RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive156

This is an archive page, last updated 2 May 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <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)

OK, I know rationalists are NOT supposed to believe in meaningful coincidences, but....

A major academic defender of creationism is

Michael Ruse.

The pioneering advocate of Edward de Vere's "authorship" of Shakespeare's plays is

J. Thomas Looney (pronounced "LONE-ee", but still!)

and a major advocate of Holocaust denial is

Arthur Butz

Just saying...--WickerGuy (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ruse is as much a defender of creationism as Gould was. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

He's a proponent of evolution. Damn fine lecturer. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you might be confused because he's heavily critical of Dawkins' attacks on Christianity. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

For a lot of our editors, attacking Saint Richard Dawkins is akin to being a creationist. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 19:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so -- hell, I've directly "attacked" Dawkins' views on evolution itself and not caused much of a stir. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm coming to the conclusion that the stereotypical Dawkins fan boy is very much a minority, if hardly existent at all. Mostly because they have a very short lifetime; restricted to about three months between finishing The God Delusion and realising most people don't give a fuck that they can recite it backwards. It seems that most of the "atheist community" is actually quite open to (reasonable) attacks on Dawkins. ^pathetic 16:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I guess I was taken in by Conservapedia's claim of him as a creationist. I'll have to double-check everything ther.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"I have to double check everything at CP" NO you don't. just assume it's wrong. No double checking involved. :-) --Godot 20:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Not so much a coincidence as nominative determinism. --PsyGremlinPrata! 10:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Which is just "(coincidence + selective reporting) * improbable things happen" ^{d hominem} 11:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The Luddite Leeches Again

Hey chaps, another request if I may. You really helped me out on the genetic issue regarding the Hapsburgs, and I really appreciate that. I give you history, you give me science. If I may be so bold, I have another favour to ask. Me no speaky Machine, thus is it possible to save an existing webpage to some sort of file? I'd like to save my Conservapedia World History Lecture pages, and my Faculty personal page, plus my posedown photos from last year may not last forever (I tried copying them as JPEGs, but they keep saving as GIPs, or GIFs, or GIMPs, or whatever the hell they do). Is this feasible?

Thanks RWiers, I'll owe you a favour. Ironclad (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Damn, I thought this thread would be about how the technocracy is taking our jobs and creating lumpen. I was all excited because I thought I might get to cite Huey Newton. And as for saving a web page, right click on the page and go to "save page as."--"Shut up, Brx." 00:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

For saving webpages, I use my Zotero database. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 00:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Ohh if you want to talk lumpenproletariat Brx, I'm game! Thanks to both yourself and Theory - so if I click "save page as" it will save a carbon copy of the page, even if said page goes offline in the future? Ironclad (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

And will this save the photos too? Ironclad (talk) 00:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

you can always use our User:Capturebot2 too for single pages. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Toulouse, this looks great. I must confess, though, I'm massively confused by how to use the Capturebot2. Is there some sort of step-by-step? Ironclad (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Capturebot2/sandbox has a short guide. Just follow the lead of the ones already there. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 01:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"it will save a carbon copy of the page, even if said page goes offline in the future?" - yes. It will save the content of the page rather than the link.

"will this save the photos too?" - yes. The photos will be put in a separate directory with a name like 'webpageurl_files'. --Tweenk (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If you get really desperate, you can always use printscreen. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Could you elaborate on this request: "plus my posedown photos from last year may not last forever (I tried copying them as JPEGs, but they keep saving as GIPs, or GIFs, or GIMPs, or whatever the hell they do)"

What are "posedown photos" and where are they at the moment? Cheers.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 07:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you not know that Ironclad is a bit of a bodybuilder? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 23:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't. And having googled "posedown photos" I now understand what they are.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 20:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Tomb of Jesus

Anyone knows whether this find is genuine or a hoax? --Tweenk (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, this Feuerverger person's statistical methods seem a little suspect. And doesn't "boxes from early Christian times" contradict the claim that "The inscriptions are from the Herodian Period."? Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 02:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

This is actually a rather old "find." See Bad Archaeologyfor a real archaeologist's take on it, and the current lead item on the Bad Archaeology Blog for another "Tomb of Jesus" recently "found" by the same folks.209.188.60.229 (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You'd think that Christians would be up in arms about the suggestion that there was a box containing the bones of Jesus, the guy who was supposed to have been raised from the dead and then ascended bodily to heaven. As biblical archaeology goes, if you accept this as genuine it rather invalidates the whole myth. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. From what I've read, it looks like the find is genuine, and the rating is 'maybe'. E.g. it could be the tomb of Jesus and his family, or it could belong to someone unrelated. The odds are rather hard to calculate. Despite this, it seems like everyone is desperate to find something that would rule out the possibility that this is the tomb of Jesus. Christians do it for obvious reasons. Archeologists seem to do it because they don't like bold claims or upsetting Christians (and no doubt many of them are Christians themselves). --Tweenk (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Stray div in holydaze template

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Technical support. Fixed. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

UFO in the desert

Meteor my ass. Doesn't everyone know that UFOs crash in the desert. Green men are a-comin'. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 05:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wish cool shit like that happened around here (Well, not SO around) --Revolverman (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

wasn't it Nibiru? Ace^Moderator 05:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ross Douthat brings the stupid to a discussion of religion and politics

This is the last entry in a week=long exchange between Douthat and William Saletan at Slate. His petulant, logic-defying last word in short: liberals are heretics, because Christianity was behind everything good about the Enlightenment. This is, by the way, one article where the bottom half of the internet is more intelligently written. Junggai (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It annoys me whan they claim the "good" things for their side while completely ignoring where the bad things came from in the first place. It's hardly like the middle ages were awash with atheists keeping Christians in the dark.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you have to give Douthat a bit of credit for how he's using the word "heretics." This isn't an Andy-like "liberals are heretics, they are bad," kind of thing. In his book, he talks at length about how religious folk on both the left and the right in contemporary America have moved away from older understandings of religion, and such heresies as the "prosperity gospel" and the megachurch and even anti-science Christianity on the one hand and touchy-feely "God is just love" new-agey Christianity on the other are both "heresies" in that they have both evacuated Christianity of something he sees as vital. I've read enough Douthat for the week, so I prolly won't read the exchange in question, but his book makes some thought-provoking (mot "correct," but "thought-provoking") points....Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 13:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything of value here. Just someone with a Christian-centric worldview ignoring actual history and claiming everything that is truly moral came from their religion. Q0 (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Douthat is right that the concept of universality as applied to human rights grew out of Christianity, but note how he omits the anti-clerical aspect that was a result of religious persecution in cases such as the Calas affair. Also, I'm sure Saletan will be pleased to have his "liberal creationism" flap dug up again. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

@Theory: Well sure, one might give Douthat credit for putting forth a more nuanced argument than Schlafly, but that's about the faintest praise imaginable. And in a way, his arguments could be seen as thought-provoking if they require a bit of thought (at least they did for me) to pinpoint just what about them make them sound dubious. The basic problem with his definition of heresy is that if you take it seriously, every fucking Christian in history has been a heretic. Why then damn just a few types and ignore the others?

Actually Andy Schlafly did spring to my mind when Douthat tries to argue that liberalism and democracy were a Christian legacy. It reminded me of a more serious version of Schlafly's "no humor before Jesus" argument. Junggai (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

TNR didn't like it, apparently. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed: My problem with Douthat’s book is not that his opinions differ from my own. My problem is that he does not seem to have any idea what he is talking about. Couldn't have said it better myself. Junggai (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Arizona 1070 - "anti immigration" bill to be heard Wed

Attention legal geeks, this Wednesday should be a fun ride. USSC will hear the orals on Arizona's 1070's. The nasty piece of work that let's Arizona do whatever the fuck it wants, regarding immigration. To me, personally, there is no substance in Az's argument. enforcement of immigration laws are the purview of the Feds, not the State. You cannot know if there are pending issues; exceptions; or political balances for any individual non-citizen, so deporting him is simply not your job as a state. But, this is a Robert's Court. Nothing is as it "should be". --Godot 15:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I might have to go protestin' if they uphold it... Cow...Hammer^time! 21:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There will be huge protests if they don't. Americans are astonishingly anti-immigration. I think on no other issue are Americans more conservative on - even on healthcare reform, most Americans wanted a public option, but all possibilities for one were blocked by Congress. It's painful trying to counter the same rhetoric over and over again whenever an issue like the DREAM Act comes up ("they shouldn't have come into the country illegally in the first place" - yeah, like a child has any control over where their parents move them). Even on MSNBC (one of the last big refuges from Paulbots in the internet), anti-immigration commenters dominate discussions. On a recent article about Romney's support of the Arizona law, I saw commenters claiming "Romney is hispanic, so he doesn't have racist intentions". By that logic, John McCain was Panaman.

Sorry for another one of my rants. TL;DR: America can be extremely racist at times. One would think that a country defined by immigration would be smarter on this... Mr. Anon (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Free to choose...very poorly

Speaking of pseudopsychology, ever notice that neo-classical economic models and libertarian political theory rely so much on it? Now, I'm off to maximize my utility, whatever that means. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Humans don't have a utility function, they're much more like a state machine - reacting to inputs in an evolved ad-hoc manner with the sole optimised drive being more copies of the genes. This won't stop economic spherical cows for a second - David Gerard (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

So your proposed alternative to economic spherical cows is a biological spherical cow? Brilliant! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that entire article is a horrible ambit claim. I wonder what an evolutionary biologist would make of it (apart from a fetching paper hat) - David Gerard (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A story about creationists that I post with a bit of trepidation

What happens when a dinosaur-themed park is a major economic asset in a community where a lot of folks are YECs? This article got my attention because it avoids a lot of the shrill that usually comes out when people on the left talk about religious fundies. The more time that I spend in a country where religion and politics are so strongly intertwined and where the divides because of religious belief run so deep, the less patience I have for debates that dismiss people out of hand for their beliefs, and the more interested I am in finding sympathetic portrayals of people whose beliefs are different from mine, portrayals that don't just laugh at people and call them idiots, but that keep the humanity of the subject in the foreground. This reporter does a good job of that. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 23:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The link isn't loading for me at the moment, but I see what you mean. People stuck in Stage 3 can be quite annoying when you've risen a level or two above. ^theist 08:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

From last year, but relevant?

Seems like we should have this someplace or something related, even though it's a blog post. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

im skeptical of some of its claims...--il'Dictator Mikal 20:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to read those particular verses again, but some of them seem pretty legit, particularly the ones about the resurrection and the commandments. Thankfully, references are available to prove or disprove those claims (in a sort of "Han shot first" sort of way). -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

All the canonical gospels do mention resurrection, or at least Jesus appearing after his death: Matthew 28, Mark 16 (though this account of the resurrection that was apparently added later), Luke 24, John 20 (this one is two chapters long).

The point about hell is AFAIK true. The only description of heaven and hell in the Bible that is similar to their mainstream Christian interpretations is part of a political parable told by Jesus (Rich man and Lazarus), which starts at Luke 16:19. It's not supposed to be taken literally - it is a commentary on the classism ruling the Jewish society of the time. --Tweenk (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The subject of parables has been on my mind for a while now. What do Biblical literalists make of parables? Do they think that they are true as well? Or is there a disconnect between accepting that Jesus used allegory but the Bible as a whole does not? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 01:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

From my understand we were to accept them as Parables, and yes, there is a disconnect between "allegory parts" and "literal true parts". True Christians simply know which is which if it isn't entirely clear.--il'Dictator Mikal 02:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

We mourn this day…

Freddie the Fly, Anita the Ant, Brenda the Bee, Wanda the Wasp and Bob the Beetle. Thankfully Camilla is out of recovery and ready for her next mission. There has been no word yet on the fate of the sunflower seeds. *Warning - You will need to read the whole article to get this lame joke*-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Foamboard of Death". Love it! Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 02:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Voting while not a cis white dude?

As we say 'round these parts, fuhgeddaboutit! After all, voter ID laws are totally necessary to keep ACORN from stealing the 2012 election just like they did in 2008! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

"Transgender people are the “irresponsible,” who won’t get in line and fly straight, and hence don’t deserve the franchise. I mean, such people might vote for a president that bans LGBTQ housing discrimination or something." Continued in my unwritten essay, "Why I'm voting for Obama regardless of his macroeconomic policies." This is also why I've never understood LGBT Republicans. Blue (pester) 06:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC) It is highly amusing to watch the parade of identity groups that the anti-voter-ID people are trotting out. One person tried to argue, with a straight face, that the laws will disproportionately affect women because soldiers will find it harder to cast a ballot (but this apparently does not apply to the 87% of soldiers who are men).

Me, I suspect that there is only one group of voters that the backers of these laws aim to pare down, viz., the group that votes Democratic. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No shit, Sherlock. Voter ID laws are entirely political, and I doubt anyone could seriously claim otherwise. Blue (pester) 06:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As to the gay Republicans, there was a debate a few years ago about whether to insert a plank in a state Republican Party platform advocating the reintroduction of sodomy laws. Gay Republicans, opposing this, cited the Republican "core values" of private property and individual freedom. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Ditto with Coulter suggesting to raise the voting age from 18 to something like 26. Except for soldiers, of course, because they're a nationalist/Republican voting demographic they've served their country. Seriously, though, how much fraud can someone genuinely commit thanks to not being challenged for ID? Can one person on their own grab maybe 2-3 extra votes before someone thinks "hang on, something is up here..."? The scale and sheer concerted effort required for effective (as in, election deciding) voter fraud is unheard of, and probably impossible to slip under the radar. These efforts are better directed at more general political corruption. ^gnostic 16:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

"These efforts are better directed at more general political corruption." I think you missed the point of "these efforts." BTW, voting while not Republican is "fraud." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Republican voting "fraud" laws are designed to make it has difficult as possible for Democratic-leaning groups to register and vote. Blue (pester) 19:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me of a Guignols de l'info skit, where a Sylvester Stalone puppet would run "random" security checks on any black people going to vote--"Shut up, Brx." 19:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Mostly because I think these people genuinely do think that they're addressing "voter fraud". So yes, I see it as a genuine effort to reduce fraud and corruption in the democratic process. Just few, if any, stumble upon the realisation that they've restricted "voter fraud" to something that only disadvantaged demographics do - hearts in the right place, brains far less so (as usual). ^theist 09:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

They know perfectly well which demographics are less likely to have IDs. They don't give a rat's ass about fraud. It's partisan electoral maneuvering, nothing more. Blue (is useful) 11:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No, they really don't care about fraud. Next you'll be telling me "redistricting" is really all about changes in population! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm just being optimistic and calling Hanlon's Razor! ^{d hominem} 16:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Nuance

I hate it when a "natural" woo-site publishes a decent, informative article. All resources must be good or bad, stop forcing me to treat you with nuance, dammit! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You can get that same info from a reliable source--"Shut up, Brx." 00:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any nuance whatsoever in this article. It's the same propaganda bullshit repeated over and over. There is exactly zero evidence linking GMOs to colony collapse disorder. There is no correlation between CCD and GM crop use. It's a very typical strategy of the anti-GMO movement: pick some adverse phenomenon that stirs public concern, blame it on GMO. They did it with allergies, cancer, sperm cell count in males, now they do it with CCD. I'm surprised they haven't thought about autism yet.

The 'organ damage' paper they link to is from the known anti-GMO crank Gilles-Eric Seralini, who is so religious in his opposition that he completely freaked out when somebody proposed introducing an experiment involving genetic modification of bacteria into the high school curriculum. The results contradict all other studies done on this matter, and the paper uses truly egregious data dredging (searching for 'disruptions' among a multitude of 'parameters'). --Tweenk (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The "nuance" I referred to wasn't the article itself, but the fact that bad sites can sometimes host good content. Though I concede your point that this particular article, like everything else hosted by the site, is apparently not good content. Unfortunate, considering a blogger I respect linked me to it. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that bad sites can host good content, it's just that this particular article is not an example of this.

By the way, if anyone is looking for something really informative on the GMO subject, I recommend this book, and if you are concerned by the Monsanto problem, read this. --Tweenk (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem with GMOs is that they're created so Monsanto can own their genes, and Monsanto are a pack of arseholes. And that GMO plants aren't actually significantly better than non-GMO plants, so Monsanto owning them is not a great public policy advantage. There's no problems been shown with the plants themselves - David Gerard (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Godspeed (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, goodpost. My local GMO quack spends time spreading fear by saying that we've been eating GMOs without knowledge for years and they're experimenting on us as a population because they don't know what GMOs will actually do, regardless of them being tested for equivalency in the lab, implying that even though they're claimed to be chemically the same, there's some as-of-yet unarisen consequence for them. Or that Monsanto has no interest in testing things that make them money and are somehow lying? Even though they lease their equipment and facilities to things like universities who also develop GMOs that Monsanto now has the rights to distribute and does? OK, I don't get it either. It really boils down to 'Because we haven't proven that they are bad for us, the cause must be hiding and they are secretly bad for us in some way we don't know yet!' I do believe in labeling GMOs, simply because I don't want to support Monsanto and other companies when I purchase products, but trying to take them down on the basis of they haven't been proven to be dangerous, therefore they must be dangerous somehow is ridiculous. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 13:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"GMO plants aren't actually significantly better than non-GMO plants" - I would disagree. After Bt cotton was introduced in India, sales of pesticides fell by 70% in some regions. Source. Glyphosate-tolerant plants allow no-till farming, which improves carbon retention in the soil, contributing to the mitigation of global warming.

There are also many interesting traits on the shelves, such as high-yield rice which uses the more efficient photosynthesis pathway from maize, or golden rice biofortified with beta-carotene. The only reason those traits are not available in commercial varieties yet is the very high barrier to entry caused by extreme regulation. Patent laws which allow monopolizing genetic knowledge are an additional problem. --Tweenk (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I was basing my statement on a study I now can't find that showed similar yields from GM crops as non-GM crops. Of course I can't remember any more details and certainly can't find the study. Bah - David Gerard (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

GMO opponents often make a distinction between an 'intrinsic/natural yield' and an 'actual yield': intrinsic yield is how much grows on the plants, actual yield is what is collected after losses to pests, spoilage, incomplete harvesting, etc. They claim that GMOs do not have higher intrinsic yields. Strictly speaking, this is true, because most GM plants don't have any modifications that make them grow better, but in reality hardly anybody cares about this artificial distinction. What matters is how much crop is available for consumption - the actual yield. In many cases genetic modification does increase actual yields. Bt cotton and virus-resistant papaya are examples.

In cases where GM crops do not increase yields, there are other advantages, such as reduced pesticide use or a shift to cheaper and/or less toxic pesticides. (If there were no advantages, biotech companies wouldn't be getting any customers...) --Tweenk (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

French elections and the US media

So if you are going to get all hot and bothered about the French elections, could you at least make your articles (or maybe it's just the headlines) appear as if you understood a damned thing about the elections? Yahoo's headline "French elections headed to a runoff" sounds as if this is something, you know, surprising and rare, like it would be here. --Godot 00:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Je doute tres fortement que la plupart des lecteurs de "Yahoo News" aux Etas Unis ont le moindre interet a comprendre les details de la fonctionnement du politique francais. (malheuresement, je n'ai pas d'accents sur mon clavier....) Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 00:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

T'as raison, mais á moi, les médias rate par ne pas expliquer mieux. c'est pas un "run-off" autant que "se réduire".--Godot 01:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, P gets a pass for having a QWERTY board, but not the French expatriate--"Shut up, Brx." 01:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ta guele. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 01:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to beat this dead horse once, Brx. I never ever blasted you for your accents; I blasted you because you make basic gramtical errors in french. Your nouns and verbs do not agree; you do not make your adjectives agree with the nouns, and your word order is english, not french. My only comment was ever that "if you are going to claim to be french, you aught to at least make that claim without a very based noun-verb agreement error."

Damn foreigners in my internet. --il'Dictator Mikal 02:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, what are you electing heads of state for? It distracts from who's actually running the country. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 02:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Alors? Si on prend ceux qui ont voté pour Le Pen et on les donne a Sarko, et ceux qui ont voté pour Melenchon et on les donne a Hollande, on arrive plus ou moins a l'égalité. Ca risque d'etre interessant. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 02:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Mon mec veut voter ici et là bas pour le même raison - dans ces deux elections chaque vote bien compte. Mais au bout de compte, on se rend compte, que tout va changer a France, et peut-etre, ici. J'ai beau les dire "voter" - cette fois, surtout. Godot 04:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Trouble for Sarko is that most Le Pen voters have no idea what they're voting for only what they are voting against. And that includes the establishment, the elite, immigrants, and Sarkozy. More Melenchon voters will vote for Hollande than Le Pen voters will for Sorkozy. He's screwed unless he can pull something quite remarkable out of the bag in the next couple of weeks. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

¡Vaya rollo!--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 13:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Mon aeroglisseur est pleine des anguilles. Sophie^{because liberals} 21:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Le singe est dans l'arbre. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Je suis une tortue! Tortoise of Tor (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Я змей. Copperhead^Hisssssss 02:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

У вас есть змеи? Я думал, ты змея? Или ты змея с змей? Как некий царь змей? Вы короля змей? Tortoise of Tor (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been years since I last spoke Russian. I got out of practice after being held by airport security for having a Russian English dictionary in my carry-on while flying to DC. What is this, the Cold War? Copperhead^Hisssssss 02:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Come and pray...

From something I spotted on Facebook from someone I know, I have to ask: How fucking empty must your life actually be, to find the concept of a 24 hour pray-o-thon to be the most exciting thing in the world?? ^sshole 14:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

What's it in aid of? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Does it matter? It won't make a difference, or could do more harm than good. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sure prayer if done correctly, can bring believers much peace of mind, which is no bad thing. Providing they aren't praying for hell fire and damnation for the gays AMassiveGay (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

How I envy those Christians with all their praying. What exciting lives they lead compared to my own worthless base existence. At least they will have plenty to chat about when they get to heaven. Sigh! Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 22:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I see your pray-a-thon and raise you a year's supply of perpetual Eucharistic adoration. Godspeed (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"the suggested norm for having Jesus exposed in the monstrance is that there should be at least two adorers present, and He must never be left alone"

Dafuq did I just read? --Tweenk (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

And people wonder why I consider the Cult of Jesus to be a completely separate religion. ^theist 09:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no money or future in computers, anyway.

U. of Florida axes its Comp. Sci. department, funds athletics. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 17:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Weeeee... what a brilliant decision! There were more jobs for me anyhow, back when I had to do actual book and library research. with the internet, no one wants to pay me for my imposing skills of knowing how to use the citation indexes!Godot 19:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Meh, they merged us with CE and EE. Miles still gets paid an obscene amount. Тy^{communications wire} 20:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Mediocrity is of dubious value in something like Computer Science. Software is a rock star profession. Hire one Jamie Zawinski (not that you can any more, he retired to run a nightclub) or Raymond Chen and it's better than hiring a hundred like me. Hire one like me and you won't need hundreds of mediocre B-grade computer science graduates. So, your university CS department needs to be attracting future Raymond Chens, or if it isn't, why even bother? Most disciplines do not work this way, particularly those which actually hire serious numbers of specialist graduates. Architects, surgeons, even electronic engineers don't scale in the same way, by the nature of what they do. A medical school which turns out competent but unextraordinary doctors is praiseworthy. But why should I care about Florida's Computer Science department? I actually skimmed their faculty list and current major projects and maybe I missed something but I saw nothing there which made me think we'll miss it. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

More of a headline than an actual story. University in funding has been slashed by 30%, and they can't raise tuition. So what can they do but cut? And they can't cut athletics, because those programs are actually separate from the main budget and function to earn money, returning much of what they earn to the university.

Frankly, as sad as it is, what the hell could they do? There's only so much you can cut from all departments before hurting their function - sometimes it's better to cut your losses. They reassigned personnel and farmed out the function of that department to other areas.

If you want to blame someone, blame odious Gov. Rick Scott and the state legislature.--^talk 08:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

linux tablet question

I want a tablet, but I can hardly stand to own a device which is capable of running a full linux distro and not doing so. I know there are plenty of ARM distros, and that there is nothing stopping me from installing one of them on pretty much any tablet with an unlocked bootloader. My question is: why aren't more people doing this? Is it a problem with usability? It seems like touchscreens are well-supported. There are fairly easy fixes for auto-rotation. What else? Because if I can have a usable full-desktop experience on an ARM tablet, I really want a tablet. Like now. Occasionaluse (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No personal experience with this, but those are some of the possible problems:

• Missing power management in drivers that reduces battery life
• Missing drivers for some devices
• In many cases unlocking the bootloader voids your warranty
• You don't get any of the closed-source applications preinstalled on the tablet (e.g. you can't run Android apps)

I once had a HP TC1100, which was something like an early tablet with a Wacom digitizer and a detachable keyboard, and I have to admit that the Linux desktop is rather hard to use without a physical keyboard, unless you spend some time to integrate one of the on-screen keyboards with it. --Tweenk (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Good points.

• Battery life is a huge concern. I'm looking at a tegra, which Nvidia is supporting for linux, so I'm hoping it's comparable to advertised specs.
• With the tegra support and wacom, I think I should be good. I can't think of much else there that wouldn't be supported. Then again, I'm too afraid to buy one without being sure it works out of the box, or with a reasonable amount of tinkering.
• Yeah, but fuck warranties (we've got a badass over here).
• I think the trade is worth it.

The screen keyboards seem lacking. Seems like a silly thing to foul everything up, but I guess it could be a dealbreaker. Occasionaluse (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Why aren't more people doing it? Well, simply because tablets have become commoditized and people buy them expecting them work out of the box, like a mobile phone. Some poster on here was working up a right lather about it the other day (well, about smart phones in particular). While the complaint is that this type of market stunts innovation and can result in artificial pricing, there's little sign of the former. While the brands may simply be assemblers, the innovation is still there in the areas that users are demanding based on priority. What they aren't demanding is white boxes on to which they can build their own OS. And even the best Linux distros are still frustratingly geeky, even frighteningly so for many. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You may want to keep an eye on the Vivaldi tablet which is going to run KDE ontop of an ARM-based linux (a descendent of Meego). Bondurant (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. I was considering trying Plasma Active anyway, but for some reason I can't put my finger on, I loathe KDE. Still, might do it anyway. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Read this and it pissed me off

One of my Facebook friends from North Carolina posted this, explaining how the marriage amendment up for vote on May 8 works. I love how they make it sound like they aren't homophobic. I hope this bill gets flushed down the shitter. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 00:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly I think this sums up gay marriage quite well. --il'Dictator Mikal 02:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

O Dictator, what a very funny image you have found there, you made this rather elderly tortoise give up a bellyful of laughter! Gay marriage, now that is something that has this old tortoise's endorsement. Tortoise of Tor (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

While they may pretend on the surface they aren't homophobic, everyone knows that the elephant in the room is and has always been very thinly veiled homophobia. The Noisy Orchestra ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 12:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The Age of American Cynicism

"In Nothing We Trust" for we have "lost faith in our gods." Also features an... interesting infographic, which according to it, says Americans are leaving traditional religious institutions ...to go to hip, evangelical mega-churches instead. Also, people are losing faith in the police, but they've gained a little trust in the criminal justice system? And despite it all, we Americans still trust ARE BOYS IN THE MILITARY. --CoyoteSans (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Exaggeration, hyperbole and activists

I was reading about a new anti-choice bill coming out of tennessee, that would, according to the article floating around facebook "make miscarriages murder". All set to be furious, fear mongering piece here, knowing that "The Tennessee House last week voted 80-18 to make miscarriage — or the killing of any fertilized egg — murder..." and " This bill, House Bill 3517 and the Senate’s companion, makes anyone’s actions that presumably cause a miscarriage murder." When I finally found the actual bill, which was of course, not linked to in this screed, it removes the word "viable" from "viable pregnancy" in their fetal protection bill, and adds the words "at any stage of conception". Horrible on its face. Fetal protection laws are a bad thing in general. BUT, the bill goes on to say "nothing in this bill will allow a woman to be charged with the murder of her own child during the normal course of events" (i.e., a woman can be charged if she decides to throw herself down the stairs with the intent to cause miscarriage; and scarily, it might apply to a woman addicted to drugs or alcohol, though we've already seen that in states without fetal protection laws) and that this can ONLY be applied when "otherwise illegal acts occurred during the miscarriage". I get that these laws are horrible. I rant about them often enough on here. But can we attack the real law, as it is really written, and not simply make a strawman of the law cause it "sells" better on facebook? --Godot 14:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If memory serves, that caveat was originally in the bill and was removed (possibly due to a typo) at some point during the debate which was what caused the original outburst of insanity. Omar (gibber) 14:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)For sure. I'm probably in the more liberal part of the Democratic Party on most issues, but some of the pressure groups have their own equivalentS of "OBAMA GONNA TAKE R GUNZZZZ1!!1!!one" Godspeed (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, if you ignore the fact that it's both sad and disgraceful, with a bit of reprehensible mixed in, it's actually quite funny to watch these people litter their badly worded bills with even worse worded caveats to stop them being quite as stupid. It's like they had a brilliant idea for how to ban abortion, someone tapped them on the shoulder to let them know how reality actually works, then an episode of The Thick of It later out pops these things get spewed out that aren't just damaging to women but to the very concept of law because of how they're formed. ^moral 16:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That's just the way it is.--Th. Bernhard (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you mean to post those in this thread? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

A tragic loss, indeed.

Much beloved, and surely to be missed. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 17:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This week on When One Note Jokes Metastasize In To Articles. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant, but is it true :) ?--WickerGuy (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't find it brilliant. It went in a very lame direction. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It started off OK, but it ended kinda dumb. Either way, with places like Fox News still around, I wouldn't be surprised if it was true. The Noisy Orchestra ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 20:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

North Korea

So I have the attitude of "eh, another day, another NK threat", my military friends swing between ready for war and the opposite, but people actually seem genuinely worried about this. What's exactly up?--il'Dictator Mikal 02:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that it seems to be the first time around for the new guy, and the odd nature of the threats, I could see something happening here (perhaps). But war? Some kind of botched assassination attempt, maybe—I thought it was generally accepted that N.K. simply cannot win such a war? Peter ^{Damn pressure cookers} 07:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

North Korea would be wiped out in a conventional war. They'd be rolled up into a small ball and stowed tenderly in someone's pocket. And in fact, I'm pretty sure that many world leaders would like nothing better. There's a lot of conventional artillery aimed at Seoul and other areas, but they have some defenses and the retaliation would be as swift as a god's thunder.

They cannot cross the mine-field without being destroyed. They cannot fly over it without being obliterated. They cannot go by ship without being annihilated.

I am not worried about a war.--^talk 08:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What about a bomb? If their parliament was destroyed, say, would the South attack? Peter ^{Damn pressure cookers} 08:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What, like, a nuke?--^talk 09:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Not nessisarily—"500-1,000 tons of dynamite" could do it, no? :) Peter ^{Damn pressure cookers} 09:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What about using a giant space-based sun cannon to burn a path through the minefield? ^bomination 09:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

So that is what was on that satellite. Peter ^{Damn pressure cookers} 09:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There are two general problems with a new Korean War. If NK attacks the casualties in the South would be enormous, basically becaue a lot of weapons are set at Seoul and Sudogwon in general. So a first attack without declaration of war would be very bloody. If the South or the US decides the world needs to get rid of this state, it wouldn't be that bloody. Another problem is the trainig of North Korean military. They are taught that giving up is not an option, either you win or you die, so while the state the land might be taken relatively fast, it would come at very high price. So, no, the North could never win such a war, but this kind of war nobody wants to see — not even the North Korean leaders.

Other problems would arise after the last Northerner has swung the white flag. The rampant poverty, hunger and technological backwardness of the country would cause gigantic economical problems. Hords of non-trained North Koreans would try to get into the South and find work there. While not being educated at the newest techniques, they'd all have to be taught those. Not to speak of the fact that one can't justifiy paying those people the same as trained Southerners, created a several decades long class society. The amounts of money that would have to flow into the North were it incorparated into the South would ruin the South, so, international help from the industrialized nations would be required over decades. The only way around this would be a authoriatarianly ruled society that attracts business with ever more freedom each year — a.k.a. the Chinese model. Now that is hard to justify.

Another problem would be de-docrinization of Notherners, who are constantly exposed to regime propaganda since, well, in many cases since birth. This would not only take a lot of time, but also a lot of money.

In any case, a war with Noth Korea would soon be over, the greatest problem is what comes after it. And in this area the international community is a bit lazy. --85.182.145.82 (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Or, precis of the above: in the event of war, South Korea is faced with the horrifying prospect of winning - David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I always figured the main problem with an all out war with North Korea (and this is ignoring the loss of life and general badness that war entails) was China, and maybe Russia. North Korea shares a border with both China and Russia; that means that they both have an active interest in what goes on in NK for several reasons, not least of which is the potential flood of refugees and the possibility of North Korea ceasing to exist as it does, and thus them losing a "buffer" country. Of all the countries I can think of that actually *would* get into a war with North Korea, I can't think of a single one that would actually lose, but the threat of China or Russia taking part in it (in any way) is something no one can afford to ignore. X Stickman (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

More Ark conundrums for creationists

Apparently more dinosaurs have been discovered in the past 20 years than in the previous 200, were they all on the Ark or is the Bible being economical with the truth? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 03:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No, no Genghis you FOOL! There was only one or two kinds of dinosaur. A proto-dinosaur. FACT. PJR knows all about it. Ace^Moderator 04:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Silly me. Of course with some proto-mammals, proto-birds and proto-marsupials the Ark could have been a hell of lot smaller. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 04:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No leading creationists argue that there was every type of dinosaur on board. And the proto-animals would have been juvenile. You drongo, it is perfectly simple and makes more sense than evolutionist story telling. Ace^Moderator 04:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

One holobaramin. (Or, as I like to think of it, a hollow baramin.) All the information was there at the beginning. No new information. No new meaningful information. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 04:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Silly me An ad hom, even if directed at yourself, is still a logical fallacy.

Of course with some proto-mammals, proto-birds and proto-marsupials Strawman. No one mentioned proto-mammals, proto-birds and proto-marsupials only dinosaurs. Can you evolutionists even mount a proper argument?

Ark could have been a hell of lot smaller. The Bible gives measurements of the Ark and, as the bible is eyewitness testimony, is far more reliable than evolutionist musings. Ace^Moderator 04:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the logical solution that Noah took dinosaur eggs.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 05:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You've spent far too much time around that man, seek professional help. ^gnostic 09:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

They was eggses is my favorite creationist argument ever. The Bible absolutely must be interpreted literally, except when they need the PIDOOMA. Then "two of every animal" means either "animals or eggs." Godspeed (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

My 4yo is dinosaur-mad. I've had to read up on the stuff frantically just to keep up with her. (Thanks, Wikipedia!) I see that biologists say "birds are dinosaurs" enough that even wikipedia:Dinosaur has gone present-tense. And dinosaurs probably didn't go "RAAAAAAAWR!" In fact, they seem likely to have been silent beyond perhaps hissing (or the parasaurolophus' possibly-resonant horn). How do you break it to a kid that dinosaaurs didn't go "RAAAAAAAWR!"? Worse than the truth about Father Christmas - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

My four year old - now 23 - believed in talking trains and managed to grow up fine despite my best efforts to the contrary. A four year old who thinks dinosaurs go "RAAAAAAAWR!" has a good chance of growing up to be the next Jenny Clack who fell in love with dinosaurs at around the same age - see Beautiful Minds if you can. Bob Soles (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

@David... remember that scene from the third jurassic park, where Grant tried to explain to a four yrar old the mechanics of dinosuars? That's what you would be doing to yours. --il'Dictator Mikal 14:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

How loud would a dinosaur hiss be?--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 15:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

To the average four year old it would be deafening - but you're quite safe if you're behind the sofa. "RAAAAAAAWR!". Bob Soles (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the nearest thing we have to dinosaurs that are still around are crocodiles - what noises do they make? Bob Soles (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

RAAAAAAAWR! Bob Soles (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

YM the nearest thing to dinosaurs that aren't dinosaurs, i.e. birds. Crocodilians split off way before. The catch is that birds only evolved a syrinx lateish in their branch - David Gerard (talk) 07:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I can only hope that in the advent of a possible future daughter, she would like dinosaurs as much as I do. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{lavishly loquacious} 16:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You never know, though boys seem far more interested then girls do usually. --il'Dictator Mikal 16:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me refer you to Jenny Clack who is my heroine de jour. Bob Soles (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Very small, very quick question.

Is E=mC^2 the amount of energy produced, or just a description of the concept that nuclear reactions produce immense amounts of energy? I can't seem to find an answer on Google. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ no fate but what we make 11:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The hypothetical product of a total conversion of matter to energy, as far as I know.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing hypothetical about it at all. In a nuclear process, the amount of energy generated is directly proportional to the mass lost and this energy can be calculated by multiplying the mass lost by the speed of light squared. Bob Soles (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

And vice-versa (the amount of mass created out of a given input of energy) ^{ONE / TALK} 11:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. It's actually saying that mass and energy are the same thing or equivalent. What can be converted is matter into energy. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Though the constant, "C" is a mathematical hypothetical. We cannot actually test the real amount of energy produced - our tools are not sophisticated enough, and the energy obliterates anything that would be close enough to measure it that accurately. --Godot 14:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't. c has been measured to extremely high accuracy. And E=mc^2 has been tested and found to be accurate to within one to one million. YOu don't need nuclear explosions to measure this. You "only" need look at something like a particle capture. The mass of a proton has been measured, the mass lost to a nucleus when capturing a proton is known, so they measure the energy emitted as EM radiation, i.e. gamma rays. It's very precisely confirmed by experimentation. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC)It's possible to confirm E=mc^2 in a school/local college lab with an acceptable margin of error (I've managed to get a few down to less than 1% error margin). Now that's using cheap, crappy school lab equipment. Imagine what the big boys play with, and the accuracy they can achieve.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I certainly hope the people running nuclear reactors know how much energy is being given off! sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 16:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

In fact, if you recall some of Brian Cox's (Plug! Plug! Plug!) favoured examples, hot cups of coffee/tea will weigh more than cold cups because they have higher energy - they lose the equivalent mass as the energy is lost as heat to the surroundings. And equally, fast moving cars weigh more than stationary ones. Minuscule amounts well outside our normal range of experience, of course, but simple enough to verify reasonably accurately. ^bomination 16:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks interesting. Think I'll get that. Thanks.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 16:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good read that. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. Get it. First book I've ever read that explained special relativity intuitively, which is more than first-year physics ever did - David Gerard (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

"hot cups of coffee/tea will weigh more than cold cups because they have higher energy" - but they will also evaporate faster, which will dwarf the increase in mass from higher heat energy after an extremely short time. --Tweenk (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course. I don't think Cox ever suggested using hot and cold cups of tea as part of a scientific experiment. Ajkgordon (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

If you count a "cup" as just the liquid - for much the same reason you weigh the smoke as well as the ashes when weighing up combustion products to prove that it's combined with atmospheric oxygen. ^{d hominem} 11:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Toupee fallacy

Is this worthy of an article (under logic/bullshit detection)? Or do we already have this under a different name? Natalie Reed talks about it from a trans-perspective, but my thinking is that it could be applied to many other fallacious assertions (particularly about judging a book by its cover). -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The fallacy being the one that's obvious in "Toupées always look fake. I’ve never seen a single toupee where I couldn’t tell what it was!" Yeah, that should have a real name already. If it does, then toupee fallacy should be a redirect to it at the least - David Gerard (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this does deserve a page. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 22:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course there are also those people with real hair which looks like a toupée but isn't and other people with characteristics of the opposite gender whom you think must be trannie but aren't. Is that part of the fallacy? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 23:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

More generally it looks like "silent evidence", which I think Taleb discusses as central to the Black Swan problem. Because you haven't recognised it yet, you simply aren't aware that it exists - and you're not aware that you're not aware it exists! Hence, "silent" evidence. But it often crops up in hindsight, e.g., "yeah, I totally see that it's a toupee now you've taken it off!" The hindsight bias and fallacy is to believe that you always knew, or to deny your non-awareness. I like teh idea of calling it the "toupee fallacy", may be worth articlifying. ^narchist 10:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, "all toupées look fake" is just the problem of induction, isn't it? ^{d hominem} 12:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Anywho, I've given an article a shot. The tl;dr is that I've written it up as a specific instance of the problem of induction and mostly related it to existing skeptical concepts since it nicely illustrates a combination of them but doesn't really say anything new that doesn't already have a name. ^sshole 13:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice work, it's a good article. Junggai (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

shadowstats

I've been asked by a student about shadowstats. Apparently the site claims that many government statistics are manipulated to make things look good for the government. My natural inclination is to be skeptical but I was wondering if anybody had some info before I spend too much time on it.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 20:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

We has article. From what I can tell, they have a minor qualm about which particular statistic the government chooses to report as the "real" one and blow it hugely out of proportion. Cow...Hammer^time! 20:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out our article.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 06:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't comment on this particular website but i seem to remember Tony Blairs government constantly massaging statistics. Unemployment especially, by changing what they class as unemployed they knocked thousands of the nummbers. I assume most governments play the same games AMassiveGay (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I seem to remember Thatcher doing it as well.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 06:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There is certainly a level of bias in official statistics, although usually a product of intransigence than anything else. This sort of controversy did arise, though, with the reworking of the way they report poverty rates in the U.S. this past year.--^talk 08:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the other side of the coin from something previously mentioned on RW I think maybe by Godot? That time the issue was that the government statistics assume a woman caring for her children is just normal whereas a man caring for his children is a noteworthy alternative to daycare. Changing the methodology for any government stats will always cause some people to claim it's a way of fudging the numbers, while not changing it can lead to you appearing out of touch with reality. Collecting the stats both ways for a period, when it's even possible, is an additional expense that you probably can't justify. A bunch of the economic measurements rely on a "shopping basket" in which some economist has somewhat arbitrarily placed items they think are relevant to that measure. Clearly it's insane to measure household grocery shopping based on foods nobody has eaten since the 1960s, but then again wouldn't it be a happy coincidence if the economists stop considering the cost of Copper in their world commodity index just as Copper prices shoot through the roof? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Blue Beam om nom nom

It's one of our greatest hits (because it's too stupid for Wikipedia) and a perennial nutter magnet, and we've been polishing it for two years. So I've put Project Blue Beam up for cover. Please get stuck in - David Gerard (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

PMB is my personal favorite Conspiracy theory.--il'Dictator Mikal 22:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What's PMB about? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 02:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

>.> PBB. getting stupid bullshit mixed up now--il'Dictator Mikal 02:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I was once asked what Project Blue Beam was, and I didn't know. Googled it, and found this place! Someone on Reddit asked me what it was, and I pointed them here as well. RachelW (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I found out about it via youtube. the entire video was a straight face explanation, and i just xouldnt helop but laugh the whole time. --il'Dictator Mikal 20:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Needs tender loving care for writing style first, IMHO. I'll try to help a bit until I get bored. ħuman 02:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

MN GOP served eviction notice

After being more than $2 million in debt and having gone a year without paying a full months' rent, the Minnesota Republican Party is served an eviction notice. Gotta love the party of "fiscal responsibility". The Noisy Orchestra ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 13:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Michele Bachmann can lead a session to help "pray away the payment due notice". -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That's rich fodder. Surely we have an article somewhere where we can immortalize that? Hint, I linked a couple in Spunky's post... ħuman 02:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Missed calls

I missed a few calls from some random number this week and the never left a message. Finally, I googled the number. It was Gallup. :/ I wonder how age or other demographics play into whether or not people answer. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Also potentially relevant. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I got a call today from the taped voice of the president of the NRA. Apparently the UN is coming to take away and destroy all my guns. Give money now! ħuman 02:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wherein I agree with CP

1. Re:Maratrean and inventing fallacies. Anybody else who has spent more than ten minutes on TWEB or the rest of 'em can find some creationist who thinks name-dropping fallacies makes him an expert. Jesus, Ken pulls that nonsense all the fucking time. It's something worth being aware of.

2. Hearsay Society. Now you're generally gonna want to cite your sources, but anybody who's written a major paper in the US knows that throwing around authoritative citations is more important than any exercise in logic or derivation. Compare the amount of time you spent in 12th grade english learning how to do MLA to the amount of time you spent learning how to construct a non-fallacious argument. Latter was probably non-existent. I'm taking my senior level humanities thing in college right now. They wanted us to write about Achebe, and I was interested in talking about how morality was constructed along gender lines and how in-group loyalty affects our view of other religions, but couldn't because these things didn't relate to the "readings" I had to cite. Just my opinion, but there's way too much emphasis on being able to "cite authority." People should be encouraged to develop original ideas (maybe not insights) and defend them using basic logical processes.

Thoughts? 05:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is this in the bar?--il'Dictator Mikal 05:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Because it isn't explicitly CP and I felt like discussing stuff with people. 06:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

On #2, it sounds like you just wanted to write on something that was unrelated to the requested topic, not that they just required you to be able to cite authority. It's not unreasonable to hand students a set of readings and ask them to write on those readings.--^talk 08:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Also on #2, this type of thing (at least in my experience) largely went away once I went to graduate school. The emphasis on authoritative citations was drastically decreased post-Bachelor's degree (to the point where I wrote one paper that primarily cited Penny Arcade). It's possible this is different in other fields. Part of the issue in your case (I'm guessing) is that large numbers of people have to do this same humanities thing and it makes it easier to grade if everybody is doing more or less the same thing. Omar (gibber) 13:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

When I was an undergraduate, in freshman composition they taught me correct citations, in freshman philosophy they taught me how to construct a well-reasoned argument, and in freshman literature they taught me that such arguments are absolutely verboten in "A" papers, since if you are able to make one it means the point for which you are arguing is not "debatable" enough. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you couldn't get into a decent university. Did you consider a trade, instead? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 03:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I did, but my professors — the ones who were not brimming with bullshit having come into academia to grind an axe — recommended graduate school instead. My alma mater's Department of English has slid a long way from Garrison Keillor's time, but even the end of its strength is still very strong. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Veganism

Apologies if this is the wrong place for this kind of talk, but I'm trying to think something over. Even registered on a vegan forum, before spotting talk on chem trails and the 'forest spirit'. Much better here.

I'm contemplating turning vegan (or similar), mostly for environmental reasons (10kg grain = 1kg flesh, and so on). And not in a preachy, shout it from the rooftops way either. It just seems like a good thing to do.

However, it got me overthinking as usual, and I started wondering where to stop. Not only eating no animal products, but eating the minimum of food required, eating food grown in small areas, and so on. Finally I came to the conclusion that I could do a lot of good by killing myself (don't worry, talking hypothetically).

Of course you could say that by doing that, I wouldn't have an influence on the environment (good) but also no influence on the people I meet (bad). Even taking that into account, I'm still not sure that it wouldn't be the better thing to do (again, hypothetically).

So here's the question, where do you stop? You could ruin your life completely and be doing the world a favour, but then you don't have a life. I guess this is a similar situation to charity, I could give all my money to charity and do a lot of good, but destroy myself in the process.

Also, are there any vegans around? Could do with some advice on the issue. --Grey (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Eating intelligently can go a long way, especially if you can afford it. Leather has its place, so does meat in food. Moderation is the key, moderation and sensible health decisions. A diet heavy on the plants, just flavored with the occasional meat, grown "organically", and sourced as locally as possible would be a good move. It just doesn't have an "all or nothing" name. ħuman 02:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The president of my local SSA chapter is a vegan. Her thing is that she doesn't like animal death to feed humans, which is fine. As far as I'm concerned, take is as far as reason allows. Do things for peace-of-mind and rational reasons. Stand up for debunking vegan/veggie woo. I have confidence you have the brains to do this stuff. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 02:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Humans are really bad on the environment. Have been since the first time we found a species of wheat that was missing a gene so it's small grains held onto the stalk. The thing about going vegetarian or vegan is that they are in their own way, often just as bad on the planet. We still cut down the forests to get soy and corn, and we LOVE having out of season fruit, which means we restructure the tropics and cut down the variety so we can have bananas or limes all the darned time. Answers lie in sustainability. Eat wild game and rabbit when you crave meat. Grow as much as you can, you can use pots if that's what you've got. Eat seasonally. Don't get bananas if it's winter, stay with winter squashes (covered under your 'eat locally'). Where does it end? I'm selfish enough that it ends with me. I only live once, and you all are illusions anyhow. ;-) Godot 02:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

'Where does it end?' - that's the root of it. And every potential change I can make is such a small step that it's worth doing, but add them all together and it's a massive commitment. Thanks for the advice though. --Grey (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Be as good as you can.--^talk 02:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Fuck it, eat meat and be happy. Ace^Moderator 02:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Where do you draw the line? Honey. No bees were harmed in the making of this post. Q0 (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Just study where your food comes from. That's what my Vegetarian roommate said anyway.--Revolverman (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

My food comes from living, breathing animals that, as far as I am aware, died scared. That's what makes the meat so tender. Fear. Ace^Moderator 03:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If your meat comes from animals who died scared, you're buying your meat from an exceptionally shitty butcher.--Revolverman (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What I mean is they certainly looked scared when I run at them naked, covered in blood with a butcher knife held high. I can only assume they are scared though. Ace^Moderator 03:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"Humans are really bad on the environment." - Humans are part of the environment. Actually, this 'humans are the problem' attitude is the most counterproductive thing present in the environmental movement. Guilt-tripping people about their habits will not make them change; they will just ignore you.

"The thing about going vegetarian or vegan is that they are in their own way, often just as bad on the planet" - Not really. Raising 1 kg of meat takes roughly 10 kg of grain, as said by OP. If meat consumption was lower, the required crop area would be smaller, and more land could remain as wilderness. --Tweenk (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No one mentioned the VHEMT yet? (As for meat "dying scared" anyone who hunts deer for food won't shoot if the animal gets spooked and legs it, as the sudden rush of activity floods the muscles with oh-so-tasty lactic acid.) ^pathetic 10:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You should recommend it to Brx. It might wean him off his diet of cleaning products. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Part of the issue with the "vegan lifestyle" movement that I'm guessing is what Godot is partially referring to is that leather substitutes and other vegan-targeted products are really highly processed, creating tons of unpleasant byproducts and (in the case of faux-leather) being petroleum products, are not particularly environmentally friendly. Omar (gibber) 13:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

American Politics - can the adults come out and play, please?????

WHAT THE FUCK? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course, but for god's sake, can we at least keep your talking points to something that might, possibly, ever, maybe, if the planets all align, hint at reality? Phil Bryant, Mississippi says Democrats One Mission In Life Is To Abort Children. Even Rush knows we have at least TWO missions; abort babies and give out welfare checks. --Godot 02:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh good, another Mississippi story. That means I get to post this song again. --CoyoteSans (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Destroying America and instituting conscription into the Homosexual Lifestyle are somewhere in the manifesto, also. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

All your fetus are belong to Obama.

Democrats are building a time machine to go back to 0 BC and ABORT BABY JESUS.

UNESCO wants to make half of the world population gay by 2032. [1] --Tweenk (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

But if we abort the babies it means we can't eat them! ^theist 10:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Fetuses are more succulent and flavoursome. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

We're all going to die!!!

...of something. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 05:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

How apt that "drunk driver" is centred on Sauff Effrica. ^theist 10:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I object!!! Ace has gone home!

Seriously though, I'm surprised they targeted us for drunk driving (yes, we are bad). A few years ago it would have been AIDS or violent death, so I guess things are on the up. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 11:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

According to this, if we live in France, the UK, germany, etc., we don't have to die of anything! excellent. (godot, not logged in)

Coincidences

I like our article Improbable things happen so when I saw this on the BBC site, I hoped we might have got a mention. Unfortunately, no, but the author's site is quite a good resource for the statistically challenged. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 22:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this just a coincidence?

The mainstream news media, despite endless denial by the left, is 90% liberal. Reprts repeatedly show that 90% of journalists vote Democrat, support Obama, support baby-butchering, etc. This is shown in the very biased news coverage. The news media is basically a propaganda organization for the left wing of the Democrat Party.

Now look at the rest of media. All there is is endless promotion of promiscuity, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, teen sex, alcoholism, crime, gangster culture, anorexia, birth control and vile homosexual perversion. Comedians make tasteless sex jokes, music videos feature graphic sex, and profanity abounds. Sodomite perversion is treated as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. Christianity is nowhere to be found, while Islam is pushed as part of the demonic "tolerance" agenda. Soldiers and cops are mocked and portrayed as villains and racist oppressors, whereas convicts are portrayed as heroes and freedom fighters. The Satanic agenda of nonjudgmentalness is promoted. Teenage rebellion, a capital offense in the Bible and glorified in the Communist Manifesto, is promoted endlessly: children always outwit their "prudish, bourgeois" parents. Spanking is considered abuse. It all comes from Communism, and ultimately from the devil.

Could there possibly be any correlation between the left-wing views of the vast majority of the media, and the negative, evil, anti-values it promotes? Possibly? Or is just a coincidence? Varg Vikernes is the liberal icon (talk) 09:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this just a coincidence? No. It's actually all your fault. You, and the people that came before you, created the culture that you're so crying about. Journalists primarily vote democrat because they are professionally predisposed to the truth, as opposed to hiding the truth, which is what a huge portion of the political Right does right now. News coverage isn't controlled by them in the first place, but by the massive corporations which control news venues, anyway. The decadent consumer culture is created by encouraging fast-track consumerism and glorifying unsustainable lifestyles. The scandalous depiction of women is due to a primarily deeply misogynist culture, one that the Right would seek to promote. TV Shows meant to make people feel better often feature underdogs, which has a far greater correlation to society making people feel like they can't catch up with the elite (the result of the Right's widening of income gaps!) than it does to left-wing values. The state of the media is not, as you claim, due to communism, but due to capitalism, your so-called 'traditional values,' and the culture they create. You did it. That's right. You. Four years of media studies have taught me this, and it is laughable that now you want to shove the media that arose to entertain you, that has become your wet dream incarnate, away as the fault of someone else. Ever while you consume more, and more, and watch it swell and swell. Godspeed, troll! ±KnightOfTL;DR^{lavishly loquacious} 12:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Good post. I have little to add.

Slight off-topic: having prowled YouTube while assembling a track list for an upcoming party, I would agree with the troll on the point that American music (both lyrics and music videos) contain too much crude sexual content. The stuff produced in my country tends to be more tasteful and leave more to the imagination. --Tweenk (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Observe in this section both the left- and right-wing versions of the hostile media effect. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't believe the 'media' is hostile to my political preference(save the venues that are by unambiguously hostile to liberal viewpoints, such as FOX), considering I am sort of a media major and I am well aware of the hostile media effect as well as the expansive structure of power in the nebulous entity people call 'the media' when they want to complain about culture in general. My reply was more ripped from my sociology and culture courses, addressing the goofy monsters the troll saw in the media than any of my own angsts, which are entirely different and have to do with the aberration of ethics in my chosen industry, but thanks all the same. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 05:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I gathered that you were spieling somebody else's script. But, no matter: Pinkos and wingnuts are often found shouting down the same things (the "degradation" of culture, for example) but, in casting about for someone to blame, setting their sights upon different people. In blaming the Reds for everything, the conservative username troll was executing a lightly modified version of his own enemy's strategy of blaming the capitalists for everything, which you employed in your post. To that end your post contained several hostile-media canards, such as overstating the "corporate" ownership of the media, conflating that with editorial control, and inferring misogyny from depictions of women that do not carry the Catharine MacKinnon Seal of Approval. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is very true. I don't believe culture is 'degraded' somehow, but I do believe that the big old cloud considered to mean 'the media' is driven by the demands of culture. Meaning, whatever is dominant in culture at the time will be visible in what's released by any venue to the public... mostly because 'the media' is really just one manifestation of culture, not a separate entity. If we as a culture didn't think the depiction of (for example,) women on The Jersey Shore was okay, it wouldn't have gotten the exposure it did and would have sunk to the bottom of the media cloud, or even not gotten produced in the first place. On the point of news venues controlling the news, as a journalism major... they really do. Not totally and utterly. But only a few giant corporations own most of what most people consider the mainstream media. How sinister that is depends on how you look at it. But it's certainly not some kind of horrid conspiracy or a corporate panic... and it's definitely not evidence of a communist mass media. So it's not that YOU IT'S YOUR FAULT YOU REPUBLICAN THE MEDIA IS AWFUL, it's more 'the culture that you take for granted is the foundation upon what's considered to be the mass media thrives.' In truth, people should count the internet (and not just the fingers of those corporations I mentioned in the internet) and the content-creating users on it, as just as 'massive' a medium. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 11:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Gmail

Last week I noticed that my Gmail account had used about 56% of about 8GB of storage. It's now shot up to over 10GB and I'm only 40% used. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

yeah, I'm also over 10Gb now. I'm guessing another bank of PCs was plugged into their server farm. Or whatever terms you geeks use. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 11:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Something to do with the launch of Google Drive perhaps? Ajkgordon (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone has hit the limit of G-mail with plain text emails alone. --Revolverman (talk) 05:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The entire English Wikipedia text is only ~3Gb IIRC. A full novel of 400-500 pages is barely half a megabyte. You'd be hard pushed to do it with text emails - and I'll restrict that to words you've actually typed, as opposed to say, huge output files you've inexplicably pasted into the text. But I imagine someone will have set up a bot to try it and just flood it with a constant stream of noise, much like when someone uploaded 100,000 photos of just a dot to Facebook to test if it really was "limitless". ^gnostic 16:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Norwegians…

Gotta love 'em. Especially when you consider this response to the response you get in the UK or the US when atrocities like Breivik's happen.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 13:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure there is a comparison in the US to this atrocity, not even McVey drove off to gun down children after his bombing in Oklahoma.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Like, as in killing people for a "political" motive. Terrorism, Loughner, the Beltway Sniper attacks, that kind of thing. You have to admit, there is a marked difference between the way that the US and UK handle to the aftermath of such events, and the way the Norwegians have. For a start, after, I think it was after two or three days of testimony from Breivik, the Norwegian's national papers all agreed not to cover his testimony on the front page, simply because they felt he was trying to use the media to further his own cause. Can you imagine the NYPost or DM doing that?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 11:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Don McLeroy on Colbert

Our favorite creationist dentist on Colbert. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hand Sanitizer Drinking

if you haven't heard about it; kids drinking Alcohol hand-sanitizers to get drunk, or forcing the alcohol separate from the rest and drinking that. Now this is based on my small bit of research into numbers, but the Average American beer has about 5% or so, Hand Sanitizer, if it';s US recommended dose and alcohol based; has 12 times that much. --il'Dictator Mikal 22:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Not all hand sanitizers are ethyl alcohol based...some are isopropyl(sp?) alcohol based and that should make you pretty sick. I'd hate to see kids drinking any that are made of methanol (not sure if those exist)... -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be safer just to give them normal alcohol? I mean, kids will be kids and get drunk anyway, so might as well lower the drinking age to 12. Tortoise of Tor (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Seth, I was wondering the same thing. I remember my high school chemistry teacher telling the class that the alcohol we used would kill us if we drank it--"Shut up, Brx." 23:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Methyl alcohol, or methanol, or "wood alcohol" is definitely deadly. Purell is 62% ethanol (like Mikalos said), but others have less (or none at all, meaning they're not as effective...or they probably won't get you drunk at all). Recipes for home-made hand sanitizer (yes, it's a thing, apparently) use isopropyl as the main ingredient. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The thing that be most funny about drinking methylated spirits, be that you are drinking the poison (methanol) and its antidote (ethanol) at the one time. Indeed, most commonly the drink be mostly antidote, and only a little poison. Drink up! Tortoise of Tor (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought this stuff makes you blind :023.16.219.49 (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Methanol will do that. Problem is that alcohol that isn't deliberately made for human consumption will always contain a nasty bit of the stuff. Enzymes are very selective in the reactions they catalyze, and industrial processes not so much, and since the two are a single carbon away from each other, we can't really prevent it from forming. There were a bunch of kids a suburb away from my university that thought they knew some chem and tried to extract the ethanol with ether. Generally not a good idea. 05:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

If you had ether, wouldn't it be easier to use it to mug a wino if you were that desperate? The US really needs to change its drinking age laws. University students need to be able to get drunk. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The Methanol in industrial products isn't there by accident. If you produce a product with just Ethanol in it in most countries, you need a special license and a particular excuse or you'll pay the same tax as booze makers. But if you add Methanol you're exempt because only an idiot would drink that. It's poisonous in the same way as ethanol (which humans are used to, and causes headaches, nausea, unconsciousness and ultimately death) plus it causes permanent nervous system damage. So basically after drinking it you get normal drunkenness, then a normal hangover, and then you may stop breathing or go blind. Nice. The hand sanitiser has an excuse because obviously people will end up getting some in their mouths (e.g. use sanitiser, pick up chocolate, put chocolate in mouth), so it wouldn't be acceptable to poison it. Industrial products with Methanol generally advise the use of gloves, good ventilation and so on to avoid poisoning, they may also where practical have a bitter taste added to encourage users to spit out any product which is accidentally tasted (alcohols including Methanol are naturally sweet tasting). 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Generally, methanol, ethanol, propanol and iso-propanol will all get you drunk and all will poison you. It just happens that ethanol strikes the balance between achieving the desired effect while killing you slowest (compare LD50s iso-propanol ethanol and methanol but there's not that much in it). The main issue with methanol is that it's the one that will be absorbed through your skin and is, again comparatively, the most dangerous of the lot because it's LD50 is the lowest and it oxidised to formaldehyde in your liver and will lead to blindness faster. Of course, the higher toxic effect is what causes drunkenness, so people are known to try methanol and propanol as cheap and quick ways of getting wasted (if only because the lack of tax and food-standards regulation makes these cheaper to obtain). ^pathetic 10:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Jesus. Someone needs to tell these kids that you can buy brewers yeast at any age. At least if they made toilet sangria that'd be better than hand sanitisers. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"Ethanol strikes the balance" indeed. As I understand it, for some given ape, the quantity which causes unconsciousness is about 16 oz (1/2 liter). The lethal quantity is double that, making it really hard to kill yourself just by drinking it. Although, given plenty of PGA, it can be done. At lower BACs, it just fucks you up nicely, it's your choice as to how long you want your liver to last. ħuman 02:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

"The US really needs to change its drinking age laws. University students need to be able to get drunk." - Legalizing cannabis, LSD and ecstasy would be more practical, because it would result in less harm and addiction. Unfortunately such a decision would amount to acknowledging that the last 40 years of international drug policy was an unmitigated disaster, which ensures it will not happen. --Tweenk (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think we should lower the drinking age but raise the driving age. (Hee-hee.) sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 06:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC) (Oh, and who hyphenates isopropanol any more? That's like, so 1910.) sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 06:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that kids drinking hand sanitizer is a serious and widespread issue that requires our immediate attention. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 16:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Drinking hand sanitizer is nothing new; I know all the individuals involved in this recent homicide, including the victim, through a a couple of Christian ministries I'm involved with. Apparently it's epidemic. Not to be snide or partisan, but I blame the lack of jobs for the indigent turning to hand sanitizers and mouthwash to get drunk. And Christian ministries regularly give the stuff out to the homeless. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 16:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Rob, drunks and druggies have been using a variety of products to get high since time immemorial. Your attempt to make this political once again reveals your base stupidity. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 16:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You missed to point. After this homicide several Christian ministries feel they may have facilitated the abuse, and that was point. And I am in a position to make a judgement about the cited increase in abuse among this demographic. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 16:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Mikalos209/Cool--il'Dictator Mikal 16:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)--il'Dictator Mikal 16:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Mouthwash costs cash (you can't get it with foodstamps); and income form panhandling is down in these progressive times. Hence, Christian ministries who hand out free hand sanitizer is the source of alcohol for the downtrodden in this tuff economic times. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 17:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Oops. It's like the French police handing out breathalyser kits to youngsters leaving night clubs to try to educate them about drink driving only to discover they were being used to see who could score most without being caught. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not surprising that if you give someone something which they have no use for, then they might find some utility in another way. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 23:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Gethin Gruffydd and the Welsh Remembrancers!

Any UKers here know who these nutters are? They own a number of blogs under their group account, and one of their number, someone called Gethin Gruffydd, runs a bunch more himself. It's hard to penetrate their incoherent ranting and terrible MSPaint protest graphics (seriously, WTF?), but they seem to be a Welsh socialist neopagan racial nationalist campaign group whose main targets are capitalism, the English, and renewable energy. I'm tempted to start an article about them, but I can find no mention of their existence outside the impressive list of blogs they've set up for themselves. That said, they seem to be planning a large-scale anti-windfarm protest in June, so they might find their way into the news... Balaam (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok - 1) WTF is a hedge teacher? and 2) I've never heard of them and I'm Welsh. They - or most likely - he, is probably a Ken, with roughly the same level of delusion. Might be an offshoot of, or a wannabe, Meibion Glyndŵr.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Turns out that Gruffydd has his own Wikipedia article. Looks like he earned some minor infamy in the sixties, enough to be mentioned in a handful of books on fringe politics, but is now something of a has-been. Balaam (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Aaaannndd, he's from Merthyr. That is no fuckin' surprise, whatsoever.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This would appear to be a photo of him. Balaam (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Definitely a Welsh Ken.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned the name to the loved one, who said "oh, that nutter." So the guy's slightly famous for real - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Hedge teacher" struck a bell and rooting around my mental attic I found this. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 03:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

So, Welsh ultranationalism is pretty fucking funny. ^postate 03:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Back when girls were girls and men were men

Or were they? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The PMS one is interesting, because I suppose if we were then condition to expect to be in a bad mood under certain biological processes it would become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Which raises the question: how can you create a placebo period? ^sshole 03:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

YouTube WTFery

If you haven't heard, YouTube has a new "transcribe audio" feature. (You can activate it by clicking the "CC" on the control bar and selecting "transcribe audio.") And it's awfully, hilariously incompetent. Just watch this with transcribe audio turned on and marvel at the state of computerized transcribing. (Yes, the video is stupid regardless of the subtitling. Don't judge me!) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

What's truly hilarious is watching what it does with George Carlin's long list of dirty words, next to what he's actually saying. Q0 (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Odd. The famous "gin joints" line from Casablanca becomes something about politicians in Washington DC. Then again, it can also be something incomprehensible about homogenous rice. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Pot calling kettle black?

Maine's governor calls state workers " about as corrupt as can be." As if politicians are known for being better, right? The Noisy Orchestra ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 13:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

America, fuck yea!

I don't always seek sanction from the Chinese authorities, but when I do, I prefer the American Embassy in Beijing. "We agreed the U.S. Embassy is the only absolutely secure location in town", Hu Jia, fellow activist. So many embassies to choose from! Amerika TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 15:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

So who exactly are these moderates?

When this is what democracy in the US looks like to a lot of us out there, it's easy to see the whole thing for the charade it is.

But what's even funnier/sadder is that every election the oh-so-informed pundits spend hours and hours of airtime rattling on about how 'moderates' feel about this or that, and how these people who are supposedly stuck politically between two candidates are the most important voting bloc. But, really, how many people actually sit in between Obama and Romney on that political compass chart? You can't even fit another dot in there, for goodness sake. Q0 (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Corresponding pissy article.

Given that the Political Compass is operated by pinkos who designed it for the purpose of ripping Tony Blair a new one, these results are not surprising (especially if, as seems likely from the accompanying article, they figured Obama's position by pretending that he wanted to approve the Bush tax cut extension). Back in Blair's time they did a slightly more effective job of maintaining a veneer of academic impartiality. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Given that article is sympathetic to Ron Paul and mentions the "Trilateral Commission" (a name that pops up a lot among conspiracy theorists), I am skeptical as to the accuracy of his evaluations. Mr. Anon (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Romney is a moderate. Talsley (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 23:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are you laughing? Talsley (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Presidents' club

Nice little piece on how presidents often rely on past-presidents' experiences across party lines and generations. WARNING FOR NOBS: It's a BBC piece so you might want to look away now. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter's probably superior to other presidents (meaning he thinks his shit don't stink). nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ on a bike. Rob, do you have conversations like this in Real Life? Do you get bemused stares when you reply to somebody? How does your carer put up with it? Ajkgordon (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh thank god you're here to drag up a totally and completely relevant 2-year-old article from Glenn Beck's madhouse website. What would we do without you? Cow...Hammer^time! 22:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Well he's right. He's miles better than Reagan, Bush, or Bush. I'd say he had a better vision than Clinton, though Clinton was a better executive and negotiator. Obama and him are about the same in terms of ideology. Maybe Carter is slightly more progressive. What makes Carter bad as a President was the fact that he wasn't able to set out a clear agenda to Congress, and even though he had Congress on his side all four years, he was not able to get much of what he wanted done. Compare to Obama and Bush Jr., who were better than any other president at getting congressional votes in their first terms (though I would argue Bush Jr. had 9/11 on his side, which allowed him to get past a divided Congress). Mr. Anon (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Not trying to be snide, but I don't see how you can refer to either President Carter or Obama as progressive (Carter post-presidency has at least worked for some progressive goals). I also don't see how Obama has been good at getting congressional votes, because in my mind you're not really winning anyone over when you abandon most of your key positions in the first place. Q0 (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What lies you have been fed. Obama and Carter are both radical communists given the presidency. Talsley (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Is someone else gonna put up the trollshade or should I do it? -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Q0, by the very definition of "progressive" (a relative term, unlike "liberal" or "leftist"), Obama and Carter are very progressive. If Carter had his way, we would have led the world in clean energy. As for Obama, he is in my humble opinion one of the the most progressive presidents of all time. When it comes to congressional votes, he beat the "master bargainer" Lyndon Johnson, with a 96% success rate in his first rate. Alas, I must stop to prevent myself from starting another rant. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of good, descent men of solid convictions, Adlai Stevenson, George McGovern, Bob Dole, Michael Dukakis. But the question is competency, and Carter falls in with these guys. When an incumbent has approvals like this after 3+ years, the question is not how progressive or moderate he is, it is how competent he is. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have figures for other presidents? Mr. Anon (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Page 111 shows three incumbents, 1976, 1980, and 1992 with approval below 50% in July of an election year. All failed. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it July? Mr. Anon (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it true that the USA had more socialism in the 1950's and 60's???

I don't think it is true because look at these statisics I found at usgovernmentspending.com

US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP

1950 = 23.95 1960 = 28.74 1970 = 31.00 1980 = 33.72 1990 = 36.01 2000 = 32.56 2010 = 40.75

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html

See. It looks like the government was smaller in the 1950's and 60's. That means more capitalism and less socialism. Moonshot926 (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Look at the top tax bracket during those times; it was over 70%. Government spending as percentage of GDP is irrelevant; the US was not in a time of recession, so 2010 (or 1940s) levels of spending were unnecessary. Keynesian economics was the primary school, and every President during that era campaigned for Universal Health Care. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, if you want to make such a claim you better mention levels in the 1930s and 40s. Not quite unusual why... 99.235.89.240 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Quick points: (1) Government spending does not reflect certain "off budget" items, such as Federal workers pensions. With the growth of government since the Great Society, this debt burden has become exponential. (2) Two measurements being discussed here (a) government spending as percent of national income or GDP, (b) tax burden as a percent of national income or GDP. The resultant differential = the deficit. wp:Bruce Bartlett, the supplysider aficionado and Bush critic has argued in recent years the US Tax burden is low and people need to pay more to feed the welfare state. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 20:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The effective tax rate is the imporant part. Nobody actually paid the top tax rate. The tax code was filled with huge deductions and loopholes. Government spending as a percentage of GDP is extremely imporant. It shows how much of the national income that the governemnt spends. It basically shows the size of the government and it was much smaller in the 1950's and 60's. Moonshot926 (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Define these "huge deductions and loopholes." If they were there, there would be no reason for St. Ronnie to halve the marginal tax rate in 1980. 99.235.89.240 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Moonshot, liberal economic theory (not quite socialism) believes only in "large government" in order to fulfill basic needs of its citizens, and to stimulate the economy during a recession. There were no major recessions after the Great Deppression, so every President up until Reagan used this oppurtunity to pay down the WWII debt. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a troll, right? I mean, even just skimming through the Wikipedia pages on socialism and capitalism would show you how deeply flawed your "argument" is. I'll bite long enough to mention that most socialists are not the ones defending the huge military and intelligence budgets the US spends on every year. Nor do they tend to agree with starting expensive and destructive wars, inefficient spending, unnecessary bureaucracy, etc. Nor, if you want to take more recent events, does moving toward more socialist policies - unlike deregulatory capitalist ones - lead to "unforeseen" consequences causing the government to have to step in anyway and spend heavily just to try and stabilize the economy. Q0 (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

In the 1950's and 1960's, you might ask, what was the federal government spending money on? Most of the federal budget went to the miltiary.

1950 = 54% 1951 = 60% 1952 = 72% 1953 = 71% 1954 = 68% 1955 = 64% 1956 = 62% 1957 = 63% 1958 = 60% 1959 = 58% 1960 = 55% 1961 = 54% 1962 = 60% 1963 = 58% 1964 = 55% 1965 = 52% 1966 = 52% 1967 = 53% 1968 = 53% 1969 = 52%

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed_spending_1969USbn

As you can see, the lions share of the federal budget went to the military. Not much want to welfare, healthcare and eduction. Moonshot926 (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Moonshot, i know you love talking about these things but.... Who cares?--il'Dictator Mikal 11:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to debunk the liberal claims about USA in the 1950's and 60's. 70-75% of the economy in that time period was the private sector. Enitlement and welfare spending by the federal governemt was very little. 24.189.254.24 (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You might also want to look at the percentage of the population that was employed outside the corporate sector as well as income disparity. This is what the so-called "liberal claims" are more focused on than what the degree of government spending was. Omar (gibber) 12:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Nixon wanted to establish a state-supported guaranteed minimum universal income. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 13:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Rob? ROB?! WHERE ARE YOU!??! This thread's been here for ten hours, WHY HAVEN'T YOU YET POSTED A COMMENT USURPING THE CONVERSATION/!?!?!? El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 13:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Rob knows a fellow troll when he sees one. He just likes to stand back and let him work. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The United States'd Democrats have pushed America further towards communism with every year, these warped statistics prove it. Talsley (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You are nothing but a cut-rate Rob Smith. We want the real thing or nothing at all. Preferably the latter. Cow...Hammer^time! 19:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Moonshot's point about the lion's share of federal spending going to the military does not conflict at all with common narratives about the New Deal and unemployment. Virtually all liberals & socialists accept the axiom that FDR's New Deal did nothing to alleviate unemployment until defense spending was radically increased after 1942. It became institutionalized (see Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace) after 1945 as the figures Moonbat cites reveal. Even Congressional Democrats, right through the Johnson era, knew from experience Defense spending created jobs, and welfare spending did jack-shit for prosperity and only added to inflation. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 20:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's just make something clear: in the 1950s and 1960s, there were less entitlement spending because the only real entitlement was Social Security, which was much weaker than it is now. Medicare and Medicaid were not around at the time. Now, just given this information, if you are going to claim that this is evidence of "less socialism", by all means do so. Your argument will just beg the question and function like a strawman. But if we are going to argue fundamental ideas, such as wealth disparity, you are wrong. Remember that this era was before Reaganomics and before the days of massive tax cuts and a war on the poor. Every President worked to help the poor and minorities; Johnson with Medicare and Medicaid, Kennedy and Eisenhower with their Civil Rights. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's all move to the capitalist paradise of Burma! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Look at Zimbabwe from your same link. 97% of the GDP is spent by government. It is the poorest country in Africa with 90% unemployment rate. Are you going to tell me that Zimbabwe is a paradise? 24.189.254.24 (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

yes--il'Dictator Mikal 17:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If you really think any liberal here would want to have government expenditures by 100% of GDP, you're a fucking joke. Back on topic, every US historical document shows a significant expansion of the welfare state in the mid-20th century. 99.235.89.240 (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any specific knowledge about the topic (in other words, I can't immediately evaluate your statement for accuracy), but I would really like to know what you consider to be a 'historical document' and if you would be so kind as to release said tell-all sources. Because I am fairly sure that what you call 'the welfare state' (goodness, what a snarl word, what does it even mean at the end of the day?) is not what would be recorded in any so-called historical document. And considering that you seem to be citing public documents, you have absolutely no reason not to disclose your sources. If you, Rob, the least-need-to-know person in any chain of command ever, know of the contents of these alleged documents, they sure aren't classified. Oh, and one more thing. You have to not only cite them, but be able to explain what they mean. Because I predict a dump of unrelated, context-less budget reports, over which you will windmill your arms (reminiscent of Don Quixote's 'giants') and proclaim, 'wooooo, socialism!'±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 20:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"guo jin, min tui." "As the government grows, the private sector shrinks". GDP minus federal spending = the private sector. The following logical conclusions can be drawn: (a) workers in thh government are 100% dependent upon workers in the private sector (i.e. taxes paid by the private sector that constitute 100% of a government workers paycheck); (b) if the government sector advances in spending and more government workers hired to dole out the spending, the private sector shrinks as an overall percentage of GDP and it's ability to support a tax burden (i.e. pay government workers) increases disproportionately on those remaining in the private sector.

The conservative position is, the government exists to serve the private sector, not the other way around (the communist/socialist model). nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 21:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

... Rob. Your 'every US historical document' are a FORBES article about China. A massively different economic environment. It might be beyond you, but you should probably realize that not every capitalist economy and government functions in the same way. This article is about the recent past, not about '50s and '60s USA. Try again. Cite your sources that allegedly depict, "every US historical document shows a significant expansion of the welfare state in the mid-20th century." Do it. Do it or you have no credibility, you must back out of this discussion. These should be public documents released by the US government. Show me your sources. Show me that you aren't full of bullshit. If you are, shut up. That kind of crap has no place here. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{critical thinking is the key to success!} 21:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

As everyone knows, conservatives favor small gummint...or not. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Federal spending 1950
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

Federal spending 2010
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

Knight, is this what you mean? Defense spending today is less than half of what it was in 1950. Calculating what percentage of GDP social spending has grown, and defense spending decreased, is another matter. These charts only show these classes of spending as percent of the federal budget. Obviously, priorities have changed.

Ted Kennedy referred to a "peace dividend" at the end of the Cold War, meaning defense spending now could be used for social programs. This on its face is a logical fallacy. The American people never committed to a 40% + percent tax rate (all taxes, state, federal, and local) just for the sake of having having a 40% tax rate. They did it to fight the evils and spread of communism. When that battle was over, their contributions to national income by right should automatically have been rebated to them. But we know - based upon their own words -- commie libs like Ted Kennedy have no respect for fundamental human rights. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 22:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

No, this is not what I mean. I wanted you to actually explain the data, instead of slapping it up and proclaim that it proves your point. The economy of 1950s america and 2010s america is massively different. For example, in the modern day our labor unions are reduced to perhaps a tiny, withered remnant of what they were. In the 1950s, they were at their peak of success. My grandmother, for instance, was able to support herself in her age not because the government allotted her welfare or a pension, but because her labor union was able to wrestle a fair sum from her employer. Today, she could never do that, yet still would still require money to actually live in her old age instead of, you know, dying like an animal. That's right! It is very likely that the much-reduced spending on pensions (and that is only one example, there are other contexts concerning other allotments on the graph) is not due to some beautiful solution of capitalism, but to labor unions you would consider communist in nature. Yes, you have graphs, but they lack sufficient context and omit the actual history depicted by the numbers. Instead, you seem to insert your own. One that strokes your ego almost as broadly as the brush you paint data with. Never mind the fact that context-less graphs are hardly 'every historical document.' And they hardly depict that defense spending (post-war?!) lifted people out of anything. In fact, the lack of government spending indicates that other powers, such as post-war union activity, were doing the work of supporting the people that the government is now forced to do. You know, because you axed them.±KnightOfTL;DR^{more at 11} 22:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (A) The size and strength of labor unions is not a result of a national consensus on the Congressional appropriations process (despite legislation gained to accommodate them, free people have exercised in jurisdictions where possible their right of choice to reject labor unions. Ultimately, it's a function of the marketplace. Labor unions, like the Edsel, hoola-hoop, and pet rock, are fads that outlived any utility they ever provided in the marketplace. (B) You are totally misreading federal spending on pensions -- unless your grandmother worked for the federal government. If not, that's the portion your grandmothers gets to pay the federal government of her tax dollars, not receive.

Time was, Democrats in Congress argued Defense spending and outsourcing to defense contractors in their district was a form of social spending. We're moving passed that, now. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 23:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, you realize these are government spending graphs, right? Not collection graphs, which would they would be if they were about collecting money to qualified for a pension? And they include what the government spent on state pensions, like Social Security? Ones that don't necessarily go to government employees? Yes, you have to pay to qualify for benifits, but how the hell are they supposed to get the money to pay them otherwise? You actually have to, gasp, pay money to the government for the government to be able to give you money back. It doesn't (or shouldn't!) spontaneously generate money from distended money-printing butthole. Never mind the fact that you failed reading comprehension when you didn't understand it was the unions that paid my grandmother's pension? Rob, what's the matter with you? Where did we as a culture go wrong with you? ±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 23:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. You are right. I got that. Usually these charts divide between Social Security & Federal pensions. My earlier point still stands: Federal worker's pensions remain an unfunded liability of $673 billion-- about the size of the TARP program. This federal spending (not appropriated annually) is about 5% of annual GDP. This "off budget" spending is enough to grossly distort any reasonable conclusions or projections anyone tries to make from the US government's official numbers. In the private sector, this kind of accounting we call "failure to disclose", or "fraud". nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 23:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's make something else clear: of course there was more defense spending back then! We were in the fucking Cold War! There was (at least everyone thought) a real chance of the United States being attacked, causing the start of WWIII. Remember as well that the Cold War reached its peak during the 1950s. Mr. Anon (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

But we are under threat of attack by China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran right now. Talsley (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

WHAT? How? China is attached at the Wallet to the US, Why in the BLUE hell would they attack? Russia doesn't give two shits about the states, or anything as long as no one bothers them. NK and Iran? Yup, they can sure attack the US, with the non-existent navy and missiles that keep blowing up on the platform. --Revolverman (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

China uses its economic might to supply the US with deliberately contaminated or faulty products while copying our militrary might. Russia is under the Communist dictatpr Putin and seeks to return to its former glory in the sun. Given the US's lack of support for Israel Iran will soon have the Bomb and bio weapons. And NK can Nuke Japan any time they feel like it, and soon will have further reach. Talsley (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

First, I don't know why you get up in the morning with that world view. Anyway, lets break this down.

China: Ignoring the claim that China's shotty shit is a conspiracy to hurt the US, the US DOESN'T have to import a damn thing from China. Second, how do you "Copy" Military might? Are they stealing US specs on Military gear? That's quite the thing first of all, and then just because you know how something work doesn't mean you can do anything with it. You don't see China bopping about with Stealth Fighters or Ford Class ACs, do you?

I dare you to go to Russia and say that. You'd be laughed right out of the damn country. Putin is a thug, but if that meant he wanted to fight the US, well, its been 11 years and counting. Not a peep of Russia threading the US.

Are YOU JOKING? How? TELL me how NK can hit Japan when all of their missile tests have been complete failures, along with nuclear tests.

Why would US pulling support back on Israel (and they are not) cause Iran to get WMDs? WMDs that STILL haven't been proven, but its still presented as fact.

I await your reply. --Revolverman (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

China sees our hardware an copies it while congress cuts the military to the bone. You don't see it because they are better at hiding it. They do after all have the largest army and the prostrate Tibet in which to hid labs. The spies of Russia are some of the most successful in history, their counter - intelligence would doubtlessly be as good. NK's missile tests are a cover up for the aid they receive from Russia and China. The liberal media claims Iran does not have WMDS but a soon as Israel is no longer able to keep watch they will acquire them from Russia or China in an instant. Talsley (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

How is the US cutting its military budget to the bone when it goes up? I also ask if China/Russia/NK/Iran's military might is so well hidden, then how it you are aware of it, or the news sources you read know it? --Revolverman (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What evidence do you have for any of this? Mr. Anon (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a great example what happens when you let trolls frame the debate. What was the initial assertion? That the US was more capitalist in the '50s and '60s than it is now. What is the evidence? The solitary notice of the fact that government spending has increased, as if that somehow means anything at all in regards to market regulation and wealth disparity. What are the implications of the argument? That the US was successful in the past, and its success was based on some kind of extreme level of capitalism. If so, clearly any problems with the US currently can be solved by... freer markets!

Basically, it's nonsense. Nothing but drivel produced by the same people who are convinced Obama is somehow a socialist. Q0 (talk)

I have some evidence. The PRC is known to have stolen classified information on the following warheads: the W-56 Minuteman II ICBM, the W-62 Minuteman III ICBM, the W-70 Lance short-range ballistic missile (SRBM), the W-76 Trident C-4 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), the W-78 Minuteman III Mark 12A ICBM, the W-87 Peacekeeper ICBM, and the W-88 Trident D-5 SLBM. The PRC also has stolen classified information on U.S. weapons design concepts, weaponization features, and warhead reentry vehicles.[

"The People's Republic of China (PRC) has stolen design information on the United States' most advanced thermonuclear weapons. The Select Committee judges that the PRC's next generation of thermonuclear weapons, currently under development, will exploit elements of stolen U.S. design information. PRC penetration of our national nuclear weapons laboratories spans at least the past several decades and almost certainly continues today. The PRC has stolen or otherwise illegally obtained U.S. missile and space technology that improves PRC military and intelligence capabilities."

The Cox Report contained five major allegations about China and nuclear weapons.

•China stole design information regarding the United States' seven most advanced thermonuclear weapons. •These stolen secrets enabled the PLA to accelerate the design, development and testing of its own nuclear weapons. •China's next generation of nuclear weapons would contain elements of stolen U.S. design information and would be comparable in effectiveness to the weapons used by the United States. •Small warheads based on stolen U.S. information could be ready for deployment in 2002 also enabling China to integrate MIRV technology on its next generation of missiles. •These thefts were not isolated incidents, but rather the results of decades of intelligence operations against U.S. weapons laboratories conducted by the Ministry of State Security. In addition, the report described the illegal activity likely persisted despite new security measures implemented as a result of the scandal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_intelligence_operations_in_the_United_States#cite_note-14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox_Report Moonshot926 (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)