RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive153

This is an archive page, last updated 18 August 2024. 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>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

It's almost 9 am

...and my neighbour has been blasting his stereo for the past 5 hours, stopping me from getting any sleep. Please remind me why it would be bad form to go and kill that imbecile. Vulpius (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

its almost 1 am here.

... do you live in central europe? --il'Dictator Mikal 05:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Finland actually. Vulpius (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Finland you say? Yeah, kill him—it wont make much of a dent in your appalling homicide rate. ;) Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 06:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear that at least someone is watching Tuomas Enbuske. Vulpius (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Won't the Finnish police do anything if you complain? Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A bit late for that, but I'll definitely call them if this keeps up until next night. (Six hours and counting!) Vulpius (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe knock and ask him to be quiet? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 10:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You can get ear plugs from a chemist and they work as a temporary solution. If you use them night after night wax builds up in your ears. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I tried knocking, repeatedly. My theory is that he had simply passed out or wasn't even home since it had zero effect. The music finally stopped around noon in any case and I managed to take a little nap. Gonna sleep like a log tonight, as long as it's quiet. Vulpius (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If your neighbour wasn't answering the door you should've thrown a rock through the window with a note attached saying "shut the fuck up." Failing that, follow the rock through the window and turn off the sounds yourself. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 09:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Goat wiki

Is the goat in our logo our April fool's joke or am I missing something?--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 10:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Joke's on you Bob: the seekrit cabal had a meeting and decided it was time to change to logo. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 13:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow. So sekrit!--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 13:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess I missed that one completely... ħuman 23:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

An April Fool's joke, courtesy of your's truly :-) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A picture of Andy would have been funnier. Make a note of that for next year. Sophie^{because liberals} 10:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I figured we were trying to move past Conservapedia. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

April Fools

I'm outraged RatWikians don't celebrate this great day. While Wikipedia is celebrating it on main page, the lack of humor in this site is appalling. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been dangling my penis out of my window at oncoming traffic on the road below with a sign that says "honk if you like fishing!" in honour of this great day. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 14:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I fucking hate april fool's day. It's an entire day of nothing but paranoia. X Stickman (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Although i find it fun sometimes, i've never been a fan of the day. Also; SN, as you well know MP doesn't get to do anything without a massive fight with cries of NOT A ENCYCLOPEDIA. --il'Dictator Mikal 15:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to just stay inside and avoid people today. April Fools on a college campus either means apathy or people running around and flashing them or something. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{yeah, well you fight like a cow!} 15:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to do something on the Intercom, but alas, no mod powers. :( Osaka Sun (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

April Fools stuff is usually pretty dumb. One of my Facebook friends posted "I got the job in Australia" & got a mixture of congratulations & "is this an April Fools stunt?" responses (which of course it was). I guess it's just a bit of fun but I'd feel horribly awkward pulling that kind of joke. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, hey! I changed our logo and everything! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

And I quit and became a singularitarian, and Maddox grew up. ^gnostic 10:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm enjoying the RDF's Facebook page at the moment. ^moral 11:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Where will America go if the Affordable Care Act is struck down?

The ACA's prospects aren't looking too good. I don't think it will cost Obama the election, though it will kick Health Care Reform back some 20 years, and Obama won't have the same kind of "signature accomplishment" that he previously had (one could argue Dodd-Frank and DADT's repeal though). It may also guarantee a Republican Congress. What do people here think? Mr. Anon (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Your insights seem to be against the grain from what most pundits are saying. They general statement out there is that if it goes down, it will be GOOD for the president and a democratic election in general, because he says "we tried, they blocked us". And he really did give in to a whole bunch of stuff, which will come back to bite the repubs. most of america wants reform. something like 70% is FOR this package. they will not look to favorably on a RIGHT WING "all men's club" Court overturning it.--Godot What do cats dream about? 23:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The short answer is "to hell in a handbasket." Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

General strike. Anarcho-syndicalist revolution now! Secret Squirrel (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I hear the Mediterranean is nice this tyime of year. Of course, it could always go somewhere where it's off-season and avoid the crowds. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 00:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If it goes down quietly, I am going to be very angry. I want to see angry people, I want to see teach-ins, I want to see strikes, I want to see the whole works. I really want to see people caring about this, not just going 'oh, too bad. Oh well. I wonder what else is on TV.' ±KnightOfTL;DR^{lavishly loquacious} 00:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

People should be angry, not just about it being struck down but about what it became in the first place. We shouldn't be compelling people into private insurance's customer base just to subsidize a broken and parasitic system for another twenty years. If we want to actually reform anything, we need to criticize the way medical services are produced: the anti-competitive insurance system, intellectual property rights for pharmaceuticals, ridiculous educational requirements that do not nothing but limit the pool of qualified doctors... But yeah, general strike. Do that. Syndicalism (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

ridiculous educational requirements that do not nothing but limit the pool of qualified doctors If you haven't been sufficiently educated about the human body, you aren't qualified to be a doctor. QED.

It's not that the educational requirements are ridiculous, it's that (a) the cost of that education is ridiculous ($500,000+ for the full medical doctor route) and (b) medical schools have ridiculously high standards. There is little functional difference between the top 2% med schools currently accept, and the top, say, 10%.

But, having that education is important. How can a doctor be qualified if they haven't been sufficiently educated? And what's the alternative to ridiculously educated doctors? Pulling volunteers off the streets, and having them intern? Practical experience alone is not enough, because that ridiculous education provides them the knowledge to understand why so-called alternative medicine is and will always be a pile of horseshit. Otherwise, there's nothing to stop an under-educated doctor from being bamboozled by every quack and huckster out there. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Very, very difficult to say. It's hard to even tell what the court will rule based on oral arguments and past decisions. There is some evidence that the side that gets questioned harder is likely to lose, in which case the administration is in a rough spot. But frankly, this case is probably not about the law, and so precedent of both personal and legal varieties are not reliable. There has only been one case of a similar scope with this court - Citizens United (maybe with the addition of Heller), although SCOTUS remains very similar to the one that decided Bush v Gore, so perhaps you might also include that. While the Roberts court has a record of partisan close-split decisions, almost all of them are defensible under the terms of the law - except these high-profile political cases.

SCOTUS has, until recently, always been extremely careful about major decisions. Things like Brown and Roe had serious weight to them in favor of the majority. But the turn taken with Citizens and (arguably) Bush seem to indicate that this concern is less important to the current justices. More plainly: it's starting to seem like they no longer care much about their reputation as neutral arbiters. However, Kennedy seems like he genuinely does care about how he is perceived, and it's very possible that he will be unwilling to enact another decision of this political scope along such a nakedly partisan basis.

Not a goddamn person knows which way it's going to go, in other words.

If the mandate does get struck down, it seems likely that Obamacare will be gone as well, rather than that the mandate will just be severed. Again, though, this is just speculation, and it may be that there will be a forced compromise on this issue (something that has happened in the past with major decisions).

So anyway, operating on the very uncertain premise that the mandate will be struck down, and the uncertain premise that Obamacare as a whole will also be struck down, and the reasonable assumption the decision would be 5-4:

First of all, this would cause some serious immediate problems for the GOP. The popular provisions of healthcare would also be repealed, including the ability for young adults to stay on their parents' plan and the prohibition on discriminating against pre-existing conditions. Several million people would therefore be shoved off their healthcare. Insurers aren't going to be able to just kick folks off, of course, but rhetorically it will be very effective to declare how many millions are going to lose coverage. The GOP, having now "won," will be under pressure to do that "replace" part of their "repeal and replace." However, they're going to have a very nasty fight. They can't actually re-institute those elements of Obamacare without coming up with a way to pay for it, and such a way would be very unpopular. Democrats might be pressured to work out something, but practical concerns trump the political ones: it's a damned hard problem to solve, especially with the burden of the past few years' hysteria on their backs.

The GOP will get a slight boost for being able to label Obama as the "unconstitutional President," but the 5-4 split will undermine this a lot: one of the problems with Republican justices sacrificing prestige for partisan advantage is that they've effectively and dramatically downsized the club they'd be able to use to beat Obama with. If the decision is 6-3, then Obama will be hurt a lot worse, but this is unlikely.

Overall, it seems likely that Obamacare's loss would help the Democrats a minimal amount in an electoral sense. But it would be a severe loss for America, since universal healthcare won't be passed anytime soon (no one is going to risk voting to end an entire industry).--^talk 00:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated, but Universal Health Care doesn't necessarily mean the end of the health insurance industry. Australia's UHC, for example, relies heavily on private insurance. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A few quick points: Amazing, some of the comments here are just totally out of touch. The coalition that passed Obamacare was booted out of Congress nearly two years ago -- for passing Obamacare. Secondly, the Republicans have had absolutely nothing to do with the failures of the President and his Party, their overreaching, the loss of public support, or SCOTUS tossing their imaginary accomplishments. Failure to recognize any of this is like Republicans arguing today Bush was right. To put it crudely, blaming others for your own stupidity and failures is not leadership. And finally, if the Court rules against the Obama/Reid/Pelosi cabal of collective dictatorship, Obama's in serious trouble in November, since he's pissed away four years on nonsense and hasn't done jack-diddly for 6 million yet unemployed. nobs^{Debate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums?} 02:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Above statement implies HCR is his only accomplishment. He has Wall Street Reform (which 60% of Americans support, widely considered among his greatest legislative accomplishments), Hate Crimes Bill, Better Pay Act, Stimulus, Automaker Bailouts, Bin Laden's death, end of Iraq War, scheduled end to Afghanistan War (which even GOP candidates support now), funding of Stem Cell research, Sotamayor and Kagan, and lowering of deficit (I saved this for last because it is true. 2009 is Bush's budget). Mr. Anon (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that I'm primarily concerned with the actual state of health care in America. FDR also had some of his signature accomplishments overturned by the Supreme Court, as did Wilson, so this won't have too much of an impact on Obama himself. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If it get's tossed, Healthcare goes on the back-burner, except for the crisis the Democrats created for themselves when premiums paid to their donors -- healthcare insurers, skyrocket. And the problems with Dodd-Frank. While depositors, account holders, and local mom n' pop banks got screwed, the big Wall Street crooks -- Obama's donors again, are bigger and more powerful today than ever. nobs^{Debate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums?} 02:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Youre absolutely right about Dodd-Frank. These attempts always end up creating nothing but barriers to entry and competition. I don't consider that any kind of win, not that it's really an Obama thing. Banks got the same treatment under republican administrations. And the FDR situation isn't really the same. It worked out OK for him, because it made it look like he was fighting these old, entrenched interests. We don't have the same perception of Obama, and it'll just confirm what the right already believes and make the left more skeptical. We won't have the energy to try this a second time during this administration. Syndicalism (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot more Dodd-Frank could have done, but it was an important legislation that restored much of Glass-Steagal (hope I spelled that right) and made it so that taxpayers never have to bail out Wall Street again. It also regulated the Federal Reserve and ended "too big to fail" banks. Not to mention establishing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You raise a good point though: FDR and Wilson didn't face much serious opposition. Nonetheless, Obama does have other things to fall back to, as I pointed out. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

My goodness, every time I see a post from Robbie I prepare for brain cell loss. "Cabal of collective dictatorship?" Are you trying to make yourself look like an utter dumbass? Osaka Sun (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I have no beef with obvious trolling. To be fair to him, Pelosi/Reid/Obama were arguably the most productive congress of all, with Obama being better at getting congressional votes than any other president (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122436116). However, Rob, you forget that congresses are directly voted by the people. Guess Republicans were just that unpopular. Mr. Anon (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dodd-Frank has serious issues; in my town, two very well managed local banks with long histories both we're taken over or forced to merge when bank regulators forced them to raise their reserve requirements to pay for the TARP program (the cost of TARP was born by the banking industry as a whole, not the US Treasury. IOW all 14,000+ banks in the US, and their depositors & customers, bore the costs for the 5 sinners on Wall Street, BoA, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, etc.) Those 5 "too big to fail" just three years later are now twice as big. The crooks were rewarded while the little guys got screwed. The Volker Rule still allows wp:proprietary trading, so Glass-Steigal has not been re-instituted. Too big will be even worse next time. nobs^{Debate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums?} 20:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Science or denialism?

Here's something for those who like their science controversial. The latest episode of the Brain Science Podcast interviewed Bill Uttal, who has made a reputation for himself as the gadfly of cognitive neuroscience. Some of Uttal's claims verge on or cross into outright denialism, IMO. (Here's a review of one of his earlier books that I largely agree with.) However, he's bringing up a lot of good criticism in the process. He also tackles some more uncontroversial stuff toward the end, like fMRI being used for lie detection. Well worth a listen/read. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I just had a scary thought

It was pretty obvious that Mitt Romney was the Republican anointed one this US presidential election cycle, but since Santorum garnered more votes than anyone googling his name would expect might it be that next time round the GOP might decide he's their man? It's not like they've got a whole heap of better people waiting in the wings. The scary part is considering how cyclical party democracies tend to be, he might actually win in 2016. President Frothy... it scarcely bears thinking about. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This is actually an interesting facet of the GOP race: there's nothing but severe elite pressure to get Santorum to drop out. Staying in can't hurt him very much, but it can help him a lot. If he keeps on winning a few states here and there and keeping his name out front, he can be the "next in line" person in 2016. While not a slam-dunk, that's a big point in his favor next time around. And of course even if he doesn't run, he can still sell books and stuff in the meantime with his raised profile. He's just spending other people's money to campaign, after all, so why not go on a nationwide vanity tour on his donor's dime? Worked for Gingrich, after all.--^talk 03:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Biden said somethings very interesting on Face the Nation today (a portion seems edited out of the transcript). Look at this, "..this is not your father's Republican party. This is a different party than I'm used to. And I've been around for a while. Both in the House and the Senate it's a different party. And my guess is the Republican electorate is different than it's been the last 10, 12 years. And so you know, that's the change that I'm most fascinated with watching...is how much has it changed? How far right has it gone? Or how anti-government has it become? I mean it's just a different...it seems there's almost a different language. .." nobs^{Debate topic: Should AIG reorganize, get into the healthcare insurance business, and purchase FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums?} 17:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I know lots of rich people. A few of them have "come out" and said that, while they think the republican party has gone completely insane, they will continue to vote republican because they believe it will let them keep more money. A friend's father told me that voting for McCain with Palin was the most regrettable vote he'd ever made. And this year, he'll be voting for Romney. What's he think of Romney? A shameless shapeshifter...with the best chance of lowering his taxes. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

-P-Foster  Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 17:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Diagnosis via internet

Not really sure how to describe what happened, fit or seizue probably isn't accurate and 'blacked out' doesn't really describe it either. I will go with blacked out. Last night I blacked out in my bathroom. I hadn't been feeling well, and I needed to be sick. Went to the bath room, and in the process of vomiting caused some pain in my chest. A few seconds I felt my self going all dark so I sat down on the floor, and found my self in some of kind weird disorienting dream that I couldn't come out of. I evnenually did, coming round with my flatmate standing over me, asking me if I was ok. This has happened before, every year or so. When it first happened, in my early teens, I was diagnosed with epilepsy. A few years back, a doctor told me I wasn't eileptic and probably never was. Black outs remained unexplained. Thse back outs usually happen when i'm eating and something goes down wrong causing pain in my mid chest area. They have occurred without this happening but there no witnesses to the events,so i am unsure if it was the same thing. Any doctors in the house? AMassiveGay (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You live in UK, right? See a doctor and get it sorted properly because unexplained blackouts could kill you as a primary or secondary consequence. And, anything "mid-chest" needs urgent attention, if you'd rung NHS direct they'd have sent an ambulance round like a shot. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been to the doctor on other occasions - this has been happening for years. they tell me nothing hence me asking here. And I should clarify the mid chest thing - its more like pain in the esophogus rather than heart attack type thing. In most cases it seems to be the trigger. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

IANAD (I am not a doctor) but I have learned me some things about neurology and it sounds like deglutition syncope. Probably nothing serious, but you need to go to the doctor. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. I do not understand this approach. You asked actual medical professionals and they "tell [you] nothing" which I'll generously take to mean that they've not found any cause, although it could as well mean "I'm not inclined to listen to what they say" -- but you figure on a web forum you'll find the answers? This happens in my profession too and it's infuriating. If you just want sympathy then write "I don't want any actual answers, just make sympathetic noises" so that people know that. If you want answers, you're asking the wrong people. Why is this so hard to understand? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

When I say they tell me nothing i mean just that. All I hae been told is its not Epilepsy, the original diagnosis. No further tests or anything. I assume it is because it is nothing serious and I am loathe to bother the NHS any further - they are very busy. If i felt like my health was in any serious danger I would go to dr. I am aware that there are folk on here who a wide range of knowledge who might be able to suggest areas to look at. Its this or googling stuff i don't understand. BON - please try to be less of a dick. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dissociative attack? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dissociative attack doesn't sound like it fits. Deglutition syncope sounds closer. I am leaning to towards vasovagal syncope as fits with the pain after swallowing as trigger. I would not be concerned if it weren't for the frightening 'dreams' that i experience when unconscious. Is that normal for folk when blacked out? Maybe these are visions and I am a prophet of some kind. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which, my pug had a seizure yesterday morning. Apparently the breed is quite prone to it. I guess he'll never be able to apply for a driver's licence now :( Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Cover articles and Twitter feed

We have two recent cover articles, 101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe (today) and Freeman on the land (a week ago) which haven't been plugged via @rationalwiki yet. Who runs that thing? Please plug. TYVM :-)

BTW, what article shall we hound to cover status next? What's nearly cooked and just needs a week of peer review? WND is good, but has severely out of date bits, and is of a structure that can go out of date quickly ... - David Gerard (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Osaka Sun runs the official Twitter account. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 14:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The Twitter feed is looking a bit stale. Is there any way to wire up mediawiki to twitter to tweet stuff automatically, like WIGO:CP posts or something? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Spaminating is probably bad. One or two tweets a day by hand is fine, except responses to people - David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There are RSS feeds set up for WIGO, I don't think broadcasting those via Twitter is the best idea. ^theist 16:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been in final exam mode for the past two weeks. I'll be back to full output in the next few days. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could share the password with some other users? (hmm elections for who gets the password?) Not me, though, I hate twitter. Sophie^{because liberals} 19:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I refuse to use it too. ^gnostic 12:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I refuse to use it until I understand it fully. (I understand there may a logical flaw there somewhere.)--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 15:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Opencourseware class on the NHS?

Does anyone know where I could find an online class/resource (sort of like opencourseware) that would have a class on the NHS? So preferably health economics? I've found there is only so much I can learn from the wiki article. Lectures always help me pick up stuff more. άλφα^Ταλκ 15:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Which wiki? ħuman 02:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Publish or perish

Good post on said phenomenon. Always brings to mind the words of Jacques Barzun: "Everybody shall produce written research in order to live, and it shall be decreed a knowledge explosion." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Funding is always going to be an issue and I don't think that there's a system that will work to satisfy everyone and be cost-effective. Even giving pre-tenure academics a set amount of funding causes issues because "hey, you gave it your best shot" is hardly good compensation for the failures that happen all the time. It'd be converting the low-probability high-impact science into a randomised talent show that chews people up and spits them out when it turns out that work that was going to fail from the off actually fails. What would be needed, more than a funding change, is an overall attitude change that says "hey, negative data is a good thing". Fuck, I'm pretty sure some people have tried and failed the stuff I do many times before, but I have no idea about it. In fact, I'm sure of it because I wasted three weeks on a prep that other people had tried but had never been properly written up as a failure ("So I tried to make Rh(I) precursor complex..." - "Oh yeah, we tried that reaction, it just produces brick dust at the end, it's crap and isn't stable." - "Really? Thanks for telling me, guys!!!").

Also, I'm not convinced that the retraction rate is the best metric to judge by. At least not without a lot of qualifiers. Whether the proportion of outright malicious fraud going up, for instance, as that would represent only a fraction of all retractions. ^moral 11:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw one comment to the effect that the increase in retractions is a sign of better watchdog efforts (e.g., online access to journals, science blogging). I definitely agree on negative data -- there are some journals and archives, even specifically for psych, to fight publication bias but they're not very big yet. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The Internet looks like crap

At least, to iPad 3 users. Apparently, that new resolution it's boasting is too good, because all the images look like blurry, pixelated garbage now, even the high-quality professional ones.

RationalWiki, we must not be left in the digital dust! If we are to satisfy the discerning tastes of the technocratic public we cater to, we must DOUBLE the size of ALL our most important logos and buttons! Or, we could, you know, tell Apple users to sod off and preserve bandwidth like everyone else has done for years. --CoyoteSans (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Or we could just, like, not give a shit either way. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the view of not giving a shit as well. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, the more shitty the web looks to people using an iPad, the happier I am. People who buy iCrap should be punished for it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The idea that you need higher resolution images for a handheld device makes my head hurt. Vulpius (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a philosophical allergy to iProducts. To me they embody the perverse value system of marketing, the redefinition of yourself in terms of your possessions. If you watched or read Fight Club, you know what I mean. --Tweenk (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You could ask my 7 year old iPod. No, really you can, the thing is still running smoothly, even though in my mothers hands. For all the overpricing and design fetishes, Apple produces products are pretty well rounded hardware and software wise. Not getting a error every second day also counts as "user friendly". --★uːʤɱ sinner 23:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I have an iPhone 4, but I got it for free from a family member who thought it was ruined after taking a plunge in the sink. Turns out, not so much. I don't think I would've shelled out for it otherwise, even though I find it pretty useful. Edit: But I fucking hate iTunes. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 00:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

So you're living the dream? ^pathetic 11:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

For me, besides the philosophical objections (which mostly result from the fact that I'm an open source person), there are a few practical problems: 1. Can't upload music through USB mass storage interface. 2. You have to pay extra to run your own damn programs on your own damn hardware. 3. Too expensive. --Tweenk (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. It's something to think about. What really annoys me is how the search engines (especially Google images) have changed their protocol. For instance I just searched images for Taylor Swift (I wanted to see her dress from last night's Country music awards) Please don't ridicule me for this, her dress was pretty... but anyway, all the images are close-up head shots. Google images has done this recently. Previously, a search would bring up images of many types, some full length, or with other people, or different backgrounds, etc. I don't want 500 images of close-up headshots only. Grumble. Refugee^{talk page} 21:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a techie guy, but it sounds like eventually new standards will be required - formats like JPG might not be able to scale adequately from their shrunken file into a pretty image. I suspect that later formats will become increasingly more common as people grapple with this, but it will be a slow change and in the meantime new software will fill the gap.--^talk 00:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Nah. JFIF (the JPEG file format) is fine. We can do better now, but there's no incentive to bother because everyone would have to upgrade or else you don't gain anything (the "flag day" problem). The file size is proportional to how "pretty" it will be when reproducing photographs. There is an existing problem that graphic designers use JPEG (which was designed from the outset only to represent naturalistic images, like trees, rocks, people's faces) to handle things like logos, which are usually abstract not naturalistic and so look crap when JPEG encoded. But that's user error, perfectly nice and well-supported formats named PNG and SVG exist for abstract imagery it's just that some so-called "experts" don't know what they're doing. The article also lists other examples where designers don't know what they're doing, e.g. turning text into images 82.69.171.94 (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That works the other way around when people insist on saving everything as PNG when it really doesn't need it. ^narchist 11:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Priest accidentally displayed gay porn during first communion meeting

Title speaks for itself. Classic. Blue (pester) 06:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Whyyyyy Helloooo~ --Dumpling (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The best part is he's trying the Austin Powers "it's not mine!" defence. Though I guess he'd be out of a job if he just came out, so he's got a big incentive. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The funny part is that they need a police investigation over this. "Oh no, a penis! Somebody call the cops!!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of the Daily Fail

Scientist calls out the rag for quote mining his research. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Scientific literacy test

On Talk:WIGOCP there was a short discussion about a terrible online test that purports to test scientific literacy (it in fact tests one's ability to parrot grade-school facts). It leaves much to be desired. So I had an idea. Even if RationalWiki isn't really the right place for the sort of online tests we all love to hate, I bet there's a sizeable number of us who would nonetheless still be interested in collaboratively building a test that, says, truly tests scientific literacy - even if it has to be tucked away off mainspace. I'm sure such a project wouldn't take long to be infested with trolls and/or go down the path of unrelenting shit-throwing like so many other projects (RW itself, some might say). Thoughts? ^{ONE / TALK} 21:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think any 'scientific literacy' test would test the ability to parrot facts, why not do a reasoning test to detect illogical thinking? For example, what type of illogical thinking does DMorris use in his vision of the liberal paradise? TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 21:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

In semi-defense of the test, it's clearly meant to test your knowledge of some basic facts about science, rather than judge your deeper understanding of science, which a multiple choice test would have a hell of a time doing. It's trivia, really, but not the really trivial kind of trivia; it's scientific cultural literacy. Obviously knowing that the "A" in "AM" stands for amplitude doesn't make one a great scientist, but it is something that your basic educated person should probably know. (FWIW I got 42 out of 50; not bad for someone who has hardly had any science since high school.) Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's problem beyond being trivia mostly, is it's a test; and therefor is a judgement on what you know/remember at that given moment in time. But that's a flaw in most tests. I can score a 100% on a test today, but probably not tomorrow with the same questions.--il'Dictator Mikal 23:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I loved the speed of light one - choices: a,b,c, or d! Witty. And yeah, this test is not parroting, you gotta know some wide-ranging shit. ħuman 01:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, 46/50. Not embarrassed about not knowing who Joule was (or caring about the other couple "names" questions), but an interesting range of questions. ħuman 02:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

48. Missed the one on clouds and the one about catlytic converters. Тy^Yes? 02:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What level of scientific literacy? What science? Sorry if I'm being pedantic here, but as an Ivory Tower type, I find the word "science" to be useless in practical terms. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It's your standard natural sciences stuff (bio, chem, physics, Earth science, etc.) and a decent range of stuff, but nothing terribly in-depth (it's supposed to be literacy, not expertise). I missed a few on classical physics and mechanics (which I never took in school), one on bio and a meteorology one, as well as two I knew immediately after I selected the wrong answer (and I admit a couple I got were complete guesses). At one point they ask how old the Earth is (and yes, something in the neighborhood of 6000 years is a choice). Turpis 3:16 (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I actually meant that in reply to the OP in terms of devising a new test, but I guess my comment was out-of-context. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

1,000,000th edit!!!

Based on our current edit rate our 1,000,000th edit should occur in the next two days. You will be able to see it here when it happens. Just in case anyone care. This is total edits to the wiki, not just those that remain, so spam and other things that were deleted counts :-( As a side note a certain wiki starting with C will not have its 1,000,000th edit for at least a month, maybe more. - π 01:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Bugger, so it wasn't me all those years ago? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No that was using the page edit number on the statistics page, which is a) unreliable and b) once again claiming we have had just over 1,000,000 edits. The revision id number is the only reliable way to tell. Pi 3:14 (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

*removes award from userpage* Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm so sorry for yer loss, Crundy. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 09:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

My cache or yours?

Is anyone else noticing the random featured article on the front page no longer rotates, it's just stuck on one article? The template still seems to be randomising fine, but no amount of ctrl-shift-R seems to get me a different random article on the main page. Have we broken it somehow, or is it just caching on my end? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

On my pathetic, wannabe, crappy iPad I got Poe's Law immediately followed by Homeopathy and then Non-materialistic Neuroscience. So it's you. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It caches on the server. ("MediaWiki: There's Always Another Layer Of Caching™.") Tack "?action=purge" on the end of the URL if you want to force rotation. I did this to check how the blurbs for the new cover articles looked in practice - David Gerard (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought we wrote a way to force a given cover story to do that... but that thought seems about five years old so who knows? I may have just done it in html on my hard drive (could I have done that? I doubt it. First theory more likely.). But, yeah. Rotate. A is right next to capslock. Kill capslock. ħuman 02:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

All rational persons make Caps Lock another control key - David Gerard (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. All rational persons have a second keyboard on their mouse. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Delusional

Apologies for the Daily Fail link, but is it just me or is this article a belated april fools joke? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

She's cute and all--Goat only knows how many photos it took to get all of those nice-looking ones, of course--but I see dozens of more remarkable-looking people on a daily basis. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 14:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Even by UK standards she's hardly a stunner. A reasonable looking woman who I wouldn't turn down if the opportunity arose but not a "what are you looking at" from the missus. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have gone viral. And some good images already. I'm guessing the DM did it on purpose to get some traffic. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As you say she's nothing remarkable. What I want to know is why Crundy was reading the Daily Mail.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 15:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I know! It's Derren Brown's fault. He tweeted it. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a minute. The same woman who complains about women treating her unfairly because of the way she looks also writes I use my sex appeal to get ahead at work... and so does ANY woman with any sense It's just the Daily Fail being stupid.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 15:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And now we have to deal with the torrent of Facebook comments and whatnot along the lines of "But how can she be sexist? She's... she's a woman!!" ^theist 15:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I love the second picture in that article. It looks like the caption should be "Last known photograph of victim. Call 999 if you see this man" Cow...Hammer^time! 15:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank God I have a ugly mug, muffin tops and a penis.

Btw: Doesn't she say in the article, that she doesn't drink? Is she sending the many many bottles of champgane she gets offered, back or is she just pouring the Dom Perignon on the floor?--Th. Bernhard (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, dear Samantha has her own website. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 18:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Her face looks weird. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 18:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Second article in response to the criticism from the first. "Their level of anger only underlines that no one in this world is more reviled than a pretty woman." Fucking hell... El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 18:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So I've never looked at the Mail's website before

Yup, it's a rag. That said, their coverage of the Oikos school shooting is a pretty impressive collection of photos--all gleaned from other sites, not their own photojournalism, but still, if I were looking for images from the event, that seems to be the place to go. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 15:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

At least it wasn't Mad Mel. Sometimes ignorance is bliss. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Some hints about reading the Mail without earning 'em dosh. Scream!! (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

They're lawyering up over the caching sites, which is a pain. Also, anyone else find that the most time-efficient way to read the Heil is to read the headline, the first paragraph, the last paragraph and just interperlate the rest from experience? ^narchist 12:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

In the Negaverse, this rag would be making a legit point

This can be interpreted as an honestly important feminist issue. Although many societal advantages are awarded to women who fit the image of social desirability, those advantages are given for just that. While a tweenager may dream of someday being 'So beautiful, it's a curse!' there are equally as many women out there who cannot advance unless they use their looks to get it, even if they have adequate credentials. They are at a high risk for rape in many areas, and in witness stands their credibility is impacted by their image. So yeah, the shallow advantages of this position mask underlying problems with society. Less magazine-cut women wish they could be looked upon with worship like pretty models, while people who actually are closer to that standard are at higher risks of rape and are dogged by unpleasant stereotypes and those magazine expectations all the time. No way to win. And every person that gives into the trap and uses their bustline to get a promotion (which works even on Wall Street, as a good insider friend of mine informs me; many of her bosses have been instated that way) just makes it worse. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 16:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any sort of statistical evidence to back up your assertion that there's a causal relationship between conformity to societal standards of beauty and the risk of rape, or did you just pull that out of your ass? P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 16:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No specific statistics, unfortunately, but the defense 'She dressed provocatively, she was asking for it!' is still an effective defense in some parts of the USA, indicating this bias. I'm fairly sure there were specific statistics in my Womens' Studies class last semester, so if you would like me to go and ask them about it I would be all too glad to do so. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 16:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, I have made an error. I am referring not to increased frequency of rapes, but to charge and punish rapes. I should have been more specific. A woman who conforms to societal standards of beauty has a harder time prosecuting rape charges in parts of the USA because the defense 'she was asking for it because of how she dressed, and what place she went to, she most likely consented' is still able to hold even though it is abhorrent. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{just shut up already} 16:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

But as I pointed out above it's the same woman who says it's advisable to use sex appeal to get what you want. There may be a contradiction here.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 18:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, no. No it's not. Are you saying that women who dress up, put on makeup to go to a bar are the same as people who use sex appeal to get their boss to give them a promotion? And if you are, how does that make a 'no' from her any less legitimate when it comes to sex? ±KnightOfTL;DR^{critical thinking is the key to success!} 19:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

She doesn't mention rape in either article and I don't see how it has much bearing on either of the issues (using looks to get ahead / being hated for it). ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* I'm not talking about her article in specific, that's why I said 'in the negaverse,' implying 'in a universe where they were trying to make a legitimate point.' What I mean is that this article feels like a poke at 'oh no, I am hot so society treats me differently, it's a curse' when in fact yes, this is a legitimate statement with serious implications in the real world. It's just that this article didn't hit upon them. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{going galt: the literal crazy train} 20:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

She was trying to make a legitimate point, but it was badly undermined by her hypocrisy & feeble arguments. Bob points this out & you accuse him of thinking no means yes, or something? OK, so society is sexist and makes judgements about women's appearance. This is hardly news. But the point Brick's article is making (other women hate me because I'm cuter than them) is completely different from the one you're making about risks of rape & blaming the victim. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I would argue the point is not. They're both symptoms of the same society. What I am trying to get at is that this article, while it brings up the issue, fails in that it also ends up trivializing the argument in its failure. My crux point is the fact that women are judged by their appearance effects pretty much everything for us: from not being taken seriously at work, to not being taken seriously when trying to get justice for crimes done against us. Which this article sort of almost touched upon, but failed spectacularly in a way that it hurt its own case. Also, I'm sorry if I came across as accusatory. His statement in justaposition to my own confused me. It sounded a little like the old mysogynist argument, 'women want it both ways!' but I didn't think that was what Bob meant at all, so I wanted to hear some more clarification. :( ±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 23:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

On that point I agree: really beautiful people, women especially, are quite likely to get reduced to their physical appearance and not taken seriously as complete human beings--and that's not just a grown-up/sexual phenomenon, either. My mother-in-law is very conscious to never tell my baby niece how beautiful or cute she is; she tells her how clever and smart she it at every turn, though. Kids who get noticed/complimented on their appearance are bound to see that as what matters most about them and carry the values attached to that into adulthood. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 20:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Tim Dowling's response

From the Guardian. Very amusing. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 18:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Almost as hilarious as her own response to the backlash. Wildly missing the point. I laughed out loud at the last couple of paragraphs. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Things that happen in Ireland

"How was work today, dear?" "Oh, much as usual. A horse tried to sodomise me at one point." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL is a much abused phrase on the internet, but I really did laugh out loud at that. Animal rape is the height of humour and sophistication. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you could of phrased your last sentence better AMG... While a horse humping a cop is hilarious, a cop humping a horse is less so. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 20:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, NSFW that please. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah Jeeves, please remember to NSFW your ambiguous, undescribed links. I had no idea what I was getting myself into there, because I'm an idiot. ^{ONE / TALK} 21:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Osaka, Be thankful that I didn't link you to the original source. The thread includes My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic scat porn. Rule 34 in action. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Rule 34 is "War is good for business." -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You're looking at the wrong list. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Somebody found his balls!

It kinda was time, if you'd ask me. --★uːʤɱ pirate 20:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Jesus. Who's out of touch? the GOP is about to nominate a moderate RINO that independents (who voted for Obama and later rejected) love and Republicans conservatives feel uneasy about. nobs^{Debate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums?} 20:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody loves Romney, he has no characteristics constant enough for such a feeling to appear. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 20:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't wait for him to legalize polygamy. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 20:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You only want polygamy because it's a short step from there to being allowed to marry animals. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The day I can marry multiple dolphins of the same sex is the day that I am truly free. Nihilist 23:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't remember meeting any of these so called middle-ground independents in years. Do they really exist? In recent times the only thing that seems to matter is how well you can motivate your potential supporters to get out and vote. Anyway, calling Republicans out on their social darwinism is a good start, even if we all know both parties are full of corporate stooges. Q0 (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Every single independent I met who has "rejected" Obama has "rejected" him for being too right-wing. I don't think anybody really loves Romney. He's the John Kerry of the Republican party. Omar (gibber) 14:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Except Kerry's not a chickenhawk. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Obama is President today because the Stock Market Crash of October 6, 2008, one month prior to the November General Election. This crash wiped out the 401(k) retirement accounts of independent white voters age 55 plus, Obama's weakest demographic group without which he could not win. Within three months, that demographic group of independent moderates, who pinned their retirement hopes on Wall Street, realized Obama was an anti-capitalist with his focus on Stimulus spending and government mandated healthcare. He lost them then, and has never gained them back. This has always been Romney's core constituency -- outside the GOP. nobs^{Debate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums?} 19:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

More "Obama is anti-capitalist" lies, Rob? How, then, do you explain "The Dow rose 66 points on Friday to close out the best first-quarter point gain—994.48 points—in its history, and the best first-quarter percentage performance—8.1%—since 1998.", then? Sophie^{because liberals} 19:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Bloated executive compensation? Obama's corporate donors? nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 19:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

-- Seth Peck (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Rob, why don't you sod off back to CP or some other hate site instead of hanging round here like a bad smell? Sophie^{because liberals} 20:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This primary is marked as the first time since he promulgated it that Republicans are breaking Reagan's "first commandment", at least on a national level. ħuman 02:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bush-McCain primaries were pretty nasty. nobs^{Debate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums?} 19:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

FTB has anti-fans and they cite...us?

Apparently there is an anti-Pharyngula/FTB wiki called Phawrongula and they cite RW on some pages (e.g., here). Can't vouch for the factual accuracy of the site, just found the page randomly and read one or two articles. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with their assessment of Greg Laden, but the half dozen other articles I read were pretty bad. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I got up to where it says that Rebecca Watson called for a Richard Dawkins boycott and stopped. Nihilist 23:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

So is this just a repository of Elevatorgate butthurt? If so, I regret even posting it -- didn't really read much besides a few lines of a couple of articles as it looked like documentation of internet drama and that puts me to sleep. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yah, I completely dismissed any paragraph that mentioned Rebecca Watson. They reeked of butthurt. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Are they still fighting over this? Osaka Sun (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Only the very dumbest parts of "they." Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Even Watson herself has grew some sense and stopped mentioning it (well, she seems to be over it.)... But did you read the part that says "The Phawrongula Wiki is a resource for documenting systemic fact distortion and historical revision by self-described freethinkers and secularists who are actively harming freethought and secular communities in the pursuit of self-interest and ideology." - and this phrasing didn't set off alarm bells at all? Sounds like something SCEPCOP would write.

Also, consider "The custom FFTB definition is a nonsense and is nothing more than an exercise in self-justification for the general vacuity of its readership who continuously show absolute inability to defend any of their derangements using acceptable methods and thus have no tools other than direct personal abuse to resort to." from the ad hom article, in light of "Please stick to basic facts and leave the colorful language and editorializing for elsewhere." which is on the mainpage. ^sshole 12:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Meh, MRAs stoking grievances. Also, experts predict, sun to rise in East tomorrow. Godspeed (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I was willing to read it out, (I've always felt that PZ was a bit of a dickhole sometimes), UNTILL they started defending The Amazing Atheist AKA TJ AKA Distressed watcher AKA whatever you wana call him. If PZ is a bit of a Dickhole sometimes, AA is a huge, throbbing, infected asshole of a human being. All the "clever" puns and inserts also get old REALLY fast. --Revolverman (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Titanic - now in 3D

So I guess we are supposed to get all excited. People are running columns about how amazing this film was. Is it only me who thought it was "fine"... The acting was ok, the plot predictable (not the boat part, the "love story") part, the story, characters and presentation were rather banal. Yet so many people rate it "masterpiece". What am I missing?--Godot What do cats dream about? 03:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this first half was crap and the second half was quite good. Also, all the main characters were irritating cliches, but some of the minor characters were really well done. A father putting his daughter on a life boat stirred up more emotion in a few seconds than the entire cast of leads did for the combined 3 hours. I haven't been to a 3D movie since the neo-3D craze began, and assuming I do go to one it will be one shot in 3D rather than having the effects done in post. Maybe I'm waiting for a re-release of Avatar (which we know is coming) as I never got around to seeing it. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

because of how my eyes are, ive never really been able to watch anything in 3-D, so i never cared much for it. as for titanic... it was ok. the love plot conflict is sorta like twister having a guy whos evil cause he wanted to actually be able to be a real storm chaser and have the money and tools to do it because mother nature isnt a "Villian". The other problem is my memory of titanic is marred by the two animated italian movies.--il'Dictator Mikal 03:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The rerelease of Avatar will occur only after the spread of 4-D technology. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The latest Spy Kids flick bills itself as 4D, the 4th "dimension" being smell. It was a cool gimmick when John Waters did it in Polyester years ago, but I don't think this will catch on. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Nekkid Kate winslet in 3-D would be worth 12 bucks to me. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 03:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Just don't bring back the rapping dog in the 3D version. Тy^rant 03:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

My take:

1. This trend of 3D remakes is getting awfully annoying.

2. No one must say a word about "My Heart Will Go On." Celine! Osaka Sun (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

God how I loath her. And I don't use that word often or easily. She can turn an interesting, even powerful song into a horror show, screeching and wailing...Her version of "Halleluiah" causes me to want to break things. There's this amazing song 'la memoire d'abharam' about a contemplative pray on life, a quiet, gentle song and she just goes wonkers polluting it with that hyper voice. it's a PRAYER. Ok sorry.. shutting up.Godot What do cats dream about? 04:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I totally understand. Canadian music has churned out some real crap for the past few decades. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Or just pop music in general.

FUCK POPULAR THINGS. Nihilist 14:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This was totally me during Leo's death scene. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The shark still looks fake. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ignore it and it will go away

3D movies are a recurring phase which recycles every 30 years or so. (1950, 1980, 2010) After a while people realise that it doesn't add anything to the movie and the glasses are a pain in the fundament to wear so it dies down again. Plus ca change... Jack Hughes (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, but recent changes -- being able to see it without glasses and have it in your own TV, and eventual price-drops -- could make it stay for good. Nihilist 13:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

But the starfield will be correct!

now astronomers and the like can't complain that isn't what it should look like!--il'Dictator Mikal 15:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Now I have to go see it again in theaters and buy a new Blu-Ray special extended version! Nihilist 15:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Tyson is a riot. He told the Daily show, on air, that the earth was spinning the wrong way. Not to be "one uped" Jon replied something like "well it took you 3 visits to notice it". --Godot What do cats dream about? 20:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Gods as Topological Invariants

This came across my RSS feed a couple days ago, perhaps some will appreciate: "We show that the number of gods in a universe must equal the Euler characteristics of its underlying manifold. By incorporating the classical cosmological argument for creation, this result builds a bridge between theology and physics and makes theism a testable hypothesis. Theological implications are profound since the theorem gives us new insights in the topological structure of heavens and hells. Recent astronomical observations can not reject theism, but data are slightly in favor of atheism." --216.155.153.104 (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"the number of gods must equal some such science type of thing" except... by they're nature gods tend to be in a world separate and not under this worlds control, so no, it doesn't. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet their effect on this world will be observable, regardless of "where" they might be and you can invent as many plains of existence as you like for that. All that matters is their observable effect. If you demand that they have no observable effect then there is no effect, and so their existence can be happily made utterly pointless on all conveievably useful levels. ^narchist 12:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I find this sentence particularly convincing:

• "We show that the number of gods in a universe must equal the Euler characteristics of its underlying manifold."

Sounds like something our Muslim post-editor might have come up with.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 15:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Spring cleaning

I know most of you probably don't want to hear about it, but our CP space clean-out is still ongoing and could use more input. I think we started with something like 674 articles listed and are now down to a more manageable 244, with probably somewhere between 150 and 200 deleted so far. If anyone with any interest in our CP space takes 15 minutes to go through some of these we can probably remove a few dozen more pretty quickly. The MO I've been basically using is when votes are a 4:0 or 5:1 ratio it's closed with that result, though goat votes can complicate it, as that's where 3rd options and other suggestions have been listed. Concentrating on the ones that are currently around 3:1 could close them soon, or prevent them from being closed prematurely if you disagree with the majority opinion. That should leave just the more debatable ones, which can linger for a while and be closed when we are hopefully able to reach some sort of consensus (or maybe just majority opinion; I don't know if we want to take a more WPish approach here - that can be hammered out later). If you are going to vote, please do at least skim the article in question first. It's clear that isn't happening in some cases. Thanks. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going through some more right now. I actually find this pretty interesting. I wasn't here for most of these developments, so reading about them is pretty fascinating. And in some cases repulsive. But mostly fascinating. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 14:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not the mainspace, no need to go overboard... ħuman 02:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleting is so much easier work than creating, after all. ħuman 02:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I basically agree on both points, although there was a lot of chaff to separate from the wheat. The discussion, as it were, does seem to a little heavy on the editors more on the "torch everything" end of the spectrum, who may or may not be representative of the site in general. My goal is to try to get it down to a manageable size for the general population without deleting anything that it seems there any real enthusiasm to keep. It's a rather fine line to walk with the limited participation we have so far, although the list is now less than 200 articles, from a start of nearly 700. My biggest concern it that it seems we're in danger of losing a slew of side-by-side rebuttals, even though I get the feeling there's a reasonable amount of support for keeping most of them, by and large. There's probably already been some deletes people will balk at, the discussions for which will need to be revived with greater input. I hope they're few though. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you Brits take Monckton back?

The Christopher Monckton comedy tour continues as usual. Potholer54 gets blown off by Monckton because's he's too busy spewing denialist PRATTs in the California legislature. At least he's not calling people Nazis this time. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No, you can keep him. No, really, you can. Don't mention it. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, we'll take him back, just as soon as you clean out and hand back the thirteen colonies. We had the good sense to ban your wingnuts from entering the country, you can deal with ours. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 18:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

2016 Republican Bogyman.

A trend I am noticing about the Republican party is their creation of a scary bogyman to distract from the real issues of an election. In 2008, it was ACORN, which was apparently criminally registering poor people to vote, obviously "bad" because poor people would be able to vote. Rather than the melting economy or Iraq or other relevant issues, the 2008 cycle was about how Obama was conspiring with a former domestic terrorist and a voter registration group to do something really bad.

In 2012, the current bogyman is Planned Parenthood, which is overall the evil epitome of evil evilness, because 3% of their healthcare services are abortion related, and the majority of their services actually help extend the health of usually poor women. This is obviously "bad" because the poor might have the ability to make choices about their own lives, and obviously are part of some plan to destroy America through some genocidal plot.

With that in mind, what group do you think will be victimized by the bully tactics of the Republican Party in 2016, bent on distracting the debate from whatever crock of madness they try to cook up in the next 4 years? I am wagering on the American Academy Of Sciences. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ <insert witty comment here> 13:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what 2016 will bring, but I too have a feeling that they're trying to go for the immediate-panic lifestyle issues. I want to say they are going for the 'easy' issues, ones that may not even matter much on whole but seem like a big deal to people who aren't thinking about it. People who feel they are personally threatened, I think, are more likely to vote in what they feel to be self defense than with larger solutions in mind... and the Republican Party knows that this time, it's got nothing. It's a party making laws to support the very richest, but supported by some of the very poorest in our country. They have no plans to help many of their supporters out, but they have to make said supporters enthusiastic somehow. Immediate ethos reactions like "EW, GAY PEOPLE," or 'EW, THINGS THAT ARE AGAINST MY PERSONAL IDEOLOGY" require much much less effort than understanding more important issues on debate. And it's kind of sad, but many people I have known in my life don't really look deeper than what they hear in passing, and many may not even read the news. Much less news that's about something other than themselves. I think it's just easier overall to knee-jerk against a supposed assault on one's way of life (real or not) than to think about long-term decisions that would help more people than oneself overall... and the Republican party knows that. Though, I think there are also shades of unrest and power-redistribution in the Republican party and doubt about their normal way of doing things. These 'easy' issues and crazy-sauce candidates may also be a mask for a Republican Party running on essentially Headless Chicken Mode. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 14:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I can definitely see a shift in focus away from Planned Parenthood and towards the "homosexual agenda" if DADT remains over and more states continue to legalize gay marriage. Of course, if they do go that way they'll just end up alienating the majority of the mainstream electorate, since "EWW GAYS" is becoming an increasingly less common reaction - but it's the next "easy target" for Republicans. Omar (gibber) 14:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"These 'easy' issues and crazy-sauce candidates may also be a mask for a Republican Party running on essentially Headless Chicken Mode." Considering the trouble hacks like Boehner have had keeping the 'baggers in line, this may not be too far off. They drank a bit too much of their own Kool-Aid. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The Republicans have been using bogeymen since at least 1917. First it was REDSREDSREDSREDSREDSREDS!!!!!!. That worked well for a while, but they focussed more on Scary Negroes starting in 1968. Gays, the big bogeyman of the 90's and early 00's, had a shorter shelflife. The new one seems to be "secularism." Vid. Romney saying "We are all Catholics now." (Insert molestation joke here.) This isn't going to be as successful: Their central issue (employer-provided contraception) is a complicated topic on which the majority of Catholics disagree with their (our) church. They'll still be able to use it to fire up part of their base, but it won't be as effective in reaching moderate voters. Godspeed (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Jesus said, O faithless and perverse generation, how much longer must I endure with you?

• employer-provided contraception.

Well dah. Isn't the idea of an individual mandate intended to encourage terminating employer provided healthcare benefits, which is already happening?

The bogeyman is out-of-the-closet communists. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 21:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Now wash your hands please

Anyone want to write up something on the Save White People website? I would, but I have to go and share my dinner with Armitage Shanks. Sophie^{because liberals} 19:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Who wants to get on a watchlist and give that phone number a ring? Vulpius (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I literally cannot look at sites like that long enough to take enough notes to write an article from, sorry. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 19:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the hard work of writing RW snartikles, sadly. Hopefully some less burnt-out editor will take up the challenge? ħuman 02:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Me neither, I found it by accident while following Buzzfeed links. Sophie^{because liberals} 20:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There are loads of hate sites/blogs/forums out there & most of them aren't very notable. I've occasionally found one when looking for something else, & considered whether to mention it on RW, but in the end I don't want to risk raising their profile by drawing attention to them. If they get to be well known or significant like Stormfront, GHF, etc. then obviously we should write about them; but otherwise they're best left in obscurity. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Bookmarked for the crazy. I might do an essay on them when I want something painfully easy to refute. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

My God. This post is glorious—"everything I don't like is part of the same massive conspiracy to kill me!" (Also, the "white women are stupid, and that's why they screw black men" angle.) And the most ironic Tweet I've seen this year. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You are a sexual magnet for brainwashed White chicks who feel guilty because of slavery that ended in 1865. Dude... women are not that driven by historical guilt. Also: SUPERVILLAIN ORIGIN STORY. --★uːʤɱ secularist 12:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

First, love your header font mate. Second, in a post talking about the Zimmerman case (wonderful...) He left turns right into a Truther Screed! Got to love Crank Magnetism. --Revolverman (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The Hunt for AI

du Sautoy is back in Horizon's "the Hunt for AI". Anyone watched it yet? I'm curious how the "media" of BBC thinks AI is going. I'm also curious how much they will exaggerate (if at all) about what we understand of the brain and intelligence. Finally, i get to see a Horizon where I can at least hold my own, rather than just "ohhh.... ahhhh... stars... quantums"Godot What do cats dream about? 20:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I read that as "Al" and got immediately confused. "Al who? Gore? Bundy?" Vulpius (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Me too, Vulpius. I may go off sans serif fonts if this sort of thing carries on. Sophie^{because liberals} 21:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm. Just because we don't understand how it works doesn't mean we can't harness it anyway. Our distant ancestors had mastery over fire long before anybody had a coherent theory of combustion.

My old AI professor was very insistent that disembodied AIs were a stupid concept, unlikely to ever work. If his ideas were right, or even if his ideas were wrong but his conclusion close to the mark, the place to look for AI breakthroughs is not something like Watson but somewhere like Robocup. All divisions (except Simulation) of Robocup involve actual robots, whether they're moving tiny pallets of goods around a semi-imaginary factory or kicking balls around on a soccer pitch. The very human problems of understanding what you're seeing, and trying to walk around without crashing into stuff or falling over must be solved year-on-year by these robots, and if there's something about solving those type of environmental problems that's important to our development of general intelligence (whatever that is) then the robots will be where the big achievements happen. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

We were just talking about this on WfG's hangout. Rolf Pfeifer is saying more or less the same thing. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was very good, WfG. Not much about the human brain and intelligence - more about how AI needs to evolve on its own terms in much the same way as human intelligence did and does. The presenter, a mathematician, seemed to steer the programme towards looking at intelligence as a rather more abstract concept than many engineers do. Worth a watch and thought-provoking, at least for this layman. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This seems like the wrong place but

Is there anywhere I can ask for help, or any newbie-friendly people I can turn to? — Haamer (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, what do you need, n00b? P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 23:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I need some assumption of good faith and competence. I just came here, made a string of what I thought were improvements to an article, an had all of them arbitrarily reverted with less than useful explanations by other editors. Right now I don't feel very encouraged to continue or even to explain my edits because I have a feeling I'll just get pwned and dismissed, whatever I might say. I didn't come here to argue with anyone, I joined specifically because it seems there'd be likeminded people here. — Haamer (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

We're not really "likeminded" on a lot of things, and as a new guy, you have to face a culture where being a little assertive will get you places. Best bet is to go to the talkpage of the article in question, and start a conversation about why some jerk reverted you. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 23:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty sure all regulars here are pretty likeminded about otherkin (the article in question). I did go to the talk page with one user and messaged on user talk with the other user. I wasn't really sure if I wanted to continue the article talk discussion if all I'll accomplish is making myself look like an annoying n00b. — Haamer (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey :( But yeah, that was a mistake, sorry. Nihilist 23:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

S'okay. I'm more concerned about the revert where they undid my clarification that fictionkin and otakukin are not synonymous and restored a nearly-nonsensical sentence in the lead. — Haamer (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I am "they" (not actually a multiple) who restored some of the things you took out of the article. I didn't revert; I incorporated some of your changes. As for the distinction between fictionkin & otakukin, why should any non-otherkin care? Aren't these just absurdly arbitrary constructions of basically the same made-up phenomenon? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I used 'they' as a gender-neutral pronoun; if anything then I suspected you're an otherkin, with the apparent obsession with weasels, ha. I intend to flesh out the article, so some specific definitions will be useful. If people don't care then they can just not read the article. I'll later try to summarize the whole thing in the lead section for those that don't care. Cool? — Haamer (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh! oh! I'm a newish person, too! Welcome! ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 23:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, and ty. :) — Haamer (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Funny, she doesn't look newish. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

if you could only see her through my eyes Jack Hughes (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia logo with graffiti

There is a problem with the old CP logo: File:Cp_logo_constitution.jpg

Whoever uploaded this logo converted it from PNG to JPG. This destroyed both the alpha channel that contained the graffiti and the extra text chunk in the PNG that contained the author's comment, as described here: [1] Can anyone upload the original PNG version? --Tweenk (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it didn't happen at Conservapedia? It's a very 2007 Cp thing to do. sterile^talk 01:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

do either of these work? Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

These show the 'graffiti', but they are not the original file, so the author's comment is gone. --Tweenk (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

174.50.69.13 (talk) 05:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Bingo, this is the file I was looking for. Thanks. --Tweenk (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

War on Women

I've seen this term on several articles recently, some linked to by RW. Apparently the Olé Party is out in full force against 52% of the electorate.62.159.14.62 (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This ought to be good. I was getting so tired with the War on Christmas. Blue (is useful) 08:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Simultaneously happy as this could cause them to crash and burn, and panicky if they actually pull it off. Тy^Yarrr 14:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to 2012. That's been the news since about Jan 1. It's so fun to have a uterus, and be told by the "big men" in our world, how you should live your life.Godot What do cats dream about? 15:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I was a bigger fan of the war on light bulbs. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which, a real option for men is "on the way". injected spemacide. Takes 10 minutes to do the procedure, lasts 10 years, and you apparently can reverse it. Godot What do cats dream about? 16:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

better articleGodot What do cats dream about? 16:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The internet is useless for solving problems

mostly because i don't know what the problem is even called or whats causing it: things on my xbox are just jutting colors, like the avatar line, just the colors going off to the side, loading a game is amazing because its just LINES OF COLOR everywhere. Any idea whats even going on and if i have to turn my second xbox in for a new one?--il'Dictator Mikal 14:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Could be a bad cable connection? Ajkgordon (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If you've double and triple checked the cable connection, consider another cable...they do go bad, you know.C®ackeЯ

If you have a friend with an Xbox and her system is functional then try swapping bits out until you find the offending part. If it's the XBox itself then it could be down to "no user serviceable parts inside" and whatever warranty terms you have. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

whatever it was it seems to have fixed itself. I wouldnt be that surprised if parts were going bad though, the xbox itself is a replacement from 2009 for my 2007 which finally red-ringed, and all the parts, besides the HDMI cable, are from 2007.--il'Dictator Mikal 16:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to have fixed itself....

1. It seems to have fixed itself - I switched it off and the overheating cooled down
2. It seems to have fixed itself - I switched it off and the reboot fixed the bug
3. It seems to have fixed itself - while looking at it I turned it around and that reseated the cables
4. It seems to have fixed itself - the Xbox fairy came and waved her magic wand

I suspect the last option. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The HDMI cable is a digital cable, specifically TMDS. So I very strongly doubt that a poor connection will do anything more interesting than either working or not working, with "working and then suddenly not working when it gets a bit looser" being an extreme edge case. TMDS uses differential signalling, so most stray EM interference signals will mean nothing whatsoever to the HDMI receiver, and even a correctly clocked but random code input will be rejected as an error more than 50% of the time. Thus the chance a "loose cable" will cause "lines of color everywhere" is down in the low probability space with "the lung cancer on my X-ray was actually indigestion" and "the Dead Sea Scrolls contained important messages about the Obama presidency". Hardware fault, due to overheating and/or slow component failure inside the XBox (or less likely, the display) is a far more plausible explanation. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Schadenfreude

Take that, you smug bastards. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 18:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The temples of the fruit god were defiled, and crows shall feast upon his remains. All hail the mighty penguin, enthroned triumphant before his adversaries. --Tweenk (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I have a Mac! Not a rabid fanboy though. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Kids in Sweden know what's up

Hey, thought you guys might like this. It's from a Swedish newspaper article on the meaning of Easter. Maybe he's our youngest member, and we don't even know it? ^{— Unsigned, by: RachelW / talk / contribs}

I see the socialist/secularist overtake of Sweden is going as planned. Soon it'll be all of Europe and none will know Jesus' name anymore. Only the USA can still stop us now ! But we allready have a spy in your midst! Muhahahahaaaa! --★uːʤɱ federalist 19:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

We are doomed. A goat can eat tree bark and steel cans. A Jewish goat zombie can eat cyanide and molten iron. There is no escape. Our brains will be eaten. --Tweenk (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sarah Palin was Right: A commentary by the Symphony of Noise

I know what you're thinking, but please hear me out: Sarah Palin was right. There actually is a death panel in the United States. And there's 9 people on it with names like Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Ruth Bader-Ginsburg. And soon they will decide: will millions of American be allowed health insurance and a chance to live, or will ideology and fuckery decide that those who are too sick, too poor, too old to buy insurance should just fuck off and die. And to the teabaggers and various CONservatives who think that not wanting to die of cancer is an "entitlement" and "socialism" (only in the United States are people this ignorant and stupid): if people dying without affordable healthcare is what a "culture of life" looks like to you, then I sure as fuck don't want to see what you have in store for us next. Anyways, thank you, RW, for letting me blow off steam. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 12:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Bravo sir/madam. --Horace (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• will millions of American be allowed health insurance

what a load of crap. millions are allowed health insurance NOW. The Court is deciding if millions should be forced to pay for their health insurance. Jesus fuck, try to at least educate yourself on the basic issues before you begin slandering people with bogus bullshit. You do yourself, your cause and/or ideology no favor spewing such ignorance. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 19:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If the court strikes the law, then it will follow that the ban on excluding people based on on pre-existing conditions will likely fall. That means that insurance companies will, once again, kick people off their roles because they are sick. Therefore, Nob, it follows that their decision will decide if people who do, in fact, need insurance but can't get insurance due to health and/or financial situations, will be able to get it. Is this statement ignorance? No! It's an awful truth that only foolish CONservatives, like yourself, seek to deny so that you can ignore your own hypocrisy and selfishness. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 09:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It would help if the pre-existing provision portion was the case SCOTUS is hearing, but it's not. They are only hearing the part on (1) the requirement by the government to force private citizens to engage in commercial activity against their will, and (2) the loss of citizen's basic civil right to access Federal Courts for redress of grievances. They provision you cite will (with about large degree of certainty) survive. So again, you engage in personal ad hominems when there is no basis in FACT whatsoever about whatever it is you pissing and moaning about. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 03:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And if the court strikes the law in its entirety, or even just the mandate part, then people with pre-existing conditions will have a fuckload of a time getting affordable health insurance. Have you even read the health insurance indutry's amicus briefs on the case? If not, then I suggest you do. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 13:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

So here is a likely scenario: SCOTUS strikes down the mandate & penalty clause; healthcare premiums escalate because of the pre-exisitng conditions portion of the bill; the public clamors for reform. Two camps emerge, one to repeal the pre-exisitng conditions portion (which without the mandate may not be affordable to people with per-existing conditions anyway), and other camp trying to build a consensus for Single Payer. Question: have the Democrats learned anything from this exercise in one-party control and failure to act in a manner that promotes a bi-partisan consensus on such an important issue? nobs^{Debate topic: Should AIG reorganize, get into the healthcare insurance business, and purchase FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums?} 17:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't conservatives bitch and moan more about car insurance? Lobbyists? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the logical jist of that argument: If you don't want to pay car insurance, quit driving; it you don't want to pay healthcare insurance, quit breathing. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 20:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Here, again, you prove my point: if denying people healthcare coverage because they can't afford it or would otherwise be denied it because of pre-existing conditions is what you CONservatives consider a "cultre of life," I sure as fuck don't want to see what you nutters have in store for us next. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 09:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The pre-existing condition point has nothing to do with the case. If you think it does, please cite the page from the above three links to the transcripts. Elsewise, your just reading Kremlin talking points. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 03:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, I refer you to the amicus briefs filed by the health insurance industry where they point out that keeping the mandate is integral to keeping health insurance affordable to people who are already sick. This isn't Kremlin talking points, it's the talking points of the health care industry itself! Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 13:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And, since you wanted my proof, here it is. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 13:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Good link, but it supports my point more than yours. We're seeing how every solution bares the seeds of the next crisis. nobs^{Debate topic: Should AIG reorganize, get into the healthcare insurance business, and purchase FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums?} 16:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What the hell are you even talking about? My original point was that, should the Supreme Court strike down the health care law, it will cost Americans insurance. My link says that, according to the insurance industry, if the Supreme Court strike the law, it'll cost American their insurance. Then you come along saying something about whateverthefuck trying to make some kind of point, I add the link to prove my point that striking down the law will cost Americans their insurance, and you say it proves whateverthefuck point you were trying to make. A point which I am still unclear of. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 13:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If the Law is struck down in its entirety, it won't cost Amercians a thing. The Law was never implemented. Status quo continues. If the mandate only is struck down, the pre-existing condition section remains. You said they loose that, I said they now have access, but I also said premiums skyrocket, which your linl says also. nobs^{Debate: Should AIG sell health insurance and buy FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums?} 20:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Slightly more than nothing. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, it will cost Americans. Even though the most important parts of the legislation haven't gone into effect yet, that's only because things like the health insurance exchange take time to set up. It was noted in the Associated Press some time ago and in an article I don't wish to look for that the reason the items in ObamaCare like the mandate and the insurance exchange took years to go into effect is because they take time to set up. The insurance exchange, for example, is already under implementation; it's just not at the point where it's ready to "go live," which is why the law doesn't mandate it until 2014. Furthermore, I expressed dismay that, should the court strike down the mandate, people with pre-existing conditions will be told to "fuck off and die." If the mandate is struck, then premiums for those with pre-existing conditions, by the "virtue" of almighty capitalism, will be so high that they either won't be insured or they will be told to fuck off and die. I'll be honest and personal here: someone I love has a what's been classified a pre-existing condition. And unless that mandate takes place, they're kinda fucked for life in the health insurance department. And the best part is that, while their condition is chronic, it isn't even fatal. While I'd prefer universal coverage in lieu of corporate-mandated coverage (as the ObamaCare law setup), I'd rather my friend have the ability to access health coverage administered by a corporation then to have something serious happen them and for them to be told "you're too poor for us to help." Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 09:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Good idea. Let's gut the Constitution, mandate society enter into wp:indentured servitude contracts in perpetuity in order to support the bloated wages in 12% of the economy all for a onetime savings of $230 billion. Brilliant. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 21:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. *It was noted in the Associated Press ...the reason the items in ObamaCare like the mandate and the insurance exchange took years to go into effect is because they take time to set up....which is why the law doesn't mandate it until 2014...

You believe that rot? The reason the law didn't take effect immediately is because, no way in hell would Obama be re-elected unless they kicked this can down the road. The NBER, the independent group Congress has mandated to declare to official start and end of Recessions, says mandates will result in another 2 million jobs lost. No wonder they waited till 2014, they couldn't pile another 2 million on the already 8 million unemployed. They had to plant the seeds to abort the recovery and create the next crisis. Remember, you never want a perfectly good crisis to go to waste. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 22:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Have sympathy, please

My laptop, less than a year old, has developed a issue in the fan system. I am still covered by warranty, but to use it, I have to go to Wisconsin, which is a little inconvenient. I cant open up the case myself, or I will void my warranty, and it doesnt help that I know nothing about computers in general. Any advice, please?23.16.216.127 (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Does the postal service not run out where you live? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 23:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm supposed to pay mail insurance, and a long distance fee to Canada Post? I think not!23.16.216.127 (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you try cleaning the fan with a spray can of air? Alternatively you can mail it to a friend in the states, have them mail it along to the repair facility insured, then post it to you when they get it back. --Opcn ^{with regards to regarding my regardliness} 05:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I did. I cant seem to get it to work, and I have no real friends in the united states. Should I open it?142.22.16.53 (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"I'm supposed to pay mail insurance, and a long distance fee to Canada Post? I think not!" Should've bought from a local retailer. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 16:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It was cheaper there.142.22.16.53 (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Now it's not, so much? ħuman 02:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you and inflation.142.22.16.53 (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not an American. I just live in the US. ħuman 02:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

If you couldn't hate George Lucas any further...

KILL IT. KILL IT WITH FIRE. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL! This needs to happen; there must be no doubt left in people's minds that the Star Wars saga is nothing more than Lucas' gravy train to whore for money to the maximum possible extent with no reservations, or thought given to the dignity of the franchise. There is not even the pretense the series means anything more. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was an unpleasant way to start my morning. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 11:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I now understand what people mean with "you ruined my childhood". I need therapy. Now. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 12:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It's OK, I watched this video and felt better afterward. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 13:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

all you have to do is read some of the newest EU books to understand the train wreck thats been pilling up in the story of late. also since i love reminding people of this quote: "special effects are just a tool, a means of telling a story. People have a tendency to confuse them as an end to themselves. A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." - George Lucas, 1985--il'Dictator Mikal 13:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Perhaps I'm just a glutton for punishment, but that looks AMAZING to me. Actually kind of makes me wish I had a Kinect. Omar (gibber) 13:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Necessary. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

All the best Star Wars stuff happened when George wasn't in complete control of it. As soon as he gets his way it takes a nosedive. It's pretty amazing. X Stickman (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Fun-space Clean-up

I'm thinking we need to do the same thing we're doing with CP-space to Fun-space, because there's a lot of shit there. Nihilist 14:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Meh, we had one of those already (about a year ago, IIRC). I say that, if you find something in funspace you want to delete, throw up the {{delete}} template on it and let people go through the normal deletion process. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 14:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

And leave some time for people to respond between proposing to delete and actually deleting. What's the rush? Sophie^{because liberals} 14:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, some things are obviously shit. Nihilist 14:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Your interpersonal skills, for a start. Sophie^{because liberals} 14:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

^ Тy^eh? 14:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"x is obviously y" is so subjective the fact you don't understand that concept is scary. --il'Dictator Mikal 14:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Waiting for a consensus on every stupid two-sentence "He-he, conservatives are dumb" article is pretty pointless. Nihilist 14:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

But why this obsession with "cleaning up x space"? Having shitty articles doesn't particularly harm us and a far better way of improving the ratio of "good" articles is to work on creating and/or improving them. In particular working to push articles to gold standard is a far more worthy aim. Maybe it's because it's more like hard work. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Because shitty articles give a bad impression if somebody finds us, and nutty seems to be on with that for the CP space cleanup, despite shitty articles hardly being the worst problem we will have in getting others to want to put money into RW--il'Dictator Mikal 15:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, the Saloon bar is probably the biggest problem in hypothetically 'getting taken seriously', so let's get rid of that and the people who post the most in it. Nihilist 15:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, so I found RW way back when by Googling Ann Coulter. The RW article was one of the top ranked. Many others arrive by the same route. Now, which is better?

• Someone finds RW by Googling and lands on a shitty article.
• Someone fails to find RW because the article has been deleted
• Obviously preferable - Someone finds RW by Googling and lands on a gold star article.

Going back to where I came in, the AC article is full or RW snark and hardly encyclopaedic but it made me smile and go on to see what else was available. I'm now a long standing RW contributor with a number of good articles to my (or my socks's) name. As such I say it's preferable to have shitty articles than no articles. We've already had one fun space purge. The CP purge is all about the move away from being an anti CP site. Let's not throw everything out, let's improve it. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

i dont think you understand this would be the second funspace purge, not the first. As for finding RW, i found it because i had been searching conservapedia to show a friend the site and saw the RW article on it. --il'Dictator Mikal 15:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

"We've already had one fun space purge." Nihilist 15:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Jack Hughes has some good points. Refugee^{talk page} 15:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we've had more than one purge. The "problem" with both funspace and CP space is that there are no standards for what should be there. Mianspace has the mission statement but the other spaces have nothing. That means that anybody can delete for any reason and anybody else can defend for any reason they like. What we should do is decide the function of these spaces and decide if the articles we have match that function.

The alternative is to leave them as they are as they do not seem to do any real damage.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 17:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Which is what will inevitably end up happening. Nihilist 17:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If I had the powers I would this minute create attic space and reference space for all the stuff that some people like but is neither missiony nor funny. Sophie^{because liberals} 21:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that "funny" is inherently subjective. I'd say leave wide latitude for what the fun space allows. In fact, I'm inclined to undelete our CP poetry contests and move them to fun. I do like an attic space for keeping parts of our history that have nowhere else to go. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

We should pester somebody to do it. Who? Sophie^{because liberals} 21:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure. I'm a mod, so I have powers beyond those of mere mortals, though I have no idea what most of them are or if something like this is among them (I'm guessing not). I guess I'm a bit like the Greatest American Hero, actually. Anyway, Nx is always one of them names floated about when technical shit needs to be done, especially unilaterally. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you need server access to edit namespaces, unless there's an extension installed. Nihilist 22:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

We can always pull a Schlafly and pretend we've created a new namespace by putting a word and a colon at the beginning of an article. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Humorous poetry topic.

Which one sounds best?

• Gov'r Frothy
• Harpo
• God Guns Gays
• Andrew Schlafly
• Goat

Thanks for your time, 142.22.16.53 (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Frothy is a former senator, not a governor. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think "what load of cobblers are you gibbering about?" sounds best. Sophie^{because liberals} 21:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody likes him:

words squirting out, frothing forth

from more than the mouth

±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 22:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Too long; did not read...

He has but one destiny:

his obscurity

(dictated, not read) - TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 19:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Google him and wretch

Is it better to be that

Than an Etch-a-Sketch?

-- Seth Peck (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Haiku, fucking lame

Christ, they don't even fucking rhyme

Now I'm fucking done

Nihilist 20:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Life is poetry

Unless your life is paltry

"Shut up, Fallacy."

-- Seth Peck (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, you all just passed my poetry assignment for me! :D23.16.216.127 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

KONY 2012: Part II

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=c_Ue6REkeTA Note that comments, and ratings are disabled. Not a good signRyantherebel (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I loved how they randomly threw an Alex Jones clip into the opening montage at about the 36 second mark - it's almost as if he's a real journalist! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I also love how they don't reference they're disastrous screening in Uganda in front of actual LRA victims.Ryantherebel (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

No-one mentioned the public wanking breakdown? So that was in the clip? - David Gerard (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Judging only by the way in which this installment has failed to match the sharing-on-Facebook virulence of the previous version, I'm thinking it may be a bit of a dud. Also, I'm kinda surprised Andy Schlafly didn't climb onto the original bandwagon. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 22:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Trolling some Paulbots

I'm bored, so I've decided to troll commenters on a Ron Paul video. If anyone wants to join me, I invite them. Some cool points to raise:

• "Peaceful diplomacy" Paul tried to hire a group of private mercenaries in order to counter Al Qaida in 2001 through H.R. 3076.
• "Dr." Paul would let a sick patient die if he didn't have health insurance.
• "Privacy rights" Paul would allow state governments to regulate your sex life.
  • "Constitutional" Paul explained his view by claiming that the right to bedroom privacy was not guaranteed by the 14th amendment. He forgets the 9th Amendment however, which specifically states "Just because the constitution doesn't specifically state X rights, doesn't mean X rights aren't protected", and the right to privacy is an implied right from the 1th, 4th, and 14th amendments.
• "Free market" Paul would repeal anti-trust laws.
• "Civil Liberties" Paul voted for the Authorized Use of Military Force Act, which is the real creator of "indefinite detention", not the NDAA. To be fair, every other congressman and senator voted for the bill not knowing its consequences, but remember that Ron Paul is supposed to know better.

Just remember, it'll be fun, and if we get enough people, we could mess up the video's own rating. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

On a more serious note, I go after Paul more than the other Republicans because for some reason, there are a significant amount of liberals and progressives who support him. If these progressives had smart in 2010, they would have elected more progressive Democrats into both houses of congress, so that we could account for Blue Dogs and people like Lieberman. Instead we have the Orange Boner in the Speaker seat and conservative Republicans in charge of several important committees. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

He's politically screwed right now, so I don't think we really need to do this. The raging Paulbots hardly made a dent in the Republican primaries, and I doubt Goldmember's going to try again in 2016. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

He's the closest thing to a proper liberatarian ticket they have right now (though that doesn't say much) so just let them cream and dream over him. ^sshole 11:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Join me, if only because (at least for me) it's fun. Paulbots are so devoted to their god that it is amusing to see them trip all over their own standards. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Free market double standards

The market knows best, except when it doesn't. There are even more lists as well. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that's just what the invisible hand wants. ^gnostic 07:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The French election is turning into a joke

First with Sarkozy and Le Pen, now this guy pops up. Politics... Osaka Sun (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not. Mélenchon isn't just a guy spouting weird shit (or what others might think of as weird shit), he represents a significant portion of Europeans (continental at least — UK's thatcherism still hounds the island). We have a sudden rise of left wing parties in Germany (Greens, LEFT, Pirates) with the complete and utter demise of our only neoliberal party (FDP), you have people for months now protesting in Spain, you have this guy in France, you have massive protests in Greece, you have the usual Italian political games but Italies people are eually pissed.

Just yesterday I saw the newest Deutschlandtrend (an extremely reliable source for German political polling ordered by the ARD every month) in which 81% said they wanted gas prices to be regulated by the State, another one asked if there should be a "Übergangsgesellschaft" ("transitional cooperation") that pays the wages for the now bankrupt German cooperation Schlecker for another six months so the people that work for it have time to find work — 79% on that one. It's not just one guy.

It's half of Europe or even more. And it doesn't matter if we came out well of the "European Debt Crisis" that American greed caused or not, if we're from the North or from the South or from the West or from the East. We are sick and tired of the crisis, the austerity measures that tell us because a bunch of rich kids gambled to much we now have to live on less or eat cheaper foods. We're sick and tired of the little elite that runs European politics and seems to have been part of the longest 69 in history with "our" economy telling us that we'll just have to get through it while sniffing coke and banging hookers in their big fat mansions (probably hyperbole). We're tired of seeing poor people die in Africa because some assholes thousands of miles away think it's time to win another field in a never ending chess game. We're tired of seeing how people in the third world are treated because out of some fucked up policy we have to support them so a bunch of religious nutjobs can be tortured so they can't blow up some unimport ship of another super power can't get a dent. We're sick and tired of money-swinging companies trying to manipulate our polticians, our laws so they can make another million. We're sick and tired of being pushed around and split up buy America. We're sick and tired of capitalism as a whole.

Our parents were told that a middle ground was found: social market economy ! And we should be thankful for it. And when I read of America I'm thankful. But when I look at the reality, I haven't seen my parents in more than a year. Why? Because neither of us has the money to do the trip. I see college students who's parents just didn't qualify for financial help from the state, now having to study and go to classes 40 hours a week because of a college degree reform (Bologna treaty) pushed by economic lobbyists upon our shoulders, now having to work another 20 hours on the side just to make a living. I know young people with chronic illnesses caused by to much work or stress. Our parents are just now realising that they haven't been fucked over any less. That no matter what they'll do they won't get rich. And it's not because we hate the rich, or we see ourselves as the proletariat, or because we hate America, it's because it's because capitalism just doesn't work.

We want Dubček and Allende. We want democratic socialism. Because it's the only thing that might work. --★uːʤɱ atheist 22:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the rant, btw. If I sound like I'm screaming at you, it's nothing personal. --★uːʤɱ socialist 22:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, I understand your concern, but how is a 100% marginal tax rate going to work? Even the most hardcore leftist in me can't comprehend how that's going to spur investment in a globalized era. Same with keeping old-age pensions constant (when taking into account the near-exponential increases in human lifespan). I'd go the Scandinavian way, thanks. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, he'd basically cap income at £300.000 and take the rest. Now, and this what he was saying, that money would normally lie around or be invested somewhere (in many casses not France or even Europe). Let's say you have a guy earning £1.000.000 now, the state would have extra tax income of £700.000. But a European state seldomly sits on that money. Party of it would be invested to pay the debt, part of it would go into social security and give people more money that will spend it, just because they have to, because they are living under the norm right now (that would lead to more a higher frequency of money exchange (from hand to hand to hand to hand…). The state would probably also invest in modernisation of infostructure (building companies make money, expanding high speed internet access, which also leads to the next point), better education (more teachers → more jobs → more income; also better education leads to higher competitiveness in future generations) and so on and so forth.

A lot of economics is about how to motivate people to increase the frequency with money changes hands, the GDP is nothing more than a meassuerment of exactly that. This freuqnecy is widely agreed upon to be the main meassurement of how strong an economy is, because as higher as it is as more people share the wealth of a single £, €, $, etc. If you hear somebody saying that people should not be scared and should just keep spending what they have (that of course, doesn't happen all to often), that's exactly what they mean. So Mélenchon would take over that job, he'd take money that is lying around and invest it in some way. It's the same concept as Keynesianism just taken a lot further. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 23:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Despite the heavy usage of "we", the above rant doesn't come anywhere close to representing a majority view among Europeans. These are nothing more than your own, and rather silly, personal opinions. So please don't anoint yourself as the spokesperson of a geographical and political entity made up of more than two dozen distinct and highly pluralistic societies. It's also ridiculous to claim that Europe is somehow embracing "democratic socialism" over capitalism, when parties and politicians challenging market-based economies are stuck in the low to mid-teens in polls everywhere you look, and generally don't participate in governments. 46.105.114.105 (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite. UHM represents a vocal minority, is all - the crusties making a mess of St Paul's. While most people in Europe recognise that the excessive risk-taking of the banking sector was *a* cause of the financial crisis, they are more fed up with the bloated bureaucracies, administrative elites, high taxes, closed shops, and incompetent governments in Europe.

Melenchon taps into the latter concerns, which is why he's doing comparatively well - as well as his oratory skills. But when people actually take time to look at his policies in detail, most of them recognise that it's ideological and impractical. And communist in all but name, even though he insists he isn't. The last thing most people really want is yet more over-reaching state - an inevitable corollary of his policies and one of the prime reasons they are so dissatisfied with the current state of affairs. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Are we seeing a change around here?

WIGO:CP went unedited for five whole days before Gerard made a tiny, joke edit to the page. A full week into the month, only one WIGO posted. And it's not like there's much less crazy going on over there. Maybe it's a fluke , but I think it might actually be a thing. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 23:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it offensive if i say "Happy Happy, Joy Joy, happy happy joy joy joy!"Godot What do cats dream about? 23:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Тy^eh? 23:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

See what happens when I give up because of the naked trolling I've endured on WIGO? You may as well nominate WIGO for deletion along with the rest of the CP crap. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 23:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ever heard of the difference between correlation and causation, Rob? It's not like all of last month was of you, you know. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 23:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Shut up, Smith. If I want to hear from an asshole, I'll fart. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 23:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

ROFLMAO --★uːʤɱ sinner 23:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

well, yah theres crazy going on... but is it new crazy or more of the same crazy as before? the latter is sorta... boring.--il'Dictator Mikal 23:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"See what happens when I give up because of the naked trolling I've endured on WIGO?" Fixed.

As for the topic at hand, do note that the talk page is still more active than other WIGO talk pages combined. Vulpius (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's probably one of the key causes of the large number of votes on WIGO:CP. The longer they linger at the top of the pile, the more people will just click. You can see the same thing if WIGO:Clog goes unedited for a couple of days. Contrast with WIGO:World that has a far larger turnover. As for the talk page, so much of it is general politics merely sparked by CP activity, and the SB - where a considerably number of WIGO stories actually get discussed because they're brought up independently - outstrips it CP-related activity by a long shot. Sure, it attracts a number of views and has its own dedicated clique, but you can't deny that Conservapedia is now just a footnote in what RW actually does. ^gnostic 00:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

in which rob tries to make it about himself

I'm being trolled right now, and it's a pretty fucking good WIGO. It is this kind of trolling that gives RW its CP-esque type quality -- a disincentive to new users. I'd take the matter to the Chicken Coop, but we all know haw that would turn out. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 00:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, are you still talking? Also, reverting your lame self-WIGO'ing isn't "trolling," you fucking simpleton. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 00:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't self-WIGO anything. I called Andy out on his bullshit. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 01:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

but you didnt. --il'Dictator Mikal 01:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sniping at Andy on CP and then deciding to use the same criticsm on WIGO is effectively the same thing. Anyway, . Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 01:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

agree, sorry. --il'Dictator Mikal 01:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

In the olden days, criticism of Andy would have been done quietly in the private discussion groups; I not only did on a CP talk page, I did it on TWIGO & WIGO without be blocked at CP (this is groundbreaking). But Mikalos reverted the WIGO, cause he's a mindless idiot and partisan. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 01:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Independents who dislike both parties equally are so partisan, arent we?--il'Dictator Mikal 02:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You people are so full of kneejerk hate. I looked at the WIGO. No worse than the thousands of posts made by other CP-watchers over the years. ħuman 02:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Human; also "cause he's a mindless idiot and partisan" is extremely ironical in the kitchen equipment department. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 06:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 07:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with this WIGO either. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as this the place for unanswerable technical questions

A couple of years ago I dropped an external hard drive and, not surprisingly, it stopped working. It had a number of photos from my honeymoon which I was sad to lose but them's the breaks.

A couple of days ago I installed a USB3 card in my desktop and, out of curiosity, I plugged the old broken hard drive in.

Somewhat to my surprise it recognized the drive but refused to read anything from it. After playing around for a while though the whole file structure turned up. I immediately tried to copy my photo file onto another disk but the process hung and eventually the PC stopped recognizing it again.

So I've spent the past several hours playing around with it to little avail. I put it in the fridge as my brother-in-law recommended (hey I've got nothing to lose!) but that did not help. I've seen a suggestion that running it under Lunix might work. Anybody know if that's a good idea or got any other suggestions? --Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 20:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It depends if it's the disc itself that is damaged or the USB circuitry it's plugged into. You can always take the case apart, take the disc out and plug it directly into your PC using a SATA and power cable. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

In fact, I tried doing that but it seems to be a sealed unit.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 07:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

In Windows try PCI File Recovery (freeware) or in Lunix try dd_rescue or ddrescue from a live distro. Long live Lunix! Unicow (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll give PCI File Recovery a try first. I simply don't have a Lunix machine and have no experience with it. So creating a dual boot one is a little ambitious for me.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 07:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

[2] --★uːʤɱ structuralist 20:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting - thanks also for that.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 17:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Unicow likes Linux --> Linux = good --> Unicow = good

Nihilist 22:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If all else fails, professional data recovery places are actually surprisingly cheap these days. If you really want the data back and can't do it at home, something to consider. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

But only if your porn collection doesn't embarrass you. Nihilist 00:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Mmmmm. So many goats.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 10:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggested a live distro because it runs from CD/DVD. You don't install it. For example, Ubuntu's setup CD can be booted and it will load the Ubuntu desktop environment without installing it to the harddrive. If you have less than 1 GB of RAM I would suggest Lubuntu for use as a live CD. These will give you gparted which is a Partition Magic clone, and it can access the net and use most of the default programs. That is just for getting into Linux (or Lunix which I suppose it our specialty brand :-). If all you want is recovery, PCI File Recovery will probably recovery anything that ddrescue will and it is graphical and much easier to use. Unicow (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. I've got this on the back-burner now because of Easter. I'll try it out later.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 07:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)