RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive138
Wired analysis of Anonymous.[edit]
Part One; Part Two; Part Three. Interesting ethnography of Anonymous and the political culture of the 'net. Worth a read. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 02:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to put them in a better light than in other things I've read about them (like this video, for example). I find it a little weird, then, that the Wired author said "I will confess up front that I love Anonymous..." Sam Tally-ho! 06:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not bad. I always check such articles for the only substantive ethnographic fact I've been able to confirm about Anonymous, which is that they really like cats, and that fact is in there. But really they maybe need to read their source material more slowly. The image caption reads "Oh fuck! The internet is here" and that's because the phenomenon isn't really about Anonymous or 4chan, it's both bigger and smaller than that. I think it's a shift (but only a shift, not some complete revolution) in global society caused by mass exposure to/ availability of the Internet. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Biology and ideology[edit]
I have only started reading this, but a highly recommended book based on the first couple of essays. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Though at least compared to other groups, science does have the "emergent rationality" required to avoid ideological ideas tainting it too far or for too long. In theory, at least.
postate 11:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Gingrich's one goal in life[edit]
Newt's attacks on Romney are getting, in my opinion, almost comical. He's starting to seem obsessed with taking him down and is now bringing up an incident where Romney had his dog in a cage on top of his car in an attempt to smear him. Don't get me wrong, I don't like Romney, but Newt's one goal in life right now seems to be completely destroying Mitt. I'm surprised he hasn't physically attacked him at debate yet and doesn't foam at the mouth when he hears Romney's name. Sam Tally-ho! 02:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Gingrich's goal in life is actually already explicitly stated on a napkin he wrote on years ago, that came to light last month:
- Gingrich—Primary Mission
- —Advocate of civilization
- —definer of civilization
- —Teacher of the rules of civilization
- —arouser of those who form civilization
- —Organizer of the pro-civilization activists
- —leader (possibly) of the civilizing forces.--
talk
02:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, so he wants to take over the world. *shudders* Sam Tally-ho! 02:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, no, he's a puppet of the lizard people, who want Obama to win. That was his previous mission. PeterQuasniki 2012! 03:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- You can learn a lot about a man by what he writes on his napkins. Blue (is useful) 03:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Just to bag on Gingrich a little more... Sam Tally-ho! 04:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- When people doodle things on napkins, they may get a Stonehenge monument that is in danger of being crushed by a dwarf. Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Just to bag on Gingrich a little more... Sam Tally-ho! 04:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- You can learn a lot about a man by what he writes on his napkins. Blue (is useful) 03:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, no, he's a puppet of the lizard people, who want Obama to win. That was his previous mission. PeterQuasniki 2012! 03:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, so he wants to take over the world. *shudders* Sam Tally-ho! 02:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Pepsi Says Mountain Dew Can Dissolve Mouse Carcasses[edit]
So I was listening to this podcast when they started to talk about this... heres the source. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- And here's the Snopes article from 4th Jan confirming it. Jack Hughes (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- "By 30 days exposure to the fluid". That's not as impressive. The HCl in stomach acid will probably do it in 5 or less. Concentrated HF or aqua regia maybe a few hours. moral 11:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Attempts to sell stomach acid, Conc HF or aqua regia as soft drinks have failed at the test marketing stage. Apparently "my face is dissolving" isn't a desirable feeling to associate with the beverage brand. There were also problems getting legal approval for the disclaimer text. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- "By 30 days exposure to the fluid". That's not as impressive. The HCl in stomach acid will probably do it in 5 or less. Concentrated HF or aqua regia maybe a few hours.
Dear Kiwis[edit]
Is people getting burned up by drunk cooking really a thing in your country? If so, maybe it's time to, you know, step back and re-evaluate some of your life choices. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 01:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's only the fire department jumping on the bandwagon of Maritime NZ's successful "don't drink and dive" campaign. Don't worry. PeterQuasniki 2012! 01:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Is that Ace on the sign? :P Sam Tally-ho! 01:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Could be... PeterQuasniki 2012! 01:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Is that Ace on the sign? :P Sam Tally-ho! 01:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I love the mustache someone drew on him.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- "drew"? PeterQuasniki 2012! 01:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- There are PSAs on TV about this all the time.--talk 01:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, its a good message I guess but its gone on too bloody long. I
wonder ifknow that the fire department would be better to spend its budget on more fire fighters and more fire engines rather than blanketing the airwaves with this stuff. Surely. DamoHi 05:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)- Well, how much does it cost? A fire engine is very expensive. A PSA may be quite cheap, especially if there's a law saying commercial TV has to carry a certain number of minutes of PSAs, so they just need to make the recording which is something an enthusiastic amateur can do these days. Also, PSAs aren't aimed at the kind of person who edits a wiki in their spare time. It's aimed at the guy who ate his crayons in class and who figured the flashing red lights must mean something less serious than steady red lights because they're not on all the time. Every time his house is on fire, that's an engine which isn't available to fight the blaze at the paper mill or oil terminal. Or whatever they actually have in your country other than picturesque countryside and Minuit. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps there is a problem, or perhaps it's more about addressing a drinking culture in an indirect way. The UK pretty much turned drink-driving from a normal thing to socially unacceptable in a few years thanks to campaigns like this, with many lives saved as a result of fewer accidents. narchist 22:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- What do expect in a Third World backwater like New Zealand? nobsEmpty Recycle Bin 22:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Grammar. PeterQuasniki 2012! 22:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Na, its just a lame ass ad series. NZ has tons and tons of PSA's on some of the most ridiculous subjects. As we have a good public health and accident compensation system they are always trying to avoid accidents as opposed to caring for those who already have had one. Oh, and Rob, this "Third World Backwater" is in fact freer, safer and cleaner than the US. We laugh at you in fact. Both your country and you personally. AceModerator 22:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wouldn't said healthcare make as second world? (to herr nobs, I mean) PeterQuasniki 2012! 23:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Do people read & write in NZ? how bout indoor plumbing? know what as "flush toilet" is? nobsEmpty Recycle Bin 23:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Or is the highest abortion rate on the planet somehow related to the inordinately high incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome? nobsEmpty Recycle Bin 23:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- That'll do pig, that'll do--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wouldn't said healthcare make as second world? (to herr nobs, I mean) PeterQuasniki 2012! 23:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Na, its just a lame ass ad series. NZ has tons and tons of PSA's on some of the most ridiculous subjects. As we have a good public health and accident compensation system they are always trying to avoid accidents as opposed to caring for those who already have had one. Oh, and Rob, this "Third World Backwater" is in fact freer, safer and cleaner than the US. We laugh at you in fact. Both your country and you personally. AceModerator 22:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Grammar. PeterQuasniki 2012! 22:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- What do expect in a Third World backwater like New Zealand? nobsEmpty Recycle Bin 22:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps there is a problem, or perhaps it's more about addressing a drinking culture in an indirect way. The UK pretty much turned drink-driving from a normal thing to socially unacceptable in a few years thanks to campaigns like this, with many lives saved as a result of fewer accidents.
- Well, how much does it cost? A fire engine is very expensive. A PSA may be quite cheap, especially if there's a law saying commercial TV has to carry a certain number of minutes of PSAs, so they just need to make the recording which is something an enthusiastic amateur can do these days. Also, PSAs aren't aimed at the kind of person who edits a wiki in their spare time. It's aimed at the guy who ate his crayons in class and who figured the flashing red lights must mean something less serious than steady red lights because they're not on all the time. Every time his house is on fire, that's an engine which isn't available to fight the blaze at the paper mill or oil terminal. Or whatever they actually have in your country other than picturesque countryside and Minuit. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, its a good message I guess but its gone on too bloody long. I
The Iron Lady[edit]
Thatcher's children called the film a "left-wing fantasy", which is the best endorsement you could possibly get. Has anyone seen it? Osaka Sun (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that the views thatcher's kids are taken seriously by any one of any political persuasion. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I thought Cameron calling it "badly timed" was better. pathetic 21:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- You mean, "she's not dead yet"? - David Gerard (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I thought Cameron calling it "badly timed" was better.
The Mad Russian[edit]
AKA Yefim Shubentsov, based out of Brookline MA. The guy claims to be some sort of miracle healer or medicine man. One of my friends went to see him and hasn't smoked a cig in 14 days. Something doesn't sit right with me on this guy. anyone heard of him?--BenB (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- From the reviews on Yelp it looks like charismatic mass hypnotism.
Генгисmarauding 08:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Doomsday fringe nugget[edit]
For some reason one of my employer's catering suppliers has started emailing us "interesting facts" with their catering menus. Today's interesting fact is:
- When viewed from above, the layout of the three Giza Pyramids in Egypt coincides with the shape that will be assumed by the three stars which make up the belt of the constellation Orion on December 21, 2012.
That date is the doomsday date... which makes me think they just picked this up from the internet's vast repository of mayan apocolypse bullshit. Is there really any truth to it at all? (Obviously the stars aren't going to start moving to assume shapes, so that at least can be ignored) ONE / TALK 11:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Of course, it's also the shape they'll form on December 21, 2013... December 21, 2011, April 3rd 1985, and September 18th, 1776. Stars don't move relative to the Earth (at least not particularly quickly). There's something about precession causing them to line up a particular way, but invariably this is due to shitty maths and cherry picking. theist 12:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Now I always believed that the pyramids were aligned the same way that Orion's belt appeared to Earthlings 11,000 years ago, before the continents shifted. Генгисmarauding 12:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed it's farcical. Do they think the constellations change on a daily basis? But wait! There is more to it! Read it it before WP goes permanently off line! --BobSpring is sprung! 13:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- OH no! this crap is all over the net. We need a website dedicated to debunking this stuff!--BobSpring is sprung! 13:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not to mention strange sounds being heard worldwide. I mean, if Above Top Secret is reporting on it, it must be true, right? --PsyGremlinTala! 13:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- OH no! this crap is all over the net. We need a website dedicated to debunking this stuff!--BobSpring is sprung! 13:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed it's farcical. Do they think the constellations change on a daily basis? But wait! There is more to it! Read it it before WP goes permanently off line! --BobSpring is sprung! 13:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Now I always believed that the pyramids were aligned the same way that Orion's belt appeared to Earthlings 11,000 years ago, before the continents shifted.
Who are these crazy people?[edit]
http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin/
They might just be crazier than Kenny boy. Given that articles are written people like Bhakti Niskama Shanta Swami, I'm guessing Hare Krshna? --PsyGremlinParlez! 12:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Chemistry never made the transition to biology" sounds very much Not Even Wrong to me... postate 12:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hindu, I think. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Great example of quote mining in action. I remember reading either on Pigliucci's blog or one of his books about how he was specifically quote mined in the article cited there. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, in a case of "smart people say the stupidest things," Fodor did spout off that nonsense about evolution. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Great example of quote mining in action. I remember reading either on Pigliucci's blog or one of his books about how he was specifically quote mined in the article cited there. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hindu, I think. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
UK scientists find "lost" Darwin fossils[edit]
After 150 years of searching for them, they were found shoved in a old wooden cabinet in a "gloomy corner" of the British Geological Survey. The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 14:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I guess this is like the scientific equivalent of finding your glasses in your pocket after an hour of looking for them. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's depressingly common even for newer things (artifacts? resources? What's the generic term for "physical object of both scientific and historical significance"?). NASA reportedly has whole warehouses full of unsorted, deteriorating cardboard boxes, containing invaluable information about the moon landing and subsequent projects, which they can't find because it's, ya know, been stuffed in unmarked cardboard boxes. Everybody wants to blow money on big, exciting discoveries... and then stuff them in a box to rot in the corner. Proper storage and archiving is important, yet unglamorous and underfunded. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- There was a great serries by BBC about the Natural History Museum. virtually everyone interviewed over the 7 ep series said "We were wandering in this room we'd never been in and found X", "This was mislabeled for 50 or even 100 years as X", "I discovered these amazing specimens in a crate that had been shoved in a corner. But given the size of that place, i'm sure there are still thousands of "finds" to be "found" within the museum itself. One expert on fossils said "my biggest job is to go back thorough the stored collections to see if we find anything we'd overlooked - things that new discoveries suggest might be something else". Part of me thinks that would just be the BEST job.
GodotDear god, fucking grow up 21:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- And a lot are held in private collections too. We're only as good as the evidence we have to hand. bomination 22:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- And a lot are held in private collections too. We're only as good as the evidence we have to hand.
- There was a great serries by BBC about the Natural History Museum. virtually everyone interviewed over the 7 ep series said "We were wandering in this room we'd never been in and found X", "This was mislabeled for 50 or even 100 years as X", "I discovered these amazing specimens in a crate that had been shoved in a corner. But given the size of that place, i'm sure there are still thousands of "finds" to be "found" within the museum itself. One expert on fossils said "my biggest job is to go back thorough the stored collections to see if we find anything we'd overlooked - things that new discoveries suggest might be something else". Part of me thinks that would just be the BEST job.
- That's depressingly common even for newer things (artifacts? resources? What's the generic term for "physical object of both scientific and historical significance"?). NASA reportedly has whole warehouses full of unsorted, deteriorating cardboard boxes, containing invaluable information about the moon landing and subsequent projects, which they can't find because it's, ya know, been stuffed in unmarked cardboard boxes. Everybody wants to blow money on big, exciting discoveries... and then stuff them in a box to rot in the corner. Proper storage and archiving is important, yet unglamorous and underfunded.
Related to Football, but not about Tebow, or the playoffs, or the NFL[edit]
I've been watching Friday Night Lights via Netflix.
I'm not going to be subtle about this: Friday Night Lights is one of the most brilliant TV dramas ever.
If you're not familiar with it, it's about a small town in Texas where high school football is everything. That being said, it's not about football, not really. It's about the people. Yes, they're almost all associated with the team, and the star of the series is the coach, but it's their lives, on and off the field. It's about hopes and dreams. (To be fair, the first season is more focused on football.)
The filming style is often described as documentary-like. The camera operators were trained to follow the actors, and the actors were given the freedom to move about as they chose. Not only that, they were allowed to change their dialogue if they thought it fit better with the character (as long as they hit the plot points.)
Speaking of the dialogue, I can tell you that as a Southerner (okay, to be fair, Texas isn't the South, Texas is Texas, but close enough), the writers and actors get how Southerners talk. Not just the accents, but the language in general.
Trust me, this show draws the viewer in. I am amazed at how much I've come to care about the characters. I lost track of how many times I got choked up watching the third season finale. Even for the characters who aren't nice people, like the sleazy-in-almost-all-respects car dealer Buddy Garrity, I found myself wanting them to get their lives together and be decent human beings.
I've got a few small gripes with the show. The product placement for Applebee's Restaurant is screamingly obvious. And way too many of the women are skinny blondes, and they start to look alike after a while.
Seriously, it's an amazingly good show. The entire series is available via Netflix streaming. Give it a try. MDB (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sold me, I will give it a try. Though if they make Texas seem too southern I may be offended as a Texan and stop watching :) TheCheatI run on alcohol 16:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- A show that makes Texans seem human, eh? I dunno. Never was much of a sci-fi fan. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Does just knowing we're in the same genus make you embarrassed to call yourself homo? [1]TheCheatI run on alcohol 17:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's really good to begin with, then becomes pretty good, then it goes off the rails in the third season. It recovers really well in the last bit, though. Also, one of the stars is going to be John Carter of Mars.--talk 04:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Obama goes 'birther'[edit]
on Betty White. MDB (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Rick Perry says the darndest things[edit]
pissing on the dead is ok, china is an awesome place to work, and turkey is run by the terrorists, what will Rick perry say next?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- One thing we know he won't be saying: "I, James Richard Perry, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States..." Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Is it time to call parodist? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Mitt the Ripper[edit]
Vote 'Not Romney' to stop him before he kills again!. Did you guys know I love Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart? A great way to make a point, and make people laugh (except for Romney supporters). Hollow (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Evangelicals unite behind Santorum/South Carolina poll[edit]
Santorum is the consensus candidate for high-powered Evangelicals.
With that in mind, who will win in South Carolina?
|
2 |
|
||
|
1 |
|
||
|
1 |
|
||
|
0 |
|
||
|
25 |
|
||
|
8 |
|
||
|
7 |
|
Also, it's all over for Rick Perry. He needed that endorsement. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 23:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- More importantly, if the Evangelicals have swept in firmly behind Santorum, what are they going to do when they finally realise they have to support Romney in the GE? DogP (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- They'll have to make the most difficult decision of their lives: choose a Mormon or a black guy? Osaka Sun (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Imagine a black mormon... --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- They'll have to make the most difficult decision of their lives: choose a Mormon or a black guy? Osaka Sun (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Did we intentionally not get around to making an article for Huntsman before he dropped out, or was that just an accident? PeterQuasniki 2012! 02:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is one of the best takes on Huntsman's candidacy. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Huntsman had his best debate yet last night, I thought. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 14:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Such a shame, Huntsman seemed to be the less crazy of the bunch. TheCheatI run on alcohol 16:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I fixed it and made a non-article on Huntsman. Oddly, a customer/old friend was here today and mentioned that one of his customers is Huntsman's glue company (?) and the name did not ring a bell, despite his being in a Grauniad (themed) puzzle a couple weeks ago. ħuman
02:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I fixed it and made a non-article on Huntsman. Oddly, a customer/old friend was here today and mentioned that one of his customers is Huntsman's glue company (?) and the name did not ring a bell, despite his being in a Grauniad (themed) puzzle a couple weeks ago. ħuman
- Such a shame, Huntsman seemed to be the less crazy of the bunch. TheCheatI run on alcohol 16:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Huntsman had his best debate yet last night, I thought. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 14:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Anyone know this scientist?[edit]
He likes us, apparently. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Huh?
ListenerXTalkerX 04:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- See this tweet, I believe. PeterQuasniki 2012! 04:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- This man is a dangerous sociopath. Don't believe anything he says. AceModerator 04:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, nevermind. I just figured it out. It's definitely Ace. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm.... steriletalk 04:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, nevermind. I just figured it out. It's definitely Ace. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- This man is a dangerous sociopath. Don't believe anything he says. AceModerator 04:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- See this tweet, I believe. PeterQuasniki 2012! 04:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Who else do you know is a professional chemist/biochemist ;) gnostic 11:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Kosher Jesus[edit]
Ken's favourite God defender, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, has a new book out called Kosher Jesus, I wonder how he'll view the book's message of Jesus as a son of gOD rather than The Son of God. I mention it here rather than TWIGO:CP because I thought it might be of general interest. 
Генгисmarauding 12:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Don't all Jewish moms think their son IS God? or is that just a joke I heard? -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Until he marries the dreaded shiksa. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Fuck you universe Today[edit]
I actually need to use you today and you decide to make the ENTIRE fucking website useless--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Diddums. What do you need to use them for anyway? ONE / TALK 16:49, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Something for my astronomy class today--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- What is that something? ONE / TALK 16:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Needed to get things from it, why does it matter why i had to be on it? --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Because I wanted to see if I could help... is this section just a whinge section then? You're not actually looking for any assistance? ONE / TALK 17:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I just used another website so, no, no help needed, thanks though. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Because I wanted to see if I could help... is this section just a whinge section then? You're not actually looking for any assistance? ONE / TALK 17:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Needed to get things from it, why does it matter why i had to be on it? --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- What is that something? ONE / TALK 16:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Something for my astronomy class today--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Stargazing live[edit]
As the web is shut today I decided to join one of the Stargazing Live events in conjunction with the BBC2 programmes, just arrived at the location and it is right next to Wrexham football stadium where they are playing a home game under floodlights. Talk about bad planning. Генгисmarauding 18:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Last year they had all kinds of problems with the weather, but yeah, you'd think they would plan for things they could control!.GodotDear god, fucking grow up 18:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Whoops[edit]
The NCSE Facebook page temporarily got suckered in by an Onion article about Christian groups wanting Biblical armageddon taught alongside global warming. Should have got a screenshot before they noticed and took it down. Looks like even the best of us get fooled some times. :) D'oh! postate 17:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Girl with the Dragon Tattoo[edit]
I'm generally a fan of David Fincher, but what the hell was this? It was bad in one of the most annoying ways possible -- good concepts but poor execution, wasted potential. It was like they just let the characters run loose through different vaguely connected plots, genres, and styles. Way over-hyped. /Comic Book Guy Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Stick to the original Swedish versions - very, very good. Ditto Let the Right One in. Oh yes, and Troll Hunter, but that's Finnish... but there isn't a single duck. --PsyGremlinParla! 18:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I enjoyed both the Swedish and English versions, though I'd agree the Swedish was marginally better. I will say that Rooney Mara's Lisbeth Salander is Natalie Portman's Nina Sayers of this season, and a riveting performance. Also Nebby have you read the book? I think it might be easier to mentally follow the different plotlines if you have. Blue (is useful) 19:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Haven't read it, but it's usually safe to assume film adaptations won't live up to the book. Salander, and most of the characters in general were good, but felt like they were in the wrong movie half the time. Like when Salander magically becomes an Action Girl at the end. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I also had trouble not shouting "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!" during the villain monologuing. Because, y'know, Daniel Craig. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- In every villain confrontation ever. One of the few such realizations I've had without the help of tvtropes.
- Yeah, I can see that criticism. They are very interesting characters, though. Blue (pester) 22:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I also had trouble not shouting "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!" during the villain monologuing. Because, y'know, Daniel Craig. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Haven't read it, but it's usually safe to assume film adaptations won't live up to the book. Salander, and most of the characters in general were good, but felt like they were in the wrong movie half the time. Like when Salander magically becomes an Action Girl at the end. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I enjoyed both the Swedish and English versions, though I'd agree the Swedish was marginally better. I will say that Rooney Mara's Lisbeth Salander is Natalie Portman's Nina Sayers of this season, and a riveting performance. Also Nebby have you read the book? I think it might be easier to mentally follow the different plotlines if you have. Blue (is useful) 19:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
This is what appears to be a 'large amount of bullshit'[edit]
This article contains a large amount of what is either radical feminist or fundamentalist Christian bullshit, but there are some points I find that are good and/or I find it hard to mentally disprove.
Pornographers make no attempt to separate the sexual development and maturity of teenagers from that of adults, by placing teens and adults in the same general category. In fact, pornographers go to great lengths to satisfy the "young teen sex" fetish by making their models appear to be as young as possible. Pornography fosters the message that as soon as a boy or girl reaches puberty, he or she should be having sex and viewing pornography right along with the adults. Likewise, Hollywood works hard to push teens into an adult world with its teen-oriented movies.
Teens don't really need prodding to view pictures of hot naked people doing 'things' with other hot naked people; the porn industry just feeds off their natural desires, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.
- I would add that it's only in the last 50-100 years that "teens" were not adults in the first place. For most of human history, marriage was something girls did between 13-16. 17 was "too old, too ugly". Boys often were a bit older, as they needed to have a history of providing, but not much older. So we are telling 16 year olds to "wait wait wait", and claiming we are trying to "sexualize them too early" when truly nature has done that already. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 23:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would add that it's only in the last 50-100 years that "teens" were not adults in the first place. For most of human history, marriage was something girls did between 13-16. 17 was "too old, too ugly". Boys often were a bit older, as they needed to have a history of providing, but not much older. So we are telling 16 year olds to "wait wait wait", and claiming we are trying to "sexualize them too early" when truly nature has done that already.
And so, what are the results of teens involving themselves in adult sexual activity? In the U.S., approximately one in four sexually active teens acquires a sexually transmitted disease (STD). Infectious syphilis rates have more than doubled among teenagers since the mid 1980s. One million teenage girls become pregnant each year. Males who are exposed to significant amounts of porn before the age of 14 are more sexually active and engage in more varied sexual behaviors as adults than males who are not exposed. Pornography's menacing message to teens is clear: Sex without responsibility is not only acceptable but preferable and desirable.
And the reason for this is not because of a failure on the part of our school system and parents to educate teens on safe sex and sexual responsibility, but instead it's all the fault of the evil, evil pornographers? Call me skeptical.
Teenage girls as a group are fast becoming one of the most vulnerable to pornography of any category. There are certain times in a girl's development when she is more impressionable and sensitive to outside stimuli. When cellular-memory groups and neural pathways are laid down during these times, they are large, deep, dominant and cast in concrete. The girl's attitudes, emotions, self-esteem and core beliefs are swayed for life.
We live in a time when increasing numbers of teenage girls are going in for plastic surgery-nose jobs, chin jobs, eye jobs and breast implants. Why are they so dissatisfied with how they look? How are these ideas getting into their brains and bodies? Just look at the magazine covers on the grocery store rack, the sit-coms on TV, the movies at the theater, and the Internet porn that men and teenage boys (and increasing numbers of women) are obsessing over.
Some teenage girls begin early trading sex for affection and acceptance from teenage boys. I address this issue in greater detail in other chapters. Suffice it to say, teenage girls are constantly being sent the message through magazines, television, movies, comedy, and pornography, that teenage boys and men want to look at sensuous, voluptuous female bodies and have sex with them.
This is true, but I'd say it's because of an ingrained sexism in our culture, not just because of porn. I mean, for the sake of fuck, these aren't exactly new problems, and pornography has only become largely acceptable by society fairly recently.
... In fact, Playboy publisher Hugh Hefner once bragged about his success in tearing down the barrier erected by Judeo-Christian beliefs that at one time protected "good girls" from being viewed as "bad girls."
Hefner said:
In the prudish moral climate of the Fifties, Playboy unabashedly championed sexual liberation. Before Playboy, women were typecast either as Madonna or as whores. But the wholesome, unselfconscious sexuality of Playboy's "girl-next-door" Playmates conveyed-to men and women alike-the unsettling and exciting message that "nice girls" like sex, too.
This "wholesome, nice-girls-like-sex" message has also helped change the "nice boys'" attitudes toward sexual violence against "nice girls."
Wow, Hugh Hefner, Christianity, and the removal of the social stigma that 'good girls' don't have/enjoy sex, in one sentence. Nice job.
In fact, rape is now often euphemistically referred to as "rough sex."
You know, back in ye olde times, 'rape' was often just referred to as 'sex', so I think we're getting better in this regard, and I don't think rape is the fault of pornography.
In May 1988 the Rhode Island Rape Crisis Center asked 1,700 sixth- to ninth-grade students to share their attitudes about sex and rape. More than half the boys and girls considered sex to be acceptable after six months of dating-even if rape was necessary to achieve it. Roughly half agreed that if a boy spends $10 to $15 on a girl, he has the right to force a kiss.
Sixty-five percent of the boys and 47 percent of the girls said that forced sex was acceptable if a couple dated for six months. Without realizing that "forced" sex is rape, nearly a quarter of the boys and a sixth of the girls accepted rape if a boy had spent money on a girl.
What does it mean when boys and girls grow up believing that "rough sex" is merely erotic or flirtatious play? According to the Washington Post (May 6, 1988), of 1,035 rapes reported to the Rhode Island Rape Crisis Center in 1987, 79 percent of the victims were raped by a person known to them. Moreover, experts estimate one in four girls and one in seven boys will be sexually assaulted before they are 18 years old, generally by a relative or another trusted acquaintance.
In 1988, Michigan reported an astounding 681 juveniles convicted of sexually assaulting younger children. The average age of the victims: seven! Almost 60 percent of the assaults involved penetration, and further, "93% of the [juvenile] offenders were acquaintances, friends, babysitters, or relatives of the victims."
The horror of this new wave of juvenile sexual assaults is just the tip of the iceberg. On October 11, 1984, the Washington Post reported an instance in which a high school girl was raped in a boys' school bathroom while at least ten other boys looked on, cheering.
The Boston Herald, on June 28, 1984, ran a story about a 12-year-old Pawtucket, Massachusetts, boy who raped a ten-year-old girl on a pool table in a "reenactment" of the infamous "Big Dan" pool table gang rape of a woman. The "Big Dan" pool table case had recently received wide media coverage in the Pawtucket area.
With every type of sex act and perversion involving female children, teens, and women being displayed, glorified and promoted over the Internet, the type of atrocities cited above will become commonplace.
Those stats/studies are pretty disturbing, but again, back in ye olde times, and oftentimes still to this day, women were viewed as objects that belonged to a man to do whatever he pleased with, so even though we still suck, we're getting better -- and there's no reason to think we suck because "every type of sex act and perversion involving female children, teens, and women [is] being displayed, glorified and promoted over the Internet".
Porn Encourages Anorexia and Bulimia
In her book Soft Porn Plays Hardball, Dr. Judith Reisman states:
Porn subtly communicates that the value of a woman is determined by her body shape and size. Only those women with a perfect physical appearance are valuable and worthy of being admired, desired and loved. This can have detrimental effects on how women and girls view themselves. I often wonder how many young girls who struggle with anorexia, bulimia, and other eating disorders are unknowingly struggling to measure up to the "perfect 10" image projected by the airbrushed centerfold.
It's not just porn that does this, but magazines, television, cinema... pretty much society itself. Maybe porn isn't the problem, but a sexist culture -- and porn is just reflecting that culture.
Teenage boys are extremely vulnerable to pornography's seductive allure. In her book Kids Online, Donna Rice Hughes shares some valuable insights: Print and movie pornography tend to trap males more often than females. It would be easy to believe that males are more visually oriented than females, but the evidence is not clear enough to make that assertion. What we do know is that the male's hydraulic sex system and the exterior genitals keep him more aware of his sexual feelings than the typical female is.
Really? That claim seems a bit suspect to me.
His ejaculation pattern, once begun, will continue, and his psycho-social sexual appetite tends to be fully developed within thirty-six months after that first ejaculation. The porn market, therefore, exploits this normal development of male sexuality, with the tragic effect that addiction to pornography tends to desensitize the male, such that a bonded heterosexual relationship is not only unlikely to develop, but the genuine relationship with one exclusive person is not even desired.
Okay, now that seems really fucking suspect. So, what, every teenage male who views porn will be unlikely to develop a monogamous relationship? Yeah, I guess that's why gay polygamous relationships are so common, and you almost never see 'bonded' monogamous straight couples.
Giving porn to a teenage boy is like giving crack to a baby: addiction is almost guaranteed.
Fist: babies don't actively seek out crack. Second: what is 'addiction' being defined as here? Is viewing porn on a regular basis an 'addiction'?
The power that drives men to procreate, to mate, to commit themselves to a wife and family is one of the most powerful forces in the universe.
I'm going to call bullshit on that.
The teen is given all the "drugs" he could ever want, all at his beck and call and in the privacy of his own room. He can completely immerse himself in the fantasy filth world of nudity, sex, perversion and the self-medication of repeated masturbation. This teen, trapped in the blurry world of puberty, becomes a client for life, assuring the Internet pornographers of obscene profits well into the future.
"Filthy", "perversion", "obscene"... gees, woman, tell us what your real opinion is.
When teens get sucked into the porn trap, they suffer the same dark consequences that men suffer when they view pornography. But teens suffer a misery that seems to have an extra sharp bite. With the images permanently stored, they often find themselves slaves to a cruel master who may alter the course of their lives.
The young college student's mother was in the hospital, literally bleeding to death. A blood transfusion was desperately needed to save her life. Her son recruited his college friends and they all drove to the hospital to donate the needed blood. The young men were first tested for blood type and several proved to be a match for the dying woman. One young man's blood, however, was found to be unfit because he tested positive for venereal disease. He was unable to give the needed aid to the woman- his own mother.
Earlier in his life, this young man had become addicted to pornography. His addiction escalated to the point where he began acting out his fantasies with dozens of women, including prostitutes. Walking the pornographic path rendered this young man unable to give aid to his own mother at a time of crisis. In fact, he added to her pain and suffering when she learned of his diseased condition.
Yep! Pornography leads to getting STDs and then being unable to give blood to your dying mother, which will then make great a anecdote. I'm sure that porn had everything to do with this.
I remember years ago reading a most tragic and heart-wrenching account of human suffering. It was written by the victim himself, now a man, recalling the horrific experience of his youth. From the time Matt was a tiny child, his mother had kept him confined 24 hours a day in a large cardboard box! This was his entire world; this was all he knew. I cannot recall the exact details, but I believe that Matt remained in the box until he was eight or nine years old. His situation-and his mother's treachery-was finally brought to light, and he was released and put into foster care.
Matt spoke of the wonder and awe he felt upon seeing and experiencing things for the very first time-things you and I take for granted: seeing a blue sky, touching the leaves on a tree, rolling in the new-mown green grass, tasting a freshly baked chocolate chip cookie. And how surprised he was when he discovered that all children don't live out their early lives inside a cardboard box. Imagine the exhilaration and joy he must have felt the day he was set free into a world that wasn't confined and black and smothering!
I often think of that child and his tortured beginnings. I grieve at the marvelous experiences and wonders he was deprived of during those years. What an awful tragedy! Then I think of all the teenage boys in this country who are trapped inside their own "cardboard box" of Internet pornography addiction. This is a tragedy of monumental proportions. I also ponder the sad state of the pornographers, who, like the deranged and demented mother, are obsessed with the profit potential of luring young men into the box and then keeping them there, sealed off from so many of life's beauties, deprived of hope for the future, stifled by the disabling captivity of such an insidious addiction.
In next month's article I will discuss how men are victims of pornography.
Mark B. Kastleman is the author of the revolutionary new book titled The Drug of the New Millennium-the Science of How Internet Pornography Radically Alters the Human Brain and Body-A Guide for Parents, Spouses, Clergy and Counselors. Many leading scientists, psychologists, therapists and religious leaders consider this book to be one of the most important works ever written on this subject, and a must-read for parents, spouses, clergy and counselors.
Did she realize that her 'teen-in-a-box' anecdote could be used against her position? By shielding teens from any naturally-sought sexual stimulation, they run the risk of isolating them from the world.
Well, that wasn't as hard as I thought -- maybe because it looks good when skim it, but when you really start to think about the claims, many of them don't make much sense. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 23:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Geez, kid, trim it down a bit at least. Plus, it was written by some pop psych quack. I'm sure his book is just a repetition of the words "neuroplasticity," "re-wired," and "Facebook and porn are melting kids brains! Run for the hills!" for a couple of hundred pages. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, but it's the official Net Nanny site, which I think is one the largest home filtering software -- it's not just one some quack or transparently right-wing website, which really saddens me. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 23:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Net Nanny pushing pseudoscience to sell their products? Quelle surprise! Now with "research" published in prestigious journals such as The Daily Mail and The New York Post! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps a Bananaman-style RationalWiki refutation article is in order? -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- @Nebuchadnezzar: Does Net Nanny have some part history I'm not aware of?
- @Sethpeck: Sure -- I'll help start it. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 00:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe also an article on web filtering, because I've always found it to be kind of stupid. I mean, for really little kids it makes sense -- but teens, and even husbands? Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 00:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Jesus - "Know what is being said publicly and privately in messages or chats within social media sites". A parent spying on what a teen says in presumed privacy is fucking creepy. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 00:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I made an article with the above content, but more shittily formatted. Please improve it. Fidgetertalk to me :D|see my shit 01:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Jesus - "Know what is being said publicly and privately in messages or chats within social media sites". A parent spying on what a teen says in presumed privacy is fucking creepy. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 00:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps a Bananaman-style RationalWiki refutation article is in order? -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Net Nanny pushing pseudoscience to sell their products? Quelle surprise! Now with "research" published in prestigious journals such as The Daily Mail and The New York Post! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, but it's the official Net Nanny site, which I think is one the largest home filtering software -- it's not just one some quack or transparently right-wing website, which really saddens me. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 23:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Help me be good![edit]
Eve. South Korea. Objective Ministries. I am ashamed. I don't know what to do. How can I be good on this wiki? What is "good"? What am I doing that is "bad"? How can I help in a way others will see it as helping? How can I repair my reputation? Help! The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- asking means you cat do it,--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Huh? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Have you thoroughly read, took notes on, and quizzed yourself on the links on the welcome template? Sam Tally-ho! 20:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- those mean something?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Have you thoroughly read, took notes on, and quizzed yourself on the links on the welcome template? Sam Tally-ho! 20:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Huh? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Write articles. If somebody changes stuff around don't say anything. No matter what you think, they don't give a shit. If you do this for several years you may get respect. Do it for ten and you may earn "respected editor" from somebody. I'm here a year, have written about 10 articles and I'm not one. It also seems to help not to have life. --★uːʤɱ sinner 21:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- You're doing it wrong. The way to get respected status is to post constantly in the SB about your personal exploits and shouting about how much you're above everything even when you dive in to stir shit up. Doesn't take 10 years that way. Numpty! theist 21:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- You're talking to HeidelbergKid, right? --★uːʤɱ structuralist 21:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Are you a virgin? Do you suffer from Asperger's? Do you live in your mother's basement? Are you an authoritarian prick? A fascist? If you do not meet at least three of these standards, you will never become a respected editor here. Sorry. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 21:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- (EC x3) I'm not sure it's really a question of whether or not you're "good" or "bad." Maybe you should participate more in Saloon Bar conversations or read random talk page content and stuff like that so you can get a feel for
our severely dysfunctional personalitieshow we react to various things. It seems like you're only around for a day or two to talk about something you did in the mainspace and then leave for a while. Maybe if you're around more consistently be careful not to get addicted! you'll be better able to absorb the culture here. A little more time and practice and you'll fit in better. Sam Tally-ho! 21:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)- Just hit Special:Random a few hundred times, fixing up the more blatant grammar problems, and adding and fixing refs, until people no longer notice you as much. That's what everyone else does... PeterQuasniki 2012! 21:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- RationalWiki is a community: join in the discussions
- RationalWiki is a wiki: collaborate on articles, they are not vanity projects or class homework to call your own
- RationalWiki is educational: read the stuff that is already here
- RationalWiki is sceptical: develop your own bullshit detector, listen to what others have to say because there are some smart people here (even though they might not have a full range of social skills - yes, you <insert name here>)
- RationalWiki is fun: you need a sense of humour and a thick skin
- Генгисmarauding 09:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Just hit Special:Random a few hundred times, fixing up the more blatant grammar problems, and adding and fixing refs, until people no longer notice you as much. That's what everyone else does... PeterQuasniki 2012! 21:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- (EC x3) I'm not sure it's really a question of whether or not you're "good" or "bad." Maybe you should participate more in Saloon Bar conversations or read random talk page content and stuff like that so you can get a feel for
- Are you a virgin? Do you suffer from Asperger's? Do you live in your mother's basement? Are you an authoritarian prick? A fascist? If you do not meet at least three of these standards, you will never become a respected editor here. Sorry. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 21:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- You're talking to HeidelbergKid, right? --★uːʤɱ structuralist 21:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- You're doing it wrong. The way to get respected status is to post constantly in the SB about your personal exploits and shouting about how much you're above everything even when you dive in to stir shit up. Doesn't take 10 years that way. Numpty!
- Copy Nebuchadnezzar.--talk 05:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- But then I won't be all, you know, special and unique and snowflakey. :( Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- [2] Doctor Dark (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- I totally got mentioned here. I am like famous. TheCheatI run on alcohol 17:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Copying this thread to the bottom of the page will get you twice the attention, but half the respect. Rennie McGreet (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Stop randomly moving/missioning/deletion noming stuff. TyBother me 19:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Quit bossing people, wiki-lawyering, setting deadlines & making ultimatums. If you open a discussion, don't immediately tell people how long the discussion is allowed to last; let it run its course. & Enough with the pleas for attention. If you open a discussion & people don't respond, or not in the way you want, don't just move or copy it somewhere else. You really need to work on your social skills & not keep doing things that put people's backs up. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Quit bossing people, wiki-lawyering, setting deadlines & making ultimatums. If you open a discussion, don't immediately tell people how long the discussion is allowed to last; let it run its course. & Enough with the pleas for attention. If you open a discussion & people don't respond, or not in the way you want, don't just move or copy it somewhere else. You really need to work on your social skills & not keep doing things that put people's backs up. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
- Stop randomly moving/missioning/deletion noming stuff. TyBother me 19:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Copying this thread to the bottom of the page will get you twice the attention, but half the respect. Rennie McGreet (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I totally got mentioned here. I am like famous. TheCheatI run on alcohol 17:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- [2] Doctor Dark (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- But then I won't be all, you know, special and unique and snowflakey. :( Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Tim Tebow's playoff demise[edit]
Who can't wait for 8:00? Every single fundie will cry out that Jesus wasn't looking out for him after all. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- An appeal from a non-American: can you guys shut the eff up about Tim fucking Tebow????? Rennie McGreet (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Crowing about the results of the game five hours before kickoff is pretty stupid, no matter if you're Schlafly or one of us. Lotsa people thought that the Broncos wouldn't get past the Steelers, IIRC. (I have no real interest one way or the other, but they're playing the game for the very reason that the outcome is uncertain...) P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 21:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
This. (if you're pro-gay or pro-choice a regular on this site and not a conservative troll, regardless of nationality or interest in American football, it will be interesting to you) -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also, Daniel Tosh makes an interesting point...if he was really a good, pious Christian, he'd be observing the Sabbath instead of working on Sundays. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, maybe 5 hours was a bit premature to call the game, but two drives into it, the outcome was clear (sobs). At least the Focus on the Family add was nice and sweet. --GodotDear god, fucking grow up 16:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, maybe 5 hours was a bit premature to call the game, but two drives into it, the outcome was clear (sobs). At least the Focus on the Family add was nice and sweet. --
P-Foster, you were saying?[edit]
Check the score. ;) Osaka Sun (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Tom Brady has thrown an NFL playoff single-game record six touchdown passes" Remind me again how God is working through Tebow? Somehow His message isn't getting through to me. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 03:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
How long a reprieve can we expect?[edit]
Since Tebow's god seems to have forsaken him, how long a reprieve do we get now before the next time our fundagelical friends can get excited about his performance? I only ask because Tebowmania was really starting to get on my tits over at CP. Is there any chance he'll just be fired? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 04:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Approximately nine months. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- What I am enjoying is that after seven years Alex Smith (aka Tebow the original) is finally getting some love. Two guys, same skill set, same college coach, same questionable ability to play the game at the pro level, difference one talks about God all day, the other keeps his mouth shut. For those who don't follow the game, which have you heard of? - π 05:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Some humorous columns on the topic[edit]
Rick Morrissey, sports columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, has always stuck to his guns in saying that Tebow is not an NFL-quality quarterback, and received hate mail for doing so. Here's his response to the loss, and the article that inspired so much hate in the first place. Junggai (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- You know that feeling you get where you read something that just seems to make so much sense that you temporarily forget the insanity in this world and think "actually, there are more intelligent people like me in this world than I thought". I just get one of those moments reading that for some reason. d hominem 12:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, I was totally not expecting that from a sports column, which is part of the wow-factor. Junggai (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Nice links, thanks. Some sportswriting is very good, because the writer is good, and eloquent, and writing about sports is their only outlet for their skills. George Will likes to think he is one of them. ħuman 02:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- He's at least much more readable when he's pretending to be a sportswriter instead of a climate scientists. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Nice links, thanks. Some sportswriting is very good, because the writer is good, and eloquent, and writing about sports is their only outlet for their skills. George Will likes to think he is one of them. ħuman
- Indeed, I was totally not expecting that from a sports column, which is part of the wow-factor. Junggai (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Silly question[edit]
Can anyone tell me what it means by "throw for 316 yards"? Obviously it's not a single throw because the field is a fraction of that and the record throw is about 80 yard. But there's a list of players who have hit 400. Is it the total of all throws in a game, I'm assuming it is, and what is the stat actually called? I need to do some maths. d hominem 10:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's the average sum of thrown yards per game. I could be wrong, though. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 10:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I'm just trying to figure out some stats for the Conservapedia-inspired claim that the 316 yard thing is a million-to-one chance (or even a 10,000 to one chance) after spotting the quote on FSTDT (though I'm sure elsewhere people are thinking about it).
- For it to be a million-to-one, you should expect that value to take any range from 1 to 1,000,000, each with equal opportunity - 1,000,000 yards is about 570 miles if you want to visualise the probability a little better. Of course, that's nonsense because the range is actually far shorter than 1,000,000 yards, an exceptional game appears to be anywhere above 400, and the average of passing yards is about 270 for professionals at that standard. So a more realistic range to think about is 1-400 yards, where he could achieve any number there, then the odds of him getting 316 would be 1-in-400 (considerably less than the one-in-a-million touted).
- But, then again it's distributed rather than even, and we also have to clip this range from the lower end as well as the higher end because throwing a 2 yard game is as equally improbable as throwing a 800 for semi-obvious reasons. So an even more realistic range is 200-400 yards (or 1-in-200) but again, distribution changes the odds so each value is not equally probable - if throwing an average 270 yard game was an equal probability to a 400 yard game, 400 yards wouldn't be an exceptional value achieved by a handful of athletes. From what I can tell, 316 is on the upper boundary of average, but nowhere near exceptional for the standard being asked. So even though the range is smaller, perhaps the infrequency of going so far above average might alter the odds of hitting exactly 316 to 1-in-400? Perhaps even being generous we can set it as 1-in-500 of getting this ever so slightly higher-than-average figure (what the hell am I talking about? 1-in-500 is very generous for this!!).
- However, improbable things happen because there are repeated attempts and the actual real odds are altered by the number of games played; 17 in a season or so, which means the real odds (maintaining this very generous 1-in-500 figure) is actually 17-in-500, as repeated attempts add rather than multiply probabilities. This cancels down to, actually, 1-in-30 across an entire season where someone would be bound to spot it somewhere. And this is only the odds base on us saying, in advance, "Tim Tebow will throw this value". We can presume similar odds for him throwing 315 and 317 yards. Multiple people competing effectively add more attempts making it an outright certainty that the value would occur somewhere in the season, but even if we do accept that we're just focusing on the Tebowster, it's like 1-in-30.
- The moral of the story is that probability isn't something you can just make up out of nowhere, it does genuinely mean something.
- But as an aside, if you're going to claim evidence for something being true, then the lack of evidence should be for it not being true. So if you accept Tebow throwing 316 yards is "proof" of God, then him (or any other quarterback for that matter, given how "improbable things happen" probability actually works) not should be proof against God's existence. We see people fail to make 316 all the time, therefore no God. If you don't accept that, then you can't use a single even as proof of God - otherwise your belief is true in all possible worlds, isn't conditional on evidence or a real-world interaction and, to use the technical term, is a load of all bull's bollocks. moral 13:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I forgot to add about other statistics. Apparently the viewing figures were 31.6 and his passing average per throw was 31.6 yards... but for every coincidence like that you pile on to there are countless other figures that weren't 31.6 or 316 or 3.16. We unfortunately don't seem to have an article specifically on data mining, but it's effectively cherry picking, it doesn't boost the odds anywhere near million-to-one or out of the range of expected probability. narchist 13:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent statistical analysis, ADK. Just to answer your original question beyond what UHM said, a quarterback's passing yards stat doesn't just mean how far the ball goes in the air, it also counts how far the runner goes after pass completion before the play ends, with the stat being added up based on how many total yards are gained in a passing play. For example, a quarterback can get 80 yards added to their statistic by beginning at the opponents' 20-yard line, passing 15 yards downfield to a running back, who then is able to run all the way to the other end zone for a touchdown. Junggai (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC) EDIT: This means, by the way, that a 99 or 100-yard pass in a single play is certainly possible and indeed happens often.
- Damn... I told myself long ago... If there ever truly was a god then it would let its presence be known to me by having a quarterback's statistics match a bible quote he donned on himself. Well I am a theist now, guess I will go to church or something. TheCheatI run on alcohol 16:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent statistical analysis, ADK. Just to answer your original question beyond what UHM said, a quarterback's passing yards stat doesn't just mean how far the ball goes in the air, it also counts how far the runner goes after pass completion before the play ends, with the stat being added up based on how many total yards are gained in a passing play. For example, a quarterback can get 80 yards added to their statistic by beginning at the opponents' 20-yard line, passing 15 yards downfield to a running back, who then is able to run all the way to the other end zone for a touchdown. Junggai (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC) EDIT: This means, by the way, that a 99 or 100-yard pass in a single play is certainly possible and indeed happens often.
- Oh, I forgot to add about other statistics. Apparently the viewing figures were 31.6 and his passing average per throw was 31.6 yards... but for every coincidence like that you pile on to there are countless other figures that weren't 31.6 or 316 or 3.16. We unfortunately don't seem to have an article specifically on data mining, but it's effectively cherry picking, it doesn't boost the odds anywhere near million-to-one or out of the range of expected probability.
- But as an aside, if you're going to claim evidence for something being true, then the lack of evidence should be for it not being true. So if you accept Tebow throwing 316 yards is "proof" of God, then him (or any other quarterback for that matter, given how "improbable things happen" probability actually works) not should be proof against God's existence. We see people fail to make 316 all the time, therefore no God. If you don't accept that, then you can't use a single even as proof of God - otherwise your belief is true in all possible worlds, isn't conditional on evidence or a real-world interaction and, to use the technical term, is a load of all bull's bollocks.
Rick Perry's bullshit[edit]
Watching Rick Perry in some townhall meeting thing on Fox hosted by Huckabee. He says the president of Coca-Cola says it is easier to do business in communist China than in the US due to the stifling restrictions and that isn't on. Yeah sure, it is easier, if you don't give a fuck about workers rights, health and personal well-being. Suddenly doing things the way communists do is a good thing? You want to make things better by modeling on the communist system? Fucking idiot. AceModerator 09:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- This is the same douche who, yesterday, said that American Marines caught pissing on dead bodies are "children, not criminals." A complete asshole and all-around idiot if I've ever heard of one. The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 09:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've had a nagging suspicion for a while that there's elements on the American Right that consider China to be a model, if you replaced official atheism with official fundamentalist Christianity. I never thought one of them would admit it, though. MDB (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I really think we should stop calling the PRC "communist" because, well, it's a ComINO country. China has beasically become a free-market authoritarian society that is just let by pragmatic communist Party. It's like calling England a theocracy just because they got a state religion and the head of that church as the head of the state. Meh, just doesn't work anymore. Oh, yeah: Perry=asshole. --★uːʤɱ secularist 12:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- China: Where the markets are free, but nothing else is.
- More seriously, I'd argue China can't continue as an authoritarian free market state indefinitely. They've got a middle class there. The upper echelons will like things the way they are, because that means they stay at the top. The poor are too busy surviving to worry about the leadership. But the middle class has the free time, if you will, to express dissatisfaction, and eventually their numbers will be to big to ignore. Good luck to them. MDB (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- AFAIK (and as a student of East Asian Studies I've got the balls to say you can trust me on this) every year the Chinese get a bit more free. Decades ago they weren't allowed to dress how the wanted, today they have a fashion industry. Years ago they had no pirvate property, today they have. Still, say something critical about the government and you'll have problems. But then again, decades ago any fuck up the government produces was covered up. If today a school is built extra cheap so that some regional guy can put some more money in his pocket and that school collapses out of nowhere instead of getting covered up, they prosecute the guy. They have come so far to admit of making mistakes now and then, that is a heavy message coming from a government that saw itself almost unfailable before. My guess is that they have noticed after Mao's death that their economy is shit and society ain't that pretty and because they know that people won't take that forever. So it seems to me that what they do is make people rich(er) and giving them a bit more freedom every year so they won't be slaughtered in their sleep, maybe even, in 50 to 70 years, have really free elections and be able to win them. It's possible to see the same process in Vietnam and Cuba — and hopefully soon North Korea. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 15:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- The difference is those other countries aren't Oceania like NK is.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Good post, UHM. I also wonder about how China might eventually come to show us that ideas like "freedom" and "democracy" don't necessarily have to take the same shape that they do in Europe/America/the West. China has some pretty unique things about it, history- society- demographics- wise, and there's no reason the think a one-size-fits all political culture could work there; but that doesn't have to mean that "our" understanding of how freedom and democracy work is the only viable one. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 16:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- -points out the ROC---il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- @UHM, I don't really consider China to be communist proper either but my point was that Perry, who would decry China as a land of commie sympathies and human rights abusers then turn around and say "We need to be more like China in order to keep businesses in 'Merica!" AceModerator 20:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- @Mika: That it's a long road doesn't mean one won't get to where you want to go. ROC was AFAIK more of cult of personality.
- @P: A culturally relative definition of democracy is always kinda tricky, like culturally relative defintions of ethics, morality or justice. Well, I guess that means that even my grandchildren will have something to talk about… I mean except were to go on Mars.
- @Ace: Didn't take it any other way. --★uːʤɱ pervert 00:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I do, in fact, know some people who do business in China. They tell me it's very difficult place to do business.--BobSpring is sprung! 10:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Likewise. They say it's incredibly bureaucratic. But, and this is why they do business there, it's cheap. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- it was a shitty example for the longest time, then the people in power realized they couldnt keep acting like it was 1949 still and actually made it a democracy, hell they just held elections last week. Fully functioning western style chinese democracy. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Likewise. They say it's incredibly bureaucratic. But, and this is why they do business there, it's cheap. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I do, in fact, know some people who do business in China. They tell me it's very difficult place to do business.--BobSpring is sprung! 10:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- @UHM, I don't really consider China to be communist proper either but my point was that Perry, who would decry China as a land of commie sympathies and human rights abusers then turn around and say "We need to be more like China in order to keep businesses in 'Merica!" AceModerator 20:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- -points out the ROC---il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- AFAIK (and as a student of East Asian Studies I've got the balls to say you can trust me on this) every year the Chinese get a bit more free. Decades ago they weren't allowed to dress how the wanted, today they have a fashion industry. Years ago they had no pirvate property, today they have. Still, say something critical about the government and you'll have problems. But then again, decades ago any fuck up the government produces was covered up. If today a school is built extra cheap so that some regional guy can put some more money in his pocket and that school collapses out of nowhere instead of getting covered up, they prosecute the guy. They have come so far to admit of making mistakes now and then, that is a heavy message coming from a government that saw itself almost unfailable before. My guess is that they have noticed after Mao's death that their economy is shit and society ain't that pretty and because they know that people won't take that forever. So it seems to me that what they do is make people rich(er) and giving them a bit more freedom every year so they won't be slaughtered in their sleep, maybe even, in 50 to 70 years, have really free elections and be able to win them. It's possible to see the same process in Vietnam and Cuba — and hopefully soon North Korea. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 15:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I really think we should stop calling the PRC "communist" because, well, it's a ComINO country. China has beasically become a free-market authoritarian society that is just let by pragmatic communist Party. It's like calling England a theocracy just because they got a state religion and the head of that church as the head of the state. Meh, just doesn't work anymore. Oh, yeah: Perry=asshole. --★uːʤɱ secularist 12:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've had a nagging suspicion for a while that there's elements on the American Right that consider China to be a model, if you replaced official atheism with official fundamentalist Christianity. I never thought one of them would admit it, though. MDB (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
On China[edit]
Okay, UHM, let me ask you this... Tiananmen Square, of course, ended tragically. But was that still the beginning of the end of old-style Chinese communism, with the hard-liners winning the battle but losing the war? MDB (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- No. Tiananmen Square seemed to be a kind of "hurry up folks" call from the young (if you calculate 20 years on it, it's those that now make money and drive big fat cars through Shanghai and Shenzhen). Real movement was there as soon as Deng Xiaoping took over after Mao was gone. Mao was the radical militant wing of the CPCh and Deng was the moderate wing. It is hard for me to describe this, but the people on Tiananmen Square had whole different thing going on. They wanted political freedom, something that isn't exactly "native" to Chinese culture. Confucianism is very much against it, blaming nonfunctioning governements on it, Maoism is all about the masses and Deng is more economical but still holds up the dictatorship of the protelariat. The early Kuomintang didn't exactly get a hard on idea either. But, it seems, those who are in power now get that people have at least to feel free, or more free than their parents. Honestly, China isn't really expert territory for me. I havn't had more than a 101 in it's history, so telling apart all the little fractions in a party of 90 million is kinda hard... --★uːʤɱ soviet 00:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Depends. So much has changed in three decades, and I do mean an incredible amount of change. For example, someone I know, who was born in China, speaks Mandarin, and visited China the summer before last, did not realize China is a communist nation until she found out in her history class. The economy is essentially Capitalist. I'd say that the private sector will continue to displace state-controlled assets. Politically, it's hard to say. I think there will be some kind of gradual democratization, unless, of course, a real crazy chairman pops up and decides to destroy the world. Of course, I can be completely off. I do know that the culture is a very peaceful one (at least relatively), and chances for a WWIII is very slim, if not nonexistent.Z3100x (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
More college trouble in London[edit]
This time it's Queen Mary College. A speaker from the National Federation of Atheist, Humanist and Secular Student Societies was invited to give a talk on sharia and human rights, but when she was about to start someone walked into the room, filmed the audience and threatened to hunt down anyone who insulted Muhammed. Strange hobbies kids have today...
I saw someone suggest elsewhere online that the fellow might have been one of our pals at Islamic Awakening, since a thread was started there beforehand calling for Muslims to attend the speech ("if a bunch of kuffar got together and were given the right to touch your mother up and analyse her, then would you stand by and let it happen?") Balaam (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- But, but...religion of peace! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- As seen on WIGO:World. Jack Hughes (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am so tempted to try and coax my local Atheist Club into poking these people with a stick. The Islamic society already got into a bit of trouble for inviting a speaker that contravened Union regulations because he is on record as being sexist and homophobic (regulations and free speech suck) so we may as well make a point. Especially if this is the response we expect; because it should, hopefully, sway public and legal opinion in the direction of freedom of expression. bomination 18:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think it would be an appropriate response to photograph the photographer and tell them that if anyone in the audience suffers any type of harm then he will be held directly accountable. Генгисmarauding 19:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- That would work. In fact, I'm pretty sure doing that would be instigating and inspiring hatred, indeed far more than a group with freedom of assembly having an open discussion. In fact it had an active threat, an invasion of privacy and then taking photos of people with intent to use them maliciously. And because the guy had demonstrated that this was his aim, taking a photograph of him to hold him responsible would actually defensible as being in the public interest. So yeah, go armed with cameras. narchist 19:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Here in Minneapolis, the actual Muslims would not need to throw a tantrum over defamation of religion even if they wanted to; they would just need to sit back and let certain natives do it for them. ListenerXTalkerX 04:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Would those be the pinko natives? ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 07:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Implying non-Muslims rallying to their defence? Yeah, I've already been in a clusterfuck argument over that. The trick is to take a bottle of JD and drink every time someone says "respect". Though don't make it a double for every time they say "respect" but don't clarify what they mean by it, as that will kill you in short order. There's the "don't be a dick" principle, but in light of some guy barging in and threatening a crowd forming under freedom of assembly, it's hard to believe anyone could do it with a straight face. moral 11:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- At Liberapedia I used to get trouble with nice liberals disliking criticism of Islam, since I added the article, Problems with Muslim Sharia Law there have been no complaints. Educating those who talk about respect can help. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Would those be the pinko natives? Some of them, although pinkos concern themselves little with such expressions of bigotry unless they think they are being used for false-consciousness purposes. Most of the rest are just hanging on to the pablum they were fed in grade-school about "respect" and are doing the equivalent of sneaking to the teacher.
- Implying non-Muslims rallying to their defence? More like "using the Muslims as a pretext to launch broadsides against pet peeves of their own." ListenerXTalkerX 19:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- At Liberapedia I used to get trouble with nice liberals disliking criticism of Islam, since I added the article, Problems with Muslim Sharia Law there have been no complaints. Educating those who talk about respect can help. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Implying non-Muslims rallying to their defence? Yeah, I've already been in a clusterfuck argument over that. The trick is to take a bottle of JD and drink every time someone says "respect". Though don't make it a double for every time they say "respect" but don't clarify what they mean by it, as that will kill you in short order. There's the "don't be a dick" principle, but in light of some guy barging in and threatening a crowd forming under freedom of assembly, it's hard to believe anyone could do it with a straight face.
- Would those be the pinko natives? Щєазєюіδ
- Here in Minneapolis, the actual Muslims would not need to throw a tantrum over defamation of religion even if they wanted to; they would just need to sit back and let certain natives do it for them.
- That would work. In fact, I'm pretty sure doing that would be instigating and inspiring hatred, indeed far more than a group with freedom of assembly having an open discussion. In fact it had an active threat, an invasion of privacy and then taking photos of people with intent to use them maliciously. And because the guy had demonstrated that this was his aim, taking a photograph of him to hold him responsible would actually defensible as being in the public interest. So yeah, go armed with cameras.
- I am so tempted to try and coax my local Atheist Club into poking these people with a stick. The Islamic society already got into a bit of trouble for inviting a speaker that contravened Union regulations because he is on record as being sexist and homophobic (regulations and free speech suck) so we may as well make a point. Especially if this is the response we expect; because it should, hopefully, sway public and legal opinion in the direction of freedom of expression.
- As seen on WIGO:World. Jack Hughes (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
On the Topic of SOPA/PIPA[edit]
Will it pass or not?
|
Yes |
8 |
|
|
|
No |
33 |
|
?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think so. It's getting too much attention now, and everyone is hitting it pretty hard.--talk 04:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- The thing with me and SOPA is i've heard about it SO much, and for 2 month's have been told "IT WILL PASS ANY DAY!" that it's burnt out in "oh shit terribleness" for me. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- When we and Conservapedia both oppose something, I fear for its future. ListenerXTalkerX 05:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- It will not pass in present form, but something like it may well pass eventually. It's surprising how little money it takes to buy a Congressman (especially the lesser known ones) and RIAA/MPAA et al. have deep pockets. Doctor Dark (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Except we can be guarenteed to keep not supporting it, they will flip on it when its convenient--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- It will not pass in present form, but something like it may well pass eventually. It's surprising how little money it takes to buy a Congressman (especially the lesser known ones) and RIAA/MPAA et al. have deep pockets. Doctor Dark (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- When we and Conservapedia both oppose something, I fear for its future.
- The thing with me and SOPA is i've heard about it SO much, and for 2 month's have been told "IT WILL PASS ANY DAY!" that it's burnt out in "oh shit terribleness" for me. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Some guy on ED who claims to be a rich lawyer or something said it would never get past the Supreme Court and that similar bills have failed there before it--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- As my people are wont to say, "horseshit." The Roberts-Scalia court would give this a thumbs-up in a heartbeat. Doctor Dark (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Some guy on ED who claims to be a rich lawyer" so unemployed college student?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- (EC2) He means the Communications Decency Act, I presume? That ruling was based on the material in question being covered under the First Amendment, which is not true in the case of copyright infringement. ListenerXTalkerX 05:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Brix, you should learn "some guy" is rarely a good source. So far, no Copyright laws of this kind have hit the USSC. Decency laws (even those that overreach like the Dig.Mil act, are not quite the same as a bill that says "we the government get to decide what you get to read". this law will never pass muster, yes, even with scalia - but the problem is that for 2-10 years, depending on how it goes, it will be the law of the land till it's heard. --GodotDear god, fucking grow up 05:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Brix, you should learn "some guy" is rarely a good source. So far, no Copyright laws of this kind have hit the USSC. Decency laws (even those that overreach like the Dig.Mil act, are not quite the same as a bill that says "we the government get to decide what you get to read". this law will never pass muster, yes, even with scalia - but the problem is that for 2-10 years, depending on how it goes, it will be the law of the land till it's heard. --
- (EC2) He means the Communications Decency Act, I presume? That ruling was based on the material in question being covered under the First Amendment, which is not true in the case of copyright infringement.
- "Some guy on ED who claims to be a rich lawyer" so unemployed college student?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- As my people are wont to say, "horseshit." The Roberts-Scalia court would give this a thumbs-up in a heartbeat. Doctor Dark (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Some guy on ED who claims to be a rich lawyer or something said it would never get past the Supreme Court and that similar bills have failed there before it--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Damn, I knew I shouldn't have taken stock tips from Mr. Guy! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am also a rich lawyer and am I prepared to pontificate on any random subject. (Actually the first part is a lie - but how do you know?)--BobSpring is sprung! 06:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I would love to press on with the belief that it will be felled in a vote due to the negative attention; however, the deeply cynical part of my brain feels as if that is giving far too much credit to our wonderful politicians' ability to turn down lobbyist cash. Pinto's5150 Talk 07:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I thought that if a newly passed law is appealed, it waits until the appeals are over before it becomes law. Senator Harrison (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not quite. Any law can be enforced immediately, regardless of whether it is being appealed or not, but it is possible to get an injunction against enforcement of some law if it is believed to be unconstitutional; that was how the Child Online Protection Act was neutered before it was ultimately struck down, 11 years after it was enacted. ListenerXTalkerX 19:26, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not quite. Any law can be enforced immediately, regardless of whether it is being appealed or not, but it is possible to get an injunction against enforcement of some law if it is believed to be unconstitutional; that was how the Child Online Protection Act was neutered before it was ultimately struck down, 11 years after it was enacted.
And WP is down![edit]
And wikipedia is down--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I like how it loads the page, and then provides an overlay blocking the content. Anyone with a tiny amount of determination could still access the articles. Of course, that's not really the point. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 05:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- If I click the back button on my browser I can see a split second of their Kansas article. I suppose I could read the first section in single word increments. That will have to do. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Super secret: all you have to do is disable Javascript. Now that we've told you, we have to kill you. Doctor Dark (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ahh, JavaScript. I was thinking CSS. Don't really know that -- that was kind of stupid on my part. Flinttalk to me :D|see my shit 05:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- What about the Esc key? Worked for me... PeterQuasniki 2012! 05:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- The beauty of having Noscript--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- WP themselves say that you can access en.wikipedia by turning off JavaScript or use the mobile version - Just in case you need acces in an emergency. Генгисmarauding 08:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- WP themselves say that you can access en.wikipedia by turning off JavaScript or use the mobile version - Just in case you need acces in an emergency.
- Ahh, JavaScript. I was thinking CSS. Don't really know that -- that was kind of stupid on my part. Flinttalk to me :D|see my shit 05:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Super secret: all you have to do is disable Javascript. Now that we've told you, we have to kill you. Doctor Dark (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- If I click the back button on my browser I can see a split second of their Kansas article. I suppose I could read the first section in single word increments. That will have to do. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- On another note. MINECRAFT! Guy with the glasses. I have that same layout girl on my Firefox. And what is this blankmapof the world on paint?--Dumpling (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- This? From what I remember it was a variant of a Europe united map I was doing where WW3 and nuclear war happened. heres the map just before the war, i think. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's pretty awesome! How long have you been working on it?--Dumpling
- That one? a year. little motivation to work on a map where i have to hand change the color of various tiny european provinces to show a different party now leads it (partially why czech republic tends to be one color 9/10 of the time but france/Germany switch on a dime). I have a great # of other alt history/future maps though (I have no life)--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's pretty awesome! How long have you been working on it?--Dumpling
- This? From what I remember it was a variant of a Europe united map I was doing where WW3 and nuclear war happened. heres the map just before the war, i think. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
(talk) 06:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- WOW. A YEAR!? I get impatient within a few hours of anything. That's still pretty cool. A friend of mind likes making maps too, so I was just wondering. (It's okay! Neither do I.)--Dumpling (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- The mobile site is still overlay-free. Blue (is useful) 05:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- WOW. A YEAR!? I get impatient within a few hours of anything. That's still pretty cool. A friend of mind likes making maps too, so I was just wondering. (It's okay! Neither do I.)--Dumpling (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Is a workaround really that easy? Damn. SOPA will pass for sure now. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Count another one for the "RationalWiki Yakuza Paint Fan Club". :) --ZooGuard (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Takei, Google take on SOPA[edit]
http://www.allegiancemusical.com/blog-entry/day-no-takei Takei's blog, and go to google's main page. 
GodotDear god, fucking grow up 05:44, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Stopped clocks[edit]
Guess who else is blacked out today. :) The sell-outs at ATS apparently value pageviews more, though.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
xkcd weighs in[edit]
Randall opposes SOPA, unsurprinsingly. Sorry, there's no permalink; I'm guessing he's shut that down for the day. MDB (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Any comic number, xkcd.com/xxxx shows it. Not quite sure what his problem is, though, he explicitly licenses the comics under creative commons, so in principle SOPA wouldn't affect that because there are no copyright violations associated with sharing material that has been explicitly licensed to do so. sshole 13:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Um, just because an issue doesn't affect him personally doesn't mean he shouldn't have an opinion on it/think he should do something about it. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 14:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, it probably won't affect me but I do also have an opinion. It's just that his point is "I wouldn't be here if I couldn't share my content". Which is true, xkcd got where it was because it was shared so much and so openly, but that has nothing to do with SOPA as xkcd is licensed freely and SOPA wouldn't stop that. sshole 14:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking narrowly you're right. Speaking broadly, SOPA threatens the idea that content and ideas can circulate in an unimpeded way. Plans to limit the circulation of things tend to expand. While there's nothing in the bill that threatens freely-licensed stuff, the idea that stuff shouldn't move freely is now at play. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 14:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, it probably won't affect me but I do also have an opinion. It's just that his point is "I wouldn't be here if I couldn't share my content". Which is true, xkcd got where it was because it was shared so much and so openly, but that has nothing to do with SOPA as xkcd is licensed freely and SOPA wouldn't stop that.
- Um, just because an issue doesn't affect him personally doesn't mean he shouldn't have an opinion on it/think he should do something about it. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 14:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- SMBC gives us this. TyBother me 14:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I keep track of around 20 web comics from XKCD and The Far Left Side via Girls With Slongshots and Collar6 to Sarah Zero and beyond. Around half of them had some SOPA page this morning. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sarah Zero? Really? Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.!
- Sarah Zero? Really?
- I keep track of around 20 web comics from XKCD and The Far Left Side via Girls With Slongshots and Collar6 to Sarah Zero and beyond. Around half of them had some SOPA page this morning. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
The best SOPA page yet[edit]
The Oatmeal. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 15:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Roll call of members for and against PIPA and SOPA. I see that filthy liberal, John McCain is in favour. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 16:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Do it for the kittens! GodotDear god, fucking grow up 17:03, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Do it for the kittens!
I don't get it.[edit]
Why are there different versions of this bill? Why a House version and a Senate version? Are there always two versions of every bill? Do they do different things? What happens if one passes but the other doesn't? ONE / TALK 16:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- oh, the joy of US politics. Yes. there are always different versions of most every. In theory, they start out the same, but then they go to committees and things are changed. When any bills get passed by the respective house and senate, there is a time after they have been passed that they work on the differences. This is especially bad for concurrent bills, which both houses introduce at the same time. Sometimes the House or Senate will pass a bill, then forward it to the other Congress to pass - and it's easier to see what changes are made. But in this case, the bills pretty much look nothing alike. and I don't know how those differences are hammered out at the end. I should research that. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 16:56, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Kinda....it depends on the support for the legislation. With particularly large issues for discussion, authors need to receive bicameral support, not just bipartisan support, in advance of the discussion and voting of the topics for the issue. So they approach the issue from both sides, and either one authored bill gets chosen over the other, or a House Bill fails to pass in the House so the Senate bill goes forward (or vice versa), or some discussion/compromise occurs and one bill is chosen over the other but with amendments (look at the bills from last August re: the debt ceiling), or sometimes a Joint Resolution is sent (meaning it starts in both houses--the resolution to go to Iraq, for example, was a JR). Other bills which are not as controversial may start in one house without a similar bill in the other house, like motions for administrative actions. Some resolutions aren't actually bills or laws (like the "Under God"/"In God We Trust" votes that have been held in the House several times in the last decade). In the end, both houses have to pass a bill before it goes to the president for signature/veto. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Conference committee" is where they hammer out the differences (if they can). And yeah, it helps to have the same bill, with bipartisan support, start in both houses in order to finish the job.. ħuman 03:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Conference committee" is where they hammer out the differences (if they can). And yeah, it helps to have the same bill, with bipartisan support, start in both houses in order to finish the job.. ħuman
- Kinda....it depends on the support for the legislation. With particularly large issues for discussion, authors need to receive bicameral support, not just bipartisan support, in advance of the discussion and voting of the topics for the issue. So they approach the issue from both sides, and either one authored bill gets chosen over the other, or a House Bill fails to pass in the House so the Senate bill goes forward (or vice versa), or some discussion/compromise occurs and one bill is chosen over the other but with amendments (look at the bills from last August re: the debt ceiling), or sometimes a Joint Resolution is sent (meaning it starts in both houses--the resolution to go to Iraq, for example, was a JR). Other bills which are not as controversial may start in one house without a similar bill in the other house, like motions for administrative actions. Some resolutions aren't actually bills or laws (like the "Under God"/"In God We Trust" votes that have been held in the House several times in the last decade). In the end, both houses have to pass a bill before it goes to the president for signature/veto. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
How seriously does Facebook take this?[edit]
Not only did Mark Zuckerberg post on Facebook about it, he tweeted it. Isn't that like Bill Gates using a Mac? MDB (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Bill gates was one of the first to write software for mac. you do what you gotta! GodotDear god, fucking grow up 19:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- I once read somewhere (I think it was c't) that the Windows Update servers are running on Linux, so, yeah… --★uːʤɱ structuralist 21:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
- Twitter does a different thing to Facebook. Although Zuckerberg wants more openness and sharing on Facebook, Twitter is still what people put "out there" in the public, Facebook is for real-world contacts organising and communicating online - they first marketed it as a "social network tool" rather than website, and I agree with that labeling. By a similar token, what Linux does and what Windows does are two different things. You want to run a user-friendly computer that works in a home environment with no expert knowledge you don't use Linux anymore than you would run a server on Windows Vista, they're simply designed for different things! theist 17:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I also read that Facebook was talking about moving their server farm to somewhere in northern Sweden where they can take advantage of the lower temperatures...so, being out of the country might have a different effect as far as the laws are concerned. I'm not sure about the legalities of it, though. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've heard the temperature thing before, not sure about how genuine it is. But the Facebook engineering blog has talked about how they cool their server racks and it's pretty serious stuff. Given that many of the big internet companies are all about making their servers more efficient, it wouldn't surprise me if that sort of move has been considered. Whether they will do that is still questionable, though. bomination 18:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've heard the temperature thing before, not sure about how genuine it is. But the Facebook engineering blog has talked about how they cool their server racks and it's pretty serious stuff. Given that many of the big internet companies are all about making their servers more efficient, it wouldn't surprise me if that sort of move has been considered. Whether they will do that is still questionable, though.
- I also read that Facebook was talking about moving their server farm to somewhere in northern Sweden where they can take advantage of the lower temperatures...so, being out of the country might have a different effect as far as the laws are concerned. I'm not sure about the legalities of it, though. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Twitter does a different thing to Facebook. Although Zuckerberg wants more openness and sharing on Facebook, Twitter is still what people put "out there" in the public, Facebook is for real-world contacts organising and communicating online - they first marketed it as a "social network tool" rather than website, and I agree with that labeling. By a similar token, what Linux does and what Windows does are two different things. You want to run a user-friendly computer that works in a home environment with no expert knowledge you don't use Linux anymore than you would run a server on Windows Vista, they're simply designed for different things!
- I once read somewhere (I think it was c't) that the Windows Update servers are running on Linux, so, yeah… --★uːʤɱ structuralist 21:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
People can't read[edit]
Because freaking out is much easier than reading one paragraph! --★uːʤɱ kant 21:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
OOPS![edit]
Oh dear! Scream!! (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Main Page[edit]
We've changed our favacom but we need a better explanation of why we oppose SOPA, I've added a link to the Main Page but it could do with improvement. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Maddox[edit]
Fuck it, this is the best SOPA black out post. Complete with a list of companies that are worth boycotting over their support. bomination 17:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Saw an ad for a headset that is very telling...[edit]
"special designed for MW3!" it says. I saw the fact the imagew of the person wearing it had him in a Yelling facial position to be more reflective on what that headset will give you...--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- What's an MW3? P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 03:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Modern Warfare 3, I think. A video game. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Oh. Is DOOM still popular? That was a fun game. Haven't played anything that's come out since. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 04:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Don't ask me. I still haven't moved beyond the 2003-era GameCube. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, there was Doom 3... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I liked games back in the 386 era and prior, when there was still a bit of ingenuity to them. These days they just slop a new set of texture-maps into a game engine. ListenerXTalkerX 04:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's one part good old days and another part games being expensive as all fuck to make now. You have to recoup some of those millions poured into making the project, so it needs some space marines, fan service, and a BFG! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Uh... Indie games? They're actually pretty fucking popular. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 04:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- In the old days, they really had to stretch the limits of the machine to get the games to work, and that meant very few "abstraction barriers" like game engines and more ingenuity. I had a shareware pinball game at one point that was written in assembly language because C was not fast enough. Also, you did not have to pay Hollywood stars to do voice-acting for your game, which definitely helped with the development costs. ListenerXTalkerX 04:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- In the old days, they really had to stretch the limits of the machine to get the games to work, and that meant very few "abstraction barriers" like game engines and more ingenuity. I had a shareware pinball game at one point that was written in assembly language because C was not fast enough. Also, you did not have to pay Hollywood stars to do voice-acting for your game, which definitely helped with the development costs.
- Uh... Indie games? They're actually pretty fucking popular. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 04:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's one part good old days and another part games being expensive as all fuck to make now. You have to recoup some of those millions poured into making the project, so it needs some space marines, fan service, and a BFG! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I liked games back in the 386 era and prior, when there was still a bit of ingenuity to them. These days they just slop a new set of texture-maps into a game engine.
- Well, there was Doom 3... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Don't ask me. I still haven't moved beyond the 2003-era GameCube.
- Oh. Is DOOM still popular? That was a fun game. Haven't played anything that's come out since. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 04:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Modern Warfare 3, I think. A video game.
@Fallacy: I've played some good ones like Braid, but they still tend toward needle in a haystack territory. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Clearly, you should all be playing Dwarf Fortress. PeterQuasniki 2012! 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I tried it once before, but I couldn't get into it. Maybe I'll try it again. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 05:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Stay as far away from Skyrim as humanly possible, even if you've never touched a game before in your life. I had a four day weekend for Martin Luther King Jr. Day and I don't remember much of it, but there's a slew of dragon corpses all over the countryside and I'm level 68 now, so it must have been AWESOME. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I need to get into skyrim more, I have only killed a few dragons. BF3 and various indie games have been taking up my gaming time. And with CS:GO and Diablo III on the horizon I don't know if I ever will :(. If any of you dinosaurs are feeling charitable and want to tap into your youth which you seem to resent so thoroughly that everything new you see today looks like shit, try something from the Humble Bundle. TheCheatI run on alcohol 15:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Stay as far away from Skyrim as humanly possible, even if you've never touched a game before in your life. I had a four day weekend for Martin Luther King Jr. Day and I don't remember much of it, but there's a slew of dragon corpses all over the countryside and I'm level 68 now, so it must have been AWESOME. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I tried it once before, but I couldn't get into it. Maybe I'll try it again. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 05:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
We got mentioned on the telly![edit]
Well, sort of. The FT puzzle 13,889 (from a couple weeks ago?): 25a "Mathematician's lie about a pair of adjacent numbers (9)". Those of you who know what I mean will know what I mean, and those of you who remember will remember.
Peace,
ħuman 04:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Okay. What? ListenerXTalkerX 04:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fuck knows. The answer is "Fibonacci" ("Fib on a c ci" being the double entendre; think roman numerals). But what that has got to do with RationalWiki and being on the television, I guess lies only in the heads of certain users. ONE / TALK 08:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Is this like an enigma wrapped in a puzzle wrapped in a turd or something? --Brendiggg (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- The section title is an allusion to a Monty Python sketch (the killer sheep, I think). Генгисmarauding 09:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I get it now. Wainscotting! Brilliant. --Brendiggg (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, so I get the Python reference, I get the crossword clue. What do they have to do with each other or anything remotely concerning RW? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- The original intention for block times was to use the Fibonacci series. First 1 (minute, second?), then 2, then 3, then 5, then 8 etc. steriletalk 19:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's because we used to have a rule of increasing block lengths based on the Fibonacci series. The system was never properly used and fizzled out after a few weeks. Rennie McGreet (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- The original intention for block times was to use the Fibonacci series. First 1 (minute, second?), then 2, then 3, then 5, then 8 etc. steriletalk 19:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK, so I get the Python reference, I get the crossword clue. What do they have to do with each other or anything remotely concerning RW? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I get it now. Wainscotting! Brilliant. --Brendiggg (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- The section title is an allusion to a Monty Python sketch (the killer sheep, I think).
- Is this like an enigma wrapped in a puzzle wrapped in a turd or something? --Brendiggg (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fuck knows. The answer is "Fibonacci" ("Fib on a c ci" being the double entendre; think roman numerals). But what that has got to do with RationalWiki and being on the television, I guess lies only in the heads of certain users. ONE / TALK 08:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
http://www.rationalwikiwiki.org/wiki/Fibonacci_sequence Rennie McGreet (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
SOPA[edit]
So the news trickling out of WA is that SOPA is losing support right and left - even from some of the sponsors of the bill(s). So many people called that servers went down, the phone system went down and basically it was a lovely mess. :-) add to what someone just added to WIGO about the Author having a SOPA violation, and it's a good day. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 05:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- WOOT!--Dumpling (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I will use this occasion to fill my internet meme quota. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure it was all good news out of DC yesterday -- the Supreme Court finally ruled on Golan, holding that Congress can re-copyright works which had already passed into the public domain. The context is that we signed an international treaty which requires retroactively changing the copyright status of certain works by foreign authors, with the result that several pieces by Prokofiev and Shostakovich among others will cease to be in the public domain (where they had been for years). It's not so clear to me that this is such a nefarious move, but it was strongly opposed by Lessig and other internet freedom types who think it sets a bad precedent. --Benod (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Golan is expected, but still really bad news. The argument against is that Copyright supposedly only exists to encourage the creation of new works. You clearly can't encourage the creation of old works, those were already created. But this law can't possibly encourage creation of new works because literally the only thing it does is copyright works which already existed, prohibiting new legal works which re-use material from them. To agree that it's legal the court needed to argue that Congress can just arbitrarily assert that something is intended to achieve a certain goal, even if there is compelling evidence that it does not. Like separate but equal this is bad law, so let's hope this decision goes the way of Plessy v Ferguson. Having two justices dissent is at least some sign that we could win this argument on a future occasion. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Copyright was designed to help authors reap the benefits of their creative work but Disney bought the rights to Winnie the Pooh and then lobbied to have the copyright term extended. That isn't benefiting either A.A.Milne or his heirs. Of course if you design a better mousetrap or find a cure for cancer you get a scant 20 years under patent law rather than life +70 years. Генгисmarauding 19:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Copyright was designed to help authors reap the benefits of their creative work but Disney bought the rights to Winnie the Pooh and then lobbied to have the copyright term extended. That isn't benefiting either A.A.Milne or his heirs. Of course if you design a better mousetrap or find a cure for cancer you get a scant 20 years under patent law rather than life +70 years.
- Golan is expected, but still really bad news. The argument against is that Copyright supposedly only exists to encourage the creation of new works. You clearly can't encourage the creation of old works, those were already created. But this law can't possibly encourage creation of new works because literally the only thing it does is copyright works which already existed, prohibiting new legal works which re-use material from them. To agree that it's legal the court needed to argue that Congress can just arbitrarily assert that something is intended to achieve a certain goal, even if there is compelling evidence that it does not. Like separate but equal this is bad law, so let's hope this decision goes the way of Plessy v Ferguson. Having two justices dissent is at least some sign that we could win this argument on a future occasion. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure it was all good news out of DC yesterday -- the Supreme Court finally ruled on Golan, holding that Congress can re-copyright works which had already passed into the public domain. The context is that we signed an international treaty which requires retroactively changing the copyright status of certain works by foreign authors, with the result that several pieces by Prokofiev and Shostakovich among others will cease to be in the public domain (where they had been for years). It's not so clear to me that this is such a nefarious move, but it was strongly opposed by Lessig and other internet freedom types who think it sets a bad precedent. --Benod (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I will use this occasion to fill my internet meme quota. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
apple wants to replace textbooks[edit]
To which I say: I prefer my textbooks to a thing that shoots light into my eyes and would leave me fucked if the power cut. Seriously though, call me old fashioned but i do prefer holding a good, worn down paper book to these electronic things. (only plus to me is not as heavy, but probably still as expensive: i payed $300 for textbooks this semester, and i have friends who payed twice/thrice that)--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- A good e-reader doesn't shoot light into your eyes. Amazon's Kindle, for example, is far easier on the eyes than a tv or a monitor, and a lot clearer than a regular book. It really is like electronic paper. I don't think they'd be very good for textbooks, though. If absolutely nothing else, when using a textbook for learnin' or writin' you tend to constantly flip back and forth between pages that may be on opposite ends of the book, you make notes in the margins and such. All of those things are significantly easier to do on a physical copy than a digital copy of any sort. X Stickman (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, you can't riffle through an electronic copy. And add to that, in eReaders it's the page turns that drain the power, not the act of them being "on". I wouldn't be in favour of traditional books just for silly reasons like sentiment or "I like the smell" as some people are, there are physical and actual advantages. That said, there are advantages to the electronic versions too, most students crib from Wikipedia just as much as books these days. postate 14:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would have killed for electric texts as an undergrad. I had to bus to college, shelp myself across several miles per day of classes that were never on the same side of campus, all with these annoying 300 page big texts of crap you didn't even want to know. (How sad, that I didn't love science back then, but those text books were one of hte reasons i hated bio 101, and chem 101). My lap top has 2 amazing reader programs that I can doodle on, make notes on, cross reference to etc. I do get the fact that it's hard on the eyes, though.--GodotDear god, fucking grow up 15:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Anything that would encourage students to actually read the book would be a plus. Doctor Dark (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I prefer the book as I can tab it with... tab things, write in the margins, use it as war gaming terrain, and beat people with it. And they look damn intimidateing on your desk. TyBother me 15:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I know they dont (at least shouldnt) be shooting light into your eyes, I just like ot describe electronics like that. Its just ive used pads and whatnot before for normal reading (a friend had once and i was curious) and it just felt weird to me. Like i said I just prefer doing things with real books. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Can e-books be resold? I often recommend that our students buy a used copy of the previous edition of a textbook to save money. The publishers come out with a new edition every couple of years to try and flush used books off the market, but there's seldom much substantive change from one edition to the next. Doctor Dark (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Depends on your system, but you legally aught to be able to. You bought it, at similar prices to print, so you own it, right? (and i know they claim this is not true, but I don't get their logic). We did that with biology texts (the buy old editiosn) cause generally there were very few changes except in the questions. And I will admit I have borrowed copies from the library long enough to photo copy the questions pages. bad bad me. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 15:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's my biggest grip with Kindle. I know that lending has been sorted for the US market but here in the third world (UK) Kindle books can't be loaned or resold or... anything. In my student days - back in the early seventies - selling textbooks was a matter of survival - that or going to mummy and daddy and admitting I couldn't cope. I'd rather have sold my body had I been able to find a taker. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Depends on your system, but you legally aught to be able to. You bought it, at similar prices to print, so you own it, right? (and i know they claim this is not true, but I don't get their logic). We did that with biology texts (the buy old editiosn) cause generally there were very few changes except in the questions. And I will admit I have borrowed copies from the library long enough to photo copy the questions pages. bad bad me.
- Can e-books be resold? I often recommend that our students buy a used copy of the previous edition of a textbook to save money. The publishers come out with a new edition every couple of years to try and flush used books off the market, but there's seldom much substantive change from one edition to the next. Doctor Dark (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I know they dont (at least shouldnt) be shooting light into your eyes, I just like ot describe electronics like that. Its just ive used pads and whatnot before for normal reading (a friend had once and i was curious) and it just felt weird to me. Like i said I just prefer doing things with real books. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I prefer the book as I can tab it with... tab things, write in the margins, use it as war gaming terrain, and beat people with it. And they look damn intimidateing on your desk. TyBother me 15:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Anything that would encourage students to actually read the book would be a plus. Doctor Dark (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I would have killed for electric texts as an undergrad. I had to bus to college, shelp myself across several miles per day of classes that were never on the same side of campus, all with these annoying 300 page big texts of crap you didn't even want to know. (How sad, that I didn't love science back then, but those text books were one of hte reasons i hated bio 101, and chem 101). My lap top has 2 amazing reader programs that I can doodle on, make notes on, cross reference to etc. I do get the fact that it's hard on the eyes, though.--
- Yeah, you can't riffle through an electronic copy. And add to that, in eReaders it's the page turns that drain the power, not the act of them being "on". I wouldn't be in favour of traditional books just for silly reasons like sentiment or "I like the smell" as some people are, there are physical and actual advantages. That said, there are advantages to the electronic versions too, most students crib from Wikipedia just as much as books these days.
- I just found myself looking over to my other desk. Two Korean dictionaries, one English dictionary, one Spanish, about half a dozen history books, several on grammar, one linguistics book and a whole serious on the theoretics of historical science. That's about a third of the material I use(d). Everything else is digitally archieved on my hard drive (several philosophy manuscripts from professors, homework, essays, etc.) and looking at all that, good god I'd like to have an iPadwith all that stuff on there. Oh yeah and those goddamn folders I have to carry around every fucking day. --★uːʤɱ sinner 15:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- probably the most up to date textbook ive gotten is my world Civ II book, which has information from JULY in it. first time a map didnt display Serbia and Montenegro as Yugoslavia. as for selling book,s i can spend $100 on a book at the store then the university gives me $10 back for it. @ above, i have so many history books lying around my house from the last 5 years--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I never thought of that aspect, but of course in "geo-politics" or hard sciences where things change daily, e-books would be so much more updated than a hard print that takes (How long?) to print, publish, sell, and ship. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 16:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Textbooks don't tend to teach facts so much as methodology and what we know exactly. They aren't meant for cutting edge info. Apart from the occasion edition update, Ernst's text on NMR, or Atkins' Physical Chemistry don't need to be kept up to date with the latest research. postate 16:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Textbooks don't tend to teach facts so much as methodology and what we know exactly. They aren't meant for cutting edge info. Apart from the occasion edition update, Ernst's text on NMR, or Atkins' Physical Chemistry don't need to be kept up to date with the latest research.
- I never thought of that aspect, but of course in "geo-politics" or hard sciences where things change daily, e-books would be so much more updated than a hard print that takes (How long?) to print, publish, sell, and ship.
- probably the most up to date textbook ive gotten is my world Civ II book, which has information from JULY in it. first time a map didnt display Serbia and Montenegro as Yugoslavia. as for selling book,s i can spend $100 on a book at the store then the university gives me $10 back for it. @ above, i have so many history books lying around my house from the last 5 years--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
So, since the original opponents of marijuana were people in the logging and print industries, if the demand for paper goes down, does this mean marijuana can be legal again? Anyway...I have a hard time wanting to buy something I can't physically control. If it's digital, it can be lost (no matter how many redundant backups you have), and it consumes energy and bandwidth (e.g., more energy) to utilize it. You can't mark up a digital book with notes, or earmark the corners. With a book, you can do all that, plus you can make photocopies, lend it to others, sell or trade it at a book store, if you drop it it doesn't break....blah blah blah. I still buy CDs, even for new music. Call me "old fashioned". Also, not a big fan of buying a device that isn't ubiquitous. That being said, if digital textbooks made going to college less expensive, it'd probably be a good thing. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see how it's going to make things less expensive. You still have the same high production costs and low sales volumes that give textbooks their pricetag, and you're adding to that the obligatory 30% Apple creams off the top of everything they do, ever. If anything, it'll inflate the price. I'd look to Amazon to make this kind of thing practical, Apple can go suck it. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the really significant costs involved in the production of the books (at least, for those sent to college stores) are the amount of heavy-weight, high-quality paper (600+ pages!), the regular reprint runs (particularly for those books that are re-released every year to take into account new information, like for books on media or current events), the shipping (those fuckers are heavy) and an overhead cost to make up for any copies that aren't eventually sold and have to be taken back and are either sold off at a loss (to discount outlets) or trashed/recycled altogether. Digitization removes almost all of these costs (save for the re-release updates, which is just labor on the parts of the authors and editors). Not to say that any retailer still won't be greedy about it, though—it's just not the same as the costs involved with, say, romance novels, which are printed cheaply on crap paper and sold in larger quantities. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- As someone who travels a lot I keep a lot of books on my iPad, including things like equipment manuals, and can extract bits I want for handy reference into OneNote or Evernote. There's no way I could carry all that stuff in hardcopy. I also read electronic versions of magazines on the road but still have the originals on my coffee-table/bookshelf because sometimes it's much nicer to hold and read them and the printed images are always so much better. It annoys me that if I want the electronic version of NatGeo I need an extra subscription so stick with the printed version. So in general it's a matter of horses for courses. I can imagine that classwork might be easy with an electronic version but homework and research could benefit from using several printed books. It's the same with my music I listen to CDs at home on a reasonably good stereo system but take the mp3s in the car or plane. Генгисmarauding 19:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Years ago, I always used to think "If only books had a ctrl-f function!" Now they do and it's awesome. I still prefer hard copies for research purposes though -- I have shitloads of sticky notes to mark pages and write notes on. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- As someone who travels a lot I keep a lot of books on my iPad, including things like equipment manuals, and can extract bits I want for handy reference into OneNote or Evernote. There's no way I could carry all that stuff in hardcopy. I also read electronic versions of magazines on the road but still have the originals on my coffee-table/bookshelf because sometimes it's much nicer to hold and read them and the printed images are always so much better. It annoys me that if I want the electronic version of NatGeo I need an extra subscription so stick with the printed version. So in general it's a matter of horses for courses. I can imagine that classwork might be easy with an electronic version but homework and research could benefit from using several printed books. It's the same with my music I listen to CDs at home on a reasonably good stereo system but take the mp3s in the car or plane.
- Well, the really significant costs involved in the production of the books (at least, for those sent to college stores) are the amount of heavy-weight, high-quality paper (600+ pages!), the regular reprint runs (particularly for those books that are re-released every year to take into account new information, like for books on media or current events), the shipping (those fuckers are heavy) and an overhead cost to make up for any copies that aren't eventually sold and have to be taken back and are either sold off at a loss (to discount outlets) or trashed/recycled altogether. Digitization removes almost all of these costs (save for the re-release updates, which is just labor on the parts of the authors and editors). Not to say that any retailer still won't be greedy about it, though—it's just not the same as the costs involved with, say, romance novels, which are printed cheaply on crap paper and sold in larger quantities. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
proposal: add facebook group/twitter icons and link to side bar[edit]
Thoughts? Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Can't see any harm. Perhaps use the square icons side by side, rather than any bars, though. bomination 17:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fairly easy to do, I dun it for my blog. Why the heck not? Also, you might consider some other things like stumbleupon or reddit (I believe some sites use a common "Share" button that then gives the reader numerous options for all the different social groups, check dailykos.com for an example). -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Like the "share this post" panel here? bomination 17:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why not? It seems like everybody is doing it now.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- +1 Генгисmarauding 19:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- will other sites one day have a WIGO button...? Rennie McGreet (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I was thinking of putting a "Tweet this" from the RSS feed entries, but it hurt my head and the >140 characters and urls complicates things. steriletalk 19:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you put a link to twitter, you are no longer Rational. shudders.... GodotDear god, fucking grow up 19:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you put a link to twitter, you are no longer Rational. shudders....
- I was thinking of putting a "Tweet this" from the RSS feed entries, but it hurt my head and the >140 characters and urls complicates things. steriletalk 19:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- will other sites one day have a WIGO button...? Rennie McGreet (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- +1
- Why not? It seems like everybody is doing it now.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Like the "share this post" panel here?
- Fairly easy to do, I dun it for my blog. Why the heck not? Also, you might consider some other things like stumbleupon or reddit (I believe some sites use a common "Share" button that then gives the reader numerous options for all the different social groups, check dailykos.com for an example). -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Eugenie Scott on crank magnetism[edit]
How creationism and climate denial joined forces. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I used to give some criticism to the NCSE for being too focused on evolution (when their name suggests all of "science" in general), but they've been branching into climate change a lot over the last year. And by fuck do we need it! moral 01:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Science is cool[edit]
WIN. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 01:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I just happen to have a bottle of birthday edition JD... which I have no intention of wasting by replicating this. d hominem 01:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, science, alcohol, blues, and pictures of nude women all in one video! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Water is heavier than alcohol and water? wow. i'm shocked. I'd have figured with the sugars and all....GodotDear god, fucking grow up 02:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- The way to test this, of course, is to dry and drown a drunkard. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- The way to test this, of course, is to dry and drown a drunkard.
- Water is heavier than alcohol and water? wow. i'm shocked. I'd have figured with the sugars and all....
- Wow, science, alcohol, blues, and pictures of nude women all in one video! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
An evolution revolution in yeast[edit]
University of Minnesota scientists were able to cause simple, single-celled brewer's yeast to evolve into muliformed, multi-celled, complex organisms in a first-of-its-kind experiment that offers great insight into early life on Earth. On a side-note: the article quotes Richard Lenski, too. The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 13:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Funny how, when we test this stuff, science ends up right. I mean, of course, science adapts it's views to fit with reality so that's kinda true by definition, but still. The cool thing about yeast is that it's not unknown to do some great evolutionary tricks. In beer brewing, top-fermenting yeast evolved into bottom-fermenting yeast because of the cold conditions, so lager did evolve from ale. Yet somehow lager drinkers are the "less evolved" people compared to ale fans! narchist 13:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- That is an awesome fact. I'm going to bring that up at every pub I go to. Do you have a link to more information on it? ONE / TALK 14:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- wp:Saccharomyces pastorianus has some complex genomic history and is a bit of a hybrid, and is relatively new compared to wp:Saccharomyces cerevisiae which is most likely it's ancestor. Then you compare their survival temperatures with the temperature that ale and lager are brewed at. It's a little complicated, so the above sentence is more like a "just so story", but generally that's what looks like has happened. bomination 15:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- wp:Saccharomyces pastorianus has some complex genomic history and is a bit of a hybrid, and is relatively new compared to wp:Saccharomyces cerevisiae which is most likely it's ancestor. Then you compare their survival temperatures with the temperature that ale and lager are brewed at. It's a little complicated, so the above sentence is more like a "just so story", but generally that's what looks like has happened.
- That is an awesome fact. I'm going to bring that up at every pub I go to. Do you have a link to more information on it? ONE / TALK 14:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Origins[edit]
I'm just curious as to why exactly multicellular life emerged. I know it emerged some 1.2-0.8 bya, and I know some examples of early multicellular organisms, like the billion-year-old Volvox, but why did multicellular life evolve in the real world? I'm asking here as I have an interest in evolution and want to make conversation. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- All the theory you can shake a stick at. Regardless, it must convey some kind of advantage. Symbiosis seems interesting, though how DNA sorts itself out from that is anyone's guess. d hominem 18:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- (EC) Polite tip - you don't need to explain that you want to make conversation, that's not how it works; you need to be nonchalant. IANAB but as far as I understand it something went wrong when a single cell was dividing. There are other explanations see ToW article. Also try reading Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale. Генгисmarauding 18:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- (EC) Polite tip - you don't need to explain that you want to make conversation, that's not how it works; you need to be nonchalant. IANAB but as far as I understand it something went wrong when a single cell was dividing. There are other explanations see ToW article. Also try reading Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale.
Jerry! Jerry! Jerry![edit]
Love him or hate him, Jerry Springer is fuckin' spot on! The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 15:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Love it. pathetic 16:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- -clapclapclap- Someone had to say it to their face. --Dumpling (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- The look on Gretchen's face as she bites her lip is classic. Генгисmarauding 18:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- And I love how they're best and only defense is "No, we're not biased! We're Fair and Balanced, because I'm a moderate!" The Symphony of Noise The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 17:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- The look on Gretchen's face as she bites her lip is classic.
- -clapclapclap- Someone had to say it to their face. --Dumpling (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Newt's Family Values[edit]
Newt Gingrich is such a believer in the family, he wanted to have more than one of them! MDB (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- And Perry's now out. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Marianne is such a prude (/snark). :D -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- On the off chance that Gingrich ever becomes president, I hope you yanks will refer to Callista as the "First Chevrolet" --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- So Marianne Gingrich doesn't want to be Secretary of State -- BFD. nobsEmpty Recycle Bin 18:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- On the off chance that Gingrich ever becomes president, I hope you yanks will refer to Callista as the "First Chevrolet" --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
goddamn mother fucking shin flints.[edit]
No matter how easy i take it, if i go running i get shin splints. Now, i gonna have to wait a couple of weeks to let them settle down. Is there something runners do that I am not? I'm not sure I can take things any easier, as I was already - certainly way within cardio vascular capabilities. Fucking running. I'd get a push bike if I didn't want to end up under a bus.AMassiveGay (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ice and Advil. Make sure your shoes have proper support and cushioning and avoid hard surface like asphalt and concrete. Sam Tally-ho! 23:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- I can't run across a street, so I'm not giving advice, but a google search seems to suggest it's mostly about particular ways you strech your calf muscles, and how you work them off days. http://www.google.co.in/search?btnG=Google+Search&q=shin+splints+avoiding. good luck. i hear they hurt like hell. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 23:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Doing little exercises like this should help strengthen your shins. There's also those squishy things like the one the lady's standing on in this picture where you can balance on one foot and it'll help strengthen your shin. Having strong abdominals probably helps too. Sam Tally-ho! 00:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I get them from time to time when running but also when hiking. I know the normal advice is to let them settle down, sometimes for weeks, but I just run or walk them off. But I do stretch properly before and after running which makes a big difference. Oh, and make sure you have proper running shoes. I used to always go for Nike Airs but my preference is now for New Balance. Fantastic bits of kit. And there always seem to be good deals on Amazon, SportDirect.com and SportsShoes.com. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've tried running them off before, hoping they would just go away. They didn't and the pain got worse. What burns me is the couple of weeks of rest thing - no sooner than i start to get results, i have sit and watch them dissipate. @Sam - Calf raises don't seem to do much me. The link WfG provided (ta) had something for toe raise, so I'll try all or most of the above and see where that gets me. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I get them from time to time when running but also when hiking. I know the normal advice is to let them settle down, sometimes for weeks, but I just run or walk them off. But I do stretch properly before and after running which makes a big difference. Oh, and make sure you have proper running shoes. I used to always go for Nike Airs but my preference is now for New Balance. Fantastic bits of kit. And there always seem to be good deals on Amazon, SportDirect.com and SportsShoes.com. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Doing little exercises like this should help strengthen your shins. There's also those squishy things like the one the lady's standing on in this picture where you can balance on one foot and it'll help strengthen your shin. Having strong abdominals probably helps too. Sam Tally-ho! 00:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I can't run across a street, so I'm not giving advice, but a google search seems to suggest it's mostly about particular ways you strech your calf muscles, and how you work them off days. http://www.google.co.in/search?btnG=Google+Search&q=shin+splints+avoiding. good luck. i hear they hurt like hell.
Beer and balls[edit]
FIFA has insisted that beer must be sold at the 2014 Wrold Cup. I wonder how this would pan out if a Muslim country won the rights to stage the event. Генгисmarauding
- You mean, like in Qatar in 2022? -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- In the meanwhile, no alcohol nor smoking in this year's European Championship. Editor at CPmały książe 10:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Can't hold back… have to… keep evil comment inside… I give up: The Wrold Cup is the one for dyslexic players, right? I'm sorry… ★uːʤɱ netlabelist 12:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- In the meanwhile, no alcohol nor smoking in this year's European Championship. Editor at CPmały książe 10:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Deletionism[edit]
Why do people always criticize me because I choose deletionism when I edit articles? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I feel like you are being trollish. Do what you want, but get over the results. If you want to suggest deleting every article, that's your right, you should do it. But you need to ask yourself why you care if people don't want to delete what you want to delete. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 01:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to be trollish. I'm also using defining deletionism as "having defined and rigorous standards for what can be an article", not "delete every article in sight". The latter is simply ridiculous. Sorry for any confusion. And I am frustrated for the same reason anybody is frustrated when people don't agree. I'm sorry, I really am. Why do these rules exist if they aren't to be followed? That confuses me. Could you please explain? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I really don't know what rules you are talking about. But my own personal suggestion, take it or not, is to lay off deciding what should stay or go, till you've seen how the various discussions have worked their way out. It's not hard to figure out what articles need to go, but you have to sorta "grok" (sp?) the way the tone of the wiki is. Like i said, the article you wanted to delete on the Arctic follows a pattern of articles that are long established articles here, which are nto really on mission, but are our identity. There are sexual articles that do the same. quality, mission, even "rules' are extremly vague around here. you have to just sorta feel it. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 02:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- To be quite honest, we've already mentioned to you several times to just to be patient and get a feel for the ways of the wiki. It's kinda getting old having to repeat it. Seriously, it will help you. Sam Tally-ho! 02:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Because in my period of being banned from wikipedia ive morphed from deletionism to inclusionism and therefor dislike deletionists who go around acting like they know what should and shouldnt exist. and because youve STILL yet to grasp how a wiki, let alone RW works--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- How did you do it? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Incivility related to kosovo talk pages; I plan to try another appeal again at some point this year; or atleast request they remove the sockpuppet tag from my account, still not sure how having an old account i dont know the password to ='s sockpuppetry--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- How did you do it? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Because in my period of being banned from wikipedia ive morphed from deletionism to inclusionism and therefor dislike deletionists who go around acting like they know what should and shouldnt exist. and because youve STILL yet to grasp how a wiki, let alone RW works--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- By "rules" in this case, I was referring to the mission and the purpose of RationalWiki, combined with the fact that RW is not a general encyclopedia and shouldn't have articles on everything from A to Z. It doesn't help having Asperger's syndrome, where it's hard to find and recognize hidden curricula. Believe me: I'm pretty smart. But in the real world, I've been told the social aspects will hold me back. Can you please tell me what this "culture" of RationalWiki is, besides inverting the meanings of "demote" and "promote" and goat jokes? I feel like I've just moved to a foreign country and I don't understand its culture. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- RW culture is one that grew largely in opposition to places like Conservapedia, and which sets itself deliberately as a contrast against that manner of authoritarian nonsense. Probably the most sacred tenets here include the principles that nothing is sacred (not even the actual rules, which can be confusing), no one is really in charge (even though there's a hierarchy of respect due to achievement and intelligence), and that a decent level of courtesy should be joined by a decent level of practical common sense.
- You have to understand that the mechanisms of RW and its attitude has evolved through a combination of tradition and democracy. By and large, if something is a certain way, it's likely that way because people mostly like it that way or voted to keep it that way. We have very few sacred cows, and precious little need for sweeping reformers. We're already a big crew of sacred-cow-slaughtering big reformers. So when you grouse about how your proposed changes are rejected or how things aren't the way you want, despite being a relative newcomer who by his own admission hasn't explored the backing or reasoning behind the status quo, it appears like an attitude of entitlement or rudeness to many. This may or may not be warranted, but it is the appearance. Thus, you often are advised to "watch and learn." This is probably the best advice for you.
- I'm not discouraging you from participating, and as WfG said, you can propose as many votes as you want. But it might be better to hang out in the Saloon and chat about things, do copyediting and paragraph sorting, and other low-key things, rather than grand arguments over deletion and wholesale rewrites. This is not just busy work because you're new. We don't work that way, and if you choose to ignore our advice, the only consequence is that you will irritate people. But by your own admission, you don't quite get what's going on yet. Maybe stop trying to rebuild the walls of the house before you've worked out how to turn the doorknobs.--talk 02:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- And as I said on your page, there are a huge amount of articles that have been started, that are just stubs. They need attention. Click "stubs" at the top of every "recent changes" page, and you'll find categories of things you probably know about. Jump in, add to those. That's how I started years ago. Just using wikipedia to expand whatever I could. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 02:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'll take that advice, but a question. How do I get noticed in a good way? Nobody notices or thanks the janitor who keeps the building sparkling clean. Also, how do I get off of deletionism? Typically, when I see a stub, I think "this obviously isn't important enough to warrant an article". How can I change that? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Expand it. TyBother me 02:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Being noticed - people get noticed cause they are funny, cause they are annoying, etc. I suspect, almost no one is "noticed" because of their editing, even if it's the work of a PhD in Physics or something. most of us "notice" eachother and eachother's edits cause we like who they are on talk pages or in the saloon. wE like things they post on their personal page, etc. It really is a community. not a bunch of editors working at an office getting pats on the back for the quality of their edits (for good or for bad). As for how to get off the idea that you should delete things? just say to yourself "this is a stupid article", stick it on a list you keep for yourself, and check back in a month or so and see if it's improved. and/or comment on the talk page about your concerns, but dont just jump to "delete". I personally ask myself "what about this article could be changed to make it on mission". GodotDear god, fucking grow up 02:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC) (ec)
- I'll take that advice, but a question. How do I get noticed in a good way? Nobody notices or thanks the janitor who keeps the building sparkling clean. Also, how do I get off of deletionism? Typically, when I see a stub, I think "this obviously isn't important enough to warrant an article". How can I change that? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- And as I said on your page, there are a huge amount of articles that have been started, that are just stubs. They need attention. Click "stubs" at the top of every "recent changes" page, and you'll find categories of things you probably know about. Jump in, add to those. That's how I started years ago. Just using wikipedia to expand whatever I could.
- To be quite honest, we've already mentioned to you several times to just to be patient and get a feel for the ways of the wiki. It's kinda getting old having to repeat it. Seriously, it will help you. Sam Tally-ho! 02:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I really don't know what rules you are talking about. But my own personal suggestion, take it or not, is to lay off deciding what should stay or go, till you've seen how the various discussions have worked their way out. It's not hard to figure out what articles need to go, but you have to sorta "grok" (sp?) the way the tone of the wiki is. Like i said, the article you wanted to delete on the Arctic follows a pattern of articles that are long established articles here, which are nto really on mission, but are our identity. There are sexual articles that do the same. quality, mission, even "rules' are extremly vague around here. you have to just sorta feel it.
- I'm not trying to be trollish. I'm also using defining deletionism as "having defined and rigorous standards for what can be an article", not "delete every article in sight". The latter is simply ridiculous. Sorry for any confusion. And I am frustrated for the same reason anybody is frustrated when people don't agree. I'm sorry, I really am. Why do these rules exist if they aren't to be followed? That confuses me. Could you please explain? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
@WaitingforGodot What am I supposed to talk about in the saloon bar? What am I supposed to post on my personal page? What do I do when I come back in a month and nothing happened, as often happens with obscure stubs? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- T@stubs, you accept that nobody wanted to work on it. or could work on it, ect. as for what to talk about, idk, LOOK at the saloon bar and you tell us what you see; i tend to post what catches my eye or if i want some peoples opinions/ideas on something (as the MW3 thing ans the Ark searcher topicsa were) as an example--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- I look at the saloon bar and see a big block of text for the most part, where ongoing discussions are discouraged by the problem of keeping track of the number of colons that go in a reply and the fact that a new post means your entire thing gets scrapped. I'd probably be much more active if it were a message board like php33. I used to go on one of those for years, until the site changed platforms and I got lost in the system, basically. Should I make a message board as a saloon bar? Also, how do I find articles that need attention? Could you please tell me what goes on my userpage? Thanks. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC) (PS: Also, where do I find the list of stubs? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC))
- ywp, i mess up teh colons a lot. it's ok, no one will care *too* much. the stubs link is at the top of "recent changes", adn they are sorted by catigory, so you can choose an area you are knowledgable about. right now, i'm slowly working through "alt med". very slowly....GodotDear god, fucking grow up 03:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- At the top of the Recent changes are lots of choices. "Articles that need attention", "Stubs", "Lonely pages"...etc. Have at it. And on your userpage...Well, it's YOUR userpage. --Dumpling (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- You can put anything you want on your userpage (unless it's really inappropriate or vicious or a copyright violation). Sam Tally-ho! 03:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- It helps if it's devastatingly clever, though. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Holy crap this is a Wiki? TheCheatI run on alcohol 17:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- It helps if it's devastatingly clever, though.
- You can put anything you want on your userpage (unless it's really inappropriate or vicious or a copyright violation). Sam Tally-ho! 03:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- At the top of the Recent changes are lots of choices. "Articles that need attention", "Stubs", "Lonely pages"...etc. Have at it. And on your userpage...Well, it's YOUR userpage. --Dumpling (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- ywp, i mess up teh colons a lot. it's ok, no one will care *too* much. the stubs link is at the top of "recent changes", adn they are sorted by catigory, so you can choose an area you are knowledgable about. right now, i'm slowly working through "alt med". very slowly....
- I look at the saloon bar and see a big block of text for the most part, where ongoing discussions are discouraged by the problem of keeping track of the number of colons that go in a reply and the fact that a new post means your entire thing gets scrapped. I'd probably be much more active if it were a message board like php33. I used to go on one of those for years, until the site changed platforms and I got lost in the system, basically. Should I make a message board as a saloon bar? Also, how do I find articles that need attention? Could you please tell me what goes on my userpage? Thanks. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC) (PS: Also, where do I find the list of stubs? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC))
- T@stubs, you accept that nobody wanted to work on it. or could work on it, ect. as for what to talk about, idk, LOOK at the saloon bar and you tell us what you see; i tend to post what catches my eye or if i want some peoples opinions/ideas on something (as the MW3 thing ans the Ark searcher topicsa were) as an example--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Why do liberals love criminals so much?[edit]
|
|---|
|
It seems like to a liberal, a criminal can do the worst things imaginable (such as serial rapes of children, sexual mutilation of the elderly and even smoking weed) and still, rather than sticking up for the victims, they are only concerned about the scum's "human rights". Why are liberals so concerned about making criminals feel good? I think it is because of the Satan-inspired Marxist, moral relativist, humanist, atheist communism that our liberal overlords have instituted in place of the traditional Judeo-Christian values that demand harsh punishment for criminal scum. I am sick of this anti-capitalist, anti-Jewish liberal nonsense. (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
|
Why, you may ask?[edit]
|
|
|---|
|
Because facts. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
|