaners (she's not as able as she used to be and what is it with women and vac cables? I'm forever repairing them). Anyway the salesman in Curry's said they weren't available because they cant' get the batteries from Japan after the tsunami so you may be affected by that as well.
- Jupiter damn it, you're right. My high school Latin teacher would be ashamed of me right now. MDB (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ah. Then we need to work on your Latin pronunciation. It should be "pre-ee." "Pre-eye" would be spelled priae, and would make little sense as a feminine plural of what looks like a masculine noun. Insufferable pedants such as my former mother-in-law are fond of pointing out this distinction with alumni and alumnae. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Back to cars[edit]
Seriously mate, don't bother with any more hybrids - I really really advise you to look in to modern Diesel cars. Something like a BMW 3-series or Audi A4. These third-generation Bosch common-rail ultra high injection pressure turbocharged diesel engines are incredible. They have bags and bags of torque so they move when you put your foot down, yet they give 60+mpg on a 70mph run. (Imperial MPG, not US) If cars like this are available in the States and your locale doesn't have daft anti-Diesel regs, then this is the way forward. <steps down from German Diesel pulpit> DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 16:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Would it be okay to create the following articles?[edit]
- Foot fetishism
- Fun:Breast fetishism
- Fun:Questions about Uranus
- Category:Musicians or groups that were formed after 1990 in the Year of Our Lord
Civic Cat (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- You don't need to ask permission. Just write something relevant to the namespace - i.e. something relevant to RW missions in the mainspace, or something snarky & humourous for funspace. We already have an article on breasts so you could consider adding relevant content to it if any is mainspaceworthy. I don't understand your question about Category:Musicians which already exists. WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 16:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good luck finding mission rationale--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry about not clarifying that. The category is good, but the musicians seem pre-20 years ago.Civic Cat (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure there's a porno wiki. Make an account there.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Porno wiki for musicians?!?Civic Cat (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Write about your fetishes here--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Porno wiki for musicians?!?Civic Cat (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure there's a porno wiki. Make an account there.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry about not clarifying that. The category is good, but the musicians seem pre-20 years ago.Civic Cat (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Good luck finding mission rationale--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- That's absolutely not OK. Shutup, I hate you all. SJ Debaser 17:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- So if I want to do an article about a band that came after 1990, say Caribou or Arcade Fire, I should put it in a porno wiki.Civic Cat (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, but if you want to write about foot fetishism, I suggest you do it there. If you want to go write about a band, go to wikipedia, unless it's a fundie or fascist band of some renown. then you can write about here. Or in your user space. You are king of your user space--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Category:Sexuality 139 articles, such as Anal sex, Cunnilingus, Fellatio, Furry fandom, Jesus with erection, Lily of the Valley, and Teabagging, are okay; but nothing on foot or breast fetishism. No bands unless they are fascists or fundies such as, The Clash, Bob Dylan, Woody Guthrie, John Lennon, Yoko Ono, Saga, Television, or Frank Zappa; orrrrrrrr Fun:Sir Elton John, Fun:Bob Marley, Fun:C.W. McCall, Fun:Sir Paul McCartney, Fun:Red Hot Chili Peppers, Fun:Sir Cliff Richard, Fun:James Taylor, or Fun:Tom Waits. I can put new bands on my user space, but possibly not in a category, not even the type I suggested below.Civic Cat (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- We've been through this before. Just because other questionable articles exist doesn't mean yours should too (those probably should go away too)--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Do as they say, not as they do.Civic Cat (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- What is it you intend to say about foot/breast fetishism specifically? WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 21:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- The way things are going for me here, probably nothing. :-/ Mostly how both relate. The foot fetishism would be somewhat serious, the breast fetishism a humourous take, or attempt thereof.Civic Cat (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- When bricks says "we've been through this before" it means "since I joined this spring". Civic Cat, just do what you want and if there are objections, deal with them one at a time. Ignore bricks, it is poorly mortared. ħuman 07:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, what I meant is that we've been through this before here. And I think it's fair to preemptively ask CC not to make mainspace articles about his fetishes, no?--User:Brxbrx/sig 11:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Human speaketh. Motaring takes time. I might do all 4, maybe as mainspace, maybe as fun, maybe as sub-pages. If the latter, maybe put them in the category I will create as suggested in the sub-heading below. If it's not against convention, I might even link them in my user page. Breast and foot fetishists will see them and yeay, rejoice and make a joyful noise unto the rock. Maybe join the site.Civic Cat (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, what I meant is that we've been through this before here. And I think it's fair to preemptively ask CC not to make mainspace articles about his fetishes, no?--User:Brxbrx/sig 11:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- When bricks says "we've been through this before" it means "since I joined this spring". Civic Cat, just do what you want and if there are objections, deal with them one at a time. Ignore bricks, it is poorly mortared. ħuman
- The way things are going for me here, probably nothing. :-/ Mostly how both relate. The foot fetishism would be somewhat serious, the breast fetishism a humourous take, or attempt thereof.Civic Cat (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- What is it you intend to say about foot/breast fetishism specifically? Wėąṣėḷőįď
- Gotcha. Do as they say, not as they do.Civic Cat (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- We've been through this before. Just because other questionable articles exist doesn't mean yours should too (those probably should go away too)--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Category:Sexuality 139 articles, such as Anal sex, Cunnilingus, Fellatio, Furry fandom, Jesus with erection, Lily of the Valley, and Teabagging, are okay; but nothing on foot or breast fetishism. No bands unless they are fascists or fundies such as, The Clash, Bob Dylan, Woody Guthrie, John Lennon, Yoko Ono, Saga, Television, or Frank Zappa; orrrrrrrr Fun:Sir Elton John, Fun:Bob Marley, Fun:C.W. McCall, Fun:Sir Paul McCartney, Fun:Red Hot Chili Peppers, Fun:Sir Cliff Richard, Fun:James Taylor, or Fun:Tom Waits. I can put new bands on my user space, but possibly not in a category, not even the type I suggested below.Civic Cat (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, but if you want to write about foot fetishism, I suggest you do it there. If you want to go write about a band, go to wikipedia, unless it's a fundie or fascist band of some renown. then you can write about here. Or in your user space. You are king of your user space--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- So if I want to do an article about a band that came after 1990, say Caribou or Arcade Fire, I should put it in a porno wiki.Civic Cat (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Sub-pages in categories?[edit]
About 24 hours ago, a fellow RW'ian hipped me to this on the issue. The results were inconclusive at best. My question, is it okay to put user subpages into categories? If not, how about a special category, such as Category:User subpages (perhaps only a user can put his/her own subpage into the category)? — Unsigned, by: Civic Cat / talk / contribs 16:32, 16 June 2011
- simply put, don't include yourself in [[category:alternative medicine]] unless you're a school of homeopathy--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ignore the idiot. If it's a sandbox for a future article, don't cat it yet, since others can't edit it in your userspace. If it's a page that makes sense to cat (rare circumstances but possible), do it. That brouhaha on my talk page was mostly raised by someone who likes to hate on anything they can that I do. Final rule: use common sense. ħuman 06:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ignore the idiot. If it's a sandbox for a future article, don't cat it yet, since others can't edit it in your userspace. If it's a page that makes sense to cat (rare circumstances but possible), do it. That brouhaha on my talk page was mostly raised by someone who likes to hate on anything they can that I do. Final rule: use common sense. ħuman
Treating cancer in Mexico[edit]
A relative of mine (R1) has just been diagnosed with cancer. Another relative of mine (R2) is prone to believing in alternative remedies and believes pretty much whatever his/her alternative remedy quack says. R2 is strongly advocating to R1 that (s)he goes to Mexico to be treated at one of these clinics that do all sorts of vitamin and diet remedies including laetrile and claim huge success rates. So I thought I better look into it to see if there's any merit at all. Turns out that there isn't and that it's pretty much pure quackery with side-dishes of dishonesty, profiteering off the vulnerable, and pure bullshit. But it's going to be very tricky to persuade R1 of this without upsetting R2. Bollocks. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- permutation: do both. "complimentary medicine," as that hairy fat guy on PBS likes to say.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Can't. The time and cost of going to Mexico would preclude following the prescribed orthodox treatments to, I believe, the detriment of R1.
- Trouble is no-one in the family has sufficiently challenged R2 about this nonsense so it has been left to fester and grow over the last few decades. It's got so bad that R2 will almost automatically distrust orthodox treatment and believes unquestionably in the great government/medical/pharma conspiracy. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- OR you could tell R2 that there's this revolutionary thousand year old technique called "chemo-therapy" practiced by shamans in pale disposable shirts in bleach consecrated centers of healing--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- they don't have vitamins in the states? weird... wonder where I got mine from--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- "it's going to be very tricky to persuade R1 of this without upsetting R2". So forget about trying not to upset R2. It's going to be hard & I don't envy you, but cancer is a big deal & needs legitimate expert attention. Speculative medicine is a luxury for those who can afford to take chances; cancer patients can't. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 18:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Upsetting R2 would upset R1 even more. That's the problem. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Time to edumificate R2? Pippa (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- No time really. Just going to have to go to it as diplomatically as possible. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Bring the evidence to R1. Tell R1 the truth without demonizing R2--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Aye man, just be completely rational with R1 - "if any of this stuff worked, it would be used in every cancer ward in the world". DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 15:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Bring the evidence to R1. Tell R1 the truth without demonizing R2--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- No time really. Just going to have to go to it as diplomatically as possible. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Time to edumificate R2? Pippa (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Upsetting R2 would upset R1 even more. That's the problem. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- "it's going to be very tricky to persuade R1 of this without upsetting R2". So forget about trying not to upset R2. It's going to be hard & I don't envy you, but cancer is a big deal & needs legitimate expert attention. Speculative medicine is a luxury for those who can afford to take chances; cancer patients can't. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ