RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive124

This is an archive page, last updated 17 October 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <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)

Anybody else see this from the Italian Wikipedia?

the Italian wiki is on strike because of a law that threatens how Wikipedia operates--Mikalosa (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

That law, by another name, is "all hail the Italian president'.--GodotThe Peyote God awaits 00:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Batshit crazy things happen all the time in Italy, like the reelection of Silvio Berlusconi. Blue (is useful) 01:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a part of their charm. When I visit there I often end up encountering some totally nonsensical item of bureaucracy and saying, "well, after all this is Italy." Then I have another glass of wine. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Germans and Macedonians pledge their allegiance to the cause. --★uːʤɱ pervert 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm planning on making a series to parody the Bible.

Yes, I'm finally going to make a parody of the world's best-selling book. It'll be really funny. To give you a little taste of what it would be like, here's a little sample. It's Yahweh telling Gabriel about the plan to destroy Sodom.

Yahweh: So, here's the plan to get Sodom. Now, over by Venus, I keep a lot of stuff. Mile-long asteroids, my car keys, beer, you get the picture. Now, I'm going to take one of those asteroids— Gabriel: God, no! Whenever you mention an asteroid, it means a lot of people are going to die horribly. Yahweh: Anyway, I'm going to take one of those asteroids, and I'm going to slam it into the Alps! Gabriel: But I thought you were trying to get Sodom, and that's nowhere near there! Yahweh: Shh! So, it's going to release an explosion equivalent to a hundred nuclear bombs. And now, you see, the PLUMAGE will fall down on Sodom! Gabriel: Why am I not surprised? Yahweh: Wait, wait, I'm not finished. The debris will burn up so quickly, it'll superheat the ground for a second. Gabriel: And? Yahweh: Everyone there will set on fire and the city will be destroyed! Gabriel pulls out a notepad and pencil. Gabriel: Well, I've been running the calculations, and there are more problems. The first is that you're killing six to twelve hundred people just because they're eating clams! Yahweh: So what? I said that it's an abomination! (Leviticus 11:9-12, Deuteronomy 14:9-10) Gabriel: So why did you create them? Yahweh: Good question! Anyway, you said there are more PROBLEMS. What else is wrong? Gabriel: Well, let's see. The plumage will destroy all the cities around the city! Have you seen all the good people in Gomorrah? You promised Abraham you would spare Sodom if you found ten righteous! (Genesis 18:32) Yahweh: No, no! It was if there were ten righteous people in SODOM, not the cities around it! (Genesis 18:24) Gabriel: Well, anyway. I see you'll use pretty much anything for an excuse to smite people. But what about the long-term effects? Yahweh: What long-term effects? It'll be as if the city never existed! Gabriel: Yeah, but I've also figured out that this asteroid of yours will turn a lot of fertile grasslands into a big desert wasteland? Yahweh: So? Gabriel: You don't think anyone will starve? Yahweh: So? Gabriel: Seriously? What is with you! Yahweh: Listen, Gabriel. I'm going to send this asteroid down there, and nothing you do will stop me.

(I used the documentary available at https://www.visionvideo.com/detail.taf?_function=detail&a_product_id=32350 to make this little bit with the asteroid.)

So, what do you thinK? Does anyone have any suggestions for my series? ^{— Unsigned, by: HeidelbergKid / talk / contribs}

tl;dr. I have always wanted to make a series about Jesus when he was a teenager in the same vain as "The wonder years". Ace^ace 00:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

"No liquor in your room, Jesus!" "But mom!" "No!" "Well... what about this bottled water?" "Okay, but nothing else!" *jesus turns and winks at the camera, audience laughs*. X Stickman (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The episode where Jesus learns "The facts of life" will be a ratings killer. Ace^ace 00:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

WAs it against the rules for kids to drink wine bck then?--Mikalosa (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Could be wrong but I thought that (those) had been done: Last Temptation of Christ, and Life of Brian. just saying.... As for the idea itself, it's a bit trite, don't you think? GodotThe Peyote God awaits 00:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds kinda like Mr. Deity. SoCal ²¹² 01:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been done. Many centuries ago. There's a few stories called "Infancy Gospels" that are basically "the adventures of Jesus when He was a boy". The theory is that they were stories about local deities that early Christian missionaries adapted to fit the new religion.

The only one I've ever actually heard involves Jesus playing with some of his little pals, and getting frustrated with them, so he turns them into goats and shoves them into an oven(!) The kids' mothers go up to Mary and ask, "did you see what that Jesus of yours did this time?" Mary finds Jesus and asks, "Jesus, did you turn little Ezekiel and Saul into goats?" "Yes, Mom." "You turn them back right now!"

Yes, it really does sound like that plot of a post-Tabitha episode of Bewitched. MDB (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The weirdest Libertarian/Liberal hybrid I've ever seen.

And the Rondroids are sipping it up like mad.

So dumb, really, really dumb. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, another one of the gullible moonbats that started drinking the Paulbot Kool-Aid, I love these guys. Though it does get annoying when any legitimate/reality-based criticism of the Fed is inevitably drowned out by "RON PAUL 1988 2008 2012! END THE FED! TEH JOOISH BANK$STAHS! GOLD, GOLD, GOLD!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Osaka Sun (talk) 07:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, I read the manifesto and a lot of it I agree with and (I think) mostly addresses issues caused by deregulation. I also REALLY agree with getting corporations and money out of politics and elections. But then you have these gold fools that A) think life was better for the lower classes in the early 1900s and B) think killing the fed somehow will kill inflation and will make the economy produce an infinite supply of crap. Capitalism works best because we have a limited supply of goods and energy but its Achilles' heel is greed. Regulated capitalism is the slogan of the movement I would actually give a shit for. MarkeDC (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how much your average goldbug has in paper money and bonds. There's a "be careful what you wish for" scenario. Also, this speech was much better when Father Coughlin gave it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Climate deniers manage to ruin science even in unrelated fields

The denialist nuts are already coming out of the woodwork over the latest Nobel Prize (see them trolling Greg Laden's comments and ATS). This just in: CERN proves homeopathy! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would love to hear Shechtman's opinion on AGW. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The creationists are getting in on the game as well in the Laden thread. Who knows what else Schechtman has proven? Free energy? Chiropractic? Pearl Harbor was an inside job? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there some conspiracy theory about FDR letting Pearl harbour happen to get into wwII?AMassiveGay (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory. The America First crowd started it in the '40s and it never died. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but as we say "Galileo was laughed at, but he was also right." These people look at "the fraction of scientific discoveries that were dismissed as impossible" not "the fraction of things dismissed as impossible that became scientific discoveries". I'd wager that those two numbers are very, very different indeed. ^{...I'll vote your alfalfa!} 18:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a word for getting things muddled like this, but I've forgotten it. You know, noticing that "everyone who won the lottery bought a ticket" and concluding "everyone who buys a ticket must win the lottery". ^{...I'll soak your random string of characters!} 18:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Spotlight fallacy? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In a way, it is. It's extrapolating features you know about one group to a wider context. But this is specifically "all x are y" therefore "this y is x". It's a non sequitur, of course, but what fallacy isn't, at heart, a non sequitur? I wondered if it's the problem of induction, but I don't think it's exactly the same, related I'm sure, but not the same. ^{...I'll condense your copy-paste!} 20:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Overgeneralization? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, aren't those the same thing? ^{...I'll spit your anchovy!} 21:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I hate speaking on the phone...

Well, I can hold a conversation with friends if they call (although awkward silences ensue and I pace around like a moron a lot), but you know ringing up companies to do things, anything from ordering takeaway to well, anything really. I pass the buck like a motherfucker, conveniently having to nip off to the toilet should a large group be putting in an order to the local pizza joint in case someone says its my turn to put the order in. But this time I had no choice and had to call up the council regarding some tax and now I am actually physically shaking, I'm typing mostly with my left hand because the right one is all over the place. What the fuck is wrong with me? ^{...I'll bescumber your flightdeck!} 13:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Specific social phobia? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting. Though I don't think I'll be needing serotonin shots for it. ^{...I'll analyse your cuddly toy!} 14:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I'm not too fond of phones either. Semaphore is much cooler anyway. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's do some exposure therapy! Occasionaluse (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In that case, my number is 0982 274 0124, feel free to call. ^{...I'll employ your domino!} 15:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm writing that number on to the toilet door of the nearest cottage. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Social Market Economy article complete

You like? Osaka Sun (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

pentium 4

I've got about a dozen pentium 4 desktops. Can anyone think of anything cool to do with them? Occasionaluse (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Home made cluster. ^{...I'll revolve your hitman!} 17:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Skeet shooting. "PULL!" MDB (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Skynet AMassiveGay (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Render farm if you do graphics. OR you can give them to charity. MarkeDC (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like a render farm, please! ^{...I'll extrude your hailstone!} 18:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm finding it difficult to give them away. What the hell would I do with a cluster in my basement? Fold proteins? Find primes? Occasionaluse (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. ^{...I'll rinse your crack whore!} 18:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Play whatever video game it is they play these days. Or minesweeper. Ty^talk 19:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's a few hundred for the switch, maybe $150 a month to run the cluster 24/7... I'm just not sure what I'd get out of it. $150/month would require more satisfaction than successfully setting it up. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've 2 old P4 desktops & 2 old lappys of uncertain processor. Could start something. Get all the similar machines in one place & cluster 'em all: supercomputer!!! (?) Scream!! (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

TAKE OVER THE WORLD! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Ajkgordon (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Just use them for storage and backups. Have them turn on and off on demand to reduce costs. Distributed compiling is also something to consider. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Storage is not a concern. I hardly ever write anything that takes more than a minute or two to compile. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In some areas there are charities that recondition PCs, giving them a fair chance of a long life, and put basic software on them for use by the kind of people who can afford rent, clothes and food but would struggle to save hundreds of dollars for a PC. It's not life-saving, but it's one way you can narrow the gap between the haves and the have-nots. If you can't find a charity that definitely does this (rather than stripping the machines for saleable parts or bailing them up to be shipped to China where the labour is cheaper) then don't bother with it. I'm not sure if "charitable" counts as cool, but I thought I'd mention it.

Mostly though piles of older machines are junk, treat as electrical waste. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This. See if your local school could make use of them.--^talk 22:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll take one, I'll pay for shipping too, just make sure you stamp fragile all over it and use lots of bubble wrap (that I will pay for). I'd put windows 98 on it and play all my old computer games again. Senator Harrison (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Question Gravity!

Probably been done before, but join the campaign to question gravitational dogma! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I question gravity daily. I am fully aware it has something out for me, so it must be Minded and Transcendent. I mean, consider the evidence: First, Gravity is pulling on ME specifically. My skin is falling more than my husband or friends, and my boobie are down to my ankels. Gravity clearly hates me. Secondly, every time I walk, I fall. You tell me that's not an omnisciant being going after me!GodotThe Peyote God awaits 20:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

So I resist the urge to ask Storm

Whether knowledge is so loose-weave

Of a morning

When deciding whether to leave

Her apartment by the front door

Or a window on the second floor.

^{...I'll acidify your brickbat!} 21:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Micro-gravity is real enough, it's macro-gravity that these physicists are pushing on us to hide the truth about intelligent falling. They start out with small truths, apples falling from trees and so on. But rather than accept that falling is God's purpose, achieving Holy Downward Movement, they invent these specious "laws of gravity". But can you even see this "gravity"? No, you just have to accept their word for it. In reality the scientist's "gravity" is just an unnecessarily complicated way to remove God from the question of Weight. The Bible tells us that God gave things Weight because of Sin. Let me quote Zephaniah 1:20 "Then the Lord showed me four workmen with hammers". It's plain to see, a modern understanding of "four workmen" is "seven cable news anchors" and throughout the Bible hammers are always used to represent the state of Ohio, so this passage literally means that people who believe in gravity will experience mild headaches next Thursday. And yet so many of the flock continue to stray from belief in Intelligent Falling. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's only a theory anyway. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Bah. I made that joke like a year ago. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

RW merch. Nice. We should look into that again. ^{...I'll discalceate your racket!} 22:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone ever bought any of that stuff? I wonder how much of the Cafepress products actually get sold rather than being some sort of vanity publishing. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, isn't there something odd about their "British humor" category? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean that it seems to be the Monty Python section? ADK^{...I'll swirl your fealty!} 13:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you should confuse Print-on-demand merchants like Cafe Press with vanity publishing. The POD merchants are taking advantage of a shift in the technology of low volume production. A traditional vanity publisher is doing the same thing as an ordinary small publisher, paying a printer to make a short run of something, but instead of covering the cost of that (overheads) from their own budget and hoping to sell enough copies to make a profit, they get the author to pay. POD merchants are under a completely different economic regime.

In this regime (which does NOT apply to traditional publishers because of the structure of their companies) it costs almost nothing to make zero of something, but your per-copy overheads remain fairly constant no matter how many you make. So you really don't care whether you sell 5000 identical T-shirts that say "Han shot first" or 5000 custom T-shirts with different photos of people's kids to be worn by grandparents with no taste. The profit is very nearly the same either way. The paper POD companies actually encourage you to use them as an upmarket alternative to buying a laser printer - it costs a little more, and it takes a couple of days to arrive, but you get a nice binding and it looks professional. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

@ADK - I was actually alluding to the spelling of humour.

@BON - I didn't really mean to tar CafePress with the 'Vanity Publishing' brush as they do offer a customised limited run service and don't demand cash up front. I was really referring to those who stick up a page at CP (not that one, the other one) and pretend they are something much bigger than they are because they can supply a wide range of products with their message. Jeeves effort was a knowing wink at the likes of the Question Evolution! camp-pain. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

"British Humor" Good spot! :D ADK^{...I'll dehydrate your flap!} 15:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering.

How much does the average small business owner earn every year, and the profit his/her company make? Since they provide the bulk of (what's left of) the US economy, where do you draw the line on necessary tax increases? Osaka Sun (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems franchises count as small business? [1] Which taxes? Corporate tax was higher in 1960, aren't most of the taxes at a relative low compared to the past century? TAX AND CUT! MarkeDC (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I really hate this meme, cause it's political shill trying to get small businesses to vote republican. They are not, and have not been for nearly 20 years, teh "backbone" of hte nation's economy. Unless you use *republican* definitions of small business, which are designed to include independently owned or managed stores like McDonalds, where all the marketing and product development, insurance payments, and employee rules/regs are done as one individual corporation, which also takes a huge piece of the pie from the "small owner", cause it's not *really* not a large corporation. under those strange rules, most King Soopers are "small businesses", as are some "Walmarts", and virtually all of the fast food chains. But it's a huge illusion. Corporations own this country. And because of tax breaks, they pay less than like 5% of the taxes in this country. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 14:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, small business are less than 10% of the job providers. Furthermore, give a businessman a tax cut and realistically, what is he going to do? Pocket the money. Not let his employees see any of it, not open up more positions. I work for one, I know. Senator Harrison (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What? Why? Why would a "businessman" pocket the money? Some might, but I reckon most would simply see it as a reduction in costs and treat it like any other positive impact to the bottom line. I am one, I know. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Both my bosses support their entire family while their wives stay home when they don't even have to. They drive nice cars, own two houses, the company is running just fine and I know they're making plenty of money. Yet, I still have a hole in the front of my bumper that I can't afford to get fixed from when they made me drive to work in the snow. They don't need a tax break, and if they get one, why would they suddenly hire someone or give us raises? The only reason why they're hiring someone right now is because the NJDEP said they have to. They'd just buy a another car. By businessman I mean owner, sorry about that. Do you own a company? Senator Harrison (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Depends on what the business is and who the owner is, but I have to say most of the lawyers I know would NOT give better bennies to "us", or give us raises, or more time off. They'd buy more toys. I know one out of about 20 that i work with, who would put his employees first. that's not great odds. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 16:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

So what do you define small business as? It seems the US always skewers data as usual (fewer than 50 employees in the EU, in contrast to the US's 500). Osaka Sun (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC)You are a better person than most, Ajkgordon. Growing your business is important to you and your employees. Where I and most people work the business is done growing. They take on more and more clients but don't increase salary, manpower, or supplies, put all the actual work onto us, and go home in their new car to their new swimming pool. I wish I was exaggerating, but in my case I'm not. Yeah, I could quit, but even the local supermarkets (including Walmart) aren't hiring and if they did I'd make about $4 less. Senator Harrison (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who you're talking to Osaka, but I imagine small business as the type of business I work at. Not corporate owned, single owner, under 50 employees, but it depends on what the business does. Senator Harrison (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I don't think so, Senator. Most small businesses in my limited experience want to grow. I'm not talking so much about one-man artisans - plumbers, electricians, etc. I want to grow my business for many reasons not least among them being that I want to be wealthy. (It goes without saying that I also like employing good people and get great satisfaction from seeing them succeed. Except for one who managed to wreck my last business.) But the more my business grows, the more profitable I hope it will be, the more I can take home as a salary/dividends, and the more I can sell it for (or a share of it) for my retirement. My personal pension is worth jack shit now so apart from winning the lottery this is the only real way I and my family can be comfortable later in life. I don't think I'm in a unique position and almost every other small businessman I know has the same desires. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, I was just looking at what the United States considers it (I'm in Canada, we do things much differently here). Looks like firms with under 20 workers make up 18% of employment instead.

Still, wouldn't you give more incentives for small business (NOT the conglomerates that sneak in that label) under threat of monopoly by a multinational franchise? That's what I'm talking about, and they'd probably be more willing to make more jobs at this time. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

@Gordon - Well, by taking on more clients, the company I work at IS growing, but what I mean is that I feel like they're taking advantage of the locally bad economy (no one hiring, businesses closing), knowing that we can't go anywhere else. They're only growing the work and using us to take care of it, and if we go on strike or something they'll just fire us and bring in a new crew. Plenty of people with experience are applying every day (I think I know more than I should because I work for my uncle). Senator Harrison (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well. If a business can grow without taking on more staff then that's what they'll do. It's good business. But when competition recovers when the economy does, then they'll be forced to hire to keep up the QoS or to shrink back down again. And when companies do the latter they tend to fail. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Good business for my boss at the expense of me. Sorry, no. We put most of the other companies out of business, or they were shut down for scamming clients. They couldn't have done that without us. And when is economy the going to get better? And if the business is doing just fine, why would they ever want to spend more on us? If they had to hire another guy, they'd just treat him as unfairly as they treat us. Senator Harrison (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Every PolitiFact article on small businesses. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

OK? Senator Harrison (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Mr Harrison, it's called capitalism. The only reason any business exists is to make money for its owners. Not to provide jobs, not to make employees happy, not to see that employees get a fair wage, but to make money. If you don't like it then, erm, I don't think there's any real alternative I'm afraid. Not many people like it, but that's how it is. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not the only way there is and it doesn't have to be like that. I know that businesses exist to provide wealth for its owners, I'm not an idiot. I believe in capitalism, but I think that the way it's implemented is wrong. The rich shouldn't be able to buy their candidates, democrat or republican. That's the reason why things are the way they are. Why should anyone have to put up with being taken advantage of?

I'd like to add that I don't have a problem with my bosses having money from their super successful business, but the wage disparity is out of control. Senator Harrison (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Quadruple Rainbow

Why the fuck is this in my google news and why should I give a fuck? Did they find GOLD?!? Holy refraction of light batman! [2] MarkeDC (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You have no beauty in your soul. Clearly you are an atheist and you have sex with sheep. --PsyGremlinHable! 14:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be a goat? Osaka Sun (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not discriminate. Hide your goats, hide your sheep, I raping everything. MarkeDC (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Lame. I thought it was going to be a sequel to this. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I find the optics behind rainbows fascinating. It's definitely one of those things where understanding brings more beauty to it - like, because there's not really a bow out there and it's light being refracted by all the rain drops everyone sees a very slightly different one. And then there's the fact that the refractions and reflections happen multiple times so the secondary bow is reversed, with red on the inside. They're also a lot more complicated because our general models to explain and describe it are based on spherical raindrops, but rain drops are actually elongated due to motion. It is truly amazing stuff. ADK^{...I'll receive your tank!} 20:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Raindrops: what shape are they? We're all familiar with the so-called "tear drop"" shape but spheres were made (for shot) by dropping molten lead down shot towers. Are rain drops elongated? I can't find any pics googlin'. Scream!! (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Raindrops_sizes.svg ADK^{...I'll mystify your paper!} 00:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

My worst nightmare

This discussion was moved to [[Forum:Rugby_World_Cup_2011|Forum:Rugby_World_Cup_2011]].15:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Confusion in life is hard on a Friday

So I did something when I backed up a file, that ate all the work I'd done. I'm sure it's my fault and not "the systems', but trust me I'm going to blame the "system" cause it's just more natural that way. Now I'm sitting here trying to recreate what I did for the last month, and toggling between my laptop and my work computer. Which, if you've ever done it, messes with your mind. I move my mouse, it doesn't move the curser, and only after cussing for 4 minutes do I realize it's cause the mouse is the computer not the lap top. What a friday! GodotThe Peyote God awaits 15:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Laugh, it's the weekend. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That's why I'm starting to put stuff in the cloud. though I suppose "the system" could still mess it up.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

In this case, it's proprietary software. I'm guessing that when I backed it up, I somehow told it to access older data? not really sure, but never the less, there's 30 missing days worth of work. luckily, I keep most of my physical work, either as scan or in paper form for one year. "just in case". GodotThe Peyote God awaits 18:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Party, it's the weekend. MarkeDC (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this professional drone's weekend doesn't come till her work is done. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 19:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully this should spread around the interwebs soon.

Kicking ass against the Wall Street apologists. I'm actually ashamed that my tax dollars is paying for this O'Leary crap. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Love it.. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Can someone with the powers to edit the block reasons dropdown

...add a "suspected spambot" reason. Thanks. B♭maj7 (talk) Apple acknowledged that 137 workers at a Chinese factory near the city of Suzhou had been seriously injured by a toxic chemical used in making the slick green screens of the iPhone 02:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Done.--^talk 04:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe a Yahoo News! article is in order.

For this story alone (see the comments). I'd say they've got just as much shock-news than Fox. ^{— Unsigned, by: Osaka Sun / talk / contribs} 15:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Steve Jobs

Finally caved in to pancreatic cancer[3]. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

s/caved in/iDied/ --Mack Coster (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

i(Pod)Shuffled off this mortal coil. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 12:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd got off relatively light when the iPhone 4S event turned out to be a bit of damp squib. But now this. THERE IS NO ESCAPE. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Death from pancreatic cancer? There's an app for that. Freemasonry (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I remember reading in Scientific American that there could later be an app for cancer detection. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

He is up on an iCloud now MarkeDC (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone mentioned 'iSad' yet? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw "iRip" last night. MDB (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If your looking for work, I'd avoid Apple....I hear there's a lack of Jobs ^{...I'll orate your encyclopedia!} 22:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

"Apple User Acting Like His Dad Just Died." B♭maj7 (talk) I feel worse than the Cordova Jewish community after what happened to them in 1391 22:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Have they tried turning him off and turning him on again? Ace^ace 22:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You do realise you've just mention turning Steve Jobs on, right? ^{...I'll reiterate your milquetoast!} 22:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not? He always turned me on. Ace^ace 22:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Classy obligiratory xkcd reference. --★uːʤɱ soviet 23:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

And Daily Mash article. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

[4] - David Gerard (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

And that xkcd comic's title reminded me of this xkcd comic! http://xkcd.com/709/ I AM THAT I AM, THE LORD YOUR GOD AND THE GOD OF YOUR FATHERS, OF ABRAHAM, OF ISSAC, AND OF JACOB. AND THIS IS MY COUNTERPART, R2-D2. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy RationalWiki

Down with wallstreet. sterile^talk 03:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Boo Hiss fuck you liberal. My fist will occupy your face. Ace^ace 03:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

lolwut. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I approve of ace's violent saying, as that particular phrase format is one of my favourites. Right next to "I'm gonna verb the hell out of noun". X Stickman (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Bring it. Tear gas at the ready. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering when I'd see more threads on this. I figured that the movement to end corporate-politician greed would be right down most of RW's street. I don't care about most of the other goals, but I support the movement 100%. Senator Harrison (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I've given up predicting what will and won't be brought up on RW. But the general rule of thumb I've found is that if it's negative, i.e., something to mock, refute, be aghast at, then it's more likely than something positive, i.e., protests to support, good news, interesting but generally neutral developments. Exceptions to this seem to be major science breakthroughs that seem to set the entire blogosphere alight anyway. Hence why the "occupy" protests get no attention while even the smallest teabagger rallies will get a commentary. ADK^{...I'll spit your attorney!} 15:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

...despite the big thread slightly higher up the bar. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That is so yesterday. sterile^talk 03:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

While ending corporate greed isn't really my thing, I do support any effort to end corporate pride and sloth. DickTurpis (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, if you're going to occupy RW, shower first, you dirty fucking hippy! I was down there again and it smells like 50 different kinds of shit now. "Sanitation is a growing concern." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

woo publisher screws useful software

This is relevant to our interests. Apparently these guys who publish bullshit astrology software have decided that it'd be wonderful to take down the Unix timezone database by alleging copyright infringement. I was under the impression that directories of public information like calendars or phone directories couldn't be copyrighted, but who the hell knows how US courts will rule. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Old-time Usenet greybeard says "fuck that." - David Gerard (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of opera

As we recently had an almost cultured discussion about opera, I thought I'd present this, erm, thing, for your viewing, erm, pleasure.

ADK^{...I'll confuddle your needle!} 19:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Damn, and I thought Il Divo was bad. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

My wife's an identical twin and I find it a turn on, but identical quads? Phwoarrr! Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 22:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I never got the twins thing. Isn't variety supposed to be the spice of life? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

To me variety is not having the same meals every day - not, having every mouthful different in each meal. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Dude, totally deep. ADK^{...I'll rebel your xanthochroi!} 15:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm giving too much away here. Anyway, shouldn't this section be called Popera? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Technically it's "crossover" but "popera" seems to be what's often used when taking the piss out of it. ADK^{...I'll swirl your hitman!} 15:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought this was going to be on the browser Opera (which for some reason I want to pronounce like the name of the TV host). Just so you know, I'm not sure. At first, it was literally the best browser I have ever seen. After a few weeks, though, it just wouldn't let me log on anymore. I guess Firefox will have to do. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Obesity and religious belief.

apparently, there are strong correlations between extremist religious fundamentalism and the problem of obesity. I was totally unaware that obesity had a religious aspect. B♭maj7 (talk) Apple acknowledged that 137 workers at a Chinese factory near the city of Suzhou had been seriously injured by a toxic chemical used in making the slick green screens of the iPhone 16:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It's true. And other indicators of social health favor atheism over religiosity. Countries with higher atheist populations enjoy lower infant mortality, nearly nonexistent poverty, lower homicide rates, higher literacy, lower HIV rates, better gender equality, etc. etc. Greg Paul did the best work on this but I can't find the paper right now - this one refers to the analysis. Here's another. 17:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do I find it disturbing that Al-Awlaki spoke perfect English? There's almost no way anyone can insinuate from that video that he was the head of Al-Qaeda or was planning terrorist attacks. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"Why do I find it disturbing that Al-Awlaki spoke perfect English?" He spent the first seven years of his life in New Mexico, and earned degrees from Colorado State University and San Diego State University and spent a year working of a doctorate at George Washington University. I'd be more surprised if he didn't speak fluent English. Also, i think we now need articles onInfidels and obesity and 72 virgins in heaven don't like obese men. B♭maj7 (talk) Apple acknowledged that 137 workers at a Chinese factory near the city of Suzhou had been seriously injured by a toxic chemical used in making the slick green screens of the iPhone 23:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I know he's American, it's just the way he presents himself makes it hardly believable that he had this savage hatred to kill thousands of people. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, nobody who speaks good American would ever kill thousands of people for no good reason, or otherwise attack people simply because they were different from him. B♭maj7 (talk) Apple acknowledged that 137 workers at a Chinese factory near the city of Suzhou had been seriously injured by a toxic chemical used in making the slick green screens of the iPhone 23:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make an opposing arguement with you. :P

It's just that he's not the archetypal (Ahmadinejad-esque) hysterically-yelling Islamic fundamentalist nut, but an eerily calm Islamic funtamentalist nut. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The way he presents himself? are you serious? What fundimentalists have you ever seen. many many of them are calm logical religious men. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 00:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Examples? We're talking about the extremists here (I don't know if you're on Poe's Law mode right now). Osaka Sun (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea you worked on such sterotype. Check out Sayyid Qutb, dead nearly 40 years, but one of the most cited jihadists in the world. If you're a youtube fan, Tamil Bayan; Ibn Baaz in his later years; Abu Qutada (not his son); Necmettin Erbakan . The fact that you advocate for violence does not mean you are not "well spoken" nor does it mean taht when preaching on the Qu'ran, you are not even touching and emotional. It just means that you think at the end of the day, everyone who isn't like you should die. Sick, but not "hystrically yelling fundimentalist nut" as you like to put it. you should actually learn something about what you are stereotyping. Not like them - but understand who they are.GodotThe Peyote God awaits 00:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

For that matter, is there any footage of Bin Laden screaming and foaming at the mouth? It always struck me that his public persona was that of a calm, reasoned wise man. (not saying he was reasonable and wise, saying that was the image he tried to project.) Same with Khomeni, for that metter. B♭maj7 (talk) Apple acknowledged that 137 workers at a Chinese factory near the city of Suzhou had been seriously injured by a toxic chemical used in making the slick green screens of the iPhone 00:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm speaking really on terms of fundamentalists in general, not just Islam. It's just unusual that they wouldn't be emotionally unstable like much of the Religious Right in the US, even though they have near-parallel ethical values. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

you're confusing mental health with the cultivation of a performance style that will resonate with very different types of audiences. B♭maj7 (talk) Apple acknowledged that 137 workers at a Chinese factory near the city of Suzhou had been seriously injured by a toxic chemical used in making the slick green screens of the iPhone 01:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

YOu also seem to be equating what you WANT to see, with what is there. Most religious fundamentalists are sane people. they speak well, some every eloquently. (hello, look at hitler, one of the single best speakers in modern history). Most are not "emotionally unstable". Yes, there are some. but most are quite stable, they just think very very very differently from you and I. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 01:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

hukabee. This idiot for example. Hate every thing he says or stands for, but he's really quite a good speaker. if only he were talking about how to bake bread or something. And Hukabee is quite the fundamentalist.

You're only technically insane or irrational when Thought A doesn't lead to expected Action B. So your thoughts aren't held together in a rational manner. E.g., someone gives you a compliment passing you in the street, so you stab them. Merely believing the world is 6000 years old isn't, in itself, insane or irrational or emotionally unstable. More often than not this is just a slur and shorthand for "people who disagree with me". Of course people who disagree with you are irrational, because you are rational. I mean, you wouldn't think that if it wasn't rational, would you? Ergo, people who don't think like you are irrational, or insane. The trick, as always, lies not in what you believe but why. ADK^{...I'll confuddle your gun!} 11:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd argue that "rationality" has never been coherently defined. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the whole reason I started this thread was to sho who Ken's arguments were reflected in those of an Al-Qaeda bigwig, not to start a debate on the nature of rationality. That is all. B♭maj7 (talk) "And when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I’m going to say, you know, I don’t know. Do you know?" 02:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

True. Religiosity is higher in rural areas, though, so it's not so surprising. Urbanites generally have to walk more and so get more exercise. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Nightclubs

I need to read this Charlie Brooker guy more often. He did, however, miss one thing -- the proliferation of shitty DJs who just downloaded Traktor for their Mac Books and think it qualifies as "turntablism." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. And I'd add pubs that play music so loud you can't hear anyone. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

He has me at the title alone. Well, the sub-editor has me, at least. All of Screenwipe and Newswipe are on YouTube, do watch it. ADK^{...I'll exemplify your ooze!} 15:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

"Why not just stay at home punching yourself in the face?" Blue (is useful) 18:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

My favorite Brooker moment was during an episode of "You Have Been Watching" when he was talking about CSI, and they were showing montages of Laurence Fishburn and Brooker said that CSI "stars a black me". There was a slight laugh, a pause, and then outright laughing and applause when people saw the difference :) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it goes back to some early Screenwipe. You can see it if you squint hard... but that's the joke, really. ADK^{...I'll quantify your leukemia!} 11:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What if you could be paid with thanks?

An interesting proposition. We all have those times where we have to work hard and the pay isn't really enough, and the thank-you doesn't really help, either. After all, you can't buy anything with "thanks". But that got we wondering: what if you could?

By this, imagine that, when you do work, and people thank you for doing it, you get "mercredits", a combination of the French "merci" and "credit". Mercredits can be used as a medium of exchange and storage of value just as dollars (or pounds, or euros, or yens...) are today.

The idea just sprang into my head, so I could use the help of some of you here on RationalWiki in order to refine this idea. Any suggestions or comments would be nice! ^{— Unsigned, by: HeidelbergKid / talk / contribs}

This is exactly the same as money. Pretty much reminds me of this. ADK^{...I'll ruminate your cookie cutter!} 00:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Would these Mercredits only be valid on Wednesdays? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

<le groan> Scream!! (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Bit of a silly idea. Imagine if anyone could print money - that's what it would be like. You could just get together with a friend and thank each other all day. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 09:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

But on the plus side, religious people would starve to death since they'd spend all their money thanking god. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant! Your new "currency" will look like this after a few days. Unless you go the bitcoin route and put a cap on the total amount in circulation, in which case it looks like this. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

In a hypothetical post-scarcity society one possible remaining purpose for currency is to track "brownie points" like this. A search for "Down and out in the Magic Kingdom" should find you a free copy of Cory Doctorow's novel in which Whuffie is such a currency. The main character is never in danger of starving, dying of exposure etc. (not that it would matter since resurrection technology exists in this setting) but he does face complete loss of reputation, with the consequence that most people treat him as invisible, an untouchable. There are a bunch of other stories on this topic, but "Down and Out" has the advantage that it's legally available at no cost.

If you don't live in a post-scarcity society (and have hard AI and numerous other things assumed by Doctorow to make his story work) then such currency probably isn't workable 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Currency is just a short-hand for value. We value different things depending on scarcity. I argue that conspiracy theories work because people put a value on scarce information ("this is information they don't want you to know, it's TOP SECRET!") and then mistake this for truth value - but nevertheless the straight up value put on scarce and secret information makes it hot stuff to spread. Stuff that is common knowledge and isn't suppressed then loses value; diet advice, for instance, is free and universal yet people will sell diet products because they have A Secret. Currently we ascribe scarcity to food, big houses, fast cars and the fuel to put in them, clothing and so on. In the hypothetical Star Trek style Utopian future it's not that we'll be "post" scarcity, it's that what is scarce, and therefore valuable, will have changed. Whether this be reputation, information, position in a social order, or even breathable air if you go the route of a mega-polluted planet that is otherwise functioning. ADK^{...I'll litigate your broadsword!} 11:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Not only scarcity (supply). There has to be demand as well, which is driven by factors such as desire, need, fashion, and legal obligation, etc. You also have artificial prices, such as those set by governments, monopolies and cartels. But I like your idea about valuing conspiracy theories. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Supply and demand is one thing. But I'd say that they're just two halves of a the same coin. Demand can very much be influenced by the supply - rare things can be in demand because they are rare. Supply + Demand sets the cost, but I'd say that only the supply sets the value. If you get my meaning of the difference there. Take precious metals used in ornaments and jewellery. They're effectively useless so why would there be a demand except for the actual scarcity of such material. You could make equal if not better results out of more readily available materials but the demand still wouldn't be as high - the materials aren't scarce enough for us to demand them. There can be a lot of demand for limited edition supercars, which are sometimes produced in numbers barely into double figures. Would the demand be as great if they weren't limited edition versions? I don't think so. Nassim Taleb (PBUH) has been on Facebook recently harping on about how such things are valued because of social status, which I agree with but would go one further and say that the social status is conveyed by scarcity. It's cool to have what others don't have. And this comes back to conspiracy theorists too; they have the information that the Mainsteam Sheeple don't have and what the Mainstream Media don't want you to have. Or try the same idea on alternative music lovers; nothing is cooler than knowing a band that no one else has heard of and hearing them before everyone else. ADK^{...I'll execrate your cellphone!} 12:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think it is as simple as that. Demand can be fuelled by scarcity. But, as we can all see from the example of children's collecting fads, demand can be driven by popularity and everyone ends up having the whatever it is at the time and willing to pay a high price even when there is essentially no scarcity. Likewise, conspiracy theories can be fuelled by fashion - it's fashionable to believe that orthodox medicine is in the grip of pharmaceutical companies, for example. This then fuels the value of alternative medicines or books about it. No scarcity there! But yes, I agree with your overall argument. Just saying that value is hugely complicated and there are many more factors than simple supply that drives it. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are apparent exceptions and I agree there are probably some subtleties to the straight up equation of "value = scarcity". However, consider what makes a fad or fashion in the first place, whether it be kids toys or a Hot New Look on the cover of whatever magazine. They're eventually pushed and pushed and everyone has them and the fad fizzles out ready for the next one. People are fickle, certainly, but I'd push for another interpretation. Their lack of scarcity eventually leads to market saturation and eventual decline - no one values it when it's common as much again and so it doesn't remain fashionable. Hence why all fashions are transitory and the focus is always on the trend setters not the saps who follow and make it mainstream. While at the beginning of a fad they're rare and everyone must have it. The desirability of the fad in the first place is set by the fact that it's rare. Fashions become hot property not so much because there's a lot of supply and demand, but because the trend setters who make their names discovering them first like to show off the fact that they found them first! ADK^{...I'll widen your bridge!} 13:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There's certainly much to agree with there. But I think you dismiss everything else apart from scarcity too easily. If scarcity was the only driver of value, then everything that is scarce would be valuable. As we know that is not true, so you must factor in demand driven by need, fashion, desire, etc. Take the iPhone. There is no scarcity - Apple will make as many as can be sold. It is valuable because of the demand created by Apple's design and marketing expertise. Sure there is the huge increase in demand whenever a new model is launched perhaps due to its scarcity as you assert. But the demand is maintained at high levels because of the demand generated by perceived excellence, fashion, whatever, which in turn keeps the value and price high. Not because of scarcity. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mean to dismiss anything else entirely, and certainly not to platonify it as a be-all and end-all model. I'm just saying it has a significant impact on what is "cool" and what is not. ADK^{...I'll cure your mongoose!} 16:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

For instance I think Apple makes a good case. They do benefit from a certain design and usability ethos, but I think the high price conveys a certain social status. It's saying "look, I can afford Apple, you can't, not many people can". Again, not to platonify it but to show that rarity influences what we ascribe value to and what we ascribe social status to. I do not think they'd be in the same position if everyone had a Macbook, though from a corporate perspective I'm sure they'd love it. It's not the only thing, but I think Apple get a good shot in the arm from being the "outsiders" as it were, whereas Microsoft is seen as mainstream - the slogan isn't "think different" for no reason. And Linux - to keep on the OS theme - is even further from the mainstream. ADK^{...I'll tear your catamite!} 16:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but that's where it falls down. Linux is free! Ajkgordon (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Price doesn't equal value or social standing, though. ADK^{...I'll earn your cuddly toy!} 20:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually in economic terms, value is very much linked to price and while they are not exactly the same thing, price is a reflection of exchange value in the market.

Look, we're beginning to argue semantics. While I agree in general that value can be a reflection of scarcity, demand is not as simple as an inverse of supply. And value that doesn't follow that rule is not an exception either. Value in economic terms is complex and contentious. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, semantics. I agree. I should perhaps reign in my thought a little and not try to confuse it with actual economics as what I'm saying isn't really an economic argument (I think); when I say "value" I would perhaps be better off saying desirability. Perhaps. I'm thinking more about what causes us to want something superfluous, rather than ascribe a certain cash value to it. Otherwise yes, mere scarcity is too simplistic. This is perhaps why it's a better argument in abstract cases relating to alternative music scenesters liking bands no one else has heard of conspiracy theorists wanting information that They don't want you to know. ADK^{...I'll prove your flagella!} 08:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

They know what value is but They just don't want to tell us. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Leave it to wingnuts to start a "movement" based on spurious statistics

Fucking looters! (Idiocy explained) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

And when McMegan resists the urge to hippie-punch... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This is still an argument? If you could get a perfect example of PRATT, this would be it.

And I would love to know the total income the bottom 50% make in comparison to the rest of your country. Oh wait. How do you expect the economy to grow when the consumer doesn't have any fucking money to begin with? For Republicans the mantra is always ignorance is bliss. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

PRATTS never die -- that's why they're PRATTS. How long have the creationists been denying transitional fossils? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem is the creationists are on the "scientific" fringe and generally ignored, while the income tax PRATTS are strongly represented in Congress. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Creationists are also well represented in Congress. If they were generally ignored, most of RationalWiki wouldn't exist. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I love this website, but sometimes I read something that causes a stroke, and this is one of them. 53%? Never had the option of not working? Neither did the guy who got laid off and hasn't been able to find a job since. OWS needs a strong leader, now. I'd go try but I'm only 21. Senator Harrison (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The question is, who would want to live on less than $400 a week if they had the opportunity to make more? Osaka Sun (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You'd be surprised at the low quality of life people will happily put up with if it means doing nothing. It can also be a case of it being habitual. In my third year of University, one guy I lived with was terminally unemployed, and eventually just settled into that cycle. Very difficult to break out of it. He did try for interviews, look up jobs but did so at a very "relaxed" pace. Do describe people as living unemployed out of choice or because they have no choice I think is far too black and white (Fallacy of Gray be damned) as it's part way between a conscious choice and being forced by external factors. ADK^{...I'll curate your street sign!} 15:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

My response to that is that there are always scumbags, lazy people, and morons, in every profession and demographic. On the other side, you have people like Paris Hilton, who won the ovarian lottery, saying "I sometimes forget that people have to work". Senator Harrison (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is you have the Republican Party throwing out tax breaks to the Paris Hiltons in the hope that they'll magically create jobs. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be arguing that they'll create jobs rather than take the extra as profit. Nice idea, but unlikely to happen in reality. So the question is; the extra money that businesses make, do you leave them to do with it as they see fit or have the government take it? Well, question what the difference is. The extra money could be used to create jobs, be put towards philanthropic causes, medical cover, and so on. But if you corporation does that, how does a corporation differ from government? It doesn't. You effectively have corporation as government. People don't seem to think that this counts but it does - just look at the role that government traditionally takes and you see that increasingly people want to hand that over to private companies instead. So the only difference? Government is answerable to all the people, corporations answerable only to their select shareholders and directors. With that exception they're becoming increasingly identical. A government (in principle, I should add) is answerable to all the people to protect all the people, so it becomes a no-brainer that excess cash should flow in their direction rather than be used to prop up those who would happily squander it. (and Paris Hilton isn't as dumb as she looks, complete morons don't cultivate themselves as a brand that well). ADK^{...I'll speak your ripple!} 09:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Well said. This is why I love this website. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Paris Hilton has agents who cultivate that brand for her. She's probably quite smart, but in theory she only needs to be smart enough to a) throw money at a PR company and b) do what the PR company says. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much evidence for Paris being smart. She dropped out of college, she has poor self-discipline, she drink-drives and then figures yelling at the judge might help, she says pretty nasty things for no especially good reason. I'm sure her "dumb blonde" thing is deliberately cultivated, but that doesn't prohibit there being a grain of truth to it. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... I kind of regret saying that. I only heard she said that and when I looked it up I couldn't find it anywhere. I take that part back, but I know people who are spoiled enough to say something LIKE that. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Black Swan

I stumbled upon RW's article on Taleb's book The Black Swan and I'm thinking about picking up a copy of the book; I see on Amazon that there's a new edition out, but before I drop around 10 USD on it, anyone else read it? I read some of the talk page comments, but anyone have opinions one way or another about it? άλφα^Ταλκ 12:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally I preferred his earlier book Fooled by Randomness but both make good (if overlapping) arguments. ADK has invested a lot of emotional energy in TBS so I'll wait for her to chip in. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Watch the movie instead. There's a lot more sex, violence & ballet in it. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The 'new version' you refer to is the second edition which was published in 2010. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, newer edition would be a better choice of words. άλφα^Ταλκ 14:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

ADK-gasm in 3, 2, 1... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting better, I've moved onto Anthropic Bias now. ADK^{...I'll xerox your pizza!} 14:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@ADK - What about the actual book? Worth the read, or no? Thanks, Genghis, for the tip. άλφα^Ταλκ 18:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Generally, yes. The central concept is easy enough so the book can sometimes be a bit repetitive and you can play a good drinking game for time he mentions how much of an awesome quant he was back in the day, but there are some good bits and pieces to pick up on. Also fun is Taleb's Facebook page, where he sometimes releases bits of his next book for discussion and feedback, although it's a little "okay, am I the only one who finds these sayings just a little bit formulaic? If you want to push something down, you have to pull it up. If you want to go left, you have to go right." ADK^{...I'll golf your harpsichord!} 20:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

But he does delete and block you if you disagree with him. ADK^{...I'll bust your lens!} 21:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Read it and thought it was excellent. And I thought it was better than Fooled by Randomness - but I read "Black Swan" first, so maybe I didn't find the ideas in the earlier book so remarkable. But I'd certainly recommend both.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the movie is better than the book, Natalie Portman is a fantastic, erm, actress. Damo^Hi 22:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

oh oh oh the movie is absolutely glorious! Taleb's book, yeah it's okay... but the movie has Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis in it now that is so much better (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I hate to think how many people actually make that mistake... I mean, on his Facebook page NNT regular complains about journalists who write up something about the book without reading it. ADK^{...I'll castrate your random string of characters!} 07:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Though here's the thing that hacks me off about Nassim Taleb...

• Here's a man who has a professorship position at a well-known University yet insists that all academics are frauds and universities are wasteful institutions.
• Here's a man who is singularly obsessed with a single subject yet tells us to be weary of nerds who get too bogged down in detail and are obsessive.
• Here's a man who issues as an edict not to listen to soundbittes yet almost exclusively communicates in soundbites via Facebook and ends pretty much every paragraph of TBS with one.

I'd say he's like a walking hypocrisy machine, endlessly churning out didactic statements about how academics are all stupid and useless for reason X while simultaneously exhibiting Reason X himself and happily ignoring it (at least Yudkowsky admits to personal development on occasion). The latest being something about how social science academics with a long list of citations are irrelevant - oh really Mr Fith-Most-Popular-Academic-On-The-Social-Sciences-Network? And then there's the fans, who seem to be in competition with each other about who can formulate the best approximation of his succinct soundbyte-ridden style. It's like "hey, Nassim, can I suck your cock now?" Yeah, this is style over substance, but I never said the substance was the problem. ADK^{...I'll admonish your crack whore!} 16:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Can't escape!

I was cycling around Kyoto today, and saw a door which had the sign 'Christian Science Society' above it. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 10:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You should drop in and say hi to Jessica. Lol. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 11:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Meh, I have a Scientology branch not too far away from me. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If I had been you, I would've dropped in. Those Christian Science thingys can be quite entertaining.... if you don't mind losing a few brain cells, of course. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 09:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You keep getting older, they stay the same age

Freshers have arrived... nubile, corruptible, lightweight, inexperienced, eager... and totally under the half-your-age-plus-seven rule. I refuse to accept people born in the 90s as young adults, it's just not right. ADK^{...I'll taste your DJ!} 16:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Just you wait until you got to a Parent's evening and your child is being taught by someone who looks barely seventeen - although, of course, they must be at least in their mid twenties. The cliché is when some bare faced youngster barely out of nappies (diapers for you yanks) thinks he can order you around because he has a police uniform. Bad Faith (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, how fucking dare they. I mean it's bad enough being absolute fucking jail bait but exerting authority fuck me. ADK^{...I'll admonish your card game!} 17:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

But exerting authority is the fun part... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

>.> It's weird thinking im almost 20 >.>--Mikalosa (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a lot weirder thinking that you're almost 60 - and still you're hanging out on a wiki full of students. Bad Faith (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It is weird thinking I'll have a degree in a few months. Ty^talk 22:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It's weird having a son who sometimes makes me feel I'm being juvenile! Ajkgordon (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

My doctor is 13. I would swear on it. all bubbly and excited. AND she's been doing this for 5 or so years. so she must have gotten her licence when she was 8. She had the audacity to say "but you're still so young, so you haven't really damaged anything". And my "teen fangirl crush", turned 60 this year. SIXTY!!! And I don't know a single actor in any of the latest releases. "GET OFF MY DAMN LAWN AND TURN DOWN THAT FUCKING MUSIC".GodotThe Peyote God awaits 13:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha! Ajkgordon (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Yeti exists!

Guardian reports that "Scientists" are 95% convinced the yeti exists. For once the comments section is a lot more sensible than the article. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I love the media use of "scientists". Right up there with "some say" and "it is believed", they make the world of reporting so much easier. X Stickman (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the phrases I would ban from science journalism is "scientists say..." It gives the impression that some yahoo at a third-rate community college speculating about the results of a half-baked, "controversial" study is equivalent to a scientific consensus. No doubt this is one of the main contributors to "science was wrong before syndrome." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"I know they exist – I see them every day," - you see, we have a very apt response for this sort of thing: pics or it didn't happen. ADK^{...I'll lather your potato masher!} 07:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What the hell is going on with the John Lewis thing at OWS in Atlanta?

Every right wing whackjob in the United States is pouncing on this like no tomorrow. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Links/a summary? B♭maj7 (talk) "And when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I’m going to say, you know, I don’t know. Do you know?" 23:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

a sane summary. Bad Faith (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Go on YouTube, it's the top video in the "News and Politics" section. By now it seems they're willing to look anywhere to make a molehill mountaineering situation. And if it couldn't get any more lulzier, Faux is actually protecting a black progressive civil rights leader. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a standard HCM to me. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Who is John Galt Lewis? All I know is it's a store in London. Doctor Dark (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That John Lewis is an employee-owned company that runs lots of British department stores including one in London (it also owns Waitrose and a few other things which are run in the same fashion). Employee "ownership" is achieved through the existence of a trust that is the legal 100% owner of the business, and it's the trust that is directly responsible to the employees through democratic means. It's distinct from a co-operative because the customers are NOT owners of the business, only the employees. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Rob must read that and smell COMMIES not knowing that many of its customers are the capitalist elite. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

All or nothing

So you take your annual £5m advertising budget and plough it all into a single advert. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What the bell-end is that? ADK^{...I'll browbeat your goat!} 10:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Even with the explanatory link to the Beeb, the comment above still stands. ADK^{...I'll widen your nostalgia!} 12:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiki-fu

Someone with template knowledge like to look at Trolling_With_Logic, the template:yt doesn't seem to parse properly. Clickbot (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

{{yt}} is meant to link to articles, not act as a lede. So when you bolded the title, it borked. Now what is left is a red-link. If the youtuber in question is worth an article, merely do it a straight article and add the official channel in the youtube user template and/or external links section. ADK^{...I'll cogitate your bathtub!} 13:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually do stuff, I just comment. Clickbot (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh well. ADK^{...I'll rinse your dot!} 14:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. --★uːʤɱ federalist 14:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Fundie radio

It'll probably be old hat to the American readers, but living in the UK this was a new experience for me. What's with the bit where he sudenly seems to be recording from a train station? Balaam (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The part about fundies being on the radio or the part about Halloween being a Satanic conspiracy? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Fuundies on the radio. I've been reading this stuff online for years but it's kind of trippy actually hearing it, complete with musical interludes... Balaam (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, they're on TV, and the streets too. The best one is long dead, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Since a wandal had to drop this hilarious nonsense....

I figured I'd bring it to light for us all to amuse ourselves with in great laughter. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 09:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

In many respects he sounds just like Ken with his QE BS. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. And, like Ken, none of it has anything actually to do with debunking atheism. Rather, it's a screed of insults and half-truths hurled with the same old "atheism is wrong because the Bible says so" nonsense. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 10:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

And Hitler was an atheist, yawn. It would be good to have copies to debunk but I'd never encourage anyone to actually buy the things. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that Ann Coulter's new pseudonym? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

She is a fan of him, apparently. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 16:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think he's converted me. I was blind, of course Einstein who was culturally Jewish and explicitly stated that he was a metaphorical pantheist got all of his inspiration for special relativity from the Bible! How was I so blind until now? ADK^{...I'll advocate your antibacterial!} 15:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Open your (Texas-approved) history book, ignoramus! The earth is 6,000 years old, Thomas Jefferson never existed, and Hitler was a godless commie! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

What Ken is in friendlyness this guy is in anger. He just reads like a giant raving douche. Anyway some favorites of mine:

"Suck, for you thick atheists, is a slang word which means to make or to be really, really crappy (kind of like how our culture becomes anytime you guys mess with it)." Riiight, we atheists have always been calling for family-friendly language in all of public, didn't you know that just until a few years ago there was an old atheistic lady around every corner censoring everybodies speech that was seen as unclean? I remember very well when my atheist nazi grandmother wanted to wash my mouth with soap because I used the German version of "shit".

"When they get sweaty and tell you that the Bible breeds intolerance, refresh their memory with the fact that only those societies influenced by biblical teachings (in North and South America, Europe, and Australia) today guarantee freedom of speech and religion. Period." New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, South Africa and ISRAEL are apparantly dictatorships. Anyhow, I'll now go to Cuba and after that to Belarus and hold some speeches there. See ya! --★uːʤɱ atheist 14:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That's only an introduction. Bet you're scared to read the whole books. God is Lord (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If by "scared" you mean "bored to death by the same tired old arguments" then, yes, we are "scared". The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 09:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What is it with this scared thing? Why should somebody be scared of finding out the truth? Because one would look like a fool? Is it really so important for you "Christians" to look good that you would sacrifice knowing the truth? Some of us, mostly those sane, are not driven by a lifelong unstopable feeling of guilt and a need to make mommy and daddy love us (ok, I think I'm in the minority with that, but still). And why would it make you so happy if people that thought different from you were scared? Would that make you feel big and important? Or would it just make you proud that you are on the side that is right? One of the "good guys"? There's nothing to be scared about, even if I am wrong. And use way to many rethorical questions.--★uːʤɱ digital native 11:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

We'va already got an article about one of his wonderful books examples of rubbish, What's So Great About Christianity, we just need to pulverise The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible and we can wait till some Christian next brings up something silly.

That book is part of a series that matters, see Regnery Publishing#Politically Incorrect Guides and apparently “Educators may wish to get copies of the appropriate P.I.Gs to prepare themselves for misinformed students who have been indoctrinated with these books. (Yes, they are popular with parents in the home schooling movement.) According to Regnery's website, the following Politically Incorrect Guides are available:”. Thanks God is Lord for showing us where we need to do some work. I'm not Jesus (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I’ve added a link to both relevant articles. I'm not Jesus (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

senate repukes

Cause god forbid we put a tax "surcharge" on millionairs who presumably HAVE jobs (or don't need them), to help create jobs for all those who do NOT have jobs. Yeah republicans. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 19:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The crazy one said this morning that its a socialist plot to make everyone in America have the same salary. Ty^talk 19:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait - The crazy one? there is a specific one that is more crazy than the rest? I really do not get these people. Course, georgia is floating a bill to make Prisioners our new Fire Fighters. jobs, who needs em. just give em to the prisioners!GodotThe Peyote God awaits 19:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I love the way slavery is alive and well in the land of the free AMassiveGay (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

They're going to send prisoners into people's homes to fight fires? They really haven't thought that one through, have they? Godspeed (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't know about the Georgia bill, but the most likely guess is it is for convict labor to help fight forest fires. Some states do this already. I don't particularly care for this as it seems like an excuse to cut back on hiring of regular fire crews, which in some areas are a good source of summer jobs especially in the western U.S. Then again, the use of convict labor is at the state level and many or most of the good jobs are federal. Secret Squirrel (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

(Re: the Georgia bill) It sounds like inmates are used to fight forest fires on the west coast, but the Georgia program is going to use them to respond to all types of calls, including residential (per this article). άλφα^Ταλκ 00:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I live in colorado, and there is a - well a "ban" on no trained (including current convicts) working fires. They are simply not qualified enough, and might harm themselves or others. But more importantly, this bill is intended to replace working firefighters so the state can cut costs. HOw is this going to help "job creation".GodotThe Peyote God awaits 01:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm..getting anyone red carded for forest fires takes about a weekend of classes. Very much unlike structure fires. A ban makes sense though for a different reason, as you mention, job creation. Using convict labor is just rank cost cutting of the worst kind. These are jobs that can be quite lucrative and are in demand. If my guess about Georgia is wrong I do have to wonder WTF is going on there...state legislators trying to bust the IAFF? Shortage of vollies? Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised you say a weekend. volunteers here have 6 weeks of courses on weekends (i'm guessing 5-10 hours per weekend but i can ask) before they are allowed to crew a forest fire. It's 6 weeks (separate) of training for structure fires as well, if you are in a small mountain volunteer only fire dept. I think the same 6 weeks gets you emt I. Colorado still has tons of all volunteer depts in the mountains. Or maybe it's the jobs you are allowed to do in forest fires? All our National Forests here, though, are put out by local Depts, and not the state or feds. they contract the work to local fire units. is that the difference? GodotThe Peyote God awaits 12:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking of the basic S-130, S-190, ICS courses. When I took it, twice, which was over a decade ago now the first time as I recall was four days of maybe 8 hours each. The second time was a 3 day weekend of two very long days, and a few morning classes and the pack test given day 3. I don't know but just guessing the volunteer department there sounds like they either have more requirements, getting everyone additional qualifications, or maybe they are just spreading the basic classes out over 6 weekends. 6 weekends of only 5 hours each is 30 hours, which sounds about right. Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Chuggers really pissing me off

I can't step out of the office for a fag without being sent upon by these arseholes. They seem to be really pushy in holborn. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Put some headphones on and look angry. That always works for me, I guess I scare them off. --★uːʤɱ pirate 19:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

What, um, is a chugger?GodotThe Peyote God awaits 20:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Charity fundraiser → charity mugger → chugger. Scream!! (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Or as I call them, chunts. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Yeah i stole that joke from a standup

Knowing that they play on guilt, I just say "Sorry I can't give you any money because I'm a bad person and I (eat babies|punch abused animals|pour oil into the sea|rape homeless people)" etc. Either that or ask what percentage of your donation will make it to the cause, and if it's lower than 40% (which it will be, if they can even answer the question) then you're not giving them any money. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Annoying though they are, I find it more convenient to stick to the "no sorry" & walk off in silence routine than make up some excuse. But if I were to bother with a reason, I'd probably go with "I already have direct debits to my preferred charities, can't afford yours so fuuuuuuck yooooouuu *accompany with egregrious hand gesturing*" ^{ONE / TALK} 10:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Might be of interest

Encyclopedia of Science Fiction Scream!! (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Neat, but why on Earth did they think it was a good idea to have all the wiki-links in large capital letters? It looks hideous. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Could be following the style of The Tough Guide to the Known Galaxy, which also makes for essential reading so that you know the difference between REALLY ALIENS and FOREHEAD RIDGES ALIENS. ADK^{...I'll lather your telephone!} 11:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Kings of Leon

A bunch of awful talent-less scum holed, meat curtains. Ace^ace 01:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hell is a Gulag in which you're forced to listen to the Kings of Leon, Josh Grobin, and John Tesh on shuffle. You were told there's a box of razorblades on the dresser, but it's dark and you're strapped to a gurney. This goes on forever. 01:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

And Maratrean will be there. Ace^ace 02:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Kings of Leon suck, but hell? I think they'd at least have some bottom-of-the-barrel Japanoise bands and Celine Dion. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You guys don't know real hell, it's called Schlager and it's the degenerated conservative "we are happy all the time" cousin of chanson. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 10:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

At least their songs have the decency to be short. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Corporate tax rates in Japan and the United States

Ok, we all know that the US pays some of the lowest taxes in the developed world by GDP (and obviously has been an epic fail). What I'm curious is why America and Japan has historically taxed higher on corporate income (disregarding the shitload of loopholes and constant supply-side over the years) and lower on personal rates, opposite to almost everywhere else?

I always wonder why questions like this have barely ever been asked. This being the Internet, after all. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Dunno. If you want to know about tax policy, why not troll through the Tax Policy Center and NBER for a bit? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean trawl? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No, trolling economists is way more fun. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

But you're likely to get long-winded, rather than angry, answers: even to provocative or rhetorical questions. Hell, especially to provocative, rhetorical questions. Godspeed (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and to answer your question, people have agreed that the US has needed corporate tax reform, including lower rates, for quite some time. It was one of (Ways and Means chair) Charlie Rangel's priorities before he was forced to resign from Congress. Shareholders do enjoy preferential capital gains rates on corporate dividends, though, which makes up for the higher rates at the corporate level. Presumably (hopefully) if corporate rates are lowered, the rates on dividends will be raised. Godspeed (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

tl:dr

I just downloaded a new app for my iPad and I got a message that the Terms and Conditions of the iTunes Store have changed. I am then presented with a page of legalese with an Agree button at the bottom, just below where it says Page 1 of 38. Do they honestly expect people to read all that stuff - especially if you are using mobile device? </rant> Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No, they expect you to not read it, and then screw you over. </cynicism> -- Nx / talk 09:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not that they expect you to read it, it's that they have to throw it in your face so you can't say you've been screwed over. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 10:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Legally, that is. -- Nx / talk 10:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of them contain humorous statements if you actually scroll down, but Apple isn't one of them. Ty^talk 11:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

These "click through" agreements have very limited power. You can still say you've been screwed over, and a court can still agree with you, but you will need to do a bit better than "I didn't realise I agreed to this". Judges are people just like us, and by now all but the very most decrepit and incapable of them have had to agree to these things, so they're aware that no-one actually reads all the legalese, any more than ordinary people read every page of their lease before signing. Any really egregious terms must be highlighted, and probably extensively justified as necessary or the judge is just going to throw them out, and Apple's lawyers know that. Like an unconstitutional law, an illegal contract term doesn't magically vanish, someone has to actually challenge it if they want it to go away. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You can actually sign any contract you like, but if it's not deemed fair when it comes to being challenged then you're not necessarily held by it. For example, someone can hire a contractor to build something for them (office blocks, Olympic stadiums, houses etc. etc.) and put in a delay clause that charges $90,000,000,000 for every day the completion becomes overdue. The main contractor can sign that and start work, but unless the client can prove in court that the delay is costing them near enough $90,000,000,000 a day, the main contractor doesn't have to pay it if they run over time and a court can decide on the actual fine or even if it's legal to include such a charge in the first place. Circumstances beyond the contractors control (accidents, environmental problems, general unforeseen circumstances) would also make charging for delayed completion unfair, and if the client refuses to renegotiate the delay clauses in the contract in light of such events that too can be deemed wrong and contract invalidated in law. As a result, contracts tend to have such clauses and conditions more realistically spelled out in advance to just save the time of going through court. Nothing that can "screw you over" is generally put into contracts and terms of use documents because the people who put them together know such things would never stand up if challenged anyway. ADK^{...I'll shave your Playstation!} 14:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

…Which has nothing to do with "I didn't know what I was getting into because they didn't tell me"-screwed over but is a question of the legality of the actions described in the terms and conditions. But if the described action is legal (collecting your online habits, for example) and you agreed there's not much you can do, except stop using the software in question. Also I think it's awesome how we just like it's totally normal break out it into a wrong & right discussion when the participans of this discussion alone life in 3 different states all with their own laws on this stuff. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 14:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It does if it's a major thing and a judge perceives them to be intentionally hiding such things inside terms and conditions contracts. Ignorance might not be a defense, but it would be evidence that the ones drawing up the contract were guilty of foul play. ADK^{...I'll rinse your electron!} 14:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I was actually talking to the BoN (which is why I set it on the same "level" as your comment). There's nothing wrong with what you said. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 15:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I always read serious real life legal stuff before signing it (tenancy agreements, employment contracts, etc.) but life is too short to read an end-user license agreement every time you install a piece of software. I doubt that clicking an "I agree" button when presented with one of these screens carries the same sort of legal standing as signing a paper contract, especially if something dodgy was hidden in the terms. Mostly I think that these things are there so that consumers can have access to the full terms if they wish to see them, but it's generally assumed they won't bother in most cases. 18:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note, however, that by accepting those iTunes T&C, you agree not to use iTunes for producing nuclear or biological weapons. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm still stuck for how iTunes can be used to produce nuclear or biological weapons. But I suppose only one person needs to figure it out for there to be a problem. ADK^{...I'll browbeat your glue!} 18:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Wanna write?

Skepchick looking for a new writer - and you can be male, apparently. ADK^{...I'll taste your lemming!} 14:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Only in Africa...

do you get this kind of awesome:

--PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, I've seen some rats around here that could probably do that. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It does make my driving in Netherlands when a hare came through the windscreen and land up dead on the passenger seat seem kind of tame. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Check the box

Why the FUCK do websites feel they have to trick people in opting into their newsletters? Seriously why not just say "If you want to receive our newsletter, tick this box". Don't they get that they will be getting loads of complaints from people in the future when they start spamming them? Take this one (from the Nationwide mortgage internet banking site):

“”Nationwide may inform me of special offers, products and services using this email address. If I do not wish to receive marketing material email, I can tick this box.

(Box is to the left of the text)
Seriously? The worst I ever saw was on the cokezone website or something similar, which was like "If you do not want us to not send you no email adverts, please do not leave this box unticked" or something equally confusing and English-raping. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Do not uncheck the box if you don't wish to abstain from opting out of not receiving newsletters from us. ADK^{...I'll bust your sea bass!} 14:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I would certainly like to propose an eponymous law stating "if it takes more than 15 seconds to unravel the double negatives, it can be safely called bullshit" ADK^{...I'll mature your encyclopedia!} 14:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Also the hoops you have to go through to stop emails later: I dropped a line to something about "New towns" about 5 years ago & I still get email depite having tried everything to stop them. It's on auto→trash now. Scream!! (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I never bother with that, I just create a filter to trash them automatically, or just mark them as spam and gmail's spam filter will do the rest. -- Nx / talk 17:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My "favourite" word to use with negatives is "unless". Unless you don't uncheck the box you won't ...--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a better one with multiple checkboxes. One will say "do check the box if you wish to receive emails" and the other (regarding third parties, or something different enough) will say "don't check the box if you wish to receive emails". ADK^{...I'll rebel your leaking roof!} 15:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I've seen that a lot. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Really stupid woman I saw today

Okay, I have little room to criticize anyone for smoking, but... a pregnant woman who smokes should be ashamed of herself. MDB (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember you struggling with that particular addiction a year or so back. I'm not condoning the woman but you ought to understand how hard it can be to cease smoking. Bad Faith (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I'll take some of that back. I smoked pretty much continuously between 1970 and 2007 so I can't talk either. Bad Faith (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

That's why I said "I have little room to criticize." (And I'm still struggling, BTW. I was doing pretty well until a project deadline at work.) MDB (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a smoker now for about 8 years but I know two things for certain: (1) When I get a girl pregnant (hopefully willingly) I will do everything to help her and (2) as a part of that stop me and - if she is a smoker too - her from smoking. And I don't care what she thinks at that point. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 19:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Mandatory Vulpius (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Final call for input

I intend to start the votes on voting standards soon. Any last-minute suggestions should be posted at RationalWiki talk:Community Standards.

Again, a thousand apologies for inflicting this upon the saloon bar. Blue (is useful) 02:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You will pay for this transgression. Oh how you will pay. Ty^talk 12:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be dim but where, exactly, are the things we are going to be voting on? I know you gave links but this old brain is still confused.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Never mind the where, I still don't quite know what it is. ADK^{...I'll repair your President of the United States!} 13:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I linked directly to it. All you have to do is uncollapse the box that says "second draft." Blue (is useful) 19:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Now I see it. I didn't realise it would be hidden.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Jack Sarfatti

Anyone heard of this guy? Seen his warp drive proposals? Oh it's probably nonsense, but it would be cool if it were real... Any physicists like to poke holes in his ideas? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, he's been watching too much Star Trek. ADK^{...I'll write your bistro!} 11:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I must admit I found his presentation more doubtful when I discovered that he is a fan of Uri Geller... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The thing I found most doubtful is that he seems to make a very basic mistake in assuming the "speed of light" is equal to c. It's not, c is the speed that massless particles travel at in a true vacuum. So he's pulling at first glance this fun trick of saying because we can reduce the speed of light in a Bose-Eisntein condensate (why not in plain, ordinary glass? That also reduces the speed of light) we can break the speed of light. Then there are a few field equations, that are a little bit outside my knoweledge as it stands, to justify it. But I can't quite get over the niggle that all he's done is say that changing the speed of light (trivial, really) changes c when that's just not true. ADK^{...I'll crackle your clock!} 12:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was this guy at first -- that would have been entertaining. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Far more interesting Blue (is useful) 19:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Infinitely more. Quite a brain breaker trying to think "okay, so you're going to be on this ship going to another planet, but odds are you're going to die on route so have babies". ADK^{...I'll pilot your apple juice!} 21:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I say, let's forget about interstellar travel, and focus on colonising the moon and asteroids and the Langrangian points, and maybe Mars even (or maybe just Phobos and Deimos)... by the time we have several billion people living outside the Earth, I'm sure interstellar travel will be far more feasible... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Phobos and Deimos are about big enough to accommodate a single deckchair, maybe two if we invent a less bulky space suit. On the list of places to set up colonies, Rockall is a higher priority. ADK^{...I'll toast your crab cake!} 09:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Radius of 11km and 6km respectively, surface areas of ~1500 km² and ~500 km²... bigger than many countries.... both could fit a few million people at least, well, if humans can survive long term in such weak gravity (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Chances are we'll have found a bona fide "Earthlike" planet within the decade, and then it will be easier for people to envision an actual interstellar journey. Colonizing the Solar System might be appropriate in the very short term, but I'll bet we'll be able to go faster than light by 2100, and then all hell will break loose. Blue (is useful) 13:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

My blackberry isn't working

You can see Harry Enfield struggle to keep a straight face when Ronnie Corbett says "dongle". Quite topical now with the BBN fucking up constantly.

ADK^{...I'll assassinate your nexus!} 08:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Diaspora sends out the begging bowl

Which is a bit rich, seeing as I haven't even seen anything yet. Selected highlights from their e-mail:

“”We love you. Yes. Really, we do. We’re building Diaspora*, in a spirit of community, because we believe in you. You’re one of the innovators, the creative ones, the people who make the world awesome. You’ve been incredibly patient in waiting for an invitation. We’re still working as fast as we can to get yours to you, and we’re sorry it’s taking so long. Every dollar we’ve spent building Diaspora* has come from the generosity of our community, from people like you who believe in what we’re building, and have given some of their hard-earned money to support our work. Every one of these gifts has been incredibly humbling. Each one says that someone shares our belief in what’s possible, and is willing to go the extra distance to help make it happen. Every time someone contributes, it feels like a huge, warm hug. With love, humility and respect, we‘re writing to ask if you’d be willing to make a gift as well. Can you contribute $25.-, or any other amount you feel comfortable with?

I have no idea when they have an * after Diaspora. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 09:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The idea is cool... I mean, I had this idea too, for a decentralised social network, everyone is identified by a keypair... and the symmetry of friendship is maintained by both parties signing with their private key... and you can even mutually assert propositions, like Facebook's "Sally is my cousin"... and do it all with XML Signature, and then have some smart HTML5 app or browser add-on which makes the XML docs look pretty... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

And then you woke up and your coffee was cold? --PsyGremlinParla! 09:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean is actually Mark Zuckerberg. Bringing religion to the internet via Facebook is the next big step in the grand plan. ADK^{...I'll bless your liquid goo!} 09:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I was actually thinking, if Steve Jobs had tried to start a religion, he probably would have succeeded :) That said, the really sad thing, is Steve Jobs dies, massive media frenzy, now Dennis Ritchie dies (who did far more for the industry than Jobs ever did), and not many notice... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Who says Jobs hasn't "started" his own religion? The founder never actually starts the religion; it's up to the followers to do that. ADK^{...I'll prove your rain meter!} 09:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's such a scam. I mean, come on, they've already eaten up thousands in start up funds and had no way of clawing back the money because they refused to use advertising. Then there's this thought that 5 free-software nerds could out perform hundreds of professional engineers working with million-dollar infrastructure (aka, Facebook and Google), and working on a business model that presumed people were dumb enough not to understand Facebook's privacy settings (though that's evident) and that FB would never change. ADK^{...I'll shave your gun!} 09:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If it wasn't for the fact that it was a social network, and therefore uncool, Diaspora would be a prime candidate for a quite scathing RW article. The parallels between it and various woo products are are fairly obvious; relying on a manufactroversy to power itself, taking money with no return, based on a fundamentally flawed premise (hey, let's make a network synonymous with the phrase "single point of failure"). And to be frank, the whole "let's do it open source" smacks so hard of Best Of The Public it stopped being funny and then started being funny again. Now with the begging for cash it's like an even more tragic version of Citizendium. ADK^{...I'll bless your liquid goo!} 09:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can win the mindshare of the "alpha user", the remainder will follow... that was partly how Facebook overtook Myspace, and is Google+'s strategy (we'll see how that goes)... so I don't want to underestimate how hard their task is, but I wouldn't say its entirely impossible... Hey, if they can cook up a true P2P architecture, they don't need to pay for hosting or bandwidth, their users will :) (((Zack Martin)))^™

Facebook superceded MySpace because it solved so much of the sheer horror of MySpace. Google+ is still panning out, but remember that Google Wave already died a quiet death despite wanting to revolutionise the internet - but Google has the funds to throw at projects like this whether they sink or float. There's winning a mindshare and then there's winning it sufficiently for people to give you money. That places the task on both a different scale and an entirely different scope - and we're talking about doing this before the final product is released. RW's fundraisers target the active users, who know what they're getting for it, and Wikipedia at least had the decency to become a world renowned indispensable resource before sticking Jimbo's face at the top asking for money. This is more akin to people standing at the front in Dragons' Den saying "well, we don't actually have a product, and we ate the last investment, and our competitors are ahead of us in every dimension but please give us more money anyway" ADK^{...I'll pass your fruit!} 09:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't hold Wave against Google... any more than I'd hold against Apple the Apple III, Lisa, A/UX, Newton, Taligent or Copland... the only way to succeed is to try things, and not everything works out, but you try again... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A distributed system is the obviously Right Thing™ here but the general public don't care about the Right Thing™, so that doesn't mean it will succeed. They understand the benefits when actually shown them, but they're not bright enough or not interested enough to figure it out for themselves. It would be adorable if it wasn't so infuriating. As to "we don't actually have a product", it's right there, as it has been from the outset. That's the thing about Free Software. If we all stiff them and they close up shop, the code they already built is right there for anyone to continue using and developing. There is no need to wait for a "final product" in a distributed system. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

In their defense a lot of those software engineers are needed exactly because Facebook is massively monolithic. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone reported these guys to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services yet, or is it up to me? DickTurpis (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

So I have a idea for you atheists

you should all restart the Cult of Reason! Why? Idk. --Mikalosa (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

YES. Osaka Sun (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I have time between the Cult of Not Touching Bare Electrical Wires and the Cult of Not Jumping Off Cliffs, but sure, why not. Sen (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'm always up for a "lurid", "licentious" affair of scandalous "depravities."as one source described it Our winter solstice holiday will be Festivus (for the rest of us). Blue (is useful) 20:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I'm already wearing a powdered wig & high collar. Ready to get completely lurid eighteenth-century style. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I've not looked at your link to refresh my memory, but I believe that the cult of reason was more of a deist thing. So not really atheist. But if you're looking for organized atheism, try Secular Humanism or those conventions where New Atheists (am I supposed to capitalize either of those?) gather to bitch about that thing they won't stop bitching about. --User:Brxbrx/sig 03:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

As for French Revolution deism, you're thinking of the Cult of the Supreme Being I think. The Cult of Reason was explicitly atheist. Also, if you want my own personal variety of atheism try antihumanist atheism. Blue (is useful) 03:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Sooo.... You don't believe in morality?--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe in magic human enlightenment. Secular humanism is theism repackaged into a cult of the human brain. It adores a teleological morality just as much as religions do. Blue (is useful) 04:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

@Br: "_{The Cult of Reason was explicitly humanocentric. Its goal was the perfection of mankind through the attainment of Truth and Liberty, and its guiding principle to this goal was the exercise of the human faculty of Reason.}"--Mikalosa (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you know how many times we've used specific jokes on articles?

Just one example. Osaka Sun (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I want not approve on it, I think statistical post. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Why is "bodily fluids" a joke?GodotIf you google 'Google', you'll break the internet. 15:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a Dr. Strangelove reference. Anyway, I count 14, 10 of which are articles, and at least 2 of which are serious uses of the term. 8 uses really isn't all that astounding. DickTurpis (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so when it gets to around 20 I'll be sure to remind you. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Needs moar bodily fluids:

Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess I still don't get it, since we talk about "bodily fluids" all the time in medicine and i've never read (?) watched (?) dr. strange love. GodotIf you google 'Google', you'll break the internet. 16:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Not just bodily fluids, precious bodily fluids. Being sapped and impurified. By commies. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait, you've never seen Dr. Strangelove? Rent it now. Seriously, just watch the opening scene. Some of the most creative filmmaking ever...if you know what I mean.

And also, Stephen Colbert does an amazing Peter Sellers. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is a Major Problem and all references to "bodily fluids" should be changed to "fluidic essences" immediately. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If anything the wiki needs more Dr Strangelove references. ADK^{...I'll watch your Xbox!} 18:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'd hold off judgment on something like that until all the facts are in. DickTurpis (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm just saying we shouldn't overuse the joke (why do I have a feeling that a mod is gonna troll me and do this on every article)?

...and I shouldn't have suggested that. :P Osaka Sun (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Catlicks are confused much

This forum of Catholic Questions is brilliant - and the titles are much more entertaining than the answers. Lovely juxtapositions, just lovely. DogP (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The religious are pretty easy to troll, apparently. Godspeed (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a veritable trollfest. DogP (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, how do I stop looking at girls on my swim team? Osaka Sun (talk) 02:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

New resources

Couple of sites I've come across recently:

• De-fact-o, looks like it's trying to be a Wikipedia/Snopes amalgam. What I've seen so far seems pretty decent.
• Scholarpedia, a Citizendium-ish wiki. Seems to be run by neuroscience/cognitive science types, so I've actually found it pretty useful. Doesn't seem to have a whole lot outside of that and some astronomy stuff, though.

Opinions? Worthy of RW-approval? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Scholarpedia seems pretty legit. I kinda like their curator idea; it definitely gives an air of reliability. Sam ²¹² 05:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Re-skins

I am working on two re-skins. One for the WIGO pages and another for category portals. Note that I have Wigobox enabled for me, so that is what I'm looking at rather than just plain text and I'm interested in what anyone else sees. Complaints and "you're an arsehole" comments welcome. ADK^{...I'll reward your fritter!} 13:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

OH MY GOD YOU MADE FACEBOOK SUCK NOW - David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Once I've figured out the script to put a WIGO ticker on each page... ADK^{...I'll receive your rain meter!} 14:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

With the WIGO skin I get the WIGOs on a white background, not that easy-on-the-eye blue that it should be. (Firefox 6.0.2 on Windows XP) Other than that it's pretty funky. Bad Faith (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I see. The WIGOBOX gadget has disguised the fact that in their native forms the entries are boxed in their own divs that are coloured white. Not sure how to change that, I've been wondering about setting WIGOBOX to default but that would probably cause HCM. ADK^{...I'll mollify your pea soup!} 17:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This is because mediawiki puts a white background on ALL tables, in order to prevent the section separator lines from peeking through (this'll be fixed in MW1.18, see bugzilla:26708). I've just added an override to common.css. Ponder Stibbons ^talk 19:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense now. ADK^{...I'll edit your cowbell!} 19:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I kinda like it for the category portals, but the WIGOs are way too fucking obnoxious. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Obnoxious you say? ADK^{...I'll deport your Turing machine!} 18:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there some kind of shitty geocities page generator I don't know about? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh you are missing out on the horror ADK^{...I'll bescumber your paycheck!} 18:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

My eyes! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

While I like what you've done, I feel it doesn't quite match the other MW furniture; so should we have a general makeover of the sidebar and tabs as well? I don't know if you've changed anything from what the previous posters said but the WIGO pages look fine to me on Chrome (WIN7); a bit clunky in Safari (WIN7) which doesn't render the individual WIGOs very well while Safari (iPad) does the WIGO boxes and shadows OK but uses a bit more contrasty colour scheme. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I find it a bit obtrusive. I'd prefer it if it was just the banner at the top of the page, & the rest was a standard white background as per the rest of the wiki. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have tinkered some more and took the dark background away from the WIGO and removed the shadow overkill on the portal. ADK^{...I'll assassinate your hobgoblin!} 20:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the WIGO one would be better with white background all over - i.e. losing those boxes the WIGO entries are in, & just keeping colours within top banner. It looks uneven to have those blue boxes with patchy white backgrounds wrapped around the text as at the moment. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking better now. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

If we were to use this version for WIGO headers it would probably include altering {{WIGO NAV}} to remove the "what is going on" bit as I don't think it's as necessary in that version. ADK^{...I'll condense your cuddly toy!} 09:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The science one is too... blue. I suggest the interior light blue / cyan to be made the same grey / light blue (#eeeeee) as in the WIGO one. (plus bonus consistency). Sen (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be this version ADK^{...I'll mature your steak dinner!} 19:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

That one is too white. Sen (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Opinionated and intelligent - an inverse correlation

Currently bemused by a Scuzz TV thing on Facebook that is asking for questions for Blink 182 (yes, I listen to Blink 182, fucking bite me). The best question so far being: "u where crap in the first place y reform", to which the only response is "ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER! DO YOU SPEAK IT?". Ah, well.

Though seriously, why do people insist on "hating"? I don't quite understand. I assume it's some form of insecurity over your own beliefs (in this specific case, favoured music genre). In order to validate them you have to form a two-pronged attack; one that backs up and reinforces your belief and another that belittles the beliefs of others. This reinforces that you made the right choice by highlighting that other choices are wrong - and this cycles round in a very circular fashion. Even when pushed for reasons why Person A likes a particular movement, they'll still quickly turn on the negatives of the Others - much like how ID advocates will never actually defend ID as much as attack evolution. Indeed, within the whole "alternative" music scene this seems to be the only uniting factor; alternative isn't mainstream, ignore that it covers a vast array of ideas that are widely different, it's all fine so long as it isn't Mainstream. I think this highlights a form of personal insecurity, perhaps a niggling doubt that you're not actually right, but if anyone knows a more compelling reason I'd really like to know. ADK^{...I'll expunge your queen!} 17:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

They're probably Tool fans. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think I've finally figured out why I'm a misanthrope. ADK^{...I'll vocalise your rock!} 18:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've reached phase II. Now off to the re-education camp. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Some people are so down that they have to knock others down a little just to feel better about themselves. With that said, I am a Tool fan and everything else is fucking horrible. I once dated a band/music nerd girl and I think the decline of that relationship started after I said to her that reading music is for autistic people because of the base7 to base10 conversion. MarkeDC (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)