RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive194

This is an archive page, last updated 5 March 2013. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <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>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Republicans and technology

Not a WIGO, but this NY Times op-ed is worth a read: Can the Republicans Be Saved From Obsolescence? VOX^HUMANA 02:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought of putting that on blogs, but couldn't think of a good tag line - if anyone can, they should - David Gerard (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"The NY Times nicely illustrates Betteridge's law of headlines." Too obscure? --Yukabacera (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice one. VOX^HUMANA 02:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

User page spam

What, if any, are the guidelines on such as this which is merely a link to a commercial psoriasis "treatment" site (in Polish)? My first instinct was to vape it, but it is a user page. Scream!! (talk) 12:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

User pages can be vaped if they are just spam, I think. It's been done many times. Sophie^Wilder 12:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent example. Sophie^Wilder 12:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Haven't you gt a better example than a red link? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Fizxing keyboasrd?

Ezxzzcuase me for as moment while I try to rectify this... ...and fuck me sideways with a rake, it's gone RIGHT as I came to the end of that line. For the past few months, perhaps stretching back as far as October or November, my notebook's keyboard has had this weird tick. Around once or twice a week, or once a fortnight if I'm lucky, the far left of my keyboard will...kind of stick together. The keys don't go down at the same time or anything, but if I press 1 or 2, 12 will appear, if I press q or w, then qw will appear, repeat for a, s, z and x, and sometimes it can come out worse (see 'Ezxzzcuase'), so I'll have to plan ahead, go back and delete letters, or in cases where I'm inputting a password, either be very attentive and lucky or resort to the onscreen keyboard. I planned to come here and explain this after whacking the affected letters after 'rectify this' until it came right, and then it happened. I'm not kidding when I say it has a habit of going away when I start to complain via typing to someone else. So, I'm wondering what I should do if I want to fix it for good, considering my spacebar and a couple other keys (such as b) are a bit rigid and I want to get those looked at, not to mention the dandruff that's built in there. Do most notebooks let you remove the entire keyboard at once to let you give it a brush or hoover? Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 14:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

There is an excellent chance that the symptoms you've described are electrical rather than mechanical and thus it's possible that you can't really fix them by cleaning it, but it's worth a shot. The short key travel normally used on portable hardware means the keyboard is far trickier to take to pieces than an old full-size PC keyboard, there is definitely a risk of snapping tiny yet vital pieces of plastic if force is used. So be very careful.

Still, it is very common for the keyboard itself to be a removeable and replaceable component of a laptop type device. Check the underside, if there are ordinary-ish screw heads visible which are labelled with a keyboard icon or similar that certainly means that, if you unscrew all such screws, you will be able to remove the keyboard making cleaning easier. Usual caveats about disassembling things apply (unplug from the wall, remove battery if possible, work on a clean, flat table or similar, do not apply excess force, etc.). For more common devices replacement keyboards are available from ebay or similar sources, particularly if your keyboard type is popular or you can live with the "wrong" keyboard, e.g. many Brits can put up with a US keyboard. So that's an option if you can't "fix" it. Tialaramex (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Odds are you got something sticky under there or the thin film that gets pressed into contact when you depress your key is cheesed. Laptop keyboards aren't consumer serviceable. Some brands are notoriously shitty. Like he said, you can try popping the keys off, but it's an absolute guarantee you'll break something and realize you still can't get at the problem. Replacement keyboards are cheap and easy to install. Don't waste your time doing anything else. When people ask technical questions it helps to give specifics. Like, wouldn't it make you happy if someone could give you a link to the $20 replacement part that takes 5 minutes to install? 15:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Keyboards are usually cheap ($15-$40) and easy (5-15 min) to replace. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

What they said. I was able to buy a new keyboard on Amazon, since mine was a very popular model. I'm also a total klutz yet was able to change it on my own, so no sweat. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Spilling sticky drinks over your keyboard is known to produce this effect. While laptop keyboards are not really user serviceable it's usually not a big deal to replace them. Replacements for common models are easily found on Fleabay and a Goggle search will probably turn up a guide on how to open your laptop case, unless it's one of those impossible-to-get-into poseur models. Your only problem might be getting an exact replacement for the key layout. You can either remap your keyboard or pop off some of the old keys and put them on your new one. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's just sticky stuff, you can also try removing the keyboard and all electronics and ribbon cables attached to it and running it through the dishwasher on a short cycle with no detergent. Seriously. It can't make things any worse for a useless keyboard and it sometimes works. Let it dry completely away from sunlight or extra heat before you reinstall it. Obviously don't try this on keyboards that light up; they have inaccessible circuits under each key for the LEDs. 19:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's still under warranty, you can send it in and have the keyboard replaced. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me?

Am I the only one who thinks uttering the phrase "Obama Phone" immediately puts someone in the idiot column, indicating that no further conversation is necessary? SirChuckB^{Go Naked, Hitler Wore Clothes} 17:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder who owns this website. It doesn't have the racially charged tone of a conservative welfare parody, and it says it's independent and not affiliated with any government.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, describing any government program as "Obama[whatever]" may not mean one is an idiot, but it does mean they have been pretty well rooked by the Ministry of Truth. Both "Obamacare" and "Obamaphones" are Republican ideas. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of phrases that indicate that I have no real need to engage with the person who has uttered them: "Obama Phone," "Death Panel," "Birth Certificate," "FEMA Camp," "NAFTA Highway," etc, etc, etc. Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 18:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but Obama was very clever to re-appropriate the term "Obamacare." Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 18:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Not sure who owns it Brx. It was registered via domains by proxy. and Gatsby, anyone using the term Obamaphone isn't just linking the program to the government, they're specifically impugning Obama for handing out free phones to poor people. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 18:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, when I say "Ministry of Truth", I mean Fox News. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Their memo headers say "MiniTrue," actually. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Anytime I hear someone use the term I want to assume a few things about them, but mostly that they're either stupid, sloppy, or liars. In reality these are RepublicanCongressPhones from a program started in the mid-90's under the first majority Republican Congress in 40 years. But that's irrelevant to people eager to smear the Coon in Chief. They're part of a program that gives cheap phones with limited functionality to people below the federal poverty guidelines who can't afford copper wire phones in their homes. It's not about giving cell phones to "welfare queens" or whatever other racist names bigots have for people they don't like. These phones are sometimes a lifeline for poor people, hence one of the programs being called "Lifeline." There's a bill presently pending in the House called the Stop Taxpayer Funded Cell Phones Act of 2011, sponsored by 20 representatives. Predictably, every single one of them is a Republican. Nice. 19:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I would add that I find it difficult to understand why programs like these and broad consumer protection wouldn't be broadly supported on both sides of the aisle. Many who fall into the category of being considered "low income" and who also disproportionately need assistance with problems arising from unfair, one-sided consumer financial transactions are people on fixed incomes, often solely social security - e.g. these guy's parents... 19:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

To quote Michael Moore's Sicko, "They all loved their mothers. It's just that they didn't love our mothers as much." Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The "Obamaphone" page linked above has this, which seems pretty legit. It even mentions that the program was started by Reagan. But then I've never heard this phrase outside of this discussion.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Lucky! --TheLateGatsby (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ring ring ring ring ring... Obama Phone? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this worth an article/is this covered here and I just can't find it?

"Free Distant Qigong Energy Healing." Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 02:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure there's some article here about general moronic ideas.--Token Conservative (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Another take on why the Pope resigned.

So there was that dumb rumor hitting my Facebook last week about the (not-really-existent) "International Tribunal for Crimes Against Church and State" getting the Pope indicted; more than a few smart and educated people I know fell for that, mostly because decent humans want to see the Pope behind bars. But thsi looks at least moderately more interesting. Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 04:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I still prefer my theory--Token Conservative (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Nah, the Vatican is always involved in some kind of scandal. Also, read this on another theory. Peter ^mqzp 04:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Should victims of rape be immune from underage alcohol crimes if they report having been raped?

I think that this would make rape much more likely to be reported, and would reduce victimization. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that girls who are raped end up getting charged with crimes. Of course, the rule of law fascists would go ape over this. The law is designed to protect people, and people are not being protected if they are not reporting rape (a severe crime) because they will be charged with a victimless crime if they do. Rational formation and irrational application. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 21:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could not always talk about rape here?--^Mikal_lakiM 21:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Do "girls who are raped end up getting charged with [underage alcohol] crimes"? Without citations you sound rather like you're concern trolling. Peter ^mqzp 21:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

What these guys said. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

How am I concern trolling? I am speaking out against an absolutely disgusting form of blaming and punishing the victim who has already suffered to an unimaginable extent. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 21:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(ECx2)I doubt this is really a significant concern. Besides, can't we keep all this rape talk to where it started so the rest of us can ignore it. Damo^Hi 21:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how often it's a problem, but it is appalling that it happens. I was hoping to propose something that people would agree with instead of arguing, but if you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 22:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could pick something that isn't rape, War crimes or other such topics if you want to win friends. --^Mikal_lakiM 22:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Concern trolling. PD's look the other way at minor crimes by victims. Hipocrite (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe sometimes they do, but not always. Stop your bullying. It's disgusting that you would attack someone standing up for women for your own little thing. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 22:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit Conflict, twice: What "underage alcohol crimes" are you talking about? Where I did my underage drinking, it was a misdemeanor for a minor to be in possession of alcohol, but it wasn't a "crime" to have alcohol inside of you. Unless you showed up at the cop shop to report a rape while taking slugs from a a bottle of Wild Turkey, I'm not sure there would be any "crime" to waive in the first place. Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 22:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, an offense, whatever the technical word for it is. Sorry I don't know all the legal terms. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 22:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

So, does this happen often in your life? Women getting arrested for alcohol infractions when they report that they've been assaulted? Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 22:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's never been an issue for me personally, but I've read about it happening. I'm sure you would agree that it shouldn't happen at all. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 22:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's have links to those articles you read. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

This was a long time ago. I'm sorry, but most people don't bookmark every page they've ever read. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 22:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well Google a phrase that you remember, and in the future, bring things up closer to their incidence so that they're still relevant. Please. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

guess now we have even more reasons we lie about being raped, huh? Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 17:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You think that will make people lie about being raped to get out of trouble? Even if it does, it's still an important policy because it's far better for victims to be able to report rape without worrying about getting in trouble as a result of it. Even if there isn't a conviction of the rapist, it's still important not to take action against the victim. While MRAs might cry about girls being able to get out of underage drinking penalties, it's still important. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 18:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There have been significant studies, boht of campus life, and life in general that show the number of reported rapes that are fake are almost exactly identical to wrongful claims in any other field about 3%. 3% of reported murders were actually done by the person reporting the murder. 3% of breakins were done by the homeowners for insurance or to cover other crime. 3% of kidnappings are done by the parents to cover some other crime or get monney from insurance, etc. It happens. it doesn't happen often. even with the dangling of a 'get out of jail free" card. which do you think is a worse stigmga. getting a ticket for underage drinking? or tellign the world you were raped? Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 19:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ideally, there would be no stigma from rape. No one would look favorably on girls lying about rape to get out of an underage drinking offense. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 03:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 03:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem here would be for people under 18. Over 18, underage drinking is one of the few things that is punished less severely. We could have a requirement that the police would not be allowed to inform the victim's parents, although I'm sure the big government types would rip bookshelves off their walls and scream about how the parents have a "right" to know. If they actually cared about their children, they'd rather have them report having been raped than have to worry about whether or not they'll get into trouble. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 18:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Worst Jury Ever?

Without commenting on the trial itself, since there will now be a retrial, I'd just like to say that the jury in the Chris Huhne / Vicky Pryce trial must be a candidate for Worst Ever. The list of ten questions the jury asked the judge is unbelievable: "Can you define what is reasonable doubt?" is pretty dumb (and you have to love the judge's reply!) but "Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it?" is downright idiotic. Number 10 is also a goodie. For non-Brits, there's a good background to the whole case here. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There are some things you need to understand about jurys and jury trials. "jury instructions", a list of things the judges give to the juries to explain their roll there, are often vague, intentionally leading, and open, and have tons of things that the average person says "huh" to. They are agreed upon by both sides, with the judge looking them over. Then, the number of ways things like "reasonable doubt" is played with in Court, by both sides, leaves you with no real idea what the word REASONABLE in reasonable doubt, means. few people explain it well, and when the do the other side jumps in and confuses you again. "We have 10 pieces of evidence, but one piece of evidence relies on a technique that is now regarded as problematic by the FBI" - so is there "reasonable" doubt? that is the very point of the often game playing done by attorneys. Godot Chúc mừng năm mới 18:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand that well. It doesn't change the fact that this jury was made up of idiots. It's just been on the news here - the judge had a real go at them too. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"A fundamental deficit in the understanding of their role" was one quote from the judge. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There are some silly questions there, but I personally would prefer that they ask them rather than getting their job wrong. I have been involved in one jury trial (peripherally) where our client would have benefited from a jury asking questions as dumb as these. Damo^Hi 20:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Reading through those questions again, particularly 5-10 and the wording of Q5, leads me to think that probably only 1 or 2 jurors were completely useless and the rest had had enough of banging their head against a wall trying to convince them to consider the case properly. I hear that the jury was hung in the end, so there might be a retrial [1]. Interesting case all in all. I'll bet she isn't the first one to take one for a friend or partner. (allegedly) Damo^Hi 03:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

All juries aren't qualified for what they're asked to do, and in many cases get fuck all instruction in changing that. I imagine this is probably average. ^{d hominem} 13:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, juries are perfectly qualified for their actual job, it's just that people are desperate to over-think it. All you have to do is sit there, pay attention, and decide whether you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty (of each individual charge). Asking how to define "reasonable doubt" is an example of over-thinking it. We specifically disqualify people "in the business" from jury duty because they will over-think everything. The main problem for juries is one that you can't solve by changing the criteria - the real world is a messy, complicated place. full of uncertainty, quite unlike episodes of Law and Order, let alone CSI or Miss Marple. So ultimately it's up to your peers to figure out whether you're guilty, because we have no reliable means and yet we must make a decision anyway. Justice is imperfect.

One thing that surprises outsiders is that despite "beyond a reasonable doubt" the majority of complete trials have guilty outcomes. Out of defendants accused (of things that would lead to crown court, ie jury trial) 5.4% would result in "not guilty", 7.9% "guilty" by a jury, all the remainder don't get as far as asking the jury to make a decision (most commonly because the defendant pleads guilty). The reason is that (in the UK) prosecutors are forbidden from proceeding if they don't think they can secure a guilty verdict, so a typical prosecutor isn't bringing many toss-up cases before the court in the first place. Of course telling juries that would screw things up even further, because they'd know that at least one person (the prosecutor) is probably certain the person in the dock is guilty before they even start, and that person has seen more of the evidence than they have and knows more about the law. Tialaramex (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"All you have to do is sit there, pay attention..." - yeah, exactly. ^bomination 00:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

One thing that surprises outsiders is that despite "beyond a reasonable doubt" the majority of complete trials have guilty outcomes Presumably, the defendant wasn't arrested on a whim, and the police has been investigating them and building a case. Presumably. I'm not a lawyer or police officer by any means, and you sometimes hear about people getting framed or shoddy policework--"Shut up, Brx." 01:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

RW Recommends

Anyone got any good games for Android? --TechCheese^lament 22:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

World of Goo. (Worth getting on PC as well if you don't have an Android.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If you like actual puzzles check out Trainyard. If you're not sure if you like puzzles, try Trainyard Express first. Don't worry if you find the early puzzles easy, the game holds back the really mind-bending stuff until you think you've beaten it, and then "bonus" puzzles open up. If you prefer one button endless running mindlessnes, try Jetpack Joyride. All the usual bird flinging, pig rolling or fruit ninja-ing stuff is also available on Android if you want to do things you saw your grandmother doing. Tialaramex (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It does seem like you should say what kind of games you enjoy/are looking for. If you're into tower defense games and haven't played it yet, I think there's an android app for Kingdom Rush--Token Conservative (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Very much depends what kind of games you like. I spent a lot of time on Flow Free and Flow FRee Bridges Worm (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I love World of Goo! What's the highest you've built your tower to? Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me or view my art} 01:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I was quite impressed with the Inotia series of RPGs. If you like that sort of thing, at least. They're a bit grindy and repetitive (like, every mission is "go collect 10 of [X]") and the story is simple hero saves the world stuff... but they're good fun to have a bash at and quite addictive. ^{d hominem} 00:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Am I an old fart?

I only listened to Gangnam Style a few weeks ago, and my response was to wonder what the big deal is.

I've not listened to the Harlem Shake yet.

Should I just start yelling at kids to get off my lawn and be done with it? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

In answer to your question, yes, you should just start yelling at kids to get off your lawn. It's great fun. Mcnamara12 (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The appeal of Gangnam Style wasn't the song itself but the music video. Same with Harlem Shake. Osaka Sun (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Things like Gangnam and Harlem embody everything that is good about YouTube and everything that is bad about popular culture. Sit back in your rockin' chair, sip your g&t, yell at the kids and listen to this to restore your faith in humanity. --PsyGremlin^Prata! 13:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that was utter crap. A mediocre violinist jumping around in snow while playing over a drum machine is not going to cheer anyone up. Here is some proper "make the old fart happy" music VOX^HUMANA 14:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Now that's music.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 14:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

But just to prove old farts can listen to music less than 20 years old, here is an extraordinary song/clip by some band in Newfoundland. VOX^HUMANA 14:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Lindsey Stirling hops around and grimaces most fetchingly, and the video was slickly produced, but enh. Here is a trombone quartet's recent cover of Kansas' Wayward Son. Settle back in the barca-lounger, dim the lights, free your soul, and drift away... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Harlem Shake and Gangnam Style have at least done one good thing: American men now dance instead of just sitting in corner drinking.--"Shut up, Brx." 15:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

There has to be a better way! --TheLateGatsby (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘For what its worth, when I said I "listened to" Gangnam Style, I watched the video. I still didn't see the point. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 16:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Back in my day... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I still haven't seen it, so you're not alone there. I heard it come on the TV or radio or something very recently and for the first time I heard it played it long enough to hear more than the "oppa oppa" bit. It was like "don't know what this bit is haven't heard the full song before". Still don't know how it ends (then again, I can say that about Lord of the Rings).

Crystallise isn't my favourite Lindsay Sterling track by a long shot, so I raise you four Scandinavians and some cellos. ^theist 00:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

So Frodo decides it's time to leave, and ends up going to hogwarts, where he meets this sparkly vampire and they all get married.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 00:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

My brain has just melted processing that sentence. ^bomination 01:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The story's kind of bland. It's about this guy named Dumbledore Calrissian... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for the main page/mission statement.

So, from what I've seen here, I wonder if the "Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes" section might add a point number 4: "Educating people about the basic concept that fucking people without their consent is generally a bad idea." It seems to be a pretty popular topic. Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 22:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean... 5? Blue (pester) 22:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Was it really necessary to have yet another section on rape? Damo^Hi 22:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, yeah, 5. And poking through Recent Changes...maybe? I mean, there seem to be at least 3 active threads on the topic, so it seems pretty popular. Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 22:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

They're all the same thread, which has metastasised. Peter ^mqzp 22:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Damo on this one. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 22:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to RW, PS&L. Unfortunately, it seems to be MRA season recently, so yes, there are a lot of mind-numbing disputes about feminism & rape around. But there is other non-rape-related stuff going on too; I hope so anyway. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be discussing other stuff, because this makes even me feel tedious. As for this MRA BS, I think it's about to make me identify as a Feminist, or at least be very openly supportive of Feminism. I agree with 90% of everything they say, probably more. These MRA people make me die inside. There was one idiot I saw on Reddit who was talking about how he joined the MRA movement. He mentioned that there was a guy he knew whose "life had been ruined" because a girl falsely accused him of rape. While people shouldn't mindlessly believe rape accusations (or any accusations for that matter), I'm sure that most of the people who say that rape accusations are false are just trying to justify or cover up what they did. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 02:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Weren't you complaining about men being pansies or am i merging people in my mind?--^Mikal_lakiM 02:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that MRAs would be agreeing with something that was considered sexist against men. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 03:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Since you have suggested that feminists exaggerate rates of rape & inhibit progress towards women's rights, I'm taking this "very openly supportive of Feminism" declaration with a pinch of salt. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That is the 1%... That I disagree with. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 16:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

'Basic Feminism 101 For Dummies' should mention that, like "atheism" there's not a single school of thought that everyone consistently agrees with. You have second wave, third wave, sex positivity and radical feminism just to mention a few big ones off the top of my head. The feminism of Blue isn't quite the same as the feminism of Andrea Dworkin, the feminism of me (in so much that I don't really identify as a feminist for Reasons) isn't the same as the feminism of Germaine Greer. It might not be even "1% of feminists" that you disagree with, it might be a significantly higher number than that - but the important thing is to identify the specific beliefs and ideas you identify with, rather than a generalised ideology. ^narchist 00:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hah, the feminism of Germaine Greer now doesn't even agree with the feminism of Gemaine Greer when she wrote The Female Eunuch. I saw her in Liverpool a couple of years ago and during the Q&A session some earnest feminists were banging on about her old writings. She told them that things have changed and that feminism now is different from the feminism of 40 years ago.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Random chemistry question

Anybody here knows what is the largest known molecule containing no carbon? By "large" I mean the molecule with the most atoms. --Tlaloc (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You can make silicon dioxide lattices, which could theoretically go on for ever I suppose. Peter ^mqzp 21:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Ask Sterile on his userpage. He doesn't appear to look at SB much. 21:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Aren't diamonds technically one huge molecule? Innocent Bystander (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Duh! As soon as I pressed 'save page' I realised how dumb my answer was. Innocent Bystander (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Look on Wikipedia for inorganic polymers. Polythiazyl has the structure (SN)_x, for example. --Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Peter's right about silicon dioxide (quartz) and there are other large silicates, too. Black phosphorus is a covalent network compound, and there might be some polyphosphates. I'm sure there are silicon-based polymers. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 00:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Other fun ones: polyborazine, polysilazanes, and polythiazyl. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 00:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea how you'd determine which is the largest. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 00:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want a spinning molecule gif, let me know. I haven't made one in ages. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 00:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I told a friend that only carbon could make molecules big enough to be the basis of life, but then I thought I may be wrong. I'll let you know if I need a gif. Not likely, but thanks! --Tlaloc (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

What's the largest you could render, out of interest? Peter ^mqzp 03:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You can do large molecules such as proteins. With Jmol you could use ribbons or atoms or whatever. With Blender you can use only atoms (or easily at least, although there's still software I haven't played with), but you can more readily control the movement through the molecule. There's a python-based program I haven't played with. Most of these are even free, although I'm not sure about the blender plugins. It's just a matter of getting the right input file. Proteins come as pdb files many times. I'll make you one when I get a chance. Look at the genetics page for a small DNA strand. The only limit on size is the time for the computer to render it. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 13:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to play with big molecules, use Qutemol. It accepts structures in PDB form, which is fairly easy to export out of any of the main free/trial viewers like DS Visualiser or ChemCraft. ^{d hominem} 23:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Depends what you want. I don't think Qutemol works on my laptop, but Jmol works anywhere, can be interactive including customizable buttons, checkboxes, etc., and works with every known file format known to chemists. Actually, I recommend Avagadro, too. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 12:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Silicon-based life has been speculated but seems unlikely. Life requires the ability to make and break polymers, and carbons tendency to make bond single and double bonds as well as make four of them makes that likely. Si=O bonds tend to be too reactive. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 02:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I've talked about this with... someone... chem prof maybe? Been awhile. Anyways, I think the basic argument he made is that to be the basis of life (like carbon) an atom would need to make bonds that are strong, not very reactive, but can be broken down, and would need a lot of valence electrons, so carbon is really your best bet, but silicon is probably the next most likely. --Token Conservative (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That was my understanding too. Silicon is the "most plausible" due to having some of the same properties as carbon. But it definitely has a lot of drawbacks, like the fact long-chain molecules tend to react with water, and silicon dioxide is a solid at temperatures where water is liquid. Plus silicon is roughly 1000 times more abundant that carbon on earth, yet carbon still formed the basis of life. VOX^HUMANA 04:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I am reminded of the old Star Trek episode that featured a silicon-based lifeform which was apparently an intelligent rock. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a rock, it was a blob... thing that could tunnel through rock as easily as we walk through air. --Revolverman (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The simple fact is that when you actually take a look at biological molecules and total up the oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and phosphorous in them, calling them "carbon based" is almost hilariously wrong. ^sshole 23:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

How to sell horrible ideas

Easy, make an obnoxiously hip website targeted at college kids.

I'm so awed by how over-designed it is that I can barely focus on its terrible content, which is entirely about the evils of contraception and the virtues of "fertility awareness." (And what is "fertility awareness," you may ask? Two words: psychic vaginas.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

So, my idea to make a fad diet needs to be targeted at hipsters? Excellent!--Token Conservative (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It's almost as subversive as a Che Guevara t-shirt! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean obnoxiously hip and over-designed? It's not hip if you're a fucking douchenozzle. That site doesn't even come close to passing for hip. It's like you showing up at CBGBs in 1980 in a Blondie hoodie. It's not over-designed. It's mostly pretty poorly designed. The typography is not good. Nice typeface but bad contrast and font weight. Bad color. They need to learn what a grid is. The jQuery carousel is amateur hour. This post was mostly unresponsive. I'm going to get back to learning Objective-C drunk. Lates. 05:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Over here the Catholic fundies heavily pimp this site which contains a pile of gynaecological pseudoscience invented by a Catholic institute and presented as an alternative to in-vitro fertilization. --Tweenk (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a good sign...

So the Teabagger Facebook needs $30,000 a month by the looks of it. With 1 and a bit weeks to go, hey still need to raise R23,000.

Seems the unwashed masses aren't quite willing to put their money where their mouths are. --PsyGremlin^Parla! 08:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Can they not survive on advertising? That seems a bit odd. --Damo^Hi 08:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Site for a movement that is (well, at least claims to be) against taxes asking for its members to dig deep. Day = made. Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 08:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless my history is completely wrong, the actual sovereign state that became today's United States of America already did this once. Patriots (read, rich people) wanted their new state to be funded voluntarily and not to borrow or have any tax-raising powers, but weirdly not enough money was contributed to keep it running and in the end you got your current USA complete with national debt and various taxes because that actually works. Tialaramex (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see statistics (if any exist) on charitable donations by people who identify as libertarian, anti-tax or anti-welfare (not to this website specifically, but donations in general). Their argument is usually that charities should replace the role of welfare (for things like lifelong disability, senior citizens), but I'm very sceptical about whether these people are really big givers. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure they're all in favour of it... as long as it's other people who do the giving. We're talking about a mentality that decided that what post-earthquake Haiti needed was Bibles... --PsyGremlin^講話 13:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I imagine that the site is managed by profligates who spent all the money on hookers and blow. Seriously, their site is laggy as hell and it takes 30k to run? We should give them Trent.--"Shut up, Brx." 15:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope Teabook keeps going, if not, either they'll submit to King Mark I, or they'll flood Google+ -and there are enough of them there as it is. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

@ Tialaramex That was the US under the Articles of Confederation, and it was only the Federal level that had no taxing authority, the states did. The issue was that the US was indebted to (among others) France, and the income the Feds were getting from donations was less then the interest on the federal debt. The people in charge decided "fuck it, we need money" and starting taxing whiskey (the first national tax was a vice tax, go figure), which led to the Whiskey Rebellion (of course the first national insurrection was a bunch of drunken morons), which led to the equivalent of Congress deciding to draft a whole bunch of reforms to the Articles of Confederation, which became the Constitutional Convention, and that led to the drafting of the Constitution, the writing of the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, the Bill of Rights, and blah blah blah. --Token Conservative (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms

Although many of the men involved in the Whiskey Rebellion were surely drinkers, at the time whiskey was also a commodity used in bartering along the frontier. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

If the Tea partiers wished to look "smart" they could read the Anti-Federalist papers and gain a bit more intellectual thrust to their argument. Instead, they compensate for their ignorance of civics with blind rage. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

As I recall, the tax was on the manufacture of whiskey, so it wouldn't have severely inhibited its use as a medium of exchange, especially since alternatives like tobacco were available. And if the Tea Party wanted to look smart about the constitutional matters, they would read the Federalist Papers, the context in which the US drafted the Constitution, and maybe read some Supreme Court decisions. But that's like asking a blow fly not to be attracted to blood--Token Conservative (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, the Whiskey Rebellion post-dated the Constitutional Convention. Hydrogen and Time (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The Whiskey Rebellion occurred in Pennsylvania -I might be mistaken, but isn't that too far north to grow tobacco? And you're right that the Federalist papers would be more useful, but I used "smart" in scare-quotes because the Tea Partiers are just looking for Founding Fathers to fetishize (deify?), they don't want to understand. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Tobacco is still a cash crop in Lancaster County, PA, or it was the last time I saw. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

What you would do to use tobacco as currency is to make ropes of it, like this, and use that. And I swear there was some rebellion in the lead up to the Constitutional Convention.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Goes to show what I know. Could farmers grow Tobacco in Western PA, where the Rebellion started? I'm not finding evidence of it. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Shay's Rebellion, goddamn it, thank you Gatsby.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. All this talk about tobacco makes me want some Cavendish... --TheLateGatsby (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Uncle Charles smoked such black twist that at last his nephew suggested to him to enjoy his morning smoke in a little outhouse at the end of the garden.

—Very good, Simon. All serene, Simon, said the old man tranquilly. Anywhere you like. The outhouse will do me nicely: it will be more salubrious.

—Damn me, said Mr Dedalus frankly, if I know how you can smoke such villainous awful tobacco. It's like gunpowder, by God.

—It's very nice, Simon, replied the old man. Very cool and mollifying.

Easy enough to find where that came from. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Copyright Alerts System

Set to go live very soon in the U.S. Do we panic now? (...Or is this all overblown?) Blue (pester) 03:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Torrent clients encrypt uploads and downloads, and I use Peerblock. Moreover, I mostly just download television programs as they come out. I don't think I'll be affected. If I am, I hope it'll just be a warning or a small fine instead of a huge lawsuit. Then I'll scale back my activities. And it's not like the P2P community won't figure something out--"Shut up, Brx." 04:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Peerblock is the Homeopathy of file sharing. --2.39.39.47 (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a good chance to start using I2P. --83.84.137.22 (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The Seven Deadly Sins around the US

Maps 32-38 show how much the Seven Deadly Sins are committed around the US; the Bible Belt, of course, is guilty of them the most. (The other 31 maps are pretty cool too.) Sam ^Tally-ho! 01:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the Bible Belt largely Protestant? Cardinal sins are a Catholic affair, and a less than canonical one at that. They were just meant as a guideline for believers, have changed over the years, and may just need to be updated in keeping with modern priorities.--"Shut up, Brx." 04:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I've always been a sloth, lust, and gluttony kind of guy. Pride, wrath and envy don't do much for me, and in my situation avarice is pretty much a forlorn hope. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

What's my sin? Hell I'm a fan of all seven, but right now I'd have to go with wrath -- CS Miller (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Test blog for layout

http://test.factsite.co.uk/ is a test version of the RW blog, for me to mess with layouts. This is approximately what I meant by "magazine-style layout". This theme is EvoLve, which is almost there but not quite. The front page is nearly right, the single-post pages look crappy.

Appearance critique welcomed, 'cos everyone thinks they're a design genius. First thing to do is make the titles show full length every time. Second is to make the sidebar a little thinner. Third is to make the menu less obnoxious (or just gone). Fourth is to find a font for the posts that doesn't suck.

Suggestions for other themes that are magazine-ish are also welcomed. (Assume we have a budget of $0 for commercially supported themes.) - David Gerard (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

So far this theme appears to be a miserable failure on phones - full-width header, no sidebar, huge space between items (on Android, BlackBerry OS5 browser and Opera Mini). So much for "responsive" - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Does the left sidebar have to be so wide? Peter ^mqzp 20:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently. I still can't find the bit of PHP or CSS dictating that. (Though seeing how fucked the theme is on mobile, I'm less inclined to fiddle with it further.) Hence looking for other themes to give a front page like that, with three columns of one-paragraph article links - David Gerard (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Found it! Looks much less shit now. Except on mobile, where it's still fucked. They expect people to pay for the full version of this shite. "Responsive" my arse - David Gerard (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Much better, though by the looks it is utterly unusable on a mobile. Is it possible to have completely different themes for each type? Peter ^mqzp 00:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Possibly - doing so is largely arse. I've got the front page about right, though fixing the frankly shoddy CSS on the single post pages will be laborious at best so I'm not entirely keen to bother. I probably will, though, because it's there(tm), and I'm learning more generically useful things about WordPress. Also, I left a really pissy review on wordpress.org. There must be other ways to get that sort of 3+1 column front page - David Gerard (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, just booted it up on the Opera Mobile emulator... do you want me to take a look at some of the CSS too if you don't have a lot of time? I've got a lot more experience with responsive layouts now. ^postate 14:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just looking this up in Dragonfly and I can see what you mean by the mess - I'm sure there's a lot of completely redundant shit for a layout that simple. A quick look around shows that .container has "min-width" set to 960px which is at least what I think is borking the logo and pushing it out to the right and off screen on mobile resolution. That should be allowed to shrink much smaller, closer to 300px for a responsive layout. But overall I think you want to find something simpler, it's specifying widths in px far too much everywhere making a cascading soup of terrible. ^theist 14:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, shit like that. That CSS is simply sloppy work. (I'm just picturing what the designers at work would say about it.) I can hardly believe this is the taster they think will sell the theme - David Gerard (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps like the magazine project I was involved in, the CSS started really simple and functional, and then got ripped apart by the guys making the PHP back-end and left in a state. ^{d hominem} 14:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm gonna hafta learn CSS and WordPress, aren't I. Oh well, there's lotsa spare cash in doing WordPress themes. Let's see if I can adapt Twenty Twelve into my desired 3+1 layout - David Gerard (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Beck derides wrestling

In response to Glenn Beck claiming that a storyline is making a mockery of the Tea Party movement, WWE has posted a video featuring the two characters, Jack Swagger and Zeb Colter, who break character and invite Beck to a live show.--Cms13ca (talk) 03:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Beck would be right at home in such a den of over-dramatic, scripted actors. ZING! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd pay to see Glenn Beck eat a Swagger Bomb of a cage. --Revolverman (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering the WWE and its fanbase are quite aligned with wingnuttery, this is quite funny. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Acutally... no, they arn't. It turns out WWE's fanbase is mostly Democratic, not Republican. In the States anyway. --Revolverman (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Beck is nothing but a fat bumbling fool. If Andy, Karajou and Ken had a love child Glenn would be it. GhostofTK (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Weirdest three-way ever. But it's still kinda hot to think of. Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 18:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Why I hate liquid threads

• 19 February 2013

20:56 User talk:Weaseloid‎‎ (14 changes | hist) . . (+4,754)‎ . . [WaitingforGodot‎; Weaseloid‎ (3×); Hipocrite‎ (4×); Inquisitor Ehrenstein‎ (6×)]

• Nm 20:55 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (32)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+69)‎ . . Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• Nm 20:53 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (31)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+247)‎ . . PowderSmokeAndLeather (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• Nm 20:53 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (30)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+72)‎ . . Hipocrite (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• Nm 20:52 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (29)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+286)‎ . . Hipocrite (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• Nm 20:52 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (28)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+88)‎ . . Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• Nm 20:50 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (27)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+59)‎ . . Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• Nm 20:49 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (26)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+326)‎ . . Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• Nm 20:49 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (25)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+118)‎ . . Monarchofascist (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• m 20:48 Mercury‎ (diff | hist) . . (+8)‎ . . Tracer (Talk | contribs | block) (→‎Real: Linked to the Dimethylmercury article on Wikipedia) [rollback]
• Nm 20:48 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (24)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+169)‎ . . PowderSmokeAndLeather (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• Nm 20:47 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (23)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+185)‎ . . SharonW (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• 20:45 (Block log)‎ . . [David Gerard‎; Damo‎ (2×); Hipocrite‎ (2×); Inquisitor Ehrenstein‎ (4×)]
• Nm 20:45 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (22)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+720)‎ . . Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• 20:41 Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?‎‎ (12 changes | hist) . . (+5,573)‎ . . [Nutty Roux‎; Night Jaguar‎; JeevesMkII‎; 171.33.222.26‎; Ochotonaprinceps‎; Oldusgitus‎; Spud‎; Vulpius‎; Scream!!‎; Polite Timesplitter‎; SirChuckB‎ (2×)]
• Nm 20:41 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (21)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+156)‎ . . Hipocrite (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• N 20:40 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (18)‎‎ (2 changes | hist) . . (+227)‎ . . [Inquisitor Ehrenstein‎ (2×)]
• Nm 20:39 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (20)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+563)‎ . . PowderSmokeAndLeather (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• ! 20:39 Talk:Globalresearch.ca‎ (diff | hist) . . (+434)‎ . . Ahuman (Talk | contribs | block) (→‎Agregator?: ) [rollback]
• N 20:37 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (19)‎‎ (2 changes | hist) . . (+412)‎ . . [Inquisitor Ehrenstein‎ (2×)]
• N 20:37 User talk:JohnnyH‎ (diff | hist) . . (+195)‎ . . Stabby the Misanthrope (Talk | contribs | block) (Created page with "{{Welcome}} Greetings, JohnnyH, and thank you for joining the most rational of {{noun}} wikis! I hope you enjoy your time here. ~~~~)
• 20:34 Sheik Feiz Muhammad‎ (diff | hist) . . (+57)‎ . . Random bloke (Talk | contribs | block) (added snark) [rollback]
• ! 20:33 Globalresearch.ca‎‎ (2 changes | hist) . . (0)‎ . . [Ahuman‎; PowderSmokeAndLeather‎]
• Nm 20:32 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (17)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+210)‎ . . Damo (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• Nm 20:31 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (16)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+118)‎ . . Hipocrite (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• Nm 20:29 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (15)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+142)‎ . . Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• Nm 20:27 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (14)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+335)‎ . . Hipocrite (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• Nm 20:27 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (13)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+12)‎ . . Monarchofascist (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• Nm 20:26 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (12)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+96)‎ . . Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• Nm 20:25 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (11)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+11)‎ . . Hipocrite (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• Nm 20:24 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (10)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+57)‎ . . Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• N 20:24 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (6)‎‎ (2 changes | hist) . . (+163)‎ . . [Inquisitor Ehrenstein‎ (2×)]
• Nm 20:24 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (9)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+243)‎ . . Hipocrite (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• Nm 20:23 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (8)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+28)‎ . . Hipocrite (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• Nm 20:22 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (7)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+143)‎ . . Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• N ! 20:22 Forum:Hostility?‎‎ (7 changes | hist) . . (+1,465)‎ . . [Hipocrite‎ (3×); JohnnyH‎ (4×)]
• 20:19 User:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/sandbox‎‎ (3 changes | hist) . . (+875)‎ . . [Inquisitor Ehrenstein‎ (3×)]
• Nm 20:18 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (5)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+160)‎ . . Hipocrite (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• Nm 20:18 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (4)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+233)‎ . . Weaseloid (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• Nm 20:17 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (3)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+96)‎ . . Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• N ! 20:16 User:JohnnyH‎‎ (3 changes | hist) . . (+416)‎ . . [JohnnyH‎ (3×)]
• 20:16 User talk:Nutty Roux‎‎ (2 changes | hist) . . (+617)‎ . . [Nutty Roux‎ (2×)]
• Nm 20:15 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply (2)‎ (diff | hist) . . (+59)‎ . . Hipocrite (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)
• Nm 20:14 Thread:User talk:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Let's call this your only chance/reply‎ (diff | hist) . . (+104)‎ . . Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | contribs | block) (Reply to Let's call this your only chance)

Sophie^Wilder 21:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel your pain. Do what I do. Peter ^mqzp 21:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

EXCELLENT! Thank you Peter!!!! Scream!! (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It's only showing up like that if you use enhanced recent changes, for what it's worth. Blue (pester) 21:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. It's a s bad without enhanced RC. Scream!! (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I do use enhanced recent changes, i just want it to do its thing on liquid threads like it does every other page with multiple edits. And peter, I do want to actually read what people are saying, I just don't want every single edit to have its one RC line. Sophie^Wilder 21:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You would think enhanced RC would let you do that, wouldn't you? It must be possible somehow, but google isn't helping. Peter ^mqzp 21:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I vaguely recall Nx saying that LT creates a whole new page for each reply. So even-more-enhanced recent changes would have to factor that in. In the meantime, can we uninstall it please? Sophie^Wilder 21:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Scream!! (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is almost the sole weakness of LiquidThreads (that and your browser doesn't remember text meant for a thread post. It's terrible during a block war). If LQT and recent changes could reach a state of harmony (such as having each post in a thread listed under a single tab, like with Enhanced Recent Changes), world hunger could be abolished.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've found it to be very useful. You don't get edit conflicts at all. It also makes it less likely that people will remove content from their talk pages or remove content without archiving. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 21:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Rather Irrelevant when your forcing people to go out of their way to use RC when you decide to get into a large argument, --^Mikal_lakiM 21:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Get rid of the damn ugly annoying thing. Damo^Hi 21:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

LiquidThreads is a damned good first step toward creating a better talk page system than the piece of shit default MediaWiki parser. It is used on the talk pages of at least 14 users (I counted) plus a few who've switched back and on a few forums; if we were to uninstall it we'd wipe out years of talk page history instantly. Do you want that? If you'd like to move to mandatory phaseouts of LQT, that's a discussion like any other and should probably happen on a forum or project page. But deinstalling it is a no go. Blue (pester) 22:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

LiquidThreads is unloved and largely unmaintained. It may or may not work at all next time we upgrade the wiki. (We can stay on 1.19 for a few years, it's a Long-Term Support version, but that's not forever.) It's regarded by the WMF as a miserable failure and is still the butt of jokes amongst WMF staff. It has no future and it is going to die. We were foolish to adopt it, thinking it would have a future - David Gerard (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

@Blue. I was really just having a grump. Although I find LQT annoying as hell and ugly, I wasn't seriously proposing their removal. Damo^Hi 23:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

What are the WMF staff saying about it? It seems good to me, but it works better on MediaWiki.org where it's used most. I use it at sturmkrieg.us and plan to implement it on other projects (provided I don't find out anything really bad about it) since it's a good talk page system, or at least superior to the standard talk page system. I think it's use makes it less likely that other users will be tempted to edit the posts of other users, and it's threaded nature would be good at preventing users from deleting unfavorable posts, such as warnings and block notices, from their talk pages. Its dynamic nature also is good because it archives talk pages automatically, which prevents users from clearing their talk pages instead of archiving them properly. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 01:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Listen to David, I'd say. A longer list of one user's complaints is here. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 02:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If it may break anytime in the near future, would that mean currently existing threads would become unviewable? If so, like I said - that's thousands of threads over several years down the drain. Yes, it was foolish for Trent and Nx to let us run wild with it if it's so unstable. Blue (pester) 03:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to get anything that's easy to manage out of the API, so yeah. I'm dumping a sample of what the output looks like in JSON. LQT doesn't render using the wiki's templates so all the HTML and CSS is in each thread, rather than simply the raw text, revid, user, etc for normal revisions. That stuff's not a big deal to strip but reconstituting it looks like a drag. 04:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I see that. I might get rid of it, and possibly replace it with DPL Forums for user talk pages. I'll need an extension though that gives the new messages notice for subpage edits. I'll probably leave regular talk pages as normal. I do agree with Siebrand though, I do hate the regular talk pages more. For one thing, they're far less intuitive and prone to noobs not signing their posts. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 05:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What you need? That's nice. Good luck with all that. Blue, I emailed you something slightly promising, but it's not trivially easy to extract content. LQT was very poorly done. 05:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

At the time, WMF was saying "this is the future, trust us!" even though it wasn't finished and a lot of people had said "wow, this thing sucks". It then became clear that its problems were intractable and WMF pretty much abandoned it. The "WMF staffers" bit was talking to some drunk last week. That it's still used on mediawiki.org is good, this suggests there will be some sort of exit path - dumping to a wiki page, for example. But LQT is a zombie - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Stuff like the above happens whenever you look at Recent Changes. LQT is not the offender there, and you can always hide the thread space from RC and your watchlist. It's a shame people hate LQT for whatever reason, as seriously using this POS system of hacking an editable page with indents and code and signatures is objectively terrible. ^bomination 13:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

--"Shut up, Brx." 02:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

We have really been damned since before we started. Wikis were designed so that multiple people can develop a document together. I don't know what the original developers had in mind but I suspect he expected people working on the document to communicate via email. So instead of people shuffling an attachment back and forth and editing old version and other such things they could look at its current state any time they wanted. Wikis were never designed for a project like Wikipedia, never mind being used as a forum. That is why Citizendium has a forum, that is why we used to have a forum. It is only because this started as basically a hang out for people that met on a wiki it is even a wiki. But yeah trying to force something into architecture (or other buzzword) that it was never made to do was a noble but fruitless goal. - π 05:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Seen from another angle, that makes us the biggest social networking wiki going. Sophie^Wilder 10:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Assuming that it is continued, LQT is good in that it prevents noobs from clearing their talk pages instead of archiving, or problematic users from removing discussions about unfavorable activities. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 05:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Bush more regulatory than Nixon

That's what Reason says 99.235.129.26 (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Not at all surprising. Look up Nixon and the guaranteed annual income and be prepared to be shocked at what the GOP used to stand for. Also, the EPA.EDIT: Wait, sorry, I'm arguing for why it SHOULD be surprising. Sorry early here/no coffee yet. Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 13:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Nixon and other Pre-Reagan Republicans are why I'm a Republican. If anyone cares. --Token Conservative (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

My experience in native american studies taught me that Nixon was the best president ever and Jackson is Satan incarnate. --^Mikal_lakiM 17:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Nixon? Really, Hamilton? The guy who used his executive powers to run cloak and dagger campaigns against his political enemies?--"Shut up, Brx." 17:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

They all do it, Nixon just got caught. Read about his domestic policies. Man did all right.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

How about foreign policy? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You think Nixon was the first to extend a war beyond its legal boundaries?--Token Conservative (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Certainly you'd be hard pressed to find a president who wasn't an evil fucking megalomaniac, and granted Nixon was really only defrocked in such a manner because he went too far (by directing the power of the state against the Democratic party, rather than just the usual union members, anti-war protesters, and radical leftist groups), but even so, I'm sure you could find a better role model to emulate if you tried. Q0 (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Nixon is not my major political role model, but he's a solid third string man and I feel he gets more flak then he deserves. My real name does not include "Hamilton" in it at all, and my username is actually a reference to Alexander Hamilton, who along with the Federalist Party, both of the Roosevelt's, Eisenhower, Edmund Burke, and Benjamin Disraeli are my major influences.--Token Conservative (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If the only source Wikipedia has for this is the Fonzi of Freedom I'd take it with a grain of salt. Reason has been on this "Bush was a socialist" tangent ever since Obama was elected. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen this attitude a lot. Apparently authoritarianism is a left-wing trait. Any Republican trying to mind your business isn't really a Republican at all. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Slow as balls.

It's taking pages an average of 10-15 seconds to load for me -- the rest of the internet is moving at a much faster clip. what gives? Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 17:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

This site? Should be fast-ish with Squid doing the work. (I can say that our vandal didn't quite go away and we continued to get DOS-level hit rates from them, which does slow stuff down a bit.) I just centre-clicked Special:Random five times quickly; first three loaded in < 3 sec, last two in under 10 - David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yah, it's better now -- maybe I was editing during a backup or sump'n. Nailed a retread to my feet and prayed for better weather. 20:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes it can be caused by the internet on your end. Though if other websites work fine at the same time, that probably isn't it. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 01:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This theologian is quite sophisticated.

Just plugging a religious guy behaving like a rational human being. Move on. Just like New York City; Just like Jerico. 02:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Even the guy who believed in an invisible man in the sky thought it was insane. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 00:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Cardinal Keith O'Brien &Sexual hypocrisy

Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Already on WIGO world. Sophie^Wilder 15:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Traveling to New Haven this Saturday

...It will be my first time in the city. Does anyone who's been/lived there have recommendations as to where I should go? Good historical sites or bars would be most pertinent to my interests, but I'm grateful for any advice. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

astorehouse of knowledge server error 500 ?

Has Philip finally pulled the plug ? Hamster (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Entirely offline from where I'm sitting. Wouldn't be terribly surprising, nobody was editing the thing. Poor old PJR, he had such high hopes for his choo-choopedia. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Same here. A whois check shows PJR's domain registration is still valid. Does anyone know if PJR has any other blogs or whatnot online? --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 20:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wurks. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 00:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

God damn it Proxima is editing it. Why can't people just let the thing die? Is editing your 17th wiki really that fucking important, Proxima? 01:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It may yet become the unstoppable creationist freight train that obliterates the decrepit Toyota of atheism stuck on the level crossing! --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 22:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

A really weird question

Okay - I have really bad eyesight, and always have. Without my specs I can't see the top letter on the old-fashioned optician boards, but unless somebody else also has eyesight that bad that can't really grasp what my vision is like when I don't have my specs on. So I was wondering, is there a website or a programme where I could type my prescription for instance, or could adjust the vision on the screen, so that the end result is a picture or video on the screen that is similar to what I see when I'm not wearing my specs? Just curious, but I think it would help other people grasp just how friggin' difficult my life can get when my specs get steamed up, or rained on, or broken by some twat who isn't looking where they're going.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 00:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I used to have about a minus seven spherical correction. Now there is some astigmatism in the mix as well. Want to go sightseeing with me in a hired Cessna? It could happen, you know, and I get to sit in the left seat. This is about how I see your comment without me specs:

It's a 12x12 pixel Gaussian blur applied in one go, by the GIMP. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, Guassian blur. Didn't think of that. Hang on, I'll see what I can come up with.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 01:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That's about what the monitor looks like without specs. This could explain why I didn't learn to read until I got my eyes tested properly.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 01:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

A tool like that would be really useful, but it would need to take into account distance as well. My vision at normal screen-reading distance looks like Cogswell's image, but I don't have to move back too far to make it look like yours.

My usual strategy for convincing people that I have serious trouble without glasses is to let them try mine on for themselves—not a particularly accurate method, but the pain tends to distract them from thinking about that. Peter ^mqzp 02:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem with having people try my specs on, apart from greasy fingerprints all over the lenses, is that people think what they see with your specs on is what you see when you aren't wearing them, and then you find yourself explaining that's not how lenses work.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 13:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the other day that my car window with about 2-3 mm of frost on it was a good approximation for how well I see without my glasses. I could see light and colors, and maybe the outline of big things, sort of. That requires the right conditions, though, so not as easy as the Gaussian blur above. Mcnamara12 (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Berlusconi screws Europe over

Crazification factor achieved! Osaka Sun (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You know its bad when a wannabe Caesar could walk in and likely be BETTER then anyone else. --Revolverman (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The clowns are taking over... where is Stephen King when you need him? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Win an Oscar, file for bankruptcy

Not really appropriate for WIGO, but a few folks around here are also in the film/TV biz, so I thought I'd post this. The company that won the VFX Oscar for Life of Pi has had to file for bankruptcy. Meanwhile there was a protest by VFX designers at the Oscars which got no media coverage at all. Life of Pi VFX Controversy. VOX^HUMANA 22:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, more evidence that the free market always knows how best to manage society's resources. Blue (is useful) 00:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

BOC's new Patriarch and other fun stuff at home

The commie-era patriarch of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church died last year, and they finally elected a new one today. It was on TV all day, and a lot of people, politicians included, took turns to (metaphorically) fellate the BOC, the process, and the new Patriarch. It's puke-inducing. :( I need to look up the new guy and see if he had said anything stupid or at least RW-relevant. The BOC seems to have sorted out its internal affairs and for the last few years, it has been trying to regain ground lost during Communism. It's not a happy prospect - they've been pushing for religious classes at schools (together with the Muslim clerics - yeah, unlikely bedfellows) and some priests protested the last Pride shoulder to shoulder with the skinheads. :(

On related note, a few days ago the government resigned, which means that the elections this year will be sooner, and there have been somewhat large protests in all major cities, originally triggered by... the high electricity bills for January. They are Occupy/Tea Party-style protests - a heterogeneous mixture of people vaguely dissatisfied with the status quo for various reasons. A few nutjobs are pushing for changes in the constitution. If it happens, I'm buying a gun. :( --ZooGuard (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes, all that's very well, but we need to know more about what's happening in the chalga scene. The worst pop music genre ever is not an achievement to toss aside lightly - David Gerard (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Did I mention that some of the people pushing for changes in the constitution are Members of the Parliament, not random people on the street? No?

Anyway, I don't know if it counts as "what's happening", but here's a 4-year-old rap/chalga/manele crossover. I think it may have been intended as a parody. Not that its usual audience cares...--ZooGuard (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

With outfits from the Tijuana Brass! Truly, your national art form is a thing of beauty and wonder that would survive nuking from orbit - David Gerard (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

<DumbAmerican>Isn't Bulgaria a part of the EU? Doesn't that mean you can move to other countries relatively pain free?</DumbAmerican>--Token Conservative (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

See wp:Schengen Area, especially the "prospective members" section. See also the hissy fit thrown by UK politicians when faced with the prospect of immigration from Bulgaria and Romania.

And I'm not terribly interested in "moving". In additions to other reasons, my country has suffered a massive brain drain post-1989, I don't see how I can help by contributing to it.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem pretty upset about the BOC and the events of the government to the point where it seems like you're getting ready for a violent revolution/breakdown of central authority. Leaving wont help your country, and I'll applaud you for your desire to help your country, but unless you are in a position to do something, it might be a good idea to leave, if only until the transition is done.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, you are reading too much into my tone, which was a bit hyperbolic (though Bulgarians are known to be a bit pessimistic.) And in case there is a language issue: "the government" = "the cabinet of ministers" that holds the executive power. (The ex-Prime Minister is currently in hospital due to very high blood pressure. :D)

My concern about the BOC is it recovering from "mostly harmless" to US-social-conservative levels of influence in politics and society. :) Or worse, Russian-OC-levels. :(

As for the "violent revolution" and "breakdown of central authority", we are far away from it. And unlike the wankers in the US, I have some idea what's to live in a failing state. (The 90s economic crisis - it's not "marauding gangs of cannibals", but "thicknecks collecting 'protection' money", "the police being even more useless than now" and "politicians/crime bosses getting assassinated in broad daylight".) How serious is the current kerfuffle is unclear and it may amount to just "another amusing footnote in our crazy history". In the short term, the possible negative impacts are prolonging the current economic troubles and the negotiations with the EU (worst case - dropping out of the EU, which would be really, really stupid - not that some people are not advocating for it...). In the long term, something to fear is a slow devolution towards something like Putin's Russia or Belarus, but that's stoppable with the usual mechanisms of a civil society. And by not making dumb changes to the constitution...--ZooGuard (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Why I have lost almost all respect for The Onion

Edgy humor is one thing, but you don't call a nine year old girl a cunt. Ever. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Baffles me. The thing is, this isn't even satire, it's not a joke. Onion humour would be perfectly along the lines of "She's a brat", but this gets rid of the joke, now just the word "cunt" is the joke. It's like PewDiePie screaming "rape" for every word it can be substituted for or the ten-year-old yelling FART on the playground. I expected better from the Onion. If we're supposed to accept just using the word "cunt" is 'joke' then "A jew walks into a bar" would have to be one too. Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 14:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes the Onion posts without thinking. I see they took the tweet down, so hopefully some douche had his knuckles rapped. --PsyGremlin^Snakk! 14:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You'll occasionally hear about radio shock jocks being fired for going too far. For instance, DC's "Greaseman" losing his job for an incredibly tasteless racial joke.

Any idiot could get on the radio (or Twitter) and be offensive. True entertainment and art comes when you know just how far you can push things, and never ever going any further. The Onion crossed the line this time. (Flew over it with jetpack, actually.) MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘They've apologized. Though mostly to the young actress, not really for the word used. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 16:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I share Timesplitter's sentiments. There isn't really a joke here, it was just really mean. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Clearly it was supposed to be "can't."
@Timesplitter– Because if men hear worlds like "cunt," they'll suddenly go out and rape women. Seriously, enough is enough with the psychology subconscious woo. "It creates underlying messages that..." "The reason you can't see any evidence for this is because it's all "internalized" and so you do it without thinking." FUUUUUUUCK! ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 18:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

What the fuck are you going on about? Ty^JFBAA 18:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's what Timesplitter was saying at all, actually. In fact, I don't see "underlying messages" anywhere in his post. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Inquisitor, maybe you shouldn't mention rape so often, especially when nobody else is talking about it. Seriously, it's weird. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems we're all wrong and it is funny: BOLLOCKS Mr Kirshen Scream!! (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I get sick of repeating myself too. At least I don't have weird views on rape and watch Law and Order SVU all the time. I lived with someone who did that, he was... interesting. And yes, I realize I totally derailed that. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 00:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I keep dreaming that some day we'll move on from our perpetual rage society and stop getting horribly offended at every misfired joke, but then I wake up. SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 00:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Chuck, I am very rarely enraged but calling a 9 year old girl (or boy, for that matter) a cunt on twitter where the world is reading cannot surely be amusing, however ironically meant. Scream!! (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I find the entire thought of anger over a word choice hilarious, because The Onion as a newspaper has had far more "offensive" material in print for years. Off the top of my head, there was one headline that said something along the lines of "experts admit donating money Cystic Fibrosis stupid, wasteful." I guess laughing at dead kids is funny, just don't call them dirty names. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 01:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Quite honestly I don't think that I have ever even smiled at anything in the Onion. I think it's 3rd form humour (14 year olds for the Americans).Scream!! (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to believe that. But lets not pretend like this was some outrageous event that forces our hand into action. The Onion is known for this type of humor. Some people enjoy it, some don't, just like every other form of humor on the planet. How is this any worse than most stand up comics? SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 01:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think calling a nine-year-old child a "cunt" would be beyond the pale for most comics--but I don't frequent the comedy clubs, so YMMV. Just like New York City; Just like Jericho. 01:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup! Scream!! (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You should check out your local comedy clubs, since the rise of the "Edgy comics" (Silverman, Griffin, Cook), this type of comedy is not even remotely out of place.... I'd add in that it's just an extension of the Carlin/Murphy/Pryor line of edgy comics.... This is not new, nor is it newsworthy and more people have heard about/learned of the quote do to the insane overreaction than ever would have known about it without the clutching of pearls. SirChuckB^{Leave Death Threats Here} 03:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"You should check out your local comedy club..." If what I'll see there is people hurling obscenities in the direction of children, then no, no I shouldn't. It sounds like a horrible place. Just like New York City; Just like Jericho. 03:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ So you admit you don't know the culture, you refuse to investigate the culture because you don't think you'll like what you hear, but you still express outrage when the culture crosses into your world and demand they adhere to your rules of what's funny/decent/acceptable.... SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 03:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, here is the sum total of all I know about the culture, at least from how it's described in this thread: it's a place where calling a child a "cunt" is acceptable. There's nothing in there that really draws me in, y'know? Sorry. Just like New York City; Just like Jericho. 04:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Not just the Onion

A few different people are calling out the Oscars for wallowing in sexism and racism. Just like New York City; Just like Jericho. 23:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Apart from a few gags, MacFarlane was horrific. It seems they wanted to pull a Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes - the difference being that Gervais was actually funny. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Unique experience for Gervais then. Scream!! (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I for one am shocked, shocked, SHOCKED that an event devoted to critiquing every little aspect of a performers hair, make up and wardrobe choices would have Seth Mcfarlane as a host. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 00:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah MacFarlane was living up to his standards as a horrifically unfunny fuckhead (and he's been an unfunny fuckhead for most of his career). But it is rather ridiculous that people are calling him "too edgy". MacFarlane is far from "edgy," he's mundane, in that most of his work fits squarely into the prevailing systems of sexism, racism, LGBTphobia with which we're faced every day. "Edgy" my ass. Blue (is useful) 05:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Just like New York City; Just like Jericho. 05:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Ty^JFBAA 05:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is the above offensive and unfunny when south park seems to get a free pass for similar shit? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

South Park gets called out for racism, sexism, obscenity, etc. on a fairly regular basis. Just like New York City; Just like Jericho. 15:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Last time I criticized South Park here, I was told I was taking the show too seriously--"Shut up, Brx." 15:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, this is the freakin'Academy Awards, ie. one of the biggest TV events of the year. A big step up from South Park. Just like New York City; Just like Jericho. 15:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I was speaking about more specifically here. I couldn't give a fuck about industry back slapping.AMassiveGay (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The judgement of something as "unfunny" is essentially worthless, like when people who don't like a particular work say it's "not art". But for one thing South Park's humour isn't pretending to be anything beyond juvenile. If that's what the Academy was aiming for at the Oscars then I suppose MacFarlane delivered. Tialaramex (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Juvenile is one thing. The articles linked above are more concerned with sexism and racism. Those aren't necessarily synonymous. Just like New York City; Just like Jericho. 21:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

So what is the difference between this and Rick Gervais, who performed material that was just as "offensive," yet not remotely funny, and Mcfarlane? Why does one get a complete pass (at least on this site) and the other gets pilloried? SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 21:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"Looking at all the wonderful faces here today reminds me of the great work that’s been done this year… by cosmetic surgeons!"

"[Eddie Murphy] walked out on the [Oscars]. Good for him. When the man who says ‘yes’ to Norbit says ‘no’ to you, you know you’re in trouble."

"Boardwalk Empire is about a load of immigrants who came to Amercia about a hundred years ago and they got involved in bribery and corruption, and they worked themselves up into high society. But enough about the Hollywood Foreign Press...they do an awful lot for charity and they're a nonprofit organization. Just like NBC."

"Our next presenters are two of the funniest people in America. She stole the show on SNL then went on to create, write, and star in her own show, 30 Rock. He was a jobbing actor, career not going that well if I’m being totally honest, who got his big break when I cast him in a remake in a show that I created called The Office. He’s now leaving that show and killing a cash cow for both of us. Please welcome the wonderful Tina Fey and the ungrateful Steve Carell!"

"Thank you God, for making me an atheist."

That's "offensive," but not "We Saw Your Boobs," Adele fat jokes and "I always thought the actor who got most inside Lincoln's head was John Wilkes Booth. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"The Golden Globes are to the Oscars what Kim Kardashian is to Kate Middleton. Bit louder. Bit trashier. Bit drunker. And more easily bought... allegedly."

"I love Eddie Murphy. He loves dressing up. He's versatile. Bit of trivia. Eddie Murphy and Adam Sandler, between them, played all the parts in The Help. Brilliant."

"Our next presenter is the Queen of Pop...No, not you Elton (John). She’s all woman. She’s always vogue, she’s a Material Girl and she’s just like a virgin. Please welcome Madonna."

"Justin Bieber nearly had to take a paternity test. What a waste of a test that would have been... The only way that he could have impregnated a girl was if he borrowed one of Martha Stewart's old turkey basters."

Also, from 2011

"I was sure the Golden Globe for special effects would go to the team that airbrushed that (Sex and the City 2) poster."

"(I Love You Phillip Morris is about} two heterosexual actors pretending to be gay — so the complete opposite of some famous Scientologists, then."

Lets be honest here. Gervais gets a pass because users like him, but they don't care for Mcfarlane. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 23:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, so Gervais was just as bad as McFarlane. If the argument that some people want to advance is that Hollywood reflects a culture that's got a problem with sexism/racism/misogyny/homophobia/transphobia, I don't know how interesting or productive it is to say "this guy is just as bad as/worse that that guy." Maybe the focus should be less on the individuals and more on the hate they're each expressing? Just like New York City; Just like Jericho. 23:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not my argument at all.... I'm saying it's hypocritical of people to scream about how awful/sexist/racist/whateverist Mcfarlane was while giving a complete pass to Ricky Gervais for an act that was equal. I don't think either was particularly funny, but humor is subjective. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 00:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

the jokes above are offensive? You Americans are such sensitive dears AMassiveGay (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they're offensive, but then It's nearly impossible to offend me with a joke... I thought the Onion joke was actually a funny idea, just poor execution. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 00:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

How would you have executed it? Just like New York City; Just like Jericho. 00:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Gervais was seen as offensive not because of any sexist or racial jokes, but rather because his jokes were mean-spirited. For example, he made fun of Robert Downey jr's drug habit.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

oh those poor oppressed Hollywood celebrities AMassiveGay (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Who really watches an award show anyway? ~smirk~ (Answer: Apparently a lot of people on RW.) EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, it's not really my type of joke (I'm more of a observation humor guy) but I would have tried harder to emphasize the intent of mocking the entire culture surrounding the Oscars, rather than the girl. I'm also not big into shock comedy, so I wouldn't have used cunt for the punchline.... Speaking hyptothetically, I'd have said something along the lines of "Why am I seeing all this fawning over Quvenzhane Wallis' innocent act? It's so obvious she's a complete bitch in private." SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 08:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Love

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Technical support. Blue (pester) 06:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Could we please add this extension? It's good for wikis with a good community, and the ability to add barnstars for contributions is good to recognize other users. It also has stuff besides just barnstars. You can also make your barnstars and other objects to give by editing a javascript page on the wiki. I'm working on adding medals to the one at Sturmkrieg. I think that this would be a really good extension to add. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 06:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I mean I'd actually love if we installed the WikiLove extension, but knowing the RW community, it'd end up getting used to post penises on talk pages. Regardless, I think we might have some kind of barnstar system looking like this:

1. Order of the Goat. Highest honor available; awarded for years of positive service to the wiki as a "lifetime achievement." Can be granted posthumously.
2. Rationalist's Brainstar. Awarded for a history of great service to the wiki's mission, through improving mainspace or promoting and developing the mission beyond it.
3. Community Brainstar. Awarded for a history of great service to the community, such as diplomatically resolving conflict, providing insight into best practices of operation, and generally keeping the place fun.
4. Techie's Brainstar. Awarded for a history of great service to the more technical aspects of the wiki.
5. Pat on the Back. Awarded for any act of great service to the wiki or the community, such as rewriting an important article.

And of course the fluff we already have (and use very occasionally):

• The half stale cookie.
• The Beerstar.

And of course, anything else we can think of. Blue (is useful) 06:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

We already have a tech one, but I think this is a good idea. Ty^JFBAA 07:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

We should keep the default options, but we could make our own RW category of barnstars. In relation to the concern you expressed, only users who can edit the system messages can control the images that are used in the barnstars. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 07:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Are the default options the same as Wikipedia's barnstars? I couldn't tell. Blue (is useful) 07:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think mostly. They've customized their version of the extension through the js page somewhat. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 07:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then I don't think most people will go for it. We don't want to import Wikipedia's culture anymore than we have to—we'd rather start smallish and make our own brainstars, I'd expect. Blue (pester) 07:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why we need *stars in the first place. If you're a good user, you will develop good standing with the community, and vice-versa. To me, *stars some seems like a gameificated circle-jerk system and just another source of unnecessary drama. See the award system RWW had for all the evidence you need of that. --CoyoteSans (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a system designed to reward and promote doing good stuff, just like most awards on the planet. If you're a good scientist you'll hopefully develop good standing within the scientific community, but that doesn't mean the Nobels are a "gameificated circle-jerk." Blue (is useful) 00:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ew. Thankfully, importing any relatively new extensions is questionable with 1.19, and I certainly don't plan to do any upgrading until the next long-term support release (slated to be 1.23) - David Gerard (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a minor acknowledgement - "Brainstar" is a much better term that "barnstar". Kudos to Blue (or if not Blue, to whoever coined the word). VOX^HUMANA 22:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You can overwrite the existing barnstars and objects with the js page, if it were a problem to use existing barnstars. Though I think completely removing the default options would be an annoyance to a lot of people. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 06:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

We have all this junk which nobody uses lying around in the attic. From what I gather, Wikilove is an extension that makes it quicker to apply such templates, but unless it becomes really fashionable to use them here, I really don't see the point in installing it. I suspect that the reason people don't award barnstars at RW is because RW users generally see them as pointless &it just isn't part of the site culture/dynamic, not because it takes a few seconds or whatever to place the template. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

All by my Goat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELr5eD6JZiA&feature=player_embedded Alain (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

+1 Scream!! (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Billboard's adding YouTube views as part of its consideration of songs for it's Top 100 list and if this amazing goat keeps getting featured in so many popular music videos maybe he'll become the first of his species to be part of a Number 1 hit. Sam ^Tally-ho! 20:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

New Conservapaedia, what's it doing?

Look at this. What do you think?--Seonookim (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

What's Lumenos been up to lately, anyhow? By the way, see where http://conservapaedia.com/ gets you. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure who "Lumenos" is, so I may be missing the joke, but based on | this, I doubt this is a serious website:

There is no such thing in Christendom as a number "zero", which is a fabrication of Islamic Arabs acting under the demonic influence of the false prophet Muhammad. How can zero even exist as it does not stand for anything, but for nothing. Mathematicians who persist in using this nihilist concept should be shunned as heretics, or re-educated in proper Conservative mathematics. The West can, and shall, be victorious through proper Roman numeral based math!

--Token Conservative (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"The NEW Conservapedia was created to counter liberal bias in Conservapedia.com"... "Conservapedia has CCXXIX CX% True encyclopedia articles!". Good fun. VOX^HUMANA 03:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This is actually pretty good:

How do we know Hitler was an atheist? Liberals often like to ask trick questions along the lines of: "If Hitler was an atheist, why did he repeatedly talk about "My Christian faith" and frequently refer to God in mein kampf?

There are two problems with this first question. First it is an an example of the typical atheistic trick known as an "argument from evidence".

Secondly, it assumes that Hitler told the truth. We know that Hitler was an evil man ready to kill others and as such it would not be surprising if he were to lie as well. Fortunately, although we cannot take Hitler's word about his beliefs there is another much more reliable source - the opinions of other Christians. Many Christians have stated that as they cannot believe that Hitler was a Christian so they don't think he was one. Which is more reliable - the statements of the mass-murderer Hitler, of the statements of many baptised Christians?

VOX^HUMANA 03:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's sad that A) that is the argument boiled down that most use to paint Hitler as a Atheist and B) that it works. --Revolverman (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

So it's basically random fuckers who are embarrassed about being associated with this guy, or how he describes himself? And no, their argument doesn't work. The word of random f•••ers is not considered a valid historical source. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 03:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure that's all meant to be parody. Just like New York City; Just like Jericho. 03:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be good, because it's retarded. People are known to be so stupid that I don't generally assume that idiocy is a parody. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 03:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Shoot. I got blocked for 'dislike of God' in a sock there. It's okay though, I think I have about two more socks I made today. I didn't know that it was a parody site, though.--Seonookim (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The commandments are pretty good: Invigilators are reminded to be gentle when chastising editors who are children or of the fairer sex. At least one extra warning is appropriate, and please remember to be firm but authoritative, and to make allowances for hysteria and similar ladylike behaviour.] VOX^HUMANA 03:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

My sock, the great Parodist, insulted a New Conservapaedia editor personally. Let's see the response down here. --Seonookim (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Why are you vandalising a parody site? These are the good guys. VOX^HUMANA 04:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm angry cause Karajou blocked four of my CP socks and my IP to boot. They don't care, anyways. Though, are you sure it really is a parody? I think the entire premise is a parody, but some users don't look like parodists to me.--Seonookim (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well given that it is MY page (which I only just created) that you are currently vandalising, yes, I'm pretty fucking sure. Look around the place, it's a hoot from start to finish. VOX^HUMANA 04:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I'll delete it.--Seonookim (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC) (I really am sorry. Really.)

Soledad

So the one TV journalist who has the brains and balls to call politicians out on their bullshit, and CNN cans her. Lowest point in US journalism since embedded journalists. Now we'll be back to vacuous bubble heads asking the important questions - "Where do you buy your suits, Senator?" --PsyGremlin^Snakk! 06:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

March Madness... Vatican Style!

AKA the "Sweet Sistine".

(In the interest of full disclosure, I did not come up with "Sweet Sistine." I wish I had, though.) MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 17:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Where's a psychic octopus when you need one? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I only recently discovered XKCD, but this seems highly relevant, for some reason--Token Conservative (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

???

An anonymous IP address created and edited my sandbox for their own purposes, writing about a movie I haven't seen. What on earth....? Not sure where to put it, so I went here.--Seonookim (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's your sandbox, just rake it. --Revolverman (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If it's in your userspace you can edit it or delete it as you please. Sophie^Wilder 11:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Politically confused

I suppose this is just not fitting into existing political categories, but it feels like political confusion. I'm generally libertarian on a lot of issues, except health care. On that I think the government should pay for all of it, and higher taxes for it aren't a problem. To avoid burden to the working and middle class, I'm alright with taxing the 1% more. In fact, I bet we could have only the 1% pay taxes to fund universal health care, and still leave them with a lot of money. For things like cosmetic surgery, I only think the government should pay for it if there's actually a problem with the person's appearance. They don't have to have an actual defect, but if they're fugly they should be able to have it fixed. However, if someone is some super fussy popular culture type who wants to change their personal appearance based on a fad, therapy would probably be a better source of government funding for them. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 02:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There may be a position for you. It's called "classical liberalism", aka the liberalism of the European Enlightenment. Read John Stuart Mill as a start. And ask yourself, do you want to pursue policies that achieve a happy, materially wealthy population, and policies that preserve, maintain, and increase self determination, with maybe a bent towards small government as a consequence of scientific realities of how markets and governments function? Then you might be a classical liberal. The difference is realizing and accepting that sometimes compelling people to do stuff for the common good is the best plan, such as in the case of vaccines, welfare, etc. Libertarians simply don't recognize the mere existence of positive externalities, or decide that government action to help in those cases is always worse off, or they care more about the rules of libertarianism than achieving a happy, materially wealthy, free society. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I've thought about that. Generally I support capitalism, although it needs to be regulated because people will do extremely immoral things in the pursuit of profit. I think that the libertarian argument that without government intervention, consumers will regulate businesses (if companies sell unsafe products w/o govt regulation, people will stop buying from the company and put them out of business), is correct, but it won't stop extremely unethical and inhumane treatment of workers because such things are done to maximize profits and lower prices, and with lower prices, natural events will drive more business to that company, which would completely fail to stop its problematic behavior. I also don't really support a lot of other government programs. A lot of things can be privately done. The government can encourage beneficial private programs through tax reduction and exemptions. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 04:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

mw:Extension:Widgets

I think this could be a useful extension, since it creates a namespace with raw HTML enabled that's only editable by authorized users with the proper permissions. It also allows user input into the templates, so it's useful for making embedding templates. I've also written a guide on MediaWiki.org for embedding and thumbnailing external images just like wiki-uploaded images. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 02:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The death knell of the F-35?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/02/27/pol-fighter-jets-boeing-superhornet-f-35-milewski.html

Canada has been about the final holdout for the F-35 and now Boeing is opening courting Canada in moving its support to its new Super Hornets. I think the F-35 is a great example on how even with all the money pumped into it, the US Military is falling apart due to corruption and waste. The F-22 has underperformed and the F-35 might just be a lemon. I'm half temped to make a page on the F-35 as an example of how the Military-Industrial Complex doesn't even make good Military-Industrial products. --Revolverman (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Who gives the slightest fuck? They could be flying turboprop airbuses with a machine gun strapped on the back for all the resistance they're ever going to actually fly against. Any power that can actually field a real airforce is also likely to be fielding ICBMs, rendering the ability to engage in Top Gun style heroics supremely irrelevant. At least here in Britain we have the excuse that Argentina might decide they want the Falkland islands back again at any moment to justify this crap (incidentally guys, now might be a good time. Fuck knows what we'd have to dig up to fly from our carriers at the moment.) This shit is just corporate welfare. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, don't ask me. Ask the Pentagon Generals who feel that the cool multi-billion dollar jets are so necessary, but not proper body armor or anti-rocket and anti-IEDs for their vehicles. --Revolverman (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The main task of F-35 is to go against cheap yet advanced Russian SAM systems (w:S-300, w:S-400). Many shitholes have a few those. --Henk (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Anybody who has had anything whatsoever to do with things like the F-22 or the F-35 (I have more intimate knowledge of those programs than most) knows that they have been a waste of money. They are a hearken to the Cold War arms race and fears of air-to-air combat missions, and nothing else. The funniest part is that the F-35 was supposed to be the cheaper version of the F-22, but has actually cost more per capita than any other military project ever made. Moreover, most defense tech geeks will tell you that, with the advent of drone aircraft, building manned fighter jets is akin to building wooden warships with broadsides. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The "holy hyper expensive" claims I have seen are due to just creative accounting. There are so many dishonest ways to compare aircraft cost or cherry pick development troubles. Of course it's over budget but that's just every American military project. --Henk (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

... Creative accounting? So they are faking that the F-35 is massively over-budget? --Revolverman (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Creative accounting is about moving the money about. For example, rather than say Music Label X made a $500 000 profit on your album, the company says they paid $500 000 extra to Subsidiary Y for marketing expenses. You made nothing (so no percentage for you), but Subsidiary Y are doing great! In the military it sometimes happens that you don't want to admit Programme X exists, or how expensive it was, but everybody knows about very expensive project Y that you're working on, so you hide the budget for X in the project Y budget. Could that have happened with the F-35? Sure. Can we prove it? Probably not. Tialaramex (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

So.

Aradia, Nepeta, Terezi, Vriska, Kanaya, Feferi, Karkat, Sollux, Tavros, Gamzee, Equius, or Eridan? (This message brought to you by His Reasonableness The High Chancellor Eddie Monah, Champion of Rationality. Sing songs of praise to me or simply worship my genius.) 08:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Aradia is my patron, I cosplay as Vriska, and Karkat is by far the best. Blue (is useful) 09:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I feel like I am missing something very important right now...--Token Conservative (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Only the Ulysses of the Internet - David Gerard (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It took me like 5 evenings to read through, have fun. Ty^JFBAA 22:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Need Help Identifying Jacket

apologies for copying the same thing here and WP's reference desk, am hoping that some awesome person out there has an idea what this is :)

I recently went on holidays and I lost a jacket which was loaned to me by a friend. I feel particularly bad about it as I promised I wouldn't lose it, so not only do I want to replace it but I want to have a replacement ready by the time I tell him it's lost.

The good news is that he's uncontactable for the next few weeks, so I have plenty of time to buy and ship a new jacket.

The bad news is that I have absolutely no idea what brand the jacket is.

The only information I have is:

• these photos of me in it - Jacket Photos

• it was gifted to him by family in Shanghai

• it had gold Chinese writing on the inside underneath the collar

Does anyone have any idea how I can find out what brand this jacket is?

Thanks! RyanC (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No. If you were wearing it, did you never notice a brand label in it? If it was bought in China, it may well not be a brand known in the west anyway. There are tons of clothes for sale from China via eBay, so you could try searching there. But I think it's unlikely you'll come across an exact match without knowing the brand, so you'll probably need to settle for replacing it with something comparable. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Buy one as similar as possible to the original and say this is how it came back from the dry cleaner. Sophie^Wilder 13:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone lends you a jacket which you promise you won't lose and then you go and lose it? WTF? Well, first of all the pictures you posted of a black jacket are not particularly helpful; I've no clue what material it is. The best thing you can do is own up and admit that you are an untrustworthy loser. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe that is either by Brunello Cucinelli or Kiton. Don't worry, they are cheap and easy to replace. Tielec01 (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Haha I didn't lose it per se, the bus company lost the bag it was in when they were transferring luggage between coaches. They agreed to pay for it, but given they're 10,000km away and barely speak English I don't have high hopes. I feel bad though as it was my responsibility and I should have kept it with me.

I'm not sure what the material was, beyond that it felt smooth. The jacket was a down jacket (contains duck feathers), I was hoping that it would be a famous brand or a rip off of a common design (my fashion knowledge is almost none...).

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll look into them. Seems like this will be harder than I thought RyanC (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)