RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive126

This is an archive page, last updated 1 November 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>, <124>, <125>, <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)

Skepticism is...

Rooting around Massimo Pigliucci's blog archives, I found a great chart from this post. That should be the definitive answer to the squawking about whether "skepticism" should be "atheistic" or "political." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about the chart itself, doesn't seem to convey much. But I agree the squarking needs some sort of kicking. ADK^{...I'll explode your orc!} 12:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's one point of view I suppose.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Tunisian elections

While I'm all for toppling tyrants, I have long held a fear that may well be realized on Monday. That the years of clerical suppression in these tyrant run arab nations will lead to a back lash of pro-cleric movements. Right now, the Islamist party stands to take power in Tunisia. And, they have stated they will enact sharia law. "out of the frying pan into the fire" for some citizens (women, gays as a first example) of these countries? --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 21:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, that's democracy for you. If the reality is that the vast majority of people in Tunisia want Sharia, that's what they'll get, only a tyrant can stop that, and only through brutal oppression. If you want to change what people think, that's a much tougher problem than just murdering a tyrant or holding an election. It takes a long time, and change must come at least partly from within to be accepted. If you want Tunisia to be a place where it's safe to be gay or female, you need the average non-gay, non-female Tunisian to feel that safety for gays and women is important. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Depending on how much they get, I guess the other parties will put a stop to that. Also, it doesn't really look like they would be in full control after the election. --★uːʤɱ atheist 22:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Denver Protests

http://occupydenver.org/join-us-for-a-concert-rally-march-on-saturday-10222011/

Probably won't be at the protests for very long, but I will be dropping off some supplies for the protesters. Anything helps I guess. Nice to know the people in this state are actually getting off their ass and doing something.

Oh yeah, I haven't been on RW for a long time. How's everyone been doing?Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 19:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

But what exactly are they doing? Waving signs and chanting slogans is "something" in the strictest sense of the word, certainly but I'm still not sure what they realistically hope to accomplish. They remind me at times of the Tea Party in that respect; they have anger and a vague notion of what they want, but nothing terribly clear or actually attainable. At least the Teatards had one real, actionable demand: repeal the healthcare law. That's something they were clearly behind, and something they had a clear notion of how it could be accomplished. Contrast that to "ending corporate greed". So the Tea Party are a group who by and large are pretty ignorant and only have a vague notion of what they're against (socialism) even if they really don't know what it is. But at least they know of one specific piece of legislation they would like their representatives to overturn and how that can be accomplished. The OWS group, on the other hand, seem to want to quash a basic element of humanity, and obviously have no idea how to do it. Yeah, a few sort of specifics have come out of the movement: I guess you could say a "millionaires tax", but the only people who re likely to listen to them often already support this; they don't have the votes to get it through. Reversing the Citizens United case is another one I've seen bandied about, but this is even a taller order, and the case is new enough that they can't really blame any contemporary problems on it yet. So I sympathize with elements of the movement, but I really can't personally get behind protest movements like this when they can't propose much of a solution. The movements of the 50s and 60s knew what they wanted: the end of segregation and the Vietnam War. Both were things the government was well within their powers to do. Creating a more equitable society is not the sort of thing 51 Senators and 218 Congressmen can do with a simple "yea". DickTurpis (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk to Goonie about it. It seems like the Occupy people are slowly but simply getting their shit together. ADK^{...I'll sacrifice your apple!} 20:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Right now I see the problem as a lack of endgame. It's pretty much the result of what you guys are saying. People aren't going to sit around in a park forever. I do plan on donating supplies over the winter to the Wall Street guys if they're still there. Senator Harrison (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

They've got to create a list of demands, simple and straightforward. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"getting their shit together" is a far cry from what i see at OD. they are pushing the cops, taunting them. frnakly, there is a group of people who want to get arrested; they want the publicity. The "demands" are equally totalitarian, nonsensical demands. They have no intent to work with anyone.it's hip to protest... but it's so far out beyond actually doing anything, at least here in Denver... On the other hand, there were several thousand zombees walking the streets of denver today. They have about as much chance to change things as OD people do. GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 03:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

osaka Sun, they have a list of demands. I just don't know why they expect any of those "demands" met. They have no power, it's not like unions who DO have real power. It's a bunch of people illegally squatting on land, claiming they are "occupying" it, and breaking laws to do it. Ok, they have that right. But do they really think this is going to get them: a right to occupy, a kitchen to serve all people in need (provided FOR them by the govt), demand for "clean and safe spaces" (whatever that means), a permanent place to make constructive solutions to the current problems of the 99% made by the 1%. (which would be run by whom, and who would get a say, and would it be voted on? oh, right, we already do that... hummmm). call me cynical, i suppose, but i really don't get the entire "occupy" movement. Other than to get people to say "yeah, fuck, i'm poor and being fucked daily by the 1% of rich folk". GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 04:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

OWS is antisemitic. It was endorsed by David Duke. Quandaeshia (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand why the Occupy protests are drawing so much criticism for having "no clear purpose." All protest movements of the past that now seem to have led directly to a positive societal change (i.e. Civil Rights, Women's Suffrage) only look clean and neat in historical hindsight. Before the dust has settled, civil disobedience looks like hooliganism and revolutions look like unruly separatist movements. It's pretty obvious what the Occupy people don't like, the jerry-rigging of the system to favor only the rich, the lack of upward mobility, the inability of government to control corruption, etc. Why should the onus be on them to propose a solution when nobody's proposed a solution to these obvious problems that practically any sane person agrees with? Junggai (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You have a point and I agree with you, but OWS doesn't suggest any solutions. The Civil Rights protesters wanted to end Jim Crow laws, easily done through legislation. The Suffrage protesters wanted the same thing. This though, it's not so easy. Even if they did suggest legislation (they sort of have), Congress hasn't done anything yet, they're not even talking about it, and given the sad state they're in nothing will ever be done. The problem is Congress and the morons who keep voting them in. The only thing that can change that is... Senator Harrison (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: Scream!! / talk / contribs} 17:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: Genghis Khant / talk / contribs} 17:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

In my mind at least, the lack of clear demands and proposed solutions is the main reason *for* the protests/movement in the first place. The one thing that everyone involved seems to know is that an awful lot of stuff in life is unfair, and they're pretty tired of it. They all seem to agree that it's unfair that such a small portion of the country controls so much of it (and the world, really), but they don't really know how to fix it, so it's just a general "we're aware of the situation and fuck everything" demonstration. Because, seriously, how do you fix the main issues highlighted by these guys? You can't. Without every single country in the world having a popular uprising and replacing their governments with people who'll happily work with the other countries to the benefit of the world's population, the underlying problems the OWS movement is pissed off about can't be fixed. So they're just a general "man this is all bullshit and I'm pissed off" movement, because the only alternative is to just carry on as normal. X Stickman (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Dunno if this has been mentioned but it could be relevant. "… 147 even more tightly knit companies - all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network …" Scream!! (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's my biggest problem. The only way those in power and more importantly, those with money give UP that power is if you hurt them. When civil rights started, the conflicts against giving up power to blacks lead to DEATH in a few cases, and serious harm in others. But it was important enough that (specifically blacks, but others, too) said "I am willing to risk death and harm to get what is right). This issue of "gee, i don't have a real voice" will never merrit real change. You don't have a real revolution until you are under real threat. Until people are so disgusted, or don't have dinner they will not do the kinds of things necessary for real change. Like walking off work, in mass, the entire country. Or literally cutting off heads in an actual war-based revolution. This is not saying "we want to be equal" like blacks, gays or women. it's saying "we want you in the powered elite to give up what you have". that won't happen by psuedo "occupation". that will only happen when things get bad enough that we are willing to actually risk our middle and upper-lower class lifestyles with our happy tv, and our tune-out facebook, and our once a week trip to the local dennys... it won't happen till we are ready to make real sacrifice, and take real risks. Me? i'm probably never going to do that, cause my life, like 90% of the 99% is pretty darn good. yes, i don't ACTUALLY have any say, but that doesn't change much in my day to day life. and really, this is nothing new, we are just now i suppose, "noticing" it. again, call me a cynic, but until or unless things get worse, nothing will change, cause the powers that be have no real incentive to change anything.GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 17:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason why the OWS in America doesn't commit to one goal is that if it does such a thing it could be labeled with more than just the laughable "unemployed, spoiled, liberal scum", it would be called socialist within a second, now it anti-elite.

From the sidelines of Europe a lot of American politics looks like this:

A: "I propose a national healthcare system that will ensure that you will be helped no matter if you can pay for it or not!" B: "That's socialist!" Masses: "Oh, it's socialist, that means it's bad!"

A: "I propose regulations on businesses, so they can't built bubbles so fast anymore as they have done for years!" B: "That's socialist!" Masses: "Oh, it's socialist, that means it's bad!"

A: "I propose industrial regulations so that ruthless cooperations can't put toxic waste in our homeland anymore!" B: "That's socialist!" Masses: "Oh, it's socialist, that means it's bad!"

A: "I propose a centralized state-driven economy that is well managed through Washington with people who actually have a clue what the hell they are doing!" B: "That's socialist!" Masses: "Oh, it's socialist, that means it's bad!"

etc.

Now what would the OWS propose if they were able to find some consensus? No matter what it is, it would be labeled socialism faster than you could scream "God dammit, that's not even close!".

Sadly, with it's high emphasis on capitalism, the US have robbed themselves of any pragmatic politics about their economy. It doesn't matter if something makes sense or not, if it's not a capitalist idea, or not good for businesses (because the rest of society is unimportant), it's automatically not even a consideration. True, Greece fucked it up, but they blew up because they had to buy out banks that had much money running in and ruining the American economy — still, such things go unmentioned in the American press. It seems that simply critizing anything about capitalism can get you the image of behaving treasonous, of being "un-American".

This whole network was a great thing during the Cold War, but now it's like you are constantly hammering a hammer on your own foot while trying to run. In short, before America can have a mass movement that openly criticizes capitalism and is actually heard and understood, the political attitude of many Americans has to change first. And I want to make something clear too: I'm not saying you should blindly push socialist ideas, I'm saying you should push ideas that seem most beneficial to the average citizen. --★uːʤɱ secularist 18:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

--GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 18:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything more American than red-baiting? Besides baseball and apple pie, of course. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Invading other countries? Although I'm not even going to ask what the "German thing" on that scale is… --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 22:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sausage and beer. Ty^talk 01:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Or you could start a party. --85.76.85.177 (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

As I have a German citizenship and live in Germany, I doubt it would help the US in any way… No matter if it's a political or the other kind of party. --★uːʤɱ sinner 20:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The 99% Declaration is finished and sensible, it looks to me.--^talk 01:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Higher ed and faux concern (or, another reason I read the WSJ)

Perhaps one of the most under-appreciated aspect of the WSJ op-ed pages is their brilliantly disgusting skill at spinning a legitimate problem into a completely wingnut narrative with a genteel veneer of faux concern. Today's exhibit is a Charles Murray-esque piece on student debt. Indeed, I became aware of the college racket in high school (how much are those test prep courses?), but now, thanks to the WSJ, I know its all the fault of darkie and his pointy-headed, Marxist professors! Thank lord for the WSJ! So when can we start selling off departments to the Kochs? Oh wait... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The comments section on the WSJ article is hilarious. Anyone who disagrees is immediately dismissed as a troll, and anyone who points out that the "essay" is just a series of (false) bullet points is told that they must be new and don't understand how things work around here. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I am so sick of this argument. It's possible that higher education is overpriced, but community colleges stepping into the gap for lower-income families. More to the point, check out the difference in wages and unemployment for high school grads versus college grads. Not everyone needs college to make it, and not everyone is suited for college, and not every college grad will succeed or obtain useful knowledge, but nonetheless college is an enormously profitable investment. And having educated citizens is of itself a goal.--^talk 04:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

But, you see, the wingnut narrative is easier to understand and places the blame purely on these mysterious and faceless "liberal professors". Actual complexities of the true pros, cons, opportunity costs and finance of higher education is far too much for people to handle. And it'd smack of elitism, because after all I'm sure most of the people writing this sort of thing for the WSJ were either ones who worked their way up from nothing and without a college degree (or in other words, they're old enough for that to have been possible) or they got their degree by having rich enough parents to make it their right. ADK^{...I'll crystallize your high-powered laser rifle!} 09:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The "you need a college degree for everything" was the topic of a seminar I went to a few years back. The speaker blamed it on de-seg. In order to not have to hire blacks, they required college degrees for jobs that didn't need them. Then again, in LA everything is blamed on de-seg by the left and the right, so yeah. Ty^talk 11:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

De-segre... wait, what?!?! ADK^{...I'll run your dictator!} 12:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

His argument went like this: Most jobs require a college degree. But, they don't care what the degree is in. Before the 70s, most jobs simply required a HS diploma. White people are more likely to have college degrees. Ergo, requiring college degrees was a way to keep segregation with it still being repealed. They'll let anyone speak to a high school these days. Ty^talk 14:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the link to the earlier piece on the Griggs case might be even worse. He makes it sound like banning the use of IQ testing (which, of course, was never abused for the purposes of racial discrimination in the past, not once) bars employers from giving any kind of test. Has this guy ever been to a job interview (i.e., one which required more than spouting wingnut talking points in think tank-ese)? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

When I was going through job interviewing recently, one company gave me the Wonderlic test, best known for being the intelligence test given to new NFL players. What ticked me off is that they said it was a "personality test." This is a company hiring software developers and such, so pretty much anyone they interview is going to be smart enough to realize it's an IQ test. MDB (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Internet, peer reviewed

Seen on the Citizendium forums: [1]

A new project aiming at "An open-source, community-moderated, distributed platform for sentence-level annotation of the Web." [2] ^{— Unsigned, by: Pashley / talk / contribs} 05:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I heard about that. Personally, I'm sceptical doubtful that it will succeed. Ironically, some of their potential problems are the same as Citizendium apparently faces, including the prospect that the 'experts' in, say, Alt Med that are entrusted with the reviews are the cranks rather than the skeptics. Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 05:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks very "if we build it they will come". Why will this do better than Google Sidewiki? - David Gerard (talk) 12:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Google Sidewhat? ADK^{...I'll snap your arc welder!} 12:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"Sidewiki will be closed down after December 5, 2011." [3] Scream!! (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. ADK^{...I'll refill your beach ball!} 20:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

From the FAQ of the new project: Q: "Haven't there been efforts like this before?"

_A: .."In essence, we are bringing crowd-sourced peer-review to the event horizon where information is produced" ... Who said that verbose, hyperbolic management speak was dead?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, this blows Jindal's chances...

... of running for President.

Obama is wrong, but I don't hate him and he's not scheming to destroy America. MDB (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless he wants to be a democrat--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is a reaction to Rick Perry going semi-birther? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Golly!

This reminds me of something that could have been bad in my household recently. My wife really likes golly dolls, and has two (one she bought and one a friend bought her) sitting on the small windowsill on the first floor landing. I recently opened the curtains and noticed that someone (read: my wife's brother) had tied the string from an almost destroyed dog toy round its neck and dangled it from the window catch. Fortunately none of the neighbours saw it, but I think it had been there almost a week without us noticing :-\ Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"My wife really likes golly dolls." Really? B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 14:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

so these "golly dolls" are racist images of black girls??? or am i missing something?--GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 14:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Col' got to be, y'know? Sheeeeeet SJ ^Debaser 14:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think she likes them because of the nostalgic aspect. In her household growing up they ate robertson's jams & marmalade and I think got a free doll or badge or something with some kind of send away offer. I presume they're viewed quite offensively in the rest of the world, but in the UK they're in shops everywhere. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If you ever get a chance, watch Spike Lee's Bamboozled. There's an amazing montage of these types of images of Black people undert he closing credits that is really, really hard to watch. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 14:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

(pic) here you go. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure Mrs Crundy treasures these things as a childhood memory and loves them for all the right reasons. But if you ever move to the US, you might consider not displaying them too prominently in your new home. Also, the juxtaposition of the Gollies with the African sculpture is blowing my mind right now. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 15:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Just put them next to your copy of Little Black Sambo who, incidentally, was a her of mine when I was three or four. Bad Faith (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) But... but... Enid Blyton wrote about Gollywogs... and they were on my fave jam once upon a time... so they must be ok, right? Then again, I'm just a racist Sauff Effricen, what do I know. Excuse me, there's a kaffir on my lawn I have to shoot... --PsyGremlinParlez! 15:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Reminds me of the children's book "Simon Shoots the Smiling Sambos" in this Mr. Cholmondley-Warner sketch. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You realize this section is fodder for Ken's next "Atheism and racism" article, in which a prominent member of an atheist website owns racist dolls, thus establishing a concrete connection between atheism and racism (and Darwin too). DickTurpis (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! I can't wait. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't think I ever saw a coloured person IRL until I was about 12-13, then it was a bus conductor. Gollywogs were common toys & the Robertson's jam logo was unremarkable. see WP for info. Scream!! (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"At the same time, many argue that the golliwog is a destructive instance of racism against people of African descent, along with pickaninnies, minstrels, mammy figures, and other caricatures....The association with the also-abusive "wog" has resulted in many extant Golliwogs not being referred to as such, or being simply "Golly" B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 15:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Rebecca Watson is a fan! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Who is this woman? She's damn cute. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 15:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

wp:Rebecca_Watson. Just don't tell her you find her views interesting and you'd like to discuss them further in your hotel room. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, HER. Yeah, I can totally see why Dawkins pulled that move. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 15:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I used to have a goliwog when i was a child. I didn't realize the racial aspect until my teens. It never occured to me it was meant to be a black person. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

But do tell her you find her views interesting and you'd like to discuss them further in your pants. That line works every time. DickTurpis (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Does nobody remember the Extras episode about this? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Not too long ago I saw a greetings card/souvenir shop with a load of horribly tacky gollywog related merchandise in the window - like cards & mugs with pictures of gollywogs. & It didn't even look like retro/nostalgic stuff; it was like modern cutesy cartoons of gollywogs. What the hell were they thinking? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ya'know what really ticks me off about this section? You're a bunch of white guys talking about what might or might not be offensive to a black person. Why not just ask black guys & girls what theythink about them? Also: dolls = creepy. --★uːʤɱ atheist 18:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure that everyone in this thread is white. 2. "Well I asked this one black guy and he had no problem with it" is pretty much akin to an argument that begins with "Now, don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are black...." ::3. Nobody is really arguing the point that these things are at least problematic. That said, chew on this for a while. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 18:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we need Sir Chuck to make a final ruling on behalf of all black people. Has he been around lately? DickTurpis (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"guys & girls" FFS learn to read. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 20:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

So is "golly doll" the sanitised version of "gollywog"?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, according to this. Possibly, the word "wog" plays into it. Ugly. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 18:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

In the Netherlands, Santa's sidekick Zwarte Piet is a major part of the traditional festive imagery, usually represented in Christmas pageants by a guy in blackface. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Psychic entertainment

SL Singh on psychics in general and one in particular Scream!! (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Really weird discussion I've been having...

With a flip-flop libertarian, and someone who wants regulations on big business (and at the same time hates social security). What do you think? Osaka Sun (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

One for the maths nerds...

How would base infinity work? ADK^{...I'll feast your clock!} 17:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm far from a math nerd, but it seems every number would need its own 1 digit symbol, thus being able to express both "7" and "543,536,872,376,108" equally succinctly. I don't see any way of standardizing much beyond 36, or at least until we run out of standard keyboard symbols, so it's clearly useless (though you knew that already). Base 1 probably makes more sense. DickTurpis (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, base one (unary) is in widespread use by humans. It's a completely adequate system for recording small to medium numbers. The "tally mark" commonly used in various societies for unary counting is often also the symbol for "one" (or very similar) in a decimal counting system if they have one.

Balanced trinary is very cool 0 + +- +0 ++ +-- +-0 +-+ +0- and so on... if you care about negative numbers and unlike binary or hexadecimal you're unlikely to encounter people who already know it, so it has nerd value. I don't think base "infinity" (which one) makes sense. Bases / radixes are usually defined to be non-zero real numbers. Base Pi is OK, and so is Base -18, but Base "infinity" or even Base Aleph Null doesn't make sense. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If I ever taught a math class and was feeling sadistic, I'd use base i. MDB (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Infinity isn't a number, it's a concept. That is, you approach infinity, but you're never at it. sterile^talk 19:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It just came from "There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who know binary, those who don't, those who know ternary, those who know base 4,...,those who know base n, those who know base n+1,..." and wondering if it'd hold for an infinite set. We already figured it'd be useless. Then we moved onto non-integer bases between 0 and 1, and sort of ran out of beer. ADK^{...I'll pander your whip!} 19:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like one hell of a partyAMassiveGay (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the circle of friends I keep party fucking hard. ADK^{...I'll accentuate your horse!} 20:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Infinity can be a number, but it depends on how you approach it and then "which one". The natural numbers are infinite, so they have an infinite cardinality which they call $\aleph _{0}$. That's an infinity, but it's also a number because it's a cardinality not just a raw concept. Things get somewhat problematic for the next digit along in the base because $[\aleph _{0}]^{2}=\aleph _{0}$. ADK^{...I'll dehydrate your road!} 14:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

"Religion is a formalised panic about death"

Dylan Moran ^{— Unsigned, by: Scream!! / talk / contribs} 17:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Have a biscuit. ADK^{...I'll plagiarize your spoon!} 15:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New Election paradigm that no one seems to get

I don't know about any other state, much less other countries, but in Colorado, there was a big push to move to Mail Ballot Elections. There is a list for "mail ballot only", that voters can register for, so they do not have to go to the polls on the Great Tuesday Hell. Some counties do all of their ballots by mail. By law, ballots go out on the 11th of October. From counting my ballots received, most people vote a day or two after they get their ballots. by the 17 of October, I had 70% of my ballots back. So here's the problem. Most of the politicking and awareness movements and campaigns still work as if the election is the First Tuesday of November. That is to say **this week** we are getting the ads on tv. This week we are hearing about why we should or should not vote for something. But we all voted LAST WEEK. Come on, guys. this is not rocket science. --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 18:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who cares enough to vote is either 1) well-enough informed about the issues that she has it all pretty much figured out for herself and won't get swayed by last-minute campaigning which tends to target emotion and not reason or 2) a pur-et-dur party ideologue who is gonna support her candidate of choice unless they find said candidate having sex with a donkey on the front steps of the Lincoln Memorial, so the last-minute campaigning won't sway her either. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 18:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not like "most voters", so I don't know how they make their choices. Sadly, most (I think) are as you say. they vote by party, or by what mom/husband/wife told them to vote. I've never understood how come 30 second campaigns and mud slinging are so effective, but I'll never deny that they are DAMNED effective. Even our "debates" have turned into TV sound-bite mockerys of what real debates in the past were. Some days I wish only people who proved they had actually read the questions, and both sides of the issues, and could pass basic tests like "where does you candidate stand on something other than gays, guns and abortion". oh well. just ranting.--GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 18:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I do fear that's the case. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be able to predict voting patterns of certain demographics, every election would be a landslide, the concept of a swing voter wouldn't exist because everyone would be a swing voter, and generally politics wouldn't be fully of bullshit. ADK^{...I'll defenestrate your cutting board!} 19:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a Language Log piece somewhere about this. Basically as rational people here (right?) we have to accept that democracies are in practice still controlled by a small fraction of the population by manipulating the fickle masses. We can't choose for this not to be true, we can only choose whether we join in as puppet-masters, or sit on the sidelines jeering. This sounds pretty bleak, but it's not really so bad. Remember the big benefit of democracy is non-violent changes of government. Every few years the entire US executive is replaced, and nobody dies! The power mongers could seemingly run everything just as well in an environment where Bush (and thus eventually Obama) left the Whitehouse in handcuffs, or even in a body bag, which hopefully none of us thinks would be an improvement. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not entirely the case if you switch to preferential voting like IRV or STV as these (albeit only in multi-party systems) redress some of the balance away from swing voters and remove tactical voting. It's not perfect and you can still say that it's those people who change their minds that are responsible for changing the government (and democracy will always be a tyranny of the majority) but these systems do considerably expand the population that are really in control and give more power to the ones who definitely aren't in control (e,g., Lib Dem and Green voters in the UK). ADK^{...I'll throw your hub cap!} 14:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

That's actually rather irrelevant in a 2 party system, unless you could have a "hell fucking no, not him" vote, too. Saying "i don't care which of these 4 other guys, but not that fucker, never ever". In the US, as long as we have a 2 party system, not can or will change at state and national level. Anyone who is *really* liberal simply can't get elected today, but maybe with 5, or 10 parties like most of the rest of the world has, and a runoff of the top two, it might actually change? GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 14:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Precisely, runoff doesn't work in 2-party systems (or at least where the two parties command 95+% of the votes) because there's no one to runoff to. It's essentially skipping to the last round of voting already. So in those situations it is the swing voters that control it, hence why election planners in the US can afford to skip entire states in their campaigns because it just wouldn't matter either way. ADK^{...I'll mature your steak knife!} 14:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but here in alligator land we use a jungle primary resulting in Republican vs. Republican after a R/R/L/D/D/D/D/I election. Ty^talk 14:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I could just google this, but as long as I'm logged in...

My partner and I are considering relocating to Canada or the UK while I'm in grad school. Now, I'm young and haven't even graduated from uni yet (I've got a year left) but does anyone here know about great business schools in the UK or Canada? I'm shooting for a doctorate in finance, and since I still have time, I've just been asking around to see what everyone thinks, hence why I'm looking at anecdotal evidence for the time being. άλφα^Ταλκ 22:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm ideologically opposed to business schools, but my alma mater's b-school is a Pretty Big Deal and you'd get to live in The Greatest City In The World. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 22:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Why the ideological opposition, out of curiosity? άλφα^Ταλκ 23:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Because, as ListenerX would put it, I am a REDREDREDRED!!!! B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 23:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how someone can be ideologically opposed to an institution of higher learning. Ace^ace 23:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm ideologically opposed to training more people who will be running a system that transfers wealth from the poorer people to the richer people. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 23:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, that's life. I am a capitalist so can't really agree with you there. It has got to be better than being run by a bunch of people who graduated from Andy Schlafly's School of Retardation. Ace^ace 23:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Business degrees aren't the exclusive domain of corporate fatcats. They're also highly sought after within NGOs, charities, civil service, etc. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Many of which exist to deal with the social effects of the uneven distribution of wealth in a capitalist system. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 00:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Only in Canada (OK, and maybe in Australia and Wisconsin) would a school be named after someone who started a brewery. (I mean that as a compliment.) Godspeed (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's the UK university league tables by subject. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have bet on LSE being high on the list. If it's good enough for President Bartlet... Worm (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh Hitler...

: "In an interview for 60 Minutes, he stated that his life's goal was to reduce Hitler to a figure of such ridiculousness that no one would ever take his ideas seriously again "--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Why haven't we talked about Mel Brooks more here yet?

Medicine needs to keep this guy alive for at least 20 more years. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Nazism does just take the piss out of itself. ADK^{...I'll revolt your noseblower!} 14:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly related. X Stickman (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Much funnier. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

....yeah okay that is pretty great. X Stickman (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If you're hungry...

...simply go to a local restaurant and stand next to the kitchen, inhaling until you're full. It's an interesting case, I do like the conclusion very much. ADK^{...I'll waste your nuclear reactor!} 14:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I do admire the judge's sense of humor and true balance. :-)--GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 14:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

YES! +10 points for the judge. That's awesome.--Dumpling (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

So, while we are on Jap anime...

"poll" - subtitles with the original soundtrack? or voice overs? (me, i'm a sub girl all the way).--GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 15:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Do we have to restrict this to anime? This was a serious issue with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon - well, not that serious as anyone with any taste went for the subs. Bad Faith (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope, i do my live action with subs, too. CTHD became "pop", and lots of "pop" people do that "i don't want to go to a film and have to read" (to which i say, 'cause you can't read'). Hell, there was even complaints by the general public about having to read the subs in Dancing with Wolves (which by the way, has one of the last native speakers (as in, lakota was her first language) alive, on film.) Don't know why people freak out. if the subs are good (and some j-drama subs i've read are anything BUT good), you don't even notice you are reading. you feel as if you watched the show with the actors speaking a language you knew. ahhhhh the power of the mind. --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 15:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I prefer my films subbed, but all my copies of Godzilla films are home recorded so they are all dubs. Ty^talk 15:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I prefer subtitles too, mostly because I was sick and tired of hearing Crispin fuckin' Freeman and Carrie squeak Savage on every single bloody dub ever done. In fact, when you get "interesting" subs - my fave is still 'We must awaken his burliness' from a Slayers translated from Japanese to English, via Chinese by people using an English/French dictionary - that adds to the fun. (and if Godot is indeed a sub girl all the way, I'm coming to visit her with rope and handcuffs) --PsyGremlinSnakk! 15:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

No comment, cept to say, I pick words pretty carefully. ;-) sometimes, anyhow. hehe.GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 15:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

In defence of dubs (which I think get a bad rep because of Vampire Hunter D's dub - the horror - and general purist fan-wank over the original) they can work in some cases. Context is important. Something that is balls deep in Japanese culture should be watched subbed because it just doesn't translate well, there's a bit of a dissonance with them speaking English when everything else is very traditional in the background. However, other things work well, Cowboy Bebop for instance works because it's generic sci-fi and Thunderbirds 2086 is voiced as well as any other cartoon from that era. And then there's how it's performed, Night Watch is a good dub because the original Russian actors voice it in English. There's a similar argument in whether to do operas in the original language or in English. I've been involved in productions of Die Fladermaus and The Magic Flute that were re-written specifically to work in English and the setting the directors put them in rather than the original language. Besides, sometimes I really can't be fucked with reading. ADK^{...I'll rinse your rabbit!} 15:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, but, operas can't have subs. So you either have to read the dumb "synopsis" that never really helps, or learn the language - which i don't have time for. One reason I have disliked voice overs, is the way American voice actors, act. It's so "much". It's so loud, in that "he's a loud american" way. I watched wolf rain in dub, first, then with the subs, and it was much more effective (for me) with the subs. calmer, the intensity more mental and subtle. Also, and this is just taste, but all the men in dubs are these macho voices, even when the character isn't. --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 16:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of the time...SUBS. Unless the Japanese Voice actresses for some of the female students are just that damn annoying and high pitched to the point where it makes me cringe...then I switch to dubs. Or...you know just read the manga if it really comes down to it. --Dumpling (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

O RLY? I've worked with them before, a pain in the arse to write and operate, but remarkably effective. ADK^{...I'll throw your belt!} 17:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't like it when I travel, and happen on a TV or something during some dead time a movie/series I'd be able to understand -if- it was in the original language (ie, english), but I don't because its dubbed. Dubbing screws something for everyone except the one it is dubbed for. Subbing doesn't for those who do actually speak the original language, and as a bonus, it's automatically hearing disability friendly. Therefore I believe that subs make the world a better place. And they also allows us to explore the depths of the ocean. Sen (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I would usually go for subs, but I don't think it matters as much with animation, as long as the dub is done well. The main problem is that the voice actors doing the dub are usually below par and doing multiple voices. Princess Monoke walked well with a dub AMassiveGay (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, when you are traveling, you are seeing shows for a general audience, often including kids who don't read, and young teens who can't read fast enough to keep up with shows. And housewives who are cooking, cleaning, and rounding up kids and are listening more than they are watching. So for TV viewing, dubbing is pretty much critical. GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 18:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one here that prefers the original soundtrack without subs (if I know the other language well enough)? Ok, to be honest I don't watch anime so there's one problem less, but all my shows from the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand I watch without subs. --★uːʤɱ pervert 18:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The worst in redubbed English with English subtitles that don't match. Ty^talk 18:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

My last boyfriend was Russian, and my hubby is French. I'm so used to subs for english shows, now, i feel lost without them sometimes. I will admit the first time I watched Full Monty, and then later "misfits" and "sirens" both shot in areas of UK with heavy accents, i went "oh, THATS what they were saying..." :-) Ty, i get that a lot in french. When I was first learning I often tried to find animation (like disney) with subs and dubs. of course, i later found that often one was canadian and one France... grrrr...GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 19:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Original soundtrack with subtitles, always. You tend to get a much better translation (except in those annoying cases where the dub was produced first & subs are just a transcript of that) and can enjoy the rhythm of the original dialogue in the source language without the awkward hamminess and cutesiness you tend to get with most US dubs. Anime dubs from recent years are mostly OKish, so I'll usually re-watch a good anime film with the dub sometime after I've seen the subbed version. Dubbed movies from the bad old days (e.g. 70s kung fu films, Godzilla movies, spaghetti westerns) are best avoided if a subtitled version is available. Django is a prime example: a great Italian movie made tedious by lacklustre English voice actors working from an awful rewrite of the script. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

My sum experience with anime is Cowboy Bebop, Speed Racer, and the pokeymans, so my opinion is worthless, but the dub for the first seemed good enough. The latter two I assume they just picked some people off the street so they could crank out as many translations for Saturday morning cartoons as possible. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I remember seeing Rambo in Syria during the eighties which had French and Arabic sub-titles. Now my Arabic isn't worth a shit but I could read the French and it was somehow transferred from Viet-Nam to the Philippines, the baddies were Germans not Russians, and it was all set in the 1940s. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 21:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Vaguely topical

Iranian propaganda anime. Balaam (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Uhm... Firstly, it says Hamas TV. I am not anywhere near knowledgable enough to discern if the language in the clip is Iranian or Arabic, but Hamas is Palestinian not Iranian. Slight difference, most palestinians being semitic, most Iranians being... Aryan, heh. Secondly, it's not Anime. It's animation. Anime is Japanese animation (no, there is no such thing as non-Japanese anime, since anime only means "Japanese animation", no more, no less). It's somewhat modeled after popular Japanese animation style, but significantly different (even the way the girl is drawn looked distinctly different from most/all anime I've seen, and I've watched more anime than you. You being a generic you, any reader). Thirdly, it's not propaganda if it's simple truth. Sure, those with a powerful military prefers it if the oppressed fight back using the same military means, because it means the oppressor always wins. "Terrorists is what the Big Army calls the Little Army. Dendlai (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the site where I originally found the link referred to it as Iranian (presumably because similar cartoons have been broadcast there), but yes, this is a Palestinian channel, so my mistake. Whether or not you agree with its message I'd say that a film like this is propagandistic in nature, though.

As for the definition of "anime"... does anyone in the real world care? :S Balaam (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, lots of people in the real world care about the definition of anime. Me and a lot of other old-school anime fans exists in the real world, believe it or not. ;) *oldster voice* Young'uns today, don't even know about the horror that was "Princess Zandra". YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW GOOD YOU HAVE IT! Dendlai (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Quote mining the CDC

You might come across people talking about deaths concerning the HPV vaccine, with quotes from the CDC. It's likely quotemined, from that page I just linked to. The quote miners ignore this passage: In the 34 reports confirmed, there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine and some reports indicated a cause of death unrelated to vaccination. Sorry to be a pedant, I just encountered this on a comments board and I know how you people like debunking stuff ;) --User:Brxbrx/sig 17:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The have done the same thing with RU-486, and even the "morning after" pill. GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 18:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Intrusive ads

I'm so tired of the overabundance and intrusiveness of ads on the Internet. Over the last couple months or so it seems like it's gotten much worse. And I'm not just talking about the harmless ads that are constantly surrounding the content I'm looking at. I mean stuff like the giant 30-second video ads that will pop up before I can view something. I know the times are hard and websites need a way to make money or whatever but it's getting really annoying having to wait through incredibly intrusive ads to view commonplace stuff. Is it starting to get to anyone else? </rant> Sam ^{not doing homework} 03:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I use adblocker, which gets rid of most, but not all ads on most webpages. The ads that precede videos get closed and the video goes unwatched. I do not watch ads if I can help it. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 03:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

All i can say is im fucking tired of that Secret Formula coke Ad--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

You can do stuff, like "block images from," but I think they purposefully switch up domains because it never lasts more than a few weeks for me. Peerblock is supposed to be able to block ads, but I've not gotten it to work.--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, everything on the Internet should be free and come without advertising because people spend hours creating content for nothing just out of the goodness of their hearts. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 06:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm more annoyed that the shockwave based ones seem to be crashing my laptop on a random basis. I don't bother blocking, I'm immune to advertising. It just has no effect on me. By the way, anyone played this great game called Evony? It's free forever and totally awesome. I could totally go for a diet coke right now too... ADK^{...I'll roll your iPod!} 08:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you like Cuke?--User:Brxbrx/sig 09:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh, intrusive ads? I'm old enough to remember when blocking pop-ups (that spawned further pop-ups), preventing resizing of browser windows etc wasn't as trivial as it is today.

Those where intrusive and deeply annoying ads... (Nowadays, I don't see pretty much any ads at all. Adblock Plus, and flash disallowed unless I explicitly allow it). Awk, kids today. Dendlai (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Noscript+Adblock usually burns most everything. If the website has a request not to use an adblocker I turn it off there. Ty^talk 11:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I use firefox's stylish and just hide them. Not sure if it blocks them but i donjt see them, and it makes wikipedia all ubuntu-y at the same time :D--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

(UI) I'm not against ads, and I know first hand how people providing free services are reliant on them despite piss-poor returns (an android app I published which has about 600-700 installs has only made about $2 in ad revenue), but I dislike the ads that really do get in the way or force themselves in your view while you're trying to do something. I ignore those ads, but click the less-intrusive ones so that (1) the developer / author does get some money for their work, and (2) using reports they don't get the impression that the intrusive ads are more lucrative. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Following a link to the Daily Beast, probably from somewhere here I think, it seems someone had the great idea to have an advert expand at random times. So there you are, merrily reading away when the text suddenly scrolls down of its own accord. And then when you've repositioned it to continue reading the ad contracts, and the text moves back. All the while the advert is off screen and can't be seen anyway. I just closed the window rather than go through the rigmarole of content blocking. Wasn't that interesting an article anyway. ADK^{...I'll break your squibble!} 22:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The NY Post are a bunch of douchebags (but you probably already knew that)

The Post launched their attack on a state prosecutor/dominatrix last month, resulting in her resignation. Apparently, celebu-lawyer Gloria Allred is now representing her. I hope they get their asses handed to them. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's her damn private life, she wasn't doing anything illegal or anything that might compromise her profession, and the NY Post had no fucking right to expose her like that. I also hope they get their asses handed to them (along with all scandal making Murdoch media outlets).--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, if she's a professional (that is, paid) dominatrix, there could be question as to whether she's a high-end specialized prostitute. And as an employee of the state, especially an attorney, she may be under legal requirements as to "appearance of impropriety." It's what Federal employees call the "Washington Post rule" -- don't do anything you wouldn't want to be seen doing on the front page of the Washington Post.

I'm not defending the NY Post, per se, and I have little doubt they've just decided to try to destroy her career for the purpose of generating headlines, but there may be a legal case here. MDB (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. There's question as to whether or not she accepts pay for being a dominatrix (she says she didn't, but others in "the scene" say she did), and the AG's office has rules about outside income. MDB (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well, some on "the scene" can be untrustworthy assholes, though letting herself get photographed at parties was a dumb move. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a gorram reason they ban cameras at such events. But there certainly wouldn't be a case for her being a prostitute (which when you consider how much you pay for drinks and dinner and presents in some relationships, is a remarkably arbitrary distinction anyway) as do professional domme would have sex with clients - not least because the clients tend not to be actually interested in such things. ADK^{...I'll deconstruct your possibility!} 07:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Geez, ADK, when did you become such an expert on perversion? :P By definition, she wouldn't be a pro-domme if she didn't accept money, she would be a "lifestyle domme," although one can be both. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I will just leave this here...

Duck Sen (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I like it. Source? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Cute, but it's missing the part where he keeps insisting that it's a duck after the puzzle has been completed. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I like the "Are you sure you don't want to help?" I think it represents the openness of the scientific process and the unwillingness of creationists to go to participate and see for themselves.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't you get it? The puzzle is never completed! As Dara O'Briain said: "Of course science doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop." ADK^{...I'll fill your rock!} 07:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure you're being serious, but it's safe to say that it was not a duck, and likely a bear. Until we find the last piece, we don't know precisely what kind of bear it is, of course. Maybe it's a bear with an "I'm a duck" shirt. --User:Brxbrx/sig 08:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Cute. Sad...but cute. Anyhoo. Llama Llama Duck.--Dumpling (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Up for someone to grab

Still too new to article writing to be sure to do it right; but I believe this deserves some attention. It seems they are active in the US (Maryland, Houston, Dallas), Canada (Toronto, urban Alberta) and the UK. Found out about them two days ago.Karlvaegen (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You can do it! Yes we you can. Ace^ace 02:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ar you bob the builder in real life? AMassiveGay (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll add something to Jesusween and you guys can have at it. ADK^{...I'll legislate your hub cap!} 07:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We get to see Christians appropriating a pagan holiday in real time! I wonder what it'll be. Maybe we dress up and scare people on Halloween as a metaphor for Revelations. And the candy is to represent salvation. Damn, I should be a spin doctor.--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Rolling Stone on Michele Bachman

Full of win! --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 14:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We so need to cquote the hell out of this for the relevant RW article. ADK^{...I'll waste your alcohol!} 14:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

EIGHT pages? We have lives, you know. Osaka Sun (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am a big Taibbi fan and everything, but the article's 4 months old and ref'ed on the Bachmann page already. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Does this woman have any chance of becoming President? If she does, I think incompetence is the best you could hope from a Bachmann administration. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really, she just generates a lot of media coverage. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me like American politics is about trying to elect the least mental candidateAMassiveGay (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is for the voters. For the politicians and their contributors, it's about convincing the booboisie that the high popalorum and low popahirum are polar opposites. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Internet Blacklist Bill?

I'm getting panicky e-mails from various lefty groups about an "Internet Blacklist Bill" that, they claim, makes websites legally responsible for everything their users post.

Okay, if that's the case, that's bad. And it makes no more sense then holding AT&T responsible if I use my cell phone to arrange a drug deal.

However, this all reminds me of the various panicky claims made by right wing groups about various Obama proposals... "could", "might"... which usually means they're taking a very broad interpretation of some proposal and using it to scare people to get them to donate money.

Does anyone know what the bill is really about?

MDB (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

relevant? Scream!! (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Protect IP Act is the specific bill I think. MarkBot^{I run on alcohol} 16:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, --79.41.44.135 (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's actually called the E-PARASITES act now, which is... silly? X Stickman (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

PeTa fuck off

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOR ENSLAVED SEAWORLD WHALES--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The seaworld whales have killed a good number of people in the last few decades. w:Killer_whale_attacks_on_humans#Captive_orca_attacks. I wonder if it counts as self-defense. --85.76.116.146 (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am a vegan, and I say PETA PISS OFF! Although, I'm not a vegan because I believe in animal rights or whatever. No, sir. --User:Brxbrx/sig 14:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

PETA does things like this to get attention. And it works. MDB (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Any time I hear about a PETA stunt it just makes me wonder how whatever animal they are protecting tastes like. What kind of wine goes with whale? MarkBot^{I run on alcohol} 16:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sake. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Evidently. We're talking about it, aren't we? ADK^{...I'll forsake your spoon!} 19:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

PETA are publicity trolls on a par with Westboro BC. I have no idea why anybody would take them seriously anymore. At worst, they give the whole animal welfare movement a bad press; at best, they're an irrelevance. Not even worth getting angry about; just tedious clowns. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

ADK^{...I'll redeem your boar!} 20:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, the only bad comments about PETA I have ever heard are either here on RW or from Americans. Nowhere else have they ever been looked upon in a bad manner (that I know of). --★uːʤɱ federalist 22:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Really? There's a fairly large anti-PETA movement out there. The problem is that PETA seems to almost be a generic term for animal welfare now, so people equate "don't be mean to animals" with PETA (when that side of things is generally largely supported by basically anyone) and don't so much know about the "PETA funds domestic terrorism" and "PETA kills a whole load of animals in their care" aspects of them. X Stickman (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be because of their publicity whoring. They take a generic name that is otherwise unarguable "people for the ethical treatment of animals" and put themselves forward as one of the largest and most influential animal rights movements, and generally succeed in this. It then gets confusing between PeTA and more pragmatic animal rights groups who don't fund the ALF, don't make bullshit campaigns and don't have these views about eradicating meat production and animal testing overnight. Effectively PeTA hides behind the respectability of other animal charities to get its funds out of people but never does anything that people expect of it; e.g., you wouldn't expect them to kill the vast majority of animals in its care, even if you accept the reasons (which are fairly sound) for euthanising them being the most ethical course of action. ADK^{...I'll navigate your garbage bin!} 10:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right — but only in the anglosphere. Outside of it, it seems that other organizations are equally represented. I mean, for example here in Germany, animal rights are an old topic. We have sevral organizations and political parties for which animal rights is an issue, probably the most prolific is at the moment the third strongest party, the Greens. I was just making a remark and not saying that anti-PETA is exagrated or something; only that here in the media (and much as I follow media from entirely different countries) criticism simply doesn't pop up. Maybe that's because people don't really give a shit. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 13:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

While I was clicking on a link my friend sent me...

...I found this. George Takei, you sexy man. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's impossible not to read that in Takei's voice. ADK^{...I'll taste your communist!} 22:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We must use this now for every dumb Republican comment made from now on. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Takei on Youtube, it never gets dull :) Though I stand by this one as his best EVAH -- 08:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the best thing about that isn't so much how he tears Hardaway a new one as much as how it's blatantly Takei taking the piss out of himself while he's doing it. ADK^{...I'll toast your cellphone!} 10:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That video cracked me up. LOL!!!! 'When you least expect it I will have sex with you' LOL!!! TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 14:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

AHAHAHAHAHA! Oh My~ ;D I love George Takei.--Dumpling (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And of course, you are a douchebag ADK^{...I'll ablate your hadron!} 16:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Incredibly worrying.

Looks like some of the Arab Spring protests already. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Commie rot. More income inequality will be good for the looters. Makes 'em more productive. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Innovation is the result of a more unequal society?

They're stretching it as far as it can sanely go here. But then you'd have to define "sane." Osaka Sun (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It is possible for income inequality to produce greater innovation if it puts more resources in the hands of better innovators. And that is not to mention the motivation provided by the hope of getting rich off of one's innovations. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Trololo. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

True, but an overgeneralization. Note this rather hilarious part:

“”PAUL SOLMAN: Aren't many of the top 1 percent or 0.1 percent in this country rich because they're in finance? RICHARD EPSTEIN: Yes. Many of the very richest people in the United States are rich because they are in finance.

It's true, all those "financial innovations" like mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations, and credit default swaps benefited everyone! Just as much as iPods! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It feels like a giant middle-finger to the rest of the country when the only reason you've gotten insanely rich is by destroying the livelihoods of millions. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Inequality does nothing to help "innovation" (which is really just a buzzword, but lets take it to mean scientific research and development of new technologies, medicines and theories). Most genuine breakthroughs come not from corporate R&D departments but from university based research, and there is often a sizeable chunk of public money involved in that process. "Innovation" is most likely to be fostered in states with good education, academic freedom, keeping religion away from science, wide access to - and participation in - higher education, and transparent, relatively corruption free funding arrangements. -- 08:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Pope joke

Thought you might like this.

One day the Pope was walking down an Italian road, when he spotted a black magic shop in an alleyway.

Curious, he decided to go inside and look around. As he approached the counter the woman behind told him they were doing a special on Voodoo Dolls.

The Pope thought for a few moments and told the woman he would like to buy one. She then informed him he would need to get the hair of the person he would like the doll to represent. He plucked some hair from his head and handed it over the counter. "You want a doll of yourself?" she asked. The Pope nodded and soon left with his doll.

The next day the Pope was visiting the victim of abuse at one of his churches. Producing the doll he said to the child, "Show me on the doll where the naughty priest touched you." Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't there's an emoticon that can convey the face I'm pulling right now. I want to laugh violently, but it's just so wrong... ADK^{...I'll bomb your gun!} 14:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

+2 Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I died laughing. Not only because that was disturbingly hilarious, but I read this right after looking at this.--Dumpling (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Frozen Planet

Stunning wonderful TV. But I got the impression it had too much sound, much like Cox's Wonders. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Too much sound? Sod that, turn it up. ADK^{...I'll shave your blanket!} 14:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That is one of the reasons to appreciate HDTV. The one thing that concerned me was how does Attenborough get travel insurance to visit the poles at his age? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

mini rant

So I figured the US house of representitives doesn't actually do anything all day. But I was wrong. They just passed their 7th "anti abortion" bill this year. Not sure how that helps the economy, but they are trying to make the world better! --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 15:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

But it creates jobs by... erm... sorry, got nothing there. ADK^{...I'll pull your embryo!} 15:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It creates future jobs by not murdering all the pre-babies who will go on to be Job Creators™ when they're older. X Stickman (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

My theory is that by keeping gays in the closet, and making women stay home preggers, then all the jobs left will go to the white True American males, and there will be no more problems. --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 15:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It protects the Congress criiters' jobs, by ensuring that they don't get a challenge from the right in the Republican primaries. Godspeed (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

They're all in the pocket of the coat hanger lobby. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As a white American male, I do not see what all the fuss is about ;). On a side note my brother is a congressional lawyer and can be seen on CSPAN sometimes (my mom is probably the only person that records CSPAN), I think he was doing legal work on the abortion bill you are talking about :( TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 18:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I just looked it up, he is a 'Congressional Staffer' on the 'House Ways and Means Committee'. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 18:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is Ways and Means writing abortion bills? Or is he a multidisciplinary type? Edit: Now that I think of it, they do Medicare related stuff, so it might fall under that. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

And the point is to restrict any taxpayer funding for it. So basically only rich people get reproductive rights. ADK^{...I'll run your stapler!} 19:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

/shrugs, I do not know the specifics but I could find out if you want to know. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 19:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

why is ways and means funding this. cause the repubs have intentionally shoved the abortion issue everwhere. this particular one is about insurance, and is a rider on an insurance bill. they want to insure that no company that provides insurance, allows "abortion" cause the way insurance works, part of my money when i'm well helps fund you when you are sick, and i might be anti abortion. (fuck it - i'm anti child, so why should i have to pay for your childbirth? and i'm anti cancer, and anti...) anyhow, that's why.GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 00:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome video from an anxious fan

Spine chilling stuff at least to me. Brought a tear to my eye. Had to share.

[4]

Ps how does one embed vimeo videos? --Damo^Hi 19:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Christian Anime Alliance

As Something Awful puts it: "What do you get when you cross an awful anime forum with an awful Christian forum?" The Christian Anime Alliance.

This is so full of stupid, it's scary.

From the review of Cowboy Bebop:

“”Potentially Problematic Theology: One of the main characters is a martial arts expert, so there's a bit of eastern religion in his dialogue. There is also an episode that revolves around a cult. While this might be inappropriate for some younger viewers, I would hope parents would note the age rating on this title is 17. Other Negative Themes: Cowboy Bebop is pretty much a film noir title. As such, the series may get a little dark from time to time. From a DAT perspective, one of the main characters is a chain smoker. There is also a bit of drug use and drinking.

I haven't searched to see if Uncle Ed is there, "helping" the little happy-clappy otaku along.

What really made my day was the comment SA found:

“”BTW we need to make sure they sell shirts in 4x... as that's what I usually buy. I can wear a 3x, but I like my shirts a bit loose.

So much for fat atheists... --PsyGremlinSiarad! 10:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

other Christians like Anime? Only anime fan ive ever met and friended were agnostics/atheists.--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

"What do you get when you cross an awful anime forum with an awful Christian forum?" - Is there one of those rules-of-the-internet things that talks about constructing a Venn diagram of anything and being able to find the overlap on the internet? ADK^{...I'll sell your microwave!} 13:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait, other than Totoro (if you can really call that "anime", is there any anime that's appropriate for xians? It's so rooted in Japanese culture, which permiates everything, even when not intentionally. Hell, even doramon the robot, was incarnated (sorta... japanses 'religion' confuses my occidental mind) by kami. GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 14:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC) maybe "hello kitty" if that was ever anime.

This is based on the assumption that all Christians are intolerant fundamentalists. They're not. MDB (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) That said, something like Kamichuu, where a middle school girl wakes up to find she's joined the pantheon of Shinto gods (as middle school girls are wont to do) would probably make their heads explode. Hmmm... let me see if they've reviewed it. Nope. --PsyGremlinSprich! 14:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

NO, actually it's based on the review, which clearly shows that "eastern religion" is bad. Of course there are sane xians. they don't hang out on xian alliance pages. GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 14:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, your question "is there any anime that's appropriate for xians" was meant "by the standards of that site". I took it as a general question. MDB (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that. I grew up with a devout, sane, normal methodist minister for a father, and have a 'too conservative for my taste, but sane' christian brother. I'm good with the vast vast majority of the religion. Just not the nuts who harp on about it all day, and tend to congregate to sites like this. GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 14:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Superbook? Vulpius (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't remind me of that horror from the warp. ADK^{...I'll castrate your oak!} 14:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there an entire class of girl-on-girl, and boy-on-boy action out there? IN all honesty, i read a "Christian Review" of totoro once that said, in effect "while it's a lovely tale and has important lessens, and we do in fact recommend it to children, good parents will want to remember that totoro is a spirit, and they will want to address that with their children somehow, and why spiritualism is bad". GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 14:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)(edit con)

I think hentai is the term for "boy-on-boy". I'm not sure if there's a separate term fo girl-on-girl or not. MDB (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

"Hentai" just means "weird shit", usually meaning animated sex. The boy-on-boy might be "yowi" or something like that, but is probably some western weeabo word rather than actually Japanese. ADK^{...I'll speak your furry!} 14:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

http://g.e-hentai.org/ --85.77.147.80 (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

"Yaoi" is the one. ADK^{...I'll sacrifice your ax murderer!} 15:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding, the entire modern Japanese language is just western (weeabo?) words! GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 15:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘That's right, hentai is porn, usually, yaoi is gay oriented.

As far as hentai goes, a former housemate had one that was distributed in the States by Penthouse Productions. I'm normally pretty hard to disturb, but I left the room when a character castrated himself and replaced his penis with a demon. MDB (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yaoi is a contraction which literally means "no climax, no point, no meaning". Yuri is the girl-on-girl stuff - from the work for lilies. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 15:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Castrated himself for a demon penis? Oh. dear. I do remember my hubby and his best friend forcing me to watch some extremely perverted gerbil - and i thought *that* was wierd. GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 15:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hentai seems to go back quite a while (the concept, nto the term). this image is a wood carving from the 1800s.GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 15:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

...Christian...Anime...Alliance...Whaaaaat...theeeee...fuckkkkkkkk? Why? D: There are people that watch it that are Christians? How does that work!?--Dumpling (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me in the least, the vast majority of anime fans I know are Christian. The unbusinesslike^{man of business} 02:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

This is getting into a sore spot with me

There seems to be a bit of shock expressed by some that there are Christians who watch anime. No matter what the hobby, you can find Christians who are interested in it, even hobbies condemned by fundamentalists. I know Christians who play Dungeons and Dragons, I know Christians who like heavy metal music, I know Christians who like anime, I even know of a Christian Wiccan (supposedly calls himself an "Episcopagan".) Heck, there's even a nominal Christian who frequents a website consisting mostly of atheists.. MDB (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I mean, I have nothing against it...I've just never met one. Didn't mean to offend in any way. It's just interesting. Just from, I suppose an Asian perspective, I've always been interested as to how the Western community saw us in general, so Christians included, I find it interesting on how they take to watching Asian shows/Anime, considering a lot of our stuff consist of...well, Asian concepts. --Dumpling (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I really can't speak to that, because I'm really a casual anime fan at most. MDB (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It's more a case of explicitly defining one in terms of the other. Christians who like X aren't unusual, nothing to be bothered by. But people who then want to identify as such? Well, I think that just shows how prevalent religion is for people. ADK^{...I'll sniff your pile of flaming horse feces!} 18:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I met a Christian anime fan fairly recently, who was also into a bunch of other E.Asian movies including some pretty full-on stuff like Oldboy, J-Horror, etc. He's a friend of a friend & from what I gather he's relatively fundamentalist, at least by UK standards, e.g. he didn't live with his wife before marriage. Nice guy though. Basically I think a lot of religious people, young people particularly, don't apply the same kind of moralistic judgements to popular culture they enjoy for entertainment as they do to stuff in their own lives. This reminds me a little of when I was looking around an old mosque in Malaysia & a local Muslim teenager stopped me & started enthusing about Nirvana as he was a big grunge fan & thought I looked a bit like Kurt Cobain. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel}

Dumpling, from my point of view, most anime is designed knowing a major audience will be european/north american, so while we miss lots of the cultural stuff, it's not critical to the overall effect of the show. Like Honey and Clover. There are things about the college system that I didn't know till my husband pointed them out, and some minor issues like the summer festivals, but while i didn't know the specifics, I've seen festivals, and the subtle stuff of how a senpi should be treated, didn't change the overall effect of the show. They annoying little 6 year old whiny brat did - but if you could get past her...heh. GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 19:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A lot of anime/JRPG style stuff recycles Biblical and related mythology as well (cough FF7) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

More like *cough*NeonGenesisEvangelion*cough*. ADK^{...I'll receive your escape pod!} 13:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Which is one of their banned topics. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am Jack's total lack of surprise that there are Christians that play D+D considering the creator was one... -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 18:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Saintly North Dakota

has an influx of Godless Alaskan strippers bastards be takin' our natural resources and shit. --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 02:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That, and then the binge drinking, which seems to be a problem all over the state. Not to mention that evil lib-burr-rul state-owned bank of theirs. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Is binge drinking a particular problem in the Dakotas? I can't imagine it could be worse than any typical Midwestern college town on a football Saturday...B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 02:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There was an outpouring of concern a few years ago in the Minneapolis press on this point, when it came out that some survey ranked North Dakota as the #1 state in the country for binge drinking. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A quick search for "North Dakota" and "binge drinking" turned up this — probably the survey in question, done by the U.S. Department of Health. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

But they are so successful because they are so devoutly christian, don't forget! --Opcn (with regards to regarding my regardliness) 03:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, because of the Protestant work ethic. Which, strangely enough, seems to hang on even as Protestantism peters out. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

North Dakota...a state as bad as Pennsylvania when it comes to the state laws trying to make it difficult to buy beer. Why is it that the states with the strictest liquor laws have binge drinking problems? Secret Squirrel (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

God tests the Christian states and forges them on His hard anvil (….) or something. God is Lord (talk) 08:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Stirring up shit

This screed by a disillusioned skeptic just came my way. IMO, mostly flame bait, with a few pointed criticisms. Have at it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Man discovers that skepticism does not further his real goal, bashing "neoliberalism;" man discards skepticism. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

He makes a lot of good points, although his gripe is more appropriately with skeptics as a community than with skepticism. His points on the former are good, his points on the latter are specious.

A good point: "Idealising women is not the same thing as feminism — in fact, it's usually the opposite. Throughout history, the concept of the "perfect female" has been more about men forcing their impressions on women, stifling them, not allowing them a voice. The Virgin Mary was not a progressive figure, and neither was Joan of Arc, and neither is the skeptic chick of your dreams, guys, whoever she may be. Wrapping women up in your clammy fantasies is not much different from wrapping them up in a burkha."

A bad point: "To their credit, many big-name skeptics (including PZ Myers and Phil Plait) called Dawkins out on his obvious sexism; but to my knowledge — and correct me if I'm wrong — not one of them has said a word about his Islamophobia. It seems as though this racist trash is as accepted within the skeptic community as it evidently is within the common rooms of Oxbridge."--^talk 08:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Islamophobia = racism.... Nice.... So actually what he's saying is that Dawkins is intolerant of religion? RLY?! I never knew that. -- 08:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a strong racial element to it. A lot of what some people don't like about Islam is cultural, not belief-oriented.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, very good-point-bad-point. Or perhaps good point that is then horrendously mashed up. I don't recall Dawkins ever being sexist, or Islamophobic. Unless, of course, the definitions of these words are "any criticism" of women or Muslims respectively. Perhaps there's a faction within skeptics that says "why can't we all just get along?" who might find such things distasteful, but I don't see how that automatically invalidates any arguments in that style or towards a particular target. ADK^{...I'll lather your monkey!} 10:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the main thrust of the article is sound. Being a sceptic is good. Scepticism as a movement takes on the characteristics of all movements, so some people get more interested in the movement than the scepticism. RationalWiki gets the same sort of thing - people who are keener on going on about how right they are than on taking the time and trouble to actually be right.

Dawkins's infamous "Dear Muslima" post does smack of Islamophobia. Even if it's just the fact that when he thought to himself, "What's an extreme example of female oppression?" he immediately answered "The Muslims".--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 12:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why would immediately thinking of that count as Islamophobia? Is it not a legitimate example? If someone was to ask me for an example of a complete bullshittery example alternative medicine and I immediately thought "homeopathy", would that make me a homeophobe? ADK^{...I'll confuse your banana!} 14:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of alt-med, I like his use of the pharma shill gambit considering that a number of prominent skeptics have ripped into pharma. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not a legitimate example, no, because it's too much of a generalisation. All homeopaths are talking bobbins (assuming you accept the mainstream view), since their entire system is founded on it. Whereas only some muslim women are oppressed, and the situation is far more complex than allowed by "Dear Muslima". Lazy prejudice is all that is.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Find the point in the text where Dawkins says anything along the lines of "all Muslims oppress women". Hardly lazy prejudice when it's pretty much a fact that Islamic theocratic states are the most oppressive of women. Where can you not leave the house without a male chaperon? Where do you not have rights to choose who you marry? Where can you get stoned to death for having sex with the wrong person? Fine, if pointing this out is Islamophobic, I'm Islamophobic and proud of it. ADK^{...I'll expunge your jeans!} 19:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't say it but the implication is clear. "Muslima" = any Muslim woman. It would be news to millions of Muslim women around the world that they had been subject to ANY of the conditions mentioned in Dawkins' tirade. It's Islamophobic, and wrong, to criticise all of Islam because of the actions of regimes in certain countries.

And, er, I don't know. Where can you get stoned to death for having sex with the wrong person??-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 08:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've looked up the stoning. Basically it hardly ever happens anywhere, and where it does happen it's in tribal areas where they stone people because they are BACKWARD, not because they are MUSLIMS. Egypt: no stoning. Morocco: no stoning. Albania: no stoning. It goes on. So: "Muslims stone people", do they? You are Islamophobic, and it's nothing to be proud of.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Good, I'm also racistophobic, Christianophobic, televangelistophobic, trollophobic, Simoncowellophobic... ADK^{...I'll reconstruct your gas tank!} 12:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Though I suppose this is all photoshopped - "hardly ever happens" isn't an excuse. And stoning is but one example. These places are running on Islamic laws, some other places don't do it to such an extent - if they didn't run on Islamic laws but did it because they were backwards, then Islamic law would probably be off the hook. The fact is, this is not the case. They're backward (anyway, who are we to judge?) and Muslim. That doesn't excuse the religious law itself, as if it's standing there all innocently. Does the fact that no one follows that law that allows you to kill a Scotsman, within the walls of York, with a crossbow, if he's wearing a kilt, on a Saturday afternoon (or whatever it is, there are numerous laws on the books that aren't followed, many about religious discrimination for holding office) make such a thing right? ADK^{...I'll cure your xylene!} 12:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Facilitated communication

So this particular story was brought up on WIGO:CP recently. It makes me really wonder what I'm more scared of; becoming "locked-in", or becoming locked in and some bullshitting communicator begins making shit up in my name. So, would it be best to, just in case, establish a code for what my first words would be, or perhaps the style that I'd speak in? I don't think many FC-pushers would guess that I intend my first few sentences to entirely revolve around calling the facilitator a cunt, right? ADK^{...I'll roll your book!} 10:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

there has been a lot of work done to allow disabled people to communicate. If you have voluntary control of anything there is probably a sensor that can read it (eye blink, muscle contraction, finger movement etc)They are now trying monitoring brainwave activity to see if a person can signal a yes/no reply. It can be tedious if you have to build a list of words but prearranged phrases are fairly quick. Look at the system Stephan Hawking uses. Facilitated communication can work but there is an extreme danger of the facilitators opinion of what you should say takes over. Hamster (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The Woodpecker and other Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution

Iron Chariots has an article about what Christian fundies call Creatures that Defy Evolution and I’ve had to work hard to refute those various arguments. I’m not an evolutionary biologist so I have spent time on Google finding useful links, then I often have to read through a long technical piece several times before I understand enough to write it up. The latest problem is Argument Against Evolution of the Woodpecker, here’s a link with more of the stuff that needs refuting. I’ve found Anatomy and Evolution of the Woodpecker's Tongue with sensible answers to the worst stuff the creationists write. Again though I’ve got a mountain of reading. Can RationalWikians who understand biology help? Does anyone know relevant links that are easy for a lay person to understand? Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough I heard this on Today this morning. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course The Intelligent Designer created the woodpecker. God also designed the human knee so that arthritis would test believers and smite unbelievers. God is Lord (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Tunisia...

...looks more and more like there's really going to be freedom and liberty. (Original) I wonder if homosexual acts will be legalized. --★uːʤɱ federalist 14:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(an aside - someday I want to understand why german is so hard to auto translate.) Anyhoooo, i'll believe Tunisia when I see it. But this atheist is praying for them! Cause there is very rational reasons to say that they way this one goes, so will go the others. --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 14:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Western liberalism is necessarily the standard by which the Arab Spring revolutions should be judged. They've managed to avoid "underwear will be worn on the outside, so we can check" so far, but who knows what the future holds. A version of democracy modified for the local culture, like in Japan, South Korea, or Taiwan? An only mildly vile form of authoritarian government, such as in Singapore? Some messy combination of the two, as in Thailand? Godspeed (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Cautious optimism, everyone. Hope for a secular constitution like Turkey's. Osaka Sun (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not worried that they look like us, or think like us. I'm not worried that they want to have a law that makes it necessary to wear beards. I'm worried that they will take away women's rights to vote. And slightly worried (but with worse consequences) that they will take away women's rights, period. --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 15:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Have women's right to vote ever been taken away anywhere in the history of the world? I know that they've not been granted in many places and many times, but taken away? ^{ONE / TALK} 15:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Iran. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 15:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Also. The United States. Women used to have the right to have an abortion without some patronizing lecture from a doctor/having to see an ultrasound. That's less the case now. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 15:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were talking about "women's rights" in a general way; missed the "to vote" bit in my skimming. Carry on. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 15:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, women have lost the right to exist, much less vote, in Afghanistan, thanks to the Taliban. They did regain their legal right to vote, but there is doubt that many women are allowed to vote, as voting is a strange right in Afghanistan anyhow. GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 16:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Women have lost the right to vote on several occasions, the Wikipedia article on Women's suffrage lists some examples such as New Jersey. None of these seem to have been as a result of a large scale campaign against women voting, but then you'd hardly expect so. It just happened, and women meekly put up with it, rather than say storming government buildings and setting them on fire in protest. I would not try this in even the sleepiest, most "conservative" US state today. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Back on track: That's not how democracy works. You can't protest violently and carry on with it until your goals are reached. You vote, you look out that everything is done within the rules and then you accept what the ballots say. You may bitch and moan about the outcome, you may say that this isn't your country anymore, but you don't run around setting offices on fire. --★uːʤɱ pervert 12:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Word salat on the side

I think there are three reasons why autotranslation from German is so hard:

1. Sentence length and subordinate clauses: We like long sentences. We often define nouns clearer in subordinate sentences. English is just the other way around — which would mean you make more but shorter sentences and define stuff once and not a dozen times within a text so your readers will surely get what you mean. Those subordinate clauses of course heavily rely on the use of pronouns, which are a tricky thing in natural languages and as we could, theoratically, use 6 (3 sexes, 2 numeri) of them, it has to be hell to write algorithms for that.
2. Grammatical fuzziness: Other than English, the German rules how we use certain grammatical rules are much more lax. This produces the problem that the right translations vary within context, and context is something these programs fail horribly at. On top of that, things that would be wrong only considering grammatical rules are heavily used everywhere, putting the people that write these programms through the trouble of having to somehow nail down when to use which translation. Also, not only do we not really care so much, there are simply more rules than in other languages and as one of my English teachers once put it: "In German, there are more exceptions than rules."
3. Grammar salat: German has picked up characteristics from almost all languages around it, which, if you look at a language map of Europe, can't end well. Agglutinative, polysynthetic, synthetic. It's all somewhere in there, which has to make developing the algorithms (or whatever these people use) hell on earth. Also thanks to the agglutinative part, we make up words as we go along and more often than not everybody gets it — although I have seen non-natives frantically searching in their books and finding nothing.

All that said, Google Translate has gotten a lot better with German. A few years ago almost every tranlation was pure word salat, to the point where one couldn't even say if the original sentence made any sense at all. --★uːʤɱ sinner 12:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

7 billion

When I was born there were 2,387,012,095 people on the planet ^[5]. Pretty damn soon there'll be 7,000,000,000. And some religious eejits frown on birth control, Scream!! (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't like people. --79.45.94.221 (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

>.> I was 5.5 billion according to some website. And people are nice when theres enough stuff for them--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I swear we only passed the 6 billion mark just last week... ADK^{...I'll ablate your rucksack!} 00:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

...So...many...people. Gah.--Dumpling (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

4,085,551,201st for me.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 10:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm person number 3,432,767,181. About mid-way then. Kind of sobering to think that the population of the world has roughly doubled in my lifetime. MDB (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Driver's license pseudolaw?

I just read this startling bit of legal woo. Apparently, the Supreme Court says you have a right to drive until you get a driver's license or a license plate. (Note how the poster weasels out a few posts down as well.) Have any of you heard of this one before? Does anyone have any track record in this sort of pretty obviously futile endeavour? - David Gerard (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The only issue this applies to, is the issuance of plates, because there is a recognized fact that you might not have time to get plates. However, you have to have your car registered, which is what plates in effect, are. So his car was registered, just no one would know that. As for a driver's license, who ever stated that is nonsense. You cannot drive until you are licensed to (unless you are working a farm). The state has a right to require that you prove a level of competency in a vehicle for the safety of others. I suspect, if you look at vehicle records, you would find all of the cars jobs drove, registered under temp plates, all legal like. the fact that he had enough money to run around with temp plates "forever" is a strange thing, one supposes. and he still had to pay the taxes, cause again, that's part of leasing or buying a new car. --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 21:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, i missed the comments you were referring to. (small screen on my netbook). NO, the supreme court has flat out DENIED that you have a RIGHT to drive. (this guy is an idiot). They have AFFIRMED you have an unlimited right to TRAVEL and use the US road system. By bus, by car, by bike (if safe), or by foot. But driving or owning cars in not part of that right. god, does the guy know how to read an Opinion? --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 21:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I was wondering where he got that screed from and if there are any more like him for us to write about - David Gerard (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

DAMN THAT OBAMA, KILLING AMERICAN citizens with nothing more than his say-so, without habeas corpus, or any sort of legal proceedings whatever

How DARE obama kill american born terrorists who have no interest in the country!--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Obama can designate anyone he wants as an enemy combatant, even an American. There is no appeals process, there is no judicial involvement or due process, and there is no right of habeas corpus. Then he can kill them, without any further ado. It is wildly unconstitutional and outrageous.--^talk 00:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that half the point of being the head of a state? So that you can declare who counts as your state and who doesn't, and therefore who is fair game under the rules of war rather than your own nationalistic laws. Indeed, this is pretty much how the human race has functioned for the best part of 6000 years. ADK^{...I'll freeze your ax murderer!} 00:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, as this happens frequently, the above is more a cynical observation than a serious expression of opinion. ADK^{...I'll bamboozle your mouth!} 00:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

And while it's highly unconstitutional, it's not exactly unpreciented. I'd bet if you looked, you'd be hard pressed to find a US president who hasn't do that in "modern" history. (Abe L did it, and that's not exactly modern). I don't know about the rest of the "first world' (in economic, not true political sense of the term) countries... but I'm betting lots of them have done the same. Doesn't make it right or good by the way, but as ADK snarked, it's kinda what humans are. especially humans in power.--GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 00:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Just the other night I was watch a movie about the time Germany sent an assassination team after terrorists. There was a more immediate threat to German civilians and they did have Somalia's permission to do it, but they were not interested in trials, they just wanted the terrorists dead. - π 01:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually they wanted to rescue the hostages, and during an assault it's much easier and safer to kill terrorists than arrest them.--Longbow (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If they wanted to just rescue the hostages they could have met their demands back in Rome, what they wanted to do was make sure there were no repeats. - π 02:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a clear difference between killing an armed criminal during the commission of a crime and killing someone who may or may not at some undetermined future date commit a crime. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 02:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the key difference is that you can suppose/bet/assume that Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, may well have done it. Obama DIT IT, had a press conference to say he did it, and has made it clear he would do it again. It's one thing to engage in dirty tricks. It's quite another to make it the new normal. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 00:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

My issue is this apparent notion that if you're born within the borders of this country you are sacrosanct and cannot be harmed, but if you happen to be born 20' north of our borders WE CAN KILL YOU WITH IMPUNITY!!! DickTurpis (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a non-issue. They guy was an avowed enemy talking of causing mass deaths of civilians on US soil. You buy the ticket you take the ride. And he took the ride. Ace^ace 01:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

An interesting solution proposed to this problem by our old friend Ames was to require the President to get a warrant for these assassination. They would have to provide evidence in court why they should be able to do this and the person will have say a year to turn themselves over to US authorities to face the charges otherwise after that time the President can act. This is similar to the old legal concept of an outlaw used as far back as Rome. For historic reasons known only to them, the UK parliament will "debate" an outlaw bill at the start of each session, even though they don't outlaw anyone any more. - π 01:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

For Christ sakes, can't we just put them on war tribunals like we did in Nuremberg after WWII? What's so different now that we have to do the opposite? Osaka Sun (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

We could actually capture them. Also their army were kind enough to wear identifiable uniforms and attack using straight-forward obvious things like bombers and tanks. - π 04:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Understand what you're saying, but it's not like, let's say, Pakistan was going to launch nukes at US targets if we took bin Laden alive. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ace, the uh, facts? claims? you're relying on were never brought before a court, the supposedly "guilty" man was never subject to due process. Now, sometimes when we capture a suspect they say "I am the Devil, and I slit women's throats open so that I could drink their blood. Ahahaha!" and sometimes they have a sob story about how they weren't there, and their mum says they'd never harm a fly, and either way we want to find out what really happened and determine guilt accordingly. If instead the Head of State just writes a list of people to have killed, that sidesteps the entire justice system. Maybe today everybody on that list has a heart blacker than pitch. And maybe tomorrow it's a guy who dared to say something the administration didn't want said. We'd never know, because there's no due process. So that's why this isn't acceptable.

If you prefer, look at this from the other side. Under what circumstances is it OK for the state to kill you? Personally I think it's never OK for the state to kill me (a state actor might have to, if they legitimately believed it was self defence, but not the state itself). So I don't want to permit the state to be allowed to do that, and to be consistent I must have the same opposition when it comes to other people. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Under what circumstances? I suppose that brings it to my opinion that it's fine for armed police to put a bullet in my head if I'm waving a gun around in a crowded place, but it's not okay to keep me on death row for 20 years and then electrocute me (for some reason, the latter seems to better satisfy the population's collective bloodlust). Then you have the case of who does it; the police are there to do it to members of the state, the army is there to do it to the enemies of the state - this is why you only bring in the army and declare martial law when things have really gone tits up. So you have one force to police Us and another force to police Them, which is fair enough as I don't see us every forming a united world under the collective banner of Planet Earth and Homo sapiens any time soon. I suppose the thing is who gets to choose who counts as which group, who is Us and who is Them - and this is a pretty Big Fucking Decision when you think about it. If only one person can decide this without feeling repercussions then we have Nightmare Fuel. Due process was invented specifically to circumvent that. But, the US may have a Presidency and Obama can "in theory" do what he likes, I doubt he can make totalitarian and authoritative orders in isolation. He will be surrounded by military advisors, lawyers, additional politicians and so on. He might get final say, as in "I've weighed it all up and I choose Plan 3" (worst case scenario is that he says "I choose plan 3, plan 3 dammit! I was elected to lead, not to read!") but to call it the decision of just one man would be a stretch. ADK^{...I'll loll your igloo!} 12:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I'd still go the safe way and try him/her. It really shows the state of a society when we can't adhere to the rule of law because the citizenry have now become vengeance-loving, militaristic freaks. Osaka Sun (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"become"? --★uːʤɱ socialist 13:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that should have said "state employee" (ie like ADK's example with armed police shooting me because they think I'm about to shoot them or innocent bystanders) not "state actor". 82.69.171.94 (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Weird spam

I do seem to get some high-brow spam.

Dear Dr. [redacted],

Abmart is the world-wide cost and quality leader in monoclonal antibody development. As part of our global reach initiative, you have been selected to receive our RISK-FREE offer of monoclonal antibody development for 2 protein targets (valid before November 30, 2011):

1. No upfront payment
2. ONLY US$3000 per successful project
3. FREE unless mAb works in your OWN experiment

For more detailed information on the above offer, please refer to [link redacted]

The Abmart difference:
1. Breakthrough SEAL (Surface Epitopes Antibody Library) monoclonal antibody technology:
i. Fast: 100 days from sequence to antibody
ii. Large library size: 10 to 100 monoclonal hybridoma cell lines for each target
iii. Targeting multiple epitopes: cell lines for > 5 independent protein surface epitopes
iv. High affinity: Kd in the nM range (< 10-8M)
v. Desired isotype: IgG
vi. Capable of developing successful antibodies for difficult protein classes such as GPCR, ion channels and transcription factors 2. Antibodies developed by Abmart have led to many important publications, including 2 Nature papers in 2010, more details at [link redacted]

We hope this RISK-FREE test run will help build your confidence in our technology and services. In return we hope to become your reliable, high quality and cost-effective antibody developer.

Sincerely,
[redacted]

It is like an infomercial for people that read Nature, pity I have no fucking idea what it is on about. - π 02:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you a doctor? If so, what is the best way to perform at-home wart removal surgery on my fingertip? It's on the pad. It gets in the way of things and is actually painful.Senator Harrison (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and can you look at this rash for me? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Dr Redacted sounds like a Bond villain. Ace^ace 08:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Abmart sounded like a place that would build you a six-pack through exercise. Thats high-tech spam , how many antibodies does a Dr need in the course of a year ? Hamster (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

you can buy wart removal stuff (cream or pads) at your local pharmacy Hamster (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Blast it with piss. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Diaspora - a first look

Ok, finally have my Diaspora invite and I've had a look around.

• It seems to be the bastard offspring of Google+'s circles, Twitter's hashtags and everything else Facebook, including the like button.
• I like the layout, sparse but simple
• Loading pics and video seems relatively painless
• No sign of groups or special interest pages yet.

Overall, it's something that can lurk in the background, Google+. It's there, I'll get round to it one day. ^{— Unsigned, by: Psygremlin / talk / contribs}

G+ nicked a lot from Diaspora. But if you think G+ is the land of tumbleweeds, Diaspora-gratuitous-annoying-fucking-little-star-on-the-end hopes to have tumbleweeds one day - David Gerard (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

And in turn was adopted by Facebook. So Diaspora's only selling point (unless you're some free software geek or you're fapping over the whole decentralised thing,neither of which are going to set 99.95% on fire with excitement), that it solves the manufactroversy over Facebook's privacy settings, is completely gone. Take it's name; "diaspora" means to leave some place and move elsewhere, hardly something that's massively inviting as it just sounds like some exclusive snobby club of people who hate the "mainstream". ADK^{...I'll execrate your ax murderer!} 01:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The UK Death Charts - 2010

…can be found here. Which rather invites the question - how do 265 people die of malaise and fatigue?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

They were all romantic poets. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Could "malaise and fatigue" be some kind of euphemism? I've seen the claim that death due to a "hunting accident" in some cases refers to the a gun "accidentally" going off when someone pointed it at their head and pulled the trigger. MDB (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

It's probably the term for death by old age that can't be attributed to anything specific, but it's still a damn weird way of describing it.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

A friend of mine had a verdict of "hanged" even though it really wasn't anything like that and was really a climbing accident. What the "cause" of death is decided to be might not have that much to do with the situation or ultimate cause behind it. ADK^{...I'll mollify your rutabaga!} 01:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Though note what isn't really high up on that list; terrorism, exotic diseases, paedophiles raping your children to death. So stop panicking about stuff that has only a snowballs chance in hell of killing you and worry about your car and your heart! ADK^{...I'll ameliorate your vector field!} 01:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thatcher movie

...in which Meryll Streep plays a woman with an accent that something horrible happens to a horrible woman with an accent. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 00:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Streep's smile isn't creepy enough, she looks genuinely amused and happy rather than curling her mouth up in a way that would make small children cry and very attuned animals howl for miles around. ADK^{...I'll write your amplifier!} 01:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Homosexual marriage loophole

So france has found a loophole to the not yet legal gay marriages. If you are straight, but transgender, and while married, go through reassignment surgery you can stay married even after your paperwork (including your ID and passport) all says "female". but two loving chicks who both start out chicks, still can't get married. Ah, the absurdity of it all. --GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 18:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh? ADK^{...I'll yank your boozehound!} 18:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

! --★uːʤɱ soviet 18:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I can trump that. There is a delay on transgender surgery in Spain and also you take drugs before the actual surgery takes place. In the meantime you can get a certificate stating that you are legally female although you are still biologically male, and you can apparently use the certificate to enter female changing facilities.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the absurdity that transgender people actually get civil rights before gays do! Horreur! Don't these governments know that trans people need to be last in line? Blue (pester) 21:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually Spain is very liberal is this regard. Homosexuals of all types have full marriage rights.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

So... what's the problem, then? Blue (pester) 16:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

A remarkably bad idea for a Halloween costume

File:AnnSkank.jpg

...a really, really bad idea.

"Anne Skank". B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 21:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Surely the fact that their swastikas are backwards makes it OK. Right? DickTurpis (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so that's what Prince Harry's girlfriend is dressing up as. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo pulled down, wusses. What's the point in getting enraged unless you've got pics? ADK^{...I'll murder your oak!} 01:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh, nice Lenny Bruce reference in the comments. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh My~ Hahahaha. One of my cousins is dressing up as Kim Jung Il, that should be interesting.--Dumpling (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Surely the point of a Halloween costume is that it should be frightening? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 07:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the party. At the private party I'll be attending tonight you'd be correct, broadly construed. Edgar Allan Poe (for his writing, not because he was himself scary), the Predator, Mrs Lovett (from Sweeney Todd), the Grim Reaper, Kali, and Roark Junior (the titular character from "That Yellow Bastard") have featured in previous years. People who show up with a couple of pom-poms, a ripped blouse and some red food dye on their neck and say they're a "murdered cheerleader" are not only not going to win the (hotly contested despite its low financial value) best costume prize, but also they can expect rude comments through the night from people who've slaved over a sewing machine or in a workshop.

But in the costume shops I can tell you that practically every female costume on sale this Halloween will be "Sexy X" or "Hot X" which basically consists of a recognisable professional uniform or generic horror character (police, vampire, nurse, zombie) adjusted to involve stockings, a short skirt, and a skimpy top. Scary is not a factor. And hey, in a city full of students who cause lines everywhere because they all need ID to get in, why not? If they're not going to dress up properly, they might as well show some flesh. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 08:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, yes, the costumes are in bad taste, but frankly I'm getting fed up of all the hand-wringing and wailing whenever somebody belittles the Holocaust. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that the Holocaust has become nothing more than a rallying cry for people to hide behind. "Ooh! How dare you say we're killing people in the West Bank! Remember the Holocaust!" Yeah, fuck you. I'll remember the Holocaust when all the Gypsies and Slavs and others get equal recognition. I guess they don't have the money or influence to build monuments and have Defense Leagues. Personally, I can't wait for the next 10 or so years, when everybody who was ever alive during WW2 is finally dead and we can move on. --PsyGremlinTal! 09:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I do remember as recently as the early 1980s, 'holocaust' often in public discourse meant global thermunuclear war, and WWII was primarily seen (in the United States) as an "Allies" vs "Axis", particularly Japan, thing. Obviously no longer the case. People today have even internalized the idea that WWII was a "war on racism". My trusty 1976 World Book Encyclopedia, which may or may not be a good baseline for normalcy, does not have an article on Holocaust. It does give the subject exactly one paragraph out of the 6 page Jews article, barely a couple of sentences in the 34 page World War II article (the U.S. internment of Japanese-Americans gets more coverage), plus very concise separate entries on Concentration camp, Dachau, Buchenwald, and Auschwitz. The word Holocaust is never used. My scattershot points here being, perhaps 1. what you speak of might be because the WWII generation is largely now dead, and 2. if the Holocaust today is overused as a rallying cry to hide behind and justify the Occupation (and I don't disagree here at all), the opposite was the case a few decades ago; seems it was one of those things people didn't want to hear or think about, and its place in articles on WWII minimized accordingly. Secret Squirrel (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The above observations are of course U.S.-centric. I have no idea how or to what extent they apply in any other country. Secret Squirrel (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, Psy, you've just belittled the holocaust therefore you are antisemitic!! Why do you hate Jews, Pys, you're evil! You support Hitler!! Nazi!!!! ADK^{...I'll exercise your cod!} 11:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

"practically every female costume on sale this Halloween will be "Sexy X" or "Hot X"" - Already apparent in 2006. --Tweenk (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Been apparent much longer than that, I'm sure. ADK^{...I'll sacrifice your businessman!} 15:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Off-the-peg costumes are there for people with no imagination or dignity. It's no surprise they appeal to lowest common denominator. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)