RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive119

This is an archive page, last updated 14 September 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>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <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>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Michele Bachmann is certifiable

Apparently, New York earthquakes and hurricanes are signs from god that he wants reduced government spending (4th to last paragraph). How can someone get on stage and say these things and not be booed and pelted with rotten fruit? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Laugh all you want, but there has never been (and never will be) a single hurricane or earthquake during a Bachmann presidency. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sooo, Katrina was a sign from God too?--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

According to some extremists, Katrina was a sign from God condemning homosexuality. For some strange reason, everything that is malevolent is interpreted by religious fundamentalists as being a condemnation of homosexuality. Pat Robertson said that gay people caused 911.......--Lefty (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously Robertson hasn't spend enough time on 4chan. Then he'd know jews did WTC. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 21:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

On Bachman - well, you know... i guess when her presidency fails, she can say "it's all The Gay's fault." As for the right, what I love is that places that are hot spots for gay activity are never trashed by god... but the "bible belt" frequenly is, by Tornado Alley. sheesh.En attendant Godot 21:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Classic example of "By saying "God did it!" only when you've been blessed with a baby girl, and just-not-thinking "God did it!" for miscarriages and stillbirths and crib deaths, you can build up quite a lopsided picture of your God's benevolent personality." ^{hat tip} Sickeningly, in Bachmann's case the equivalent of being blessed with a baby girl is a city fully of morally reprehensible people being destroyed by a hurricane. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Putting aside the religion part of it, and accepting her explanation that this was an obvious joke. How tasteless can yo uget? Does she really think disasters that kill fellow human beings (remember, she's pro-life) are so hilarious? SirChuckB^{DMorris for new Jinx!} 21:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It's easy for us humans to dehumanize The Other to the point where their lives aren't worth the same as a "real" person's. After 9/11, I remember people saying that the hijackers were "cowards" and "evil" and that they deserve to be tortured - it's not much different. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

On that note, you must have to have some considerable chutzpah to call someone who would knowingly board an airplane and fly it into a building and certain death (planned and known years in advance, may I add) a "coward". Crazy, yes, insane, almost certainly, but we must other be living in a world where "cowardice" doesn't mean what I think it means! ADK^{...I'll litigate your fib!} 00:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

My memory is hazy, but I believe the speaker (my uncle) meant that they were cowards because they attacked the US using covert/terrorist tactics rather than openly declaring war. This is, of course, an incredibly stupid thing to say, but it was a few days after the attack and everyone was letting their emotions and cognitive biases do their thinking. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Bachmann is more of a shyster than a loony, I think. When she was in the State Senate she was grandstanding by pushing boilerplate wingnut bills like the "Academic Bill of Rights." ListenerX^TalkerX 00:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

How quick everyone forgets, Michael Moore claimed Hurricane Gustav was proof there is a God in heaven. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 03:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Then Michael Moore is not much better than Michelle Bachman in this respect.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hate to point out the obvious but...:

Michael Moore = satirist

Michelle bachmann = true believer and potential prez candidate

See the difference? Ace^{of Spades} 03:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Michael Moore is a private citizen and not an elected official. Nobody cares what he thinks. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 03:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The point is, McCain even proposed delaying the RNC Presidential nominating convention in 2008 and it was opened with a big prayer rally for Gustav victims. That's how gun-shy GOPers are about getting blamed for natural disasters. Irene showed how scared politicians are of being "Katrina'd". It soon to be the boy who cried wolf: politicians order evacuations, but when the hurricane takes another track, people will ignore it next time. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 04:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Errr no, the point is Bachmann thinks god is punishing the US due to Government spending. Ace^{of Spades} 04:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

RobSmith, do you have any idea what this is even about? You're trying to defend Ms. Bondage by comparing her to a harmless fat guy who uses sarcasm once every five minutes. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

@Rob I am a left leaning liberal. Please do not make the mistake of assuming that Michael Moore speaks for me. Hell, I'm probably closer even to Obama's politics than to Moore's :). Damo^Hi 09:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That goes both ways, Damo. Though I don't believe you've made any such implications, maybe Rob doesn't like Michelle Bachman?--User:Brxbrx/sig 11:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

God punished ancient Eygpt for overspending (or overconsumption) when Pharoah dreamed of 7 skinny cows eating 7 fat cows. Or maybe all that stuff about Joseph being Grand Vizier is just fairy tales, huh? nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 23:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Given the lack of historical evidence for the seven plagues outside of one certain book - I'm with the fairy tale brigade. Bob Soles (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That pre-dates the plagues by... what, a few hundred years is most dating. And Exactly when did God sending 7 years of Great harvest, a man who could tell you about that and what you should do when the seven years of famine come along = a judgement?--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

7 fat cows and 7 skinny cowes is the boom-bust cycle; Joseph's plan was a big government solution that required reduced consumption and forced national savings for the long run outlook. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 20:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If it was a judgement god would have sent 7 years of straight famine, or 14, or not sent Joseph to interpret the dream. Telling the Pharaoh that he was going to get 7 years of awesome and 7 years of suck (which is mitigated by having a guy who knew what to do to make the 7 years of suck ok)is anything but. Also, the implication that not dying of mass starvation is bad because it required "Big government plans and rations" is hilarious. --Mikalos209 (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Whooping cough

Anyone have any cures for a cough that may or may not be whooping cough? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking about a small child here? Bob Soles (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

NHS Direct. Of course, universal vaccination.... Bob Soles (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No children involved. My flat mate has had a particular severe cough for the last month, and now i have a nasty cough. Ithink the vaccination boat has already left. Besides, I had whooping cough as a child so I thought I was immune. Apperently it's not a lifelong immunity. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to avoid going to the Docters if I can avoid it. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that it would seem to require antibiotics - then that might be your only course. Mrs Soles tends to suffer from lingering coughs until she finally gives in and goes to the docs. Of course, IANAD. Bob Soles (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeh thats the impression I get, regarding antibiotics. I'm not convinced that it is whooping cough because there are no other symptoms - I don't feel ill and neither does that my flatmate. Its just the length of time he's had the cough, and where he probably picked it up (a festival for kids we attended with his neice and nephew). I think maybe his immune system is pretty shit - his is not an especially healthy lifestyle AMassiveGay (talk) 23:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And what does IANAD mean?AMassiveGay (talk) 23:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

My guess is I Am Not A Doctor. But that's just a guess. DickTurpis (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That's the bunny. You're best off not relying on the medical advice of some guy on t'internet. Bob Soles (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Umm, IANOD, but bronchitis, especially if your flatmate's immune system is on the west-end of the bell-curve. Keep an eye on it. A lot of feeling shit when ill is the abuse your immune system is giving your body. If your immune system isn't in a good place then you could actually have something like pneumonia or bronchitis and feel pretty good, apart from coughing up bis of your lung, of course.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Guaifenesin, which is over the counter in the US, can be effective for a chronic "productive" (i.e., lots of secretions) cough. Dextromethorphan can suppress the cough process itself, but you may be coughing for a reason. There are a few other prescription drugs that can help exhaustion from coughing.

It really sounds like something that needs to be examined, and probably to get throat and sputum cultures. Some antibiotics can reasonably be prescribed before the culture, based on presentation. There's a good deal of local variation, however, in bacterial sensitivity, so the choice really is something for a local clinician.

Chicken soup does have its role. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 08:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I was too hasty in my initial self diagnosis. My cough has eased up considerably today, as has my flatmate's month long coughing fit. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Increase my viewcount!

Ok, I'm going to get right to the point. When I do video rants on youtube, I get few page views. Like, less than 10. I just did one on Glenn Beck causing the hurricane and earthquake that hit the united states last week, in jest mind you, and I thought I would post a link here Enjoy, and be sure to comment. I'm also thinking of doing a weekly blog when I start college next week, so feel free to swing on over and check it out. (Yes, I'm aware no one watches video blogs, but I do this to help with my public speaking.) --Thanatos (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you worried they're just not any good, or are you just trying to spread awareness of a genuinely good product that you think is just being overlooked? If the latter, I suggest doing what I try to do (sparingly): linking to your personal work only when it is pertinent to a discussion.--^talk 04:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Get lost Terry, we don't want you pimping your blog on our site. Генгис^evolving 15:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait, you're Thanatos not Temlakos. Генгис^evolving 15:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The Thanatos of Freudian analysis? That guy has something very specific in common with Temlakos: he makes you really, urgently, desperately want to stab someone in the eye. Angry Blue (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really good at talking to new people. I figured if I can talk into a camera and put it up on the net for strangers to see, it might help. I have been socially isolated in a small village for the last 3 years. Although I do tend to get along with people a good bit older than me rather than people my own age.--Thanatos (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that talking to your computer is the best way to overcome social awkwardness.--^talk 00:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Your probably right, but I find I haven't been freezing up as much anymore as well as having less long pauses and repetitive usage of words lately. Now I don't do retakes because of 10 second long pauses but because my mic didn't work.--Thanatos (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, making videos will probably make you better at making videos. And there might be some peripheral skills that translate, like elocution. But the best way to learn how to talk to new people is to talk to new people. Join a club.--03:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Right wing attack on Elton, odd laguage

So, it's a right wing, Christian Life rag. But what the heck. OBTAINED? like you went to the store to obtain the right parts to repair your car? "The Harps Food Inc. location in Mountain Home, Arkansas covered the photo of Elton John, his same-sex partner, and the baby they recently obtained using a surrogate mother after receiving complaints from customers last week. " I don't know if it's some intentional put down, or (more likely given the rest of the writing) just incompetent use of the English language. En attendant Godot 18:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC) link

Considering it is Elton John, I think 'obtained' is probably the right word. Mr John is a terrible human being. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

And his music makes my ears bleed. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yo AMG, I'm really happy for you and I'mma let you finish but Kanye West is the worst musician of all time. OF ALL TIME! HollowWorld (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

"Obtained" may well be an appropriate word in some cases. I'm pretty sure you could say that with Madonna, in particular. ADK^{...I'll terrorize your escape pod!} 23:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Cracked's 5 Embarrassing Failures History Class Turned Into Victories

http://www.cracked.com/article_19382_5-embarrassing-failures-history-class-turned-into-victories.html The one about the Tet Offensive is a little bit off to me.Ryantherebel (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The one about Tet seems about right to me. The one about Dunkirk is stupid. Angry Blue (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The Dunkirk thing is, to quote one of my favourite films, "Never give up, never surrender!" At a time when, yes, we had just been thoroughly beaten, we needed every boost available. Nobody was dumb enough to know that we hadn't lost, and, yes, the troops came off the beaches will hand luggage only, but they came off, and that was the key thing. We didn't give up, we went across and got them in anything that would float. Bob Soles (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's exactly what bugs me about the Dunkirk part. They make it sound as if Dunkirk was an unmitigated disaster, couldn't have possibly been any worse, and anyone who saw any silver lining in it was just deluded. BZZZT WRONG. Angry Blue (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Depends which way you look at it. The dunkirk evacuation itself was a boost for morale and a pretty good thing by itself, but the events leading up to it were a failure. No matter how inspiring or uplifting the idea of anyone with a boat slogging across the channel to pick up soldiers is, at the end of the day, the entire british army got kicked the hell off the continent and left behind a fuckton of equipment that almost crippled them. An inspirational retreat is still a retreat. X Stickman (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The Dunkirk one ends with "The only saving grace is that it could have been much worse", so I disagree with Angry's description. The truth is that Dunkirk was the last stage of a really, massive and humiliating defeat. If it wasn't for Rommel reporting that he was being attacked by "hundreds" of enemy tanks at Vimy Ridge, causing a big delay while the German high command collectively shat its pants and awaited a huge flank attack, the entire Allied army would have been captured. Even with the delay, the memorable thing about Dunkirk is the fleet of civilian ships that came to assist rather than anything to do with the armed forces. Even Churchill called Dunkirk an escape. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

(fucken EC) Yes, but the Germans would have completely annihilated the whole force if Hitler hadn't listened to Göring. Remember there was a huge German tank army there that was ordered to come to a full stop because Göring wanted to demonstrate how casually he could finish off the Brits with his handful or two of assault airplanes. Whatever Dunkirk was or was not, it was incredibly much better than what could have been. That's why I'm skeptical when Cracked implies it couldn't have possibly been any worse. Angry Blue (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Cracked doesn't say it couldn't possibly have been worse, like SR said, the last line of the article is "The only saving grace is that it could have been much worse". Also the impression I get from the article is not so much that the dunkirk evacuation itself was bad, but the events leading up to it and immediately following it are. The army got beaten back so badly that they required heavy civilian assistance to evacuate before being destroyed, and they had to leave behind tens of thousands of vehicles, heavy guns etc... That is a humiliating military defeat. That the only real way it could have been worse is "the entire army got killed/captured" is pretty revealing. X Stickman (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes. You're absolutely right about those things. Angry Blue (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Dunkirk is not about celebrating victory. We knw we lost. It's like that bit in every boxing movie that's ever been made where the fighter has just taken a massive blow and is lying on the canvass bleeding heavily and his little boy shouts out "Dad! Dad! Get up Dad!" - and he does. That's what it felt like. We were flat on the canvass bleeding heavily but we struggled back to our feet. What we celebrate in "The Dunkirk Spirit" is not rolling over when you've been thoroughly and humiliatingly beaten. OK, so to survive we needed a great deal of luck and, eventually, when they bothered to turn up, the help of our colonial cousins but, right there, right then, we felt that we stood alone against an unstoppable force. That's why the "we will fight them on the beaches" speech is so important, so much part of who we are and it's deeply tied in with The Dunkirk Spirit. In short - we know we lost. We celebrate not a victory but national character in defeat. Bob Soles (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If I may interject, it sounds like you guys seem to be taking personal offense to an article on a comedy site. Cool down the patriotism a bit. HollowWorld (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's taking offense as such - I'm certainly not. On the other hand, I've heard people in the UK talk about the "victory" at Dunkirk, and that does annoy me. Bob Soles, the phrase "Dunkirk Spirit" describes the fleet of little ships, not the battle itself. I've already said that this was the most memorable thing about the battle. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The title of the Dunkirk section 'the Miracle of Dunkirk' kind of defeats the premise of the piece. No one claims it was a miracle because we had won anything, it was a miracle because we weren't all slaughtered on the beach. As Bob says, we are not celebrating victory the national character in defeat. Similar to the 'Spirit of the blitz' - keeping calm and carrying on in the face on continual aerial bombardment (why nations that we bomb the shit out are not perceived to have this 'Spirit', i don't know). Similarly. Galipoli WWI is seen as formative nation building in Oz and New Zealand, and that was an unmitigated disaster. I think events such as Dunkirk help former imperial powers like Britain mature as nations and dissuade us from the notion that we are masters of all that we surveyAMassiveGay (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The Scott one to me is odd. If Scott had succeeded, he'd be just (relatively) as Amundsen, or the guy who got to the north pole (who without looking on wikipedia, I cannot name). The are thousands of explorers who pretty discovered all kinds of places who remain obscure to most people. Scott is not remembered for victory of any sort, nor does any use spin that way. He is remember because he failed spectacularly. Tragedy makes for a better story compeling story. The article its self makes this point. Scott didn't just set out into the wilderness and was never seen again, his body was found, along with his journal so we are able to piece his last days adds to the tale. The story of Amundsen is just not as interesting. I think Scott is seen as a heroic failure, and in my mind that makes a better story. This is why it has endured. And with Captain Oates going for a walk and taking his time about it, you have herioc sacrifice added to heroic failure. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Dunkirk, for what it was which was a rapid and difficult retreat after a severe ass-whooping, was a victory. It's all relative, really. D-Day ended up with thousands of people dead on the beaches before the invasion even began properly, therefore it was quite a heavy blow to the allied forces. Japan surrendered after being nuked saving millions of Japanese lives by avoiding a potential decade long shitstorm, therefore it was a victory for them. So Dunkirk as a mission to save 300,000 lives worked brilliantly, the events leading up to it as a campaign for the BEF to fight back the blitzkrieg, less so. Countless little defeats and little victories make up history and it's only once the dust has settled we dare to construct any kind of narrative about it. Indeed, the whole concept of victory and defeat in war is remarkably recent, if I remember Time Commanders properly. The results of battles used to be viewed in far less subjective and emotive terms than "victory" and "defeat", as if ancient civilisations recognised that such things are far more complicated than we care to admit these days. ADK^{...I'll edit your classified ad!} 00:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Blitz spirit is a "die hard" thing. So a country which surrenders, probably at the sole discretion of its military leaders, after a few weeks of bombing, is not exhibiting "Blitz spirit". The belief was (and now there's no way to ever test) that the British would fight on to the bitter end, if the Americans wouldn't come, if the Irish wouldn't stand up and fight, if Russia fell too, that there would be British civilians in the rubble of London when the tanks rolled in still determined to "take one with you when you go" as the propaganda posters put it. It's typically British to focus on what they signed up to but never had to actually face, while the far side of the channel some people really did keep fighting in the face of certain death, knowing that occupying German forces would use torture and burn whole villages to stop them. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you are confused. The 'Blitz spirit' was not at all some kind of die hard death or glory sentiment, it was about pulling together, keeeping calm, and carrying on. 'Take one with you when you go' is a new one on me. Would seem to me counter productive as propaganda to tell folk to remind people of impending death during an air raid. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I probably did get a bit carried away there, indeed for the average Londoner the Blitz was more about "carrying on" despite it all. However "Take one with you..." is real British wartime propaganda, I've seen the posters. It's from the same dark period as "We shall fight them on the beaches", when a German invasion seemed credible, even imminent. Today we have the Operation Sea Lion plans and we can see they were never close to fruition, but Churchill did not have this luxury. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the French resistance was pretty hardcore and certainly the surrender of France doesn't make the place worthy of the "cheese eating surrender monkey" reputation, but I don't think that has anything to do with the whole "Dunkirk Spirit" or "Blitz Spirit" as it's known. We know some of Churchill's plans in case of invasion, and they were pretty fearsome, but who knows how they would have gone down if it came to it. ADK^{...I'll bamboozle your copy-paste!} 19:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Something a little less controversial

Unfortunate pictures. Генгис^evolving 17:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The rifleman has wood! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The guy who photoshopped the Rooney/Ronaldo one could have at least 1) removed the black outlines around Ronaldo 2) cut out the parts between his arms and 3) though I say this only as a pedant, corrected the colouring, grain and depth blur for both images to match and then burned a few of the shadows so the light sources matched up. Other than that... ADK^{...I'll rinse your noun!} 23:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If only we could photoshop real life. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You know, Content-Aware Fill could actually do most of that... ADK^{...I'll construct your arc welder!} 23:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Tawny Port

Discuss. Junggai (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This, right?--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

When I was seventeen, I loved the $8 Tawny port... many a memorable evening was had as a result. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, the memories... sunset over the old quarry, campfire and bumwine... Angry Blue (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I had never really taken port seriously until a friend of mine gave me a set of five miniatures, which includes some actual good stuff. Fortuitously, I started reading Graham Greene's The Human Factor, in which one of the characters collects vintage ports. "Vintage ports?" I thought. It seemed like a contradiction in terms. So I started drinking a glass of port in the evening while sitting down with Agents Davis and Maurice Castle, and grew a liking for it.

I was just curious if anyone's tried any of the fine stuff, and if it's worth taking money away from the single malt fund. Junggai (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't know; never had any upmarket port as far as I can remember. We bought cheap ports and bottled sangria because we were kids and didn't have any money. The local Mondo would sell you a 700 cc bottle of Chateau Migraine fortified paint thinner for under öS 10. One bottle was enough, except if you had a date for the quarry, in which case one bottle was way to much. Angry Blue (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Just so long as it wasn't Sturm, eh? Junggai (talk) 06:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Nah, we just didn't have any sturm in late spring to early summer. If memory serves the heurigen in the area would typically start selling sturm in early October; much too cold and dark for this kind of party. Angry Blue (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it was just a cold summer, but they've actually started selling it here already. Junggai (talk) 07:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This is either seriously unusual or I was seriously misremembering things. Blue So Angry It's Basically Purple (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

My suspicion is the former, after a whole summer's worth of October-like temperatures. Some of the trees even changed colors in July. Junggai (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Crazy. Here in the Balkans it was actually fairly hot most of the time. Did just the chestnuts turn red, or did everything? If it's just the chestnuts, it's parasites. Blue So Angry It's Basically Purple (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

For sure not everything changed. The ones I saw whose leaves had changed were a kind of maple tree. Of course, parasites can't be ruled out with those, either. Junggai (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I've got a case of '83 Dow Portofino. Can't give the shit away. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it really that bad? Junggai (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Heavy sediments, extremely rich and sweet. You've got to strain it. It's good for a sip and then people lose interest or get sick. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Bombadier beetles

It looks like Creationists regularly misrepresent those little beetles, here,s Iron Chariots on Creatures that Defy Evolution and see Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There was one creationist, I can't remember which one, who believed that hadrosaurs breathed acidic "fire" and were therefore the dragons mentioned in the Bible. He liked to cite bombardier beetles as precedent. We probably have an article on the guy if anyone can remember his name. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Google says Duane Gish and RW seconds the motion. Though he's crazy enough, I could swear he wasn't the one I was thinking of. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Dragons you say? Reminds me of the video in which a creationist hypothesizes that dragons were actually apathosauruses whose relatively small nostrils caught fire when breathing in the post-Flood oxygen deprived atmosphere due to air friction. Behold. - I fucked the girl in Hanson (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This is where I actually feel embarrassed for these people. ADK^{...I'll duel your contradiction!} 23:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Embarrassed? Nonsense. Just ask PJR about dragons. --Horace (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Good old PJR. He'll credulously accept it for you wholesale. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Math & font help

I just wrote a line about a planck time, which is 10 to the minus 43 seconds. But i have no idea how to write that in wiki-script such that i get the nice little superscript -43 part. The article is virtual particles, and the mention of planck time is in the refs, if anyone's willing to help.En attendant Godot 17:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You can do it in LaTeX, $10^{-43}$, or in ordinary Wiki markup, 10^-43. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, changed.En attendant Godot 18:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

All I see is "math math gobble gobble gee math math." I am opposed to formulas on a human rights basis, because they make me feel ignorant.--^talk 00:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Formulae are useful in recipes. Scaling a family dinner entree to feed a multitude is often non-linear. While "it's complicated" will sometimes pacify the math-averse, an occasion can go badly astray unless the chef has a better handle on things. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Music, politics, and endangered forest species

Those valiant Republican Gibson guitar makers in the right-to-work state of Tennessee are being harassed by the minions of the Obaministration, according to Glenn Beck's loyal chorus line. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I love how Glenn Beck's biggest source for his information on this article is, you guessed it, himself! Professor Chaos (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Magnetic fields

I remember us having a creationist paper mentioning the Earth's magnetic field decaying so quick it must "prove" a young Earth. Anyone remember it at all? I'm reminded of it because this week's Horizon (iPlayer, if you can get it) is about the Earth's core and concludes on the field and how it decays, alters and reverses. Iron crystals 10 km long, periods where the Earth has two north poles, really fun stuff. ADK^{...I'll deceive your monkey!} 23:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A quick search on magnetic decay pulls up this and this. Of course there's Hovind. On TO there's this. Pippa (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, they can't even get their stories straight in and amongst themselves. One lot think that you can extrapolate the rate of field strength decay back in to the past to get an idea of the age of the earth (snork!) and another lot think that field reversals are evidence of a young earth (double snork!) Any excuse will do when you're a creationist. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have remembered and the one I was talking about was on the FSTDT forum, not here. But I think Jeeves is almost there with the right creation.com article, though it doesn't feature the hilariously butchered and cherry-picked graph that I was thinking of. ADK^{...I'll pass your Subaru!} 19:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Action T4

Fuck the Nazis. Fuck them all to hell. Every time I look back to history and hear of them it's always something monstrously abominable. I wish there was some supernatural afterlife so they could spend a few centuries worth of penance. I wish I could go back in time and hold their heads and make them look at their crimes. I wish I could go inside their minds and make them understand the suffering their victims felt. I read this article and I was filled with disgust and fury. May we never forget these inhuman monsters, and let us be ever vigilant towards similar perverts today and tomorrow.--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

And fuck the creationist assholes who will blame Darwin and "evilution" for it! 74.89.192.173 (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"Every time I look back to history and hear of them it's always something monstrously abominable." No shit? And their demented offspring are still around. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

See this speech of U2 in their 1990s Bowie phase, including probably the best anti-Nazi quote available. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Translation of that poster on WP reads:

"60,000 Reichsmarks is what this person suffering from a hereditary disease costs the People's community during his lifetime. Comrade, that is your money too."

Hmmm, so basically they're arguing against universal health care, right? Funny that. ADK^{...I'll construct your potato masher!} 00:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd disagree, that's an extrapolation; it's an argument for a big government solution, euthanasia. Nazi's never proposed cutting or eliminating single payer, in fact, they introduced it:

The National Association of Sickness Fund Physicians [1] was established in 1933 as a national bargaining unit to replace the numerous, more local, associations with which sickness funds had negotiated in the past. Thus, several thousand sickness funds were forced to deal with a single organization, or single payer, that held a legal monopoly over medical services. The drive by the medical profession to transform the organization and delivery of health care services from self-governing sickness funds to physician-controlled services was complete. [2]

nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 03:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's Social Darwinism through universal healthcare. Thus, it serves the (stated) goals of neither modern American party--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be also be noted, physicians (who are also scientists) "joined the Nazi Party in greater numbers than any other professional group." nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 03:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Shame on them.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That's because they were white. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Something smells rancid here. Nice try. You're our token conservative here, right? And the Godwin's Law anti-science comment, I'd love to see Einstein's reaction to that if he were alive today. Considering that the Nazis forced him to reject pacifism and contact FDR urging to nuke the hell out of his home country. Even more so, he was a Jewish socialist. Oh, the paradoxes! Osaka Sun (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Good cite. So it would be safe to say then, the world's first & oldest universal healthcare system at one time proposed (or actually implamented) a euthanasia program to trim costs (something akin to death panels), not so? nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 23:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Universal care

No. The first health care system inplemented in Germany was during the Reich (Kaiserreich, a.k.a. "German Empire"), 1883 to be exact. It was reaction against the rise of socialist, communist and social democratic forces tosave the aristocratic asses from being slayed by the masses. Guess what, the German health care system then and today are basically the same thing. This thing has worked for almost 130 years. Btw, not being able to pay for health insurrance at all because you don't have any provided is natural euthanasia also known as "natural selection".

Back to the original point - or at least in it's neighbourhood: In German schools we have the Nazis in history. Especially the Holocaust and their rise to power when the kids are around 13/14, in most schoolbooks there are pictures of killed Jews on piles, naked and nothing censored - believe me that shocks the living shit out of most people.

Because my aunt is mentally disabled (some virus messed her brain up, don't ask me for details), my grandfather was involved with several projects for these people - I have heard of these things before in detail. Yes, it's absolutely discusting. And the worst thing abput it was, even if you were strongly against it, you couldn't even say anything, because everybody could tell on you. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 23:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right, save the part about "it's worked for 130 years" excluding the euthanasia program (also known as rationaling or death panels). And you've made a good point as well about these socialist programs being introduced (or imposed) by "the rich" and powerful aristocrats (not a workng class rebellion from below) and how it came about as a trade-off for basic citizenship rights and human freedom. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 17:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly say that a program with the only puropose to kill people was a "health care program", because well, killing people is pretty much the opposite of looking out for their health. I don't know how the American mentality is on this but over here nobody wants to be without health insurrance. I know for example that my father is currently paying 9€ (that's I think around 11 or 12$) every month for health insurrance for three people (!), and if we get seriously sick (cancer, tumors etc.) it won't cost us a dime. If I think about paying 9 bucks a month for almost fourty years (4320€ in working lifetime if you're an academic) and maybe having to pay 50.000 bucks for a whole round of treatment, my desicion is pretty clear. Have a referendum and most people will want it. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 17:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sounds good. But do you honestly think 4320 Euros (about US $3000) covers the actual or real costs over a lifetime? Where does the subsidy come from? the rich? corporations? Not really. It's paid by lower living standards, lost job opportunities, and no job opportunities at all for some of you fellow citizens as a part of the national income is mandated for expenses that individuals themselves either cannot pay, or refuse to pay. It's paid in a loss of competetiviness, by world standards. And the cost is not distributed evenly -- some citizens benefit quite well, while others pay dearly. Some make the equivlent of US $60,000 per year, and pay $12; others can never find a job (because of the loss of competetivieness), spend a lifetime on the dole and skid row, and pay $12. But all have equal access. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 20:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

But Rob, that argument could be used for any service the state provides. OK, OK, so you're all for small government but, we Brits - and, indeed, most of the rest of the western world - feel that health care is as essential as, say, schooling. Maybe you feel that schooling should be optional. All those rich but childless persons subsidising those poor people who breed like rabbits. Nah, if they can't afford school then let them go to work down the pits. That'll learn them. Bob Soles (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Bascially, what Soles said but much more refined. First of all there's an "that's worth it culture" in Germany. And if you actually look at the costs, it's not even that much, if a big company without these costs makes let's say 52 million a year and you take for example the costs of my father who makes around 1200€ a month of which 9€ go into health care from the companies side that is 0.75% of the costs, which would generate a costs increase of 390,000€ a year (or about that much as the amount to pay is a percentage of the income). And looking at the money they put in and out of companies each year 390,000€ isn't much. Especially if you work with profit margins of around 200% (and even that is very genuine as many go for the 400%-500% range). Through 0.75% you don't create jobs, just closets of purses more for the wife of the manager. The old "as more costs you have as less jobs you have" is a myth, because only a small percentage of what companies actually make goes into the creation of jobs - and jobs need demand. Companies are not going to create jobs until they can be sure that said jobs can be financed - that's why if people keep buying you can almost always say that everything will be fine in the economy (precisely what the Germans did when banks fucked it up a few years ago, people just kept buying because they almost knew they weren't going to be poor within a month).

Also there are other effects onto the market, you won't have so many people that are chronologically ill as the common insurrance can provide better treatment than a half-assed loan from a bank. People generally feel better (as least most people I know would) if they know that if something happens to them they wont have to sell their business, house, car of even more substantial things, they are more willing to invest money into the market and buy stuff - no matter how superficial that stuff might be. But then again if you have a bunch of crazy people in your country saying that all will end soon because a tax that effects 10% of the people might get increased 0.2% that has psychological effects than do much more demage than a tax increase ever could.

On a theoretical level, you are right, one can't be forced to pay for these things, but on a practical level you could annul all the state does with this logic (police, military, granting religious freedom, schools, roads, firemen, etc). Maybe it would be better to see certain laws like a law that forces motorcyclist to wear helmets (we have it over here, I have no clue if you have it in the US): it's a law because allowing it would do much more demage than banning it ever could. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 20:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

So how much of overall healthcare costs in Germany are subsidized from other sources? the 9 euros a month may pay for one annual checkup with a general practitioner once a year, according to my estimates. But it never would pay any specialists, nor the salaries of dozens of others associated with the medical occupations, radiologists, pharmacists, nurses, receptionists, janitors, nor operating costs of facilities, improvements, replacement, or medical research. So the 9 euros is largely symbolic. It's intended to make a person feel they have a stake in the system, and even a right to demand benefits, while relieving them of the burden of responsibility. But it does little, if anything, to make the fruit of other people's labor (that is, those who work in medical fields) available to all. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 23:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Health Care in Germany is available to all. The 9€ is just what my father pays with his low income, insurrance class etc. pays - the real deal is percentage depending on what you earn and if you have kids. The 9€ also is only one part of the two halfes as in Germany the employee and employer cut it 50:50 so actually that's 18€ a month and 216€ a year. That's worth way more than a check up… But my father (and my mom and me with that) are insurred with the "public" common insurrance (AOK) that has 24 million customers and works on a income=outcome (if there's word for that please let me know), others have different insurrance companies that are more costfull but generally secure the further existence of the system - because they don't get rationalized that easy. Hospitals are run by cities, universities and companies - but none of those are looking for profit. There's also a mentalaty here that we don't let our insurrances pay for everything (aspirin, paracetamol, the newest nice looking vitamin pills), first of all because that would cost them millions and second because that costs us almost nothing. Also, we don't pay doctors that well, a German doctor could never afford a sports car. They get paid but there aren't any big bucks in the medical business here, except for the pills (they also don't have to pay 110,000$ in student loans, maybe 10,000€ if their parents weren't rich - because we also have state loans and state universities for that). To answer your question, I only know that the German state gives a certain amount of money into the system each year to buffer things out. But this is really only a buffer for the yearly uncertainties of the insurrance companies, behind closed doors the state isn't running things. --★uːʤɱ federalist 00:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A German general practicianer averages US $123,000 per year (compared US stats), or about $60 per hour based on a 40 hour work week. The employer/employee premium of 216 euros translates to about US $150, or 2.5 billable hours for a German doctor. So by my reckoning, this pays about one annual checkup. As long as patient is healthy, there shouldn't be a problem. But if the checkup found a diagnosis & a referral to a specialists (at exponentially higher rates), the sliding-scale permiums would never cover the costs of treatment. (Is wp:sliding scale what you mean by income-outcome?). So the premiums a worker pays are largely cosmetic--a marketing gimmick, if you will, to create the idea that a worker has a right to services. The real costs are born by appropriations from parliament, the funding sources derived from a variety of things, most probably a vat tax or direct corporate income tax, I'd presume. This shouldn't be too hard to find out -- how much of the German healthcare sector is paid by premiums of employer/employees, and how much recieves direct subsidy or remibursement from government appropriations. And I agree, American doctors are grossly overpaid. It's what Milton Friedman calls a classic wp:Closed shop union -- by the medical profesion itself limiting the number entering the profession, they can keep competition down and pay high. And the idea that in a nation of 300,000,000 people, the US can't find enough people to educate as doctors, and we suffer shortages decade after decade which results in higher pay is just ridiculous, IMO. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 20:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What I meant wasn't "sliding scale" but non-profit, I think my brain stopped working there for a second.

So I researched that now and didn't even try to find an English version, anyway I'll be your translator for this post :) In 2006, according to this graph in this document from the Federal Statistical Office of Germany, 5.5% of the system is financed by the state - beware that "öffentliche Haushalte" doesn't mean the feds, but also the Länder (states), counties and cities pay here. Those 5.5% equal 13.4 billion € in the same year. In 2007 the overall budget was 1016.3 billion € - I'mway too lazy to calculate what the percentage is here but we both know it's rather small (around 1% I guess). The overall volume of the system is 245 billion €, with almost 70% coming from several insurances (which basically is a collective of patients that pay for each others costs commonly and a little bureaucracy doodled around the edges). If one considers further the backgrounds costs of such a system (education of doctors and nurses, making laws etc.) there might be even a bigger cost but considering the size of the budget that's all quite small. Anyways the German system is — as almost anything from Germany — unbelievably complex and bureaucracy driven. But still I would bet something that you won't simply find somebody on the streets here that thinks this system is generally bad and everything should be "privatized", seriously not even our laissez-faire guys believe that.

And kudos for staying on topic! Not being on CP seems to do you good! --★uːʤɱ digital native 21:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This is very good information, and I'm reading it in Bing translator. I've heard (and I think Bill Clinton was the source) that German total healthcare costs are about 10% of GDP vs US where it's probably 15-17%. But this report also states Healthcare costs have risen 31% since 1995 vs only 16.5% consumer price inflation, so the German system is not immune to some of the same problems plaguing the US. The report also states total expenditure in 2006 were 245 billion euros (including the cost of buildings). So a total cost of 245 billion divided by 80 million Germans = 3062.5 euros per capita expense divided by 50% premium share provided by employers = 1531.25 euros per capita consumption divided by 12 months = 127.6 euros monthly, - minus the 9 euros you father pays = 118.6 per month subsidy of costs for himself, plus that of his entire family (127.6 x number of household members less the head of the household whom we've already counted). If my methodology is wrong in this analysis anywhere let me know. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 17:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Still way better than US healthcare--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Tumble weeds at it again

Holy shit single largest day of incoming traffic ever at RW today. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Serious? Osaka Sun (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Any idea why? Blue So Angry It's Basically Purple (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Scientific evidence of evolution being a hoax" is twittering madly. Pippa (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which: Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is shoving that "Evolution is only a theory!" crap again, I see [3]. Pippa (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Its my fault, sorry. ^{— Unsigned, by: 64.28.255.75 / talk / contribs}

Again? It must only stop being funny when you've been staring at that article for three years straight. ADK^{...I'll scratch your amplifier!} 19:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Simon Singh just tweeted us [4] to 22,000 followers. Anyone want to extend and polish Galileo gambit really quickly? - David Gerard (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

UN Story

I normally don't go in for UN-bashing, since "the UN is horrible" is such a trope of the right, and I think the UN is, overall, worthwhile, at least in principle.

This, though, is beyond disgusting. UN Peacekeepers in the Ivory Coast traded food for sex with underage girls. MDB (talk) 10:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The UN is a talking shop. Giving nation states somewhere to talk, to find common ground where it exists, and to engage in debate and learn from each other is valuable and probably does prevent some unnecessary violence. Providing a forum in which non-state actors can address the nation states without having to painstakingly visit each one is also valuable. The UN's agencies on the whole are a force for good, and when they are not, every nation state, and in the democracies every individual through their state, can try to put that right.

But, at the end of the day individual peacekeepers are just soldiers, they're not answerable to the UN (the UN doesn't appear in an org chart above the head of state of the soldier's home country) but only to their commanding officers. I'm afraid I was actually slightly heartened to see that this was a trade. The soldiers got sex, the locals got food. Things could be a lot worse in a warzone. In thinking about this story, it's worth considering why exactly these girls and their families resorted to this. Would we be equally disturbed to read "People in war-torn African state starve to death" rather than "UN peacekeeps traded food for sex with underage girls" and if not, why not? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You are saying teenage girls were receiving money for sleeping with able-bodied men in uniforms? --Mack Coster (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

MDB cited an article, which says that in the war-torn Ivory Coast some of the UN peacekeepers agreed to give underage girls food in exchange for sex and that the local command had been ineffective in preventing this (probably because to them this was a relatively minor infraction). So: teenagers, probably; money, no. It's really easy to prevent soldiers giving prostitutes (underage or not) money, you just don't let them have any, that's what scrip is for. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The UN is composed of nations, hence the name, and not an independent nation with it's own people, ideas and culture. This applies to the armed wing equally, which draws from member states but just happens to give them shiny white and blue logos for their uniforms. I don't think you could bash the UN with this, per se. ADK^{...I'll forage your lollipop!} 19:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's no better and no worse than, for example, criminal acts carried by US soldiers serving abroad.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

About the Star Wars Blu-ray edits

I haven't minded most of the changes over the years, but seriously?

NOOOOOOOOO Osaka Sun (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, that's fucked up. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As they say in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, don't panic.--Lefty (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Nooooooo!--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the most pathetic thing about it is imagining George Lucas sitting in a screening room watching that scene of Return of the Jedi for the millionth time and saying to his crew, "You know what this needs? Darth Vader should yell 'NOOOOO!'" Junggai (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

George Lucas is a parodist. Does the Blu-ray include this button? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Or this. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I wonder, who would actually Have this reaction to this change, besides GL?--Mikalos209 (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This is such ridiculous crap from Lucas. He's trying to justify the flaws of the new trilogy by forcing a parallel into the old trilogy.--^talk 01:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Makes you wonder how much credit he actually deserves for the original trilogy. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably does this so people will buy the pricey new version instead of the old versions in the bargain bin. Kinda the opposite of when supermarkets put the old meat on top of the new meat.--Thanatos (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm just not even bothering to get the new films now. Lucas could announce that he's doing a decology based on the books where one of Han and Leia's children goes all darkside and needs to be put down like Ol' Yeller, and I'd just tell the guy to fuck off. Seriously, it's the books and the games that are the only things giving the Star Wars name any quality these days.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 10:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

He's trying to make money. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You are all a bunch of hideous nerds. DogP (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

LOL, just watch the old Return of the Jedi, then compare it to the new ending. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Or, just watch the old Return of the Jedi and stop there. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, when you're wondering how much credit he should take for the originals, the answer is "a modest, but not total amount". He didn't direct, he didn't edit and he didn't write most of it, he's just a fantastic ideas man and the original three (or at least the very first one) was a case of people clashing heads with Lucas constantly - and such friction and strife in production is what many good films are made of. Contrast this with the prequel trilogy where Lucas had total domineering control of everything. It was his ideas, and don't get me wrong the overall story arc of Star Wars including the prequels is good, but it was his writing, directing, editing, design work. Look at some of the Red Letter Media reviews where Plinkett shows some behind-the-scenes shots of the prequels and Lucas is standing there and no one wants to tell him he's full of shit and should shut up, they were standing there, dozens of members of the production crew, in fear of the guy. Back in the 70s there were plenty of people willing and able to tell Lucas to go shove it up his arse if he came up with a bad idea. The scene with Han saying "I know" when Leia says "I love you" was Harrison Ford telling Lucas that Solo as a character would never say "I love you too". And lo, we get a great insight into a remarkable character second only to him shooting a bounty hunter first rather than second - something we wouldn't get if Lucas had his way. ADK^{...I'll receive your sheep!} 18:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Tropical storm Lee

Ho hum. So far just large amounts of needed rain. Тy^talk 13:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Just wait, Katia is going to kill off the rest of the survivors from Irene, who were the survivors of the earth quake. Senator Harrison (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane Katia reminds me of this song. COMRADES! δλερνερ ^{διαλέγομαι | συνεισφέρω} 17:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Abortion UK style

Has this been mentioned here? "Nadine Dorries, a Christian MP, wants women to see ‘independent’ counsellors before they have an abortion, not go to abortion providers like Marie Stopes International or the British Pregnancy Advisory Service because they have (she says) a vested financial interest which she compares with pension mis-selling. She, along with Frank Field MP, is proposing an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill on September 6th to ensure this happens"[5] We also have our nutters! Pippa (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

She's a pretty nasty piece of work. But her seat is safe, that region (Tory since the 1930s) will vote in the Tory candidate whatever despicable things they've been up to. Everyone in parliament knows what Nadine stands for, so her proposing yet another anti-abortion or anti-sex education amendment achieves nothing. They also already know she's a liar and that she's permanently got her hand in the till, but unless you can blow it up into a major scandal with her name on it, she won't be de-selected. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

TBH, she has a point (if what she said is actually how it really happens or could happen). Not having the companies that make the abortions do the councelling on the issue seems rather rational. On the other hand, what exactly is "an indepedent"? You will hardly find anybody who is neutral about the issue… --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 12:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This is what plays as the Planned Parenthood argument in the States. It works on the principle that abortionists must be in it for the money. The BPAS is a registered charity. From their web site

“”bpas is a registered charity and as such does not make any profit from providing our services. Any surplus that is generated is reinvested in the business in order to provide a better service and further our charitable aims.

Not exactly an example of Mammon. Bob Soles (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I heard her on the radio the other day and there was a piece in yesterday's Indie. The main issue to my mind is that "independent" is not the same as "impartial" and most of these independent ones are faith driven. One woman who was referred to a faith-based abortion advice service was shown pictures of baby clothes and badgered to have the baby. Генгис^evolving 14:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they try to pull the same shit in the US -- force the woman to go to some Christian quack outfit that peddles the "abortion causes breast cancer, depression, etc." nonsense. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Independent" =/= "Impartial", I like that point. But as it's all done on the NHS at minimal cost, how is there any profit to be made from endorsing it, exactly? ADK^{...I'll model your virus!} 19:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious - in Oklahoma and South Dakota, it's "forced" counselling. you must get it. and in both cases they must be licensed. and the only licensed that have been given out are for religious centers. My question is, why must a woman have counselling in the first place? I can understand OFFERING it, cause many women do want someone to help them through their decision. But is this law she wants to enact, making it mandatory? I truly wish the US would keep our right wing loonies to ourselves. En attendant Godot 19:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about the likes of Nadine Dorries. Like the BNP, she is almost a necessity. There are quite a few nutters in all three mainstream parties but they are rarely taken seriously. They are there as a check on our sanity - almost a "what would Dorries do?" type weather check to which the reasonable answer is almost always the opposite.

The British have a very pleasing character trait which is, while they often look like they might be little Hitlers, the majority definitely aren't and reject ideologies that are strident and unreasonable. For all our faults, we're pretty relaxed. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest: what would these faults be? When I was over there I saw the British as one of nicest, kindest and most open kind of people I ever had the honour of meeting. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 20:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If I had to give a fault, I'd say we're not interested enough in our own history. There's so much of it and quite a lot of it involves beating the French and seeing the world, so no reason not to be interested. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 20:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I take issue with your claim that most brits don't care about (talking about) beating the french. It's essentially the national sport. X Stickman (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a wonderful line in Yes, Minister where it's let slip that the main foreign threat is not the USSR, it the French (hacker has just got his hands on the red button - horrors!). Of course, Yes, Minister was a purely fictional comedy with no relationship whatsoever to reality. Bob Soles (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

For those who are too young or too foreign [6]. Bob Soles (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes (Prime)Minister is a classic, no doubt. There used to be a (not particularly funny) joke: Person A - One of my ancestors died at Waterloo. Person B - Really? Which platform. Given educational standards these days... it's even less funny than it ever was. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

@Soles: Next time you post a link to YT make sure it's watchable in other countries (goat, sometimes I hate the BBC for doing such things to us non-English natives).

So those are your faults? Notoriously undereducated people that have no clue of their country's history? Try a genocide, a world war in which 55 million people were killed and whinning about the fact that you are whinning way too much. (Sheesh, you have problems…) --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 01:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait, which of the world wars was our fault? I mean, sure, if we'd quietly sat on our island and not accumulated an Empire maybe we'd have been able to stay out of WWI, but it's hard to see how not choosing to do so makes it our fault that things kicked off in central Europe. And at the start of WWII Britain stood back and did nothing, which is not exactly an aggressive stance. Sure, genocide, we had an empire, imperialists murder indigenous people to get their stuff. Show me a country that didn't do this in centuries past and I'll show you a country that lacked the means. We were pretty horrible to our own citizens too, back in the day. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The label "anti-science": a rant

Moved to Talk:Anti-science#The label "anti-science": a rant at 19:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

An end to the Tories in Scotland

could be in the offing. Any of the resident Brits (do we have any resident Scots?) think they'll have any better chances under a new name? (I hope not!) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

To me it looks like it'd just wind up as a mkii Scottish Conservative party with a clashing ideological mix of British Unionism and Scottish identity. I'm more concerned about when England's going to get her fair share of devolution as we're unfairly represented in Westminster. SJ ^Debaser 11:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the phrase "Conservatives carry too much baggage in Scotland and claims a new centre-right party would attract more voters" summarises what is fundamentally wrong with politics. It's just a popularity contest about swaying people to you rather than offering the population a legitimate chance to express an opinion or desire. ADK^{...I'll sniff your virus!} 11:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's a popularity contest, they're politicians, they just want power and everything they do is motivated by that desire. They don't give a fuck about people. SJ ^Debaser 16:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a fair characterisation. Career politics at the highest level just isn't rewarding enough to justify this belief. Leadership is physically draining. If US presidents were still allowed to stand for more than two terms, the third or fourth would probably kill most of them - that's quite a sacrifice. No, it's cynical of us to assume everyone who sets off down this path is on a ruthless quest for power. The Scottish Conservatives face a real problem, no matter what policies (Scottish or nationally) they espouse, they are associated with the party of 20+ years ago. Rebranding can help them fix that, and make it possible to get a Scottish voter to consider right of centre policies without the baggage of "Maggie's party". 82.69.171.94 (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

But the high level politicians are recruited from the lower ones, where you get power that is significantly less draining and a higher ratio of reward to stress. By the time they've moved up, the meme has set in and they're prepared to take the higher jobs otherwise it makes their entire lives meaningless - and don't underestimate the shit people will put themselves through to prevent that. ADK^{...I'll fly your noun!} 18:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thing is the party's being (theoretically) spearheaded by a Scottish Tory, so would it not likely carry similar economic/social policies to the Conservative party, and the same general membership group, MSP candidates etc? Dropping the label of "Conservatives" may play to their advantage if to disassociate themselves from past Toryism, but I don't know how many people consider the Conservatives past actions when it comes to present day elections. Obviously they lost hundreds of thousands of working class voters in the 80s. Would a rebrand be enough to make them forget everything? SJ ^Debaser 19:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Depends how stupid you think the average voter is. I certainly don't avoid voting Tory purely because of Thatcher. ADK^{...I'll riot your virus!} 19:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there plenty of things Cameron is doing that will make (decent) folk avoid voting tory. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean like privatising the NHS, cutting spending on everything from police to schools, axing EMA, hiking student fees to unaffordable amounts, losing tens of thousands of people their jobs and allowing parts of England to fall to protests and riots at least three times in the last twelve months? Yeah, I can see how that would make one unpopular. SJ ^Debaser 18:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Google Doodle Freddy Mercury thing

Made me smile. Open google and enjoy. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

+1 Osaka Sun (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never been a Queen fan, but I was touched by Google's loving depiction of Mercury riding around through the clouds. Junggai (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Glorious. - I fucked the girl in Hanson (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

skipcapcha

Can I have skipcapcha? I promise I'm not a robot. Honest. --Rskle (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait a bit, make edits, comes automagically after a bit. Or someone might do it for you (?) Pippa (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright, mate. --Rskle (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Keys to the White House

I saw this Lichtman guy getting touted in the news recently as the guy who created a model that predicted every election of the 20th century. Nate Silver has a good debunking of this. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous offshore hosting?

Hello, thought there might be someone here who can help me with this: I have some politically contentious material I want to put on the web. I live in a country in Eastern Europe with authoritarian tendences. I don't want my name attached to the web site because it will anger a number of people with money and political connections. I don't want to host my material in my country because there is no anonymous hosting here and our hosters delete web sites as a matter of course if some government official "asks" them to.

Parameters:

• It's a few 100 Mbs of text. No images, no media files, just text.
• I don't expect a lot of traffic. Bandwidth requirements should be trivial.
• Except for a thin layer of indexing/commentary the site consists mostly of mail, letters, etc. written by others. The material could probably be construed as violating someone's copyright. In the US and in most EU nations it would probably be easy to get the material deleted using some kind of takedown notice. To defend the material against the takedown notice I would have to file counter-notices or involve the courts. This would require me to give up my anonymity. So I would like to be in a country where they don't have these easy takedowns and it takes some work/some money/a court decision to disappear a web site.

I've googled for anonymous offshore hosting but the providers I find are very expensive (because they largely market to gambling, porn, and trading sites) or are at pains to point out they will dislose my identity it I get slapped with a notice. Money is an issue for me.

Any suggestions?

Hateboy (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's just a leak of some kind then hand it to wikileaks or post it on pastebin and announce on twitter. Otherwise I'm sure you could find a chinese reseller host who will give you some cheap space. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Run it on tor. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Freenet? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, but it's got to be a web site. If it's on Tor or Freenet you don't find it unless you already know it exists and specifically go looking for it. Basically, Dr. Evil needs to know that this thing is part of what people will find if they google him, otherwise it doesn't have the political effect I'm hoping for. Which means web site. Hateboy (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

DNS

America pretty much controls the DNS names of the world, even if you got a cheap web server in china that was anonymous and had the domain www.gotchafucker.com well whoever does not like your content could still get the DNS name provider to release your domain name and then all you have is an IP address which is not very human friendly. I think the pastebin/torrent and twitter announcements suggestions above are best to keep your identity secret and information leaked.

The US does not "control the DNS names of the world". The US controls ICANN, which makes political decisions like the creation of .xxx and .museum. The non-political administration of DNS is done by the root server operators, only some of which (e.g. the US Army) are controlled in some sense by the US government. The resolution of gotchafucker.com is controlled by a US corporation named Verisign who run the registry for .com but you could easily obtain an address from one of hundreds of other registries that are not controlled by Americans, if that's who you're afraid of. A brief Google should also find you plenty of web hosting services where they do everything on your behalf, they receive money anonymously (the same way bad guys do when you fall for a 419 scam) and simply don't know who you are, so they can't tell if they wanted to. Obviously everything has an "off" switch. If your adversaries are powerful enough (e.g. the US government) they do have the option of staging a small military invasion (think Bin Laden compound raid) just to press the "off" switch. But most people who think they're that important just aren't. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the US government isn't going to give a shit about me and neither is any other foreign nation. The affair is purely domestic. Secondly, even if my domain did get yanked it would be trivial to replace. Thirdly, I don't really need a domain. Google wouldn't care so why should I. I'm not trying to build a brand here. Fourthly, the way you usually disappear sites you don't like is takedown notices. Snatching domains is harder. So, all things considered, I'm not worried about domain name services being suspended. I'm worried about my hosting services being suspended. Incidentally, the fact that I'm worried mostly about the hosting is the reason I asked for ideas regarding the hosting. Hateboy (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Then just host with a provider outside of your country o.O 64.28.254.95 (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia

This might sound like a completely off the wall suggestion but how about Conservapedia? Bearing in mind FOIA and Bert Schlossberg you may be able to develop your own topic if it doesn't conflict with CP's other goals and you haven't been a vandal/parodist. Генгис^evolving 11:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Lawl, that's actually a cool idea. Bold. Problem is, one the one hand, it's just much too much material. A few 100s of MBs, that's probably 10 times the mass they have now. No way I can sneak this in undetected. On the other hand, the fuckups that FOIA and Bert go on about are fuckups that involve Americans. Even better, they involve Americans that have dies at the hands of evil commies. In my case, nobody has died, and the only people who got raped and scarred for life are from eastern Europe. Andy wouldn't be interested. Hateboy (talk) 07:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Other ideas

Wikileaks seems like the obvious suggestion. Isn't this exactly what they're supposed to be for?--^talk 15:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Fuck hosting it. If you really have decent information, just email it to the appropriate parties. Let them do the rest, because chances are no one is going to find your broke dick site anyway. Use an anonymous remailer like mixminion. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Asking questions on the Internet... you don't know if you'll get an answer but you can be sure there will be fifteen people solemnly informing you the question is stupid. I need hosting. I know I need hosting. The fact that I know I need hosting is the reason I asked for hosting. If you see someone telling you that they need hosting, don't you think the possibility that they need hosting might be, I don't know, a sensible first working hypothesis? Sorry, nothing personal. Just had to vent. Hateboy (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there is no hosting to be had for several hundred MBs in a country that treats copyright lightly that is not expensive. That might be why you got suggestions for alternatives rather than an answer. If you ask for a unicorn to ride, people will suggest a horse instead. Wikileaks, man.--^talk 09:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)--^talk 09:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you're probably just retarded. You don't need hosting and you probably don't have info worth dick. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks seems to be so burnt out with infighting and Daniel Domscheit-Berg and so on, I'm not sure if you gave them anything now, it would ever be released. Another suggestion — make sure you keep your anonymity, for your own safety, then dump it on Google, e.g. Google Sites. Google probably won't take it down, and if they do, you've just bought yourself some free publicity for your cause, see Streisand effect. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I was going to advise against Wikileaks yesterday, a few hours before they blew themselves out of the water releasing the unredacted cables, then I forgot. One blogger I follow had been covering the catfight in some depth. I sorta knew these drama queens were going to fuck it all up royally at some point. Actually, I knew they were going to fuck it all up ever since that exasperating womanizing trainwreck last year. If you're going to have to rely on someone's sense of discretion, common sense, and steadiness of character you don't go tie some pathetic PUA around you neck. Blue So Angry It's Basically Purple (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Cafeteria religion

An interesting read on Alternet Pippa (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

"Progressive Religious Believers' Big Hypocrisy: Cherry-Picking the Parts of Religion they Like and Ditching the Rest" Film at eleven. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I find that one of the more acceptable interpretations of religion. At least then people are free to ditch the shit parts (racism, sexism, homophobia, generally being a cunt) and if they do partake in that, they accept responsibility for doing so rather than offsetting the blame for their beliefs and behavior to scripture. ADK^{...I'll abandon your random string of characters!} 22:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That's noted in the article, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty much in line with what I think. Though perhaps I don't think it's as hypocritical or as bad as the article seems to suggest, just that it's entirely self defeating because it destroys the moral absolutism required for religions to function and maintain any authority. ADK^{...I'll balkanize your hovel!} 09:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It does get into that territory when they start claiming that the anti-gay crowd or the rapture ready nuts aren't "real Christians," though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"At least then people are free to ditch the shit parts (racism, sexism, homophobia, generally being a cunt)" - ah, if only they did. I also agree with Mondy's point that about cherry-picking being self defeating. The absolutists at least have the virtue of some sort of consistency; the pick and mixers, particularly of the Catholic variety who reject large swathes of dogma but still think that the RC church needs to command respect and that the Pope should be treated as someone special, are generally on shaky ground because their rationales for continued belief are generally irrational while their rejection of certain ideologies are often selfish. Генгис^evolving 08:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

People can believe in a deity without believing in any sort of revealed religion. One can be a deist, or even some sort of philosophical theist, and not accept any particular scripture. She assumes that the purpose of God is to tell us what is right and wrong and true and false. She assumes the order must be "belief in God" therefore "ideas about morality/reality", maybe the order is "ideas about morality/reality" therefore "belief of God", and the purpose of God is something else? She assumes a context of revealed religion, but not all religion need be revealed. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Alan Jones

What do our Oz colleagues know of this guy? I ask because I note that he (or someone of the same name - correct me if I'm wrong) is the "patron" of the Galileo Movement, an Australian Anti-AGW crowd. He seems, as far as his WP article goes, to be the sort of guy I'd pay to stay away from any organisation I was involved with. Also, what is it with engineers? The site (Galileo Movement) was started by two and is now run by three engineers. Could be worth an article? Pippa (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Alan Jones, but I think the Galileo Movement is an outlet for some of the more high-profile Australian deniers such as Andrew Bolt, Ian Plimer, and Bob Carter. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm that Alan Jones is a prize tool. He is a loud-mouthed talk-radio lowbrow. And yes, it is the same Alan Jones who is involved with the Galileo Movement. They have links to a number of his rants well thought-out opinions. --Horace (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Of Sydney talk radio hosts, the only one I dislike more than Alan Jones is John Laws. Or maybe I dislike Jones more than Laws. I can't remember. Mike Carlton was a far saner choice, although I hadn't realised until just now he's left the airways a couple of years ago now (been a few years since I last lived in Sydney...) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Libertarians for Dictators

Good piece in Salon about the anti-democratic streak in the libertarian movement. Some of this stuff matches the leftist apologias for communist states back in the day. Hoppe's defense of monarchy is particularly amusing, though Hoppe is still viewed by many within the movement as a crank. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Except that the libertarians do not pretend to have any fondness for democracy (their cardinal virtue is liberty), while the pinkos use the term so often that it makes their vocabularies look smaller than they are. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

A little biased, but something that needs to be sent around. The flock of libertarians that run around all over the Internet (Ron Paul!!1!) may exclaim how groundbreaking their theories are, but once they go into the real world everything gets incredibly more complicated. No high-class free society has ever had a libertarian government. The closest thing to what they want is probably Hong Kong, which in itself has a crapload of problems (ever heard of the "cage people"?). And the hatred of democracy (it's collectivist!), spewed out by many of them makes it that much more hilarious.

And yeah, doesn't it seem like this presence of libertarianism has spiked since the Obama administration (I'd like to see some evidence otherwise), when during the Bush years (with the things he did with the state) there should have been a more relevant response? It pretty much makes the simple left-right political spectrum more valid than people say it is. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It started to take off during the late Clinton years, and steadily grew during the Bush administration. During the Bush administration, though, libertarians could find very little outlet among established media and channels, because their preferences typically aligned much more strongly with the GOP, but they also voiced sentiments absolutely opposed by the GOP establishment, such as a vastly decreased defense budget and withdrawal from intervention and legalization of drugs. With Obama, though, the GOP is eager to voice any possible criticisms, so the libertarian movement is suddenly viewed with a lot of sympathy. Enemy of my enemy, and all that. And with the subsequent sanctioning of the legitimacy of the libertarian viewpoint, that means that it's also actually persuaded a greater number of people who feel free to voice their views, in a steady cycle.

My brother is a libertarian, and I used to be one. It has the charm of a wildly simplified worldview, a sort of absolutism that remains enticing to people in an uncertain world. That's much of the charm of Christian fundamentalism, to give another example of the allure of a black-and-white world. To a certain extent I agree with the ideals, just not with the implementation. Government should definitely seek minimalism as a goal, but it shouldn't be the only goal - that's just unproven ideological blindness.--^talk 03:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not beleive we have Libertarians in the UK. AMassiveGay (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Came across this tangentially related piece by libertarian Will Wilkinson on some of these inconsistencies. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We have people who call themselves libertarians, but they tend to be indistinguishable in any practical sense from business Tories. c.f. Guido Fawkes. - David Gerard (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Libertarians can be grossly divided into two categories.

• 1. Stoners that want drugs to be legal
  2. people that want no regulations or taxes so they can make more money

The truth is, they could care less about humans and humanity. Particular the second kind.--. 18:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The praises for Pinochet were exceedingly difficult to read for me as I was in my mother's womb when she and my dear father were imprisoned by Pinochet for spreading subversive pamphlets, as I have watched a game of football in the very stadium on whose field the great poet Victor Jara was executed. Indeed, a violent anger kept me from reading any further, but I suspect I got the gist. - I fucked the girl in Hanson (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Many leftists were/are apologists for Castro and Kadaffy. Cuba's transition to democracy will likely be harder than Chile's. Not all Chileans opposed Pinochet. Lysander Spooner (if I understand correctly) supported Confederates against the Union, but also supported slave insurrections. "Democracy is no excuse. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner."205.189.194.208 (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Vestigal body parts can cause pain

So when I went skating about three weeks ago, I ended up tripping and falling where I assume the coccyx to be. Since then I've been having pain when sitting up or sitting down and it's damn annoying when I go skating. Anyone else have this happen to them? HollowWorld (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. It's pretty common to bruise your tailbone. All bruises on bone take a long time to go away and give you that deep, dull ache that's so bothersome.--^talk 04:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. D: Feel Better Dear!--Dumpling (talk) 08:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Last time I had that it took months to get better. Patience is your friend.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

grubs that eat their mommy from teh inside out

Watching BBC's Life, and this segment is about a particular insect grub that under particular conditions causes it's own *unfertalized* eggs to hatch as perfect clones. the 30 or so eggs start eating at the mother's body from the inside out, till they eat their way out, leaving the "mother" just a sausage casing... And I whine about pushing a bowling ball out of a water bottle sized hole. Oh... now they are saying shark babies eat eachother in the shark's body. nice... sighs....--En attendant Godot 16:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

OMNOMNOMNOM.--Dumpling (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that's the kind of thing to shove under a creationist's nose (the grub, I mean, not the bowling ball/hot water bottle thing) - why would God make a creature that eats its own mother from the inside out? Oh yes, the same god who kills children to teach a king a lesson... silly me. --PsyGremlinPrata! 16:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

YEah, or floods the whole world cause his own creations did what he *knew* (given he's all knowing) they would do. nice guy.En attendant Godot 16:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Circle of life, dudes and dudesses. I think it may have been in one of Stephen Jay Gould's splendiferous books that I read about a viviparous acarine mite that always has a litter of eight females. It seems that the hatch is always nine individuals, and the eight sisters devour their brother in utero after mating with him. Not much cross-fertilization going on in that line. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Woooooah. O_____o...--Dumpling (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Classes in France use twitter to teach reading and writing.

I have no idea what to say about this... [7] -- cept "it's 140 characters". what can you say in 140 characters???--En attendant Godot 16:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Usually how fantastic Justin Beiber is AMassiveGay (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A Vendre: Chaussures bébé, jamais portées.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

At least 140 characters puts a stop to "sentences" which refuse to end because the child has learned that they can string an unlimited number of phrases together, thus: I went on holiday to Corfu and we saw a plane and my sister was scared and I got my own room with a bed and there was a swimming pool and t 82.69.171.94 (talk) 07:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

"Voulez-vous coucher avec moi?" Less than 140 characters and rather...to the point. I suppose that would lead to learning more than just French. Hm. I feel like watching that movie now.--Dumpling (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should reduce SB comments to the twitter limit. (In some cases this would be a plus.)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That explains a lot:

"So much falls into place with the revelation that Tony Blair became godfather to one of Rupert Murdoch's two young daughters and attended their baptism on the banks of the river Jordan last year"[8] Pippa (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Baptism in the River Jordan? WTF! Генгис^evolving 18:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I don't really know which part of the sentence is the most jaw-dropping.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Unintentionally sexual church signs

Good for a chuckle --PsyGremlinRunāt! 19:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is face-slappingly entertaining. "Sexual Exploitation of Children Workshop" being my favourite. ADK^{...I'll prove your hadron!} 20:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thought

Is there a toy in the market that will let you speak into it and modify your voice so it in effect "Schlaflizes it" and makes you sound like Aschlafly, almost how the darth vader mask makes you sound like darth vader? ^{— Unsigned, by: Rskle / talk / contribs}

Just hold your nose. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

And gargle lemonade and salt. HollowWorld (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Tilt your head back.
2. Go "HLAGH HLAGH HLAGH HLAGH HLAGH" like you're imitating the blowjob sound effect from Jerk City.
3. Talk in that voice.

- David Gerard (talk) 12:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Something like "talking tom cat" on your android phone might be what you want.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

HeySpeak (quick voice messaging service) has a (paid) add-on that runs your voice through sound effects. Who are you leaving death threats for? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The future of funspace

As we seem to be generally improving the quality of articles, etc., around the Wiki, it might be a good time to discuss the future of the "Fun" namespace ("funspace," for short). Funspace, as people probably know, was set up to hold pages that were considered off-mission but amusing enough to merit keeping.

It has, in my opinion, degenerated from this purpose, now serving as a dump for several hundred pages of eclectic cruft and nonsense, some of them put there as a measure of expediency, the least bothersome way to get them out of mainspace.

I think we should initiate some action to take out this four-year-old trash heap. Measures that we could (eventually) take include, in order of severity:

1. Moving any pages that do not really belong there to some other namespace. The Conservapedia poetry contests, for example, could go into the Conservapedia namespace, while Fun:RationalWikiWikiWiki could go into the project namespace.
2. Deleting redirects and links from mainspace into funspace, as we have been doing to links from mainspace into Conservapedia space.
3. Removing the worst of the cruft from funspace.
4. Putting a ban on the creation of new pages in funspace, leaving those already existing as historical relics.
5. Decommissioning the namespace altogether and deleting all pages remaining in it.

Discuss. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

some of the articles in fun space are genuinly imaginative, like creationist argument bingo, which further our mission whilst being amusing and creative. I wouldn't like to see that end. Pimobile (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We need a bucket where we put stuff that doesn't belong anywhere else. This is how I see funspace. Part of what RW is, for me at least, is a place where we can be a bit irreverent as well as the serious stuff.

A classic case is the Two Cows thing. It's off mission and totally irrelevant and, mostly, not that funny, but I think it's very much part of what we are. I would hate to see that go. If not funspace, where?

Another issue is who is it that decides what goes and what stays. I'm sure there are some that would consider Two Cows to be exactly the reason why funspace should go. Do we vote on each one - of course not.

So, in conclusion, I'm for sticking with the status quo. Bob Soles (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to go ahead and say that I've been wanting to see a massive cruft deletion spree for a long time. It's time to make funspace worthwhile to have around. We tried making a list of the worst of it a few months ago (I can't seem to find it now), and it all should go. We need to establish a baseline for quality in funspace articles. Blue (pester) 09:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Things you should imagine Mei is pointing at? -- Nx / talk 12:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for 1-3, there are a few that are actually funny, most aren't. Тy^talk 12:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not adverse to deleting the unfunny stuff or anything too short to be worthwhile, but wouldn't go as far as decommissioning the entire space or preventing new articles from being created. ADK^{...I'll putrefy your gelato!} 09:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel the same way. Just because we're sorting some things out doesn't mean we need to lose the fun nonsense.--^talk 10:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This was my last proposal which I still like. Rename it to make it more useful. The present name "fun" is not really appropriate.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You can take my Long-eared Jerboas from my cold, dead hands. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Summary

To summarize, it looks like most responders would have no problem with the first three courses of action, retaining a leaner funspace to hold articles such as Fun:You have two cows. Consequently, I have struck out those two as possible courses of action, and I suggest moving ahead with the other three.

We should probably start by getting up a list of those funspace pages that should definitely not be deleted, and then seeing which of them can be moved into another namespace. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Imagine what great fun it would be to be able to pick through an ancient Roman brothel's trash heap. What great and mundane things we would be able to learn?

The entire point of the Funspace is that we do NOT know what will be viewed as neato in the future. Consider collectibles, quack medical devices are always a good buy but not because they were ever useful for their stated purpose but simply for their novelty, for the "thought" behind the device. Such is Funspace, it is neither necessary nor practicable; to paraphrase George Carlin, goofy shit is its reason to be.

Should this wiki ever become so large that the cost savings of not having the namespace outweighs it's existence then we should think about getting rid of it then...but for now just leave it, says I, since tomorrow's minds need to know what drives and amuses us now. 16:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

There's too much of the "clean up brigade around. Pippa (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Alas, there's too much of the "shitter brigade" around, too.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not as if anything there is actually doing anything bad to us.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

We have category "things you should imagine Mei is pointing at" (or something like that) that we could use for tagging and reviewing it. It's not that it's directly harmful, it's just not very good to have a load of shit gathering dust because it looks so shabby to have a completely disorganised network of pages that are just full of nonsense. ADK^{...I'll taste your DJ!} 20:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that most of the cruft in our funspace will ever have the same historical value as a quack medical device. What is to be done with the stuff in "Things you should imagine Mei is pointing at"? ListenerX^TalkerX 02:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's not discount the sheer absurdity, pointlessness, and unfunniness of a number of funspace pages. It's like every bit of creativity rejected by good taste and the common man forms the sewage amidst which floats some few genuinely funny pages.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Every word you utter is worthless, Camille. Ace^ace 03:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) If you'd like I'll go through tomorrow and slap the delete template on them like last time. Тy^talk 02:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be good. Is there any way to direct any talk from the deletion proposals to the category's talk-page or some other central location? ListenerX^TalkerX 03:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a Forum page? Тy^talk 11:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears Nx is doing something to that effect in one of his sandboxes. Тy^talk 13:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Create a new namespace "Shite:". Move most of the "Fun:" articles there - David Gerard (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This place isn't fun anymore. Shitcan the funspace. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Swings and roundabouts…

Well, just had a new combi-boiler fitted courtesy of the Housing Association, and they're planning to fit a shower as well, so that's all good. On the negative side, the engineers who fitted the boiler just condemned my cooker, so takeaways for me until my new one arrives Thursday and gets fitted Friday.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 12:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I had a new combi fitted about two years ago. Downside: no airing cupboard (the hot water tank's gone!); seem to take forever for hot water to reach the bathroom (boiler's in the kitchen). Upside: definitely cheaper bills. Pippa (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Places that aren't in America are so strange. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Places that aren't in America are so strange. Seriously, the day we can vape ourselves into some kind of netrunner reality and leave this ball of rock to the avatar-controlled chimp mechanics, the better. P.S. The Co-op does a fine 15 year old single malt.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it 'gud with fud'? Генгис^evolving 18:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It is good in a glass whilst watching Big O (SFW if anyone is wondering). Avatar-controlled chimp butlers are an addition, but not a necessity.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

blub

There was a picture of a sign here somewhere once that said "no retards or people with deformities". I need this picture. Where is it? Blue So Angry It's Basically Purple (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Aceshouse.jpg . NDSP 11:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you kindly. Blue So Angry It's Basically Purple (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Absorbing Actions Through Handshakes

This is totally on mission and not an excuse to show a video of 1000 women being felt up. Honest. So errr... let's have a serious discussion about absorbing vibes and passing them on through handshakes then. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 09:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Sort of a reiki thing?--^talk 10:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Strictly hush hush but I'm expecting a visit from Vlad in about a week's time. I'll post pictures if it comes off. Генгис^evolving 15:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Illegal Library

OK so this is three years old, but I only just found it. Fucking awesome! The Twilight comment made me lol Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

An interesting nugget

Through A Glass, Darkly. Worth the 11 page read. Javasca₧ no really. 17:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

A good article, though 5 years old. I wonder how Romans 13:1 is working out for them now that Obama is in the White House. Junggai (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The specious reasoning behind the 15 questions for evolutionists....

Firstly we all know evolution does not, and doesn't pretend too, deal with the origon of life - only its development. But those sneaky creationists appeal to an authority and say The General Theory of Evolution, as defined by the evolutionist Kerkut, includes the origin of life. However a search for "General Theory of Evolution brings up solidly creationists sources. So who is this Kerkut? He was noted British zoologist who talked about the Special Theory of Evolution (microevolution) and the General Theory of Evolution (macroevolution). Note though that none of this deals with the origin of life, that micro and macroevolution are long since discarded terminology and there is no "General Theory of Evolution". So, tl;dr version - the 15 questions campaign is bullshit from before the first question is even asked. Ace^ace 04:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well they have to include at least some sort of midleading component to it or else they can't really "challenge" evolution. Sam ^Tally-ho! 04:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

They cannot even manage to challenge what they call "evolution" (i.e., origin by Big Bang + abiogenesis + evolution). ListenerX^TalkerX 04:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just how creationists operate. Find one guy, just one, no matter how nutty or outdated his opinion might be and project his opinion on to the population of working scientists. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of an appropriate place to write up this general and special thing. Article on Kerkut or keep it in the mirco/macro articles? Don't want to give it any legitimacy, though. ADK^{...I'll coach your spoon!} 23:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

any cognitive scientists in the house?

We have three articles, Clustering illusion, Pareidolia, and Apophenia, that are all stubs, and all saying similar things. Can someone who has a clue look at them and help decide if they should be merged? And if they should not be merged, we probably need to clean them up so simple minded folk like me can understand the difference. En attendant Godot 21:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Pareidolia and the clustering illusion are contained within apophenia. I think they should stay separate, but I'll try to clean up a bit. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The Pitch

The Gruen transfer is an Australian TV program about advertising. Regular segment, The Pitch, offers advertising agencies an opportunity to try and sell a controversial idea. RagTop^{Gone sailing} 23:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I remember this from the Fat Pride thing. Fascinating stuff at times. ADK^{...I'll revolve your cod!} 21:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Of interest

Hilarious UK Homeopath Squirms after being confronted about giving bad advice. It's a bit old, but I just dredged it up on youtube and thought the folks here might enjoy it! The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 10:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, she went pretty fast from "Well, there haven't been any studies" to "the first homeopathic cure was for malaria."--^talk 10:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Europe, I love you

While the American right wing calls for public slaughtering of Assange and calls whistleblowers terrorists, in Germany some left-wingers in the lower house are trying to give whistleblowers more job-safety (English translation) and get criticized right away ... for not giving whistleblower enough safety (English translation). The best thing about this? That bill has the legal backing of a ruling from the European Court of Justice. --★uːʤɱ digital native 18:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone up for some crank-review?

A little old, but we still have a chance to infiltrate the Journal of 9/11 Studies! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

“”Great, so after 10 years of cutting edge research and truthseeking they finally figured out what the rest of us knew that Tuesday morning.

:D :D Eye on the ICR ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 05:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

+1

Call me churlish, but I hope there's a special place in hELL for people who are going to append Google+'s "+1" to everything they like. Right next door to people who say "I wish this place had a "like" button." --PsyGremlin講話 15:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

UHM liked this!

+1AMassiveGay (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I hate you all. --PsyGremlinTal! 17:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

+2 Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

+3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939937510 -- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

+i Тy^talk 23:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

$+e^{0}$ Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

$+0/0$ Doctor Dark (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC) PS: "Churlish." You're welcome.

-6.1415926535897932384626433832795 Senator Harrison (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

+$R=\{x\mid x\not \in x\}$ Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

(n 1 +) Тy^talk 02:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

$+\aleph _{0}$ (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

+1

Is there some sort of RationalWiki annual awards thing? This should be nominated for topic of the year. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Also there are privacy implications that most people don't understand to these buttons. The provided buttons (that Facebook, Google, etc ask you to kindly incorporate into your web site) are designed so that Facebook, Google, etc. get details about every visitor to your site, whether they click a button or not, and whether they're currently "logged in" to Facebook or whatever or not. The British NHS got a bunch of heat from one of my colleagues because their STI information pages on the web had such buttons, ie Facebook was being told "Logged out Facebook user Barry Smith, who you know is in a relationship with Heather Jones, is looking at pages about Gonorrhea" which you know, maybe isn't what the NHS thought they were doing? It was surprisingly difficult to get NHS bods to grasp that they really were helping Facebook collect this data, and export it from the EU to a country where it can be sold for a profit... You can fix this either individually as a user (Sharemenot blocker software) or on your site (Sharenice stops the buttons tracking people unless they click them) but most people aren't even aware there is anything to fix. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I just recently was let go from my place of employment (loss of funding to the project). My entire job was to write software to harvest data from facebook, twitter, linkedin, google, etc. This data was then analyzed to market to people better. For instance, you like a page on Ford's site(this is a specific example, but names and details changed) and they know who you are, what you interests are, and other things shared on FB. And since I now have your name and location, I can reference that to a national database, and see when your lease is up. Then I can prod you to come get a new lease on the Chrysler you like, since you only have a month in your lease. I felt a bit evil. And I hated writing in ASP.NET/Windows Azure. I was supposed to be writing in C# (still shit, but less so) but ended up doing more ASP.NET than anything else. ASP.NET deserves to be shot in the face. Quaru^{microwave - You can't explain that!} 18:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Nah, being shot in the face with anything heavier than a .22 is practically guaranteed to kill you very quickly. ASP.NET deserves to have its legs mashed with a tire iron and be dumped in the communal toilet trench. It can then choose if it wants to croak from the dehydration, the explosive diarrhea, or the gas gangrene. Should take a few days either way. It would be the best five or so dumps of my life. Mountain Blue (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I have the servers that these buttons want to make my browser connect to shitlisted in my /etc/hosts file. (In fact, I have an interposer library that will shitlist specific hosts for specific processes, but for most people that's probably overkill.) Everybody can do this. Every operating system has an /etc/hosts file or a file just like it, even Windows. Blue So Angry It's Basically Purple (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

+^{ONE / TALK} 10:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

+1 goes right back to the beginning of the internet, doesn't it? It's what they used to do before the like button withdrew the very last ounce of effort from showing appreciating for something online. ADK^{...I'll bescumber your person!} 20:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

At the beginning of the internet "Me too!" stuff was frowned upon and seen as proof you didn't know the proper etiquette. Dendlai (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll always be a "mega-dittos" guy myself. DickTurpis (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Gay Homophobe countdown clock

9 days and counting....cant be long now until another one pops out of the closet! DogP (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice. That needs to be under Haggard's Law. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Whew... at lease they haven't caught me in my gay sex scandal yet..... er.... I mean.... The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 10:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I find it kind of funny in a sad way that "gay homophobe" has been shown to not be an oxymoron. (And Reckless Noise Symphony, I'm pretty sure you just have a wide stance.) --GastonRabbit (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Rubgy

With interest building in the sport before the Rugby World Cup, I thought this was an interesting article. I know Mercans play it around Boston traditionally because of the Oirish, but does it get much attention elsewhere? Ajkgordon (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It's increasingly popular in high schools and colleges - the private ones, that is. Several of my cousins played rugby. Until I came to NZ, though, I didn't even know what shape the ball was, so the market penetration isn't so broad.--^talk 23:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

NZers go fucking bananas over Rugby. I like watching the big matches but not what you'd call a "fan". Though tonight I am throwing a large RWC party. AD, you are welcome to attend. Ace^ace 23:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Damn, that would be amazing! Sucks we're on opposite sides of this goddamn country. I guess I probably couldn't, anyway - the wife's coming back from the States tomorrow morning, so I have to get everything cleaned up and romantic.--^talk 02:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Romantic? Doesn't that just entail sporting a boner and jamming a rose up ya jaxy? Ace^ace 02:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

While singing soft ballads.--^talk 02:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Soft ballads? You fucking pansy - are you sure your married? No man, you need belt outa power ballad. The Final Countdown, Bat out of Hell or possibly Danger Zone from Top Gun. Ace^ace 02:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I avoid any evocation of hypermasculine things like "The Final Countdown" or Top Gun. I don't want to invite any unflattering comparisons the next time I play beach volleyball.--^talk 03:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha! Ajkgordon (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

bionic

Just got a droid bionic. Jesus. 20Mbs download speeds. Already forgetting about the way things used to be. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I've had a Droid 2 Global for several months now and it unfortunately isn't that fast (and I don't really have any use for the Global part since passports cost so damn much). --GastonRabbit (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Diaspora - not dead yet

Just received the following in my inbox:

“”Thanks for your interest in being part of the Diaspora* community. You may not have heard from us in a while, but we’ve been working hard, head-down. We’ve built the first stage of a new social web, one better than what’s out there today: a place where each of us owns our own information, where each person controls his or her own privacy, where no-one is a product, and where we all control our own destinies. We’re sending out alpha invitations now, as quickly as we can. If you haven’t gotten yours yet, you will receive it by the end of October. There's been big news in the social networking world recently, and we can't help but be pleased with the impact our work has had on two of the biggest developments. We're proud that Google+ imitated one of our core features, aspects, with their circles. And now Facebook is at last moving in the right direction with user control over privacy, a move spurred not just by Google+, but more fundamentally by you and thousands of other donors, as well as hundreds of thousands of people who've lined up to try Diaspora* -- that is, by all of us who've stood up to say "there has to be a better way." We're making a difference already.

Will be interesting to finally get a peek inside. --PsyGremlinPrata! 20:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I should have this in my inbox also....interesting. Ace^ace 20:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Diaspora came up in a conversation the other day. Between Google+ and Facebook, there is no room for them whatsoever. I cringe at the thought of me being a bitch to facebook, and the idea of letting google control another part of my life disturbs me, but this will never (ever ever ever) take off. That's why I'm unwilling to join any of them. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The whole "circles" thing has actually been on Facebook for ages, it's the friends list thing and only idiots could miss it. Even then, if you want to be private you simply don't release information to others (I've had that rant before, though). Diaspora did nothing new, neither did Google+ really - although it did moron proof it by effectively forcing you to use the feature rather than leave it as an option. Thing is, a large open-source social network just won't work on account of the fact Facebook and Google have masses of funds and the sort of combined nerdy engineering talent that could put men on the moon. Diaspora just was never going to work from the start, especially since they decided to make it distributed. Meaning that if you can't find someone nice enough to host a node for free you're fucked, and if that node goes down you're also fucked. Actually, this bit isn't even new because open-source social networking software has been around for ages - about four years ago I was going to install one on a local intranet for work purposes. Really, I'd almost describe it as a con, people who have given money to it have been scammed. ADK^{...I'll affiliate your xylene!} 21:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. To some the relative obscurity of the service is an upside, e.g. identi.ca is alive and well. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's for organising events with and keeping track of the people you know, then it's not particularly good because no one is there for you. If it's just for whoring yourself out to random strangers then 1) why give a shit about privacy and 2) we've had message boards loooooooooooong before "social networks". After all, most people on Google Wave just used it to say "so... this is a wave... no one else is here. Ah well" and never used it again. ADK^{...I'll bamboozle your hotel!} 23:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

meh Sen (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

For some work on an alternative to giving companies like FB & Google control of all your data, see http://www.freedomboxfoundation.org/ Pashley (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

How about just not using social networks in the first place? - LucidFox (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been off social networking for about 6 months now. It's amazing how much more narcissistic it seems when I see my friends do it. "You really felt that 500 people needed to know what you had for lunch?" Occasionaluse (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm selective in my friends, but few of mine talk about themselves or what they did. most use it to share 1) cute animals, 2) serious articles on gay rights, women's rights, idiot republicans, or 3) "help, how do you do X" posts about techie things. I can't imagine reading "I was at the store today" or worse, "facebook wants you to know that i'm at latX longY using my mobil and uploading the location to play some game!"En attendant Godot 01:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Washing Hands could save a million lives a year

Good video - just don't let Andy Schlafly see it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Vancouver 'quake

Anyone here in Vancouver? Pippa (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No, but a lot of my people are. Apparently all is good. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 22:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad no one was hurt. It's weird, I read this here piece just a few days ago. I think it was on boing or something. Almost makes the quake look like a good thing; people will probably sit up and take notice now. Mountain Blue (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Obama's new stimulus package

What do you think? Most likely it won't be passed, but it feels like Japan's Lost Decade in almost every sense. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

When the economy does recover, it will probably be in a way no one expected. "Stimulus" measures can stop the economy going into a tail-spin, but fundamentally they do not really fix anything. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Nearly worthless with this output gap. Will get ripped up in the House, making it entirely worthless. Yes, I am filled with optimism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty good - about the best I was hoping for, actually. I also liked the rhetoric - a return of 2008 Obama.--^talk 10:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Obama's problem is that he assumed the Republicans would negotiate in good faith. It's OK to get snookered the first couple of times so that you show you're reasonable, but he kept getting rolled when he should have said "OK assholes, here's how it's going to be" and run over top of them. Unfortunately he lost the Senate before he wised up (to the extent that he has wised up). Doctor Dark (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to know where his strategy ended and incompetence began. I accept that originally the plan was to make the GOP seem radical and unreasonable, but they never got control of the messaging. They should have changed tactics a year ago.--^talk 01:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I find obama hot, (I like smart slick people) so any discussing of him and package... Never ever thought i'd say that about a president. lol. Seriously, i've held and held out for the "it's stratdgy", and in some ways I'm sold. look at gay rights. we are about to legalize gay marriage (through a very back door), and gays in the military. on the other hand, i keep waiting and waiting for economy to make sense (his policies)... but it never comes through. I no longer know what to believe. I will vote for him again, of course. cause even if he's disappointing -- he's not bush, or dear god, Bachmann.En attendant Godot 01:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The economics are really clear to me: the stimulus was good, but we needed a second huge round of it. Look at China: they had a stimulus that was staggeringly big, and their economy only slowed a bit because of its effectiveness. Most reviews of the stimulus agree it was effective, and I'm glad we're having this second one now.

I give credit where it's due, but he deserves almost no credit for advancement of gay rights. That was pushed through at great effort and pain by a lot of people all up and down the ladder and in every area, and he demonstrated repeatedly that it was not a big concern for him as he put forward reform in such an achingly slow way. The only credit he deserves is for not standing in the way directly.--^talk 01:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

"Obama's problem is that he assumed the Republicans would negotiate in good faith." Obama has always been a coalition-builder/reach across the aisle type, going back to his days at Harvard. I don't see him changing that anytime soon. Normally, that's the way things work, but the current GOP will vote against Obama no matter what ("You wanted a deficit commission? Okay, here ya go!" Filibuster'd!). Jonathan Cohn's words were accurate: It's the "new nullification." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I've also been wondering where strategy ends and where naiveté begins. On the one hand, he and his advisers couldn't possibly be stupid enough to still believe that the Republicans will really compromise on anything. That kind of learning disability would land you in a school for the handicapped instead of Harvard. On the other hand, they must also know that they're playing a very risky game, facing the electorate as stymied, but well-intentioned compromisers instead of being able to present actual results. And the Republicans already managed once to recast their obstructionism and clientele politics as principled opposition to some horrendous socialist program, to great effect. The bottom line is that he wasted a unique opportunity to reaffirm the validity of liberal politics in the wake of an enormous crisis and instead embraced the very principles that brought it about; now he will have to answer for his complicity in this failure. Right now, the only thing he's really got going for him is that the best thing the Republicans have to offer for the election is their version of John Kerry. To be honest, I can understand that the only thing that could motivate many American leftists to vote for him again is the specter of a president Perry. Röstigraben (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Obama's rhetoric, I also found myself involuntarily smiling every time he punched the air and said "pass this bill!" As if he's giving children a stern lecture. It was the right message: this is all stuff you would agree with if you were serious. I'm calling your bullshit, and dare you not to pass it. Whether or not it will work remains to be seen. Junggai (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Obama is fucked, all over. Ace^ace 13:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Vegan black metal chef

I'm a vegan (though not for animal rights purposes) and I've noticed a few vegan questions about. So this'll make you laugh, I hope.

--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Love this guy. It's rare to see anyone who likes black metal be able to put their tongue so firmly in their cheek. ADK^{...I'll xerox your icicle!} 15:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding black metal to anything makes it 1,000x more awesome. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You see…

…this is why I loathe the Daily Fail. It's a hate-filled, vile rag of a newspaper who can't wait to tarnish the reputation of anybody who is associated with a crime and yet, at the same time, they are capable of producing something like this on the front page of the online site. They are obviously capable of some level of quality and just as obviously, want to have nothing to do with it 99% of the time.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Second worst rated comment: "What a fantastic demonstration of the Creator's work." Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

They nicked that picture from the Astronomy Picture of the Day site from a couple of days ago (I subscribe to that site's RSS feed). See the original here. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Beautiful image. It made me go look up more Cassini images. In regards to APOTD, that "Robert Nemiroff (MTU)" in the credits? Totally had him for an Astronomy class. It was as awesome as you'd imagine. Quaru^{microwave - You can't explain that!} 23:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You are here, courtesy of NASA. -- CS Miller (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)