|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive176
The Debate.[edit]
Holy crap, I've never seen so many drinking game pages in my life. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Fuck it, -I've got enough vermouth for some Rob Roys, why not drink? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've got a drinking game for teetotalers. Drink every time either candidate talks in depth about a policy initiative they plan to implement. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
My drinking word for R-Money is "crush". I'm in trouble deep... ħuman
01:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Fact checkers are slow, appears that Romney was more aggressive. What did I miss? Osaka Sun (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Romney wins. Although a lot of what he said was BS, Obama was too slow and not agressive enough to point it out. Obama was less eloquent and took much more time to make his points. Overall, Romney has an advantage because Obama is not a liar. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Rom-Money may have won the debate, but only because he's far more adept at spinning lies so fast that it's hard for the average soccer mom to tell if he's being truthful or not in-between their soap opera time and Survivor. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- How do you go about declaring a winner in a political debate anyway? Two guys get up, mouth their talking points to death, no minds are changed, no actual exchange occurs, arguably people are less informed than when they started. There is really no useful criterion of "winner" there.
theist
11:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, in American politics at least, the "winner" is the one who can best shout over not just his opponent, but the debate moderator as well. Look at how easily R-Money took control of the debate from Jim Lehrer. That, my good man, it how one, at least theoretically, wins a debate in politics. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest, if this was a boxing match, Romney would have gotten a TKO; Obama really looked like he didn't really want to be there.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 11:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- How do you go about declaring a winner in a political debate anyway? Two guys get up, mouth their talking points to death, no minds are changed, no actual exchange occurs, arguably people are less informed than when they started. There is really no useful criterion of "winner" there.
- Rom-Money may have won the debate, but only because he's far more adept at spinning lies so fast that it's hard for the average soccer mom to tell if he's being truthful or not in-between their soap opera time and Survivor. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I had two favorite moments. The first occurred in the first minutes, when both wanted the exact same things, yet kept attacking each other for not wanting those things and the second one was when Romney claimed that the only way the security for the American people can be reached by having the biggest military in the world - as if 4 dozen allies wouldn't stand by their side at all times but be lurking in the corner just waiting to bomb New York City. An honorary mention would be Romney's Spain fuck up - accusing a government which economy went down the drain on private debt of having to much public debt and causing the economic collapse of that country, just a wonderful piece of BS showing how little Romney has a clue of other countries and sadly how much bullshit the American people can swallow when you tell them it's really healthy spinach. --K. (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Romney sounded positively brilliant once he stopped spewing tea party madness. Of course, his advisers have told him spewing tea party madness is his best chance of getting elected. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- But everybody sounds brilliant once they stop spewing Tea Party madness. --K. (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- I thought Romney had a much better opening statement. I think Obama was caught off guard because Romney decided to make up a new platform. Romney sounded better, but made a lot less sense. I think my favorite part was when Romney said "Regulation is essential. You can’t have a free-market work if you don’t have regulation. You couldn’t have people opening up banks in their garage and making loans." Relatable Romney indeed. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- That just shows he's not an anarcho-capitalist. d hominem 14:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm suffering from JFK syndrome here, but I think it's ridiculous to claim that Romney won a debate in which he A, continued to offer no plan, simply vague pronouncements of what he would do IE, "I'll get people back to work, I'm gonna cut the deficit." All great in theory, but he might as well have said "I'm gonna make sure everybody gets a raise." and B, he completely made up a new platform to run on. All of a sudden, Mitt Romney likes regulation, it's essential for fair buseiness. Romney doesn't think tax cuts for the rich save the world, Romney likes green energy...... Apparently collective amnesia is working wonders for his campaign. SirChuckBEl...ipses are Cool... 20:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- And that's the problem with American politics and the American electoral system. Because you're not voting for a party or a platform, but for a person, the issues simply don't matter. The only thing that matters is that you smile in the camera trustworthily and have good looking devout wife, two or more beautiful kids, a white picked fence and all that fucked up standard American-y Dream-y bullshit. It doesn't matter whether you have good solutions (not that 80% would know what a good solution is anyway) or a good argument against something, the only thing that matters is whether you look into the camera like a sleazy car salesman. --K. (talk) 09:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm suffering from JFK syndrome here, but I think it's ridiculous to claim that Romney won a debate in which he A, continued to offer no plan, simply vague pronouncements of what he would do IE, "I'll get people back to work, I'm gonna cut the deficit." All great in theory, but he might as well have said "I'm gonna make sure everybody gets a raise." and B, he completely made up a new platform to run on. All of a sudden, Mitt Romney likes regulation, it's essential for fair buseiness. Romney doesn't think tax cuts for the rich save the world, Romney likes green energy...... Apparently collective amnesia is working wonders for his campaign. SirChuckBEl...ipses are Cool... 20:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- That just shows he's not an anarcho-capitalist.
- I thought Romney had a much better opening statement. I think Obama was caught off guard because Romney decided to make up a new platform. Romney sounded better, but made a lot less sense. I think my favorite part was when Romney said "Regulation is essential. You can’t have a free-market work if you don’t have regulation. You couldn’t have people opening up banks in their garage and making loans." Relatable Romney indeed. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- But everybody sounds brilliant once they stop spewing Tea Party madness. --K. (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Sky Goat[edit]
Goat over Greenland. Our mascot takes to the skies. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's a sign! A portent of the apocalypse! Doom has come to this world! --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Brainstorming sources of outside funding[edit]
- We've long feared that it was just a matter of time before the growing cost of our technical requirements outpaced donations from the RW wiki community. We're in the process of working out approaches for gaining outside funding, but it ought to go without saying that two heads are better than one. The Board is interested in having any suggestions for expanding our donor base.
- Toward that end, go nuts discussing general categories of outside funders to approach (say, outfits in the skeptical community, larger liberal cultural philanthropic outfits, patrons of science or other journalism, etc.) in the discussion section below.
- In the interest of keeping the general discussion section concise and readable, I'd appreciate if you'd make your specific suggestions by linking to subpages in your userspace or emailing me (nuttish at me dot com). I'll periodically post a redux.
- I'm sure someone is going to move this to a forum, which is fine. I just expect that it will be kept prominent since not everyone looks at Recent Changes and it's been very difficult to follow the numerous policy discussions we've had in the last year.
- Thanks much and, on behalf of the Board, we really look forward to hearing from you.
-- Jason 
15:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
WoW, serious business in senate races[edit]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19842704
Maine Republicans have created a webpage revealing that Democrat candidate Colleen Lachowicz plays an orc rogue in World of Warcraft (WoW). Ms Lachowicz's liking for back-stabbing and poison in WoW raise questions about her "fitness for office", they claim.
Just insane. I have nothing further to say. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I believe the relevant question is, what server is she on? --Kels (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
London mural depicts the world as being ruled over by a cabal of big-nosed rich people overseen by an eye in a pyramid[edit]
uh-huh Balaam (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Yet another Facebook privacy panic[edit]
Does anyone know what to make of the claim that Facebook Timeline is bleeding people's old private messages into public? So far a French privacy watchdog have concluded it's just people confusing old wall posts for private ones, but this article seems to lean in favor of saying something has gone amiss. Grumblejaws (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- What's more likely, that somehow that there's a glitch that can cross two separate databases written and encoded on separate back-ends and selectively change posts only from certain years, or that people just fuck up and can't remember what they posted where? d hominem 13:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- "...and its product that it sells to advertisers is our details" - I wish people would stop saying this sort of thing because it's a gross misrepresentation. Here is the page you can use to make an advert. As an advertiser you never get "details" of people, it simply uses those details behind the scenes to target adverts towards demographics. You get demographic data that allows you to get an approximate size of your audience, but that's no more bursting in on people's privacy than the fact that revealing that 30% of the UK is atheist breaks my privacy from filling out the census form. postate 13:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah I'm totally with you on this, I've spent several excruciating conversations with a friend trying to convince him that he just can't remember life before comments sections. I just don't understand how this thing can still have legs after this amount of time. Grumblejaws (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- "...and its product that it sells to advertisers is our details" - I wish people would stop saying this sort of thing because it's a gross misrepresentation. Here is the page you can use to make an advert. As an advertiser you never get "details" of people, it simply uses those details behind the scenes to target adverts towards demographics. You get demographic data that allows you to get an approximate size of your audience, but that's no more bursting in on people's privacy than the fact that revealing that 30% of the UK is atheist breaks my privacy from filling out the census form.
- There must be something going on, because when I checked the years before 2009, there were indeed messages that could never have been public in there. For example, I've always been careful if someone posts their phone number on my wall. What seemed to have happened is that for previous years Facebook bundled all of your random wall postings unto one subheading, and some stray private messages might have gotten lassoed up in the process. Junggai (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- "There must be something going on, because when I checked the years before 2009, there were indeed messages that could never have been public in there." - So loads of people have been saying, but not a single person has been able to substantiate it. As Armondikov says, you'd need to have one dattabase spilling over into another and it would take more than a glitch or hasty structural changes for that to happen. It's definitely just people shocked at the sort of thing they used to write publicly when Facebook felt that bit more sheltered. My aforementioned friend claimed he absoulutely, positively remembered sending a public message that had supposedly become public. He's since backed down and admiited it was all in his panicking head. Confabulation is a weird thing. Grumblejaws (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- People don't fully appreciate how fast this thing has moved. Privacy awareness on social networking is literally only about two years old. People happily threw around a lot of personal details in the open - simply out of ignorance. Even people saying "oh, but I'm careful" are either misremembering, or have managed to spot the times they fucked up. narchist 00:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- People don't fully appreciate how fast this thing has moved. Privacy awareness on social networking is literally only about two years old. People happily threw around a lot of personal details in the open - simply out of ignorance. Even people saying "oh, but I'm careful" are either misremembering, or have managed to spot the times they fucked up.
- "There must be something going on, because when I checked the years before 2009, there were indeed messages that could never have been public in there." - So loads of people have been saying, but not a single person has been able to substantiate it. As Armondikov says, you'd need to have one dattabase spilling over into another and it would take more than a glitch or hasty structural changes for that to happen. It's definitely just people shocked at the sort of thing they used to write publicly when Facebook felt that bit more sheltered. My aforementioned friend claimed he absoulutely, positively remembered sending a public message that had supposedly become public. He's since backed down and admiited it was all in his panicking head. Confabulation is a weird thing. Grumblejaws (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Fucking piece of shit Daily Mail readers[edit]
Yeah, yeah, it's link-bait, but just had to say check the fucking comments section. If you don't want to give the DM any views, here are some of the "best rated" comments:
Stephen Fry, you are an intelligent man so will you stop using this word: "homophobic" to describe people who disagree with homosexual practices. Your use of this word gives the impression that some people are scared and live in fear of homosexuals when all they are saying is: "It's not for me. Personally, I prefer the opposite sex." The suffix - phobia, means "fear of" How about using another word for it as you are such a pedant of the English language?
Mr Fry, animals have basic mating instincts and would far prefer the natural course of sex, between male and female. However, as is seen in a field, heffers and young bulls will attempt to mount- when unable to mate normally- their own sex. Stop trying to justify your position with specious arguments.
I'm surprised an intelligent person like Stephen Fry would talk such utter cobblers. What animals do has nothing to do with it! Animals don't get married in church! 'Marriage' per se was originated by The Church and means the uniting of a man and a woman. The Church cannot be forced into blessing or sanctifying it! It's ludicrous to expect Christianity to change all its rules just because one group of people wants it to! If you don't like the rules don't join the club.
Mr Fry: That's because humans usually think for themselves and use logic, whereas animals (even those trained to do clever things) primarily use their inbuilt instincts. What a mess we'd be if we used only our instincts, most of which relate to survival.
Meanwhile, the "worst rated":
It always amazes me how much some people harp on about gay marriage. If two people love each other and wish to share their lives together, then let them! They aren't hurting anyone. I have found during my lifetime, that those most verbose against gay marriage and gays in particular, tend to be closet gays themselves! If you're certain of your own sexuality, then there's no issue.
I still can't believe the amount of time and energy that has needed to be put in to legalizing gay marriage. People don't choose to be gay they just are. Just because they are not as commonly occurring as us who are not, why should that mean that they are not to be given the same rights as us. No one's hand is being forced here, there is none of this 'pandering to the minorities' (if such a thing exists) rubbish going on here, it is just a civil rights issue. Just the same as women getting the right to vote, logic will prevail here and gay marriage will be legalized whether the those on the best rated comments section like it not. Marriage should be between two people who love each other.
These people fucking disgust the shit out of me. theist 19:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Why are these people so convinced marriage started in the church? Have they never read anything like greek myths or egyptian pyramids showing marriage is far older than their church?
Godotrien ne marcherait 19:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Because they are all fairy stories (with a lot of gay stuff going on). The bible is the truth. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- And its the daily mail. Other cultures and traditions are just evil to its readers. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Never mind that untill... hell 60-70 years ago, marriage was mostly just a tool for wealthy families to increase power and wealth. The lower classes just did it because the upper classes did it. --Revolverman (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- I want to know why Armondikov was reading the Daily Mail in the first place. Isn't there some mental health rule against that somewhere?--Weirdstuff (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Because I feel I haven't nerd-raged in a while. moral 23:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh. My guess was that Armond is married to a fervent reader of the Daily Mail, and he just sees these things over their shoulder.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- In fact, my other half was reading those comments over my shoulder, and seemed almost as "oh for fucks sake people are fucking stupid" as I was. gnostic 02:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I check the DM site quite a bit actually. It's like the British version of CP. You have to slow down and gawp at the intellectual motorway pile-up. Same with the British Democracy Forum. --Llegar a las estrellas¿Dígame? 08:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- In fact, my other half was reading those comments over my shoulder, and seemed almost as "oh for fucks sake people are fucking stupid" as I was.
- Oh. My guess was that Armond is married to a fervent reader of the Daily Mail, and he just sees these things over their shoulder.
- Because I feel I haven't nerd-raged in a while.
- I want to know why Armondikov was reading the Daily Mail in the first place. Isn't there some mental health rule against that somewhere?--Weirdstuff (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Never mind that untill... hell 60-70 years ago, marriage was mostly just a tool for wealthy families to increase power and wealth. The lower classes just did it because the upper classes did it. --Revolverman (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- And its the daily mail. Other cultures and traditions are just evil to its readers. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Because they are all fairy stories (with a lot of gay stuff going on). The bible is the truth. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
What do you know, Obama inspired me.[edit]
I don't know if it's just the music, but damn. Watch this video.
As a communist, I find that raising taxes, regulating businesses, and welfare are just a part of the problem. Playing within capitalism reinforces capitalism. But there is something to be said for accomplishing things in the immediacy. Communism may well never happen, and the world must be a better place. So a certain amount of appeasement will have to happen--"Shut up, Brx." 20:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Brx, a communist? How surprising.Find ListenerX Osaka Sun (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- ListenerX is aware of my proclivities.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Brx is a communist? Bullshit. Acei9 20:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Communism may well never happen" No shit it won't. It's to idealist, dear Brx. --Mikal Harass Follow 20:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- And therein lies the reason why Marxism is such a pile of bunk; it is not supposed to be idealist at all — that was one of Marx's main differences with his philosophical ancestor, G.W.F. Hegel.
- Yes, the Reds do hate what some of them call "bandages" on capitalism; if capitalism is working properly, they have fewer suckers being convinced by their argument that a communist revolution, and only a communist revolution, will deliver said suckers "better wages and shorter hours and nobody bossing you about."
ListenerXTalkerX 20:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Even if capitalism could somehow provide for everyone, the very way it functions will lead it to change towards further inequality. Even if the mores of capitalism were somehow accounted for, it exists in accordance with unethical principles. Greed and competition are no basis for a just society.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- History has shown that's exactly what happens in Communists states too. --Revolverman (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Also, I differ from mainstream communism in that I don't see a revolution as inevitable. Communism will only happen with the cooperation of the majority. So likely never. But just because it's unattainable doesn't mean it shouldn't be attained.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- But just because it's unattainable doesn't mean it shouldn't be attained. WTF? Acei9 20:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- REDSREDSREDSREDSREDSREDS!!!!!! Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- (EC) Fact-value distinction. For a specific example, even though we will likely never eliminate hunger, most of us would agree that hunger should be eliminated.
- Brxbrx, it helps when formulating economic policy to kick idealistic dreck like "justice," "equality," and "unethical principles" to the curb and focus on empirical observations instead. When you consider that most of the world's functioning welfare states, as well as the states with the lowest Gini coefficients, were/are capitalist, and that the first labor law brought in by communists involved shooting anyone who went out on strike, that should ring some alarm bells when it comes to your notions of what economic systems are capable of. ListenerXTalkerX 21:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I'm certainly not in favor of shooting anybody.--"Shut up, Brx." 23:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, thank God for that. An armed Brxbrx would be disastrous. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am a pacifist--"Shut up, Brx." 02:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, for what it's worth - and amazingly since on this site I've rarely got the time of the day for him/her - I'm right by Comrade Brx. I hold an official role in the Party. --Llegar a las estrellas¿Dígame? 08:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am a pacifist--"Shut up, Brx." 02:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, thank God for that. An armed Brxbrx would be disastrous.
- Well, I'm certainly not in favor of shooting anybody.--"Shut up, Brx." 23:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- REDSREDSREDSREDSREDSREDS!!!!!!
- But just because it's unattainable doesn't mean it shouldn't be attained. WTF? Acei9 20:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Even if capitalism could somehow provide for everyone, the very way it functions will lead it to change towards further inequality. Even if the mores of capitalism were somehow accounted for, it exists in accordance with unethical principles. Greed and competition are no basis for a just society.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Communism may well never happen" No shit it won't. It's to idealist, dear Brx. --Mikal Harass Follow 20:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Brx is a communist? Bullshit. Acei9 20:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- ListenerX is aware of my proclivities.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Back to that video...[edit]
I love the way Mrs. Romney is dressed in her riding kit at 0:52, clearly indicating that she has no connection whatsoever with the common people (or "bootless and unhorsed" as J.P. Donleavy calls them). --Horace (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think she pick out her outfit for the video. And horseback riding in and of itself doesn't signify rich asshole status. She's known to be out of touch for a number of other reasons, like... (partially) owning a horse, having a number of homes, and driving multiple high end cars--"Shut up, Brx." 02:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Can I become admin/get demoted?[edit]
Here is an article that I have written, proving I am not a vandal. Ilya Ehrenburg Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 00:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- We require payment first. RationalWiki accepts currency in the form of wooden buffalo nickels and goat sacrifices. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I thought that was Conservapedia. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 02:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- As I understand it, asking for a demotion means there is an automatic 2 week stand down, in addition to any other requirements. --DamoHi 03:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Current rates are $200 for sysop, $1000 for moderator (renewable 6 monthly).
ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 07:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Shit, I haven't paid my dues for two elections. How long before Trent's hired goons show up at my doorstep? Blue (is useful) 07:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, so that's how we are plugging the funding gap... --Llegar a las estrellas¿Dígame? 08:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nah, that's just how Trent pays for the hired goons. They don't come cheap. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
Methinks it is a Weasel 15:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nah, that's just how Trent pays for the hired goons. They don't come cheap. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
- Ah, so that's how we are plugging the funding gap... --Llegar a las estrellas¿Dígame? 08:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Shit, I haven't paid my dues for two elections. How long before Trent's hired goons show up at my doorstep? Blue (is useful) 07:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Current rates are $200 for sysop, $1000 for moderator (renewable 6 monthly).
- As I understand it, asking for a demotion means there is an automatic 2 week stand down, in addition to any other requirements. --DamoHi 03:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I thought that was Conservapedia. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 02:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
"The unforeseen consequences of dropping 2 nukes on a country..."[edit]
Watch at your own peril. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- President John Henry Eden had a solution to this sort of thing. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 03:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Alan Jones[edit]
This will probably mean squat to everyone here except the Australians, but I just noticed that Alan Jones has no page here at RW. I tend to think he merits a page, but it's open to discussion.
For interested observers, Alan Jones is the Australian version of Rush Limbaugh, except possibly even more repulsive. Anyway, after making jokes about the recent death of the father of the Australian Prime Minister, he is now on the receiving end of a consumer backlash (leading to the loss of 70 advertisers from his radio show) - which he has characterised as "cyber-bullying". Sydney Morning Herald - Alan Jones points finger at cyber bullies VOXHUMANA 22:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Horrid little fellow. --Horace (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think that including more content not related to the U.S. or UK is a good idea. Fan death
comes to mind. I'm slowly working on a page about a conspiracy theory which is politically very significant in Poland: User:Tweenk/Smolensk sabotage. --Tweenk (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think that including more content not related to the U.S. or UK is a good idea. Fan death
- (ec) Apparently he has just unleashed on Mercedes Benz on air, calling them "gutless" for bowing to public pressure and withdrawing their advertising. Now I'm no PR specialist, but surely unleashing your venom on a major advertiser would normally be considered a bad idea? @Tweenk, good point. VOXHUMANA 00:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- What is very interesting about Alan Jones is that for all his conservatism and his frothing at the mouth, he holds a position that is slightly unique, he's not a raging homophobe. Part of the reason for this is that he is gay. DamoHi 01:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- He unleashed on M-B because they took away his Merc - it was part of the sponsorship deal - David Gerard (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) Apparently he has just unleashed on Mercedes Benz on air, calling them "gutless" for bowing to public pressure and withdrawing their advertising. Now I'm no PR specialist, but surely unleashing your venom on a major advertiser would normally be considered a bad idea? @Tweenk, good point. VOXHUMANA 00:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
The fans again[edit]
[1] Great blog all the way through, apart from his strange habit of not finishing his
- David Gerard (talk) 05:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Because we show a divide between legitimately criticizing Islam and Islamophobia we're liberal idio
- Osaka Sun (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Seems responsibly fair and balanced but he probably should have included some criticism of the site as well.--Weirdstuff (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Dammit Weirdstuff, we're trying to act like the final scene of Sop
- Osaka Sun (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- What's this "we" business Kimosabe?--Weirdstuff (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was wondering, who was that masked m 12:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- What's this "we" business Kimosabe?--Weirdstuff (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I thought it was just me th
- Lily Inspirate me. 07:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Seems responsibly fair and balanced but he probably should have included some criticism of the site as well.--Weirdstuff (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- "They are an outhouse trying to be a thinking Parisian salon" should be one of the random quotes on our homepa
- Balaam (talk) 09:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- RationalWiki: The wiki with added Candleja
- - David Gerard (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- "The holy appointed protectors of science"
- "...In your face, pretentious assholes that claim to be the."
- "Written by people that aren’t certified in their respective fields."
- "Google shills on behalf of them because they are “smart” and “intellectual”"
- "Pseudo-intellectual quackery at its finest."
- "Oh RationalWiki, you’ll never stop being a total joke for us REAL rational and insane people"
- ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 13:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Got to love lunatics on the
- pathetic 15:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Another shout[edit]
Our scientific storkism article just got linked from Why Evolution Is True. Lily Inspirate me. 07:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
More Tebow-zania[edit]
Oh yay. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Now what would it mean if the Jets were to somehow amass 666 total yards? Sam Tally-ho! 19:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I kinda feel sorry for Tebow. Ya, I know hes a bit of an annoying evangelical, but he seems to legitimately become a good QB, and all this shit orbiting around him can't be good for that. --Revolverman (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- He may be an inspirational QB, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that he's "legitimately become a good" one. His rating from last season's under 75. Sam Tally-ho! 22:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I meant more trying to get better then rather being good right now. All this shit has to be bad for trying to hone skills. --Revolverman (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- He may be an inspirational QB, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that he's "legitimately become a good" one. His rating from last season's under 75. Sam Tally-ho! 22:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I kinda feel sorry for Tebow. Ya, I know hes a bit of an annoying evangelical, but he seems to legitimately become a good QB, and all this shit orbiting around him can't be good for that. --Revolverman (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
It's that time of year[edit]
Ah yes, Halloween approaches, and a new season of The Walking Dead is just around the corner. Because of this I've been reading about Zombies, starting with the RW article on the matter. This brought me to this gentleman, who wrote a book called Braaaiiinnnsss!: From Academics to Zombies, which is a collection of essays by rationalists in various fields basically asking "how would your field respond to this?" This got me thinking: how would the irrationalists respond? The obvious ones I can think of are that religious organizations (especially the fundies) would probably blame this all on gods punishment, and say that the truly faithful will be spared. New Ageists will probably start talking about this is because of disconnection with the Earth, or some other crap, and Quantum Woo promoters will come up with some "cure" and/or "prevention" based on some bullshit and say that it's all because of quantum flux, or whatever. But, how would other woo spinners react?--Logic and Empricism (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Putting a question mark into your name because "interesting people like it" is perhaps one of the most pretentious things I've ever seen. pathetic 19:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- His university lists his name without the question mark,[2] which makes me wonder about the "yes, it's really part of my name" thing. Of course it could just be those pesky bureaucrats out to thwart him. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- You guys are missing the point.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, welcome to RationalWiki! --Revolverman (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Somehow this seems like something that RWers would jump all over.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't want to second-guess "woo spinners" because invariably that would lead to just developing a straw man argument of what they believe. If you want to put it to people to see what they'd say, I'm sure it would produce the same result irrespective of their particular beliefs, specifically: "seriously weird shit is happening, let's try not to die". bomination 08:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't want to second-guess "woo spinners" because invariably that would lead to just developing a straw man argument of what they believe. If you want to put it to people to see what they'd say, I'm sure it would produce the same result irrespective of their particular beliefs, specifically: "seriously weird shit is happening, let's try not to die".
- Somehow this seems like something that RWers would jump all over.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, welcome to RationalWiki! --Revolverman (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- You guys are missing the point.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- His university lists his name without the question mark,[2] which makes me wonder about the "yes, it's really part of my name" thing. Of course it could just be those pesky bureaucrats out to thwart him. Wëäŝëïöïď
Can we have a whip-round?[edit]
If we can rustle up $3m we could get Einstein's handwritten thoughts on God and the Bible, now available on eBay.
“”The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
|
Генгисevolving 10:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused. Why didn't the seller go to Sotheby's or a similar auction service? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- They did, and the auction service are handling it through eBay. See the Auction Cause logo at the bottom. Even Sotherby's worked with eBay for a while. WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 19:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- They did, and the auction service are handling it through eBay. See the Auction Cause logo at the bottom. Even Sotherby's worked with eBay for a while. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Columbus Day clip art[edit]
All criticisms about being a genocidal conqueror aside, anyone see a problem with the results of this Google image search? BMcP (et al) should get this right away. Here's the answer if you can't figure it out. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I get it... the ship is missing its radar antenna. --2.39.39.47 (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I immediately spotted that the mistake involved telescopes. I wrongly thought the mistake was that they're not much use if you hold them up to your ear.--Spud (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Roch Theriault article[edit]
I'm thinking about making an article on Roch Theriault (batshit insane cult leader) but I never made a wiki article, only short edits and corrections. Any advice, tips, and such? I kinda want to do it mostly myself since my dad actually met him when he was in Gaspesie, and he's from near where I live. Oh, and I'm bilingual so I can easily handle the original french sources and will probably translate the article to the french RW. Frullic (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Go for it! We'll help you along the way if you need some assistance. Sam Tally-ho! 03:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you wish, you can create it in your userspace, on User:Frullic/Roch_Theriault (or anywhere else under User:/Frullic/ for that matter). The search button at the top of all pages wouldn't find it, and it is considered impolite for others to edit it, unless you invite them to. Once you're happy with it, you can ask for it to moved into article-space. CS Miller (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Help" is your friend. Scream!! (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you're not au fait with MediaWiki's syntax, then WP's Wikipedia's article creation guides are useful (or press "edit" on any page to see how that article has been created). However, we are happier with less formal, snarkier prose, rather than WP's NPOV. CS Miller (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm used to making small anonymous edits and I'll have all the guides open and I was planning on using an already existing article on a cult leader as a template. I'm just trying to understand his theological views, as in what makes him different from other seventh day adventists. Frullic (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you're not au fait with MediaWiki's syntax, then WP's Wikipedia's article creation guides are useful (or press "edit" on any page to see how that article has been created). However, we are happier with less formal, snarkier prose, rather than WP's NPOV. CS Miller (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Help" is your friend. Scream!! (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you wish, you can create it in your userspace, on User:Frullic/Roch_Theriault (or anywhere else under User:/Frullic/ for that matter). The search button at the top of all pages wouldn't find it, and it is considered impolite for others to edit it, unless you invite them to. Once you're happy with it, you can ask for it to moved into article-space. CS Miller (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Traffic Spike[edit]
The blog informs me that we are having a big traffic spike. We're going to need to keep things going, so I'm making a donation right now. Anyone with me? I invite you to brag about it, here.--
talk 21:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I dropped a hint on the offending page, but as it missed the main spike it was probably too late. May catch a few casual readers, though. narchist 22:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Christpedia[edit]
I am looking to gather a team of writers to create a new comprehensive encyclopedia to combat the atheist and liberal bias of New Conservapedia. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 03:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thats nice--Mikal Harass Follow 04:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would be Happy to Help.--Tolerance (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- Take your time. There's No need to hurry back. Lily Inspirate me. 07:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- http://christpedia.wikinet.org/wiki/Main_Page
- Welcome to Christpedia! A Christian encyclopedia upon the internet! Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 17:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Take your time. There's No need to hurry back. Lily Inspirate me. 07:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would be Happy to Help.--Tolerance (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Invisible Children Strike Again[edit]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Z_QsMdSCpNU You know, I'd be a little more sympathetic to them if they'd allow comments and votes for the video.Ryantherebel (talk) 23:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's surprising they don't allow them; those comments and votes are what save the children! But seriously, they're probably afraid of the opinions of those who made fun of the slacktivists who so enthusiastically promoted the Kony stuff. Sam Tally-ho! 23:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- More like they are afraid of the people they tricked into promoting them for KONY who then realized Invisible Children was a sham after the efforts of the Visible Children blog and others outed the questionableness of the whole organization. People get angry when they are made to feel like morons after being suckered in with a sentimental video only to find out the money they sent probably won't be going to help anybody but the filmmakers in making more films. It is some of the angriest, yet most fruitful variant of education. The whole creator freakout thing probably didn't help make them satisfied with the cause either. And yet there's still a functioning chapter at my university? Will wonders never cease? ±
KnightOfTL;DRwalls of text while-u-wait 04:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- One of the slides they play on the TVs in one of my university dining commons is one for Invisible Children. It originally gained so much support that it's bound to remain popular at least for a little while longer. Sam Tally-ho! 05:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- "The TVs in one of my university dining commons", call me an old fogey but there's just so much wrong in that. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 06:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think there's still a chapter at my university too. I'm honestly a bit skeptical that people outside the tumblrverse and blogosphere got much in the way of the truth about Invisible Children, even after the creator freakout incident. Blue (is useful) 06:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Most people I talked to about Inv. Children knew about the founder guy losing his shit on the side of the road, but nothing about just how corrupt the group was. Thats the thing, the breakdown was strange/funny, but also easily forgivable (and VERY spin-able) --Revolverman (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Still see shirts at LSU, fliers pop up throughout BR. ТyBother me 13:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I still see fliers and stickers around my workplace. At least one person in the area is still actively supporting them, as they get defaced and/or torn down pretty quickly but keep re-appearing. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 13:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Still see shirts at LSU, fliers pop up throughout BR. ТyBother me 13:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Most people I talked to about Inv. Children knew about the founder guy losing his shit on the side of the road, but nothing about just how corrupt the group was. Thats the thing, the breakdown was strange/funny, but also easily forgivable (and VERY spin-able) --Revolverman (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think there's still a chapter at my university too. I'm honestly a bit skeptical that people outside the tumblrverse and blogosphere got much in the way of the truth about Invisible Children, even after the creator freakout incident. Blue (is useful) 06:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- "The TVs in one of my university dining commons", call me an old fogey but there's just so much wrong in that.
- One of the slides they play on the TVs in one of my university dining commons is one for Invisible Children. It originally gained so much support that it's bound to remain popular at least for a little while longer. Sam Tally-ho! 05:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- More like they are afraid of the people they tricked into promoting them for KONY who then realized Invisible Children was a sham after the efforts of the Visible Children blog and others outed the questionableness of the whole organization. People get angry when they are made to feel like morons after being suckered in with a sentimental video only to find out the money they sent probably won't be going to help anybody but the filmmakers in making more films. It is some of the angriest, yet most fruitful variant of education. The whole creator freakout thing probably didn't help make them satisfied with the cause either. And yet there's still a functioning chapter at my university? Will wonders never cease? ±
Evil, but hawt confirmed?[edit]
Explains the 'dumb blonde' stereotype. Would like to see how the men pan out. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Reminds me of this.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I knew I was on to something. --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 18:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Romney, pro abort?[edit]
Romney has now come out as being pro abortion. (ok, in fairness, pro access to abortion). This man changes colors depending on the day of the week. --
Godotrien ne marcherait 03:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I believe his Wednesday color is orange. Sam Tally-ho! 03:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe he wants to get into the Guinness Book for "Man taking the most political opinions in the least amount of time"? --K. (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the future of American political activism![edit]
Sadly not The Onion Smedley (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- What? Have the hordes of young pinkos who descended on Wall Street just a year ago vanished into thin air, never to be a part of that future? ListenerXTalkerX 04:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Assessing WP credibility[edit]
Study shows People with positive Wikipedia attitude better at assessing credibility. Skeptics tend to tar everything on WP with the same brush. People with a positive overall attitude tend to discriminate more. Pashley (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I take it that you are using "discriminate" in a positive sense?--Weirdstuff (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
"Financial Astrology" and Mahendra Sharma[edit]
What fresh woo fuckery is this? (Warning, prepare your brain for new-age financial woo scams.)
Do we want an article on him? Do we care? He's got a lovely fake discount on the book, because it was $152 but it's on offer right now for $39, WOW L@@K. His "Predictions that came true" page is a list of boasts with no references even to his own primary sources to back up his talk. Just "Before (x) happened, I predicted it" for a few dozen important things that the jerk did NOTHING ABOUT BECAUSE MOST OF THEM HAPPENED. Note that he claims to have made a prediction on September 9th, 2001, on US radio. Three guesses as to what he's claiming credit for predicting, and the first two don't count unless they include an eagle wrapped in a flag, shedding tears. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 06:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is there anyone who works in this particular industry that could be trusted? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- But how does his track record compare to that of non-astrological financial advisers?--Weirdstuff (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've been aware of astrology in the investment arena for many years; trying googling "stock market astrology" and you'll find a lot more charlatans out there. Of course you have no idea whether any of these forecasts are based on the standard stock-picking tools or not, and whether the astrology is a just window dressing to create a niche product for those that are eternally gullible. This line always seems to go down well in the Indian market. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 15:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- You may be ideal to start financial astrology - David Gerard (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've been aware of astrology in the investment arena for many years; trying googling "stock market astrology" and you'll find a lot more charlatans out there. Of course you have no idea whether any of these forecasts are based on the standard stock-picking tools or not, and whether the astrology is a just window dressing to create a niche product for those that are eternally gullible. This line always seems to go down well in the Indian market.
- But how does his track record compare to that of non-astrological financial advisers?--Weirdstuff (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Got a spare £82.65 to burn?[edit]
Ah, academia. Balaam (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, crap! Clicking on that link has probably just changed my Amazon profile in a way that I most definitely did not want.--Spud (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Something I read today[edit]
"What are ascension codes? Why do we need them, and how are they transmitted? To begin with, one needs a simple definition of the words "ascension" and "codes." One definition for "ascension" is internal alchemy, the raising of the harmonics of one's DNA field to its highest potential. This shift in frequency results in a crystalline state, which allows one to move from the third dimension of reality --duality-- to less dense realities of unity and consciousness. "Codes" are light or unique mathematical and geometric instructions received within the circuitry of quantum DNA field. The codes have specific qualities of the divine Creator such as love, truth and wisdom which become bio-informational signals to activate the divine, immortal blueprint."
And its gets better... Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh hey its online here. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like new-age spirituality woo mixed with buzzwords from theoretical physics and biology. I feel stupider after reading that. I'd ask how far out of touch with reality you have to be in order to buy that load of nonsense, but I know better. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 22:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- How do people make this bullshit up? Do they really believe it or is it something cobbled together after a night on the piss? ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 02:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's not especially hard. When I was in high school I could spend hours pursuing stream-of-consciousness psuedophilosophical bullshit. (I still have a copy of some of my weirder ramblings. At the time I wrote it, I wanted to call my out-of-state brother in the middle of the night because I thought it was so profound it had to be shared.) Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's why kids need to be locked away until they are fully-formed adults and not given access to votes, alcohol or the Internet. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 02:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I don't know. When I was a college freshman (in the Ordovician period) we'd have these long "philosophical" discussions after a few beers. We'd debate things like whether the dorm wall really existed or if it was only a part of our conception of the universe. Of course everybody would get up at the end and go through the door instead of trying to walk through the wall, unless perhaps they had a lot of beers. I think of it as an essential but mercifully transitory growth stage though for some people it never passes. Doctor Dark (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's why kids need to be locked away until they are fully-formed adults and not given access to votes, alcohol or the Internet.
- It's not especially hard. When I was in high school I could spend hours pursuing stream-of-consciousness psuedophilosophical bullshit. (I still have a copy of some of my weirder ramblings. At the time I wrote it, I wanted to call my out-of-state brother in the middle of the night because I thought it was so profound it had to be shared.)
- How do people make this bullshit up? Do they really believe it or is it something cobbled together after a night on the piss?
- Looks like new-age spirituality woo mixed with buzzwords from theoretical physics and biology. I feel stupider after reading that. I'd ask how far out of touch with reality you have to be in order to buy that load of nonsense, but I know better. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 22:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Binary Calculator[edit]
Is anyone sufficiently knowledgeable in this field, and would like to give me a run through? I know how to make this work in theory, but in practice, Im stuck142.22.16.52 (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- A "binary calculator" is a computer. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Or more accurately, the arithmetic logic unit, is what I want. Something that can add, subtract, multiply and divide, please142.22.16.52 (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- What in particular are you having trouble with? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Addition is done by using a full-adder (Ain, Bin, and CarryIn, giving Output and CarryOut), one for each bit of the values you want to add (8 needed to add two 8 bit values). Subtraction is done by inverting B and setting the initial carry-in.
- Multiplication is done by shift-and-add, like long multiplication. Division is done similarly.
- This ignores such tricks as fast-carry look-ahead, but the idea is the same. CS Miller (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think this might be the second or third time some random IP has posted a "do my homework for me" thread here and then never bothered to follow up. Is this some obscure way of trolling or what? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 08:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, CS Miller. I do respond, normally, Jeeves, just that Mr/Ms. Miller answered my question quite excellently.66.183.41.215 (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- What in particular are you having trouble with? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Or more accurately, the arithmetic logic unit, is what I want. Something that can add, subtract, multiply and divide, please142.22.16.52 (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
21 inch double-yellow lines[edit]
Council paints double-yellow lines about a foot long. Silly? Ridiculous? Well, actually, if you read beyond the first two paragraphs it makes a lot of sense. If someone parking in the twenty-minute zone hung their arse into the residents area preventing a resident from parking, they'd go NIMBY mental. If you were parked on this spot, you'd either be a) parking in a pay-and-display area without a ticket or b) intruding on a restricted residential parking area - so would be liable for a parking fine anyway. But, you know, don't expect The Bottom Half of the Internet to get that far and process it through their brains before leaving their spittle everywhere. moral 16:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- There is something about car ownership that turns ordinary people into massive arseholes. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
More love[edit]
The Galileo gambit gets a mention in response to more insanity from the AVN. --41.132.52.28 (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
PETA vs. Pokémon[edit]
Arceus damn it. --70.36.130.115 (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Team Plasma in the real world, ladies and gentlemens. --AmazingTechnicolorCheeseWedge (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- But Pikachu's sprite in Pokemon Yellow was always so happy. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh PETA. They could have been smart, and pointed out the strange slave mentality in Pokemon, in that most pokemon are basically living WMDs that could easily shrug off any sort of human control, but chose not to. --Revolverman (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- But Pikachu's sprite in Pokemon Yellow was always so happy.
Do you have any animal rights organisations in the states that actually does stuff useful for animals?AMassiveGay (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- You know, I heard that the head of PETA is just a nihilist who believes in "death being the great equalizer" or something. Explains their 94% kill rate. --AmazingTechnicolorCheeseWedge (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Racists owned with their own logic[edit]
http://blog.sashaweb.net/?p=20
I wrote this entry as a humorous way of explaining why racists have remained racist when in general, people are becoming less racist. Part of the inspiration came from a piece I read that was written last century that used racist logic to explain why anyone who committed or supported lynching was an uncivilized barbarian.
Please let me know what you think.
Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 03:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- what is this i dont even --2.39.39.47 (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- A similar argument I've made with Fascists is that if Social Darwinism is true, then it applies to ideologies as much as people and states, and WWII proved once and for all that Liberalism is superior to Fascism, therefor Fascism comes to the conclusion that Fascism is inferior to Liberalism--Logic and Empricism (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- That was one of the reasons for the success of denazification. The Nazis proved to the Germans that the Allies were superior since they were stronger. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 05:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I see that you like harassing Nazis and racists. Would you be interested in some sort of collaborative anti racist action? Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 05:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Already do.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- A similar argument I've made with Fascists is that if Social Darwinism is true, then it applies to ideologies as much as people and states, and WWII proved once and for all that Liberalism is superior to Fascism, therefor Fascism comes to the conclusion that Fascism is inferior to Liberalism--Logic and Empricism (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Veep debate[edit]
Anyone watching? Biden doing pretty well so far. Acei9 01:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Biden can't keep a straight face, and Ryan can't answer simple questions. No one will win this one.
- Interesting comment from Matthew Morrison though, that he'd apologize for the burning of Qur'ans. May upset a lot of wingnuts. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Watching right now, with her indoors. She thinks Biden shouldn't laugh so openly at Ryan's bullshit. I see it differently. I will be interested to see a tally of the amount of time each one spends with his mouth open. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Both of them are smirking like prepubescent teenagers. The problem is Biden's more noticeable. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Biden is kicking his ass. He and Obama should switch jobs. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- So far Ryan is long on feelgood buzzwords and short on specifics. One or two heartwarming anecdotes about his family, or about some soldier he talked to once, won't make up for that. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Ace here; I am digging Biden right now. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Ace here; I am digging Biden right now.
- So far Ryan is long on feelgood buzzwords and short on specifics. One or two heartwarming anecdotes about his family, or about some soldier he talked to once, won't make up for that. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Biden is kicking his ass. He and Obama should switch jobs. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Both of them are smirking like prepubescent teenagers. The problem is Biden's more noticeable. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Guys, Ryan just said his pro-life views are based on "reason and science." Everybody drink! Osaka Sun (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- What will Ryan bring to the vice presidency that no one else will? "Honesty." Simultaneously laughing and face-palming feels so awkward. Sam Tally-ho! 03:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- The thing I cannot fucking believe is that Ryan was dumb enough to relate a secondhand anecdote involving a car crash to Joe Motherfucking Biden. That was a supremely unwise decision on his part. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I thought Biden did marvelously. Point for point refutation, dismissal and derision of GOP bullshit. I'm not sure how moderates would take it, though. And for republicans, maybe a little more sugar could have helped the medicine go down, but I don't think it matters. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- The thing I cannot fucking believe is that Ryan was dumb enough to relate a secondhand anecdote involving a car crash to Joe Motherfucking Biden. That was a supremely unwise decision on his part.
More British Free Speech Stuff[edit]
A man has just received a jail sentence for breaking the Malicious Communications Act. He did so by posting jokes on Facebook about April Jones, a Welsh girl who went missing and who has been the subject of a lot of media attention.
A couple of weeks ago a discussion started about the state of freedom of expression in the UK in the context of a man who was arrested for making harsh remarks about British soldiers killed in action. It was consigned to a forum graveyard, but during the course of the discussion I argued that even if you're not that passionate about freedom of speech, the way the British legislation and judiciary have approached the matter has made for a confused legal climate and resulted in cases like this, where the defendent couldn't, in my opinion, have reasonably expected to be arrested, given that there was no proximate 'victim' of his comments, which he simply posted on what is essentially a semi-public forum.
Am I the only Brit here a bit nervous as to the reach British speech laws are being given? Grumblejaws (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, freedom of speech means nothing if it is not foremost the freedom to offend. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 16:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think it was user:Bad Faith who was defending our speech laws. I put it to him/her: Has the man in this case crossed a line that was in anyway drawn clearly? Grumblejaws (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've said everything that I need to say, I think. It seems that Bad Faith isn't interested in further sharing his/her views on the topic. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I think it was user:Bad Faith who was defending our speech laws. I put it to him/her: Has the man in this case crossed a line that was in anyway drawn clearly? Grumblejaws (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a massive believer in the 'all speech is free speech', but a jail sentence for that is ridiculous. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've found some of what Matthew Woods wrote, it's at April Jones: Matthew Woods jailed over explicit Facebook comments. Frankly I'm not going to lose any sleep over that abhorrent troll.
- What does concern me is that, for example atheist comments comparing religious belief to psychosis are likely to be abhorrent to believers. Then judges who either believe some religion or judges who support the establishment might start handing out prison sentences. In a democracy I should be able to argue rationally about how unreasonable I think religious belief is. If I ever get into trouble over what I write I'll contact LIBERTY. I advise other UK citizens who are concerned about what they or their friends write to check out that website. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- There have been people arrested in the U.K. for proclaiming the unreasonableness of certain religious beliefs, but I am not sure if any have been found guilty yet. ListenerXTalkerX 18:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- I know about Harry Taylor. Do you know about other cases? if you know other cases please give me info so I can research the cases. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- The cases I was thinking of are listed at Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. ListenerXTalkerX 18:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- The cases I was thinking of are listed at Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.
- I know about Harry Taylor. Do you know about other cases? if you know other cases please give me info so I can research the cases. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Frankly I'm not going to lose any sleep over that abhorrent troll...What does concern me is that, for example atheist comments comparing religious belief to psychosis are likely to be abhorrent to believers." This is exactly the sort of attitude that makes me tear my hair out. Why shouldn't somebody you find distasteful be entitled to the same speech protection you expect for yourself? It's especially jarring that after making clear your apathy towards this guy, you more or less state the implications of taking such an approach. Grumblejaws (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- From Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006: the actual intent of the law was [...] to close a loophole in the country's racial hatred laws. A few years before, Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, had been arrested for incitement to racial hatred for calling Islam a "wicked vicious faith." . See, this is my problem, because I say that regularly. I also say the same of Catholicism, and most other christian sects as well. I say it because it's true - religion poisons everything. Apparently this particular law was explicitly passed to make illegal the speech quoted above (assuming the RW page is accurate), and I dare anyone to attempt to justify that. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Woods was arrested for his own safety after about 50 people descended on his home." ...So a lynch mob came looking for him? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- God I hope not. I hope that lynch mobs forming spontaneously in response to blasphemy and merely offensive speech was confined to only a few "third world" countries like Pakistan. I don't understand the purpose of including that in the news reports without further clarification. It's almost like they want to say he was in actual danger from a lynch mob. I don't currently believe it, but if so, I think there are serious problems with British culture, respect for the rule of law, etc. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- There have been people arrested in the U.K. for proclaiming the unreasonableness of certain religious beliefs, but I am not sure if any have been found guilty yet.
- What does concern me is that, for example atheist comments comparing religious belief to psychosis are likely to be abhorrent to believers. Then judges who either believe some religion or judges who support the establishment might start handing out prison sentences. In a democracy I should be able to argue rationally about how unreasonable I think religious belief is. If I ever get into trouble over what I write I'll contact LIBERTY. I advise other UK citizens who are concerned about what they or their friends write to check out that website. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
There's no clear guidance which websites we can and can't access, if we get things wrong we risk jail, see Nottingham Two. Proxima Centauri (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- What a farce. 12 weeks in the clink for a few tasteless jokes on his own FB page? Violent crims don't even get that here in Blighty... Are the police going to be asking sickipedia for a list of UK IP addresses? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 18:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
- Someone else has been imprisoned for speaking his mind, Barry Thew jailed for T-shirt mocking PCs' deaths. Is Barry Thew bad? Alternatively was he reacting to corruption and abuse of power by the police? Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- No he wasn't reacting to police corruption. he was a dick AMassiveGay (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Storm in a tea cup on that one. He was sentenced to four months for the t-shirt [i]to be served concurrantly with 4 months for cannabis[/i]. In short that four months did absolutely nothing to him as he would already have been in prison for those four months. The judge knew this when he made the sentence, making the sentence itself a rebuke to the prosecution in the same way awarding damages of £1 is. The judge, of course, had to sentence due to the guilty plea (admitting the public order offence). Neonchameleon (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Also of note
- In 2002, Harry Hammond was successfully convicted under Section 5 for holding up a sign saying that homosexuality was immoral. Some members of the public had become angry. When police were called, they arrested Mr Hammond. He was convicted and fined several hundred pounds. The High Court later upheld the conviction saying that magistrates were entitled to find the sign “insulting” to homosexuals.
- In 2008, Anthony Rollins, who suffers from autism, was arrested under Section 5 and put in handcuffs after street preaching in Birmingham because a bystander complained that he read out a Bible passage on homosexuality. Mr Rollins described the event as making him feel “anxious, shocked and very humiliated”. Police were later ordered to pay him £4,250 in compensation. 6 7
- In 2008, police officers used Section 5 to try and stop Andy Robertson from preaching in Gainsborough marketplace, claiming that people might be “offended”. He refused to be intimidated, continued preaching and was not arrested.
- In 2008, Miguel Hayworth was questioned and detained by police in Kent after preaching from a passage in the Bible that states that homosexual behaviour is sinful. He was later released and allowed to continue preaching. After intervention by the Christian Legal Centre, the police offered him compensation for false imprisonment.
- In 2010, Dale Mcalpine was arrested and charged under Section 5 because he told a police officer, who was asking him questions following his street preaching, that he believed that homosexual acts were sinful. He had not actually mentioned homosexuality in his street preaching. Mr Mcalpine later won £7,000 plus costs from Cumbria Police in settlement for a claim of wrongful arrest, unlawful imprisonment and breach of his human rights.
- Innocent Bystander (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Someone else has been imprisoned for speaking his mind, Barry Thew jailed for T-shirt mocking PCs' deaths. Is Barry Thew bad? Alternatively was he reacting to corruption and abuse of power by the police? Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Here's a pretty good Grauniad article responding to Matthew Woods' arrest. I'm heartened to see the level of dissent amongst media-types in response to the sentence. Grumblejaws (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Forumspace[edit]
Is it a graveyard? I move stuff there fairly often, and for two reasons: a) Rob is determined to be a twat and I don't want to stumble across his tripe; b) a thread has become really interesting and deserves a life of its own rather than disappearing into the archives. Only in the former case do I (sometimes) hope that it kills off the thread, and even then I don't care if others still want to continue it. Live forums are linked at the top of the saloon bar so people can see what's happening in that space. Graveyard? Only if people want it to be. SophieWilder 17:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Forum? Essentially yes, it is a graveyard. For me at least. Didn't know about the "Forum" panel at the top - I almost never go to the top of this page as I use topic links from R.C. Excellent for buryin' Rob's crap but I don't think anyone "new" is going to jump in as they might on here. Scream!! (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Forum is mostly dead, as opposed to debate-space which is dead except for trolls. ТyBother me 19:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Forum is currently mostly edited by Dirk Steele. Unfortunately he's a psychiatry denier and doesn't seem to understand the site's purpose. I don't think this is the site for him. Frullic (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Forum is mostly dead, as opposed to debate-space which is dead except for trolls. ТyBother me 19:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
GMO Labeling Proposition[edit]
So, the state of California has a referendum on this November's ballot, Proposition 37.
The "executive summary" is that it would require all foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMO's) to be labeled as such. The labeling would only be required in California, of course, but I've heard progressive commentator Jim Hightower argue that, because California is such a large market, it would effectively require manufacturers to label everything nationwide. (Hightower considers that a good thing.)
Now, as someone who is mostly a skeptical, rational type, I doubt there's any reasons to be concerned about GMO's. On the other paw, I think people who are concerned about them have the right to know about them, but then on still another hand, why encourage irrational fear?
Thoughts, my rational friends? I'm genuinely unsure how I feel. (Of course, being a Marylander, not a Californian, I, as my Dad would say, "ain't got no dog in this fight.") MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 11:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- GMOs have no proven negative health effects that are different from the original plants. I predict this will start a Label Panic (they labeled it, it must be aberrant or bad!) but also might spread awareness of exactly how much of our food comes from Monsanto and other GMO-making corporations that take advantage of the heavily subsidized mass food industry. I have no qualms about GM food, but I do frown disapprovingly at the business tactics of what such corporations do with the technology they develop, and the resulting strategies farmers must undertake to meet their demands. So it might be easier then to avoid indirectly giving Monsanto, etc. one's money. I dunno really. ±KnightOfTL;DRjust shut up already 12:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Do they have environmental effects? Do they have effects on how farmers can control their crops/maintain a degree of freedom from agribusiness giants? (I really have no idea) Also, I would rather see more, lot less, info on my food labels. GMO? Where was it grown? What companies were involved in the supply chain? All relevant to consumers. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well just because there have been no proven health risks with GMO doesn't mean that there won't be any in the future. In principle I'm not against GMOs but it depends on what modification is being done. If it is to promote shelf life, nutrient content, improve flavour or ward off pests and diseases then that's fine but I'm less happy about making them more resistant to pesticides because they are more likely to have been heavily dosed. Like any technology, genetic modification can be used for good or bad, so what is needed is good governance and regulation rather than outright banning. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 14:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well just because there have been no proven health risks with GMO doesn't mean that there won't be any in the future. In principle I'm not against GMOs but it depends on what modification is being done. If it is to promote shelf life, nutrient content, improve flavour or ward off pests and diseases then that's fine but I'm less happy about making them more resistant to pesticides because they are more likely to have been heavily dosed. Like any technology, genetic modification can be used for good or bad, so what is needed is good governance and regulation rather than outright banning.
- Do they have environmental effects? Do they have effects on how farmers can control their crops/maintain a degree of freedom from agribusiness giants? (I really have no idea) Also, I would rather see more, lot less, info on my food labels. GMO? Where was it grown? What companies were involved in the supply chain? All relevant to consumers. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
If it's just a small text label plainly saying "This product contains GMO content," I wouldn't care. If their intention is to make a tobacco-style warning message, fuck it. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- It seems more like a political thing, given what Monsanto has been doing to reduce access to seeds and basically "patent" food. In the best case scenario, GMO food is no different or less healthy than non-GMO food except that the plants do not procreate, thus adding to Monsanto's (and others') bottom lines at the expense of farmers. Californians may want to know that their grocery dollars are supporting farmers (or, supporting farmers more) if they spend it on non-GMO or organic foods. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't know the percentage threshold for "GM" versus "non-GM" in Prop 37, but if it's meant to signify any GM content the label would go on all foods produced in the U.S. containing maize or soybean (which, given the prevalence of things like corn syrup, soybean oil, etc. would be very nearly everything). According to USDA data 88% of U.S. corn (maize) and 93% of U.S. soybeans are GM. Given commingling in the supply chain it's a virtual certainty that all of the small percentage remaining would contain at least some admixture of GM. If you set the threshold somewhere above zero, then perhaps food grown from non-GM seeds could avoid being labeled. Doctor Dark (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding the Monsanto argument, which seems to be quickly turning into the main thrust of the anti-GMO movement. The situation where just one company captures 90% of the market in a breakthrough technology is a direct consequence of GMO paranoia. The difference in oversight between the fairly unpredictable 'traditional' breeding methods (e.g. radiation mutagenesis) and DNA recombination is staggering. You can sell random mutants immediately after you breed them without really knowing what you are selling, but when you use DNA recombination and actually know what you're going to get, you have to spend 5-10 years and millions of dollars dealing with excessive regulatory bullshit which is supposed to convince people that your plant did not magically become toxic, and EVEN THEN there are still many who say this is all a conspiracy to secretly poison them. This creates an extremely high barrier to entry, preventing any startup company or public sector entity from bringing a new crop variety to market. Monsanto simply filled a niche that was created by anti-GMO activists. Some interesting links: [3] [4] (I recommend pages 12-14 from the second link in particular). --Tweenk (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's very interesting! I never thought about it that way. Whenever you create a taboo or a scare or what-have you, I guess others ARE dissuaded away from the field, leaving whoever is already there to continue unchallenged. And monopolies can be terrible for quality control, ethics, and other things... ±KnightOfTL;DRgarrulous en guerre 23:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's very interesting! I never thought about it that way. Whenever you create a taboo or a scare or what-have you, I guess others ARE dissuaded away from the field, leaving whoever is already there to continue unchallenged. And monopolies can be terrible for quality control, ethics, and other things... ±
Journalistic integrity[edit]
Remember the 'Wentegate' scandal that was WIGOed a few days ago?
Guess what "punishment" they gave her. Absolutely nothing, and now all comments are moderated to make sure she doesn't look bad. No suspensions, no apologies. And this is Canuckistan's newspaper of record. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment moderation is actually a pretty controversial thing going on. For example: somebody dies in a car crash and someone writes a story on the accident. it goes online and suddenly you have a bunch of comments screaming unpleasant things like HE DESERVED TO DIE THE FAGGOT and such. But if you turn off the comments, it restricts discussion. There's really no right answer, but I want to know more about the circumstances they moderated comments. Because sometimes it's to keep trolls, spam, and shitty comments out... and others, depending on the paper, it's to prevent criticism and opposing views. As a journalism student I have mixed feelings about the issue, but not on this story; they shouldn't moderate the comments for critical content, though they may want to moderate comments to keep ASS FAG ASS FAG posts out... Plagarism is serious bsns and should never be condoned or supported. :( ±KnightOfTL;DRjust shut up already 19:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank goodness RationalWiki doesn't have comment moderation, or Ace would never get to call someone an ASS FAG ever again. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is being an ass-fag an issue here? I would hate to think that I'm contributing to a website that has a stance on the private sexual behavior of its contributors. Please clarify, and let me know if I'm somehow disqualified from editing here because of what I may or may not have done or may or may not be doing sometime in the future. Thanks! OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank goodness RationalWiki doesn't have comment moderation, or Ace would never get to call someone an ASS FAG ever again.
E-petition[edit]
On the off chance that it might do some good - http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/35313 - re female genital mutilation. Come on you Brits. Innocent Bystander (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- why is this even a petition ? mutilation bad. There no female equivelent to cicumcision for boys is there ? Hamster (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- O_o Female circumcision is vile. It's better known as Female genital mutilation (a clitoridectomy being a common part of the most /minor/ type) and is far, far worse than male circumcision. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- They're not directly comparable so it's futile to compare, and certainly bringing up the one in a discussion of the other is both derailment and retarded. Anyway, FGM is already illegal in the UK, an e-petition isn't going to magically fix everything. So no, it's not going to do anything. It can't. What do you expect, you're asking the government to make something illegal that is already illegal? d hominem 19:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not a big fan of e-petitions and slacktivism in general--if you care enough, write a letter to your MP/Congresscritter, it'll have a way better effect--but it looks like if you actually read the petition, it's about actually putting more effort into enforcing the law that already exists. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- Official UK government ePetitions aren't completely useless, if they get over 100k signatures it's definitely noticed - David Gerard (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- So far, though, it's just a petition to get an official response from the government as to why they won't do it. bomination 00:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Over 100K signatures can trigger a debate in the House of Commons but writing/emailing your MP as well is helpful as it lets them know that something is an important issue with their individual voters. Recently I got an individual reply from my MP who had taken up an issue with the secretary of state, was unhappy with his response and kept badgering him. When several MPs are involved it can lever up the issue. As Mondy said, FGM is already illegal I can't (at the moment) see what the authorities can do without the involved parties taking some initiative. It needs women who have been mutilated to come forward and complain so that something like the Savile abuse claims can trigger some action. I'm under no illusions that it will be difficult as it would probably require action against close family members. What is required is good education and for me this is why religious schools should be outlawed as these "cultural" traditions can hide under the auspices of religion. The more that our youth is educated in a secular and multicultural manner the better chance they stand of being enlightened and informed. For me the issue of religious schools means that they can end up being monocultural, especially in areas where there is a high concentration of immigrants from one geographical area. By accommodating the larger churches on this we end up with educational ghettos where the likes of creationism can gain a foothold. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 00:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Over 100K signatures can trigger a debate in the House of Commons but writing/emailing your MP as well is helpful as it lets them know that something is an important issue with their individual voters. Recently I got an individual reply from my MP who had taken up an issue with the secretary of state, was unhappy with his response and kept badgering him. When several MPs are involved it can lever up the issue. As Mondy said, FGM is already illegal I can't (at the moment) see what the authorities can do without the involved parties taking some initiative. It needs women who have been mutilated to come forward and complain so that something like the Savile abuse claims can trigger some action. I'm under no illusions that it will be difficult as it would probably require action against close family members. What is required is good education and for me this is why religious schools should be outlawed as these "cultural" traditions can hide under the auspices of religion. The more that our youth is educated in a secular and multicultural manner the better chance they stand of being enlightened and informed. For me the issue of religious schools means that they can end up being monocultural, especially in areas where there is a high concentration of immigrants from one geographical area. By accommodating the larger churches on this we end up with educational ghettos where the likes of creationism can gain a foothold.
- So far, though, it's just a petition to get an official response from the government as to why they won't do it.
- Official UK government ePetitions aren't completely useless, if they get over 100k signatures it's definitely noticed - David Gerard (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not a big fan of e-petitions and slacktivism in general--if you care enough, write a letter to your MP/Congresscritter, it'll have a way better effect--but it looks like if you actually read the petition, it's about actually putting more effort into enforcing the law that already exists. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- They're not directly comparable so it's futile to compare, and certainly bringing up the one in a discussion of the other is both derailment and retarded. Anyway, FGM is already illegal in the UK, an e-petition isn't going to magically fix everything. So no, it's not going to do anything. It can't. What do you expect, you're asking the government to make something illegal that is already illegal?
- O_o Female circumcision is vile. It's better known as Female genital mutilation (a clitoridectomy being a common part of the most /minor/ type) and is far, far worse than male circumcision. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Nobel Peace Prize[edit]
I thought it was supposed to go to no more than three people a year, not half a billion. Sam Tally-ho! 19:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- To be fair, it's not the first time that they've awarded the prize to an organization rather than an individual. Still somewhat odd, though. --Hojini hao 19:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I thought you couldn't get any more stupid than giving it to Obama. boy was I wrong.--GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 19:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- The only thing positive about this is that euroskeptics are in full whambulance. Other than that...what were they drinking? Osaka Sun (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm reminded that a good chunk of the EU was blowing shit up in Libya just last year... This one and Obama's are indeed very similar; in both cases it seems like the Nobel Committee is trying to 'remind people of peace' and prevent any future hostilities. In Obama's case, the "War on Terror", and in the EU's case, any kind of blowup over finances and debt. Though, honestly, Obama's is still worse. The EU itself at least genuinely works for peace, even when many of its member states do not. Q0 (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, it's almost as bad as the times they gave it to a terrorist and a warmongering statesman. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Honestly, I really think Kissinger's was a social experiment. Give the most terrible, corrupt, empty shell of a human being the Nobel Peace Prize and see if he changes his ways. Gigantic failure, for those keeping score at home. Q0 (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- But, but, America's honor in Vietnam! :" Seriously, the Nobel peace prize has been mostly a crock since the beginning. They gave it to Theodore "Big Stick" Roosevelt in 1906, Woodrow Wilson in 1919, Cordell Hull in 1945, Kissinger, Obama... Stopped clock: they have on rare occasion given it to a worthy recipient, such as the American Friends Service Committee, Lech Walesa, and Norman Borlaug. Secret Squirrel (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Teddy got that award for his successful brokering of peace between two big countries that were actually at war, the Russians and Japanese. It is probably one of the most legitimate Peace Prizes to have been bestowed.--talk 01:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Make that Teddy "I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one" Roosevelt. Of course, the Spanish-American War, Panama Canal imperialism, the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine don't matter. Neither did Cordell Hull's convincing FDR to send the Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany back to Europe, or his defense of the Vichy regime against what he condescendingly called the "so-called Free French". Kissinger of course negotiated the Vietnam peace agreement. Is it a purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize to reward those who are otherwise reprehensible but do one great thing? Secret Squirrel (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Teddy was a long way away from being "otherwise reprehensible." He was a formative figure in American conservationism, food safety, and progressivism. While he was also an unapologetic American imperialist, that was a sin of the times. And he remains the only President to have ever fought and killed a cougar with a knife.--talk 02:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ah but we are talking about the Nobel Peace Prize, and on the topic which the prize is about T.R. was indeed "otherwise reprehensible". Unapologetic American imperialism wasn't just a sin of the times, it is a problem - some would say the problem - to this day, and T.R. was in many ways one of the main people responsible for getting the U.S. into that role it has had since. His brands of progressivism (see Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism) and environmentalism (Gifford Pinchot's wise-use philosophy as opposed to John Muir's wilderness philosophy) are also suspect but that's another issue. Secret Squirrel (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Teddy was a long way away from being "otherwise reprehensible." He was a formative figure in American conservationism, food safety, and progressivism. While he was also an unapologetic American imperialist, that was a sin of the times. And he remains the only President to have ever fought and killed a cougar with a knife.--
- Make that Teddy "I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one" Roosevelt. Of course, the Spanish-American War, Panama Canal imperialism, the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine don't matter. Neither did Cordell Hull's convincing FDR to send the Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany back to Europe, or his defense of the Vichy regime against what he condescendingly called the "so-called Free French". Kissinger of course negotiated the Vietnam peace agreement. Is it a purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize to reward those who are otherwise reprehensible but do one great thing? Secret Squirrel (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Teddy got that award for his successful brokering of peace between two big countries that were actually at war, the Russians and Japanese. It is probably one of the most legitimate Peace Prizes to have been bestowed.--
- Okay, more than rare occasion I'll concede. The list below - Leymah Gbowee, Liu Xiaobo et al; the International Campaign to Ban Landmines; Adolfo Pérez Esquivel. I can't tell if this is a case of tokenism to keep up a semblance of credibility after so many dubious awards. Heads of state and secretaries of state of superpowers should be automatically disqualified from the prize. And the EU? What a sick joke. Didn't many of the EU member states just get finished participating in the U.S. occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan? Secret Squirrel (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- That was NATO and individual agreements of the states with the U.S. and had nothing to do with the EU. No country was obligated to participate in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because of EU membership, because the EU does not have a military alliance component. --Tweenk (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- But, but, America's honor in Vietnam! :" Seriously, the Nobel peace prize has been mostly a crock since the beginning. They gave it to Theodore "Big Stick" Roosevelt in 1906, Woodrow Wilson in 1919, Cordell Hull in 1945, Kissinger, Obama... Stopped clock: they have on rare occasion given it to a worthy recipient, such as the American Friends Service Committee, Lech Walesa, and Norman Borlaug. Secret Squirrel (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Honestly, I really think Kissinger's was a social experiment. Give the most terrible, corrupt, empty shell of a human being the Nobel Peace Prize and see if he changes his ways. Gigantic failure, for those keeping score at home. Q0 (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, it's almost as bad as the times they gave it to a terrorist and a warmongering statesman.
- I'm reminded that a good chunk of the EU was blowing shit up in Libya just last year... This one and Obama's are indeed very similar; in both cases it seems like the Nobel Committee is trying to 'remind people of peace' and prevent any future hostilities. In Obama's case, the "War on Terror", and in the EU's case, any kind of blowup over finances and debt. Though, honestly, Obama's is still worse. The EU itself at least genuinely works for peace, even when many of its member states do not. Q0 (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- The only thing positive about this is that euroskeptics are in full whambulance. Other than that...what were they drinking? Osaka Sun (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I thought you couldn't get any more stupid than giving it to Obama. boy was I wrong.--
A diversion, in which one editor expresses his displeasure with the Nobel Literature and Peace prizes in general, and another questions him on it.[edit]
- At least the science prizes are still good. Although I don't know if the literary and peace prizes ever were...--"Shut up, Brx." 21:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- The hell is wrong with the literature prize?--talk 01:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- [5]--"Shut up, Brx." 01:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- And? Sure, there have been some controversies, but really surprisingly few considering the longevity of the prize.--talk 01:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- And nothing. I simply don't approve of the existence of the Nobel prizes for peace and literature. It's a flawed institution.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Do you oppose all such literary prizes, or specifically the Nobel? How about the Pulitzer or Booker? talk 02:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I oppose prizes in general, but the Nobel prize for literature I hold in special contempt for its high profile--"Shut up, Brx." 03:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting. I would think that, say, the Academy Awards or something would be worth more scorn--in terms of people paying attention to the outcomes, and actually consuming the product that's being consumed, the Nobel prize for literature, and lit itself, has nothing on the AAs and the movies. EDIT. I also wonder about opposing the peace prize just because it has its flaws--surely there are folks who deserve who've won it, in recent years, at that. Why throw out the baby with the bathwater?OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Oh, yeah, I don't like those either. But the Nobel Prize is supposed to mean something. That's how it's perceived. The science prizes I don't find so bad because the money can be used as a grant.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting. I would think that, say, the Academy Awards or something would be worth more scorn--in terms of people paying attention to the outcomes, and actually consuming the product that's being consumed, the Nobel prize for literature, and lit itself, has nothing on the AAs and the movies. EDIT. I also wonder about opposing the peace prize just because it has its flaws--surely there are folks who deserve who've won it, in recent years, at that. Why throw out the baby with the bathwater?OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I don't much agree with you and consider prizes to be a way to both recognize lifelong achievement or individually extraordinary work, as well as enabling artists to support themselves, but at least that makes sense in terms of opposition - although why you didn't just say that, rather than linking to controversies related to the Nobel specifically, I don't know.--talk 03:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm a lazy debater. Maybe I'll return tomorrow with more gusto. In the meanwhile, I'm going to try and sleep off this headache. I'm probably not going to revisit this topic, because I thought it through a long time ago and I forgot most of my reasoning. If that's what interests you, you can go ahead and call me wrong and disproven or whatever. If you're just up for an interesting discussion, you're barking up the wrong brxtree--"Shut up, Brx." 03:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I oppose prizes in general, but the Nobel prize for literature I hold in special contempt for its high profile--"Shut up, Brx." 03:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Do you oppose all such literary prizes, or specifically the Nobel? How about the Pulitzer or Booker?
- And nothing. I simply don't approve of the existence of the Nobel prizes for peace and literature. It's a flawed institution.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- And? Sure, there have been some controversies, but really surprisingly few considering the longevity of the prize.--
- [5]--"Shut up, Brx." 01:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- The hell is wrong with the literature prize?--
Our conversation about this year's Peace prize resumed...[edit]
- I'm really disappointed with this. The way I see it, the Nobel committee can and should be using the prize as a way to draw public attention to activists who could benefit from said attention--giving the prize to people like Leymah Gbowee, Tawakkol Karman, Liu Xiaobo and Wangari Maathai is itself an activist act. The best thing that could happen from my point of view is that upon hearing the name of the Peace winner, is that it's totally unfamiliar to me and I then have to sit down and start reading a bunch of stuff on struggles and issues that I didn't know enough about. Then I know the committee did its job. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Annd here's a choice cartoon that echoes the discussion here Q0 (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- What a crock of shit. Acei9 02:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I do not think you can have a 'peace prize' and it not be subjective and controversial AMassiveGay (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Context, people. The EU has been up for the peace prize many times before. But the context has always been the devastation of two world wars and the spread of democracy after the fall of the iron curtain. The EU has been, for all its other faults, instrumental in helping keep the peace in Europe. While we might not agree with the award, it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as absurd. IMHO. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- The question is why at this moment. The euro's still at risk of breaking up, and nationalist parties are growing nearly everywhere. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe that explains why--an attempt by the committee to refocus attention on the EU's basic mission/stated core values OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- The question is why at this moment. The euro's still at risk of breaking up, and nationalist parties are growing nearly everywhere. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Context, people. The EU has been up for the peace prize many times before. But the context has always been the devastation of two world wars and the spread of democracy after the fall of the iron curtain. The EU has been, for all its other faults, instrumental in helping keep the peace in Europe. While we might not agree with the award, it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as absurd. IMHO. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I do not think you can have a 'peace prize' and it not be subjective and controversial AMassiveGay (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- What a crock of shit. Acei9 02:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Bear in mind that the EU has brought almost unprecedented stability to Europe, which has wartorn and consisted of countries that were constantly at each others throats until the best part of the way through the 20th century. That's quite literally thousands of years of the region being a complete and utter fuck up. The EU treaties effectively have made international travel, communication and trade within Europe possible as well as free and easy. All-out war between any of the civilised countries within Europe is almost impractical, unthinkable and impossible right now. bomination 21:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- as opposed to the uncivilized countries in Europe? OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 21:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- All I'm saying is, if the EU falls we might be eating our words. If crisis ends amicably in the next few years it'd be more worthy then. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding this: "a good chunk of the EU was blowing shit up in Libya just last year"
- That was NATO, not the EU. Membership in the EU does not include any kind of military alliance with anybody (which is on purpose).
- If the Nobel Peace Prize was given to NATO, that would be a supreme act of hypocrisy. Giving it to the EU is far more justifiable than giving it to Obama. The EU is basically a successful experiment in promoting peace by engineering social, economic and political conditions that make war unprofitable, and this was its stated goal from the very beginning. It wasn't about half-heartedly trying to emulate the U.S. in an effort to create a competitive superpower. If this concept doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, I don't know what does. --Tweenk (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Greek section of RationalWiki[edit]
Are you guys in for a greek version of RationalWiki? But we need more greek speaking volunteers than me. Greek Rationalist (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- We don't even have a German or Spanish version so Greek is probably a long way down the line. Some articles have been translated into French but I don't really care for having a random assortment of pages in a medley of languages in what is basically an English-language site otherwise there are problems with categories, templates and wiki-linking. If you really care about getting a particular language version then you'll need to be the one who recruits the editors. Генгисmutating 00:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Actually you might like to look at RationalWiki:Languages if you want to just translate a few pages. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 10:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- Actually you might like to look at RationalWiki:Languages if you want to just translate a few pages.
Are there any Greek members in this site besides me? — Unsigned, by: Greek Rationalist / talk / contribs
I think about things like this too much[edit]
I attended the Maryland Renaissance Festival yesterday. One of the performers I saw was a stage hypnotist.
Enjoyable show, but I had this thought... if he was actually doing things like that in the Middle Ages, wouldn't he have been, oh, tried for witchcraft? MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 15:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I can't say for sure. In some medieval plays, there are sequences where the audience is invited to join in a "demon-summoning".
- I know the passion plays and such are pretty depressing, but I wish a Renaissance Faire would put on a short version of Everyman. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I avoid RenFairs out of the fact i'm worried id be pointing out to often what wasn't actually "Renaissance". Or pissing people off by pronouncing the word in that sorta snobbish kind of way. --Mikal Harass Follow 04:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Oh, you mean the Re-nay-sance..." Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- The Maryland Renn Fest, at least, jokes about it's lack of connection to the actual Renaissance. We got there before it opened, and the performers were entertaining the crowds at the gate. One of them mentioned the roasted turkey legs on sale at numerous food stands... and then pointed out that the turkey was, of course, native to North America and you shouldn't be able to find them in Henry VIII's England. (Henry VIII is always King for the MD Festival. They switch the queens around from year to year...) MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 11:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Reminded of Big Bang Theory ep where Sheldon goes as Mr Spock, pointing out inconsistencies with a tricorder. Scream!! (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, but the navigator William Strickland had already introduced the turkey to England before 1542 and Henry VIII didn't die until 1547, so it is not necessarily an anachronism. How common the turkey was at that time is another matter, but Strickland was granted a coat of arms which depicted a turkey in 1550. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 12:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, but the navigator William Strickland had already introduced the turkey to England before 1542 and Henry VIII didn't die until 1547, so it is not necessarily an anachronism. How common the turkey was at that time is another matter, but Strickland was granted a coat of arms which depicted a turkey in 1550.
- Reminded of Big Bang Theory ep where Sheldon goes as Mr Spock, pointing out inconsistencies with a tricorder. Scream!! (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- The Maryland Renn Fest, at least, jokes about it's lack of connection to the actual Renaissance. We got there before it opened, and the performers were entertaining the crowds at the gate. One of them mentioned the roasted turkey legs on sale at numerous food stands... and then pointed out that the turkey was, of course, native to North America and you shouldn't be able to find them in Henry VIII's England. (Henry VIII is always King for the MD Festival. They switch the queens around from year to year...) MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 11:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Oh, you mean the Re-nay-sance..."
- I avoid RenFairs out of the fact i'm worried id be pointing out to often what wasn't actually "Renaissance". Or pissing people off by pronouncing the word in that sorta snobbish kind of way. --Mikal Harass Follow 04:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
If Obama is re-elected, this company is going to fire you!!![edit]
I don't know about my fellow Americans, but this seems about as un-American as you can possibly get. Fuck the Koch brothers! When Obama is re-elected and they both have heart attacks, I will dance the night away!!! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Leave the grave-dancing to CP. I love their logic; The Koch Brothers are tacitly admitting their employees will not vote Republican. I would have just assumed that employees of Koch Industries would be in favor of policies that support the extraction industry, and would favor Romney (as somehow, people imagine Obama is not also a servant of the extraction industry). Perhaps the Kochs understand how much their employees resent them? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Earthquake[edit]
Anyone on the US East coast just feel an earthquake? DickTurpis (talk) 23:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm in the Midwest, but My Facebook feed just exploded with the same question from my East Coast friends. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Apparently there was one in Maine--Mikal Harass Follow 23:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, so much for Human. It was nice knowing him. DickTurpis (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Psh, a 4.6 is nothin'. Sam Tally-ho! 00:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Don't worry, his mannequins protected him. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know, he's an old man. His heart could give out at any time. DickTurpis (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- 4.6? That's what we use down here to stir our coffee with. On another topic, the LDS missionaries were here like all of 15 minutes ago. I quickly shooed them away. Did I waste an opportunity? Secret Squirrel (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say yes. I am one of the few people on the planet who'd actually welcome them in for a frank discussion on religion. If that ever happens I'll try to record it and post it here (that probably won't happen, I don't have the necessary equipment). Then again, I'm also the guy who wanted to get called for jury duty. DickTurpis (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Actually if I was sober I probably would have invited them in for a little debate over why the Book of Mormon is a bunch of BS, there were no golden plates, Joseph Smith was a huckster and scam artist, the Mountain Meadows Massacre and a few other choice topics. But, well, I've had a few beers and didn't really feel like chatting with them right about now. They left me a card with a photo of the Salt Lake temple. Secret Squirrel (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say yes. I am one of the few people on the planet who'd actually welcome them in for a frank discussion on religion. If that ever happens I'll try to record it and post it here (that probably won't happen, I don't have the necessary equipment). Then again, I'm also the guy who wanted to get called for jury duty. DickTurpis (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Human is always young in his heart. His liver, on the other hand... Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I felt a slight rumbling, but I didn't realize it was a quake until I saw everyone on Facebook posting statuses complaining about how everyone was posting statuses about it. Odd because nothing ever happens in Maine. «-Bfa-» 00:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- But-but lobsters! And snow! Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- So Ken was out by a day? ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 01:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- So Ken was out by a day?
- But-but lobsters! And snow!
- I felt a slight rumbling, but I didn't realize it was a quake until I saw everyone on Facebook posting statuses complaining about how everyone was posting statuses about it. Odd because nothing ever happens in Maine. «-Bfa-» 00:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- 4.6? That's what we use down here to stir our coffee with. On another topic, the LDS missionaries were here like all of 15 minutes ago. I quickly shooed them away. Did I waste an opportunity? Secret Squirrel (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know, he's an old man. His heart could give out at any time. DickTurpis (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, so much for Human. It was nice knowing him. DickTurpis (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Apparently there was one in Maine--Mikal Harass Follow 23:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- I felt a minor quake one or two hours ago, in western Massachusetts. --Abd (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The Democrats aren't completely incompetent[edit]
They can make a mean website ;-) Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Cheeky bastards. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like a rip-off of this from 2004. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 01:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- No fair, I managed to click on it and nothing happened</missing the point>--"Shut up, Brx." 01:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's pretty good... --Andynot Schlafly 01:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- No fair, I managed to click on it and nothing happened</missing the point>--"Shut up, Brx." 01:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like a rip-off of this from 2004.
Is this poll scientific? If it is we could soon be celebrating. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure you don't know what "scientific" means. Or how electoral politics works. It is completely possible for a poll to meet all the relevant methodological criteria and to be completely wrong when the ballots are counted. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Predicting the likely result of the election is premature however many people Romney has alienated. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- (Link unrelated to ongoing conversation). OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Actually I disagree that predicting the likely result of the elections is pointless. The discussion we had here was back in mid-July and almost nothing has changed, despite the talk about conference and debate bumps. From my prediction then I'd move North Carolina into Lean Romney, Virginia into Tossup, and that's about it. I would have made almost exactly the same prediction two years ago. rpeh •T•C•E• 16:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- (Link unrelated to ongoing conversation). OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Predicting the likely result of the election is premature however many people Romney has alienated. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Costume suggestions[edit]
So I might need a halloween costume for an earlier party this weekend, and I won't be ready with my main one for the following week. I'm thinking of throwing together a conspiracy theorist costume, as a tinfoil hat is pretty cheap and easy. But what do conspiracy theorists wear, other than a t-shirt with a kooky message on it? What else can do easily do to complement the hat? A bow tie? That's usually the sign of someone a little nutty. Ideas, anyone? DickTurpis (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Take a book full of paranoid ideas and stick little post-it flags on a number of pages. Your local library probably has a Glenn Beck book or two. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- T-shirt with an appropriate picture and/or slogan (e.g. "I want to believe"). If you are willing to give money to bullshit-promoters, you can buy some of their official merch (example).--ZooGuard (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC) P.S. In my defense, I skimmed your post very quickly. :( --ZooGuard (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Spray bottle full of vinegar. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really want to give money to anyone for this costume (barring a few cents to the good people at the Reynolds Co.), so buying a t-shirt is out of the question (there's actually a pretty decent chance I won't even go to this party, but want to have a costume if I do). I do own some books by Beck, Hannity, and Coulter, so that might work. I like the idea of a spray bottle full of vinegar, but I think that's a bit too esoteric. DickTurpis (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is where printable T-shirt iron-on transfers come in handy. Inkjet printer, $2 shirt, and you have something to wear once and throw away. (The transfers don't survive washing except the most ridiculously careful hand washing.) For a non-temporary version, any high-street print shop can do a one-off laser print onto a shirt - David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- That might work. Are those iron-on sheets easy to get at places like Target or something? If I do go with that what should the shirt say? "I Want to Believe" is too X-Files fanboyish. "9/11 Was an Inside Job" might work, but the only books I have to carry around are by Republicans who would only be truthers if Obama had been in office at the time. There's always something about fluoridation, I guess, but that doesn't strike me as too catchphrasey. I'll probably need a Ron Paul button. Those should be pretty easy to get. The other idea I had was going as a hipster. I'd have to find a ukelele to borrow from someone, though. DickTurpis (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I got some at Ryman's, which is a chain of stationery shops in the UK - David Gerard (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to go for a conspiracy theorist image or slogan on a T-shirt, a NWO one would probably be most effective. Something like this? or this? That and a tinfoil hat, and your costume's made. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 19:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- pfft, this is the only real new NWO shirt. --Revolverman (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you really want to look authentic, buy a plain white t-shirt for a couple dollars at a second-hand store and use a Sharpie to hand-write your crazy message (say, "9/11 was a plot by evil squirrels") for that extra green ink feeling. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 00:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ssh, don't blow our cover. Secret Squirrel (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you want a book then this is the one that I have. But if you want a scary costume why not go as a Jehovah's Witness - suit, white socks and a satchel across your chest. Or, alternatively, as a vicar or the pope. I don't know about others but they scare the living daylights out of me. Генгисevolving 08:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. If you want to go as a conspiracy theorist then you'll need some Terry Hurlbut glasses. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 08:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should hide behind a false beard as well? And refuse to eat anything as it might contain ... something....--Weirdstuff (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- The best suggestion a friend made was to get a piece of posterboard and glue the most random newspaper articles to it, with lots of red ink and colored yarn connecting them. If I do this costume I'll definitely have to do that. DickTurpis (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to go really over-the-top with the conspiracy theorist t-shirt, try "The Illuminati put flouride in my water, the UFOs are spraying chemtrails, and all I got from the reptoids was this lousy shirt". Reverend Lucifer (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- The best suggestion a friend made was to get a piece of posterboard and glue the most random newspaper articles to it, with lots of red ink and colored yarn connecting them. If I do this costume I'll definitely have to do that. DickTurpis (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should hide behind a false beard as well? And refuse to eat anything as it might contain ... something....--Weirdstuff (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. If you want to go as a conspiracy theorist then you'll need some Terry Hurlbut glasses.
- If you want a book then this is the one that I have. But if you want a scary costume why not go as a Jehovah's Witness - suit, white socks and a satchel across your chest. Or, alternatively, as a vicar or the pope. I don't know about others but they scare the living daylights out of me.
- Ssh, don't blow our cover. Secret Squirrel (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you really want to look authentic, buy a plain white t-shirt for a couple dollars at a second-hand store and use a Sharpie to hand-write your crazy message (say, "9/11 was a plot by evil squirrels") for that extra green ink feeling. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 00:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- pfft, this is the only real new NWO shirt. --Revolverman (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to go for a conspiracy theorist image or slogan on a T-shirt, a NWO one would probably be most effective. Something like this? or this? That and a tinfoil hat, and your costume's made. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
- I got some at Ryman's, which is a chain of stationery shops in the UK - David Gerard (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- That might work. Are those iron-on sheets easy to get at places like Target or something? If I do go with that what should the shirt say? "I Want to Believe" is too X-Files fanboyish. "9/11 Was an Inside Job" might work, but the only books I have to carry around are by Republicans who would only be truthers if Obama had been in office at the time. There's always something about fluoridation, I guess, but that doesn't strike me as too catchphrasey. I'll probably need a Ron Paul button. Those should be pretty easy to get. The other idea I had was going as a hipster. I'd have to find a ukelele to borrow from someone, though. DickTurpis (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is where printable T-shirt iron-on transfers come in handy. Inkjet printer, $2 shirt, and you have something to wear once and throw away. (The transfers don't survive washing except the most ridiculously careful hand washing.) For a non-temporary version, any high-street print shop can do a one-off laser print onto a shirt - David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really want to give money to anyone for this costume (barring a few cents to the good people at the Reynolds Co.), so buying a t-shirt is out of the question (there's actually a pretty decent chance I won't even go to this party, but want to have a costume if I do). I do own some books by Beck, Hannity, and Coulter, so that might work. I like the idea of a spray bottle full of vinegar, but I think that's a bit too esoteric. DickTurpis (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Spray bottle full of vinegar. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Watchlist problems?[edit]
- Moved to RationalWiki:Technical support#Blank_watchlist - please test your watchlist for problems and report any issues there. 04:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
You have to see this,,,[edit]
...well, actually, you don't. But I do heartily recommend seeing this article. Apologies for the fact that it's the DM.--
Jabba de Chops 20:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- DM or not, those are fantastic! Reverend Lucifer (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Ubuntu 12.10[edit]
Made my research database incredibly buggy and brings nothing worthwhile that's new to the game. Got up early and just finished a clean re-install of 12.04, which is a lovely OS. Serves me right for wanting the shiny thing. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- The shiny is why I've been using xubuntu. statementword 14:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Xubuntu 12.10 on this laptop, its behaviour is imperfect (the brightness controls don't work after a suspend) but just slightly more up to date than 12.04 therefore MUST HAVE LATEST SHINY. I've been running it the past month - David Gerard (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Or, more specifically to OnTheInternet's statement, serves you right for wanting the shiny thing on production machines. Well, not exactly production, but you're depending on this machine for your research. I bought a netbook (years back) so I could put Linux on it and tinker without borking my primary, very important desktop. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 16:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- ....which is exactly why I have two machines, myself. When you assume, well, you know the rest...OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- CentOS off a thumb drive. (CentOs is RedHat minus the RedHat branding.) MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 16:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm quite satisfied with Kubuntu 12.10 so far. Nice and stable kDE version, it even seems a bit more responsive than previous versions on my old PC. --2.39.39.47 (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- As I've said before, according to the Linux nerds on Slashdot, Mint is the new Ubuntu since Canonical seems hellbent on running Ubuntu into the ground. I've also heard murmurs about something called Cinnamon which according to that Wikipedia page is a GNOME 2-like Mint interface, but that's currently in development and therefore likely buggy as hell right now. --CoyoteSans (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm quite satisfied with Kubuntu 12.10 so far. Nice and stable kDE version, it even seems a bit more responsive than previous versions on my old PC. --2.39.39.47 (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- CentOS off a thumb drive. (CentOs is RedHat minus the RedHat branding.) MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 16:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- ....which is exactly why I have two machines, myself. When you assume, well, you know the rest...OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Or, more specifically to OnTheInternet's statement, serves you right for wanting the shiny thing on production machines. Well, not exactly production, but you're depending on this machine for your research. I bought a netbook (years back) so I could put Linux on it and tinker without borking my primary, very important desktop. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 16:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Xubuntu 12.10 on this laptop, its behaviour is imperfect (the brightness controls don't work after a suspend) but just slightly more up to date than 12.04 therefore MUST HAVE LATEST SHINY. I've been running it the past month - David Gerard (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
RW policy on internal links[edit]
What is it? In the Marilyn Manson article, I can likely find several possibilities. Civic Cat Talk to Civic Cat 18:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Go ahead, but bear in mind that I'll be gutting most of it soon, assuming it's decided to be on-mission--"Shut up, Brx." 19:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Before you do, you might want to check Fun:Greatest songs, liberal and conservative, The Clash, and Frank Zappa. Name me three more anti-religious artists in the US than Marilyn Manson. Civic Cat Talk to Civic Cat 19:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- While you're at it, you might check the whole category. Civic Cat Talk to Civic Cat 20:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Musicians should be placed in funspace by default, and in mainspace if the article is established as on-mission. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- While you're at it, you might check the whole category. Civic Cat Talk to Civic Cat 20:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Before you do, you might want to check Fun:Greatest songs, liberal and conservative, The Clash, and Frank Zappa. Name me three more anti-religious artists in the US than Marilyn Manson. Civic Cat Talk to Civic Cat 19:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Is there any way to fine-tune my Recent Changes page?[edit]
Can I turn some users "off"? Can I stop blocks from cluttering up RC? Can I stop pages I'm not interested in from appearing? 'Cause this current noise is making RC intolerable and undecipherable. Another option might be, you know, to cut out the nonsense. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 13:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Preferences, appearance, -whatever skin your using- custom JS, and copy some of the ones i or others have, changing the article or user names if necessary.--Mikal Harass Follow 14:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Just make up probabilities to prove your point[edit]
Someone directed me to this article about "Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible." It cites several biblical passages that supposedly represent fulfilled prophecies, along with the "probability of chance fulfillment" of that prophecy. The best part is the failure of basic mathematics in the article. It lists thirteen prophecies that have been "fulfilled" and assigns them probabilities, e.g. 10^5, 10^13, etc. Then,
Since these thirteen prophecies cover mostly separate and independent events, the probability of chance occurrence for all thirteen is about 1 in 10^138 (138 equals the sum of all the exponents of 10 in the probability estimates above).
Last time I checked, 10^a + 10^b != 10^(a + b). UPDATE: Which is completely irrelevant because it's clearly independent events he's referring to, so it should be the product of the probabilities and I'm an utter fool. However, I guess we should trust the math and the invented estimates because "the estimates of probability included herein come from a group of secular research scientists." Of course no citations are given, and the calculations behind the probabilities all rely on vague assumptions of the likelihood of events happening, e.g. "Since the Messiah is God in human form, the possibility of his being killed is considerably low, say less than one chance in 10."
- The probability of both independent events happening is equal to the product of their probabilities, not the sum. They are referring to the sum exponents when multiplying: 10^a * 10^b = 10^(a+b). Unfortunately, it's you who made a basic math fail.
- The bigger problem is that a) the probabilities are completely pulled out of their own asses without any justification at all, b) the whole exercise presupposes that the Bible is 100% reliable and the writers of the Gospels did not make up some details to make their story fit the biblical prophecies better. The claim that Bethlehem was the birthplace of Jesus is a prime example: there was no Roman census that required people to go back to their place of birth and the story of the Nativity is entirely fabricated. --Tweenk (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- After you've got someone to admit that the Genesis account is clearly two stories haphazardly bolted together, and they've begun to excuse such things and claim that obviously that stuff is unreliable oral history, but the later Bible was written within living memory, this is a good next case to look at. There are four accounts of Jesus' life left in the modern bible, and the places where they are suspiciously identical are almost as significant as the places where they contradict each other. If there had been modern sceptics about in AD 200 this stuff wouldn't have passed the laugh test, Christians as a whole then would be subject to the same ridicule as Mormons are today for having "scriptures" that are an obvious fraud. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I always that it was 99% :P Winter Whisper (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Argo[edit]
So, I saw it this morning and have to say, i enjoyed the movie. IT introduced me to a part of the Hostage crisis i didn't know about, i liked how it set itself up (compared to the constant action that was Dark Knight Rises) and i continue my assessment that it will be well received but never be anything big in terms of money. I also saw trailers for Cloud Atlas, Life of Pi, Skyfall and the bin laden movie. --Mikal Harass Follow 03:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Which one of you idiots destroyed Evidence against a recent creation?[edit]
It is utterly wrecked. What a fucking mess. Evidence against a recent creation used to be one of our best articles, now it it is clunky and embarrassing. Gonna find a good point and reload it to that... ħuman 03:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- And the day is complete here. --Revolverman (talk) 03:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- (EC)When did you last look at it when it, to your eyes, was not a mess? And what's wrong with it, beyond your usual complaints? Peter Subsisting on honey 03:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I had never seen the article before but on looking at it the writing is stilted and extremely disorganized. There's no logical flow or progression; ideas just appear, one after the other. I didn't check if earlier versions were any better in this regard. Doctor Dark (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at edit history real quick, the section you removed dates from November 2009, added by User:Interpreted. Winter Whisper (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- So, suckiness courtesy of a member of the much-ballyhooed Old Guard. Ironic. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- So, suckiness courtesy of a member of the much-ballyhooed Old Guard. Ironic.
- Looking at edit history real quick, the section you removed dates from November 2009, added by User:Interpreted. Winter Whisper (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I had never seen the article before but on looking at it the writing is stilted and extremely disorganized. There's no logical flow or progression; ideas just appear, one after the other. I didn't check if earlier versions were any better in this regard. Doctor Dark (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
WIGO voting not working?[edit]
- Moved to RationalWiki:Technical support#WIGO_voting_not_working.3F 09:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
App update[edit]
Having just got back on dry land I downloaded my iPadd app updates including The Elements ebook which now features a version of the Tom Lehrer song that was previously only in the Japanese version. This is the original with Japanese text by Angelina and Jennifer - well, mainly Angelina.
ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 12:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Exoplanet[edit]
Because I suck at writing WIGO, heres the BBC article on the discovery of a exoplanet in Alpha Centauri. Tis Earth sized but... closer then mercury is. --Mikal Harass Follow 17:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well I personally find it very excited because Alpha Centauri. Maybe because I am such a space-nerd and science fiction geek but I always dreamed of the possibility of worlds in the nearest system to us (if you don't count Proxima Centauri as a separate system), and would be profoundly disappointed if it was discovered there were none. Now we know there is at least one world. Sure its too hot for anything, but its discovery shows that worlds can orbit the individual stars in this binary system, so it makes you wonder, what other planets are there in Alpha Centauri?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- And reports are quoting the team as saying there may well be more. I can haz Project Daedalus??? --Llegar a las estrellas¿Dígame? 00:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Inertial confinement fusion rockets are still beyond our technical capabilities, but an unmanned rocket using nuclear pulse propulsion (Project Orion) could be built even with 1960s technology. The only problem is that nuclear explosions are the Great Satan, so the odds of funding any project that uses them are extremely low. --Tweenk (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- There might even be a habitable one. Peter Subsisting on honey 03:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nuclear pulse propulsion really really should be re-visited. Agreeing an amendment to the Outer Space Treaty for civilian nuclear propulsion would be a lot less complex that a lot of other negotiations, and would give us a the ability to explore nearby star systems right here and now. Project Orion was awesome (especially since it did work with exclusively existing technology to show how great "vision of the future!" advances could be made), but you have to remeber that Project Daedalus looked awesome ;) --Llegar a las estrellas¿Dígame? 07:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Inertial confinement fusion rockets are still beyond our technical capabilities, but an unmanned rocket using nuclear pulse propulsion
- And reports are quoting the team as saying there may well be more. I can haz Project Daedalus??? --Llegar a las estrellas¿Dígame? 00:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Dealing with trolls[edit]
Not the kind we get here, but the real bad guys. two reads on the subject worth your time if you haven't seen them yet. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- This might work on an idiot like this "Brutsch" creep, but the worst trolls work anonymously. They do not forge online personalities and they don't leave any sort of electronic trail. Actually, I don't frequent Reddit at all, and I'm shocked to find that they allowed a forum called "Jailbait" to exist for so long. That is some messed up shit. If it's indeed legal to post and distribute compromising images of minors, then it shouldn't be.
- I think their ought to be laws in place to protect a person's image, to let them retain rights over photography of themselves. It'd be tough to enforce on the internet, though.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- What Brx said. This guy wasn't Anonymous by any stretch. He actively forged his offline and online life together. Real trolls have thousands of usernames. --Revolverman (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- The thing that's baffling to me about reddit's response to this outing is that they have no problem outing others on reddit. It happens xcconstantly, where users track down the individuals that are insufficiently blurred in facebook posts, or whatever. They only seem to care when the outing happens offsite. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 13:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- General copyright law already covers every image a person makes. It's just Reddit is predicated on the notion that copyright is fundamentally evil, and posting underaged girls' photos is a profound act of civil disobedience. It's privilege wrapped up in moral righteousness. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Copyright law covers every image a person makes, not every image that contains them. So if someone (e.g. a partner or ex) has photos of you which they took, I think they're pretty much free to publish them as they wish (at least in copyright terms; not sure about other laws). Even when you own the copyright (e.g. photos you upload to Facebook etc.), it's basically unenforceable when there's nothing to stop someone reposting them on Reddit or 4Chan. Even if they're deleted promptly, there may well be users who've already saved them & will repost them in later threads. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 01:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- You don't have copyright over an image of you, but you do have model/likeness rights over it. Often, the only way you can give these up is by signing a Model Release Form that waives them specifically to the photographer, most free licenses don't alter these rights. So a photographer can't use your likeness for something you don't agree to, even if they took it. gnostic 21:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Model rights are fucking hard to enforce in practice, even in commercial abuse. Expensive and difficult. This is why people build twisted rubbish into copyright licenses, because copyright is so much easier to enforce - David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes... my understanding is that under U.S. law, every individual who is not a public figure has the right to control the commercialization of their likeness. I used to work for a Fortune 500 (retail) company that, in order for pictures of employees to appear in any form (even "so-and-so likes this product!" signage) required a multi-page signed agreement to avoid potential lawsuits. The thing is, this isn't really about intellectual property law, it's about being a decent human being. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 14:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Model rights are fucking hard to enforce in practice, even in commercial abuse. Expensive and difficult. This is why people build twisted rubbish into copyright licenses, because copyright is so much easier to enforce - David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- You don't have copyright over an image of you, but you do have model/likeness rights over it. Often, the only way you can give these up is by signing a Model Release Form that waives them specifically to the photographer, most free licenses don't alter these rights. So a photographer can't use your likeness for something you don't agree to, even if they took it.
- Copyright law covers every image a person makes, not every image that contains them. So if someone (e.g. a partner or ex) has photos of you which they took, I think they're pretty much free to publish them as they wish (at least in copyright terms; not sure about other laws). Even when you own the copyright (e.g. photos you upload to Facebook etc.), it's basically unenforceable when there's nothing to stop someone reposting them on Reddit or 4Chan. Even if they're deleted promptly, there may well be users who've already saved them & will repost them in later threads. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
- General copyright law already covers every image a person makes. It's just Reddit is predicated on the notion that copyright is fundamentally evil, and posting underaged girls' photos is a profound act of civil disobedience. It's privilege wrapped up in moral righteousness.
- The thing that's baffling to me about reddit's response to this outing is that they have no problem outing others on reddit. It happens xcconstantly, where users track down the individuals that are insufficiently blurred in facebook posts, or whatever. They only seem to care when the outing happens offsite. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 13:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- What Brx said. This guy wasn't Anonymous by any stretch. He actively forged his offline and online life together. Real trolls have thousands of usernames. --Revolverman (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The modern Bond...[edit]
Now doesn't fuck everything that moves, I see. Who's seeing Skyfall? Osaka Sun (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'll probably see it from the library or something, given the movie i see in theaters for the last part of the year is shaping up to be Argo. plus I don't really like new bond as much as Connery and Moore's bond. --Mikal Harass Follow 05:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I can see preferring Sean Connery over Daniel Craig, but did you just say you like Roger Moore better than Daniel Craig? Angry mobs have formed over less... MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 11:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've always been a Moore guy, but probably because he was the first Bond I saw, so it stuck. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Of course, I think the best thing about the Daniel Craig Bond is Dame Judy Dench as M (and yes, I know she started playing M pre-Craig.) The scene where Bond is telling her he found out her real name is priceless. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 11:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Utter one more syllable and I'll have you killed." --PsyGremlinSiarad! 12:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I just love the fact she plays M as essentially despising Bond but knowing she has to keep him around because, like the lady sang, "nobody does it better." MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 13:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ugh, that's the worst of the Bond songs. And I'm going to have it stuck in my head all fucking day now. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Worse than "Do You Know How Santa Gets Around"? Secret Squirrel (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you go all the way back to the books then Bond was a chain smoking alcoholic (60 per day plus two bottles of vodka). It's no wonder the women fell for him in droves. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ian Fleming also wrote Bond as believing homosexuals couldn't whistle. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 23:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- David Niven was the best Bond :D Winter Whisper (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ian Fleming wrote Bond as an overwhelmingly obvious Mary Sue, but a Mary Sue who had virtually no redeeming features beyond the fact that he was good at killing people. The overt racism of a lot of the books is kind of depressing, but Fleming never really portrays Bond as an admirable character, which was something that kind of got lost in the transition to the screen. It is interesting reading the books and observing the sheer number of scars Bond accumulates as they go on. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 14:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)who has clearly read too much Fleming
- I remember reading my first Bond novel before the movies, when I was about 9 years old; the reason being that I went into hospital to have my tonsils removed and I recall the doctor on his ward round being surprised at the book by my bed (Goldfinger). I suppose I should remember where I was when I heard that JFK had been shot - I probably just saw it on the news - but I definitely remember hearing when Fleming died; I was on holiday, camping in the Bois de Boulogne and some British teenagers in the next tent had a transistor radio with them (they used to be a big deal). But things were different back then and the perceived sexism and racism was nothing out of the ordinary. Of course, the movies are each products of their time so trying to separate them is rather academic, but having been a Bond fan (much to the disgust of my missus) I think that Craig has done a wonderful job, but Connery probably gets the most votes because he was the first and thus established the genre. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 15:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- I remember reading my first Bond novel before the movies, when I was about 9 years old; the reason being that I went into hospital to have my tonsils removed and I recall the doctor on his ward round being surprised at the book by my bed (Goldfinger). I suppose I should remember where I was when I heard that JFK had been shot - I probably just saw it on the news - but I definitely remember hearing when Fleming died; I was on holiday, camping in the Bois de Boulogne and some British teenagers in the next tent had a transistor radio with them (they used to be a big deal). But things were different back then and the perceived sexism and racism was nothing out of the ordinary. Of course, the movies are each products of their time so trying to separate them is rather academic, but having been a Bond fan (much to the disgust of my missus) I think that Craig has done a wonderful job, but Connery probably gets the most votes because he was the first and thus established the genre.
- Ian Fleming wrote Bond as an overwhelmingly obvious Mary Sue, but a Mary Sue who had virtually no redeeming features beyond the fact that he was good at killing people. The overt racism of a lot of the books is kind of depressing, but Fleming never really portrays Bond as an admirable character, which was something that kind of got lost in the transition to the screen. It is interesting reading the books and observing the sheer number of scars Bond accumulates as they go on. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 14:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)who has clearly read too much Fleming
- David Niven was the best Bond :D Winter Whisper (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ian Fleming also wrote Bond as believing homosexuals couldn't whistle. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 23:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- I just love the fact she plays M as essentially despising Bond but knowing she has to keep him around because, like the lady sang, "nobody does it better." MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 13:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- "Utter one more syllable and I'll have you killed." --PsyGremlinSiarad! 12:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I can see preferring Sean Connery over Daniel Craig, but did you just say you like Roger Moore better than Daniel Craig? Angry mobs have formed over less... MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 11:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)