RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive154

This is an archive page, last updated 25 September 2013. 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>, <153>, <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)

I made my schedule for Fall 2012 classes... what do you think?

The thing at the bottom should be "Film not Hilm". haven't even started any work on my BA yet. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What do I think? I'd forgotten how much fuck all students do. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

As a science student at the end of the 60s I had a pretty full timetable of lectures and labs. My girlfriend who was studying Spanish had 12 hours a week of lectures. All those student sit-ins and protests? Well, not many science students took part. Генгис^marauding 11:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course somebody who studies a language does not have to anything outside of lectures! --85.182.145.82 (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but if you had studied languages you would have written: "My girlfriend, who was studying Spanish, had 12 hours a week of lectures.". Look at what you missed out on!--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 11:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Study? I learned all my comma Nazism from Reasoning With Vampires! ^theist 12:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, im taking a small number of classes, partially because by the time im able to register the others above me already have, so my options are limited. i'll be doing more once i have a job and actually working on classes that arent general ed.--il'Dictator Mikal 14:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Film history appreciation, philosophy, german, and sociology. At the risk of sounding like Andy, enjoy being unemployable. Better switch to a real degree before you've wasted all your money. --The Emperor 20:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What he said. I'm pursuing a doctorate in the humanities, and that semester looks totally weaksauce. Hopefully someone who loves you a lot is rich and has a bad heart or something. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 21:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I picked those classes because I have to do x number of credits in "fundamental academic skills" not because they have anything to do with my actual reason for being in college, thats a worthless History Degree.. --il'Dictator Mikal 21:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Those are for Jr./Sr. year when you need breathing room. Тy^YAUA 00:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Is this your first semester? Can't you take at least one class related to your major such as "Intro to XX" or whatever? First year students should have priority for those. About the schedule: in theory, it would be nice to wake up late and saunter over to an 11 am class, but in my experience parking is impossible if you arrive at that time, the lots are all full by those who started with 8 am to 9 am classes, a good incentive to make your classes earlier. Unless you live on campus in the dorms or whatever and can stroll over half awake while still in your pajama tops, or if you get a ride from someone or take public transportation. Then there's the matter of that little 5 hour gap between classes every Tues & Thurs. That's a long time to chill on campus between classes. You can eat, walk around, study in the library, chat to friends or whatever, but basically that's down time. I can see up to 3.5 hrs of down time maybe, but not 5 hrs, when you still have to stay until 10 pm. That's a long day. Again, unless you live on campus or close by and can go home in between. Finally what's up with the one Friday class? I hate daily classes, and especially ruining Friday with one class in the middle of the day. I always try to cram everything into Tues-Thurs or Mon-Wed to have Friday off. Refugee^{talk page} 21:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

-shrug- parking where i park, from the last two semesters isnt that bad, and the schedule was made with the fact that no, we dont get priority, it goes the other way, so i get whats left over, it wasnt the most ideal but it worked for getting credits i need and with what classes were available at reasonable times. --il'Dictator Mikal 21:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I also was one who preferred the earlier classes (though wrapping my brain around Physical Chemistry at 8:00AM was nigh on impossible). I was a commuter and on the Pitt campus was always tough to grab a parking spot for cheap. There was a lot that charged $3/day but you had to climb what seemed to be the stairway to Heaven to get onto campus, and it filled up fast. My classes generally ended at noon each day. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 00:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If Mikalos gets any financial aid for education, I couldn't think of a better example of wasteful govenrmment spending. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 18:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Duckspeak

Orwell's Duckspeak is basically the extension of Newspeak that says people talk and communicate automatically, without engaging the higher brain functions at all. Now, here's the thing, if someone was to do a "brain scan" (with obvious caveats about how dubious such an experiment would be) of people talking, is it possible to find out if the brain really isn't engaged while speaking? And then, would we see speech bypass the brain when a religious person duckspeaks a response, such as "amen" following a prayer, rote-learned prayers like the Lord's Prayer, or whatever it is that Muslims are compelled to say after saying "Muhammad" or "Allah"? It's just that duckspeak as a concept comes to mind every time I see this happen. Anywho, just a thought. ^theist 09:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you define as the brain not being 'engaged'? Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 09:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hence the "dubious caveats". I have this suspicion that there's some degree of automation involved, but lack any of the expertise to really clarify that idea right now. ^pathetic 09:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

How about 'lower level, more predictable scan results'? Or something akin to muscle memory? Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 09:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Muscle memory does come into play with things like signing your name, so perhaps. ^bomination 10:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd buy something along these lines, too. Many societies and cultures have shared social tics, like use of the hands or a certain inflection that can probably be seen as fairly 'automatic.' I can see how repeating a gesture, word, or ritual enough times could make it reflexive. For example, some people and saying 'like,' or 'man' in every sentence. It's not just stereotypical valley girls; we all have junk pauses, but mindlessly using 'like' to fill them is a learned, repeated behavior. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{just shut up already} 13:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Why aye man how like. ^narchist 13:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"Higher brain functions" needs to be defined. Vocalization can be produced by the brainstem alone without engaging language centers, but it would only be good for speaking gibberish. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Could such gibberish be rote-learned and trained into it, or would it literally be growling and random? If only the latter, then obviously the duckspeak concept is even more far-fetched than newspeak itself (which is fine by me as an answer). I assume the main problem is that what constitutes "thinking about" something is so broad that doing something with or without "thinking about" it becomes difficult to define and a bit absurd. ^{d hominem} 15:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I really couldn't support this as some kind of biological phenomenon, but a cultural one seems more reasnable to me. Culture can make statements so strongly true that it's like a basic assumption about the world to people. Like gravity or the sun rising. I wouldn't say that it takes 'reduced brain function' but simply a strong socialization. Little kids going to bible school just as they are learning to read and learning the social skills to deal with the world may internalize 'Amen' just as strongly as they did internalize 'sorry' for when they bump into someone. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{just shut up already} 15:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I remember Kate Fox running an experiment where she would "accidentally" bump into people and not say sorry instinctively. Apparently it was quite difficult. ^bomination 15:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You'd need to involve semantic memory, which occurs in a number of brain regions, just for the word to be learned and repeated. The brainstem by itself won't cut it. So, yeah, duckspeak is even more implausible than Newspeak. I think Orwell was just trying to make a play on the phrase "quacking the party line." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, the Schlafly random comment generator is scarily accurate. "Give it up, liberals! The exponential growth of conservative words will lead to the total and utter eradication of Golsteinism." Sophie^{because liberals} 11:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Krugmanomics takes a beating

Krugman can debunk wingnut-onomics, sure, but he seems to go off the reservation whenever the neo-classical elements of New Keynesianism are challenged. Maybe banks aren't modeled in this toy economy because the people who use the models seem not to understand how banks work in real life. (tl;dr version) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Is anybody else starting to really hate portmanteaus?--"Shut up, Brx." 19:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I prefer "portmanteaumes" which is a portmanteau of "portmanteau" and "meme". Is that better? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

no.--il'Dictator Mikal 19:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

My contrafibularities on your new-found dislike, bricks. Sophie^{because liberals} 20:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I really only pay attention to Krugmann when he's beating Austerians or Austrians over their head with their own stupidity, which tends to be entertaining and informative. Most of his other debates with other centrist/center-left economists strike me as more academic disputes or irrelevant to the more important point of his topics than as seriously detracting from his points. Plus, I don't tend to see much of those, as he tends to keep them to his blog, and it's really difficult to read his blog when he insists on pushing his shit tastes in music on his readers every week. --The Emperor 20:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The piece by Fullwiler is very interesting; it seems neither Fullwiler nor Krugman addressed the question of the $3000 limitation on currency transactions -- a legacy of the drug war. When those controls were put in place, did our government geniuses and regulators ever envision the longterm impact it may have on an economy that is 70% consumer driven? nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 18:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Irony... or just douchebaggery?

So, I've spotted another journal entry fall into my DeviantART inbox from a guy who is, once again, complaining about how people just want things for free. You see, photography takes time, effort, resources, money, and that's not particularly great if people aren't paying for what you produce. Added in with this is constant whining about peoples entitlement, and a previous one involved a massively straw man dig at the Occupy movement.

Now, that'd be fine, except this guy expects his (female, mostly) models to work TF. That's politically correct and photographer lingo for "free". In fact, he's written extensively about how this is far "better" than, you know, actually paying these people real money to work for him. Like he's somehow, what's the word, yeah, entitled to free models to take photos of and sell. Is this normal grade irony, or some guy not realising that he's just a complete dirty old prick? ^moral 00:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

INFORMATION WANTS BE FREE!!1!1!!111!! COPYRIGHT IS EVIL1!11!!!11 CONTENT BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE!11111!!!!1 P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 00:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess people are entitled to complain about wherever they want but nobody is obliged to read their complaints. If he can get people to work for free then good luck to him, if he can't then I suppose ranting about on the net is a therapeutic outlet. :-) --Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 06:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

All I ever ask for is a little bit of consistency from people. Must be harder than I think. ^sshole 09:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Extreme Democracy fail in Michigan?

I... I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. This is seriously deplorable. I normally don't watch pundits from either side, but this is particularly stunning, and as far as the extent of my research can tell, Maddow did her homework. I want to make excuses for the legislators in my head, "Oh, maybe they sit in such an order that makes them easy to count so he did it quickly," or "Hm, maybe some of the democrats are in fact voting for these things." It's killing me; they show a shot of the courtroom and the guy counting the vote but I can't see the hands myself and I need more information to confirm if this is 100 percent, non-pundit-based true or not but I am getting a sinking feeling it is. Somebody please prove this video wrong. I would never be so happy to be wrong in my life. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{yeah, well you fight like a cow!} 03:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that she uses the phrase "death of democracy" to describe this smacks of bullshit to me. Usually left-wingers are very enthusiastic about granting more power to democratically elected legislatures, the blazes with constitutional minutiae such as procedure, constitutionality, etc., etc. They call this "democracy," rather than "the death of democracy." ListenerX^TalkerX 03:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There was a town in... i think new england? that basically lost its representative government because they bankrupted. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There are a few towns here in Michigan that have gone under what they call "Emergency Manager" rule, with elected officials replaced by appointed technocrats. Detroit narrowly avoided such a fate just last week. I know Listener has to knee-jerk red bait when anyone to the left of William Buckley dares to raise her voice, and compare whomever is doing the complaining to Stalin but what's happening here is pretty ugly. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 03:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually agree that this is not a good thing, but it is not the "death of democracy" — it is a democratically elected legislature getting too big for its boots and ignoring law and procedure. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

In the case of the Emergency Manager laws, "elected officials replaced by appointed technocrats" = no longer "democratically-elected." I know I'm mixing up two distinct things here, but seen in the broader climate of "democracy in Michigan," it's easy to see how these phenomena are perceived as working together. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 04:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The 'death of democracy' phrase wasn't what really got me. I ignore that; she's a Pundit, and blah. I don't really watch for the pundit-ness. It actually repulses me a bit because of my experience with journalism. But it was the video of the 'count' that blew me away. I want more information. I want to have the full reporting of this, all the info they gathered on it. Because the homework she did displayed a vision that is so... ugly. Ick. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 04:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Go nuts. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 04:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

In the event that it was an honest vote count, the man who counted the votes probably did it by counting columns of seats in which all the legislators stood up. If all the Republicans sit at one side of the room, that would have been easy to do. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No. The "immediate effect" rule, and abuses of it by both parties, goes way back in MI political history. It's not a question of procedural error; it's a fundamental flaw in the system. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 04:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah. In that case, I hope the court's injunction is left standing. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Pushing for immediate effect in the vast majority of cases just reminds me of all those whining and bratty children who fail the marshmallow test in the first few seconds. Sounds like a straight-up case of corruption, to be honest. ^moral 09:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me 'splain. This is Rachel Maddow. If George H.W. Bush was a piece of shit, it follows George W. Bush is a piece of shit, likewise. The apple falls not far from the tree. Since George Romney was a piece of shit, per Rachel Maddow, we can conclude Mitt Romney is a piece of shit, as well. Simple logic. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 18:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That explains a lot

Homophobia is more pronounced in individuals with an unacknowledged attraction to the same sex and who grew up with authoritarian parents who forbade such desires, a series of psychology studies demonstrates.A series of psychological studies might explain a lot. --Buscombe (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2012 (

Wow. That sounds like CP bullshit written by RobSmith & RSchalfly -- that homosexuals and latent homosexuals are some of the worst homophobic offenders. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 18:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

so wtf?

NSFW if you havent seen it yet--il'Dictator Mikal 15:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the vulnerability is that RC is transcluding the Holydaze template. Protecting that isn't enough because it automatically loads any suitable holydaze template made for it. As BoNs can create pages, that's the problem. I've blankde Holydaze so that there should be no more issues with RC for now. ^bomination 16:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you unblank it as soon as it seems safe? And what can we do to make it less vulnerable in the future? Holydaze is one of those things that makes this site feel like home when I check in... as are the slogans. ħuman 01:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Goatse attack

Can someone with more wiki-fu than I track down every page that appears as a template, etc on Recent Changes, the Mainpage, etc, all the stuff that nobody has business editing, and lock it down at the Sysop level? Thanks. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 16:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

In the middle of that now. The vulnerability is creating a new page that transcludes into Holydaze since we haven't locked article creation. ^{d hominem} 16:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If a tech edits the abuse filter to prevent BoNs making a page with "holydaze" in it, it will prevent these things from being meddled with. ^sshole 16:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Goatse Boy has moved on from Holydaze to any other widely-used template. I think we need to abuse-filter "REDACTED". As far as I can tell we don't need to use it anywhere. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I have put it in place as a temporary measures a long with a few other things to try and curb it for now. But its just a Red Queen's race till they get bored. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way that a couple of lines of the goatse image could be added to the abuse filter? (I'm not versed in the abuse filter, so it may be a poor suggestion.) sterile^talk 17:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

What about adding "overflow:visible" to the abuse filter? There's no really need for it, and this sort of thing relies on that little css trick to knock out half the functionality of the diffs. ^moral 17:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

He is going to have to become very creative to overcome the stop gap measures I have in place now. We shall see. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If we're insistent on hiding, ?title=User:Tmtoulouse/test&oldid=1004345 still needs to be hidden. sterile^talk 17:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Disable IP editing.

Hate to say it, but it's time to do that for a few hours. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 18:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Put .+623f1d.+6b4b2c.+694b24.+755935.+745832.+ (or some sequence of colors that's in the image, preferably in the middle) as a regex in in the abuse filter. sterile^talk 18:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The wiki is performing like complete shit right now, it's hard to roll back all this crap. Lock it down for a while until this douchebag's bedtime. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

For fucks sake, turn it off. This is getting on my tits. DO IT NOW. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the guy who would have done it quickly and solved it within about 5 minutes was kicked off for being an aspie fascist abusive fucking cunt, if you care to recall. ^narchist 19:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, dickhead, he tried to openly kick others off the site and when that failed he left of his own accord. Asshole. Ace^Moderator 19:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed. I don't remember it like that at all. - David Gerard (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The site is running like shit so I can get links together very quickly. But look at the mod pages, there are several complaints about Nx, with links, from me and a couple others and Nx told me in no uncertain terms he was trying to get me to leave the site. Then when he lost the mod elections (and I was elected) he left and never came back. So you know, get fucked. The guy was a complete fucking asshole. Ace^Moderator 21:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact is Nx isn't here, so complain about the past doesn't seem to resolve our current problem. sterile^talk 22:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't around to deal with this per Sterile's sugggestion. IF the wandalism is still a problem, though, I can gladly add it to the abuse filter.

PISSED OFF.

Can somebody with the ability to do so please turn off IP editing. We are being viciously attacked, and expecting community members to spent their time undoing nasty edit after nasty edit and protecting pages after the fact shows them zero respect. Use the tools inherent in the software to protect the site and to show community members that their work is more valued than the freedom of some infantile troll. This is completely unacceptable. --PFoster

Ditto. I've wasted 45 minutes playing whack a mole with this fucking prick. When is someone just going to turn off anonymous editing? I'm going to go eat dinner now. Some other fucker can deal with it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If someone else wants to man up and volunteer for the thankless job of handling the RW server speak up, otherwise issues such as this will have to be addressed around one persons schedule. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have snapped at you, and I do appreciate all you do for the community, Trent. That said, there needs to be a way to deal with this kind of nonsense in a more efficient way than wasting what was probably an appreciable chunk of person-hours. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 22:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

We should get guard dogs. NO- guard bears. With x-ray vision. And laser beams. Maybe some rocket boosters for good measure. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic}

Isn't there a way we can write a script that will either do a universal "protect", or stop IP edits for a short time? I don't know much about wiki coding, but it seems a reasonable request -- in fact I'm sure the script is already out there for just such an attack.Godot On a perdu le contrôle 22:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC x3)I hate to say it but maybe we need a kill switch for anon editing which could be turned on/off only by mods. Генгис^marauding 22:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

A bunch of people with shell accounts and the power to edit the web tree would be good enough. I'm reasonably happy to volunteer to look after the thing. We definitely need more than one person able to log in and fix things that are wrong, otherwise this will probably happen again. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Can the abuse filter be used this way? Then we just need someone who know what he or she is doing. sterile^talk 22:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Even though I've not been editing a lot lately (got a bit burned out), I'm around a lot. I'd be happy to "sign up" to learn to do anything that might help. I'm not very techie, but i'm good at following instructions. ;-)Godot On a perdu le contrôle 00:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Edited, forgot something in the "multi task" world.

Mission Accomplished?

Excuse me Ms./Mr. Spammer, but how does going MUAHAHA I HAVE BROKEN RATWIKI AND SHOWN YOU TO BE THE EVIL BLOCK HAPPY DEMONS YOU ARE OR SOMETHING prove anything in this case? Such a response was only made in regards to nearly a full day of goatse spam. If you have to provoke people with goatse spam to make them 'prove' they're nasty or that a site is broken now, then chances are your goatse is far nastier than any of the janitors doing block duty. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{just shut up already} 00:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I find it amusing that he gloats that we block any njew account on site; of which we have done two, neither of which looked anymore promising then the random string of letters that came before--il'Dictator Mikal 00:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what sort of person does this. This dude has spent more than 8 hours of his weekend doing nothing but pasting goatse in to the wiki. Just doing an hour of cleaning up after him gave me a headache. He's off his nut, fucking completely insane. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Its PVP, its a game. Rules are simple, we try and do the minimum least invasive stuff we can to stop him, he tries to force our hand at ever increasingly draconian and disruptive restrictions. When he is no longer able to continue the game he assesses the lengths we had to go to stop it and determines a winner. The goatse is nothing to the game. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It's called being petulant. Something most of us grow out of when we turn 15 (for boys) and 18ish for girls. heh.--Godot On a perdu le contrôle 00:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You better take that back. It's just not true. — Haamer (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah! Girls and boys are equally dumb and petulant! ±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 00:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. — Haamer (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Why, whatta gunna do 'bout it? biyath. put me in my room??? I"m happier there anyhow!!! (god, i was a horror show at 14)Godot On a perdu le contrôle 00:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Inevitable fanfic discussion

Can't be any worse than me. One word: fanfiction. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 00:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Fanfiction? I still wrote fanfiction at 17... — Haamer (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I still write fanfiction to this day, but there's a serious difference between 'self-serving garbage through which I vented bratty frustrations' and 'round-robin cooperative fun with a close circle of friends.' ±KnightOfTL;DR^{more at 11} 00:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I still write fanfiction at 22.

@Knight: Which fandom? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Mostly video games. Not so much recently, and mostly for a smaller circle of friends. My favorite is Legend of Zelda, but there's so much crap there. I happen to be a fan of Ganondorf. It angers me to this day that my most popular story is a crappy romance story I wrote for a friend as a thank-you. I also write some Fire Emblem, and a few other things. I started out doing anime, but it was horrible and it's all gone now, thank goodness. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 04:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested. Mind pointing me to your fanfics? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

OK here's fanfic.net which I haven't updated in quite a while, and ranges all the way back into the Terrible Era. I am a fan of Ganondorf, and also of the unusual Ganondorf x Zelda pairing... so if that is not your cup of tea, feel free to ignore any and all stories with it; that's mostly what's written for my little friend-community. But if it squicks you, do not hesitate to ignore. I am not a fan of super hard pariring wars, and I tend not to focus on romance anyway, except in select stories that I despair about all the time, because people seem to like them even though they are awful. Also old stuff is old and bad. I also have a deviantart, but that's more arts and more friend-cluster oriented, with too many in-jokes to really make me want to show you. :| ±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 05:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm. I like what I've read so far. You're more recent stuff isn't bad at all. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

...shows how effective the attack was. The thread is now about fanfics. Continue, please, this makes me proud to be a member of Rationalwiki. Senator Harrison (talk) 04:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The most likely aftereffects of the attack will be a possible permanent change in template protection and the possible removal of Brx from the community. --il'Dictator Mikal 05:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, how is your alt history stuff going Mikal? Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 05:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh you know, havent done much recently due to my mostly being on my laptop and just having videos play on the desktop, really do need to get back to my alternate 1 AD map. --il'Dictator Mikal 05:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

we are discussing the relative merits of fan fictio. the terrorists have wonAMassiveGay (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

we should have

protected most of thse templates from BoN updates a long while ago. --il'Dictator Mikal 01:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I have set the whole template namespace to only be editable by at least autoconfirmed users. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it safe to let IPs edit most of the articles again? - David Gerard (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Should be. Most should expire within 12 hours or so anyway. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 07:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Except for any protection of things on the mainpage or transcluded into the recent changes text, as they should be fully protected to sysop level permanently. And there's no real reason that non-registered users should be in the template space in the first place. ^sshole 11:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Intercom

Can we please stop broadcasting all our internal discussions to the world by way of the 'urgent' intercom? Thank you. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 07:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Define an intercom group "whining" - David Gerard (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Fuck it

Why do we have trials and hearings for obvious trolls and fuckwits who come here? It maks RW non-enjoyable, except for those who like arguing with the demented. Get rid of bricks and mara (who may well be the same person) and I'll see you then. Bye. Sophie^{because liberals} 09:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

So long and thanks for all the fish! BTW, your idea that Brxbrx and me are the same person is quite hilarious — because, the fact is, I've already admitted that we are! (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Just…wow!

Need say no more. Bring on the aliens.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 10:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Goatse attack redux.

So it seems like someone has confessed and is about to be drummed out of the community over at the Coop. That's good. And totally irrelevant to the problem we had yesterday. The attack was successful because anyone with an IP can do almost anything to any page that isn't expressly prohibited. As it stands now, we probably have a half-assed set of protected pages and no way to deal with the next attack except on the same ad-hoc, fly by the seat of our pants, time wasting method of revert-block-wait for vandal to get bored. What options does the wiki software allow for disabling IP editing? Does it have to be a server-side solution? Can we install a mod-level "panic button" that will shut off IP editing and/or account creation when we are being attacked? Do we want such a thing? I believe it's unfair to the community to let trolls and vandals piss all over our hard work; a lot of folks wasted a lot of time yesterday dealing with something that should never have happened, and would not have happened if the right tools were there. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 13:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, one has to have access to LocalSettings.php in the mediawiki files to change who gets to edit and who gets to create accounts. (I run a private wiki so I've disabled anon edits and signups. That kind of stuff seems to work through the settings file. [Is that what 'server-side' means?]) — Haamer (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to stay away for a month, but since I was around yesterday, I'd think I'd like to say that I agree with PFoster here. And, in fact, I think it's a more important question than what to do with brx. sterile^talk 14:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There are some interesting recurring ip editors, mostly here and on WIGO:!CP but yeah, agree with Foster/Sterile. Тy^Talk 14:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I know there are interesting IP editors. I'm not asking to stop IP editing as a thing. Just for a way to keep the hordes back when we're being attacked. Would it be a drag if an IP editor couldn't contribute for an hour or two once or twice a year when this kind of thing happens? Yes. Is that a bigger drag than 5 or 6 editors spending hours trying to keep up with a concerted vandal attack? No. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 14:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep the templates locked for one. Тy^{Serious Business Guy} 14:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but that won't do shit for every other page. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 15:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A kill switch could work. Тy^{Serious Business Guy} 15:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried MediaWiki's help and extension pages, nothing useful. Can someone tell me who the boss here is? — Haamer (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

tmtoulouse Тy^{Serious Business Guy} 14:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Relevent points to this discussion:

• The "slow downs" and difficulties in reverting were caused by several key issues:

1. Hitting templates increased the job queue drastically increasing peoples access time (refer to MW docs on how jobs are run for details)
2. Hitting templates obscured the normal tools people have for reverting vandalism
3. Hitting templates made the vandalism appear across multiple high profile pages
4. The large size of the edits increased the CPU time needed to deal with reversions because of the way mysql works
5. Several attempts appear to have been made to seize up the DB by making megabyte sized edits

• Banning the IPs is pointless they are all TOR nodes, it takes literately 2 seconds to get a fresh IP using TOR.
• Stopping IP editing doesn't not prevent the vandalism unless we instantly block every new account created. This leads to the user name vandalism we are familiar with at CP.

What I have done so far to help alleviate these issues:

• I have protected everything in the template name space to require an autoconfirmed account till you can touch it (this takes out a large part of the annoyance of yesterdays attack)
• I have capped the size of pages at greater than anything we should ever need but less than what it takes to seize up the database

Things that could be done but are somewhat draconian and/or difficult to implement:

• Block all TOR nodes from using the site. Problems: Allowing read access to the site but not edit rights requires a MediaWiki extension. The current one out there really doesn't work well, and the way it is implemented (and the only ways I can think of doing it) can significantly slow down the site for everyone. Blocking TOR nodes from even accessing the wiki is easy to do and would not slow things down, but TOR nodes are used for very legitimate traffic such as getting through the great firewall in China.
• Cap the size of edits that new users/ips can make. This would probably require a custom extension as I don't think it native to MW. The main point being to keep the edits new users/ips small enough that they won't start effecting CPU cycles.
• Implement some sort of "panic button" extension that allows mods/techs/sysops (maybe?) to temporarily stop IP editing. Again this would have to be a custom job as I am not aware of any existing functionality or extensions that do it. But see above on why we may not want to (username spam, etc.)

Under normal operating procedures the amount of time it takes to revert spam (simple rollback button) versus the time it takes to implement it gives us a major advantage. The spammer exerting way more effort for little effect and the reverting spread across multiple users (rollback is given to autoconfirmed users here everyone has it). What made yesterday more difficult was template vandalism to key templates, and the large sizes of the edits. Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on your what it sounds like was done from the server side, I don't think any more server action is warranted at this time. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 16:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

if there are repeats we may need more protection. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There's some stuff about fixes for this kind of vandalism at Bugzilla. Anything usable from that? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Capping the size is what I just did via abusefilter. Blue (is useful) 22:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

In honor of the late Mike Wallace....

An important piece of his work for all here to enjoy. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 16:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

And another one. --Damo^Hi 23:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Goes to show you don't need to be a fundie to be against women's rights

Shorter Scott Walker: Women don't really need insurance coverage for abortion, or any money at all. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Say what you will about the Daily Fail...

This made my day.. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 21:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Whooping caugh outbreak in my home time town

Boulder, home of the new agers, and a higher than normal rate of "parental exemptions" to vaccination... this is what you get folk. Godot On a perdu le contrôle 19:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Quoth Mencken: "What happened in Los Angeles when a vaccination ordinance was submitted to a popular referendum is typical of what would happen anywhere under the same circumstances. The ordinance was rejected, and smallpox spread through the town." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Natural selection ;} Тy^YAUA 14:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Racist writes racist article.

So instead of using cranial measurements to back up his scientific racism, John Derbyshire uses demographic statistics. Cost him his job at the National Review. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 00:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Good, fuck that guy. After having read the article a few days back, i thought "Well, this is the end." And i was right. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 00:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe people think this way. well, obama is at one time a muslim, a christian extremist activist and an atheist. so I guess i *can* beleive people think this way. it was actually hard to read, but WIGO someone posted "an angry black woman" (or some such) reply. THAT was good. --Godot On a perdu le contrôle 02:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I can very easily believe people think this way. I find it harder to believe that a professional columnist thought it a good idea to write this stuff & a magazine thought it wise to publish it. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The Derb has openly admitted his racism in the past and writes for that hive of white nationalism, VDARE. Makes me wonder why they decided to fire him now. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Relevant. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That slimeball called his own children "mud" at one point. Let's hear it for family values! ListenerX^TalkerX 18:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

So... How was Easter for everybody?

Aside from the attack, how was everybodies Easter?--il'Dictator Mikal 02:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Spent 4 days in the sun eating and drinking. Ace^Moderator 02:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Spent 4 days in my apartment eating & drinking. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I spent it in my room with no one bothering me. I guess I could go buy some half-price candy now, but that would just make me fat. I never really celebrated easter before, so a day of relative peace is pretty much all I get. Everyone on campus was gone. It was very serene. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 02:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ate good food with good friends. P-Foster Talk "Armed ;;with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 02:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Two dozen fresh eggs for $2 on Saturday, due to being a repeat customer and "it's Easter". Yum! Sunday spent mostly with the Grauniad's monster Araucaria prize puzzle since it was a bit chilly out. Thanks for asking! ħuman 03:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even get an easter bunny this year. --Godot On a perdu le contrôle 03:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither did i actually, We went to my cousins for a big family get together, and my grandma didnt give us kids any chocolate bunnies D: not that i didnt just sit in the living room watching boomerang and playing games on my laptop anyways--il'Dictator Mikal 03:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Spent the holiday with my partner's family. Attended service, visited a museum, etc. The natural history museum we went to had an exhibit involving mountain goats, and of course RW was the first thing that popped to mind... Apparently my life online is now invading my mind during the day. άλφα^Ταλκ 03:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Pretty amazing weekend. I went to the north, to Kaikoura, and spent some time with the sea creatures. I saw two sperm whales breach and spout and roll, as well as a pod of two or three hundred dusky dolphins that spent a good half-hour doing acrobatics for the joy of it (aerial backflips, etc), and the day my wife and I drove home we stopped at a little waterfall and creek that serves as a creche for baby seals and watching dozens of them tumble over each other and play-fight. A lot of fun.--^talk 04:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Converted 50 abstracts of posters and talks for a chemistry students' conference, which were sent to me in Word with shitty low-res pictures and incomplete bibliographies, into a LaTeX masterpiece. Another 50 to go before I finish. Also met with family on Monday. --Tweenk (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Spent 4 days with girlfiend in Chicago. Drinking. Тy^{communications wire} 05:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Was Easter the Friday or the Sunday or...? I/we don't celebrate Easter. I think the Friday may have been a national holiday. Or maybe not. I never pay attention. I never even know what day it is. Just recently I tried to go into the library on a Sunday. Felt like an idiot for the wasted bus ticket. Hmm. It's still snowy outside. I started with spring cleaning though, that's what I did for Easter. — Haamer (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

My brother has come to visit me. First couple of days were cold and wet but yesterday was glorious. Went for a 25 kilometer stroll in the countryside.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 06:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Visiting family, went to the pub, went to the pub, didn't go to the pub so stayed in and drank, went to the pub. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 10:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Bob's weekend sounds a lot healthier than mine. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 10:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Silly Westerners. Easter is next week. :p --ZooGuard (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nitrogen enriched gasoline

Did I really just hear an ad for Shell's product with that??? Considering air is 80% N2 and NOx is a major pollutant, nitrogen deprived gas would make more sense... ħuman 03:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it more likely that the Shell product actually contains a nitrogen compound just as in straight line racing where N₂O is sometimes used to increase performance? Otherwise, if you need an inert gas for some reason Nitrogen is very, very cheap for exactly the reason you hint at: You can make it from thin air. Cheaper than (drinkable) water. Huge quantities are manufactured in this way for various purposes and adding it to fuel if there's some actual reason to do that, wouldn't make a dent. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

From the blurb

“”Shell Nitrogen Enriched Diesel is an ultra low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD) with an exclusive advanced cleaning system that helps protect diesel engines against performance-robbing gunk (carbon deposits) build-up on fuel injectors with continual use. Gunk build-up can impair optimal fuel flow and can result in increased fuel consumption and associated CO2 emissions. Heavy-duty truck fleet trials of Shell Nitrogen Enriched Diesel demonstrated a 4.8% reduction in fuel consumption in more severe stop-and-go city service and a 1.3% reduction in fuel consumption in less severe long-haul highway service as compared to regular ULSD.

Quite how these savings are achieved is another matter. The Shell site has some blurb but it's flash and crashes my Firefox. Bob Soles (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, nice point 82..., but N isn't exactly "inert". Thanks for the lookup I was too lazy to do, Bob. I wonder if there is anything to it, or just PR the ad agency made the engineers sign on to? ħuman 02:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The Path to Galt's Gulch Part Deux

Looks like the village idiots don't remember what happened the last time they fellated a Paul Ryan budget. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait... what?

Has Launchbooty finally gone off the deep end?:

“”All I’ve got to say is, March 20 on your calendar is already twelve days too late for the date when daytime and nighttime are equal. Same for September 22. Pope Gregory figured out that exactly one leap year every four years is about three leap years too many every four centuries.

--PsyGremlinSprich! 13:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I wish more people paid attention to Terry. His stupidity is so aggressive, yet entertaining. It's like he's got PJR's gumption, Andy's stupidity and both of their contrarian mindsets. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What gets me it that he's a doctor--people conceivably live and die based on the advice of a man who rejects eighth-grade science. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 14:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, I don't think he made it to GP, merely did lab work. But event that could be scary, given his mindset. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Must I point out that he was responding to a comment by an Orthodox Christian, and that the Orthodox still use the Julian calendar to calculate the date of Easter? ListenerX^TalkerX 19:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course you must...you're an insufferable tool. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

MJ?

Should we have an article on Michael Jackson? There are a ton of conspiracy theories associated with him. Some even think he's still alive, unlike Paul. (Just a thought. "We Miss Michael Jackson" is currently trending on Twitter in the UK, and it's not even his birth or death date. IDK what happened.) — Haamer (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh gosh I'm gonna get sentimental. ;-; — Haamer (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Elvis redirects to a funspace article, I suppose that could be mainspace if we stripped out the generic who's-who stuff and kept all the Elvis lives silliness. Same with Michael. I can't think of any MJ anniversaries either. Bad came out in 1987 (25th anniversary), but not until August. I have no particular sentimentality for Michael Jackson, despite sharing a birthday. Sophie^{because liberals} 17:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

To me, everything depends on how you write it. WE probably could have a page on Eeyore, if you wrote it in a focused way that attacked some eeyore woo! If it interests you, write it (or start it), and you'll find out soon enough of the mob thinks the direction is RWish. Godot On a perdu le contrôle 17:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha started, Haamer. I've included a long string of comments for suggestions of crankiness and woo and controversy and conspiracy. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It better get somewhere soon. I see nothing but a stub about a dead guy so far. ħuman 02:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Blame Seth, not me. But why I even considered it's relevant for RW because of the relevance to conspiracy theorists and Illuminati. Are those within RW's scope? — Haamer (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletion?

Should this be deleted? Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that the goatse vandal was keeping a very close watch on Recent Changes, having started to use that template for vandalism a mere 6 minutes after it was created. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Or the more likely theory that OU is trolling us, creating the template then using it as an anonymous IP. The HCM is dying down after all and its his duty to keep it going. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Ignorance question "OU"?--Godot On a perdu le contrôle 18:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

user:occasionaluse. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Simple request... or 3

Is there a way to remove the block log from my watchlist? Oh, and when can we unprotect this page? Is the MLMLM over yet? ħuman 02:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't decide whether "MLMLM" means 3100 or -1100. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

On the recent CBO charts that are lighting up teh internets (WIGO)

I love some of the the neocon escape hatches to protect Dubya's deficits:

• "It hasn't properly adjusted for Obama's future spending!"
• "The budget office isn't impartial anymore, it has a liberal bias!"
• "It's misleading because it was a Democratic-controlled congress for two years!" (aka. the Reagan argument)

Bringing me to the question, what is that $2.3 trillion listed in "other spending"? TARP and related? Econ geeks, help me out. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That'd be correct, OS. What's really stupid are those who post the stupid comments are clearly bad at math. "Add Obamacare and see what that does!" shout some. With Obamacare, though, the expenditure actually lessens. They also fail to recognize that the surplus would still exist if ONLY the tax cuts, and not the war expenditures, were in effect...or vice versa. "Draw it out to 2015 and see what happens!" Well, duh, it would stop being a "sideways mountain" and start diamonding as the war expenses draw to a close and the tax cuts expire. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Bush Tax Cuts extended by Obama, contrary to a campaign pledge? And weren't the Bush Tax Cuts, and the resulting deficit, even added to by Obama with the 2% reduction in the Payroll Tax? So what exactly is the point of your argument? nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 02:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Error creating thumbnail: File missing

Unemployment rate since Obama extended Bush Tax Cuts

Let's go a step further. Wasn't uncertainty over the Bush Tax Cuts lauded for years as the cause of lagging job creation? Is there any correlation now between Obama violating his campaign promise, adding to the deficit, signing new tax cuts and extending old ones, and current improvement in the job market? nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 02:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was. ħuman 02:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Define "improved." Rob, I thought that you, of all people, would read the news today. And when that debt comes home to roost...let's just say that there's a certain blowjob aficionado that will be laughing. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Obama signed the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts December 17, 2010, which took effect January 1, 2011. When Obama signed, Unemployment was heading back up (see chart). Since Obama extended the Bush Tax Cuts, Unemployment which was stuck at 10% for Obama's first two years, dropped 2 full percentage points, or 3 million people. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 03:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Post hoc fallacy much Rob? So the Bush tax cuts, which did nothing to curb unemployment from 2008-2010 suddenly, when extended another few years, kicked in and drove unemployment down? Maybe some other factors were at work there? In any case, I'll grant you that cutting taxes can aid the economy, just as increasing spending does. Econ 101 question: what happens when you do both those things? The deficit skyrockets adding to the debt. Whenever a Democrat is in office, suddenly conservatives panic about the debt, which is never an issue on their watch. What is the GOP plan for eliminating the deficit? Well, first you cut taxes (always cut taxes) to drive down your revenues. Then you increase discretionary military spending. Not much can be done in the non-discretionary column, so you, let's see...defund Planned Parenthood!!! Budget. Balanced. It's so easy. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Question one: Is it being suggested that there is a correlation between (a) the extension of the tax cuts and (b) the unemployment rate? Question two: Why? Question three (from a non USA citizen): At what point in that graph did Obama extend the tax cuts? Question four: Why was it the extension of the cuts rather then the prior existence the cuts that has the alleged impact? Question five: What other data correlate with the point at which the unemployment figures started to change, and why should this other data not explain the change in the unemployment rate?--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 15:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hold on, Obama did a lot more than just extend the Bush Tax Cuts. He also extended unemployment insurance, and enacted a payroll tax cut. Most economists (liberal and conservative) agree that some tax cuts can be beneficial to the economy. What Supply-Siders claim is that if taxes are cut for the wealthiest Americans, then not only will everything trickle-down and save the economy, but that revenue will increase and as a result so will the debt. This has been proven false time after time. Whether Bush's tax cuts got us out of the early 2000s recession is irrelevent. What matters is that he extended them in times of economic stability, which resulted in massive deficits.

Deficit spending in a time of a recession is perfectly fine. It is how we got out of the 1930s Great Depression. However, it times of economic stability, you have to raise taxes and be careful where you spend (military spending is among the most wasteful methods of spending, and that's why Democrats want to cut it first). Mr. Anon (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Some points.

• The Obama tax cuts correspond to the last spike above 10% and the subsequent rapid decline thereafter (2010-12 on the chart).
• Other corresponding factors and data is the addition of a 2% Payroll Tax cut.
• The Bush Tax Cuts of the early 2000s are largely considered a failure because the 8 million jobs created in the five years after 2003 did not survive the 2008 Recession (see chart). Bruce Bartlett, author of Reaganomics, predicted as much beforehand in Chapter 3 of his 2007 book, Imposter, "Why the Bush Tax Cuts Didn't Deliver."
• Deficits always increase in a recession with or without increased spending or tax cuts, for the simple reason the decline in economic activity and employment results in lost government revenues. One theory of government stimulus calls for direct aid -- as in the 1930s; another calls for stimulus such as President's Kennedy and Reagan. FDR's direct aid did not end the Depression of the 1930s, it only made unemployment worse as FDR's own commission studies reported at the time. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 17:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

With point #1 are you arguing that the Obama tax cuts caused unemployment to rise? Seems counter to your general talking points. With point #2, I don't think anyone argues that a 2% Payroll tax cut was going to be a huge factor in turning the economy around, only it gave people who were hurting a little more money in their accounts. Also for deficits always increasing during recessions, well, we both understand that much. Can you let the "OMG OBAMA MADE THE DEFICIT GO UP WHEN IT REALLY SHOULD BE GOING DOWN THIS SPENDING IS KILLING THE ECONOMY!!!!111!!!1!!" crowd know this? They're your people. Also, are you arguing that government spending was not what eventually ended the Great Depression? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Rob isn't saying Obama's tax deal hurt the economy, he's saying the opposite (that it helped it). Overall, Rob and I are mostly in agreement. Also RobS, the New Deal didn't work because FDR was always implementing austerity measures, and he kept the debt below 40% of the GDP. When World War 2 came about, he began massive spending to boost the manufacturing industry, and the unemployment rate quickly went down. This debt was paid off over time. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. And the point is this: the job market did not improve until Obama extended the tax cuts, and expanded them even more. So Obama rhetoric vs performance are two entirely different things. He even talks now, today, about "the failed economic policies of the past", yet his only success appears based upon supply-side Reagonomic trickle-down. And guess what, we get to have this debate all over again in a lame duck session when the two year extension expires.

As to FDR, I'd broadly agree with what Dr.Anon says, 'ceptin for the portion about the debt being paid off. In 1945, it was about $350 billion. Then came the Marshall Plan, which expanded it even more. New factors, the role of international trade, the IMF, and going off the gold standard needs needs to be understood to make any conclusions. nobs^{bullies are people, too.} 18:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Three things, on which I feel you are misreading or misunderstanding my point.

1. Unemployment rate. We appear to be referring to different sources. Using the BLS data itself (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000) and job growth data (http://zfacts.com/node/337), you'll find that the economy was improving since stimulus money was appropriated in September 2009 (from Obama's first budget). I do agree that his tax deal contributed to the current job growth we are experiencing, but to say that it was his tax deal alone is misleading, expecially since the stimulus itself contained large tax cuts. The problem with the Bush Tax cuts on their own is that they were imposed during a time of economic success, and that contributed to Bush's massive deficits.
2. Reaganomics. Reaganomics, or supply side economics, or trickle down theory (however you want to call it) was a strategy that claimed itself to both reduce the debt and boost the economy. The former effect has been proven false, and while the latter is arguably the case (as any government spending can boost the economy), Obama's tax deal was not based on supply-side. He did not lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans, he merely chose not to raise them. His payroll tax cut, however, primarily effected low income families as the payroll tax is regressive. So Obama's economic strategies are still demand-based (Keynesian).
3. National debt and FDR. You are not using the proper method of measuring debt. In 1945, the national debt was 120% of the GDP, and every President after that until Reagan lowered it (http://zfacts.com/p/318.html).

So there you have it. While Rob and I seem to be in agreement about the tax cuts and their benefit to the economy, we draw this to vastly different conclusions. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Obama tax cuts. I've used BLS data in both charts cited here; the red line in Mr.Anon first zfacts/node/337 link is the same data in this chart. The rest of that zfacts chart corresponds to the Output gap. Unemployment continued to rise after the Obama stimulus and the workforce continued to shrink. Employers refused to hire because of Obama's promise to tax the rich by not extending the Bush cuts, which only turned around after he rescinded his pledge. The big problem with the Bush cuts is, they did not pay for themselves; they were financed with foreign debt, a problem Obama only exacerbated and earned him the nickname "GW Bush on steroids".
2. Supply-side theory vs Reaganomics in practice. The argument here is the same as Communism in theory vs the Soviet Union in practice. It's never really been tried. A major component of Reagan's program was spending restraint, which the Democratically controlled House under Tip O'Neil never agreed to. So it's incorrect to say Supply-side theory is a proven failure.
3. FDR & Reagan. Yes, FDR ran up a huge deficit to defeat fascism, and Reagan did something similar, although not nearly on as big a scale, to defeat communism. One aspect of Keynesian theory, in lieu of the abandoned gold standard, is the need to expand the aggregate economic, fiscal, and monetary bases -- something the gold standard does not allow. The aggregate bases at the end of FDR's term were perhaps 20 times what they were a little more than 12 years earlier. While Keynesianism gives a justification for expanding the monetary bases, the way it's implemented can be very controversial. A moral argument can be made against the Keynesian emphasis on consumption spending (prodigality) at the expense of saving and investment (investment is just another word for employment and job creation). nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 19:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your unemployment data that you put up in your image, once again, is unsourced. Unemployment never went above 10.5%, according to my chart. Your claim about speculation over Bush Tax cuts being a cause of unemployment is speculatory, and appears unsourced. You also largely ignored my job growth evidence; job losses got smaller each month after the stimulus passed, and sources generally point to over 2 million jobs created or saved by it. Your claim about Reagan being constrained by a Democratic congress is also unfounded. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• BLS on unemployment in the Obama years.
• "Widespread economic uncertainty is discouraging the investment that must take place if U.S. employers are to hire more workers and increase employee compensation." -- Labor Day 2010: The Impact of Anti-Labor Policies on Working Men and Women, National Association of Manufacturers Report.
• Joblessness increased after the Obama stimulus was passed, according to BLS data.
• "created or saved" is not a recognized term used in the science of Economics. It is junk science, [1][2][3][4][5] something that is Rationalwiki's Mission to refute.
• "the theoretical Reaganomic initiative of smaller government and spending restraint was never implemented", Answers.com. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 23:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

British shows always mess my mind up

because i see them get in cars or drive cars, and my mind keeps going "but thats the wrong side...". It really is quite annoying. --il'Dictator Mikal 00:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Turn your TV round, that should do it. Генгис^marauding 06:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

There was a time where I was watching so much British television and film, that I started thinking in a British accent.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You could try watching in a mirror.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 09:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

But then the audio will be backwards....at least you could listen for messages from the devil. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I was watching a documentary on Australian wildlife and kept wanting to turn my TV upside down. Doctor Dark (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Free will

What's the general 'rational' consensus on free will? (Or, at least, what do y'all think?) Asking since I just wrote this ("presupposing that people actually have free will in the universal sense") and want the tone to be consistent with the rest of this website. — Haamer (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It is almost as grand of an illusion as reality, or your mom telling you you're cool. Or at least I think so, and my mom tells me I am cool. So yea. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 13:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is a rational consensus on the topic. Quite a bit of debate from time to time though.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 13:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I would answer this question but I'm destined not to (sorry). Bob Soles (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Incoherent concept if you don't assume dualism, and the common usage does - David Gerard (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's incoherent concept; it's a perception, something we experience. We have the experience of making decisions, even if those decisions are determined by a multitude of factors. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, we definitely have the experience (or "illusion" as some would say) of exercising our free will, but what is universally or objectively true? The article discusses spirit guides, entities who supposedly have the capacity to 'nudge' us and influence our intuition (basically, to mess with our heads), but according to believers they're not allowed to mess with our free will. What does that even mean if we don't objectively have free will? A simple 'nudge' can be one of the factors that determines our 'choice'. — Haamer (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

We probably don't objectively have spirit guides either. I think the whole concept is routed in some sort of dualism whereby the universe is composed of both matter & spirit, spirit being the mind/soul part of the individual (with free will) as well as non-corporeal spirits such as these alleged guides. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I choose to not answer thi... oh bugger. Sophie^{because liberals} 15:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Not to. Please spare the poor infinitives. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I boldly choose to not spare the infinitives. Sophie^{because liberals} 17:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This isn't Latin. In Latin you couldn't split infinitives because they're bolted together into a single word (and Latin didn't permit crazy infixes like "abso-bloody-lutely" or "fan-fucking-tastic"). But in English infinitives are made of several bits and it sometimes makes sense to move those bits around in a sentence. Thus a hard rule against splitting infinitives is clearly bullshit. There might be stylistic reasons to prefer or avoid certain splits, but those don't amount to rule against split infinitives. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

To be the Srs Sam in here, I don't think there's much of a consensus on it... but it's pretty well established that free will or the lack thereof doesn't come from a deity, a guardian spirit, or a cosmic universal aura or anything else.±KnightOfTL;DR^{going galt: the literal crazy train} 15:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Check the links on our free will article (and SEP as always). I don't believe in the ghost in the machine style free will, but there are a number of formulations of compatibilism that are more or less trivially true. I find free will to be an incoherent concept and loaded term, though. There are lots of terrible arguments to be made for and against either way. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

As with most things in life, I come to discover, it all depends on what drugs you are currently doing. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not you truly have "biological free will" (and i'm in no position to know if our views are so conditioned that we could not act in a way other than teh way we do), it APPEARS as if we have free will, and that is truly all that matters. It may be that a bus is "mostly space" or that reality is "only a projection" of a black hole, but fuck it, if a bus is comming at me, i'm running. Godot On a perdu le contrôle 17:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as natural causes and effects are concerned, determinism is the logical conclusion — with the right definitions, this can be framed as compatibilism. For supernatural causes, the laws of physics constrain one's ability to act as one will, but only the craziest free-will people think that one can lift up a mountain just by willing it so. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course not all qualified people accept that determinism is the logical conclusion. There is no consensus. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It is only the logical conclusion with regard to natural or material causes and effects — i.e., given that the brain is subject to the laws of physics, if "will" is defined completely in natural or material terms, then "will" is subject also to the laws of physics. This does not hold, of course, with regard to idealistic or supernatural conceptions of the mind or soul. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No. No, it isn't. There is still plenty of debate and, as I said, no consensus that determinism is the only logical conclusion drawn from materialism. Hawking and Shrodinger are probably the best examples of contrasting views on free will from a physics perspective. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If you are talking about Erwin Schrödinger, of Schrödinger's Cat fame, the sort of "non-determinism" he talked about there can only be turned into anything resembling free will by applying copious amounts of quantum woo. Also, remember that Schrödinger is in the ground and Hawking is not, having formed his opinions with the benefit of several more decades of quantum-physics research. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hitchens put it as well as anyone can: "Do you believe in free will?" "I have no choice." ħuman 02:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

ListenerX^TalkerX 04:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Prepare for the Paulbots

Remember that post I made a while ago where I invited everyone to a Paulbot trolling? Well I went on without you, and I decided to invite them here to debate me (because of youtube's stupid commenting system). When I last checked the video there were four guys debating me, so prepare for a group of them to come over here to debate me. (I'm not simply trying to bring the debate here so that I have an army of my own. Keeping the debate here lets me respond to all of my opponents at once, plus I can link to articles like Fractional-reserve banking to counter myths that they raise.) Mr. Anon (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

paulbots? We just survived a goatse attack, paulbots are easy. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Debate you here where? Тy^Complaints 03:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Here in the Saloon bar. I'll try to keep it to one section. I apologize if they troll other parts of the wiki, and I'll try to keep them under control. If anyone is planning on joining me in debating them I must warn you, they are rather frustrating. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I reccomend somewhere else. somewhere i can ignore. and if they troll the rest of the wiki they can be shown what happens when ypou troll a website--il'Dictator Mikal 03:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

[[Forum:Mr. Anon versus the paulbots]] Тy^rannosaurs 03:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll create it now. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

But don't worry too much about this. It will be fun. Here is one of the recent comments from the video: "if a semi goes past your house at 0300 hrs, toots twice on the air horn because of your RON PAUL yard sighns, its me. SORRY cant help it."

I mean we might even be able to create Fun:Paulbots say the darnest things out of this. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

For those of us who may be about to be caught in whatever crossfire may occur could you explain what a "paulbot" is? --Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 06:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Fanatical supporters of Ron Paul. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 07:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Think of a Randroid speaking with the zeal and argument style of a creationist about the wonders of deregulation. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

So here we are, undoing Goatse vandalism from IP editors again.

Blocking, reverting, protecting. Sure wish that there was a way to disable IP editing or something. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 20:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. We need more accountability. What about a username policy? Occasionaluse (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

And rangeblocks. Rangeblocks for everybody!--il'Dictator Mikal 21:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

NITE MOAD. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 21:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The groundwork for night moad is still laid. As long as Trent hasn't changed the admin passwords in the last few months, I can have it up in 10 minutes. An hour or two, otherwise. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, probably the best thing to do is everyone go away for a few hours. The best way to get rid of an attention whore is to ignore him. sterile^talk 21:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly Occasionaluse (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There is that option, but then it means we have to just clean it up then, and not ongoing, while leaving us with a giant stock of goatse images to ward off anybody who might wanna visit the site. simpler to just disable boN edits for now, our dedicated BONS can either fucking understand or they arent the type of people we actually want on the site. --il'Dictator Mikal 21:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

And thereby give him the attention he wants. Sigh. sterile^talk 21:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Preferable to letting him have free reign for a few hours with which goatse will be all over the place, making potential users leave without trying the site. --il'Dictator Mikal 21:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, every change adds significant byte-age to the database...100s of KB at a time, that are completely unnecessary to store. Is he trying to fill up the database? MySQL is strong, but if it the changes force the tables and logs into any considerable limits, it'll completely make the database uneditable and we'll start getting errors similar to what CP got a few weeks back. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

... if he wants to do that, this shouldnt even be a discussion, it should be us demanding the people who can protect the website actually do it. --il'Dictator Mikal 21:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

But it doesn't even matter if that's what he/she/it wants to do...it technically will happen if this keeps up...attention seeking behaviors or not. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Fuck it (second helpings)

I've blocked my last block, protected my last page, reverted my last edit as far as this asshole goes. Go nuts. Let him break the wiki. Nobody gives a shit enough to do something proactive to prevent this nonsense, I'm not investing another minute of time cleaning up. I'll go back to being an editor and ask for my rights back if y'all ever figure out how to protect our investment. Two days of this? That's some first-class bullshit right there. This is why we can't have nice things. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 21:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

--il'Dictator Mikal 21:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, but why goatse-bomb your own talk page after posting this, PF? Seems like kindofa petulent reaction. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we need more people with the ability to modify the filter (i.e. techs) then? Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 22:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we do. And at your edit comment btw peter, they can't, but nor did they have to leave us with no protection against it happening a second time. and whats to stop it happening again later tonight or tomorrow? --il'Dictator Mikal 22:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It is fucking wiki vandalism. It comes with a wiki. Conservapedia has instituted every draconian method available, so many that people would never want all of them implemented here. It has not stopped vandals from hitting them. What pray tell would you guys suggest I do to "protect" us from fucking basic wiki vandalism? Shall I lock down all editing so that no one can ever edit again? Just fish bowl the site? That is the only way. Getting so pissed off about it is ridiculous its just typical, everyday wiki vandalism. Revert and move on. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

8 hours one day and a good 4 the next day is NOT just wiki vandalism ,its an attack on the website. saying "revert and deal" doesnt stop the fact its STILL happening trent, it doesnt stop the fact its filling the fucking website up with it, and it doesn't keep us from getting pissed off the only solution we have is some temporary measures and ad-hoc page protection--il'Dictator Mikal 22:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that maybe IP editing should be disabled for a while, and unconfirmed users maybe restricted more heavily somehow.--"Shut up, Brx." 22:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a difference between "vandalism" and "concentrated sustained attack." We need to find a way to deal with the latter without confusing it for the former. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 22:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think a killswitch would be a fantastic idea. This wave of attacks has seriously rattled the community, and we wouldn't want it to get this bad again in the future.--"Shut up, Brx." 22:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are options: 1) limit the delta new users/ips can make to pages (blue has done this to a degree we can make it even smaller) 2) block all TOR nodes from editing the wiki but this will significantly slow down the wiki for everyone 3) block all tor nodes from even accessing the server cutting off any traffic that might rely on it such as anything behind prohibitive firewalls (iran, china, etc). There are the only options that I can think of other than to just revert/ban as always. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocking IPs will do almost nothing, would you rather revert page vandalism, or deal with a crap ton of user name spam/vandalism? Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

All i want is for the wiki to not just be open to a fucking flood of attack. Saying "Revert and deal" is not honestly the best thing to say now trent, because we've tried that method, it IS NOT working and only gathering anger for a second HCM like last years. --il'Dictator Mikal 22:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I will point out that its not like we are doing nothing. Notice how no templates were vandalized this time? Guess why. I didn't know that the abuse filter on the wiki could handle the edit delta size which is awesome. Blue set that up. I shrunk it further. That removes to two biggest issues with the vandalism 1) templates hitting the job queue 2) big chunk changes to the database fucking up CPU cycles. Calling us out for doing nothing is kind of bullshit. I appreciate the efforts everyone has put in to revert the vandalism and clean things up. We are on the same side here people lets curb the finger pointing down a few notches. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Would some sort of "guard dog" bot that auto-reverts suspicious edits be a workable solution? E.g. at most basic level, any edit made by a BoN or non-autoconfirmed account making a change of more than +50,000 or -50,000 to a page automatically gets reverted. Any legit edits reverted in this way are likely to be noticed by somebody checking RC or by the editor protesting the reversion. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Limiting the size of new/unconfirmed edits seems reasonable; that would help to prohibit the server-killing that the Goatse edits did to compound the situation.Or install NITE MOAD P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 22:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"Notice how no templates were vandalized this time?" Not true--a few sig templates were hit. Also, while blocking TOR nodes would slow down the site, nobody wants to block them ALL THE TIME--only when they are being used to attack us in a sustained way. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 23:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

To clarify: only a few sigs got hit because Foster went out and locked atleast the majority of them.--il'Dictator Mikal 23:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there are still a whole bunch to lock. I gave up when, in the middle of locking sigs, Brx went and hit a sig talk page. That's when I realized that this ad-hoc approach was not workable. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 23:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Screw you, Foster, I didn't do it.--"Shut up, Brx." 23:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You take yourself too seriously. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 23:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Those were all user space sigs, this is a reason why people should subst sigs. I can't use the same sort of mass protect for sigs I used for templates. Blocking tor nodes at its worst can add 5+ seconds per request for everyone using the wiki. This too me just is not an acceptable alternative to reverting. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

" Blocking tor nodes at its worst can add 5+ seconds per request for everyone using the wiki. This too me just is not an acceptable alternative..." Even during a sustained attack, the only time when we would actually use it? P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 23:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we are implementing plenty of automatic filters and other schema to limit dmg vandalism can do. Hitting rollback is just so much easier and better for the wiki. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You weren't the one hitting the "rollback". i think i saw 4 -6 names fighting all day long. and it's those 4-6 people saying "enough is enough". If everyone was doing their part - fine. But like most things here, most people read, yap in the salon bar, and make a casual edit here and there. and a few people do a boat load of the work. They just want a tool that says "Fucking stop". why would a 1 hour tool be such a huge deal. we are not turing into CP to say "ok, this has gotten out of hand, i'm putting the breaks on". Godot On a perdu le contrôle 23:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yah I wasn't the one hitting roll back, but I was the one that spent 3 1/2 hours last night figuring out how a TOR block would work (or not work), how to implement it, and the problems it will cause. Pro tip the shit extension at MW has no documentation and doesn't work for anything but WP. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll take this opportunity to say thanks to Trent for his work on the wiki (while mostly in the background) and everyone else who fought Mr. Goetse yesterday. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 23:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've already thanked trent, and I know that probably wasnt much fun trent, but three hours isnt a lot when its you in the command ship out back plotting the campaign while the soldiers are landing on the beach. . not trying to insult you and sorry if it comes that way, but we did the bulk of the action and we want more for when it happens again, not wait for a person with tech rights to be able to show up and stop it from being able to act--il'Dictator Mikal 23:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a silly analogy and not a fair one. This site is something we do in our spare time, Trent included, & three hours is a more than fair amount of time to spend trying to find a solution to site problems. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I know, it just bothered me. at the same time, i do apologize for how i was a while ago. like I said, i was angry and needed to do something with that anger, my usual ways of dealing with it weren't available so it just sorta... exploded everywhere, including at people who didnt deserve it. --il'Dictator Mikal 00:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Even with the fight its breeding?--il'Dictator Mikal 23:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think we should lock down IP editing, either preventing it period or restricting it. That would help, because it would provide an additional hurdle for the vandal to get past.--"Shut up, Brx." 23:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Rather a lot of our interactions with the subjects of our articles is IP edits. So yeah, terrible idea - David Gerard (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Stopgap

I have created an abuse filter that will stop the goatse spam for now. Wish I'd have checked RW earlier today. Blue (is useful) 22:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

How long is 'for now' do you think? Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 22:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Depends on how smart and dedicated our attackers are. I'm betting that they're not great at either, so it should last for a while. Trent just made it much more stringent, too. Blue (is useful) 23:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for setting that up, Blue.--^talk 23:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks indeed. Fingers crossed that it works. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 23:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

ed had something called Mysterybot, which worked fantastically. I 'm sure the source is available somewhere and if you want, i can run it of my server at home.--23.16.216.127 (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks Blue (and Trent). But can something similar be done for RWW? Tired fingers want to know. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 09:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, the Austrians!

[6] And here is a refutation so elegant we should just vandalise the site out of existence - David Gerard (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

How the hell do you hear about things like this?--^talk 09:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A good dose of "Rational" wiki in there :) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Anything in the blog post that would help improve the article, or is it all just handwaving? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently they spotted a typo - David Gerard (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that paragraph he quoted was pretty clunky. And I suspect PS would be a gold article, surely, on account of it being part of the definition of our mission? Guess I gotta go check... ħuman 02:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It was clunky because he misquoted it: "...in [alternative] medicine...". He actually must have intentionally deleted the word. Weird. Oh by the way it's marked silver, and looks pretty decent. ħuman 02:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Google Alert on "rationalwiki" - David Gerard (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Already noticed - see User talk:Nebuchadnezzar#"RationalWiki is a Front for Socialist Indoctrination" --ZooGuard (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Skepticism is arrogance. Scholars should be objective. Statistics cannot indicate a null hypothesis. Demanding proof before conclusions indicates left-wing progressivism. Left-wing progressivism is a kind of socialism. Yep. This person does not actually understand things. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 11:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite fond of (from another article on morality)

“”First and foremost, it is completely illogical to murder someone (unless in self-defense or in the defense of someone else, which needs no explanation) because for every act of murder you commit, you physically destroy business opportunities. You are killing a man you could’ve traded with, or co-operated with at a later date. You must also account for the resources you would use in committing this completely silly act (which vary from person to person). The resources you’d waste in killing the person and disposing of the body could’ve been used in the market, or it could’ve been kept as savings for future consumption/investment.

Yep, the logical reason for not committing murder is that you might be able to make a profit out of him. My sort of guy! Bob Soles (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I love this shocked statement from the beginning of the second article.

• ...that this material is on the internet and no one has challenged it tells me a lot about the intellectual bankruptcy of the Western World.

In other words, "How incredible - the internet includes things I disagree with!"--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 13:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

And apparently his only recourse is to bitch about it...fallaciously...on a blog that no one else will read. Can we add him to our Pissed At Us article? -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd respond, but I don't speak Austrian. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 20:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Sophiebecause liberals 20:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Rick Santorum suspends campaign

actually noticed it from the blog that is Takeis facebook page. --il'Dictator Mikal 19:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The man who has waged a war on women's health suspends campaign...to take care of his sick daughter. ಠ_ಠ -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd always been rather surprised that he was willing to run for office while his daughter was terminally ill, even though that wasn't pertinent to why he was a terrible candidate.--^talk 21:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh, Santorum is dropping out. Vulpius (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Is no-one considering telling Rick that he has to carry his dead presidential campaign to full term? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Only everyone on all of Twitter. They're also muttering something about ten-inch plastic wands - David Gerard (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Bugger. I'm always late with my jokes. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't ask the awkward questions

I find that playing rationalist taboo is remarkably useful. So, in arguing whether the Bible condones slavery, even in the face of Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25:44-46, the response is that this isn't "proper" slavery that it's referring to. Even Exodus 21:7 about selling your daughter - no, because it doesn't say it's okay to do so, it just lays down some rules should you decide to do it. Then there's debt bondage (or something) and the other is something to do with prisoners of war (although nowhere does it explicitly mention this little caveat) and it's not direct sales, so doesn't count. So there! So, this is just arguing over the semantics of slavery (and some well-oiled and flexible goalposts to boot), let's just strip that away and ask "does it, or does it not contain rules endorsing and regulating the sale, trade and keeping of individual humans by others against their consent?"... the silence is deafening when you ask awkward questions. ^moral 15:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not endorsing murder. I'm just saying I know a good place to dump the body if you ever feel the need. Y'know, wink wink, nudge nudge. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not slavery if we don't call it slavery. He's just an... indentured... volunteer... whom I beat regularly because he's not an Israelite. ^postate 21:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Rationalist POV is great but one must still strive for factual accuracy

In about two weeks of starting to edit here, mainly on subjects that rationalists are a bit skeptical towards or wary of, I have found two major factual inaccuracies, and a couple of minor ones.

The article on Holy Grail had a 2-year old edit saying the Holy Grail myth was largely written by the English (as a way of critiquing the problematic claim that the Grail was brought to England.) It was not. It is largely a French creation, it was French writers who incorporated the Grail into Arthurian mythology, most Arthurian writing in the 12th and 13th century were by French and also Germans, and a French author of epic poems who first wrote a work in which the Grail was brought to England. Naturally, the English were willing to run with it later once the idea was in circulation.

The article on Fast Food Christianity does not in any way reflect the way the coiners of the phrase use that term. It is assumed to be somewhat similar to Cafeteria Christianity- it is not. IMO, the entire article should be deleted.

The article on Zen falsely listed a major influence on the spread of Zen in the West Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence. It's influence was minimal. It's bibliography lists Pema Chodron, who is in the modern Shambala tradition, but notably not in the Zen tradition.

A wiki with a POV in fine- it makes an exciting read, but it's not an excuse for sloppy research.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you like a refund? P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 17:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL :) Thanks.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is a wiki. It's possible the people who made those articles had incomplete knowledge. Though once again, it's a wiki and it's great that you noticed these mess-ups, because I wouldn't have. So I would say your first two weeks have been pretty well-spent. Wikis need people to do stuff like you're talking about now. So rock on and keep doing what you' doing, WickerGuy. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{lavishly loquacious} 17:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what your complaint is. You found an error, fixed it (yeah you!!!), and will move on to find many more errors. They happen. people think they know more than they do, or have heard something and repeated it without looking it up. From the over all wiki's point of view, what would concern me is if you find instances of egregious (or really, even minor) "manipulating" for the sake of POV. if you do, scream, yell, holler, and of course, fix. :-) I know i've put in comments before, especially on topics my heart is in, and gone back and said to myself - ok, that's more than a bit hyperbolic. Godot On a perdu le contrôle 18:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Error on wiki gets fixed, film at 11. ^theist 19:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Addendum

Also some weeks back I found an article rebutting some fundamentalist that stated Albert Schweitzer doubted the existence of a historical Jesus. He did feel the historical Jesus was unknown, but held he was probably an apocalyptic prophet who expected some cataclysmic end of the world at some time. Schweitzer was never a proponent of the mythicist theory of Jesus being entirely a literary fiction.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As has been pointed out above - finding errors, pointing them out and getting them fixed is a great activity. It's what wikis are good at; it's what they are for. Such errors are not fixed in stone so you dun well. If they are still outstanding either fix them if they are not contentious or take it to the talk page if they are.

But raising them on the appropriate talk page is usually what is necessary. It's not really necessary to bring them to the attention saloon bar as well in order to point out that they have been fixed. It's part of the natural activity of the wiki.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 19:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point, but it seemed like statistically an awful lot of significant gaffes to run into in the course of just one week (and almost all in the area of religion), a lot more than I find on Wikipedia, which I've been an editor on (under the same user-name or nom de clavier) since Fall of 2007. It points IMO to a need for slightly stronger sourcing requirements which I hope can be met without sacrificing the rationalist POV, and humorous commentary.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has, by many orders of magnitude, more editors than we have here. You can't expect every article here to have been reviewed by multiple know-it-alls. Of course if those errors were found in one of our gold or cover articles then we might have something to answer for. But you know, when I first started editing Wikipedia I found some errors. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 13:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a wiki here? That seems rather off mission. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 13:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I started the Holy Grail article, and most of it was stuff from memory, that I'd picked up over the years. It was a rough outline just to kick things off and I assumed other people would come along later and improve it. They didn't. The problem with starting articles is that you care about the subject more than anyone else (otherwise it would have already been written), and consequently once you stop writing about it it fades into the background, mistakes, personal biases and all. Then two years later someone new comes along and goes "this article is terrible." There a whole load of articles like that here, enthusiastic starts with little followup. Sophie^{because liberals} 16:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"...enthusiastic starts with little followup." Story of my WikiLife. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

So you removed a throwaway comment from the Holy Grail article a week ago & you're still crowing about it now? What are you looking for? An apology? Pat on the head? Also, I think you're getting too caught up in the details. Does the fact that Arthurian Grail mythology originated in French literature not English actually make it any more or less plausible as a theory? RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia; our articles relate to the site's missions and don't need to cover every facet of a subject. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone's fucking with RWW

Yeah. It's one great big goatse. For serial. Funny prank, but I'd like to stop looking into the bowels of hell now, please. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 10:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's our favourite vandal-de-jour. Same old same old. Still, it gives me something to do while my programs compile. Bob Soles (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and given how easy it is to bring RWW to it's knees he is only doing limited damage because he, like us, gets 500 errors. Bob Soles (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, UHM has become a shade more devious and is now going for two edits which means I can't use rollback and reverting is beyond my wiki knowledge. I'm quite happy to do the work but if someone can advise.

Or maybe just shut it down. Bob Soles (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The vandal tried editing here this morning but wasn't able to get past the abuse filters at all this time. Figure that's why they hit RWW. I put the filters up over there now too. Tmtoulouse (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that (though you do seem to have caught a legitimate edit). Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 23:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh good grief!

Orly Taitz is running for the Senate. US politics lurches to a new low. This being the same woman who allegedly said that the judges who shot down her birther court cases, should be hanged for treason.--PsyGremlinParlez! 12:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't in California where the Republicans have zero chance any way? Pi 3:14 (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

surprises can happen, nebraska's had dems and were a republican stronghold. and by physical coverage republicans control most of california; but most of the population lives where democrats control, so its possible, just unlikely. --il'Dictator Mikal 14:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Forunately it is one vote per person, not one per square metre. Pi 3:14 (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Inconceivable! TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 15:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

California has often elected Republican governors but usually of the moderate of liberal variety. Central and inland California (notably the cities of Bakersfield and Fresno) can be very conservative.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

But are they Orly Taitz batshit crazy conservative? Pi 3:14 (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

MW:wigo

What's the extension for the Wigo, or is it a custom one?142.22.16.52 (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a custom extension, you can find the source here. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Karapoem

Whoever is posting these karapoems at CP should be ashamed of themselves - but at the same time, proud. You have some creativity, which you use to my annoyance at CP. Do find some other uses for it, thank you. It's really getting on my <insert obscenity here>. 23.16.216.127 (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a geneticist in the House?

Science confuses me, so I thought I'd ask you boffins. I'm reading a book on the Hapsburg dynasty, and I can't for the life of me understand why close inbreeding (in this case, between members of a royal family) results, in the space of just a few generations, in grotesque and severe mental deficiencies and physical deformities. To the point where something like Charles II of Spain pops out of the womb. I tried reading the relevant Wikipedia page but I'm not very au fait with the technical terminology of genetics. Could someone please explain, in basic terms that a historian/geographer can understand, why this happens? Thanks! Ironclad (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Quick and dirty: because the parents are genetically related the offspring has an increased chance of rare traits, the more closely related the higher chance. Further inbreeding compounds this. Cheetahs are so inbred that they can accept skin grafts from each other. Тy^Ahoy! 14:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

But aren't all humans related to a degree? We all share a very, very similar genetic code, right? Ironclad (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Similar enough to be able to reproduce, but not similar enough to make us look identically, for example. There is individual variation and a shitload of mutations accumulating slowly in separate populations (i.e. blond hair, etc.)

About the birth defects, you can think about it this way: Mutations happen. Sometimes the effect is not apparent, as the mutation is "hidden", suppressed by more dominant "code". It becomes apparent only if someone gets a copy of the same shit instead of the suppressive "code". Close siblings share most of their "code" with each other, so their offspring has a greater chance of getting two copies of the defective "code". This is the simplest I can get before having to explain what are genes and alleles.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I was going to talk about that but if you aren't, I won't. I'm not an expert anyway. :S Though I do think it's cool that everybody is so willing to give a science lesson to people who ask. RationalWiki keeps making me like it. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{more at 11} 15:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys! So if I understand correctly, we all carry some defective genes and the more inbred ancestors someone has (ie: Charles II), the greater the probability that the normal genes won't be able to suppress the aberrant ones. I understand. Does this always happen in cases of inbreeding, or is it just the most probable outcome? Ironclad (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Everybody has some recessive genes. Often they are bad guys. You need two copies of a bad recessive gene for it to be expressed - one from your mother and one from your father. If you breed with relatives the probability of getting two matching recessives increases. The more you do if the "better" your chances are.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 15:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

But remember that recessive ≠ bad, nor does dominant = good. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Any inbreeding is likely to highlight problems with the individuals. However, it's worth remembering that Europe was not "any inbreeding". The select gene pool was restricted to a few families (10 or so) over literally 300-500 years. The genetic problems were highlighted more and more over each progressive generation. So it's not that "in a few generations, Charles II of Spain popped out" rather it's "so over the course of 300 or so years, the "acceptable" set of genes began to resemble each other more and more. Godot On a perdu le contrôle 17:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this restricted just to humans, or all lifeforms? We get pedigree dogs from deliberate inbreeding, don't we? Why don't they have this problem? Ironclad (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Some lines of dogs have horrible problems for just this reason. Hip dysplasia for example is aggravated by bad breeding practices.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 20:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Genetic diversity is a huge issue in zoo breeding programs. Especially where the fear is that zoo animals are among the last living examples of this or that species.Godot On a perdu le contrôle 21:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

We have a rather nice article on this very topic - David Gerard (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

And wikipedia have a good one on "hybrid vigor". Ironclad, it can occur with all sexually reproducing species. ħuman 02:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

WP's articles also explain more about dominance. Most importantly, in the real world dominance is not usually total. A supposedly "recessive" gene might cause mild symptoms that are only detected on close inspection when present in a single copy, but far more obvious and serious symptoms when present on both chromosomes. So maybe (fictitious example) the guy with one copy of a recessive gene related to jaw formation has a slightly odd-looking face, while his unlucky brother with both copies can't talk or eat properly.. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Another point that I forgot to make above is that if you get two really lethal matching recessives the probability is that you won't even get born, or that you get born dead or that you die soon after birth. (Though in that case you wouldn't be reading this.)--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 19:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This can be observed in horses, with the lethal white syndrome. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 20:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys! I have to confess that a lot of that went over my head. I'm not trained in such subtleties as "Recessive", "Dominant", "Hybrid Vigour", and the like - and as much as I try to understand, much of it escapes me. Not a technical mind, here. But you have explained the gist of it to me and answered my question, and for that I'm most grateful - thankyou!!

I have now also learned to think twice before embarking on that torrid whirlwind romance with The Prince of Habsburg... Ironclad (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

How do creationists believe God created life ?

I have a question about what creationists belief - has anyone here ever had a discussion with a creationist where they tried to imagine how God created all the species. For example: Do creationists belief God came from the sky and molded creatures from clay or dirt, do they belief a screaming hunk of flesh grew from a swamp into a velociraptor or do they just belief God willed all creature to exist.

I am making this point because i have trouble believing anyone would take creationism serious without imagining being 100 million years in the past and seeing God actually making creatures out of dirt or vacuum. B.voorne (talk)

Goddidit. P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 19:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't think they consider "how". It's just a miracle. But you want to Ask a Cretionist the go here. You'll find a quite chatty one.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 19:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Not to be too mean, but it is equally as illogical to think that life just "suddenly appeared from non life". While it's more than likely that this is the truth, the judgment of "I find it hard to believe that..." is a simple judgment that is not respective of "them" or you. The array of beliefs about how God or a god created life range from the very biblical "sculpted man out of mud then breathed the divine breath of life into them" to "was the lightening like spark that made the first life from non life". Of all Christian belifes (6,000 year old earth, noah's flood, guy dying and rising) - the one that is the least problematic for me is special creation. If there ever was a god, that's the kind of thing it would do.--Godot On a perdu le contrôle 19:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that there's no universal accepted definition of life, this discussion could get pretty pointless pretty quickly. rpeh •T•C•E• 20:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well. it might be equally possible that life evolved from non-organic life or that some sort of primitive life has existed since the big bang - but my point is this, how can a religious person belief something they don't invision with there minds eye. Because if you don't, you could just as well say that when God created life he made molecules come together with lightning, created organic part that floated through space since the beginning of time, shaped animals out of clay or snapped his fingers and made them appear out of nothing. The ultimate question is: If a creationist made a film or a play about creating life, how would they depict it.B.voorne (talk)

This is exactly what my father thinks. He is a methodist minister in his 70's and is a huge fan of Carl Sagan, Star Trek, and NASA's "photo of the day". He thinks god has a plan, and established the rules of nature to make that plan come to pass. Others have the very idea of a very personal god, directly making humans -- "poof". but thik about it. we believe things we do not understand or can envision all teh time. I believe that the universe is 14 billion light years **or more** big, but I have no idea what that means. I believe there are atoms, but i've been told by science geeks that i'm not really "grasping" how they work or what they look like. I believe in alien life, but have no idea what it might be, just the logical assertion that "life must exist elsewhere in 28 billion lightyears worth of planets. Godot On a perdu le contrôle 20:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you and me never really try to grasp the scientific questions we both accept, because there so strange or complex - but creatonism isn't about size (universe, atoms) or possibilities (alien life). I can't ask anyone to envision the entire universe, or atomic particles smaller then the size of light, or something that may be possible. I want to ask creationists the question - alright, God created a cow out of nothing, how did that look like - you don't know? Well why don't you pray to God, the Holy Ghost or angels to send you a vision of a cow being created by God. If God is just omnipresent and slightly alters everything around him, well that would make matters far more complex, but still; is God a spirit, is he giving orders to angels or does he descent to earth in the form of a giant, does he push atoms around to make new DNA or does he alter chance on some quantum-technobabble levels or does he destroy an entire creature and rebuild it from scratch. There is literally no such conception amongst most theists - there is only the abstraction: God created all life on earth. No visions, no allegories or myths, just an abstract concept. B.voorne (talk)

You really need to actually ask a creationist. Try this wiki and tell us what they said.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 20:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

OK - I will B.voorne (talk) Here it is: Talk:Creationism B.voorne (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Maratrean vs PJR? It's like they were trying to corner the world supply of tl;dr. Why didn't Maratrean ever take on Abd, that's the question - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What's this shit? Surely, PJR, you realize the question of "how?" has no meaning for omnipotent being. Doesn't CMI even have a half-assed webpage on this? Godspeed (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As a Former YEC/BL im going to say this: Is there a point to the question? God's omnipotent, it isnt like he's limited to what the laws of reality, which he would have also created and isn't bound to, say; and it's based on a book that says "god said x, and now x is real". sorta the answer, he commanded them be be created and they were, atleast that was my understanding of it, not sure where either of my study bibles are so i cant go get them. to give that answer.--il'Dictator Mikal 13:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Surely it's just legerdemain. One minute nothing, then hey presto it's there. How the fuck did he do that? Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 13:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the concept of a omnipotent being not restricted to the laws of the universe it created. If he wants to say "let there be light" theres gonna be light, if he wants to say "let there be x y and z" x y and z are gonna be there. --il'Dictator Mikal 13:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The Jahova's Witnesses that I talked to expressed similar views about the concept of the universe "just appearing out of nothing" and found it easier to believe in an magic man who just did it. Bob Soles (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If you simply think "God created everything" then that's hardly a belief, is it? (I'm shamelessly echoing Yudkowsky here, I'll admit that much) How did it happen, how do you expect it to look? What predictions can you make about it? How do you transform that assertive and meaningless combination of letters "G-o-d-c-r-e-a-t-e-d-e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g" into an anticipated experience that lets you get to the heart of the matter and explain it? Or at least envision it properly? Is it *poof* everything exists? Or is there some process? And what do we expect to experience because of this process? In short, this is a deceptively good question to ask creationists, especially any that claims to be "rational" and "empirical" about it, as rationality and empiricism are built upon doing exactly this! PJR's response is no better than simply responding honestly with "don't ask awkward questions, heretic!". ^pathetic 21:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a good question because the question is in fact hyperreligious itself - An Eastern-Orthodox or Medieval Catholic painter believed that he had to pray before painting a picture of Jesus Christ, so that the Holy Ghost would inspire him to create an image that looks accurate. A spiritist would call upon a spirit to show him how past continents and ancient rootraces looked like, while an renaissance Alchemist would create a system of symbolism that he would take to it's logical conclusion.

Essentially a Christian can't explain how creation would have looked like because he is limited by his own Bible and the special sanctity he gives it. In order for a Christian to say in the year +/- 103 million B.C God materialised as a giant man with a beard and several garden implements, he then walked around leaving giant footprints and checking the plants and animals and then decided that he would like a new species of flowering plants and a new type of dinosaur, so he then took a tree and made his hands really small and changed around all the DNA, then he did the same thing to a small dinosaurian creatures and returned back into the clouds occasionally checking if everything went alright he would have to allow new revelations and new inspirations from God.

In essence the Bible is holding Christian back from creating a genuine religious mythology surrounding the creation of the earth - so they resort to science to hide this fact. B.voorne (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Good job South Sudan...

Hey i know; now that we are independent lets start a war! im sure this will keep us with GREAT support! This is why i hate new countries with upstart leaders. --il'Dictator Mikal 20:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

For fuck's sake. This kind of thing almost makes me sympathetic to paternalism. Even the most ignorant and greedy colonial power would have by now fixed Sudan's disease problems, infrastructure problems and so on for their own convenience. But left to their own devices the Sudanese have managed to waste most of their resources squabbling over oil, destroying both economies and leaving heaps of dead. Inspired. Let the record show: independence may be a road to wisdom but if so it's a long and difficult road lined with graves. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Kind of my feeling as well... There are apparently plenty of people who would rather be starved to death by their own leader than live comfortably under a foreign occupation. --Tweenk (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)