RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive143

This is an archive page, last updated 1 April 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Technical question: How to run a .php script in the maintenance folder of a wiki installation with FTP access?

I am trying to take backup of a wiki website with dumpBackup.php. I cannot figure out how to run this from the file manager with FTP access. Can someone help me please? The account is with godaddy.

thanks--Buscombe (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Some hosts give you SSH access on request.
• Ask them to run it for you.
• Get a new host.

F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 19:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Is it safe to perform an upgrade of mediawiki without an XML dump? I have taken back up of the database. --Buscombe (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I'd say probably, since I'm pretty sure I've done one without doing that before. Check the wiki though first.

Also, for curiosity's sake, which plan are you on? F_lucked^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 21:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Latest Teabagger bullshit

There are no words. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 19:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I love the way A.C.L.U and "Anti-Christianity movement" don't actually lead to Democratic Party but they've still included them in the graph. Vulpius (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that that chart is completely correct, what have they actually proven? That a man who was, you have to admit whether you agree with his ideas or not, very influential has influenced some things which have influenced some things which have influenced some things commonly associated with the Democratic Party? I guess that means all democrats are communists now.

And is anybody else getting a 'Glenn Beck' vibe from that? F_lubber^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 22:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

So this is an attack on the Religious Right. The Religious Right is getting their ass kicked right now in the GOP primaries. nobs^Moderated 22:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

A Mormon candidate with dubious political beliefs does not mean the death of the Religious Right. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I hardly think anyone involved in producing that graphic has actually read Marcuse or Gramsci. and I'm really surprised they missed the very, very real Marcuse/Angela Davis link. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 22:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Reptoidsdidit Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Easiest question to ask these nutters: do the Democrats want to abolish capitalism? Osaka Sun (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sithsdidit. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Israel vs. Iran

So; although it's a Yahoo news article and about something thats been speculated on many times before... --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet that Israel and Iran are both crazy enough to the point that it'll happen. Not that I'm not completely horrified at the idea of nuclear powers (or wannabe nuclear powers) going to war that could spiral out into the next world war, but I do think both sides are crazy enough to make this prediction come true. The Punk Symphony of Noise ^{Your mental puke relief} 06:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I would hope the big boys would have enough common sense and survival instinct to not throw the flip on humanity because of these two countries. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I have an impression this is just saber-rattling from Netanyahu calculated to give political gains at home. His intelligence and special forces say that Iran's nuclear program is not an immediate threat, and it appears the only reason Iran embarked on it was to be persecuted by the rest of the world, which would bolster support for the theocracy. Kim Jong Il did something similar.

Considering the fact that Iran is not yet a nuclear power (they would have made a test), there is no chance of nuclear bombs being used. Israel will not use one unless it is under threat of complete annihilation. It would be a political suicide. --Tweenk (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What? US/Israel haven't signed any agreement to not use nukes. Didn't the US use nuclear bunker busters in Iraq? Did the commercial media not tell everyone this for some reason? What's the big deal? Nuclear fallout? That's no problem. The cancer victims from fallout from testing nukes in the US were happy to take your money in compensation. Citizenship has its perks. Liberal democracies can have and use nukes because they are legitimate. "Liberal democracy" doesn't mean a tyranny of the majority, it means US taxpayers subsidise war to enforce property rights/profits of corporations abroad. ~ Lumenos (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No, the US didn't use nuclear bunker busters in Iraq. Neither the US nor anybody else has ever used nuclear bunker busters anywhere. The only two nuclear weapons ever used remain the Hiroshima and Nagasaki ones. --Fergus Mason (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

When did ISrael say it was going to use it's Totally non-existent nuclear stockpile? normal airstrikes get the same job done as nuclear airstrikes. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, the US used nuclear weapons in Iraq? How the hell are you privy to that information, besides, you know, just making shit up? P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 01:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. wp:Depleted_uranium#History. nobs^Moderated 02:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Idiot. Kara Duhe depleted uranium is not a "nuclear weapon" Kara Duhe in the commonly-used sense of "things that cause nuclear explosions" Kara Duhe, which is how the poster above meant it Kara Duhe idiot. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 02:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Given how disliked this war was, do you not think that SOMEONE SOMEWHERE would have said "look, radiation".... Let me guess, you think we didn't land on the moon, either. GodotGrow a vagina 02:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Tell it to these guys. nobs^Moderated 04:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, Idiot--DU =/= "nuclear weapons." Kara's Yellow Dress. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 04:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

wp:Depleted_uranium#Nuclear_weapons; I know I know, "it's a tamper, Rob." Then you'll have to say, "ammunition is not a weapon, either." nobs^Moderated 05:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Idiot. Kara Duhe. The conversation was about nuclear bombs. Bunker-busters, to be specific. Kara Duhe. Idiot. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 05:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't you read Lumenos cite? the weapon was never fully developed or operational, meaning it probably never was field tested and certainly was not combat tested in Iraq. But armor piercing depleted uranium shells have been used in Iraq (1991), Serbia, Kosovo, and Iraq (2003) again. NATO website gives photos of contaminated sites. In Iraq, it lies on the sandy surface and becomes airborne in dust storms and spread over a much wider area. But I know, nuclear material does not go into a nuclear weapon. You made that clear. nobs^Moderated 06:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

DU isn't nuclear material. you fucking dolt. --Fergus Mason (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am confused, are people talking about nuclear-bunker busters or nuclear bunker-busters? Генгис^marauding 18:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am talking about the latter. I have no idea what Idiot is talking about. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 18:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am corrected. Thanks guys. In these warheads DU is used like metal, not an explosive, and there doesn't seem to be the same consensus that it is so poisonous as nuclear fallout but many sources (besides NATO?)[1] say it is carcinogenic[2] and toxic in many ways. ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sleep help

I have not been able to sleep more that a couple of hours a night without chemical help (ambien or NyQuil) for close to two weeks now. Any hints from the mob on getting forty winks? P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 01:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If I knew, I'd do it. How much coffee do you drink a day? Ty^Annoy 01:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Couple or 3/4, never after 5PM.

When I cut down from 8 to about 4 I got a little bit more sleep, still only ~4 hours though. Any other caffeine? Ty^Annoy 01:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

So here's a list of things my doc suggested. GodotGrow a vagina 02:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

1. 30 min to 1 hour before bed, turn off all eletronics. they stimulate your eyes, which has an adverse effect on your brain. TV, computers, and the vid screens of mobiles.
2. 30 minutes before bed take a hot bath. While the heat is relaxing, it's actually the fact that your body will cool down after the bath that brings on sleep.
3. Do not smoke, drink, or use caffine within 8 hours of bed, till you can rule those out. Then, don't do those three within 2 hours of sleep.
4. Try a fan in your room to 'white out' sounds from the environment that might wake you
5. If you get really desperate, do not sleep for 24 hours, then go to bed at your bed time. if you cannot sleep, get up and try again in two hours. DO NOT GO BACK after "7" hours. so if your bed time is midnight, don't go back after 7 am. that can help some people "reset" their natural clocks.

As I need a coffee/tea pick-me-up around 1:00 every day, that could be a problem Ty^Annoy 02:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I drink caffine all day. Gave it up, though, when stress was keeping me from sleep. WEll... i didn't give it up, but i kept it to mornings. Almost as hard as not sleeping. GodotGrow a vagina 02:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I usually turn everything off between 10:30-11:00, pass out around 1 and am woken every morning at 5:00. Ty^Annoy 02:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

warm milk can help. Avoid colas that contain caffeine. fix any medical problems that affect your breathing. nyquill ? you want peaceful, non-stress things around you. If you have a gf or wife hot sex can also work. Hamster (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I fall asleep with earphones in every night. Always listen to the same thing - old spoken-word comedy, ie. a few Goon Show episodes and the like. My theory is that it's minimally adequate stimulation to clear the gunk out of my brain but because it's so very familiar (I've been listening to the same thing for years) my mind isn't sufficiently engaged to stay awake. A side benefit is that by using the same material I can sleep during flights since whenever I play this on my mp3 player my brain gets the cue "time to go to sleep." The key, again, is to pick something very familiar so that your brain doesn't have to actively decode. Basically a variation on the white noise idea above. Doctor Dark (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Try a different chemical? I've always been a bit of an insomniac, but a little bit of melatonin knocks me right out. And it's All Natural(TM), so it must be good! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

My wife usually puts the alarm-clock radio on when the lights go out (Radio 4, so it's predominantly speech), being a bit deaf in my left ear it's normally too low for me to actually discern anything so it is probably equivalent to WfG's electric fan tip, but without the danger of death. Basically I think the idea is eliminate sudden stimuli so perfect quiet might be preferential. You can also get radios which play a choice of soothing sounds or even an app for your iGadget. The other thing is, what is going on in your brain? Are you worried, excited or obsessed about something? I find you need to stop thinking about anything in particular and let your mind wander. Генгис^marauding 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

When I can't sleep the usual problem is lack of exercise. A few kilometers at a good pace usually guarantees me a subsequent good night's sleep.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to give a word of caution on using melatonin. While some people tolerate it well, it has a long list of potential side effects, including worsening of depression (see e.g., this writeup from the University of Maryland Medical Center). I can't clinically prove the causality, but my first absolute-nightmare-from-hell major depressive episode came after I took melatonin to try and adjust from an overseas trip. Doctor Dark (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

SLEEP IS FOR THE WEAK!...Actually, no. I'd love to get a decent amount of sleep without waking up every 2 hours. Although, medication helps. I don't really like the medicine though, because it knocks me out, when I need to be awake in the morn for work, soooo, this isn't working out. Although, I do sleep with an gel ice pack under the layer of my pillow. Cold things help. Or...at least for me.--Dumpling (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Caffeine was a problem for me, and I had to cut back. Getting a new mattress (by no means a "cheap" solution) did wonders as well. sterile^talk 17:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

One more vote for exercise. If you have wilderness hiking seems to be motivated by instinct. Half a melatonin and a 5HTP is enough to knock me out but I haven't needed this since I have been exercising regularly. The earlier you take it the stronger it gets. Darkness makes your brain make melatonin. ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And eat dinner at 6 pm and nothing after. ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

One way to minimize spam.

Can we stop letting people create articles before they've made say, three edits? Then they can only spam user pages, which might slow thinhs down a wee bit--and then with deleting and protecting, no repeats of a given title. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 17:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I like this idea. GodotGrow a vagina 17:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

but... but... FREE SPEECH!!!! Fascists! I hate you! runs to room. slams door. --PsyGremlinTal! 18:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hell, even changing that setting to not letting just the first edit be a new article would work. After all, that would be more than sufficient to take care of numerous wandals and spammers alike right off the bat. No need to make it the first 3 edits when blocking just the first one would usually be enough to disrupt the spammers and break the program. The Punk Symphony of Noise ^{Your mental puke relief} 18:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Most spam appears to be on User or UserTalk pages so I can't see this making a lot of difference. As most spam plants an external link perhaps we should prevent unapproved editors from adding external links? Генгис^marauding 18:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not both?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, writing on a user page for the first time is still creating a page, right? I really think a no creating a page on your first edit/no external link on your first edit is not unreasonable, given how much spam we get. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 18:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? You think that someone shouldn't be able to say something about themselves, until they've made several edits? Now I realise why they call you Foster the Cruel. Генгис^marauding 18:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

One edit, then. One fucking edit. I really don't care what they have to say about themselves until they've, like, fixed a typo or otherwise proved their usefulness. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 18:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Fascist! Really, the Spaniards in Cordoba back in 1391 were way more enlightened. Генгис^marauding 19:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The Spaniards in Cordoba had spam back in 1391? --2.36.97.63 (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the capture bot thingy supposed to take care of this? GodotGrow a vagina 20:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it is the case for RW, but generally speaking the weakness of captchas is that bad guys can replay the captcha to another human, and leverage their answer. So somewhere a human who wants to see naked pictures of Natalie Portman answers the captcha, their answer is used to post spam to the wiki, and then they get a bad fake JPEG for their effort. It turns out that primates as a group are pretty happy to solve problems in exchange for pornography, and digital pornography has essentially no marginal cost, so the bad guys can effectively buy answers from real humans very cheaply. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Capturebot is not the same thing as CAPTCHA. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Where are these pictures of which you speak? P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 22:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The best solution fo all, of couse, with repetitive spam is to have someone who can edit the AbuseFilter that has better than n00b level of computer programming skills so they don't fuck up the filter (like I did at the beginning of this spam flood with my programming-for-beginners skills). The Punk Symphony of Noise ^{Your mental puke relief} 15:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Or at least if they could see it and kibitz mercilessly until it's fixed. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 04:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I can say with some confidence that I have better than n00b level of computer programming skills (at least my employers think so) but fucking things up is not restricted to n00bs. One of the most important observations about programming is that debugging is much harder than programming, and thus, if you are the only person skilled enough to write a program, nobody will be skilled enough to debug it. Hence I agree with the suggestion about making it possible for some larger but trusted (thus not including spammers) group to have visibility. If some day I make an actual user I might qualify (I presume it's literally impossible to grant privileges to individual BoNs?) 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

BBC archive

It had slipped my mind but doing some research on David Attenborough I revisited the BBC Archive which has some classic programmes pre-iPlayer. Including Richard Feynman's Fun to imagine, Chronicle on Sutton Hoo and Macchu Pichu, and some old Doctor Who related stuff. I think that these are freely available for non-UK visitors. Генгис^marauding 18:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

When i was a Masters student I got a grant to do some research at a BBC World Service archive in Canada; every year for more than 25 years, this professor recorded ~4-6 hours of the World Service on shortwave and saved the reels; when he died, they digitized the collection and made it available to researchers (on CD, not online). That was some fun. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 18:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"Not available in your area". course not!!!! I'm fucking moving to UK full time, damn it. sides, food is only 2 hours away by bullet train. GodotGrow a vagina 19:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Food is also available within the UK. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been told that, but yet to have it confirmed, other than bar "fish and chips" which were, admittedly "to die for".--GodotGrow a vagina 19:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

We have The Fat Duck, therefore we win. ^gnostic 19:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I have never understood this trend. I want food. with real texture. not gells, freezes, and other "modernist cooking" ideas. damn you, Ferran Adria. --GodotGrow a vagina 19:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

If the taste of Hershey's chocolate and Twinkies is anything to go by, no one from North America has any right to even speak on this subject. ^sshole 01:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I stayed at a college dorm in London for two weeks and I was turned off by the idea of fried eggs, fried bacon and fried everything for breakfast, along with sausages dripping with fat. I could take scrambled eggs w/some mushrooms, but this was too hardcore for me. And the apples I was getting with the lunch pack were probably a different species than the ones I know, because they were about 3x smaller. Sandwiches were good though, and there was a lot of funny fruit on the Chinatown market. --Tweenk (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec lots!) Wow, old Doctor stuff cool. Of course, whichever yahoo at the Beeb who decided it was good idea to destroy most of - if not all - of the tapes of the first two Doctors needs to be hanged, drawn (or badly sketched) and quartered. And when the hell are the Doctors after Baker coming to DVD? Haven't seen any of those.

Seems the audio is, not the video. Just been listening to a doccie on Lord hawHaw --PsyGremlin말하십시오 19:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

My wife and I just started Doctor Who last night; the one with the Christopher Eccleston guy. Seems okay.--^talk 21:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

*Shudders*. In that case you should love Tennant in the role, and absolutely go apeshit in delight over Smith.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 12:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The last good thing Eccleston made was Shallow Grave. I didn't like Smith at first but he's grown on me. They're both still no baker though. or Pertwee for that matter. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 12:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, my wife pronounced this first season to be pretty boring. It's not great, just okay. I heard no end of things about Tennant (who I love from his Shakespeare roles) but didn't want to just skip that season (it seemed safe to skip the ten thousand previous seasons, though).--^talk 23:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Shallow Grave was brilliant. I was so pleased when sharing a house with other people my age (I went to university a year later) turned out to actually be that interesting. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So... you had a roomie that died, and you cut him up and buried him, in order to get your hands on his grant money? --PsyGremlinTala! 13:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah, our arrangements were more incestuous but less grisly. Driving out into the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night? Check. Burying stuff? Check. Sudden spending spree followed by tremendous guilt? Definitely check. However I never had a landlord who let tenants into the loft space. On that point, as far as I'm concerned Shallow Grave deviates significantly from reality. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What is 'you'?

(Yes yes, I know, two bar topics in a row. Don't worry, i'm not going to become User:HeidelbergKid.)

This is a really deep thought experiment that, frankly, disturbs me quite a bit. It made me realize, or at least, come to the conclusion that we aren't just the thoughts in our head -- we are the head, we are the neurons, we are the cells; if you move your mind into a different brain, in one sense, 'you' might be in that new brain, but in a practical sense, you and your consciousness will still be the same old brain. This is kind of confusing, and opens a whole lot of sci-fi-ish questions (which I might feature in my novel-attempt), so I wanted to see what your guys' thoughts about it are. F_lubber^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 03:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ace McFucking Wicked. That's what I am. Next fucking question. This whole existential nonsense is existential nonsense. Go get drunk and stick your dick in a woman. Ace^Moderator 03:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

But... but... philosophy! And besides, when the singularity comes in the next five years, we'll want to have sorted this out already. F_lucked^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 03:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

...we aren't just the thoughts in our head -- we are the head... That is news only to Maratrean, I should think. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's something that everyone may technically know, but I don't think many people actually fully realize it. I mean, take a public survey and I'll bet you the majority of people think you can move a person into another body. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 03:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The Swamp Man cometh. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"While the Swampman would look and behave exactly like the original, Davidson claims that it still remains fundamentally different. For instance, even though Swampman would recognize and be able to interact with all of Davidson's friends and family, he still has never actually met them before." Presume that in the gap between duplication and one being destroyed we randomised them so we couldn't tell if it was the original or Swampman who is destroyed - for the sake of this, it is Swampman who survives, but we can't be sure - then how do we prove which is which? To me it seems like a silly argument over the semantics of "met". If this exact cluster of atoms forming my body must be what meets people, then there are a lot of people I've never met even though I have memories of them because the body replaces all those atoms eventually, cycling through as dead cells are removed and replaced with new ones so that in 20 years time or so 99% of your physical material has been replaced. So in fact this sort of thing isn't limited to thought experiments, it is actually happening all the time, just without any magic. ^gnostic 06:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy makes my brain hurt...

Ace McJesus's previous advice is starting to seem more and more rational. F_arter^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 04:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That set up doesn't even follow. If I am going to be tortured, the physical body i'm in, memeories or not, I WILL EXPEREINCE THE PAIN. even if "I" am someone else. there is no comfort to me thinking that my memories will be different cause pain still fucking hurts, whether or not i think i am tanya or Victor. I don't want to be tortured cause pain fucking hurts. Then you ask me, "well, do you want the body "you" are in WHICH HAS BEEN SWITCHEd. so my perception, the thing doing the thinking and feeling, is getting rewarded. it would have been the same had they said "we will take your head out, adn give you someone else's memories ***and put you somewhere else***, they didn't say that. they just said i had different memories. "I" remain constant in case one, and in case two "i" shift from one body to the other.GodotGrow a vagina 04:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking of something similar recently. Correct me if anyone feels differently, but we seem to instinctively think of our "self" as some kind of point mass inside our brain. Like dualism in practice but we might not recognise it as such. We talk of, for example, "my visual cortex telling me..." as if there was something else that this part of the brain was telling. The set up is probably far more complicated, but the visual cortex isn't telling anything what you're seeing, it is what you're seeing. But more accurately, our experience is somewhat distributed across the full meaty mass rather than existing as an infinitesimal point placed somewhere inside that mass that's being told information "by the brain". ^narchist 06:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Wether its right or wrong I've always blamed that on the fact most cultures developed an idea along the line of spirits or souls/blah, and therefor atleast a dualistic worldview, and that just sorta permeated into how we think of ourselves even if we dont believe in a soul anymore. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere (it might have been Dawkins, Blackmore, or maybe even McKenna) but one of the greatest tricks our mind plays on us is that it blends a whole bunch of processes seamlessly to create the impression that there is an "I" looking out through my eyes, rather than a bunch of processes reacting to input from the eyes. --PsyGremlinParlez! 06:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a homunculus in my brain, get it out! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Can't believe I forgot -- I know what you is! You is a Strange Loop! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe (as do various other people) that we are software. The brain is a computational substrate suitable for running this software. It might be possible to run the same software on a different substrate (or it might not) and it might be possible to duplicate the substrate and then run the same or different software on it. Early Greg Egan short stories spend a lot of time on the possible implications if this guess is right. For example, what happens if you run the software very, very slowly? If you have a backup of the software, not running, is that a person who can be in some sense "murdered"? Or is it OK to delete it when you need room for more Dilbert comics? If by accident the same software happens to run somewhere else, is that in some sense you as well? (In practice this last isn't very important, even if the universe is ridiculously enormous and lasts a very long time there isn't enough matter to make it likely to happen). The "Strange Loop" mentioned above is one argument for why running some particular software could give rise to the experience of "consciousness" for the software. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe in individuals. Wait.. what? Let "me" explain: Several years ago (I guess about seven or eight) I began thinking of what makes a sentient being see other beings as sentient and as one "structure" to be recongized as such (i.e. "what makes me think you are you and you deserve to be seen as a you instead of a thing"). To each other we are all systems of behaviour evidenced by input and output, by our way to utilitize our bodies to do things, our mouth or hands to form sounds or other instances to which we link meaning to physical occurences. We also do this with our pets, we give them character on what they do. We also categorize certain behavioural patterns to whole species. But we also do this to ourselves, we construct what we are in our very own language, we define ourselves by what others tell us what we are and what we want to be. But we aren't "whole", we aren't “an indivisible thing”. We can life without an arm, a leg. a hand, a finger or an ear but we can't live without a heart or a brain.

So here's the hammer: We are collectives. I am a collective of trillions of singular cellualar entities so inter-dependent on each other that they are not able to survive without each other cut from the central parts of the us that are colonies. The conscious self is a culture, something that sees itself as one but isn't. Within us the real individuals are born and die, generations of them; and their numbers change but they stay unsentient because only a greater network of specialized individuals are able to produce sentient beings.

We are — and each and everyone of us is — a nation, a world, a little universe in and of itself more or less cut off from the outside world. What does that have to do with the realization of "us" being body and self? Because as much as I don't believe in indivuals, I do think that there is a self and that that part is there because it wills itself into existence,and that all that being such a culture only stems from being a survival machine, that our selfs are a biproduct of evolutution and nothing but a tool. The same way we use what we normally call societies and cultures as tools for survival, made necessary by the harshness of the environment. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 16:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"We are software." Hmmmm... I really don't think that analogy works very well here. Hell, it doesn't even work well with computers. You are describing the "self" as like code running on the processing hardware meat - the neurones and synapses. Yet, we can see from many experiments that the structure of the brain changes with learning, memories, ageing and so on. Software changes the hardware and vice-versa. What most specialists accept is that we simply don't know what "self" or consciousness is and that we don't have anything like enough data to go making belief statements like "we are software". While there are lots of ideas as to its nature and that different scientists have their own favourites, there simply isn't enough evidence to draw any conclusions yet.

And your last point about there being more than one "you" as you define it.... if the universe is infinite then there are infinite numbers of physical yous. What that does that do to your "self" is anyone's guess. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As popeye once said 'I yam what I yam' AMassiveGay (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

@Ajkgordon: Nailed it. I think the "brain as computer" metaphor is starting to wear out its welcome as it seems to lead more to pseudo-analogous nonsense like "brain software/hardware" than anything useful these days. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

A more interesting claim would be that a computer is like a brain. Oh, sci-fi, you wondrous genre. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 22:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

How is that different from "the brain is like a computer"? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 23:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

How would it be more interesting? If anything, you'd be explaining something simpler in terms of something more complex. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The computer analogy only works if you abandon most ideas about how to create an efficient computer. For instance we're certainly not a single processor ticking over at 1-2 GHz, we're closer to a billion parallel processors ticking over at 10-15 Hz. Even then, that has its limitations, but if you're going to obsess over a computer analogy, at least make it vaguely applicable. It at least lets you figure out why a brain is good at some things and a quad core i7 is better at others. ^postate 01:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thinking of our "selves" as our brain

Theory of Mind goes at length into how we identify ourself. The fact is, in any study, we are our brains, because we "are" our experience, and little else. If you cut of your hand, you would still be you. If you cut off your arms, your legs - still you. if you cut out your eyes, your ears, your tonuge, still you. But if you changed your memories, you are no longer you. A person who has been in an accident and experienced major amnesia, enters the world as a new "self", including personality differences. Things that his or her memory influenced. those memories gone, he or she makes different decisions. GodotGrow a vagina 23:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yet you make new memories all the time. You're in a different state now than you were five minutes ago - a similar one, yes, but different - and the difference is more pronounced as time passes. So you don't need big dramatic ideas to show that a person develops a "new self". I'm not the "me" that I was when I was 16, thank fuck. ^moral 01:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

See "protean self." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And yet you are the exact same you. "you" would not be the ADK we know and love if you hadn't been that particular 16 year old. We build on the experience we have had; we grow, we age, but we do not radically change, out of the blue, without consistency. something can push us to change, but that is consistent with who we are. You do not wake up tomorrow a theist. You do not go to be happily married and wake up unhappily married. It's one way we know we are dreaming - the inconsistency in our self or our actions.GodotGrow a vagina 01:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that change is gradual and slow, and often dependent on where we are now, doesn't alter the fact there is some change. I just don't think it's particularly special to suggest some of these thought experiments being discussed here because they do happen to a degree already. We're just collections of atoms, those atoms exchange in and out of us. We're a pattern made out of those atoms and while most of the pattern is preserved from one moment to the next, it changes. I am not the exact same me by a long shot, I only posses a memory of that me that's causally joined to the current one. ^sshole 01:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Armondikov, we exist in 4 dimensional space-time. That 16 year old embarrassment is indeed you. Life is like a cucumber. Wherever you slice it, the cross section will be different from other slices. But it's still just one cucumber.--Brendiggg (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think my life is more like a courgette. Or maybe an eggplant. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's really not a point so much as arguing over a definition of "me" is... on the one hand you have "me" the connected pattern perpetually associated with myself, on the other hand you have the "me" of any instant in time. I acknowledge both situations. The simple fact is that the pattern forming "me" at this second is different to the pattern forming "me" 10 years ago even though they are causally connected. ^postate 18:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy is dead

I agree with Ace McWicked on this even though I have an urge to not like him much. Philosophy gave us reason and I am grateful but all this 'self' stuff seems more like woo to me. 1 hour and 3 minutes. 1 hour 12 minute of the save video cracks me up. 64.28.248.125 (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The fricken Micromachines Guy

Second Best Advertiser Ever.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow you're young. Ty^Annoy 04:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm just shy of 19, what do you want from me. And even if I was older he's still awesome. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh cool, I had assumed you were older than me. Sam ^Tally-ho! 04:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Oddly I grew up in the late 80s and early 90s but do not recollect this what-so-ever. I bet that guy moonlights as an auctioneer. I am right at the age where I start feeling old :( FML TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 18:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Atheists planning to look as ridiculous as WND

Flying a banner over a domed roof stadium before anyone has shown up. - π 09:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

American Atheists never ceases to do stupid shit. ^sshole 14:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

First, I'm not sure if you're joking. Second, I'm sure (tens of) thousands of people were there tailgaiting. Third, I imagine cost increases exponentially as game time approaches, so the timing was likely driven by cost. Conclusion: Not sure if trolling or just stupid. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is cool atheist groups are doing that stuff because I sure as hell do not. And the flown banner over the domed stadium is not that dumb for reasons Occasional pointed out. Give them a break :P 64.28.248.125 (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Brothels and sororities

I thought this was just a piece of local folklore, but it turns out that it's everywhere. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

We had that one at the University of Tennessee when I was there, 1984-1989.

I suppose if you combine it with rumors about the "level of friendliness" of some of the sororities, it might make sense.

(Not that I had a chance to evaluate that second part, mind you. I was a dateless engineering major.) MDB (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've heard this several times. And as the article says, people really do take it seriously. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Though more general than just women and brothels, the UK still sees some people talking as if the Riot Act was still in force although it was repealed in the 60s/70s, and with the simplification that the police can break up any gathering for whatever reason. The number of people also changes with the telling, although the actual act specifies 12, the record lowest I've personally heard is 3. ^moral 13:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Riot remains a crime, and specifically still requires 12 people. Wasn't somebody in court for riot just recently? Yes the phrase "read the riot act" no longer has anything to do with the law, but then the phrase "free rein" no longer has anything to do with everyday experience either. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

As in, people make the assumption that you're not allowed to gather in large groups ever and cite the Riot Act as their sauce of choice. Of course actual riots with damage are criminal, but it's not actually illegal to gather in large groups if you're not being criminal. ^pathetic 15:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Whores

Anyway, ignorance on the law concerning whores is widespread indeed. I wasted half an hour in the pub not managing to persuade a lawyer (admittedly not criminal law) friend that prostitution is legal in the UK and that the offence of "soliciting" doesn't include stuff like mentioning to someone who asks that you'd be happy to sleep with them for £100 (or indeed "Twenty quid, and a bunch of grapes. Seedless. White" as in the "Em" cartoon). As far as she was concerned prostitution was illegal, and no amount of access to the online references would persuade her otherwise. (Brothels, in the sense of a place where you get to pick between several whores and the house takes a cut, are however illegal in the UK despite occasional plans to experiment with legalising them.) 82.69.171.94 (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought the considerable openness of certain escort agencies were proof of that. ^bomination 15:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Fuck Math

Just a rant; but Fuck math. It's annoying; I dont plan to use 90% of what it ever taught me again and in general it serves to do nothing but waste time. Proofs? Wont need em in my field. Advanced algebra concepts? Wont need those either. That "it makes you do things logically or whatever, problem solving skills!" argument is beaten by the fact i can learn problem solving skills in much more relevant methods. Whats worse IS im GOOD at math >.>.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Mathematics forms the basis of most decent reasoning skills. Notably decision and probability theories. ^moral 02:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that replacing calculus with statistics in high school would be a good move. Stats is relevant to far more fields and actually applicable in every-day life and "civic responsibility" or some such buzzphrase, considering how much statistical bullshitting is central to politics. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, calc is not completely esoteric for high schoolers. There should be AP Calc and Stats options, which is what I had (I took both). Blue (is useful) 04:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait, are we talking high school math? Because that stuff is so elementary, I don't see how you can say you're not going to use 90% of it, unless you've got some very specific and limited plans for the rest of your life. Sure, you will probably not have much use for indefinite integrals, but the other stuff all has some applicability. I do however agree that most programmes could spend more time on statistics and discrete maths, and less on calculus overall, particularly because calculus often gets taught simultaneously as physics, as mechanics, and as a pure math problem solving technique. Having to teach the vast majority of each new intake of CS undergrads basic discrete math ideas got tiring and it'd be nice if my successors never have to do that any more. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Obligatory - although the second half is more relevant as the top half is about people who claim to suck at maths. ^moral 11:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That is the most dipshit thing I have ever read. --★uːʤɱ socialist 11:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"People gladly learn art, music, literature and geography." Pfffft. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In most US schools, calculus and statistics are completely separate classes. Blue (pester) 10:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

When will you ever need to know the date of the Magna Carta, or what the rainfall is in Patagonia or what Shakespeare meant in King Lear? You won't but it makes you a rounded person. Suck it up! Scream!! (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Though I'm sure only a small portion of people will get this: "Prince Haram's Tiller" ^bomination 13:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

…and for all those that don't. We have a different system over here. I, for example, am through the Numerus Clausus (a system of sorting out possible students by their Abitur grades) am not allowed to study, for example Lit, English or Philosophy as a major — all because my math and science grades aren't high enough so that they pulled down my Abitur. Now, I get why I would never be allowed in a lab or architecture class, but what in the world do I need to now what sinus curve is when I'm trying to interpret Shakespeare? And on the other hand, what the fuck does a chemist need Goethe's Faust or or the Constitution of the Unites States for when trying to get some material he thought of to work? I'm not saying it shouldn't matter at all, but the same weight as the actual subject matter is going a bit too far… --★uːʤɱ heretic 14:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

When will I need to know x fact in topic C? JEOPARDY! --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You know you'll only ever need facts when you don't actually know them. ^moral 17:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Practically no part of High School education is about "facts". It's about exposure to ideas. I haven't used calculus in forty years but I'm more than glad that I know what process is used by those who do use calculus. It means I can have some grasp of what they are doing. Similarly I can't remember the principle products of Albania - but I'm glad I know roughly where it is. Linking education to "facts" of career driven needs is depriving those being educated of the full richness of life. Jack Hughes (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I studied any calculus at all at school. If I did, I've completely erased it from my memory. I don't think it was part of the mandatory curriculum up to GCSE level, only something A-Level Maths students did. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Knowing "facts" is pointless, in general. They are available in reference works. Knowing and understanding "concepts" is key, whether they be how calculus works, or how literary critics analyze various forms of writings. Or emigration patterns and their influence on language and diet. Etc. ħuman 03:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Christians arguing against Mormonism -- how hilarious that is

It truly is fascinating how people can apply logical, rational arguments against everything in a group of beliefs except the one thing they believe. Right now on TV, on the Daystar channel, I'm (my mom, actually, but she's asleep) watching some Christians argue against Mormonism, and literally every single one of their arguments -- contradictions in their holy books, haven't read their own books, rely on emotion instead of fact, stupid leaders, racism -- could be used against their version of Christianity. It truly is pathetic, and they don't even realize it.

Of course, everyone probably at least has a couple of beliefs like that, myself definitely included, so maybe I shouldn't be talking. F_arter^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 02:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's very easy from the outside (i.e., being an atheist) to see the problem. But from the inside it's practically impossible. ^pathetic 02:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Even more amusing is seeing Catholics argue against the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. The latter group has a more sensible interpretation of the Bible (though that's like arguing about the relative sanity of the Mad Hatter (from Alice in Wonderland) and the Joker (from Batman)). It's interesting that they almost never challenge JWs on evolution or flood geology, even though it's a target the size of a barn and they could score a clear win there. --Tweenk (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To me it's just a small part of the whole 'faith' craziness, because it apples in a broader way to Islam, Judaism and Christianity, and then Abrahamics, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. They all claim to have discovered the one true path to the meaning of life and the others are wrong, wrong, wrong. Yet we have them all uniting against the ultimate enemy - those who don't/won't believe in any of it.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Radio 4 plug (again)

I would hazard a guess that only Scream! might have also heard this, but I've just been listening to Beyond Belief which was discussing the issue of religion in the US Presidential elections, particularly the Republican nomination and Romney's Mormonism. As it has only just aired the podcast might not be available for a couple of hours. Генгис^marauding 17:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Wake up sheeple!

xkcd wakes the sheeple.

Be careful what you ask for... MDB (talk) 12:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing podcasts

I've been going through my podcast collection and found that I'm short of several episodes of Series 2 of The Infinite Monkey Cage. Does anyone have copies that they could let me have? Генгис^marauding 17:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh Canada...

Even with all our problems with government here, I'll always be satisfied when the business report on a centre-right newspaper supports unions as Caterpillar blackmails its workers into taking a 50% pay cut.

Then, go into the comments as wingnuts go on "Kill the Poor" mode and compare the situation to the Winter of Discontent. Do conservatives even know what false dichotomy means? Jesus fucking Christ. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say that either conservatives know what a false dichotomy is and they choose to ignore it/use it to troll liberals, or they are so fucking stupid that they don't understand the ignorance in their own arguments :D -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The left-right IQ thing (again)(again)

my flatmate's sister apparently had something to do with the analysis that the dail mail article refered to. Here is a link. Apologies if its already been mentioned AMassiveGay (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Once again the news articles on the topic are completely misleading. I see (in the abstract) they found that IQ predicted racism mediated by conservative ideology. No mention of low IQ leading to conservative ideology. Wish I could read the whole thing but I have work. Cheers MassiveGay. Tielec01 (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Although from eye-balling the data it seems like a sturdy relationship. Tielec01 (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Not letting spammers create new pages, Redux.

Can we make this a thing by playing with user rights so that a user must make at least one edit before they are allowed to create a page? P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 22:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well bugger me...

It seems like few people notice this, but...

1. Vader is Luke's father
2. Leia is Luke's sister.

Therefore Vader is Leia's father. Now go watch Star Wars again and try not to think of Joseph Fritzel in the detention block scene or how George Lucas himself seems to have forgotten this tiny little detail towards the end of Jedi. ^theist 14:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

But does Vader know? Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. But he does know about Luke, right? And that doesn't really stop it being dark as fuck in hindsight. ^sshole 15:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

There is the scene where the emperor tells vader that Anakin's son lives and Vader asks how that is possible. I think that was in return. Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Cue the angst. ^pathetic 15:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, Vader was getting toasty next to the lava lake while Princess Oblydobly was squeezing out the sprogs, so he might not have known about Leia. But then, wouldn't the Force have been strong in her too? (Cue obligatory "I'd have been strong in her!" comment) Couldn't he have sensed it? Should we write to Lucas, explaining the bloophole (As Jasper calls it) and demanding he remake all 3 films accordingly? --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 15:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's not give him another reason to change them? As plot wholes in the meta-verse of Starwars goes the skywalker family tree never bothered me too much. If you want creepy hindsight moments though the fact that Leia admitted she always knew Luke was her brother puts that makeout scene at a stage 4 creepiness. Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

DEAR GOD PLEASE DO NOT LET LUCAS REMAKE THEM ENTIRELY! ^moral 15:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Vader doesn't know. He says as much at the end of Jedi, he only finds out when Lukes "feelings betray her." Quite how he figures out Luke is his sprog but doesn't realise with Leia is another matter. Maybe you have to actually be using the force to have feelings that betray you. I'm guessing the real reason is that the vader is your father plot point was only added when they came to write the script for Empire. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The scene in which Vader discovers he has a daughter is in Return of the Jedi, so he certainly doesn't know before that. He knew his woman was pregnant, so he new he had a kid, just not two. I don't know why they decided to "hide" Luke right there on his some planet with his uncle and using his same name when they had the entire galaxy at their disposal, but whatever. (Also Obi-Wan changing his first name and not his last isn't usually how the Witness Protection Program does it.) Nor do I know why Vader didn't seem to look for him or anything until he happened to end up in the neighborhood. I suppose the force was so latent in Lea that it couldn't be sensed (maybe her natural anti-bodies attacked the midi-chlorians and her force was in remission). It's pretty clear Lucas hadn't thought these future plot points through at the time, though. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

IIRC in the original 9 movie plan Leia and Luke were not supposed to be siblings. Also, in the extended universe Leia's force powers tend to be lacking. Copperhead^Hisssssss 16:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Vader didn't know Luke had a sister until the big duel at the end of Jedi:

Vader: Sister. So, you have a twin sister. Your feelings have now betrayed her too. Obi-Wan was wise to hide her from me. Now his failure is complete. If you will not turn to the dark side, then perhaps. She. Will.

Luke: Never! (proceeds open up a can of light-saber whoop-ass on Vader)

Yeah, I'm a geek. The original trilogy is one of the defining moments of my childhood/teen years. MDB (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there an ass-pull in Shadows of the Empire trying to explain this? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm about to invoke the hatred of every Star Wars fan, but please explain the physics behind having a lazer beam of a certain length, and how can two beams of light NOT pass through each other? --PsyGremlinSermā! 17:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

here you go psy Copperhead^Hisssssss 17:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The Force. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Special effects. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually from what I remember it basically is The Force.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It's science fantasy, not science fiction. The science doesn't have to make sense. Oh, and the reason the Millennium Falcon could make "the Kessel Run in under twelve parsecs" is because the Kessel Run goes close to a black hole. Slower ships have to go way around it, but a fast ship can get closer, so it can make it in less that twelve parsecs. QED. MDB (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that is an ass-pull. ^theist 18:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It's from one of the novels. One of the early ones, but I can't remember which. MDB (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What I like about if the universe is infinite is that something similar to Star Wars and indeed all fiction must have happened (minus the impossible even though we don't actually know what is impossible including what we think is impossible). Waits.... Ajkgordon (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The question about the "laser sword" falls into a linguistic trap. The Jedi - obviously - did not speak English. When the holy text for Star Wars fell in the hands of George Lucas he was miraculously given the power to translate "Jedi" to English. But there were many technical terms for which he did not have an English word. Consequently he translated the Jedi phrase "jotelkielociikkitheddit" as "light saber" as it was the closest description he come up with given the context and given his lack of knowledge of physics. In point of fact he might have been better served by using the original Jedi term as this would have avoided the logical problems caused by using the phrase "light saber", OK, so show I'm wrong.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't if they are scientifically vague or impossible. Anyone who watched Star Wars as a child and did not want a light saber was never a child. And i still want one. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I still want to be a Jedi Knight when I grow up. Or a Sith Lord. MDB (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

We all do. If only because we want to walk up to somebody in a bar, wave two fingers around and say "You want to come home with me and take all your clothes off." And it's much less hassle than Rohypnol. --PsyGremlinPrata! 12:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the Jedi Council would have words with you for using Jedi mind tricks to pick up girls... ^moral 13:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Especially considering Jedi are supposed to give up love -- that's what got Anakin into trouble. Obviously, Psy needs to join the Sith. MDB (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Bob, I think you've highlighted the problems that excessive alterations to Star Wars has caused. the English language has moved on and Star Wars is now infected with liberal bias. It's time for a Conservative Star Wars Project! ^{d hominem} 12:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - we need to start re-translating from scratch as the original translators were not properly inspired and numerous errors have crept in.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

--PsyGremlinSnakk! 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

speaking of Star wars stuff

There is always Super Shadow; the SW communities very own conservapedia. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And another thing...

Which military genius looked at the plans for Imperial Walkers and went "ooh, yes, that's a good idea!" Top-heavy tanks on 4 spindly legs. That'll work! Everybody - even Martians - know tripods are the way to go. And tracked vehicles are just as likely to cross rough terrain and there's less moving parts. --PsyGremlinPraat! 07:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The same person who decided stark white armor was good armor for non winter combat.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The worst military strategery in much of the franchise always seemed to me to be the force field generators. Why the hell were the generators outside the force fields themselves so anyone could just blow them up? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough one of the few times the generators were inside the shields was the tribesmen Gungans--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 08:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Three words: Rule of Cool. Warning: Link goes to TVTropes. Prepare to lose several hours. MDB (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the sheilds used in Empire operate on a similar principle, but the AT-ATs move slowly enough to enter the sheild to take it out. Copperhead^Hisssssss 20:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Homophobe... or not?

So Archbishop John Sentamu basically says "marriage should be one man and woman because that's tradition/bible/religion" but does support civil partnerships. Now, is it fair to call him homophobic for this? I'd argue "no" because that would be diluting the power and meaning of quite a specific slur on people. You'd be rolling up Sentamu with the likes of Ted Haggard, Andrew Schlafly, VenomFangX, and of course their British counterparts like Richard Littlejohn and Stephen Green. What Sentamu said comes not from an anti-gay perspective - his organisation is presiding over the appointment of gay bishops and supports civil partnerships - but from a "pro" traditional marriage perspective. That's not in the way we're used to it as a "family values" style code word, what he's saying is really what it says on the tin. It's not good reasoning, true enough, but it's not the same motivation as the people we usually label as "homophobic". It's both quite harsh on someone who doesn't really hold hardcore "fags will burn in hell" views but also considerably dilutes category of such people who do. ^moral 15:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's like saying it's not fair to say that people who think that 'blacks' and 'whites' should be separated but otherwise equal are racists. This guy, whoever he is, is still a homophobe, just less of one than certain other individuals. And I don't buy whatever your bullshit was about 'pro traditional marriage'. F_idgeter^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 15:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

he thinks there are rights that people should be denied because of their sexual orientation. That means he's a homophobe. End of story. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 15:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What Fallacy said. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 16:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's actually not the same, Fallacy. stupid or not, morally irrelevant or not, there is a huge difference between gay relationships and straight ones. They truly are outside of the "norm", outside of many or most people's considerations up untial 15 or so years ago. "gay" is something pretty "new" to the mass public. It's more like saying you have a "phobia" of spiders, when you kill the one that is crawling on you. Again - i'm not saying the attitude is right, I'm saying people are not "phobic" they are uneducated, ignorant. There are plenty who are flat out phobic. but it's a term that should be used with some consideration. Same with "islamiphobia" as we point out on this wiki. GodotGrow a vagina 16:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to use a term with a decent meaning, you can't afford to dilute it. "Fundies" gets used so often that I doubt it's applied to actual fundamentalists anymore and just anyone of any religious persuasion. In the case of Sentamu, he's not against giving rights to people because he's in favour of civil unions which have legal parity. The only thing he's against is the government legislating what the Church can and cannot perform. His argument is one of linguistic categories - which is wrong because you need parity there for proper semantic equality - and in particular that the Church somehow "owns" the word marriage. He's not actually denying anyone any rights. And I think if we can't draw a distinction here, then "homophobe" is dead as a useful term to use. ^gnostic 17:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

If he's against government legislation being involved in the Church of England, we can disestablish it. Let's run that idea by the Archbishop of York - David Gerard (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess one could argue that if he supports civils unions, which have the same rights as marriage, he technically doesn't want to deny people rights. I was thinking a little while back that the gay rights movement should have been advocating more for civil unions than marriage, as it's a much easier battle to win, from a purely pragmatic standpoint. That was before there were any legislative victories for gay marriage, and before any polls showed any sort of majority in favor of it. This is one issue that has seen a huge amount of movement in the past few years, I have to admit. I think as recently as about 5 years ago polls were showing less than a third of Americans supported it, now it's somewhere around half. Also, by this argument Barack Obama is a homophobe. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the issue he has seems to be with the definition of marriage, which he quite plausibly claims to be defined by tradition, history and precedent as meaning a union between a man and a woman. I presume he wants to keep it that way because he believes his definition of marriage has a special place within his religion and a meaning within his religion's theology that shouldn't be changed by politicians - even if, as part of the State, Parliament does hold certain sway. With his other positive actions and stated views on homosexuality, it would be a bit rich to label him homophobic particularly as he's not against civil partnerships. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sentamu supports civil partnership only as a purely secular thing, and explicitly doesn't want either gay weddings or civil partnership ceremonies to be allowed in churches. Whether you define this as "homophobic" is a bit semantic, but it does betray a "not in my backyard" kind of attitude, and (I suspect) probably the idea that homosexual relationships are not something that God likes. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And so what? It is his back yard. His book says QUITE BLATENTLY, despite what the left likes to say, that having gay sex is a sin. period. and one that's a pretty damn big sin. If you believe your book is the word of God, and believe yoru god is the be all end all of gods, then you are going to say "gay marriage is a sin". it is no more homphobic on its face than saying "don't eat animals' is meat phobic. It's a belief. In my mind, a misguided, small minded, petty belief, but it's not based on hating gays (necessarily - people like phelps, clearly ARE just hating gays), it's based on saying "my Big Guy in teh Sky is better than Your big guy in the sky". GodotGrow a vagina 19:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ya know, we blame people for being conservative and following religion to the letter, we blame people for be progressive and not following it to the letter... they just can't catch a break, can they? ^{d hominem} 19:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to be a Grand Wizard in the KKK to be racist. Honest Abe would be a blatant racist by today's standards but ended the "peculiar institution." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

@ADK: As worthless as I find the genre of "warm fuzzies for the masses" theology, I'd much rather have people believe that than trying to follow the Bible literally. Not that I think the latter can even be done considering the thing isn't even internally consistent. Ultra-conservative "literalist" interpretations (e.g., hyper-Calvinism) are often as guilty of cherry-picking their favorite parts as liberal theology. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

From a practical perspective, yeah, it's probably better all round for people to do pick 'n' mix religion. At least it gives room for basic human decency to creep in and inform the decision making. But theologically, it's still lose-lose. ^moral 14:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe 'homophobe' is a big strong, but I definately wouldn't call him 'gay-friendly'. F_lint^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 20:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic but this site has some rather strong evidence that the prohibition on gay sex in stable relationships is not actually in the Bible, and might be a misinterpretation.

Now back to the point, I might have issues with his opposition to gay marriage ceremonies in churches, but on the other hand there might be little practical reason to push further. You don't need everyone to love you to win. Should he allow a completely secular marriage ceremony? What about a Jewish or Muslim wedding? Here we have an interplay of religious freedom, civil rights and property rights, so the matter is not trivial. --Tweenk (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep on cutting and merging

[3] Our entire faculty voted against it, and when you polled the students they were 3:1 against the merger. We all know you are doing this solely so you don't have to pay a new department chair because both ours and EE's retired. W&GS was cut, LAGS was cut, CAMD was gutted, the Ag Center was gutted, you cut Russian, Japanese, Portuguese and Swahili. What, pray tell, is next? Ty^Annoy 16:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"Praytell, what is next". learn to play in the Band! GodotGrow a vagina 16:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There isn't much call for violists. Ty^Annoy 16:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Get your "masters in business administration". (I don't know if this is true on all campuses, but at CU that was the degree you could get while asleep typing with only your nose.) GodotGrow a vagina 17:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I'd go to the School of Social Work with its appalling 79% A rate. Ty^Annoy 17:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

At my alma mater they recently dissolved the Graduate School, transferred responsibility for graduate education to the colleges, and replaced the dean with a "vice provost and dean of graduate education." ListenerX^TalkerX 07:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What Nazis really think about American patriotism

Liberals all say that patriots and flag-wavers are racist Nazis, and that all Nazis are conservative pro-American Republicans. Meanwhile, here is what Nazis actually think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4-PhYPCzC0 Morality is under attack, and Marxism is at fault (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the last person to equate patriotism with racism on this site was the most far right guy on here, and blaming everything bad on Marxism is one of the basic tenets of the Nazis. Nice try. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nazis think? Actually if your Youtube clip is an expression of Nazi "thought" then if confirms my opinions of their intellectual abilities.

But to be a bit more serious - do "all" liberals say this? I suppose some might, and for that matter, some patriots might also be racists. There is nothing mutually exclusive about the conditions.

So you might want to dial back on the "all's"--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

All true liberals say that. Jack Hughes (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

10/6 RWers agree that A) patriots and flag-wavers are not racist nazis, B) All nazis are not conservative pro-american republicans, C) rational liberals (and conservatives) do not think either of these things, D) we are not all liberals, and E) you are an idiot. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 18:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Entirely plausible...

Was fiddling around with the 270towin website, and came out with this interesting result. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ no really. 12:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I kinda doubt Idaho will go blue. Sam ^Tally-ho! 17:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No way Idaho will go Dem but not Minnesota. This is a more likely tie scenario (but still very far fetched). Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This one as well. NH trends more conservative than its neighbors, and is Romney's (primary?) state of residence. Also, Obama is unlikely to win Ohio but lose a state like New Mexico. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Another thought: based on the last election, this is about as bad as it can get for Obama while still winning. (Sorry to inundate this thread, I'm a huge sucker for this sort of thing). Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ninja

Are there any admins around? I'd like to respectfully request ninja rights, as I have been doing some goofing with a script and annoying people with my filling up of RC. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 15:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done that for you. Генгис^marauding 16:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Cow...Hammer^time! 16:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems a little unfair

7-5 Basketball player--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've seen that before. He barely has to raise his arm to dunk. Sam ^Tally-ho! 18:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Bye bye, prop 8 - looking for the Opinion

Prop 8 has been overturned! hot dang. I'm looking for the slip Opinion, but the 9th circuit has crashed. If anyone knows of a site carrying teh opinion, would you be so kind to post the link? GodotGrow a vagina 18:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's blocked here for me, but I think this is what you're looking for.

Also: awesome news! Though now we have to wait another year or so for the Supreme Court to rule on the appeal that will be coming soon. Cow...Hammer^time! 19:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they will fucking wake up and NOT appeal. oh, wait. it's a robert's court. sighs.GodotGrow a vagina 19:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the opinion I just saw on-line: ‎"Had Marilyn Monroe's film been called 'How to Register a Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire', it would not have conveyed the same meaning as did her famous movie, even though the underlying drama for same-sex couples is no different." MDB (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... denying a certain group of people a fundamental right for no reason whatsoever is in violation of a pretty sacred document that says everyone should be treated equally... not exactly fucking rocket science is it. ^postate 19:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

According to recent studies about IQ and conservatism, the science of fucking rockets would be beyond their level of intelligence and education anyway. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the Opinion

Ok, i'm pretty disappointed. The appellate court found that there were three grounds being discussed, which could be ruled on. Equal protection - straight forward - you cannot deny one group of people, access to something another group has (especially not because of animus); the second is due process"fundamental right to marry"; the third is also a 14th "equal protection" that you cannot REMOVE a right you've granted, from a group of people but not all persons. Both the first and the second go to the core of the question "is denying gays teh right to marry, illegal?" the their says "did California voters violate the rights of gays, since they had previously given them the right to marry, in violation of teh 14th amendment. It is a very narrow question, and relates only to CA gays. Sadly, the 9th Circuit appeals decided that this is the one they should decide on. So when it goes to appeal, it will have no bearing on any of the other laws througout the land. I just wish they would stop being "cautious" (ok, it can be argued, that's teh way they are supposed to rule, but still) and actually gasp the real question here. Is gay marriage legal in the US, and does denying gays the right to marry violate the constution in and of itself. boo... Oh well, it will be hard for even teh Robert's Court to find a reason to overturn this finding. GodotGrow a vagina 22:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Courts don't want to answer the big questions. Avoiding that is one of the main responsibilities of being a judge. Answer only the specific case before the court and nothing more. Most of the UK's pre-abolition slavery cases are like that. The court finds the narrowest possible way to side with the abolitionists. Essentially each judge is saying "slavery is unjust, but you're in the wrong place if you want to set all the slaves free, try Westminster" and so one or two men go free but there's never any general ruling that slavery is illegal until eventually the parliament itself abolishes slavery. On this basis you could say that several famous judges are failures, Lord Justice Bowen's cleverly written decision in Carlill more or less created the law of unilateral contracts as it exists today, which has caused people no end of problems. Perhaps that's too harsh. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, these guys know a lot more about not just the law, but the politics of law than I could ever hope to know. I suspect they know what will and won't make it past Roberts. Better a tiny win, than a huge loss. GodotGrow a vagina 01:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I lost my oldest friend today

For over 12 long you had been with me almost constantly, through good times and bad. You were with me when I came out, and you stayed with me when all my other friends stopped talking to me. You were there whenever I got high and stayed with me through all my come down induced depressions. You came to london with me and together we have trawled the streets seeing all that was good and bad this fair town has to offer. For the last couple years, the strain was starting to show, and it was clear you days were finite. And finally, too much leather coming away from you sole, and despite all we'd been through, I could no longer ignore your part in contributing to my shin splints, the end has come. Good rest your sole, Dr Martens, the finest pair of boots I have ever owned. I have a new pair of army surplus type boots, but goddamn it, its just not the same. big sigh. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't tell me you ran in them. But still, my sincere condolences. Sam ^Tally-ho! 20:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That's nothing, my doctor told me today if I don't cut out my drinking for a couple of weeks my liver is going to burst. Goodbye old friend....see you in a fortnight. Ace^Moderator 20:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking to the booze or your liver? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If I don't take some drastic measures it could be both. Ace^Moderator 21:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ignore these soleless assholes, AMG. I'm really sorry to hear about your friend Mr. Marten. I'm sure eh was a nice guy. My condolences for your loss. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Soleless? Lace up that tongue of yours, OU. Ace^Moderator 21:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Seriously. I loved them boots. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And I didn't run in them. The sole had just worn quite thin. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hugs to you, amg. GodotGrow a vagina 22:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

He's with Jesus now, or alternatively, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics energy cannot be destroyed. My condolences. nobs^Moderated 22:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Divine redistribution. Jesus likes swag. --★uːʤɱ federalist 23:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

HAH. My DMs were atheist and loved a bit of cock. He is with the horned one now. They have more fun there. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

For you, AMG. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The New Moderate and Pragmatic...Ann Coulter?!

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/it-ann-coulter-or-her-evil-twin-skippy I'll let this video sum up my feelings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY-03vYYAjARyantherebel (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Caucuses

Frothy is winning. Makes me feel all warm and squishy inside. -- Seth Peck (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What is a caucus, anyway? This is quite literally all I know about the concept. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 03:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Basically it's a primary with a gathering (meetings, discussions, forums, etc). -- Seth Peck (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that these are nonbinding; no delegates are selected.--^talk 04:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Newt last in Minnesota, not on the ballot in Missouri. That's a bit of a slap for everybody's favourite conservative. --PsyGremlinTal! 04:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeb bush? --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

On the topic of caucus and primary: Why is it a state matter, as in why isn't it each party's responsibility to determine who they want to run for them and therefore up to that party to set the structure for how to find their cancicate AND that party that pays for it, not the taxpayers of whom many are not members of that party? (and I do know it is because the current system ensures a two party system!)

Norway mass killer demands medal at court hearing

crazy people are always interesting to listen to for demands. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently they're reviewing his insane status. Might be a good idea. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Upgrading from "mental basket-case" to "batshit fruitloop". ^moral 01:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Breivik is a problematic case. I am against capital punishment on practical and legal grounds, but honestly, I would have a hard time morally justifying not killing him. I was even thinking: government should never have the power to kill its own citizens, but maybe sometimes it could "look the other way"? The ultimate punishment would not be death or life imprisonment but rather the abolition of government protection of your life. Privately I came to the conclusion that this could be far worse than capital punishment as currently practiced in some countries, but it's something to think about. --Tweenk (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No it isn't. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 01:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In Medaeval England criminals could be declared outlaws which meant the law wouldn't protect them. A crazy outlaw or a band of outlaws with little to lose trying to protect their lives could be very dangerous. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Proxima: See Giorgio Agamben's Homo Sacer and States of Exception for a great take on how the concept of the suspension of legal protection works in the contemporary world. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 16:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Partial derailment: I oppose capital punishment on philosophical grounds, and even in the case of this lunatic still don't really think the government should kill him -- though that doesn't mean I would be particularly upset if they did. F_litzer^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 01:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The legitimate time to kill him would have been when he was waving a gun around and shooting people in order to stop him continuing. That time has passed. ^pathetic 01:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been told by "some" (read: anywhere between batshit crazy conspiracy to actually valid arguments... never figured out) that the killings of Klebold and the other kid at columbine were "not accidental". And virtually every trust worthy review of the facts said they were also *not* suicide as the Sheriff said. In a case where I saw a guy shooting 76 (?) kids on an island, i'd have a very hard time shooting to disarm and not to kill. GodotGrow a vagina 01:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sharpshooters/cops/what-have-you are not trained to "shoot to disarm." They are trained to put a bullet in the biggest part of body mass 'cause that's easiest to hit. That would be the chest, in other words. Shooting a gun out of a guy's hand works in the movies. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 01:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, there's not really such a thing as "shoot to wound" either. If it's a bullet wound it's like being stabbed - without pretty much instant medical attention you'll likely bleed out quickly. And there's no place you can hit someone that won't put that part of the body out of action permanently. Shot in the leg? That's all the bone for a good 7 inches either side of the bullet hole shattered. Torso? Pick an organ, any organ, that can take that sort of hit. ^{d hominem} 02:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I say we start Law & Order: RationalWiki and make P-Foster and Armondikov the two main detectives. :P Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Someday, we should do a whole "everything that's wrong with cop/doctor/lawyer shows". I mean, i love the one where you "hide" from a gun behind a door or something. as if that would stop bullets. especially nice shot guns. :-) GodotGrow a vagina 04:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

A solid-core (i.e. exterior or sturdy interior) door could easily stop buckshot, or even a low-velocity slug (from a distance or low-velocity shell).--^talk 06:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Aren't shells big heavy things which explode? A wooden door would stop one? Time to start making our tanks out of wood then.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Shotgun shells usually don't explode, they release a large amount of smaller projectiles(some do explode). Shells in other weapons such as autocannon, howitzers, etc. do explode, and shotgun like ammunition for them is refered to as canister. Ty^Annoy 13:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah!!! Looking at wikipedia I see that we have shells and shotgun shells. I guess the post was about shotgun shells?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Given the pointless poll about detective shows I thought of one called The Rationalist where someone uses skeptical empiricism, rationality and knowledge of logic and science to solve crime... then about 50 seconds later I realised that this is what you expect the police to be doing anyway and gave up. I do like Castle but the way they go about solving things always makes me think about Sherlock Holmes' monologue about facts and theories. ^theist 09:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It makes sense to keep the serious criminals alive, to see what can be learned. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Way up top Tweenk says: "I would have a hard time morally justifying not killing him"

That's the wrong way round. What is the moral justification for killing him?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really get what's commonly called 'justice'. How would killing this guy whose name I can't remember how to spell somehow make anything better; if he dies, does his victims come back to life? Maybe a good argument you could make here, though, is that killing him would make the families of all those victims happy, which I might be able to buy. Then again, I agree with the BON -- these people are good for studying and whatnot. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 14:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You have no concept of justice! ^bomination 14:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Put him in a glider, loosely bound. Tow this out over the open ocean. Inform him of the location of the copy of "Learn to Glide!" (whether you inform him or not that the book is printed in Swahili is up to you, hopefully there will be enough pikshures that'll give him a slight chance.) Do this at night. Though this is a glider be sure that there is plenty of petrol/alcohol aboard in open containers. Also inform him of the road flare in the craft to read the book by. Wish him luck. (This is only a method to assuage moral/ethical concerns for state dealt death, I don't think it wise nor honorable to kill [or severely limit the survivability as the above instance scenario depicts], the mentally ill.) C®ackeЯ 18:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not execution, it's enforced recklessness. ^postate 21:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is always there, but cases like this really bring it to the fore; people are not sure whether the justice system should be for rehabilitation or punishment. Rehabilitation does nothing but good for society (in an ideal world where it works most of the time with minimal recidivism, obviously) but tastes like shit to people. This guy randomly opened fire on teenagers and killed 70+ of them for no reason, and now he's smiling in a courtroom, and we're supposed to put him in a rehabilitation centre where he'll be treated nicely and educated and given a new life? Even if the end result is a complete 180 in his life and he goes on to cure cancer, a lot of people would be pissed off. On the flip side, you have punishment, which does nothing for society (either you kill him with capital punishment or you lock him up for x years until he dies, which is a tax money drain, or until he's released, which is a tax money drain and now you have a mass murderer back on the streets after spending several decades in a horrible prison. none of those are good.) but are far more palatable to the public. He's a murderer, a mass murderer, fuck him and all of his rights, throw him into a shark tank and toss napalm in after him. No one would care. It wouldn't be "right", it wouldn't be useful or helpful to anyone at all, but it'd feel good for a while. Finding a balance between those two extremes is hard enough when it comes to "lesser" crimes like burglary, so I certainly don't envy the courts in charge of this one. Whatever they decide is going to piss off a large group of people. X Stickman (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can really say it does "nothing" for society if it sates the need for retribution. At least in a very broad sense of what is useful for society. However, it's most productive of feelings to indulge. In fact we know it doesn't make things better as it's not really someone's death they want. When McVeigh was killed he was so "fuck you" to the very end that most witnesses seemed short changed by the events, he didn't repent for it - even in the face of death - and that wasn't easy for some to watch. Undoubtedly you'd see the same if you bumped off Breivik just to appease some mass of people. ^{d hominem} 10:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments here do not make any sense if you realize that Norway abolished the death penalty in 1905!

How to cure Islam

Jay Bartlett demonstrates an effective cure for troublesome non-Christian religious beliefs. Don't try this at home, kids, he's a trained professional. Balaam (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

What the fuck was that? That made me feel sick. Can you really post that shit on the internet and not get arrested? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In the name of Jesus, that was fucking retarded. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 18:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In the name of Diocletian: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uZ7CSRaCnk. CodeMaster9000 (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Fucking Cameras, how do they work?

Wife can't use her $500 camera properly. Solution, go out and buy a $1000 camera. What the fuck. Ace^Moderator 10:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hehehe. welcome to my world, sorta. Hubby got "bored of the pictures he could take" with his 500 buck camera and "needs a new one". So she "can't use" as in "doesn't know what the different settings are?" or as in (like me) "i point and click all day, and just get shit.". GodotGrow a vagina 14:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Obligatory - don't underestimate the power of really expensive cameras... anyway, is that in NZ dollars? As NZ$1000 is still fairly low-end. ^sshole 14:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

For the first time in a long time XKCD has made me laugh out loud. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 17:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I make the same mistakes with Mrs K. The solution is always to buy a cheaper item, not a more expensive one. Генгис^marauding 17:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I can sort of see the logic. In the old day, "more expensive" = "comes with loads of knobs, dials and buttons, and the chances of you ever taking a decent photo are zip." These days "more expensive" = "more gadgets to do the fiddly stuff for you." --PsyGremlinSpeak! 18:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really, more expensive cameras tend to give you more control and come with a myriad of settings for specific lighting conditions which may be confusing unless you read through a 200-page manual. A simple compact or bridge camera on auto will generally give decent results for snapshots. Генгис^marauding 20:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Camera's really arn't too complicated, unless she's really new at this. I'm guessing the camera your wife got is a DSLR? 'Cause they have beginner DSLR cameras. --Dumpling (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The current camera is more than adequate for what we use it for (holiday snaps etc) but she just wants a new one because she sucks at taking photos and thinks it's the cameras fault. Ace^Moderator 20:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. O____O...It's never the camera's fault.--Dumpling (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The more expensive the camera, the more you'll have to fly on manual, although at $1000 you're still well within the "can you please do it for me?" zone. What kind of camera is it? EVDebs (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If we are talking about cameras I'd just like to complain about the lack of optical viewfinders on just about all compact cameras. Thank you for listening.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about that... You could probably make one, although I think as a general rule shot composition with a camera so small is easier with the screen. A few low-end and high-end models have them though; they just aren't very common. EVDebs (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

She's like me then! Always blame the camera! :-) GodotGrow a vagina 23:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Blog or Clog?

Britain's first ever lesbian burlesque troupe take to the stage... in a CHURCH

Good story, fairly informative. Cool to see a burlesque group doing so well.... but then the Fail goes and sticks "CHURCH" in big scary capital letters even though it's very much an ex-church. As always, the bottom half of the internet rises to it. ^sshole 12:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if that misunderstanding would happen here in Denver, where "The Church" is a well known, long time bar and night club. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Daily Mail's use of capitalisation and "outrage" and "fears" and "gaysplosions of epic proportions" and such is one of the main reasons I dislike them. Not the only reason though, because there are many other reasons to dislike the daily mail, like the fact that they're all cunts. X Stickman (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Not worthy of WIGO but quite amusing

What a coincidence, that's the same as the combination on my luggage! Now Anonymous should be able to penetrate the air shield on planet Druidia. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't see why that's not worthy of WIGO. More interesting than most of the crap that gets WIGOed. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You have luggage with a 5-digit combination? Генгис^marauding 20:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Spaceballs. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The sad thing is, Mr. Syrian President is hardly alone. Remember that Gawker password leak last year? This guy ran through the actual passwords to find trends: among other poor practices, 14% of Gawker users at the time used purely numeric passwords like that. --CoyoteSans (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Argh. "Guessing a password" is not "hacking". Why does this bug me so much. X Stickman (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, that's my voice message password. And it's "hacking" in the same sense that if you plant to crack a safe, have a good safe cracker, adn get there and find it's a toy safe that opens when you put your coin in, you still "cracked" it, cause that was your intent. Annoy would have gotten in, even if he'd had a real password. GodotGrow a vagina 22:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And remember back to Sarah Palin's emails; they got that because the "security questions" were based on obvious questions and publicly available information. How "secure" of them. Basically, you're as secure as your weakest link, and you can have a password with dozens of bits of entropy, alphanumeric, mixed case and with symbols, but if your security question is "where did you go to school" and that's a matter of public record, you may as well have used "password" and not had to go through the trouble of memorising something complicated. ^theist 23:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Lie. I maybe had a leg up because I don't have answers for many of the typical "security questions" and when I enquired about this for my first bank account (telephone banking) I was told without hesitation "Just lie". But also now, as an adult, because I write the backends for systems like this and so it's obvious to me that they don't care. The purpose of a security question is to have a "shared secret" and very early in this game the people protecting genuinely valuable resources like banks discovered that they don't have any shared secrets with their customers, which is a big problem. So that's why you've got banks trying to "verify" ID by asking for a date of birth or similar matter of public record. But if you're creating the shared secret you can walk into it knowing that's what is happening. What was my first pet's name? Abraham Lincoln. Where did I go to primary school? The Death Star. What was my first car? BMX Bike (No those aren't the "real" answers, or even in the same style as the "real" answers I've given).

As to the Syrian president, it's routine for major public figures to have crap passwords. Their accounts are often not really for their own use, but controlled by some staffer or groups of staffers who have better things to do than come up with good passwords. The British "Computer Misuse Act" partly came into existence because of some people who, among other things, broke into Prince Phillip's email. Did Phil use email back in the 1980s? Probably not, but someone had created an account for him, and so that made the "hacking" more notable. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I do enjoy the befuddled expressions when they say "mothers maiden name" and I say "Gandalf". ^sshole 00:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I love it when they let you use a custom security question, it is always Yes? Ty^Annoy 00:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Electric vehicle conspiracy theory?

Recently I've run into a PowerPoint circulated via email on electric vehicles. The main claim is that EVs are not mainstream yet because the oil and car industries are colluding to kill them. It seems to be based mostly on the line of argument found in this movie, with some additions which I can verify are bogus (e.g. Genepax "water car"). How much truth is in this theory? Do we have an article on this subject? --Tweenk (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a variant of free energy suppression. ^{d hominem} 00:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

My admittedly limited understanding is that there is at least some truth to the electric car suppression theory, though it probably isn't a multiple-industry-wide conspiracy. And I'm not sure how this relates to free energy. Blue (pester) 03:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Derp. I wrote that article. Never mind on that last point. Blue (pester) 04:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds absurd to me. Selling electric cars would be a nice additional income stream for car companies. Admittedly they'd have a lot of re-tooling to do but any company which didn't get on a successful bandwagon would be running a big risk.

The idea that the oil industry wouldn't like them is even stranger. If we were to turn to electric cars we would need to massively increase our electrical generating capacity in order to charge the things. Hardly bad news for the energy industries.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Cars are mechanically quite complex, I could imagine the dealer/repair network might have a vested interest in keeping the internal combustion engine. However, I doubt that they are sufficiently influential to suppress EVs. Генгис^marauding 12:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is why the idea of a conspiracy is a bit nuts, but it does fit in with the narrative of people who believe in perpetual motion; they're not getting results because it's physically impossible (implying that they're idiots) it's Them who are suppressing the knowledge. Now, some companies might not be investing in it, but actual suppression of the technology would be difficult, if not impossible. ^theist 12:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you type "free energy" into Facebook this thing is the first to pop up. ^pathetic 12:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do you torture yourself so? Генгис^marauding 13:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Some kind of guilt, I imagine. ^bomination 13:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The GM EV1 "discontinuation" was very controversial. Basically GM never sold any of them, only leased them. At the end of their leases, they crushed them. Plenty of fuel for the CTs there. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You can buy electric cars here in the UK, the Nissan Leaf is a perfectly ordinary car (which happens to be electric) and you can just order one from a Nissan dealer. But it's hideously expensive. Expensive enough that they show an advertised price, then the hefty government subsidy, and it still looks expensive when you subtract one from the other -- but in reality you don't get to do that, the advertised price includes that discount. I've driven a Leaf, it works exactly like a nice modern automatic. Except after an hour or two of driving you'll have to stop and recharge it overnight. As a second car it could make sense for lots of families. But few families could afford one, let alone as a second car. You would be making a statement "I think electric cars are awesome, and will pay extra to drive one, with no other upside". If I needed a car I'd buy one, but only for that reason. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are discounting the upside and focusing too much on the individual. If you take a step back and view things from society's point of view it would be better to concentrate our energy production to single points. Internal combustion engines are very inefficient in the face of most kinds of power plants in terms of efficiency and pollution. It also allows a society to move towards being energy agnostic in that internal combustion engines demands the use of gasoline. But you are right that these are not bonuses for individuals and in that there are no real reasons to adopt electric cars. Governments should spend A LOT more to subsidize electric cars (R&D and the cars themselves) to the point that there is no difference in cost between a shitty electric car and a shitty combustion car so the poorer half of society can actually adopt them. But that will cost ya higher taxes, and if you live in USA taxes are for socialists and to think of a better society over your individual needs is socialism. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 15:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all input. I'm on the fence regarding the EV1 controversy. Reportedly the feedback from users was very positive, but I'm not sure how much of that is true and how much was exaggerated by the environmental activists. I think on the GM side it's just a case of DGAF rather than some ulterior motive. I don't rule out that some key person made an evil executive decision, but a company-wide conspiracy is very unlikely. And it's not like GM is the only company in the world, there is plenty of competition everywhere. If EVs were so easy and cheap, someone would make them.

I think there are fundamental limitations in battery technology, such as dramatic reductions in capacity under low temperatures, which would limit the usefulness of the electric car. It's -20°C over here now, I'm not sure what kind of battery would survive that. Synfuels might be a more likely successor to fossil oil. It seems odd to me why in this context hardly anyone mentions the truly successful electric vehicles: trolleybuses. Maybe the overhead wires are at odds with the implicit Green perspective that infrastructure is evil and should be minimized? --Tweenk (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There's also the business about GM buying up patents for electric car batteries, not doing anything with them, & then selling them on to Texaco/Chevron. See WP:Patent encumbrance of large automotive NiMH batteries. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm that is interesting. I kind of place blame patents in general. Patent law usually makes as much sense as bird law. From mobile phones to batteries, patents are usually the one thing keeping an innovative company from building you the shit you want. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 16:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy or not...

They've got to boost development on EVs quick. We're honestly running out of time. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Almost every coal plant has more than one boiler. Close 2/3 of them and replace them with w:Very High Temperature Reactors that produce hydrogen and feed waste heat to steam turbines left from the coal plant (the steam from the two is compatible). Scrub and capture the CO2 from the remaining ones. Run the Fischer-Tropsch process or hydrogenation (e.g. [4]) and we now have both electricity and fuel. Most electricity would be emission free, and for the rest, we would emit the carbon once, but burn the fuel twice. Some of the coal-fired part could be replaced by waste or biomass.

This is just one example of using nuclear reactors in industrial processes other than electricity production. This area is completely unexplored (except for some Russian experiments with desalination) and there is immense potential, but considering the current paranoia it would be politically extremely hard to build such an installation almost anywhere in the world.

Of course, EV are still a very good idea, I just wanted to challenge the assumption that EVs are strictly required to move forward and reduce emissions from transport. --Tweenk (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Please consider how long/how many years it takes to build a nuclear facility, and how much power it takes to enrich the fuel, and where you are going to store the spent fuel. By the way, in my opinion there is only one storage facility for spent fuel that is of a standard that I am comfortable with: it is located in Sweden. AlienThoughts (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Always back up your data

I'm pretty anal about backing up data. Especially hard to recreate data. We did a year end report last week with our accountant who does things well above my head in quickbooks. Guess who didn't back up her data. Guess who's quick books lost data today. Wheeeeee Murphy's Law once again proven more powerful than the Law of Gravity or CommonLaw. GodotGrow a vagina 23:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Better yet, store it online (or, in newfangle, "in the cloud") in the first place. F_arter^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 23:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Spideroak rocks. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I also like Dropbox (backup with sharing), and Windows 7 also features a backup procedure that will run periodically (I have my laptop set up to backup whenever a thumb drive is plugged in). -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I am proud to say that after a hard drive crash last fall that killed EVERYTHING -- all of my raw data for the dissertation, all of my notes, all of my writing, 500 gbs of music, all of my photos -- I bought a new hard drive, installed an OS and had everything back to the way it was pre-crash with the exception of a Wayne Shorter CD I had ripped that morning. You'll never catch me, data loss. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 00:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If you like the idea of online backups, but don't like the idea of some bored teenager you've never met going through all your personal stuff on a whim, check out Tarsnap. If you know what you're doing you can actually take it apart and see for yourself that it does what it says on the tin, unlike with say Dropbox where they carefully didn't say what was going on in order to lull people into a false sense of security. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Until recently there were some issues with who "owns" the content on Dropbox, so it's been discouraged for professional use. It's been partially cleared up since, but it's worth doublechecking it. Also, backups are useless if they're held in the same physical locations, as fire can make short work of all your backing up efforts! (in case of fire/drill, I now have to basically unplug and pick up two NAS servers and carry them out with me, fun stuff) ^pathetic 00:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The only backup I have is what i have lying around on my parents computer (a year out of date), my flashdrive (3 months) and desktop (a month). I see no reason to change this. It helps that the only thing I would be genuinely pissed at losing would be the Henai Epic work. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Read that as Hentai... ^{d hominem} 01:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I work with funner toys at work (15x 2TB raid 5 enclosure with two iscsi fail over controllers connected to a fail over server cluster. Redundantly redundant), but at home I just have a little 2x 2TB raid 1 for all my ill gotten 1s and 0s. It is also attached to a home server so it is my own personal cloud on the intertubes (I even have a domain name for it ^.^). I dubbed it DarkCloud. I will store ur data securely! TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

How fast is your Internet? F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 17:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Slow as shit. 6mb down/.5mb up. 10 miles from a downtown of a fairly big city too, its like my neighborhood is a forgotten land of dinosaurs and DSL connections. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 17:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I was chatting to a graphic designer yesterday who regularly uploads big files to printers. She uses ISDN and insists that it's faster than ADSL. This is in central London. She must have very dark ages broadband.

On a side-note, I installed a 30MB leased line at the weekend. Fast. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wanna siphon some of that bandwidth to me, new best friend? >:) TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 18:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Er, how about no? Ajkgordon (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

10Gb/s at work. I win. Ty^Annoy 19:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You win the internets! Which you can download in about 10 minutes with that connection. Perhaps you ARE the internets?!? TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 21:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I work on the next internets. Ty^Annoy 00:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of online data

anyone know anything about the legality of putting documents online when they are protected by atty-client privileged? I'd love to use some kind of online system, cause it would let us access documents from the Court, from any of the homes, or even a cafe if we meet to strategist. the partners are not as into the idea, worrying that if compromised, there is no protection.--GodotGrow a vagina 00:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Encryption. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You could also use remote access, either with FTP or something like Logmein. Again, the strength of your encryption and passwords are important issues. Генгис^marauding 07:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

WfG, some online backups use encryption, i.e. the data is encrypted before being sent across the internet. This is as secure as how well you use and manage your passwords to get access to your files in the first place. In any of these scenarios about data security, always look at the weakest link. This is usually the user (i.e. using easy-to-guess passwords or writing them down on postits and sticking them on the screen) or silly things like allowing automatic login to laptops or even smartphones. The reputable online backup companies, such as the aforementioned Spideroak, hold your data much more securely than you probably do. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

VPN will secure your entire connection to your work network and you could access a SMB network shared folder just like you were at work. I would make sure your network is secure before you open it up to VPN and what not, and if you work for a smaller business with no IT staff then your network is probably not secure enough. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 17:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ultimate "liberal professor story"

Hilarious - it really does embody all those kinds of stories that you hear. ^sshole 13:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I've read that chick tract before. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It leaves out Albert Einstein coming into the classroom. MDB (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And that Navy SEAL grew up to be... Albert Einstein! Checkmate atheists! ^sshole 14:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You know... that might make a decent alternate history story. I propose someone else makes it. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 15:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Was this before or after Einstein went back in time and killed Hitler? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I call Poe. And it wasn't Einstein, it was Farnsworth. Osaka Sun (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@OP: i lol'ed Occasionaluse (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Poe, really? And the fact that it's blatantly posted on 4Chan wasn't a dead giveaway? ^bomination 16:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I really hope this was a Poe. F_lucked^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 16:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's actually not Poe, in the sense that Poe's law states you can't tell if it's real or not. This is so obviously a parody. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it was obvious enough. I mean, at first I thought it was real. F_arter^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 16:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This is why you always read to the end of these things. ^sshole 16:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Poe's Law states "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing". Despite fairly blatant displays of humour, this parody was apparently not obvious enough for some readers, so remarkably it does still qualify as a Poe. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there some sort of inverse Poe where the reader is too stupid to spot obvious parody? Генгис^marauding 17:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

@Fallacy;You wanted Einstein as a navy seal? Here you go, buddy. Unfortunately, I have no idea where I got these from X Stickman (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The only thing that could possibly be more awesome would be if it turned out that Einstein was also actually Chuck Norris. F_lubber^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 05:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You know, the funniest part is that if you enter "a liberal muslim homosexual ACLU law professor" into Google, Glenn Greenwald's blog at Salon is hit #8. Junggai (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I was just on /b/, and this is the kind of thread to invade with spiderman pics or "not sure if trolling, or just very stupid" (it's 4chan, thus one cannot rule out the possibility of extreme stupidity). Well, the same holds true for all threads.Z3100x (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

BBC News Santorum hilarity

Picture says it all.

According to the BBC, Mitt Romney is having some, er, medical issues. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I want him to go against Obama. Oh, the endless lulz. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I want to know why they're always surging. -- Seth Peck (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Any synonyms? Osaka Sun (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Many...most involving ocean waves or river rapids. -- Seth Peck (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason he's surging is because he's coming from behind. Генгис^marauding 08:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Gingrich wants to go to the moon, Santorum wants to go to Uranus, Romney's a robot from the year 2359, and Paul's message is as lost on America as a Martian radio broadcast. We also, at one point, saw a candidate who spoke in tongues no one could understand, one who dared to support equal tuition for aliens in his state as governor, one whose denomination holds the Pope is an alien Antichrist, and one who probably came from the Ninth Planet of the Ninth Galaxy Nine million lightyears from the moon - barring that, "999" is as unintelligible as everything else he said... And they're all fighting to replace a man who, if you believe some people, is an alien.

This election is truly out of this world.--Dumpling (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Mormons think the pope is the anti-christ? Learn something new everyday... TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 17:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't care as long as Santorum doesn't try to make frothy mix with me.Z3100x (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Please help me debate a Christian Conservative Wiki

Do you like debating? Some adolescent Christian Conservatives challenged us At Liberapedia and now I’ve involved the adults. The stuff about rising onto ones hind legs to defend a conservative cub is based on a polemical video that Mama Grizzly embedded on her userpage. Mama Grizzly replied here.

Well basically I’m in the UK and I need help from Americans who can check the facts about the Bible Belt etc. If you don’t feel like facing the grizzly she bear on her home territory please give me information with sources here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Come on PC, I know that you're fighting the good fight - but its a wiki with 28 pages and something like six active users one of whom is you. A quick look at the site suggests that most of the users are kids.

So it's kinda difficult to get too excited about it. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Trying to have a conversation with them would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 16:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

K I can't resist helping fan the flames. Talk about the forcing of a christian morality on non christians (I can't buy liquor on Sundays or at a grocery store in Texas), set in stone that she believes it is okay for a community to press their beliefs on others, make your argument that the constitution guarantees freedom of religion and oppression from a religious majority and you win. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 17:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

some sources. Why the fuck is Sunday so special that I can't be served a fucking beer before noon unless it is with food? Jesus, that's why. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 17:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

we done it too -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The debate's now here if anyone feels like keeping track of it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)