RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive113

This is an archive page, last updated 2 August 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

Creating a new level of user group.

What do we think of creating a new level of user, something like "Trusted User," which would not have any of the rights associated with sysops, but would also have their edits auto-patrolled so they don't leave red exclamation points (which are expensive and shouldn't be wasted) in the Recent Changes. This would be handy for users who get promoted for one reason or another, concern trolls who we don't want to give the keys to but trust enough not to check out every edit they make, and might be a good intermediate step before granting full sysopship to people who edit a little less frequently but aren't obvious pains in the ass.

This is a great idea, P-Foster is awesome for thinking it up

1. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 19:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
2. I like the idea of being "trusted"--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
3. Now I finally know what the red ! means. Anyway, if I understand the proposal, Wikipedia already has the equivalent. See Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Doctor Dark (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
4. RatMaster ^háblame 19:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
5. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 19:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC) This idea intrigues me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
6. Real first name and last initial^{Talk, talk, talk skim my contributions} 20:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC) good idea, we should get away from the moronic habit of "i'm sysoping you because i hate the red exclamation marks". so yeah, autopatrol for obvious non-vandals.
7. --★uːʤɱ sinner 21:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Absolutely, we need a step between for all those described above. Although it was more of a group thing., but P ist still awesome.
8. Yes. The unbusinesslike^{man of business} 22:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
9. Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 22:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC) - What is with this everyone's-a-sysop thing anyway?
10. Röstigraben (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a horrible idea, P-Foster should go eat a bag of cocks

• I actually like the idea but I really want to see P-Foster eat a bag of cocks. Preferably my cocks. I have a bag of them. My cocks, that is. Ace^{of Spades} 22:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I hear they make good soup. But a whole bag? One chicken can feed a family of four for a day or two, surely a bag of cocks is enough to put you off for life? Also, I bet you can't make a BoN auto-patrolled, so, I guess I apologise for all those red exclamation marks or whatever. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Ace here. it would be fun to watch P-Foster eat a bag of cocks and, therefore, I vote we force him to. Anarcho Symphony Noise ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 11:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
• This site needs more eating of bags of cocks. Or at least an entertainment channel. PsyGremlinTal! 13:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Goat

Needs more. HollowWorld (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. How bout this? Doctor Dark (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh, we've had this discussion about user rights before. While I think it'd certainly be a good idea for us to revise who we sysop and when, I'm almost completely certain nothing will come of this discussion. Just like very other time we've discussed this. Anarcho Symphony Noise ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 12:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm already part of a new user group, and I don't leave red exclamation points. Mission accomplished, I say.--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

It is a great idea, but is it possible to implement it and have P-Foster eat a bag of cocks anyways? We should have the moderators commission a department to appoint a subcommittee to investigate this possibility. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 19:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I know there's a pretty good chance you've seen this years ago, but just in case: Louis CK has a famous (and hilarious) bit on "sucking a bag of dicks". I'm guessing he originally coined the phrase, but not certain about that.

I think youll find this already exists. I have "autopatrolled" in my user status.--En attendant Godot 20:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Member of groups: Autoconfirmed users, Eligible users, Sysops, Users

That's autoconfirmed. -- Nx / talk 20:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a good idea but it's kinda pointless since we hand out sysopship like candy. There is no intermediate step before sysopship. The only person in this group would be Brxbrx -- Nx / talk 06:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean I'd get to be special? Also, does anybody else think it's funny that only people that've been disciplined will belong to this "trusted users" group?--User:Brxbrx/sig 07:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that it would insert an extra layer of bureaucracy. How would people move from one group to another? Who would decide? Considering that there is presently no system for evaluating and granting sysop we would need to create a system for "trusted user" and then another for promotion to sysop. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about it again though - if this is for Brxbrx - perhaps "Trussed User" might be a better name than "Trusted". It would have the added advantage of referring to an ancient CP joke. </joke>--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A user you don't trust/like enough to have sysop powers, but one that you want their edits auto-patrolled. Sorry, but in that case the red exclamation points are there fore a reason. If you don't like seeing them, give up your own sysop powers instead, it'd be far easier and wouldn't cause issues for people who might want to actually patrol edits. ADK^{...I'll burglarize your President of the United States!} 13:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Why does everyone hate the red exclamation points so much? Did they rape somebody's mother or something? DickTurpis (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I use that expression all the time! Also, I do on occasion patrol.--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

So all of this and the intercom going off for everyone because Foster doesn't like red exclamation marks? Can someone please write a Greasemonkey script like the Kenwiper for him that will make them go away for just him and the rest of us can go about with our day?

Extra crap like this is pointless unless your ultimate aim is to start another round of HCM. As has been mentioned it's going to require a metric fuckton of standards and policies and consultations and procedures and assorted shit that will only ever be used so people can kick up a fuss by rules lawyering. Let me put it this way, until you put such policies in place I'll arbitrarily demote everyone in that group to sysop any time I notice the group has a population greater than zero. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 22:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Help

Linux geeks: I just renamed (using "GPRename") 460 files to: Worksop to Kiveton Park & back Friday 22 July '11 plus serial number (001 up) plus .jpg and they've all vanished, so's the folder they were in. I've been rootling round in everything including the "rubbish bin" & there doesn't seem to be a trace. Any ideas? Scream!! (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The folder disappeared? That's not good news... I hope you have backups. Try "sudo updatedb" then "locate Kiveton" in the terminal -- Nx / talk 08:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

~$ sudo updateb

(password)

sudo: updateb: command not found

locate Kiveton

/home/roger/Downloads/Kiveton_to_West_Stockwith_flyover.kmz (not one of them!)

~$

HALP! no I've not got backups! Scream!! (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

you missed a 'd' Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 09:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ha! so I did. The annoying thing is GPRemame still "refreshes" as if it can see 'em. Trying again: butterfingers. Scream!! (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Right: terminal finds'em but they're still not visible on the desktop where it says they are "/home/roger/Desktop/100NCD80/Worksop to Kiveton Park back Friday 22 July '11 448.jpg" Scream!! (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

ctrl+h to show hidden files? Been known to work... try putting that path - "/home/roger/Desktop/100NCD80/" into nautilus (or whatever your dist's equivalent is) Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 09:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Normal files may not be displayed on your desktop - just navigate to the desktop folder in nautilus as Eyeonicr said. -- Nx / talk 09:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

EC)I tried that (^h) no luck see here. Can I just copy them using the terminal to a new folder? If so how (linux not being my strong point) Scream!! (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You can cd to the directory and they show up with ls, right? Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 09:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) What the fuck? Anyway, yeah, something like "cp -r /home/roger/Desktop/100NCD80/ /home/roger/whatever" should do the trick -- Nx / talk 09:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dunnit., found 'em, thanks all, much obliged! Scream!! (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

That's good Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 03:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Not quite as bad as the guy on bash who did "chmod -x chmod" Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Corrupting the Young and Innocent

My niece is only eight years old, and is already reading the fourth Harry Potter book. Her mother (my sister) says she is "engrossed" in them.

Being a great lover of fantasy novels myself, I'm giving her a copy of The Hobbit when I see her this week, since that's the book that made me into a fantasy lover. Once she finishes that, I'll tell her "there are three more books about Hobbits..."

I've already given her a Princess Bride DVD -- she loved it. (I'm not sure if she can quote it extensively, like Crazy Uncle Arthur can, but give her time...)

I figure I'll eventually give her some of Sir Terry's young adult novels, some Heinlein juvies, and then should be enough to get her hooked for life.

"Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will..." MDB (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"Look, honey, the first book is free." You are an evil, evil man... in the best possible way of course. As long as you steer her towards Martin and Erikson, via Eddings and Donaldson, and steer far away from Jordan, you will have done a good job. And yes, the Tiffany Aching & Trucks, etc books are musts for the enquiring mind. --PsyGremlinParla! 11:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Eddings? Ugh! Pippa (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

She's "sweetheart" to me, not "honey", but yeah, that's the general idea. I've not heard of Erikson -- from checking on amazon, I may have to give that a try.

We'll give a her a few years before I introduce her to Donaldson. Eight years old might be a little young for dealing with a protagonist who rapes an innocent girl less than a quarter into the first book.

Though speaking of Donaldson, if I was of a fan fiction writing bent, I'd do a story that has two of my favorite "gentle giant" characters meeting: Hagrid and Saltheart Foamfollower. MDB (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jordan's okay (if nothing else, reading his books will teach her patience and persistence), but keep her away from Goodkind, unless you really do want to scar her for life. There's nothing wrong with the Dragonlance Chronicles and Legends at that age either. Or, for that matter, a bit of Guy Gavriel Kay. Or Tad Williams. Or the first four J V Jones books (the first trilogy and the stand-alone book), avoid the next series until she is older, it's a much better written, but also much darker. Hell, have her watch some of the new Doctor Who stuff and then dig out some of the original books, they were pretty much standard fodder for me at that age and has the additional advantage of introducing her to sci-fi via a wizard-type character (because let's face it, that's what the Doctor is).-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 11:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oooo, I just thought of another one, and well-suited to the young: Andre Norton. Though I fear a lot of her stuff may be out of print.

Dragonlance is good for what it is. Yeah, it's gaming fiction created to sell D&D adventures, but if you realize it's not trying to be Tolkien, it's not purporting to have great worth, it's just supposed to be fun reading, it's good stuff. It's kind of like, as a movie buff, I can enjoy both enjoy a straight-forward action movie like Die Hard and a serious dramatic film. I just have to remember that the former isn't supposed to be anything other than a popcorn movie -- it's just a very well-done popcorn movie.

If I introduce her to Doctor Who, I'll have to make sure she sees some Tom Baker (my first Doctor) and get her some jellybabies. MDB (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Er yes... Donaldson would be several years down the line. And if you haven't read Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen series yet... well, let's just say I rate them as high in terms of characters, complexity and story-telling as Game of Thrones. With the bonus that it doesn't take him 7 years to write the next volume. @Pippa: Eddings is fine for teen fantasy. Rather him than Twilight. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 11:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Wargle! How could I forget Tad Williams!!? Otherland is probably the greatest fantasy series ever written. Ever! Even better than GoT (you're free to disagree, but you'll still be wrong) and War of the Flowers will corrupt her opinion of fairies far more than Lords and Ladies ever will. And John Pertwee is still the best Doctor ever (again you can disagree, but you'll still be wrong). --PsyGremlinTala! 12:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Try Gaiman's The Graveyard Book. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Coraline! --PsyGremlinTala! 12:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oooooo, I forgot Gaiman wrote YA novels! And in a few years when she's old enough I know she'll be careful with them, I'll loan her my Sandman hardback collections.

And Psy, I just ordered the first Malazan novel for myself. MDB (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Give her Contact by Sagan. Strong female scientist protagonist.--^talk 12:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hhhhmmm... I'm not sure if she'd like hard science fiction or not. I think her only exposure to science fiction has been Star Wars, and that's pretty far from hard science fiction. I like your thinking, but maybe I should introduce her more gradually to harder edged stuff.

For what it's worth, her Mom and Dad are both well-read; they're just not fantasy and SF fans. She was read to from birth -- I have a picture of me holding her at my desk reading to her, when she was about a month old.

I also have my all-time favorite picture of her -- eighteen months old, reading a Batman comic book that was a Burger King freebie. (Yes, I know full well that at eighteen months old, it was just brightly colored pictures to her. I don't care. My niece was reading Batman as eighteen months.)

I like to tell my family she's going to grow up to be just like me. They respond, "dear Lord, we can't handle another one." I reply, "yeah, that much wonderfulness in one family would be overwhelming." MDB (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hard SF is definitely a very different taste. However, Stanisław Lem's Cyberiad and some of the other works are more or less suitable for children being as they are fairytales, except with a lot more robots and spaceships. That'll set things off in the right direction. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Send her a link to HP MOR once she has finished the Harry Potters. --85.78.122.86 (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't get her started on the Star Wars books, not unless somebody is willing to invest a lot of money. There's hundreds of the buggers and I know, I own most of them. They have their own dedicated shelf in my house.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's what libraries are for. (She starts a new school in the fall. When she went to visit it, her concern was that it have a big library.) MDB (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope your school libraries are very different to what constitutes a school library in the UK. If not, she is going to be sorely disappointed.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

She's at a DoD school in Germany now (well, once school starts in the Fall) -- her Dad is in the Air Force. He'll be getting a new assignment next year, and they're hoping to move back to the States, preferably the East Coast or perhaps Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio. I've personally got my fingers crossed for Andrews AFB near DC, since that would allow me to see them regularly and intensify my efforts to turn my niece into a geek. MDB (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am an equal opportunity spoiler

I'm getting my younger niece (three years old) Llama Llama Misses Mama and Llama Llama Holiday Drama. I hope I can successfully read them to her without getting tongue tied.

It's too bad she already has a copy of Click Clack Moo - Cows That Type. That one is hilarious. (It's a children's book supporting labor activism. The cows go on strike for better conditions at the farm. MDB (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Dummies books are really dumb

Take Comparative Religion For Dummies, By William P. Lazarus, Mark Sullivan, p. 128:

Gharaniq means "something written or uttered only once in a book or culture," making it very rare.

No one knows for sure exactly what the word means, but we can be quite certain, that gharaniq doesn't mean anything like that. I am sure someone wrote originally, "Gharaniq is a hapax legomenon" (true), and then explained the technical term with the definition "something written or uttered only once in a book or culture" (correct definition). But then it looks like some editor has hacked it to the point that it is just plain wrong. And, then to add that "something written or uttered only once in a book or culture" is "very rare" is just a mindless tautology. Do they actually get reviewers to review their books? One does not need to be an expert on Islamic/Arabic studies to see that this is rubbish. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 20:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I was going to accuse you of just making up words when you said "Gharaniq is a hapax legomenon", but then I saw that WP uses it too. So now I'm going to accuse WP of making up words. Thunderkatz^Ho! 00:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Gharaniq = an Arabic word of uncertain meaning, probably means a type of bird - See the Wikipedia article on Satanic Verses.

Hapax legomenon = a Greek phrase, used in English to refer to a word which occurs only once in a given corpus. The term comes from Biblical scholarship originally, but has since spread to other areas of scholarship - See the Wikipedia article on Hapax legomenon.

Wikipedia didn't make any of this up. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

...definitely made up. :) Thunderkatz^Ho! 22:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Give it up, liberals, the Tea Party was right!

The minimum wage is destroying our economy. Discuss. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how the people on the bottom can suck so hard on the cocks of the people on the top. "We can't tax the rich, they make jobs!" We're held hostage by a minority of the population just because they have this "money."--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

the american "thinker?" what the fuck kind of person thinks that the minimum wage has shit to do with the economy?^{— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs}

@Brx: You are exhibiting symptoms of The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality. Please remedy this. @Godot: Please refer to it by its proper name: American Stinker. Also, ECONOMICS! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

They're pushing this a lot recently for some reason: Free the people from the tyranny of minimum wage by abolishing it! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WND Comments

As the rabid right scurry for cover, the fuckheads over at WND are coming up with some priceless gems. I rather enjoyed this comment from the forum, which gives a good indication of WND's readership:

“”The Klan is a group of white people dedicated to the preservation of the white race. Does it make sense to call that far-right? All races have self preservation instinct weather they act on this instinct or not - investigate how the Jews do it, Blacks, Mexicans, Chinese etc. Are any of them far right or far left? No, the term really does not apply, does it. Marxists make up these buzz words and air-head liberals buy into it. The far right is a communist/marxist buzz word and in reality, if you must put them into a group, they are people that love America, love freedom, support and defend the American Constitution and American Culture. Now you got to ask yourself - who are the groups and what should they be called who would fear the far right as I have described? Why would anybody fear freedom, liberty, the American Constitution, American Culture? The answer is the marxist/communist who stand to loose power and the air-head liberal who is being manipulated by their masters. I can come up with a few descriptive terms for this.

--PsyGremlin講話 08:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What part of "nationalism" do they not understand? ADK^{...I'll incarcerate your kitten!} 09:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible that they just don't know what they believe themselves? Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 09:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is Mexican a race? Is Jew a race? Is Chinese a race? I wouldn't consider any of these "races". There are Jews and Mexicans of many races; if by Chinese we just mean "Han Chinese" (as opposed to PRC ethnic minorities), then are they sufficiently distinctive from other East Asian populations to constitute a distinct "race" from them? Actually, the whole concept of "race" is rather bogus, it is a social construct rather than a scientific reality. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No less than the anglo-saxon white man, if you're going to take that line... Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 09:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Some gems are coming in from Islamic extremists, too ^{— Unsigned, by: Baljit / talk / contribs}

Comparing an extremely marginal forum to a "news" website with a disturbing ammount of followers? Dendlai (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Just an interesting contrast. I've seen the right commentators claiming the Oslo attacks were a false-flag operation to discredit the right, and here are people claiming they were a false-flag operation to discredit Islam... Baljit (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This is what I love about the news cycle. Inconvenient facts dead ahead. Let the shoehorning begin! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh fer cryin' out loud

Global warming? What global warming? --PsyGremlinSnakk! 09:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(licks ice cream on beach) Real first name and last initial^{Talk, talk, talk skim my contributions} 11:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is South Africa in the Southern hemisphere? BTW, the comments on one of those... --User:Brxbrx/sig 12:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing more annoying than people who... --PsyGremlinSnakk! 13:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

lol, sry. The second link, someone says "the ancestors are angry" and some prick replies and calls him "garden boy." I assume it's a racial slur, but I'm not really up to date on my South African slang. Anyways, South Africa is in the Southern Hemisphere, right? Or is it just freakishly cold in the summer's zenith?--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Look for yourself. And for heaven's sake buy a world map! --★uːʤɱ federalist 14:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, I actually have an Atlas, but it's in my closet and I don't feel like getting up. And it's a little out of date. How can I look up South Africa's latitude on an Atlas not containing South Sudan? It would be immoral.--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Er... yes... "garden boy" is not a nice thing to call somebody - even if they do work in your garden. Don't worry Bricks - you're in good company, along with the people who want to know if I know "Mike from Nigeria", "How can you be white, you're from Africa" and "surely you must speak Spanish, seeing as you're just there by Brazil." --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I rather enjoyed Bricks' "South African slave" (now fixed to "slang") - it sounds like the vernacular we colonial masters use when speaking to the unwashed masses: "Heey, kaffir, whey the blerrie hell heven't you finished polishing mai shuus yet, hey? Yew want me tew sommer bliksem yew agayne, izit hey?"

Um... by use I mean "used to use"... long before I was even born. Some of my best friends are black... um... --PsyGremlinParla! 15:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Do people really think South Africa is next to Brazil? Is it because they confuse it with South America? Do people really think they speak Spanish in Brazil? Oh, humanity. You make me ashamed to be a part of you.

--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ugggggggh.--Dumpling (talk) 16:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Breivik: "a normal youth", a "well-behaved boy."

A thread not so much to discuss the massacre in Norway as much as to comment on something in this article. I know we're growing up slower, but this guy is 32. When my parents were that age they owned a business, had 2 kids, were paying off a mortgage, etc. Most of my friends at that age are/were living "adult" lifestyles. Why the "youth" tag? P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 16:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

His boyish good looks--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

ZZZ Tits

This woman's breasts weigh as much as my wife. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 06:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

...Daaaamn.O________o...I would definitely get backache if I had those. Thankfully, I do not! Phew. --Dumpling (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Her bra must be made from steel.--^talk 07:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(I've not opened the link yet) That will be Anne Hawkins-Turner, aka Norma Stitz then? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

New User Group, Redux

So an idea is being kicked around and discussed (above) to create and implement a new user group that would have its edits autopatrolled. The point of this would be to move away from handing out sysopship and blocking rights like candy, while allowing "Trusted Users" to edit without needing their edits patrolled. After a few edits, a new user could become "Trusted" and then, after a time, get demoted to sysop. Please discuss. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 18:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

So after how many edits would they get this right and who would decide? And after how many more edits would they get sysop? Or never? What problem is this meant to resolve? Too many sysops?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The answer to your last question is: Brxbrx lost his sysopship and people hate red !s. I made him a new user group which makes his edits autopatrolled. Eventually people will start giving this user group to other users who they don't think should be sysops but whose edits they don't want to patrol. Thus a new user group will evolve. Or something like that. -- Nx / talk 18:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the autopatrol idea. Maybe it can be used specifically for cases like Brxbrx. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

ECECECMost of this is open for discussion below, Bob. In handy marked-off sections, even, Bob. Input desired. As for why, it would be nice to not have to patrol edits by people who don't need their edits patrolled 'cause they've been here long enough to prove they're not vandals but not long enough to give the keys to,. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 18:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

But we give the keys to anyone who's been here for more than three seconds. -- Nx / talk 18:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And once you give them the keys, there's nothing we can do about it. Nx has a really good point, guys. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

"But we give the keys to anyone who's been here for more than three seconds." Which is exactly why I'm trying to get a little momentum behind maybe changing that. Is that not obvious? P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 19:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that. -- Nx / talk 19:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a god damn miracle the wiki is still here in the first place. The sysop group can cause irreparable damage. It's only a matter of time. Put on a pot of coffee, lock the database and let's fix this before it's too late. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh no. We should do something quick. But what? -- Nx / talk 19:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

We need a group that looks and acts like the sysop group, but is completely impotent. Not sysop-lite - sysop-fake. No one will know the difference. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

My two cents: So the idea is to hand out sysopship as a meritocracy? Jesus God. Just like CP? You're on the road to a bunch of mindless sychophants who think the path to demotion is kissing ass and snuffing out enemies. nobs^{Viva la Revolución!} 00:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, sysops should be promoted by the community in general rather than one person's whim, which by the way is exactly how it currently is at CP. Anyone in their right mind can see that Iduan should be a sysop but Andy just ignores him. CP has never been a meritocracy. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 02:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea. It works for Brx, so let's put MC in there when he comes back and call it a day. The rule can be very simple: if you lose sysop, you go in this new group. Doesn't have to be more complicated than that.--^talk 22:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Do we implement this at all? Do we need some sort of sysop-lite?

Is it feasible to do a script to patrol edits for those users on a list ? Hamster (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is entirely because no one wants to give Brx sysop rights, but at the same time can't be arsed to look at the red exclamation points. So unless a better motive can be found, it'll be a complete waste of time. ADK^{...I'll golf your hero!} 19:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

brx certainly triggered it, but when this was brought up it was also thought of for MC if he returns (and stops to troll - I mean he could do that). The problem is that we can't give out such substantial rights like those of sysops to people that have been around barely two weeks. --★uːʤɱ atheist 20:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What about sysop/blocking? Should we just continue along letting everyone be a sysop as is? And do we want to revise the standards for being a sysop?

Not much point making this group if we do. -- Nx / talk 18:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Just covering all the bases. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 18:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nx has repeatedly proven beyond any illogical doubt that the site will fucking explode if everyone is a sysop. Or something. You're all so fucking tedious. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious. Deny this and lose all credibility. -- Nx / talk 18:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand now. Sounds ok. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Why not create a new user group to start people out at considering how easy it was to hand sysopships out like candy yet how hard it is to take them back when people misbehave? 19:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to revise the standards, over time the line of sysops will clear itself out and all those who abuse their rights will be promoted. Most of those will become bricks/trusted users then. So as long as we stay objective when promoting someone the problem should sort itself out. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 20:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no standard for sysopping people. Ty had a good stretch of sysopping people with reasons like "not evil." Others used "mostly harmless." Given the great disparity in ease with which one case obtain sysopship vs. how difficult it is for us to desysop, do you really not agree that a basic level usergroup might save us the trouble of having to deal with an abusive noob in the first place? Waiting for bad sysops to get cooped out of existence is hardly a proactive solution. 00:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Why exactly are you taking a jab at Ty?--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh, where am I taking a jab at Ty and why do you have such a raging hardon for me? 04:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ty had a good stretch of sysopping people with reasons like "not evil." Others used "mostly harmless." As if it was necessary for you to single him out. BTW, you're the one who cooped me after extensively researching me.--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You're behaving like a child. 04:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Such things aren't always meant in a bad way, sometimes it's a mere and simple mention. Nutty you are right, I haven't thought of people getting demoted only of people getting promoted. So in this case a new standard should be employed, only we need to make one first. Project page, committee or the seekrit circle of mods? --★uːʤɱ atheist 22:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there should be an intermediate step between sysop and autoconfirmed, definitely for those who lost the privileges, and probably for newbies as well. There's currently a lot of reluctance to desysop users, even those who have repeatedly abused their rights. I assume that one major reason for this is that people don't want to brand them as pariahs, since the non-sysop status has historically been reserved for the likes of TK and Marcus, people who were out to actively harm the site. Mere incompetence is not on the same level as vandalism or extreme trolling, so it should not be punished in the same way, but there needs to be some kind of response nevertheless. Establishing a new user group for people who are still welcome to hang out, but just shouldn't be trusted with sysop tools would make it easier to have measured responses and avoid wheel-warring and malicious blocks. Röstigraben (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Just sayin'

I notice this comes after MC's block, which is just as well since there'd be many bouts of HCM over any proposed changes that affect the masses. 19:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

This has nothing to do with MC and everything to do with my hatred of red exclamation points. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 19:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think he meant something along the lines of "MC would take this as an opportunity to throw a shitfit, thank goat he's gone." I disagree. MC would be all for branding me.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Chop and change, chop and change, chop and change

Endless tinkering with user groups and rights achieves nothing. It's been tinkered with enough already, time to just let it be. Don't let the exceptions write the rules - a situation involving one particular user (Brxbrx) is not a good rationale to change the system. The reality is, you create this new group, people will start fighting over who belongs in it. Someone will sysop someone, someone else will say "No!, too soon to sysop, make them a 'trusted user'", and then the HCM will begin again. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 20:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You know it's getting bad when Maratrean starts complaining about things being endless... Occasionaluse (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If there ever is dispute like that the mods would step in and moderate the situation and if needed make a decission about the case. If this were to happen more than once there would automatically evolve a catalog of points one has to achieve before becoming a user of specific rights.

This whole new system was created through a massive tinkering with user rights, the fact is RW has changed. It has become more calm, more discussions and proposals than just doing stuff and waiting for anybody to revert it - I see that as more rational.

I'm not sure but I think simply taking away user rights would be an abuse if there was nothing bad happening in the meantime. --★uːʤɱ pirate 21:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess the red !!!'s never bothered me that much. Actually I sorta agree with Maratrean, and that's saying something. Anyway, carry on. sterile^talk 00:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Why need there be an HCM if the community actually comes up with a coherent sysopping policy for once? I'm sure I'm not the only one here who thinks "mostly harmless" is a pretty shitty rationale for giving someone moderately powerful tools that are capable of being abused sufficiently to require the whole community's attention. Not everyone needs to be able to block or view hidden revisions, and in fact I doubt the majority of people here have ever even used their sysop rights except for joke blocks. Adding 2 new user rights groups in 4 years is hardly "endless tinkering." 00:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with NR. The idea of having a trusted but non sysop user level was mooted during the debates about reorganisation but was never properly addressed. I think that RW's culture has changed over the years and the original ideas need to change with them especially if we want to move beyond the anti-CP ethos. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 02:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@uhm - saying "if there was a dispute the mods will fix it", well, it is still early days for that institution, one must wait and see whether it will be effective as hoped.

@NR - if you want to propose such a policy, make your proposals and see if the community it will agree to them. But wouldn't it make more sense to agree on that policy first, and then only change groups/rights as an outcome of that discussion? Here we have a proposal to create a new "half-sysop" group, but I don't think the issue of when it should be used has been fully thought out. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(a) Mods aren't in a leadership role and we're not empowered to do anything more than intervene to put out fires. People are misunderstanding our mandate. I'm not sure what Maratrean's hope here is. If it's that we'll put fires out, I share it. If it's that we'll intervene to remove sysop rights for more than a few hours or days, I don't share it.

(b) I have no idea whether this whole discussion is such a proposal or whether we're just kicking the tires on the idea, so to speak. But yeah, of course it makes sense to come up with a policy first. But creating the usergroup by fiat is is fine as far as it goes as a preliminary measure, but Nx isn't going to bite so it doesn't matter. 23:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If we reduce the user rights of existing users some might get angry and leave, there's a case for consistency and not changing things without good reason. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that would wash because of how would we decide whom to reclassify. There might have been an opportunity when we removed the bureaucrats and had votes for sysops as well as mods but it's too late for that. No, I think that if this idea is to get any hold it has to apply to new users so that the "mostly harmless after 24 hours" demotion goes the way of history. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

^ What that smart fucker said. 04:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Glenn Beck hits a new low.

The Norwegian shooting victims were just like the Hitler Youth. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 20:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the bit In February he apologised to Reform Judaism, a group that campaigns for the modernisation of the Jewish faith, after comparing them to "radicalised Islam". Reform Judaism = al-Qaeda. What planet is he living on? That is like saying Peter Tatchell = Fred Phelps. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 20:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He's on the planet of "Associating people he disagrees with with bad things so that their opinions can be dismissed out of hand as evil." Most Conservatives live there, where they are also at war with the liberals residing on another continent. I swear, some people just shouldn't be allowed to make comparisons.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Jelly donuts? Sounds a bit Nazi to me. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

From a friend's FB thread on this -- Steve" "Is there anything Beck could say that would turn off his core constituency?" Jim: "Vote for Obama." P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 20:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If you think about this in their mindset it makes sense (I guess we all see the problem with that approach): Labour Party = Socialism, Labour Party Youth Camp = Hitler Youth. Because you know it's all about political indoctrination:

Despite Beck expressing surprise that political movements would hold camps for children, followers of his 9/12 Project – which aims to "recapture the spirit of the day after America was attacked" – have this summer been doing just that.
Organisers of the "vacation liberty schools" in several states told the Daily Telegraph how they taught children as young as eight a Tea Party-endorsed curriculum spanning religion, economics and political principles.

Oh well, I mean if there are religion and economics involved I guess it's okay? Or, you know, if you're doing it yourself it just doesn't count, because "we are telling the truth! So it can't be indoctrination!" --★uːʤɱ pervert 21:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what their econ "curriculum" is? The Cliff's Notes for Atlas Shrugged? Going Galt for Dummies? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I mean, who does a camp for kids that's all about politics? Indeed, who would do that? ADK^{...I'll revolve your chump!} 09:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I can think of one quote that really applies here:

MDB (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it gets better/worse. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the comments posted there makes a very valid point -- Beck's roots are as a radio "shock-jock", and really, that's what he's still doing. He's just moved from shocking his audience with jokes about sex (and, infamously, calling a rival DJ and making jokes about the rival's wife's miscarriage) to shocking the audience with political rhetoric.

And remember, Beck openly admits he at least partly bases his act on Howard Beale in the classic movie Network. He's modeling himself after a madman. MDB (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Attention to orders!

On 01AUG11 the Secretary of the Army will repose special trust and confidence in the patriotism, valor, fidelity, and professional experience of Staff Sergeant The Foxhole Atheist. In view of these qualities and his demonstrated leadership potential and dedicated service to the United States Army, he will, therefore, be promoted to the rank of Sergeant First Class.

If anyone is going to be in Seoul on August 4th and wants to come to my actual promotion ceremony, send me a message so I can see about getting you onto the garrison. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations. Didn't know the army had a secretary... weird. Is that something you get promoted to? "Congratulations, Lieutenant, you've made secretary!" But really, congrats--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The First Sergeant of my company at bootcamp shook my hand and told me I am a great American the day I went home. I was tired and really really sick so I made it awkward. I still facepalm about it to this day. Anyway, congratulations! Senator Harrison (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the only member here in South Korea is AD, or the user formerly known as Tom Moore. Congrats on your promotion, though! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I no longer am, or else I'd go! But I'm in NZ now. Norway next year.--^talk 04:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

E-7, right? That's great. From my days as a DoD civilian, I understand that's nothing to sneeze at.

How long have you been in the service? I'd imagine you're getting to the point retirement is a possibility. MDB (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! I still outrank you, however, but I know a sarge could kick my butt without raising a sweat, so I'll keep quiet. And as for military secretaries, I ended my tour of duty as our unit's adjutant, which basically made me the OC's secretary - complete with coffee making. Did have a corporalette to do the typing though. PsyGremlinSiarad! 11:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Congrats. That's good news.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 11:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If I wasn't so poor I would have flown to Korea this summer and could have been there. Damn, just damn. --★uːʤɱ secularist 12:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. A lot of credit goes to my wife for supporting me in the family arena and putting up with me playing soldier for all of these years. @Bricks: Secretary of the Army is a position filled by Congressional appointment. The new one is the Hon. Leon Panetta. @Sen. Harrison: Thanks for your service. @AD: I know, man. I remember asking if you were still going to be here when I would arrive. I hope all is well in NZ for you. @MDB: Yes. E-7. I just went over 11 years active service. I have 9 left until retirement but I'll get there! @Psy: Even though you're from some crazy foreign army thanks for your service, too. Unit adjutant is a lot like my last duty position as the operations sergeant for the Directorate of Doctrine, Training, Combat Development and Experimentation. Basically, I was like the Ponder Stibbons of the US Army Armor Corps. Thanks again, guys! I just wish my family was here for this. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

E-7 after eleven years? Either I'm wrong about how long it takes to move up there, or you've gotten promoted rather fast. MDB (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh. I looked up Leon Panetta, and his TOW article says he's Secretary of Defense, which I already knew existed, but is appointed by the president. Is that the same thing? I'll probably figure it myself anyways. I'm just tired right now.--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, Bricks. I was wrong. I got my wires crossed. The Leon Panetta thing was a hot issue because he's newly appointed. The secretary of the army is John McHugh. He is congressionally appointed, though nominated by the POTUS. As for the "7 in 11" MDB, I was in the right place at the right time for most of it. I made E-6 in 5 because I basically impressed the hell out of the Sergeant Major at 4th Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment and he fast-tracked me to Staff Sergeant. Then it was a waiting game of getting enough kick-ass NCO Evaluation Reports. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. I'm wrong way more often than you!--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with you mericans?

Ok, I admit I only ever look at the crazy coming from across the pond, but it is getting the crazy is just getting crazier with some of the coverage of the tragedy in Norway. In the UK, all the media I have seen is of shock, horror, and bewilderment at how such a thing has happened, but from the US media, it is being spun, twisted and exploited for some kind of political gain. I'm sure its just the usual fringe nut jobs, but it is still quite shocking to read some the shit Beck, Faux news, and WND, to name but a few, have spewing. Ths must surely be new low. Have they no shame? Rant over. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

To answer your question, they have none. Thunderkatz^Ho! 03:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't paid attention to any of it. That's the reason why they do it. The sheep nod and go "hmmmmm" and the propagators get their ratings. I combat it by purposely NOT knowing what those people are saying about it. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What parts of RW can you read without what the crazies say being mentioned with relative frequency...? Dendlai (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's about par for the course, though the "Hitler youth" thing was pretty brazen even for Beck. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me the loons in the US are in the minority. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@Dendlai- Well I guess I didn't think of that, but I don't search for it otherwise, like on google news. If I see it I skip it without even reading the headline. @AMG I hope so. They're loud and outspoken, they seem bigger than they actually are. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Please tell me the loons in the US are in the minority." Not in the House of Reps. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

About 40% of Americans believe in Young Earth Creationism. Which *is*, I guess, a minority... Dendlai (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all relaxed by this. You folks have nukes. AMassiveGay (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And we know how to use 'em. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

40% of Americans actually believe the Earth was created 6000 years ago??? SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 04:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that. I think that when you get deeper into it, the majority of that 40% would probably fall under "undecided". Which is bad, but better. Senator Harrison (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that's the actual "we believe the Earth is 6000 years old" faction, the "undecided" or "evolution is right but God had some mysterious input" is another ~40%, with the minority remainder being "evolution is right and God had no part". Changes depending on specific demographic but that's the average overall. [1] ADK^{...I'll delete your harpsichord!} 09:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that makes me not break objects in hulk-rage is that the creationist line is slooowly going down and the other two are going up. Senator Harrison (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And here I go again, answering one of AMGs questions with a wall of text:

It's not new at all, remember the reaction to the earthquake in Japan? Let me paraphrase the American reaction: "Pearl Harbor, bitches!" Seldomly you find such douchebag reactions to global events as in the United States.

There are several reasons why the USA and Europe go about these things so differently. The first and foremost is a difference in culture. Europe is a much more mulitcultural place than the US, in terms of languages we have Babylonical proportions (about 70 different ones I guess), from which none has a overall majority. The same applies for religions: Christians, catholic, protestant and orthodox - with all their subschools of theology, Muslims, Jews life together, sometimes in the same house. In the USA the clear majority are Christian protestants that agree on most matters anyway - even with dozens of subschools. The same goes for all other areas of culture: politics, lifestyles, idea of values. In short Europe is more multicultural, more open for other things and therefor more humanistic.

The US has a unique bipolar political machinery. It really is one of a kind, in Europe you don't have only two dominant political parties, in allmost all European countries you have at least 3 and in some countries up to 6 parties with longstanding traditions. This is rooted in Americas unique electoral process which simply is out of age but due to tradtionalists and the view that the US constitution ins something of a holy document establishing the United States. The process is due to it's weight on personal and not on ideology extremely exclusive to fringe views. The Greens will probably never get seats in either house, simply due to the "the winner takes it all" process. And while this system worked perfectly without mass media - the time it was made up - in a society of mass media and instant news reports it leads to bizzare consequences. The two sites try to utilize evrything that goes on in the world for their own programmes, desperately trying to make themselves look better or the enemy worse. This doesn't work in Europe because the reactions allmost immediately span over several opinions originating from the different parties. Therefor automatically there are borders installed of how politically correct opinions can spin out of proportion. The CAC (Christian American Conservative) reaction to the news is almost immediately centered around defending themselves, the CEC (Christian European Conservative) reaction is almost immediately centered around saying that this is not their standpoint, that they are not that extreme but nobody denies that he came from this political fraction. In short, the bipolar system fuels ad hominem attacks like no other system, because it lacks variation.

The US has a different approach to sex and violence. In Europe we are very open to sex and don't like violence, the exact aopposite is true for America. And with that comes a less humanistic approach to respect and human decency. The ad hominem attack driven system of American politics makes Americans more hardened against personal insults and against acts of non-decency.. We through this get such things.

The US has the problem that it is the dominant culture in pop culture, therefor the views represented in the media are mostly American, and through that there is no possibility of "lighting it up". Most Americans are utterly ignorant when it comes to the rest of the world, although this wasn't always the way it is, this leads to the view that your own political copass (no not that one) is the standard for all of the world. Much alike medival societies thought the were civilized while all the others aren't (maybe with the exception of Arabia, which in the middle age, a sweet spot on the map), or a child assumes that it looks the same way everywhere just like home. The foreign input is missing, culturally the US is isolated from the rest of the world, with leaks only for those who have academic records and those who live at the borders. The system appears to be stiff, as input that may change this is lacking.

The bipolarity of the USA is also rooted in it's beginnings as a seperate culture: the puritans, religious nuts that risked their lives to practize what they thought was right and indowed with a clear view of what is good and what is evil. This view still stays alive to date and is further fueled by the bipolarity of American politics. Everything is set bipolar: Right/Wrong, Good/Evil, Hero/Villain, Us/Them and Left/Right.

The ignorance toward the outside world further spans into a disrespect for other people. But the ausdience these people get is stemming from the spanning of the media industry all over the country. In Europe you can't make your opinions public that fast, not even through regulation but simply through the language barrier. National media will wait more then the media of other constinents with conclusions, which leads to a more middle opinionating of news.

A huge difference is the culture of journalism. In Europe journalists see it as a code of honor to portray the truth at it is (because it is very hard to opinionate in societies so diverse), they go for the truth not so much for the conclusion. While in the United States the journalists go for "fast" and "what it means" type of news. I have an example for this: The reporting of 9/11. The Europeans went immediately to what will happen know, who might be behind it, the history of attacks against the United States - almost no interviews just facts that eduacated people know anyway. The American media interviewed people getting the stories, while waiting on what the officials say and constructing stories of "heroes" saving people, making out the good things in it and contributing what you might call the "American saga". The violence in the aftermath of 9/11 against Arabs in the US, is part of that black and white view of the world and of the political machinery behind it.

The question if they have no shame, is use of our European values on American media - it's designated to get lost in translation. To not be understood by those who turn news and facts into propaganda. As harder they do that, as more they think they might be damaged. --★uːʤɱ secularist 14:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

. Just... . Röstigraben (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Röstigraben, uhmit can I marry you two?

The thing about the USA is that to the citizen, only the USA matters. The USA is the world. There are no other real countries, just faraway places in the ambassadors dreams. There is no empathy. HollowWorld (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not even if you hold a gun to my head - and that has nothing to do with (probable) fact that he is male. And while I'm at it, is "uhmit" or a typo or a wordplay on "humid"? --★uːʤɱ heretic 22:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I read your name as 'uhmit', my apologies for my shoddy eyesight. Also I'm fairly sure I'm a girl. I COULD GO CHECK. I DO THAT EVERY MORNING.HollowWorld (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh I thought like a the priest guy that marries somebody (Me+Röstigraben) not to marry somebody (Me+You). Goat damn English sucks sometimes. And I kinda like "uhmit", don't know why though. --★uːʤɱ heretic 01:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes English does suck but at least we have wordplay. Don't worry though, it'll be a three way wedding. I'll be the one who cooks and kicks ass. You can be the one who punches faces, Röstigraben can be the cool hacker dude. uhmit is nice. HollowWorld (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I know my opinion is unwarranted, but this just got kind of hot. You're a lucky man, Röstigraben. Lucky man, indeed. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, no thanks to my decidedly subpar hacking skills, though. And the prospect of having to listen to his uninformed anti-American rants in person is kind of a dealbreaker. Röstigraben (talk) 09:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not Anti-American. I like America (no really really like it), but other than some Europeans I won't support whatever America does, see it as critical thinking, maybe? Btw, "more violent" can be a neutral description, but on the other hand if the reader is automaticall biased to take everything the wrong way... --★uːʤɱ pervert 11:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it can be described like this since many citizens of the USA think of patriotism akin to a second religion, you can support Jesus's message of love and peace but still disagree with the whole "stoning people to death" thing. HollowWorld (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Trickle down economics at work!

A company gets a tax cut, the savings get passed on to the consumer, right?

Wrong. MDB (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anybody here is surprised in the least... Anarcho Symphony Noise ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 12:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ufology and creationism?

I was working on the Lloyd Pye article and wondering if he should be filed under creationism? His brand of ancient astronauts basically says that humans were genetically engineered by aliens and he rips off quite a bit of creationist material to "debunk" evolution. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Creationism, or at least YEC, puts under "created" a lot more things than human beings, so no. A lot of AA advocates advocate such a position, by the way - I remember reading a misrepresentation of a evo-creo trial in one of Däniken's books and he claimed he found both sides equally wrong. AAAs have their special niche of stupid.

Do we count Raelians as creationists? I remember they expressed support to ID.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In Michael Shermer's latest, "The Believing Brain", he has them in similar mental position.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

the ones I have heard dont discuss the formation of earth , so not entirely creationist, but range from aliens seeding life to aliens tweaking an ape to become human, to simply teaching early humans. There is also Stichen and man was made as slave laborors for ... (i forget) the Nebiruians. Hamster (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The Raelian scriptures say that the Elohim made all life on earth, from the single cell up to complex multicelluar organisms. No evolution, all design. Don't think it was completely from scratch though, they took existing life from their own planet and modified it. In Raelian belief, I think life itself must be eternal - they claim every living cell contains an entire universe, if that was so I don't see how you could create a cell from scratch, it would be impossible. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Uuummm.... uummmm...

Moved from Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP? because it is completely unrelated to CP --★uːʤɱ pervert 19:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't notice how often you say "uuummm" when you're speaking as much as you do when you're giving a presentation at work.

Fortunately, it was informal lunchtime thing, not, say a formal presentation to our executive. And several people told me they liked it. MDB (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you give this presentation at conservapedia? 70.52.88.201 (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No.... MDB (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Move it to Saloon Bar then? --★uːʤɱ federalist 17:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Make it Conservapedia-related or GTFO! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, damn. That was a complete oversight on my part, and I didn't even get the hint. Sorry. MDB (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

wyoming is a scary place

Just came back from South Dakota via wyoming. every 10 miles or so, was a "life - it's a gift not a choice" and "life - your mother was pro life" type sign. we took two different highways coming and going - and they both had these pro life signs everywhere. scary place indeed.--En attendant Godot 01:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

yeah but they've got killer national parks--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny, because there are only about 7 people living in Wyoming. "Life - Why the Fuck are We So Sparse?" Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 01:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Fuck. A quick look into WP gives me 26 Rs to 4 Ds in WY Senate and 50 Rs to 10 Ds in da House, that's in both cases more than 80% Republican. Not even Texas is that bad with 19 Rs to 12 Ds in TX Senate and 101 Rs to 49 in da House. Shit. I'm gonna drive around Wyoming if I ever happen to be in that area. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 01:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Same problem with pro-life signs infesting Pennsylvania. It's not just Wyoming. 184.19.136.63 (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I see them now and again in PA, but not so much in liberal Pittsburgh. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 01:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ya have to go to Everett...Altoona...Shippensburg...they're all over the place. 184.19.136.63 (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A friend of mine from Pittsburgh describes PA as being "Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, with Mississippi in between."

I'll be spending a few days in my birth state of Tennessee starting tomorrow. It is... not a state currently noted for its liberalism. MDB (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I was surprized i did not see such signs in SD. but then again, they are so anti abortion, you can't even find a place that DOES abortion unless you go out of state. (oh, maybe that's why the Wyoming signs exist? vacation or work, MDBEn attendant Godot 13:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Twelve virtues of rationality

Twelve virtues of rationality by Eliezer Yudkowsky Real first name and last initial^{Talk, talk, talk skim my contributions} 09:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And what justifies his choice of "virtues" right, and others wrong? If a Christian says, "Faith is a virtue of rationality", what makes the Christian wrong and Yudkowsky right? Is there some kind of experiment or test we could perform to see who is right? Or is "rationality" purely subjective? "X is rational" = "Believe X!", "X is irrational" = "Don't believe X!" (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to conduct an experiment (other than a thought experiment), aren't you at least implicitly accepting empiricism anyway? Of course you have to make assumptions. A lot of it stems from an assumption that knowledge is good. I certainly can't find absolute, unquestionable proof that that statement is true. What is this 'good' concept anyway? --Danfly (talk) 10:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What do we mean by empiricism - that experiences, experiments, tests, observations, sense data, etc., are a useful and significant source of knowledge? Well, that is not saying much; few would disagree. Or, that experience is the only, or the only substantial/significant, source of knowledge? That many would disagree with. Asking for a test/experiment, while it assumes the first form of empiricism, it does not assume the second. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I had meant it in the first sense, not in an extreme Lockean sense. I assumed that's where Yudkowsky wouldn't have made it a mere one out of twelve if he held it as an absolute standard of knowledge. Having actually read the piece in full now though, I see he has his own definition: 'The roots of knowledge are in observation and its fruit is prediction'. So, he seems to mean it in the second sense, assuming that sentence refers to all knowledge. In my own personal view, if you accept the proposition that 'sensory experience is a more reliable source of knowledge than the intuition', then you are at least a partial empiricist. --Danfly (talk) 11:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see with a claim "sensory experience is a more reliable source of knowledge than the intuition", is it ignores the vast variety of different types of knowledge. For many subjects of knowledge, your claim is true. For example, if we want to know whether anthropogenic global warming exists, scientific research is a better source of knowledge than intutition. On the other hand, suppose the subject of knowledge is "1+1=2" (or some much more complex mathematical proposition), or "Does God exist?" or "Is murder wrong?" or "Is ethics objective?" or "Is logical positivism correct?" or "What is knowledge?" or "Is sensory experience is a more reliable source of knowledge than the intuition?" or "What are the basic principles of rationality?" - in answering most of those, whatever answer we give, we do not primarily rely on sense experience. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to throw Kant in here, albeit for an argument he wouldn not fully support. Can you know that 5+7=12 without prior knowledge of the number 12? If not, where do we obtain this prior knowledge of the number 12? We clearly have some faculty by which we can understand these concepts and which allows us to construct logical axioms (and this faculty may simply represent an innate tendency towards inductive reasoning), but could we do this without drawing upon experience? I would think not, but I can't know for certain either. --Danfly (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't use a maths example for that. You define 12 as 5+7, it's impossible to not have prior knowledge of that number, or any number for that matter so long as you have the concept of cardinality. ADK^{...I'll throw your handstand!} 11:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

When you say cardinality, does this presuppose the ability to count, or does a simple understanding of greater than/less than relationships enough to suggest an understanding of the concept? --Danfly (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Take n rocks, take m rocks, you now have n + m rocks. --85.78.230.209 (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! Thank you for providing a rule that is undeniably an abstraction developed from experience. --Danfly (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No, cardinality is that you have n rocks, and they have therefore the property n. This property is shared by n cups of tea, n sofas and n goats. It's not experience that forms this. You don't need to experience 12 rocks in order to know what the number 12 is. This is why maths can deal with things like Graham's Number even though it's larger than the number of particles in the universe - therefore we could never experience it. ADK^{...I'll spit your plastic!} 22:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'll reap something if I sow here

This reminds me of a troll post I made at lesswrong a while back. Sadly it got no attention whatsoever. Turns out you have to agree with the general opinion before you get to post in their mainspace. Here goes:

You are all really pathetic, spending your time debating and discussing distant speculative science.

We know nothing about artificial intelligence. We aren't anywhere close to a technological singularity (if it will ever even occur). And yet, you take yourselves so seriously.

This place reads like a Douglas Adams novel.

As Bayesian twits, you apply probability to everything, discounting the fact that the improbable does in fact occur, and that not all factors are known: factors that may have dramatic effects on the equation.

What's worse, you obsess over such things as cryonics and artificial intelligence- which are less than pipe dreams. How are you Bayesians, then? There is no reason to believe humanity will ever achieve such things. Indeed, you are indulging in pseudoscience.

And then there's your attempted monopoly of the term "rationalism." This is ironic, since you spend your time in a fantasy world where a magical AI can solve all your problems.

Believe it or not using reason is not limited to pompous nerds frantically slapping their keyboards with their variably spindly or sausage-like fingers. Many figures have arrived at better conclusions without Bayesian probability throughout history. Hell, has Bayesian thinking ever achieved anything? Have any calculations on celestial mechanics and computer science benefited from non-frequentist statistics? We had to wait until Einstein to predict Mercury's orbit. Pierre-Simon Laplace certainly didn't succeed. You are apes with pretenses of superiority. Try actually helping humanity. Volunteer. Vote. Don't rot your minds in this intellectual cesspit.

--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop liking what I don't like. --85.78.230.209 (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

how do you mean?--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What, you mean you haven't figured it out yet?

Wait, so am I seriously like the only person here who has realized that LW is just a Yudkowsky e-personality cult? I mean, it's either that or some weird ass quasi-religion a la Scientology, I suppose. I would think that's been obvious ever since Yudy flipped a shit a year or so ago and then delete, deep-burned, and subsequently banned anybody who read this one hypothetical post about gaming the stock market to make a FAI on the grounds that it would make all the future AI's rise up and wipe us out Reaper-style. I fail to see how anyone can take him seriously anymore. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 19:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The HP fanfic is good. --85.78.230.209 (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be pretty much true (and it's also said as such in our article on LW). The Sequences contain a lot of really brilliant things, and LW beyond them has a lot of great stuff, but unfortunately they also have become ensnared in their own insular community - a community defined and governed by one guy.

I would actually like to see some publications come out of LW - a collection of the many clever things that have been said, edited down to eliminate redundancy into a coherent selection of essays around a common theme of escaping the hard-wired shortcomings of our minds.--^talk 02:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Vocab nelp needed

I'm editing the "Alternative Medicine", and i said "most of that which has been proven effective is not curative but is [need word here]... I'm looking for a word that means "something you use to handle pain, help you live with a debilitating injury, etc". I used "supportive" for a place holder, but that's not the word or concept i'm really thinking of.--En attendant Godot 14:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

alleviative? remedial? PsyGremlinZungumza! 14:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

analgesic/analgetic, analgic, soothing? (all of those words mean a single word in German, so I cracked open my dictionary) --★uːʤɱ heretic 14:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Palliative. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

EC what that smart bastard said. 15:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, you smart person,you. That was exactly what i was looking for. --En attendant Godot 15:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

LulzSec

So their teenage 'spokesman' got arrested by Scotland Yard and apparently some people want the kid executed. Thoughts? HollowWorld (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

" apparently some people want the kid executed." "Some people like lawmakers, police and judges, or "some people" like trolls who leave comments on websites? If it's the former, who? If it's the latter, meh. P-Foster_{The French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.} 19:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Cleary just ran the lulzsec IRC channel. He's innocent. They're just trying to peg it on him to show they aren't totally incompetent.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

atheist or believer in something... "My sweet lord" rocks

Sighs. I miss George. --En attendant Godot 20:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I preferred the material that wasn't a rip-off. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I remember reading on TOW that George Harrison would often bring up song ideas to Lennon and McCartney, only to be told whatever tune he proposed sounded too much like an already existing song.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's TOW on the controversy: [2]--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually all the Beatles nicked stuff from other songs, just not to the extent as using the whole melody. For instance Lennon got sued for using the line "Here come old flat-top" from Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me" as the start of "Come Together," and he used the piano intro from the old Ritchie Barrett song "Some Other Guy" as the intro to "Instant Karma." Musicians in every genre do stuff like this all the time. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Archaeopteryx revisited

I aint no smart, n' most brainstuff above a third grade level are beyonds me, but this might tickle the fancy of you intellectual types. I thought this bird was set in stone, but turns out some people are calling it out again...--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Eh, that's been going on for a while. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The Chinese scientists acknowledge they have only weak evidence to support their proposal, which hinges on including a newly recognized dinosaur. So now we're just reporting on any claim related to science? Good job, Yahoo. Love how the title completely ignores the lack of certainty contained within the article. Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring lack of certainty is one of the rules of science reporting. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

{ec}Well, now I'm better informed. Thanks guise. Of course, that won't stop fundies from going on a feeding frenzy--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I wondered why I was seeing a load of cretinists talking about the Achaeopteryx all of a sudden... Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 22:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

help to understand oglaf

Can someone explain this one to me? NSFW. BTW, love the quote up top.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Turns out the quote is random each time, so I'll tell you so you can laugh with me: Do not fear God's love. He hasn't gotten anyone pregnant in 2000 years. Anyways, explaining the joke on the comic to me would be appreciated--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If you really need that explained you shouldn't be reading Oglaf. ADK^{...I'll hear your umbilical cord!} 22:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I usually get Oglaf. Just not this particular one. I am particularly fond of the fountain of death and fountain of doubt ones. Those were fantastic--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it's about women having body image problems. IIRC researchers reported that by a crazy chain of events, a preference for "neat, tidy" female genitalia among censors has resulted in ordinary women having fairly drastic plastic surgery. But, it's just a web comic, don't think about it too hard. However the ending of "Blue Door" is hilarious. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the weaker ones. It doesn't seem to follow properly as a joke. So the woman's deluded into thinking that she's hideous, when actually she's not. She apparently lied to the knight about knowing where this rock thing is, just to get sex from him, because she thinks that's the only way she'll get sex because she's so hideous. The knight figures out that she doesn't know where the rock is, figures out she's crazy, and leaves because he's probably fed up with this kind of crap by now. Then the woman blames her vagina for scaring the man off, because she thinks it's hideous. Leaving aside the fact that explaining jokes in such detail sucks the fun out of them to begin with, this joke didn't make much sense to me. It's like the writer took the first half of one joke and combined it with the second half of a different joke. Seems like it'd have made more sense for the story to follow the knight and have him tell the story to someone else. Or something. I can't believe I've put this much thought into a dumb joke but it's stuck in my head. There is something wrong about that comic. X Stickman (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow... just wow.

Some American - excuse the word - fuckheads react to Japan's World Cup win in a sadly predictable manner. Scum, all of them. PsyGremlinSnakk! 10:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that on FailBook. TBH it's not just Americans, all (alright most) Football fans are like that. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. But good to see women's football getting people's attention, all the same. Go Matildas! (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

<generalisation>It's amusing to me how most Americans only seem to give a shit about football when they get an opportunity to gloat about it. I'll bet most the people on that collage don't even understand the game properly. Fuckers.</generalisation> El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 11:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What do I hear from the streets? "Two World Wars and One World Cup!". Yeah it's really not that new at all. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 11:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Except you don't hear "Ok, Germany, you beat us 4-1 again but fuck yeah! We fire bombed the shit out of Dresden!" --PsyGremlinFale! 11:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

When England played Germany in the Last 16 at the World Cup last summer the England fans booed the Germans during their national anthem. It made me embarrassed to be English. No wonder most the world hates us. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 11:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The most astonishing thing is that they actually have to seat the fans separately during footy matches. When I went to see England vs the All Blacks in 1997 we were sitting with a couple of kiwis in front of us who we got chatting to during the match and had a beer with afterwards. You just wouldn't see that in football. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It's often said "Football is a game for gentlemen played by hooligans, Rugby is a game for hooligans played by gentlemen" ADK^{...I'll edify your Gamecube!} 11:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Rugby is a game played by men with odd-shaped balls. PsyGremlinTal! 11:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And cricket is game watched by people with huge coolers full of beer spending the entire day in the sun getting shitfaced :) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You might think England vs. Germany is up high in the unfriendly zone, try to get full coverage of a Germany vs. Netherlands game and you will be astonished what fans do. Seriously, it's like brothers that start shooting each other with guns all of a sudden. When the Dutch didn't make the qualification for the 2002 World Cup the jokes and "haha!"s went on for over half a year. Fans even had a song going "Ohne Holland fahr'n wir zu WM! Fahr'n wir zur WM! Fahr'n wir zur WM!" ("Without Holland we're going to the World Cup! Going to the World Cup! Going to the World Cup!"), and I wasn't sure if I should laugh about the Dutch or be ashamed of being born in Germany. There are also these matches between Germany and Turkey, that make for a funny thing, because we have 3 million people of Turkish desent or citizenship in Germany many of whom have no fucking clue anymore who they should root for. Soccer is a funny game... --★uːʤɱ secularist 14:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

But it's one thing to make fun of a nation's team's misfortune - people do that all the time, especially if we're speaking Scottish football here, but for it do degenerate into the kind of taunts and racial slurs being made against the winners is just bizarre. --PsyGremlin講話 14:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You've managed to combine two things I care about so little: soccer and facebook. This is what I'd expect from multiplying the idiocy of soccer fandom with the idiocy of facebook. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wheres, for example, fans of Ireland's national football team are 100% dependent for their happiness on whether or not England have been beaten by someone - anyone, but ideally the Germans. The gloating has to be seen to be believed. Of course the logical extension of this is the idea that we might ever be able to beat them, which is unlikely given that their team is entirely made of players who play in the lofty heights of the Premier League, whereas ours is made up of players scabbing around at the bottom end of the same league and a few leagues below that, combined with a few ruffians who stole a footie shirt. Ah, Tranmere Rovers, sure it's like our national squad. DogP (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Psy: I never said the opposite, allthough that sometimes still seems to happen in Italy - but Italians are rather fast in that area.

With all the bad things and the gloating, soccer also has many good effects: Whole areas and country define themselves through soccer teams. I have the "advantage" of living in a city with two major soccer teams (FC St. Pauli (ironically the red light district of Hamburg) and Hamburger SV) two teams that have a hate-love relationship. And for example the German economy spiked a bit before the World Cup because people bought so many flat screens… I think all in all this is rather framed into sports in Europe, I wouldn't know how that works in the US exactly. --★uːʤɱ atheist 15:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Many, including me, attribute the birth of the Celtic Tiger as Ireland's victory over Italy in the 1990 World Cup. As Ray Houghton ran across the face of the box and lobbed the then-World Champions, we stood and roared proudly as a nation for about the first time in the 20th Century. From that moment, million dollar housing semi-d estate homes began to form into a lovely little bubble economy and so Ray Houghton is to blame for the country being in receivership to the world. Fucking Ray and his fucking golden boots, fuck him and the horse he rode in on. DogP (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That was 1994. --★uːʤɱ soviet 23:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

90, 94, whatever. I was ploughing through so much ecstasy at the time I don't really remember anything from the 90s. Anyway 90 was still critically important as not only was it our first World Cup, but more important yet, I sang on the Irish national squads terrace anthem "Jackie's Army". Hurray! DogP (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

mischief making suggestions

I have just purchased some credits for an sms spoofing service, so i'm now planning how to cause the most confusion and (for me) fun between my mates. I thinking; when we're all in the pub together, spoofing a message from freind1 to freind2 saying "I'm not staying out long love, freind2 is boring me to death. Want me to get a pizza on the way home?" So F2 thinks he got a message meant for F1's missus. Thoughts and suggestions please! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 18:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You are evil. --★uːʤɱ atheist 18:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

http://damnyouautocorrect.com/ --85.78.230.209 (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that could be really sinister. How is spoofing even possible? How can you (seem to) send a text from someone else's phone? Why can't the networks pick this up? ^{ONE / TALK} 09:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Text friend's missus with "SUBSCRIBE gaychat", then again "Sorry, sent that to the wrong number". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_spoofing Replacing the number with an ID that you set, potentially confusing phone users if they have that ID already associated with a number. ADK^{...I'll cogitate your windows!} 22:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Heat is a liberal conspiracy

The deniers are now denying the heat wave. Impressive even for them. Bonus Bill Nye smackdown. So now heat is a liberal conspiracy. Discuss. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I balked at that Media Matters article when they quoted the Weather Underground, but presumably they mean this Weather Underground, not this Weather Underground. Somehow that name seems like a poor choice. DickTurpis (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Colorado has been unreasonably cold and wet this year. GREEN actually. rush limbaugh loves that. "how can colorado be COLDER, if it's global WARMING???" sighs.... i wish they would actually read something. learn something.--En attendant Godot 22:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This guy has made a name for himself based on that particular brand of willful ignorance. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Celebrated mother's birthday...

Went to Red Lobster to celebrate my mother's 54th birthday and when I went to the restroom... SUDDENLY CHICK TRACTS, CHICK TRACTS EVERYWHERE. I took one of them and trashed the rest, then I went and told one of the servers about it. The Chick tract I took is one about Mary being some kind of pagan idol and is called WHY IS MARY CRYING. It's damn hilarious. I'm being preached at by a comic in a restroom. Anyone else ever swarmed by these things? HollowWorld (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

-snicker- That's hilarious. But no. Never happened.--Dumpling (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't throw em away. Pass them out to friends and even strangers, for maximum lulz.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I once saw a Chick tract nestled in a plastic board in a wall in the NYC subway called "WHO IS HE?," I've read a few tens of these pieces of hate literature online; a few are funny (like the Dungeons & Dragons one, because of how RIDICULOUS it is!), but the rest just make me SICK, with all of their lies and slander. I ripped it up and threw it out, as my protest for the day against Christian Fascism. The scary part is that, according to Chick, so many people (is it any wonder why Jesus refers to his followers as SHEEP?!) take them seriously ..., and decide to join Jack Chick's flavor of joyless, intolerant, and hateful religion. His sources are among the most dubious characters in the world, like Kent Hovind (a real good laugh), John Todd (Chick's source on "occult" things like D&D (I've never played D&D, but it seems like a cool game.)), and Alberto Rivera (liar, liar, pants on fire about Catholics). The really funny part about Chick tracts is how easily they can be parodied and ripped on by others, such as the parody of "BIG DADDY?," and the commentary on "MOVING ON UP," where some kid all of a sudden decides that he wants to be a Nazi, and comes to the completely illogical and non-sequitur conclusion of "I can be a god!" from "There is no God." 74.89.192.173 (talk) 04:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a hardline evangelical aunt and uncle who order those things by the case. Or their church provides them. Something like that. They always have at least a dozen on them and hand them out constantly. At halloween they go to a street corner in Ypsilanti, MI and stuff them in the trick-or-treater's bags as they pass. I also had the privilege of having to suffer through ALL of Kent Hovind's seminars (available at the time) when I and my siblings were sent there for two weeks the summer I turned 16 while my parents worked out some "issues". They had them for my cousins' homeschooling curricula. I actually got scolded by my uncle for daring to question Hovind's premises and "theories". He said "That man is a DOCTOR. Are you? You should just LISTEN and LEARN, young man." It was shameful, really. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I wish I had visual arts skills, then I would make my own comic tracts. Actually, Jack Chick ain't the only player in this game. Anyone ever seen the Children of God's comics? Absolutely disturbing some of that, makes Jack Chick seem very tame and harmless. I also have a book containing the prophet Raël's message presented in comic form, very manga-influenced visual arts style, suspect it may be the work of some of his East Asian (Japanese or Korean) followers - wish I could find it online, I only have a printed copy. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could get it scanned? Real first name and last initial^{Talk, talk, talk skim my contributions} 09:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I could. Not right now, I think it is in one of the moving boxes, which I have never unpacked despite having moved 6+ months ago :) But one day, sure (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ouch you just made me die inside a bit, Mara. Manga= Japanese comics - in Japan: all comics. Korean comics = Manwha. Korean word for comic: Manwha. Also I have heard from people that read much more of them than I do, that there are actually different styles. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 14:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

54th birthday of the mother ... that would probably put you somewhere between 20 and 30, right? --★uːʤɱ federalist 14:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In the USA I'm of legal voting age, but I can't drink yet. So you're close! HollowWorld (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've never even heard of "Chick Tracts", and from your second sentence I thought they were some kind of insect. I've just gooooogled and all I can say is wow. WOW. That's some fucked up shit. I've read a couple and they're grim, really grim, all involving someone dying. Fucking hell. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You think those are fucked up? Meet "Lisa" (1), (2), (3), (4) - remember, it's ok to rape your daughter, as long as you ask God for forgiveness afterwards. PsyGremlinSprich! 15:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There are two problems (AMONG MANY OTHERS) with this Christian worldview: 1. Horrible people go to heaven to enjoy eternal bliss, just because they have Jebus. 2. Ordinary people and people who are good, by any rational standard, go to hell to experience eternal torment, just because they don't have Jebus. Fuck Jack Chick with a broken, upside-down cross up his ass, preferably one made out of a "splintery kind of wood!" 74.89.192.173 (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The idea is that true good can only exist with Christ in your heart, and that there's an intrinsic virtue in Christianity. Chick sees good deeds performed on the behalf of anyone that isn't his type of Christian as selfishly motivated, and he believes that if even the sickest, most depraved murderer were to truly accept Jesus they would be washed of all sin in God's eyes. A fairly problematic world view.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

BBC Cryptography Fail

[3]:

“”This scrambles your details so that the encoded message can be sent across the internet. But to decode the message the website uses the primes which divide N to undo the calculation. Although N is public, the primes which divide N are the secret keys which unlock the secret.

Err, no. The primes are destroyed after the keys are generated. The private key is the multiplicative inverse of the public key exponent mod φ(pq). Also, the asymmetrical algorithm (RSA) is used to encrypt a generated symmetrical key which is used to encrypt the data. RSA is too clunky to encrypt an entire web page or request. </pedantic> Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, just noticed this in the comments as well:

“”An organism's ability to develop immunity or alter physical characteristics better suited to it's environment is NOT evolution it is adaptation - very different. Tests have shown that mutations do NOT carry through to progeny, they stop at the mutated individual. A mutated fly with 3 wings will not parent 3 winged offspring - it doesn't happen. Evolution is a theory, belief in it requires faith

Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I got an A in final year cryptography, and now 5+ years later I am staring at the φ and going, yeah, what was that thing again, I used to know this.... Euler something??? Still, I am amazed at how much trouble basic cryptography questions pose for some of my colleagues, I think having studied the theory can make a big difference to your understanding in practice, even if one soon forgets most of that theory. (Oh, and S-boxes... and elliptic curves... and differential cryptanalysis... and aargh, I remember the words and forget what they mean, except very vaguely...) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 13:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, unless you're writing a new algorithm or implementing one you don't really need to understand the mathematics behind it at all (I don't). I am surprised at the number of people who work in IT (the more complex areas like development and security) who know absolutely nothing about encryption. Most understand symmetrical algorithms but don't know anything about asymmetrical ones, or how key pairs work. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, looks like I was wrong. These days a lot of systems do keep p and q to speed up decryption[4]. Serves me right for not keeping up with the times :-\ Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's easy to memorise a few definitions and a few proofs and spew them out again on an exam paper, and then forget them forever immediately afterwards. A lot more difficult to understand them well enough that one really understands them. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps even better from the comments, as this seems to keep on giving:

“”I have a masters degree in Mathematics and Computing, I also took Biology first year in uni. I know that we didn't from the Apes. I know we have a Heaveny Father who loves us and created us in his image and provided a way for us to return to live with Him through the sacrifice of His Son. From many experiences I know He hears and answers our prayers also. More in depth scientific articles please.

Just... yeah... ADK^{...I'll tear your hailstone!} 15:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

These crazy creationists are all over the BBC comments pages like flies on shit recently. Must be their latest target. Even more reason not to read the bottom half of the internet. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Damn it

As much as I hate Michelle Bachmann, I gotta say, I'm not on board with stuff like this. 9 suicides in 2 years in a district of over 600,000 people? That's hardly an epidemic ,and if it were, trying to pin them on Bachmann is hardly convincing. If anything, it's a local issue, and Bachmann is a federal representative. Technically, she has no more influence on what happens in her district than Nancy Pelosi does. End of rant. DickTurpis (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think thepoint here is that there have been a number of teen gay suicides recently and people have finally started to join the dots. Gay teens get bullied. Bullied teens have a higher tendency to suicide.

OK, so nothing that contentious here. However

“”The writer argues that Bachmann's refusal to support antibullying legislation in the state in 2006 and the agenda favored by some of her anti-gay allies in Minnesota may have contributed to a harmful environment.

This can be laid at Bachmann's door. Her strong anti gay stance reinforces the perception that same sex attraction is something shameful which reinforces the bullying. She, as a political leader with a high profile, has a duty to lead and, as such, her failure to speak out against bullying is a failure to lead. They're not trying to pin the suicides on Bachmann, rather they're criticising her failure to get behind movements such as "It Gets Better" and write off anti bullying laws as "completely stifling free speech and expression." Jack Hughes (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Coach class doomsday

Evidently you can book an economy class doomsday bunker for 6 months to get past those pesky "life extinction events"; while the executive version gives you a full year and access to the wine cellar. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 03:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

So it's like Rapture Pet Care but aimed at fleecing a different group of gullible people. Nice. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't CP covering these issues?

Straight out of Andyland I find this list of 12 things the mainstream media aren't covering. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 03:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Because #1 isnt an issue.--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Michael T. Snyder?! The stupid, it burns! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"All over the world, huge cracks are appearing for no discernible reason." I kinda like that one. Doctor Dark (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it has to be the Super EMP weapon. How dare they not report on Korean conspiracies! Dammit! ADK^{...I'll taste your operating theater!} 08:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"Unfunded Liabilites"

I was checking around on information about the US debt levels on the Internet and I got this statistic of about "$115 trillion" in unfunded liabilities (that should be used as the "real statistic" for what the gummint owes and not the $15 trillion mark).

Almost all the sources come from conservative/libertarian think tanks (and you know how accurate they are)...followed by shrieking wingnut cries about Bill Clinton actually not having a balanced budget as he left office and that "anti-business" and "anti-capitalistic" Obama shouldn't be taxing the "job creators," union members are "pinheads," evil liburls are welfare queens that don't want to work and that Social Security, Medicare, etc. should be privatized (AKA gutted). The usual.

Is there any legitimacy to this?

No, "unfunded liabilities" are extrapolations out to 75 years in the future (see here for a good brief explanation). This is a bullshitting tactic commonly used by corporate propaganda organs "think tanks" I like to call the "Big Scary Numbers Tactic." What you do is take outstanding debt and mix it together with various wild extrapolations and other out-of-context numbers to produce a BIG SCARY NUMBER and then claim our only hope to remain solvent is to cut/privatize all these programs immediately or face economic Armageddon. If you want to see just about every which way you can calculate public debt, you can't do better than TOW. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

So it's like predicting the total costs of government spending for the next 50 years and onward (if the current fiscal path somehow continues for that long) and say that that's what you exactly owe right now. Ugh.

Just wondering then, why would respected news organizations and even the Federal Reserve (scan the Wiki link below) use it as a relevant tool?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Economy

Trying to predict economics more than even 5 years in advance is something that would make Nassim Taleb have a fit. It's just not possible to do. 75 years ago we weren't even in WWII yet and just coming out of the Great Depression. So these people are saying that with the data available in 1936 we could have predicted the war, it's outcome, the booms, the busts, the moon landings, the two Gulf wars and the fall of the Soviet Union accurately enough to predict the economy? My fat hairy arse. ADK^{...I'll detect your padlock!} 07:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

MFHA? Really? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, the liabities for the next 75 years are in there - but not the receivables (forgive me if that is the wrong word, I had to look it up)? No wonder they can blow it up so badly...

When listening to the libertarian end time theology economic forecasts I remember Germany a few years back in a time were the social system underwent some changes. In short for the first time social security (single-moms a.s.o.) and job security (jobless) was pushed into a single "security" (insurance we call it here, but I think that would be the worng translation), immediately the numbers jumped up to 5 million (from I think 3,5 million before). The opposition (Conservatives (CDU/CSU) and free-marketers (FDP)) pretty much immediately raised the occurences of the topic "job security" (now both) and threw around the 5 million all the time. Luckily nobody really fell for it, also because ervery time it was brought up somebody from a different party set the record straight. The problem now is, explain economics of this dimension to a farmer in Idaho who knows for sure that Obama is a muslim and socialist... --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 13:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"Why do you use it", because you need some kind of standard to talk to people about "where we will be in the future", regareless of the fact that no one does or can know. You all know I now work at a law firm that specilizes in Native American issues. the other stuff they do is represent various local governments in Colorado. voters always want to know "does the city have a retirement plan" as it were. voters know they need to start saving for their retirement as early as 30. so they naievly apply that same logic to the peple they pay taxes to. "how will we be, financially, in 20 - 40 years". So, they make models. they make shit up and tell people "we are fine" or "we need moremoney". it's a game...... but its a game driven by people applying home economics to medium scale governement. same way the tea party is applying home credit councling to what i think is the single largest economy in the world - which impacts things a home economist would never have. like the value of the damn dollar.En attendant Godot 14:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Wow, so many people on the Internet are brainwashed by this (and for some reason, only Americans...). Good old economic theology.

A prayer for NASCAR pollution belchers -- boogity, boogity, boogity!

Yep! Them thar salt-of-the-earth NASCAR fans, they don't cotton to no atheist, socialist, science-worshiper disrespectin' Gawd and Jeebus! But they sure as shoot clapped hard for this pre-race prayer that disrespected Da Lawd! (For more fun, somebody Autotuned it.) (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Relativity denial, again

Got around to writing up the anti-relativity article, but it could do with more explanation of the physics. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes and also an explanation of the extended warranty. That's a scam, right? Right??? --87.5.101.234 (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Who gives you the right to sit in judgement?

This section has been moved to Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?#Who gives you the right to sit in judgement? --★uːʤɱ constructivist 23:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Skeptics on Stack Exchange

Just noticed that there's a Stack Exchange site for Skeptics - basically a StackOverflow for rationalism (if StackOverflow doesn't mean anything to you, then picture Yahoo Answers without the trolling, and with people who tend to know what they're talking about). Anyone here a participant there? I'm thinking about creating an account (though I kinda wish I could just carry over my SO account). Thunderkatz^Ho! 00:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You kinda wish it, and you kinda can. If the software detects that it's the same user (e.g same OpenID used) then it links the accounts together and credits you somewhat for being a good citizen elsewhere so that you skip the newbie phase where you don't get to vote or add comments. All that said, I remain dubious about the practicality of replicating SO for less and less technical subjects. But I'll be happy if I get proved wrong. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought this was going to be about a stock exchange in Boston. (You may commence throwing rotten tomatoes.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy talking to me

I really don't want to bring attention to myself by asking this but its starting to bug me. I've seen quotes on a user page that come from Andy (and now Karajou) addressing me and quotes on The Schlafly Slip addressing me but I can't find where they're from (it's really creepy at the Schlafly Slip because my username's used but the fossil record shows the last edit to that page was made over a year before I joined). I clicked the links from the Schlafly Slip but they lead to a CP talk page that doesn't mention "Socal212" when I use F3. Anyone know what's going on? I'm too young for paranoia. SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 05:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this a '<span class="myName"></span>' situation? Check the source Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 05:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There are quite a few pages using that joke. You'll get used to it soon enough. Strike that, they really are watching you... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Shh, don't ruin the fun of him not knowing that the quotes show the username of whoever is reading them. ~SuperHamster Talk 05:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Clever SoCal 212 ^{I can't find my talk page} 05:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Economic growth

Why is it considered shit if an economy is not constantly growing? Surely indefinite growth is impossible. Can't an economy simply reach a point and stay there, with everyone happy? This is a genuine (and very naive question) from someone who gets a bit confused when the bloke on the news mentions "not enough growth this quarter" etc. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are not growing you are shrinking compared to those who do. --193.66.64.184 (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is impossible for all nations to grow at once: "taking in each other's washing" just don't work. So if we are growing that means someone else is "shrinking". Pippa (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No. The "world economy" is not a constant. The world population is growing so it's very natural that the economy grows too. --193.66.64.184 (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The idea that we can have constant effectively infinite global growth in line with potentially infinite population growth is absurd. The environment has a finite productive capacity and a finite capacity to receive waste. There was a big new scientist article on this a while ago... search ... here it is. Unfortunately it's behind a paywall. I've got a subscription though if anybody would like me to cut and paste them a copy.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

But you can just print more money. And if you run out of paper make the bills smaller. --⁠ (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Good idea! But ... .... that doesn't really increase the quantity of resources does it? Damn!--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Where's the problem? If you have more money, you can buy more resources. --⁠ (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If you print more money, you devalue your own currency. Zimbabwe has lots of money. Everyone there is a billionaire! EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 21:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if we have a fixed number of humans and some resources are finite, is there any reason to assume that human productivity (think engineering, software, music, etc) will stop growing? Technology will progress and make us more efficient. --193.66.64.184 (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm, OK. But is it possible to have a country/economy/economic system that doesn't depend on constant growth? Here in the UK we are told that things are shit because the economy isn't growing fast enough, is it possible to avoid the need for continuing growth and have a prosperous country? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an economist, but I think that's the number one flaw with our economy. We're obsessed with growth. Growth is the only desirable thing. Even if it's inefficient. And stagnation is terrible why? If human population does not expand, if new factories are not being built, who cares as long as everybody's needs are being met? And if we continue to grow, eventually we'll reach a point where our technology won't be able to sustain us, and many will die until we find a solution. I'm not talking about population, but exploitation of natural resources. There is only so much oil in the world, only so many forests, and only o much livable land. Deserts are expanding and shorelines are shrinking. Maybe we should satisfy ourselves with a stable economy instead of one that cyclically overextends itself and collapses.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I must be missing something as to why only growth can be good. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a new school pushing a steady-state economy. I don't buy a lot of it, but they have some interesting stuff to say. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We need growth in order to pay off our past (and future) debts. It should be possible to have a steady state economy but that would also mean having a steady population and being able to recycle everything 100% efficiently. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 22:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah. But that's just another problem in the system. Currency, and the mistakes of our forerunners in handling currency.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I had that in mind but the a lot of social programmes, including state/government pensions, depend on population growth to fund them. Negative growth (ugh, what a horrible phrase) will ultimately lead to a systemic failure. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 23:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW I happen to believe that Malthus was on the right track, it's just that technology postponed the day of reckoning and in some ways has made it worse. Failure to deal with problems in the early stages (like the banking crisis) inevitably lead to worse consequences down the line. I liken it to a cracked dam, the longer you let the water level build up the greater the damage caused when the dam bursts. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 23:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Then we should not have built these programs so dependent on growth, and we must cease operating under this broken paradigm--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's easy to say that with hindsight but politicians rarely plan for the long term and nobody wants to be the ones to inflict the pain, because the electorate does not understand the economics and make any changes political suicide. So even though the Tea Party are calling for spending and tax reductions a recent study showed that half of US social program recipients believe they "have not used a government social program". Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 23:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

To bring up something I only just realised after reading a quote on the subject, think about all the things you do and use every day. How many are run by the government? Actually think about it and it's a lot. Now imagine the government not doing these things (roads, schools, hospitals, water, waste, policing...). Yeah, great, private sector solves everything but that then just makes private companies the "government". So what people are suggesting by budget cuts is changing your government from a company who is directly answerable to their people and have their people's interest at heart, to a company who is directly answerable to their shareholders and have their profits at heart. ADK^{...I'll zap your steak dinner!} 00:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"...government from a company who is directly answerable to their people and have their people's interest at heart..." Good one. Ever think about doing stand-up? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know all the details but I understand that Chile has gone about their social programmes in a more fiscally responsible way. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 01:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean to say that the government 'have what their potential voters will be likely to support at heart, so they can maximize their chances of winning the next election'? --Danfly (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A few years ago people thought that house prices could go on rising indefinitely (in real terms). A moment's thought was all that would have been necessary to work out that that was logically impossible - just imagine the graph against wages. The idea that we can continue growing indefinitely is equally absurd.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Imagine if one day we get off this rock begin to colonise the galaxy. Galactic colonisation would be a process of exponential population and economic growth. Of course, after some time (maybe a few million years), we might run out of colonisable space in the galaxy, and then economic growth would fall again, unless and until we came up with a way to get out of this galaxy. Then it might start growing again.

The limitations to economic growth are fundamentally the limitations of the laws of physics. We are a very long way off from those ultimate limitations right now. I'd reckon we still have room for a few million years of economic growth at least, before we reach them. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt very much that galactic colonisation would provide any tangible benefits for those left behind on Earth, sending back that new wealth is going to be nigh on impossible. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 23:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Apart from that - while "founding an intergalactic civilization" (and overcoming trivial problems like the speed of light) would certainly allow for considerable economic growth, is not really much use as a solution to problems which exist here and now. It's even more unlikely than "nanabots will fix everything".Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Math is so stupid!!!!

so i was reading teh recent changes, and hit on the "who hates rw" page, which lead me to teh Debunking math page, where i read that said Poe site claims it's only logical that 1 does not equal .999999.... to which i said "of course, why is this a poe", to which i went and read an actual proof, and now i'm mad. how the fuck can 1 = .999999.... .9 is less than one, even though it's "forever" less. And there's all theses proofs out there, using magic tricks to prove it. I think i'm jumping ship for andy's world. Mean old math. .9 is less than 1. so there! --En attendant Godot 22:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we've all gone through a proof of that, unbelieving and protesting. What's a third of .999999...? What's a third of 1? Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 22:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you get when you add 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16,... and so on? One or less than one? What do you get when you add 9/10, 9/100, 9/1000, 9/10000,... and so on? larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 22:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If 0.9999... is 1, then why does 0.9999... exist? Why doesn't it go 0.9999...7, 0.9999....8, 1? Bam. Science in your face. X Stickman (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm no math guy by any means, but always thought the simplest proof that .99999... (can't make the line over the 9) equals 1 is: 1 divided by 3 equals .3333333....; .333333 times 3 equals .9999999...., ergo .999999... = 1. Am I wrong? DickTurpis (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• every number with a finite decimal expansion has indeed two representations.
• at which position stands the 7 or the 8? Not at the last - because there is no last position!

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think those are the two biggest problems most people have with understanding 1 = .999.... They don't like the fact that one number has two different forms, and they can't wrap their head around the fact that there is literally no end to the string, and that to say .9999.....7 doesn't make any sense. It also leads to the result that there is no "largest number smaller than one", which I think annoys some people. Thunderkatz^Ho! 23:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, i'm dyslexic and dropped out of math when i couldn't "get" trig. so this was new to me. Infinity is also a bit of a mind fuck, and i guess this *Is* infinity. I'll stick with language and religion. so much easier to deal with. But yes, i'm left "annoyed" cause it just *feels* wrong, even though i see teh proofs in front of my face.En attendant Godot 23:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Good thing no one brought up transfinite numbers... Thunderkatz^Ho! 23:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And now you know how pseudo-math is born, or, to paraphrase a saying, "math does violence to common sense." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thunderkatz, I think you missed the part where I scienced your face. Face science is *scientifically* more scientific than non-face science. Therefore any face-science result is obviously more true than non-face science results and I think I'll stop drinking now and go get some water. X Stickman (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Math is just a secular religion promoted by leftists. Don't listen to Thunderkatz's propaganda, he is merely trying to suppress the truth about .9 repeating! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Curses, foiled. Well, you're only half right! It is propaganda! But the secret behind .999... = 1 is to indoctrinate youth into the beleif of the infinite becoming one! In other words: A NEW WORLD ORDER!!! Mwahahahahahaha. Chundergnatz^Go! 00:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC) PS. Mwahahahahahaha.

I knew it, an NWO disinfo agent! You know who else uses math? The Federal Reserve, which is owned by the international bankers keeping us in debt slavery to perpetuate the NWO! Therefore, math is an NWO conspiracy, and that's a proof you can trust! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait a second, except that I have never heard of it before, are people actually saying that 1 is the same as .9999→ or are people saying 1 behaves the same way mathematically as .9999→ and that therefor there is no way to proof that 1≠.9999→? The second one I get, the first one seems very wrong. Couldn't - and I'm speaking as somebody here that barely managed to get through motherfuckin' analysis - .9999→ also be expressed as 1-(1/∞) - "1 minus the the smallest possible number x that is x>0" (And I hope the math police won't put me behind bars for breaking some rule again)?

The problem with infinity is that goes against rationality, because it brakes the framework that we built ourselves. Not only do I not see nor will I ever see something that doesn't end, is infinitely small or infinitly big our minds from which all rationality and logic ultimately stem from we unable to imagine it and for all that it worth, we could never proof infinity either way. --★uːʤɱ heretic 00:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That's the thing. There is no smallest number x s.t. x > 0. There's a very simple proof for that.

1. Assume BWOC that y is the smallest number > 0.
2. Divide y by 2.
3. Since y > 0, y/2 < y.
4. Thus y is not the smallest number > 0.
5. =><=

Thunderkatz^Ho! 00:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you do the same thing with 1/∞? Because actually, I only used x to define that is more than 0 (1/∞>0). --★uːʤɱ constructivist 00:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

1/∞ = 0, I'm pretty sure... Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 01:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that defined somewhere? Or is it the same with the behaviour again? --★uːʤɱ federalist 01:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. 1/∞ is not a number, because ∞ is not a number. 1/∞ is a concept that describes the limit of 1/x as x grows unboundedly larger and larger. Therefore (1 - 1/∞) is not a number. If you were to insist on using 1/∞ as a number, then as Eyeonicr somewhat misguidedly points out, it would have to be 0 (b/c the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity = 0). So 1-1/∞ (and I shudder every time I have to write 1/∞) would be equal to 1 - 0 = 1. Thunderkatz^Ho! 01:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds right... Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 01:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, i've been talking at length with a friend who is doing his phd in quantum mechanics. it really is "is". 1 IS .99999 not "mostly" or "acts like". wiki has some simple proofs and some very complex ones. enjoy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

Sometimes I think mathematics and totalitarian ideologies have the same defintion of a "sound theory". I have hardly enjoyed this discussion, I won't click on another mathematics article on WP for weeks, just to get this stuff out of my system... I hate math --★uːʤɱ atheist 01:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The somewhat informal (but easiest to get your head around) proof is that recurring numbers are essentially the equivalent of that number divided by 9. Whereas 0.2 = 2/10 and 0.7 = 7/10, 0.2222... = 2/9. So 0.3333... = 3/9 (or 1/3) and 0.666... = 6/9 (or 2/3). I presume you'd be happy with this as you can certainly check it on a calculator or do the pen and paper solution yourself to satisfy this pattern. So take 9/9 = 0.9999... Except that something divided by itself is 1. SO x/x = 1, 9/9 = 1, and therefore 0.9999... = 1. The more rigourous proof involves going into an infinite series. 0.999999999999... approaches 1, but is only less than 1 if you terminate the sequence of 9s too early. But if you do that, it ceases to be 9-recurring and becomes finitely less than 1 and that's discussed above. ADK^{...I'll vote your philosopher!} 08:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. (nods and pretents to have any interest in mathematics) --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 11:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-standard analysis

In non-standard analysis, rather than the classical reals, we use another field in which infinitesimals exist. Rather than real numbers, we can use hyperreal numbers, superreal numbers, surreal numbers, etc. With them, 1/∞ is an actual number, different from zero. Using such a number system, might it not be entirely valid to say that 0.9999.... = 1 - (1/∞) ? So, if people intuitively find the conclusions of classical analysis wrong, is that not an argument in favour of non-standard analysis, as better matching our intuitions? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Some people may have trouble accepting that 0.99... = 1, but the other conclusions of real analysis are as intuitive as basic physics. With real analysis you get calculus, which allows you to describe Newtonian physics. Real analysis is in fact motivated by our intuition (Newtonian mechanics), which as Einstein showed us, is actually wrong. Same goes for statistics and probability, you want to ignore your intuition, because more often than not, it's wrong (see the Monty Hall problem).

The same goes for maths. If you're a layman, your intuition is probably wrong. If you're a mathematician, you try to ignore it. Now for my favourite 'proof' that 0.99... = 1.

Let x = 0.99...

Then 10x = 9.99...

So 9x = 10x - x = 9.99... - 0.99... = 9

Hence 9x = 9 or x = 1

The actual mathematical proof requires geometric series. Some of you may know that 1 + x + x^2 + x^3 + ... = 1/(1-x) if -1 < x < 1 (if you don't know this, then this probably won't convince you). Hence let x = 0.1. Then we get 1 + 0.1 + 0.01 + ... = 1/(1-(1/10)) = 10/9

Multiply both sides by 0.9 to get 0.99... = 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ... = 0.9 x (1 + 0.1 + 0.01 + ...) = 0.9 x 10/9 = 1. Done.77.101.154.58 (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"With real analysis you get calculus, which allows you to describe Newtonian physics" - is there any evidence Newtonian physics (or Maxwell or Einstein or quantum theory) cannot be reformulated using non-standard analysis?

Your proof doesn't work in non-standard analysis, because it takes a different approach. Rather than taking a limit of the geometric series, we take the actual sum. The standard part of the actual sum is equal to the classical limit, but the sum itself is distinct from the classical limit, due to the nonstandard (infinite or infinitesimal) part of the number. (At least, this is my understanding - I don't claim to be an expert at the topic, but at least I am aware of its existence.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to throw the "intuitive" thing off a bit: "the other conclusions of real analysis are as intuitive as basic physics" - Yeah like forces that contribute to motion or the speed of a fether and a rock falling in a vaccuum - absolutely intuitive! That's really, really out of touch with the non-scientific side of society… --★uːʤɱ soviet 12:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"is there any evidence Newtonian physics (or Maxwell or Einstein or quantum theory) cannot be reformulated using non-standard analysis?" Probably not, but the general mathematical consensus is that non-standard analysis doesn't really do anything you can't already do with standard analysis, so in terms of using analysis to describe mechanics, you may as well use real analysis which we (by 'we' I mean the body of human knowledge) know more about anyway.

"Yeah like forces that contribute to motion or the speed of a fether and a rock falling in a vaccuum - absolutely intuitive! That's really, really out of touch with the non-scientific side of society…" True. That sort of ties in which the general point I was making, which is that intuition is for the most part of science, philosophy and mathematics (and probably other disciplines I know less about), useless. I was trying to get across that the same maths which proves 0.99... = 1 also gives you Newtonian mechanics, which as you've pointed out isn't completely intuitive, is probably the most familiar and intuitive description of the physical world. 77.101.154.58 (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the analysis of Newton and Leibniz is pre-classical, and actually closer to non-standard analysis than classical analysis. So to argue that Newton gives you classical analysis is an argument ignorant of history. Non-standard analysis is really a return to Newton.

You say "the general mathematical consensus is that non-standard analysis doesn't really do anything you can't already do with standard analysis". I think the consensus is it lets you do the same thing, so in terms of power it is not an imporvement. But, its advocates never claimed it was more powerful. They claimed it was more intuitive, and pedagogically superior. Infinitesimals are easier to teach than Weierstrass's epsilon-delta definition of the limit. This is not something that many professional mathematicians care that much about though, since they have already learnt it, and their mathematical experience has likely altered their intuitions. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

So, we can assume that Andy has given his stamp of approval on all of this?

I was talking to a friend who's husband is a math person (at least his degree in math, not sure if he has advanced degrees - he's a retired math teacher). he'd not heard of this, but unlike me, he glanced at the wiki proofs and said, "oh, sure. ok". i have a nutty , and he shrugs as if to say "why didn't i think of that, it's so obvious". math people are as dumb as math is. :-)En attendant Godot 14:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"is there any evidence Newtonian physics (or Maxwell or Einstein or quantum theory) cannot be reformulated using non-standard analysis?" I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the answer to this is "yes". OK, sure, probably you could rewrite some of physics while throwing around nonstandard analysis terminology, but I don't think that it could add any interesting content. It would basically just be notational sophistry, the same as if Schlafly rejects proofs using complex numbers, even though they could just as well be written in terms of 2x2 matrices. The topology of R is rather fundamental as far as I can see (relativity is on a Lorentzian manifold, QM stuff uses the gauge theory of real Lie groups, whatever), and these nonstandard fields add nothing topologically. The questions facing physics are profound and interesting, not some trivial stuff that we can get rid of by playing word games, which is what this sort of thing amounts to. --MarkGall (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"Non-standard" analysis is as good as normal analysis, as long as it produces the same results. In hyperreals .99.. = 1. Non-standard analysis attacks the definition of a limit, not the properties of real numbers. --85.76.143.12 (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

@MarkGall, "notational sophistry"? What is wrong with alternative mathematics? Its value isn't for physicists, it's for mathematicians. You are right that reformulating physics on a different mathematical foundation may not be very interesting for a physicist, since it may not add anything to our understanding of the universe. However, it will be interesting for a mathematician, since it tells us something about the relative power of various mathematical foundations (i.e. how easy is it to express the laws of physics in them).

@85, why would .9999... = 1 and not 1 - (1/∞)? The hyperreals don't have the same properties as the reals, although the reals are a subset of the hyperreals, and the real subset of the hyperreals (the standard part) have the same properties as the classical reals. But the question ".999... = 1" is not really a question about the properties of the reals, it is a question about the value of an infinite sum. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

All this .9999... = 1 sounds just like a mathematical representation of Zeno's paradox. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 00:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

'Tis what I thought too, as it's related to that thing where you can't cut something exactly in half, i.e.,g 0.5. It's always 0.4999999999...something or 0.50000000....something. IIRC, Larron was explaining it a while back but I was never convinced by the proof (I imagine if I was convinced by it, I'd remember it). Your "point" on a scale is always really an error boundary, and the "smallest possible distance" equals 0 by the same rules that make 0.9999... = 1. ADK^{...I'll earn your dishwasher!} 00:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Infinite sums are actually a mathematical solution to Zeno's 'paradox'. Mathematicians proved a few centuries ago that you could have an infinite sum of strictly positive numbers, yet the sum never goes above a certain number. For example, 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... = 1

Or more interestingly, 1 + 1/4 + 1/9 + 1/16 + ... + 1/(n^2) + ... = (pi^2)/6 77.101.154.58 (talk) 11:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)