|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive49
The Tonight Show[edit]
Big news, I see about Conan O'Brien quitting The Tonight Show. So big, it's been making the press this side of the pond for the last week or so.
What I don't get is what all the fuss is about for a show that gets broadcast at 11.35pm. I can't remember the last time I watched a show that even finished at 11.35 on a weeknight, the closest being True Blood, which finished at 11.15 or thereabouts. If my life depended on it, I couldn't even name a single UK TV show that is on at 11.35!
So what gives? Do Americans really watch TV until gone midnight on a "school night?" Or are the tivo-ing it for the next day? Does the average American really watch over 8 hours of TV every day? Bondurant (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't know, I haven't watched TV in years. I would assume that non-on-demand TV will become pretty much irrelevant over the next decade or so anyhow, so pretty soon it won't matter. --Kels (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, it is The Tonight Show. And, as most people work a 9AM to 5PM shift (unlike me who starts at 7AM), staying up for the late show isn't terribly out of the realm of possibility. Aboriginal Noise What the hell is that thing? 14:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Even for a 7AM wake up I'm lucky to not be doing something after midnight. Is it one of those few things on US TV that doesn't suck?
narchist 14:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, yes. I was able to see a live taping of the show a couple of years ago (Ben Affleck was the guest, Jay Leno the host) and it was a blast. I watched it regularly on Monday nights when Leno would do his "Headlines" section of the show (strange news clippings). Aboriginal Noise What the hell is that thing? 16:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Even for a 7AM wake up I'm lucky to not be doing something after midnight. Is it one of those few things on US TV that doesn't suck?
Many Americans trace their conception to Johnny having a slow night. Basically merkin TV runs "prime time" shows from 7 or 8 to 11, these are the sitcoms, cop shows, reality things, whatever - the "original" "entertainment" on offer from the networks. Then at 11 is a half hour news show, local or network. Most grownups with 9-5 jobs can easily still be up for the news/sports highlights/weather forecast. Then comes the tonight show, first hosted by Jack Paar, then decades of Johnny Carson, then quite some time with Leno. It's a variety/chat show, nice light entertainment, easy to fall asleep to.
Then NBC moved Leno to a 10-11 time slot (cheaper to do a chat show than a real TV show), and handed the tonight show over to Conan, who, while funny, I think is a bit quirky for that time slot/show. Anyway, I guess his ratings haven't been what they should be, so NBC was gonna hand 11:35 back over to Leno, and push the tonight show back an hour (dumb idea to move a show that has been at that time since TV was steam-powered!), which thoroughly spoiled Conan's gruntle. In the end he gets $40mil (I think) to walk away, and he's not allowed to say anything nasty about his former employer.
The whole US world of "late night" television has changed a lot in the last few decades anyway, with at least a half dozen chat/variety shows running between 11:30 - 2 or so. ħuman
01:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- It has changed quite a bit. I think FOX is the only network that doesn't have a late night talk show now. Aboriginal Noise What the hell is that thing? 01:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
More Merkin TV, for the better[edit]
I missed most of it, but there was a two-hour benefit for Haiti tonight - helpforhaitinow.org I think - damn, some good music at the end. ABC, NBC, and CBS all ran it (commercial free probably). FOX ignored it. PS, the little I caught was heartbreaking. Music and people who care at their best. I'm still trying to figure out how much I can afford to give without screwing up my cash-strangled life. ħuman 03:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Correction, https://www.hopeforhaitinow.org/Default.asp is the site. ħuman 03:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fuckit, I was gonna do $n, but went for $x. They need it more than I do. ħuman 05:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fuckit, I was gonna do $n, but went for $x. They need it more than I do. ħuman
And quit changing the header, you prix! ħuman
I find the word "merkin" offensive, you weaselly little fuck. I don't mind explicit language. It's the sly smirking under-the-radar stuff that natives of your faggotty little island seem to take such passive-aggressive pride in, that reeks of elitist je ne sais quoi, that I don't think should have any place on a high-visibility page like this. There, does that make any better sense to you? I'll leave the header alone for now, but it basically craps all over the Haitian relief message underneath it. Douche. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Jeepers criminy, M. Sprocket, who do you think invented the phrase "Merkin"? Merkins!!! It's an inside joke back against ourselves for having crappy prnusiashun! Sorry if it offended you relating to the comments under the header. PS, "douche" is Franglais for "to wash". Please wash your mouth out with soap! ħuman 06:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Look, if you want to change the header and top level it and call it "please give to Haiti" I'm ok with that. I'm still not sure where the money I gave came from, but as I said, they need it more than I do. ħuman 06:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wow Cogswill, I wouldn't have expected you to channel JPatt/Jinx with a small-minded, racist, homophobic rant. In case you hadn't noticed we also had the same benefit concert in Limeyland. As for usage of the word "Merkin", it's not something I've ever heard used in the UK and have only come across it on talk pages here. Lily Inspirate me. 13:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Fuck You, Habeas Corpus.[edit]
I just WIGO:World'ed this story, but I'm still fuming mad about it. A de facto life sentence without a trial, forty-seven times over. Fuck Obama if he approves this. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, they should not be help indefinately. Military tribunal, sentance and execute. Hamster (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's shit like that which removes all sympathy I have when they complain about how soldiers are treated if they're captured in Iraq or Afghanistan (obviously this applies on the nationalistic level only). If the US want to try and claim to be the Good Guys, then they're Doing It Wrong. narchist 23:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- once you take a military prisoner, they need to be tried by a military court and executed, imprisoned or released. Released during a conflict is simply returning an enemy soldier to combat status and therefore stupid. Since it seems unlikely there will ever be a peace treaty, since no nation state is involved, prisoner repatriation isnt a viable option even assuming the conflict has an end point. That leaves imprisonment or execution. Imprisonment of significant leaders simply is asking for terrorist acts as blackmail for their release. If the people in custody have commotted acts of war against the USA, or spied for the enemy, then they are valid candidates for an execution order by military tribunal. All perfectly legal and according to the rule books Hamster (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- "once you take a military prisoner" they a POW, governed by the Geneva Conventions and the signatories to them. This whole thing is wrong, fuck, send them home. Seriously. ħuman 05:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- "once you take a military prisoner" they a POW, governed by the Geneva Conventions and the signatories to them. This whole thing is wrong, fuck, send them home. Seriously. ħuman
- once you take a military prisoner, they need to be tried by a military court and executed, imprisoned or released. Released during a conflict is simply returning an enemy soldier to combat status and therefore stupid. Since it seems unlikely there will ever be a peace treaty, since no nation state is involved, prisoner repatriation isnt a viable option even assuming the conflict has an end point. That leaves imprisonment or execution. Imprisonment of significant leaders simply is asking for terrorist acts as blackmail for their release. If the people in custody have commotted acts of war against the USA, or spied for the enemy, then they are valid candidates for an execution order by military tribunal. All perfectly legal and according to the rule books Hamster (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's shit like that which removes all sympathy I have when they complain about how soldiers are treated if they're captured in Iraq or Afghanistan (obviously this applies on the nationalistic level only). If the US want to try and claim to be the Good Guys, then they're Doing It Wrong.
Then maybe the answer is to expand the scope of the Convention, instead of moving back to the time before the Magna Carta. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hamster, before I go to bed, I gotta point something out to you. Re-read the article, especially the part where the Americans admit that they don't have enough evidence on many of these prisoners to secure a conviction. And then tell me again how we should try them, sentence them, and execute them. Your little plan falls apart at stage one, given that the trials would produce not guilty verdicts. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- (EC)I agree with TOP. States run by "rule of law" need to agree on how to apply it. Also, in the situation of the Gitmo prisoners, we were the aggressor, not them (necessarily). We invaded their country and took them prisoner. What rules should apply? ħuman 05:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, the entire thing about using Gitmo as a prison and creating an entirely new term for terrorist ("non-legal combatant", IIRC) was to avoid the Geneva Convention. Now, the thing is (and I certainly don't think this is a false dichotomy) are they military or not. If they're military, then they need a military trial, treated as POWs and treated under the Geneva Convention. If they're not, then they're civilian, and thus need to be trialled as such - not under the Geneva Convention per se, but under the laws and human rights afforded to all other civilian prisoners. There's no other option available if you want to be considered "good guys" - and especially if you want to feel vindicated and justified in executing Saddam Hussein and persecuting former Nazis. What has been happening there over the last decade is a War Crime and there is no other way around it. narchist 18:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Here's a thought, and I apologize for blowing Godwin's Law up already, but let's imagine something totally stupid for a moment. In Nazi Germany and occupied Poland (and elsewhere) people were imprisoned in camps and eventually killed (executed). Now, that was horrible, of course. And people were prosecuted for it. Now what if we, as the US is doing now, redefine every Jew living in Europe in the 40s as a "non legal potential combatant" or whatever. Magically, we've just invented a definition where the holocaust is justified and legal. Wow. And don't think this is stretching definitions too far, the US is practically using "any muslim living in Iraq or there abouts" as their definition. So why is one wrong and the other acceptable? So, as I said, you trial people as soldiers, you trial people as civilians or you're guilty of war crimes. That's the only options, end of fucking story. narchist 18:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, most of the people vacationing at Guantanamo were turned in for a reward by other Afghani's. Foolproof method of getting mostly innocent people that managed to piss off someone. As for the gut instinct of the military that they are "dangerous", well... some people known about that sort of thing. It's not like the DIA is going to admit "Oops we were wrong on most of them". Not while three of four other intelligence agencies are vying for a bigger part of the budget. — Pietrow ☏ 21:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Why the thought experiment? German Jews were systematically disenfranchised from ~1933 onwards. Differing terminology aside, your hypothetical redefinition actually happened. And it's a Triple Godwin with Oak Leaf Clusterfucks to try and draw any parallels with that and what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. --Robledo (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Here's a thought, and I apologize for blowing Godwin's Law up already, but let's imagine something totally stupid for a moment. In Nazi Germany and occupied Poland (and elsewhere) people were imprisoned in camps and eventually killed (executed). Now, that was horrible, of course. And people were prosecuted for it. Now what if we, as the US is doing now, redefine every Jew living in Europe in the 40s as a "non legal potential combatant" or whatever. Magically, we've just invented a definition where the holocaust is justified and legal. Wow. And don't think this is stretching definitions too far, the US is practically using "any muslim living in Iraq or there abouts" as their definition. So why is one wrong and the other acceptable? So, as I said, you trial people as soldiers, you trial people as civilians or you're guilty of war crimes. That's the only options, end of fucking story.
- Indeed, the entire thing about using Gitmo as a prison and creating an entirely new term for terrorist ("non-legal combatant", IIRC) was to avoid the Geneva Convention. Now, the thing is (and I certainly don't think this is a false dichotomy) are they military or not. If they're military, then they need a military trial, treated as POWs and treated under the Geneva Convention. If they're not, then they're civilian, and thus need to be trialled as such - not under the Geneva Convention per se, but under the laws and human rights afforded to all other civilian prisoners. There's no other option available if you want to be considered "good guys" - and especially if you want to feel vindicated and justified in executing Saddam Hussein and persecuting former Nazis. What has been happening there over the last decade is a War Crime and there is no other way around it.
When democracy and freedom of speech are threatened, they must be moved to safety. And when they are not present, you can do all kinds of things. --Swedmann (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
update[edit]
I'm pretty sure I have flu -- =w= 23:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear that. We'll try to keep up the usefulness until you recover. Be sure to drink plenty of hot tea and eat only what you can stomach. Aboriginal Noise What the hell is that thing? 00:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- In which case, I should remind everyone to update their anti-virus software in case it spreads. narchist 00:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will try not to cough on the screen so I think everyone will be alright. I will try to fight fire with tidying. -- =w= 01:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I didn't say anything useful in the first "Mei hurts" section, but I thought everything was covered. Go to doctor if you can. ħuman 03:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Human. I can see a doctor on Monday. You don't need to be sympathetic, Mei always has random aches. -- =w= 03:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- some hospitals have a clinic , if you have severe pain in the lower side/back try to go sooner. Hamster (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please drink plenty of liquids and delicious mild soups. You will need to keep up on hydration for unsavory reasons. I hope you feel better!
17:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please drink plenty of liquids and delicious mild soups. You will need to keep up on hydration for unsavory reasons. I hope you feel better!
- some hospitals have a clinic , if you have severe pain in the lower side/back try to go sooner. Hamster (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you Human. I can see a doctor on Monday. You don't need to be sympathetic, Mei always has random aches. -- =w= 03:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I didn't say anything useful in the first "Mei hurts" section, but I thought everything was covered. Go to doctor if you can. ħuman
- Thanks. I will try not to cough on the screen so I think everyone will be alright. I will try to fight fire with tidying. -- =w= 01:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- In which case, I should remind everyone to update their anti-virus software in case it spreads.
WikiSynergy lives?[edit]
We can now go back and argue with Tom Butler, magicalician of dead people's voice and pictures! [1] ħuman 06:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- WikiSynergy? Really? Hmmmm, how did that happen? Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 07:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- He ordered me to stop trying to debunk a paranormal explanation, and tried some hand-wavey credential bullying. Aw, loonies are so cute! ħuman 01:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- He ordered me to stop trying to debunk a paranormal explanation, and tried some hand-wavey credential bullying. Aw, loonies are so cute! ħuman
Todo List Question[edit]
Ok, I'm a little confused, and would like some explanation for how this works. I posted a suggestion today (the website Jew Watch), and every time I've gone back to look at the page it isn't listed. Then, I go to edit, and find it's still in the text, then I hit "submit" (having altered nothing in the text), and when the page comes back up again it's there. Does it need to get approval or something?--Mustex (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Did you try hard refreshing the page at any point? I sometimes have the same issue with changes not appearing when I edit from college, but a hard refresh is all it takes. -RedbackG'day 07:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Did you click the RETURN TO THE MAIN LIST link at the top? That should purge you cache. The first random tech fact also deals with this issue. - π 10:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Dawkins on air[edit]
On our local radio at 18h00 GMT, you'll be able to hear Satan's Right hand Man talking about his new book. You should be able to listen online here. --PsygremlinSiarad! 10:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Neat![edit]
Here's something different for a Sunday - Keseniya Simonova's lovely sand drawing. Apparently she won Ukraine's version of "We got talent" (ours on the other hand was won by a deaf breakdancer, with a human beatbox second). And the UK gets SuBo? --PsygremlinTal! 11:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah well our first series' runner up was a guy who played eucalyptus leaves[2]. Miss Simonova certainly is very skilled, why are all the people on our "Got Talent" show usually just a random collection of smacktards who think they can sing? -RedbackG'day 13:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Prolly 'cos Simon Cowell's involved and he wants to spin a quick gazillion bucks of the winner's CD. --PsygremlinSpeak! 13:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- We don't get Simon, we get Red who is also despicable, but in an endearing way. We also have Kylie Minogue's sister as a judge for some reason. -RedbackG'day 13:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- We also get Ms. "Dannii" Minogue on Cowell's The X-Factor. Not that I
what shitwatch it of course. Lily Inspirate me. 14:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- We also get Ms. "Dannii" Minogue on Cowell's The X-Factor. Not that I
- We don't get Simon, we get Red who is also despicable, but in an endearing way. We also have Kylie Minogue's sister as a judge for some reason. -RedbackG'day 13:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Prolly 'cos Simon Cowell's involved and he wants to spin a quick gazillion bucks of the winner's CD. --PsygremlinSpeak! 13:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Jesus sights[edit]
Just for interest, WP's got an article on the company that put Bible verse refs on the rifle sights. I have just eaten 
& stiltontalk 15:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- The whole article is about the controversy. Although, now that I think about it more, it's kinda scary that a weapons manufacturing company is headed by a fundamentalist. Tetronian you're clueless 20:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah! Unfortunately it makes me think bad things about the US of A, and I don't suppose I'm alone. I know you're not all like that, but it's the face that's shown to the world. I have just eaten & stiltontalk 20:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not greatly surprised to see Christ's soldiers acting up. When you have a Commander in Chief allegedly recruiting allies for war based on the threat of Gog and Magog then it's hardly surprising that the hardware suppliers would get in on the act. I am baffled though by their use of a verse from the sermon on the mount. How on earth would any sane Christian read Jesus's words and somehow think that they belong on rifle sights? It'd be like watching The Shining and believing it to be the story of a young boy who does funny voices. --
Ask me about your mother 20:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- isn't it obvious? Jesus was obviously the most militant military leader ever. He just didn't pick up a gun because G-d hadn't decided to invent them yet. I'm sure if the Jesus character were on earth today, he'd be elated to jump on a battlefield against religious heretics. It's really too bad that there on no Bible verses on how Jesus might deal with people of a different religious opinion than he</sarcasm>. δij 21:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Jesus behaved like a dick in other places, but using the quote they did would be like citing Leviticus as proof of God being a happy go lucky type of deity. --Ask me about your mother 21:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- The most I ever read that Jesus fought with was words. I'm perfectly ok with people being total assholes, provided they don't kill anyone in the process (which is why Bushy-boy and I have some problems). δij 21:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm fine with people being arseholes so long as they're the kind of people who'd balance a TV on the edge of the bath. --Ask me about your mother 22:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- didnt Jesus smote the tax collectors at the temple ? Hamster (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, and he picked a fight with a fig tree. --Ask me about your mother 23:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- All the quotes have to do with light, mostly the 'Light of God', possibly as a mention to the tritium glow that the sight uses to help in low-light conditions. And I can just imagine Jesus 'tossing' the money changers from the temple using a judo arm-throw or rolling leg throw. -- CodyH (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, and he picked a fight with a fig tree. --
- didnt Jesus smote the tax collectors at the temple ? Hamster (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm fine with people being arseholes so long as they're the kind of people who'd balance a TV on the edge of the bath. --
- The most I ever read that Jesus fought with was words. I'm perfectly ok with people being total assholes, provided they don't kill anyone in the process (which is why Bushy-boy and I have some problems). δij 21:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Jesus behaved like a dick in other places, but using the quote they did would be like citing Leviticus as proof of God being a happy go lucky type of deity. --
- isn't it obvious? Jesus was obviously the most militant military leader ever. He just didn't pick up a gun because G-d hadn't decided to invent them yet. I'm sure if the Jesus character were on earth today, he'd be elated to jump on a battlefield against religious heretics. It's really too bad that there on no Bible verses on how Jesus might deal with people of a different religious opinion than he</sarcasm>. δij 21:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not greatly surprised to see Christ's soldiers acting up. When you have a Commander in Chief allegedly recruiting allies for war based on the threat of Gog and Magog then it's hardly surprising that the hardware suppliers would get in on the act. I am baffled though by their use of a verse from the sermon on the mount. How on earth would any sane Christian read Jesus's words and somehow think that they belong on rifle sights? It'd be like watching The Shining and believing it to be the story of a young boy who does funny voices. --
- Yeah! Unfortunately it makes me think bad things about the US of A, and I don't suppose I'm alone. I know you're not all like that, but it's the face that's shown to the world. I have just eaten
(unDent) A few comments:
- From the pictures I've seen, the serial numbers are like pretty much every other serial number on anything -- small and unobtrusive. That doesn't mean the company is behaving appropriately, but its not like blatantly proseletyzing.
- As a progressive Christian, I find the idea of scriptural references on something designed to aid in the killing of fellow human beings really perverse. While I'd still find it inappropriate, I think a "comfort in times of trouble" reference like the 23rd Psalm would be better.
- I also find the "don't the Muslims yell 'Allahu Akbar' as they attack us?" argument perverse. It's "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", folks, not "do unto others as they do unto you".
MDB (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I spent 15 months looking at various peoples, places, and armed insurgents through the ACOG. Let me tell you, that is one fucking fantastic sight! You can zero your weapon in six rounds or less without having to get up and check the target because you can see where your round lands as soon as you pull the trigger. The iridium (I think) filament gives you "red-dot" precision without the tell-tale give away of a laser sight, and (even though your depth perception gets all jacked up,) you can bull's-eye targets while using a night vision device. Granted, it's been almost two years now, but I can't for the life of me remember seeing any colons in the serial numbers. Oh well... If it was proselytizing, it was totally lost on my entire squadron, because something like that would have spread like wildfire amongst the Jesus freaks. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I use a red-dot sight on my weapon, and i've seen some people issued the ACOG and a few who bought the holo sights from their own pocket. Though i'd rather have a pistol in my line of work I'm not going to knock a sight if it works, even if they've already sent out kits to remove the verses. And so far the only complaint i've heard about the ACOG is from some people who say it isn't good while clearing buildings. -- CodyH (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- To each his own, I always say. War doesn't decide who's right, only who's left. To be fair, the ACOG did kind of suck ass for building clearing. Luckily, I was in the Mahmudiyah - Lutufia - Yusufia "Triangle of Death", so most of my work was OPs and IED team kill sites. Big open areas aren't really a scout's friend, I know, but it gives you some time to line up shots if the mortars jacked up the call for fire. For room clearing, I used a SureFire™ tactical flashlight with a pressure switch on the right rail with the beam dialed in as tight as I could get it at night and I used the Recondo method of pointing my left finger along the rail in line with the barrel during the day, since we were rarely ever shooting at ranges exceeding 5 meters inside. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I use a red-dot sight on my weapon, and i've seen some people issued the ACOG and a few who bought the holo sights from their own pocket. Though i'd rather have a pistol in my line of work I'm not going to knock a sight if it works, even if they've already sent out kits to remove the verses. And so far the only complaint i've heard about the ACOG is from some people who say it isn't good while clearing buildings. -- CodyH (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Red Hot Chili Peppers...[edit]
...aren't conductive to revising for a test, but that's some damn good music. EddyP (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- I just finished my end of Semester tests. The same rule follows for the Clash. I'm a white man in Hammersmith Palais... SJ Debaser 22:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I find Senser really good for my own project work. But I guess it's not quite the same as what you're dealing with. --Kels (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- That song half reminds me of this one by Goldie Lookin' Chain, spoof Welsh rap band. This song got me through Semester A, however. SJ Debaser 11:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Chili Peppers used to be kinda edgy, at least through the mid 90's. That edge has dulled significantly in my eyes. Aboriginal Noise What the hell is that thing? 11:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Josh, what about Your missis is a nutter and Your mother's got a penis though? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- "Last week she ended up on a binge, she got off her tits and showed the bouncers her minge." Top quality. Bands like that are so much better than the fuckin' love/suicide songs you get by crappy emo bands. Arctic Monkeys, Goldie Lookin' Chain, Oasis, and other stuff which related to youth culture in Britain is the best. SJ Debaser 12:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've always liked the Chillies from at artistic point of view for their rhyming. They have an Ian Dury-esque approach to some songs that I really like for some reason : "Can I smell your gasoline/Can I pet your wolverine" and "Can't stop the spirits when they need you/This life is more than just a read thru" --Worm(t | c) 12:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- "Last week she ended up on a binge, she got off her tits and showed the bouncers her minge." Top quality. Bands like that are so much better than the fuckin' love/suicide songs you get by crappy emo bands. Arctic Monkeys, Goldie Lookin' Chain, Oasis, and other stuff which related to youth culture in Britain is the best. SJ Debaser 12:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Josh, what about Your missis is a nutter and Your mother's got a penis though? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Chili Peppers used to be kinda edgy, at least through the mid 90's. That edge has dulled significantly in my eyes. Aboriginal Noise What the hell is that thing? 11:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- That song half reminds me of this one by Goldie Lookin' Chain, spoof Welsh rap band. This song got me through Semester A, however. SJ Debaser 11:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I find Senser really good for my own project work. But I guess it's not quite the same as what you're dealing with. --Kels (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Soap Bar's always been me and me mates' favourite GLC track. Describes our teenage years pretty much bang on. :) --Robledo (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Movies and the Law[edit]
Dunno if this has been posted before but it is quite funny, especially the picture captions. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Holy fuck, I was seriously just reading that... are you a computer virus? -RedbackG'day 13:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, please send me your credit card details to clean me. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 13:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's quite good. I can also recommend Homicide by David Simon. Even though it's 20 years old, it does a good job of exploding the myths about police work, but also why it's so hard to get a 1st degree murder conviction because juries in the US actually believe the myths, and that every murder case has to be water-tight and without any ambiguity. Bondurant (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, please send me your credit card details to clean me. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 13:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
One of my five favourite books of all time. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Atheist Goat[edit]
I thought the community would like this. Have fun ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ wasn't me! 14:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- It comes from "Objective Ministries". Ŵêâŝêîôîď
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- The "Creation Science" section there is ascribed to a Dr. Richard Paley. The same one mentioned in the Lenski dialog, perhaps?
ListenerXTalkerX 20:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- The "Creation Science" section there is ascribed to a Dr. Richard Paley. The same one mentioned in the Lenski dialog, perhaps?
You'd think moot learned from last time...[edit]
Moot brought back /new/ on 4chan. I was on about an hour in to see how bad it would get, and it's already turned into Stormfront 2.0 again. I give it a week before he closes it again. ENorman (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Only Connect[edit]
Does anyone watch this on BBC4? A few friends of mine are on tonight - although I'm not going to say which team, but it may be fairly obvious. narchist 19:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm having a mosey on iPlayer. Are yours the Oxford postgrads or the Gay singers? Or is it not up yet? SJ Debaser 19:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Neither as it's the episode that's on now, not last weeks. But there was a scientific method question on it. Although I'm not entirely sure that the "method" is formalised enough to make that sort of question out of it. narchist 20:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Neither as it's the episode that's on now, not last weeks. But there was a scientific method question on it. Although I'm not entirely sure that the "method" is formalised enough to make that sort of question out of it.
Liberal CBS is at it again[edit]
Well, CBS is showing itself to be a part of the liberal media again.
They wouldn't air ads from moveon.org.
They wouldn't air ads from the United Church of Christ.
They will, however, air ads from Focus on the Fambly.
Gosh darn those liberals! MDB (talk)
- Shocking. - π 22:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
A recap of how you have treated me thus far[edit]
Moved to Forum:This_is_how_you've_treated_me,_MarcusCicero,_so_far.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 05:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)q
How pointless is[edit]
...figure skating. I've been watching it (because my life is a rich, full oyster) for all of 5 minutes now and I'm going crazy. Wow...you can dance...on ice. You want a fucking medal? δij 04:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well someone is going to get one. - π 05:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Watch "Dancing on Ice" instead. It's awesome to watch celebrities dropping their pro partners and breaking their legs, especially David Seaman who dropped his partner twice and also dropped his stand-in replacement while his partner was injured. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Typical of today's world, a 5 minute attention span. Where are we headed to, I wonder. Editor at CPmały książe 10:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree totally, the way that people today don't... don't... oooh look, shiny objects! -RedbackG'day 11:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- My parents told me I had ADHD when I was a kid, but the term hadn't been ksemflknm weflknwelfknwlekfnlwekfnwelfn
- Sorry, I got bored of that story part way through. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 11:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- "Crundy" (welcome and hello, but abide by our rules or else your account will be blocked), ADHD is so prevalent among atheists that that the insight is clearly self-evident. I looked at your contributions and have noticed numerous insertions of the acronym 'welf' in your insubstantial addition. Your subliminal liberal tricks are more suited to Wikipedia, which is where I suggest you go. And you refuse to accept that getting bored mid-sentence is the direct result of excessive masturbation. Believe what you like, but you have free will to deny logic. Work with the lights on creates more wealth and alleviates more hardship than laziness with the lights off does. Go back to watching Comedy Central with the other public schoolers.--Andy Schlafly 11:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- My parents told me I had ADHD when I was a kid, but the term hadn't been ksemflknm weflknwelfknwlekfnlwekfnwelfn
- I agree totally, the way that people today don't... don't... oooh look, shiny objects! -RedbackG'day 11:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Let's see you dance on ice then. Vulpius (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Watch this and tell me they didn't deserve a medal. Even 25 years on, it still amazes me. Bondurant (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- @Vulp, I can't, so I won't pretend to. @Bon, yeah, still looks awesome. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Watch this and tell me they didn't deserve a medal. Even 25 years on, it still amazes me. Bondurant (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, Torvill & Dean were 'Ice Dancing' as opposed to "Figure Skating", a different competition. They had been consistently raising the bar in international competition prior to these Olympics. The most notable aspects of this performance were Torvills costume (higher cut pants with a longer skirt than normal) and the steady, slow tempo. Competition conditions specified something like "no more than 3 tempo changes" but T&D had no tempo changes. It was ground breaking stuff. And, I agree, it still looks awesome. I'd rather watch Ice skating in any form than synchronised swimming! RagTopGone sailing 12:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Watch some of the properly impressive showdance lifts. You'll be wondering how they hell they haven't died horrible deaths already. narchist 14:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- and all done on slippery ice , with razor sharp blades on the feet. You can wait for falls with broken limbs, consussions, amputations, mutilations, spurting arterial blood. All the excitement of auto racing with girls in short skirts going mostly backwards with their butts sticking out. Hamster (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- That reminds me of the Why Men Love Ballet ad. Lily Inspirate me. 15:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- and all done on slippery ice , with razor sharp blades on the feet. You can wait for falls with broken limbs, consussions, amputations, mutilations, spurting arterial blood. All the excitement of auto racing with girls in short skirts going mostly backwards with their butts sticking out. Hamster (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Watch some of the properly impressive showdance lifts. You'll be wondering how they hell they haven't died horrible deaths already.
How pointless is any hobby or sport? I have just eaten & stiltontalk 15:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- It atracks teh laydeez. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- How pointless is life? And don't go giving me any of that god/heaven gobshite because people never actually say what the point of heaven is either. Lily Inspirate me. 15:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Heaven is where you spend an eternity singing praises to God. They may have a Hymnal for new arrivals and I assume you just follow along to learn the tumes. It is unknown at this time if God is into Gospel Rap tunes so "I'd bust a cap for Jesus" and "Yo Mary, shake that ass" are on hold. Hamster (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC) "a grain of truth in every pile"
- I always liked Bill & Ted's take on heaven Bondurant (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Heaven is where you spend an eternity singing praises to God. They may have a Hymnal for new arrivals and I assume you just follow along to learn the tumes. It is unknown at this time if God is into Gospel Rap tunes so "I'd bust a cap for Jesus" and "Yo Mary, shake that ass" are on hold. Hamster (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC) "a grain of truth in every pile"
- How pointless is life? And don't go giving me any of that god/heaven gobshite because people never actually say what the point of heaven is either. Lily Inspirate me. 15:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The point of life is to survive and reproduce. Anyone who disagrees or bemoans this fundamental truth is civilized to the point of obsolescence. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 16:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Or, to put it more precisely, genetic survival. Bob Soles (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'll be impressed with ice skating when a couple successfully performs the Iron Lotus without decapitation. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Time for the Conservapedia Dictionary Project[edit]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jan/25/oral-sex-dictionary-ban-us-schools
- haha...Andy's personal goto dictionary. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Marvelous thing, democracy; one person makes a complaint, the school board befouls their pants from fear of backlash at the polls and promptly does what the complainer demands. ListenerXTalkerX 18:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Pathetic. "We'll be looking to find other things of a graphic nature". Idiots. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- At least Jason Rogers brought some common sense to the argument. Looking up "dirty words" in the dictionary is an essential part of growing up. It also means that you learn the correct meaning. I'm sure many kids have used swear words without knowing what they mean by just copying the language of their elders. Lily Inspirate me. 20:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Rubbish, I often ejaculate words into sentences without knowing what they mean. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's just love ;) ħuman 08:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- You know, the word ejaculate appears in the last harry potter book. Isn't this just another example of reality being too real for certain people? Next we'll be told that because having oral sex isn't child friendly, we're not allowed to do it. Or talk about it. Or think about it. And the numbers 8, 5 and 0 will be removed from calculators worldwide to stop the filth that is the number 80085. -RedbackG'day 08:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Hang on, it might actually be the sixth book that has such child unfriendly language. I dunno.
- That's just tits, though, what about 7734??? ħuman 08:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Right, from now on we use a base 2 system. All numbers will be written in binary. In addition, binary will no longer be represented with 0 and 1. Due to the phallic nature of the number 1, and the clear reference to female sex organs which is the number 0, they will now be represented as ☺ and ☻. -RedbackG'day 08:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I thought oral sex was just talking about it, like the oral contraceptive is just saying "no". Silly twit (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Right, from now on we use a base 2 system. All numbers will be written in binary. In addition, binary will no longer be represented with 0 and 1. Due to the phallic nature of the number 1, and the clear reference to female sex organs which is the number 0, they will now be represented as ☺ and ☻. -RedbackG'day 08:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's just tits, though, what about 7734??? ħuman
- You know, the word ejaculate appears in the last harry potter book. Isn't this just another example of reality being too real for certain people? Next we'll be told that because having oral sex isn't child friendly, we're not allowed to do it. Or talk about it. Or think about it. And the numbers 8, 5 and 0 will be removed from calculators worldwide to stop the filth that is the number 80085. -RedbackG'day 08:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Hang on, it might actually be the sixth book that has such child unfriendly language. I dunno.
- That's just love ;) ħuman
- Rubbish, I often ejaculate words into sentences without knowing what they mean. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- At least Jason Rogers brought some common sense to the argument. Looking up "dirty words" in the dictionary is an essential part of growing up. It also means that you learn the correct meaning. I'm sure many kids have used swear words without knowing what they mean by just copying the language of their elders. Lily Inspirate me. 20:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Pathetic. "We'll be looking to find other things of a graphic nature". Idiots. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
- Marvelous thing, democracy; one person makes a complaint, the school board befouls their pants from fear of backlash at the polls and promptly does what the complainer demands.
My rant...[edit]
So I was dicking around on Facebook when I saw the status of one of my wife's friends from college. It read thus:
Shame on you America: the only country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed without eating, elderly going without needed meds, and mentally ill without treatment - yet we have a benefit for the people of Haiti on over 15 TV stations. CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME!!-can you name JUST ONE country that's... helped us, after, I donno, Katrina? Twin Towers? The list goes on & on. Feel free copy/paste.
So I fired up Teh Google and looked. I posted this reply about the "name one country" bit:
Hurricane Katrina: Canada, Britain, Greece, and Israel, among others, most turned down by the US http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801113.html. A list of International Aid (post-Katrina) can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina.
Post-9/11: United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, Canada, Mexico, most of the European Union, etc. (Source 9/11 commission, Google answers, etc.).
Then I wrote this screed in another comment:
At any rate, yes, poverty is bad here, but there are charities that deal with those issues. They may not garner the media attention that a natural disaster like Haiti can, but they are there, all year long, for anyone to donate time or money to.
I think that not many people understand the abject poeverty that the third and developing worlds are plagued with, where homes are constructed out of earth or refuse and even the "well-off" have extremely limited access to such basic resources as running water or garbage collection (not to mention doctors, clinics, transportation, or hygenic food sources, all provided by charities in the US for those willing to ask for assistance.)
If one truly wishes to make a difference here at home, one should volunteer time to a cause that they feel strongly about, rather than complain that countries in far worse shape than most can imagine are not extending aid to countries that, on their worst day, are better off than themselves on their best.
I have lived in the rural areas of South Korea. I have lived with the locals in rural Iraq. Both of those places had it WAY better than what Haiti had BEFORE the quake. I have SEEN poverty, starvation, and desperation. The suffering here in the US, while very real and very tragic, is NOTHING compared to what the VAST MAJORITY of citizens in Third World and Developing World countries call their normal day-to-day lives.
And THIS is what pisses me off about my fellow Americans. All too often, they're so quick to play the trump card about "We help everyone, why don't they help us?", never once comprehending the MAGNITUDE of squalor and sheer destitution that MOST of the world exists in, every day.
Damn... We suck. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Nice rant. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- While I'd be one of the first to agree that America needs to get its act together regarding the situations of many of its own people, I'm totally with you that the sheer magnitude of the problem in other countries outstrips the US by far. Even so, you'd expect the self declared "greatest country on earth" could actually handle itself after Katrina (clearly it can't) whereas you wouldn't expect a place like Haiti to be able to. I mean, look at their Presidential Palace, it's fucking wrecked beyond help. For the US to experience something comparable to what has happened in Haiti (scaled for how much you'd expect the country to be able to deal with it), it'd have to see 9/11 repeated for practically every skyscraper in the country and then some. narchist 21:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- While I'd be one of the first to agree that America needs to get its act together regarding the situations of many of its own people, I'm totally with you that the sheer magnitude of the problem in other countries outstrips the US by far. Even so, you'd expect the self declared "greatest country on earth" could actually handle itself after Katrina (clearly it can't) whereas you wouldn't expect a place like Haiti to be able to. I mean, look at their Presidential Palace, it's fucking wrecked beyond help. For the US to experience something comparable to what has happened in Haiti (scaled for how much you'd expect the country to be able to deal with it), it'd have to see 9/11 repeated for practically every skyscraper in the country and then some.
This is just from TVTropes, and it may be an urban legend, but supposedly, after Katrina, some ladies in one of the slums of Uganda spent some time breaking apart rocks and selling them, raising $1000, and offered it to the US Embassy to help the people affected by Katrina. I mean, day-umn -- a thousand dollars could have been a life-changing fortune to them, and they were willing to give it to American refugees. MDB (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- It sounds to me like someone just got her panties in a twist because they preempted Supernanny for that Haiti benefit. DickTurpis (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ha! Could be true, but it's been popping up on other friend's statuses (statii?) as well, so I have been copy/pasting a modified version of the above screed (as the other version only mentions 12 TV stations and omits the "Charity begins at home" part). The funny thing is, to a tee (and this has been on 5 accounts at this point, mind you) their status changes to something TOTALLY BENIGN ("I hate Mondays!" kind of crap) within 15 minutes of me posting my comment without so much as a word uttered in defense of the utter tripe they just got called out on. It seems to me that they think this kind of shit uttered about is patriotic or something until someone slaps them in the face with some reality and shows them what an absolutely shameful twat they're being. I perceive this as a much needed dose of reality and as I despise willful ignorance, am happy, nay I say PROUD, to be the provider. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Set aside 70 minutes of your life for this awesomeness[edit]
An insane man reviews The Phantom Menace.
Don't be put off by his creepy serial killer persona & voice, cuz his insights are... amazing. He manages to bash TPM for 70 minutes without spending more than about a minute on Jar Jar or midichlorians. That's kind of a tour de force.
If you make it to "Prota Gonnist" you will not be able to stop. I was like "I'm not watching 70 minutes of Youtube" and then BAM there I was an hour and a half later, more entertained and satisfied than I was by the entire prequel trilogy.
If you don't have time to watch the whole thing, this is the best part (watch all the way to 10:00!!!!!). WodewickWelease Wodewick! 23:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- This was brilliant. Watched it twice over the weekend. Love it. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- To me the best part of the review is that he doesn't resort to simple nitpicking. He points some very real problems that the movie has. I can't wait to see his take on Episode II.Ryantherebel (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, that 4 minutes would have made me watch them all if I'd seen any but the 1st SW movies. Nice work! ħuman 00:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Seen it before. I wanted to watch his review of ROTS and AOTC, but then I realized that there would be nothing to review, because only three Star Wars movies even exist. --User:Theautocrat/Sig 02:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, that 4 minutes would have made me watch them all if I'd seen any but the 1st SW movies. Nice work! ħuman
- To me the best part of the review is that he doesn't resort to simple nitpicking. He points some very real problems that the movie has. I can't wait to see his take on Episode II.Ryantherebel (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- This was brilliant. Watched it twice over the weekend. Love it. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
What's a "Phantom menace"? I have just eaten & stiltontalk 21:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I saw this a while ago, and was totally impressed. The voice is weird, and the presentation is bedroom quality, but the commentary is dead-on, and he comprehensively says what a gagillion Star Wars fans have been feeling (ans saying) for a long time. I would love to see more of his work. --Worm(t | c) 21:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Youtube[edit]
Generally speaking, every youtuber video I've ever seen linked from here (excluding Goonie's music stuff) has been one of two things:
- Some crazy idiot discussing about how Jesus wants all gays to be raped or how Obama is a fascist negro or whatever.
- A British guy who explains with contempt how stupid everyone else is, with accompanying pictures and graphs and charts and fossils.
This video was neither. It was also funny and awesome. Bravo!--Tom Moorefiat justitia 01:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- This guy is a lot like Thunderfoot: he has a funny accent, lots of time, very good editing skills, and he knows to go after the easy targets (George Lucas is kinda the Kent Hovind of filmmakers, no?) WodewickWelease Wodewick! 02:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- So can I be forgiven for my harshness is judging our local fumblemouthed Utuber? Because I expect this level of production values? Images that fit the talk, and talk that is "audible" not just beatless mumbles? ħuman 08:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- But... this American guy is hardly an idiot, and has valid points about the limits of human compassion. [3] ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ unpopular magmas pasteurize me... 13:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Genius. Pure genius. It's like Cliff Yablonski from SomethingAwful started doing movie reviews. Part two had me doubled over in such laughter that I was in actual physical pain and dry-heaving into the kitchen sink. The wife thought I needed and ambulance because I couldn't get enough air in to tell her I was actually OK. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- But... this American guy is hardly an idiot, and has valid points about the limits of human compassion. [3] ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ unpopular magmas pasteurize me... 13:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- So can I be forgiven for my harshness is judging our local fumblemouthed Utuber? Because I expect this level of production values? Images that fit the talk, and talk that is "audible" not just beatless mumbles? ħuman
Milkman[edit]
Awesome. I noticed that there's a milkman who does a round on my road so I asked him for details of the service and was given a nice flyer to 'Milk and More' including a £5 off voucher for first order. So after creating an account and ordering a couple of pints and some bacon every Friday (mmm, bacon) along with a direct debit, I left with a warm fuzzy glow. Then I realised I hadn't used my voucher, so the next day at about 8pm I logged on and said I wanted a loaf of bread the next day. I came downstairs this morning at 06:30 and there was a fresh loaf of bread on my doorstep :)
It's funny, you spend so much time getting hooked on the supermarkets that you forget how brilliant the simpler services are. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fuck, we don't have milkrounds in merka. I miss 'em. Can I get a coupon where I live? ħuman 09:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- No milkrounds at all in the US? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- (EC/none at all, no) You bastid, what, do you live in "civilization" or something? Teh Brits have been running this pit for like 400 years and we still have no milk'n'more service. [sob] ħuman 09:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Pretty impressive. I do like the fact that if I need something (check the site, they sell fucking EVERYTHING, including fertiliser and compost!) then as long as I log on before 9pm I can have it the next morning. Free delivery as well, and the prices aren't much over what you pay in the supermarket. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- What a great service. We get newspapers, and a bit of milk & bread delivery, but it costs heaps. RagTopGone sailing 12:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Did someone say Milkman? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR-FwptzdOQ Vulpius (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- 404. Did you mean this? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Whoops, my DNS server was playing up. Got it now. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Bloody DairyCrest and the Milk Marketing Board. They almost killed off small-scale British cheese making and then had the effrontery to produce 'Lymeswold', which wasn't bad at first, but because they couldn't keep up with demand started shipping immature versions. Also, they don't deliver in my postal area.
ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 16:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- So, you're saying "its awful, and they don't deliver to me anyway." Why does that sounds like "this restaurant's food is awful!" "yes, and the portions are so small!" MDB (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- There are some people who say that Americans don't get irony. I'm not one of those. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 10:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- There are some people who say that Americans don't get irony. I'm not one of those.
- The milkman is long gone from NZ. Haven't been able to steal anyones milk money since I was 11. I remember when the garbage men used to come up the path, around the house and empty your bin for you. No we have put it out on the curb like a common troll. Did we lose a war our something? That's not NZ, thats not even Mexico. Acei9 19:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- At £1 for 2.272 litres from t'supermarket it's a no-brainer. No idea what milkmen charge nowadays but I'll wager it's a whole lot more. I have just eaten & stiltontalk 20:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- What supermarket do you go to? A 4-pinter own-brand in tesco is £1.53. The milky is £2.10 for "Country life" equivalent, but they do deliver it to your door. Tesco charge £4 for doing that. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
BejamIceland. I have just eaten& stiltontalk 21:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Do you stock up on party snacks and pile them onto a huge table and then make an arse out of yourself on chat shows and then fade fom the public eye? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- What supermarket do you go to? A 4-pinter own-brand in tesco is £1.53. The milky is £2.10 for "Country life" equivalent, but they do deliver it to your door. Tesco charge £4 for doing that. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- At £1 for 2.272 litres from t'supermarket it's a no-brainer. No idea what milkmen charge nowadays but I'll wager it's a whole lot more. I have just eaten
- So, you're saying "its awful, and they don't deliver to me anyway." Why does that sounds like "this restaurant's food is awful!" "yes, and the portions are so small!" MDB (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Bloody DairyCrest and the Milk Marketing Board. They almost killed off small-scale British cheese making and then had the effrontery to produce 'Lymeswold', which wasn't bad at first, but because they couldn't keep up with demand started shipping immature versions. Also, they don't deliver in my postal area.
- Whoops, my DNS server was playing up. Got it now. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- 404. Did you mean this? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Did someone say Milkman? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR-FwptzdOQ Vulpius (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- (EC/none at all, no) You bastid, what, do you live in "civilization" or something? Teh Brits have been running this pit for like 400 years and we still have no milk'n'more service. [sob] ħuman
Secularism or bigotry?[edit]
Interesting one on the Beeb News website this morning (3rd paragraph of article): 'A French parliamentary committee ... recommends that anyone showing visible signs of "radical religious practice" should be refused residence cards and citizenship.'
I somehow don't think they mean, "Hey Cardinal, take off those purple togs and that funny hat!"... The Real James Brown (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's dangerous thinking, especially in these times when anyone who utters the Takbir is instantly perceived by many as some kind of radical (if not a terrorist). On the other hand, if it keeps the scientologists away... Personally, I think anyone whose religious practices involve coming to my house (always with small children so you can't swear at them) and trying to convert me should be refused citizenship. -RedbackG'day 12:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm... Keeping the Thetans away - maybe not such a bad idea. But I'm guessing that Jewish yarmulkes, Sikh turbans and nuns' outfits aren't going to be covered by this legislation either... The Real James Brown (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Catholic cardinals tend not to be political radicals; neither do Orthodox Jews. I would argue that citizenship should only be refused people who, on account of their beliefs, are not able to exercise the duties of citizens in a conscientious manner, viz., those who are opposed to the entire law of the land, the very thing that defines citizenship. (To put it another way, if they think so poorly of citizenship, they ought not to be given it.) ListenerXTalkerX 18:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Catholic cardinals tend not to be political radicals; neither do Orthodox Jews. I would argue that citizenship should only be refused people who, on account of their beliefs, are not able to exercise the duties of citizens in a conscientious manner, viz., those who are opposed to the entire law of the land, the very thing that defines citizenship. (To put it another way, if they think so poorly of citizenship, they ought not to be given it.)
- Hmm... Keeping the Thetans away - maybe not such a bad idea. But I'm guessing that Jewish yarmulkes, Sikh turbans and nuns' outfits aren't going to be covered by this legislation either... The Real James Brown (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Industrial grade stupid[edit]
Just found this new site, just brimming to the top with natural health woo, along with a spattering of other crazy beliefs (including 9/11 truther among them). Check it out; natural news - I'm sure some of you have seen it already, but if not, it's worth the laugh. My favorite is their main contributor, who calls himself the "Health Ranger". I wonder if that's like a park ranger, or an Aragorn ranger? Z3rotalk 15:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hehe "One such skeptic accused me of being a quack because he said that I believe "water is magical." Was that supposed to be an insult? I do think water is magical!" - well, can't argue with that! CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Upcoming Interview with Sarah Palin[edit]
Sarah Palin has finally found someone to interview her that's not smarter than she is. MDB (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Love one comment: "Of course, Sarah leaving Alaska for Fox did improve the IQ of both areas." I have just eaten & stiltontalk 15:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
If you were the interviewer[edit]
And got an interview with Sarah Plain, what would you ask?
Just to keep it organized, I'll split it up...
Serious Questions[edit]
- If you were elected President, would you base Middle Eastern policy upon your church's interpretation of end-times prophecy?
- If you were elected President, how would you deal with the growing outcry in the scientific community regarding Intelligent Design?
- Despite your decision to step down as governor of Alaska before the end of your first term, some people consider you the Republican candidate for 2012. Do you think that you have the right qualities to vie for the presidency? And if so, what are those qualities?--Thanatos (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Snarky Questions[edit]
- Do you expect to be able to see Canada from the White House?
- So... How'd it taste?
- Did we ever find out who 'adopted' that Turkey from your interview?
In Between/Uncategorizable[edit]
MDB (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Will you allow rationalwiki to effectively ban vandal bin 15,000 people (14, 999 of whom have shown no interest in the site) because of the incredibly infantile and annoying actions of one person, self-admitted troll who has not made a positive contribution in monthsSarah? How do you propose curbing idiocy on the internet one pissant little website that reaches about two dozen regulars at most? - MarcusCicero
- (Fixed that for you MC)
- (Bloody hilarious on so many levels - but I doubt on the levels that MC intended.) Bondurant (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Shouldn't that be 14998? Or are you giving up the Edmund Burke thing? — Pietrow ☏ 20:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Free holiday[edit]
I just had to give money to sponsor a guy at my work to do a sponsored walk (yes, walk, not run or bike ride) in order to raise funds so his girlfriend can fly to China to do a sponsored walk along the great wall for charity. Is this how people get free holidays these days? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 16:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Those charity treks usually involve paying quite a large deposit yourself, e.g. about a grand, & making a commitment to raise at least two or three times that in sponsorship. I've thought about doing them, but I doubt I have enough contacts to raise that kind of money. Sponsored walks to sponsor somebody else's sponsored event seems somewhat convoluted though. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 19:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Damn, and here I was organising a sponsored "Lying on a sunbed-a-thon" in Hawaii. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is enough volunteer work to be done in the local area that one does not need to take trips to China in service of charity. ListenerXTalkerX 20:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't even for a charity in China. It's for something like heart disease or breast cancer. UK charity. But apparently you have to go to China to raise money for it :\ CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is enough volunteer work to be done in the local area that one does not need to take trips to China in service of charity.
- Damn, and here I was organising a sponsored "Lying on a sunbed-a-thon" in Hawaii. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Obama spending freeze "deficit reduction"[edit]
Gee why bother having a Democratic primary if no matter which candidate wins we get Clintonite "Third Way" leadership. WodewickWelease Wodewick! 19:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Welcome to politics! Nothing ever changes. EddyP (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I blame Stalin. ħuman 23:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Guy has completely lost touch with who put him in office. He keeps chasing Republicans, what's the allure here, is it like a Hard To Get romance? They're just not that into you Barack. He cedes intellectual ground to the retard teabaggers again and again and it never wins over a single Republican Senator. He cuts chunks out of his own stimulus and healthcare reform bills to please "moderate" Republicans who then... vote no again & again.
- Owell, count me out in 2012. I didn't fucking vote for Hillary. WodewickWelease Wodewick! 23:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I blame Stalin. ħuman
Fox burned by own poll[edit]
In this poll done by Fox, Americans prefer Obama to Tea party protests and Palin! They instead choose to discuss how many people were against Barry (no surprise)--Thanatos (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- For some reason I can't resolve that link, Than. I have just eaten & stiltontalk 21:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Here's a link to the PDF: fox news survey. It's at the top of page 2. --Ask me about your mother 22:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hahaha, and who the hell would trust Fox Noise or Sarah Palin? Oh, right. I forgot some people are foolish enough to listen to them. Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 23:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Here's a link to the PDF: fox news survey. It's at the top of page 2. --
RationalWiki:Year in review[edit]
I have posted a blog entry at the tech blog reviewing what I consider "statistics of interest" for 2009. People might be interested in checking it out. tmtoulouse 00:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Quick question I'm hoping some nice person can help me with[edit]
Okay, I have a random question that I'm hoping someone can help me out with, and I require the help of an American (or learned person who knows a bit about America) who plays Civilization.
Q: What is the name of the music that plays throughout the mid and later stages of the game when you are negotiating with Teddy Roosevelt? The file can be found in the \Assets\Sounds\Diplomacy directory with the filename Roosevelt_Late.mp3.
Ta in advance. -RedbackG'day 02:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Not a gamer, but good @ music trivia. Get me an online MP3. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- This may help.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 02:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Local news[edit]
A friend of a friend was attacked a while back by a 13-year old and raped (news article). As the boy was only 13 at the time he was convicted to 3 years. Pretty standard, but as you can imagine most of the backlash would have initially been about how the judge "got it wrong" and he should have got a lot longer / life. However, let's note that the youth's name was "Balal Khan". Can you imagine what slant the user comments on the above news story have taken? Have a look, pay particular attention to the comment part way down from "Mellissa, Chell". CrundyTalk nerdy to me 10:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fucking stupid woman. Britain is a multicultural society, that is one of the things that makes Britain Britain. To hell with the racists. SJ Debaser 12:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- "We are dealing with a very immature young man," said the mitigator. Fucking understatement, YOU'RE DEALING WITH A RAPIST! An immature young man, you slap him on the wrist and send him on his way. What a stupid comment. SJ Debaser 12:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Stoke on Trent, it was in in nearby Hanley where they had that racist EDL demo last week. Lily Inspirate me. 13:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, which is why I think it was a piss-poor decision by the judge to allow the press to publish the guy's name. It will just cause more racial tension. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 13:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Stoke on Trent, it was in in nearby Hanley where they had that racist EDL demo last week. Lily Inspirate me. 13:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- "We are dealing with a very immature young man," said the mitigator. Fucking understatement, YOU'RE DEALING WITH A RAPIST! An immature young man, you slap him on the wrist and send him on his way. What a stupid comment. SJ Debaser 12:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I think someone just attempted to scam me[edit]
So, I was on facebook a little while ago, and a chat popped up from a guy I used to work with.
He said he was in London, and had been mugged at gunpoint, taking all his credit cards, cash and phone, and needed me to wire him money so he could settle his hotel accounts.
I asked if he had contacted the US Embassy. He said they said they couldn't get him a flight till the 30th, and needed to get home sooner than that.
I was suspicious, so I asked him to tell me the company we used to work for, and the name of the project we were on. He got the company name right (but then, that's on my Facebook page), but couldn't remember the project name.
I was also thinking "you have no family who can help you? Surely, the US Embassy would let you call the States to reach them. No friends closer than me? I've not seen you in over three years, and we weren't that close then." And in retrospect, "you run a travel agency as a side business -- surely you know better ways then this to deal with travel emergencies!"
I told him that I realize that if he really is who he says he is, he may hate me forever, but I'd need some more verification he is who he claims to be. I suggested he call someone at the company we both worked for, since at least they would recognize his voice.
I also think "mugged at gunpoint in London" seems odd... doesn't the UK have very strict gun laws and very little gun crime? MDB (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, gun laws are very strict over here, although it's not too hard to get them if you know where to go. Knives are a hell of a lot common, due to the fact you can buy them with ease at any old shop. SJ Debaser 16:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, more common in Manchester. Almost 1 per year, I believe. I have just eaten & stiltontalk 17:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- What Toast said. Knife crime is more common in London than gun crime, though gun crime's more prominent in northern cities like Manchester. I know people who've been robbed at knife point, including a family member, but never gunpoint. SJ Debaser 17:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- That one gun crime a year in Manchester probably wouldn't happen if the people could defend themselves with guns. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Nottingham was reputedly the gun crime capital of the UK for a while, but we've not had a single incident I can think of for over 5 years. The police really clamped down, and anyone suspected of being in possession of a gun would find themselves under seige by an full armed response unit. Bondurant (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- That one gun crime a year in Manchester probably wouldn't happen if the people could defend themselves with guns. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- What Toast said. Knife crime is more common in London than gun crime, though gun crime's more prominent in northern cities like Manchester. I know people who've been robbed at knife point, including a family member, but never gunpoint. SJ Debaser 17:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, more common in Manchester. Almost 1 per year, I believe. I have just eaten
(unDent) I called the phone number for his travel agency, and spoke to his wife. I wasn't the first person to call, and yes, its a scam. She planned to change his facebook password. MDB (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Now it's your duty to fuck with the scammer. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- My Hotmail account got hacked by a spambot recently. Fortunately, all it did was send an email to all my contacts promoting this dubious website in broken English. Still, pretty embarrassing. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 19:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Definitely a scam, happened to a NZ girl recently. Had her account hacked and a message went to everyone in her contacts with the same message about being mugged. AVOID!. Acei9 19:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I did wonder why I was getting a lot of facebook phishing emails. I thought "Why the fuck would a spammer want someone's facebook details?". CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's a very interesting idea of how to abuse FB. People might think they're safe by doing the sensible thing and keeping their private data off the site and controlling who sees what (those "privacy concerns" are so overhyped it's stopped being funny) but that'll just make them more lax with their passwording. narchist 20:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I remember my last action on a windows machine. A friend had their facebook account hacked and was sending out messages to look at a jpeg that had some overflow hack. I was about at the end of my rope with windows anyway and I wanted to see how easy it was if you were actually that stupid. Turns out it's really easy. Computer was fucked. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's a very interesting idea of how to abuse FB. People might think they're safe by doing the sensible thing and keeping their private data off the site and controlling who sees what (those "privacy concerns" are so overhyped it's stopped being funny) but that'll just make them more lax with their passwording.
- I did wonder why I was getting a lot of facebook phishing emails. I thought "Why the fuck would a spammer want someone's facebook details?". CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Definitely a scam, happened to a NZ girl recently. Had her account hacked and a message went to everyone in her contacts with the same message about being mugged. AVOID!. Acei9 19:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- My Hotmail account got hacked by a spambot recently. Fortunately, all it did was send an email to all my contacts promoting this dubious website in broken English. Still, pretty embarrassing. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
It continues...[edit]
So another one of them popped up, and I guess the guy is AFK or something because it's been dragging on now. One of the other posters threw this up:
ok well what about katrina?? did hati,, japan,, china and africa have a benefit to help america?? i didnt think so..
To which I responded with this:
Haiti, no. But they didn't have anything to offer anyway. The People's Republic of China gave $5 million and disaster relief supplies. Japan offered $200K and $300k in emergency supplies, but one businessman donated $1 million of his own personal money. As far as Africa, that's a continent. There's more than one country there; Djibouti, Yemen, Kenya, Malta, Nigeria, and Egypt all offered aid.
Actually, the international community responded fairly overwhelmingly. Over 120 countries pledged support, relief teams, supplies, and/or money. See a list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina
For the most part, it was our own government's failings that made Katrina as bad is it was.
Most of the aid was turned down by the US, though. See here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801113.html
You see, when you want the rest of the world to perceive your country as the most powerful country and greatest nation in existence, it doesn't help your reputation to accept assistance from countries who have nothing, like Azerbaijan, Yemen, et. al.
Which was immediately followed by this:
I think the point is that did America have a benefit for Katrina? Sure they did but was it as big or aired on every major network the way the benefit for Haiti was? Nope. Thanks for posting this <REDACTED>, happy to see you had the guts to.
So I followed up with this:
Furthermore, why does anyone need a celebrity to "raise awareness" to tell that person to go out and help their neighbor? These are DOMESTIC issues we are dealing with. The homeless and hungry people, abused children and mentally ill... They are IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ALREADY. Step out the door and HELP. One shouldn't need to be told to do that; it's the very essence of civic duty.
Also, the charities that do address these issues don't need money so much as they need volunteers. They need people to collect and hand out blankets and coats to the needy. They need people with able bodies to build houses for the homeless. They need folks willing to serve stew at the soup kitchens. They will not turn any offer of assistance away and time is more valuable than money in most cases.
If one happens to be so busy that they cannot volunteer, then they should whip out the checkbook.
Why are people so fucking DUMB? *HEADDESKHEADDESKHEADDESKHEADDESK* The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- One thing I find interesting is that even though I knew of the awful events in Haiti, it was the (expensive to put on?) benefit concert - actually, the beautiful music I caught at the end of it - that prompted me to part with some cash. Odd, that. ħuman 22:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think the over-hyped publicity stunts that were Live 8 and Live Earth made me far too cynical to accept charity gigs as anything other than pop star celebrities trying to gather as much publicity as possible... narchist 14:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think the over-hyped publicity stunts that were Live 8 and Live Earth made me far too cynical to accept charity gigs as anything other than pop star celebrities trying to gather as much publicity as possible...
- I thought it'd be worth letting you know that I'm seeing the same sort of thing. Assholes. narchist 16:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Westboro Baptist Church picketing twitter[edit]
WTF? Sterile demon 02:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't get it, what exactly do they want? For twitter to start sending tweets to every user at five-minute intervals stating christian truths such as "Remember children, god gave you free will so that you may never use it" and ammending every tweet with the message "ps god hates fags"? -RedbackG'day 03:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- They want attention and money. It's a business for them; they've won millions in claims against people they provoke into violating their rights or attacking them, plus they get the bonus of spewing Phelps' hate.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 10:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's definitely attention seeking. Their latest is to go after Lady Gaga for some less than clear reason. Surely there are far more active "enablers" out there, although they're not so famous. Wonder why the Phelps clan doesn't go after those, then... narchist 14:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's definitely attention seeking. Their latest is to go after Lady Gaga for some less than clear reason. Surely there are far more active "enablers" out there, although they're not so famous. Wonder why the Phelps clan doesn't go after those, then...
- They want attention and money. It's a business for them; they've won millions in claims against people they provoke into violating their rights or attacking them, plus they get the bonus of spewing Phelps' hate.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 10:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Lab rant[edit]
What part of "do not use this or I will tie you down and make you watch 2 Girls 1 Cup" is so hard to understand? narchist 16:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- What did they use? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 16:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- About £300 worth of high purity d8-THF that I was earmarking for photolysis. narchist 16:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Should have wired the desk up to the mains. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 16:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- You have to make good on your promises/threats or no one will take you seriously, A. SJ Debaser 16:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Trouble is, I'm not 100% sure who it was. Probably one of the first-year meatsacks. narchist 20:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Prolly like most of us here I had no idea what d8-THF was. I've been googling it for ages now & everyone's agreed it's EXPENSIVE (10 x 0.75 ml: $593.23 so you had about 6ml?) I have just eaten & stiltontalk 23:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- So wait is it just Tetrahydrofuran but with deuterium instead of hydrogen attached to each carbon atom? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's an NMR solvent. If you used proteo solvents, the signal would be insane. Although since I record my kinetic spectra on the 31P channel, it shouldn't be too much of a problem. But the deuterium (because it resonates completely separately to protons) can be used to lock the sample too. So it's sort of essential. narchist 16:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- So it has to be manufactured with pure heavy water only? No wonder it costs a fucking fortune. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, that was music to my ears. I haven't heard chemistry talk for a while. The job I have now has me melting metals into a sample plug and using optical emission spectroscopy to analyze. Very cut and dry, no wet chems, just melt and spark. Aboriginal Noise What the hell is that thing? 22:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- So it has to be manufactured with pure heavy water only? No wonder it costs a fucking fortune. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's an NMR solvent. If you used proteo solvents, the signal would be insane. Although since I record my kinetic spectra on the 31P channel, it shouldn't be too much of a problem. But the deuterium (because it resonates completely separately to protons) can be used to lock the sample too. So it's sort of essential.
- So wait is it just Tetrahydrofuran but with deuterium instead of hydrogen attached to each carbon atom? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Prolly like most of us here I had no idea what d8-THF was. I've been googling it for ages now & everyone's agreed it's EXPENSIVE (10 x 0.75 ml: $593.23 so you had about 6ml?) I have just eaten
- Should have wired the desk up to the mains. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 16:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- About £300 worth of high purity d8-THF that I was earmarking for photolysis.
Wikileaks (bump)[edit]
Gone? I have just eaten & stiltontalk 16:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Harmonic wisest Hoover! 19:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Damn. Anyway, I may as well copy/paste the WP entry on its recent activity:
On 24 December 2009 Wikileaks announced that it was experiencing a shortage of funds (http://twitter.com/wikiLeaks at 1.24am 24 Dec 2009) and suspended all access to its website except for a form to submit new material. Whilst it was initially hoped that funds could be secured by 6 January 2010, (http://twitter.com/wikiLeaks at 7:42am 5 Jan 2010) as of 27 January 2010 the website is still closed. There is no precise indication of when Wikileaks will be able to resume normal operations.
On 22 January 2010, PayPal suspended Wikileaks' donation account and froze its assets. Wikileaks claimed that this had happened before, and was done for "no obvious reason". The account was restored on 25 January 2010.
- Paypal sucks? We all knew that, right? ħuman 08:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Women drivers[edit]
Alright, so I'm not going to get into a "Men are better / safer drivers than women" argument, because I know that isn't true. What I'd like to talk about is Women's complete inability to recognise when someone is allowing them to pull out in front of them.
You know the situation, it goes like this:
- Driving along, you notice that you have a good gap between you and the car in front. A car in the opposite direction is waiting to turn right (or left if you're not a UKian) and is blocking the traffic behind them
- You flash your lights a couple of times to indicate that you are letting the driver turn into the side road in front of you
- The driver still hasn't moved. You slow down and flash your lights again
- The driver STILL hasn't moved. You slow right down and flash again
- Still nothing. You come to a complete standstill. You flash your lights over and over, jump up and down, and wave your hands around trying to convince them to move
- After looking at the glares of extreme anger in your rear view mirror, you look back to see the woman (yes, it's always a woman) suddenly SNAP into reality (from thinking about kittens or knitting or whatever) and then do that odd thing where they try and frantically turn their wheels full lock and try to wave thank you in the middle (turn-turn-turn-QUICKTHANKS-turn-turn move) rather than having their wheels already at full lock and waving thanks when they first note you letting them go (see (1)).
I mean what should I do? Not be nice anymore and just block all junctions? I got to the point the other day where I'd been at a complete standstill for about 10 seconds (count it in your head) and nothing, so I just drove on. Can someone explain this one to me? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 22:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't about that but driving with my other half is an exercise in anger control.
- "Watch out for that pedestrian!"
- "The speed limit is 50 in this zone"
- "There is a give way sign coming up"
- etc etc. I go crazy, "I know there is fucking pedestrain ahead because the car has stopped which is why the pedestrian is able to cross the road safely". Acei9 22:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- God, I miss driving. I got my licence when I was seventeen (yeah, passed first time, fuckin' A) and haven't driven since. I'm too poor to run a car, especially given I don't have a job, and every single insurance company I try and get a quote from is a pile of absolute bollocks that asks me to waste about 10 minutes of my life filling in my info only to tell me, "due to the information you've given us, we are unable to provide you with a quote at this time."
- Crundy, I feel your pain. When I was learning to drive I remember women driving 4x4s (in suburban London) with no concept of how much of the road they were taking up. Extremely annoying. My instructor was even shouting at them. SJ Debaser 22:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- 'kinell. I'm starting to feel really unloved. What with Ace on Brits (OK exception noted, Ace) and now this. I suspect it's the frequent driver versus the occasional driver. I've been driving for well over 45 years now & reckon I'm not bad. The ones who enrage me are generally men who see a woman driving and have to cut them up as a matter of principle. Way back I was a delivery driver in London & the home counties and it wasn't so bad then (of course a 22 year old female's more likely to be allowed for than a 65 year old) More rant available if required. I have just eaten & stiltontalk 23:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- 'kinell. I'm starting to feel really unloved. What with Ace on Brits (OK exception noted, Ace) and now this. I suspect it's the frequent driver versus the occasional driver. I've been driving for well over 45 years now & reckon I'm not bad. The ones who enrage me are generally men who see a woman driving and have to cut them up as a matter of principle. Way back I was a delivery driver in London & the home counties and it wasn't so bad then (of course a 22 year old female's more likely to be allowed for than a 65 year old) More rant available if required. I have just eaten
- So you don't want to talk about men being better drivers than women, Crundy, but you're still going to generalize about an entire gender's driving skills? I don't usually call out many "ism"s, but attributing poor skill in an ability to a gender is the definition of sexism, Crundy. And I imagine your confirmation bias is playing a not-insignificant part here.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 00:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yup. Seems quite easy to get Tom on his extra-high horse these days. I'm surprised you can even see me eating my meat from up there. I know you wouldn't ever generalise about people so I'll take it all back. Oh, and thanks for condescendingly linking me to confirmation bias. Where would I be without you helping me out with such things? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Prison? The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 13:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Are you seriously so stupid as to think I was serious with that thing about the British, Crundy? I painstakingly even pointed out later in that discussion that I was joking, although one would think the Canada thing should have tipped off anyone.
- I'm not sure it's so "high horse" to point out that "women are bad drivers" is sexist. That one's not exactly rocket science to figure out, ethically speaking.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 18:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Which is why I made the point of stating that I wasn't saying "women are bad drivers", you fucking twat. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 19:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's a truism. Women are bad drivers. Most black women shouldn't even be let behind the wheel. Asians follow closely in complete lack of skill, then the elderly. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Huh, so MarcusCicero has done a mind-transfer into Neveruse now? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I guess me and my friends are the only ones who play "woman, black or both?" when you get stuck behind someone... — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- These guys probably do. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, get off it. It's just an observation. You ever notice how younger blacks usually don't thank you for holding the door open? — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Please to stop tweaking Crundy. Funny, like, but it's gonna end in tears. --Robledo (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, get off it. It's just an observation. You ever notice how younger blacks usually don't thank you for holding the door open? — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- These guys probably do. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I guess me and my friends are the only ones who play "woman, black or both?" when you get stuck behind someone... — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Huh, so MarcusCicero has done a mind-transfer into Neveruse now? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- "Which is why I made the point of stating that I wasn't saying "women are bad drivers", you fucking twat."
- You can't declare something and suddenly it's true. Just because you claim you're not saying that "women are bad drivers," that doesn't mean you can then speak about how all the frustrating bad drivers on the road are women and not be sexist, especially with such as this:
- "Women's complete inability to recognize someone is pulling out in front of them".
- "After looking at the glares of extreme anger in your rear view mirror, you look back to see the woman (yes, it's always a woman)"
- It's not a big deal, I just thought it merited pointing out that you were being rather sexist by generalizing about how such bad drivers are always women. If it really bothers you, then shucks, I'll take it back.
- By the by, I don't want to generalize and I'm not saying all black people are bad drivers...--Tom Moorefiat justitia 20:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's a truism. Women are bad drivers. Most black women shouldn't even be let behind the wheel. Asians follow closely in complete lack of skill, then the elderly. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Which is why I made the point of stating that I wasn't saying "women are bad drivers", you fucking twat. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 19:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yup. Seems quite easy to get Tom on his extra-high horse these days. I'm surprised you can even see me eating my meat from up there. I know you wouldn't ever generalise about people so I'll take it all back. Oh, and thanks for condescendingly linking me to confirmation bias. Where would I be without you helping me out with such things? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Because I need to show it someone[edit]
The article title alone made me slightly nauseous, but read on. -- Lauttydauttywe likes to party 01:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- ya cant expect a groundhog to be happy being lifted up and shown off for 30 minutes a year , thats barbaric, bring on the robot. I see it now. A round tunnel , with a nice round door and a brass knocker in the center, a small stone path leading down the bank to the pond. Out comes the robot , holding his sunglasses and a brew. He puts the glasses on , squints, waves the finger at the crowd, downs the brew and goes back inside , while a chorus of "its a small world after all" plays in the background (darn secondhand Disney stuff) Hamster (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd prefer 'I'm coming home', the Superjail theme, instead of the Disney crap. It'd fit better with the drunk Johnny 5 routine, methinks. -- CodyH (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Whether the groundhog comes out or not, it's just superstitious nonsense. Would the robot have a rand function to decide whether he comes out? I want to get paid to program a groundhog heuristic. Pay me, bitches. 05:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Shit man, put a woolly sock on a vibrator. No one will know. Acei9 05:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- he has to stick his head out and look for his shadow. Its all about does he see his shadow . This is science ! Hamster (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm a little partial to the little guy because Phil is practically my neighbor (Punxsutawney is about an hour away), but what the hell? PETA has gone totally weird. Ain't no way no animatronic groundhog be replacing no real thing. Aboriginal Noise What the hell is that thing? 22:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's just for attention for their cause. Although it is actually in keeping with their mission, since they don't want animals to be exploited in any way - including in circuses or as amusements. This makes sense for them to get up in people's faces about, because it costs them almost nothing and gets them a lot of publicity, which brings in money to pay for the real work like undercover ops.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 02:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm a little partial to the little guy because Phil is practically my neighbor (Punxsutawney is about an hour away), but what the hell? PETA has gone totally weird. Ain't no way no animatronic groundhog be replacing no real thing. Aboriginal Noise What the hell is that thing? 22:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- he has to stick his head out and look for his shadow. Its all about does he see his shadow . This is science ! Hamster (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Shit man, put a woolly sock on a vibrator. No one will know. Acei9 05:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Whether the groundhog comes out or not, it's just superstitious nonsense. Would the robot have a rand function to decide whether he comes out? I want to get paid to program a groundhog heuristic. Pay me, bitches.
- I'd prefer 'I'm coming home', the Superjail theme, instead of the Disney crap. It'd fit better with the drunk Johnny 5 routine, methinks. -- CodyH (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
New Javascript thingy[edit]
I have added some new code to MediaWiki:Common.js that will allow you to edit the three boxes down the side (actually all four but editing the support would look funny). Basically by adding
function CustomizeModificationsOfSidebar() {
ModifySidebar("add", "toolbox", "Statistics", "http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Special:Statistics");
}
addOnloadHook(CustomizeModificationsOfSidebar);
to your monobook javascript you can have a link to the site statistics page in the toolbox. If you don't like a link:
function CustomizeModificationsOfSidebar() {
ModifySidebar("remove", "navigation", "Best of RationalWiki", "http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/RationalWiki:Contents");
}
addOnloadHook(CustomizeModificationsOfSidebar);
and it is gone. If you want to do both:
function CustomizeModificationsOfSidebar() {
ModifySidebar("remove", "navigation", "Best of RationalWiki", "http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/RationalWiki:Contents");
ModifySidebar("add", "toolbox", "Statistics", "http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Special:Statistics");
}
addOnloadHook(CustomizeModificationsOfSidebar);
My next idea is to take this a step further and have a box called bookmarks. If you don't have a subpage called Bookmarks you would not see it, but if you have one such as mine, you can have links to all your favourite pages right there in the side bar. So does the mob like this idea? - π 06:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you make this solid it should be added to help pages, and maybe even the welcome message? Because here it will just get archived by some irrational robot... ħuman 08:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- You can't make a portlet in MediaWiki:Sidebar then hide it with javascript. Not everyone has javascript, and it can be ugly if the js loads slowly. Instead, the javascript should create the portlet if the user wants bookmarks, and it should be a gadget, so that if the user doesn't want bookmarks you don't slow them down by loading the bookmarks subpage of their userpage with every page load (see my monobook for how the server status widget creates a portlet). In fact the bookmarks subpage idea isn't good because you need to load another page with every refresh. Better to just create a gadget and then let the user fill in an array in their monobook with their bookmarks. Or better yet, just skip the whole gadget stuff (one unnecessary request slowing down page loading - try enabling a lot of gadgets and see how slow page loads become, then look at firebug or webkit's inspector to see how much time is spent loading those), create a function that allows the user to inject a new portlet, put that into common.js beside modifysidebar, then just tell the user to run that function first in their monobook.js if they want to create a new portlet, e.g.:
function CustomizeModificationsOfSidebar() {
AddPortlet("bookmarks",probably some parameter to determine insertion point);
ModifySidebar("add", "bookmarks", "Statistics", "http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Special:Statistics");
}
addOnloadHook(CustomizeModificationsOfSidebar);
- It's not as simple as creating a bookmarks subpage, but it's faster.
- Also, your instructions are unclear. I foresee people creating multiple "CustomizeModificationsOfSidebar" functions, which of course won't work. All additions, removals, etc. have to be in one function, i.e.:
//Don't copy the <source lang=javascript> line if you are copying from the edit window
function CustomizeModificationsOfSidebar() { //Don't change this
//Start here, replace the examples with your own
ModifySidebar("remove", "navigation", "Best of RationalWiki", "http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/RationalWiki:Contents");
ModifySidebar("add", "toolbox", "Statistics", "http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Special:Statistics");
ModifySidebar("remove", "the name of the portlet, i.e. navigation, community, toolbox, etc.", "the name of the link", "the url (is this needed for remove?)");
ModifySidebar("add", "the name of the portlet", "the name of the link", "the url");
// Add more here
//Stop here, don't change anything below this
}
addOnloadHook(CustomizeModificationsOfSidebar);
//Don't copy the source tag
- Okay, as I said it was my next idea, baby steps. - π 10:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Why not do something really useful?[edit]
Loading RW, and only RW, on my mobile/cell phone takes forever. Nx says it's not because of the volume of text in monobook.css & js so I assume it's the work involved in processing them for every page. How about creating a mobile friendly skin that auto detects when you're on a mobile & loads itself? I have just eaten & stiltontalk 13:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I second that. And a "top" bookmark link because my mobile doesn't have scrollbars and I have to swish for ages and ages to get back up to the leftbar links. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thirded, if this is technically possible. I like to look at RW on my Kindle sometimes, and it takes forever.--Tom Moorefiat justitia
- @ Crundy, I'm actually surprised that MW doesn't automatically put a "top" link next to every section "edit" link. I've always put them on any page I've written that is gonna be more than one or two screens. CTRL-Home doesn't always work on wiki pages. ħuman 23:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is not a lot I think I can do about that, at least without server access. It probably is much more difficult than mealy a skin issue. I would take it up here. - π 00:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- @ Crundy, I'm actually surprised that MW doesn't automatically put a "top" link next to every section "edit" link. I've always put them on any page I've written that is gonna be more than one or two screens. CTRL-Home doesn't always work on wiki pages. ħuman
- Thirded, if this is technically possible. I like to look at RW on my Kindle sometimes, and it takes forever.--Tom Moorefiat justitia
Barry wrote me after his speech, and I replied[edit]
"This is the Spam Firewall at smtp.barackobama.com.
I'm sorry to inform you that the message below could not be delivered. When delivery was attempted, the following error was returned."
I wrote, in response to his request for MY FUCKING MONEY
"Move to the left, not the "center"/right.
Call for a single-payer national health care plan. Repeal the Bush *and* Reagan tax cuts on the rich.
Get out of Iraq NOW. Close G-Bay NOW. Stop being a chicken, stop this silly "bipartisan" thing.
No money for the dems from me until I see you fighting for what I supported you for.
Sincerely yours,
Huw Powell"
Fuck you if I can't even reply to your email. Fuck you and learn how the web works - both ways. ħuman 08:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- From here: admin@barackobama.com. Ask them to forward it on for you :) CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- He says a large problem with Washington is "every day is Election Day," yet he sends fundraising emails. And he's still talking as if he expects people to re-elect him because of what he's FOR not what he's DONE (or not done).
- There is no bipartisanship, there is no center, right wing nutbags will call you a Muslim Maoist Kenyan no matter what you, Blue Dogs will find any excuse to defer your agenda no matter what you do, Republicans will threaten to filibuster no matter what you do. So crack down, find out which legislators are interested in legislating, and get them to pass whatever can be passed in a 51 vote environment. That's how Cheney did it, that's how the GOP does it, and it's worked out pretty well so far for them. WodewickWelease Wodewick! 13:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Might I suggest:
Dear Mister President,
There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three. I am not a crackpot.
Yours, etc. MDB (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I was actually looking at a map of the Caribbean the other day and thinking, "hey, there are easily a half dozen new states there if we just tried". Number depends on whether Cuba has natural internal divisions making it 2 or 3 states not just one. ħuman 23:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- That will put it up to 57 like he said, right? Aboriginal Noise What the hell is that thing? 03:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Limbaugh gets really weird[edit]
Okay, this borders on the creepy.
Rush Limbaugh has offered to be the father Obama never had.
Though the first comment wins the internetz for the day:
Sounds like a pick-up line he'd use in the Dominican Republic.
MDB (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I hate Limbaugh so much...--130.160.187.16 (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
New Scientist - horizontal gene transfer[edit]
- And? Why should I read it? Sell it too me. - π 01:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
T. Boone Pickens and Natural Gas[edit]
Ok, I initially put Natural Gas on the To Do list mainly because of Jon Stewart's interview with T. Boone Pickens, because I'm curious how valid his arguments are (he thinks that hydrogen cars are a good idea, but doesn't think they could run 18-wheelers, and thus wants to use natural gas for shipping purposes). Could someone please analyze his arguments and put the results in the article: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-12-2008/t--boone-pickens --Mustex (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- He doesn't make many arguments, and I haven't read the book. I addressed what I could. I'll check out the book and add more this week - sooner if I can find a copy online.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 00:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the problem with hydrogen power is that is isn't really a power source in itself, it's just way of storing and using electricity that is probably produced using coal or another "dirty" energy source. Tetronian you're clueless 00:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Liquified natural gas or propane works fine as a replacement fuel in cars or light trucks. You burn more of it for the same milage and the filling station is a bit more complex. No idea how it would convert for deisel engines. Hydrogen also works but LNG or propane are easier to get. Hamster (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the problem with hydrogen power is that is isn't really a power source in itself, it's just way of storing and using electricity that is probably produced using coal or another "dirty" energy source. Tetronian you're clueless 00:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I am smiling right now[edit]
and its because the reports are that Obama will call for an end to "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in the State of the Union address tonight.
In four words: It's. About. Fucking. Time. MDB (talk)
- Gee, that and clean coal, more nukes, offshore drilling, nothing interesting about health care... but at least the gays can die in Iraq! Nice work. Rant over. Fucker sent me an email after the speech (asking for MONEY!!!!), I tole him what I wanted before his party gets dime one from me. ħuman 05:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Huw, he was talking about nuclear power plants which I, for one, am for. Given the advances that nuclear technology has made over the last few decades, nuclear energy is cleaner, safer, and more efficient than ever, not to mention the jobs constructing and maintaining new reactors will create. Split, baby, split! The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- What pisses me off is that he wants to slough it off onto congress. He could make that shit go away with the stroke of a pen, right? I can't wait for the first Faux News interview with some patriot who's just not patriotic enough to go to war alongside a homo. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you're talking about the DADT, the way I understand it is that it was legislation proposed by Bill Clinton and enacted by congress, which was then incorporated into the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which meant that appropriate statements had to be inserted in the appropriate Army regulations (and the other branches, as well) which takes an act of Congress to modify. So, Congress has to do it. The end. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- And the fact that it originally was only a fairly minor change that was a half-arsed compromise is probably the only reason it got through Congress. The US should just give up Congress entirely, what exactly does it do apart from hamper the leadership of the country from making needed changes and preventing them doing anything positive with international relations? narchist 19:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- What's really going to be interesting is seeing the conniption fits the officers and senior NCOs have when they have to rewrite AR 600-20 The Army Equal Opportunity Program. We already have to document quarterly training on race relations, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and sexual harrassment but this, the whole gay thing, is going to be a fucking hoot. If they rescind Don't Ask Don't Tell, I'm going to be sitting in an auditorium every 3 months listening to a freaking Command Sergeant Major have to go through the hows and whys of sexual orientation discrimination. The hardest part will be having to suffer all of the bad, muttered, dick, gay, and cornhole jokes, that I am sure you can all imagine coming from a bunch of Army scouts. This is going to be a bumpy ride! The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Bahahaha. Nuclear power. I find nuclear power fucking hilarious. The means of power generation have not changed one bit since the Industrial Revolution! A nuclear reactor is little more than a fancier and more dangerous steam engine. All the nuclear power does is head water, to spin a turbine, to rotate a giant magnet in copper coils. It's literally no different than the power generation methods a century ago. That said, I'm all for it, provided we can find a nice spot to dispose of the waste beyond "dump it in a hole somewhere and hope for the best". --User:Theautocrat/Sig 03:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- What's really going to be interesting is seeing the conniption fits the officers and senior NCOs have when they have to rewrite AR 600-20 The Army Equal Opportunity Program. We already have to document quarterly training on race relations, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and sexual harrassment but this, the whole gay thing, is going to be a fucking hoot. If they rescind Don't Ask Don't Tell, I'm going to be sitting in an auditorium every 3 months listening to a freaking Command Sergeant Major have to go through the hows and whys of sexual orientation discrimination. The hardest part will be having to suffer all of the bad, muttered, dick, gay, and cornhole jokes, that I am sure you can all imagine coming from a bunch of Army scouts. This is going to be a bumpy ride! The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- And the fact that it originally was only a fairly minor change that was a half-arsed compromise is probably the only reason it got through Congress. The US should just give up Congress entirely, what exactly does it do apart from hamper the leadership of the country from making needed changes and preventing them doing anything positive with international relations?
- If you're talking about the DADT, the way I understand it is that it was legislation proposed by Bill Clinton and enacted by congress, which was then incorporated into the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which meant that appropriate statements had to be inserted in the appropriate Army regulations (and the other branches, as well) which takes an act of Congress to modify. So, Congress has to do it. The end. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- What pisses me off is that he wants to slough it off onto congress. He could make that shit go away with the stroke of a pen, right? I can't wait for the first Faux News interview with some patriot who's just not patriotic enough to go to war alongside a homo. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Huw, he was talking about nuclear power plants which I, for one, am for. Given the advances that nuclear technology has made over the last few decades, nuclear energy is cleaner, safer, and more efficient than ever, not to mention the jobs constructing and maintaining new reactors will create. Split, baby, split! The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Shameless exageration[edit]
http://www.gop.gov/resources/images/features/accountability/chart-debt-121709.jpg
— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Where did they even get that number?--Tom Moorefiat justitia 20:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Another good one for a laugh is the [solutions.gop.gov Republican] health care site. At first look, they offer up a good deal. But nowhere do you find any details as to how they pull off their numbers, or what they would change to get the desired results. The childish name-calling and 'something for nothing' message also made me laugh. -- CodyH (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- If they really cared about saving money and not just using it as an anti-government wedge issue, we could stop occupying Middle Eastern countries, stop spending more on the military than the next nine nations combined, stop giving people a tax cut they don't need every three years, do something about social security and health care costs, and maybe we could actually regulate banks so we don't have to pay their debt off again. TKEtoolshedFrag Out! 01:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Another good one for a laugh is the [solutions.gop.gov Republican] health care site. At first look, they offer up a good deal. But nowhere do you find any details as to how they pull off their numbers, or what they would change to get the desired results. The childish name-calling and 'something for nothing' message also made me laugh. -- CodyH (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Where did they even get that number?--Tom Moorefiat justitia 20:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Atheists going to far[edit]
I know its Faux but never mind the source. I think this is going to far personally. Its just a fucking stamp with Mother Teresa on it. Get over it, why care? It makes atheist look like bigots. Acei9 19:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think "too far" is the right way to describe it, because it implies that you could do something similar to this that isn't too far. It's just stupid in all ways. Though I do think they may have a point when they hint that they want to raise awareness of her "darker side". It's certainly true that, despite the title they rushed on her (for publicity, IMHO), like fuck was she a saint. And yeah, it's probably just Freedom From Religion trying to gather some publicity, but whining about this isn't the right way to do it. narchist 19:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- My only real objection is that only a tiny number of people who were never US citizens have been honored on US Postage Stamps, and it's people like Winston Churchill (who was granted an honorary citizenship, anyway) and Columbus (who, of course, died before there was an America.)
- The Postage Stamp criteria include these policies I think are relevant.
- * It is a general policy that U.S. postage stamps and stationery primarily will feature American or American-related subjects.
- * Stamps or stationery items shall not be issued to honor religious institutions or individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings or beliefs.
- So, Mother Teresa fails on the first category, since she was not an American, and her work was not primarily in America. That's just a "general policy", though, so that means its not a strict rule. The second one is tougher, since she's being honored for her good works, but those works were absolutely inspired by her religious beliefs. You could raise similar objections to Martin Luther King.
- As for her darker side, if we eliminated everyone who had a darker side from consideration for stamps, the only stamps we'd have would feature the flag of the Liberty Bell. Heck, the one of the biggest selling stamps ever, if not the biggest, featured a guy who died of a drug overdose while sitting on the toilet.
- And you probably couldn't find a stamp subject that someone wouldn't object to.
- Yeah, this is probably the FFRF trying to get PR, like PETA's numerous stunts that they know will get no where, but gets them in the media. MDB (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think the issue with Teresa's "dark side" is that the vast majority of people don't know it exists - they genuinely think she "helped" people, when in reality her charity did no such thing, and even actively denied them help in the form of medicine, food or even social contact. All she did was let them die in squalor indoors rather than outdoors. Whereas on the other hand, we all know that Elvis was on a fuck load of pills and we know that politicians that appear on them would have started wars.
- However, at least it's not as hilariously trivial as the complaints about Freddie Mercury when he was put on a stamp. UK stamp guidelines require that people featuring on stamps (apart from the Queen, obviously) are dead, and this photo of Freddie had the tiniest glimpse of Rodger Taylor's head poking out over the drum kit - the whole thing must have been less than a millimetre wide, but there was a minor outcry from stamp enthusiasts. narchist 19:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I heard such accusations about Mother Theresa on that absurd Penn and Teller's Bullshit show, but couldn't find much to back it up beyond some specious claims from Hitchens. Is there any real evidence for these claims?--Tom Moorefiat justitia 02:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- One yummy & honey(or marmalade) 02:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Just reading around the web, MT's m.o. seems to have been to get as much money (what happened to the cash after she died?) as possible and then do nothing with it. The people she "saved" often died without any of the money being spent to cure or alleviate their symptoms, see here. She was self serving in that she apparently cared more for her own "salvation" than for the temporal care of those she "rescued". Whether she was good or bad in her own mind, she did little actual good for the slumdwellers of Calcutta. yummy & honey(or marmalade) 15:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Just reading around the web, MT's m.o. seems to have been to get as much money (what happened to the cash after she died?) as possible and then do nothing with it. The people she "saved" often died without any of the money being spent to cure or alleviate their symptoms, see here. She was self serving in that she apparently cared more for her own "salvation" than for the temporal care of those she "rescued". Whether she was good or bad in her own mind, she did little actual good for the slumdwellers of Calcutta. yummy
- One yummy
- I heard such accusations about Mother Theresa on that absurd Penn and Teller's Bullshit show, but couldn't find much to back it up beyond some specious claims from Hitchens. Is there any real evidence for these claims?--Tom Moorefiat justitia 02:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, this is probably the FFRF trying to get PR, like PETA's numerous stunts that they know will get no where, but gets them in the media. MDB (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
A guy accused me of "heresy" because I know the bible better than him[edit]
He was handing out tracts on my college campus. I decided to try to have a discussion with him. I pointed out, politely enough, that Jesus never personally condemned homosexuality, but did personally condemn charging interest, which means that his bank account is a sin. The fact that I had to get to class was the only thing that kept me from following him around the campus yelling "THIS MAN THINKS JESUS IS A HERETIC!"--Mustex (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- High five.--Thanatos (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well played. You should have continue to Luke 6:35 and asked the guy to loan you his wallet and car keys. --Ask me about your mother 00:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't try that because I actually am a red letter christian (not associated with any organizations, but that's the best term for the way I view the bible), so I wasn't so much mocking him as saying what I actually believe. Granted, I do have an interest-yielding account, but I do believe that on some level it's wrong, but I think that relates to the imperfection of the world (personal view: if we were all perfect Christians we'd live in a socialist paradise, but since we're imperfect, we need capitalism to get by). That's the main reason I didn't ask him to sell me his daughter. (btw, I'm not trying to convert anyone, but I bring up the fact that I'm a Christian because it's relevant here, please don't bash me)--Mustex (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- As long as you don't push it on us. I'm proudly protestant but I am not a missionary. (personally, I hate those guys)--Thanatos (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- A little earlier in Christian history, people actually tried to follow Jesus's Red teachings a little more, which meant that — surprise, surprise! — it fell to the Jews, as the only non-Christians around, to keep the economy going. We all know what came of that.
- Also, I believe that the provisions for daughter-sale were in the Mosaic civil law, which is not held to be binding today. ListenerXTalkerX 04:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- "A little earlier in Christian history, people actually tried to follow Jesus's Red teachings a little more" *Cough-bullshit-ahem*. A little earlier in Christian history, people did what they were told to do either by a tyrannical church or tyrannical land owners. A little earlier in Christian history, it was a feudal paradise (for those that had position and power) and the little people had no recourse to fight back. After all, there were no socialist / Christian-type laws to protect their rights. They lived the way they did because they already had no freedom. Bondurant (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- You're exaggerating almost to hyperbole, Lx. Can you support such a claim about Jews keeping the economy going? Because I think it's ludicrous.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 07:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not surprised. Most strong atheists from Arabic countries that have banned Bibles would know more about the actual contents of the book than most street preachers - who probably stick at "Evolution and gays are bad, Jeezus sez so". It's why stuff like the Conservative Bible Project exists, so they can change the content into what they think it says. narchist 10:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not surprised. Most strong atheists from Arabic countries that have banned Bibles would know more about the actual contents of the book than most street preachers - who probably stick at "Evolution and gays are bad, Jeezus sez so". It's why stuff like the Conservative Bible Project exists, so they can change the content into what they think it says.
- As long as you don't push it on us. I'm proudly protestant but I am not a missionary. (personally, I hate those guys)--Thanatos (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't try that because I actually am a red letter christian (not associated with any organizations, but that's the best term for the way I view the bible), so I wasn't so much mocking him as saying what I actually believe. Granted, I do have an interest-yielding account, but I do believe that on some level it's wrong, but I think that relates to the imperfection of the world (personal view: if we were all perfect Christians we'd live in a socialist paradise, but since we're imperfect, we need capitalism to get by). That's the main reason I didn't ask him to sell me his daughter. (btw, I'm not trying to convert anyone, but I bring up the fact that I'm a Christian because it's relevant here, please don't bash me)--Mustex (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well played. You should have continue to Luke 6:35 and asked the guy to loan you his wallet and car keys. --
Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 12:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- But those were times when economies were more land-based than capital-based. The Jewish bankers & traders were practising the only professions they weren't barred from. Some of them became very wealthy & influential, especially as money gradually came to be more important than land, but by that time any restrictions on Christians practising usury had largely been forgotten anyway. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 19:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- But the anti-usury restrictions started them in that business, which gave rise the later stereotypes. Also, even at that time capital was needed for many things, financing buildings, etc. (the Protestant Reformation was sparked off by a need to raise capital for the building of a cathedral). ListenerXTalkerX 19:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- But the anti-usury restrictions started them in that business, which gave rise the later stereotypes. Also, even at that time capital was needed for many things, financing buildings, etc. (the Protestant Reformation was sparked off by a need to raise capital for the building of a cathedral).
- But those were times when economies were more land-based than capital-based. The Jewish bankers & traders were practising the only professions they weren't barred from. Some of them became very wealthy & influential, especially as money gradually came to be more important than land, but by that time any restrictions on Christians practising usury had largely been forgotten anyway. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
- This actually ties back into what I was saying about people being imperfect. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need interest as a motivator to loan money to people who needed it (btw, once again, I'm trying to clarify my beliefs because it's relevant to the discussion, not convert people).--Mustex (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- If you feel interest accounts are wrong somehow (I can certainly understand that) you could switch to one of the microloan/ethical banks. I only know Triodos well, but wikipedia tells me there are others in the US. — Pietrow ☏ 17:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I actually had a talk with a friend last night who convinced me that since bank interest is lower than inflation, it isn't actually true "interest," since I'm not really making a profit.--Mustex (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- You also need to take into account the risk you're taking of losing your principle entirely. This place www.kiva.org had been advertising on TV recently, and they claim a 98% repayment rate, so you would need to make 2% on each loan just to break even over time (before inflation and taxes).
- If you feel interest accounts are wrong somehow (I can certainly understand that) you could switch to one of the microloan/ethical banks. I only know Triodos well, but wikipedia tells me there are others in the US. — Pietrow ☏ 17:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJoRUeV2hBY --Mustex (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
How to report the news[edit]
Most of you might have seen this already, but it's funny: http://www.break.com/index/how-to-report-the-news.html — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- His name's Charlie Brooker, not Chris Booker. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that the people who run break.com are complete idiots. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's worth checking out Brass Eye and The Day Today. It's along the same lines as that short. --Ask me about your mother 23:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Charlie Brooker isn't a 'BBC Reporter' either - he's a comedy writer and broadcaster basically - his mainstay is TV and Game reviews, albeit in a very hard-edged way. He's a bit of a Clarkson - he can be very funny, but he can also be an opinionated ass. He's pretty reliably funny though. --Worm(t | c) 00:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- He also wrote the excellent Jan Moir takedown after her "unnatural death" column. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 09:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- This one Jack Hughes (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I liked his program about computer games as well. Esp. the bit about the new Wolfenstein game: "Most of the game you spend back tracing your steps, running around a horrible, broken down town looking for jobs to do. It's like living in Stoke." CrundyTalk nerdy to me 00:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- This one Jack Hughes (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- He also wrote the excellent Jan Moir takedown after her "unnatural death" column. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 09:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Charlie Brooker isn't a 'BBC Reporter' either - he's a comedy writer and broadcaster basically - his mainstay is TV and Game reviews, albeit in a very hard-edged way. He's a bit of a Clarkson - he can be very funny, but he can also be an opinionated ass. He's pretty reliably funny though. --Worm(t | c) 00:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's worth checking out Brass Eye and The Day Today. It's along the same lines as that short. --
- Keep in mind that the people who run break.com are complete idiots. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Only Connect (Bump)[edit]
Does anyone watch this on BBC4? A few friends of mine are on tonight - although I'm not going to say which team, but it may be fairly obvious. ArmondikoV...I'll jostle your chisel! 19:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I hope it wasn't the "Philosophers" - anyone who can't identify the Spanish Inquisition sketch is not worthy of bein called a friend. yummy & honey(or marmalade) 02:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I love the "Philosophers," although my all-time favorite is the "Four Yorkshiremen." Tetronian you're clueless 02:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Remember - the Four Yorkshiremen is not python. Jack Hughes (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Are you sure? I recently watched "Live at the Hollywood Bowl" and they did it there. Tetronian you're clueless 03:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Remember - the Four Yorkshiremen is not python. Jack Hughes (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I love the "Philosophers," although my all-time favorite is the "Four Yorkshiremen." Tetronian you're clueless 02:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the other team were nerds. Apparently Tom had it at "fear", but then again, he did dress as the Spanish Inquisition to a Good v. Evil themed party. narchist 09:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Scare Tactics?[edit]
This was passed by my inbox by a friend of mine. Interesting find, with some definite impact in today's political climate. It gives us something to watch for, at any rate. -- CodyH (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I remember that popping up on WIGO World a while back. It seems to explain everything. Although I'm not sure if they've identified cause and effect. I.e., are the more jumpy likely to be conservative or does being conservative make you more jumpy? narchist 09:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- They definitely act more jumpy: scared of terrorists, scared of poor Mexicans, scared of bureaucrats, scared of ACORN, scared of everything that isn't the embodiment of Reagan TKEtoolshedFrag Out! 01:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
So.... more teleprompter jokes?[edit]
Or maybe not since Obama took questions parliamentary-style from the House GOP Caucus for more than an hour and, hm, won the debate according to most accounts.
Debating a law prof, not a good idea... WodewickWelease Wodewick! 01:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hearing his responses to them, I upgrade him from C+/B- to a solid B+. The man is playing chess, after all. Now to take it to the national stage. ħuman 03:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
BSG/CGS joint abstracts[edit]
Anyone want to submit an abstract to the Baraminology Study Group-Creation Geology Society joint conference. [4] It might be a good time! Georgia in July.... Šţěŗĭļė demon 03:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The Daily Show (UK)[edit]
For British viewers - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is now availble on MORE4 at 20:30. Lily Inspirate me. 20:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Err.. it has been for ages. yummy & honey(or marmalade) 20:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Crikes, what a silly bunt. I'm getting confused with The Colbert Report. Lily Inspirate me. 10:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Nobu[edit]
Holy fuck! It was tehmizzus' solicitor qualification day in that London today at the Law Society. Afterwards we'd thought we'd have a nice Japanese meal at Nobu. Now don't get me wrong, excellent meal, nice setting, and I got to walk past the broom cupboard where Boris Becker fucked a waitress and got her up the duff, but what the FUCK? £160 for a meal for two? Holy fucking shit. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 23:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is really steep. I once paid $180US for a meal for 2 at a steakhouse in Indiana. Best damn steak I ever had, but damn! Aboriginal Noise What the hell is that thing? 23:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Took a picture. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 23:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Has anyone ever told you that you vaguely resemble a vampire? Harmonic wisest Hoover! 00:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I do look remarkably like an anaemic vampire when I stand next to the wife. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 00:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Has anyone ever told you that you vaguely resemble a vampire? Harmonic wisest Hoover! 00:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Took a picture. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 23:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- (A chubby anaemic vampire) CrundyTalk nerdy to me 00:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- You could be a young Grandpa Munster. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 01:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- George Costanza.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 01:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- You could be a young Grandpa Munster. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
- (A chubby anaemic vampire) CrundyTalk nerdy to me 00:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I've had a couple of $100/two meals (washed one down with a $20 shot of Scotch... mmmmmm), hard to imagine how to get even better food. Although Japanese does imply what can be very expensive raw fish, right? Oh, and were cocktails and wine included in that figure? Glad you enjoyed it, anyway! ħuman 01:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- What scotch are you buying at $20 a shot? Better be damn good. Ardbeg 25 y.o.? Actually, that's probably more then 20. DickTurpis (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- MacCallan (?) 18. Very good. I asked, after dinner was mostly over, if they had a "Scotch list". They did. ħuman 05:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's odd, that picture makes me look at more bald than I actually am. I'm gonna find a better picture. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 18:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, not much better. But at least it'll fuck up RWW's claim that I'm a shortarse. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- That's odd, that picture makes me look at more bald than I actually am. I'm gonna find a better picture. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 18:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- MacCallan (?) 18. Very good. I asked, after dinner was mostly over, if they had a "Scotch list". They did. ħuman
Block everyone permanently![edit]
It would certainly clear up some strife. ħuman 04:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- You're just trying to evade your own comeuppance, sinner! --Kels (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I was just trying to spread the love, is all. ħuman 11:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe just for a month or so. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 15:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe just for a month or so. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
- I was just trying to spread the love, is all. ħuman
Mars rover[edit]
I might be a soppy old fart, but somehow the story of the little Mars rover finally coming to rest after 6 years really touched me. I loved how it managed to cover a whole 12 miles during that time. As always XKCD delivers. --PsygremlinRunāt! 08:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh no, really? Love that little robot that could. I don't think they were going to stop it after 3 months, I don't think they were expecting it to keep working any longer than that. Wasn't part of it busted that is why it could not travel very fast? - π 09:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Aw, that was a really sweet xkcd. Nice robot, we'll send you a friend soon ;) ħuman 09:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Didn't have a friend that never worked? Whilst robot exploration maybe cheaper, humans have the distinct advantage that they can fix thing when they break. - π 09:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Or they die... they can only fix things if they have the tools, the spare parts, and the skills and time (and oxygen, water, and food). The little robot that could, on the other hand, far "outlived" its expectancy. And those rovers hooked a whole new generation of kids and adults on the heroin that is pictures from Mars. ħuman 09:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- True, if they are serious about doing a round trip to Mars with humans, they are going to have to consider what to do if anyone dies out there. Up until now we have never gone more than a week away from Earth, but a trip to Mars and back is going to take over 6 months. I suspect nobody will mention the fact that they would be taking body bags with them. - π 10:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Mars? Schmars! It's Phobos we should be going to. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I thought a Mars trip would run two years - at a minimum round trip, Pi. I might be wrong of course. ħuman 11:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Two years = over 6 months. No? yummy & honey(or marmalade) 13:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Having checked it takes about 214 days to get there, so it will probably be closer to 3 years the mission. Having a very quick read they have to do all this fancy stuff of aiming for when the planets are closest, 1 Mars year being about 1.8 Earth years. - π 13:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- So more like 3 yearish, yeah. Tough part is both launch windows are constrained by the orbits - meaning the "visit" length can't just be picked for convenience. I imagine someone has a nice table somewhere of all the "possible" sets of journey dates with the total elapsed time and visit lengths... somewhere? ħuman 00:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Fuck the rovers, lets send an ape. Acei9 00:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Cats, lots of cats. Send all of them up there. --Ask me about your mother 02:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I say send 'em a "life bomb" - a bunch of bacteria that thrive in anaerobic, arid, iron-rich environments, and as many virii as we can find that parasitise them. I, for one, will welcome our Martian overlords when they evolve and develop spacecraft in 3 billion years. ħuman 05:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I say send 'em a "life bomb" - a bunch of bacteria that thrive in anaerobic, arid, iron-rich environments, and as many virii as we can find that parasitise them. I, for one, will welcome our Martian overlords when they evolve and develop spacecraft in 3 billion years. ħuman
- Cats, lots of cats. Send all of them up there. --
- Fuck the rovers, lets send an ape. Acei9 00:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- So more like 3 yearish, yeah. Tough part is both launch windows are constrained by the orbits - meaning the "visit" length can't just be picked for convenience. I imagine someone has a nice table somewhere of all the "possible" sets of journey dates with the total elapsed time and visit lengths... somewhere? ħuman
- Having checked it takes about 214 days to get there, so it will probably be closer to 3 years the mission. Having a very quick read they have to do all this fancy stuff of aiming for when the planets are closest, 1 Mars year being about 1.8 Earth years. - π 13:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Two years = over 6 months. No? yummy
- I thought a Mars trip would run two years - at a minimum round trip, Pi. I might be wrong of course. ħuman
- Mars? Schmars! It's Phobos we should be going to. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- True, if they are serious about doing a round trip to Mars with humans, they are going to have to consider what to do if anyone dies out there. Up until now we have never gone more than a week away from Earth, but a trip to Mars and back is going to take over 6 months. I suspect nobody will mention the fact that they would be taking body bags with them. - π 10:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Or they die... they can only fix things if they have the tools, the spare parts, and the skills and time (and oxygen, water, and food). The little robot that could, on the other hand, far "outlived" its expectancy. And those rovers hooked a whole new generation of kids and adults on the heroin that is pictures from Mars. ħuman
- Didn't have a friend that never worked? Whilst robot exploration maybe cheaper, humans have the distinct advantage that they can fix thing when they break. - π 09:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Aw, that was a really sweet xkcd. Nice robot, we'll send you a friend soon ;) ħuman
PZ[edit]
Is coming to UK. Where & when? Anyone know? yummy & honey(or marmalade) 13:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I refuse to read the article on scholarly grounds. Harmonic wisest Hoover! 14:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
An Attempt at Humor -- Li'l Andy Schlafly in Elementary School[edit]
I was contemplating this on the way to work this morning...
Li'l Andy Schlafly in Elementary School
Li'l Andy Gets His Arithmetic Homework Back[edit]
Li'l Andy: Miss Hoover, you said I got this answer wrong.
Teacher (with the exasperated patience of someone who knows what's coming): Well, Andy, you said two times three is twenty three, but the correct answer is six.
Li'l Andy: You're a liberal dis... dess... dis-see... liar! Liar liar pants on fire!
Teacher: Andy, this is math. There's only right or wrong answers. Liberal has nothing to do with this. If you talk to your friends (sotto voce if you have any) they'll all tell you that the answer is six.
Li'l Andy: The girls won't.
Teacher: Excuse me?
Li'l Andy: Everybody knows girls can't do as well in math as boys!
Teacher: Children! Time for recess! I have a headache and I'm going to the lounge to lie down.
Li'l Andy on the Playground[edit]
Teacher: Children, we don't have enough balls for everyone, so you'll have to take turns and share.
Li'l Andy: No! That's naughty!
Teacher: Andy, sharing with other people is the nice thing to do. It's not naughty!
Li'l Andy: Sharing is socialism!
Teacher resigned and exasperated: Fine, Andy. Here's a ball. Go play there in the corner by yourself (sotto voce like always...)
Li'l Andy Asks his Teacher a Personal Question[edit]
Li'l Andy: Miss Hoover, what's it like where you come from?
Teacher: I live near here, Andy. You know what its like.
Li'l Andy: That's not what Mommy said before she left for her speaking tour.
Teacher (wary): Oh, really?
Li'l Andy: She said that you're a Lebanese.
Teacher (completely befuddled): What... why... how did she get that idea? I have blonde hair and blue eyes.
Li'l Andy: Mommy said that any woman your age who doesn't have a husband has to be a Lebanese. Something like that, at least.
Teacher: Class! Starting tomorrow, you'll have a new teacher. I'm going back to school to learn to do something else. Anything else.
— Unsigned, by: MDB / talk / contribs
Fun Page created: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Fun:Li%27l_Andy --Mustex (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Howard Zinn, 1922-2010[edit]
Unfortunately, my favorite historian, Howard Zinn, died today as a result of a heart attack. If nobody is familiar with his work, he is the author of The Peoples' History of the Unites States, as well as other historical works where he tries to present history from points of view "other than that of dead, rich, white guys." He was also a radical, non-violent activist, being active in political movements since he was 17. He will be sorely missed. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 22:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- I read People's History some years ago, and the graphic novel version not long after it was released. I can't say I'm in agreement with Zinn on all his points, but he was certainly thought provoking. MDB (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- RED!!1 RED!!1!! REDREDREDREDREDREDREDREDREDRED!!!11!!1 TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hahahaha, LX, you're funny :) ħuman 01:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hahahaha, LX, you're funny :) ħuman
- RED!!1 RED!!1!! REDREDREDREDREDREDREDREDREDRED!!!11!!1 TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
No, LX, history is not about "chronicling facts." That would be remarkably boring. History--good history, at least--is about interpreting and finding meaning in those "facts." TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Says Karl Marx. Me, I prefer facts to what some historian or other plucks out of the air. But, I am a scientist rather than an historian, so I am probably badly biased in that respect. ListenerXTalkerX 01:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- You should prolly stick to the lab, in that case. It's pretty obvious that your average Honours undergrad at any decent History department understands the discipline much better than you do. The first question one is typically asked after reading a monograph or article is: "What was the author's argument?" i.e. given the historical facts that the author is interpreting, what conclusions does she come to/what meaning does she find in them/what broader claims about the world does she make? To give an example from a project I just finished: We all know that Haiti gained its independence in 1804. not a lot more "fact chronicling" to do there--but what can the events that we've known about for decades tell us about such things as the universalization of Enlightenment discourses about human rights (especially if we think about how slave/colinized labour played a crucial role in underwriting the enlightenment) or how elites managed the shift from slave labour to free labour--what did "freedom" mean to both the former slaves in a time of changing ideas about the state and citizenship? That's not chronicling facts, it's looking at the same old facts with new ideas/insights/conceptual apparatuses. That's what historians do. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation, but this discipline sounds to me like a whole lot of speculation. Which, especially when it is made in conformance with rigidly held dogmas, gives rise to historical revisionism when inconvenient facts pop up to contradict the speculations.
- Question. Why is it that when I took a university class in history, it was all about the interpretation with facts playing second fiddle, but when I attend lectures in local history (a hobby of mine) it is barely any interpretation and all facts? ListenerXTalkerX 02:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- 1. It IS a lot of speculation. INFORMED speculation.But it's not just Marxist/leftist historians who do this--it's the standard appraoch for any decent practitioner, regardless of their politics. Don't believe me? Read someone like Niall Ferguson or Gertrude Himmelfarb. 2. Maybe you're just going to talks by people who don't do exciting work--or maybe you're so focused on the narrative/the "facts" that you're not listening for the argument as it's being developed. Some people are less explicit than others with their arguments. And there's nothing wrong with revisionism--I mean, new knowledge is created in labs alla time, right? Revising our understanding about the physical world, right? The past is no different in that regard. Where history is different is that meaning is subjective, even if the "facts" are indisputable. One event can have multiple meanings--historians these days are about finding the meanings and contexts that were less likely to make it into the official record because the official record was kept by certain types of people. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I did not say it was just the left-wingers who do it, but is Marx not the one who came up with that whole idea of a specific common theme or narrative underlying the whole of history?
- "Maybe you're just going to talks by people who don't do exciting work..." They do tend to work for the Historical Society rather than the University, which is a different kettle of fish. I find their work very exciting, despite the comparative lack of arguments (there is little room to make arguments when you are trying to, for example, chronicle the history of locks-and-dams in the MNRRA).
- "And there's nothing wrong with revisionism..." I beg to differ. The equivalent of revisionism in science is creationism: denying facts that fail to fit the mold and making up entirely new ones. ListenerXTalkerX 03:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- 1. It IS a lot of speculation. INFORMED speculation.But it's not just Marxist/leftist historians who do this--it's the standard appraoch for any decent practitioner, regardless of their politics. Don't believe me? Read someone like Niall Ferguson or Gertrude Himmelfarb. 2. Maybe you're just going to talks by people who don't do exciting work--or maybe you're so focused on the narrative/the "facts" that you're not listening for the argument as it's being developed. Some people are less explicit than others with their arguments. And there's nothing wrong with revisionism--I mean, new knowledge is created in labs alla time, right? Revising our understanding about the physical world, right? The past is no different in that regard. Where history is different is that meaning is subjective, even if the "facts" are indisputable. One event can have multiple meanings--historians these days are about finding the meanings and contexts that were less likely to make it into the official record because the official record was kept by certain types of people. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- You should prolly stick to the lab, in that case. It's pretty obvious that your average Honours undergrad at any decent History department understands the discipline much better than you do. The first question one is typically asked after reading a monograph or article is: "What was the author's argument?" i.e. given the historical facts that the author is interpreting, what conclusions does she come to/what meaning does she find in them/what broader claims about the world does she make? To give an example from a project I just finished: We all know that Haiti gained its independence in 1804. not a lot more "fact chronicling" to do there--but what can the events that we've known about for decades tell us about such things as the universalization of Enlightenment discourses about human rights (especially if we think about how slave/colinized labour played a crucial role in underwriting the enlightenment) or how elites managed the shift from slave labour to free labour--what did "freedom" mean to both the former slaves in a time of changing ideas about the state and citizenship? That's not chronicling facts, it's looking at the same old facts with new ideas/insights/conceptual apparatuses. That's what historians do. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
1.The idea of a common theme unifying history goes way further back than Marx--the Whig idea of history as an inexorable march toward progress and enlightenment finding its greatest expression in Britain's history dated to the early 18th century. A talk about locks and dams might have really important arguments lurking in it--for whose benefit were the dams built? Who got to decide where the canals went and where got left out of the trade the canals facilitated? 3. That's not what historical revisionism is. Nobody--at least nobody with any intellectual honesty--is denying facts that don't fit the mold or "making up new ones." What we're doing is interrogating sources in new ways to see how they can help us understand the people who didn't/couldn't leave the same wealth of records behind, and then asking how the new understandings and contexts that we get from that can help us understand the past in more complex ways. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- (1) But was that just Whig politicians speechifying, or was it historians doing Exciting Work?
- (2) Both those questions were answered in the talk — with facts.
- (3) I was using the colloquial definition, covering stuff like Holocaust and Holodomor denial. As to the other definition, I have no problem with that, so long as one is only dealing on newly revealed facts and not regarding mythology as historically accurate. ListenerXTalkerX 06:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- 1. That was historians--or what passed as "historians," as the discipline wasn't really professionalized until Ranke--understanding how history had and was unfolding--as part of a unified, teleological movement. 2. Facts is how we answer questions, no doubt. But someone else may look at the same facts and find different meaning. We're talking about human experience, not physics. 3. TL/DR. Will read the article in the morning and talk more then. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- (1) "...the discipline wasn't really professionalized until Ranke..." Huh?
- (2) As in (gross simplification here) "These locks were a great leap forward as they opened up the Mississippi to navigation above St. Anthony Falls" vs. "These locks were a foolhardy move as they caused ecological disruption"? ListenerXTalkerX 07:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- 1. That was historians--or what passed as "historians," as the discipline wasn't really professionalized until Ranke--understanding how history had and was unfolding--as part of a unified, teleological movement. 2. Facts is how we answer questions, no doubt. But someone else may look at the same facts and find different meaning. We're talking about human experience, not physics. 3. TL/DR. Will read the article in the morning and talk more then. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
O'Keefe's case[edit]
Think his latest actions will affect his current lawsuit with ACORN? Personally, I do not like this guy. He does these stunts (no one ever mentions his planned parenting videos) and gets heralded as a hero by the conservatives. There are ethics in journalism and this douchebag disregards them to attack his enemies.--Thanatos (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- On the other hand, the people who exposed COINTELPRO were drooled over by the other side. Sometimes muckrakers of whatever political persuasion have to stretch the rules. ListenerXTalkerX 03:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out, really having a hard time trying to differentiate the two. I just see this guy making a career out this, but really hard to go after him with my previous zeal after reading that. Would "It was a different era" be adequate?--Thanatos (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- My position is that the truth usually hurts no one except wrongdoers. If the people in Mr. O'Keefe's videos are doing nothing wrong and the videos portray them accurately (i.e., no creative editing), there is little issue to speak of. ListenerXTalkerX 04:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Part of me thinks that he is now the villain because he got caught this time, like Watergate. If he hadn't, he would have again the pubs golden boy. He did break the law with the ACORN videos, which they claim were edited. They are now asking questions about his tactics --Thanatos (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is absolutely why they're the villains and what makes them different from the people who broke into the FBI. Neither action is right, but the latter is a lot more justifiable because it actually uncovered and stopped other injustices. Just like shooting someone committing a crime is still wrong, but it's less wrong than shooting someone who is innocent.--
(talk) 02:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- I go with the rules of being an undercover cop. They are there to witness the crime, but they cannot commit a crime or the investigation is thrown out. For example, cop infiltrating a biker gang is told to do drugs to prove his loyalty. That was from the guy who infiltrated the Mongols :)--Thanatos (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is absolutely why they're the villains and what makes them different from the people who broke into the FBI. Neither action is right, but the latter is a lot more justifiable because it actually uncovered and stopped other injustices. Just like shooting someone committing a crime is still wrong, but it's less wrong than shooting someone who is innocent.--
- Part of me thinks that he is now the villain because he got caught this time, like Watergate. If he hadn't, he would have again the pubs golden boy. He did break the law with the ACORN videos, which they claim were edited. They are now asking questions about his tactics --Thanatos (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- My position is that the truth usually hurts no one except wrongdoers. If the people in Mr. O'Keefe's videos are doing nothing wrong and the videos portray them accurately (i.e., no creative editing), there is little issue to speak of.
- Thanks for pointing that out, really having a hard time trying to differentiate the two. I just see this guy making a career out this, but really hard to go after him with my previous zeal after reading that. Would "It was a different era" be adequate?--Thanatos (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Generating tables for side-by-side articles[edit]
I'm fairly lazy, so I've been looking at a way to generate side by side tables by just feeding in the text and letting the process of table generation be automated. Has anyone done this thing before? So far I just have a rough prototype working in Excel, but if it's useful I can knock together a PHP or C version of it. In theory I could add a script that'll convert an existing table in to regular text for importing in to this script. Might make it easier to make large scale changes to side-by-side content. --Ask me about your mother 12:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- There's a template here, I think Template:sbs. If I remember right, there are other related ones, too. Šţěŗĭļė demon 12:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- (EC)I did it once in perl and it took a long time. You do know about Template:sbs? - π 12:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well obviously you do now. - π 12:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ta, I'd forgotten about that template. That makes life a bit easier. --Ask me about your mother 13:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- There's also this. Dunno how well it works. yummy & honey(or marmalade) 13:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- There's also this. Dunno how well it works. yummy
- Ta, I'd forgotten about that template. That makes life a bit easier. --
- Well obviously you do now. - π 12:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- (EC)I did it once in perl and it took a long time. You do know about Template:sbs? - π 12:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Expression error: Unrecognised word "expression"[edit]
That's what it says on Recent Changes where the Holydaze is supposed to go. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I see it too. Anyone know how to fix it? Tetronian you're clueless 15:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Thanks Nx! Tetronian you're clueless 15:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Voting against your own interests[edit]
I think this piece is an interesting read. Tetronian you're clueless 03:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- The reason that people vote "against their own interests" is because they are too stupid to realize that they think exactly how, oh, say, a journalist in a country 1,000+ miles away believes they should think. ListenerXTalkerX 04:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Come on, Listener, accept it. You're against this article because state healthcare is Red. Harmonic wisest Hoover! 09:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I was going to link people to that :( EddyP (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I do not think public health care is a communist idea at all. On the other hand, I think that telling the masses what exactly their interests are, particularly when said interests conform to the teller's favored political program, is at heart a communist idea. ListenerXTalkerX 01:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Because REAL Conservatives, like say, Ronald Reagan, would NEVER try to coerce people into behaving "for their own good" in some stupid way, like jailing them for taking unapproved drugs, right? --Gulik (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, LX, a true Communist society wouldn't have to tell people what their best interest is. The people would realize that they all contribute something valuable and nobody would have to be in charge. SirChuckBCall the FBI 08:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Because REAL Conservatives, like say, Ronald Reagan, would NEVER try to coerce people into behaving "for their own good" in some stupid way, like jailing them for taking unapproved drugs, right? --Gulik (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- I do not think public health care is a communist idea at all. On the other hand, I think that telling the masses what exactly their interests are, particularly when said interests conform to the teller's favored political program, is at heart a communist idea.
- I was going to link people to that :( EddyP (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Come on, Listener, accept it. You're against this article because state healthcare is Red. Harmonic wisest Hoover! 09:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Cause & Effect[edit]
Do animals (cats actually) understand cause and effect? During the recent cold weather our cats would spontaneously (apparently) both move to positions on, or nearly on, top of a CH radiator. It was some time before we realised that they were doing this after the boiler in the kitchen struck up but before the warm water reached the particular radiator. Do the cats understand cause & effect? Must ask Mr Pavlov. yummy & honey(or marmalade) 13:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I would assume they would. Cause and effect refers to learned behaviour, no? Most, if not all mammals learn, so my guess would be they should. SJ Debaser 13:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes and no. Your cat obviously realise that after boiler struck up warmth would soon becoming out the radiator, but it probably does assume one causes the other, only the chronological list of events it expects. 13:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Premuse you meant "... does not assume ...", Pi. yummy & honey(or marmalade) 13:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds like it. - π 13:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Premuse you meant "... does not assume ...", Pi. yummy
- Yes and no. Your cat obviously realise that after boiler struck up warmth would soon becoming out the radiator, but it probably does assume one causes the other, only the chronological list of events it expects. 13:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd imagine it's like Pavlov's dogs - they will learn to associate the noise of the boiler (or the gurgling in the pipes) with the radiators heating up. CS Miller (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Nutters[edit]
came across this on Flickr. People are mad. yummy & honey(or marmalade) 14:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Getting hot women in bikinis to jump into cold water to extend their Bruce Lee's is mad? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Being a (hot) woman, getting into a bikini and jumping into cold water is mad. yummy & honey(or marmalade) 14:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Way to disempower the sisterhood, Crundy.--
Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 15:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- How so, by pointing out the awesomeness of women in bikinis, or by using the cockney slang term "Bruce Lee"? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Way to disempower the sisterhood, Crundy.--
Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 15:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Being a (hot) woman, getting into a bikini and jumping into cold water is mad. yummy
Vindaloo[edit]
Mmm. I've discovered a great new way to make a classic Portugese-Goan Vindaloo. You marinade pork (shoulder & a little belly) in spices, chillis, garlic, ginger and white wine vinegar for a few hours (obviously days if you want to make it authentic). Fry a chopped onion, add the marinated mix, and then cover and simmmer for about 40 mins (msg me for recipe).
The trouble is, the juices from the meat need to be retained, but they tend to boil off. Traditionally people would put a plate of water on top of the pan to cool the steam back (refluxing) and add a bit of extra water if it runs dry. I've found a better way. You put ice cubes into into a ziplock back and put it on the pan lid (fig 1). A bag of ice lasts about 30 mins and then you need to boil off the excess liquid anyway (fig 2). Don't ask me where I learnt this little reflux trick! CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hope you've not bought the ice at M&S (made from Irish water! yummy & honey(or marmalade) 21:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- What? No! I have an American style fridge that makes my ice for me :) CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Write a recipe!--Tom Moorefiat justitia 21:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Erm, it's meat, Tom. I don't think it would work with any veggie alternatives because the amount of fat and juices would be too low. Oh, speaking of which, about to post something on yr talk page. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, yeah, but other people might like the recipe. I love that namespace is all.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 22:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Do we still have the namespace? Is it "Food"? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 22:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's Recipe. Like this!--Tom Moorefiat justitia 22:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Page creator is here.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Crundy, that is a damn clever idea. --Ask me about your mother 22:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Recipe here CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Crundy, that is a damn clever idea. --
- Do we still have the namespace? Is it "Food"? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 22:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, yeah, but other people might like the recipe. I love that namespace is all.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 22:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Erm, it's meat, Tom. I don't think it would work with any veggie alternatives because the amount of fat and juices would be too low. Oh, speaking of which, about to post something on yr talk page. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Write a recipe!--Tom Moorefiat justitia 21:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- What? No! I have an American style fridge that makes my ice for me :) CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Rock and Chips...[edit]
...any UKians see it? It was the hour and a half prequel to Only Fools and Horses that aired last week. I watched it this evening avec ma famille. It was pretty shit, they labelled it as a drama rather than a comedy which is what we all know and love Only Fools for, but it was interesting to watch nonetheless. SJ Debaser 00:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've given up watching any of the spinoffs / specials of OFAH, they're always fucking shit. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 10:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)