RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive213
Obamacare[edit]
Anyone try to sign up yet? The federal website seems to work for me, but the NYS one is totally fucked. There's no hurry, I guess, but it's still pretty damn annoying. DickTurpis (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, I have not. Because I don't need no damned socialism! (Hoork-ptooi)
- Seriously, though. I'm holding off because I assumed too many people were applying at once. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 19:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- The MNSure website was having similar problems to the federal one, though our local media didn't follow the Fox Noise line and straight out admitted it's because the servers were unintentionally DDoS'd. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 05:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
RationalWiki...[edit]
When MRA's imply that in school, "boys should be raised how to become men" and vice versa, what does that even mean? 173.32.30.79 (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think my ultimate answer would be a fusion of ignorance and apathy. I don't know and I don't care. --Inquisitor (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- That's the spirit!--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 09:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Probably something to do with how to use guns and other boy's toys. --24.253.64.178 (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Given that they're MRAs it's probably a bunch of nonsense about enforcing their own worldviews on children. But in principle you could squint and see this as just thinking it's important to teach children things they'll need as adults. That's a very broad subject, everything from how a mortgage works to first aid to cookery; exercising your democratic privileges, reporting crimes, caring for a child of your own; maintaining a home, interpersonal relationships, vehicle navigation, obtaining continuing education... Tialaramex (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Probably something to do with how to use guns and other boy's toys. --24.253.64.178 (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- That's the spirit!--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 09:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Razor[edit]
Another candidate for razorhood:
- "Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by you not getting the joke."
- Via twitter @Tkingdoll. Suggest inserting "or malice" appropriately. We could use it a lot where {{RATIONALWiki}} is currently used but not quite on target? Scream!! (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
You know that thing when...[edit]
So, I had a conversation with someone online (first mistake) about a spurious Abraham Lincoln quote where Lincoln said he believed the Jesuits were trying to kill him (the Lincoln Jesuit Conspiracy Theory gets mentioned on RW, but has no dedicated article, though I'm tinkering with one in my namespace).
There was no source for the quote, so I tried Google, which came up with Godlike Productions and Jack Chick. This made me suspicious and I asked for a source, specifically which letter (I assumed it was a letter, the quote was so long few could remember it verbatim) and to whom it was written. At first, he demurred, saying "I usually don't tell people where to look because I'd like them to search for themselves and in the process find even more enlightening info. However, a simple 'Google Search' will lead you in the right direction."
Of course, this "Google Search" was what aroused my suspicions.
Is there a name for this phenomenon -he expected I'd be won over by Conspiracy Theorists and Anti-Catholic Foamers if I went far enough down the rabbit hole! Is it just "Open your mind"? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 19:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- No idea. I get it all the time too. "Just Google it and you'll discover the truth!" I did Google it, pal. It says you're a nut. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- These days the results of a Google search (not just the adverts, but the actual results) are tailored according to what Google knows about you/ your browser, including recent search history, approximate location, other Google services you use, other sites you've visited which contain either Google advertising or Google's free analytics.. So it's a mistake in either direction to assume that the results of "doing a Googles search" are consistent from one person to another. If you're a true conspiracy nut maybe the top hit for "Moon landings" is a hoax claim on a conspiracy site you frequently visit, while for me it's the Wikipedia page and for a NASA fan it might be the relevant NASA page. Tialaramex (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Does that make me a wanker? Guess so.. if google anal ytics thinks it. (enter the following.. fellow traveller) Why am I in the vandal bin? 24.253.64.178 (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- (EC)The ploy behind "Google it for yourself..." is a form of preemptively trying to bypass an ad hominem counter-attack or, as I call it, "crank insulation". As in they are trying to erect a thin veneer of deniability between themselves and their source. That way when you come back and say "I found your source... and do you really believe all that other stuff about the zombie Nazis of Atlantis?" The can say "Well that stuff wasn't on the site I got it from..." --Inquisitor (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Apart from the fact the Google will present you with stuff you've looked at before you can still get a result skewed from reality by using the appropriate search terms. Try a search on "confirmed alien visits" - see, I knew they were here! --Coffee (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Aha, that makes sense. I had gone looking for spurious quotes about Jefferson that morning (the group in which I was posting had recently been afflicted by some dude who enjoyed posting such quotes), both my search results and my mind were primed to be suspicious. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 13:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Apart from the fact the Google will present you with stuff you've looked at before you can still get a result skewed from reality by using the appropriate search terms. Try a search on "confirmed alien visits" - see, I knew they were here! --Coffee (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Anyone seen this BS going around Facebook?[edit]
A proposal for a way to overhaul Congress. Rather than capture and upload the image, I'll just type out the text:
The Congressional Reform Act of 2012
- No Tenure / No Pension
- A Congressman/woman collects salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.
- Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security
- All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security System immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
- Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
- Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise/ Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
- Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
- Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
- All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 12/1/12. The American people did not make these contracts with Congressmen/women.
So much bullshit, and yet so many people seem to think it's such a great idea. Why don't people research or think about things before writing/posting stuff like this? DickTurpis (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- "No Tenure / No Pension" And I've stopped reading. 173.32.30.79 (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's a good one. "Congress should be forced to live like most of the American people, who apparently are legally prohibited from collecting a pension." And what do they mean by "tenure" in this context? DickTurpis (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Congressional salary/benefits are irrelevant. After leaving congress, they can pretty much instantly all get 400k+ consulting jobs trading influence, even if they were tossed for gross malfeasance. You could cut their pay to $0 and it would still be profitable for pretty much everyone to win a congressional election. Hipocrite 17:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's a good one. "Congress should be forced to live like most of the American people, who apparently are legally prohibited from collecting a pension." And what do they mean by "tenure" in this context? DickTurpis (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- My suggestion for fixing Congress is somewhat simpler. Take the power to draw legislative districts away from the state legislatures and give it to the Census Department's computers. Gerrymandering for safe seats encourages activist-driven extremism: if one party is guaranteed a win, electability isn't an issue. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Gerrymandering is obviously worth fixing, it's a 21st century Rotten Boroughs situation in which the mechanics of democracy have been so distorted to the personal benefit of a few individuals that they become ridiculous to the ordinary observer. Good luck doing it though, Americans don't really seem to believe in non-partisan organisations so any body given the ability to make boundary decisions will end up politicised it seems to me.
- However, if you eliminate Gerrymandering the fallout you're seeing is still possible just less frequent. The Washington Post had an article a few days back which argues that the US Constitution falsely assumes the "balance of powers" is necessary and effective to prevent tyranny when the evidence suggests otherwise. Unbalanced systems provide a way to break this sort of deadlock, maybe the President would trigger elections to the House, or the House would pick a new President, or whatever tie-breaker you want, and even just the threat of that would prevent politicians deliberately causing a deadlock in the first place because the outcome would be inevitable. Tialaramex (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I live in a country with such an unbalanced system (Westminster), and here loss of supply leads to an immediate election. Is it balanced? No. To some extent, a majority government in Canada has almost autocratic authority, especially when one considers the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, Canada has yet to descend into tyranny and madness. Of course, you could argue that Canada is quite young, so it could still happen in the future given enough time, but I look to the British as a much longer-lived example of my point.
- As well, I imagine that with enough support and enough firepower, no Constitution would be able to stop someone who truly wished to lead by tyranny. In the right conditions, it's not so hard to stir up a mob against the government, and at that point a couple judges saying "that's unconstitutional" may not have much effect. - GrantC (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I live in a country with such an unbalanced system (Westminster), and here loss of supply leads to an immediate election. Is it balanced? No. To some extent, a majority government in Canada has almost autocratic authority, especially when one considers the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, Canada has yet to descend into tyranny and madness. Of course, you could argue that Canada is quite young, so it could still happen in the future given enough time, but I look to the British as a much longer-lived example of my point.
Since I feel like it, let me eviscerate each one.
- No Tenure (They're put into office by election. There is no tenure)
- No Pension (This one is more opinion since it does exist)
- A Congressman/woman collects salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office. (That already happens)
- Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security (Also already happens)
- All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security System immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose. (Wait, what? They already paid into SSI, why do they need to contribute more?)
- Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do. (They also can already do this)
- Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise/ Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%. (Unconstituional)
- Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people. (The Affordable Care Act does this)
- Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people. (Unconstituional, really)
- All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 12/1/12. The American people did not make these contracts with Congressmen/women. (Probably not legal)
Who writes this kind of garbage? Zero (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have to disagree on #8, mostly because the whole issue is nonsensical. "The same healthcare system as the American people" isn't a thing, as there is no one way people get their healthcare. Most get it through their employers, so if they want to make Congress get their health insurance the "normal" way, they'd get it from their employers, which is exactly how it was done until the Affordable Care Act. I really like the last one, especially. "All Congressmen's mortgages are now void, because The People didn't sign them." I was very dismayed at how much people seemed to gush over this bullshit. DickTurpis (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Where is the one about publicly funded campaigns and overturning citizens united? TheCheatI run on alcohol 16:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
The "Party of Lincoln" and the skeletons in the closet[edit]
You know, it would be interesting to see how many of these hardliners have expressed Lost Cause of the South beliefs. 173.32.30.79 (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Seems kind of sensationalist to boil the confederacy down to the federalist vs anti-federalist argument that has taken place since before our country was born. TheCheatI run on alcohol 16:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- And then also tie them to the tea-party. I just don't think wanting state's rights and no deficit automatically makes someone a confederate. TheCheatI run on alcohol 17:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Mitigating panic attacks[edit]
I'm prone to debilitating panic attacks, and my psychologist has not approved a refill for my lorazepam. What are some ways I can save myself from horrifying darkness? --TechCheesebeef 20:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Find someone entertaining whom you trust to hang out with/avoid being alone. Works for me. YMMV. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
21:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Go to another shrink. If junkies can get five to write Xanax, you can find one. Even if your current shrink won't write your sedative, at least go to sessions to talk if that's helpful. Keeping a schedule might be uplifting all on its own. These things have helped me. Benadryl is an effective and nonaddictive sedative. Booze and drugs aren't. Don't eat shitty food. Drink lots of water and learn how to prepare something new that looks interesting. Reward yourself by being deliberate instead of compulsive or reactive. Take it easy on yourself when that gets hard and just keep going. That's what everyone does anyway. Make lists instead of buzzing around. Plan to do things you like and make you feel good. I always have some kind of long term project making something with my hands that I can fuss with after dinner. Maybe you like writing or playing music. I like making stuff. Go to the gym and wear yourself out. Go for a run if you don't have a gym membership. You'll sleep like a baby and even if your body hurts the next few days, exercise has lasting positive emotional effects that aren't just about self-esteem, although that's pretty nice too. Ask your shrink whether you should do drugs or drink while you're depressed. There are reasons not to stop for only a very few people. Hopefully you're not one of them.
23:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- I read this as being you looking for a short-term solution until your doc came through for you -- something to keep the wolves at bay for a day or so. If I'm wrong and Nutty's right and this is a long-term thing, yeah, listen to him... PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 23:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- breathing and visualization methods to help you stay calm may be worth trying if your attacks are slow onset. Did your Doctor tell you why he cut off your meds ? are you overusing them ? I believe lorazepam can be addictive. Maybe there is something milder ? Nutty suggestion is good but it depends on what makes you panic. Hamster (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Be careful to withdraw gradually if you've been taking this for awhile... WebMD "Do not suddenly stop using this drug without consulting your doctor. Some conditions may become worse when this drug is abruptly stopped. Your dose may need to be gradually decreased." Refugeetalk page 00:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- breathing and visualization methods to help you stay calm may be worth trying if your attacks are slow onset. Did your Doctor tell you why he cut off your meds ? are you overusing them ? I believe lorazepam can be addictive. Maybe there is something milder ? Nutty suggestion is good but it depends on what makes you panic. Hamster (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- I read this as being you looking for a short-term solution until your doc came through for you -- something to keep the wolves at bay for a day or so. If I'm wrong and Nutty's right and this is a long-term thing, yeah, listen to him... PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- Go to another shrink. If junkies can get five to write Xanax, you can find one. Even if your current shrink won't write your sedative, at least go to sessions to talk if that's helpful. Keeping a schedule might be uplifting all on its own. These things have helped me. Benadryl is an effective and nonaddictive sedative. Booze and drugs aren't. Don't eat shitty food. Drink lots of water and learn how to prepare something new that looks interesting. Reward yourself by being deliberate instead of compulsive or reactive. Take it easy on yourself when that gets hard and just keep going. That's what everyone does anyway. Make lists instead of buzzing around. Plan to do things you like and make you feel good. I always have some kind of long term project making something with my hands that I can fuss with after dinner. Maybe you like writing or playing music. I like making stuff. Go to the gym and wear yourself out. Go for a run if you don't have a gym membership. You'll sleep like a baby and even if your body hurts the next few days, exercise has lasting positive emotional effects that aren't just about self-esteem, although that's pretty nice too. Ask your shrink whether you should do drugs or drink while you're depressed. There are reasons not to stop for only a very few people. Hopefully you're not one of them.
<-- Good lord, please tell me you're joking about being placed on benzos for panic attacks........................... 58.166.123.82 (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Some online psychoeducation and CBT is a good start - CRUFAD 58.166.123.82 (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is a free, evidence based 12 module CBT program CCI WA - Panic Stations 58.166.123.82 (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Truck drivers announce plans for a coup d'etat.[edit]
Seriously: "we're asking for the arrest of everyone in government who has violated their oath of office." Conlon cited the idea of a citizens grand jury – meaning a pool of jurors convened without court approval – as the mechanism for indicting the officials. "We want these people arrested, and we're coming in with the grand jury to do it," he said. "We are going to ask the law enforcement to uphold their constitutional oath and make these arrests. If they refuse to do it, by the power of the people of the United States and the people's grand jury, they don't want to do it, we will. ... We the people will find a way."" PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 22:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Two things come to mind. Would-be militia leader Linda Thompson and her 1994 march on Washington, which she called off. The other is Kris Kristofferson as the Rubber Duck. Secret Squirrel (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is one of those ideas that seems reasonable when you've been listening to the hum of tires on asphalt all day and having your meth-fueled fantasies being continually reinforced over the CB by other like-minded folk. --Inquisitor (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Unsettling?[edit]
Does anyone else find this a bit aah ... creepy? Scream!! (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Grim Meathook Future. It's all over but the crying. Luckily, I've had a pretty good run, and got a bunch of good years in. I would hate to be a guy in my teens or twenties facing the prospect of living another 70 years in a world of total surveillance, robot armies, and an almost total rollback of many of the social advances made in the last century. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 15:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- There's more Scream!! (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- If you want creepy, read Stanislaw Lem's Weapon Systems of the 21st Century, or in case that hasn't been translated into English, The Invincible by the same author. Note that both were written in the 1970s, when nanotechnology wasn't quite a thing...--Monarchofascist
С нами Бог! 17:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's cool. — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 18:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Likewise. It's a very substantial technological and engineering achievement. But yes, it is creepy. It also seems to run backwards which makes it doubly so. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Love the tech, but yeah, it did look like it was running backwards to me too. To get serious speed and maneuverability they're going to have to tackle the hurdle of a flexible spine. That way you can introduce the "double-gallop" and... sorry I'm an engineer. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Likewise. It's a very substantial technological and engineering achievement. But yes, it is creepy. It also seems to run backwards which makes it doubly so. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not seeing PSAL's "almost total rollback" although possibly they lived in a different twentieth century to the one I lived in. Yes, the robots will take over, which is after all the whole purpose of having robots at all. Change will be gradual for all the usual reasons, but most fundamentally money. You need money to do R&D, money to buy the robots and, outside the military, you need money to pay off the unions.
- But it's like socialised healthcare. People start out saying it's the end of the world and next thing you know they can't remember how anybody lived without it. Remember when you had to tune televisions? Younger readers probably don't know what I'm talking about. The next generation is going to be told that once upon a time robots weren't smart enough to drive cars and fly planes, and they will struggle to believe this because in their experience the robots are much better at these things than people. Tialaramex (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Another thought, Lem called the work Monarchofascist referenced something closer to “The Trend of Dehumanization in Weapon Systems of the 21st Century” and I do not believe it is available in English since I attempted, some years ago, to obtain and read everything which had been translated including the non-fiction. If I'm wrong I'd certainly appreciate a pointer. Tialaramex (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see a whole lot of military application for this sort of thing. I mean, in terms of killing ability it's a step backwards. Sort of reminds me of games like Battletech, which take place far in the future and use giant manned robots to fight. Cool science fiction, in a way, but not by any stretch of the imagination is it the future of warfare. DickTurpis (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Robotic cars? Never. i dont trust other people driving me, let alone a robot. unless i have several high-priority people for the robot to always value our lives more than the other in the event of a "who can we afford to have die" situation --Mikal | lakiM 17:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know about the "let alone a robot" part. I do enjoy driving myself, but let's face it, there's no objective reason why a computer wouldn't be a significantly better driver than a human. Computers have better reaction time, faster processing, more accurate sensing capability, and they can't be distracted (they could also be programmed to always follow the rules of the road). Also consider that humans "malfunction" far more often than computers. I might be inclined to have a different opinion if I were only responsible for myself while driving, but my actions on the road can easily hurt or kill others. - GrantC (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've been in the Heathrow driverless robotic cabs at Terminal 5 a few times and felt completely trusting of the tech. The thing is, it's a controlled closed system. Nothing else can get on the little roads they use so all events are entirely predictable. So while the algorithms that run the individual cars are complex, the programmers can be certain they have covered every reasonable eventuality. No drunk drivers, no wild animals, no children running into the road, no broken down lorries. Public roads, by contrast, are very unpredictable so much much harder to programme for. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Road legal (but currently expensive) cars and trucks can already react to unexpected pedestrians and broken down vehicles in their path, but they do so by simply stopping and waiting for the human driver to decide what to do about the problem. Even in a fully autonomous vehicle it might be acceptable to respond to a near miss (let alone an actual accident) by refusing to go anywhere until emergency services arrive to examine the scene. Today I read the accident report for a railway worker who was hit by a train. The driver and guard of the train concluded that they must have hit some equipment rather than the actual worker and resolved to continue their journey, if the injured worker hadn't managed to reach a public place it might have been some time before an ambulance was called and conceivably he could have died of his injuries. In hindsight it's obvious that "Well, I guess we can't have hit an actual person" is a crap judgement call. Why not actually check? But crap judgement calls are what you expect when humans are involved, after all it was a crap judgement call that lead to a worker being hit by the train in the first place. Tialaramex (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Of course this issue will be overcome when we've all got our imiplanted RFID tags.
ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 07:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm sure we'll get there. Autonomous aircraft are a reality even now. Again, that's a controlled environment too, at least much more so than public roads, with highly developed and precise standards within the infrastructure at airports, air traffic control and so on. But while it's a big leap to safely stick a fully autonomous vehicle on a city's streets as they are today, the tech will undoubtedly and incrementally get there. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Of course this issue will be overcome when we've all got our imiplanted RFID tags.
- Road legal (but currently expensive) cars and trucks can already react to unexpected pedestrians and broken down vehicles in their path, but they do so by simply stopping and waiting for the human driver to decide what to do about the problem. Even in a fully autonomous vehicle it might be acceptable to respond to a near miss (let alone an actual accident) by refusing to go anywhere until emergency services arrive to examine the scene. Today I read the accident report for a railway worker who was hit by a train. The driver and guard of the train concluded that they must have hit some equipment rather than the actual worker and resolved to continue their journey, if the injured worker hadn't managed to reach a public place it might have been some time before an ambulance was called and conceivably he could have died of his injuries. In hindsight it's obvious that "Well, I guess we can't have hit an actual person" is a crap judgement call. Why not actually check? But crap judgement calls are what you expect when humans are involved, after all it was a crap judgement call that lead to a worker being hit by the train in the first place. Tialaramex (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've been in the Heathrow driverless robotic cabs at Terminal 5 a few times and felt completely trusting of the tech. The thing is, it's a controlled closed system. Nothing else can get on the little roads they use so all events are entirely predictable. So while the algorithms that run the individual cars are complex, the programmers can be certain they have covered every reasonable eventuality. No drunk drivers, no wild animals, no children running into the road, no broken down lorries. Public roads, by contrast, are very unpredictable so much much harder to programme for. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know about the "let alone a robot" part. I do enjoy driving myself, but let's face it, there's no objective reason why a computer wouldn't be a significantly better driver than a human. Computers have better reaction time, faster processing, more accurate sensing capability, and they can't be distracted (they could also be programmed to always follow the rules of the road). Also consider that humans "malfunction" far more often than computers. I might be inclined to have a different opinion if I were only responsible for myself while driving, but my actions on the road can easily hurt or kill others. - GrantC (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Robotic cars? Never. i dont trust other people driving me, let alone a robot. unless i have several high-priority people for the robot to always value our lives more than the other in the event of a "who can we afford to have die" situation --Mikal | lakiM 17:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see a whole lot of military application for this sort of thing. I mean, in terms of killing ability it's a step backwards. Sort of reminds me of games like Battletech, which take place far in the future and use giant manned robots to fight. Cool science fiction, in a way, but not by any stretch of the imagination is it the future of warfare. DickTurpis (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Another thought, Lem called the work Monarchofascist referenced something closer to “The Trend of Dehumanization in Weapon Systems of the 21st Century” and I do not believe it is available in English since I attempted, some years ago, to obtain and read everything which had been translated including the non-fiction. If I'm wrong I'd certainly appreciate a pointer. Tialaramex (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd be more worried about climate change and nuclear proliferation as existential risks than gray goo or any other product of the fever dreams of futurologists. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Obamacare compared to socialized medicine[edit]
I want to point out the The Economist, whose shift in editorial position has been... quite interesting this week compared to the rest of the year. They've went entirely from "What Would Mitt Do?" to GOP's nuts, the solution must be more than Obamacare, you shouldn't have compromised, vive le NHS thanks to the fiscal cliff. Even the National Post is calling Republicans out.
Basically, this debacle could make conservatives go centrist worldwide. I don't know what to say. 173.32.30.79 (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, no, because if conservatives went centrist, they wouldn't be conservatives anymore. What I suspect will happen is the GOP brass is going to public hang (politcal wise) the Tea Party to go on "We really didn't want to do this, these nutters did!" or well... How long do you think the Libertarians to win an election over the Dems? --Revolverman (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Long, since most Republicans aren't under any threat in their districts.--"Shut up, Brx." 11:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- There is plenty of room to the left of where today's Republican party is sat, in most European countries the US Democrats would be a right of centre party. In answer to Brxbrx the nature of gerrymandering makes even large district majorities fragile. Ordinarily you can approximate a district as a microcosm of the whole electorate. So a district that went 60:40 Republican is "safe" next time because 10% of voters would have to change their mind to bring it into contention and that's just not plausible in most elections. But with gerrymandering the district is not a microcosm and the approximation is useless. A far smaller swing in the general electorate can make it necessary when redrawing boundaries to "give" previously safe districts to the Democrats so that what was a 60:40 Republican district is now an 80:20 Democrat district with most of its Republican voters being re-assigned to shore up the vote in neighbouring districts. Tialaramex (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really have an opinion on this but if the Democrats moved into real left-of-centre politics would that let the main-stream Republicans move closer to the centre? (Probably never going to happen though.) ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 18:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really have an opinion on this but if the Democrats moved into real left-of-centre politics would that let the main-stream Republicans move closer to the centre? (Probably never going to happen though.)
- There is plenty of room to the left of where today's Republican party is sat, in most European countries the US Democrats would be a right of centre party. In answer to Brxbrx the nature of gerrymandering makes even large district majorities fragile. Ordinarily you can approximate a district as a microcosm of the whole electorate. So a district that went 60:40 Republican is "safe" next time because 10% of voters would have to change their mind to bring it into contention and that's just not plausible in most elections. But with gerrymandering the district is not a microcosm and the approximation is useless. A far smaller swing in the general electorate can make it necessary when redrawing boundaries to "give" previously safe districts to the Democrats so that what was a 60:40 Republican district is now an 80:20 Democrat district with most of its Republican voters being re-assigned to shore up the vote in neighbouring districts. Tialaramex (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Long, since most Republicans aren't under any threat in their districts.--"Shut up, Brx." 11:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Because I love reading comments on news stories[edit]
Check out some of the gold I've found. Zero (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Disability Fraud[edit]
As I already mentioned above, I like reading nonsense comments on news. But this one kinda took me back and blinked a bit. While we have pretty solid statistics on the instances of voter fraud, disability fraud seems to be much harder to come by. Anybody got a source? Zero (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sure there's fraud. I just found a Fox News article that irresponsibly implies a number of links that it fails to substantiate as it fails to accurately report anything about the real scope of the problem. It primarily discusses one attorney, who may be crooked. Who knows. He's being investigated by hasn't been convicted. It then merely notes the percentage of people receiving disability in his state, which, no matter how you stack it, has little to nothing to do with specific claims on fraud all on its own. The article then talks about national numbers, where have even less to do with this attorney. So the first thing I found is basically sloppy nonsense. That's not to say that there's no problem, but if this is the tenor of the discussion, it indicates to me that wingers are going to grossly misrepresent it. Keep in mind that the only opposition to the Americans with Disabilities Act was from Republican cranks. Bush signed it gladly. If that's what happened in 1989 or 1990, I can only imagine what's motivating tea baggers to start their attack on the disabled now that they've more or less successfully handwaved away their attacks on working people. 17:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Am I missing something here?[edit]
I'm not from the states and I'm not an economist so there is probably something I'm missing here. But I'm wondering if it really is a good idea to keep on increasing the US debt.
I have been told that, at the moment, the US in is the privileged position of being both the world's major economic power and controlling the dollar - and that this presently allows it to somehow magically escape from the problems which any normal person, company or nation would have if it constantly borrowed more and more money every year.
But surely, at some point, the interest payments on this debt are going to be greater than the GDP of the US?
Furthermore at some point the US will no longer be in a controlling position in respect of the world's economy. Then it will be subject to the same rule as any other nation? What happens then?
Isn't it inevitable that one or both of these problems will come about at some point?--Weirdstuff (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- "That's the problem of those future fuckers"--Mikal | lakiM 15:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- That would only be the case in a gold standard or other commodity-backed system. Under a system of fiat currency, gov't debt equals money. If the gov't paid down the debt entirely, the money supply would crash and the economy along with it. The interest problem can be solved by having the treasury "borrow" from the Federal Reserve instead of foreign countries. So, no, increasing the debt is not necessarily a bad thing. It is simply an increase in the money supply under a fiat system. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- So why doesn't every country do that?--Weirdstuff (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- not every country iss america--Mikal | lakiM 15:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Do not treat countries budgets like household budgets. From an institutional budgeting perspective, it's appropriate to incur debts to pay for projects that have a societal return that is greater than the interest rate on the debt. Right now the government can borrow money for approximately nothing. Hipocrite 15:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Some nations are doing this (see China). Others can't because they don't have monetary sovereignty (see members of the EU, excepting the UK). Hipocrite sums it up -- national budgets are not like household budgets. Some are closer to this model than others, though. EU members cannot print their own money, much like US state gov'ts cannot print their own money (unlike the federal gov't). Thus, balanced budgets are more appropriate and desirable in these cases. In monetarily sovereign nations, the limit to spending or currency creation is inflation, not tax revenue. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Also, every country that introduced a balanced budget amendment had a consensus on significant welfare provisions (compared to the US). Of course, the euro crisis has also shown the problems of doing this over an effective central bank. 64.201.162.65 (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Some nations are doing this (see China). Others can't because they don't have monetary sovereignty (see members of the EU, excepting the UK). Hipocrite sums it up -- national budgets are not like household budgets. Some are closer to this model than others, though. EU members cannot print their own money, much like US state gov'ts cannot print their own money (unlike the federal gov't). Thus, balanced budgets are more appropriate and desirable in these cases. In monetarily sovereign nations, the limit to spending or currency creation is inflation, not tax revenue. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Do not treat countries budgets like household budgets. From an institutional budgeting perspective, it's appropriate to incur debts to pay for projects that have a societal return that is greater than the interest rate on the debt. Right now the government can borrow money for approximately nothing. Hipocrite 15:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- not every country iss america--Mikal | lakiM 15:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- So why doesn't every country do that?--Weirdstuff (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- That would only be the case in a gold standard or other commodity-backed system. Under a system of fiat currency, gov't debt equals money. If the gov't paid down the debt entirely, the money supply would crash and the economy along with it. The interest problem can be solved by having the treasury "borrow" from the Federal Reserve instead of foreign countries. So, no, increasing the debt is not necessarily a bad thing. It is simply an increase in the money supply under a fiat system. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- As long as the US dollar is trusted, the Treasury can handle as much debt as it possibly wants (the fact that Obama's spending levels haven't reached FDR highs, and that Japan, despite its decline as a superpower, is trying to induce inflation to boost a economy with double the US' overall debt should tell you something). It's unshocking that it's two countries with traditionally low-tax revenues and public sectors doing this. 64.201.162.65 (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, so the EU as a whole has budget sovereignty. Why torture Greece, Portugal, Ireland etc if the solution is so easy?--Weirdstuff (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- And how come Argentina had to default in 2001?--Weirdstuff (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, so the EU as a whole has budget sovereignty. Why torture Greece, Portugal, Ireland etc if the solution is so easy?--Weirdstuff (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, "torture" is a strange word. The US has a version of the same problem. Within an economy there are regions which underperform, and from a straight up economic point of view they would be better off if they could have their own independent economic destiny. But sometimes that would come at such a tremendous price that it's unthinkable. In Greece for example, Euro exit would almost unavoidably mean huge civil disturbance when announced. You would definitely need soldiers on the streets and probably widespread civilian casualties would occur, the country would be devastated. Imagine (I have chosen a state at random) Florida is forced to leave the US Dollar by its growing debts. Floridians are to be given a new currency, the Florin so that their economy can flourish independently of pressures on the US. Floridians are not allowed Dollars any more, all transactions in Florida will now be in Florins, with any residual Dollars owned by or owed to Floridians converted one-to-one to Florins. This enormous change cannot be kept secret, the moment it is decided it will leak, and chaos will reign. On the open market a Dollar is immediately worth five Florins, and within hours it's more like ten. Nobody wants Florins tomorrow, they want Dollars now. Floridians have dollars in the bank, there is immediately a run on every bank in Florida, the banks close and you have to supply them with armed guards to deter looting - the new currency isn't even officially announced and you've got a state of emergency on your hands. Tialaramex (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Argentina's currency was (at the time) tied to the US dollar, so it doesn't contradict the BoNs claim. Tialaramex (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- I still have some of those (now worthless) Australs in my currency drawer. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 18:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, How about Mexico in 1982? If countries an just endlessly create the money they need why does the concept of sovereign default even exist?--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note that WP's list counts just making more money as a default. Beyond that though creating more money may not be in the state's best interests. Choosing to default (or as in Mexico, forcing creditors to renegotiate) obviously carries a cost in terms of confidence in your ability to pay subsequent debts, but it's not as if the creditors are fooled by receiving piles of inflated currency instead. Either way they got ripped off, and they'll factor that into their future expectations. If a country defaults you can't repossess (but see below) because it's a sovereign entity, it isn't subject to external law except by its own volition.
- Now, if you try to "take the piss", by refusing to pay when everybody can see you easily could, that can cause a war. Pursuing a debt against a country that can't pay is pointless, just like sending the bailiffs in to rummage through a tramp's pockets. But if a country simply won't pay then it might be worth looting the place, not least to send a message. Nobody has done that in quite a while AFAIK. Tialaramex (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- We're not saying that too much debt is a good thing; far from it. The issue is whether to end the stimulus when a) consumers (in the most layman terms) still don't have money to spend and b) the global recovery is still unripe. The US was the hardest hit from the Great Recession, we have historical precedent (and the fiscal cliff was, ironically, created out of that precedent) that cutting wildly would be counterintuitive. 64.201.162.65 (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, How about Mexico in 1982? If countries an just endlessly create the money they need why does the concept of sovereign default even exist?--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- I still have some of those (now worthless) Australs in my currency drawer.
- Argentina's currency was (at the time) tied to the US dollar, so it doesn't contradict the BoNs claim. Tialaramex (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, "torture" is a strange word. The US has a version of the same problem. Within an economy there are regions which underperform, and from a straight up economic point of view they would be better off if they could have their own independent economic destiny. But sometimes that would come at such a tremendous price that it's unthinkable. In Greece for example, Euro exit would almost unavoidably mean huge civil disturbance when announced. You would definitely need soldiers on the streets and probably widespread civilian casualties would occur, the country would be devastated. Imagine (I have chosen a state at random) Florida is forced to leave the US Dollar by its growing debts. Floridians are to be given a new currency, the Florin so that their economy can flourish independently of pressures on the US. Floridians are not allowed Dollars any more, all transactions in Florida will now be in Florins, with any residual Dollars owned by or owed to Floridians converted one-to-one to Florins. This enormous change cannot be kept secret, the moment it is decided it will leak, and chaos will reign. On the open market a Dollar is immediately worth five Florins, and within hours it's more like ten. Nobody wants Florins tomorrow, they want Dollars now. Floridians have dollars in the bank, there is immediately a run on every bank in Florida, the banks close and you have to supply them with armed guards to deter looting - the new currency isn't even officially announced and you've got a state of emergency on your hands. Tialaramex (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Re the question about Argentina and Mexico - they borrowed dollars. They had to default because they couldn't repay dollar creditors. Hipocrite 20:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
"OK, so the EU as a whole has budget sovereignty. Why torture Greece, Portugal, Ireland etc if the solution is so easy?"
And that's the whole of the eurozone debate. This site is right on on how the eurozone crisis happened - the EU is in a tug-and-pull on whether members should maintain their sovereignty (laws and fiscal policy, remember that that fiscal and monetary are different), or make national borders irrelevant to prevent world war. The eurozone (and the ECB) was created in the eventuality that it would become the latter. 64.201.162.65 (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK, let's take WP's credit rating which identifies the risk various (non-eurozone) countries have of defaulting. If they can do the things that (some) editors are claiming above - why aren't they all at zero risk? Not low but zero? --Weirdstuff (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Very easy. Can they sustain paying interest in debt in the long-term? Eastern Europe is largely orange/red because they're post-communist states (Russia is only slightly better because of oil deposits). Greece is inherently risky because they have a productivity (seriously, the workforce is on the job more hours a day than Germany) and tax evasion problem. And I don't think we need to explain Africa. 64.201.162.65 (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- As the WP article you linked states: "Since a sovereign government, by definition, controls its own affairs, it cannot be obliged to pay back its debt.[2]" Alan Greenspan has said the same thing: "The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default." Now, no one is saying we can infinitely print money with no adverse economic effects. But the US, like any monetarily sovereign nation, can only default on its debt if it voluntarily chooses to do so (unless its debt is denominated in a foreign currency, as Hipocrite mentioned). Again, the constraint on spending is inflation, not revenue. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Very easy. Can they sustain paying interest in debt in the long-term? Eastern Europe is largely orange/red because they're post-communist states (Russia is only slightly better because of oil deposits). Greece is inherently risky because they have a productivity (seriously, the workforce is on the job more hours a day than Germany) and tax evasion problem. And I don't think we need to explain Africa. 64.201.162.65 (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of central bank policy[edit]
Obama's picking Yellen to replace Bernanke. Good idea overall, according to sane ones. 99.224.192.84 (talk) 05:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Radical right blogs[edit]
Hey guys I was just discussing this with some other people on the gateway pundit talk page about whether or not we should lump all of the far-right blogs under page or keep them as individual pages. The reason some people were thinking about doing it is because all of these blogs are very similar to one another (global warming denialism, Homophobia, Birtherism, liberal media, Godwin's law, etc.) and didn't want to keep creating individual pages for each one when they echo each other. I'm personally split on the idea, since I like the idea that we are the second top result for sites like Moonbattery.com on Google, but I can see why others might want to do it. Radicaal right blogs include: RenewAmerica (the most right wing one), Moonbattery.com, The Gateway Pundit, Patriot Action Network, Liberal Logic 101, Townhall.com and others. ClothCoat (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Somebody who knows more about it than me needs to sort out the radical right content on RW. Following the links above took me to some very poor quality content, particularly on the radical article. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- They should go into the webshites list. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- That is because these articles are made and almost immediately forgotten and deprecated, and thereafter exist in a limbo of outdated sneering. The important concepts should get their own page (i.e. global warming denial) and notable individuals should get their own page (i.e. Rush Limbaugh), but from my experience these pages about specific television shows or sites just turn into jumbles of lists and crap.--
talk 18:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Jesus was invented[edit]
Probably one for Jesus myth theory: Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ', presented by Joseph Atwill, a historian not quoted anywhere on our site. Not ready to be added to any article as his data hasn't been presented yet. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- A quick Google search shows a previous book of his listed on the Bible Conspiracy Theory WP article. Not a good sign. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Roman Piso. (Just started today after this was mentioned on the RW FB group.) - David Gerard (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Steam IDs[edit]
Since the idea of Civ V has come up, maybe we should get together for a game?
Zero (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sure. [1] — (talk to) [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 01:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Here's mine although I mostly play single-player stuff. --Kels (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- As much as I would like to join, my computer has simply become less capable to handle the game over time and now is at the point of successfully loading games for three seconds before becoming unresponsive. Crow7878 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- though i dont do much multiplaayer--Mikal | lakiM 15:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is me. I'm not sure I'd get in to Civ 5 multiplayer, it'd probably require me to build military units, not all the wonders. I'll give it a shot though. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yo guys. Happy to play with anyone. --Revolverman (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- [2] This is me, though I don't have Civ5 yet and don't do much multiplayer. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is me. Also, for those who don't have Civ 5 but would like to play, you can get a free copy of it from Greenmangaming by voting in the Golden Joystick Awards. Stile4aly (talk) 04:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- [2] This is me, though I don't have Civ5 yet and don't do much multiplayer. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yo guys. Happy to play with anyone. --Revolverman (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is me. I'm not sure I'd get in to Civ 5 multiplayer, it'd probably require me to build military units, not all the wonders. I'll give it a shot though. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- though i dont do much multiplaayer--Mikal | lakiM 15:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- As much as I would like to join, my computer has simply become less capable to handle the game over time and now is at the point of successfully loading games for three seconds before becoming unresponsive. Crow7878 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Here's mine although I mostly play single-player stuff. --Kels (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I might have found the ultimate libertarian Gish Gallop/style over substance blog[edit]
Was looking for notable economists' opinions on fiscal cliff, and found this. Who wants to take a whack at it? 99.224.192.84 (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- While I did not take any economics courses during my time at Waterloo, I know many undergraduates who did who absolutely loved Larry Smith's courses. - GrantC (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Someone with a blog complains about one of their professors. So what? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- I would agree that it's not at all notable. - GrantC (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's quite advanced prose for a contrarian blog (then again, it links to a group of university students who think all he says is "Lord Keynes = good"). 173.32.30.79 (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- I would agree that it's not at all notable. - GrantC (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Someone with a blog complains about one of their professors. So what? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
A little late for Blasphemy Day (NSFW)[edit]
Probably illegal to purchase in Alabama. (Notice how they take on Christ, Shiva and Buddha, but not Muhammad?...) (Not At All Anywhere Near Appropriate For Work) PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 18:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hey. I reside in Alabama.--The Madman (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)The Madman
- Is it not the case that it is against the law to sell sex toys in Alabama, or is that urban legend? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 14:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Under the Alabama Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1998, it is illegal to "knowingly distribute, possess with intent to distribute, or offer or agree to distribute any obscene material or any device designed or marketed as primarily useful for the stimulation of human genital organs for any thing of pecuniary value". Simple possession of such devices is legal. It is also legal to sell them for "bona fide medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial, or law enforcement purposes". Compro01 (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds like a great start for a porno, somebody trying to explain what bona fide law enforcement purposes the cop has for keeping sex toys in the trunk of his car. Shadow of Lords talk 03:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- So if an eccentric mass produces, say, 1000 of them, and gives them away, that's okay as no money is being made.
Talk to Civic Cat 21:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Nope. You missed the part about "agree to distribute." PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 21:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Nope. You missed the part about "agree to distribute." PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- So if an eccentric mass produces, say, 1000 of them, and gives them away, that's okay as no money is being made.
- Sounds like a great start for a porno, somebody trying to explain what bona fide law enforcement purposes the cop has for keeping sex toys in the trunk of his car. Shadow of Lords talk 03:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Under the Alabama Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1998, it is illegal to "knowingly distribute, possess with intent to distribute, or offer or agree to distribute any obscene material or any device designed or marketed as primarily useful for the stimulation of human genital organs for any thing of pecuniary value". Simple possession of such devices is legal. It is also legal to sell them for "bona fide medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial, or law enforcement purposes". Compro01 (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Is it not the case that it is against the law to sell sex toys in Alabama, or is that urban legend? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
True, I did miss that part, but a quick search indicated the word "pecuniary," that I didn't know the meaning of, indicated selling for money. Seems to me giveaways are okay, and since they can be massed produced—maybe 3D printed—the intent of the law can be defeated oh so badly.Talk to Civic Cat 22:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- And I didn't read 'til the end, so I missed the "pecuniary" bit. Looks like you may be right, but at least I can console myself with the fact I know what "pecuniary" means. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 22:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- For those who share my ignorance, here's the Wiktionary definition. Listening to some Alabama Shakes - Hold On (Official Video) right now. The young lead singer's name is "Brittany." (Tee-hee.)Talk to Civic Cat 22:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- For those who share my ignorance, here's the Wiktionary definition. Listening to some Alabama Shakes - Hold On (Official Video) right now. The young lead singer's name is "Brittany." (Tee-hee.)
This just keeps getting better.[edit]
I'm trying to explain to someone why the Washington Times is a bad paper (I called it a "rag") and I just realized... He's a blogger for NaturalNews!--TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 22:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ah. Like trying to explain what's wrong with homeopathy to someone who thinks the Earth was created by two turtles doing it. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 09:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Good analogy. Let's not forget vindication of all kooks -if I can call the WT a rag, I could call NN a rag -and we can't have that, now can we! --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 13:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- At least you can line the bird cage with the Moonie Times. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Good analogy. Let's not forget vindication of all kooks -if I can call the WT a rag, I could call NN a rag -and we can't have that, now can we! --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 13:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Worth making a page for this?[edit]
Yikes, I just came across this site called "Prager University", a non-profit organization started by Dennis Prager dedicated to presenting history and politics from a far-right point of view under the guise of reality. It has tons of "guest hosts" (C-list conservatives) such as Jonah Goldberg, rampant global warming denialism, and teaches economic from an Austrian school point of view. Worth making a page out of this, since we already have a page on Prager and his book Still the Best Hope? God how do his fans consider him a great intellectual? ClothCoat (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- File under Prager, Dennis. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
New Pages added to sidebar[edit]
I have boldly added New Pages to the sidebar, so as to encourage both the creation and review of new pages. Any serious objection? (For the deeply offended: MediaWiki:Sidebar) - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- You will be hunted down and neutralized. Nothing personal, of course. Doctor Dark (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Saves me from having to click recent changes when I want to see the new pages, so no. (Sorry, I meant to say "NEW RATIONALWIKI SUX ARGLEBARGLE!!11!!) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's unholy and against the very laws of nature! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!! --PsyGremlin講話 07:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Saves me from having to click recent changes when I want to see the new pages, so no. (Sorry, I meant to say "NEW RATIONALWIKI SUX ARGLEBARGLE!!11!!) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Kent Hovind[edit]
Hovind now claims to have four doctoral degrees. The best-known is his Christian Education degree with its Good Children's Story Time "dissertation." He has just released his latest dissertation (written to pass away the time in the slammer) for a degree in Biblical Ministry from the esteemed Patriot Bible University (availalble here). On page 4 of the latter he also claims degrees in Theology and in Divinity (honorary) but I can't find any details on those at all. There are some passing third-hand mentions in blogs that he holds a doctorate in Theology but no links to the dissertation or other specifics. Nor can I find any info on the honorary Divinity degree. It would be nice to add these details to his bio if someone with better search skills can find anything. Doctor Dark (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- He must be trying to get enough "Diplomas" to wallpaper his drab Cell. --Revolverman (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in 1989 and 1991, both in Christian Education. 1974 Midwestern Baptist College and received a Bachelor of Religious Education. In 2013, Hovind self-published a new dissertation while in prison for an unaccredited Doctor of Ministry degree from Patriot Bible University. (sundry wikipedia) Hamster (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe Revolverman's right, but he wants as many diplomas as he can get so he can hide his escape tunnel Shawshank style. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 11:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- he needs to learn to RAP and maybe a gang tat so he can claim street cred. I wonder why he didnt get a degree from any of the "real" universities that dont get laughed at. Hamster (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in 1989 and 1991, both in Christian Education. 1974 Midwestern Baptist College and received a Bachelor of Religious Education. In 2013, Hovind self-published a new dissertation while in prison for an unaccredited Doctor of Ministry degree from Patriot Bible University. (sundry wikipedia) Hamster (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Doctorate in Divinity"? I knew that you can buy your way into sainthood, FOR A LOW, LOW PRICE! --The Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉|G̕͡a̵͘͜z̴͞e͏̴̧͞ ͏̀͠͞u͜͢ņţ̛ơ̶͜ ̶̢̛̀t̴͢h̢̛͠҉è̸̛ ̨́a̸͟b̴̧̀̕͡ý̨͠s͡s͟͠͝ 22:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Extra-mural studies[edit]
I do several on-line MOOCs with Coursera and have just started one on Human Evolution with EdX from Wellesley. There is a first week survey
Answer: "True/False" to the following questions:
- Science has proven that evolution is true.
- Evolution is not science, it is just a theory.
- Creationism is a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution.
- If you accept evolution, you cannot believe in God.
Answer: "Strongly agree/Somewhat agree/Somewhat disagree/Strongly disagree/No opinion, do not know" to the following questions:
- There is a lot of evidence against evolution
- Dinosaurs and humans occupied the planet at the same time
- Humans and chimpanzees evolved separately from an ape-like ancestor
- I have a clear understanding of the meaning of "scientific study"
- The theory of evolution correctly explains the development of life
- A scientific theory that explains a natural phenomenon can be defined as a "best guess"
- Small population size has little or no effect on the evolution of a species
- If two light-skinned people moved to Hawaii and got very tan, their children would be born more tan than either of the parents were originally
- Variation among individuals within a species is important for evolution
- A species evolves because individuals want to
- Humanity came to be through evolution, which was controlled by God
- A species evolves because individuals need to
- I have a clear understanding of "fitness" when it is used in a biological sense
- Two of the most important factors that determine the direction of evolution are survival and reproduction
- New traits within a population appear at random
- The environment determines which new traits will appear in a population
- If two distinct populations within the same species begin to breed together this will influence the evolution of that species
- All individuals in a population of ducks living on a pond have webbed-feet. The pond completely dries up. Over time, the descendents of the ducks will evolve so that they do not have webbed feet.
- "Survival of the fittest" basically means that "only the strong survive"
- You cannot prove evolution happened
- Evolution cannot work because one mutation cannot cause a complex structure (e.g. the eye)
- Evolution is always an improvement
- A scientific theory is a set of hypotheses that have been tested repeatedly and have not been rejected
- If webbed-feet are being selected for, all individuals in the next generation will have more webbing on their feet than individuals in the parents' generation
I'd love to see how many creationists are signed up for this and whether there is any shift in their views after 12 weeks. 
ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 18:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
New Pages added to sidebar[edit]
I have boldly added New Pages to the sidebar, so as to encourage both the creation and review of new pages. Any serious objection? (For the deeply offended: MediaWiki:Sidebar) - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- You will be hunted down and neutralized. Nothing personal, of course. Doctor Dark (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Saves me from having to click recent changes when I want to see the new pages, so no. (Sorry, I meant to say "NEW RATIONALWIKI SUX ARGLEBARGLE!!11!!) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's unholy and against the very laws of nature! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!! --PsyGremlin講話 07:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Saves me from having to click recent changes when I want to see the new pages, so no. (Sorry, I meant to say "NEW RATIONALWIKI SUX ARGLEBARGLE!!11!!) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Extra-mural studies[edit]
I do several on-line MOOCs with Coursera and have just started one on Human Evolution with EdX from Wellesley. There is a first week survey
Answer: "True/False" to the following questions:
- Science has proven that evolution is true.
- Evolution is not science, it is just a theory.
- Creationism is a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution.
- If you accept evolution, you cannot believe in God.
Answer: "Strongly agree/Somewhat agree/Somewhat disagree/Strongly disagree/No opinion, do not know" to the following questions:
- There is a lot of evidence against evolution
- Dinosaurs and humans occupied the planet at the same time
- Humans and chimpanzees evolved separately from an ape-like ancestor
- I have a clear understanding of the meaning of "scientific study"
- The theory of evolution correctly explains the development of life
- A scientific theory that explains a natural phenomenon can be defined as a "best guess"
- Small population size has little or no effect on the evolution of a species
- If two light-skinned people moved to Hawaii and got very tan, their children would be born more tan than either of the parents were originally
- Variation among individuals within a species is important for evolution
- A species evolves because individuals want to
- Humanity came to be through evolution, which was controlled by God
- A species evolves because individuals need to
- I have a clear understanding of "fitness" when it is used in a biological sense
- Two of the most important factors that determine the direction of evolution are survival and reproduction
- New traits within a population appear at random
- The environment determines which new traits will appear in a population
- If two distinct populations within the same species begin to breed together this will influence the evolution of that species
- All individuals in a population of ducks living on a pond have webbed-feet. The pond completely dries up. Over time, the descendents of the ducks will evolve so that they do not have webbed feet.
- "Survival of the fittest" basically means that "only the strong survive"
- You cannot prove evolution happened
- Evolution cannot work because one mutation cannot cause a complex structure (e.g. the eye)
- Evolution is always an improvement
- A scientific theory is a set of hypotheses that have been tested repeatedly and have not been rejected
- If webbed-feet are being selected for, all individuals in the next generation will have more webbing on their feet than individuals in the parents' generation
I'd love to see how many creationists are signed up for this and whether there is any shift in their views after 12 weeks. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 18:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
If it was necessary ...[edit]
...here's some more not-so-good about "Mother Teres". Scream!! (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not necessary, really, but I kinda found it to be interesting. Too bad Catholics don't take nicely to people criticising Mother Teresa. --The Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉|G̕͡a̵͘͜z̴͞e͏̴̧͞ ͏̀͠͞u͜͢ņţ̛ơ̶͜ ̶̢̛̀t̴͢h̢̛͠҉è̸̛ ̨́a̸͟b̴̧̀̕͡ý̨͠s͡s͟͠͝ 22:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- No wonder I was experiencing déjà vu, this is from last March. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 08:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- No wonder I was experiencing déjà vu, this is from last March.
Dienekes Pontikos anthropology blog[edit]
What is your opinion on it? Here tis(link added by scream!!)— Unsigned, by: 70.31.152.52 / talk / contribs
Grammar question[edit]
Is it gramatically correct for a subject-less phrase to follow the word "because"? There are several examples of this kind on Wikisource, such as: "Cairn′gorm-stone, or simply Cairngorm, a name often given by jewellers to brown or yellow quartz or rock-crystal, because found among the Cairngorm Mountains in Aberdeenshire." What's the name of this phenomenon?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 11:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Functional illiteracy. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 13:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not so fast there, sport. In the given example, there is what I'll call a failure of parallelism, because ignorant of a better term. It could be recast to make better (grammatical) sense, though: "Cairngorm, a brown or yellow quartz or rock-crystal, often so named by jewellers because found among the Cairngorm Mountains in Aberdeenshire." Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Surely it's just a typo. The last phrase should start with "it's". Ajkgordon (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- "often so named by jewellers as it is found among the Cairngorm Mountains in Aberdeenshire." PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 14:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Technically, it's ellipsis, the omission of some words that would ordinarily be required by standard usage. Standard English tolerates it in some contexts (Picasso plays the Jew's harp, and Braque the didgeridoo.) It's sometimes used for humorous or ironic effects, a usage that seems to be trending upwards (Man will never fly, because gravity.) But the construction in the 1908 dictionary seems a Latinism; Latin often omits forms of esse ("to be") in subordinate clauses, and it might be used where you want to be brief, like in a dictionary definition. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- How do I make that icon which indicates strong agreement with a previous poster to the discussion? Anyway, yes, ellipsis. Tialaramex (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- That would be
{{goodpost}}.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Because Liberals - a Schlaflyism. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 09:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Precisely. Fine for casual discourse, but acceptable in formal writing only in those cases where space is a premium, like dictionaries. (Also, did Schlafly ever actually say that himself? I only recall that particular use of ellipsis, "because liberals", written by us parodying his style.) Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 09:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- It seems to occur mostly in things like Supreme Court/legal documents and encyclopedias.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 11:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- This kind of ellipsis is pretty normal with other conjunctions such as and, but, if, until, unless (e.g. bake until golden brown; if in doubt, don't risk it; do not use unless strictly necessary, etc.) but looks extremely clumsy with because. I couldn't exactly say why. There may be a proper grammatical reason or it may just be down to what phrases we're used to used to seeing & hearing. Weaseloid
Methinks it is a Weasel 13:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think the usage with "because" jars since all that's being ellipticated is "of", and the savings is slight. The "because X" construction seems to suggest that there's a complicated explanation or body of lore here that's just being alluded to by a keyword. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, the example that started this thread was "because found among the Cairngorm Mountains". "Because of found among the Cairngorm Mountains" wouldn't make any more sense here. Clearly what's being omitted (as others already pointed out) is "it is", not "of". My point is that this construction is functionally no different from the commonplace examples I gave above: they're all phrases in which a conjunction is followed immediately by an adjectival or descriptive phrase, and where an "it is" (or similar) is implied but ommitted (until it is golden brown; if you are in doubt; unless it is strictly necessary). These ellipsises seem fine (if a little brusque) but for whatever reason the same pattern in "because found" seems strange & awkward. WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks it is a Weasel 03:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds like a job for the people over at Language Log.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 10:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's also a question of consistency. If the author had used the same style throughout the sentence, the omission of "it's" wouldn't be so jarring, e.g. "Cairn′gorm-stone, or simply Cairngorm, name often given by jewellers to brown or yellow quartz or rock-crystal, because found among Cairngorm Mountains in Aberdeenshire." Maybe. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, (it is) an ellipse. We also had more graphic names for that: "Telegram-style" or "Asthma-style", for its legitimate use when words are at a premium. Maybe in this case it is not only a case of grammar, but also cutting short thinking, as the full sentence might need clarification: It is named after C.M. because it can only be found in C.M; was first discovered in C.M.; is found in C.M., amongst other places - e.g. in Sweden, where it is known as S..., and China, where it is called Q... — Unsigned, by: Thalb2000 / talk / contribs 2013-10-15T17:18:42
- I think it's also a question of consistency. If the author had used the same style throughout the sentence, the omission of "it's" wouldn't be so jarring, e.g. "Cairn′gorm-stone, or simply Cairngorm, name often given by jewellers to brown or yellow quartz or rock-crystal, because found among Cairngorm Mountains in Aberdeenshire." Maybe. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds like a job for the people over at Language Log.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 10:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, the example that started this thread was "because found among the Cairngorm Mountains". "Because of found among the Cairngorm Mountains" wouldn't make any more sense here. Clearly what's being omitted (as others already pointed out) is "it is", not "of". My point is that this construction is functionally no different from the commonplace examples I gave above: they're all phrases in which a conjunction is followed immediately by an adjectival or descriptive phrase, and where an "it is" (or similar) is implied but ommitted (until it is golden brown; if you are in doubt; unless it is strictly necessary). These ellipsises seem fine (if a little brusque) but for whatever reason the same pattern in "because found" seems strange & awkward. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
- I think the usage with "because" jars since all that's being ellipticated is "of", and the savings is slight. The "because X" construction seems to suggest that there's a complicated explanation or body of lore here that's just being alluded to by a keyword. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- This kind of ellipsis is pretty normal with other conjunctions such as and, but, if, until, unless (e.g. bake until golden brown; if in doubt, don't risk it; do not use unless strictly necessary, etc.) but looks extremely clumsy with because. I couldn't exactly say why. There may be a proper grammatical reason or it may just be down to what phrases we're used to used to seeing & hearing. Weaseloid
- It seems to occur mostly in things like Supreme Court/legal documents and encyclopedias.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 11:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Precisely. Fine for casual discourse, but acceptable in formal writing only in those cases where space is a premium, like dictionaries. (Also, did Schlafly ever actually say that himself? I only recall that particular use of ellipsis, "because liberals", written by us parodying his style.) Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 09:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Because Liberals - a Schlaflyism.
- That would be
- How do I make that icon which indicates strong agreement with a previous poster to the discussion? Anyway, yes, ellipsis. Tialaramex (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Technically, it's ellipsis, the omission of some words that would ordinarily be required by standard usage. Standard English tolerates it in some contexts (Picasso plays the Jew's harp, and Braque the didgeridoo.) It's sometimes used for humorous or ironic effects, a usage that seems to be trending upwards (Man will never fly, because gravity.) But the construction in the 1908 dictionary seems a Latinism; Latin often omits forms of esse ("to be") in subordinate clauses, and it might be used where you want to be brief, like in a dictionary definition. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- "often so named by jewellers as it is found among the Cairngorm Mountains in Aberdeenshire." PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- Surely it's just a typo. The last phrase should start with "it's". Ajkgordon (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not so fast there, sport. In the given example, there is what I'll call a failure of parallelism, because ignorant of a better term. It could be recast to make better (grammatical) sense, though: "Cairngorm, a brown or yellow quartz or rock-crystal, often so named by jewellers because found among the Cairngorm Mountains in Aberdeenshire." Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Funny that this should come up. I would have thought that was a typo, but I just happened to come across the same thing in a book I'm currently reading (Peter Dear's Revolutionizing the Sciences, p. 122): "Or were they (a rare, because heretical, option) descendants of people who had lived before Adam, separated from the main line of biblical genealogy?" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Palaeos has a big spam problem.[edit]
Palaeos is infected with spam and neither I nor other active administrators know what to do. I'd greatly appreciate help from computer experts here. Alternatively can you tell us where we can find experts. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Captcha.--Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 14:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
SHUT. DOWN. EVERYTHING. Not really. I agree with Raysenn.--The Madman (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)The Madman
There already is a Captcha. Proxima Centauri (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- If it's only a few websites that are being linked to, then try using Wikipedia's URL blacklisting. Blacklist the main URL redirectors if need be. CS Miller (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see much spam activity on recent changes. In fact I don't see much activity at all.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 11:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Apply cold water to burnt area.--Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 19:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see much spam activity on recent changes. In fact I don't see much activity at all.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 11:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Creation Conversations[edit]
There is an outside chance that I'll get used to this tablet's editing foibles before hell freezes over but I doubt it Until it does click the link will you? They don't like our use of fission track dating but love the "Gret aFlood" Scream!! (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Greta Flood, she was a cracker. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 07:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Greta Flood, she was a cracker.
- anyone waant to tackle wave action creating fission tracks ? very fine sand driven by high speed waves ? Hamster (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Firstly, the geological proof for an old Earth comes from thousands of different evidences (please excuse the usage) so focussing on just one is a distraction. Secondly, fission tracks are caused by radioactive decay on the molecular level. There is no evidence that physical pressure at the rock level can trigger release of radioactive particles. Even if it could, we are left with the problem of how surface sea waves, no matter how turbulent, could affect deeply buried rocks. These creationist claims are always couched with the same old weasel words —"could", "might" and "possibly"— used in an ignorant way. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 07:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Firstly, the geological proof for an old Earth comes from thousands of different evidences (please excuse the usage) so focussing on just one is a distraction. Secondly, fission tracks are caused by radioactive decay on the molecular level. There is no evidence that physical pressure at the rock level can trigger release of radioactive particles. Even if it could, we are left with the problem of how surface sea waves, no matter how turbulent, could affect deeply buried rocks. These creationist claims are always couched with the same old weasel words —"could", "might" and "possibly"— used in an ignorant way.
Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Kent Hovind[edit]
Hovind now claims to have four doctoral degrees. The best-known is his Christian Education degree with its Good Children's Story Time "dissertation." He has just released his latest dissertation (written to pass away the time in the slammer) for a degree in Biblical Ministry from the esteemed Patriot Bible University (availalble here). On page 4 of the latter he also claims degrees in Theology and in Divinity (honorary) but I can't find any details on those at all. There are some passing third-hand mentions in blogs that he holds a doctorate in Theology but no links to the dissertation or other specifics. Nor can I find any info on the honorary Divinity degree. It would be nice to add these details to his bio if someone with better search skills can find anything. Doctor Dark (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- He must be trying to get enough "Diplomas" to wallpaper his drab Cell. --Revolverman (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in 1989 and 1991, both in Christian Education. 1974 Midwestern Baptist College and received a Bachelor of Religious Education. In 2013, Hovind self-published a new dissertation while in prison for an unaccredited Doctor of Ministry degree from Patriot Bible University. (sundry wikipedia) Hamster (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe Revolverman's right, but he wants as many diplomas as he can get so he can hide his escape tunnel Shawshank style. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 11:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- he needs to learn to RAP and maybe a gang tat so he can claim street cred. I wonder why he didnt get a degree from any of the "real" universities that dont get laughed at. Hamster (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hovind claims to possess a masters degree and a doctorate in education from Patriot University M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in 1989 and 1991, both in Christian Education. 1974 Midwestern Baptist College and received a Bachelor of Religious Education. In 2013, Hovind self-published a new dissertation while in prison for an unaccredited Doctor of Ministry degree from Patriot Bible University. (sundry wikipedia) Hamster (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Doctorate in Divinity"? I knew that you can buy your way into sainthood, FOR A LOW, LOW PRICE! --The Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉|G̕͡a̵͘͜z̴͞e͏̴̧͞ ͏̀͠͞u͜͢ņţ̛ơ̶͜ ̶̢̛̀t̴͢h̢̛͠҉è̸̛ ̨́a̸͟b̴̧̀̕͡ý̨͠s͡s͟͠͝ 22:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not without precedent though! --Revolverman (talk) 06:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Looked up Patriot Bible University out of morbid curiousity only to see that it is some house out in the desert, wow.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, but Hovind likely never attended the campus as he received his totally legitimate doctorate by correspondence. To the OP it's likely that Kent claims all kinds of things he hasn't earned; don't spend too much time on a fruitless search. Tielec01 (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Proud of you guys[edit]
I haven't dropped by in a while but i wanted to just say im really proud of you folks who have been keeping things going. RW is getting quoted more widely in skeptic circles because of your work. Thanks. -- 
-PalMD --If it looks like a donut... 22:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Is it me or is it that did you shed a manly tear while writing that? --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 22:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- Good of you to drop on in. :-) Thanks, nice to know you're still around occasionally.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 07:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Glad to see you've not forgotten us Dr. L. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 14:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Glad to see you've not forgotten us Dr. L.
- Good of you to drop on in. :-) Thanks, nice to know you're still around occasionally.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 07:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Frickin' spambots[edit]
Just found this one bot recreate a userpage, via IP address, not long after it was deleted. I banned the IP but then wondered whether this was OK. Should I unban it in case some actual human tries to contribute using the same IP? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 08:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Make that two. God these things are obnoxious. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 08:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- oh god it never ends... Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 08:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Those chosen few with the wiki-fu and rights to go with it, need to update the spam filter thingies, to cater for these 'My name is' spam messages, as well as their sites they're spamming. --PsyGremlinTal! 09:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- In response to your question, I'm not sure how likely it is that an actual contributor will ever use a spam ip. I block them, and figure that if there's an actual human being who wants to use it, they can e-mail us. It is not our responsibility to account for how every ip on the globe gets used. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 12:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Given our small editor-base, the chances that we block a bona fide, would-be contributor with the same IP address as a spammer is about the same as Andy trumpeting "Conservapedia Proven Wrong!" on MPR. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 14:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Given our small editor-base, the chances that we block a bona fide, would-be contributor with the same IP address as a spammer is about the same as Andy trumpeting "Conservapedia Proven Wrong!" on MPR.
- In response to your question, I'm not sure how likely it is that an actual contributor will ever use a spam ip. I block them, and figure that if there's an actual human being who wants to use it, they can e-mail us. It is not our responsibility to account for how every ip on the globe gets used. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- Those chosen few with the wiki-fu and rights to go with it, need to update the spam filter thingies, to cater for these 'My name is' spam messages, as well as their sites they're spamming. --PsyGremlinTal! 09:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- oh god it never ends... Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 08:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorcha Faal[edit]
It seems that we are now the go to site for Sorcha Faal on Snopes. This is the second time they're referenced us in the last few weeks. Innocent Bystander (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- We should probably try to upgrade the article to bronze. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 12:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- I did a rewrite on the blog, but haven't fully backported it to the wiki - David Gerard (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Must-listen radio for all RW regulars[edit]
Helena Bonham Carter on NPR. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 19:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
It's all over but the crying.[edit]
Assuming something weird doesn't happen, the shutdown is over and the default has been avoided kicked down the road for a few months. any predictions on what happens from here? Will Boner jump/get pushed? Is the GOP an un-reparable mess? Will the GOP try this nonsense again and take Obamacare hostage, or has their bluff been called forever? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 23:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Absolutely they will try again, as soon as they get the chance. This is a pattern with the Tea Party and it will continue for as long as the GOP controls the House. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 23:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The question is will the middle republicans tell the Tea Party to piss off if they try this shit again. --Revolverman (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've seen no evidence that the moderate (i.e., big-money) Republicans have the nads to stand up to the TP. The GOP money wing were happy to see the Tea Party as useful idiots but are now learning the cost of allying yourself with lunatics. Doctor Dark (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know if the big tent policy of the Democrats was pre-planned (probably not since the New Dems dominate the policy discussion anyways and that New Deal coalition closeness isn't there), but holy crap are they in a position for vote grabbing. 173.32.30.79 (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've seen no evidence that the moderate (i.e., big-money) Republicans have the nads to stand up to the TP. The GOP money wing were happy to see the Tea Party as useful idiots but are now learning the cost of allying yourself with lunatics. Doctor Dark (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The question is will the middle republicans tell the Tea Party to piss off if they try this shit again. --Revolverman (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The House vote is going to be fun. But no, this can't go on much longer. Obama has finally grown up, it just took an entire presidential term to do it. 173.32.30.79 (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm ashamed it didn't lead to fisticuffs in the House... --198.189.150.156 (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Fascism can be rational[edit]
Is RationalWiki nothing more than a liberal leaning website, or is it really devoted to identifying irrational ideas of any idealistic stripe? I just discovered RationalWiki and clicking on "Random Page" found the stub on David Keene, the President of the NRA. The stub basically is composed of the following sentence: "Around the country, the tide is turning on these questions, [Keene told influential conservatives at the New York Meeting] It's going to be a very rough and very ugly battle, as many of you have already seen. Fortunately, our enemy doesn't have any guns and they don't know how to use them." If intended seriously, Keene's statement is an admission that the gun lobby is willing to use the threat of the violence of which its members are capable, compared to folks who don't own guns, to influence public opinion. My guess is that it was not intended seriously, that it was a kind of inside joke. Either way however, horrendous or darkly jocular, it is not in any way irrational. In fact, it is a jewel of rationality: We have guns; they don't; therefore we are stronger than they. Can't get more rational than that. I don't see why it belongs on RationalWiki.— Unsigned, by: Rev. H. Carlton Earwiggherd / talk / contribs
- Cool story, bro. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 17:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if you mean a near-trillion dollar military with enough nukes to blow up the planet, yes, "they don't." 173.32.30.79 (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Rational depends, in this case, on the framework you are operating in and what sort of argument you are attempting to make. If the NRA's purpose and argument was "We are able to kill you because we have guns and you don't" then yes this would be a fairly logical argument (having guns most likely does make it easier to kill other people). However, if you are attempting to defend a proposition like "Increasing access to guns and removing gun regulations will have an overall positive effect on society" then the argument you have presented, while probably "sound" in itself, does nothing to defend the actual proposition (unless you are implying that the NRA exists merely to shoot people to death who don't have guns). Shadow of Lords talk 17:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- It also suggests that wanting a shitload of its population to know how to use guns is desirable. The United States is the only country in the developed world having that argument. 173.32.30.79 (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand the Reverend's argument at all. He seems maintain that David Keene's statement is either (a) exactly what he wants to say and is logically consistent or (b) a joke.
- And as a consequence of it being either rational (in the sense of being logical) or deliberately absurd he main tins we shouldn't quote it. Why not exactly?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The guy's argument, let me explain it more clearly: "The quote was presented with context in such a way as to make David Keene seem legitimately ridiculous/irrational, yet the quote itself would not actually do that, since it would be either a completely logical and therefore rational statement if serious or just a joke if Keene wasn't being serious." Make of that what you will. Nullahnung (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Then I shall make a tinfoil hat.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The guy's argument, let me explain it more clearly: "The quote was presented with context in such a way as to make David Keene seem legitimately ridiculous/irrational, yet the quote itself would not actually do that, since it would be either a completely logical and therefore rational statement if serious or just a joke if Keene wasn't being serious." Make of that what you will. Nullahnung (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- It also suggests that wanting a shitload of its population to know how to use guns is desirable. The United States is the only country in the developed world having that argument. 173.32.30.79 (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- RationalWiki is not supposed to just be Liberalpedia, and that's something I have been working to remedy recently. We're not great on that, but we are pretty okay: topics like global warming denialism do come down hard on the GOP, but that's because the GOP is the party that has embraced the woo. On issues where reasonable people can disagree, like school vouchers, RW tends to just avoid the topic (which is the correct course).
- I urge you to identify any other articles you feel serve nothing but a partisan purpose. Help us improve.--talk 20:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- The term "rational" can be spun in several different directions. Economists use it in a different way to most of us; that it's what is in the best interest of the individual rather than a logical approach to the bigger picture. Sure, you can be rational and be a fascist or a communist or a libertarian although none of those are positions I would personally advocate. I agree with AD that there are actually far too many articles which have a particular political bias here, just because many of us (but not all) happen to think the same way. I would like to see a reduction in the politics and focussing on items more aligned with scientific scepticism because that's what we seem to do best. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 09:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- The term "rational" can be spun in several different directions. Economists use it in a different way to most of us; that it's what is in the best interest of the individual rather than a logical approach to the bigger picture. Sure, you can be rational and be a fascist or a communist or a libertarian although none of those are positions I would personally advocate. I agree with AD that there are actually far too many articles which have a particular political bias here, just because many of us (but not all) happen to think the same way. I would like to see a reduction in the politics and focussing on items more aligned with scientific scepticism because that's what we seem to do best.
The GOP: Lenin v. Trotsky?[edit]
The comparisons are being made.
Anyways, I think we can assume that anyone who is wearing revolutionary garb in a non-historical reenactment, non-satirical, non-Halloween setting in America is probably on acid by now. 173.32.30.79 (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be Stalin v. Trotsky? --Revolverman (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- They were yelling at each other as early as 1903. But yeah, either/or. 173.32.30.79 (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Eh, it wasn't Lenin who gave Trotsky that Ice Pick Headache. --Revolverman (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- I had to chuckle when I went to our article on Leon Trotsky and saw at the top "Leon Trotsky could use some help." Doctor Dark (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Eh, it wasn't Lenin who gave Trotsky that Ice Pick Headache. --Revolverman (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- They were yelling at each other as early as 1903. But yeah, either/or. 173.32.30.79 (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Which will lose more money: Genesis 3D or Noah?[edit]
I am sure you have heard about the financial scheme with the Genesis 3D movie (Eric Hovind, VenomXFang), but the Hollywood movie Noah has veered too far, for some, from the Bible and casts Noah as an environmentalist. Any bets on which will do better?--Cms13ca (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- You mean Genesis 3D's Indiegogo campaign? Predicting movie revenues is pretty hard (if it were easy, Hollywood wouldn't pour hundreds of millions of dollars into box office bombs). My guess would be that Genesis 3D will at least be able to pay for itself (the evangelical indie market is decently-sized — certainly larger than other subcultural markets like, say, the gay indie movie audience). Even if it bombs at the box office (their page brags about plans to run in a whole 15 theaters — reach for the stars!), it'll see okay DVD and online sales to churches, youth outreach groups, and homeschoolers.
- This is assuming, of course, that the producers don't horribly screw up (I mean, creationists aren't exactly renowned for their business sense, à la the Ark Park and Dinosaur Adventure Land).
- As for Hollywood's Noah, I think it'll lose money. Maybe a little, mayble a lot, but I don't think it'll pay for itself. $150 million for a movie is a lot, even if Hollywood doesn't think so anymore, and Hollywood is increasingly relying on the mega-blockbuster "spend $500 million to make a movie that earns a $1 billion in revenue" model, which, because studios are actually awful at their own business, they're having major difficulties scaling down for "small" movies like Noah. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 08:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Armondikov liked this!
- Yes, we still have this template!
d hominem 17:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, we still have this template!
- Noah the environmentalist? Involved in a plan to kill virtually all the animals, men, woman, children and babies on the planet? Should be interesting to see how that is spun. Maybe part of the Involuntary Human Extinction Movement ? --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Screw those films. This is the only Noah's Ark film worth considering. Jason Lee and Jason Mewes? I can only assume the curse of ham is to hang around outside Quick Stop selling weed. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- So, the deal is that Noah doesn't get to decide whether to "kill virtually all the animals ... on the planet". Yahweh decides to do that, because Yahweh is a dick, like Superman except omnipotent. Noah can either save his family and some small integer number of each "kind" of animal, or not. 84.246.168.11 (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- But presumably Noah doesn't have a line like: "You're a f**ing crazy psychopath! You're going to kill them all!!!!" He's supposed to be cool with his God's decisions isn't he?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 16:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- So, the deal is that Noah doesn't get to decide whether to "kill virtually all the animals ... on the planet". Yahweh decides to do that, because Yahweh is a dick, like Superman except omnipotent. Noah can either save his family and some small integer number of each "kind" of animal, or not. 84.246.168.11 (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Screw those films. This is the only Noah's Ark film worth considering. Jason Lee and Jason Mewes? I can only assume the curse of ham is to hang around outside Quick Stop selling weed. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 14:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- My money's (heh) on Noah. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 19:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hold me close and tell me everything will be all right[edit]
So I've been reading the otherwise excellent legal blog Popehat recently, and one of their contributors, Clark, is a hardcore anarcho-capitalist. Two posts in particular riled me up: this post, where Clark cites Thomas Kuhn to support his idea that the welfare state is circling the drain and liberals are in denial about it, and this other post, where he argues that Moore's Law means that technology will eventually be so cheap and plentiful that we won't need government anymore.
I dislike these arguments because I think they're stupid, but I'd appreciate it if people smarter than me would put into words whether or not they actually are.
(Incidentally, I'm going through a moral crisis right now as I try to figure out where I should be on the voluntarist/socialist spectrum.) Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Anarcho-capitalism? Great. Considering that the US and UK doomed their economies by flailing at regulations and scuttling welfare, he full of crap about circling the drain. (Here's a Canadian economist suggesting that fiscal stimulus is in inherently inevitable without them). What we're seeing throughout developed nations is just a shift in their financing since the opening of trade barriers in the 80s - corporate taxes are being replaced with higher sales taxes with progressive deductions.
- The fallacies of Moore's Law are evident to anyone who has researched transhumanism, but it seems like he's rehashing the old Heritage Foundation "you own a TV and fridge?" You're not poor!" argument. The fact that half of lower class Americans now are crowding libraries for Internet access should tell you something. 173.32.30.79 (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Although it's not as simple as "You've got a TV? You're not poor!" or as my mother would have said it, "These people all have Sky [satellite TV] how can they claim benefits?" we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that technology, and more specifically industrialisation has meant that the growing numerical gap between the rich and the mainstream poor does not translate linearly into an increase in relative buying power. The thing to worry about IMO is at the far end, the extreme poor who are genuinely missing out. Anybody who is being surveyed by telephone about whether they use a library for Internet access isn't in that group. These are the people who sleep under an overpass, who aren't going to get preventative healthcare even if it's free at point of use, who wouldn't even think about reporting a crime to the police, or claiming some sort of benefits. Very little we have done in centuries has benefited these people. Tialaramex (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Alt-right movement[edit]
What do you folks think of it?— Unsigned, by: 70.31.154.71 / talk / contribs
- I scarcely ever use the right Alt key or AltGr as it is sometimes labelled. Tialaramex (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I use it for é. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- and æ, and ö, and å.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Now you're just showing off. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think I got past €. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 18:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think I got past €.
- Now you're just showing off. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- and æ, and ö, and å.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Right alt is best alt. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 19:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I use it for é. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Here is the RW article? TheCheatI run on alcohol 16:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if alt-right is like alt-med, maybe that means that the GOP will be diluted 30 times, removing any trace of them from the government but leaving them with the impression that they're more powerful than ever. So hey...I like it.--199.189.231.196 (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- What is alt-right? The newest repackaging of third positionism? Secret Squirrel (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Race: John Hawks believes in it[edit]
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/race/race_testing_penn_state_2005.html
John D. Hawks, celebrated professor of anthropology believes that race is a biological construct, why is this not mentioned in our articles? — Unsigned, by: 70.31.154.71 / talk / contribs
- "we already have a test to tell us what race we are. It's called society." If you cite something that directly contradicts what you're claiming it said, it makes you look like an idiot. Tialaramex (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Who are more annoying?[edit]
Those "#yolo swag" douches, or scene kids? For me, it's the Swaggy McYolos that I hate most. Why Weepest Thou? (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- For me it's those who post about incomprehensible topics and expect me to know what they're prattling on about. Генгисmarauding 09:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Swag is when you see those kids with their flat-caps, and their shirts that say yolo (meaning "You Only Live Once", which is used a justification for doing stupid things) and they all act like they're so "gangsta" and get drunk and high and stuff at the age of, like, 13, while scene kids are the whiny ones with the hair covering half their face and everything. I really envy you for not knowing about them. Just look up "swag" and "scene kids" and you'll probably find some stuff Why Weepest Thou? (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
At risk of being needlessly contrary, I find the folk constantly complainly about the cultural styling of others to be most annoying. It all boils down to 'my music, clothes, lifestyle, etc is cooler than yours'. Its very unflattering habit. A pox on all your houses. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- One of the signs of reaching my age, 0x3A seeing as how you ask, is that everything is annoying. Indeed, you realise that Victor Meldrew was perfectly reasonable and very patient in his long suffering. However, as to the annoying kids, if you're not pissing off the grown ups then you're not doing it right. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Terms in this thread that have no meaning for me: "#yolo swag"; "scene kids"; "flat-caps"; "XBL kids"; "0x3A" "Victor Meldrew." PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 15:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, "0x3A" is ASCII hex code for the decimal number "58". - GrantC (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- [ec]I can help with Victor Meldrew
. You're welcome. Flat caps are baseball caps with a flat bill, worn at various raffish angles to signify détournement of old white guy (0x41 here) aesthetics. How are you with MMORPG's? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Yolo swag" is essentially the new version of "Hold my beer while I go do something very stupid"
- "Flat caps" is referring to certain aspects of either the punk or hiphop subcultures that tend to wear such hats.
- "XBL kids" is referring to Xbox Live (The Xbox online multiplayer system) and the annoying, obscenity screaming, 11-13 year-olds that frequent it.
- 0x3A is Innocent Bystander writing their age in hexadecimal for some reason. It's 58 in decimal.
- Victor Meldrew is a stereotypical grumpy old guy and a fictional character from the BBC show One Foot in the Grave. Compro01 (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. RE: MMORPG, the doctor says it's clearing up nicely. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 16:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- We know that for all of recorded history old people have been moaning that the kids are degenerates. As far as we can tell, long before people had taxes or government to moan about they were moaning about the fucking kids and how they don't talk properly and they have ideas that make no sense and they won't listen to you. This may be literally the oldest and least interesting topic of discussion ever in the history of mankind.
- Also 0x3A isn't "ASCII" hex code it's just one of the popular notations for hex ("hexadecimal") ie base-16. ASCII has nothing to do with it. Now get off my lawn. Tialaramex (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I am familiar with what base-16 is; my primary experience with hexadecimal comes from using FORTRAN and programming ancient microprocessors with some proprietary assembly language (all memory addresses were denoted using hex). The only place I've seen the 0x00 notation is in ASCII codes, so I (likely falsely) assumed that's what was specifically being referenced. - GrantC (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
They are nowhere near as annoying as people that moan about other, usually younger, sub-cultures. Haters gon' hate. Get a hobby, or take up masturbation; you'll still be less of a wanker. Tielec01 (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I find it annoying when people conform to most, if not all, stereotypes, but those two annoy me the most. The first one is annoying because it's FUCKING EVERYWHERE, and provides kids with what they think is "justification" for being stupid, while scene kids offend me in that, by acting pompous and pretentious, while acting depressed, they make all GENUINELY depressed people seem annoying. I don't care if you like Band X, or wear Clothing Item Y, or whatever, it's just that thy have become symbols for things that annoy me. It's a two way relationship. It's not "snapbacks annoy me -> I dislike people who wear snapbacks", it's more of a "people who happen to wear snapbacks and carry on about swag annoy me -> snapbacks are a symbol of swag, and as swag is often used by annoying people, snapbacks are annoying -> people who wear snapbacks are probably annoying", to use that example. In addition, I have plenty of hobbies, and do enjoy my fair share of fappucinnos. Being a "H8R!!!1!1" is just sort of a side project, if you will. It's not something I occupy myself with, but something I just happen to feel. Like, crying at funerals isn't a hobby, but I do it anyway. Not sure if that makes sense, but yeah. Why Weepest Thou? (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- trying to justify your petty hatreds doesn't hide the pettiness AMassiveGay (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Also, you seem to have invested a lot of time and effort in learning about the minutia of a social movement that really annoys you. That seems unproductive. There's this thing you encounter. It's largely meaningless, and you don't like it. Why not save yourself all the negativity and just ignore it? And what's a "snapback," anyways? Why are you even bothering to listed to "people who carry on a bout swag" if they annoy you so much? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 16:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Because conformists. Amirite?TheCheatI run on alcohol 16:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think a snapback is what midwesterners of a certain age would call a feed cap. Ball cap with logo of grain elevator (or tractor manufacturer) on the "front." One size fits all because of the snaps in the back. Bill & Ted's generation wore them backwards, with a quiff of forelock sticking out over the snap strap. Now I've got to go rinse my brain out with something, perhaps Old Spice or Aqua Velva. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Because conformists. Amirite?TheCheatI run on alcohol 16:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Also, you seem to have invested a lot of time and effort in learning about the minutia of a social movement that really annoys you. That seems unproductive. There's this thing you encounter. It's largely meaningless, and you don't like it. Why not save yourself all the negativity and just ignore it? And what's a "snapback," anyways? Why are you even bothering to listed to "people who carry on a bout swag" if they annoy you so much? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- trying to justify your petty hatreds doesn't hide the pettiness AMassiveGay (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Those guys who look at me weirdly when I buy Lego and call me...interesting...names.--The Madman (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)The Madman
- Yes, you're all right, and I know it's petty, and I should ignore it, but it just fuckin' annoys me. Happy? Why Weepest Thou? (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Someone who knows something about philosophy might find an article worth writing here...[edit]
David Birnbaum, crank philosopher.... RELATED:A recent book on amateur scientists who think they've got it all figured out, aka the "Best of the Public". PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 15:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Mikals Computer Problems (Again)[edit]
So the continued problems of my desktop: I had to restart my computer and suddenly was being informed that my antivirus (microsofts thing) was off (but showed as on). So i decided "lets just restore back a week", and then other issues came up (something epp msi). So I followed This guide & go through, have done everything in it, didn't work, so i chose to go back a full month to the 25th. Same problem still. Ideas that don't involve starting over?--Mikal | lakiM 15:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- I need way more information than this. What OS? Are we talking about Microsoft Security Essentials or Windows Defender? Have you tried reinstalling the program? Zero (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- But Vagueness, so much fun. Using XP, Yah Essentials, and mhm, it pops up saying it cant find Epp.msi when i try. Sorry, im not actually -on- my desktop atm so i was going off what i remembered--Mikal | lakiM 15:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- an msi is of course an installer. Somet5hing at startup is trying an install. see if THIS describes your problem. Hamster (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- buy a new compter and copy your files across. Any computer with windows XP and web acess is toast on April 9 2014 anyway.Geni (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- "buying a new computer" is probably the worst thing i could do when i have this thing working just fine, it;'d also be a waste of the stuff we bought and put inside it--Mikal | lakiM 01:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- With XP getting the axe and you not wanting a new machine, I see Ubuntu in your future. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 13:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Or you could buy and install an OEM version of Windows 7. It's about $80 if you have patience to hunt around and/or wait for a sale. Did this to Frau Dark's creaking Vista laptop recently and well worth it.
- Really, any hardware made since 2005-ish is likely enough for most things that most people want to do -- browsing, email, spreadsheets, etc. So unless it's a major hassle or expense (like replacing the motherboard) it's often cost-effective to keep it going. Stuff like video editing or high-end gaming is another story of course. Doctor Dark (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Fortunately you can still buy unbundled Windows 7 Pro x64 OEM licences from Germany on eBay for about $60 delivered. 121.45.200.113 12:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- With XP getting the axe and you not wanting a new machine, I see Ubuntu in your future. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- "buying a new computer" is probably the worst thing i could do when i have this thing working just fine, it;'d also be a waste of the stuff we bought and put inside it--Mikal | lakiM 01:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- But Vagueness, so much fun. Using XP, Yah Essentials, and mhm, it pops up saying it cant find Epp.msi when i try. Sorry, im not actually -on- my desktop atm so i was going off what i remembered--Mikal | lakiM 15:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
More like RadicalWiki, am I correct[edit]
Hi, I am a left-wing radical and I wrote a short criticism of the RW article on Communism, which is at Talk:Communism. What do you think? 98.239.102.254 (talk) 05:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
You fail trolling forever. Let the master show you how it's done.
THE MADMAN'S GUIDE TO TROLLING SYNTAX
- Never start it with Hi.
- Make sure you sound semi-coherent.
- Poe's Law should always be your guide.
- Spelling. It's important.
Now that you're properly scolded, please improve. If not, "advanced discpline methods" will be used.--The Madman (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)The Madman
- Except that they are not a troll. *facepalm* --ZooGuard (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'll never reach the next level of trolling with that attitude, ZooGuard. Nairu The Kid (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have trouble taking seriously anyone who says "Hi, as a Marxist leftist communist, I felt it was time for peoples' war. An all-out revolution against bourgeois society, which is started by posting a comment on a website. Popular Internet Front Unite!" - I'm unfamiliar with anyone ever identifying as "radical", so I thought it was quasi-satire. Although the actual critique is fairly okay, raising some good points, although not going too far beyond "No True Communist" in essence (IMHO). pathetic 19:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting how the commies always talk about how we need to look at "actually existing capitalism" and not the idealized version peddled by Friedman et al. However, talking about "actually existing communism" results in cries of red-baiting. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have trouble taking seriously anyone who says "Hi, as a Marxist leftist communist, I felt it was time for peoples' war. An all-out revolution against bourgeois society, which is started by posting a comment on a website. Popular Internet Front Unite!" - I'm unfamiliar with anyone ever identifying as "radical", so I thought it was quasi-satire. Although the actual critique is fairly okay, raising some good points, although not going too far beyond "No True Communist" in essence (IMHO).
- I'll never reach the next level of trolling with that attitude, ZooGuard. Nairu The Kid (talk) 16:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Irish travellers[edit]
Why are they all criminals, and why do people say that they are "wrongly racially profiled?" — Unsigned, by: 70.31.154.71 / talk / contribs
- BoNs: Why do they keep creating tedious troll topics, and why can they never fucking sign their posts? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Moreover why the hell do they keep coming here of all places to troll?! surely the daily mail/guardian comment sections are far richer breeding grounds Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 00:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not trolling, I'm just asking questions. 03:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)03:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)03:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)03:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)03:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)~~
- We have an article on such questions. Doctor Dark (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not trolling, I'm just asking questions. 03:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)03:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)03:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)03:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)03:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)~~
- Moreover why the hell do they keep coming here of all places to troll?! surely the daily mail/guardian comment sections are far richer breeding grounds Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 00:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Well,gee! It may be because you bloody yanks stereotype us all as criminals and vagabonds not even worth the mud on your prissy boots!! That may be why!--The Madman (talk) 10:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)The Madman
- Swing and a miss. OP comes in from an IP near Toronto, hardly a "bloody yank." Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Irish travellers are stereotyped as 'criminals and vagabonds' pretty much everywhere, including Ireland. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
CSS broken all over the wiki?[edit]
The spacing and layout of the Main Page has gone all wrong, the article-rating "brains" logos are displayed in the wrong place, and the bloody project-navigation boxes have lost their formatting and stack next to each other if there is more than one of them on a page (example: Majestic 12. I think Armondikov managed to break it with his changes to Vector.css and the reason anybody didn't notice it immediately was the squid caching...--ZooGuard (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Seen the sidebar? Back to factory settings. Same for block reasons and deletion reasons. This situation is un-goat. SophieWilder 18:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure WTF is up. Not sure vector.css is enough to fuck it up like this. Wiki is also too slow to test properly - David Gerard (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Trent applied the direct method, i.e. rebooted the box. Stuff is back now and faster. We're also getting hammered, FEMA concentration camps is getting lots of hits. Mind you, main page is still slightly poo - David Gerard (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I can tell you from extensively discussing this problem and how to solve it with Trent and David that the direct method is a little more complicated: the server is sexually depraved and slightly psychotic. The least thing it takes to put it back on track when things like this happen is to get it fucked up on cough syrup, pinch its nipples, and kick it in the balls a few times. David is covering for Trent. 22:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I love this wiki. Doctor Dark (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Now there's an image... theist 13:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think I'm love. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 17:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I can tell you from extensively discussing this problem and how to solve it with Trent and David that the direct method is a little more complicated: the server is sexually depraved and slightly psychotic. The least thing it takes to put it back on track when things like this happen is to get it fucked up on cough syrup, pinch its nipples, and kick it in the balls a few times. David is covering for Trent.
- Trent applied the direct method, i.e. rebooted the box. Stuff is back now and faster. We're also getting hammered, FEMA concentration camps is getting lots of hits. Mind you, main page is still slightly poo - David Gerard (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Conservapedia's continued existence?[edit]
The site's been down for a few days. Considering the recent slog, could this be the end? NankerPhelge (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's just you there. Seems to work fine for me. DickTurpis (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's survived this long; part of me
hopesfears that it will never have an end. Pinto's5150 Talk 08:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's survived this long; part of me
- Hmm, I've noticed this too. Like the previous person, I'm not sure how I feel about this. Why Weepest Thou? (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
A guy walks into a bar...[edit]
So what's a person have to do to get a decent goat drink around here? --Pinto's5150 Talk 08:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Long time, no hear. How's tricks? Scream!! (talk) (Old friend of SusanG) 09:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's been a while since I've been around; guess I just started missing my old internet stomping grounds. I'm doing well on the whole, just trying to get through University. It keeps getting interrupted by health issues though, but what can you do. Pinto's5150 Talk 09:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Main page idea[edit]
| Main page draft layout |
|---|
|
Welcome to RationalWiki!
The truth is not a popularity contest. What is Going On?Need to know What Is Going On? We present regularly updated selections of the finest lunacy the Internet has to offer. Participate in the dialogue. Quality articles by bloggers, submitted by the RW community.
Crazy articles from the clogged-up fringes of the Internet.
Participate in RationalWiki   
Featured ArticleHolocaust denial or Holocaust revisionism is the assertion that the Holocaust (often called the "Holohoax") perpetrated by Nazi Germany, other Axis powers, and their collaborators in occupied Europe during the Second World War never happened (denial) or happened vastly differently from the "official" story (revision). Like most conspiracy theories, it takes many forms; however, the claims generally fall into three categories:
Particularly when it focuses on "how the Jews faked it all", Holocaust denial is a form of anti-Semitism often embraced by bigots who are too cowardly to admit that they wished that Hitler had finished the job. This article tries to briefly rebut the most common claims. See other approved cover stories. Portals and Articles |
Discussion[edit]
I have been fiddling with this recently. It's a slight re-jig on what was done earlier. There are alignment and margin issues and I'll get to those eventually when I'm less tired. The main thing I want to change content-wise is the "about" section. Frankly it's a lot of information for little gain. If people are landing on the main page, it's likely because they typed in "rationalwiki.org" and so don't need to know what it is - and this has bugged me for a long time, I've just never had any suggestions for what to do about it. Ergo a punchier top header (will work on that) and more prominent links to the WIGOs and featured or discoverable content. theist 22:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Apologies if the gradients look like shite to some people, they're done for Mozilla only at the moment. pathetic 22:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- The WIGO World logo should have proper lines of latitude and longitude. Nowhere Man (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think the images are great the way they look in your mock-up now, personally. I don't know why you switched WIGO and the featured article, though; I would want new users to be first shown our most thorough work, and then see our lightly commented links to other sites. Also, "exploring of" and "criticizing of" are awkward phrases, and would read best without the word "of" in both. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 05:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the gradients looks like shit, even in Firefox. They'd need to be much more subtle to work. A bit of Gaussian Blur may help. Or maybe even flatten it. Wait, a flat RW logo? Hm. I'll post it later today.--Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 13:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'd say delete the "of" from criticizing and use "exploration of" rather than "exploring". Compro01 (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think the images are great the way they look in your mock-up now, personally. I don't know why you switched WIGO and the featured article, though; I would want new users to be first shown our most thorough work, and then see our lightly commented links to other sites. Also, "exploring of" and "criticizing of" are awkward phrases, and would read best without the word "of" in both. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 05:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Gradients look fine in IE11. But I think this is more interesting. Zero (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, the gradients don't appear at all on Dolphin for Android 2.3. It looks plain white. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 09:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Here, I went the Google/Microsoft route and crapped up this logo. While the technical quality leaves much to be desired, the basic idea ain´t so bad. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 14:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- A flat brain is cool. Why blue? There are more powerfully evocative colors if you're not going to use the color people traditionally associate with ... grey matter. Is the center actually a shade of the outside? 16:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing any icons in the mock-up above; only placeholder titles where they should be (WIGO_world etc.) - tried in Chrome & IE. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 17:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- So, not blue, then. I am still using the blue circle outside because
I am too close-minded to accept that blue should not be usedit looks neat with light grey. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 20:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC) - UPDATE: Awesomized the logo. Might want to do a hard refresh, though.----Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 21:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing any icons in the mock-up above; only placeholder titles where they should be (WIGO_world etc.) - tried in Chrome & IE. Щєазєюіδ
- A flat brain is cool. Why blue? There are more powerfully evocative colors if you're not going to use the color people traditionally associate with ... grey matter. Is the center actually a shade of the outside?
- Wow, the gradients don't appear at all on Dolphin for Android 2.3. It looks plain white.
- Gradients look fine in IE11. But I think this is more interesting. Zero (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Some rapidfire thoughts. What is the purpose of the large gradients? If they're to fill space, you're pushing pixels, not doing web design. Gradients are very useful for interactive items. Flat UIs, which MW sort of is except for some horrible exceptions, reverse or fill subtle gradients to call out buttons. Otherwise, they're sort of 2006. You also have no idea whether a browser will support these gradients (we should ask Trent to add modernizr.js to the main template), particularly when so many weirdos use so many crummy browsers, so you should ask why they're such a prominent design element. Italic and bold used together make me want to punch you for getting all up in my grill. I think in good typesetting italic is useful for bringing attention to words or phrases within body text or for blockquotes, but not for a motto, which is already called out the way you've got it. Bold becomes unnecessary when you're using larger type than default body size. Underlying and bolding headings except as part of a conscious design decision is unnecessary. I know MW does it for you, but MW has made some bad choices in life and needs an intervention. Drop shadows are still neat and degrade gracefully when wikifreaks use 10 year old browsers ported from Next, so the only consideration is how diffuse you want them. Mine are always too tight like yours are here, which I think also means you're not establishing a comfortable vertical rhythm with good margins and padding. Your color choices are hideous. You obviously live in a pre-war house with pre-war wallpaper, rugs, and old lady smell. Or you're a hippie or raver or both. The template would (should) be rendered on a responsive page on large and small screens, so you have no idea how much space you're working with. Smaller viewports benefit from effective use of whitespace even more than larger viewports. Check out MDN for general support and vendor code info and Can I Use? for actual browser support percentages. On a wiki, I wouldn't mess with anything that requires a vendor code. Stabby dragged his hideously deformed body away from his Mountain Dew can collection and masturbating while cosplaying to Dr. Who in his basement to tell you that he's using a browser with less than 1% market share. You should focus all your efforts on making sure this page renders properly in Dolphin. 16:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please marry me. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 20:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Anyone here can tell you I'm a horrible person. You don't want to have anything to do with me if you can help it. 03:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Anyone here can tell you I'm a horrible person. You don't want to have anything to do with me if you can help it.
The colours are effectively random at the moment (and certainly need fallbacks added.due to the use of rgba), while the compatibility isn't done yet because this was done in a rush as an experiment, which I did state above. Adding in a responsive framework was going to be a project for later as I'll have some time free in the next day or two. I just need to know if that's going to be a complete waste of effort or not. moral 22:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- My opinions: Putting borders around the logos and logos that are larger than before makes for a large consumption of space, which I personally do not like; I suspect that with the standard stuff at the top of the wiki, the Saloon Bar will no longer be on the page. I also think the logos are just too "shiny." I refuse to get in another conversation about color choices and tilted planets. (The lines still aren't longitude and latitude-esque on the four-button model. I just don't have the patience.)
talk 01:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- rgba is well enough supported but you're not using transparency so it don't matter. Drop the "a" and you're all good for any browser that can do CSS1. 03:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- The other problem is editablity and consistency. Right now, the icons are consistent across categories and pages (at least in theory) and are editable as SVG. This changes all that. Do you really want to have to do this every time a new category opens up? talk 12:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- The other problem is editablity and consistency. Right now, the icons are consistent across categories and pages (at least in theory) and are editable as SVG. This changes all that. Do you really want to have to do this every time a new category opens up?
- rgba is well enough supported but you're not using transparency so it don't matter. Drop the "a" and you're all good for any browser that can do CSS1.
- You should be aware that that is only what a latitude/longitude spherical geometry would look like without perspective (i.e., at infinite distance). See here. pathetic 20:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have to agree on the icons -- too shiny! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'll hop onto Inkscape and knock up some so flat that will make even the Windows Metro and iOS 7 designers blush! d hominem 20:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'll hop onto Inkscape and knock up some so flat that will make even the Windows Metro and iOS 7 designers blush!
- I have to agree on the icons -- too shiny! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The world was made in gnuplot with the parametric equations for a sphere, then shrunk and "Simplified" in Inkscape. If I remember right, the old was just a bunch of ellipses. Dunno what your "infinite distance" comment means, although the gnuplot file isn't in perspective, really. It's an icon; it doesn't have to be as complex as people make it out to be. Keep it simple, stupid. 
talk 20:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Also, it really pisses me off when people don't use a license that allows editing for icons; do you really think that no one else on RW will ever edit your stuff? It's silly and a problem. talk 20:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Do I need to make a beach ball for you guys? 21:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Do I need to make a beach ball for you guys?
- Now it looks much better. (Also: Thanks for using my logo!) --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 23:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
The use of the word "portal" is redundant in a list of portals. (And having round icons they might even be port-holes.) Генгисpillaging 09:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Also, this needs to be taken care of for the featured article buggering up what follows. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 09:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- A float clear should fix that no problem. bomination 11:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- There's a branding question, too. We've sorta branded ourselves with the circular icons. It seems nonintuitive to me to not have them on Main. (Sorry, I'm not really trying to be negative.) talk 12:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- There's a branding question, too. We've sorta branded ourselves with the circular icons. It seems nonintuitive to me to not have them on Main. (Sorry, I'm not really trying to be negative.)
- A float clear should fix that no problem.
Her voice. It's uncanny.[edit]
I say this mostly as a longtime Patti Smith fan. It's pitch perfect, until you realize... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't get it. Can't hear the woman's voice clearly & don't understand the Patti Smith reference. Is that even the link you intended to post? WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Try the audio link rather than the video; it was underneath the video on the linked page. It's much clearer. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of NASA[edit]
SLS. Discuss. (Preferably without the SpaceX masturbation and whining about pork.) Osaka Sun (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- You want to discuss the Senate Launch System without mentioning its politics? O_o What exactly are people supposed to talk about then? The tech specs? :D This is not NasaSpaceflight.com.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- It seems a shame that NASA is creating something new while being so heavily reliant on older technologies - in this case, Shuttle. There are several drivers for this, the two big ones being mitigation of risk and the politics (pork). It will no doubt be an awesome machine (if ever realised), certain to delight the inner child and geek in many of us. While Shuttle technology is proven and relatively reliable (why waste it?), I doubt many engineers would have come up with the SLS if given more freedom on the same budget. It's fundamentally a political design, much like Ares, and as such, is just as much open to the risk of cancellation. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Though dismissing it as "old" technology, pray tell what is this magical "new" technology that doesn't involve strapping an air-tight box to a fuckton of rocket fuel and standing back? pathetic 12:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't dismissing it, simply lamenting the choices made to keep existing contractors sweet rather than the creation of something a little more ground breaking. The thing is, all this stuff is experimental. Shuttle itself was still an experimental vehicle right up to its final mission. So it does make a sort of sense to build incrementally on it rather than reinventing the wheel. However, as you point out, new rocket technology would probably be pretty much the same, although it is hugely more complicated than you suggest. What I find somewhat disappointing is that the talk a few years ago was about private contractors taking over the responsibility for delivering tried and tested "simple" payload delivery, while NASA would be the ones working on the new horizons. But politics got involved and so here we are. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Out of of curiosity, does anyone else here (besides yours truly) work in the aerospace field? --Inquisitor (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't dismissing it, simply lamenting the choices made to keep existing contractors sweet rather than the creation of something a little more ground breaking. The thing is, all this stuff is experimental. Shuttle itself was still an experimental vehicle right up to its final mission. So it does make a sort of sense to build incrementally on it rather than reinventing the wheel. However, as you point out, new rocket technology would probably be pretty much the same, although it is hugely more complicated than you suggest. What I find somewhat disappointing is that the talk a few years ago was about private contractors taking over the responsibility for delivering tried and tested "simple" payload delivery, while NASA would be the ones working on the new horizons. But politics got involved and so here we are. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Though dismissing it as "old" technology, pray tell what is this magical "new" technology that doesn't involve strapping an air-tight box to a fuckton of rocket fuel and standing back?
- It seems a shame that NASA is creating something new while being so heavily reliant on older technologies - in this case, Shuttle. There are several drivers for this, the two big ones being mitigation of risk and the politics (pork). It will no doubt be an awesome machine (if ever realised), certain to delight the inner child and geek in many of us. While Shuttle technology is proven and relatively reliable (why waste it?), I doubt many engineers would have come up with the SLS if given more freedom on the same budget. It's fundamentally a political design, much like Ares, and as such, is just as much open to the risk of cancellation. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
What I miss the most[edit]
I miss Dirky Steely and his drunken rants. Has he gone to live elsewhere or has he been banned again? Let me know. Thanks. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I miss MC, Mei and CUR. So many adventures in handling a growing community. Occasionaluse (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- You forgot to mention the Citizendium bureaucrats who came to the WIGO:CZ page to take their petty bickering and drama here, since people weren't/aren't allowed to talk smack of each other there. Marty Baldwin Hyphen Edwards (and his subsequent smackdown by Suspected Replicant) was particularly entertaining. It actually got so out of hand, they considered making personal attacks made outside of CZ a bannable offence! In fact, 77% of the WIGO CZ talk page was just CZ bureaucrats flaming each other because they couldn't admit their professionalism (read: Get-Along Gang) values suck balls. Also: Who are MC, Mui and CUR? --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 03:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- MC, Mei and ConservapediaUndergroundResistor- CUR. Генгисevolving 06:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think Linus' remarks on "professionalism" sums it up nicely.
Because if you want me to "act professional", I can tell you that I'm not interested. I'm sitting in my home office wearign a bathrobe. The same way I'm not going to start wearing ties, I'm *also* not going to buy into the fake politeness, the lying, the office politics and backstabbing, the passive aggressiveness, and the buzzwords. Because THAT is what "acting professionally" results in: people resort to all kinds of really nasty things because they are forced to act out their normal urges in unnatural ways.
- Compro01 (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, Talsley. I know (s)he was trolling but (s)he did it so well creating this perfect image of the Texan housewife biggot. As far as I am aware (s)he never once slipped out of role.
- I also wonder how Earthland is getting on now that he's a few years older. Is he still ranting to all who will listen on the sanctity of the foetus and how life begins at conception.
- And, of course, Jinxy. I know he can still be found but he was so much fun when he was here. Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I do not know who this Linus chap is, but he sounds like an arsehole. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- wp:Linus Torvalds, guy in charge of the Linux kernel. He doesn't have much use for unnecessary politeness. Compro01 (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- that would be what makes him an arsehole. Politeness is always necessary AMassiveGay (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I miss the wheel warring over bureaucrat rights.Do You Believe That? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Actually Linus would rather (in English) that you refer to him as a Git. But it's basically about what Churchill said, you don't have to be polite you just have to be right. As with Churchill himself this attitude lost a lot of people their jobs, after the war when being right wasn't saving anybody from being literally tortured to death by Nazis any more. Funny how that goes. Tialaramex (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- what is so difficult with being right and not being an arse about it? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Actually Linus would rather (in English) that you refer to him as a Git. But it's basically about what Churchill said, you don't have to be polite you just have to be right. As with Churchill himself this attitude lost a lot of people their jobs, after the war when being right wasn't saving anybody from being literally tortured to death by Nazis any more. Funny how that goes. Tialaramex (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I miss the wheel warring over bureaucrat rights.Do You Believe That? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- that would be what makes him an arsehole. Politeness is always necessary AMassiveGay (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- wp:Linus Torvalds, guy in charge of the Linux kernel. He doesn't have much use for unnecessary politeness. Compro01 (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- MC, Mei and ConservapediaUndergroundResistor- CUR.
- You forgot to mention the Citizendium bureaucrats who came to the WIGO:CZ page to take their petty bickering and drama here, since people weren't/aren't allowed to talk smack of each other there. Marty Baldwin Hyphen Edwards (and his subsequent smackdown by Suspected Replicant) was particularly entertaining. It actually got so out of hand, they considered making personal attacks made outside of CZ a bannable offence! In fact, 77% of the WIGO CZ talk page was just CZ bureaucrats flaming each other because they couldn't admit their professionalism (read: Get-Along Gang) values suck balls. Also: Who are MC, Mui and CUR? --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 03:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I miss Susan/Toast. A lot. And Godot, almost just as much, but at least she can come back. Also, I know he got on some of y'all's nerves, but Ty was a good kid, fun to be around, and genuinely cared about the project. Blue kind of sucked at wiki politics and not taking things and herself too seriously, but she was always on point, relevant and good to read in a political/social debate. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 16:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I found myself missing Rob the other day. I think I just wanted to laugh in his stupid face about the shutdown though. SophieWilder 18:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I miss: Mei, AKjeldsen, the dinner club... But I really miss Susan, and I wonder what she'd have made of my transition. SophieWilder 18:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Susan, Jellyfish (& various synonyms), Mei, CUR, Pi, Phantom Hoover, Ty, Dumpling. + Blue, Kels & Human (sporadically active). Anyhoo, our RationalWiki: Shrine needs some updating with some of these. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Susan, Jellyfish (& various synonyms), Mei, CUR, Pi, Phantom Hoover, Ty, Dumpling. + Blue, Kels & Human (sporadically active). Anyhoo, our RationalWiki: Shrine needs some updating with some of these. Wëäŝëïöïď
- I miss: Mei, AKjeldsen, the dinner club... But I really miss Susan, and I wonder what she'd have made of my transition. SophieWilder
- I miss you all. There are almost tears emerging from my eyes. Almost. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sometimes, especially when I have been placed in that location commonly known as the vandel bin, I do honestly hesitate to comment because of my morocious misgivings.(not to mention my mombiquitous mombasity for which I apologise.) But I do miss myself and my present pretensions even more. Or am I just another loquacious, even litigeous, loser loner who longs to get a life? What do you think? 24.253.64.178 (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I, for one, have no idea. Who are you & why are you talking like that? WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I, for one, have no idea. Who are you & why are you talking like that? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
- Sometimes, especially when I have been placed in that location commonly known as the vandel bin, I do honestly hesitate to comment because of my morocious misgivings.(not to mention my mombiquitous mombasity for which I apologise.) But I do miss myself and my present pretensions even more. Or am I just another loquacious, even litigeous, loser loner who longs to get a life? What do you think? 24.253.64.178 (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- And honestly, if you do not get the irony in my ironic ironicism then you should go back to your baboon tribe and play with your chimp mates. Comprende? Lots of love. The late great Dorky Stoole. xxx (Dilettante in disguise) 24.253.64.178 (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)