RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive193

This is an archive page, last updated 19 August 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

What the fuck, Olympics?

Wrestling is cut from the Olympics. That is messed up. Wrestling is the oldest sport in the world. It's a significant part of the foundation of the Olympic games. And they're cutting it. Pisses me off--"Shut up, Brx." 13:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably so they could include baseball; Olympics are all about the money these days.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely no interest in wrestling but agree that an Olympics that excludes wrestling and keeps beach volleyball is entirely about the money. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

My impression was that one problem with wrestling was that the sport itself doesn't take the Olympics seriously. Maybe I'm wrong about that? e.g. the IOC is a lot happier with the sprint races (if you're the fastest man in the world, the Olympics are the place to prove it) than with soccer (if you want to prove you're the world's best soccer team then you'd do that at the World Cup). (Modern) Pentathlon was on the block too because more or less nobody does that outside of the Olympics, being the world's best pentathlete is not so much more impressive than being Employee of the Month. I'm glad Pentathlon got a reprieve because personally I find it fascinating, but I can see why there was concern that it's not very uh, Olympic. Tialaramex (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The first Olympics was only a race, roughly the similar to a half mile race. So, it's unfair to say wrestling is the oldest sport. That aside, events get put into the Olympics because enough countries able to send a lot of competitors. If wrestling was cut, I'd guess it's because the interest in sending athletes dropped, same with the Pentathlon. And that the wrestling world doesn't consider the Olympics a big deal is a big part of why. It has a lot of publicity, so former Olympic wrestlers can make bank afterwards (keeping in mind that you're a professional athlete based on sponsorship, and you cannot be pro in the Olympics). But the rules are a lot different and basically "safer" then outside of the Olympics, so the level of competition is fairly low. This is also true with Boxing, and very few former medalists in the Olympics do well in pro-Boxing, where being a medalist in the Olympics is generally considered a detriment. And a lot of team sports have the same issue: they have their own special competition that draws all the big names, so being in the Olympics is not that big a deal, or even bad for your career overall. The only real exception is races, and that's really only because the running bodies that are equivalent to FIFA in football/soccer doesn't have a single race for their big time competition, but 6, and that includes the Olympics. --Token Conservative (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"keeping in mind that you're a professional athlete based on sponsorship, and you cannot be pro in the Olympics." Is that rule unique to wrestling? A lot of pros compete in other Olympic sports. Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 15:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The Olympics are supposed to be only for amateurs: ie non-professionals. The OIC tends to get abused for political purposes by different countries to do things like conveniently ignore drug use and being a professional. If there are any pros in the Olympics, they're basically there because of cheating.--Token Conservative (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not really true anymore. The amateur rule is in name only. Many Olympians are full time athletes, who make their livelihood from their sport (and endorsements)--"Shut up, Brx." 16:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It's still part of the official rules though. So basically, cheating. Remember the episode of American Dad where Roger says the 'Miracle on Ice' team was doping, and the IOC official says they knew it, but that Reagan paid them to look the other way? That may or may not be based on a true story, but that does happen all the same.--Token Conservative (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll find the no pro rule stopped in 1988. Pros have been able to legally compete at the Olympics since then. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Except in Boxing, although "amateur boxing" is now essentially a pro sport in its own right, as odd as that sounds. X Stickman (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, this is now an issue of great political concern involving liberals, political correctness and feminism. Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 15:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to see Andy get into a boxing match with a female boxer, since female boxing is apparently a "joke sport"--Token Conservative (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow. This story may actually be getting more attention than Pope Benedict XVI's resignation. --"Shut up, Brx." 16:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies

Sorry for not announcing my pending retirement here till now. Things have been busy here in Rome, what with getting the wireless network set up so I can tweet from the... a-hem... Papal throne.

Any suggestions on where I should retire to? PopeBenedictXVI (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Mecca. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 14:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you nuts? I'm an old man from Germany, the hot weather there would kill me! PopeBenedictXVI (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You should definitely join Conservapedia. Vulpius (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I e-mailed ASchlafly about that once. He said he'd only let me have an account if he could borrow the Popemobile. I told him no dice. PopeBenedictXVI (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Special Announcement

This entire website is now declared infallible. PopeBenedictXVI (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a question for you PopeBenedictXVI. When you resigned we were advised that there was a 600-year-old precedent in respect of Popes retiring. If Popes are going to base their actions on such 600-year-old precedents, can we expect the next Pope to have several mistress, father numerous children, re-establish the inquisition and invade Italy to protect the Papal States? We should be told!--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 17:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Feh, more likely to see changes in those rules than anything about birth control. PopeBenedictXVI (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

State of the Union

Okay, so noted imbecile Ted Nugent is going to be a guest at tonight's State of the Union address. (Of course, it was a Congressman from Texas who invited him.)

Now, this was a man who made death-threat like statements about the President, and he gets invited to a speech given by that President. By contrast, Dixie Chicks merely criticized the previous President, and they were attacked by many of the same people who almost masturbate to everything Nugent says.

On s lighter note, it's the State of the Union drinking game. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 17:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ron Paul Sues His Supporters

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/10/ron_paul_sues_supporters_for_control_of_ronpaul_com/

This is rich.Ryantherebel (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that the icing is that he's suing them through the UN--"Shut up, Brx." 01:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

So much for supporting a free, open and market-driven internet. --Seth Peck (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh Ron. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That headline takes an already deliberately misleading explanation and hypes it up until it bares no resemblance to reality. Ron Paul isn't suing anybody, and he isn't going through "the UN" except in the same sense that you make telephone calls via the UN or buy decent cheese through the UN.

RonPaul.com is in .com, a global top level domain, that is, a TLD that's not intended to be exclusively controlled by a sovereign nation. In the 1990s when people who don't have beards became aware of the Internet, disputes over such names often lead to lawsuits, and then to the frustrating discovery that lawsuits as well as being expensive and painfully slow, don't have international reach.

So a process called the Uniform Domain-name Dispute Resolution process was created. All gTLD registrars (which you might think of as companies which "sell" domain names) agreed to the process, and since you can't own the names (a lot of the people with beards lived in Berkeley) if the company you "bought" it from accepts a resolution against you then you lose control of it. The UDRP is a WIPO process, because no national agency would have authority to impose such rules on the international members or have a credible threat to use against them if they broke the rules. And WIPO is technically a UN agency, for what little that's worth, but individual disputes essentially go to a dispute service, like Judge Judy only not on TV, WIPO doesn't play any part in individual disputes, let alone the UN.

If Ron wants RonPaul.com and the present "owners" don't want to give it to him, UDRP is the only available process. He can't open by suing them (or maybe I should say, "shouldn't" because anyone can sue) because the courts don't like having their time wasted with trivia that ought to be settled through some existing process. He has some sort of shot with the UDRP because the current owners offered to sell, which a UDRP will tend to conclude is bad character (pro-tip: if anybody asks if they can have rationalwiki.org, do not say "Yeah, for a million dollars", this can be used against you) and because it's clearly his name right there in the domain. What actually happens now depends on whether RonPaul.com have time and money, and whether the site has made sure it tells visitors that it's independent and not run by Ron. 81.2.89.113 (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll admit I don't really understand most of what you just wrote. However wouldn't you say that Ron Paul's attempt to take the domain name off the people who have been unbelievably loyal and enthusiastic supporters is a bit of a slap in the face? I don't think I've ever seen a more passionate bunch of supporters than those of Ron Paul and it seems like he is biting the hand that fed him. Damo^Hi 11:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If I had passionate, loyal and ethusiastic supporters I expect they'd give me the domain name that exactly matches my own fucking name for free. My guess here is that the people controlling ronpaul.com were expecting a big pay day from this since the primaries began. That wouldn't exactly be a huge surprise for libertarians, right? Buy something scarce that you hope will become necessary, charge through the nose once somebody realises they need it, and then act all hurt when the grown ups step in and make everybody play by the rules. 81.2.89.113 (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Having now actually read the entire complaint (displacement activity? I blame RW) I will add two further comments. One, Ron really has involved WIPO itself, as an arbitration service, he didn't have to do that (there are currently three other services, and one is a US outfit) and perhaps it reflects poorly on him to do so, since I'm not a Ron Paul supporter I can't say. Two, Ron's claim is that the ronpaul.com domain is actually registered by a speculator who is leasing it to the website. So it's perfectly possible that the "passionate" fans at ronpaul.com aren't the same people who want the money. The original offer letter talks about how sad it would be to break in-bound links and people's bookmarks, the very reason why people who are serious about the web would never freely transfer away their domain, but then it goes on to suggest this means it is worth $250 000 to do it anyway. They surely can't have taken any legal advice before writing that, because they might as well have written "please initiate a UDRP for a few thousand dollars and enter this as evidence of bad faith rather than pay us a dime". 81.2.89.113 (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep it classy, Ron. Seriously though, given the whole freedom report thing and this it's a wonder anyone takes him seriously... Mr. Argent (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Things that make me think maybe the libertarians are right.

Local government decides who can live in my house. Such intolerable bullshit by power-hungry morons. Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 01:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

On the plus side, a judge is going to take the City Counsel's balls and stick on a pike because this is such a violation of the first amendment that I bet local judges are already writing their papers on the soon forth-coming challenges. --Revolverman (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. That doesn't look like the sort of decision a local council can make. --Damo^Hi 02:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Libertarianism implies laissez-faire economics (more or less). What you're looking for is The Harm Principle. You can keep the good things of socialism while throwing out otherwise baseless moral impositions that run afoul of the harm principle. Also first amendment's freedom of association might make an interesting challenge. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

In extreme cases, I think this is fair enough - though the case in question is fucking absurd. However, in cases where you have a slum landlord squeezing 20 people into a house, then yes, there are legitimate health and safety issues and the council should be able to intervene and stop it. --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 02:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That falls under Building and Fire code laws though, and the umbrella of safety. This... I have no clue what the justification of it --Revolverman (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)was.

@TheEgyptian, if they can manage to say with a straight face that this is a fire code thing or some other safety regulation, then I might give this a chance. As is, it appears to be moralizing, simple and true, and that is simply not an allowed kind of justification for the use of government force according to the western theory of government to which I subscribe (aka the European Enlightenment). EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

" This... I have no clue what the justification of it." My guess? Property values. Middle-class neighbourhoods want middle-class residents, and they fear what happens to their property values when renters without capital move in. Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 02:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I believe that. Makes sense that the city would do this too then, since it keeps property taxes up. --Revolverman (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, many libertarians actually just seek to decrease federal authority, and return more power to local governments. At least in a US context--"Shut up, Brx." 02:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh my gods, did Brx just say something I agree with? Lolbertarians have no problem with local governments and home-owners organisations prying into your domestic arrangements and dictating how you live inside your home. It's just when the federal authorities do it that they start screeching about "MAH FREEDUMZ" like a senile parrot. --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 09:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

HMOs

The UK has a whole bunch of relatively modern laws and regulations to do with Houses in Multiple Occupation (sometimes Houses of Multiple Occupancy, but you can see why they didn't stick with the obvious abbreviation there...). It's a big issue in my area, for reasons which I'll explain in a moment. The definition of an HMO is that there are multiple people living in a single dwelling, they share rooms (typically they have to share a bathroom and a kitchen or something) so it's not that they're just living in flats, but yet they pay rent separately so they're also not one household. The stated rationale for regulating this type of dwelling is that slum landlord were sub-dividing bigger old houses in a way that was unsafe and existing regulations weren't very effective for preventing that, particularly as slum tenants tend to be reluctant to invoke the law against their landlords. So you've got a bunch of rules saying that HMOs must meet various fire safety minimums, which makes sense when 20 people are occupying a building designed for 4-6, and that sort of thing. But on the other hand you've also got a law where local governments can choose to license landlords and effectively control where HMOs are permitted or not in their area. Proponents say this is to preserve family housing, that there's a shortage of affordable homes (to rent) for people with kids and it's important to prevent landlords from dividing them all up for short term profit.

But when you look on the ground what's actually going on is that the residents of HMOs are disliked, and residents of other houses in the same streets see licensing as a way to keep "those people" out of their immediate vicinity. The two groups which are most disliked and likely to cause local campaigns for licensing are immigrant workers and students. Both groups of young people, unlikely to vote (unable to vote in national elections in the case of the immigrants) and more willing than usual to live in slum conditions (I knew people at university who lived in houses with no working front door lock, gaping holes in the roof, or obviously unsafe electricals) so long as it's cheap enough. I live in a city with a huge student population (one major university, two more higher education providers and numerous FE colleges) and a large Polish immigrant community, and so the idea of full-on licensing is very popular with locals, and with elected politicians... unless the politicians know they're talking to a student whereupon suddenly it's all about the fire safety aspect. Tialaramex (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm converting

Lightning strikes St. Peter's Basilica hours after Pope resigns Woodgod (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Into what? I'd love to tell Andy that you figured out how to convert the glass of water you drank into energy, with all that E=mc² business. Also, pardon for editing your link to include a title that you didn't write, but I figured it'd be a bit tidier. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 00:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps old Thor was swinging his hammer at Pope the Giant.

Fun fact about the upcoming change of pope: According to the Prophecy of the Popes, the next pope is supposed to be the last, "Pope Peter II," and his papacy will also coincide with the end of the world. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

So the lightening was an unambiguous Holy Sign of course. But what does it mean? Was God happy or unhappy with the decision?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 06:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay. — Luke 13:4-5. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting Debate

So, we had a speaker stop off at uni who talked about the difference between Darwinian evolution and the Structuralist theory that developed in Germany towards the end of the end of the 18th and in the first half of the 19th century. It has an Enlightenment philosophy of evolution not being necessarily a random series of natural selection, but rather a gradual process towards complexity. He also claimed that the movement would have gained more steam following the unification of Germany, but that it quickly fell out of vogue post-WWI and especially post-WWII. He also mentioned some Fibonacci mysticism, but quickly discarded it as bull poop. Interesting topic, but I'm not sure as to the veracity of its claim. From a historical standpoint, it made a lot of sense, but I yield as far as scientific validity. Any thoughts? 147.138.87.241 (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

This was the speaker by the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaas_Adrianus_Rupke 147.138.87.241 (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to orthogenesis or orthogenetic evolution? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks that way. Structuralist or orthogenetic evolution today is an ideological position, not a scientific one. It tries to argue for a "purpose" to evolution - ie that biological adaptation is a proactive process which has a "target" at the macro level. It doesn't directly invoke a supernatural force like Creationism or Intelligent Design, but it does strongly imply that a quasi-paranormal force is at work.

Structuralism/orthogenesis as first posited by Lamarck and Owen around the early 1800s was arguably the best available hypothesis of its time, but it was supplanted by Darwinian evolution because of the evidence. It didn't completely die off until the genetic discoveries of the 1930s and 40s. It still lurks around today in the woo fringes (look up Rupert Sheldrake), and it tends to be found along with a dubious notion known as the Morphogenetic field which argues that cells gather around and create a "field" which causes macro-structures to appear. (To be fair, this "morphgenetic field" idea first arose in the early 20th century and was regarded as plausible until chromosomes were discovered). VOX^HUMANA 05:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I should point out that this was primarily a historical lecture, not a scientific one. He linked the movement to scientific concensus in Germany as early as the late 18th century and talked about the difference between scientific thought on the continent at the time and how it changed in England. I was just curious about the science end of it. 147.138.87.241 (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have heard this before and I don't think there is any science behind it. If I understand it correctly there is some (unstated) preordained direction to history. The alternative hypothesis is "things happen" and when we look at them in retrospect we see them as inevitable and impose a pattern on them. I'd say that the second would be "more scientific".--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 06:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Structuralism should not be confused with orthogenesis. It was originally proposed by Owen and later taken up by D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson and later was developed into Process structuralism and you can read the section I wrote on it, I never got round to mentioning Owen or Thompson perhaps I should add them at some point. It is not a popular school in biology, but it has a few notable defenders. Forests (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That's it! He mentioned Thompson as one of the vocal defenders. 147.138.87.241 (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Both theories fall down because they posit the existence of some force "driving" evolutionary change. Structuralism attempts to dance around the edges by calling it "general forms of morphology" whereas orthogenesis calls it "the evolutionary purpose". They still fail to explain why this additional agency is necessary, or why it should supplant the standard evolutionary theory that morphology simply "emerges" (as the evidence of transitional forms seems to indicate). VOX^HUMANA 08:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thompson's book Growth on Form is not pseudoscience and is still very valid today. He granted that natural selection could weed out the unfit, but doubted the power of natural selection to explain why life took one form and not another. He preferred to explain the forms of organisms by physical laws and mechanical principles. It is seen as a key text on morphogenesis. The scientists Philip Ball and Brian Goodwin continued his work into the 21st century. Some of his ideas can be found in evo-devo evolutionary developmental biology but have not broken into the "mainstream" and this is why they are being taught in mainly history of biology lectures. Rupke's book Richard Owen: Biology without Darwin is a very useful book, it destroys the myth that Owen was a creationist. Forests (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Does this fit in with your beliefs on theistic evolution Forests?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 08:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Bob, Darwin was a proponent of deistic evolution and and so was Alfred Russel Wallace, Asa Gray was a theistic evolutionist. I am neither a theistic or a deistic evolutionist. I would probably be classified I guess as a pantheistic evolutionist, Ernst Haeckel was a pantheist/evolutionist. When I get the time I might actually create an article about Haeckel on this site. Forests (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well you explicitly called yourself a theistic evolutionist here when I asked you about it before so I assumed you embraced the term.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 10:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) His ideas haven't broken into the mainstream because they posit some "additional force" for which there is no evidence thus far. Even accepting that this "force" is entirely naturalistic, we still have no idea what the mechanism is, nor has there been any conclusive case where its existence is necessary to explain a phenomenon. And I've never heard of Owen described as a Creationist (beyond the general "God created everything" mentality that permeated most everyone's beliefs at the time, including Darwin). Most texts just regard him as an asshole. VOX^HUMANA 08:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wait there are theists on RW? I thought you'd managed to get rid of them all :P 147.138.87.241 (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The Wiki is rational. The people who hang out here are not necessarily so. VOX^HUMANA 09:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)\

You've not gotten rid of me yet. Though I'm increasingly becoming an "I-don't-care-theist". MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed an article in nature has recently been published on Thompson's book Growth on Form. See here for a preview here. Forests (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

*waves* Still some supposedly religious people here, though like MDB, I'm not sure how much I care these days. --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 00:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Banking crisis

Can someone please watch over RobSmith while he tears this article apart? Osaka Sun (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Our boy is keepin' busy. Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 02:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the most qualified person, but I have just enough knowledge of economics to make a complete fool out of myself at Econ parties. I'll look at it either later tonight or tomorrow in the afternoon. Either way, I'm going to wait until he's decided he's had his fun before I do anything. Might block him for making a hundred edits like he's doing.--Token Conservative (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Please address any problems to the list here Talk:Banking_crisis#Attention_needed which, so far, has gone unanswered. We'll begin on the some of the real problems, like unregulated credit default swaps which have yet to be defined in that article after five years, tomorrow. nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 03:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Rob went full Kenservative.... WTF... --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 09:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

There are certain items that belong elsewhere, such as the Enron scandal and Bernie Madoff. This article didn't focus much on what a banking crisis is, or what propmted the 2007-08 banking crisis, or how it spread internationally. Nor much, if anything, on TARP. All it said was "Bush did it", brought in unrelated crap, and used election year rhetoric from 2008. It reads like a stale Conservapedia article. I doubt it was even written by someone familiar with the US regulatory structure or US laws. If there's problems, go to the talk page. nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 12:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I am the most qualified person in the room. I'll go through it. Hipocrite (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It's far from finished. All I've done thus far is strip out the obviosuly most irrelevent crap while trying to preserve the tone of indignation that is helpful. Now it needs to get focused on what the article title is, "banking crisis". The crap that was taken out belongs elsewhere in something more related to the wider financial crisis of 2008. nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 13:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Bloody hell, is this article still around? I'd love to help, but I'm too busy working my socks off and being a parent to devote the time to it, unlike these people these pinko layabouts like nobs who have clearly have nothing better to do with their time. Bondurant (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

No body knows the trouble I've seen or the sacrifices I make to do what I do. nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 19:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh WND, is there a conspiracy theory you don't like?

Or use to hock your wares?

Jeremy "Obama is a gay Muslim Kenyan" Corsi is at it again, spewing forth another conspiracy theory that of course, only on WND, is also considered frontpage news. This one regards Pope Benedict XVI and his impending retirement and how it supposedly ties to the 900 year old prophecy of the Irish monk St. Malachy, who foretold the 266th Pope would be the last and his reign will end in the destruction of Rome. Like all fundies, Corsi salivates over the idea of the world ending, and like a good WND writer, also uses this opportunity to advertise the latest book being sold through their bookstore. Too bad Corsi's research is so shoddy that he states in the article that Celestine V was the last Pope to resign in 1294. While it is true Celestine V did resign, he wasn't the last, that would be Gregory XII in 1415, but Corsi either researched this so poorly as to miss something one can find in five minutes using Wikipedia, or he purposely skipped Gregory XII to better tie Benedict XVI to Celestine V to further fuel the conspiracy; so he is either an idiot or dishonest, I am wagering both.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Any self-respecting idiot knows that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Not if you check the references--"Shut up, Brx." 19:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

References are liberal claptrap. Sophie^Wilder 20:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

References are for fat liberal atheist slobs who lack the machismo to read the Bible, the only reference worth talking about! (olé, etc.) Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 22:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you're a member of the hearsay society and eat babies for breakfast. --PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 08:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Online petitions I do not understand

Almost 37,000 people really like their cigars. Another 1,000 are super goddamned crazy. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

And then there's this. Vulpius (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Even though the petitions are meant to show the White House what the people want it to do and 100,000 signatures will generate an official response, could these petitions, even the most popular ones, have any sway whatsoever in how the White House acts and approaches issues? I feel like the site is more or less there just to give people the feeling of being activists than anything else. Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thats about it. --Revolverman (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, the idea is to channel what little political energy is left after election cycles into a 'safe area'. Then the White House can casually respond to the complaints with empty promises and tired platitudes.

Of course, given the environment of mass distraction we live in, a good chunk of the petitions are guaranteed to be either harmless, jokes, or complete nonsense to begin with. Q0 (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Having worked in government, it's not like this is anything new. The Office of hte President recieves nearly 300,000 requests for some such or another, each and every year. often with included "petitions" of what needs to be done. From requests about area 51, to wanting to know if the white house recycles, to requests for what kind of plant was in some picture of the kid's birthday.... Congress also gets official requests of things that "should be addressed", and again, often with signatures. But in today's modern age, where I can drum up 10,000 siggies some what easily, it is a new twist to the value of "popular".Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 16:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The second was created by the Pye-ster himself. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

These things can be embarassing when they fail. There's a time limit, and Ron Paul's petition to audit U.S. Gold Reserve's just failed. When I looked last week, it was about 60,000 short of the 100,000 needed. Can't find anything on Google about it, but this may of interest to the Ron Paul or Gold Standard article. nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 20:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Use of the term "Mulatto"

I found a sect of weird birther people who keep calling the president/anybody not entirely one race "mulattoes". Is this a racial slur nowadays or what? --P3A58NT86 01:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Here, let me Google that for you.

Bonus!: let me Wikipedia that for you.

^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 01:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Many years ago I had a friend of mixed racial background who pointed out to me that the word "mulatto" comes from the same word as "mule." So yeah, problematic. Some people who write, say, Caribbean history will still use the term to describe historical subjects who would have identified, or been identified with the term, especially when it had a concrete legal dimension, but I sure the hell would never use it to talk about someone alive today. Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 01:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It's basically the same as calling Obama a "nigger", except a bit more acceptable. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 02:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Whether a word is acceptable or not really depends on whether it's acceptable to the group so described. The word itself is obviously just a sound. But if those so described find it offensive then it shouldn't be used.

On the other hand these things change. Is "queer" still offensive? Or does it depend on context?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it does depend on context to an extent, although its use in a negative way can taint it enough for some to avoid using the word in any situation. Sophie^Wilder 15:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yah, "queer" has been pretty successfully reclaimed by queer people as a way to describe themselves. I might very well say that my friend is queer--because she is--but if I called her a "fucking queer" in an argument, them's fighting words. Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 10:47 am, Today (UTC−5)

Is there any doubt about the context in which "mulatto" is being used? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 16:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't my point. Only that these things can change and that the word is really just some arbitrary sound anyway.

But, actually, there may a difference between "queer" and "mulatto". Queer was originally designed as an insult, was understood as such but has gradually been absorbed by the gay (another new meaning) community. "Mulatto", while possibly perceived as insulting by those to whom it referred, may not have originally been meant to be insulting. But I'm just speculating here.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't, it was a part of a very codified and complex system of racial classification that regulated every aspect of life in most of the Caribbean and otehr parts of the New World -- Mulattos, quadroons, octroons, etc. etc. (cf. the rules the Nazis put in place to deal with people of different degrees of Jewish ancestry). So while the term might not have been an insult on its face in its original use, it was always closely tied up to regimes of racism and racial exclusion. Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 16:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Like "negro" or "colored", words which were originally used as descriptors rather than racial slurs as such, but are so heavily associated with times of segregation & prejudice that they cannot be regarded as neutral terms when used nowadays. "Mulatto" also has the connotation of "half-breed" which implies impurity & not belonging. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

But what about an albino? Or a mosquito? Oh well, whatever, never mind. Sophie^Wilder 20:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Single-sex education?

This is an issue that bothers me, because i know my what i call "genderless feminism" is biasing me and producing some cognitive dissonance. I really want to believe that, overall, it's better for girls and boys to grow-up together and us to focus on improving mixed-sex classrooms… but there have been alot of studies that say single-sex education has positive benefits (there're also alot that say there is no or negative benefit). Obviously i don't agree with the "girls and boys learn differently" pseudoscience being forced upon kids… but that isn't necessarily single-sex classrooms' basis. The strongest argument against is stereotypes will easilier flourish and the kids will be less-equipped to deal with our mixed-sex world… but is there any scientific evidence supporting it?

What i'm saying is: i don't know. What do you, fine people, think? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 16:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The claims I've heard were approximately that girls do better in all-girl classes than in mixed classes, but boys do better in mixed classes than all-boy classes. That was quite some time ago and I can't remember any of the accompanying analysis. Hydrogen and Time (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

According to this: "the assertion that SS schooling has positive benefits for the academic achievement of both sexes is supported by the predominance of research, though effects appear more pronounced and less ambiguous for females than for males". The first section of this also supports the idea that single-sex education is beneficial, especially for girls, although tenuously. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 16:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I attended co-ed schools through 8th grade, then went to an all girls high school. I felt that going to a single sex high school provided less distractions, at least for me (being heterosexual). That said, it made me a little awkward when I was back in a coed environment in college. I don't buy into the crap about girls and boys learning differently, and I could see pluses and minuses to both options. I don't think coed schools should be segregated, but some people can benefit from a single sex environment. Mcnamara12 (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

See The Pseudoscience of Single-Sex Schooling -- mostly targeting pop-neurosci, but also argues against single-sex schooling in general. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if it wasn't psychologically dubious, it goes right back to "brown v. board". there is no such thing as separate but equal. There is always a social stigma to "why don't we get to play, too". I do think education needs major reform, but it's not cause separation would be good, but because still today, our teachers treat boy and girl students differently - even when they do not knwo they are doign it.Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 19:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion school after elementary school is more about socialization then it is about the academics themselves, which seem to mostly just build into stuff useful in college, not the "real world". So, whatever benefits single-sex education might have in an academic sense is severely outweighed by the loss in socialization.--Token Conservative (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Stop being so liberal, token conservative. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 22:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Vinegar Valentines

Perfect cards for your loved one! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Genius

Has anybody watched Bananaman's latest clustet-fuck yet? PsyGremlin^講話 20:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Er, no? What are you talking about? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This? BunchO'Numbers (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - just through it. Honestly, I think it's worse than 180 - if that's even possible. No wonder he had to buy an award for it. --PsyGremlin^Speak! 21:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Not able to sit through the whole thing. What's it even about? BunchO'Numbers (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Social media manners

A whole bunch of people I know have all applied for a fellowship, including myself. I'm probably not going to get it. Those of you in academia know that, as Tom Petty says, "the waiting is the hardest part." I have not heard about my application, but a buddy's girlfriend decided that it would be a great idea for her to announce on Facebook how proud she was of her boyfriend for getting one of these fellowships. So I'm left refreshing my e-mail and trying to figure out if they send out the winners first/the rejects first/alphabetical order/student # order/alphabetical order by discipline/or what. Note to all: your friends are proud of you, but really, you and your girlfriend need to learn to shut up out of respect for the feelings of the rejects and the still-waiting. Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 20:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I get your pain, but Facebook is a place to share news, too. I'd probably be totally forgetting the millions of starving kids in africa (as it were) to post my cake I made. this is big news for your friend, who wants to celebrate. but sorry it's causing you headaches. good luckGodot Chúc mừng năm mới 20:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

" your friends are proud of you, but really, you and your girlfriend need to learn to shut up out of respect for the feelings of the rejects and the still-waiting." The problem with such logic is how can i post about ANY news then, on the chance somebody is feeling bad because the opposite happened to them? So no, i'd say they can go ahead and post and if it hurts you, to fucking bad.--^Mikal_lakiM 21:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Joe's Posse requirements

Convicted felons cannot legally carry firearms in Arizona, while the Maricopa posse requires that you weren't convicted of a misdemeanor or a felony in the last 12 months. I am sure Joe wants those who joins and cannot own a gun to, you know, be meat shields? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You did read teh section on the convicted child molester on the posse, right? that's not ANY THREAT AT ALL to guarding schools.Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 21:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Its clear that he just wants his own private militia to fight off the nWo, little does he know Hogan won't put his ass over. --Revolverman (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Bot attack.

Can someone shut off IP editing for a bit? Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 22:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's odd—190.232.11.156 should have had time to hit half a dozen pages before I blocked them, but they only managed the one. Peter ^mqzp 22:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

So much for that hope... Peter ^mqzp 23:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Always need more ammo... --Revolverman (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Trent has kind of put the kabosh on the disabling of IP editing. It's all block and revert, revert, revert, from now on. Blue (pester) 23:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, that's bullshit, when a guy can--as he did today--use a bot to vandalize 20 pages in a few seconds. Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 00:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, so I guess it is Trent's blog after all. Why bother with mods and sysops and voting on community standards? Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 00:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how you rate the community value of IPs being able to edit over the obviously vastly more important one of keeping idiot bullshit on your talk page for "searchability", a thing you've clearly not actually tried to do since July 2012 - David Gerard (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

403 error

Any reason why I just got a 403 error trying to get to user:brasov?172.218.49.11 (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, though it's not page specific. Persistence is key. Why were you going there though? Peter ^mqzp 01:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What's the reason though? 172.218.49.11 (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The better question is still "why did you need too"--^Mikal_lakiM 01:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What's the story with all this? I take it that this is the guy with that spambot that doesn't even add spam. BunchO'Numbers (talk) 7:46 pm, Today (UTC−6)

Indeed. --^Mikal_lakiM 01:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: automatic break for IP editors

One edit every half hour.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Too extreme, unless you mean just right now, and even then. --^Mikal_lakiM 01:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What good would that achieve? Users or bots running a proxy can get a new IP within half a minute, while genuine BON editors not on a proxy would have to wait half an hour before editing again, if indeed they bother coming back at all. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I just figured, since the current bot seems to be using the same IP for a number of attacks at a time, that it might be effective. Proposal withdrawn--"Shut up, Brx." 02:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Can't even be done: as is, they should be being limited to 1 edit per 30 seconds per IP, but they're going much faster. Peter ^mqzp 02:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey dipshit do you think you're the only person here thinking about this? Trent's on it. Go eat some street turnips. 07:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, it's wearying as fuck to the editors cleaning up the mess, and we have been saying bugger-all (because saying just what you're doing is silly), so frustration's quite understandable - David Gerard (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

QuantumMAN

Ars Technica article. Coincidence? I think not. QUANTUM!!!--Krej^talk 14:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Caroline Glick

Why are we linking to her on WIGO as a legitimate source? Osaka Sun (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Because Israel? It's only one editor doing it; you could ask on eir talk page. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

New York

It's a bit tatty, isn't it? Ajkgordon (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Forget about it. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Oscar Pistorius shoots girlfriend

Thought she was a burglar apparently. --Damo^Hi 06:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's what gets me about guns. Owning one for self-defense basically means you're willing to kill someone. And then look what happens.--"Shut up, Brx." 07:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think he had been drinking at the time - he was totally legless apparently. Damo^Hi 07:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, he shot her twice. In the head and in the arm. Terrible. Hope they put him on suicide watch--"Shut up, Brx." 07:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope you don't mean that in a "I hope he tries to kill himself" sense. Peter ^mqzp 07:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I meant I hope he is unable to kill himself if he wishes to--"Shut up, Brx." 13:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

All those stories published about him will be looked in a new "light." Osaka Sun (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Police say he hasn't got a leg to stand on... --PsyGremlin^Hable! 08:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Psy. My monitor is covered in coffee. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

My work here is done. --PsyGremlin^Speak! 10:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I heard they arrested him because they were afraid he'd do a runner. rpeh •T•C•E• 12:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, if only they had gotten married first!^img MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Andy, just because your Mummy taught that marriage means there's no such thing as rape, doesn't mean it fixes all problems. Also, let me rephrase Andy's question a bit: "Would that tragedy have happened if he didn't own a gun?" --PsyGremlin^Hable! 15:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Oscar Pistorius is an innocent man, I tells ya! Andy Schlafly is the real killer. MarkusKikero (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Pope B arrested?

this was posted on my Facebook just a few minutes ago. Anyone know anything about it? I visited the Itccs, but i really don't know what they are yet. Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 20:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. looks like they stole the logo of ICC but have nothign to do with it. Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 20:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the "International Tribunal for Crimes against Church and State" doesn't look to be too serious. But if you ask me, the whole damn Vatican ought to be hauled to the Hague. Blue (is useful) 21:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It's made-up bullshit from conspiracy lunatics. I am arguing with one on facebook who claimed they had anything to do with it, I called BS, they are responding with cut'n'paste screeds and telling me to watch youtube conspiracy videos. I keep asking for any evidence anyone in the world gives a shit about the ITCCS, let alone substantiate the claim that they are the reason the Pope will be holing up inside the Vatican - so they have at least some fans. Not sure there's enough to write an article - David Gerard (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

TPC down

Another DOS attack, or just bad network management? --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 22:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Likely both. This is really pushing everyone down the rabbit hole there. Assuming its not at 100% paridists at this point.--Revolverman (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Why does the image poster's Firefox look like IE6? Don't you want to upgrade from Windows 98 eventually?

On topic: you would expect the site to be troll-ridden, which i must still assume it is, but Poe's Law is really in effect there.^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 01:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It's called the 'windows classic' theme. That's not 98. Peter ^mqzp 01:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

XP might as well be 98 by now, especially when you're using that crappy gray retro theme. With modern software aesthetics, i can't stand the way old versions of Windows look. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 01:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you can get it in later versions too, and some people can't chose their OS/theme. Also, DOS forever! Peter ^mqzp 01:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Amiga is superior to all. --^Mikal_lakiM 01:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I think Aero is ugly as fuck, and a massive waste of computing power. --Revolverman (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What revolver just said. I don't want my computer to be pretty, I want it to do what I want with as little fuss possible. I am not a big fan of Windows (as usually it is neither quick nor reliable), so I mostly use Atari TOS or VanillaMINT (both of which go with minimalist-utilitarian GUI themes), but happened across this when I was on my laptop. --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 10:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Back on topic (seriously, you my-OS-is-bigger-than-your-OS wankers can take it outside), the latest splash screen says they're migrating to a new server. Should be up by the end of the day. Also I notice they have 2 weeks left to meet their funding target of $30k. Have about $5k so far. --PsyGremlin^Hable! 12:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I love this post, but particularly the line "These groups despise what we stand for and seek to destroy us and silence our voice.". No. Far from silencing your voice we want people to hear what you really have to say, so they can see the anti-black, anti-woman, anti-choice, anti-science nonsense you spout for themselves. Silence you? Bloody hell, if I could get people like Schlafly and Hurlbut on a regular national TV slot I'd be ecstatic! rpeh •T•C•E• 12:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

They got the troll watch now; watch out! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Troll Watch has it's fair share of infiltrators too. --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 19:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Would it be any other way? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 07:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Man, if this is how the Tea Party runs in real life, I can't believe they got anyone elected. --Revolverman (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Healthy eating

[1]--Krej^talk 01:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What about it? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to share the article. Is that a crime? WHY DO YOU HATE ME?! *cries*--Krej^talk 14:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I know these people. they are all over my facebook. sighs. Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 16:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

@Krej: I don't hate you; I barely know you. If you just want to share a blog w/out saying anything about it, you could use WIGO:Blogs. If you were meaning to start to conversation, two words & a link isn't really a great opener. It's not clear what, if anything, you are saying about the article (agreeing with it, not agreeing with it, whatever) & I don't see how asking you would constitute harassment. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, WIGO. Right. Sorry. By the way, my reply was a joke.--Krej^talk 17:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Why are you pretending not to understand the sarcasm? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 17:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Who, me?--Krej^talk 16:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Chicken Little was right!

The sky is falling!

Or... Цыпленок Цыпа был прав!Небо падает! MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to give it a day, then I'm going over to Godlikeproductions and Infowarriors. I'm sure there'll be lulz to be had. --PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 13:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The lulz never stop at GLP. They were already primed for wp:2012 DA14.

I love the "sonic boom", though I probably wouldn't if I was under all that breaking glass...--ZooGuard (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

If the sky is falling, the only appropriate reference is to Abraracourcix --"Shut up, Brx." 15:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Clearly this is God's response to the gay marriage legislation in Illinois. God's aim is just a bit off this week. DickTurpis (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

And instead he hit homophobic Russia...--"Shut up, Brx." 18:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to thank the rampant insurance fraud that happens in Russia that makes people never leave home without a dash-cam for making it possible to have so many shots of this impact. --Revolverman (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just discussing this over breakfast. Генгис^marauding 11:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocking duration for vandalbot IPs

What is the protocol here? Should we be permabanning these IPs as they're (presumably) proxies which aren't on the blacklist? If so, can 'infinite' please be added as an option on the dropdown menu of the block page to make the whole thing more efficient? If not, what duration is best? It's kindof frustrating that there's nothing on the dropdown list between 1 day & 3 months too. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Stick to three months for now, this won't be going on for that long, and the number can be freed up for a legit user down the line. Sophie^Wilder 22:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

A day, three hours, 3.14 days, something like that. If they're proxies they'll make it into the lists reasonably quickly, just our vandal is being quicker. He has a much smaller selection of IPs than previously, you'll have noticed - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't really support permabanning IPs. If you know where the guy lives and it's likely his actual IP, than permabanning it is fine since it's probably always going to be him. There might be some legitimate uses from the people who live with the person though. To make permabans, type indefinite into the time field. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 05:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

1- 3 months please. We'll sort it out later. 06:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Reddit does something productive for once

Discovering the source of all Nickelback jokes. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

and there I was thinking it was because they're just plain shite. Sophie^Wilder 11:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

CMI silliness: OMG we've been challenged! and now we've backed down!

This discussion was moved to Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?.

Merged with existing discussion. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

"Rationalwiki?! Yeah, I love that site!"

Met my brother in law for a few beers this evening and he brought along his new flatmate because she doesn't know anyone in the city. I started talking about this chemtrail group I troll and me and her fell into this talk about skepticism. She was from Texas and we started talking about politics and the American far-right. When I talked about Conservapedia her hands flew into the air with frustration. I asked "You have heard of Conservapedia?" She had. When I asked if she had heard of Rationalwiki she goes "Rationalwiki?! Yeah, I love that site!".
I was pretty tickled - the first time I have met a stranger who had even heard of us. Awesome stuff. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

And when she discovered you were Ace McWicked? Which body part did you end up autographing? rpeh •T•C•E• 06:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Heh, na I didn't drop that. Most visitors don't visit the talk pages. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course, after reading this then she would know anyway! Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty neat. --Dumpling (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

School input

OK, there's a whole story leading up to this, but I don't want to get into it. Basically, at this point I've invested some time in a college that is so terribly run and staffed I cannot stand it anymore, and I'm leaving when this semester is done. So, I'm going to go to a different college, that better be freaking better then the craphole I'm at now.

Anyways, I'm looking through the degrees that this new college has, which is slightly more limited then I expected. I've kind of worked my way down to a few degrees in programming (Computer Information Systems BS and BAS and Web Technologies BS, specifically), but I'm not really sure what these degrees cover. I'm familiar with BBC/HTML and some LaTeX, so I'm not walking in completely blind about the subject matter, just mostly blind.

So, basically I was hoping someone could give me direction on what this and this degree cover. My only real requirement for a degree/life path at this point is something I can do freelance so I don't have to put with stupid people if I don't want to.

Thank you.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting the university department directly? Fielding enquiries about their course content is one of the things you can expect them to do. If you don't get a decent response, look elsewhere. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I did this after they closed for the holiday weekend. I'm basically looking for info until I can call them on Tuesday.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Can't you just click on "curriculum" on those linked pages? That tells you all the required courses, which is what each degree covers.--^talk 03:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel like I know enough about programming to be able to figure out what those degrees qualify me for and what they cover in any real depth.--Token Conservative (talk) 05:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand your question... I don't know anything about programming, either, but the classes required for those degrees all seem pretty straightforward in their descriptions. You can learn the basics of UNIX, Perl, etc., depending on what you choose. Are you asking which courses you should take?--^talk 06:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess the question on the most basic level is: which of the three degrees (Computer Information Systems comes in BS and BAS, the courses and descriptions are all identical as far as I can tell) will make it easiest for me be a free lance worker. You know, so I don't have to deal with morons if I don't want to.--Token Conservative (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Well, from my understanding from my brother (who works for Microsoft) it is mostly going to be your accomplishments that impress and get you work. Although I do know that there is some grumbling now among higher-ups in the tech world about the upbringing of new programmers, who generally do not have the gritty nuts-and-bolts background of those previous generations who'd squinted late into the night as they mashed out complicated roundabout Hello Worlds (specifically, "all they know now is HTML!"). Do you have a preference about what field you'd like to get into?--^talk 10:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really. At this point I really just want to be fucking done with college, have some goddamn income, and not have to deal with incredibly stupid people anymore. Deal with them at my current college and in the military, and I'm about fucking tired of it. Someone somewhere else has basically said that the web development would probably be better for my purposes, so I'm probably going with that, unless someone has a good reason for me to do otherwise.--Token Conservative (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Speak to your college's career adviser - there's probably even one in the department. Just emphasize you're interested in commercial viability. I will be surprised if they steer you towards web development. Maybe someone else here is in the field, though, and can advise you as well.--^talk 14:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure you're going into this for the right reasons? If you're enthusiastic about programming &/or web design & want to make a career of it, fair enough. But this mantra of never having to deal with stupid people again is starting to sound a little screwy. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't want to deal with stupid people? Try being an anchorite, or failing that, try being less of a misanthropic snob. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 00:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I only become withdrawn and misanthropic when I have to continually deal with very stupid people.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that a big part of life is dealing with stupid people. One of the smartest people I know can't deal with stupid people and is universally regarded as a complete asshole. He's also 55 years old and single. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 00:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You think you can freelance without dealing with stupid people? [2][3] - David Gerard (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I can better choose what stupid assholes to deal with if I'm freelance then if I work for someone. And I am quite alright with being a 55 year old single asshole.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Read this (especially the older ones) if you think IT is going to be a salvation. --83.84.137.22 (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's the opposite, from what I hear. If you're freelancing, you have to take on and endure all of the idiots with not much help, without the buffer of other associates to aid you. Unless, of course, you will excel to such a degree that you really can pick and choose your clients.--^talk 05:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No offence intended, but given the nature of the question it seems unlikely that the OP would end up being the goto guy for smart rich people. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Straight from college to freelance is a pretty ambitious career plan, & avoiding contact with stupid people along the way even more so. Don't be surprised if it doesn't work out that way. It's also kindof an oddball thing to keep mentioning as a a major motivating factor in your choice of course & career. Explain to the course tutor or the college's career advisor that you're doing this because you want to avoid morons forever & see how they react. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

A lot of you seem to think be conflating "uninformed people" with "morons". Uninformed people who don't know what they want and change their mind is fine. Fuck, I spend most of my life not knowing what I like and changing my mind. Some might remember my angry, hate filled stream of conscious rant about my college's amazing stupidity and incompetence. Other places on the internet I've done the same thing the times I've worked at McDonald's, IHOP, Gallup, and the time I worked for the zoo. People that don't know what they want are fine. People that are convinced that they know exactly what they are doing, while everyone around them realizes that there is zero relationship between what they're doing and what they think they are doing, who cannot follow even the simplest of instructions, who cannot fucking listen to a simple sentences, or do their fucking jobs, that is what I'm done with. I don't want to ever have to deal with those people again. --Token Conservative (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, good luck with that. Maybe you should stop saying it though. Or keep saying, whatever. Put it into your RW signature, why not? Hang a sign of your gate saying "NO MORONS". That'll show 'em. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Goats that sound like people

EmbedVideo received the bad id "PpccpglnNf0#!" for the service "youtube".

If you don't want to watch the whole thing, at least skip to the end and listen to the last one.--"Shut up, Brx." 04:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I dread to think what pain and misery the compiler of that video has been through that has caused him/her to think that most of those are representative "human" sounds.--Spud (talk) 05:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

There are only so many ways to express suffering. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

At 2:00, if you guys don't think that sounds like a person then you're Martians--"Shut up, Brx." 08:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

My god you're a fucking moron. Do you eat paint chips or something? 06:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Brx mainlines lead it would seem. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This is hilarious. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 07:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

To me, lots of people sound like goats. Which makes this video kind of redundant. --2.39.39.47 (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

In English, this is where "kid" comes from, at a distance the bleating of a kid can sound like a child crying. nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 20:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't think so, Rob. I always understood it to be from the German "kind" = child. Scream!! (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thought so: "Kid", in each sense, is merely the young of the species. "Middle English kide, of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse kith kid - First Known Use: 13th century" Scream!! (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That's probably right. But I heard it once myself on a race track. There were goats around the barn (they keep goats around to make fillies think they're foals and yearlings like at the breeding farm). It sounded like one of the goats bleating, until a young girl brought an infant out of a tack room. nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 21:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

12 hours of wood on TV

Depending on your state of mind, it may or may not be what you think. --TechCheese^refuse 08:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Spoiler alert: it's not about penises. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 09:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm surprised that "Norwegian Wood" wasn't mentioned. Генгис^mutating 09:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Good News Everyone

David Mitchell says we're all going to heaven: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3ha18O1dAI 147.138.87.241 (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Bechdel test

Why haven't we written anything about it so far? Interesting stuff. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Because it's not exactly in RW's mission area? And any article would be written worse than a similar one on a dedicated feminism wiki, or even than the Wikipedia article. Fuck, it will probably be worse than the one on TVTropes.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I was actually surprised how brief yet to the point that Wikipedia article manages to be, and it quotes an old colleagues of mine, Faith, who it's nice to see being considered authoritative on something she's spent years thinking, talking and writing about (story telling, not the Bechdel test). Tialaramex (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

the only good thing about the Bechdel test is that it shows how far there is to go. That "this movie gets a stamp of approval because two female characters have names and talk to each other about something besides men" speaks volumes. Sophie^Wilder 12:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not a stamp of approval (or rather, it shouldn't be) it's a throwaway comment by one character in a comic. That it resonated does say something about our culture, whereas individually "testing" movies (or novels, comic books, video games) is not going to tell you very much for a number of reasons. It actually says almost as much to me about movies that, if you start trying to look for the test criteria (which I recommend you don't if trying to enjoy a movie) you will notice how seldom characters (regardless of gender) in movies have an actual conversation about anything. Tialaramex (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

What was said above. It's about raising awareness of how few women actually play central characters. Now, it's not to say films are or aren't feminists whether they "pass" or not - do you expect much female-on-female interaction in a drama set in an all-male prison? - but just to point out that so few films meet such measly criteria that references 50% of the population. ^narchist 14:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I wont say we should have an entire article about it, but perhaps a brief explanation of the concept somewhere? It's an idea I've never heard of, and it does make sense to talk about it, since part of what we do (last time I checked) was respond to the way media deals with things like sexism. I don't know if there needs to be an entire article on it, but a quick explination with a link to wikipedia article, or an article on a different website?--Token Conservative (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard Briers

Richard Briers has died. Apparently he performed one of the fastest full stage productions of Hamlet ever seen, due to the speed of his delivery. Quite interesting.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 13:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I be too far behind? News like this is quite depressing. At least my parents are still going in their mid-80s. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Flaming Parcelforce...

Had a prepaid, print-out postage for an item that I needed to return, so stuck it on the parcel, took it to the Post Office, they scanned it, accepted it and then passed it on to Parcelforce for delivery, 'cause that's who was contracted to courier the item. Turns out the seller listed a false return address and so the parcel was bounced and was sent back to be returned. Now here's the thing, I had my return address on a sticker on the back of the parcel, complete with the words 'if undelivered please return to:' . So what do they do at the depot? They try and return it to the Post Office they collected it from, because that was who was listed as the customer on their database. Unbelievable. I've waited in all day for the parcel to be delivered, now I've got to wait in all-day tomorrow, assuming that they do what they said that they would do on the phone; put a new delivery slip on the parcel with my address on.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 18:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds exciting. --2.39.39.47 (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Life's a bitch. -Strangelove (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Rape

I know that rape is a popular frequent topic around here. So for an even more horrifying perspective read this from the BBC World Service. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 11:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I never thought in terms of how effective it is as, he put it, a "weapon of war". I'm amazed they let him and his daughters live.Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 03:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It's the same thing the Germans did to the Russians. This sort of thing, using violence against civilians, is not effective. It just makes resistance even stronger. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 03:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Guns and mental health checks

<rant>

"You were raped and want to buy a gun to protect yourself? You can't because you were raped and are unstable."

I wonder how such people would feel about that. Doesn't seem like such a good idea now...

Nevermind the fact that they're ableist ****s.

</rant>

ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 19:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Stay classy bro. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm venting frustration. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 19:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not what "sarcasm" means. Peter ^mqzp 20:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll take that part out since it's useless. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 20:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Reverse DNS tricks for the bored sysop

Open a command prompt and type "tracert 216.81.59.173". You're welcome. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see "command prompt" explained anywhere in the sysop guide... Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The text is funny but I don't understand the game on his blog. 00:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a hell of a lot of IPv6 addresses. Writing war and peace in to a traceroute would be an interesting exercise. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Perm retired

Hi, I have perm retired from rationalwiki not coming back on here. I did some contructive editing whilst I was on this site, I mostly fixed this spiritualism article and debunked many fraud mediums. Good luck with the project! Forests (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This wouldn't have anything to do with Prince Emmanuel accusing you of sockpuppeteering, would it? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

life after death

Do anyone of you folk on rationalwiki believe in life after death? and is there any *evidence* you are convinced might be genuine and not pseudoscience?. Any thoughts? Forests (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "life after death"? Do you mean heaven and hell? Mind uploading? Cryonic resuscitation? General immortal soul stuff? Blue (pester) 12:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Recall, if you will, what everything was like before you were born......okay? Got it? That's what it will be like after you've died. C®ackeЯ 17:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Any form, consciousness or a spirit/soul etc surviving death. Forests (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm a nominal theist on here, but I do believe in something beyond the physical world, and that would include something beyond mortal life. I will readily admit I lack evidence for that. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The lack of good evidence in respect of life after death, homoeopathy, God and Father Christmas leads me to be skeptical about such things.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 12:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course there's a Father Christmas, Bob! Sophie^Wilder 12:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah! But I left myself a way out - "no good evidence". :-)--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 13:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

These are the usual "evidences" of life after death, tell me what you think of them - hauntings (including ghosts and poltergeists), apparitional experiences, deathbed visions, mediumship, electronic voice phenomena (EVP), near-death experiences, out-of-the-body experiences, mystical experiences and reincarnation studies. Forests (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The lack of good evidence in respect of hauntings (including ghosts and poltergeists), apparitional experiences, deathbed visions, mediumship, electronic voice phenomena (EVP), near-death experiences, out-of-the-body experiences, mystical experiences, reincarnation studies and Father Christmas leads me to be skeptical about such things.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 13:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Bob all those things actually do exist, but they can be explained by psychology. The OBE for example can be explained by cases of hallucinations and lucid dreams, psychosis and hysteria. apparitional experiences can be explained by things like mental Dissociation hypnagogia and cataplexy. There is evidence some mystical experiences can be explained by dissociative disorders and depersonalization. Mediumship is all fraud, apart from some of the "spirit controls" can be explained by alternative personalities (Dissociative identity disorder etc) and hypnotism (this is probably unconscious fraud). Reincarnation research is mostly wishful thinking and Cryptomnesia... psychology explains it all and that is why I find the subject interesting. Forests (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how you define "actually do exist".--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Exist in the mind of the subject, for example I have had an mild OBE experience but it was a very realistic lucid dream. I have also witnessed some very strange entities similar to shadow people in a state of hypnagogia a nightmare waking experience, it was very real. David Hufford in his book the terror comes in the night talks about something called an Old Hag experience, it is a psychologically disturbing event in which a "victim claims to have encountered some form of malign entity while dreaming (or awake). Sufferers report feeling suffocated, held down by some "force," paralyzed, and extremely afraid." I can say that I have been paralyzed a few times for a few seconds and witnessed some pretty weird things in the transitional states from sleep. It makes sense why people in the past have believed in entities and metaphysical beings. Forests (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

There is an enormous difference between "actually do exist" and "actually do exist (only) in the mind of the subject." Basically one of them actually does exist in the real world and the other does not.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

In a supernatural sense, no. I am not sure though how to feel about that on a personal level. Partially because I cannot conceive of simply not existing, of being "nothing", yet on the other hand, existing forever with no end whatsoever is equally alien in my mind. Still I am of course curious. However so far, all evidence for a supernatural, "beyond the grave" existence has shown to be utterly lacking. The more I look at those who claim evidence of ghosts and apparitions, the more I am convinced they are guided by preconceived notions based on wishful thinking, which take the flimsiest of evidence and translates that into "proof" the supernatural exists.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If you cannot conceive of not existing, the problem lies with your imagination, not reality. If it helps, think of falling unconscious and staying so forever, in an eternal dreamless sleep. - LucidFox (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Not in any meaningful sense of the word "life." When I'm dead, I'll be dead, no consciousness, no awareness, no nothing. Beyond that it starts to get kinda new-agey and hippy-dippy; there is something about me that will continue to stay in the hearts/minds of the people who love me, the people on whose lives I've had a certain effect. and, just as I might turn to this package of memories and feelings that carry with me I think of as the "spirit" of a close friend who died, other people will do the same with the package of feelings and memories of me that they'll carry with them. From what I understand, that's a pretty human thing. I mean, if I think of the most prized personal possession that I've had and lost -- a 1986 Guild JF-30-C acoustic guitar that I had to sell, it's not "still with me." I remember it, I remember what it sounded like and felt like to play it, but it's gone. When I remember Sheldon who passed out drunk on a dark corner of the road in the dark blue coat I gave him and the Porsche coming around the bend never had a chance to stop in time, well, there's a whole lifetime of memories, feelings, that a bunch of us carry around, he's still "with us" in a way that that guitar isn't. So it's not quite "when you're gone, you're gone," because something that's gone, that I haven't seen in 22 years shouldn't be able to make me well up and smile at the same time on a cloudy Thursday before I've had coffee. Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 14:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

CS Miller (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Forest, yes. The 2nd law of thermodynamics (or is the 3rd or 5th, I forget). And I thank Rationalwiki editors for explaining it to me and corroborating my pre-concieved bias. nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 21:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm a spiritual person. I think the universe is "holy" whatever the heck that means. and i find it awesome (in the original sense of the word) that I am here cause stars exploded 4.5 billion years or more ago. But... I've no reason to think that anything animates us other than chemistry, and while our thoughts, our dreams, our language are all pretty AWESOME chemistry - they are still just chemistry. So for me, death ends "me". (terrifies me, that idea, by the way. i want to always exist). Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 15:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

There's no evidence of life after death. One only lives on through their deeds, in my opinion. I do have a thoroughly bizarre belief in life on other planets -I don't believe we've been visited by aliens, just that we can't possibly the only "intelligent" species in the Universe. Any other such species has the same problems we do -space travel is way too hard to do frequently or over long distances. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

(EC) There's no evidence for life after death, although some people lmight ike to interpret temporary unexplained phenomena as such. It's difficult to comprehend our own non-being and so find it reassuring to think that they might continue in some non-corporeal existence. But as I have no awareness of existing before my own birth then there is no reason to believe that somehow there will be a continuation after my poor old body gives up the metaphorical ghost. I find it odd that when people like to think of an afterlife that they usually fixate on the physical appearance at death, their happy family (and pets) are just an ethereal mirror of their earth-bound existence, but what are we to make of infants who die? Are they condemned to an eternity in diapers? The bravest thing you can do is to face your own mortality and make the best of now so that you at least are favorably remembered by others rather than despised for your misdeeds. Генгис^unbelieving 15:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

What's the reasoning for caring about what others think of you after yourself's death? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 16:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If people are happy to see someone die, it's likely people weren't happy to see them alive. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Then you should be worried about what they think of you now, not what you'll be thought of in death. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 16:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, trust me, I do... far too much. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't much mind an afterlife given I do like living and the whole "not living" thing death has is a bit troublesome; but I'm not seeing any evidence for one. As I've told the people trying to evangelize on campus, "I'll take my chances. besides, it'll be more fun going in not knowing"--^Mikal_lakiM 17:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Donate all your money to Alcor and live forever! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The time between my death and the end of time itself will pass as quickly to me as napping through a Sunday church service. Except I won't wake up feeling like Jesus has taken a shit in my head. Evolutionismist (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe in the Christian Heaven and Hell, and in Jesus who is in charge of them. Timothy Perseus Wordsworth (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Life after death? Personally...No. I am dead. My body will be breaking down into basic chemicals and gases, then at a certain time I will be cremated. I could care less after my death. The point is what I'm doing right now. What I will be doing tomorrow, and the days after, until the day I do die. Those are the only days that matter. Make them count.--Dumpling (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Regular old cremation is so boring; be like Mikal and plan a highly illegal viking funeral on a city lake. --^Mikal_lakiM 05:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah Mikal. Clearly you life will be much more extraordinary than mine. Even in death.--Dumpling (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe in the Christian Heaven and Hell, and in Jesus who is in charge of them.

Ideas for things to improve the wiki

One of the things that I find interesting is working on implementing and discovering ways that wikis can be improved, both in popularity and in ease of use. Here's ideas I've had for things that could improve Rational Wiki:

• Google +1 button – Allows people to indicate good articles and I believe also makes highly +1'd articles rank higher in Google search results.
• Facebook share and recommend buttons – This would allow people to easily share interesting articles that they find on Facebook, which would get us more readers and editors
• Add this button – It's from addthis.com and creates a small button that allows articles to be shared on a huge number of social and email services. It also counts each time a page is shared. There is also an optional ability to include a tag at the end of the URL that allows the owners to see where links come from and how often they are used.
• Widgets extension – Allows various HTML objects and widgets to be added to the wiki without XSS vulnerabilities. It can also allow for the creation of templates that can embed off-wiki images in the same manner as on wiki images can be thumnailed.
• More sources – I've noticed that a lot of articles don't have a lot of sources for facts they mention, which is important for verifiability on a website that anyone can edit.

ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 22:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There are privacy concerns - particularly with the standard Facebook button, which is how they track you from site to site - but something like this is quite feasible - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

ShareThis is one that exists now. WikiShare is rough notes on something that would be compatible with the stringent WMF privacy policy, which personally I regard as a good model - David Gerard (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

What are the privacy concerns with the Facebook share button? 00:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The difference between "Nutty Roux" and "Mr. John Smith of Levittown who works at the cracker factory"? Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 00:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

So it allows people on the wiki to see the wiki username and the Facebook username of the person clicking the button? ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 00:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The site owner never sees any part of those requests. 03:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The usual Facebook "share" icon is an iframe containing a piece of Javascript that tracks and reports back to Facebook on any page you've looked at containing it, not just if you've clicked it - David Gerard (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so Facebook sees every page that you look at on the wiki, and knows who's looking at them. I'm sure they sell that for millions of dollars. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 02:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Put another way, if you see a Facebook Like button, Facebook knows about it. Everywhere. I recommend using the Disconnect plugin/extension from disconnect.me as it kills those social squealers. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 02:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Or... who cares? Of course they sell it. What do you care? 03:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care that much about that sort of thing. I'll provide it as a convenience to users, as long there isn't widespread opposition to it. Do things like addthis.com that don't actually put the button on the page help? I assume Facebook would find out whenever someone uses it. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 04:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

One thing I'm planning is a plain links tag extension. Formatting a link without the icon on the end would only require a tag, which would be much shorter than the class that's used now. I'm considering between <plainlinks>, <plinks>, <plink>, or <pl>. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 04:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What for? Readers should know whether or not a link is going to take them offsite before they click on it. That's what the little arrow on external links is for. Plainlinks is very occasionally useful, in contexts where it's already clear that the link will be offsite & where the link looks neater without the arrow, but so rarely used that there's not much point building an extension for it. A simple template would work. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It's better for things like attribution when giving the link to the license page, which isn't on a wiki, or when using a full URL to a page on the wiki. Making an extension is also more impressive to people who have no idea how easy it is. Making a tag extension without parameters is like making a hot dog. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 16:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're talking about because I have no idea who you are. Why are you saying things like "I need," "I'm planning, and "I'm considering." Are you one of the two people responsible for developing this site? Why do you think it's an improvement to embed anything but crosswiki images and wiki-ized links? I'm just not following what you're talking about here. Who are you? 17:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

http://www.sturmkrieg.de/User:Inquisitor_Ehrenstein ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 18:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Office of Religious Freedom

Yes, our government is wasting $5 million on this. Osaka Sun (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"The Conservatives say it was the assassination of Shahbaz Bhatti in Pakistan in March 2011 that galvanized the government into taking more concrete action." So, um, trying to stop people getting killed for their beliefs is a waste of money, then. Sophie^Wilder 17:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There is, I understand 2nd hand, no small amount of anti catholic prejudice outside of the French territories, as well. Just cause you have an office of religious freedom, doesn't mean it will be managed well or poorly, or will or won't support atheists as well as shiks as well as zoroastrians. It's all about how the money is used, like most things in govt life.Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 17:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it

Okay I understand that there's some kind of association between blacks and watermelons - hence my latest WIGO:W. I don't get why.

I understand how certain stereotypes persist because they were once true and have become outdated; how some are based on simple prejudice; how some are deliberate wedge issues, and so on... but watermelons? I've tried searching for an explanation but keep getting linked to web pages full of utterly hilarious jokes about black people and their deep love for watermelons instead of any explanation for why this should be the case.

This seems to be a USA-based phenomenon - the only UK-related case I can recall is that episode of Blackadder II where Edmund taunts Ludwig the Indestructible's impressions by assuming he did an "amusing black man - 'where am dat warty melon?'"

Can somebody shed some light on this? rpeh •T•C•E• 22:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't really get it either. It's a bit like when The Young Turks criticised an Australian KFC ad for being racist because it showed an Aussie supporter giving chicken to some raucous Windies supporters [4]. What's worse is that they failed to take it back when their US cultural bias was pointed out to them [5]. --Damo^Hi 22:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think it was just that watermelons were cheap and black people were poor, so lots of black people ate watermelon. Mcnamara12 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Watermelons grow in warmer climes (eg. the deep south) and provide a lot of food mass cheaply. They were often given to slaves as a "treat", and there was a widely held belief that this was all slaves needed to make them happy. According to the curator of the Jim Crow museum: "African Americans, the argument went, were happy as slaves. They didn’t need the complicated responsibilities of freedom; they just needed some shade and a cool, delicious treat." Here'a good article which explores the background, along with some startling images from the time. And here's an article on the topic from the Jim Crow museum. VOX^HUMANA 23:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Add to the above that a common joke in minstrel shows was that ANY black man (really white men in blackface make up of course) would be insatiably attracted to Watermelon by smell (see [www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQAPPqJHP3I#t=1m55s here] for a prime example.] It basically boils down to "them niggers will do anything for Watermelon." SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 01:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Insufferable people

More of a general musing than anything else, but I was wondering what people thought about the perception of atheism and arrogance. Is it warranted? I generally think of this as a two-fold problem: on one hand, there is generally a lack of tact amongst notable atheists in telling people that they are wrong about the system of beliefs on which they base their life. This I don't see a reason to change or even worry about. However, the other trend is the fact that a number of atheists, on the internet especially, will act as if the simple act of being an atheist puts them on some sort of elevated mental position and that they are somehow more intelligent for simply accepting a rational proposition. Wow, you personally know all the answers to life's great mysteries! Congratulations, you are obviously the most intelligent and erudite person in the world. 147.138.87.241 (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That is annoying, but i don't think it's unique to atheists. There are a whole number of properties and beliefs that people think make them more specialer than the muggles. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 20:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The more vocal New Atheists seem to get the most coverage in the media, and that's a double-edged sword because you get this. It's one of the reasons why Neil deGrasse Tyson and others don't even want to have the label. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I find it both depressing and hilarious that it appeared that most of the Youtube commenters on that first video missed the point of the video. 147.138.87.241 (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the less tactful the person is, the more they get noticed. So then you get the impression that nobody in that group is tactful - the most irritating, annoying or noteworthy person becomes what you regard as representative of the group.

To give other examples I'm sure that most Roman Catholic Priests are nor paedophiles and I suspect that most American televangelists are not sexual predators though I could be wrong on that second one. But these are the ones who get all the attention and affect our opinion of the group.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 08:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Related: the toupée fallacy.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm an atheist and an obnoxious dick, so by typical mind fallacy it's trivially obvious to me that all obnoxious dicks are atheists - David Gerard (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I also find that a lot of religious people are arrogant - "you can't have morality without religion", "your appraisal of religion/God is unsophisticated" - so a lot of this boils down to people disdaining those who tend to hold a contrary view to the espouser. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 23:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

People who believe the bible think atheists are more stupid than arrogant: "Shall the thing that is made say to the thing that made it, "You don't know what you are doing." nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 06:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Tell that to the Psalmist. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Arrogance is just pride - being puffed up in your own vain imaginations, thinking you're something you're not - like Lucifer thinking he's God. Pride goeth before destruction. Many bible believers are humble enough and love the lost, so they're not gonna say, "hey brother, you're an idiot", when they're really thinking, "what an idiot". nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 06:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt many people at all "love the lost". ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 06:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Not to sound proud, or vain, but I'm sure you have compassion when you see a retarded person. An atheist is simply a moral (and spiritual) retard. nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 06:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Not many, but some do. They are usually found putting their shoulders to the wheel in the task of helping "the lost," rather than loudly proclaiming to the city and the world that they have something "the lost" do not.

Rob, I think you might want to mark the words of Jesus: "Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." ListenerX^TalkerX 06:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. Saying it. He that refraineth his lips is wise. There's no prohibition aganist thinking it, or understanding God's truth. nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 06:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Peter ^mqzp 07:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Elsewhere in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus did not exactly take pains to draw a distinction between "thinking it" and "doing it." Not to mention that you and I are probably the only theists in this discussion; you have, in effect, just said "Thou fool" to a number of atheists. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually he did (Mt. 5:28). As he thinketh in his heart, so is he. This is a question of faith: the Fool hath said in his heart, "there is no God"; a beleiver, by faith, is secure in his heart that God has labeled non-beleivers as "fools", though the beleiver has good advice to show compassion and not to provoke the fool with insults. nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 17:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Compassion/sympathy is different from love. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 06:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, to degree. Without getting into philos/agape/eros, let's cite the 'ol standby, Jn 3:16, "For God so loved the world..." For God so had compassion on the world.... nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 06:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful irony when one compares the first comment which complains about some athiests with some of the religiously-minded comments above!--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 08:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm an atheist, well...more humanist to be exact. And this surprises a lot of people I know because I don't "act" Atheist. When asked what an "Atheist" is supposed to act like; I got a "Oh...you know...really douchebag, arrogant types...that think they're smarter than us."

It was simple to explain to them that being an Atheist meant that we don't believe in a higher being .What wasn't easy was why the characteristics of being an Atheist is always correlated with the "Douchebag, smartass, arrogant" type. I'm not entirely sure where this came from, but I for one do not wish to be associated with that sort of stereotype. I go about life the same as I usually do, help people, study, etc.etc.etc. But when asked what religious sect I'm in...I like to surprise them with a "Oh. I'm atheist". --Dumpling (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm a Christian, and both Christians and other groups (though everyone would have to classify himself or herself into or out of this idea) must necessarily believe that there is a real reality and that there is both truth (reality) and error. In discerning what is right and wrong, true and untrue, one must necessarily make a distinction and point it out. BUT there is no need to be rude about it, let's disagree agreeably. I find that many Atheists I've interacted with, non-famous ones on social media, have used a lot hand waving and less concrete detail. As in "we'll there's lots of evidence! Evolution is equal to basic arithmetic! Scientists said so!" Whereas in my Christian private education we learn from creationist science, intelligent design, and Christian apologetics, So I can talk about DNA, numbers and percentages, animal anatomy, and ecetera. There are logical reasons to beleive that there is a God and that we were created. But there's no need to be rude about it or to get personal. Timothy Perseus Wordsworth (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, let me know when you can substantiate the claim that worshiping Jesus gets you a reward after you die, or anything resembling that. Until then, your arguments don't mean much, and IMHO are a red herring. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This is true enough, but pointing it out is just plain rude. ^narchist 13:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think That there is a major distinction between saying that someone is wrong, or that their idea, or that their world view is incorrect and saying that a person is a fool. It's like the difference between saying "Mr., you tripped." and saying "You're a stupid klutz." That's my take. Timothy Perseus Wordsworth (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

He that says in his heart that there is no god is a fool. ps 14.1 - If I had a quid for every time that had been quoted at me. Oh, yes, and I'm going to burn for eternity in hell, and I have no morals, and... and... and.... I rather like Cracked's take on this. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Transhumanism navbar?

I think it would be good for the transhumanism article itself, things like the "singularity" and cybernetic revolt, &c. Any idea what the portal icon should be? Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me or view my art} 20:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

A stereotypical 50s robot with a brain over it. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

[6] ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 21:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Something like that, iconised by Armondikov - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

A futurist sidebar, with a crude robot like the one from Forbidden Planet--"Shut up, Brx." 21:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"A futurist sidebar..." Good idea -- why restrict our navbar to only the latest variant of the same old nonsense? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This robot would be perfect for the icon--"Shut up, Brx." 04:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

*cough* copyright *cough* Stick to a generic "tin man with antennae", please. Or, since it's going to a be a futurism template, just put a flying car. :) Or a jetpack. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, if it's gonna be an Armondikov reductionist icon, then I think we'll be safe copyright wise--"Shut up, Brx." 15:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Ta-da! Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me or view my art} 03:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I've created and stocked Category:Transhumanism - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I still think that "Futurism" would be better.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that they're technically two different things, so you could also make a futurism category. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 01:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Transhumanism fits under futurism, and a futurism sidebar would be richer than a transhumanist sidebar--"Shut up, Brx." 01:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Transhumanism could be a subcat of futurism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly--"Shut up, Brx." 02:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Futurism navbar with transhumanism subnav sounds good. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me or view my art} 02:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Four years in, and still no navbar. --Jagoe (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The end may or may not be nigh slightly sooner than we thought

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable." Sophie^Wilder 13:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds more like conjecture than theory (yes, I realize it's a HHGTTG quote). --Seth Peck (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

So we need to stop scientific research? Sounds like sth creationists would say, except they would be admitting to believing it if they used it as a reason to stop scientific research. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 22:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you might want to look up that quote. Sophie^Wilder 22:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

For the benefit of the slightly-less-than-clueful (and my apologies to those feeling the need to shout "Thank You Captain Obvious"). That quote comes from a book called the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". (see [7] towards the end of Section 1). I'm not sure it was ever intended as a formal scientific theory. VOX^HUMANA 23:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now that you point that out, it does sound like something from that book. It sounded fairly unscientific. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 01:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The best part was the comment, right above yours, pointing it out. --^Mikal_lakiM 03:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope you aren't trying to be funny, because you aren't. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 03:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think he was hilarious. Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 03:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

^ User was blocked for this post Sasha04:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to be funny?--^Mikal_lakiM 04:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Clearly, what RW needs is more demonstrations of righteous indignation. VOX^HUMANA 04:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The universe is here so we can drink it. Nope, still here. The hypothesis is falsified. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me or view my art} 03:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

RW-space lists

I guess this would be up to the admins, but does anyone think it would be a good idea to create a voting system (possibly WIGO-style) for RW-space lists like RationalWiki:Bookshelf? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

We should vote on whether to vote on having such a voting system. It's how we roll. Sophie^Wilder 17:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

A vote on each particular item in a list or a vote for whether or not to create/keep a list in the first place? Sam ^Tally-ho! 23:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The former. I was thinking it might make the lists less scattershot, and it might be interesting just to see what RW as a whole would vote up. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a cool idea. It's a reason to centralize and clean up book and blog lists if nothing else. Displaying items in order is easy to do with jQuery and I'm sure easier to do server side in php, which is the devil. 04:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Alphabetical? Also, we might put a request at the top that folks blurb each one.--^talk 09:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

New Jersey, representing...

Making a statement, although I'm not sure it's worth being stuck with the photo for the next four years. -DinsdaleP (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"No Smiling..." in Britain photo booths bear the slgan "don't smile now, save it for later!" Under the slogan is a big picture of a woman smiling. Sophie^Wilder 17:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

A police officer might get you for lying about the headgear being for religious purposes when you aren't wearing it in person, that is if you have to make any kind of formal statement certifying that the colander is for religious purposes. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 18:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That seems pretty petty. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 01:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone is sure he can prove Christianity

The So-called proof is here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I am sure the august lyceum of theological wisdom that is Christian Lego Fans Wiki will shake Liberapedia to its foundations. Will you be having a war about which end of a boiled egg should be opened? Sophie^Wilder 17:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What's the name of the internet law about webdesign indicating the sanity of the designer? I can't read any of that. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 18:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You're not missing much. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I figured. I tried highlighting it, still couldn't read it, read a few excepts of the only legible text, realized it was crap and left. It's really terrible arguments for the existence of God. So in one place the Bible supports gender equality. In 10,000 other places, it is the cause of all sexism. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 19:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I was stuck on the whole "my religion is the olny fucking religion in the entire world that science supports". ohhhhkaayyyy..... (ok, cussing is mine, but still). Anyone who thinks he or she has teh special key, probably don't. just saying....Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 19:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The beginning of Obi's first response: "Because God, unlike the universe, exists outside of the laws of physics..." Yeah, I think we're done here. If your hypothetical agent is "outside of" science and logic, then you cannot pretend your explanation is scientific or logical. It's sad how few people get that. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It is legitimately the worst piece of argumentation I've ever read. William Lane Craig does better. ^bomination 13:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Haig's Law. ^gnostic 13:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Killed my desktop

So last night I was restarting my computer to fix something with it's wireless when i accidentally powered it off, and now the OS won't load:

• multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\windows\system32\ntoskrnl.exe
• multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\windows\system32\hal.dll
• multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\windows\system32\kdcom.dll
• multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\windows\system32\bootvid.dll
• multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\windows\system32\config\system
• multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)\windows\system32\config\system.log

I have a general idea of what all that fun stuff means but, somebody tell me how much I may have or have not fucked myself. --^Mikal_lakiM 23:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a very interesting list, but would you like to explain its relevance to the rest of your post? Maybe it appears as part of an error message? I emphasise the word part because a list, on its own, isn't much of an error. The rest might help someone diagnose. It's also often useful to tell people exactly what OS version you have, whether you might have done anything besides "accidentally powered it off" which ought to be largely harmless, and whether you have tried to "fix" it in any way already. Tialaramex (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It generates when I try to load in any of the three safe modes, its the only information I know how to find, , the other main options leave me at a blank, black screen, and XP, not much else I can say--^Mikal_lakiM 23:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a corrupted system partition. If you have a copy of your original install disk, then read this - How-to repair Windows XP VOX^HUMANA 23:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

We actually don't, if this thing did come with one it got lost long ago (this things from 07)--^Mikal_lakiM 23:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If I was prone to illegal activity, then I would go to a friend's house, download an XP system disk from a torrent site, burn it to a DVD and then fix my machine. But as that is illegal, I won't suggest it. VOX^HUMANA 00:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I foresee a Ubuntu/Lubuntu/Mint install in your near future. If not that, you might want to make a bootable Linux thumb drive, at least, so you can get to the hard drive and save your data. Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 00:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll sell you a licensed copy of XP Pro for $50. 01:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice offer but i;m actually dirt poor atm--^Mikal_lakiM 01:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Something like this happened to me a few years ago. Basically, the hard drive went kaput, and because we didn't have backups, we had to send it to a company to get the data onto DVDs to the tune of $900. If you have backups, now would be the time to use them. If not, do the Linux thumb drive thing and get off whatever you can, if you can. Either way, I foresee at least a new hard drive purchase in your future. --CoyoteSans (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I've had the same problem in the past. It's normally caused by hardware drivers being corrupted, the HAL - hardware abstraction layer - can't load. You should be able to borrow a friend's Windows installation disc because at least you have a kosher Windows license code, don't you? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hardware Abstraction Layer? Sophie^Wilder 19:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)