RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive130

This is an archive page, last updated 30 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>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

minecraft players

Fucking hell the people who use single player commands on minecraft are whiny bitches. The full games been out for a day and they are already demanding the mod be updated for it.--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

AHAHAHAHA! Seriously? I haven't played in...a good two weeks.--Dumpling (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I applaud your self-control. Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 06:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I try...-sigh- Oh, I try. --Dumpling (talk) 06:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I'm just mad my Timber mod doesn't work anymore (In case you wonder, it makes it so when you cut the bottom part of a tree, it all comes down, rather then just making the tree float and mock you.) --Revolverman (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That is why I only ever play the best game: Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate 2. Just started a new playthrough this week. And the best thing is that it has a beginning, middle, and end, so when I'm done with the game, I'm done with it (unless I decide to play again).--^talk 08:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Beginning of minecraft: build a house. Middle of Minecraft: Explore and whatnot. End of minecraft: Find a stronghold and invade the End, kill the endragon and get your credits. then recycle to one.--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I liked early Minecraft where surviving the first night was difficult and scary and thus interesting. I first saw it on a friend's laptop, all I knew from stories was that you could make fire, and there were monsters that came at night. We were in a network dead zone, had spent the afternoon and evening with other friends, and now we had a few hours before everyone went to bed.

I told my friend "I think you need to make a fire, to keep the monsters away". "There aren't any monsters". "Ok then". "It's getting dark though". "Yeah, like I said, I think we need a fire". "I can't find anything to make fire. Any ideas?". And shortly after he died to a wandering zombie. That was fun. Learning to build a shelter, was fun. Delving too greedily and too deep, was fun. The last Minecraft version I played started with me next to a friendly village with buildings, equipment, and lighting. Where's the fun in that? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Notch added abandoned villages, mineshafts and fortresses in various updates. They're somewhat random in where they spawn (they spawn no more than x distance away from your start point, I think, but other than that it's random). Sometimes they'll even be under the sea. I've started 5-10 new worlds since villages were added in and I've never even seen one (granted I don't explore much). X Stickman (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Elections in Spain

Election day here. Conservative PP predicted to be big winners after the economy has been tanking big time. I don't imagine it's going to make a whole lot of difference as the EU has a lot of say in how things are done now. The outgoing Socialists toed the line but it didn't do them much good.

We'll know the result quite quickly - there's usually a confirmed result by 11:00 pm on poling day at the latest. Unfortunately though, things slow down dramatically after that as it takes them a month or so to hand over power - and this isn't really the time when you want any ambiguity about who's in control.

Another question is how the various Basque nationalists will fare. Now that the super-left Basque nationalists who supported ETA (presently on yet another permanent ceasefire) have been allowed back into the democratic system it remains to be seen how much they will squeeze the "moderate" right-wing Basque nationalists. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't one of the problems what the conservatives might 'undo' with regards the issues of homosexual rights and abortion? Генгис^evolving 09:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It's conceivable but I'd say that it's pretty unlikely.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that is pretty much the vein in which European politics works. Even if you against it you don't throw laws out, because actually it would harm your government more than it would help, therfore to not piss of the lobbyist and with that the people, you keep them and only change it when there's a need or a want to by the people. Something else about this I also find pretty damn sad, did the PSOE had anything to do with the crisis other than not knowing about it like all over European governments? If so, I haven't heard of it. --★uːʤɱ sinner 12:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The only thing you can blame the PSOE for is simply denying a problem existed for quite a long time. The line initially was that the problem was in the US, the UK or the rest of Europe. How they thought that the global financial tsunami was going to avoid them is anybody's guess. Anyway they only started doing things after some arm-twisting by the EU a while back. But then the things they did were distinctly non-socialist.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As predicted it looks like a PP landslide. More of a landslide than predicted actually.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

What are conservatives in Spain like?--. 23:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a tough question to give on one-line answer to. They are quite good pals with the Catholic Church - who have gone so far as to encourage the faithful to vote for them, but they are not raving lunatics. One occasionally hears some global warming denial or doubt but it's not a major force. No young earthers or flat earthists that I'm aware of - though if you examined every single one of them you'd probably find an extremist somewhere.

Although the Socialists like to try to paint them as fascists they are really center-right. If anything they are pragmatists.

When reading the above you need to remember that I'm a foreigner here and I'm only intimately aware of one area. So other opinions might be radically different.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A new question

My partner's brother uses a chin-controlled wheelchair to get about, but the ball he tucks underneath his chin is on the buggered end of usefulness. Problem is, we can't seem to find a replacement for it. Does anybody know if they are a special kind of ball (guess they have to be, to be the right size, spongy enough to be comfortable, but not so spongy so he can grip it under his chin) or what they are called? And, more importantly, does anyone know of a UK retailer, internet based or accessible would be handy, that sells them? Much appreciated.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Just done a quick google and found two sites that might help. This place has a crappy site and I can't find much info on it but it looks like you can order individual parts through it (they mention chin controlled wheelchairs here). Maybe. It's a poorly designed site. This site looks more professional but I wouldn't know how to order individual parts from them. Might be able to email them and ask. If the guy is in the UK then he should be able to go and ask his GP about it, I imagine the chin-ball is a part that gets replaced relatively often. X Stickman (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll have a look at the sites. Unfortunately, advanced wheelchairs and wotnot are considered to be part of Care, not Medical, so they aren't funded through the NHS, instead they get funded and maintained by the local council. Even then, the models you get are the most basic possible, and so anything in advance of that is up to you to maintain and pay for through DLA.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Would a tennis ball work? X Stickman (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, too hard, and a tennis ball tends to collapse when you cut into it to fit it over the switch. And in the meantime the plot thickens. My partner's just phoned and let me know that he company that her brother has his contract with will replace the ball, but only when it's completely knackered, they won't give him a spare so that somebody could whack it on if the ball fails post 5pm or on the weekend. They won't even sell him a spare, his father has asked if they would. Looks like it's going to have to be a case of going around the kid's and pet's sections of various shops, see if we can find a suitable replacement. Fucking wheelchair companies, or possibly wheelchair maintenance companies. They bring a whole new meaning to the term 'tosser'.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

can you get a make/model or part number ? there are a lot of chin control systems. There are a few places in the USA that supply parts and do repairs for little to no cost. Hamster (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

WTF? I would go seriously ballistic. Unless the wheelchair company or maintenance company has a seriously good reason for not selling basic spares like this, (possibly some sort of protection against badly fitted parts harming the user or something), then they need to be shouted at. In my experience, (nothing to do with wheelchairs), companies that do this do it because of some arcane procedural issue rather than anything substantial and have never been challenged as to why the procedure is shit. If they're reasonable, then they'll either make an exception if challenged hard enough or change the procedure. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the company in question is using the old, 'We're getting paid via DLA Mobility, and that doesn't even cover half the cost, so be grateful for what you get.' And no, these companies don't seem to be reasonable, at least, that seems to be the rule of thumb. They know that their clients are severely disabled, and that 99% of the them aren't in a position to make a fuss directly.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 11:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hooray! Spare replacements have been found! At a Garden Centre…in Northumbria…in the Pet's section…by his nephew…Makes me proud of the British system of care for the severely disabled. (If I need sarcasm tags for that last sentence then FSM help us all).-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Topeka kansas - just decriminalized spousal abuse

Into smacking around your wife? move to Topeka. It's no longer a crime. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/10/12/topeka-kansas-has-decriminalized-domestic-violence/ and a better link http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/us/topeka-moves-to-decriminalize-domestic-violence.html --GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 21:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I can't wait for the logical end point to this: "Murder legalized due to police force budget cuts." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

this is sorta exactly the kinds of repercussions I assume we will be facing when obama faces off against the repubs again. I remember when the repugs decided not to fund FEMA in New York after the hurrican, UNTIL THE BUDGE IS BALLANCED. yah, cause petty political squabbles are the same as saving people, their homes, their livelyhoods,etc--GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 22:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, there'll still be police, but they'll be "privatized" to increase "efficiency." And their cruisers will look like this. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a desk you guys have around? Because I need something to hit my head on. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Cruel coincidence. Just slammed head off of desk. Not over this. This was the second time. Still doing the chem homework. Well, I say homework. Just had 11 repeated questions out of 28 and haven't gotten 2/3rds of the way through the exercise. Spending more time looking up the previous question's number and then writing 'See above x (s)', than actually working. On the other hand, still makes more sense than a lot of US politics. Are your lot of politicians really that barvy, or are they all off their heads on something?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

i can sort of sympathise with this after seeing a large number of women who refused to press charges. The police really cant afford to be a couples referee. Its also freakin dangerous for the cops involved. I dont see this legislation helping anyone except saving police resources , and maybe convincing women to leave an abuser because there wont be a police response. Hamster (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Reasoned, righteous smackdown from Godot in 3, 2...  ^seulcnamuħ   22:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hamster, the cost of cops going out is not removed here, cause you don't know when someone calls 911 if it is a misdemeanor, if it is a full on attempted murder, etc. The cost is the cost of prosecution of these cases. So why publicly say "we are taking the law off the books"? Prosecutors always have the right not to prosecute. Removing something from the books mealy says to the world "we don't give a shit about domestic violence". Also, I'm not sure I understand your connection of this to "refuse to press charges". Despite what yo see on tv, women do not press charges. It has nothing to do with them. the DA decides if they will or will not press charges. dFurther, Cops jobs is EXACTLY to play "referee". we pay them well, they get amazing benefits in most cities, and one of their primary jobs it to protect people who may be in over their head. Including dealing with escalating emotions, alcohol or drugs (which is almost always involved), or just choosing a shitty partner and not knowing how to get out. As for "fricking dangerous", if it's dangerous for the cops, what the heck do you think it is for the abused spouse? I don't know about your knowledge of abuse, but your idea that women AND MEN should just 'leave' is ridiculously simplistic and has nothing to do with teh emotional, financial, and psychological reality that abused people face. GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 01:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I was once helping out doing some "world building" for a friend's Novel Writing Month venture and tried to conceive of something where everything was privatised. And I mean everything. Police and law enforcement particularly, I even joked that "even the crime was privatised" until I realised that basically made no sense. But imagine if law itself was. I.e., you had to pay to be covered by certain laws and have their protection. And that too would be covered by supply and demand. Obviously one would expect a high demand to be covered against being murdered, so you could get that cheap enough, but for everything else. Well, brain started hurting after trying to make sense of it, so I suggested leaving it as an intentional absurdity. ^theist 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I once wrote a story along those lines, about a country in which the government had been privatized along party lines and people had to wear an heraldic tattoo on the forehead to show which private government they had contracted with for protection. It ended with the private governments gradually consolidating into a monopoly, which was then re-nationalized. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"...intentional absurdity." Sounds like a pretty good description of David D. Friedman's writing. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Pratchett managed it with the Discworld stuff. The Thieves' Guild was responsible for ensuring that the number of thefts, muggings and burglaries were kept to a sensible level, the Assassin's Guild saw to it that murder was legalised, privatised and available to anyone who could pay. Anybody who engaged in activites that impinged on the activities of either of these guilds would be seen to (and notably not seen again, at least in one piece or breathing) by the guild in question. All other criminals were dealt with by the Guild members of the guild that the victim, or his or her family, belonged to. Worryingly, it's not that far off what we had before the modern police force was invented. Stretched for comic effect, of course. Even more worryingly, extremely close to what we had before King Alfred started changing the laws to such left-wing, liberal policies as not being allowed to take direct revenge on the person who wronged you, instead you had to wait seven days and publicly declare that you wouldn't accept the were-guild offered by that person before being allowed to knife them in the street. Later Alfred really started to breathe in the hippy smoke when he introduced trial by jury, although to be fair, trial by jury was optional in those days. You didn't have to go for it if you didn't want to, say if you had managed to piss off any of the jurors, or had the foresight to pay off the judge.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, of course. Thieves guild! I somehow completely forgot about that one. It's quite interesting how they police their own, so that those operating without a license are dealt with by the guild (usually horribly) and not the Watch. But since Pratchett is always on the lighter and humourous side he never slides this into a grim-dark side of Mafia-style protection rackets. Thing is, if we did go to ludicrous levels of capitalism, I doubt we'd have Vetinari running it competently. Remember that the Patrician was still answerable to the people because he knows how his predecessors were dethroned, he still has to act in the city's interest and controlling the guilds is one of those ways. If you went all the way then this wouldn't be the case, each aspect would be in competition and only ever answerable to those who can afford to buy shares or services. I imagine that the line between law-maker, law-enforcer and law-breaker would become very blurred (even more blurred than it is now, if you want a cynical interpretation). ^sshole 01:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh... As long as they haven't legalized assault and battery, I think the citizens of Topeka will be fine.--. 23:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes; no one here seems to have noticed that spouse abuse is still against Kansas law. Similarly, we have no federal law against murder. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the city announcing that it will not prosecute in cases of domestic violence puts forward a rather strange message. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The message is not so strange: "We're out of money, so we'll try to save some by playing political chicken with the D.A." ListenerX^TalkerX 08:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

But stripping this particularly law, while still prosecuting in other cases of violent crime, suggests that it's not in the interests of the city (rather than the county/state/federation) to prevent violence which takes place behind closed doors and between husband & wife. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Why this, and not 'that'

anyone but me curious why "spousal abuse" and not, say misdemeanor pot use?GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 01:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Because pot breeds commies, Godot. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there is that. But the thinking is probably "what laws can we realistically get rid of?" Remember that the US is all tough and Gung-ho on crime - meaning if you relax laws you look soft. Laws can only get more restrictive in this sort of climate. So relaxing drug laws is a Big Fucking No No. Whereas if you repealed laws about abuse, then you could, in principle, claim that there's no real harm in it because, well, because. They should shut their mouths and get back in the fucking kitchen. ^postate 01:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

And laws against Spousal abuse is the government interfering with what a man can do with his property. (i hope the scarcasm is clear) AMassiveGay (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No more cat videos anymore, we've got something else...

I have to violate the embedding rules just this once.

Osaka Sun (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

DO WANT!--Dumpling (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Pygmy owl wins on basis of chittering sounds and eyelash-fluttering. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Impossible Fingerpost

Before I go off and make a fool of myself, can anyone confirm that this image is a photoshop job, or at very least could not exist? (I found it on this clog, if you're wondering.) Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 03:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like CGI, but it need not be. It could easily exist; there are a lot of novelty signs just like that all over the world. There's one that looks a lot like it not five minutes from my house.--^talk 04:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I know they exist - I've been to Bluff etc. My doubts are founded on the premise that there cannot be a place on Earth at which the sign would be correct, at least as far as I can tell. That and the existence of this similar image. Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 04:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

How can I say this? I think you're being a bit pedantic about the sign. Move along, there's nothing to see here. DogP (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

But I like being pedantic... Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 06:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's 'shopped then they've done a good job of it. I wouldn't be surprised if such a sign exists. -- 08:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't see why there's any disbelief. Such signs appear at many tourist spots. A 10 second google found this and many more. Scream!! (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There are many such things at tourist spots but the image referenced by PeterL is a geographical impossibility. It might be a purely symbolic thing but if it's come from ICR then it must just be stupid. Генгис^evolving 09:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, hadn't really looked at it. It's SILLY! Scream!! (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I don't see any conflict in directions on the sign. I didn't look too closely, but if it were placed somewhere in the Middle East it might be accurate (helpful? no, but perhaps accurate). άλφα^Ταλκ 15:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit of a headfuck, bet let's look at the bottom rung. Spain and Greece are in opposite directions. That puts the sign anywhere in a large band between the two nations, encompassing most of Italy, some France and the northern tip of Tunisia, and if we're being liberal, anywhere in the two countries themselves. But nowhere could the sign be orientated in that region in such a way that the India pointer would be correct. If we allow for the sign to point along the longer distance to a destination, you could put it in India and still have it pointing to both Greece and Spain (whichever way around the Earth) because the three nations are roughly along the same line (and if it's in India, it doesn't matter which way the India pointer is pointing). But then it doesn't point to Canada correctly. So the sign lies. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the sign is from somewhere in this universe? OK, so it still doesn't work, but it almost could. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a WWII decoy sign. Sen (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Am I part of the 1%?

Because the protesters that jeered at me apparently thought I am. Sure, I was wearing a suit and carrying a briefcase, but that does automatically make me one the crazy right-wing greedy oligarchs they're supposed to be protesting against? It wasn't really a big deal, since we only have a couple of half-hearted protesters here, but it was a nice "how odd" moment for me. άλφα^Ταλκ 04:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

According to the Wall Street Journal, I'm around the 38th percentile if you count grants, income from working at my uni, etc. Nifty. άλφα^Ταλκ 04:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

To eliminate your confusion, a brief "Occupy Wall Street" lexicon: "99%" means "proletariat" and "1%" means "bourgeoisie." It was established in the 1960s that those who wear suits and/or are over 30 are of the "1%" and not to be trusted.

These attitudes appear to have caused some problems for protesters. This article, for instance, describes how an aspiring protester found himself lost on the way to a protest and asked directions from a passerby. He did not, however, say where he was going; based only upon the fact that the passerby was wearing a business suit, he feared that he would be given misleading directions. It turned out, however, that the suit was a socialist. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

But the briefcase was fascist. (Rimshot) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Lx wants another stock market crash. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh? ListenerX^TalkerX 06:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

By that logic, the 1% probably comprises about...let's see... Anyone not participating in the protest, probably. Which is a lot of people. I was at St. Paul's in London recently and it's so overplayed by the media, it's unbelievable. There's hardly anyone there. -- 08:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Mrs K. was there last week and reckoned it was largely empty tents. Генгис^evolving 08:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The 1% are literally just millionaires, right? ^theist 14:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

According to the WSJ, the 1% are people who earn over 2M (or around there). @LX, I'm not even over 20 yet, but I was wearing a suit, so clearly I'm the mortal enemy. As a finance student who by most measures qualifies as a leftist, I feel like I'm the closest thing the Occupy protests have to a friend, so to speak. @Genghis - I went to an anti-war protest a month or so ago that was supposed to merge with the Occupy protests, except the Occupy protests only had around 5-10 people, and they'd already joined the march anyway. It's starting to get to about 3 or 4 degrees here are night, so soon it'll be a bit too cold for people to spend the night even if they wanted to. άλφα^Ταλκ 15:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Despite being a student with social libertarian and some socialistic economic leanings I've never attended any protest or demonstration for the simple reason I imagine most protesters to be middle-class socialist types who I find infuriatingly annoying (not that I could be called working class by any stretch of the imagination). I grew out of the student revolutionary mindset at the age of sixteen when I realised every middle class person who buys into it is a posh wanker who's just excited to be away from their parents for the first time in their life. Having said that, I wish I'd attended the protests against public sector and education cuts last year, as they're affecting (negatively) at least half the population of Britain. SJ ^Debaser 15:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Occupy protests have tended to draw out a wider demographic than just the usual middle-class socialite tits. There are stories of genuine hardship, not just socialist idealism, coming out of this. ^{d hominem} 16:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Globally speaking, yes, you probably are part of the 5%, if not the 1%. PintOfStoutTalk Good people drink good beer. 15:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, is there a good way to measure that? I'd like to know what percentile I am globally, taking into account not just income but access to public services etc. I strongly suspect I'm in the 1%. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The protests I've been to in my life have either been accidental (Spain, while visiting, and Italy, while living there; they were pretty unavoidable) or for class reasons (the anti-war ones I've seen at home). Globally, I'm almost certain that I'm in the 1%, because I know that my access to various services far exceeds that of most people in the world. Even in the United States, my access to things like healthcare greatly exceeded that of many people because of the phenomenal insurance my parents' workplace provided them while I was growing up. άλφα^Ταλκ 18:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of the UK only, I would be surprised if I was even in the top 50%, and I wear a suit all the time - i wear a suit damn well. I think regardless of what percentile you are in, people make assumptions about you purely by the way you are dressed. People who make a point of 'not caring how they are dressed' are often the worst offenders. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I always suspected this was the case...

... but this (admittedly opinion) article from Washington Post seems to prove my suspicions.

Th e-mail rumor mill is dominated by conservatives. MDB (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny, that fits well with this paper I was just reading, although it's the party out of power usually prone to cooking up conspiracies. I wonder if you get the same results but reversed for the Dubya administration -- I recall some truther and FEMA camp forwards back in those days. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The article does compare some numbers. While there were, of course, false claims about Bush, Obama has far more, and, not just that, some of the false stories about Bush were ones that put him in a good light (at least to the target audience.) MDB (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a lot more geniune shit on Bush than there is on Obama. You'd probably need to compare presidents with similar approval ratings or something. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

True. I'd bet Clinton might give both a run for their money because of all the Vince Foster/Clinton body count e-mails. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

May I offer

The telltale signs of quackery Scream!! (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Support this guy - he's good. Bad Faith (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I've put it on WIGO Blogs as well. Bad Faith (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the article last time I saw the poster. Both pretty great. ^moral 19:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear god.

Why do I have an ominous feeling this won't go well? Osaka Sun (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Secret technology

I keep seeing this idea floating around comments. Anyone think it's worth making it into an actual article? I just need the help cataloging examples in the wild and maybe expanding on the reason a bit, as I just bashed this out quickly for illustrative purposes. ^pathetic 14:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Mind-control technology being covered up by the CIA/FBI/whatever is a perennial favorite, as are free energy suppression conspiracy theories. Also, not government-related, but cancer cure suppression conspiracy theories have been around for a while. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Good start, well worth an article. Can accrete examples. - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I never associated the idea with tech suppression. But here's the difference I see: In tech suppression the technology has existed in the "open", and just acquired and hushed up by the mysterious Them. In this, it's that the technology was developed in secret, stays in secret, gets used in secret... and then either makes its way into the world at a later date or gets developed independently. ^sshole 10:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

One minor suggestion. Don't use light years for anything other than distance. Please. I beg you. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but in relativity lightyear is also a measure of time, converted by c. Actually, this applies to all distances, because space and time are interchangeable to form an interval - the light "year" being the the most obvious example where we're happy to use it. Others uses tend to be more subtle, such as when we say "I'm 20 minutes away" instead of "I'm 3 miles away", again inter-converted by speed so effectively convey the same information. Fleh. ^{d hominem} 13:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. Various mind-control tech conspiracies would still fall under that definition, though. Maybe also "death ray" technologies. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As a general theme in conspiracy theories, it would be worth having an article exploring this & linking to other relevant pages. There are various Area 51 theories involving hushed up alien technology, for example, as well as the old Nazi UFOs myth. Plus stuff about the sinister potential/purpose of HAARP being kept secret from the public. Also, it's worth noting that these kind of theories probably first grew out of the Cold War/Arms Race/Space Race era, when there was a certain amount of genuine secrecy surrounding what governments were doing in terms of new defensive & offensive technology. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point, though I think you could only really confine it to aviation during the cold war. ^pathetic 01:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I think the same goes for a lot of conspiracy theories, not necessarily just technological ones, which emerged from that era (esp in the USA): it was a time of heightened national secrecy & public paranoia, so it's easy to understand why people might have started thinking more was going on than actually was. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: lightyears. I've never read "lightyears ahead" as a difference in time - I imagine a race where the leader is "such-and-such distance ahead" of the rest. But of course, I'm not a native English speaker, so...--ZooGuard (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

ZooGuard I am a native speaker and that's how I'd understand this idiom too. We also use "miles ahead" in the same way. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fun browsing

Came across this fascinating interactive Hate Map of the US at the Southern Poverty Law Centre. Happy happy joy joy. Or horribly depressing. DogP (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a few white hoods in Texas. ^bomination 20:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Neat! Too bad Conservapedia isn't on the map. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a very interesting map, but sad too. :-( Way too many hate groups in my state. Refugee^{talk page} 00:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh Louisiana. As long as none of them are in BR...Seriously though...25?--Dumpling (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a National Socialist group in Elkridge, MD? Holy sheep dip, that's not ten miles from me. And even closer, there's a Council of Conservative Citizens in Silver Spring. The CCC is basically the Klan in suits instead of robes. MDB (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Ireland…

…I thought you were better than that. --★uːʤɱ heretic 15:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What, a Cardinal of the RCC makes some noises about people not being religious enough? Hardly shocking. PintOfStoutTalk Good people drink good beer. 15:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I was going for the "if Christian morals don't dominate our nation we aren't free"-jam. Sorry, should have been more clear on that. --★uːʤɱ sinner 15:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Right. So says a high Church official. What do you expect him to say? "We can really do fine without Christian morals"?!? Look at it this way; he feels as though he needs to say this: “Here in Ireland, for the first time in our history, our politics, economics and social structures function in a manner where God is almost unmentioned and irrelevant. It is as if we operate in a world, as someone put it, where God is missing but not missed, or where most aspects of life are conducted as though God did not exist." if you're a secularist, the idea that a place like Eire can be a place where the RCC feels threatened and doesn't take its primacy for granted, that's a good thing. PintOfStoutTalk Good people drink good beer. 15:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh and I see it as something good (or beneficial), "This is often justified in the name of tolerance and freedom. In fact, it could hardly be more intolerant and illiberal," on the other hand is pretty much the same thing as people in the US claiming gay marriage infringes their rights even though they are heterosexual. I for one have never heard such a thing from a priest or high official of any church outside the countries were the crazy has allready gotten a foot in the door. Now if that is normal in Ireland, that sucks, but it's the first time I heard something like this from Ireland, therefor I was a bit upset. And no it is not normal for higher ranking church members to say such a thing were I am from (Germany). --★uːʤɱ atheist 15:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You gotta understand the history of the RCC and Eire. This is a country where condoms were illegal (unless you were married and had a doctor's prescription) until the 90s. This is a country where Life of Brian was banned until the late 80s. What that Cardinal said is bush-league for RCC interference in Irish political discourse. PintOfStoutTalk Good people drink good beer. 15:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll be damned... I thought Ireland had made more progress over the last two decades. --★uːʤɱ secularist 20:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What is also significant is the continuing rapid decline, not to say plummet, in the churches fortunes in Ireland. The priest abuse scandles have significantly hastened the feeling among younger Irish citizens that the church is increasingly irrelevant. In such circumstances it is normal that the big guns spout repeatedly in an attempt to assure others, and themselves, that they still have some influence, honest, really, please, please.... Bad Faith (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"Here in Ireland, for the first time in our history, our politics, economics and social structures function in a manner where God is almost unmentioned and irrelevant" - Brady. You would with Ireland's history of religous violence (I know it was not purely religously inspired), this would be good thing AMassiveGay (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

These kinds of sentiments are run of the mill from Catholic bishops. His Holiness said much the same kinds of things in the Papal visit to the UK 2010: "As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a 'reductive vision of the person and his destiny' . . . Today, the United Kingdom strives to be a modern and multicultural society. In this challenging enterprise, may it always maintain its respect for those traditional values and cultural expressions that more aggressive forms of secularism no longer value or even tolerate. Let it not obscure the Christian foundation that underpins its freedoms". source ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"Atheist extremism." God how I hate that phrase, at least when used in this sort of context. Granted, one could accuse some of the revolting anti-religious pogroms of the 20th Century as being led by atheist extremists. But a handful of atheist academics writing a flurry of successful books, some atheist slogans being advertised on the side of buses, and a few atheist comedians performing amusing numbers on stage? Atheist extremism? Right.

Extremism is allowing your trusted priests to rape children and get away with it. Extremism is the massacring of a wedding party just because your interpretation of an old book is different to theirs. Extremism is the threatening of children at the school gates by grown men because they're from a different sect to you. And those are the less serious examples.

The day when Tim Minchin leads an attack on a book signing by Sam Harris with Uzis and nine millimetres will be an example of atheist extremism.

Ratzinger. You cock. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

^bomination 15:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Calling all Brits

Now, where's the λ on my keyboard?

For those who haven't already signed there is an e-petition calling to teach evolution not creationism, you know it makes sense. (P.S. Why are captchas getting so difficult?) Генгис^evolving 19:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thought you guys didn't have much of a creationist infestation. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't, but the recent education reforms to create 'Free schools' has given a green light to religious groups of all denominations and the creationists have seized the opportunity to open their own schools with Government backing; see this article for details. Генгис^evolving 20:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

So I'm guessing this is like our school voucher bait-and-switch. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Just here for the captcha thingy: as general rule of thumb, all mathematical signs, the greek alphabet and the cyrillic alphabet one does not actually type in that letter or sign, but that one on the keyboard (English language, of course) that looks most like it. Therefor it's enough if you type in "|y|2" if you see "|λ|²" in the captcha or for example "Москва́" becomes "mockba". Other scripts like Chinese, Korean, Japanese Kana and Devangari are skippable - you don't have to type them at all. Also it doesn't matter if one types upper- or lowercase. --★uːʤɱ federalist 20:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't seem to upload this file, but I quite like this captcha I faced recently before downloading a movie; I know to just skip it, but nevertheless, WHAT?! άλφα^Ταλκ 22:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

reCAPTCHA is reading books. It has scanned images of books. Mostly, the books are read using OCR (optical character recognition). But sometimes OCR can't figure out what was written. In this case reCAPTCHA gives the images to humans to look at. The humans are motivated (in this case they want to post to RW) to give acceptable answers. By using one image which it has previously determined the meaning of, together with another that is unknown, it gets to determine whether this particular human gives good answers, and record a possibly correct answer for the unknown image. Thus, by solving reCAPTCHA images we prevent spam and help the machine to read books. But since the machine doesn't actually know what is in the unknown image, it will sometimes feature non-English text. The reason UHM's suggestions work is that this half of the puzzle is unknown and thus wasn't used to decide if you are human. Please use the skip button rather than entering nonsense like "mockba" as suggested above. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

On Captchas

I've seen an insidiously evil variant on Capthchas... You had to watch a video ad for McDonalds, then answer a question about the ad. MDB (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Random quotes

I was just browsing around humanistlife.org.uk and came across this article from March 2011 about including humanism in schools' RE curriculum. There are some good quotes which I'd like to share:

“”I don’t think it is right. People are born into faiths and are brought up in that faith and that’s how it should stay. The non-faith beliefs send a wrong message to the children and confuse them. Values are very, very important. I don’t think the non-God aspect should be introduced into the curriculum.

—Salim Mulla, chairman of the Lancashire Council of Mosques.

And

“”I think that four years old is too young to be learning about atheism, at that age they hardly know what Christianity is. It is difficult to get youngsters to understand theology and spiritual concepts. Children tend to struggle when you are making the first Holy Communion.

—Father Michael Lavin, Catholic Priest from Blackburn.

Oh, the irony! However, kudos to the rev who thinks that Christianity is big enough to stand up and be compared with atheism and humanism. Генгис^evolving 20:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

How about just avoiding discussion of religion in schools period?--. 20:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and science, politics and philosophy too. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Nah, that wouldn't work. Religious Education (RE) was by consensus the most boring subject when I was at school, but in hindsight it was somewhat interesting to learn about the world's major religions and different perceptions of God. Although they should make a point of including the nasty bits people believe in, i.e. "death to homos and shrimp eaters", rather than the more general "if you're good then you'll go to heaven." SJ ^Debaser 21:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The only time we touched religion in elementary was in social studies/history. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I actually got an "O" level in RK (religious knowledge) despite being an ardent atheist and the bane of our RK teacher's life. I always treated it like Science Fiction, which I suppose it is, really. Scream!! (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I got a C in my Religious Education GCSE (the exam folk in the UK take at 16 before they leave school), and I answered all of the questions on the paper in the form of drawings of stickmen acting out the answer. I always got the feeling that the only person who took it seriously was our teacher. X Stickman (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I ever did a single RE lesson at school. It was always scheduled, but the lesson involved no RE at all. At secondary school, it didn't even get lip service. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh. This is the UK. Well, classes on religion should be optional. Same as classes on science, art, and philosophy. What should be mandatory is reading, writing, and math. Also, education should be promoted, and optional classes such as those I just mentioned should be fully supported (so kids wanting to learn won't be limited by income).--. 02:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Why make science optional if math is mandatory? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Totally disagree. Children should have a rounded education until they start to specialise for their further education. One of society's greatest evils is ignorance and just teaching the three Rs won't do much to counter that. They need knowledge and understanding and the wider subjects of science (seriously, WTF?), art, literature, history, philosophy and, yes, even religious studies will help us become less ignorant and more tolerant. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about 'religious education' being taught in schools as a subject, but it is an important topic along with philosophy and ethics because, even for atheists, the part religion has played in our history is important to appreciating and understanding European culture. We are taught about the myths of Greece and Rome, and those of Judeo-Christianity should be included as well. I agree with Mr Gordon that the aim of education should to be produce (intellectually) well-rounded individuals before proceeding to specialisation. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Religion as taught in RE is taught as a belief system in state schools ("public schools" for you yanks) and not as fact as it is in religious schools. I think a basic religious knowledge is important as with any main subject, as Ajk says up, until you choose your focuses for further education, which is why RE is mandatory up to the age of 14 in the UK - then you choose GCSE subjects for further study (Standard Grades in Scotland) and drop the ones you don't want. SJ ^Debaser 13:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

All you need before you specialize is the basic preceding knowledge.--. 18:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't need no education. We don't need no thought control. All in all you're just another brx in the wall. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Because math is necessary for your day to day life.--. 18:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody with upload rights

....snag this for me? Thanks! PintOfStoutTalk Good people drink good beer. 02:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, since it's on mediawiki, you can just type it in like so: --. 02:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! PintOfStoutTalk Good people drink good beer. 02:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You should have upload rights by default. This is not CP. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 10:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And yet, I do not have them. PintOfStoutTalk Good people drink good beer. 14:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You should have soon. Autoconfirmed users are accounts which are more than one day old, and which have at least ten edits. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

MMMMM, but where's the bucket of mussels? DogP (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

***another**** damn "debate".

Who will make an ass out of themselves tonite? I swear to god, they are far too stupid to put themselves out there like this. Not that any of the questions are hard or anything, yet they still manage to fuck up. Why is it, though, that they have already done 10-12 "debates" for this election, but were whining about the TWO that McCain v. Obama and two for Palin v. Biden had? idiots, the lot of them. And here's the drinking game. Can they go the whole night without blaming the world's problems on Obama, or saying something just totally "huh???" esque.GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 15:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I drink every time someone says 'tax' TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 16:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If you took a drink every time the republicans offered solutions instead of just blame, you'd be sober till - well, the elections! GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 16:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

At least they have debates. Again, fuck you Jindal. Тy^talk 16:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a problem actually calling them "debates". They are forums to state the obvious. "obmama is the antichrist. Taxes are bad. God is great. And women and gays are "Our Friends (tm)" but they don't really understand that they aren't as good as us. yeah. fun fun.GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 16:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Eventually, "debate fatigue" has to set in among Republicans. As if it matters... they're gonna pick Romney. MDB (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't care how fatiguing the debates have been for you 'Mercans, the "Three Departments" moment is an all time classic which provided merriment around the globe. They have been worth it for that alone.Bad Faith (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

WfG, they had numerous debates in 2008 too, but remember that these are primary debates. There's usually more of those than inter-party debates. That might change if Newt becomes the nominee, as unlikely as that is, but otherwise is probably always going to happen because of the structure of the respective races. In the inter-party race, the two candidates have to debate, but it's very high-stakes for both of them. Since one or the other is likely to be seen as stronger in debating, and because one of them often will "win" a debate, it makes it less likely they will agree to future debates or arrange more. Whereas in a primary system, there's usually three or four (or more) candidates who ardently want to debate, because they have nothing to lose, and the pressure is accordingly very high to keep it up. Particularly like now, with a frontrunner like Romney who is just destroying each debate with his robotic perfection.--^talk 19:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking for feedback

I realize that I'm probably baiting a long and involved discussion about abortion by doing this, but I'm looking for feedback on this graphic. Specifically, I need to know if I'm missing something, if I'm not being reasonable/rational/objective, or if my decision tree is missing something. Yes, I realize it's a large image, but it's small byte-wise. My quest is not to be snarky, but educational. This is likely going on my blog (although it can certainly go here if people desire it), probably shared by my friends. Let the flames begin. --Sethpeck (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

While I think you have a major problem in the fact you're representing these decisions in flow charts - they're really fucking complicated decisions - I think in the context of your third, the punchline, the idea is fine. When some of your arrows split I'm at a loss to understand how the flow is supposed to work, though. And sometimes you seem to make one "final" block flow into another, which I think is confusing. Perhaps make the top two as simple as you can. Literally "Pregnant -> Weigh up all options. Do I want this? -> Yes, no." and see what that looks like. ^pathetic 18:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm definitely not saying that these are simple questions--but ultimately decisions need to be made, and the comparison of the two ideologies ultimately boils down to yes-or-no questions. I would hate for anyone to use these as a determination of their own situation, but rather how the ideologies differ when it comes down to the extremes (which is always what pundits talk about). I totally see what you mean regarding "final" blocks, that I can fix. --Sethpeck (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If the aim is to model it, then what you're doing is legitimate. I just think that if you start asking what is missing, you will expand and expand and expand until your chart becomes unreadable. If you ask what you can afford to lose, you simply are left with "do I have an abortion, yes/no". It depends what you're trying to infer by it; do you want your point to be that the third one (what pro-life thinks of pro-choice) illustrates that it's a misrepresentation or an oversimplification? If the former, then keep all three as simple as possible. If the latter, then you can afford to make large and somewhat unwieldy low charts because that's very much part of the point. ^{d hominem} 18:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, your advice here is what I was looking for. --Sethpeck (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The first Pro-Choice chain goes "Pregnant! --> Was it planned? --> Yes --> Willing to abort?" But surely nobody plans to get pregnant & have an abortion (except imaginary baby-hating Pro-Choice strawmen). It should go from "Was it planned? --> Yes" straight to "Is life of mother or baby in peril?" Also it would look better as three separate files not one tall one, and in png rather than jpg. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trying to conceive of the possibility of where a planned pregnancy might be aborted (e.g., they wanted a baby but they know it'll be stillborn, or Chinese parents know it's going to be a girl, or the Gattaca "invalid" situation)...and had a hard time deciding where to put it into the graph, or how to relate it to the "Is life of mother or baby in peril?" decision. Thoughts? --Sethpeck (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is exemplifying where you have one layer of complication that "pro choice" and "pro life" don't really get across. There are such things that they call "social abortions", where it's done for non-essential (medical) reasons. In theory you'd have two completely different branches on your decision tree for these two. ^narchist 18:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think my worry was more about the situation where it's "for the better" (as it were) for a planned pregnancy to be aborted, and less with the eugenics part of it. I tried diverting the "yes" branch from the "Was it planned" decision to the "Is life of mother or baby in peril" decision, and it actually looks more logical. Thanks Weaseloid, Armondikov. --Sethpeck (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Revised version --Sethpeck (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Answering no to willing to abort (pro choice model) should lead to birth? Are you the guy in the internets that makes all those flow charts? I LOVE FLOW CHARTS AND GRAPHS! TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 22:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ultra Facepalm

This picture is awesome. ^pathetic 17:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Made my day, thank you. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That is so stupid, I don't even feel like laughing about it. --★uːʤɱ federalist 18:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Angels and ministers of grace defend us.... Oh, wait, my bad. -- 18:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the understatement of the Implied Facepalm. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Newt has said children should get their asses back to work!

He calls child labor laws "stupid". oh joy. THIS is who you want for president? (sorry if this was already commented on - i'm behind in my news reading). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/newt-gingrich-child-labor-lobbyist_n_1105178.html GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 19:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Late to the crazy party. I guess they mistook the phrase "Dickensian England" for a compliment. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

They thought they were saying "De-keynesian", using the Spanish/French word "de" to mean "of". --Sethpeck (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, I think you over explained that joke to death. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about >:D --Sethpeck (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

So i'm looking for an old FPS

i remember playing when i was a kid. It was basically Doom engine but in a tower/hospital/science base/something with aliens and alienish monsters. Anybody have ideas? --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Blake or something like that? - π 00:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Blake Stone? Vulpius (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I was going to suggest Blake Stone too. You're all too fast for me. ^theist 01:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I know that I shouldn't laugh...

But this is some weird shit. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

One thing that annoys me is that they call the injector a man, yet describe xem as a transgender woman. THIS IS WHY I WANT TO USE GENDER-NEUTRAL PRONOUNS PEOPLE.

But anyways, yeah -- there's something as too large an ass, especially when it's not only just your ass. I wonder if this is a symptom of the culture she lives in telling her that her ass needs to be big or she's ugly or some shit like that, so she agreed to have cement injected in it. F_idgeter^{talk to me :D} 14:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Really, you'd think you'd be dubious of 700$ invasive surgery--. 18:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

...That takes the meaning 'junk in the trunk' to a whole new level. --Dumpling (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Shame

Power Balance have filed for bancruptcy Scream!! (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Has the world gone mad? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Has it ever been sane?--Dumpling (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

total holiday apathy

I'm sitting here, playing with RW, but not editing; i have bills to pay but they aren't due so i'm not paying them, and I'm about to turn on Plants v. Zombees, and kill me some zombees. Is anyone else "just shit" when it's this close to holidays? or are you all nice productive beavers.GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 18:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not just you, I'm feeling pretty apathetic as well. Having to see all of my family members again makes me stressed and unproductive, and all I want to do is lie around all day and be lazy. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I used to pass it off as S.A.D from the longer nights, until I realised I had the same feeling in July. I don't think I've been "productive" for a while. ^sshole 18:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Long term unproductive is not good, depending on what you mean by unproductive. I've not written (other than here, or essays on facebook if you can call either of those 'writing') in almost a year; but i've picked up ASL. easier, lazier, but at least it's something! are you writing still? GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 18:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You folks can be thankfull for Thanksgiving, next day off I'll have is Christmas… --★uːʤɱ secularist 19:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Got Christmas shopping done, after suffering through the relatives (including an aspiring youth minister), I get to have my birthday a week or so later. Then I get to deal with everyone else's Christmas madness. Тy^talk 19:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, when is your birthday? Mine is also shortly after Thanksigiving.

My parents went to Germany to see my sister and her family, so I'm spending Thanksigving with friends (including one I'd like to be dating...) MDB (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The 3rd. My parents are in England, but I still have to go "show the flag" Тy^talk 13:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Our family doesn't really celebrate the holidays, we just go through the motions of present-giving every once in a while for Christmas (most of the time it's just us watching a Christmas movie with hot chocolate in hand till midnight, then we give the presents to each other). If anything, we only do Korean Thanksgiving (which was in September) and Chinese New Year (YEAH! YEARLY ALLOWANCE!) I've never celebrated an American Thanksgiving/Easter/etc. o___o --Dumpling (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I never liked the Salvation Army

Ever since I saw them wearing shirts that said "We do the most good" (seriously, how fucking pretentious is that?) and because every time I see them they're sitting their fat asses on chairs shaking their bells rather annoyingly (wanna feed the hungry? Try dieting, open up some of the food supply- okay, supply isn't the current reason for famine, but still...) they say "Merry Christmas!" whenever somebody donates, which makes me want to drop some change in their bucket and reply "I'm a {insert group that doesn't celebrate Christmas}, give me my money back, bitch!" Now that I've seen this, I like them even less--. 19:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I do find the obesity comment a bit annoying. How fat I am has nothing to do with how much time or effort I give to my community. That said, they are a religious group that openly discriminates against gays in need. I long ago stopped supporting them. Many many many better groups to give to; especially ones with little to no overhead like local group homes for kids, abuse shelters, or food & housing programs for homeless. An aside, but i got so pissed when a young woman on the street tried to get me to donate to planned parenthood. She said "they hire us to help get donations"... i stopped right there. Planned Parenthood is paying you, to sit here and beg for donations? almost made me stop supporting them, except they really are the only option for many women.GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 19:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It's probably the same as in the UK; charities need to raise funds and so pay impoverished students to do tele-canvassing and fundraising for them. If the government won't pick up the tab for important services then it's often the only way of getting something done. Генгис^evolving 20:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Just like my university! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Salvation Army's policies cause me a little angst, because I love their Angel Tree program, which is basically "you shop for specific kids at Christmas". I buy toys for Toys for Tots instead, but it doesn't have the same feel as knowing you got little Jimmy the Transformer he actually asked for. MDB (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There's more problems with them than just the anti-gay stuff as well. Here's some more dirt: [1] [2], [3] Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

...There's a Salvation Army donation lady always there whenever I go to work. I drop 50 cents every time I pass through (...I don't have the heart to just pass by without putting something in. I always feel guilty. Dammit.)They know me now. But for the Toys-for-Tots, I never really get them toys. I get lots of socks and scarves and hats and give those instead.--Dumpling (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I hate barbecuing

Parents: "Hey, Stabby, your brother's visiting from New York for Thanksgiving. Why don't you cook for him that thing you made us once?"

Stabby: "Sure."

Stabby, a few minutes ago: "HOLY SHIT GREASE FIRE!"

I think I just burned about $40 worth of meat. Also, it's cold, raining, windy, and the sun has long been down. I fucking hate barbecuing. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That sucks. you should pretend to not know how to cook, they'll never ask you to.--GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 03:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this US-style bbq or Oz/UK-style bbq? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 14:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

US-style tastes good. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 15:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Without knowing what you're grilling, if you have a grease fire, you probably don't know shit about grilling. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Daaaamn. $40 dollars worth of meat. That's a lot of meat. Our weather was cold, rainy, windy, and BLECH yesterday...yeah. Probably not a good idea to grill in that type of weather. Hope everything else turned out okay.--Dumpling (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

US bbq is where they put what looks like an entire cow into a closed burner and leave it for about a week. Oz/UK is what USians would call grilling (cooked on a wire rack over coals). Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. In Soviet Canuckistan, where I used to live, we used the latter form. Now that I've moved to the US, I'll have to be more careful with my terminology. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 16:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

In Soviet Canuckistan, grill bbq you! TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 19:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

How many people, historically, have been killed in the name of Christianity/Islam?

I just got into a heated discussion with some bigot (he started going into a "you're anti-white!" tirade) who claimed that more people have died in the name of Muhammad's than Hitler's.

Can anyone dispute that? Has there ever been a statistical head count? Osaka Sun (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to compare Christianity and Islam or Hitler and Islam? Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither. I'm just checking if what he's saying is in any way legitimate. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If you really feel like adding it all up. ^sshole 02:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiAnswers says Hitler ordered the deaths of around 11 million people. I'd guess the number of people who died because of Islam isn't nearly that much. Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how many people were killed in the name of some ideology or another. Religion doesn't kill people, assholes kill people.--. 02:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, no. That's totally false. The Nazis racked up an impressive body count, the Jihad probably got a lot of people killed but population wasn't very dense back then and killing wasn't the point anyways (evangelizing was)--. 02:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It would also be very hard to classify what is "religion" doing the killing and what isn't. Hitler hated jews, a religion, so it was in it's way, a religious war. On the other hand, the Crusades, popularly called a religious war, were political. and we all know EVERYTHING comes down to economics and power.... But I'd have to say TG is right, Islam as a motivation tool for slaughter is pretty new. They don't have anything on Hitler.GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 02:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Pedantry alert: Religion didn't have a lot to do with the logic of exterminating the Jews; an "atheist Jew" or a Jew who had converted to Christianity was, as far as the Nazis were concerned, still a Jew; they saw Jewishness as a racial characteristic,in "the blood," not as a religious belief system. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 03:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd actually be impressed if an abstract concept could kill people. Motivating people or providing them with convenient post hoc excuses on the other hand... ^theist 02:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 03:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Making up excuses and motivation is a problem with people--. 03:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be kinda hard to calculate and decide in which cases a particular religion/ideology had made a particular person think that killing another was a good idea. However in any cases where it looked like the answer was "quite a lot" then that would seem to be a criticism of that religion/ideology. If one number is less than another does that make one of them better?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No, because ultimately the decision to commit a crime is in the hands of the individual--. 12:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

By how much? You have seen how people can be goaded into things and effectively railroaded into one decision that they otherwise wouldn't have taken. Are you so sure that the decision is in the hands of the individual that you could go through certain situations (say, a dire economic situation, deaths of people close to you, and constant peer pressure) and not bow to the pressure to commit a crime? Sure, the decision rests with the individual, but that decision is made in the context of alternative choices. You can't conflate something like "free choice" and "limited choice" (or different sets of limited choices for that matter). So what is it that you actually mean by saying "the decision is in the hands of the individual"? ^postate 12:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

On a much much smaller scale, there are tons of (mostly women, oddly) people who claim to have heard god telling them to kill their children, or to kill themselves. --GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 14:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ohhh yea?!? Well all humans that have ever existed have killed more humans than Hitler + killers in the name of Allah COMBINED. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 14:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately it's often about killing people who are different in some way: religion, race, colour or class. Totting up the body count for comparative 'badness' is not a very helpful yardstick as technology and population have changed over time. Was wiping out 100% of a small group by hand in history better or worse than eliminating say 50% of a much larger group through mechanised means or weapons of mass destruction? Генгис^evolving 15:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I rather think it's about having an ideology which allows you to feel that "others" are in some way subhuman or non-human or somehow so different that their lives are worthless. I think that Nazis killing Jews, the Christians burning winches and Muslims killing apostates probably all fall into a similar trap. As I said before, counting up which of them has done the most isn't really that relevant - it's the fact that they have inspired any people to do this that's worthy of criticism.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You aren't taking into account the many Christians and Muslims that aren't like that. Most of the religious people I meet are decent folk--. 20:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't doubt it. To the best of my knowledge none of the Christians, Muslims or fascists that I've ever met has killed anybody. I wasn't suggesting they had.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Something to be thankful for

A new Muppet movie opens today.

The critics say it's great.

MDB (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

YESSSSSSSSSSS! Now I'm excited. I've been waiting to see the muppets! --Dumpling (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I grew up watching the Muppets. I'm not quite old enough to have watched the original Sesame Street, but I only miss it by a year or so. And The Muppet Show is a work of genius in my opinion. (Remember when the definition of "celebrity" was practically "has appeared on The Muppet Show"? )

Oh, and if you're a fellow long time Muppet fan... this will bring tears to your eyes. Big Bird singing Bein' Green at Jim Henson's memorial service. MDB (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I love the muppets. I never grew up with the Muppets, but I remember watching a lot of them when I came to the US. And gaaah. Totally sniffling now! --Dumpling (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Non Brits

Google is honoring Stanisław Lem at it's UK google. The US of course gets stupid turkeys. But do visit Google UK, the art is pretty nice!http://www.google.co.uk/webhp?hl=en GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 15:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

OH! It's interactive! FUN!--Dumpling (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Rule in the US: Turkey celebrating killing the natives trumps commie writter. German Google is doin' it too. --★uːʤɱ digital native 16:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, the dedicated Native American killing happened a few years after the first Thanksgiving.--. 17:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy Doctor Who Day!

Are you an Unearthly Child? --Sethpeck (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A cosmic nine-year-old? Blue (is useful) 17:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a Time War survivor, myself. -- 18:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Just whining - cause the boss always does this

My boss sucks at organizing his time. He said we could all leave at noon. but he's still doing things, and we can't leave till we've reviewed his work - just cause of the nature of the writing. He waits till the last minute, cause he works better under pressure, but doesn't even really get that this means we are typing on Rational Wiki, cause we are bored, then have to try and hurry up to proof, verify the research, and cite before we are done. sighs.... I want to be independently wealthy and not have to work for anyone. I'd make chocolate. All day long. GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 19:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Bush/Blair guilty of War Crimes

Supposedly. I have no issue with giving this particular tribunal some semblance of legal merit. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Science Geek Bragging Time

I just got tickets to see MythBusters live this March. MDB (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

...I'm jealous. You have no idea! -Dumpling (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert Redford writes an article for the Globe...

And watch as the denialists pop out. Again, drink something before you read the comments. Basic science literacy appears to now be non-existent in Canada too - can't wait for the next Colossal Fossil award.

Also, how does Patrick Moore have any credibility anywhere? Osaka Sun (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Link? PintOfStoutTalk Good people drink good beer. 00:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of the non-denialist comments are actually sensible. Railing against tar sands will not be very effective, because they are too profitable. It is silly to expect someone to leave a resource alone if they can make billions of $ from extracting it. His argument would be better if he offered this as an example of destruction caused by oil use and suggested ways to reduce it. I have no opinion of Moore's comment everyone is quoting. Maybe he was paid to say this, but maybe he says the truth. We can't rule out the successful reclamation of some of those areas until we see some scientific investigation of them. --Tweenk (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

We could always, you know, stop them. At least until we find better means of doing it. Government exists for a reason--. 02:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Moore doesn't believe in AGW anymore, so we can pretty much ignore every point he says. And why can't we carbon tax the shit out of it like Norway does? Osaka Sun (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"Railing against tar sands will not be very effective, because they are too profitable." They are only profitable when oil is above something like $85 a barrel. Also, it takes a LOT of energy to get that oil out of the ground, so it's super-inefficient. A national shame. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 04:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't like arbitrarily stopping something because some people (or even the majority) do not like it. This is how gays and atheists are still discriminated and drugs are still illegal. The carbon tax idea is far better because it does something which is needed anyway (internalization of costs) and it would simply make the operation unprofitable, or at least would provide additional funds for reclamation projects. --Tweenk (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't arbitrary. If tar sands are destructive, there's a very good reason to prevent their exploitation--. 14:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

All natural resource exploitation is destructive to some degree. How do you decide that tar sands oil extraction should stop without that decision being arbitrary? Ajkgordon (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Dog's arse is Jesus

I am not making this up. Personally, having taken a long look at it, I think it looks more like Hitler. I mean it has the little moustache and everything. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fucking awesome! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Also I like one of the comments: "So. . . uhhhh . . . what comes out of Jesus’s “mouth”?" Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There is doubt that it's Jesus. I think that I'm going to convert to Christianity based on this obvious miracle.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This made my morning. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 14:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be great if we could add it to our Pareidolia article. Oh, btw Jeeves you need to look at the whole rear end rather than just the anus because you see the shape of Jesus' arms and feet. Генгис^evolving 15:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

-snicker- That's crazy hilarious.--Dumpling (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Old. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

New to me :) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The Cult of Atheism

So I was reading my local news when I come across this story. So it seems a world religions teacher with a bias against Islam and non Christian teachings pissed off some muslim students. I check out his website and resignation letter and I notice the cult dropdown box on his website. To my surprise... Atheism is a cult! WTF?!?! How can the lack and rejection of religion and the supernatural be defined as a cult?!? I guess his definition of cult is anything that does not preach the word of your savior, the lord Jesus Christ? Email him and let him know what u think :) TheCheat^{I run on alcohol}

Time to stock up on Kool-Aid and become eunuchs I guess. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

He also posted the student's full names on his website. What an asshole. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 19:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"I guess his definition of cult is anything that does not preach the word of your savior, the lord Jesus Christ?" Since it's a Christian apologist website, yes. It looks like he's bundled together all beliefs/philosophies/movements which he sees as a threat to Christianity & and called them "cults", then bundled together Buddhism, Hindu, Sikhism, etc. as "world religions" (i.e. "foreign religions we don't have to worry about too much"). Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The directory listing of the cults folder shows banners for Buddhism & Hinduism. I guess he may have considered putting them in as cults too. I wish I was a student in one of his classes when I went to that school... I need to read up on these apologists. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol}

“A bigot is somebody who doesn't look at the information. They've got their mind made up. Nobody's gonna change their mind come hell or high water...” - Irony meter. Seriously. Blown. ^moral 19:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

“”There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of religious atheist groups and organizations in existence, all of which promote some kind of "spirituality" or recognition of a god or goddesses for the adherents to follow. Nevertheless, when those systems are more fully examined as to their theological claims, none of them advocate a god that actually exists. They are all idols, created in the human image, and ultimately provide nothing to alleviate the human condition.

—from Atheism, Religious Atheism

The amount of doublethink is stunning. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 20:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

In reading that, my Irony Meter just broke. Dammit. Fifth one this month! -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, where's the double-think? The first two sentences of what he says are largely accurate. Even some or part of the larger recognisable religions could be claimed to fall into that category, e.g. Buddhism and Hinduism. His third and last sentence is simply opinion and asserts that only deism (probably Abrahamic and most exclusively Christianity or his brand of it) is good for mankind. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

He thinks all other than his god are idols, he picks up the typical Feuerbachian argument that not god created humans in his image, but humans created god in their image. But then one step before looking at the Christian god that way, he stops. Ok, it's a very weak case of doublethink, but the irony is pretty much there. --★uːʤɱ sinner 10:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes. But that's surely the case with all devoutly religious people. Nothing stunning about it. Or ironic from his religion's perspective. His religion claims that God created man in His image, not the other way round. It's only ironic if you believe the opposite, which I guess you do. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, that when you're a non-believer and you start examining religions in the context of the fact that other religions exist, you can't help but spot doublethink and contradictions even in the most casual of believer. You realise that everything they say could apply regardless of what their belief actually was, you could mad-lid in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, for instance, and the meaning of what they were saying would remain unchanged. Non-believers spot this, believers don't - and I'd say both are pretty much incapable of properly representing the other's ideas in their own head. The non-believer can't quite figure out why someone would be so arbitrary and would never be able to leave that thought behind, the believer is always biased by their existing belief. Both are incapable of properly thinking outside their box for the sake of a thought experiment. This is probably the source of religious friction. ^{d hominem} 10:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Mmmmm. It think you could be sort of edging up to the balance fallacy there.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Could you genuinely put yourself in a position of faith without being biased by your non-belief in order to truly comprehend their reasoning? ^{d hominem} 17:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

To be completely honest I having a problem just understanding the question. How would go about putting myself "in a position of faith"?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

" The non-believer can't quite figure out why someone would be so arbitrary and would never be able to leave that thought behind..." I disagree with the basic premise of this argument--that faith is somehow "arbitrary." While it might work for a thought experiment to replace the divine with the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, that's not how people who have faith live their lives; first of all, faith is deeply embedded in things like culture, collective histories, and individual senses of identity in a way that fairy tales aren't. Second, faith has the power to inform politics--for good (think of Dr. King or Malcolm in his last days) or for bad (Pat Robertson, Michele Bachmann)--in a way that fairy tales don't. Faith is not arbitrary, and knowing that it can be a primary building block in shaping identities and worldviews, it's pretty easy to figure out why someone would be unable to simply leave it behind. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 17:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I hate to be Godwin about this but the Nazis used a lot of fairy tales to forge their national identity. Also I think you need to differentiate between faith and religion because there are cultural aspects to religion which are independent of faith. Roman Catholicism in South America for example was adapted to incorporate the ancient mountain gods in their iconography. Генгис^evolving 17:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore fairy tales are pretty imbedded in our culture too. And while we're on the subject aren't Jesus' miracles just as much fairy tales as Little Red Riding Hood?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

To GK. So what about the Nazis? I'm not sure how that's relevant. And your point about Catholicism in SA is dead on--because the religion is so deeply embedded in local ideas, it's pretty easy to see why it would be difficult for a believer to just leave that behind. To Bob. Yes, they are, but nobody of sound mind in our culture really believes in wolves blowing down houses or talking pigs. There's a nod and a wink implied that is not the case for people who shape their world views around the divine. And as for miracles, I think there's a difference between them and fairy tales; some might see them as metaphors or allegories, and some might see them for what their meant to be: miracles. Nobody believes in houses made of candy the same way they believe in, say, Lazarus rising from the dead. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 18:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC but essentially what ^he^ said.) Ajkgordon (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but my point is that faith leads to people believing some fairy tales and not others. Lazarus rising from the dead is firmly believed by some - and it's as much a fairy tale as the big Bad Wolf. I know that not all christians believe this stuff - but self-evidently a lot of them of them do along with the apple the talking snake and the resurrection. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

But do they attach the same meaning to the story of Lazarus as they do to the story of the Big Bad Wolf? If we're interested in people and what they do with ideas, I think it's important to not mix up what become very different kinds of stories based on the meanings that they typically have. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 18:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Obviously they believe one fairy story through faith but not the other. I'm not sure of your point.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

My point is that to conflate the stories at the heart of religious belief with fairy tales is to overlook the particular cultural and political dynamics that are inherent in one and absent in the other. Also, that belief in the divine isn't, as Armond wrote, "arbitrary." PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 18:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘They are usually arbitrary insofar as they are most often defined by geographic/cultural context. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not arbitrary, then. It's grounded in very real things--cultural, historical, geographic context. It's not like I could take a Nuer animist, throw Judaism at him, and say "use this as the basis for your worldview, it might as well be the same thing." PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 19:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I mean in the sense that the beliefs are a function of what time and place you live in, which is true for many things besides religion. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Minor edits

I believe that the purpose of checking this box is so that the edit won't show up on recent changes. But then does anybody actually choose the option of hiding minor edits from their recent changes page? I mean, an edit of any shape or size can be tagged as minor. That would give ample cover for vandals and POV editing. What, then, are minor edits for?--. 02:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

RTFM Тy^talk 02:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have offended you with my inquiry. Regardless, what stops me from marking an edit as minor even though it destroys the article?--. 02:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey what's up Brx. 02:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It was there in the manual! "Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette". And no righteous wikipedian would ever do anything like that. *nods* It's true you know. Dendlai (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

So the minor edit feature exists based on the assumption that everybody is a good editor with good intentions?--. 03:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

RTFM. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 04:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well, after a certain point assuming the best in others is moronic. That said, I will continue to mark small edits as minor, though I doubt doing otherwise would have much effect on other editors.--. 04:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Gosh dangit, when did this turn into Wikipedia? :/ And this is Assume Good Faith as it works over there, essentially. Dendlai (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No, a small edit is not necessarily a minor edit. The link above (twice) describes in some detail what a minor edit is, i.e. it is largely superficial. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, all articles I care about or have any reason to think I know enough about are on my watchlist, so those eduts would be spotted even if the minor thing was ticked to get people to miss it. Secondly, new users and BoNs trigger the red exclamation mark that flags it as unpatrolled. So I don't think it's possible for any vandalism to slip under the radar because of that. If anything, the easiest way to get vandalism passed the radar is to wait until a rapid blocking spree or HCM where RC gets flooded and stick it in there. For legit use the "minor" thing is really quite arbitrary, though I take it as meaning "this is just a correction/typo and not controversial". It's more a case that if the box is unchecked I'd think the edit was worth other people checking over. But that's the instinctive use I get from it. ^bomination 10:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well, after a certain point assuming the best in others is moronic. - I could not disagree more. With one or two notable exceptions most of the editors here believe in the project, and therefore most of the edits are made in good faith. This applies redoubled in spades when it comes to mainspace articles. Actually I have found during my nigh on six decades on this earth that assuming good faith is a pretty good starting point for all interactions. Bad Faith (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

But it's not just good faith you're assuming, it's competence--. 14:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that too. A certain amount of rubbish gets posted but it's put to the wisdom of crouds and, whilst I would completely trust it, I find that assuming the best in others is a pretty good way to live. As I said, it's got me through nigh on six decades as a general philosophy. Bad Faith (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Google Street View Art

Right there. Pretty damn amazing considering those are just screenshots from Google Street View slightly worked at. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 10:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fantastic! Ajkgordon (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That's awesome!--Dumpling (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Basic maintenance/sysop stuff...

If you're gonna argue with BONs, please insert the "unsigned" template (like I just did for a bunch here) so that stuff is a bit more legible for people who stumble onto the discussion later. Thanks! PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 14:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a robot that sometimes does it, but I'm not sure which talk pages are on its radar. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel}

The bot is down for maintenance. It should be back soon! If and when I can be arsed to do a bunch of bug fixes I'll start it back up. Blue (is useful) 00:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

American Thanksgiving

It's today! I guess a lot of folks are going to be slaving over their stoves, so what are you guys making? I'm making twice-baked potatoes with kumara, honey-glazed carrots, cheese toast (weirdly, I guess), and dessert will be frozen bananas, which achieve a consistency and sweetness like ice cream when whipped. How about y'all?--^talk 02:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Great success!--^talk 20:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Woah! That looks awesome! And Mrs.AD looks pretty happy too! Happy Thanksgiving to you!--Dumpling (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving to you too!--^talk 23:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Cream-cheese sausage cayenne egg mix thing. I don't know what to call it.Тy^talk 02:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

TURKEY! ListenerX^TalkerX 02:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Going to a pot-luck. Bringing cranberry sauce and rosemary spuds. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Steamed broccoli--. 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? Steamed broccoli? Why not bring some gruel as a go-with? Put a little love into it, man. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 03:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If you're offering to pay for it, I'd be glad to accept. Otherwise I'm eating steamed broccoli with some canola oil and iodized salt.--. 03:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Pumpkin. Pie. Sam ^Tally-ho! 03:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

^Fuck. Yes.--Dumpling (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Pate aux pommes de terre with a layer of codfish brandade in the middle and a bottle of Pauillac. 03:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Which, being translated, means a hunk of oily fish in mashed potatoes with some swill to wash it down? ListenerX^TalkerX 03:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Translated, it means reprocessed meat bits with potatoes surrounding fish. Assuming he meant pâté and not pâte. One means a spread and the other means dough.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Mrs. Dark insists on turkey, which I dislike. I don't think it's actively disgusting or anything, just "We're having turkey. Oh well, let's get it over with." Doctor Dark (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Update: Actually the turkey went quite well. It was a large-ish turkey breast stuffed with brie and fresh basil, then wrapped in prosciutto and baked until the prosciutto just started to crisp. A glass or three (okay, four) of decent white wine and all was good. Doctor Dark (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never had pate de pomme de terre with fish. I usually see it with beef or sheep (never seen it made with processed meat, either). Does it have a heavy cream when you make it with fish? I'm having a hard time not seeing it as the description of "oily fish in potatoes with swill". ;-) I"M NOT MAKING ANYTHING!!!! WHEEE!! i get to be a guest this year. "don't bring anything, dear". Traditionally, I bring various chocolate truffels. ^{— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs}

Heh, it's a regular day here, so I'm at work and will be having a baked potato with cheese and baked beans for tea. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Two rolls grabbed from the cafe on the way to the evening lecture. Still haven't had the guts to try their 'Chinese Chicken' roll. Not sure what you do to a chicken to make it Chinese, but it comes in an alarmingly pink dressing.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 10:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A "Döner Teller" — kebab meat, fries, salad and some sauce. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 10:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall be eating an American. Isn't that the tradition? Ajkgordon (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be Native American, right?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Free-range organic. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

...Nothing. I'm just getting battle-ready for Black Friday...when that clock hits 12...--Dumpling (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hehe. This looks awesome to make though...--Dumpling (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Beats the crime against nature that is the turducken--. 20:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

WOAH. o____o...I think...I prefer the cake/pie combo more than that. --Dumpling (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, Turdukens are amazing. Тy^talk 20:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the Turduken. A Turducken breast (minced turkey stuffed into a chicken breast or fillet, stuffed into a duck's breast) stuffed with mozzarella, garlic and parsley, and wrapped in good quality smoked bacon is just the ticket.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds tasty. Fucking awful name though. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Thanksgiving was yesterday for me for various reasons. We're pretty boring in terms of food choice, but I can't complain about the cooking. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I made tater tot hotdish. Bobafan Put Captain Solo in the cargo bay.

I just had champagne and pumpkin pie with whipped cream for breakfast! 15:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

How many times...

have you ever heard/read that north korea has "Promised a Sea of Fire" on the south? --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

They make that threat literally every year, usually many times a year.--^talk 08:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Koreans and their florid language… --★uːʤɱ pervert 12:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Burzynski

What do people think about this guy? I've been linked to his videos by people claiming that the government is preventing cancer cures. He's an "alternative" cancer researcher who uses something called antineoplastons. He recently released a film about how the government is against him and it's seems like propaganda, but it has a 9 on IMDB, which is worrying. Might be old news here, but there was no article about him. Probably should be one. Woodgod (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

He also has the support of Mike Adams. Ben Goldacre linked to this Quackometer article on his twitter. He seems to be getting more attention lately. Woodgod (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Practice what you preach

To funny not to be perhaps a little faked? Either way still awesome. ^sshole 14:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Skepticon 2011 talk: "The Straw Vulcan"

Excellent introduction to rationality/skepticism by Julia Galef, complete with oodles of Star Trek references. It's 50 minutes long, but it's worth it. Hat tip lesswrong. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I hear some Massimo in that speech. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Definitely, it sounds very much like a Pigliucci/Yudkowsky mashup. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 06:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Jon Stewart and Ron Paul

Yet another video. While Stewart, as always, makes a convincing argument, he's gotta realize that every single time he mentions Goldmember's name the Pauldroids will be going wild. In fact, it's already one of the top Google suggestions when you enter his name.

The less hype surrounding this nut, the better, IMO. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

He's one of the better candidates in my opinion. Not his policies, but as a person he seems more principled (in that he's less willing to pander to certain conservative staples, like war). Besides, the more hype surrounding him (and the other nuts) the better: it just helps reinforce the fact that the republican party is utterly ridiculous. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with 1 here. While I am very much against his policies, Ron Paul seems like somebody who got to his opinion by thinking and not by hate or craziness. I don't think he would get elected even if nominated, the fundies couldn't swing support behind him, the middle is really with him either and the Democrats are economically worlds away from him. But everytime Jon Stewart or somebody else says stuff like "Hey, Ron over here is running to! Why are you ignoring him?" or "Hey folks this is Ron Paul, a guy who doesn't change his opinion as the wind of public opinion blows" it's good, because it makes the other folk running look crazy and Faux News doesn't get a good wrap either. --★uːʤɱ heretic 12:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The thing about Ron Paul, and libertarians in general, is that they often have some policy that makes the hypothetical "you" say "wow! that's great! I should vote for this guy!"... at the same time having another policy that makes "you" say, "that's nuts! there's no way in hell I could ever vote for this guy!" MDB (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I would vote for Paul. I agree with his policies, and he is much more principled than the chickenhawks in the party.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

So then you don't believe a woman should have control over her own body? Ron Paul is only a great guy if you're not somebody with a uterus that has a baby in there that you would like to not be in there. At that point, the question of his political opinions being based on thinking and not expediency is a little more murky. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 16:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that: I agree with most of his policies. I am not pro-life, but there is the faction of libertarians who are, like Paul. However, he has excellent fiscal policies and is not willing to bomb every country he doesn't like.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent fiscal policies? Oh, my. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I have a bit of a love/hate thing with Paul. He is one of the few bringing up the issue of civil liberties these days, especially after Feingold got teabagged out of Congress. I would have loved to see some TSA groping in the Capitol. On the other hand, his crackpot economic theory is total bunk. I would also suggest that any good libertarian look into the background of one Lew Rockwell and his ties with Paul. Paul has connections with some very shady characters of the Rockwellian stripe, which is why the "Beltway libertarians" of the likes of Reason have come out against Paul, not because of some massive conspiracy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile: in atheistic Britain

Cameron's sending a bible to every school!! Fuck NO! Scream!! (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Here was me thinking that there would be a really pissy response from the Secular Society, but it's actually quite reasonable, if a little snarky to boot. Though Gove understanding evidence-based education is something I'd like to see. ^moral 14:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Every School? Even ones run by faiths other than christian? I didn't notice anything at work about it (i work for OFSTED), but I wasn't looking for it. I'll look on monday AMassiveGay (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, don't the Gideons already hand out bibles to any school that asks? I'm not convinced this is a policy that will ever happen. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Michael Gove's wikipedia page appears to have been wandalized: 'Gove also played the character Pob in the childrens TV programme Pob's Programme.' He didn't but does look like him. I lol'd even if no one else does.AMassiveGay (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The main question here - why is this even being considered? Osaka Sun (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

'Cause Cameron's a major dick & so is his fucking government. Scream!! (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've got to say this is a little bit hard to believe. Has anybody been able to get back to the original story? The Times Educational Supplement isn't responding for me - possible because I'm not the only one trying to read the original article.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 22:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I want to know if this is taxpayer funded. I'd be pretty annoyed if so, because doubtless every pissant missionary outfit in the country would only be too happy to fork over cash for a project like this. If it's private sector funded and only government endorsed, really I don't much care. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks legit. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If it was good for the Hebrew children, it's good enough for your children! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

He's not wrong, in the fact that the KJV is a book every english speaker should read. It is a work of art, an important piece of literature. BUT, that said, "everyone already has one". Why not send out the newest UK version of something like "american scientists" or the newest videos about the Universe as produced by the BBC, or some under exposed but amazing minority writer. Anything but a book they already have in abundance. GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 06:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If the gummint is going to be paying to send the Bible to schools, why just the Christian one? That is discrimination. They should send other scriptures too. Any religion that asks should be able to have its scriptures disseminated to every schoolchild at gummint expense. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

FFS Mary try an understand what's going on. The KJV is being sent out as it is the 400th anniversary of it's publication, it's not just any old version of the Bible, it's a commemorative edition of what is one of the most influential books in the English language - even if one doesn' necessarily accept it's content. It actually marks a watershed in the way English was spoken. Of course I would be surprised if most schools didn't already have at least one copy given that religious studies is part of the curriculum. Генгис^evolving 20:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That leaves only one option - send the Qur'an. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Qur'an is a pain in the neck for school libraries. Because it's "Holy" and because everybody is on tippy-toes when it comes to Muslims, the school will have to put in place measures to prevent the book being mishandled (if you eat pork pies while thumbing through the library's German translation of Asterix, that's naughty, but if you do it to the Qur'an now it has to be ritually destroyed and replaced...). So it's just easier not to have one really. Which is a shame, because it's exactly as batshit crazy as the Bible, and secondary school is a great time to read batshit crazy religious texts and go "What the hell were these guys smoking?". 82.69.171.94 (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but I would love to see the public's reaction if they did that instead. It would go from "eh, another Bible in every school isn't a big deal," to the BNP literally launching a civil war on England. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Burzynski clinic

Someone might like to create an article about this guy. He's currently all over the UK blogosphere see here for a good blogroll. Andy Lewis in his blog The Quackometer seems to have really got the ball rolling. He's been "threatened" by a non-lawyer giving rise to a Streisand effect. Scream!! (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I made a topic about the guy above. He seems to be the new favorite with the anti-conventional medicine crowd. Woodgod (talk) 11:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I missed that (search for Burzynski didn't pick it up) Scream!! (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Cancer Research UK don't like him either Scream!! (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Mars probe launch

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html Scream!! (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Weird Bachmann quote

She actually wants more immigration/education for engineers now. I'm guessing those jobs will be without any wages.

And I think this is her first statement rated true on Politifact! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Pointless Griping

Since I'm "temp-to-perm" at my current job, and the staffing agency I'm working for doesn't give vacation time, I have to work today. Not that I'd be out shopping today; I get extremely tense in crowds, but it would still be nice to spend the day relaxing -- probably playing video games.

Downtown DC is nearly deserted. Half of the restaurants are closed, so I had to go somewhere other (Au Bon Pain) than my usual place (Devon and Blakely) to get breakfast, and it was a very disappointing bagel compared to what I usually have.

And I really don't have much to do today, anyway. I'm in a holding pattern at work until we get access to a system the customer is providing to us, and that won't be till next week probably. I can read the documentation on it, but I'm very much a "learn by doing" type so I won't be able to really learn it until I can sit down and use the darn thing.

We're still having our daily team meeting today, despite the fact half the team is taking the day off. Whee.

So, I'm bored. Entertain me, RW, entertain me! MDB (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No escape. Тy^talk 14:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been there the past hour. MDB (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've got an entire arsenal Тy^talk 15:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

EC) I seem to be in a minority of one. I find tvtropes utterly boring. Scream!! (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't find it particularly interesting, the odd times I've looked at it. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"Repost if you agree!"

I'm a longstanding hater of attention seeking, self-aggrandising and pointless Facebook statuses. However, I have also come to hate political Facebook updates, whether or not I agree with what is being said, because I can't take anything anyone says or does on Facebook seriously. The "repost if you agree" statuses are the ones that get me because the political ones are always mindless xenophobic horseshit about immigrants taking advantage of Britain, or otherwise the old Daily Mail/Express creed of a (misguided) perception that immigrants hate Britain (I don't have any yanks on Fbk but I'm sure you get these statuses too). Anyhoo, a gem I saw on a page of a guy I have on my friends list (who I have long hidden from my news feed because he's one of the "ate food for dinner" kinda people) is this;

“”How is that we can't say Merry Christmas now we have to say Happy Holidays. We can't call it a Christmas tree, it's now called a Holiday tree? Because it might offend someone. If you don't like our "Customs" and it offends you so much then LEAVE I will help you pack. They are called customs and we have our traditions If you agree with this...please post this as your status!! I AM A PROUD BRITISH CITIZEN...MERRY CHRISTMAS!! Do you have what it takes to repost this? I BLAME the GOVERNMENT

Ignoring the fact that it reads like a petulant child wrote it rather than a literate adult with well-informed political views (especially "I BLAME the GOVERNMENT" in BLOCK CAPITALS so you KNOW WE MEAN FUCKING BIZNEZZ!), I've come to a theory that people in general are not happy unless they're complaining about something, and the ones who like to think themselves political tend to have no idea what they're talking about. If it wasn't for the fact that arguing with people about politics is pointless and the only reason I use Facebook is to keep in contact with old friends and to check out sexy photos of sexy people, I would point out that adverts for Christmas consumerism on the telly since October have called Christmas CHRISTMAS, that there are CHRISTMAS decorations everywhere across the country (yes, even over the shops owned by Asians), and we still have the CHRISTMAS tree from Norway in Trafalgar Square every year. SJ ^Debaser 15:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

How could you even be friends--IRL, FB, or otherwise, with such a twit in the first place? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 15:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen a shop selling "holiday trees". Where does this person live? Balaam (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

@Balaam- In a city, he's not a small-town country boy.

@POS- He's a bloke on my course at uni. I don't know him that well, but I've always gotten on alright with him, though he's a bit of a laughingstock with the rest of our cohort, as he has a tendency to make a complete wally out of himself both on fbk and irl. A hilarious incident occurred about a year ago where he posted on a fbk group set up for our cohort slagging off one of the teachers, followed by him getting pwned by someone in the comment thread and him subsequently apologising and then deleting the thread. That was fucking hilarious. SJ ^Debaser 15:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have corrected the spelling and punctuation from the one I saw. ^bomination 15:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Remarkable how those griping about immigrants failure to grasp the Queen's English overlook their own illiteracy, isn't it? SJ ^Debaser 15:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that this particular repost meme crossed the Atlantic somewhere along the way & changed from "PROUD AMERICAN CITIZEN" to "PROUD BRITISH CITIZEN". I've never heard anyone in the UK use the phrase "Happy Holidays"; apart from anything else "holiday" usually means "vacation" over here. "Season's greetings" is the usually non-denominational winter greeting, but still isn't all that common compared to "Merry Christmas". ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The UK doesn't have "Happy Holidays", we have Winterval, the main difference being that Winterval was a one (well, two) off event in the late 90s that, every christmas , the tabloids revive in an effort to do a "war on christmas" thing. I guess they were envious of how much press similar stories get in the US and wanted to create their own version. X Stickman (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

And one day, maybe the tabloids will find something relevant and newsworthy to print. Until then, it's going to be "Winterval, sex, drugs, bloke chasing his dog across a park". I mean, the whole point of Christmas... The clue's in the name, isn't it? "Christ", it's a Christian festival that was timed in to various pagan things. And Hanukkah gets in there as well. So everybody's happy, and Christmas is the catch-all term. I think. I'm probably wrong, actually. I normally am. -- 19:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I just got a similar one right now. I've used "Happy Holidays" in tandem with "Merry Christmas" for as long as I remember, so I don't know what's the big deal.

Christmas is based on pagan tradition anyway, so... Osaka Sun (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

And that's why I clean my friend list every 4 months. I hate those 'repost' or 'like this' or...whatever nonsensical things they do for status whoring.--Dumpling (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Surprisingly, I've never seen any of those kinds of reposts. I've seen plenty of ones that suggest the poster is quite gullible though. Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 06:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I find it funny at my work, around Christmas-time, we get these group emails from management. Now the US management sends emails saying things like "we know many of our employees are celebrating festivals of various cultures at this time of year, and we wish you enjoy whatever festivals if any you may be celebrating." And the Australian management sends emails saying "Merry Christmas". Honestly I don't think the many Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, atheists or miscellaneous in our office are offended by "Merry Christmas". But I definitely prefer the to-the-point directness of the Australians, compared to the obsessive political correctness of their American overlords. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 06:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I can see "happy holidays" for mass mails, but "holiday tree" is ridiculous. I use "Merry Christmas" for the Christian side of my family and "Happy Hanukkah" for the Jews (and Festivus for the restivus). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought we Germans were the only ones that didn't really care. Even atheists wish each other "Fröhliche Wheinachten" ("Merry Chistmas") or "Schöne Ferien" (literally "Happy days off"). On the other hand Germany is largely atheist with a Christian background or Christian, the Muslims don't have anything to celebrate at that time of the year and we kinda either killed all the Jews or made them go away… So there's really not that much of an issue there. Also legally the holiday is called Christmas so even atheists can have a happy Christmas without celebrating anything. Yeah, the PC in the US is a bit overblown. --★uːʤɱ sinner 15:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

So I got called a "faggot" and was pushed around today...

...because I wore a sweatshirt with "my" university's rival's logo on it. Stay classy, sports fan. Stay classy. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 21:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Those disgusting heterosexuals at it again. This is the kind of evil behaviour I have come to expect from straight people. ProudHeterophobe (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. ;___; HUGS!--Dumpling (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you haven't consumed your quota of beef jerky and Chuck Norris movies this month...fag. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

-legasp-! Nebby!! -wags finger- Tsk tsk. We all know Bruce Lee is much cooler than Chuck Norris.--Dumpling (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

But he lacks that "manly" cowboy swagger of the Chuck. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahh. You've got a good point on the cowboy swagger. Carry On! --Dumpling (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh puh-leeze... Chuck's manly Texas drawl out ma-CHEESE-mos Brucie's falsetto "Aiiieeeaaaa!" any day. Plus he has no chest hair - sure sign of a raging shirt-lifter if you ask me. --PsyGremlinSprich! 10:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Chin up PoS. At least it wasn't after a football match in 1980s Scotland. Odds on they would've killed you. SJ ^Debaser 10:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I advocate swift and violent retaliation. Carrying a grudge just long enough to find your attacker alone gives a fine opportunity to beat the shit out of or humiliate him in peace, depending on the severity of his affront. You are mean as a snake and not above straight out popping a cunt like that in the nose the minute he speaks to you like that. Avoid with anyone who looks like he learned how to fight in prison and most team sport athletes. Cheers. 13:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC) ps I discovered I am RW's biggest asshole before posting this. 13:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Meh, a day later, it's hardly worth working up a sweat over. Bloody alcohol-fueled, sports-induced, testosterone raging over the fact somebody is wearing a "X State State" shirt rather than a "University of X" shirt? I'm pretty sure Jesus/the Buddha/Dr. King/Gandhi would have walked away seeing the virtue in not fighting back. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 15:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your analysis, such as it is, is that Jesus/the Buddha/Dr. King/Gandhi were all pussies. 16:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never understood this "us/them" mentality of humans. especially sports teams. My worst experience was at a game with a 5 or 6 year old little girl who was yelled at by drunk fans for supporting the other team. It was just ugly cause her dad did what most dad's would do, and got right back in their faces. Not sure that was teh best answer, but find me a dad who's going to be rational and say "well now, you have your opinion and that's nice, but please don't shout at my daughter". I just didn't get how you could be so vile to a kid. (and knowing this little girl, she probably just liked teh logo, or the colors - she had no idea what the sport was about.--GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 18:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Meh. While calling somebody "faggot" is not a good reaction, wearing the other teams sweatshirt to football game is kind of a dick move. Sure, in normal leagues you can do it, but in the big American ones it is very offensive. Except you are an actual fan from the visiting team going there to support your team, although I don't think the banter will be as friendly a in European sports leagues (as we have smaller countries our fans actually travel a lot, while I don't see any not mentally disturbed American flying around the country 7 or 8 weeks a year). All sports leagues have certain culture that also makes the league, fans respect that culture and other people should too. Of course screaming at a little girl isn't good either. --★uːʤɱ kant 18:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

1. I wasn't going to the game. I was walking to the library. 2. Who said anything about teams. This may come as a surprise to some poeple, but there are major centres of learning attached to college football teams. I've never been to a college game, don't know anything about the sports or players, and am totally uninterested in these sorts of extracurricular activities. Sports had noting to do with anything, from my point od view, and even if it did, there's no reason in there to justify acts of verbal or physical violence. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 19:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

1. I automatically assumed you were at least somewhere around the stadium, sorry. 2. The "stay classy sports fans" kinda gave it away. And, yes there is no reason for violence of any sort. --★uːʤɱ sinner 19:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"wearing the other teams sweatshirt to football game is kind of a dick move."

Why? These types of idiots automatically support a team just because it represents where they live -- which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but then they have a hatred of the other team and those who support it. It's just a fucking game. Why can't we all just get along and stop fucking caring so much about games where people kick/throw balls around? F_ucker^{talk to me :D} 21:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Everyone's gotta have a granfalloon. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The simplest way I can explain it, is respect for a subculture. As much as normal people don't run around naked as much you shouldn't wear the other teams gear to a home game. As a lot in culture doesn't, this whole thing doesn't make much sense either. There's no real reason why not, it simply is part of that particular culture, maybe as much as drinking, screaming at players and grilling in front of the stadium. I don't know any sports fans who hate the other team or it's fans, but I guess we over here take such things a bit easier. With the same reasons you can question nationality, pride of skin color or gender. People take the funniest categories and are proud to be in them — and wouldn't you be proud if a professor of you university got a Nobel Price? Well, for some the devision title is the same thing… --★uːʤɱ secularist 22:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit. There is no respect that should be respected for a subculture of homophobia and violence. And I might be proud if someone at my university got a Nobel; that wouldn't excuse it if I decided to insult, denigrate or strike someone from a different school. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 23:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Homophobia and violence aren't the staples of that subculture, fan culture on the other hand is. Saying all sports fans are homophobic is the same association fallacy as all "conservatives are idiots" or "everybody favouring keynisian economics is a radical marxist". I did, btw, not say that such insults are ok, in fact I said the opposite. Twice. --★uːʤɱ secularist 23:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)