RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive200
Recent Changes[edit]
Is recent changes broken for everyone? Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- No. (talk to a) Nihilist 15:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Works for me.--Token Conservative (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- And me now. Oh well, one of those things. Innocent Bystander (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Works for me.--Token Conservative (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
X is just a religion[edit]
"Science is just a religion", "Atheism is just a religion", "Environmentalism is just a religion", "Utilitarianism is just a religion", "Vegetarianism is just a religion", "Liberalism is just a religion", "Libertarianism is just a religion", "Global warming is just a religion", "Evolution is just a religion", "Organic food is just a religion", "capital punishment is just a religion", "gay right is just a religion", "anti-racism is just a religion", "feminism is just a religion", etc.
I keep seeing this argument pop out everywhere when it's completely unrelated to the topic at hand (whether I agree with the topic being attacked or not). I think it comes from the fact that Religion in general has increasignly bad press these days but since the definition of a religion is somewhat ambigious, it's easier to put whathever position one disegrees with in the "religion" cathegory than to actually adress the arguments for it. It represents an attempt to offuscate a debate rather than to participate in it and hence, is obviously fallacious.
Is there any article on the subject on this wiki and if not, should we create one? Thanks for your feedbacks.Kamizushi (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Who the hell makes these arguments? Maybe you should read stuff written by smart people instead of what it is you're actually reading. .That would be a big step towards solving the problem. Anway, this may be the closest thing we have to the article you seek. She said her name was Billie Jean and she was fresh in town/I didn't know her stage-line ran from hell. 14:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- A big pet-peeve of mine is when people label any ideology a 'religion'. No: a religion is a type of ideology. (talk to a) Nihilist 14:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- My favourite one has to be this because I get a headache thinking of everything wrong with it even before I move past the title. Bonus points for Godwin, disabling ratings and replying to comments daily for 4 months on what's like his fourth account. And no, he's not joking. He's dumb enough to do console wars in 2013, and it's pretty worrying how many people involved in that crap are right-leaning and prone to conspiracy theories. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 14:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- I remember thinking intensely about the console wars when i was twelve. (talk to a) Nihilist 14:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Gotta say, I have a bit of respect for a guy who comes from the religious right but calls his vlog "2hottie69Forever." That's a religion I could theoretically get behind. She said her name was Billie Jean and she was fresh in town/I didn't know her stage-line ran from hell. 14:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- I remember thinking intensely about the console wars when i was twelve. (talk to a) Nihilist 14:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- My favourite one has to be this because I get a headache thinking of everything wrong with it even before I move past the title. Bonus points for Godwin, disabling ratings and replying to comments daily for 4 months on what's like his fourth account. And no, he's not joking. He's dumb enough to do console wars in 2013, and it's pretty worrying how many people involved in that crap are right-leaning and prone to conspiracy theories. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 14:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Its particularly funny when the religious use it ("atheism is a religion" in particular). So basically using the word religion as a bad word or something? Or implied bad due to the lack of factual evidence or something? I believe the scientific term nowdays is "I dont even..."Sen (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- The point is supposed to be that atheists generally dislike/hate religion, so they're supposedly pointing out a hypocrisy on our part in a "not so different" kind of way. (talk to a) Nihilist 15:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think another aspect of the argument--I seem to recall this being a Schlafly-esque move--is that it's meant to point out that "their" religions -- environmentalism, multiculturalism, diversity, etc -- are given space and respect in the public sphere, but "we" can't practice "ours" in that sphere. She said her name was Billie Jean and she was fresh in town/I didn't know her stage-line ran from hell. 16:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- The point is supposed to be that atheists generally dislike/hate religion, so they're supposedly pointing out a hypocrisy on our part in a "not so different" kind of way. (talk to a) Nihilist 15:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Secular religions is related, but is not primarily about the awfulness of the argument itself - David Gerard (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
If everything is a religion, then apparently a religion isn't much of anything. --2.36.232.16 (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- When people make that stupid argument to me, it's time for word taboo. Ex: When you say atheism is a religion, do you mean that atheism is a family of collections of beliefs? Then you are correct. Atheism is the family of collections of beliefs that lack a belief that god exists. When you say atheism is a religion, do you mean that it has ritual, dogma, worship of a higher power, and has faith propositions? Then no. To be fair, you could argue that atheists tend to have "faith" that science works and skepticism is the proper attitude towards beliefs and knowledge. You might also argue that atheists tend to be dogmatic about those positions. But still, we lack ritual and worship completely, and we lack dogma and faith of any particular claim - instead our "faith" and "dogma" is reserved just for the methods that reliably produce truth, and never for the products of those methods. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- If you're in the mood for some RW nostalgia, there's this essay and this response. (And for all out wackiness, "Odinism is more rational than atheism"). Wēāŝēīōīď
Methinks it is a Weasel 23:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ack, I didn't mean my "post" as a reply to the BoN (IP address) "post". Sorry for the confusion if any. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Weasel. It was an interesting read. Unfortunately, I've heard the arguments many, many times before. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ack, I didn't mean my "post" as a reply to the BoN (IP address) "post". Sorry for the confusion if any. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you're in the mood for some RW nostalgia, there's this essay and this response. (And for all out wackiness, "Odinism is more rational than atheism"). Wēāŝēīōīď
- Equivocation is what you're after. This image also helps explain the same thing. Now, regardless of whether intelligent people do it (and a few do), it's used as a wide argument by people who are, if not intelligent then at least respected by a large lay audience. So when we say Ray Comfort and Eric Hovind practically live off this fallacy, it's not that we should ignore them because they're idiots, we should absolutely not ignore them because they have huge fanbases who don't realise that it's fallacious (indeed, they have fanbases that would struggle to spell "fallacious").
moral 12:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's a useful bullshitting tactic, but sometimes there is even a large grain of truth there. Anything that can be turned into a metaphysical worldview can function, psychologically or sociologically, as a "religion" of sorts. As an example of this, Michael Ruse has an interesting article entitled "Is Evolution a Secular Religion?" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- ETA: There is also my (desperately in need of editing) essay describing how magical thinking can get mixed into science: Essay:Scientific mysticism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Is that article trying to make a serious point about comparing the architecture of the Natural History Museum to that of a church? Or is it just facetious illustration? postate 23:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's a useful bullshitting tactic, but sometimes there is even a large grain of truth there. Anything that can be turned into a metaphysical worldview can function, psychologically or sociologically, as a "religion" of sorts. As an example of this, Michael Ruse has an interesting article entitled "Is Evolution a Secular Religion?" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
End of the World redux[edit]
BBC Radio 4, All In The Mind covering the psychology of Harold Camping's followers and their reaction when nothing happened. Documentary is in post production. 
ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
20:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- I listened to the podcast and it was very interesting - thanks for the link. The doco will be worth watching too. It's easy from afar to not consider the devastation to people's lives that can come about from this sort of thing. VOXHUMANA 23:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Baby signs?[edit]
Long story short: is baby sign language a bunch of bunk?--Token Conservative (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- One thing is for certain, as soon as you try behavioural studies on infants you hit a procedural minefield. Even with the best will in the world the parents have to be involved and they, by their very nature, tend not to be overly objective. Look, my kid is the smartest, cutest, bonniest child ever and has just signed the complete works of William Shakespeare. Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hard to say, Hamilton. There isn't too much skepticism on it, although at least one resource warns against ONLY teaching your baby sign language (e.g., not vocalizing at the same time). If I had to make a guess? I'd say it's probably not all bunk, given that most of the resources for teaching baby sign language (at least in the top 20+ results on Google) are free. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's not a language, so in that sense it's bunk. It does work, so in that sense it isn't bunk. Babies want to communicate, but they find talking very hard mechanically (that's what the babbling babababa type noises are, they're trying to figure out how to talk so that they can join in). So "baby sign" is a trick to communicate with them before they figure out how to talk. The idea isn't that your baby ends up talking the local sign language, a sign language is a full blown language like French, with a grammar, idiomatic expressions, associated cultural artefacts, whereas "baby sign" is just a few symbols that you can bolt together to express crude ideas like "I want more of this". Tialaramex (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have to say no to the bunk. My niece uses baby signing with her one-year old daughter (my great-niece) and it allows her to communicate before she has learned to vocalise. Talking requires much more brain control than simple hand gestures.
Генгисmarauding 19:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks guys. I ask because a good friend of mine has a one year old, and my friend's grandmother keeps pushing him to use baby signs. She claims it'll help his daughter learn to talk faster, he doubts it, his brother read the literature put out by some organization that makes baby sign books that says the grandmother is right, but he isn't sure. So, yeah. Anyways, thanks.--Token Conservative (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I couldn't really comment on the learning to talk aspect, although I can imagine that the parent could vocalise the signs so that the child can associate the sounds with the meaning and thus get a head start. From what I have observed though is that by enabling the infant to communicate they are not so frustrated and therefore less inclined to scream and cry. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 20:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I couldn't really comment on the learning to talk aspect, although I can imagine that the parent could vocalise the signs so that the child can associate the sounds with the meaning and thus get a head start. From what I have observed though is that by enabling the infant to communicate they are not so frustrated and therefore less inclined to scream and cry.
- Thanks guys. I ask because a good friend of mine has a one year old, and my friend's grandmother keeps pushing him to use baby signs. She claims it'll help his daughter learn to talk faster, he doubts it, his brother read the literature put out by some organization that makes baby sign books that says the grandmother is right, but he isn't sure. So, yeah. Anyways, thanks.--Token Conservative (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have to say no to the bunk. My niece uses baby signing with her one-year old daughter (my great-niece) and it allows her to communicate before she has learned to vocalise. Talking requires much more brain control than simple hand gestures.
- It's not a language, so in that sense it's bunk. It does work, so in that sense it isn't bunk. Babies want to communicate, but they find talking very hard mechanically (that's what the babbling babababa type noises are, they're trying to figure out how to talk so that they can join in). So "baby sign" is a trick to communicate with them before they figure out how to talk. The idea isn't that your baby ends up talking the local sign language, a sign language is a full blown language like French, with a grammar, idiomatic expressions, associated cultural artefacts, whereas "baby sign" is just a few symbols that you can bolt together to express crude ideas like "I want more of this". Tialaramex (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hard to say, Hamilton. There isn't too much skepticism on it, although at least one resource warns against ONLY teaching your baby sign language (e.g., not vocalizing at the same time). If I had to make a guess? I'd say it's probably not all bunk, given that most of the resources for teaching baby sign language (at least in the top 20+ results on Google) are free. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Dealing with stubbish internet laws[edit]
Something that bugs me is how many of the internet law articles are stubs, with a few exceptions they're short, and the "what links here" button only brings me to other internet laws. Unless someone has a good reason for me not to, I'm thinking I'm going to combine all of them except for Danth's Law, Godwin's Law, Haggard's Law, Haig's Law, Poe's Law, List of Poe's Law examples, Rove's Law, and DeMyer's Laws (because fuck CP space) and remove Peter Principle from the internet laws category, because it has fuck all to do with internet laws. Some I'll put with the main article (Time Cube law), put them with a related law (like putting something about the Unicorn Law in with Godwin), or put them into a single article on internet laws.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Spud (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- We do sporadically get drive-by posting by people self-promoting an internet law they've just made up, so if any of the alleged laws fail a Google test, just delete them. We shouldn't be claiming something is an internet law if the phrase isn't used outside of RW. WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 07:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Don't include Pommer's Law as it isn't really a law but an observation, (yes, and my baby), that is so easily misunderstood that only by reading the talk page can one begin to delve its subtleties. C®ackeЯ
- Well then, maybe you should have expanded on Pommer's Law so that there are some subtleties, and not called it a law if it isn't a law, and shouldn't have put it as an internet law.--Token Conservative (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Don't include Pommer's Law as it isn't really a law but an observation, (yes, and my baby), that is so easily misunderstood that only by reading the talk page can one begin to delve its subtleties. C®ackeЯ
- We do sporadically get drive-by posting by people self-promoting an internet law they've just made up, so if any of the alleged laws fail a Google test, just delete them. We shouldn't be claiming something is an internet law if the phrase isn't used outside of RW. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Updates and suggestions[edit]
So, I finished my mass merger campaign against the internet law and eponymous law articles, created a more justified title for the template and category, deleted the old ones (yes, I did realize that the way I did things was stupid and needlessly complicated, I'm sorry). However, the name "eponymous laws" is inaccurate, because "eponymous" means that the law was named by the person who created it, but that isn't the case (Bob M pointed this out in the talk page). But, I'm not sure what to name it. I'll fix the page, category, template, and the templated articles, I just need a name. In the meantime I'm going to get started on my next project.
Thanks RW--Token Conservative (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Love in a time of paranoia[edit]
... or "Baby, maybe it's just the chemtrails, but I think I'm falling for you."
I have no words. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 11:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
At a graduation speech[edit]
Mitt Romney kinda sorta maybe endorses the Quiverfull movement. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 14:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Odd speech. Maybe he wrote it for a wedding & figured it would work for a graduation too. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 19:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Odd speech. Maybe he wrote it for a wedding & figured it would work for a graduation too. Щєазєюіδ
Vote[edit]
Vote! (if you live in an English county). Because libraries. SophieWilder 07:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm too young, and i'm an American, and my vote would have infinitesimal (or, depending on your analysis, no) effect. :( (talk to a) Nihilist 14:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Good luck. You can always try this, if need be. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 14:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- I get irritated when people talk about having no effect on elections. My individual effort at work probably has next to no impact on the company's overall profit (230+ stores, 60ish workers in each store + distribution centers, etc adds up fast), but I'm sure the management would be irritated if I stopped showing up.--Token Conservative (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's the V for Vendetta argument: "You will be granted two years to show me some improvement in your work. If at the end of that time you are still unwilling to make a go of it... you're fired" (at the ellipsis the figure dressed as V is killed by police gunfire). But arguably this isn't a fair way to look at it in the great modern democracies, being a citizen is not "job" that you should do as well as you can. I've said before and I'll say here again that the main way you make a difference is by changing people's minds not by putting a tick in a box. If you can persuade the ordinary person that having local bricks and mortar libraries is very important in the era of widespread Internet access then you'll get much further than you would by having them tick the box representing the "pro-library" candidate in an election. But good luck with that. I think the library is going to join the town crier on the scrapheap. Tialaramex (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- I get irritated when people talk about having no effect on elections. My individual effort at work probably has next to no impact on the company's overall profit (230+ stores, 60ish workers in each store + distribution centers, etc adds up fast), but I'm sure the management would be irritated if I stopped showing up.--Token Conservative (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Good luck. You can always try this, if need be. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 14:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
What's that 'law'[edit]
that when a newspaper article ends with a question mark that the answer is always 'no'. Innocent Bystander (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Betteridge's law of headlines, it's a redirect here. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 11:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's a shame, actually. We could probably do with it as an individual article. A project for later this evening, methinks. theist 11:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm going to do some work on the internet laws here, and (for some reason) that includes the Peter Principle. If we could get some more together, I could probably put a more detailed Betteridge Law in with it, and some others. --Token Conservative (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- If we have a list of eponymous laws, that would be a starting point. It means we can drop stubs in and if they're big enough fork them to full articles. postate 16:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I realized there were more articles listed as internet laws that are not internet laws. When get done with Operation: Law Purge, I'll set something up for non-internet culture laws. How does that sound for a name 'Culture laws'?--Token Conservative (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Be careful - some of those articles have been cited in print and by skeptical bloggers. We need them where they are. Please check Google for links.
17:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't deleted anything, just moved them to a more condensed version. Some were combined, most were moved into the broader Internet law article, always with a redirect left behind.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- In tact re-directs shouldn't cause an issue with them being referenced. bomination 12:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- In tact re-directs shouldn't cause an issue with them being referenced.
- I haven't deleted anything, just moved them to a more condensed version. Some were combined, most were moved into the broader Internet law article, always with a redirect left behind.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Be careful - some of those articles have been cited in print and by skeptical bloggers. We need them where they are. Please check Google for links.
- Yeah, I realized there were more articles listed as internet laws that are not internet laws. When get done with Operation: Law Purge, I'll set something up for non-internet culture laws. How does that sound for a name 'Culture laws'?--Token Conservative (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- If we have a list of eponymous laws, that would be a starting point. It means we can drop stubs in and if they're big enough fork them to full articles.
- I'm going to do some work on the internet laws here, and (for some reason) that includes the Peter Principle. If we could get some more together, I could probably put a more detailed Betteridge Law in with it, and some others. --Token Conservative (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's a shame, actually. We could probably do with it as an individual article. A project for later this evening, methinks.
- Reminds me of a joke, that every time you see a title with a question mark in New Scientist, Scientific American and such (ie: "is the universe a holographic donut?"), the conclusion of the article is always: "No idea". Sen (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Teabow v. Collins - a commentary on religiosity[edit]
I haven't been around for a few weeks, so I'm not sure what's been said about Collins announcing he's gay, or Teabow being released from NY's team (JEts?) But this article really shows the difference between having a personal, private profound religion, vs., "tell everyone, everything including that they are wrong!" religion dispatches. Enjoy. or not. :-) 
Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 15:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Very much enjoyed. Outside of the obvious (he painted fucking verses on his face and goes down on a knee and talks God all the time) there's a few pretty great observations about the religious right's adoption of mostly white advocates, race relations in the LGBT community (there's innumerable articles on this, like a new awakening, but this one is my favourite)...okay I just wanted to point out that it's spelled 'Tebow'. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 15:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
ukip arseholes doing well[edit]
Ukip appear to be making big gains in council elections. Looking at various comments, it seems shouting about immigration and Europe is a vote winner. Depressing. I do not think this will lead to seats in parliament, but the Tories are likely to lurch ever more to the right, if that's possible. What's even more depressing is that even as protest vote, a vote for ukip is a vote for the far right of mainstream UK politics. Speaking as the someone from the poorest segments of society, regardless who gets in at the next general election, I am garunteed to be fucked over. Bollocks to it all. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- On the plus side, the BNP have lost their only county council seat. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- of course - why vote BNP when you can vote for more socially acceptable racists. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- The gay marriage vote also revealed severe cracks in the Tory ranks and electorate. If the next general election is truly dire, there have been two recent cases where the mainstream social democrat and centre-right parties have formed coalitions to stomp out the wingnuts. Not sure if Cameron and Miliband would go to such lengths though; comedians would have a field day. Osaka Sun (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- The sheer size of the UK's two dominant parties means that such a coalition would stifle most national politics. You just wouldn't be able to get anything done without assent from the top. This was done in the war (the "Grand coalition" or "Unity government") but that was under circumstances where in practice key decisions were being made by an unelected cabal in secret meetings, and necessarily so. Party politics couldn't have functioned normally under those constraints anyway. I can't see anyone trying it in peace time. Tialaramex (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- not to mention that coalitions are a rare thing UK politics. Worst case scenario is Tories lurch right and win big at next election. Best case is ukip split the Tories and they lose. In no case will ukip have any chance many seats, if at any at all. The gay marriage thing is a red herring. Immigration, europe, and general contempt for mainstream politicians are ukips draw AMassiveGay (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- UKIP could get the UK out of the EU. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- yes that would be pretty shitty AMassiveGay (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- UKIP could get the UK out of the EU. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- not to mention that coalitions are a rare thing UK politics. Worst case scenario is Tories lurch right and win big at next election. Best case is ukip split the Tories and they lose. In no case will ukip have any chance many seats, if at any at all. The gay marriage thing is a red herring. Immigration, europe, and general contempt for mainstream politicians are ukips draw AMassiveGay (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- The sheer size of the UK's two dominant parties means that such a coalition would stifle most national politics. You just wouldn't be able to get anything done without assent from the top. This was done in the war (the "Grand coalition" or "Unity government") but that was under circumstances where in practice key decisions were being made by an unelected cabal in secret meetings, and necessarily so. Party politics couldn't have functioned normally under those constraints anyway. I can't see anyone trying it in peace time. Tialaramex (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Correction re coalitions: v common at council level and found frequently in devolved administrations. Stormont is a permanent coalition.Albannach (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Obviously, it's worrying (re the potential Tory shift to the right to win back UKIP voters - given that the Labour party are currently somewhere to the right of Ted Heath's Tories in the 1970s), but there is a potential benefit from the surge in support for the Farage nutters. I live in a rural South East, massively pro-Tory constituency and while all the village wards returned Tories, with UKIP second, in all of the town wards Labour won, because UKIP split the Tory vote (council changed from Tory to no overall control). It may be just wishful thinking, but it's possible that we could be entering a period of 4 party politics in which the Daily Mail vote is split between Tories and UKIP, keeping them both out of office and allowing Labour in. (I'm not a fan of nuLabour, but they do bugger things up at a slower pace than than the Tories, and some electoral success just might allow them to grow a pair and drift back to the left a little).Teflon (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced Labour will have their shit together in time for next general election. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Where's the spellcheck button on firefox?[edit]
I keep hearing about a spellcheck built into FF but I've never seen it, never had anything underlined, and want to know where it is so I can proof an article tonight. Currently I just have the orange big drop down that says 'Firefox' in my top left corner of the browser. Failing that is there one built into the editing box? Thanks. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 13:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Just turn it on in your prefs. Or use Notepad/TextEdit. Or a better browser. 13:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's strange, it's turned on but I'm not getting any lines. Testing: skdfkakd. Nope. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 13:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, duh, would help if I installed a dictionary plugin. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 13:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
StackRational Overflow. 13:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, duh, would help if I installed a dictionary plugin. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 13:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's strange, it's turned on but I'm not getting any lines. Testing: skdfkakd. Nope. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 13:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
May the 4th Be With You[edit]
Tequila Day? Why aren't we celebrating the power of The Force? Osaka Sun (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- What, is it Spock's birthday or something? Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 16:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, that's May 9/17. But seriously though, Cinco de Mayo should be dated for the 5th, not the 4th. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- right now at the top of recent changes there's a mess of YAY TEQUILA, Easter (what, again?) and the Kent state shootings. cramming in everyone's favourites makes it fugly as uck. SophieWilder 19:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the Holydaze template is displayed for 48 hours, 12 before and 12 after the actual day so that it is covered across all time zones. It would be nice if some wizz could fix it to use local settings. There are also a bunch of things that could be culled from the list. Do we really need Melbourne Cup day? (I'm sure someone will say yes.) ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 20:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- I took out the Kent State one, which actually used to be a Star Wars one until Human and Psy got into one of their legendary pissing matches over it. Two at a time is plenty. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 20:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the Holydaze template is displayed for 48 hours, 12 before and 12 after the actual day so that it is covered across all time zones. It would be nice if some wizz could fix it to use local settings. There are also a bunch of things that could be culled from the list. Do we really need Melbourne Cup day? (I'm sure someone will say yes.)
- right now at the top of recent changes there's a mess of YAY TEQUILA, Easter (what, again?) and the Kent state shootings. cramming in everyone's favourites makes it fugly as uck. SophieWilder 19:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, that's May 9/17. But seriously though, Cinco de Mayo should be dated for the 5th, not the 4th. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Fucking Daily Mail[edit]
2013 and they still need to refer to 'gay rape' in the headline, instead of just using the word 'rape'.--
Jabba de Chops 22:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- It fits neatly as a small word, unlike heterosexual. But I take your point.
- On a similar note, the UK and US really need to tidy up the law on lesbian rape and female-on-male sexual assault.Albannach (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC) ps I agree with Bill Roache's comment that the accused as well as the accuser should be anonymous until conviction.
- In the US, individual rape laws are left up for states to decide, so it is difficult to fix these things all at once. I imagine things are different in the UK where they have a unitary government. There's also the issue of prison rape, which has not been acknowledged until fairly recently during the Bush and Obama administrations. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know. I am waiting for a sociology student to pop up and tell us that the sexual assault of a male cannot be considered 'actual rape' because 'actual rape' can only be performed on a female. DamoHi 02:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- You're going to be waiting for a long ass time. RachelW (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please stop baiting people Damo. --Revolverman (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- You're going to be waiting for a long ass time. RachelW (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- From my experience, it has been feminists, not MRAs, who have fought on the side of marginalized rape victims. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- What has feminists or MRA's got to do with anything? DamoHi 02:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- What do sociology students have to do with anything. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not much, I'll give you that. Just poking fun at someone so condescending that they think they are the only ones with a valid opinion and others should go to community college. I can stop now if you like. DamoHi 02:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Damo, your opinion doesn't count. I went to community college and KNOW you DON'T so please JUST FUCK OFF. Acei9 03:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ace, I would draw your attention to 2 points. Firstly, there are plenty of people (mainly JAFA's) who consider Otago University a community college. Secondly, as white, straight male you have no right to an opinion about these matters. I take it your community college was Victoria? --DamoHi 05:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Damo, your opinion doesn't count. I went to community college and KNOW you DON'T so please JUST FUCK OFF. Acei9 03:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- That'd be nice. We don't need the RW community to be even more toxic then it already is. --Revolverman (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- No worries, I'm aware of the discussion you're talking about. Discussing gender always seems to end up with "toxic" results on the internet. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not much, I'll give you that. Just poking fun at someone so condescending that they think they are the only ones with a valid opinion and others should go to community college. I can stop now if you like. DamoHi 02:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- What do sociology students have to do with anything. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- What has feminists or MRA's got to do with anything? DamoHi 02:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know. I am waiting for a sociology student to pop up and tell us that the sexual assault of a male cannot be considered 'actual rape' because 'actual rape' can only be performed on a female. DamoHi 02:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- In the US, individual rape laws are left up for states to decide, so it is difficult to fix these things all at once. I imagine things are different in the UK where they have a unitary government. There's also the issue of prison rape, which has not been acknowledged until fairly recently during the Bush and Obama administrations. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
A mother could die because she is denied an abortion.[edit]
Human Rights Bodies Call on El Salvador to Provide Life-Saving Abortion Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hush now, its absolutely clear she (and thus the fetus) needs to be allowed to die to protect the sanctity of life and the life of the fetus. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 21:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- There is a petition trying to get her a life saving abortion, in any case her fetus isn't viable. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
And once again, the sexist Antiwomanists expose themselves for what they really are. As far as I'm concerned, anti abortion propaganda is hate speech. It's no different than saying that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, no matter what the sexist pigs decide to dress it up as.
–Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Mikal's ragebox) 00:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Worth making an article?[edit]
So, I've been thinking about this for awhile, but there's a forum that is populated mostly by communists, anarchocapitalists, and neonaazis. Its part of a network that includes a large communist forum as well. Not sure if it would survive as an article here, and I don't want to bother to make an article on them if its going to be nominated for deletion/essay space the minute I get done. Any thoughts?--Token Conservative (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- I remember being interested in that forum a while back (and i still sort of am), so i think an article would be useful. Give it a shot. (talk to a) Nihilist 17:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Very well. My bias in being effectively banned may show through.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- What I have so far. I'm basically planning on filling out the rest with information on some of the more well known/insane posters like Rei, Qatz, and Dave. Input so far?--Token Conservative (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Something about how/why the forum has attracted such strange bedfellows, perhaps, and something about the big themes at play -- especially ones that resonate with our core interests (conspiracies? woo?). Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 00:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- The major population are communists and neonazis. Enough said, really.--Token Conservative (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Something about how/why the forum has attracted such strange bedfellows, perhaps, and something about the big themes at play -- especially ones that resonate with our core interests (conspiracies? woo?). Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 00:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- What I have so far. I'm basically planning on filling out the rest with information on some of the more well known/insane posters like Rei, Qatz, and Dave. Input so far?--Token Conservative (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Very well. My bias in being effectively banned may show through.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
If not, you could try Bigotry Wiki. I find it strange that you would suggest that Nazis and Communists are on the same forum. Usually the people who try to equate the two are in fact Nazis. –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Mikal's ragebox) 14:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- On which planet is that true? Nazis hate communists, so I don't see how ... oh god why do I fucking bother? SophieWilder 15:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- What you're saying there is my exact point. Nazis hate Communists, so why would they be on the same forum? It's a Holocaust Denier tactic to attempt to equate Communists with Nazis. –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Mikal's ragebox) 00:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Dave, Rei, Fasces, and Far Right Sage are all fascists of one stripe or another, Ingliz, Goldberk, Dagoth Ur, and HoniSoit are all either left anarchists or marxists, Nunt, Rothbardian, Suska, and MikeMa are all libertarians or right anarchists. And each one is a long standing member.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The BNP can go fuck themselves[edit]
No, really, they can go fuck themselves. SophieWilder 20:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- How the fuck did UKIP win so many seats? Acei9 20:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Protest votes by Tories who didn't want to vote Tory. UKIP gained less seats than the Tories lost. (The LibDems also lost big, and they usually do quite well in local council elections.) - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Because there is no decent alternative in England unlike Scotland or Wales... especially since Labour sold out to Murdoch and LDs lost their own principles. If I lived in England, I don't know who I'd vote for. Possibly Green, but I find that party irritating and too middle class/suburban sometimes.-Albannach (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC) ps To be fair, Nigel Farage is charismatic, and highly entertaining, in an age of indistinguishable politicians but just happens to be wrong in many things. Better UKIP than the BNP.
UKIP are worse than BNP. BNP have no shot at any seats.in parliament. Neither have UKIP but they'll pull all the racist voters for their socially acceptable xenophobia. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ah that sweet smell of fuckwad rage in the evening. The one thing I have always said in favour of UKIP is that they screw the BNP out of the terrified Daily Heil readers who might otherwise vote for it. Maybe now they will drop the hilarious pretense of not being neo-nazis and start working on that apology to all the combat 18 wannabes they alienated to try and "go mainstream".
- Admittedly UKIP is detestable in its own right, but I just cant find it within myself to mourn the BNP's loss. Also if they siphon off all the racist xenophobic scumbag votes frm the Tories then that keeps the right wing divided, which is not exactly a bad thing in my books Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 00:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Euroscepticism is a legitimate and popular political viewpoint, which none of the big parties deal with properly, (Why vote for them at council level though?) I just wish they'd focus more on the undemocratic nature of the EU and less on foreigners. (Genuine issues with the EU affect all members) They don't get many votes in Scotland because of their blatannt anglocentrism, right wing nature and their hugely unpopular idea of getting rid of the Scottish Parliament. They're not the BNP, although they do have some xenophobes. They're also unlikely to knock your teeth out if you disagree with them. I found that story of foster children being taken from a UKIP family disturbing though.-Albannach (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Apparently Iran has some Daddy issues...[edit]
This was posted to tech crunch a while back. It's a study of porn search habits throughout the world. I'm really scared to look up some of the ones I don't understand like "raincoat." And Russians REALLY like their anal (as do the Pakistanis) Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 03:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- I thought both those countries had strict anti-pornography laws, and a fair degree of state regulation over the internet? 04:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently not... Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 04:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- If the few russian sites i've visited are any indication, its the exact opposite. --MikallakiM 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sort of interesting that the Chinese seem obsessed with the Japanese, and the Japanese are obsessed with...the Japanese. The latter is unsurprising, though. --Kels (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- And god only knows why south korea likes scat so much Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 14:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sort of interesting that the Chinese seem obsessed with the Japanese, and the Japanese are obsessed with...the Japanese. The latter is unsurprising, though. --Kels (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- If the few russian sites i've visited are any indication, its the exact opposite. --MikallakiM 12:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently not... Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 04:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Pretty interesting actually. If I were to utilize my Freud pipe, I'd say that the more oppressive, uptight, and overall a measurable stick up the rear a country has, the most twisted get their oppressed desires. Unsurprisingly, if someone checks what liberal, amoral, atheist, communist, sodomist, non-gay-stoning Europe searches for, lo and behold, the searches are completely boring. As are America's for that matter. Sen (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- And then there's Peru. Sen (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- that's not Freud, that's just common sense. If the country is too uptight to talk about sex, them people with sex drives get their education elsewhere, and in some cases this is the Internet...poor bastards. 166.137.88.19 (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- And then there's Peru. Sen (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Entire Gun 3D Printed[edit]
Well, that's music to the ears of every anarcho-libertarian gun nut! All we gotta do now is watch for him to publish the blueprints, then we can all head down to Staples and pick up a printer, and before you know it you'll have your own, plastic toy-looking, questionably reliable hand gun! Just make sure to put that metal slab in there; you wouldn't want to violate the law with an undetectable by metal detector weapon, would you? --CoyoteSans (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Old news. Last I heard, they still can't print bullets, so you might be able to get an unloaded one past a metal detector, but not a loaded one. Also, last I heard, they break after firing a few dozen rounds - not that that's very comforting to some people I suppose. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- "It's unclear what happens when you shoot the gun..." Until that little detail is sorted out, you don't have a gun. You have a hunk of plastic that is vaguely gun-shaped. DickTurpis (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Right. File this in the BFD department, and I don't mean Big Friendly Dog. Improvised gun-shaped objects are hardly a new thing. Urban kids in the fifties were making rimfire zip guns using antennas ripped from cars for barrels. Unwieldy and inaccurate, but carrying and shooting such a piece could give a punk a psychological boost. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- A big part of the cost of a firearm is making it accurate, which you wouldn't be able to get with a 3d printer firearm, assuming it wont just explode after you shoot the first round, which wouldn't surprise me in the least.--Token Conservative (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- If it's for pointing at shopkeepers it doesn't need to be accurate. I doubt anybody printing off a gun is planning to hunt ducks or enter shooting contests. SophieWilder 20:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- If it's for pointing at shopkeepers it does, however, have to look like a gun - David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you're going to rob someone you don't need a gun. My concern is more murder and mass shootings. This thing probably has next to no effective range, so someone using this is probably less dangerous than someone with a knife.--Token Conservative (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- If it's for pointing at shopkeepers it does, however, have to look like a gun - David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- If it's for pointing at shopkeepers it doesn't need to be accurate. I doubt anybody printing off a gun is planning to hunt ducks or enter shooting contests. SophieWilder 20:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- A big part of the cost of a firearm is making it accurate, which you wouldn't be able to get with a 3d printer firearm, assuming it wont just explode after you shoot the first round, which wouldn't surprise me in the least.--Token Conservative (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Right. File this in the BFD department, and I don't mean Big Friendly Dog. Improvised gun-shaped objects are hardly a new thing. Urban kids in the fifties were making rimfire zip guns using antennas ripped from cars for barrels. Unwieldy and inaccurate, but carrying and shooting such a piece could give a punk a psychological boost. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- "It's unclear what happens when you shoot the gun..." Until that little detail is sorted out, you don't have a gun. You have a hunk of plastic that is vaguely gun-shaped. DickTurpis (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
The Liberator was an extremely inaccurate gun dropped in France by the millions. The intent was for the resistance to kill Germans and take their weapons, which would be better. –Inquisitor Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Mikal's ragebox) 15:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- A promo video has been released. Scary stuff. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 18:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Every American phone conversation recorded and stored?[edit]
I want to call bullshit, both because I just don't want it to be true and also because I can't imagine the resources -- human, storage, technological --being spent to do so could stay secret for long. But this isn't through the normal conspiracy-theory channels: Truthdig has won some legit kudos from real journos. Thoughts? Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 20:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- In the old days, I'd disagree, because of the human workload, but there are serious human rights issues emerging in this area with massive computer storage. (Occasionally conspiracy nuts hit on real issues) My own take is that I doubt it but I'm told mobile phone calls do leave retrievable footprints.Albannach (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- With what little I know about tech nowadays, I can stretch my imagination to just about accept that every phone conversation could be monitored by some kind of word detection thing that flags up things like the word "bomb" and... whatever. Just about. But I can't buy that every single conversation in America is recorded and stored; recording live stuff always needs more space than something pre-recorded because of compression and all that jazz. Even with petabyte harddrives in thousands of computers, they'd run out of storage within months, if not weeks. Maybe even days. Hell, if nothing else, to actually make that information searchable (no point having stuff stored if you can't actually find it) would be an absolutely enormous effort of some very advanced speech-to-text stuff running nonstop on amazingly fast computers. Although I guess dates and times would do, actually. X Stickman (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Google echelon (if y dare). Of course the saucer people have recorded our conversations for years.Albannach (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt we've reached Deus Ex levels of surveillance yet. --Revolverman (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Google echelon (if y dare). Of course the saucer people have recorded our conversations for years.Albannach (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- With what little I know about tech nowadays, I can stretch my imagination to just about accept that every phone conversation could be monitored by some kind of word detection thing that flags up things like the word "bomb" and... whatever. Just about. But I can't buy that every single conversation in America is recorded and stored; recording live stuff always needs more space than something pre-recorded because of compression and all that jazz. Even with petabyte harddrives in thousands of computers, they'd run out of storage within months, if not weeks. Maybe even days. Hell, if nothing else, to actually make that information searchable (no point having stuff stored if you can't actually find it) would be an absolutely enormous effort of some very advanced speech-to-text stuff running nonstop on amazingly fast computers. Although I guess dates and times would do, actually. X Stickman (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, the NSA does record phone calls and store them automatically, but US law still holds that a court order is required to use them in a court of law. That still leaves a lot of room for abuse, but not quite the police state conspiracy theorists are looking for. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Fairly close though wouldn't you say? The authorities not being able to use it in court is only a small snag really, considering they can use it to find other incriminating evidence which they can use in court (and not reveal how they came across it). If there is truth to this it is a big worry. DamoHi 02:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Post-11/9 "Anti-terror" legislation has been used to justify some sinister stuff in the past, and I wonder if the Boston business will be used in the same way. Albannach (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Gee, I guess the terrorists will have to use code words from now on. What if 300 million Americans were to bomb the NSA computers with red-flag words. I mean bring the wrath of Allah on them. Go frikin' jihadi. Kill the infidels with the irony of it all.
Talk to Civic Cat 00:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, here's a song on Youtube by a band formed in Boston, called Big Wreck. The song? Blown Wide Open. Talk to Civic Cat 00:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, here's a song on Youtube by a band formed in Boston, called Big Wreck. The song? Blown Wide Open.
AAVE[edit]
So, I've heard that the US government is looking for people fluent in AAVE to assist with the ATF in drug busts. What one side is saying is that AAVE is just english spoken by black people and that ATF is racist and too dumb to understand it, and the other side says that it is in fact difficult to speak/understand due to it's development as a code for these situations. Both sound like crank answers to me, though I do gather that people confuse AAVE with Ebonics. Anybody know anything about it?--P3A58NT86 18:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Everytime I hear about this kind of thing I wonder if anyone would the British police racist for hiring people familiar with Cockney Rhyming Slang.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I personally wouldn't bother with that crap myself...--P3A58NT86 18:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- @TC - no one speaks Cockney Rhyming Slang outside of Dick Van Dyke and "english" characters appearing in US movies. Innocent Bystander (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- The UK police have spoken of seeking out interpreters for Jamaican patois (regarded by its speakers as just the local dialect of English) in the past, though I can't find a cite - David Gerard (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I personally wouldn't bother with that crap myself...--P3A58NT86 18:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's interesting though... I'd have thought that a large group of presumably intelligent individuals would be able to "decrypt" any of these dialects by themselves, but apparently, it's more complex than it appears to be.--P3A58NT86 19:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Why can't the English teach their chilled WREN how to speak!?!! Maybe we need a Nartical about asymmetrical mutual intelligibility. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Peasant: it might just be easier to hire someone to give "translations" rather than bother to figure it out themselves.--Token Conservative (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Token Conservative: My thoughts exactly.--P3A58NT86 20:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have any links mentioning this happening somewhere? I can't find a mention of it. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 20:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- @TC: In basic training at Fort Benning, I once had a fellow GI sit his ass down next to mine out at one of the ranges, and tell me the story of how he came to take the US equivalent of the King's shilling. I think that's what he was telling me, at least. It was an unbroken flow, and I got about one word in twenty. At the time, I had plenty of recent experience immersed in AAVE as spoken in Virginia, but this was something else. About ten years later, I had a similar experience with old white guys in a Scottish garage. If they don't want you to understand, all your figuring will not help. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy". The distinction between languages and dialects is even less firm that say, the distinction between a species and a sub-species. That saying reflects the reality that a sovereign government (with the afore-mentioned military power) can oblige other people to recognise their language even if in other circumstances it would be regarded as a mere dialect, or contrariwise, to accept that several related languages are mere dialects when, if they had sovereign governments using them they'd be acknowledged as independent languages. So, "Chinese" gets to be a single language despite the fact that local dialect speakers can barely understand each other, and so does "English".
- The ATF presumably wants to have people on the ground who - when a suspect says something in AAVE to other suspects - has as good a shot as those other suspects do to understand what is meant. Ambiguities will remain (The Pulp Fiction "Take care of" speech for example, or if you want a real world example "Let him have it") but the agents are at least not totally in the dark as to any subtlety. They can't advertise for a black officer to fill this role because that would be racist AND there's no reason to assume all black ATF candidates are fluent users of AAVE.
- Still, why are they hiring more people for drug busts? Aren't you supposed to working on legalisation/ commercialisation over there? Tialaramex (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- I found this as well--P3A58NT86 21:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- @TC: In basic training at Fort Benning, I once had a fellow GI sit his ass down next to mine out at one of the ranges, and tell me the story of how he came to take the US equivalent of the King's shilling. I think that's what he was telling me, at least. It was an unbroken flow, and I got about one word in twenty. At the time, I had plenty of recent experience immersed in AAVE as spoken in Virginia, but this was something else. About ten years later, I had a similar experience with old white guys in a Scottish garage. If they don't want you to understand, all your figuring will not help. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy" - thus spake Max Weinreich, a Yiddish speaker. (Everyone remembers the quote but not who said it). Examples against are Welsh & Basque (definitely distinct languages) vs American English, various forms of Arabic & Brazilian Portuguese. Examples for include the Scandinavian languages & Afrikaans vs the Chinese dialects and Norman French.
Maybe someone is muddling wp:argot with dialect.Albannach (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, African American Vernacular English is spoken by thousands of black Americans and some of them are not actually criminals. It derives mostly from Southern US English with some variations. There's nothing argoty about it. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- I will assume you mean thousands figuratively. I'd bump that up by a couple orders of magnitude, more or less. In the mid-seventies I shared some space for a month or two with a cohort of young black men in central Michigan. They were expert code-switchers, borderline polyglots— knew exactly what they were doing, and were proud of it. Some of my specialist vocabulary confused them, though; for example, I had to explain to one kid that when I said "broadhead," I meant the metal part on the pointy end of a hunting arrow. Fun times.
- That RW article mentions what may be its most famous African-derived grammatical feature: the use of "be" to mark the habitual aspect of a verb. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
"Actually, African American Vernacular English is spoken by thousands of black Americans and some of them are not actually criminals."
I am well aware of this.
If they're doing drugs busts, then criminal argot is what they're most likely after, not AA dialect proper. (Actually it seems to have crossed no one's mind they probably want moles)
That said not all argot is criminal. Marginalised groups tend to develop it. Yiddish and Romany have developed argot features so that conversations could be kept private from outsiders, goys and gadgies. Gays are another group who have developed numerous argots.
In the case of American blacks, there are historical reasons for codes. Slaves would wish to conceal things from their more brutal owners for example. And since black culture is continually being ripped off by whites, new codes are continually being invented to keep the in group in. Hot to cool to neither. This without mentioning actual African words.-Albannach (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC) ps Didn't they have to recruit an interpreter on the film "Airplane" lol
- "Excuse me, stewardess -- I speak jive." MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 18:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Argot consists of slang words, not a dialect with its own grammar structures which is what AAVE is. If ATF & DEA are looking specifically for speakers of AAVE, then that's probably what they mean, not criminal argot (which law enforcement is usually pretty good at keeping up with). I would imagine having people who speak AAVE (or indeed any other common dialect) comfortably without faking out would be useful for undercover work, surveillance, & questioning suspects & witnesses. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 19:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Argot consists of slang words, not a dialect with its own grammar structures which is what AAVE is. If ATF & DEA are looking specifically for speakers of AAVE, then that's probably what they mean, not criminal argot (which law enforcement is usually pretty good at keeping up with). I would imagine having people who speak AAVE (or indeed any other common dialect) comfortably without faking out would be useful for undercover work, surveillance, & questioning suspects & witnesses. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Argot can develop idiosyncrasies outwith vocabulary. Some have even become full blown languages.
I don't think this is racist at all, it's useful for them to have people who can transcribe conversations accurately, go undercover convincingly and also interpret obscurer aspects of language for non-users. Definitely agree. Some middle class Obama type guy wouldn't work. Makes good sense to me. They presumably have Russian, Spanish and Chinese speaking agents who work in similar ways with street language. And I imagine the Spanish they deal with is more that of central American slums and shanty towns than that of King Juan Carlos. Albannach (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Awesome[edit]
Science: Because who's going to stop us?--Token Conservative (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Meh, wake me when they create the Rage virus and pump it into some chimps. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 13:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- The increased ability for it to spread greatly reduced the danger of it, so it isn't all that bad.--Token Conservative (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Meh, wake me when they create the Rage virus and pump it into some chimps. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 13:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Phones, speakers, and that staticky / beaty noise[edit]
I was just watching some videos with my headphones on, and my phone next to me, and heard that mildly staticky, jumpy, 'beat' noise faintly, the one that happens when phone signals are close to speakers...and it just hit me that I haven't heard that noise in two years. I remember hearing it sometimes during listening comprehension tests in high school language classes if someone didn't put their phone in the lockers, and I remember when I was using stereo speakers from my computer years ago, I'd have my phone next to me, and I knew I was going to receive a text because I'd hear that noise for a bit. This time, I didn't get a text or call or anything, and the noise was very light, but this thing is comparatively an old phone, had it for two, three years now. Has anyone else not heard this in some time? Has phone tech been progressing in some direction that minimises this in the past few years or something, or better speakers? Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 09:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- More likely the mobile phone technology than the speakers. The speakers are just picking up EM interference. I'd guess maybe the reduced power (to save battery life) in modern phones, and/or the switch to newer 3G and 4G phones, maybe the "setup" protocol in a 3G phone has a pattern that's far less noticeable when it interferes with your speakers. Another possibility is that modern phones that are always checking your Facebook, your email, and so on, are often already "online" when a call comes in and can skip the setup phase that has that distinctive (often described as "chirping" sound) when heard as interference. Tialaramex (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Cosmos[edit]
New series of "Cosmos" to be hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson. The world just became a little more awesome. PsyGremlinPrata! 12:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- No offense, Psy, but that's old news. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 18:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Articles about wacky beliefs[edit]
Lets say you found an article about wacky things said by the type of people RW mocks. It's collection of real quotes from, oh, maybe the NRA convention.
Do you post it in WIGO:Clogs because it's about clogosphere things, or do you post it in WIGO:Blogs because it's a blogs-we-like type of thing? MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 16:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Probably blogs. Clogs is for things blogged by cranks where the POV of the author is objectionable. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 17:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
What is this bullshit?[edit]
I barely ever post here anymore but I thought y'all needed to hear about this bullshit right here. Has anyone here come across this page before? Is this like, a real thing? WilhelmJunker (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- The parent group seems to be this, a fundamentalist Catholic group. The page in question seems to be real, unfortunately. More info. --Tweenk (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Very Good[edit]
Nicely done. For context, the Daily Mail and like-minded ilk have been heavily publicising the presence of 'Asian paedophile gangs' in the UK, although when it comes down to the paedophile activities of groups of white people they seem to prefer the use of the term 'paedophile ring'.-- Jabba de Chops 15:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Bit like govt (we like them) and regime (we don't)
Turns out the BNP has something of an issue in this area (this is worth reading)
http://hopenothate.org.uk/blog/article/2048/bnp-hypocrisy-over-paedophile
-Albannach (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- The BNP recently came out and told their white supporters to breed more so that they grow up to be White British BNP supporters... what I'm saying is that I don't need more evidence that they're complete arseholes. bomination 11:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Is there a nutritionist in the house?[edit]
If so please check in here. Your help is greatly appreciated. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 20:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Do you want a Nutritionist or a Dietitian? ;) Worm (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- The latter. My bad. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 13:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
How did I get on this?[edit]
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Machismo
Not offended, just extremely curious
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Jamesson
- We know who you are Jamesson. If you wish to question the level of Machismo you have been assigned I suggest you take it up on the talkpage, along with documentary evidence of your machismo, such as breaking bricks with your head and being swooned by latina ladies. Ole! Ole! Ole! (or it could be a trick that just puts in the name of whichever user is reading the page) --DamoHi 03:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's a template that returns a user's name. So, when I look at that page, I see my username. Don't worry, you aren't special.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Woops, didn't read the last part of Damo's post--"Shut up, Brx." 03:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you want to do it, the code looks like this [[Special:Mypage|<span class="myName">Anonymous User</span>]]. Although I had to double check, because I could have sworn it was {{name}}. What am I thinking of?--Token Conservative (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
{{insert name}}ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 06:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, don't drag me into this. Yours trulyDear Sir 09:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you want to do it, the code looks like this [[Special:Mypage|<span class="myName">Anonymous User</span>]]. Although I had to double check, because I could have sworn it was {{name}}. What am I thinking of?--Token Conservative (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Woops, didn't read the last part of Damo's post--"Shut up, Brx." 03:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's a template that returns a user's name. So, when I look at that page, I see my username. Don't worry, you aren't special.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The username template is RW's equivalent of Rick-rolling. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 09:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- It does leave me wondering when people are actually talking about me or what I did with Anonymous User that one time. pathetic 11:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am going to insert an oily <insert name here> into your caterer. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 20:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh my! --Revolverman (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am going to insert an oily <insert name here> into your caterer. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Appeal to the Founding Fathers[edit]
Has anyone else noticed a trend on the right wing in America? Basically an argument often made is that the Founding Fathers wanted A, therefore A is good. The frequency is astonishing in my view The Invisible ManI spoke to Him 11:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it's strange that people even end up second-guessing or outright not even bothering to look them up when saying what they'd want. It's a proper appeal to authority fallacy, but in this case they never really go as far as to say why they're an authority. Times change, societies change, and what is good for a society in, say, a nuclear age of superpowers isn't exactly the same as when a country is newly formed after breaking away from an empire in a bloody war. I'm pretty sure that if anyone is going to recognize that fact, it would be post-enlightenment scholars. moral 11:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- In fact, yes, they did - though that leaves us with a recursive irony. sshole 11:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- "...what is good for a society in, say, a nuclear age of superpowers isn't exactly the same as when a country is newly formed after breaking away from an empire in a bloody war."
- Well put. I usually cite Nuclear arms as an example of why things cannot be as damn simple as some people would like them to be. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 13:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's used more or less the same way as The Bible in this respect, right? The authority is more important than what it has to say. So you don't need to find a quote by George Washington where he says semi-automatic hand guns are every citizen's right, any more than you need to cite an actual Bible verse where Jesus says you ought to send money to televangelists, the suckers will take it on trust.
- I am hopeful that the "troll quotes" phenomenon (initiated by the image of Gandalf, with a quote from Yoda, cited as Dumbledore but there are other versions e.g. a picture of Noel Gallagher, lyric by Jarvis Cocker, attributed as Damon Albarn) might cause people to be more sceptical about this crap, but I've been wrong before. Tialaramex (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's been going on for a long time. The problem with this, of course, is that the Founding Fathers didn't agree with each other on a whole host of issues. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- In several of the The Federalist Papers the writers talk about how the Constitution needs to be thought of as a living document, to use modern terms. The Federalist Papers were written by three people: one would become a Supreme Court Justice, one was kind of everywhere in the Federal Government, and a third became the fucking President. Two members of the group became members of the Federalist party, the third was in the Democratic-Republican Party, and Thomas Jefferson wrote some pretty high praise of it, calling it something like "the greatest work on freedom and republicanism". The idea that the Founders wanted anything other than the Constitution to be a living document is frankly an enormous loud of pseudohistoric bullshit.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, ^this is a typical example of this tendency, which is by no means specific to the right wing. In most countries such comments wouldn't need to be made, because trying to put oneself in the mind of lawmakers from hundreds of years ago simply isn't part of the political process. ωεαşεζøίɗMethinks it is a Weasel 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, ^this is a typical example of this tendency, which is by no means specific to the right wing. In most countries such comments wouldn't need to be made, because trying to put oneself in the mind of lawmakers from hundreds of years ago simply isn't part of the political process. ωεαşεζøίɗ
- In several of the The Federalist Papers the writers talk about how the Constitution needs to be thought of as a living document, to use modern terms. The Federalist Papers were written by three people: one would become a Supreme Court Justice, one was kind of everywhere in the Federal Government, and a third became the fucking President. Two members of the group became members of the Federalist party, the third was in the Democratic-Republican Party, and Thomas Jefferson wrote some pretty high praise of it, calling it something like "the greatest work on freedom and republicanism". The idea that the Founders wanted anything other than the Constitution to be a living document is frankly an enormous loud of pseudohistoric bullshit.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's been going on for a long time. The problem with this, of course, is that the Founding Fathers didn't agree with each other on a whole host of issues. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- In fact, yes, they did - though that leaves us with a recursive irony.
Token, do you remember offhand which Federalist Papers said such things? And what exactly do you mean by a living document? Does a "living document" mean that if a majority of the population no longer considers freedom of speech to be a good thing, or if it could be soundly demonstrated that freedom of speech is not a good thing, then the courts may no longer uphold freedom of speech, and the legislature may pass laws abridging the freedom of speech? I am no originalist by Scalia's definition, but I must support a method of jurisprudence whereby the general value judgments encoded in law cannot be reinterpreted by later generations. That's the whole point of constitutional guarantees, and if later courts, legislatures, or peoples, can merely ignore constitutional guarantees because it's a "living document" without changing it, then it's not worth the paper it's printed on, and you no longer have rule of law or a constitutional republic. Instead, you have a democracy, which IIRC the Federalist Papers definitely advocated against. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- It was referenced in several of them that the author wanted the Constitution to adapt to society as it changed. If you want I could probably go through my copy.--Token Conservative (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Best. Headline. Ever![edit]
First, the bad news: EA bags Star Wars games rights……
Still waiting for the good news.-- Jabba de Chops 16:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Someone at Disney is a very trollish Trekkie. Vulpius (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I cannot believe I've only just remembered to post the present I got my friend's four year-old daughter this christmas. She loved it, her mother; not so much.-- Jabba de Chops 17:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Just further proof in my mind that George Lucas is really Nyarlathotep's chubbier avatar Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 17:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK, so if her mother loved it, but the daughter didn't like it "so much", what's happened to the toy now? Surely you're not implying...--Křěĵtalk 17:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- (EC) I really want them to pick up the chunks of Battlefront III that were made and give them to DICE, but it's more likely they will be cover shooters based on episodes 7 to 9, search your feelings, you know it be true. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 17:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ugh, bad punctuation. Meant that the daughter loved the toy and the ears, her mother did not. Jabba de Chops 21:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- :D--Křěĵtalk 21:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ugh, bad punctuation. Meant that the daughter loved the toy and the ears, her mother did not.
- (EC) I really want them to pick up the chunks of Battlefront III that were made and give them to DICE, but it's more likely they will be cover shooters based on episodes 7 to 9, search your feelings, you know it be true. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 17:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK, so if her mother loved it, but the daughter didn't like it "so much", what's happened to the toy now? Surely you're not implying...--Křěĵtalk 17:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Just further proof in my mind that George Lucas is really Nyarlathotep's chubbier avatar Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 17:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I cannot believe I've only just remembered to post the present I got my friend's four year-old daughter this christmas. She loved it, her mother; not so much.--
- http://nooooooooooooooo.com/ Osaka Sun (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Help[edit]
There's a blog post (in French) which uses the following argument to show that extracting drugs from plants is unsustainable: It takes one willow tree to make 2.6 kg of aspirin (he says he learned this from... a chemistry class?), and so in order to meet the global demand for aspirin, you'd need 600.000 ha of land set aside for willow trees, which is much more than the 175.000 ha currently used for willow plantations. There are no external references. How factual is this article, if at all?--Křěĵtalk 21:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that when straight-up extracted from willows, salicylic acid causes upset stomachs. Modern aspirin is derived from meadowsweet.[1] So it's a lot more feasible (and possibly how we do things already) to grow fields of meadowsweet for aspirin production than willow orchards.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- [ec] Looking around the other wiki, I see salicylic acid (precursor in aspirin synthesis) being commercially produced from a salt of phenol, ultimately from benzene which comes from petroleum. Is this enough to call bullshit on the article? Are there boutique brands of aspirin still made from willow bark [or meadowsweet]? I do not know. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, what the Imposteurs writer is saying is that producing aspirin from willows or strictly from natural processes is unfeasible, and that artificial processes are better. So what you're saying actually vindicates the article. The blog seems to be your run-of-the-mill skeptic blog. Wish they'd post a credentials page, though.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK, went and actually read the imposteurs article:
- Pourquoi enrichir des laboratoires pharmaceutiques qui se contentent de copier un produit disponible dans la nature?
- L’exemple de l’aspirine suffit à réfuter le faux bon sens et la vraie mauvaise foi qui se dissimulent derrière cet argument.
- It seems the article is righteously calling bullshit on the granola-munching, tree-hugging, Gaia-loving moonbats who wonder why we need artificial aspirin from eevl pharmabiz when it occurs in nature. (My own extrapolation: that is a reason to stop burning petroleum; we should be using it as feedstock for such processes instead, but that's a discussion for somewhere else.) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- OK, went and actually read the imposteurs article:
- Well, what the Imposteurs writer is saying is that producing aspirin from willows or strictly from natural processes is unfeasible, and that artificial processes are better. So what you're saying actually vindicates the article. The blog seems to be your run-of-the-mill skeptic blog. Wish they'd post a credentials page, though.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- More to the point, how much aspirin you get from one tree depends on how big the tree is, and whether it is a productive strain or not. My experience with tincture of handwavium tells me the numbers aren't hugely out of line. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- According to this, willow bark can contain from 0.08% to 12.6% salicin. So, yeah, it's quite variable. Also, @Brx: apparently Suwalki is a "Chargé d'études pour l'INSEE" (the INSEE being a statistics and economic organization). But I don't see any other sources that indicate what his credentials are.--Křěĵtalk 04:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure arboriculturists could selectively breed higher-yielding strains of willow so we wouldn't need so much land. ГенгисGum disease 08:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I do recall reading somewhere that willow bark supplements are usually sourced from species that contain 3%-5% salicin, but I can't find the source.--Křěĵtalk 16:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- The trick wouldn't necessarily be in how much land you'd need to cultivate, but whether the extraction processes are significantly more efficient than other synthetic methods. The energy you need to plant, grow and maintain the tree, then strip its bark, then process it, then chemically extract it, then do the necessary purification, then figure out what the yield is, and then add the actual chemical transformation to turn salicylic acid to Aspirin (that you need to do in the conventional synthesis anyway) then you've probably not saved yourself much and have probably contributed to a lot more waste than you saved. I doubt that a life cycle assessment of the two processes would favour getting it from willow trees at all. narchist 16:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, did I omit the winking smiley? ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 18:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, did I omit the winking smiley?
- The trick wouldn't necessarily be in how much land you'd need to cultivate, but whether the extraction processes are significantly more efficient than other synthetic methods. The energy you need to plant, grow and maintain the tree, then strip its bark, then process it, then chemically extract it, then do the necessary purification, then figure out what the yield is, and then add the actual chemical transformation to turn salicylic acid to Aspirin (that you need to do in the conventional synthesis anyway) then you've probably not saved yourself much and have probably contributed to a lot more waste than you saved. I doubt that a life cycle assessment of the two processes would favour getting it from willow trees at all.
- I do recall reading somewhere that willow bark supplements are usually sourced from species that contain 3%-5% salicin, but I can't find the source.--Křěĵtalk 16:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure arboriculturists could selectively breed higher-yielding strains of willow so we wouldn't need so much land.
- According to this, willow bark can contain from 0.08% to 12.6% salicin. So, yeah, it's quite variable. Also, @Brx: apparently Suwalki is a "Chargé d'études pour l'INSEE" (the INSEE being a statistics and economic organization). But I don't see any other sources that indicate what his credentials are.--Křěĵtalk 04:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Mikal asks for Computer Advice #whatever[edit]
All righttt, as I move into the final portions of getting my laptop set up to be sent away for god knows how long again, I decide to see if theres something i can do about my desktop as I would like to have a working computer to keep in touch with friends and make plans and do stuff and everything (also makes job searching far easier). some backstory on the desktop is that it's randomly been Freezing up (and many times displaying a square of graphical glitch when it does so) requiring me to hard restart it. As oh today it isn't even finding my harddrive (which its pulled before). All i need is the ability to use skype and the internet but nope, Fuck mikal apparently is the theme of summer 2013 -.- --MikallakiM 00:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- 1: It's not even summer yet.
- 2: Have you tried reinstalling? (talk to a) Nihilist 01:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Integrated graphics or dedicated graphics board? I'd hazard a guess that this is some sort of hardware problem. Do the simple checks first anyway, invest a couple of hours to run memtest over the probably many gigabytes of RAM people seem to need these days, then spend a few days booted in to a Linux live CD to see if the same problem happens there. You may also want to try finding a free/cheap PCIe graphics board to swap in to the system to see if that helps (your local freecycle is often a good source of outdated computer shite.) If none of this diagnoses/gets rid of the problem, it's probably the motherboard that's fucked, or at an outside bet the power supply. Bad voltage regulation, unless it's bad enough to trip the brownout detector, would generally cause a software error rather than just shut the whole thing down. If the motherboard is fucked then it's probably time to buy a new one. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 07:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Would changing motherboards involve a fresh install of everything? I was considering switching motherboards myself. My hard drive is detectable and functional and all that. But I heard on the web from professional sources like PCWorld that I'd have issues if I don't take precautions, but my brother says it could be rather simple, as if I was swapping out any other component. I had just replaced my computer's OS with the 64-bit equivalent, and transferring the backups back and forth took a long time, so I am rather miffed at the prospect of doing all that again. I don't know what Mikal would do if his hard drive's been acting iffy.--DoomTay (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- If we're talking Windows then a change of motherboard might upset some programs which use a machine ID for licensing. Also if you are doing an upgrade rather than a direct replacement you will have to update chipset drivers, when I did it many years ago Windows choked as it couldn't load the correct drivers at startup. If you're upgrading the motherboard then I'd recommend doing a clean install of everything. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 01:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- If we're talking Windows then a change of motherboard might upset some programs which use a machine ID for licensing. Also if you are doing an upgrade rather than a direct replacement you will have to update chipset drivers, when I did it many years ago Windows choked as it couldn't load the correct drivers at startup. If you're upgrading the motherboard then I'd recommend doing a clean install of everything.
- Would changing motherboards involve a fresh install of everything? I was considering switching motherboards myself. My hard drive is detectable and functional and all that. But I heard on the web from professional sources like PCWorld that I'd have issues if I don't take precautions, but my brother says it could be rather simple, as if I was swapping out any other component. I had just replaced my computer's OS with the 64-bit equivalent, and transferring the backups back and forth took a long time, so I am rather miffed at the prospect of doing all that again. I don't know what Mikal would do if his hard drive's been acting iffy.--DoomTay (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Integrated graphics or dedicated graphics board? I'd hazard a guess that this is some sort of hardware problem. Do the simple checks first anyway, invest a couple of hours to run memtest over the probably many gigabytes of RAM people seem to need these days, then spend a few days booted in to a Linux live CD to see if the same problem happens there. You may also want to try finding a free/cheap PCIe graphics board to swap in to the system to see if that helps (your local freecycle is often a good source of outdated computer shite.) If none of this diagnoses/gets rid of the problem, it's probably the motherboard that's fucked, or at an outside bet the power supply. Bad voltage regulation, unless it's bad enough to trip the brownout detector, would generally cause a software error rather than just shut the whole thing down. If the motherboard is fucked then it's probably time to buy a new one. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 07:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Another Sylvia Browne fiasco....[edit]
The world's foremost psycho psychic is proven to be very wrong yet again. Robot Opera Singer Who Fights Crime (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I really want someone to sue this bitch.--Token Conservative (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- That will never happen, at least not successfully. She's set herself up as a spiritual and religious guide, and no court, at least in the States, is going to want to set the precedent of the judicial system ruling on the validity of religious beliefs. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 20:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, not much more than a decade ago a major party tried to impeach the President of the United States for lying about getting oral. I think we can sue some (frankly) random idiot for lying to parents about a "murdered" child.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- You are all aware that you need to have been DAMAGED by someone (legitimately, not just "offended") before you can take them to court right? --Revolverman (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- You should have told Congress that around 1998/1999--Token Conservative (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Clinton was impeached for lying about it under oath, not for getting a bit on the side. Totally irrelevant in any case to a potential civil suit. I can't off the top of my head think of possible grounds for suing her, but there may be some in the US. DamoHi 23:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- He lied about doing something Congress has no authority to ask him about. Although I should stop taking this off topic. I imagine there was plenty of mental anguish the parents suffered. I don't know much about the case, but I imagine that the parents stopped encouraging the police to look because "my daughter is dead", which could have greatly increased the time the women were held. --Token Conservative (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- That is a possible claim I guess, though it would be very difficult to actually prove a causative link between what Brown said and a longer time being held. Besides, I imagine people would have to sign waivers discharging liability and acknowledging that no information was being provided to them before Ms Brown would talk to them. I don't think suing is the answer in cases like this. DamoHi 23:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think psychics would collectively shut the hell up the minute they realize they will be sued when they spread lies around. And did someone from the family specifically ask her, or did she just make the claim? Because I remember seeing some clips of her just commenting about current events.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- That is a possible claim I guess, though it would be very difficult to actually prove a causative link between what Brown said and a longer time being held. Besides, I imagine people would have to sign waivers discharging liability and acknowledging that no information was being provided to them before Ms Brown would talk to them. I don't think suing is the answer in cases like this. DamoHi 23:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- He lied about doing something Congress has no authority to ask him about. Although I should stop taking this off topic. I imagine there was plenty of mental anguish the parents suffered. I don't know much about the case, but I imagine that the parents stopped encouraging the police to look because "my daughter is dead", which could have greatly increased the time the women were held. --Token Conservative (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Clinton was impeached for lying about it under oath, not for getting a bit on the side. Totally irrelevant in any case to a potential civil suit. I can't off the top of my head think of possible grounds for suing her, but there may be some in the US. DamoHi 23:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- You should have told Congress that around 1998/1999--Token Conservative (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- You are all aware that you need to have been DAMAGED by someone (legitimately, not just "offended") before you can take them to court right? --Revolverman (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, not much more than a decade ago a major party tried to impeach the President of the United States for lying about getting oral. I think we can sue some (frankly) random idiot for lying to parents about a "murdered" child.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- That will never happen, at least not successfully. She's set herself up as a spiritual and religious guide, and no court, at least in the States, is going to want to set the precedent of the judicial system ruling on the validity of religious beliefs. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 20:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I can't help but find it a bummer that someone takes misinformation to the grave--DoomTay (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Current same-sex marriage map[edit]
Since Delaware is now #11, anyone notice a cliched yet potentially disturbing trend here? Osaka Sun (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- no?--MikallakiM 23:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- What, that its like the slavery map? --Revolverman (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- If I may speak on behalf of the state of Nebraska, and I'm sure Mikal can back me up on this, Nebraska can be basically divided into two areas: the greater Omaha metro area and the greater Lincoln metro areas, and everywhere else. The metro areas of Lincoln and Nebraska are more than half the state population and are fairly moderate (Omaha recently tried to pass a law which would include sexual orientation in non-discrimination laws, not sure what happened). The problem is Nebraska has a unicameral with representation by county instead of population, and there's three moderate counties in a state with 50 something counties. So, atleast a plurality of the population is supportive of gay rights, but the way our government is set up basically makes it so the overwhelming majority of our legislatures are a bunch of rednecks.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- How big is the imbalance? In terms of ratio of populations? Presumably we're not talking like the pre-reform Westminster situation (where you've got like a dozen people in some old market town voting for their own MP but a nearby industrial city with shitloads of people has to share its MP with neighbours). If you do fix this, try to find some way to ensure your boundary lines aren't controlled by politicians because hey, Gerrymandering is no better than the situation you've got now. Tialaramex (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- If I may speak on behalf of the state of Nebraska, and I'm sure Mikal can back me up on this, Nebraska can be basically divided into two areas: the greater Omaha metro area and the greater Lincoln metro areas, and everywhere else. The metro areas of Lincoln and Nebraska are more than half the state population and are fairly moderate (Omaha recently tried to pass a law which would include sexual orientation in non-discrimination laws, not sure what happened). The problem is Nebraska has a unicameral with representation by county instead of population, and there's three moderate counties in a state with 50 something counties. So, atleast a plurality of the population is supportive of gay rights, but the way our government is set up basically makes it so the overwhelming majority of our legislatures are a bunch of rednecks.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- What, that its like the slavery map? --Revolverman (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
"Nebraska can be basically divided into two areas: the greater Omaha metro area and the greater Lincoln metro areas, and everywhere else...." A lot of states run this way. Liberal cities, conservative rural areas that are often over-represented in the state legislature/state senate. My current home in Michigan being a good example. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 17:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's hard to get a good figure for how much of the Unicam is actually in the metro areas of the major cities because the districts are set up so that several include chunks of the major cities and large farm areas. Sarpy, Douglas, and Lancaster counties are about 45% of the population of the state, and If I had to guess, I'd say probably 20 of the 49 seats are entirely in the cities metro area, and another 8 are at least partly in the metro area. So, the major metro areas are under represented mostly because of what is probably gerrymandering.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
You can add Minnesota to the deep blue on that map. KevinR1990 (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Java/Python resources[edit]
So, long story short, I kind of want to learn Java because it's apparently an easy to learn but useful language, and was looking for some good resources. I'm willing to spend money (and expect it for a good resource), but I'm cheap. I know there is a metric fuckload of online resources, but I feel like I'd rather get a book (Hipster Thing number 248: using outdated methods of instruction). I know there's a lot of "oh, I used this book and it worked great for me!" recommendations on Amazon and then programmers go "um, maybe, but's not a really good resource" so I was hoping for some input on what to get that's actually a good resource. Or if there's a website(s) that spanks every book ever, I'm good with that too.
Oh, and I have friend that wants to learn Python who has a birthday coming up, so, recommendations on that would be nice too.
Thanks a lot folks--Token Conservative (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Take it from an old hand, even back before the tech press completely imploded, almost all tech books sucked monkey scrotum. The only books you should ever buy are K&R, the camel book and O'Reilly's Bonjour book if it's still in print. And even then they're just to make it look like you've read the classics when people come look at your bookshelves.
- I was going to say that the best way to learn java is from the insanely great tutorials on java.sun.com, but then I went and looked at fucking mess Oracle have made and I can't even find them any more. Fuck those guys. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- (Ah, here. Same material, now a billion times harder to find. Fuuuuuck.) --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Huh, so my friend who told me to use online resources was right. Damnit, I hate telling him he's right. Arrogant bastard.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Don't know about Java (took some classes in college, was a bit too bloated for my tastes), but the best Python tutorial I've found is Learn Python the Hard Way, with the HTML version free to all, and a buyable video version if you/your friend so chooses. Seems the guy also adapted it to Ruby, C, SQL and a couple others, too. --CoyoteSans (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Huh, so my friend who told me to use online resources was right. Damnit, I hate telling him he's right. Arrogant bastard.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Although it's not a book, Software Carpentry is a decent resource for a lot of the "meta" gumph around how to code. Get yourself used to the concepts, the idea of writing some pseudo-code, and basically all the high-level object-orientated languages make sense and are easy to pick up. As always, what you use depends on what you want to do with it. sshole 16:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- At this point my ultimate goal is to look like an idiot when I start taking programming courses in college here in like, a month. I have some a small project I want to be able to do, but that isn't a real concern. I should have probably led with that bit. Anyways, thanks guys.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Benghazi[edit]
The plot thickens...kinda. It still smells like incompetence more than anything else. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Incompetence or otherwise, this sort of event happens frequently and the only reason we're interested is because it's an anti-Obama manufactroversy. d hominem 16:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Is there a dietitian in the house? (part 2)[edit]
Someone need to look at this BoN edit in Forks Over Knives. --ZooGuard (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Blog quiet 'cos I'm a bit busy[edit]
Moving house (another week or so of this rubbish to go, God help me) has left me largely buggered and unable to form a coherent thought. So if anyone else wants to crank out something for the blog, please do go for it. Any old skeptical ranting will do, just pepper it with links, the crowds love that stuff - David Gerard (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Bryan Fischer[edit]
is 100% not gay. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 16:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- I can smell Haggard's Law itching to be renamed in the next few years. gnostic 16:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wait, Alan Colmes actually did something relevant? Osaka Sun (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- You mistyped his name, it's Alan Colmes. --Seth Peck (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nonono, it's alan colmes.KevinR1990 (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- You mistyped his name, it's Alan Colmes. --Seth Peck (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Desktop Publishing[edit]
Just started to do some serious DTPing for the first time in 21 years. Ugh, I had forgotten just how much of a pain in the arse process it is, and how slow it is. Write text in Writer, do diagrams in CS5, put them together in PagePlus. Fight to align boxes that I can't see clearly enough because I had to be cocky and do a fancy background and rainbow coloured border on each page, decide I don't like the line-spacing and so have to redo all the diagram alignments. And I thought I'd be able to get this rulebook written in a week. A month seems more likely.-- Jabba de Chops 22:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well now you know why it's taking Ken so long to get his QE! booklet done. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 01:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Is LaTex not a better choice these days? Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 22:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- "some serious DTPing" and "fancy background and rainbow coloured border on each page" do not belong together. But if you're struggling to get things aligned, try learning a bit more about HTML/CSS. That's all about aligning and formatting and keeping it independent of the content, which means there are some good principles from it you can use and apply to DTP to make your life easier. pathetic 15:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Brian Dunning pleads guilty to wire fraud[edit]
Extree, extree! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Death penalty for causing miscarriage[edit]
(Moved from WIGO CP)
The prosecutor in Ohio is considering the death penalty for Ariel Castro because he cause miscarriages in his hostages. Leaving aside the question of the death penalty's very existence (I would not have condemned Hitler to the gallows if I were a Nuremburg judge and he were caught alive...), does causing a miscarriage count as "murder" in your view? Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 23:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- In most states it doesn't count as murder until after birth. If the baby took a single breath after leaving the womb, then its murder. Otherwise its an unlawful abortion. At least thats what I learned from watching Law and Order: SVU. Also, this should be in the bar, not here.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- At the risk of being unpopular for continuing this post, I wanted to tell you that under the common law (the system of cases being decided based on past precedent, from which America, at least in great part, got its legal system) it was considered murder to kill a fetus that was "quick in the womb" or "viable," meaning the child could have lived outside the womb had it already been born. Statutes now govern what is considered murder, and I'm not sure what the relevant law in Ohio is, but I can tell you there is historical precedent for it. I hope that clarifies things :) Poht (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
And this is why born alive rule is in the to-do list. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Few people have much sympathy for the monsters of Ohio but this could set a bad precedent that affects responsible people terminating a bad pregnancy. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not murder for me, but remember I don't consider newborn babies to be people so I'm an outlier. If you're going to draw a line in the sand birth is a better place to draw it than the other popular choices because once born babies are independent of the mother which makes a lot of the ethical problems easier (e.g. mother doesn't want baby? Just give it to somebody who does).
- Capital punishment is an inherently inhumane and disgusting practice, inexcusable for any society that could afford to imprison people until they're no longer a danger. Nobody is a free while society says their life may be rightly forfeit at the say-so of a jury of their peers. Tialaramex (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and in answer to Proxima's concern. Rightly a society should treat backstreet abortion the same way it would treat say, backstreet cosmetic surgery or jumping from unsuitable places into public waters. The practice must be discouraged because it is dangerous, but if the person or people who committed a crime are also those who have suffered as a result of the crime then justice is already served and there may be no purpose in a prosecution. As far as possible prosecutors should be given written guidance for deciding whether prosecutions are in the public interest rather than being left to decide based on their own instincts or media coverage. Tialaramex (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
What if the miscarriages had been induced by the hostages themselves because they didn't want to give birth to their rapist's child &/or bring up a child in those conditions? Would we then be seeing the women facing death sentences for murder instead of their captor? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The power of goat[edit]
Makes a Taylor Swift song slightly more tolerable147.138.87.241 (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Gravity[edit]
Holy shit. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- George Clooney in space? *groan* I remember Solaris...--ZooGuard (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- "Oh the visuals in that movie look so beauti-HOLY SHIT!" The Invisible ManI spoke to Him 10:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Er, wouldn't they have had to use reflective face shields? ГенгисIt's only a movie 13:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- And wouldn't there be no sound in space? The list is endless... The Invisible ManI spoke to Him 14:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sound in space has been a big sci-fi problem for a long time. Osaka Sun (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Babylon 5 originally tried no sound in space and as the editors said, it just didn't work. You could do everything else, including taking into account inertia, and viewers had no problem accepting it, but switch off the sound and everything stopped feeling real.-- Jabba de Chops 14:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sound in space? That's nothing. If you pay attention you'd know that we, as an audience, wouldn't be able to see those visuals because we lack a space suit, and wouldn't be able to make those movements in a real free-fall environment. AND the shuttle retired ages ago. AND George Clooney clearly isn't a real astronaut. Jeese, it's errors and problems and inconsistencies from end to fucking end! moral 15:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sound in space in movies... I don't get why people still harp on this still after all these decades. Yes, we know there is no sound in space, yes Hollywood knows too. We also know for fiction and entertainment, taking the sound effects out for the realism just wouldn't work (well, except 2001, but that is because it worked with the movie's theme and artistic direction); so just for this one common trope, just have that one suspension of disbelief, move on, and enjoy the show.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- And Firefly quite famously. But when you actually watch it, that had all of 5 seconds of space-based shots across the series. The better example would be BSG that had sound, but did mute it a little bit for purely external shots. pathetic 16:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- I remember Apollo 13 violated it as well. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Pardon me while I geek out a bit. Let's say I want to design an advanced starfighter. There is a lot of sensory information that I want to relay to the pilot, such as the locations of other ships, weapons fire, explosions, and other things. If I had the technology, one of my inclinations would be to express it through sounds. Have the ship's computer simulate the sounds of nearby ship engines, lasers going pew pew, the boom of explosions and so forth in a stereophonic way to relay this information to the pilot without cluttering his visual space. Maybe the space battles of the future will actually be "noisy" in this abstract sort of way? Apokalyps2547 (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Pfff! Unimaginative my dear…starship designer. Everybody knows that true starfighter design should include the words "…and after we've built the Dyson sphere…"-- Jabba de Chops 22:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- IIRC, some Star Wars fans actually used that idea as a retcon for why you can hear sound in the movies. d hominem 13:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- IIRC, some Star Wars fans actually used that idea as a retcon for why you can hear sound in the movies.
- Pfff! Unimaginative my dear…starship designer. Everybody knows that true starfighter design should include the words "…and after we've built the Dyson sphere…"--
- Pardon me while I geek out a bit. Let's say I want to design an advanced starfighter. There is a lot of sensory information that I want to relay to the pilot, such as the locations of other ships, weapons fire, explosions, and other things. If I had the technology, one of my inclinations would be to express it through sounds. Have the ship's computer simulate the sounds of nearby ship engines, lasers going pew pew, the boom of explosions and so forth in a stereophonic way to relay this information to the pilot without cluttering his visual space. Maybe the space battles of the future will actually be "noisy" in this abstract sort of way? Apokalyps2547 (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- I remember Apollo 13 violated it as well. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- And Firefly quite famously. But when you actually watch it, that had all of 5 seconds of space-based shots across the series. The better example would be BSG that had sound, but did mute it a little bit for purely external shots.
- Sound in space in movies... I don't get why people still harp on this still after all these decades. Yes, we know there is no sound in space, yes Hollywood knows too. We also know for fiction and entertainment, taking the sound effects out for the realism just wouldn't work (well, except 2001, but that is because it worked with the movie's theme and artistic direction); so just for this one common trope, just have that one suspension of disbelief, move on, and enjoy the show.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 15:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sound in space? That's nothing. If you pay attention you'd know that we, as an audience, wouldn't be able to see those visuals because we lack a space suit, and wouldn't be able to make those movements in a real free-fall environment. AND the shuttle retired ages ago. AND George Clooney clearly isn't a real astronaut. Jeese, it's errors and problems and inconsistencies from end to fucking end!
- Babylon 5 originally tried no sound in space and as the editors said, it just didn't work. You could do everything else, including taking into account inertia, and viewers had no problem accepting it, but switch off the sound and everything stopped feeling real.--
- Sound in space has been a big sci-fi problem for a long time. Osaka Sun (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- And wouldn't there be no sound in space? The list is endless... The Invisible ManI spoke to Him 14:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Er, wouldn't they have had to use reflective face shields?
- "Oh the visuals in that movie look so beauti-HOLY SHIT!" The Invisible ManI spoke to Him 10:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
And this was timed perfectly. Osaka Sun (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Pride Month Celebrations: Article Ideas[edit]
Okay, not going to state my queer-ness exactly here, far too involved in conversation, but I want to float the idea of doing a series on the development of various gay rights movements, for these reasons:
- Gay rights, in whatever forms where ever on the Globe, always has been anti-woo, in that homophobia and heterosexism are just that, woo.
- The social development within just 120 years at most, dating back to the Oscar Wilde trials, of a general popular sympathy for a discriminated minority is unprecedented in the post-French Revolution epoch, it took much longer to emancipate racial and gender minorities from their repression, and in many ways continues.
- Many queers, myself included, are quite concerned by the commercialization and commodification of Pride by groups like HRC or other big-brand lobby groups behaving like Susan Komen Foundation.
- The history of gay rights movements is quite instructive, including the structure and philosophies of The Daughters of Billitis and The Mattachine Society. Furthermore, Harry Hay's own life is a major hate target by the GOP.
- Without bursting anyone's bubble, THE MAYOR OF CASTRO STREET by Randy Schilts makes pretty clear that the Sean Penn MILK movie was over-romanticized and full of Harvey Milk Mythological woo. I respect him but the facts about Harvey are much more complex than either the documentary or biopic portray, and maybe the idea of Killing Santa strikes others as important.
I'm not in any way open to anyone suggesting only LGBTQQ people can write these articles, frankly, if you can process the historical texts and the documentary evidence, you are on a better foot than many of the men I meet in gay bars. The history timelines are well established and outlined by other websites, perhaps this could generate good dialogues? Maybe a kid wouldn't get in as much trouble for looking online for info about herself on RationalWiki than on a much more noticeably gay site when parents check web history?Andrewstewart1 (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, there is the Gender studies project, which that would work well with.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think gay rights is completely free of "woo" or rubbish. I've heard stuff about souls/reincarnation (female soul in male body etc) and there are also strange aspects to the Uranian movement and lesbian separatism.-Albannach (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
all good points.Andrewstewart1 (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
[2] My personal delight in cock aside, I'm not entirely convinced of the missionality of duplicating Wikipedia. But then, the blog post on Gay Bowel Syndrome, based on the wiki article, has been a perennial favourite, so there's considerable clearly missiony material - David Gerard (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Melanie Phillips[edit]
Currently on CSPAN2. Managed a whole 2 minutes listen to her redefine multiculturalism to the point where she wasn't racist, oh no, it was all the multiculturalists who are racist and killed Victoria Climbié. Not a massively underfunded and overstretched Social Services department fucking up. No, racism. Makes me wonder why she hasn't moved to the US, although I suppose bringing the singularities of Coulter and Phillips being too close together would be too much and tear a hole in the fabric of the universe.-- Jabba de Chops 13:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- makes me wonder why she hasn't moved to the US - well it's a start. SophieWilder 13:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure the tax situation is far more beneficial this way. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 13:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- At her age I'm sure the health insurance costs in the US would be prohibitive, much better to stay within the realm of the NHS. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 16:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Given that she's a harpy, there's a good chance that Zeus has her back…-- Jabba de Chops 19:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- “My model is much more the kind of people who read The Wall Street Journal, the kind of people who are thoughtful – the centre ground rather than the red-in-tooth-and-claw political right.” - Has Mad Mel even read her own stuff? narchist 13:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- “My model is much more the kind of people who read The Wall Street Journal, the kind of people who are thoughtful – the centre ground rather than the red-in-tooth-and-claw political right.” - Has Mad Mel even read her own stuff?
- Given that she's a harpy, there's a good chance that Zeus has her back…--
- At her age I'm sure the health insurance costs in the US would be prohibitive, much better to stay within the realm of the NHS.
- I'm sure the tax situation is far more beneficial this way. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 13:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Bulgarian elections[edit]
First, a link to a previous discussion whining for context. The elections were held today, amidst a lot of "fun" stuff. 45 entries on the ballot (38 single parties and 7 coalitions). Number #45 is the Union of Communists in Bulgaria (one of the small parties with no chances), which caused some snickering, as Commie rule in Bulgaria lasted 45 years and one of the slogans of the 1990s was "45 years are enough!". Lots of scandals in the weeks before the elections, including one major one on the "day for thought" before the election day itself - an allegation that a large number of fake ballots have been found at the printing house (according to the owner, these are just the badly printed ones). High chances of a coalition cabinet (bad news) and/or another elections in the autumn. Any questions? --ZooGuard (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- What's so bad about coalition government? Peter mqzp 22:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- ask the lib demsAMassiveGay (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
PZ Myers quits skepticism?[edit]
PZ Myers claims he is quitting skepticism. Then FTB goes down. (Cached version of the post here: [3]) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.--"Shut up, Brx." 16:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)- The events are probably unrelated, as the "quitting skepticism" post and the other reactions to Jamy Ian Swiss' speech were posted some days ago.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- On the other hand, if he isn't, maybe skeptics will finally be rid of new atheists--"Shut up, Brx." 19:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I never pay attention to this guy. What exactly does he mean by "the skeptic movement"?Is that the same thing as the angry atheists? Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 19:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Depends who you ask... I think here he means skeptics at large, in contrast to skeptics at large who hate religion--"Shut up, Brx." 19:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think he means Jamy Ian Swiss and his buddies at the JREF/TAM. The rift between vocal atheists and certain parts of the skeptics movement is not new.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- So he's pissed off because other people who brand themselves as "skeptics" don't hate religion enough? Or because they hate it too much? Or hate it in the correct amount, but the wrong way? Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 20:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Rather because some skeptics have adapted an antagonistic against anti-theists. I guess if we have to ask who started it, you could say Jamy Ian Swiss and others like him for criticizing the likes of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins. But then again, people who enjoy debunking pseudoscience may not necessarily appreciate having their movement hijacked by people who claim religion is the most evil thing ever (no, that's not an exaggeration). I've only just become aware of this particular spat, though, and I've only looked at it through Myers' lenses. I could be missing something. I often miss things.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- So he's pissed off because other people who brand themselves as "skeptics" don't hate religion enough? Or because they hate it too much? Or hate it in the correct amount, but the wrong way? Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 20:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think he means Jamy Ian Swiss and his buddies at the JREF/TAM. The rift between vocal atheists and certain parts of the skeptics movement is not new.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Depends who you ask... I think here he means skeptics at large, in contrast to skeptics at large who hate religion--"Shut up, Brx." 19:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I never pay attention to this guy. What exactly does he mean by "the skeptic movement"?Is that the same thing as the angry atheists? Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 19:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- On the other hand, if he isn't, maybe skeptics will finally be rid of new atheists--"Shut up, Brx." 19:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Both the more "proper" skeptical movement and the new-atheist (or anti-theist) movements have the same rhetorical problem: they come across as angry (largely white, largely male) people who appear to be focused on attacking people rather than exploring ideas, in part bacause that's what's memorable about what they do. (And ref: Jamy Ian Swiss's speech) From my perspective, they both don't look great in this spat, at least. 
talk 21:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I see Massimo has commented on this issue; an interesting read. Although I didn't follow the TF/PZ spat closely it always seemed there was something a little suspect about PZs actions there. This specific instance seems like a repeat performance, it seems he might have flown off the handle a little early. My humble opinions is that the echo chamber is starting to take it's toll on his ideology and he is losing perspective on his own ignorance in certain areas. IF this is true it will be sad to see such a great guy, and great thinker flame out; but perhaps there is a cathartic tale here that we can all learn from? Tielec01 (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds like PZ being PZ. moral
- I only scanned through the speech, but it seems like the blog post had very little to do with the speech. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds like PZ being PZ.
- My impression is that it's a broader reaction to the anti-feminist and unquestioning Libertarian blocs of the movements, and being overly accommodating of theists is a fairly small part of the problem, albeit maybe the trigger. The problem is all the people within the movement who simply won't give up their preconceived notions, and theist skeptics aren't even remotely the largest part of the problem. Look at it this way -- it's nearly impossible to discuss feminism with the sort of people like the commenter on Massimo's page who implied that Rebecca Watson is part of the radical fringe of feminism. Right now, the skeptic/atheist movement is in the middle of an unmitigated meltdown, and the prejudiced assholes are winning with the idiot's veto. Since so many of us are the type who got wedgied in high school, the idea that PZ and company are being bullies resonates with a lot of people who should know better. Ego-stroking circle-jerkers (i.e. Slymepitters) win, science and education lose. EVDebs (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, it seems like Myers wants to take his ball and go home because someone somewhere said something he didn't like. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Only if you ignore the overall context. Believe me, there's plenty of things to be frustrated with in the current skeptical movement, and PZ has discussed all of them. It's pretty dishonest to take this as an isolated lashing out in that light. EVDebs (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Which is why the post is all about Elevatorgate and Randroids. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Look. I'm no stranger to getting bitched at because I lash out at something because I've had more than I can handle in a much larger context, and it always seems to come down to someone trying to take my objections in isolation and ignoring the overall context. It's a pretty standard emotional manipulation tactic, so you'll understand if I'm not exactly accomodating on this point. As you are no doubt aware, context changes the overall meaning of what's said, which is the entire point why we have an article on elision (yes, that's copypasta-with-attribution, but Stephanie Zwan made the point better than I ever could). In this case, the context not only includes theism but also a lot of other unexamined beliefs, and a large number of loud and militantly stupid people trying to keep skepticism out of those corners. EVDebs (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- So how is that different from "someone said something he didn't like"? --81.175.227.88 (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Aren't those problems inherent in the atheist movement too EV? I haven't paid much attention to the brouhaha over 'Elevatorgate' (I was travelling when it happened) but my sense in reading the various summaries was that the criticism wasn't so much aimed at just Skeptic movement but at atheism in general too... I think you might be too charitable to PZ here. Tielec01 (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- The atheist movement is almost but not quite a subset of the skeptical movement, so the problem affects both. As for "someone said something he didn't like", yes, you could assert that and not be wrong per se, but it's sort of like describing Jim Crow as "racial harassment" or calling Death of a Salesman a play about insurance fraud. The choice of words vastly understates the nature of the problem. It's why we take issue with dogwhistles and quote-mining, or people ignoring case law when discussing constitutional issues -- people pretending the plain meaning of a statement is all there is to it, when it comes from a big web of context, of what someone's said in the past, of their stated (and, as necessary, actual) points of view, and therefore potentially means something completely different. That in and of itself is something we, as proclaimed skeptics, need to keep an eye out for, especially if we're the ones doing it. EVDebs (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Aren't those problems inherent in the atheist movement too EV? I haven't paid much attention to the brouhaha over 'Elevatorgate' (I was travelling when it happened) but my sense in reading the various summaries was that the criticism wasn't so much aimed at just Skeptic movement but at atheism in general too... I think you might be too charitable to PZ here. Tielec01 (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- So how is that different from "someone said something he didn't like"? --81.175.227.88 (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Look. I'm no stranger to getting bitched at because I lash out at something because I've had more than I can handle in a much larger context, and it always seems to come down to someone trying to take my objections in isolation and ignoring the overall context. It's a pretty standard emotional manipulation tactic, so you'll understand if I'm not exactly accomodating on this point. As you are no doubt aware, context changes the overall meaning of what's said, which is the entire point why we have an article on elision (yes, that's copypasta-with-attribution, but Stephanie Zwan made the point better than I ever could). In this case, the context not only includes theism but also a lot of other unexamined beliefs, and a large number of loud and militantly stupid people trying to keep skepticism out of those corners. EVDebs (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Which is why the post is all about Elevatorgate and Randroids. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Only if you ignore the overall context. Believe me, there's plenty of things to be frustrated with in the current skeptical movement, and PZ has discussed all of them. It's pretty dishonest to take this as an isolated lashing out in that light. EVDebs (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, it seems like Myers wants to take his ball and go home because someone somewhere said something he didn't like. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Double mastectomy[edit]
Uh...er...wow. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
MCWIKI COMMUNIQUE NO 94[edit]
For many years now, I have been plotting the demise of Rationalwiki. Through my agents and my legion of socks, I have infiltrated the halls of power. I have waged a guerrila war on Rationalwiki, constantly striving for the cause of freedom and justice. My agents and I have saved various emails and skype conversations.Our movement has the power to reveal the rot, the power struggles, and the continuous assault on liberty that has been a de facto policy since the initiation of the moderati.
In 24 hours I will launch operation Liberty.
I will lead the interim administration and guide the transition to Rationalwiki's ancestral mobocracy.
MARCUSCICERO
- Bloody hell Marcus, I'd almost given you up for dead. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Liberty can never die. It must never die. I will never allow it to die. 86.45.236.199 (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Who the fuck is this? --Revolverman (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am he who opposes evil. He who opposes authoritarianism. Throughout history I have went by many names - Robin Hood, Edmund Burke, George Washington, Mahatma Gandhi. I am a revolutionary. Rationalwiki suppressed dissent and the end result has been an even more radicalised political movement. Pushed underground, we have laboured from within, infiltrating all the important institutions, and bending Rationalwiki to our will. The revolution will require a transition, when the old regime will be cleansed and purged and a new utopia will be ushered in, with me as ultimate arbiter. Freedom, liberty and justice will soon be our reality. Together, we will destroy the junta in control of this site and restore it to its rightful owners - the people.
- Who the fuck is this? --Revolverman (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Liberty can never die. It must never die. I will never allow it to die. 86.45.236.199 (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- MARCUSCICERO
- Apparently he's some guy on the internet who has a strange obsession with a website about colonics. (talk to a) Nihilist 21:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- He's just some random jackass. Just ignore him. Eventually after he's vandalized 90% of the site, he'll get bored and leave. And then come back a month or two later and do it again.--Token Conservative (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
This is a good song. (talk to a) Nihilist 21:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hey Marcus, how is the book coming along? Do you think you can get it released by the time Ken releases his QE booklet for middle schoolers? Acei9 21:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Great works are not churned out overnight Ace. Personally I cannot wait for Marcus's tome to hit the shelves, and when it does I'll post some photos. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hey Marcus, how is the book coming along? Do you think you can get it released by the time Ken releases his QE booklet for middle schoolers? Acei9 21:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- My novel hit a rough patch. It took such a dark turn that I was unable to continue writing it, the implications were too disturbing. I plan to resume it soon. Its going to be called, 'Foster the Cruel and his many depredations, his folly and his madness, and his sycophantic, cruel minions'
- MARCUSCICERO
- You know, it's not long until your ban expires MC. Tielec01 (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- He isn't.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Catchy title there Marcus. --Revolverman (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- He isn't.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- You know, it's not long until your ban expires MC. Tielec01 (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
COUNTDOWN[edit]
In a matter of hours, Operation Liberty will be unleashed.
MARCUSCICERO
- -busy putting up cardboard cutouts of protestors and Revolutionaries from the French Era up- --MikallakiM 14:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- It just isn't the same without Richard Whiteley. SophieWilder 14:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Or better still:
- ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 15:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Time's up, dipshit[edit]
Twenty-four hours later.... Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 20:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- You really thought the initial stages of operation liberty would be visible? My army works in the shadows. I demand Rationalwiki appoints me as final arbiter in a series of revolutionary tribunals so that I can cleanse rationalwiki and rid it of its authoritarian pestilence once and for all. MarcusCicero (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I support Marcus, as does every good thinking RationalWikian whose mind has not been poisoned by the menace of authoritarianism and tyranny. Let us begin the work of restoring peace and order to the wiki. --Titus Atticus (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- But whats in this arrangement for ME, the Average rationalwikian/ --MikallakiM 22:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- That depends upon whether you support the tyrannical situation of rule by the autocratic and oppressive moderators and the foundation, or you would accept the rightful and benevolent guidance of so great a founding figure as Marcus Cicero as he establishes a new reign of peace, order and prosperity over the wiki. --Titus Atticus (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nah. (talk to a) Nihilist 23:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- All this city folk talk between sides in the capital is Nice, but what does it matter to me, the average rationalwiki farmer with his 40 acres in the countryside, which side leads? Whats in it for me, Mr. City man>--MikallakiM 23:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- We shall have to wait and see. Just between you and me, I wonder if Marcus has quite gotten everything planned out yet. I was expecting action in line with communique 94 by now. I have received communique 95 (not yet for public consumption) and there is no mention of a delay. Titus Atticus (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Direct from the haruspex log at shitbird central:
- Message 1: Message 2 follows.
- Message 2: Disregard message 1.
- Your most humble Servant interprets this Correspondence thusly: Different day, same shit. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- You're so smug to think this will come to naught, but you'll be laughing out the other side of your face when, ah... what is this all about again? Doctor Dark (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Direct from the haruspex log at shitbird central:
- We shall have to wait and see. Just between you and me, I wonder if Marcus has quite gotten everything planned out yet. I was expecting action in line with communique 94 by now. I have received communique 95 (not yet for public consumption) and there is no mention of a delay. Titus Atticus (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- All this city folk talk between sides in the capital is Nice, but what does it matter to me, the average rationalwiki farmer with his 40 acres in the countryside, which side leads? Whats in it for me, Mr. City man>--MikallakiM 23:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nah. (talk to a) Nihilist 23:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- That depends upon whether you support the tyrannical situation of rule by the autocratic and oppressive moderators and the foundation, or you would accept the rightful and benevolent guidance of so great a founding figure as Marcus Cicero as he establishes a new reign of peace, order and prosperity over the wiki. --Titus Atticus (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- But whats in this arrangement for ME, the Average rationalwikian/ --MikallakiM 22:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I support Marcus, as does every good thinking RationalWikian whose mind has not been poisoned by the menace of authoritarianism and tyranny. Let us begin the work of restoring peace and order to the wiki. --Titus Atticus (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Operation Liberty is in motion, its just that its movement is too subtle for most of you to comprehend. There is no delay, everything is going just as I had planned it.
- Let me tell you of the future. Men will be free. No longer will they be servile to the whims of their cruel masters. People will be free to speak their mind, and hold power to account. Great works of art and science shall be accomplished. Families will be free to prosper, free from the overarching presence of the police state.
- As soon as I restored, I will lead the tribunals and return Rationalwiki to its former glory. The infamous show trial, through which the elite tried to silence me, has failed miserably. The following users will be brought in front of the revolutionary tribunals;
- Foster the Cruel
- Psygremlin the Prejudiced
- Blue the Fascist
- Ace the Wicked
- Dirk the Dick
- Brx the Dix
- Tyrannis the sycophant
- AD the Sophist
- Trent the Oblivious
- Hamilton the fake Conservative
- When we have removed these cancerous growths, Rationalwiki will be returned to health. Patience, comrades! MarcusCicero (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and, I'm a real conservative, you limbaughist piece of shit.--Token Conservative (talk) 06:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Left on the shelf! *sob* SophieWilder 09:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- There, there. We can form our own oligarchy. With blackjack. And other stuff. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Can I join? I already have an unflattering adjective in my name! --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 13:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Welcome our newest member, Gatsby the Cunctator. Provided the right sort of smock, can Sophie be persuaded to play the village simpleton? Sprocket the Gap-toothed (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Can I join? I already have an unflattering adjective in my name! --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 13:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- There, there. We can form our own oligarchy. With blackjack. And other stuff. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Left on the shelf! *sob* SophieWilder 09:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and, I'm a real conservative, you limbaughist piece of shit.--Token Conservative (talk) 06:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Sexy parts[edit]
Well, that got your attention. Pervert.
Anyways, there are a few RW articles on sex/sex acts/naughty bits that have been nominated for deletion, or probably should. As a part of the Gender Studies project I'm going to combine them into one larger article and sort through/expand some stuff that actually is useful/relevant from the bullshit. For now, I'm just going to combine and purge obvious crap. Tomorrow I'll actually sort through relevant stuff and expand where needed. In the mean time I request the following:
- Don't delete the fucking article (I'm looking at you, Nutty)
- Make any suggestions for relevant stuff to stick in that you can think of here or in the combined talk page
I think that's about it.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Howzabout you wait for some community input before deleting articles that have been here since 2008? Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 00:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Howzabout you notice that those articles were already nominated for deletion and that each of them had three votes: all for deletion.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Merging doesn't guarantee survival. Depending on the reasons for deletion, this may mean that the sections will still have to be "trimmed" from the merged article.
- If you are unhappy about the fate of a certain article, bring it up here so more people can notice the discussion.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Huh? 21:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Huh?
- Howzabout you notice that those articles were already nominated for deletion and that each of them had three votes: all for deletion.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I can't believe we have an article on the Malay word for Vagina.
We could have decent articles on some of these subjects. Clitoris for example could discuss female genital mutilation, hymen virginity, penis & vagina their role in religion etc rather than what Americ gets up to in its spare time.Albannach (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- RW also has an article on the English (borrowed) word for "denigrating people by comparing them to female genitalia".
- Anyway, there is already an article about FGM, and why you want to discuss hymen virginity in an article about the clitoris is a mystery to me. It's probably some kind of irony I'm too literal-minded to grok...--ZooGuard (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- What is your proposed title for the combined article? I can't imagine that anyone would expect to type "sexy parts" into a wiki and a page come up.
talk 15:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well see, I had already left redirects to all of the articles we have for no reason that no one supports the existence of, like clitoris and penis had put them into a single larger article that I named "sex myths and woo" and had cut most of the irrelevant bullshit. Then some reactionary piece of shit decided I could fuck myself, and completely undid my work for no fucking reason. --Token Conservative (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nice attitude, bub. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 16:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Because "Sex myths and woo" is something logical to type into a wiki. Right on. talk 20:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Such is watching whoever this guy is run a "Gender Studies Project" on a skeptical wiki. 21:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- There was an article titled "Atlas Juggs" and there is currently one titled "$cientology", and you're bitching about "sex myths" and an attempt to improve articles on sex and gender? Sure sure children, I believe that. "skeptical wiki" my ass.--Token Conservative (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Those are redirects, not articles, & don't seem relevant to the subject at hand anyway. If you're trying to run a wikiproject, please take a more collaborative approach to editing & don't lash out at people who disagree with you. & Really, if this is a Gender Studies Project, pronouncements like "A lot of female sex myths are about the existence of certain naughty bits, like the clitoris and g-spot" aren't a great way to get started. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Those are redirects, not articles, & don't seem relevant to the subject at hand anyway. If you're trying to run a wikiproject, please take a more collaborative approach to editing & don't lash out at people who disagree with you. & Really, if this is a Gender Studies Project, pronouncements like "A lot of female sex myths are about the existence of certain naughty bits, like the clitoris and g-spot" aren't a great way to get started. Wēāŝēīōīď
- There was an article titled "Atlas Juggs" and there is currently one titled "$cientology", and you're bitching about "sex myths" and an attempt to improve articles on sex and gender? Sure sure children, I believe that. "skeptical wiki" my ass.--Token Conservative (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Such is watching whoever this guy is run a "Gender Studies Project" on a skeptical wiki.
- Because "Sex myths and woo" is something logical to type into a wiki. Right on.
- Nice attitude, bub. Wēāŝēīōīď
- Well see, I had already left redirects to all of the articles we have for no reason that no one supports the existence of, like clitoris and penis had put them into a single larger article that I named "sex myths and woo" and had cut most of the irrelevant bullshit. Then some reactionary piece of shit decided I could fuck myself, and completely undid my work for no fucking reason. --Token Conservative (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- What is your proposed title for the combined article? I can't imagine that anyone would expect to type "sexy parts" into a wiki and a page come up.
- There's so much misinfo about sex out there that sex education is very much on-mission. Condensing everything into a single article is a fail. EVDebs (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Strong agree. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 00:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well if either of you want to do some of the work, feel free. Until then, my time is limited.--Token Conservative (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Strong agree. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 00:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Zooguard being a sanctimonious arse/dick/prick again, alleging sexism where there is none... -Albannach (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Truther bingo[edit]
Does anyone know a good one? (I'm talking about the equivalent of this, if you havn't heard of the concept.) I recently came into the possession of a home-grown 9/11 truther DVD which I'm considering taking a look at. Peter mqzp 06:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Shouldn't be hard to make one. You're on your own for implementation, but here's an informal description of the algorithm:
- Make a list of truther terms.
- Select 24 terms from that list and shuffle them into a random order.
- Populate a 5x5 grid (with the center as the free space of course) with the terms.
- Print.
- Repeat until you have enough bingo cards for all snarkers.
- Engage in fruitless debate with crazy person.
- That should do it. (Perl or Scheme would probably be the best implementation language, closely followed by PHP and, if you're brave, PostScript.) EVDebs (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Doing this in Postscript is clearly hardmode. The language is perfectly capable of such things, but nobody took even a step out of their way to make it easy. More important, Computer Science 101, don't redo things somebody else already did. Five minutes studying the result of Googling for a phrase like "Bingo Card Generator" is likely to be more than adequate. Tialaramex (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- All quite true. Postscript isn't really any worse than Forth and probably a good deal more readable, but absolutely no one ever bothers to learn it, so that's what makes it hardmode. And yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't already a few truther bingo generators. EVDebs (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nice work, my man. You win a "Pull It" surprise. EVDebs (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Darn, I was hoping for some of Larry Silverstein's insurance money. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nice work, my man. You win a "Pull It" surprise. EVDebs (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- All quite true. Postscript isn't really any worse than Forth and probably a good deal more readable, but absolutely no one ever bothers to learn it, so that's what makes it hardmode. And yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't already a few truther bingo generators. EVDebs (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Doing this in Postscript is clearly hardmode. The language is perfectly capable of such things, but nobody took even a step out of their way to make it easy. More important, Computer Science 101, don't redo things somebody else already did. Five minutes studying the result of Googling for a phrase like "Bingo Card Generator" is likely to be more than adequate. Tialaramex (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The racket of academic publishing[edit]
This coming June, I have the unique pleasure of seeing my academic work in print for the first time, by a respected journal with a big-name patrician guest editor who invited me personally to publish the article after hearing me present the paper at a conference. Only problem is, this journal recently got bought out by the publishing mega-conglomerate Taylor and Francis, which has developed a reputation for having one of the the most draconian copyright transfer agreements in the business. Since this was a chance I couldn't turn down, I swallowed my misgivings and signed the rights over, even though I'm working on publishing a book including some of the same material, and will likely have to pay for the permission to re-use it. I'm also a big fan of Open Access, as is the university I work for, so I checked out Taylor and Francis's option. For a single 20-page article, they wanted $2000 to make it Open Access. Ok, so give up that idea.
What about having a copy of the issue for my bookshelf? Unfortunately, Taylor and Francis does not give free copies away to authors, but they do "allow" you to buy reprints for the relatively reasonable rate of $20 per issue. So I went to their "Author Services" page, handled by Rightslink and the Copyright Clearance Center, ordered my copy, and entered my European address. Shipping for this single issue, provided by FedEx, was quoted to me as costing at minimum $278.90! No other shipping options were given, it was FedEx or nothing. This is the point when I was ready to grab a pitchfork. There is no way that shipping could possibly cost that much. This particular journal is far from a heavy tome, weighing a maximum of 2 kg soaking wet. Just to check I went to the FedEx website to calculate how much it would cost to ship a 2.5-kg package from the USA to my doorstep. Their answer? Around $90-$130! In my opinion, that's still way too expensive--my family sends me books through the USPS at around $60. Even accepting this, the price that Rightslink quoted me is still double or triple this price! Where, dare I wonder, would that extra $190 be going?
And what, you may ask, if I just want an offprint of my article rather than the full issue? Forget about it: the minimum order for offprints is 50 copies, at $365, not including shipping of course.
Let's leave aside the fact that I signed away years' worth of work with no compensation: none of us are in it for the money anyway, and are happy to have the work out there and visible to people who can benefit from it. Let's leave aside the philosophical scruples I have about giving my work away for free to a huge corporation that makes serious profits by charging exorbitant rates for it to libraries all over the first world: that's a necessary evil of academic publishing, at least on the Anglo-American scene. To charge me anything for a copy of my work is already pushing it--in the performing arts this would be akin to making an opera singer pay for admission to their own performance. But to, in addition to all of this, contract the services of a shipping company that charges 6-8 times ordinary market rates, and up to 3 times what that same company typically charges, reeks of exploitation and corporate cronyism. A corporation with as much power as Taylor and Francis could easily negotiate lower than usual shipping prices, but here they've obviously done the opposite.
The end result is, I have to pay effectively $300 to own a single copy of an article I provided to Taylor and Francis for no fee, an article representing several years of research. Does anyone else have a similar story? Junggai (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is an issue, I wouldn't bother purchasing a hard copy; you have it on your hard-drive and there should be plenty more publications to come if you continue in a career in academia. Tielec01 (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I sympathise. I believe the attitude of the institution I used to work for was that Green OA wasn't negotiable. Want their research? Then you have to allow OA. No OA? No publication. And to ensure nobody does a backdoor deal, the metrics used to assess people's career trajectory all run off the institution's Green OA e-prints service. So "I got published with no OA" became basically career suicide for anybody who needs those numbers to look good. They are cheating though because they do a bunch of the research in open access, they'd hired key people involved in arXiv, CogPrints and so on, so the stuff that looks like administrative overhead to other institutions just counts as more research to them. One of my friends built one of the world's top e-prints servers (GNU Eprints) as a sort of side project that got out of hand. Tialaramex (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't have any experience in academic publishing, but fiction publishing isn't much less stupid. To publish a short story in a magazine that will actually pay you (less common than you'd think) you need to submit it the way they want (which is different for each publication, and often weird and arbitrary). If you don't follow their guidelines: deleted without being read. If they accept your story, they (usually) send you a form letter you need to print, sign, and have notarized, and faxed back to them. The letter is you signing away all rights to the story. Period. Some will let you republish with their permission, but most won't. From submission to "sign away all legal rights to the story" is usually 1-3 months. Want to submit more than one story to the same publication? They're both deleted without being read and your name goes on a blacklist, so they'll never read your stuff again. Admit to sending it to another publication? Blacklist. And how do you know if your story has been rejected? They'll probably let you know by not sending you a form letter. Some of the bigger ones will send a different form letter telling you to fuck yourself. Oh, and payment is often incredibly small, less than the cost of the magazine, and the magazine isn't free because fuck you, that's why.
Point is, publishing in general is bullshit.--Token Conservative (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- "...you need to submit it the way they want (which is different for each publication, and often weird and arbitrary). If you don't follow their guidelines: deleted without being read."' Made me ROFLCOPTER; anyone that has submitted a manuscript to multiple journals will quietly grimace in solidarity.How many articles have gone unpublished for the want of an em-dash versus an en-dash?Tielec01 (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you're serious or making fun of me.--Token Conservative (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- In seriousness, those guidelines are often there to make sure people are reading them and submitting things intentionally rather than just spamming away whatever tripe they knocked together for NaNoWriMo expecting a cheque in the post. Because if you can't read and adhere to fairly simple style guidelines, the odds are that the rest of the content won't be up to much. Sure, the occasional good work might be binned for no reason, but it'll sift through 90% of the slush pile fairly quick. It's the same thing with job applications; if you have 90 things to sift through, there's no problem in ditching the 10-20 that couldn't spot follow the instruction "complete in block capitals with black ink". gnostic 16:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- @OP: "Since this was a chance I couldn't turn down..." - you definitely could turn it down. You had the choice between irreversibly surrendering your work for free to the most audacious extortionists on the planet (not even MS at the height of its monopololistic excesses comes close), or turning them down and publishing your work later.
- Many open access journals waive the publishing fee if the author is unaffiliated and cannot cover it. If your work was financed from a grant, you should be able to cover publishing fees from the same grant. There is no longer any excuse to publish behind paywalls. Personally I would rather see my work unpublished and forgotten rather than legitimize these scum. --Tweenk (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Get PDF and print it yourself. I mean, I agree that publishers are expensive. But really, is there anything magical about their ink and paper? In reality, the US and UK are moving to open acess 6 months to one year after publication anyway. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I do think you're overthinking it. talk 14:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Get PDF and print it yourself. I mean, I agree that publishers are expensive. But really, is there anything magical about their ink and paper? In reality, the US and UK are moving to open acess 6 months to one year after publication anyway. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I do think you're overthinking it.
- In seriousness, those guidelines are often there to make sure people are reading them and submitting things intentionally rather than just spamming away whatever tripe they knocked together for NaNoWriMo expecting a cheque in the post. Because if you can't read and adhere to fairly simple style guidelines, the odds are that the rest of the content won't be up to much. Sure, the occasional good work might be binned for no reason, but it'll sift through 90% of the slush pile fairly quick. It's the same thing with job applications; if you have 90 things to sift through, there's no problem in ditching the 10-20 that couldn't spot follow the instruction "complete in block capitals with black ink".
- I'm not sure if you're serious or making fun of me.--Token Conservative (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a similar story but this is a concern in lots of fields. The mathematicians have organized a boycott of Elsevier, though with only limited success (story here). The rapacious policies of some of these publishers has probably had a lot to do with the rapidly increasing number of OA journals with more reasonable policies (in my field, the ones sponsored by professional societies are well regarded and are reasonable to deal with). I have a suspicion that the big for-profit houses know that their days are numbered now that technology allows most anyone to set up a journal, and they're making as much money as they can while they're still alive. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)