RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive148

This is an archive page, last updated 10 March 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>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <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)

Name that phenomenon

So there is a certain perturbation of the Gish gallop I am seeing more and more of that focuses on a giant dump of "peer-reviewed" citations as a form of argument. Cold fusion, free energy, homoeopathy, even pseudolaw uses something similar. When you call it out as a pseudoscience you will get a giant dump of supposed peer-reviewed legitimate scientific research publications that support the pet theory in question. This is a fairly insidious tactic since it suffers from all the problems of the Gish gallop and then some. Finding the papers, understanding them, seeing their relevance, and assessing their actual value and worth on the topic at hand takes and extraordinary amount of effort, and in many cases people just flat don't have access to the works cited.

Does this tactic have a name all ready? If not what would you call it, citation gallop? Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, your term "citation dump" is quite appealing to me. --Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 20:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yah I thought about that too. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

CMI calls it "elephant hurling". Occasionaluse (talk) 21:05, 29 February 2012

Interesting, considering the other connotations of "elephant". -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It could also be arguably associated with quote mining. In fact it's worse than standard quote mining because with quote mining you should be able to go directly to the quote, examine the context, and decide if it's valid or not. It sounds like with the "citation dump" you've got to do a hell of a lot more work but to essentially the same end.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's kindof the way I feel about when something is fact-tagged in a RW article & somebody (usually whoever wrote the disputed part) shoves in a citation referring to a physical book rather than an online source. Yes, it's still possible to see if the citation checks out, but in practice it's not going to happen, so it gets left looking like a well supported statement when nobody really knows for sure. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The trouble with citating dumbing distinct from just quote mining, is that a lay person may well not know the details or differences. When I go to my nutritionist about losing weight, and she says "I have a master's degree in nutrition, and read most of the actual journals", I trust that she, better than I will understand what to do with a given article or study that is sorta an "outlier". same with experts on meteorology talking about outliers in global warming studies. Usually, when you look at the studies with the eye of an expert, you see that the study has too few subjects, had a methodology problem, or is inconclusive despite claims otherwise. But I would not know that. I was reading the "low carb' talk pages, and just rolling my eyes. over and over someone is saying "here is this one study", and "this other study", and yet every major medical / nutritional expert says "low carb diets are not effective; studies do not show the kinds of results that testimonials claim; the body of work on fat and high cholesterol diets is well researched and conclusive". Is it possible that the current view is wrong - sure, it does happen. But does that mean it's safe or effective to argue "low carb" based on citation dumping? not really. (and by the way, the other side can citation dump too, but it's just easier to say "Best practice is..." since we aren't experts. Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 21:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Appeal to faux authority? These types of lists usually include cites that say the opposite of what they are claimed to or were published in throwaway journals, like the 900+ "peer-reviewed" climate denier paper list. Because we all know that Cato and E&E publish the best "research"! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not an appeal to authority, as the fact that they're peer reviewed isn't the main point of the tactic. It's a form of argumentum ad populum, the hook being not that it's peer reviewed, but lots of peer reviewed. The crux is on the volume, and therefore popularity of the subject in the peer review, not the medium itself. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 03:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. That only works if the articles actually support the point which is being made. Something which is not at all clear. Am I also obliged to make a comment about dieting in this thread?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I went a few rounds around the block with user:rdos at wikipedia who claimed his "neanderthal theory" was "peer reviewed". What he meant was that his peers (aspies who thought they were descended from Neanderthal stock?) "reviewed" his awful website and approved of it. Just a side note, but sort of on-topic. Someone should out-splice all the dietary conversation and port it over to a place to continue the discussion. ħuman 04:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Cultural devolution

Anthropologist Jonathan Marks has recently published a screed attacking models of cultural evolution, evo psych, memetics, et al. He also takes an offhand swipe at Ben Goldacre for some reason. A bit over the top, but some of it needed to be said. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"Another idea, which is perhaps the most interesting contribution from primatology to anthropology since David Graybeard first shoved a twig in a hole in front of Jane Goodall..." - what was it we were saying about snarking off in publications? ^theist 11:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Standards for book reviews, at least, seem to be fairly loose when it comes to snark. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In other "news", Michio Kaku mispronounced "meme" in the last show of his I heard. How embarrassing. At least he had a good guest on the phone. ħuman 04:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick question about natural selection

If a group of fishermen throw back any blue fish they catch because they don't like the colour, and the blue fish population builds up, is that artificial selection or natural selection that involves humans? Grumblejaws (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Natural selection that involves humans. Sen (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Artificial selection, I'm pretty sure. User:An American Nihilist (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Surely artificial selection would be if we were breeding for blue fish and picking the best blues. Now I would ask a secondary question, are the blue fish of the same species as the others which are being caught? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

But, after a short while, the fishermen realise that all they're catching is the blue fish. Immediately they start a marketing campaign extolling the virtues of Blue Fish (TM) as eaten by all the best celebrity cooks and the natural order is restored. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The distinction is that artificial selection works with an intention of what the next generation will be like, while natural selection works only on the current generation. This is the only distinction that makes sense as the dividing line between "artificial" and "natural" selection criteria is considerably blurred, and the underlying mechanism are identical. So the situation described above is natural selection. ^postate 15:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've seen the phrase "unintentional selection" used as well. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)\

It's entirely natural selection, we are just the hunter. If a cat only eats blue mice, and "throws back" the green ones, that is natural selection. the distinction itself is somewhat arbitrary, since we are natural, and we are using processes built into nature. but our choice of what to eat, leaving the blue means the blue are naturally "more fit" to survive in that human feeding zone. if we pulled out the red, and put them in a tank with other red and let them breed, and kept the others (the blues) from breeding, that's artificial, in that those reds might not have survived on their own in the wild. (think, stupid persian cats with flat noses that cant smell)--Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 15:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also recommend Dawkins taking the step-by-step approach from artificial to natural selection near the beginning of Greatest Show on Earth (I think it replicates the reasoning laid out in Origin of Species). "Unintentional" selection seems to be the mid-point between the two, if you care to discern it as a separate idea. ^moral 15:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What might also be artificial is the reason for selection. If a celebrity went on TV saying blue fish are so last year darling, there'd be a reduced market for blue fish and the fishermen wouldn't bother landing them - an entirely artificial reason for selection. If, however, the blue fish had more bones, or didn't travel well, then that would be a selection based on the innate quality of the fish, and thus natural perhaps? what i'm saying is that the natural/artificial split is a sociological construct. Sophie^{because liberals} 16:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, guys Grumblejaws (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's really just selection and it's the distinction that's artificial.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Great question, great answers! ħuman 04:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Wisconsin single mothers would be labled as child abusers

You know, i do have other interests than just women's rights. But it seems every time I turn around, stupid people are trying to send me back in time 50 years. while this will never pass, it's just the audacity of saying "you are not intelligent enough, sophisticated enough, rich enough, or frankly, male enough to make decisions about your own life". Not to mention, you can't have an abortion, and you can't be a single mom - that doesn't leave women lots of options. oh right. stay home with a chastity belt till your father marries you off to some man. gotcha.--Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 16:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's stupid, but if you actually read the article it doesn't say that single parenting is a form of child abuse, and therefore make single parenthood a crime, as the headline suggests. It says "..the board shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect." If they can back this up with facts I'd like to see them, and I imagine they can't (well, maybe neglect to an extent), and again, a bad bill, but hardly single parent = child abuser. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"the board shall emphasize nonmarital parenthood as a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect." The bill basically says in instances of child abuse, if there is a single parent involved then THAT is the problem. Bullshit. I agree with Godot with the exception that I believe this is a personal freedoms issue and not a woman's rights issue. A child can be raised to be a perfectly normal member of society by a single mom, single dad, two moms, two dads, a mom and a dad, a whole village, etc. The creation of a child (naturally anyway) is the only thing set in stone. The point of the bill is to reinforce the idea that marriage, and 'traditional marriage' specifically, is the only recipe for creating a functioning adult. Bullshit bullshit bullshit, fuck marriage. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 17:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's at least a little better. I admit that on this one, i just read the headline. Thanks guys. it's still pretty ridiculous. Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 17:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What's the advantage of marriage over a stable relationship anyway? It's harder for married couples to separate? An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 17:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

gOD's blessing, obviously. Vulpius (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Study after study, many focusing on very different aspects of a "family" (from effect of divorce, remarriage, gay couples, etc) have all come to one consistant conclusion amongst the variety of their other conclusins: The single biggest factor for a child's success is how secure he or she is in her surroundings that he or she will be protected, provided for and loved unconditionally. Children succeed in every variety of homes, if they know they come first in their caregiver's world. children fail in a variety of homes if they are scared of their parents, or worried they might not have food, or are shuffled around in a divorce as a burden, rather than expressing "this week you're going to go to dad's; he's so excited to see you". Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 18:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

When people that single parents are unfit or 'inferior' to married couples for raising children, I take it a bit personally, since my folks are divorced and my mom raises me by herself. Sure, it may be easier for two people to a raise a child than one, but that doesn't mean the kid's going to come out worse. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 20:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

An abusive parent will be abusive. It doesn't matter if they are married, single, whatever. Someone who is abusive is going to be that way no matter what. Ironic, too, is his assertion that a sinlge parent is more likely to be abusive when, statistically, the most often heard of scenario for child abuse is an abusive father who beats both his wife and his kids. While this certainly doesn't mean all abusive situations are a father beating his wife and kids, the majority of abuse cases statistically are that way. So where's the call for suspiciouns on all fathers with a wife and kids? Sure, they may not all be abusive households, but based on statistics, if we're gonna stereotype households for abuse, we should go after so-called "traditional" families. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 23:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Ginsburg hates the US constitution

Not sure how i missed this, but Ginsburg was in Egypt talking about how you write a constitution. The speech was amazing, by the way, but one line said ". I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa." something the right latched onto, saying (at the one extreme) Ginsburg should be removed from her position for treason, and at teh other extreme "Ginsburg insulted the US abroad". Many calling for her removal or retirement. The most incredible thing to me, is that they seem to be incapible of reading (or listening to) what was a 2 page long speech here, in full near the end, which points out every aspect she loves about our constution. She just also relizes it was written 200 years ago, and many other examples exist today. How does an entire party manage to walk so lock step, that not one of them says "uh, dudes, that's not what she said". --Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 19:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

They all get the same Faux memo. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to be trite, but do they? I mean, some think tank sends out talking points? Cause i don't know how else EVERY SINGLE TALKING HEAD and politician can look at a long indepth interview and come away with one sentance....Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 19:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Really. Watch the Daily Show sometimes for details on them. Or watch/listen to right-wing media since about 1995. The fax (now an email) goes out every single morning and the "pundits" and "newsreaders" toe the party line. ħuman 04:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? Because that's incredibly easy. You just look at a sentence, take it out of context, it looks bad, and voilá! you've got yourself a lie you can easily spread to the masses. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 19:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, not long before that, Antonin Scalia directly said the Soviet constitution was better than ours. And several liberals asked, "what if a liberal justice said something like that?" Now we know... MDB (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

He's also the same idiot that said teh 14th amendment doesn't apply to women. yeah! Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 19:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You know, that's something I've never really thought of, but other countries probably do have better constitutions. Of course, that speaks nothing to the actual implementations and conditions. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 19:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

To answer the bit about the memo: yes, actually, various think tanks and the RNC compose and send out regular lists of talking points and spin on the issues of the day. The news organizations and pundits aren't supposed to reveal that these are important sources of perspective for them, of course.--^talk 21:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not just liberal rumor? that really is proven fact. fuckers. Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 21:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

See also Frank Luntz. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've always thought you USians have an unhealthy obsession with the almost divinity of your constitution. You should just accept the Queen back as your head of state and be done with it. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well patriotism and religion have a lot in common and those in power have often found it useful to combine the two. They both need an element of belief and there is a large degree of mythology associated with their origins. The founding fathers are analogous to the apostles and the constitution are the Ten Commandments. While Washington isn't Jesus he's certainly a Mosaic character leading his people out of bondage to a promised land. Generalising wildly, the right are often more religious and more patriotic, while the liberal/left are open to questioning both religion and what their government does, particularly in international affairs. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point, and perhaps more true in the US than anywhere else. From the "magna carta" to "god bless america" this land is seeped in political-religious metaphore. For being the first country to explicitly separate church and state, we are seeped in christianity perhaps more than any other modern western state.Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 13:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The US Constitution was written to solve "problems" that no longer exist. It is an archaic, worn out historical document that sadly has failed to provide a way to update it in our modern era, despite all its strengths. There's a reason only one other country ever used it as a model (and they copied it verbatim) for a government. ħuman 04:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Blunt amendment went down 51 to 48

But that's still 48 people (probably men) who think their right to religion succeeds my right to medical care. wheeeee... i love living in the us, in 2012.Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 20:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw this on my FB feed, a post from PP...I was like, NW, TS! Made my name. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the argument that forcing a church to provide birth control for workers violates people's first amendment right. Someone want to explain that rationally? TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 20:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Basically people think the first amendment says that churches and church-affiliated organizations are able to do whatever they want to their employees. Cow...Hammer^time! 21:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

1. Corporations are people
2. Churches are corporations
3. Therefore, churches are people
4. People have freedom of religion and can justify anything they want based on their religious beliefs
5. Therefore, churches have freedom of religion and can justify anything they want based on their religious beliefs

QED -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Godot, there were 4 women (all republican) voting against tabling the bill and 13 for (all democrat but one: Olympia Snowe, who is not seeking reelection). Cow...Hammer^time! 21:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

My serious question for them is this: if they feel that, according to the bible, people should work hard, do they have a right to require overtime? Do they have a right to not pay for that overtime? Do they have a right to pay under the minium wage? or hire 14 year olds to do "restricted" labor. Cause this is what we are talking about. Chruches acting as employers are under the same legal obligation as any other employer to follow rules set out to protect employees from employer abuse. It's that simple. Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 21:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC) ()edit con)

It's not my business, but do you think we can ask those 3 women if they've ever used birth control, and if so, what if their boss said they couldn't? or that they had to pay for their child birth on their own? just curious. Though this doesn't only effect women, Gay men might be told they could not get AIDS coverage cause they "got it being sinners". Single mothers might not have their women's healthy and pregnancy covered, etc. just insane that this many people think this bill is "just fine and dandy".Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 21:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This morning I realized how crazy the notion that money is a form of communication actually is. So we start small with churches not paying for your contraception products. Well, ok then it goes against their freedom of religion to provide something they don't believe is good. But what if we spin this further? Lets say we have boss that doesn't believe modern medicine works instead praying does. So that guy can deny any kind of health care to his workers, even if a chronical illness was inflicted by working conditions. If that guy believes cancer is god's wrath for not working hard enough, well... Lets spin this one even further, you have a boss that honestly believes the gayz are satan's army come to earth to destroy America. That is crazy, but after all a political and religious belief and therefore he does not have to do business with homosexuals, even more so he is allowed discriminate them as one of his freedom of expression. He could pay less, let them work more etc. The same can go for races of all kinds, sexes and basically every other character quality out there — the justification would make as much sense as the "sex=bad" canon we're currently hearing. Lets take this to really insane territory and say that a boss and businessman believes that he has to respect no other authority than god's and is therefore an anarchist. That guy can pretty much deny paying any taxes, purely based on his religious belief. Any fundemantalist could only pay that percentage of taxes that is used for things he likes you could look at the last budget determine your persentage and than not pay for health care, NASA, public education, or even investments in infostructure if you argue enough. Now here comes the stinger, if you are a theocrat and belief that all laws shall be in accordance to god and your whole society should be organized in accordance to god's laws (of which freedom of religion certainly is not a part of) you can withhold your taxes that go into upholding others freedom of relgion, thereby based on your religious freedom arguing that others shall not be granted that freedom and actually affecting society directly to do so. Although I guess at that point the state will have already broken down as nobody is paying taxes.

I know, painting the devil on the wall and all, but still, this is the concept taken to the extreme. --★uːʤɱ sinner 09:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I can haz paragraphs, plz? Dendlai (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm a Kant. --★uːʤɱ socialist 19:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nirvana

Can anyone who likes this band, explain what is so "amazing" about "Nevermind". It's on BBC's classic albms, and i just can't see it against the rest of teh serries. What am I missing?Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 03:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In the words of Kurt Cobain: "I was just trying to rip off The Pixies." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It is pretty good. I am no Nirvana fan, but it was a very popular album that developed a cult like status even before Cobain died. There are 5 or 6 very good songs on there. I would say it deserves to be on any list of classic albums. Give it a go. --Damo^Hi 04:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, i've "given it a go". I lived in Seattle when it came out. I think Pearl Jam's Ten, and even mother lovebone's music are far superior in the same style. I just didn't get what was so "there" about it. --Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 04:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

None of it is technical death metal, so I don't care about it. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 04:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I still like Nirvana though not as much as I did when I was younger. "Nevermind" is good because it has good tunes, and is obviously inspired by great American alternative bands like Sonic Youth and Pixies, and Punk. Switching it around, what do you like about Pearl Jam's "Ten"? To me that one sounds more like Arena Rock and Heavy Metal, without very memorable tunes. (I don't really get why Pearl Jam and Nirvana are sometimes linked together, they don't sound similar to me, and they come from different musical "philosophies"). Dendlai (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The songs on Nevermind are generally more melodic, catchy, accessible & comprehensible than a lot of grunge. Also, those lists of classic albums tend to play it safe & pick obvious choices. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I was a huge nirvana fan back when I was a disgruntled teenager. I personally preferred Bleach, because the songs were grittier and had excellent simple, but catchy guitar riffs. Nevermind was essentially the same thing but watered down for the masses, thus it became popular. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nirvana were great because they were down to earth, had good songs (even a few great songs) and wrote about things nobody else in metal did - they were a revelation after years of ridiculous spandex and big hair. Also, Kurt became a counterculture icon for bigging up cool, obscure bands and breaking free of metal's sexism, which had been a given in that scene since before Led Zep. Fuck that hidden track on Nevermind, though. Sophie^{because liberals} 10:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind is THE album that broke me from listening to Poison, Winger, and Ratt. It was refreshingly new, and it let me look at music in a new way. Up until then, it was all about pizazz, but with Nevermind, it was something deeper. That being said, I don't even listen to the album anymore, but still consider it Top 5 for me personally, because of its influence on me in my formidable years. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 12:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not "amazing" now. It's just an album of good pop songs. It's historically important, however - from about 1988 on, it was really obvious that someone from the post-hardcore-punk alternative rock scene was going to break through big. The hot money was on Sonic Youth when they signed to Geffen, but Goo just sold a reasonable amount. Nevermind was planned to sell about 40,000 copies but sold 13 million in a couple of years and 30 million to date. I think In Utero is a better album, but without as many good pop songs. Bleach is an incoherent mess, and I've thought that since first receiving a review copy in 1989, listening, thinking "patchy, mediocre, second-string" and passing it on to some other sucker - David Gerard (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And when I first heard "Smells Like Teen Spirit" played on top 40 radio, my first thought was "oh, the Pixies have a hit? Well done!" - David Gerard (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I hated that song then and I hate it now, except for the mash with Destiny's Child bootylicious and the version I've yet to see again where Kurt croons and fellates the mike. There were great songs in that album, Plane and In Bloom. I heard that SLTS was an attempt to sound like Boston. I even detect some Sly and the Family Stone in it. Lithium was a rip-off of Joe Jackson and Come as you are a rip-off of Killing Joke's 80's. I was more into Pearl Jam. further still Soundgarden. Further still alt rock and Depeche Mode. Nirvana and Nevermind are, in my view, good, but vastly over-rated.Civic Cat (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I love(d) Smells - when I read that Kurt was "trying to write a Pixies song" I knew why. The rest... there's some interesting melodies (which the rest of that scene lacks, to my ear), but the lyrics, well, they were written for a different age than mine. A sadder generation, as it were. Nevermind was the Please Please Me of the 90s. ħuman 04:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

English, base knave, dost thou speak it?

--JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So fucking happy that someone has done this!! ^postate 17:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm on a trip, currently in Indiana...

...I stopped by the Capitol to have a long and comprehensive discussion with Governor Mitch Daniels (for whom we need an article) about his political positions. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's funny, because you were lying and only flipped off a building. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 19:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think anything more was warranted. I did go inside the Capitol, took a few pictures...and used the restroom, which is kind of like contributing my opinion. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What are his views, anyways? Are they just standard fundamentalist/Republican bullshit? An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 19:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

He's a big teabagger, along with the standard stuff. Indiana government is very Republican right now, anti-union (in a similar vein to Scott Walker), trying to pass personhood/abortion restrictions...article searches on ThinkProgress reveal lots of typical "do as I say not as I do" hypocrisy. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha. Niiiice. Well, try to have some fun in Indiana. I have lots of friends there, and most of the people I've met are super nice. Downtown B-Town (Bloomington) is pretty. --Dumpling (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah the friends I'm seeing are in Bloomington and Columbus, and quite a few from Cincy/Columbus OH are coming by as well. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! Paaaarty! Aww...now I kinda miss B-town.--Dumpling (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's unfortunate it houses the people it does, because that is a lovely capital building. It doesn't deserve to be flipped off like that. Unlike Oregon's capital, which looks like they ran out of money while building it and slapped a statue on top. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(EC):::Old Capitol:Castle. New Capitol: Huey Long's phallus. Тy^eh? 19:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you just fuck off and die? An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 19:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I tried that once, but I discovered I was immortal. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it is a pretty cool building, the inside rotunda is something spectacular, the busts and statues are also nice. Like many other capitol buildings, the marble work is incredible, and the offices are easily accessible (if security-locked). I think the Governor was in, I can't be sure...dunno if the flags at the door mean anything, like they do at Windsor Castle or Buckingham Palace.... -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Good that you missed the tornadoes just to the south of you today. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 23:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Objectification and what makes it a problem

Lately, I've been thinking about objectification (specifically, the objectification of women), and when exactly it's a bad thing. Is it wrong when it's used in porn? -- I don't think so, because it's being marketed as sexual fantasy, and everyone realizes that. Is it wrong when it's in non-pornographic works? -- again, I don't think so, at least not necessarily, as long as they're intended as fantasy and people realize that. I think the real problem is when it's so pervasive and seen as the 'norm'; when practically every video game in existence has the women in armor that's at least 25% less effective than the males' counterparts, and 'female' is a perfectly valid way to describe a character's personality (so much so it's an archetype), then we have a problem. Thoughts? An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 03:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

And now for something completely different...

I got my Chambers (12th ed.) today! I covet its glistening pages already. ħuman 03:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

First: why the fuck would you need a physical dictionary in this day and age?

Second: at first I thought that was a tabletop RPG manual. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 04:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If you can't answer the first question then you don't know what I am talking about. Oh, and PS, in general, on-line dictionaries suck ass. And in specific, the Chambers is an object of pure beauty, beloved by word lovers worldwide. ħuman 03:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself this important question?

What would it be like if T.S. Eliot's The Wasteland had been written by LOLcats?

Ask no more. MDB (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, no. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Le sigh. How 2006 is that? --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 07:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Creationist paper in a medical journal?

Apparently some creationist got a paper published in Baylor's in-house medical journal and the cdesign proponentsists are crowing about it. I know Baylor is a Christian institution, but it's not a fundie diploma mill, is it? (Also note my highly reliable source.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess you have your answer now. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 06:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As a Baylor grad myself, I have to stick up for the school on two points. First, Baylor Medical Center is only tangentially related to the university (founded by a guy who was also president of Baylor 100 years ago). Second, to Baylor's credit, it was due to protests by the faculty senate that both William Dembski, and eventually the president who tried to singlehandedly carve out a creationist think-tank on campus, were run out of town on a rail. Junggai (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That all being said, none of that excuses them for hiring Kenneth fucking Starr (yes, that one) as their new president. Junggai (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Just sprinkle in some free market fairy dust for instant results!

This pisses me off: the commenters at DailyTech came to the conclusion that we should hire black hat hackers to wage cyberwar on China! And not one person ponders the many, many ways such a policy could go wrong. Goddamn, I hate libertardians. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Scientology and Debbie Cook.

I don't know if anyone else has been following the Debbie Cook saga within Scientology that has been brewing since New Years eve. Basically, she was a the leader for Scientology at the main branch ('org') called Flag in Florida for 17 years from 1989 to 2006. On New Years she wrote an email directly to other Scientologists criticising some of the actions of the leadership as being against the Hubbard Tech [1]. In a nutshell, she criticised current leadership for not following L Ron Hubbards policies to the letter, whilst expressing her total devotion to him Here it is translated from Scientologese into English.
In an move that is unsurprising for anyone familiar with Scientology, she was promptly sued for breach of a confidentiality agreement [2].
Even less surprising, it turns out that suing Debbie was very poor strategy because it allowed her to explain how she was imprisoned and tortured[3] and was only allowed to leave after she signed the agreement [4]. Even a first year law student could get her out of that one! So the Church has just encouraged someone who had no intention of seeking publicity to get up and air their dirty laundry in open court. Talk about morons.

On the other hand, my sympathies in this one are mixed because she remains a loyal Scientologist and participated in some pretty outrageous and immoral actions of her own. For 17 years she was the CEO of the major org with over 1000 sea org staff living in conditions of slavery and raised no objections. I say fuck her - the chickens have come home to roost. For those of you who have no idea what I am talking about, check out this open letter to Tom Cruise by Tony Ortega. It sums it all up pretty well. --Damo^Hi 09:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

She did bad things because she was brainwashed. Scientologists sued her probably because David Miscavige told them to and Miscavige would have turned on them if they questioned him. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't buy that as an excuse for one second. She coerced a member of the sea org to donate a million dollars to the church that she received as an inheritance when her mother died[5]. Now she's complaining about excessive fundraising?

She claims that Disconnection was cancelled under LRH in 1968 [6] and only reinstated after Miscavige took over. We know that that is a lie because of all the testimony of people in the 70's, including Paul Atack, Tory Christman, Robert Kaufman etc who all wrote books about it.

We also know of systematic abuses, including ridiculous "ethics condition" punishments that took place at Flag, while she was CEO, including RPF imprisonments. She only started complaining when these things started happening to her. She might be brainwashed, but her actions require attonement. She is playing the victim, when in fact she is the bully, and probably should spend a good deal of time in prison. --Damo^Hi 10:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This could be so much better

I just learned there's going to be an animated version of The Noah's Ark story starring Jason Mewes as Ham and Jason Lee as Japheth, but inexplicably not Kevin Smith as Shem or Alanis Morissette as god. This is unacceptable, Christian film makers. Do it again, and this time do it right. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Not Kevin Bacon as Ham? I'm disappointed. Sophie^{because liberals} 11:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ark? My favourite: Roger McGough's Bad Day At The Ark, a snippet or so hereish but the whole poem is worth seeking out. 192.168.dot.dot (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

BP and the government

Following today's deal reached between these assholes and those affected by the spill (can you believe it's been two years already?) I'm now seeing comments that Obama did too much; the fishing ban was somehow too extensive and further harmed businesses/made the spill even worse.

Any sources? Osaka Sun (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

you'd be surprised what comes up on youtube, cnn and yahoo news comment sections--il'Dictator Mikal 05:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the BBC. Normally they're sane too. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

From what I can see, this is a 'blame Obama' right wing fixation. It is ludicrous that Obama himself or his administration in general could have actually made the spill worse. The idea that he did not do ENOUGH is laughable: what, is the oil magicially going to go away, and Obama goons somehow were piping in more oil for the lulz? That there was some agenda to snarl the whole thing up in red tape that didn't actually exist? That hiring all of those contractors (including robotics companies that made probes that could see way down below divers could manage, to the root of the problem), volunteers, and other help was somehow a bad idea? The idea that he didn't do enough or purposefully sabotaged the effort comes up more often in my searches. The common complaints seems to be,

• Obama didn't do things fast enough; he should have just plugged the damn hole. (Ridiculous: it was much more complicated than just plugging a hole. Try a hole below diving level, while tons of oil spews out that hinders visibility of remote machines, and that's just ONE complication. There were many more.)
• Claims that Obama blocked foreign aid, citing the Jones Act. This is false: they did not refuse foreign help, but at first issued a statement saying no foreign aid was needed, but might be in the future and told them to stand by. As it turns out, 15 or more foreign vessels were used in the cleanup. There was even a specific exemption in the Jones Act for oil spill cleanup vessels.
• Citing a 'flat emotionless response' to the disaster from Obama, talking about how he only wanted the 20 billion from BP and nothing more.
• Claiming that the Obama administration demanded Louisiana stop building sand berms to stop the oil due to environmental concerns. I have a feeling there is a bigger story here that this complaint I am extracting claims from is not bothering to explore.
• Ideas that Obama was actively trying to make the oil spill worse so he could exploit oil from BP, or the other way around, that he was partners with BP and they both profited. Um, hello, massive loss and scandal on BP's part... I do NOT think it was profiting from this here. :|
• Just plain old hatred of Obama and wanting to blame him for everything. Damn black muslim liberal. *twirls Snidely Whiplash mustache*

So yeah, it's crap, and these people likely just desperately want reasons for Obama to be 'evil' so their positions counter to Obama's office can then be 'good.' KnightOfTL;DR (talk)

Its also nothing nww, both parties have been doing it since forever--il'Dictator Mikal 05:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

American computer systems are oh so efficient.

Will American media tell you this?

• Hackers had 'full functional control' of Nasa computers

Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, even the faux ones. We are all one species teetering on the edge of catastrophe; clouded by ignorance of the collective ego of our own supposed superiority, we are always a moment away from our own destruction. The only chance of survival is the immediate end of self-indulgence, ignorance and indifference to be replaced with rationality to do the best thing for the species survival. Not to be a pessimist, but we're only gonna die from our own arrogance. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 21:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I once received a spam email from an IP address belonging to the Federal Reserve Bank, and I once saw an port 445 request from a U.S. Army IP address, both of which were very likely caused by spam-bot infections. I also quite frequently see fortune 500 corporations that aren't ISPs, hospitals (which should be super-secure with HIPPA and all of that garbage), schools, universities (including laudable Ivy League ones) city/county/state government IPs, and foreign federal IPs infected with spam-bots. 81.170.186.175 (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I should point out that from outside it can be difficult to know the significance of what you're looking at. In the movies every security truck is moving palette loads of untraceable bearer bonds, but in the real world it's often just a few boxes of traceable paperwork which can be rescinded and re-issued. Likewise, an infected PC in our front office may seem like a big deal, but from that office you're barely one step closer to the secure backend systems, you still need credentials you don't have, including one time passwords, and private keys that aren't stored on the PCs. Those office PCs are no more secure than anybody else's. they're used by ordinary office workers who make all the ordinary mistakes and we treat them accordingly. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

For all that security, the hacker group "Anonymous" seems to do some remarkable things. But not just in the US.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Most outfits are not serious about security, or only have some divisions which are serious about security. For example the break Anonymous got from Foxconn is clearly some document server for access by purchasing and engineering liaisons at partner companies. They could have maybe got diagrams of connectors for the next iPad or electrical compatibility data for a new power cable, but they were miles away from say, employee bank details or control over production line robots.

Security is invisible. It costs money, but the "secure" system often superficially looks exactly like the insecure one, so it's not obvious that you got anything for the investment. Worse, it requires expertise from your technical team which means hiring people who know what they're doing. Most companies have no capability to hire in expertise. They don't know what they don't know. For example using a salted, pessimised password hash to protect your users passwords ought to be a baseline feature, but there's an excellent chance that the systems you're using don't do it. MediaWiki uses salt but not pessimisation, most web software still doesn't even use salt. The correct technique was invented in the 1970s and still forty years later most programmers are blissfully unaware that there even is a best practice, let alone what it is. The invention of Rainbow Tables ten years ago should have been a mere academic curiosity, but because so few people had done their homework in the past thirty years it actually found major commercial products like Microsoft Windows vulnerable. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sooo ..... you're saying that security is actually really good? Or that it could be good but isn't? Or are you saying that examples of good security are examples of good security, and examples of bad security are examples of bad security? 'Cause if it's the latter it's so profound I'm going to agree with you.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Security varies. Yes. There are examples of both good and bad, yes. The vast majority of people aren't even equipped to understand which is which. This is what's profoundly different about security. Imagine if you were blind and you're being asked to judge photographs. Not only does your blindness make it impossible to have qualitative opinions about the photography, you can't even tell what they're about or even if they're in focus. As far as you know an expert who claims the blurry photo of a coffee mug is "excellent" may well be telling the truth. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Olympia Snowe retires

The endangered species known as the "moderate Republican" moves closer to extinction. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The moderate Republican died years ago. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

In 2008, I never thought I'd see a man (or woman) less competent than George W. Bush. This election year proved me wrong. Mr. Anon (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Kind of old news, but encouraging, as it's a likely win for Dems. What was Andy's reaction to this news that it just got quite a bit harder for Republicans to win the Senate? "Give it up, liberals." Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting - a decade ago, she would be considered perfectly conformist Republican, not a moderate. The fact that she is a famously moderate Republican was mostly a marvelous PR coup for her, considering how she ultimately would almost always vote the party line. As Jonathan Chait at Daily Intel put it:

"When George W. Bush proposed a huge, regressive tax cut in 2001, Snowe, sitting at the heart of a decisive block of centrists, used her leverage to support the passage of a modestly smaller and less regressive version. When Barack Obama proposed a large fiscal stimulus in 2009, Snowe (citing fears of deficits that she had helped create) decided to shave a nice round $100 billion off his figure and call it a day. If a Gingrich administration proposed spending a trillion dollars to erect a 100- foot-tall solid-gold Winston Churchill statue on Mars, Snowe would no doubt decide, after careful deliberation, that the wise course was to trim the height down to 90 feet and perhaps use a cheaper bronze alloy in the base."--^talk 23:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh. These days "moderate" is defined as "not a frothing-at-the-mouth wingnut birther." The times and all that. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It's weird when you can call a guy that said that social democracy never worked anywhere a moderate Republican/conservative, that's like… saying the Japanese of the WW2 era were "moderately racist" because they didn't try to massacre all Koreans in concentration camps. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 00:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Among all this Republican-bashing (most of it deserved) I'd like to point out that the Democrats are only slightly better. The insanity is just focused in different areas. It's enough to look at the idiocy of Gov. Shumlin of Vermont, who is thoroughly fixated on closing down the Vermont Yankee plant, even though this is against the interests of the state in every possible way. --Tweenk (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

All of US politics sounds crazy... Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 03:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

True that. Тy^{Serious Business Guy} 03:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Except, Tweenk, that the GOP has gone harshly radical over the past decade, whereas the Democrats have only become slightly more radical. There are a lot of moderate Democrats still, for example, as seen by fairly objective standards like their DW-NOMINATE scores which track ideology. This is not a "pox on both their houses" situation: the GOP has been and continues to be much worse than the Democrats overall.--^talk 04:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

In other words, there are always wingnuts in politics; it's just that for the Republicans they are now a majority - or at least a sizeable minority - whereas they are still a fringe element in the Democrats.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Cold fusion

Can someone with a knowledge of nuclear physics keep an eye on the new resident cold fusion crank? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Tweenk's doing a pretty good job so far. Тy^{Please do not click on this} 23:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That's good. We have to keep an eye on him lest he get his way through sheer persistence rather than argument and evidence.--^talk 23:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Abd is a thoroughly nice fellow but he is very good at burying his opponents in a blizzard of verbiage. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 00:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is the result so far:

• The textbook that Abd mentioned that discusses cold fusion as a real phenomenon is written by Norman D. Cook, a psychologist. One of his papers, which notably appeared on FQXi Community, a hotbed of quantum woo, has a 'Schroedinger equation' that is actually something unrelated, and it proposes a theory of nuclear structure that is nonsensical.
• He pointed me to a theoretical paper by Takahashi, which is impenetrable rubbish that uses arbitrary constants without explanation and mixes up classical concepts with quantum concepts.
• I learned that the journal Naturwissenschaften has Edward Storms, a well known cold fusion promoter, as an editor.
• Finally, he linked some work by Yeong E. Kim, who appears to be a real physicist and published several papers in Physical Review before he started writing on cold fusion. I am still analyzing his work. So far I noticed that signs in the Hamiltonian are incorrect, which could be just a mistake, but no other obvious errors.

Useful conclusion from all this: we should investigate FQXi and make an article. At the moment I'm not sure whether it is a site about somewhat esoteric physics which attracts a great number of cranks, or a site specifically for the cranks. There is some choice material on their community page. --Tweenk (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

FQXi was home to extensive El Naschie (alleged) sockpuppetry a couple years ago (e.g. 1, 2). I don't know anything about the site, but Jason from El Naschie Watch has followed the place and might be able to shed some light on what it's about. --MarkGall (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Stay strong, Tweenk.--^talk 04:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh god, FQXi has quantum consciousness claptrap on it. That stuff's always a magnet for New Age crankery. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Tweenk deserves some kind of award for this. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Tweenk is worth his weight in cocaine. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 08:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure is. Abd comes by roughly daily and painstakingly rewrites the article into tl;dr advocacy whaargarbl. Revert. Rant on talk page. Dissection of scientific idiocies of rant by Tweenk. I get called part of the conspiracy to suppress this IMPORTANT INFORMATION. Repeat next day - David Gerard (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to revert his crap but the physics is too over my head to merely shoot on sight - I don't know if what he says is good science or not. I wish I could just revert all his mainspace edits until he gets the point and fucks off to wikia, which seems to be the current dumping ground for our cranks. Sophie^{because liberals} 10:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Abd's style is legendary. He's a gigantic pain in the ass on this subject and will, I have little doubt, take the fullest advantage of our tolerance. Given his Uber-Crank status on this topic we'd probably be doing RW a favour if we flushed him and his wingnuttery sooner rather than later. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 11:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Based on his consistent track record so far (lies, distortions and failure to understand what science is or how it works), I'm just reverting the whaargarbl. Then waiting for him to rant on the talk page and then putting the even slightly informative bits remaining into the article - David Gerard (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Check this bit: he answers "Rossi has explained this as involving the transmutation of nickel into copper, a reaction so ridiculously unfeasible it doesn't occur even in supernovae" with "Of course, no cold fusion reaction, requiring the presence of catalysts, such as muon-catalyzed fusion or the various explanations under consideration by physicists, would occur at all under supernova conditions." He actually considers this a refutation - David Gerard (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's more of a repudiation. Sophie^{because liberals} 12:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly a refudiation. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I meant that. :s Sophie^{because liberals} 20:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thir13en Ghosts

I just watched the first ten minutes of Thir13en Ghosts. What a pile of shite. Sophie^{because liberals} 20:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect any movie that attempts to use faux 1337 in its title to be good (Se7en excepted, of course). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw this one seven or eight times, back in the day, because it was on HBO all the time. Pretty marvelously terrible. The sheer ballsiness of it was something I admire, though: "You have to live in this plexiglass house that compensates for the director's inability to construct meaningful shots because, um, just because."--^talk 20:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This site looked interesting, until...

I saw that its members are idiots. That's harsh, but goddamnit, where only 22% of the people taking your poll say ghosts don't exist, your site instantly loses its appeal for me. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 05:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that wasn't harsh. Read the posts, like this one: "I don't believe in the traditional idea of human ghosts. I believe in spirits--different kinds of angels, and of course demonic spirits. I believe Familiar spirits are demons, but I also believe angels can also take the form of someone we know. There are some easy ways to tell the difference." GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 05:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Assassins Creed III

this is the cover of Assassins Creed III, the fifth (following the well trodden Resident Evil, GTA and Kingdom hearts tradition of fucking over numbering) installment of the "everything is a conspiracy!" game series. Two things of note: It's set in america, and the assassins haven't bothered updating the clothing style yet. --il'Dictator Mikal 05:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Do they really still wear that style of clothing in the game? An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 05:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's set in America? But isn't this series about an Alamut-style sect of Middle Eastern assassins? Why are they advanced four centuries and on the wrong continent? Wouldn't it be hard for the only Arabic guy in any given territory to blend in?--^talk 05:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You know, I'm actually really interested in the game now, to see how it all works. Damn you, Ubisoft! An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 05:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering the AC2 Trilogy was about an Italian.. its all ancestors of desmond miles. and idk if they do but.. if they do im going to love it. wandering the streets of 14/15th century Mediterranean towns dressed in bright white layered clothing was hilarious. --il'Dictator Mikal 05:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Im in general interested in the World of AssassinsCreed, i like alt history and stuff, but its presented pretty badly. --il'Dictator Mikal 05:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I liked Assassin's Creed II (despite enormous historical errors, my gosh! Usually they make me want to punt the television!) because I found Ezio quite charismatic and even when not doing the dirty buisness just a plain lot of fun. I was a little put off when things began to get more and more Grim Gus with him and I am not sure where Assassin's Creed III is going...KnightOfTL;DR (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Can't wait for AC3, these games are more like movies than video games. If you can't suspend belief then I would not suggest playing Skyrim, I hear it has dragons! TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 14:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have considered AC to be Dan Brown on crack, so I can understand perfectly well why someone might not care for it. Vulpius (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The new protagonist is half Native American (Mohican no less) and it's set during the Colonial Uprising. There's a lot in press releases about it being something other than "Yay, the Americans win again" presumably to not put off those of us who are fucking bored with the English being the bad guys. However, I'll personally believe that when GW is revealed as boss Templar and you get to stick a clockwork blade through his neck. After playing AC2 I decided the series was Stargate meets The Matrix, a poor man's MGS with a clumsy Batman wannabe as a protagonist. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 22:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I always like watching these "What would you do" situations...

Link to video Personally, I don't consider myself to be an aggressive person. I don't like yelling or screaming with beatings and flailing of arms and such, so it bothers me in general that most people don't find this strange. I'd rather sit and have a calm conversation and sort out any problems rather than resort to violence.--Dumpling (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Theoretically, female-on-male violence is a serious thing and should not be tolerated, and someone witnessing it should intervene. But it's on the same order as black-on-white discrimination: a thousand times less prevalent and less likely to be seriously damaging. This is a fairly misleading video... it does things like mention 800k incidents of f-o-m, but neglects to mention that 95% of all incidents of domestic violence are m-o-f.--^talk 06:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's just really scary to intervene with a woman. -shudder- A woman's wrath...and scary nails, and crazy eyes when they're mad. And their 40 pound purses. But yeah, I see what you mean. Either way, violence=No please.--Dumpling (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see what prevalence has to do with it. Intentional homicide is considerably less prevalent than accidental death. Child poverty in the US is considerably less prevalent than child poverty in Africa. White-on-black racism is driven underground where it's confined to obscure websites, black-on-white racism sells out comedy clubs. ^bomination 08:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, death by hurricane is considerably more prevalent than death by asteroid impact, and we don't really do much beyond theoretical preparation for the latter. We're on the verge of talking statistical anomalies here, not simply less-prevalent easier-fixed problems. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 08:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not even statistically anomalous. The main difference is that women are more likely to be injured. Certainly dismissing it as "a thousand times less prevalent" is factually incorrect. It's not even half as prevalent. ^bomination 08:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps so - my point really, I suppose, is that prevalence certainly can have something to do with it, should it be that rare. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 08:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That's getting more into the black swan problem, though. ^narchist 08:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

From that link it seems like you're right when you say I was wrong about it being a thousand times more prevalent - the real ratio seems more like three-to-one? It's hard to sort this out from that page, really, Armondikov, because there seems such a wide variety of types of numbers incorporating different situations. I know there's a great deal of male-on-male intimate violence and significant amounts of rape, but that shouldn't be conflated here with female-on-male violence.

I do think that prevalence is a big part of it. It is true that the more privileged class in any social hierarchy is just as liable for discrimination/violence/abuse/etc. as the less privileged class, of course. Sometimes a woman beats a man up, sometimes a poor person swindles a rich person out of money with a scam, sometimes a black person refuses to give a white person a job on account of race, and so on. In principal, these are just as bad as the opposite. However, because such instances are so much rarer than the reverse that while individual cases have an absolute claim to sympathy and intervention, I think that the general situation does not and should not demand as much action. To wit, I think money should be spent on regulating the rich to stop them from scamming the poor, policing men to stop them from abusing women, and enforcing equality laws to stop discrimination against minorities. When a statistical preponderance of wrongdoing is with one cohort, our general concern should lie there.--^talk 09:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It's difficult to figure out in this case because the biggest and most reliable difference seems to be whether the violence is reciprocated. But even the wording of that section on the WP article seems to hint just a little at a particular gender bias - it mentions that women who start the abuse are more likely to be injured in a retaliation, and that is why it's dangerous. "Women, don't hit your male partner because he might strike back" seems to be the message, and that's pretty much controlling people with fear. Though spending money does focus down what you want considerably more, I don't see why the spending needs to be focused at all - can you not put aside X amount to police domestic violence and for it to cover all cases equally? Indeed, isn't that the point of equality? The simple fact that people, and even the police, would respond differently shows what the problem is. Noticing and dismissing problems are where the difference is; racism was always worse when we presumed it to be acceptable and normal. Now it's wrong and we know it is - similarly, this dismissive attitude towards female-on-male violence emphasises the problem to be beyond what quantitative stats can show. ^postate 09:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the WP article does imply that bit of bias that you mention; the entire section is disjointed and terrible and obviously the product of a lot of fumbling edits.

It would be nice to policy all domestic violence, but it seems as though most interventions are going to be intrinsically gendered. Women's shelters, advertising, and so on.

Perhaps I am just prejudiced, with some element of paternalism at work? I don't know. I certainly have known cases of serious outright damaging woman-on-man domestic abuse. But in those cases, each time there was a serious discrepancy between their physical ability. Fit/big/strong women and small or disabled men. It's purely anecdotal, but it's part of what's beyond those quantitative stats. It's probably also why people in that video ignored the incident for the most part. There's no excuse for the cop, who should have been trained to intervene anyway, but while I might have called the police myself or said something, even then I wouldn't be too seriously worried about the man's well-being as he is jostled and smacked. I don't know - is that wrong of me, perhaps? It just seems as though he wasn't in danger, and the predictive value of such events seems to retain that patina of harmlessness; i.e. even in private it didn't seem like he could be in much danger, whereas a man jostling or smacking a woman in public might hint at more dangerous treatment in private.--^talk 09:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yet the gender-reversed version of those rationalisations are practically thoughtcrimes. ^gnostic 09:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I guess you have a point. I don't know, it's a tough one and merits more thought and discussion from someone wiser than myself.--^talk 10:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussions of violence like this are always so entertainingly morbid. It's like reading a forum thread discussing whether ten million or eleven million people died in the Holocaust (complete with subthread describing a method for verifying the body count by ascertaining the average size and number of the piles of bodies the Nazis left behind). It makes me want to rename this section "What are the exact gender ratios between people that beat the shit out of other people?" Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 10:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose as AD points out, if you have a particular goal in mind then the question does matter. E.g., if you're spending money on women's shelters and men's shelters, is it worth spending a 50:50 split of the money when the problem isn't a 50:50 split that way? If you're less specific, then yes, knowing an accurate or precise list of the stats is a non-sequitur when considering whether it's morally wrong or not, and whether you should support people or call the police or not. It's why I'm always dubious about "hate crimes" and whether singling people out for special treatment is worthwhile in so many cases. But, it's still used as an argument in favour of ignoring a legitimate problem. ^pathetic 11:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying it isn't important. In fact, the morbidity of the subject (people hurting people) is precisely why these discussions are necessary—the question, after all, is "What to do about it?" Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Right. It's sometimes necessary to have independent authorities to decide "What to do about it" while other people handle the politically necessary but somewhat useless practice of identifying, blaming, and punishing a scapegoat. I was talking to a Polish colleague about this in respect of that horrible train crash. Politically you need to be able to say "It's Bob's fault" and then people can scream horrible things at Bob (if he's still alive and didn't die in the accident) and they can feel they have closure. But technically even if Bob was somehow "to blame" the more interesting question is what to do to prevent the same thing from happening again. For train crashes the recognition that such agencies should exist has gradually spread, for air transport it's very widely known, for road traffic accidents it remains rare, for something like domestic violence it's essentially non-existent. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

^this. It's made even more difficult because it's not simply a policy error that enables domestic violence on the scale it happens, but a social inequality in regards to women (and things socially relegated to women, even things that really should be gender-neutral) that fosters a whole culture of deeply-imbedded injustice. There's really no way to 'change' it other than extreme cultural uprooting or the slow road of difficult progress... made worse by the fact that people actively cling to things that nurture abuse (without knowing it) because it's their culture they were raised on. Culture is a huge part of personal identity, and on the individual level it's incredibly hard to get them to let go of that identity... so if we want a scapegoat to point a finger at, it has to be us, and nobody wants to do that. And if we want to change it, we have to change ourselves, and even fewer people want to do that. Except the ones that uh, realize they're oppressed. They (We? I?) want things to change. A lot. KnightOfTL;DR (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Campaign for Equal Marriage

Just got an email from British Humanist Association advising me of a counter petition to the Christian traditional Coalition for Marriage one. Just don't sign the wrong one. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Cracked's 6 Things Rich People Need to Stop Saying

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-rich-people-need-to-stop-saying/ This is something special.Ryantherebel (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

WIGO it! Osaka Sun (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I refuse to read any more Cracked articles as a matter of principle. They spin a paragraph's worth of somewhat-entertaining content into two pages of ad-crammed nonsense.--^talk 20:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want the tl;dr QI version, sure, all of Cracked can fit onto a single paragraph. But half the joy is less about the facts and more about when an author might go off on one with some really snarkilicious metaphors and insults. ^gnostic 00:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say this sums up the war of 1812

saw it on the local papers front page "War of 1812 bicentennial is a big deal -In Canada". It being the war of confusion and pointlessness it was; us Americans prefer to ignore it. --il'Dictator Mikal 16:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

...And the Americans ran and cried like a bunch of little babies WaWaWa ^postate 17:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a big deal here too [7]Тy^No 17:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

For us Canucks it was historically significant because if you Yanks won, there would be no reason to name the continent North America. Plus it's a good argument tool to use when the wingnuts at Faux start to advocate invading us again; I doubt they even know that the White House ever got burned down. :P

In all seriousness though, it was a total waste of a war. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

At least we got a national anthem out of the effort (though I prefer America the Beautiful), and it didn't really end until three years later anyway (why would we celebrate the start of a war and not the end of it?) The War of 1812 really did little more than solidify the United States place in the hemisphere, a position that the US had held since the Revolution ended in 1783 and England had been in denial/butthurt about ("They've formed their own government and have been masquerading as sovereign for the last thirty years? Let's go take it back.") The War of 1812 was England's Vietnam before Vietnam (which, I guess, would have made it their "second Brittany").

@Osaka Sun: Also, there was another War of 1812 that dominated the world's attention at the time. Most Americans are well aware of the burning of the White House (actually the Burning of Washington, although that's due to the myth that white paint was used to cover the scorch marks). What's more likely is that most Americans believe that Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture is a patriotic United States symphony, due to the fact that Boston Pops orchestra plays it every year on July 4th, complete with cannon fire, to start the fireworks -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I know what the 1812 Overture is about, thank you very much. And I always found it ironic that during the Cold War we used music that celebrated a Russian victory. MDB (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

But its ok because it wasnt celebrating the communist victory. --il'Dictator Mikal 20:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

When I, an American, say "Most Americans", that means "Most Americans who aren't on RationalWiki", thank you very much. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit that I thought the 1812 Overture was in fact about the U.S. War of 1812, but I was set straight by this guy several years back. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 22:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Prop 8 reading, live cast

Did any of you watch the livecast of the Prop 8 reading, by Rob Reiner? http://www.youtube.com/AmericanEqualRights I'm just about to sit down to watch it. it's about 2 hours long. the first 30 minutes or so look like reairings of the commercials for prop 8. The show itself starts when you do "click to skip".Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 23:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Star filled cast, gonna watch it tonight with the lady. It looks like a happy version of 12 angry men. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 00:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Jane Lynch (gay, "butch" type, on the show glee) plays maggie gallagher. when announced, the crowd couldn't stop laughing and clapping. :-)Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 01:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok that is so worth watching! Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 02:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Mermaiding

I don't know what to think of this. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I was about to ask: do we need an article on Yahoo News? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 03:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I just took the top news article listed about it. The term has been around for a year now, apparently. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember something about Y.N. and woo - but then again some aussie skeptics write for it. I is confuzzled. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 03:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just relieved they've not come up with "transmermaid" yet. I've seen "transfat" and "transspecies" otherkin trying to pass themselves off as "trans" people. Blue (is useful) 03:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Transfat"? As in oganic chem? And why do people want to 'pass themselves off as "trans" people', given the general phobia? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 03:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Transfat" as in people who believe they're fat people trapped in skinny peoples' bodies and vice versa. Basically they try to get all the sympathy and support without the socially pervasive phobia. It is literally disgusting. Blue (is useful) 03:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess I shouldn't be hopeful for an explanation of how that works. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 04:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If CUR were here I'm sure he would be happy to oblige you re transspecies... Blue (is useful) 04:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I can somewhat get how being 'transspecies' or 'therian' or whatever the shit is supposed to work, kind of, but being 'transfat'? Jesus on a stick, how the fuck is that supposed to work on even a purely conceptual level? GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 04:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Oy. I have a hard enough time understanding bronies. o.O; --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 04:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I want to see an actual 'transfat' community, just to point and laugh and make myself feel superior. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 04:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Transethnic and transdisabled are apparently also a thing. Blue (is useful) 04:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I be transintelligent? Or maybe a transtheist. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 04:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't get either of those. Mixed ethnicity, yes. Slightly-disabled, yes. But trans? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 04:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Transethnicity was/is mostly just absurd white people claiming to have black brains, and transabled was/is, e.g. someone claiming to be a paraplegic stuck in an ambulatory body. And then these people said they were just like transgender people. And we were mostly just, "My brain is full of fuck." Blue (pester) 04:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

By that point, whether or not the actual condition exists aside, it should be blatantly obvious that they are indeed just using the trans for the sympathy value... Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 04:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If they're doing that for sympathy, maybe we really should give them our sympathy (or at least our pity). An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 04:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

...If I ever told my mother I was going to quit something to become a mermaid, she'd sharpen her kitchen knives and say she was going to have Sushi that night. o____o--Dumpling (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Doplphinoplasty ^postate 08:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha! Oh god. That episode was hilarious...But then again, Southpark is awesome. But. There's also the case of being born with Sirenomelia.--Dumpling (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This explains everything. I'm "transaged" - I'm a young, good-looking guy who somebody has stuck in this slightly elderly meddle-aged body. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

And yet people are so quick to be dismissive of such conditions - when will the prejudice end? ^pathetic 09:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Though contrasting BIID and GID goes back to the "why would you mutilate someone's body due to a neurological disorder?" question. Because, surely, amputating a limb is considerably easier than gender reassignment, so why not let them? ^pathetic 10:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I know it's all a bit pop psychology but I once read that the whole mermaid thing is about being a woman above the waist only - in particular, a mermaid has no genitalia an, whilst being alluring and pretty, doesn't get involved in all that nasty sex nonsense. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Also known as the "Mermaid Problem". :D --ZooGuard (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm compelled to put "fish genitalia" into Google. It's there, but I imagine no one wants to ever draw it. ^narchist 11:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I found the perfect gift for Rush Limbaugh...

and it might be look like a rubber glove on a plastic bottle... ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ <insert witty comment here>

As with most posts on here, I first thought this was jenkem related. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 14:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This is truly a work of modern creative genius. I hope he patents it. KnightOfTL;DR (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Limbaugh's in full meltdown, kinda like the Fukishima Power Plant after the Tsunami that's sweeping GOP single issue anti-social conservative's from dominance in the Republican party. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 00:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Mass Effect 3

Ok, I'm mentioning the game one more time because the ending just got leaked.

In short: It's a horrible attempt at transhumanism and a total ripoff of Deus Ex. The backlash to the video game industry might be worse than the Star Wars prequels. Just a warning. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Who cares if its fun to play. Even the best plots video games are somewhat hackneyed. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That clip got taken down faster than advertisers pulling out of the Rush Limbaugh show. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 18:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The game's released tomorrow so it'll be back up soon. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I need a new video card... GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 18:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I care, AMassiveGay. Every time something anticipated fails to further the medium, video games in general are doomed to a few more condescending stories and bad PR. It doesn't further games, and it doesn't further players. I refuse to not think in order to make a poor story seem better. Not thinking, to me, is never the answer.KnightOfTL;DR (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Not all games can be Assassin's Creed or Bad Company. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What point are you trying to make? Those games only had okay stories. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 18:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that not all games are amazing does not mean we shouldn't expect new games to at least do their best to try to be. In the same way that the fact that not all students get good grades does not mean we shouldn't expect students to at least try to get good grades. And I know for sure that this not Bioware doing its best.KnightOfTL;DR (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone can be a rock star is all I'm saying. And as for the games I mentioned before...the stories did make you think, even though they weren't integral to the puzzles/obstacles that were faced. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't really think that's a valid thing to say about things that are products and not people. But I guess if you want to use that analogy, I don't expect everybody to be a 'rock star'... but I do think that everybody in the relevant society (for games, the game industry) can afford to not be a medieval peasant. Especially Mass Effect: Bioware does have the resources, time, hiring, and other things to make quality products.KnightOfTL;DR (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What's so bad about the endings anyhow? All I've heard so far is that they're 'depressing' and that's there's no 'good' ending. So fucking what? Stop whining -- not all stories have to have a 'and they lived happily ever after' denouement. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 19:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I sure hope they don't ruin CS:GO by adding a story line, plot, drama, characters, dialogue or anything else that gets in teh way of shooting stuff. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 19:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't care about happy endings. Care about well-written endings, and a well-written story. Oh well, I'll wait and see how the rest of it holds up. Maybe they can roll a 20 and somehow fit this in. If not, well I guess I'll be just be irate, as usual.KnightOfTL;DR (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Fallacy, that's not the problem.

Osaka Sun (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As somebody who liked ME1 better than ME2, boy this does really bite. Ugh, awful plot oversight. People had better not just eat this up and ignore that Bioware really can do better than this.KnightOfTL;DR (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, so they're being played up as having 'good' motives then? GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 19:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much. No evil sentient starships eating people for the lulz. And it's all told to Shepard by what appears to be a hallucination of the kid that he sees dying on Earth in the first mission. The BioWare forums are in HCM right now; way to ruin a series. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

While I'm all for villains having sympathetic motives, that does seem to be pretty inconsistent with the events of the first game (haven't played the second). I'm guessing they probably didn't plan out the trilogy beforehand (or changed the storylines). GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 19:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

And the good ending isn't any better. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this where I get to be smug as hell and say "I told you so" a lot? Because that's what I'm gonna be doing all week. I knew for a year the ME3 release was gonna be a giant clusterfuck, so I'm just gonna drink in all the hate and rage while my ego balloons. --CoyoteSans (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Without watching your spoilerific spoilers, I'm just gonna point out that it's usually wise to wait for a game to come out before declaring Teh Suckage based on something that got leaked onto the internet. Especially when Bioware is involved... ERK! | Complaints Hotline 22:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You know you're old

When you don't even remember Mass Effect. Copperhead^Hisssssss 21:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

On the plus side, you'd probably be getting more sex. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Copperhead^Hisssssss 22:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

...I never understand why parents let their 10 year old kids play those games, and allow them to curse and stuff in the headphones. It's not cool when I'm playing and all of a sudden I hear some 10 year old's squeaky voice go: "GO FUCK YOURSELF! TEAAAABAGGGG". Kids are scary these days.--Dumpling (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Because, by the time they're ten, you're losing control. Most of what they do, say and think is coming from their peers on the playground and, if they're doing it in front of you, at least you know what's going on. Most of my bonding with my son at that age was done via computer games and he could beat the cra... oops, sorry dad, stuffing out of me back then. BTW, it was Golden Axe, mostly, talking about knowing that you're old. Jack Hughes (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking for some help

Four years ago Baylor University published a study they did on religion, I believe called "What Americans Really Believe". Part of it at the end showed some statistics on beliefs in the supernatural among various religious groups, as well as the non-religious. A bunch of organizations, including CP, jumped on the section which seemed to indicate that non-religious people are less rational than religious people. I remember reading the study a couple years ago, and seeing all sorts of blatant flaws and biases in it, and was thinking it might make a good topic for an article. Unfortunately i can't find the actual study again. I believe with enough google searching I got a pdf of it once, but the closest I can find now is this which has sample of data, but not the relevant bits. There's a chance I might still have the old pdf somewhere on my old computer, but I was hoping to be able to find it online. Anyone with better search skills than I able to find it? Here's a WSJ article on the study, which conveniently doesn't link to the study itself. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I used Google with terms baylor study religion supernatural , and got a couple pdf and what look like reviews of the study. www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/153501.pdf www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/138247.pdf Hamster (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Jury Duty

I have jury duty.

And not just regular petit jury duty, I have grand jury duty. In my jurisdiction (Prince George's County, aka "Peegee Canny", Maryland) that's one day a week for four months. It starts the first week of April, and I have an orientation session this month.

And to make it better... I'm currently in a "temp-to-perm" status at work. The staffing agency that I technically work for offers zero leave at all. I'm scheduled to roll over to a full time employee of my company in April, but they only will grant five days of jury duty leave. I'll get vacation time, but I don't want to have to burn it like that. So, I'm going to have to do a lot of ten hour days to make up the time.

And it's more complicated than that. On the same day I got my summons for jury duty, we were told there's funding issues on our contract, and we may be out of our jobs come the end of June. Our boss hasn't told us yet we need to start looking for work, but he didn't say not to start looking yet either. (He basically said, "I'm not going to tell you what to do yet, you have to look out for yourselves." For what it's worth, he's going to try to keep as many people as he can, and I think my chances are pretty good. He likes me, I'm the only person on the team who can do what I do, and I've already been approved for access to the customer's systems) This is relevant to the jury duty because it's going to make it more difficult to find a new job if I have to tell any prospective employer, "oh, by the way, I can't work any Tuesday till August." I will tell them I'm willing to do four ten hour days a week, of course.

I called the jury coordinator's office and explained the above. The response was, though more politely that this, "tell it to the judge at the orientation session." I'm going to ask for a one year postponement.

Like a lot of areas, for petit jury duty, PG County uses a "one day or one trial" system. I did that form of jury duty before, and kinda liked it. (It was an interesting civil case where we got to see someone attempt to be his own attorney. We jurors laughed at his incompetence so many times the judge eventually shot us a nasty look.) I actually wouldn't mind doing grand jury duty if it wasn't such a long commitment at such a bad time for me. But one day a week for four months -- really, that's a lot to ask of anyone who has a full-time job. I realize that grand jury duty takes training and such and a "one day or one trial" system really wouldn't work out, but... ick.

I can somewhat understand now why people used to not register to vote so they wouldn't be on the jury duty lists. (Most places now use driver's license lists instead.) MDB (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

When I was living in London I got summoned at least three times for duty at Kensington Crown Court; as a self-employed person largely working overseas I applied for a deferral each time although it was something which I have always wanted to do. Living in a rural area I doubt that I'll get the chance again. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I just said "you do know that I'm not even 18 and am a full-time student, right?" and have never been bothered by it again. Kinda sucks, though. You can't just say "I really don't want to do this, I'll not only suck but it'll screw me over"? ^{d hominem} 13:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I just finished grand jury duty in January, and I mostly liked it (it was 2 days a week for 3 months for me). Now I thought employers had to give you leave for jury duty, and couldn't limit it to a certain number of days. Look into that much. You probably won't get paid for the days you miss, but the jury should pay you at least a token amount (I got $40 a day). You might not have to tell new employers about jury duty until they hire you, at which point they can't punish you for it, but I'm not sure about this. It might be a bit dickish to do that anyway. When it comes to layoffs, your company isn't allowed to punish you for the time you miss for jury duty either, though if a round of layoffs comes it could unofficially count against you I suppose. In any case, putting it off for a year or at least several months might solve your issues; of course the downside s that you don't know what other problems might be going on then. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I should have been clearer -- I can get five days of paid leave for jury duty. I can take all the unpaid days I want.

Not to brag, but at the salary I earn (software engineer, 20+ years of experience) any jury duty pay isn't going to come close to making up for the time I miss at work.

I'd never not tell a perspective employer about the situation. I've already talked with two staffing agencies about potential positions, and told them both about it. I think asking for a year's deferral is my best bet -- basically, "I'm willing to serve, but now is a very bad time for me professionally." MDB (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Judges are really fair about real life. and not simply because they care about you, but because if you are stressed, you are more likely to be inattentive. If you miss a day, the entire proceedings can fuck up, etc. You should be fine explaining your sitution. While JD is a duty we are supposed to do, it's one that is NOT supposed to effect you negatively. Simply not being able to afford the time off is a valid excuse, and with the need to look for a job, even more valuable. Though if you didn't have a job already, they might not see that as an excuse, as it's extremly hard to actually find work these days. ;-) And Jobs cannot fire you for JD, but if they have already given "short notice", they are not under the same restrictions, cause it's clearly not due to the JD but reality of their financial situation.Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 15:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't served jury duty yet; the first call I got was cancelled. But I have heard that once you get there there's a chance you won't be chosen to serve, because of jury selection. A relative of mine has a story that she tells about how she was dismissed by a lawyer because she knit in the courtroom: proving her attention to detail, which was something that would not help the defendant... That's just a story though, so feel free to call it a tidbit, not an accurate account.KnightOfTL;DR (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In terms of missing a day, grand jury is different from trial jury. While it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, we had 22 jurors, and needed a quorum of 16, so people missed days all the time and it was only an issue once, when we fell to 15 for an afternoon and they had to reschedule one witness. The days we actually had 22 jurors I could probably count on one hand, so missing a day here and there wasn't a huge issue. As for getting deferred, I'm sure it largely depends on the person who makes the call (I forget if it was the judge or the commissioner of jurors). I don't think most will take "I can't afford the time from work" as an excuse, though if you can make a good case as to why it might work. Either way, the best they'll probably do is put it off for another time, which you can do automatically once anyway. When I got called, they gave us an opportunity for a private discussion on why we couldn't do it. I obviously didn't hear the reasons given, but I believe out of 7, 6 were allowed to go (plus one woman who was 8 months pregnant and given an immediate deferral). My father got off indefinitely, I think, but terminal cancer will do that (I don't recommend that path). There is always the chance that you won't be seated, but it's not something you should by any means count on. Again, my own experience might not match yours, but when I served I think well over half the people were either seated or deferred. I think only around 15 or 20 who showed up didn't have their numbers drawn at some point. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Know anyone in law or law enforcement? My father was/is a lawyer (still licensed but changed careers a number of years ago). I just tell them that and they throw me out instantly. They definitely do not want anyone who might have a familiarity with relevant law. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I lied -- I tried to get on one jury because I was selected for the trial of an alleged al-Qaeda operative. The one time I wanted to, I didn't get picked, dammit. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Depends on the type of law, and the case the lawyers will be tossing up. (Grand Jury is all criminal, so this stuff is irrelevant), my lawyers LOVE other lawyers cause what we are tossing out is usually very technical, often very perception based, and hinged on subtle distinctions in reading the same case law. ie "This is what the law says, but what does it *mean*". Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 15:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've always wanted to be on jury duty so I could be all like "NOT GUILTY, BITCHES!!! FUCK THE POLICE!!!" for any violation of a law I didn't agree with. The court can't bind you by the rules of logic, can they? Occasionaluse (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@OU: See Jury nullification. @Godot: When I go in, there's a checkbox on one of the forms that asks you if you have anyone in your family that's in law or law enforcement. They just toss me when they see that. My father said they don't want lawyers on juries, but he worked in criminal law so I guess it's limited to that area. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll go one step further than arguing for jury nullification. "Your honor, I have a deeply held belief that it was a mistake to abolish trials by ordeal and combat. They had the right idea in the Middle Ages." MDB (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Pretty simple, really. Places you want an educated jury: Anything from the tech industry; anything in high end construction; anything where the issue at hand is the interpretation of the law itself. Places you want an emotive jury: Criminal cases; cases against any celeb, politician, etc., where you are going to talk about their character; any case that involves "the small guy against the machine" (employment cases, wrongful injury cases, piracy cases, etc; any case that involves a dead or wounded victim and money. Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 16:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You never want an emotive jury. Have you seen the controlled experiments where people who look shifty get convicted more frequently than the handsome ones despite them being presented with the same evidence? ^narchist 17:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no place for emotions in law. And I should add that "small guy against the machine" sometimes turns out to be "shady guy going for the martyr image". --Tweenk (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Got my questionnaire in the mail today :/ Тy^Ahoy! 02:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

We've pissed off the paleos

Brace yourselves. The assault on veganism is coming! Osaka Sun (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sweet. ^_^ --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 21:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Let them come; they shall smash against the walls of reality--il'Dictator Mikal 21:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Be careful. They have Jesus on their side. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 22:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I am so ready for someone, anyone to tell me how our ancestors lived and why they were so much healthier though they generally died around 35, ate whatever they could find including at times things none of us would consider food (and i'm not just talking insects), most likely did eat insects, ***Necessarily*** ate organ meat (which i doubt any paleo eats) which provides a host of variety that you're not getting just eating those nice chicken breasts. Oh what else, oh yes, there's teh fact that meat made up less than probably 10% of our diet, just cause franly, it's fucking hard to catch - yet it makes up a large portion of the paleo world. and good god "oh, honey, that's simply not how paleolithic man ate". feel free, Paleo's. (at least it means someone knows we exist). Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 22:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with offal? Aside from what's being served up at Cold Fusion, I'm rather fond of offal. Except for tripe. Yuck. And lights. *Shudder*. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 22:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

There is NOTHING wrong with it. But this is the US, and these are americans. The most exotic meat they eat is the dark meat on a turkey. I'm not sure I'm comfortable eating brain till we figure out mad cow, but the husband unit has me eating all kinds of things. All I ask is he waits to tell me what it is AFTER i've eaten it, especially if it's cute. I LOVE rabbit now. but I don't really want to know that i'm eating thumper. Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 22:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I eat scrapple, spam, and hogs head cheese voluntarily. Must be something about Louisiana. Тy^{sic semper} 22:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We have the same problem with kangaroo meat. People get funny about eating Skippy. They don't have a problem feeding her to their dogs, on the other hand. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 22:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Fuck that. KANGAROO=YUM. If you know how to cook it (or it ends up resembling a boot). You can actually buy human-suitable kangaroo meat in London, though it's about three times the price and really not worth it - David Gerard (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh it's for sale here in the supermarkets, it's just that some people's eyes well with tears when you mention how well it goes with juniper. --MtD^{Pinko Scum} 22:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Not being able to eat something oneself and posting about it on the wiki as though it's irrational to eat it are different though. I mean, having tried them, I'm not big on jellyfish, sea cucumber, and urchin... but I wouldn't call fans of these foods crazy (and I did enjoy soya fried cricket. Mm, crunchy). Food article editors need to look out for that, there seems to be a lot of subjective 'yecchy' going around. I just finished editing some off of the paleo article in question. ERK! | Complaints Hotline 22:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I watch those articles pretty closely. I think the only thing out there was the picture of fisherman's stew (not sure about the raw side of it, but then again I dissected oysters for a summer...bleah) and you got that one. I don't think we have made any other "eu, don't eat it cause it's ikcy" comments on this wiki. Even about things like deep fried pork skin. euuuuGodotoi, putain, genial, merci 23:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It could also be that my subjective yecchy observation was subjective. But if I see another one YOU WILL BE THE FIRST TO KNOW, SIR/MADAM. ERK! | Complaints Hotline 23:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No no, you were dead right on that one. that captian had been changed time and again. hopefully, yours will stick. Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 23:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Offal accommodation

A British friend of ours who lives in LA wanted to make steak and kidney pie (or something similar). When she asked for kidneys at the local supermarket, the guy behind the counter said, "Kidneys? We don't sell body parts." Ajkgordon (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A few years ago in China I had to go to a hotel in Yantai for breakfast and the only recognisable item in the buffet was boiled eggs. While checking out of the hotel I noticed that list of room rates included a "Tripe Room". Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

For all those that don't know your basic Chinese signs, that's supposed to say "triple room" (三 three; 人 person, human; 间 room). --★uːʤɱ digital native 12:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? Who'd have guessed? Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 12:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm more interested in the "Room dates" --PsyGremlin話しなさい 15:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hahahaha. You would. Tsk tsk! Anyways, YAY FOR WEIRD FOODS! :3 Live octopus. YUM.--Dumpling (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

NO NO NO NO NO - my food will not still be squirming when I eat it. I love octopus, but NOT LIVE. --Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 23:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I've eaten other live things besides octopus. Oh well~ To each their own!--Dumpling (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of disgusting foods I'll never eat VELVETA! shudders. --Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 23:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Anti rape vs pro rape advert

Just the lynx advert on the telly, the one where they basically say lynx is causing global mass rape, directly followed by genuine anti-rape advert. Deliberate do you think? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What? TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 00:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to the text-based web-browser, which has been known to cause rape because of an inability to view images or videos. Cow...Hammer^time! 16:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Lynx is useful when you're on a command-line-only interface and you need to lookup something; for example, if you just installed Arch Linux and don't have another computer handy, and you need to know how the hell to install Gnome. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 22:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No I refer to the lynx deoderant advert in the UK. It is a fake new report showing chaos arround the world, with people being dragged off by crowds of the opposite sex if they use lynx. It basically says you will be gang raped if you wear lynx. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That's been Lynx's (or Axe as it's known in the US I think?) promotional method for as long as I can remember seeing their adverts on TV. Wear lynx and get sexually assaulted. Or downright hunted down by packs of ravenous and oddly dressed women. X Stickman (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeh i know, but this latest seems even worse than usual. And it was followed immediately by proper anti rape advert. I just wondered if this was deliberate by the people doing the anti rape ad. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't really think too much about the lynx until I saw the other ad right after. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Just makes me think of the spoof advert Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The only thing I have learned from this is to stay away from CowHammer and/or Nihilist if they do not have a proper image/video viewing web browser. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 20:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Updates on "single mothers (parents) are child abuse" from early last week

The sponsor of the bill has been further interviewed, and his views are even more sad than I thought. HereGodotoi, putain, genial, merci 03:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, this was the same guy that unrepentantly called the people protesting at the Wisconsin State Capitol "A bunch of slobs!" Doesn't surprise me at all that he's a jackass no matter the cicumstance. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 13:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

A 56-year old unmarried man? Sounds like a confirmed bachelor to me. Apparently he has a history of being a dick. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 13:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Make this go blue. Sophie^{because liberals} 15:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 16:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, I don't see this guy anywhere saying a single parent raising children is abuse, only that abuse occurs disproportionately in these situations. If you look at the video of him before the committee, he does cite some statistics. Obviously I can't attest to their accuracy, or even what they specifically say, but he seems to say that a study indicates child abuse is something like 8 or 9 times more likely in a household with a single parent and a partner than with two biological parents. That certainly seems high, but it probably isn't too surprising that the former situation more often leads to abuse; it's easy to imagine someone being more inclined to hit someone else's kid over whom they exercise some authority rather than their own child. It seems he wants the literature published by this child abuse prevention board to highlight, or at least mention, this. The problem isn't that he's saying single mother = child abuser, but that he's in danger of stigmatizing a group as a whole, based on what may or may not be accurate statistic about situations in which abuse is more likely to occur. What does it accomplish? Basically nothing. Is pointing out to young women that statistics show more abuse among single parents going to make her less likely to get pregnant? I seriously doubt it. You know, statistics show black people are more likely to be convicted of a crime than whites, is that the sort of thing we want to emphasize too? I'd certainly be curious to see the study he alludes to. I wonder what it says about step parents, for instance, or single mothers who don't have a partner. I'd be surprised if the numbers were any higher for single mothers, as there seems to be evidence that men are more likely to be abusive than women (though more women abuse children overall, as they are by far more likely to be the ones raising children). Also, you have twice as many potential abusers in a two parent household. He also seems to ignore that co-relation doesn't men causation. Perhaps abusive people are more likely to be unable to keep a spouse, and therefore more likely to be single. I think everyone knows that, all other things being equal, a child is better off being raised by both parents than by just one (of course, all other things aren't equal in any situation, and there are plenty of specific instances in which the opposite is true). I'm also not sure what he means when he talks about fathers' (but not mothers???) role in the primary prevention of child abuse and neglect. Fathers are more likely to be abusive than mothers, I believe. He might have a bit of a point with neglect, at least at some level, mathematically, the more people you have looking after a child the less likely he is to be neglected. I guess this might imply that polygamy is better than the traditional marriage, but I'm sure he doesn't want to hear that. Anyway, I don't know what he thinks any of this is going to accomplish, other than give single mothers (and fathers) more of a bad name. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"I guess this might imply that polygamy is better than the traditional marriage"...in the hippy sense, not in the FLDS sense. What's truly amazing is that people are blind to the idea that many people, particularly single or divorced parents, live in polygamous relationships but without the benefit of sexy fun time. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll say this, those fundie Mormon kids in their Little House on the Prairie costumes may well be abused, but they usually ain't neglected. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if there is some sort of statistical basis to his views about marriage & families, his solution of making life more difficult for single/unmarried parents does nothing more than making life more difficult for them (& saving a few welfare/tax dollars here & there). It won't make couples less likely to break up or single women less likely to pregnant. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

science "outline" articles

The mob needs to have an indepth discussion about our overall view of science articles on this wiki. Over the last two months (in no small measure, based on who is asking to delete) we have kept some, dumped some, etc. It's inconsistent, which is always a problem on a wiki like this, when any editor does "whatever". Isn't it time to really discuss "science" on its own? (or as part of the larger 'resource' section - which has also never been addressed). Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 16:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the science articles because it lets you try out some science writing, and invariably you can try to bring it to apply to some philosophy of science or apply it to pseudoscience. E.g., I thought it was totally cool that someone made NMR measurements on homeopathic remedies, and the fundamental basics of spectroscopy is simply how we know so fucking much about the universe that to say that it's not worth communicating, when so many anti-science arguments are along the lines of "how do you know?", is practically heresy. But that's me, I'm sure a lot of others will just think "it's not on mission, kill it" and that's good enough. ^theist 16:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added some for concepts that are commonly abused so I didn't have to explain it on every damn page like neuroplasticity. I think the way I wrote that was useful for RW purposes -- it's not meant to be a comprehensive overview of all the research, just separating the actual meanings of the term from pop science and woo usages and showing how it's commonly abused. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What's a wiki for? It is at least partly for the benefit of editors as well as for readers. People like to write about things they're interested in - There's a load of crap in "fun" - what is its purpose? Should we just delete funspace? Sci-outline articles have more, much more, relevance than funspace. Leave 'em alone! Scream!! (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

While we're on this topic

An idea I had yesterday was to create a wiki for high school/GCSE-level science articles, seeing as wikipedia's science articles are too technical now for many people. Is this a good idea, and if so, should we start it up? Sophie^{because liberals} 18:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That sounds awesome. I'm up for it. :3 --Dumpling (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Same here, but the last time I helped make a wiki it went tits up when the tech guy disappeared. Sophie^{because liberals} 18:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean something like this? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I would be quite hesitant to do that under the rubrics of "rationalwiki", partially because education is tricky, and unless we know what we are doing, it's far to easy to over or undershoot the capacity of the audience. (see CP for a perfect example of both). Also, it would require it's own space, logo, managment, etc., which might be useful, but you'd have to ask if that's appropriate for Rational Wiki Foundation. Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 19:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Erm, isn't that what schoolbooks are for? --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 19:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You know, Yudkowsky is trying to develop a "human rationality" curriculum (and throwing himself and others into the task with such gusto that it's kinda cute and endearing), which makes me wonder if RW would be best suited to perhaps writing an introductory course to skepticism and philosophy of science. One of my ambitions is to get philosophy of science taught to more science undergraduates (with an aim for it being more useful than teaching ornithology to birds, of course) so I'd definitely be interested in brainstorming something along those lines. ^theist 19:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Now THAT I'd personally be very behind. "science" is way general, and we aren't necessarily qualified. but skepticism is something kids and adults may not understand, or know how to do. There are great articles out there in intenet land we could reference on top of our own, including things like "how to know if an ad is fake" or something, but schermer. Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 19:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• There is Wikiversity which is designed for this kind of work, and which is generally highly tolerant. --Abd (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well schools wikipedia and wikiversity look good. Pity they aren't better known. Sophie^{because liberals} 11:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I didn't mean we should try to educate children, but that we should present scientific knowledge that isn't full of jargon and gobbledegook. we ain't all graduates. Sophie^{because liberals} 11:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you're 12 or 52, the method you'd use to learn something is based on what you current knowledge is. So in effect, you'd be able to make something very widely applicable if you just write "assuming no prior knowledge". ^moral 12:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You will be unsurprised to know that Wikiversity has an internal reputation as the last refuge of the cranks and trolls, with serious proposals to shut it down entirely as a lost cause. When Abd. claimed to be an admin on a Wikimedia project, I could guess which project it would be ... - David Gerard (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Тy^{Serious Business Guy} 13:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Would this sort of thing do you, or is it still a bit much? ^sshole 18:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - David Gerard (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This would make a great refutation of the 2012 mythos

If it weren't wrong in oh so many ways... Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 06:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw that on a few of my friends facebook--il'Dictator Mikal 06:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And, obviously, so did I a few minutes ago. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 06:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Broken link . . . Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. This (first thing I found) is effectively the same - it's the image from which the linked is derived and includes the important part. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 07:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Damn you sidereal time! ^bomination 12:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Music question

Sabaton, Fist for fight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6oWW-8_E6c Is this a real group or someones idea of a joke ? and no I really cant tell Hamster (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia article suggests they are a legitimate group. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich "250"

I've just seen (saw?) Newt Gingrich on Sky News and his lectern was bedecked with a picture of a petrol pump with "250" on it. A bit of gooooogling tells me he was pledged that if elected he will get petrol prices down to $2.50 a gallon. I can't find anything describing how he plans to achieve this, has he actually stated this? A quick invasion on Iran maybe? I know the POTUS is a powerful guy, but even he can't control the price of a barrel of oil. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, he also pledged to put an end to earthquakes and hurricanes (I assume). Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you can safely assume it's massive oil subsidies and greatly expanded US oil drilling. Cow...Hammer^time! 16:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Gingrich already promised you a moon base. This sounds relatively tame in comparison. Vulpius (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If an invasion of Iraq didn't lower the price of gas, there's no way an invasion of Iran will do it either, despite all blatherings to the contrary. The real problem with the price of gas is in price speculation anyway...do away with that and prices will start to come down. Maybe. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The last time gas prices were really low was because of a crippling financial crisis and recession. So yeah, Newt he gets elected, there will probably be cheap gas for all! P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 17:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure after he loses a couple more primaries he'll be promising a pony for every citizen. It doesn't matter what he promises, because even on the slim possibility he'll become the Republican presidential hopeful, every journalist will politely "forget" he ever said these things. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

His best bet would be to nuke any country with a sizable population that uses substantial amounts of gasoline but produces little or no oil. That will drive down demand with having much of an effect on supply. Short of that I don't know what he intends to do. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You guys need to shorten your attentions spans by a few orders of magnitude and tap into our national oil reserves. We're sitting on all this oil! We'll go back to worrying/bombing Iran when that runs out. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

He might threaten to send nude pictures of himself to OPEC, I'm sure they'll do everything in their power to avoid that one. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 00:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)