RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive120

This is an archive page, last updated 4 January 2012. 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>, <119>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

How do they calculate this then?

Article says satellite going to drop from sky and:

• "there is only a one in 3,200 chance of satellite parts hitting someone."

Surely the chances of being hit by a satellite are a lot less than that? As far as I am aware there is no record of anybody ever being hit by a meteorite and a lot more of them fall.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Chicken little was right!!!64.28.243.187 (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only do we know so much about the satellite's telemetric data, we also know a fair amount about Alaska.Occasionaluse (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Alaska?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it's "hitting someone", probably it landing near a populated area. They know a lot about how debris descends (they even built and trashed a satellite specifically to get data for this) so just project where it will go and work out a confidence interval of where it will land. Then just compared the amount of inhabited and uninhabited area in that and pull a number out your arse. Append it to your press release to make idiot journalists think you did some real work. Profit. ADK^{...I'll putrefy your heretic!} 23:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Poisson distribution? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

They have actually very carefully targetted their satellite in a 3200 population town. Sen (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

ADK^{...I'll obliterate your killer whale!} 00:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

An interesting theory. But how would that get them back to a "one in 3,200 chance of satellite parts hitting someone"?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it will hit someone. The odds of each person being hit are 1 in 3,200. Quaru^{binder - You can't explain that!} 00:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Given that prior assumption I now understand the answer.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Gotta love the snarky answers. But it seems strange that they'd say "1 in 3,200". Usually if people publish odds they'll at least say "1 in a million" just to reassure people. ADK^{...I'll xerox your lemming!} 15:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

But everybody knows 1/1000000 chances wind up being right 9 times out of ten... --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 15:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The target area is really quite large. South of Alaska but north of the southernmost tip or South America. So that's almost the same as saying "It could fall anywhere".--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There is one woman who has got hit by space debris. And 1/3200 isn't that big of a chance, considering that somebody wins in the lottery every other weekend. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If I had a 1/3200 chanced of winning the lottery I'd buy a few more tickets.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

IT IS TOO a word, goddammit!!!!!

Facebook Scrabble wouldn't let me play "baramin". Stupid piece of shit program. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 22:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that the game is not intelligently designed. --GastonRabbit (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The trick is it's not ONE word. did you try bara min? that might work. En attendant Godot 01:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This one time, I was playing Scrabble with my grandfather (in French), and I made saguaro- a seven letter word - and I landed it on a triple-score. But saguaro wasn't in his twenty year old dictionary so he wouldn't let me use it. I would have won otherwise. I thought it was crap because saguaro is totally a word in French, particularly since my grandfather uses it all the time. And I was less than ten... Give a kid a break!--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I hate scrabble. Its a game I feel I should excel at. Yet I always lose. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I once lost a game of Scrabble by 5 points because I chickened out of putting down "Quim", with the Q on a triple letter square. I was playing my mother and little sister, and I just couldn't bring myself to do it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I just learned me a new word ;). Senator Harrison (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Could I get a link? Last time I checked there was no decent Scrabble on the Facebook? WF Lizardbrain (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of "goddammit...."

Some comic shop owner in the Bible Belt is pissed off because Superman might have blasphemed.. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 01:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

but but but, all of them whined on Facebook a few months ago that they would stop reading cause he's black. and they are still reading? oh the horror. they lied. ;-)En attendant Godot 01:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That was Spiderman, sweetheart. DO try to keep up. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 01:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WEll fuck. no wonder they were upset. i mean superman, whatevah, but spidey, black??? --En attendant Godot 01:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Spiderman is now half-black, half-hispanic, actually. Well, one version of Spiderman, anyway. There are a bunch of Marvel versions of him.--^talk 02:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Peter Parker is now a mixed race guy ? Noooooooo !!! What have they done to his Aunt May ? Hamster (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Aunt Mai. She's Cantonese. Mountain Blue (talk) 09:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Peter Parker isn't the mixed race spiderman. Peter Parker has in fact been killed off. Miles Morales is the new mixed race spiderman. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Miles Morales. Thousand Morals? How strangely fitting...kinda. o_____O--Dumpling (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a reason I never gave a shit about this superhero crap. If the premise doesn't strain credulity the half-assed garish attempts at being deep and philosophical make you facepalm. Mountain Blue (talk) 23:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Dammit

So you guys have heard about Obama basically saying "nope, yup, go ahead and fill our cities with more smog here I'll even put the restrictions back to 1997 standards!" and that he'll probably pass the pipeline bill and I'm practically rolling on the floor in unrestrained fury. This isn't counting all the Exxon backed commercials supporting more oil places and the natural gas commercials which I want to vomit at which all seem suspiciously like propaganda. I'm just kind of... hopeless now. There's not much of a way to describe it. Things need to change but asjsdjsd it's not happening. You can't just say words anymore. HollowWorld (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Obama is the biggest disappointment since Y2K. Ace^ace 05:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama. Ace^ace 05:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Industry lobbies had to go right to the top because they couldn't pass off their bullshit on the EPA head. Obama can't risk alienating the petroleum industry -- especially when they're likely to pump loads of campaign contributions into a potential candidate like Rick Perry. If this is surprising, you probably need to back away from the O-bot Kool-Aid. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Bitch, it ain't even that. Everyone knew Obama was the Hindenburg the moment 2010 opened up. But now shit just seems plain fucking hopeless. People are apathetic, you can't get shit done with 'real grassroots' organizations... sdjdjkdsjk HollowWorld (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone ever think Obama was actually an objectively good choice? My opinion on him (and I'm not an American so keep that in mind) was "he's not McCain and he sure as fuck isn't Palin". I guess that's what a two party system does to you. X Stickman (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Not American either. I thought Obama was an awesome choice. He was a man of intelligence, erudition, and idealism. He was the polar opposite of Bush II, both in terms of not being a barely literate idiot and in terms not being an insecure swaggering manchild. He was so effortlessly grownup and reasonable he was practically Scandinavian. He also was a symbol of everything that was still good and amirable about the US; I remember I almost cried when I heard Ralph Stanley was doing radio spots for him: one of the personifications of the Old South endorsing the black guy, fucken awesome.

Most importantly, I believed he would be good to his word, end the rape of Iraq, close Guantanamo, reinstate habeas corpus, end torture, and stop the administrative killings. I may also have believed he would have the torturers prosecuted. You may laugh at me now. Mountain Blue (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to say that after running on a platform which included closing Guantanamo Bay prison and giving the detainees their day in court, his coming out and making a speech in favour of indefinite detention without a word of explanation for the 180 was pretty fucking galling. Those guys have been in prison for the better part of a decade, what could they possibly know that couldn't be said in open court now? Maybe Obama just wants to keep 'em in prison longer than Nelson Mandela so that maybe they'll make better presidents than him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you kids and your idealism, once in office Obama will have been assailed by vested interests explaining why he couldn't carry out those promises. As MB said above, Obama seemed like an ideal candidate but the only problem was he got elected at the wrong time. He inherited a financial mess accumulated over many years. It's not going to be nice for a lot of people in the coming years until the financial system is back on solid ground. Initially I had hoped that a Republican would win in 2008 but the spectre of Palin as VP and possible POTUS was too horrible to contemplate. Obama will now take the blame for the financial problems whereas in 2012, or more likely in 2016, a candidate like Obama would be able to deliver a new deal with a decent mandate. Obama has basically walked into a trap and until the underlying system is reformed he will be hamstrung. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

New Yorker

Tomorrow's front cover has got to be one of the most beautiful and moving images I've ever seen. Just thought I'd share. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Beautiful. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

9/11

It was the source of one of the best skeptical essays on how irrational fear triumphs over logic in forming public policy. You all should go read it now --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 18:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It is highly ironic that the "Committee for Skeptical Inquiry" should be warming over the same slop that the Christians spewed around the time of the Constantinian shift. From them we get the idea that it is irrational to fight your enemies. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A final mystery cleared up re: 9/11

Something I could never understand was the strange chirping sound you could hear when they were showing Ground Zero footage. Eventually, a trawl through Google gave me this:

The eerie chirping sound heard in all footage of Ground Zero in the hours following the attack is the sound of an alarm that firemen wear. The alarm sounds whenever they've stopped moving for too long. It is used to locate incapacitated and dead firemen, only in the aftermath of the building collapses it was amplified hundreds of times over.

That really brought it home all over again. --PsyGremlinTal! 04:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Kitten and puppy season

don't forget it's kitten and puppy season if you live in the Northern hemisphere. shelters are crowded. if you are looking for a furry friend, now's a good time! (this public service announcement brought to you by all the kittens who are at my shelter that guilt me into telling you to adopt them). En attendant Godot 22:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If you live in Arizona, Maricopa County Animal Care and Control (where I volunteer as an adoption counselor) should be having a "sale" of sorts on dogs. It only costs 17$ to adopt a dog or puppy complete with spaying/neutering, vaccinations, and an appointment with a veterinarian included in the cost! Micro-chipping costs only an additional 25$, and is recommended in case your pet escapes.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a season? Why is there a season for cats and dogs? Is it because it was mating season? Seems strange to me (not a pet person).--^talk 22:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought the season was just after Christmas when they all got bored of them. Or is this the season after Christmas because they were puppies back in December but now aren't? ADK^{...I'll admonish your windows!} 23:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's about the breeding/mating season. kittens are in theory born in the spring, and they aren't able to be adopted for 3 months or so, making it kennels full of kittens. puppies are similar, but there are simply less feral dogs than there are cats, so there are generally less puppies. En attendant Godot 01:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Franzen's Freedom taught me to hate feral cats.--^talk 02:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a season because you don't want the kids to be born in winter when the food is scarce. Small mammals with gestation periods measured in weeks (eg. dogs) will typically be in heat in early spring so the kids will be born in late spring to early summer. Large mammals with gestation periods measured in months (eg. deer) will be in heat in the fall. This will be most strictly true in large latitudes where differences between seasons are great and winters are harsh. In countries close to the equator where differences between seasons are mild your bitch may be in heat up to once every three months, because why not. Mountain Blue (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Smelly little bastard

::::I WOULD ADOPT KITTIES AND PUPPIES GALORE. If I wasn't allergic to kitties...and my father not liking animals in general.--Dumpling (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I only adopt kittens when I run out of sacks to drown them in. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I have intentions of adopting a ferret or two at some point in the coming months. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ferrets are so cute AMassiveGay (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Here, have one of mine. He keeps getting caught in my rabbit trap. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I want a ferret, but I've heard they are smelly. true? or urban legend?En attendant Godot 14:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Being mustelids they have anal scent glands as well as musk glands. The little bugger you see here left a fair old whiff on my rabbit trap and I had to steam clean it so it wouldn't frighten the rabbits off. However, when I've seen and handled ferrets at country fairs they haven't smelled too bad. You can have the scent sacs removed but they will always be a bit musky because that is their nature but it can be controlled with good hygiene. (So I have been told.) Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This user is an acolyte of the ferret overlords

I need to do a lot more reading & prep before I get one, but what little I've heard/read so far is that removing the anal scent gland isn't particularly necessary or effective. This would only stop the skunk-like spraying they make if frightened (e.g. if caught in a rabbit trap) but a house-pet ferret very rarely does this. It doesn't affect whether they smell musky or not, but neutered pet ferrets usually aren't too smelly anyway. Admittedly I haven't really been around ferrets up close before, so I'm not quite sure what to expect in the way of smells. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well this is good place to start and don't forget May 5th. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

math Bunnies - need help or suggestions on a/some book

Ok, so I'm watching "the Code", about math in the world (bbc of course), and it left me wondering about numbers. What they are. are they purly cognates of our mind? real things in the real world, etc. are there (and i'm sure there are) any books that talk about this meta question? and i should state, "books for idiots" cause while i'm curious, i'm very math illeducated.En attendant Godot 02:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What are numbers? An important question in the philosophy of mathematics. However, when it comes to actually doing maths, it doesn't really matter what they ultimately are, so long as one knows how to use them. So, while some mathematicians are fascinated by this discussion, others will prefer to leave it for the philosophers. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

And a more comprehensive summary... Or a much more thorough one. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are just interested in 'numbers' then I enjoyed Marcus du Sautoy's Music of the Primes which discusses the search for prime numbers and why they matter. As a non-mathematician it certainly gave me a few insights. There is also a companion website which I've only just discovered. Marcus took over from Dawkins as Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford and has done several BBC shows and even TED. You can also download his podcasts of A Brief History of Mathematics. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The Mathematical Experience is another book touching on this sort of thing that people seem to like. It's a mix of history, philosophy, and actual math (that is probably comprehensible for the most part, and certainly skippable otherwise). It's definitely more than some dry history and philosophy. --MarkGall (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

One of the Science of Discworld books (probably the first one) covers this is in a fairly easy to understand way. Basically, it covers how mathematics has been developed ass-backwards on only recently have people even bothered to think "so, what are these number things anyway?" ADK^{...I'll reward your dishrag!} 15:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Genghis, du dautoy is the single evil genious who has forced me on this path. first "history of Math", now "the code", i think there was one infinity in there. I'm truly in number 'awe". i am a Number woo devotee. fuck they freak me out almost as much as quantum physics does. Thanks for teh book suggestions, casue that is exactly what i was looking for. the (non) mystical sense that he is sooooo good at conveying. "want to see something freaky, watch what happens when i do this and this with maths...." En attendant Godot 16:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm shocked that no one's mentioned G. E. B. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I found that book to be a tedious monument to the author's ego. Perhaps that was intentional, as a meta-invocation of its theme of self-reference and recursion. To a dedicated mathematician, though, I suppose nothing is truly tedious. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Because of their religious connections, i had to force my way through both Liebnitz and Spinoza. talk about tedious. is their math as bad as their philo. (the writing, not the ideas).En attendant Godot 14:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Geek Social Fallacies

Upon reading this - fallacies one and two immediately made me think of RationalWiki's problems - π 04:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Most definitely. Тай^{говорить} 04:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Heh. Heh.--Dumpling (talk) 05:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Em, I find the premises a bit americentric. I have not experienced any mocking because I'm a geek in school (well once, but that person just got a funny look from everybody that was around and was ignored), but then again we don't have school sports and cheerleaders around so the whole basics of American High Scholl popularity contests don't even exist. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 15:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

What UHM said. This weird hatred against intellectual curiosity ultimately comes from a form of jock culture that simply doesn't exist outside of the anglosphere. Beating up classmates doesn't confer status very readily except in societies where adolescent boys are expected to compete on being dumb and brutal. Being dumb and brutal doesn't confer status very readily outside of societies where adolescent girls are expected to partake in school-sanctioned tit-swinging contests. Mountain Blue (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we got ourselves a reader... (Explanation for non-Murricans.) As for #4, It's just common sense. Everybody knows you gotta keep the worlds apart! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a few lists like this. It's very true, the more people claim to be different the easier it is to point out how they're still just the same. ADK^{...I'll google your mitten!} 13:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've officially hit the "9-11 can eat my shorts" stage.

My facebook is flooded with "remember the victims", my tv has Bush talking about how saddened he was (the incompetent ass didn't do anything for hours) and even non-political related sites are ripping their sleeves in pain and sadness. and "whatever" is my response. I am so sick of this patriotic crap "teh troops are fighting for American's freedoms" (oh really?), and "they died to protect you", no they died cause they happened to be in the wrong place when terrorists attacked. "never forget" also means (and this is NOT my statement, it's one from a political writer) "never forget that politics in america changed that day, and we got into two unjustified wars, allowed torture and extradition, and even ripped civil rights of us citizens to shreds in the name of "war on terror". It's time for this country to grow up, and stop being the weak ass, overly emotional, "god bless teh USA" spoiled teenagers we've been. give that role to china, while we move into the land of adults. please?--En attendant Godot 17:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It's all the leftists' fault! Their stealing our sovereignty and giving to the Islamists! Osaka Sun (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I sort of agree with WFG. Not only that, but some perspective is necessary: though 9-11 did change US history, it's far from the biggest tragedy we've had, and it probably pales in comparison to the damage we've committed in response. Related: Economist Robin Hanson bitching about 9-11 on similar lines. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

...two unjustified wars... The second war was unjustified, but the first was; a lucky accident for the war-hawks. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Basically, the victims of 911 are a faceless excuse for modern day crusaders and robber barons and we're the ones paying for it. Welcome to the USA. Enjoy your stay, world. HollowWorld (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Listener, i actually agree that the first was mostly justified. I was just quoting the columnist. And i think to be honest, we had the world's acceptance, if not support that it was our right to fight it. but the second? and the run on american civil rights? sighs...2 terms of that idiot, to boot.--En attendant Godot 20:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Tell the ignorant fuck what civil rights were lost? Half the web is whining about it but they never name anything. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

1) not having your conversations listened to simply because you are talking to someone out of the country. 2) Not have your phones tapped without due process and a warrant, 3) requiring physical scans of your body, tap downs, etc., as you board plains without cause or due suspicion, 4)requiring citizens to carry proof of their identity or risk being arrested, 5) larger and larger encroachment on rights of autonomy in where you go, especially if it is out of the country, 6) having your internet records given to the US government without your knowledge or approval, 7) having library and book stores give over your reading preferences, 8) in the very early 2001, asking the US postal carriers to turn in anyone who acts "in any way" suspicious or receives suspicious packages in the mail, 9) changing the voting laws to require identification that some people will simply not have, 10) allowing anyone to question a voter's right to vote at the assemblage spot - without any real justification - just saying "i doubt that person has the rights, 11) preventing people from voting because they are foreclosed on, 12) preventing homeless from voting cause they 'cannot be registered since they have no home... and those are just off the top of my head sitting here.En attendant Godot 21:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add to WFG's list: The ability not to held indefinitely as an "enemy combatant" without seeing a lawyer or even being formally charged, illegal renditions to foreign countries, torture (excuse me, enhanced interrogations), and a shit load of paranoia from neighbors and government officials as they rooted out "the terrorists." SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 22:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw it happen, in real time, no TV even. I don't really need any help remembering it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I know the feeling. Trouble is, you're not allowed to express it because you'd be a heartless cunt to do so. Though I can't see what's heartless about remembering the thousands more who have died in the events since, or the millions who died that year, or close friends who died because of something else (I've got a fair few more salient anniversaries coming up). Now all my power ballad playlists on PooTube are covered in "I dedicated this to 9/11 victims" comments. ADK^{...I'll terrorize your chisel!} 13:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, AD. It's not that you are heartless if you remember it, or think about it -- it's the crass memorializing of it, the "national mourning" that never ends. We had SEVEN different events here in Denver, marking the day. Virtually none of us were there, and of the thousands who go to these memorial remembrances, i'll be you less than 1% knew someone who died, and less than 10% knew OF someone who died. People who are so open with their "public grief", tend not to be the ones in any real pain.En attendant Godot 13:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Grief tourism ADK^{...I'll glug your flap!} 14:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, 9/11.

The day every year that you'd think that people would smarten up, but harsh Islamophobic and anti-Semetic statements, as well as random comments on Israel, are spiking.

Especially on the 10th anniversary. headdesk Osaka Sun (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

why should they "smarten up". we are AMerican. we know all. we are god's chosen, or whatever. En attendant Godot

It's incredibly disappointing, that's all. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the wingnut blogs are predictably alight with "we would've won the war on terrah too if it weren't for political correctness" (read: If only we could put all the Muslims in internment camps.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, too, since Republicans decided to say "Fuck the first responders!" They've now doubled down. Assclowns. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've sort-of experienced the opposite. Some people are so keyed up and ready to respond to blatantly stupid things like "all Muslims are terrorists" that they seem to treat any and all criticism as such things. So when I pointed out that what people say about Muslims is nothing compared to what some of them (note "SOME", "SOME" FUCKSAKE!) have done and said themselves, I got flamed as a bigot as if I'd said "all Muslims are terrorists" - something demonstrably incorrect. Well, go talk to Theo van Gogh about that, oh wait... It seemed to have generated just as much inane apologising to Muslims as it's generated hatred towards them. ADK^{...I'll sacrifice your leash!} 13:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

See also "Religion of Peace" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I got the "deport the savage Moslems out of our country" claptrap. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

Has Schlafly ever admitted to be wrong about anything at all? WF Lizardbrain (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Rhetorical question. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Depends, on big things or little statements?--Mikalos209 (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Anything at all. WF Lizardbrain (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, although on core Beliefs, not that i know of. He WILL admit hes wrong, just not often--Mikalos209 (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I get a link? WF Lizardbrain (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't exactly keep links lying around with no expectation of using them...--Mikalos209 (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This is really a WIGOCP:Talk topic, we try and keep this page a CP-free zone. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry about that. Relatively new here. WF Lizardbrain (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Caring about RW

You're doing it wrong. Using an obvious sock with 9 edits to seriously (not as a joke in any way) vote in an important standards poll? Come on. Blue (is useful) 18:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr West is entitled to vote under the rules. Those are the rules, let's live by them. Bob Soles (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not that he's entitled to vote, it's that someone is being a huge douchebag by voting with a basically-admitted sock. Blue (is useful) 20:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

In that case I'll login as each of my bots and vote or better yet I'll write a script to do it. - π 01:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There was a thing about it being unfair to change voting qualifications after the vote had begun, that's all. Blue (is useful) 03:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Not getting enough attention lately, Blue? 03:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not enough "attention" from you, big boy~ Blue (is useful) 03:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Bow-chicka-wow-wow. But anyway, hands up if you've never had a sock make a vote or used a different IP to get a second choice in a poll? Anyone? No one. Good. ADK^{...I'll explicate your engraving!} 13:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Will it shock you to know, AD, I've never used a sock, period? I edited at CP under one account, as "me" (a theology professor at a small community college), and even back in the day on yahoo and Tribes i had one account. I don't get the idea of socks, frankly. En attendant Godot 13:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably a typo, but just in case: Armondikov and I are different. I am taller, for example.--^talk 00:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Me neither. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Um, then what are EnAttendantGodot and EnAttendantGodot2? Тай^{говорить} 13:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Voting is always going to be a problem. I'm at least 8 of the regular users here, and you don't hear them complaining. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never voted with a sock.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I didn't have my password/email account, 1 year later, so made a #2. I think it has like 100 edits? As soon as some wise old man here (nx, probably) helped me, i switched back over. so there. ;-)En attendant Godot 13:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Besides, I suspect if i votes with two accounts that had the exact same name, someone somewhere might cry foul! En attendant Godot 13:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘There are those who run multiple accounts which are not exactly socks. One historic case was the late SusanG, who, to my knowledge, ran at least three different accounts - although not simultaneously. It is very questionable which of my five accounts is the "main" one - clue, it's not this one - and I once had a vote disallowed because I was deemed to have used the wrong one, although I considered it the main one. The point of all this. Multiple accounts does not necessarily equal socks or evil intent. Travancus (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The objection was for misusing such things, not their existence. ADK^{...I'll putrefy your brick wall!} 14:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I get why some people have multiple accounts some places, my husband runs 4 or 5 facebook accounts including one for his family, one for his job, and one to bash idiots who think evolution is fake. And I know some people have fun with account names. I created "waiting for Godot", and the very first person to post on my page was "Godot", but that's a one time thing - not really a 2nd accout. But I do wonder why people keep and edit under multiple accounts. It doesn't bother me at all. i'm just curious. I have an acquaintance at Wikipedia who edits music under one name, and Sioux/Lakota stuff under a different name, and spanish under a third. never sure why. En attendant Godot 15:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you still waiting? I thought you'd have given up by now. (a two time thing) Godot (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Je ne regrete rien....En attendant Godot 18:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Nike Mag

Any Back to the Future geeks here with a couple of grand to spare? [1] Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No auto-lacing = GAY (no homo) Occasionaluse (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You want auto-lacing? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

...No waaaaay. --Dumpling (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

$20 for one of the most basic tricks in magic? Occasionaluse (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hipster overload

So I can't be the only guy not creaming his pants over this new Zooey Deschanel...thing, right? It's starting to get close to Twilight territory here, except with the squeeing of millions of hipsters instead of fangirls. Rusty spoon, meet eyeballs. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea who that woman is, and still don't really because I got bored three paragraphs into the article. So you're not alone. Röstigraben (talk) 06:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I knew her name up to this point was because of her role in the film version of 42. She was okay. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Zooey is ok. I'm a bigger fan of Emily. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

On a scale of one to ten... I'd give her one... --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 15:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm w/OU on this one. Тай^{говорить} 20:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

ADK^{...I'll assassinate your pea soup!} 15:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Shilling

Christopher Horner is at it again trying to relaunch Climategate lawsuits. Scott Mandia of the Climate Rapid Response Team has set up a legal defense fund for climate scientists if anyone is interested in donating. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This is still going on? Osaka Sun (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's been going on for two years. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

And it'll never stop. Climate change is one of those big inconvenient things no one wants to believe in, so it will face challenges like this forever. ADK^{...I'll glug your newspaper!} 15:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

True, but Climategate has to end at some point -- Michael Mann and Phil Jones can't live forever. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I <3 NY

Because you can get away with ads like these. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

+1

And to the person who complained last time about using that, shut up. :P Osaka Sun (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

YESSSSS! Oh god, that made my day.--Dumpling (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The best "fuck you" imaginable. ADK^{...I'll kill your plastic!} 15:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I want the first one as a t-shirt. --★uːʤɱ pervert 15:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Non violent resistance

Before I start a page for nonviolent resistance (which is only linked to by Ang San Suu Kyi) does anyone have any other terms that we might already have this page under? I looked at Ghandi (which we don't have a page for), and King for links, but I don't want to reduplicate an article that exists, just cause i'm too stupid to know other terms it might be under.En attendant Godot 17:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Passive resistance. Тай^{говорить} 17:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

More batshittery yumminess

Another blog following right-wing crazies crossed my radar. Lots of fun stuff here. DogP (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, it's not like was doing anything for the next few hours... --PsyGremlinSermā! 17:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Friend brought this to my attention

Checkmate AtheistsA tumblr thing. Thoughts?--Mikalos209 (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm almost certain it's parody. Not quite but almost. Check out August. Also July 5-8. Mountain Blue (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh most definitely. Just felt like brining it to the attention of you good folk--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Most definitely? Any specific reason to be sure? Mountain Blue (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Never mind; I should have scrolled down a little farther. Mountain Blue (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, 110% certain it's taking the piss. It's also pretty funny in places. Not far off what some people do think and say (especially the more circular ones), but distilled to highlight the stupidity. ADK^{...I'll castigate your diet coke!} 00:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

WTF is wrong with America? (on last night's debates)

When they call giving affordable health care "a violation of our freedoms and personal choice" and "big government enforcement" - don't they realize that letting a 50-year-old cancer patient, living on barely more than minimum wage (but now minimum wage is even considered unconstitutional in Jesusland), rot to death is essentially denying human rights, life and liberty? Every sane person in my Canuckistan (around the majority) would say that Medicare has utterly strengthened our democracy rather than limiting it.

Complete Social Darwinism, and Ron Paul is the largest idiot I've ever seen. Considering the fact that the teabaggers' everyday survival is ensured because of their dependence on public regulators ensuring that the water they drink isn't full of E. coli. Osaka Sun (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It comes from the idea that the federal government cannot do anything not explicitly mentioned in the constitution. If you bring up the USAF, CIA, FBI, and DEA they usually become rather quiet in my experience. Тай^{говорить} 15:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There is another peice that goes back just about 100 years, but really focuses in the 50s. This idea about "socialism" and "communism" being an actual enemy, not just "another idea" about how to run a government. So much so that there were actually very large arguments against public schooling, public housing assistance, social security and public works projects, not cause they were not good ideas, but they somehow attacked our "core" as "american" because we defined ourselves against our enemies. Of course, if you ask the average tea party type republican, even one educated and in office, what communism and socialism really are, they will flounder around words like "dangerous" "sharing of wealth" "commie reds" etc., and never really give an actual, articulate hint that they know shit about the to systems.En attendant Godot 15:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

And Osaka (wrote Okassa at first, are you a mom? grins), it's not "Americans", it's 1/2 Americans (well, statistically about 42% of Americans, but not everyone votes). That tide will turn, but we are a very young country. It will take us falling down completely, or getting our ass kicked on our soil for us to grow up out of our spoiled teen status. ;-)En attendant Godot 15:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

lol, I'm a guy. Osaka Sun (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC) The local radio hosts have blasted public transit and libraries as socialism. Though one has since recanted on the buses, he now takes it to work. Тай^{говорить} 15:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

With added cognitive dissonance, I think. ADK^{...I'll toast your yellow submarine!} 15:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Obligatory. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That better be Poe's Law. Osaka Sun (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You are preaching to the choir here. But in truth what these people want isn't freedom but money. Look at what they are against, they believe that all of it would give cooperations more money. And that's the only thing they want. Preaching about the evil liberals/socialist/communists/atheists is just causing a moral panic from which they profit. It's an endless round of ad hominem arguments and blatant whoring out of the conepts of freedom and liberty — and if you want to go so far — of the American political tradition. There's a reason I have called churches indoctrination camps before. All this witchhunting and paranoia seeding only serves to create blindspots in the voters perception, so that they wont even consider the possibility that one of the other side might have a point. The truly disgusting nature of this is that an of itself innocent religious belief system is used to justify this ideological blindspotting of people and degrades them to pure workforces and money makers to keep a system going that has already been attested ill by most other countries. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 15:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

^^ good post. (I'm old school. don't know how to invoke the magic icons and smilies. ;-)) En attendant Godot 16:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel a bit conflicted, I am so sick of being in the Iraq/Afgan war that I am almost willing to support an old crazy cook like Ron Paul just so we can get out of it... 64.28.245.41 (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem and very often makes the problem worse." -Milton Friedman. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 23:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Referencing the guy who dry-humped Pinochet and helped Raygun nearly triple the US federal debt? Irony levels at 100 percent. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen the latest commie rot airing on PBS? nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 23:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you think programmes on topics you personally disagree with should not be aired? Ace^ace 23:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course. But whether PBS should be funded at all by the US Treasury, that's a different matter. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 23:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Defund PBS! They're communist! Run!

Osaka Sun (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

America already got invaded, by the british, twice. They burnt DC, then god got mad and attacked them with a Tornado--Mikalos209 (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." — Jean-Jacques Rousseau --★uːʤɱ socialist 23:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Remove not the ancient landmark; God is a capitalist who believes in private property and piling up wealth for one's heirs. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 23:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't be such a fucking idiot, Rob; God doesn't exist. DickTurpis (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If God was a capitalist, then there is no possible way Jesus had half of his DNA. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

WWJD? "you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away." [2] nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 00:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I was reading "Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." - Matthew 19-24.

The classic. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

He says the same thing in "Soul, I have many goods laid up for many years to come; take thine ease..." but none of this nullifies the law of reaping and sowing. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 00:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but Rob, notice that your two examples are excerpted from within parables. Osaka's is the explicit moral guidance.--^talk 06:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes -- our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking around." — G. K. Chesterton, Christian apologist

As a side note, how can God believe in something, I thought he knew everything? If he knows everything, he knows the future and has no need to believe in any system, he already knows if it successfull or not. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 00:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

He's actually quote mining to suggest that the hippie that hanged around lepers was a capitalist. It's hilarious. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The lazy guy who received the blessing and did nothing with it got the boot; the servants who multiplied the harvest (this can be seen as Christian missionary work) were entrusted with more. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 00:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And missionary work consists of what? Wait a sec, that's humanitarianism. And apparently it's a statement on liberation theology and sacrifice. Heh. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Rob, What exactly do you think god follows? Like waht Political-Economic system?--Mikalos209 (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

wp:Paternalism, with a firm belief in wp:liberty (free will). nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 01:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping you would say something wrong >.> But god isn't a capitalist. He isn't any economic system. --Mikalos209 (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

God himself invented the phrase, "there's no free lunch." nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 01:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Paternalism, as in drowning 20 million in the "Great Deluge" by only one book in the Old Testament, or exterminating every non-believer in the End of Days?

Liberty, as in giving you "free" will?

Enjoy your theocratic insanity. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yah, well, shit happens. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 02:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Duh, paternalism is at teh core of many of the disagreements that are tearing public discourse apart, and damaging the planet's utility for human occupation as well. It is the difference between incompatible metaphoric mental models, or frames, which cast a nation (or the world) as a family. One camp espouses the "stern father knows best" model, while the other goes with "feed them, shelter them, and give the little darlings what they need so they can flourish." By the way, that does not mean spending everyone's hard-won coins on fictitious welfare queens, it means keeping the water supply separate from the shit stream. Shit happens, and it needs to be dealt with responsibly. In many cases that is a public works kind of job. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to make a Futurama article

For its contributions to scientific awesomeness. Any pictures or videos would you suggest? Osaka Sun (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Please make it in funspace. And mention the universe in universe in the first universe thing. --★uːʤɱ heretic 23:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessarily funspace. For example, the episode about Star Trek where complicated technical jargon is used to frame a simple analogy seems pretty spot-on for a lot of pseudoscience ("Like too much air and something bad happens!")--^talk 05:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Mention this episode, it was one of my favorites. It is sad how much this cartoon touches me, in a very naughty way. 64.28.252.156 (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You can't choose your family

Sigh. Apparently my sister is off to see John Edward tomorrow. I knew I had the looks in the family; seems I have the brains too. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 06:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel ya. Did you try showing her our article on him? Тай^{говорить} 12:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

=______=...I know the pain...--Dumpling (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Job hunting

I think I posted on here a few weeks ago that I had learned I was likely to be laid off.

I was right, and was officially laid off September 2. Since I knew it was coming, I started job hunting. The Monday before I was let go, I had a very good interview, but literally as I was walking down to my exit interview, they called me and said they liked me a lot, but did not win the contract they were hoping to win, and didn't need me. They did leave me with a strong feeling I would have been hired had they won it, though.

Last week featured three interviews in three days. The first was decent, the second was awful, and the third was fantastic. The last interview was at 10:30 AM, and by 3:00 PM, the recruiter let me know they were crossing the I's and dotting the T's (wait, scratch that, reverse it) to make me a formal offer. I signed the paperwork yesterday, and I start October 3. I'll be doing technical support to a software development project for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

There's one downside to my new position, beyond not starting for a few weeks and having to deal with extreme boredom: it's a six month position with a staffing firm, then the customer has the option to hire me full time (though I get an offer letter from them when I start.)

Of course, as soon as I accepted a new job, I had four people from three companies contact me. My attitude is that it doesn't hurt me to interview more before my new job starts; it gives me something to do, and I might get a better offer. My only agreement with the staffing firm says "two weeks notice", so they'll be pissed off if I accept something else, but they don't have legal recourse.

One is a company I last heard from two weeks ago that wanted to talk to me, but never got back to me. We're supposed to talk this afternoon. All I know is that they want to talk to me.

Two people called me from a company I had very much wanted to hear from (they do a great deal of the type of thing I do). One of them... we both agreed I wasn't a good fit for the position; the specific software tool they use is one I'm rusty on, and it was at Fannie Mae. He told me directly that job security wise, I'd be better off at the VA, and I agreed. The second is for another Federal customer that I may interview with. The problem with that one is it requires a special clearance. I'm eligible for it, I think, but they're slow in granting the clearances. I'd probably have to start my new job, and then wait to see if they can make me an offer. Normally, my business ethics would keep me from doing that, but they quoted a salary that substantially beats what the staffing firm is paying me. What can I say? Money talks.

And I got yet another call about another job. We didn't get to talk long, because he had to take his daughter for allergy shots, but he's looking for a "tools guy" to support several systems, including some I'm very qualified to support. (I hadn't even heard of some of the others, but he realizes that it would take a miracle for them to find someone who knows all of the tools.) I've looked at the company's web site -- it looks like a cool place. The downside is it's rather small, and young, so I'd worry about job stability. We're supposed to talk more this morning. MDB (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If you don't mind traveling to hell Baton Rouge I know a guy whose business needs electrical engineers desperately. Тай^{говорить} 11:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

My degree is in EE, but I've drifted into software engineering over the years, and I'm not qualified to do anything more than the most basic electrical engineering at this point. (My first professional job was supporting a microelectronics CAD system. That started my journey to software engineering.) MDB (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You could always move to NJ and be a homeschool teacher. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Your loyalty properly belongs to yourself, not some head-hunter or staffing agency. If they want you badly enough, they will compensate you well and not treat you as a disposable commodity. Been there, seen that. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like getting that clearance would get you into better paying jobs in the future too. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've had a clearance before. I know it leads to a better salary, but my previous life in the cleared environment left me pretty sour towards the prospect of returning. (I termed it "soul-crushing.") I'm willing to give up income for happiness. MDB (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Soul-crushing pretty well describes it. When I had an ID badge with a blue stripe and silver dot, a lot of my co-workers dealt with the oppressive atmosphere by bringing in home projects to play with in the RF lab. There was one fellow who had the ugly habit of looking down his nose at somebody else's badge and saying things like, "I could tell you, but you've only got a green stripe." Yucckkk. Got out and didn't look back. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not just that... at least as far as Defense goes... a liberal is a fish out of water there. I remember remarking back in 1988 that I planned to vote for Dukakis; I would have gotten less shock had I declared that I was from Mars.

Plus, one of the reasons I wanted out of Defens was that I could no longer, in good conscience, work there during a war I no longer supported. The other cleared job that's a possibility isn't Defense, but I'm still not sure it's an atmosphere I want to return to. The job I accepted only requires a "public trust" clearance, which basically means they check to see that you don't have a criminal record and/or aren't seriously in debt. (Not as in "a few thousand on the Visa", as in "constantly unable to meet financial obligations." MDB (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

TY! No to the Baton Rouge! That's just backwards! We're trying to get OUT, not in. But on other news, Much Luck to thee! I'm sure something will come up.--Dumpling (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously…

…she's had one too many vaccinations herself.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 12:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This may have been covered already but during the republican debate Monday did anyone notice she did not even have the cojones to look Perry in the eyes while she was berating him about the HPV vaccine thing? She was just staring off into the upper right part of the crowd, almost making that newsweek crazy eyed photo of her look tame. 64.28.252.156 (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Incoming!

Cracked has just published an article that links to the Telegraph article that links to us multiple times. Prolly a traffic spike on the way. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

May the goat curse your soul for linking to Cracked during the working day. So that's my productivity down the khasi. Travancus (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This site is growing rapidly! Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

No Conservapedia's Law? I am shocked. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's gone? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 19:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is your science now?!

To quote Paul Samuelson, I tremble for the reputation of my subject. Full paper here. The bright spot, at least, is that the paper notes that interaction analyses may have been left out of the final publication due to space constraints. What I want to know is, who gives these people diplomas? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A quote from the link for people who are too lazy to click: According to a new paper, a full half of neuroscience papers that try to do a (very simple) statistical comparison are getting it wrong. Scary stuff.--^talk 02:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit sensationalistic (and uncharacteristic of the Neuroskeptic) as it's actually half of the subset of sampled papers using that particular analysis. The actual number is closer to 16%. Still too much, but not the "bombshell" it sounds like in the blog post. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Coke-eyes part 2

Sarah Palin, coke head... according to the Daily Fail. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 19:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In case you don't already read it, Doonesbury is doing a good job satirising a Faux News "journalist" tweeting about the book. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if I was reading the Fail or the Onion there for a minute. Certainly an "O RLY?" moment. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Recommend me some charities

What charities do people here donate to? I always have trouble deciding. I'd post why that is so, but it would probably end up being a long screed, so I'll post it later. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

World Food Program, Red Cross, Greenpeace, Central Asian Institute (not recommended), and MoveOn.org. My wife says we also gave to something called "American Pantry," but I haven't looked into that one yet. Any particular sector you're looking for?--^talk 09:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Generally I'm looking for international human aid charities that alleviate suffering but don't involve food. Currently I donate to SightSavers which helps prevent and cure vision loss in developing countries... but still, I'd like to hear all the ones that people here donate to. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

McMillan Cancer Support - but then I have very personal reasons. Silver Sloth (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Army Benevolent Fund, Greenpeace (although they irritate the hell out of me), Save the Children, RNLI, Cancer Research, Help for Heroes, Comic/Sport Relief, and a few small local ones. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Generally I'm looking for international human aid charities that alleviate suffering but don't involve food. - Médecins Sans Frontières has a pretty decent record. Silver Sloth (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Very good charity. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

One thing I would say is beware being put off some charities because of various allegations, scandals, political stance, etc. Oxfam, as an example, has a history of this but some of their campaigns are very good, just, worthy and beneficial to people in desperate need. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

UNICEF and the Red Cross both have a good track record of getting the money where it's needed without spending too much on overhead. There are also a bunch of agencies which audit and certify charities, so you can go by their recommendations. I don't know which ones do that for US or UK-based organizations, though. Röstigraben (talk) 10:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Two personal favorites of mine are the Ronald McDonald House (they provide lodging for families of seriously ill children while the kids are in hospitals; they helped out my late cousin's family) and Habitat for Humanity (build houses for the poor and sell them to the recipients at cost. Two people I greatly admire work with them: Jimmy Carter and my father.)

I'll my vote for Médecins Sans Frontières, too.

Also, it's not a charity, per se, but there's Kiva, a micro-lending group. You're not giving them money, you're loaning it to the recipients directly. The "fun" part is you can actually choose the recipients yourself, and the minimum loan you can make is only twenty five dollars. It's not a charity, because you can get your money back as soon as the recipients pay off the loan, though I've just kept re-loaning to other recipients. Note that you do assume a risk in that if the recipient defaults on the loan, you take the loss. Their default rate has been extremely low, though. I've probably made a dozen loans through them, and never lost a penny. MDB (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh that sounds awesome, I'll definitely be looking into that :D Thanks for the suggestions people, I'll be setting up some direct debits tonight. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ_xiPXKq_E They recommend MSF. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Amongst stuff that hasn't been mentioned here that I give to is Amnesty International and Smile Train which repairs cleft lips/palates in places like India and can transform a kid's life, and also WWF. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll 2nd Smile Train. I have a family friend who's kid just had reconstructive surgery from them. Very good organization. Kids deserve intact faces! :) Quaru^{binder - You can't explain that!} 13:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

PS I almost forgot Water Aid. Clean water and sanitation are one of the biggest general health improvements you can make. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I give all my monies to this guy, he seems alright 64.28.252.156 (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I strongly recommend Self Help Africa. They do not offer 'aid', they provide practical agricultural and community training for better food production and management, and then organise this into a network of educators that move this knowledge down the chain into wider and wider communities. Unlike most African aid organizations, they have only a handful of people in Ireland and the UK headquarters, but employ hundreds of locals in Africa in their field offices. They primarily focus on helping African women, who do 80% of the work but receive only 5% of the support. They also have a tremendous website packed with information about exactly what they're up to at any given moment. An excellent organization. DogP (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights, Partners in Health. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 15:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who we're all trying to fool - the whole world knows that atheists don't give to charity. Ask Ken

Travancus (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

About: Trolling

BBC article about it. For anyone that cares. I don't, I'm just bored because it's too sunny outside. SJ ^Debaser 14:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Pops in to say a quick 'hi', and this line now has me singing Prince's "Strollin'" "Trollin', trollin', we could have fun just trolling', Mocking, cajolin' - oh yeah."Godot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 14:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I was very disappointed by the comments section. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I avoid general online comment sections due to the fact that they were written by the stupidest people who are capable of typing. SJ ^Debaser 19:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Net Neutrality

So I am hoping to get this assigned to me as a group project for a class and I wanted to know if my views on this are leaning towards the crazy. SO my position requires a bit of education (quick version of events), Radio discovered, fed regulated to assign frequencies so it is not chaotic and overlapping, TV is developed and FCC enters the picture and regulates content as well as the frequency assignments, cable TV gets kicked off and is not regulated by the FCC because it is not over the air broadcasting, internet revolution happens, cable providers realize they can make their lines duplex for internet usage, cable providers turn their analog signals digital for more efficiency (before the FCC mandate on NTSC stations) and then we hit today with fiber optics beginning to replace coax.

My stance is that the telecoms are holding on to the decades old model that the only way to get premium content is through them. I feel that the telecoms are ignoring the fact that the internet is a far more efficient model of data communication. Cable/fiber operators are able to send thousands of TV channels down the pipe because they have the whole frequency range to use (each HD channel using something like 20mb/s over a few MHZ band). I feel the telecoms are taking advantage of consumers in that the bandwidth offered to users for internet usage is an incredibly small fraction of their pipe and they are actually restricting the progress of society into the true information age by hanging on to that old model. Instead of getting faster speeds we are getting data transfer caps, small bandwidth compared to what is possible over fiber or coax. All for the purpose of them wanting to force me to use them to get shows I can watch on the internet via hulu, show/channel websites, netflix, and the many other LEGAL options for viewing video content. I feel that the internet has become as important to society as electricity.

So my solution is to regulate ISP providers much the way the power grid is. One entity manages the physical infrastructure while other companies offer competition via customer service and billing options. No caps/fees for using (or 'over using') the service you are paying for, but you do pay for whatever bandwidth package (20Mb/s costs more than 6Mb/s). Premium content goes web only, supported by the same ad based model in place. It seems to me all the pieces for this puzzle to work are in place: Internet ready TVs, online premium content, the only thing holding it back is the telecom conglomerates. Remember the famous "The internet is not a dump truck, it is a series of tubes!" quote? I am willing to bet that congressman had contributions from verizon, ATT, etc...

Is this even net neutrality? I am not sure I have heard this angle expressed before... By the way I have not had any kind of premium TV services in a few years, I watch my shows online in legal ways when available (sometimes I do not get the option and turn to the dark side...). I do also realize that it would probably take some serious infrastructure overhaul at the ISPs to handle that much traffic, but frankly they SHOULD be working on that anyway. Please do not steer this into a piracy issue. If I do this topic for school using this angle would it be worth contributing to RW? MarkeDC (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Uff, so much in there. wp:Network neutrality is about treating data packages equally and not censoring content, which is not really realizable. I'm not completely sure about this, but I think not all cable networks are free from the FCC. Basic cable (USA Network, Syfy, History Channel, ABC Family, FX, etc.) have less reastrictions on them, only premium cable (HBO, Showtime) has no restrictions what-so-ever because you have to order it in your house (it's like renting a movie). There are several reasons why networks are still broadcasting classic-style. The biggest of them is that there's much more money in the advertising live then on the internet, for some reason the companies that actually pay for the advertising value it still quite high and live ratings still play a big role in the question if a show gets renewed or canceled (and of course the back-nine orders). I think we will see a shift here as more and more people use the internet to watch TV, but this is one of the typical processes of capitalism. Another reason is that the internet isn't ready for such masses of data yet. One has to understand that the infrastructure of a network is very expencive and this companies, even if it looks that way, do not have endless resources. Keep in mind that for every meter they have to pay the materials and the workforce needed to set it up, that shit isn't cheap. Another reason why this takes time is that more than just us young people have to find such trust in the internet that we can rely on it so massively, that we would give almost our whole connection to the outside world into the hands of a system that most people don't understand. Many people will still want it the old way, different systems means more security from shit cutting us off. So give time, there many factors and they all have to disappear first. There are also, AFAIK, rural areas that don't have it all that well (which is justified by the high prize of networks), you would basically cut these people off.

As I have mentionend above, these companies have puched shitloads of money into their networks, they will push even more shitloads of money into them when the demand is there. Such demand would be triggered by higher traffic. Every investment is a risk, and risks can cost money. People won't buy things just when they thrown into your face but when they need them, so they wait until they are needed. For this reason nationalizing these networks would be hell of job and unbelievably expensive. Probably so expensive that most countries would default.

What you brought up isn't really about network neutrality, but about a medium replacing another. Not providing a service full out because it might cost you money instead of making you money isn't censorship, it's economics 101. Think about it this way: Back in the day, the radio was the mass medium, when TVs appeared on the landscape they didn't just switch to the next best thing, people started buying TVs and the supply of programing grew, more people started buying TVs and the supply grew again… This is basically and endless cycle until the next medium that does the job better comes along. --★uːʤɱ secularist 18:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I get your points, it really does not seem to be net neutrality. I am just a tad bit ahead of my time in what I view the internet will become. The FCC censorship stuff I was not really going after, just basically the huge potential of bandwidth which could be used for internet that is used for television. The major problem I found after some more googling is that telecoms can send the same loaded one way television signal to multiple homes for television, but it can't be done that way with internet communication cause each user would need a separate piece of the spectrum which would reduce it greatly. If everyone had a single coax from their home directly to a telecom on the other hand it would work, but that is not how the infrastructure is currently set up and it would be incredibly expensive as you stated. Well Screw that topic then, maybe my team will get cloud computing. Meanwhile I will go throw a wad of cash at the verizon store guy so he can run some damn fiber to my neighborhood :-/. I would happily pay $50 for some sweet sweet 20Mb/s+ & unlimited cap. I still think it would be more efficient to just drop the whole television one way communication and just use ALL of it for internet two way communication, but as you stated the wheels of change are slow, and why would they change it when they are making a butt load of money off it. Thanks for your insight. MarkeDC (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The Internet Protocol can do SSM, Source Specific Multicast, which is basically the TV approach where one copy of the video stream goes over any links which have people watching that particular stream on the far side of them, so that 50 people can watch a 10Mb/s stream over the same 20Mb/s coax link. But most of the hardware deployed out there doesn't support it (wasn't needed for most of the services for which the Internet is famous). To make it work, every single IP capable device between the TV "broadcaster" and your PC needs working SSM. I have worked in a large building where people are watching live TV at their desks using SSM and it works nicely, but that building had more spent on its networking (including hiring people like me) than the entire budget for a cable TV company in a small US city.

Anyway, Net Neutrality is about obliging an "Internet Service Provider" to just provide you with Internet Service, even if they also sell nachos, or pay-per-view wrestling the Internet Service side of their business shouldn't be influenced by that. We do this in other areas - the USPS is not allowed to go through your mail, find the bill from FedEx, and throw it away so that you're late paying. Your local Baby Bell isn't allowed to deliberately make calls from a competing telco in the next city have lousy noisy call quality. But some people want the Internet to be full of "exclusivity" deals, like the way some fast food joints sell only Pepsi and others only Coke. Maybe AT&T Internet would come with Bing, no Google for AT&T customers. Youtube would be disabled if you had the Verizon "basic" package. This whole situation is antithetical to the purpose of a single global network, so either needs to be banned up front or we need assurances that politicians are ready and able to step in and crush it later. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you feel that bandwidth caps (or you hit the limit and then pay as you go) are a round-about way of ISPs to collect money from using services like hulu and netflix? Is that part of the net neutrality debate? I am leaning that it isn't, and net neutrality is a lot more boring than I thought... though it would be a horrible internet if I was forced to only use yahoo (my current ISPs preferred web portal) MarkeDC (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Caps on bandwidth aren't a Net Neutrality problem so long as they don't care what the bandwidth was for. The moment my ISP cares whether I used that last gigabyte downloading source code from github or watching Nostalgia Chick on blip.tv, we have a Net Neutrality problem. There are plenty of other things a consumer can and should care about: You should want consumers to get deals that have a predictable cost (ie if you ask a random person how much they'll pay for Internet this month, their answer should be within $1-2) and that are good value for money, that are transparent and up-front about what you get, and so on. But none of those are Net Neutrality. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Anti-abortion protestors hit new low.

Here. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 18:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, besides the killing people part... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sick fucks. ADK^{...I'll hear your mammary gland!} 09:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The current pointless poll...

...does not have an option for massive whore. I feel very disenfranchised. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And no option for someone who is living in sin with his lover and kids. Alain (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This is why I always include a "fuck you" option. ADK^{...I'll kill your Etch-a-Sketch!} 14:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

on TV

Penn Jillette talked about Poe's Law on Lawrence O'Donnell's show today. He mentioned it in response to a video of Michelle Bachmann preaching about God and "hotties." Disturbing that a woman who Poe's Law can be applied to could be a contender for the most powerful position in the world. SoCal ²¹² 01:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Did he accept Ken's debate challenge? Ace^ace 01:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No. I doubt he'd want to give someone like him any kind of publicity. SoCal ²¹² 02:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Link or it didn't happen. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Here ya go. Oh and by the way, Jesus thinks you're hot. SoCal ²¹² 07:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, it's Objective Ministries: Jesus wants us to be hot for Him, not lukewarm. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

So it's now beem on TV? Suck that WP:NOTE! ADK^{...I'll absorb your stick!} 09:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's back on Wikipedia now. Will these people make up their fucking mind already! ADK^{...I'll refill your card game!} 09:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It's the small things that amaze me...

And the big differences that inspire.--Dumpling (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

cynical me - any guess how much pepsi paid to be the only bottle used in the entire thing?Godot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 03:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha. I noticed that too. Didn't pay too much attention to it though. :3--Dumpling (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I used to think a lot about the whole "doing a good thing for a bad (or at least self-serving) reason" thing, but not so much any more. Too much need in this world. Doctor Dark (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Pepsi ad, but it is legit. Much like people make shoes out of old tires (surprised Firestone isn't getting in on that). Maybe if we were a quarter as resourceful... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Jump on the anti-globalisation bandwagon all you like, but these companies are shipping clean and drinkable fluid to places where water is lethal - and insanely cheaply. In fact, most of them got as big as they are now because they did the same thing for armies in the Second World War. ADK^{...I'll fill your ape!} 08:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Shipping, my arse. They don't ship liquids anywhere, that would be insane. Both soft drinks and PepsiCo/Coca Cola's bottled water are produced in the country it is to be sold in, and using their own water. And it isn't cheap. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, the idea is amazing. I just found the product placement a bit - obvious. And as for "shipping drinking water", shipping or not, they still charge big bucks for the clean water. people who need clean water aren't getting it from pepsi or others as far as i know. but if i'm wrong, well good on the soda companies!.Godot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 13:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Help with maths please

Need some help finding the method I need to solve the equation: ^x/₄+^x/₅=14. I seem to be barking up the wrong tree because I've been going:

^5x/₂₀+^4x/₂₀ = 14

:9x² = 14

----

20

: 9x² = 14*20

: 9x² = 280

: x² = 280/9

: x² = 31.­111

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 12:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You are getting 9x² when you should only be getting 9x. Тай^{говорить} 12:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Crap. Thanks. Must be getting confused with multiplying indices again. First class of an A-level maths course last night, which given that my GCSE's were 20 years ago, has found me a tad rusty.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 13:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Тай^{говорить} 13:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

So you actually ended up with the right figure, because you didn't put in the final step of square rooting it :P ^{ONE / TALK} 15:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Simplify the equation below. MarkeDC (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

$({\sqrt {-1}})(2^{3})\sum \pi$

Good thing they only cut it into six pieces. I don't think I had room for eight. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

"¡Ándale! ¡Ándale! ¡Arriba! ¡Arriba!"

SERIOUSLY? Acknowledging Mexico's independence with a quote associated with an American cartoon character who speaks in an exaggerated faux accent and, arguably, plays off of a weird type of reverse stereotyping, in that he's fast and energetic in contrast to the idea that Mexicans are slow and lazy? Keep it classy, folks. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 14:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I thought that was a bit "classy", too. Please change it. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 14:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 14:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, in keeping with this trope, I will change the banner for MLK Day to a quote from "Song of the South," or perhaps "Amos and Andy." B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 14:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, I'm oblivious. anyone clue me into what you are all on about? Godot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 15:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

On top of the "Recent Changes" page, there's a banner. Instead of what it says now, it used to say: "¡Ándale! ¡Ándale! ¡Arriba! ¡Arriba!". --Dumpling (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Boop ADK^{...I'll zap your tree!} 15:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Wonder whether Jeremy Clarkson's been at any of the other date banners.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What is this PC nonsense? The banner should read "secure the border"! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

How about "Thank you for a third of your land!"? --★uːʤɱ socialist 17:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep it classy, Germany

WTF? I like the comment about "I'm sorry if Americans associate it with that..." I mean, I'm sorry if Jews somehow associate the swastika with anti-Semitism. I don't know where they got that loony idea from. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Bah, go to India man. You can buy swastika milk. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Swastikas in Eastern culture are generally left-facing, and not tilted, but that's beside the point... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That didn't stop people causing a fuss over this, yet the Methodist church I went to as a Boy Scout used to have a (Hindu-style) swastika carved on the side. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh great, another case of our weird German humor being completely lost on a foreigner. Let me explain: we often say mildly offensive things and mean them as humor. A lot of peoples don't get that, and sometimes I get that you don't get that. It's a special case of morbid, bizarre sarcasm that makes German humor so hard to understand to a foreigner. In this special case it's the ridiculousness of how the man looks in that brown, so he says "I'm no Obama", because he doesn't look good as a black guy. The fact that DIE PARTEI is pragmatist party (they want to rebuilt the freakin' wall!) and doesn't use any sort "hope"-campaign gives the whole deal another layer. For us, nothing to be offended about. If you don't think it's funny, don't laugh. If you think it's offensive, be offended. But there's no need to push another country into the frame of political correctness that exists in another country. There are much worse things going around in Germany, including jokes about 9/11, the holocaust and a shitload of racist prejudice jokes even the people of that race have a laugh about.

Oh btw, what your source didn't say is that German food companies put out food for all Presidents for about two decades now, including Clinton, Bush, Obama and even McCain even if he wasn't a President at all. If that offends Americans, well then, fuck those who are offended — no matter what their race is. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 18:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

So being half German I finally see where I get my humor from. But there is no denying that Germany is the least funny nation. MarkeDC (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Haha, there's a great piece of German humor in the comments of that article. youmustbejoking: "Ever tried to get a smile out of a customs or security agent at a US airport? No humour there." Franken_Stein: "Well, you just didn't see the smiles on their faces when they evaluated your Johnson on the X-ray images." Offensive, insulting and 100% sarcastic.

There's a complete meme of a racist-humorous comment going around (and I have no clue if that goes around in the anglosphere too, but I have never heard it in English, so I'm going to assume it isn't known). It goes "Nur weil ich schwarz bin!" ("Only because I'm black!"), it's normally used by white people having a bad day or just something shitty happend as a joke on the trope of the "angry black guy" — but as response to that, people that have darker skin than the average sunbathed German (Turks, Indians, actual Africans) also use it to multiply the sarcasm even further. It's seen as much racist as "It's a trap!" meme. Not at all, that is. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 19:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if that chap's blackface is more or less racist than say, Ting-tong from little britain? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

@UHM, for 'only because I'm black' thing, I refer you to Ali G AMassiveGay (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please no Ali G. I can't stand that humor... --★uːʤɱ kant 23:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

...And I'm sorry, Gawker, if you don't realize why invoking Germany's Nazi past because you're offended by a billboard might be in itself offensive. Junggai (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

@UHM: Half of my family are German Jews, so we have a lot of that too. The thing is, there's always an element of "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" in it, which I'm failing to see here. Also, the fact that other presidents have their own food isn't the issue. Maybe it was just bad luck that the company picked fried chicken, but that's a racial stereotype in the US. We have the "because I'm black" thing as well -- Militant Black Guy is hilarious (it's British, but same idea). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, the chicken thing. Ok, for American standards that might seem racist, but that particular prejudice doesn't even exist in Germany. So I think they kinda meant it like a joking reference? Still, an average German might laugh about that, or at least smile.

The "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" in this case is implied because of those who made it. There's a bit of context that one has to know about DIE PARTEI to understand that this is there style about everything. DIE PARTEI originated from the satire magazine "titanic" (what a great name right?), that — how should I say that the best way? — takes a big fat dump on pc regurlarly. Examples: "Federal President Blanco: Why not a nigger once in a while?" (Blanco (yes, his pseudonym itself is a joke) is a popular Schlager singer), "Will the next Chancellor be a woman?" (Westerwelle, the guy on the cover, is gay), "Church nowadays" (self-explanatory for RWians), "My first banana" (from November 1989, joking about the unavailability of bananas in ex-East Germany), "Now even the terrorists are on strike!", "Finally! The women are back to normal!", and the latest one "London uses Breivik! Riots stopped!". Basically, titanic and DIE PARTEI are The Onion on crack. --★uːʤɱ sinner 23:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Anti-technology terrorists attacking scientists, researchers

From Nature News. Scary stuff. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Fiji Earthquake

Mag 7.3. Haven't seen any news on it yet.

What the hell is going on - I'm sure we've had a lot more quakes over the last 2 years? Certainly more large quakes. --PsyGremlinHable! 20:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we haven't. If you go to the USGeological Survey (or google "earthquake info USGS) you'll see that there is nothing unusual happening. Most earthquakes go largely unnoticed, cause they don't hit populated areas or don't do much damage. But they are there, and just as strong. It's not the Earth's fault that we decided to build houses in stupid places. :-) The second thing to remember is that we are in a era of instant news, not just nationally but internationally. I have friends from all over the world who say "it's ok, no one was hurt from our family in Fiji", and i say "what the fuck happened in fiji". 2 years ago, i didn't give a shit about things around the world. ;-) Godot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 20:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/ one of my favorite sites. you can find out the last big earthquakes, compare with other years, see the millions of little earthquakes no one ever notices. etc.Godot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 20:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

For what its worth, no deaths appear to be reported, and no tsunami (which is actually what causes the greatest damage) warnings were issued.Godot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 20:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I need help

Recently, I have been overcome with fears of doomdays that will never happen. I need tips on how to forget and calm back down. --AmazingTechnicolorCheeseWedge (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't read your news paper. All that's in there are dire warnings about how bad the world will get if we don't cut emissions. silly fools, it is COLD today, yet they whine about global warming.Godot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 20:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried displacing your fear with worries about doomsdays that will happen? There's a zombie apocalypse scheduled for tuesday week. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

YOU. ARE. GOING. TO. DIE. Maybe in 50 years, maybe before you wake up tomorrow. Nothing you can do about it but live your life as best you can. Ask this guy.. B♭maj7 "If two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." 22:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice essay, thanks for that.Godot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 23:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

GPS in Europe?

I saw this article and it made me wonder, do Europeans not have GPS on their phones? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

They do, they just do not want to be reliant on the US for it, as they can technically shut it off at any time. Тай^{говорить} 20:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad to help. Тай^{говорить} 20:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I can also confirm that the global positioning service is received globally.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, GPS jammers (mainly in use by people who don't want to be tracked by their employers) are starting to become a service availability problem next to major roads etc. --Mack Coster (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

How does a GPS jammer work? ^{ONE / TALK} 08:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

See here. Of course it's not just employees wanting to avoid being tracked by their boss, many vehicles have tracker devices as an ant-theft measure and thieves use them to circumvent this. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting thing about that is that it would seem to limit its military use. As I understand it the system was created to allow the US military to drop precise bombs on military tragedy and to allow their troops to navigate in enemy territory. If it's so easy to jam that use must be less relevant - at least to the military.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The GPS satellites transmit on two separate bands, military and civilian. The military signal is encrypted. Someone just trying to jam the civilian signal may not bother trying to jam the military one. Of course, an enemy could try to jam the military signal, but I'm sure they have thought of this possibility, and have some way to deal with it. (For obvious reasons, they won't be revealing publicly all the details of how they deal with the threat of jamming...) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Unlike angry consumers the military are allowed to blow things up. A GPS jammer is a powerful radio transmitter. So you build a bomb that homes into the radio transmission. It can't hurt your real GPS system, because that's in space (Space! I'm in Spaaaace!) but it will destroy any building housing a jammer. Therefore, this is like the suggestion in a recent Slashdot thread that enemies might "shine spotlights on our tanks" to disable the expensive IR camouflage. Spotlight switches on, there is a sudden loud noise, spotlight and operator are destroyed. Any EM source, visible or radio, gets blown up. Attracting attention to yourself is suicide in a warzone, has been since WWI. You just can't "bend" the GPS signal (like in that Bond movie, but the Bond villain has stolen the codes to do it) for military units, only jam it completely. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

1 GPS jammer is suicide. A fuckton of them all over the area is workable but there hasnt really been a war where the other side had the organisation, wallet and logistics to do that. Sen (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

With a distributed fuckton of jammers, the individual units do not need to be as powerful as a singleton would have to be, to be effective. Drab little canisters concealed all over the place by an occupying force, or dispersed as a sudden delivery from a remote depot. Safe bet that some skunk works is considering the options even as we sit here typing. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I imagine the James Bond thing was messing with the calibration. They're fundamentally useless without it. Now, exactly how they messed with it, even if they had "the codes" is pure handwavium. ADK^{...I'll oscillate your dog house!} 15:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A theory — one expects the real GPS signal to be coming from space, while GPS jammers are most likely ground based. If you are a missile, you are above the jammers but below the real satellites—could you not use directional antennas, to distinguish between a signal coming from above you and one coming from below you?? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Stick to philosophy. I haven't got time nor inclination to teach you how directional antennae work. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Basically, the satellites are just up there going BOOP! ...BOOP! ...BOOP! (yes, that's the noise they make, ever watched a satellite in a movie?) and the receivers on the ground pick up these pulses and triangulate based on that and their internal knowledge of where each satellite is supposed to be and when. They don't really give much of a hoot about direction at all, it's all about timing. The signal from satellite X says it's 00:00:01.05557836 while a concurrent signal from satellite Y says it's 00:00:01.05557838 so it must be closer to X by an amount that's relatively easy to calculate for a computer. The direction that the signal came from isn't needed at any point - that info is handled internally. In fact, if they did think directionally it would be an impressively less efficient system because each ground unit would have to selectively zone in on each satellite individually, and there are a dozen or so of them, and they're all moving targets. ADK^{...I'll deport your spoon!} 14:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, one of them goes BRBOOP..BRBOOP.., another one goes BBLOOP..BBLOOP.., and yet another may very well be going BTFSPLK..BTFSPLK.. for all we know. That last one is pronounced as a bilabial fricative unvoiced linguolabial trill, or raspberry, well-known by those who remember Li'l Abner, once a comic strip in dead-tree newspapers. They all use the same frequencies, and impose a pseudo-random modulation sequence on them so receivers can ID each one. Zack was offering an unrealistic scenario where ICBM's have the time and space to reject spoofers based on the direction of the incoming signal. Not even wrong. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If you've ever used a normal (not able to do dead reckoning through counting wheel turns in e.g. an integrated system for cars) GPS unit in an urban canyon you'll have an idea how the Bond trick works. A GPS unit is essentially performing a triangulation. It knows how long the signals from each satellite it can "see" took to reach it. It knows where those satellites are (in spaaace! but also far more precisely than that through the "almanac" of the GPS system). The time difference can be used (with some assumptions about atmospheric properties) to calculate a distance, and then you triangulate. In an urban canyon the time measurements may be wrong due to GPS signals bouncing off these huge vertical towers, in the Bond scenario they're wrong because they're being transmitted locally (using the stolen codes to appear authentic) with a deliberate offset. This causes your position to be slightly wrong, in the open ocean a few kilometres is believable and that's enough to start a war, at least in Bond's world. I'm not saying it would be as straight forward and undetectable as the movie makes it look, but it's definitely possible. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Mostly off topic, but the first thing I thought of when I saw this image in the article was the Archangel Network from Doctor Who. As I said, off topic, but I think those of who across the pond need to be careful. Never know who's implementing mind control through satellites... άλφα^Ταλκ 21:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Screw elections, let's go back to kings

or tyrants, or even theocracy. I'm so sick and tired of the election process. It's confusing, it's addled, it's expensive, it begs people who have no knowledge of issues or candidates to form an opinion based mostly on tv ads that run for 30 seconds, or one liners that say "He's the One" or "The other guy sucks". And I just spent the last 4 hours trying to train people to do the job of elections, consistently ---- that ain't gonna happen. I mean, bless their hearts for volunteering, but do you know the kinds of people who have time to volunteer for an entire monday, tuesday and wednesday? Most of them are retired, and don't use computers, smartphones, much less the specialized touch-screen technology for voting. Truly, kings were much better than this. Godot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 20:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Kings are only OK if you get a good one, and (unless you live on Naboo, or you're the English Parliament of centuries past) you don't get to pick. Tyrants are tyrannical, which gets old very fast. Theocracy sucks unless you can convince them you're god, and then it's just really tiring. Democracy sucks too, but we lack better options, unless you have a small island and a bunch of smart friends who get along, in which case anarchy will do you just fine until a war erupts nearby and one side or the other seizes your island (for your own good of course)... The bureaucrats who make democracy actually happen and who (for the most part) don't take the opportunity to make their vote count a lot more than everybody else's are to be praised, so here's to you. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You yanks once had a King, but you didn't want him. The grass is always greener. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The part (beyond the fact that it's actually cheeper to stuff ballots by hand, than have them sent out to a printer in small Local Governments, so guess what I and a host of not currently busy Fire Fighters from one of the Districts involved are doing), that really got to me today, was that the boulder County Elections guru and myself were having a very intellectually draining and in fact unsettling conversation about the fact that doing the elections the way we are doing them is far cheaper and more practicle than several options before us - but that it meant we were giving an unfair advantage to one group of unregistered voters vs. another group of unregistered voters. And in the end, both of us wanted to scream that we were trying ethically protect the rights of people who can't even be bothered to register to vote. BAHHHHHHHGodot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 21:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

@Gay - yeah, but i didn't get to vote! no one asked me if i wanted a king, or wanted to speak english!!! I protest. Godot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 21:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you have your next presidential election changed to one to elect a king and its subsequent dynasty. All hail King Perry. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Have I got the book for you! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I went to a facebook page once for people desireing a monarchy... Some pretty insane people there. Including one who demanded a "Proper, Carolingian descendent, Catholic King". Cause fuck the fact america is more protestant then Catholic. Most often they wanted the British to return to the throne--Mikalos209 (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Unlike many countries in Europe, the only thing holding the U.S. together is ideals — republican ideals. By the time we enthroned a king he would probably have nothing left to rule.

It is easy to deplore all the slop that gets slung around at elections; but before bashing it too much, remember that this is what one gets for giving the vote to a mass of suckers who can easily be led about by demagoguery. It is a natural consequence of universal suffrage; getting rid of it would likely involve limiting the franchise. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but i'm not bashing the ads (which there aren't any, since it's an off year), I'm bashing the process. I'm bashing the fact that we pander to people who have no idea what they are voting on. I'm bashing the fact that voters are more likely to know who said what about whom on any election, than what any candidate actually stands for. I'm bashing a process that **intentionally** advocates for vague and ambiguous language (see the Tabor Amendment in Colorado) so that voters cannot (by law) understand what a bill says. I'm bashing a system that requires us to send out 3 notices to NON REGISTERED voters, to get them to register, just days before teh election, because of course if they have not bothered to register for 10 years, that's EXACTLY who I want voting on an issue. I'm bashing a system that rewards candidates who hang their had on easy issues, and intentionally put "easy" but emotional issues on teh ballot, so they can say "I hate gays" "i love the flag" "we hate taxes", and get themselves elected based not on their real positions, but on fluffed up positions on virtually fake (they are real issues, but they often do not have a hell's chance of passing) issues like "ending all abortion" or "legalizing all drugs". The ad thing could be so easily fixed if you just paid for candidate's campaigns from taxes like civilized europeans do. "you have 1,000,000 to spend. period. nothing else. spend carefully."

It's the overall system that has me crazy every single year I do this.Godot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 14:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not called "the least worst" system for nothing, you know. ADK^{...I'll kill your book!} 14:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This year, one of the questions up is "who should be elected for County Coroner". Now I gotta say, given what the Coroner (sp?) does for a living (like decree people really are dead), isn't this the kind of positition that should be appointed based on skill, education and experience, and not voted on based on who looks better in a suit? I mean, what platform could they possibly have "I will make sure that republican dead people are more dead than those stupid liberals so they can keep paying taxes". "I know more about dead people then she does, cause i was once a dead person myself!"Godot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 15:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC) (I should stop grumbling, and finish designing the ballot books).

Democracy would be great if it wasn't for the voters. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"Your guilty conscience may force you to vote Democratic, but deep down, you secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals and rule you like a king." --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 16:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I encountered profound stupidity on a comments section on the internet.

I posted the following comment to this article on Yahoo (I refuse to put that moronic exclamation point, if not for the principle of the thing, then at least for the aesthetic presentation of my sentence).

• I've met a few Muslims, and they weren't violent.

Here are the replies I received:

• • 1. If you had met the violent ones, you would not be here to write that stupid comment.
    2. Islam dictates ALL Muslims must kill all infidels. Who do you think are infidels dip stick?
    3. I've met a few lions, and they weren't violent either.

That's because they were behind cages at zoos. Where did you meet these Muslims genius? Did you expect them to attack you at your local library in the Middle Eastern studies department?

I know, I know, what can I expect from the internet? Anyways, if there are any doubters here, these are what would be my replies if I'd deign make replies in the cesspit that is the Yahoo comment board.

1. Then at least you can admit that stereotyping all Muslims as violent is dumb?
2. Who says you get to dictate Islam? If I were to pick up the Bible, the Torah, or the Talmud, would I get to explain your own religion to you? I "survived" my encounters with peaceful Muslims. They obviously had no intention of killing me, or harming me. They were more or less nice folks.
3. How am I to know that you won't attack me in secret?

That is all.--. 00:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's... pretty much par for course on CNN and Yahoo news comments. Along with crazy right wing insanity, "THE MUSLIMS!!!!!!!" and "Obama, blame 'im. If you don't know, go look up the comments made in response to Japan winning the cup a few months back--Mikalos209 (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

When it comes to Islam, Americans are the most uninformed people to have ever walked this earth. Seriously, not even old-style Nazi grandmother is that bad (well, she's senile now, but the style hasn't really changed much). Just this day I had some Turkish food with a few practicing muslims, one of my fellow, female students is a muslima and vegetarian (!). These bible-thumping ignorant pigs have no fucking clue about Islam. No Americans, we get no woken up by calls to prayer (except for the Christan church bells!) in the morning. No Americans, we dont have to pray five times a day with them. No Americans, our women could still walk around in a bikini in the streets without being arrested. No Americans, we are still allowed to eat pork. No Americans, they have not taken Europe over. And most of them are nicer than people who believe all the above bullshit is actually true. --★uːʤɱ soviet 00:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, trust me, Mikalos, I know--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Damn. That pic makes me hate living in America--. 02:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about that; America covers a lot of ground. There is more going on here than meets most European eyes. I have learned to say "thank you" and "here you go" in Albanian, just so I can see a smile in a lot of the doughnut shops around here. My mid-sized city has had AFOAL of Syrian surnamed folks since well before June asked Ward Kleaver if he wasn't being a little too hard on the Beaver. I don't talk about religion with the ones I meet, but I don't think many of them still go to church.

There is a mosque on the other side of town, and I haven't yet seen the horizon over there burst into flames, nor heard the distant popcorn of light MG fire. People posting drama on line and the ones walking around IRL seem to inhabit different worlds sometimes. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My mother's originally from the US and we were considering getting citizenship for myself. I remember seeing that photo after Fukushima and going "fuck it."

Anti-American? Hell no. We're anti-stupidity. And that is a shitload of stupidity there. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

There are 300 million people in this country. That crap was cherry picked. I know a lot of people and not one of them made a comment like that. I feel that Americans are over-generalized as stupid. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

And so we return to the same sort of fallacy that this thread was about. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 04:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

True, I apologize...still, I remember the number of comments posted were enough to be newsworthy. Didn't they learn anything from WWII history in high school? And these were coming from people regardless of ethnicity, seemingly not racially-tinged. It's barbaric. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The mistake we furriners often make is judging all Americans by the noise some dickheads make on the internet. Come on, people. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A shitload of stupidity... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Show us the birth certificates! Ajkgordon (talk) 09:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's face it, if we Brits were judged by the comments on Daily Fail articles - you'd get a pretty good picture... no... no... that's not what I meant at all. Travancus (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hehe. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Or these guys, for that matter. Balaam (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Is that first point attempting to use some sort of counter-anthropic principle for religious violence? But why do people insist on reinforcing the fact that not all Muslims are violent? Or that not all Christians are evangelical YEC nutjobs. Or whatever. This doesn't actually excuse the ones that are, and even more so it's irrelevant when specifically discussing those that are. The ones who claim, and act by, the mantra that "Islam is a religion of peace" do not negate the ones that carry bombs in their backpacks. ADK^{...I'll cogitate your tomfoolery!} 13:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't. I'm protesting the profiling of Muslims as violent in general. Treating someone as though they're a criminal just because some other assholes think it's their divine mandate to be savage assholes is wrong. I hope you were joking, because your post was just an absurdly stupid nonsequitur.--. 15:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

@ADK: You do realize that we have people here trying to violate the 1st Amendment, claiming that Muslims shouldn't work in the White House, there are too many mosques in this country, racial profiling is a great idea, etc. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Now that is a non sequitur. I am not talking about responding to the people who say "all Muslims are terrorists", I'm talking about the repeated insistence that "not all Muslims are violent" when that's beside the point. This is a religion where even the self-confessed moderates are pretty sure it's right to call for the death penalty for apostasy. The fact that not all of them are violent does not absolve the belief system from being wrong and says some quite appalling things in places. ADK^{...I'll burn your binder!} 19:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ameriwiki

I haven't been following it, just like I've given up on ASoK. What's happening with Ameriwiki? Anything? Are they getting nutty enough for a WIGO yet? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 10:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Judging from their RC, it consists of the founder, Rob, Maratrean, and someone simply called "American". Rob is uploading a huge amount of files. Тай^{говорить} 10:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Rob is doing a massive cut'n'paste from CP so that will improve things. Travancus (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

After looking around a bit: quite a few articles on communism, and communists. Talk:Atheism is pretty wonky too. Тай^{говорить} 10:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So it's just another bunch of raving fuckheads then? --PsyGremlinHable! 10:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't fuck with your head, you fuck with your .... Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

@Psy: Yes, but they have rules and etiquette. So if you're inclined to de-fuck up the place, you'll be better off than at CP (so long as you follow the rules- no cursing!!!!!)--User:Brxbrx/sig 11:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Buggered if I can find out what they are. Neither Community Portal nor Help mentions rules or etiquette so I guess they make it up as they go along. Furthermore, I find some of the stances taken by prominent contributors to be extremely offensive. There's a lot more to etiquette than cursing. Travancus (talk) 11:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Update - found it. Note that name-calling will not be tolerated - but going Godwin all over Atheists is just dandy. Who's first on the list of prominent Atheists? Russell, maybe, no, of course not, it's the person known solely for his religious beliefs, de Sade. Really! Travancus (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I do rather like that Ken (user:American) gets his talk page locked because of "excessive vandalism" - which amounted to Ace asking if he was Ken. Seems that no matter where Ken goes, he's too much of a coward to have a talk page. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 12:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

User:American is Ace pretending to be Ken. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 17:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't be shocked. Have Ameriwiki run check user or something, for the lulz--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe it's Kendoll pretending to be Ace pretending to be Kendoll. Maybe you should get your counter-intelligence staff on that angle, herr director. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Nah, that's a waste of resources; the Humane Society maybe able to handle it. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 21:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Welsh miners

So horrible. [3] SJ ^Debaser 16:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The best thing my grandfather ever did was to take his two sons down the pit where he worked. My father and uncle were so shit-scared that they didn't become miners. Darkmind1970 (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone wants to assassinate Kent Hovind (Real or not)

From FreeHovind:

"WE NEED TO FREE HOVIND AT ALL COSTS. A 32nd degree freemason who's also invloved in top secret military activities, and is a High ranking military personel of over 20 years experience has informed me that Hovind will be killed before his release date." "Someone else I've come into contact with wishes for me to give you his email. TheOneWhoFought@yahoo.com He has a FOOL PROOF plan of releasing Hovind from prison. Either we DO SOMETHING NOW, or this man will BE MURDERED in prison, and it will be played out that he was attacked by another inmate." "WE NEED TO GET HIM OUT, AND WE NEED TO START NOW!! This person is organizing a team of people to get hovind out of prison, but needs resources that are out of his reach. His plans to get Hovind out are simple, yet effective. FREE HOVIND......NOW!!!!!!!!!! BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!"

Is this person for real? ^{— Unsigned, by: Cms13ca / talk / contribs}

It's the interwebs, so who knows. On the one hand, it sounds a lot like trolling. On the other, Hovind is pretty big in to the black helicopter satanic conspiracy scene. People who like his stuff probably aren't dealing from a full deck. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Professors offer reward for proof of Bachmann's HPV vaccine claims

According to Yahoo news via other syndications, two bioethics professors are now calling Michele Bachmann out on her claims that she actually met someone whose daughter became mentally retarded from the HPV vaccine. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 08:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Career politicians know a dozen ways to weasel out of something like this. In the worst case, if Bachmann has been particularly clumsy and is ill-managed, she will manage to come across as having been attacked by politically motivated scientists for saying something that was essentially correct but technically untrue only in a way that no real voter should care about. Remember Bachmann doesn't need the kind of people who edit this wiki to vote for her, no presidential candidate ever has. We are not the audience (well obviously I'm not because I can't even vote in your elections). 82.69.171.94 (talk) 08:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Its entirely possible Bachmann did meet someone who claimed their child was retarded by a vaccine. She might have met Jenny McCarthy. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Jenny McCarthy is living proof that, in rare cases, childhood vaccines make the mothers retarded. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that her claim to fame is letting people take photos of her in the buff, it is fair to assume she wasn't the sharpest knife in the draw before hand. Pimobile (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is fair actually. Plenty of smart women discover that they could get paid good money for taking their clothes off and decide that ethically they're OK with that. It works the same as for pro athletes. You get management from an established company, hire a boring but reliable accountancy firm, and keep your spending under control. At age 25-35 you retire, buy a house for cash, change your appearance enough to prevent random people recognising you in the street and get a normal job, live out the rest of your life comfortably with only your closest friends knowing you were once in the NBA / Playboy. The stupid ones burn through money, get ripped off by their best friend-turned-manager, and go bankrupt with no Plan B. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the whole "indigo child" thing was a bigger tip-off. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Should Nx have server access?

Go here -- Nx / talk 08:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Kaspar Hauser revisited

check it. Ace^ace 10:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Whatever happened to that guy they found on an English beach, who could play the piano so well? Didn't he turn out to be a fraud? And the above sounds like some sort of promo for "Hanna". --PsyGremlin話しなさい 11:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean like the story of Johnny B. Goode, who could "play a guitar just like ringin' a bell." Except it was a piano instead of a guitar, and it was on an English beach instead of way down in Louisiana close to New Orleans? But aside from that, yeah, I agree with you, it's like the story of Johnny B. Goode. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Bible

Am I the only one who, when seeing someone reading a Bible in public, thinks "crazy person"? Ace^ace 01:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I remember in cross country in high school we'd go out for a run and sometimes pass people trying to give out little orange Bibles to the kids just getting out of school at the junior high. Those are the crazy people. SoCal ²¹² 02:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

...I try not to, but the thought does cross my mind.--Dumpling (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Today those guys who put bibles in all the hotel rooms were giving out "New testaments, psalms and proverbs" at my university. Nobody really took any, or they just left em somewhere inside and away from sight--Mikalos209 (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I hand out bible's to the homeless every Saturday morning in the park; we have a little 15 minute service & big feed. Many, many takers. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 03:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

have you started ranting at them about how badly you were treated at Conservapedia? Ace^ace 03:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, as I said: "crazy people". Ace^ace 03:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The homeless, hopeless, and helpless have nothing but time on their hands so all they do is read and discuss the bible. You'd think a bunch of leftist commie agitators and alleged liberal bleeding hearts would know that. But your clearly stated and reasoned disdain for the downtrodden is noted. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 03:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not a liberal and show me where I clearly stated I had disdain for the downtrodden. Secondly he homeless, hopeless, and helpless have nothing but time on their hands so all they do is read and discuss the bible Indeed Rob, weak, hopeless people for the religious to prey on. Are they sympathetic to your treatment at conservapedia? Ace^ace 04:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yah backpeddle now, but you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. You sure don't do jackshit to help your fellow man--and in the United States unemployment, homelessness, and hopelessness is exploding. And I think you meant prey, not pray. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 04:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What am I backpeddling on? Please be specific on this and also where I have shown disdain for the downtrodden. Is it because I don't hand out Bibles? Ace^ace 04:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Handing out bibles is hardly much use to the homeless, less they wish to start a fire to warm themselves. I wonder how many of the folks attending Nob's services do so purely for the 'big feed'? AMassiveGay (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

We get about 150 to 250 every week and hand out 20 or 30 bibles; many ask for prayer or counseling. There's basically two groups, the longtime freeloaders and the newly confused. It's really a blessing to be of service, let me tell you. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 04:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The 'long term freeloaders'. Your all heart Nob's AMassiveGay (talk) 04:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The criminal justice system may call them incorrigible, but I'm there to show them hope (unlike Obama, who spews crap to pervert the word & meaning). But even the longtime freeloaders who go through the motions to get a free lunch, they are for the most part thankful and really love everyone connected with the ministry. This is what God commanded us to do--love them and give them the word. It may be to others to reap the harvest. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 04:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ace: Makes a comment

Rob: You have disdain for the poor!

Ace: What, I didn't say anything about disdaining poor people?

Rob: Now your backpedaling, you do nothing for the poor!

Ace: WTF? Backpedaling on what? Where have I shown disdain for the poor

Rob: Something about bibles.

Comme on Rob, put up or shut up - Where have I shown disdain for the downtrodden and what have I backpedaled on? Ace^ace 04:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

So what do you do when you see a homeless person reading the bible? Are they crazy, or are they the victims of capitalism, Ronald Reagen, and George Bush? nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 04:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Errrr, what the fuck? When did I ever mention homeless people? The person I saw was a professional having lunch in the same restaurant I was. Massive fucking fail Rob. And where the fuck do Reagen and Bush come into the conversation? Ace^ace 04:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Just who are the 'Long time freeloaders'? I find it strange that someone who takes time out of their lives to help the poor, starving, homeless, deperate folk should show such disdain for them. You realize the homeless have 0 employability, most have substance abuse problems, and mental health issues as result of their situation? They are not 'long term homeless', or 'incorrigible', they are in dire of need of help, not derision. (And yes they are victims of capitaism) AMassiveGay (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Ace said, "Am I the only one who, when seeing someone reading a Bible in public, thinks 'crazy person'?"
In my city, the only people seen reading a Bible in public are homeless.
The longtime freedloaders are people who been on the street and attending our service & breakfast for decades. Yes, they substances abusers in and out of jail constantly. We give them the word, breakfast, and clothes, and whatever else is in our power to help. Some - many, are unresponsive to the word of God, or they are for a time but fall back again. No matter. We are commanded to love them, to show Christ's love, not expecting a reward for ourselves. Do miracles still happen? Amen. I see it every week. There is no reason whatsoever on this earth for volunteers to get up at 3:30 or 4:00 in the morning, on their day off, in January when its 10 degrees (F) outside, to prepare breakfast for 200 people and then stand out in the cold, wet wind and rain to serve it. No reason whatsoever, other than it is miracle worked by God. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 04:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

So even though I hadn't even mentioned homeless people you started berating me for hating on them? Yeah, you're an asshole. Ace^ace 04:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Open mouth, insert foot. You started this thread berating people who read the Bible in public, never once stopping to think that the most vulnerable of your fellow man may actually need God, and want to learn about God, and read the bible in public. You berated them. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 04:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Uh-huh, yup. Sure. Ace^ace 04:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bible has always seemed to me a strange book to give out when you want people to learn about God. Especially the Old Testament. Blue (is useful) 04:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but what better way to teach people the omnibenevolence of God than with his paradoxical, inhumane wrath? SoCal ²¹² 05:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The complete New Testament doctrine of salvation by grace is there in the Old Testament: for example God himself speaking prophetically in Exodus, "Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 05:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen homeless folk reading the bible round these parts. I'm still not sure what you mean by freeloaders. Are they not in genuine need? The long term homeless, a spiral of horror that is incredible diffcult to break frm, do not to me seem to be deserving of such a unpleasant term. AMassiveGay (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Rob is back on the store brand booze again. Get yourself some help Rob. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 05:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There are the newly homeless who are usually in a transitional state, down on their luck, recently unemployed, divorced or some personal crisis. Then there is the longtime homeless, ex-felons, unemployable, nowadays they can't even get a place to live even if they are getting disability or veterans benefits because landlords require background checks. Many are professing Christians, but struggle with substance abuse & emotional disorders. Some might say, this is a lack of faith, but now we're getting into doctrinal differences. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 05:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

but if the govt. tries to help.....COMMIE ROT!!!! Ace^ace 05:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I've always found the homeless to be far more appreciative of a hot meal. Although I'm sure they do appreciate the Bibles - the paper is so soft, after all. --PsyGremlinHable! 05:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Eh, I don't think I would think "crazy" unless it was The Pedophile's Guide to Romance or How to Murder That Guy Sitting Across From You and Get Away With It. I've used dust jackets from other books to cover up some of my more, ahem, "controversial" reading in public (e.g., Mein Kampf). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

So to recap. Rob says that he ministers to the poor, specifically the homeless, by getting up at 4am and handing out hot breakfasts. That's laudable, Rob. Seriously cool. And if he hands out Bibles as well? No problem. Christians try to hand out Bibles to everyone - why wouldn't they do it to the homeless?

But just because you, Rob, as a right-wing Christian, help the unfortunate in society, it does not mean that atheists and liberals don't. While you were initially responding to an off-hand remark about someone imagining only crazy people read the Bible in public - an impression given, I'm afraid, by endless crazy evangelicals - you now run the risk of sounding pious as well as rabidly right wing. ::Ajkgordon (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who considers people getting up early to go help the homeless a miracle from god is not only pious, but a pious moron. A real fucking miracle from god would be for him to get off his non-existent arse and magically find housing and good jobs for all the homeless. People behaving charitably is just empathy, and you don't have to be religious to have it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well quite. But I'm not sure anyone claimed it was miraculous, did they? Ajkgordon (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

See Rob's ramblings above. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Rob, you twat. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty is not so much with the ones handing out bibles as part of a program of comforting the afflicted, nor even with the bibles themselves. The problem is that insufficient afflicting of the comfortable is being done. Along with that, we see politicians mouthing pieties in pursuit of public office, politicians whose program involves installing a patriarchal theocracy in order to justify policies that favor wealth and power, concentrated in the hands of a few, over public good. By their fruits you will know them, and the fruit of that tree is social stratification, with an enormous underclass of pliable serfs kept in their place with promises of pie in the sky. Now someone please talk me out of my Luddite leanings, because I believe the industrial revolution, and its extension into present time, might just enable a return to feudal social structure. __ Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Expect rob to call you a communist for that statement--Mikalos209 (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

yeah, all that "opiate of the masses" jive is so early twentieth century late eighteenth century. plus ça change... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• By their fruits you will know them

Like Solyndra, the patriarchal politicians got off their arse to comfort the unemployed and afflicted with $528 billion to employ 1,100 workers....for two years....let's see...528 billion divide by 1100 = $45,000,000 per job. And Obama wants to do it again. By their fruits.... nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 16:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You just said the chief exec wants to go into a similar deal without due diligence? Bullshit. This is not the black swan you are looking for. Besides, the Solyndra mess began with Bush's crew, with a lot of Republican investment. I got a big old tu quoque for you right here. Furthermore, please understand that not all politicians are patriarchal. Some of them understand that starving the beast, as practised by obstructionist Republicans, also means starving the people who they were elected to serve. Painting them all, as you do, with a broad patriarchal brush is generalized ad hominem bullshit. Also, that dollars-per job calculation has a whiff of manure about it. Something about energy independence, not just jobs. If you sense an ongoing theme (bullshit) here, you're not far wrong.

More than just a whiff of bullshit -- it's off by a factor of 1,000. $528 million, not billion. Unemployed philosopher (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Correction: $528 million divide by 1,100 jobs = $454,000 per job. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 15:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Still bullshit, Rob. The loan guarantee was not just about "buying jobs," but also about giving green energy a boost. If that technology can overcome overseas competition, there will be more jobs created than just the 1100 who were laid off from one company with a high-profile bankruptcy. Casting it in terms of dollars per job with such a selective focus is a simplistic argument, and unconvincing.

Where does it say in teh bible that every governmental act shall be measured by number of jobs created per dollar spent? If a piece of spending is proposed with the sole justification of creating jobs, that is a different story. Let's talk about the "job-killing" label as deceptively applied to the Republican kool-aid... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Are you saying these governmental acts are somehow God's will? And the figure ($454,000) is understated, because the company had some capitalization to begin with that qualified it to participate in this scam. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 16:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Back on topic; you got anything to say about the fruits of the present governor of Texas, who proclaims his biblical belief while praying for rain, cutting firefighting services, and paying public-sector workers with the Federal dollars he claims to despise? If you expect people to revere a book, you can't go around using it as an excuse for hypocrisy. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

To expand on the ill effects of industrialization: Since so many tasks can now be automated, the demand for skilled labor has decreased. The machine tenders, the butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers are all having a hard time making ends meet, while the brokers and arbitrageurs are swinging their big dicks at each other and damn the consequences of their irresponsible deceitful financial games. I deny that I am a communist, but I am in favor of maintaining a working commonwealth, with a functioning middle class. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

WIGO:RobSmith

After reading the above section I think we are in need of a WIGO:RobSmith Ace^ace 04:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

He certainly is quite an active little bugger isn't he. I support the proposition. I don't think you'd get it in mainspace though - perhaps start a beta version in a userpage? I'll certainly put it in my bookmarks. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly WIGO:Rob Smith's Mind anyway. I have no idea how he comes out with this sort of thing. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

On the original sets of comments

Most of the students in my "English bible as literature", and my "Bible development and early christian chruches" courses were practicing Christians. The kids in the KJV as Lit class were far more likely to be fundimental, but i had my share of fundies in both classes. That was a joy/job I must say. "Dear students, for the next 1 hour, and for that same hour the next 48 sessions, I AM ALWAYS RIGHT. I don't care that you think Moses wrote the bible. If i say he didn't, in this classroom, he didn't." It was cold of me, but if you are talking about "my teacher at Sunday school says", every day, you won't get into really good discussions about why some things were kept, the politics of Dante's Inferno, and why Tyndle's bible is really what they know and love. - That said, I hated reading my bible on the bus. Rational people stared saying "oh god, is she nuts", and Christians either stared with horror that i was highlighting, writing in, cross referencing, and using hebrew in their beloved bible, OR they would try to start conversations with me. "I love reading the bible, don't you find it inspiring?". (me, in head only: a god that kills people cause they were the beings he created - not really.) If you ever want to see strange reactions, try reading (or pretending to) the bible on a bus. see what happens.Godot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 14:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Or the Quran. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Godot, I'll pray for you. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 17:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't you think of anything more useful to do? At least jacking off would have a point. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a bit hard to avoid reading when you're teaching classes on the topic, or writing dissertations on it. ;-) Godot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 18:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Rob, please tell me you are joking. I suspect I could walk circles around you about the Bible and what it says. Trust me, no amount of empty prayer would make that horror show of a biggoted, selfish, selfcentered, egomanical god appealing to me. - the first four books of the NT aren't all that bad. REligion minus Paul!!!Godot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 18:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The first four books? It's like reading four versions of the Rumpelstiltskin story. Should we conclude after discovering that these different versions exist, which agree on some matters but also vary greatly, that therefore Rumpelstiltskin's story (one of them? all of them?) is true? And if we then encounter versions from other countries where his name is different, is that the moment to call bullshit on the whole fairytale, or does that have to wait for the part where he turns water into wine straw into gold magically? What's with these vague references to events for which there are no contemporary records? Why mention people who seem important, but which history somehow overlooked? No, the last time I tried to read those four books I got as far as Book One trying to tell me that Jesus fulfils prophecy and the Bible I'm reading says to see Isiah 7.14, which is about God turning up, starting a war and fixing everything for the Jews. Is that what happens in the Gospels? No, it is not. The prophecy is not fulfilled. Matthew might as well open with "So, you know this guy is the real deal because of the world ending in 1988. Right? Right?" and indeed if Christians try to bother me with this stuff I tell them the first port of call is the local Rabbi - convince him first about your prophecy and your saviour, and how God decided he'd changed his mind about the chosen people... and when you've done that you can both come and explain yourselves to me. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, angry much? By the way, a lot of your facts are wrong, suggesting to me you don't really know the history of the bible, just what you read on some "jesus is mizthra" (god how i hate that meme) web site. I'm just saying...Godot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 22:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Not angry - bored - waiting for some stuff to sync so I could go to bed (and then get up two hours later to do the real tricky stuff when people are asleep). A list of which specific facts are wrong might be helpful, assuming they're facts about the Rumpelstiltskin folktake, which is awesome (but not true!) and not your opinions about the Bible, which is dull as dishwater. I wrote it because people do this "first four books not bad" thing too often. They're terrible books. Twilight level bad. The part about me flipping back to see what Isiah actually says is true, I really did that, and it has roughly (let's not go into the virgin thing) the text quoted. But it's a quotemine! We all know these when we see them in creationist literature, why is it so hard to spot in the Bible? Nobody reading Isiah in 100 BC thought "Oh, so some kid will turn up soon and be God? Cool!" because that's not what Isiah is even talking about. And I have never even heard of Mizthra, closest I can dredge up is wp:Mothra, who seems pretty unrelated. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Aha, wp:Mithras, OK. Yeah, I have heard of that. Another dead religion - somebody tell the New Agers and they can go revive it. Maybe some ideas about Mithras get stolen for Jesus stories, maybe some ideas about Jesus get stolen for Mithras. I presume you have some specific (and probably tedious) explanation of how it's impossible that any ideas about Mithras inspired the gospels? I must warn you that I don't care, but feel free to tell anyone reading who does. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

For someone who doesn't care, you talk a lot. What do you find so bothersome about "the first four books", and truly, how often have you seen someone comment about those four and none others, cause most Christians are quite happy to love the New Testament in total. Few isolate the Gospels from the rest of the New Testament. You say you stopped reading Matthew within a few pages because it referenced Isiah 7:14. Which is interesting, cause Matthew (or the writer of matthew, anyhow) would not have had a Christionized Bible with Christian numbers such that you can make ready connection between what "prophecy" was being fulfilled and which wasn't. Biblical scholars of course, have fairly good ideas what was being referenced -- but again, which version of Isiah might Matthew have been referencing.

Of course, that is rather irrelevant -- unless you understand prophecy, and how it works and why it works and what it's for. Prophecy is never about the future coming of something or someone, it's always about something happening in the now, and a process of either convincing someone to take a particular path (usually in battle or politics, but I suppose not always), or to avoid a particular unpopular decision. Prophecy is about power, politics and creative problem solving. That in some future day, someone will use your prophecy to do MORE politics is hardly the issue for the writer.

I'm also sure since you "read so closely" that you could not finish the book, you are aware of the fact that Matthew has two distinct voices (two writers): one who may or may not have been close enough to events to actually remember them, and one who was clearly at least one generation removed from anything relevant. So why talk about the guy? Cause of modern politics. Matthew is replete with interactions about the Jewish Christians vs. the Greek Christians, about the role of Rome in both their lives, and how to struggle to survive as a people -- Matthew hangs onto the character, Jesus, a host of tales intended to keep the Romans from obliterating all traces of Jewish Christianity. There are also references in Matthew to challenge the other churches of the day - specifically the non jewish ones. again, the back drop being that "you get the romans to focus on THE OTHER GUY, you as a people might just live to see tomorrow". The specific genealogy and the specific references to Isiahic prophecy are intended to do just that. Divide the people and take the Jesus character on as their own, to isolate other people as teh truly bad people. The synoptic gospels are 3 telling of the same story, with extremely important political twists. But you of course know all that, cause you went back and looked at one passage in Isiah that you were told by your particular bible is "the prophecy", and you took it all at face value. Godot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 15:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Woah, indenting an extra level for every paragraph you write is too much even for me. The distinction between the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament ought to be pretty obvious? The gospels are about Jesus. This is an appealing bit of the Bible if you find Jehovah too blood thirsty and Paul reminds you of lunatics blaming earthquakes on gay marriage. It's enough for people to say "I'm Christian" because they've been assured that the central issue is whether they believe the stories in those four books. So that's why people like these four books, even if they can't tell you without looking which of those books have their favourite Jesus stories in. I have read (and I thought I made that pretty clear) all four canonical gospels in English translation, both standalone and with the aid of commentary. I found them less compelling than many books of the Jewish Bible (I have a particular soft spot for Ruth for personal reasons) even when I was a Christian. Only in my most recent re-reading did I stop right away at the quotemine in Matthew. You seem to agree that's what it is, so why be peeved about it? Matthew's author was doing then to Isiah's prophecy what every PMD preacher does today to Revelation. And it was just as bad then as it is now. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you said "I stopped reading" when you decided the bible was inconsistent, and that people were not quoting the prophecy correctly. Which is fine, you've read the bible and the commentary. You are looking for some kind of factual truth about the bible, and saying "this prophecy has nothing to do with the actions here described, therefore the bible is bullshit. and factually, you are 100% correct. Virtually nothing in the bible stands as factual truth, save *maybe* some generic facts about kings and exile. The bible is about political motivation, the survival of a people, ruling and controlling those people, and in some more personal ways, trying to find answers, find 'truth' (vs., fact), and learn how to live in the world. Without understanding the specific political advantages of particular prophecy, saying "it's bs" is really not saying much. yes, of course it is a work of fantasy; but unlike harry potter, it was a work that has social and political context. it's not bunk, it's not simple, it's not worthless, or any of the other implications your original post made.Godot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 17:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Godot said: I suspect I could walk circles around you about the Bible and what it says.
You're on. Using the Bible itself, reconcile John 1:18 with Exodus 33:11 (and please don't use the well worn "this is evidence the Bible contradicts itself" argument; you made the challenge, not let's see if you can explain context). nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 16:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say I could reconcile them, as I don't think they reconcilable. John 1: 18, No one has ever seen God. The only one who has seen God, is himself God. He is the one in closest fellowship with the Father and has made God known. -- So this is John, and obviously Gnostic scripture, talking both about the nature of God, and the ability to know god, and how to obtain that knowledge. Gnosticism has as its foundation, the idea that any knowledge of god must necessarily be terrific and for Christian Gnostic, must come directly from the non human Jesus. The line you ask for is proper within it's context. -

Exodus 33:11 The Lord would speak to Moses face to face the way a person speaks to a friend. -- Ok, the jewish view of god, especially at the time Exodus was first conceived, was a very human god. Hell, "in the beginning" he walks around losing his little people, calls out to them, enjoys the garden - he is human- just bigger, better, more powerful. But his emotions, his goals, his needs are larger expressions of what the writers saw in their own life. So, to better explain the relationship between Moses his chosen prophet and every body else, God speaks to him "face to face", or rather, says to Moses to tell others this is the relationship we have. one of acquaintances, rather than one of Master - servant. Again, political agenda in the relationship of God to Moses, established early on in Exodus, though Moses is "frightened" to look at god, he must have gotten over it.

Your question : how are those two statements about god, reconcilable. My answer. they are not, cause they are not really part of the same tradition. And because the words themselves serve different needs of the people (or leaders, really) at the time.Godot Warning, chocolate will make your clothes shrink 17:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. You get a D+ only cause you attempted to answer but totally missed the context. Paul sheds light:

the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God....which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

IOW, No natural man hath seen God at any time, ye must have the mind of Christ. And Moses had the mind of Christ when he offered himself as a sacrifice for the sin of the people (Ex. 32:32).nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 21:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)