RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive122

This is an archive page, last updated 28 August 2014. 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>, <120>, <121>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

I hate voters!!!

So the City and County of Denver is being sued by our own Secretary of State, cause they had the audacity to send out ballots to inactive voters in an attempt to get them voting again. Understand. these voters are people who ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE, but have not voted in the last 3 (5 years) elections for whatever reason. Denver decided that since there were only 50,000 of them, they could afford the mailing cost to send out those extra 50,000. Our secretary of state decided that they could not do that, they could only send ballots to ACTIVE voters, and inactive voters need to request the ballots manually. HE claimed he's protecting the taxpayer's money for the ballots. Wanna guess, however, how much it will cost teh city and county of Denver to defend themselves in court? I'm betting a bit more than 50K.GodotThe Peyote God awaits 21:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

WTF if you are registered to vote you are registered to vote. Can't pinch pennies and sacrifice democracy Damo^Hi 23:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Guy's a Republican. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 23:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the way the law is written, it says "you shall send ballots to active registered voters". which allows special districts or small mountain communities to not have to send ot inactive voters. But there is nothing in the law that could preclude you from sending to inactive as well. The point with inactive is you don't know why they are inactive. they could be dead, have moved, or just be angry people who hate Colorado. who knows. but if you have the cash? why not send to all inactive as well.GodotThe Peyote God awaits 01:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, "active" in this sense is arbitrary. Registering to vote says "I am interested, have an intention to vote, please take my opinion into account". Now, once you've done that, you might not necessarily go out and tick a box, but we call this ABSTENTION. This is a valid action. Otherwise, when do you become "inactive"? When you haven't voted for a year, for two, for ten? You're right, the reasons for not voting aren't known from such behavior. So your definition of active/inactive is massively arbitrary and meaningless - and I hate hard and fast laws based upon arbitrary rules. I imagine that if someone wants to stop you encouraging these people to vote, it's because they have a vested interest in the disenfranchised not voting. This is no less an appalling move than Ann Coulter suggesting the voting age be raised because the young are a demographic that don't vote Republican. They need a good, hard, slap across the face. ADK^{...I'll execrate your Pokémon!} 12:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

See if you can look up the demographics on the inactive voters. One half-eaten internet cookie says they are disproportionately minority and low-income. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In colorado, where this is happening, the precentage is like 60%dems, and 20% unaffiliated. very roughly. the actual stats came out after the idiot made his attack, showing exactly WHY he made the attack. inactive voting is ONLY a status we use to say "you've not voted for x years, you need to prove you are who you claim to be, and you can vote." And a long list of what counts as ID. which you can MAIL IN when you send in your ballot. fucking jackass. this is what the law says!!!! i've been trying to decide if we could afford to send ballots to inactive voters (our answer is no, but we are very small and poor)...so i've read this law back and forth, right and left, and called 3 different state officals to talk about it...grrr...fucking idiot.GodotThe Peyote God awaits 20:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Bingo. They've been doing it for more than a century. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

RIP Lawrence Russell Brewer

It is disgusting how so many people are cheering state-sanctioned murder. No one deserves to be killed, because no one is evil or "scum" (possible exception: conservative Christians) So many liberals are sounding like conservatives about this, because they are so consumed by the mainstream hate just like conservatives are. Anyone calling me "racist" for being pro-social justice should know I'm black so FOAD.

Also, Ross Byrd is a hero. He should be President, not that Palestinian-hater Obama. Howard McWashington (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

People who support the death penalty will go to hell when they die. And what is hell? Death row. They will be reincarnated on death row, I mean not reincarnated from birth, they'll die and they'll wake up and suddenly they'll be on death row. And then they'll wait and wait for years and years and years, and then they will be executed. And then they'll wake up and find themselves on death row again! Ah, hell doesn't last forever, nor does the death row merry-go-round which awaits death penalty supporters. Eventually, after being executed Goddess knows how many times, they'll wake up in heaven. But it won't be pleasant, surely! If you are a death penalty supporter, and you want to escape this hell which awaits you, my only advice is to renounce your support for the death penalty immediately, and campaign vigorously for its abolition. I can't guarantee it will save you from the jaws of hell, but it is worth a shot. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but you're wrong; people who support the death penalty are actually forced to eat kittens in the afterlife. I received this information directly from my deity. Bitch. 81.155.129.152 (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but you're wrong; but people who eat kittens actually become kittens in the afterlife, and as such get to be eaten. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Religious holidays next week?

A peer of mine in one of my finance classes mentioned to me that she wouldn't be in class next week for religious observance, but I haven't been able to find any specific religions with important days in the coming week. I searched for an interfaith calendar, but the closest I can find is Hindu and Jewish observations, but neither really match up with next week. Any ideas? Yes, I know I could just ask, but we had an exam and I didn't have a chance. άλφα^Ταλκ 00:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Rosh Hashanah starts next Wednesday and ends on Friday. Blue (is useful) 00:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That's probably it, then. The calendar I found only listed it as starting next Thursday, so it didn't seem like a reason to miss an entire week. Seeing as how I'm not familiar with Judaism and its beliefs, though, it's not surprising that I missed something. Thanks for the info. άλφα^Ταλκ 02:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I do it all the time. Disappear for a few days and cite religious observance. ADK^{...I'll cuddle your TK!} 00:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Steve Bell on the Death Penalty

If you support the death penalty, you're wrong. [1] –TeenageCumSlut Condemns electoral fraud at RationalWiki 00:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If you support the death penalty, you'll go to hell when you die. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

if you are christian then you are fine with the death penalty, after all God said you shall not Murder, and render to ceaser etc. All is the will of the Godess, hail Maratrea * flap flap thud* Hamster (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

One must distinguish the two wills, revealed and decretal — what is done as a means, and what is done as an end. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

--‎Capital punishment doesn't undermine the moral or legal foundations of a society. ‎It is the moral and legal foundation of society. 04:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's an idea.

Like with Politifact.com and Factcheck.org, should we have a list of articles debunking misconceptions about government policy (ie. the whole US income tax lulz you can see above)? Osaka Sun (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Although that would just be replicating what Factcheck.org already does. Generally RW ends up referencing it frequently where necessary. Certainly, if we had an article on Political Policy X, then it's only even relevant to RW in the first place if people who bullshit misconceptions of it. ADK^{...I'll redeem your stapler!} 11:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that the point of the politics cat (besides hit-pieces on politicians)? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In theory, but I think people find the hit-pieces more fun. ADK^{...I'll stride your octopus!} 20:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

NaNoWriMo

In short for those not aware: Write a 50,000 word novel in a month, between 1st and 30th of November, each year. More details, JFGI

I am considering entering National Novel Writing Month this year - a group of friends are doing it. However, I don't quite feel too fussed about the "work of fiction" aspect as it invariably just ends up invoking Chandler's Law way too often. There's by-the-seat-of-your-pants writing and then there's what they do to get 50,000 words in a month. Instead, I want to sort of write something with a more non-fiction bent to it (technically making me a "NaNo Rebel" as those trendy kids call it). The general topic I'm considering is "nutters on the internet" but I want to do more than just list an encyclopedia of incidents and wacky stories. I want to tie it together with a central thesis, mix in some narrative, commentary, maybe even biographical incidents. Okay, fine, I'll come out and say it "I want to write something like The Black Swan". I'm envisioning something that could perhaps be called RationalWiki: The Movie but am not sure how workable the idea is or how to go about doing it. I'd certainly end up pestering the wiki a lot in Novemeber if I went ahead with it. Anyone think this is the dumbest idea ever? ADK^{...I'll drink your xylene!} 12:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. 12:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to work in a narrative into RW, there's a few ways you can go that jump right out.

• Journey of Discovery - Someone benighted learns about the world of rational thought. Religious/woo/ignorant person journeys from the darkness to the light. Very tempting, and a very bad idea.
• Secret War - There's a deeper motion going on behind a banal conflict about ideology, as one person in particular has something to hide about their connections. Sort of VenomFangX-is-secretly-a-lizard-person sort of thing. Another bad idea.
• Thought-crossed Lovers - A love triangle forms, with prejudice the cause of unhappiness. They want to be together, but their beliefs keep them with other people. Eventually, a personal transformatory experience transfigures the fool, but is it too late?
• Oceans - This straightforward romance shows the evolution of love, with a pair of initially hostile folks meeting a common series of challenges in their online community, eventually grudgingly contacting each other and developing a rapport that is limited by the ocean that separates them. Perhaps the end is bittersweet, or perhaps a miracle can happen.

And so on. What else do you know - what can you write? Can you/do you want to write about romance, action, drama, or other modes? Do you know any subjects or careers well enough to involve them?--^talk 12:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can spin 50,000 words out of pure RW fan-fiction (though that last one seems kinda cool, not sure if my knowledge could cover it). But using them as recurring illustrative characters is more the idea. Goonie going to a punk show to illustrate group identity markers and just throw it the fuck in without caring too much. Science of Discworld very nicely works in an overarching narrative, each book is a Discworld story in it's own right, but it still has to completely segregate it from Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen's writing. Perhaps if I finished Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality I might have a better idea. It could be amusing to stick in some kind of background quest (solving the riddle of VFX's disappearance; did Thunderf00t kill him? Did David Icke turn him into a lizard?!) and along the way meeting characters who totally aren't based at all on RW members and exploring their thoughts in a "well this is my excuse to talk about confirmation bias" kind of way. Actually, I feel this almost gives more scope than "the internet has changed everything", which was the first idea to come to mind. Have a central character come from a religious background, grow dissatisfied with it, goes on a journey of discovery across the world, runs into a load of people and learns shit, meets a girl, falls in love, gets told by said nerdy girl that everything he feels his just biochemistry while he teachers her that it doesn't matter and just go with your gut. On their way they meet crackpot scientologists, scam artists, stumble into Area 51 to find that it's not that interesting and overdose on some homeopathic remedies. Meanwhile everything is basically just an excuse to rewrite every RW article. Pretty much Road Trip for skeptics. ADK^{...I'll agree your rock!} 13:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And of course, people getting stoned is a great excuse to meditate on abstract philosophy in an idiosyncratic fashion. ADK^{...I'll ruffle your Toyota!} 13:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Write a musical. The critics will love it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"You've Got Fail" - a bittersweet romantic comedy where a Conservapedia sysop unwittingly falls in love in real life with a RationalWiki moderator. They soon realize that they're more similar than they thought. An awful idea, but the title is catchy. Junggai (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It would take a literary genius to make such things interesting to more than just the folk who frequent this site and other similar science/woo debunking site. You are in danger of creating bad CP fan fiction. I did read short play/script on here a while back based on cp. It was quite frankly awful. Not to dis anyones creative writing powers AMassiveGay (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Good thing I'm not planning CP fan fiction. If whatever it turns out to be becomes bad CP fan fiction I promise to end my life immediately upon such realisation. ADK^{...I'll tear your plague!} 12:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You can try following how Comet Elenin grew out of a single blog post by a wacko to a massive family of conspiracy theories with more than a million results in Google and a dedicated sub-forum at Godlike Productions. ;) (You can also finish our article instead of me. :P)--ZooGuard (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to deprive you of such joy! ADK^{...I'll bang your anything!} 17:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I've heard of National Novel Writing Month. I was actually rather interested because one of my friends is trying to work something up as well. I've gotten down general blaaah-ish ideas, but nothing sensational. I actually rather like the idea of RW being incorporated. Maybe it could be something of just the regular day life inspired of some RW-ians, but the connection between the editors in general is a good concept as well. The editors here, I find are interesting people. So maybe they're a good source of 'inspiration'. But I'm no good with awesome ideas. :D But good luck to you~ You'll do fine I'm sure.--Dumpling (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I think Ty, Goonie and Ace have quite interesting lives from what I can gather, and with some tinkering exaggerating and some "Only The Names Have Been Changed" would make interesting characters to throw in. Not to say that others don't too, of course, those are three off the top of my head I could do something with without thinking too hard. The main trouble I have with what is forming in my head is that the self-discovery plot starting in a place where someone is hiding a copy of The God Delusion under their mattress (the place where you usually hide your porn ferfucksake) only makes sense in the US Bible Belt - but I have no first hand knowledge of US culture, just the UK and a passable experience of Europe. You can't tell the story of someone who has to wipe their internet history in case their parents find out they've been daring to read about Evil Atheism and then say it's set in bloody Croydon! It just doesn't make sense. This is why I was originally thinking more of doing an extended essay on skepticism but using characters just to illustrate it - but I am leaning toward the other way where there's at least a coherent story to drive it. If anything, that just stops it becoming too dry and "yes, we've seen this before because everyone has written a book on this in the last 10 years". This is awkwardly blurring the line between fiction and non-fiction. It'll be an interesting experiment, at least. And any cultural or geographical fuck ups can be solved later if the experiment is successful enough to warrant the revision. Well, I still have a month to figure it out. ADK^{...I'll taste your ninja!} 12:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

London 2012

I see that this week the Gideons are preparing for the influx of visitors next summer. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In much the same way as any parasites prepare for an influx of new blood. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Who are the fucking Gideons? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never met one either. ADK^{...I'll construct your nuclear reactor!} 12:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Church or Jail?

It seems non-violent misdemeanor offenders in an Alabama town can choose to go to church for a year or pay a fine and go to jail. I think I would pick jail, or if I had to live in Alabama I would beg the judge to show me mercy and just give me the fucking electric chair. MarkeDC (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You know in some ways I'm not sure that's such a bad idea. Ignoring, for the sake of argument, the whole separation of Church and state thing, having a perp re-integrated into the local community by attending what is, essentially, part of the community structure can be a good thing. Now I don't know how wide a "choose your own place of worship" is. But if it's a Catholic, Presbytarian, Episcopal, Baptist, Methodist or any other relatively mainstream denomination that doesn't demand you prepare for the Rapture by teaching your kids that Jesus molests dinosaurs, then it's probably fairly effective. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

True, but can't the same be accomplished by other non-religious community service type of stuff? Work at the fire department, old folks home, community centers and other community service volunteer stuff. In all of those situations I would think you would be around the same caliber of morality as a church. I guess I just don't like that it is exclusive to churches, as an atheist. MarkeDC (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. But it's Alabama. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Lol true, good point. MarkeDC (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Jail. I don't like torture. --★uːʤɱ federalist 22:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In that case it's not really much different to rehabilitation as the rest of the civilised world uses it. I'm sure there are plenty of cases of "go to jail or this parenting class", and of course it's the same as an AA meeting. But churches already exist and so are effectively free - no need to set up a scheme or make arrangements with other places. So you get reintegration and community support for offenders for no additional expenditure. Though considering the context of where we're talking about, I'm pretty sure that's not actually the motive ortherwise they would have shown more positive interest in secular groups. ADK^{...I'll zap your tree!} 00:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

by goin ta church ya can meet all the young ladies, and sing uplifting tunes, and have luch prepared by the older married womens. In alabama they may even have the pet snakes to play with. * oh Jusus loves me , this I know, he loves me better, than he loves you .... Alabama jails are not nice places Hamster (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Am I the first person to be reminded of Benefit of Clergy? Historically the English had separate religious courts. If a priest was caught doing something wrong, theoretically it was the religious court's problem (shades of the Catholic child abuse scandal...). But the religious courts were never inclined to seriously pursue people and gradually they ceased to do much of anything at all. Being released to the authority of the religious courts was effectively no punishment. A person on trial for some relatively minor offence (say, stealing an apple, rather than murdering a farmer) could claim they were a priest and (with perhaps a raised eyebrow) the ordinary court would allow that, if they were priest, they could surely read from the Bible, a copy of which it so happens the court has. If you "proved" yourself in this way the court would let you go, the first time. Over time it became routine to set the same easily memorised passage from the Bible in ordinary cases, so that even the illiterate might usually expect such leniency. And eventually the one-time free time pass for minor crimes morphed into today's suspended sentences and other non-custodial sentencing for less serious crimes and first offenders. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Climate denial and skepticism

Just read another skeptical blog referring to climate deniers as "climate skeptics." Even Chris Mooney, who has done some of the best reporting on the denialist movement and climate science in general, still uses the "skeptic" moniker. And there has been some flirtation with denialism in the skeptic camp as well. There seems to be some strange legitimization of the denialist movement by skeptics, not necessarily in endorsing their views, but in not outright calling them out as the cranks they are as is often done with creationists, etc. Just filling my Al Gore/enviro-weenie/eco-fascist rant quota here. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a case that there's a fading line (gods save me from the Fallacy of Grey here, however) between skepticism and denial. Obviously, the first is a methodology for assessing the beliefs you accept vs the ones you reject based on empirical evidence, the latter is protecting your existing beliefs against empirical evidence. But they meet and blur in the middle somewhat. The "you haven't given me sufficient evidence" line has a foot in both worlds. On the one hand one questions how you could possibly maintain that position given the quantity of evidence but on the other hand being personally convinced of something is all there is - everyone has their own criteria of proof. So where do climate change skeptenialists stand? It depends how mean you want to be to them, really, as certainly no one ever thinks they themselves are being denialist. ADK^{...I'll run your lentil soup!} 12:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What makes it less of a continuum is when they engage in conspiracy theorizing, which your garden variety denialist is likely to do as he's probably getting his info from industry propaganda mills and wingnut blogs. They want to be able to properly "audit" the data. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Point, but I think those coming from the conspiracy angle would be conspiracy theorists more than denialists or skeptics - not that I want to platonify definitions here. But I'm thinking more along the lines of Johnny Ball's view on it. They're, well, "misguided" to put it nicely but he doesn't go for the conspiracy stuff. ADK^{...I'll deter your ox!} 15:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Denialism and conspiracy theories often come in the same package though. They're pretty much inseparable from pseudoscience in general (cf. big science, quacks and Big Pharma, free energy suppression). Johnny Ball (incidentally people named "Ball" seem to have a denialism problem) appears not to have done enough "research" (by which I mean bathing in denialist literature) to know about how NASA, Al Gore, and George Soros are perpetrating the hoax. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Johnny Ball is more a "little knowledge is dangerous" case, especially when he started going off on one about water vapour being a more powerful greenhouse gas - to which anyone who has studied climate science and atmospheric chemistry (i.e., moi) immediately goes palm to face. ADK^{...I'll discombobulate your frying pan!} 16:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Check it out!

I like to find fundamentalist material from various obscure sources online, and I finally found something so ridiculous that it should be submitted to FSDT, pronto, before it disappears. (And no, this isn't a parody.)

Take a look: http://www.securitytribe.com/~vertigo/goth-hell.htm

Pretty funny, eh?--Lefty (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Old. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Writing a paper

Trying to write a paper on whether Al-Qaeda sponsored terrorism can be justified using western notions of what constitutes a just-war. While the topic is intriguing and my mind is ponderous and engaged I am also suffering one hell of a chronic hangover that neither a shot of Wild Turkey nor several laced painkillers have managed to quell. Also, my mouth tastes of ass and my bladder keeps filling with strangely scented urine. I don't know why I am telling you this...just wasting time ya know...Ace^ace 23:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting topic. A just war requires a righteous aim — are the aims of al-Qaeda righteous? They want to stone adulterers and homosexuals to death right? And oppress women? And ban all religions other than Islam and the "People of the Book" religions (Judaism, Christianity), with legal restrictions on the later even. Not a righteous aim, hence not a just war.

And a just war requires righteous methods. Flying passenger jets filled with civilians into a building is a war crime. And I don't see how the WTC can be considered a legitimate military target. The Pentagon, I'd have to grant, is a legitimate military target, but flying a plane filled with innocent civilians into it is still a war crime. (I'd guess, if they flew an empty plane into it, that would be a somewhat different story.)

I also think a just war requires some legitimate prospects of success, to justify the harm caused by it. I wonder whether al-Qaeda's military activities fail on this point also, although that depends on exactly what the aims are considered to be. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I am not trying to justify it as a just war nor do I personally think their aims are righteous. I am not making an argument pe se, more exploring the notion that from an islamic militants point of view can they justify it using Western terminology. Ace^ace 00:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You should think about looking @ "On Violence, " the first chapter of Fanon's Wretched of the Earth. He makes an argument that the inherently violent nature of colonial rule compels a violent response from the colonised. it's probably not too much of a stretch to argue that from the Islamic militant's point of view, the violent nature of the relationship between the West (acting as the coloniser, though not in classic imperial formations) and the Muslim world (as a colonised person, with the governments of most Muslim-majority states acting as a classic comprador class) compels a violent reaction which can be justified (to the extremist mind) in terms that might resonate with a just-war model. Homi Bhabha's (surprisingly readable) prefae to the most recent English-language translation of Wretched is cool, too. ‎Capital punishment doesn't undermine the moral or legal foundations of a society. ‎It is the moral and legal foundation of society. 00:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The Catechism might help, as a clear formulation of the doctrine that's in line with past conceptions of it.--^talk 00:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent stuff gentlemen. It is quite a hard topic but its my own research question so only have myself to blame. Ace^ace 00:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There's ample stuff out there. You can probably find some good source quotes in Al Qaeda's magazine, Inspire, too.--^talk 00:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I would go to conservapedia but they don't seem to have an Al-Qaeda and Beastiality article yet. Ace^ace 00:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I was flicking through the tl;dr criteria on WP to see if I could justify it. You have a hard task ahead, I think.

Just cause

Well, this is so subjective to moral relativity that pretty much anything can be a "just" cause. But I suppose defending religious freedom is there somewhere. Certainly the western view, derived from and in support of Christianity, would recognise that one.

Comparative justice

Has me stumped to justifying terrorism except as a means of active resistance during a violent occupation. So their activities post invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq could count, possibly. You'd have to go into the history and see whether past grievances count. For instance, would a black power group be justified in launching terrorist attacks in the US as justice for the slave trade? Would Jews be justified in attacking modern Germans for similar reasons? No, of course not. So are the historical grievances against the Islamic world recent enough (Bin Laden being screwed over by the US was the 80s) to justify attacks in 2001 (well, far earlier if you count the previous WTC attack and the one on the ship I forget the name of, but let's call 9/11 their big opening number rather than a mere prologue) and beyond. BUT, you also have the wars that have been provoked since. The treatment at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib etc. etc. and civilian deaths are a wrong that can be said to make the western world fair game for retribution.

Competent authority

As Al-Qaeda is a decentralised body you might have a problem here. However, any leader can call for and wage war, and Al-Qaeda has had Bin Laden at least nominally. The usual exception to this is in the case of dictators, and I think it could be argued that Al-Qaeda's leadership, however it works, isn't really one of those. So they have the competence to declare war, certainly the US agreed with that when they shot and killed Bin Laden in a purely military spec-ops strike rather than make a hard arrest through more subtle means. So if their lack of civilian status is enough for their enemies, it should be enough to legitimise their autonomy and authority to declare a war.

Right intention

Again, one can play the moral relativism card. What are their intentions; protect themselves, their own freedom, their own sovereignty. This is straightforward enough in that respect.

Probability of success

Terrorism has a low probability of success, really. I mean this is just what history shows, it just continues until something else comes along to solve the conflict - you rarely credit the terrorist organisation itself. It's not an outright war with an aim for victory. The terror is both the means and end in itself because it's practically being used as divine retribution and punishment by Them against Us. I don't think we've seen coherent demands from them neither prior or during the most prominent activities of the last decade, either, so it's hard to measure probability of success when what they deem as success is so poorly defined.

Last resort

I don't recall much in the way of negotiations from them so they struggle to get this one. Again, terror attacks during and within a violent occupation may well satisfy this as if you've been occupied then obviously you're at the last resort phase. But as it is now, I don't think they've tried any peaceful methods seriously.

Proportionality

Victims of all Al-Qaeda attacks combined pale into insignificance next to civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, so technically they've got the high ground on this one.

It seems to be that it's easier to justify them continuing rather than starting it in the first place. If Iraq and Afghanistan or Iran were invaded spontaneously then, yeah, they'd have carte blanche to do almost whatever the hell they liked. ADK^{...I'll scratch your airplane!} 01:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I got an A for my annotated bibliography and essay plan with my lecturer saying "Sound great, really controversial. I can't wait to read it". I was thinking, "Yeah it does sound good, how the fuck am I going to write it though." Ace^ace 02:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

All praise be to Allah, the most merciful and cheesiest. This fool ADK has spoken like the fool that he is, the fool, and I will now shed light unto the eternal struggle for good found in jihad. In a world that oppresses true Islam, insisting on a bastardized and gelded version that does not hold to the Suras but does submit to Western ideas, then there can be no central authority to organize jihad. But there are true spiritual leaders, insha-Allah, whose voice matches the will of Allah as found in the scriptures, and who are not afraid to demonstrate their obedience and lead men in large organizations. They strike back against the wholly unequal damage being done to their people and their religion, as the imperialist West starves Palestine, isolates Iran, and threatens to turn all of the Islamic world into the twisted version espoused by the false Muslim nations. When the immortal souls of men are in question, doomed to the fires of Shaitan, who can doubt the damage done by disobeying the Most High? Nor is it just or even licit to say that our tactics will not be a success - no tactic succeeds until the first time, and Allah has promised us victory. At all times and in all places we have attempted to find redress for the wrongs of the West, but such incidents as the villainous American destruction of Palestine's hopes for statehood show that fiery jihad is the only way forward. Allahu Ackbar.--^talk 02:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have given myself two weeks to write it, I have a stack of books way overdue from the library to refer to (those fucks ain't getting them back until I am done - I mean please public library? Sounds like commie rot to me) and I have a wife to wait on me and deal with the anger when I explode with frustration and slam my fist through the desk. All this work means I won't have time to troll Brxbrx for awhile so someone else will have to do it. Bah, this hangover sucks. I am going to go drink a beer in the shower. Ace^ace 02:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Writing a paper: Step 1: Purchase paper online. Step 2: Receive A. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

i see a number of interesting issues in that. A standard paper could look at balance of power and the strategy of hit-and-run with deniability but given that Al-quida is not a nation-state its hard to describe anything as a state of war. As civilians they would be criminals or mercenaries if employed by a nation. Since you have a writing plan you should not have any major problems, just expand your outlines. Hamster (talk) 05:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it is really interesting. I am enjoying the reading. Ace^ace 05:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Armondikov has already said. The problem with Just War Theory is that most of its criteria are so vague that it's impossible to apply a coherent standard. Notions like "justice", "right intention" and even "proportionality" will always be severely contested - the terrorists themselves are certainly convinced that they are exacting divine justice, and they can point to precedent as well as parts of classic Islamic philosophy and law to back these claims up. "Competent authority" also depends completely on how you establish legitimacy. Radicals can easily denounce the rulers of their people as illegitimate (on that question, I'd find it very hard to disagree with them), and stress the authority of scholar-justices like bin Laden instead. Some of them may even claim to have received a personal call from god, which would presumably override all worldly authorities. Hell, even the "probability of success"-criterion is hard to apply when you're dealing with a struggle that has no clearly defined objective. If people think the world is merely a stage for an epic battle between good and evil, and they're simply acting their part, "success" doesn't depend on the actions of humans anyway. So I'd say most of these criteria can be stretched far enough to cover the actions of extremists, which is a major reason why JWT is outdated and even potentially dangerous, in my opinion. It's a relic from a time when humanity was far from establishing a body of binding international law. Nowadays, we've got fairly unambiguous rules on when you're allowed to go to war and the measures you can use, even if they're often ignored without real consequences. Röstigraben (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The biggest problem with al-Qaeda from a classic JWT perspective is using airplanes filled with civilians as weapons. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless you go for a massive redefinition of combatant. Given that, on a horrendously basic level, it's a war of culture then all civilians count. Commercialism and outsourcing alone that's fucking over people and effectively enslaving third world populations that we're, frankly, all responsible for. If you've bough a pair of Nike trainers made in a sweatshop you've taken a pot shot at another country. Those flying or driving are using and supporting the whole Oil machine too. It's cutting it very close to throwing all existing definitions out of the window, for this you'd have to say that they may have been civilians but they weren't innocent civilians and were a kind of fair game. ADK^{...I'll murder your can opener!} 12:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

To those commiting these actions, the flying of a plane full of civvies, into a building their actions are totoally justified to them. I want, I am trying, to explore how can they justify it using western definitions. Ace^ace 12:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Then you just plain have to find a way of making those people who died in the 9/11 attacks legit combatants, or at least reasonable collateral (civilian casualties are allowed if you're primarily targeting a legitimate military target and you use proportional force to minimise civilian casualties). Trouble is, they really, really aren't under western definitions. ADK^{...I'll shake your vortex!} 12:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless the economic power of the WTC counted as a legit target. Economic warfare has been used in the past, I recall instances of trying to air-drop forged currency to try and cause artificial inflation in the target country, for example. Crashing the stock market could be considered a legitimate attack on the military-industrial complex and so the civilian casualties would be willing participants in it. ADK^{...I'll jerk your governor!} 12:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Like I said man, its a tough paper. Ace^ace 12:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I think you're fucked. :p Unless you can bait-and-switch and say why it isn't justified and why any attempts at justification under western rules are extremely far fetched. ADK^{...I'll give your elf!} 12:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The key question here is "proportionality". These people are seriously convinced that they're waging no less than a battle for the fate of the whole world, in which the incarnations of pure good and evil are pitched against each other and there can only be one winner. When these are the stakes, slaughtering a few thousand civilians in an attempt to maim the big satan is no big deal. The jihadis and like-minded groups from other religions are seeking to fight a cosmic war here on earth, while in Western thought, the concept has been applied to old-fashioned wars between states. If you want to accept the same limits, then the definitions of the criteria become much more restrictive. Then again, it's going to be hard to even apply JWT to non-state combatants under those circumstances…I think Walzer once wrote an essay in which he applied it to the Palestinian Intifada, maybe that could serve as an example. Röstigraben (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I got 2 weeks, I pull something together. If I can pull it off, it'll be a masterpiece. Worthy of a RW essay. Ace^ace 12:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That's just the moral relativism of it. Proportionality is really the tit-for-tat aspects of the war. Now, let's not beat about the george w bush here, the "War of on Terror" was just dick-swinging revenge for 9/11. That's ~3000 casualties. So the resulting war is definitely disproportionate as nearly as many US soldiers have been killed in the last decade and it's definitely asymmetrical. ADK^{...I'll cuddle your mouse!} 14:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Though here's a thought, if you haven't already realised it as the very point of the exercise, if you successfully argued that Al-Qaeda was justified under western JWT you effectively disprove JWT by contradiction, showing that it's too arbitrary for actual use. Because let's face it, if it can justify terrorism as a form of aggression, what the fuck use is it? ADK^{...I'll watch your fiddle!} 14:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Bush and his advisers went down a similar path after 9/11, yes. They also started out with perceiving the jihadists as evil incarnate, motivated by a hatred of "freedom", the value they were convinced of championing. In this, they were marginally closer to reality than the radicals they were supposed to be chasing, but it's the same kind of thinking that led to the "War on Terror" getting completely out of hand. They were also so convinced that they were on the side of good that all concerns people should normally have about sacrificing thousands of innocents for their ambitions were effectively overridden. I don't know if they ever tried to formally frame their own war in the terms of JWT, it's probably a little too classic and would not really have fit with the rest of their propaganda that went straight for the gut. But the same criteria could just as easily have been (ab)used to justify their own breach of international law. Röstigraben (talk) 21:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course they didn't frame it under JWT at the time. That's not the point. This is just something for the philosophers to spend their time doing completely after the fact. It's of no use to politicians and decision makers at all because all it could do was stop them declaring the wars that they wanted to. :p ADK^{...I'll burn your exit sign!} 13:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

checkuser

So I've been reading over a few past discussions or snippets here and there that mention the checkuser extension. Do we use it here? I don't want to start an argument about anything, as I've seen in some of the other threads. I'm just curious if we use it. It's sort of an anonymity issue, I guess, although I doubt I'd be hard to find IRL if someone wanted to. As I said, I'm curious. άλφα^Ταλκ 22:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No normal editor has access to it. Nx once installed it to prove that he wasn't a sock but it prompted such outrage and he removed it immediately. That said, Trent has server access and can see the logs of which IPs actually visit the site. When one user was potentially suicidal he did use their IP information to inform the police and effectively saved their life but this was an extreme case and your only real worry about exposing your identity is what information you freely (or accidentally) enter or if you forget to log in and expose your IP address. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I knew about the server logs and it doesn't worry me; also, it's unavoidable, so no sense worrying about it. I don't think I have anything to worry about. Thanks. άλφα^Ταλκ 14:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Doublethink

Is there no clearer example of doublethink than this [Herman]Cain opposed the building of an Islamic Center for a Muslim community at a site in Tennessee, claiming that it was "an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion" Ace^ace 01:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of religion in the South = Some variant of Christianity. --SmithRob (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

When a politician is talking about freedom, they usually mean "freedom to screw over other people." To quote John Randolph: "I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a common argument here(Louisiana) that the founding father's original intent was "freedom of denomination" as nobody at the time was anything but Christian. Occasionally one will back-pedal and state that Judaism is also covered, but this is rare. 02:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a common chestnut of the United States as a Christian nation mythos. I've heard that plenty of times from the wingnuts here as well. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

People who whine about freedom of religion generally mean the freedom of their religion and screw the others. The fundies like to portray atheism as a religion but if atheist groups started claiming the same tax perks that religious groups have then they get mightily upset. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ya, I can't see many legitimate cases where "freedom of religion" is anything more than an excuse to give the religious privileges. An ordinary freedom of conscience (not persecuting people for what they may think and believe) is a legitimate liberty to be sought and defended. Once the religious extend it to authorise special treatment for themselves it's no longer a "freedom" it's just a privilege. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Or not even explicitly atheist groups, any group that isn't explicitly religious. Stick them all on even footing and see what it looks like then. Ha. It's depressingly common for it to be so self-centred. "Why don't you believe in God?" - "Why the fuck don't you worship Osiris you silly little thing?" ADK^{...I'll cure your thumbtack!} 13:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Cell phone radiation cranks

Do we have an article on these guys? I've seen everything from cell phones causing cancer to chronic fatigue syndrome. And those little stickers that scam artists sell for your phone that supposedly "blocks radiation." Nebuchadnezzar (talk)

Electromagnetic_sensitivity is a good start - the symptoms are real, but the cause isn't electromagnetic waves. There's probably also an article about the "Do cell phones cause cancer?" stuff. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Class Warfare - perfect response

This discussion was moved to Debate:Class Warfare - perfect response. 03:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Incoming!

Ratwiki got a ref on (admittedly the very bottom) Freethought blgs for Gish Gallop. Can't do any harm. Scream!! (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And the Courtier’s Reply, later in the article. PZ gave as a link from ScienceBlogs once for Gish Gallop. These soft-links do more for websearch position than any with regards to E on search engine starting with G ever will. - π 05:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You're more than welcome, folks. -Jason Thibeault (no account) --24.222.75.166 (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we're a bunch of no-account folks. (Nice post btw.) Doctor Dark (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

International Conference on Complex Systems

We get a cameo in this paper that I think was published at said conference. I am kinda tired but just ran into this, anyone wanna track down details? Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Josh Johnson, doesn't he play for Tampa Bay? I'll look at it. - π 05:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the conference's wiki we were in the poster session. - π 05:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

They said we don't have an article on "The Most Often Repeated (MOR) Problem". This needs to be addressed. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Spelling question

I just edited Fairy tales, and added a section on how Disney has lovingly restored and maintained the true nature of fairy tales. I entitled it "Disnification", but i'm not sure exactly the best way to spell such a neologism. Any suggestions?GodotThe Peyote God awaits 14:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Disneyfication? Scream!! (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I prefer Godot's definition of it being about Disney making things cute that really shouldn't be. This homogenisation crap just isn't as good. ADK^{...I'll deport your lumber!} 15:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. We force-read Brothers Grimm to our kids. They turned out all right. They're allowed weekly visits and have the restraints loosened for an hour a day. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Funny, related story

I skimmed Godot's work so I don't believe she's included it already, but did you know that in the original Cinderella, her shoes were not in fact made of glass? You see, the original tale was in French. In French, her slippers were in fact made of "vair," a kind of fur. But in French, vair is a homonym of verre (meaning glass). So whoever translated the story of Cinderella mistakenly translated fur slippers to glass slippers. --User:Brxbrx/sig 21:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Note to self: remember that everything's new to someone sometime. Don't stamp on the little bleeder. Scream!! (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Cept that you can read the original by Perrault, and he says pantoufles de verre. but it's a cute urban legend.GodotThe Peyote God awaits 21:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Would that make it one of those "not a lot of people know that" things we were discussing not so long ago? ADK^{...I'll stride your potato!} 21:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it was a rather flipant cut at "why the hell hasn't a frenchmen read Perrault". ;-) GodotThe Peyote God awaits 21:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Lol, turns out the very article I linked to told the same thing. I feel a little silly now. Well, I was just repeating what my grandfather told me. He loves regaling people with tales of "Anglo-Saxon stupidity."--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oué, Jenémar. jé sa li kan jé 15. Ton gran pere, c po sympa, non? (wow, i haven't talked with 15 year old girls in a long long time.)GodotThe Peyote God awaits 00:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Either you're mimicking Titeuf or you're speaking Creole. And what makes you think I'm 15? Or a girl?--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Freesat

Excellent. Proper telly in France! I did it all myself and only fell off the roof a couple of times. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Biggest stopped clock ever?

I was flipping through some more Thomas Szasz material -- stuff like his profiles of Alan Turing and Rosemary Kennedy are worth reading. Despite his crankery and career at CCHR giving ammo to the Scientologists and various other quacks, maybe psychiatry needed a Thomas Szasz. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Facebook hoaxes

There's a new one going around about profile changes and introducing a price grid. I'd like to make an absurd hoax sometime, anyone who actually believes in them deserves to be duped. Blue (is useful) 00:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, it's pretty hard to beat this one. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

My favourite so far:

“”On September 31st ,2011 Facebook will start charging for your account. To avoid this you must get NAKED , stand on your dining room table and do the Macarena, while singing " I Will Survive", Record It Then Post It On Facebook & YouTube, then your account will be free. Pass this on. It must be true since someone on Facebook posted it!

Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 07:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That's hardly new (sadly). I've been on facebook way too long, and that "they are going to add pricing, and introduce a grid based on (fill in the blank: usage, amount of games you play, number of friends you have, etc)... Blue, i'm with you on making a hoax. knowing how much trolling and out right cons are out there, you'd think people would think first. But then again, it is facebook. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 14:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't help when people put up those "this image requires a Facebook Gold account" things as their profile picture. I mean, come on, be nice to the stupid people out there! ADK^{...I'll deceive your umbilical cord!} 18:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Though in related news... ADK^{...I'll earn your tennis racket!} 18:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That pretty much is most things in life. TV isn't free, it's a 1 hour commercial, especially with product placement. On the other hand, i rather like my Big Bang Theory and House. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 18:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Those shows are popular. Never admit to liking something popular on the Internet. They will fuck you up. ADK^{...I'll subpoena your milquetoast!} 18:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

OH, ADK, i'm a very very boring person. I like Bon Jovi (or did, i guess), and sting, and watch Desperate housewives and Glee, and I read Douglas Adams, the Gospel of Judas, and Steven Pinker. (ok, so my reading habbits are a bit different). And when I was 6 or something, it was all Shawn Cassiday, day and night. I've not an original thought to my name. :-)GodotThe Peyote God awaits 18:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Some things really are free unless you're willing to be nobs-level stubborn in defining "free". The side effect of Free-as-in-speech software is the widespread availability of Free-as-in-beer software because of the nature of marginal costs of reproduction. You can see a similar effect on a smaller scale for music, movies, novels and so on because those all also now have marginal costs of reproduction. Repraps and similar objects give some promise that in the future marginal reproduction costs may also apply to (at least some) physical artefacts. Only the really hard core capitalists have anything to fear from all this, and they might be bemused by how many of their number helped it happen - turns out they really will sell you the rope. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I added a "This image requires FB Gold" for my profile. Just to troll my idiot family members. And Facebook is awesome. The best advertising platform on the planet! Quaru^{cauldron - You can't explain that!} 20:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Religion in the geometry classrooms

Man censored for his Religious beliefs! --Mikalosa (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Perfect for conservative correctness. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"If you had bothered to learn anything about my religion you would know that Axius, the Multi-faceted, Impossible Circle, Triangle of 181 Degrees, the Hyper Diadem, the Convergence of All Regions, the Supreme Vertex, has EVERYTHING to do with geometry."--Mikalosa (talk) 04:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What's your point? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 05:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how a triangle of 181 degrees is any more irrational than ${\sqrt {-1}}$, its all imaginary! MarkeDC (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

They're not even imaginary on curved surfaces. ADK^{...I'll reiterate your microcosm!} 16:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Corporate Tax Rate?

Apparently it's a very contentious issue in provincial elections right now, but I can't find an exact number. On many occasions it's divided into provincial and federal tax rates rather a single average mean that can be compared to those of different countries.

This is the best I can find. Can anyone help? Osaka Sun (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

World Bank report, p. 89 It says it's nominally 37%. I haven't read it to figure out what the other numbers mean. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I think table 4 is actually the total rate, which is 29.2% I don't know what the first table is supposed to be. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Right. The report says Canada "harmonized" federal and provincial corporate taxes in 2009 and allows filing on one form (pg.17 pdf); and on pg. 57 says te rate will 25% by 2012. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 03:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That's for Ontario only. And don't make this into a political argument, Rob. The so-called communist countries of Europe have an average corporate tax rate of around the mid-20s.

Thanks Neb. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, why do you think all the John Galts have picked up and moved to the EUSSR...hey, wait a second.... (BTW, you are welcome my good man.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've always wanted to see them up and move to Somalia. Since they hate government so much, why not go somewhere that has no functioning government at all? MDB (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Because... erm... Nope, can't think of a logical and coherent argument against that. Oh, government actually provide the socialised infrastructure to businesses so it's very much needed. Roads, education, tax breaks, incentives, law enforcement to protect property, fire departments to defend against arson, actual laws to stop business doing the sensible thing and killing their opponents. But whatever have Romans government ever done for us? ADK^{...I'll withstand your spork!} 12:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

...and now you have cholera. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I notice a commenter on there ending a sentence with the word "genius" in a derogatory way. One of Lee Doren's dirty socks, perhaps? :P ADK^{...I'll vocalise your pork chop!} 15:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Now here's something. (On Dubya Waterboarding)

A bunch of wingnuts are trolling on Tricky Dick's appearace in Canuckistan. They're saying that the Bush administration only waterboarded the three major Al-Qaeda masterminds, since it was performed on brutal Islamic extremists it was Cheney's "patriotic duty," it wasn't actually torture, and worse, we're also anti-Western lefty socialists who don't listen to facts! RUN.

How many, on estimate, were tortured by the US from Guantanamo/Afghanistan/Iraq during 2001-2008? Something we should add to RW articles. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

How many were tortured by out sourced torturers in countries the US (and the UK it would seem) sent them to? AMassiveGay (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You mean rendition? Trouble is, I think it would be extremely naive to suggest that's only been going on for the last 10 years. Probably hundreds, it's the sort of thing I doubt you can estimate very easily. ADK^{...I'll jostle your mouse!} 11:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

But definitely not just three though, right? I wouldn't trust Dick with anything. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

EvoWiki

So, has anybody started moving stuff across from Evo to RW? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hide My Ass ...

... my ass! Scream!! (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Humor wanted

So you all know I suck at being funny. Would anyone look at the page Relics and see if there's something you say on the pictures to add Goat? I mean, they are GREAT pictures. But i'm just, well, bland. :-) thanks, Godot.--GodotThe Peyote God awaits 15:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Greece have stopped exports of humus and houlumi. It's a double-dip recession. --PsyGremlinPrata! 15:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Incoming pedantry alert - humus is soil based organic matter and halloumi (sp) is a firm cheese. Better version would be hummus, houmous, hommos, humos, hoummos (anything but humus) and taramasalata. Otherwise it was quite funny. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Halloumi is also delicious. Vulpius (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Atheist Experience

Any other fans of the Atheist Experience[2] and The Non-Prophets[3]? It was through them that I found this wiki, googling some of the stuff they talk about, like Peter Popoff along with some other cranks and their ideas. Seems like whenever I run into some new woo stuff, RationalWiki has it covered. And usually in a hilarious way, too! Eik Corell (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear fellow ratters

Thinking on a discussion I had with ADK last night and today, I was trying to think about what our religion (specifically the bible stuff) articles are useful for. If you, sitting around in your cloak of rationality, wanted to know about, say Paul's letter's to the Gallatians, what are you curious about? What matters to a RWian? One thing that comes to mind easily are "things that bible thumpers use against gays/abortion/sportsteams", and I think we have a pretty good take on "this book is mostly fake" "this book is pretty much not a fake". But are there other things that matter to you, dear thinker?GodotThe Peyote God awaits 16:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably crank translations. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Stuff I can use are quotes, contradictions and/or stupidities. I also like to send back bible quotes in the face of fundies when i argue with them, just for lulz. Historical context, stuff that was borrowed from other religions can be interesting. Also, more [Goats in the bible]! Alain (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we could maybe do the historical context stuff a bit better. Some of the most interesting aspects of Christianity (as an example) are that its core texts (especially the gospels & Paul's letters) were originally written for different target markets (some for Jews, some for Gentiles) and incorporated elements appealing to these groups; that these texts were selected semi-arbitrarily from a larger selection of gospels & scriptures in the church's early centuries; that all of them are held to be "Word of God" by most Christians, while the discarded texts aren't; & that many of Christians' beliefs & practices actually have very little direct relation to things written in the Bible at all & just originate in medieval theology. We touch on these things a bit in some of our articles, but I think this theme could be brought out a bit more clearly, as it's useful to confront believers with how much distance there is between what they do/believe and their religion's origins. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

BBC "Dinosaurs, Myths and Monsters"

I am sooo disappointed in this bunk from BBC. Some guy (not sure if he's a paleontologist or what) is wandering around talking to "ancient" peoples and listening to modern experts on those "ancient people" and saying "Well, the ancient people talked about great winged creatures in the sky", and concluding they were talking about pteradyctles; or great "thunder hooves" proving they had ideas about ancient bones being dinosaurs of some kind. Then, he says they talk about "great waters on the earth" and says the ancient people understood that the great plains were once under water cause of the shells. BUNK BUNK, F'ING BUNK. That's truly as bad as listening to Christians say the "earth was round" and "hung on nothing" or whatever, proves the ancients knew we spun in space; or "rivers of fire rise in the ocean" proves that the ancients knew of underwater currents and/or of the cracks in the ocean's surface. Come on.... I've seen palentological sites. you can't tell that you have a bird like thing till you put it all together. You may say "wow, big ass bone, scary ass animal", but you'd have no idea what it would or would not look like.GodotThe Peyote God awaits 18:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Beeb does a lot of good stuff if you get away from the mass-audience genre but it is an establishment organisation at heart and still has to pander to that other national institution the Church of England, so it has a chunk of religious broadcasting slots, although the religious programmes now cover a more diverse range of faith issues. So yes, you will expect to get the occasional bummer. I've not seen this particular one as I am not in range of the UK but might catch up on iPlayer and send them a stern letter if I feel up to it. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It is on iplayer, since i found that link when trying to verify the exact name. But it's also at MVgroup.org which is where i send all my non brit friends for a go at some of the best Docus around, including all the BBC stuff. :-) GodotThe Peyote God awaits 18:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, we have written evidence from a reputable source written between 1937 and 1949 that suggests the existence of half sized humans, walking trees and dark magic. Hurr. But I think it seems like you've just stumbled on something along the lines of Ancient Aliens. I'm sure it's a load of fun to speculate, but I wouldn't take it seriously. ADK^{...I'll suffocate your nystagmus!} 19:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In the real world, i'm doing QA/QC on our ballot packets, which is tedious and time consuming, but important (making sure each district is assigned the right ballot, it was printed correctly,e tc). So I brought in docus to watch. I'm now half way through this one and my mind is going numb. Oedipus or odesisu or someone is supposed to have battled a cyclops which is an ELEPHANT BONE, see, cause they have one large nose socket. Also, we are to understand that the medusa head is actually an explanation of how all these animals fossilized in the rocks. and the BEST is that the ancient greeks understood what we only now know, that dinosaurs are sorta part bird part mammel, due to the Griffins, which were described as part bird. (This one actually is the only one that i really buy... cause there really are nests of dinos exposed all over the area, along with fossils that look a bit like bird beaks -- well, why the myth might relate to fact, not that ancient greeks "discovered" that birds and dinos are the same). I mean, this show is really feeling like all the Christian "why the bible is right" stories.GodotThe Peyote God awaits 19:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've heard the elephant = cyclops one before. In an art history class. I believed her at the time, but now that you mention it, she was often full of shit, and I spent a good amount of class time correcting her.. Of course, she's also the first person to tell me that Jesus didn't claim to be the son of god, that this part was added after his death. I don't know where I was going with that, your comment just reminded me of it. Quaru^{cauldron - You can't explain that!} 20:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Almost every scholar I've read, who is outside mainstream christian, agrees that Jesus never said he was the biological son of god. He says those words once, I think, then adds something like "as we all can be" or "as you can be" or something. Very gnostic sense of "yes, i'm special, but simply cause i'm enlightened, not cause i was born differently from you". Fox, Crossian, Ehrman are some of the big names, the Pop-academic names who make that claim about Jesus. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 20:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I was pointing out she wasn't always a complete idiot. Just often. (Also don't get me wrong, it was one of my favorite classes that semester, but she was often wrong about small details) :p Quaru^{cauldron - You can't explain that!} 21:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

HLE

I was just browsing the Holy Land Experience website and saw they were having a collection of toys - dolls and trucks, how very gender neutral - but they say "Please pray over each toy before you bring it in as it will be sent to children in Haiti for Christmas". Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess praying over toys seems a little silly. Is that what this is about? Because giving toys to children in Haiti sounds like a good idea to me.--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In Black & White, having villagers pray over a stone for long enough turns it into a glowing mystical object that can convert enemy villagers faster. Maybe that's what they're going for. X Stickman (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This just in, Fundamentalist Christians take properties of God from video game. Quaru^{cauldron - You can't explain that!} 20:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that prayer is so decoupled from any expectation of results that fundamentalist Christianity has given up the pretence of even asking. Prayer is just an outward affect of the Christian persona. You pray, therefore you're one of us. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Moderation

If you want the moderators to intervene in a situation, please do not post on individual talk pages. In order to keep things from spiraling out of control, keep the discussion here, in one place. Thanks. P-Foster_{Can't we talk about this, baby?} 14:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Also can this be the official theme tune? ADK^{...I'll browbeat your diet pill!} 17:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Put it on autoplay without the video hidden in the page.--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Sticky moderators eeeeew --79.40.20.228 (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The official moderators theme is obviously the Imperial March. Alternately, if LX is a moderator (I'm not sure if he is), then it's the Hymn of the Soviet Union, Stalin-era. See if we can get that playing on the page. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 06:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not a moderator.

For the official moderator anthem, I think John Lennon's "Give Peace a Chance" is a perfect poetic statement of the moderators' mission. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

ħuman 09:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Too much skepticism

This is the sort of things that really irritates me coming from skeptics or from people skeptical of things (that don't call themselves skeptics). Who honestly cares? So long as somebody isn't trying to sell you a used car, what's the harm in believing them? Sometimes people need to just drop it and accept things at face value. --User:Brxbrx/sig 18:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I find that incredibly awesome that we have the ability to gather evidence for such things. I mean, if you want to just take some things at face value, please send a PayPal cheque for $100 to armondikov@gmail.com and I will keep you safe from tiger attacks for 12 months, buy now and get an additional 6 months protection for only an extra $30! ADK^{...I'll waste your pillow!} 19:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

$130 Zimbabwean dollars heading your way. 19:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Lol, if I had the money to spare, I would totally agree to that, for the lulz. Unfortunately I'm liquid for exactly 48 cents right now.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Just see here - 'nuff said? Scream!! (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... See, ADK, that's why I said So long as somebody isn't trying to sell you a used car, what's the harm in believing them? That kinda changes the content of my post, doesn't it? I support doubting alternative medicine (I always have, and as a massage therapist, let me tell you it's not easy telling your peers they're charging for sugar pills), and if somebody pulls their Bible out as a justification to burning my neighbor alive I will tear them apart (figuratively, and if that doesn't work...). You're right, though, it's cool that we can confirm such things. But what struck me was the doubters. Why? Why doubt that? How petty!--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No! Leave 'em alone while they're being harmless and they'll get up themselves and before you know it they're established. Knock 'em down at every opportunity. Scream!! (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I live for myths, they are fun, interesting and i wonder what might have had us think them up. (including dino bones), and i'm with ADK. when science proves a piece of it, it's just neat to me. Especially when people are claiming she lied, by the way. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 19:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that happening, Scream!!. Sure, some people go nuts, but it doesn't take a wacky belief for that to happen. The wacky belief is the excuse, not the motivation. And there are always plenty of excuses to rely on.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with this. The story said that people doubted Shelly's story as soon as she told it, and a researcher proved she might not have been making it up. I think that's pretty cool, personally, but I'm in the humanities, where weird little tests like that can sometimes open doors to solutions of biographical mysteries -- Beethoven's Immortal Beloved letter springs to mind (but beware of Wikipedia's article on that at the moment, it's been hijacked by a true believer). Junggai (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Scientia Causa Scientiae Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I added this onto the World section.

Fearmongering or fact? It's the top video on YouTube right now. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

We're. All. Gonna. Die. ADK^{...I'll quantify your fetus!} 01:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm breaking out the MREs again. 01:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Greece is a fiscal black hole. When your government can't even collect taxes, you have a serious problem. Not to mention their default-happy history. Greece going under doesn't necessarily mean that it will take the eurozone with it, but I wouldn't have my money near anything euro-related right now. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Northern Europe shouldn't be much worse off than the rest of the world. It's going to be global. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. There are some doubts about this "trader". Could be ligit, or could be a wind-up.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

And with every single video, article, TV programm I more and more think that nationalizing all banks and killing the "I only care about making money" culture this guy is a part of wouldn't be such a bad idea. --★uːʤɱ federalist 12:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

They thought he was a part of The Yes Men; they've since denied it. I think a lot of the buzz of this comes from the uncertainty if he's real or not. Anyways, it's still very interesting. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Libertarian Jurisdictional Blah

I read a really interesting essay, probably a few months ago, and I can only imagine I found it directly or indirectly through RationalWiki. Now I want to recommend it to a friend as I think it's relevant to his dissertation. It was from a Libertarian point of view, arguing that instead of the jurisdiction and authority being given and we choose those in power, the people should be fixed and we should choose what jurisdiction to give them. Things like opting into one healthcare system over another, one environmental service or another. There'd be competing 'jurisdiction's and stuff like this. Anyone able to help find it? ^EXTERMINATE 01:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, Charles Murray (yeah, that Charles Murray) is coming to mind, but I can't find anything. I might just be making it up. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The two things I have learned in College (Thus far)

How to play Magic and kool-aid tastes awful without sugar. Doing OK in my paralegal program. I am surprised b how much I could do here in Ontario. Small claims court is $25,000 and under, plus I get to be sworn in.--Thanatos (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Just don't drink the Kool-Aid. ^{— Unsigned, by: HeidelbergKid / talk / contribs}

"Oooh Yeaaaah." That is all.--Dumpling (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel like i was reading something from andy

Something on CNN about being religious and patriotism--Mikalosa (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"Not everyone is enamored with equating religious conviction and patriotism. " It's usually pretty hard to tell the difference, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Goddamn fucking student unions

The student unions around the country are protesting because a bill is being passed today making student union membership voluntary and the bastards are protesting about this. Well, listen up. I am an extramural student with a busy full time job, a large social circle and a drinking habit hence I can only really do a single paper per semester but for this I have to pay over $100.00 in union fees. I am not even on campus yet I still have to pay for it. Why the fuck should I? And these assholes are protesting saying they won't have the funds anymore - basically wanting to legally steal from me. Fucking fuckity fuck these idiots. Ace^ace 20:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of white people problems, what gives with these auction houses and their premiums? Including tax, I sometimes pay upwards of 25% after the fact. It wasn't long ago when such fees didn't exist. I can understand consignment fees, but buyers' premiums? It just seems like double dipping. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck? White people problems? Ace^ace 20:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Problems affecting those in the middle to upper classes.[4] Occasionaluse (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

At least in the UK union membership is free. Well, I say "free", I mean "bundled into the extortionate cost of university education you have to pay anyway". ADK^{...I'll edit your dishwasher!} 21:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Students have unions now? Here student union means "building with all the conference rooms and the food court". 21:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, same thing. ADK^{...I'll hear your bazooka!} 21:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Our union is filled with high school students. No clue why they are there. Anyway, checked my fee bill, sure enough, 3 different union fees. 21:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

My university introduced parking fees for the car parks, which included the campuses people actually lived on. The student union there won a victory when they managed to have student union leaders (and only student union leaders) exempt from the parking charges. Then they sent an email out to everyone congratulating themselves over it. It was pretty surreal. I expect to see all of them in big boy politics quite soon. X Stickman (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

$100 a semester parking pass to park half a klick from my classes means I take my bike or a bus to uni. By living off campus and refusing a parking pass I pay a mere $900 in fees each semester. Thank fuck for scholarships. 23:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A California resident undergrad at my school's expected cost of attendance is about $32000 a year right now. On top of that our school newspaper today had an article that said "[t]he [University of California] Regents proposed fee hikes every year for the next four years, adding up to a potential $22000 increase by the year 2015." You guys have it easy. SoCal ²¹² 03:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, what is being an SU officer for if not as an excuse to big up your future political career? ADK^{...I'll feel your diode!} 23:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You can start to bitch and moan about such things again when it's up 270€ (460NZ$) in social student care. Yeah fuckers, it totally makes sense to let all the students pay so all the students can get cheaper meals! --★uːʤɱ kant 22:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Ace would like to also complain about national health coverage. They're taking his money to fund that too, no?--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Ace benefits from this every time he wakes up in a ditch. ADK^{...I'll feel your diode!} 23:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't wake up in ditches. Ace^ace 00:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Cutting his booze money would certainly help pay this extra fee.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes but national health coverage benefits everyone, anytime they need it. Student Unions do fuck all and is a membership based system. Ace^ace 00:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh and I can easily afford the fee so no need to cut anything from my diet. Ace^ace 00:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Never bought books or lecture notes from your union? The union membership is basically a hidden tuition fee. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, most of material is online and my books come from library. Ace^ace 03:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Rob it's not really the done thing here to use other people's signatures on your posts. Please don't do it again. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What?--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Student unionism is best thought of as a tax rather than joining an association. You don't get to opt out of council rates either - David Gerard (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The council takes my garbage, cleans my city etc etc. I study at home and am on campus for about 4 hours every year. All I get from the union is a magazine I never read. Ace^ace 09:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Moneyball Myth

A much-needed article deflating the legend of Moneyball. I did heavily imbibe the Moneyball Kool-Aid back in the day, though it after a few years it started becoming apparent that Beane was not the uber-genius GM he was made out to be. In fairness, it only took Nick Swisher about eight seasons and being traded away to turn in a decent season, and Barry Zito did win that shiny Cy Young before his meltdown. (Hey, there's at least one other baseball fan here, right?) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorta, I am jumping on the bandwagon because my team almost won the series last year and are looking good this year. GO RANGERS! I have not heard of moneyball until recently with all the hype of the movie, but I do dislike the fact that it really is about who has the cash. If a star is born on a team he will end up in pen stripes sooner or later (Goodbye AROD!) MarkeDC (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

patio door lock

Please help if you can - I need advice: there have been many burglaries in our apartment complex in the last few months. The break-ins always occur by forcing open a glass patio door. We need a lock. The problem: our patio door was apparently installed backwards - the part that slides open is outside, the stationary part is inside. So the door slides open on the outside track. So it isn't possible to place a stick or metal pole to prevent it from opening, or anything else to stop it from sliding, and all the locks I've seen seem to be for an inside-sliding door, not outside. So is there any kind of lock can I get? Are there any that don't require drilling a hole in the metal door frame? Any advice is appreciated, thanks! Refugee^{talk page} 09:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, given the back-to-front installation it's a bit of a problem. Normally you'd install a bolt on the back of the sliding door that would secure it to the runner. You could do something similar say at the top and bottom of the door, but you'd have to drill into the floor and mantle. Alternatively, I have no idea if anywhere in the States sells something like this (and if they don't I am SO coming over there to set up shop!) but these are a good deterrent. Nothing will stop the determined burglar, but if you make him think twice and move on to the next property, then bonus. --PsyGremlinFale! 10:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be stymied of you don't want to drill unless you get a builder to reverse the whole frame for you. Living in apartment you probably can't even get a guard dog. The only thing would be a contact closure (open) alarm which would trigger an ear-splitting siren if the door is opened. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

They used to make a steel bar to put in the track to prevent anyone from sliding it open. A broom stick is generally inadequate. 11:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What part of "the door slides open on the outside track. So it isn't possible to place a stick or metal pole to prevent it from opening" did you not comprehend? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The bar locked in place, forgot to mention that. 12:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I can see that might work so long as you have a ground-floor apartment. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A simple ring and a hook should be fine, if your hardware store has any that you can manage to attach. Maybe drill a small block of wood to the wall to bypass the metal frame. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 11:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly an urban myth, but I recall a story about a specialist patio door fitter who did all his windows that way in order to facilitate later burglaries. Your insurance might pay for part of the cost to reverse it; then again, they might not. Failing that, the contact alarm's a good un as long as there's someone in when Mr naughty comes to call. Scream!! (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying your door doesn't lock at all? That would be quite a problem. My idea is similar to bunchanumbers's, somehow securing some sturdy rope or twine to the door and the frame or wall nearby in a way that you can easily unlatch from the inside. Then again I basically use seine twine to repair everything, so that's my first go-to solution for a problem. Such jury-rigged solutions usually ain't pretty, but if done right it should be effective. DickTurpis (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The door has a small latch on the handle that locks from the inside. The problem is that it's not very sturdy, and whoever has been breaking in the apartments just uses a tool to break that tiny latch and comes in. Thanks to all who posted, I'm still not sure how the steel bar on the outside or ring & hook would work - can you post a link? I can't imagine what they look like. I have to figure out how to do this myself as neither of my roommates (one male one female) are at all technical (nor am I) and we can't buy a security door or anything that costs much as we are all starving students, with no spare cash. The landlord doesn't care, and won't put any money into improvements, as long as the door works, it's good enough. Refugee^{talk page} 13:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Worst Facebook-based joke ever...

Just seen a friend update her FB status several times saying "It worked! I can't believe it worked!". Then two hours later added "I'm going to test out my new time machine." Groan. ADK^{...I'll murder your boar!} 11:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Time machines are ten a penny. It's getting them out of first gear or into reverse that's the big problem. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ba-dum tish! ADK^{...I'll exorcise your cellulite!} 12:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You say "Groan" I say "I'm totally stealing that!" Quaru^{cauldron - You can't explain that!} 22:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

And my wife posted "Now you should go back in time and not do this joke. :P" Earlier today I made a bad pun and a coworker asked "Do people often throw tomatoes at you?" Yeah. Quaru^{cauldron - You can't explain that!} 01:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That is an awful awful fucking joke. What kind of lame simpleton thought that would be funny? Anyone with such a pointless sense of humour should be skull-fucked with an electric drill while being force fed a heady brew of cat shit and that steamy juice that leaks out of RobS's anus when ever he thinks of commies. Fuck it all. Ace^ace 01:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Just delete entry. It never happened.--Dumpling (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Some twenty-four hours late I've just understood Genghis' response.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeez Ace it was not that bad, hell I thought it was funny in a quirky way, are you German or something? If you were being sarcastic you forgot to put in a wink or a smiley ;) MarkeDC (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I can send you a name and account number if you'd like to forward that message in person. ADK^{...I'll bless your lisp!} 22:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry, intelligent design, Doonesbury

GBT is writing for us this week. ‎Capital punishment doesn't undermine the moral or legal foundations of a society. ‎It is the moral and legal foundation of society. 12:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what that has to do with capital punishment. PS. Your signature is stupid. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with capital punishment. You're stupid. The signature is simply me making a point, one separate from the content of the post. I changed it after the Troy Davis execution, and will change it again when something else gets my attention. ‎Capital punishment doesn't undermine the moral or legal foundations of a society. ‎It is the moral and legal foundation of society. 03:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess some people are impervious to sarcasm. Yes, I am aware that the comment on capital punishment is distinct from the comment on Doonesbury. Nevertheless it's still part of the comment that you posted on this page; about 90% of it in fact. If you don't want everything you write on talk pages to be about capital punishment, I suggest using a signature that doesn't places a rambling comment about capital punishment at the end of every post. & If you just want to point out a political cartoon without really saying anything much about it, try using WIGO:Blogosphere instead of the SB. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Jesus, man, who crapped in your breakfast cereal this AM? I figured the sarcasm in my reply would have twigged you to my seeing the sarcasm in yours. Not the case, I guess. And I'm so, so, so, sorry for pointing out a cartoon in the wrong spot on the wiki. Unforgivable, I know. ‎Capital punishment doesn't undermine the moral or legal foundations of a society. ‎It is the moral and legal foundation of society. 20:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Confusing sigs confuse me. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I get it either. I initially expected that the Talk page linked might enlighten me, but not so. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Found a Newtonian nut.

http://alternativephysics.org/

This crazy is trying to get rid of practically all physics of the past century. Perfect example of a Gish Gallop. Feel free to look at it, you know, for the lulz. Refuting it should take up some time.

(Could someone please tell me what the general tone is in the bar?)

The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a common enough trope in pseuodoscience. People want to harken back to an earlier time. Martin Gardner wrote about that, talking about people that want to go back to Newton, and how in his time there was starting to be people wanting to go back to Einstein (JimJast, maybe?). Do we have an article specifically about that, or is it covered in other articles?--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

We have an article on relativity denial, but not quantum mechanics denial. It's funny how some pseudoscientists use quantum shit to explain their views, while other ones say quantum mechanics is shit. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The general tone here is that it is a social place where you can talk about stuff that interests you (and you hope might interest others here), moan/brag about your life, ask for advice or crack the odd joke - just as you might do with friends in a real bar. Stuff about CP should be confined to the TWIGO:CP page.

Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 05:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Any word on how "drunk" you're supposed to act? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong thread, maybe? OP didn't mention CP--User:Brxbrx/sig 06:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

THK asked what the general tone was in the bar. I replied. Are you deliberately dense? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Good old days/Golden age Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Twice in one night Nebuchadnezzar comes through for me!--User:Brxbrx/sig 06:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Any atheist-therefore-libertoonian or libertoonian-therefore-atheist reasoning out there?

A Catholic friend just asked me on FB: "Query for an atheist: Is there a typical brand of atheist that likes to associate itself with fuck-you-jack-i-got-mine internet libertarianism?"

My answer: Randroids, certainly. Libertarian geeks (the sort who are libertarian because they literally don't understand that they are children of privilege). But that association goes in the other direction, I think - it's not "I am atheist therefore fuck you Jack." None spring to mind. Most self-labeling atheists in my experience are therefore droning annoying nerds about being science fans, but that may just be me. Perhaps there are non-self-labeling ones, I don't know.

His Internet argument partners turned out to be, indeedy, Randroids, whose grasp of logic starts and ends at "A=A therefore fuck you." He considered going Inquisition on them; I noted that, speaking for Atheism, Stalin would no doubt concur.

However, I thought I'd run it past the pub. Is there anyone you know of who claims, by logic (however tortured), that libertarianism implies atheism, or that atheism implies libertarianism? - David Gerard (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Did Ayn Rand ever make any such argument perhaps? I would be interested to see the average political make up of atheists. I guess I assume it would veer mildly left but I have no reason in gods green earth to think it. Damo^Hi 07:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ciphergoth notes on said FB entry that Ron and Rand Paul would be examples of religious libertoonians. Which is why I wonder at any perceived ideological links - David Gerard (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The only ones I know of who sort of make the "atheism implies libertarianism/libertinism" argument are the likes of PJR - if you don't have the moral straightjacket imposed by religion then you can do what you like. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's supposedly a small correlation between IQ and atheism and IQ and liberalism - so does that mean there's a small positive correlation between atheism and liberalism? Pretty much the opposite of saying atheist-therefore-libertarian. Can't find any actual poll data on political leanings and religious belief. I'd be dubious of any result regardless because defining "liberal" and "atheist" in a poll is a minefield of bias and skewed data. ADK^{...I'll taste your tuba!} 11:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I imagine political affiliation is highly skewed in the US due to the fact that movement conservatism fused with the evangelical loons during the "Reagan Revolution," so most that would be otherwise conservative end up going Galt. If you want to know the difference between the Christian and atheist libertarians, you have to understand their other demographic differences as well. The atheists tend to be Randroids or the "techno-libertarians" of Silicon Valley fame. Christians like Ron and Rand Paul are what Lew Rockwell called "paleolibertarian." Paleolibertarians are actually a strange breed of crypto-social conservatives who want to enact social policy through a sort of back door. A lot of the philosophy only makes sense within the context of the American South (note which states the Pauls hail from) -- much of it is a mixture of ideas ripped off from neo-Confederates, Christian Reconstructionists like R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North, and the Austrian school. They love to talk about "states' rights" much more than, say, Randroids, because what they actually intend to do is impose their social policy through localized religious institutions, something like "anarcho-theocracy." Or, in other words, "keep the government out of my community so I (i.e., rich white guy) can rule it the way I want." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Popcorn time

According to the now defunct website in our list Predictions of the end of the world tomorrow is the Rapture. Enjoy the fireworks. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Another one? You wait 2000 years for the end of the world and three come along at once! ADK^{...I'll endanger your loser!} 12:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

But I thought that "of that day and hour knoweth no man" (Matthew 24:36). Doesn't stop people from making wild speculations for the profits. I don't have the time to prepare now, but does anyone wanna have a party on October 22 this year? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Practical men of god will point out that, while it says that no man may know the day or the hour, it says nothing about the week. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What, you're saying god can't change her mind? BacchusBaccalaureate (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite frightened, now. How much chocolate do you think is necessary to quell God's appetite for killing us all?GodotThe Peyote God awaits 20:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you insinuating that the Rapture is just god going through menopause? BacchusBaccalaureate (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What other explanation is there? ADK^{...I'll dance your bat!} 22:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Granuiad, the Republican Party Presidential Campaign, and a hatchett…

…Read, and enjoy.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

One of these people is going to signal the end of the world. ADK^{...I'll throw your alfalfa!} 21:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you're getting Republican confused with REM again…;-)-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

But we'll feel fine… --★uːʤɱ pirate 22:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do I have a feeling that one of these idiots will get into the White House with ease, immediately crash the world economy and eventually launch a nuke at someone? Osaka Sun (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Adoption

So my wife and I are planning on starting a family in two or three years, when we're back in the States. But we're differing on the topic of how. I am generally of the opinion that we should adopt, whereas she thinks we should have biological children. I think we'll probably split the difference - one of each. But then the question occurs: is it better to have the biological kid first, or the adopted one?--^talk 05:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

We had neighbors who had like five adopted kids and one biological kid. I don't know when each one was adopted but at least a couple of the adopted ones were older than the biological one. Tough question though. SoCal ²¹² 06:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If you get them both young enough, it probably won't matter. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The grand Hollywood plot stereotype would say that if you adopt first and then have a biological kid second, you'll grow attached to that one more and the former becomes really disenfranchised from the family because of that. That's not necessarily what actually happens, of course, just think; are you that sort of person? Or more specifically, how can you be sure you won't become that sort of person? You can never tell how things would pan out like that, but that is what makes the future so exciting. Regardless, though, I think adoption is a very noble thing, so no matter which way around you do it more power to you if you wish to adopt! ADK^{...I'll discalceate your monkey!} 11:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

2 of my cousins are adopted. Given byzantine family politics, it is generally considered that one turned out well and the other is a miserable failure. 11:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You should start with the biological child. A lot of people have trouble conceiving, and if you do (heaven forbid), you're better off knowing as soon as possible.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 12:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Though whatever you do, do NOT frame that argument as "you're not getting any younger, you know!" ADK^{...I'll rebel your engraving!} 12:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense, biological first. Plus if we want one of each gender, we can then adopt whichever we didn't get.--^talk 02:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? You can choose the gender of the baby you want if you adopt? I know that you certainly can't in NZ but maybe other countries have different policies. I and my brother were adopted. The only thing I would say is to make sure you don't underestimate the effect of adoption on the children, the fear of rejection that is very common in adoptees can have a massive crippling effect on their lives. Damo^Hi 03:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In China, only girls are available. The effects of the one-child only policy, and their cultural preference for boys. You can request to adopt a boy or girl in the USA, I didn't realize it wasn't the same in NZ. I think AD & wife will be great parents and that's a good idea, biological first, then adopt one of the opposite gender. Refugee^{talk page} 09:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It may have changed but I know from my parents that when they adopted me they were specifically just given the next baby that came up for adoption. Everything, including some pretty strict suitability checks was handled by the department of social welfare. I understand (have a vague idea from watching too much tv) that some countries have private adoption agencies and some people pay money for babies - sick! Damo^Hi 06:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The US has a lot of private agencies. There is effective purchasing of children from other countries, as well, disguised as fees or medical expenses or the like. That's why we'll be able to select a pure Aryan child.--^talk 10:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Dammit. And here I was thinking that I had a chance of being adopted. Oh darn. But Good luck to you and Ms. AD.(ó㉨ò)ﾉ♡ --Dumpling (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Is Non-belief doubling every generation in the US?

A 2007 survey in the U.S. showed that the number of 18-25 year olds who were atheist, agnostic or nonreligious had increased from 11 percent in 1986 to 20. [1] [5]

When I tried to access the videos I found they are private, what does Ray Comfort have to hide?

Ray gives no clear definition of atheist, agnostic or nonreligious and nonreligious particularly is a vague term that needs definition. I wouldn’t expect a Christian evangelist to exaggerate the number of atheists, CP regularly pretends atheism is declining but Comfort may want to frighten readers into buying his products.

Americans please tell us, is this decline in faith true? If it is within a generation the US could become much more like Europe and other industrialised countries. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A Barna Group poll in 2009 found (among other things) that while 9% of American adults have a "biblical worldview," among young adults (18-23) the figure is 0.5%. Looks like a decline to me. --Longbow (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's in the interest of evangelists to exaggerate the non-religious demographic as a) they can convince themselves they still have a job to do and b) they can blame the evils of the world on it. ADK^{...I'll calcify your kumquat!} 11:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that American religiosity can be over exaggerated at times because of the loudness of the religious right. Even in Britain, a huge number of people will say they are 'Christian.' It's more important to look at what people mean when they self-identify as Christian, as a lot of that is heritage and just not thinking about it. I'd say that the decline in faith happens and then people identifying as atheist or agnostic comes along later, because it's a lot less contraversial to self-identify as atheist, and other reasons. According to various polls and surveys, about 80% of people in America identity themselves as Christians, but only 40 to 50 percent attend church regularly. I can't remember the numbers, but I read a large survey in Britain which asked people questions to see what they meant by their self-identification. A lot of people said they were Christians. But then you ask them if they actually believe in hell, the number's way smaller, it's stuff like that.

I guess what I'm saying (in an admittedly rambling way) is that you needn't look at it as a black-and-white, religious people and non-religious people. Over a few generations, the extreme right-wing southern types will probably manage to indoctrinate generation after generation. But in other areas, where people say they're Christian but don't really go to church, don't believe in hell, have pre-marital sex without really thinking about it, religious belief -IS- in decline. Mass atheism, I think, comes later. ^EXTERMINATE 14:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It gets even more complicated in the UK because "Church of England" is synonymous with "default", which is something that's even more difficult to correct for. ADK^{...I'll swallow your toaster!} 18:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

ARIS is one of the more comprehensive reports. Religion is, of course, losing most ground amongst the youngest demographic. Non-religious, though, also includes "spiritual but not religious" types. Also, "It's in the interest of evangelists to exaggerate the non-religious demographic" - Many do this, but I've also seen them do the opposite, trumpeting the "growth of Christianity" to exploit the bandwagon effect. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't say much about the US and the UK, but looking around myself in Germany it definately looks like it. The generation of my grandparents seems quite religious, probably around the 70% Christian mark. The generation of my parents seems to be around 50:50 with shitload of deists, agnostics and half-way-don't-really-want-to-commit atheists. In my generation atheists seem to be the majority. I'd guess around 40:60. Even more so, it seem to be the well educated that tend much more towards atheism and a quite open one at that, there I'd guess around 30:70 or even 20:80. Within the group I'm having Korean courses with I have - within two years and without even asking - found two other anti-theists. The most amazing thing I have stumbled on is that these emanzipated, brainy, snarky , geeky women often see religiosity in a potential partner as turn-off — which, to be honest, blew my mind. Within the same group there is one open Christian, he's an ex-fundie but isn't actually in a Church, he just believes and doesn't let somebody tell him what to believe. Oh yeah and there's one muslima, but she's secular, or at least the length or her skirts indicate so. So, yes I'm definitly having the feeling that atheist are becoming a bigger part of the population. I think the thing that most changes is that many atheists are now openly atheistic, instead of just stopping to go to churches there now some kind of openness about the ridiculessness of the question. Like the simple "No." after the question "Are you religious?" is actually spoken like "Oh, hell no. How stupid do you think I am?" --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 20:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It could be both if you say Christianity is growing, but Atheism (capital A essential) is growing in influence and vocalism - holy crap, those New Atheists wrote a book! How dare they! Though when Ray Comfort's ministry is decked out in all the latest gear, megachurches are turning over millions and faith healers wander around on television with their bling, while the NCSE is stuck with old CRT monitors, Richard Dawkins just does a few guest spots on Inside Natures Giants, and "atheism wiki" has about 10 edits, I don't think they have much to worry about from that "growing" atheism, so much. ADK^{...I'll model your bean!} 22:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

On raw numbers it's easy for both Non-belief and Belief to grow, because the population grows. I'd be surprised if it ever became true that the majority of the population are willing to accede to the weak atheist position "I don't think God exists" for the same reason I'd be astonished if the majority of the population agreed with stuff like "Hell is an actual place". Either requires a certainty most people don't have and are not looking for. The ARIS "Nones" group is what's I'd expect to grow. That includes everybody from the Strong Atheists "I can prove God isn't real" to the Theist Non-believers "There is a God, but I want nothing to do with that". They don't agree about very much, but that's OK because their opposite numbers, the Believers, don't agree on much either. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ever is a long time. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume a good chance that the majority of the population will dismiss religion at some point in the future. It's happened in several countries around the world - there's no specific reason outside a general cultural precedent why it couldn't happen in the US. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the only thing history shows is that religion gets replaced by the next most successful one. Though that could be mass non-belief, who knows. I'm sure it'll get replaced by some other collectivist idea, though. We lose religious identity, suddenly we're drawn back into racial segregation or ultra-nationalism? I wouldn't want to put any serious money on it. ADK^{...I'll withstand your fat!} 10:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"I think the only thing history shows is that religion gets replaced by the next most successful one." We have a winner! That next one appears to be God 2.0. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm disturbed by the ambiguity of that apostrophe. ADK^{...I'll roll your dog house!} 19:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Though not as disturbed as I am after reading that horseshit twaddle description of quantum theory Chopra is quoted on there... ADK^{...I'll suffocate your arcade!} 19:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Windows Fanboy

So I just installed Windows 8 Beta Developer Preview on an Asus Eee-Slate. I have long suspected I was a windows fanboy, but was too embarrassed to admit it before. I drank the koolaid on the windows phone, I bought it and I have had no regrets for the past year (especially with the new 7.5 that just came out). Now I am hyped about windows 8, and after using it for an hour I am completely sold on the changes! It is the perfect mix of windows phone and windows desktop. I can't wait to start developing in the metro framework... Any other closeted windows fans out there? MarkeDC (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason I use Windows is because of Apple's marketing campaigns. They aren't selling you a computer, they're trying to sell you a personality. They try and present PC users as stiff stooges fumbling throughout their lives and mac users as, well, hip. Apple commercials piss me off. Also, I'm not a complete moron and can use Windows interface with relative ease, and Macs are difficult to upgrade and Mac programs guzzle RAM--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yea the Mac vs PC adds alienated more people than it probably converted, I hate those ads as well. I still am a fan of linux, when I have to 'borrow' a neighbors wifi signal for a few days until my internet gets hooked up there is no substitute :). It seems Microsoft is becoming more user-centric after the success of the Xbox. It is a shame Windows Phone 7 has such little market share, the interface is far superior to android or iphone IMHO. I wonder if there is any kind of ideological bias in the users of mac/ windows / linux. I would think linux users would have the most atheists, apple users would have the most new age woo peddlers, and windows users would be the most diversified. MarkeDC (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I was chatting to an Eve Online developer on the plane the other day who happened to have an iPad with him. He loved it but didn't own anything else from Apple. I think there are plenty of discerning people who are quite happy to own something like an iPod but not a MacBook Pro. Only complete suckers buy into the whole marketing thing and refuse to contemplate anything else. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I've got an iPod. But I refuse to buy a Mac because as an Existentialist, I find the advertisements offensive--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of College Humor's Charlie and the Apple Factory (see here). Oompa, loompa, doompety-doo, we have a lesson to teach you n00bs.... The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Dammit, I have that song stuck in my head now! The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If windows had proper package management and a decent shell it would be tolerable. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Trouble is, if Microsoft completely turns into Apple, then what will be available for those guys in the middle who aren't too stupid to use a PC but don't have sufficient nerd cred for Linux? I want my middle ground dammit. ADK^{...I'll insult your Pac-Man!} 18:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they will. Microsoft doesn't really do "cool" and doesn't look like doing so any time soon. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

As a new fan boy I feel I must argue the fact that Microsoft does not do cool: Xbox 360, Windows 7 (or 8), and windows phone are all solid and cool products. Sure there were many causalities along the way... Vista, Zune, Kin. But from those ashes rose some really amazing products. MarkeDC (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Windows ME, MS Bob, Office Assistant... Ty^talk 12:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What are those? They never happened. It's all lies! ADK^{...I'll defenestrate your hovel!} 12:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Solid, yes. Cool, hmmmmm I don't think so. Geek cool, maybe. Consumer cool, nah. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think he means cool as in marketing as cool. What Apple does--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, which Microsoft isn't. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

<obligatory linux flame /> Occasionaluse (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose you're right. MS won't be successfully selling the "lifestyle" any time soon... ADK^{...I'll assassinate your Playstation 2!} 21:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

MS just needs to stick to its strengths: Simplish, and built with mass office usage in mind. IT's where it shines. Anybody who has real interest in computers will, unless they simply don't care enough, use one of the not corporate OS's.--Mikalosa (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the reason Windows Phones haven't taken off as much as they should is that (1) they initially suffered from the same stupid problems the iPhone did on release (no copy and paste, no multitasking) which they have fixed now but people got a bad initial impression, and (2) for some reason Windows 7 phones are a lot more expensive than Android phones, which puts people off.

Also, the main problem I have with Macs is that they're basically targetted at people who are too stupid to keep their antimalware application(s) up to date and check download sites for legitamacy, but are branded as the "smart" alternative to Windows. When someone does bother to write a good OSX worm (well, better than any so far) Apple are going to have a big embarrassment on their hands. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the thing, it's not that they have better virus protection it's that no one writes viruses and they sort of have automated "herd immunity" going. If an email transmits a virus then it has something like a 90% chance of going to a PC, not a Mac. So they just don't propagate at all. As their market share goes up they'll start facing the problems as a) they'll get the attention from virus authors and b) their herd immunity will disappear. This is the reason mobile phones, despite being simple computers at heart, never had the virus problem even though they were wide open to it. There were simply too many different models to write viruses for so propagation was impossible. So when the iPhone took a massive market share and became the most common single model of handset, was it any surprise that this was the first one to get a mobile virus? Now, that this was applicable only to hacked phones is beside the point, the difference is only in how clever the virus programmer needs to be. The mere fact that it propagated as a computer virus, as we'd recognise one, was because it was a common enough model for infections to work. Not that it matters even if a big worm did hit. Kool-Aid drinking Apple fanatics will just see it as a "broken" piece of hardware and engage in Apple's simple 2-step upgrade and repair service; 1) throw out the old one 2) buy the next model up. Seriously, I think Apple products probably have the same failure rate as anything coming out of Microsoft but people just accept it as planned redundancy and buy the next shiny thing that comes along. So I think viruses destroying their stuff will probably go under-reported for a long time, too. ADK^{...I'll devour your mammary gland!} 12:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The whole "we won't let you install any apps that we haven't checked first" thing is good against trojans, but won't help you when a service listening on a remote port has a buffer overflow vulnerability or a webpage has malicious code that exploits a Safari vulnerability. Sadly that's not the way Apple make out. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It just reflects the user base. By definition dumb people get viruses and IT professionals get hacked. --13:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not enough market share to make it worth the time to make a worm--Mikalosa (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

For now. Bear in mind that malware is quite lucrative these days, with regard to stealing information etc and so the motive is already there as the vast majority of Mac users don't run antivirus software. It's important to note as well that the list of discovered vulnerabilities for Apple products isn't much lower than Microsoft's, and that's before taking into account the reduced user share reporting vulnerabilities for Apple products. I just wish Mac users would smarten up and install some antivirus software on their machines before the shit hits the fan. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The human race has a long history of solving the problem after it happened/started, especially modern humans--Mikalosa (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If you like QI...

...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-I3qREbKqLw&feature=related Ajkgordon (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly that was the only time they've ever had two women on it. (also, funny that they mention Bill Bailey as a "female comedian in a beard", as he did pose as "Angelina Jolie" on Top Gear, although they quickly dropped that joke a few episodes later after their AMerican guests got confused) ADK^{...I'll dance your zoot suit!} 20:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah... QI. You people have such better "quiz shows" than we do. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 20:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, apart from Whose line... (which actually started out in the UK and then kinda migrated into its own US version) I can't think of any comedy panel shows from the US. ADK^{...I'll terrorize your pork chop!} 22:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, not surprising, as the McWiki tells me that 'The Marriage Ref' was supposed to return US TV to the heyday of it's best panel shows, but the article's "critical reception" section... ADK^{...I'll accentuate your Volkswagen!} 22:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What's My Line? - classic US panel game (from quite a long time ago). ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"Saggar maker's bottom knocker" was the only even slightly memorable thing about UK What's my Line, apart from panellist Lady Isobel Barnet being found much later guilty of shoplifting & suiciding. Scream!! (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"From quite a long time ago" precisely. Though I think when it comes to things like Mock the Week and QI, there's something about sitting there and taking the piss for half an hour that just wouldn't work for a US audience so much. ADK^{...I'll vote your goose egg!} 12:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It's Rawk an' Rawl bitches

Vote for your nominees into the R&RHoF.

Mine's going to Rob Smith (no, not ours, the infinitely cool The Cure), Joan Jett, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Guns & Roses, Donna Summer. --PsyGremlinSprich! 13:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe many of them haven't already been included by default and they've had to put a poll out. ADK^{...I'll fly your xylophone!} 14:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I already voted this morning. The Cure, Joan Jett and Red Hot Chilli Peppers. <3 The Cure. Quaru^{cauldron - You can't explain that!} 18:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Done~ Woot. The Cure, RHCP, Guns&Roses.--Dumpling (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What does it actually mean? I've often read about such&such being inducted into the Rock&Roll Hall of Fame, Country Music Hall of Fame, etc. From what I can gather, it just means being a face on a wall in a museum somewhere. Who cares? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much, it's just self-congratulatory masturbation by the music industry a la the Grammys. It's made a pretty good vanity project for Jann Wenner. The choices this year are less crap than usual, though. Laura Nyro is really out of place on that list, so I gave her one of my votes to fuck with the nominations process. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Einstein Schmeinstein

Faster than light Thematic (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Science in all its glory. Trouble is the anti-science / creationist whatever brigade will always laud this as a science failure. See? Science don't know shit, which means Goddidit or auras or whatever. They just don't get it, do they? Ajkgordon (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I hate when they do that. I want to scream "hello, go to school for at least highschool. please???" GodotThe Peyote God awaits 20:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I love it when I read pieces like that. It's what science is ultimately about. "Hang on, we've known this for 100 years but for three years we've been getting results that might say it isn't. Cool!" Always makes me think about PJR and his insistence that scientists are too afraid ever to contemplate a theory that contradicts relativity or evolution or plate tectonics or whatever else shows up their childish interpretation of the Bible. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Gordan, that reminds me of a great Sagan quote (number 6), after reading up exactly why nothing can go faster than light, what does this mean if it turns out to be correct? It seems scientists do not know enough about neutrinos to make any meaningful conclusion though... They are not sure if they have mass and they seem to oscillate flavors? Who thinks this is new physics or error? MarkeDC (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It's far from confirmed yet. It's more likely they made an error. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Made an error or there's some other phenomenon that they've overlooked or failed to consider. Which is what the scientists themselves admit is most likely. But the point is that they are willing to contemplate that the results may actually be something that could blow Einstein out of the water. Could be grandstanding. Doesn't matter. Happens all the time. Scientists want to make a name for themselves and overturning long-held theories is the Holy Grail - something a ideological literalist like PJR could never understand because they think scientists are just like them only on the wrong side. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm always reminded of oscillococcinum -- air bubbles under a microscope or The One True Cause of All Disease^TM? More likely instrumental error. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

At least the scientists aren't jumping to conclusions yet. But what does it do to the study of physics if it is correct? How many years of research could be disproven? Osaka Sun (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of one of my very favorite science quotes, which I think is due to Asimov. From memory it's "The most exciting words in science are not 'Eureka!' (I found it) but 'hmm, that looks odd...'" Doctor Dark (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Research, or rather evidence, is not disproven (unless it's bad measurements or whatever). In fact proof is a rather alien concept in science, except when used in logic and maths. The evidence is gathered, theories are developed, more evidence is gathered which supports or contradicts the theories, theories are developed further or abandoned. In many probably most cases, theories aren't simply abandoned, because much of what is in them is still supported by the evidence. If this neutrino speed of light thing is confirmed and is not simply an error, then it is still unlikely that Einstein's theories are totally wrong. There have indeed been results of experiments before that, on the face of it, contradicted special relativity such as phase velocity (X-rays seemingly breaking the speed of light) and group velocity. But on further inspection these "exceptions" turn out to be manifestations of other effects and don't actually break the speed of light at all - at least not in any practical sense. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The gibberings have started. I would go to Rapture Ready for more, but I'm not sure my stomach is strong enough this morning. Balaam (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

XKCD is on to this rather quickly. Anyone taking bets?-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 11:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of tricks out there with wave dynamics that allow things to nominally exceed the speed of light. The big question is have they send energy or information faster than light. That's the only thing that current understanding says you can't do. Also, current understanding does allow for space itself to move around faster than light, leading to all kinds of warp drive theories, making exceeding the speed of light more a quirk of measurements and effectively an illusion. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was just a calibration error. It needs to be looked at and reproduced and quantified. I.e., someone needs to set up the same experiment elsewhere at different scales and different equipment and get the same result. ADK^{...I'll forsake your memo!} 12:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Brian Cox on it. ADK^{...I'll eat your steak knife!} 12:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Some Tweets:

"David Cameron says govt will hand out tough sentences to any CERN particles breaking laws on speeding."

"CERN will be holding a press conference to discuss speed of light results at 3pm last Monday"

"The barman says "We don't serve tachyons in here". A tachyon walks into a bar."

Scream!! (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's the CERN Press Release Scream!! (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I like News Biscuit's take. –TeenageCumSlut Condemns electoral fraud at RationalWiki 12:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thatcher's First Law of Privatization. LMAO Osaka Sun (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Webcast here - overloading from time to time. Not started yet. Scream!! (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Aaaaaand ... Homeopathy vindicated! Scream!! (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (From Twitter) "We don't allow faster than light neutrinos in here" said the bartender. A neutrino walks into a bar. –TeenageCumSlut Condemns electoral fraud at RationalWiki 19:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

What a great month for CERN -- "vindicating" both global warming denial and homeopathy! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd love for this to go memetic: "If neutrinos travel faster than light, then why can't..." and you get the picture. ADK^{...I'll subpoena your bamboo!} 00:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That means they've gone to plaid! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Quote from a friend: "Half [my husband's] time is spent managing data from Cern, the rest on playing with a smaller ring on the Harwell site.
I just asked him about neutrinos and the speed of light, but as usual, I soon wished I hadn't.
Of course, as it's not the experiment he's working on he thinks the result could be an error! The speed of light is "probably" still OK; neutrinos may have got weirder."
Scream!! (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Speed of light#Neutrino observations in 2011It’s here if any of you feel like editing the article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I still want Jim to eat his shorts. Prove it, guys! Osaka Sun (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Basic physics fail?

I was mulling this over on the weekend, but isn't it impossible to measure the one-way speed of light without running into clock synchronisation problems? If so how can you measure the neutrinos speed so confidently? If they bounce them back are they "now moving slower than light"? - π 05:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be for measuring the absolute speed given no information at all. Once you have that, it's fairly trivial to work out whether object A is going faster or slower than that speed. ADK^{...I'll vote your polyethylene!} 11:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)